MekongInfo · disseminating information through TV, newspapers, and radio regarding continuing...

��

��

��

��

��

��!��!��

��

��

��

��"��

��

��

��

�� #

��

$%��&��'��(��&��)��

&�� '��)��

*��)�� +,--�� (�� .��

*�%�� #� /+,�,01� $,2�20--

3��#� ��4��

5��#� ��

*��

��)�� 6�� 3��

)�� 3�� .�� 3�� 6��

�� 7�� 6��8�� *��

��

� ��

3�� '�� .�� 9�� :��

.�� '�� .��

8�� 8��'�� ;�� (��

$--<��

6�(��=>?�=,?<<�?�=

��

��

��

�� !��"��#��$��%�&��'

��

�$��$��(��)

�� )��*��$

��$$��$ �)�

+��

��

�

��@��

In the face of rapid deforestation, and the resulting loss of upland bio-diversity, torrentialdownstream floods, and disruptive urban brown-outs, Southeast Asian governments, citydwellers, and rural communities have grown increasingly concerned over the deterioratingstate of their forests and watersheds. National media are widely documenting anddisseminating information through TV, newspapers, and radio regarding continuing forestdestruction. Urban people and villagers across the region are increasingly aware of theneed for forest conservation and more sustainable use. This concern is reflected in recentlaws and policies to protect the environment and involve communities in management.

Throughout the 1990s, many Southeast Asian nations have been actively engaged inexploring innovative approaches to community-based resource management, attemptingto integrate traditional resource stewardship practices into modern governance structures.This process of devolving management rights for public forest lands to local populations isbeing supported through a variety of policy initiatives and legal instruments includingdecentralization acts and local governance ordinances, as well as new forest andenvironmental laws. Further, a number of governments have formulated specific communityforestry sub-decrees, government orders, and guidelines to facilitate the transfer ofstewardship authority to local groups. Many international development agencies considercommunity-based natural resource management a priority component of their assistancestrategies.

In 2001, with support from the European Commission’s Tropical Forest Budget Line andthe United States Agency for International Development’s East Asia and the PacificEnvironmental Initiative, the Asia Forest Network with Community Forestry Internationalinitiated the Community Forest Management Support Project (CFMSP) for SoutheastAsia to facilitate forest sector transitions underway in the region. The project was designedto respond to needs at the community, national, and regional level through a variety ofinterventions. At the regional level, CFMSP organized a series of workshops and crossvisits to stimulate exchange between countries engaged in developing community forestmanagement policies and programs. At the national level, CFMSP provided financial andtechnical assistance to country working groups, NGO networks, and donor dialogues thatwere developing policy frameworks and national strategies to encourage forestry sectortransitions that engaged communities as principle partners. At the field level, CFMSPworked with partner organizations implementing community forestry initiatives, byproviding small grants, technical assistance, and support with documentation.

One component of CFMSP was to collaborate with field project partners to produce onecase study from each of the five participating Southeast Asian countries: Cambodia,Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. The case studies were designed tocapture the experiences of communities and project team members as they moved througha cycle of dialogue, diagnostic assessments, organizational development, negotiation withnational government, resource mapping and decentralized management planning, andthe formalization of management agreements. While the strategies reflected in each casestudy are unique, reflecting the socio-cultural context, policy and political environment,community history, and human ecology of the site, they all involve a similar set of activitiesoriented to building the capacity of rural communities to take on new managementresponsibilities and encouraging local governments to support their efforts.

��

The creation of resource management partnerships linking communities and localgovernments is a strong theme in each of the five case studies. So to is the process ofbuilding community abilities and confidence to protect and regulate access to their naturalresources. The case studies primarily examine changes occurring in the past five years. Forthe most part, the progress made in stabilizing local resources, building communityinstitutions, resolving conflict with local government and neighboring villages, and inestablishing a sustainable system of management has been dramatic. These experiencesfrom five corners of Asia indicate that the trust planners, NGOs, development agencies,and the larger civil society is gradually placing in region’s rural villagers is not misplaced.At the same time, as is apparent from each of the cases, the need for financial, technical,and political support are vast. A great deal of damage has been done to the region’s forestsin recent decades due to national policy, as well as field-level management failures. Anequally extensive effort will be needed to restore these critical ecosystems and communityrelationships with them. The case studies suggest that a long term investment in buildingthe capacity of communities and local governments to sustainably manage much ofSoutheast Asia’s forests would be a strategic one.

The Asia Forest Network and Community Forestry International would like to thank theEuropean Commission and the United States Agency for International Development fortheir support. We would also like to express our appreciation to our partner organizationswho are engaged in implementing a new generation of community forestry laws, policies,and programs. Finally, we want to emphasize the tremendous effort being made by thousandsof rural communities across Southeast Asia that contribute to forest protection, conservation,and the sustainable management of the planet’s natural ecosystems. They continue torequire the support of national governments and the international community.

Dr. Mark PoffenbergerCFMSP Regional Director

��

3 ��

The Great Lake or Tonle Sap is the heart of mainland Southeast Asia, fed by the mightyMekong River and sheltered by vast tropical forests that have covered the surroundinghills and plains for millennia. The Great Lake has played a central role in the evolution ofhuman civilization and continues to be a key factor in the Cambodian economy. In 2000,the estimated value of the annual fish catch of over 200,000 tons was US$ 100 million,representing a major food source for the people of Cambodia, as well as neighboringThailand and Vietnam. Studies indicate that over 500 species of fish inhabit the MekongRiver system in Cambodia, including the 300 kilogram giant freshwater catfish(Pangasianodon gigas) and the freshwater Irrawady dolphin1.

Forests play a critical role in sustaining the aquatic ecology of the Great Lake. In the upperwatersheds, temperate montane and tropical rainforests slow water run-off and greatlyreduce erosion and downstream sedimentation. Around the Great Lake, flood forests protectthe Great Lake core during the dry season, and act as an immense hatchery during therainy season. The health of the Great Lake is also closely linked with the flow of theMekong River. During the wet season, the Great Lake expands from four to five times itsdry season size, and its average depth increases seven to nine times, with an estimated 60percent of the additional water flowing down the Mekong River, then turning north andreversing its flow into the Tonle Sap River. Ecologically and economically, the Tonle Sapand the Mekong River are among the most important hydrological systems in the world,yet their ability to continue to function as they have in the past is in question.

A number of factors threaten these natural resources and the populations that depend onthem, including deforestation around the lake and in upland watersheds, as well as damconstruction. Deforestation in the flood forests around the lake has destroyed extensivetracks of wet-season fish habitat. Logging in upper watersheds sends silt downstreamclogging the mouth of the lake. Commercial logging in China, Burma, Laos, and Cambodiahas degraded forests in many parts of the region that drains into the Mekong River, whichin turn feeds the Great Lake. Clearing of over 50 percent of the flood forest that surroundsTonle Sap, has reduced the riparian buffer that limits the influx of sediment, andsubstantially lessens fish breeding grounds. In recent years, major dams built on the Mekonginclude the Mandwan Dam in China, the Pak Mun Dam in Thailand, and the NamTheun Dam in Laos, with another dozen major dams along the Mekong under constructionor being planned. These dams have the potential to drastically alter water flows and fishmovement, threatening aquatic functions hundreds of kilometers downstream.

Rising population pressures in rural Cambodia, rapid policy and political changes, andthe introduction of new technologies and markets have overwhelmed traditional systemsof flood forest and fisheries management. Overextraction has drawn down fish populationsto a point that threatens many species, while undermining the livelihood of thousands ofcommunities that reside around the Great Lake and along the river. There is increasingrecognition by communities living along the Mekong River and around the Great Lakethat these resources are under growing pressure and require careful management.Fortunately, the Government of Cambodia has recently passed new policies and laws toallow villages more rights and responsibilities to protect and manage these resources. Whilesustainable forest and fishery management at the community level alone cannot stabilizelong-term changes impacting the Great Lake, they are important starting places. Thisreport documents the efforts of communities and the Provincial Departments of Forests

��

and Fisheries, in conjunction with the FAO project entitled “Participatory Natural ResourceManagement in the Tonle Sap Region,” to develop and ratify village-based resourcemanagement systems around the Great Lake.

The study describes the experiences of Kompong Phluk, a Khmer community that hasbeen attempting to protect its flood forests and fishing grounds for the past fifty years.The authors examine how the community, assisted by the FAO project, has developed aresource management organization, formulated rules and regulations, sought governmentapproval, and designed a comprehensive resource management plan. The report also detailssome of the challenges and issues that they have faced in the process. The report beginswith a brief description of the history of the Tonle Sap, its biophysical setting, and traditionalresource use practices, then discusses how the community has moved to formalize indigenousforest management systems by building on national policy reforms that are shifting authorityfor commercial fishing grounds around the Great Lake from private sector control tocommunity management. This process of formalizing resource management systems isbeing facilitated through the FAO project. The steps involved in developing andoperationalizing the formal management plan include meetings with stakeholders,participatory diagnostic assessments, analyses workshops, boundary demarcation,formulations of rules and regulations, management plan formulations, implementation,and monitoring and evaluation. This report describes how these activities were implementedin Kompong Phluk, and their prospects for further extension around the Great Lake andTonle Sap River.

�

*��)��

Foreword iExecutive Summary iiiTable of Contents vList of Maps, Figures & Tables viAcronyms vii

I. Introduction 1

II. Managing the Fisheries and Flood Forests of theTonle Sap 3Biophysical Setting 3History of Tonle Sap and its People 3Fisheries Management: An Overview 3The Need for Resource Management 6Livelihoods and Communities 7Management Issues 7

III. Community Fishery Reform Process 9Policy Context 9Community Fisheries Sub-decree 9FAO Community Fisheries and Flood Forest Support Strategy 11

IV. Resource Management Transitions in Kompong Phluk 13Livelihood Activities in Kompong Phluk 13History of Flood Forest Management 13Changes in Fish Harvest and Technology 15Resource Management Issues in Kompong Phluk 16

V. Planning for Community Forestry and Fisheries Management in Kompong Phluk 19Developing Community Organizations for Natural Resource Management 19Formulating a Community Forestry Plan—1999–2002 20Formulating a Community Fisheries Management Plan—2003 onwards 21Formalizing Community Management Agreements 27Learning from Kompong Phluk 28

VI. Reflections on the Process 31Conclusion 32

References 35

Annex 37

��

'��Map 1 Tonle Sap 4Map 2 Community Fieheries in Siem Reap 12Map 3 Sub-block for Production Forest for Rotational Harvesting 24Map 4 Patrolling Zones and Protection Plan 26

for Kompong Phluk

��Figure 1 Structure of the Kompong Phluk Community Fisheries Organization 20Figure 2 Structure of Patrolling Teams and Communication Process 27Figure 3 Approval Process for Management Plans 28

*��Table 1 Timeline for Creating New Fisheries Policy 10Table 2 Livelihood Activities within Kompong Phluk 14Table 3 Timeline of Flood Forest Management in Kompong Phluk: 1930-2003 15Table 4 Community Perceptions of Changes in Fish and Forest Resources 16

in Kompong PhlukTable 5 CF Management Planning Steps and Expected Outputs 22Table 6 Calendar of Illegal Fishing Activities in Blocks 1 & 2 25Table 7 Village Management Issues and Strategies 30

��

��

ADB Asian Development Bank

CBFM Community-Based Forest Management

CC Commune Council

CFCC Community Fisheries Central Committee

CFDO Community Fisheries Development Office

CFM Community Forest Management

CFMP Community Fishery Management Plan

CFMSP Community Forest Management Support Project

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

DoF Department of Fisheries

DG District Governor

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

NGO Nonggovernmental Organization

NTFP Non-timber Forest Product

PFO Provincial Forestry Officer

PG Provincial Governor

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia

��

�

��

��'��%��

,

� & � � �

6��

Decentralized approaches to natural resourcemanagement are becoming widely endorsed bydeveloping country governments and donor groupsas a means to ensure community livelihood andenvironmental protection. In Cambodia, thisapproach has taken the form of a number of newnatural resource laws and decrees which endorsecommunity participation and recognize the rolecommunities play in resource management. InOctober 2003, the Royal Government of Cambodiaapproved a Community Forestry Sub-Decreeextending new rights and responsibil it ies tocommunities for the management of state forest landsunder the Forest Administration. Two other legal

initiatives nearing approval in Cambodia are theFisheries Law and the Community Fisheries Sub-Decree, both of which empower communities tomanage fisheries and flooded forests under theDepartment of Fisheries. In addition to laws andpolicies supporting community-based management,a growing body of grassroots experience is emergingin Cambodia based on village level efforts tostrengthen traditional, as well as newly established,resource management systems. In many cases theseefforts have been encouraged by NGOs and ruraldevelopment projects.

The purpose of this case study is to provide the readerwith an overview of community-based natural resource

��9��.�� !��A��2--��

' ��(��8��

�� B��

- ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

9��.�� !��

��3��*��*��

��;��A��

9��.�� !�� !��

issues in Cambodia, with a focus onone community that is reliant onflooded forest resources in the TonleSap Great Lake. This case studychronicles the experiences ofKompong Phluk as the communityassessed their natural resource needs,formulated management plans, andreceived final agreement from theProvincial Government, all within thecontext of the changing legal andpolicy environment of Cambodia’sfishery sector.

Part II provides the reader withthe context of the Tonle Sap,including an explanation of thebiophysical setting and the history ofthe lake and its cultures. An overviewof resource management practices isalso given, along with the livelihoodchallenges currently facing villagesthat surround and reside upon thelake. Part III examines the FisheriesReform process that has affectedfishers throughout Cambodia. Anexamination of the national policyenvironment, along with the specificFisheries Reform process is detailed.The strategy used by the Food andAgricultural organization of theUnited Nations (FAO), who isfacilitating a process of community-based management around the TonleSap is detailed.

Part IV reviews the specifics of resource managementin one commune or village administrative unit,Kompong Phluk, which includes three residentialhamlets. A description of the village setting, along withthe actors that affect resource management in the area,is given. The history of resource management in thearea is considered, as well as the management issues thatvillagers face in Kompong Phluk. Part V examines theprocess of community fisheries management within this

village. Management issues, along with the strategiesthat villagers use, are explored in order to analyse whatvillagers are able to do on the ground once their plansare in place. Part VI is a synthesis, providing a reflectionon the process of community-based management in SiemReap, Cambodia, and the prospects for its extensionacross the lake under expanded program supportprovided by the Asian Development Bank.

2

The Tonle Sap is one of the world’s most ecologicallydiverse and hydrological complex great lakes. The freshwater flooded forests that surround it, the intricatemovement and migration of over 200 species of fishthrough the forests and upstream to spawn, all support acycle of productivity that has sustained large humanpopulations and elaborate cultures for centuries. Currently,resource management systems are undergoing change,with rural communities vested with new authority to actas stewards of this unique silvi-aquatic environment. Thesuccess of this effort will play an important role indetermining the future of the Tonle Sap’s environment.This section provides an explanation of its biophysicalsetting, history and culture. An overview of resourcemanagement practices, livelihood issues, and challengescurrently faced by the villages that surround and resideupon the Tonle Sap’s waters are also explored.

�� Tonle Sap, or the Great Lake, is a huge inland water

body and one of the largest and richest freshwater fishingareas in South East Asia, supporting the livelihood ofmore than one million Cambodians. The Tonle Sap lies inthe flat, fertile plains in the center of the country (Map 1).The lake is extraordinarily rich in biodiversity, with closeto 200 different species of fish. Many of the fish arrivewith the monsoon floodwaters of the Mekong River,migrating with the flood waters during the wet season(June to October) to spawn in the protected, nutrient-rich waters surrounding the flood forests. As the Mekongrises, the waters flow backwards, filling the Tonle Sap andinundating the dry land. The Tonle Sap expands four tofive times its dry season size, growing from 2,500–3,000km2 to 10–15,000 km2, and increases in average depthfrom only one meter to 7–9 meters.1 As the water recedes(November to May) it drains, revealing the forest onceagain and stranding fish in ponds and pools. Althoughthe flood forests play a crucial role in maintaining thehealth of the fisheries, much of these forests have beencut and converted for agricultural purposes including rice

cultivation and mung bean farms. By 1997 only 450,000hectares of flood forest habitat remained compared with1 million hectares of flood forest found in 1973.2

�� Prehistoric evidence indicates that Cambodia has

been inhabited for at least 6,000 years. Over millennia,the Khmer people developed indigenous systems tomanage the forest and fishery resources of the Tonle Sapthrough the rainy and dry seasons. These fertile floodplains that surround the lake were ideal for developingfarming systems, managing fish resources, andmanipulating water flows. Most Cambodians lived invillages, and around the navigable, seasonal floodwatersof the Tonle Sap. These villages were called kompongafter the Malay word meaning “landing place.” Kompongvillages were in touch with each other and with the rice-growing villages that surrounded them. They were alsoindirectly linked with the capital and the royal courtand so had an awareness of regional and national events.

The huge productivity of the Tonle Sap sustained aKhmer empire at Angkor from 802 C.E. until the fifteenthcentury after which Angkor’s predominance as an empiredeclined. During the Great Angkor Empire, there was aseasonal migration of lake dwellers with the rising andfalling of the Great Lake water. Such migrations wererecorded by a Chinese envoy, Chou Ta-Kuan in 1296.3

As the lake started to recede, the Water Festival was heldmarking the end of the rainy season and the start of therain-fed agriculture harvest period, a tradition thatcontinues up to the present time. In 1850, the Angkortemple complex and its many active monasteries were “re-discovered” by the French after being covered by vegetativeovergrowth for several centuries.

�� With the French colonization of Cambodia, the

management of resources in the Tonle Sap changed. Thelake was divided into privatized fishing concessions or “lots.”These were auctioned off to the highest bidder who would

� & � � � �

'��

��*��

3 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

��

,1��

��

�'

4

then have exclusive fishing rights over that section of theGreat Lake. Such arrangements, including the auctioningof fishing lots for commercial exploitation, date back to thereign of King Norodom (1859–97). The French Protectorateformalized these concession arrangements in order togenerate revenue for the colonial administration. This systemcontinued through independence, until the rise of theKhmer Rouge (1975–79). While the impact of theconcession system on indigenous Khmer systems of fisherymanagement is difficult to document, it is likely that itcontributed to the displacement of traditional forms ofresource stewardship and a concentration of control of thelake’s fishery in the hands of a smaller group of politicallyand financially powerful people.

During the Khmer Rouge era, fishing resources wereneglected in favor of agricultural development, whichinvolved widespread clearing of the flood forests. Between1975 and 1979, the Khmer Rouge massacred the Irrawadydolphin population of the Tonle Sap River and Great Lake,using the oil contained in the flesh as an engine lubricant.From 1979–1987, the fishing lots on the Tonle Sap GreatLake operated via krom samaki, a solidarity group based onCommunist development principles. In 1985, theVietnamese-controlled government introduced a policy ofwide spread forest clearing to root out the deposed KhmerRouge but also to increase agriculture production. Sincethe late 1980s, the government has returned to theconcession system in order to raise revenues.

Evans further explains this system of concessionmanagement and how it looked in the late 1980s and 1990s:

It was a system designed to extract revenue from theGreat Lake while providing some degree of protectionto the inundated forest habitat. However, in practicethe system was managed to generate maximumrevenue, which involved sub-leasing and sub-sub-leasing of a given fishing lot. The large amounts ofmoney involved dictated a total harvest mentality.For years, armed militias jealously guarded fishinglots and a tense armed atmosphere prevailed aroundthe Great Lake. Consequently, the thousands offishermen living on the Great Lake or along its borderswere subjected to threats, intimidation and gunfirewhen straying too close to fishing lot boundaries. Bythe late 1990s, some 80% of the entire dry seasonlakeshore was under the control of 18 fishing lots.4

By the late 1990s, fish management in the TonleSap involved a complex array of formal and informal

arrangements governing fishing access, rights, andpractice. Fishing lot owners continued to have exclusivefishing rights and were entrusted to protect the inundatedforests growing in their lot. Such arrangements causedtension between lot owners and the local community.Although the flooded forests provide habitat and foodsources for fish, the fish could not be utilized by anyonebut the lot owner. This provided little incentive for thelocal community to protect the flooded forests. Between1980 and 1998 50% of the inundated forests around theTonle Sap Lake were deforested.5

In 1999, the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC)designated all the larger fishing lots as “research areas,”awarding 4-year contracts to important concessionaireswithout auction. This encouraged the larger operatorsto further extend their lot boundaries, encroaching onopen access waters that had previously been used bycommunities around the lake for subsistence and localtrade. At the same time, growing political stability inthe country and increasingly democratic systems allowedrural people to voice their objection to the injustices ofthe fishing lot system. Through this period, conflictsbetween fishing lot operators and communities grewrapidly. By 2000, the inequities and conflicts emergingaround the lake gained increased attention of the donorcommunity, including working groups established toguide the development of resource management policiesin Cambodia. In turn, this triggered a focused dialoguebetween the Government of Cambodia andrepresentatives from development agencies and projectsin an effort to address concerns over the social andenvironmental consequences of fishery and flood forestmanagement policies.

In response to increasing conflicts between fishinglot operators and local fishermen, as well as growingconcerns from the donor community, the Prime Ministerinitiated a fishery reform process in October 2000. Thisprocess involved dialogue between a delegation of seniorofficials and local communities around the Tonle Sapand the Mekong River system to resolve conflicts betweenthe communities and fishing lots. The result of severalmonths of discussion and negotiation was the reductionin size of numerous fishing lots and the cancellation ofothers, in which case the concessionaires were given untilMay 31, 2001 to complete their activities. The PrimeMinister also decided to remove all Department ofFisheries field staff from the Great Lake, sending themback to their offices for the months of February to May2001, in an effort to facilitate a transition to a new

�&�� 1��/��/��.��.�&��&��.��

5 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

management framework. The impact of this decision,however, was to create an open access resource, with noauthority present to regulate use or prevent illegal fishingpractices. According to Evans:

Everyone went fishing. People who had neverfished before were down on the Great Lake withtheir batteries. Push nets mounted on the fronts oflarge boats became the standard and emptied thefish sanctuaries. Within the fishing lots to bereleased, this was their final fishing season andtherefore, a “take everything” attitude prevailed.The Great Lake has never been fished so thoroughlyas February through May 2001.6

Urban-based concessionaires reaped windfall profits,while local fishing communities saw one of their mostimportant natural resources rapidly depleted and theirlivelihoods threatened. Many communities requested urgentassistance from provincial and district offices, as well asfrom the FAO project, to help them reestablish accesscontrols and management systems, setting the stage for anew era in community fisheries management in Cambodia.

Recent political history has greatly underminedtraditional systems of fishery stewardship andconsequently community management systems have tobe re-established. Educational outreach to highlight theneed for protection of the flood forest as well as pollutionand health issues is taking place to lay the foundation ofcommunity resource management. Since the transfer ofconcessions to community fishery management groups,including responsibility for flood forests, is recent, it is

are critical breeding habitats for fish. Decades of politicalconflict and centralized, poorly enforced fisheries policieshas led to over-fishing, forest clearing and conflictbetween fishing communities and owners and leasers ofprivate fishing lots. To counteract the hostility andpromote sustainable resource use, new multi-stakeholderpolicy methods are necessary.

The need for community involvement when developingstrategies for resource management is well documented inthe literature.8 The call for community resourcemanagement is reinforced by the fact that a random sampleof 5,117 households in Cambodia found that 92% dependon the products and benefits derived from common propertyresources.9 Such common property resources include thefishing grounds and inundated flood forests of the TonleSap. In recognizing the value of common property resourcesto rural communities, the pursuit of conventional, oftenenvironmentally costly, public works projects such as dams,need to be re-assessed. Such large-scale projects are justifiedin terms of economic development, but fail to account forthe loss of livelihood to rural communities who aredependent on the very resources negatively impacted uponby the public project. As greater recognition is given to thebenefits of natural resources for poor rural communities,there will be greater opportunities to design community-oriented policies and projects that will directly enhancecommunity livelihoods and the sustainable managementof their natural resources.

The fishing lot system, combined with poorenforcement of fishing and forestry regulations andpopulation growth, have led to enormous pressures on thenatural resources, unsustainable fishing practices, and forest

��

�B��

premature to attempt to evaluate communitycapacity to sustainably manage the resources.Nonetheless, emerging experiences fromcommunities such as Kampong Phluk suggest thatCambodian fishing villages have the potential toestablish effective management systems whentechnical, financial, and legal support is provided.

�� !�� The Tonle Sap is one of the most productive

fresh water fisheries in the world. The lake provideseconomic revenue for a large rural population. Fishand other aquatic products such as shrimps,snakes, eels and shell fish are a primary source offood and income. Seasonally inundated forests,80 per cent of which are located around the GreatLake7, provide firewood and building material and

6

clearing. Community management can help develop moresustainable practices of resource use, relieve the need forenforcement by over-stretched government officials, andincrease food security for the rural population. In an attemptto promote sustainable resource use, the RGC has recentlydrafted legislation to promote community fisheries andforestry management (see Part III). While progressivepolicies designed to empower rural resource user groups isan important step to the establishment of more sustainablefisheries management, the deterioration of communitystructure, lack of trust, and lost technical knowledgeresulting from decades of conflict, may slow the transitionto community-based fisheries management in Cambodia.

"�� #��!�� The seasonally aquatic environment of the Tonle

Sap shapes the lifestyle and resource use patterns by thecommunities living around the lake. Seasonal migrationto the edge of the lake as it falls and rises, defines thetransitional lifestyle of floating villages where villagerslive in floating houses and on houseboats. Other villagerslive on elevated houses, where floodwaters rise to thebase of the houses and later falls exposing the long stilts

on which the houses are perched. Most Cambodiansare small-scale fishers, and are allowed to fish throughoutthe year in open access water, provided they use onlysimple fishing gear.

More recently, communities on the lake haveexperimented with rearing pigs, ducks, chickens, andcrocodiles. During the wet season, pigs are fedhyacinths and fish harvested from the lake, and arekept in floating pens over fish cages, their wasteproviding fish food. Aquaculture practices are alsoexpanding, including traditional pen and cage cultureof native fish rearing. While aquaculture may helprespond to the problem of declining fish stocks, itmay also exacerbate the problem if fish pens arestocked through the indiscriminant capture of nativejuvenile fish. The poorer members of the community,without access to the finances and technology requiredto develop aquaculture systems, would suffer mostby any interference with the wild fish populations.

�� $��! �The Tonle Sap is confronted by many resource

management challenges at the policy and the

*��9��.�� @��

��A��

�&�� 1��/��/��.��.�&��&��.��

7 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

implementation level. Formal management systemsfor the fisheries are defined under the fisheries lawand subsequent reforms. This law determines accessrights, licensing, and types of gear allowed, dependingon whether fishers are subsistence or small-scale orwhether they are commercial (middle or large-scale).While policy shifts from annual auctions of fishingconcession lots to community management areunderway, presenting opportunities for moresustainable use, the comprehensive implementationof these policies remains a distant goal.

The Tonle Sap fishery is also threatened by avariety of illegal and destructive practices. Theseinclude electro-shock fishing and large push nets.There is also an extensive use of fine mesh nets(including mosquito nets) and other illegal fishinggear, as well as commercial medium or large-scale gearused out of season. Water allocation conflicts betweenrice growers and fishers are increasingly common insome provinces like Kompong Chhnang, wherefarmers pump water from ponds that provide a refugefor fish during the dry season. In part, such practicesare a function of an underfunded, over-stretched, andpoorly paid Department of Fisheries staff unable tosystematically enforce management rules. Localgovernment officials receive only US$18 a month,thereby making living difficult and increasing thetemptation for being bribed by fishers to turn a blindeye to the use of illegal or out of season gear.

In Siem Reap Province, the socio-political pressuresand inequities associated with the concession systemresulted in the release of 62,000 hectares of commercialfishing grounds for community fisheries managementin 2001. The release of concession lots caused awidespread movement around the lake, with a growingnumber of fishing hamlets demanding communitymanagement of concession lots. It also spurred thegovernment to release a total of 536,000 hectaresnationwide and initiated the drafting of a CommunityFisheries Sub-decree. This rapid transition fromconcession to community management of the fisherieshas caused a massive scramble within the GO and NGOcommunities to organize and assist communities todevelop management plans for their resources. Asidefrom Khmer fishing communities, many ethnicVietnamese and Cham people are also highly dependenton fishing. Many of the 83,000 people living in thefloating villages on the Tonle Sap are ethnicVietnamese.10 Vietnamese tend to fish for long hoursand bring home large catches, which is a source of tensionwithin the Khmer fishing community. In addition, theVietnamese fishers often have more capital, andconsequently use larger-scale fishing gear, allowing themto out-compete Khmer fishers. Because these non-Khmercommunities are an important part of the managementpicture around the Tonle Sap, they need to be integratedinto discussions establishing and maintaining moresustainable fishery systems.

8

� & � � � � �

)��@��.��

According to the 1987 Fisheries Law, all lands thatfall under water, either permanently or seasonally areclassified as “fisheries domain” under the jurisdiction ofthe Department of Fisheries (DoF). DoF is responsiblefor the all the resources up to the high watermark atpeak flooding. This means that the flood forest isincluded within DoF jurisdiction and, since this landbelongs to the state, villagers cannot buy or sell land inthis area. The Ministry of Environment, however, alsohas jurisdiction over the resources over the lake, due torecent status of the Tonle Sap Lake as a biosphere reserve.Since the responsibilities of two Ministries are not clear(the DoF falls under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestryand Fisheries), jurisdictional conflicts often arise betweenthese government bodies. This section outlines the policycontext for community fisheries in Cambodia. The 1987Fisheries Law is reviewed, along with the consultationprocess that has taken place on the Community FisheriesSub-decree. The approach of the FAO project is examinedin terms of supporting community-based management.

��#�� %�The freshwater fisheries sector in Cambodia has

experienced a remarkable policy shift over the past fiveyears. The changes reflect a transition from commercially-oriented management based on the annual auctions offishing lots and state revenue generation to a decentralizedsystem based on community management organizations.While this new management system is still in an earlyphase of implementation, the policy framework thatsupports it is well articulated and moving towards formalratification. This section explores how policies are beingdeveloped to facilitate the transition and the role of theFAO project in supporting this process.

In 1987, a comprehensive Fisheries Law was draftedand approved. The Law recognizes three categories of fishingbased on gear type, simply defined as small, medium, andlarge scale fishing gear. Large-scale fishing operations,initiated under French colonial rule, remained thegovernment’s primary tool to control the resource andgenerate revenue for the state. Large-scale fishing involvedthe leasing of specific physical areas to selected individuals

as “fishing lots” with resource management activities definedin “burden books”. Large sums of money were involved inthis business and the most productive fishing grounds cameunder this type of lease arrangement. In the mid-1900s,nearly one million hectares were controlled by 135 fishinglot operators.

Outside of the fishing lots and fish sanctuaries,11

medium scale fishing could be practiced with a fishingpermit issued by the DoF and within the defined fishingseason of October 1 through May 31. Medium scalefishing typically involves passive fishing gear withextensive bamboo fences that direct fish into the traps.The vast majority of fisherfolk, however, come underthe small-scale fishing category which essentially issubsistence, family-scale fishing practiced year round inopen access areas and within the fishing lots during theclosed fishing season.

The fishing lot system controlled the most productivefishing grounds and severely limited local fishingcommunities’ access to fishery resources. With the cessationof armed conflict in the country in early 1998, people startedto speak out against the injustices of the system and thenumber of reported conflicts escalated exponentially. In1999, the RGC issued Proclamation #2 on the “Managementand Elimination of Anarchy in Fisheries.” The shortcomingsof the 1987 Fisheries Law were well recognized and thegovernment sought World Bank support in 1999 to draft anew Fisheries Law. This new draft law was completed inlate 1999 and was meant to strengthen and support thefishing lot system with little regard for local fishingcommunities. The new draft Fishery Law is still undergoingrevision and debate.

#��!�� !&'� �� The fisheries reform began in 2000, when the

Prime Minister visited Siem Reap on a mission toprovide aid to flood victims (Table 1). Afterdiscussions with local officials regarding local conflictsbetween fishers and fishing lots, the Prime Ministerdecided to release 8,000 ha. of fishing grounds (fromthe 84,000 ha. under fishing lots in Siem Reapprovince) for community management. A complaint

,9 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

against this decision from the Director General ofFisheries resulted in his removal and a commissionwas sanctioned to conduct a more thorough reviewof conflicts within the inland fishery sector. Thiscommission held meetings with fishing communitiesin Siem Reap and later around the entire Tonle Sapto resolve conflicts between local communities andthe fishing lot operators. Most small fishers wereopposed to the fishing lot system and requestedincreased access to fishing grounds. After thecommission was formed to meet with fishingcommunities around the lake, the growing populardemand for reform led to a decision in early 2001 torelease 536,000 hectares of fishing lots, representing56 percent of Cambodia’s commercially-zoned fishingarea, to communities.12

In early 2001, communities gained immediate accessto fishing grounds taken from lots that were reduced insize. For lots that were to be abolished entirely, the lot ownerswere permitted to fish out the season and these areas wereofficially given over to local communities on June 1, 2001.This decision was significantly influenced by the success ofthe FAO project entitled “Participatory Natural ResourceManagement in the Tonle Sap Region,” that had been

pioneering approaches to community-based flood forest andfisheries stewardship since 1995.

With the release of fishing grounds for localmanagement, the Prime Minister instructed the DoF toprepare a sub-decree for community fisheries. The DoFestablished a new Community Fisheries Developmentoffice (CFDO) and with Oxfam support, extensiveconsultations were conducted around the lake to draft asub-decree. The sub-decree was finalized in late 2001and sent to the Ministry where it was subjected toextensive revisions. In early 2003, a second round ofregional and national consultations were held to seekinput on the latest version of the sub-decree. In mid-2003, final discussions were held and it is expected thesub-decree will be finalized in the near future.

Drafting the sub-decree on Community Fisheries wasa time-consuming process, with diverse opinions regardingthe operations of community fisheries. In part, due to thelimited experience of DoF staff with community-basedmanagement systems, the policy development process wasconstrained. Policies drafted in Phnom Penh do notnecessarily reflect the needs of fishers in isolated lakesidecommunities. This explains, in part, some of the frustrationexperienced by NGO and international organization (IO)

YearYearYearYearYear Policy WorkPolicy WorkPolicy WorkPolicy WorkPolicy Work

�� ,1��%��"��(��$��$��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� �� !��"�� #

��$

� %��&�'�� ! �� !

�� (&')�� ! ��*�

��

� +�� ,�� !�� +-��.��

� %��!�� / ��

� ,�� ,��0��12. �� -�� 03�� !

�� (�� +�� !�0��

,�� !�� " 03+��*�

� �� 3��4��4��,�� !�� 03��$��,��" 03+��

��

,��" 03+��5�� !�� !�� -� �� !��3��

��

�� 0��-� �� 03��!�� 12. ��+�� $

,��

� 6�� -� �

� ,�� !��

� ,�� !�� !�� -��

� ��!� �� !��

,,

staff contributing to the formulation of the communityfisheries sub-decree. At the same time, the DoF officialsthat have agreed to a multi-stakeholder dialogue aroundthe development of the policy, have struggled with ongoingand open criticism of their efforts to articulate the newpolicy. Policy reform and consultation is new in Cambodia,and it remains to be seen how much outside advice thegovernment is willing to take, and ultimately whether thesub-decree will be passed in a form that will adequatelysupport community fisheries.

Despite the difficulties in formulating and approvingthe Community Fisheries Sub-Decree, in late 2002 thegovernment made a firm commitment for developmentof community fisheries by taking out a loan from theAsian Development Bank (ADB) for the implementationof the Tonle Sap Environmental Management Projectin the five provinces surrounding the Great Lake.

The government currently lacks both human andfinancial resources to ensure the sustainable managementof natural resources. Government-held natural resourcesare generally considered to be open access resources and aresubjected to over-exploitation and encroachment.Community empowerment for natural resourcemanagement is becoming recognized as an essential toolfor the protection and conservation of natural resources inCambodia. The provincial government in Siem Reaprecognizes the value of community-based natural resourcemanagement and is actively promoting the expansion ofboth community forestry and community fisheries withinthe province. It is apparent that not only can communitybased natural resource management protect and conservenatural resources, but active management also contributesdirectly to food security and poverty alleviation that arecentral priorities within the government’s socioeconomicdevelopment plan. Due to the provincial government’s activesupport of the community fisheries and community forestryinitiative in Siem Reap, the program has expanded rapidlydespite delays in the final approval of the CommunityFisheries-Sub-Decree.

�&�� 1��#��:��.�&:�&��&��&��

��#��!��

�� !�� The project “Participatory natural resource

management in the Tonle Sap region” is funded bythe Government of Belgium and implementedthrough the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations (FAO) within the province of SiemReap. This project was first formulated in 1994 toaddress natural resource management problems withinthe inundated forest ecosystem. Working through theprovincial departments of forestry, fisheries andenvironment, the first phase concentrated on datacollection and staff capacity building. The secondphase focused on development and implementationof community-based natural resource managementboth on the shores of the Tonle Sap Great Lake aswell as in the upland forest areas.

Now ending its third phase, the project has establishedcommunity management systems covering 110,000 ha. offlood forest and open lake water under the authority of 116villages. In addition, the project has assisted another 84villages to establish 20,000 ha. of community managedupland forests. Considered to be a model for community-based natural resource management in Cambodia, the ADBwill use the project’s experiences to expand communityfisheries around the entire lake starting in 2004, while theBelgian Government has agreed to expand the project’scommunity forestry activities within Siem Reap and toneighboring provinces. Much has been learned throughthe implementation of this project and it continues to havea strong influence on both policy and legislation at thecentral level.

While the FAO project has been operating for nearlya decade, it has gained a great deal of momentum in thepast three years since the project team, working closelywith the provincial forestry and fisheries agencies,developed a strategy to facilitate flood forest and fisherymanagement transitions in Siem Reap Province. Asrecently as late 2000, the project was only working withseven fishing communities in the process of takingcontrol of 10,000 hectares of flooded forest land. Thenational fishery sector started to undergo rapid changethree years ago with the fishery reforms of late 2000 andearly 2001. The project area targeted for communitymanagement was increased significantly with some62,000 hectares of fishing lots in the area released forcommunity control (Map 2).

,- ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

��

-1��

�%%��

��

�$��$�

��

��%�&

��'

,2

Kompong Phluk is a small commune in Prasat Bakongdistrict, Siem Reap Province. The commune is 12 km southof the district headquarters and about 16 km southeast ofSiem Reap town. It is made up of three villages, DeyKraham, Thnot Kambot and Kok Kdol, with a total of425 families representing a population of around 2800people. The main occupation in the commune is fishinginvolving 94 per cent of all households, of which 80 percentare engaged in small- or subsistence-scale fishing, with theremainder medium-scale or commercial-scale fishing. Thecommune is surrounded by the floating villages of ChongKhneas commune to the west, the larger agriculture andfishing commune of Kompong Khleang to the east, andthe Prasat Bakong district headquarters to the north. Tothe south lie the mature, denser parts of the flood forestand, beyond the forest, the open waters of the Tonle SapGreat Lake. The population is entirely Khmer, and togetherwith the small size of the commune and uniform occupationas fishers, this homogenous ethnicity contributes to moreeffective community organizing and resource management.

The villagers live within the floodplain of the Tonle Sapin permanent houses built on stilts. As a consequence, theydo not migrate inland as the water rises, as some lakecommunities do. During the driest months, however, manyfamilies migrate out onto the open lake and establishtemporary housing from where it is easier to care for theircages of fish or crocodiles, as well as perform their daily fishingactivities. During the dry season, the houses in the village areperched up high on wooden stilts and occupied by somefamilies and elderly people. As the lake starts to rise in June,the entire population returns to their villages. During thecourse of the wet season, floodwaters from the Tonle Sapslowly inundate the villages and the water level creeps up tothe base of the houses. During the wet season the housesbecome individual islands, reacheable only by boats, and themain street is submerged under several meters of water.

"�� (��!)While most people are fishers in Kompong Phluk,

further analysis of livelihood activities within the

commune illustrates the range of fishing activities thatcan take place, from fish processing to working as hiredlabor. Other livelihood activities are also pursued in thecommune, depending on seasonality and a households’access to capital. For example, some households practicepig-raising and home gardening during the dry season.Other households earn extra money through repairingtelevisions or cutting hair. In most cases, varioushousehold members contribute to the family livelihood.

Table 2 summarizes the discussion that took placeabout livelihood activities with twenty members ofKompong Phluk commune in September 2003.13 Itillustrates the breadth of livelihood activities.Understanding different livelihood issues helps to seewho in the community will most benefit fromcommunity-based natural resource management andwho might find these activities threatening, such as thosepracticing illegal fishing. Often it is those families thatmake a decent living who are able to more activelyparticipate in resource management mechanisms.

�� One unique characteristic found in Kompong Phluk

commune is the history of local resource management.Elders recall learning about the importance of forestprotection from their elders:

Old people knew. They knew a lot. Old peopleknew that fish lived in the forest… and that theforest helps to protect the village, especially in theflood season, from water, waves and storms.Protecting the forest meant that they wereprotecting the fish breeding grounds. This meantthat there was enough food.14

Elders remember working together to find acommon strategy for resource management. Motivatedto protect their homes from storms and winds, theyagreed to stop farming watermelons near their villagesin the late 1940s and to let the forest naturally regenerate.

� & � � � 0

@��'��*��

��9��.��

,3 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

This regenerated forest helped to protect their homesfrom storms and winds, in addition to providing a homefor fish. Villagers were motivated to continue these forestprotection practices, especially near their villages. Theformer water-melon patch is now the high-density forestthat surrounds the commune. Figure 5 depicts the

outsiders who were destroying their forest areas. At thesame time, as surrounding forests were cleared, fisheriesresources were declining. By the 1960s, fishing lotoperators also cut down flood forests to make brush parksand introduced fishing gear that was more efficient, andless environmentally benign, to harvest fish.

history of resource managementin Kompong Phluk.

As Table 3 highlights, thereis a history of resourcemanagement and flood forestprotection in Kompong Phluk.15

The villagers of Kompong Phlukdecided to start protecting thesurrounding flood forests in1948. According to therecollections of village elders,there was concern that thegradual expansion of agriculturewould eventually result in theelimination of the forests thathad surrounded the village. Thecommunity realized thatwithout forests they would beexposed to the often violentrainy season storms that occurperiodically during themonsoon. The elders hoped thatby protecting village forests theycould maintain a buffer of foresttrees around the villages toshelter the village from strongstorms, winds, and wave action.Although parts of this area hadbeen cleared, the area remainedrich with fish and wildlife.Elders remember that many species were abundant: fish(catfish, giant catfish, giant barb), dolphins, reptiles(python, poison snakes), birds (heron, stork, pelican,adjutant, fish-eagle, sarus crane, crow) and wild animals(otter, monkeys, elephants etc.).

In the late 1950s or early 1960s, villagers from othercommunes came into the flood forest areas nearKompong Phluk to clear some forest areas forwatermelons and mung bean farming. Other crops werealso experimented with: pumpkin, cucumbers and othervegetables were grown near the village. Villagers inKompong Phluk recall being concerned about thenumber of people using the flood forest areas and by

In the 1970s, the use ofmore efficient fishing gear,along with slash and burnactivities in the flood forest,declined sharply because ofcivil war (1970–75). Peoplewere forced to move awayfrom Kompong Phluk, andfarms in the forests were aban-doned enabling forests toregenerate, and fish and wild-life populations to flourish.The Khmer Rouge (KR)regime emphasized agricul-ture production and ignoredfisheries resources. After theKR regime in the late 1970s,an influx of upland immi-grants returned to the areabordering the Great Lake andstarted shifting cultivation.Throughout the 1980s and1990s, there was an increasein mung bean farming, andother types of farming, bothby villagers and outsiders. Asnew farmlands were openedthere was a steady encroach-ment by upland farmers intothe flooded forest areas.

Natural population growth and the resettlement ofpost-Khmer Rouge refugees combined with decliningfish stocks due to rapid over-fishing led the communityto re-think their resource management strategies.

In 1995, more than 100 people from KompongPhluk demonstrated against mung bean farmers whowere expanding their mung bean cultivation by cuttingand burning flood forests. In 1997, the communitywas also confronted with the expansion of fishing lotboundaries, further reducing their available fishinggrounds. Such developments helped Kompong Phlukvillage leaders and members to recognize the need tostrengthen their capacity to protect their flood forests

�� -1�� $�(��+�%'��)

Livelihood ActivityLivelihood ActivityLivelihood ActivityLivelihood ActivityLivelihood Activity

FishingFishingFishingFishingFishing• Gill net• Hook and long line• Traps• Small brush park• Small vertical slit trap• Fence net• Spear• Collect clams

Raise animalsRaise animalsRaise animalsRaise animalsRaise animals• Chicken• Crocodile• Fish• Pig• Duck

Smoke FishSmoke FishSmoke FishSmoke FishSmoke FishLaborerLaborerLaborerLaborerLaborerCollect fuel woodCollect fuel woodCollect fuel woodCollect fuel woodCollect fuel woodCollect water lilyCollect water lilyCollect water lilyCollect water lilyCollect water lilySelling something from homeSelling something from homeSelling something from homeSelling something from homeSelling something from homeFish processingFish processingFish processingFish processingFish processingCarpenterCarpenterCarpenterCarpenterCarpenterClothes makerClothes makerClothes makerClothes makerClothes makerHairdresserHairdresserHairdresserHairdresserHairdresserBoat driverBoat driverBoat driverBoat driverBoat driverMiddlemanMiddlemanMiddlemanMiddlemanMiddlemanHome gardeningHome gardeningHome gardeningHome gardeningHome gardeningDoctor and teacherDoctor and teacherDoctor and teacherDoctor and teacherDoctor and teacherGovernment officerGovernment officerGovernment officerGovernment officerGovernment officer

,4

and control destructive fishing. Although, historically,flood forest protection in Kompong Phluk was basedon oral agreements between communities and localgovernment support, by the late 1990s resourcemanagement mechanisms needed to be formalizedthrough written rules, regulations, and agreementssupported by the forestry and fisheries departments andthe Siem Reap governor.

In 1998, Kompong Phluk village leaders requestedthe FAO project and the Siem Reap and ProvincialFisheries Office to help them form a communityforestry organization. In 1999, Kompong Phluk wasauthorized to manage some 979 ha. of flood forestssurrounding their village after formulating amanagement committee and rules and regulation withhelp of FAO and Provincial Fisheries Office. The firstcommunity forest manage-ment plan was prepared in2000, focusing on protection and management of floodforests and fisheries. Meanwhile, the RGC abolishedfishing lots 4 and 5 and released the area for communityfisheries. As a result, Kompong Phluk communities

gained nearly 15,000 ha. of fisheries domain forcommunity fisheries management. In 2001, they werereorganized as Kompong Phluk Community Fisheries,elected a new management committee, and drafted newrules and regulations. The rules and regulations wereapproved by the provincial governor in late 2001 andimplemented since then.17

#�� In order to better understand community perceptions

of changes in natural resource management and economicconditions, a series of participatory rural appraisals wereconducted with members of Kompong Phluk. Thehistorical transitions in fish harvest levels, flood forestcover, and fishing technology described by the committeemembers, is presented in Table 4. Changes in fish harvestper family and flood forest cover reflect changes inpopulation of Kompong Phluk between 1950 and thepresent time, as well as technical changes in fishingtechnology. Population changes, in turn, reflect majorhistorical events including the civil war which caused the

�&��0 1�&��#&��/��&��+��/�.�#+

DateDateDateDateDate DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription

�� 21��%��"��$��%��+�%'��)1�,829;-992,5

�� 3��7�

��7�

��'�

8��

9��!��

��:;��

9��!��

��7

��

��

��

��<��

��<��7

� =�� -��

� 4�� -��

� >�� ?

� =�� -��

� ��

� "�� 0�� -��

� 4 ��#�� 0��-��0� ��-��

� 5 ��0�� -��!�@�� $��

� .��

� ,��-�� 0�� -��0�� -��8��4�� #

� �� -�� 8��4�� #�� +� ��

��-�� 0��

� "�� 0 �� !�0�� -� ��

� ��0��

� �� 0�!�� 0 ��

-�� -�� ! ��

� ,�� !��A � �� @�� !��

0��

� ��&��-��+�� !� ��

� "-�� 0�� !

� =�� !�� !�@�� 0� �� !�� ;

�� !�� -��:��

� ,�� !�� 0�� 5��4�� ,��0��

� 8��4�� #�� 0�� -��

,5 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

population in Kompong Phluk to drop from around 500households in 1950 to only 50 households in 1975, duringwhich time the fish harvest per remaining family and forestcover increased. The Khmer Rouge government ignoredfish resources in order to pursue sweeping rice cultivation,thereby allowing fish stock to grow. When the Vietnamese-backed government replaced the Khmer Rouge, thepopulation of Kompong Phluk expanded rapidly throughreturnees and natural growth. Subsequently, forest coverand fish harvest dropped with more people harvestingfish and forest resources.

From 1987 to 1999, the introduction of motorizedboat transportation resulted in an increased pressure onfish resources, reflected in lower harvests. Throughoutthis period there was also an increased use of illegal gearincluding electro shock (where some fishers used carbatteries to stun fish) as well as very small mesh nets.These methods resulted in the death of small fish fry,depleting future stocks. Also, during this time,deforestation for shifting cultivation of mung beansreduced the forest cover to 40 percent. With the ban onmung bean cultivation that began in 1999, however,the flood forest cover near Kompong Phluk increased to70% of its original size. The regeneration of flood forests,along with the creation of community-designated fishsanctuaries, has contributed to greater fish harvests.

With the Fisheries Reform, in early 2001, there was adevastating harvest associated with uncontrolled accessto fish resources prior to transferring fisheries managementto the communities. As a consequence, fish stocks around

the lake plummeted during this year. Rampantoverexploitation raised the awareness of communities onthe importance of strengthening community-basedmanagement for the protection and management of theforest and fisheries resources. According to the KompongPhluk Fisheries Committee, returning fishing lot areas tocommunity management in 2002, which in the past wereusually fished-out with modern and highly efficient gear,has also enhanced fish stocks.

��!�� $��! �

��(��!)While the three hamlets that comprise Kompong

Phluk administrative village have a strong commitmentto sustainable resource management through communityinstitutions and controls, they continue to face externalpressures on their natural resources from all directions.18

In the North, the most immediate pressures stem fromBakong town and surrounding villages, but can comefrom communities as far as 20 km away. During the dryseason, these pressures take the form of 400 to 500 peopleactively involved in fishing and collecting fuelwoodwithin Kompong Phluk’s flooded forests. Some establishseasonal camps in the flood forests and others come eachday on foot or on bicycles. Pressures are heaviest duringthe dry season when little agricultural work is available.The fishers coming from the north tend to use small-scale gear, such as throw nets and small traps. Roughly20 percent fish with illegal gear such as electric fishing

�� 31��%%�� '��"��$��$��$��&�$�� $��+�%'��)

Historical EventHistorical EventHistorical EventHistorical EventHistorical Event # of HHs# of HHs# of HHs# of HHs# of HHs % Forest Cover% Forest Cover% Forest Cover% Forest Cover% Forest Cover Fish HarvestFish HarvestFish HarvestFish HarvestFish Harvest Fishing GearFishing GearFishing GearFishing GearFishing Gearnear Communesnear Communesnear Communesnear Communesnear Communes (/HH unit)(/HH unit)(/HH unit)(/HH unit)(/HH unit)

��

%��,�-��=��

��

,�-��=��8��

��

8�� 9��

��

>��1��3��-��B

��-��

��

,��

��

9 ��0�� 8��4�� #

�� !�� !;��

7&�3&�&

��3�&�

&�3:�

��3��

��3��

��37�:

��

��)��)

%��

��)��)

%�� )��)

+�� )��'�)

+�� '�)��7�)

%��

7�)��:�)

5��

1��

�0 ��

5��

"��

5��

6��

��

6��

��

%��

0��

%��

��

��

,�� !��0��

��

,6

or u-nets or pumping water to drain fish holes.In the west, pressures have eased with FAO facilitation

to clarify territorial boundaries between the communitiesof Chong Khneas and Kompong Phluk. In the east, foresttends to be cleared for agricultural activities such as mungbean farming, generally by villagers from KompongKhleang, although this too is stabilizing as communityleaders, local government, and FAO project staff facilitatediscussions to resolve land boundary issues. In the south,commercial fishers on the open lake tend to fish in thecommunity fishing area, using large destructive gear suchas push nets and seine nets.

Villagers in Kompong Phluk feel that not allcommunities are managing their community fishing areaswell. The community sees an ongoing need to educate theirneighbors regarding the importance of forest protectionand the need to use only legal fishing gear. The cultivationof fast growing crops, including mung beans, watermelonsand cucumbers during the three months where land isexposed, has been, and continues to be, the maindeforestation pressure facing the flood forest in the area. Insummary, the primary management issues facing KompongPhluk villagers include: (a) illegal fishing gear; (b) forest

conversion for agriculture; (c) fuel wood harvesting byoutsiders and (d) brush parks.

Although the majority of fishers in Kompong Phlukdo not use illegal fishing gear, such as push nets, electro-fishing, and long bamboo traps, even limited use candisproportionately impact the fishery. Flooded forestlandhas always been cleared for mung bean farming, but theproblem is one of increasing scale of clearing. ThroughFAO facilitation and a recent government crackdown onmung bean farmers, expansion within the communityfisheries area has stopped, though it remains a problem inmany communities around the Great Lake. Fuelwoodcollection is mostly for subsistence use, with people cutting30 kg of wood per trip and carrying this supply to theirhomes on their bicycles. This will supply a household for aweek. People in Kompong Phluk harvest their fuelwoodby boat when the water is high. Since many flood forestspecies coppice vigorously, there is quick regeneration.

While fuelwood cutting may constrain forest successionto older growth, it sustains a scrub forest environment thatprovides better cover for fish fry and may, therefore, be apositive form of management in terms of enhancing fishproduction. The primary challenge is establishing a

)��

��B��

��

�&��0 1�&��#&��/��&��+��/�.�#+

,7 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

fuelwood harvesting cycle that is sustainable. Another majorproblem is the construction of brush piles in the lake. Thewood is illegally collected from the flood forest and brushpiles left in the lake can increase the rate of sedimentation.Compared to other illegal fishing gear, the environmentalimpact of brush piles is minimal, and it tends to be small-scale fishers that utilize this practice.

The communities of Kompong Phluk know there areadvantages in protecting the flood forest, including beingable to collect firewood, protection from storms off the GreatLake, creating a spawning habitat for fish, and providingposts to support their houses. The initial motivation forprotecting the original 48 hectares of flood forest wasspecifically to protect the village houses from wind andwave action that could damage the hamlets. It is apparentthat more recently, with the initiation of outreach supportand education from FAO and the Department of Fisheries,the community has developed a greater level ofunderstanding of the role flood forests have in keeping thefisheries healthy. According to one elder:

Long before the committee was set up, people lovedand took care of the forest. It was not perfectlymanaged, though, especially in recent times. So,it was good timing to work with FAO, for them tohelp us. We wanted to stop the mung bean farming,which started in 1993, near our commune.

Villagers in Kompong Phluk were aware of differentresource management issues when they began working onresource management with FAO-Siem Reap. Aside fromcontrolling flooded forest cutting near the commune formung bean cultivation, villagers wanted to stop illegalfishing practices near their commune. The community isaware of reasons for declining fish stock, including the useof modern fishing gear. Mr. Tep Phearo, a community leadernotes that there is growing support in Kompong Phluk fora formal, community-based regulatory committee to ensurethe sustainable management of their fishery and forests.

Kompong Phluk illustrates how a fifty year old traditionof flood forest protection has gradually developed into aformal system of community-based resource management,with an elected managing body, written rules andregulations, a well-developed utilization plan, and approvalof the provincial government. Part V details the processand experiences of the Provincial Fisheries and ForestryDepartments and the FAO project staff, as they workedwith the community to design a formal system ofmanagement.

��

��

��

�� !"

��

� ��

��

��

�� #��$�� %��

�� &��'(��

��

� �� %��

�� &��'(��)�� %��

��*�� +��%

��

��(��

��

�� ,�� +��%

�� %� �� (-

�� .��

�� (��

/ �� %��

� � ��(�� (��

��*�� *��

�� (�� %��

��

�� ( � ��

��

�� &�� '(��

��

��

��

� ��

��

/�� 0� 1��

��

��

�� %��%��

�� %

�� %� ��

�� %� ��

�� 2�

,8

� & � � �0

.��)��

��'��9��.��

This section outlines the community resourcemanagement planning process that the FAO-SiemReap project and the Provincial Department ofFisheries facilitated with fishers in Kompong Phlukcommune. The section begins by reviewing the historyof community organizing in Kompong Phluk,highlighting the evolution from a community forestrycommittee first developed in 1999 to a communityfisheries committee. The authors then review theresource management planning process from theoriginal community forestry plan developed in 1999,to the ratification of an integrated communityfisheries management plan in early 2004. This sectionconcludes with a discussion of lessons emerging fromKompong Phluk.

* � ��#��!��+��

��!�� !�� In 1999, a Forest Management Committee was

formed in Kompong Phluk, with the assistance of theProvincial Department of Fisheries and the FAOproject. The roles of the Forest ManagementCommittee included identifying problems in thecommunity and resolving them in collaboration withlocal government, demarcating boundaries of theprotected forest area, setting signposts around theprotected area, conducting community forestryextension, and preparing a forestry-fisheriesmanagement plan and monitoring and evaluating itsimplementation. In 2000, the community developeda management plan for the flood forest and fisheriesresources surrounding the commune. The plan wasdesigned to cover a total of 979 hectares for a five-year period from 2000–2004. The provincial fisheriesoffice, which has jurisdiction over the flood forests,approved the management plan. With the policychanges supporting the reform of the inland fisheriessector in 2000, however, the total area undercommunity management in Kompong Phlukincreased dramatically to 15,906 ha. With the

introduction of the new community fisheries policy,the committee renamed itself the CommunityFisheries and Flood Forest Committee.

In August 2002, the Siem Reap ProvincialHeadquarters officially recognized the committeewhich is now identified as the Kompong PhlukCommunity Fisheries Committee, dropping floodforest from the title, but not from its managementobjectives. The former community forestry plan hasundergone an extensive adaptation process. KompongPhluk was used as a ‘learning site’ for communityfisheries management planning as communitymembers and community fisheries facilitators (DoFstaff ) worked together to discuss issues and to createa management plan for Kompong Phluk. This is thefirst time that such an extensive plan has been devisedfor resource management in the Tonle Sap Great Lake,and it is proposed that the process be repeated withother community fisheries around the Tonle Sap.

In order to design rules and regulations or to drafta community fisheries management plan, the structureof a committee needs to be clarified and roles andresponsibilities of community members need to beclearly defined. The initial Community ForestryCommittee was established through an electionprocedure during a workshop sponsored by FAO in1999. Three representatives from each of the threevillages of the commune were elected to the centralcommittee. In 2001, sub-committees were formedwith the application and par ticipation of 30community members to what was then called theFisheries and Forestry Committee. The communityfisheries central management committee was elected,with the responsibility to manage and protect naturalresources in the community fisheries area. Four unitswere created including the secretary, accounting,extension and patrolling components, all of whichfall under the central committee. In addition, each ofthe three hamlets formed a sub-committee to bringspecial village issues to the general committee. Anadvisory committee was created to help with the

-9 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

management process. The local community elects thecentral committee members in three-year cycles. Thestructure of the Community Fisheries ManagementCommittee is as shown in Figure 1.

��!��#��!��

�� ,-...'/00/Since 1948, the protection of the flood forest in

Kompong Phluk was achieved through informalcommunity agreements and practices unti lmanagement was formalized with the drafting offormal rules and regulations in the late 1990s.Traditional management involved the establishmentof a verbal regulation on forest protection around thecommune. With the transition of management frominformal to formal rules and regulations, a community

the forest timber forcooking. In KompongPhluk, communitymembers use the forestfor both activit ies.Thus, the managementplan emphasized activi-ties aimed at sustain-ably managing andconserving NTFP, fishand other aquatic re-sources, and wildlife tosatisfy people’s needs.The historical uses ofthe forest suggested ablock division manage-ment system for thearea.

The focus of the management plan is biodiversityconservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing ofnatural resources existing in the protected area to improverural livelihoods. The area, 979 hectares, was dividedinto five blocks on the basis of participatory forest coverclassification including forest density, species, soilconditions, area and regeneration, as well as land use,aerial photography, and income-generation activities.The main flood forest species present in the protectedarea are Barringtonia acutangula, Diospyros cambodiana,Coccoceras anisopodum and Crataova volisiosa. For eachblock, management objectives were identified, andpermitted user activities for each year specified. Activitiesincluded the collection of wood for minor construction,collection of dry fuelwood, fresh (thinning) fuelwood,collection of medicinal plants, fishing, wildlife hunting,collection of wild vegetables, NTFP collection and

��/#&��,1�� "��+�%'��)��%%��$��$��!��

forestry committee was formed andeducational outreach, otherwise knownas extension, undertaken with thecommunity.

The original Community Forestryplan, devised in 1999, emphasized theprotection and management of the floodforests, based on the assumption thatforest management would enhance theproductivity of the fishery. The man-agement plan identified the primaryforest user groups as (a) fishing groupswho use the forest as fishing grounds,and (b) fuel wood groups who collect

�� #��3�� (��%��

�� #�� !4��

�� #��

��5��

� �� /��

�� %� ��

��

��

��

�� #��

�� #��

��%�!6"�(�� #��

��#��

-,

ecotourism. Not all activities were allowed in all blocks,or apply to all blocks, and wildlife hunting is prohibitedthroughout the area.

��!��#��!��

�� ,/001��With the recent allocation of commercial fishing

areas, representing 60 per cent of the area previouslycontained in fishing lot number 5 to Kompong Phlukcommune, the community forestry management planunderwent a revision process in early 2003. Thisrevision process built upon the community forestryplan, with a greater emphasis on fishing, specifyingtypes of gear, size, seasonality, location and incomegenerating activities. The new draft management planwas completed in early 2004.

The Community Fisheries Management Plan(CFMP) is an essential element in the process ofdeveloping the community fisheries system. Theprocess is designed so that local communities willprepare the management plan themselves, withfacilitation support from Community Fishery

Facilitators. These Facilitators are from the provincialDoF, and have had extensive training with the FAOproject on community fisheries, facilitation, andmanagement planning development. The CFMPfocuses on how local communities can conserve andutilize their natural resources in a sustainable mannerover a fixed time period (currently in fixed, 5 yearblocks). Once approved by the Commune Council,District Governor, provincial DoF, and finally by theProvincial Governor, the plan may then beimplemented.

The CFMP in Kompong Phluk took severalmonths to draft with villagers from Kompong Phlukcommune and the Community Fisheries Facilitatorstaking part in this process. Since Community FisheryManagement Planning is a new process in Cambodia,a key principle of management planning is learningby doing. Consequently, the facilitators and thevillagers worked together to learn how to preparemanagement plans. The goal of the planning processis to enable communities to prepare their plan in sucha way that they have a clear understanding and strongconsensus regarding its contents, allowing the plan

)��)��

��(�� )��'��

.��/)�'.1��$--,�

�&��01��/��&��#��:��&��&:��.�&��/��+��/�.�#+

-- ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

StepsStepsStepsStepsSteps ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivities Expected OutputsExpected OutputsExpected OutputsExpected OutputsExpected Outputs

�� 4��

��#

�� 5��

,�� !

�� 6��6��

7� "��3��

,��

&� 4��!

� � ��5��

'� 1��

%�-��!

:� +� � ��

��

�� +��5��

4��

�� ?5��4��

��-�,�

5��

�� 41��%��'$��<'� ��'��$

� 2��;�-��@� ��

� %��!��!�� ! ��

� ,��

� 5��,�,,��0� �� 03��0� �

,�� ,� ��>��,�� #��

��-�

� �-��

�� #�� - ��

�� !

� +� � �#!�� ; �� ,�54�� ,�

�-��$

� �� ;� �� 0�� !��

��

� ��?��4��;��

� +� � � ��3��-��

� +� � �� 0�� -��

� +� � ��

� 5��

� +��0��#��-� ��

� +�-�� 0��# �� 030��# ��0��#

�0C��- � ��!

� >��!�0��# �0!�� #��24"

� 4��0��#�� 030��#�� 2%"� ! ��

� 4�� -��!��

��0��#

� +��

� ��!?��;� ��0�� ; �� + ��0�� -��0��!��16�4

� �-�� -��!

� +� � �� 0��# ��-��

� +� � ��0 ��,�54�� !� +� � �0��

��-��

� +� � �45B9��

� +�� 0�� #��

� ,��,�54��

��

� 4��

� �-��(,�54��;�� *� +� � ��,�,,��>��" 03��

��

� .��?�� #��# ��

� 4��

� ��-��,�� ,� ��

� 2��-��-� ��+� ��2�-��4��-��

+��4��-��2�-��

� ,��@� ��

� ��?��

��

� ��,�� !��

5��4��(,�54*

��

� �-��,�54��

��

� ��?��

��,�54��

( �� *�� 0��

4��

� "��3��0� �

� � ��

��0��

� 5��,��0��# �� 03

0��# ��

�0C��-

� >��0��# ; 030��#

� 4�� ,��

� +-��

��!��

� +��!?�

� �-��!?�� +� � ��

��

��&�!��

� +� � ��

�� 0 ��

��-��

� +��

��

� �-��

��

� ��-��0��#��

� �� #��

� ��

� ��-��,��

��

��#��

-2�&��01��/��&��#��:��&��&:��.�&��/��+��/�.�#+

to be fully implemented by the community. Based onthe experiences from Kompong Phluk and othercommunities participating in the FAO Siem Reapproject, a management planning process is evolvingthat may be standardized after several years ofexperience with field implementation. This processis presented in Table 5.

The Community Fisheries Management Plan willencompass the former community forestry site, withthe additional area of nearly 15,000 hectares expandingover inundated forest and open lake. The communityfisheries site consists of inundated flood forest for sixto eight months annually, with the back flow fromthe Mekong River rising steadily until the water risesto the base homes in Kompong Phluk. As shown inMap 4, much of the 15, 906 hectares of land in themanagement area is low density regenerating forest(5,958 hectares). This area is largely scrub forest thatcan be used for producing fuelwood and as a fishhatchery. Another 5,378 hectares of the territory isopen lake that will be managed as a community fisheryarea and routinely patrolled. Other significant landuse areas include the high density and medium densityprotection forests along the edge of the lake that bufferthe community from storms and act as a significantfish and wildlife refuge.

Currently there is a Khmer version of the Rulesand Regulations for the extended communitymanaged area covering a total of 15,906 hectares. Thisdocument is entitled Rules and Regulations of KompongPhluk Community Fisheries (2001) and forms theofficial agreement between the Provincial FisheriesOffice and the Kompong Phluk CommunitiesFisheries Committee. The document outlines the rolesand responsibilities of the fisheries department andthe committee, and is signed by both parties makingthis a legal document. The Committee and FisheriesOffice will later amend this document with thepassing of the Communities Fisheries Sub Decree bythe Council of Ministers. This new document willreplace the previous Rules and Regulations documentcreated for the 979 hectares initially allocated forcommunity forestry management in 1999. This rulesand regulations document is what the communityfisheries management plan is based upon and furtherexpands.

While the original community forestrymanagement plan focused explicitly on flooded forestresources, this new management plan is far more

extensive, also focusing on fishing practices (legal andillegal) along with potential income generatingactivities such as ecotourism and permitting systems.The objectives of the CFMP in Kompong Phlukinclude the following:

• To protect and manage flood forest for a regularsupply of daily needed forest products andprovide habitat to fish for spawning andnourishing,

• To conserve flooded forests to provide shelterfor aquatic life (conserve aquatic biodiversity).

• To conserve forests to protect villagers fromstorms.

• To develop sustainable fishing practices forlivelihood improvement of fishers in KompongPhluk.

This management plan is extensive. It defines thearea and the resources to which these regulationsapply, the permitted and banned uses of the resource,the organizational structure of the committee andtheir roles, the community’s roles and responsibilities,allowable harvest amounts of forestry products, fishinggears, size and season, illegal gear used in thecommunity fishing area, specifications on budgetaryuses, and fines for prohibited activities includingclearing of the flood forest, catching of wild animalsand use of illegal fishing gear. The plan also includesguidelines for income generation from the communityfisheries, including membership fees, fishing permits,permits for mung bean farmers, fish harvesting forcommunity fishery management support, incomefrom eco-tourism, service charges and fines fromoffenders.

Within this management plan, therefore, there isan emphasis on both areas where the forest or fisheryis strictly protected and flood forest and fisheryutilization areas where extractive activities arepermitted. For example, conservation strategiesinclude protection of the flood forests near the villagesand protection of the fish sanctuary. For the floodedforest areas near the village, only dead wood can becollected, banning the cutting of green shoots forfirewood, while in the utilization zones, a rotatingsystem of cutting is devised to ensure access to fuelwood in a sustainable manner (Map 3). For thefishery, during the rainy season the community allowssmall brush parks for shrimp collection. Utilization

-3 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

��21�� $��;�� )$�"��&��.��$��

-4�&��01��/��&��#��:��&��&:��.�&��/��+��/�.�#+

strategies include defining the type, size and seasonof fishing gear and penalties for those who break theseregulations. The CFMP focuses on the followingstrategies for implementing community fisheries:

• Strategy of controlling illegal activities(enforcement, patrolling).

• Strategy for resource protection (protectionblocks, fish sanctuary).

• Strategy for sustainable resource harvests(fisheries and forestry resource harvestingstrategy).

• Strategy for dry season agriculture practices(eliminating dry season rice cultivation; mungbean cultivation).

• Strategy for ecotourism development (establisha visitor center; build resting huts in floodedforest; build floating fish culture cage).

• Strategy for institutional development(identify options for income generation; setup office and communication system;transparent accounting).

Protection and production are integrally linkedin the management plan. Kompong Phluk fishersbelieve that they can catch more fish in 2003 than inprevious years, and attribute this increase to patrollingactivities and protection activities, such as the creationof fish sanctuaries. As resources increase nearKompong Phluk, however, the community anticipatesthat additional pressures will be placed on the fishery

from outsiders and from an increase in illegalactivities. Therefore, strong protection mechanismsare an important component of any communityfishery strategy. In order to establish controls overthe fishery in Kompong Phluk, the community hasdivided the fishery area into four different blocks, withprotection responsibility for each block assigned toone of the three village patrol teams, and the fourthblock being patrolled jointly. Villagers organize theirpatrolling and enforcement activities according toseasonal and spatial pressures by designing strategiesto address illegal activities. Map 4 shows how theseblocks were devised.

Map 4 also outlines the patrol area for each village(1-3), along with the communal patrolling area (4). Sincevillagers are already experienced in flood forestprotection, this patrolling strategy builds upon localknowledge and practices. Given the large amount (5000hectares) of open lake, the commune has decided to worktogether to patrol this area. Since illegal activities happenseasonally, villagers have also prepared a calendar ofdifferent illegal activities that take place within theircommunity fishery. Table 6 highlights illegal activitiesthat take place in fishing blocks one and two by month.This table will help the patrolling committee target theirenforcement more effectively.

The CFMP also outlines the structure of thepatrolling committee, as outlined below. Part ofpatrolling work is to establish a clear, effectivecommunication process, enabling villagers and thepatrol team to work together to protect natural

�� 51��"��$�� $�� )$�,��-

-5 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

��31��=��$�� "��+�%'��)

-6�&��01��/��&��#��:��&��&:��.�&��/��+��/�.�#+

��/#&��-1�� "��%$��%%�� $$

resources in the area. Within this framework, theentire community is mobilized to watch for illegalactivities, with the patrol team doing the enforcementactivities and levying fines (Figure 2).

The committee patrols the open water fishinggrounds to help prevent illegal fishing activities andinsure that no one is cutting the flood forest. Often,fishing offenders hide their illegal gear to prevent thejoint patrols from obtaining evidence of illegaloperations. In July 2002, the committee caught peoplecutting trees in the flood forest. Rather than finingthem, the committee attempted to explain the forestprotection and management strategy to them, acommon approach with first time offenders. Thecommittee believes education can be the most effectivemethod of ensuring that violators do not repeat theirillegal actions. The problem is that new offenderscome. “You educate Mr. A, but Mr. B comes and cutsnext,” exclaimed a committee member. The offendersare not from the commune, but come from uplandareas or neighboring communes. In the future, thecommittee hopes that the forest will improve becauselocal people will use poles purchased from the uplandareas, rather than cutting the protected flood forests.

��+��#��!��

�� A critical step in establishing effective community

management systems is formalizing them throughwritten agreements with local government authorities.Without this action, management plans andcommunity organizations lack the legal authority toimplement their stewardship strategies. In the case ofKompong Phluk, a CFMP preparation team wasformed with representation from all stakeholdergroups including the management committee, sub-committees, commune council, villagers (women andmen) and elders. This team prepared a draft planthrough open discussions about critical issues,engaging as many community members as possibleduring the planning process to ensure everyone has aclear understanding of the issues and managementprovisions. When the first draft was finished, theplanning team, with the support of the communityfisheries facilitators, revised the plan before submittingit to community fisheries management committee.The community fisheries management then revisedthe plan and prepared a final draft for publicdiscussion.

-7 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

After preparing a draft, extensive discussions wereconducted among community fisheries members. Ajoint stakeholder workshop was organized amongcommunity members and representatives from thecommune council, the local police, the districtgovernor’s office, the provincial fisheries office andthe provincial governor’s office. The purpose of theworkshop and discussions was to familiarize allstakeholders on provisions included within the draftmanagement plan and to get feedback on this plan.This step ensured the approval of the managementplan from local authorities and the provincial fisheriesdepartment and encouraged them to take greaterresponsibility for implementing such a plan.

Typically, the planning team prepares the final planafter incorporating all comments and suggestions andpushes for approval. The approval process begins withthe commune council (CC). Once the plan is approved,it is sent to the District Governor’s office. If CC findsthat it needs to be reviewed and revised, it is sent backto the planning committee with suggestions. The planis sent again to the CC after the planning committeeincorporate its comments and suggestions. Finally theCC approves and forwards it to the district governor’soffice with its recommendations.

The District Governor’s office follows the same

process as the commune council has followed. The planis also sent back to the planning committee, or from theDistrict Governor to the CC, if it is to be revised.Otherwise it is seen, approved and sent to the provincialDoF. The DoF office follows the same procedure as theDistrict Governor. The plan is also seen, approved andsent to the provincial department of agriculture, forestryand fishery (PDAFF). After approval from the PDAFF, itis passed to the Provincial Governor’s office. Themanagement plan is approved, finally, by the ProvincialGovernor for a five-year period, and is then ready forimplementation (Figure 3).

" ��(��!)While Kompong Phluk has a tradition of flood forest

protection that has been operating for more than 50years, the community’s approach to natural resourcemanagement over the past five years has changeddramatically. Facilitated by the support of the FAOprogram and Provincial counterparts, and driven byfisheries sector reforms that decentralize commercial lotmanagement, the process has allowed community leadersand their emerging institutions to formal responsibilityfor a larger management area and is requiring them todesign more complex modes of fishery and foreststewardship. The Fisheries Committee and its members

��/#&��21��''�� $$�"��%��$

-8

are faced with developing acceptance of the managementplan among community members, as well as with peoplefrom neighboring and more distant communities, whoalso use the resource. Aside from winning publicacceptance of the nascent management plan, theCommittee faces a number of other problems includingfinancing its operations, balancing sustainableproduction with growing demands, coordination withgovernment agencies, and managerial capacity.

An important constraint to the implementation ofthe Community Fisheries Management Plan is a lack offinancial resources. This is why part of the CFMP focuseson identifying income-producing options. A variety ofstrategies have been identified in the CFMP to generaterevenues including: charging membership fees, issuingfishing permits to outsiders according to fishing geartype, and issuing annual permits to mung bean farmers.Management support for fish harvesting and entrancefees for tourists are main income generating sources alsoexplored in the plan. The CFMP has ruled that allcommunity fisheries members should register with thecommunity fishery central committee, an action thatwill help build capital resources while excluding outsidersfrom free access to community resources. While fees,fines, and other revenues will help cover some of thecommittees operating costs, the development of amanagement infrastructure will cost much more.

The CFMP also proposes office construction, thepurchase of two motorized patrol boats, and establishing

radio communication. At present, the community fisheriescentral committee relies on the commune office, butshould soon be able to perform their activities from theirown office. Patrol boats and a communication system willhelp to reduce illegal activities. Also, many extensionsessions are planned for community members and uplandcommunities to strengthen their capacity to implementrules, regulations and management plan activities. Thecommunity would like to use additional funds to constructa public toilet near the pagoda. Also, part of the moneycould be used for rural credit for community members toengage in pig raising, vegetable farming, purchasing small-scale fishing gear, and establishing other small businessesto improve their livelihood.

Transparency of financial interactions will beassured by maintaining an accounting book that willbe disclosed to all community members and higherauthorities on a monthly basis. The account officerand chief of community fisheries are responsible forbalancing the books. In 2004, the community plansto open a bank account so it can earn interest ontheir savings. These are examples of the activitiesplanned in the draft community fisheries managementplan in Kompong Phluk, and will serve to strengthencommunity fisheries institutions and the managerialcapability of the communities.

Yet, while the Committee has ambitious plans andis building management capacity for the future,financing them remains an ongoing concern. Support

)�� )�� @��

��

��

�&��01��/��&��#��:��&��&:��.�&��/��+��/�.�#+

from the FAO project is by itsnature, t ime-bound and fewmechanisms exist to direct neededresources to newly emergingcommunity fisheries groups.

While villagers have beenengaged in an extensive planningprocess for over the past year, theyhave also continued to protecttheir fishery and forests as thisplanning process has evolved. Thecommunity certainly benefitedfrom past experience with resourcemanagement as they devised aplan that addresses their needs forthe protection and productive useof their forests and fish resources.Nonetheless, the hamlets ofKompong Phluk, like many othersin Cambodia, are challenged by

29 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

the need to increase their incomes while sustainingthe natural resources upon which their livelihooddepends. In practice, a mix of strategies, fromprotection to changing livelihood practices, arecurrently used by villagers to ensure flooded forestand fish protection. Table 7 highlights some examplesof village management strategies.

As Ros Norn comments, “We know that we cannothandle all of our problems, but we can solve some ofthem.” The fisheries management committee is realisticabout what they can and cannot tackle, and are tryingto devise systems that will work for their community.One fisheries committee member explained specificallywhat they do when they get a report from a communitymember about an illegal activity:

After the report from a commune member, thecommittee goes quickly and confronts theoffender and warns him. We try to explain ourreasons for protecting the area and establishingrules. On the second and third offense, we finehim. But some people have no money, as theyare poor people who live far away. In that casewe let him go.

This example highlights the awareness of the

committee about why resource destruction occurs andits sensitivity to those poor families who are trying toearn a livelihood. Finding a balance between strictenforcement and education is seen as important totheir work. Considering that these activities are takingplace in a legal vacuum (the Community FisheriesSub-Decree which would give communities the rightto organize around their resources, and specify a rolefor technical departments is still not passed), the beliefof communities in resource protection andmanagement is even more impressive. Anothermember commented:

By the time they issue their law, there will be nofish left. Please do what you can to urge the policymakers to approve the Community Fisheries Sub-decree. We need the support of the government toeffectively protect and manage the flood forest andfisheries.

The Fisheries Committee recognizes that they needmore support from government if their activities are tobe sustainable in the future. More and more policymakers from Phnom Penh, and elsewhere, are beingencouraged to visit Kompong Phluk to learn fromvillagers about how local resource management can work.

Management IssueManagement IssueManagement IssueManagement IssueManagement Issue Policy WorkPolicy WorkPolicy WorkPolicy WorkPolicy Work

�� 61�0��%��$$��$��$,8

��

%�� (� ��

�� 0��0�� *��

+��

��

.��-��

,�� -�� -��

��!��-�� - ��

�� -��

4��$�� 0� ��8��

4�� #D �� $�� !��-��

��

,��#�� !$�� 0� ��

�� !$�� -��

��

=��#��-�� 0��?��

" ��-��

2,

“Without community protection and manage-ment, the natural resources will disappear”

When the FAO project started in 1995, Cambodia wasin a state of turmoil. The country had two Prime Ministerseach controlling loyal military forces living in a tense,unsteady relationship, as well as the remnants of the KhmerRouge who were still actively fighting both sides from theirbase just to the north of the project area. There was a genuinesense of uneasiness and fear within rural communities.Society was heavily armed, although weary of war. Theproject was assigned a “pilot unit” of some 2,600 hectaresin 1996 to use for community-based management. InCambodia, participatory resource management was anentirely new concept and the project was more toleratedrather than encouraged. The “pilot unit” was under thejurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries who wasconcerned about the loss of flood forest habitat and thesubsequent threats to fish productivity.

The government wanted to simply stop theconversion of flood forest ecosystem for agriculture andthey wanted the project to do reforestation of oldagriculture lands within the flood forest zone.Reforestation was undertaken in 1996 and 1997, but itwas soon realized that the flood forest regenerates betternaturally and the real issue was to involve local peoplein its protection and management. The project strategywas to develop proper community-based natural resourcemanagement where the responsibility for protection,management and utilization of a given resource istransferred to the local community. Developing andbuilding support for such an approach, however, was aslow process as no government staff had experience withparticipatory management, and government officialswere very wary, and even distrustful, of communities’ability to manage forest or fishery resources.

The project focused on training staff in the earlyyears and sent many counterpart staff to neighboring

� & � � 0 �

@��.��

*��

��9��.��

��

�&��0 � 1�&��.��&��

countries to learn aboutcommunity-based management, aswell as other development issues.Simultaneously, the projectexperimented with differentapproaches to facilitating forcommunity involvement in naturalresource management by engagingvillagers in a participatory learningprocess. After the first site at ThnalDach was well underway with amanagement plan completed inlate 1997, the staff initiated workwith a commune to the north inthe upland forest area. In early1998, wide-spread land grabbingbegan to take place with thecollapse of Khmer Rougeresistance. Communities perceiveda threat to their forestlands andbegan requesting assistance fromthe FAO project to help them

2- ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

protect their forests from some members of the militaryand other outside actors that were attempting to claimforest lands in the area. Consequently, communityforestry started to expand in the upland areas at the sametime as communities were taking control of their floodforest and fishery resources near the Great Lake. Thework accelerated as the project successfully involvedprovincial and district authorities in numerouscommunity workshops and meetings. The strategy wasto be open and transparent throughout the process soeveryone, including the military and police, understoodwhat was happening and why. By continually keepingeveryone informed and involved, the project minimizedconflicts and steadily gained the trust and support fromlocal and provincial authorities, achievements that wereessential to the establishment of a community basednatural resource management program.

Today, some 110,000 ha are under management by116 villages organized into 10 central communityfisheries organizations. In the upland areas more than20,000 ha. are being protected and managed by 84villages grouped into 44 community forestryorganizations. All sites are officially recognized at theprovincial level and have been included within theprovincial fisheries and forestry departments’ annualwork plans as well as within their respective communes,districts, and the provincial planning framework. Thecommune and district development planning process in2002, under the new Commune Administration Law,has resulted in an additional 60 requests for assistanceto establish new community forests.

The community forestry and fishery strategiessupported through this project have made a substantialimpact on improving resource management in SiemReap Province, as well as improving local livelihood andbuilding community governance capacities. This is dueto the fact that the project was in the right place at theright time and has had the opportunity to work for 8years, enabling the establishment of trust and supportwith both communities and local officials. Considerabletime and effort has been spent on training governmentcounterparts who now staff the community forestry andcommunity fisheries’ units that have been establishedby their respective provincial departments. Manyconstraints and issues remain to be resolved in both theforestry and fisheries sectors as legislation is still lacking,and there is still a continued reluctance from the centrallevel to fully empower rural communities to managenatural resources. Despite these constraints, this project

has been exceptionally effective due to the fact thatgovernment staff, supported by a UN organization, hasdone implementation. Being part of the UN, FAO hasbeen able to exert influence on policy and legislationand has also been able to help resolve difficult issues atthe central level.

The process described in this case study, from initialsite selection through the preparation andimplementation of the community fisheries managementplan, is based on 6 years of field experience. The strategyis continually refined and improved. The Governmenthas recently made a commitment to implement an ADBcommunity fisheries project based on the experiences inSiem Reap, that will work in all five Tonle Sap provinces,starting in the year 2004. A 4th phase of the currentproject has also recently been proposed to expandcommunity forestry activities to the provinces of BanteayMeanchey and Oddar Meanchey. Beyond projectsupport, the legislation is still lacking and thegovernment requires human and financial resources toproperly establish community-based natural resourcemanagement throughout the country. Communityempowerment is essential to ensure that the remainingforest and fisheries resources are protected and managedfor the future generations to come.

#��!��In many Cambodian communities, the upheavals

of previous decades have undermined the social fabricand traditional knowledge making it more difficult forcommunities to pursue collective and meaningfulresource management. Economic and cultural disparitiesin fishing communities also hinder community fisheriesmanagement. A village that appears to be overcomingthese obstacles is Kompong Phluk, where managementdiscussions over a six-year period are leading to a broad-based resource stewardship system that will rely on adetailed management plan. While Kompong Phluk isunusual in its homogeneity and traditions of forestprotection, it provides an ideal context to explore effectivesystems of community-based resource managementaround the Tonle Sap.

Extension efforts by the Kompong Phlukcommunity fisheries committee have helped reducefirewood consumption from 20 cm3 to 7 cm3 per familyover the last few years.20 Now, rather than cutting trees,people instead collect floating debris wood for fuel. Suchlocal conservation efforts are helping reduce deforestationand are a direct result of the local community’s decision

22�&��0 � 1�&��.��&��

to ban the collection of green fuel wood from theprotected forest area. As a consequence, people musttravel considerable distances to collect wood. Mostcollection occurs during the flooded season fromSeptember to December and is transported by boat backto the community residence. While this strategy allowsthe protection and regeneration of Kompong Phluk’sforests, it also transfers deforestation pressures to otherflood forest areas, and therefore does not address moreregional problems of deforestation. Moreover, as morecommunities become organized and look elsewhere forresources in order to protect their own immediate areas,conflicts may arise.

to develop effective strategies to manage naturalresources. To the east, Kompong Khleang is a larger,wealthier commune, many of whose members arefarmers, and so do not have a vested interest in protectingthe flood forest, but rather strong incentives to clearthem for agriculture. They typically plant fast growingcrops such as mung beans, cucumbers, and watermelonsin the flood plains during the dry season. This introducesconflicts with neighboring communities who wish toprotect the forest, including fishers who see the benefitthe forest has on fish resources and therefore their ownlivelihood.

"��9��.�� )��

�� ?2�---� ��

2�---�� @��

��*��)��

��C��

��

Kompong Phluk represents an unusual caseof community forestry management, unusualbecause of the communities’ past efforts toprotect local forests without outside support,and because of the largely unanimous long-termgoals of the population to allow the flood forestto regenerate and remain protected. Theapparent lack of internal community conflictover forest and fisheries management objectivesmay be attributed to a number of factors,including the small size and ethnic homogeneityof the commune, and the fact that 95 per centof the population are fishers and have a sharedstake in seeing the flood forest regenerated andsustainable fishing practices enforced. Thepresence of a mature forest that inspires furtherprotection, the recent support from the FAOand Fisheries Office, and the attention themanagement activities are drawing fromoutsiders, have also been motivating factors.These factors all reinforce the collectiveness ofthe community.

The reality facing other fishing communities aroundthe Tonle Sap, which are also presented with theopportunities and challenges entailed in communitymanagement of flood forest and fisheries, is that theyare often larger, ethnically heterogeneous communitieswith more diverse occupations, and so lack thecohesiveness to organize in order to develop andimplement a community resource management plan.Most also lack a history of forest protection. ChongKneas, the western neighbor of Kompong Phluk is afloating community with a large, marginalizedVietnamese population and a powerful group of portoperators and entrepreneurs. These factors make itdifficult for the current Community Fisheries Committee

It is the ability of these communities to developsustainable, welfare-enhancing community resourcemanagement approaches that should be the gauge ofsuccess of CFM strategies and policy. In manyCambodian communities the political upheavals of thepast forty years have undermined the fabric of thecommunity and eroded the traditional knowledge base,making it difficult for communities to pursue collectiveand meaningful resource management. Economic andcultural disparities in fishing communities also hindercommunity fisheries management. Such social andeconomic challenges are the reality of communitymanagement and must be addressed in future discussionsof resource management. Even in Kompong Phluk wherecultural homogeneity and community consensus on

23 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

*��/�� 1��*��

��*��

��

management issues are strong, management capacity isstill developing. The fisheries management plan isambitious and includes many novel institutional andfinancial arrangements that Kompong Phluk FisheriesCommittee will be challenged to implement in the yearsahead. Kompong Phluk will require the ongoingencouragement of local government and provincialtechnical agencies. While internal mechanisms are beingdeveloped to generate finances for management activitiesand expand livelihood opportunities, this is a long-termstrategy that will likely continue to require externalsupport for some time to come. Given that the floodedforests and diverse fish species protected by KompongPhluk are an important component of the Tonle Sapecology, and that sustaining that unique bio-region is apriority for Cambodia and of considerable interest tothe global community, continuing technical guidanceand financial support that allows Kompong Phluk toimplement its management plan is well-justified.

Beyond Kompong Phluk, the rapid expansion oflakeside community fishery groups and uplandcommunity forestry organizations has been dramatic,

and indicative of a grassroots demand for assistance with,and recognition of community-level natural resourceneeds and management efforts. The FAO Project,through its close collaboration with the ProvincialFisheries and Cantonment Forestry Office haveeffectively extended their resources to respond to growingcommunity demands for technical and organizationalsupport. The demands are driven by increasing concernsover resource pressures from neighbors and from otheractors. Illegal logging, illegal fishing, timber smuggling,and forest land encroachment are widespread and areoften driven by wealthy and or powerful individuals.Communities see their local resources, critical forsubsistence goods and cash, threatened. In growingnumbers, they are seeking legal recognition of their rightsand the authority to protect and utilize these resources.This demand, coupled with the effective andcollaborative approach adopted by the FAO project andthe provincial fisheries and forestry offices have alloweda joint CBNRM strategy to emerge in Siem Reap Provincethat was rapidly extended to over 200 villages, mostlyover the past four years.

24

@��

1 McKenny, B. & Tola, P. 2002. Natural Resources and Rural Livelihoods inCambodia: A Baseline Assessment, Working Paper No. 23. Phnom Penh:Cambodia Development Resource Institute.

2 Dave Hubbel. 1999. “Food for the People: Natural Fisheries of the MekongRiver”. P: 33 in Watershed, Vol. 4, No.3. Bangkok: TERRA.

3 Chandler, D. 1998. A History of Cambodia Second Edition Updated, SilkwormBooks.

4 Evans, P. 2002. “Fishing Disarmed, Community Fisheries in Cambodia”. Pp:6-12 in SAMUDRA, March 2002.

5 Dave Hubbel. 1999. “Food for the People: Natural Fisheries of the MekongRiver”. P: 33 in Watershed, Vol. 4, No.3. Bangkok: TERRA.

6 Evans, P. 2002. “Fishing Disarmed, Community Fisheries in Cambodia”. P:3 in SAMUDRA, March 2002.

7 Ahmed, M et al. 1996. “Sustaining the Gift on the Mekong: The future offreshwater capture fisheries in Cambodia” in Watershed, Vol.1 No. 3. Bangkok:TERRA.

8 See the following: United Nations Development Programme. Integrated ResourceManagement and Development in the Tonle Sap Region ( Draft Proposal). PhnomPenh, July 2001; Gum, W. Inland Aquatic Resources and Livelihoods in Cambodia:A Guide to Literature, Legislation, Institutional Framework and Recommendations(Consultancy Report). Oxfam GB and NGO Forum on Cambodia, November2000; and Kimhy, L. et al. Forest Resource Use by Local Communities inCambodia. IDRC, August 1998.

9 Ahmed, M et al. 1998. Socio-Economic Assessment of Freshwater Capture fisheriesof Cambodia, Report on a Household Survey. Mekong River Commission.

10 McKenny, B. & Tola, P. 2002. Natural Resources and Rural Livelihoods inCambodia: A Baseline Assessment, Working Paper No. 23. Phnom Penh:Cambodia Development Resource Institute.

11 Some deep water locations in permanent water bodies were set aside as “fishsanctuaries” to be fully protected for the protection of brood stock.

12 FAO Siem Reap Report. 2002. P: 2.

13 For more information on livelihood issues in Kompong Phluk see Marschke,M. 2003. Sustainable Livelihoods in Context: Learning with Kompong PhlukFishers. Unpublished Workshop Proceedings. Phnom Penh: Ministry ofEnvironment, PMMR-IDRC.

14 Interview with an Elder and Fisheries Community member. March 2003.

25 ��&��.��.��/�0��/��1��

15 Sourced from Draft Kompong Phluk Community Fisheries Management Plan

16 Adapted from Poffenberger 2003; Evans 2002; Marina & Soph 1999.

17 This section is sourced from: FAO Siem Reap Report. 2003. Chapter 1: DraftKompong Phluk Community Fishery Management Plan. Pp: 2-4.

18 This section is sourced from: Poffenberger, M. 2003. Field Notes from KompongPhluk. February 25th–26th.

19 FAO Siem Reap Project Report.

20 Marschke, M. 2003. “From Planning to Action: what is happening ‘on theground’?” in Cambodia Development Review.

��>�,1��?��%$�"��#��$��"�/�� $��$��

��

��

�� 4� �<6�� + � 4 ��# 8� ��E��;4�# , �

(�� * ��

�� 4� � + � E��! 5��E�� EF�;��

�� (&3�� * (:3�� #* ��

��!"� 8� � 6��0�� G�

(��-�� * ��

�!#�$�%�&�'� 8��

��

��%�&�'� "��# 8�� 0��8�� 5 �� !� �� H !I�

��

�& (�"'�� 8�� 4�� 4��0�� !� ,��=�� 6��

�� !�! �� "��#��

�� "��) (�&"��"� 8�� 4��4 �� 0�� !��6�� "�� 0��

��,��0�� %�� 4�� 2�-�� >��1��

�� $!�� $!�� %&� ��$!�� %�� $!�� $!��

� *!�� " �� :�� ''�� :��

MekongInfo · disseminating information through TV, newspapers, and radio regarding continuing...

Documents

Transcript of MekongInfo · disseminating information through TV, newspapers, and radio regarding continuing...