SOCIOECONOMICS ANDLIVELIHOOD VALUESOF TONLE SAP LAKE FISHERIES

The importance of fisheries of the TonleSap Lake is indisputable, given the high

contribution of about 60 percent to the totalinland fisheries production. What may not bewell recognized is the importance of Tonle Sapaquatic ecosystem to the livelihoods of overone million people living in and around theareas who rely heavily, if not entirely, on theresources. This synopsis draws on recent stud-ies to provide estimates of values of fisheriesand aquatic resources to local communities inthe five provinces bordering the Tonle SapLake, i.e., Siem Reap, Battambang, Pursat,Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Thom. Thesynthesis reveals that all households in theseareas engage in diverse income generatingand livelihood activities, including fishing, fishprocessing, fish marketing, fish culture, farm-ing, daily labour and firewood collection,regardless of their primary occupation. Thegross annual household income from directconsumptive uses for all fisheries-dependenthouseholds in the five provinces is estimated atUS$233 million. Only about one-third of this iscaptured in households with income less thanUS$1,000, which constitute about 72 percent ofall households. These low-income householdsare mainly small-scale, subsistence fishers andfarmers with highlivelihood depen-dency on the TonleSap Lake. Clearly,their livelihood con-cerns, such assecured access toresources, and basicrights to food security,jobs, education andhealth care, shouldbe emphasized indiscussions aboutsustainable manage-ment of Tonle SapLake fisheries andaquatic ecosystems.

For sustainable development of inland fisheries in Cambodia

Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFReDI)

Department of Fisheries

186 Norodom Blvd., Tonle Basak, Chamkar Morn, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, PO Box 582, Tel/Fax: (855) 23 220 417E-mail: info@ifredi.org Website: www.ifredi.org

ADBADB TA 4563-CAMCapacity-Building of Inland Fisheries ResearchAnd Development Institute (Phase 2)

Made possible by:

SOCIOECONOMICSAND LIVELIHOOD VALUES OF TONLE SAP LAKE FISHERIES

HAP NAVYSENG LEANG

RATANA CHUENPAGDEE

SYNOPSIS

SOCIOECONOMICS AND LIVELIHOOD VALUESOF TONLE SAP LAKE FISHERIES

Hap Navy Seng Leang Ratana Chuenpagdee

2006

Published by the Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFReDI)of the Department of Fisheries, Royal Government of Cambodia, 186 NorodomBlvd., Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Hap, N., Seng, L. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2006. Socioeconomics and LivelihoodValues of Tonle Sap Lake Fisheries. Inland Fisheries Research andDevelopment Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 24 pp.

This synopsis was written as part of a Technical Assistance for the Capacity-building of the IFReDI, implemented by the WorldFish Center and supported bythe Asian Development Bank (TA 4563-CAM).

This is not an official publication of the Asian Development Bank, and the viewsexpressed herein should not be attributed to the ADB.

ISBN-10: ...?...?

ISBN-13: ...?...?

Front cover photos: John KurienBack cover photo: Kadul Kandarith

About IFReDI

The Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFReDI) wasestablished in October 2002 by virtue of Declaration No. 357 of the

MInistry of Agruculture, Forestry and Fisheries as a research and developmentinstitute under the supervision of the Department of Fisheries (DoF).

VisionSustainable development of Cambodia’s inland aquatic resources for thecountry’s food, security, and economic prosperity.

MissionTo provide scientific information and technical support for the sustainabledevelopment and management of inland living aqaatic resources in Cambodia,based on biological and socioeconomic research.

Goals. Scientific research collection, analysis and dissemination of biological and

socioeconomic data;. Development and upgrading of national capacity for the rational

management of inland fisheries;. Maximization of the income of fishermen and farmers;. Sustainable utilization of the fishery resources.

186 Norodom Blvd., Tonle Basak, Chamkar Morn, Phnom Penh, Cambodia,PO Box 582, Tel/Fax: (855) 23 220 417

E-mail: info@ifredi.org Website: www.ifredi.org

SOCIOECONOMICS AND LIVELIHOOD VALUESOF TONLE SAP LAKE FISHERIES

Hap Navy1

Seng Leang2

Ratana Chuenpagdee3

1 Chief of Socio-economics Division, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

2 Officer, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

3 Adjunct Scientist, WorldFish Center, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

i

Contents

List of Tables, figures ....................................................................................Acknowledgments .........................................................................................Abstract .........................................................................................................1. Introduction ...............................................................................................2. Tonle Sap Lake communities, their activities and other characteristics......3. Livelihood strategies and dependency.......................................................4. Values of fisheries and aquatic resources..................................................5. Issues and challenges in sustaining fishing livelihoods..............................6. Conclusion.................................................................................................References ....................................................................................................

iiiivv1157121517

ii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TablesTable 1 Percentage of households involved in fishing.............................Table 2 Average annual catch per household and utilization of catch.....Table 3 Percentage of households involved in different

income generating activities........................................................Table 4 Importance of common property resources.................................Table 5 Percentage distribution of male and female heads

of household...............................................................................Table 6 Estimates of average annual household income

from all sources...........................................................................Table 7 Total 'gross' income for aquatic resource-dependent

households of the Tonle Sap Lake .............................................Table 8 Consumption values of fisheries ................................................Table 9 Summary of responses required to address challenges

in sustaining livelihoods..............................................................Figures

Figure 1 Different kinds of values associated withTonle Sap aquatic ecosystem....................................................

Figure 2 Percentage distribution of households by income level.............Figure 3 Percentage distribution of number of households

and estimated gross annual income..........................................

23

46

6

9

1011

14

78

10

iii

iv

The authors acknowledge funding support from Asian Development Bankunder ADB-TA 4563-CAM (Capacity Building of the Inland Fisheries

Research and Development Institute, Phase II) which enables this research.We wish to thank H.E. Nao Thuok, John Kurien, Blake Ratner, Yumiko Kura andMarko Keskinen for reviewing the earlier drafts and for providing helpful com-ments. Special thanks to Emelita C. Agbayani and Renato F. Agbayani for theireditorial comments. We are indebted to Mr. Kadul Kandarith, IFReDI researchassociate, who assisted us in data analysis and in the preparation of figures andtables. Thanks also to the Provincial Fisheries Officers of the five provinces,members of several non-government and intergovernmental organizations andother workshop participants who shared with us their knowledge, experienceand perspectives. Views and opinions expressed in this document are those ofthe authors and do not represent their respective organizations. Any errorsand/or omissions are the responsible of the authors.

Acknowledgments

v

Abstract

SOCIOECONOMICS AND LIVELIHOOD VALUESOF TONLE SAP LAKE FISHERIES

by

Hap Navy, Seng Leang, Ratana Chuenpagdee

The importance of fisheries of the Tonle Sap Lake is indisputable,given the high contribution of about 60 percent to the total inland

fisheries production. What may not be well recognized is the importance ofTonle Sap aquatic ecosystem to the livelihoods of over one million peopleliving in and around the areas who rely heavily, if not entirely, on theresources. This synopsis draws on recent studies to provide estimates ofvalues of fisheries and aquatic resources to local communities in the fiveprovinces bordering the Tonle Sap Lake, i.e., Siem Reap, Battambang,Pursat, Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Thom. The synthesis reveals thatall households in these areas engage in diverse income generating andlivelihood activities, including fishing, fish processing, fish marketing, fishculture, farming, daily labour and firewood collection, regardless of theirprimary occupation. The gross annual household income from directconsumptive uses for all fisheries-dependent households in the fiveprovinces is estimated at US$233 million. Only about one-third of this iscaptured in households with income less than US$1,000, which constituteabout 72 percent of all households. These low-income households aremainly small-scale, subsistence fishers and farmers with high livelihooddependency on the Tonle Sap Lake. Clearly, their livelihood concerns, suchas secured access to resources, and basic rights to food security, jobs,education and health care, should be emphasized in discussions about sus-tainable management of Tonle Sap Lake fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.

1. Introduction

This synopsis aims to describe the socioeco-nomic characteristics of fishing communitiesaround the Tonle Sap Lake, to summarizeinformation on the economic and livelihoodvalues of the fisheries to these communities,and to identify key issues that might be con-sidered in sustaining their livelihoods. Thesynopsis draws largely from recent studies onsocioeconomics and livelihood of fisheriesresources in the Tonle Sap Lake,4 particularlythe report by Rab et al. (2005) and Ahmed etal. (1998), both of which provide baselinesocioeconomic information about communi-ties at two different time periods5. The presentsummary focuses on the five provincesbordering the Tonle Sap Lake, i.e., SiemReap, Battambang, Pursat, KampongChhnang and Kampong Thom6. We firstdescribe Tonle Sap Lake communities andtheir fishing, fishing-related, and other incomegenerating activities. Next, we summariseoverall livelihood strategies as well as theirdependency on aquatic resources. We thendraw inference about the 'values' or impor-tance of fisheries and other aquatic resourcesbased on the household surveys conductedby Rab et al. (2005)7. We conclude with keyissues and challenges in sustaining the liveli-hoods of the communities.

2. Tonle Sap Lake communities, theiractivities and other characteristics

Fisheries have long been central toCambodian lifestyles, particularly tocommunities living in and around the TonleSap Lake. Fisheries from Tonle Sap areascontribute about 60 percent of Cambodiantotal inland fisheries production (Baran, 2005),or between 200,000 to 218,000 tonnes basedon average productions from 2001-2003(DOF, 2004), with landed values betweenUS$150-250 million8 (MAFF-CNMC, 2003).

According to the study conducted in 1995,titled "Socio-economic assessment of fresh-water capture fisheries of Cambodia" (Ahmedet al., 1998), there were about 1.17 millionpeople in the five provinces (comprising 145fishing communities and 195,000 fishingfamilies) who depended on fisheries and otheraquatic resources for food and livelihoods. In2003, the population was estimated to haveincreased to 1.25 million (Rab et al., 2005).

Fishing is generally categorized into threetypes: family fishing (or small-scale), middle-scale fishing and large-scale fishing (or fishinglot)9. Brief descriptions of these fisheries areprovided below with estimates of production in1995, as reported in Ahmed et al. (1998),based on household surveys of 867 familyfishing, 84 middle-scale fishing and 6 fishinglot, considered actively involved in fishing atthe time of the survey. It is worth noting,however, that the estimates from 1995 arelikely to be starkly different from currentfigures considering the recent fisheriesreforms that may have resulted in the increaseof number of fishing households.

(i) Family (or small-scale) fishing.

This is practiced in about every householdaround the Tonle Sap and is usually carriedout by family members using small gears,such as gill nets and bamboo fence traps.Family fishing does not require licenseand it can take place all-year round.Considerable amount of catches are used

Fisheries have long been central toCambodian lifestyle, particularly toabout 1.25 million people living in thefive provinces around the Tonle SapLake who depend on fisheries andother aquatic resources for food,income and livelihoods.

Synopsis 1

4 Tonle Sap Lake is used here to emphasize the focus of the synopsis on the lake area and its floodplains, and not TonleSap River that connects the Lake to the Mekong River. The terms 'the Tonle Sap Lake' and 'the Tonle Sap' are usedinterchangeably in the report.5 The areas covered in Rab et al. (2005), i.e., Kampong Chhnang, Siem Reap and Kandal, is a sub-set of what wascovered in Ahmed et al. (1998), which also included Kampong Thom, Battambang, Pursat, Kampong Cham and PhnomPenh. The Ahmed et al. (1998) study was conducted in 1995-1996, while that of Rab et al. (2005) was undertaken in2003-2004.6 Banteay Meanchey is excluded from the synopsis because the bordering area to the Tonle Sap Lake is very smallcompared to the other five provinces. 7 Figures presented in the synopsis were re-analyzed from raw data obtained in the survey conducted by Rab et al.(2005) to include information on only two provinces, i.e., Kampong Chhnang and Siem Reap; they thus are different fromwhat was reported in Rab et al.8 The exchange rate used in this study is US$1 = 4,000 Riel.9 See detailed description of each fishing type in Baran (2005).

for home consumption. Of all householdsactively involved in fishing, 90 percent aresmall-scale operators. In 1995, about85,000 households engaged in family fish-ing, with an estimated average annual pro-duction of 0.7 tonnes per household. Overtwo-thirds of the harvest from this type offishing originated from Kampong Chhnangand Batambang provinces.

(ii) Middle-scale fishing.

This is for commercial purpose and isallowed only during October to May, whenthe water level in the Tonle Sap begins torecede and the floodplain area is decreasingin size. Under current regulations, license isno longer required for middle-scale opera-tions. Gill nets are the main gear of middle-scale fishers. The number of middle-scalefishing households in the five provinces in1995 was about 9,000, each one making anaverage catch of about 5.3 tonnes perannum.

(iii) Large-scale fishing or fishing lot.

This is operated under a two-year leasesystem using gears that can cover largeareas such as bamboo barrage traps andseine nets. In 1995, the average annual

production per fishing lot was estimated tobe 54.1 tonnes.

Fishing takes place in the Tonle Sap Lake, aswell as in small rivers, inundated forests andflooded rice fields. Fishing in rice fields occursmainly during closed season (June toSeptember). Other fishing grounds are used

year round by small-scale fishers.

According to Rab et al. (2005), villages aroundthe Tonle Sap Lake may be categorized basedon level of fishing activities of households, i.e.,fishing, fishing cum farming and farmingvillages. Overall, 'fishing' villages refer tovillages with 80-90 percent of householdsconsidering fishing as their primary occupa-tion, 'farming' villages are those with at least80 percent of households engaged in farming,while 'fishing cum farming' villages are thosewith households relying on fishing during thewet season and farming during the dryseason. Based on the 2003-2004 survey of270 households in Kampong Chhnang andSiem Reap provinces (Rab et al., 2005),almost all households in fishing villages andabout 66 percent of fishing cum farminghouseholds fished all year round (Table 1).10 Infarming villages, on the other hand, almosthalf of the households fished during closedseason, when the water is high and farming isinactive.

As previously stated, the type of fishing gearsused varies by type of fishing operation,fishing ground and targeted species. Gill netsare commonly used in family fishing as theyare considered a relatively low-cost gear,suitable for catching many fish species in

different fishing grounds. Thus, about 73percent out of 270 households surveyed (from62 percent in farming villages to 84 percent infishing villages) owned gill nets (Rab et al.,2005). The most important species in terms ofquantity (between 13 to 36 percent of totalcatches) for all types of fishing is carp (treyriel, Henicorhynchus spp.). Other important

Synopsis2

Table 1 Percentage of households involved in fishingat different time of year by type of village

Notes: n = 45 in each village type in each province

Kampong Chhnang Siem Reap BothFishing cum Fishing cum Fishing cum

Involvement in fishing Fishing farming Farming Fishing farming Faming Fishing farmingFarming

Closed season 2 7 49 0 4 44 1 6 47Opened season 7 13 0 2 22 9 4 18 4All year 89 71 18 98 60 31 93 66 24Occasional or not at all 2 9 33 0 13 16 1 11 24

10 All tables in this synopsis are based on the re-analysis of the survey data by Rab et al. (2005)

species are snakehead fish, catfish and othercyprinids.

Some difference in average annual catch perhousehold between Kampong Chhnang andSiem Reap can be observed (Rab et al.,2005). Annual catches of households infishing villages in both provinces were muchgreater than those of households in fishingcum farming and farming villages (i.e., about75 percent of total catches came from fishingvillages). Comparison by province of averageannual catch per household in fishing andfishing cum farming villages shows that thecatches of those in Siem Reap doubled thosein Kampong Chhnang (Table 2). This suggeststhat there were more middle-scale fisheringand more fishing lots in Siem Reap. Thereverse was found, however, for householdsin farming villages where catches were higherin Kampong Chhnang.

Utilization of catches varies between types ofvillages and provinces. For example, Rab etal. (2005) reported that among predominatelyfishing villages in Kampong Chhnang andSiem Reap, an average of 80 percent of totalcatches is sold fresh, 9 percent is sold as fishfeed, 8 percent is processed, while theremaining 3 percent is for home consumption.Note, however, that percentage of catches forhome consumption is considerably higher infarming villages (about 34 percent) than infishing and fishing cum farming villages(Table 2). The relatively low catch and highproportion of catches for home consumptionsuggest that fishing in farming villages ismainly small-scale.

Fish processing activities may be classified,based largely on the scale of operation, as: 1)traditional or a family scale, for home con-sumption; 2) commercial scale, with 40-60workers, mainly for local market; and 3) indus-trial scale, for international markets. The mostimportant processed products, in terms ofquantity produced, are semi-final fish paste(73 percent) and fish paste (13 percent),locally called prahoc. These products are soldat prices (about US$0.35/kg) lower than thoseof fermented and smoked fish (US$0.60-0.70/kg) which are produced in much smallerquantity.

Similar to utilization of catches, farminghouseholds retain almost all of theirprocessed products (about 95 percent) forhome consumption and sell the rest. Fishinghouseholds, on the other hand, sell 91 percentof processed products (Rab et al., 2005).Although 63 percent of the 270 surveyedhouseholds reported fish processing as one oftheir economic activities, only 16 percent ofthem earn income from fish processing. It isalso worth noting that participation of womenand children in fish processing activities isrelatively high compared to direct fishing. Forexample, women comprise about 80 percentof fish processing plant workers.

Aquaculture is another economic activity thatis gaining importance among communitiesliving in and around the Tonle Sap Lake. Insome fishing villages, Rab et al., (2005) foundthat nearly half of the households areengaged in fish-rearing operations. The maintypes of aquaculture in the Tonle Sap are cageand pen culture of a number of fish species,

Synopsis 3

Kampong Chhnang Siem ReapFishing cum Fishing cum

Utilization of catches (kg) Fishing farming Farming Fishing farming Farming

Home consumption 136 172 150 723 240 128Sold fresh 7,402 1,166 347 11,369 4,597 121Fish processing 67 30 16 1,884 113 4Fish feed 592 889 44 1,449 73 1

Annual catch per household 8,197 2,257 557 15,425 5,023 254

Utilization of catches (%) Fishing Farming Farming Fishing Farming Farming

Home consumption 2 7 49 0 4 44Sold fresh 7 13 0 2 22 9Fish processing 89 71 18 98 60 31Fish feed 2 9 33 0 13 16

Table 2 Average annual catch per household and utilizationin Kampong Chhnang and Siem Reap by type of village

including trey chdor (giant snakehead,Channa micropeltes), trey pra (sutchi catfish,Pangasianodon hypophthalmus), trey po (spotpangasius, Pangasius larnaudii) and trey ros(snakehead murrel, C. striata), and farming ofcrocodiles. Fish raised in many householdscome from live catch of fry or fingerling, whichare kept in bamboo pens or in cages undertheir floating houses, fattened and sold whendemand is high.

Overall, fishing and fishing-related activitiesare important for the majority of households inthe Tonle Sap Lake. It should be noted,however, that despite high involvement infishing and fishing-related activities, manyhouseholds may still consider rice farming astheir primary occupation. For instance, about72 percent of 2,544 households in the fiveprovinces surveyed in Ahmed et al. (1998)reported rice farming as their primary occupa-tion while only 12 percent considered fishingas their main activity. This could be becauseon average almost 90 percent of the house-

holds built their houses on land. Among thosewho built houses on water, the number inKampong Chhnang, Battambang andKampong Thom provinces were highest atabout 7 percent (Ahmed et al., 1998).Reported primary occupation (in terms ofincome and time allocated) may not be thebest indicator of the importance of, and liveli-hood dependency on, aquatic resources sincemany people are involved in subsistencefishing, either on a daily or part-time basis.Indeed, for many households, fishing is impor-tant not as an income generating activity, but

as main source of protein and fall back againstcrop failure (McKenny and Tola, 2002).

Table 3 shows the range of income generatingand livelihood activities of all households -fishing, fish processing, fish marketing, fishculture, daily labour, business and firewoodcollection. It is important to note that, even infarming villages, equal numbers of house-holds derive income from fishing activities. Inother words, these villages are rather homo-genous in terms of main sources of liveli-hoods, and thus are evenly vulnerable tosudden environmental changes (Keskinen,2003), discussed below. Given the occupa-tional pluralism that characterizes Tonle SapLake communities, livelihood considerationhas to take into account the dependency ofpeople on fisheries and the entire aquaticecosystem.

In terms of demographic characteristics of theTonle Sap communities, many studies reportan average household size of six, headed

mainly by male member, with about 65-70 per-cent of all household members in the workingage range of 11-60 years old (Ahmed et al.,1998; Rab et al., 2005; Israel et al., 2005). Themain ethnic origin of household members isKhmer, with Chinese, Vietnamese and Chamas minority groups. The overall education andliteracy rate is low; for example, as much as20-25 percent of household members have noformal education. The low education levelapplies particularly to female heads of house-hold and female household members. As aresult, female-headed households have lower

Synopsis4

Type of villageFishing cum

Sources of income Fishing farming FarmingFishing 100 89 80Fish culture 48 19 2Fish trading 10 7 3Net/gear making 2 2 0Farming 21 69 78Fuel wood collection 46 51 52Bamboo & cane work 2 1 1Livestock raising 30 24 28Daily labor 24 19 19Government/NGO 13 12 9Money lending 1 1 4Motor taxi/boat driving 0 2 1Shop/small business 20 19 30Others 3 2 2

Table 3 Percentage of households involved in differentincome generating activities by village type

income, thus lower socioeconomic status,than male-headed households (Keskinen,2003). When comparing between differenttypes of households, the level of education ofhousehold members in fishing villages islower than that of farming villages (Rab et al.,2005). This could be attributed to the fact thatmany of these fishing families live in floatinghouses and thus have limited access toschool.

Like most households in other rural areas, thehouseholds around the Tonle Sap Lake havepoor living conditions. They have limitedaccess to basic amenities such as water fordrinking and cooking. Ownership of assetsand level of debts show different patternsbetween household types. As some fishinghouseholds build their houses on boats, cagesand stilts over water, they own less land andthe value of their houses is lower than that offarming villages (e.g., land areas owned byfishing households was only about 25 percentof those owned by farming households).

Fishing households have higher expendituresthan farming households because of thenature of their equipment - e.g. boats andengine for fishing and transportation, genera-tor for fish processing, and mobile phone forcommunication. Thus, the overall level ofassets of fishing households is higher thanthose of farming households. However,because they incur more expenses for con-sumables, fishing households consequentlyhave greater debts than fishing cum farmingand farming households. Their main source ofborrowed money are relatives, friends, tradersand local money lenders - not financial institu-tions (Rab et al., 2005).

3. Livelihood strategies and dependencyon aquatic resources

While the term 'fisheries-dependent' house-holds may be used generally to refer to mosthouseholds in the Tonle Sap Lake, it isrecognized that the degree of dependencyvaries between types of villages due to theirlocations or proximity to the waters. The cate-gorization used in Rab et al. (2005) suggeststhat 'fishing villages' have the highest degreeof dependency on fisheries resources and'farming villages' are the least dependent. Thisis evidenced by the difference in the timespent fishing: 4.55 person-hours per day perhousehold for fishing villages vs. 2.07 person-hours for farming villages during closed sea-son. Those located along the waters and ininundated forests have better access to fish-ing grounds and thus depend highly on fish-ing, while those with access to agriculturallands are naturally more involved in farmingactivities (Ahmed et al., 1998). Similarly,households located within six meters of eleva-tion from mean water level rely more heavilyon aquatic resources than those in higher ele-vations and in urban areas (Keskinen, 2003).Furthermore, a study (ADB, 2005) using thezoning model adopted by the Tonle SapBiosphere Reserve Project shows that peopleliving in the core zone (with high degree ofprotection) rely more heavily on aquaticresources and, thus, are more concerned withrenewable natural assets than those living inthe buffer zone (areas designated for sustain-able development) and in the transition zone(areas with relatively high degree of econom-ic activity). This last study also emphasizesthe importance of agriculture for people in thecore and buffer zones.

The diversification of income generating andsubsistence activities is an important liveli-hood strategy for the majority of the peopleliving around the Tonle Sap Lake, regardlessof primary occupation, gender, age and edu-cation. The importance of aquatic resources isemphasized when considering that activitiessuch as gathering of aquatic plants, non-aquatic and wild animals, water birds and

The majority of households in theTonle Sap Lake maybe referred to as'fishing-dependent', although thedegree of dependency varies betweenvillage types (e.g., fishing, fishing cumfarming, farming) and due to theirlocations or proximity to the waters.

Fishing households tend to havehigher percentage of expenditure onconsumables compared to fishingcum farming and farming households.Thus more fishers are in debt,borrowing mainly from relatives,friends, traders and local moneylenders -- generally not from financialinstitutions.

Households around the Tonle SapLake are distinguished by their occu-pational pluralism, implying that liveli-hood consideration has to take intoaccount the dependency of people onfisheries and the entire aquaticecosystem.

Synopsis 5

firewood take place on a daily basis to supportbasic needs of these rural communities. Forexample, all households collect firewood forcooking and fish processing and the majorityof households rely on collection of morningglory, baringtonia leaves (or trouy rang) andwater lily for household consumption. Thesetwo activities, as well as use of rivers for trans-portation, were considered most important bythe households surveyed in Rab et al.'s study(Table 4). Access to and utilization of these

common property resources is thus a criticalfactor in sustaining livelihoods, particularly thelivelihoods of people with little or no alterna-tives. The declining trend in accessibility andavailability of products and benefits derivedfrom common property resources, especiallyinundated forests and big rivers and lakes,was indicated in 1995 (Ahmed et al., 1998),and in the more recent study (Keskinen,2003). Some of the reasons for this trend, inaddition to overfishing which directly impactsfishing livelihoods, are changes in environ-mental conditions, population growth andhabitat destruction (Keskinen, 2003).

Traditional gender roles have a bearing onlivelihood strategies. Women continue to bearthe main responsibilities for home-making andchild rearing, although they also collect food,vegetables and other common propertyresources for home consumption. Men, on theother hand, often work outside the house to

earn income, including from fishing or farming,or both. Typically, women are not directlyinvolved in fishing, but they are key actors inthe supply chain of aquatic products, in fishculture and in the maintenance of fishinggears (Israel et al., 2005; McKenney and Tola,2002; Keskinen, 2003). This traditional genderdivision of activity is not apparent in house-holds headed by females where comparablenumber of female heads of householdsreported similar primary occupations as male

heads of household (Table 5). When neces-sity requires and opportunities presentthemselves, women, often together with theirchildren, go fishing in rivers using small gillnets. In other words, female involvement infishing may likely be higher than traditionallyunderstood since much of their activity, whichis aimed at provisioning for the household, is'invisible'.

Is fishing a preferred lifestyle or is it the onlylivelihood option? The study by Ahmed et al.(1998) revealed that some of the main rea-sons for people's involvement in fishing areinherited family tradition, part of traditionalfood collection for home consumption, andprovision of cheap food source. According toKeskinen (2003), more than 60 percent of thesurveyed households living further away fromthe Tonle Sap Lake indicated the ability tochange from fishing to other occupations,while those living closer to water bodies areless able to change. Considering that about

Access to, and utilization of, commonproperty resources is a critical factorin sustaining people's livelihood,particularly those with little livelihoodalternatives.

Diversification of income generatingand subsistence activities is animportant livelihood strategy for themajority of the people living aroundthe Tonle Sap Lake, regardless ofprimary occupation, gender, age andeducation.

Synopsis6

Table 4 Importance of common property resources based on the reportof uses by surveyed households in Kampong Chhnang and Siem Reap

Level of % households Common property resourcesimportance using resources

Very high >80 Firewood, morning gloryHigh >60 Barringtonia leaves (trouy rang), water lily, serbania flower

(phkasnor)Medium >30 Garcinia (Sundane), water (for transportation), rat, mollusc,

snails/crabs, lotus and lotus rootsLow >10 Mat making materials, Garmcinia loureri fruits (sleuk sundane),

water spinach (kanchhet), animal grazing, swamp eels,traditional medicine, recreation, snakes, toads

Very low <10 Wild animals/birds, saomao prey, bamboo/canes, turtles

Synopsis 7

40-60 percent of households adjoining theTonle Sap Lake live below poverty line (ADB,2005), it is important to acknowledge theimportance of livelihood diversification andalternative employment opportunities outsidethe fisheries sector.

4. Values of fisheries and aquaticresources

Information about values of fisheries andaquatic resources is useful to determine theextent to which resources contribute to thecountry's economic and social welfare, as well

as to sustaining rural livelihoods, particularlywhere dependency on resources is high, as inthe case of Tonle Sap Lake communities.'Total' values of aquatic ecosystem can beconsidered in terms of use and non-usevalues (Figure 1). Among use values aredirect use, indirect use and option values.'Direct use' values are obtained from produc-tion, consumption and sale of resources, suchas through fishing, farming and firewoodcollection, as well as non-consumptive usessuch as energy, shelter, transportation andrecreation. 'Indirect use' values are derivedfrom ecological functions and servicesprovided by aquatic resource systems interms of, for example, use of flooded forestsas natural fish nurseries and spawning andforaging grounds, maintenance of waterquality, flow and storage, flood control andstorm protection, nutrient retention and micro-climate stabilization. 'Option value' is value ofpreserving the option to use the resources in

Female involvement in fishing maylikely be higher than traditionallyunderstood since much of theiractivity is often 'invisible'.

Figure 1 Different kinds of values associated with Tonle Sap aquatic ecosystem

Table 5 Percentage distribution of male and female headsof household by type of occupation and village type

Fishing Fishing cum farming FarmingType of occupation Male Female Male Female Male FemaleFishing 82 89 68 70 12 8Fish trading - - 3 - - -Fish culture 9 - - - - -Farming 5 5 24 30 86 92Laborer - - 1 - - -Government/NGO job 1 5 1 - 3 -Teaching - - 1 - - -Others - - 1 - - -

TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE

USE VALUE NON USE VALUEIntrinsic

significance ofresources and

ecosystems, e.g.Existence valueBequest valueCulture valueHeritage value

DIRECT VALUEProcution andconsumptiongoods, e.g.

Fish, FirewoodTransportation

Shelter

INDIRECT VALUEEcosystem

functions andservices, e.g.

Water flowNutrient cyclingFlood control

OPTION VALUEPremium placed

on possible future uses or

applications, e.g.Closed season

Sancturary

the future, for example, in putting asideprotected areas. The other type of values,'non-use', are intrinsic values such as 'exis-tence' values derived from the knowledge thatsomething is there, regardless of current orfuture use possibilities, and 'bequest' valueassociated with the desire to set asideresources for future generations. Non-usevalues are less tangible and more difficult toestimate than direct and indirect use valuesand thus are seldom considered in manage-ment decisions. In fact, valuation of naturalresources is often aimed at capturing directuse values, which is already a challengingtask, considering that 'total values' are likely tobe higher than the estimates (see, forexample, Ratner et al. (2004), on wetlandsvalues). Overall, while it may be desirable toprovide 'dollar figures' as estimates of values,the difficulty in valuation of natural resourcesmakes it more suitable to infer values of theresources by assessing resource uses andaccessibility and their importance to locallivelihoods.

One approach to obtain net economic values(NEV) of fisheries, aquatic and other commonproperty resources is by estimation of totalrevenues from production and sale of theseproducts. Total costs of production are thensubtracted from total revenues. Anotherapproach is to indirectly estimate values from

reported 'gross' household income fromdifferent activities. While these data alone arenot the indication of total values of resources,they reflect the importance of resources interms of income dependency. In a survey ofrural communities involved in subsistence andsmall-scale commercial fishing activities,these two estimates of values are likely to besimilar, especially since when asked aboutincome from various activities, respondentstend to first think of the amount they produceand the prices obtained. As in the calculationof NEV, cost information is needed to turngross income into net income. This informa-tion, however, is generally difficult to obtain.Estimation of NEV is therefore not attempedhere.

Using data from household surveysconducted by Rab et al. (2005), direct usevalues of Tonle Sap Lake fisheries andaquatic resources are estimated based onreported annual household income from allsources. Estimates of individual householdincome are provided by 'level' of income (orwealth category) to differentiate the size andscale of activities (Table 6). The difference inaverage annual household income betweenthe highest income level and the lowestincome level is vast, but the gap is particu-larly wide in fishing villages. Further, incomeper household differs slightly between village

Synopsis8

Average annual household income (US$)Kampong Chhnang Siem Reap Both

Fishing Fishing Fishingcum cum cum

Income level Fishing farming Farming Fishing farming Farming Fishing farming Farming≤1,000 412 414 406 655 580 432 533 466 4181,001 - 2,000 1,254 1,221 1,296 1,320 1,322 1,451 1,289 1,302 1,3982,001 - 5,000 2,548 3,655 3,345 3,525 2,991 3,345 3,525> 5,000 6,448 9,617 5,445 8,349 5,445

Number of householdsKampong Chhnang Siem Reap Both

Fishing Fishing Fishingcum cum cum

Income level Fishing farming Farming Fishing farming Farming Fishing farming Farming≤1,000 26 42 42 26 19 37 52 61 791,001 - 2,000 11 3 3 12 12 4 23 15 72,001 - 5,000 6 4 11 4 10 11 4>5,000 2 3 2 5 2

45 45 45 45 44* 45 90 89 90

Table 6 Estimates of average annual household income (US$) from all sources,categorized by level of income, by village type, by province

* one sample (outlier) was removed.

types and provinces, with households infishing villages having the lowest level ofincome and households in Kampong Chhnangwith lower income in all categories than thosein Siem Reap. Also shown in Figure 2, themajority of households in these two provinces,especially in Kampong Chhnang, earn lessthan US$1,000 per year. In both cases, thereare more households in the low income levelin farming villages than in fishing villages.

The 'direct use' values (gross) reported inTable 6 are based on income of individualhousehold. An estimation procedure is used tocalculate total direct use values for all 'aquaticresource-dependent' households in the fiveprovinces. The term is used here to recognizethe broader importance of the Tonle Sap Lakebeyond direct benefit from fishing. It isimportant to note that these estimates are the'minimum' values at best (or on the lower end

of the income range), considering that a goodproportion of products from various activitiesare for home consumption. Some suggestionson how to adjust these estimates arediscussed below.

First, the number of households in eachprovince is obtained from 2002 census(UNDP, 2003) and the proportions of aquaticresource-dependent households in eachprovince are based on Ahmed et al. (1998).On average, about 42 percent of communes

in the five provinces are considered 'fishing'communes, with the highest percentage (55percent) in Kampong Chhnang and the lowestin Siem Reap (31 percent). Using theseproportions, the total population depending onaquatic resources of the Tonle Sap isestimated at about 1.25 million (based on anaverage household size of six), suggestingabout 2 percent growth rate from 1995 datareported in Ahmed et al. (1998). Averageincome at the individual household level fromthese two provinces (by income category) isused to estimate income for the other threeprovinces, assuming that estimates forKampong Chhnang represent households onthe lower end of the income range, whilethose for Siem Reap represent the higher end(Table 6). Note also that, for simplification,income is averaged for all village types. Table7 shows the calculation of total 'gross' annualincome for all aquatic resource-dependent

households for the five provinces around theTonle Sap Lake. Estimates for the other threeprovinces (Battambang, Pursat and KampongThom) are based on average values betweenKampong Chhnang and Siem Reap.

Overall, US$215 million is estimated as grossannual income for these communities, indicat-ing thus a 'portion' of direct use values andimportance of aquatic resources to Tonle Sapcommunities. This implies per capita incomeper annum of about US$172, based on the

Synopsis 9

Figure 2 Percentage distribution of households by income level for each village type

% h

ouse

hold

s by

inco

me

leve

l

Fishing Fishing Farmingcum

farming

Fishing Fishing Farmingcum

farming

Synopsis10

Table 7 Total 'gross' income for aquatic resource-dependent households of the Tonle Sap Lake

a) Average annual income per household (US$)

KampongIncome level Chhnang Siem Reap Both≤≤1,000 83 61 721,001 - 2,000 12 21 162,001 - 5,000 4 14 9>5,000 1 4 3

KampongIncome level Chhnang Siem Reap Both≤≤1,000 409 556 4701,001 - 2,000 1,229 1,364 1,3212,001 - 5,000 2,548 3,508 3,287>5,000 6,448 7,531 6,897

b) Percentage distribution of households by income level

c) Estimated number of aquatic resource-dependent households by income level

Kampong KampongIncome level Chhnang Siem Reap Battambang Pursat Thom Total

≤≤1,000 39,742 24,630 32,384 27,309 26,924 150,9881,001 - 2,000 5,746 8,479 7,196 6,069 5,983 3,34732,001 - 5,000 1,915 5,653 4,048 3,414 3,365 18,395>5,000 479 1,615 1,349 1,138 1,122 5,703Total 47,882 40,376 44,978 37,929 37,394 208,560

Kampong KampongIncome level Chhnang Siem Reap Battambang Pursat Thom Total

≤≤1,000 16.2 13.7 15.2 12.8 12.7 70.61,001 - 2,000 7.1 11.6 9.5 8.0 7.9 44.12,001 - 5,000 4.9 19.8 13.3 11.2 11.1 60.3>5,000 3.1 12.2 9.3 7.8 7.7 40.1Total 31.3 57.2 47.3 39.9 39.4 215.1

d) Estimated ‘gross’ income for all households by province (million US$)

estimate number of about 209,000 house-holds with an average size of six. When con-sidering household income by income level,the situation is stark for the majority of house-holds, as over 70 percent of all householdsearn income of only about US$470, or percapita income of about US$78 (Figure 3). Putdifferently, about 12 percent of households(with annual income above US$2,000) cap-ture almost half of the total gross income fromall households. Most likely, households withaverage income less than US$1,000 aresmall-scale, subsistence fishers and farmerswho rely heavily, if not entirely, on aquaticresources for their livelihoods, while thoseearning high income are middle-scale fishersand fishing lot owners. The disparity in incomedistribution between households is a seriousproblem that needs to be addressed.

In addition to values estimated from reportedhousehold income (from production and sale),values of fisheries for home consumption areadded. Based on utilization of catches in Table2 and the average price of fish at US$0.25 perkilogram, about US$63 is estimated as anannual average consumption value perhousehold. The total consumption value for allhouseholds is thus about US$13 million (Table8). Adding this proportion to the households

Diversification of income generatingand subsistence activities is animportant livelihood strategy for themajority of the people living aroundthe Tonle Sap Lake, regardless ofprimary occupation, gender, age andeducation.

gross income results in an estimate of aboutUS$228 million for direct consumptive usevalues of fisheries and aquatic resources ofthe Tonle Sap Lake.

For Tonle Sap Lake communities whose liveli-hood strategies signify a diverse range ofincome generating and subsistence activities,

benefits from utilization of common propertyresources are added to the above grossincome. Based on Rab et al. (2005), aboutUS$26 per household on average (highest forfishing village at US$42 and lowest forfarming village at US$16) are obtained fromcollection of aquatic plants and animals. Whilethis value is small, it is significant for people in

Synopsis 11

(* data from table 2)

Income level (US$)

>5,000

3 6,897

2,001 - 5,000

9 3,287

1,001 - 2,000

16 1,321

≤≤1,000

72 470

% Household in each income level Annual household income (US$)

Figure 3 Percent distribution of number of householdsand estimatedgross annual income by income level

Average home consumption (kg)Fishing

cumProvince Fishing farming Farming AllKampong Chhnang 136 172 150 153Siem Reap 723 240 128 364Average 258

Consumption values (US$)Fishing

cumProvince Fishing farming Farming AllKampong Chhnang 33 42 37 37Siem Reap 177 59 31 89Average 63

Province Consumption values (million US$)Kampong Chhnang 1.8Siem Reap 3.6Battambang 2.8Pursat 2.4Kampong Thom 2.4Total 13.0

a) Average total annual household comsumption of fisheries catches*

b) Average total values per household (average unit price is about US$0.25/kg)

c) Total consumption vulues from fisheries for all apuatic-dependent households

Table 8 Consumption values of fisheries

the lower income level, contributing about 2-6percent to income from main economicactivities. The estimated value of commonproperty resources for aquatic resource-dependent households with income less thanUS$2,000 in the five provinces is about US$5million, giving the estimated total direct'consumptive' use value (gross) of Tonle SapLake aquatic resources of about US$233million.

Estimation of average annual householdincome by income level, as done here, allowsdifferentiation of livelihood dependency ofcommunities around the Tonle Sap Lake.Overall, it can be stated that the majority of thepeople living around the Tonle Sap are highlydependent on aquatic resources. Their lowincome level makes them more vulnerablethan those in the higher income levels. It isimportant to underscore, however, that esti-mates reported here are based on severalassumptions and do not include indirect usesand other values of the Tonle Sap Lake. Atbest, these are the 'minimum' values andshould be used only to indicate the impor-tance of fisheries and aquatic resources to thepeople of the Tonle Sap Lake. Another limita-tion is the use of data from surveyed house-holds in Kampong Chhnang and Siem Reapto provide the estimates for the other threeprovinces. More detailed study is required inorder to improve these estimates. Note thatthis can be a simple exercise, for example, ofconducting field surveys of households in theother three provinces mainly to obtain theproportion of households in different villagetypes.

It is important to re-emphasize that considera-tion thus far is focused primarily on eliciting afraction of economic values of fisheries andaquatic resources of the Tonle Sap Lake.Ecological and social values of theseresources have not been captured. Moreimportantly, fisheries and aquatic resources

are only a portion of the overall wetlandsecosystems of the Tonle Sap Lake thatcomprise of rivers, streams, lakes, rice fields,inundated flooded areas and other areas thatare either seasonally or permanently coveredby water. Ecological, social and economicvalues of these wetlands are vast and, there-fore, need to be included in the discussion,particularly in the consideration of people'slivelihoods, their resource dependency, in thedesign of resource use policy and in decision-making processes (Bonheur et al., 2005).

5. Issues and challenges in sustainingfishing livelihoods

Aquatic resource-dependent communitiesaround the Tonle Sap Lake face severalchallenges in sustaining their livelihoods.From ecological and environmental perspec-tives, they are vulnerable to short- and long-term climatic variations affecting, for example,changes in the amount of rains, flood leveland duration, and changes in the size offlooded forest areas. Such changes can alsobe induced by human activities, such as damconstruction, defo-restation, use of pesticidesin agriculture and land development. Onedirect consequence of these natural andanthropogenic changes on fisheries andaquatic resources is the loss of spawninggrounds and habitats, which results inreduction of catches. Other kinds of activitieswith adverse impacts on fisheries catches,and thus income to communities, are use ofillegal and destructive fishing gears andoverfishing. Other developments, includingaquaculture, agriculture, tourism and housing,may also cause loss of flooded forest anddegradation to the health of Tonle Sapaquatic ecosystems.

Along with the above, Tonle Sap Lakecommunities are faced with social andeconomic challenges. As commonly foundaround the world, population growth, socialand economic conflicts due to decliningresources, increasing fishing pressure,changes in ownership and access (toresources and markets), and gender andethnic inequality are some of the issues facedin sustaining livelihoods of people living in andaround the Tonle Sap. Conflicts between usergroups are further aggravated by seasonalfishers whose occupation of parts of the lakeduring fishing season and whose frequent useof illegal fishing techniques cause directcompetition with local communities

The estimates reported here are, atbest, the 'minimum' direct use valuesof the Tonle Sap Lake. Ecological,social and other economic values ofthe Tonle Sap and the overall wetlandsecosystems need to be captured anddiscussed in the design of naturalresource management policy toreflect the importance of theseresources to the people's livelihoods.

Synopsis12

(MAFF-CNMC, 2003). Finally, alternativeemployment may not be an option for mostpeople whose livelihoods have long beendepended on uses of the fisheries, aquaticand common property resources. Constraintssuch as low education and poor transportationfurther inhibit opportunities for other incomegenerating activities (Israel et al., 2005).

Another major challenge to sustainingfisheries livelihoods is the governance andinstitutional arrangements required toimplement the recent fisheries policy reforms.Since its introduction in October 2000, about440 community fisheries organizations havebeen established through the initiative of theDepartment of Fisheries (DOF), and withsupport from various fisheries and environ-mental-related non-governmental organiza-tions. Impacts of such reforms on povertyreduction and food security, which are parts ofthe key goals, have been largely discussedand the first 'official' round of assessment wasconducted in 2003/2004 in three provinces,Kampong Cham, Pursat and Takeo, byCommunity Fisheries Development Office(CFDO) and others (see details in CFDO andDFID, 2004). In general, the assessmentreveals positive changes in poverty reductionfor the majority of poor people, particularlysmall-scale fishers, farmers and fish traders,with increasing income and job opportunities.Initial improvement in food security may notbe sustained, however, considering highcompetitions and decline in resource base.Alternative livelihoods need to be furtherexplored in order to reduce pressure on usesof fisheries and aquatic resources. CFDO andDFID (2004) also recommend capacitybuilding and strengthening of communitiesand institutions to manage the fisheries andfacilitate the process. This point is empha-sized in other studies (e.g., Keskinen, 2003;Israel et al., 2005), as the reforms took placeso rapidly that many communities andinstitutions may not be ready to cope with allthe changes, and the legislative frameworkrequired for implementation and enforcementhas not yet been established. The three types of challenges presentedabove, i.e., ecological and environmental,social and economic, and policy and manage-ment, deserve further discussion. InNovember 2004, some 40 participants fromkey government units in charge of fisheries,e.g., DOF, Provincial Offices and CFDO, aswell as non-governmental organizationsconvened to consider what responses are

needed to address these challenges.The summary of their recommendations isprovided in Table 9. From ecological andenvironmental perspectives, key issuesidentified by workshop participants are relatedto loss of habitats and flooded forests, impactsof fishing gears and other developments.There is a need for research to assessimpacts of activities, including the use ofillegal fishing gears on fisheries resources andaquatic ecosystems. Of particular interest isthe consideration for critical habitats and thesuggestion to establish sanctuaries, possiblywith no fishing zones, at the community level(i.e., with community involvement). Thisinitiative might also be useful in preventingpoaching and in addressing law enforcementproblems in existing sanctuaries (MAFF-CNMC, 2003; Baran et al., in press).

Key issues concerning socioeconomics andlivelihoods of Tonle Sap Lake communities areconflicts between stakeholders (specificallymigrant and seasonal fishers with their use ofillegal fishing gears), limited access to marketand credits and lack of alternative livelihoods.Recommended as important responses toaddress these concerns are systematic andcomprehensive research and data collectionof basic social and economic information suchas changes in fishing patterns, catches, catchcomposition, employment, migration of fish-ers, ethnic difference, and other livelihoodcharacteristics. Research to improve marketaccess, contribution of fish in people's nutri-tion, and post-harvest productions were alsodiscussed. Further, a suggestion was made toexamine the changing roles of women in thenew context of community fisheries, for exam-ple, their increased participation in economicactivities or in decision-making.

As emphasized above, further work isrequired to improve the estimates of values offisheries and aquatic resources, by incorporat-ing other use and non-use values, as well asconsidering the relationship between ecosys-tem and livelihoods. Given the disparity in

Main challenges in sustaining fishinglivelihoods are related to ecologicaland environmental aspects (e.g.,stakeholders conflicts, limited liveli-hood options), and policy andmanagement aspects (e.g., effectiveparticipation of stakeholders).

Synopsis 13

Factors/key issues

1. Ecological/environmental aspectsLack of information about critical habitats andfunctions of sanctuaries

Use of potentially harmful and destructive fishinggears

Impacts of upstream dams on Tonle Sap Lakefisheries

Decrease in flooded forests

Conflicts between irrigated agriculture, fisheries,aquaculture and other uses

2. Socioeconomics aspectsIncompatible methods of data collection andanalysis

Conflicts due to diverse ethnicity of Tonle SapLake communities (e.g., Khmer, Vietnamese, andCham)

Conflicts between seasonal migrant fishers andlocal communities

Limited access to market at a commune level andto small-scale credits (resulting in high indebted-ness to middlemen)

Lack of technical skills and capital for improve-ment of post-harvest sector

Lack of alternative livelihoods

Vitamin deficiency among fishing communities

Lack of understanding of the changing roles ofwomen in the context of community fisheries

Research/Actions needs

Need to conduct research on critical habitats toprovide appropriate protection and to establishsanctuaries at local level, possibly with no fishingzone

Need to identify which gears are destructive,especially gears previously not allowed, as wellas to determine the impacts on fish population

Need to determine the extent of changes inhydrology of Mekong River and its impact on thefisheries

Need to conduct ecosystem research to assessimpacts of decreasing flooded forests on fisheries

Need to assess impacts of different uses on TonleSap aquatic ecosystems, as well as their viabilityand roles in sustainable poverty reduction

Need to encourage use of similar data collectionmethod and analysis in order to observe changesand trends

Need to collect basic information to differentiate,for example, number of fishers, means of liveli-hood, approaches to conflict resolution, for eachethnic group

Need to understand motivation and pattern ofmigration, impacts of resource use, as well asdefine (and obtain consensus on) use rightsregime

Need to understand market access and marketingsystem, nature and sources of credits and netincome for small-scale fishers

Need to develop new methods and techniques toimprove post-harvest products, including value-added

Need to explore livelihood options that corre-spond to communities' needs and aspirations

Need to identify ways to improve contribution offish to nutrition in diet

Need to examine changes in access to resourcesfor women and their contribution to fishing, inves-tigate if new skills are required, and support theirparticipation in decisions and economic activities

Synopsis14

Table 9 Summary of responses required to address challenges in sustaining livelihoods of thepeople living in and around the Tonle Sap Lake

household income among small-scale fishers,middle-scale fishers and fishing lot owners,and the varying degree of livelihood depend-ency on Tonle Sap Lake ecosystem, morestudies are required to obtain a better under-standing of values and to address the existingdisparity.

In terms of policy and management, the iden-tified needs included the understanding ofimpacts of laws and regulations on people'slivelihoods, the compatibility of differentnatural resource laws and the need for newdefinitions (e.g., of subsistence fisheries) tocorrespond with changes in fishing patternsand gear uses. Effectiveness of the policyreforms needs to be critically assessed,particularly in terms of benefit sharing andstakeholders' inclusion/exclusion issues.Finally, there is a need to examine the likelyimpacts of WTO policies on inland fisheriesand small-scale fishers of the Tonle Sap Lakein promoting commercialization, changing thenature of trade, and increasing demand.

6. Conclusion

Fishing is an important activity for the majorityof households in the Tonle Sap Lake, repre-senting more than one-third of people'sprimary occupation. The importance of TonleSap aquatic ecosystems lies beyond catchesfrom fisheries, however, as people living in

and around the Tonle Sap Lake engage indiverse income generating and livelihoodactivities, including farming, collection offirewood and uses of common propertyresources. Indeed, occupational pluralism isan important socioeconomic characteristic ofTonle Sap Lake communities, implying thatlivelihood considerations need to take intoaccount the dependency of people on theentire aquatic ecosystem.

The estimated values from direct uses of fish-eries and aquatic resources show the vast dis-parity between households with differingincome levels. While the gross annual incomefrom direct uses for all fisheries-dependenthouseholds in the five provinces is estimatedat US$233 million, only one-third is capturedin households with income less thanUS$1,000. These low-income households,earning per capita income of about US$78,comprise about 70 percent of all households.They are mostly small-scale, subsistence fish-ers and farmers who rely heavily on aquaticresources for their livelihoods. The values andimportance of Tonle Sap aquatic ecosystemare even more significant to these peoplegiven the scarcity of employment alternatives.

Considering that at least 50 percent of allinland fisheries come from small-scale andrice field fisheries (MAFF-CNMC, 2003), andbased on the importance of fisheries and

3. Policy and managementImpacts of laws and policies on people's liveli-hood in fisheries and other sectors

Lack of awareness about law, rules, and regula-tions, particularly among new migrants

Lack of incentives to join natural resource man-agement groups

Effectiveness of Community Fisheries

Impacts of World Trade Organization (WTO)

Need to conduct research on impacts of onenatural resource law on another and examinetheir compatibility

Need to consider a new definition for 'subsistencefishing' to correspond to the changes broughtabout by increasing fishing pressure and improveawareness

Need to raise awareness especially amongseasonal migrants with no adjacency and tie toresources

Need to assess whether the decentralizationprocess is working, e.g., in relation to benefitsharing, inclusion/exclusion issues, based onexisting practices

Need to examine the likely impacts of WTO oninland fisheries and small-scale fishers of TonleSap Lake, e.g., whether it will promote commer-cialization, change the nature of trade andincrease demand

Synopsis 15

(Table 9, continued)

aquatic resources to the livelihoods of morethan a million people living in and around theTonle Sap Lake, as shown in this report,serious considerations and direct efforts arerequired to ensure that their livelihoods arenot compromised. The recent fisheries policyreforms, with their focus on community-basedresource management, are critical steps,which need to be supported by appropriateinstitutional arrangements and governancesystems. This may imply a shift of researchand policy focus from addressing poverty andlivelihood problems from resource perspec-tives (e.g., overfishing) to governance per-spectives (e.g., an understanding of the socio-institutional mechanisms governing people'saccess to resources (Béné, 2003)). An inter-active governance framework that involvesactions and participation from all stakeholdersto solve societal problems and to createopportunities (Kooiman et al., 2005) is anexample of a system that might be worthpursuing. It corresponds well with the'Sustainable Livelihood Approach' that

integrates natural, social, physical, financialand human components in the formulation ofpolicy, institutions and processes, based onthe context of sustainability, vulnerability andpoverty (see www.livelihoods.org).

Key research and policy considerations areprovided to address challenges in ecological,social, economic and governance aspects ofTonle Sap Lake aquatic ecosystems. Theseinclude enhancing knowledge about theecosystem and the relationship between eco-logical and livelihood importance, and under-standing of social dynamics of stakeholders,including migrant and seasonal fishers andfishers of various ethnic groups to addressissues related to conflicts of resource use andaccess. Research on improving estimates ofvalues of Tonle Sap Lake fisheries and aquat-ic ecosystems by incorporating other use andnon-use values is required. Finally, policy con-siderations are needed to address the existingdisparity in income among aquatic resource-dependent households.

Synopsis16

Suggested research and policy considerations:Increasing knowledge about the ecosystem, e.g., the relationship between loss of habitats and flooded forests, impacts of fishing gears and other activities on the health and productivity of the Tonle Sap Lake;Understanding social dynamics of stakeholders, including migrant, seasonal fishers and fishers of various ethnic groups, to address issues related to use of illegal and harmful gears, stakeholders conflicts, resource access, and market;Increasing awareness about the existing disparity in income among households; Improving estimates of values of Tonle Sap Lake fisheries and aquatic ecosystems by incorporating other use and non-use values;Exploring livelihood options, strategies and alternatives to assess impacts of various activities and of different policy options, in order to ensure food security and quality of life;Understanding roles and contributions of women to income generation and sustaining livelihoods, as well as in management and decision-making process; andExamining the effectiveness of the recent policy reforms, particularly in terms of benefit sharing and stakeholders' inclusion/exclusion issues, in order to make necessary adjustment in institutional arrangement and governance structure.

ADB. 2005. The Tonle Sap Basin Strategy.Asian Development Bank, Philippines. 44 p.

Ahmed, M., Hap, N., Vuthy, L. and Tiongco,M. 1998. Socio-economic assessment offreshwater capture fisheries of Cambodia:Report on a household survey. Mekong RiverCommission, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 186 p.

Baran, E. 2005. Cambodian inland fisheries:facts, figures and context. WorldFish Centre,and Inland Fisheries Research andDevelopment Institute, Phnom Penh,Cambodia. 49p.

Baran, E., Jantunen, T. and Chong, C.K. (inpress). Values of inland fisheries in theMekong River Basin. In: Neiland A.E. (ed.).River Fisheries Valuation: A Global Synthesisand Critical Review with Particular Referenceto Developing Countries. Report for theComprehensive Assessment of WaterManagement in Agriculture.

Béné, C. 2003. When fisheries rhyme withpoverty: A first step beyond the old paradigmon poverty in small-scale fisheries. WorldDevelopment 31(6): 949-975.

Bonheur, N., Kosal, M., Kosal, M., Sour, K.and Song, S. L. 2005. Towards a holisticapproach to wetlands governance. The legaland institutional framework and economic val-uation of wetland resources in Cambodia. p.53-98. In: Oh et al. (eds.) WetlandsGovernance in the Mekong Region: CountryReports on the Legal-Institutional Frameworkand Economic Valuation of AquaticResources. WorldFish Center, Penang,Malaysia.

CFDO and DFID. 2004. Policy Reform ImpactAssessment, Cambodia: Impacts of theFisheries Policy Reforms in Kampong Cham,Pursat and Takeo Provinces. 1° RoundAssessment Report. Community FisheriesDevelopment Office, Department of Fisherieswith assistance from IMM Ltd., U.K., andDepartment of International Development.March 2004.

DOF, 2004. Statistics of FisheriesProduction 1980 to 2003. Department ofFisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry andFisheries. Cambodia.

Israel, D.C., Ahmed, M., Hong, Y.B., andChee, H.M. 2005. Aquatic resources valuationand policies for poverty elimination in theLower Mekong Basin. DFID and WorldFishCentre, Penang, Malaysia. 189 pp. + annexes.

Keskinen, M. 2003. The Great Diversity ofLivelihoods? - Socio-economic survey of theTonle Sap Lake. WUP-FIN Socio-EconomicStudies on Tonle Sap 8, MRCS/WUP-FIN,Phnom Penh.

Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S. andPullin R. (eds.) 2005. Fish for Life: InteractiveGovernance for Fisheries. AmsterdamUniversity Press.

MAFF-CNMC. 2003. National Sector Review2003: Fisheries Management. Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) inassociation with Cambodia National MekongCommittee (CNMC). 15 p.

McKenney, B. and Tola, P. 2002. Naturalresources and rural livelihoods in Cambodia:a baseline assessment. CambodianDevelopment Resource Institute, WorkingPaper 23, 166 p.

Rab, M.A., Hap, N., Ahmed, M., Keang, S.L.,and Viner, K. 2005. Socioeconomics andValues of Resources in Great Lake - TonleSap and Mekong - Bassac Area: Results froma Sample Survey in Kampong Chhnang, SiemReap and Kandal Provinces. WorldFishCenter, Penang, Malaysia. (Available atwww.ifredi.org)

Ratner, B.D., Ha, D.T., Kosal, M., Nissapa,A., and Chanphengxay, S. 2004.Undervalued and Overlooked: SustainingRural Livelihoods through Better Governanceof Wetlands. WorldFish Center Studies andReviews 28. 24 p.

UNDP. 2003. Database of Commune Profile2002. Ministry of Planning, Phnom Penh.

Synopsis 17

References