Fisheries
are a basic and essential part of the daily livelihood of Cambodian people.
A socio-economic survey in eight fishing provinces, with total population
of 2.4 million in 1995-96, showed that 10.5% of households took fishing as their
primary occupation, while 34.1% were engaged on a part-time basis (Ahmed et al,
1998). In those provinces, more than one million people were either fully or
partly dependent on fisheries for their incomes. Nationwide, more than one sixth
of the population derives employment from the fisheries sector and other related
activities (fish selling, fish processing, manufacture of fishing equipment,
etc). Rural Cambodians consume fish everyday, as well as relying on other
aquatic resources. Fish contribute
between 40-60% of the animal protein intake for rural people and without fish,
many rural people would starve. Therefore, to reduce poverty, efforts should be
taken to improve sustainable access to fishery resources and ensure the
equitable share of these resources for the poor.
The fisheries sector is also
an important part of the national economy, contributing between 5-10% to the
GDP. For the commercial fisheries,
the Tonle Sap Lake represents about 60% of the total commercial fish catch for
the whole country (Van Zalinge and Leng 2000).
The annual inland fisheries catch has been estimated at more that 400,000
tonnes per year, making Cambodia’s inland fisheries the fourth most productive
in the world, and fisheries have been promoted as a sector where Cambodia holds
a ‘comparative advantage’. However,
the fee system for fish sales and exports depress fish prices, which in turn
reduces the income earned by small and medium scale fishers and others working
in the fisheries sector. Moreover,
a recent study has shown that 80% of fish export fees are collected by
institutions with no direct link to fisheries management, and that fisheries
officials responsible for managing the local landing sites and fishing grounds
only collect three percent of all fees.[1]
Low fish prices and
competition over decreasing resources have caused poverty in many fishing
communities. Despite the richness
of natural resources around the Tonle Sap Lake, about 39% of the population in
that area lives below the poverty line, compared with 36% at the national level
(RCG, 1998). Sale of traditional fishing areas as commercial fishing lots
deprived many communities of one of their main livelihood resources.
Fisheries reform in late 2000 partially addressed this problem by
releasing 56% of the commercial fishing lots for local communities to establish
community fisheries. Unfortunately, these were in many cases the cheapest fishing
lots (those valued less than 30 million Riels or US$7,500) and in some cases
were completely unproductive as fishing areas (RGC, 2000).
The reform also failed to end
the conflicts prevailing in the fishing grounds.
Although there are now less major conflicts between communities and
fishing lot owners, there are increasing conflicts related to encroachment,
illegal fishing, and destructive fishing practices.
Overfishing also remains a very serious problem.
Although total
catches have been relatively stable over time, the stable catch figure is
extremely misleading as an index of fish abundance and value. In recent years,
fishing efforts have greatly increased, mean fish body size has decreased and
species composition has shifted, favouring small-bodied, low value species.
These are all symptoms of over-fishing (ADB, 2003). In addition, there is
evidence of household catch decline (Tana and Bruce, 2001) [2].
Given the importance of the
fisheries sector to the national economy and the central role that fisheries
play in the everyday livelihood strategies of millions of Cambodians, wise
management of this vital resource is a key element in poverty reduction.
Regulations for commercial fish trade and export need to be overhauled,
particularly regulations regarding the permit license and fee systems.
But this by itself will not be enough.
Communities must also be made active partners in the process of
protecting, managing and sustainably using fishery resources.
Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) have been engaged in supporting community fisheries using
funds from international donors, and have seen firsthand that communities -- if
given the opportunity and some technical assistance -- are highly motivated to
protect the resource that they depend on for their daily lives.
To date, approximately 264 community fishery groups have been established
(DoF, 2003); many of them have been very successful and can provide important
lessons on how government and communities can work together effectively.
From the NGO perspective, government should make every effort possible to
facilitate community-based management of fishery resources, for the sake of
current and future generations.
1.
Destructive and Illegal Fishing Practices
Use
of destructive and illegal fishing practices is widespread in Cambodia.
Small and medium scale fishers resort to illegal fishing practices due to
pressures to feed their families, pay off debts, and make an adequate income.
Large scale fishing operations use illegal practices to compensate for
high costs related to purchase of commercial scale equipment, licenses, auction
sales of fishing lots, and official and unofficial transportation and marketing
fees. Competition for decreasing
stocks is becoming more severe, and fishers at all levels have shown that they
will take advantage of a weak law enforcement environment and lack of management
systems to try to capture as much as they can immediately, without concern for
the future.
Destructive
fishing practices include the following:
The use of long [one-two kilometer] fine-mesh nets to trap small
and/or less valuable fish which will be turned into fish feed or animal
feed. Also, the use of bag nets on riverways
to catch fish moving upriver to spawn and large commercial fish traps in the
Tonle Sap.
The collection of fingerlings (newly hatched fish) from natural
breeding areas for illegal export and sale[3].
The commercial practice of pumping out lakes or bodies of water in
order to capture all the fish at one time.
Pumping disrupts the ecological balance by removing virtually all
aquatic life including juvenile fish. It also causes problems for
communities who lose their access to water needed for crop irrigation.
Electrocution, explosives, or use of poisons, used by both commercial
and small scale fishers. Electrocuting
fish is the preferred option for illegal fishers along the Tonle Sap as it
is a relatively cheap method that can be undertaken from the shoreline, and
is also a quick and efficient means to catch fish.
Trawling or use of push-boats in shallow waters.
Commercial fishing boats designed for sea fishing are increasingly
encroaching on shallow coastal waters, destroying the seabed and fish
breeding grounds and the livelihoods of traditional coastal fisherfolk.
Encroachment, sometimes backed by armed men, on community areas,
protected areas, or neighboring fishing lots where fish are more plentiful
Lack of clarity over fishing
lot boundaries have led to conflicts between local users groups and commercial
fishing operators. In some cases,
lot owners accuse villagers walking by the fishing lot of intention to fish
illegally or harass community people fishing near the fishing lot border.
Community fisheries also face frequent problems with encroachment and
often have difficulty defending themselves against more powerful and wealthy
adversaries. Community fishery
groups have been threatened by illegal fishers because the community has
reported the illegal fishing to the government.
In at least one case, in Battambang Province, illegal fishers filed a
lawsuit against the fishery community and won their case, leading to the
imprisonment of those who were trying to protect the fishing resources. There is
also the problem that larger scale illegal fishing and encroachment are
sometimes backed by armed men[4]
and by local authorities.
2.
Policies Related to Community Fisheries
The Fisheries Law and the
Sub-decree on Community Fisheries will form a strong base of legislation that
can help protect community rights and livelihoods. Much progress has been made on the draft Fisheries Law and
Sub-decree on Community Fisheries. The RGC has allowed a high level of
participation by fishing dependent community and other stakeholders across the
country in its drafting and in face-to-face meeting between community
representatives and the Department of Fisheries.
NGOs, local community
fisheries and other stakeholders appreciate the RGC's effort to include civil
society and local fishers in the discussion of the current fisheries laws and
policies. However, in many cases following the consultations, civil society and
communities felt that most of the issues, concerns and ideas suggested by local
communities were not seriously considered or integrated into policies.
Local peoples' ideas, concerns and suggestions were regarded as
groundless and lacking in scientific basis, despite the fact that these concerns
and issues are directly related to their daily lives.
Three key issues for policy consideration and reform regarding community
fisheries are outlined below:
Procedures to
organize community fisheries
The government has an
important role to play in setting guidelines and standards for community
fisheries and monitoring implementation. However,
communities and government offices seem to have different ideas of who
can organize community fisheries. Government
officials often seem to take the position that the government must control the
entire process -- organizing the community, making the management plan, and
being solely responsible for enforcement. The
procedures for establishing community fisheries are currently very
time-consuming and complex, requiring separate approvals at every step, from the
district level to the province to the Department of Fisheries to the Ministry.
Especially for communities in remoter areas, arranging meetings and
negotiating recognition at four different levels is an almost impossible task.
Communities and NGOs have
argued that the procedures for organizing and registering as a community fishery
should be simplified. They also
believe that communities should be able to take the initiative on their own to
organize, and should, within certain guidelines set by the government, be
allowed to register and manage their own resources.
This would place the initiative and responsibility in the hands of
community, with the government providing clear standards, technical support, and
monitoring.
Subsistence versus medium scale fishing
Small scale or subsistence
fishing is defined by the use of fishing gears. The current definition of
subsistence fishing was designed during the French colonial era and allows the
free use of traditional fishing methods, but only for consumption, not for sale.
It does not recognize the category of floating communities which fish for
a living --trading their catch for rice, clothes, and other necessities, or of
communities that grow rice for part of the year and fish for both consumption
and income in the dry season. Neither
of these groups can catch enough to survive using only traditional subsistence
methods.
Although the fisheries
reforms turned over 56% of the fishing lots for local communities to establish
community fisheries, communities that organize are only allowed to engage in
subsistence fishing. In a separate
policy decision, the Prime Minister recently eliminated the tax on medium scale
fishing. This creates a serious
disincentive to fishers deciding whether or not to work together to protect
resources -- if they join community fisheries they can only use traditional
fishing equipment, but if they do not join, they can use medium scale gears,
catch more, and fish tax free.
Under these terms,
individuals and communities that fish for income have little incentive to
organize in order to manage, protect, and use their resources sustainably.
Community people have argued that the definition of subsistence fishing
should be changed or that community fisheries should be allowed to fish
according to their statute that they could live on, but ensure sustainability. Communities should have both the right and the
responsibility to make plans that protect the resource for current and future
generations. Whereas the government
has argued that communities only have the right to conserve and manage
resources, communities argue that they must be allowed to conserve, manage, and use their resources.
Enforcement of
community fisheries
A third area where
communities have asked the government to revise its policies is in the area of
enforcement. The draft Sub-decree
and the Fisheries Law do not allow community fishery organizations the right to
arrest those who encroach on the community areas.
This makes it almost impossible for communities to take collective action
to protect their area. It also
places an enormous burden on the government law enforcement officials, who
cannot possibly patrol and enforce all areas on their own.
Communities around the country have shown that it is possible for
community fishery committees to peacefully patrol and arrest violators and to
work in close cooperation with local officials in enforcing rules and
regulations. Communities have repeatedly urged the government to give them
the right to active participation in resource protection -- for the benefit of
the community and of the government.
3.
Reform
of commercial fishing
Commercial
fishing is also an important part of the economy.
Commercial fishing needs to be managed to eliminate destructive and
illegal fishing practices, and to avoid over-fishing.
But there will be little incentive to do this as long as profit margins
on fish sales remain so low. Official
fees are so numerous and so high that if they were enforced, most if not all
fish exporters would be put out of business.
This leads to widespread underreporting and negotiation of informal
payments, including random checkpoints to “check the transport permit” and
demands for fees from institutions that have no clear basis for fee collection.
Fees collected do not support the work of managing fisheries resources
– they also force fish exporters to keep fish prices at the landing sites as
low as possible.[5]
The
fisheries reform failed to end fishing conflicts among different user groups,
and the conflicts continue to exist in different forms. At the same time, the
reform failed to turn all research fishing lots into auctioned lots. On the
contrary, all fishing lots are granted to those who owned them before the reform
as research fishing lots for a period of six years between 2003 and 2009,
extending from four years to six years operation period. The civil society
applauds the free tax policy on medium scale fishing, but observes that fishers
continue to pay for the use of fishing gears larger than family fishing gears.
The
fisheries reform happened suddenly and the decision about the release of the
fishing areas was made soon after the reform without any plan, policy and
direction. The fishing areas released for local communities cover the cheapest
fishing lots and most unproductive fishing grounds. The competition of
small-scale fishers and larger-scale fishers leads to conflict.
·
We urge the RGC to take serious and sustained action against illegal
fishing practices and destruction of fish habitats -- through education and
enforcement.
·
We appreciate the efforts of the RGC to include local community
representatives in high-level consultative workshops on the fisheries policies.
We further encourage the RGC to make the consultative meeting with local
communities for the fisheries policies more productive and ensure that local
people’s suggestions are integrated; otherwise the consultation becomes less
important.
·
We recommend simplifying and streamlining the process of registration for
community fisheries, placing the initiative and responsibility into the hands of
the community with clear transparent guidelines, technical support and
monitoring by the government.
·
We urge that the current definitions of subsistence fishing should be
replaced by a new understanding of subsistence fishing, or that communities be
allowed to organize and engage in fishing practices determined by community
themselves, but that ensure sustainability of fisheries and their livelihoods.
Policy revisions need to be made to provide fishing dependent communities with
incentives to organize and protect their livelihoods for their own use and the
use of future generations. These
revisions should be developed through close consultation with local fishing
communities.
·
We urge that policies be put in place that will allow communities to take
an active role in enforcement and protection of their resource area, and that
provide clear mechanisms for cooperation with authorities. Unless local
communities are given the right to protect their area, illegal fishing and
overexploitation will continue.
·
We recommend that the government overhaul the permit, license and fee
system for fish trade and export, revising the export tax, establishing a
“one-stop” fee payment service, and fostering linkages between fee payment
and visible fisheries management services.
·
We believe that a greater role should be given to Commune Councils to
engage in the management and conservation of fisheries resources.
[1]
Yim
Chea and Bruce McKenney, “Great Lake Fish Exports: An Analysis of the Fee System” in Cambodia Development
Review, CDRI July-September 2003.
[2] Tana, S. and Bruce, T. 2001. The Inland and Marine Fisheries Trade of Cambodia, p. 20-21.
[3]
Scrogging, Lucrative Trade in Baby
Fish a Deadly Business, Phnom Penh Post, 4-17 September 1998.
[4] Often
local police or army officers
[5]Yim and McKenney p 5.
For more information and the issues raised in this paper, please contact Fisheries Action Coalition Team, Tel: 023 990 342, |
Email: fact@everyday.com.kh |