Fisheries
(i) Introduction
Fisheries are a basic
and essential part of the daily livelihood of Cambodian people. A socio-economic
survey in eight fishing provinces, with a total population of 2.4 million in
1995–96, showed that 10.5 percent of households undertook fishing as their
primary occupation, while 34.1 percent 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
provides as much as 70-80% of animal protein in the diet of the 13 million of
Cambodian (Atlas, 2004). 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 10 percent of the national GDP. For the commercial fisheries, the Tonle Sap Lake represents about 60 percent 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 percent 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]
Overexploitation and competition in harvesting and depleting natural resources have resulted in Cambodia’s deepening poverty, especially in many fishing communities. Despite the richness of natural resources around the Tonle Sap Lake, about 39 percent of the population in the vicinity of the lake lives below the poverty line, compared with 36 percent at the national level (RCG, 1998). Sale of traditional fishing areas, often the most productive, 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 percent 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). According to the Cambodian Millennium Development Goals (2003), the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) will increase fisheries communities up to 60% or equal to 589 fishing communities by the year 2015.
Released but unproductive fishing lots now pose an obligation on fishing communities to restore and/or conserve these resources, through community fisheries, according to the current draft community fisheries sub-decree. The government, however, reserves the right to reclaim community-fishing lots for the purposes of serving the major public interest. Community fishers see both advantages and challenges in the draft community fisheries sub-decree and are undecided as to whether they should take part in the community fisheries program. Community fishers still hope for progress following the fisheries sub-decree consultation process during which they submitted their 10-point suggestions on the draft law, although to date the government has accepted only one of those 10 points.
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. The catch of inland fisheries has decreased remarkably over the last 3 years from 385,000 tons in 2001 to 308,750 tons in 2003 (DoF, 2003). These problems have mainly arisen from illegal fishing activities, corruption, burning flooded forest for hunting and conversion to agricultural land, changes in the flow pattern of the Mekong River upstream, and growing population with concomitant increasing market demands. A recent study demonstrated that clearing of 10 percent of the flooded forests would result in a 10 percent decrease in fisheries production (ADB Tonle Sap Sustainable Livelihoods, 2004). Over fishing also remains a very serious problem and has seriously affected fisheries resources. Fishing lot owners and fishers have aimed to maximize their fisheries productions from dwindling stocks, often using illegal means, resulting in fisheries conflicts throughout the country. The lot owners, leaseholders, and sub-leaseholders are trying to maximize their income by intensively exploiting the resource beyond the rule of law (Sithirith, M et al., 2004). The present short-term lease system for commercial fishing lots is not conducive to the establishment of sustainable management practices
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 fees system. But this by itself will not be enough. Communities must also be made active partners in the process of protecting and managing fishery resources for sustainable use.
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.
(ii) Key
Issues
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 river-ways 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[2].
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.
Destruction of fish habitats, such as flooded forest, is directly decreasing fish stocks, as shown in the ADB study mentioned above.
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[3]
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 government has allowed a high level of participation by the fishing dependent community and other stakeholders across the country in its drafting and in face-to-face meetings between community representatives and the DoF.
NGOs, local community fisheries and other stakeholders appreciate the government'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 DoF to the Ministry. Especially for communities in remoter areas, arranging meetings and negotiating recognition at four different levels is an almost impossible task. Some individual researchers have expressed that in most democratic countries of the world people are permitted a degree of self-determination in organizing their day-to-day lives and the same principle should be applicable to Cambodian communities. Communities should have independent roles, rights and responsibilities to manage their own fishing grounds without direct supervision of DoF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries).
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 percent 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 in a sustainable way. 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
Although
commercial fishing is also an important part of the economy it needs to be
managed to eliminate destructive and illegal fishing practices, and to avoid
over-fishing. However, 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.[4]
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 the operation period. 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.
(iii)
Recommendations
We urge the government to take serious and sustained action against illegal fishing practices and destruction of fish habitats — through education and enforcement.
We ask government to fight against corruption in the area of fisheries, and give more incentives to the efforts of communities in organizing and managing community based fisheries. Good governance policies must be in place.
We suggest that the 10-point suggestion of the community fishers towards the draft community fisheries sub-decree be closely reexamined and in doing so that more consultation with the community fishers take place.
We appreciate the efforts of the government 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 urge that loan related programs for organizing and developing community fisheries in Tonle Sap Lake and elsewhere in Cambodia must be approved on the basis of proper informed consent and acceptance by the communities. Cambodia should try to avoid further burdens in loan repayments generated by projects that are not integrated into community livelihood strategies and therefore are unsustainable.
We believe that a greater role should be given to Commune Councils to engage in the management and conservation of fisheries resources.
For more information on the issues raised in this paper, please contact:
Fisheries Action Coalition Team (FACT), Tel: 023 990 342,
Email: factpp@everyday.com.kh, factpp@camnet.com.kh
Web-site: www.fact.org.kh