[BACK]   [HOME PAGE]

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 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.

      (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:

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.

      (iii)           Recommendations

·         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.

 [Top]   [BACK]   [HOME PAGE]


[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