Case study of fishing lot N o 3 in Siem Reap Province, Cambodia

Transcription

1 Case study of fishing lot N o 3 in Siem Reap Province, Cambodia by Chheng Vibolrith Vice Chief of Fisheries Office, Data Supervisor of the MRC/DoF/Danida Fishery Project in Cambodia, Siem Reap Province 1. Introduction Siem Reap province is located in the north-western part of Cambodia. It is one of the six provinces bordering the Tonle Sap Great Lake with 83 km of shore line. The fisheries domain of the province is divided into 7 fishing lots with a total area of 796 km 2. Individual lots range from 20 to 300 km 2 and are auctioned every two years. One fish sanctuary of 64 km 2 is established in the Great Lake to serve as hiding place for fish species that spawn during dry season. The remaining water area (about 900 km 2 ) has open-access for middle scale and small scale fishing activities. The inundated forest is also classified as fisheries domain by the fisheries law. It occupies about 87,500 ha and lies largely within the fishing lots. The flood forests provide critical habitats for spawning, nursery, and are feeding grounds for many species. 2. Objective The objectives of this case study are 1. To identify the current management system of fishing lot. 2. To understand the current participation of villagers in fishing lots. 3. To figure out ways for improving future fisheries management. 3. Methodology A questionnaire was developed and used to collect information concerning the research of the fishing lot system. It was divided into 5 sections: 1. Mapping exercise (this included the drawing of the lot location with the villages in or nearby the lot, flooded forest, rice paddy, the stream and the location of fishing gears used in the lot). 2. Organizational structure (lot owner, leaser, sub-leaser, sub-sub-leaser). Conditions on which leaser/sub-leaser are allowed to fish within the lot, types of fishing gears. 3. Fishing activities of villagers. (Every 5 th to 6 th household was selected up to a sample size of 25 households. The information collected included the number of household members, occupation, place of permanent residence, types of fishing gear used, etc.). 4. Conflicts over access to fish resources (this included the description of the conflict and the parties involved). 5. Recommendations for future management (what the lot owner, villagers and other stakeholders (DoF) should or should not do in order to improve the management of the fish resources). 4. Results 4.1 Fishing Village One fishing village, Peam Ta Uor, is located between the borders of fishing lot N o 3 in Siem Reap and fishing lot N o 3 in Battambang. It is one of 8 villages in Kao Pour Commune, Puok District, Siem Reap province. The village is a shifting village that moves up and down along the 106

2 stream every year according to the water level of the Great Lake (see map). This fishing village is in existance since 1960 and there were about 100 families. In the Pol Pot time ( ) all people were forced to leave the village, but in 1979 the people returned and the number of families recorded in that year was 73. In 1998 according to the survey, there were 140 families with an average of 6 members per family. All families are involved in fishing, but they also do cage culture, trading, engine boat fixing, cutting grass for sale, labour etc. The fisher families permanently stay in their village and fish close to the village such as in the nearby stream, in the fishing lots and in the open access areas of the Great Lake. The fishing gears used per family were Mong (gill net) with a mesh size ranging from 20 to 70 mm and an average length of 483 m; Santouch (hook and line with a hook number of 12 and 13) with on average 722 hooks, Lop Kamphleanh (Trichogaster trap), Lop Nor (arrow shaped trap), Samnanh (cast net) and Lon Antoung (freshwater eel trap). In general, the fisher families can not afford to buy fishing gears by themselves. The interview has shown that 12 families out of the 25 that were interviewed, have to borrow the money from outsiders (the people living in Puok District Town). The fishers pay back in smoked or fresh fish. This depends on what the money lenders and the market need. Most of the fishers did not pay for fishing permits or licences to the DoF. This is because the number of gears used is small and are considered to be family fishing gears. However, the fishers paid for the fishing rights to the lot owner, especially the owner of lot #3 in Siem Reap province. Only gill net, hook and line, arrow shaped trap, lop kamphleanh and freshwater eel trap are allowed to be used in the lot without a limit on their numbers for 2-3 months (October- December). None of the fishers owned land for crop cultivation within the fishing lot. The people rely exclusively on fishing and fishing related activities. 4.2 Fishing Lot Fishing lot # 3 in Siem Reap province has been auctioned since the establishment of the Fisheries Law of Up to now it was auctioned for 5 two-year periods to 4 different owners and the method of operating the lot changed from lot owner to lot owner. The first two lot owners enclosed the lot along the border by using bamboo fences (about 3000 bamboo fences and 4 pens for catching fish) at the appropriate time. It appears that: the lot owners lost money this way. The third owner changed the operation a little bit by leasing one part of the lot area to the fishers and one part was enclosed by himself, also using the bamboo fence with 2 pens. The fourth owner held the lot for the last 4 years. His lot operation completely differed from the previous owners. Instead of enclosing the lot, he leased the lot to the fishers, but he kept some part of the water area for himself to catch fish by using a seine net (see the location in the map). the lot owners did not limit the number of fishers who wanted to pay for the right to fish within the lot. These fishers were not just from the nearby village, they also came from a fishing village called Chong Khneas in Siem Reap District and from the villages located north of the fishing lot. But the number of fishers operating in the lot was smaller. the lot owners issued a fishing permit to the fishers that paid the fee. In the permit the following items were mentioned: the name of the fisher, his residence, the area he was allowed to fish, the type of permitted fishing gears, the time period of fishing, prohibited gears and the amount of money or gold paid for it. This amount depended on the type of gear and the allocated fishing grounds. In order to protect the fishing lot, the owner formed a group of 17 people to guard the lot from poaching and other activities that cause serious loss of fish. The group of guards was divided into two, each with its own duty. One group guarded the border with the fishing village to prevent people entering the lot without permit and from using gear which cause unnecessary damage to fish, such as electric fishing gears. The other group guarded against boats sailing across the fishing lot. These two groups had the power to arrest and levee a fine. 107

3 Figure 31: Organization chart of fishing lot no. 3 in Siem Reap Province Fishing Lot Owner Guards for internal fishing gear control Guards for control of navigation and lot boundaries Group of seine net operators arrow shaped arrow shaped arrow arrow shaped trap fence operators (mainly) fishers 5. Discussion When the lot was established, there was no agriculture land within the lot and since then people where prevented to enter the lot in order to prevent the cutting down and clearance of the inundated forest for cropping. Obviously, the respective lot owners understood the importance of the inundated forest for the fish resources and therefore protected it. Most of the lot area is covered with inundated forest and the fish production of the lot is high and stable. The fishers complain that they do not have sufficient access to fishing grounds and want also to fish in lot # 3. However, when the idea of community based management was introduced where villagers would share the money required to pay the government tax and managing the fishing lot by themselves, there was no consensus, as they realised there would be many problems with contributing the money, allocating places for fishing, protecting fish stocks, etc. 6. Conclusions The current management of fishing lots is good for the protection of the inundated forest, which provides a good spawning, nursing and feeding ground for fish. But it is better to stop the operation of arrow shaped traps in the lot during the closed season, because these gears catch fish spawning in the inundated forest. If the fishing lot would be abolished and open access be allowed, the DoF would need to take over the responsibility to control and manage it. However, it does not have the capacity to do this. Moreover it would not have the participation from the villagers to manage the fish resources. Also collection of taxes would be much more difficult. 108

4

5 Figure 32: Map of Fishing Lot Nº 3 in Siem Reap