An Giang Fisheries Survey. An Giang Province - Viet Nam

An Giang Province - Viet Nam Research Institute for Aquaculture Number 2, Ho Chi Minh City; Department of Fisheries An Giang Province; Fisheries Department, Can Tho University; and Assessment of Mekong Fisheries: Fish Migrations and Spawning and the Impact of Water Management Component (AMFC), Fisheries Programme, Mekong River Commission April 2001

Preparation of this report From AMFC: Mr. Jens Grue Sjorslev, Senior Socio-economist : data analysis, chief editor and lay-out, Mr. David Coates, Chief Technical Advisor: questionnaire design, coeditor, Mr.Theo Visser, Statistics & Database Manager: questionnaire design, data base structure,data entry, Mr. John V. Jorgensen, Junior Professional Officer: analysis of species data, From Research Institute for Aquaculture No. II, HCM City, Ministry of Fisheries, Viet Nam: Mr. Phan Thanh Lam: Field work supervisor, data entry, data quality check, data analysis, report writing Ms. Pham Mai Phuong: Field work supervisor, data entry, data quality check, data analysis, report writing Mr. Nguyen Thanh Tung: Coordination From Can Tho University College of Aquaculture, Can tho University, Viet nam: Field work Consultants in pilot phase for development of approach and questionnaire design: Mr. Pierre Dubeau, biologist Mr. Richard Friend, socio-economist Comments to the first draft version received from the workshop participants have been addressed. The full data set is available on CD-ROM through MRC Fisheries Program. For bibliographic purposes this report should be referred to as: Sjorslev, J.G. (Ed.),, AMFC/MRC and RIA 2; Vientiane, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 2 METHODOLOGY... 10 2.1 SAMPLE FRAME... 10 2.2 TERMINOLOGY... 14 2.3 QUESTIONNAIRES... 15 2.4 TRAINING AND SURVEY SUPERVISION... 15 2.5 DATA ENTRY AND ANALYSIS... 15 2.6 IS THE SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVE?... 15 3 AN GIANG PROVINCE - TOPOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE BASE... 17 4 VILLAGE PROFILES... 22 4.1 SECTIONS OF QUESTIONNAIRE NOT APPLYING TO THE SURVEYED VILLAGES... 22 4.2 VILLAGE RESOURCES... 22 4.3 COMMUNITY-BASED AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT... 28 4.4 EMPLOYMENT IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR... 29 4.5 MIGRATORY FISHERS... 29 5 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY... 31 5.1 HOUSEHOLD PROFILES... 31 5.2 INVOLVEMENT IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES... 31 5.3 INVOLVEMENT IN FISHERIES BY SEX AND AGE... 32 5.4 IMPORTANCE OF CAPTURE FISHERIES AND COLLECTION OF AQUATIC ANIMALS FOR HOUSEHOLDS FOOD AND INCOME... 35 5.5 SEASONALITY IN IMPORTANCE OF FISHING... 36 5.6 SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS... 37 5.7 TYPES OF FISHING GEAR USED BY HOUSEHOLDS... 38 5.8 FISHING HABITATS USED BY HOUSEHOLDS... 40 5.9 FISHING SEASONS... 41 5.10 HOUSEHOLD CATCHES... 42 5.11 AQUACULTURE... 44 5.12 SEGMENTATION OF HOUSEHOLDS ACCORDING TO TYPE OF INVOLVEMENT AND CATCHES 45 5.13 HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION DATA... 47 5.14 BALANCING CATCHES AND CONSUMPTION OF SEGMENTS... 52 6 INDIVIDUALS SURVEY... 54 6.1 PROFILE OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS... 54 6.2 HABITATS USED BY INDIVIDUALS... 54 6.3 INDIVIDUAL FISHERS CATCHES AND USE OF GEARS... 55 6.4 THE DISPOSAL OF RECENT CATCHES... 58 7 DATA ON SPECIES... 59 8 EXTRAPOLATIONS FOR FISH CONSUMPTION AND CATCHES FOR AN GIANG PROVINCE...61 8.1 INTRODUCTION... 61 8.2 COMPARISON OF SURVEY FINDINGS WITH OFFICIAL STATISTICS... 62 8.2.1 Capture fisheries... 62 8.2.2 Aquaculture... 63 8.2.3 Gross and net aquaculture production... 64 8.3 CONSUMPTION AND CATCH EXTRAPOLATIONS FOR AN GIANG PROVINCE AS A WHOLE66 9 REFERENCES... 1 1 ANNEX VILLAGE PROFILE STATISTICS... 1

2 ANNEX HOUSEHOLD SURVEY STATISTICS... 1 3 ANNEX: INDIVIDUAL SURVEY... 1 4 ANNEX SEGMENTS DATA... 1 5 ANNEX QUESTIONNAIRES... 1 FIGURES FIGURE 2-1 SAMPLING PERCENTAGES... 14 FIGURE 2-2 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE COMPARED TO TOTAL POPULATION... 16 FIGURE 3-1 LANDSAT IMAGE OF PART OF AN GIANG PROVINCE, 10 OCTOBER 1999 SHOWING THE VAST FLOODED AREA... 21 FIGURE 4-1 TOTAL NOS. HHS IN SURVEY VILLAGES INVOLVED IN FISHERIES... 22 FIGURE 4-2 NOS. VILLAGES WITH % HHS INVOLVED IN CAPTURE FISHERIES FOR SUBSISTENCE AND FOR MAIN INCOME... 23 FIGURE 4-3 PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS RELYING ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES FOR SUBSISTENCE BY COMMUNE... 24 FIGURE 4-4 DURATION OF STANDING WATER IN NOS. VILLAGES IN HA... 27 FIGURE 4-5 EMPLOYMENT IN FISHERIES... 29 FIGURE 5-1 NOS. HOUSEHOLDS INVOLVED IN VARIOUS ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES... 31 FIGURE 5-2 NOS. HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS INVOLVED IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES... 32 FIGURE 5-3 EFFECT OF HH SIZE ON HH EFFORT... 33 FIGURE 5-4 MEN AND WOMEN'S INVOLVEMENT IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES... 34 FIGURE 5-5 RANKS OF HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES FOR FOOD SUPPLY... 35 FIGURE 5-6 RANKS OF HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES FOR INCOME... 36 FIGURE 5-7 SEASONAL VARIATION IN IMPORTANT ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES... 37 FIGURE 5-8 GEAR USE BY HHS, IN PERCENT... 39 FIGURE 5-9 GEARS USED BY HOUSEHOLDS IN VARIOUS HABITATS... 39 FIGURE 5-10 HABITATS USED BY HHS... 40 FIGURE 5-11 SEASONAL INTENSITY OF HABITAT EXPLOITATION... 41 FIGURE 5-12 MEAN WEIGHTED IMPORTANCE GIVEN BY PROFESSIONAL AND PART TIME FISHING HOUSEHOLDS FOR FISHING ACTIVITIES IN EACH MONTH... 41 FIGURE 5-13 DISTRIBUTION OF YEARLY HH CATCHES... 42 FIGURE 5-14 IMPORTANCE OF HABITATS IN CATCHES... 42 FIGURE 5-15 NOS. HHS WITH PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF FRESH FISH AS PERCENT OF TOTAL ANIMAL FOODSTUFF CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA PER YEAR... 49 FIGURE 5-16 COMPARISON OF PERCENT PURCHASED AND PERCENT OWN CAPTURED FRESH FISH IN WET AND DRY SEASONS... 50 FIGURE 6-1 GEARS REPORTED IN USE BY RESPONDENTS AND NOS. PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THEIR OPERATION... 55 FIGURE 6-2 GEARS AND EFFORT: NOS. UNITS IN USE AND NOS. FISHING DAYS USED... 56 FIGURE 6-3 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF HABITATS FISHED BY INDIVIDUALS... 57 FIGURE 8-1 EXTRAPOLATED GROSS AND NET PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION FOR AN GIANG PROVINCE... 66 TABLES TABLE 2-1 SAMPLE DISTRICTS, COMMUNES AND VILLAGES... 11 TABLE 2-2 BASIC DATA FOR THE SURVEYED COMMUNES... 14 TABLE 3-1 EXTENT OF OVERLAPPING AREAS IN KM2 BETWEEN WETLAND AND LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS... 20 TABLE 4-1 ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS IN SAMPLED VILLAGES... 23 TABLE 4-2 MATCHED PAIRS TABLE: COMPARING PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS FISHING FROM VILLAGE PROFILE WITH HOUSEHOLD SURVEY... 24 TABLE 4-3 PERCENT HOUSEHOLDS RELYING ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES FOR INCOME BY COMMUNE... 25 TABLE 4-4 DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY AREA... 26 2

TABLE 4-5 PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH LANDHOLDINGS OF SIZE... 26 TABLE 4-6 LAND TYPE AND TOTAL DURATION OF FLOODING... 27 TABLE 4-7 PERCENT & EXTENT OF FLOODED AREAS IN VILLAGES BY LAND TYPE... 27 TABLE 5-1 GENDER AND FISHING EFFORT... 34 TABLE 5-2 MEN AND WOMEN S FISHING IN VARIOUS HABITATS: PERCENT OF ALL FISHING ACTIVITIES... 34 TABLE 5-3 SEASONAL IMPORTANCE OF FISHING AND COLLECTION FOR FOOD IN VARIOUS HABITATS... 36 TABLE 5-4 COMPARISON OF PROFESSIONAL AND PART TIME FISHING HOUSEHOLDS YEARLY CATCHES... 43 TABLE 5-5 INVOLVEMENT IN AQUACULTURE... 44 TABLE 5-6 SEGMENTATION STRUCTURE... 45 TABLE 5-7 CAPTURE FISHING HHS SEGMENT... 46 TABLE 5-8 AQUACULTURE HHS SEGMENT... 46 TABLE 5-9 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION PER YEAR... 47 TABLE 5-10 PER CAPITA/YEAR PROTEIN CONSUMPTION FROM ANIMAL FOOD... 48 TABLE 5-11 SOURCES OF FOOD: MEANS OF HOUSEHOLDS PERCENTAGES... 50 TABLE 5-12 PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS ANSWERS FOR THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSUMED PRODUCTS... 51 TABLE 5-13 FREQUENCY OF CONSUMPTION OF VARIOUS FOODS IN THE DRY AND WET SEASON (% OF HOUSEHOLDS REPORTING)... 51 TABLE 5-14 SEGMENTS CATCHES AND CONSUMPTION IN PERCENT... 52 TABLE 5-15 COMPARISON OF CONSUMPTION DATA WITH OTHER SURVEYS... 53 TABLE 6-1 COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS... 54 TABLE 6-2 FREQUENCY OF USE OF HABITAT... 54 TABLE 6-3 GEARS CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL CATCHES... 56 TABLE 6-4 INDIVIDUALS YEARLY CATCHES BY HABITAT... 58 TABLE 6-5 INDIVIDUALS DISPOSAL OF RECENT CATCHES... 58 TABLE 8-1 COMPARISON OF LARGE GEARS CATCHES WITH OFFICIAL STATISTICS... 63 TABLE 8-2 PRICES OF AQUACULTURE FISH... 65 TABLE 8-3 EXTRAPOLATIONS TABLE... 68 MAPS MAP 2-1 RURAL AND URBAN POPULATION... 12 MAP 2-2 POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE AND WETLANDS UNITS... 13 MAP 3-1 WETLANDS AND LAND USE CLASSES... 18 MAP 3-2 OVERLAY OF WETLANDS AND LAND USE... 19 MAP 4-1 MIGRATORY FISHERS AND LOCATIONS OF LARGE GEARS... 30 MAP 5-1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFORT AND AQUATIC RESOURCES... 38 3

1 Executive Summary This document reports the findings of a Fisheries Survey covering 1002 households and 1002 individuals in 58 Sub-communes (villages) in 10 Communes, in 9 Districts in An Giang Province, which is situated in the northwestern part of the Mekong delta. The survey is three-tiered with data collected at Village level (sub-commune), household level and at the level of individual fishers. All the 9 districts in which the survey was carried out are categorized as rural in the An Giang system of classification. Thus this survey only considers the rural part of An Giang. The survey sample covers 10% of the total number of communes and 0.31% of the rural households in An Giang province. Data collection was done from May through July 1999 by staff of RIA2 (Research Institute for Aquaculture, Ho Chi Minh City) seconded to the Assessment of Mekong Fisheries Component (AMFC) under the Mekong River Commission (MRC) Fisheries Program. Can Tho University provided a team of 26 data collectors. Provincial and District staff in An Giang Province were consulted in the process. The Assessment of Mekong Fisheries Component (which runs 1997-2003) provided technical support in survey design, data analysis and report writing and editing. A draft report was produced in May, 2000 and was discussed at two workshops/meetings with officials from An Giang later in 2000. The comments received have been incorporated into this final edition to the degree possible. The full data set is available on CD-ROM through MRC Fisheries Programme for further analysis. The objective of the survey was to fill the information gap on inland fisheries in An Giang by providing a broad range of quantitative and qualitative information on capture fisheries. The term capture fisheries includes any method of catching and collection of all kinds of aquatic animals. The information obtained includes the degree of peoples participation in, and dependence on, capture fisheries, the absolute and relative economic importance of fishing in the livelihood of rural people, yearly catches, gears used, household consumption, and many other items. 3

Findings Aquatic resources An Giang province is extremely rich in aquatic resources in terms of fish habitats in rivers, canals and especially in the large seasonally flooded areas. A wetland map shows that much of the land in the province is flooded for 3-4 months per year. This is verified by available Landsat (satellite) images. The flooded areas are most often classified according to their mainly dry-season agricultural use, whereas the classification of them as wetlands, with emphasis on the types of inundation and their role as fish habitat is more seldomly applied even though a wetland map of An Giang is available. Using only the agricultural land use classes obscures the importance of the fisheries. The areal overlap between the two classification systems is calculated and presented. Village data There are a total of around 31,000 households (HHs) in the 58 villages surveyed. For 40% of the HHs fisheries (and collecting aquatic animals) is a major part of food collection for family consumption. For 23% of the households, fishing provides supplemental income and 7% of the households are reported to have fishing as a major source of income. There are significant differences between the villages. Thus, 22 villages with only 2% of the households involved in capture fisheries can be considered non-fishing villages, whereas 23 villages have more than 50% of the households involved in capture fisheries. The Village data on the total percentages involved in fisheries is also found in the household sample distribution. About 18,000 HA in 50 villages are reported to be flooded 3 months a year, while 6,300 HA in 30 villages is flooded for 4 months. Most of this land is categorised as irrigated rice by the informants. No community-based fisheries management systems were reported. However, local authorities in principle follow the regulations on management and protection of natural fisheries resources stipulated by the Ministry of Fisheries. There are a total of 845 fishery-related traders amongst the households in the sample communes, of which almost 500 are self-employed fish traders. This gives a ratio of one fish trader for every 62 HHs. Migratory fishers, both in and out of the villages, are commonly found, with a concentration in the southern part of the province where also inundation is deepest, and where large barrages, lift nets and pond traps are most in use. Thus in-migration of fishers appears to coincide with the major fishing season where water recedes from these flooded reas. 4

Household data The majority of HHs is involved in fishing in varying degrees. 66% (611 HHs) are involved in part time fishing activities, with an average of 38% of HH members engaged. 7% (67 HHs) are involved in professional fishing, i.e., have one or more members that list fishing as their main economic activity. 17 HHs report both professional and part time fishers in their household. For some part time fishing households, fishing is equally important as for the professional households. 5.7% of the HHs are involved in fish processing and trading. 14% (144 HHs) are involved in aquaculture, either solely, or in combination with capture fishing. Of the household members engaged in fishing 9% are children below 15 years of age. 1085 of the fishers are men, 323 are women. Bigger households have more members involved in fishing. The fisheries sector is clearly very important for both food supply and for income generation. For food supply most households consider rice farming the most important activity, but fishing and collection of aquatic animals is second in importance being ranked first by 29% and second by 32% of the HHs. Compared to livestock rearing, fishing and collection is assigned a higher overall importance since 574 household gave it any rank compared to 456 households which ranked livestock rearing. For income, all fishery related activities together account for 29% of first ranks awarded and 39% of second ranks awarded. There is a pronounced seasonality in the importance given to fishing activities by HHs, fishing being most important during the flood season from August to December. In terms of habitats used, Wet rice irrigated, which in a wetland classification system is riverine floodplain with various qualifiers, is used for fishing by 67% of the HHs, followed by perennial river with 28%, perennial canal with 25%, and wet rice rainfed with 8%. All habitats listed are used for fishing throughout the year. The fishing gears used are very diverse depending on the habitats exploited, the target species and the purpose of exploitation. The most common small-scale fishing gears are gill nets, hooks, cast-net, and small traps. About 55% of all fishing HHs use gill nets, 34% use hooks and 39% catch fish by hand. Only 25% of professional fishing households operate large-scale fishing gears such as bag nets and big traps. 5

The fishing frequency is very high in all habitats from August to December. Towards the end of this period the fish begin to migrate out of the flooded plain with the receding floodwaters. They also become more vulnerable at this time to gears set to filter the receding waters, especially barrage fences and dais. The average duration of fishing for the professional fishers is 10 months/year, whereas part-time fishers spend only 7.3 months/year fishing. The fishing frequency of the professional fishers is more even over the year. The total catch of the 661 fishing households was 708,246 kg/year in which perennial canal has the highest average catch with 1324 kg/household/year (for the households fishing there). The average catch in wet rice inundated (i.e., flooded plain) and perennial river are almost the same (835 and 833kg/HH/year respectively - for those households fishing there), followed by Wet Rice Irrigated with 651 kg/hh/year. However, the largest proportion of the total catches by all HHs comes from the wet rice irrigated habitat. Households that have a resident professional fisher catch more than the part-time fishing households. However, much fewer households are headed by a professional fisherman. The total catch from professional fishing households in the sample is 170,511 kg per annum. The same calculation for part-time fishing households gives an estimate of 282,809 kg. Thus, part-time fishing HHs account for nearly twice the catch of professional fishers. The survey, however, highlights that the fishery is not adequately described or quantified by considering professional (or licensed) fishers as the prominent group. The reported yearly household catches are based on a yearly recall period. This makes the individual estimates given by each household prone to uncertainties. The catches reported cover a very broad range - from 10 kg per year up to 200 tonnes. Not surprisingly given the random sampling of households, the distribution of catches follows a logarithmic scale. Thus using the mean is not a good statistical tool. Nonetheless, the mean is calculated to be 783 kg/hh/year with a median of 300 kg/hh/year (excluding 2 HHs that report extremely high catches). 146 HHs report to be involved in aquaculture, 11 HHs have cages, 133 ponds, and 2 HHs have shrimp culture. The total production by the sample HHs from cages is 118,715 kg/year, from ponds 189,660 kg/year excluding 1 HHs reporting 200 tons/year). The mean cage production per HH is 10, 792 kg/year, and from ponds 2,930 kg/year. The mean value per kg produced varies from US$ 1,2 for cage culture and US$ 1.08 for rice field/shrimps to US$ 0.69 for pond culture. Segmentation of households. To allow for a more structured analysis of the HHs, an ex post segmentation is presented based on a slightly modified quantile distribution of HH yearly catches and HH involvement in capture fisheries and/or aquaculture. This shows that for capture fisheries, 50% of total catches are from large-scale capture HHs which comprise 6% of the sample HHs 6

catching > 1899 kg/year < 25000 kg/year, and 35% is from medium scale fisheries which comprise 29% of the sample HHs, catching > 199 kg < 1900 kg/year. 12% of the total catch comes from HHs that are also involved in aquaculture. HH consumption For the whole sample, including households that do not consume fish and/or fish products, the consumption of aquatic animals (fish and other kinds) is 58.4 kg/person/year of which fresh fish (and other aquatic animals) accounts for 54.3 kg/person/year and the remaining 4.1 kg other fisheries products (fermented fish, fish paste, dried fish, smoked fish). The fresh fish equivalent is 61 kg/capita/year. Household consumption of other animal products averages 14,6 kg/person/year (excluding hens eggs), which is mainly pork, poultry and wildlife. Fresh fish account for on average 75% of the total animal food intake. The consumption data compares well with a survey undertaken in Long An province (AIT, 1998). In the dry season, 76% of the fish consumed is purchased. In the flood season, purchases and own catches are 50/50. In dry season, 64% of HHs consume fish products (including preserved) 2 to 3 times per day, with 82% consuming fish products at this rate in the flood season. Data on individuals 45% of the sampled 1002 individuals reported that they went fishing. For these, catches are estimated to average between 672 and 1000 kg per person per year (depending on the assumptions made). The individual survey goes into details regarding the use of gears. The main gears contributing to the total catches by individuals are large dais, barrages and stationary gillnets. Whilst the largest proportion (91%) of fishers reported that part of their catch was used for home consumption this amounts to only 10% of the total catch while other 80% of the total catch is sold to middlemen. Species The fishery is very diverse and a total of 76 species groups were reported to be caught in the most recent catch by the individuals. One species contributes most to the total of the recent catch in terms of kg, namely Cirrhinus jullieni. Apart from fish, freshwater mussels and prawns are also very important in catches. Extrapolations and comparison with official data The survey data supports the official data on two important points, namely the total catches from large gears and the production from aquaculture. 7

For 1999, the official total catch figure for An Giang province was 64,000 tons. This figure is based on catch reports and estimates for the larger gears, namely large dai, barrages, trawl, big lift net on shore and stationary gillnets. Applying the means from the present survey data on the yearly yield for the same gear types, and multiplying these figures to the number of gears in the province as per official data, the result amounts to 66,679 tons a difference of only 4%. It is concluded that the official data are good but limited in that they do not include medium and smallscale fisheries that use other gear types. For aquaculture, the official information from An Giang is that in 1998 the total production was 41,000 tons. This was divided into production from cages and from ponds. According to official statistics there were 2070 cages with an average production per cage of 9.1 tons/year, thus accounting for 18,996 tons per year. According to the current survey, the average production from a cage per year is 11.8 tons. This figure fits very well to the official average of 9.1 tons/cage/year. According to the official statistics, the remaining production comes from 951 hectare of ponds, which would then account for the remaining 22,003 tons produced from aquaculture. This equals a production of 23.1 tons per hectare per year from ponds. According to the current survey, the average production per pond area is 19.7 Tons/HA (excluding 2 outliers reporting 800 and 1000 Tons/ha). Again this fits very well with the official figure of 23.1 tons/ha. Extrapolated Production for Rural Households in An Giang Kg fish and aquatic animals Segments Outputs Gross Net Consumption Source Capture fishing HHs 150,786,244 Fresh fish Own capture A 2 large scale capture 85,307,299 consumed 45% A 2 medium scale capture 60,276,029 92,202,369 A 2 small scale capture 5,202,916 Net production Purchased AQ HHs 72,964,408 194,678,668 Fish products convert fresh fish 16,545,221 54% B 2 large scale AQ only 62,453,600 Gross Production B 2 medium scale AQ only 9,052,450 273,118,728 Surplus B 2 small scale AQ only 1,458,358 85,931,078 Mixed AQ/Capture HHs 49,368,076 C 1 Very high mixed 24,722,822 C 2 medium scale mixed 22,261,386 Fish feed Exports C 3 small scale mixed 2,383,867 78,440,061 Purchased by urban pop. An Giang of 393,348 Waste Therefore, these figures for total catches presented here do not contradict official statistics for the province but point to the need to consider that those figures apply to only a section of the fishery, which is mainly the licensed gears. 8

The gross yearly production is estimated at 273,118 tons and, after deduction of the estimated freshwater capture fish that is used as fodder for aquaculture, the net yearly production is estimated at 194,678 tons. The fresh fish consumption by the rural population is calculated at 92,202 tons and the fresh fish equivalent of fish products consumed by the rural population at 16,545, which leaves a surplus of 85,931 tons. If we assume that the urban population consume around the same quantity of fresh fish and fish products as the rural population, then we get a consumption figure for the urban population of 23,600 tons. This would leave a surplus of 62,330 tons (85,931 23,600) for exports and waste. Hopefully, this example is useful for further work on inland fisheries sector statistics in An Giang and elsewhere. 9

2 Methodology 2.1 Sample Frame The main objective of the survey was to quantify the yield of the capture fishery (including any method of collection/capture of any kind of aquatic animal) by area, habitat, activity, gear and, if possible, important species at household and individual levels. Furthermore, the aim was to qualify and quantify the degree of peoples participation in and their dependence on fisheries and collection of aquatic animals and the absolute and relative economic importance of fishing in rural people s livelihoods. The survey was mainly a quantitative study. Ten communes in 9 districts were selected as follows: Six communes located along or near the Mekong and Bassac rivers: o Vinh My (Chau Doc town), o Quoc Thai (An Phu district), o Tan An (Tan Chau district), o Tan Hoa (Phu Tan district), o My Thanh (Long Xuyen city), o Tan My (Cho Moi district). Two communes located far from Mekong and Bassac rivers: o Vong The (Thoai Son district), o Luong An Tra (Tri Ton district). Two communes located in the middle: o Dinh Thanh (Thoai Son district), o Vinh An (Chau Thanh district). Within these 10 communes the sample covers 58 sub-communes (villages) for which Village Profiles were collected. The criteria of survey site selection were: o Location in relation to aquatic resources, i.e., a geographical stratification based on proximity to the Mekong and Bassac rivers to show a range of fishing activities, o Geographical coverage of An Giang province, i.e., number of communes situated in the various parts of the province. Data on the sample communes are provided in Table 2.1 and their locations shown in Map 2-3. 10

Table 2-1 Sample Districts, communes and villages District Commune Village/subcommune Population Nos HHs Nos sample HHs Area Km 2 District Population Nos townships Nos communes AN PHU Quoc thai Ban tu quan 1754 341 12 208.02 162687 1 12 Ban tu quan 4518 950 30 Ban tu quan 5199 1117 36 Ban tu quan 1888 296 12 CHAU Vinh my Chau long 1 5703 1209 39 100.59 101853 2 3 Chau long 6 3651 771 23 My chanh 2476 533 18 My hoa 3410 690 21 My thuan 1700 393 12 CHAU Vinh an Vinh phu 1292 226 15 347.18 152430 1 12 Vinh quoi 4136 817 15 Vinh thanh 4808 1001 30 CHO Tan my Tan binh 3253 594 18 355.71 390365 1 16 Tan hoa 1764 303 15 Tan hung 2213 458 10 Tan loi 1330 250 11 Tan long 4518 660 18 Tan phu 1446 275 11 Tan phuoc 3600 700 27 Tan quoi 1578 282 12 Tan thanh 1800 280 12 Tan thuan 1058 213 9 LONG My thanh Dong thanh 2585 456 3 106.16 241884 5 5 Dong thanh A 2604 458 15 Dong thanh B 4291 710 15 Hoa thanh 3491 670 21 Hung thanh 760 142 12 Thoi an 3056 348 21 Thoi an A 2892 528 18 Thoi hoa 2783 520 22 Thoi thanh 1788 260 10 PHU Tan hoa Hau giang 1 2038 433 48 370.07 260046 2 16 Hau giang 2 3000 650 26 My hoa 2 4350 726 18 My hoa 3 2700 552 12 Trung hai 7200 1706 24 TAN Tan an Tan hau A1 2955 472 24 161.1 162876 1 9 Tan hau A2 1890 414 30 Tan hoa A 2578 541 18 Tan hoa B 2629 668 24 Tan phu A 3792 815 20 Tan phu B 4090 883 14 THOAI Dinh Hoa phu 3615 736 27 Hoa tan 3775 705 15 Hoa thanh 3702 694 30 Hoa thoi 1819 357 22 THOAI Vong the Kien hao 861 208 18 458.69 156091 1 12 Tan dong 1942 339 15 Tan hiep A 3439 653 6 Tan hiep B 2132 352 15 Tan hiep C 1317 224 11 Tan thanh 2825 565 12 Trung son 2680 450 12 TRI TON Luong an Ca na 678 132 6 598.35 104168 1 13 Cay Gong 220 44 6 Giong cat 1722 376 6 Ninh phuoc 1800 312 6 Phu lam 420 84 6 11

Map 2-1 Rural and urban population 12

Map 2-2 Population, household sample and wetlands units Within the 58 sub-communes, households were selected at random (approximately 3.25% of total households per village). The total number of 13

households surveyed was 1002 with the numbers per commune shown in Fig. 2-1. Within selected households, one individual was selected at random. However, there is a significant overlap between the household informant and the individual interviewed. The total number of individuals surveyed was 1002 as follows: Figure 2-1 Sampling percentages 10 communes sample 3.25% of A 1002 Households 17.79% of B sample 1002 Individuals sample (A = 30823 households) (B = 5630 individuals) Table 2-2 Basic data for the surveyed communes Commune Nos. HH Nos. surveyed HHs and individuals Name of nearest river/canal/other fish habitat Ethnic groups Dinh thanh 2585 94 Dinh thanh VN, Khmer, Chinese Luong an tra 994 30 Luong an tra VN, Khmer, Tay My thanh 4244 138 Bassac VN, Chinese Quoc thai 2769 90 Bassac VN, Chinese, Cham Tan an 3988 129 Mekong VN, Chinese, Khmer Tan hoa 3967 128 Bassac VN, Chinese, Khmer Tan my 4330 143 Mekong VN, Chinese, Khmer Vinh an 2044 60 Vinh an VN, Khmer, Chinese Vinh my 3512 113 Bassac VN, Chinese, Khmer Vong the 2390 79 Vong the VN, Khmer, Chinese 2.2 Terminology In the preparation, including trials, of the survey forms, considerable attention was given to terminology (what people call things locally). In particular, the term fishing is often interpreted as commercial fishing and respondents may not include casual or small-scale fishing as fishing. Throughout the survey, the term fishing or collecting aquatic animals was used where necessary. Usually, whether somebody went fishing was defined by whether they ever used fishing gears of any kind or ever collected aquatic animals. Therefore, throughout this report the term fishing includes all activities that involve catching, chasing or collecting aquatic animals (even if none are actually caught or collected at the time in question). The survey was interested in activities relating to all kinds of aquatic animals (i.e., those living in water). Therefore, in the survey, and throughout this report, the term fish means fish (i.e., animals with fins) and any other kind of aquatic animal (including crustaceans, aquatic molluscs and amphibians) - unless otherwise stated. 14

2.3 Questionnaires The survey used 3 questionnaire formats: a Village Profile, filled out with information provided by the village headman and confirmed to the degree possible by observation; a Household form, with information typically provided by the household head or another responsible adult person; an Individual form, with information from an individual in the households selected for survey (the questionnaires are attached as annex). Questions in the village profile form relate to the composition of the village, the range of village resources, fishery resources, fishing activities and fisheries management strategies at community level. Questions in the household and the individual survey form refer to the composition of household, household resources, household fisheries activity, seasonality of household activities, and livelihood strategies. Furthermore it contains questions on consumption levels and the importance of food sources in different seasons, fishing gears people use, seasonality of gear use, fishing habitats, species caught and total catch. The information on communes was obtained from the head of the sub-communes and provincial officials. The head of the household gave the information on households. 2.4 Training and survey supervision The project employed 26 graduates from Can Tho University who were trained by Can Tho University and the project team. The surveyors were made into 13 teams (two people each) to carry out the interviews. Team 1 interviewed provincial officials and heads of sub-communes only, while teams 2-13 interviewed households and individuals. Two officers from RIA2 managed all teams. 2.5 Data entry and analysis Data were entered into a data base using Microsoft Access software. A program was designed to allow the data entry in the same order and format as that for the information presented in the forms. The descriptive statistics were carried out using Microsoft Access and Microsoft Excel; the SPSS statistical package and SAS JMP. 2.6 Is the sample representative? This is very difficult to verify, but as a minimum measure, a comparison of the age group and sex distributions of the sample and the whole population of the province was made. Figure 2 shows that the population pyramid of the household sample is very similar to the population pyramid of the total population. On this variable the sample is considered representative. However, all the 9 districts where sampling was done are classified as rural in the 1999 Census. The rural population comprises 80% and the urban 20% of the total population of An Giang. It should be noted that the habitations in An Giang most often are situated along the roads, and one has difficulty in observing a very strict boundary between urban and rural areas. Nonetheless, based on comments received from the Department of Statistics in An Giang, the fisheries in the rural areas should be considered more widespread among households and larger than in urban areas. Thus, the findings presented here relate to the rural areas. 15

Figure 2-2 Age distribution of sample compared to total population Especially the extrapolations for the whole of An Giang are made for the rural population only. Thus the multiplication factor is based on the total number of rural households and/or the total rural population, not the total population (Ref. Section 8). 16

3 An Giang Province - Topography and Resource base Located in the western part of the Mekong Delta with the co-ordinates 10 o 12 10 o 57 N and 104 o 46-105 o 35 E, An Giang province is confined by Cambodia in the North, and Dong Thap, Can Tho, and Kien Giang Provinces in the North - East, South - East, and South -West, respectively. The climate in An Giang varies from 25-26 degrees Celsius in January to 33-35 degree Celsius in April. The total rainfall for the year ranges from 1300 to 1500 mm. The rainy season starts in April and continues to November. The dry season begins in December and ends in March. Primarily the flood pulse of the Mekong and Bassac Rivers determines the annual flood cycle and An Giang is an important area for freshwater capture fisheries. During the flood season, the Mekong River floods extensive areas of An Giang province for one and up to six months. After the flooding, fish find their way back into rivers and canals resulting in abundant resources of fish. According to the 1999 census there are 418,804 households and a population of 2,016,949 people with 78% of the HHs classified as rural. Thus there are 324,915 rural HHs with a population of 1,62 million. The population density is 577 persons per square kilometer. Though this is high, in reality the habitations are concentrated along roads and have a much higher population density. Official statistics estimate that 78% of the households are involved in agriculture. An Giang ranks foremost among the provinces of the Mekong Delta with respect to rice production. In 1997, An Giang had an export turnover of agricultural products of 132 million USD. The total area of An Giang province is 3492 km 2 of which agricultural land accounts for 2142 km 2, according to However, large tracts of agricultural land are inundated for long periods during which they primarily function as fish habitats. The same areas are classified differently depending on whether an agricultural land use classification system or a wetland classification system is applied. The wetland classes have the important qualifier that they specify that areas are flooded. If one uses only the agricultural land use classifications it will obscure the importance of fisheries, as it were, and lead to incorrect assessments of the predominance of agriculture. The maps on the following pages show the overlap of land use and wetland classes. This point to the need for developing an integrated land use classification system for temporarily flooded areas that considers the function of the areas as fish habitats. According to the Fishery Division statistics, in 1997 An Giang had a total production of captured fish of 74,000 tons with a value of 338,071 million VN dong, or around 24,1 mill US$ (32 cents per kg), and a total production of cultured fish of 41,000 tons with a value of about 316,794 million VN dong or 22,6 mill. US$. For 1999, the official capture fisheries production figure is 64,000 tons. However, the present survey estimates the capture fisheries to be significantly higher by including small scale fisheries. 17

Map 3-1 Wetlands and land use classes 18

Map 3-2 Overlay of wetlands and land use 19

Table 3-1 Extent of overlapping areas in km2 between wetland and land use classifications Wetland Class Land use Class River Double rice Single rice Unused plain Settlement area Single riceupland crops Double Unused rice - mountainuous upland Triple Fruit Forest crops rice trees land land Perennial river and canal 105 6 6 13 Floodplain multiple irrigated Wetrice 703 16 56 2 5 111 1 Seasonally flooded Multiple irrigated Wetrice 597 3 25 7 13 1 Floodplain Single rainfed Wetrice 2 289 38 39 18 1 Seasonally flooded Single rainfed Wetrice 1 103 1 15 2 Seasonally flooded Wet rice in rotation with upland crops 2 18 21 102 74 Riverine bank/sandbars 31 93 4 18 73 2 74 29 18 1 Floodplain Wet rice rotated with upland crops 3 12 3 29 62 5 Non-WetlandType 10 126 102 150 3 3 3 84 Seasonally flooded Melaleuca plantation 21 11 2 27 Floodplain Grassland 7 22 71 3 5 Seasonally flooded Grassland 1 16 1 20

Figure 3-1 Landsat image of part of An Giang province, 10 October 1999 showing the vast flooded area Mekong Bassac 21

4 Village profiles The village profiles cover the 58 villages or sub-communes within 10 communes within 9 districts (refer Section 2). The sub-commune leaders provided the data for this part of the survey. 4.1 Sections of questionnaire not applying to the surveyed villages The information asked for in the Village Profile regarding stocking in rice fields (section b-4); species stocked (section b-4); fish marketing in neighboring countries (section d-2) and community based management initiatives (section E-1) provided negative answers or no response in all cases. 4.2 Village resources The average size of the communes is 3,082 households (ranging from 994-4330 households per commune). The main ethnic groups are Kinh, followed by Chinese, Khmer and Cham. Figure 4-1 Total nos. HHs in survey villages involved in fisheries 25000 20000 15000 10000 For supplementary income As main income 5000 0 Capture fisheries Aquaculture For subsistence The dependency on fisheries of the total sample of households in all surveyed villages is shown in Fig. 4-1 (refer Annex 4). It is clear that in general capture fisheries are a very important activity. For 40% of the HHs in the surveyed villages, fisheries (and collecting aquatic animals) is a major part of food collection for family consumption. For 23% of the households, fishing provides supplemental income and 7% of the households are reported to have fishing as a major source of income. Comparing these figures to the percent of households involved in other economic activities (Table 4-1) it becomes clear that overall, capture fisheries is the 2 nd most common activity for subsistence after livestock rearing, the 2 nd most common source of supplementary cash income, and the 3 rd most common source of main cash income. 22

Table 4-1 Economic activities of all households in sampled villages Economic activity Subsistence Main income Suppl income Subsistence Main income Suppl income Aquaculture 300 188 1876 1% 1% 6% Capture fisheries 12089 2287 7077 40% 7% 23% Cash remittance 427 638 1% 2% Gardening 5878 528 2225 19% 2% 7% Gov. service 214 1417 1% 5% Handicrafts 154 441 646 1% 1% 2% Labor 6563 4917 21% 16% Livestock 19928 414 12333 65% 1% 40% Rice farming 4892 11025 4799 16% 36% 16% Trade 1533 2031 5% 7% Moneylending 257 1% N: total nos HHs in surveyed villages: 30542 However, at the village level the variance in dependency on fisheries becomes apparent as shown in Figure 4-2 (refer Annex 4). There are some villages that are extremely dependent on fisheries with almost all households involved. On the other hand, in larger villages households that are dependent on fisheries can be numerous while only comprising a smaller fraction of the community. Figure 4-2 Nos. villages with % HHs involved in capture fisheries for subsistence and for main income 100% % HHs having capture fisheries as main income 80% 1 60% 1 40% 1 2 20% 3 0% 22 7 9 7-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% -20% % HHs doing capture fisheries for subsistence Note: the size of the bubbles and the figure inside gives the number of villages with such percentages of households. Based on nonparametric modal clustering. One village excluded due to faulty population data. Thus, 22 villages with only 2% of the households involved in capture fisheries can be considered non-fishing villages, whereas 23 villages have more than 50% of the households involved in capture fisheries. Non-fishing villages are found in 6 of the communes, except for Dinh Thanh, Luong An Tra, Vinh An and Vong The. On the other hand, fishing villages are found in all the communes. The statistics of these distri- 23

butions are given in Annex 4. Regarding households having capture fisheries as main income the picture is different. There is a concentration of commercial fishing households in the villages in Luong An Tra, My Thanh, Dinh Thanh and Tan My. In Quoc Thai, Tan An, Tan Hoa, and Vinh My communes almost no commercially fishing households are found in the sample. How reliable is the information provided in the Village Profile on the percent of households involved in capture fisheries? The only available test tool is to compare the Village Profile percentages with the Household Survey percentages of households who report fish catches as shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 Matched pairs table: comparing percent of households fishing from Village Profile with Household Survey % HHs in Village Profile fishing 0.66368 t-ratio -1.15039 % HHs in HH survey fishing 0.70503 DF 56 Mean Difference -0.0414 Prob > t 0.2549 Std Error 0.03594 Prob > t 0.8726 N 57 Correlation 0.70859 It can be seen that the correlation is 0.7, and that the difference in means is only 4 percent. It should be noted that the percent from the Village Profile is a sum of the percent of households that are involved in capture fisheries as well as in aquaculture for subsistence, main income and supplementary income. With regard to the relative importance of fisheries viz. a viz. other economic activities, fisheries has a prominent place in the sample villages as shown in Fig. 4-3 (refer Annex 4). Figure 4-3 Percent of households relying on economic activities for subsistence by commune Luong an tra 1 Vinh my 0.8 Vong the 0.6 Quoc thai 0.4 0.2 0 Dinh thanh Capture fisheries Aqua-culture Rice f arming My thanh Vinh an Gar-den Live-stock Tan hoa Tan my Tan an 24

The distribution by commune of the percentages of households relying on various economic activities for income shows a more complex picture since there are more different income generating activities than activities for subsistence (Table 4-3.). Commune Table 4-3 Percent households relying on economic activities for Income by commune Economic Act. Name Labor (non Aquaculture Capture fisheries Cash remittance Garden Gov. service Handicrafts fisheries) Money Livestock lending Rice farming Trading other goods Dinh thanh MainCash 1% 19% 4% 13% 1% 35% 2% SuppCash 8% 24% 2% 6% 4% 2% 23% 6 1% 22% 4% Luong an tra MainCash 19% 34% 59% 2% SuppCash 64% 7% 7% 4% 46% 35% 19% 2% My thanh MainCash 8% 3% 4% 33% 1% 24% 15% SuppCash 4% 17% 2% 6% 8% 1% 17% 26% 1% 9% 11% Quoc thai MainCash 2% 3% 6% 17% 2% 32% 4% SuppCash 3% 2% 7% 11% 2% 3% 19% 4 3% 12% Tan an MainCash 1% 6% 22% 38% 4% SuppCash 23% 12% 1% 3% 3% 1% 13% 58% 1% 5% 8% Tan hoa MainCash 4% 2% 14% 2% 44% 3% SuppCash 2% 7% 1% 1% 3% 2% 13% 9% 1% 36% 2% Tan my MainCash 1% 12% 3% 2% 1% 2% 16% 3% 1% 28% 5% SuppCash 5% 32% 2% 16% 5% 6% 17% 46% 1% 23% 6% Vinh an MainCash 9% 1% 18% 66% 2% SuppCash 4% 42% 1% 2% 4% 6% 16% 1% 13% 3% Vinh my MainCash 2% 1% 4% 16% 1% 14% 3% SuppCash 1% 2 2% 2% 5% 5% 37% 1% 3% 5% Vong the MainCash 9% 1% 2% 33% 2% 57% 4% SuppCash 5% 46% 2% 14% 6% 2% 2 73% 1% 18% 1 ALL MainCash 1% 7% 1% 2% 1% 1% 21% 1% 36% 5% SuppCash 6% 22% 2% 7% 5% 2% 16% 39% 1% 15% 7% N = 58 villages The average area of agricultural land per commune is 4164 ha (range: 1106-11558 ha) of which irrigated rice accounts for an average of 2524 ha, paddy rice for 329 ha, cash crop for 167 ha, orchards for 88 ha (Table 4-7). The average land owned by sample households is approximately 1.8 ha. However, the average ownership of land per household varies widely among communes. For example, in Vong The and Luong An Tra the average area of land owned is 4.8 and 5.4 ha, respectivelywhile in Tan Hoa and My Thanh it is only 0.3 and 0.4 ha, respectively. 25

Commune Name Nos. HHs Paddy rice ha* Irrigated rice ha* Table 4-4 Distribution of agricultural land by area Upland rice ha* Pond ha Vegetable ha Orchards ha Cash crop ha Commomon Com- forest ha grassland ha Total cultivated area Total commons Average Total cultivated area per HH Vong the 2390 599.0 10741.6 1.5 4.0 175.5 26.0 32.0 11557.9 32.0 4.8 Vinh my 3512 2036.0 15.4 36.0 6.0 1.0 110.0 2218.0 110.0 0.6 Vinh an 2044 1903.6 1.4 2.9 13.8 1.0 1922.7 1.0 0.9 Tan my 4330 64.0 626.4 400.0 9.8 4.0 407.0 362.4 2007.9 0.5 Tan hoa 3967 2.0 400.0 4.7 2.0 11.2 281.0 1106.0 0.3 Tan an 3988 1381.0 39.1 3.0 1.0 154.0 4356.0 1.1 Quoc thai 2769 591.0 3.0 0.0 91.0 9240.0 3.3 My thanh 4244 961.1 2.5 2.2 83.5 11.9 0.9 1536.8 0.9 0.4 Luong an tra 994 653.0 4292.0 0.0 278.0 5333.0 5.4 Dinh thanh 2585 2307.0 12.3 1.8 11.6 303.8 2370.3 0.9 Note: * Paddy rice defined as wet season rice; upland rice is grown on hillsides and only receives rainwater; irrigated rice is dry season wet rice. According to the information obtained from the sub-commune leaders, about 11% of all the households in all villages have more than 1 ha of agriculture land and 34% of households have no agriculture land (Table 4-5). Table 4-5 Percent of households with landholdings of size Landless < 1 ha 1-2 ha 2-10 ha > 10 ha Dinh thanh 19.5 3.4 13.0 36.2 27.9 Luong an tra 22.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 71.8 My thanh 55.0 14.6 15.4 10.5 6.7 Quoc thai 59.3 2.0 18.6 12.2 8.6 Tan an 33.2 6.1 26.1 21.1 7.1 Tan hoa 20.8 7.5 32.5 9.2 4.3 Tan my 20.6 17.6 44.4 13.7 2.9 Vinh an 20.0 0.0 14.0 22.1 43.9 Vinh my 44.6 32.5 9.5 6.5 2.7 Vong the 33.6 10.2 21.6 14.2 28.6 N = 58 Villages Most land that villages have is flooded for 3-4 months a year (Table 4-6 & Fig. 4-4) and it is during this period that the land functions primarily as productive fish habitats. However, as mentioned, villagers tend to continue to classify the land according to its agricultural use. Areas used for growing irrigated rice in the dry season continue to be called irrigated rice areas even when flooded and not growing rice. Irrigated rice (i.e., floodplain) accounts by far for the largest part of the agricultural classification of the land. 26

Table 4-6 Land type and total duration of flooding Land type Nos villages reporting Flooded-ha-months Alluvial 3 15 Cash crop 30 3443 Irrigated rice 44 74565 Orchards 20 580 Paddy rice 8 3982 Upland/Dry rice 1 1600 Vegetable 11 84 Note: Flooded-ha-months is a unit used to measure fish productive habitat. It is calculated by multiplying the flooded areas with the duration of flooding. Figure 4-4 Duration of standing water in nos. villages in HA 60 Nos. villages reporting flooding 50 40 30 20 10 0-10 18519 6313 886 855 294 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Months flooded Table 4-7 Percent & extent of flooded areas in villages by land type Land type Nos villages reporting Land area in ha Standing water in ha % flooded area Alluvial deposits 3 8 6 76 Aquaculture ponds 52 89 NA NA Aquatic habitat - Lake 2 180 NA NA Aquatic habitat - rivers 22 1253 NA NA Aquatic habitat - swamps 7 121 NA NA Cash crop (non-rice) 42 1509 1015 67 Commons - forest/scrub 5 143 110 77 Commons - grassland 1 1 0 0 Irrigated rice 51 25240 23753 94 Orchards 34 710 189 27 Paddy rice 8 1318 1318 100 Upland/Dry rice 19 400 400 100 Vegetable garden 59 56 26 47 Total Area 1 52638 48259 92 27

4.3 Community-based aquatic resources management In ten surveyed communes, there were no reported initiatives from local government for establishing conservation zones or regulations on fishing period, fishing gears or fish species captured in their territories. The local authorities only follow policies regulations on management and protection of natural fisheries resources stipulated by the Ministry of Fisheries. These are mentioned in the following. Conservation zone: where the following activities are prohibited: o Activities causing the changes of habitat of aquatic animals; o Releasing waste water, pollutant, toxic plant, or other matters which can cause the contamination of habitat of aquatic animals; o Illegal construction of work of water control. Restricted season: Close season for prohibiting the following fishing activities: o Ca linh Day: from 1 July - 30 September, o Purse seine for Clupeichthys: from 1 March - 1 April o Day for collecting river catfish fries: time and grounds for collecting fries will be defined and announced by the Provincial Division of Management and Protection of Natural Fisheries Resources. Close season for special species: o Ca linh: from 1 July 30 September o Clupeichthys: from 1 March 1 April o Silver barb: from 15 April 30 June o Cyclocheilichthys enoplos: from 15 May 30 June o Other species: Puntius spp., snakehead juvenile, etc. 1 May 1 June. Fishing gears prohibited: o Dynamite, toxic chemicals or plants; o Electro-fishing o Fishing gears or traps hampering the navigation or migration of fish during spawning period. o Catching nets with mesh size 2a < 1.5 cm o Illegal fishing gears without license authorized by fisheries authorities o Trawls and Scoop nets. Restricted species: o Juvenile of snake head fish with length < 10 cm o Juvenile of Hemirhynchus spp. with length < 3cm o Clupeichthys spp. with the length < 2 cm. 28

4.4 Employment in the fisheries sector Many economic activities in An Giang are dependent on the capture fisheries. There are a total of 845 fishery-related traders amongst the households in the sample communes, of which almost 500 are selfemployed fish traders (Fig. 4-5). Self-employment is common in fish paste and fermentation home industries, but there are also bigger operations with hired laborers. Fish sauce production is more industrialized, with many laborers being employed in only a few units. The production of nets, traps and other gears tend to be small scale/household level operations. Figure 4-5 Employment in fisheries Other fish processing Make/sell boats Make/sell fishing nets Business type Make/sell trap baskets or other fishing gear Fish sauce processing Transport (not traders) Fish paste and fermented fish processing Y Make/sell ice Sum(BusinessUnits) Sum(SelfNumber) Sum(LabourNumber) Trading (buy and sell) 0 100 200 300 400 500 Y 4.5 Migratory fishers Migratory fishers are common in the area. In the village profile survey, these were divided into those that migrate to near the commune to fish and those that migrate from the commune to fish further away. The categories were further divided into migratory fishers who were selfemployed or who were laborers. Migratory fishing appears to be more prominent at Chau Thanh commune, with a net out-migration of fishers (Fig. 4.2). There is a large out-migration of self-employed fishers from Long Xuyen and a net in-migration of laborers to Thoai Son. Interestingly one can compare the migration pattern with the use of large gears in the villages (Fig.4.3). It becomes apparent that in-migration of self-employed fishers coincides with the use of large number of barrages in the southern part of An Giang. Large inflows or outflows of labor or fishing effort to, or from, the study area has implications for the calculations of fisheries activities in the area. Much depends upon the kind of fishing activity undertaken by those who migrate and, in particular, where they land the fish that is caught. Migration obviously has importance and warrants a more detailed study. 29

Map 4-1 Migratory fishers and locations of large gears 30

5 Household survey 5.1 Household profiles A typical household is one where two or three generations live together; usually a couple with the parents and with 2 or 3 children. The average size of households is 5.62. In the surveyed households, there is a equal sex ratio with males accounting for 51%, and females 49%. Most household heads are male (94%), with female heads occurring in only 6% of cases. The average age of household heads is 49.3 for male heads and 53.3 for female heads. About 54% of household heads are in the age group of 30-50, 43% >50 years and household heads <30 years old are rare (3%). The age distribution of household heads is influenced greatly by most of the young couples living together with their parents or leaving for the big cities for a job. 5.2 Involvement in economic activities Seven percent (67) of the households is involved in professional fishing, i.e., have one or more members that lists fishing as their main economic activity, 1 and 66% (611 households) are involved in part time ( other fishing ) fishing activities 2 while further 5.7% of households are involved in fish processing and trading. Fourteen percent (144) of the households are involved in aquaculture. For some part time fishing households, fishing is equally important as for the professional households. Figure 5-1 Nos. households involved in various economic activities N Rows N Rows 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 Other fishing activities Other fishing activities Livestock Livestock Wage labour (not fish related) Wage labour (not fish related) Rice farming Rice farming Trading (not fish related) Trading (not fish related) Orchard Orchard Handicrafts Handicrafts Aquaculture Aquaculture Government service Government service Fish processing Fish processing Fishing Fishing Transport service Transport service Fish sale Fish sale Other Other Fish labour Fish labour Fishing gear Fishing gear 1 [ Professional fishing means fishing commercially as a major activity (at any time of the year); that is, going out and catching fish for profit or income ]. 2 ( Other fishing ) [ Part time fishing activities means all other fish (etc.) catching and gathering activities. Note: this includes the setting of passive gears such as traps which still operate as gears even if not attended to by the person at the time] 31

In the 661 households (66% of sample) who are engaged in fishing and collection of aquatic animals an average 38% of the household members are active fishers and collectors, or a total of 1409 persons. Figure 5-2 Nos. household members involved in economic activities 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 6 members 6 members 5 members 5 members 4 members 4 members 3 members 3 members 2 members 2 members 1 member 1 member At school Money At school lending Other, Money please lending specify Student Other, please specify Transport Student service Government Transport service Handicrafts Government service Orchard Handicrafts Trading Orchard (not fish related) Rice Trading farming (not fish related) Wage Rice labour farming (not fish related) Livestock Wage labour (not fish related) Aquaculture Livestock Fishing Aquaculture gear Fish labour Fishing gear Fish labour Fish sale Fish sale Fish processing Fish processing Fishing Fishing Part time fishing activities Part time fishing activities Households are most often involved in various activities. Figure 5-2 shows part time fishing is an activity that is distributed among households in a very similar manner to livestock rearing, with a similar distribution of inputs by household members. 5.3 Involvement in fisheries by sex and age Of the 1409 household members engaged in fishing 9% (133) are children below 15 years of age. 1085 of the fishers are men, 323 are women (these data are from the information on which household members are involved in fishing in the various habitats, Section C of the HH questionnaire). In the fishing households the number of household members affects the total effort of the household. Bigger households have more members involved in fishing (Fig. 5-3). 32

Figure 5-3 Effect of HH size on HH effort Nos. HH members fishing By HH size Nos. HH members fishing By HH size 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Fishers Fishers 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 HH size HH size Linear Fit Linear Fit Linear Fit Linear Fit Fishers = 0.7884196 + 0.2307065 HH size Fishers = 0.7884196 + 0.2307065 HH size Summary of Fit Summary of Fit RSquare 0.141116 RSquare 0.141116 RSquare Adj 0.139807 RSquare Adj 0.139807 Root Mean Square Error 1.106077 Root Mean Square Error 1.106077 Mean of Response 2.138298 Mean of Response 2.138298 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 658 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 658 Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 131.86102 131.861 107.7820 Model 1 131.86102 131.861 107.7820 Error 656 802.55387 1.223 Prob > F Error 656 802.55387 1.223 Prob > F C. Total 657 934.41489 <.0001 C. Total 657 934.41489 <.0001 Women are often responsible for work such as livestock rearing, trading, and fish processing, whereas men are often responsible for work such as transport services, wage labor, and commercial fishing (Fig. 5-4). There is a relatively equal gender distribution in work such as rice farming, aquaculture and handicrafts. There is also a clear profile of the most common economic activities amongst the same gender: women are most often involved in livestock culture and rice farming, and males are most often involved in rice farming, wage labor and commercial fishing. Men catch and collect more aquatic animals than women. Over 75% of the fishing activities are carried out by men. The women who fish and collect aquatic animals do so a little more occasionally than men (Table 5-1). 33

Figure 5-4 Men and women's involvement in economic activities 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Other fishing activities Rice farming Wage labor (not fish related) At school Orchard Livestock Aquaculture Trading (not fish related) Handicrafts Fishing Government service Transport service Fish labor Fish sale Student Fish processing Fishing gear Money lending Female Male Table 5-1 Gender and fishing effort Frequently Moderately fishing fishing Occasionally Total of sample fishing Women: + % of total 13% 5% 5% 23% + % of women 57% 21% 21% + % of column 24% 21% 22% Men: + % of total 41% 18% 18% 77% + % of men 54% 23% 23% + % of column 76% 79% 78% Grand Total 55% 23% 23% 10 Note: The statistics are based on a question regarding how often the interviewee goes fishing in the different months of the year (N=1441 Fishing Activities) Males do 77% of the household fishing. Males and females fish the same habitats with the same relative intensity, i.e., females do not seem to prefer certain habitats, for example. Table 5-2 Men and women s fishing in various habitats: percent of all fishing activities Habitat fished by Females Males All Floodplain swamp/marsh 0.00 0.10 0.10 Floodplain tress/shrubs 0.05 0.36 0.41 Floodplain grassland 0.15 0.31 0.46 Manmade AQ pond 0.88 2.32 3.20 Natural lake 0.21 1.65 1.86 Natural swamp/marsh 0.15 0.62 0.77 Perennial canal 3.77 13.63 17.40 Perennial river 5.16 15.07 20.24 Seasonal canal 0.31 1.70 2.01 Seasonal river 0.00 0.15 0.15 Wet rice flood inundated 0.10 0.21 0.31 Wet rice irrigated 8.67 38.72 47.39 Wet rice rainfed 1.55 4.13 5.68 Total 21.01 78.99 34

5.4 Importance of capture fisheries and collection of aquatic animals for households food and income Household respondents were asked to rank the activities of the household with respect to importance for food supply and separately for income. The ranking was absolute in the sense that any activity only was given one relative rank (refer Annex 5 for full details). For food supply, most households consider rice farming the most important activity: 445 or 52% of the households give rice farming the highest rank among the economic activities (Fig. 5-6). Fishing and collection of aquatic animals is ranked first by 249 (29%) and ranked second by 195 households (32%). Livestock rearing comes in third with only 51 households or 6% awarding it first rank, but with 195 or 23% giving second rank to this activity. Compared to livestock rearing, the nearest ranked activity, fishing and collection is assigned a higher overall importance since 574 household gave it any rank compared to 456 households which ranked livestock rearing (refer Annex 5). Figure 5-5 Ranks of household economic activities for food supply Nos. HHs 500 400 300 200 100 0 Make/repair gears Culture AQ animals Process fish and AQA Orchard tending Livestock Grow vegetable Fish commercial rank Fish & collect AQ animals 5 rank 4 rank Farm rice 3 rank 2 rank 1 Compared to activities for food supply, income-generating activities show a higher variation (Figure 5-6). However, for food supply fewer households have ranked the activities (total household-ranks = 1998) compared to activities for income (2912 household-ranks). This may be because more options are listed as income generating than as important for food supply and the ranks given are more evenly distributed both between the activities and across the ranks given to a particular activity. Rice farming gets a high overall score of 38.5% of the total ranks given to rank 1. Fishery related activities (including fishing and collecting aquatic animals, selling aquatic animals, fishing commercially, processing fish and wage labor in the fisheries sector) together account for 29.28% of first ranks awarded and 39.28% of second ranks awarded. The fisheries sector is clearly very important for income generation in An Giang. 35

Overall, apart from rice farming, fisheries related activities are the most important for income with non-fish products trading coming in well behind in third place. Figure 5-6 Ranks of household economic activities for income 500 400 500 300 400 200 300 100 200 100 0 0 rank 5 rank 5 rank 4 rank 4 rank 3 rank 3 rank 2 rank 2 rank 1 rank 1 Money lend Wage Money labor lend fish related Processing Wage labor aquatic fish animals related Culture Processing AQ animals aquatic animals Fish Culture commercial AQ animals Make/repair Fish commercial gears Other Make/repair gears Sell Other AQ animals Transport Sell AQ animals Govern. Transport Handicraf Govern. t Wage Handicraf labor non-fish t Trade Wage non-fish labor non-fish Fish Trade collect non-fish AQ animals Orchard Fish tend collect AQ animals Farm Orchard rice tend Grow Farm vegetable rice Livestock Grow vegetable Livestock 5.5 Seasonality in importance of fishing Data for seasonal influences on the variation in importance of fishing and collection of aquatic animals for food are shown in Table 5-3 (based on reports of utilization of various habitats). Capture fisheries is obviously important throughout the year with 58,3% of the households considering it very important in both seasons. However, seasonal variations in the kinds of fishery and habitats used for fishing are evident as discussed in subsequent Section. Table 5-3 Seasonal importance of fishing and collection for food in various habitats Percent of total nos. reports Wet season very important Wet season important Wet season less important Dry Season Very Important Dry Season Important Dry Season Less Important Na Nos. habitats 58.3% 3.6% 0.4% 11.2% 708 3.7% 2.4% 0.1% 9.1% 148 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.8% 15 NA 4.8% 3.9% 0.1% 0.7% 92 Note: reports on the seasonal importance of 963 habitats used by 661 households 36

Figure 5-7 Seasonal variation in important economic activities Log scale Nos HHs for which activity is very important 100 Rice farming Fish sale Livestock Part time fishing Wage labor (non fish) Prof fishing Orchard 10 Flooding season 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Note: the graph shows the number of households that considers the activity most important in each month. Please note the logscale for easy viewing. It is evident that from August to December the flood cycle determines rural life in An Giang and fishing becomes the most important activity of all. Interestingly the onset of the fishing activities coincides with an increase in the number of species that comes from Mekong and Bassac into the canals and the flooded areas (Ref ). 5.6 Spatial relationships As described in Section 2, the selection of sample communes was done with a view to achieve coverage of the various types of fish habitats in An Giang province. The data shows that there is a tendency that communes located in or close to the large seasonally inundated areas (floodplains) with deeper flood water have a higher percentage of households involved in fishing than communes near the big rivers (Fig. 5.4). These households further away from the big rivers are mainly involved in what can be called a farming-fishing system where people go fishing when they stop work in the rice fields due to flooding. Furthermore, more households in communes near towns and rivers are involved in various non-fishing-related activities such as: trading, transport service, and wage labor. Future research could focus on how the direct access, i.e., distance to fish habitats affects the fishing intensity and the dependency of households on fishing. That will require more detailed geo-referencing of data points than what is available for the present survey. 37

Map 5-1 Relationship between effort and aquatic resources 5.7 Types of fishing gear used by households Gear use is complex. The list of gears used in the survey, although reasonably comprehensive, is still a simplification. Each gear type can be sub-divided by its physical size (dimensions), mesh size (where appropriate), mode of deployment and location and season of deployment. Though not providing such detail, the survey data does give an overview of gear use. The types of fishing gears used depend mainly on the habitats exploited, the target species and the purpose of exploitation. Obviously, smallscale fishing gears are used in greater numbers than large-scale ones. 38

The most common small-scale fishing gears used in An Giang are gill nets, hooks, cast-net, and small traps (Fig. 5-7). About 55% of all fishing households use gill nets (average 6.8 gill-nets/household), 34% of households use hooks (average 44.8 active hooks/household) and 39.18% of households catch fish by hand (scooping with the hands). Only 25% of professional fishing households operate large-scale fishing gears (Bag nets and Big traps). Figure 5-8 Gear use by HHs, in percent GearName Scoop nets Cone shaped nets Long line Spears Lift nets Electricity Big traps Bag nets Small traps Cast-net Hooks Collection Gill-net 0 20 40 60 80 Percent of HHs The most common fishing gears used for fishing in the rivers, canals, and on the flooded plain (used as rice fields at other times of the year) are small traps, hook, gill net and cast-net in large numbers. The big gears such as bag-net (dai) and big trap are not widely used because of a high investment costs and the limitations caused by the seasonal regulations and the exploited areas. Of the commonly used fishing gears, the small trap is used in the rivers and canals with highest frequency followed by gill nets and hooks. In contrast, hooks are mostly used in ricefields, followed by small traps and gill nets (Fig. 5-9; Annex 5). Figure 5-9 Gears used by households in various habitats Log scale: Nos HHs using gear 1000 100 10 Wet Rice Rainfed1 Wet Rice Irrigated Seasonal Canal Perennial River Perennial Canal Natural Swamp/Marsh Natural Lake Manmade Aquaculture Pond Floodplain Trees/Shrubs Floodplain Swamp/Marsh Floodplain Grassland Gill-net Cast-net Collection Hooks Spears Scoop nets Long line Lift nets Electricity Cone shaped nets Big traps Small traps Bag nets 39

5.8 Fishing habitats used by households Four types of habitats are used commonly for fishing in An Giang province (Figure 5-9). Wet rice irrigated (that is, river floodplain) is used by the highest number of households (67%), followed by perennial river (28%), perennial canal (25%), and wet rice rainfed (8%). Other habitats are not used to the same extent. Figure 5-10 Habitats used by HHs HabitatName Wet Rice Flood Inundated Floodplain Swamp/Marsh Seasonal River Floodplain Trees/Shrubs Floodplain Grassland Natural Swamp/Marsh Natural Lake Seasonal Canal Manmade Aquaculture Pond Wet Rice Rainfed Perennial Canal Perennial River Wet Rice Irrigated 0 20 40 60 80 Percent of fishing HHs However, as discussed in Section 2 of this report, proper fish habitat classification, especially in the Delta, is confused by the agricultural land use classification system. The agriculturally biased land classes are used both officially and in the local terminology. The fish habitat options listed in the questionnaire reflects these land classes to provide a common understanding for respondents and interviewers when identifying where people go fishing. This has the down side that important characteristics of the land areas seen from a fish habitat perspective can be overlooked. Most of the area used for fishing, and where fish are produced, is river floodplain that also is rice fields. Thus, the land class Wet irrigated rice is an area of floodplain used for growing rice by irrigation in the dry season. Inappropriately, it is referred to as Wet irrigated rice throughout the year, even if flooded for extended periods of time. Remote sensing images of this region show much of the province, and all of the main fishing areas, to be an almost continuous shallow flooded plain in the flood season. In this context, Rice fields should be regarded as the agricultural phase of a dynamic flood pulse system. The data do not support a proposal that extending the agricultural phase (either in time or by extent of cover) will necessarily promote fisheries. They do, however, point clearly to the need for multi-use planning for the dynamic natural resources of this area. An Giang (and most of the Delta) is under such intensive agricultural use that the natural floodplain grassland, floodplain trees/shrubs, and swamp/marsh habitats are very limited in extent and hence not reported as commonly exploited fish habitats. Obviously, much more attention to land use and habitat classification is required in future surveys. 40

5.9 Fishing seasons Most habitats are used for fishing throughout the year (Figure 5-11). Fishing activities peak from July to the end of November. Figure 5-11 Seasonal intensity of habitat exploitation 1000 Wet rice irrigated Perennial river Nos. HHs * frequency weight 100 Manmade aquaculture pond Perennial canal Wet rice rainfed Natural lake Seasonal canal 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Note: Y scale is log scale for easier viewing. Calculated as nos hhs fishing multiplied by a weight as follows: very frequent=3, moderate = 2, occasionally = 1. Towards the end of this period the fish begin to migrate out of the floodplain with the receding flood waters and they are vulnerable to filtering gears, especially barrage fences and dais. The highest fish catches for the larger commercial gears occur at this time. Professional fishers fish more or less with the same intensity during the year. The part-time fishers fish more intensively during the floods from July to November (Figure 5-12). The availability of fish and options for gear use, and the fact that the land is flooded is of course the main reasons for this pattern Figure 5-12 Mean weighted importance given by professional and part time fishing households for fishing activities in each month 3 Professional fishers Higher is more important 2.5 2 1.5 Part time fishers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Note: if the activity was considered by household very important=score3; medium importance=2, low importance=1 41

5.10 Household catches The reported yearly household catches are based on a yearly recall period. This makes the individual estimates given by each household prone to uncertainties. Furthermore, the catches reported cover a very broad range - from 10 kg per year up to 200 tonnes. Not surprisingly given the random sampling of households, the distribution of catches follows a logarithmic scale. As discussed in subsequent Section 5.12 of this report, an ex post stratification of household catches can be used as a tool for reducing the errors involved in extrapolating from a logarithmic distribution. It should be kept in mind that the survey was not intended to provide a total catch estimate for An Giang province, but to give a baseline for subsequent designs of data collection methods. This section will discuss catches in relation to gear and habitat use and other aspects. The overall distribution of catches is shown in Fig. 5-13. Figure 5-13 Distribution of yearly HH catches H H yearly catches H yearly catches 20000 20000 10000 10000 0 0 Moments Moments Mean 783.07511.01.05.10.25.50.75.90.95.99 Mean 783.07511.01.05.10.25.50.75.90.95.99 Std Dev 1777.3318 Std Dev 1777.3318 Std Err Mean 69.235015 Std Err Mean 69.235015 upper 95% Mean 919.02551 upper 95% Mean 919.02551 lower 95% Mean 647.12471 lower 95% Mean 647.12471 N 659 N 659 Sum Wgts 659 Sum Wgts 659 Sum 516046.5 Sum 516046.5 Variance 3158908.2 Variance 3158908.2-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Skewness 7.3309912-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Skewness 7.3309912 Kurtosis 73.818822 Normal Quantil e Plot Kurtosis 73.818822 Normal Quantil e Plot CV 226.96823 CV 226.96823 Note: 2 extremely high catching HHs excluded Quantiles Quantiles 100.0% maximum 24350 100.0% maximum 24350 99.5% 14050 99.5% 14050 97.5% 4850 97.5% 4850 90.0% 1800 90.0% 1800 75.0% quartile 800 75.0% quartile 800 50.0% median 300 50.0% median 300 25.0% quartile 80 25.0% quartile 80 10.0% 23 10.0% 23 2.5% 10 2.5% 10 0.5% 2 0.5% 2 0.0% minimum 1 0.0% minimum 1 Figure 5-14 Importance of habitats in catches Wet rice irrigated 40% Perennial river Perennial canal 10 % of Total HH catches 1 Wet rice rainfed Manmade AQ pond Seasonal canal Natural lake Natural swamp/marsh Floodplain Floodplan tress/shrubs grassland Seasonal river Floodplain swamp/marsh Wet rice flood inundated 0.1 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 Mean HH catch in habitat 42

The total catch of the 661 fishing households in the survey was 708,246 kg/year. The perennial canal habitat has the highest average catch with 1324 kg/household/year (for those households fishing there). This is possibly because canals are used as migration routes by the fish and are accessible to high efficiency gears. The average catches in the wet rice inundated (i.e., flooded plain) habitat and the perennial river habitat are almost the same (835 and 833 kg/household/year respectively - for those households fishing there), followed by wet rice irrigated with 651 kg/household/year. Whereas the perennial canal has the highest average yield per household, it is the wet rice irrigated that contributes most to the total catches with 46%. Is the professional occupation of fishers reflected in the catches? First of all one must be cautious when comparing results of professional versus part-time fishers. The terms are ambiguous and are certainly interpreted differently by different respondents. The definition of a professional fishing household is also ambiguous and, importantly, it does not automatically translate into a measure of the households total fishing effort which also depends on the number of household members who are engaged in fisheries. Furthermore, to complicate matters, 17 households report to have both professional and part time fishing members. Eight percent of the fishing households are only professional fishing households (that is they have one or more resident professional fishers, but no part time fishing members). As expected, they catch more, on average than the only part-time fishing households (that is, households not reporting a professional fisher present) (Table 5-4). Table 5-4 Comparison of professional and part time fishing households yearly catches Both Prof. and part time HHs Only Prof. fishing HHs Only Part time fishing HHs Nos. HHs 17 51 587 Percent of total nos. 3% 8% 90% Total yearly catch 28,945 279,974 396,348 Percent of total catches 4% 40% 56% Mean yearly catch 1,703 5,490 675 Std. Dev. Yearly catch 1,845 26,754 1,715 Median yearly catch 1,300 1,050 250 Range yearly catch 5,970 192,190 24,349 Note: 5 HHs with no information on members activities excluded But it should be noted that a single household with a yearly catch of 192 tons contribute very much to this average. Without this household, the mean comes down to 1755 kg per year for the only professional category. The current analysis highlight that the fishery is not adequately described or quantified by considering professional (or licensed) fishers as the prominent group. What is needed is a segmentation of the households that considers their reported catches and furthermore, their involvement in fishing including aquaculture, an issue not yet discussed in 43

this report. Section 5.12 presents a segmentation of the households based on these criteria. 5.11 Aquaculture 146 households reported to be involved in aquaculture. Some of these households are exclusively doing aquaculture while others are also engaged in capture fisheries (ref. next Section). The distribution of the data on aquaculture is shown in Table 5-5. Table 5-5 Involvement in aquaculture Type Nos. HHs Total area m2 Mean area m2 Total production/year kg Mean production/year kg Cage culture 11 45 (cages) 4.09 (cages) 118,715 10,792 Pond culture 133 102,300 769 189,660* 2,930 Rice field fish or shrimp culture 2 7,000 3,500 2,070 1,035 Note: excluding one HHs reporting a production 200 tons. If this is included, the total production is 389,660 kg. The mean value per kg produced varies from US$ 1,2 for cage culture and US$ 1.08 for rice field/shrimps to US$ 0.69 for pond culture. For the purpose of this survey it is interesting to estimate to what extend aquaculture receives inputs from capture fisheries in terms of fish fodder. Such an estimate has been done based on assumptions regarding the relationship between prices and species, i.e., carnivorous species fetch higher prices, and general knowledge about the composition of fish fodder used for various types of species. The calculation is used in subsequent Section 5.14 on balancing of catches and consumption. For details refer to Annex 5-4. 44

5.12 Segmentation of households according to type of involvement and catches The sample has been segmented into 4 main groups: capture fishing household, aquaculture households only, mixed capture fishing and aquaculture households, and non-fishing households. Each of these segments has been sub-grouped according to their annual catches. The brackets have been made using the quantiles, albeit not strictly. Thus, the sample can be divided as follows in Table 5-6. The sample size is 980 HHs since 22 HHs did not provide the full information, mostly on consumption, that was required for the segmentation calculations. Table 5-6 Segmentation structure Main segment Sub segment Criteria: HH yearly catches Nos HHs % of sample A Capture only A 1 very high 192200 kg/year 1 0 A Capture only A 2 large scale capture > 1899 kg/year < 25000 kg/year 56 6 A Capture only A 3 medium scale capture > 199 kg < 1900 kg/year 284 29 A Capture only A 4 small scale capture < 200 kg per year 228 23 B Aquaculture only B 1 very high AQ 200000 kg/year 1 0 B Aquaculture only B 2 large scale AQ only > 6000 < 100000 kg/year 6 1 B Aquaculture only B 3 medium scale AQ only >500 < 6000 kg/year 22 2 B Aquaculture only B 4 small scale AQ only < 500 kg/year 21 2 C Mixed AQ/Capture C 1 Very high mixed > 3500 kg combined kg/year 7 1 C Mixed AQ/Capture C 2 medium scale mixed > 500 kg < 3500 kg/year 52 5 C Mixed AQ/Capture C 3 small scale mixed < 500 kg/year 28 3 D Non fish/non AQ 274 28 Total 980 100 There are two extreme outliers in the sample, one HH that reports to catch 192,200 kg per year, and one HH that reports to produce 200,000 kg of aquaculture fish per year. While these reports are probably true, and even though such very high catching and producing households do exist, and contributes significantly to the overall production in An Giang, they have been excluded from the following calculations since they influence the averages so much. This is especially important in extrapolation (Section 8). The first segment, or rather segments, we will discuss are the ones involved in capture fisheries: only capture HHs and mixed HHs that combine capture fishing and aquaculture (Table 5-7). The 58% of the sample HHs exclusively involved in capture fisheries catch 88% of the total capture fisheries, while the 9% of the sample HHs that combine capture and aquaculture HHs catch 12%. Within the segments, the 56 large scale capture fishing HHs (6% of sample) account for 50% of the total catch. The 284 HHs (29% of sample) fishing on a medium scale account for 35% of the total catch, while the 228 HHs fishing on a small scale account for only 3% of the catch. Thus it becomes clear that there is a high degree of specialization of the fisheries even though a high a proportion of the households has some involvement. 45

Table 5-7 Capture fishing HHs segment Main segment Sub segment Nos Sample HHs HH as % of sample SAMPLE Sum HH catch % HH catches of total Catch Capture 568 58% 453,902 88% A 2 large scale capture 56 6% 256,795 50% A 3 medium scale capture 284 29% 181,445 35% A 4 small scale capture 228 23% 15,662 3% Mixed 87 9% 59,845 12% C 1 Very high mixed 7 1% 18,372 4% C 2 medium scale mixed 52 5% 37,122 7% C 3 small scale mixed 28 3% 4,351 1% The 87 (9% of sample) mixed bag HHs that combines capture fisheries and aquaculture also show specialization with 7 HHs accounting for around 45% of the capture catches from this segment. The segments involved in aquaculture comprise HHs involved in aquaculture only, and the mixed bag segment. Here specialization is also very pronounced. The 6 large scale exclusive aquaculture HHs (1% of sample) account for 61% of the total aquaculture production. It appears that HHs exclusively involved in aquaculture in general produce more than HHs that combine aquaculture with capture fisheries. Table 5-8 Aquaculture HHs segment Main segment Sub segment Nos Sample HHs HH as % of sample SAMPLE Sum Annual AQ Production % AQ production of total AQ production AQ HHs 49 5% 219,640 71% B 2 large scale AQ only 6 1% 188,000 61% B 3 medium scale AQ only 22 2% 27,250 9% B 4 small scale AQ only 21 2% 4,390 1% Mixed 87 9% 88,765 29% C 1 Very high mixed 7 1% 56,050 18% C 2 medium scale mixed 52 5% 29,890 10% C 3 small scale mixed 28 3% 2,825 1% This ex post segmentation of the sample provides a framework for a more structured analysis of the data with respect to catches, but also with respect to consumption, the relationship between catches and consumption, the role of aquaculture, and overall estimates of the inputs and outputs of the fisheries. Thus a segment based analysis of consumption and catches is presented at the end of the next section of the report, and the last Section 8 of the report presents extrapolations and an analysis of the balance between inputs and outputs of the fisheries based on segments. Annex 5xx gives the details of the various segments and the key figures used in the subsequent analysis. 46

5.13 Household consumption data Households were asked to give information on the normal weekly consumption of various food items by the whole family in a week in the dry and the wet season. These two sets of figures were then multiplied by 26 (weeks) assuming a consistent consumption during half yearly seasons. This is admittedly quite a gross way to measure consumption. Data on consumption were provided from 984 households, but due to a technical difficulty the number of households included in the data set used for calculation of means etc. only comprise 790 households. The excluded households are not selected in any systematic way however, except for a few households that gave clearly unreliable information, i.e., extremely high consumption figures. The analysis presented here is a traditional per capita consumption analysis. This is done to be able to compare with other consumption data available. However, a per capita consumption analysis obscures the fact that most households only consume a selection of food items. From a food security and nutritional perspective it is the composition of the diet across the households that is interesting: what is the distribution of the composition of the per capita consumption of food items? The present analysis is thus only indicative. Table 5-9 Per capita consumption per year Capita/year consumption Means Medians Std dev Std error Fresh fish 54.3 50.0 35.3 1.3 Dried fish 1.5 0.0 3.7 0.1 Fermented fish 0.8 0.0 2.0 0.1 Fish paste 1.7 0.0 4.2 0.2 Total aquatic food raw 58.4 53.3 36.6 1.3 Fresh fish equivalent of Dried fish 4.5 0.0 11.1 0.4 Fresh fish equivalent of Fermented fish 0.7 0.0 1.6 0.1 Fresh fish equivalent of Fish paste 1.4 0.0 3.4 0.1 Total fresh fish equivalent (mean) 61.0 55.3 38.6 1.4 Beef 0.6 0.0 2.0 0.1 Goat/sheep 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 Hen eggs 157.3 20.8 1152.3 41.0 Pork 7.2 3.9 9.5 0.3 Poultry 3.4 1.7 6.0 0.2 Wildlife (not aquatic) 3.3 0.0 7.0 0.2 Total animal food (excl. hens eggs) 72.9 65.8 41.8 1.5 Fresh fish % of total animal food stuff 75.5% 78.3% 16.2% 0.6% Nos. HHs included in analysis (With adequate information provided) 790 Note: The fresh fish equivalent conversion rates used in Table 5-3 are fermented fish 0.8, fish paste 0.8, fish sauce 0.1, dried fish 3. From Ministry of Health, Thailand (1992) and Phiakpol (1995). However, the trends found in the consumption data are so significant that one can confidently assume the survey gives a good picture of the 47

situation in An Giang with regard to the importance of fish and aquatic animals in the diet. Table 5-9 gives the means, medians, standard deviations and standard errors of the yearly per capita consumption of most of the food items included in the questionnaire. A few items, such as mollusks, reptiles, smoked fish and non-aquatic insects are not included since less than 10 households reported consuming these foods. Fish sauce is also not included in the table. It is clear that with a per capita consumption of 58 kg per year of fish and aquatic animals accounting for 75% of the animal foods, the diet in An Giang is based on the aquatic resources to an extreme degree. A comparison of the survey data with the other surveys (Table 5-15) shows that considering aquatic resources availability and the intensity of involvement in fisheries in An Giang, the figures for consumption are consistent with those obtained in other parts of the Mekong Delta and the Lower Mekong Basin, notably in Cambodia. The most comparable data are from neighboring Long An province (Nho, Guttman, 1998) that found an average per capita/year consumption of fish of 64 kg, with half of the 584 households in that survey having a per capita consumption of between 31-70 kg. These figures tally right on the mark with the present surveys findings. It is no surprise that with the very high contribution of fish and aquatic animals to the diet, the main protein source is likewise fish and aquatic animals contributing around 80% of the total protein intake. Table 5-10 Per capita/year protein consumption from animal food Std. Error Protein source Mean Median Std. Dev. Protein fresh fish 11.40 10.50 7.41 0.26 Protein fermented fish 0.13 0.00 0.29 0.01 Protein fish paste 0.26 0.00 0.63 0.02 Protein dried fish 0.60 0.00 1.48 0.05 Protein Beef 0.11 0.00 0.39 0.01 Protein goat sheep 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.01 Protein hens eggs 0.94 0.12 6.91 0.25 Protein pork 1.45 0.78 1.90 0.07 Protein poultry 0.60 0.31 1.08 0.04 Protein wildlife 0.49 0.00 1.04 0.04 Total protein 16.00 13.89 11.13 0.40 Protein Aquatic animals 12.39 11.31 7.78 0.28 Protein aquatic as % of total 80.3% 84.5% 15.5% 0.5% N Rows 790 Note: The protein conversion rates used are fresh fish 0.21, fermented fish and fish paste 0.15, dried fish 0.4, beef, pork and goat 0.2, poultry 0.18, one egg 0.006, wildlife 0.15. The conversion rates are obtained from publications by the Ministry of Health, Thailand (1992) and Phiakpol (1995). 48

It should be mentioned that fish sauce consumption, which is not included in the table, is very high (15.5 liter/person/year) because fish sauce is daily used in cooking. Many households make their own fish sauce, especially towards the end of the flood season when there is much surplus fish. Figure 5-15 Nos. HHs with per capita consumption of fresh fish as percent of total animal foodstuff consumption per capita per year 120 Fresh fish as % of total animal food 100 1 1 349 80 33 10 327 1 2 3 1 60 6 8 40 4 4 5 1 3 1 20 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Capita kg animal food per year Note: clustering done within a std. dev. of 10 kg for capita animal food and std. dev. of 3 % for fresh fish as percent of total Another type of analysis, as shown in Fig. 5-15, involves a density analysis (refer Annex 5 for details) of the distribution of households according to the percent of total animal foodstuff that fresh fish constitutes. This shows that the large majority of households have a per capita consumption of animal foodstuff (excl. eggs and fish sauce) of 60-70 kg/capita/year of which 70-90% is fresh fish. In the dry season most households consume fish purchased from the market, namely on average 76% of the fresh fish consumed by the households (Fig. 5-15). Own catches account on average for 21% of the fresh fish and aquatic animals consumed in the dry season. In the flood season, purchases and own catches are 50/50 on average. It is evident that many households move from purchased fresh fish to own captured fish as the main source of fresh fish in the wet season. For own catches the mean across all households move from 21% in the dry season to 49% in the wet season. For purchased fish the mean moves from 48% of the fresh fish consumed in the household in the wet season to 76% in the dry season. The household consumption of other animal foodstuff purchased from the market in the dry season accounts for 89% whereas own produce by the household accounts for 11%. 49

Figure 5-16 Comparison of percent purchased and percent own captured fresh fish in wet and dry seasons Matched Pairs Difference: WetSourceCapt-DrySourceCapt 100 Difference: WetSourceCapt-DrySourceCapt 50 0-50 WetSourceCapt DrySourceCapt -100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mean: (DrySourceCapt+WetSourceCapt)/2 Difference: DrySourcePur-WetSourcePur Difference: DrySourcePur-WetSourcePur 100 DrySourcePur 50 0-50 WetSourcePur -100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mean: (WetSourcePur+DrySourcePur)/2 WetSourceCapt DrySourceCapt Mean Difference Std Error Upper95% Lower95% N Correlation 49.2391 21.528 27.7111 1.26295 30.1895 25.2327 983 0.5309 t-ratio DF Prob > t Prob > t Prob < t 21.94163 982 <.0001 <.0001 1.0000 DrySourcePur WetSourcePur Mean Difference Std Error Upper95% Lower95% N Correlation 76.0376 48.941 27.0966 1.25101 29.5516 24.6416 983 0.54051 t-ratio DF Prob > t Prob > t Prob < t 21.65984 982 <.0001 <.0001 1.0000 Likewise in the flood season most of the animal foodstuff consumed by household come from the market or is given to the household (83%) while the consumption of own produce only accounts for 7% (Table 5-11). Thus, it is clear that fish and aquatic animals is a resource available to households that is more independent of the market and thus more accessible without regard to the purchasing power of the household. Table 5-11 Sources of food: means of households percentages Food items Fish and other aquatic animals Pork, beef and poultry Source Dry season Wet season Dry season Wet season Own capture 22 % 50 % Aquaculture/own produce 2 % 11 % 7 % Purchased 76 % 49 % 89 % 83 % Given to household from elsewhere 1 % N= 984 HHs Though the data are difficult to compare, Nho & Guttman (1998) found in Long An Province that around 30% of the fish consumed was bought. This would indicate that in An Giang the fish market penetration is higher than in Long An province. The ranks that households gave to the importance of various food items displays the features shown in Table 5-12. 50

Table 5-12 Percentage of households answers for the importance of consumed products Dry season Rank Wet season Rank N= 984 HHs Fish and other aquatic animals Pork, beef and poultry 1: Very important 89% 9% 2: Important 7% 71% 3: Less important 32% 1: Very important 96% 3% 2: Important 2% 8 3: Less important 32% In the dry season about 89% of households answered that the consumption of fish and aquatic animals is most important compared with the consumption of pork, beef, and poultry (9% for all). The households consumption of other animal foodstuff is generally given second priority compared to fish and aquatic animals. In the wet season about 96% of the sample households answered that the consumption of fish and aquatic animals is most important compared to pork, beef, and poultry (3% for all). As for the dry season, consumption of other animal foodstuff is generally given second priority. The frequencies of consumption of various kinds of animal protein give an additional indicator of the importance of different foods in the diet and support the estimates of total consumption figures. The frequency of consumption by households of aquatic animals and other animal foods is shown in Table 5-13. Table 5-13 Frequency of consumption of various foods in the dry and wet season (% of households reporting) Dry season Frequency of use Wet season Frequency of use N= 984 HHs Fish & aquatic animals Pork, beef and poultry Fish sauce 1: 2-3 times/day 64 % 3 % 94 % 2: Everyday 17 % 6 % 3 % 3: 2-3 times/week 13 % 20 % 4: Every week 3 % 21 % 5: Every 2-weeks 1 % 14 % 6: Every month 12 % 7: On occasion 20 % 1 % 1: 2-3 times/day 82 % 2 % 93 % 2: Everyday 11 % 3 % 3 % 3: 2-3 times/week 5 % 16 % 4: Every week 1 % 21 % 5: Every 2-weeks 14 % 6: Every month 11 % 7: On occasion 21 % 1 % 51

In the dry season, 64% of the households consume fish and aquatic animals 2-3 times/day taken while 17% consumes these items daily. The consumption frequency in the flood season is higher than that in dry season with 82% of the consuming these items 2-3 times/day households and 11% daily. In both the dry and wet seasons, households consume pork, beef and poultry much less frequently than aquatic animals. Most households eat these items less than once a week. Ninety-two percent of households reported that they use fish sauce 2 to 3 times per day in both seasons. This result supports the estimate of very high consumption of fish sauce. 5.14 Balancing catches and consumption of segments Comparing the catches and the consumption of the segments one can see which segments contribute most to the total surplus production. For this calculation an assessment has been made regarding the consumption of aquaculture production of freshwater fish caught in An Giang, i.e., a calculation of the net production of aquaculture considering its use of freshwater fish as fodder (ref. Annex for the details). Table 5-14 Segments catches and consumption in percent % HH catches of total Catch % AQ production of total AQ production % of total catch/production Segments % catch/ production of total Netto production Segments consumption as % of total fresh fish consumption Consumption by segment as % of Netto production/catch by segment Consumption by segment as % of Netto total catch/production Capture 88% 55% 77% 61% 44% 34% Net producer A 2 large scale capture 50% 31% 44% 8% 10% 5% Net producer A 3 medium scale capture 35% 22% 31% 32% 57% 18% Net producer A 4 small scale capture 3% 2% 3% 21% 436% 12% Net consumer AQ HHs 71% 27% 8% 5% 36% 3% Net producer B 2 large scale AQ only 61% 23% 7% 1% 5% 0% Net producer B 3 medium scale AQ only 9% 3% 1% 3% 133% 1% Net producer B 4 small scale AQ only 1% 1% 0% 2% 518% 1% Net consumer Mixed 12% 29% 18% 14% 10% 38% 5% Net producer C 1 Very high mixed 4% 18% 9% 6% 1% 8% 0% Net producer C 2 medium scale mixed 7% 10% 8% 8% 6% 45% 3% Net producer C 3 small scale mixed 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 169% 1% Net consumer D Nonfish/Non AQ 24% 14% Net consumer Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 56% It is interesting that of the largest segments in terms of households, namely medium scale capture fishery HHs and small scale capture fisheries and the non-fishing HHs, only the medium scale segment produces a surplus whereas the small scale segment consumes more than it produces (which of course also is the case for the non-fishing segment). 52

Overall the consumption is 56% of the production for the whole sample. In Section 8 these topics are further discussed and extrapolated to the whole province. Table 5-15 Comparison of consumption data with other surveys 1999 1999 1996 1997 1999 Source data/comments MRC Management of Reservoirs Fisheries component MRC Assess of Mekong Fisheries Component Report Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey AIT Aqua Research: Aquatic Resources Use Assessment in Long An Province, Vietnam MRC Assess of Mekong Fisheries Component Report Province 11 Nam Ngum Reservoir villages Luang Prabang Province - 27 randomly selected Villages, 179 households* Average 8 Provinces Long An Fisheries Province Survey An Giang 584 randomly selected HHs Present report in 6 Districts Aquatic products as estimate of total protein (as total animal product or % protein) Total animal products, raw kg Total aquatic products, raw kg 56.3% 55.5% 90% 80% 94.2 35.0 NA 14.4 57.1 21.4 62.2 64? (NA) 58.4 Rice NA NA Corn / Tuber NA NA Vegetable NA NA Fresh fish 35.0 15.2* 43.5 64 54.3 Dried fish 7.0 3.5 3.7 1.5 Fermented / pickled fish / salted* 15.1 3.1* 10.4 0.8 Canned fish NA NA Aquatic animals see fresh fish See fresh fish Amphibious animals NA NA Chicken 5.5 6.5 2.15 3.4 Ducks 5.2 0.25 Fowl other (turkey) 5.1 Birds NA NA Eggs 1.8 0.3 0.43 NA Pork 11.3 4.45 7.2 Beef 4.6 11.4 2.15 0.6 Buffalo 4.7 Goat/Sheep 0.3 0.1 Forest game 3.3 3.3 Winged insects 0.2 Comments Other aquatic products not Averages are made excluding 14 house- specified were included in survey and form part of holds with very high consumption overall total. Averages for a sample of 790 HHs Note: different surveys asks different questions, some include aquatic animals, others not etc.. Comparison should be made with a grain of salt. 53

6 Individuals survey 6.1 Profile of individual respondents Of the population of 992 sampled individuals, 437 (44%) were female and 555 (56%) were male. Of these, 314 (31.7%) were children below 12 years (comparisons of the various categories by status (position within the household) and sex and age are provided in Annex 6). Table 6-1 shows the average sex and age individual respondents and whether they were also household heads interviewed for the household survey. More than 35% of the respondents were interviewed both as household heads and as individuals. Table 6-1 Comparison of household and individual respondents Respondent different or same as HH head Sex Average age Nos. respondents Different Female 35.6 420 Different Male 26.6 222 Same Female 51.5 17 Same Male 46.9 333 6.2 Habitats used by individuals The habitats used by the 452 individuals involved in fishing activities are shown in Table 6-2. Wet rice irrigated habitats (that is, floodplain) is fished by 99% of the individuals and perennial river and perennial canal are also important fishing sites with 41% and 32% respectively of fishers using those habitats (refer to problems with habitat classifications in Sections 4.2 and 5.5). A proper analysis of these results requires consideration of the total area of the various habitats available to be fished and accessible to fishers (data not currently available). Table 6-2 Frequency of use of habitat Habitat Name Number of individuals using the habitat Percent of all fishing events Perennial River 186 41% Perennial Canal 143 32% Seasonal Canal 20 4% Floodplain Grassland 2 Floodplain Trees/Shrubs 1 Floodplain Swamp/Marsh 3 1% Natural Lake 15 3% Natural Swamp/Marsh 7 2% Manmade Aquaculture Pond 29 6% Wet Rice Rainfed 75 17% Wet Rice Irrigated 450 99% Wet Rice Flood Inundated 6 1% 54

6.3 Individual fishers catches and use of gears Figure 6-1 shows a summary of the data obtained on the use of gears by individual fishers, estimates of the annual catches per gear and total catches per gear type (that is, the total catch for the population of people sampled/interviewed). Figure 6-1 Gears reported in use by respondents and nos. people involved in their operation Stationary gillnets Collection Stationary by hand gillnets Collection Cast by net hand Long line, surface Cast set net Long line, surface Barrageset Pole w ith single hook and Barrages line Pole w ith single Purse hook and seine line Drifting, at Purse surface seine Attractant Drifting, at Basket surface Attractant Traw Basket l Electricity Traw l Long line, bottom Electricity set Big Long lift-net line, on bottom shoreset Nos. reports Sum people involved Big Twlift-net o funnel on trap shore Nos. reports Sum people involved Cylindrical Tw o drum funnel trap trap Collection wcylindrical ith scoop drum basket trap Collection w ith scoop Spear basket Set hook w ith float Spear Set hook Small wlift-net ith float Upright Basket Small Trap lift-net Beach seine Upright w ith brush Basket park Trap Beach Bamboo seine wtube ith brush Eel Trap park Beach seine Bamboo w ithout Tube brush Eel park Trap Beach Collection seine w with ithout plunge brush basket park Collection wsmall ith plunge scoop basket net Small Harpoon scoop net Pond Harpoon trap Small Pond Dai trap Big cone shaped Small net Dai Big Basket cone Frog shaped Trapnet Basket Large Frog Dai Trap Drifting, at Large bottomdai Basket Drifting, Eel at bottom Trap Drifting hook Basket w ith Eel float Trap Drifting Vertical hook wslit ith trap float Vertical Poison slit trap Barbed Rattan Cone Poison Barbed Rattan Cone 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Care must be taken with the term in use. For example, individuals may report that they have a brush park in operation at the time but may not be actually fishing it (with a beach seine) at the time. This is a problem of terminology with all passive gears and fish aggregating devices (brush parks). Also, some gears are shared by a number of fishermen. This is certainly the case with larger gears such as barrage fences, larger dais and brush parks etc. However, the reports of actual catches are more important and these are based on the response of individuals as to what they actually caught on their fishing trips (i.e., for passive gears the fishing trip is when the fish were collected from the gear). In the case of shared gears, people were asked to report both the total catch and their share of the catch. The relevant data are summarised in Table 6.4. Electricity, spears and poison are all banned gears in the study area. Nevertheless, 19 cases of use of electricity were reported, 10 for spear (harpoon) and 1 for poison. The fact that these were even mentioned strengthens confidence in the survey (that is, individuals were willing, in general, to report the truth). 55

Figure 6-2 Gears and effort: nos. units in use and nos. fishing days used Stationary gillnets Collection Stationary by hand gillnets Collection Cast by net hand Long line, surface Cast set net Long line, surface Barrageset Pole w ith single hook and Barrages line Pole w ith single Purse hook and seine line Drifting, at Purse surface seine Attractant Drifting, at Basket surface Attractant Traw Basket l Electricity Traw l Long line, bottom Electricity set Big Long lift-net line, on bottom shoreset Big Twlift-net o funnel on trap shore Cylindrical Tw o drum funnel trap trap Collection wcylindrical ith scoop drum basket trap Collection w ith scoop Spear basket Set hook w ith float Spear Set hook Small wlift-net ith float Upright Basket Small Trap lift-net Beach seine Upright w ith brush Basket park Trap Beach Bamboo seine wtube ith brush Eel Trap park Beach seine Bamboo w ithout Tube brush Eel park Trap Beach Collection seine wwith ithout plunge brush basket park Collection wsmall ith plunge scoop basket net Small Harpoon scoop net Pond Harpoon trap Small Pond Dai trap Big cone shaped Small net Dai Big Basket cone Frog shaped Trapnet Sum Units in use by sample Sum Nos. fish days using gear Basket Large Frog Dai Trap Sum Units in use by sample Sum Nos. fish days using gear Drifting, at Large bottomdai Basket Drifting, Eel at bottom Trap Drifting hook Basket w ith Eel float Trap Drifting Vertical hook wslit ith trap float Vertical Poison slit trap Barbed Rattan Cone Poison Barbed Rattan Cone 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Table 6-3 Gears contribution to total catches Gear Name Sum of all catches based on individuals yearly assessment Percent of total based on yearly assessment Sum of all catches based on individual s monthly average assessment Percent of total based on monthly assessments Large Dai 250,003 45.12% 35,003 10.22% Barrages 103,239 18.63% 45,666 13.34% Stationary gillnets 69,568 12.55% 88,315 25.79% Cast net 22,343 4.03% 25,266 7.38% Long line, surface set 18,728 3.38% 21,522 6.29% Beach seine with brush park 10,633 1.92% 10,841 3.17% Drifting, at surface 10,463 1.89% 12,599 3.68% Trawl 9,454 1.71% 11,653 3.40% Collection by hand 8,373 1.51% 12,833 3.75% Purse seine 7,645 1.38% 15,315 4.47% Big lift-net on shore 6,116 1.10% 10,839 3.17% 56

Estimates of individuals catches based on reports of the use of gear and the contribution of individual gears to total catches by all respondents are made in Table 6-4. There are significant differences between the two estimates, i.e., one based on yearly recall and one based on a summation of monthly recalled averages. However, there is agreement that the large gears such as Dai, Barrage and Stationary gillnet account for 50% or more of the total catches. Fig 6-3 shows the number of individuals reporting to fish in various habitats and the total catch by individuals coming from the habitat. It is easy to see that Wet Rice Irrigated, Perennial River and Canal are the most important habitats being fished by most people and contributing the most to the total catch. Figure 6-3 Relative importance of habitats fished by individuals Wet Rice Irrigated Nos. individuals fishing in habitat (Log scale) 100 10 Floodplain Swamp/Marsh Floodplain Grassland Manmade Aquaculture Pond Seasonal Canal Natural Lake Perennial River Perennial Canal Wet Rice Rainfed Natural Swamp/Marsh Wet Rice Flood Inundated Floodplain Trees/Shrubs 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Total catch by all fishers from habitat (Log scale) Table 6-4 shows the average catch by habitat from the operations that were reported by individuals as well as the catch per person involved in the operations. The highest yearly production per person is from rivers at 785 kg and this figure is undoubtedly heavily influenced by the fact that the dais operate in rivers. The other major habitats (wet rice flood inundated, perennial canal, wet rice irrigated, wet rain fed rice and natural lake all produce similar estimates around 300-400 kg. This is likely because these habitat classifications, as explained previously, are ambiguous and some of these may actually be similar from a fisheries perspective (i.e., they are types of floodplain). A note of caution: the production (catch) per person per habitat must be considered in the light of how many people exploit those habitats, the area extent of habitats and the relative fishing effort applied by the persons. However, the current survey does not provide the details needed to analyze these factors in detail. The data in Table 6-4 should be used 57

for information purposes only and they specifically do not indicate relative production per unit area. Table 6-4 Individuals yearly catches by habitat Habitat name Nos. respondents Mean yearly catch assessments for operations reported by individuals (kg) Mean yearly catch per one individual fishing Perennial River 186 1707 786 Wet Rice Flood Inundated 6 (kg) 290 390 Perennial Canal 143 761 368 Wet Rice Irrigated 450 281 348 Wet Rice Rainfed 75 228 318 Natural Lake 15 199 318 Seasonal Canal 20 327 210 Manmade Aqua. Pond 29 100 110 Floodplain Grassland 2 22 52 Natural Swamp/Marsh 7 26 52 Floodplain Trees/Shrubs 1 10 42 Floodplain Swamp/Marsh 3 11 27 6.4 The disposal of recent catches Individuals were asked what they did with their most recent catch and the summary of their reports is shown in Table 6-7. Whilst the largest proportion (91%) of fishers reported that part of their catch was used for home consumption (column B) the bulk of the total catch was sold, predominantly to middlemen (column A). These figures refer only to the fate of the most recent catches at the time of the survey. Nevertheless, they indicate that whilst the fishery is obviously important for food supply into the individuals own households, there is a high degree of commercialism in the fishery - even for the small-scale fishers. Table 6-5 Individuals disposal of recent catches Disposal of total catch Nos. Individuals reporting (A) they dispose in that way Nature of Disposal (B) Total catch (kg) Percent of total catch Number persons Percent of all reports Bartered/exchanged for goods 1 0.02% 2 1% Consumed fresh in own household 590 9.85% 302 91% Fish processed/preserved in own 30 0.50% 5 2% Given to relatives/friends in a 17 0.28% 7 2% Other 6 0.11% 1 0% Sold by household at market 339 5.66% 53 16% Sold to middleman 4756 79.40% 20 6% Used as seed fish for stocking 250 4.18% 2 1% 5990 100% N=333 Individuals who had recently been fishing responded 58

7 Data on species 333 individuals who had recently been fishing responded to the question: which were the five most important fish species (or other aquatic animals) in your most recent catch, and where were they caught. These data give an indication of the use of aquatic habitats by the most important species at the time the interviews took place. It is therefore a useful snapshot of the species occurrence in the area and a rough composition of catches at that time. A total of 76 species and species groups were reported (Annex 7). For each person interviewed, a reasonable estimate of the weight of the recent catch was made. Each fisher was asked only about the five most important species in the recent catch. A rough assessment of the relative importance of the various species is shown in Annex 7 based upon the sum of the fishers estimate of the contribution of each species to the total weight of the most recent catch of all individuals. These are indicative data only and it would be misleading to draw firm conclusions on the overall composition of catches, even for the most recent catches and definitely not on an annual basis. However, the data do confirm that the fishery is very diverse with at least 22 species that could be considered prominent in catches. Only one species, reported as Cirrhinus jullieni, dominates the catch. This result could be influenced by the migratory nature of this species, which is consistent with the fact that it is caught almost entirely from flowing water (rivers) and such migrations are common at the time the survey was undertaken, namely in June. However, there is also quite possibly an error in identification in that this specie is difficult to identify and other small migratory cyprinids are often reported as this specie. Mussels, aquatic reptiles (presumably mainly turtles), small shrimps and adult frogs and toads are also all important in the recent catches. This confirms the need to include aquatic animals other than just fish in surveys of fisheries activities. Most common in the Collection by hand catches were Adult frogs and toads, Hypsibarbus malcolmi, Pristolepis fasciata reported by 80 % of the fishers using this method. The most common species in catches with castnet were Paralaubuca typus, Pseudomystus siamensis, Glossogobius giurus, the commonest species in Stationary gillnet catches were Glossogobius giurus, Clupeichthys aesarnensis, and Henicorhynchus siamensis. The species which were caught with the largest variety of methods, were Anabas testudineus and Trichogaster pectoralis caught by 15 of the 30 gears respectively, followed by Channa striata (12), Small shrimps, Mussels and Esomus metallicus which were caught by 10 methods respectively. The most species rich habitat was Perennial River with 53 taxa recorded (placed in Flowing water in Annex 7). The second richest habitat was perennial canals with 35 fish species plus mussels and aquatic/semiaquatic animals, followed by Wet rice irrigated (28 species). Wet rice rain fed, Manmade Aquaculture ponds and Natural lakes without connection 59

with the river had only 10-17 fish species plus mussels and other aquatic animals. This is consistent with the previously mentioned interpretations of habitat classifications. That is, wet rice irrigated represents more open floodplain with connection to the river channels (and canals). Therefore diversity there is higher. It is logical that diversity in channels (river or canal) would be high since most, if not all, floodplain species are recruited from rivers/canals and the latter have an additional resident fauna or migratory species traveling through from elsewhere.. The most frequently reported species in all of the catches was the Anabas testudineus (91 reports) with Mussels being the second most frequently reported group. Trichogaster trichopterus, Channa striata, unspecified reptiles, Cirrhinus jullieni, Esomus metallicus, Barbodes gonionotus dominated the remaining catches (by frequency). These species, together with Broadhead catfish (Clarias macrocephalus), were also recorded from the largest range of habitats (Perennial rivers, Perennial canals, Wet rice irrigated, Rainfed rice fields and Aquaculture pond). The air-breathing forms that are known to have wide habitat range dominate this group. Clarias macrocephalus, in particular, along with Anabas testunideus, are capable of traveling across land to reach normally isolated areas such as rainfed pools and aquaculture ponds inaccessible to most other species. These observations are, therefore, reasonably consistent with ecological knowledge of the stocks. They reinforce confidence in data being reported by fishers. 60

8 Extrapolations for fish consumption and catches for An Giang province 8.1 Introduction This study was not designed with a view to make actual precise estimates of the production of fish and aquatic animals in An Giang. It was designed with a view to provide information that would be useful in a subsequent design of more permanent monitoring methods for production estimation. However, this section will attempt to make total estimations and give examples of how this may possibly be done. During this process a significant coherence in the present survey data is found that gives confidence that the estimate made as an example may very well, given the error margins, be quite legitimate. Extrapolating fish production is never an easy task because most of the fishery operates at a small-scale level for which there is no monitoring system. Most small-scale fishers, and probably many large-scale fishers, do not even record their catches themselves. In addition the seasonal nature of the fishery means that extrapolating from small sets of data may refer to only a small part of the year. The alternative is to have a long-term study covering at least one year. But the downside of that is that the research team could cover a much smaller area. Furthermore, these fisheries are known to have natural variations in production between years, often due to differences in the extent of flooding and, sometimes, changes between years in socio-economic conditions that can affect the way the fishery operates. As described in Section 2, the approach of this study was a gross geographical stratification of sample communes, and within these random sampling of villages and households, and by extension, individuals. The validity of the sample s representation of the area as a whole has likewise been discussed in previous sections. With any random sampling it is possible, by chance, to include or exclude extremes in the sample. This is most true for the fish catches that shows a log scale distribution over the households. However, provided one makes sure that the proper error margins and confidence levels are specified, it is of course still possible to extrapolate from such random samples. However, for a data collection system that should feed into a fisheries management system it would be necessary to achieve less error margins and higher confidence levels than what is possible on the basis of the present data set. Importantly, it would be necessary to stratify a priory the sampling to capture the extremes, i.e., the high catches. The present survey allows only for an ex post stratification of the catch data as discussed in Section 5.12. The current study has investigated fish catches in various ways. Most involve people replying about what they remember they caught, either at the household or individual levels. The system is basically the same as that used in official statistics. With fisheries, catches are rarely, if ever, measured directly. It is widely known that one of the best ways of obtaining minimum catchestimates for small-scale inland fisheries is to study fish consumption. 61

This is because in such areas much of the fish is produced locally and consumed locally. Therefore, what is consumed gives a minimum estimate of what is caught - to which must be added what is exported from the area. Furthermore, fish caught is also consumed within the region by non-human consumers (e.g., livestock/aquaculture). In short: Fisheries production = consumption (human + non human) + net export (from the area) + waste For estimating total fish consumption for the province, or average fish consumption per household, an issue is import or export from the province. Export does not necessarily imply to other countries, only to outside the sample population (including non-human consumption). It is useful to know the relative contributions of aquaculture and capture fisheries to producing the fish that is consumed. The following conclusions on gross fisheries production in An Giang Province are based upon consideration of these factors. 8.2 Comparison of survey findings with official statistics It should be emphasized that the findings of the current survey support the official statistics for capture fisheries and aquaculture production in the following ways: 8.2.1 Capture fisheries For 1999, the official total catch figure for An Giang province was 64,000 tons. This figure is based on catch reports and estimates for the larger gears, namely large dai, barrages, trawl, big lift net on shore and stationary gillnets. This present survey also collected data on the catches of individuals involved in various operations where these types of gears are used. The respondents gave information on the total yearly catch of the large gear operation in which they are involved. These operations often use several units of gears and involve a number of people. However, in this context, each report by an individual in the sample is treated as a report on an operation that is comparable to a gear record in the official statistics. According to information from the provincial fisheries department the numbers of gears in An Giang are as listed in Table 8-1, where they are multiplied by the average catches reported by the respondents in the current survey: 62