Co-management of small-scale fishery in the Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2020.12.002

Abstract

Abstract:

In Cambodia, fishery co-management is an important process to transfer authority and ownership to the communities along the Tonle Sap Lake to manage fishery. This paper aims to determine why the co-management of small-scale fishery has not been implemented satisfactorily in the Tonle Sap Lake of Cambodia. The research was primarily based on a household survey among 404 households for quantitative data, equally divided between the Cham (202 households) and Khmer (202 households). Participatory process was also applied to collect qualitative data from key stakeholders. We found that limited interaction among the involved stakeholders, i.e., unequal distribution of authority and resources co-management, has impeded implementation. The engagement of fisherfolk was influenced by dependence on fishery, law enforcement, and events organized by the communities. While the Khmer had better opportunities to participate in planning at the provincial and district levels, the Cham were only engaged in local development activities initiated by their people. However, the latter evinced a higher rate of satisfaction due to their access to fishery resources and to a large quantity of fishing gear. In the future, efforts should be made to: (1) improve resource and authority sharing among all key stakeholders; (2) urgently resolve issues pertinent to capacity building, insufficient budgets for commune councils (CoCs) and community fishery (CFi); and (3) urge law enforcement regarding illegal fishing.

Key words: Small-scale fishery, Co-management, Local planning process, Community fishery, Tonle Sap Lake

Serey Sok, Xiaojiang Yu. Co-management of small-scale fishery in the Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2021, 2(1): 1-11.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig. 1.

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Appendix 1

References 69

[1]	ADB (Asian Development Bank), 2011. Cambodia: Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project. Phnom Pen: Asian Development Bank.
[2]	Ahmed, M., 2003. Fish consumption in selected Asian countries: A disaggregated analysis by types of fish and classes of consumers. Penang: The World Fish Center.
[3]	Baland, J.M., Platteau, J.P., 1996. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[4]	Baral, N., Heinen, J.T., 2007. Decentralization and people’s participation in conservation: a comparative study from the Western Terai of Nepal. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 14(5), 520-531.
[5]	Baral, N., Stern, M.J., 2011. A comparative study of two community-based conservation models in Nepal. Biodivers. Conserv., 20(11), 2407-2426.
[6]	Baran, E., Starr, P., Kura, Y., 2007. Influence of Built Structures on Tonle Sap Fisheries-Synthesis Report Cambodia National Mekong Committee. Working Papers, number 36990, July. Penang: The WorldFish Center.
[7]	Béné, C., Neiland, E.A., 2006. From participation to governance: a critical review of the concepts of governance, co-management and participation, and their implementation in small-scale inland fisheries in developing countries. Working Papers, number 36883, July. Penang: The WorldFish Center.
[8]	Béné, C., 2009. Power struggle, dispute and alliance over local resources: analyzing ‘democratic’ decentralization of natural resources through the lenses of Africa inland fisheries. World Dev., 37(2), 1935-1950.
[9]	Berkes, F., George, P.J., Preston, R.J., 1991. The evolution of theory and practice of the joint administration of living resources. Altern., 18(2), 12-18.
[10]	Berkes, F., 1994. Co-management: bridging the two solitudes. Northern Perspectives, 22(2), 18-20.
[11]	Bonheur, N., 2001. Tonle Sap Ecosystem and Value. Technical Coordination Unit for Tonle Sap. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Environment.
[12]	Bown, N.K., Gray, T.S., Stead, S.M., 2013. Co-management and adaptive co-management: Two modes of governance in a Honduran marine protected area. Mar. Policy, 39, 128-134.
[13]	Campbell, L.M., Vainio-Mattila, A., 2003. Participatory development and community-based conservation: Opportunities missed for lessons learned? Hum. Ecol., 31(3), 417-437.
[14]	Carlsson, L., Berkes, F., 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J. Enviro. Manag., 75(1), 65-76.
[15]	Castro, P.A., E., Nielsen, E., 2001. Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environ Sci Policy, 4(4-5), 229-239.
[16]	d’Armengol, L., Castillo, M.P., Ruiz-Mallén, I., et al., 2018. A systematic review of co-managed small-scale fisheries: social diversity and adaptive management improve outcomes. Glob. Enviro. Change, 52, 212-225.
[17]	de Oliveira, L.P., 2013. Fishers as advocates of marine protected areas: a case study from Galicia (NW Spain). Mar. Policy, 41, 95-102.
[18]	District Planning Unit, 2016. Socio-economic data of Kampong Tralach (in Khmer). Kampong Chhnang: District Office of Planning.
[19]	Driessen, P.P.J., Dieperink, C., van Laerhoven, F., et al., 2012. Towards a conceptual framework for the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance - experiences from The Netherlands. Environ. Policy Gov., 22(3), 143-160.
[20]	Elliott, M.L., Knodt, A.R., Ireland, D., 2020. What is the test-retest reliability of common task-functional MRI measures? New empirical evidence and a meta-analysis. Psychol. Sci., https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916786.
[21]	Evans, L., Cherrett, N., Pemsl, D., 2011. Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: A meta-analysis. J. Enviro. Manag., 92(8), 1938-1949.
[22]	Ferguson, A., Derman, B., 2000. Writing against hegemony: development encounters in Zimbabwe and Malawi (Development encounters: sites of participation and knowledge). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[23]	Friend, R., 2007. Securing sustainable livelihoods through wise use of wetland resources: reflections on the experience of the Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Programme (MWBP). Vientiane: MWBP.
[24]	Geoghegan, T., Renard, Y., 2002. Beyond community involvement: lessons from the insular Caribbean. Parks, 12(2), 16-27.
[25]	Gutiérrez, N.L., Hilborn, R., Defeo, O., 2011. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature, 470(7334), 386-389. doi: 10.1038/nature09689 pmid: 21209616
[26]	Hap, N., Seng, L., Chuenpagdee, R., 2006. Socioeconomics and Livelihood Values of Tonle Sap Lake Fisheries. Phnom Penh: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFRDI).
[27]	Hortle, K.G., 2007. Consumption and the yield of fish and other aquatic animals from the Lower Mekong Basin. Phnom Penh: Mekong River Commission.
[28]	Jentoft, S., 1989. Fisheries co-management: delegating government responsibility to fishermen’s organizations. Mar. Policy, 13(2), 137-154.
[29]	Jentoft, S., McCay, B.J., Wilson, D.C., 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-management. Mar. Policy, 22(4-5), 423-436.
[30]	Jentoft, S., 2003. Co-management - the way forward. In: Wilson, D.C., Nielsen, J.R., Degnbol, P. (Eds.). The Fisheries Co-management Experience: Accomplishments, Challenges and Prospects. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[31]	Joshua Project, 2014. Cham, Western in Cambodia. [2020-09-09]. https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/print/15361/CB.
[32]	Keskinen, M., Varis, O., 2012. Institutional cooperation at a basin level: for what, by whom? Lessons learned from Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake. Nat. Resour. Forum, 36(1), 50-60.
[33]	Knox, A., Meinzen-Dick, R.S., 2001. Collective action, property rights, and devolution of natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy. CAPRi working papers 11, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
[34]	Kooiman, J., 2003. Governing as Governance. London: Sage.
[35]	Kummu, M., Sarkkula, J., 2008. Impact of the Mekong River flow alteration on the Tonle Sap flood pulse. J. Hum. Env., 37(3), 185-192.
[36]	Lambters, D., 2006. The Tonle Sap Lake as a Productive Ecosystem. Int. J. Wat. Res. Deve., 22(3), 481-495.
[37]	Lewins, R., Béné, C., Baba, M.O., 2014. African inland fisheries: Experiences with co-management and policies of decentralization. Soc Nat Resou, 27(4), 405-420.
[38]	Lozano, A.J.G., Heinen, J.T., 2016. Property relations and the co-management of small-scale fisheries in Costa Rica: lessons from marine areas for responsible fishing in the Gulf of Nicoya. Mar. Policy, 73, 196-203.
[39]	Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), 2016. Community Fisheries update 25/6/2016. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
[40]	Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), 2018. Fisheries co-management training manual - n° 1: Establishing a Community Fishery. Phnom Penh: Fisheries Administration and Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute.
[41]	MoP, 2013. Intercensal Population Survey, Preliminary Findings. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Planning.
[42]	Napier, V.R., Branch, G.M., Harris, J.M., 2005. Evaluating conditions for successful co-management of subsistence fisheries in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Enviro. Conserv., 32(2), 165-177.
[43]	Noble, B.F., 2000. Institutional criteria for co-management. Mar. Policy, 24(1), 69-77.
[44]	Nunan, F., Luomba, J., Lwenya, C.A., 2012. Finding space for participation: fisherfolk mobility and co-management of Lake Victoria fisheries. Env. Manag., 50(5), 204-216.
[45]	Nuon, V., Gallardo, W., 2011. Perceptions of the local community on the outcome of community fishery management in Krala Peah village, Cambodia. Int. J. Sust. Deve. & World Ecol. , 18(5), 453-460.
[46]	Olson, M., 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[47]	Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[48]	Pech, S., Sunada, K., 2008. Population Growth and Natural-Resources Pressures in the Mekong River Basin. Ambio, 37(3), 219-224. pmid: 18595278
[49]	Pinkerton, E., 1989. Attaining better fisheries management through co-management prospects, problems and propositions. In: Pinkerton, E. (Ed.). Cooperative Management of Local Fisheries: New Direction in Improved Management and Community Development. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
[50]	Pinkerton, E., 1994. Local fisheries co-management: a review of international exercises and their implications for salmon management in British Columbia. Can. J. Fish. Aqua. Sci., 51(10), 2363-2378.
[51]	Pomeroy, R.S., Berkes, F., 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Mar. policy, 21(5), 465-480. doi: 10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00017-1
[52]	Pomeroy, R.S., 2004. Devolution and Fisheries Co-management. Manila: ICLARM.
[53]	Quimby, B., Levine, A., 2018. Participation, power, and equity: examining three key social dimensions of fisheries co-management. Sustainability, 10(9), 3324. doi: 10.3390/su10093324
[54]	Ratner, B.D., 2006. Community management by decree? Lessons from Cambodia’s fisheries reform. Soc Nat Resour, 19(1), 79-86.
[55]	Resurreccion, B., 2006. Rules, roles and rights: gender, participation and community fisheries management in Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Region. Int. J. Water Res. Deve., 22(3), 433-447.
[56]	Resurreccion, B., 2008. Gender mainstreaming in the Tonle Sap region: three myths. Modern Myths of the Mekong, 65-77.
[57]	Ribot, J.C., 2002. Democratic Decentralisation of Natural Resources. Washington, DC.: World Resources Institute.
[58]	Sen, S., Nielsen, R.J., 1996. Fisheries co-management: A comparative analysis. Mar. Policy, 20(5), 405-418.
[59]	Smith, S.L., 2012. Toward inclusive co-management: factors influencing stakeholder participation. Coast. Manag., 40(3), 327-337. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2012.677642
[60]	Sneddon, C., Fox, C., 2007. Power, development, and institutional change: Participatory governance in the Lower Mekong Basin. World Dev., 36(12), 2161-2181.
[61]	Sok, S., Yu, X., Wong, K.K., 2012. Impediments to community fisheries management: Some findings in Kompong Pou commune, Krakor District in Cambodia’s Tonle Sap. Singa. J. Trop. Geog., 33(3), 398-413.
[62]	Sok, S., Yu, X., Yila, O., 2014. Decentralized local institutions and livelihood development of riverine communities in the Lower Mekong Basin, Cambodia. J. of Asian Pub. Pol. , 7(3), 275-290.
[63]	Stern, M.J., Baird, D.T., 2015. Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions. Ecol. Soc., 20(2), 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07248-200214. pmid: 25170339
[64]	Sultana, P., Thompson, P., 2004. Methods of consensus building for community-based fisheries management in Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta. Agri. Sys., 82(3), 327-353.
[65]	Thoun, T., Chambers, M., 2006. Situation analysis: Stung Treng Province, Cambodia. Vientiane, LA: Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Programme.
[66]	van Zalinge, N., 2002. Update on the status of the Cambodian inland capture fisheries sector with special reference to the Tonle Sap Great Lake. Catch and Culture, 8(2), 1-5.
[67]	Viner, K., Ahmed, M., Bjørndal, T., 2006. Development of fisheries co-management in Cambodia: a case study and its implications. Working Papers, number 36885, July. Penang: The WorldFish Center.
[68]	Wilson, D.C., 2003. The community development tradition and fisheries co-management. In: Wilson D.C., Nielsen J.R., Degnbol P. (Eds). The Fisheries Co-management Experience. Fish and Fisheries Series, vol 26. Dordrecht: Springer.
[69]	Yamane, T., 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis (2^nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

No.	Commune	Village	Name of CFs	Area (hm²)	Plan	CFi member		Registration date (dd/mm/yy)
No.	Commune	Village	Name of CFs	Area (hm²)	Plan	Total	Female	Registration date (dd/mm/yy)
1	Longveaek	Voat	Phum Voat	1008	Yes	181	85	30/12/08
2		Srah Chak	Srah Chak	535	Yes	70	36	30/12/08
3		Boeng Kak	Boeng Kak	1358	Yes	160	76	30/12/08
4	Kampong Tralach	Neak Ta Hang	Neak Ta Hang	566	Yes	241	133	30/12/08
5		Kampong Tralach Leu	Kampong Tralach Leu	727	Yes	235	77	30/12/08
6		Samretthi Chey	Samretthi Chey	265	Yes	126	44	30/12/08
7		Kampong Tralach Kraom	Kampong Tralach Kraom	446	Yes	300	140	30/12/08
8		Preaek Kanlang	Preaek Kanlang	552	Yes	219	90	30/12/08
9		Kampong Kdar	Kampong Kdar	601	Yes	222	71	30/12/08
10		Kien Roka	Kien Roka	388	Yes	83	49	30/12/08
11	Ampil Tuek	Kbal Kaoh	Kbal Kaoh	647	Yes	249	135	30/12/08
12		Kaek Pong	Kaek Pong	314	Yes	325	201	30/12/08
13		Baek Chan	Baek Chan	649	Yes	318	145	30/12/08
14		Khla Krohuem	Khla Krohuem	502	Yes	104	55	30/12/08
15		Bak Phnum	Bak Phnum	178	Yes	181	98	30/12/08
16		Veal Sbov	Veal Sbov	331	Yes	130	60	30/12/08
17		Kien Khleang	Kien Khleang	296	Yes	160	70	30/12/08
18		Ou Mal	Ou Mal	243	Yes	222	131	30/12/08
19		Stueng Snguot	Stueng Snguot	3397	Yes	388	202	30/12/08
20		Ampil Tuek	Ampil Tuek	2384	Yes	243	129	30/12/08
21		Sdei Banlich	Sdei Banlich	510	Yes	363	184	30/12/08
Total				15,897		4520	2211

Ethnic group	Characteristic
The Cham	About 50.5% of the Cham were full-time fisherfolk. The Cham owned less land but were more skilled at fishing.
The Khmer	About 16.9% of the Khmer were full-time fisherfolk. The majority Khmer were full-time rice farmers.

Attribute	Khmer (n=202)		Cham (n=202)		Overall (n=404)		P-value
Attribute	WAI	OA	WAI	OA	WAI	OA	P-value
Provincial planning	0.45	M	0.37	L	0.41	M	0.000^***
District planning	0.48	M	0.45	M	0.46	M	0.005^**
Commune planning	0.66	H	0.67	H	0.66	H	0.416
NGOs planning	0.51	M	0.52	M	0.51	M	0.670
Usage of fishery resources	0.49	M	0.58	M	0.49	M	0.000^***
Size of fishing gears	0.54	M	0.61	H	0.54	M	0.000^***
CFi’s membership	0.53	M	0.62	H	0.54	M	0.000^***
Community outreach	0.52	M	0.58	M	0.52	M	0.000^***

Attribute	B	Standard error	β	t-value	P-value
Age	0.029	0.045	0.025	0.645	0.519
Education attainment	-0.169	0.152	-0.044	-1.107	0.269
Ethnicity (Khmer or Cham)	1.366	1.107	0.052	1.234	0.218
Number of male fisherfolk	0.505	0.617	0.033	0.818	0.414
Number of female fisherfolk	0.316	0.925	0.013	0.341	0.733
Primary job as fisherfolk	-7.444	1.227	-0.269	-6.069	0.000^***
Fishery contribution to household	12.851	1.419	0.432	9.057	0.000^***
Participation in national meetings	-4.753	8.195	-0.043	-0.580	0.562
Participation in regional meetings	-3.369	6.693	-0.039	-0.503	0.615
Participation in community meetings	11.975	3.495	0.167	3.426	0.001^**
Restrictions on fishing gear	-15.611	3.986	-0.182	-3.916	0.000^***
Arrest by fishery officers	-4.535	1.957	-0.088	-2.317	0.021^*

Code	Organization	Interview date
KI-1	Fishery Administration, Phnom Penh Office	April 2016
KI-2	Kampong Tralach Commune, Kampong Tralach District, Kampong Chhnang Province	January 2016
KI-3	Kampong Tralach Leu CFi (community fishery), Kampong Tralach District, Kampong Chhnang Province	March 2016
KI-4	Ampil Tuek CFi, Kampong Tralach District, Kampong Chhnang Provinc	March 2020
KI-5	Fisheries Action Coalition Team, Phnom Penh Office	March 2020
KI-6	Kampong Tralach Kraom CFi, Kampong Tralach District, Kampong Chhnang Province	March 2016
KI-7	WorldFish, Phnom Penh Office	April 2012
KI-8	District Office, Kampong Tralach District, Kampong Chhnang Province	January 2016
GD	Fisherfolk, Kampong Tralach Commune, Kampong Tralach District, Kampong Chhnang Province	February 2016