IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Research article
erd

Fish Trade on Fishing Products in Tonle Sap Great LakeRATANAK OU*
Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: ratanakoulaotav@gmail.com
Received 15 December 2011

Accepted 7 February 2012(*: Corresponding Author)

Abstract Looking to daily activities in Tonle Sap Great Lake and fish markets, the topic“Fish  Trade on Fishing Products  in  Tonle  Sap  Great  Lake”  has  been  conducted  to  where  fish products in Tonle Sap are exported, as well as of the way of fish processing. The
study aims to (1) Identify the distribution of fish yields for domestic markets and fish
species for processing; (2) Identify the distribution of fish yields for processing anddifferent types of processing to domestic markets; (3) Evaluate the supply of the fresh fishyields in Tonle Sap to satisfy the demand of people in Cambodia; (4) Study market
channels and values added by each transaction on fresh and processed fish products into
domestic markets. Informally purposive sampling is selected for the research. The analysis
shows the fish yields vary from each year in which the data has been recorded by theFisheries Administration. However, during 2010, Tonle Sap Authority data shows the fishyield is about 537,000 tons, nearly triple of that of the Fisheries Administration of about
173,450 tons and equal to about 50% of Cambodian fish consumption. There are manyfish species involved in the trade both domestic and international market such as bronzefeatherback, chevron snakehead, boeseman croaker, asian bonytongue, clown featherback,silver barb, giant snakehead, reddish sheatfish, frecklefin eel, blackspotted catfish, sickle
fin barb, giant barb, peacock eel. The main actors of the supply chain of fisheries products
are the fishing lot owners, fishers, fish collectors, wholesalers, trader-middleperson, andretailers. So, the fish market channel is from the first fishers until the final consumers. Fishmarket transaction is added from a transaction to another about 30% to over 80%, and thefish prices among domestic markets are not quite different from each other, just below
1,000 riel.
Keywords Tonle Sap Great Lake, fisheries product, fish trade, domestic fish products

INTRODUCTION
Currently, Tonle Sap Great Lake is a stock pool for many fish species and is one of the great lakes
in South-East Asia, and is generally mentioned as the heart of Cambodia, which is illustrating thesociety, the economy, the environment, and the culture. In fact, this lake is not just a uniqueecosystem of inundated flooded forest, fish habitats, and subsistence for agriculture; it is also avital part of historical and cultural heritage of Cambodia’s  national  identity  (Campbell et al., 2006).
It was a natural pool absorbing roughly 20% of the water flow from Mekong River and rich of thenatural resources. Nearly half a million people are currently surviving and depending on the lake.
Most people work as fisherman; some people plant crops, vegetables, rice, and other agriculturalproducts. Various things to be considered were that fish supply would not be sufficient for current
demands and for next generations. The main reason for the decline of all freshwater species wasoverexploitation and deforestation. The decrease of the natural resources and the rapid increases in
the population had already resulted in the decrease of living standard throughout the lake area, as
well as the entire country. Freshwater fish was further one of the most trading commodities inwhich the sellers sold them fresh in containers, fresh on ice, or in a wide variety of processing
products. There were many steps and buying competitions involved in fish markets including thestorage, handling, shipment, sale bargain, and product quality. Middlemen came and bought thefishing products from Tonle Sap Great Lake; then sold them by adding prices to the next buyers.
Ⓒ ISERD49IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

There were two main markets for fish products. Most of the exporters traded fish both fresh andprocessing products to the domestic markets in Phnom Penh, and also to foreign markets.
METHODOLOGY
The study collected the annual fish yield to estimate the fish products in 2009 only. Three mainmarkets, Chong Koh, Kampong Luong, and Chong Kneas (Tonle Sap Great Lake) were chosen to
study about fish market channels and fish prices. The study continued to ask for more informationof fish prices from fishers, middlemen, retailers, and other key informants. Moreover, three more
main domestic markets in Phnom Penh: Orussey Market, Chbar Ampov Market, and Doeumkor
Market, were studied for the final fish prices. Three main methods were used to collect data fromfishers and other key informants such as observation, semi-structure interview, and in-depthinterview. The purposively selective sampling method was the main for accomplishing the study.
The information was collected from the fishers about fish species and their prices. After that, thestudy continued to stock-wholesalers and retailers in domestic markets. Using prepared
questionnaires, nearly 114 semi-structured interviews were carried out with fishers (60), traders ordistributors (30), fish processors (21), and government officials (3) for three selected provinces inTonle Sap Great Lake during the prohibited fishing season. There were three main markets in
Phnom Penh and a fish distribution in Chrang Chamres Fish Distribution Center. The 91-prepared
questionnaires were asked for the fresh and processed fish prices and fish species at Doeumkor
market 20 out of 40 fresh fish retailers and 07 out of 15 processed fish sellers, at Orussey market 20
out of 25 fresh fish retailers and 07 out of 20 processed fish sellers, at Chbar Ampov market 20 outof 40 fresh fish retailers and 07 out of 20 processed fish sellers, and at Chrang Chamres FishDistribution Center 10 out of 19 distributors.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Identification of fish distribution
Tonle Sap Great Lake looks like the pool for many fish species. According to FiA (2009),
freshwater fish exploitation in 2009 was 390,000 tons in total. The exploitation from fishing lots
and middle-scale fishing was about 120,000 tons while the small-scale fishing was roughly 155,000tons. The data of rice-field fishing around 115,000 tons was also included. However, the study wasfocused mostly on the 06-provinces adjoining to Tonle Sap Great Lake, so the total amount ofindustrial and middle-scale fishing products is 65,050 tons. TSA (2010) showed that the area inTonle Sap Great Lake was around 1,500,000 hectares during the rainy season but in the drought
period, it would recede to 250,000 hectares.

Fig. 1 Total catch of industrial and middle-scale fishing products (2001-2009)Ⓒ ISERD

50

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

In Table 1, the study focused on the catchment of fishing products in six provinces incooperation with FiA (2009) and TSA (2009). There are three main parts to be considered:industrial and medium-scale fishing products (IFMSF), small scale fishing products (SSF), andsmall scale fishing in the rice field (SSFiR). The data of TSA (2009) was used for the study.
Table 1 Annual freshwater fish catch (Tons) in 6 provinces
NoKampong Chhnang
PursatBattambangBanteay
Siem Reap
Kampong Thom
TotalIF-MSF

SSF

SSFiR

FiA

TSA

17,00012,50010,5001,550
11,50012,00065,05014,00011,50011,0003,500
13,20013,00066,200

9,000
7,500
7,200
2,500
8,500
7,500
42,200173,450537,000

Table 2 Fish distribution on the different uses in 2009
Fresh fish products
Dry and smoke fish products

Processed fish products
Fermented fish paste called Brahoc
Bait fish products

Domestic market

56,000Foreign market

14,000

Domestic market

12,800Foreign market

3,200

Domestic market

307,200

Foreign market

76,800

Domestic market

N/AForeign market

67,000Total (tons)

537,000

Table 3 Fish species of fresh and processing fish products for domestic market
No

Khmer nameCommerce nameScientific name1

Trey andaing

Walking catfish

Clarias macrocephalus

2

Trey chanteas phluk

Asiatic minnow

Paralaubuca typus

3

Trey chhkok

Giant barb

Cyclocheilichthys enoplos

4

Trey chhlonh

Peacock eel

Macrognathus siamensis

5

Trey chhlang

Blackspotted catfish

Hemibagrus nemurus spp

6

Trey chhpin

Goldfin tinfoil barb

Hypsibarbus suvattii spp

7

Trey chrorkaing

Sickle fin barb

Puntioplites falcifer

8

Trey diep/chdor

Giant Snake Head

Channa micropeltes

9Trey damrey

Marble goby

Oxyeleotris marmorata

10

Trey kahè

Silver BarbBarbodes gonionotus

11

Trey promah

Boeseman croaker

Boesemania microlepis

12

Trey slat

Bronze featherback

Notopterus notopterus

13

Trey sanday

Sheatfish

Wallagonia attu

14

Trey ta aun

Butter catfish

Ompok hypophthalmus

15

Trey riel top

Siamesae mud carp

Henicorhynchus siamensisⒸ ISERD

51

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

The data of FiA and TSA in 2009 are quite different from each other because the method tocollect data was different. Because the study was under the department of Tonle Sap Authority, thestudy used data of TSA for reference. After collecting data of fishing products around the lake, thestudy separated it with various uses as in Table 2.
The study had asked for the fish species collected from Tonle Sap Great Lake. There weresome usual sold-species from the lake into domestic markets as described in Table 3. However,there were about 10 fish species that were listed.

Fig. 2 Fresh fish products supplied in 2010 by Tonle Sap Great Lake
As shown in Fig. 2, the supply of fisheries products from Tonle Sap Great Lake is about 49%
and the rest is from other sources while the demands of fish products reached about 1,102,500 tons
a year for the current population, 2010.
Table 4 Type of fish processing in Tonle Sap Great Lake
Types

Smoke fish

Salt dried fish

Sun dried fish

Fermented fish
paste called
BrahocPasted fish called
Pa OrkFrozen fish

Fish Species, Khmer

Commerce nameScientific nameTrey riel top

Siamesae mud carp

Henicorhynchus siamensis

Trey linh

Lesser bighead carp

Thynnichthys thynnoides

Trey kesh

Reddiish sheatfish

Wallago attu

Trey Phtong

Congaturi halfbeak

Hyporhamphus limbatus

Trey promah

Boeseman croaker

Boesemania microlepis

Trey kanchos

Striped catfish

Mystus atrifasciatus

Trey kanchos

Striped catfish

Mystus atrifasciatus

Trey phtuok

Chevron snakehead

Channa striata

Trey promah

Boeseman croaker

Boesemania microlepis

Trey riel top

Siamesae mud carp

Henicorhynchus siamensis

Trey linh

Lesser bighead carp

Thynnichthys thynnoides

Trey kawmphleanh

Three spot gourami

Trichogaster microlepis

Trey phtuok

Chevron snakehead

Channa striata

Trey diep

Giant snakehead

Channa micropeltes

Trey chhlonh

Peacock eel

Macrognathus siamensis

Trey chhlang

Blackspotted catfish

Hemibagrus nemurus spp

Trey chdor

Giant snakehead

Channa micropeltes

Trey kesh

Reddish sheatfish

Wallago attu

Trey slat

Bronze featherback

Notopterus notopterusⒸ ISERD

52

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Identification of market channel and value added in domestic markets
The most alerting component of the fish marketing system in Cambodia was the supply chain anddistribution channels before fish products reached consumers. There were many middlepersons
essential for the fish trade. The fish market channel started from fishers/lot owners/cage/pond
culture to collectors/middleman, to wholesalers/traders, to semi-wholesalers/second traders, toretailers, and to domestic consumers. Table 5 shows value added from each transaction regardingsome fish species, which was estimated by the study..
Table 5 Value added of fresh fish products for domestic markets
Fresh fishing products
Walking catfish
Striped catfish

Chevron snakehead
Giant snakehead

FisherTraderDistributor

ConsumerMarginPrice (r/kg)

3,500

4,500

6,000

7,000

3,500

% of final price

50%

64%

86%

100%

50%

Price (r/kg)

2,000

3,000

3,500

4,500

2,500

% of final price

44%

67%

78%

100%

56%

Price (r/kg)

4,500

7,500

9,000

14,2009,700% of final price

32%

53%

63%

100%

68%

Price (r/kg)

6,000

13,00014,00016,30010,300% of final price

37%

80%

86%

100%

63%

Marketing margins for the eight species study ranged from about 50 to 80 percent. Prices
offered to fishers represent only about 25-45 percent of the final retail price. According to Yim andMckenney (2003) the marketing margin of three species ranged from 65 to 75 percent of theconsumer’s  prices.  These  showed there was not so much difference in the value added in 2003 and2010, but the prices of fish products were higher in 2010 than those in 2009 because of the inflationand the higher demand.
Table 6 Value added of processed fish products
Marketing process
Fermented
Small fish
paste

Three spot
gouramiSmoke Fish

Reddishsheatfish

Sun Dried
Fish

Giantsnakehead

Salt Dried
FishStripedcatfish

Price(r/kg)% offinalPrice(r/kg)
% of
final
Price(r/kg)
% of
final
Price(r/kg)
% of
final

Fisher2,500

Trader
6,000

Distributor
7,100Consumer
8,300

Margin
5,800

30%

72%

86%

100%

70%

12,00080,000105,000

117,000

105,000

10%

68%

90%

100%

90%

7,000

30,00035,00040,00033,000

18%

75%

88%

100%

83%

3,500

10,00013,00015,60012,100

22%

64%

83%

100%

78%

Marketing margins for the four fish processing study ranged from about 65 to 90 percent.
Prices offered to fishers represent only about 15-35 percent of the final retail prices but theconsumers have to add about 50-90 percent of the final fish prices. The highest prices are generally
added to the reddish sheatfish and giant snakehead. They are sold at the highest prices in the market.
These are connected to the demand preferences and the human behavior at the fish marketing.

Ⓒ ISERD

53

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

CONCLUSION
There were many fish species involved in the trade of both domestic market such as bronzefeatherback, chevron snakehead, boeseman croaker, asian bonytongue, clown featherback, silverbarb, giant snakehead, reddish sheatfish, frecklefin eel, blackspotted catfish, sickle fin barb, giantbarb, and peacock eel. Moreover, the price changed from each transaction. The main actors of thesupply chain of fishery product markets were the fishing lot owners, fishers, fish collectors,wholesalers, trader/middleperson, and retailers. Therefore, the fish market channel was fromfishing lot/pond/cage owners to the consumers. The existing infrastructure of marketing and tradingof freshwater fisheries products was still poorly developed in terms of landing, storage, preserving,transportation, and retail facilities. The study described the market channel of the fish species inTonle Sap Great Lake and showed mostly the fish market transaction in which the fish value wasadded from hand to hand.
REFERENCES
Campbell, C.I., Poole, C., Giesen, W. and Jorgensen, V.J. 2006. Species diversity and ecology of Tonle Sap
Great Lake, Cambodia. Aquat. Sci. 68, 355-373.
Fisheries Administration 2009. Data of freshwater fish products in cooperation with the project. Freshwater
Fishing Management of Cambodia, Cambodia.
Tonle Sap Authority. 2010. Report of assessment on potential of Tonlé Sap Great Lake and surrounding area
as a master plan, Guideline map, Khmer version, Department of Bio-Diversity and Exploitation,Cambodia.
Yim, C. and McKenney, B. 2003. Domestic fish trade, A case study of fish marketing from the Great Lake toPhnom Penh, Working paper 29, Cambodia Development Resource Institute, Cambodia.

Ⓒ ISERD54