IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Research article
erd

Contribution of Kampong Preak Fish Sanctuary (Tonle SapLake, Cambodia) to Livelihoods in Two Adjacent Floating
Villages
NITH CHUM
Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: panit_chum@yahoo.com

ERIC BARANWorldFish Center, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

COLAS CHERVIER
Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

SY VANN LENG
Inland Fishery Research and Development Institute, Fishery Administration,Phnom Penh, Cambodia

DAVID EMMETTConservation International, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Received 30 December 2009

Accepted 5 March 2010

Abstract This study focused on the contribution of natural resources (fish, wildlife,vegetation, flooded forest, etc) to the livelihoods of communities living in two floatingvillages located near Kampong Preak fish sanctuary, Krakor district, Pursat Province. The
approach was based on a combination of Rapid Rural Assessment (RRA) and economic
assessment methods. Data was collected from 60 households. Stratified random sampling
was used to interview rich, medium and poor households. Quantitative information wascomplemented by interviews of key informants and of village chiefs. Analysis focused oni) quantitative data, and ii) perceptions of interviewees about the contribution of naturalresources and of the fish sanctuary to their livelihoods. This study showed that the fish
catch is an important element of income. The living standards of villagers varied,depending on fish production and aquatic plant collection. Labor, aquaculture, pig farming
and wildlife catching were the other sources of income in the two floating villages. During
six months of fishing season, rich households can catch up to 8020 kg of fish worth USD1938 while medium households can catch 1,950 kg of fish (USD 778) and poor households
can catch 1,426 kg of fish worth in average USD 422. The fish sanctuary contributed tohousehold consumption and income generation in all households. Fish, snake, water bird,turtle, edible wild plant and fire wood are most important for daily subsistence of poor
households. Overall people in rich households derive more benefits from natural resources
because they have more capital to invest on fishing equipment and to bribe law enforcers.
Keywords: Conservation, fisheries, rural development, environmental management

INTRODUCTION
Cambodia has the most productive inland fisheries in the world. With an estimated production
ranging between 290,000 and 430,000 tonnes per year (Van Zalinge et al., 2000), the fish yield is
one of the highest in the world and contributes between 8 and 12 % of country’s GDP (Kurien et al.,
2004-2005). More than a million Cambodian rely upon fisheries for their livelihoods and themajority of Cambodian population lives within the central floodplain of Tonle Sap Great Lake and© ISERD

119

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Mekong River (ADB, 2003). At least 1.2 million people live the Tonle Sap Lake and exploit its
resources. They depend on fish, flooded forest and wildlife as primary or secondary sources ofincome, employment, food and firewood (ADB, 2003, Chanthy, 2006). According to Balzer et al.
(2002), in the Tonle Sap Great Lake, many wildlife species including birds, snakes, turtles, bee but
also plants are used by the local people. Usually, the rural people catch wildlife for household
consumption as well as for sale and income generation.
The Tonle Sap Great Lake is also a site of global ecological and conservation significance andwas classified as a UNESCO international biosphere reserve (Royal Decree, 2001).Within this area,fish sanctuaries (i.e. zones where fishing is completely banned) were already recommended by
Chevey and Le Poulain in 1940. In fact, two fish sanctuaries in Pursat Province (namely Kampong
Preak and Reang Til) existed before 1950s (Deap, 1992). Two more fish sanctuaries (Kampong
Pluk in Siem Reap province and Phat Sandai or Pi Stoun in Kampong Thom province) wereestablished during the 1960s (Sovan,1992). Then four more fish sanctuaries were established lateron (Chroy Sdey and Dey Roneat in Pursat province, Ba Lot fish in Kampong Thom province, andPark Konteal in Battambang province; Chheng, 2008); thus to date there are eight sanctuaries
located around the permanent lake; they are characterized by different levels of law enforcement
and of biological efficiency (Chheng, 2008).
The purposes of the current research is to i) identify the different social groups using natural
resources in Kampong Preak fish sanctuary, ii) determine how these social groups use naturalresources as a livelihood strategy, and iii) assess the contribution of natural resources to income
generation in each social group.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research was conducted between December 2008 and May 2009. A Rapid Rural Appraisal(RRA) approach was used. RRA is a “Systematic, semi structured activity conduced on site, withthe aim of acquiring new information and hypotheses about rural life and rural resources”(Coolison, 1981). This method is a way to identify rural priorities in a short time frame, focusing
on aspects related to planned intervention or change.
The two villages selected for study were Anlong Raing and Kampong Preak villages, locatedoutside the Kampong Preak fish sanctuary. The two floating villages were chosen because the local
livelihoods are based on the natural resources, especially flooded forest, fish and wildlife in theKampong Preak fish sanctuary. There has not been any organization to protect and conserve it in
the past, and at the present there CI to provide funds to protect and conserve endangered animaland fish species as well as flooded forest within the fish sanctuary.
The differences between social groups, their wealth and the corresponding households in eachvillage were determined during a preliminary stratification phase by a wealth ranking exercise anddiscussion with the village leaders. 60 households of different social group from a total of 148
households collecting directly resources around the fish sanctuary were randomly selected for indepth interview using a structured questionnaire. The profit of each natural resource from fish
sanctuary was calculated by the total income minus by the total expense which was not includedthe labor cost. The expenditure of employment was covered by the owner.
RESULTS
Contribution of natural resources to the livelihood of different social groups
An analysis of the household interviews gathered in the two floating villages near Kampong Preakfish sanctuary indicates how much natural resources around fish sanctuary are used by different
social groups. Table 1 shows that fishing, snake catching, fire wood collection and water bird
catching all play an important role in the livelihoods of all social groups. There is a substantial
difference between social groups only about turtle catching. Rich and medium household catchturtles by using horizontal cylinder traps and enclosure nets, whereas poor households can not use© ISERD120

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

them because these gears are expensive and a boat is needed to use them far from their home.
There are some differences between social groups involved in the use of edible wild plants becauserich and medium household use them also for pig farming, whereas poor households don’t raisepigs.
Table 1 Contribution of natural resources to livelihood of different social groups
Rich households

Sources

Medium households

Poor households

Frequency(%)

Frequency(%)

Frequency(%)

Fishing
Snake catching

1110100
91

26
26

100
100

23
23100
100

Fire wood collection
Edible wild plants collection

101091
91

25
26

95
100

22
2395
100

Water bird catching
Turtle catching

6455
36

14
658
23

11155
4

Kinds of fish caught by the different social groups
An analysis focussing on fish catch, fish groups and social groups is detailed in Table 2. Amongthe three fish groups, white fishes consist of long distance migrants (Tonle Sap - Mekongmainstream), black fishes of local residents (floodplain fishes), and grey fishes consist of shortdistance migrants (Tonle Sap - local tributaries).
Table 2 Fish caught by different social groups in the villages studied during 6 months

Fish guide
White fish
Gray fish
Black fish
Total

Average total
catchRich households

Medium households

Poor households

fish catch
(kg)

(%)

fish catch
(kg)

(%)

fish catch
(kg)

(%)

fish catch
(kg)

4,758
1,806
1,456
8,020

59
23
18100

960
552
438
1,950492823100

716
358
352
1,426

50
2525
100

6,434
2,716
2,246
11,396This table shows that there are substantial differences between social groups in terms of fishcatch. In the six months of fishing season between December and May, rich households can catch
more than 8,000 kg of fish (including 59% of white fish, 23% of gray fish and 18% of black fish)
because they use bigger and illegal fishing gears such as enclosure nets (more than 500 m of nets)
and giant lift nets (18m x 18m x 9m); whereas medium household can catch 1950 kg of fish (49%of white fish, 28% of gray fish and 23% of black fish) and poor households can catch only 1,426 kg
of fish (50% of white fish, 25% of gray fish and 25% of black fish species) because they don’t use
large fishing gears and fishing equipment like rich households.
Fishing gear used by different social groups
According to Deap et al. (2003), more than 102 fishing gears have been identified in Cambodia.
However, the main fishing gears used by social group in the villages studied are not that many;
they consist mainly of gillnets, brush parks or fyke nets (Table 3).
© ISERD121

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Table 3 Frequency and percentage of different social groups using a given fishing gear
Rich households

Medium households

Poor households

Frequency(%)

Frequency(%)

Frequency(%)

Gill nets (25-35 mm)

1091

2595

23100

Brush parks

873

2596

1461

Fishing gears

Gill nets (65-120 mm)

982

1869

1565

Hook

655

1454

1044

Fyke nets made327

1142

313

Enclosure nets

655

28--Giant lift nets

545----

Horizontal cylinder traps

32741414

Hook long line

1928417Cast nets----

29Gill nets (25-35 mm or 65-120 mm mesh size) are the most common gear and are used by allsocial groups because of their low cost compared to other fishing gears. Less fishermen use longline with hooks because this gear catch less fish and requires much time for seeking bait. Brushparks are used by all social groups because they are efficient and cheap (although illegal); they areused between March and May. People from rich households also use enclosure nets (more than 500
m of nets) and giant lift nets (18m x 18m x 9m) because these fishing gears are very efficientalthough they are very expensive and require paying bribes since they are illegal. With enclosure
seine nets fishermen harvest around a patch of water hyacinths previously gathered and underwhich fish sought refuge. Those gears catch a mixture of small fish species and are used between
October and February. There are no differences between social groups in the use of hooks andhorizontal cylinder traps. Fyke nets, although illegal, are used when water rises, especially in May July, and target fish migrating from the river into the flooded forest. Horizontal cylinder traps is agear targeting only snakehead fish between July and April. This gear can catch from 3 to 15 kg offish per day, depending on the season; in dry season they catch more than in wet season and thenfishermen check and collect fish every two days. Cast nets are only used by 9% of respondents, allof them from poor households; because this gear is cheap but catches less fish than other gears (andsmall fishes of low value only).
Economic activities of the different social groups
An analysis of household interviews in the villages studied indicates how much social groups
earned from the use of natural resources during the 6 months of the study (Table 4). In fact naturalresources contribute more or less to income generation depending on the social group. The expenseof some kind of resources was zero as it was already included in fishing expense.
Fishing is the main source of income; this activity contributes more than 60% of income inrich and medium households and 82% in poor households. Over six months of fishing season, richhouseholds can earn around USD 2000 in average from fishing, while medium households makearound USD 800 and poor households USD 400. Aquaculture and pig farming are the secondsources of income for rich and medium household. Aquaculture contributes 22% of income in richhouseholds (USD 630), 19% in medium households (USD 244), and pig farming (on floating
platforms) contributes 7% of income to rich and medium households. Snake catching contributes
7% of income to medium and poor households. Turtles catching, fire wood collection and birdcatching made the smallest, often negligible, economic contribution. Thus respondents from richand medium household get income from fishing activities, aquaculture and pig farming, but did nothave any other sources of income; conversely, medium and poor households rely largely on income
from young workers who migrate to urban areas.
© ISERD

122

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Table 4 Contribution of each activity to livelihoods of different social groups
SourcesRich household

Medium household

Poor household

Average (USD)

Average (USD)

Average (USD)

IncomeExpenseIncomeExpenseIncomeExpenseFishing

1,938

813

779

255

422

113

Aquaculture

630

283

244

150

00

Snake catch

23484

13

395

Employment

80

68

0

450

Pig farming

195

166

92

81

00

Fire wood

00

11

1.5

70.5

00.5

Turtle catch

9

Bird catch
Total

3
2,806

Profit (USD/6 months)

0.25
1,266.25
1,540

0
1,278

020.5

0470.50515

0118.5

807.5

396.5

Source: Field survey 2009, 1 USD was equivalent to 4,150 Riel during 6 months.

Overall these results show that rich households benefit much more, economically speaking,from natural resources than other social groups, and that people do not emigrate towards urban
areas if they can get enough income from local harvesting activities.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThis study shows that natural resources from Kampong Prak sanctuary play a critical role in thelives of people living around that protected area. Fishing activities are the major source ofdifferences between social groups (both household consumption and income generation).
Aquaculture and pig farming are secondary sources of income for rich and medium households.
Firewood collection and catching snakes, water birds and turtles are sources of subsistence for poor
households. The people living in the villages studied preferred to collect edible wild plants during
the flooded season and to catch water birds in the dry season. They preferred to catch turtles, fromthe end of rainy season until the dry season. These results confirm those of Chanthy (2006) andRahut et al. (2007) who also showed that fishing is an important source of income in floatingvillages. Thouk and Sina (1997) also found that very poor households, although they spent moretime fishing than rich households, had a lower catch per unit effort. In better-off households, thehigher importance of fishing is explained by the fact that men fish more, use bigger fishing gears
and travel further to exploit better fishing grounds. Labor and fish cage culture are another sourceof income for rural livelihoods. Flooded forests play a role in supporting aquatic life and rural
livelihoods as a source of fuel wood, handicraft materials, wild vegetable, wildlife and traditional
medicines (ADB, 2002). Snakes represent an important income source and food sources for someof poorest people in Cambodia (Roudy 2002, Brooks et al. 2007). Snake catching is more popularthan other wildlife catching, because villagers can process the snakes locally and sell processedsnakes at a high price (12,000 Riel per kilogram).
From our study it can be concluded that natural resources from the fish sanctuary contributevery substantially to the livelihood and income of people living in floating villages aroundKampong Prak. The use of natural resources is different between social groups, and that the living
standards are proportional to the level of fish catch. Fishing is thus the main source of income forlivelihoods in floating villages, but it requires a higher investment than the collection of othernatural resources. For that reason, rich households collect more natural resources, in particularmore fish, than medium and poor household. Wildlife and plants also make a substantial© ISERD123

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

contribution to the livelihood and diet of villagers, in particular since they are easy and cheaper tocollect.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study results from collaboration between the Royal University of Agriculture, the WorldFish
Center and Conservation International that funded this work.

REFERENCES
Asian Development Bank (2002) Report and recommendation of the president to the board of directors on a
proposed loan and technical assistance grant to the kingdom of Cambodia for the Tonle Sap
environmental management project. RRP:CAM 33418-01.
Asian Developmen Bank (2003) Improving the regulatory and management framework for inland fisheries.
Tonle Sap Environmental Management Prioject, Component 1, 2-3.
Balzer, T., Balzer, P. and Pon, S. (2002) Traditional use and availability of aquatic biodiversity in rice-based
ecosystems, Kampong Thom Province, Kingdom of Cambodia. FAO Inland Water Resources andAquaculture Service, 1-39.
Chanthy, R. (2006) Contribution of flooded forest to the livelihoods of rural families in Cambodia, A casestudy of two community Fishery in Ake Phnom District, Battambang province. MSc thesis, Asian
Institute of Technology, Thailand.
Cheng, P. (2008) Fish sanctuary in Tonle Sap Great Lake (Cambodia) and their role in sustainability of fishproduction. MSc thesis, University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia.
Chevey, P. and Le Poulain F. (1940) La pêche dans les eaux douces du Cambodge. Travaux de l’Institut,Océanographiquede l'Indochine. 5e mémoire 195, + 48pl. +7 cartes.
Collision, M. (1981) A low cost approach to understanding small farmers. Agricultural Administration, 8(6),433-450.
Deap, L. (1992) The Pursat province’s reserve fishing domains, Chroy Sdey and Kampong Preak. MSc thesis,Chamkadoung University of Fisheries, Cambodia.
Hap, N., Seng, L. and Chuenpagdee, R. (2006) Socioeconomics and livelihood values of Tonle Sap Lakefisheries. World Fish Center and Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute, 1-24, Cambodia.
Kurien, J, So, N. and Mao, S.O. (2006) Cambodia's aquarian reforms, The emerging challenges for policyand research. Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute, 1-32, Cambodia.
Rahut, D., Hap, N. and Ratner, B. (2007) Enabling alternative livelihoods for aquatic resource dependentcommunities of the Tonle Sap. Research report, WorldFish Center, 1-9, Cambodia.
Royal Government of Cambodia (2001) Royal decree on the establishment and management of Tonle Sap
biosphere reserve. 1-6, Cambodia.
Roudy, G. (2004) Natural resource use and livelihood trends in the Tonle Sap floodplain, Cambodia, A
socio-economic analysis of direct use values in Peam Ta Our floating village. MSc thesis, University ofLondon, UK.
Van Zalinge, N., Nao, T., Tana, T.S. and Deap L. (2000) Where there is water there is fish? Cambodia
fisheries issues in a Mekong River Basin perspective. Common Property in the Mekong, Issues ofSustainability and Subsistence, ICLARM Stud. Rev., 1-27.

© ISERD124