Much More Than Rice:

Rice Field Biodiversity and Food Security in Southeastern Cambodia

Numa Shams, Tuy Samram, Dennis Gutierrez,

Mum Phanny and Ngang Sameoun1

Abstract

Wild fish and aquatic plants play an important role in farmer food security in Southerstern Cambodia. Understanding the relationship between rice field biodiversity and food security can guide local communities, non-governmental organizations, and policy makers to implement sustainable management strategies for living aquatic resources in rainfed lowland rice growing areas. The report consists of preliminary findings from a three-day participatory longitudinal study on wild fish and aquatic plants and proceedings from a village level workshop organized by Catholic Relief Services (CRS). The report concludes by presenting questions and areas for further study.

I.  Introduction

It has been said that Svay Rieng is "poor in all but fish" [1] . While rice yields in this southeastern Cambodian province are among the lowest in South East Asia [2] , the abundance of indigenous fish species has provided a fair measure of food security for resource poor farm families. Wild fish constitute an estimated 70% of total protein intake (AIT, 1993) and can be readily found in rice fields, canals, ponds, and rivers throughout the province. Estimates on annual per capita fish consumption in Cambodia range from 38 kg (Nirmal, 1997) to 76 kg (Ahmed, et al, 1998) depending upon location. As one author remarks, "people may not be able to survive at all on such poor riceland but for the abundance of (the) aquatic animals... In fact, given the low value of rice produced by farmers relative to fish and other aquatic plant (OAP) collected, it could be argued that these communities are not rice farmers who collect fish but rather fisherfolk who grow rice." (Gregory and Guttman, 1996) The abundance of living aquatic resources provides a critical buffer for the poorest farmers against environmental (draught, flood, pest, etc) and economic tremors. Thus the conservation and sustainable utilization of living aquatic resources is necessary to achieve food security for the poorest and most vulnerable rural families.

Research conducted by graduate students of the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) [3] , and anecdotal evidence suggest that wild fish populations are under pressure due to changes in habitat, fishing practices, and demograhics. In 1996, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Cambodia, in partnership with the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) conducted Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) in three villages in Chrok Motes commune, Svay Teap district, Svay Rieng. According to the PRAs, farmers perceived that the availability of forage food (fish, aquatic plants, mushrooms, etc.) was steadily declining. Villagers pointed to the burgeoning population and efforts by previous governments to clear forested areas as key factors behind the area's dwindling natural resources. Illegal fishing practices and the use of harmful chemicals were also thought to contribute to declining fish populations. (CRS, 1996)

Although most observers agree that illegal fishing and the growing human population threaten the vitality of the wild fish stock, few if any claim to understand to what extent. Bearing this in mind, CRS launched a study in 1999 to better understand the linkages between living aquatic resource management and farmer food security in Svay Rieng. CRS wants to determine how communities can best manage their natural resources so as to ensure the food security of poor households and still conserve the natural resource base for future generations. The study's findings will also aid small fish producers to better plan and market their aquaculture micro enterprises. The three-year study is being conducted in three villages in the Chrok Motes commune, Svay Teap district using participatory data collection methodologies and community consultation. The findings of the study will be used to develop an action plan for natural resource management with the communities.

The information presented in this report covers the initial findings of the study and the output of a village level workshop. The purpose of the report is to stimulate dialogue among the public sector and the non-governmental (NGO) community on the lessons learned and opportunities for community based natural resource management in the rainfed lowland ricefield ecosystems of Cambodia.

II.   WILD FISH STUDY

A. Introduction

Wild fish constitute an important source of food for both the resource poor and rich families in Svay Rieng. Due to various factors, the productivity of wild fish and other aquatic resources appears to be under stress [4] . As wild fish are a bounty of nature, their importance is usually underestimated or overlooked by many farm communities. In addition, many farmers are involved in harmful practices, like using harmful chemicals and electricity to catch fish and other aquatic resources. [DG1]  

Most of the surveys conducted on Cambodian farm households emphasize the contribution of foraging to the diversity of rural families diets (CIAP, 1999). Catching wildfish and other aquatic animals consumes a considerable portion of family member's time. (Shams and Hung, 1998; Shams and Ahmed, 2000). Wild vegetables such as trachoon (water convolvulous- Ipomea aquatica) and various plant leaves serve as key spices and ingredients for traditional Khmer cuisine. It is therefore important that the biodiversity of ricefield ecosystems is preserved or improved. Unfortunately, there is a lack of understanding on how to maximize ricefield biodiversity without compromising the total food yield. This esepcially holds true in the instance of Cambodia where civil war and instability have until recently blocked attempts to study low land agro-ecosystems. Furthermore, Svay Rieng differs from other low lying rice growing regions of South East Asia because of the robustness of the wildfish population in the ricefields.

The CRS Agriculture Program initiated a study to better understand the impact of living aquatic resource management on farmer food security. The study will guide the CRS agriculture program in planning interventions and create awareness in the community about the importance of wild fish conservation. The current research will also be used to develop a forecasting system for fingerling demand that could be helpful for the primary fish seed producers.

B. Study Location

The study was conducted in three villages (Chrok Motes, Prey Phdao, and Kampot Skir) in the Chrok Motes commune, Svay Teap district, Svay Rieng province. (See Map in Appendix III)

C. Research Methodology and Data Collection

Information gathered from the PRAs in Chrok Motes commune provided the impetus for the wild fish study. From the data collected, CRS technicians devised and presented a research design to farmers in the project area. Farmers gave their feedback on the design and participated in the site selection of the study. Under the supervision of a project technician, twelve farmers have collected weekly data on the resources harvested from open access areas. The data collection sheets used by the farmers can be found in Appendix II. Validation of the study's findings is accomplished through annual village level workshops.

CRS will develop a database on wild fish and other aquatic resources to store the longitudnal data collected from the field and easy processing. This database will be linked with other similar databse that will be eventually established in Cambodia.

Given the low level of formal education of the participating farmers, the values of the data collected are meant to be indicative rather than absolute. These findings are thus compared with similar research done throughout Cambodia. Since the study is longitudinal in nature, it will continue until 2002.

D. Total Catch

Preliminary results from the participatory study have shown that fish and other aquatic product catches are directly dependent on the household's proximity to water bodies, including swamps, natural depressions etc. As Prey Phdao and Kompot Skir villages are close to a large swamp, the fish catches in these two villages are three to four times higher than that of Chrok Motes, which is situated far from the natural sources. On average, each farmer in Prey Phdao, Kompot Skir and Chrok Motes caught 576 kg, 826 kg, and 354 kg respectively of fish and other aquatic products, in a nine-month period. To think of it in another way, farmers during the rainy season collected a quantity of fish equivalent to 1,304 (Chrok Motes), 3,178 (Kompot Skir) and 2,180 (Prey Phdao) kg of rice [5] . This data is similar to the results obtained by other authors in Cambodia [6] .

Figure 1: Total Mean Household Flora and Fauna Harvested from Rice Field Ecosystem

Figure 2: Mean Total Household Fish Catch per Village

E. Trends in Fish Catch

In Chrok Motes, the variation of catch until December is small. The fish catch increases significantly in January and then declines gradually in February, March, and April (figure 2). Similarly in Prey Phdao November, December and January are the peak production months. Similar to Chrok Motes, the fish catch declines in February, March, and April. However, in Kompot Skir February and March are the months with the highest fish availability. The yield significantly drops in April but still remains higher than in January. The drop in fish catch in April reduces the availability of protein for rural households but as most of the farmers still have some rice left, overall food security is not that critical. [7]

Figure 3: Trend of Fish Catch per Village

F. Composition of Fish Catch

Large fish species, like snakehead, walking catfish, and climbing perch, dominated the total amount of kilograms caught, constituting 89% of the total catch while small fish and other aquatic products contributed only 7% and 4% of the total catch respectively. Similar data was found by Shams [8] (1998) in Kompong Thom. In the project area the population of crab, snail and snake is low. This does not however conform with other studies [9] . Further study is needed to find out the reasons behind the small proportion of other aquatic animal catch in the total catch.

Figure 4: Average Composition of Fish Catch among Studied Households

G. Utilization of Fish Catch

A large portion (78%) of the total weight of fish caught was sold in the market and the sale proceeds were used for various family needs. Only 18% of the total weight was for home consumption and only 4% for processing (figure 4). In the study area, most of the fish produced through pond culture is for subsistence whereas farmers used wild fish for income generation. (CRS, 1998) As the farmers in the study area have very little other produce to sell or face problems with low market prices, conservation of the wild fish is necessary to maintain or increase farm families' purchasing power and food security.

The size of the fish caught has a positive correlation with its marketing. Except Kompot Skir, farmers across the location use big fish primarily for sale, whereas smaller fish tend to be used more for home consumption. This concurs with Gregory and Guttman's (1996) findings that large fish (snakehead and catfish) are most often sold fresh.

Farmers in Kompot Skir use a small percentage of the catch for processing. The amount of fish sold directly depends on the amount of fish harvested. In other words, after meeting their own domestic needs, farmers sell their remaining fish to the market. Across the study area, farmers processed a large part of their small fish catch mostly for consumption during the busy transplanting period. No definite trends emerge about the sale of small fish. Farmers in Chrok Motes who caught the minimum amount of fish did not sell any, whereas farmers in the other two villages did.

In Prey Phdao and Chrok Motes the fish production was highest in the month of January, as was the amount of fish processed. Similarly, in Kompot Skir a large quantity of fish and other aquatic resources were processed in the months of February, March and April (figure 5).

Figure 5: Fish Catch Utilization by Size per Village

Figure 6: Trends in Fish Processing per Village

In April the quantity of fish caught dropped compared to the previous two months. By using fish caught from the previous months the farmers processed the highest amount of fish and other aquatic animal (OAA) products.

H. Catch Source

Farmers in the Chrok Motes commune usually collect their wild fish in three different places: rice fields, trap pond in rice fields, and in the homestead (figure 6). While there is no significant difference between the fish catch in trap ponds and rice field, anecdotal evidence suggests that in general trap ponds in the homestead are much more productive than trap ponds in the field.

Figure 7: Source of Mean Household Fish Catch by Weight per Village

I. Aquatic Plants

Aquatic plants serve a variety of purposes in the typical Cambodian farm. Many aquatic plants are edible such as water convolvulous, sesbania (sesbania javanica) and water hyacinth. According to Shams and Hong (1998), some foraged aquatic plants serve as important food sources during the rainy season when locally grown vegetables are less available. Aquatic plants are also widely used for medicinal purposes, animal feed, and as a soil amendment.

Farmers collected the majority of aquatic plants from the homestead (69%) with the remaining coming from rice fields (31%). The quantity of aquatic plant collected/harvested by farmers in the three study villages ranges from 12.60 kg to 15.95 kg per month. [10] Across the location, September and October are the best months for collecting and harvesting aquatic plants while March and April are the least productive months. Most of wet land in the project area dries up by March. Consequently, the availability of aquatic plants declines significantly at this time. Also, the price of vegetables goes up in these two months. If water could be available farmers could produce vegetables in their home garden for market.

J. Analysis of Contribution of Rice and Wild Fish Production

in Studied Households' Income

If we were to convert the total market value of the annual wild fish catch into rice we would have between 2,625 and 6,562.5 kg. The market value of the household with the lowest fish catch (300kg) still exceeds that of the most productive rice growing household by 34.6%. While more research needs to be conducted on the contribution of wild fish on rural household economies, the picture emerging from the data clearly illustrates the important role of wild fish in family food security.

K. Conclusion

Wild fish productivity, among many other factors, is dependent on the length of the rainy season. The year following an extended rainy season produces a high natural fish population. The productivity of wild fish is also closely linked with a farmer's decision to pursue small-scale aquaculture. In a natural fish abundant year the number of farmers engaged in aquaculture drops. Likewise, in times of low natural fish availability, the attractiveness of aquaculture increases. The correlation between rainfall and aquaculture demand is important information for our fish seed producers.

The villagers living close to fish habitats could play a primary role in conservation as they have the most direct impact on wild fish populations. However, these villagers also stand to gain the most from conservation measures such as releasing caught juvenile fish and maintaining broodstocks. Therefore it is imperative that any conservation initiatives should be geared to the farmers living close to the natural habitat.

The collection of data on wild fish and aquatic plants in the three villages is ongoing with a final analysis and report to be produced in 2002. Based on the preliminary findings of the study and an earlier rough model on Periodic Food Resource Availability developed by CRS (CRS and IIRR, 1996), it appears that fish and wild vegetables offset food insecurity during the traditional periods of rice shortage. However, this still remains to be tested and data collected from the study will be used to verify or refute the hypothesis. CRS hopes to elaborate more on these findings and, in consultation with the community, develop appropriate strategies for conserving the region's living aquatic resources.

III. VILLAGE WILD FISH WORKSHOP

A. OVERVIEW

1. Introduction

On 12 February 2001, CRS, in partnership with the Culture and Environment Preservation Association (CEPA), conducted a village level workshop in Phum Thmei village, Svay Teap District, Svay Rieng to present and validate the findings of the ongoing wild fish study in the district. The goal of both the research and the workshop is to determine a sustainable way of managing living aquatic resources so that poor rural families can maintain their food security. The objectives of the workshop were:

Ø   To build awareness of the impact of wild fish and aquatic plants on food security

Ø   To develop an action plan for fish conservation

Mr. Numa Shams, CRS Agriculture Program manager commenced the workshop by relating the study's purpose and its objectives to the participants. Issues concerning wild fish and aquatic plant utilization were presented for discussion as well as case studies of community conservation efforts.

2. Rationale

CRS decided to hold a village level workshop in order to validate the findings of the study and promote ownership of the results by the farmers. By engaging the community in a dialogue about living aquatic resources, CRS hopes to begin a process of building grassroots support for community based natural resource management.

3. Workshop Methodology

The workshop methodology was based on verbal presentation, posters, pictures, photographs, and case studies. Question – answer, group discussion, and plenary sessions were also used in the workshop. The results of the Question-Answer sessions following the presentations and the group discussion are detailed below. The CRS team designed the workshop methodology with technical assistance from Dr Shams Nasar Tabrez of the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR).

B. OUTPUT OF GROUP DISCUSSION

Participants were divided into three groups. The first group discussed the historical perspectives of wild fish and other aquatic animals. The second group focused on historical perspectives of aquatic plants and the third group took up the topic of harmful practices for living aquatic resources. The following are the major outputs from each of the group discussions:

1. Group I: Historical Perspectives of Wild Fish And other aquatic animals

a. Farmer Traditional Knowledge on wild fish and aquatic animals

Ø   The advantage and usefulness of wild fish and aquatic animal

- Human consumption

- Selling / revenue generation

- Importance in the food chain

- Controlling harmful insect

- Importance in balancing the ecosystem

Ø   Catching methods

- Making trap ponds by putting in Samrass (small shrub and trees)

- Dig channels for linking major channels or lake to trap pond

- Deepen trap ponds

- Keep brooders back in the trap pond

- Put fish food, if available (dead animals, small fish, etc.)

Ø   Harvesting

- Trap pond in village: Once in four months

- Trap pond outside village: Twice a year.

Ø   Kind of harvested fish

- First time: phtork (snakehead), andeng (walking catfish), kragn (climbing perch)

- Second time: big fish (names not specified)

Ø   Source of fish

- Ponds of pagoda

- French canal

- Keep brood fish in trap pond in village

Ø   Maintaining brood stock

- mostly keeping in trap ponds in village

- trap pond outside village (no brood fish maintained)

- no water source (no brood fish maintained)

- difficult to control (no brood fish maintained)

b. What activities can increase wild fish and others aquatic animals?

- Make the pond bigger and deeper

- Control and obstruct the illegal fishing activities

- Reduce the use of pesticides

- Keep brood fish

- Build farmers' awareness about maintaining brood fish

- Conserve lakes, ponds, canal, etc.

c. Historical Perspectives on Wild Fish [12]

2. Group II: Historical Perspective on Aquatic Plants

a.   Plants that can be commonly found in the village

Chorntolphnom (CnÞÚlPñM), Kampingpouy (kMBIgBYy), Chrach (eRck), Skun (sÁÁn;), Saknang ( ), korntuykrabay (knÞúúyRkbI ), Mhorm (m¥m ), Trave (Rtav ), Brolit (Rblit), Rumchorng (rMcg; ), Trokeat (Rtekot), Trokourn (RtkUn), Kagnchhet (kEBa©t ), Thnorktek ( tñk;TWk), Mchhuprek ( m¢ÚRBwk), Kandeang (keNþóg), Kandeangchheur (keNþógeQI), Slaptir ( søabTa), Chorkbaytir (cck)ayTa), Chorkchhengchke (cckeCIgEqá ), Saray (sara:y ), Kamphlork (kMe)aøk ), Phlavkankebkork (épøkEgábeKak ), Phlavkangkebtek (épøkEgábTwk ), Sanghamtek (saMghú‘mTwk ), Sanghamkork (saMghu‘meKak ), Snor (esñar ).

b.  The advantages of aquatic plants

- Human consumption

- Animal consumption

- Medicinal value ( Chantolphnom, Thnorktek)

- Organic fertilizer (Komphouk, Chork, Kompingpouy)

c.   Use of Aquatic plants

d.  The availability of aquatic plants compared to the last five years is decreasing because of the following reasons:

- Increase in human population

- Loss of nutrients in soil

- Climatic change

- Lake, channel, pond are shallower

- Application of too much pesticides in the field

- Increase of harmful insects

e.   How to conserve the aquatic plants

- Grow aquatic plants in the village

- Reduce pesticide use

- Build awareness of the advantages of aquatic plants

f. The relationship between aquatic animals and plants

- Aquatic plants provide shelter for fish and it is the source of fish food

- Aquatic plants are the place for fish spawn and brooders

- The aquatic plant and animal have decreased in the last ten years.

3. Group III: Harmful practices for aquatic resources

a.   Human activities

- Over-fishing (such as catching fry and brooders)

- Electric fishing

- Using pesticides for catching fish

- Fishing in the banned season (fish spawning season)

- Using illegal fishing gears

- Destruction of flooded forest

- Construction of dams along the canal

- The lakes, ponds, and canals are shallow (could be prevented by better management)

- Industries and factories increasing (In urban areas)

b.  Natural factors

- Climatic change

- Surrounding environment changed

- Population increase

- Lost some fish species

c.   Problem-solving

- Build awareness of the advantages of wild fish conservation

- Ask local authorities to participate and intervene actively on illegal fishing activities.

- Build farmer's awareness to understand the impact of using pesticide and chemical fertilizer and introduce them to use natural fertilizer/compost.

- Farmer should stop cutting down flooded forest and keep the rest-flooded forest.

- Should rehabilitate the bottom of pond and canal

Ø   Natural factors

- Conserve natural environment

- Finish deforestation

- Increase activities of raising fish

Question: How can we reduce the use of agro-chemicals?

Answer: Should use natural fertilizer to replace chemical fertilizer

C. CONCLUSION

A synthesis of group responses to the questions is presented below.

1. The main reasons for the decrease in wild fish and aquatic animal production are:

- Over fishing

- Using illegal fishing gears and practices

- Destruction of natural fish shelter

- Using much agro-chemicals

- Fish disease

- Surrounding environment has changed

- Climate change

2. The production of aquatic plants is declining because:

- The farmers focus their efforts only on rice production

- The farmers' understanding of the advantages of aquatic plants is limited

Based on the farmer's input, the workshop facilitators concluded:

Ø   The difference of aquatic resource yields from village to village in Chrok Motes Commune is actually relevant to location, longitude, and geography of village and fishing activities. (This most likely holds true throughout the region)

Ø   There is a decreasing aquatic resource production

Ø   The knowledge of farmers related to aquatic resources is limited

Ø   There is a lot of illegal fishing practices.

Farmer response to the workshop was overwhelmingly positive. One issue raised by the staff of CRS was the relatively low number of female participants. It is unclear at the present why female turnout was so low. However, in the future attempts will be made to promote the participation of women or other underrepresented groups in discussions on natural resource management.

D. RECOMMENDATIONS

- Should participate together to fight against the use of illegal fishing gears

- Build farmers' awareness to understand the advantages of wild fish and the consequences of using illegal fishing gears

- Enable farmers to understand the advantages of the banned fishing season

- The participation of monks in raising awareness/advocacy/information dissemination for the conservation of wild fish would be very effective.

- Continue to conduct further researches

E. ACTION PLAN FOR YEAR 2001-2002

Based on the farmer's input, the workshop facilitators concluded:

Ø   The difference of aquatic resource yields from village to village in Chrok Motes Commune is actually relevant to location, longitude, and geography of village and fishing activities. (This most likely holds true throughout the region)

Ø   There is a decreasing aquatic resource production

Ø   The knowledge of farmers related to aquatic resources is limited

Ø   There is a lot of illegal fishing practices.

Farmer response to the workshop was overwhelmingly positive. One issue raised by the staff of CRS was the relatively low number of female participants. It is unclear at the present why female turnout was so low. However, in the future attempts will be made to promote the participation of women or other underrepresented groups in discussions on natural resource management.

IV. CONCLUSION

Wild fish and other aquatic plant and animal resource play an important role in the food security of Cambodian farmers. Understanding the relationship between rice field biodiversity and food security in the context of Cambodia's low lying rice field ecosystems will better enable communities to sustainably manage their natural resources. The initial findings of the CRS wild fish study and village level workshop point to regular fluctuations of rice field bio productivity that may have a relationship with the expansion or decline of aquaculture extension. Furthermore, increasing population pressure and use of illegal fishing practices are widely viewed in the community as a threat to wild fish populations. Farmers are becoming increasingly aware of the need for improved aquatic resource management such as conserving fish stock and protecting natural habitats.

The findings reached so far have raised many questions regarding farmer and community management of living aquatic resources. Some of the questions and issues raised so far by work include:

Social

Ø  What are the indigenous biodiversity classification systems used by farmers in Cambodia?

Ø  How can rural families work collectively to increase the productivity of fish culture systems as a supplement to the resources collected from nature?

Ø  How can the existing eco-system and discovery based learning programs such as IPM, further incorporate rice field biodiversity in their curriculum?

Ø  How can social and cultural barriers be overcome in order to transform rice field fisheries from an open access resource to one managed by the community?

Ecological

Ø  Can the agricultural productivity of rainfed low lands be increased without adversely affecting the productivity of wild fish and OAP?

Ø  What impacts do introduced aquaculture species have on rice field and riverine ecosystem?

CRS hopes to shed some light on a micro scale in the future but there is a need for a coordinated effort to understand the issues and interventions at a broader level.

Bibliography

Ahmed, M. and Rab M.A. "Factors affecting outbreak of epizootic ulcerative syndrome in

farmed fish in Bangladesh." Journal of Fish Diseases. 1995. 18, 263-271

Asian Development Bank and Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia. Fish Health

Management in Asia-Pacific: Report on regional study and workshop on Fish

Disease and Fish Health Management. Asian Development Bank (ADB) Agriculture Development Report Series No 1. June, 1991

CIAP. "Annual Research Report" Camboida-IRRI-Australia Project. 1999

Catholic Relief Services (CRS). "Participatory Rural Appraisals in three Villages, Svay

Teap District, Svay Rieng province, Cambodia". 1996

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR)

"CRS/IIRR Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Farming Project Progress

Report #2" Catholic Relief Services Cambodia program. 1996

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR)

"CRS/IIRR Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Farming Project Progress Report #4" Catholic Relief Services Cambodia program. 1998

Gregory, R. and H. Guttman. "Poor in all but Fish: A Study of the Collection of Ricefield

Foods from three Villages in Svay Teap District, Svay Rieng". Working Paper #5. AIT Aquaculture Outreach. 1996

Gregory, R. Ricefield Fisheries Handbook. Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project, Cambodia.

1997

Heng, Soceath. "An Assessment of Fish Culture Promoted by the Family Food

Production Project in Southeast Cambodia" Master's thesis. Asia Institute of

Technology (AIT), Bangkok. 1994

Nirmal, C.P. "Baseline Survey Report in Angkor Chey, Banteay Meas, Chhouk and

Kompong Trach district, Kampot Province. APHEDA. Cambodia. 1997

Rainboth, Walter J. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO) Rome, 1996

Shams, N. and T. Hong. Cambodia's Rice Field Ecosystem Biodiversity Resources and

Benefits. Deutche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Phnom

Penh. 1998

Shams, N. and M. Ahmed. "Common and Private Property Linkages in the Low-Land

Forestry-Fishery-Farming systems of Cambodia." Journal of Sustainable

Agriculture 15 (4) 2000. 59-87

Touch, Seang Tana. "Fish Supply and Demand in Rural Svay Rieng Province,

Cambodia" Master's Thesis. Asia Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok. 1993

TERMINOLOGY

Big Fish- Farmers' terminology to a fish species that can reach a certain size and can be easily marketed. The exact size and weight of big fish varies from species to species and farmer 's preference. Commonly identified big fish include, but are not limited to, adult snakehead (Chana striata), walking catfish (Clarias batrachus), and climbing perch (Anabas testudineus).

Farm Micro Enterprise- Food and income earning "projects" that households undertake within their homestead. Such projects can include animal raising, small-scale fish culture, multi-purpose tree growing, and rice production. In the context of small scale aquaculture, the term refers to small businesses that sell fish fingerlings at profit to other farmers and/or provide technical services related to small scale aquaculture,

Fingerling- Juvenile fish measuring less than or one finger length.

Food Security- Having sufficient access to food to meet the dietary requirements for a productive and healthy life without having to sacrifice investment in consumption and livelihood security.

Living Aquatic Resource- All plants and animals coming from aquatic or wetland environment that can be utilized by people for consumption, sale, or production.

Other Aquatic Products- Plants and animals not commonly identified as fish that are utilized by farm families for consumption and/or production.

Small Fish- Farmers' terminology for a fish species that is not above a certain size and is primarily used for domestic consumption. The exact size and weight of small fish varies from farmer to farmer and some overlap with big fish may occur. Commonly identified small fish include, but are not limited to, rasbora (Rasbora tomieri), and gourami (Trichogaster spp).

Open Access Resource- Natural resources that do not have a barrier or obstacle to their use or exploitation. Examples of open access resources include the ocean, certain freshwater sources and fisheries and common property resource.

Rice Field Ecosystem- Encompasses all biotic and abiotic interactions occurring in rice fields, levees surrounding the fields, irrigation channels, streams and any cultivated lands within rice growing areas such as termite hills, ponds, and swamp lands. Fish and other aquatic animals migrating through irrigation canals are also included in this definition.

1 Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Cambodia Program, #26 Street 125, Quarter Boeung Pralit, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia

Tel. No. (855-23) 211 165, Fax No. (855-23) 216 960

Email: crsag@bigpond.com.kh, numa@bigpond.com.kh, samram@bigpond.com.kh

[1] Gregory, R. and H. Guttman "Poor in all but Fish: A study of the collection of ricefield foods from three villages in Svay Teap District, Svay Rieng" Working Paper #5. AIT Aquaculture Outreach. 1996

[2] Rice yields per hectare in Svay Rieng ranged from 400-600kg per hectare prior to 1996 (Touch Seang Tana 1993, CRS 1996). Rice yields often fall well below the national average and often are a small fraction of the total yield of neighboring Thailand and Viet Nam.

[3] Gregory and Guttman 1996, Heng Soceath 1994, Touch Seang Tana 1993.

[4] It is important to note Gregory and Guttman's (1996) remark that in Svay Rieng, "ricefield fisheries are robust in the sense that they can withstand considerable pressure each year without obvious decline becoming apparent."

[5] Considering the price of rice as R 650/kg and fish R 2500/kg at the farm gate

[6] Shams (1998) reported that in the five months period, the catch for each family of the study location in Stung Sen, Santuk, and Stung was 267 kg, 225 kg, and 111 kg, respectively. AIT (1997) found that farmers in Zone 3 (the zone of highest trap pond production) caught 604 kg/household, in zone 2, 321 kg/household and zone 1, 158 kg/ household in a six month period.

[7] Similar trends are observed by other authors. Shams (2000), Gregory and Guttman (1996)

[8] Shams found that in the project area in Santuk and Stung small fish constituted 9% and 18% of the total catch.

[9] Gregory and Guttman found that other aquatic products constituted 18% of the total catch in Svay Rieng in 1996

[10] This is in conformity with other authors (Shams and Hong,1998)

[11] For this calculation we assume the average household rice land to be 1.5 hectares. This exceeds the provincial average that is closer to 1 ha. per household.

[12] The species that have been reported by the farmers as not available in the project area currently is probably a localized incidence and may not represents the exinction of species from the entire ecosystem.

[13] It is unclear whether the Enlgish names of these species are accurate since these fish are no longer seen in the study area.