[BACK]   [HOME PAGE]

 

FISHING CONFLICT 

IN 

KOMPONG CHHNANG

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

A. Literature Review

    I. Introduction

    II. The Fishing Population in Kompong Chhnang

    2.1 Population

    2.2 Fishing Communes

    2.3 Population of Fishing Communes

    2.4 Land Holding of Fishing Households

    III. Degradation of Natural Resources

    IV. Factors Contributing to the Problems

    4.1 The Forest Clearance in 1985 and Its Present Impacts

    4. 2 The change in the fishery management

    4.3 Commercialization and Privatization Policy

    V. Illegal Fishing Activities by Lot Owners

 

B. Field Research

    I. Research Methodology

    II. Research Findings

    2. 1 Illegal Fishing Activities by Fishing Lots Owner in Kompong Chhnang

    2.1.1 The Lot Owner Forced People to Work without Pay

    2.1.2 Destroying the Irrigation Schemes

    2.1.3 Shooting Villagers

   2.2 Local Authorities and Fishery Office

   2.3 Fishing Communities Movement

III. The Conflict Resolution

IV. Conclusion

References

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

 

---

A. Literature Review

I. Introduction

Located in the central part of Cambodia with a Tone Sap flows from the south to the north and reverse flow, Kompong Chhnang is rich in fishery resources. As most of the fishing areas are under the fishing lots and population growth rate maintain at 2.5% annually, the struggle for survival of the local people has led to the conflict. The conflict over the resource uses between communities and fishing lot owners is widespread around fishing areas.

 

The conflict has happened as both parties compete for their interests. The interests of local people are for livelihoods and the interest of the fishing lot owners is maximizing profits. The rich and powerful are the winners in this conflict and losers are the poor and powerless.  

 

This paper gives background information about the current fishing situation, the population growth of the fishing communities against the decline of natural resources, the denial of people's access to fisheries and violation of the people's right to fisheries resources by lot owners. It also addresses the peoples’ attempts and mechanisms to resolve this conflict for their livelihoods.

Back to Contents 

 II. The Fishing Population in Kompong Chhnang

Kompong Chhnang province, which covers an area of 5, 521 km², is located in the central part of Cambodia, bordering Kompong Speu and Pursat in the west, Kompong Thom in the north, Kompong Speu and Kandal in the south and Kompong Thom and Kompong Cham in the east. The province consists of 8 districts, 69 communes and 546 villages. The Tonle Sap River flows through Kompong Chhnang across six districts, including Boribo, Rolear Phear, Kompong Leng, Chulkiri, Kompong Tralach and Kompong Chhnang.

Back to Contents 

 2.1 Population

 

The population census in 1998 shows that Kompong Chhnang is a densely populated province with total population of 417, 693 people. The population density is 76 per km², which is higher than the national density of 64. The population of this province constitutes 3.7% of Cambodian population. The percentage of female population accounts for 52.7%1.

 

Table 2.1 Population of Kompong Chhnang in 1962 and 1998

Year	Area (Km2)	Population	Density (pop. per sq. km2)
19622	5, 520.8	272, 911	49.4
19983	5,521	417, 693	76

Source: Population census 1962 and 1998.

                       

Since the population census in 1962, the population density has increased more than1.5 times. Over 38 years, the population has nearly doubled. This increase has had an impact on the resource base that people need for their survival.

Back to Contents 

 2.2 Fishing Communes

 

The results of the population census in 1998 show that, in Kompong Chhnang, about 85% of the population are involved in the agricultural sector. The rest, 12% and 1.7%, are involved in the service and industrial sectors respectively. The rice cultivation is the most important activities. The average rice yield at present is around 1.25 tons per hectare. Apart from rice, people supplement their incomes and livelihoods by fishing and cutting forest.

 

Around three quaters of the districts in Kompong Chhnang consist of communes in which fishing is a significant activity (See table Table 2.2 below).

 

Table 2.2 The Fishing Communes by Districts

District	Population	No. of fishing communes	No. of non-fishing communes	Total
Boribo	36070	7	4	11
Rolear Phear	67 773	7	6	13
Kampong Leng	28 111	9	0	9
Chulkiry	20 883	5	0	0
Kampong Tralach	62 482	8	2	10
Kampong Chhnang	29 115	2	2	4
Total	244 434	38	14	52

Source: Ahmed M. et al, 1998.

Back to Contents 

 2.3 Population of Fishing Communes

 

The rate of involvement in fishing by households varies between provinces. Comparing with other provinces around Tonle Sap Great Lake, Kompong Chhnang consist of a high percentage of active households engaged in fishing (see figure 1).

 

The population of fishing communes in Kompong Chhnang constituted 75% of the total population (See Table 2.3). Fishing is part of the traditional food collection for many families. Some households involve directly while others are part time fishing. Since most households have free access to common property resources such as lakes and rivers, it is cheaper to catch fish than buy it from the market. This was given as the main reason for choosing to fish as a preferred activity of the household.

 

 Source: Ahmed et al. 1998.  *

 

Table 2.3 below shows that the population of fishing commune has increase 29% over 4 years between 1994 to 1998. The population of Boribo and Kampong Chhnang districts has increased nearly double within the same period.

 

Table 2.3 Population Increase in Fishing Communes in Kompong Chhnang, by District

Name of District	Population of Fishing Communes
	in 19944	in 19985	% Increase
Boribo	36070	51 516	43%
Rolear Phear	67 773	81 134	20%
Kampong Leng	28 111	37 379	33%
Chulkiry	20 883	28 300	36%
Kampong Tralach	62 482	74 541	19%
Kampong Chhnang	29 115	41 703	43%
Total	244 434	314573	29%

Back to Contents 

 2.4 Land Holding of Fishing Households

 

Land is an important asset of the rural household. It provides opportunities for diverse agricultural activities and to a large extent determines economic position.6 According to Oxfam Land Study Project, in Kompong Chhnang province, the landless residents account for 8.28%7. The fishing households own a much larger amount of land than non-fishing hoseholds. The Household Survey of Socio-economic Assessment of Freshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia reveals that in Kompong Chhnang the estimated average land holding of the fishing household is about 0.92 ha per household, whereas for the non-fishing household it is around 0.72 ha per household.

 

The report shows that among 199 surveyed fishing households in Kompong Chhnang's fishing communes, 20.1% of them are landless, 22.1% own land less than 0.5 ha, and 33.2% own land between 0.5 to 1 ha. The rest, 24.6%, have more than 1 ha. By comparison, among the  224 non-fishing households surveyed, 29% are landless.

 

Table 2.4 Distribution of Agricultural land by size 1995-96

Household	Landless		0< land <0.5 ha		0.5< land <1 ha		land >1 ha		Total
	No. of Family	%	No. of HH	%	No. of HH	%	No. of HH	%	No. of HH	Total
Fishing Household	40	20.1	44	22.1	66	33.2	49	24.6	199	100
Non-fishing Household	65	29.0	63	28.1	66	29.5	30	13.4	224	100

Source: Ahmed M. et al, 1998.

 

Besides cultivating agricultural land, people in rural areas still rely on natural resources that are held as common property for a wide range of uses. These resources, which are economically important in rural village life8, include inundated forests, rivers, flooded ricefields and banks/beds of rivers/lakes. The dependence of fishing households that have little agricultural land on fishery resources for their day- to-day livelihoods and food security is very high. However, the dependence on fishing activities by landlessness households is much higher. They completely rely on fishing activities for subsistent living. Any denial of access to fisheries resources by fishing lot owners or government policy will greatly affect  their livelihoods and their food substances.

Back to Contents 

 III. Degradation of Natural Resources

 

Clearly, households depend on fishery and other resources. There is a declining trend in the availability of the products and benefits derived from common property resources. If these resources become unavailable in the future, the livelihood opportunities of the people will be affected, especially for the subsistence households whose alternatives are limited.

 

Traditionally, small-scale or artisanal fishers have provided fish for local consumption. But as fish become scarce and their value increases, it enters the global market and becomes unaffordable for common people. In the process, people are displaced and the private fishing companies take over completely.

 

The fish stock in Cambodia is declining. In the Mekong River system as a whole, there are 1200 known fish species9. Out of these, 500 species are reported to have resided in the freshwater bodies of Cambodia. However, a recent study found only 100 species now present around the Tonle Sap and adjacent rivers10.  Another source indicates that around 300 of the 500 fish species in the Great Lake Tonle Sap have disappeared11.

 

Table 3.1 The Decline of Flooded Forest and Flooded Areas

 

Type of Natural Resources	Cambodia (ha)			Kompong Chhnang (ha)
	1985/87	1992/93	% Change	1985/87	1992/93	% Change
Permanent Water	567 100	411 100	-27.5%	261 00	204 00	-22%
Flooded Forest	795 400	370 700	-53%	911 00	722 00	-21%
Flooded Secondary Forest	28 200	259 800	821%	0	107 00	¥!
Flooded Grassland	80 800	84 900	5%	11100	10 00	-90%
Swamp	12 200	1 400	-88.5%	2 300	0	-100%

Source: UNDP and FAO, 1994: Cambodia Land Cover Atlas12.

 

The flooded areas are becoming smaller and the flooding times are becoming shorter, which may cause a reduction in fish species that spawn and live in the flooded forests, especially highly migratory ones. The permanent water in Kompong Chhnang has declined 22%.

 

Encroachment and destructive practices are having an impact on the existing 700 000 ha of flooded forest in Cambodia. There was a rapid reduction of the flooded forest over the 1980s and 1990s. About 53% of the flooded forest around Tonle Sap has been destroyed. In Kompong Chhnang alone, the flooded forest has declined 21%, including 90% of the flooded forests in Chnok Tru of Kompong Chhnang.

 

Like other provinces, Kompong Chhnang is facing a threat. The natural resources have been destroyed in an unsustainable way. The Socio-Economic Assessment of Freshwater Capture Fisheries in Cambodia states that in Kompong Chhnang, 92.9% of respondents reported that the availability of products from inundated forest has decreased, 96.2% reported a decrease in products from big rivers and lakes, and 100% reported a decrease in products from flooded ricefields (See Table 2.5).

 

Table 3.2 Percentage of Households Reporting Trend of Availability of Products and Benefits from Common Resources in Kompong Chhnang

Trend	Inundated forest (%)	Big River/lakes (%)	Flooded Ricefield (%)
Increasing	0.7	1.3	0.0
Decreasing	92.9	96.2	100
Constant	6.4	2.5	0.0
Number of HH	282	238	98

Source: Ahmed M. et al, 1998.

Back to Contents 

IV. Factors Contributing to the Problems

 

Despite the importance of fisheries to the vast majority of Kompong Chhnang people, but the access to these resources has rapidly change over the last 15 years so as to affect the livelihoods of the population of the fishing communes. The conflict over resource use between fishing communities and fishing lot owners has occurred intensively in fishing areas. Several factors have been seen to be contributing to these problems. These factors include the widespread forest clearance policy in 1985 for security purposes, the change in the fishery management system and the privatization of fishing areas.

Back to Contents 

 4.1 The Forest Clearance in 1985 and Its Present Impacts

 

After 1979, villagers returned to their homes but the civil war still continued. The Vietnamese soldiers were stationed in the fishing areas to protect the people. The Khmer Rouge were based in the jungle near the village13(see box 1).

 

In 1985, the villagers were encouraged by Vietnamese supported government to clear the forest, on one hand, to eliminate the Khmer Rouge from the forest and on other hand, to increase agricultural productivity. The large tract of forestlands had been cleared for the above purposes, including the flooded forests along both sides of the riverbank. In addition, more people were brought in from elsewhere to completely clear the forest in which the Khmer Rouge were based14.

 

Source: Field Interview, June 2000.

 

As a result of the low population density during that time, immigration was taking place from neighboring provinces. These people migrated from other parts of Kompong Chhnang, Kompong Cham and Kompong Thom near the Tonle Sap.

 

The cleared lands have been owned by villagers and people get used to clear their lands every year or one every two years as the cut trees regrow rapidly into thick forest and some clearing continues today. However, at present, villagers were accused of destroying the flooded forest and expanding the agricultural lands.

 

The fishing lot owners have been given the right to protect all forest within their lots. They forbid villager from clearing the forests on their farms. Since then, people could not clear forest remaining on their lands. If for some reason, people could not farm all of their lands for two years to three years, they face “arrest” by lot owners for clearing yearly regrowth tree on their own lands (see appendix).

 

The land right of people living within the lots are very unclear. It is a question of benefits and it is clear that people derive no direct benefits from the protection of the forest. They can see the positive impacts of preserving forest on fish populations as benefiting the lot owners only15.  If villagers are not allowed to clear the regrowth forests on their lands for agriculture, the government needs to provide them support in terms of food and other thing they need.

 

The impact of a rapid change in government policy, from encouraging villagers to clear forest and own it for security and agriculture purposes to protection of flooded forests, on fishfolks has been seen as additional inputs to the current absolute poverty in Cambodia. The protected mechanism for the fishing population in a transition period from close economy to a open economy is an inadequate.

Back to Contents 

4. 2 The change in the fishery management

 

During 1979-1991, the fishing lot system was operated in a way that Krom Samaki in each village could have a key role to play in fishery management. There seem to have been clear boundaries in fishery management between the government institutions and communities during that time (see box 2). For instance, each Krom Samaki received a section of a lot to manage for the benefit of the members. In Kompong Chhnang, the fisheries office fished 5 lots and the central Department of Fisheries allocated itself 2 lots, while other government departments, such as the Commerce Department, and provinces with fishing grounds, like Kompong Speu, fished other lots16. The government requested Krom Samaki to distribute part of their fish products to the army in the front line. The harvested fishes were fermented anddried . The large fish were sent to the army and villagers used only the small fish. This happened until 198717.

 

There was a conflict also in these places but not as serious as to day. At that time, villager shared fishes they harvested among themselves happily and local authorities did not interfere in the fishing business of fishing villagers as it is.  This situation continued until 1994-95. Due to poor management, in general, the period ended up with bankruptcy of those government enterprises and solidarity groups18. 

 

The management of fishing grounds through the lot system has been changed from time to time. In 1989, the French style of fishing lot system management was reapplied. The structure of the fishing lot system is geared towards a few powerful interests, making profits from fishing. The incentives are all towards increasing the scale of fishing and reaping large profits within a defined time19.

 

The fishing areas are granted to fishing lot owners through auction. Communities have no roles to play in the management of the current fishing lots around their villages. The government and the lot owners completely have ignored the reality of local management systems and the needs of people who rely on the fish resources20.

 

Source: Field Interview, June 2000.

 

The elder people could remember how the fishing lots were operated during the colonial period. They compare the current fishery management style to the old time and conclude that there are more problems now. These problems emerged recently, as the rights of local people were not considered adequately in the management plan. The lot owners forbid villagers to fish in the lot areas. They even arrested people who did fishing in the areas they used to fish. People were unaware that the fishing grounds traditionally belonging to them were given to the fishing lots.

 

The fishing lot management by lot owners totally violats the rights of the fishing population living within the lots. Each lot employs 10 to 20 workers, working as workers, guards, patrollers and sometimes as police or military to search for illegal fishing (see box 3).

 

It should be noted that within the current context, this fishing lot system could be not considered as a workable system. The change in management of the fishing lot system without taking into account the fundamental elements that existed in the current context, including population growth, the decline of fishery resources, technology development in fishery, economic principles and political movement etc, which have all added to the current problems.

 

Source: Field Interview, June 2000.

 4.3 Commercialization and Privatization Policy

 

The Government has commercialized the freshwater fisheries to generate national revenues. Privatizing fisheries occurred in 1989 where all fishing lots were available for auction. While privatizing the fisheries resources, the government also centralized fisheries management21. At the central level, the Department of Fisheries holds power over fisheries resources. They award concession rights on fishery resources to private owners. The Department focuses on law enforcement, surveillance and control of fishing activities even while parts of the current fisheries law are no longer appropriate for the current context22.

 

The centralized fisheries management  by Department of Fisheries has always been a step behind commercial fishing lot owners. Its means of regulations, restriction and taxes could not keep up with the developing commercial environment23. Corruption has taken place within a fishery sector, causing fishery officials to ignore the illegal fishing activities of the lot owners.

 

Privatization and commercialization of fishery resources has in fact fuelled illegal fishing, mainly by fishing lot owners intent on maximizing their profits. The policy has incited social conflict with local people24 as in many cases, local people's access to fisheries resources has been denied by powerful fishing lots25 and commercial fishing has put pressure on fish stocks26.

 

The privatization and commercialization of fishery resources have taken place but the current fisheries law still favors socialist way of management. The socialist economy system is still in practice to control production and distribution.  However, restrictions relating to fishing practice that are copied from the 1956 decree are still used in a current fishery law, which was mainly invented to favor colonialism27.

Back to Contents 

V. Illegal Fishing Activities by Lot Owners

A survey of the incidence of illegal fishing practices by lot owners in Kompong Chhnang by the MRC Freshwater Capture Project indicates that among the 8 fishing lots in the province, 12.5% of them are pumping water to catch fish, 25% of them use electricity to catch fish, sweeping and brushing account for 50% each, followed by 75% brushing.  (See Table 5.1).

 

Table 5.1 Types of Illegal Fishing Activities by Lot Owners in Kompong Chhnang, 1998-99

Illegal Activities	Number of lots affected	Percentage of total no. of lots
Pumping	1	12.5
Electric	2	25
Sweeping	4	50
Extending	0	0
Brush	6	75

Source: Fishing Inventory, 199928.

 

The most common illegal activity of the fishing lot owners is the pumping of water out of the lakes to catch the fish with the use of a small mesh. Article 17 of the Fishery Law states that it is absolutely prohibited to do any kind of fishing in the inland fishery domain which uses destructive fishing equipment such as electrocuting fishing gear, explosives, any kind of poison, any means of pumping, bailing, or drying out any part of fishery domain, or any kinds of mesh smaller than 1.5 cm.29

 

To date, pumping is still continueing. The lot owners who did illegal fishing are still not punished by the current fishery law although the evident and the proof have been clear on the ground. For instance, on 06 May 1999, the Kompong Chhnang fishery officials witnessed the owner of lot no.13 pump the lake for fishing but the case and the persons committed have never been punished or investigated by competent authorities.

Back to Contents 

B. Field Research

I. Research Methodology 

The field research was conducted to gather information related to fisheries and conflicts over the access to fisheries resources. A three days field research was conducted  using unstructured questions following the documentary research. This research was organized by the Environment Working Group of the NGO Forum on Cambodia following the request from NGOs working in Kompong Chhnang about the conflict between villagers and fishing lots no. 13 and 14.

 

The information was collected through a meeting with key people and interviewed some villagers. The first meeting was conducted with 17 community representatives from two districts, Chulkiri and Rolearphea in Kompong Chhnang  and  five NGO representatives30 in Komgpong Chnnang at  Khmer Human Resource Development Organization (KHReDO) office31.  The second meeting was held at Kanleng Phe village on the following day with about 30 people participated. Each meeting discussed the issues related to fisheries and current fishing problems affected their livelihoods. The meetings also focused on the solutions made so far to these problems. The overall problems were identified through these meetings.

 

Following the group meetings, individual persons were interviewed using a check list. The interview was conducted with staff of “ Community Capacities For Development (CCD), Mrs. Yim Leang-Y in Kompong Chhang and her colleagues. Mr. Chhim Chheun, a villager from Kanleng Phe and Mr. Eng Sorn, a villager from Phlong were interviewed separately. The interviewees were also asked questions related to fisheries and livelihoods of the people, what problems related to fishing lots and fishing lot owners, why there is a problem.

 

The information gathered included the illegal fishing activities of the fishing lot owners, the lot owners forced people to work without pay when they charge them encroaching their lots, destruction of irrigation schemes by lot owners, the shooting of villagers by lot guards, the relationship between local authorities and fishery officials, the fishing communities movement and the conflict resolution.

Back to Contents 

 I. Research Findings

2. 1 Illegal Fishing Activities by Fishing Lots Owner in Kompong Chhnang

 

There are 19 fishing lots in Kompong Chhnang; 10  research lots and 9 auction lots. The boundaries of the fishing lots were developed in colonial times and are still maintained. Through many years of civil war, the demarcation of the fishing lot boundaries has been poorly defined on the ground. 

 

There are many villages located in each the fishing lot (see the map of lot 13 and 14). The lots also cover people's lands. In each lot, there is a agricultural land, Chamcar, irrigation schemes, forest lands and homesteads.

 

People actually interact with these resources to make a living. However, the fishing lot owners have pressured and limited peoples to these resources, especially fisheries. The conflict between fishing lots and local people has been happening throughout Kompong Chhnang province. The conflict has stemmed from competition for fishery resources. The villagers can not avoid the conflict as their sources of livelihoods have been taken away by the fishing lot owners. The fishing lot owners have become preoccupied with their own interest, due to high investment costs and the uncertainty of return as the fish yield is declined.

 

The fishing lots no. 13 and 14 are among the fishing lots that auctioned to private owners and the serious conflicts have occurred around these lots which are located Rolear Phear and Chulkiri districts respectively, Kompong Chhnang province. Several cases of conflicts have been occurred between lot owners and local communities, including illegal pumping of the lakes for fishing, arresting villagers who tries to fish and forcing them to work without pay, destroying irrigation schemes for fishing, shooting villagers and threatening villagers with guns.

Back to Contents 

 2.1.1 The Lot Owner Forced People To Work Without Pay

Villagers from three villages have experienced arrests by fishing owners, no. 13 and 14.  The owner of lot no. 13 is more powerful than other owners. At least, 28 people from these three villages had been arrested by lot owners (see Table 5.2). Three different types of arrests have been practiced so far. First, the fishing gears were confiscated by lot owners. One farmer, Kim, a villager in Phlong experienced this. His fishing boat and other fishing gears were taken away by the lot owner and have never been given back. He had  almost spent his entire life to buy a boat for fishing. For him, it cost a lot of money31.

 

Source: Field Interview, June 2000

 

Table 5.2 The Type of Arrested People Since Privatization of Fishing Lots No. 13 and 14 in Kompong Chhnang32

Village	No. of People arrested by lots
	No. of people Forced to work	No. of people Forced to pay	No. of people forced to give their gears	No. of people detained	Total
Phlong	11	1	1	3	16
Kaneleng Phear	2				2
Tonle Krao		4		6	10
Total	13	5	1	9	28

Source: Record From Villagers of Kanleng Phea and Phlong villages

 

Second, in case there was no valuable fishing gears to be confiscated, the lot owners have demanded the arrested people to pay 100.000 to 200 000 Riels. In case, they could not afford to pay the above amount, they were detained to a certain day. And third, the arrested people were forced to work for the lots for several days, ranging from one week to a month without pay. These people were forced to stay at the lot camp and were not allowed to come home in the evening. The life in the camp could be compared to a prison. There is a guard, keeping an eye on these people to avoid them escaping from the center. They were forced to do a variety of works including fishing, cutting forest and making Samras etc33.

 

The people were arrested mainly because they were accused of trying to fish in the fishing lot areas. Most of these people were unaware that these areas belong to the lots, for as many years people used to fish there ( see Box 5).

Back to Contents 

2.1.2 Destroying The irrigation  Schmes

 

There are irrigation schemes in each lot, especially lot 13 and 14. Many of these schemes were built in the colonial period and some were built during the Pol Pot regime. Each consists of a low dike which retains water in a reservoir when the flood recede. People rely heavily on these schemes for irrigation and they pump water from the reservoir into their dry season rice fields.

 

Table 5.3 Irrigation Schemes in Plong and Kanleng Phea and Family Dependence on the Scheme

Village	No. of Family	No. of Irrigation Scheme	Areas of Rive Field Irrigated (ha)	Construction Year
Kanleng Phea	119	05	145	1905, 1906, 1941 and 1943
Phlong	117	05	132	1941, 1976 and 1977
Total	336	07	277

Source: Swift, P. 1999, ADHOC Kompong Chhnage, 2000, Record of Kanleng Phear Village

Two of these dikes in Phlong village were a source of conflict with lot number 13. The lot owner claimed the fish in the reservoir belong to him, and lot workers broke the Sanke dike. In 1988, the Sangwet dike association paid four damlung of gold (a total of about $ 1,600) to the lot owner to keep him from breaking the dike. In 1999, the lot owner broke the Sangvet dike again, About 50 people went to the Provincial Governor House in protest . The conflict wasn't solved but the violence ceased34(See Box 6).

Back to Contents 

2.1.3 Shooting Villagers 

 

Each fishing lot has 6 to 8 guns and the lot workers use these guns to enforce their works. It is wondered whether these guns are legal or illegal and whether these people are permitted to use these guns or not? In fact, the government has cracked down on illegal weapons and encourage people to return them to the government but the fishing lot owners still keep theirs. 

 

Since the conflict began, two villagers have been shot. One was wounded and another one disappeared (see boxes 7 and 8). They all were accused of encroaching the fishing lot areas and using illegal fishing. The accusation is easily invented by those who are powerful and rich, but no proof was ever offered. The lot workers who shot the villagers was not taken to the court and the case was not investigated seriously. If the law is not able to persecute the shooters and victims can not be granted justice, then that will encourage more shooting.

 

Source: Field Interview, June 2000.

 

The current fishery law and the burden book does not mention that the fisishing lot owners should employ gunmen to protect the fishing lots. Deploying police without proper written permission from local authorities, preventing people's access to the fishing areas not included in the list in the burden book, threatening civilians and wounding them are totally illegal, violation of the rights of the people and against the constitution of the Kingdom.

 

Source: Field Interview, June 2000.

 

The villager who was shot and disappeared has not been returned. His wife is burdened with heavy work with three children at the moment. His case has never been investigated by any competent authorities. The local authorities seem to ignore this case and villagers keep questioning how the government defines the life of villagers in this areas. One of the reasons he fished is because he is poor. If he was shot deads, is it because fishing is a crime against humanity, like the crime of the Khmer Rouge. There is no law, forbidding people from fishing for just subsistence.

The other person, who was wounded by the shooting, is struggling in his case with the provincial court. Apart from spending money on curing his leg, he has ended up with a lot of travel cost and the court fee while his case is still not finished.

 

The fishing lot owners of lot no. 13  and 14 wanted to put into their control all lakes and bodies of water in the fishing lot boundary but not in the standard burden book. For instance, Boeung Khmao and Boeung Chikcheap are not in the list of an annex of the burdened books of lot no. 8.

 

The local people have difficulty in travelling across the fishing lots. Villagers say that the fishing lot owners very often have not allowed people to cross the fishing lots in the fishing season.

 

Source: Field Interview, June 2000.

 

The people said the fishing lot owners always claim that where there is water there is a fishing lot boundary. Stopping people from fishing by using these words is contrary to the Fishery Law. There are no such words in either the Fishery Law, the Sub-decree on 35Fishery or in the standard burden book.

 

As previously stated, some local people who tried to fish for subsistent living were arrested, one was shot and wounded and another was shot and disappeared. Chapter 4 of the Fishery Law clearly states that if there is a violation of the law, district fishery authorities, the provincial fishery authority and the Department of Fishery has a right to fine the perpetrators or confiscate their fishing equipment.  In cases where these agencies are unable to solve these problems, the case should be transferred to the court36. Article 37 of the Fishery Law states that the person who transgresses this law must be admonished, punished with a fine, have any items of proof confiscated, or be confined to jail, depending on the degree of violation. Confiscation of the proof is the responsibility of the court. The fine is to be contributed to the national budget37.

 

Source: Field Interview, June 2000.

 

However, the law does not say the violator must be shot. Who is responsible for the villager who was wounded and disappeared? The people have complained to the provincial authority, who referred the case to the provincial court, but the case was not investigated seriously38. People also complain that fines have never been administered properly according to the degree of violation, and it is not known to them exactly who has the authority to fine the people as sometimes police, military, fishing lot guards and district officials are all involved in fine collection. Article 34 of the Fishery Law states that during such an operation, the fishery officers and staff must wear their uniforms and badges as defined by the Ministry of Agriculture39. In fact, many officials do not clearly identify themselves and it is really hard to identify whether they are police, military or fishery officers or whether they are in the pay of fishing lot owners.

Back to Contents 

2.2 Local Authorities and Fishery Office

 

Numbers of villagers living in lot no. 13 and 14 were arrested and others were shot by lot owners. People have complained of lack of protection and reaction from provincial, districts and commune authorities. Several complains people have been made to authorities but only few have been investigated. For instance, February 06, 2000, Chulkiri district officials visited lots 13 and 14 and conducted an investigation about the conflicts between people and lot owners40.

 

People have said that when people complained to local authorities about the illegal activities of lot owners, the government official find it difficult to show up. On contrary, lot owners could persuade many government officials to arrest villagers who just fished for subsistence. It is no doubt that these officials benefit nothing from villagers and even sometimes they may get into trouble if they try to support villagers. However, government officials benefit from certain things, ranging from fish to money from lot owners if they come according to the invitation from lot owners41.

 

To some extent, the local authorities have ignored the illegal activities of the lot owners and conflicts with local people and fishing lots as they are part of the problems.  Villagers said that there is a involvement of local authorities in putting off the fishing ground of villagers under the fishing lots. Local authorities seem to have no power over the fishing lot owners. They could not stop the lot owners from illegal fishing and have allowed its to take place up to now. In fact, the fishing lot owners did not involve the local authorities in the lot management. The lot owners recognize only the fishery office that has competent capacities and authorities over them.

Back to Contents 

2.3 Fishing Communities Movement

 

The conflict between fishing communities and fishing lots over the fishery issues and people's access to fishery resource being denied by lot owners, in Chulikiri and Rolear Phear districts, especially in Phlong  and Kenleng Phea villages, has put people in a critical position in which they need to find their own mechanism to protect their livelihoods and their resource basis for present use and future generations.

 

People have organized themselves in three different levels. First, they assemble together in their villages to fight back the fishing lot owners who violate them. Second, they networked key people from the affected fishing communities and third, they file a complaint against the fishing owners to competent authorities (see appendices).

 

People have said that it is time for them to stand up rather than lie down. They have two choices to make, one is to be dead and second to survive. If fishing lot owners continue to do as it is now, the fishing population, especially in Chilkiri and Rolea Phear districts, will be dead. Instead of waiting for the death to come, they must struggle. This way will improve their conditions42.

 

Villagers have written numbers of complaints to provincial authorities, agriculture office, provincial fishery office, Department of Fishery, district authorities and to Prime Minister. However, the solution to this conflict has never been made for villagers. They even gathered themselves in the provincial governor’s house to demand a solution. The Governor and Provincial Agriculture and Fisheries officials came to the village to put an end to the violence which could regards as a good step.

 

The join efforts by villagers have scared the lot owners. The lot owners have recognized that this has threatened their businesses. In addition, villagers have met several NGOs to discuss this, especially human rights and environmental NGOs. The NGOs have advised villagers to form a community fishery to protect community interests and the natural resources.

Back to Contents 

III. The Conflict Resolution

Although the conflict wasn't solved but the violence went down. A earlie this year,the meeting at the province between the Second Deputy Governor, Agriculture and Fishery Provincial Office, Provincial Fishery Office, District Governors, Commune Chiefs, Lot Owners and Villagers did not come up with any solution but the Governor requested the lot owners not to destroy any irrigation scheme as it was.

 

A meeting early this year presided over by Mr. Nao Thouk, Deputy Director of Department of Fishery, at the Kompong Chhnang Agricultural Office with fishing villagers of Phlong village and Owners of fishing lot no.13 and 14 has come up with agreements as following:

 

·        return the Ta pro Ta pra lake to Phlong village,

·        return Thlok Kato to villagers,

·        allow people to manage the irrigation schemes belonging to Phlong,

·        lakes belong to people and not in the burden bookshould be returned to villagers,

·        forbid clearing the flooded forest, and

·        redemarcation of the fishing lot boundary will be done by the Department of Fishery.

 

People worry that as the dicussion way not record, the implementation  will still be a concern.

Back to Contents 

 IV. Conclusion

Fishing is a way of life for people in Kompong Chhnang. However, access to fishery resources, is under the threat. The fishing lot owners has denied people access to fishing areas where people used to fish for livelihoods.

 

The response of local people to the violation by the lot owners has resulted in a conflict that never happened in the past. In this conflict, local villagers were placed in a vulnerable position as protective mechanism from the government are inadequate. The institution protecting local people did not function in accordance with their role defined in the legislation to assist people.

 

Although local people have approached several institutions for help, a solution has not been achieved. The lot owners who committed illegal fishing and the shooters have not rbeen found guilty for what they have done. The law has failed to bring these people to court based on the decree of their guiltiness.  In contrast, local people were blamed for flooded forest destruction, poaching the fishing lots and violating the fishing lot areas.

 

Local people have come to distrust the mechanism by the government. The institutions are supposed  to serve the people; but, in fact, these institutions have added pressures on local poor, putting them in a vulnerable position to protect their livelihoods. Local people have reacted in their own way against the outside influences. They have strengthened themselves to combat against the powerful fishing lot owner and corrupted officials.  People believe that only this way they can secure their livelihoods.

Back to Contents 

References

ADHOC, Kompong Chhnang, 2000. Report on the Case Investigation about the Conflict in Lot No. 13 and 14 with Villagers.

 

Ahmed et al. 1998, Socio-Economic Assessment of Freshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia, Report on a Household Survey, MRC/DANIDA/DOF. Management of the  Freshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia.

 

Ahmed,M, 1996, Common and private property linkages for Sustainable livelihood in        Low-land Forest- Fishery-Farming systems of Northwest Cambodia

 

Bernacsek, M. 1997, Large Dam Fisheries

 

CEDAC; Abstracts of News on Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resource Management from Local Newspaper, October 1998.

 

CEDAC,CEPA and CAA, 1998, Report on National Workshop on Fisheries Livelihoods and Management in Cambodia

 

CEPA and NGO Forum, 2000, Report about Education and Environment

 

Degen, P. Vuthy. L. and Dara, Y, The management of the Freshwater capture fisheries in Cambodia: Legal principle and field implementation

 

Degen, P. 1998, Inland Fishery Management in Cambodia: Is the concept of community-based management appropriate for fishing lots?

 

The Department of Fisheries,1999, Draft Fishery Conservation, Management and Development Law

 

Environment Forum, The NGO Forum's Environment Magazine, Vol.1, No. 2, 1999.

 

Gum, W. 1998, Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Biospere Reserve in Battambang Province. Consultancy Report for the European Commission Support Programme to the Environmental Sector in Cambodia (SPEC).

 

Gregory, R. 1997, Ricefield Fisheries Handbook

 

Kingdom of Cambodia, Ministry of Planning, National Institute of Statistic: General Population Census of Cambodia, 1998, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

 

NEAP, 1996, Cambodia National Environmental action plan Workshop Report on Urban waste management and coastal Fisheries management

 

Ovesen, J. et al. 1996. When every household is an island: social organization and power structure in rural Cambodia

 

Oxfam GB, Land Study Project, Lanlessness and Development Research 1999-2000. Interim Report on Finding of Landlessness and Development Information Tool Researc September 1999 to April 2000.

 

Rainboth, W. J., 1996. Fishes of Cambodia Mekong. FAO Species identification guide for fishery purposes. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

 

Sethik, R. Piseth, V. CEPA, 1996, Report on Dolphin observation in Kratie, Upper Mekong of Cambodia.

 

Sithirith, M. 2000. Vulnerabilities of Fisheries in Cambodia, A paper presented at Conference on "Accounting for Development", June 23-24, 2000, University of Sydney.

 

Sithirith, M. 2000, The Cambodian Mekong and Environmental Issues

 

Sithirith, M. 2000, Fishing Conflict in Battambang

 

Swift, P. 1999. Long Term Case Study of Fishery Setting in Phlong Village, Kompong Chhnang Province; Initial Information Gathering and Outline of Future Work Program; Report on Field Work Conducted from 7 to 16 June 1999, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

 

Swift, P. 1997. Developing a Research Framework for the Fishing Lot System in Cambodia; Two Preliminary Case Studies on Fishing Lots in Takeo and Komgpong Chhnang Provinces, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

 

Tana,T.S,1990, Cambodia Compiled Theme of Fishery Laws, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

 

Tana.T.S, 1998. Bureaucratization the management or socializing the communication for better consensus between the Fishing community and the administrative system, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

 

Tichit. L, Agriculture in Cambodia.

 

Thouk, N, Van Zalinge, N. Degen, P. Tana.T. S. and Sam, N. Taken for granted, yet increasingly at risk Conflicts over Cambodia's freshwater fish resources.

 

Van Zalinge, N. Thouk, N, Tana, T.S. 1998,Where there is Water, there is fish? Cambodian fisheries issues in a Mekong River Basin perspective

 

Van Zalinge.N. and Thouk, N. Fisheries Management Issues in Cambodia

 

Vuthy, L. et al. The Management of the Freshwater Capture Fisheries in Cambodia: Legal Principle and Field Implementation, Presentation Paper for the Environment Working Group Meeting of NGO Forum on January 21, 2000.

 

SCALE, 1998, Aquaculture for small holder farmers.

 

Project for Ecological Recovery, B.kk, 1993, Fish, Forest and Food: Means of Livelihood in Mun River Village Communities

 

Fisheries Management Strategy

 

Ramsar Site, North of stoeng  treng

 

UNDP and FAO, 1994. Cambodia Land Cover Atlas 1985/87-1992/93, prepared by the Mekong Secretariat Project.

 

Watershed, 1999. Wild Fisheries of the Mekong River Basin; People's Forum on Ecology, Vol. 4, No. 3 March-June 1999, Bangkok, Thailand.

Back to Contents 

 

Appendix 1

Conflict between Villager and Fishing Lot43

 

Numerous examples of abuse by the lot owners were reported:

 

• The lot burden books identify common access ponds, which the lot owners are not allowed to fish. They also specify that villagers are forbidden to fish only within 200 meters of the lot ponds and channels, require the iot owner to mark the boundary of the lot, and identify those ponds which the lot owner is allowed to fish. However, for the past four to five years, the owner of lot number 14 fished Ta Pru Ta Pro, a common access pond. The Director of Fisheries in Kompong Chhnang said that he had been unable to do anything since the lot owner was used to fishing that pond, whatever the burden book might say. Only recently the new Provincial governor came to the village and announced that rights to the pond were to be given back to the community. This happened at the end of the season so it remains to be seen whether the lot owner will respect this decision next year. The owner of lot number 13 also fishes a number of ponds which people say used to be common access ponds years ago (and in the case of two ponds, were given back to the community in 1992), and which are not included in the burden book. He has also used chemicals to drive fish out of the common access ponds in his lot so that he can catch them. No lot boundaries are marked on the ground. In practice, the owners of lots 14 and 13 control all of the flooded area so that even the area just behind people's houses is part of the fishing lot, and they arrest people who fish behind their houses. This practice is summed up in the common expression, "Wherever there is water, the fish belong to the lot (toek trem na, trey trem noeng)."

 

• Fisheries officials clarified that rights to fish Ta pru Ta pro and other common access ponds within the lots are given to the community only after the water has receded to the level of the banks of the pond. Before that time they belong to the lot, though the burden books make no mention of this policy. People in Tonle Kraw, on the eastern side of lot number 14, complained that they had access to their common access pond (A Huot) only when the banks are dry.

 

• The owner of lot number 13 has also destroyed dikes built during Pol Pot times and before and maintained by people living around the lot, in Phlong, Kanleng Phea, and Anlong ok villages. (In Anlong ok, the lot owner even destroyed concrete culverts which were part of the dike.) The case of the sangke dike in Phlong, which lot workers destroyed, was mentioned above. The lot owner has claimed that the reservoirs created by the dikes hold fish that are his.

 

• People's rights to farm have also been seriously infringed upon as lot owners have been given management rights for the flooded forests—though the law apparently does not give them these rights. Owners of both lots 13 an 14 have arrested people for clearing the recent growth on their farmland, saying they cleared flooded forest. In Kanleng Phea, rice bunds in three areas were cut to get at the water they held. Provincial Fisheries officials said that this is a fish-producing area, and fish production must take precedence over farming.

 

• Community members are not allowed to pump from the lot ponds, such as boeng phlong in Phlong and boeng rumlech in Bot Anlong (Kanleng Phe), and their crops have suffered as a result. In Bot Anlong, farmers had to pay 50,000 riels each to be allowed to pump from the lot pond. We saw stubble of rice that had not ripened (skok) because a farmer had not been allowed to pump from the lot pond.

 

• In Phlong, boats are not allowed to travel up the preik phlong channel at all when the lot owner fishes it; no waterway is kept open as required by the burden book.

 

• In Bot Anlong (Kanleng Phea) the owner of lot number 13 destroyed the cement supports of a bridge crossing the preik rumlech channel. The owner of lot number 14 also did his best to prevent Phlong villagers from building the bridge across the preik phlong channel.

 

• The lot owners use violence against villagers. They have guns and have pointed guns at people or shot to scare them. They arrest people for "poaching" or "cutting forest" and force them either to pay a fine or work for them for a period of time. People have also been arrested for possession of gillnets, without adequate evidence that they were actually "poaching".

 

On his part, a man representing lot number 14 (actually a front for the lot owner, who supposedly is not allowed to bid on lots because he didn't make timely payments to the government for the lot in the past) blamed villagers for poaching in the lot during the open season and over-fishing during the closed season, clearing flooded forest, cultivating lotus, using insecticides, and other activities which impact on the fish populations. He also blamed villagers for electrocuting fish, which some are involved in as mentioned above. Fisheries officials say that villagers do not respect the law, using gear which exceeds legal limits on family fishing--such as a ten-meter limit on gillnets, and a limit to single fishhooks. They blame villagers for declining fish populations.

 

Community members generally acknowledge their participation in these activities, though only a few families are involved in electrocution. But they feel that the limits on family fishing are vastly antiquated and that lot owners get away with much more destructive, and illegal, activities:

 

• Community members in Phlong point out that although they are told that they cannot plant lotus within the fishing lot or clear flooded forest, the owner of lot number 14 does both. He plants lotus in Chhnok Andeng himself, lets a villager do so (for a share) in boeng psaot, and cuts trees in Chhnok andeng.

 

• They also point out that the owners of both lots 14 and 13 sell their fished-out ponds to people who pump them dry and electrocute the ash in them. These activities, which are widely recognized as destructive and illegal and are denied by the lot owners, continue for some time into the closed season. The lot owners also use fine mesh to catch fish coming out of the lot channels during the fish run (trey chenh), which the law does not allow and which means that even the smallest fish and other aquatic life are caught. Activities and gear allowed of the lot owners are clearly specified by the burden books, but they are not obeyed.

 

Villagers generally say that they would cooperate more with legal limits on family fishing if the lot owners also obeyed the law.

Back to Contents 

Protests

The communities around lots 14 and 13 have protested against the lots in various ways in the past:

 

• Phlong villagers protested for several years against the takeover of the common access pond, Ta Pru Ta Pro, by the owner of lot number 14. In the past they were told that the pond would be given back to them, but their nets were still torn down when they tried to fish. The lot owner said he had already paid for the lot and couldn't give the pond back to the community or he would lose money. This year, the lot owner pumped the pond dry and then community leaders mobilized the villagers to collect the fish—infuriating the lot owner. Later, the Provincial Governor announced that the pond belongs to the community, but as mentioned already people are waiting to see what will happen next year.

 

• As mentioned above, when workers of lot number 13 broke the sangke dike, fifty villagers went to the Provincial Governor's house in protest. The Governor and Provincial Agricuiture and Fisheries officials came to Phlong and put an end to the violence, though the conflict hasn't really been resolved yet. Two years ago a similar protest was made when the owner of lot number 14 tried to break the srange dike.

 

• In meeting people from other villages we found that complaints had been lodged with the government on a number of accounts. Anlong ok villagers protested the destruction of a dike (tumnup chok). Bot Anlong (Kanleng Phe) villagers were preparing to lodge a complaint over the destruction of a bridge by the owner of lot number 13.

 

The Provincial Fisheries Director said that it is difficult for him to solve conflicts because people do not inform him about problems when they arise. He also mentioned that local officials encourage people to protest about fishing lots, so that they can get control of fishing areas and sell ponds themselves.

Back to Contents 

 Appendix 2

 

Reports by Villagers on Illegal Activities Committed by the fishing lot owners and the Victims44

 

1-     On 6^th May, 1999, the owner of fishing lot no. 13, accompanied by 8 workers equipped with guns in every hand, opened fire to threaten and stop 12 villagers from pumping the water out of the lakes which people believe belong to them.

 

2-  On 25^th July, 1998, Owner of fishing lot 13 has ordered their workers to arrest 2 villagers from Phlong Village (Mr. Mao, Mr. Mei) and forced them to work for fishing lot.

 

3-     From 1997 to 1999, the Owner of fishing lot no.14 arrested people and confiscated fishing gears from people such as net, fishing line, fishing traps.

 

4-     On 26^th November, 1995, a villager (Mr. Leng ) was arrested by owner of fishing lot no.14 and he was forced to work for 3 days as only he traveled across the fishing lot.

 

5-     In 1999, the workers of the fishing lot no.13 arrested Mr. Kun Sophat and forced him to work for the lot owner for 3 days when he fished with small scale fishing gears in the lake belonging to the people.

 

6-     In 1998, the workers of fishing lots no. lot 14 arrested a villager ( Mr. Kim) who live in Phlong Village and confiscated his fishing gears such as a boat and fishing poles.

 

7-     In 1998 the workers of fishing lot no.14 arrested 6 people live in Tonle Krout Village when they cleared the forest in their rice land where they used to plant rice since 1979.

 

8-     In 1998, three people (Mr. Yen, Mr. Son, Mr. Rin ) was arrested by the fishing lot no.14 when they deployed fishing gears in the lakes and these people were forced to work hard without pay.

 

9-     In 1998, the owner of fishing lot no.14 arrested  Mr. Tam Shun twice and forced to work without pay when he only fished in the Lake belonging to the people.

 

10- In 1997, the owner of fishing lot no. 14 arrested Mr. Sream who live in Phlong Village and forced him to work hard without pay when he just fished in the Lake which belongs to the people.

 

11- In 2000, the owner of fishing lot no. 13 arrested Mr. Chee and forced him to work very hard without pay when he just fished in the Lake which belongs to the people.

 

12- In 2000, the owner of fishing lot no. 13 arrested Mr. Chay who live in Phlong Village and forced to work hard without pay when he just fished in lakes which belong to the people.

 

13- In 2000, the owner of fishing lot no. 14 ordered their workers ( 5people) with guns every hands to destroy a Memay dike in Pearm Chkork commune.

 

14-  In 2000, the owner of fishing lot 14 arrested  Mr. Chum Sophy and forced him to pay to 100,000 Riels when he just deployed his fishing line in the lakes belong to people.

 

15-  In 2000, the owner of fishing lot no.14 ordered their workers with guns in every hand to destroy the dike where people irrigate their Chamcar and rice field in the Plurng Village.

 

16- In 2000, the owner of fishing lot no.14 with 2 pumping machine pumped water where people use this water.

 

17- In 2000, the owner of fishing lot no. 13 ordered their workers with guns in every hand to shoot Mr. Sheark Searng who has seriously injured when he just fished in the lakes belonging to the people.

 

18- In 2000, 2 villagers were shot by  the workers of fishing lot no.14.

 

19- In 1998, father and Son ( Vang Thay, Korn) were arrested by the owner of fishing lot no.14   in the Tonle Krow village.

 

20- In 1998, a villager was killed by the worker of the fishing lot was advocate.

 

21- In 2000, the owner of fishing lot no.14 forced 4 villagers to pay 150000 Riel  each at each  Krout.

 

 

Records of Activities of the Fishing Lot No. 13:

 

Since 1995, the owner of fishing lots always confiscated people’s fishing gears in the lakes belong to people.

 

1-      On February 1997, the worker from the fishing lot killed a villager.  This situation happened in point of Ta Kork Lake.

2-     On 5^th 1998, the workers of fishing lots destroyed dikes, and a water gate intended for  pumpthe water.

3-     At the end of 1998, Mr. Or Phon was arrested by the workers of fishing lot and he was forced to work hard for a month without pay.

4-     The late of 1999, the owner of the fishing lots arrested Mr.Reth Longn who lives in Veal Chrang Roung Damrey and forced him to work for a month without pay.

5-     On 20^th January1999, the owner of fishing lots destroyed the dikes in Roung Damrey.

6-     On 18^th February 1999, Mr. Sreng Sok ( Srou) destroyed the bridge of pillars at the Prek Rumlek.

7-     On 29^th October1999, the owner of fishing lots collected the fishing gears of people at the Kour Kong Long.

8-     On 31^rd Octomber1999, at 6:oo PM Mr. Sreng Sok ordered 10 policemen with fire arms every hand to surround the house's Mr. Chay Hourn and arrest in Bot Alnong Brong Village.

9-     On 2^nd November 1999, the workers of fishing lot no.13 (5people and a police) shot to the house's Mr Kot Kheang who live in Anlong Ork village and confiscated his boat.

10- On 26^th December 1999, The workers of fishing lot shot a thread to the villagers.

Back to Contents 

---