Download - Contribution of Rice Field Ecosytems to Food Security Strategies in Northwest Cambodia

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 18 November 2014, At: 04:42Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable AgriculturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20

Contribution of Rice Field Ecosytems to Food SecurityStrategies in Northwest CambodiaNuma Shams aa 2607-151 Queen Street North, Hamilton, ON, Canada , L8R 2V7 E-mail:Published online: 08 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Numa Shams (2007) Contribution of Rice Field Ecosytems to Food Security Strategies in NorthwestCambodia, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 29:4, 109-133, DOI: 10.1300/J064v29n04_09

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v29n04_09

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J064v29n04_09

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v29n04_09

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Contribution of Rice Field Ecosytemsto Food Security Strategies

in Northwest Cambodia

Numa Shams

ABSTRACT. Rich in biodiversity, Cambodia’s rice field ecosystems arean important source of livelihood and food security. Foraging of aquaticplants and animals alongside the cultivation of rice has been the maincharacteristic of food and income systems of traditional Cambodian ru-ral society. Participatory action learning involving 30 farmers in threedifferent villages located in three different lowland ecosystems of north-west Cambodia showed that fish and other aquatic animals collected(between 111 kg and 267 kg/family based on ecosystems) from rice fieldecosystems constitute an important source of food and income. It is alsotrue for plants collected from the ecosystems. In lowland environment ofCambodia, and considering the rice economy only, there is very littleeconomic advantage growing rice with traditional cultivation techniquesover importing it. However, if we take into consideration the total produc-tion of nutrients from cultivated and non-cultivated sources Cambodianrice fields are highly productive. Unsustainable interventions for eco-nomic development and modernization (such as increased use of agro-chemicals, development of irrigation, and drainage structures) may reducethe productivity of rice field ecosystems and affect livelihood patterns

Numa Shams, 2607-151 Queen Street North, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8R 2V7(E-mail: [email protected]).

Dr. Mahfuz Ahmed of International Fish Center, Penang, Malaysia provided adviceat the design stage of the action research. The late Dr. Peter Cox, Regional TechnicalAdvisor, CRS-SEAPRO, Indonesia and Dr. David Peries, Durham, UK provided valu-able suggestions during the drafting stage of this manuscript. Mr. Try Hong of NationalIPM team, Cambodia was the field coordinator of this project. He expired in 2001. Thispaper is dedicated to his memory.

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 29(4) 2007Available online at http://jsa.haworthpress.com

© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J064v29n04_09 109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

and food security. The paper argues that a focus on increasing the riceproduction without any regard to the total bio-productivity of the ricefield ecosystems could result in higher ecological costs, which couldmake the increase in rice production ecologically as well as nutritionallyunsustainable. doi:10.1300/J064v29n04_09 [Article copies available for a feefrom The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail ad-dress: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Cambodia, biodiversity, food security, rice field ecosys-tems, rice field fisheries, common property

INTRODUCTION

Cambodia is a country of forests, rivers, and lakes. Rice farming,fishing, and extraction of plant and forest products have been the majormeans of production of food, construction materials, and energy for sub-sistence (Shams & Ahmed, 1999). As much as 85% of the Cambodianpopulation live in rural areas; 82% of the rural labor force are engagedin agriculture, forestry, and fishing. Most people are engaged in the man-agement of rice-based production systems (FAO, 1994; UNDP, 1995).

Cambodian farmers’ have been growing rainfed rice as a major sourceof food for at least 2,000 years, possibly longer in the case of upland rice(Helmers, 1997). Historians believe that rice cultivation technologiesmay have been imported into Cambodia along trade routes from India.Irrigated rice production technologies were introduced 1,500 years ago.At present, rice is the principal agricultural commodity. About 88% ofthe total agricultural land is devoted to rice farming (Nesbitt, 1996).

Rice is grown in rainfed lowland and deepwater environments duringthe wet season. Monocropping of wet season rice is the predominantcropping pattern. The yield of lowland rice is very low (average 1.79 thectare�1) compared with other Southeast Asian countries.

Rice, together with non-cultivated natural foods, constitutes a largepart of Cambodian diet. Foraging and fishing in the rice field ecosys-tems supply most of the food for the farming population. For example,subsistence production of fish comprises nearly 50% of commercial in-land production (FAO, 1994). Estimates of small-scale fish catch byhouseholds that depend on fishing as an important means of livelihoodshowed that about 658 kg fish per household is caught annually by

110 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

households living in lowland areas. Almost all of this catch is obtainedfrom open access water bodies such as streams, lakes, and flooded ricefields (Ahmed et al., 1998). A UNICEF (1995) study showed that 87%of rural households were engaged in harvesting aquatic animals andplants from rice field ecosystems. Another study (Murshed, 1998) showedthat, in a typical food deficit village, hunting/gathering provides 10% ofthe family income. In the irrigated environment, it was 13%, and in fish-ing villages 18%.

In this study, rice field ecosystems is defined to include rice fields,levees surrounding the fields, irrigation channels, streams, and all uncul-tivated lands within rice-growing areas, like termite hills, small bushes,swamp lands, and natural ponds and irrigation channels which connectrice fields to permanent water sources. The fish captured from the streamsare those migrating to and from the rice fields and thus considered partof rice field fisheries.

Rice field ecosystems provide following food and feed which arevery important in the livelihood of resource-poor farmers:

• Aquatic and non-aquatic animals: Fish, shrimp, crab, snail, snake,rat, and insect.

• Aquatic and non-aquatic plants: Water convolvulus (Ipomeaaquatica), water lilly (Nymphaea spp.), ma-am, komping poi,kanchait, slab crova, Chumtolphnom, sesbania–flower (Sesbaniajavanica), duck weeds (Lemna valdiviana), water hyacinth(Eichhornia crassipes), mushrooms, Monochoria vaginalis, palmfruits, chanvatak, grass, and bamboo shoots.

Most of the animals found in rice field ecosystems are aquatic in na-ture (fish, shrimps, crabs, snails, snakes, and insects). The only non-aquatic animal that is being collected is field rat. Most of the aquatic andnon-aquatic plants are collected from rice field ecosystems are forhuman consumption. However, some of the plants like duck weed orgrass are used as animal feed. Therefore, an undisturbed rice field eco-system is not only important for the food security of resource-poorfarmers but also maintaining the entire farm ecosystem. An undisturbedrice field ecosystem is ecologically balanced and can be highly produc-tive even when such a system is under environmental stress. For exam-ple, in a year of heavy rain farmers may loose a part of their rice harvestdue to flooding, but an increased harvest of fish and other aquaticresources may compensate such loss.

Research, Reviews, Practices, Policy and Technology 111

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Although the diverse biological products from rice field ecosystemsplay an important role in the livelihood of farmers, only little is knownabout their amount, composition of catches, fishing and foraging prac-tices, contribution to the food security, or utilization of labor by genderand age to collect these products. This paper describes the food and feedthat farmers collect from rice field ecosystems, and analyses how ricefield biodiversity is critically linked to the food security of the farmingpopulation. One of the expected outputs of this research is its use by thepolicy makers at the provincial level. Qualitative methodology was usedin this research because it could provide more direct windows on thelives of the constituents (for politicians), or client groups (for adminis-trators).

STUDY AREAS

The study was conducted in three villages (Kley, Rolous, and Loek)in Kompong Thom province in Northwest Cambodia (Figure 1). Thesethree villages represent three different rice field ecosystems located inthe districts of Santuk, Stung Sen, and Stung, respectively.

Santuk project location. The study area in Santuk represents rainfedlowland rice ecosystems. Kley village is situated 1,000 m from NationalRoad # 5 and 12 km from the district town. Its 204 families live in 200households. The village extends over 333 hectares, of which 33 hectaresis common land and the rest is rainy season rice fields. Rice cultivationis the main occupation of the villagers. Secondary occupations includeproduction of palm sugar, traditional noodle, rice wine, pigs, and chick-ens. Kley is situated in the watershed of Stung Chhinit River. It is only5-6 km away from the river. The river and its flooding directly influencerice cultivation, and the availability of fish and other aquatic resourcesavailable in the rice fields. As Stung Chhinit directly influences the ricefield ecosystems, the fish diversity in this lowland is considerably higherthan that of Stung.

Stung Sen project location. The study area in Stung Sen representsdeepwater and rainfed lowland rice-growing environments. Rolous, thesecond study village is situated 440 m west of National Road # 6 and 9 kmfrom the district center. The total population of the village is 1,009, wholive in 183 households. The village consists of 655 hectares, of which 36hectares is common land and 40 hectares is forest; 544 hectares is usedfor wet season rice and 35 hectares for dry season rice. The dry seasonrice is cultivated in two small dried up lakes. Rice farming is the main


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


THAILAND

BanteayMean Cheay

Siem Reab

Preah Viher

LAOS

Rotanah Kiri

Stoeng Treng

Mondol KiriKracheh

Kley

Kampong Cham

Prey Veng

Kandal

Takeo

SOUTH CHINA SEA

N

GULF OFTHAILAND

KampongSomKampongSom

Kampot

SvayRieng

VIETNAM

Kampong Thum

Loek

Rolous

KampongChhnang

Pursat

Battambang

Kampong SpoeKaoh Kong

PhnumPenb

PhnumPenb

LegendInternational BoundaryProvince (Khett) BoundaryProvince (Khett) BoundaryGreat LakeProject LocationsPronvincial Headquarter

FIGURE 1. Map of Cambodia showing project locations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

occupation of the villagers, followed by fishing. Eighty percent of farmfamilies are involved in fishing. Some farmers migrate to other districtsor provinces to work as farm laborers. Rolous is situated in the water-shed of Stung Sen River. It is greatly influenced by the Great Lake,Tonle Sap, which is approximately 38 km from the village. Farmers ofRolous village collect fish from both rainfed lowland and deepwater areas.However, due to their connection with the Great Lake Tonle Sap sys-tems in the rainy season, the deepwater areas produce more fish thanthat of rainfed lowland areas. As this research was participatory in na-ture, it was difficult for farmers with a low level of education to differ-entiate data sources for rainfed and deepwater areas.

Stung project location: The study area in Stung represents rainfed low-land rice-growing environments. Loek, the third study village, is situatedalong a tertiary road connecting Stung district center with Preah Damreycommune. One hundred and twenty-nine families live in 128 houses. Thevillage consists of 118 hectares of land, of which 15 hectares is commonland and remaining is rice land. Rice farming is the main occupationof the villagers. Secondary occupations consist of palm sugar produc-tion, cart making, chicken and pig raising and employment across theThai-Cambodian border. Other than rice, farmers also cultivate cassava,sweet potato, and sugarcane in the homestead and on higher land. UnlikeRolous and Kley, no major river or lake influences the study area of Loek.However, a stream known as Sen flows through the north of the village,which has influence on fish and aquatic resources in Loek. Productivityof fish and other aquatic animals and plants in Loek is much lower thanthat of other two locations.

METHODOLOGY

Participatory action research methodology was used in this study.Farmers themselves were involved in the identification of sample farm-ers, collecting and recording of data, and dissemination of results ob-tained. This methodology was been used because of the followingadvantages:

• Empowerment: The methodology was centered on farmer partici-pation and empowerment. The active participation of farmer in thisaction research was expected to improve the decision-making skillsof the community. It was also expected to spur organizational skills


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

of the community. Through this action learning farmers collectedand recorded their own data, made their own observation and dis-covered the importance of rice field biodiversity in their food secu-rity.

• Changing mindset: The extension workers of the Provincial Agri-culture Department participated in this action research. During theperiod of this research, Cambodia was coming out of the civil warand the professional capacity of the government staff was low, asthey were trained on delivery of inputs and not on participatorymethodologies.

• Gender sensitivity and family participation: The entire family areinvolved in fishing and foraging of fish, other plants, and animals.Women play an important role in processing of fish and otheraquatic animals and selling it in the market. Therefore, involve-ment of men and women in the data collection is very important. Inthis research, we have ensured the participation of women in thecollection data.

• Users-friendly: Because of the low capacity of the provincial levelofficials, a highly statistical report would not be accessible to thesepeople.

In order to ensure that this action research has a high quality precisionof data and results we have used following steps as recommended byDick (1993):

1. Accessing multiples sources such as daily data collection, casestudies and field observations as a part of dialectic.

2. Developing interpretations as part of data collection.3. Accessing relevant literature as part of interpretation, to widen the

dialectic.

Pretty (1997) introduced seven types of participation (e.g., manipula-tive, passive, functional, interactive, self-mobilization, consultative andmaterial incentives) in action learning. In this action research, we haveused functional participation. In this research, farmer participation wasused to collect data and other information. The process involved shareddecision making. Because of the rigid timeframe for this action learning,the process could not be interactive participation, so that people couldparticipate in joint analysis, development of action plan, and strengthen-ing local institution.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Data and Sample

Between August and December 1997, ten families from each of thethree villages were monitored at weekly intervals to gather records ofdaily collection of fish and other aquatic animals and plants (OAAP). Theselection of sample households was based on their spatial distribution andeconomic status. Initially a group meeting of several cooperator farmerswas held in each village to select a sample of households. The group clas-sified all families in the village according to their relative wealth status.This classification was based on farmers’ perception rather than any harddata. Sample farmers were selected randomly, representing the poor halfand the rich half of the community. During the random drawing of lots,care was taken to ensure that no two selections came from the samehousehold or adjacent households. No particular consideration was givento the availability of fishing equipment or proximity to fishing grounds.

The participants were trained on how to measure and record theirdaily collection and foraging of fish and OAAP. They weighed theircatch every day and recorded this in a notebook. An extension workervisited the farmer on a specific day each week and collected the recordsfrom the farmers. In addition to the collection of daily catch or produc-tion records, data on the time allocation for household work, methods offishing, foraging, and processing, and end-use of the products were alsocollected from the sample farmers. A number of case studies were alsoconducted to understand farmers’ existing rice cultivation practices.

For identification of species, a field guide (Rainboth, 1996) was used.The data were coded and recorded in master sheets, which were thentransferred to a computer spreadsheet.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The farmers in all three villages reported catching several species offish and OAPP. The farmers also reported dry-season grazing of ani-mals on rice fields.

Animals Caught in the Rice Fields

Fish: The highest collection of fish and other animals per month wereobtained from Stung Sen (64.60 kg/month), followed by Santuk (51.20kg/month). The production in Stung (36.10 kg/month) is much lowerthan that of the other two locations (Table 1). This may be because the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

study village in Stung is far from any perennial water source, like a river(e.g., Stung Chhinit for Santuk) or lake and river (e.g., Tonle Sap andStung Sen river for Stung Sen) that can serve as a source of spawn in theearly wet season.

In the 5-month study period, the catch for each family in Stung Sen,Santuk, and Stung was 267 kg, 225 kg, and 111 kg, respectively. Thesequantities were much lower than those found by Gregory and Guttman(1996) in their study of Svay Teap in Svay Rieng province. They foundan average annual catch of 681 kg/family. AIT (1997) found that farm-ers in the zone of highest trap pond production caught 604 kg/house-hold; in the zone of medium production, 321 kg/household; and in thezone of lowest production, 158 kg/household. Gregory (1997) estimatedthat household fish collection from rice fields was about 300-400 kg/household in a good year, and 100 kg/household in a bad year. Rainfallis the single most important factor for the production of wild fish. The poorwet season in 1997 had an adverse affect on rice field fisheries andfarmers estimated that the production was much lower than that of pre-vious years. AIT (1997) found a 50% reduction in Svay Rieng in 1997,compared with 1996.

The above data also show that villages connected with deepwater areasare more productive than rainfed lowland rice-growing areas. However,


TABLE 1. Average monthly harvest of fish and other aquatic animals/house-holds (kg/family).

Resources Villages Average

Stung Sen Stung Santuk

Other aquatic animals

Shrimp 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.23

Crab 2.1 1.8 3.4 2.43

Frog 0.8 1.7 2.8 1.77

Snail 2.5 0.6 5.5 2.87

Insect 3.7 0.4 1.2 1.77

Snake 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.37

Total of other aquatic animals 11.20 6.20 13.90 10.43

Fish 53.4 45.0 22.2 40.20

Total of all resources 64.60 51.20 36.10 50.63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

whether deepwater rice-growing areas are more productive than the sur-rounding open-water areas is not known and needs to be investigated.The amount of fish caught from deepwater rice fields may not representthe amount of fish present in the area. The deepwater rice crop givesshelter to several species of fish and sometimes it is difficult to catchthose fish by netting.

Other animals. Although fish is the major food material farmers col-lected from the rice field ecosystems, other animal products also consti-tute a significant percentage of the total amount foraged. Farmerscollected frog, snail, snake, shrimp, insect, crab, and rat from rice fieldecosystems (Table 1). Farmers of Santuk collected the most (13.90 kg/month/family), followed by Stung Sen (11.21 kg/month/family), andStung (6.20 kg/month/family).

Distribution of Catch Over Time

Fish. In terms of catch per month, August was the lean period of fishin Stung Sen (33.03 kg) and Santuk (37.28 kg) but in Stung, Decemberwas the lean production month (12.22 kg) as illustrated in Figure 2.

Catch per month increased by a range of 15% (Stung) to 33% (StungSen) in September, compared with the previous month. October andNovember were the most productive months in Stung and Stung Sen.Also in these two months, the volume of the catch was similar. How-ever, in Santuk, October was the most productive month and the catchdropped to almost half in November (from 64 kg in October to 36 kg). Inthis location, the drop of catch from November to December was small


807060504030

20100

Aug Sep Oct

Cat

ch (

Kg/

fam

ily/m

onth

)

Nov Dec

Stung Sen Santuk Stung

FIGURE 2. Trends in fish caught in Stung Sen, Santuk, and Stung.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

(15%). In both Stung Sen and Stung, the catch dropped to almost half inDecember, compared with November: in Stung Sen from 77.8 kg inNovember to 43.5 kg in December; and in Stung from 29 kg in Novemberto 12.2 kg in December (Figure 2). As December is the month for har-vesting rice, the time spent catching fish in both Stung and Santuk waslow, so the catch dropped significantly in that month. Although farmersfrom Stung Sen spent considerably more time fishing in December thanin the previous month, the catch still dropped. The reasons for this arenot known.

Other aquatic animals. August, September, and October were seasonwhen maximum amount of frog were caught. Frog catching showedan upward trend from August (3.94 kg/family) to October (5.57 kg/fam-ily); after that, the catch declined considerably. In December, farmersfrom all the three locations collected least amount of frog (1.86 kg/fam-ily; Figure 3). Crab catch showed similar trends. However, Novemberand December were the peak months for snail collection (5.61 kg/fam-ily in November and 4.82 kg/family in December).

At the beginning of the season, frogs and crabs were collected fromrice fields and other places. At the end of the season, frogs and crabs weredug up or hooked from burrows in the rice field bunds.

In addition to the above three animals, farmers collected snakes, rats,and insects. The highest level of snake collection was reported in themonths of October (0.49 kg/family) and November (0.75 kg/family) asillustrated in Figure 4. However, some farmers had different opinionabout the collection season for snake. According to them, July and August,when the water started flowing in the rice field, was the best time for


6

5

4

3

2

1

0Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Frog Crab

Cat

ch (

kg/fa

mily

/mon

th)

Snail

FIGURE 3. Trends in frogs, crabs, and snails caught.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

catching snakes. Insect collection did not show major variations exceptin December. In December, farmers were busy with harvest rice, whichmay be the reason for its low collection (0.36 kg/family). Insects werecollected not only from rice fields but also from small pools of water bythe roadside and in the homesteads. The species of insects collectedwere not known.

Meusch (1996) reported the collection of rats from rice fields for con-sumption and sale in the markets in rural Laos. However, no detailedaccount of selling rat is available in Cambodia. Rat is caught for con-sumption. Gregory (1997) reported that frogs and rats caught from ricefields were important sources of animal protein for upland communitiesin Rattanakiri. The exact species of rat collected for consumption in thestudy area is not known. November and December were the peak col-lection season for rats. October and November were the peak produc-tion months for shrimp.

Composition of Catch

Fish. Farmers in the study area collected thirty-five different speciesof fish. Meusch (1996) observed 24 species in the rice fields of LaoPDR. Gregory (1996) reported 19 species of fish and six other animalspecies caught from rice fields in Svay Rieng in Cambodia. Gum (1996)reported 38 fish species found in the rice field ecosystems in BattambangProvince, Cambodia.

The presence of large bodies of water in proximity to rice field ecosys-tems has a direct relationship with species diversity. The project location


1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0Aug Sept Oct

Cat

ch (

kg/fa

mily

/mon

th)

Nov Dec

Snake Rat Insects

FIGURE 4. Trends in snakes, rats, and insects caught.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

in Stung Sen is in the watershed of the Stung Sen River. The Great LakeTonle Sap also influences it. As a result, the species diversity was highesthere (34 species), which was followed by Santuk (16 species). Santukis situated close to the Stung Chhinnit River. The project location inStung showed less diversity (14 species). This is because of absence ofany lake or major river in this location. However, the exact correlationbetween species diversity and distance from perennial bodies of water isnot known.

Snakehead (Channa spp.; 29%), rasbora (Rasbora spp.; 10% of thecatch), walking catfish (Clarias batrachus; 20%), climbing perch(Anabas testudineus; 22%), and Mystus spp. (4%) were the major fishspecies found in the rice fields of Santuk (Figure 5). Mystus is not a typi-cal rice field species and probably entered the rice fields and canalsfrom the river.

Snakehead (29%), walking catfish (18%), climbing perch (19%),rasbora (20%), and spiny eel (Macroganthus siamensis; 6%) were themajor fish species found in the rice fields of Stung (Figure 6). Ali (1990)


Others6%

Mystus spp.4% Snakehead

29%

Walkingcatfish29%

Rasbora10%

Climbingperch22%

FIGURE 5. Frequency of different fish species in catches in Santuk.

Other8% Snakehead

29%

Rasbora20%

Climbingperch19%

Spiny eel6%

Walkingcatfish18%

FIGURE 6. Frequency of different fish species in catches in Stung.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

found that, snakeskin gourami constituted 55%, snakehead 28.8%, andclarias catfish 10.5% of the catch in rice field fisheries in Malaysia.Gregory (1997) reported that, in Svay Rieng, snakehead accounted for25-40% of the total catch, clarias catfish 35-40%, climbing perch 10-15%,and Rasbora spp. 10-15%.

In the rainfed and deepwater rice-growing environment of Stung Sen,nine different species constituted 82% of the total catch. Among thesenine, climbing perch (19.02%), Mystus spp. (11.49%), Cyclocheilichthysspp. (16.26%), and snakehead (14%) were the major species found inthis environment (Figure 7). In addition to snakehead, a larger species,giant snakehead (Ophicephalus micropeltes), was also found among thecatch.

Other animals. In the rainfed lowland rice environment of Santuk andStung, two different types crabs (17% and 29%, respectively), snails (28%and 9%, respectively), frogs (44% and 28%, respectively), and snakes (0%and 2%, respectively) were the major items farmers collected (Table 2).On the other hand, in the deepwater rice-growing environment of StungSen, insects (33%), snails (22%), crabs (19%), shrimps (10%), and frogs(7%) constituted most of other animals caught.

Efficiency of Fishing

Farmers of Stung Sen had the highest catch per family per day (1.96kg/day). In terms of catch per unit effort or CPUE (kg caught per personper fishing hour; Figure 8) farmers of Santuk was most efficient. Thefarmers of Stung Sen spent more time to catch fish and OAA than thoseof Santuk, which increased their total production per day. However, the


Other18% Giant

snakehead2% Snakehead

14%

Climbing perch20%

Walking catfish5%Mystus

11%Cyclocheilichthys16%

Henicorhyachus sp5%

Catopra4%

Featherbackspecies

5%

FIGURE 7. Frequency of different fish species in catches in Stung Sen.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

distance of the fishing grounds from the village probably played an im-portant role in the lower efficiency of fishing in Stung Sen. Gregory andGuttman (1996) reported much higher CPUE in Svay Rieng. It is notclear why the efficiency of fishing was so low in Kompong Thom com-pared with that of Svay Reing.

TIME AND EFFORT FOR FISHING AND FORAGING

Fishing periods are highly seasonal, based on migration patterns offish in rice fields. Periods of migration can be defined as:

1. migration of fish into the rice fields,2. period of feeding and reproducing in the rice fields, and3. migration out of the rice fields.


1.82 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Cat

chef

ficie

ncy

(Kg/

pers

on/h

r)

1.61.41.2

10.80.60.40.2

0Stung

Cat

ch (

Kg/

fam

ily/d

ay)

Stung Sen SantukCatch/day Catch/person/hr

FIGURE 8. Fish and other animal catch efficiency.

TABLE 2. Composition (by weight) of catches of other animals in three differentlocations (% of the total catches).

Locations Frog Crab Snail Shrimp Insect Snake Rat

Santuk 44 17 28 5 5.98 0 0.02

Stung 28 29 9 25 7 2 0

Stung Sen 7 19 22 10 33 9 0

Average 26.33 21.67 19.67 13.33 15.33 3.67 0.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

The periods of feeding and reproduction as well as of back migration arethe times when most fish are usually caught. The back migration dependson land elevation (which determines types of rice grown), rainfall re-gime, and reversal of water flow.

Farmers in study village in Stung Sen spent the highest number ofhours/month (157.39) to catch fish and other aquatic resources. This isbecause Stung Sen District is close to the Great Lake Tonle Sap, and itsdeepwater rice areas produce more fish and other aquatic resources(Table 3). Santuk and Stung, on the other hand, represent predomi-nantly rainfed lowland ecosystems, and hence farmers expend less ef-fort in fishing and foraging (87.14 hr and 69.28 hr, respectively). On thewhole, farmers of Stung Sen spent about twice the person days (19.67)than those of Stung (8.66) and Santuk (10.89) did to collect fish andother aquatic resources. Gregory and Guttman (1996) in Svay Teap dis-trict in Svay Rieng province found that farmers spent a similar time(14-16.25 person days/household/month) in fishing and foraging.

Gender and Labor Force Participation

In both the deepwater and rainfed rice-growing environment of StungSen and the rainfed lowland environment of Santuk, adult men played thebiggest role in fishing and foraging activities (72% and 77% of total labor,respectively). On the other hand, in the rainfed lowland rice-growing en-vironment of Stung, children, and adult males took equal responsibilitiesfor these activities (44% and 49% of total labor, respectively; Table 4).There is a general perception in Cambodia that women rarely go outfishing and their role in fishing activities is not very significant (Navy,Vuthy, & Ahmed, 1996). However, the degree of involvement by womenis probably related to the importance of these activities in the householdeconomy. As the farmers in Stung Sen had more fishing activities com-pared with the other two locations, the involvement of women was higher


TABLE 3. Time and effort for foraging in different locations.

Santuk Stung Sen Stung Average

Average number of hours spent/family/month 87.14 157.39 69.28 107.3

Number of hours/household members/month 18.26 28.56 13.29 20.04

Total number of person days/household/month 10.89 19.67 8.66 13.07

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

there (20% of total labor). Navy, Vuthy, and Ahmed (1996) reported thatfemale members from nearly 30% of the households in fishing communi-ties along the Great Lake in Siem Reap are involved in fishing.

UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF FISHAND OTHER ANIMAL PRODUCTS

The relative amounts of fish and other animal products sold, eaten,processed, or given to other families in the three different locations areshown in Table 5. In areas with medium to high fish catches, like Santukand Stung Sen, sale of aquatic products (47% and 49%) is an importantsource of revenue and contributes significantly to the household econo-my. This finding is similar to that reported by Gregory and Guttman(1996). However, in Stung, where the catch of fish and other aquatic ani-mals was quite low, 92% of the total catch was consumed by the family.

Of the three locations, farmers of the study location in Stung Senprocessed the maximum amount of fish and other aquatic resources.Snakehead (Channa spp.), gourami (Trichogaster trichopterus), eel(Macroganthus siamensis, M. aculeatus, Fluta alba), and anabas (Anabustestudineus) are examples of fish that were processed. Women play amajor role in fish processing in Kompong Thom, although the extent isnot known. Nandesha (1994) reported that women sometimes contrib-ute to more than 90% of these activities.

The processed fish are usually consumed during the dry season, whenfresh aquatic produce is harder to find. Gregory and Guttman (1996) re-ported the sale of a part of the processed fish during the dry season. It isnot known whether farmers in the project locations sell their processedfish or not.


TABLE 4. Gender role and labor force participation in three different locations(% of total labor).

Locations Men Women Children

Santuk 77 13 10

Stung 44 7 49

Stung Sen 72 20 8

Average 64.33 13.34 22.33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Consumption of Fish and Other Aquatic Products

Although the fish catch varied greatly from one study location to an-other, the difference in terms of fish consumption was very small (Table 6).Over a 5-month period, the per capita fish consumption in Santuk was22.30 kg, followed by that of Stung (21.92 kg) and Stung Sen (20.83 kg).Ahmed et al. (1998) estimated fish consumption in fishing communitiesas 76 kg/person/year. Gregory and Guttman (1996) estimated fish con-sumption at 42 kg/person/year in southeast Cambodia, while Tana (1993)estimated it to be 13.6-19.0 kg/person/year. MRC (1992) and Csavaset al. (1994) also made similar estimates of 13.3 kg kg/person/year and13.5 kg kg/person/year, respectively. Hy (1995) reported that fish con-sumption was 71 kg/person/year in the floating villages and 32 kg/person/year in the upland areas of Siem Reap Province. Nirmal (1997) found itbe 38 kg/person/year in Kampot. Thauk and Sina (1997) reported a studyconducted by Tichit (1971) in 1963 west of Phnom Penh, which foundthat one well-off farm family of five members consumed per year, 80 kgof fresh fish, of which 20 kg was caught by themselves; 30 kg of saltedfish and 20 kg of smoked fish which was bought from local markets plus,150-180 kg of fish paste and 60-96 liters of fish sauce (tuk trey).

In the rainfed lowland locations of Stung and Santuk, rich and poorfarmers consumed almost similar amount of fish. In general, rich house-holds consumed more fish, pork, and beef than poor households, but thiswas not consistent at all sites (Table 6). However, there was a differencebetween rich and poor farmers in terms of fish and fish product con-sumption at Stung Sen. Here, rich farmers consumed more fish and fishproducts than poor farmers.

In all three locations, consumption of beef was low. Moreover, al-though beef consumption was higher among rich farmers, the difference


TABLE 5. Utilization of fish and other animal products.

Locations Percentage of utilization

Processing Selling Given away Consumption

Santuk 6 47 4 43

Stung 2 4 2 92

Stung Sen 23 49 1 27

Average 10.33 33.34 2.33 54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

was not very big. Over the 5-month study period, pork consumption washigher among rich farmers. Compared with fish, the overall consump-tion of beef and pork was very low.

PLANT MATERIAL COLLECTEDFROM RICE FIELD ECOSYSTEMS

Farmers collected different plant material from rice field ecosystemsfor consumption and sale (Table 7). The highest amount of foraging tookplace in deepwater rice-growing environment. In this enviornment, somepoor farmers, particularly women households, collected water convovulus(Ipomea aquatica) for consumption and sale. The involvement of richhouseholds in this collection was negligible. Water convuvulus alsoplayed an important role in the food security of poor households in deepwater and water-receding environments. Water lilly (Nymphactareea sp.)was the second most important plant that was collected. Among thethree project locations, farmers of Santuk collected the most water lilly.Farmers in Santuk also collected much bamboo shoots. Lotus (Nelumbonucifera) was another important plant that the farmers collected fromrice field ecosystems.

Farmers also reported the collection of wild edible mushrooms fromthe rice field ecosystems, although the exact quantity was not reported.UNICEF (1994) reported that 87% of farmer households in Cambodiawere engaged in the collection of wild food, including water convolvulusand ivy gourd (Coccinia grandis).

Meusch (1996) reported that certain wild vegetables grow underthe rice stubble after harvested. The farmers of rural Lao collect such


TABLE 6. Consumption of fish, pork, and beef by different resource groups (kg/family).

Locations Fish Pork Beef

Rich Poor Rich Poor Rich Poor

Santuk 119 90.8 8.06 3.17 1.484 2.47

Stung 106 113.2 2.00 1.40 1.80 0.6

Stung Sen 129.91 78.43 0.92 0.614 0.62 0.21

Average 118.30 94.14 3.66 1.73 1.30 1.09

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

vegetables. As the research reported here was confined to the wet-sea-son rice-growing period, it is not known whether such a practice existsin the project locations, or what the species are.

FODDER AND ANIMAL RAISING

During the dry season, rice fields serve as free pasture for cattle andother large animals. During the wet season, farmers collected grass andother feed material from levees and grassland adjacent to rice fields.Most grass was collected in Stung Sen because of the presence of deep-water rice-growing areas (102 kg/month). Of the rainfed lowland rice-growing environments, the farmers of Santuk collected the most grass(42 kg/month). However, the collection of grass was negligible in Stung(Table 8). The species of grass collected was not known. Due to theirbigger herd size, rich farmers collected more grass than poor farmers.Although there is no other reference available on the collection of fodder


TABLE 7. Collection seasons and major use of different forage plants.

Plants Major use Peak collection season

Water convolvulus Selling and consumption September-November

Water lilly Selling and consumption September-November

Ma-am Consumption November-December

Komping poi Consumption October-November

Kanchait Selling and consumption May-June; October-November

Slab crova Consumption November-December

Chumtolphnom Consumption May-June

Sesbania (flower) Consumption October

Duck weed Pig feed October

Water hyacinth Consumption Throughout the year

Mushrooms Selling and consumption September-November

Monochoria vaginalis Selling and consumption September-November

Palm fruit Selling and consumption September-October

Chanvatok Consumption September-October

Grass Animal feed November

Bamboo shoots Selling and consumption Throughout the year

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

from rice fields in Cambodia, the practice is well documented in otherAsian countries (Jodha, 1991). Farmers also collected unknown quanti-ties of duckweed for feeding pigs. Duckweed was collected from differ-ent sources, including rice fields. October was the month when farmerscollected the most duckweed.

CONCLUSION AND POLICY ISSUES

The preceding discussion suggests that Cambodian rice field ecosys-tems are rich in biodiversity and it plays an important role in the food se-curity of resource-poor farmers. However, the yield of rice is very lowin these ecosystems. Cambodian agriculture research and extension sys-tems are in its early stage of development. In many neighboring coun-tries with similar ecosystems, a lot of research and extension work hasalready been conducted to improve the yield of rice. These efforts haveresulted in improvement of the productivity of rice farming through greenrevolution technologies. This improvement, however, is not without anecological cost. There is a growing indication that Cambodia may fol-low the footsteps of its neighbors. Due to population pressure, marketreform, and other reasons, farmers and policy makers are driven to takesteps to increase rice yields. In Cambodia, because of severe rice short-age and inability of import rice because of the economic embargo dur-ing the civil war period immediately after the fall of Pol Pot regime, therice security through domestic production is considered as one of thetop priorities of the current government.

Development planners and crop scientists usually consider the ricefield as an area in which to grow a rice crop. Very seldom, rice fields areconsidered as important wetlands supporting diverse species of plantsand animals. However, in non-commercial rice-growing areas, rice fieldsare wetlands that provide a number of food and feed materials to farming


TABLE 8. Amount of grass collected by farmers of different resource groups(kg/day/family).

Locations Rich farmers Poor farmers Average

Santuk 1.54 1.26 1.40

Stung 0.03 0.02 0.02

Stung Sen 4.86 1.97 3.41

Average 2.14 1.08 1.61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

households. For many resource-poor farm families, the plants and animalsthat have been foraged from the rice fields and the surrounding areas areas important as rice produced in the field. As these supplies from ricefields are not normally accounted for, the importance of the bio-produc-tivity of rice fields in terms of family nutrition and income generation, isoften overlooked and ignored by most development planners. This isclearly evident from information from neighboring countries. In CentralThailand, the loss of wild fish and other aquatic animals have almostcertainly paid for the increase of rice production from farmer’s field(DOF, 1988). In Vietnam, increased pesticide use from 1958 to 1983steadily decreased the population of frogs, fish, and crabs (Cagauan,1992). Yunus and Lim (1971) and Moulton (1973) reported that, in Ma-laysia, the use of pesticides is one of the factors for declining fish popu-lation in the rice fields. Had there been any consideration about the ricefield biodiversity in terms of family nutrition and income generation bydevelopment planners and crop scientists, the rice fields of these coun-tries would not have a declining population of aquatic resources.

Any intervention in the rice field ecosystems may haves an impacton the distribution and productivity of these important bio-resources.Development strategies that will change the hydrological regime of anarea through irrigation and drainage structures, conversion of naturalponds which traditionally serve as fish-breeding grounds for rice cultiva-tion, use of agro-chemicals particularly pesticides, replacement of long-duration traditional varieties with a short-duration one, are not ecologi-cally sustainable. In many instances, improvement of rice productivityresulted in loss of productivity of other resources such as fish or otheraquatic resources. Any reduction of the harvest of fish and other aquaticresources will create a negative impact on the health and nutrition of re-source-poor farm families, as fish and fish products are the primarysource of protein in their diets as discussed earlier.

Most planning, monitoring, and evaluation work on rice productiondo not look into the impact of development interventions on rice fieldbiodiversity. Most of the tools used by development planners are inade-quate to take into consideration the impact of development interven-tions on the bio-productivity of the rice field ecosystems. None of theeconomic models to improve the rice economy of Cambodia proposedby different authors’ (FAO, 1994; Helmers, 1995) took into consider-ation the non-rice benefits obtained from rice field ecosystems during therainy season. As a result, many development interventions in the ricefield ecosystems have been wrongly interpreted by not taking into ac-count its bio-productivity.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

In lowland environment of Cambodia, and considering the rice econ-omy only, there is very little economic advantage growing rice with tra-ditional cultivation techniques over importing it (Ahmed & Shams,1997; FAO, 1994). However, if we take into consideration the total pro-duction of nutrients (including the total production of carbohydrates,animal protein, minerals, and vitamins from both cultivated and non-cul-tivated sources) from cultivated and non-cultivated sources Cambodianrice fields are highly productive.

Rice fields are privately owned in Cambodia. However, in fishingand foraging, it is treated as common property. As for example, in allthree study locations of Kompong Thom, an open-access situation ex-ists during the wet season, where individuals claim no ownership of ricefield stocks. With increasing pressure on aquatic resources and highvalue/demand for some rice field fishes, these trends may start to change.For example, currently in the Krakor district of Pursat, the rice field,which is close to a village, has restricted access, whereas fields far fromthe village have open access. Any such changes of access of rice fieldecosystem in Kompong Thom will have significant impact on the foodsecurity of resource-poor farmers. Development interventions that ignoresystem of property rights (e.g., putting a rat fence round an early wet-season rice crop where cattle are grazing on common grazing land) arebound to fail.

Due to economic and population pressure, land grabbing, and lack ofcushion to absorb social and environmental disasters, there is a growingconcentration of land in the hands of very few people. A recent studyshowed that the top 10% households (in terms of income) in the villagesstudied owned 33% of land, while the bottom 20% had less than 4% ofthe land (Murshed, 1998). Acker (1999) estimated that 20% of Cambodianfarmers are landless. In this scenario of landlessness and land concen-tration, the poor are increasingly relying on their access to commonproperty resources and sale of services. Some are becoming virtuallyfull-time hunter-gatherers, at a time when more productive water bodiesare being leased out to powerful commercial interests, with large fixedpayments required from fishermen, and payments are also demandedfor access to forests (Murshed, 1998). Due to decreased access to thetraditional open-access resource areas, farmers are depending more andmore on the rice field ecosystems. Any change of ownership and re-stricted access of non-rice production from rice field ecosystems will cre-ate a tremendous impact on the food security of the landless and marginalfarmers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

REFERENCES

Acker, F. V. 1999. Land Tenure: Hitting a Stone with an Egg? Cambodia DevelopmentReview. Cambodian Development Research Institute. 3(3): 1-6.

Ahmed, M., H. Navy, L. Vuthy, and M. Tiongco. 1998. Socioeconomic assessment offreshwater capture fisheries of Cambodia: Report on a household survey. MekongRiver Commission, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Ahmed, M. and N. Shams. 1997. Ecological input-costs in agricultural production inNorthwest Kampuchea. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 12(4) 5:23.

Ali, A. B. 1990. Some ecological aspects of fish population in tropical rice fields.Hydrobiologia 113: 217-221.

Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), 1997. Annual Report, 1997. AIT–AquacultureOutreach Project in Cambodia.

Cagauan, A. G. 1992. Overview of pesticide use in rice-fish farming in southeast Asia.pp. 217-233. In: C. R. dela Cruz, C. Lightfoot, B. A. Costa-Pierce, V. R. Carangal,and M. P. Bimbao (Eds.). Rice-fish research and development in Asia. ICLARMConf. Proc. 24. ICLARM, Manila, Phillippines.

Csavas, I., D. J. Doulman, T. O. Peter, J. Padro, and L. Debas. 1994. Cambodia rehabil-itation and development needs for the fishery sector. FAO Fisheries Circular No.873, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Department of Fisheries (DOF) 1988. Freshwater fish production. DOF-Annual Report-1998. Bangkok, Thailand.

Dick, B. 1993. You want to do an Action Research Thesis? How to conduct and reportaction research. Interchange, Brisbane, Australia.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 1994. Cambodia agriculture developmentoption review (Phase 1). Volume 1. Sector Review, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Gregory, R. and H. Guttmann. 1996. Poor in all but fish. A study of the collection ofrice field foods from three villages in Svay Theap District, Svay Rieng. AIT–Outreach Project, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Gregory, R. 1997. Ricefield Fisheries Handbook. Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project,Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 38 pp.

Gum, W. 1996. Pilot study of Battambang Province rice field fishery. Consultancy re-port on fisheries development in Northwest Cambodia. CARERE, Phnom Penh,Cambodia.

Helmers, K. 1997. Rice in the Cambodian economy: Past and present. pp. 1-14. In:H. Nesbitt (Ed.). Rice production in Cambodia. International Rice Research Insti-tute, Los Banos, Philippines.

Hy, H. 1995. Fish production and consumption in Siem Reap province. ParticipatoryNatural Resources Management in the Tonle Sap Region, Siem Reap, Cambodia.

Jodha, N. S. 1991. Rural common property resources: A growing crisis. Gatekeeper Se-ries No. 24. International Institute of Environment and Development, London, UK.

Meusch, E. N. 1996. Participatory assessment of rice field fisheries, InatsaphangtonsDistrict, Savannakhet Province, LAO P.D.R. Unpublished Master of Science thesis.Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA.

Moulton, T. P. 1973. The effect of various pesticides (especially Thiodan and BHP) onfish in paddy fields in Western Malaysia. Malays. Agric. J. 49: 224-253.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Mekong River Commission (MRC) 1992. Review of the fisheries sector in the LowerMekong Basin. MRC, Bangkok. Thailand, 1992.

Murshed, K. A. S. 1998. Food security in an Asian transitional economy: The Cambodianexperience. Working Paper 6. Cambodian Development Resource Institute andUnited Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Nandesha, M. C. 1994. National workshop on women in Cambodian fisheries. Padek.Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Navy, H., L. Vuthy, and M. Ahmed. 1996. Women in freshwater fisheries of Camodia.DOF/MRC Project for Management of Freshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia.Paper Presented at the Seminar on Women in Fisheries in Indochina Countries, 6-8March. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Nesbitt, H. J. 1996. Rice Production in Cambodia. Cambodia-IRRI Australia Project,Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Nirmal, C. P. 1997. Baseline survey report in Angkor Chey, Banteay Meas, Chhouk andKompong Trach District, Kampot Province. APHEDA. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Pretty, J. 1997. Changes in agriculture and rural communities. Emerging challengesfor Extension. Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2). In Proceeding of the AustralianPacific Network Conference: Managing change–building knowledge and skills,November, 1997, Albury.

Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. FAO species identificationfield guide for fishery purposes. Mekong River Commission (MRC), Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations and Danish International Develop-ment Assistance. MRC, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Shams, N. and M. Ahmed. 2000. Common and private property linkages for sustainablelivelihood in lowland forestry-fishery-farming systems of North West Cambodia.Journal of Sustainable Agric. 15(4): 59-87.

Tana, T. S. 1993. Fish supply and demand in rural Svay Rieng province. Department ofFisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Tek, H. K. 1996. Access issues in ricefield fisheries in Svay Rieng and Takeo province.Royal Agricultural University, Phnom Penh (Unpublished BSc thesis).

Thauk, N. and L. Sina. 1997. Review of the fisheries sector and aquaculture in Cambodia.Final Report. Prepared for the Tonle Sap Development Strategy Project.

Tichit, L. 1971. L’ agriculture au Cambodge. Agency de cooperation culturelle et tech-nique Agency de Cooperation Culturelle et Technique, Paris, France.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 1995. Report on the socio-economicsurvey of Cambodia, 1993-94. UNDP, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF) 1994. Report on Food and Nutrition Surveysin 1993-94. UNICEF–Family Food Production. UNICEF–Cambodia. 19 pp.

Yunus, A. and G. S. Lim. 1971. A problem in the use of insecticides in paddy fields inWest Malayasia–A case study. Malays. Agric. J. 48: 167-178.

RECEIVED: 04/26/05REVISED: 10/31/05

ACCEPTED: 12/01/05

doi:10.1300/J064v29n04_09


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

04:

42 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Download - Contribution of Rice Field Ecosytems to Food Security Strategies in Northwest Cambodia

Top Related