TR 17 cover:TR 17 cover.qxd2/25/2008 9:23 AM Page 1
ISSN: 1683-1489
Mekong River Commission
Socio-economics of the fisheries of
the lower Songkhram River Basin,
northeastThailand
MRCTechnical Paper
No. 17
January 2008
Meeting the Needs, Keeping the Balance

---

.

---

ISSN: 1683 ­ 1489
Mekong River Commission
Socio-economics of the fi sheries of
the lower Songkhram River Basin,
northeast Thailand
MRC Technical Paper
No. 17
January 2008

---

Published in Vientiane, Lao PDR in January 2008 by the Mekong River Commission
Cite this document as:
Hortle K.G. and U. Suntornratana (2008) Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower
Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand. MRC Technical Paper No. 17. Mekong River
Commission, Vientiane. 85 pp.
The opinions and interpretation expressed within are those of the authors and do not necessarily
refl ect the views of the Mekong River Commission.
Editor: T.J. Burnhill
Graphic design: T.J. Burnhill
© Mekong River Commission
184 Fa Ngoum Road, Unit 18, Ban Sithane Neua, Sikhottabong District,
Vientiane 01000, Lao PDR
Telephone: (856-21) 263 263 Facsimile: (856-21) 263 264
E-mail: mrcs@mrcmekong.org
Website: www.mrcmekong.org
ii

---

Table of contents
Acknowledgements
vii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ix
Summary
xi
1. Introduction
1
1.1 Inland
fi sheries in Thailand
1
1.2 Location and geography of the Songkhram River Basin
2
1.3 Population and economic activities in the Songkhram River Basin
4
1.4 Fisheries in the Songkhram River Basin
4
1.5 Objectives of the study
5
2. Methods
7
2.1 Study
area
7
2.2 Framework of the study
8
3. Results from village-level census
11
3.1 Introduction
11
3.2 Village and household size
11
3.3 Importance
of
fi sheries
12
3.4 Changes
in
fi sheries
13
3.5 Community
fi sheries-based management
15
3.6 Fishing gear information
16
4. Results from the sample survey
19
4.1 Village sample survey
19
4.2 Household sample survey
25
4.3 Individual sample survey
45
5. Conclusions and recommendations
51
6. References
61
Appendix 1 Summary information on the sampling frame for the 27 villages, showing weightings
used for analysing the household data
65
Appendix 2 Village census. Frequency of gear types reported per village, based on returns
from 349 villages
67
Appendix 3 Household ownership of economically important items
69
Appendix 4 Summary of household engagement in economic activities
71
iii

---

Appendix 5 Breakdown of the economic activities of people in each household by gender
73
Appendix 6 Importance of household activities for food supply and income
75
Appendix 7 Land ownership by households and access to commons land
77
Appendix 8 Livestock and poultry ownership by households
79
Appendix 9 Habitats fi shed and distances travelled.
79
Appendix 10 Summary information on catch and effort data by habitat
81
Appendix 11 Summary of the most recent catches from interviews of 295 fi shers during the
dry season in 2000
83
iv

---

Table of fi gures
Figure 1. The Songkhram catchment in northeast Thailand.
3
Figure 2. Daily levels of the Songkhram River in the year 2000 near the confl uence with the
Mekong.
3
Figure 3. The study area (LSB) within the lower Songkhram River Basin.
7
Figure 4. Village leaders' ranking of the importance of fi sheries in their village for
people's income
12
Figure 5. Village leaders' ranking of the importance of fi sheries in their village for
people's food.
12
Figure 6. Mean percentage of households said by village leaders to engage in part-time fi shing
and part-time selling of fi shery products.
13
Figure 7. Village leaders' views on changes in the fi shery over the last 5 years.
13
Figure 8. Gear occurrences in villages, based on the village census.
17
Figure 9. Ethnic proportions in the 27 surveyed villages of the LSB Based on 21,691 people
in 27 randomly selected villages.
21
Figure 10. The number of households in each village owning farmland within various
size categories
21
Figure 11. Land use in the 27 surveyed villages.
22
Figure 12. Economic activities importance for households for main cash income, supplementary
cash income and subsistence.
24
Figure 13. Fisheries management measures implemented by villages.
25
Figure 14. Age distribution and full-time employment status of the 1,743 people in the 353
surveyed households
27
Figure 15. The percentage of the workforce employed in different occupations.
28
Figure 16. Important household economic activities based on data from all 1,743 individuals
living in 353 households.
28
Figure 17. Importance of household economic activities for food or income.
30
Figure 18. No. of fi shing trips per month made by one or more household members.
33
Figure 19. Seasonality of total fi shing effort in each habitat.
33
Figure 20. Distribution of fi shing effort for 327 fi shing households.
36
Figure 21. Distribution of annual household catches for 327 fi shing households.
36
Figure 22. Regression of total catch on total effort for fi shing households.
37
Figure 23. Distribution of consumption of all fi sh (fresh and preserved) and other aquatic
animals by 351 households in the LSB.
42
Figure 24. Sources of fi sh (including all preserved fi sh) and other aquatic animals in 351
households, based on consumption as kg/household/year as FWAEs.
44
Figure 25. The percentage of the eight most abundant species of fi sh in the most recent catches
of 298 responding fi shers.
49
Figure 26. The proportion by weight of black and white or grey fi sh in recent fi sh catches
and the proportion of fi sh categorised by trophic group.
49
v

---

Table of tables
Table 1. Wetland areas in the lower Songkhram River Basin.
8
Table 2. Basic data on number of households per village and household size according to village
leaders.
11
Table 3. Summary of reasons given by village leaders for changes in fi sheries over the
last 5 years.
14
Table 4. Summary of suggestions by village leaders to improve fi sheries.
16
Table 5. Some basic information from the 27 surveyed villages.
19
Table 6. Average proportions of agricultural land in the 27 surveyed villages estimated to fl ood
each year and duration of fl ooding.
22
Table 7. Summary of basic aquaculture statistics.
23
Table 8. Breakdown of people engaged in fi sheries as a business in the 27 survey villages.
24
Table 9. Basic data on size of the households surveyed. N=353 in 27 villages; weighted data
from complex sample analysis.
26
Table 10. Cross-tabulation of the sample of 1,743 people working full-time and part-time.
27
Table 11. Gear ownership by households.
32
Table 12. Summary of data on effort and catches by habitat.
34
Table 13. Relative effort and catch in different habitats.
35
Table 14. Summary of data on aquaculture production from pond-owning households.
39
Table 15. Generic factors used to convert preserved fi sh products to fresh whole animal
equivalent (FWAEs) weight.
41
Table 16. Generic factors used for conversion of actual quantities consumed to protein units.
41
Table 17. Summary of reported consumption of fi sh and OAAs by 351 households in 27 villages
as fresh whole animal equivalents (FWAEs) kg/capita/year.
42
Table 18. Summary of reported consumption of fi sh and OAAs and other meat foods by 351
households in 27 villages as actual consumption in kg/capita/year.
43
Table 19. Summary of responses from 295 individual fi shers about their most recent fi shing trip,
expressed as values and percentages.
46
Table 20. The percentage of the total operations (347) in each habitat using each type of gear
for the most recent fi shing trip.
47
Table 21. The percentage of the total catch of 407.8 kg caught by each type of gear in each kind
of habitat in recent fi shing trip catches.
48
Table 22. Comparative data for yield per unit area.
57
Table 23. Comparison of consumption results from this study with other studies in northeast
Thailand and Lao PDR.
58
Table 24. Comparison of lower Songkhram mean consumption to country estimates for LMB
people.
59
vi

---

Acknowledgements
The following people are thanked for assisting with fi eld survey and data entry: Thanongsak
Ratanachotmanee, Chidchanok Apipoonyanom, Nared Namuangruk, Chatchai, and Surakit
Nakkeaw. Theo Visser is thanked for setting up the Access database and supervising data entry.
The Water Studies Centre of Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, is thanked for providing
offi ce space and computer facilities for the senior author during the preparation of this report.
We thank the Thailand Department of Fisheries for providing staff, facilities and logistical
support during the study.
Photographs: Ubolratana Suntornratana, Joseph G. Garrison, and Kent G. Hortle
vii

---

viii

---

Abbreviations and Acronyms
ASL
Above sea level
cls Confi dence limits
DCD
Dept of Community Development
DoF
Department of Fisheries
EIA Environmental
Impact
Assessment
FWAEs
Fresh whole animal equivalent weights
kt Thousand
tonnes
LSB
Lower Songkhram River Basin
masl
Metres above sea level
OAAs
Other aquatic animals
SRB
Songkhram River Basin
TEI
Thailand Environment Institute
ix

---

x

---

Summary
The Songkhram River is a large tributary of the Mekong River which runs through the northern
part of northeast Thailand. The river system supports a large but previously undescribed capture
fi shery. This survey covered villages within the lower one-third of the Songkhram River Basin
(SRB), where extensive wetlands are associated with the most productive fi sheries.
The survey used two approaches (i) a census (by questionnaire) of all village leaders, to
provide a broad coverage of the LSB, and (ii) a sample survey carried out by surveyors within
27 randomly selected villages that covered 353 households.
Key fi ndings from the study are:
· While most land in the LSB has been modifi ed for agriculture, principally for rice-
farming, much of it still fl oods for at least one month each year, providing extensive
habitat that supports natural fi sheries production. Most village leaders responding to the
census ranked fi sheries as important or very important for food and income.
· Based on three different parts of the survey, between 80% and 93% of households
fi sh part-time and about 3 ­ 6% fi sh commercially. Most households can be classed as
rice farming and part-time fi shing households. Farming and labouring were the most
important activities for household income. Males and females both engaged in a range of
occupations. Gender differences include: about 74% of part-time fi shers were male, about
60% of fi sh processors were female, about 92% of handicraft workers were female, and
about 89% of government workers were male.
· Fishing is primarily for household food supply, but about 28% of households reported
that they sold wild fi sh, about 3% sold aquaculture-products, and about 13% made money
from other fi sheries-related activities.
· Modern gears such as cast nets, gillnets and hooks were most commonly used, but
traditional gears such as small traps were still widespread.
· Swamps, rice fi elds, rivers, reservoirs and streams produced most of the estimated annual
catch. Catches were very large relative to effort in small streams, swamps, rivers and
natural lakes, showing the importance of these natural habitats, and catches were low
relative to effort in rice fi elds, the most extensive habitat. Nevertheless, rice fi elds are
likely to contribute to fi sh production by providing temporary feeding areas with fi sh
caught later in refuge habitats.
xi

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
· In `most-recent catches', during the dry-season, fi shers reported 56 species of fi sh
and 8 taxa of OAAs. Only two species (of fi sh) were exotic and both made up a small
proportion of catches. About 93% of the catches comprised fi sh and 7% comprised
OAAs. The fi sh catch comprised about 62% grey or white fi sh and 37% black fi sh (with
1% unidentifi ed), showing the importance of rivers and streams to the fi shery. About 37%
by weight of the fi sh catch comprised carnivores, 42% comprised omnivores and 21%
herbivores. The diversity of the catch refl ects a diversity of habitats and may indicate a
resilience to fi shing pressure.
· Fishing is most intense during the wet season. During this season consumption of fresh
and smoked fi sh is also higher than during the dry season. The quantities consumed of
other kinds of preserved fi sh as well as other meats appears to be fairly constant through
the year. Most fi sh and OAAs are caught by households for their own consumption
(74.4% on average) and the remainder is purchased.
· Households appear to regulate their day-to-day consumption by preserving catches and
by buying and selling for their daily needs. Household food supply/demand balance and
seasonality would be interesting subjects for further study.
· A household catch estimate of 207 kg/year can be extrapolated to a lower Songkhram
River Basin (LSB) catch of 34.3 (95% cls 26.2 ­ 42.4) thousand tonnes per year. A
household consumption estimate of 249 kg/year balances with the catch estimate,
after allowing for aquaculture of 22 kg/household/year and imports, and is well within
the precision of the data. For the entire LSB, consumption is estimated at 41.2 (95%
cls 35.6 ­ 46.8) thousand tonnes per year. Extrapolation from the most recent catches
(short-term recall) gave an estimate of 203 kg/household/year, remarkably similar to the
estimate from long-term recall of 207 kg/household/year.
· Based on catch estimates, the yield per unit area is estimated at about 80 kg/ha of
wetlands, which are mainly rice fi elds. This mean estimate is well within ranges for
rice fi eld/fl oodplain habitat reported elsewhere. The yield would vary by habitat, e.g.
fl ooded forest may have above-average and rice fi elds below-average yield, but there is
insuffi cient information to discriminate yield by habitat.
· Most village leaders believed that the fi sheries situation had worsened recently. Most
attributed this to increasing fi shing pressure or habitat degradation. Habitat improvement
or stocking of natural water bodies were the measures most supported as ways to improve
fi sheries, with few supporting aquaculture.
The survey showed clearly that fi shing is of considerable importance for people living in
the lower Songkhram River Basin, despite rice farming being the main full-time occupation.
Typically, households include rice-farmers and part-time fi shers, but the importance of fi shing is
under-recognised offi cially.
Page xii

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Despite extensive modifi cation of the landscape, the wild capture fi shery, which depends
upon remnant natural habitats and the natural fl ood-pulse, continues to contribute most of the
household intake of animal protein. The importance of the capture fi shery to nutrition should
be given appropriate weight in government policy on development within the LSB. The nett
benefi ts of increasing agricultural yields from privately-owned farms are likely to be reduced
if such improvements negatively impact fi sheries, which are a common-property resource. In
some other parts of northeast Thailand farmers appear to maintain a similar level of inland
fi sh and OAA production and consumption to that estimated for the Songkhram. In such areas,
farmers compensate for the loss of natural fi shery production by building trap ponds for wild
fi sh (which provide dry-season refuges and also increase catch effi ciency) and also by engaging
in aquaculture, although aquaculture appears to be relatively unproductive compared with
capture fi sheries.
Consumption of inland fi shery products is about 25% higher in the LSB than in northeast
Thailand generally (50.3 kg/person/year compared to 40.5 kg/person/year as FWAEs), but
consumption of marine products (average 5.8 kg/person/year) reduces this difference to only
9%. LSB consumption of inland fi shery products is about 11% higher than the LMB average of
45.5 kg/person/year.
This survey highlighted some methodological issues that should be considered in similar
studies in future. Among these, censuses should seek minimal, preferably categorical
information, and should be followed up with a survey of non-respondents. Survey design should
include consideration of stratifi cation (based on census data) to reduce variance in some highly
skewed data, as is typical for catches and aquaculture production.
Recommendations
The following recommendations from the fi ndings of this study are presented as suggestions to
agencies with an interest in the lower Songkhram River Basin.
· The Department of Fisheries could consult with villagers regarding the specifi c measures
that the villagers support to enhance fi sheries near their villages, and also consult with
water resources and other agencies on specifi c projects, for example to enhance aquatic
habitats for fi sheries.
· It would be very useful for the Department of Fisheries to monitor the effects on fi sheries
of any habitat enhancements or impact mitigation that are undertaken, particularly
considering that there is a paucity of relevant information for the lower Mekong Basin.
· Water resources planning should take into account the importance of capture fi sheries
in the lower Songkhram River Basin. In particular, control of fl ooding and blocking of
migration routes are likely to lead to negative effects on fi sheries, so these should be
avoided unless their benefi ts demonstrably outweigh their negative impacts. Mitigation
Page xiii

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
and management of impacts on fi sheries should be a priority in water management
planning.
· Villagers should be supported to implement fi sheries regulations, such as closed seasons,
conservation zones, and through co-management with the Department of Fisheries.
· Repeating key parts of this study (particularly a random household survey) at 5-year
intervals would provide a very useful monitor of long-term trends in fi sheries. Any future
surveys should focus on improving precision by stratifi cation and optimising sample
sizes.
· Any future studies of catch and consumption should use standardised categories, and in
particular should include fresh fi sh and OAAs, with OAAs separated into categories (see
Hortle, 2007).
· Quantities that are estimated from studies based only on interviews are subject to
unknown biases, so interview data should be compared to actual monitoring data
wherever possible.
Page xiv

---

1. Introduction
1.1 Inland fi sheries in Thailand
Thailand is one of the economically better-developed countries of southeast Asia, and inland
fi sheries are of considerable importance, both within the formal economy and for subsistence.
Fisheries have been important for hundreds of years, but fi sheries management was fi rst
formalised in 1926 when the Department of Fisheries (DoF) was founded (Pawaputanon, 2003).
Inland fi sheries in Thailand are based on three categories of water body:
1. reservoirs and irrigation ponds;
2. village ponds with common access;
3. natural water bodies, including rivers, swamps and canals.
The total surface area of inland aquatic habitats in Thailand is about 45,000 km2, of which
rivers and other natural water bodies constitute 41,000 km2 and large reservoirs cover about
4,000 km2. However, in many natural river systems, fi sheries production takes place primarily
on annually fl ooded areas (Welcomme, 1985), which are not recognised offi cially as aquatic
habitats. Based on the MRC GIS dataset, the total area of wetlands in northeast Thailand alone
is about 86,734 km2, of which about 96% is classed as rice fi elds or other seasonally fl ooded
agricultural land.
In Thailand prior to the 1960s fl oodplains contributed very signifi cantly to inland fi sheries
production, but the majority of fl oodplain/wetland habitats no longer experience prolonged
fl ooding because river fl ows are regulated by dams, which also block fi sh migration. On the
other hand, much former fl oodplain or low-elevation forest habitat has been converted to rice
fi elds, which are inundated in a controlled manner each year. Rice fi elds are managed wetlands
from which many kinds of fi sh and other aquatic animals are harvested, but there is little
accurate information on the size and value of such rice fi eld fi sheries.
Offi cial statistics on inland capture fi sheries in Thailand are based on recall by local offi cials
and/or professional fi shermen of catches over a one-year period (Coates, 2002). The number
of fi shers and average catch are estimated in order to calculate total annual inland catch, which
in 1999 was estimated at 206,900 tonnes (Pawaputanon, 2003). The reported catches are
based upon commercial fi sheries in lakes and reservoirs, whereas catches from other natural
water bodies (rivers, fl oodplains, swamps and seasonally fl ooded rice fi elds), as well as all
subsistence catches are omitted, so the importance of capture fi sheries is likely to be grossly
underestimated.
Page 1

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
There may be as many as 10 million people in rural areas who engage in subsistence fi shing
A conservative catch estimate of 20 ­ 50 kg/person/year would imply a total subsistence catch
of 200,000 ­ 500,000 t/year, a very signifi cant addition to the offi cial statistics of between
122,314 and 318,909 tonnes caught in reservoirs in 1999 (Coates, 2002).
1.2 Location and geography of the Songkhram River Basin
The catchment of the Mekong in northeast Thailand covers about 184,000 km2, which is
36% of the area of the country and 23% of the Mekong's total catchment. Northeast Thailand
contributes around 18% of the mean annual discharge (15,060 m3/s) of the Mekong, mostly
from the Mun-Chi River system (MRC, 2003 p. 16). The Songkhram River is the second-
largest system in northeast Thailand with a mean discharge of about 300 m3/s or about 2%
of the total discharge of the Mekong. The Songkhram River Basin (SRB) covers 33 districts
(Amphoe) and has a total area of around 13,128 km2.
The Songkhram River rises at an altitude of 300 masl in Sakhon Nakhon Province, then
fl ows about 430 km eastwards through Udon Thani, Sakhon Nakhon, Nong Khai and into
the Mekong River at Ban Chai Buri in Nakhon Phanom province (Figure 1). Much of the
catchment comprises fl at plains, 140 ­ 200 masl, typical of the Khorat Plateau. The catchment
was formerly forested with tropical deciduous or monsoon forest, but most has now been
cleared for agriculture; about 39% of the catchment is farmed for rice and the remainder for
upland fi eld crops, with some remnant forest land (Blake, 2006). Wetlands, including rice
fi elds, cover about 54% of the catchment and are concentrated along the lower part of the basin
(Blake, 2006; refer also to Table 1 below).
At the time of this survey, the Songkhram River was the only large river in northeast
Thailand that did not have a dam along its mainstream, although it had some dams on its
tributaries (Figure 1). The state of the environment and fi shery along this river's lowland
reaches probably indicate to some extent how conditions may have been in other Mekong
tributaries if they had not been dammed. Two small dams have been built within the last fi ve
years in the middle Songkhram River (Blake, 2006), but the lower Songkhram River fl ows
undisturbed to the Mekong. Consequently, fl ows still follow the natural seasonal pattern in
which wet-season fl ows are much greater than dry-season fl ows (Figure 2).
Despite wide seasonal variations in fl ow and water quality, compared to elsewhere in
northeast Thailand, the climate is wetter (rainfall is about 1700 ­ 1990 mm/year compared
with about 1,200 ­ 1,300 elsewhere) and more predictable each year. Mean fl ow at Ban Tha
Kok Daeng (which is downstream of about 36% of the catchment) is 115 m3/s, but the average
minimum fl ow is only 0.05 m3/s and the average maximum fl ow is 533 m3/s (MRCS/WUP-
FIN, 2006); the mean fl ow from the entire catchment is about 300 m3/s. In the wet season
the level of the river increases until it is up to 13 m higher than in the dry season (Figure 2),
primarily because of backing-up caused by Mekong River fl ows.
Page 2

---

Introduction
L
103o00E'
103o30E'
104o00E'
AO PDR
Haui Khong
Me
THAILAND
k
Nong Khai
on
H
g
u
CAMBODIA
ai H
18o00'N
i
Bung Khong
Gulf
Long
of Thailand
Nam Ban Tha Kok Daeng
Songkhram
Ban Dung
Sakhon Nakhon
Huai Nam Yam
Si Songkhram
Ban Chai Buri
Udon Thani
17o30'N
17o30'N
Huai Pia Hang
Na
Nakhon
m Un
Phanom
Nam Un
Reservoir
Nong Han
Songkhram Basin
Province Boundary
17o00'N
0
50 kilometres
Weir
103o00E'
103o40E'
104o00E'
104o30E'
Figure 1. The Songkhram River catchment in northeast Thailand.
18
16
14
12
)
m
l (
e 10
v
e
r L
e
8
v
Ri
6
4
2
0
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Month
Figure 2. Daily levels of the Songkhram River in the year 2000 near the confl uence with the
Mekong.
Page 3

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
This large increase in water level is a consequence of the increased fl ow from the river's
catchment, as well as `backing-up' by the rising Mekong River waters. In years when the rise in
the Mekong's level precedes the rise in the Songkhram River (approximately one year in two)
Mekong water fl ows into the Songkhram River as far as 126 km upstream, bringing in fertile
silt that is deposited later on fl ooded areas (Blake, 2006). Each year the rising waters inundate
about 1,000 km2 of land on average, and up to 2,000 km2 during a 1-in-50 year fl ood event
(Blake, 2006).
1.3 Population and economic activities in the Songkhram River Basin
The SRB covers 33 districts of Sakhon Nakhon, Udon Thani, Nong Khai and Nakhon Phanom
provinces and was home to about 1,940,572 people in 412,966 households in 2000. There are
almost equal numbers of males and females in the basin. Offi cially, most of the local people
(92%) earn their main living from agricultural activities and only 4.9% of the local people
offi cially earn their main income from fi shing (DCD, 1999). However, these statistics are
misleading as they do not include secondary occupations such as fi shing, which contribute
signifi cantly to family income and subsistence. Moreover, apart from the fi shery, many
common-property resources are offi cially unrecognised but are heavily utilised for food,
subsistence and income. These include bamboo shoots, mushrooms, vegetables, medicinal
herbs, wildlife, building materials, and even earthworms, which are a signifi cant export from
the LSB. Blake (2006) discusses in detail these resources and their dependence on the natural
fl ood-pulse.
1.4 Fisheries in the Songkhram River Basin
The disparity between offi cial statistics on inland fi sheries and actual catch is likely to be of
particular relevance to the SRB. Because the Songkhram River has no dams along the lower
part of its mainstream there are large areas of natural water-bodies for fi shers to exploit and
the movement of fi sh and OAAs is not obstructed. Fishing in rivers and swamps is likely to be
particularly under-recognised in the Songkhram River Basin, compared with river systems that
have been dammed and now experience reduced fl ooding and barriers to migration.
The productivity of the Songkhram fi shery has encouraged people to settle near the river
and its tributaries. In an EIA for a dam in the lower Songkhram River, Khon Kaen University
(1996, 1997) reported that villagers from more than 150 villages along the 10 km of the lower
Songkhram River Basin were involved in fi sheries all year round, with accessible fi shing
grounds varying according to the season. Remnant fl ooded forests (paa boong-paa thaam)
are important and productive habitats. Kasetsart University (1996) reported that the total area
of fi shing grounds in the SRB was about 48,485 ­ 66,158 ha, comprising 43% reservoir, 52%
public water body and 5% village fi shing pond (there were very few fi sh culture ponds), but
Page 4

---

Introduction
these fi gures do not include the large areas of seasonally inundated land that are a major source
of fi sheries productivity.
Flooded areas provide habitats for spawning, feeding and growth of fi sh and other aquatic
animals (OAAs). The fi sh and OAAs are within three general assemblages: fl oodplain species
(including `black fi shes'), in which broodstock survive on the fl oodplain in residual water
bodies or as resting stages, resident Songkhram fi sh and OAAs that migrate laterally (including
`grey fi shes'), and fi sh from the Mekong that migrate in to spawn and feed in the Songkhram
River system; these include many species of `long-distance' migratory (or `white') fi shes. At
the end of the rainy season (around October) fi sh and OAAs migrate en masse back to the
Songkhram and Mekong Rivers (Suntornratana et al., 2002).
The Songkhram River is one of the most important river systems in northeast Thailand,
and plans for an extensive water management scheme have been proposed for some years. The
scheme would aim to improve irrigation and control fl oods and would include a fl oodgate close
to the river mouth at Ban Tanpaknam. The fl oodgate would directly affect the Mekong species
that migrate into the Songkhram River every year to breed and feed. Because the annual fl ood
prevents some areas of fertile land in the basin from being fully cultivated it is perceived by
some that there is a trade-off in maintaining the system's capture fi sheries, so it is important to
attempt to quantify their importance and value so that rational decisions can be made on future
water resources management.
1.5 Objectives of the Study
The overall objective of this study was to obtain and disseminate accurate information on inland
fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River.
The main aims of the survey were:
· to test and compare census and sample survey methods for obtaining fi shery data;
· to determine the importance of fi sheries for food, for the local economy, and for local
people's culture;
· to quantify household and individual involvement in fi sheries, as well as catches and
types of fi shing gears used;
· to quantify the yield of capture fi sheries by habitat and to estimate fi sheries production of
the Songkhram River Basin; and
· to prepare a summary report and database for public distribution.
Page 5

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Fisheries in this report covers all production of fi sh, as well as other aquatic animals
(OAAs), which include aquatic vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds) and
aquatic invertebrates (e.g. crustaceans, molluscs and insects).
The results of this study have been partly reported by Sjorslev et al. (2001) but their
preliminary report was based on an assessment of data `as received' and provided only a partial
coverage of the information obtained during the survey. This report is based on data which has
been checked for omissions or inconsistencies, and provides a more accurate and complete
presentation of the information derived from the survey.
Page 6

---

2. Methods
2.1 Study area
The study aimed to cover the lower Songkhram River Basin, which has the most extensive
wetlands in the basin. The Songkhram River Basin and its sub-basins and districts were mapped
using GIS data from the Thailand Environment Institute (TEI) `Thailand on a Disc' produced in
1996. The study area was delineated as the lower Songkhram River Basin, 68 sub-districts that
are within about 50 km of the confl uence with the Mekong (Figure 2).
L
103o00E'
103o30E'
104o00E'
AO PDR
THAILAND
CAMBODIA
18o00'N
Gulf
of Thailand
17o30'N
17o30'N
Songkhram River
Sub-districts
Basin
17o
17
7 00'N
o
7 00 N
17o00'N
Lower Songkhram
Villages chosen for
0
50 kilometres
River Basin
survey
103o00E'
103o40E'
104o00E'
104o30E'
Figure 3. The study area within the Songkhram River Basin.
As it is delineated by administrative boundaries, the LSB boundary only approximately
follows the boundary of the catchment of the Songkhram River. The LSB covers an area of
4,900 km2 or about 37% of the area of the Songkhram River Basin of 13,128 km2. The study
results should not be directly extrapolated to the rest of the basin, where fi sheries are likely
to be somewhat less important than in the area covered by this study. According to GIS data,
88.7% of the LSB can be classed as wetlands, most of which is rice fi elds (Table 1).
Page 7

---

Methods
The sample survey aimed to obtain more detailed information on all aspects of household
income and livelihood, and to quantify those aspects that related to fi shery activities in terms
of their degree of participation. Basic information on the sample villages is provided in
Appendix 1. This survey was carried out by interviewers using questionnaires, and comprised
three separate surveys: village, household and individual.
· Village sample survey: not to be confused with the village-level census discussed above;
in this survey 27 villages were randomly selected and information was obtained by face-
to-face interviews with village chiefs and other village leaders, who also participated in
sketching maps of fi shing habitats near each village.
· Household sample survey: selection of households depended on the size of the village.
Up to 10% of households were randomly sampled, but not more than 20 households
per village. A total of 353 households were sampled. The household head or other adult
household member provided information.
· Individual sample survey: two or three individuals over fi ve years of age were
interviewed from each of the 353 households; this interview sought detailed information
about individual fi shing activities. A total of 361 males and 180 females were
interviewed; males dominated because all household heads were interviewed for the
individual survey.
The sample survey was carried out from January to December 2000. The survey teams fi rst
visited the village leaders and explained the objectives of the study and the interview schedule.
Each survey team consisted of two people, one of whom interviewed while the other fi lled in
the form.
Data analyses
Data were stored in Microsoft Access. After checking databases against datasheets, data which
showed logical errors were checked and corrected where possible, or deleted from databases
prior to analyses. Data were analysed using Excel and SPSS.
For the census, the results were analysed as if representative of the total population,
including non-respondents. Means and confi dence intervals were calculated assuming that the
villages were a random sample of all villages in the LSB. Confi dence intervals for categorical
data were calculated using the standard formula for binomial proportions (Snedecor and
Cochrane, 1989, p.121).
For the sample survey, villages were randomly selected, so responses by village leaders
were analysed as representing a simple random sample of 27 villages of the 776 in the LSB. For
the household survey, the design was clustered random (i.e. 353 random households clustered
within the 27 randomly selected villages), so summary data were calculated using the complex
Page 9

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
samples module in SPSS. Complex sample analysis takes account of both the proportional
weighting of samples within clusters for estimation of means, as well as the number of samples
in total and the numbers within clusters for estimation of means and confi dence intervals.
To extrapolate from the sampled population to the entire lower Songkhram River Basin,
arithmetic means for the sampled households were multiplied by the total number of households
in the LSB. To estimate precision, 95% confi dence intervals of the means were calculated, with
precision expressed as relative error, i.e. half of the 95% confi dence interval divided by the
mean. Standard symmetric confi dence intervals were calculated in all cases, so for some highly
skewed data (e.g. for catches) the confi dence intervals should be regarded as approximate.
Some authors have recently begun to address the problem of estimating accurate confi dence
intervals for skewed populations (Andersson, 2004), but the procedures have yet to become
routine and were not applied for this study.
Page 10

---

3. Results from village-level census
3.1 Introduction
Forms were returned from 447 or about 58% of 776 villages, a very high proportion considering
that participation was voluntary. Unfortunately, forms were fi lled incompletely by many village
leaders, and in particular questions involving numbers of households (fi shing part-time, full-
time and non-fi shing) in many cases were either misunderstood or fi lled incompletely so that
data did not balance. In such cases, the results were excluded from analyses. The number of
villages used for each analysis is shown in summary tables and fi gures.
The results have been used to describe some key aspects of the fi shery by assuming
that the responses were representative of all villages in the study area, including non-
respondents as well as those who entered incomplete or illogical responses. The assumption of
representativeness should be tested in any future surveys by allowing for a random sampling of
non-respondents.
3.2 Village and household size
Table 2 shows basic data on village and household size according to village leaders. Mean
household size was slightly larger than the average size according to the census for the LSB.
Table 2. Basic data on number of households per village and household size according to village
leaders.
In 240 villages that returned complete data
Total
Mean/village
95% confi dence
Min.
Max.
interval
Households
32,182
134
125 ­ 143
22
411
Persons
166,500
694
643 ­ 744
95
2,417
Mean
95% confi dence
Min.
Max.
interval
Persons/household
5.17
5.05 ­ 5.30
3
10
In the lower Songkhram River Basin, according to the census
Villages
776
Households
165,554
Persons
794,516
Mean/household
4.8
Page 11

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
3.3 Importance of fi sheries
Fisheries represent a supplementary livelihood in the LSB, as local people generally consider
themselves to be farmers, with fi shing as a part-time activity. Nevertheless, fi sheries were
ranked as important or very important for income by about 89% of village leaders (Figure 4)
and as important or very important for food by about 99% of village leaders (Figure 5) and no
village leaders ranked fi sheries as unimportant for food.
100
90
80
70
60
% 50
40
62.1%
30
20
26.7%
10
1.2%
9.9%
0
Not important
Slightly important
Important
Very important
Figure 4. Village leaders' ranking of the importance of fi sheries in their village for people's income.
N=322. Histograms and data labels represent mean percentages and bars represent 95% confi dence
intervals.
100
90
80
70
60
% 50
89.3%
40
30
20
10
1.0%
0.0%
9.8%
0
Not important
Slightly important
Important
Very important
Figure 5. Village leaders' ranking of the importance of fi sheries in their village for people's food.
N=410. Histograms and data labels represent mean percentages and bars represent 95% confi dence
intervals.
Most households engage in part-time fi shing; about 6% of households fi sh commercially for
their main income and only about 19% of households do not have any members that ever go
fi shing (Figure 6). About 16% of households also sell fi shery products part-time; although this
Page 12

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Table 1. Wetland areas in the lower Songkhram River Basin.
Category
Area (km2)
Percent
Water bodies
119.7
2.8
Rice fi elds
2,899.5
66.7
Other seasonally fl ooded land
1,325.8
30.5
Total
4,345.0
100.0
Note: Rice fi elds include small areas of permanent water that are not discriminated by GIS.
2.2 Framework of the study
The survey was based on interviews conducted at two main levels:
· a village-level census that aimed to collect general data from all of the villages inside
the study area; this approach provided a wide coverage, but with limited control on data
quality; and
· a sample survey that aimed to collect detailed information from a sub-set of randomly-
selected villages1; this approach used trained surveyors to produce more detailed data of
better quality but with less coverage.
The village-level census was based on a four-page questionnaire distributed to all villages
in the districts in which sample sub-districts (tambons) were located (Appendices 1 and 2).
Survey staff explained and distributed the survey forms to village leaders at monthly meetings,
which are held at sub-district level. Completed forms were returned by post from each village
leader directly to the DoF offi ce. The survey forms were given to 776 village leaders in 68 sub-
districts of 11 districts.
The issues addressed by the census included:
· types and number of gears, numbers of full-time and part-time fi shing households;
· importance of fi sheries for subsistence and income;
· situation of the fi shery over the last fi ve years, and;
· community fi sheries-based management.
The census was conducted from May to August 2000.
1 Sample selection was by Microsoft Access 1997 Strategy.
Page 8

---

Results from village-level census
fi gure is perhaps an underestimate as many village leaders entered zero or a blank in this part of
the questionnaire, despite noting a large number of part-time fi shers in their villages.
100
90
80
70
60
% 50
40
79.3%
30
20
10
19.3%
16.1%
5.7%
0
Part-time
No fishing
Commercial
Part-time sellers
Figure 6. Mean percentage of households said by village leaders to engage in fi shing and part-time
selling of fi shery products.
N=267. Bars are 95% confi dence intervals. On average, of the 5.7% commercial fi shing households,
4.3% were also recorded as having part-time fi shers, so the totals sum to 104.3%.
Clearly, part-time fi shing is an important supplementary activity in the LSB and commercial
fi shing is also of importance, providing exports from the LSB as well as providing for other
households, particularly the 19% in which people do not fi sh.
3.4 Changes in fi sheries
50
45
40
35
30
% 25
20
34.8%
15
10
21.2%
13.4%
14.8%
15.8%
5
0
Much better
Slightly better
Same
Slightly worse
Much worse
Figure 7. Village leaders' views on changes in the fi shery over the last fi ve years.
N=411.
Page 13

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
When asked how their village fi sheries had changed over the last fi ve years, 56% of the
responding village leaders reported that the situation had worsened, while only about 28%
felt their fi sheries were better, indicating on average a perception of worsening of the fi sheries
situation (Figure 7). These responses are subjective, but can probably be regarded as indicative
of general trends in fi sheries, at least in terms of catch per fi sher.
Of 365 villages that felt the fi shery had either become worse or become better over the last
fi ve years, 248 (about 68%) provided a reason under the comments section of the questionnaire;
of these, 22 villages provided 2 reasons. The reasons were grouped by categories as in Table 3.
Where fi sheries were said to be better, the most common reason was that people were making
more money; higher prices were mentioned by some respondents, but improved returns would
also be consistent with more fi sh being caught overall in some villages. Possible reasons for
higher catches would include the other quite plausible reasons mentioned, including habitat
improvements, aquaculture and stocking.
Table 3. Summary of reasons given by village leaders for changes in fi sheries over the last 5 years.
Most villages gave one reason (1st reason) while 22 gave two reasons.
Fisheries became better
Summary of reason
1st reason 2nd reason
Total
% of total
Economics - prices higher or better profi t
35
1
36
54.5%
Habitat improved, e.g. by dredging swamps and building dams
12
12
18.2%
or weirs sponsored by DoI and DoF
Aquaculture, usually with DoF assistance
5
1
6
9.1%
Stocking by DoF
5
5
7.6%
Conservation/management of fi sh stocks
2
1
3
4.5%
Improved gear or methods
2
1
3
4.5%
Less fi shers - migrated elsewhere for work
1
1
1.5%
Total
62
4
66
100.0%
Fisheries became worse
Summary of reason
1st reason 2nd reason
Total
% of total
Less fi sh and/or more fi shers
116
7
123
60.3%
Habitat change, e.g. siltation and shallower water bodies
41
4
45
22.1%
Over-fi shing in spawning season
8
3
11
5.4%
Illegal gear use
6
1
7
3.4%
Economics - costs rising, prices falling
5
5
2.5%
Diseases of fi sh seen in the wild
4
2
6
2.9%
Aquaculture production less
1
1
0.5%
Climate worse with less rain in dry season
1
1
0.5%
Dams prevent fi sh migration and spawning
1
1
0.5%
No money and knowledge for fi shing
1
1
0.5%
Pesticides killed fi sh
1
1
0.5%
Pollution killed fi sh
1
1
0.5%
Border problem for village
1
1
0.5%
Total
186
18
204
100.0%
Page 14

---

Results from village-level census
Most of the village leaders who reported that fi sheries were worse also noted that there were
less fi sh and/or more fi shers. This ambiguous response might indicate lower catches per fi sher
(a logical cause of dissatisfaction) but does not preclude total catches being larger, a common
situation as fi shing pressure increases. Among the reasons for a reduction in fi sh catches, it is
very interesting to note that habitat change was the most commonly cited, and problems related
to fi sheries management were secondary. Given that habitat improvement was also the most
common measure noted to improve fi sheries (where fi sheries were said to have become better)
there is clearly awareness by many villagers of the importance of habitat and the possibility of
improving fi sh production by improving habitat. The villagers' perception of the importance
of habitat is consistent also with their recommendations to the DoF as discussed below and
summarised in Table 4.
As well as estimating the current (Year 2000) number of commercial fi shing households,
village leaders were also asked to estimate the number of commercial fi shing households
operating in their village fi ve years ago. Excluding those villages in which there were no
commercial fi shing households in 2000 and also none fi ve years previously, the mean number
of commercial fi shing households per village in 2000 was 27.2 and the mean for the estimates
from ten years previously was 25.8, based on 124 villages. Although there was an apparent
slight increase in the number of commercial fi shing households, the difference was not
signifi cant (paired t-test, p = 0.34), so there is no basis for claiming any change in the number of
commercial fi shing households.
3.5 Community fi sheries-based management
Many of the communities in the LSB have set up their own community-based fi sheries
management programmes. Fisheries regulations were reported to have been set up by 217
(48.5%) of the sample villages. Many of the other villages left this section of the form blank, so
it is possible that some of these did not respond to the question and the percentage is actually
higher. The main measures noted included:
· `No fi shing' or conservation areas, usually near the village in public water bodies;
· Closed season, usually specifi ed as the beginning of the wet season when fi sh spawn;
· Restrictions on use of some gears, such as large trawls and seines, and illegal gears such
as electrofi shers, explosives and poisons.
Village leaders were also asked about their ideas for improvement of village fi sheries
management in an open-ended format, i.e. they could respond in any way they wished. Their
responses are summarised as shown in Table 4. Most suggestions were preceded by `the DoF
should ...'; because the questionnaire originated from the DoF the villagers were clearly
directing their suggestions to the DoF. The majority of suggestions for improving fi sheries
related to wild capture fi sheries, and overall most suggestions related to improving habitat or
Page 15

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
to stocking. There were relatively few requests for support for aquaculture or training or other
forms of assistance. These results should be considered carefully in the light of prevailing
government policies which heavily favour aquaculture. There is also a need for the DoF to
coordinate with other agencies that are directly responsible for the water and habitat. Villagers
may not necessarily have the best ideas for improving fi sheries, but their beliefs will certainly
infl uence the success of any management strategies that government agencies attempt to
implement.
Table 4. Summary of suggestions by village leaders to improve fi sheries.
N=295. Up to three suggestions were made by each village so there were 384 suggestions in total.
Suggestion
First
Second
Third
Total
Percent
Improve fi sh habitat by improving water fl ow to shallow
123
3
3
129
33.6%
swamps, making weirs or raising existing weirs
Stocking natural water bodies with fry
54
27
3
84
21.9%
Closed season during spawning season
25
7
32
8.3%
Set up conservation areas for wild fi sh
20
6
1
27
7.0%
Illegal gear control or enforcing regulations
16
15
3
34
8.9%
Control catching of fry
1
1
0.3%
Control damage to fl ooded forest
1
1
0.3%
Control pollution
1
1
0.3%
Investigate and control disease in wild fi sh
1
1
0.3%
Stop outsiders fi shing
1
1
0.3%
Sub-total relating to wild fi shery
242
59
10
311
81.0%
Aquaculture support including fi ngerlings or broodstock
32
9
41
10.7%
Make ponds for aquaculture
5
5
1
11
2.9%
Sub-total relating to aquaculture
37
14
1
52
13.5%
Set up market or provide fi sh trader
1
4
5
1.3%
General training in fi sheries management
14
14
3.6%
Subsidise gears for catching fi sh
1
1
0.3%
Support for management
1
1
0.3%
Sub-total other
16
5
0
21
5.5%
Grand Total
295
78
11
384
100.0%
3.6 Fishing gear information
Village heads were asked to estimate the number of gears in their villages used by both part-
time and full-time fi shing households. Unfortunately some villagers entered all data on gears
in either the part-time or full-time categories, so it was not possible to treat full- and part-time
households separately. Moreover, some villagers reported extremely high estimates for numbers
of gears that, when converted to mean gears per household, did not seem consistent with those
obtained during the household survey, in which a detailed on-site check and discussion with
household members is likely to have led to reasonable fi gures. Hence the results of the census
of gears are presented in Figure 8 only as a frequency of occurrence in villages.
Page 16

---

Results from village-level census
There were 37 kinds of fi shing gear recorded, within 11 main categories. Several kinds of
gear were widespread and found in most villages (Figure 8). Among these, cast nets, gill-nets
and hooks are made from mostly imported components and are commonly sold throughout the
region, whereas scoop-nets and small traps are locally made and are also widespread but are
generally owned in smaller numbers as discussed in the household survey results. Complete
data are shown in Appendix 2. Within the broad categories shown in Figure 8, large-scale
fi shing gears such trawls, arrow-shaped traps and big lift nets were present in relatively few
villages as might be expected (Appendix 2).
100
90
80
70
60
% 50
97%
93%
89%
87%
85%
40
81%
67%
30
59%
54%
20
47%
22%
10
0
Cast-nets
Gillnets Small traps
Hooks
Lift-nets Scoop-nets Collection
Spears
Bag-nets
Big traps
Other
Figure 8. Gear occurrences in villages, based on the village census.
Based on data from 349 villages; the graph shows the percentage of villages in which the gear type
was recorded; bars represent 95% confi dence intervals. Collection includes by hand only, or aided by
using traps or baskets.
Page 17

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 18

---

Plate 1. The confl uence of the Songkhram and Mekong Rivers, an important link in fi sh
migrations.
Plate 2. Important fi sh habitat, remnant fl ooded forest along the lower Songkhram River,
with boat-mounted lift nets.
Plate 3. A bag net, a large commercial-scale gear near fl ooded forest.

---

Plate 4. Fish feed and grow in seasonally fl ooded rice fi elds and are caught during the fl ood
with traps -- as in the left or during the dry season when they have migrated to
permanent water bodies.
Plate 5. Traps are commonly used on small watercourses to capture fi sh and OAAs migrating
from rice fi elds.
Plate 6. Villagers use hand-held lift nets to fi sh fl ooded rice fi elds.

---

Plate 7. Larger commercial-scale lift nets are operated from boats on large water bodies.
Plate 8. Monofi lament nylon gill nets are now one of the most commonly used and most
productive gears.
Plate 9. Traditional traps are still commonly used gears.

---

Plate 10. Different types of traditional traps are designed for use in particular habitats and to
catch particular species.
Plate 11. Villagers have incorporated modern materials into traditional gear manufacture.

---

Plate 12. Gear-making is an important part-time activity.
Plate 13. Large catches are made when fl oodwaters are receding; excess fi sh are preserved or
sold.

---

Plate 14. The importance of fi shing to people can be judged from the effort put into the annual
fi sh festival at Sri Songkhram. The fl oats are accurate models of local fi sh species.
Plate 15. Cage culture is concentrated on larger rivers, here on the lower Songkhram.
Plate 16. This watergate across the Huai Mong, a Thai Mekong tributary, prevents rising
Mekong fl oodwaters from running into this tributary, and also blocks migrating fi sh
and fi sh fry from accessing the tributary and fl ooded areas. Similar effects would be
expected if the lower Songkhram River were to be dammed.

---

Plate 17. One of the two dams recently built on the middle Songkhram River to divert water
for irrigation.
Plate 18. Fishery management -- fi sh conservation zones; the signs give notifi cation of
regulations (left) and location (right).
Plate 19. Bag nets are illegal, but are commonly used to fi lter receding fl oodwaters.

---

---

4. Results from the sample survey
This section summarises the results of the sample survey of 27 villages that were sampled
randomly. The results are grouped by village-level, household-level and individual responses.
4.1 Village sample survey
General information
The village leaders provided basic information as shown in Table 5, and the percentages can be
used to extrapolate to the study area villages as a whole.
Table 5. Some basic information from the 27 surveyed villages.
Summary of question
No. of Mean percentage
95% confi dence
villages
of villages
interval
lower limit upper limit
Access
Access to the village is by paved road
20
74.1%
56.7%
91.4%
Access to the village is by dirt road
25
92.6%
82.2%
100.0%
Access to the village is by waterways
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Water bodies
There is a lake or large reservoir near the village
5
18.5%
3.1%
33.9%
There is a large river near the village
2
7.4%
0.0%
17.8%
There is a small lake or reservoir near the village
13
48.1%
28.4%
67.9%
There is a permanent small stream or canal near village
23
85.2%
71.1%
99.2%
There are permanent water body(ies) near village
27
100%
100%
100%
There is a water management scheme near village
11
40.7%
21.3%
60.2%
The village land is serviced by an irrigation scheme
9
33.3%
14.7%
52.0%
The village has fl ood protection
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Markets
There is a market in the village
4
14.8%
0.8%
28.9%
Fish are sold at that market
3
11.1%
0.0%
23.5%
More than one middleman fi sh trader works in the market
3
11.1%
0.0%
23.5%
Seasonal fi shers
People leave the village to fi sh seasonally
3
11.1%
0.0%
23.5%
People come to the village to fi sh seasonally
13
48.1%
28.4%
67.9%
Page 19

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Some interesting features of the survey of villages included the following:
· Altitude of the villages varied from 101 ­ 317 masl.
· Most villages had access via paved roads and all villages had dirt road access. None
relied on waterways or small tracks for access.
· All villages were in close proximity to permanent water bodies, despite the extended
dry season in this region. Most villages in the LSB have developed near natural water
bodies, e.g. 14 of the 27 villages had access to swamps that were not recorded offi cially,
indicating a high level of access to productive fi shery habitats. Dams and canals near
most villages have increased the amount of permanent water that serves as dry-season
habitat for fi sh.
· Less than half of the villages had access to any irrigation infrastructure for their lands,
and no villages were near fl ood-control works.
· Fish markets were not common, being present in only 11% of villages. Over the entire
study area the data suggests that about 86 villages of 776 had a fi sh market.
· Seasonal migration of fi shers appears to be quite common. The number of villages who
report seasonal emigration and immigration might be expected to balance, so either the
surveyed villages have better-than-average capture fi sheries, or the village leaders take
more notice of outsiders fi shing in their village than they do of people leaving their
village to fi sh elsewhere.
Demographic information
The total population of the sampled villages was 21,691 in 4,175 households, with most people
being either Thai Esan or Thai Yo as is typical in northeast Thailand (Figure 9). The mean
number of households was 155 per village, with a confi dence interval of 125 ­ 184, which
overlaps the estimate from the village census of 134 ± 9. Similarly, the mean number of persons
was 803 per village, with a confi dence interval of 641 ­ 966, which also overlaps the estimate
from the village census of 694 ± 51. Thus the sampled villages were representative in terms of
numbers of households and people.
Landholdings
Figure 10 shows that the majority (about 75%) of households in the 27 surveyed villages owned
between 0.96 and 9.6 ha of land, with relatively few households being landless or owning
Page 20

---

Results from the sample survey
very small plots. Given the wide confi dence intervals these results should be extrapolated with
caution
Thai So
0.3%
Thai Kha
Thai Kalerng
0.5%
0.2%
Phu Thai
47.4%
Thai Issan
47.4%
Thai Yo
41.2%
Figure 9. Ethnic proportions in the 27 surveyed villages of the LSB.
Based on 21,691 people in 27 randomly selected villages.
60
e
50
40
30
42.4
20
32.3
10
ent of households with land holding siz
r
ec
P
10.9
4.0
5.4
5.0
0
0.16-0.32
0.32-0.96
0.96 - 1.92
1.92-9.6
>9.6
Landless
Land holding size (ha)
The percentage of households in each village owning farmland within various size
Figure 10.
intervals.
Based on a mean land holding of 154.6 ha per village. The data were converted from Thai rai, 1 rai =
0.16 ha. Histograms and data labels represent means and bars represent 95% confi dence intervals.
Land use
The total area of `land' (including surface water) used by the surveyed villages was 14,791 ha
or 548 ha per village. Villagers classed about 80% of their land as agricultural, of which the
majority (about 95%) was used for rice production; of this 95% was rain-fed paddy and only
Page 21

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
5% was irrigated (Figure 11). Other farmland was used for vegetables, fruit trees, cash crops
such as maize, and dry rice. Rice fi elds are seasonally fl ooded habitats that are likely to be
important for fi shery production, particularly because they occupy such a large proportion of
the landscape.
100
75.2%
90
80
70
60
50
ea of village land
40
c
ent of ar
30
er
P
20
6.9%
7.1%
10
4.2%
4.3%
0.6%
1.6%
0
Aquaculture
Lakes &
Rivers &
Swamps
Commons
Rice
Other
ponds
Reservoirs
Streams
Land
Farming
Farmland
Figure 1 Land use in the 27 surveyed villages.
1.
Based on a mean area of 548 ha per village. Histograms and labels represent means, and bars
represent 95% confi dence intervals.
About 13% of the village `land' area was classed as surface water, of which about half was
lakes or reservoirs. Aquaculture ponds occupied a very small area.
Flooded lands provide a good habitat for fi sh for spawning, feeding, and nursery grounds.
All rice fi elds are covered with standing water for some period, so most of the land is inundated
for a signifi cant period of time each year. Village leaders were also asked to estimate the
proportion of the area of land under each land-use that was fl ooded each year and the duration
of fl ooding; this question was intended to relate to uncontrolled fl ooding.
Table 6. Average proportions of agricultural land in the 27 surveyed villages estimated to fl ood each
year and duration of fl ooding.
Does not include routine inundation of paddies by rainwater.
Months Flooded
0
1
2
3
Total
Cash crop (other than rice)
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
Irrigated rice
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
4.8%
Orchards
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Paddy rice
48.5%
2.1%
26.7%
10.1%
89.7%
Upland/dry rice
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Vegetable garden
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Total
57.4%
2.1%
26.8%
11.5%
100.0%
Page 22

---

Results from the sample survey
The survey found that about 43% of agricultural land in the villages fl ooded for at least one
month each year (Table 6), but only about 12% of agricultural land fl ooded for three months,
and no land was fl ooded for more than three months. Seasonally fl ooded agricultural land is in
fact the largest area of aquatic habitat, averaging 186 ha/village with all other aquatic habitats
averaging only about 73 ha/village. Although the duration of fl ooding seems short, many fi sh
and other aquatic animals migrate onto seasonally fl ooded land where they can feed and grow
rapidly as there is an abundance of food, and they are caught in large quantities as fl oodwaters
recede each year.
Aquaculture
Table 7 shows that aquaculture was of generally minor importance. For example, although
ponds were present in all villages, on average only about 15% of households owned ponds,
which occupied on average less than 1% of the land area, and only about 3% of households
owned fi sh cages.
Table 7. Summary of basic aquaculture statistics.
Ucl/Lcl upper and lower 95% confi dence limits.
Statistic
Count of villages
Mean/village
Ucl
Lcl
Ponds in village
27
29.4
37.8
21.1
Area of Ponds (ha)
27
3.3
4.4
2.1
Households that own ponds
27
23.1
29.7
16.5
Households that stock rice fi elds
5
0.8
1.7
0.0
Fish cages in village
4
4.1
11.7
0.0
Households that own fi sh cages
4
1.0
2.6
0.0
No. of households in village
27
154.6
184.0
125.3
Land area of village
27
547.8
667.7
427.9
Less than 1% of households reported stocking fi sh in their rice fi elds. Five species were
being stocked: three Mekong species; Barbonymus gonionotus (silver barb), Cirrhinus
microlepis (small-scaled mud carp) and Clarias macrocephalus (broadhead catfi sh), as well as
two exotic species; Cyprinus carpio (common carp) and Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia).
Fisheries business
In seven of the 27 survey villages there were 19 business units that were offi cially engaged in
commercial trading of fi sh or fi shery products; these employed 26 people and 7 labourers, as
shown in Table 8. These fi gures probably under-estimate the level of fi sheries as a business
across the LSB, as informal businesses are likely to be common and a few villages which were
not covered could be the centres of formal activity.
Page 23

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Table 8. Breakdown of people engaged in fi sheries as a business in the 27 survey villages.
Village No Activity
Business Units Self-employed Hired Labour
(people)
(people)
2
Trading (buy and sell)
2
2
2
5
Trading (buy and sell)
1
3
3
5
Make/sell fi shing nets
1
1
1
9
Trading (buy and sell)
1
1
0
10
Trading (buy and sell)
1
1
1
18
Trading (buy and sell)
3
8
0
25
Trading (buy and sell)
10
10
0
Total
19
26
7
Economic activities in the sample villages
100
90
Subsistence
80
Support cash
70
Main cash
60
50
ea (ha/village)
40
Ar
30
20
10
0
e
e
ts
e
ock
den
vic
est
ar
G
Liv
e fisheries
emittanc
Handicraf
Aquacultur
Rice farming
oney lending
M
Captur
Cash r
vernment ser
Trading other goods
Go
Labour (non fisheries)
Economic activities importance for households for main cash income, supplementary cash
Figure 12.
income and subsistence.
Weighted means, based on responses from leaders of 27 villages.
Households were usually involved in a range of economic activities, as shown in Figure 12,
and among these the most important for cash income were labouring (42% of households), cash
remittance, i.e. money sent home by people working elsewhere (27%), and rice farming (17%).
Many households have more than one supplementary income, among which the most important
were rice farming (48%), labouring (25%) and handicrafts (22%). The most important
subsistence activities were rice farming (92%), capture fi sheries (92%) and livestock farming
(82%). Aquaculture was relatively unimportant for income and was only practised by about
21% of households for subsistence, a fi gure consistent with the estimate above that about 15%
Page 24

---

Results from the sample survey
of households owned fi shponds; presumably the other 6% either assist pond-owning households
or are involved in cage culture or stocking of rice fi elds.
Overall the fi gures show that in the LSB villagers in 2000 relied primarily on agriculture
both for income and subsistence. Fisheries were very important for subsistence, but relatively
unimportant for income for most households.
Fisheries management
All villages had at least one fi sheries management measure in place for capture fi sheries
and villages typically had two or three management measures they applied to fi sheries. The
most common measures were gear restrictions and seasonal closures, but community ponds
and conservation zones were each adopted by about half of the villages (Figure 13). The
management measures tend to duplicate those existing under Thai fi sheries law, which are not
well-known and not widely enforced.
100
90
80
70
60
50
92.6%
40
r
entage of villages
P
60.3%
30
20
44.4%
40.7%
5.6%
10
0
Community
Conservation
Gear
Seasonal
Species
ponds
zones
restrictions
closures
restrictions
Fisheries management measures implemented by villages.
Figure 13.
Histograms and data labels represent the mean percentage of villages; bars represent 95% confi dence
intervals. N=27.
4.2 Household Sample Survey
Demography
The sample included 353 households, representing about 9% of the total households in 27
sample villages (Table 9). A typical household consisted of a single family-unit. There were
1,743 household members, and although the mean number of females was lower than males the
difference was not statistically signifi cant.
Page 25

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Table 9. Basic data on size of the households surveyed.
N=353 in 27 villages; weighted data from complex sample analysis.
95% Confi dence Interval
Statistic
Mean
Lower
Upper
People/household
4.95
4.74
5.17
Female
2.38
2.26
2.50
Male
2.57
2.41
2.74
Percent Female
48.0%
45.6%
50.5%
Percent Male
52.0%
48.7%
55.3%
The mean household size was very similar to that found in the village survey (5.18 persons)
so in this respect the sampled households were typical of those in the surveyed villages. The
mean age of people in the surveyed households was 30.1 years; most people were less than 30
years old, and the oldest person was 98 years old. There was no signifi cant difference in male
and female average age. The age distribution is shown in Figure 14.
Household status
Appendix 3 summarises data which indicate the general economic status of the sampled
households. Most (76%) households occupied two-storey houses and houses were on average
about 84 m2 in fl oor area. Most houses were made of wood (65%) or wood and concrete (27%)
with 97% of houses having corrugated iron roofs. About 96% of households owned a television
but less than 1% owned a telephone. About 25% of households owned a wooden boat which
was on average 5.5 m long; there were no other kinds of boat owned. About 25% of households
owned a car and most of these (73%) were Kubota pick-ups (or utilities). About 36% of
households owned a car or a boat and only about 7% of households owned both a car and a
boat.
Economic activities of households
Full-time and part-time activities
All individuals in each of the 353 households were asked to note their full-time and part-time
economic activities; i.e. activities that earned money or provided physical products to the
household. The activities did not include housework or caring for children. The data can be
viewed either from the aspect of the individuals or households. Relative contribution to income
is discussed below.
Page 26

---

Results from the sample survey
Table 10 shows that 65.6% of all people considered they had a full-time job and 68.2% of
people had either full-time or at least one part-time job, or both full- and part-time jobs, so these
people could be considered as being `within the workforce'. People not working at all (31.8%)
included small children, students and elderly and handicapped people, as can be seen in Figure
14.
Table 10. Cross-tabulation of the sample of 1,743 people working full-time and part-time.
Note: some people (47.1%) have both `full-time' and part-time jobs.
Category
Part-time Work
No Part-time Work
Total
Full-Time Work
47.1%
18.5%
65.6%
No Full-Time Work
2.6%
31.8%
34.4%
Total
49.7%
50.3%
100.0%
Figure 14 shows that the sample was dominated by younger people; about 45% were less
than 25 years of age and about 70% were less than 41 years of age. Most children and teenagers
(about 95%) were either pre-school or were full-time students. Most adults (about 93%)
between 17 and 64 years of age considered that they had a full-time job as well as or apart from
household work, the remainder were either unemployed (3.4%), students (3.9%) or handicapped
(0.2%).
20
Handicapped
Full-time Student
15
Pre-school
Unemployed
l
e
p
o
e
Full-time Job
10
t of all p
n
e
rc
e
P
5
0
1-8
9-16 17-24 25-32 33-40 41-48 49-56 57-64 65-72 73-80 81-88 88-96 96-98
Age group (years)
Age distribution and full-time employment status of the 1,743 people in the 353 surveyed
Figure 14.
households.
The level of participation in different occupations is best expressed relative to the workforce
(68.2% of the sample), rather than relative to all people. Full data are shown in Appendix 4.
As summarised in Figure 15, most of the workforce categorised themselves as full-time rice
farmers, but about 42% of the workforce were part-time fi shers. About 36% of workers were
both rice-farmers and fi shers. Day-labouring was a common full- and part-time occupation and
other occupations were of relatively minor importance.
Page 27

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
80%
74.4%
Part-time
70%
Full-time
60%
50%
41.9%
40%
30%
26.6%
20%
15.3%
9.8%
9.4%
10%
7.0%
1.9%
3.2%
3.2%
1.9%
2.9%
0.2% 1.2%0.2%
0.3%
0.8%
0.3%
0.4%
0.9%
0%
e
y
t
e
vic
yed
tivit
Fishing
Labour
Student
Handicraf
Aquacultur
Rice farming
ther farming
Unemplo
O
vernment ser
Trading or business
ther fisheries ac
Go
O
The percentage of the workforce employed in dif
Figure 15.
ferent occupations.
This fi gure only includes data from 1,182 people who had a part-time or full-time job, or
both. See Appendix 4 for full summary data.
100%
92.9%
92.9%
Part-time
Full-time
80%
69.3%
60%
53.0%
44.5%
40%
32.9%
28.7%
20.6%
20%
16.0%
7.5%
6.3%
6.8%
2.7%
2.9%
0.9%
0.6%
0.8%
2.3%
1.1%
1.0%2.3%
0%
e
y
t
yed
tivit
ollege
Fishing
Labour
vernment
Handicraf
Aquacultur
Rice farming
ther farming
Go
Unemplo
O
School/c
Handicapped
Trading or business
ther fisheries ac
O
Important household economic activities based on data from all 1,743 individuals living in
Figure 16.
353 households.
The graph shows the weighted mean percentage of households with one or more family member
engaged in the activity. The activities may be for subsistence (household use) or for earning income.
`Other fi sheries activity' includes fi sh processing, making gear and fi sh selling.
In the study area it is more appropriate to view occupations in terms of their importance to
households, as there is no social security and all households comprised more than one person.
Page 28

---

Results from the sample survey
If any member of a household engages in an `economic' activity it can be assumed that the
household generally benefi ts, so it can be regarded as a `household activity'. This approach is
particularly relevant to fi shing, where trips are often made by more than one family member,
but the numbers and extent of participation by each member vary daily and may not be recalled
accurately.
The most important full-time activity in the surveyed households was rice farming (92.9%
of households) (Figure 16), consistent with information from village leaders (see Figure 12).
Household members commonly engaged in more than one economic activity, with up to fi ve
different activities engaged in by one household. Wage-labouring was also important for about
33% of households full-time and about 52% of households part-time; such labour would also
include working on other households' farms. Less than 1% of households (3) said they had
full-time fi shers, but fi shing was an important part-time activity for about 93% of households,
which is a similar fi gure to the estimate provided by village leaders of 92% as discussed above.
Men were more involved than women in fi shing, as about 74% of all people who were part-
time fi shers were men, as were about 71% of those involved in gear making. However about
60% of fi sh processors were female and the proportion of each gender engaged in fi sh selling
were approximately equal. The largest gender imbalance was evident for handicraft workers of
which about 92% were women, and for government workers of which about 89% were male. A
breakdown of people's occupations by gender is shown in Appendix 5.
As would be expected from the age distribution, a signifi cant percentage of people were
either students, or young or old people classed as unemployed.
The majority of households (about 89%) were involved both in rice farming and fi shing.
The data are consistent with the generalisation that most LSB households rely on rice farming
as the main activity for income and subsistence, but fi shing is also important. People typically
go to paddy fi elds to work on rice cultivation and also take fi shing gear to use in paddies or
associated habitats, or fi sh at times when work is not required in rice fi elds. Most people in the
LSB depend upon rice and fi sh as their staples, but other foods are also grown or purchased.
Only 10 households (about 3% of the total) reported part-time involvement in aquaculture
and there were no reported full-time aquaculturists in the sample population. This percentage
seems inconsistent with more detailed data provided about aquaculture later in the
questionnaire, in which about 23% of households reported that they owned either ponds or
cages, as discussed below. This apparent discrepancy may refl ect a perception that aquaculture
by defi nition must include stocking and feeding fi sh; it is likely that many ponds are not
actively farmed for fi sh, but are simply colonised by wild fi sh during the wet season or are
stocked with fi ngerlings which are not fed.
Importance of activities for food supply and income
Household heads were asked to categorise the importance of activities for food supply
and for income, with results as summarised in Figure 17. Interestingly, the percentages of
Page 29

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
households differed somewhat from those shown in Figure 16, when individuals (rather
than household heads) listed their main activities. For example, aquaculture appears to be
more important for food supply and for income when judged from this `whole household'
perspective, perhaps indicating that individual members each spend little time on the activity,
but that it is overall of some importance to a signifi cant percentage of households.
The most important activities for household food supply were rice farming, fi shing and fi sh
processing, and the most common income-earning activities were wage labour, rice farming
and other farming, but other activities, including selling fi sh, were also common. About 84% of
households rated both fi sheries and rice farming as important for food, which is consistent with
the estimate of 89% from the individual responses discussed above.
100%
96.0%
94.1%
Food
87.7%
Income
83.7%
80%
67.2%
65.3%
59.6%
60%
52.2%
40%
27.5%
24.8%
20% 15.1%
15.6%
13.4%
4.5%
3.5%
1.6%
0%
e
ts
e
e
vic
Fishing
emittanc
age labour
Aquacultur
Rice farming
ther fisheries
W
ther farming
O
O
ake handicraf
Cash r
M
vernment ser
Trading or business
Go
Importance of household economic activities for food or income.
Figure 17.
Some categories were amalgamated. `Other fi sheries' includes fi sh processing, fi sh selling, gear
making and wage labouring. See Appendix 6 for full listing with confi dence limits.
The results show that the livelihoods of most households in the LSB were dependent on
a range of activities, with rice farming and fi shing the most common, but with several other
activities usually also important for supplying food and income in each household.
Land ownership and agriculture
Each household listed the area of land it owned and also the common land it accessed, as
well as holdings of livestock and poultry. Data are summarised in Appendix 7.
Mean land ownership was 2.54 ha/household and 95% of households owned rain-fed rice
paddies which on average occupied about 2.13 ha per household, or about 84% of the land
owned. This fi gure is consistent with the estimate provided by village leaders of 90% of village
Page 30

---

Results from the sample survey
land being rice paddies. People also used common land, but few households entered data on its
use, so the resulting data may underestimate its importance.
About 78% of households owned livestock or poultry. Nine households owned livestock
jointly with other households; in these cases a mean ownership per household was calculated
Most households (67%) owned chickens (mean 10.5 per household), and ducks, cows and
buffalo were also common. The ownership fi gures are summarised in Appendix 8.
Fishing by households
According to the data supplied on catch, in 327 households (of 353) one or more family
member(s) went fi shing at some time, so about 92.7% were classed as fi shing households, and
26 (7.3%) were classed as non-fi shing households; these did not own fi shing gear and never
went fi shing. After weighting, fi shing households comprised 93.0% and non-fi shing households
7.0% of the sample.
These fi gures differ slightly from those provided for households that were fi shing full and/
or part-time (330), and households fi shing for food and/or income (309). It seems that some
households may have misunderstood some questions, but no adjustments could be made for
these small discrepancies. There were also apparent discrepancies between total catch estimates
and households' response as to whether they hosted full-time or commercial fi shers, with the
largest reported catches not being made by commercial or full-time fi shing households.
Gear ownership
Households were asked to record the number of gears that they owned and used, classed
within 10 broad types. As shown in Table 11, households had on average about 3 types of
gear (range 3 ­ 7) and about 80 individual gear units. The most common gears were gill-nets,
cast-nets and hooks. The frequency distributions of all gears are skewed; i.e. a few households
owned many more gears than the average, so the median better represents `typical' gear
ownership.
The occurrence of gears in each village was similar to that found in the village census
(Figure 4); providing some level of confi dence in the responses.
Catches by each kind of gear were not estimated by households, so it is not possible to
determine the proportion of total catches by each gear type.
Page 31

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Table 11. Gear ownership by households.
All data were adjusted to include the 353 households including 26 who had no gear and did not fi sh.
For 10 fi shing households that did not provide data, data were adjusted pro-rata. Means are numbers
of gear per household, except for collection which is based on number of people per household who
collect by hand. All statistics are weighted based on the sample frame.
Number of gears per household
% of villages % of houses
Gear Type
Mean
95% Confi dence Interval
Median
Maximum
with the gear with the gear
Lower
Upper
Gill-net
100.0%
67.4%
2.54
1.49
3.59
2
200
Cast-net
100.0%
63.7%
1.19
0.91
1.47
1
6
Hooks
100.0%
54.5%
68.7
54.1
83.2
100
600
Scoop nets
88.9%
36.0%
0.456
0.322
0.590
1
5
Small traps
88.9%
23.3%
5.73
2.71
8.76
11
232
Lift nets
81.5%
19.6%
0.330
0.207
0.452
1
5
Collection
85.2%
17.0%
0.21
0.14
0.29
1
5
Spears
55.6%
12.3%
0.191
0.008
0.375
1
7
Big traps
48.1%
5.3%
0.095
0.048
0.142
2
4
Bag nets
37.0%
4.2%
0.055
0.019
0.091
1
3
Rifl es
3.7%
0.2%
0.0024
0.0000
0.0076
1
1
Gear Units
100.0%
92.6%
79.5
63.2
95.8
48
666
Gear Types
100.0%
92.6%
3.04
2.71
3.36
3
7
Seasonality of fi shing
The fi shing households were asked to estimate the number of trips they made each month; the
habitats they visited, and their total annual catch in each habitat.
Figure 18 shows that people go fi shing all year, but there are three main periods: dry season,
early-wet season and late-wet/recession season. Fishing is least frequent during the dry season
(December to May), more frequent during the early-wet season (May to July) when fi sh and
OAAs are migrating along watercourses and into newly fl ooded areas, and fi shing is most
intense from August to October when water levels peak and then fall rapidly. At that time
aquatic animals are most abundant as they have bred and grown in the early wet season, and
they become more concentrated and catchable as they migrate off fl ooded areas and down
watercourses. November is a transitional month when fi shing effort falls back to dry-season
levels. Despite the variation in fi shing effort, it is worth noting that mean effort only varies from
about 10 to 20 trips per month.
Page 32

---

Results from the sample survey
25
20
15
20.0
19.3
10
17.7
14.6
14.0
14.2
12.0
10.8
10.6
10.1
9.9
9.3
No of fishing trips/household/month
5
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
No. of
Figure 18.
fi shing trips per month made by one or more household members.
Histograms and data labels represent means; bars represent 95% confi dence limits. Based on
weighted data from all 353 households.
Habitats Fished
Appendix 9 summarises information on the time taken by households to reach habitats during
fi shing trips. Households fi shed in up to fi ve types of habitats (mean 2.3 types) and the average
time taken to travel to fi shing habitats was about 17 minutes. But some people travelled for
up to three hours to access some habitats such as perennial rivers, presumably because these
habitats are more productive and also are uncommon. The most commonly accessed habitats
were wet rice-rainfed (60% of households), natural swamps (45% of households) and man-
made reservoirs (30% of households).
3000
Key
2500
Public Pond
)
Floodplain Trees/Shrubs
t
h
2000
Seasonal Canal
s
/
mon
Floodplain Grassland
p
t
ri
Wet Rice Flood Inundated
1500
t (
Natural Lake
Floodplain Swamp
l effor
ta
1000
Small Stream
T
o
Manmade Reservoir
Perennial River
500
Wet Rice Rainfed
Natural Swamp
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Seasonality of total
Figure 19.
fi shing effort in each habitat.
Based on the total number of trips to each habitat by the 327 fi shing households.
Page 33

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Figure 19 shows that many habitats were being targeted year-round by villagers, but as
might be expected, there is a large increase in effort in wet rice rain-fed and fl oodplain swamp
habitats when these areas are inundated from about April to November. The seasonal increase in
fi shing pressure in these habitats appears to coincide with a reduced fi shing pressure in natural
(permanent) swamps.
Effort and catch
Fishing households reportedly made on average 176 trips each year (which may include one
or more family members) and the mean catch of the 327 fi shing households was estimated
at 223 kg/household/year or 207 kg/household/year as a weighted mean for all households
(Table 12). The most-visited habitats were wet rice rain-fed, natural swamps and man-made
reservoirs which together accounted for 66% of all trips. The highest catch rates (catch/trip)
were in fl oodplain swamps, natural lakes and perennial rivers including the Songkhram River.
The largest total catches were made in natural swamps, wet rice rain-fed and perennial rivers
that together made up 64% of the total catch. Although individual households differed greatly
in their fi shing effort and catch, mean catch rates in each habitat only varied between 0.53 and
2.2 kg/trip. As might be expected, confi dence intervals for these estimates are quite broad, as a
result of high variance in the data (Appendix 10).
Table 12. Summary of data on effort and catches by habitat.
Statistics are based on all 353 households, including 327 fi shing households. Full data with
confi dence intervals are shown in Appendix 10.
Habitat
% of households
Mean trips
Mean catch
Mean catch Total catch
visiting the habitat (trips/household/year) (kg/household/year)
(kg/trip)
(kg/year)
Natural Swamps
44.5%
43.4
51.6
1.19
18,220
Wet Rice -- Rain fed
60.3%
40.1
46.8
1.17
16,507
Man-made Reservoir
30.0%
24.6
30.4
1.23
10,717
Small Stream
31.0%
22.2
23.0
1.03
8,109
Perennial River
28.7%
21.5
33.7
1.57
11,896
Floodplain Swamps
14.9%
7.66
16.9
2.20
5,950
Natural Lake
2.4%
2.06
3.97
1.92
1,400
Wet Rice Flood Inundated
2.4%
0.91
0.48
0.53
171
Floodplain Grassland
0.3%
0.13
0.12
1.00
44
Floodplain Trees/Shrubs
0.3%
0.06
0.03
0.58
12
Seasonal Canal
0.2%
0.04
0.07
1.50
23
Public Pond
0.2%
0.003
0.01
2.00
2
All habitats
93.0%
163
207
1.27
73,050
Fishing hhs only
100.0%
176
223
The Songkhram River and four other perennial river tributaries were accessed by the
surveyed households. Although these perennial rivers were not the most frequently accessed
Page 34

---

Results from the sample survey
habitats, they are undoubtedly very important for the productivity of the Songkhram River
Basin, as they link habitats, as well as connecting the basin to the Mekong River. Such
connectivity is necessary to allow fi sh and other aquatic organisms to migrate, and therefore is
critical to the overall productivity of the basin. The annual migrations are also a focus of fi shing
effort and a source of large catches at certain times.
Table 13 combines data on the areas of habitat estimated for each of the 27 villages with
effort and catch data. Rice fi elds occupy most of the land around the villages, but were fi shed
relatively little relative to their area, and they also produced relatively little of the total catch
compared with their area. At the other extreme, rivers and streams were fi shed at relatively
high apparent intensities and also produced the highest catches relative to their reported area.
These fi gures should be treated as illustrative only; some people travel away from their villages
to fi sh so the relative areas of habitat may not be entirely representative of the areas available
to fi shers across the LSB. Nevertheless, the comparison shows that natural habitats are clearly
of great importance for fi sheries, presumably because they are crucial for fi sh production as
well as being places where fi sh become more concentrated and catchable at particular times.
Moreover it is likely that such natural habitats are easily accessed by villagers on foot or using
motorbikes.
Table 13. Relative effort and catch in different habitats.
Habitat data from the survey of 27 villages (Figure 11), catch and effort data from Table 12, with
some categories combined. Selectivity and catch excess are the ratios of fi shing trips and catches to
the percentage of the habitat.
Aquatic Habitat
Percent of this
Percent of fi shing Percent of total
Apparent
Apparent catch
kind of habitat
trips to this type
catch from this
selectivity of
excess from the
near villages (A)
of habitat (B)
type of habitat (C) fi shers for the
habitat (C/A)
habitat (B/A)
Swamps
4.8%
31.5%
33.2%
6.6
6.9
Rice fi elds
85.0%
25.2%
22.8%
0.3
0.3
Lakes and reservoirs
7.8%
16.4%
16.6%
2.1
2.1
Rivers and streams
1.8%
26.9%
27.4%
15.3
15.6
Other
0.7%
0.03%
0.03%
0.04
0.1
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1.0
1.0
Page 35

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
25
Mean 173
Median 148
Range 1 - 735
20
Weighted mean 176
15
20.8
10
16.8
15.6
14.1
c
entage of households
11.6
er
P
5
6.7
5.5
2.8
2.8
0.6
1.2
0.3
0.3
0
0.9
0-50
51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 410-450 451-500 501-550 551-600 601-650 651-700 751-800
Effort (fishing trips/household/year)
Distribution of
Figure 20.
fi shing effort for 327 fi shing households.
Each trip is one or more household member visiting one habitat for up to one day.
80
Mean 222
70
Median 124
Range 1 - 2,520
Weighted mean 223
60
50
40
76.1
30
c
entage of households
er 20
P
10
16.2
4.9
1.2
0
0.9
2.8
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0-200
201-400
401-800
601-800
801-1000 1001-1200 1201-1400 1401-1600 1601-1800 1801-2000 2001-2200 2201-2400 2401-2600
Catch (kg/household/year)
Distribution of annual household catches for 327
Figure 21.
fi shing households.
Catches are the sum of estimated annual catches in each kind of habitat.
Distribution of effort and catch
As shown in Figures 20 and 21, the distribution of both effort and catch are skewed to the right;
and catch data were more skewed than effort data. The median is a preferable statistic if we
Page 36

---

Results from the sample survey
wish to represent a `typical' fi shing household. About half of the fi shing households made more
than (or less than) 148 trips per year or about 12 trips per month, so in a `typical' household at
least one family member goes fi shing every second or third day on average. A typical household
catches about 124 kg/year or about 10 kg/month. Most households reported catches of less than
200 kg/year; 246 households (75% of sample households) had an annual catch lower than the
mean, and the highest annual catch was more than 10 times the mean catch. The 40 households
with the highest catch (about 12% of the sample) caught about half of the total catch of all the
households. The highest catches were from full-time fi shing families, and the wide variation
among other households refl ects their level of effort and expertise, their opportunities to fi sh
in favourable habitats at the best times, and the kinds of gear they use. Most households fi sh
primarily for subsistence.
As would be expected, greater effort generally leads to larger catches, although there is
considerable variation between households. For each of the six habitats commonly fi shed
(n>10) the relationship between effort and catch was highly signifi cant (Spearman's Rho,
p<0.001). A power relationship provides the best fi t for this relationship, which is to be
expected from the high skewness in the data. An identical result is obtained by log-transforming
the data prior to performing a standard linear regression (Figure 22).
10000
y = 1.08 x 0.98
R2 = 0.68
n= 327
)
1000
sehold
/
hou
g
k
100
(
t
c
h
l
ca
a
u
n
n
10
A
1
1
10
100
1000
Annual effort (trips/household)
Regression of total catch on total ef
Figure 22.
fort for fi shing households. N=327
Total yield of the lower Songkhram River Basin based on catch data
An estimate of the total catch for the LSB based on these data can be made as follows:
· the sample includes 353 households in total (327 are fi shing households);
Page 37

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
· the weighted mean annual catch per household (including non-fi shing) is 207 kg/
household, with a 95% confi dence interval of 158-256 kg/household/year;
· the total catch from the 27 surveyed villages is estimated as 353*207 = 73,071
(55,774-90,368) kg/year;
· the total number of households in the lower Songkhram River Basin is 165,554, so
the total catch from the LSB is approximately 165,554 * 207 = 34.3 kt/year, with a
confi dence interval of 26.2 ­ 42.4 kt/year; and
· this catch equates to 41.8 (31.9 ­ 51.7) kg/capita, as there are on average 4.95 people in
each household.
The catch estimate has a large relative error of about ±47%, which could be reduced in
future surveys by either or both of the following:
· Increasing the number of villages sampled and/or the number of households sampled to
increase the effective sampling size and thereby reduce the standard error;
· Stratifying the villages and households in the LSB into low- and high-fi shing groups prior
to sampling to reduce variance in the data. Stratifi cation of villages could be carried out
by using census data and GIS information. Stratifi cation of households within villages
should be a key part of interviews of village leaders.
The total catch per village was estimated by multiplying the mean catch for all surveyed
households within each village by the total number of households in that village, which
produced a mean estimated catch of 29.0 tonnes/village/year. Although not as extreme as the
skewness exhibited in household catches, the distribution of catches across villages was also
skewed. The village with the highest catches had about 11% of the total catch, and seven
villages caught about 48% of the total catch.
Yield per unit area in the LSB
According to GIS data, the total area of wetlands in the LSB is 4,345 km2, as shown in Table 1.
A mean estimate of yield across all wetland area is 78.9 (60.2 ­ 97.5) kg/ha, based on the catch
estimate above. Virtually all of the wetland area (97%) is classed as seasonally fl ooded land,
although a percentage of this is probably small areas of permanent water that are not resolved
by the GIS software. It is probable that much of the growth of fi sh and OAAs occurs when they
are feeding in fl ooded areas, despite the fact that most catches are reportedly made in permanent
water bodies (see Table 12). There is insuffi cient information to discriminate different levels
of yield between the three main categories of wetland (permanent water bodies, rice fi elds, and
other seasonally fl ooded areas).
Page 38

---

Results from the sample survey
Aquaculture activity of sample HH
Aquaculture data showed some apparent inconsistencies which might have been a result of
the way questions were asked or of perceptions of what constitutes aquaculture. Also, many
households did not supply complete data. Among the 353 households, 112 or about 32%
reported owning ponds, but only 81 (23%) reported using them for aquaculture, and of these
only 37 provided annual production fi gures. The area of ponds, total annual production and the
yield per hectare were all highly variable as shown in Table 14. The production fi gure (weighted
mean per hectare) reported for 37 ponds was assumed to apply to all ponds, including the 44
ponds for which there were no fi gures, to extrapolate a total estimated production of 5,805 kg/
year from these 81 households. This fi gure probably overestimates aquaculture production,
which in many cases would include wild fi sh trapped in ponds as water recedes from fl ooded
areas. Trapping of wild fi sh seems particularly likely in some small ponds that had very high
production fi gures (up to 33.3 tonnes/ha/year), which is much higher than could be expected
from in-situ pond aquaculture.
Table 14. Summary of data on aquaculture production from pond-owning households.
For areal production a weighted mean is shown. Includes both in-situ and trap-pond production.
Households that supplied production values
Statistic
n
Median
Min
Max
Sum
Mean
Pond Area (m2)
37
800
30
16,000
64,935
1,755
Annual Production (kg/year)
37
30
1
1,000
2,687
73
Areal Production (t/ha/year)
37
0.50
0.0125
33.3
0.414
Households that did not supply production values
Pond Area (m2)
44
800
12
20,800
75,291
1,711
All households
Pond Area (m2)
81
800
12
20,800
140,226
1,731
A further 31 households reported owning ponds (total area 28,463 m2) but did not report that
they practised aquaculture, and a further four households said that aquaculture was important
for food or as a part-time occupation but did not report owning ponds.
The 81 households that practised aquaculture in ponds were within 22 of the 27 villages i.e.
based on the sampled households it would appear that a few villages had most of the ponds.
For example, one village had 30% of the pond area and three villages together had 49% of the
pond area. Two of the pond-owning households and another two households that did not report
owning ponds or cages reported that they stocked rice fi elds (i.e. about 1% of households).
Rice-fi sh culture is apparently uncommon in this area, probably because of the availability of
wild fi sh.
Page 39

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Only two households reported owning cages for culturing fi sh and reported their annual
production as 2,100 kg/year (1,300 plus 800 kg/year).
Total reported aquaculture production from the 27 survey villages (ponds plus cages) of
7,905 kg/year is probably an overestimate because wild fi sh caught in trap-ponds are included,
nevertheless aquaculture production represents only about 10% of the total production from the
villages, as capture fi sheries account for about 73,071 tonnes/year. Even allowing for possible
inaccuracies in the data it is reasonable to conclude that capture fi sheries were of much greater
importance than aquaculture in the LSB at the time of the survey. The aquaculture production
averaged across all households is approximately 22.4 kg/household/year or 4.5 kg/person/year.
For the entire LSB aquaculture production is estimated as 22.4*165,554 = 3,708 tonnes/year.
Estimates of aquaculture production from the LSB could be greatly improved by stratifying
villages into groups based on the extent of pond area and obtaining more details to separate
in-situ from trap-pond production. Cages are likely to be concentrated in a few areas in large
rivers, so production should be estimated after a census of cage operations.
The survey did not produce useful data on the monetary value of aquaculture production. Of
14 households that said aquaculture was important for income, only one provided an estimate of
annual income. Of 81 households that used ponds for aquaculture, only 21 provided estimates
of their income from aquaculture. It seems likely that, as might be expected, households did not
want to report income or found it diffi cult to estimate.
Household consumption
In this part of the survey the main objective was to estimate the intake of animal foods by
people in the LSB; i.e. all terrestrial and aquatic animals, including fi sh and other aquatic
animals. The study also aimed to compare the intake of fi sh and OAAs with meat from
terrestrial animals. Households were asked to estimate their weekly intake of foods within
various categories in the wet and dry seasons. The results were summed by categories and by
broader groupings for each household.
Fresh fi sh and OAAs was a single dietary category that was expressed as FWAEs (fresh
whole animal equivalent weights), i.e. the weight prior to cleaning or cooking. The proportion
of fi sh within this category was estimated as 71.3%, from the results of a survey in Champassak
Province in Lao PDR where fi sh and various kinds of OAAs were separately itemised (Hortle,
2007). Weight as `actual consumption' was estimated for fresh fi sh by multiplying FWAE
weights by 0.8 (i.e. approximately 80% of the fresh weight of fi sh was assumed to be eaten) and
for OAAs by multiplying by 0.49 (i.e. approximately 49% of the weight of OAAs was assumed
to be eaten). These conversion factors are based on generic LMB data reviewed in Hortle
(2007). Future surveys should separately itemise fresh fi sh and the main kinds of OAA as well
as estimating site-specifi c conversion factors for the various kinds of foods.
Page 40

---

Results from the sample survey
In contrast to fresh fi sh and OAAs, the various types of preserved fi sh and the other types of
meat were separately itemised in questionnaires and were expressed by households as `actual
consumption'. These were converted to `fresh whole animal equivalents' and to protein units by
multiplying by the factors in Table 15. Table 16 shows the factors used to convert other kinds of
foods to protein units.
Table 15. Generic factors used to convert preserved fi sh products to fresh whole animal equivalents
(FWAEs) weight.
Based on lower Mekong Basin data reviewed in Hortle (2007).
Product
Conversion Factor FWAE-
Protein content of fi nal
Edible Protein as % of
processed
product
FWAE weight
Salted/Dried Fish
2.82
50.6%
17.9%
Smoked Fish
2.50
39.8%
15.9%
Fish Paste
0.88
14.0%
15.9%
Fish Sauce
0.50
8.0%
15.9%
Fermented Fish
0.75
12.0%
15.9%
Table 16. Generic factors used for conversion of actual quantities consumed to protein units.
Based on lower Mekong Basin data reviewed in Hortle (2007).
Category
% protein
Poultry
19.0
Eggs
12.9
Pork
21.8
Beef
21.2
Wildlife
15.0
Insects
15.0
Goat/sheep
21.2
Fresh fi sh
19.9
Other Aquatic Animals (not fi sh)
16.3
Households were also asked to estimate the percentages of the consumption of each kind of
aquatic food which originated from capture, aquaculture, purchases or gifts for each individual
category in both wet and dry seasons. These percentages were converted to weights for each
household prior to calculating statistics.
Summary statistics were calculated over all households and converted to units of kg/
household/year. These data were then converted to units of kg/capita/year by dividing by the
average household size. Converting to units of kg/capita/year prior to calculating summary
statistics would produce incorrectly weighted values, as larger households tend to have
smaller per capita consumption. It should be noted that actual per capita consumption was not
measured, but the units are converted in this way to allow comparisons because household size
varies. Animal foods may also be converted to units of protein actually consumed, as shown in
Table 16.
Page 41

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Table 17 shows that reported consumption as FWAEs averaged 50.3 kg/capita/year, of which
about 40% was fresh fi sh, 16% was other aquatic animals, and 45% was preserved fi sh. Dried/
salted fi sh made up the largest share (41%) of preserved fi sh.
Table 17. Summary of reported consumption of fi sh and OAAs by 351 households in 27 villages as
fresh whole animal equivalents (FWAEs) kg/capita/year.
Statistics were weighted based on the sample frame. A single value for fresh fi sh plus OAAs was
reported, and `Fresh fi sh' and `OAA' quantities were estimated as proportions -- see text. Preserved
fi sh were reported as consumed and were converted to FWAEs for each household and then
summarised for this table.
Category
Mean 95% Confi dence Interval
% of
Median
Min..
Max
households
Lower
Upper
Fresh Fish and OAAs
27.9
23.4
32.3
100.0%
21.1
1.1
121.2
Fresh Fish est.
19.9
16.7
23.0
100.0%
15.0
0.8
86.4
OAA est.
8.0
6.7
9.3
100.0%
6.0
0.3
34.8
Fish Paste
0.3
0.2
0.5
21.9%
0.0
0.0
8.8
Other Fermented Fish
4.8
4.3
5.3
98.9%
4.0
0.0
23.7
Fish Sauce
2.8
2.6
3.0
98.5%
2.0
0.0
11.9
Smoked Fish
5.4
4.4
6.3
48.0%
0.0
0.0
131.7
Dried/salted Fish
9.2
6.5
11.9
66.9%
3.7
0.0
148.5
All Preserved Fish
22.5
18.9
26.0
99.7%
15.4
0.0
287.4
All Fish (Fresh and Preserved)
42.3
36.6
48.1
100.0%
33.4
6.1
298.7
All fi sh and OAAs
50.3
43.5
57.1
100.0%
40.5
6.4
303.2
20
Mean 249
18
Conf. Int 216 - 283
Median 201
16
Range 31 - 1502
14
12
17.9 17.4
10
14.8
8
13.7
c
entage of households
6
8.8
er
P
6.6
6.6
4
4.0
2
2.8
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
1.7
0
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.9
0-50
>900
151-200
101-150
51-100
401-450
351-400
301-350
251-300
201-250
601-650
551-600
501-550
451-500
751-800
701-750
651-700
851-900
801-850
Consumption (kg/household/year)
Distribution of consumption of all
Figure 23.
fi sh (fresh and preserved) and other aquatic animals by
351 households in the LSB, expressed as kg fresh whole animal equivalents (FWAEs).
Summary statistics are weighted by the sample frame.
Page 42

---

Results from the sample survey
Figure 23 shows that the distribution of household consumption of all fi sh and other aquatic
animals is somewhat skewed, but less extremely than the distribution of household catches.
Median consumption of 201 kg/household/year equates to about 41 kg/capita/year as a `typical'
consumption, or about 32 kg/capita/year as actual consumption (Table 18). Mean consumption
of 249 kg/household/year is less than the estimated catch of 207 kg/household/year, but the
difference is likely made up by aquaculture production of 22 kg/household/year as well as
imports of fi sh. Considering the level of precision in the data, the production and consumption
fi gures balance well.
Consumption in the entire lower Songkhram River Basin can be estimated by multiplying
mean household consumption by number of households (165,554), which produces an estimate
of 41.2 (35.6 ­ 46.8) kt/year as FWAEs.
Table 18. Summary of reported consumption of fi sh and OAAs and other meat foods by 351
households in 27 villages as actual consumption in kg/capita/year.
Statistics were weighted based on the sample frame. Fresh fi sh and OAAs was reported and `Fresh
fi sh' and `OAA' quantities were estimated as proportions (see text) then were converted to actual
weights to allow for losses during processing (see text). Preserved fi sh were reported as consumed as
shown in this table. Eggs were estimated to weigh 50 grams each and converted to kg.
Category
Mean
95% Confi dence
% of
Median
Min
Max.
Mean as
Interval
households
Protein
Lower
Upper
Fresh Fish est.
15.9
13.4
18.4
100.0%
12.0
0.6
69.1
2.66
OAA est.
3.9
3.3
4.5
100.0%
3.0
0.1
17.0
0.54
Fresh Fish and OAAs
19.8
16.7
23.0
100.0%
15.0
0.7
86.1
3.20
Fish Paste
0.4
0.2
0.5
21.9%
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.03
Fermented Fish
6.4
5.7
7.1
98.9%
5.3
0.0
31.6
0.68
Fish Sauce
5.6
5.1
6.1
98.5%
4.0
0.0
23.7
0.41
Smoked Fish
2.1
1.8
2.5
48.0%
0.0
0.0
52.7
0.70
Dried/salted Fish
3.3
2.3
4.2
66.9%
1.3
0.0
52.7
1.17
All Preserved Fish
17.7
16.0
19.5
99.7%
15.3
0.0
115.1
3.00
All Fish (Fresh and Preserved)
33.6
29.8
37.4
100.0%
29.1
7.2
126.0
5.66
All fi sh and OAAs
37.6
33.2
41.9
100.0%
31.8
7.6
137.9
6.20
Poultry
7.2
5.4
9.1
90.6%
5.3
0.0
110.6
1.03
Eggs
6.9
6.2
7.6
93.3%
5.3
0.0
31.6
0.80
Pork
5.5
4.5
6.6
91.2%
3.2
0.0
52.7
0.97
Beef
3.9
3.1
4.7
80.9%
2.1
0.0
42.1
0.67
Wildlife
0.8
0.2
1.4
14.2%
0.0
0.0
26.3
0.03
Insects
0.7
0.3
1.1
20.5%
0.0
0.0
36.9
0.05
Goat/sheep
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.4%
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.00
Terrestrial Animals
25.1
19.8
30.5
99.7%
15.8
0.0
284.4
3.56
All Meats and Fish and OAAs
62.7
55.8
69.6
100.0%
55.1
11.2
242.7
9.76
Page 43

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
In terms of actual consumption, as shown in Table 18, fi sh and other aquatic foods made
up about 60% of the weight of all meat and fi sh foods, while terrestrial meats comprised about
40%. Poultry and eggs were the most important terrestrial meats, together making up over half
of the total. Protein intake from all meat sources averaged 9.8 kg/capita/year, of which roughly
equal proportions were derived from fresh fi sh and OAAs, preserved fi sh, and terrestrial
animals (33%, 31% and 36% respectively). These actual intake fi gures show the dominant
contribution of aquatic foods to overall animal-derived protein intake, and by extension, the
importance of the wild capture fi shery to people's health.
In the questionnaire, participants were asked to itemise the proportion of each category of
fi sh and OAAs from capture, culture, purchase or a gift. For each household these proportions
were converted to actual weights prior to calculating statistics, which were then re-converted to
percentages. As shown in Figure 24, most (74%) of all fi sh and aquatic animals were reported to
be derived from capture by each household, and virtually all of the remainder was purchased.
The proportion of preserved fi sh that was purchased was higher than the proportion of fresh
fi sh (27% compared with 21%) but the difference (while possibly real) was not statistically
signifi cant because of high variance in the data.
100
90
80
70
60
% 50
40
74.4%
30
20
23.8%
10
1.6%
0.1%
0
Capture
Culture
Purchase
Gift
Sources of
Figure 24.
fi sh (including all preserved fi sh) and other aquatic animals in 351 households,
based on consumption as kg/household/year as FWAEs.
In the LSB catches vary seasonally, so not surprisingly fresh fi sh and OAAs are eaten in
signifi cantly greater quantities during the wet season than during the dry season, when mean
consumption was reported as about 32 and 24 kg/capita/year as FWAEs respectively (t-test,
p<0.01). Mean per capita consumption of preserved fi sh (all categories combined) during the
wet season was higher than during the dry (19 and 16 kg/capita/year as FWAEs respectively),
but this difference was not statistically signifi cant. Consumption of four of the fi ve main kinds
of preserved fi sh was not signifi cantly different between the wet and dry seasons, but smoked
fi sh was eaten in greater quantities during the wet season. These results suggest that people
Page 44

---

Results from the sample survey
eat rather constant quantities of preserved fi sh all year, but many households preserve fi sh by
smoking in the wet season and eat them shortly thereafter. Consumption in the wet season is
therefore greater than in the dry season both because more fresh fi sh/OAAs are eaten and also
because more smoked fi sh are eaten shortly after smoking them.
It might be expected that lower consumption of fi sh/OAAs in the dry season would lead to
increased consumption of other animals, especially domestic stock and poultry. There was a
slight seasonal difference apparent in consumption of terrestrial animals (26 and 24 kg/capita/
year in the dry and wet seasons respectively), but the difference was not statistically signifi cant,
nor was there any signifi cant (nor apparent) seasonal difference for the seven groups of
terrestrial animal foods.
Seasonality in food intake should be further investigated, for several reasons:
· questionnaires might be unreliable for this comparison as people often simply enter the
same quantities for both seasons;
· the study was carried out during the dry season, which might have infl uenced people's
recall of relative quantities; and
· high variance in the data and low effective sample size lead to limited power of tests to
detect differences; i.e. more samples are required to reduce the chance of Type II errors.
It seems likely that households that catch more fi sh and OAAs would also eat more of
these aquatic foods, but interestingly, there was no correlation between household catch and
household consumption (r2=0.051) and a wide scatter in the data. Households may have a
certain desired level of consumption and simply purchase food to make up any daily defi cit, or
preserve or sell food to reduce any daily surpluses. Daily and seasonal supply/demand balance
is clearly of considerable interest and relevance to development so should be investigated
further, and it may be fruitful to examine some representative households' situation in detail
rather than to collect more broadly based data.
4.3 Individual Sample Survey
During the household survey it was found that 499 people in total went fi shing part-time.
A total of 541 randomly selected people were then interviewed, and of these 428 people went
fi shing, so about 86% of all fi shers were interviewed. The intention of interviewing individual
fi shers was to get better and more detailed information on catches per fi sher with different gears
and by habitat. However, the data were diffi cult to interpret because each fi sher did not always
fi sh alone, but with variable numbers of other people (up to 10 people per trip), including both
other fi shers from the same household and possibly from other households, with the catch
divided. Moreover, some data on catches were incomplete. Individual data were therefore not
used to estimate total catches, and the approach of using `household catches' as followed above
is recommended for future studies in the LMB where household fi shing is the norm.
Page 45

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
A useful result from the interviews of individual fi shers was obtained from questioning
about recall of their most recent fi shing trip, which provided information about fi shing and
catches at the time of the survey, which was carried out during the dry season of January to May
in the year 2000.
Table 19. Summary of responses from 295 individual fi shers about their most recent fi shing trip,
expressed as values (above) and percentages (below).
Note that some fi shers managed more than one `operation' each trip and/or used more than one kind
of gear within each gear type. Typical catch is the catch that they believed was typical for the gear
and habitat being fi shed.
Gear Type
Operations
People
Units in use
Total Catch
Sum of Estimated
(kg)
Typical Catches (kg)
Bag-nets
2
7
3
2.0
1.3
Big traps
2
6
2
13.0
4.0
Cast-nets
138
196
141
156.8
276.6
Collection
20
23
20
17.6
22.4
Gill-nets
93
133
237
120.4
170.4
Hooks
15
20
1382
18.7
42.6
Lift-nets
19
30
20
22.1
39.2
Scoop-nets
33
50
33
23.2
22.0
Small traps
23
38
715
33.3
52.0
Spears
2
2
2
0.7
1.2
Total
347
505
2555
407.8
631.6
Gear Type
Operations
People
Units in use
Total Catch
Sum of Estimated
(kg)
Typical Catches (kg)
Bag-nets
0.6%
1.4%
0.1%
0.5%
0.2%
Big traps
0.6%
1.2%
0.1%
3.2%
0.6%
Cast-nets
39.8%
38.8%
5.5%
38.5%
43.8%
Collection
5.8%
4.6%
0.8%
4.3%
3.5%
Gill-nets
26.8%
26.3%
9.3%
29.5%
27.0%
Hooks
4.3%
4.0%
54.1%
4.6%
6.7%
Lift-nets
5.5%
5.9%
0.8%
5.4%
6.2%
Scoop-nets
9.5%
9.9%
1.3%
5.7%
3.5%
Small traps
6.6%
7.5%
28.0%
8.2%
8.2%
Spears
0.6%
0.4%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table 19 shows that the fi shers caught a total of about 408 kg of fi sh and other aquatic
animals during their most recent trip. Although only 295 fi shers responded to this question,
their answers represented 505 people, i.e. themselves as well as 210 others who fi shed with
them during their most recent trip. The total number of fi shers present during the most
recent trip (505) closely approximates the total estimated number of fi shers in the surveyed
households (499), so the responses can be assumed to represent a snapshot of total `recent trip'
Page 46

---

Results from the sample survey
fi shing activity across the 353 surveyed households. Because there were on average 176 trips/
year/household, an estimate for total catch from all households based on these data is 176 x
407.8 = 71,773 kg, or 203 kg/household/year (over all 353 households), an estimate which is
remarkably similar to the estimate of 207 kg/household/year based on long-term recall. Short-
term recall (usually of the previous 24 hours) is often considered to produce the most accurate
estimates in interviews, so this concordance of results supports the catch estimate obtained
in the household survey. Interestingly, the fi shers judged that their catches overall were about
65% of their usual (i.e. typical) catches, which might be expected given the timing of the
survey during the dry season, so perhaps using their most recent catches actually leads to an
underestimate for total annual catches.
Fishers used 10 main kinds of gear (Table 20 and 21) and 27 types within these main
categories. Although fi shers used up to four types of gear, most fi shers (275 or 93.2%) used
only one type of gear in the previous 24 hours, but some used more than one sub-type of a
gear within the main type. For example, one fi sher used six different kinds of small traps and
fi ve fi shers used both drifting and stationary gill-nets; because each sub-type was treated as a
separate `operation' the total number of `operations' was 347.
Most fi shing operations were in swamps or small streams, consistent with the data from
long-term recall in the household survey. Gillnets and cast-nets were the most commonly used
gears and caught the most fi sh. Table 20 shows that many gears were being used across a range
of habitats, but there was some selective use of gears in certain habitats; e.g. cast-nets were used
disproportionately in swamps and small streams.
Table 20. The percentage of the total operations (347) in each habitat using each type of gear for the
most recent fi shing trip.
Habitat
Bag
Big
Cast
Coll.
Gill-
Hooks
Lift
Scoop
Small
Spears
Sum
nets
traps
nets
nets
nets
nets
traps
Man-made Reservoir
1.7%
0.3%
3.4%
0.6%
0.9%
0.3%
7.1%
Natural Lake
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
1.1%
Natural Swamp
0.3%
20.3%
2.6%
8.0%
0.9%
1.1%
4.0%
4.0%
0.6%
41.7%
Perennial River
0.3%
2.0%
6.3%
1.1%
0.3%
10.0%
Pond
2.6%
0.3%
1.1%
0.3%
4.3%
Seasonal Canal
0.6%
0.6%
Small Stream
0.3%
10.6%
0.9%
6.6%
1.4%
2.3%
1.7%
0.6%
24.3%
Wet Rice Flood
0.3%
0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
1.7%
Inundated
Wet Rice Irrigated
0.3%
0.3%
Wet Rice Rain fed
2.3%
0.9%
0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
3.4%
0.9%
8.9%
Total Nos.
0.6%
0.6%
40.0%
5.7%
26.9%
4.3%
5.4%
9.4%
6.6%
0.6% 100.0%
Page 47

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Table 21. The percentage of the total catch of 407.8 kg caught by each type of gear in each kind of
habitat in recent fi shing trip catches.
Habitat
Bag
Big
Cast
Coll,
Gill-
Hooks
Lift
Scoop
Small
Spears
Grand
nets
traps
nets
nets
nets
nets
traps
Total
Man made Reservoir
0.6%
0.1%
6.0%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
7.8%
Natural Lake
1.1%
0.1%
0.7%
2.0%
Natural Swamp
2.9%
17.8%
1.8%
9.5%
0.7%
0.7%
3.6%
5.3%
0.2%
42.5%
Perennial River
0.2%
1.6%
5.8%
1.0%
0.7%
9.3%
Seasonal Canal
0.2%
0.2%
Small Stream
0.2%
13.2%
0.7%
5.7%
1.3%
2.3%
0.7%
0.5%
24.6%
Wet Rice Flood
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
1.2%
Inundated
Wet Rice Irrigated
0.2%
0.2%
Wet Rice Rain fed
1.6%
0.2%
0.4%
1.1%
1.0%
1.3%
0.9%
6.5%
Pond
3.5%
1.0%
0.9%
0.2%
5.6%
Sum
0.5%
3.2%
38.5%
4.3%
29.5%
4.6%
5.4%
5.7%
8.2%
0.2% 100.0%
Table 21 shows that the most productive habitat-gear combinations in terms of total catches
were cast-nets used in swamps and small streams, with gillnets and small traps also producing
high catches when used in swamps. These data confi rm the importance of these habitats and
gears as interpreted from the household data.
Fishers were asked to itemise the weight of their most recent catch and the proportion of the
catch made up of the fi ve most abundant species. These percentages were converted to weights
and the total weights of each species caught by each gear in each habitat were calculated. The
catch records included 872 individual records of species. Data are summarised by species in
Appendix 11. Fishers itemised 56 species of fi sh and 8 taxa of other aquatic animals (OAAs).
Fish made up about 93% of the total weight of the catch, but OAAs are likely to be under-
represented in these catches during the dry season, as most OAAs (amphibians, snails, aquatic
insects and rice fi eld crabs) are found in greatest abundance in fl ooded rice fi elds. Only two
species of exotic fi shes were identifi ed, Nile tilapia and common carp, comprising only 2.4%
and 0.05% of the catch by weight, so the fauna is almost entirely (97.5%) indigenous.
Figure 25 shows that eight species made up about 76% of the catch of fi sh, and these
included three widespread `black fi sh' taxa: (Channa striata, Clarias macrocephalus and
Anabas testudineus), air-breathing fi sh that live their entire lives in still or slow-fl owing water
bodies. These eight species were similarly dominant in terms of occurrence in catches, making
up 69% of individual species-catch records.
Figure 26 shows the relative importance of black fi sh and white or grey fi sh1 ; of the black
1 Black fi sh are air-breathing fi sh that can spend their entire lives on fl oodplain habitats and are well-defi ned morphologically and
behaviourally. Grey and white fi sh migrate short and long distances respectively from rivers and streams onto fl ood plains to feed;
they are intolerant of anoxia and generally require dry-season refuges in well-oxygenated water, typically deep pools. There are
insuffi cient data to classify many Mekong system fi shes as grey or white, so they are combined in one group here.
Page 48

---

Results from the sample survey
fi sh most (50%) were snakeheads (Channidae), 35% were walking catfi sh (Clariidae), and 11%
were climbing perch (Anabantidae). Of the white or grey fi sh, 76% were cyprinids, 15% were
bagrid catfi sh and 4% were featherbacks (Notopteridae).
Channa striata
17.8%
Other
Clarias macrocephalus
11.7%
Henicorhynchus siamensis
4.4
Barbonymus gonionotus
4.4%
Anabas testudineus
4.1%
Mystus singaringan
7.3%
Osteochilus hasseltii
Labiobarbus lineatus
16.4%
9.6%
The percentage of the eight most abundant species of
Figure 25.
fi sh in the most recent catches of 298
responding fi shers.
Omnivorous fish
Black fish
Carnivorous fish
42.5%
37.3%
36.9%
White or grey fish
61.7%
Unidentified fish
Unidentified fish
1.0%
1.0%
Herbivorous fish
19.5%
The proportion by weight of black and white or grey
Figure 26.
fi sh in recent fi sh catches (left) and
the proportion of fi sh categorised by trophic group (right).
Fish species and categories are shown in Appendix 11.
Page 49

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Despite the extent of rice fi elds and other fl oodplain habitats favoured by black fi sh, white
or grey fi sh (those that live in fl owing waters for most of their lives) made up most of the total
catch of indigenous fi sh, as shown in Figure 26, confi rming the importance of streams and
rivers to which white and grey fi shes must return in the dry season, as they are intolerant of
anoxia and the extreme conditions in residual fl oodplain habitats.
Overall, the fi sh catch comprised mainly omnivores and carnivores, with herbivores of less
importance. Within the black fi sh group, carnivores were dominant, comprising 85% of the
weight of catches, with the remaining 15% comprising omnivores. Black fi sh live in rice fi elds
and swamps, where insects, frogs, crabs and small fi sh are seasonally abundant and can support
a carnivore assemblage. Within the white/grey fi sh group, about 60% of the catch comprised
omnivores, 32% herbivores, and only 9% comprised carnivores. The relatively low proportion
of carnivores in the white/grey fi sh catch may refl ect some degree of `fi shing-down' of the
larger species found in rivers and streams, an expected effect of fi shing pressure, which appears
to be high. Nevertheless, it is likely that the fi sh assemblage is quite resilient and adapted to
fi shing pressure, as is considered a typical characteristic of fl oodplain fi sheries (Welcomme,
2001).
Page 50

---

5. Conclusions and recommendations
This study has produced useful quantitative information on a large and representative sample of
villages and households in the lower Songkhram River Basin. The main fi ndings from the study
can be summarised as follows.
The census of 776 village leaders produced a very high proportion of returns, but many
returns did not provide reliable data for quantities (such as gears). While the preparation
and training for the survey were adequate, it was somewhat over-ambitious to ask too many
questions of anonymous respondents, especially where numerical estimates were involved.
In future, more explanation should accompany census forms, questions requiring numerical
estimates should be minimised, and the survey plan should include following-up on incomplete
or incorrect forms by visiting village leaders and/or returning their forms with explanations
and requests for corrected information. The most useful information resulted from categorical
questions (such as rating the current status of fi sheries) so future censuses should focus on
such questions. The village census has been interpreted assuming that respondents were
representative, as seems realistic based on the similarity of some results to the sample survey,
but any future surveys should test this assumption.
Some key fi ndings of the village census were:
· Fisheries are important or very important for income in about 89% of villages and for
food in about 99% of villages.
· About 80% of households fi sh part-time and about 6% fi sh commercially, about 19% of
households do not fi sh.
· Most village leaders (56%) believed that the fi sheries situation had worsened over the
previous fi ve years and only 28% felt that fi sheries were better.
· The main reasons given for fi sheries being worse was less fi sh, more fi shers or both, but
habitat change and over-fi shing were also signifi cant. Where fi sheries were considered
to have become better the main reason was improved prices or profi t, but habitat
improvement was considered the most signifi cant factor improving catches.
· About half of the villages reported they had set up community-based fi sheries
management strategies which aimed to implement such measures as `no-fi shing' or
conservation areas, closed seasons and gear restrictions.
· When asked how the government could improve fi sheries, village leaders most
commonly requested improving habitat for wild fi sh and stocking natural water bodies
Page 51

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
with fry, and there was apparently relatively little support for aquaculture. These results
should be very useful in informing government efforts to improve fi sheries.
· The village census showed that modern gears such as cast nets, gillnets and hooks, as
well as some traditional gears such as small traps are widespread and found in almost all
villages, but the census did not produce accurate estimates of gear numbers.
The sample survey of 353 households within 27 randomly sampled villages produced
more reliable quantitative data than the census, because surveyors `on-the-ground' could
verify and check numerical values, but could not obtain the broad coverage of the census. The
clustered-random design resulted in smaller effective sample sizes than would result from a
simple random sample of households, which then caused lower precision than desirable for
the mean estimates for some variables. Consideration should be given to stratifying villages
and households prior to surveying, particularly for catch and aquaculture production, as these
variables are particularly skewed by some high-catch fi shing households or by aquaculture
households which are likely to be concentrated in certain areas. Increasing the number of
villages (and sampling fewer households per village) may also lead to more precise estimates
for some variables.
The main fi ndings of the sample survey of the 27 village leaders were as follows:
· Information was collected and summarised on the general socioeconomic situation of
the households, which are considered typical of those within the lower Songkhram River
Basin.
· Most village land (80%) is agricultural and most (95%) of this is rice paddies.
· About 43% of the land fl oods for at least one month per year, providing extensive habitat
for wild fi sh production.
· Aquaculture was of limited importance in the surveyed villages; only 15% of households
owned ponds and most were not being actively managed for aquaculture and only 3% of
households owned fi sh cages.
· The most important economic activities for households were labour (non-fi sheries), cash
remittance (i.e. sent to the household by family members working elsewhere) and rice
farming, for 42%, 27% and 17% of households respectively.
· The most important activities for subsistence were rice-farming, capture fi sheries and
livestock farming, practised by 92%, 92% and 82% of household respectively.
The main fi ndings of the sample survey of 353 households were as follows.
· Households comprised between 1 and 10 people, with an average of 4.95 people/
household.
Page 52

---

Conclusions and recommendations
· About 68% of all people were in the workforce, i.e. they had a full- or part-time job.
There were very few full-time fi shers, only about 0.2% of the workforce, but 42%
of the workforce classed themselves as part-time fi shers. Other fi sheries activities or
aquaculture were of very minor importance. Most of the workforce (75%) classed
themselves as full-time rice farmers, but 36% were both rice-farmers and fi shers.
· About 93% of households had at least one full-time rice farmer, and about 93% of
households had at least one part-time fi sher so were classed as part-time fi shing
households, a similar percentage to that estimated by village leaders. These occupations
dominated household economic activities, and about 89% were both rice-farming and
fi shing households.
· Farming and fi shing were overwhelmingly the most important activities for household
food supply, while farming, various kinds of trading or businesses and wage labour were
the main sources of income. Fisheries were relatively unimportant for income: about 28%
of households sold wild fi sh, about 4% sold aquaculture-products, and about 13% made
money from other fi sheries-related activities.
· Males and females both engaged in a range of occupations. Gender differences include:
about 74% of part-time fi shers were male, about 60% of fi sh processors were women,
about 92% of handicraft workers were women and about 89% of government workers
were male.
· The most important activities for household food supply were rice farming, fi shing and
fi sh processing, and the most common income-earning activities were wage labour, rice
farming and other farming, but other activities, including selling fi sh, were also common.
About 84% of households rated both fi sheries and rice farming as important for food.
· Households owned on average 2.5 ha of land, of which most was rice paddies, and most
households also owned livestock or poultry.
· About 93% of households owned gear and went fi shing; households owned on average
three kinds of gear, the most common being gillnets, cast nets and hooks.
· Fishing effort varies about two-fold during the year and is least intense during the dry
season (November ­ April), intermediate intensity during the early wet (May ­ July), and
most intense during the wet season (August ­ October).
· Households accessed up to fi ve kinds of habitats and travelled up to three hours to
fi sh, but the average travel time was 17 minutes. The most-fi shed habitats were natural
swamps, wet rice-rainfed paddies, reservoirs, small streams, and perennial rivers. The
highest catches/trip were in natural habitats, such as swamps, lakes, small streams and
perennial rivers. Compared to their area, these natural habitats were disproportionately
targeted by fi shers compared for example to rice paddies which cover most of the
landscape.
Page 53

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
· Fishing households fi shed on average for 127 days per year to catch 222 kg of fi sh
and other aquatic animals; averaged over all households the annual catch was 207 kg/
household/year. Over the entire lower Songkhram River Basin the catch estimate is about
34.3 (26.2 ­ 42.4) kt/year.
· About 32% of households owned ponds, but only 23% used them for aquaculture and
only two households had fi sh cages. Total aquaculture production was about 22 kg/
household/year, but much of this may have been wild fi sh trapped in ponds during the
fl ood recession. From the entire LSB, aquaculture production is estimated as about 3,708
tonnes, or approximately 10% of the entire fi shery production including both capture and
culture fi sheries.
· Consumption of all fi sh and other aquatic animals as FWAEs was about 50.3 kg/person/
year, or about 249 kg/household/year, which balances with the catch estimates allowing
for aquaculture and imports as well as the level of precision in the data. For the entire
LSB consumption is estimated at 41.2 (35.6 ­ 46.8) kt/year.
· Fish and other aquatic foods made up about 60% of the weight of all animal protein
actually consumed. The most important terrestrial meats were poultry and eggs. Fresh
fi sh and OAAs, preserved fi sh, and terrestrial meats contributed about 33%, 31% and
37% respectively of animal protein intake in people's diets.
· Most fi sh and OAAs are caught by households for their own consumption (74.4% on
average) and the remainder is purchased. Households eat more fresh fi sh and OAAs
during the wet than during the dry season, but similar amounts of most types of preserved
fi sh in each season, with the exception that more smoked fi sh is apparently eaten during
the wet season. Smoking fi sh may be a short-term way of preservation. There was no
apparent difference in seasonal consumption of other meats.
· Households that catch more do not appear to eat more fi sh and OAAs. It seems probable
that households regulate their day-to-day consumption by preserving catches and by
buying and selling for their daily needs. Household food supply/demand balance and
seasonality would be interesting subjects for further study.
The main fi ndings from interviews of 428 individual fi shers about their most recent catches
were:
· The most commonly used gears were cast-nets, gillnets and various kinds of traps, and
most effort and catches were in swamps and small streams, as might be expected because
the interviews were carried out during the dry season.
· Extrapolation from the most recent catches (short-term recall) gave a total catch over all
households of 203 kg/household/year (41.0 kg/person/year), remarkably similar to the
estimate from long-term recall of 207 kg/household/year (41.8 kg/person/year).
Page 54

---

Conclusions and recommendations
· The fauna is largely indigenous. Fishers caught about 56 species of fi sh and 8 taxa of
OAAs, of which only two species (of fi sh) were exotic and both were caught made up a
small proportion of catches. About 93% of these dry season catches comprised fi sh and
7% comprised OAAs.
· The fi sh catch comprised about 37% black fi sh and 62% white/grey fi sh, with 1%
unidentifi ed, showing the importance of rivers and streams to the fi shery.
· About 37% by weight of the fi sh catch comprised carnivores, 42% comprised omnivores
and 21% herbivores. Most of the black fi sh catch comprised carnivores whereas most
of the white/grey fi sh catch was omnivores or herbivores. Trophic diversity is partly a
consequence of a diversity of habitats and may result in some level of resilience to fi shing
pressure.
Overall, the study showed that in the year 2000 fi shing was of considerable importance for
people living in the lower Songkhram River Basin. Typically, households include rice-farmers
and part-time fi shers, but the importance of fi shing is under-recognised offi cially. Despite
extensive modifi cation of the landscape, the wild capture fi shery, dependent on remnant natural
habitats and the natural fl ood-pulse, contributed on average about two thirds of the household
intake of animal protein. The importance of the capture fi shery to nutrition should be given
appropriate weight in government policy on development within the LSB. Most villagers
perceived that the fi shery situation was getting worse because of increasing fi shing pressure
and habitat degradation, but there is also a strong perception that government can improve the
situation by improving habitat and enforcing fi sheries regulations. There was relatively little
development of aquaculture within the LSB and relatively little support for government aid to
aquaculture compared to support for the capture fi shery.
Comparisons with other studies
The lower Songkhram River Basin is the last system in northeast Thailand which still fl oods
in a natural pattern each year and which is still connected to the Mekong. It seems reasonable
to assume that other large tributaries in this region, for example the Mun-Chi system, would
have supported similar fl oodplain fi sheries prior to their alteration by water management
schemes. However, there are no quantitative baseline data that could be usefully used to test this
assumption.
Saengrut (1998) interviewed a representative sample of 180 households spread through the
lower Chi valley, an area where rivers and streams have been modifi ed by dams and where the
landscape is largely deforested and intensively farmed, and where most farmers believe the
wild fi shery has seriously declined in productivity. Nevertheless, 81.1% of respondents went
fi shing each year, commonly in swamps, wetlands and rice fi elds, a similar percentage to that
recorded in this study. Cast-nets, gillnets and lift nets were the most commonly used gears and
53 species of fi sh were recorded, compared with 56 in this study. About 68% of households
Page 55

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
had trap ponds compared with only 32% in this study. The total wild fi sh catch was about 36.4
kg/person/year, of which 54% was from trap ponds and 46% was from fi shing1 . This catch
estimate is about 87% of the estimate for catches of fi sh plus OAAs (41.8 kg/person/year) from
the lower Songkhram River Basin, and if OAAs had been included in Saengrut's study (see
comparative estimates in Table 24 below) it is likely that the per capita fi sheries production
from the lower Chi area would in fact be very similar to or possibly even higher that from
the lower Songkhram River. Therefore, the wild fi shery continues to be very important in the
lower Chi, an area where most people believe it has seriously declined, because farmers can
compensate to some extent for the loss of natural aquatic resources by building trap ponds
which provide dry-season refuges as well as improving the effi ciency of capture. Aquaculture
in the lower Chi study was only being practised by about 22% of households (similar to 23%
in this survey) and aquaculture production added only 1.4 kg/person/year, or about 4% of the
total production. Despite a signifi cant effort on extension and the availability of government-
supplied fry, most farmers in the lower Chi (as in the lower Songkhram River Basin) were not
interested in aquaculture for a range of reasons, including technical problems, lack of capital
and theft. The wild fi shery clearly shows more promise, particularly for poor or landless people,
but suffers from its status as a common-property resource. Trap ponds provide some degree of
protection for the wild fi shery, reasonable security of ownership of most of the fi sh for farmers,
are relatively low-tech and also can support other uses. It is therefore not surprising that trap
ponds are becoming increasingly common throughout northeast Thailand.
The number of species recorded by fi shers in this study (56) is much less than the total
number of 146 listed for the Songkhram River Basin by Yingcharoen and Virapat (1998),
probably because of limited coverage of habitats and because only dry-season catches were
recorded in this study. Fishers may also have combined some similar species under one name.
Based on the comparative data in Table 22, the estimated yield per unit area from the
LSB wetlands of 78.9 (60.2 ­ 97.5) kg/ha appears to be well within the range which would be
expected from a system which comprises mainly seasonally fl ooded rice fi elds and remnant
forest and swamp. Hence it would be incorrect to conclude that the Songkhram River is
unusually productive for the region, rather it is likely that when seasonal fl ooding is maintained
or if it were to be restored in other lowland parts of the basin, similar yields can be expected.
The consumption fi gures recorded in this study can be compared with those found during
other household studies in northeast Thailand and in Lao PDR (Table 23).
The the consumption values from the LSB are quite similar to the estimates from other
studies in northeast Thailand. Given possible errors in the data, (for example the other studies
probably under-estimated preserved fi sh as they did not include all categories), there is little
basis for suggesting any difference in total per capita consumption of fi sh and OAAs in different
parts of northeast Thailand.
1 The trap pond production seems reasonable because yield per unit area can be high. For example, Middendorp (1992) reported
an average yield of 209 kg/ha (based on the area of ricefi elds) of wild fi sh from trap ponds in one area of northeast Thailand.
Page 56

---

Conclusions and recommendations
Table 22. Comparative data for yield per unit area.
Mekong System - Floodplains
Study Area
Habitats
Yield (kg/ha/year)
Composition
Comment
Source
Mekong Delta Floodplain, deepwater flooded areas
Rice fields, blackwater area
42 ­ 63
Fish 46.9% OAAs 53.1%
Intensive monitoring at one site
de Graaf and Chinh (2000)
Mekong Delta Floodplain, deepwater flooded areas
Rice fields, non-acid area
80 ­ 119
Fish 88.9%, OAAs 11.1%
Intensive monitoring at one site
Battambong, near Great Lake, Cambodia
Rice fields, single crop rain fed
66 ­ 165, mean 119
Fish 76.5%, OAAs 23.4%
Yields from 10 plots of 25 ha each, monitoring of all catches
Troeung et al. (2005)
Northeast Thailand
Rice fields, wild fish
25-125
Fish
Range from one study in Khu Khat
Little et al. (1996)
Rice fields, wild and stocked
56 ­ 303
Range from two sites
Uplands, Lao PDR
Rice fields, stocked with fry
31 ­ 640 per crop
Fish, mostly exotic
Range from several studies, approximate
Funge Smith (1999b)
Prey Veng, Cambodia
Rice fields, single-crop, former forest
55
Fish
Troeung et al. (2003)
Includes only large and middle-scale fisheries catches in fishing lots,
Prey Veng, Cambodia
Degraded forest 31% cover and rice fields, single crop
92
Fish
does not include artisanal catch
Battambong, near Great Lake, Cambodia
Flooded forest
95
Fish
Other rivers - Floodplains - wild fish
Study Area
Habitats
Yield (kg/ha/year)
Composition
Comment
Source
Africa, South America, Asia
Tropical floodplain rivers
typically 40 ­ 60, range 7 ­ 143
Fish?
Review of data
Welcomme (1985) p. 214 and Table 7.13
Bangladesh
Unregulated Floodplains 8 studies
51 ­ 215
Fish
Intensively fished
Ali (1997) Table 31
Bangladesh
Floodplain enclosed by levees
77 ­ 102
Fish
Intensively fished
Ali (1997) Table 33 - non-stocked yield only
Bangladesh
Open floodplain
423 ­ 574
Fish
Intensively fished
Ali (1997) Table 33 - non-stocked yield only
Bangladesh
Floodplain low-lying areas with permanent water bodies 165
Fish
Intensively fished
de Graaf et al. (2001)
Bangladesh
Floodplain seasonally inundated
83
Fish
Intensively fished
Bangladesh
Rivers and riparian land
102 ­ 157
Fish
Intensively fished
Bangladesh
Floodplain -- Natural
104 ­ 130
Fish
Intensively fished
Halls et al. (1999)
Floodplain -- Modified
51 ­ 81
Fish
Intensively fished
Malaysia
Rice fields, wild fish
68 ­ 140
Fish
Double rice cropping, artisanal fishery
Tan et al. (1973), cited in Fernando (1993) Table 3
Crude Estimates from the LMB, not based on exact areas
or measured yields
Study Area
Habitats
Yield (kg/ha/year)
Composition
Comment
Source
Tonle Sap system
Floodplain, total
230
Fish?
Crude estimate.
Baran, van Zalinge, Ngor, Baird, and Coates (2001)
Tonle Sap floodplain
Floodplain, total for 1995 ­ 99
139 ­ 190
Fish?
Crude estimate.
Lieng and van Zalinge (2001)
Estimates based on catches, villages may not be representative,
Prey Veng, single rice rain fed, low-moderate yield
Rice fields
50 ­ 100
Fish?
Guttman (1999)
approximate area
Page 57

---

Socio-economics of the fisheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Table 23. Comparison of consumption results from this study with other studies in northeast Thailand
and Lao PDR. All units are kg/capita/year as FWAEs (fresh whole animal equivalent weights).
Note that in this study and in Luang Phabang inland fresh fish and OAAs were recorded as a single
category which was then apportioned to fish and OAAs based on the proportions recorded in
Champassak.
Study area
Northeast Thailand
Lao PDR
Category
Five Provinces
Khon Kaen
Lower Songkhram
Champassak,
Luang Phabang,
& Nakhon
River Basin
southern Lao PDR northern Lao PDR
Ratchasima
Fresh Fish
21.3
30.1
19.9
25.6
11.36
Fermented Fish
4.0

4.8
5.1
2.0
Fish Paste


0.3
0.0
0.3
Fish Sauce


2.8
0.0
0.5
Smoked Fish


5.4
0.1
0.9
Salted Dried Fish

6.4
9.2
6.4
12.4
Preserved Fish
4.0
6.4
22.5
11.6
16.2
Total Inland Fish
25.3
36.5
42.3
37.2
27.5
Total OAAs
7.8

8.0
10.3
4.6
Inland Fish + OAAs
33.1

50.3
47.5
32.1
Canned fish marine
5.9
1.4

0.5
0.5
Total Fish
39.0
37.9
42.3
37.7
28.0






Data sources
Prapertchob et al. Piumsomboun
This study
Hortle (2007)
Sjorslev (2000)
(1989)
(2001)
Compared with the LSB, in other parts of northeast Thailand there is probably less
consumption of wild-capture fish from natural habitats (especially as preserved fish), but
to compensate people eat more fish caught from trap ponds as well as eating fish grown
in aquaculture and marine products. The LSB results also appear very similar to those for
Champassak Province, where data were weighted to reflect that 92% of the population live
on the floodplain or along the river system and are still largely dependent on fisheries for
subsistence, as they are in the lower Songkhram River Basin. In northern Lao PDR, people
consume somewhat less aquatic foods, as might be expected in a more mountainous terrain with
limited seasonally inundated areas.
The LSB figures can also be compared with consumption estimates for the entire LSB, based
on the review of Hortle (2007) as shown in Table 24. The estimates for the lower Songkhram
River Basin are above-average for total inland fish and OAAs, and higher than country averages
for all countries except Cambodia, which has large fisheries around the Tonle Sap -- Mekong
floodplains. The LSB has a much higher proportion of preserved fish than country averages,
which seems consistent with extreme seasonality and reliance on capture fisheries in the LSB.
The consumption lower Songkhram River Basin of all aquatic animal foods is identical to that
estimated for the lower Mekong Basin mean; elsewhere in northeast Thailand and also in Viet
Nam marine products compensate for lower consumption of inland fishery products.
Page 58

---

Conclusions and recomendations
Table 24. Comparison of estimates of mean consumption in lower Songkhram River Basin with those
from countries in the LMB.
OAA (other aquatic animals), fresh whole animal equivalent weights (FWAEs). Country estimates
from Hortle (2007).
Categories
Estimated consumption in the LMB (kg/capita/year as FWAEs)
Cambodia
Lao PDR
Thailand
Viet Nam
LMB
Lower
Weighted
Songkhram
Average
River Basin
Inland Fresh Fish
27.4
17.5
21.3
27.4
24.1
19.9
Inland Preserved Fish
14.8
17.1
10.7
12.2
12.5
22.5
Total Inland Fish
42.2
34.6
32.0
39.5
36.6
42.3
Inland OAAs
9.2
8.4
8.5
9.2
8.8
8.0
Inland Fish plus OAAs
51.4
43.0
40.5
48.7
45.5
50.3
Marine Products
1.0
0.5
5.8
7.4
4.9
0.0
Total Fish and OAAs
52.4
43.5
46.2
56.1
50.3
50.3
Page 59

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 60

---

6. References
Ali, Y. (1997) Fish, Water and People. Refl ections on Inland Openwater Fisheries Resources of
Bangladesh. The University Press Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh. 126 pages.
Andersson, P.G. (2004) Alternative confi dence intervals for the total of a skewed biological
population. Ecology 85 3166 ­ 3171.
Baran, E., van Zalinge, N., Ngor, P.B., Baird, I. and Coates, D. (2001) Fish Resources and
Hydro-biological Modelling Approaches in the Mekong Basin. ICLARM, Penang,
Malaysia, and the Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 61 pages.
Blake, D.J.H. (2006) The Songkhram River wetlands -- a critical fl oodplain ecosystem of the
lower Mekong Basin. International River Symposium 06, Brisbane, Australia: 1 ­ 25.
Coates, D. (2002) Inland capture fi shery statistics of southeast Asia: current status and
information needs. RAP Publication 2002/11: 1 ­ 114. FAO Regional Offi ce for Asia and
the Pacifi c Bangkok, Thailand.
DCD (1999) Summary of Basic Information at the Village level for Thailand. Report by Khon
Kaen University, Chiang Mai University, Thamasart University and Prince of Songkhla
University for the Department of Community Development, Thailand. (Report and CD in
Thai). 52 pages.
de Graaf, G.J. & Chinh, N.D. (2000) Floodplain Fisheries in the Southern Provinces of
Vietnam. 9 pages. www.nefi sco.org/downloads/Vietnam.pdf
de Graaf, G., Born, B., Uddin, A.M.K., & Marttin, F. (2001) Floods Fish and Fishermen. Eight
Years Experiences with Flood Plain Fisheries, Fish Migration, Fisheries Modelling and
Fish Bio Diversity in the Compartmentalization Pilot Project, Bangladesh. (1st Edn).
Mohiuddin Ahmed, The University Press Limited, Bangladesh. 110 pages.
Fernando, C.H. (1993) Rice-fi eld ecology and fi sh culture -- an overview. Hydrobiologia 259
91 ­ 113.
Funge-Smith, S.J. (1999) Small-scale rural aquaculture in Lao PDR (Part 2). FAO Aquaculture
Newsletter 23 1 ­ 4.
Guttman, H. (1999) Rice-fi eld Fisheries -- A Resource for Cambodia. AIT Aqua Outreach
Unpublished Paper, Pathumthani, Thailand. 4 pages.
Page 61

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Halls, A.S., Hoggarth, D.D., & Debnath, K. (1999) Impacts of hydraulic engineering on
the dynamics and production potential of fl oodplain fi sh populations in Bangladesh.
Fisheries Management and Ecology 6 261 ­ 285
Hortle, K.G. (2007) Consumption and the yield of fi sh and other aquatic animals in the lower
Mekong River Basin. MRC Technical Paper No. 16. Mekong River Commission,
Vientiane, Lao PDR. 88 pages + plates.
Hortle, K.G., Troeung R. & Lieng, S. (in press) Yield of the wild fi shery of rice fi elds in
Battambang Province, near the Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia. MRC Technical Paper 18.
Kasetsart University (1996) Final Report on Socio-economic Impact Assessment for People
to be Resettled from the area of the Lower Songkhram Dam. Faculty of Economics,
Kasetsart University. Dept of Energy Development and Promotion, Ministry of Science,
Technology and Development, Bangkok. (In Thai).
Khon Kaen University (1996) Study Report on Impacts on boong thaam arising from building
a Reservoir in the Nam Songkhram Project. Final Environmental Impact Assessment
Report Vol. 2. Dept of Energy Development and Promotion, Ministry of Science,
Technology and Development, Bangkok. (In Thai).
Khon Kaen University (1997) Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan Resulting
from Water Storage in the Mainstream of the Nam Songkhram Project. Final Report.
Dept of Energy Development and Promotion, Ministry of Science, Technology and
Development, Bangkok. (In Thai).
Lieng, S., Prak, L.H., Troeung, R. & Hortle K.G. (2006) Standing crop and fi sh species
association in Cambodian fl oodplains. MRC Conference Series 6: 33 ­ 45.
Little, D.C., Surintaraseree, P., & Innes-Taylor, N. (1996) Fish culture in rainfed ricefi elds of
northeast Thailand. Aquaculture 140 295 ­ 321.
Middendorp, H.A.J. (1992) Contribution of stocked and wild fi sh in rice fi elds to fi sh
production and farmer nutrition in northeast Thailand. Asian Fisheries Science 5
145 ­ 161.
MRC (2003) State of the Basin Report 2003. Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh,
Cambodia, 300 pages.
MRCS/WUP-FIN (2006) Impact Assessment Report. WUP-FIN Phase 2 -- Hydrological,
Environmental and Socio-Economic Modelling Tools for the Lower Mekong Basin
Impact Assessment. Mekong River Commission and Finnish Environment Institute
Consultancy Consortium, Vientiane, Lao PDR. 66 pages. Available on-line at http://
www.eia.fi /wup-fi n/wup-fi n2/publications.htm
Page 62

---

References
Pawaputanon, O. (2003) Inland fi sheries information in Thailand. pages 33 ­ 35 in: New
approaches for the improvement of inland capture fi shery statistics in the Mekong Basin.
RAP Publication 2003/1. 145 pages. FAO, Bangkok, Thailand and MRC, Phnom Penh,
Cambodia.
Piumsomboun, S. (2001) Production, Accessibility and Consumption Patterns of Aquaculture
Products in Thailand. Unpublished Report supported by FAO/ICLARM. 61 pages.
www.fao.org//docrep/004/y2876e/y2876e1f.htm
Prapertchob, P., Kachamart, P., Pakuthai, W., Viratchakul, J., Hornak, A., Thiranggon, P., &
Kamsrakaeo, P. (1989) Summary Report on Analysis of Freshwater Fish Consumption
and Marine Product Marketing in Northeast Thailand. Report prepared for the
Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and Envirocon
International Ltd. Thailand. Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. 35 pages.
Saengrut, T. (1998) Role of Wild Fish in Aquatic Resource Development in the Lower Chi Valley
of Thailand. MSc Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. 100 pages.
Sjorslev, J.G. (2000) Fisheries survey, Luangprabang Province Lao PDR. LARReC Research
Report 1: 1 ­ 45. NAFRI and MRC Fisheries Program AMFC Component. Living Aquatic
Resources Research Centre, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Sjorslev, J.G., Visser, T., Suntornratana, U., Apipoonyanon, C., and Tanonsak, S.L. (2001)
Combining sampling and census approaches for fi sheries habitat assessment in
Songkhram River Basin, North East Thailand. MRC Conference Series 1: 5 ­ 19. Mekong
River Commission, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, G.W. (1989) Statistical Methods. 8th Edn. Iowa State University
Press, Ames, USA. 503 pages.
Suntornratana, U., Poulsen, A.F., Visser, T., Nakkaew, S., and Talerkkeatleela, T. (2002)
Migration onto the fl oodplain of the Songkhram River Basin. MRC Conference Series 2:
270 ­ 280. Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Troeung, R., Aun, S., Lieng, S., Deap, L., & van Zalinge, N. (2003) A comparison of fi sh yields
and species composition between one fi shing lot in Battambang province and two fi shing
lots in Prey Veng Province. MRC Conference Series 4: 9 ­ 16.
Welcomme, R.L. (1985) River fi sheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 262: 1 ­ 330. Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.
Welcomme, R.L. (2001) Inland Fisheries Ecology and Management. Fishing News Books,
Oxford, UK. 358 pages.
Page 63

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Yingcharoen, D. and Virapat, C. (1998) Aquatic Ecology and Fisheries Surveys in the
Songkhram River Basin, Thailand. Wetlands Inventory and Management Programme,
Department of Fisheries, Bangkok, Thailand.
Page 64

---

Appendix 1 Summary information on the sampling frame
for the 27 villages, showing weightings used for
analysing the household data
1
0.797
0.885
0.780
0.883
0.913
1.191
0.662
1.226
0.906
0.792
1.258
0.850
0.817
0.695
0.930
1.716
0.888
1.150
1.554
0.91
0.769
1.127
0.817
1.154
1.063
0.922
1.022
(N/S/4,175)*353
Individual HH weighting
10.61%
9.55%
10.84%
9.58%
9.26%
7.10%
12.77%
6.90%
9.33%
10.67%
6.72%
9.95%
10.34%
12.16%
9.09%
4.93%
9.52%
7.35%
5.44%
9.28%
1
1.00%
7.50%
10.34%
7.33%
7.95%
9.17%
8.28%
% sampled
in the village
21
15
9
16
10
12
6
4
14
19
17
19
15
18
1
1
20
10
10
13
9
1
1
18
6
14
14
10
12
353
Sample
HHs (S)
198
157
83
167
108
169
47
58
150
178
253
191
145
148
121
406
105
136
239
97
100
240
58
191
176
109
145
4,175
No. of
households (N)
919
542
897
418
738
207
222
644
758
528
695
431
673
13
500
560
971
290
970
940
460
No. of
1,200
1,100
1,600
1,027
1,374
1,1
1,914
21,691
inhabitants
T
ao
Nua
ai
Thum
Thay
ang
oei
Jok Y
Kam
Y
T
a Pha
illage name
V
Kaeo Pad Pong
Had Kuan
Don Klang
Nong Ba
Sam Phong
Ban Kha
Na Kra
Non Sa-ad
Don Pra
Don Por
Na Noi
Don Por
Lao Som Poy
Don T
Kung Sri
Phon Ngam
Kud
Don
Dong Bang
Nong
Nong Bua Daeng
Tha Chang
Non
Tha Muang
Ban Non
Sok Phok
Dong Sawang
27 villages
aeng
W
oei
ai
Thom
ae
a Y
Sub-district
Chaiburi
Phanom
Nong
Sri Songkhram
Sam Phong
Ban Kha
Na Ngua
Na Ngua
Ban Sieo
Lao-phatthana
Lao-phatthana
Lao-phatthana
Na
Don T
Na Phiang
Phon Ngam
W
Na T
Phaet
Sang
Tha Kok Daen
Pong Hai
Pong Hai
Nam Chan
Sri Chomphu
Bung Khong Long
Pho Mak Khaeng
23 sub-districts
Kla
a
Amnuai
Amnuai
T
a Kla
Thom
District
Tha-Utain
Tha-Utain
Ban Phaeng
Srisongkram
Srisongkram
Srisongkram
Nawa
Nawa
Nawa
Nawa
Nawa
Nawa
Na
Na Thom
Kusuman
Akat
Akat
Kam T
Kam
SeKa
SeKa
SeKa
SeKa
SeKa
Phon Charoen
Bung Khong Long
Bung Khong Long
1
1 districts
Phanom
Province
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon
Sakonnakhon
Sakonnakhon
Sakonnakhon
Sakonnakhon
Sakonnakhon
Nong Khai
Nong Khai
Nong Khai
Nong Khai
Nong Khai
Nong Khai
Nong Khai
Nong Khai
3 provinces
1
illage Code
V
THA01
THA02
THA03
THA04
THA05
THA06
THA07
THA08
THA09
THA10
THA1
THA12
THA13
THA14
THA15
THA16
THA17
THA18
THA19
THA20
THA21
THA22
THA23
THA24
THA25
THA26
THA27
T
otals
Page 65

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 66

---

Appendix 2 Village census. Frequency of gear types
reported per village, based on returns from 349
villages
Gear Type
Gear Name
No. of Villages % with gear
95 per
LCL
UCL
with gear
Bag-nets
Total
190
54.4%
2.7%
57.1%
51.8%
Beach seine
1
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
0.0%
Small Barrage
181
51.9%
2.7%
54.5%
49.2%
Trawl
43
12.3%
1.8%
14.1%
10.6%
Big traps
Total
163
46.7%
2.7%
49.4%
44.0%
Arrow shaped trap
15
4.3%
1.1%
5.4%
3.2%
Barrages
38
10.9%
1.7%
12.6%
9.2%
Lee trap
127
36.4%
2.6%
39.0%
33.8%
Pond trap
35
10.0%
1.6%
11.6%
8.4%
Collection
Total
233
66.8%
2.5%
69.3%
64.2%
Collection by coop-like trap
190
54.4%
2.7%
57.1%
51.8%
Collection by hand
1
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
0.0%
Collection with scoop basket
165
47.3%
2.7%
50.0%
44.6%
Cast nets
Total
338
96.8%
0.9%
97.8%
95.9%
Gill-nets
Total
326
93.4%
1.3%
94.7%
92.1%
Drifting, at bottom
3
0.9%
0.5%
1.4%
0.4%
Drifting, at surface
133
38.1%
2.6%
40.7%
35.5%
Stationary
305
87.4%
1.8%
89.2%
85.6%
Hooks
Total
302
86.5%
1.8%
88.4%
84.7%
Long line, bottom set
160
45.8%
2.7%
48.5%
43.2%
Pole with single hook and line
290
83.1%
2.0%
85.1%
81.1%
Set hook with fl oat
123
35.2%
2.6%
37.8%
32.7%
Lift-nets
Total
295
84.5%
1.9%
86.5%
82.6%
Big lift-net on raft
48
13.8%
1.8%
15.6%
11.9%
Big lift-net on shore
35
10.0%
1.6%
11.6%
8.4%
Small lift-net
278
79.7%
2.2%
81.8%
77.5%
Other
Total
76
21.8%
2.2%
24.0%
19.6%
Electricity
24
6.9%
1.4%
8.2%
5.5%
Rifl es or shotguns
59
16.9%
2.0%
18.9%
14.9%
Unspecifi ed
14
4.0%
1.1%
5.1%
3.0%
Scoop-nets
Total
282
80.8%
2.1%
82.9%
78.7%
Large scoop net
56
16.0%
2.0%
18.0%
14.1%
Small scoop net
259
74.2%
2.3%
76.6%
71.9%
Small trawl
122
35.0%
2.6%
37.5%
32.4%
Small traps
Total
310
88.8%
1.7%
90.5%
87.1%
Attractant Basket
107
30.7%
2.5%
33.1%
28.2%
Bamboo Tube Eel Trap
133
38.1%
2.6%
40.7%
35.5%
Barbed Rattan Cone
201
57.6%
2.7%
60.2%
54.9%
Basket Eel Trap
211
60.5%
2.6%
63.1%
57.8%
Basket Frog Trap
235
67.3%
2.5%
69.8%
64.8%
General fi sh traps
267
76.5%
2.3%
78.8%
74.2%
Two funnel trap
24
6.9%
1.4%
8.2%
5.5%
Upright Basket Trap
139
39.8%
2.6%
42.4%
37.2%
Wedge Cone Trap
122
35.0%
2.6%
37.5%
32.4%
Spears
Total
207
59.3%
2.6%
61.9%
56.7%
Bow and arrow
1
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
0.0%
Harpoon
200
57.3%
2.7%
60.0%
54.7%
Spear
8
2.3%
0.8%
3.1%
1.5%
Note: Statistics are weighted based on the sampling frame. N=349.
Page 67

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 68

---

Appendix 3 Household ownership of economically
important items
Item
Unit
Mean
95% Confi dence Interval
Lower
Upper
1-storey house
%
20.6%
16.1%
25.0%
2-storey house
%
75.8%
71.1%
80.4%
Shop house
%
3.7%
1.7%
5.6%
House Size
m2
83.9
76.6
91.1
Bricks
%
0.3%
-0.3%
0.8%
Concrete-Wood
%
26.8%
22.1%
31.5%
Concrete
%
6.8%
3.9%
9.6%
Leaves-Grass
%
0.5%
-0.2%
1.2%
Ply-wood
%
0.3%
-0.3%
0.8%
Wood
%
65.4%
60.3%
70.5%
Roof Asbestos
%
1.5%
0.3%
2.7%
Roof Ceramic Tile
%
1.1%
0.0%
2.2%
Roof Corrugated Iron
%
96.9%
95.1%
98.7%
Roof Grass-Leaves
%
0.5%
-0.2%
1.2%
Wood Boat
%
24.5%
19.9%
29.2%
Boat Length
m
5.5
5.2
5.9
Car
%
24.7%
20.1%
29.4%
Kubota car
%
18.0%
13.9%
22.2%
Pick-up
%
6.0%
3.4%
8.6%
Saloon
%
0.2%
-0.2%
0.7%
Truck
%
0.5%
-0.2%
1.2%
Telephone
%
0.7%
-0.1%
1.6%
Television
%
95.9%
93.9%
98.0%
Note: Statistics are weighted based on the sampling frame. Most are shown as proportions of the total sample. N=353.
Page 69

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 70

---

Appendix 4 Summary of household engagement in
economic activities
Activity
Full-time
Part-time
95% Confi dence Interval
95% Confi dence Interval
Mean
Lower
Upper
Mean
Lower
Upper
Aquaculture
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.9%
4.5%
Fishing
0.9%
-0.2%
1.9%
92.9%
89.7%
96.2%
Fish processing
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
-0.3%
1.6%
Fish selling
0.2%
-0.2%
0.6%
1.4%
0.0%
2.8%
Gear making
0.4%
-0.2%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2.1%
Combined group
0.6%
-0.3%
1.6%
2.9%
1.1%
4.7%
Other
fi sheries activity
Rice Farmer
92.9%
90.1%
95.7%
7.5%
4.7%
10.3%
Other farming
0.8%
-0.1%
1.7%
20.6%
14.7%
26.6%
Daily labour
32.9%
28.6%
37.2%
53.0%
46.5%
59.6%
Handicraft
2.3%
0.4%
4.2%
28.7%
18.8%
38.7%
Business
1.0%
-0.2%
2.1%
5.7%
2.7%
8.7%
Miller
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
-0.3%
0.8%
Petty trading/shop
4.0%
2.1%
5.9%
7.6%
3.9%
11.4%
Repair shop
0.8%
-0.1%
1.8%
2.1%
0.4%
3.7%
Transport service
1.3%
0.0%
2.6%
1.9%
0.5%
3.3%
Combined group
6.3%
3.2%
9.3%
16.0%
10.6%
21.3%
Trading or business
Government service
6.8%
4.6%
9.0%
1.1%
-0.1%
2.3%
Handicapped
1.0%
-0.9%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
School/college
69.3%
64.8%
73.8%
2.3%
0.2%
4.3%
Unemployed
44.5%
39.0%
49.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Notes: Statistics are weighted based on the sampling frame. Shown as % of 353 households. Highlighted groups
were combined for graphs. Note component activities do not sum to group totals because some households
engaged in more than one activity within the group.
Page 71

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 72

---

Appendix 5 Breakdown of the economic activities of
people in each household by gender
Breakdown by numbers (n=1,741, no response=2)
Activity
Female
Male
Grand Total
Full-Time
Part-Time
Total
Full-Time
Part-Time
Total
Business
1
12
13
2
14
16
29
Daily labour
77
102
179
98
207
305
484
Fish culture
8
8
12
12
20
Fish processing
3
3
2
2
5
Fish selling
5
5
1
4
5
10
Fishing
1
128
129
2
367
369
498
Gear making
2
2
2
3
5
7
Government service
3
3
20
4
24
27
Handicapped
2
2
2
Handicraft
9
107
116
2
8
10
126
Miller
1
1
1
Other farming
3
51
54
1
71
72
126
Petty trading/shop
18
25
43
10
23
33
76
Repair shop
3
10
13
13
Rice Farmer
414
15
429
463
27
490
919
School/college
188
4
192
209
2
211
403
Transport service
1
1
5
5
10
11
Unemployed
121
121
86
86
207
Grand Total
835
463
906
760
1,741
Breakdown by percentage
Activity
Female
Male
Grand Total
Full-Time
Part-Time
Total
Full-Time
Part-Time
Total
Business
3.4%
41.4%
44.8%
6.9%
48.3%
55.2%
1.7%
Daily labour
15.9%
21.1%
37.0%
20.2%
42.8%
63.0%
27.8%
Fish culture
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
0.0%
60.0%
60.0%
1.1%
Fish processing
0.0%
60.0%
60.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
0.3%
Fish selling
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
10.0%
40.0%
50.0%
0.6%
Fishing
0.2%
25.7%
25.9%
0.4%
73.7%
74.1%
28.6%
Gear making
0.0%
28.6%
28.6%
28.6%
42.9%
71.4%
0.4%
Government service
11.1%
0.0%
11.1%
74.1%
14.8%
88.9%
1.6%
Handicapped
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.1%
Handicraft
7.1%
84.9%
92.1%
1.6%
6.3%
7.9%
7.2%
Miller
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.1%
Other farming
2.4%
40.5%
42.9%
0.8%
56.3%
57.1%
7.2%
Petty trading/shop
23.7%
32.9%
56.6%
13.2%
30.3%
43.4%
4.4%
Repair shop
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
23.1%
76.9%
100.0%
0.7%
Rice Farmer
45.0%
1.6%
46.7%
50.4%
2.9%
53.3%
52.8%
School/college
46.7%
1.0%
47.6%
51.9%
0.5%
52.4%
23.1%
Transport service
0.0%
9.1%
9.1%
45.5%
45.5%
90.9%
0.6%
Unemployed
58.5%
0.0%
58.5%
41.5%
0.0%
41.5%
11.9%
Grand Total
48.0%
26.6%
52.0%
43.7%
100.0%
Note: Statistics are weighted based on the sampling frame.
Page 73

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 74

---

Appendix 6 Importance of household activities for food
supply and income
Activity
Food Supply
Income
Mean
95% Confi dence Interval
Mean
95% Confi dence Interval
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Aquaculture
15.1%
10.6%
19.6%
3.5%
1.2%
5.8%
Fishing
86.8%
80.6%
93.0%
25.2%
17.4%
33.0%
Professional fi shing
1.0%
-0.1%
2.1%
2.2%
0.1%
4.2%
All fi shing
87.7%
81.9%
93.5%
27.5%
19.0%
36.1%
Making, selling or repairing fi shing gear
0.8%
-0.1%
1.8%
1.0%
0.0%
2.0%
Processing aquatic animals
67.2%
59.7%
74.7%
5.1%
2.6%
7.5%
Sale of aquatic animals
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
0.1%
3.1%
Wage labour (fi shery related)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.5%
3.9%
9.1%
All other fi shing acts
67.2%
59.7%
74.7%
13.4%
9.5%
17.4%
Rice farming
94.1%
91.3%
96.9%
52.2%
41.9%
62.5%
Grow vegetables
35.2%
28.9%
41.5%
5.0%
1.9%
8.1%
Looking after livestock
41.7%
35.9%
47.5%
20.9%
15.0%
26.7%
Tend an orchard
7.7%
4.2%
11.3%
2.9%
1.2%
4.6%
Other Farming
96.0%
94.0%
98.0%
59.6%
50.1%
69.1%
Wage labour (not fi shery related)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
65.3%
58.6%
72.1%
Make Handicrafts
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
24.8%
14.7%
34.9%
Barber
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
-0.3%
1.9%
Miller
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
-0.3%
1.0%
Trading (not fi sh related)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.3%
11.0%
19.6%
Transport service (land or water)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
3.0%
6.7%
Trading or business
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
83.7%
78.5%
88.8%
Government service
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
2.2%
6.8%
Cash Remittance
1.6%
-1.1%
4.3%
15.6%
9.4%
21.7%
Rice Farming and Fishing
83.8%
77.6%
90.1%
15.6%
9.2%
22.1%
Note: Statistics are weighted based on the sampling frame. Shown as % of 353 households. Highlighted groups were combined
for graphs, note component activities do not sum to group totals because some households engaged in more than one
activity within the group.
Page 75

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 76

---

Appendix 7 Land ownership by households and access to
commons land
Land-use
% of households Area (ha) mean
95% Confi dence Interval
Percent of total
with land-use
of owned land
Lower
Upper
Aquaculture ponds
27.6%
0.042
0.018
0.066
1.7%
Cash crops other
than rice
8.6%
0.135
-0.012
0.282
5.3%
Floating rice
1.4%
0.018
-0.008
0.044
0.7%
Home-stead
93.8%
0.077
0.063
0.091
3.0%
Irrigated rice
4.6%
0.038
0.003
0.073
1.5%
Orchards
12.7%
0.048
0.019
0.078
1.9%
Paddy rice
95.0%
2.132
1.802
2.463
84.0%
Upland/Dry rice
3.1%
0.037
-0.006
0.080
1.5%
Vegetable garden
42.6%
0.012
0.004
0.020
0.5%
Total without
commons
2.540
2.000
2.877
100.0%
Commons access
forest/scrub
5.0%
0.249
-0.010
0.508
Commons access
grassland/grazing
1.3%
0.002
-0.001
0.006
Total including
commons
2.791
2.535
3.047
Note: Statistics are weighted based on the sampling frame. N=353, Area (ha/household).
Page 77

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 78

---

Appendix 8 Livestock and poultry ownership by
households
Breed
wtd % of hhs
Mean No. of
95% Confi dence Interval
animals/hh
Lower
Upper
Chicken
67.1%
10.48
7.44
13.51
Duck
30.4%
3.34
2.48
4.20
Cow
15.7%
0.76
0.38
1.15
Buffalo
15.4%
0.60
0.36
0.84
Other fowl
7.7%
0.58
0.23
0.93
Pig
6.3%
0.35
0.02
0.69
Others
0.3%
0.04
-0.04
0.11
Sheep and goats
0.3%
0.02
-0.02
0.05
Note: Statistics are weighted based on the sampling frame. N=353
Appendix 9 Habitats fi shed and distances travelled.
Habitats fi shed/
Mean
95% Confi dence Interval
N
% of
Min.
Max.
household
households
Lower
Upper
No. of habitats fi shed
2.3
2.1
2.5
327
100%
1
5
Distance to habitats
Mean
95% Confi dence Interval
N
% of
Min.
Max.
(minutes)
households
Lower
Upper
Floodplain Grassland
20
20
20
1
0.30%
20
20
Floodplain Swamp/
Marsh
10.9
7
14.9
55
14.90%
2
30
Floodplain Trees/
5
5
5
1
0.30%
5
5
Shrubs
Man made Reservoir
15.7
9.2
22.3
91
30.00%
3
60
Natural Lake
16.6
0
129.3
9
2.40%
5
60
Natural Swamp/Marsh
20.7
17.8
23.7
158
44.50%
1
90
Perennial River
23.4
14.7
32.1
104
28.70%
3
180
Public Pond
15
15
15
1
0.20%
15
15
Seasonal Canal
20
20
20
1
0.20%
20
20
Small Stream
13.5
11.1
15.9
105
31.00%
2
40
Wet Rice Flood
Inundated
38
0
93
10
2.40%
5
155
Wet Rice Rain fed
15.1
11.8
18.4
210
60.30%
1
120
Average Distance for
each household
16.7
15.2
18.3
327
100%
4
93
Note: Statistics are weighted based on the sampling frame. N=327.
Page 79

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 80

---

Appendix 10 Summary information on catch and effort
data by habitat
Habitat
Mean
95% Confi dence Interval
Lower
Upper
Frequency (HHs)
Floodplain Grassland
0.3%
-0.3%
0.8%
% of 353 hhs visiting the habitat
Floodplain Swamp/Marsh
14.9%
9.0%
20.9%
Floodplain Trees/Shrubs
0.3%
-0.3%
0.8%
Public Pond
0.2%
-0.2%
0.7%
Manmade Reservoir
30.0%
12.9%
47.2%
Natural Lake
2.4%
-1.6%
6.4%
Natural Swamp/Marsh
44.5%
28.5%
60.6%
Perennial River
28.7%
16.5%
40.9%
Seasonal Canal
0.2%
-0.2%
0.7%
Small Stream
31.0%
16.0%
45.9%
Wet Rice Flood Inundated
2.4%
-0.6%
5.4%
Wet Rice Rainfed
60.3%
50.0%
70.7%
All habitats
93.0%
89.5%
96.5%
Habitats visited
No. of Habitats/Household
2.15
1.93
2.38
Trips/household/year to the habitat
Floodplain Grassland
0.13
-0.13
0.38
Floodplain Swamp/Marsh
7.66
4.39
10.92
Floodplain Trees/Shrubs
0.06
-0.06
0.18
Public Pond
0.00
0.00
0.01
Manmade Reservoir
24.63
6.36
42.89
Natural Lake
2.06
-2.17
6.29
Natural Swamp/Marsh
43.37
21.63
65.11
Perennial River
21.51
8.40
34.61
Seasonal Canal
0.04
-0.05
0.13
Small Stream
22.21
8.41
36.01
Wet Rice Flood Inundated
0.91
-0.33
2.15
Wet Rice Rainfed
40.09
30.75
49.43
Total trips/hh/year
Total
162.67
136.77
188.57
Trip catch
Floodplain Grassland
1.00
1.00
1.00
kg/household/trip
Floodplain Swamp/Marsh
1.84
1.15
2.52
Floodplain Trees/Shrubs
0.58
0.58
0.58
Manmade Aquaculture Pond
2.00
2.00
2.00
Manmade Reservoir
1.56
0.98
2.14
Natural Lake
2.02
-3.34
7.38
Natural Swamp/Marsh
1.71
1.42
2.01
Perennial River
1.48
0.85
2.10
Seasonal Canal
1.50
1.50
1.50
Small Stream
1.18
0.95
1.41
Wet Rice Flood Inundated
0.72
-0.09
1.52
Wet Rice Rainfed
1.10
0.97
1.24
Annual catch
Floodplain Grassland
0.13
-0.13
0.38
kg/household/year
Floodplain Swamp/Marsh
16.85
7.92
25.79
Floodplain Trees/Shrubs
0.04
-0.04
0.11
Public Pond
0.00
0.00
0.01
Manmade Reservoir
30.36
6.89
53.83
Natural Lake
3.97
-4.25
12.18
Natural Swamp/Marsh
51.62
24.57
78.66
Perennial River
33.70
4.36
63.04
Seasonal Canal
0.07
-0.07
0.20
Small Stream
22.97
6.43
39.51
Wet Rice Flood Inundated
0.48
-0.08
1.05
Wet Rice Rainfed
46.76
27.10
66.42
Total catch (kg/hh/year)
Total
206.94
157.96
255.93
Notes: Statistics are weighted based on the sampling frame. N=353, includes 26 non-fi shing households.
Page 81

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Page 82

---

Appendix 11 Summary of the most recent catches from
interviews of 295 fi shers during the dry season in
2000
Feeding
Category
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Omnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Omnivorous
Carnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Herbivorous
Omnivorous
Black/White
Black
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
,
,
fi

Thai
Name
mhor
kheng
kod ta-lay
kung
kod keaw
kerng
ka yhang
tong, kun
tong
ka yhang
bai, khao,
ka yang
bai khao
ka tung
heio, sob
tong
kang
ka song,
ka jon
chon, kor
duk dan
duk oui
tapien
thong,
lian
ta pien
khao, pak
lien fai
nuan
chan, pon
gang
sai ton ta
khao
fi
sh
fi
sh
fi
sh
fi
sh
fi
sh
fi
sh
English Name
alking snakehead
Climbing perch
Armoured sea cat
Bronze cat
Asian redtail cat
Bocourt's mystus
Freshwater gar
W
Spotted snakehead
Striped snakehead
Philippine cat
Broad-headed cat
Red tailed tinfoil
Java barb
Goldfoil barb
Small-scaled mud carp
Mud carp
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish OAA
57
1
15
2
1
34
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
127
15
104
27
12
Records
No. of Fisher
T
otal
Catch
15.56
0.20
5.64
0.80
0.05
27.53
0.60
0.60
1.00
67.67
4.00
44.34
1.20
16.86
6.60
0.70
0.60
1.40
fi

sh was obtained from MRC (2003) and Froese and Pauly (2007)
ella
olepis
ocephalus
hinus micr
hinus molitor
Species
Anabas testudineus
Hemiarius stormii
Hemibagrus nemurus
Hemibagrus wyckioides
Mystus bocourti
Mystus singaringan
Xenentodon cancila
Channa gachua
Channa lucius
Channa striata
Clarias batrachus
Clarias macr
Barbonymus altus
Barbonymus gonionotus
Barbonymus schwanenfeldii
Cirr
Cirr
Cyclocheilichthys armatus
Family
Anabantidae
Ariidae
Bagridae
Bagridae
Bagridae
Bagridae
Belonidae
Channidae
Channidae
Channidae
Clariidae
Clariidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Information on feeding and status as black or white/grey
Note:
Group
INDIGENOUS
FISH
Page 83

---

Socio-economics of the fi sheries of the lower Songkhram River Basin, northeast Thailand
Feeding
Category
Carnivorous
Omnivorous
Herbivorous
Omnivorous
Herbivorous
Omnivorous
Herbivorous
Herbivorous
Herbivorous
Herbivorous
Herbivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Herbivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Carnivorous
Black/White
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
Black
White/Grey
White/Grey
d
ham
Thai
Name
d
kra sube
jud, sude
kra suub
kheed
soi lor
peek dang
ka dum,
e-tuu
kui r
soi dok
yang
nham lung
khao
e-thai
soi nok
khao nah
mhong
soi bua
ka mung
ta pien
nam tok
gam chum
sue hang
dang
sue hang
gungai
soy kled
tee, kum
bu trai
lod na
lod dum,
lar
mhor
chang
yieb, kar
sa tue
fi
sh
English Name
iretrack eel
Spotted barb
Hampala barb
Mud carp
Jullien's mud carp
Black sharkminnow
Black stripe minnow
Nilem carp
Javan barb
Blackline rasbora
Three-lined rasbora
Marble goby
Peacock eel
T
Malayan leaf
Indonesian featherback
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish OAA
1
1
1
1
39
2
50
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
9
1
1
1
18
25
1
1
12
Records
No. of Fisher
T
otal
Catch
2.82
0.40
0.60
16.73
1.16
36.49
0.60
4.50
62.26
0.40
0.90
0.40
0.02
0.60
5.15
5.14
4.86
1.20
0.30
2.31
0.10
4.52
0.16
on
ginatus
olepidota
octozysr
hynchus lobatus
hynchus siamensis
ognathus siamensis
opuntius deauratus
Species
Hampala dispar
Hampala macr
Henicor
Henicor
Labeo chrysophekadion
Labiobarbus lineatus
Lobocheilos melanotaenia
Mystacoleucus mar
Osteochilus hasseltii
Osteochilus lini
Osteochilus schlegelii
Por
Puntioplites pr
Puntius binotatus
Puntius orphoides
Rasbora borapetensis
Rasbora trilineata
Thynnichthys thynnoides
Oxyeleotris marmorata
Macr
Mastacembelus armatus
Pristolepis fasciata
Chitala lopis
Family
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Cyprinidae
Eleotridae
Mastacembelidae
Mastacembelidae
Nandidae
Notopteridae
Group
Page 84

---

Appendices
Feeding
Category
Carnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Omnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Carnivorous
Omnivorous
nd
Omnivorous
Herbivorous
MIXED
Carnivorous
Herbivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Omnivorous
Herbivorous
Black/White
White/Grey
White/Grey
Black
Black
Black
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
White/Grey
Black
Unid
White/Grey
White/Grey
d,
Thai
, kra
Name
d
krai, tong
krai
sa-lar
tong
sa lid
kra dee
mor
der
mah,
kueng
dung dang
nam
ngern,
nang
nang,
nang dang
sa yhum
porn,
suam
kao khao,
kao
koon
lhai na,
eian
nai
nin
khead
fi
sh
species
fi
sh
fi
sh
fi
sh
fi
sh
fi
ed
English Name
fi
sh
Clown featherback
Bronze featherback
Snakeskin gourami
Three spot gourami
Croaking gourami
Boeseman croaker
Mekong sheat
Sheat
Bleeker's sheat
Butter cat
Great white sheat
Swamp eel
Unidenti
Common carp
Nile tilapia
Aquatic insects
Adult frogs and toads
T
adpoles
Mussels
Crabs
Shrimps
Snails
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
OAA
Fish OAA
OAA-Clam
OAA-Crab
OAA-Shrimp
OAA-Snail
OAA-Amphibian
OAA-Amphibian
4
10
3
4
19
2
1
1
1
14
1
1
1
19
1
1
1
2
1
1
6
2
2
45
2
Records
No. of Fisher
1
T
otal
Catch
1.30
6.75
1.20
0.37
3.13
0.90
0.40
0.85
0.90
2.35
0.05
1.00
0.08
3.65
0.20
9.20
0.45
3.94
1.30
0.21
0.1
19.42
2.25
olepis
fi
sh species
fi
ed
omis niloticus
onema apogon
onema bleekeri
fi
eld crabs
allago attu
allago leerii
eochr
Species
Chitala ornata
Notopterus notopterus
T
richogaster pectoralis
T
richogaster trichopterus
T
richopsis vittata
Boesemania micr
Hemisilurus mekongensis
Micr
Micr
Ompok urbaini
W
W
Monopterus albus
Unidenti
Cyprinus carpio
Or
Aquatic insects
Amphibians
T
adpoles
Molluscs
Rice
Shrimps
Molluscs
fi
ed
Family
Notopteridae
Notopteridae
Osphronemidae
Osphronemidae
Osphronemidae
Sciaenidae
Siluridae
Siluridae
Siluridae
Siluridae
Siluridae
Siluridae
Synbranchidae
Unidenti
Cyprinidae
Cichlidae
Several
Several
Several
Several
Somanniathelphusidae
Palaeomonidae/
Atyidae
Several
TIC
Group
INTRODUCED
FISH
OTHER
AQUA
ANIMALS
Page 85

---

TR 17 cover:TR 17 cover.qxd2/25/2008 9:23 AM Page 2
For further information please contact
Mekong River Commission
P.O. Box 6101, Vientiane 01000, Lao PDR.
Telephone: (856) (21) 263 263 Facsimile: (856) (21) 263 264
Email: mrcs@mrcmekong.org
Website: www.mrcmekong.org

---

Document Outline

• Table of contents
• Table of figures
• Table of tables
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations and Acronyms
• Summary
• 1. Introduction
  • 1.1 Inland fisheries in Thailand
  • 1.2 Location and geography of the Songkhram River Basin
  • 1.3 Population and economic activities in the Songkhram River Basin
  • 1.4 Fisheries in the Songkhram River Basin
  • 1.5 Objectives of the Study
• 2. Methods
  • 2.1 Study area
  • 2.2 Framework of the study
• 3. Results from village-level census
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Village and household size
  • 3.3 Importance of fisheries
  • 3.4 Changes in fisheries
  • 3.5 Community fisheries-based management
  • 3.6 Fishing gear information
• 4. Results from the sample survey
  • 4.1 Village sample survey
  • 4.2 Household sample survey
  • 4.3 Individual sample survey
• 5. Conclusions and recommendations
• 6. References
• Appendix 1 Summary information on the sampling framefor the 27 villages, showing weightings used foranalysing the household data
• Appendix 2 Village census. Frequency of gear typesreported per village, based on returns from 349villages
• Appendix 3 Household ownership of economicallyimportant items
• Appendix 4 Summary of household engagement ineconomic activities
• Appendix 5 Breakdown of the economic activities ofpeople in each household by gender
• Appendix 6 Importance of household activities for foodsupply and income
• Appendix 7 Land ownership by households and access tocommons land
• Appendix 8 Livestock and poultry ownership byhouseholds
• Appendix 9 Habitats fi shed and distances travelled.
• Appendix 10 Summary information on catch and effortdata by habitat
• Untitled

---