Characterization of Leasable Fisheries in the Ayeyarwady Delta

Home , Bogale Township, Myan Aung, Wakema, Wakema Township

CHARACTERIZATION OF LEASABLE FISHERIES IN THE AYEYARWADY DELTA

Zi Za Wah1, Win Ko Ko1, Khin Myat Nwe1, Yumiko Kura2, Norbert Estepa2, Xavier Tezzo2, Eric Baran2, and Ruby Grantham2

1 Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries, and Rural Development, Myanmar

2 WorldFish, Cambodia and Myanmar

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3

1.1. AYEYARWADY DELTA ...... 3 1.2. LEASABLE FISHERIES ...... 3 1.2.1. History and definition ...... 4 1.2.2. Numbers and productivity ...... 5 1.2.3. Management ...... 5 1.3. STUDY BACKGROUND ...... 6 2. METHODOLOGY ...... 8

2.1. REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION ...... 8 2.2. COMPILING THE LIST OF LEASES AND TENDER LICENSES ...... 8 2.3. SURVEY OF LEASEHOLDERS ...... 8 3. FINDINGS ...... 9

3.1. TYPOLOGY OF LEASED WATER BODIES ...... 9 3.1.1. Type of leasable fisheries environment ...... 9 3.1.2. Size of leased waterbodies ...... 12 3.1.3. Other uses of land and water in leased areas ...... 13 3.2. PROFILE OF LEASEHOLDERS ...... 14 3.2.1. Basic characteristics ...... 14 3.2.2. Duration of the lease ...... 17 3.2.3. Price of the lease ...... 18 3.2.4. Livelihoods of leaseholder households ...... 19 3.2.5. Employment at the lease ...... 21 3.3. FISHERIES RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT ...... 22 3.3.1. Species diversity ...... 22 3.3.2. Species abundance ...... 23 3.3.3. Species value ...... 24 3.3.4. Fishing gears ...... 24 3.3.5. Patterns of productivity ...... 25 3.3.6. Resource conservation measures ...... 27 3.3.7. Stock enhancement ...... 29 3.3.8. Illegal fishing and poaching ...... 31 3.4. POST-HARVEST AND MARKETING ...... 33 3.5. FUTURE OUTLOOK ...... 34 4. DISCUSSION ...... 36

4.1. CHARACTERIZATION OF LEASABLE FISHERIES ...... 36 4.2. CHALLENGES IN LEASABLE FISHERIES ...... 36 4.2.1. Policy and legislation ...... 37 4.2.2. Inputs ...... 37 4.2.3. Post-harvest ...... 37 4.2.4. Knowledge and capacity ...... 38 4.2.5. Habitat and environment ...... 38 4.2.6. Property and user rights ...... 38 4.2.7. Monitoring and regulation ...... 38 4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 39 5. CONCLUSION ...... 40 6. REFERENCES ...... 41 APPENDICES ...... 42

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. AYEYARWADY DELTA

The Ayeyarwady River (also known as Irrawaddy) is the largest river in Myanmar; it is about 1,350 miles (2,170 km) long (Encyclopedia Britannica 2015) and an important commercial waterway. Originating from Tibetan Plateau in China, the river flows relatively straight from North to South through the center of the country before emptying into the Andaman Sea. The Ayeyarwady catchment area is about 413,710 km2 and located almost entirely in Myanmar, covering a large part of the country (IUCN et al 2003).

The Ayeyarwady Delta generally refers to the vast fertile lowland area where the Ayeyarwady River fans out into the sea through its numerous branches, such as Pathein River, Pyapon River, Bogale River, and Toe River. The Delta Region, which also includes Myanmar’s two other major river systems the Sittaung and the Thanlwin, enjoys what is described as Myanmar’s “highest land productivity”; with moderately high rainfall and generally flat topography it is an excellent environment for agriculture (ADB 2013).

Three main ecological zones can be identified in the delta based on distance to the sea and salinity (Khin et al. in press):

 Floodplain zone - characterized by freshwater or very low salinity even at its maximum level and the presence of freshwater fish species  Estuarine zone- characterized by multiple waterways, temporary brackish water, typically estuarine fish species, degraded mangroves along waterways and a patchwork of rice fields, trees and villages  Coastal front- characterized by very flat land, quasi-permanent brackish water, saline soils, almost no vegetation (or very degraded mangroves) and fishing activities targeting coastal and marine species.

The Ayeyarwady Delta is considered to contain the most productive inland fishing areas in the country (Kye Baroang 2013). However, anecdotal evidence suggests an overall decline in the productivity of fisheries in the Ayeyarwady Delta over the last few decades. It is unclear whether this perception comes from a reduction in total yield or a reduction in catch per unit effort (i.e. catch per fisherman), see Khin et al 2015 for more details.

1.2. LEASABLE FISHERIES

Leasable fisheries are one of five major categories of fisheries management under the Freshwater Fisheries Law (see Box 1). The Freshwater Fisheries Law (1991)1 covers all waterbodies, including ponds, rivers, streams and lakes that are of a permanent or temporary nature where fish live and thrive, and are situated within the inland boundary along the coastline of Myanmar. This includes tidal brackish waters to the edge of the river mouth before it meets the sea (FAO 2011; Tsamenyi 2011).

1 The Union Government of Myanmar recently initiated sector reforms to devolve the authority to establish and implement fisheries laws and regulations to States and Regions. For example the Ayeyarwady Region established “Fisheries Laws in Ayeyarwady Region” by notification No.2/2012 on February 2012, with more specific regional amendments to and interpretations of the Freshwater Fisheries Law.

Box 1: Freshwater fisheries management categories  Leasable fisheries (locally known as “Inn”) – are large areas of water that are leased primarily to individuals by the government on an annual basis through an auction system. This is similar the system used in Cambodia to allocate “fishing lots”. Leaseholders have exclusive rights to harvest fish in the area using any gear. Catch from leasable fisheries in Myanmar is reported separately in fisheries statistics.

 Tender lot fisheries – Licenses to use some of the larger stationary fishing operations in open water areas, such as those using “bagnets” or “stow nets” set on river channels, are allocated by the Department of Fisheries (DoF) on annual basis by so-called “floating tender” system in relation to specific fishing location (FAO-NACA 2003; Tsamenyi 2011). All fishing gear requires a license, license fees are variable between regions in line with productivity and capacity, and target those fishing commercially over subsistence fishers (ibid). The catch from tender fisheries is included in open-access fisheries statistics.

 Implement license fisheries – Fishing rights are permitted to individuals through licenses which allow fishers to catch fish using the licensed gear in open access fisheries areas within a specific township. Licenses are issued by DoF on an annual basis for a fixed fee, which is variable between regions and according to production, capacity and type of fishing gear (FAO-NACA 2003; Tsamenyi 2011). The catch from license fisheries is included in open-access fisheries statistics.

 Non-license fisheries – Some 15 fishing gears are exempt from DoF license requirements for use in open access fisheries areas. These gears are often favored by poorer members of the community who cannot afford license fees (Tsamenyi 2011). Catch from this category is not recorded in official statistics.

 Reserved fisheries – Water areas in which fishing operations are prohibited at specific times or in which fishing rights are granted subject to conditions in order to propagate fish or prevent the extinction of fish. However, “reserved areas” under the Freshwater Fisheries Law do not necessarily prohibit exploitative activities (Tsamenyi 2011). The catch from this category, if any, is not recorded in official statistics.

1.2.1. History and definition

The leasable fisheries system has a long history in Myanmar. The original identification and demarcation of leasable fisheries areas for auctioning was carried out by the British administration (Maung 1948). Prior to 1864, leases were managed as hereditary properties based upon fixed rents. Under the Burma Fishery Act (1864), the leasable fisheries were transferred from individual ownership to state control. The “Procedures” issued under the Freshwater Fisheries Law (1991) now prescribe detailed rules for leasable fisheries (Tsamenyi 2011). The Freshwater Fisheries Law (1991) defines leasable Fisheries as:

“Fisheries waters in which fishing rights are granted under a lease by the Department, subject to stipulations relating to the area, species, fishing implement, period and fishing method etcetera.”

However, descriptions of leasable fisheries, and the number of existing leases, are inconsistent in the literature. For instance, in 1995, U Win Aung, former director of the Department of Fisheries, stated that:

“Leasable fisheries operate in streams, lakes and ponds during the monsoon. A fishery is leased through a bidding process, and winning bidder is granted the right to harvest the fishery resources in demarcated ‘Inns’ from September to

April. Revenue from the lease is collected by the Department of Fisheries. There are 4005 leasable fisheries listed throughout the country, of which about 3800 are being operated at present.”

Whereas in a FAO-NACA study in 2003, leasable fisheries were described as follows:

“Almost exclusively key fishing grounds on floodplains which are primarily fished through the erection of barrage fences around the lease area with fish collected in various collection pens or traps. The peak season involves capturing fishes migrating off the floodplain at the beginning of river draw-down [August to October]. Lease holders enjoy exclusive rights to fish the lease area including preventing access by others and a certain degree of environmental management and control.” (FAO-NACA 2003)

1.2.2. Numbers and productivity

According to a 2003 study by FAO-NACA, prior to World War II there were 4,006 leasable fisheries, post war this had declined to 3,710, and by 1999 the number of leasable fisheries was only 3,474, with some leasable fishery sites reportedly converted to agriculture. The FAO-NACA mission also estimated that 3,490 leasable fisheries were “still exploitable” and of those, 1,738 (52.3 percent) were located in the Ayeyarwady Division. Between April 2010 and March 2011, a total of 3,721 leases existed on the DoF record; 3,458 leases were actually issued, while 263 were not leased at all during this period (DoF 2011). Comparatively, for the 2012-2013 period, the total number of registered leasable fishery areas increased to 3,7292, of which 3,304 were leased and operated, 425 leases were not leased (DoF 2014). An up to date status of leasable fisheries and detailed accounts of the changes in status are not available.

In 2012-2013 reported catch from leasable fisheries was 290,000 metric tonnes, or 22% of total inland fisheries production (DoF 2014, in Khin et al 2015). This was more than double the reported catch from leasable fisheries a decade earlier in 2003 (122,280 metric tonnes). However, the contribution of leasable fisheries to total inland catch has been declining because of the rapid increase in open access fisheries catch. Fish catch from open fisheries areas (including tender and licensed fishing) nearly tripled in the last decade and were reported at 1,012,970 metric tonnes, or almost 78% of total inland catch (DoF 2014). Open fisheries encompass all legal fishing areas outside leasable fishery areas or sites allocated to tender fisheries, and include streams, rice fields and other ecosystems (Aung 2010).

1.2.3. Management

As the governance regime of leasable fisheries has changed over time, it is likely that there have also been changes in the nature of the resources, the environment managed under the leases, and how the fisheries resources are exploited and marketed. However, the process of these changes has not been well documented in the literature.

During the fisheries sector reform in 2011-2012, many leases were newly auctioned to a broader range of prospective investors. Under the new system, the duration of a lease is one year and, depending on the region, can be extended for up to seven or ten years3. If the leaseholder does

2 Eight new water bodies have been converted from tender to leasable fisheries since 2010, at the request of tender license holders. The detailed rational and process of the conversion are unclear. 3 In Yangon and Bago Regions, the auction system allocates a lease for the duration of one year. After the first year, extension of the lease is possible two times, for a period of three years each, without another auction and so the holding from one auction can be seven years. In the Ayeyarwady Region, a third lease extension of three years is allowed, enabling continued lease ownership of up to ten years.

not wish to renew the lease it becomes available for auctioning by other prospective leaseholders. This system allows fluidity in lease holding and enables leaseholders to evaluate and bid on new leasable areas each year. However, it also promotes short management cycles which discourages sustainable practices.

During June, July and August all leasable fisheries are “closed” to allow fish spawning and recruitment. It is likely however, that small-scale fishing continues year round, with seasonal closures only being enforced for larger or commercial fishing operations (FAO-NACA 2003).

1.3. STUDY BACKGROUND

In 2012, the Australian Government (through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)) funded a multi-disciplinary research, development and extension program in Myanmar to improve food security and livelihoods for small scale farmers and fishers in the Ayeyarwady Delta and the Central Dry Zone. As part of this program WorldFish and DoF, in collaboration with other stakeholders in the sector, implemented a project entitled “Improving research and development of Myanmar’s inland and coastal Fishery” (MYFish, 2012-2016). The project aimed to improve management capacity in Myanmar’s inland capture and culture fisheries, and to facilitate co-management strategies for inland fisheries and small-scale aquaculture.

In 2012, a scoping exercise was conducted to review existing information and knowledge on the status of fisheries and aquaculture in the Ayeyarwady Delta. The review identified major knowledge gaps. As part of the effort to characterize the current status of fisheries and aquaculture in the Ayeyarwady Delta, the MYFish team conducted a study on leasable fisheries; the findings are presented in this report. As a major sub-sector of freshwater fisheries in Myanmar, leasable fisheries are widely recognized to be an essential basis for sustainable development and management of inland fisheries country-wide.

The main objectives of the study were to:

 Compile existing data available from township fisheries offices of the Ayeyarwady Delta and make it available in a comprehensive electronic format;  Characterize the environment and fishery resources of leasable fisheries;  Characterize prevailing practices applied to the management of leased areas; and,  Identify main challenges and opportunities to the sustainability of this sub-sector and provide key insights and recommendations to DoF.

The geographic scope of the study corresponds to the administrative units of the Yangon Region, which consists of nine townships, and the Ayeyarwady Region, which consists of twenty-six townships as sub-divisions.

Figure 1. Map of Ayeyarwaddy and Yangon regions and survey sites / Source: MIMU

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION

Existing lists and documentation of leasable fisheries, including land revenue forms, were collected in the capital city Nay Pyi Taw from relevant Ministries and Departments. This included the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development, as well as the Department of Agriculture Planning, Irrigation, and Settlement and Land Record Department, under the Ministry of Agriculture.

2.2. COMPILING THE LIST OF LEASES AND TENDER LICENSES

The project team visited all Township Fisheries Offices in the Ayeyarwady Region and the Yangon Region. Basic information was collected on each township, including the number of villages and households per village tract (basic administrative unit usually used for collection of statistics in Myanmar) and existing fisheries management licenses. The information was compiled in a digital spread sheet format (Appendix A). When available, the survey team also gathered existing paper maps detailing the waterbodies managed under a particular lease or tender. However, no ground-truthing has been carried out to confirm the accuracy of these records.

2.3. SURVEY OF LEASEHOLDERS

Based on the land revenue forms, the total number of registered leasable fisheries in the Ayeyarwady and Yangon Regions was 1,774 and 190, respectively. A survey of selected leasable fisheries in each region was conducted by three survey teams each with three members. A total of 12 townships were selected for the survey: 11 in the Ayeyarwady Region and one in the Yangon Region (Figure 1)4. The townships were selected to represent the different agro-ecological and salinity zones in the Delta. A total of 15 leasable fisheries sites were randomly selected in each Township (Table 1).

The teams surveyed a total of 180 leaseholders, representing more than 14% of the 1,265 leases recorded in the 12 townships. In coordination with the Township Fisheries Officers, the survey teams convened a series of meetings with the actual lease managers (lease or sub-lease holders) and surveyed them using a detailed questionnaire (Appendix B).

4 All but two townships in Ayeyarwady Region have freshwater leasable fisheries. Of the nine townships in Yangon Region, only four have registered leasable fisheries. Taikkyi Township, which is included in the survey, has the highest number of leases in the Region at 66.

3. FINDINGS

3.1. TYPOLOGY OF LEASED WATER BODIES

3.1.1. Type of leasable fisheries environment

Leasable fisheries are found in a diverse range of wetland environments (Figure 2). For the purpose of this study, environments managed as leasable fisheries were grouped into the following categories: artificial lake, main river, permanent wetland, river channel (including artificial canal), and seasonal wetland. Leaseholders were asked to select the type of water environment found in his/her lease; multiple selection was allowed for each lease. The result shows that 96% of the surveyed leases were associated with large rivers, river channels, or a combination of river and wetland. Seasonal wetlands were reported in 43% of leases. Six sites were seasonal wetland habitats not associated with river systems. Only one site was in a reservoir. For brackish water leases, the period in which the water was brackish ranged from two months to year round depending on the location of the lease (Table 1).

Table 1. Types of water ecosystems in leasable fisheries areas

Water Type Type of environment Number of Brackish water (No. of leases, multiple selection per lease) District Township leaseholders Fresh- No. of Brackish Artificial Lake Permanent River Seasonal surveyed water months Main River water (Reservoir) Wetland Channel Wetland brackish Hinthada Zalun 15 15 8 7

Labutta Mawlamyinegyun 15 15 15 1 15 14

Maubin 15 15 8 12 11 Maubin Pantanaw 15 15 6 6 12

Myaungmya Wakema 15 15 10 9

Kyonepyaw 15 15 3 2 14 8

Pathein Thabaung 15 15 12 2 14 12

Yegyi 15 15 14 11 10

Bogale 15 8 7 4 1 12 10

PyaPon Dedaye 15 3 12 4.3 15 13

PyaPon 15 4 11 9 15 1 15 5

Yangon (North) Taikkyi 15 15 14 7 6

TOTAL 180 150 30 6.1 1 132 6 133 78

a. River channel b. Permanent wetland

c. Seasonal wetland

d. Artificial lake/reservoir e. Main river

Figure 2. Examples of leasable fisheries in different environment

3.1.2. Size of leased waterbodies

The average size of leased areas ranged from one acre to over 14,500 acres, and were most commonly between 100 and 500 acres or smaller than 50 acres. The number of waterbodies within each size bracket varied between Townships (Figure 3). For instance in Kyonepyaw eight leases were over 1,000 acres, whereas all leases in Bogale were less than 50 acres in size.

Waterbody size fluctuates naturally from season to season, and leaseholders were asked to report values for minimum and maximum sizes. At minimum capacity leased waterbodies had an average size of 1.2 acres and average depth of 1.6 meters. A number of leaseholders reported the minimum capacity size as zero, indicating that some leased waterbodies dried up completely in certain months. At maximum capacity, waterbodies had an average size of 621.7 acres and an average depth of 4.2 meters.

Of the surveyed leases, there were three leasable areas of freshwater river/wetland complex reportedly over 10,000 acres in size. Permanent wetland leases tended to be the largest (average 2236.3 acres).

Figure 3. Number of surveyed leases in each township by size (acres)

3.1.3. Other uses of land and water in leased areas

A considerable number of the leases were affected by water withdrawal for other purposes. Water management for agricultural purposes affected 80% of surveyed leases and in many townships all leases were affected by other water uses; only 13% of the leaseholders reported that the water in the leased area was used solely for fishing (Figure 4). In 34% of the surveyed leases, the leased area was partially used for crop cultivation in the dry season. The area within leased areas used for cultivation ranged from 2 to 1,482 acres. Of the total leased areas included in this study 13% was cultivated, 2% by leaseholders or their family and 11% by non- family members. Appendix C includes data on uses of leased areas.

Figure 4. Uses of water affecting lease areas, by Township

Despite the land and water resources in leased areas often being multi-use, remarkably few incidences of conflict were reported. Only four leases (2% of surveyed leaseholders, reported experiencing conflict associated with other individuals using leased areas for purposes other than fishing. Negotiations between lease owners and irrigation water users are often facilitated by Township DoF officers and Irrigation Department officers. However, water use for rice farming is always prioritized by the government policy during water shortages.

3.2. PROFILE OF LEASEHOLDERS

3.2.1. Basic characteristics

Leases are mainly managed through individual ownership; of the 180 surveyed leases 155 (86%) were owned by one individual. Nine leases were shared between at least two individuals5 and 16 respondents did not specify lease ownership (Figure 5). Subleasing was practiced by 13% of leaseholders and was most common in Zalun and Dedaye (Table 2). For those who subleased their leasable fisheries areas, the most common arrangement for payment was a daily fee (Table 2). Average daily fee in each township ranged from 300 to 350,000 kyats. A few sub-leaseholders paid by a percentage of their catch. The data indicate that there is no relationship between sub-leasing arrangements and size of lease, water salinity or type of waterbody.

Leaseholders ranged from 23 to 76 years old; 93% were aged between 31 and 60 years (Table 3). The surveyed leases were mostly managed by men, only 4% were managed by women (Table 3). A majority of leaseholder households had less than six members (Table 3) and average household size was 4.3 persons. This is slightly lower than the average household size (4.7) in the Ayeyarwady Delta (UNDP 2011).

Figure 5. Lease ownership by Township

5 According to Maung (1948), in 1918, there was an attempt to introduce a system of leasing fisheries to 'cooperative groups of fishermen', but this was found to be 'unworkable'. The reasons are not clearly documented. The Government has been promoting group ownership of leasable fisheries in some places since the 2011 reforms; however, but so far this has been implemented as localized experiments. In the case of surveyed leases in Ayeyarwady Delta, the sites with shared ownership means that the cost of leasing large areas is shared among multiple individuals, and do not mean group ownership with collective management of resources.

Table 2. Sub-lease arrangements

Daily fee Percentage of catch District Township Sub-leased TOTAL No. lease-holders Daily fee (kyats) No. lease-holders Proportion of catch (%) Hinthada Zalun 8 8 309 15 Labutta Mawlamyinegyun 2 2 1,500 15 Maubin Maubin 1 1 350,000 15 Pantanaw 2 2 2,250 15 Myaungmya Wakema 15 Kyonepyaw 15 Pathein Thabaung 15 Yegyi 15 Bogale 3 3 5,000 3 85 15 PyaPon Dedaye 7 7 29,278 15 PyaPon 15 Yangon (North) Taikkyi 15 TOTAL 23 23 64,723 3 85 180

Table 3. Demographics of leaseholders

Age (years) Gender Average household size District Township Missing Missing 18-31 31-50 51-70 >70 Female Male <6 6-10 >10 data data Hinthada Zalun 3 5 6 1 15 8 6 1 Labutta Mawlamyinegyun 2 6 7 15 6 9 Maubin Maubin 8 6 1 1 13 1 10 4 1 Pantanaw 7 8 15 10 5 Myaungmya Wakema 6 6 3 12 3 9 5 1 Kyonepyaw 4 5 6 1 13 1 12 3 Pathein Thabaung 5 10 15 7 8 Yegyi 2 5 8 3 12 9 5 1 Bogale 2 7 5 1 2 11 2 10 5 PyaPon Dedaye 2 9 3 1 1 13 1 9 6 PyaPon 1 11 3 15 8 6 1 Yangon (North) Taikkyi 7 8 15 9 5 1 TOTAL 12 80 75 1 12 8 164 8 107 67 6

3.2.2. Duration of the lease

The survey results indicate relatively short experience among leaseholders in managing the lease they held at the time of the survey. Over a quarter (26.7%) of leaseholders had less than a year of experience managing their current lease (Figure 6). Most of the surveyed leaseholders were in their first year of lease or within the first three year renewal period (Table 4). Very few leaseholders had held the same lease for more than five years (Table 4) and 65% reported having less than six years of experience. On the other hand in some townships there were a few leaseholders who had much longer experience (>10 years). For instance, in Maubin, Thabaung, and Taikkyi townships more than a half of the leaseholders had over 5 years of managing the same lease.

Figure 6. Years of experience managing the current lease

Table 4. Duration of the current lease

Duration of current lease (years) Total District Township <1 1 2 3 4 5 >5 Leaseholders* Hinthada Zalun 10 1 4 15 Labutta Mawlamyinegyun 4 1 1 6 Maubin Maubin 10 2 2 14 Pantanaw 1 5 6 12 Myaungmya Wakema 7 3 1 1 12 Kyonepyaw 3 3 3 9 Pathein Thabaung 1 1 1 1 2 6 12 Yegyi 1 2 4 1 3 1 12 Bogale 6 1 3 2 12 PyaPon Dedaye 6 3 5 1 15 PyaPon 10 5 15 Yangon (North) Taikkyi 3 3 1 1 8 TOTAL 6 60 32 27 6 4 7 142 * Some data missing in the survey.

3.2.3. Price of the lease

Total lease prices reported ranged from 50,000 kyats to 165 million kyats. Per acre, average lease prices varied from 366 kyats for leases in main rivers in Kyonepyaw Township to 14.7 million kyats for leases in Bogale Township (Table 5). The unit price of leases tended to be higher for those with higher productivity and higher value species. For example, leaseholders in Bogale, Wakema, and Pyapon Townships reported a relatively high abundance of some high value species, such as freshwater prawns and shrimps and snakehead fish, and this was reflected in high average lease prices. Comparatively, leasable fisheries in Kyonepyaw Township reported a higher abundance of low value species such as Indian gagata, Pool barb, dwarf catfish and Snakeskin gourami, which was reflected in low per unit area lease prices. Fishery resources are discussed in detail in section 3.3.

Between 2007 and 2012, most leases experienced declining annual fees. Whereas for the period 2012-2013, 72% experienced an increase in lease price compared to the previous year (Figure 7). These trends are discussed in section 4.

Table 5. Average annual lease fee per acre for different waterbody types

Average annual lease fee per acre (kyats) District Township Permanent River Seasonal AVERAGE Main River Wetland Channel Wetland (all types) Hinthada Zalun 30,718 26,675 28,831 Labutta Mawlamyinegyun 42,683 1,833 42,683 45,601 42,683 Maubin Maubin 3,259 2,290 1,312 2,179 Pantanaw 46,333 15,611 10,681 20,826 Myaungmya Wakema 224,977 175,504 201,543 Pathein Kyonepyaw 366 1,447 10,630 3,462 6,534 Thabaung 7,356 5,100 5,914 7,089 6,658 Yegyi 15,974 15,286 11,315 14,427 PyaPon Bogale 14,700,000 14,700,000 Dedaye 71,053 73,990 72,416 PyaPon 184,648 288,750 184,648 249,755 196,582 Yangon (North) Taikkyi 111,380 162,893 21,575 107,842 AVERAGE 67,159 74,283 1,284,677 43,849 1,283,377

Figure 7. Trend in lease price

3.2.4. Livelihoods of leaseholder households

Surveyed leaseholders had various other sources of income: 73% were involved in crop farming or trading; 29% raised livestock; 28% owned other businesses; and 48% were involved in fishing-related activities outside of the leasable fisheries (Figure 8).

Agriculture and cultivation accounted for the largest proportion of household income (46%) followed by operating the lease fishery (40%). The proportion of household income sourced from leasable fisheries ranged from 5% to 100%, and three leaseholders reported no income was earnt from the lease. For the majority of surveyed leaseholders (70%), leasable fisheries accounted for 10-50% of income (Table 6). The number of households who engage in the different income activities in each Township is available in Appendix D.

Over 28% of surveyed leaseholders reported holding between one and five other types of fishing license aside from the leasable fishery surveyed (Table 6); in Yegyi, Bogale, Taikkyi Townships over half of surveyed leaseholders held other fishing licenses. These were primarily tender or gear licenses for open fisheries.

Men and women in leaseholder households allocated different amounts of time to livelihood activities (Figure 9). Generally, women spent more time on domestic activities and running businesses, whilst men spent more time on farming, fish processing, and off-farm jobs. Although average time on fishing and lease operations was higher for men (52%), women also devoted significant amount of time (40%) to these activities.

Figure 8. Leaseholder households’ activities and their contribution to income

Table 6. Leasable fisheries percentage range contribution to income

Lease contribution to income Ownership of District Township 10 – 51 – other fishing Total * < 10% >90% 50% 90% license Hinthada Zalun 9 6 2 15 Labutta Mawlamyinegyun 1 12 2 7 15 Maubin Maubin 12 3 12 Pantanaw 1 11 3 1 15 Myaungmya Wakema 9 4 2 3 15 Kyonepyaw 3 3 6 12 Pathein Thabaung 14 1 6 15

Yegyi 1 14 11 15 Bogale 13 2 8 15 PyaPon Dedaye 10 5 5 15

PyaPon 6 4 5 15 Yangon (North) Taikkyi 13 2 8 15 TOTAL 6 126 38 7 51 180 * Some data missing in the survey

Figure 9. Average proportion of time spent by men and women on income activities.

3.2.5. Employment at the lease

Leasable fisheries create jobs for both men and women who are not leaseholders or family members of leaseholders. All leaseholders employ at least one worker other than family members. Some hire 50-100 people. The survey found a dominance of men in the leasable fishery labour force. Women accounted for 22% of all employees, this ranged from only 8% in leases of an unknown size to 35% in the largest lease areas (Table 7). There were some clear distinctions in the type of activities women and men were engaged in. Only men were involved in preparing the lease, stocking and feeding, and more men than women were working as security guards for the lease. More women were involved in sorting and processing of fish (Figure 10).

Table 7. Total number of women and men employed at different sized leases

Female Employees Male Employees Size of the Lease (acre) TOTAL Total Average Total Average <50 118 2.2 496 9.4 614 50-100 80 3.1 235 9.0 315 100-500 228 4.3 692 13.1 920 500-1000 91 3.5 426 16.4 517 >1000 38 2.1 70 3.9 108 Unknown 4 1.0 46 11.5 50 TOTAL 559 3.1 1965 10.9 2,564

Figure 10. Involvement of women and men in different activities at the lease

3.3. FISHERIES RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT

3.3.1. Species diversity

Leaseholders were asked to list the 10 most common species in their leased waterbody. Nearly 70 species of fish (including crustaceans and eels) were reported. This highlights that the leasable fisheries in the Ayeyarwady Delta rely on a diverse range of species. A majority of catch species are indigenous to the Ayeyarwady Delta; however a number of non-native species, such as snakeskin gourami and tilapia, were also found in landings. Figure 11 shows the number of leaseholders who caught the 24 most commonly reported species. All species recorded in the survey are listed in Appendix E according to their common and Latin names, and the type of water they were reported in.

Figure 11. Top 24 most commonly caught catch species as reported by leaseholders

3.3.2. Species abundance

Leaseholders were asked the five most abundant catch species harvest in the lease. Metapenaeus shrimps, coitor croaker and pool barb had the highest average abundance ranking scores. However, when accounting for the number of leaseholders who caught each species as well as average abundance scores (“overall importance” in Table 8), pool barb and striped snakehead were the two most frequently abundant species and snakeskin gourami and Metapenaeus shrimps were third most frequently abundant (Table 8). The abundance of each species varied between leases (Appendix F) and some species appear to be more geographically restricted than others. For instance Hilsa, which one of the most commercially important fish species in Myanmar, was only reported by three leaseholders. These three leaseholders were located in Bogale Township and all gave Hilsa a high abundance score. However, Hilsa was not included in Table 8 because it was caught by so few leaseholders.

Table 8. Top catch species ranked by average abundance score and number of reporting leases

Rank Species Average abundance Commonality Overall importance* Pool barb 3 2 1 Striped snakehead 12 1 2 Snakeskin gourami 4 4 3 Metapenaeus shrimps 1 16 3 Coitor croaker 2 18 5 Striped dwarf catfish 7 8 6 Walking catfish 19 3 7 Climbing perch 14 5 8 Indian gagata / Sisorid catfish 5 17 9 Indian glassy fish 8 11 10 Palaemonids shrimps 10 10 11 Mola carplet 6 19 12 Bronze featherback 20 6 13 Stinging catfish 24 6 14 Catla 11 14 15 Spotted snakehead 15 12 16 Rohu 13 15 17 Tilapia 9 22 18 Zebra spiny eel 23 9 19 Pengha carp 22 13 20 Giant freshwater prawn 16 20 21 Tank goby 18 21 22 Barramundi 16 24 23 Wallago 21 23 24 *Rank of “overall importance” calculated as average abundance score multiplied by number of leases where the species are caught

3.3.3. Species value

Leaseholders were asked to rate the commercial value of catch species as low, medium or high. An index of commercial importance was created by multiplying the proportion of leaseholders who caught a species and rate it as important by the total number of leaseholders who rate the species as important. The most commercially important species in leasable fisheries were striped snakehead, walking catfish and stinging catfish (Table 9Table 11). Many of the other high abundance species (as highlighted in Table 8) were also reported as having high or medium commercial value. Species with high value that had limited geographic distribution or low abundance, and thus do not appear in Table 8, are Penaeus shrimps, Asian swamp eel, and Corsula Mullet.

The perceived value of a species differed between leaseholders. For example, climbing perch was considered as a high value species by 23 leaseholders, but 17 leaseholders rated it as a low value species. Similarly, spotted snakehead was rated as high value by 12 leaseholders and as low value by 10 leaseholders. The current study did not assess the average size of the species harvested at each lease nor its actual market value per weight, so it is unclear why some fish species had contradictory value ratings.

Table 9. Commercially valuable species

Rating of commercial value of species Commercial Common name (number of leaseholders) value rank High Medium Low Striped snakehead 118 22 1 1 Walking catfish 102 15 1 2 Stinging catfish 78 10 1 3 Giant freshwater prawn 28 1 1 4 Metapenaeus shrimps 28 9 5

Penaeus shrimps 21 6

Bronze featherback 42 40 7 7 Wallago 19 2 1 8 Barramundi 12 8 9

Zebra spiny eel 20 37 4 10 Climbing perch 23 64 17 11 Butter catfish 7 7 2 12 Mrigal carp 6 3 3 13 Spotted snakehead 12 34 10 14 Asian swamp eel 2 15

Corsula mullet 2 15

Pengha carp 9 43 2 17 Rohu 7 20 12 18 Loach 1 1 19

3.3.4. Fishing gears

Leaseholders were asked to list the types of gears used in the leasable fisheries and rank the importance of each gear in terms of percentage contribution to total fish catch. A diverse range of fishing gear was used in leasable fisheries. Gill nets, stow nets, plain fence and stationary bamboo fish filter traps were ranked as most important by leaseholders. These

gears were used by a significant number of leaseholders and accounted for a large share of total fish catch (Table 10).

The most diverse range of fishing gear was used in riverine environments. Stow nets and beach seine nets are more commonly used in leasable fisheries that are located in main rivers and river channels. Stationery bamboo fish filter traps and gill nets are used in both rivers and wetland environments. “Other” types of gear were used by 36 leases and contributed an average of nearly 40% of catch. Detailed data on lease and waterbody type where gears were used is included in Appendix G.

Table 10. Fishing gears used by the leaseholders

Number of Average contribution to catch Fishing Gear leases where (%) gear used Beach seine 40.0 31 Beach surrounding net 24.4 23 Crab trap 25.0 1 Drag fence 27.5 6 Earthen dyke 58.0 5 Earthen dyke with hollow cube 42.0 5 Filter trap 44.1 32 Fish trap 19.3 7 Gill nets 30.9 57 Lift net 11.0 2 Long line/hook & line 16.3 6 Plain fence 67.3 30 Plunge basket 20.0 2 Pumping 48.3 15 Scoop net 20.0 1 Set gill net 19.3 7 Shrimp trap 23.2 12 Stationary trap 35.7 14 Stationary bamboo fish filter trap 60.3 45 Stationary bamboo trap 60.6 52 Stow net 79.4 60 Surrounding net 30.0 13 Others 39.4 36

3.3.5. Patterns of productivity

Surveyed leaseholders were asked to estimate average daily fish catch from their leased area for each month and state the number of days they fished each month. These values were used to calculate average monthly and annual production. For the purposes of comparison across different wetland ecosystems and townships, catch quantity per area of waterbody was calculated. The results indicate a wide range in the fisheries productivity across the different ecosystems (Figure 12). The highest average catch rates were reported for leasable fisheries in river channels (7,521 kg per hectare) and the lowest average rates reported in wetland habitats (506 kg per hectare).

Leasable fishery productivity varied between salinity areas, with catch per unit area generally higher in the brackish water leases compared to freshwater leases. Very high productivities were reported for freshwater rivers of Wakema Township and brackish water rivers in Bogale Township (Table 11).

Figure 12. Average annual catch in from each waterbody type

Table 11. Average productivity (kg/ha/year) of leases by township and environments

District Township

Lake

River

water

Channel

Brackish Artificial

Wetland Wetland

Seasonal

(Reservoir)

MainRiver

Permanent Freshwater

Hinthada Zalun 12 19 5 Labutta Mawlamyinegyun 24 24 5 24 24 Maubin 1 2 2 1 Maubin Pantanaw 26 45 22 18 Myaungmya Wakema 758 807 981 Kyonepyaw 3 0 1 3 2 Pathein Thabaung 6 6 10 5 6 Yegyi 19 17 11 9 Bogale 2,163 2,163 PyaPon Dedaye 9 2 6 7 PyaPon 18 1 13 20 13 19 Yangon Taikkyi (North) 16 17 16 3

Productivity also has a seasonal dimension, which is very different between freshwater and brackish water ecosystems. Catches from freshwater environments peak during the between

November to February (dry season), and decline between June and August when the fishing season is officially closed for the early rainy season. In comparison, catches from brackish water environments peak between July and September, and decline during the dry season (Figure 14). This pattern probably reflects the seasonal migration of target fish and changes in the salinity of the water during the wet season. The survey did not specifically ask the catch rate for different fish species at different times of the year, so it is unclear which species are influencing the large fluctuations in catch rate.

Figure 13. Seasonal patterns in fish productivity

3.3.6. Resource conservation measures

Of the surveyed leases, 59% reported being subject to some type of conservation rules applied to fishing activities in the area. The most common rule was seasonal access restrictions between June and August6. It was also reported by 38 leaseholders that protected areas have been established in their leases to protect important fish habitats7. Most townships have applied conservation rules to the leasable fisheries areas, however two townships in Pyapon do not seem to have applied any such rules. Whereas in Maubin and Thabaung Townships, some leaseholders use more than one type of management rules to protect their resources (Table 12).

Of the surveyed leases, 32% contain known fish breeding areas. Knowledgeable lease owners and township DoF officers are usually aware of these breeding habitats. The reported size of breeding areas ranged from 0.4 to 809.4 hectares, with an average size of approximately 34.4 hectares. Less than half of breeding areas are protected ( Figure 14), meaning that a large proportion are subject to fishing.

6 According to the Freshwater Fisheries Law, these seasonal access restrictions apply to the entire country, however in reality the rule may be applied differently to different leases. 7 Township DoF offices may request a protected area to be set within some leasable fisheries areas to protect fish habitats and to be implemented at the discretion of lease owner.

Table 12. Conservation rules in leasable fisheries

Conservation measures

TOTAL number of leases with a District Township conservation

measure

arrestriction

Protectedareas

Speciesrestriction

Seasonalrestriction Permanentban fishing Hinthada Zalun 1 1 2

Labutta Mawlamyinegyun 15 15

Maubin Maubin 11 3 3 8 11

Pantanaw 8 8 8

Myaungmya Wakema 9 1 9 1 11

Kyonepyaw 14 14 Pathein Thabaung 4 4 1 15 15

Yegyi 14 1 15

Bogale 1 1 2 PyaPon Dedaye 0

Pyapon 0

Yangon (North) Taikkyi 5 14 14

TOTAL 38 8 5 98 3 107

Figure 14. Proportion of leases containing protected breeding areas

3.3.7. Stock enhancement

According to a decree enacted by DoF as complement to the Freshwater Fisheries Law (1989), it is compulsory for leaseholders to re-invest 1-3% of the lease price on stocking. Leased waterbodies were stocked with fingerlings, supplied either from hatcheries or from the wild, by 79% of surveyed leaseholders (Figure 15). Over 15 species were used for stocking; rohu, catla catla, and silver barb were the most commonly stocked species (Table 13). A wider variety of fish species is stocked in freshwater environments than brackish water environment. There were no significant differences in the type of fish stocked in leased areas of different size.

DoF hatcheries are by far the most dominant sources of stocked fingerlings (Table 14). Silver barb, rohu, and catla are readily available from hatcheries and are stocked in large quantities, even in brackish water environment where these species are not suitable for stocking. The average size of the fingerlings from DoF hatcheries ranges from 1.1 and 1.8 inches for these three species. Species that cannot be easily produced by the hatcheries are sourced from the wild, namely climbing perch, snakehead, and snakeskin gourami. Fingerlings sourced from private hatcheries and the wild are much larger in size.

Rohu and catla, which are both stocked in large quantities, were reported as a catch species by 39 and 47 leases respectively. Surprisingly however, silver barb, which is also commonly stocked, was not mentioned as a catch species for any lease. Based on logistic regression analysis, it was found that stocking has no relationship with species abundance for any species tested, as indicated by Wald probability level (p>0.05).

Figure 15. Leaseholders who stock their leased areas with fingerlings

Table 13. Number of leases stocking different species in each water type environment

Number of leaseholders who stock fingerlings Species Brackish water Freshwater TOTAL Climbing perch 3 3

Silver barb 18 57 75 Catla 35 35

Spotted snakehead 4 4

Striped snakehead 12 12

Mrigal carp 2 5 7

Philippine catfish 12 12

Common carp 1 1

Stinging catfish 9 9

Rohu 22 85 107 Bronze featherback 1 1

Tilapia 1 3 4 Pangas catfish 4 4

Pool barb 2 2

Snakeskin gourami 11 11

Table 14. Origin of fish stocked in leases

Sources of fingerlings (number of leaseholders) Total number of Row Labels DoF hatchery Private hatchery Wild Not specified fingerlings Rohu 91 8 4 4 5,540,360 Snakeskin gourami 9 2 994,200

Catla 19 1 12 3 837,550 Silver barb 66 2 7 706,602

Mrigal carp 4 3 316,000

Stinging catfish 1 1 5 2 26,500 Striped snakehead 1 8 3 24,366

Walking catfish 1 1 7 3 17,050 Spotted snakehead 3 1 7,940

Climbing perch 2 1 7,500

Tilapia 3 1 7,200

Bronze featherback 1 1,000

Catfish pangas 2 2

Pool barb 2

Common carp 1

Grand TOTAL 188 14 51 35 8,486,268

It was found that 59% of leaseholders in freshwater ecosystems practiced feeding of fish in leased areas, whereas feeding is not practiced in any brackish water leases (Table 15). Feeding practices appear to be more common for leases between 100 acres and 1,000 acres in size, compared to the smallest or largest leases. More than 70% of the leaseholders who practiced feeding fed the fish rice bran (Table 16). Several leaseholders also used peanut cake and trash fish to feed the fish. Many leaseholders reported feeding more than 120 days per year, all using rice bran. Based on a regression analysis (at p>.05 level) there was no significant relationship between whether leaseholders practiced feeding and productivity of the lease.

Table 15. Occurrence of feeding Lease characteristic Do not provide feeds Provide feeds TOTAL Brackish water 30 0 30 Water type Freshwater 62 88 150 Artificial Lake (Reservoir) 1 0 1 Main River 70 62 132 Environment Permanent Wetland 4 2 6 River Channel 76 57 133 Seasonal Wetland 37 41 78 <50 34 19 53 50-100 17 9 26 Size of the 100-500 18 35 53 lease (acres) 500-1,000 9 17 26 >1,000 10 8 18 TOTAL number of leases 92 88 180

Table 16. Feeding practices of leaseholders

Number of Number of days Average cost per Feed Daily usage (kg) leases feed given feeding (kyats) Rice bran 87 2.1 80 48,345 Peanut Cake 11 2.2 62 3,001 Trash Fish 8 1.8 16 35,350 Sesame Cake 4 1.2 34 39,350 Coarse Bran 2 1.6 25 2,250 Commercial Pellets 2 1.6 15 500 Coconut Powder 1 3.2 4 20,000 Cotton Seed Cake 1 1.6 30 1,800 Prawn Paste 1 3.2 90 600 AVERAGE 2.1 39.6 16,800

3.3.8. Illegal fishing and poaching

Illegal fishing in this context means fishers who do not have approval from leaseholders to catch fish in the leased areas, fishing during closed season, or the use of illegal fishing methods and gears. Poaching refers to illegal fishing resulting in fish stolen from leaseholders. Illegal fishing and poaching, of a varying degree of severity, was reported in over 70% of surveyed

leases. About 34% of leaseholders reported that poaching happens regularly and to a degree of severity that seriously threatens the business (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Leaseholder who experience poaching

Leaseholders were asked to estimate the number of days per month poaching occurs and the volume of fish stolen each time. Reported poaching patterns differed between freshwater and brackish water areas. In freshwater environments, the average number of days of poaching is relatively constant year round but the volume of catch poached is highly variable. The amount of poached fish is lowest in the hot season and peaks in June, at the beginning of the rainy season (Figure 17). Compared to freshwater leases, the number of days of reported poaching in brackish water environments was more variable and the volume of fish poached much lower; leaseholders reported that least fish was poached in April and the most fish was poached in September (Figure 18).

Figure 17. Monthly patterns of average poaching in freshwater leases

Figure 18. Monthly patterns of average poaching in brackish water leases

3.4. POST-HARVEST AND MARKETING

The average proportion of fish harvested from leasable fisheries that was consumed by the leaseholder household was low (4.9%) and did not exceed 30% for any household, regardless of the size of the lease. For fish that was not consumed by the household, leaseholders were asked to indicate how catch was marketed according to buyer type (wholesaler8 or retailer9), selling type (by piece, by weight according to size, by weight but unsorted for size or species). Multiple marketing strategies were often used by the same leaseholder. The results show no significant difference in the marketing strategies of leases located in freshwater environments compared with brackish water environment, or depending on the size of the lease. Overall, wholesalers played a very important role in the value chain. A proportion of catch was sold fresh to wholesalers by over 90% of leaseholders (Table 17) and the average proportion of catch sold to wholesalers was over 50% of fresh catch (Table 18). Although over 60% of processed fish was sold to wholesalers (Table 18), only 22% consider selling processed products as one of their main marketing strategies. The sorting and grading of fish before selling was not universally practiced by the surveyed leaseholders. Only 71% of leaseholders sort some of their fish by size class before selling them to wholesalers or retailers by weight, 72% sell some of their fish by weight as unsorted, mixed species by weight; 22% of the leaseholders reported that they mostly sell the fish by weight and do not sort it according to size or species at all. Fish processing was carried out by 61% of leaseholders and these leaseholders process an average of 51% of their catch10 (Table 19).The most common processed product was fish paste, which was produced by 89% of leaseholders who processed their catch, followed by dried fish which was produced by 65%. Both men and women were involved in fish processing.

8 Wholesalers are those who purchase fish in large quantity and have an established marketing network to transport and sell fish in other districts, States/Regions, and even sometimes internationally. 9 Retailers are those who sell fish directly to consumers within the same township. 10 Reported quantity of processed fish is not consistent with the proportion of fish sold in other forms, as reported in Table 39. This is probably due to overestimation using percentages, rather than absolute values.

Table 17. Main marketing strategies by number of leaseholder

Sell to retailer Sell to wholesaler Selling type TOTAL Fresh Processed Fresh Processed By piece 12 2 13 3 30 By weight and sorted by size 65 4 94 5 168 By weight, mixed size but unsorted 83 10 61 19 173 TOTAL 160 16 168 29 N/A

Table 18. Main marketing strategies by proportion of catch

Sell to retailer (%) Sell to wholesaler (%) Average Selling type proportion of Fresh Processed Fresh Processed catch (%) By piece 37.58 35.00 52.69 45.00 42.57 By weight and sorted by size 32.40 28.75 54.16 71.00 46.58 By weight, mixed size but unsorted 41.53 19.00 60.25 61.58 45.59 AVERAGE 37.53 23.44 56.26 61.03 N/A

Table 19. Processing profile

Volume Processing responsibility Leaseholders Product (% of leaseholders who process fish) (%) who process processed (% of Fish Dried Salted Smoked Prawn some fish (%) Male Female Both harvest) paste fish fish fish paste 61.10 50.89 89.10 64.54 37.27 14.54 3.64 10 11.7 30

3.5. FUTURE OUTLOOK

Despite some challenges expressed in earlier sections, such as illegal fishing and land and water allocation issues with farmers, all 180 surveyed leaseholders indicated that they were satisfied with their business. This, presumably, is because of the relative profitability of the leasable fisheries operation as indicated by its income contribution. Nevertheless, over a third of leaseholders (35%) provided comments and suggestions on issues that should be addressed for the future sustainability of the sector. The comments and suggestions fell into four categories (Table 20). Most commonly, leaseholders reported illegal fishing as a problem and stated the need for improved law enforcement.

Table 20. Key issues raised by leaseholders Key Issues described by the leaseholders Leaseholders Use of illegal fishing gear (electric, poison), and unlicensed fishermen fishing in leases, fishing 30 during closed season Conflict with rice farmers regarding water use, wetland connectivity blocked by dikes, 14 encroachment of farmland into leasable fisheries, pesticide use Protection of spawning areas, habitat restoration, indigenous species, technologies to 12 improve stocks Revision of boundaries and prices of leases: boundaries no longer corresponds to the water bodies; connectivity to main water bodies needs restored; leases too connected with open 7 fisheries area

Of the surveyed leaseholders, 166 (92%) had not previously received any assistance or training from extension workers (Table 21). Of the 14 leaseholders who had received assistance or training, 12 had received assistance from DoF, 1 from Myanmar Fisheries Federation (MFF), and 1 from a NGO. 9 of the leaseholders who had received training from DoF were from the same Township (Thabaung).

Table 21. Number of leaseholders who received training

District Township DOF MFF NGO TOTAL Hinthada Zalun

Labutta Mawlamyinegyun

Maubin Maubin Pantanaw Myaungmya Wakema 1 1

Kyonepyaw 1 1

Pathein Thabaung 9 9

Yegyi 1 1

Bogale 1 1 PyaPon Dedaye 1 1 PyaPon

Yangon (North) Taikkyi TOTAL 12 1 1 14

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. CHARACTERIZATION OF LEASABLE FISHERIES

The study presented in this report found a high diversity in the leasable fisheries of the Ayeyarwady Delta. The age, knowledge, experience and livelihood portfolios varied between leaseholders, and the scale of fishery operations ranged from family run businesses to large, semi-industrial operations employing over 100 people. Nearly 70 fish species were reported as key target species and these were harvested by over 20 different types of fishing gear. Leasable fishery areas often contained a variety of wetland habitats such as rivers, streams, ponds, canals, permanent or seasonal wetlands, and rice paddies.

The status of fishery resources varied between sites and townships. Some leases reported very high productivity, with several high value species caught in high abundance. Whilst other townships reported a higher abundance of lower-value fish species. The average fish productivity of leases in wetlands is comparable to the higher end of the range observed in seasonal floodplain / rice field fisheries in Bangladesh and Cambodia (Un et al 2014). This implies that the wetland leasable fisheries areas in the Ayeyarwady Delta are either naturally more productive, in better ecological condition, or more intensively exploited than those in neighbouring countries. The exceptionally high productivity of leases in main rivers and river channels is likely due to leases being typically located on fish migration paths and sometimes containing spawning areas to which fish congregate seasonally. The productivity is comparable to the rate observed in Dai fishery in Cambodia in which stationary bagnets are used to target major fish migration routes. Differences in the type and condition of fishery resources were reflected in differences in average lease price.

Prior to the sector reform in 2011-12, leases were reportedly often directly allocated by the Minister of Livestock and Fisheries, bypassing the bidding process. During that period, our sample shows that annual average lease prices gradually declined as leases were renewed. The survey indicates that leaseholders negotiated for a lower fee each year, arguing that the resource condition had deteriorated, and that DoF officers would often grant such discount. However, the sector reform led to an overall re-introduction of the bidding process from the 2012-2013 fishing season, resulting in the rise in the number of leases experiencing an increase in price.

4.2. CHALLENGES IN LEASABLE FISHERIES

This report found that, despite the diversity in the conditions and resources of the leasable fisheries, management strategies and the regulation of fishing activities were remarkably similar between leases. This highlights the need for a more detailed understanding of leasable fisheries to support the development of management practices that improve productivity in a sustainable way and are suited to the ecological, environmental and livelihoods context of the

fishery.

4.2.1. Policy and legislation

Centralized governance factors are likely to play a significant role in the management of leasable fisheries. For instance, the sector reform in 2011 made it easier for leaseholders to switch from one lease to another year on year. This has enabled leaseholders to explore ways which maximize their benefit from operating fisheries and encouraged opportunistic investments and practices which create short-term financial gains, such as intensive harvesting, rather than promoting longer-term sustainable management approaches. A further possible consequence of increased switching between leases, maybe that leaseholders do not develop advanced knowledge of their lease areas. This study found that a high number of leaseholders had a year or less experience managing their current lease. Close monitoring over the following years is needed to understand the implications of the sector reform.

A further legislative shortcoming identified by this report is how the boundaries of the area under the authority of a leaseholder are defined. It was reported that the authority of the leaseholder customarily only extends to the submerged part of the lease, which varies throughout the year, allowing neighbouring communities to seasonally cultivate part of the lease areas. We were unable to identify any written forms of such arrangements in the current legislation and postulate this practice might have originated from informal arrangements between the leaseholders and their neighbours over long period of time. Given the increasing switch in lease ownership and the high reported incidence of conflicts, this is an aspect that improved law should take into consideration.

Illegal fishing was the most commonly identified problem faced by leaseholders. The effects of which are multifaceted; a notable volume of fish was reported to have been stolen by poachers and the use of destructive fishing methods is likely to have damaging effects on stocks. Improved law enforcement is needed to address illegal fishing.

4.2.2. Inputs

The effectiveness and sustainability of stocking practices is limited by leaseholder knowledge and availability of inputs. Technical advice should be provided to leaseholders to ensure they stock species suitable for the lease environment and fingerlings of a sufficient size to increase survival rates. The effectiveness of the current government requirement for leaseholders to reinvest a proportion of the lease price into stocking is severely constrained by the inability of hatcheries to produce a variety of species, especially high value native species and those suitable for brackish water environments.

4.2.3. Post-harvest

The sorting and grading of fish before it is sold to retailers and wholesalers would improve the efficiency of the post-harvest value chain. However, the economic rationality for fishers of investing in post-harvest activities is subject to a number of considerations. Decisions must account for costs of extra labor, quantity of fish harvested and prices negotiated by the buyers. The survey presented in this report did not examine in detail marketing choice reasoning or profitability of different marketing strategies. Further research is needed to understand why leaseholders choose particular strategies and to assess whether profitability could be increased through improving post-harvest and marketing practices.

The seasonality of fishery production means that leaseholders need to sell large quantity of fresh fish within a limited period. One way to even out the income stream from fisheries and deal with high catch quantity in a concentrated time period, is processing.

4.2.4. Knowledge and capacity

As highlighted earlier (see 3.2.2), this study indicates that leaseholders often had very little experience in managing the lease. However, it is recognized that the emphasis on leaseholder knowledge and capacity was exploratory, thus a more detailed assessment of current management practices and their effectiveness is needed. This should include comparing management strategies between more and less productive leaseholders and between more and less experienced leaseholders.

4.2.5. Habitat and environment

There is a need for better classification of wetland habitats and identification of these within leasable fisheries areas. This information can be used to guide the prioritization of areas for resource restoration, conservation and sustainable management efforts. Identifying leases, townships and sections of the Ayeyarwady River that are significantly degraded in terms of wetland health and fishery resources, will require more detailed studies into fish productivity per unit area of individual leases and the geographic distribution and abundance of fish species. The identification and protection of important habitats for fish conservation, including spawning areas, should be carried out systematically. Further, the current level of fish conservation effort in leasable fisheries is very low, this may reflect limited knowledge and capacity of the leaseholders, and thus best practice information should be disseminated across all stakeholders.

4.2.6. Property and user rights

Environmental degradation has led to a decline in the total number and size of leasable fisheries areas. However, formal records of leasable fisheries have not been systematically reviewed or updated since the original list was established by the British colonial administration. The consequent incongruence of lease boundaries on paper and on the ground has created difficulties for leaseholders to demarcate the area for which they have rights and responsibilities. Resolving conflicts over land and water resources within leased areas often has economic costs to leaseholders, particularly in cases where leasable fisheries compete for resources with rice farmers, as policy invariably prioritizes rice production.

4.2.7. Monitoring and regulation

The current study presents a cross-section of leaseholder fisheries. A longitudinal study is needed to assess how fishery dynamics respond to environmental and management changes. Thus, a systematic survey should be designed and implemented at regular intervals over a sustained period of time to collect quantitative and qualitative data on leaseholder livelihoods, behaviors, perceptions and on leasable fishery resources.

4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Addressing the challenges faced by leaseholders, as discussed above, will require technical and legislative support from DoF and other associated organizations. Proposed actions and relevant actors to be involved are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22. Recommended actions needed, and responsible actors

Recommended Actions Relevant actors DoF in collaboration with other relevant Development of a comprehensive electronic inventory of leasable government authorities, technical fisheries areas including detailed wetland habitat classification, agencies and knowledgeable location mapping and boundary delineation leaseholders Identify and inventory fish breeding and spawning sites in leasable DoF in collaboration with technical fisheries areas for possible establishment of additional protected agencies and knowledgeable areas leaseholders and fishers Facilitate knowledge transfer and provide assistance and training to DoF, in collaboration with technical less leaseholders on how to establish and implement new protected agencies and knowledgeable areas for fish spawning habitats leaseholders DoF, in collaboration with technical Improve law enforcement to combat illegal fishing and poaching in agencies and knowledgeable leasable fisheries. leaseholders Explore alternative management approaches, such as community DoF, in collaboration with technical based management, where individuals cannot afford leases and/or agencies and knowledgeable where incidences of illegal fishing are high leaseholders Establish appropriate mechanisms and procedures for resolving DoF and other relevant government water allocation conflicts between leasable fisheries and authorities surrounding farmland DoF, in collaboration with technical Monitor the effects of the 2011 sector reform on leasable fisheries agencies and knowledgeable productivity and management leaseholders Develop incentives for longer-term sustainability in lease DoF and other relevant government management, rather than short-term financial gains authorities DoF in collaboration with technical Analyze the efficiency of current stocking and feeding practices and agencies and knowledgeable revise government guidelines accordingly leaseholders DoF and other relevant government Analyze the efficiency of post-harvest value-chains and identify entry authorities in collaboration with points to provide technical assistance to leaseholders for improving technical agencies and knowledgeable practices and marketing strategies leaseholders

5. CONCLUSION

This report presents the findings from a characterization study of leasable fisheries in brackish water and freshwater environments in the Ayeyarwady Delta. The study found a wide range in the size, target species and productivity of leasable fisheries within and between Townships and water-type environments. The auction value and livelihood importance of the fisheries also varied and often reflected the productivity of the fishery.

A number of shortcomings were identified in existing management approaches to leasable fisheries. These shortcomings were found throughout the production chain, from limited availability of suitable inputs to poor marketing practices. Causes include weak infrastructure, poor governance and a lack of knowledge and capacity. This report makes a number of recommendations to address the issues identified; these next steps require collaboration between DoF, associated government departments, relevant technical agencies and stakeholders.

The diversity of leasable fisheries suggests that generalizations cannot be drawn on the health of the fisheries, their socio-economic importance or on best-practice management strategies. Thus a key conclusion of this study is that further, more detailed assessments are needed to characterize and categorize leasable fisheries in Myanmar. Improved monitoring should be prioritized to provide the data needed to inform effective management that protects their fishery resources whilst also improving productivity, efficiency and fisher livelihoods.

6. REFERENCES

ADB (Asian Development Bank) 2013. Myanmar agriculture, natural resources, and environment initial sector assessment, strategy, and road map. Asian Development Bank, Manila, the Philippines. 54 pp.

Aung Htay Oo 2010. Inland fisheries resources enhancement and conservation practices in Myanmar. Pp. 93- 100 in Miao W., Silva S.D., Davy B. (eds.) Inland fisheries enhancement and conservation in Asia. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2010/22. 189 pp.

Encyclopedia Britannica 2015. Irrawaddy River. http://www.britannica.com/place/Irrawaddy-River

DOF (Department of Fisheries) 1999. Rules and Regulations for Myanmar Inland Fisheries Law. In Myanmar language.

DOF (Department of Fisheries) 2011. 2010-2011 Department of Fisheries Revenue Section: Income from Leasable Fisheries.

DOF (Department of Fisheries) 2014. Fishery statistics. Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural development, Yangon, Myanmar.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 2011. Aquastat country profile: Myanmar.FAO, Rome, Italy. Online: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/MMR/index.stm

FAO-NACA (Food and Agriculture Organization and Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific) 2003. Myanmar aquaculture and inland fisheries. RAP Publication 2003/18. FAO, Rome, Italy. 62 pp.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), International Water Management Institute, Ramsar Convention Bureau, and World Resources Institute. 2003. Water Resources eAtlas: Watersheds of the World_CD. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.

Online: http://multimedia.wri.org/watersheds_2003/index.html

Khin, Maung Soe, Eric Baran, Virginia Simpson, Xavier Tezzo, Samadee Saray, Yumiko Kura, Gareth Johnstone, and Win Ko Ko. 2015. Myanmar inland fisheries: Ayeyarwady Delta and Central Dry Zone 2003-2013.

Kye Baroang 2013. Myanmar bio-physical characterization: summary findings and issues to explore. Background Paper No.1 for Strategic agricultural sector and food security diagnostic for Burma Project. Michigan State University and USAID, USA. 50 pp.

Maung Khin 1948. Fisheries in Burma. Superintendant Government Printing and Stationery for Burma. 189 pp.

Tsamenyi M. 2011. A review of Myanmar fisheries legislation with particular reference to freshwater fisheries legislation. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. 72 pp.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2011. Integrated households living conditions survey in Myanmar (2009-2010): poverty profile. UNDP, Yangon, Myanmar.

Un S., Chheng P., Tress J., Baran E., Simpson V. 2014. Fish productivity by aquatic habitat and estimated fish production in Cambodia. Report for the project “Assessing economic and welfare values of fish in the Lower Mekong Basin”. Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute and WorldFish, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 26 pp.

Win Aung, 1995. Review of national fisheries in Myanmar. A paper presented at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission expert meeting.

Online: http://www.iotc.org/documents/review-national-fisheries-myanmar

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Number of leasable fisheries and tender fisheries by townships in Ayeyarwady and Yangon regions

Water Number of fisheries Region District Township Type Leasable Reserved Tender TOTAL Twantay 36 105 141 Taikkyi 66 4 97 167 Htan Ta Pin 40 98 138 Insein 48 3 48 99 Yangon Yangon Kun Chan Gone 204 204 Kut Mu 68 68 Kyaut Tan 119 119 Thone Khu 168 168 Kha Yan 69 69 Regional TOTAL 190 7 976 1173 Maubin FW 145 1 60 206 Danuphyu FW 118 16 134 Ma U Bin Nyaung Done FW 94 97 191 Pantanaw FW 299 23 322 Myan Aung FW 65 7 72 Kyan Kinn FW 5 1 6 In Ga Pu FW 56 19 75 Hinthada Hinthada FW 44 8 52 Lay Myat Nar FW 30 5 35 Za Lon FW 41 17 58 Kyoung Pyaw FW 30 1 31 Kyoung Kone FW 36 1 37 Ye kyi FW 70 32 102 Ayeyarwady Pathein Pathein BW 3 252 255 KanGyi Dauk BW 12 1 202 215 Thar Poung BW 179 51 230 Ngaputaw BW - 65 65 Ei Mae FW 32 14 46 Myaung Mya Myaung Mya BW 1 177 178 Wa Khae Ma BW 150 103 253 Kyait Latt FW 78 59 137 Pyapon BW 68 105 173 Pyapon Bogalay BW 102 1 341 444 Daedaye BW 57 61 118 Maw La Myaing Kyun BW 58 178 236 Laputta Laputta M 83 83 Regional TOTAL 1774 3 1978 3754

APPENDIX B

Survey questionnaire

APPENDIX C

Water uses, land uses and ownership of leases in each township

Water uses Leases used for agriculture Lease ownership District Township Domestic & Fishing By No Agriculture Domestic Total By others Shared Individual agriculture only leaseholder response Hinthada Zalun 8 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 12 2 Labutta Mawlamyinegyun 9 6 0 13 2

Maubin Maubin 10 1 4 11 10 11 3 10 2

Pantanaw 11 4 9 5 8 3 12

Myaungmya Wakema 12 1 2 6 6 1 14 1

Kyonepyaw 14 1 2 2 2 1 14

Pathein Thabaung 3 1 11 11 8 7 14 1

Yegyi 11 4 5 1 4 1 10 4

Bogale 10 5 1 1 12 3

PyaPon Dedaye 13 1 0 14 1

PyaPon 1 5 2 7 3 2 1 15 Yangon (North) Taikkyi 5 1 3 6 11 5 10 15 45 9 155 16 TOTAL 107 11 37 24 61 41

APPENDIX D

Number of leaseholders in each Township who engage in different income activities.

farmjobs

- /trading

District Township

Fishing

Rice mill Rice

Fish farming Fish

Ownbusiness

Rental combine Rental

Livestock raising Livestock

Crop farming Crop

Fish processing/trading Fish

Transportation services Transportation

Remunerated off Remunerated Bamboo/ grass weaving mat Bamboo/

Hinthada 9 1 1 10 5 1 1 1 Zalun Labutta 15 2 1 7 3 2 5 Mawlamyinegyun 10 3 7 5 6 4 Maubin Maubin 13 1 5 1 1 5 1 Pantanaw Myaungmya 10 4 4 1 1 1 Wakema Kyonepyaw 6 1 3 6 3 Pathein 15 2 3 7 5 1 6 1 Thabaung 12 5 11 3 7 5 1 2 Yegyi Bogale 11 2 7 7 9 PyaPon 8 2 3 2 4 2 Dedaye 9 3 2 1 PyaPon Yangon (North) Taikkyi 13 2 2 5 2 2 1 1

TOTAL 132 1 27 28 53 50 31 24 1 1 5

APPENDIX E

All freshwater and brackish water species recorded in survey

Species Common name Amblypharyngodon mola Mola carplet Anabas testudineus Climbing perch Anguilla spp Eel Catla catla Catla Chanda ranga Indian glassy fish Channa punctata Spotted snakehead Channa striata Striped snakehead Channa gachua Gachua snakehead Channa marulius Marulius snakehead Chrysochir aureus Reeve’s Croaker Cirrhinus mrigala Mrigal Clarias batrachus Walking catfish Coilia dussumieri Gold spotted grenadier anchovy Coilia ramcariti Ramcarat grenadier anchovy Cynoglossus lingua Sole fish Esomus danricus Flying barb Gagata cenia Indian gagata / Sisorid catfish Glossogobius giuris Tank goby Harpadon neherus Bombay duck Heteropneustes fossilis Stinging catfish Ilisha megaloptera Wolf herring Johnius belangerii Big eye ilisha Labeo gonius Kuria labeo Labeo angra Angra labeo Labeo calbasu Oringe fin labeo Labeo rohita Rohu Lactarius lactarius Travelles Lates calcarifer Barramundi (sea bass) Lepidocephalichthys spp Loaches Macrobranchium rosenbergii Giant freshwater prawn Mastcemballus zebrinus Zebra spiny eel Metapenaeus spp (species group) Metapenaeus shrimps Monopterus albus Swamp eel Mugil cephalus Mullet Mysid Larval stage of marine shrimp hatchling Mystus vittatus Striped dwarf catfish Notopterus notopterus Bronze featherback Ompok bimaculatus Sheet fish (butter catfish) Orecromis (species group) Tilapia Osteobrama belangeri Pengha carp Osteobrama feae Carplet Paelemonids Genral -freshwater prawn Penaeus monodon Tiger shrimp Penaeus spp: Marine shrimp Plotosus spp: Sea catfish Polynemus paradiseus Paradise threadfin Puntius sophore Pool barb Rhinomugil corsula Corsula mullet Rita rita Giant river catfish/Rita catfish Scatophagus spp: Scat Sciaena coitor Coitor croaker Scylla spp: Mud crab/Mangrove crab Silonia silondia Giant butter catfish Terapon jarbua Jabua terapon Trichogaster pectoralis Snakeskin gourami Trichogaster spp; Gourami Wallago attu Wallago Xenentodon cancila Half beak

APPENDIX F

ABUNDANCE SCORE OF ALL SPECIES BY TOWNSHIP

Township

Species Average Yegyi

Zalun abundance

Bogale

Taikkyi

Pyapon

Dedaye

Maubin

Wakema

Thabaung

Pantanaw

Kyonepyaw Mawlamyinegyun

Mola carplet 8 3 4 4 4 9 6 1 6 4

Climbing perch 4 5 6 5 10 5 10 4 7 6 6

Eel 6 6

Catla 7 6 6 5 4 5 6 5

Indian glassy fish 7 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 3 5

Spotted snakehead 6 6 5 7 6 5 5 6

Striped snakehead 1 6 8 5 3 5 8 4 7 4 6 8 5 Gachua snakehead 1 8 7 5

Marulius snakehead 5 6 6 4 6

Reeve’s Croaker 9 9

Mrigal 8 7 6 6 6 7

Walking catfish 2 6 7 7 5 7 9 5 8 6 8 8 6 Gold spotted grenadier anchovy 7 7

Ramcarat grenadier anchovy 4 4

Sole fish 6 6

Flying barb 10 9 9

Indian gagata / Sisorid catfish 5 5 3 4 2 4

Tank goby 7 6 7 4 7 7 9 6

Bombay duck 10 10 10

Stinging catfish 3 7 7 7 7 10 7 9 6 8 8 7

Wolf herring 3 3

Big eye ilisha 8 8

Kuria labeo 5 8 7

Angra labeo 6 1 4

Oringe fin labeo 6 6

Rohu 6 7 6 6 5 5 4 5

Travelles 2 5 4

Barramundi (sea bass) 5 6 8 6

Loaches 7 4 6

Giant freshwater prawn 4 7 7 7 10 6

Zebra spiny eel 5 8 6 6 7 6 8 5 8 7

Metapenaeus shrimps 3 2 1 2

Swamp eel 9 10 10

Mullet 9 9

Larval stage of marine shrimp hatchling 8 8

Striped dwarf catfish 3 4 2 4 6 5 5 6 4 8 3 3 4 Bronze featherback 4 6 7 6 6 7 8 6 7 7 6 7 7 Sheet fish (butter catfish) 3 10 7 7 4 6

Tilapia 3 6 2 7 4 2 5

Pengha carp 7 7 9 5 6 5 9 8 6 7

Carplet 8 9 9

Genral -freshwater prawn 6 2 6 10 8 4 10 7 7 6 5

Tiger shrimp 7 6 9 6

Marine shrimp 4 4

Sea catfish 7 7

Paradise threadfin 7 7

Pool barb 2 8 2 3 4 3 4 3 6 3 2 3

Corsula mullet 5 9 9

Giant river catfish/Rita catfish 10 10

Scat 6 6

Coitor croaker 2 2 3 3

Mud crab/Mangrove crab 6 7 7

Giant butter catfish 7 7 7

Jabua terapon 4 4 4

Snakeskin gourami 2 5 2 5 3 2 4 4 3 4 4

Gourami 8 8

Wallago 5 7 10 7 7 8 4 7 7

Half beak 7 6 6 7 5 5 6

APPENDIX G

Gear types, catch contribution and usage in different leases

Number of leaseholders using gear Management Waterbody type

type

Fishing Gear % of catch

rea

lease lease

rea

Lake

River

Channel

Artificial Artificial

Wetland Wetland

Seasonal Seasonal

Sub

Leasea

Main River Main Permanent

Stow net 79.4 48 12 1 44 2 39 8 Plain fence 67.3 24 6 15 1 15 5

Stationary bamboo trap 60.6 34 18 25 1 26 18

Stationary bamboo fish filter trap 60.3 32 13 21 2 21 22

Earthen dyke 58 5 5 1 5 4

Pumping 48.3 12 3 11 6 4

Filter trap 44.1 27 5 20 21 18

Earthen dyke with hollow cube 42 5 5 5 5

Beach seine 40 28 3 16 1 17 8

Stationary trap 35.7 12 2 3 1 10 9

Gill nets 30.9 53 4 1 37 41 21

Surrounding net 30 11 2 9 1 10 9

Drag fence 27.5 4 2 3 1

Crab trap 25 1 1

Beach surrounding net 24.4 17 6 1 13 11 5

Shrimp trap 23.2 11 1 7 1 10 2

Plunge basket 20 2 2 1

Scoop net 20 1 1

Fish trap 19.3 7 6 6 1

Set gill net 19.3 7 1 5 4 1

Long line/ hook & line 16.3 6 3 6 3

Lift net 11 2 1 2

Drift net 2

Others 39.4 36 0 20 1 28 28