1.
MARINE SURVEY / MONITORING
Department of Fisheries Conservation of Fisheries Administration
December 2011
OUK Vibol - Director of Fisheries Conservation Department, FiA
VA Longdy – Senior Officer, Department of Fisheries Conservation/FiA
PAPIN-SKOPAL Marine – MA Integrated Coastal Management

2. 2 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................2
Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................................................4
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................5
I. Introduction...................................................................................................................................6
II. Methodologies/Approaches/Activities Undertaken.....................................................................6
1. Reef Check ...............................................................................................................................6
a. Generalities ...........................................................................................................................6
b. Type of data collected at each survey site / transect.............................................................6
c. Data entry & analysis............................................................................................................8
2. Seagrass Survey........................................................................................................................8
a. General procedure .................................................................................................................8
b. Data Entry and Analysis .....................................................................................................10
III. Result........................................................................................................................................11
1. Coral Reef Survey – Koh Rong Samloem CFi, Preah Sihanouk Province ............................11
a. Location of survey sites and reasons for their selection .....................................................12
b. Substrate composition.........................................................................................................13
c. Impact on coral....................................................................................................................15
d. Bleaching impact ................................................................................................................16
e. Coral disease .......................................................................................................................16
f. Fish survey...........................................................................................................................17
g. Invertebrate survey..............................................................................................................17
h. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................18
i. Issues and Recommendations..............................................................................................18
2. Seagrass Surveys – Kampot, Kep and Koh Kong Province...................................................19
a. Background information .....................................................................................................19
b. Location of survey sites and reasons for their selection .....................................................19
c. Seagrass Diversity...............................................................................................................22
d. Substrate, Seagrass Species Coverage and Distribution.....................................................23
e. Seagrass Size.......................................................................................................................23

3. 3 | P a g e
f. Issues and Recommendations..............................................................................................25
3. Chroy Svay CFi, Koh Kong Province ....................................................................................25
a. Background information .....................................................................................................25
b. Location of survey sites and reasons for their selection .....................................................25
c. Survey issues and results.....................................................................................................27
d. Conclusion and Recommendations.....................................................................................27
IV - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................28
Annex 4.1 – Standard Reef Check Data Sheet (1): Site Description Form................................29
Annex 4.2 – Standard Reef Check Data Sheet (2): Substrate Form...........................................30
Annex 4.3 – Standard Reef Check Data Sheet (3): Belt Transect Form (Fish)..........................31
Annex 4.3 – Standard Reef Check Data Sheet (3): Belt Transect Form (Invertebrates & Impact
on Coral).....................................................................................................................................32
Annex 5 – Standard Seagrass Percentage Cover Sheet ..............................................................33
Annex 6 – Seagrass Species Identification Sheet.......................................................................34
Annex 7 – Standard Datasheet for Seagrass Monitoring............................................................35
Annex 8 – Seagrass Biomass Form ............................................................................................36
Annex 9 – Community-Based Seagrass Monitoring: Resource Type data sheet.......................37
Annex 10 – Percentage species cover per quadrat in selected CFi areas ...................................38
Annex 11 – Seaweeds/Algae photographed during Seagrass Surveys.......................................39
Annex 12 – Fish and Invertebrates photographed during Seagrass Surveys..............................40

4. 4 | P a g e
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CFA Community Fishing Area
CFi Community Fisheries
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FiA Fisheries Administration
FiAC Fisheries Administration Cantonment
FiACD Fisheries Administration ‐ Conservation Department
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries
MFMA Marine Fisheries Management Area
MPA Marine Protected Area
RFLP Regional Fisheries Livelihood Programme
RGC Royal Government of Cambodia

5. 5 | P a g e
Executive Summary
Cambodia has a 435km long coastline which includes 69 islands within the Gulf of Thailand. Many of
these islands have coral reefs and associated seagrass beds and/or mangrove habitats in their
periphery, providing crucial habitats for a great diversity of marine species. These habitats provide
significant economical goods and services that are critical to human well‐being. Cambodia’s
economy is highly dependent on the Coastal and Marine sector in term of services provided:
ecosystem goods (food, raw materials…), coastal protection (erosion, moderation of extreme
events, waste treatment…), marine ecotourism and biodiversity.
Unfortunately, these services are at risk as coral reefs, seagrass beds and other high biodiversity
spots are threatened by destructive fishing methods and over harvesting, as well as siltation,
sewage, mining and industrial pollution, coastal development, global warming and tourism‐
associated damages. Foreign illegal and destructive fishing, poaching, as well as illegal inshore
trawling constitutes the main threats to Cambodia’s marine environment, causing a decrease in fish
stocks and affecting the livelihoods of the local communities that depend upon them.
In May 2011, the Regional Fisheries Livelihoods Programme of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (RFLP/FAO), in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries
Conservation of Fisheries Administration (DFC/FiA) provided marine survey techniques for
Cambodian Fisheries Administration (FiA) officials to help ensure better monitoring of marine
resources in Community Fisheries. Twelve officials from DFC/FiA and coastal Fisheries
Administration Cantonments of Kampong Som, Koh Kong, Kampot and Marine Administration
Inspectorate were officially certified as scuba‐divers and acquired all the tools necessary for
effective monitoring of the marine environment and fisheries resources. The training was followed,
a few months later and after the rainy season that reduces the underwater visibility and makes
diving and navigating challenging, by conducting on‐site baseline surveys for the implementation of
a continued monitoring program of coral reef and seagrass habitats at selected Community Fisheries
(CFi’s) areas in the four coastal provinces of Preah Sihanouk, Kep, Kampot and Koh Kong.

6. 6 | P a g e
I. Introduction
After earning their PADI Open Water Scuba Diving certificate in May 2011 and receiving training in
marine survey techniques in shallow and deep water, the Team members were able to conduct on‐site
baseline surveys for the implementation of a continued monitoring program of the marine environment
and fisheries resources at the selected CFI areas. Data were recorded according to standard Reef Check
& Seagrass Monitoring procedures.
The five (5) CFi’s, namely Koh Rong Samloem (Preah Sihanouk Province), Angkol (Kep Province), Tropang
Ropov and Chanhorn (Kampot Province) and Chroy Svay (Koh Kong Province), were selected for
implementation of both coral reef and seagrass initial baseline data collection and set up of a monitoring
program.
The surveys were undertaken over a month and a half period time, from October 9th
(first survey in
Preah Sihanouk) to November 18th
(last survey in Koh Kong).
II. Methodologies/Approaches/Activities Undertaken
1. Reef Check
a. Generalities
Standard Reef Check monitoring was applied for the survey sites in order to assess the abundance,
diversity and composition of selected fish, invertebrate and benthic species. This methodology was used
as it provides rapid assessment of coral reef condition and health. Furthermore, it is quick and reliable
and based on pre‐defined criteria and descriptors.
The sites were randomly chosen to suit the conditions at the time of surveying. The starting point of each
site was chosen at random and four 20‐meter (m) transects were laid parallel to the coastline to make up
one complete segment. Each 20m segment was separated by a minimum gap of 5m (Figure 1). In these
5m gaps no data was recorded, as this is needed to ensure independence for each 20m section and
provide reliable statistics. The recorded data has been transferred to standard data forms (Annexes 4.1
to 4.4).
Figure 1 – Representation of the four 20m survey transects and 5m gaps
b. Type of data collected at each survey site / transect
An overall description of each site was recorded, including basic information such as GPS coordinates,
visibility, natural and human impacts (Annex 4.1). Based on their effectiveness as indicators of overall
reef health, certain target species have been chosen by Reef Check. A history of overfishing, aquarium

7. 7 | P a g e
collection, nutrient pollution and sedimentation can all be indicated by these variables. More specifically,
the Reef Check methodology designates three different transects: a fish belts transect, an invertebrate
belt transect and a substrate line transect (Figures 2 and 3, Annexes 4.2, 4.3, 4.4).
In order to complete the fish belt transect, divers recorded fish in an area of 2.5m on each side of the
transect and 5m above. Since fish get easily disturbed by divers, the fish belt transect was completed
first. In order to record an accurate assessment of the fish population, this portion of the survey was
conducted by swimming slowly along the transect, counting the indicator families and species.
The same four 5m wide and 20m long segments were used for the invertebrate belt transect. The divers
executed this portion of the survey by swimming slowly in an S‐shape pattern on each side of the
transect counting the indicator invertebrates. To reassure accurate results, surveyors looked into holes,
burrows and cavities.
Figure 2 ‐ Fish and invertebrate belt transect count method
This transect was used again to conduct the substrate line transect. In a 0.5m interval along the tape,
points were sampled to determine the substrate of the reef. The benthic categories used in this
assessment included: hard coral, soft coral, recently killed coral, nutrient indicator algae, sponge, rock,
rubble, sand, silt/clay and other. Moreover, coral bleaching, anchor damage, dynamite damage, general
damage and trash were also estimated along the transect line by the surveyors.
Figure 3 ‐ Point intercept transect count method to determine benthic cover
After data had been collected using the Reef Check methodology, divers swam along the transect and
collected extra information on species present at the survey sites. The purpose of this was to create a

8. 8 | P a g e
database list with all marine species that were witnessed during the surveys. This can be used in the
future to obtain a complete inventory of marine species present around the surveyed area.
c. Data entry & analysis
To determine the cover percentages of each survey site, the mean percentage of substrate cover of the
four transects was calculated. The total cover composition around the target CFi area was estimated by
the average composition of all survey sites.
Coral damage was noted in an empiric way by qualifying it in 4 levels of damage: 0‐ none, 1‐ low, 2‐
medium and 3‐ high. The damage per site has then been estimated as the mean of the four transects. A
stacked column graph has then been used to compare coral damages between sites.
Bleaching was estimated for coral population and colony. The mean percentage of all sites was
calculated by the average bleaching around the whole survey area.
Regarding the fish and invertebrate transect, the mean abundance of individuals per 100m² is usually
calculated for each site. In our case, given the low amount of species recorded, the results show the
exact number of individuals. Sites have been compared by using the stacked column graph.
2. Seagrass Survey
a. General procedure
The Seagrass Survey methodology used by the Research Team follows the Transect‐Quadrate Method
developed by Saito and Atobe (1970). The objective here is to measure change in seagrass in selected CFi
areas by taking into account:
‐ The distribution, by recording the position of seagrass relative to permanent transect (from the
shore outward, with three 50m cross transects)
‐ The species composition, by collecting samples along permanent transect
‐ The abundance, by measuring cover, canopy height, density and biomass
The Transect‐Quadrate methodology can be used in areas where the seagrass distribution is more or less
homogeneous and allows random sampling. The quadrate size is 50cm x 50cm, subdivided into twenty‐
five squares of 10 cm x 10 cm size (Figure 4, Photo 12).
Figure 4 ‐ Survey method using Transect‐Quadrate
Method developed by Saito and Atobe (1970)
Photo 1 ‐ Seagrass Survey presentation; Mr.. Ouk Vibol, at
RFLP Training, May 2011

9. 9 | P a g e
At the field, boat and GPS are used to find to georeference the survey site. Once the location is found,
the research can start by following the next steps:
1. Recording the position of each transect, the start (inshore end) of the transect being the most
useful reference
2. Separating two transects from each other by reasonable distance (50 to 100 m), and placing
them parallel to each other, perpendicular to the shore (Figure 5).
3. Measuring the water depth
4. Dropping the quadrate at the location (Photo 13)
5. Estimating and recording seagrass coverage within the quadrate using the Standard Seagrass
Percentage Cover Sheet (Annex 5)
6. Identifying seagrass species (Table 1) within the quadrate using the Seagrass Species
Identification Sheet (Annex 6)
7. Taking samples at regular intervals (usually 5 m) along the transect (sampling stations), so that
gradients in community structure can be described and biomass can be evaluated.
Figure 5 ‐ Schematic representation of sampling for
baseline seagrass survey
Photo 2 ‐ Immersed quadrat and measuring
tape ‐ Kampot, FiA 2011
Photo 3 – Placing the first picket (here
bamboo pole), Kampot ‐ FiA 2011
Photo 4 – Collecting seagrass species
samples in Kep – FiA 2011

10. 10 | P a g e
Laying out transects
Properly laying out transects is important to ensure success to monitoring objectives. In each study site
we can layout one transect perpendicular from shore (shallow) to the outer seagrass edge (deep) and
three 50m transects parallel to shore and run across the above transect and are spaced 25m apart. The
procedure to run out a first parallel transect is as follows:
• Recording the site position (latitude and longitude) by GPS
• Knocking in first star picket (screw anchor) down to 15cm and attach the first site marker tag
(Photo 14)
• Determining the heading of transect by compass. The bearing of transect running perpendicular
to the shore (80°‐90°)
• Holding the tape in right hand and run the tape out for 50m following the compass bearing.
• Knocking in second star picket down to 15cm and attach the second site marker tag.
• Doing the same way for the second and third (or more) transects.
• Ten (10) random 50 x 50 cm quadrates should be taken along each permanent transect.
Collecting qualitative specimens
In order to know the species composition, one of the divers should collect all seagrass specimens
present along permanent transects (Photo 15). For each species, the team gathered 4‐5 typical
specimens having all the plant parts (rhizomes, leaves, shoots, roots, flowers and fruits). The specimens
collected were put into plastic bags, grouped per quadrate. The seagrass species are identified and
species code is entered on the data sheet.
b. Data Entry and Analysis
Seagrass beds can damage or change in several ways. There can be a change in biomass without a
change in area; a change in area, or shape, depth or location of a meadow; a change in species
composition, plant growth and productivity; the associated biota with the beds; or a combination of
some or all of these. Some changes will also occur naturally and on a regular seasonal basis. The
monitoring work requires understanding these changes. They also require choosing of suitable
parameters and scales and measures of change which are statistically appropriate. Choosing the most
appropriate parameters to monitor is especially important (biological: cover, canopy height, biomass,
shoot densities, flowers; physical: depth, tide, temperature, salinity, surface sediments). It also
necessitates accurately choosing representative sites to monitor (pristine, less disturbed, strongly
disturbed).
All data were entered using standard Seagrass Survey datasheets (Annexes 7, 8, 9) then transferred to
standard data forms to be analyzed under basic Excel procedure. Each transect has its own worksheet
where the surveyor first writes down her/her name, sampling date, location name, site code, starting
and finishing time of the survey. GPS coordinate are also recorded at the start of the transect. For each
quadrat, recorded data include:
• Sediment (e.g. “Sand‐Silt”, or “SD‐SI” on paper)
• Comment: any features which may be of interest e.g. sea cucumber (x2)
• Photograph: Yes/No
• % cover: refer to Standard Seagrass Percentage Cover Sheet (Annex 6)
• % cover by species: percentage cover that each species contributes to the total cover (Table 1)
• Canopy: the three canopy heights of the dominant strap leaf species

11. 11 | P a g e
• % Algae: percent cover of macro‐algae in the quadrat. Macro‐algae are seaweeds that are not
attached to seagrass leaves and may even overlie the seagrass shoots. The combined seagrass
and algae cover may be greater than 100%.
• Seagrass size (cm): above and below biomass of each species observed within a quadrate (Annex
8).
Abbreviation Species
CR Cymodocea rotundata
CS Cymodocea serrulata
EA Enhalus acoroides
HC Halophila capricorni
HD Halophila decipiens
HM Halophila minor
HO Halophila ovalis
HP Halodule pinifolia
HS Halophila spinulosa
HT Halophila tricostata
HU Halodule uninervis
SI Syringodium isoetifolium
TC Thalassodendron ciliatum
TH Thalassia hemprichii
ZC Zostera capricorni
Table 1 – Indicator species of seagrass and abbreviation
III. Result
1. Coral Reef Survey – Koh Rong Samloem CFi, Preah Sihanouk Province
Standard Reef Check monitoring was applied for the survey sites within Koh Rong Samloem (Photos 16 to
18, Figure 6) Community Fishing Area (CFA) in order to assess the abundance, diversity and composition
of selected fish, invertebrate and benthic species. This methodology was used as it provides a rapid
assessment of coral reef condition and health. Furthermore, it is quick and reliable and based on pre‐
defined criteria and descriptors.
Photo 5, Photo 6 and Photo 7 – Reef Check survey at Koh Rong Samloem CFi area

12. 12 | P a g e
a. Location of survey sites and reasons for their selection
For this study, 3 survey sites were chosen in function of the weather conditions at the time of surveying
(Table 2, Figure 7). In Cambodia, south‐westerly monsoons winds dominate from April throughout
October followed by drier north‐easterly winds that prevail from November to March. Therefore the
north‐eastern part of the islands of Koh Rong Samloem and Koh Kon are sheltered from April to October
whereas the south‐eastern parts of the island are sheltered from November to March, whereas the
southeastern parts of the island are sheltered from November to March.
Due to the geomorphology of the areas, only shallow transects were carried out between 2m and 10m.
The recorded data has been transferred to standard data forms.
Figure 6 – Location of Koh Rong Samloem island, Preah Sihanouk Province
Survey
Site
Local
name
Latitude Longitude Habitat
Survey
date
Researcher /
Responsible Person
1 Back Door 103 17'29.1" 10 37'22.4"
Coral
Reef
October
9‐13
• Mr. Hout Vuthy
• Mr.Cheng Bunthon
• Mr. Chhum Thol
• Mr. Em Phea
2 Beach Bar 103 17'47.5" 10 37'38.1"
3 House Reef 103 17'49.9" 10 37'16.4"
Table 2 – Details on the chosen survey sites at KRS CFi
Spot Image S.A.,
France, all rights reserved
Koh
Kon
Koh Rong
Samloem

13. 13 | P a g e
Figure 7 – Survey sites in Koh Rong Samloem CFi’s Community Fishing Area
b. Substrate composition
Figure 8 – Substrate Composition: total mean percentage of the surveyed areas

14. 14 | P a g e
The dominant substrates cover observed on surveys were Hard Coral (HC) and Rock (RC) and (both 40%)
(Figures 8 and 9). Hard coral cover is an indicator of general reef health because they are reef builders,
and it is recognized that reef fish diversity is directly related to it. Rock constitutes an important part of
reefs as it provides settling ground for coral larvae. In general, the percentage of recently killed coral was
low thus does not appear in the results, so does not Nutrient Indicator Algae (NIA). This is to be expected
as there is no significant terrestrial runoff or other nutrient
enriching activities on these islands. However, future
development, if not well managed, will most likely affect
sediment runoff to the sea thus impacting the health of
coral reefs. Sponge (SP) cover around the sites was
observed in low percentage (2%) (Photo 19). Soft Coral (SC)
was not observed, neither was Siltation (SI). Other
substrates (OT) such as anemones, tunicates etc. represent
10% of the substrate cover. These organisms are non‐reef
building species. Sand is recognized as a no reef area and
constitutes 8% of the substrate cover.
Photo 8 ‐ Sponge and Whitecheek monocle bream (Scolopsis vosmeri) ‐ FiA 2011
Figure 9 ‐ Substrate Composition: mean percentage of each survey site
Most hard corals that were observed during the surveys were photographed. Several main families were
identified:
• Poritidae (Photo 20)
• Acroporidae (Photo 21)
• Agariciidae (Photo 22)
• Dendrophhylidae (Photo 23)
• Faviidae (Photo 24)
• Fungiidae (Photo 25)
The ones that have been seen most were massive Porites followed by Diploastrea heliopora. These types
of corals are slow‐growing and generally more robust being able to withstand higher levels of
sedimentation (although sedimentation, when it is too heavy, can also smoother the coral). Foliose coral
such as Turbinaria sp. and Montipora sp were relatively rare. Further surveys and monitoring would
allow establishing a list of all families and species of hard corals around KRS CFi area.

15. 15 | P a g e
Photo 9‐ Poritidae Photo 10 ‐ Acroporida
Photo 11 – Agariciidae Photo 12 ‐ Dendrophhylidae
Photo 13 – Faviidae Photo 14 – Fungiidae
c. Impact on coral
According to the Reef Check methodology, coral damage is divided into categories and assessed
individually: “boat/anchor”, “dynamite” damage and “other”; trash “fish nets” and “general”. Coral
damage is recorded in an empiric way by qualifying it in 4 levels of damage: 0‐ none, 1‐ low, 2‐ medium
and 3‐ high.
During this survey, no significant visible coral damage was observed. The effects of fishing in the form of
discarded nets or other trash were found only at “House Reef” site and were categorized as “medium”
(fish nets) and “high” (general trash). Damage resulting from boats anchoring on the reef was not
recorder either yet it has been regularly noticed during previous surveys along and outside of the
transect lines on most sites around the CFi, especially on popular diving sites. If recorded, it would have
reached a medium to high impact severity. In our case, the missing data can be related to a lack of

16. 16 | P a g e
practical experience in noticing such impacts. Further practice in underwater survey and monitoring will
allow team members to differentiate the impact categories.
d. Bleaching impact
Bleaching was estimated for coral population (different species) and colony (same species in one
location). The mean percentage of all sites was calculated by the average bleaching around the whole
survey area. Coral populations were found to be affected by coral bleaching at 26% (Figure 10). That
means that a good majority (74 %) of the coral populations located within the area seem to be in general
good condition and health. Furthermore, the study showed that the general degree of bleached parts
within the corals colonies was quite low with an average of 9% (Figure 11). Bleaching results from stress,
to which corals are exposed, mainly resulting from rising sea surface temperatures; therefore, bleaching
levels should be closely monitored in the future to assess the resilience of reef systems to regional,
climate‐change related impacts.
Figure 10 ‐ Mean percentages of coral population affected
or not by bleaching.
Figure 11 ‐ Mean percentages of coral colony affected or
not by bleaching.
e. Coral disease
About 42% of corals were found to be affected by disease (Figure 12). Currently, the most common
disease observed in the area is “the pink spotted disease” (Photo 26). This disease is caused by the larval
stage of the parasitic flatworm Podocotyloides stenometra. The flatworm has three life stages: the first is
parasitic on a mollusc, while the second affects tissues of the coral, causing polyps to appear swollen and
pink. This makes the polyp more vulnerable to predation by butterfly fish, which are the final host for the
parasite. Once the infected polyp has been eaten by the butterfly fish, healthy polyps regenerate from
the coral (third stage).
Figure 12 ‐ Mean percentages of Coral Population that is
affected or not by disease
Photo 15 –Pink Spotted coral disease (M. Skopal, KRS
2011

17. 17 | P a g e
f. Fish survey
Figure 13 ‐ Fish Composition of Survey Sites
Figure 13 illustrates the fish composition and abundance of the indicator species/families observed at
study sites. There was no significant species diversity and abundance between sites and most species
were found completely absent from all sites: only groupers, parrot fish, snapper and butterfly fish were
recorded. In general, the diversity was low as no more than four indicator species/families were
recorded. The numbers of Groupers recorded during the survey dives was very low on all sites and with
an almost complete lack of large individuals. Butterfly fish is the most (and sometimes only) recorded
species on all sites.
g. Invertebrate survey
According to the observations, it seems that there is very low species diversity at all surveyed sites. The
abundance of invertebrates was recorded as extremely low. The significant absence of invertebrates for
all survey sites most likely indicates severe overfishing. Only two categories (Pencil Urchin and Giant
Clams) have been recorded (Figure 14 and 15). Giant clams (Tridacna spp.) are important reef filter
feeders that contribute to the reef structure and rigidity. These organisms have been found of
heterogeneous sizes and abundance between sites (only 1 at Corner Bar against 34 at House Reef). Low
abundance may result from a severe overharvesting as these are an important local food source and also
targeted by foreign supplied air fishing vessels that regularly visit many of the Cambodian islands and
have been traditionally harvested for centuries.
Figure 14 – Giant Clam distribution and abundance, per survey site

18. 18 | P a g e
High abundances of long‐spine (Diadema) sea urchins were found on few surveys sites (Figure 15): algal‐
grazing, they can play an important role in keeping the reefs clean of algae when there are few
herbivorous fish around to fulfil this role.
Figure 15 ‐ Number of Diadema urchins per site and mean number of individuals per site.
h. Conclusion
In general, the health condition of corals at Koh Rong Samloem CFi site was good. However, observations
show that:
• Bleaching and coral disease have been found in low percentages but, these should be closely
monitored to allow optimal management practices. Furthermore, degrading environmental
quality and anthropogenic stress (e.g. sedimentation caused by terrestrial runoff), could
potentially facilitate the spread and virulence of coral disease. Future development of the islands
has to be urgently considered in any management plan.
• Low numbers of fish and invertebrates are signs of severe overfishing.
• Anchor damage was no recorded within the transects but was found highly visible and
dramatically increasing according to local divers, mostly at sites were tourist scuba diving
companies are operating.
i. Issues and Recommendations
Although the overall quality of recorded data is good, the level of experience among team members in
underwater survey will need to be improved with further on‐site practice so no data will be missed. In
our case, incomplete data include:
• Fish and invertebrate species diversity: it is likely that more species should have been recorded.
Some of them can be identified from the photos taken during the surveys (Photos 27 to 29).

19. 19 | P a g e
Photo 16 ‐ Spotted coral grouper Photo 17 – Silver trevally Photo 18 – Long‐beaked coralfish
• Siltation was definitely present, but no recorded. High Sedimentation is a direct threat to the
health of the marine ecosystems around Koh Rong Samloem and is strongly related to illegal
fishing activities (illegal inshore bottom trawling).
• Rubble was no recorded but it should present, even in low percentages, at sites such as Beach
Bar where destructive fishing techniques were commonly seen a few years ago. As rubble is
unattached to the reef, wave action makes it tumble around, which may knock off any new
corals that have settled making it a bad place for coral settlement and therefore reef
recruitment.
There is no secret: incomplete data is a common issue with new surveyors; the quality of the records will
improve along with increased survey practice. The data recorded at Koh Rong Samloem CFi are good
enough to start with and will allow the teams to set up a continued monitoring program.
2. Seagrass Surveys – Kampot, Kep and Koh Kong Province
a. Background information
A survey conducted by the Fisheries Administration in 2004 provided the baseline information about the
distribution of seagrass and species diversity in some areas of Cambodia; yet, species abundance and
distribution over time are largely unknown. It was reported that a total of 10 species of seagrass were
recorded in Kampot Province. Standard Seagrass Survey methodology was used (Transect‐Quadrate).
b. Location of survey sites and reasons for their selection
The study was carried out in the coastal area of Kampot, where seagrass lays out from Trapiang Ropov
CFi, to Kep Province, covering a total of 20,000 ha (Table 3, Figures 16 and 17). Chory Svay (Koh Kong
Province) was chosen as another survey site yet no seagrass was found. As such, Koh Kong was not
included in the following data analysis but will be treated separately later on.
Due to the geomorphology of the areas, only shallow transects were carried out between 2m and 5m
(Photos 30 and 31).

20. 20 | P a g e
Photo 19 and Photo 20 – Seagrass survey in Kampot area
Province
CFi #
Longitude(x);Latitude (y)
(start of transect)
Long (x); Lat (y)
(end of transect)
Habitat
Survey
date
Researcher /
Responsible
Person
Kep Angkol
1 433335; 1155191 433324; 1155150
Seagrass
Nov. 4‐
7
• Mr. Hout Vithy
• Mr. Cheng
Bunthon
• Mr. Ly Siha
• Mr.Soum Savon
2 433436; 1155104 433421; 1155049
3 433536; 1154945 433588; 1154991
4 433677; 1154885 433624; 1154836
5 433792; 1154787 433738; 1154743
6 433984; 1154674 433932; 1154621
7 432841; 1155782 432799; 1155744
8 432789; 1155852 432735; 1155801
9 432630; 1156151 432581; 1156100
10 432573; 1156245 432520; 1156212
11 432516; 1156309 432460; 1156305
12 432357; 1156548 432302; 1156353
13 432273; 1156683 432220; 1156642
Kampot
Chanhorn
1 388370; 1169198 388344; 1169153
Seagras
s
Oct.
27‐29
• Mr. Hout Vithy
• Mr. Cheng
Bunthon
• Mr. Ly Siha
• Mr.Soum Savon
2 388436; 1169149 388427; 1169103
3 388495; 1169055 388514; 1169101
4 388558; 1169015 388567; 1169066
5 389097; 1168729 389068; 1168687
6 389196; 1168705 389166; 1168665
7 389301; 1168620 389277; 1168574
8 389462; 1168476 389421; 1168446
Tropang
Ropov
1 384055; 1169324 384016; 1169289
Seagras
s
Oct.
24‐26
• Mr. Hout Vithy
• Mr. Cheng
Bunthon
• Mr. Ly Siha
• Mr.Soum Savon
2 383979; 1169255 383941; 1169222
3 383798; 1169313 383835; 1169349
4 383714; 1169323 383668; 1169301
5 383615; 1169388 383657; 1169419
6 383511; 1169452 383466; 1169425
7 383342; 1169496 383308; 1169458
8 382982; 1169823 382950; 1169788
Table 3 ‐ Details on survey sites

21. 21 | P a g e
Figure 16 – Location of survey sites in Kampot Province: Tropang Rovov (west) and Chanhorn (east) CFi area (Source: Google
Earth)
Figure 17 ‐ Location of survey sites in Kep Province (Angkol CFi area). Sites 9 to 10 had to be relocated at the field as the
coordinates that were chosen prior to the survey were incorrect.

22. 22 | P a g e
c. Seagrass Diversity
In total, during the surveys, 4 species of seagrass were recorded on the datasheets in Kep and Kampot
Provinces: Enhalus acoroides, Thalassia hemprichii, Halodule pinifolia and Cymodocea rotundata.
However, from the photos that were taken, we can recognize two more species: Cymodocea serrulata
and Halodule pinifolia (Table 4, Photos 32 to 36).
Photo (FiA 2011) Species Location (Province)
Photo 21 ‐ Enhalus acoroides Kampot
Photo 22 ‐ Thalassia hemprichii Kep
Photo 23 ‐ Cymodocea serrulata
Kampot
Photo 24 ‐ Cymodocea rotundata Kampot
Photo 25 ‐ Halodule pinifolia Kep
Table 4 – Species photographed in Kep and Kampot provinces

23. 23 | P a g e
d. Substrate, Seagrass Species Coverage and Distribution
Sand was found to be the dominant substrate in Kampot area (88 and 67 % in Chong Hon and Tropang
Ropov, respectively); a mix of sand and silt was recorded at 61% in Angkol, Kep Province (Figure 18,
Photo 37).
Figure 18 ‐ Substrate coverage in selection CFi areas. Photo 26 – Substrate sample
Figure 19 below shows the seagrass coverage, per species, recorded in the different CFi areas. Enhalus
acoroides (Photo 32) and Thalassia hemprochii (Photo 33) were the two dominant seagrass species
observed in all three sites. Enhalus acoroides was dominant at Tropang Ropov site (43.3%) while
Thalassia hemprichii covered the largest area both in Angkol (Kep) and Chong Hon (Kampot) at 36 and
34.8 %; respectively. Halodule pinifolia (Photo 36) was found in Chong Hon in low density (8.4%) while
Cymodocee rotundata (Photo 35) was found both in Kep and Kampot, also at very low density (1,2 and
0,2 %, respectively). Percentage cover, per species and per quadrate, has been calculated (Annex 10).
Figure 19 – Seagrass coverage per species and per CFi area
e. Seagrass Size
The seagrass size study, by comparing the samples collected at different transects of a same surveyed
area, allows monitoring the evolution of the leaf (above‐biomass) and root systems (below biomass)
throughout the year including seasonal fluctuations.

24. 24 | P a g e
In our case, average below and above‐biomasses have been calculated per species observed in the three
different survey sites. To do so, the team collected sample of the species and measure the Canopy height
above the ground and root under the ground.
Figures 20 to 22 below show the total average biomass size, per species, in the different survey sites. In
all three cases, Enhalus acoroides is the species with the highest total biomass size. The total biomass
size of the other species is quite heterogeneous, depending on the surveyed site. Further study and
thorough verification of the methodology undertaken by the teams would allow more comprehensive
and detailed discussions and conclusions.
Figure 20 and Figure 21 – Total average biomass size in Kampot surveyed areas.
Figure 22 ‐ Total average biomass size in Angkol area, Kep Province.
Including parameters such as the distance from the shore and depth for instance, would allow further
study to better understand changes in biomass, in species composition, changes related to seasonal
variations, etc.

25. 25 | P a g e
f. Issues and Recommendations
The observations presented above constitute baseline data that will be used for further study and
monitoring. As such, it is not possible to establish clear conclusions from the results yet. Also, given the
relatively fresh experience level of the surveyors, some records such as biomass size data will need to be
thoroughly reviewed with possible correction of the methodology that was undertaken at the time of the
survey. Some data were also incomplete or missing:
Shoot count ‐ This is a measure of the number of seagrass plants in a given area (quadrate), supposed to
be recorded in the Seagrass Biomass Form (Annex 8). It should count all shoots of each species in the
quadrate and express results as total shoots m‐2 and by species. Data were recorded but in a wrong way,
which made them unusable. The teams will be re‐trained in order to correctly collect the data required for
the next surveys.
Measuring seagrass canopy height ‐ Measure canopy height (leaves) of the dominant species by
ignoring the tallest 20% of leaves and identifying any grazing evidence. This data was not recorded.
Seaweeds/Algae – Evaluate the percentage cover of macro‐algae in the quadrate. Macro‐algae are
seaweeds that are not attached to seagrass leaves and may even overlie the seagrass shoots. The
combined seagrass and algae cover may be greater than 100%. Algae were recorded a few times, sample
collected and photographed (Annex 11). However, when studying the data form it seems that more could
have been recorded.
Seagrass fish and invertebrates – Only a few fish and invertebrate were photographed (Annex 12), but
not recorded on the Resource Type data sheet (Annex 9).More focus should be put on recorded fauna
during next time surveys.
Overall, the collected data are good enough to establish baseline data and set up a continued monitoring
program in the selected areas. Data collection will improve along with the team’s experience in
conducting such surveys in the following months/years.
3. Chroy Svay CFi, Koh Kong Province
a. Background information
Koh Kong’s coastline is about 237 km long, stretching (from north to south) from Chamyeam village to
Chhrouy Sway village, Sre Ambel District, in Sihanoukville. The Province counts 23 islands, covering
44,067 ha. Approximately 73% of the total mangrove area in the country are found in Koh Kong (63,200
ha). Coral reefs and seagrass beds are also reported in some areas. Several marine fauna can be found
around Koh Chhlam Island in Kiri Sakor and Phnom Koh Kong in Koh Kong District including dugongs,
turtles and dolphins. A small grant project (demonstration project) was satisfactorily completed through
2006‐2007, aiming at protecting 20 ha of seagrass in Chhroy Bros Community management areas and
stopping destructive fishing activities, especially pushing boats.
b. Location of survey sites and reasons for their selection
Five (5) sites were chosen beforehand in Chroy Svay, according to existing data on seagrass in the area
(Table 5, Figure 23).

26. 26 | P a g e
Date of survey November 16th
‐18th
Team
• Mr. Hout Vuthy
• Mr.Cheng Bunthon
• Mr.Po Rany
• Mr. Kann Hong
Site 1
Latitude (y) 1215 638
Longitude (x) 350 346
Site 2
Latitude (y) 1214 915
Longitude (x) 350 908
Site 3
Latitude (y) 1214 392
Longitude (x) 350 319
Site 4
Latitude (y) 1214 084
Longitude (x) 350 922
Site 5
Latitude (y) 1213 695
Longitude (x) 350 145
Table 5 – Details on Chroy Svay survey sites, Koh Kong Province
Figure 23 – Location of survey sites within Chroy Svay CFA, Koh Kong Province (Courtesy FiA)

27. 27 | P a g e
c. Survey issues and results
The research trip to Chroy Svay, Koh Kong, proved to be unfortunately unsuccessful: the teams did their
best yet was not able to find any patch of seagrass. As such, only data relating to the substrate cover
were recorded. Nutrient Indicator Algae, Sand and Rock were the three types of substrates that were
observed at the five transects (Figure 24, Photos 38 and 39).
Figure 24 – Substrate cover in Chroy Svay area, Koh Kong
Province
Photo 27 – Koh Kong research trip, Nov. 2011
Photo 28 – Collecting substrate sample
d. Conclusion and Recommendations
Extensive surveys should be re‐conducted in order to find the seagrass areas. Consultation with local
people, local authorities as well as relevant and data relating to recent habitat loss, coastal management
issues etc. should be taken into account.

28. 28 | P a g e
IV - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The data collected were acceptable to start the implementation of continued marine monitoring programs
yet not impeccable: much time had passed between the training courses and the actual on‐site practical
activities, which did not allow the team members to put their newly‐acquired skills into practice for almost
five months. This delay was not entirely created by the general organization of the project but mostly by the
bad weather conditions of the rainy season, when rain, strong winds make diving conditions difficult (poor
visibility, strong currents), not to say dangerous (unpredictable weather, waves).
There is no secret: the mastery of all diving skills takes regular practice. Without good diving techniques,
undertaking marine surveys becomes much more difficult and the data collected not so reliable since the
diver will be rather focused on his equipment and body movement than on his actual surroundings. Team
members should get back into the water on a regular basis in order to keep practicing their diving skills and
survey techniques, especially regarding substrate, fish and seagrass species identification. Now having their
own SCUBA equipment provided by the RFLP‐FAO, regular practice should not be an issue. In order to
improve data collection, special focus should be put on:
• Fish and Invertebrate identification and recording: photographs were well‐taken during the surveys.
As they help identify species, team members should be encouraged to take as many photos as
possible along the transects
• Recording and monitoring of siltation level (“SI” in Reef Check Substrate Survey Form).
• Recording depths, water temperature in both Coral Reef and Seagrass Surveys.
• Reviewing the parameters that have been missed / misunderstood during Seagrass Surveys (Shoot
Count – Canopy Height – Biomass Size – Resource Type).
In any case, sufficient baseline data have now been collected (at the exception of Koh Kong): continued
marine monitoring programs will soon be undertaken at selected CFi’s. This will inevitably involve regular
diving and survey practice, which will bring diving and survey techniques to perfection within a few more
months.

29. 29 | P a g e
Annex 4.1 – Standard Reef Check Data Sheet (1): Site Description Form

30. 30 | P a g e
Annex 4.2 – Standard Reef Check Data Sheet (2): Substrate Form

31. 31 | P a g e
Annex 4.3 – Standard Reef Check Data Sheet (3): Belt Transect Form (Fish)

32. 32 | P a g e
Annex 4.4 – Standard Reef Check Data Sheet (3): Belt Transect Form
(Invertebrates & Impact on Coral)

33. 33 | P a g e
Annex 5 – Standard Seagrass Percentage Cover Sheet
(McKenzie, L.J. & Campbell, S.J. 2002)

34. 34 | P a g e
Annex 6 – Seagrass Species Identification Sheet

35. 35 | P a g e
Annex 7 – Standard Datasheet for Seagrass Monitoring

36. 36 | P a g e
Annex 8 – Seagrass Biomass Form

37. 37 | P a g e
Annex 9 – Community-Based Seagrass Monitoring: Resource Type data
sheet

38. 38 | P a g e
Annex 10 – Percentage species cover per quadrat in selected CFi areas
11
18
6
10
12
10 11
6 1 1 8
15
9
18
13
13
9
19
27
31
40 41
43
38
43
47
34
49
43
24
23
13
27
1 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 (0 m) 2 (5 m) 3 (10 m) 4 15 m) 5 (20 m) 6 (25 m) 7 (30 m) 8 (35 m) 9 (40 m) 10 (45 m) 11 (50 m)
% coverage
Quadrat
Percentage species cover, per quadrat ‐ Chong Hon CFi, Kampot Province
Hp
Ea
Th
Cs
37 36
63
54
49
46
38
44
28
41 41
3 1 1 2 1 3 5 9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
1 (0 m) 2 (5 m) 3 (10 m) 4 15 m) 5 (20 m) 6 (25 m) 7 (30 m) 8 (35 m) 9 (40 m) 10 (45 m)11 (50 m)
% coverage
Quadrat
Percentage species cover, per quadrat ‐ Tropang Ropov CFi, Kampot Province
Ea
Th
1 1 1
4 3
6
9
14 13 12 13
24
24
25
43
33 33
45
39 40
35
32
21
26
23
3 4 4 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 (0 m) 2 (5 m) 3 (10 m) 4 15 m) 5 (20 m) 6 (25 m) 7 (30 m) 8 (35 m) 9 (40 m) 10 (45 m)11 (50 m)
% coverage
Quadrat
Percentage species cover, per quadrat ‐ Angkol CFi, Kep Province
Hp
Ea
Th
Cs

39. 39 | P a g e
Annex 11 – Seaweeds/Algae photographed during Seagrass Surveys
Seaweed/Algae photo Species Location
Hypnea valentiae Kep
N/A Kep
Algae Kep

40. 40 | P a g e
Annex 12 – Fish and Invertebrates photographed during Seagrass Surveys
Vertebrate/Invertebrate photo Species Location
Horned sea star
Protoreaster nodosus
Kampot
Sea cucumber
Holothuria sp.
Kampot
Bivalve Kampot
Blackbarred halfbeak
Hemiramphus far
Kep