Examination of Environmental Education Initiatives in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor Villages in Cambodia

Angela Hessenius

University of San Diego

San Diego, California, United States

Center for Mekong Studies, The School for Field Studies

Siem Reap, Cambodia

Research Advisor: Georgina Lloyd Rivera, Ph.D.

5 May 2015

Hessenius 2

Table of ContentsTables............................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Figures.............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Abbreviations and Terminology.......................................................................................................................................3

Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Terminology................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................................................4

Declaration....................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................ 5

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Scope of Environmental Education........................................................................................................................5

1.1.1. Global Context of Environmental Education.................................................................................................5

1.1.2. Regional Scope of Environmental Education................................................................................................7

1.1.3. Environmental Education in Cambodia.........................................................................................................8

1.2 Environmental and Social Context of Prek Toal and Anlong Taor Villages..........................................................12

1.3 Aims and Objectives of Study..............................................................................................................................13

2. Methods..................................................................................................................................................................... 14

2.1 Study Period and Location...................................................................................................................................14

2.2 Data Collection Methods.....................................................................................................................................14

2.3 Data Analysis Tools..............................................................................................................................................16

2.4 Limitations of Study.............................................................................................................................................16

3. Results........................................................................................................................................................................16

3.1 Osmose................................................................................................................................................................16

3.2 Public School........................................................................................................................................................18

3.3 Ministry of Environment......................................................................................................................................19

3.4 Community Fishery Committees.........................................................................................................................20

3.5 Other stakeholders..............................................................................................................................................22

3.6 Community Environmental Awareness and Perceptions....................................................................................24

4. Discussion...................................................................................................................................................................26

4.1 Access to Education and Dissemination of Conservation Results Information...................................................27

4.2 Focus on Education for Children and Gap in Adult EE.........................................................................................29

4.3 Deferment of Responsibility to Other Stakeholders............................................................................................30

4.4 Potential Benefits of Bottom-Up and Community-Based EE...............................................................................31

4.5 Shifting Focus from Awareness to Behavior Change...........................................................................................32

4.6 Importance of Integrating Education with Livelihood Improvement..................................................................33

5. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................................35

References..................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix 1..................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Appendix 2..................................................................................................................................................................... 41

Hessenius 3

TablesTable 1: List of Opportunities and Challenges Identified for EE Stakeholders in Prek Toal and Anlong

Taor Villages, Cambodia, 2016............................................................................................................27

Table 2: Full List of Interviews Conducted During Data Collection Period, April 2016.........................40

FiguresFigure 1: Map of Prek Toal Core Area, Osmose 2015..........................................................................14

Figure 2: Pie Chart of Stakeholder Groups Interviewed during Data Collection Period in Prek Toal and

Anlong Taor villages in April 2016........................................................................................................15

Figure 3: Pictures of Exterior and Interior of Osmose Floating Classroom in Prek Toal village,

Cambodia, taken April 2016................................................................................................................17

Figure 4: Responses from Community and Other Stakeholder Groups (including MoE Rangers,

Osmose Teachers, Public School Teachers, Community Fishery Committee Members, and Public

Officials) on Level of Knowledge and Interest in Learning about the Environment among Local

Community Members in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor Villages, Cambodia, in 2016..............................25

Abbreviations and TerminologyAbbreviationsABE: Association of Buddhists for the Environment

ADB: Asian Development Bank

ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CFi: Community Fishery

DESD: Decade of Education for Sustainable Development

EE: Environmental Education

FCA: Fish Conservation Area

GEF: Global Environment Fund

JEEF: Japan Environmental Education Forum

MoE: Ministry of Environment

MOEYS: Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport

NGO: non-governmental organization

OHCHR: Office of High Commission on Human Rights

Hessenius 4

RSIS: Ramsar Sites Information Service

SSI: Semi-structured interview

TSCP: Tonle Sap Conservation Project

TSEMP: Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project

UN: United Nations

UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme

UN FAO: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

UNESCO: United Nations Education, Social, and Cultural Organization

USAID: United States Agency for International Development

WCS: Wildlife Conservation Society

TerminologyMey kum: Commune chief

Mey phum: Village chief

Sangha: Community of Buddhist monks and nuns

AcknowledgementsThere are several people without whom it would not have been possible to complete this

study, and I would like to thank them deeply and genuinely. First, I would like to thank Dr. Georgina

Lloyd-Rivera, for her indispensable guidance throughout the entire process of research, data

collection, and writing, and her confidence in me to gather and interpret our findings. Samrith Vichet

was also a vital part of my success, not only as an extremely proficient translator, but also as the

supportive teammate who was always by my side. I would also like to thank my parents, for their

constant support and also their confidence and trust in me, and for giving me more opportunities

than I could ever deserve. I would also like to thank my home school, the University of San Diego, for

their financial support through the Alcalá Scholarship that has helped make by education possible,

and also for the many members of the USD community who have helped nurture my love of

learning, my passions, and helped make USD a place I not only learn at by where I feel a sense of

home and belonging. I would like to acknowledge and thank the Ministry of Environment of the

Royal Government of Cambodia for granting us permission to do research and collect the data that

formed the basis of this study. Finally, I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude for all

the people who were the subjects of this study, who let me take the time to interview them, who

often graciously and generously opened their homes to me, and provided me with an invaluable

glimpse into their lives.

Hessenius 5

DeclarationI, Angela Hessenius, acknowledge that the research embodied in this paper is entirely my own work,

that where the ideas of others have been used, the sources have been acknowledged, and that no

portion of this research has been previously submitted for grading at The School for Field Studies or

the University of San Diego.

Signed: __________________________________ Date: ___5 May 2015____

Angela Hessenius

Abstract Environmental education (EE) is fundamental in achieving sustainable development and

environmental conservation goals, and evaluation of EE initiatives is necessary to improve their

effectiveness. This study provides an examination of EE initiatives in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor

villages, as few formal evaluations have been completed. Semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were

conducted with key informants from stakeholder groups involved in EE and local community

members in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor villages on the Tonle Sap in Cambodia. It was found that EE

has had substantial positive impacts in the community, yet also faces significant challenges and is

currently limited by a number of factors. These included limited access to education for adults, a lack

of dissemination of information on successful conservation initiatives, and a need for integration of

EE with improving livelihoods and building capacity for behavior changes that support conservation

and ecological sustainability. The exploration of these challenges is essential to be able to reframe

such obstacles as opportunities, because once they are recognized, such impediments can

transformed into targets for improvement to EE in the community.

Keywords: Environmental education; Tonle Sap; Education for sustainable development;

Conservation; Environment; Access to education; Adult Education; Behavior change; Livelihood

Improvement

1. Introduction 1.1 Scope of Environmental Education

1.1.1. Global Context of Environmental EducationEnvironmental education (EE) is a broad concept without a universally accepted definition

(Smith & Keat 2006). The definition included within the Tbilisi Declaration, the product of the first

Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education in 1977, may serve as a foundation:

Hessenius 6

Environmental education is a learning process that increases people’s knowledge and

awareness about the environment and associated challenges, develops the necessary skills

and expertise to address the challenges, and fosters attitudes, motivations, and

commitments to make informed decisions and take responsible action (UNESCO-UNEP 1977)

This definition clearly identifies that EE entails more than merely an increase in knowledge and

awareness about the environment and global environmental issues. It also mobilizes people to

transform this knowledge into practice and action. Minimizing environmental harm caused by

human activities and working towards the creation of solutions and the path of sustainable

development are seen as essential components of EE (Smith & Keat 2006). Springing from this broad

scope of environmental education, many have also recognized the link between poverty reduction

and EE, and acknowledge that people need to be equipped with the capabilities and environmental

assets to meet their needs in a sustainable way, otherwise people will continue to pursue livelihood

activities that cause environmental degradation (Smith & Keat 2006, Ardoin, Clark, & Kelsey 2013,

Khieu 2002, ADB 2011)

These lofty and diverse goals of EE have increasingly been cited as a necessary component of

improving global environmental management and incorporated into goals and objectives of

organizations at many different scales (Smith & Keat 2006, UNESCO 2006, ASEAN 2013). EE was first

codified as an international priority in Principle 19 of the Declaration of the United Nations

Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, which declared environmental

education as essential (UNEP 1972). Recommendation 96 of the Declaration also called for the

establishment of an international program on EE (UNEP 1972). In 1975, an International

Environmental Workshop in Belgrade addressed this recommendation and outlined a global

framework for environmental education. The Belgrade Charter of 1975 identified the goal of EE as

follows:

To develop a world population that is aware of, and concerned about, the environment and

its associated problems, and which has the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivations and

commitment to work individually and collectively toward solutions of current problems and

the prevention of new ones (UNESCO 1975).

The Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, held in 1977, expanded upon the

goals, objectives, and guiding principles for EE expressed in the Belgrade Charter, and included the

following goals for EE:

Hessenius 7

1. to foster clear awareness of, and concern about, economic, social, political, and ecological

interdependence in urban and rural areas;

2. to provide every person with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes,

commitment, and skills needed to protect and improve the environment;

3. to create new patterns of behavior of individuals, groups, and society as a whole towards

the environment (UNESCO-UNEP 1977).

The importance of education for achieving sustainable development and the need to integrate EE

into education for all levels of society was also recognized within Chapter 36 of Agenda 21, the

product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 (UNEP 1992a). Most

recently, this link between EE and sustainable development was promoted on the international level

through the designation of 2005-2014 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development

(DESD) by the United Nations General Assembly in 2002 (Smith & Keat 2006). The DESD was a broad

and ambitious plan to incorporate the inherent values of sustainability in all forms of learning in

order to encourage and empower individuals and society to undergo a transformation towards the

security of a just and sustainable future (UNESCO 2006). The DESD envisions “a world where

everyone has the opportunity to benefit from education and learn the values, behaviour and

lifestyles required for a sustainable future and for positive societal transformation” (UNESCO 2006,

pg. 4). The goals of the DESD thus situate EE within the broader social, cultural, economic, and

political context of sustainable development, and acknowledge the necessity of EE to continue

focusing on the relationship between humankind and the natural world and strategies for the

preservation and sustainable use of its resources (UNESCO 2006).

1.1.2. Regional Scope of Environmental EducationIn response to this push from international organizations such as United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) promoting EE and education as a strategy for sustainable development, regional

efforts to expand EE have also been formulated. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

adopted the ASEAN Environmental Education Action Plan for 2000-2005 and successor plans for

2008-2012 and 2014-2018, which incorporated the goals the DESD. The ASEAN Environmental

Education Action Plans articulated the fundamental importance of EE for the achievement of

sustainable development goals:

EE is key to the overall ESD strategy since humanity's value for and understanding of nature,

and its sustainable use and management of natural resources form the basis for sustainable

economies, harmonious societies and healthy people (ASEAN 2006).

Hessenius 8

The ASEAN Environmental Education Action Plans established a strategic collaborative framework to

“accelerate the development and advancement of environmental education” with specific objectives

in four target areas: formal education, non-formal education, human resource capacity building, and

networking, collaboration, and communication (ASEAN 2013). While the ASEAN member countries

have made progress in active engagement in EE across multiple sectors of society, substantial

challenges remain, including the need for more teachers well-trained and knowledgeable in EE, for

more instructional materials, and more funds allocated from the government to support EE

initiatives (Smith & Keat 2006).

1.1.3. Environmental Education in CambodiaThe impetus for the development of EE from international and regional policies have

contributed to developments of EE from a wide range of stakeholders in Cambodia, though there

remain significant limitations and room for growth. Due to Cambodia’s history of more than twenty

years of conflict, which coincided with the developing awareness of environmental problems and

prioritization of sustainable development and EE among the international community, EE has had a

relatively short history in Cambodia compared to many other nations and is still in an initial phase

(Smith & Keat 2006). However, since the mid-1990s, EE has increasingly been administered by both

government and NGO stakeholders (Smith & Keat 2006). The MoE has made important progress in

implementing EE on a national level, including collaboration with the Ministry of Education, Youth

and Sport (MOEYS) to train primary school teachers, building human resource capacity by

conducting trainings for provincial environment department employees, and public environmental

awareness-raising campaigns through media, such as national television and radio broadcasts, and

events such as National and World Environment Day (Smith & Keat 2006). Despite these

accomplishments, the MoE still faces significant challenges to the implementation of EE, including

limited human resources, materials, financial support, planning, and collaboration among

stakeholders (Smith & Keat 2006).

A representative, but not exhaustive, list of NGOs focused on EE in Cambodia include Live

and Learn Environmental Education, Mlup Baitong, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)

in Siem Reap, Save Cambodia’s Wildlife, Osmose, Wildlife Alliance, the Association of Buddhists for

the Environment (ABE), the Culture and Environment Preservation Association, and more (Smith &

Keat 2006, Japan Environmental Education Forum (JEEF) 2007, Wildlife Alliance 2015). Organizations

such as the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Sam Veasna Center, and Conservation International

are also involved in projects to improve livelihoods in local communities by generating alternative

sources of income and to build capacity by providing technical training for biodiversity monitoring

and protection of conservation areas, to achieve results in enhancing sustainable management of

Hessenius 9

resources and protecting key species and their habitats (WCS 2016, Conservation International 2016,

Sam Veasna Center n.d.).

These NGOs and others have made significant progress in collaboration with the

government to extend EE in Cambodia within a variety of sectors. In the formal sector, activities

have mainly focused on integrating EE into school and university curriculums, including the

development of materials such as training manuals and guides for teachers and student clubs, and

technical training and capacity building in environmentally sound practices for both government

employees and civil society (Smith & Keat 2006). However, there is a lack of assessment of the

quality of these trainings and a critical need to evaluate the quality of environmental training being

administered by many different providers to ensure that accurate information and best practices are

being taught (Smith & Keat 2006).

In spite of these pushes for EE development in the formal sector, the majority of EE in

Cambodia occurs in the non-formal sector. Activities carried out in the non-formal sector fall under a

very broad range and include radio and television broadcasts, speeches, posters, and special events

(Smith & Keat 2006). Monks have also played an important role in the dissemination of EE in

Cambodia through activities such as speeches and community-based environmental learning

activities carried out by pagodas (Smith & Keat 2006). For example, Mlup Baitong, supported by the

World Bank and Alliance of Religions and Conservation, developed a program that provided

education and training for monks in 14 rural pagodas, who became able to provide education on

Buddhism and the environment to their local communities through events and activities such as

lectures, workshops, radio programs and events on Buddhist holy days, and seedling ordination

ceremonies at tree nurseries that are now well-established at these pagodas (Awoyemi et al 2012).

ABE is another organization that works to strengthen the capacity of the sangha, the community of

Buddhist monks and nuns, in Cambodia to promote environmental education and protection (JEEF

2007, Berkley Center n.d.). Examples of their major projects completed so far include the

development of a documentary video on monks and Community Forestry, and providing training in

environmental outreach to monks and disseminating environmental education materials, such as

audio materials that are broadcasted at target pagodas on Buddhist holy days in Bokor National Park

in Kampot province and Kampong Leng district in Kampong Chhnang provice (JEEF 2007). In

Kampong Leng, ABE has also implemented community livelihood projects, including improving local

water supply management; establishing compost heaps, vegetable gardens, and tree nurseries; and

organizing tree planting events and tree ordination ceremonies at pagodas (JEEF 2007, Berkley

Center n.d.). These initiatives are consistent with the global movement to bridge religion and

conservation, and specifically in Buddhist countries to utilize Buddhist principles and teachings as a

Hessenius 10

base for establishing an environmental ethic and motivating people to protect the environment

(Awoyemi et al 2012, Chim 2012).

1.1.4. Environmental Education in the Tonle Sap Many EE projects within Cambodia have focused specifically on the region of the Tonle Sap,

the great lake in the center of Cambodia and the largest freshwater lake in Southeast Asia. Some of

the NGOs involved in EE in the Tonle Sap include Live and Learn Environmental Education, Mlup

Baitong, the UN FAO in Siem Reap (who established the GECKO center for EE in a floating village on

the Tonle Sap in 1999), Save Cambodia’s Wildlife, and Osmose (Smith & Keat 2006). EE projects

along the Tonle Sap have typically been implemented on a small scale in local communities, with a

focus on primary school students and teachers (Smith & Keat 2006). One major accomplishment was

the collaborative preparation of an Environmental Education Training Manual that is currently being

used by the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Mlup Baitong, Save Cambodia’s Wildlife &

Osmose and to aid in the integration of EE into the public school curriculum (Smith & Keat 2006).

Due to the international recognition of the environmental, social, and cultural significance of

the Tonle Sap, there have been internationally and regionally driven EE efforts in focused on this

region as well. As a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve, part of UNESCO’s mission is to build

capacity and promote EE in the region (UNESCO 2016). One important project that has been carried

out is the Tonle Sap Conservation Project (TSCP). The TSCP was developed from the third component

of the Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project (TSEMP), the first major project of the Asian

Development Bank-funded Tonle Sap Initiative (Asian Development Bank (ADB) 2010, ADB 2011,

Global Environment Facility 2011). The ultimate objective of the TSEMP was to improve “the

sustainable management and conservation of natural resources and biodiversity in the Tonle Sap

Basin” (ADB 2011). To achieve this goal, Component 3 aimed to build capacity for management and

conservation of biodiversity, and specifically identifies the promotion of “biodiversity conservation

awareness, education, and outreach” as one of its strategies to achieve this objective (ADB 2010,

ADB 2011). The TSCP was a separate project to implement Component 3, funded by the Global

Environment Facility and the UNEP and implemented by the Cambodia National Mekong Committee

and the Ministry of Environment, and extended from 2004 to 2011 (ADB 2011, GEF 2011).

The third expected outcome of the TSCP was to promote awareness, education and

outreach on biodiversity conservation in the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, through the development

and implementation of an environmental awareness and outreach program to be delivered through

the school system and environmental educational centers in villages throughout the Tonle Sap (GEF

2011). Training activity for provincial government staff engaged in protected areas management and

biodiversity monitoring was another important target of the TSCP (GEF 2011). Project results for the

Hessenius 11

environmental awareness and outreach program included the country’s first environmental

education curriculum, development of EE teaching materials for students from grades 4-9, training

of 255 teachers from 65 schools around the lake in using the environmental manual and teaching

materials, and the initiation of eco-clubs in schools with the establishment of nine eco-clubs in target

schools (GEF 2011). The environmental manual for teachers contains 14 environmental themes and

is specifically focused on the resources of the Tonle Sap, and was developed in partnership by the

MOEYS and the FAO, Mlup Baitong, Save Cambodia’s Wildlife, and Osmose, and reviewed in 2004

based on teacher feedback (GEF 2011, Smith & Keat 2006). These are significant achievements of the

project, and the teacher’s guide for EE will have a lasting benefit in Cambodia (GEF 2011). However,

one limitation of the EE and environmental awareness and outreach initiatives of the TSCP is a lack

of sustainability, since the terminal evaluation of the TSCP concluded that although individual

teachers expressed the commitment to continued use of the educational materials and skills

acquired, a lack of funding meant that sustainment of the program was unlikely (GEF 2011).

A national environmental education and awareness campaign was also planned as one of

the outputs under Component 1 of the TSEMP in order to strengthen natural resource management

coordination and planning through the dissemination of information about the environment (ADB

2010). For this objective Live & Learn was contracted to develop and successfully created a variety of

useful education tools including flipcharts, facilitation guides, and the EE training manual for

teachers, as well as a publication on the Tonle Sap, EE status report, and national media including

theatre and radio (ADB 2010, Live & Learn, Smith & Keat 2006). However, completion reports noted

that at the conclusion of the project, the “‘national’ education and awareness campaign was not in

place as envisaged” at the project outset (ADB 2010 pg. 24, ADB 2011).

In the case of the TSCP, a formal monitoring and evaluation was conducted in compliance

with United Nations Development Programme and GEF standards (GEF 2011). However, for many of

the smaller-scale EE initiatives currently taking place on the Tonle Sap, little or no formal monitoring

and evaluation has been conducted (Smith & Keat 2006). Deficient monitoring and evaluation of EE

projects is a serious problem, because it is impossible to assess the various strategies that have been

employed and share the knowledge of EE methods that are effective at increasing fostering

environmental awareness, values, and behavior changes within communities, as well as to address

and improve upon strategies that are not successful in changing people’s attitudes and actions

(Smith & Keat 2006, Live & Learn 2015). Within Prek Toal and Anlong Taor villages, a variety of

different stakeholders are involved in EE, yet few examinations or evaluations of the impact of these

initiatives have been conducted. For this reason, these sites were selected as a case study to gather

Hessenius 12

preliminary data on the influence that different stakeholders and EE projects have had on the local

communities.

1.2 Environmental and Social Context of Prek Toal and Anlong Taor Villages

Prek Toal is also an especially important site to examine the outcomes of EE initiatives in the

local communities due to the extreme ecological importance of the area. Prek Toal Core Area is the

largest of three core areas of the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 1997

(UNESCO 2007). Prek Toal was selected as a core area because it contains some of the Tonle Sap

floodplains that remain in the most pristine condition and has great biodiversity value as a habitat

for a variety of globally threatened species (Ramsar Sites Information Service (RSIS) 2015). The site is

covered mostly by freshwater swamp forest habitat that floods annually with the seasonal

hydrological regime of the Tonle Sap (RSIS 2015). Nutrient-rich sediment trapped by the forests

support highly productive plant and fish habitats (RSIS 2015). Prior to the cancellation of fishing lots

in 2011, the area was highly exploited as the most productive fishery on the lake, Battambang

Fishing Lot No. 2 (Osmose 2015). In addition to being the most productive fishery area on the Tonle

Sap (itself one of the most productive freshwater fisheries in the world), Prek Toal core area is also

the most important nesting site on the Tonle Sap—supporting 210 species, including 17 that are

globally threatened or endangered (Tonle Sap Conservation Project (TSCP) 2007). For its ecological

value, Prek Toal was also designated as a Ramsar Site in 2015 (RSIS 2015).

In addition to such high biodiversity, Koh Chiveang commune also supports five villages and

approximately 1300 families that live in floating houses or houseboats (Osmose 2015, TSCP 2007).

The residents of the local community represent diverse ethnic backgrounds, with a majority of

Khmer people and minority populations of Chinese-Khmer, Vietnamese, and Cham (Osmose 2014).

The economies of these villages are highly dependent upon fishing and associated activities, with the

majority of fishing done on a subsistence level (Osmose 2015). The site also has significant economic

value for its great potential as an ecotourism site, offering the ability to view a high concentration of

large nesting waterbirds within easy access of Siem Reap (TSCP 2007). For its biological, economic,

social, and cultural value, Prek Toal core area is a site of global significance that requires diligent

protection of the natural resources that support both human and non-human life.

The recognition of this fact has already spurred many EE initiatives designed to raise

awareness of the importance of the Prek Toal ecosystem and encourage and build the capacity of

the local community to sustain rich biodiversity of the core area. For example, the NGO Osmose was

established in Prek Toal in 1999 with an approach to conservation that links community-based

Hessenius 13

conservation, alternative livelihood support through the development of ecotourism, and EE

(Osmose 2015). Osmose initiated their EE program in 2000 with the goal of educating the children of

the community to equip them to conserve the area’s natural resources (UNESCO 2007, Osmose

2015). Osmose purchased a floating school to hold classes in 2001, and has held both indoor classes

at their floating center to teach children about the Tonle Sap ecosystems, as well as outdoor classes,

including field trips to the Prek Toal bird sanctuaries, to see the concepts taught in the classroom in

real life (UNESCO 2007, Osmose 2015). The EE program is also in the process of being integrated into

the curriculum of the local schools in Prek Toal (Osmose 2015). An independent evaluation of

Osmose’s EE program was performed in 2007 with positive results (Osmose 2015). However, a more

current evaluation is necessary to determine if the results of this program are still successful.

WCS also has an established presence in the area through their Prek Toal conservation

project (WCS 2016). Through this project, WCS has worked closely with the MoE to monitor and

protect the water bird colonies and flooded forest in the Prek Toal Core Area since 2001 (WCS 2016).

As a partner in the TSCP, WCS also contributed to capacity building for biodiversity management,

through actions such as training 52 rangers who patrol the conservation site (WCS 2016).

1.3 Aims and Objectives of StudyFor the purposes of this study, EE has been defined and investigated specifically as it

pertains to increasing awareness and knowledge of the environment, understanding of its

connections to human livelihoods and wellbeing, and encouraging actions that contribute to

environmental conservation and sustainability among local communities. While some stakeholders,

such as Osmose, also aim to incorporate EE into tourism initiatives, to narrow the scope of this

study, the delivery and reception of EE within local communities was chosen as the central focus.

Given the fundamental importance of EE in achieving sustainable development and

environmental conservation goals, the necessity for evaluation of EE initiatives to improve their

effectiveness, and the lack of formal evaluation and even a comprehensive collection of basic

information about the current status of environmental initiatives in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor

villages, this study aims to address this gap in knowledge by collecting data from stakeholders

providing EE and local community members receiving EE to determine which stakeholders are active

in EE, what techniques they are utilizing and what topics they are teaching, and how these

educational initiatives are perceived by the local community. This investigation should serve as a

starting point for future studies and data collection that can allow for a formal monitoring and

evaluation process. The following state the objectives of this study:

Hessenius 14

1. Identify stakeholders involved in development and implementation of environmental

education projects and initiatives in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor

2. Determine what mechanisms and activities different stakeholders employ in their EE

initiatives and what concepts and topics they choose to cover

3. Examine community reception of past and current EE initiatives by exploring environmental

awareness and knowledge among the local community

4. Analyze and compare EE initiatives shared by respondents

2. Methods2.1 Study Period and Location

The study was conducted during the period from April 18, 2016 to April 27, 2016 in the

villages of Prek Toal and Anlong Ta Oinr in Koh Chiveang commune, Ek Phnom district, Battambang

province, in Cambodia (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Map of Prek Toal Core Area, Osmose 2015

2.2 Data Collection MethodsTo gather the data for this study, semi-structured interviews (SSI) were conducted with key

informants from the various stakeholder groups involved in EE in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor. These

include rangers employed by the MoE who patrol the Core Area, Community Fishery committee

Hessenius 15

members in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor, and the mey phum (village chief) of Prek Toal and Anlong

Taor and the mey kum (commune chief) of Koh Chiveang commune. Interviews were conducted with

local schoolteachers, both from Osmose and the public schools in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor, to

acquire information about the current EE initiatives for children in these villages. Representatives

from NGOs with a presence in the area, including OSMOSE, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS),

and Live & Learn, were also interviewed. In addition, interviews with monks from the local

monastery and a Catholic priest who routinely visits the Church of St. Joseph in Prek Toal were

conducted in order to ascertain whether these religious institutions are actively involved in

environmental education. To investigate the experience of local community members with EE and

levels of environmental awareness in the community, SSIs were also conducted with local

community members. Nine interviews were conducted in Prek Toal village and seven interviews

were conducted in Anlong Taor village. Figure 2, below, shows the proportions of the number of

interviews conducted with members of each stakeholder group out of the total number of

interviews, and the full list of interviews conducted can be found in Appendix 1.

Osmose Teachers5% n=2 MoE Rangers

7% n=3Catholic Priest

2% n=1

Village-level Official5% n=2

Monk2% n=1

Community Members41% n=17

Community Fishing Committee Members

7%

Osmose Representatives5% n=2

WCS Representative2% n=1

MoE Official2% n=1

Commune-level Official2% n=1

Live & Learn Representative 2% n=1

Public School Teachers15% n=6

Stakeholder Groups Interviewed Osmose Teachers

MoE Rangers

Catholic Priest

Village-level Official

Monk

Community Members

Community Fishing Commit -tee Members

Osmose Representatives

WCS Representative

MoE Official

Commune-level Official

Live & Learn Representative

Public School Teachers

Hessenius 16

Figure 2: Pie Chart of Stakeholder Groups Interviewed during Data Collection Period in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor villages in April 2016

The topic guides for both the SSIs and focus groups use both a series of yes/no questions

followed by prompts, as well as open-ended questions. The full topic guides can be found in

Appendix 2.

2.3 Data Analysis ToolsThe software Atlas.TI was utilized to manage, analyze, and present the data gathered.

Microsoft Excel was also used to create tables in order to present the data results. The data was

analyzed using grounded theory, to draw insights and conclusions based on the interview data

collected and comparative analysis of the various groups examined (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

2.4 Limitations of StudyDue to the limited time spent in the field, yielding a moderate sample size of interview

respondents, it is not possible to draw generalized conclusions about the full extent of EE initiatives

in Prek Toal, or their effectiveness and influence on the community. Further research in Prek Toal, as

well as other locations on the Tonle Sap, is necessary to be able to conduct a monitoring and

evaluation analysis that will enable EE providers to improve the effectiveness of their approaches to

EE.

Another limitation of the study is that due to the cross-cultural context which required a

translator, there is the inevitable possibility that some questions or answers could have been

misinterpreted or that the nuances of responses could have been lost. It is also possible that

interview respondents could have modified their answers in some cases based on their perceptions

of the researchers and an attempt to give answers they thought were desired or to protect their own

innocence.

3. Results 3.1 Osmose

Osmose is currently the most active stakeholder in EE in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor. Their

environmental education (EE) program focuses on building environmental awareness among primary

school students (Grades 1-6) through a combination of indoor and outdoor classroom activities. The

Osmose teachers transport the students to the Osmose floating classroom, where EE classes are

taught complementary to the public school schedule four times per week (if the public school classes

are in the morning, the Osmose classes will be in the afternoon, and vice versa) (Figure 3). Osmose

also started integrating their EE curriculum into the local public schools in 2001. Currently, Osmose

Hessenius 17

hires two state teachers on a part-time basis, who teach both at the Osmose platform and the local

public schools, one teacher at Prek Toal and one teacher at Koh Chiveang Public School. The Osmose

teachers and public school teachers reported that the Osmose teachers visit the public schools to

teach about the environment two or three times per month. There used to be three teachers hired

by Osmose, but one teacher is now resigned, so there is currently no Osmose teacher available to

teach classes at the Kampong Prahok Public School.

Figure 3: Pictures of Exterior and Interior of Osmose Floating Classroom in Prek Toal village, Cambodia, taken April 2016

The outdoor classroom activities include field trips to the Prek Toal Core Area to see the

water bird colonies, waste collection at the school or monastery, and trips in the village to observe

local plant life and floating gardens that Osmose helped 20 local families build in 2002. The

birdwatching trips are a high priority, because they want to encourage the children to love and want

to protect the endangered birds that are of great conservation and ecotourism value. During the dry

season, when the bird populations are at their peak (November through March), Osmose

representatives explained that they bring the students on birdwatching up to four times per month,

while Osmose teachers reported that they take students on outdoor field trips two times per month.

The birdwatching excursions also require collaboration between Osmose and the Ministry of

Environment (MoE), since an MoE ranger always accompanies the teachers and students in order to

guide them to the Core Area and provide information about the birds to the students. During the

wet season, when the birds have migrated elsewhere, the teachers take the students to do the local

outdoor activities. As a result of these activities and education on topics such as the natural

environment of the Tonle Sap and the importance of conserving those natural resources for the

future, the Osmose teachers have noted changes in behavior, including disposal of waste in bins

rather than the lake and ceasing to hunt for bird eggs. Osmose is also hopeful that the children will

continue to love and value the environment in the future and reflect this through their behaviors by

protecting natural resources and using them sustainably.

Hessenius 18

The EE program complements the other main components of Osmose’s approach to

environmental conservation and community livelihood improvement, which are ecotourism and

local development. An Osmose representative noted that “all the components are linked, which has

been one of their successes,” and described how environmental awareness and protection of natural

resources are necessary to support and sustain the ecotourism component, which also helps to

provide alternative income to local families, incentivizing conservation behaviors.

3.2 Public SchoolThe public school teachers also provide the students in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor with EE as

part of the state curriculum. They teach about environmental topics as often as they are scheduled

to in the curriculum and materials from the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (MOEYS), which

one teacher reported is about once a month. Some of the most common environmental topics

covered by the public school teachers include the natural environment and its components, such as

the water, the animals, and especially the flooded forests and mangroves. The teachers emphasize

the importance of the forests for providing livelihood benefits now and in the future, including

supporting biodiversity and breeding fish, providing wood to use for fuel, protection from storms,

and regulation of the weather. Multiple teachers also reported that they have discussed the threat

of climate change, which the students understand because they experience the temperature getting

hotter and hotter, and how climate change can damage the forests and the interrelated

environment.

One challenge identified by some of the local public school teachers interviewed is that it is

difficult to improve students’ habits and behaviors because they are more likely to follow the model

set by their parents and families than by their teachers. For example, they try to teach the students

not to throw their rubbish in the water and not to drink the lake water, but for students’ whose

families do not know not to throw their rubbish the water or who cannot afford to buy clean water

and do not know to boil it, it is difficult to make such behavior changes, though the teachers do try

to tell the students to pass these messages on to their parents. Similarly, though illegal fishing gear is

not a main component of the curriculum, the teachers often talk to their students about which

fishing activities and gears are allowed and which are not allowed. However, they explained that

such education will not override the poorer families’ needs to perform illegal fishing actions in order

to feed their families. One public school teacher said, “It is really hard for the kids here. Normally

they listen to their family, and the life they live depends on fish. If they don’t do illegal activity, then

they can’t feed their family.” When asked about whether the students have changed their behaviors

as a result of learning about the environment, the same teacher responded, “You can hardly blame

the kids; it depends on their family condition. It’s not like they don’t know and understand. They

Hessenius 19

know and understand, but if they don’t do it, then they can’t feed their family. For example, some of

the kids cut down the mangroves for firewood. They know that it’s wrong but it is their livelihood.”

When such resource collection practices are part of the livelihood of child’s family, the children will

continue such behaviors despite the fact that they are aware that such actions are illegal or wrong.

Despite this challenge, teachers have reported some successes in altering students’ behaviors,

including disposing of rubbish in bins at the school rather than in the water.

3.3 Ministry of EnvironmentThe MoE does not currently have an EE program for the adults in the local community. In the

past they have had an EE program for adults, but have discontinued this program due to lack of time.

Rather than educate the whole community, they only educate their rangers. There are currently 30-

40 rangers employed by the MoE, including both volunteer and full-time rangers. The rangers

receive training in collecting data to monitor the biodiversity and patrolling the Core Area; they are

instructed by a teacher who comes from the MoE Ministry Office in Phnom Penh at least once a

year. The MoE also encourages the rangers to care about protecting the environment and

encouraging fellow community members to protect the environment as well, including encouraging

community members caught doing minor illegal actions, such as fishing in the Core Area, to change

their behaviors and help take care of the environment. The rangers play an important role in EE as

disseminators of information. Their messages tend to focus on clear prohibitions of actions, such as

telling people not to enter the Core Area, not to cut down trees in the forest, and not to use the

illegal fishing gears, and explaining that these behaviors are important because protecting the

forests, which are where the fish breed, and leaving behind the small fish to let them grow, are

necessary to maintain the fish stocks for the future.

One challenge identified by some of the MoE rangers interviewed is that the MoE used to

have rangers who were more active in EE in the community, but those rangers have now all retired,

and the newly hired rangers are too busy with patrolling to visit the community members to educate

them about the environment. One MoE ranger interviewed reported that they have requested to

continue doing EE like the retired rangers used to do, but that they have not received feedback or

approval yet from MoE senior staff.

Another way the MoE disseminates information about the environment is through meetings.

They typically hold meetings two to three times a year, especially when an MoE official from the

MoE Ministry Office in Phnom Penh comes to visit the MoE Core Area Management Station at Prek

Toal. In these official meetings, they often utilize poster and slideshow presentations and discuss

topics such as how to protect the mangrove forests and the water bird colonies. Normal attendance

Hessenius 20

at these meetings is between 40 and 50 people. Official authorities and public figures, such as the

mey kum and mey phums, are usually invited to attend. An MoE official reported that they do not

announce these meetings to the general community because they do not have the available space to

accommodate such a large number of people, so their strategy is to invite the people who are heads

of the community and entrust them with disseminating the information to the rest of the

population.

The community members are aware that the MoE holds these meetings; however, they

reported that they never receive invitations to the meetings or information about when they will be

held. They perceive that only certain people are selected to attend. For example, when asked if there

are meetings about the environment in the community, a village level official reported that

“normally when they set up the meetings, they don’t have a general announcement, they invite

select houses, the ones with the good living conditions. The poor people don’t get invited,” and a

community member that they “know they have meetings, but they don’t invite the poor people.”

This perception is one cause of frustration between the MoE and the community. There were a

variety of reasons cited for the poor relationship between the MoE and the community. Some

community members who were interviewed expressed significant resentment and suspicion of the

MoE. There is a strong perception among some members of the community that the MoE is corrupt

because they take fish and other resources out of the protected area that they prevent the

community from entering. It was also reported that when the MoE catches people for doing illegal

actions, they only make them pay a fee and collect that money and let the offender go, so nothing

changes the problem of decreasing resources:

Since the MoE took over the protected area, there was nothing left, because the rangers

take the birds eggs to feed their families. When they catch people, they make them pay the

fine, and people don’t have that money so they don’t do the illegal action.

Other stakeholders reported that collaborating with the MoE is difficult. For example, one of

the Osmose teachers said that sometimes they have planned to have an MoE ranger take their group

of students to see the Core Area, but on the day their trip was planned they were told that all the

MoE rangers were busy so none could accompany them, so they had to change their plans to a local

outdoor activity.

3.4 Community Fishery CommitteesLike the MoE rangers, members of the Community Fishery (CFi) Committees of Prek Toal and

Anlong Taor often teach people about the environment, either when they are on patrol in the CFi or

when they hold meetings for the community. Meetings held by the CFi Committee typically happen

Hessenius 21

at least once a year. The CFi uses a poster and teaches about the fishing laws and regulations. For

example, they tell the community about the types of fishing gears that are legal and illegal (including

electroshock and gill nets of a small net size). They also inform the community about where they are

allowed to fish, and especially try to deter the community from fishing in the Fish Conservation Area

(FCA), or former Fishing Lot #2. There is also a protected area within the CFi (former Fishing Lot #3)

where people are not allowed to fish. They explain to the community that people are not allowed to

fish in the protected areas or use the illegal gears in order to protect the spawning fish to have

resources for the future. Another main focus besides explaining the fishery laws is teaching people

about the connection between protecting the environment and improving their living conditions,

since all rely on the natural resources and healthy environment for their livelihoods. The CFi

Committee also requests that community members help to protect the environment, especially the

forest that supports the breeding fish, by not cutting down trees and not hunting the wildlife.

The CFi Committee members reported that they often collaborate with other NGOs for their

EE, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Cambodia HARVEST

program worked with the CFi Committees and helped organize and run their meetings with

community until their project concluded this year. CFi committee members described how HARVEST

helped train them in managing the CFi and taught the community about protecting the environment,

conserving natural resources, and the threat of climate change at the meetings. They also helped

fund projects to improve livelihoods in the community, including a providing fish ponds to CFi

committee members and training in aquaculture.

A CFi Committee member interviewed also discussed his own activities to engage his local

community in environmental education and protection. He reported that even when funds from

HARVEST ran out for the community meetings, he continued to organize meetings for the

community on his own about three times a year, using his own funds to purchase snacks for the

people who attend. Three main goals cited for discussion in these meetings were talking about the

environment, asking people to protect the FCA and its fish and bird populations, and requesting that

the whole community unites and works together to protect the environment. He discussed ways in

which he is able to help the community understand these concepts even though are not highly

educated. For example, he avoids using technical language like the term ecology, and instead

explains how everything in the environment is related to each other by explaining it as a “food

system.” Another way he helps the community understand the importance of the environment is by

connecting the environment to the economy, their livelihoods, and their daily reality. He described

how he explains that effects of climate change, such as increasing temperature, lower water levels

on the lake, and the increasing incidences of forest fires will have negative consequences by

Hessenius 22

decreasing the amounts of fish and therefore the amount of food for people to eat. The following is

the reasoning reported to explain the concept of conserving natural resources and how good living

conditions are dependent on a healthy environment:

He uses the reality of every day, like the ecosystem and climate changing, the temperature,

the lake drying up, and the fires in the forest—all of these problems start to make you feel

worried and make you sick. Everyone starts to think that if there is no water then there will

be less fish and then there will be nothing to eat and then people will get sick. Every time he

has a meeting with the community he adds it with the economic system and how it goes

together with the environment. If you destroy the environment, then there is no flow of the

economy.

In addition to holding meetings in the community for adults, this CFi Committee member also talks

to students in the public school for one hour each month.

According to a CFi Committee member, the local community is very willing to attend

community meetings, and to join together in community action to help protect the environment. As

an example, he reported that he organized a group of local community members to put out a fire

near their houses. He also reported behavior changes among the majority of the community

members, including ceasing to use the electroshock gear for fishing and stopping the collection of

bird eggs and nests. Despite these successes, he reported facing significant challenges from

authorities, who do not support his projects. A Committee member expressed the belief that the

authorities, such as the MoE, should improve their collaboration with the local community in order

to be successful in conserving the natural resources of the area, because if the community is angry

with the MoE, they will not follow the rules and it will be impossible for the MoE to enforce them:

Whatever project, if you don’t have help from the community then it won’t happen. You

need to keep the community happy to collaborate. If you make the community angry or hate

you, then it is easy for them to destroy the environment. There are many more of them than

the 30-40 MoE rangers, so there will be no way to stop them.

3.5 Other stakeholdersWhile the mey phums of Prek Toal and Anlong Taor and the mey kum of Koh Chiveang are

involved in the meetings held by the MoE on the environment and in general meetings for the

commune held by the mey kum that may cover environmental topics, they are not extensively active

in EE for the community. They do tell community members not to cut trees and only to take dead

wood from the forest for fuelwood, to obey the fishing laws by not fishing in the protected areas or

Hessenius 23

using the illegal gears in order to protect the breeding fish, and to keep the environment clean and

collecting their rubbish.

The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is not actively engaged in any EE projects for the

local community, though they continue to support the MoE by providing annual technical training in

patrolling and water bird monitoring for the MoE rangers. This is consistent with their central focus

on achieving conservation results for the water bird colonies and their habitats in the Prek Toal Core

Area. WCS has collaborated with Osmose in the past by providing funding for their EE projects, and

there are opportunities for WCS to play a more active role in EE in Prek Toal in the future. A WCS

representative mentioned some of these opportunities, including continuing their partnership with

Osmose or standardizing education and awareness-raising for adults as a component of their

conservation programs. They stated “they want there to be a dedicated unit within WCS that

supplies training at all their sites” and that they “want to raise awareness among adults.”

Currently, the monastery at Anlong Taor is not actively involved in any environmental

education. Although the space at the monastery is used for activities such as waste collection events

for schoolchildren and community members, the monks are not typically consulted or invited to

collaborate in these events, and they may or may not participate in them. According to the monk

with the most authority at the monastery, though he has tried to engage the community and asked

them to help collect rubbish around the wat, the community members are not interested and refuse

to participate. When asked if he ever incorporates teaching about the environment or Buddhist

stories related to the environment into ceremonies, he reported that he does not, because Osmose

and the MoE both fill the role of teaching people in the community about the environment.

The Catholic Church in Prek Toal (Church of St. Joseph’s, a satellite church of St. John’s

Church in Siem Reap) is another religious institution that is not currently engaged in EE, though there

is the possibility that EE becomes a component of the Church’s social outreach programs in the

future. At the moment, the Church is involved in programs aimed at reducing poverty, including

offering free English classes for the community. While they are not actively involved EE, a

representative of St. John’s Church who routinely visits the church in Prek Toal reported that he

believes there is the potential for incorporating EE into their activities in the future, and that it

should be a priority given the importance of the conservation area in Prek Toal. Also, environmental

protection has been identified as a main objective of the Catholic Diocese in Battambang, based

upon the understanding that protecting the environment is strongly aligned with Catholic values to

respect and care for Creation. At the moment, they do encourage the children not to throw rubbish

in the water, and believe the children are gradually changing their behaviors.

Hessenius 24

3.6 Community Environmental Awareness and Perceptions Members of the community reported a variety of levels of environmental awareness,

behaviors practiced, and reasons for protecting the environment. One concept that is strongly

understood by the community is the connection between the forests and the fish. Almost all

community members know and understand that the forests are important habitats for the fish to

breed, so protecting the flooded forests is of great importance to sustaining the fish populations.

This link shows that the community understands that the elements of the environment—the forests,

the water, and the wildlife—are all related to each other. Many community members made remarks

similar to a community member who stated, “If you protect the forest, it means you protect the fish

too. When the fish breed they need the forests.”

Some of the most commonly reported reasons for protecting the environment include for

supporting their family and their livelihoods, protecting natural resources for themselves in the

future and for their children future generations to be able to know the environment as well as have

the resources they need to survive. Another common motivation for taking care of the environment

is for the health and hygiene of themselves and their families, and this is a major reason many

community members reported trying to keep the environment around their house and the lake

clean by not throwing their rubbish into the water and practicing proper sanitation and not drinking

water from the lake. Unfortunately, interviewees also noted that many people in the community still

throw rubbish in the water and use the polluted lake water for drinking, washing, and bathing, which

has negative consequences for people’s health. However, frequent reporting of these motivations to

protect the environment shows that the majority of people understand the connection between

taking care of the environment and supporting their own livelihoods and wellbeing for themselves,

their families, and future generations.

In addition, almost all the community members interviewed indicated that they would be

interested in learning more about the environment (see Figure 4). However, many noted that while

they would be interested, they do not have the opportunity to participate EE, either because there

are no groups providing any EE in the community, that they are not invited to participate, such as in

the meetings held by the MoE, or because they do not have time because they are busy fishing to

feed themselves and their families. There is also a discrepancy in the perception of the community’s

knowledge about and interest in learning about the environment, which is illustrated in Figure 4,

showing that community members self-report higher levels and knowledge and interest than

stakeholders perceive the community to have.

Hessenius 25

Figure 4: Responses from Community and Other Stakeholder Groups (including MoE Rangers, Osmose Teachers, Public

School Teachers, Community Fishery Committee Members, and Public Officials) on Level of Knowledge and Interest in

Learning about the Environment among Local Community Members in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor Villages, Cambodia, in

2016.

Other perceptions reported by the community include the threat of decreasing resources,

such as the forests, water, and wildlife such as birds and fish. One community member stated the

following comparing the amount of natural resources he perceived to be available to the community

now compared to the past:

There was so much wildlife then and less people. Now there are more people, more hunting,

and less wildlife, and the environment is getting dirtier every day. For natural resources, the

wildlife and birds are less and less. For fishing, sometimes there is not enough to feed his

family.

One major cause people commonly attributed to this decrease in natural resources is the extremely

hot and dry weather, which has caused the lake levels to be abnormally low and also caused forest

fires that the community is deeply concerned about, since they recognize that the forests are crucial

for the environment and sustaining fish populations: “If they protect the forest, then they protect

the fish and the animals and the birds. But with the fire, they are not sure if they will still be there.”

Increasing pressure on resources form population growth and lack of water caused by dams in other

countries were less commonly cited as reasons for the decrease in resources. Some community

members stated that they do not know why the natural resources are decreasing, they only have

Hessenius 26

noticed that there are less fish, birds, and other resources than there were in the past. Multiple

community members expressed the opinion that as protection and strict enforcement of regulations

in conservation areas has increased, the amount of natural resources in these areas have

paradoxically decreased. Related to this perception is the belief that authorities excluding

community members from conservation areas, such as the MoE, are extracting resources from these

areas which they are supposed to protect. Because of these observed trends in decreasing

resources, many community members are facing difficulties now and are very worried about the

availability of resources and their ability to feed their families and survive in the future.

It was also reported often that although most people in the community are aware of the

importance of the environment and what the laws and regulations are, many people still break those

laws, and the main reason people break the rules is because of poverty and need. Because people in

the community are dependent on fishing for their livelihoods, people are often forced to do illegal

activity in order to have enough food to feed their families. As a CFi member remarked, “if people

don’t do the illegal action, what can they do to eat? The people here live by fish.” Cutting wood to

use as firewood was also commonly cited as an illegal action many families must do to attain this

resource that they need because they are poor and cannot afford to buy it. Because this year has

been exceptionally dry, officials noted that there has been an increase in illegal activities and people

entering the Core Area because there is increased pressure on resources so more people are

struggling to feed their families, pushing them to break the laws more often than in previous years.

4. DiscussionInterviews conducted with a broad range of stakeholder groups in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor

villages (see Appendix 1), served to inform a snapshot of the current state of environmental

education (EE) in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor. Based on this examination, it was found that EE has had

substantial positive impacts in the community, yet also faces significant challenges and is currently

limited by a number factors (see Table 1). The exploration of these challenges is essential to be able

to reframe such obstacles as opportunities, because once they are recognized, such impediments

can be transformed into targets for improvement to EE in the community.

Positive results and sources of opportunity Major obstacles or limitations

Many children in the community have received EE, which can empower the next generation with the capabilities and inspiration to be proper stewards of nature in the future

There is currently a gap in EE for adult community members

Hessenius 27

Community-based education and action can be supported with positive consequences in community engagement in sustainable management of natural resources

There are challenges with access to education and a lack of dissemination of information about positive results of conservation initiatives

Success has been shown in integrated approaches to EE that link education with economic development

There is a tendency for stakeholders to choose not to take ownership and responsibility for EE since they are aware of other stakeholders already practicing EE

Illegal actions regarding resource extraction and unsustainable behaviors continue from people in the community. Major cause of this challenge is that people are restricted in their behavior choices by the realities of their daily lives, including poverty, need for resources to feed their families and support their livelihoods, and lack of infrastructure and alternative livelihood options.

Table 1: List of Opportunities and Challenges Identified for EE Stakeholders in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor Villages, Cambodia, 2016

4.1 Access to Education and Dissemination of Conservation Results Information

Despite the fact that conservation initiatives have demonstrated significant results in the

protection of biodiversity in Prek Toal, local community members are generally unaware of these

successes, and many have indicated that they have an antagonistic relationship with authorities

engaged in protection of these conservation areas. There is substantial data demonstrating that

conservation efforts by the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)

have been effective, especially in preserving the endangered bird species in the Prek Toal Core Area

(WCS 2016, Sun & Mahood 2015). Both MoE and WCS representatives reported during this study

that bird populations in the Core Area have increased directly as a result of their patrolling, which

has significantly reduced illegal activity, such as collection of eggs, although they also acknowledged

that this year is an exception to these trends due to the abnormally dry weather and low water level

on the lake, increasing pressure on resources and driving more community members to illegal enter

the Core Area for fishing. WCS also prides themselves on their conservation strategy, which involves

hiring former poachers to be rangers that protect and monitor the birds (WCS 2016). This approach

has proven to be effective, since the nest and population counts for bird species recorded by the

rangers (including the globally endangered Greater Adjutant Stork, globally vulnerable Lesser

Adjutant Stork, globally near threatened Painted Stork, Asian Openbill, globally near threatened

Spot-billed Pelican, and globally near threatened Oriental Darter) show an overall increase since

WCS started their conservation initiatives in the early 2000s (WCS 2016, Sun & Mahood 2015).

However, it appears that the community does not know this information. In fact, their

perception is the exact opposite: that resources are severely and rapidly declining. In order to

Hessenius 28

address this disconnect between stakeholders involved in biodiversity conservation and the

community, organizations such as WCS and the MoE should make it a priority to disseminate

information about the successful results of conservation initiatives to the local community. If the

community does not see any results of conservation efforts, they are likely to have more negative

attitudes towards measures that place restrictions and limitations on their ability to use natural

resources for their livelihoods. However, if the community is made aware of the benefits of such

conservation initiatives for the environment and themselves, they will be more likely to cooperate,

follow the regulations, and change their actions that contribute towards habitat degradation. Case

studies conducted in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Philippines support this potential

information dissemination to lead to improved attitudes towards conservation initiatives (Knight,

Allegretti, & Vaske 2015). Knight, Allegretti, & Vaske’s (2015) findings showed that fishers who

received direct government-citizen communication, environmental education, and outreach about

protected area governance policies were more likely to support MPAs and their policies and perceive

their MPAs as benefitting their livelihoods.

Another challenge with access to education is the perception conveyed by study

respondents that the general community is not invited to the meetings organized by the MoE. In

addition to contributing to a perceived poor relationship between the MoE and the community, this

practice limits access to education for general community members, since only people occupying

official and public positions are consistently invited, which especially tends to exclude poorer

community members. Such limitations of access to education and information about the

environment are problematic because they are contrary to the human rights of access to education

and information that are widely recognized and upheld by the international community, including

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to education,

and Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration from the UN Conference on Environment and Development

in 1992, which codifies the right that “each individual shall have appropriate access to information

concerning the environment that is held by public authorities” (OHCHR 1948, UNEP 1992b). The

rights of access to information, participation in decision-making, and access to justice in

environmental matters are widely recognized as being one of the three essential dimensions of the

nexus between human rights and the environment and critical for good environmental governance

(UNEP-OHCHR 2009, UNEP 2003, UNEP 2004). Although MoE officials expressed the expectation that

the people selected to attend the meetings will pass along the information, this is not happening,

which is creating a gap in knowledge and feeling of exclusion in the community. A more direct and

egalitarian approach to EE could be pursued by increasing access to meetings in which education and

information about the environment is disseminated, which would better fulfill the rights of

Hessenius 29

community members of access to education and information. Even if it is not feasible to invite all

community members to a single meeting, the MoE could have more frequent meetings and rotate

the houses who are invited, or reinstate the practice of having MoE rangers visit people’s houses to

provide education about the environment.

4.2 Focus on Education for Children and Gap in Adult EEBecause Osmose is the most active stakeholder in EE in Prek Toal and Anlong Taor, and their

EE focuses mainly on children, the result is that there is currently a gap in EE for adults. While

increasing environmental awareness among children is vital and it is good to encourage the students

to care about the environment and form good habits to help protect it, the limitation is that it takes

a long time to see results from education for children. Multiple representatives from Osmose

reported that education for adults would be more direct than education for children. The EE

programs for children are very important for long term conservation, because the children will be

the users of the natural resources in the future and need to know how to be able to do so

sustainably. However, currently, the adults in the community are the users of natural resources, and

they are the ones who are reportedly committing illegal actions. In order to have a direct impact on

the current situation and reduce illegal activity, it is necessary to focus on achieving results by

providing EE and facilitating behavior changes among adults. The education of adults has been

recognized as a priority for the future directions of EE and necessary for meeting global goals

towards environmental sustainability and education for sustainable development, especially given

the urgency of the planet’s environmental crisis and the need to change human behavior now,

rather than focus solely on education through schooling for children and wait for today’s young

people to take action (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2010, Monroe 2007). Other studies

have also suggested that EE can enhance its effectiveness by focusing on instigating actions,

behaviors, and choices that support sustainability, and that these aims toward behavior change and

decision-making are most appropriate in targeting adults (Monroe 2007).

Another consideration is that a challenge to the education initiatives for children is that they

often tend to still follow their parents’ and families’ habits rather than adopt the behavior changes

encouraged by their teachers at Osmose or the public school. Therefore, teaching the adults in the

community about the environment and actions they can take to help protect the environment could

also be important in reinforcing and strengthening the EE aimed towards children. Although one

hope of educating the children is that they will pass along the messages to their parents and

education for the children can have a positive impact by the children sharing their knowledge and

learned behaviors with their families, this is a lot to expect from the children. While it may still be

helpful to encourage students to share what they learn with their parents and families, adults in the

Hessenius 30

community should also receive EE directly, so that they can model better habits and behaviors for

the children, rather than only the children being expected to serve as examples for the rest of the

community.

4.3 Deferment of Responsibility to Other StakeholdersMultiple stakeholders reported that one of the reasons they do not initiate and conduct

more EE is because they know that other stakeholders, principally Osmose, are already engaged and

active in EE. The monk interviewed at the monastery reported that he does not incorporate Buddhist

stories or lessons about the environment into his teachings or ceremonies because the community

already has Osmose and the MoE to teach them about the environment. However, he also

expressed the opinion that the MoE is not active in EE, so it is currently only Osmose that is active in

EE, and they mainly focus on education for children. Even though the monk recognized that there is

a gap in education for adults in the community, he believed it was the MoE’s responsibility to do

more EE and encourage people in the community to know and care about the environment. Other

NGOs, such as WCS and Live & Learn Cambodia, also reported that they have not focused on EE in

Prek Toal because Osmose already has an established presence and focus on EE in the community

(WCS instead focuses on training MoE rangers to build capacity for conservation of Core Area and its

water bird colonies, and Live & Learn Cambodia focuses their EE initiatives in other locations in the

Tonle Sap region).

This phenomenon in which stakeholders perceive the responsibility for EE as the

responsibility of someone else is problematic because it prevents the benefits that could potentially

come from multiple stakeholders engaging in EE from various sectors in society. For example, were

both the MoE and the monastery to play a more active role in EE, the amount of people in the

community with access to EE could increase, since some community members not reached by one

stakeholder group could be reached by another. If community members receive EE from multiple

stakeholders, this could also have important benefits. People could gain a more comprehensive

understanding by learning different information in different contexts. Continuity of EE is also

extremely important to reinforce the concepts people have learned, because otherwise people will

most likely forget, as multiple community members reported that they had been taught about the

environment in the past but now did not remember clearly what they had learned. Rather than

perceiving engaging in EE as unnecessary or repetitive if other stakeholders are already involved in

EE, stakeholders should be made of aware of the benefits of such consistent and continued learning

and encouraged to take responsibility for EE as part of their own activities.

Hessenius 31

Another reason this transfer of responsibility for EE is problematic is because even though

Osmose has been active and successful in EE, they are still limited in their capacity to reach the

entire community. Because Osmose focuses on EE for children, if they are the sole provider of EE in

the community, then that creates a gap in education for adults in the community. In addition,

Osmose is limited in the extent of their EE program based on the amount of funding they have from

their donors and revenue from their ecotourism program. This lack of funding was cited as the main

reason Osmose no longer has an EE program for adults, which they did when they had more funding

seven or eight years ago. They also no longer have enough funding to provide the children who

come to school at Osmose with snacks (which can limit the ability of students to come to school

because if the boat arrives and they have not eaten breakfast, they cannot come to school because

they would have to go the whole morning without food) or to take the students on as many field

trips as they used to when the EE program first started. One of the main challenges reported from

Osmose representatives is their dependence on small, timed grants, and the fact that they do not

have any experts in grant proposal writing, so they have been unsuccessful in acquiring larger grants

to expand their projects. Limited finances is a common challenge, both for government departments

and NGOs, for sustaining EE programs in Cambodia and many developing countries (Khieu 2002,

Smith & Keat 2006, ADB 2011).

4.4 Potential Benefits of Bottom-Up and Community-Based EEWhile NGO and government stakeholders are most commonly perceived as the major

providers of EE in the community, there also exists the basis and potential for a burgeoning

movement of community-based EE and conservation action. For example, the independently

organized activities of a CFi Committee member demonstrate how passionate individuals in the

community can draw upon their own resources and utilize partnerships with other organizations to

galvanize the community to unite together and protect their common environment and resources.

Such bottom-up approaches to EE can have many potential benefits. Educators from within the

community may be more effective teachers through the ability to explain complex concepts in ways

that are easily understood by people, overcoming cultural, language, and literacy barriers that might

hinder the transfer of knowledge from NGOs or government officials. Projects initiated by

community members are also likely more sustainable than involvement of outside NGOs that usually

stay in the community only on a short-term basis. Such community-driven programs could also be

more empowering and contribute to a stronger sense of ownership over sustainable management

and conservation of natural resources if initiated from within community and led by local community

members. Given these potential advantages of bottom-up approaches to EE, one recommended

strategy would be to train and equip specific community members to become leaders in their

Hessenius 32

communities who can instruct and engage the local community in conserving their environment.

Previous studies also attest to the benefits of community-based; for example, Harris (2014)

concluded in a case study on the communication on climate change impacts and adaptation

strategies in Pacific islands that bottom-up approaches were effective in enabling citizens to

participate, share knowledge, build environmental awareness and understanding of climate change

risks to their communities in a way that was engaging and empowering for communities. Ardoin,

Clark, & Kelsey (2013) also identify the need to develop methods of collaborating with practitioners,

involving wider community members in participating in EE, understanding the effects of collective

and social learning and how educational outcomes for individuals and communities are linked, and

supporting community-based EE as one of the most important trends to explore in the future for EE.

4.5 Shifting Focus from Awareness to Behavior ChangeInterviews with local community members revealed that general environmental awareness

in the community is very high. While community members may not be educated in environmental

concepts, the reality of their daily lives and constant interaction with the environment for their

livelihoods, since nearly everyone in the community is involved in fishing, mean that the community

members are extremely in tune with their environment. They know how the environment is

interconnected and are sensitive to any changes in the environment and the resources that are

crucial for their livelihoods. Although environmental awareness is high among local community

members, EE can still be beneficial for the community, but there needs to be a shift from focusing on

environmental awareness to emphasizing specific and actionable behavior changes that can yield

results for conservation. Trends in the EE research reflect this shift from awareness-focused to

action-oriented EE and behavior change for conservation (Smith & Keat 2006). Ardoin, Clark, &

Kelsey (2013) and Monroe (2007) acknowledge the high priority on developing effective educational

and communication strategies that can successfully elicit individual behavior change and decision-

making that supports sustainability.

Aiming to increase environmental awareness among the local community may be misguided

and unproductive if it amounts to simply trying to tell community members what they already know.

Instead, EE should aim to provide specific and viable alternatives to current practices that contribute

to degradation of the environment and deliver updates on tangible outcomes and achievements of

existing conservation programs, in order to understand and demonstrate the direct link between

behavior change and conservation results.

Some projects in the community have already had such outcomes. For example, one of

Osmose’s community development projects back in 2002 when they had the available funding was

Hessenius 33

to assist 20 families in building floating gardens. This project had significant and lasting benefits, as

one community member who still used her floating garden reported, because she was able to grow

most of her own vegetables to feed her family, reducing the amount of income she needed to spend

and improving nutrition for her family. Equipping people with these kinds of tools and skills are

essential for improving people’s livelihoods and decreasing their dependence on natural resources

to alleviate pressure on those resources. Live & Learn Environmental Education have been active in

other floating villages on the Tonle Sap to achieve goals such as improving sanitation, water

management, and nutrition, and a representative of the NGO emphasize that these projects are

selected because they link education and improved quality of life. This representative elucidated

that it is necessary to provide viable alternative options along with EE in order to achieve behavior

outcomes, and that EE that focuses on awareness without connecting it to specific actions and

alternative options is not only ineffectual, but weakens EE through its unrealism.

In Prek Toal and Anlong Taor, an example of the challenges involved in motivating behavior

changes is the case of waste management. Despite the fact that improper waste disposal (i.e.

throwing rubbish into the water) was the most common behavior change encouraged by almost

every stakeholder, even those that were not actively engaged in EE, and many community members

did report that they have changed their waste management practices, rubbish remains a major

environmental problem in the community. In these floating villages, there is no infrastructure for

waste collection, so community members’ realistic options are to keep their rubbish in their houses,

burn it, or throw it in the lake. Even though collecting and burning their rubbish is the encouraged

practice, this method still has negative health consequences. Unless there are socially, culturally, and

economically viable alternatives, implementing behavior changes is unlikely to be successful.

4.6 Importance of Integrating Education with Livelihood Improvement

One of the most consistent themes from interviews with local community members is that

people know what practices are allowed and not allowed, but they commit illegal actions anyway

because they are poor and need to feed their families. Multiple community members also stated

that local community members use resources for subsistence, not to sell for a profit, so their

resource extraction is driven by need rather by greed or desire to selfishly benefit overuse of

community resources. Given this reality, it is possible that EE on its own may not be enough to

achieve results in improving conservation and contributing to behavior changes among local

community members. Even if people are educated about the environment, meeting their needs in

the present to survive will always outweigh the imperative to conserve natural resources for the

future.

Hessenius 34

An abundance of literature supports this link between livelihoods and socioeconomic factors

and EE and conservation behavior (Ardoin, Clark, & Kelsey 2013, Masud et al.2014). Increasingly, in

the field of EE research, the purpose of education is seen not only as to inspire behavior change, but

also to promote enhanced well-being and quality life and build the capacity among people to make

sustainable choices and lead sustainable lives (Ardoin, Clark, Kelsey 2013). With the rising interest in

the role of education in sustainable development, EE will likely continue to play an important role in

addressing interconnected social and ecological issues, such as health and justice (Ardoin, Clark,

Kelsey & 2013). This recognition of EE’s broadening scope and the impossibility of separating

environmental and socioeconomic issues also reveals the same theme demonstrated by this study’s

findings that poverty is a major challenge to EE and environmental sustainability because people will

always prioritize their immediate survival needs over concerns for the long-term preservation of the

environment (Ardoin, Clark, Kelsey & 2013, Khieu 2002).

If it is true that education not paired with viable alternative solutions is ineffectual, than

improving livelihoods must be a key component to any EE initiative. If people’s living conditions are

too poor to be able to afford to change their actions like illegal fishing and cutting trees, then there

will be no realistic alternative options that can facilitate results in behavior changes. For this reason,

Osmose’s model that integrates livelihood improvement through generation of alternative income

with EE is very practical and successful. Still, overall living conditions in Prek Toal remain generally

low, so there are still significant changes that can and should be made to allow local community

members to increase their income generation and decrease their dependence on illegal resource

use.

Another example in Cambodia of a model that successfully integrates livelihood

improvement, conservation, and education is the Sam Veasna Center’s community ecotourism

project in Tmatboey that aims to protect a critical habitat for globally threatened large water birds in

the Northern plains of Cambodia (Clements et al. 2008). Through the community-based tourism

model, the local community has become a partner in conservation, whose attitude towards and

value of the bird species has changed since they now recognize the birds as a valuable source of

revenue through direct payment for services and donation to a community development fund from

the tourists who come to see them (Clements et al. 2008). It was reported that the birds even

became a source of pride to the community, and this combined with the financial incentives from

tourism caused them to change their behaviors and become active protectors of the birds (Clements

et al. 2008). The project has had substantial outcomes for both reducing poverty among community

members and conserving the bird species, whose populations rose dramatically following

implementation of the project due to a significant reduction in hunting activity from local community

Hessenius 35

members (Clements et al. 2008). More projects like this can creatively find ways to incentivize

conservation behaviors and integrate benefits to livelihoods and the environment, while

simultaneously engaging and educating the community by empowering them to become partners in

environmental preservation and sustainable resource use.

5. ConclusionThis study acknowledges the internationally recognized and essential role that EE plays in

promoting sustainable development, benefitting local communities’ livelihoods, and strengthening

conservation of biodiversity. The study also recognizes that in Cambodia, despite the prevalence of a

wide variety of EE initiatives implemented by many stakeholders, there has been limited formal

monitoring and evaluation of EE initiatives and assessment of their success. In response, this study

aimed to investigate the current status of environmental education in the villages of Prek Toal and

Anlong Taor villages on the Tonle Sap.

The findings of this study yield insights into the importance of EE for improving conservation

of natural resources and livelihoods in local communities on the Tonle Sap, as well as some ways

that approaches to EE in the region can be developed in the future to increase their effectiveness

and ability to create substantial change in behaviors and actions. It was found that while stakeholder

such as Osmose and the public schools have focused on providing children in the community with

EE, there is a gap in EE for adults. Another factor in this oversight is that access to education for

adults in the community is limited, as many community members reported that they were not

invited to meetings held by the MoE in which environmental information is discussed and

disseminated. Targeting adults as recipients of EE is especially important because they are the

members of the community who are currently engaged in collection of natural resources, which

sometimes includes illegal extraction of those resources. A key finding was the perception among

community members that increased conservation measures have led to a decline in natural

resources in the Prek Toal Core Area, in contrast to the data from biodiversity monitoring that

indicates successes in protecting natural resources as a result of conservation. It is possible that this

lack of confidence among community members in the effectiveness of conservation approaches may

be contributing to continued illegal activity. Regular and continued EE and dissemination of

information on conservation may result in greater community support for these initiatives. EE needs

to focus more on motivating people to alter their actions and behaviors in order to be successful in

achieving conservation results, and that EE initiatives should also be coupled with strategies to

alleviate poverty and improve local livelihoods, such as by offering alternative options for income

Hessenius 36

generation, since the most commonly reported reason that people violate restrictions on resource

use is that they and their families are dependent on these resources for their survival.

Further studies should continue collecting data on EE in local communities on the Tonle Sap

and identifying opportunities for improvement and development. As more evidence is accrued on

the methods and approaches employed by various stakeholders and their results and impact in the

local community in generating positive actions and behaviors that support conservation of the

environment and sustainable use of resources, it will become possible to determine the best

practices and apply the most successful models in more communities in Cambodia and the region,

while adjusting implementation to comply with the local social, cultural, economic, and

environmental context. By developing such educational strategies with an aim to equip individuals

and communities with the knowledge, skills, and values necessary to make environmentally

conscious decisions, change their actions, and generate innovative solutions to environmental

problems, EE can ideally be elevated to play the role envisioned by the global community to advance

sustainable development goals, promoting protection of the planet’s biodiversity and improvement

quality of life.

Hessenius 37

ReferencesADB 2010, Cambodia: Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project Completion Report, ADB, viewed May 1 2016 http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/63385/33418-01-cam-pcr.pdf

ADB 2011, Cambodia: Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project Validation Report, ADB, viewed May 1 2016, http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/evaluation-document/35547/files/in216-11.pdf

Ardoin, N, Clark, C, & Kelsey, E 2013 ‘An exploration of future trends in environmental education research’, Environmental Education Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 499–520

ASEAN 2006, ASEAN Environmental Education Action Plan 2008-2012, ASEAN, Yangon, viewed 1 May 2016, http://environment.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ASEAN_Environmental_Education_Action_Plan_2008-2012.pdf

ASEAN 2013, ASEAN Environmental Education Action Plan 2014-2018, ASEAN, Surabaya, viewed 1 May 2016, http://environment.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ASEAN_Environmental_Education_Action_Plan_2014-2018.pdf

Awoyemi, SM, Gambrill, A, Ormsby, A, & Vyas D 2012, ‘Global Efforts to Bridge Religion and Conservation: Are They Really Working?’ in Povilitis T (ed.) Topics in Conservation Biology, InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, viewed 1 May 2016, http://library.umac.mo/ebooks/b28110031.pdf

Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs n.d., Association of Buddhists for the Environment, Georgetown University, Washington D.C., http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/organizations/association-of-buddhists-for-the-environment

Chim, P 2012, ‘An Implementation of Buddhist Environmental Ethics for Sustainable Development in Cambodia’, Prajna Vihara Journal of Philosophy and Religion, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 137-144, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.assumptionjournal.au.edu/index.php/PrajnaVihara/article/view/752/668

Clements, T, John, A, Nielsen, K, Chea, V, Sokha, E & Meas, P 2008, Case Study Tmatboey Community-based Ecotourism Project, Cambodia, Sam Veasna Center, Siem Reap, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.samveasna.org/userfiles/file/WCSCaseStudy-Cambodia-ecotourism-Final.pdf

Conservation International 2016, Tonle Sap Lake: Conserving Cambodia’s Fish Factory, CI, http://www.conservation.org/projects/Pages/tonle-sap-lake-conserving-cambodia-fish-factory-mekong.aspx

Glaser, B & Strauss, A 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Adine Publishing Company

Global Environment Facility 2011, Terminal Evaluation of Tonle Sap Conservation Project, GEF, http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/gef_prj_docs/GEFProjectDocuments/M&E/TER/FY2011/UNDP/1183/962_BD_Cambodia_TE.pdf

Harris, U 2014, ‘Communicating climate change in the Pacific using a bottom-up approach’, Pacific Journalism Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 77-95

Hessenius 38

Japan Environmental Education Forum 2007, Database of Environmental Education Related Organizations in Asian Countries, JEEF, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.jeef.or.jp/EAST_ASIA/?job_cat=cambodia

Khieu, M 2002, The Path To Success ''Some Pioneering Examples Of EE'', Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, viewed 1 May 2016 http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/view.php?docid=1520

Knight, D, Allegretti, A, Vaske, J 2015, ‘Information dissemination-diffusion and marine protected area approval in the Philippines’, Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 113, pp. 38-46

Live & Learn 2015, Building a Sustainable Future A Strategic Approach to Environmental Education in the Tonle Sap Region – Cambodia, Live & Learn Environmental Education, viewed 1 May 2016 http://www.livelearn.org/sites/default/files/images/Mini%20Strategy.pdf

Masud, M, Kari, F, Yahaya, S, Al-Amin, A 2014, ‘Impact of residents’ livelihoods on attitudes towards environmental conservation behaviour: An empirical investigation of Tioman Island Marine Park area, Malaysia’, Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 93, pp. 7-14

Monroe, M 2007, ‘A Priority for ESD Research: Influencing Adult Citizens’, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 107-113

Office of the High Commission on Human Rights 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, OHCHR, viewed 1 May 2016 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

Osmose 2014, Social Assessment Peak Kanteil Floating Village, Tonle Sap Biophere Reserve, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, viewed 1 May 2016 http://www.cepf.net/SiteCollectionDocuments/indo_burma_ii/63482_Safeguard_OSMOSE_SocialAssessment.pdf

Osmose 2015, Osmose Conservation, Education, Ecotourism, Prek Toal, viewed 1 May 2016 http://www.osmosetonlesap.net/english/accueil.php

Ramsar Sites Information Service 2015, Prek Toal Ramsar Site, RSIS, viewed 1 May 2016, https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris/2245

Sam Veasna Center n.d., Conservation, SVC, Siem Reap, viewed 1 May 2016 http://www.samveasna.org/conservation.html

Smith, J & Keat, B 2006, Cambodia’s Environmental Education Status Report 2005, Live and Learn Environmental Education, Phnom Penh, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.livelearn.org/sites/default/files/docs/LLEE%20Cam%20Status%20Rpt.pdf

Sun, V & Mahood, S 2015, Wildlife Monitoring at Prek Toal Ramsar Site, Tonle Sap Great Lake, 2013 and 2014, Wildlife Conservation Society Cambodia, Phnom Penh

Tonle Sap Conservation Project 2007, Prek Toal Core Area Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve Management Plan 2007-2011, Ramsar, viewed 1 May 2016 https://rsis.ramsar.org/RISapp/files/31383985/documents/KH_mgt1511.pdf

UNEP 1972, Stockholm 1972 Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UNEP, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1511).%20In

Hessenius 39

UNEP 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UNEP, viewed 1 May 2016 http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163

UNEP 1992, Promoting Education, Public Awareness, and Training, UNEP viewed 1 May 2016 http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?DocumentID=52&ArticleID=4415&l=en

UNEP 2003, UNEP - Principle 10 and the Bali Guideline, UNEP, viewed 1 May 2016 http://www.unep.org/civil-society/Implementation/Principle10

UNEP 2004, Human Rights and the Environment Proceedings of a Geneva Environment Network roundtable, UNEP, viewed 1 May 2016 http://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/?q=en/system/files/human_rights_env_report.pdf

UNEP-OHCHR 2009, High Level Expert Meeting on the New Future of Human Rights and Environment: Moving the Global Agenda Forward, Geneva Environment Network, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/?q=en/system/files/human_rights_env_report.pdf

UNESCO 1975, Belgrade Charter, Global Development Research Center, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/belgrade.html

UNESCO-UNEP 1977, Tbilisi Declaration, Global Development Research Center, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html

UNESCO 2006, Framework for the UNDESD International Implementation Scheme, UNESCO, Paris, viewed 1 May 2016, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001486/148650E.pdf

UNESCO 2007, UNESCO - MAB Biosphere Reserves Directory, UNESCO, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&code=CAM+01

UNESCO 2016, World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR), UNESCO, viewed 1 May 2016, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/world-network-wnbr/

Wildlife Alliance 2015, Wildlife Alliance, New York, viewed May 1 2016, http://www.wildlifealliance.org/education

Wildife Conservation Society 2016, WCS Cambodia, Phnom Penh, viewed 1 May 2016, http://cambodia.wcs.org/

Hessenius 40

Appendix 1Interview Date Location Stakeholder Sex and Age

1 15-Apr St. John's Church, Siem Reap Catholic Priest M2 19-Apr MoE Station, Prek Toal MoE Ranger M-353 19-Apr Anlong Taor Village-level Official M-574 19-Apr Osmose Platform, Prek Toal Osmose Teacher F-545 19-Apr Monastery, Anlong Taor Monk M6 19-Apr Anlong Taor Community F-637 19-Apr Anlong Taor Community F-318 20-Apr Osmose Platform, Prek Toal Osmose Representative M-409 20-Apr Osmose Platform, Prek Toal Osmose Teacher F-58

10 20-Apr Anlong Taor Community M-37, F-3111 20-Apr Anlong Taor Community F-43, M-4712 20-Apr Anlong Taor Community M-49, F-4713 20-Apr Anlong Taor Community F-59, F-3014 20-Apr Anlong Taor Community F-4715 21-Apr Anlong Taor MoE Ranger M-5316 21-Apr Anlong Taor Community Fishing Committee Member M-5217 21-Apr Prek Toal Village-level Official M-7818 21-Apr Prek Toal Community F-4919 21-Apr Prek Toal Community F-7020 22-Apr Prek Toal Community M-4221 22-Apr Prek Toal Community M-55, M-2922 22-Apr Anlong Taor Community F-5123 22-Apr Anlong Taor Community Fishing Committee Member M-6624 22-Apr Anlong Taor MoE Ranger M-3325 22-Apr MoE Station, Prek Toal MoE Official M26 22-Apr Phone WCS Representative M27 23-Apr Prek Toal Community F-7028 23-Apr Prek Toal Community F-55, F-2229 23-Apr Prek Toal Community F-5730 23-Apr Prek Toal Community F-3931 23-Apr Prek Toal Community F-5932 25-Apr Prek Toal Public School Teacher M-3133 25-Apr Anlong Taor Public School Teacher M-4234 25-Apr Anlong Taor Public School Teacher F-2035 26-Apr Prek Toal Public School Teacher F-2636 26-Apr Anlong Taor Public School Teacher F-2737 26-Apr Prek Toal Commune-level Official M38 27-Apr Anlong Taor Public School Teacher F-2439 27-Apr Prek Toal Community Fishing Committee Member M-5040 29-Apr Osmose Headquarters, Siem Reap Osmose Representative M41 29-Apr Siem Reap Live & Learn Cambodia Representative MTable 2:Full List of Interviews Conducted During Data Collection Period, April 2016

Hessenius 41

Appendix 2Topic Guide [Questions for EE providers]

Identify stakeholders involved in development and implementation of environmental education projects and initiatives in Prek Toal

1. Does [insert group/organization] teach the local community about the environment?

Determine what mechanisms and activities different stakeholders employ in their EE initiatives and what concepts and topics they choose to cover

2. How do you teach people about the environment? What techniques do you use?

2a. Do you have meetings with community members?

2b. Do you do trainings for community members?

2c. Do you use pamphlets? Do you use posters or signs?

2d. Have you shown a presentation to community members?

2e. Have you shown a video to community members?

3. What topics do you teach people about?

3a. Do you teach people about the lake, the animals, the plants, or the flooded forest?

3b. Do you teach people about the fishery laws?

3c. Do you teach people about conserving natural resources for the future?

3d. Do you teach people how the environment is connected to peoples’ livelihoods?

4. [If YES to 3a] What do you teach about the animals, plants, lake, or forest?

4a. Do you teach people about relationships between the animals and plants and the forests and lake?

4b. Which to the techniques (from Q2 answer) do you use to teach about this topic?

4c. Who do you teach about this topic?

4d. How often do you teach people about this topic?

5. [If YES to 3b] What do you teach people about the fishery laws?

5a. Do you teach people about where they can fish?

5b. Do you teach people about what gears they can use to fish?

5c. Which of the techniques (from Q2 answer) do you use to teach about this topic?

5d. Who do you teach about this topic?

5e. How often do you teach people about this topic?

Hessenius 42

6. [If YES to 3c] What do you teach people about conserving natural resources?

6a. What do you teach about conservation of natural resources for the future?

6b. For example, do you teach people not to catch small fish?

6c. Do you teach people only to cut branches, and not cut a whole tree?

6d. Which of the techniques (from Q2 answer) do you use to teach about this topic?

6e. Who do you teach about this topic?

6f. How often do you teach people about this topic?

7. [If YES to 3d] Do you teach people about how the environment (animals, plants, lake, forests) is connected to peoples’ livelihoods?

7a. What do you teach about how the environment is connected to livelihoods?

7b. Which of the techniques (from Q2 answer) do you use to teach about this topic?

7c. Who do you teach about this topic?

7d. How often do you teach people about this topic?

8. What reasoning do you use to motivate or encourage people to take care of the environment?

8a. Do you always incorporate this when you teach people about the environment?

Institution Specific Questions

OSMOSE/NGO

9. If unanswered so far, are children in the local community taught about the environment by local schoolteachers or by teachers with OSMOSE?

Monastery

9. Do you use Buddhist beliefs, stories, or principles to teach people about the environment?

9a. What beliefs, stories, or principles?

Catholic Church

9. Do you use Catholic beliefs, stories, or principles to teach people about the environment?

9a. What beliefs, stories, or principles?

Government/rangers

9. Do you think if people are taught about the environment they will be less likely to violate the fishery laws?

9a. Why do you think that?

Hessenius 43

10. Do you ever collaborate with other institutions to teach the local community about the environment?

10a. With what organizations do you collaborate?

10b. How often do you collaborate with them?

10c. Do you think collaboration increases the effectiveness of environmental education in the community?

Examine community reception of past and current EE initiatives by gauging environmental awareness and knowledge among the local community

11. Do you think when people are taught about the environment it changes their behaviors/actions?

11a. How? What do people do differently?

12. Do you think before you teach people about the environment they have a lot of knowledge about the environment?

13. Do you think it would be good for [insert group/organization] to do more environmental education in the future?

13a. Do you have any specific plans for teaching people in the community about the environment in the future?

Topic Guide [Questions for community/EE recipients]

Identify stakeholders involved in development and implementation of environmental education projects and initiatives in Prek Toal

1. Have you been taught about the environment by any group or organization?2. How have you been taught about the environment? What activities did you do?

2a. Have been part of a meeting about the environment?

2b. Have you been trained on any skills related to the environment?

2c. Have you been shown pamphlets, posters, or signs about the environment?

2d. Have been shown a presentation about the environment?

2e. Have you been shown a video about the environment?

3. Has anyone in your family been taught about the environment?

3a. [If yes] Who taught them?

4. Has anyone you know been taught about the environment?

4a. [If yes] Who taught them?

Determine what mechanisms and activities different stakeholders employ in their EE initiatives and what concepts and topics they choose to cover

5. What topics have you been taught about?

Hessenius 44

5a. Have you been taught about the lake, the animals, the plants, or the flooded forest?

5b. Have you been taught about the fishery laws?

5c. Have you been taught about conserving natural resources for the future?

5d. Have you been taught about how the environment is connected to your livelihood?

6. [If YES to 5a] What have you been taught about the animals, plants, lake, or forest?

6a. Have you been taught about relationships between the animals and plants and the forests and lake?

6b. Which of the techniques (from Q2 answer) were used to teach you about this topic?

6c. Who taught you about this topic?

6d. Was this new information or did you know about this before you were taught?

7. [If YES to 5b] What have you been taught about the fishery laws?

7a. Have you been taught where you can fish?

7b. Have you been taught about what gears you can use to fish?

7c. Which of the techniques (from Q2 answer) were used to teach you about this topic?

7d. Who taught you about this topic?

7e. Was this new information or did you know about this before you were taught?

8. [If YES to 5c] What have you been taught about conserving natural resources?

8a. Have you been taught about conservation of natural resources for the future?

8b. For example, do you teach people not to catch small fish?

8c. Do you teach people only to cut branches, and not cut a whole tree?

8d. Which of the techniques (from Q2 answer) were used to teach you about this topic?

8e. Who taught you about this topic?

8f. Was this new information or did you know about this before you were taught?

9. [If YES to 3d] Have you been taught about how the environment (animals, plants, lake, forests) is connected to your livelihood?

9a. Have you been taught about how the environment is connected to livelihoods?

9b. Which of the techniques (from Q2 answer) were used to teach you about this topic?

9c. Who taught you about this topic?

Hessenius 45

9d. Was this new information or did you know about this before you were taught?

10. Do you think taking care of the environment is important?

10a. Why do you think that?

Examine community reception of past and current EE initiatives by gauging environmental awareness and knowledge among the local community

11. Does the community know and care a lot about the environment?

12. What, if anything, do you do to take care of the environment?13. Did you enjoy learning about the environment?

13a. Would you want to learn more about the environment in the future?

14. Do you think more people learning about the environment is good for the community?

14a. Why do you think that?