zoning proposal for peam krasop wildlife sanctuary -...

Koh Kong Province, Cambodia © Margaret Ingles

Zoning Proposal for Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary Koh Kong Province, Cambodia

LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPE STRATEGY: BRIEFING NOTE

of 8

BackgroundPeam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary (PKWS) was one of twenty-

three protected areas declared under a Royal Decree in 1993.

Within the area are large areas of mangrove and of evergreen

forests. PKWS is rich in biodiversity (PMMR, 2000). Apart from

considerable floral biodiversity, twenty-four species of mam-

mals, at least twenty-eight species of birds and a large number

of marine species have been identified (An Dara et al. 2009).

A number of the identified species are globally threatened. The

total area of the sanctuary is just under 26,000 hectares.

As well as providing a habitat for a rich variety of species,

PKWS is also the home of approximately 10,000 people, ac-

cording to an interview with PKWS Director and the Director of

Department of Environment, Koh Kong in 2009. Most of these

people are from the area, although some migrated from other

provinces during the civil war and during the charcoal produc-

tion boom during from 1988 to 1996. The population is heavily

dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods especially,

fishing, crabbing, harvesting shellfish, and seafood processing

(Kim Nong, Ul Rann and Chey Pich Ratana percom. 2009),

along with some agriculture. Tourism is also a significant part of

the economy and is expected to increase rapidly as Koh Kong

Province attracts increasing numbers of local and international

tourists. Nature tourism, including ecotourism, is an increas-

ingly important issue for the management of the sanctuary.

PKWS suffered from a high degree of degradation, with rapid

decline in the quality of mangroves and loss of wildlife prior to

its being declared a protected area. This process continued

for some time after the declaration of protected status. Major

factors affecting biodiversity loss were illegal logging, hunting

and over-fishing. Land grabbing has also been (and remains)

a problem. The mangrove forests were heavily impacted by

cutting of mangrove trees for charcoal production. Charcoal

production has been largely eliminated due to a concentrated

campaign. However the other threats to biodiversity continue to

impact on the sanctuary and remain serious. Despite several

project interventions, including the completed Coastal Zone

Management Project (funded by Danida) and the Participatory

Mangroves, KPWS © Margaret Ingles

Zoning Proposal for Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary

Koh Kong Province, Cambodia

Management of Coastal Resources Project, PKWS still does

not have an effective management system.

The Protected Areas Law of February 2008 aims to introduce a

comprehensive approach to the management of protected ar-

eas in Cambodia. A key element in the law was the introduction

of a system of zoning for protected areas. The system aims to

identify four different types of management zones, allowing for

different levels of protection ranging from a zone where extrac-

tive use is totally prohibited through to a zone for community

use (including residential and agricultural use) and a zone for

sustainable use.

As yet no zoning scheme has been approved for any protect-

ed areas in Cambodia under the Protected Areas Law 2008.

of 8

of the global fight against climate change, both for mitigation

and adaptation.

Internationally, identification of management zones, each de-

fining different types of use, has been recognized as a way

to deal effectively with competing demands. Such zones are

the basic building blocks for management and together allow

for the delivery of the dual functions of conserving biodiversity

and contributing to the livelihoods of people living in and near

protected areas. A zoning approach assumes:

Decisions about the objectives of natural resource manage- �

ment are a matter for societal choice.

Decisions are guided by available and practical information, �

including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, in-

novations and practices.

That some, but not all, parts of a protected area need to �

be protected from all extractive uses, either because they

are particularly fragile, because they provide habitat for en-

dangered species or because they are important breeding

grounds for various species.

That other less sensitive or more common habitat areas and �

can be managed for sustainable use.

The reasons for zoning the PKWS are:

If clear zoning is achieved then it is possible to make, imple- �

ment and enforce management appropriate to each zone. In

a protected area with dual biodiversity conservation and live-

lihood objectives, zoning is generally necessary for effective

management, but it is not enough. Clear understanding of

rights and responsibilities and agreement on the boundaries

by resident communities are also necessary, together with

effective enforcement.

Once zoning has been established and communicated to �

people living in and near the protected area, it becomes

clear to these people what resources can be used and what

activities are allowed in particular parts of the protected

area. Such clarity reduces conflict because people under-

stand their rights. This applies both to conflicts between

the protected area authorities and villagers and conflicts

between residents and outsiders (providing exclusive rights

are recognized and made clear).

Types of management zones defined by the Protected Areas Law of February 2008 (Article 11)

1. Core zone: management area(s) of high conserva-

tion values containing threatened and critically en-

dangered species, and fragile ecosystems.

2. Conservation zone: management area(s) of high

conservation values containing natural resources,

ecosystems, watershed areas, and natural land-

scape located adjacent to the core zone.

3. Sustainable use zone: management area(s) of

high economic values for national economic devel-

opment and management, and conservation of the

protected area(s) itself thus contributing to the local

community, and indigenous ethnic minorities’ liveli-

hood improvement.

4. Community zone: management area(s) for socio-

economic development of the local communities and

indigenous ethnic minorities and may contain exist-

ing residential lands, paddy field and field garden or

swidden (Chamkar).

IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has

been assisting the Ministry of Environment in the development

of a zoning scheme for PKWS. This exercise has been seen as

a pilot and learning opportunity for future Protected Area zon-

ing throughout Cambodia.

A preliminary assessment for the identification of zoning at

PKWS was carried out in 2008 and early 2009. The deline-

ation of zones recommended in the report has not yet been

approved. The zoning assessment involved participation with

communities and other stakeholders.

Zoning of Protected Areas: The RationaleThe demands on Protected Areas such as PKWS to deliver a

wide range of goods and services in support of human well-be-

ing and biodiversity conservation are high and will increase. The

demand for space for village development continues. There is

also a need for mangroves to provide productive fisheries, non-

timber forest products, support a growing nature-based tour-

ism market, and protect important species and habitats. More

recently, mangroves are being seen as an important element

of 8

Threat to sustainable fisheries in PKWS come from over- �

fishing and the use of bag nets, which capture very small

fish (affecting the viability of some fish populations) or push

nets which damage sea grasses and habitat at the bottom of

waterways. These two threats have some links. Much of the

overfishing is the result of fishers from outside the sanctuary

fishing inside. Local people have little incentive to use more

sustainable fishing practices because outsiders have easy

access to the waterways and they can see that the fisher-

ies will decline whatever they do themselves. Recognizing

the exclusive rights of resident fishers, through clear zoning,

can provide the basis, through negotiation, for changes in

their fishing practices and the gear they use.

Government authorities with management responsibilities �

within and around the PKWS can improve the efficiency of

their operations because the zoning plan guides where ef-

forts need to be focussed.

The basis for restoring and protecting the mangrove forest �

is strengthened, increasing the confidence for selling carbon

stores on the voluntary and formal carbon markets.

Nature-based tourism can be developed to respect and take �

advantage of the different features and values of zones, of-

fering a variety of experiences to different segments of the

tourism market.

Other development opportunities within villages (such as �

building schools and other infrastructure) become legally

possible once the boundaries and rules for community use

zones are established. The delineation of such zones also

clarifies where land speculation is inappropriate and outside

the law.

The Process of ZoningZoning requires an assessment process that identifies particu-

larly important and vulnerable areas for biodiversity as well as

an understanding of human use patterns and needs. This proc-

ess involves both biological assessment and socio-economic

assessment. While participation of resident people is obviously

essential for an assessment of their economic needs and be-

haviour, participatory approaches to biodiversity assessment

can also contribute to identification of core areas for biodiver-

sity as resident people generally have considerable familiarity

with the ecosystem within which they live.

The zoning assessment at PKWS was a participatory process

involving community members and other stakeholders in iden-

tifying economic needs as well as key biodiversity areas for

biodiversity.

Effective zoning generally requires negotiation between pro-

tected area authorities and the population. Zoning based on a

top-down planning exercise rarely recognises the specifics of

PKWS provides a habitat for a rich variety of species. The local population of about 10,000 people are heavily dependent on natu-ral resources for their liveli-hoods © Margaret Ingles

of 8

human needs and interests. Negotiation over boundaries and

natural resource harvesting practices (such as rules affecting

use of fishing gear or fishing seasons) can often achieve com-

promises that meet the needs of both parties. In some cases

negotiations which allow trade-offs in interests can be very

constructive, For example, recognition by the authorities of ad-

ditional land for residential areas may be traded in exchange

for a larger core zone.

Negotiation is essential because people often tend to ignore or

break regulations with which they do not agree and which they

see as having been imposed against their will. Transparent and

inclusive negotiations can minimize this problem.

IssuesThe zoning exercise in PKWS has been regarded as a pilot for

zoning in PAs throughout Cambodia. The experience would be

replicated in other PAs according to the specific context in each

PA. The zoning exercise will be a valuable learning exercise

When asked about the benefits of zoning, Mr Veng Somsak, the Deputy Chief of Koh Sralao Community Protected Area said that from his understanding every protected area should have zoning to reduce conflict between the PA authority and the users and to make it easy for the local community to participate in natural resources conservation. It is easier if people know where they can collect natural resources and where they cannot.

of 8

for other PAs and will enable better protection of the biodiver-

sity in PKWS. It will provide clarity over rights to resource use

and therefore reduce conflict and will enable the introduction of

more sustainable natural resource collection practices.

There has been recent pressure to approve community zones

quickly in the sanctuary, separating the approval of these zones

from the approval of the whole zoning system (the Minister of

Environment has authority to approve community zones, but

other zones have to be approved by the Cabinet). While this

priority is based on an understandable desire to regularize

residential and agricultural use and tenure, there are very good

reasons to proceed with zoning as a package. These include:

Recognition of the community zone separately removes �

much of the potential for negotiation between uses of the

various zones.

Separating zoning of community zones from the overall �

process does not address conservation or livelihood is-

sues. Management of resource use and access to sensitive

biodiversity areas will not be addressed and the threats to

both biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods will not be ad-

dressed until exclusive rights are addressed.

Deferring full zoning leaves open the probability that more �

land will be converted to farms or other land uses outside

the community zone.

Reduction of conflict between the PKWS Authority and local �

people requires a clear understanding on both sides of the

agreed boundaries between parts of the sanctuary available

for one use or another. Zoning only the community zone will

not reduce conflict in the other three zones.

An objective of the use of PKWS as a pilot site for zoning �

was to demonstrate the application of international best

practice for zoning. Dealing with one zone separately runs

against international best practice. In addition, the value of

the PKWS zoning experience as a learning exercise for oth-

er PAs in Cambodia will be significantly weakened.

There is a recognized need for further data on biodiversity in

KPWS. The work done so far (in the preliminary assessment)

is not comprehensive but does identify sensitive areas fairly

conclusively. There is no need to defer the approval of zon-

ing based on a need for further assessment. Waiting for more

complete knowledge before zoning has the substantial risk that

activities that are causing serious damage to biodiversity will

continue unabated. Moving ahead with zoning can occur in par-

allel with further biodiversity assessment and research without

threatening the future management of the KPWS. International

best practice increasingly recognizes that conservation cannot

wait for perfect knowledge and the concept of adaptive man-

agement is widely accepted. This approach involves manage-

ment on the basis of existing knowledge, with the management

being modified as more knowledge and better understanding

become available.

Crab survey © Margaret Ingles

of 8

Roles and responsibilities of government agencies under Protected Areas Law 2008

Article 4The management of protected areas as mentioned in Article 2 of this law shall be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment.

The Ministry of Environment has the General Depart-ment of Administration for Nature Conservation and Protection (GDANCP) as its own secretariat to manage the protected areas pursuant to the policy of the Royal Government of Cambodia.

The organization and functioning of the GDANCP in each protected area shall be determined by Prakas (Declaration) of the Ministry of Environment.

The management of the protected area shall have to guarantee the rights of the local communities, indig-enous ethnic minorities and the public to participate in the decision-making on the sustainable management and conservation of biodiversity.

Article 14The Ministry of Environment shall formalize the map for each protected area on an appropriate scale map and with the participation of the Ministry of Land Manage-ment, Urban Planning and Construction, local authority, local communities and relevant agencies. The GDANCP shall conduct research and manage-ment zoning as stated in article 11 of this law in accord-ance with the Ministry of Environment’s guidelines and demarcated the boundary markers for each protected area based on an appropriate location on the map de-termined by sub-decree.

The responsibility for managing protected areas for both bio-

diversity conservation and livelihood needs has been given to

the Ministry of Environment by the Royal Government of Cam-

bodia. However, given that other ministries are required to ap-

prove zoning proposals (apart from community areas, which

can be approved by the Minister of Environment), the other

agencies share the responsibility of facilitating the zoning proc-

ess.

There is a possibility that future study will identify mineral or

other resources of national importance. If this happens, new

issues for zoning may emerge. However it would be unwise to

defer zoning now on the basis of changing needs in the future.

Recognizing that the state of knowledge is incomplete and that

changing priorities and development opportunities may need

to be recognized in the future management of PKWS, it would

be wise for approval of the zoning to be subject to review in

five years. This is quite consistent with the idea that the zoning

is a learning activity and will allow the zoning to be modified if

there are new needs or unintended consequences of the zon-

ing. Under Article 17 of the Protected Areas Law 2008, review

of the National Protected Areas Strategic Management Plan

(NPASMP) is mandated every five years in any case.

The preliminary assessment of zoning for PKWS provides

a good basis for moving relatively quickly towards approval.

Adequate understanding of the biodiversity situation exists to

allow effective management actions to be taken. However, be-

fore the zoning plan is finalized it will be necessary to ensure

that it is more widely understood and accepted by the resident

population. There is a need for a final process of consultation

beyond local leaders and for an education campaign to make

people aware of their rights and boundaries of zones.

IUCN suggests that MoE endorses the whole zoning pack-

age for PKWS. The MoE can then approve the community use

zones (as the Minister has authority to do this), while sending

the whole package to cabinet for approval.

References

PMMR Team (2000). Learning about life in Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary.

An Dara, Hout Piseth, Kong Kim Sreng and Robert Mather (2009). Integrated assessment for identification of a preliminary zoning scheme for Peam Krasob Wildlife Sanctuary in southwest Cambodia. Draft Report.

of 8

touch

Text Box

(unofficial translation)

IUCN CambodiaHouse #19 Street 312, Sangkat Tonle Basac, Khan Chamkamon, Phnom Penh, Cambodia P.O. Box 1504 Tel: ++7 855 (23) 222 311 Fax: ++7 855 (23) 222 312www.iucn.org/asia

Koh Kong Province, Cambodia © Margaret Ingles

of 8

zoning proposal for peam krasop wildlife sanctuary -...

Documents