| Home |
| About Us |
| The Problem |
| Projects |
| Self Help |
| Achievements |
| Cambodia |
| Gallery |
| Support Us |
| Contact Us |
| Thank Yous |
|
INITIAL SCOPING VISIT TO SAMLAUT DISTRICT AND MULTIPLE LAND-USE AREA 2-3 JULY 2002 Richard Paley, Country Director, FFI Cambodia Programme Ben Hammond, Advisor, Dept. of Environment Pursat Province, Cambodia 1. Introduction and Background In early 2002, Ms. Angelina Jolie approached Cambodian Vision for Development (CVD) concerning her wish to support wildlife conservation activities in Samlaut District, Battambang Province. In subsequent discussions with representatives at district and provincial level, CVD began to identify potential target area/s for such activities. However, conscious of their lack of expertise in the fields of natural resource management and conservation CVD decided to seek preliminary advice from specialists before proceeding further. Ben Hammond, an Australian Volunteer Technical Advisor to the Department of Environment in Pursat Province and Richard Paley, the Cambodia Director of the UK-based conservation NGO, Fauna & Flora International were therefore approached to undertake an initial feasibility assessment. In the time available (two days) it was not possible to carry out a comprehensive study. Nevertheless, it is hoped that these brief notes will give an indication of the current situation in Samlaut District, what the various options are and what the next steps should be to determine whether and how to proceed with a conservation intervention in Samlaut. Participants in the Assessment Mr. Mounh Sarath: Director, Cambodian Vision in Development (CVD) Mrs. Margot Grant: Advisor, Cambodian Vision in Development Mr. Richard Paley: Country Director, Fauna & Flora International (FFI) Mr. Ben Hammond: Technical Advisor, Pursat Provincial Environment Department
2. Wildlife and Conservation in Samlaut District Samlaut District is a former stronghold of the Khmer Rouge and did not come to a reconciliation with the Royal Government of Cambodia until 1999. The local authorities are almost exclusively ex-Khmer Rouge and still exercise a very direct authority over the populace most of whom are former KR soldiers and their families. The vestiges of 30 years of civil war remain with many areas still heavily mined and much former agricultural land out of production. For this reason, in spite of its fertile soils and potential for high-yielding agriculture, population levels are still relatively low (45,000 according to local NGOs). For the same reason little development has taken place and much of the population remain extremely poor. Extensive areas of the district retain their forest cover and/or remain largely inaccessible. There are two areas in Samlaut district which were designated as protected areas by Royal Decree in 1993 specifically for the protection and management of natural resources, including wildlife. In considering establishment of an effective, managed wildlife reserve in Samlaut district, it would make sense to focus on one or other, or both of these areas as the land designation, legal statutes and a skeleton of a management structure already exists. These protected areas are:
Nevertheless, locals and district officials claim that some areas in Samlaut district (including SMLA and PSWS) still support individuals of a number of globally important animal species such as tiger, leopard, elephant, bear, pileated gibbon and Siamese crocodile. Furthermore, according to the District Governor the forest habitats are largely intact and the wildlife populations, which became depleted during the war are recovering rapidly now that people have left the forest and have moved back to traditionally inhabited areas. He also stated that in spite of their poverty, use of forest resources by local people was limited and confined to trapping animals that raided their crops and felling trees to build houses. He emphasised his confidence that he and the district staff could protect the remaining forest and its wildlife and pledged his support for any initiative to conserve wildlife in Samlaut District. 3. Threats to Wildlife and Natural Resources in Samlaut District Not everyone we interviewed during our visit concurred with the scenario presented by the district authorities. Mr Gordon Ewers painted a bleak picture of the future for the forests and wildlife of Samlaut if action is not taken rapidly. He believes that within 6 months or so Samlaut District will become the primary focus of immigration and development in Battambang Province. If this change is not managed properly SMLA and PSWS will suffer the same fate as Roniem Daum Sam, a wildlife sanctuary in the north of Battambang province, which has been severely degraded during the past 5 years. In his view forest cover in SMLA remains fairly substantial but most of the large trees have been felled for timber. He confirmed that much of the Samlaut part of PSWS is secondary (regrowth) forest. It also became clear during our visit that utilisation of forest resources and wildlife by the inhabitants of Samlaut District is in fact widespread and intense. Land speculators from Battambang and Phnom Penh have already claimed much of the best agricultural land and the poorer people are left with a choice between farming the heavily mined areas, which are often covered with dense secondary growth, or clearing new agricultural areas from forest in SMLA or PSWS. Under such conditions it is hardly surprising that many venture far from the village to actively hunt wildlife for food or for profit, in addition to the typical trapping of wild animals close to the village to protect their crops. Mr Mounh Sarath said he knew a number of individuals who made their living from almost exclusively from hunting. On a visit to a community living on the edge of the SMLA, we interviewed a family who stated a clear preference for game meat as opposed to the abundant fish resources in local rivers. They admitted to setting traps deep within SMLA and collecting a wide range of forest products including a variety of fruits, which they sell in local markets or to traders from Thailand. They also possessed a small truck, which had obviously been used for transporting timber. Furthermore, they related the story of a neighbour who had recently caught a young tiger live and sold it. Interestingly, they expressed concern that they may be over exploiting the natural resources since the availability of some species was declining rapidly, and were aware that with continued exploitation these species would be wiped out. This picture probably reflects accurately the activities among most of the communities adjacent to or near forest areas and particularly SMLA and PSWS. Indeed Mr Mounh Sarath showed us a nearby market at O Ratkrah where wildlife products and game meat are sold daily. Wildlife populations are likely therefore to be under considerable threat and some species may have been reduced to population levels that are no longer viable. It is not just local people however who pose a threat to the wildlife and forests. As a remnant of the civil war and owing to its position on the border with Thailand, there are significant numbers of Cambodian Army troops stationed in Samlaut District, including some inside protected areas. If experience from other areas in Cambodia is generally applicable, these ill-paid and inadequately supplied troops will be expected to live off the land and engage in private business to support themselves. This normally includes extensive illegal logging enterprises and intensive hunting for food and cash. The presence of two large areas (adjacent to SMLA and PSWS) given over to companies as logging/agriculture concession is also a cause for concern. The District Governor denied knowledge of one of them (Pheapimex company) and claimed the other was inactive (Youri Sako company). However, in other parts of Cambodia logging companies have shown little compunction in logging illegally within protected areas, and are still cutting trees despite a government moratorium. The governor also indicated that three hydroelectric schemes are being planned within Samlaut district. Consensus on the overall benefits and costs connected with such projects is often difficult to achieve. Undoubtedly the impacts on wildlife are negative in the flooded areas, but it is often in the interest of the hydroelecric companies to conserve the area surrounding their installation in as natural state as possible for assurance of water quality. A proportion of the revenues can be utilised in supporting conservation and sustainable development in the immediate vicinity. Major negative impacts on human populations from these schemes are likely to be felt elsewhere in Samlaut and Battambang. SMLA is a critical catchment area for the Sangke River and the hydro scheme may reduce its flow substantially with disastrous consequences down-stream for domestic water supply and agriculture. It is clear even from our limited investigation that the existing natural resources of Samlaut are under threat from intensive and unsustainable resource use and that this trend is likely to increase in the near future. It is also clear that the local authorities do not have the capacity in terms of resources and skills to protect the area from these threats. In a rural society such as Cambodia, where so many depend on natural resources directly or indirectly for their livelihoods severe degradation of those resources can only lead to increasing poverty in the longer term. 4. Options for Intervention for Wildlife Protection Conserving the outstanding wildlife of Cambodia is a huge challenge. It is therefore important that when resources become available they are used wisely and where they can make a real difference. In order to do this a number of key questions need answering about any potential areas for intervention, such as:
The biodiversity of SMLA has never been studied directly and its significance to biodiversity conservation is currently unknown, though by comparison with similar areas and from villager reports it could be inferred that inhabitant large mammal species remaining include asian elephant and tiger. A major problem of the SMLA, however is that its small size may well be insufficient to maintain populations of large mammals such as elephants and tigers in the long term, unless it could be linked to other wildlife sanctuary areas (which it currently is not). Further, much of SMLA lies within Pailin Autonomous Zone, a stronghold of ex-KR commanders, and wholistic management of the SMLA would involve inclusion of the Pailin authorities. The attitude of the authorities in Pailin to conservation efforts is unknown. It appears that a case could be argued for intervention in SMLA on account of its watershed value alone, but on the evidence we currently possess the benefits to wildlife conservation are less certain. Further investigation of both areas is required in order determine which would be the best to focus on. Other decisions will also have to be made at a later stage regarding exactly what sort of intervention Ms. Angelina Jolie would like to support. Conservation can involve a variety of activities including biological and socio-economic survey and monitoring, wildlife protection, education and awareness raising amongst communities and decision makers, facilitating community management of natural resources for sustainable use, or even generating alternative sources of income for poor communities, which reduce the damage to wildlife and natural resources. The choice can be made to support a combination of all these activities in a given area or one or more discrete elements separately. However, in order to be really effective any activities should be implemented under a single integrated approach or strategy. 5. Next Steps In order to select the best options and design and carry out a plan for conservation intervention the following steps need to be carried out:
6. Conclusion The people of Samlaut district depend to a great extent on their natural resources for their livelihoods, including wildlife. What information we have suggests these are being drastically depleted, and the residents themselves realize that without a change in mindset and practices, these resources will disappear. Action is required to safeguard them for the future but time and resources are limited. Any support would be welcomed by Cambodian communities and conservation agencies alike. It is hoped that these notes will be of assistance in clarifying the steps which need to be undertaken to ensure that whatever the level of support, it will be applied in the most effective way for genuine wildlife conservation outcomes, integrated with the livelihoods, development needs, and natural and cultural heritage of the Cambodian people. |
|
|
|
Cambodian Vision in Development
Battambang, Cambodia