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

Transcription

1 Zoning Proposal for Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary Koh Kong Province, Cambodia LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPE STRATEGY: BRIEFING NOTE Koh Kong Province, Cambodia Margaret Ingles Page 1 of 8

2 Zoning Proposal for Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary Koh Kong Province, Cambodia Background Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary (PKWS) was one of twentythree protected areas declared under a Royal Decree in 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 mammals, 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, according to an interview with PKWS Director and the Director of Department of Environment, Koh Kong in Most of these people are from the area, although some migrated from other provinces during the civil war and during the charcoal production boom during from 1988 to 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 increasingly 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 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 areas 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 extractive 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 protected areas in Cambodia under the Protected Areas Law Page 2 of 8

3 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 zoning throughout Cambodia. A preliminary assessment for the identification of zoning at PKWS was carried out in 2008 and early The delineation 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 Rationale The demands on Protected Areas such as PKWS to deliver a wide range of goods and services in support of human well-being 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, nontimber forest products, support a growing nature-based tourism market, and protect important species and habitats. More recently, mangroves are being seen as an important element of the global fight against climate change, both for mitigation and adaptation. Internationally, identification of management zones, each defining 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 management are a matter for societal choice. Decisions are guided by available and practical information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations 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 endangered species or because they are important breeding grounds for various species. Types of management zones defined by the Protected Areas Law of February 2008 (Article 11) 1. Core zone: management area(s) of high conservation values containing threatened and critically endangered species, and fragile ecosystems. 2. Conservation zone: management area(s) of high conservation values containing natural resources, ecosystems, watershed areas, and natural landscape located adjacent to the core zone. 3. Sustainable use zone: management area(s) of high economic values for national economic development and management, and conservation of the protected area(s) itself thus contributing to the local community, and indigenous ethnic minorities livelihood improvement. 4. Community zone: management area(s) for socioeconomic development of the local communities and indigenous ethnic minorities and may contain existing residential lands, paddy field and field garden or swidden (Chamkar). 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, implement and enforce management appropriate to each zone. In a protected area with dual biodiversity conservation and livelihood 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 understand 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). Page 3 of 8

4 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 fisheries 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 efforts need to be focussed. 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 Zoning Zoning requires an assessment process that identifies particularly important and vulnerable areas for biodiversity as well as an understanding of human use patterns and needs. This process involves both biological assessment and socio-economic assessment. While participation of resident people is obviously essential for an assessment of their economic needs and behaviour, participatory approaches to biodiversity assessment can also contribute to identification of core areas for biodiversity as resident people generally have considerable familiarity with the ecosystem within which they live. 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, offering a variety of experiences to different segments of the tourism market. The zoning assessment at PKWS was a participatory process involving community members and other stakeholders in identifying economic needs as well as key biodiversity areas for biodiversity. Effective zoning generally requires negotiation between protected 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 natural resources for their livelihoods Margaret Ingles Page 4 of 8

5 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 compromises 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 additional 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. Issues The 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. Page 5 of 8

6 Crab survey Margaret Ingles for other PAs and will enable better protection of the biodiversity 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 issues. 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 addressed 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 other 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 zoning 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 parallel 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 management is widely accepted. This approach involves management on the basis of existing knowledge, with the management being modified as more knowledge and better understanding become available. Page 6 of 8

7 The responsibility for managing protected areas for both biodiversity conservation and livelihood needs has been given to the Ministry of Environment by the Royal Government of Cambodia. However, given that other ministries are required to approve 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 process. 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 zoning. 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, before 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. Roles and responsibilities of government agencies under Protected Areas Law 2008 Article 4 The 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 Department 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, indigenous ethnic minorities and the public to participate in the decision-making on the sustainable management and conservation of biodiversity. Article 14 The 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 Management, Urban Planning and Construction, local authority, local communities and relevant agencies. The GDANCP shall conduct research and management zoning as stated in article 11 of this law in accordance with the Ministry of Environment s guidelines and demarcated the boundary markers for each protected area based on an appropriate location on the map determined by sub-decree. IUCN suggests that MoE endorses the whole zoning package 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. Page 7 of 8

8 IUCN Cambodia House #19 Street 312, Sangkat Tonle Basac, Khan Chamkamon, Phnom Penh, Cambodia P.O. Box 1504 Tel: (23) Fax: (23) Koh Kong Province, Cambodia Margaret Ingles Page 8 of 8