Considering Drawbacks

Participants also were able to envision some drawbacks to conservation. Some of these would result from long-term successful conservation efforts, such as increased wildlife populations (more tigers in villages?), as well as the more current dilemma of limited access to resources due to protected area establishment and enforcement.

Human/wildlife conflict is a reality for conservation all over the world, from wolves in the United States, to tigers in Nepal, to lions in Tanzania, as well as predicaments arising from communities being denied access to forest resources they have benefited from for decades, such as in the Amazon and South Africa. These issues were fairly familiar to participants in the study and were specifically mentioned by most, while there were also a few individuals that did not feel conservation had any negative aspects.

5.10.1Drawbacks of living with wildlife

Within the Phnom Tamao protected area, some participants identified some drawbacks of having wildlife around, mostly regarding raiding of crops.

Drawback is that sometimes wildlife eats crops but for me, I don’t mind (Interview 14).

Some participants were more concerned that if wildlife was to increase around the forested areas they would then become a threat to humans: “nature conservation doesn’t have drawbacks, but if we conserve wildlife maybe humans get risk from too much wildlife that can be a danger to humans” (Interview 26).

Most key-informants did not feel the drawbacks related to living with wildlife were insurmountable or even that big of a deal for community members. They felt that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks in most cases:

I think the local people that grow crops that get raided by the animals might be annoyed, but I think that they benefit from the increased trade that Phnom Tamao brings….If you ask local communities if they want Phnom Tamao there or not, everyone would say we want it there. I think there are one or two small negative impacts but I think people would prefer that natural environment (key-informant Interview 1).

5.10.2Drawbacks of restricting access

When discussing drawbacks with individuals not living in the protected area, issues of reduced access to resources was the more common topic mentioned. Participants had more of a general idea of how individuals who live off the forests might be impacted by conservation developments.

Small families and small groups of people experience drawbacks because they can’t use the forest or kill wildlife (Interview 18).

The government thinks conservation is very good and important but the people who live near the forest, they depend on and use the forest and they are mad because they cannot use or get resources from the forests anymore (Interview 22).

Several key-informants were also more deeply concerned, particularly individuals whose organizations were involved in some of the restricting activities, about how to responsibly go about providing alternatives and evaluating how communities will be impacted.

Sure depending on how it is done [there will be drawbacks], from a human perspective, there can be impacts. Human’s access to resources and land could be impacted. I think it is the responsibility of those groups to take that into account, not that you have to rehouse people but like the MPA (marine protected area), there are very short consultation periods which is a concern because you can see what will happen, reducing access to resources in certain areas, in the bigger picture that should lead to improved resources overall but people are going to be impacted, individual families are going to be impacted, so it would be irresponsible to not take that into account (key- informant Interview 3).

As touched on in this above quote, although the drawbacks may be limited in variety this does not make them simple to solve; they are complex and emotional.

5.11

Summary

This chapter has presented the analysis of 60 interviews. It identified and organized the vast array of topics discussed by participants into themes to help understand how Cambodians interpret nature conservation and many of the other issues surrounding it, including nature, wildlife, and the Phnom Tamao Wildlife Rescue Centre. The qualitative research methods allowed for a variety of opinions to be explored without the limitations of a questionnaire survey, which might have confined the study to only the terminology familiar to some participants.

The first main constructions revealed in this study were PTWRC as a zoo, a resort, a place for wildlife conservation and for raising wildlife. Dynamic themes also arose around nature, including nature as items used such as air, water, fish and trees; nature as happiness and wellbeing; nature as protection and balance; and nature as not manmade. In its wider conceptualization, nature conservation revolved around it providing “protection” of nature, and participants’ conceptions of it. Discussions of nature conservation also revealed themes around tourism and sustainability as well as revealing how it occasionally was an unfamiliar term. The research also exposed general perceptions of the “other” and the “past”.

Overall the data shows that Cambodians possess a range of knowledge’s about nature and nature conservation. Many participants were familiar with threats to forests and wildlife and the decline of wildlife populations and forested lands. Individuals also had suggestions on how to alter these trends and expressed their opinions on the appropriate priorities for Cambodian development and conservation.

Interviewees knew of drawbacks resulting both from conservation and development and held several different conceptions of nature and wildlife. These constructions varied across demographics and the target groups but there was also a significant amount of overlap leading to the overarching themes reported above. Chapter 6 will tie some of these dominant themes back to the theoretical framework of social construction theory, and put them into cultural and historical context. This will provide explanations as to why some of these themes arose and will examine why they may have differed geographically or demographically. The chapter will also take these findings into consideration and attempt to answer the overarching question of what nature conservation means to Cambodian people.

Chapter 6