poor
The poor include those who depend primarily on wetlands and wetland resources for their subsistence livelihoods. They are mostly farmers who also fish seasonally after harvesting their crop, and those who live permanently on the waters and depend primarily on fishing for their subsistence. Due largely to limited knowledge and financial capacity to invest in fishing, these groups normally have limited access to most of the wetland resources, and are only able to benefit from certain wetland functions. However, certain wetland functions, such as flood regulation, storm protection, water for fish farming, and water transport, benefit all the people living under the same environmental settings.
Some of the uses and functions most important to the poor are those that link directly to their local livelihoods; they include crop farming, fishing and fish farming, collection of non-timber forest products, domestic use of water and water usage for irrigation, local water transport, habitation, and diluting of pollutants.
Farmers benefit from the fertile wetland soil for rice farming and for home gardening. As their agricultural outputs are insufficient for their household consumption, they normally pursue other livelihood activities, such as fishing, fish farming, hunting for aquatic animals, and collection of non-timber forest products, such as firewood and vegetables, both for own-consumption and for sale.
Dry season crop farmers in particular benefit from the use of water and of soil moisture in wetland areas. These people normally have their farmland close to the waterbody, and use surface flow and pumped water to irrigate their crops. The role of wetlands and aquatic plants in diluting and absorbing pollutants is also important to the poor, who often use untreated water for drinking, washing and other domestic activities.
Although living on water can be more costly than living on land, people can generally settle on water for free, as no space purchase is required.
Using their own boat and other water craft, people can generally move around without having to pay for specific plots for settlement. Although living on floating craft can be risky, particularly in the wet season when there are frequent rain storms, the flooded forest serves as an important barrier from these life-threatening hazards.
Table 10 shows the perceived values of selected wetland resources in three locations – namely Preah Rumkel, Chong Kneas and Angkor Borei in Stung Treng, Siem Reap and Takeo provinces, respectively.
Wetland values that are very important to local users yet are difficult to capture in economic terms and/or are not well appreciated
The most important wetland values for local users are those that relate to their livelihoods, income generation and welfare. The following sections describe some very important values that are difficult to capture in economic terms and/or are not well appreciated by the well-off or by those who do not live in wetland areas.
products for subsistence livelihoods
Many people in rural Cambodia live on products they collect or produce themselves. The very poor often eat whatever they get for the day. People in rural areas are also accustomed to sharing food.
Consequently, the market mechanism does not always operate, as money is often not used in the exchange of small and cheap items that can be easily obtained locally. Frequently, rural people share fish or vegetables for daily cooking, a practice that is not common in urban areas. Rural people normally purchase grocery items such as monosodium glutamate (MSG), sugar and salt, from retailers outside their communities, but they would not normally buy items that are available Table 10. Values of selected wetland resources in Preah Runkel, Chong Kneas and Angkor Borei, as estimated by provincial working groups
resources
Amount of products direct use value number of users
preah
rumkel chong
kneas Angkor
borei preah
rumkel chong
kneas Angkor
borei preah
rumkel chong
kneas Angkor borei Medium value
fish **** **** **** **** ** **** *** **** ****
Low value fish **** **** ***** **** * **** **** **** ****
Snails **** ** *** *** * *** *** *** **
Water snakes ** ** * ** ** **** ** * **
Freshwater
turtles ** ** * *** **** **** ** * **
Bivalves ** ** - ** * - * ***
-Shrimp ** *** ** * *** *** ** **** ***
Crab **** ** ** ** ** *** *** *** ***
Frogs **** ** - ** *** - ** ***
-Water beetles - ** - - * - - ***
-Water birds ** ** * - *** *** - ** **
Waterlily - ** *** - * *** - * **
Water spinach - ** *** - * *** - * **
Water hyacinth - ** - - * - - *
-Inundated forest &
vegetables *** **** ** ** ** *** ** **** ****
Bamboo - * - - *** - - **
Note: ***** = very high; **** = high; *** = moderate; ** = low; * = very low; - = not applicable.
locally. The grocery items that are bought may be different in some characteristics but are not necessarily more expensive or better in terms of caloric value or quality than the local food items that are shared in the community. Since the amount required for daily consumption is small and easily obtained, sharing does not seem to be a problem for these rural communities. Sometimes, the grocery items are obtained in exchange for certain food items obtained locally, frequently at the expense of a larger amount of locally obtainable products.
Therefore, the main factors influencing whether the economic value of wetland products can be captured or appreciated are the type and amount of goods that can be easily obtained locally.
Because many of these products do not normally enter the market, their price is often not known;
they are therefore not regarded by locals in living on water has become such an integral part of the lives of the rural poor, and since almost every time they go outside their homes they have to board a watercraft, people do not pay much attention to their daily use of boats.
Because most of the craft are for multiple use, it is futile to keep track of how much time the boat is used for certain activities. People are more interested in using their boat to catch more fish or to get their rice seedlings to the field for transplanting, than in recording how much time it is used for various purposes. On the other hand, passenger or tourist boat operators know exactly how far and where they have traveled for the day, as well as how much they have earned from and spent on their boats. However, records of such trips are rarely kept.
settlement
Wetlands are also used for habitation. While many wetlands are defined as state property, in reality they are open access, as there is no price or market for them. Settlement in these open access wetlands is practically free. Fish traders and grocery sellers are often willing to pay for a strategic location in which to station their floating house in order to gain access to trade. However,
people are generally not willing to pay for access to the same area. Thus, unless people perceive a direct benefit from settling in a particular wetland location, or unless access to that location is difficult (i.e., they have to pay for the right of access), most people do not appreciate this
‘habitat value’, making it difficult to capture and quantify.
use for home gardening and small-scale livestock farming
Many rural people keep a home garden for own-consumption and subsistence. Since the local market does not work well and labor input is not known, it is difficult to capture the real value of this use in monetary terms. However, home gardening is very common for rural people, and contributes significantly to local consumption.
Estimating the economic value of wetlands for small-scale livestock farming can be very difficult when, for example, there is no way of knowing how much the livestock depend on the wetland and how much they depend on the terrestrial environment. Other factors making monetary assessment difficult include the insignificant amount of products involved and the lack of a well-functioning market.
provision of spawning and feeding grounds for aquatic animals
One of the important roles of the flooded forest is the provision of spawning and feeding grounds for fish and other aquatic organisms. Local fishers learn of the relationship between the extent and quality of the flooded forest and the productivity of a waterbody. They have come to realise that fishing was better in the past, when the flooded forest was less degraded and covered a larger area.
However, it is difficult to capture or appreciate such values in economic terms. There is still a lack of understanding of how much natural productivity is produced in any one system under the influence of many different variables. The mobile nature of productive resources is another reason why it is difficult to distinguish between on-site and off-site benefits.
storm barriers
Although the effect of storms in Cambodia is not as devastating as that of floods, it presents a
relatively high risk for local people living in small unstable dwellings in the Tonle Sap and in coastal areas. Wetlands provide significant protection to these people by attenuating the force of storms and preventing coastal erosion. This type of benefit is also difficult to value as currently there is no market for it.
sustaining soil fertility
The large amount of sediment deposited by floods on wetlands is usually regarded as a negative effect. However, siltation of rice fields is deemed important as can be seen through the many colmatage canals16 built by people along the Mekong and Bassac. The implication of sediment for farmers is both negative and positive. While it tends to reduce the storage capacity of reservoirs used for irrigating dry season paddies, its deposition in rice fields helps to maintain soil fertility and thus increase rice yield and reduce the need for fertilizer input.
cultural values
Some traditional practices such as the water festival, spiritual celebrations at the beginning of fishing activities or at the wrapping of the crop harvest are perceived to be important and should not be overlooked. These practices, although associated with the production cycle of the wetland system, are difficult to value as they cannot conclusively be shown to result in increased productivity.
Promising methods for assessing the value of wetland resources to the livelihoods of the poor An appropriate valuation method should ideally
capture and assign values to all uses and functions, particularly those that benefit the poor, those that are difficult to capture in economic terms, and those that are poorly appreciated by users. On the one hand, some promising new valuation methods may require the values to be expressed not in monetary terms but in terms of their percentage contribution to the livelihoods, survival or welfare of a particular local group of users or of a larger group of society. (A conversion multiplier for different groups may have to be developed in order to consolidate the value for local, regional or global expression.) On the other hand, the valuation methods should be able to capture the value of all individual elements in the
system, including mobile resources, and to express the value of the system as a whole, taking into account the spatial scale of the system, e.g., the habitat, ecosystem or catchment level.
Policy conclusions and recommendations Conclusions
Institutional and legal framework
The complex institutional arrangements governing wetlands management has impeded coordination between the various agencies responsible for different aspects of wetlands management. The resulting lack of effective regulation and enforcement has given rise to conflict among resource users, between managing agencies, and even between countries.
There is currently no inter-ministerial coordinating mechanism for wetlands planning and management at the national level. One exception is the Secretariat for the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, although its purview is restricted to a particular area. Coordination at the provincial and local level is even more sorely lacking, although there are some NGOs working to promote cross-sectoral coordination in the provinces where they are based.
Despite efforts to decentralize authority for wetlands management to the provincial and local levels of government, many decisions are still made by the central government. This causes delays and limits flexibility in responding to problems at the local level. Although local communities are being encouraged to participate to a greater degree in resource management, they are disempowered by a lack of constitutional support for their rights to participate in decisions that concern their livelihoods.
The legal framework governing wetlands management is founded upon various pieces of legislation that govern resource use (Fishery Law 1987), land use planning (Land Law 2001), and environmental conservation (Environmental Law 1996; Royal Decree on the Protection of Natural Areas 1993). This fragmented approach reflects the complex institutional framework, and does not provide a clear legal basis for the holistic and integrated management of wetlands. This has led
16 Canals built to channel fertile silt to rice fields during the flood season.
both to conflicts about resource use, and to a decline in the resource base itself.
The Draft Wetland Action Plan addresses many of these institutional and legal shortcomings.
However, this document, which has been under various stages of review and revision, has yet to be adopted by the Council of Ministers.
Economic valuation of wetlands
Wetlands provide a wide range of values, some of which are more apparent than others. Wetlands are particularly difficult to value because of the different ways they are perceived by stakeholders with different interests. In addition, many of the ecological functions of wetlands are poorly understood, and therefore are not taken into account during valuation. The lack of both adequate property rights and of an effective regulatory framework also influences attitudes towards wetlands and how they are valued. For these reasons, policy-makers tend to underestimate the total economic value of wetlands.
Most of the existing data related to wetland valuation is concerned with direct uses of wetlands.
The sectors most involved in wetland use in Cambodia, in terms of economic earnings, are agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture, water supply, extraction of timber and non-timber forest products, tourism, water transport and habitation, and conservation. Other uses and functions of wetlands include livestock farming, waste dilution and treatment, flow and flood regulation, protection from storms, energy production, and sociocultural uses.
Wetland values that relate to the livelihoods, subsistence and welfare of the poor are especially important because many poor people live in or around wetlands and depend heavily on wetland resources for their livelihoods. However, for several reasons, these values are also often very difficult to capture in economic terms, and are therefore often overlooked in policy. First, many resources harvested from wetlands seldom enter the market economy, making it difficult to assign them a monetary value. Secondly, many wetland functions are so much a part of people’s daily lives that they are poorly appreciated, even by those to whom they provide the most benefit.
Finally, a lack of understanding of how certain wetland functions work prevents their full value from being realized.
One promising direction towards a more comprehensive wetland valuation method is to express values not in monetary terms, but in terms of the percentage contribution they make to the livelihoods of a particular group of local users. A good valuation method should also be able to capture the values of all individual elements in a wetland system, including mobile resources, at various spatial scales.
Recommendations
Adopt a coherent national strategy for wetlands management
• The National Wetland Action Plan (NWAP) should be adopted and agreed upon by responsible agencies so that wetlands are managed in a coordinated and concerted manner, which recognizes the important roles of government agencies, NGOs, communities, and the private sector. One action prescribed in the NWAP is the formation of the National Wetlands Steering Committee to deal with the management of wetlands resources in both coastal and freshwater wetlands and to improve the legal framework. The NWAP has been drafted for many years but has not yet been approved by the Councils of Ministers.
The Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Programme, in partnership with the Ministry of Environment, is reviewing the NWAP, after which it will be resubmitted to the Councils of Ministers for endorsement. However, since many of the actions in the current draft NWAP have already been accomplished, an updated set of actions would be required; these actions would need to be addressed to the relevant ministries for implementation. The Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and other relevant ministries will have to work closely to address the issue of sustainable use and better management of wetlands resources.
Improve the legal framework to support Integrated Wetlands Resources Management
• Guidelines on the implementation of laws will be required to improve the effectiveness of enforcement. Public awareness is the key issue by which to promote the understanding of newly promulgated laws at the provincial, district and local level. Guidelines on the interpretation and implementation would be
especially useful at the local level, as local communities often do not understand how to implement new laws. Guidelines would need to be developed at the national level through comprehensive consultation within and between government agencies. The guidelines would need to interpret the Fishery Law and particularly the Sub-decree on Community Fisheries in order to assist local communities to implement these laws. The guidelines should include such matters as the demarcation of the physical boundary between community fisheries and fishing lots, coordination and consultation between commercial and small-scale fishers, subsistence fishing gear in specific localities, and the management plan for community fisheries and fishing lots.
• Decentralization. In 1996 the Royal Government of Cambodia introduced the Social Economic Improvement Agency Program (SEILA) to pilot a system relating to the planning, financing, management and implementation of local development in five provinces. The SEILA programme has since expanded throughout most of the country.
The Government has made a commitment to use the decentralization and deconcentration approach, which promotes the participation of the people in the organization and management of natural resources and project development. Participation occurs through the delegation of power to the provincial and district governments and commune councils, which are closest to the people. This process allows local people to make decisions on issues concerning their daily lives. The Government hopes to address fisheries management by: (i) developing a comprehensive legal framework that will ensure conservation and sustainable development; (ii) building the capacity and enhancing the efficiency of the Department of Fisheries; (iii) minimizing excessive exploitation of resources; and (iv) reducing resource use conflicts. Through the decentralization process the Government can improve awareness of wetlands among commune council members, and incorporate wetland plans into commune development plans. The sub-district17 and village development committees are some of the institutions in place that could assist the
establishment of the community fisheries process. This decentralization will facilitate close collaboration among local authorities, relevant local government agencies, and the SEILA program, and contribute to better management of wetland resources and to reduced conflict over the use of wetland
establishment of the community fisheries process. This decentralization will facilitate close collaboration among local authorities, relevant local government agencies, and the SEILA program, and contribute to better management of wetland resources and to reduced conflict over the use of wetland