Understanding the Impact of Local People on Bengal Florican Populations in Central Cambodia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Understanding the impact of local people on Bengal florican populations in central Cambodia By Harriet Ibbett September 2015 A thesis submitted for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Imperial College London Submitted for the MSc in Conservation Science 1 2 Declaration of Own Work I declare that this thesis, “Understanding the impact of local people on Bengal florican populations in central Cambodia”, is entirely my own work, and that where material could be construed as the work of others, it is fully cited and referenced, and/or with appropriate acknowledgement given. Signature: …………………………………….... Name of student: Harriet Ibbett Name of Supervisor(s): Professor E.J. Milner-Gulland Simon Mahood Cover Photo: Taken by HI in Stoung BFCA, Kampong Thom Province in May 2015 i Contents List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………… v List of Figures………………………………………………………………………….. vi List of Acronyms………………………………………………………………………. vii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………… viii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………… ix 1.Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 1 1.1 Problem statement……………………………………………………………. 1 1.2 A Cambodian case study…………………………………………………….. 2 1.3 Aims and objectives…………………………………………………………... 3 2. Background ……………………………………………………………………….. 5 2.1 The Tonle Sap: a landscape in flux…………………………………………. 5 2.2 The Bengal florican: distribution and ecology……………………………… 6 2.3 Declines and drivers………………………………………………………….. 7 2.4 Understanding local livelihoods in Kampong Thom’s grasslands……….. 8 2.5 Conservation interventions…………………………………………………... 10 2.6 Study site………………………………………………………………………. 11 2.7 Methods for investigating grassland use & florican hunting………………. 12 3. Methods…………………………………………………………………………….. 15 3.1 Methodological framework…………………………………………………… 15 3.2 Research expectations……………………………………………………….. 16 3.3 Data collection & ethical considerations……………………………………. 17 3.4 Structured Interviews…………………………………………………………. 17 3.5 Focus Group Discussions……………………………………………………. 17 3.6 Household questionnaire…………………………………………………….. 18 3.6.1 Sampling technique………………………………………………….. 18 3.6.2 Questionnaire structure……………………………………………… 19 3.6.3 Unmatched Count Technique………………………………………. 20 3.6.4 Basic Necessities’ Survey…………………………………………… 21 3.6.5 Bird sightings, hunting and conservation knowledge…………….. 21 3.7 Pilot study……………………………………………………………………… 22 ii 4. Results……………………………………………………………………………… 23 4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the sampled population……………… 23 4.2 Grassland based livelihood activities………………………………………. 25 4.2.1 Rice farming…………………………………………………………… 25 4.2.2 Changes in rice farming……………………………………………… 29 4.2.3 Fishing…………………………………………………………………. 31 4.2.4 Cattle grazing…………………………………………………………. 31 4.2.5 Frog collecting………………………………………………………… 32 4.2.6 Rat catching…………………………………………………………… 32 4.2.7 Cricket collecting……………………………………………………… 33 4.3 Changes in livelihoods and use of grassland……………………………… 34 4.3.1 Changes in quality of life…………………………………………….. 34 4.3.2 Changes in grassland use…………………………………………… 35 4.3.3 Flood patterns………………………………………………………… 36 4.4 Livelihoods and florican sightings………………………………………….. 36 4.5 Bird hunting…………………………………………………………………… 38 4.5.1 Direct questioning…………………………………………………….. 38 4.5.2 Direct observation and FGDs……………………………………….. 40 4.5.3 Profile of a bird hunter……………………………………………….. 42 4.5.4 Prevalence of bird hunting: UCT……………………………………. 44 4.6 Local understanding and attitudes towards conservation………………… 45 4.6.1 Future management of grasslands………………………………….. 47 5. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………. 48 5.1 Objective I: Local livelihood interactions with floricans…………………… 48 5.1.1 Rice farming……………………………………………………………. 48 5.1.2 Other livelihood activities……………………………………………… 51 5.2 Objective II: Bird hunting…………………………………………………….... 51 5.3 Objective III: Local understanding and attitudes towards conservation…. 52 5.4 Broader conservation relevance……………………………………………... 53 5.5 Recommendations for future research……………………………………… 54 5.6 Recommendations for future interventions………………………………… 55 6. References…………………………………………………………………………. 58 iii 7. Appendices………………………………………………………………………… 62 7.1 Appendix 1: Florican Monitoring Data ……………………………………… 62 7.2 Appendix 2: SI Protocol……………………………………………………… 64 7.3 Appendix 3: FGD Protocol…………………………………………………… 66 7.4 Appendix 4: Household Questionnaire ……………………………………. 68 7.5 Appendix 5: UCT cards……………………………………………………… 76 7.6 Appendix 6: Bird picture cards ……………………………………………… 79 7.7 Appendix 7: Statistical Analysis……………………………………………… 80 7.8 Appendix 8: Market Survey Reports………………………………………… 85 iv List of Tables Table 2.1: Broad classifications of rice cultivated in the Tonle Sap floodplain pg 9 Table 3.1: Research expectations, ordered by research objective pg16 Table 3.2: Summary of households surveyed pg 19 Table 3.3: Categorization of Poverty Index Scores from BNS pg 21 Table 3.4: Bird species used in household questionnaire pg 22 Table 4.1: ANOVA results showing association between type of rice and Poverty Index pg 26 Table 4.2: Tukey multiple comparisons of means for type of rice cultivated & Poverty Index pg 26 Table 4.3: Parameter estimates of binomial GLM, testing for the effect of gender, livelihood activities and site on whether a respondent saw a florican pg 38 Table 4.4: Species of bird caught by respondents pg 39 Table 4.5: Parameter estimates of binomial GLM, testing for the effect of gender, livelihood activities and site on whether a respondent hunted birds. pg 44 Table 4.6: No. of respondents who knew florican protected, by site pg 45 Table 4.7: Proportion of birds correctly and incorrectly identified as protected pg 47 v List of Figures Figure 2.1: Map of Cambodia showing Tonle Sap and the annual inundation zone pg 5 Figure 2.2: Photographs of floricans pg 6 Figure 2.3: Map of Study Site pg 12 Figure 3.1: Conceptual model linking research aims with methods used pg 15 Figure 4.1: Mean Poverty Index Score for each village surveyed pg 24 Figure 4.2: FGD seasonal calendar showing dominant temporal trends in local livelihood activities pg 25 Figure 4.3: Distance of DSR fields from village in km by % of DSR farmers pg 28 Figure 4.4: DSR sowing and harvesting periods, classified by crop round pg 28 Figure 4.5: DSR uptake over time pg 29 Figure 4.6: Percentage of DSR farmers by survey site pg 30 Figure 4.7: Photographs of livelihood activities carried out on the floodplain pg 33 Figure 4.8: No of respondents in each site who reported seeing a florican in the last year pg 37 Figure 4.9: Photograph of Blue breasted quail captured by respondent pg 39 Figure 4.10: Photo of trader selling plucked Oriental Pratincoles pg 41 Figure 4.11: Prevalence of bird hunting activity at each site pg 43 Figure 4.12: Difference between means for each treatment for fruit, egg collecting and bird hunting UCT questions pg 44 vi List of Acronyms ANOVA Analysis of Variance BF Bengal florican BFCA Bengal Florican Conservation Area DSR Dry-season Rice DWR Deep Water Rice ELC Economic Land Concession FA Forestry Administration FGDs Focus Group Discussions GLM General Linear Model HHs Households HI Harriet Ibbett HoH Head of Household KTP Kampong Thom Province LUC Land use change MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MUs Monitoring Units PES Payments for Ecosystem Services PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal RGC Royal Government of Cambodia SM Simon Mahood SIs Structured Interviews SVC Sub Village Chief UCT Unmatched Count Technique VC Village Chief WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WSR Wet-season Rice Word count: 14,508 (including references 15,972) vii Abstract Land use change and hunting are two of the greatest drivers of global biodiversity loss; addressing these challenges is a key priority for global policymakers. Yet too often conservationists lack adequate understanding of the human dimensions of these drivers, resulting in the development of ineffective interventions. Using the Bengal florican, a ‘Critically Endangered’ bustard species, as a case study, this research investigates socio-economic drivers of biodiversity loss in the Tonle Sap floodplain in central Cambodia. Using novel mixed methods approaches, social research identifies how changes in local people’s livelihood activities are impacting florican populations in grassland breeding habitat. Findings show that an increased adoption of Dry-Season Rice cultivation by local communities over the last ten years has had several significant primary and secondary impacts on floricans. For example, intensification has led to an expansion of rice cultivation into the florican breeding season and uninhibited pesticide use. The study quantifies the prevalence of bird hunting and explores local people’s attitudes towards current conservation initiatives. Results demonstrate the value of social research for creating more informed conservation interventions, and stress the need for further investigation of ‘wildlife friendly farming’ approaches in the developing world. viii Acknowledgements I would firstly like to thank my supervisors E.J and Simon, for the opportunity to undertake this research, and for the unlimited advice, guidance and enthusiasm provided throughout. I also thank Mariel Harrison and Emily Beauchamp for advice in study design and analysis. Huge thanks to Song Salidet, Lay Chan Setha and Phlai Ponlork, my three research assistants without whom this research wouldn’t have been possible. Thank you for showing me your beautiful country, for guiding me through Khmer culture, and