Foreword
This Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) Report is the first of its kind to be written for Cambodia. The report is an attempt to present an overall picture of the progress made in reaching the goals of sustainable development and environmental health. It covers six concerns: forest resources, threat to biodiversity, management of fishery resources, utilization of water resources, agricultural land degradation, and climate change.
To address or mitigate future environmental problems, it is important for Cambodia to be aware of its progress and environmental performance over the past few decades. With this report, gaps in policy can be filled where the country is currently struggling.
Achieving development in tandem with good environmental practice is not easy. This EPA report is an initial step for Cambodia toward better understanding of its progress in achieving national sustainable development goals. The report intends to: (i) provide better understanding of environmental conditions, trends, and impacts to facilitate informed decision-making; (ii) help improve environmental program management and public accountability; (iii) and highlight principal trends and performance assessments under environmental issues of national and global importance. The report and its findings will also facilitate the analysis of development assistance in the environment domain, and enhance local capacity in carrying out performance assessments.
The second Strategic Environmental Framework has helped the country carry out the process of assessment, identification, and recommendations for its environmental concerns with guidance provided by the teams from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The EPA method has been continually evolved with internal capacity building to allow the first assessment to be carried out with multistakeholder contribution.
The report is written in four parts. Part I introduces the standpoint of the paper, Part II assesses performance under each of the priority concerns selected. This assessment is based on a Pressure- State-Response model that logically links the sources of environmental pressure factors to the resulting state, and the policy and institutional responses intended to stimulate policy review. Part III discusses crosscutting development issues. Part IV draws overall conclusions and recommendations. An Annex gives statistical data supporting parts II, III and IV.
In addition to national significance in Cambodia, the report also carries great connotations and use for future planning and improvement of environment management in Cambodia.
Senior Minister, Minister of Environment
H.E. Dr. Mok Mareth
i Acknowledgment
The completion of the Cambodia National Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) Report would not have been possible without the valuable inputs and assistance of many individuals. A core team of international and national consultants prepared the initial and final draft of the report under the aegis of the Ministry of Environment (the national implementing agency of the project) led by H.E. Dr. Mok Mareth, Senior Minister and Minister of Environment and Chuon Chanrithy, Director, Department of Natural Resources Assessment and Environmental Data Management. We wish to thank international consultants Ivan Ruzicka, Kumar Mohit, and Mike Comeau and national consultants Mak Sithirith and Touch Vina for their very significant work on the report.
Acknowledgement is also given to the many people and institutions who participated in the various consultations and workshops organized during the preparation of the report and provided feedback. This includes an EPA technical review team consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Forestry Administration and Department of Fisheries); Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology; Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy; Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction; and Ministry of Planning.
The project was made possible through financial and technical support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Institute for Global Environmental Studies (IGES) of Japan, and the National Institute for Environmental Strategies (NIES) of Japan. A note of thanks is given to Masami Tsuji and Herath Gutanilake, both ADB staffs, who provided valuable insight and support throughout the process of preparing this report. Finally, kudos to the team from UNEP who ably coordinated the management of the entire project on Strategic Environmental Framework for the Greater Mekong Subregion (SEF II): Surendra Shrestha, Yuwaree In-na and Tin Aung Moe.
ii iii Table of Contents
Foreword i
Acknowledgment ii
Executive Summary v
Acronyms and Cambodian Terms vii
I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Assessment Method Used: The P-S-R model 2
II. Management of Priority Concerns in Cambodia 9 1. Forest Resources 9 1.1. The Context 9 1.2. the State 10 1.3. The Pressure 11 1.4. the Response 12 1.5. conclusions 13 2. threat to Biodiversity 15 2.1. the Context 15 2.2. the State 15 2.3. the Pressure 16 2.4. the Response 18 2.5. conclusions 19 3. Fish Resources 21 3.1. the Context 21 3.2. the State 21 3.3. the Pressure 23 3.4. the Response 24 3.5. the Conclusions 26 4. Water Resources 28 4.1. Drinking Water 28 4.1.1. The Context 28 4.1.2. The State 28 4.1.3. The Pressure 29 4.1.4. The Response 30 4.1.5. Conclusions 32 4.2. Water for Agriculture 32 4.2.1. The Context 32 4.2.2. The State 32 4.2.3. The Pressure 34 4.2.4. The Response 34 4.2.5. Conclusions 35 5. Agricultural Land Management (Land Degradation) 36 5.1. the Context 36
ii iii 5.2. the State 37 5.3. the Pressure 37 5.4. The Response 39 5.5. conclusions 40 6. cLIMAte Change 42 6.1. the Context 42 6.2. the State 42 6.3. the Pressure 43 6.4. the Response 43 6.5. conclusions 44
III. CROSSCUTTING ISSUES IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 45 1. Integration of Environmental Concerns in Economic Decisions 45 1.1. Policy and Institutional Integration 46 1.2. Environmental Expenditure and Financing 49 2. Implementation Issues 51 2.1. Regulatory and Economic Instruments 51 2.2. Enforcement 52 3. Environment and Civil Society 53 3.1. Environment, Health and Safety 54 3.2. Access to Information and Public Accountability 54 3.3. Environmental Awareness and Education 55
IV. ConclusionS and RecommendationS 56 1. Forestry Resources 56 2. threat to Biodiversity 57 3. Fisheries Resources 58 4 Water Resources 58 5. Management of Agricultural Land 59 6. cLIMAte Change 59
APPENDIX 1. FACT SHEET TEMPLATE AND GUIDELINES 2. FOREST RESOURCES FACT SHEETS 3. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY FACT SHEETS 4. FISH RESOURCES FACT SHEETS 5. WATER RESOURCES FACT SHEETS 6. AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT FACT SHEETS 7. cLIMATE CHANGE FACT SHEETS
iv Executive Summary
Sustainable management of the country’s natural other GMS countries. Since 1993, the government resources and healthy environments for its has been building up a system of protected areas. population are important strategic priorities for By now a relatively high total of 32% of Cambodia, as they are for the other countries of Cambodia’s territory has some form of protection the Greater Mekong Subregion. The challenges to status. It remains to be seen how effective the Cambodian authorities and other national protection has been in the face of continued and stakeholders in pursuing these priorities are many widespread pressures. not least because of Cambodia’s immature market economy and young regulatory Fish accounts for three quarters of the animal frameworks. This report, a national environmental protein intake of Cambodia’s 13 million people performance assessment of EPA, is an attempt to and inland fisheries are essential for local present an overall picture of the progress made in livelihoods. Fish production has grown in recent reaching the goals of sustainable development years due mainly to greater production by small- and environmental health. The report addresses scale and rice-field fisheries. The production by six key environmental concerns, viz., forest Tonle Sap appears not to have changed degradation, biodiversity loss, suboptimal significantly in volume terms but there is evidence utilization of water resources, depletion of fish of changes in the composition of the catch resources, agricultural land degradation and towards smaller size fish, raising concerns about climate change (as a global environmental issue). sustainability. Destructive fishing practices are widely used throughout Cambodia. The responses Cambodia remains a predominantly agricultural have featured support for community-based country. Agriculture and forestry contribute nearly fisheries and reduction of commercial fishing lots 40% of the country’s gross domestic product in favor of community-based management. The (GDP). The country’s forest cover (under change of policy direction is too recent to say Cambodian definition) declined from 73% in 1965 whether it has resulted in a more sustainable to approximately 60% in 1997. A gradual reversal management of the fish resource. is observed from 1997 onward. The RGC cancelled a large number of forest concessions As the country grows economically and in that brought the area under concession population size, the demand for safe drinking management down from 6.5 million ha in 1998 to water increases also. Access to safe water has 3.8 million ha in 2003 and reduced the pressure improved in both urban and rural areas of on the forest. Nonetheless, illegal logging has not Cambodia during the past decade but from an been eliminated both in and outside the cancelled extremely low base. Cambodia has by far the concessions, and shifting cultivation and lowest overall percentage of access to safe agricultural expansion remain significant pressure drinking water among the GMS countries. The factors. As a principal line of defense, the growth of rural population has increased also the Government further increased the area of demand for irrigation water. RGC’s policy for the protected forest to a comparatively high 23.5% of rural sector rests significantly on further the total land area by 2002. expansion of irrigation and reduced dependence on rain-fed farming. The policy target of Cambodia’s natural habitats have been partly increasing the percentage of irrigated lands in the degraded in the course of last three decades, cropland total from about 16% in the mid-1990s resulting in additional pressure of the country’s to 20% in 2003 may have been achieved. There rich biodiversity. Despite this, biodiversity appears has been a significant decline in the per capita to be in better condition in Cambodia than in the endowment of agricultural land from about 0.65
iv ha in 1961 to about 0.37 ha in 2003 due to a rapid growth of rural population and constraints placed on area expansion. Efficiency of land use has come to be an important policy consideration. Additional and special measures such as clearing land of unexploded ordinance have added to the stock of agricultural land (beside reducing risk to life).
Cambodia has the necessary suite of laws and regulations for environmental management, and MoE holds the responsibility for their implementation. However, improved institutional coordination with other development ministries and better technical and financial resource availability is required to strengthen the institutional framework of environmental management in Cambodia.
vi vii Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank APHEDA Australian People for Health Education and Development Abroad CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management CCC Cooperation Committee for Cambodia CCEAP Climate Change Enabling Activity Project CDRI Cambodia Development Resource Institute CFDO Community Fisheries Development Office CIAP Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project CMDG Cambodia Millennium Development Goal DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DFW Department of Forestry and Wildlife DoF Department of Fisheries EIA Environment Impact Assessment EPA Environmental Performance Assessment FA Forestry Administration FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GEF Global Environment Facility GMS Great Mekong Subregion GPCC 98 general Population Census of Cambodia in 1998 Habitat United Nations Conference on Human Settlements ICLARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management IGES Institute for Global Environmental Strategies IPCC Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change JMP Joint Management Program LAC Law on Administration of Commune Councils LUCF land use change and forestry MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MIME Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy MLMUPC Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction MoE Ministry of Environment MoP Ministry of Planning MOWRAM Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology MRC Mekong River Commission NAPCBD National Action Plan on Conservation of Biological Diversity NGO Nongovernmental Organization NIES National Institute for Environmental Studies NRM Natural Resource Management PIP Public Investment Program POP Persistent Organic Pollutants Prakas regulation PRASAC Program for Agriculture Sector Assistance and Credit RGC Royal Government of Cambodia SEDP Socio-Economic Development Plan SEDRP Socio-Economic Development Requirements and Proposals
vi vii SEF Strategic Environmental Framework Seila foundation UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNFCCC United Framework Convention on Climate Change UNITAR United Nations Institute for Training and Research WB World Bank WRI World Resources Institute
viii viii CAMBODIA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (EPA) REPORT
1 INTRODUCTION
1. The present Environmental Performance findings will also facilitate the analysis of Assessment (EPA) Report is the first of its kind to development assistance in the environment be written for Cambodia. It examines the domain and enhance local capacity for carrying developments under selected environment out performance assessments. concerns over a period of time and the degree of 3. The Ministry of Environment (MoE) as the lead success the national authorities have had in agency provided the Department of Natural influencing environmental outcomes. The report is Resources Assessment and Environmental Data one of six prepared in a similar format by each of Management to fulfill its mandate in preparing the countries of the Great Mekong Subregion this report in consultation with other environment- (GMS). The Asian Development Bank (ADB), the concerned institutions. The preparation of Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Cambodia’s EPA report was a team effort under Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the the guidance of: Institute for Global Environmental Studies (IGES) • H.E. Dr. Mok Mareth, Senior Minister and of Japan and the National Institute for Minister of Environment, National Focal Environmental Strategies (NIES) of Japan have Point provided financial and technical support for the • Mr. Chuon Chanrithy, Director, Department National Performance Assessment and a Strategic of Natural Resources Assessment and Environmental Framework for the Greater Mekong Environmental Data Management, Ministry Subregion (“SEF II”) Project under which the EPA of Environment, National Coordinator. reports were formulated. National technical consultants prepared the initial 2. the report is a first step by Cambodia in the draft of the EPA report: direction of gaining a better understanding of its • Mr. Touch Vina, National Consultant on progress towards achieving the goals of national Database Development sustainable development. The preparation of the • Mr. Mak Sithirith, National Consultant on national environmental performance assessment Environmental Issues report is intended to support (i) informed decision The EPA technical review team included making through a better understanding of representatives from: environmental conditions, trends, and impacts; • Forestry Administration, Ministry of (ii) effective national environmental program Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries management and improved public accountability • Department of Fisheries, Ministry of for the results, and (iii) reporting of principal Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries environmental trends and assessment of • Ministry of Water Resources and performance under environmental issues of Meteorology national and global importance. The report and its
• Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy intended to influence the pressure factors, • Ministry of Land Management, Urban and through them, move the state towards Planning and Construction the targets set. (see Figure I.1 below) The • Ministry of Planning most telling of the P, S, and R factors are • Ministry of Rural Development chosen as environmental indicators. Their 4. The environmental priority concerns to be past trends and interplay are analyzed to studied under the national EPA process were say how effective the responses have been in selected at national workshops, held in Sihanouk improving the ‘state’. The method used is Ville and Siem Reap in September 2004 and described more fully below. January 2005, respectively. These workshops • Part III discusses the crosscutting brought together decision-makers from various development issues, i.e. those elements that national agencies, local and international affect overall environmental performance of development organizations, NGOs, and other the country without necessarily neatly falling stakeholders and members of civil society, all under any one of the selected concerns. with a stake in Cambodia’s sustainable • Part IV draws overall conclusions and development. recommendations. It is a summary of where 5. the First National Workshop identified five the country stands under the chosen (from a list of thirteen potential) environmental concerns and what additional efforts are concerns included forest resources, threat to recommended to improve performance and biodiversity, management of fishery resources, assessment of performance. utilization of water resources, agricultural land • The Annex provides the statistical degradation. These five were considered priority information (organized in the form of “fact concerns requiring immediate attention. They also sheets”) that supports the analysis of Parts provided conditions for a meaningful assessment II to IV of the report. of performance such as data availability, and the The report was reviewed by the subregional expert existence of clearly defined policy targets against group and international consultants and edited by which performance under the chosen concern Messrs. Mike Comeau, Mohit Kumar and Ivan could be assessed. Climate change was added to Ruzicka. the five concerns to strengthen the assessment’s global dimension. The Workshops concluded that The Assessment Method Used: other concerns that were not included at this The P-S-R model stage of the EPA, could be evaluated in future EPA 7. the approach to assessing performance under reports. any selected environmental concern is anchored 6. this EPA report is divided into four parts: in a Pressure-State-Response (P-S-R) model that • Part I is an introduction and overview of the logically links the sources of environmental objectives of the report including brief problems (the “pressure” factors) with the information on the EPA team and other resulting “state” of the variables of concern, and institutions involved in the process. the policy and institutional “responses” intended • Part II assesses performance under each of to influence the pressure factors, and through the priority concerns selected. them, the state (see figure below). The desired “Performance” is understood to be an values of the state variables typically (but not assessment of observed outcomes against always) feature in state authorities’ plans and the targets set under each concern. This strategies. The assessment of performance is a assessment is based on a Pressure-State- matter of judging how successful the responses Response (P-S-R) model that logically links adopted have been in reaching the target values of the sources of environmental problems (the state (and/or pressure) variables. “pressure” factors) to the resulting “state” 8. the P, S and R indicators’ values are the raw of the environmental concern, and the material of the EPA. The statistical background of policy and institutional “responses” each indicator is summarized in indicator “facts
Simplified Representation of a P-S-R model (hypothetical example of air quality management with four indicators of performance, highlighted in green)
A.“Pressure” factors (indicators): C. “Response” factors (indicators) 1. Number of vehicles 2. Vehicle characteristics 1. Frequency of vehicle inspections 3. Type of fuel 2. Fuel quality standards 4. Estimated emissions of selected 3. Expenditure on traffic management pollutants 4. etc. 5. etc. .
Unlike a state-of-the-environment reporting that tends to focus on the description of the environmental conditions in a given locality and on the underlying B. “State” factors (indicators) pressure factors, an environmental performance assessment (EPA) probes the effectiveness of the 1. Concentrations of carbon monoxide responses by environmental managers. It asks not 2. Concentrations of atmospheric lead mainly how well the “environment is doing” but how 3. etc. well those in a position to influence environmental outcomes are performing.
sheets” and these are attached to the report to give the reader an opportunity to judge the underlying basis of the assessment. The assessment itself is a matter of rating (a) individual indicators and (b) the overall performance—an interplay of all indicators— under the concern being studied. A rating structure has been developed for this purpose. 9. A double-word description is utilized to rate each indicator. The first word describes the magnitude of the indicator relative to some benchmark (such as an international standard, an average for several countries, etc.). The second word describes the observed trend of the indicator value, as depicted by long or short-term historical data. The magnitude and the trend keywords are typically combined (e.g. “relatively poor and deteriorating”). In the case of baseline indicators with only one or few observations, the trend-keyword (and the “and” conjunction) is omitted. The descriptions applied to each class of indicators are contained in the tables below:
Rating Criteria Utilized to Assess State Indicators
STATE INDICATORS
In order to qualify the magnitude of the state indicator using the recommended keywords below, the values of the state indicator are compared against known benchmark figures. The national policy target for the indicator is one such possible benchmark. In many cases, a GMS average values or an international standard would be more suitable if the indicator is to tell us something about the relative performance of each GMS country. If no such figures exist, the magnitude keyword is omitted. The “poorness” or “goodness” of the magnitude is dependent on the interpretation of the indicator value. In some cases a high state indicator value is “good” (e.g. % forest cover); at other times a low value is preferred (e.g. # threatened species).
The trend of the State indicator is easy to rate as either deteriorating, stabilizing or improving, provided it is based on long-term historical data. In other cases or for benchmark indicators, the indicator value may not show any trend at all, in which case the trend keyword is left blank or specified as “Undetermined Trend”.
Relatively Poor and …. Average and ... Relatively Good and …. Unknown State and ….
As evidenced by an As evidenced by an As evidenced by an This rating is used if the indicator value which is far indicator value which is indicator value which is far value of the indicator below (or far above) the close to the same indicator above (or far below) the cannot be compared same indicator value for value for other GMS same indicator value for against the value of the other GMS countries or far countries or within the other GMS countries or far same indicator in other below (or above) other range of other acceptable above (or below) other countries or regions and benchmark figures such as benchmark figures such as benchmark figures such as there are no other international standards or international standards or international standards or benchmark figures, such as national targets national targets national targets international standards or national targets
Deteriorating Stabilizing Improving Undetermined Trend
As evidenced by a steady As evidenced by a steady As evidenced by a long- This rating is used if the long-term deteriorating long-term deteriorating term deteriorating trend but selected indicator is trend and with no trend but with short-term with sure signs of inconclusive in terms of immediate signs of signs of leveling or even improvement based on long or short-term trends or improvement. improvement, or a long- more than one observation if the indicator is based on a term level trend. in the positive trend. single observation over time.
Rating Criteria Utilized to Assess Pressure Indicators
PRESSURE INDICATORS
There will always be some magnitude of pressure and the trend over time can simply be rated as increasing or decreasing. Qualifying the magnitude of the indicator value may at times be difficult, especially if the pressure indicator is unique to one country and no comparative figures are available from other countries. It is also unlikely that international benchmark figures will exist for pressure indicator. Judgment is required to rate the magnitude of unique pressure indicators.
The trend of pressure indicators should be easy to rate, provided that long-term historical data exists. If only one or few observations exist, the trend keyword can be left blank.
High and Medium and Low and Non-Comparable and
As evidenced by the value As evidenced by the value As evidenced by the value This rating is used if, of an indicator which is of an indicator with a value of an indicator which is through lack of comparative much higher than the value more or less equal to that of much lower than the value numbers or other of the same indicator in other GMS countries or of the same indicator in information, an order of other GMS countries or other benchmark figures other GMS countries or magnitude cannot be much higher than other such as international much lower than other assigned to the value of the benchmark figures, such as standards or national benchmark figures, such as indicator. international standards or targets. international standards or national targets national targets.
Increasing Steady Decreasing (blank)
As evidenced by a long- As evidenced by a long- As evidenced by a long- The keyword is left blank if term trend of increasing term steady or near- term trend of declining there is only one pressure, with very little constant pressure that pressure, with perhaps observation, or if there is no sign of relief or stabilization. shows no sign of increase fluctuating short-term observed trend over time in or decrease in the past or oscillations. the indicator value. future.
Rating Criteria Utilized to Assess Response Indicators
RESPONSE INDICATORS
Since responses tend to be very diverse, there may be few benchmarks to rate the magnitude of response indicators other than the national targets for the indicator selected. Once more, judgment is required to rate the magnitude of unique indicators to say how “big” or “small” the response was.
Low and Average and Significant and Non-Comparable
If the magnitude of the If the magnitude of the If the magnitude of the This rating is used (or the response is significantly response is in line with na- response exceeds national keyword left blank) if there below the national target or tional targets or the average targets of the average of are no data or information below the average in other responses of other GMS other GMS countries or to compare the magnitude GMS countries or other countries or comparable comparable regions of the response with, or comparable regions. regions. there are no other bench- mark figures.
Sporadic Intermittent Consistent (blank)
If the response has been If the response has not If the response has been The keyword is left blank if irregularly applied over been consistently applied consistently applied, there is only one time with no set program but there are programs and calibrated to the pressure, observation, or if there is no or budgets to continue the budgets to continue the with plans to continue until observed trend over time in response in the future. application of the response the pressure has been the indicator value. in future. reduced to a desired level.
Rating Criteria Utilized to Evaluate Performance under Selected Priority Concerns
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
For purposes of communicating the EPA results, rating of performance under each priority concern is required. In this EPA, a star-rating system is used where any performance counts but with different levels of merit. The star-rating is based on what the indicators are saying, backed up by hard evidence presented in facts sheets, not on what a consensus view or expectations may be.
1-Star * 2-Stars ** 3-Stars *** Un-Rated
If the pressure continues to If there are signs that the If there is clear evidence If the trend in the state increase, the state responses will or have had that the responses have indicator cannot be continues to deteriorate and an effect on releasing the reduced the pressure and/ explained by the pressures the response(s) do not pressure, even though the or there is a clear sign that or the responses. appear to have any effect state does not yet show the state is improving. on the pressure or the signs of improvement. The label “un-rated” is a state. Additional criteria for 3-star sign that we have failed to Additional criteria for 2-Star rating: identify appropriate Additional criteria for 1-Star rating: indicators backed by facts rating: 1) Effective targets have sheets, and/or have failed 1) Targets have been set been set and met. to apply the PSR model, 1) Reasonable targets have and generally met. 2) International conventions and/or have failed to apply not been set or have not 2) International conventions have been ratified and the PSR model to been met. have been or will be ratified reporting requirements performance assessment. 2) International conventions and most of the reporting have been met. have not been ratified or requirements have been 3) Ongoing monitoring and adhered to. met databases exist. 3) No ongoing monitoring or 3) Plans exist for ongoing 4) Specific institutions with data collection. monitoring and data targeted roles and 4) No clear institutional role collection. responsibilities assigned. and responsibilities for 4) Institutional Institutional measures in environmental management responsibilities assigned place for the management of environmental concerns though limited progress of the concern e.g. EIA have been assigned or achieved due to process, adequate where they have been, no weaknesses in institutional budgetary and resources tangible progress has been arrangements e.g. lack of for environment monitoring, achieved suggesting an coordination, duplication of staff with appropriate appropriate response and roles, multiplicity of technical skills and know- non-achievement of the authorities etc. how, regular interaction with target. industry and NGOs on environmental management matters etc.
10. Besides its potential usefulness for Cambodia, the EPA reporting as developed under the SEF II Project offers wider benefits. The method used here can be applied at different levels of analysis, not only the national one (as in the present case). The commonality of approach to indicator selection, data presentation and their analysis facilitates subregional environmental assessments, one of the objectives of GMS environmental program that seeks to respond to transboundary environmental challenges in the Mekong Basin. Additionally at the local level, an EPA can be utilized as a project monitoring and evaluation tool or even a tool for assessing performance of a development initiative at a local (e.g. municipal) level. 11. Finally, the EPA process typically offers assessments of performance under concerns that are simultaneously local and global (such as threat to biodiversity in this report) and it therefore becomes a form of reporting to the bodies set up to help protect the global commons (e.g. most notably GEF). Last but not the least the report can assist the design of future country assistance programs by principal donor agencies active in Cambodia. 12. The EPA team wishes to thank the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) and collaborating ministries and departments for making information available for undertaking this EPA.
CAMBODIA
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
(EPA) REPORT
2 MANAGEMENT OF PRIORITY CONCERNS IN CAMBODIA
1. Forest Resources forests provide a variety of timber and non-timber 1.1. The Context products such as wildlife, fuel wood and medicinal 13. Cambodia is predominantly a low-lying plants. About a third of Cambodia’s forests (all of country that occupies the central plains of the it in the evergreen category) are considered lower Mekong basin and is bordered on three commercially attractive (DFW, 2003). Article 3 of sides by dense forested mountainous ranges. the Regulations on Forest Resources Exploitation Forest in Cambodia tends to be located on the prescribes selective cutting and sets the country’s periphery while paddy cultivation is the extraction rate at 30% of the total volume norm to the lowland areas (see Figure 1.1). available for harvest in evergreen and mixed 14. Forest is one of the most important economic evergreen forests (all merchantable trees that and environmental resources of the country and satisfy prescribed diameter limits). The average an important source of government revenue and forest growth in Cambodia has been estimated to employment for the local people. Cambodia’s be about 0.3 m3/ha per year. Applied to a cutting
Figure 1.1 Forest Cover Map of Cambodia
Table 1.1: Cambodia Forest Cover, 2002
Forest Type Area (1000ha) Percentage Evergreen Forest 3,720.5 20.5 Semi-evergreen forest 1,455.2 8.0 Deciduous forest 4,833.9 26.6 Other forest 1,094.7 6.0 Total forest land 11,104.3 61.1 Non-forest land 7,056.4 38.8 Total 18,160.7 100.0 Source: Forest Administration cycle (35 years), this has been used to fix an reliable values could be generated for them, which annual average harvest limit at 10 m3/ha (DFW, is not the case for Cambodia at present. Although 2003). suitable, the indicator is not ideal in a GMS 15. Cambodia’s location in the tropical monsoon context where countries tend to use their own zone accounts for marked biological richness of definition of forest cover (e.g. using different the forests (see Table 1.1 for a partial percentages of forest canopy). illustration). Complex interrelationships exist 18. The forest cover as defined in Cambodia (see between the country’s forest cover and unique the relevant fact sheet) steadily declined from hydrological systems of the Mekong River and 73% in 1965 to 59.8% (or 62.7% under a slightly Tonle Sap Lake. different definition of forest) in 1993, averaging a 16. The institutional history of forestry in loss of approximately 0.4% annually during this Cambodia during the last fifteen years includes a 28-year period. period of rapid expansion of the role of private 19. The downward trend continued with only a forest concessions in the early 1990s followed by moderate slowing down (to 0.3% per year) until a retrenchment when the difficulty of controlling 1997. However, a reversal is observed from 1997 the concession holders’ and other parties’ logging onward. The forest area increased by 1.3% per activities became apparent. The current phase in year from 1997 to 2002 to a total of 61.1% of forestry development in Cambodia cautiously the total land area. makes room for community based management 20. In 2003, RGC set a target of 60% forest cover and decentralization and in part follows the for the period 2005 to 2015 (CMDG, 2003). If the trends observed in countries that have lost most recent trend can be maintained, Cambodia should of the once abundant forest. not have any problem maintaining the target.
1.2. The State
Indicator: Forest Cover as a Percentage of Total Land Rating: Relatively Good and Area – 1965-2002 Stabilizing
17. Forest cover, expressed as a percentage of Justification: Forest cover in Cambodia has been total land area was selected as the most suitable declining over the long-term but there are signs of a indicator to describe the state of the country’s reversal, based on observations between 1997 and forest resources. The indicator is common 2002. Cambodia has the highest forest cover of all GMS countries in excess of 60% of the total land area. The worldwide and, with qualifications, similar to the condition of the existing forest cover however remains a selection by all other five GMS countries. Other concern. indicators (e.g. those relating to the quality of the standing stock) would naturally add to the understanding of underlying conditions provided
10 11 Figure 1.2: Percentage Forest Area over Total Land Area, 1965-2002
80
73.04 70 70.02 Area
65.29
Land 62.68 62.16 61.34 61.15 60 59.82 Total 58.6 %
50 1965 1976 1987 1993 1993 1997 2002 2005
Area with Tree Crown Cover >=10% Area with Tree Crown Cover >=20%
1.3. The Pressure of the total forest area (See Table 1.2). 23. It is important to note that during the period Indicator: Forest Concession Areas – 1994-2002 1996-2002, forest cover decreased both inside active and cancelled concession areas, suggesting 21. The total area under forest concessions was that cancellation of forest concession areas by perceived to be an important factor in itself may be insufficient to prevent the loss of contributing to the pressure on the forest cover, forests. together with illegal logging. Typically the two are closely related, and whereas obtaining reliable information on illegal logging is not always easy, Rating: Non-Comparable data on concession areas are available. In late mid-1990s, RCG set a target of reducing number and Decreasing of forest concessions from 30, operating on 6.5 million ha in 1997 to 12, operating on 3.8 million Justification: The RGC has succeeded in reducing the ha, by 2003. The 12 authorized concessions were pressure on forest resources through cancellation of a large number of forest concessions that brought the area required to develop forest concession under concession management down from 6.5 million ha management plans before resuming operations. in 1998 to 3.8 million ha in 2003. Operating forest 22. As can be observed from Figure 1.3, the area concessions are closely monitored based on detailed under forest concessions rose steadily from 1994 forest management plans. and peaked in 1998 when it approached 7 million ha. This was more than half of the total forest The rating assigned is not comparable with that for the other GMS countries, since each country uses different area at the time. The Government’s policy of indicators to capture the pressure on standing forest. sharply reducing the area under concessions, as mentioned earlier, reflected alarm at an apparent inability to control concessionaire activities. The 2003 target of 3.8 million ha was reached one year earlier, in 2002, when the total under concession management was approximately 30%
10 11 Figure 1.3: Trends in Forest Concession Area – 1994-2002
8,000
s 7,000 6,000 5,000 Hectare
of 4,000 3,000 2,000
Thousands 1,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
High Estimate Low Estimate Concession Area Target
Table 1.2 – Percentage Forest Cover Change in Concession Areas – 1996-2002
1996/97 2002 % of total forest cover (ha) (ha) % 1996/97 % 1996/97 Concession areas 3,335,232 3,346,453 30.49 30.13 Canceled concession 2,095,311 2,072,157 19.15 18.66 Source: Trends in Land Cover Changes Detection between 1996/97-2002
1.4. The Response 1st Indicator: Reforested Areas – 1985-2002 Rating: Low and Sporadic
24. The percentage of reforested areas in the Justification: RGC has implemented various total land area was considered first. It is easily reforestation programs sensibly paying attention to small understood, intuitively sound, and good environmentally important areas of the most deforested information was available to make an assessment. provinces. The overall impact of re-forestation programs 25. Between 1985 and 2002, the government’s on the country’s forest cover, however, has been re-plantation program focused on the severely negligible. degraded forest areas in Svay Rieng, and Takeo provinces (see Figure 1.4) nd 26. The total areas involved, however are very 2 Indicator: Protected Forest as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1993-2002 small. Only about 10,000 ha (or 0.05% of the total land area) had been re-forested up to 2002 in a country with a total forest area of some 11 27. The area of forest placed under a system of million ha. Clearly such a level of effort had little protected areas was chosen as the second impact on the overall forest cover. The main response indicator. This is a globally accepted purpose of these measures was probably to set a indicator and one utilized by several GMS good example and initiate reforestation in countries under the SEF II Project. The indicator vulnerable watersheds in the most seriously is expressed as a percentage of protected forest affected provinces. in total land area. There is no direct target for this
12 13 Figure 1.4: Percentage Reforested Area by Total Land Area – 1985-2002
10,000 0.06 9,000 8,000 0.05 7,000 0.04
s 6,000 Area 5,000 0.03
4,000 Land Hectare 0.02 3,000 % 2,000 0.01 1,000 0 0.00 g i a k t n g m o p g y e y Kir Ke Penh Speu Tho Reap Cham Paili Kong Tren Krati ampo Take Vihear Pursat Kandal K Chhnan Sihanou Cambodi Koh vay Rieng vay Siem Veng Prey Krong Mondul Kiri – S Krong Battamban Phnom Stung Rattanak Preah Kampong Preah Kampong Kampong Total Oddar Meanche Oddar Kampong Banteay Meanche Banteay Krong
indicator but an indirect policy target exists for Area in 2001. In 2002, a further 1.2 million ha protected areas, namely to maintain 23 existing were added bringing the total of forests under protected areas and 6 more recently created protection to approximately 4.2 million in a total forest protected areas (CDMG, 2003), and of 11.1 million ha of existing forests, amounting increase the number of rangers from 600 to to 38% of total forest and 23.5% of the total land 1,200 between 2001 and 2015 (CMDG, 2003). area of Cambodia. 28. As can be observed in Figure 1.5, the 23 protected areas established by a 1993 royal decree comprised a total of 2.8 million ha of Rating: Non-Comparable forest amounting to approximately 15% of the and Sporadic total land area. The 23 protected areas comprised: (i) 1.8 million ha of forest under wildlife sanctuaries; (ii) 0.7 million ha of forest Justification: Protected forests can significantly contribute to biodiversity and forest cover conservation, and under national parks; (iii) 0.3 million ha of forest protection of watersheds’ environmental functions. During under multiple-use protected areas and (iv) 0.06 the period 1993 to 2002, forest area under protection million ha of forest under protected landscapes. increased to 4.2 million ha or from 15 to 23.5% of the total In 2001, the Tonle Sap Multiple Use Area became land area. This increase resulted from two discrete actions a Biosphere Reserve and its transition zone by the Government rather than reflecting a steady and increased the forest area under protection by 0.2 sustained trend in government-led protection efforts. million ha. 29. The system of protected forests was 1.5. Conclusions formalized in 1996 under the jurisdiction of the 30. Compared to its GMS neighbors, Cambodia’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. forest cover exceeds 50% of the country’s total Figure 1.5 shows no new areas added to the land area. This is a high percentage for a country protected realm between 1993 and 2000. with topography less demanding than that of Concerted efforts by the government resulted in Cambodia’s two mountainous neighbors, viz., an area expansion of the Tonle Sap Multiple Use Lao PDR and Viet Nam. The trend of further loss
12 13 Figure 1.5: Protected Forest as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1993-2002
24 23
a 22
are 21
land 20
of 19 18 17 Percents 16 15 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
of forest cover seems to have been arrested. It is departments to better monitor compliance with less clear how the overall quality of the standing the rules of sustainable forestry. Capacity to forest compares with the situation in the past. The follow up on policies is still inadequate. Limited forest cover has been stabilized at a comfortable financial resources further constrain government’s overall level but the quality of the standing forest implementation capacity. could still be declining. Information pertaining to quality of forest cover in Cambodia would deserve to be organized in the next stage of performance Rating: 2 – STARS evaluation in order to establish the impact of government efforts on that variable. Justification: A 2-star rating is suggested based on 31. The success in stabilizing forest cover seems evidence that the responses (especially forest protection to mirror quite closely the Government’s under the system of protected forests) have or will have responses, most notably the limits placed on an impact on improving the state (forest cover). forests’ commercial exploitation and, to a lesser Demanding targets (60% by 2005 and through to 2015) degree, support for community forestry. However, have been set and there are signs that these targets will be reached. International agreements (e.g. ITTO) have illegal logging still continues. For Cambodia’s been signed and international benchmarks (e.g. MDG) forestry to become truly sustainable, the quality of accepted. Monitoring programs and databases are in forest concessions’ management plans and the place in the MAFF to allow regular monitoring of forest compliance with the plans need to be closely cover and forest conditions. monitored and the problem of illegal logging, largely unconnected with concession operations References by now, must be kept at the forefront of attention. Cambodian Millennium Development Goal 32. A significant proportion of protected forests (CMDG). 2003. Cambodian Millennium now are former concession areas. Improved Development Goal Report, Ministry of Planning, management and protection of cancelled Royal Government of Cambodia. Phnom Penh, concession areas could be among the most Cambodia efficient ways of increasing forest cover. Illegal DFW.1999. Cambodia Forest Cover. Forest Cover logging appears to have targeted mainly these Monitoring in the Lower Mekong Basin, areas. Department of Forestry and Wildlife, Ministry of 33. Measures need to be undertaken to improve Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Supported by the institutional capacity of the forest MRC/GTZ. Phnom Penh, Cambodia,
14 15 DFW.2003. Cambodia: Forestry Statistics for Mekong River and its tributaries are home to 2002, May 2003, Department of Forestry and about 500 species of freshwater fish in Cambodia Wildlife, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and (Rainboth, 1996). Approximately 70 terrestrial Fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. species are recorded in Cambodia (MoE et al., Global Witness. 1995. Forest, Famine and War: 2001). Key to Cambodia’s Future, London, England. 36. The Tonle Sap Lake and the wetland areas in Global Witness. 1999. Made in Vietnam, Cut in the northeast of the country are unique and Cambodia, London, England. natural havens for many wetland species. Since MAFF. 2004. Cambodia Forest Cover Resources, the 1960s, studies of Tonle Sap’s biodiversity Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, have recorded 225 bird species, more than 200 Royal Government of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, fish species, and 40 reptile species. Moreover, Cambodia. Tonle Sap area is the last stronghold in Southeast MoE. 1998. National Environment Action Plan, Asia of several of the globally threatened bird Ministry of Environment, Royal Government of species. Threatened freshwater dolphin is found in Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. the upper Mekong River (ADB, 2002). RGC. 2003. Significant Achievements Made by the Royal Government of Cambodia 1998-2002, 2.2. The State Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Indicator: Threatened Species as a Percentage of World Bank. 1996. Cambodia: Forest Policy Globally Threatened Species – 1996-2004 Assessment. Joint World Bank, UNDP and FAO
report. Washington D.C. 37. Percentage of globally threatened species was World Bank. 1999. Background Note, Cambodia, selected as the state indicator. The indicator A Vision for Forestry Sector Development. tracks over a period of time the number of Washington, D.C. globally threatened species present in Cambodia.
2. Threat to Biodiversity It is expressed as a percentage of threatened 2.1. The Context species at the national level in the number of threatened species at the global level. Expressing 34. Cambodia’s geography and hydrology the indicator as a ratio has the merit of placing contribute to the country’s rich biological the national protection efforts in a global context. diversity. Four main ecosystems are distinguished Threatened species are those defined as besides artificial/ terrestrial (IUCN term used to vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered describe farmed areas): forest, shrubland, (IUCN Red List, 2004). grassland and wetlands. The areas with significant 38. The Government has set no specific targets biological diversity are the southwest, especially for this indicator value. For this indicator, of the Cardamom and Elephant mountains, the relevance is the Convention on Biological eastern section of Dangrek Range, northern and Diversity, which Cambodia ratified on 09/02/95. northeastern parts of Cambodia-Lao PDR and 39. Figure 2.1 presents the values of the Cambodia-Viet Nam border, central plains of indicator in 2004. What happened between 1996 Cambodia and the Tonle Sap Lake and its and 2004 is less relevant; it is 2004 which forms wetlands which cover 30% of the total land area the baseline for the future development of this (MoE, 2003). indicator. 35. Cambodia is home to an estimated 2,300 40. It can be observed that Cambodia is a plant species, some of which are of inestimable sanctuary to approximately 1.6% of the globally value to local communities as medicinal plants. In threatened species. This figure consists of addition, Cambodia is home to 130 mammal approximately 2.5% of globally threatened species (UNDP-GEF, 2001) . There are over 500 mammals, 2% of globally threatened birds, 5% of bird species mainly living in the wetland areas.
1 UNDP-GEF, 2001, The Tonle Sap Conservation Project; Draft Inception Report.
14 15 Figure 2.1: Threatened Species as a Percentage of Global Threatened Species – 1996-2004
6.0%
Species 5.0%
4.0%
3.0% Threatened 2.0%
1.0% Globally
of 0.0%
% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish All Species
globally threatened reptiles, 1.6% of globally threatened fish and less than 1% of globally Rating: Relatively Good threatened amphibians. 41. By habitat, the species at risk are presented with Undetermined Trend in Table 2.1. As can be observed, forests are the dominant habitat for approximately 33% of the Justification: The state of biodiversity is relatively stable threatened species in Cambodia including in Cambodia and in better condition than in the other GMS countries. The focus should be on preserving the threatened mammals, birds and amphibians but key habitats and also monitoring the ten species loss of wetlands is also an important factor. endemic to Cambodia, Viet Nam & Thailand. Interestingly, terrestrial habitats, which include arable land and pasture land (i.e. areas by definition disturbed), are also important habitats 2.3. The Pressure for some of Cambodia’s threatened bird species. Indicator: Loss of Critical Habitat between 42. Cambodia’s 1.6% of globally threatened 1993 and 1997 species is relatively low compared to the overall average of 2.13% for all six GMS countries. Its 43. Loss of critical habitats is taken as the most low-lying topography (for the most part) suitable indicator of pressure on the country’s contrasting with the mountainous topography of biodiversity. It tracks the loss of critical habitats its neighbors Viet Nam and Lao PDR, influences over time and expresses it as a percentage of the this low percentage. Nevertheless it appears that country’s total land area. the current state of biodiversity in Cambodia is 44. Habitat loss has a direct impact on the fate of relatively good, with no observable past trends the species that depend on it for survival. The and an expectation that the global share of IUCN Red List (2004) cites loss of key habitats as Cambodia’s threatened species will remain the major threat to the survival of non-plant constant in the very near future. However, loss or threatened species in Cambodia. Critical habitats changes to habitat and intensity of harvesting for the purpose of this indicator are Forests, should be closely monitored. Wetlands, Artificial/Terrestrial, Grasslands, and Shrublands. No national targets for the area of these habitats, however, exist. Cambodia is
16 17 Table 2.1 – Threatened Species by Major Habitat Type – 2004
Citations Habitat Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Total % Forest 21 20 0 3 0 44 33.59% Wetlands 2 15 0 3 5 25 19.08% Artificial/Terrestrial 0 14 0 0 0 14 10.69% Grasslands 4 9 0 0 0 13 9.92% Shrubland 6 6 0 0 0 12 9.16% Sea 1 5 1 0 1 8 6.11% Coastlines 1 1 1 0 4 7 5.34% Savanna 4 2 0 0 0 6 4.58% Artificial/Aquatic 1 1 0 0 0 2 1.53% Rocky Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Caves and Sub-Terrananean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Habitats Desert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Introduced Vegetation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Citations 40 73 2 6 10 131 100.00% Source: IUCN Red List – 2004
signatory to several international conventions and 47. Agricultural land increased from 3 million ha agreements of direct relevance to biodiversity in 1960 to 3.8 million and 4.3 million in 1992-93 management, use and protection (see the fact and 1996-97 respectively. It is estimated that sheet for details). about 2.1 million ha of forestlands were 45. Loss of critical wildlife habitats has several converted to agriculture and other uses between well know causes that are predominantly 1960 and 1992-93. Around the Tonle Sap Lake, anthropogenic. In spite of the tragic decline clearance of flooded forest for agriculture and during the Khmer Rouge period, the population of settlements has been significant. Areas under Cambodia has doubled from 1960 to 2000. The inundated forest and mangrove declined by nearly increase was accompanied by the expansion of 10% in the space of 5 years from 0.43 million ha human activities into wildlife habitat. Logging, in 1992 to 0.40 million ha in 1997 (IREF, 1958; clearance for agricultural expansion, growth of Tichit, 1981; MAFF & MRC, 1991). settlements and urban areas all contributed to the 48. The changes in the areas of the four critical loss of natural ecosystems and the inherent habitats relevant to this indicator are illustrated in biological diversity. Table 2.2. The rate of designated habitat loss is 46. Deforestation and conversion of forest lands to measured as the loss of forestland, shrubland, agriculture played an important role. As grassland and wetlands between 1993 and 1997 established earlier, Cambodia’s forest cover as a percentage of the total country’s land area. declined from 73% in 1965 to approximately 59% The forest habitat decreased by 1.22% between in 1996. Logging spread into protected areas. For 1992/93 and 1996/97, followed by shrubland instance, a biodiversity survey of the Cardamom (0.80% loss). Mountains, considered the richest biodiversity area in the country, confirmed that logging was taking 49. However, the artificial/terrestrial habitat place inside the protected areas (MoE et al. 2000). increased by 1.85% during the same period,
16 17 wetlands by 0.08% and grasslands by 0.07%. The 51. Total protected areas as percent of total land increase in artificial/terrestrial class agrees with area is taken as the indicator of response to the the common perception about the direction of threats on biodiversity. The numerator is the area land use changes in most GMS countries in which of habitats given a protected status. It is assumed farming and urban expansion (components of that the higher the percentage of the indicator, “artificial/terrestrial” class) gain at the expense of the better the performance of the country in other land categories. protection and conservation. RGC has established 50. It is important to add that habitat loss may an indirect target for this indicator i.e. to maintain not be neatly correlated with the loss of the 23 protected areas at the 1993 level of 3.3 underlying biodiversity. The relationship between million ha through 2015 and 6 post-2001 forest the two is complex and lagged. If periods of protected areas at the present level of 1.35 evaluation are too short to establish trends, it is million ha through 2015 (CMDG, 2003). possible to observe increases in habitats 52. Figure 2.2 depicts the trend of protected area coexisting with high threat and vice versa. development in Cambodia between 1993 and 2002 since the proclamation of 1993 Royal Decree on Protected Area that designated Rating: Non-Comparable 3,273,200 ha or 18.08% of the total land area as with Undetermined Trend protected area. This consisted of 23 protected areas divided into National Parks (742,000 ha), Wildlife Sanctuaries (2,030,000 ha) and Multiple Justification: Although pressure exists on biodiversity, Use Area (403,950 ha) (MoE, 1993). there is not enough information to establish a long-term 53. The protected areas increased slightly from trend. The pattern of habitat loss in Cambodia defies easy generalizations. The pressure on biodiversity 18.08% 1993 to 18.27% in 2000 due to the furthermore depends on the intensity of hunting and inclusion of 3 additional sites designated as gathering in each habitat and trade in wildlife for which Protected Forests and another 3 Ramsar sites, systematic data are not available. between 1996 and 2000. However, it increased sharply from 18.27% in 2000 to 24.72% in 2001
2.4. The Response as a result of RGC’s designation of the Tonle Sap Multiple Use Area as biosphere reserve and Indicator: Protected Areas as a Percentage of Total Land extending its area to 1,167,000 ha. By 2002, Area – 1993-2002 large forest areas formerly under forest concessions and other areas totaling 1,332,218
Table 2.2: Loss of Critical Habitats as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1993-1997
1992/93 1996/97 Loss of Ecosystem type % of Total % of Total Habitat Area (ha) Area (ha) Land Area Land Area % Forest 10,891,918 60 10,671,936 58.79 -1.21 Wetland 537,242 2.96 552,478 3.04 0.08 Artificial/Terrestrial 4,022,304 22.16 4,358,435 24.01 1.85 Grassland 476,804 2.63 488,643 2.69 0.07 Shrubland 2,204,223 12.14 2,059,449 11.34 -0.8 Total Land Area 18,152,985 Source: Forestry Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
18 19 ha were added to the system of protected areas 2.5. Conclusions bringing the total to 32% of the total land area 55. The RGC has taken concrete measures to (see Figure 2.2), the highest among all GMS protect key ecosystems and habitats. With recent countries. inclusion of cancelled forest concessions into the 54. Figure 2.3 further describes the system of system of protected areas, forest areas enjoying protected areas in terms of different habitats. It some sort of legal protection amounted to 37% of can be observed that the protected areas as a the forests’ total. All habitats taken together whole are composed of 70.18% forest, 9.34% under legal protection now account for 32% of wetlands, 9.5% artificial/terrestrial and the the total country’s land area. remaining 10.98% of grasslands, shrublands and 56. Among all threatened species listed in other land covers. While loss of forest habitat was Cambodia, 45% of wildlife inhabits the forest. identified as the single most important threat to That habitat declined by 1.22% between 1992/3 endangered species in Cambodia (see Table 2.1), and 1996/7. 25% of threatened species are loss of wetland habitat was cited as being the found in wetlands. Their area decreased by 0.04% second dominant threat, followed by loss of over the same period. Besides a decrease in area, artificial/terrestrial habitats, including arable land there are indirect indications of the reduced and pasture land. quality of these habitats that are under pressure by hunters. 57. The cancellation of the majority of forest Rating: Significant and concessions and their inclusion into the protected Consistent realm speaks of RGC’s commitment to biodiversity conservation. Cambodia’s performance compares favorably with that of Justification: Over the years, RGC has stepped up its other GMS countries, especially in terms of the efforts to improve the state of biodiversity. Since 1993, the government has been building up a system of area set aside for protection. protected areas. By now a total of 32% of Cambodia’s territory has some form of protection status. However it remains to be seen how effective the protection is in the face of continued and widespread pressure on biological and other natural and cultural resources in Cambodia.
Figure 2.2: Protected Areas as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1993-2002
34 32.04 32 30
28 26 24.72
Percent 24 22
20 18.08 18.09 18.12 18.20 18.27 18 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
18 19 Figure 2.3: 1997 Habitat Composition of Existing Protected Areas
Shrublands, 7.06% Grasslands, 3.86% Artificial/ Terrestrial, 9.50%
Wetland, 9.34%
Forests, 70.18%
Loan and Technical Assistance Grant to the Royal Suggested Rating: 2-Stars Government of Cambodia for the Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project Manila. Cambodian Millennium Development Goal Justification: Although there is no observable trend in the (CMDG). 2003. Cambodian Millennium loss or gain of threatened species, Cambodia’s share of globally threatened species (1.6%) is relatively small Development Goal Report. Ministry of Planning, when compared to that of other GMS countries. Also, Royal Government of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, none of these threatened species are endemic to Cambodia. Cambodia, and this cannot be said of other GMS Institute de Rechere d’Enseignement Forestier countries. (IREF).1958. Forestry in Cambodia. Cambodia.
MAFF & MRC. 1991. Cambodia Land Cover Atlas While it cannot yet be shown that the pressure (loss of habitat) is decreasing and that the state shows signs of 1985/87-. 1992/92. Mekong River Commission, improvement, there are signs of improvement in other Bangkok. related indicators. Forest habitat for example, which used MoE, DFW and UNDP/GEF. 2001. Biodiversity the to suffer the most, has shown signs of improvement, at Life of Cambodia: Cambodia’s Biodiversity Status least in terms of area. Report 2001. Phnom Penh, Cambodia
MoE, DoF and Flora and Fauna International. Consistent with the guidelines associated with this rating, international conventions (CBD, CITES, etc.) have been 2000. Cardamom Mountains Biodiversity Survey, ratified and the reporting requirements of these edited by Daltry, J.C. and Momberg, F. Phnom conventions have been adhered to. Institutional Penh, Cambodia responsibilities have been assigned and the Biodiversity MoE, 1993. The Royal Decree on the Creation and Unit within MAFF which is responsible for continuous Designation of the Protected Areas. Phnom Penh, monitoring and database development of threatened Cambodia. species. MoE. 2002. Cambodia’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Ministry of References Environment, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. ADB. 2002. Report and recommendations of the MoE, 2002. Initial National Communication under President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
20 21 Table 2.3: Protected Areas in GMS Countries
Country Percentage of Total Land Area Future Target Maintain existing and extend protected forest Cambodia 32.0% as of 2002 area. Maintain existing which is above IUCN rec- Lao PDR 14.3 % as of 2002 ommendation of 10%. Myanmar 7.2% of as 2004 IUCN recommendation of 10%. Thailand 18.2% as of 2004 Include another 18% as Class 1 Watersheds. Viet Nam 6.2% as of 2004 IUCN recommendation of 10% Yunnan 8.8% as of 2004 Maintain existing which is above 8% target. Source: Findings of the SEF-II Project
MoE, Phnom Penh, Cambodia 3. FISH RESOURES Rainboth, W.J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian 3.1. The Context Mekong, FAO, Rome 58. Inland fisheries are an important component Stuart, B.L. et al 2000. Homalopsine of rural economic growth and key to local Watersnakes: The Harvest and Trade from Tonle livelihoods in Cambodia. Fish is a staple diet for Sap. Cambodia’s Traffic Bulletin 18:3. Available: local people accounting for three quarters of the www.traffic.org/bulletin/ watersnakes.htm. animal protein intake of Cambodia’s 13 million Tana, T. S., Prak, L.H., Chul, T., Lieng S., Chun, S., people. Along with rice it forms the basis of food and Heng, K., 2000. Overview of the Turtle Trades security. The Tonle Sap Lake and Mekong River in Cambodia’s in Asian Turtle Trade. Proceeding are home to many inland fish species, and the of the Workshop on Conservation and Trade of richness of fisheries is intimately linked to the Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. In: van floodplain areas around the Lake, its flooded Dijk, P.P., Stuart, B.L., and Rhodin, A.G.J. (Eds.). forest and the water flow regime of the Mekong. Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on More than 200 fish species reside in the Tonle Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Sap Lake. Some of them migrate upward and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs downward of Mekong River. Together with fish in 2:55-57. Tonle Sap Lake, the Mekong River Basin in Tichit, L., 1981. L’agriculture au Cambodge. Cambodia is home to about 500 out of 1,200 Paris, France Mekong fish species (ADB, 2003). Timmins, R and Ou, R. 2001. The Importance of 59. Given the above, protecting the exceptionally Phnom Pich Wildlife Sanctuary and Adjacent rich inland fisheries is vital. If fish availability Areas for the Conservation of Tigers and other were to deteriorate the nutritional and health Key Species: A Summary. Published by WWW status, especially among the poor would be Phnom Penh, Cambodia. seriously affected. UNDP-GEF. 2001. The Tonle Sap Conservation Project, Draft Inception Report, Phnom Penh, 3.2. The State Cambodia. Indicator: Inland Fish Consumption – 1981-2003 World Conservation Union (IUCN). 2004. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available: www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/red_list_2004/ 60. The indicator is based on data of live weight main.End.htm fish catch. Output data are recorded by the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). These and other sources used to construct the values of the indicator are described in the relevant fact sheets.
20 21 An indicator that closely (but not perfectly, given imported fish are shown in Figure 3.1. Per capita the existence of fish exports) tracks fish output consumption during 1980 to 1991 was stable at has the disadvantage of possibly not revealing the around 6 kg per year, but dropped below that level threat of over-fishing. Abundance today may mask between 1992 and 1998. It increased again from scarcity tomorrow. This disadvantage was in part 1999 to 16 kg and peaked in 2001 at 27 kg per offset by the existence of a long time series of year. However, 2003 saw a decrease to about 19 data and supplementary information about the kg. A figure of 20 kg per year is considered a changes in the quality of the catch. reasonable estimate of average per capita fish 61. The official objective of government policy consumption during the period 1999-2003. (DoF, Fisheries Policy Briefing, 2004) is to ensure 64. The data of per capita fish consumption that by 2010 all living aquatic resources are between 1980 and 1998 do not include the harvested within their sustainable limits. No output of small scale and rice field fisheries. specific figures have been given for these Since 1999, upon the advice of MRC, the figures sustainable limits but the policy provides an do include these categories and substantially overall policy direction for fisheries management. increase the totals. 62. Fish consumption per capita was estimated 65. Fish consumption in Cambodia has steadily by different groups of researchers in various increased over the years especially in the last five locations across Cambodia and throughout the years. Combined with the avian flu, increased 1990s. The estimates ranged from 13-16 kg to living standards among urban dwellers and 21-40 kg in the south of Cambodia to 70-80 kg in increased health and nutrition awareness, fish is the Tonle Sap Region (see Table 3.1). The national becoming more popular than any other food item. average consumption per capita has been The domestic price of fish is increasing and estimated at about 30 kg and is projected to stay remains high relative to incomes. at that level through to 2010. 63. Estimates of per capita fish consumption based on total inland fish catch excluding exports, marine catch, aquaculture production, and
Table 3.1: Estimate of Per Capita Fish Consumption in Cambodia
Fish consumption Sources* per capita (kg/year) 20 - 25 (Lagler, 1976) 13.3 - 16 (MS, 1992) with increased population (annual growth rate: 2.5-3%), (World Bank, 1992). 25 (Tana, 1993) in the South-Eastern Cambodia 13.5 (Csavas, 1994) 40 (CIAP unpublished) in the South 38 (APHEDA, 1997) in the Southwest 71 FAO Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region in the floating villages 32 in the up-land areas of Siem Reap province (Hy, 1995) 86.8 MRC/DoF/DANIDA Freshwater Capture Fisheries Management Project (1995) in fishing dependent communes 71 (Ahmed et al., 1998) 21.5 - 33.8 - 39.5 Gregory (1997) in Svay Rieng. 24.2 - 32.2 (MRC/DoF, 1998/1999) 30 National average of fish consumption per annum (MRC/DoF, 1998) Note: * Detailed references are given at the end of this section
22 23 Figure 3.1: Annual Fish Consumption per Capita in Cambodia
35
30
25 r
20
15 ilograms/Yea
K 10
5
0 0 8 2 6 0 4 2 198 198 2010 198 198 199 1994 1998 2000 2002 198 199 1996
Actual inland catch for consumption Consumption estimation
(Ahmed and Tana., 1998). After 1999, figures lose Rating: Relatively Good and comparability. The annual fish catch increased to between 290,000 and 430,000 tons due to the Improving inclusion of fish catch from small scale and rice field fisheries (van Zalinge et al., 2000). Justification: Fish consumption in Cambodia has grown 68. Although there may have been an increase in in recent years due to further shifts in consumer stable commercial fish catch, the share of large preferences towards fish and greater production by and medium size i.e. higher–value, fish has small-scale and rice-field fisheries. The production by Tonle Sap appears not to have changed significantly in declined because of intensive fishing and volume terms. Fish consumption per capita in Cambodia inadequate regulation of fishing techniques and is higher than in other GMS countries. gear. This resulted in a higher proportion of small fish used for fishmeal and fermented fish paste
3.3. The Pressure production in the total catch (MRC 2004).
66. No single pressure indicator has been chosen as several factors contribute to affecting fish Table 3.2 MRC - Freshwater Fish Capture (ton) catch in Cambodia. These are all discussed in the (Cambodia Fishery Project, 1999) accompanying paragraphs. Large-scale 67. Pressure on fisheries in Cambodia comes Fishing lots 30,000 - 60,000 from various directions the principal one being Bagnet lots 15,000 - 20,000 the use of more sophisticated fishing gear and Middle-scale 85,000 - 100,000 equipment. Figure 3.1 shows the catch to have Small-scale 115,000 - 140,000 been fairly stable between 1990s and 1998s. The annual commercial fish catch data before 1998 Rice Fields 50,000 - 100,000 recorded by the DoF was estimated at around Total 295,000 - 420,000 55,000 to 75,000 tons annually. Fish catch from Source: Van Zalinge, et al. the Tonle Sap was between 36,000 to 45,000 tons per year (van Zalinge, 2002), constituting about 60% of the total inland fish catch of Cambodia
22 23 69. In addition to meeting the demands of 3.4. The Response domestic fish consumption, there is also flourishing fish export business. About 25% of the Indicator: Number of Community Fisheries 1996-2005 total fish catch is exported (about 100,000 tons), half of that through illegal channels. 72. This indicator tracks the development of Approximately 75% of exports are delivered to community fisheries; it is expressed in absolute Thailand2 , as fresh fish. The bulk of the balance numbers of fishing lots in the country, both inland goes to Viet Nam (MOC, 2002). and marine areas. The indicator has a basis in the 70. Destructive fishing practices are widely used recent development trend in fisheries throughout Cambodia, due to the use of management in many countries (Cambodia prohibited fishing gear, electricity, explosives and included) that encourages decentralized poisonous substances, and encroachments of management of fisheries as an alternative to the fishing grounds. Small- to medium-scaled centralized approach predominating until fishermen resort to illegal fishing practices in recently. The change of direction is motivated order to meet their basic subsistence needs mainly be equity and poverty-reduction concerns whereas large-scale fishing enterprises often as well as a presumed positive effect on overfish driven by the profit motive. sustainability. RGC has formulated two targets 71. Over-harvesting of smaller fish and/or less- that feature in Cambodia’s Millennium valuable fish for animal feed also contributes to Development Goals (CMDGs) for sustainable the problem. The collection of fingerlings (newly fisheries management. The targets are: hatched fish) for aquaculture3, pumping around • To increase the CMDG target of community- the Tonle Sap Lake and elsewhere within fishing based fisheries from 264 in 2000 to 589 in areas are all illegal forms of fishing. Pumping 2015. disrupts the ecological balance by removing • To increase the proportion of fishing lots virtually all aquatic life from the pond including released to local communities from 56% of juvenile fish. It has also caused problems for the total in 1998 to 60% in 2015. communities who lose their access to water that 73. The number of commercial fishing lots in is essential for irrigation. Electrocuting fish is the Cambodia has been reduced since 1994 (see preferred option for illegal fishers as it is the Figure 3.2). In 2000, RGC reformed the fisheries cheap method of mass capture of fish. sector in an attempt to regulate fishery activities. Commercial fishing lots were reduced from 307 in 1988 to 162 in 2003. Rating: High and Increasing 74. Fishing areas released from the commercial sector were re-allocated to community fisheries. The number of community fisheries has grown Justification: The pressure on fisheries is high due to rapidly since the beginning of the program in increased human activities, whether over- or illegal fishing for consumption and commercial purposes or 1996 (see Figure 3.3) to reach a total of 382 destructive fishing practices. The composition of inland communities with fishing lots in 2005, exceeding fish catch has been changing towards smaller fish the CMDG’s target of 375 communities for 2005. suggesting threats to sustainability exist. The trend will 75. Furthermore, RGC in collaboration with ADB continue unless enforcement of existing legal provisions has launched a program of environmental improves. management of Tonle Sap Lake 2003-2008. Under the Program, 500 community fisheries are to be established around the Lake. (ADB, 2003).
2 About 50,000 tons of inland fish have been exported every year to Thailand (FACT and EJF, 2000).
3 Scrogging, Lucrative Trade in Baby Fish a Deadly Business, Phnom Penh Post, 4-17 September 1998.
24 25
Rating: Significant and Rating: 2-Stars Intermittent Justification: Per capita fish consumption in Cambodia is relatively high and increasing. It has grown in recent Justification: The increasing number of community years due to further shifts in local consumption patters fisheries (over 382) has improved the access of towards fish, and greater attention to small-scale and communities to fisheries while curbing the pressure of rice-field fish production. commercial fishing. Cambodia has placed tighter controls
on commercial access to its fishery resource and is on However there is a high pressure on the resource track to meet the CMDG goals for sustainable fisheries. evidenced by an unfavorable trend in the quality of the The change of policy direction is too recent to say inland catch, and destructive fishing practices that whether it has resulted in a more sustainable continue undiminished. Both of these invite doubts about management of the fish resource. the two star rating. The two stars are finally chosen only because of the strong equity content of the policy re- 3.5. The Conclusions orientation towards community fishing. Here too, however, caution is justified as the effect of this change 76. Current levels of inland fish catch are not on sustainability of the resource in Cambodian conditions significantly different from those of ten years ago. is yet to be demonstrated. However, as a result of local intensive use combined with other pressures from the economic RGC has signed international treaties and conventions development of the Mekong basin, the fish related to fisheries resources such as Ramsar, CITES, resource is under increasing pressure. Behind a CBD and Mekong Agreement as part of its commitments to the protection of the fisheries resources. Institutional relatively stable total volume of fish catch, is a responsibilities have been assigned and the Department significantly changed composition of fish catch of Fisheries is responsible for ongoing monitoring and (more small fish being caught than larger fish), management of fisheries resources though clearly that suggests that sustainability of the catch is in unable to curb illegal practices. doubt. This has been accompanied by changes in fish biodiversity. References 77. There is a trend towards higher fish ADB. 2003. Tonle Sap Environmental consumption amongst the local population and a Management Project. Asian Development Bank, greater awareness of the role of fish in nutrition Manila, Philippines. and health. Fish has become more expensive in Ahmed, M.H. and Tana T.B. 1998, Management of real terms. Freshwater Capture Fisheries in Cambodia , MRC 78. RGC has taken steps towards regulating the Fisheries Program, MRC , Phnom Penh, fisheries sector in its drive to meet the target set Cambodia. by CMDG i.e. to release a total of 56% of DoF. 2001. Fisheries data collection, 1980-2000, commercial fishing lots for development by February 2001. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. community fisheries by 1998, and 60% by 2015. Fisheries Action Coalition Team and In 2005, about 382 community fisheries were Environmental Justice Foundation. 2001. Feast or established. If the RGC maintains this effort, the Famine: Solution to Cambodia’s Fisheries Conflict. target of 589 community fisheries for 2015 may Available: www.onefish.org be achievable. FAO. 1994. Cambodia Rehabilitation and
development needs of fisheries sector, Bangkok, Thailand, June 1994. McKenney, B. and McKenney, T. 2002. Natural resources and rural livelihoods in Cambodia: A baseline assessment; Working paper 23; CDRI, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Ministry of Commerce (MOC). 2000. A Pro-Poor Trade Sector Strategy for Cambodia, Royal
26 27 Government of Cambodia, Ministry of Commerce, Fish Farming Program, Australian People for Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Health Education and Development Abroad MoE. 2003. National Capacity Development (APHEDA) – Department of Agriculture, Forestry Project, Cambodian state of Biodiversity, Phnom and Fisheries Kampot Province, Cambodia, pp29. Penh, Cambodia. Csavas, I., Doulman D., Peter T., Padr J., and MoE and UNDP. 2003. Cambodia Biodiversity Debas L. 1994. Cambodia Rehabilitation and Enabling Activity Project, Biodiversity, Phnom Development Needs for the Fisheries Sector. FAO Penh, Cambodia Fisheries Circular No. 873, FAO, Rome. MoE and UNDP, 2001. Cambodia’s Biodiversity Gregory R. 1997. Rice Field Fisheries Handbook, Status Report-2001, Phnom Penh, pp.105-106, Cambodia IRRI Australia Project, Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Gregory R. and Guttman H.,999. A Diverse MOWRAM and ADB. 2001. National water section Monoculture, Aquatic Animal Production from profile Kingdom of Cambodia. Royal Government Rice Fields in South East Asia. Cat and Culture of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Mekong Fisheries Network Newsletter. Vol. No. 1, MRC and UNDP. 1998. Natural resources-based September 1999. development strategy for the Tonle Sap Area, Hy H. 1995. Fish Production and Consumption in Cambodia, Final report, Volume I., Phnom Penh, Siem Reap Province. Participatory Management of Cambodia. Natural Resources in the Tonle Sap Region, Siem MRCS. 1998. Agriculture and Irrigation Program Reap, Cambodia. for Cooperation towards the Sustainable Lagler K.F. 1976. Fisheries and Integrated Mekong Development in the Lower Mekong Basin. Mekong River Basin Development. Terminal report of the River Commission and UNDP. Mekong Basin- wide fisheries studies, University MRC. 2004. State of the Basin Report, pp.101- of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Appendix 1. pp367 132, Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh, Tana T.S. 1993. Fish Supply and Demand in Rural Cambodia. Svay Rieng Province, Cambodia. Asian Institute of Tana, T.S. and Todd, B. 2002. Economic model of Technology, Bangkok the freshwater and marine trade of Cambodia, World Bank.1992. Cambodia Agenda for Oxfam America, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Rehabilitation and Reconstruction. Washington van Zalinge, N.P. 2000. “Where there is water D.C. pp219 plus appendices there is fish? Cambodian fisheries issues in the Mekong River Basin Perspective”, in M. Ahmad and P. Hirsh (eds.). Common Property in the Mekong: Issues of sustainability and subsistence, ICLARM, Manila. van Zalinge, N.P. 2002. “Update on the State of the Cambodia Inland Capture Fisheries with Special Reference to the Tonle Spa Great Lake”, Catch and Culture, Mekong Fisheries Network Newsletter, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Details of references in Table 3.1: Ahmed, M., H. Navy, L. Vuthy & M. Tiongco, 1998. Socio-economic Assessment of Freshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia. Report on a Household Survey. pp185. MRC/DOF/DANIDA. Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh, 186 p APHEDA.1997. Baseline Survey Report (Angkor Chey, Banteay Meas, Chhouk and KompongTrach District), Report prepared by N.C.Paul, Domestic
26 27 4. Water Resources 4.1.2. The State 4.1. Drinking Water Indicator: Percentage of Population with Access to Safe 4.1.1. The Context Potable Water – 1998-2002 79. Cambodia has abundant water resources due to its geographical and physical setting with wide 81. The indicator tracks the proportion of the central plains surrounded by highland areas at population with access to safe drinking water at the periphery. The main rivers are the Mekong, home or within reasonable distance. It is Tonle Sap and Bassac Rivers. Of Cambodia’s expressed as the percentage of the population 181,035 km2, 86% (156,000 km2) is drained by with access to an “improved water source” the Mekong-Tonle Sap system. On average, the following the definition adopted by the Joint annual inflow from the Mekong’s upstream is Monitoring Program (JMP) for Water and estimated at 410 billion cum. (MOWRAM, 2001). Sanitation of the World Health Organization Although the surface water may be abundant in (WHO) and of the United Nations Children’s Fund simple volume terms, the effective use of this (UNICEF). An “improved” source is one that is resource for irrigation, household- and other likely to provide “safe” water, such as a household purposes is costly as generations of irrigation, connection, public standpipe, borehole, protected drainage and other projects have amply dug well, protected spring, rainwater collection, demonstrated. etc. “Not improved” source is one that is unlikely 80. With increased economic activity in to provide “safe” water, such as a unprotected Cambodia, utilization of water resources becomes well, unprotected spring, vendor provided water, an aspect of natural resource and environment bottled water, tanker truck water. management. The main concerns are depletion of 82. Likewise water supply service is defined as the resource, its inefficient use, and deterioration the availability of water, at least 20 liters per of water quality.
Figure 4.1: Percentage of Households with Access to Safe Drinking Water (Urban and Rural) 1998-2002
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 8 0 2 5 0 5 199 200 200 200 201 201
Urban household Urban Target Rural household Rural Target Total estimated population Total estimated target
28 29 person per day from an improved source within Table 4.1 Percentage of Population with one kilometer of the user’s dwelling. Estimates of Access to Safe Potable Water the percentage of households with access to Access to Safe Potable Water Country improved/safe drinking water in urban and rural % Population, 2002 areas are currently available for 1998, 2000 and Cambodia 34% 2002. PRC 77% 83. The national target, as set in the 2003 Lao PDR 43% Cambodia Millennium Development Goals Myanmar 80% (CMDGs) and expressed separately for urban and Thailand 85% rural population is to increase the proportion of the rural population with access to a safe water Viet Nam 73% Source: WHO/UNICEF-JMP source from 24% in 1998 to 40% in 2010 and
50% in 2015, and the urban population from an assumed 60% in 1998 to 80% in 2015. Expressed as nation-wide average, the target is to Rating: Relatively Poor and improve access to safe drinking water from 30% Improving in 1998 to 38% and 48% in 2005 and 2010 respectively and to 58% in 2015. Justification: Access to safe drinking for both urban and 84. An earlier RGC’s mid-1990s target was to rural population in Cambodia has improved during the improve urban access from 60% in 1998 to 68% last decade to 58% and 27% of the population, in 2005. However, in 1998, only 53% of the urban respectively, in 2002 with a greater rate of improvement in rural than in urban areas, but improved from an population had access to safe drinking water, extremely low baseline. Cambodia continues to lag increasing to 58% in 2002. It is unlikely that the behind other GMS countries. 2005 target will be met. In rural areas, the
progress –from a very low base-- was somewhat 4.1.3. The Pressure better with 25% of rural population with access to safe drinking water in 1998, increasing to 27% in Indicator: Urban and Rural Population 1961-2003 2002. Between 1998 and 2002, access grew at an
annual rate that fluctuated between 1 and 1.5%. 86. Population growth in urban and rural areas is Only if the higher rate is maintained will the 2005 the main factor affecting access to drinking water target be achieved. To achieve the 2015 target supply. In the assessment here the population under conditions of rapid population increase, the data going back to 1962 were used. rate of improvement will have to be reach about 87. The first population census for Cambodia in 2% per annum. 1962 recorded the total population at 5.7 million 85. The proportion of population with access to and the second4 in 1998, at 11.4 million (The safe drinking water in Cambodia is low when General Population Census, 1998) which is lower compared with other countries in the GMS. than FAO estimation considered 12.5 million in Indeed, Cambodia has the lowest percentage of 1998. However, Cambodian population thus population with access to safe drinking water (see doubled in the space of less than 40 years Table 4.1). despite the decrease experienced between 1975
and 1979 during the Khmer Rouge period. The most recent estimate of population of Cambodia is 14.1 million. In 2003. The population remains predominantly (81%) rural. 88. Cambodia recorded a high population growth
4 The General Population Census of Cambodia (GPCC), 1998, by NIS-MoP/UNFPA
28 29 Figure 4.2: Urban and Rural Population
16,000 14,000
s 12,000
1000' 10,000
in 8,000 6,000 4,000 Population 2,000 0
1 4 0 6 2 5 8 1 4 7 0 3 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 97 00 19 19 1967 1 1973 19 1979 198 19 19 19 19 19 2 200
Urban Population Rural Population Total Polulation rate (2.49% per annum) during the 1990s compared to other developing countries in the 4.1.4. The Response region. Among ASEAN countries only Lao PDR Indicator: Urban and Rural Drinking Water Provision – had a similar population growth rate (2.90% per 1998-2003 annum).
89. The population decline of about 6% during 91. Expansion in drinking water provision to the Khmer Rouge years was followed by the 1979 urban and rural areas in Cambodia is the famine. Since 1980, in spite of civil war and composite of efforts made by the government as political instability, population growth exceeded well as rural households acting on their own. the pre-war levels. The growth rate in the early Information exists for urban and rural areas of 1980s is believed to have been the highest ever Cambodia as well as for the city of Phnom Penh. recorded for the country (MoP 2002). In the case of urban townships and Phnom Penh, 90. The rapid population growth has naturally led “provision” is measured by the volume supplied to increased demand for water both in rural and (in m3) while for rural areas it is measured by the urban areas. Population growth at this stage in number of safe water outlets. Cambodia’s socio-economic development is 92. The volume of drinking water supplied to considered a healthy trend by RGC and it is likely Phnom Penh increased from about 40 million m3 to continue. The Government sees its role as in 1998, to about 46 million m3 in 2003. In other managing the country’s water resources and urban areas taken together, the volume increased principal infrastructure in a way that steadily from 4.6 million m3 in 1998 to 8.8 million m3 in improves access of people to water. 2003.
93. For the country as a whole, the total volume of Rating: Low but Increasing urban drinking water supplied thus increased from 44 million m3 in 1998 to 55 million m3 in Justification: Cambodia’s population has been increasing 2003 (see Figure 4.3). The expenditure on in both rural and urban areas resulting in increased drinking water supply in Phnom Penh steadily demand for safe drinking water. The average annual increased from about US$ 4 million in 1998 to growth rate of 2.5% is relatively high compared with other GMS countries. about US$ 10 million in 2003 (see Figure 4.4). 94. In rural areas, many people normally
30 31 Figure 4.3: Urban Drinking Water Provision (1998-2003)
60
50 s 40 Meter
30 Cubic 20 Million 10
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
PNH's Volumes Other Town's Volumes Total Urban Volumes
Figure 4.4: Expenditure on Drinking Water Supply in Phnom Penh – 1998-2003
12
10
8 D
6
Million US Million 4
2
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
collected rainwater in large water jars during the 96. Groundwater reserves currently estimated at wet season and use other means of water access 17.6 billion m3 are an important potential source during the remainder of the year – for many of water supply for rural Cambodia. They have households, especially women and children. This been exploited only in part, mainly by shallow may entail a long walk to fetch water. tube wells used for community water supply and 95. Information on the volume of safe water irrigation (MOWRAM, 2001). Dug and drilled wells available in rural areas is incomplete besides increased from 3,000 in 1998 to approximately. presenting several conceptual difficulties. The 15,000 in 2003. This five-fold increase, supported response is therefore more easily measured by internationally funded rural water supply and through estimating the number of drinking water sanitation projects, demonstrates the facilities (wells, drilled wells, water basins, ponds government’s commitment to improving rural and giant jars) available in the rural areas. Figure water supply. Nevertheless it presents an 4.5 plots their number between 1998 and 2003. incomplete picture of the rural drinking water
30 31 infrastructure and a more comprehensive accounting for the entire expenditure on improved Rating: 1-STAR rural water supply is needed. 97. The United Nations Water Conference Justification: Access to safe water has improved in both recommended that Governments reaffirm their urban and rural areas of Cambodia has improved but commitment made at Habitat II to adopt programs improved from an extremely low base. The target of rural with realistic standards for quality and quantity to population access to safe drinking water appears to have provide water for urban and rural areas. been achieved but the adequacy of the target deserves to be questioned. Cambodia has by far the lowest overall percentage of access to safe drinking water among all Rating: Low and Consistent GMS countries.
4.2. Water for Agriculture Justification: RGC has consistently invested in improving access to safe water to both rural and urban areas. 4.2.1. The Context Water supply projects have increased the volume of 100. cambodia’s economy is agrarian with about water and in rural areas, and diversified the type of 85% of its population living in rural areas and access. However, the level of investment was clearly most of them engaged in rainfed and subsistence inadequate given the extremely low percentages of rural agriculture with one crop a year. Agriculture access in Cambodia. Comparisons with other GMS accounts for 39% of Cambodia’s GDP (2001). countries are difficult but possible to make, given the well developed WHO and UNICEF methodology, and these Water plays an important role in agriculture comparisons are unfavorable to Cambodia. productivity, largely coming from rainfall, and water extraction from the Mekong River.
101. the overall estimated water resources from 4.1.5. Conclusions the Mekong and tributaries are about 500 km3 per 98. Whereas progress has been made in year but total withdrawals of water are estimated improving access to safe water in various parts of to be a mere 0.75km3, per year of which 94% is the country, the overall access to safe water for agricultural purposes (see Table 4.2) (MRC, remains low in Cambodia, and extremely low in 2003; MOWRAM, 2001). rural areas. Considerable differences continue to exist between Phnom Penh and the rest of the country. Further efforts are needed to reduce this Table 4.2 Water Use by Sector 3 gap and bring Cambodia up to the world and GMS Sector Km /year average. By itself, the rapidly growing population Domestic 0.136 of Cambodia is not a major obstacle to improved Livestock 0.100 water availability. Agriculture 0.455 99. More systematic information needs to be Industry 0.030 collated of expenditure and details of improved Miscellaneous 0.079 water supply in rural areas of Cambodia. Only Total 0.750 when the extent of the problem is fully understood, Source: MOWRAM, 2001 will appropriate investments be allocated to improve the situation both from the national 4.2.2. The State budget as well as internationally funded projects. Indicator: Areas under Rice Cultivation 1980-2003
102. given the dominance of irrigation in the overall pattern of surface water use in Cambodia, the area under irrigated rice was taken as an indicator of the state of surface water resources. 103. presenting 2003, the cultivable land area of
32 33 Figure 4.6: Total Area under Rice Cultivation – 1980-2003
3,000
2,500 s 2,000
Hectare 1,500
1,000
Thousand 500
0 0 2 8 4 6 198 198 198 1990 1992 1994 2002 198 198 1996 1998 2000
Wet Season Dry Season Total Cultivated Areas
Cambodia was approximately 4.8 million ha, or and the capacity to store water for the dry season 26% of the total land area; about 2.3 million ha is limited. Most agricultural areas continue to be was rice paddy field. Of this, about 2 million ha rain-fed only. Irrigated areas produce are under wet season cultivation. Both wet and approximately 40% of the total rice production dry season rice are irrigated where irrigation (MOWRAM, 2001). Although the country is largely infrastructure exists. In other areas, the self-sufficient in food in an average or good year, cultivation is rainfed. seasonal and year-to-year variations in rainfall can 104. the total area under rice cultivation easily upset the self-sufficiency. increased significantly from 1.4 million ha in 1980 105. the RGC’s “Socio-Economic Development to 2.4 million ha in 2000 (Figure 4.6). The growth Requirements and Proposals for 2001-2005” in the area under rice has led to increased demand envisaged an increase in the irrigated area from for irrigation supplies, especially during the dry 16.6% to 20% of the total by 2003, and an season despite the fact that only 16.6% of the average rice yield of 2 tons per ha by 2001 total rice-growing areas were irrigated at the end of (MOWRAM, 2001). 1990s. Irrigation capacity is still low in Cambodia
Figure 4.7: Total Agricultural Population – 1980-2003
12,000
10,000 s
8,000 1000' in 6,000
4,000
Population 2,000
0
0 2 4 6 8 0 4 6 8 0 2 9 0 198 198 198 198 198 199 1992 19 199 199 200 20
32 33 Table 4.3 Agricultural Population in GMS Countries, 2003
Agricultural Non-Agricultural Agricultural Country Population (000) Population (000) Population % Lao PDR 4,297 1,360 76.0 Cambodia 9,747 4,397 68.9 Thailand 29,269 33,564 46.6 Myanmar 34,278 15,208 69.3 Viet Nam 53,797 27,580 66.1 PRC 851,028 460,682 64.9 Source: FAOSTAT, Last update: 02 March 2005
irrigation is considered by RGC the principal Rating: Average and means of achieving this target. 110. on the assumption that irrigation can Stabilizing contribute to a 50% increase in yields, MOWRAM estimated that an additional 180,000 ha of Justification: The area under rice cultivation has slowly irrigated area would be required up to 2000-2005 but steadily grown from 1.4 million ha in 1980 to 2.3 (i.e. 36,000 ha per year). A number of irrigation million ha in 2003. Most rice producing areas are rain-fed rehabilitation projects are underway or under only. The percentage of rice-growing areas regularly irrigated was 16.6% in the late 1990s. Increases in the investigation, such as Stung Chinit (7,000 ha), but rice-growing areas recorded in the last fifteen years the total area still falls short of the exposed the limited capacity for irrigation water storage. aforementioned target (MOWRAM, 2001).
4.2.3. The Pressure Rating: Medium and Indicator: Agricultural Population – 1980-2003 Increasing
106. A growing population leads to a higher Justification: Demand for agriculture water has increased demand for food and land on which to grow food. as population engaged in agriculture increases. Agriculture continues to be the principal user of Cambodia has the highest share of rural population in all surface water in Cambodia. Given these simple of GMS countries. Indications are that the pressure on but powerful relationships, agricultural population agriculture water demand from a growing population will was chosen as an indicator of the pressure on continue to rise. existing water resources usable by agriculture. 107. A Figure 4.7 plots the trend of agricultural 4.2.4. The Response population over the period of 1980 and 2002. On average, agricultural population increased by Indicator: Expenditure on Irrigation System Construction about 200,000 people every year. and Maintenance, 1999-2003 108. Within GMS (see Table 4.3), Cambodia is third ranked amongst the six GMS countries in 111. This indicator gives a picture of the terms of the proportion of the population which government’s (and donors’) efforts to improve the is termed agricultural. state of irrigated agriculture, the assumption 109. the agricultural population in Cambodia, as being that increased expenditure for irrigation shown in Figure 4.7, has grown at a rate of 2.4% would increase the areas irrigated and ensure per annum, inevitably increasing the demand for better maintenance of existing systems. There irrigation water. MAFF’s target for 2005-06 was to have been a number of assessments of the scope increase rice production by 18% from the 1999/ for irrigation extension and rehabilitation, and 2000 levels. Expansion of the area under extensive investments by RGC and its
34 35 Figure 4.8: Expenditure on Irrigation System Construction and Maintenance – 1999-2003
55 50.37 50 45 40 $ 35 US 30 26.53 25 20 (Millions) 15 13.79 10 5 0.21 2.32 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
development partners in recent years. 112. Agriculture is still the key economic driver in Rating: Non-Comparable Cambodia, and improving the state of irrigation infrastructure an important element of overall and Intermittent efforts. In the five years from 1998 to 2003, the plan was to increase the percentage of irrigated Justification: Most existing irrigation systems do not lands from 16.6 % to 20% of total farmland, or function well as a result of decay during the time of Khmer Rouge and insufficient budgets in the decade about 4% annually (RGC, 1998-2003). immediately following. The RGC has since increased 113. Information is only available since 1999, the expenditure to rehabilitate and construct new irrigation year after the election that gave a measure of systems in an effort to increase the percentage and area political stability to Cambodia. Most of the of lands served by irrigation. During the period 1999- existing irrigation systems had deteriorated until 2003, RGC’s target was to increase the percentage to then due to inadequate maintenance and lack of 20%. support for improved irrigation management. Government expenditure since 1999 has been 4.2.5. Conclusions significant, increasing from US$ 0.21 million in 115. In a predominantly agrarian economy with 1999 to US$ 50 million in to 2003 (see Figure rice cultivation as a major element, water 4.8). Data on average rice yields and percentage availability becomes an important factor in of lands irrigated are not yet available to determining Cambodia’s self-sufficiency in the determine how effective those investments have crop as well as maintaining its contribution to been. national economy. For now, agriculture (including 114. Government support for the irrigation rice cultivation) in Cambodia is largely rain-fed. system construction and maintenance has 116. the area under rice cultivation has steadily amongst others included investment for drainage grown leading to greater demand for water. In and flood protection works, dyke rehabilitation, addition, rural agricultural population continues canal building and maintenance and installation to grow, adding to that pressure. Over the years, of pumping stations. This expenditure has been government’s efforts have been directed at continuous though fluctuating from year to year. reducing the nation’s reliance upon rain-fed agriculture and expanding the irrigation network. This is demonstrated by the rise in government expenditure on the sub-sector that increased from
34 35 $0.21 million in 1999 to $50 million in 2003. The 5. Agricultural Land percentage of agricultural land now irrigated is Management (Land believed to have reached 20%. Degradation) 5.1. The Context 117. the total land area of Cambodia is Rating: 2-Stars approximately 18.1 million ha, of which 2.7 million ha are cultivated under subsistence (WB, Justification: Cultivated land for both irrigated and non- 2002). An estimated 85% of the people live in irrigated cultivation has increased. Growth in rural rural areas; some 70% of the people live in the population has added to the demand for water for lowland provinces along the Mekong and the Tonle agriculture. The RGC has been steadily increasing its Sap, which occupy 25% of the land area of the agriculture sector expenditure in particular to improve the country (UNDP, 1990). Most of rural population is irrigation infrastructure systems and reduce the reliance engaged in agriculture as primary occupation and on rain-fed agriculture. However, compared with several other GMS countries, Cambodia still has some way to go access to agricultural land is important for rural in expanding and modernizing its irrigation management. population. 118. Up to early 1970s, allocation of farmland
References presented few complications (Thion, 1993). Following the upheavals of the Khmer Rouge Ministry of Commerce (MOC). 2000. A Pro-Poor period and instability of the period immediately Trade Sector Strategy for Cambodia, Royal after that the situation became more complex. In Government of Cambodia, Ministry of Commerce, 1989, the Government decided to redistribute Phnom Penh, Cambodia. land with ceilings of 0.2 ha per family for
residential construction, and 5 ha for cultivated MOWRAM, 2001. The Cambodia Water Profile. land, and awarded concession rights to plantation Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology, land greater than 5 ha (WB, 2002). The decision Royal Government of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, resulted in land speculation. Coupled with poor Cambodia. implementation of the policy, the result was MRC, 2003. The State of the Mekong Report. widespread dispossession of some peasants and Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh, various abuses. Arable land is clearly coming Cambodia. under pressure especially since 60% of the total RGC. 2002. National Poverty Reduction Strategy land area is under forest and is to remain under 2003-2005. Council for Social Development, forest leaving only 40% of the total land area or Phnom Penh, Cambodia. about 7.2 million ha to be managed by about 11 RGC, 2003. The Cambodian Millennium million rural inhabitants, i.e. with about 0.68 ha of Development Report. Ministry of Planning, Royal arable land per capita before deductions are Government of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, made for areas occupied by settlements and Cambodia. infrastructure. RGC considers that Cambodia’s WHO/UNICEF JMP 2004. Meeting the MDG population density is still low. Drinking Water and Sanitation Target: A Mid-Term The concern addressed here is the extent to which Assessment of Progress. Geneva and New York. the increasing demand for land resources can be Available: www.wssinfo.org/pdf/JMP_04_text.pdf . accommodated through productivity increases
rather than through expansion of farming into fragile, let alone protected, ecosystems.
36 37 Figure 5.1: Rough Rice Yields in Metric Tons per Hectare – 1960-2004
2.5
2 e
1.5 Hectar
per 1
Tons 0.5
0
1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 196 196 196 197 197 198 198 198 199 1997 2001
5.2. The State played a significant role.
Indicator: Average Rice Yield – 1961-2004 Rating: Relatively Poor but 119. This indicator measures the changes in the productivity of cultivated lands helping to judge Improving the degree to which greater pressure on land can be met without requiring further area expansion. Justification: Although the lowest in GMS, rice yields in Average rice yield data are available on an annual Cambodia have shown signs of improvement since the early 1990s. Nevertheless it has taken about 40 years basis from 1961 to 2004. Rice is the staple food between 1960 and 2004 to increase rice yield from 1 to 2 of Cambodia, providing 75% of the average daily tons/ha. Rice yields have lagged behind population caloric intake of Cambodian people. Most of the increases recorded during the same period. country’s agricultural land is used for rice
production, employing 77% of the rural 5.3. The Pressure population. The RGC’s “Socio-Economic Development Requirements and Proposals for Indicators: Agriculture Land as Percent of Total Land – 2001-2005” sets a yield target of 2 tons/ha. 1961-2002 120. the average rice yield has approximately Agricultural Land per Capita – 1961-2002 doubled over a period of 40 years, from about 1- 1.2 tons/ha in the early 1960s to about 2.0 tons 122. Availability of agriculture land, expressed in 2004, broadly meeting the target of the RGC’s either in per capita terms or as a percentage of (Figure 5.1). However, the Cambodian average total land area, is a simple and widely accepted yields are the lowest of all GMS countries, way of describing the pressure on land resources. reflecting a low percentage of lands regularly 123. Demand for farmland often comes into irrigated. Also, the yield increases have lagged conflict with the demand for the same land from behind the population growth. other segments of the economy, especially once 121. the increase in rice yield in the 1990s is limits are placed on further area expansion as due mainly to higher fertilizer use and the they are in Cambodia by the official objective to adoption of improved varieties. Improvements to keep at least 60% of the total land under forest. the irrigation network were too limited to have Figure 5.2 plots the long-term percentage of
36 37 Figure 5.2: Agricultural Land as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1961-2002
6000 35
5000 30
25 4000 20 Area Hectares 3000 Land 15
2000 Total %
Thousand 10
1000 5
0 0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Figure 5.3: Agricultural Land per Capita – 1961-2002
0.7
0.6
0.5
Capita 0.4 per 0.3
0.2 Hectares 0.1
0
0 3 9 5 8 1 8 1961 1964 1967 197 197 1976 197 1982 19 198 199 1994 1997 2000
agricultural land in the total land area. That the total land areas grew, agricultural land per percentage fluctuated over the years, from 20% of capita has shown a reverse trend, due to the the total land in the 1960s to about 13-15% in increase in rural population. Rural population in the war years of 1970s and 1980s and back to Cambodia accounts for about 84% of the national 19% in the beginning of the 1990s with the return total. of political stability. 126. Agricultural land per capita declined from 124. since then, the share of agricultural land 0.63 ha in 1961 to about 0.35 ha in early 1970s. increased further to 29.3% of the total land area (Figure 5.3). The figure began to increase in the mainly as a result of forest clearance. Compared late 1980s from 0.39 ha in 1985 to about 0.56 ha with its GMS neighbors, the share of agricultural in 1990 as a result of the land redistribution land in Cambodia is among the highest. program initiated by the Government of 125. While the percentage of agricultural land in Cambodia that re-instituted private ownership of
38 39 Figure 5.4: Agricultural Irrigated Area – 1961-2003
300 250 200 150 Hectares 100 1000 50 0
4 3 1 7 0 85 1961 196 1967 1970 197 1976 1979 1982 19 1988 199 1994 199 200
Irrigated Agricultural Area (1000 ha.)
land. Since the beginning of the 1990s, however, agricultural area over a period of 40 years the population explosion in the countryside took between 1960 and 2000 based on FAO data. The the per capita endowment back to where it was in area irrigated increased from 62,000 ha in 1961 the early 1970s. Important to note that, despite to 270,000 ha in 1994. the decline, Cambodia’s per capita endowment of 129. In 2000, MOWRAM estimated that a 180,000 farmland is among the highest in GMS ha increase in total irrigated area would be required by 2005 to reach Government objectives for the rural sector (MOWRAM, 2001). This Rating: Low but Increasing translates into an increase of irrigated agricultural areas by about 36,000 ha per year. Most of this increase was to come from RGC’s program of Justification: Cambodia used to be a land-abundant country. However, agricultural land per capita declined rehabilitation of existing irrigation schemes. from about 0.65 per capita in 1961 to about 0.37 ha per 130. to pursue the target, the RGC has nearly capita in 2003 due to a rapid growth of the rural doubled the expenditure on irrigation population and constraints placed on area expansion. construction, rehabilitation and maintenance The efficiency of land use has become an important between 2001 and 2003. The effectiveness of policy consideration. these investments is yet to be verified.
5.4. The Response
1st Indicator: Growth of Agricultural Irrigated Area Rating: Significant and 1961-2004 Intermittent
127. Provision of irrigation supplies is a standard Justification: There has been a significant increase of the response to potential scarcity of land. It normally areas of irrigated farmlands in Cambodia since the late involves creation of irrigation infrastructure to 1970s to a total of about 270,000 ha. It is not clear serve areas already farmed. In some cases, it may whether the increase is sustainable and accompanied by adequate maintenance of the larger areas irrigated. Since involve opening of new land for farming. As was 1990, the Government has stepped up its investments in mentioned earlier, the Government’s target is 20% the improvement of irrigation infrastructure. of farmland irrigated by 2003. 128. Figure 5.4 provides the trend of irrigated
38 39 Figure 5.5: Cummulative Demined Area – 1992-2004
14,000
12,000
10,000
s 8,000
6,000 Hectare
4,000
2,000
0 92-93 92-94 92-95 92-96 92-97 92-98 92-99 92-00 92-01 92-02 92-03 92-04
Cummulative De-mined Area since 1992
2nd Indicator: Demined Areas 1992-2004 Rating: Significant and
131. In Cambodian conditions, clearing farmland Consistent of unexploded ordinance (UXOs), is a way of adding to productive agricultural land besides its Justification: Cambodia Mine Action Center has been obvious role in reducing the risk to life and clearing mine-contaminated land at a rate of about 1000 property. Most if not all of the land cleared of ha annually. This has added meaningfully to the area of land available for farming besides eliminating the danger UXO reverts to farming. Demand for land, to life. especially agricultural land, has been increasing and will continue to do so. 132. Following the end of the civil war large areas 5.5. Conclusions of land had been put beyond use under the cover 134. The rate of increase of Cambodia’s rural of landmines and lay abandoned. Cambodia Mine population has been exceeding the rate of Action Center (CMAC) has been conducting land additions to farmland. Rapid population growth in mine/UXO de-contamination in Cambodia, so that 1990s in response to greater political stability the maximum number of people - predominantly and the end of civil strife has led to a healthy rural but also urban - can go about their lives free growth in agricultural output and a growing from the threat of UXO, thus permitting demand for farmland. Farmland is no longer as reconstruction, re-integration and development plentiful as it used to be and its per capita activities to take place in a safe environment, availability, though still comfortable by GMS making further progress towards the target of standards, has been declining. Greater attention zero landmine victims by 2020. given to environmental protection and a 133. Figure 5.5 illustrates the total area under determined action by RGC in establishing and landmines cleared between 1992 and 2004. This expanding the system of protected areas, has increased steadily from 500 ha in 1992 to reach placed limits on simple farmland area expansion. 12,000 ha in 2004. This amounts to 135. Making land available for agriculture, approximately 1,000 ha of land recovered especially for rice cultivation, therefore remains a annually.
40 41 challenge for RGC. Land reform and re-institution CDRI 2000. Landlessness: A Growing Problem, of private ownership of farmland has been one Vol.4, No. 4.Phnom Penh, Cambodia element of RCG’s policy and attention to farmland CDRI. 2001. An Assessment of Land Ownership in productivity has been the other policy element. Cambodia, Vol. 5, No.4. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Increasing the percentage of land area that is MOWRAM. 2001. National Water Sector Profile irrigated has played the central role. Investments Kingdom of Cambodia. Royal. Government of in improved irrigation and irrigation rehabilitation Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. have been stepped up, especially in the last five Oxfam Great Britain. 1999. Where Has All Land years. Average rice yields have been improving Gone: Review of Land Issue Literature, May 1999, and are now at a historically high level of about 2 Phnom Penh, Cambodia. tons per ha. Oxfam Great Britain. 2000. Interim Report on Findings of Landlessness and Development Information Tool (LADIT) Research, Sept. 1999 to Suggested Rating: 2 – STARS April 2000. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Oxfam Great Britain. 2000. Landlessness and Development. Proceedings of National Conference Justification: The total area of agricultural lands has been increasing in Cambodia as land reform and other on Landlessness and Development in Phnom complementary measures such as land de-mining have Penh, 22-24 August 2000. Phnom Penh, exerted a positive overall influence, although land conflict Cambodia. and land grabbing have not been adequately addressed. RGC, MoP. 2001. Second Socio-Economic Because of a rapidly growing rural population, the per Development Plan (SEDP II) 2001-2005, Ministry capita farmland availability has declined during the last of Planning. decade and will probably decline further. Thion, S.1993. Watching Cambodia, White Lotus: RGC policy has appropriately made increased Bangkok productivity through expansion of irrigation the UNDP.1990. Human Development Report cornerstone of its policy of reconciling the increasing 1990.UNDP Cambodia. Phnom Penh demands for farmland with its environmental objectives. World Bank. 2002. The Land Management and RCG’s budget has been re-oriented in line with the Administration Project, World Bank, Cambodia, stated priority. January 2002. Unpublished
References ADB, 2003. ADB Draft Poverty Analysis: Executive Summary. Manila. ASEAN, 2000. ASEAN State of Environment Report 2000. ASEAN Secretariat, Jakarta, Indonesia. CDRI. 2002. Natural Resources and Rural Livelihoods in Cambodia: A Baseline Assessment, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. CDRI, 1998. Food security in an Asian Transitional Economy. The Cambodian Experiences. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. CDRI, 2000. Land ownership, Sales and Concentration in Cambodia. A preliminary review of secondary data and primary data from four recent survey, September 2000. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. CDRI. 1999. Land Tenure: Hitting a Stone with an Egg? Vol. 3, No. 3. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
40 41 Table 6.1: Past and Projected GHG Emissions by Sector – 1994-2020
1994 2000 2010 2020 Emissions Gg % Gg % Gg % Gg % Energy 1,853 2.8 2,622 3.6 4,780 5.9 8,761 9 Industry 50 0.1 - - - Agriculture 10,560 15.5 12,030 16.4 17,789 22.1 26,821 27.5 Waste 273 0.4 331 0.4 425 0.5 523 0.5 LUCF 55,216 81.2 58,379 79.6 57,627 71.5 61,512 63 Total Emissions 67,952 100 73,362 100 80,621 100 97,617 100 Removal by LUCF -73,122 -67,118 -61,090 -53,769 Net Emissions -5,170 6,244 19,531 43,848 - Figures of 1994 were inventoried GHG Emissions (IPCC Methodology) - Figures of 2000-2020 were projected based on 1994. - LUCF – Land Use Change and Forestry. Source: Climate Change Enabling Activity Project, Ministry of Environment, August 2002.
Figure 6.1: Past and Projected GHG Emissions by Sector – 1994-2020
120,000 100,000 t 80,000 60,000 40,000 Equivalen 20,000
CO2 0 1994 200 200 201 201 in -20,000 6 2 8 0 -40,000 -60,000 Gigagrams -80,000 -100,000
Energy Agriculture Waste LUCF Total Emissions Removal by LUCF Net Emissions
6. Climate Change extent to which Cambodia has acted upon its 6.1. The Context obligations under UNFCC. 136. cambodia has been a participant in the international debate about climate change, its 6.2. The State causes and possible consequences. In a country 137. the status of climate change is determined with a costal zone the prime concern has been a by factors that are overwhelmingly outside the possible impact of global warming and sea level control of Cambodia or GMS authorities. In rise on that zone as well as a possible effect on principle, a single report on climate change is the seasonal patterns of rainfall. The principal prepared for the whole world by, organisations consideration under this concern, however, is the such as IPCC. For that reason, this EPA report
42 43 does not attempt to formulate a separate state sectors, from 16% to 28% of total national GHG indicator at a national level. A general description emissions. of Cambodia’s climatic cycle is presented in the relevant factsheet. Rating: Low and Increasing 6.3. The Pressure Indicator: Greenhouse Gases Emissions – 1994 Justification: By 2000, Cambodia had probably changed from a net GHG sink to a net contributor of GHG
emissions. Agriculture and land use/forestry were the 138. the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) principal emitters. Projections are for net emissions to emissions is taken as the indicator of pressure, increase up to 2020. i.e. the country’s contribution to global climate
change. The three main greenhouse gases are 6.4. The Response carbon dioxide (CO ), methane (CH ) and nitrous 2 4 142. cambodia ratified the United Nations oxide (N O). As customary under UNFCCC 2 Framework Convention on Climate Change reporting, the emissions are expressed in (UNFCCC) in December 1995. The Convention Gigagrams (Gg) of CO equivalent. 2 entered into force in Cambodia in March 1996. 139. In 1994, Cambodia contributed about 143. A Climate Change Office was established in 68,000 Gigagrams (Gg) of CO -equivalent 2 the MoE to provide technical information to the emissions, primarily form land use change and government about possible impacts resulting from forestry (LUCF) sector (see Table 6.1). As can be climate change. A national greenhouse gas observed, LUCF contributed approximately 81% of inventory had been completed shortly before that, total GHG emissions, while agriculture and energy in 1994, as a step towards implementing contributed approximately 16% and 3% Cambodia’s commitments under UNFCCC. The respectively. The contribution of the industrial donor community (GEF, ADB, WB, UNDP, FAO, sector to total GHG emissions was insignificant. DANIDA, Belgian Government, German 140. however, Cambodia also sequestered almost Government, and the European Union), and 73,000 Gg of CO -equivalent through land use 2 nongovernmental organizations played a decisive change and forestry sector. Therefore, in 1994, role in organizing the information related to GHG Cambodia was a net sink country. The overall emissions, supporting small research projects assessment of Cambodia’s contribution to and developing research capacity during the last greenhouse gas emissions using Global Warming decade. Potential showed that Cambodia could offset 144. The UNDP/GEF-funded CCEAP is the only approximately 5 thousand Gg of CO -equivalents 2 project on climate change in Cambodia to date. A of global GHG emissions in 1994. supplementary UNDP/GEF financing for Second 141. The results of the simulation analysis of National Communication was approved in early GHG emissions and removals by sectors (see 2002. As a least developed country, Cambodia Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1) indicate that in 2000 participated in a UNITAR-executed project Cambodia may have already been a net emitter of “Building Human and Institutional Capacities to GHGs with net emissions of approximately 60 Address Climate Change Issues in Least- thousand Gg of CO -equivalent. In 2020, the net 2 Developed Countries”. This project was emissions were projected to increase to almost complementary to information technology 100,000 Gg of CO -equivalent. Among the 2 capacity building activities that were initiated by sectors, LUCF would remain the main source of the CCEAP. The ADB’s Promotion of Renewable GHG emissions (63%), followed by agriculture Energy, Energy Efficiency and GHG Abatement (28%). Energy would only contribute (PREGA) project is still at an initial stage. approximately 9% of the total national emissions. 145. There are other projects that are not Increase of GHG emissions by the agriculture normally considered climate change projects but sector would be higher than that of others can reduce GHG emissions, once implemented.
42 43 These include WB/MIME “Cambodia Renewable Energy Promotion Project”, JICA’s “Transport Suggested Rating: 2 – STARS Master Plan Of Phnom Penh” and DANIDA’s “Natural Resource and Environment Programme”. Justification: Cambodia is a signatory to UNFCCC and Preparation of several climate change-related initial efforts have been made to understand GHG project proposals is underway and will be emissions and other aspects of climate change as they submitted to potential donors for funding. relate to Cambodia. 146. the Japanese New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) As Cambodia embarks upon the path of industrialization has expressed interest in climate change projects and urbanization, it will move from being a net “sink” to a net contributor of GHGs. The task ahead will be to adopt under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). more stringent measures on controlling GHG emissions The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) will and creating an industrial base that respects climate possibly initiate its climate change programme in change concerns. Cambodia with a focus on the linkage between climate change impacts and biodiversity in the To enable Cambodia to fully and actively participate in Mekong drainage basin. the implementation of climate change convention, additional technical and institutional capacity building
programs are very important. Rating: Low and Intermittent References MoE. 2002. Cambodia’s Initial National Justification: Climate change will increasingly become a Communication under the United Framework concern for Cambodia as its economy expands. The current programs of donor-assisted studies and projects Convention on Climate Change, August 2002. have helped created conditions for the formulation of Ministry of Environment, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. necessary mitigation strategies. MoE & UNDP/GEF. 2001. Final Draft. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Analysis, Land Use, Land Change
6.5. Conclusions and Forestry, and Agriculture. Cambodia Climate Chang Enabling Activities Project CMB/97/G31, 147. climate change is recognized as a policy Phnom Penh, Cambodia. concern by the Cambodian authorities that have MoE & UNDP/GEF. 2001. Final Draft. Vunlerability responded positively under Cambodia’s and Adaptation Assessment to Climate Change in participation in UNFCCC. Because of the Cambodia. Cambodia Climate Change Enabling importance of land use change and forestry and Activities Project CMB/97/G31, Phnom Penh, agriculture in GHG emissions, attention has been Cambodia. directed mainly at them. Existing estimates of actual emissions are based on work conducted in 1994 and all remaining figures are only projections.
44 45 CAMBODIA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (EPA) REPORT 3. CROSSCUTTING ISSUES IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
1. Integration of inland and marine catches have stagnated since Environmental Concerns in 1992. However, aquaculture production has Economic Decisions increased. The main strategy is to expand and 148. the primary objective of the Second Socio- improve rice-fish farming in lowland farming areas Economic Development Plan (SEDP II, 2001- and further development of aquaculture 2005), the overarching development plan combined with improved protection of aquatic document for Cambodia, is to reduce poverty in resources from over-exploitation. It recognizes the the country through: (i) broad based, sustainable stagnation of inland fisheries production due to economic growth with equity; (ii) social and over-exploitation, conversion of inundated forest cultural development; and (iii) sustainable into agricultural land, poor management and management and use of natural resources and the environment degradation. environment. SEDP II highlights the need to 151. For forestry, SEDP II notes that Cambodia’s maintain macro economic stability and good forest resources if managed well could generate a governance to promote equitable and sustainable sustainable flow of Government revenues of an economic growth. SEDP II addresses most of the estimated $100 million annually. A new Forestry concerns assessed in the national EPA, Policy is being drafted that will take into account particularly forestry, fisheries, water and land food security concerns and poverty alleviation and resources. Special emphasis is placed on the role the potential of community based forestry for of natural resources in supporting rural livelihoods improved rural livelihoods. and national economic growth. The need to 152. sEDP II attaches considerable importance balance local and national needs as well as ensure to good governance by advocating the protection of the environment is recognized in the implementation of the Governance Action Plan national development planning process. (GAP) (1998) which covers four crosscutting areas 149. In relation to land tenure and land titling, of judicial and legal reform, public finance, civil SEDP II emphasizes the need to rationalize service reform and anti-corruption as well as two existing land and natural resource law in order to related issues of natural resources management create the basis for market driven agricultural and demobilization of the armed forces. In the development, and to resolve the growing numbers context of natural resource management, good of land disputes. This requires strengthening the governance assumes added meaning. Forest institutional capacity of the Department of Land sector management and the prevention of illegal Titling and improved land use planning and logging are largely dependent upon the political zoning based on economic and environmental and will of institutions such as MAFF. considerations. 153. In addition to SEDP II, MoE’s National 150. In fisheries, the SEDP II notes that both
44 45 Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) deals in detail participation and access to information. with sustainable development of forestry, 157. sub-decrees on water pollution control, solid biodiversity and protected areas, fisheries and waste management, air pollution control and floodplain agriculture in the Tonle Sap Lake. The noise disturbance, and environmental impact annual inflow into Tonle Sap is essential for the assessment (EIA) have recently been national and subregional economy and the 1995 promulgated. A new Land Law was promulgated Agreement on Cooperation for Sustainable in 2001. Other key pieces of legislation include Development of the Mekong River Basin involving the Forestry Law, Fisheries Law, Wildlife Law, and four out of six riparian countries assumes Law on Protected Area Management. particular importance in this context. A Royal 158. the Government is currently implementing Decree on the Creation of the Tonle Sap major reforms in key natural resources Biosphere Reserve was issued in February 2001. management sectors, i.e. forestry, fisheries, and land. RGC’s campaign to prevent illegal logging 1.1. Policy and Institutional Integration and uncontrolled deforestation in Cambodia Policy Framework began in 1995. In 1996, a National Steering 154. The new Constitution tasks the State with Committee to manage forest policy within the ensuring rational use of natural resources and Department of Forestry and Wildlife was formed environmental protection. Legislation to support to steer the forest reform process. The drafting of sustainable development exists and is centered on the new forest legislation to govern the allocation the Law on Environmental Protection and Natural and management of forest resources, began in Resources. Other major environment-related acts 1998 and is on-going. The new legislation will are the Royal Decree on the Creation and include a new Forestry Law, a sub-decree on Designation of Protected Areas, Land Law, Forest Concession Planning, Management and Mineral Law, Forestry Law, Fisheries Law, Pollution Control, and a Sub-decree on Community Control Sub-decrees, and Sub-decree on Forestry. Environmental Impact Assessment. Others under 159. Reform in the fisheries sector is currently preparation are: Wildlife Law and Law on underway with the introduction and expansion of Protected Area Management. community-based fisheries management. Land 155. The first environmental act of Cambodia reform, which started recently, aims at supporting was the 1993 Royal Decree on the Creation and the poor by providing land titles and Designation of Protected Areas, which adopted strengthening traditional land use rights. the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN’s) concepts 160. the translation of the above legislative of protected area management. It designated 23 framework into detailed regulations and areas of fragile and critical habitats constituting guidelines is far from complete and the regulatory approximately 18% of the total area of gaps need to be closed if the legislative Cambodia, one of the largest percentages in the framework is to become fully functional. region. The Government has since increased that area to 25% by establishing additional forest Institutional Framework reserves. 161. cambodia has made significant efforts to 156. the 1996 Law on Environmental Protection create institutions to support sustainable and Natural Resource Management contains the development. In 1993, the Government general principles to be followed by the established the Ministry of Environment and gave Government in developing the legal basis of it a broad mandate to promote environmental environmental management. The Law also protection and conserve natural resources requires the RGC to prepare national and regional throughout the country. Two new ministries with environmental plans and formulate sub-decrees direct mandates to ensure sustainable use of concerning a wide range of environmental issues, natural resources were created after the 1998 including environmental impact assessment, election, i.e., Ministry of Water Resources and pollution prevention and control, public Meteorology and Ministry of Land Management,
46 47 Urban Planning and Construction. To support Planning and Construction (MLMUPC)5 implementation of programs related to established in 1998 is responsible for land sustainable development, the Government has management, urban planning, construction and created several cross-sectoral National titling, in coordination with other ministries. Committees, such as those for Biodiversity, MLMUPC’s responsibilities extend to industrial Protected Areas, Coastal and Marine zoning, and resolution of conflicts relating to Management, and the Management of the Tonle mapping and land titling. Sap Biosphere Reserve. 165. In the water sector, the principal vehicles for 162. the overall direction of the Ministry of inter-agency cooperation are the Cambodian Environment’s activities is an extension of the National Mekong Committee, the Ministry of general principles to which the Cambodian Economy and Finance, and the Council for the Government is committed. These include: (i) Development of Cambodia. The Cambodia recognition of the links between poverty and National Mekong Committee (CNMC) is a national environmental degradation; (ii) commitment to a institution formed as a response to the 1995 participatory approach to deal with environmental Mekong Agreement to coordinate the work of 10 issues; (iii) acceptance of the need for an ministries6 related to policy, management, integrated approach to solving environmental conservation, rehabilitation and research involving problems; and (iv) importance attached to water and related natural resources of the strengthening relevant institutions and awareness Mekong River Basin. building. The Ministry of Environment is 166. In addition, the Ministry of Water Resources responsible for promoting environmental and Meteorology (MOWRAM) was established in protection and conservation of natural resources 1998. Its responsibilities include development of throughout the Kingdom, contributing to strategies and plans for water resource improving environmental quality, public welfare, development and conservation, managing national culture and the economy. It facilitates the common water resources, mitigating water-related formulation and implementation of policies, plans disaster and conducting research and monitoring and legal instruments relating to the use of the of water resources. country’s natural resources. Simultaneously, the 167. cambodia’s National Biodiversity Strategy Ministry has the role of informing and motivating and Action Plan was completed in 2001 but many the public and supporting public participation in of its recommendations remain unimplemented. decision-making to resolve environmental and This situation, however, is not unusual given the natural resource use issues. status of NAPBC in most GMS countries as 163. the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and documents prepared in response to the country’s Fisheries (MAFF) has a significant role to play in international obligations under UNCBD rather sustainable development in Cambodia since its than a document tight woven into the Government mandate covers the management of forest and budget and Public Investment Program. fisheries resources. MAFF is engaged in the Important in the present context is the ongoing development of policies and strategies for UNDP/GEF Cambodia National Capacity Self- agriculture, forestry, and fisheries that have Assessment for Global Environmental significant implications for the management of Management (2004-2006) conceived to the water resources required for irrigation and coordinate responses to the threats of biodiversity capture fisheries/aquaculture. loss, climate change, and land degradation. 164. the Ministry of Land Management, Urban The project is overseen by the National
5 MLMUPC has five departments, namely (1) Administration, (2) Land Management and Urban Planning, (3) Construction, (4) Cadastre and Geography and (5) Inspection.
6 These ministries include Ministry of Public Works and Transport, Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy, Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction, Ministry of Rural Development, and Ministry of Tourism.
46 47 Biodiversity Steering Committee (NBSC). Chaired MAFF/FAO/UNDP before 2001 and the directions by the Minister for Environment and vice-chaired developed since then by MOWRAM and several IOs by the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Forestry that channel their assistance through MOWRAM. and Fisheries, the Committee with its 15 171. the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) members plus 3 members from MOC, MOH, and process was officially launched in Cambodia in MEF, represents a serious attempt at institutional March 2000, providing a framework for assessing integration. the environmental impacts of development 168. Each of the key ministries has departments projects. EIA is an important legal tool for at the provincial level within a structure headed by environmental assessment and planning aiming at Provincial governors (who are responsible to the safeguarding the environment at each stage of Minister of the Interior). Provincial departments project or program development. MoE’s receive their budget allocations from their parent Department of EIA is responsible for the ministries and in principle receive technical implementation of EIA Sub-decree and to do this, support from and report to them. However, their it needs to collaborate with other departments linkages to national parent ministries are often within the MoE and other ministries. The EIA overshadowed by those within the provinces, with procedures embody a principle of initial screening a balance of advantages and disadvantages this that determines the intensity of subsequent represents. Coordination among ministry/ environmental assessment and is modeled on departmental staff at provincial level may be practices common worldwide. stronger than at national level, because of more immediate oversight by governors. Coordination is EPA Manager Institution particularly strong in the context of project 172. the preparation of the present EPA and the implementation at Provincial and local levels, e.g. continuity of the EPA process has raised the of projects like PRASAC. Provincial Rural question of who should be responsible for future Development Committees also provide a EPAs in Cambodia. With its broad mandate for coordinating mechanism, at provincial level. environmental management and conservation and 169. cross sector activities in the environment experience acquired during the preparation of the field are carried out mostly through international current EPA, MoE seems the natural home of funded projects and coordination or steering future EPAs. Within MoE, various departments committees created to facilitate these projects’ have responsibility for environmental management implementation. The work of such committees is including the Department of Natural Resources usually donor-funded. Assessment and Environmental Data Management 170. With a high level of involvement of (DONRAEDAM) and Department of Environment international organizations (IOs) and NGOs in Impact Assessment (DEIA). The Department of Cambodia’s water sector, coordination of their EIA is responsible for assessing the impacts of activities with those of government agencies is a projects on the environment while DONRAEDAM is major issue. The Government has expressed responsible for the overall assessment of dissatisfaction with the extent to which many performance related to the environment NGOs and IOs operate quasi-independently, and management. DONRAEDAM is also equipped with outside the framework of the SEDRP and PIP. the facilities for GIS, mapping and data analysis. However, much of the NGO/IO activity is 173. Within the MoE “home”, the Department of administered through provincial-level agencies. A Natural Resources Assessment and Environmental consequence of weak inter-agency coordination is Data Management would be responsible for the that NGO/IO interventions themselves are EPA task, in association with MoE technical frequently also not well coordinated (despite the departments and in conjunction with concerned existence of three NGO umbrella agencies and six institutions. sectoral committees). An example in the water 174. As MAFF also plays a vital even if indirect sector is the weak coordination between the role in environmental management, MAFF should national strategy for agriculture developed by have a role in the conduct of future EPAs.
48 49 Department of Fisheries, Forestry Administration funded by international donors. and other departments under MAFF could play an 178. Foreign aid financed about 75% of the important role in EPA and provide essential US$100 million capital expenditure in 1998 as inputs. well as a large program of Technical Assistance (TA), budgetary support and emergency relief. In 1.2. Environmental Expenditure and 2001, donors pledged a total of around US$645 Financing million to Cambodia. Several major aid agencies 175. the RGC’s combined budget resources are are involved in development activities in limited and this is reflected in budget allocations Cambodia. Japan, the largest donor, mainly to the agencies directly or indirectly involved in supports construction of bridges, roads and environmental management. Table 1 summarizes ports, power and health care. ADB, The World the expenditure incurred by various sectors over Bank, the United Nations agencies, the European the period 1995-2003. Environmental Commission, Sweden, France, Australia, DANIDA, management does not receive a separate and about 400 non-government organizations are allocation and instead, its elements are found working in Cambodia. mainly under agriculture and marginally under 179. Environment and conservation receives an other expenditures. Even without unraveling the allocation of 3.6% split roughly equally between details, the totals make it clear that financial investment projects (notably construction of a resources for environment management are a very new sanitary landfill for Phnom Penh and small percentage of the total. sustainable development of coastal wetlands) and 176. table 2 shows MoE’s budgets for the period technical assistance projects for capacity building 2001-2003. Within its modest totals, the bulk of in environmental management. The Ministry of expenditure is for administration, staff salaries Environment has been receiving support from and support of provincial departments. international donor agencies since its birth in 177. In these circumstances, it is not surprising 1993 and has since implemented a number of to learn that most development activities in fields different environment-related projects, in some such as biodiversity conservation and protected cases jointly with other line ministries. areas management, climate change, as well sustainable fisheries and forest management are 180. the UNDP provided early support to
Table 1: Expenditure by Sector, Central Government (Million Riel)
1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 General public service 72.6 133.7 187.9 253.7 268 285 Defense 456.1 473.5 455 404.4 423 413 Education 77.9 166.8 183.2 212.3 268 323 Health 26.1 76.3 121 130.3 149 202 Social security and welfare 37.6 25.4 26.9 29.6 30 33 Housing and community amenities 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agriculture 13.1 24 26 31.4 38 34 Industry 4.7 5.3 6.1 6 6.9 8 Electricity, gas and water 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transport and communication 18.7 83 41.9 61.4 66 57.7 Other services 18.9 38.3 10 78.4 73.1 81.3 Others 11 83 71 47.1 243 319 Total 736.7 1109.3 1129 1254.6 1565 1756 Source: ADB, 2004
48 49 Table 2: Ministry of Environment Budget, 2001-2003 (Million Riels)
Amount Amount Amount Expense Category % % % 2001 2002 2003 Salaries 670 13.9 790 11.3 1,230 14.2 Administration and small scale 2,390 49.8 4,370 62.6 5100 58.8 repairs Social and cultural expenses 110 2.3 100 1.4 100 1.1 Provincial Department budgets 1,600 33.3 1,680 24.1 2,195 25.3 Contributions 30 0.6 40 0.6 50 0.6 Total 4,800 100 6,980 100 8,675 100 Source: MoE Strategic Plan 2004-2008
Table 3: Ongoing International Assistance for Environmental Program in Cambodia
Amount Program Donor Year (US$) Tonle Sap Environnemental Management Project ADB 15,000,000 2003-2008 Biodiversity Management and Conservation in the Tonle Sap Bio- UNDP 4,000,000 2003-2008 sphere Reserve Environmental Management of the Coastal Zone (Step III) DANIDA 3,170,000 2002-2006 Capacity development for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) GEF 305,000 2003-2004 Formulation of the National Adaptation Program of Action to Climate GEF 199,500 2003-2006 Change (NAPA) Community Forestry research Project in Cambodia (Phase III) IDRC 234,000 2003-2006 Development of Bio-safety Framework UNEP/GEF 223,000 2004-2006 WWW Conservation Program in Cambodia WWF.USA 3,515,000 1999-2006 Biodiversity and Protected Area Management WB/RGC 4,910,000 2000-2002 Support in the Installation of Additional Equipment for LAB JICA 2,500,000 2001-2004 Strengthening the Industrial Pollution Monitoring DANIDA 500,000 2002-2006 Stung tren RAMSAR Site Management GEF 300,000 2001-2003 Support Program for LAB French 20,964 2002-2003 Basel Project Basel 39,342 2003-2004 Ozone Project UNEP 130,000 2002-2005 POPs Project UNEP/GEF 490,000 2003-2005 Capacity Strengthening and development in Urban Waste Manage- DANIDA 200,000 2001-2006 ment Total Budget 35,736,806 Source: MoE, 2004
50 51 environmental education and awareness building being finalized. Other legislation being revised under the “Environmental Technical Advisory includes the Fisheries Law, Water Law and the Program (ETAP)”. The World Bank also provided Wildlife Law. No legislation is perfect and most support for a forest reform and underwrote the needs periodic revision even in the best of preparation of the National Environmental Action circumstances but, at least the obvious gaps that Plan in 1998. U.K.’s Department of International once marked Cambodian legislation, are no longer Development (DFID) has contributed significantly present. . to fisheries management in Cambodia. The ADB 184. Implementation of environmental policies is provided support for marine and coastal constrained to a large degree by lack of financial management in the early 1990s. In the mid- resources, limited capacity and poor inter-agency 1990s, ADB launched a GMS-wide program of coordination. This is a major challenge for the technical assistance supporting also long-term RGC, especially the MoE which has a critical role capacity building in environmental management to play in harmonizing the approach to (the present SEF II Project one of its recent environmental management in the country. The components). Many other agencies and Environmental Law (1996) makes it MoE’s international NGOs have contributed financially responsibility to ensure adequate coordination and otherwise and their full listing is not with other relevant ministries such as MAFF, attempted here. MOWRAM, MIME, MLMUPC. However, the 181. Instead, Table 3 contains only the largest technical and other resources of MoE are not recent donor-funded projects in the environment always sufficient to discharge this task adequately. management sector. It is estimated that more than US$35 million are being currently (2003- 2.1. Regulatory and Economic 2006) spent in Cambodia for environment-related Instruments projects; mostly implemented by MoE. This total 185. the regulatory framework for environmental does not include activities funded under DANIDA’s management in Cambodia is becoming more subregional fund for fisheries management comprehensive by the day as mentioned earlier. implemented by MRC and a similar fund for The challenge now is to effectively implement and forestry established by GTZ. ADB’s assistance to enforce these regulations. Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology, 186. In terms of the command and control especially for the preparation of a water resource approach to environmental management, most management strategy is also not included. Cambodian laws contain articles either specifying 182. International assistance has long played a charges for different forms of use or fines for key role in supporting environment management violations of regulatory provisions. For instance, in Cambodia but coordination between the the Forestry Law (2002) allows transport of forest funding agencies is poor and leads to overlapping and non-timber forest products under permits projects and agendas. In terms of state-of-the- issued by the Forestry Administration (Article 69). environment assessment and reporting an initial The Law also utilizes the system of fines for assessment was prepared in 1994 by UNDP. In offenders who violate the relevant provisions 2004, DANIDA sponsored an update due for (article 90 to 101). The Fisheries Law (1987) completion in 2005. The current EPA with its classifies fishing operations into commercial, different approach explained in Part II of this medium and small scale so as to regulate the report is the first of its kind in Cambodia. sector. The Fisheries Law applies a permit system and provides for payments for the transportation 2. Implementation Issues of fisheries products as well. Land Law uses the 183. In spite of various institutional and financial permit system as a basis of temporary land constraints, RGC has been making steady concessions of up to 10,000 ha against payments progress in several dimensions of the country’s of rental fees to the government. (Land Law, environmental management. Key legislation Article 48 to 59). targeting environmental concerns is in place or is 187. A Sub-decree on EIA identifies projects that
50 51 are subject to EIA e.g. all types of garment has endeavored to adopt a balanced but firm factories, forestland concession and processing approach in forest concession management and industry, land concession, agriculture concession further reform of the sector. and tourist development. All forest concessions 192. the RGC has undertaken reforms in the and land concession greater than 500 ha are fisheries sector as well, releasing 56% of the subject to EIA provisions. commercial fishing lot areas for community 188. the Sub-decree on Solid Waste Management fisheries development reinforcing fisheries and Sub-decree on Air Pollution Control and Noise management and protection of aquatic resources. Disturbance creates a permit system to control In the water sector, the RGC has undertaken and manage solid waste and pollution. The two measures to improve drinking water provision for sub-decrees refer to public health and WHO both urban and rural areas. The RGC also plans to standards although exact benchmarks are not rehabilitate and build new irrigation systems to provided. A Sub-Decree on Solid Waste improve rice and agricultural production. Land Management restricts the trans-boundary management has seen reforms as well including movement of hazardous waste in compliance with land registration and private ownership. the Basel Convention. 193. Despite these advances it is recognized that 189. While these regulatory and economic effective implementation of policies and instruments exist, the effectiveness of their use enforcement of regulations has some way to go. remains low. This is due mostly to lack of Improving internal consistency of policies, laws appropriate technical and institutional capacity in and regulations related to some of the priority the government. Institutions lack the necessary concerns addressed in the EPA would facilitate technical know-how and equipment often needed this journey. Some examples of inconsistencies to implement the regulatory provisions. Lack of are presented below: budget is a major, though not the sole, cause. • The Law on Commune Administration, Article 43 assigns the responsibility for 2.2. Enforcement protection and conservation of natural 190. As mentioned earlier, enforcement of resources to Commune Councils, but Article regulations and policies remains a weak link in 45 indicates that Commune Council has no the chain to improved environmental authority over forest. management. Key factors include weak • The Law on Environmental Protection and institutional capacity of the responsible agencies; Natural Resource Management assigns the multiplicity of authorities and overlapping overarching role and responsibility for mandates. In spite of these problems,, some environment protection and management to advances have been made and groundwork is MoE. However, there are institutional and being laid for further improvements. The regulatory overlaps with Forestry preparation of this EPA report has, among other Administration and the Department of factors, demonstrated that despite various Fisheries of MAFF that also have a mandate limitations discussed above, RGC and its agencies on forestry, fisheries and water resources. can organize information in a purposeful manner MoE’s jurisdiction extends to 23 protected in support of environment performance areas declared by the Royal Decree in 1993. monitoring. This is a good beginning. MAFF, at the same time, has the overriding 191. In forestry, the RGC has adopted authority on forest and fishery including appropriate measures that led to cancellation of protected forests. poorly performing forest concessions and a more • Within Forestry Administration in MAFF, a disciplined approach to forest concession Community Forestry Unit has been supervision. The requirement for forest established to facilitate community forestry concessionaires to develop a management plan development. A similar unit has been set up including environmental protection and in the MoE. It is questionable whether MoE’s community forestry elements indicates that RGC Community Forestry’s Office uses the
52 53 Environmental Law or the Sub-decree on however technical support and legal sanction community forestry to enforce the principles from the national offices are not readily of Community Forestry. forthcoming. The coordination between • In the Tonle Sap Lake, three sites designated provincial level and national level is poor, as Biosphere Reserves namely Prek Toal, especially in resource management. Boung Tonle Schmar and Stung Sen, are 194. Given Cambodia’s natural resource wealth, included in the 23 protected areas list. its vulnerability to conflicting demands is However, the same areas are also listed understandable. As RGC’s sustainable among the Department of Fisheries’ fishing development agenda matures, it is expected that lots, making parts of the areas potentially the regulatory framework and institutional roles available for auctioning off to fishing will gain in coherence. Community participation operators. This raises the question of will take a firmer hold as time progresses as enforcement jurisdiction of MoE and DoF RGC’s community based natural resource over the same area. Likewise, several management programs become more securely national parks (such as Bokor, Kirirom, and integrated into the development planning process Boeung Per) are located inside valid forest and the Cambodian Millennium Development concessions. Goals framework. • MOWRAM is responsible for water resource management and has planned irrigation 3. Environment and Civil systems throughout the country e.g. the Society Stung Chinit Irrigation Project being built 195. Civil society plays an important role in under a loan from the ADB. Other schemes environmental and natural resource management have been proposed such as the in Cambodia. Sustainable use of natural Northwestern Irrigation Project in the resources demands such a role. Directly or floodplain of the Tonle Sap Lake. However, indirectly, NGOs have affected environmental the Fisheries Law (1987) prohibits any form management in Cambodia for some time. The of irrigation activity inside the floodplain as NGO forum in Cambodia is made up of local and it could impact on the fishery habitats in the international non-governmental organizations floodplain. This is a case where DoF and/or grounded in their experience of humanitarian and MAFF need to work more closely with development assistance to Cambodia. The NGO MOWRAM to address any potential conflicts Forum exists for information sharing, debate and and impacts arising from such development. advocacy on priority issues affecting Cambodia’s • The Land Law and Sub-decree on EIA apply development. The NGO Forum highlights the to land concessions of up to 10,000 ha. impact of development processes and economic, These regulations were adopted after social and political changes on Cambodians. It concessions much larger than 10,000 ha has several programs under its purview including had been granted to private those with important repercussions for land use, concessionaires. This raises the issue of livelihood and natural resource conservation. enforcement and monitoring limits set by 196. the NGOs have been active participants in these regulations. The RGC has now drafted the shaping and implementation of the national a Law on Economic Land Concessions which sustainable development agenda. Besides various addresses the issues of large forest and forms of field involvement, not least in education agricultural land concession allocation of and environmental awareness, the NGOs have such type. The draft is yet to be adopted. regularly commented on many aspects of the • Areas of potential conflict also exist between nation’s quest for sustainable development. These national and provincial level authorities. In reports have sometimes been critical and harsh. the case of community fisheries and forestry, Yet the overall impact has been positive, the for instance, key initiatives have been constructive elements and the often good adopted by the agencies at the local level; knowledge of local conditions outweighing the
52 53 less constructive and ideological ingredients. infections, and sexually transmitted diseases is amongst the highest in the world. Problems are 3.1. Environment, Health and Safety aggravated by inadequate water supply, sanitation 197. A healthy population is a dimension of and health services (SEDP-II, 2001-2005). Poverty sustainable development. The link between the two is linked to environmental degradation. The poor is becoming increasingly apparent in many parts of are losing their means of livelihood following the the world. In the East Asia and Pacific region, degradation of natural resources. They are forced major diseases such as dengue fever or cholera to exploit the diminishing resources to support and infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and TB their day to day living. About 36% of Cambodia’s often accompany industrial growth and population lived below the poverty line at the turn environmental stresses. Waste management is an of the decade, down from 39% in 1993-94. issue of growing concern throughout the region. Poverty incidence in secondary cities fell from Production of fish, aquatic products and livestock 37% to 30%, in rural areas from 43% to 40%, is accompanied by wide use of antibiotics and and it remained at 11% in Phnom Penh during the growth hormones. The SARS epidemic has served same period. Rural households account for almost as a reminder of the fragility and dangers of 90% of Cambodia’s poor (SEDP-II, 2001-2005). certain resource management practices. In the Despite an expanding economy, more than a third East Asia and Pacific region, a large proportion of of the population has income less than US$1 per the poor works in the informal sector without the day (ADB, 2003). benefit of health insurance coverage. Workplace 200. the highest poverty rate, 44%, is found safety and environmental standards can be among households headed by farmers whose compromised by the concessions that governments livelihood depended primarily on the natural make to attract private sector investments. resources. Households headed by government 198. Public health is influenced in complex ways officials have a poverty rate of 18%. Poverty rates by environmental conditions. That influence is are high among households whose head have no fairly straightforward in the case of access to safe formal education (42%) or have only primary drinking water. The impact of environmental schooling (40%). These two groups account for degradation on agricultural productivity and four-fifths of the poor. The prevalence of poverty through it, on nutrition is more complex as it is among households whose heads had completed intertwined vast differences in income status and lower and higher secondary education level fell to access to resources. About 20% of Cambodia’s 24% and 12% respectively (MRC and UNDP, population was undernourished in 1998. (GPCC 1998; SEDP-II, 2001-2005). The Tonle Sap Region 1998). In 2000, 2001 and 2002, Cambodia has the highest population of 38% living below suffered from severe floods bringing with them poverty line i.e. higher than the national average water borne diseases. Droughts of the more (36%) with around 50% of the villages in the recent years have caused shortages of water and Tonle Sap Region and 40-60% of households contributed to a rise in pulmonary diseases. living below the poverty line (ADB, 2002). Absence of adequate sanitation is known to contribute to the incidence of water born diseases 3.2. Access to Information and Public though –surprisingly-- the subject has not been Accountability studied in detail in Cambodia. 201. civil society consists of groups outside 199. Access to even basic health care is not formal government, including local community, easily available to the poor. Poor health associations, private sector and NGOs. The contributes to poverty through reduced influence of civil society on the management of productivity and increased household environment and natural resource has been indebtedness, mostly in rural areas. In Cambodia, increasing. The 1996 Law on Environmental the levels of morbidity and mortality from Protection and Natural Resource Management infectious communicable disease such as malaria, recognizes the importance of the civil society’s dengue, tuberculosis, diarrhea, acute respiratory participation in natural resource management. MoE
54 55 encourages public participation in the protection It is organized around networks such as the NGO and management of natural resources (Article 16). Forum, the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia, The 1998 National Environmental Action Plan was the Environmental NGO Network, the Fisheries formulated with inputs from representatives of civil NGO Network, the Forestry NGO Network and the society (as well as international agencies like Agriculture NGO Network. UNDP, World Bank and IUCN). 202. the preparation of the National Biodiversity 3.3. Environmental Awareness and Strategy and Action Plan, too, benefited from inputs Education by large sections of the civil society. The Plan 207. Public awareness about the environmental recognizes that success is likely to rest to an problem is increasing. The media have been important degree on the involvement of the local widely covering the environmental problems populations in critical decisions affecting ranging from forest to fisheries and from water to biodiversity. The drafting of SEDP II is yet another wastewater. In the MoE, there is a Department of example of a wider consultation effort that took Environment Education. In 1998, the Department place during the period 2001-2005. To gain a deeper worked closely with UNDP’s Program on understanding of the lives of the poor, Environmental Technical Advisory Program (ETAP) 169 focused group discussions were convened to raise public awareness of environmental among low-income groups in 154 villages throughout issues. The Program was instrumental in the rural areas and 15 non-rural socially disadvantaged Government’s decision to include environmental groups. This face-to-face method of working was an matters into the primary school curriculum. innovation that the Government has since adopted 208. ETAP supported 12 NGOs to work on monk more widely to supplement formal surveys. environmental education in collaboration with the 203. the Forestry Law, Sub-decree on Community Department of Environment Education of MoE. Forestry and Fisheries and Draft Fisheries Law These NGOs have programs to provide were widely discussed with local community environmental education in various provinces of representatives, NGOs and the private sector, even Cambodia using monks as leaders. The NGO if the quality of civil society representation left network on monk environmental education has something to be desired. produced a book called the ‘Cry of the Forest’ in 204. In general, participation of stakeholders is which Buddhist religious concepts are used to promoted by various projects, depending on the explain environmental problems and seek nature of the project and the institutions involved. environmental improvement through the Buddhist Most donor-funded projects actively encourage way of life. stakeholder participation. However, the question 209. the Environment Day is celebrated every of participation’s quality and real influence on year on 5th June in an effort to raise awareness of decision-making or design of a project still needs environmental issues. The Environment Day to be firmly established. Also, the question of the activities are extended to the provincial levels as type of consultation that might be appropriate well. NGOs work closely with the Ministry of (or even mandatory) for private sector-led projects Environment to implement these activities at the involving resource management (e.g. tree crop grassroots level. The local NGO known as Mlup plantations) is yet to be answered. Baitong has developed a radio program on the 205. Despite widening consultation, access to environment that often raises pertinent local environmental information remains limited in issues such as over-fishing, deforestation, wildlife Cambodia. Release of information held by poaching and land degradation. government agencies requires permission and 210. For higher education, the Department of authorization from various levels of government Environmental Science was set up in 2000 at the authority. The process is slow and frustrating. Royal University of Phnom Penh to provide 206. Information exchange within the NGO bachelor-level degree courses in environmental community is more open (and often used by the sciences. Government especially in reporting to the donors). 211. the natural resources of Cambodia are
54 55 CAMBODIA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (EPA) REPORT
4. ConclusionS and RecommendationS
under pressure from different segments of the environmental performance in Cambodia passes society in an expanding economy and in through a more complete integration of conditions of rapidly growing population. In a still environmental concerns into sectoral and mainly rural based country the brunt of economic economic decision-making, improved institutional growth is likely to be borne by the natural and capacity, policy development and involvement of biological resources unless suitable safeguards civil society in environment management together are built into existing policies and institutional with greater budget support for environmental arrangements. management. 212. supported by international donors, the RGC The sections below highlight the key conclusions has been taking steps to address the of the assessment of Part 2 of the report and environmental and sustainability issues and draw make recommendations. a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. However, more work is 1. Forestry Resources still required. Management of natural resources 215. Part II described the success of the (especially fish and forests) is undergoing a country’s authorities in meeting, ahead of difficult transition from a revenue-driven to schedule, their target of maintaining the forest sustainability-oriented approach. The share of cover of at least 60% between 2005 and 2025. national budget devoted to environmental Part III mentioned some of the institutional management is low relative to the values at stake. improvements. However, this progress needs to be Cambodia continues to rely on the donor consolidated and, furthermore, the quality of the community for most of its environmental funding. assessment in future EPA’s can be further 213. civil society and the NGOs are emerging as improved. The following recommendations are an important voice in the implementation of the made: environmental and sustainable development agenda in the country. However, their contribution A. The EPA process and data to environmental protection is still limited at the 1) Future assessments should contain information central level and constrained by insufficient about the quality of the standing forest, not decentralization of natural resource utilization merely about the area defined to be “under decisions. forest”. The quality parameters of greatest 214. With Cambodia more clearly moving in the relevance include the percentage of canopy cover direction of a market economy, the need for and suitably organized information about the environmental safeguards has become composition of the standing stock. increasingly apparent. The road to improved 2) Cambodia may want to take the lead in
56 57 (finally!) working towards GMS-wide comparability holders operate). Ensure that such monitoring in the one area (i.e. forest cover) that is of the does not detract from attention to non-concession greatest public interest in each of the countries violations of the Forest Law. and globally. This is not an easy task technically and bureaucratically but the status quo (no or 2. Threat to Biodiversity little comparability) seems less defensible with 216. the assessment of Part II notes the each year that passes by. substantial areas of different habitats and areas 3) Cambodia seems to have somewhat better data placed under protection in Cambodia while Part on the habitat composition of different protected III mentions the beginnings of efforts to situate areas than most other GMS countries. Despite biodiversity conservation within a broader “multi- that, recent expansion of the protected realm convention” space alongside UNCCD and would justify efforts to update estimates of the UNFCCC. Here, too, more needs to be done. standing forest –appropriately defined—contained in each of the protected areas. A. The EPA process and data 4) The monitoring of the conditions of cancelled 1) Information is needed for the next EPA that forest concessions should be the acid test of the would allow the authorities and the public to effectiveness of Government’s enforcement. A judge how effective the protected status has been performance indicator specifically targeting these in conserving the biodiversity potential of the areas should be created. designated areas. As a minimum, this requires data, at well chosen intervals, of the changes of B. Other recommendations the areas of key and subsidiary habitats within 5) The policy on selection of reforestation and each protected area as well as subsidiary forest rehabilitation projects undertaken by the parameters such as protection expenditure. Government and choice of community-based projects has not been formulated. The case for B. Other recommendations reforestation in a country with a high forest cover The following proposals are made: can be made but it has not been to date and 2) Study the best ways of reconciling the targets should be made. Ensure that the Community of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Forestry Sub-decree is in line with such a policy. Plan with RGC’s budget and the Public Investment 6) Once the case for community forestry has been Program. Use the insights to begin to modify the strengthened, integrate forest management into approach to the preparation of new national RGC’s “Seila” Program and ensure that local action plans under international environmental government, especially the Commune Councils, conventions or their updates. The plans need to play a role in resource management at local level. change from being “shopping lists” for donors to 7) Eliminate dysfunctional arrangements and being components of documents (such as poverty amend conflicting legislation following the reduction strategies that command a consensus examples given in the report and any other. In of the Government and the donor community) particular improve (a) institutional coordination that drive the budget process. and reconcile the policies of the Forestry 3) Monitor the achievement of RGC’s Cambodia Administration and the Ministry of Environment Development Millennium Goal stated target of with respect to the management of forest in increasing the number of park rangers from 600 protected areas; and (b) compatibility between to 1,200 between 2001 and 2015. forestry policies and the Law on Commune 4) Approve and pass the latest draft of the Law on Administration. Wildlife with its intent to discourage trade in 8) Propose the best way of monitoring endangered wildlife and hunting of endangered compliance with the forest concessionaires’ species. Following the adoption of the Law on development and management plans that would Wildlife, prepare appropriate sub-decrees or make room for local populations (that can either prakas including those dealing with community gain or lose depending on how the concession based biodiversity protection and management.
56 57 Accompany such regulations by a supply of to Tonle Sap. equipment to forest and park rangers. 4. Water Resources 3. Fisheries Resources 218. the earlier sections of this EPA described 217. Fishery resources were described in Part II the moderate improvements in access to safe as being under pressure by a growing population, potable water in Cambodia in the last few years and an apparently non-diminishing use of from extremely low levels. They also noted the destructive fishing practices. Yet the inland fish diversity of the ways in which rural water supply catch has been increasing but the sources of this can be improved that makes the quantification of increase are not well described. The marine catch this improvement difficult. Addressing irrigation and its importance are poorly documented. This water, Part II suggested that shortages of suggests the following agenda ahead of the next irrigation capacity, especially water storage EPA: capacity, have been a constraint on further growth of agricultural productivity. The environmental A. The EPA process and data importance of increasing irrigation in Cambodia 1) Gather better data on the output of small-scale lies in the potential for increased agricultural and rice-field fisheries and explain if it is they or productivity that may well hold the key to de- other factors that have been supporting the fusing a potential conflict between a growing apparent increase in per capita fish consumption demand for farmland and the policy of increasing in Cambodia. the area of protected habitats. At the same time, 2) Produce a complete time-series of the judging water resource adequacy only by estimates of fish production in Tonle Sap by reference to irrigation performance or agricultural different categories of operators. The seeming productivity may be too narrow an approach. The inability to derive such a series is hard to justify. following recommendations are : 3) Assemble information about the output and exports of marine fisheries. A. The EPA process and data 4) Consider the scope for using direct and indirect 1) Review the application of the existing indicators of the pressure exerted by illegal methodology to estimating the percentage of fishing practices and it change over time. access to safe potable water supply in rural areas B. Other recommendations and provide an indication of the margin of error 5) Assemble available evidence that demonstrates inherent in that methodology. Make the case for that the community model of fisheries results in a improving the accuracy of the existing estimates. more sustainable management of the resource. Make an attempt to separate the improvements in Once satisfied, support the Fisheries Law that water supply due to government and donor efforts sanctions the ongoing fishery sector reform with and those made by the rural households without its sub-decree on community fisheries. outside assistance. 6) Promote decentralized fisheries management 2) Begin to assemble data about the quality of to Commune Councils and local community rural water supply, in particular information about consistent with the RGC program of possible deterioration or contamination of rural decentralization. water supply attributable to economic and other 7) Improve coordination and cooperation between anthropogenic activities. DoF, MoE and Ministry of Water Resources and 3) In future EPAs, consider modifying the Meteorology to avoid the overlapping roles and indicator of response from expenditure on responsibilities following the examples given in irrigation management to expenditure on this EPA. integrated water resource development, having 8) Explain to the public why it is difficult to reduce first agreed on its definition. destructive fishing practices. 4) Given the importance of Tonle Sap, include into 9) Place greater emphasis on the protection of future EPAs an assessment of performance with the wetlands now overshadowed by the attention respect to the pollution of the Tonle Sap by non-
58 59 point sources, with particular attention to 6. Climate Change fertilizer and agro-chemicals’ use. 220. cambodia has prepared an initial estimate of its GHG emissions and sequestration. These B. Other recommendations estimates, made only once in 1994, however, are 5) The Ministry of Water Resources & Meteorology now increasingly out of date. The following are (MOWRAM) has recently been established with the recommended: task of developing and implementing a long-term development strategy for water resources in A. The EPA process and data Cambodia. Facilitate regular consultations 1) Re-estimate the actual GHG emissions in between MOWRAM and MoE on the most today’s economic circumstances. meaningful ways of measuring the quality of overall water resource management. B. Other recommendations 2) Pay attention to renewable energy development 5. Management of and other cross-sectoral initiatives that have the Agricultural Land potential of delivering multiple benefits besides 219. Part II structured performance assessment GHG emission reduction, such as assessment of around the effect of farmland availability and climate change impacts of biodiversity irrigation coverage on average yields, and through conservation policies, the climate change them on additional pressure (or not) for repercussions of different variants of the Tonle converting non-farm lands to agriculture. The Sap ecosystem management, etc. assessment pointed to increasing average 3) Support the work of UNDP/GEF Cambodia farmland productivity that however lagged behind National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global the population growth. The increase in irrigation Environmental Management Project (2004-2006) coverage and areas de-contaminated of UXO conceived to address the threats of biodiversity added to the supply of farmland. The structure of loss, climate change, and land degradation in a indicators chosen places agricultural productivity coordinated and planned manner. Place new at the center of the assessment without looking institutional initiatives in the area of climate further into the question of whether increases in change within a broader multi-convention farm productivity are sustainable or whether they framework. are achieved at the cost of adverse environmental 4) Continue to support climate change awareness impacts (such as excessive use of agro-chemicals raising programme and technology transfer. etc.). Future EPAs may want to explore some of these questions, in particular References ADB. 2002. Report and recommendations of the A. The EPA process and data President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed 1) Consider developing secondary indicators of Loan and Technical Assistance Grant to the Royal the state of agricultural land such soil erosion or Government of Cambodia for the Tonle Sap humus content Environmental Management Project. Manila. 2) Assemble evidence on the levels of pollution by ADB, 2003. ADB Draft Poverty Analysis: Executive fertilizer and agro-chemicals’ run-off Summary, Manila, Philippines. ARD. 1998. Strengthening Institutions for B. Other recommendations Implementation of Forest Policy in Cambodia, 3) Provide data on the cost effectiveness of de- 1998. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. mining operations to judge whether a good case ASEAN .2000. Second ASEAN State of the can be made for an acceleration of this activity. Environment Report, 2000. Published? 4) Strengthen the land management committee at Baltzer, M.C., T.D. Nguyen, and R.G. Shore. 2001. all administrative levels to help resolve land 2001. Towards a Vision for Biodiversity conflict issues Conservation in the Forests of the Lower Mekong Eco-region Complex. World Wildlife Fund For
58 59 Nature. World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC. Environment, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Botomley R. 2000. Structural Analysis of MoE .2000. Cambodian Biodiversity Issues & Deforestation in Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Strategy Workshop Report, October 18, 2000, Cambodia. Sunway Hotel, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Bruce, M and Tola, P. 2002. Natural Resources MoE, MAFF, FFI. 2000. Cardamom Mountains: and Rural Livelihoods in Cambodia, CDRI, Phnom Biodiversity Survey, Edited by J. C. Daltry and F. Penh, Cambodia. Momberg, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Chea, Y. and McKenney, B. 2003. “Great Lake Fish MoE, FAO & UNDP/GEF. 2001. Biodiversity: The Exports: An Analysis of the Fee System” in Life of Cambodia: Cambodia’s Biodiversity Status Cambodia Development Review (CDRI) Phnom Report - 2001, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Penh, Cambodia. MRCS/UNDP (1998). Natural Resources Based Chuon, C. 2002. Tonle Sap watershed issues and Development Strategy for the Tonle Sap Area, implications, Department of Natural Resources Cambodia. Mekong River Commission Secretariat Assessment and Enviornmental Data / United Nations. Management, Ministry of Environment, Phnom Neath N. 2001. A Wildlife Survey of Bokor Penh, Cambodia. National Park, Cambodia. Wildlife Conservation CDRI, 1998. Food security in an Asian Transitional Society. Economy: The Cambodian Experiences. Phnom Phnom Penh Post. 1998, Lucrative Trade in Baby Penh, Cambodia. Fish a Deadly Business, Phnom Penh Post, 4-17 CDRI, 2000. Land ownership, Sales and September 1998. Concentration in Cambodia: A preliminary review RGC 2003. Significant Acquirements made by the of secondary data and primary data from four Royal Government of Cambodia, 1998-2002, recent survey, September 2000. Phnom Penh, PNH, Cambodia. Cambodia. RGC, MoP. 2001. Second Socio-Economic DFW. 2003. Cambodia: Forestry Statistics for Development Plan (SEDP II) 2001-2005, Ministry 2002 May 2003. Department of Forestry and of Planning, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Wildlife, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Saroeun, B. 1999. Pesticide Killing the Great Fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Lake, Phnom Penh Post, May 14-27. DoF.2001. Fisheries data collection, 1980-2000, Sokhun, T. 1997. Review of the Forestry Sector in Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Cambodia. DFW/MAFF, PNH, Cambodia. Forestry and Fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Stuart, B.L., Smith, J., Davey, K., Prom Din, and Global Witness. 1995. Forest, Famine and War: Platt, S.G. 2000. Homalopsine Water Snakes: The Key to Cambodia’s Future. London, England. Harvest and Trade from Tonle Sap Area. Global Witness. 1999. Made in Vietnam, Cut in Cambodia’s Traffic Bulletin. Available: Cambodia. London, England. www.traffic.org/bulletin/ watersnakes.html Hach, S and Acharya, S. 2002. Cambodia’s Tana, T. S., Prak, L.H., Chul, T., Lieng, S., Chun, S. Annual Economic Review-2002, CDRI, August and Heng, K., 2000. Overview of the Turtle Trades 2002, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. in Cambodia’s in Asian Turtle Trade. Proceeding MoE (1998). National Environmental Action Plan of the Workshop on Conservation and Trade of (NEAP, 1998-2002). Ministry of Environment, Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. In: van Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Dijk, P.P., Stuart, B.L., and Rhodin, A.G.J. (Eds.). MoE/UNDP-GEF.2001. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Analysis. Ministry of Environment, Phnom Penh, Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Cambodia. Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs MoE/UNDP-GEF. 2002. Vulnerability and 2:55-57. Adaptation Assessment to Climate Change in Tana, S and Todd, B. 2001. The inland and marine Cambodia. trade of Cambodia; Oxfam America, Phnom Penh, MoE. 2002. Cambodia’s National Biodiversity Cambodia. Strategy and Action Plan. Ministry of Timmins, R and Ou, R. 2001. The Importance of
60 61 Phnom Pich Wildlife Sanctuary and Adjacent Areas for the Conservation of Tigers and other Key Species: A Summary. Worldwide fund for Nature (WWW). Phnom Penh, Cambodia. World Bank. 1996.Cambodia: Forest Policy Assessment. Joint World Bank, UNDP and FAO report. The World Bank, UNDP & FAO. Washington D.C World Bank. 1999. Background Note, Cambodia, A Vision for Forestry Sector Development. The World Bank. Washington, D.C.
World Health Organization. 1989. Environmental Health Criteria; DDT and its derivatives: Environmental effects. Geneva, 1989. World Health Organization
60 61 CAMBODIA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (EPA) REPORT
FACT SHEET APPENDIX
CAMBODIA
1. FACT SHEET TEMPLATE AND GUIDELINES 2. FOREST RESOURCES FACT SHEETS 3. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY FACT SHEETS 4. FISH RESOURCES FACT SHEETS 5. WATER RESOURCES FACT SHEETS 6. AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT FACT SHEETS 7. CLIMATE CHANGE FACT SHEETS
62 63 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet Template DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID Use as appropriate of leave blank
Indicator Name The name or title, assigned to the indicator, e.g. “Population density in the Uplands”, followed by the time range of the indicator data. e.g. “1914 to 2003” or “1990 and 2000”
Year of Assessment The year in which the fact sheet was developed, e.g. 2004
Type of Indicator Pressure, State or Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) The non-scientific FAQ that the indicator attempts to answer. e.g. “ Is the water safe to drink?” for an indicator that reports on BOD levels in water
Priority Concern The name of the priority concern that this indicator relates to. Normally it should relate to only one concern
Geographic Area The name of the country or province in the GMS
Magnitude & Trend (for pressure See Fact sheet and EPA Evaluation Criteria for indicator) or State & Trend (for state vocabulary to be placed here for the final rating. indicator) or Impact & Trend (for response indicator)
Key Message In answer to the FAQ above, the “super-executive summary” of the fact sheet analysis results, including, if appropriate a statement of observed trend and a statement of the current situation in terms of targets.
62 63 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This section should define very precisely what “the indicator” is and in what units the indicator is expressed. It should also include a precise definition of the terms that make up the indicator. The section should start out with a generic statement such as “ This indicator attempts to track the amount of …(give precise definition of what you are tracking) over … (usually time); it is expressed as. (give the precise units of the indicator, both numerator and denominator). Follow this definition with the definition of other terms you have utilized for the definition of the indicator (e.g. define more precisely what “forest cover” means, what “expenditure” means, what “threatened species” means, etc.
B. Data Source If the data originates from a known information system, give the name of such information (e.g. FAOSTAT) along with the name of the organization which maintains such information system (e.g. FAO). If the data were taken from a publication, give the full reference of that publication. If the data were extracted from the Internet, give the generic name of the website homepage but do not include the URL. Otherwise specify where or from whom you obtained the data.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage If the data covers the entire country or province, or if the data represents 100% of the population you are describing, then simply state so (e.g. “the data and the indicator is representative of ……. For the country as a whole”). Otherwise describe any gaps or restrictions on the geography (e.g. “excluding province X” or “only on agricultural soils’) or on the population (e.g. “only commercial fisheries” or “only reported cases”). If the data is only for a representative sample of the population (e.g. “only major rivers” or “only X cities”), then provide more details on the sub-sample (e.g. “Cities X and Y” or “X rivers with discharge greater than Y cms”.
D. Temporal Coverage If the data represents a one-time measurement (e.g. land cover), state as precisely as you can the place in time when this measurement was taken (e.g. “represents ground condition in 1999”). If the data is expressed as a time series, given the start and end times along with an explanation of any gaps which may occur in the time series and/or how those gaps may have been filled in.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage Whenever possible, describe the methodologies that the originator utilized to compile the datasets that you are utilizing ( e.g. “using un-supervised remote sensing classification on a Landsat- 7 satellite image” or “using a 1km by 1km random stratified grid’). Comment on the frequency of measurement and/or update (e.g. “a one-time measurement from a project” or “based on year 2000 data which will be updated shortly”) and on the likelihood that the measurement will be repeated ( e.g. “maintained by a UN organization for the past four decades”).
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The focus here is on the manipulation that you may have made to the original data to get it into a form where it has become useful to you as an indicator; the focus is not on the methods that the originator utilized to obtain the data in the first place. Describe all the manipulations you have done on the original data, ensuring that enough detail is given so that the methodology can be repeated by others at a late data in time.
64 65 QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the data you have utilized, in relation to the phenomenon you were trying to measure. If the indicator is to show a trend over time, comment on the strengths (or weaknesses) of the data to show variance over time (present and future). Comment on any bias that is inherent with the data in respect of the phenomenon you are trying to measure.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) Comment on the reliability of the data, especially in relation to whom or where you got it from; quote all endorsements that were made on the data during the review process. Quote any accuracy measures that were given or published with the original data (e.g. “according to IHO standards” or “according to national mapping standards”. Comment on the robustness of the data in terms of how it may have been used elsewhere and how it can still be applicable to the GMS. State any assumptions you have made with the data and any relevant uncertainties.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) If applicable, comment of how the data could be improved to better serve the purposes of the indicator, or how the indicator could be improved with additional or alternative sources of data. SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS The section should start with a graph (Figure 1) and a table (Table 1) which summarizes the value of the indicator over time. The graph will normally be re-produced in the EPA report, without the table. The table therefore should contain all the necessary data to re-produce the graph and, as much as possible, not too much else. The title of the graph and table should correspond to the name of the indicator. If the indicator is expressed as a time series, the x-axis of the graph should also be expressed as a time series. Add as many supplemental graphs and tables, or maps, as required to further expand on the indicator or to include non-indicator specific information that might supplement the fact sheet but make sure supplemental information is used and referenced in the final Analysis Section of the fact sheet. All graphs should be followed by the table with the data that was utilized to generate them. Graph titles and table titles should be placed outside the graph and table, as a bolded title on top of the figure or table. All tables should identify the source of the data in the last row of the table. Try and keep the graphs and maps to the minimum size, but with sufficient resolution and detail so as to portray the trend or spatial distributions that are being evaluated. Number each table and each graph (or map) so that they can be referenced in the evaluation text. Give the same number to the table and the corresponding graphic; if you generate more than one graphic from the same table, use alphabetical sub-numbering.
64 65 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference This section on policy reference may not apply to some pressure and state indicators and to some very specific response indicators where related policies and regulations cannot be inferred. In these cases, the entire section can be omitted. But for normal response indicators, the lack of policy or regulation should be noted and highlighted as a “gaps”. 1. Purpose: Comment on the purpose of the indicator and (i) what function it performs in terms of environment performance assessment i.e. what parameter it assesses and what resource it protects, (ii) what objective’s compliance it monitors and (iii) what potential corrective action (s) it requires. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Comment on the broad/general importance of this indicator for assessing other related environmental issues e.g. socio-economic relevance, link with any public health, quality of life related issues etc. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: Give a list of other indicators this indicator is linked to i.e. what other indicator values this indicator directly or indirectly affects. 4. Targets: Give details on what targets have been set by the national environment agency or ministry for this indicator to comply with i.e. what are the quantifiable environmental standard this indicator has to comply with. 5. International Environment Treaties: If applicable, give the name, scope, status of implementation of the international environmental treaty(s) your country has signed for this indicator and give an update on the progress of its implementation. Otherwise state “None applicable”. 6. Laws If applicable, name national laws that have some implication to the indicator. Otherwise leave out this sub-section.
B. Analysis This section is dedicated to the analysis of the indicator and the final rating of the results. The first paragraphs should be focused on the description of the observed results, as observed in the tables and graphs (e.g. “As can be observed from Table 1 and Figure 1”, describe the observed value and the observed trend of the indicator). State if the indicator values comply with the stipulated national target or standard and (in relevant cases) international standard. Comment on the size of the discrepancy between the two and its trend (can a reliable trend be established? Does it point to an underlying improvement or deterioration? Can the fluctuating values of the indicator be related to distinct policy interventions such as mitigation measures, changed pattern of economic incentives, or other corrective actions?). Say whether the results might be indicative of inappropriate or moving targets/standards rather than simply reflecting performance. Comment on the role, if any, of factors outside management control (climatic factors, natural disasters, etc.). Identify the factors most relevant to observed outcomes and specify key related indicators. Keep in mind the ultimate purpose of your effort, i.e. to review performance by environmental concerns and groups of concerns such review normally resting on several indicators rather than a single one. Analysis of a single indicator to be performed below is important but it is in combining it with the analysis of other indicators that policy insights are generated and performance assessment gains depth.
66 67 The last paragraph of this analysis section should be focused on the justification of the indicator ranking, based on the vocabulary and guidelines given in “Fact sheet and EPA Evaluation Criteria”. The last sentence should highlight (in bold) the final ranking of the indicator results.
66 67 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Forest Cover as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1965 to 2002
Year of Assessment 2004
Type of Indicator State
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Is forest cover in Cambodia increasing or decreasing?
Priority Concern Forest Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
State & Trend See Fact sheet and EPA Evaluation Criteria for vocabulary to be placed here for the final rating.
Key Message Forest cover in Cambodia has been declining over the long-term but there are signs of a reversal, based on observations between 1997 and 2002. Cambodia has the highest forest cover of all GMS countries in excess of 60 per cent of the total land area. The condition of the existing forest cover however remains a concern.
68 69 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track the amount of natural and plantation forest area over time. As utilized here for Cambodia, it also includes degraded forest, shrub-lands and bamboo forest. It is expressed as the percentage of total forest area over the total land area. The historical data utilized for this indicator originate from three different sources (see section 2 below) using two or three differing criteria for the definition of “forest area” (see section 5 below).
B. Data Source Earlier records of forest cover originate from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) from various in-country assessments. More recent assessments were conducted by the Mekong River Commission (MRC) Secretariat and the German Technical Assistance (GTZ). The latest assessment was conducted by the Forest Resource Management (FRM) division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) in association with Indufor Oy and Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS).
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage All assessments have considered the entire land surface of Cambodia. Although MRC data are normally limited to the area within the Mekong basin, these MRC data are for the country as a whole. Year 2002 results are also presented on a provincial basis to illustrate regional variations. There are no official figures for total provincial area and some provincial land areas have changed after the census 1998. The provincial land areas in this fact sheet were calculated according to the new updated coverage provided by Department of Geography, which is a government agency responsible for land administration boundaries.
D. Temporal Coverage The earliest FAO figures provide an estimate of forest cover for 1965. Later FAO estimates span the periods between 1973 to 1976 and 1985 to 1987. The last FAO estimate and the first MRC estimate are for the period of 1992-1993. MRC provides another comparable estimate covering the periods between 1992-1993 and 1996-1997. The last estimate provided by MAFF is based on ground conditions during 2002.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage FAO classified land cover as forested area if the crown cover was at least 10%; the tree height using these criteria can be assumed to be about 5 m or more. MRC/GTZ and FRM classified land cover as forest area if the crown cover was at least 20%; tree height can be assumed to be about 10 m or more. If the tree-cover is equal, or more than, 20% but tree height ranges only between 5 m and 10 m an assignment to the class ‘forest re-growth’ appears to be appropriate, even if some stunted forests will be included. FRM also utilized the 20% crown cover criteria. The Forestry Administration has plans to produce another forest cover assessment in 2007.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation Forest area and percentage forest cover for the period of 1965 to 2002 were not calculated in this fact sheet and are quoted directly from the stated sources.
68 69 Percentage land cover is based on different total land areas from which an average total of each coverage area was calculated/interpreted. For example, FAO/UNDP reported that total land area in 1965, 1973-1976, 1985-1987 and 1992-1993 was 18,110,500 ha, 18,153,400 ha, 18,153,100 ha, and 18,153,500 ha, respectively. Whereas, MRC/GTZ reported that total land area was 18,152,985 ha in 1992-1993 and 1996-1997, and total land area in 2002, reported by FRM was 18,160,677 ha. The percentage forest area by province in year 2002 was calculated by dividing the total forest area of the province by its corresponding land area. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) These percentage figures of forest area are indicative of long-term forest cover conditions or forest resource existing in the country. They can also illustrate the forest distribution within provinces to identify more or less forest areas. However, they are less indicative of the forest condition, without measuring the change of forest types, which remain from logging.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) While the historical data produced by FAO are available for the past period, there are some inconsistencies associated with the recent data developed by MRC/GTZ due to different methodologies used in the determination or interpretation of forest cover. The Forestry Administration’s definition cites that the 20% threshold was chosen in regards to dry dipterocarp forests, which by their nature are quite open. A 10% threshold, as utilized by FAO, appeared to be rather low for the forest in South East Asia. However, in order to compare with the historical data, The Forestry Administration has adjusted the recent MRC/GTZ’s data to be compatible for the analysis of long-term trends. The latest data produced by FRM may be unreliably estimated because the images utilized for interpretation were for the dry season, and it may be difficult to distinguish between woodland and shrubland, and deciduous forests. Hence, it may be an over-estimation of the total forest area.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) The indicator and the fact sheet should be updated on the latest or revised forest cover figures produced by the FRM.
70 71 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Percentage Forest Area over Total Land Area, 1965-2002
80
73.04 a 70 70.02 Are
65.29
Land 62.68 62.16 61.34 61.15 60 59.82 Total 58.6 %
50 1965 1976 1987 1993 1993 1997 2002 2005
Area with Tree Crown Cover >=10% Area with Tree Crown Cover >=20%
Table 1: Percentage Forest Area over Total Land Area, 1965-2002
Years Areas of Forest (ha) % 1965 13,227,100 73.04 1973/76 (FAO/UNDP) 12,711,100 70.02 1985/87 (FAO/UNDP) 11,852,400 65.29 Areas with tree crown cover >=10% 1992/93 (FAO/UNDP) 11,284,200 62.16 1992/93 (MRC/GTZ)* 11,378,664 62.68 1996/97 (MRC/GTZ)* 11,134,615 61.34 1992/93 (MRC/GTZ) 10,859,695 59.82 Areas with tree crown cover >=20% 1996/97 (MRC/GTZ) 10,638,209 58.60 2002 11,104,293 61.15 * (MRC/GTZ) including wood/shrubland evergreen and bamboo, but excluding plantation
70 71 Figure 2a: Percentage Forest Cover by Province – Cambodia 2002
100
90
80
70
Area 60
Land 50
40
Provincial 30 %
20
10
0 Preah Preah Stung Rattanak Koh Krati Oddar Kampong Krong Kampot Battambang Kampong Banteay Kampong K Take Svay Prey Phnom Mondul Kiri Krong Pursa Kampong Siem Krong anda e Kong o Veng Rien Reap t l Vihea Pailin Tren Preah Preah Ke Meanchey Penh Meanchey Kiri p g Cham Thom Speu Chhnan g r Sihanouk g
Figure 2b: Map of Percentage Forest Cover by Province – Cambodia 2002
72 73 Table 2: Percentage Forest Area by Province – 2002
Province Provincial Area (ha) Forested Area (ha) % Forest Area Preah Vihear 1,403,088 1,324,519 94.40 Mondul Kiri 1,366,892 1,234,694 90.32 Stung Treng 1,201,661 1,058,881 88.12 Rattanak Kiri 1,178,460 965,497 81.93 Krong Pailin 107,712 88,206 81.89 Koh Kong 1,211,595 970,643 80.11 Kratie 1,197,306 948,683 79.23 Pursat 1,158,589 888,227 76.66 Oddar Meanchey 663,166 495,726 74.75 Kampong Speu 696,471 425,768 61.13 Krong Preah Sihanouk 149,205 85,380 57.22 Kampong Thom 1,244,764 640,199 51.43 Kampot 471,815 235,779 49.97 Battambang 1,187,210 585,534 49.32 Siem Reap 1,054,450 519,671 49.28 Kampong Chhnang 529,462 212,474 40.13 Banteay Meanchey 614,818 154,521 25.13 Krong Kep 15,174 3,238 21.33 Kampong Cham 948,297 181,866 19.17 Kandal 356,372 31,239 8.76 Takeo 349,042 29,711 8.51 Svay Rieng 286,824 12,066 4.21 Prey Veng 476,159 9,384 1.97 Phnom Penh 37,374 0 0.00 Total - Cambodia 18,160,677 11,104,291 61.15 Note: This table excludes Tonle Sap Lake ( area equal 254,770 ha.) Source: Cambodia Forestry Administration
Figure 3: Forest Condition – 2002 – Based on Forest Administration Estimates
Evergreen Forest , 20.5%
Non-forest Land, 38.9% Semi-evergreen Forest, 8.0%
Other Forest, Deciduous 6.0% Forest, 26.6%
72 73 Table 3: Forest Condition – 2002 – based on Forest Administration Estimates
Forest Types Area (000ha) Percentage Evergreen Forest 3,720.50 20.5 Semi-evergreen forest 1,455.20 8.0 Deciduous forest 4,833.90 26.6 Other forest 1,094.70 6.0 Total forest land 11,104.30 61.1 Non-forest land 7,056.40 38.9 Total 18,160.70 100 Source: Cambodia Forestry Administration
Table 4: Comparative Forest Cover in GMS Countries
Year of % Forest Country Trend Target Assessment Cover Cambodia 2002 61.0 Signs of leveling after 30- Maintain 60% through to year decline 2015 Lao PDR 2002 41.5 Down from 49.1% in 1982 70 % by year 2020 Myanmar 1998 52.0 Down from 61% in 1975 Not less than 35% Thailand 2000 33.2 Increased from 25.8% in 50% by year 2016 1998 Viet Nam 2002 36.1 Increased from 28% in mid 39% by 2005 and 44% by 1990s 2010 Yunnan 2003 50.0 Substantial improvement 48% by 2005 from 28% in 1960 Source: Findings of the SEF-II Project
74 75 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������The purpose of the indicator is to show the area covered by the forest formations of a region or country over time. 2. Relevance to Environmental Planning and Management: ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Forests provide many significant resources and functions such as wood products, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitats, water and soil conservation, and a filter for pollutants. They support employment and traditional uses, and biodiversity. There is general concern over human impact on forest health, and the natural processes of forest growth and regeneration. Combating deforestation to preserve soils, water, air and biological diversity is explicitly stated in the United Nations (UN)’s Agenda 21. ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������The forest area is not directly related to sustainable or unsustainable development. However, a continuing and fast decreasing forest area might be an alarm signal of unsustainable practices in the forestry and agricultural sector. A change in the forested area over time can be negative showing a loss of forest area or positive showing an increase . The availability of accurate data on forest area, which is a basic characteristic of forest resources, is an essential requirement for forest policy and planning within the context of environment planning and management. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator may also serve as an indicator of forest habitat loss as a threat to biodiversity.. 4. Targets: ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������While most other GMS countries have set a target to increase the percentage of forest cover (see Table 4), the target of Cambodia is to maintain a 60% level from 2000 to 2015. 5. International Environment Treaties: �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Cambodia is party to the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which aims to “integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources” (Goal 7, Target 9). The Indicator 25 of the UN also utilizes “forest land area as a percentage of land area”, according to FAO definition of forest land, with the expectation that there will be no further loss from the 2000 levels until 2015. Hence, for Cambodia, this was translated to the maintenance of a 60% forest cover until 2015. 6. Laws None applicable to this indicator.
B. Analysis ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Figure 1 and Table 1 illustrate the trend in percentage forest cover during 1965-2002, using different but consistent definitions of “forest area” based on crown cover. The first set of estimates is based on a 10% crown cover; the second set of estimates is based on a more conservative criterion of 20% crown cover. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������The earlier estimates provided by FAO and based on a 10% crown cover (for 1965, 1976, 1987 and 1993) show a steady decline from 73% in 1965 to 62% in 1993. The annual average loss was approximately 0.4% during the 28-year period. Using the same 10% crown cover criterion and adjusting the MRC/GTZ to include shrub-land and bamboo areas and excluding plantation area, the downward trend can be extrapolated to approximately 61% in 1997. �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������The second set of estimates is based on a 20% crown cover, starting with the 1993 and 1997 data provided by MRC/GTZ. The downward trend, at a comparable rate of 0.3% per annum, is evident as the forest cover declines from 59.8% (in 1993) to 58.6% (in 1997). At this rate, Cambodia may fall short of its 60% target throughout the period of 2000 and 2015, regardless of the criteria used to define forest area.
74 75 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������The latest estimation of forest area provided by FRM in 2002, using the 20% crown cover criterion, suggests that the trend has been reversed and that the forest area has increased by 2.55%, from 1997 to 2002 , to 61.15% of the total land area. If this recent trend can be maintained, Cambodia should be able to maintain a 60% forest cover until 2015. �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Table 2 and Figures 2a and 2b illustrate the variation in percentages of forest cover throughout the 24 provinces, based on the 2002 FRM estimates. As indicated in Figure 2a, forest cover ranges from 94% in Preah Vihear Province to less than 2% in Prey Veng Province. There are also regional variations from the North to the South and from the East to the West, as illustrated in Figure 2b. These provincial and regional variations in forest cover may be of interest when evaluating government responses to forest resource priority concerns. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������As noted earlier, percentage forest cover is not indicative of forest condition and while overall forest cover may have increased, the volume of standing timber may have actually decreased, or vice versa. Data to estimated timber volume are not available for Cambodia as a whole, and such estimates may never be made available in the future. As an alternative indicator of forest condition, Table 3 illustrates the current forest condition based on broad categories of forest cover as reported in the Forest Administration monitoring survey (2002). ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Table 4 shows a comparison of the current forest cover of Cambodia with that of other GMS countries. It is observed that Cambodia’s forest cover is the highest (61%) amongst all GMS countries, followed by Myanmar (52%) and Yunnan province (50%). However, this comparison with other GMS countries may not be appropriate for the purpose of rating the indicator results. Different countries have different targets of percentage forest cover, normally based on the topographic characteristics of the country and no country is aiming for 100% forest cover. ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������The 60% target figure set for Cambodia is assumed to be appropriate. Based on this target and the trend observed in Figure 1, it is concluded the state of forest resources in Cambodia, based solely on percentage forest cover, is relatively good and stabilizing.
76 77 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Forest Concession Area – 1994 to 2002
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Pressure
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) What effects are forest concessions having on forest resource?
Priority Concern Forest Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
Magnitude & Trend Non-Comparable and Decreasing
Key Message At its peak in 1998, more than half of the remaining forest area in Cambodia was managed by forest concession holders under the Government’s oversight. Since 1998 the area under concessions has been reduced from 6.5 to 3.8 million ha. The remaining forest concessionaires are subject to stricter government control. However, forest areas continue to decline in both existing and cancelled concession areas.
76 77 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track the amount of forest area under concession; it is expressed as the number of hectares assigned to forest concessionaire on an annual basis.
B. Data Source Areas under concession data are extracted from a book “Cambodia: Forestry Statistics to 2002” published by Statistic Section, Planning and Accounting Office, Department of Forest and Wildlife, May 2003 and printing supported by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The legal status of forest areas are extracted from “Trend in Land Cover Changes Detection between 1996/97 and 2002” published by Forestry Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, September 2003.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage Although figures were available by individual concession areas, they have been summarized for the whole country..
D. Temporal Coverage Figures for forest concessions were available only for the period of 1994 to 2002. The figures for 1994-1998 were unclear where forest concessions were cancelled in 1999 and the date of initial approval was not specified. For this period, a range of estimated values are given.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage The Forestry Administration (FA) maintains data on forest concession areas and will be the probable source for future information on concession areas. Likewise, the Forestry Administration will probably conduct the future forest cover assessments.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The original data were recorded by forest concessionaire showing the area in hectares along with the dates of approval and cancellation. Annual totals, or range of annual totals, were calculated by adding the total area across all concessionaires. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION G. Strength and Weakness (data level) The number of hectares under concession is seen as having a negative impact on the overall forest resources, as evidenced by the government attempting to reduce the number of forest area under concession since the peak period in 1998.
H. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) FA had some reservation in making its data public prior to 1998 and only those in the published reports were available for this indicator development. More precise figures may enhance this indicator, but it may not change the observed trends.
I. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) Since the 2003 target has been met, this indicator may no longer be of value for future performance assessments.
78 79 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Trends in Forest Concession Area – 1994-2002
8,000
s 7,000 6,000 5,000 Hectare
of 4,000 3,000 2,000
Thousands 1,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
High Estimate Low Estimate Concession Area Target
Table 1: Annual Area Under Concession – 1994-2002
Year Areas (ha) 1994 3,767,552—766,082 1995 3,767,552—766,082 1996 5,298,938—2,297,468 1997 5,298,938—2,297,468 1998 6,875,498 1999 4,702,452 2000 4,362,728 2001 4,362,728 2002 3,874,028 Source: Department of Forest and Wildlife
Table 2: Percentage Forest Cover Change in Concession Areas – 1996-2002
% of total foresta 1996/97 (ha) 2002 (ha) 1996/97 2002 Concession areas 3,335,232 3,346,453 30.49 30.13 Canceled concession 2,095,311 2,072,157 19.15 18.66 Source: Trends in Land Cover Changes Detection between 1996/97-2002
78 79 Table 3: Evergreen and Semi-Evergreen Forests
Evergreen and semi-evergreen forests % of total %Evolution Total area (ha) 2002 area (ha) area 1996/97-2002 In existing forest 3,760,000 2,060,000 54.7 9.2 concessions In cancelled forest 2,600,000 827,000 31.7 8.2 concessions Source: Trends in Land Cover Changes Detection between 1996/97-2002
80 81 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to track the total forest area under concession which is perceived as having a negative impact on the sustainable use of forest resources in Cambodia. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Forest concession areas may or may not be perceived as detrimental to forest resources, depending on sustainable use. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator may have linkages to other forest resource indicators such as a percentage forest cover and protected forest area. 4. Targets: The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has set the target to reduce the number of forest concessions from 30, covering 6.5 million ha in 1997 to 12 concessions, covering 3.8 million ha by 2003. The remaining operating forest concessionaires have been required to develop forest concession management plans. 5. International Environment Treaties: On 31 December 1996, the RGC imposed a ban on all exports of logs. On 29 April 1997, RGC issued the Decision No. 17 on timber exports , signed by the co-Prime Ministers, which specified what comprised legal and illegal exports. On 26 December 1996, the RGC wrote to the Prime Ministers of Thailand, Lao PDR and Viet Nam to ask for their cooperation in enforcing the export ban and received assurances that such cooperation would be forthcoming. In July 1997, the Thai National Security Council (NSC) issued Policy Guidelines on timber imports from Cambodia stating that Thailand will comply with the Decision No. 17. On 25 July 1997 the Thai NSC issued the document no. 0509/2532, its ‘Policy and Practice Guidelines on Timber Trade with Cambodia’. In brief, this document stated that Thailand would comply with the RGC’s Decision No. 17 regarding timber exports, and collaborate closely with Cambodia to ensure transparency and clarity of the export operations. On 31 January 1997, in response to the RGC 31 December 1996 export ban and the co-Prime Ministers request for cooperation, the Vietnamese Government stated: “Vietnam firmly respects Cambodia’s [forestry] policy....and has advised all provinces and competent authorities to carry out the Vietnamese Prime Minister’s order to ban logging exports from Cambodia on 31 December 1996”. (Cambodia’s Future on the Move, Global Witness, March 1998 http://www.globalwitness.org/ campaigns/forests/cambodia/goingplaces/policy.htm)
B. Analysis It can be observed in Figure 1 and Table 1 that the forest area under concession rose steadily from 1994 and peaked in 1998 to a total land area approaching 7 million ha. Based on more recent figures of concession areas and forest cover (see Table 2), this may well have been in excess of 50% of the total forest area in 1998. Since 1999, a substantial number of forest concessions have been cancelled and the rate of decline has continued to be marginally below the 2003 target of 3.8 million ha. Under 2002 forest cover conditions, this represents approximately 30% of the total forest area.
80 81 It is interesting to note that during the period of 1996-2002, overall forest cover decreased in both the concession areas and in the cancelled concession areas (see Table 2). In terms of forest condition (see Table 3), evergreen and semi-evergreen forests, which are recognized internationally as areas of ecological importance, follow the same decreasing trend. Although the issuance and cancellation of concession areas is probably part of the history of managing forest resources in other GMS countries, a similar indicator to monitor pressure on forest resources has not been constructed. Comparative figures for countries outside the GMS are also difficult to obtain, therefore the final conclusion is that the magnitude of the pressure is non- comparable. However, based on the trend of the indicator and the decrease in the overall area of concession forest, it is obvious that the pressure has been decreasing over the time span of the indicator.
82 83 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Reforested Areas – 1985 to 2002
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) What have been the impacts of reforestation programs on the overall forest cover in Cambodia?
Priority Concern Forest Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
Impact & Trend Low and Sporadic
Key Message While reforestation programs may play a positive role in small well-defined small areas especially within vulnerable watersheds, the overall impact of re-forestation programs on forest cover has been insignificant. From 1985 to 2002, about 10,000 ha have been replanted but this figure represents less than 0.1 % of the total land area.
82 83 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator tracks the area of forest re-plantation over time. It is expressed as the percentage of total re-plantation area over total land area.
B. Data Source Forest plantation data are extracted from statistic book “Cambodia: Forestry Statistics to 2002” published by Statistic Section, Planning and Accounting Office, Department of Forest and Wildlife, May 2003 and printing supported by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage Figures are given for the country as a whole and also differentiated by provinces.
D. Temporal Coverage Total areas of forest plantation are calculated in the period 1985 to 2002.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage Forestry Administration records data annually from different tree planting stations, provincial departments and other organization. Final draft figures for 2003 and 2004 were not yet approved in time for preparation of this fact sheet.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The original data were recorded according to the specific locations of tree planting stations, forest plantation by provinces and other organizations and arbor day tree plantation activities in the entire country. They have been recalculated by province for purposes of this fact sheet. Original figures for re-plantation area were obtained in hectares by province. For convenience and to show the impact in certain provinces, these have been expressed in terms of total provincial area. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The area of forest plantation is indicative of the amount of forest that is planted in the provincial lands. It is also indicative of whether the forests are planted in appropriate locations, which is the response to forest distribution in the country. Furthermore, they are indicative of the response of the reforested areas to replace the forest loss if the proportion of deforestation is low. This indicator attempts to capture the output of all government re-plantation programs and re-greening activities by governments and NGO’s and to measure their impact on the overall percentage forest cover of the country.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) The forest plantation statistics recorded from different Forestry Administrations’ tree planting stations is reliable, because the trees are maintained after re-plantation. Statistics recorded from provinces, other organizations and arbor day tree plantation activities are less indicative, because the re-planted trees receive less maintenance.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) Forestry Administration records data annually from different tree planting stations, provincial departments and other organization. Final draft figures for 2003 and 2004 should be added once approved.
84 85 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Percentage of Reforested Area by Total Land Area – 1985-2002
10,000 0.06 9,000 8,000 0.05 7,000 0.04
s 6,000 Area 5,000 0.03
4,000 Land Hectare 0.02 3,000 % 2,000 0.01 1,000 0 0.00 g i k t t u p g o g p g e y g g Kir Ke Penh Spe Thom Rea Cham Pailin Kon Tren Krati Take hhnan Vihear Pursa Kandal Kampo C Sihanou Cambodia Koh Siem Ven Prey Krong Mondul Kiri – Svay Rien Svay Krong Battamban Stung Phnom Rattanak Preah Kampong Preah Kampong Kampong Total Oddar Meanchey Oddar Kampong Banteay Meanche Banteay Krong
Table 1: Reforested Land Area by Province, 1985-2002
Land Area Forest Area Reforested Area % Land Area Province (ha) 2002 (ha) (Ha) reforested Preah Vihear 1,403,088 1,324,519 0 0.0000% Mondul Kiri 1,366,892 1,234,694 50 0.0003% Stung Treng 1,201,661 1,058,881 0 0.0000% Rattanak Kiri 1,178,460 965,497 0 0.0000% Krong Pailin 107,712 88,206 0 0.0000% Koh Kong 1,211,595 970,643 0 0.0000% Kratie 1,197,306 948,683 0 0.0000% Pursat 1,158,589 888,227 159 0.0009% Oddar Meanchey 663,166 495,726 0 0.0000% Kampong Speu 696,471 425,768 433 0.0024% Krong Preah Sihanouk 149,205 85,380 630 0.0035% Kampong Thom 1,244,764 640,199 0 0.0000% Kampot 471,815 235,779 427 0.0024% Battambang 1,187,210 585,534 56 0.0003% Siem Reap ,054,450 519,671 726 0.0040% Kampong Chhnang 529,462 212,474 1,439 0.0079% Banteay Meanchey 614,818 154,521 40 0.0002% Krong Kep 15,174 3,238 0 0.0000% Kampong Cham 948,297 181,866 554 0.0031% Kandal 356,372 31,239 269 0.0015% Takeo 349,042 29,711 1,956 0.0108% Svay Rieng 286,824 12,066 2,227 0.0123% Prey Veng 476,159 9,384 981 0.0054% Phnom Penh 37,374 0 34 0.0002% Total – Cambodia 18,160,677 11,101,906 9981 0.0550%
84 85 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: This indicator measures the coverage of reforestation in various programs implemented by several agencies. It is understood that the higher the reforestation area is, the better the performance of the country in rehabilitating forests and increasing forest cover. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Reforestation programs also contribute to restoring degraded areas, protecting watersheds and re-greening urban and rural living areas. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator will have some relevance to indicators that attempt to track percentage forest cover. 4. Targets: No specific targets have been set. 5. International Environment Treaties: None applicable.
B. Analysis As can be observed from Figure 1 and Table 1, significant re-forestation has been attempted in Svay Rieng and Takeo Provinces where forest cover was already depleted but these reforestation programs have a small impact on increasing the overall forest cover of these two provinces. For the whole country, although a total area of approximately 10,000 ha has been reforested, this also has a small impact on increasing the overall forest cover, which, was estimated at 1.1 million ha in 2002. Based on this comparison with the extent of the current forest area and the trends observed in the indicator value, it is concluded that the impact of re-forestation programs on improving the overall forest cover has been low and sporadic. Regardless of the rating, the importance of re- forestation on re-greening specific areas and protecting vulnerable watersheds is recognized.
86 87 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Protected Forest as a Percentage of Total Land Area 1993-2002
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) What impact is the Cambodian system of protected areas having on the protection of forest resources?
Priority Concern Forest Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
Impact & Trend Non-Comparable and Sporadic
Key Message Protected forests have a significant impact on protecting biodiversity, watersheds and maintaining forest cover. During the period 1993 to 2002, forest area under protection increased to 4.2 million ha, from 15% to 23.5% of the total land area. This increase is a result of two discrete actions by the Government rather than reflecting a steady and sustained trend in government-led protection efforts.
86 87 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track the amount of forest area which is classified under the system of protected areas and the system of protected forests that includes: national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, protected landscape, multiple use areas and protected forests. The end result is expressed as a percentage of total land area. Forest area, as tracked by a separate indicator fact sheet, includes the area of natural and plantation forests, as well as the area of degraded forest, shrubland and bamboo forest.
B. Data Source The official area of protected areas and protected forest areas including their dates of approval are extracted from the report on Cambodian Forest Cover Resources, published by the Forest Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in January 2004. The protected areas were approved by the Royal Decree on 1 November 1993 and the protected forest was approved by different criteria, Royal Decree, Sub-decree and Declaration (Prakas) from 1996 to 2002. The Geographic Information system (GIS) dataset of protected areas used for the development of this indicator originates from the Department of Natural Resources Assessment and Environmental Data Management, Ministry of Environment (MoE). The GIS dataset of protected forest areas and 2002 forest cover used for the development of this indicator originates from the Forestry Administration (FA), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The GIS dataset of forest cover between 1992-1993 and 1996-1997 was from the Mekong River Commission Secretariat and German Technical Assistance (MRC/GTZ).
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage Data are representative of all protected areas and protected forest for the entire country.
D. Temporal Coverage The figure of percentage of forest under protection is based on a land cover mapping by FA which represents ground conditions in 2002, under the assumption that the forest cover would not have changed much since the bulk of the protected areas were established in 1993 or as new protected area/forest were added up to and including 2002.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage While the protected areas were established in 1993, some may have been expanded. The spatial extent of protected areas are being continuously maintained by the Department of Natural Resources Assessment and Environmental Data Management, MoE, and the spatial extent of protected forest areas are continuously maintained by FA. The assessment of forest cover is periodically performed by FA. Using the same GIS methodology described in this fact sheet, subsequent updates for this indicator can be derived when a new forest cover assessment is made, or based on the 2002 forest cover, when new protected areas or protected forest areas are added.
88 89 F. Methodology of Data Manipulation A GIS “overlay” was performed between the digital dataset of protected areas/forest and the digital dataset of 2002 land cover. The result of this GIS procedure is a table of forest area within each of the individual protected areas. This resulting forest area was then expressed as a percentage of the total land area for the individual protected area which in turn may or may not have been consistent with the official area figure for the protected area. This percentage figure (of forest cover) was then applied to the official area of the protected area and the results were tallied across all protected areas, using the date of decree of the protected area as the time element of the final indicator value. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The indicator is very similar to a United Nations (UN) recommended indicator, which is expressed as a percentage of total forest area. This UN indicator was considered but after further analysis it was concluded that the UN indicator is too sensitive to the situation outside the protected forest area. For example, if everything remains stable within the protected forest area and the remainder of the forest area is reduced, the indicator value will artificially rise. Expressing the result as a percentage of total land area overcomes this weakness and the results can better be related to the state indicator, that is also based on total land area of the country. Nevertheless, the computation is simple and the results are actually shown in this fact sheet using both denominators. The true indicator however is based on total land area. At the data level, the indicator is ideally suited because digital datasets of protected areas are continuously maintained and land cover mappings are available from time to time, usually as a result of a periodic forest cover assessment.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) The indicator value and the results are only as good as the digital datasets of protected areas and land cover represents the actual reality. The differences in the area of protected areas between the digital datasets and the official figures have not been recorded and this aspect is very sensitive to the scale and accuracy of the datasets utilized.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) There is no need to update this fact sheet and indicator on an annual basis and the indicator, as currently designed, need only be updated if new protected areas are added, or if gross errors are detected in the digital dataset of protected areas. If the aerial extent of the protected areas remains static over the next decade or so, and remembering that the protected areas are multiple use areas, the indicator could also be utilized to monitor the progress on forest protection within these protected areas. This would require further GIS overlays with future land cover mappings, hoping that the changes detected are not a result of improvements in the digital protected areas dataset, or differences between the different forest cover mappings.
88 89 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Protected Forest as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1993-2002
24 23 22
area 21
land 20
of 19 18 17 Percents 16 15 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Table 1: Total Forest Area 1992/93, 1996/97 and 2002 and Forest Area Under Protection in 2002
2002 Forest Area Protected Forest as a Year Total Forest Area (ha) Under Protection (ha) Percentage of Total Land Area 1993 11,284,200 2,827,766 15.62 1996 10,638,209 2,829,945 15.63 1998 2,833,796 15.65 2000 2,834,826 15.66 2001 3,020,926 16.69 2002 11,104,293 4,233,963 23.39 Notes: - The total forest area for 1993, 1996 and 2002 are originally extracted from “Cambodian Forest Cover Resources 2004, FA, MAFF”. - The calculation of forest area under protection and its percentages are based on GIS layers of land cover 2002 matched by the protected area under official approval dates. - Percentage of forest cover is estimated within the total country’s land area of 18,103,500 ha. Source: Forestry Administration, MAFF and Department of Natural Resources Assessment and Environmental Data Management, MoE.
Figure 2: Map of Protected Areas in Cambodia
90 91 Table 2: Percentage of Forest Cover by Protected Areas – 2002
Forest Area 2002 % Forest Area in Name Date of Approval (ha) total land area Multiple Use Tonle Sap 1-Nov-93 195,761 1.08 Samlaut 1-Nov-93 55,228 0.31 Dong Peng 1-Nov-93 14,214 0.08 Sub-Total in Multiple Use 265,203 1.46 National Park Virachey 1-Nov-93 329,157 1.82 Phnom Kulen 1-Nov-93 33,557 0.19 Botum Sakor 1-Nov-93 132,356 0.73 Kirirom 1-Nov-93 28,061 0.16 Phnom Bokor 1-Nov-93 132,742 0.73 Ream 1-Nov-93 12,887 0.07 Kep 1-Nov-93 1,071 0.01 Sub-Total in National Park 669,831 3.7 Protected Landscape Preah Vihear 1-Nov-93 3,555 0.02 Banteay Chhmar 1-Nov-93 53,669 0.3 Angkor 1-Nov-93 2,745 0.02 Subtotal in Protected Landscape 59,969 0.33 Wildlife Sanctuary Kulen Promtep 1-Nov-93 382,845 2.11 Roniem Daun Sam 1-Nov-93 92,744 0.51 Lomphat 1-Nov-93 220,284 1.22 Beng Per 1-Nov-93 229,069 1.27 Phnom Prich 1-Nov-93 206,781 1.14 Phnom Namlyr 1-Nov-93 47,864 0.26 Phnom Samkos 1-Nov-93 323,668 1.79 Aural 1-Nov-93 248,741 1.37 Snuol 1-Nov-93 64,294 0.36 Peam Krasop 1-Nov-93 16,475 0.09 Subtotal in Wildlife Sanctuary 1,832,763 10.12 Additional Area of Tonle Sap Bio- 18-Apr-01 186,100 1.03 sphere Reserve, Transition Zone Protected Forest Phnom Tamao Zoo 22-May-96 2,179 0.01 Prek Teouk Sap 29-Oct-98 3,851 0.02 Ang Trapang Thmar 22-Feb-00 1,030 0.01 Mondul Kiri 30-Jul-02 392,463 2.17 Preah Vihear 30-Jul-02 185,503 1.02 Centre Cademon Mountain 30-Jul-02 370,716 2.05 Seima, Snuol 12-Aug-02 264,354 1.46 Sub-Total in Protected Forest 1,220,096 6.74 Total Forest Areas under protection 4,233,963 23.39 Notes: - Protected areas and protected forest names and their date approval originate from MoE, and FA, MAFF. - The forest area within protected areas/forest is calculated using GIS datasets based on Land Cover 2002. - Percentage of forest cover is estimated within the total country’s land area of 18,103,500 ha.
90 91 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: This indicator measures the part of the forest area which has been delineated for protection purposes. It is understood that the higher the percentage of the indicator, the better the performance of the country in protecting and conserving its forest resources. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Forests serve multiple ecological, socio-economic, and cultural roles in many countries. They are among the most diverse and widespread ecosystems of the world. Forests provide many significant resources and functions including: wood products, recreational opportunities, habitat for wildlife, water and soil conservation, and a filter for pollutants. They support employment and traditional uses, and biodiversity. There is general concern over human impact on forest health, and the natural processes of forest growth and regeneration. Combating deforestation to preserve soils, water, air and biological diversity is explicitly considered in Agenda 21. This indicator measures societal response to protect biodiversity and landscapes through the creation of representative reserves of various forest ecosystems. It represents only one element of a sound forest conservation policy aimed at sustainable development. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to others which relate to natural resource use and management. Closely associated indicators would include: protected area percentage of total land area, wood harvesting intensity, forest area, land use change, and threatened species. It is also linked to such socioeconomic and institutional indicators as population density and ratification of international agreements. 4. Targets: The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has established a target indirectly related to this indicator to maintain the surface of 23 protected areas at the 1993 level of 3.3 million ha through 2015 and the surface of 6 new forest protected areas at the present level of 1.35 million ha through 2015 (CDMG, 2003). 5. International Environment Treaties: Many international agreements deal with forests within the context of natural resources and environment conservation, for example Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention), Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Climate Change, Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Cambodia signed the CITES convention in December 1975, but did not adhere to it until 1999. In 1996, Cambodia’s National Assembly approved a ministerial request to accede to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention), and in 1999 became a Contracting Party to the Convention. On 9 February 1995, Cambodia ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Cambodia ratified the Convention on Climate Change on 18 December 1995. Cambodia also became a signatory to the ASEAN Agreement on The Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in April 1999.
92 93 B. Analysis In Cambodia, part of the total forest area is protected under both systems of protected areas and protected forest. As summarized in Figure 1 and Table 1, the 23 protected areas established in 1993 by the Royal Decree included 2.8 million ha of forest area, which corresponds to approximately 15% of the total land area of 18,103,500 ha. These 23 individual protected areas included 1.8 million ha of forest under Wildlife Sanctuaries, 0.7 million ha of forest under National Parks, 0.3 million ha of forest under the Multiple Use Protected Areas and 0.06 million ha of forest under the Protected Landscapes. In 2001, the Tonle Sap Multiple Use Area was nominated as a Biosphere Reserve and its transition zone increased the forest area under protection by 0.2 million ha. Additionally, the protected forest system is undertaken by Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has been established since 1996 and continuously included approximately 1.2 million ha until 2002. Totally, 4.2 million ha of forest areas (23.4%) were under protection in 2002 (see Table 1). From Figure 1 and Table 1, it can be observed that the percentage of forest area within protected areas remained constant from 1993 to 2000 at approximately 16% of total land area. Since 2001, the Tonle Sap Multiple-Use Area has been nominated as the Biosphere Reserve and some protected forest was established in 2002, therefore, forest area under protection has increased to 17% in 2001and 23% in 2002.
92 93 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Threatened Species as a Percentage of Globally Threatened Species -1996 to 2004
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator STATE
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) What share of globally threatened wildlife species have range within Cambodia?
Priority Concern Threats to Biodiversity
Geographic Area Cambodia
State & Trend Relatively Good with Undetermined Trend
Key Message As of the latest 2004 assessment, Cambodia could be providing sanctuary to approximately 1.6% of the globally threatened species. This percentage is relatively low when compared to other GMS countries where the average is around 3%. The main focus should be on some 10 individual species where the responsibility for the conservation of the species is shared with either Viet Nam or Thailand.
94 95 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator tracks the number of globally threatened species in Cambodia over time. It is expressed as the percentage of the number of threatened species at the national level over the number of threatened species at the global level. Threatened species are those defined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered in the “Red List of Threatened Species”. Extinct and lower risk species (conservation dependent, near threatened or least concern) were not included in this indicator. Species under consideration include mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish; plant and insect species, for which the process of evaluation has only just begun, are excluded from the indicator figures. Sub-indicator values are also given for mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish species. For more information on the criteria utilized to classify threatened species as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable, see the “Categories & Criteria” at www.redlist.org. For more information on the species habitat definitions utilized in the IUCN Red List, see the Major Habitats Authority File at www.redlist.org. For more information on the major threats definition utilized in the IUCN Red List, see the Major Threats Authority File at www.rdlist.org.
B. Data Source All data utilized to construct this indicator were extracted from the IUCN Red List on the Internet (see www.redlist.org), in early 2005 and based on the 2004 online version of the IUCN Red List.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage Figures are representative of the country as a whole and are not differentiated by any other spatial sub-category. The indicator value is computed for the total number of threatened mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish species; sub-indicator values are also given for each later category of species.
D. Temporal Coverage Figures correspond to the contents of the 1996, 1998 (plants only), 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 IUCN Red Books.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage The IUCN Red List is continuously updated and the equivalent of the paper IUCN Red Book is being produced on an annual basis. The IUCN online Red List (see www.redlist.org) will be the most probable source for updating this indicator in the future.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation All the figures given in this fact sheet were either extracted from the online IUCN Red List database, through successive search criteria, or computed from the results of such searches. The search criterion for the online IUCN Red List is flexible; the flexibility also adds to the complexity. Two forms of search are available: simple search or expert search. For the compilation of this fact sheet, only the simple search menu was used since the expert search menu did not offer any added advantage.
94 95 Except for plants which are not part of the indicator definition, all searches were made against the entire database using an exact phrase search for keyword “Mammals” or “Birds” or “Reptiles” or “Amphibians” or “Fish”. For plants, the search was made against the taxonomy database using the “Plantae” keyword. For plants, using a keyword of “plants” against the entire database resulted in fewer hits. Likewise, keywords of “mammalia”, “aves”, “reptilia”, etc. against the taxonomy database may lead to unpredictable results. For the purpose of reporting progress to date in the evaluation of potential threatened species (see Table 2), the Red List category of “All Evaluated (excluding Least Concern)” was utilized to report the number of evaluated species. For the purpose of reporting the overall number of threatened species, a multiple selection of “CR-Critically Endangered” + “EN-Endangered” + “VU–Vulnerable” categories were selected. For the reporting of threatened species by Red List over time, multiple queries were conducted, with the above screening criteria and with the Red List assessment year criteria added. For the purpose of reporting threatened species by major habitat type or by major threat, the above threatened species criteria were applied against all years of the Red List year of assessment with the 1st level definition of the habitat or threat as additional search criteria. The calculation of ratios or percentages related to the downloaded figures should be obvious from the contents of the data tables. It is noted however that the percentage figure associated with the main indicator is based on the cumulative number of species added to the Red List, since 1996, and not just the annual figure. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The IUCN Red Books, or the IUCN online Red List, is a relatively new instrument to measure the degree of biodiversity loss of a particular country or region. It was initiated in 1996 without plant species, updated with only plant species in 1998, updated in 2000 but not in 2001, and it is only since year 2002 that it shows some degree of completeness and annual updating. This will improve in the next few years but the temporal trends which can be observed to 2004 are largely based on the level of effort that IUCN biologists have placed on certain species groups in certain years. The IUCN Red List is nevertheless the best source of consistent information of threatened species. For reasons stated above, the absolute number of threatened species that is placed on the Red List on an annual basis is not very indicative of the trends of biodiversity loss in a particular country or region. A cumulative number might be more indicative but the indicator demands a denominator so that the result can be compared with other countries or regions, and so that the indicator value is less biased by the progress of the work of the IUCN biologists. The annual ratio of (new) threatened species over the number of evaluated species was considered (see Table 2) but once again this indicator would be biased by the progress of the individual species assessments. Other denominators were considered, such as the annual number of threatened species over the cumulative number of threatened species for a particular country or region, but the number of globally threatened species, or the number of known threatened species to date, was finally selected as the denominator. The number of globally threatened species as the denominator provides a neutral denominator for the purpose of comparing one country or region to the other; it is also self-adjusting in terms of the progress that IUCN is having in terms of identifying and mapping the (country) range of all threatened species. IUCN provides these totals including the 2004 assessment year in the statistics section of their homepage (see www.redlist.org).
96 97 The indicator value, somewhat representing the global responsibility that the specific country or region has to protect the enumerated species at the start of the assessment, may appear extreme at the start of the assessment period but may well be reduced as assessments for other countries or continents, for related species or species groups, continues. In other cases, it may increase as the assessment regime approaches non-evaluated species in the biome of specific countries or regions. The selected indicator value and denominator is far from being perfect, but at the time of this initial assessment it appears to be the one best suited (given the room for improvement as discussed in one of the following sub-sections). The main weakness of the indicator (as discussed in the Future Work Required section below, is that is does not give added weight to the threatened species that are endemic to the country or region being considered, or to the lesser concern for species that are globally threatened but abundant in one specific country or region.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) As with all indicators that attempt to track environmental phenomena over time, this indicator is subject to much international debate and peer review with respect to choice of indicator (based on data availability), reliability, accuracy, robustness and uncertainty. The reliability of the indicator, especially its denominator, is very much hinged on the future success of IUCN in developing a true global perspective database on threatened species. The accuracy (of IUCN) is not questioned and the future use of the indicator (given IUCN’s future perspective) appears quite robust. As with all other indicators which attempt to reduce a complex phenomenon into a single variable, there is some level of uncertainty as to the appropriate (future) use of the indicator as new information sources emerge. One note is inserted here with respect to uncertainty and the targeting of one threatened species to a specific country. The IUCN online database sometimes targets one threatened species to a country with an implied level (a question (?) mark) of uncertainty. For the purpose of this indicator development and, limited by the IUCN Red List query capability, these questionable cases have been included with country or region-specific tabulations.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) The indicator value, with incremental annual figures, and especially the denominator, should be updated annually, provided IUCN provides such facility on an ongoing basis. It is expected the indicator value will converge to its intended purpose within less than half a decade, if not earlier. It is assumed that IUCN will provide updated global totals to serve as denominator in subsequent versions of this indicator As was previously mentioned above in the discussion on strengths and weaknesses of the indicator, the indicator could be improved, given time and Internet access resources, in giving added weight to threatened species which are endemic to the country or region of concern, and less weight to species which are threatened but which have a larger geographic range. The current online search facility is not ideal for this kind of tabulation (depends on manual count of enumerated countries), but such a tabulation and weight-ranking is not impossible.
96 97 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Threatened Species as Percent of Global Threatened Species – 1996-2004
s 6.0%
Specie 5.0%
4.0%
3.0% Threatened 2.0%
1.0% Globally
of 0.0%
% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish All Species
Table 1: Percentage of Threatened Species Over Global Threatened
Mammals Globally Threatened Nationally Threatened National/Global Assessment Year (cumulative number) (cumulative number) (%) 1996 1096 10 0.91 2000 1130 20 1.77 2002 1137 25 2.20 2003 1130 26 2.30 2004 1101 28 2.54 Birds Globally Threatened Nationally Threatened National/Global Assessment Year (cumulative number) (cumulative number) (%) 1996 1107 0 0.00 2000 1183 0 0.00 2002 1192 0 0.00 2003 1194 0 0.00 2004 1212 26 2.15 Reptiles Globally Threatened Nationally Threatened National/Global Assessment Year (cumulative number) (cumulative number) (%) 1996 253 2 0.79 2000 291 14 4.81 2002 293 14 4.78 2003 293 14 4.78 2004 304 15 4.93
98 99 Amphibians Globally Threatened Nationally Threatened National/Global Assessment Year (cumulative number) (cumulative number) (%) 1996 124 0 0.00 2000 146 0 0.00 2002 157 0 0.00 2003 157 0 0.00 2004 1770 3 0.17 Fish Globally Threatened Nationally Threatened National/Global Assessment Year (cumulative number) (cumulative number) (%) 1996 734 4 0.54 2000 752 8 1.06 2002 742 8 1.08 2003 750 11 1.47 2004 801 13 1.62 All Threatened Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians and Fish Globally Threatened Nationally Threatened National/Global Assessment Year (cumulative number) (cumulative number) (%) 1996 3314 16 0.48 2000 3502 42 1.20 2002 3521 47 1.33 2003 3524 51 1.45 2004 5188 85 1.64 Source: IUCN Red List 2004
Table 2: Species Evaluated and Threatened – 1996-2004
Mammals Evaluated Species Threatened Species Ratio Assessment Year (annual number) (annual number) (%) 1996 24 10 41.67 2000 13 10 76.92 2002 5 5 100.00 2003 1 1 100.00 2004 5 2 40.00 Birds Evaluated Species Threatened Species Ratio Assessment Year (annual number) (annual number) (%) 1996 0 0 2000 0 0 2002 0 0 2003 0 0 2004 46 26 56.52
98 99 Reptiles Evaluated Species Threatened Species Ratio Assessment Year (annual number) (annual number) (%) 1996 3 2 66.67 2000 13 12 92.31 2002 0 0 2003 0 0 2004 1 1 100.00 Amphibians Evaluated Species Threatened Species Ratio Assessment Year (annual number) (annual number) (%) 1996 0 0 2000 0 0 2002 0 0 2003 0 0 2004 3 3 100.00 Fish Evaluated Species Threatened Species Ratio Assessment Year (annual number) (annual number) (%) 1996 8 4 50.00 2000 17 4 23.53 2002 0 0 2003 8 3 37.50 2004 6 2 33.33 Plants Evaluated Species Threatened Species Ratio Assessment Year (annual number) (annual number) (%) 1996 66 30 45.45 2000 5 0 0.00 2002 0 0 2003 4 2 50.00 2004 0 0 Source: IUCN Red List 2004
100 101 Table 3: Threatened Species by Major Habitat Type – 2004
Citations Habitat Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Total % Forest 21 20 0 3 0 44 33.59 Wetlands 2 15 0 3 5 25 19.08 Artificial/Terrestrial 0 14 0 0 0 14 10.69 Grasslands 4 9 0 0 0 13 9.92 Shrubland 6 6 0 0 0 12 9.16 Sea 1 5 1 0 1 8 6.11 Coastlines 1 1 1 0 4 7 5.34 Savanna 4 2 0 0 0 6 4.58 Artificial/Aquatic 1 1 0 0 0 2 1.53 Rocky Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Caves and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Sub-Terrananean Habitats Desert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Introduced Vegetation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total Citations 40 73 2 6 10 131 100.00 Source: IUCN Red List – 2004
Table 4: Threatened Species by Major Threat Category
Citations Major Threat Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Total % Habitat Loss - Human 19 26 5 3 1 54 32.93 Induced Harvesting (hunting- 15 18 6 0 39 23.78 gathering) Human Disturbance 2 16 0 0 18 10.98 Pollution (affecting 2 12 0 1 1 16 9.76 habitat) Persecution 3 7 0 0 0 10 6.10 Changes in native species 6 3 0 0 1 10 6.10 dynamics Accidental Mortality 2 1 1 0 3 7 4.27 Unknown 4 0 0 0 0 4 2.44 Intrinsic Factors 2 0 1 0 3 1.83 Invasive alien species 2 1 0 0 3 1.83 Natural Disasters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total Citations 57 84 13 4 6 164 100.00 Source: IUCN Red List – 2004
100 101 Table 5: List of Individual Threatened Species
Year Population Endemic Scientific Name Class Status Evaluated Trend Country GMS Bos frontalis Mammals 2000 Vulnerable Declining no No Bos javanicus Mammals 2000 Endangered Declining no No Bos sauveli Mammals 2000 Critically Declining no Yes Endangered Capricornis Mammals 1996 Vulnerable ? no No sumatraensis Catopuma Mammals 2002 Vulnerable Declining no No temminckii Cervus eldii Mammals 1996 Vulnerable no with India Cuon alpinus Mammals 2004 Endangered Declining no No Dicerorhinus suma- Mammals 1996 Critically ? no No trensis Endangered Dugong dugon Mammals 1996 Vulnerable no No Elephas maximus Mammals 1996 Endangered no No Hylobates pileatus Mammals 2000 Vulnerable ? no Yes Hylopetes alboniger Mammals 1996 Endangered ? no no Lutrogale Mammals 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no perspicillata Macaca arctoides Mammals 2000 Vulnerable ? no no Macaca leonina Mammals 2000 Vulnerable ? no no Neofelis nebulosa Mammals 2002 Vulnerable Declining no no Nomascus Mammals 2000 Vulnerable ? no yes gabriellae Nycticebus Mammals 2000 Vulnerable ? no yes pygmaeus Panthera tigris Mammals 2002 Endangered Declining no no Pardofelis marmorata Mammals 2002 Vulnerable Declining no no Prionailurus viverrinus Mammals 2002 Vulnerable Declining no no Pseudonovibos spiralis Mammals 1996 Endangered ? with yes Viet Nam Pygathrix nemaeus Mammals 2000 Endangered ? no yes Pygathrix nigripes Mammals 2000 Endangered ? with yes Viet Nam Rattus sikkimensis Mammals 1996 Vulnerable no no Rhinoceros sondaicus Mammals 1996 Critically ? no no Endangered Tapirus indicus Mammals 2003 Vulnerable Declining no with Malaysia Ursus thibetanus Mammals 1996 ? no no Acrocephalus Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no tangorum Aquila clanga Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no
102 103 Year Population Endemic Scientific Name Class Status Evaluated Trend Country GMS Aquila heliaca Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no Arborophila cambo- Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining with yes diana Thailand Arborophila davidi Birds 2004 Endangered Declining with yes Viet Nam Cairina scutulata Birds 2004 Endangered Declining no no Columba punicea Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no Fregata andrewsi Birds 2004 Critically Declining no no Endangered Grus antigone Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no Gyps bengalensis Birds 2004 Critically Declining no no Endangered Gyps tenuirostris Birds 2004 Critically Declining no no Endangered Haliaeetus leucory- Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no phus Heliopais personata Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no Houbaropsis benga- Birds 2004 Endangered Declining no no lensis Leptoptilos dubius Birds 2004 Endangered Declining no no Leptoptilos javanicus Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no Mycteria cinerea Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no Oriolus mellianus Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no yes Pavo muticus Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no Pelecanus Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no philippensis Platalea minor Birds 2004 Endangered Declining no no Polyplectron germaini Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining with yes Viet Nam Pseudibis davisoni Birds 2004 Critically Declining no with Endangered Indonesia Rynchops albicollis Birds 2004 Vulnerable Declining no no Thaumatibis gigantea Birds 2004 Critically Declining no yes Endangered Tringa guttifer Birds 2004 Endangered Declining no no Crocodylus siamensis Reptiles 1996 Critically no no Endangered Eretmochelys Reptiles 1996 Critically no no imbricata Endangered Amyda cartilaginea Reptiles 2000 Vulnerable no no Batagur baska Reptiles 2000 Critically no no Endangered
102 103 Year Population Endemic Scientific Name Class Status Evaluated Trend Country GMS Cuora amboinensis Reptiles 2000 Vulnerable no no Cuora galbinifrons Reptiles 2000 Critically no yes Endangered Heosemys grandis Reptiles 2000 Vulnerable no with Malaysia Hieremys annandalii Reptiles 2000 Endangered no with Malaysia Indotestudo elongata Reptiles 2000 Endangered no no Malayemys subtrijuga Reptiles 2000 Vulnerable no with Indonesia Manouria emys Reptiles 2000 Endangered no no Manouria impressa Reptiles 2000 Vulnerable no with Malaysia Pelochelys cantorii Reptiles 2000 Endangered no no Siebenrockiella crassi- Reptiles 2000 Vulnerable no no collis Chelonia mydas Reptiles 2004 Endangered Declining no no Limnonectes tou- Amphib- 2004 Vulnerable Declining with yes manoffi ians Viet Nam Paa fasciculispina Amphib- 2004 Vulnerable Declining with yes ians Thailand Rhacophorus anna- Amphib- 2004 Vulnerable Declining with yes mensis ians Viet Nam Chela caeruleostig- Fish 1996 Critically with yes mata Endangered Thailand Probarbus jullieni Fish 1996 Endangered no with Malaysia Scleropages formosus Fish 1996 Endangered no no Tenualosa thibaudeaui Fish 1996 Endangered no yes Dasyatis laosensis Fish 2000 Endangered ? no yes Himantura oxyrhyncha Fish 2000 Endangered ? with yes Thailand Pristis zijsron Fish 2000 Endangered ? no no Rhincodon typus Fish 2000 Vulnerable Declining no no Aetomylaeus nichofii Fish 2003 Vulnerable Declining no no Pangasianodon gigas Fish 2003 Critically Declining no yes Endangered Stegostoma fasciatum Fish 2003 Vulnerable Declining no No Cheilinus undulatus Fish 2004 Endangered Declining no No Haliaeetus leucory- Fish 2004 Vulnerable no No phus Note: On Population Trend, where ? means uncertain or don’t know, while a blank indicates that this has not yet been assessed)
104 105 Summary Statistics – 2004 Number of Vulnerable Species 45 Number of Endangered Species 26 Number of Critically Endangered Species 14 Endemic to Cambodia 0 Endemic to Cambodia plus one other country 10 Endemic to GMS 21 Endemic to GMS countries plus one other country 8 Source: IUCN Red List – 2004
Table 6: Comparative Indicator Values in 2004 for All GMS Countries
Country Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Total Cambodia 2.54% 2.15% 4.93% 0.17% 1.62% 1.64% Lao PDR 3.09% 2.06% 3.95% 0.23% 0.75% 1.56% Myanmar 3.63% 4.04% 8.55% 0.00% 1.25% 2.41% Thailand 3.45% 4.13% 7.24% 0.17% 4.74% 2.91% Viet Nam 4.00% 3.63% 8.88% 0.85% 3.50% 3.05% Yunnan Province 2.91% 1.49% 3.95% 0.11% - 1.23% GMS Average: 3.27% 2.92% 6.25% 0.26% n/a 2.13% Source: Findings of the SEF-II Project
104 105 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to describe the maintenance of, or conversely, the loss of species diversity. It is understood that the smaller this number is for a specific country or region, the better the country or region is at the maintenance of species diversity. However the rise and fall of the indicator value over the years may or may not be indicative of the government responses within the country or region. Assessment of species outside the country or region leading to a rise in the denominator may result in the fall of the indicator value. Further assessments for species contained primarily within the country or region may temporarily inflate the value of the indicator. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Maintenance of biodiversity is essential for ecosystem wellbeing. Species diversity is one of the three main levels of biodiversity, the others being ecosystem and genetic diversity. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other indicators that have implications for biodiversity. These include: protected area as a percentage of total area, loss of designated habitat, protected species, etc. 4. Targets: No specific targets for this indicator value have been set by the Government of Cambodia. 5. International Environment Treaties: For this indicator, the more relevant convention is the Convention on Biological Diversity, which Cambodia ratified on 9 Feb 1995. Other relevant conventions and agreements that Cambodia ratified include: The Convention on International trade in Endangered Species, Cambodia signed in December 1975, but did not adhere to it until 1999. The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention); in 1996 Cambodia’s National Assembly approved a ministerial request to accede to this convention and in 1999 became a Contracting Party. The Convention on Climate Change, which Cambodia ratified on 18 December 1995. The Agreement on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, which Cambodia became a signatory to the ASEAN Agreement in April 1999.
B. Analysis As can be observed from Figure 1 and Table 1, Cambodia is a tentative sanctuary to approximately 1.6% of the globally threatened species. This standing includes approximately 2.5% of globally threatened mammals, 2% of globally threatened birds, 5% globally threatened reptiles, 1.6% of globally threatened fish and less than 1% of globally threatened amphibians. As can be observed from Table 2, the rise in the share of globally threatened species from 0.48% in 1996 to 1.64% in 2004 is largely attributed to the progress of the evaluation work and is not necessarily indicative of a trend of loss of biodiversity. As can be observed from Table 2, the 0.48% value in 1996 is based on the first version of the IUCN Red Book at which time only 50% of the relevant mammals had been evaluated, few reptile and fish species had been evaluated and at which time amphibians and birds were not included. The relevant amphibians and birds were in fact not evaluated until 2004 and therefore the indicator value and trend before 2004 has very little meaning.
106 107 But now that the indicator value is inclusive of all threatened species types, the future value of the indicator will be more indicative of the trend in the loss of biodiversity in Cambodia. It is not expected to vary dramatically from the 2004 figures. It may artificially rise if new globally threatened species also have sanctuary in Cambodia; it may artificially fall if new threatened species have sanctuary outside of Cambodia. While the indicator serves well to measure Cambodia’s share of global priority, only changes in the status of individual species (see Table 5) can be utilized to measure progress at the national level. Apart from the indicator value itself, the IUCN database of threatened species has also provided some insight as to what are the habitats of those species relevant to Cambodia and what are the major threats to those threatened species. As can be observed from Table 3, forests are the dominant habitat for approximately 33% of the threatened species in Cambodia for threatened mammals, birds and amphibians but loss of wetlands is also an important factor. Artificial/ terrestrial habitats, which include arable land and pasture land, are also an important habitat for some of Cambodia’s threatened bird species. Therefore societal responses which attempt to protect non-forest areas may be of equal importance and the last column of Table 3 might be a model for the ideal composition of protected areas in Cambodia. Based on the same IUCN database, Table 4 provides some insight as to the major threats relevant to the threatened species in Cambodia. Loss of habitat is the dominant threat for one third of the threatened species but harvesting is a close second. Therefore societal responses which deal with the hunting and gathering of these threatened species may be of equal importance as those societal responses which attempt to protect their habitats. Table 5 lists all of the currently threatened species which have sanctuary in Cambodia along with their current 2004 standing on the IUCN Red List. As of 2004, 45 species were listed as vulnerable, 26 as endangered and 14 as critically endangered. Any future decrease in the level of endangerment of these species, or the removal of the species from this list, is indicative of progress in conserving biodiversity; any future increase in the level of endangerment will be a negative indication of progress. It can also be noted from Table 5 that none of Cambodia’s share of the globally threatened species are endemic to Cambodia and therefore Cambodia alone is not solely responsible for its 1.6% share of globally threatened species. However, for 10 of the threatened species, Cambodia and one of its GMS neighbors share the total responsibility. It can also be observed from Table 5 that 21 of Cambodia’s current 85 threatened species are endemic to GMS countries. Table 6 provides the basis for comparing the current value of the indicator with other GMS countries, or with GMS countries as a whole. As can be observed from Table 6, Cambodia’s 1.6% of globally threatened species is relatively low compared to an average of 2.13% for all six GMS countries and the third lowest of all other GMS countries after Yunnan Province and Lao PDR. Reptiles are the largest contribution to Cambodia’s share of the threatened species; however none of these reptiles are endemic to Cambodia. Based on this comparison of this indicator with the indicator value of other GMS countries, it is concluded that the current state of biodiversity in Cambodia is relatively good, with no observable past trends and an expectation that the global share of Cambodia’s threatened species will remain constant in the very near future.
106 107 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Loss of Critical Habitat between 1993 and 1997
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Pressure
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) What are the trends in the loss of critical habitat to support biodiversity in Cambodia?
Priority Concern Threats to Biodiversity
Geographic Area Cambodia
Magnitude & Trend Non-Comparable with Undetermined Trend
Key Message Although pressure exists on biodiversity, there is not enough information to establish a long term trend. The pattern of habitat loss in Cambodia defies easy generalizations. The pressure on biodiversity furthermore depends on the intensity of hunting and gathering in each habitat and trade in wildlife for which systematic data are not available.
108 109 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track the amount of loss of critical habitats over time. It is expressed as the percentage gain or loss, over total land area, of critical habitat areas. Critical habitats for the purpose of constructing this indicator are defined as Forests, Wetlands, Artificial/Terrestrial, Grasslands, and Shrublands, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Habitat Authority File (see www.redlist.org). However the data utilized for the construction of this indicator, which originates from the Mekong River Commission Secretariat (MRC) and the German Technical Assistance (GTZ) utilizes a slightly different definition of these critical habitats whereby: • Forest: is a combination of evergreen forest, semi-evergreen forest, deciduous forest, re-growth of secondary forest, forest plantation and bamboo. • Wetlands: include swamps, marshes and other open water surfaces such as rivers, streams, ponds, lakes, etc., and inundated shrub. • Artificial/Terrestrial: is a combination of shifting cultivations, agriculture and urban areas such as village gardens and build-up areas. • Grasslands: includes grasslands and savanna. • Shrublands: is a combination of wood and shrub-land evergreen and dry.
B. Data Source Figures are extracted from “Cambodian Forest Cover Resources” published by Forest Administration under Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in January 2004. Land cover and land use data originates from the 1998 Mekong River Commission Secretariat and German Technical Assistance (MRC/GTZ) based on two separate LANDSAT land cover mappings.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage Estimates of critical habitat loss are representative of the country as a whole based on a total land area of 18,152,985 ha. Note that this denominator value may be different from that utilized for the construction of other indicator fact sheets.
D. Temporal Coverage Estimates of land cover change utilized in this fact sheet are the period 1993 to 1997, describing a very short segment of what is probably a long history of critical habitat loss. 1997 is the last year for which data are available for habitats other than forest.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage The MRC/GTZ land cover mapping was based on Landsat-TM satellite imagery and digitized from 1:250,000 scale prints. This land cover mapping, with a 50 ha resolution, is a time-bound effort by the MRC/GTZ unlikely to be repeated in the future. Forestry Administration may be producing future land cover mappings but their focus is on forest cover and their classification may or may not differentiate the critical habitats required for this indicator.
108 109 F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The original figures were available in hectares and also as a percentage of total land area (based on total land area of 18,152,985 ha) and have not been manipulated for the purpose of this fact sheet. In accordance with the previous IUCN definitions of critical habitats and the MRC/GTZ definitions of land cover, the MRC/GTZ land cover classes and their associated figures have been re-compiled such that: • Forest Habitat includes 15 MRC/GTZ land cover classes known as: Evergreen Dense, Evergreen Disturbed, Evergreen Mosaic, Mixed Dense, Mixed Disturbed, Mixed Mosaic, Deciduous, Deciduous Mosaic, Forest Re-growth, Inundated Forest, Inundated Forest Re-growth, Mangrove Forest, Forest Plantation and Bamboo. • Wetland Habitat includes Open Water, Wetland and Shrub Inundated. • Artificial/Terrestrial Habitat includes Mosaic of Cropping, Agriculture Land and Urban Area; • Shrubland Habitat includes Wood/Shrubland Evergreen and Wood/Shrubland Dry. • Grassland Habitat is according to the MRC/GTZ definition of Grasslands. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The definition of critical habitats utilized for this indicator is based on an analysis of the major habitats associated with each of the threatened non-plant species on the IUCN Red List. According to Table 3 of the related state indicator for this priority concern, reproduced in this fact sheet as Table 2, loss of forest habitat was cited as the major threat for approximately 33% of the threatened wildlife species. Likewise, wetland habitat accounted for 19% of the citations, artificial/terrestrial habitat, which includes arable land and pasture land, was cited in approximately 11% of the cases, followed by grasslands and shrublands (approx. 10% and 9% of the citations, respectively). The percentages taken together total 82.44 %, i.e. some IUCN Red List species are found outside the five selected habitats. These other habitats are then considered non-critical and are not included in this indicator. The indicator is therefore aimed at these five critical habitats where wildlife species are threatened. At the data level, the indicator is based on only two and very recent observations of habitat area. The indicator may therefore not be indicative of the long-term trends of habitat destruction in Cambodia. The historical nature of that process should be considered when interpreting the results of this indicator.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) The multi-temporal land cover data utilized to construct this indicator was produced from satellite imagery and is subject to all the inaccuracies and uncertainties associated with this type of activity. The 1:250,000 working scale is also not very accurate for the detection of smaller habitats. The more recent forest cover mapping completed by the Forest Resource Management (FRM) division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) reflects ground conditions in 2002 and offers greater accuracy of estimates of forest cover without, however, making it possible to identify critical habitats.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) The MRC and GTZ figures of land cover utilized here are based on only two points in time (1993 and 1997). Although the land cover is not expected to change rapidly in the near future, any work related to the mapping and monitoring of non-forest land cover classes at the national level would be beneficial to the further development of this indicator.
110 111 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Loss of Critical Habitats as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1993-1997
2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 Forest Shrubland 0.00 Wetland Artificial/Terrestrial Grassland -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40
Table 1: Loss of Critical Habitats as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1992-1997
1992/93 1996/97 Loss of Habitat Ecosystem type % of Total % of Total Area (ha) Area (ha) % Land Area Land Area Forest 10,891,918 60.00 10,671,936 58.79 -1.21 Wetland 537,242 2.96 552,478 3.04 0.08 Artificial/ 4,022,304 22.16 4,358,435 24.01 1.85 Terrestrial Grassland 476,804 2.63 488,643 2.69 0.07 Shrubland 2,204,223 12.14 2,059,449 11.34 -0.80 Total Land Area 18,152,985 Source: Forest Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery
110 111 Table 2: Threatened Species by Major Habitat Type - 2004
Citations Habitat Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Total % Forest 21 20 0 3 0 44 33.59 Wetlands 2 15 0 3 5 25 19.08 Artificial/ 0 14 0 0 0 14 10.69 Terrestrial Grasslands 4 9 0 0 0 13 9.92 Shrubland 6 6 0 0 0 12 9.16 Sea 1 5 1 0 1 8 6.11 Coastlines 1 1 1 0 4 7 5.34 Savanna 4 2 0 0 0 6 4.58 Artificial/ 1 1 0 0 0 2 1.53 Aquatic Rocky Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Caves and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Sub-terranean Habitats Desert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Introduced 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Vegetation Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total Citations 40 73 2 6 10 131 100.00 Source: IUCN Red List – 2004
112 113 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference There is no direct government policy on converting more land to agriculture or urban land expansion, but the policy has focused on land administration. An important element in land management by the government is the provision of improved tenure security. The government is focusing on accelerating the provision of private land titles in the hopes that secure title will lead to improved management of natural resources, improved land husbandry, and poverty alleviation. Government will also need to improve its overall coordination of land use planning and land allocation. This includes improving the land inventory system and the national classification system and developing land use plans for forests, agricultural development areas, key urban areas, and road corridors. (Cambodia Environment Monitor 2003) 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the loss of critical habitat known to be the prime determinant to the threat to wildlife species in Cambodia. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Habitats are as diverse as the plants and animals that live in them. Most plants and animals are uniquely adapted to survive in a specific habitat, and if that habitat is destroyed, the plant or animal’s survival is severely threatened. Emphasis on the preservation of habitats’ integrity should then become one of the guiding principles in zoning and land use planning decisions at both central and local levels. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: The indicator is directly related to its state indicator “cousin” for which some of the analysis in the choice of this indicator can be found in the state indicator fact sheet for the related priority concern. This indicator of the loss of critical habitat may also be useful for the analysis of other priority concerns such as natural resources use, land use change, and threatened species. 4. Targets: No specific targets have been set by the government of Cambodia to reduce the loss of critical habitats. 5. International Environment Treaties: Cambodia has become a signatory to a variety of international conventions and agreements of direct relevance to biodiversity management, use and protection; they include: • The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which Cambodia ratified on 9 Feb 1995. • The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Cambodia signed in December 1975, but did not adhere to it until 1999. • The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention); in 1996 Cambodia’s National Assembly approved a ministerial request to accede to this convention and in 1999 became a Contracting Party. • The International Plant Protection Conservation (IPPC), Cambodia adhered to the Convention in 1952. • The Agreement on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Cambodia became a signatory to ASEAN’s Agreement in April 1999.
B. Analysis Changes in the area of selected habitats as percentage of the country’s total land area have been estimated for five habitats identified as critical ((forestland, wetland, artificial/terrestrial, grassland and shrubland – see Table 2) between 1993 and 1997.
112 113 As can be observed from Figure 1 and Table 1, in the 4 year period from 1993 to 1997, forest habitat declined by 1.21%, followed by shrubland which declined by 0.8%. Conversely, land classified as artificial/terrestrial increased by 1.85% during the same period, wetlands by 0.08% and grasslands by 0.07%. The increase in artificial/terrestrial class agrees with the common perception about the direction of land use changes in most GMS countries in which farming and urban expansion (components of “artificial/terrestrial” class) gain at the expense of other land categories. These results need to be compared with other results to correctly gauge their relevance and importance, especially with Tables 3 and 4 of the related state indicator fact sheet. Table 2 ranks habitats by the number of threatened species found there and was the basis for our selection of habitats as critical. The results presented in Figure 1 and Table 1 here suggest that changes in the area of habitats need not be well correlated with the pattern of threats to underlying biodiversity despite the widely accepted (and confirmed – see Table 3 of the related state indicator fact sheet) view that habitat loss is a prime threat to species. Especially where periods of evaluation are too short to establish trends, it is possible to observe increases in habitats coexisting with high threat (such as under the category “artificial/terrestrial”) and vice versa. For the relationship between habitat changes and threats to species being established more securely, both (i.e. not only the change of the area of habitats) would need to be expressed in terms of the rate of change. Only then would we be able to say –still imperfectly—how habitat loss is related to species threats. This suggests that periodic updating of Table 2 would add significantly to our understanding of that relationship among other factors. That such updating would be ideally accompanied by fresh estimates of the areas of habitats should be clear by now. Based on these observations, it can be concluded that: • Changes in the area of critical habitats have been relatively slow (though it would be beneficial to have data for a longer period than 1993-1997). • Our interpretation may be crucially affected by the results of Table 3 of the related state indicator fact sheet that asserts that habitat loss is the prime cause of threat. • If Tables 3 and 4 of the state indicator provide a solid basis and that it is indeed the area of habitats that “rules”, our conclusion should be that the pressure on biodiversity in Cambodia has not changed significantly during the studied period. If, on the other hand, Table 4 provides a poor basis and if another factor(e.g. number of hunters) “rules”, then we may have constructed a less useful indicator of pressure. The high incidence of threatened biodiversity in “artificial/terrestrial” land class should be an invitation to reconsider the view that farming and peri-urban development is necessarily an enemy of biodiversity. In any event, our choice of that category as “critical habitat” in itself is worth reflection.
114 115 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Protected Areas as a Percentage of Total Land Area - 1993 to 2002
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Is the system of protected areas in Cambodia providing adequate sanctuary to threatened and endangered species?
Priority Concern Threats to Biodiversity
Geographic Area Cambodia
Impact & Trend Significant and Consistent
Key Message Since its initial establishment in 1993, Cambodia’s system of protected areas has designated a relatively high proportion of the total land area to conservation. However, it remains to be determined what the effective level of protection is in the face of continued and widespread pressure on biological and other natural and cultural resources in Cambodia.
114 115 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track the extent of protected areas over time; it is expressed as the percentage of protected area over total land area. Protected areas under the Cambodian system of protected areas and protected forests include: national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, protected landscapes, multiple use areas, protected forests, wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites) and biosphere reserves. Protected areas are managed by the Ministry of Environment (MoE) whereas protected forests are managed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). Protected forests are not aimed to protect only forests; they are only designated protected forest by nature of their management jurisdiction. Protected forests include a Flora and Fauna Conservation Area (Mondul Kiri), a Wildlife Conservation Area (Preah Vihear), a Biodiversity Conservation Area (Central Cardamom), a Zoo (Ta Mao) and a Sarus Crane Conservation Area (Ang Trapang Thmar). According to the World Conservation Union (IUCN), a protected area is an area dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. In November 1993, H.M. King Norodom Sihanouk issued a Royal Degree designating 23 protected areas, including 7 national parks, 10 wildlife sanctuaries, 3 protected landscapes and 3 multiple use areas. The 4 categories reflect the different characteristics and management objectives for these areas and correspond to international classifications such of those of the IUCN. Another seven protected forests were established by the Forest Administration under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries after 1996. The Boeung Chmar portion of Tonle Sap Multiple-Use Area, the Koh Kapik wetland and associated islets in the Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary, and the middle stretches of the Mekong River Area between Stoeng Treng and the border with Lao PDR were designated as Ramsar Sites at the time of Cambodia’s accession to the Convention, 23 October 1999. In April 2001, the Royal Government of Cambodia nominated the Tonle Sap Multiple-Use Area as Biosphere Reserve and extended the area as transition zone. The transition zone is an integrated economic zone, which is managed for sustainable agriculture, human settlement and land use, without having adverse effects on the flooded forest, water quality and soils of the region around the Tonle Sap Lake. Designating additional protected areas is clearly relevant but may not be sufficient to ensure calibrated and effective protection of biodiversity. In order to judge better the effectiveness of response it is necessary to examine how administrative steps (protected area designation) match the biological reality (distribution of habitats). For the purpose of quantifying the major habitats types within protected areas, the following Mekong River Commission Secretariat and German Technical Assistance (MRC/GTZ) land cover definitions were adopted: Evergreen Forest Evergreen forest usually contains multi-storied forests where trees keep their leaves throughout the year. They are always found on hills and along the course of streams and rivers. They comprise the lowland tropical rain forests, the hill evergreen forests and dry evergreen forests. A certain percentage of the deciduous trees may be included as well and most moist deciduous forests may not be distinguishable from the evergreen forests.
116 117 Semi-Evergreen Forest Semi-evergreen forest appears evergreen during the whole year, even though the variable feature of the forest is the trees’ height. Since the upper layers drop their leaves in the dry season, the trees which have no leaves are intermixed with the evergreen forest type. The signature can be quite similar to evergreen forests although the former appear more brownish or grayish in the dry season. The texture is usually rougher than evergreen forests. The images taken within the dry season clearly reveal variability that is difficult to separate under conditions of variable crown cover. This class also includes mixed deciduous forests types. Coniferous forest is also included in this class. Deciduous Forest This class contains dry mixed deciduous forests and dry dipterocarp forest. Deciduous forests drop their leaves more or less completely during the dry season. The signatures vary form reddish violet to yellowish brown at the end of the wet season, and from brownish green to bluish grey during the dry season with the medium to smooth texture. Human impact such as fire is usually much higher compared to other forest types. Dry dipterocarp forests naturally have an open character. Undisturbed, they may have a crown cover of only 40%. The soil and the grass layer can have significant impact on the reflection of these forests, it is impossible to separate crown cover differences consistently. The separation to deciduous shrub-land is difficult during the wet season and almost impossible during the dry season. Regrowth of Secondary Forest The class “forest re-growth” stands for a continuous, usually dense layer of smaller tree. The spectral signature can be described as saturated red with a fine to medium texture, on shaded slopes the signature maybe dark brown red. Stunted forests, which grow very slowly due to poor site conditions, may look quite similar to forest re-growth and may be included in this class. The forest re- growth class does not include re-growth of shrubs, small bamboo or small trees growing as a result of shifting cultivation. The separation between this class and “Wood and Shrub-land” was not always easy, and may have utilized addition information such as aerial photos or knowledge of local conditions. Forest Plantation This class contains “forest plantation” such as rubber, teak (Tectona grandis) and pine. However, only the areas actually covered by tree layer should be mapped, excluding plantation areas under preparation or without a tree layer. Wood and Shrubland, Evergreen Wood and shrub-land includes mixed shrubs, grass and trees, the tree cover remaining between 0 to 20 percent. The evergreen sub-type of this class can be found mainly on shallow soils, on the top of mountains under climax condition or as a result of non-sustainable land use (degraded land, frequent forest fire). The signature remains light red during the whole year. A sub-variant of this class represents forest re-growth after shifting cultivation. There is usually a dense layer of shrub and grass with some small trees and a significant proportion of bamboo. Wood and Shrubland Dry A dry variant of this class can be found in the dry plains or on the plateaus of the southern part of the L.M.B, but also on dry and sun exposed slopes. The appearance often remains of a dry savanna where the signature is light grey during the dry season light brownish grey to violet during the wet season, and the texture is medium to rough. Grassland In dry conditions grassland is displayed in bluish grey tones during the dry season showing a smooth texture. In the humid domain grassland is light red with a component of yellow to white almost the whole year.
116 117 Bamboo Large areas of dense bamboo are usually discernible due to their pink and orange color and their typical texture. A sparse bamboo coverage or small bamboo will not be discernible and will remain in one of the classes before analysis of the medium and smooth texture. Mosaic of Regrowth, Shrubs and Recent Cropping (sifting cultivation) This class contains a mixture of fields actually under cropping or in various stages of fallow with shrubs and re-growth. The pattern shows a mosaic of red, white, grey, and black patches. Re- growth is found in the sifting cultivation areas after the land has been abandoned and also contains young trees. If not cleared again, the chances of becoming forest are theoretically high. Small tree blocks can also be found within this class. However the percentage of forest blocks should be below 40%, or they would have to be classified “mosaic of forest” (fragmented forests). Agriculture The class agriculture is delineated as one class without further differentiation. It contains permanent fields, mainly paddy fields, or mixed agricultural land, as long as the agricultural component appears to be dominant. Additional knowledge of the areas is often required for a good interpretation. Permanent mixed agriculture on the slope, as occurs frequently in the Central Highland of Viet Nam is difficult to separate from shifting cultivation. Urban Areas If a village can be found (check also the line structure), the class should be classified. Small village contain fruit tree and tree without clear boundaries. The urban extent of villages may have been done after the classification using GIS. Wetland Wetland contains swamps and marshes. Due to the high water content the signatures are usually dark grey, in case of a grass layer the dark tones are mixed with light red pink tones. For our purposes, the above MRC/GTZ land cover classes were reclassified in the following five biodiversity habitat classes: Forest: includes evergreen forest, semi-evergreen forest, deciduous forest, re-growth of secondary forest, forest plantation and bamboo. Wetland: includes swamps, marshes and other open water surfaces such as rivers, streams, ponds, lakes… etc. and inundated-shrub. Artificial/Terrestrial: includes shifting cultivations, agriculture and urbanized areas such as village gardens and build-up areas. Grasslands: considered and mapped as a single class. Shrublands: includes wood and shrub-land evergreen and dry.
B. Data Source The official figures for protected areas and protected forest areas, including the dates of their approval, are extracted from “Cambodian Forest Cover Resources” published by the Forest Administration under Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery in January 2004. Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites) and biosphere reserves are extracted from a list of Protected Areas available at the Department of Natural Resources Assessment and Environmental Data Management under the Ministry of Environment. The GIS dataset of protected areas utilized for the development of this indicator originates from the Department of Natural Resources Assessment and Environmental Data Management under the Ministry of Environment. The GIS dataset of protected forest areas utilized for the development of this indicator originates from the Forestry Administration under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The GIS dataset of land cover for 1996-97 originates from the Mekong River Commission Secretariat and the German Technical Assistance (MRC/GTZ).
118 119 C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage Data are representative of all protected areas and protected forest for the country as a whole based on a total land area of 18,103,500 ha.
D. Temporal Coverage Protected areas were approved by a Royal Decree signed on 1 November 1993. Protected forests were approved by several Royal Decrees, Sub-decrees and Declarations (Prakas) from 1996 to 2002. As to habitats, figures for the areas of each of the five biodiversity habitats are based on a land cover mapping reflecting the ground conditions in 1997.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage Figures and GIS datasets for the spatial extent of protected areas are being continuously maintained by Department of Natural Resources Assessment and Environmental Data Management under the Ministry of Environment. The spatial extents of protected forest areas are being continuously maintained by Forestry Administration under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Land cover mapping at the national scale is periodically conducted by the Forestry Administration under Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation Area figures for individual protected areas were obtained from official sources and are quoted as given. Figures based on the proportion of total land area are based on a total land area of 18,103,500 ha. The match of the official protected area structure and the habitats, i.e. the representativeness with which each habitat is reflected in the composition of the protected area system, was determined by a GIS overlay of protected areas against a 1997 land cover mapping (and the habitats inherent in this mapping). Each of the habitats is then expressed as a percentage of the official protected area figure. These selected habitat areas have been expressed as a percentage of the official protected area figure, assuming that the balance of the protected area falls under the category of “other land covers”. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) As shown in Table 4 of the state indicator fact sheet for threats to biodiversity, loss of habitat is cited as the major threat to almost 33% of the threatened species, followed by hunting and gathering at 24%. Therefore a response indicator which captures the level of habitat protection is appropriate and could be complemented by one which attempts to track the level of protection given to individual species. However, a response indicator that tracks only protected areas has two main weaknesses. First, it does not capture the quality of management, i.e. whether the areas are in fact protected from incompatible uses. Second, the indicator does not show how representative the protected areas are of the country’s ecological diversity.
118 119 To overcome the above weaknesses, the system of protected areas has been mapped to IUCN protection categories to give an indication of the level of protection which is associated with each of the protection categories in the Cambodian system of protected areas. The habitat composition of each protected area has also been added to give an indication of the types of habitats that the system of protected areas is attempting to protect. As a result, the habitat composition of all existing protected areas can be compared with the ideal habitat composition as dictated by the threatened species (Table 3 of the related state indicator).
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) Area figures for protected areas are based on official country estimates and are subject to refinement and improvement as boundaries are demarcated by the Department of Natural Resources Assessment and the Environmental Data Management unit of the Department of Natural Conservation and Protection.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) The indicator figures should be revised as any protected areas change or as new protected areas are added. Any work related to the improvement of the accuracy of the GIS datasets which are utilized to represent these protected areas and protected forests would be beneficial to the reliability of this indicator. If feasible, the coordinates of the protected area definition should be based on boundary demarcations and not on the manual digitization of such boundaries. The extension of this indicator to match protected areas to habitat types was based on a time- bound effort in mapping land cover by the MRC and GTZ in 1997. More recent forest cover mappings conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) could not be utilized for this purpose because the mapping of non-forest classes is not very reliable. Although the land cover of protected areas is not expected to change rapidly over the years, any work related to the mapping of non-forest land covers at the national level would be beneficial to the further development of this indicator.
120 121 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Protected Areas as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1993-2002
34 32.04 32 30
28 26 24.72
Percent 24 22
20 18.08 18.09 18.12 18.20 18.27 18 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Table 1a: Protected Areas as a Percentage of Total land Area – 1993-2002
Year Protected Areas (ha) %of Total Land Area 1993 3,273,200 18.08 1996 3,274,400 18.09 1998 3,280,427 18.12 1999 3,295,027 18.2 2000 3,307,677 18.27 2001 4,474,677 24.72 2002 5,800,895 32.04 Note: Total Land Area = 18,103,500 ha Source: Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
120 121 Figure 2: Map Protected Areas and Protected Forests in Cambodia – 2002
Table 1b: Individual Protected Areas with their IUCN Designation
Name Area (ha) Year Approved IUCN Category Multiple Use Areas Tonle Sap 316,250 1-Nov-93 VI Samlaut 60,000 1-Nov-93 VI Dong Peng 27,700 1-Nov-93 VI Sub-Total: Multiple Use Areas 403,950 National Parks Virachey 332,500 1-Nov-93 II Phnom Kulen 37,500 1-Nov-93 II Botum Sakor 171,250 1-Nov-93 II Kirirom 35,000 1-Nov-93 II Phnom Bokor 140,000 1-Nov-93 II Ream 21,000 1-Nov-93 II Kep 5,000 1-Nov-93 II Sub-Total: National Parks 742,250 Protected Landscapes Preah Vihear 5,000 1-Nov-93 V Banteay Chhmar 81,200 1-Nov-93 V Angkor 10,800 1-Nov-93 V Subtotal: Protected Landscapes 97,000
122 123 Name Area (ha) Year Approved IUCN Category Wildlife Sanctuaries Kulen Promtep 402,500 1-Nov-93 IV Roniem Daun Sam 178,750 1-Nov-93 IV Lomphat 250,000 1-Nov-93 IV Beng Per 242,500 1-Nov-93 IV Phnom Prich 222,500 1-Nov-93 IV Phnom Namlyr 47,500 1-Nov-93 IV Phnom Samkos 333,750 1-Nov-93 IV Aural 253,750 1-Nov-93 IV Snuol 75,000 1-Nov-93 IV Peam Krasop 23,750 1-Nov-93 IV Subtotal: Wildlife Sanctuaries 2,030,000 Protected Forests Phnom Tamao Zoo 1,200 22-May-96 N/A Prek Teouk Sap 6,027 29-Oct-98 N/A Ang Trapang Thmar 12,650 22-Feb-00 IV Mondul Kiri 429,438 30-Jul-02 IV Preah Vihear 190,027 30-Jul-02 IV Centre Cademon Mountain 401,313 30-Jul-02 IV Seima, Snuol 305,440 12-Aug-02 IV Sub-Total: Protected Forests 1,346,095 Additional Protected Areas Boeung Tonle Chmar Ramsar 0 23-Jun-99 N/A Site (28,000ha) inside Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve Koh Kapik Ramsar Site 0 23-Jun-99 N/A (12,000ha) inside Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary Stung Treng Ramsar Site 14,600 23-Jun-99 N/A (14,600ha) Tonle Sap Multiple-Use Area was 1,167,000 18-Apr-01 N/A nominated as Biosphere Reserve (1,483,300ha) Total: All Protected Areas 5,800,895 Note: The area of Boeung Tonle Chmar is a part of Tonle Sap Multiple Use Area and Koh Kapik is a part of Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary. The extra area of Biosphere Reserve is subtracted between new area and old area. The extra area of Biosphere Reserve is mostly the area of transition zone. Source: Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
122 123 Figure 2: 1997 Habitat Composition of Existing Protected Areas
Shrublands, 7.06%
Grasslands, 3.86%
Artificial/ Terrestrial, 9.50%
Wetland, 9.34%
Forests, 70.18%
Table 2a: 1997 Habitat Composition of Existing Protected Areas
Habitat % All Protected Areas Forests 70.18 Wetland 9.34 Artificial/Terrestrial 9.50 Grasslands 3.86 Shrublands 7.06 Other Land Cover 0.07 Total 100.00
Table 2b: 1997 Habitat Composition of Individual Protected Areas
% % % % % % Protected Area Artificial/ Forest Wetland Grassland Shrubland Other LC Terrestrial Tonle sap 19.43 34.84 28.35 12.10 5.28 0.00 Samlaut 94.64 0.00 1.94 1.04 1.66 0.72 Dong peng 49.52 6.94 31.31 5.92 6.31 0.00 Virachey 95.58 0.00 0.28 0.63 3.5 0.00 Phnom kulen 80.96 0.00 16.16 0.00 2.88 0.00 Botum sakor 86.12 0.79 4.23 4.05 4.34 0.47 Kirirom 98.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.81 0.00 Phnom bokor 92.06 0.03 3.96 0.23 3.73 0.00 Ream 80.82 3.48 15.36 0.34 0.00 0.00 Kep 40.27 0.14 55.76 0.00 3.83 0.00 Preah vihear 53.32 0.00 1.41 0.00 45.27 0.00
124 125 % % % % % % Protected Area Artificial/ Forest Wetland Grassland Shrubland Other LC Terrestrial Banteay chmar 78.63 0.23 12.63 0.15 8.36 0.00 Angkor 20.15 6.42 64.02 0.00 8.44 0.98 Kulen promtep 92.95 0.00 2.33 0.11 4.61 0.00 Roniem daun sam 78.33 0.00 10.16 1.49 10.03 0.00 Lomphat 84.89 1.19 0.64 0.00 13.28 0.00 Beng per 90.10 0.02 3.81 0.08 6.00 0.00 Phnom prech 84.12 0.00 0.90 0.00 14.98 0.00 Phnom nam lyr 87.73 0.10 9.59 2.26 0.32 0.00 Phnom samkos 90.81 0.03 0.36 0.67 8.12 0.00 Aural 90.51 0.00 1.02 1.05 7.27 0.15 Snuol 97.63 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.89 0.00 Peam krasop 75.27 19.42 1.21 1.85 2.06 0.19 Phnom ta moa 0.00 0.00 12.84 0.00 87.16 0.00 Prek teouk sap 63.92 0.00 29.15 4.37 0.07 2.49 Ang trapeng thmor 3.45 25.7 22.22 33.19 15.43 0.00 Mondul kirri 86.18 0.49 2.02 0.00 11.31 0.00 Preah vihear_fa 82.07 0.01 3.43 1.28 13.20 0.00 Center cardamom 92.70 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.14 0.16 Seima, snoul 86.20 0.00 1.5 3.65 8.64 0.00 Stung treng ramsar 33.310 42.32 10.00 2.43 1.33 10.61 Total - All Protected 70.18 9.34 9.50 3.86 7.06 0.07 Areas Source: - Forest cover 1997 originates from MRC/GTZ - Protected areas originate from MoE. - Protected forest originate from FA, MAFF
Table 3: Comparative Indicator Values for GMS Countries
Country Percent of Total Land Area Future Target Cambodia 32.0% as of 2002 Maintain existing and extend protected forest area. Lao PDR 14.3 % as of 2002 Maintain existing which is above IUCN recommenda- tion of 10%. Myanmar 7.2% as of 2004 IUCN recommendation of 10%. Thailand 18.2% as of 2004 Include another 18% as Class 1 Watersheds. Viet Nam 6.2% as of 2004 IUCN recommendation of 10% Yunnan 8.8% as of 2004 Maintain existing which is above 8% target. Source: Findings of the SEF-II Project
124 125 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: This indicator measures the importance attached to protected areas established to safeguard biological diversity and natural and cultural resources. It is understood that the higher the percentage of the indicator, the better the performance of the country in protecting and conserving its biodiversity. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Protected areas are an essential tool for ecosystem conservation, with functions going well beyond the conservation of biological diversity. As such, they are one of the building blocks of sustainable development. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to others which relate to natural resource use and management. Closely associated indicators would include: protected forest area, land use change, and threatened species. 4. Targets: The Royal Government of Cambodia has established a target indirectly related to this indicator to maintain the surface of 23 protected areas at the 1993 level of 3.3 million ha through 2015 and the surface of 6 new forest protected areas at the present level of 1.35 million ha until 2015 (Cambodia Millennium Development Goals - 2003). 5. International Environment Treaties: For this indicator, the more relevant convention is the Convention on Biological Diversity, which Cambodia ratified on 9 Feb 1995. Other relevant conventions and Agreement that Cambodia ratified include: • The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Cambodia signed in December 1975, but did not adhere to it until 1999. • The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention); in 1996 Cambodia’s National Assembly approved a ministerial request to accede to this convention and in 1999 became a Contracting Party. • The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), Cambodia became a signatory in January 1994. • International Plant Protection Conservation (IPPC), Cambodia adhered to the Convention in 1952. • Agreement on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Cambodia became a signatory to ASEAN’s Agreement in April 1999.
B. Analysis In Cambodia, the system of protected areas was first established in 1993 when 3,273,200 ha or 18.08% of the total land area was designated as protected areas by a royal decree (see Table 1a). These 23 individual protected areas (see Table 1b) included 742,000 ha as National Parks (IUCN category II), 2,030,000 ha in Wildlife Sanctuaries (IUCN category IV) and 403,950 ha in Multiple Use Areas (IUCN category VI). The system of protected areas was increased marginally, to 18.27% of the total land area, between 1996 and 2000 to include 3 additional sites designated as Protected Forests and another 3 as Ramsar Sites. Two of these Ramsar Sites were associated with previous protected areas (see Table 1b).
126 127 In 2001, the Royal Government of Cambodia nominated the Tonle Sap Multiple-Use Area as a Biosphere Reserve and extended its area 1,167,000 ha. Therefore, the total system of protected areas was increased to 24.72% of the total land area. In 2002, an additional 1,332,218 ha of Protected Forests were added to the system of protected areas, increasing the total amount to 32% of the total land area. The increase over time of the Cambodian system of protected areas on which the main indicator is based is summarized in Figure 1 and Table 1b. Figure 2 and Tables 2a and 2b attempt to further describe the system of protected areas in terms of the habitat which they attempt to protect. As can be observed from Table 2a, the protected areas as a whole are composed of 70.18% forest, 9.34% wetland, 9.5% artificial/terrestrial and the rest 11% grassland, shrubland and other land cover. While loss of forest habitat was identified as the single most important threat to vulnerable and endangered species in Cambodia (see Table 3 of State Indicator Fact sheet), loss of wetland habitat was cited as being the second dominant threat, followed by loss of artificial/terrestrial habitats, including arable land and pasture land. Table 3 provides the basis for comparing the value of the main indicator with that of other GMS countries. As can be observed, Cambodia ranks highest among all other GMS countries in terms of the proportion of the total land area which is under its system of protected areas. But as noted earlier and as the major weakness of this indicator, it does not capture the quality of management and whether the areas are in fact protected from incompatible uses. Also, the indicator alone does not show how representative the protected areas are of the country’s ecological diversity. Based on this comparison and observed trends, it is concluded that the government response with respect to the establishment of protected areas has been significant and consistently applied.
126 127 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Inland Fish Consumption - 1981-2003
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator State
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Has domestic fish consumption increased?
Priority Concern Fish Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
State & Trend Relatively Good and Improving
Key Message Fish consumption in Cambodia has grown in recent years due to further shifts in consumer preferences towards fish and greater production by small-scale and rice-field fisheries. The production by Tonle Sap appears not to have changed significantly in volume terms. Fish consumption per capita in Cambodia is higher than in other GMS countries.
128 129 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator is intended to serve as a state indicator for fish resources. It aims to measure the amount of inland fish catch that is used as domestic consumption per capita per annum and is expressed in kilogram live weight. Domestic fish consumption is defined as the quantity of the country’s freshwater fish derived products available for human consumption. Data were calculated by taking the country’s inland fish production excluding aquaculture products, import and export fish products. However, this assessment also included the use for consumption by domestic animals.
B. Data Source Fisheries data is annually recorded by Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DoF, MAFF). However, the fisheries figures used for this indicator were extracted from three publications, (i) Technical Paper on Marine Fisheries Review, prepared by Project Implementation Unit (PIU) - the Fisheries Component, DoF, February 2001, (ii) Annual Conference on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 10-11 April 2003, published by Statistics Office, Department of Planning, Statistics and International Cooperation, MAFF, and (iii) Agricultural Statistics 2003-2004 published by Statistics Office, Department of Planning, Statistics and International Cooperation, MAFF. Population figures from 1981 to 2003 were extracted from the Statistical Year Book 2003 published by National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning (NIS, MoP).
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The figures are representative of inland fisheries for the entire country; they do not include marine fisheries.
D. Temporal Coverage Per capita fish consumption figures are estimated for the period 1981 to 2003. The figure of fish consumption per capita which was estimated and projected by the Mekong River Commission Secretariat and Department of Fisheries (MRC/DoF) is provided for 1990, 1998, 2000 and 2010.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage DoF records and updates its own data sets of Fisheries Statistics annually since 1980 which are reported by each provincial fisheries office. Fish consumption per capita for Cambodia was estimated by many other experts and surveyed in different locations in the country with different results being obtained. However, the national rate of fish consumption per capita was estimated and projected by the Mekong River Commission and Department of Fisheries as 30 kg per annum. The Cambodian population, 1980 to 1996, was estimated/projected by Jerrold W. Hugget, NIS/UNPF in May 1997. The total population 1981 to 1993 was estimated from the population count at the end of 1980 and assumed a growth rate of 2.8% annually from 1981 to 1989 and 2.5% from 1990 to 1993. The population estimated for 1994 was based on provincial reports. Population figures for 1998 are the result of the 1998 General Population Census of Cambodia. Based on these census results, the National Institute of Statistics has projected the population from 1998 to 2020.
128 129 F. Methodology of Data Manipulation Per capita fish consumption figures originate from two different sources and are presented in kilogram live weight. The estimated consumption is based on the total amount of inland fish catch minus export fish production and divided by the total population. The per capita fish consumption for 1990, 1998, 2000 and 2010 was originally extracted from the Technical Paper on Marine Fisheries Review, prepared by Project Implementation Unit (PIU) - the Fisheries Component, Department of Fisheries, February 2001. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) Fish consumption is indicative of demand of food protein intake of the population. It is not very indicative of the state of fish resource without an estimate of the size of the biomass. It might be or might not be related to fish resources if fish consumption increases.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) DoF’s datasets provide an estimate for Cambodia fish consumption since 1980 to 2003. However, they are less indicative of the absolute amount of fish production due to data deficiencies to represent the entire country. Furthermore, fisheries production before 1998 failed to estimate the family and rice field fisheries productions.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) Fisheries Statistics are updated annually by the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Estimates of fish stock, if and when available, are recommended as an alternative to this state indicator based on fish consumption. SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Annual Fish Consumption Per Capita in Cambodia
35
30
25 r
20
15
Kilograms/Yea 10
5
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 199 199 199 199 2000 198 198 198 198 198 199 2002 2010
Actual inland catch for consumption Consumption estimation
130 131 Table 1a: Fish Consumption Per Capita in Cambodia, 1981-2003
Actual inland catch for con- Total population Fish consumption per Year sumption (Tons) (Thousands) Capita (Kg/Year) 1981 50,780 6,682 7.60 1982 65,700 6,900 9.52 1983 58,717 7,100 8.27 1984 55,093 7,300 7.55 1985 56,400 7,500 7.52 1986 64,181 7,700 8.34 1987 62,154 7,900 7.87 1988 61,200 8,100 7.56 1989 62,154 8,300 7.49 1990 64,614 8,600 7.51 1991 74,268 8,800 8.44 1992 34,529 9,000 3.84 1993 35,568 9,300 3.82 1994 37,327 9,752 3.83 1995 48,684 10,200 4.77 1996 38,810 10,340 3.75 1997 36,130 10,368 3.48 1998 35,460 11,438 3.10 1999 186,400 11,599 16.07 2000 203,300 12,573 16.17 2001 347,000 12,803 27.10 2002 307,800 13,041 23.60 2003 253,466 13,287 19.08 Note – Actual inland catch for consumption is the real fish capture minus fish export and excludes marine catch, aquaculture production, and import fish. – Total Population extracted from Statistical Year Book 2003, published by National Institute of Statistics.
Table 1b: Past, Present and Projected of Fish Consumption in Cambodia, 1982-2010 (MRC/DoF Estimation)
1982 1990 1998 2000 2010 Consumption per capita (kg) ** - 16 - - - Consumption per capita (kg) *** - - 30 30 30 ** Mekong Secretariat (1992) and *** Cambodian Department of Fisheries (2000) data. - Data not available.
130 131 Table 1c: Other Estimates of Fish Consumption in Cambodia
Fish consumption per capita Sources (kg/year) 20 - 25 (Lagler, 1976) 13.3 - 16 (MS, 1992) with increased population (annual growth rate: 2.5-3%), (World Bank, 1992). 25 (Tana, 1993) in the South-Eastern Cambodia 13.5 (Csavas, 1994) 40 (CIAP unpublished) in the South 38 (APHEDA, 1997) in the Southwest 71 FAO Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region in the floating villages 32 in the upland areas of Siem Reap province (Hy, 1995) 86.8 MRC/DOF/DANIDA Freshwater Capture Fisheries Management Proj- ect (1995) in fishing dependent communes 71 (Ahmed et al., 1998) 21.5 - 33.8 - 39.5 Gregory et al. (1997) in Svay Rieng. 24.2 - 32.2 (MRC/DOF, 1998/1999) 30 The national rate of fish consumption per annum (MRC/DOF, 1998)
132 133 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the state of the fish resources which can be impacted from the demands of human consumption. It is directly relative to a country’s inland fish production. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: In Cambodia, fisheries play an important role in the daily life and in strengthening the national economy. For the contribution of fish capture to the economy, the discussions will further confine to the roles in fish contribution to GDP, as protein diet or per capita consumption, and employment. On average, fish and fishery products are believed to account for 40-60% of the protein intake of the population. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: None. 4. Targets: The Department of Fisheries in Cambodia has set a target (Goal 1) to ensure all living aquatic resources are harvested within their sustainable limits by 2010. According to the Fisheries Sector Policy and Action Plan Briefing, accomplishing Goal 1 requires that the following objectives are realized: • The extraction of living aquatic resources follows what is safe and prudent under precautionary principles for the management and administration of living aquatic resources; • A scientific base to support the management and administration of Cambodia’s living aquatic resources is established and operational; and • The authorities in close collaboration with local communities carry out monitoring and enforcement.
B. Analysis From Figure 1 and Table 1a, it can be observed that the annual fish consumption per capita over the period 1980 to 1991 was stable at approximately 6 kg per year. It fell below this level between 1992 and 1998 and then increased rapidly thereafter. It reached 16 kg in 1999 and then peaked in 2001 at 27 kg per year. However, in 2003 fish consumption per capita decreased to approximately 19 kg. Between 1999 and 2003, fish consumption per capita can be estimated at approximately 20 kg per year. The fish consumption per capita between 1980 and 1998 was low because the total inland fish catch figures did not include the small scale fisheries and the rice field fisheries. As summarized in Tables 1b and 1c, fish consumption per capita, as estimated by various experts in Cambodia and in different locations, ranged from 13kg to 87kg per year. However, the Department of Fisheries and the Mekong River Commission Secretariat estimate the per capita consumption rate at approximately 30 kg per annum when allowing for aquaculture production, imported fish and marine fisheries. These later fish consumption rates were estimated based on field observations and interviews.
132 133 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Number of Community Fisheries 1996 - 2005
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ)
Priority Concern Fish Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
Impact & Trend Significant and Intermittent
Key Message An increasing number of community fisheries (382 of them by 2005) has improved the access of communities to fisheries while curbing the pressure of commercial fishing. Cambodia has placed tighter controls on commercial access to its fishery resource and is on track to meet the CMDG goals for sustainable fisheries. The change of policy direction is too recent to say whether it has resulted in a more sustainable management of the fish resource.
134 135 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track the extent of community fisheries over time; it is expressed as the total numbers in country, both inland and marine areas. The fishing lot numbers/areas are the additional information that are related to the targets considered to increase the proportion of fishing lots released to local communities. A community fisheries is a group of Khmer people who agree to volunteer co-operatively together with the objective of sustainable management of fisheries resources in the local area and to protect Khmer peoples’ rights and benefits in accordance with the laws and regulations related to fisheries and guidelines, management plans, statutes and agreements of community fisheries.
B. Data Source Figures of community fisheries are originally recorded from Community Fisheries Development Office, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DoF, MAFF). Information on Fishing lots, including inland and marine areas, is taken by DoF, MAFF. However, the figures used for this indicator are extracted from Agricultural Statistics 2003-2004, published by Statistics Office, Department of Planning, Statistics and International Cooperation, MAFF and Major Activities and Action Plan for Good Governance in Fisheries Sector 2002.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The figures are presented for both inland and marine fisheries and are representative of the country as a whole.
D. Temporal Coverage The figures for community fisheries originate from the Community Fisheries Development Office (CFDO), Department of Fisheries and are provided for the period 1996 to 2005. The numbers of fishing lots have been recorded since 1980 by DoF, MAFF. However, figures for the area removed from commercial fishing lots are available only since 2001.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage The Community Fisheries Development Office at the Department of Fisheries (CFDO, DoF), has facilitated the provincial fisheries offices and local authorities to establish community fisheries. CFDO has also recorded the numbers of communities including the approval dates in its statistics database. Furthermore, DoF records and updates its own data sets of fishing lots annually which are reported by each provincial fisheries office.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation Community fisheries statistics are maintained by individual provinces and consist of communities’ names, administrative locations and dates of approval. For purposes of this indicator, the numbers of communities are calculated and subtotalled by dates of approval. The numbers of fishing lots and their areas subtracted from commercial fishing lots have been expressed as numbers and hectares.
134 135 QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The numbers of community fisheries are indicative of government response in fisheries resource management in term of sustainable use and protection. However, it might or might not be indicative of appropriate fisheries resource response because community fisheries are not fisheries sanctuaries.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) Only the number of community fisheries is utilized for the indicator, independent of the size and area of the community fisheries.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) Community fisheries statistics are recorded and updated annually by the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The areas of each community fishery may be available in future statistics from the Community Fisheries Development Office. SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Number of Community Fisheries in Cambodia 1996-2005
700
600
500
Lots 400 of 300
200 Number
100
0 4 8 2 4 6 2 0 8 0 6 200 199 200 200 201 201 199 200 200 201
Community Fisheries CMDG Target
136 137 Table 1: Number of Community Fisheries in Cambodia 1996-2005
CMDG Year Existing No. of Community Fisheries Target 1996 5 1997 12 1998 36 1999 55 2000 88 264 2001 198 2002 275 2003 333 2004 372 2005 382 375 2010 486 2015 598 Source: Community Fishery Development Office, DoF, Cambodia
Figure 2a: Area to be removed from Commercial Fishing Lots
61 60 59 t 58
Percen 57 56 55 1998 2001 2005 2010 2015
CMDG Target Cut out areas of fishing lots
136 137 Table 2a: Fishing Lot Area Reduction, by Province, to 31 December, 2001, (Unit: ha)
Total Fishing Reduced Remaining Reduced No. Provinces Lot Areas Area Area Area in % 1 Battambang 146,532 43,814 102,718 29.90 2 Kampong Thom 127,126 57,773 69,353 45.45 3 Siem Reap 83,941 61,216 22,725 72.93 4 Kampong Chhnang 62,256 17,172 45,084 27.58 5 Pursat 55,120 30,272 24,848 54.92 6 Takeo 46,007 30,806 15,201 66.96 7 Kandal 179,728 128,088 51,640 71.27 8 Kampong Cham 65,005 40,874 24,131 62.88 9 Prey Veng 143,069 87,729 55,340 61.32 10 Bantey Meanchey 32,756 26,345 6,411 80.43 11 Kratie 8,725 8,725 0 100.00 12 Phnom Penh 3,475 3,475 0 100.00 Total 953,740 536,289 417,451 56.23 Source: Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Figure 2b: Reduction of the Number of Commercial Fishing Lots between 1980-2003
350
300
s 250
Lot 200 of 150
100 Number
50
0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 2 8 0 199 200 198 198 198 198 198 199 199 199 199 200
Fishing lots
138 139 Table 2b: Number of Fishing Lots – 1980-2003
Year Numbers of Fishing lots 1980 to 1988 307 1989 302 1990 302 1991 301 1992 301 1993 298 1994 298 1995 279 1996 279 1997 279 1998 279 1999 270 2000 164 2001 164 2002 164 2003 162
138 139 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference In October 2000 the government of Cambodia announced a major change in fisheries management policy. The core elements of the new policy are the reduction of fishing lot concession areas by 56%, the broader participation of fishing communities in the management of fisheries and a focus on the efficient, sustainable and equitable use of the living aquatic resources. 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the response on the fish resources to be used in sustainable ways. It is understood that the higher the numbers of community establishment are, the better the management of the country in sustainable use of fisheries resource. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Community fisheries management is broadly defined as a voluntary partnership among stakeholders, including village members, relevant authorities and commercial fishers, with the objective of sustainable fisheries resource management for the benefit of all stakeholders. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to other indicators which relate to fisheries resource use and management and closely associated with fishing areas or fishing lots, fishery sanctuary areas, and protected areas. 4. Targets: The Government Cambodia has set two targets as stated in the Cambodia Millennium Development Goals to ensure within the sustainable use of fisheries resource. The targets are stated as: • Increasing the number of community-based fisheries from 264 in 2000 to 589 in 2015. • Increasing the proportion of fishing lots released to local communities from 56% in 1998 to 60% in 2015. 5. International Environment Treaties: None applicable. 6. Laws Article 1, Draft sub-decree on community fisheries management dated: 01/02/2002, stipulates that “Community Fisheries are established and facilitated in support their operation for an efficient, sustainable and equitable use of living aquatic resources through: • Creating and disseminating the legal framework (including guidelines, rules and regulations) • Defining the boundaries of Community Fisheries • Accreditation of Community Fisheries • Capacity building for Community Fisheries Management • Monitoring and evaluation of Community Fishery activities • Research on Community Fisheries • Conflict resolution • Sustainable improvement of livelihoods of Community Fisheries.
B. Analysis The fishing areas released from the commercial fishing lots were organized into the community fisheries. In 1996, five of community fisheries were initially established, although government policy just started in 2000. Numbers of community fisheries were drastically increased from 5 to 382 from 1996 to 2005 and matched to Cambodia Millennium Development Goal’s target line in 2003 with 333 communities (see Figure 1 and Table 1).
140 141 As can be observed in Figures 2a and 2b, and Tables 2a and 2b, the number of fishing lots in Cambodia has been reduced since 1994. In 2000, the Royal Government of Cambodia reformed the fisheries sectors and a number of fishing lots has been removed for local people’s use. The fishing lots have been reduced from 307 in 1988 to 164 in 2000, representing 56% of the total commercial fishing lot areas. The release of fishing lot areas continued in 2002 and 2003 and the total number of fishing lots remaining are 162 in 2003.
140 141 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Percentage of Population with Access to Safe Potable Water - 1998 to 2002
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator State
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) What proportion of the population has access to safe potable water?
Priority Concern Water Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
Impact & Trend Relatively Poor and Improving.
Key Message Access to safe drinking for both the urban and rural populations in Cambodia has marginally improved since 1998 to 58% of the urban population and 27% of rural population. The greater rate of improvement was in the rural population and the urban population is still below the Millennium Development targets in this regard. The baseline figures were initially very low and Cambodia still lags behind other GMS countries in the provision of safe potable water to its population.
142 143 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track the proportion of the population with safe drinking water available in the home or within reasonable access. It is expressed as the percentage of the population with access to an “improved” water source following the definition adopted by the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water and Sanitation of the World Health Organization (WHO) and of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The JMP defines access to water supply and sanitation in terms of the types of technology and levels of service afforded. “Access to water supply services” is defined by JMP as the availability of at least 20 litres per person per day from an “improved” source within 1 kilometer of the user’s dwelling. An “improved” source is one that is likely to provide “safe” water, such as a household connection, public standpipe, borehole, protected dug well, protected spring, rainwater collection, etc. “Not improved” source is one that is unlikely to provide “safe” water, such as unprotected well, unprotected spring, vendor provided water, bottled water, tanker truck water. Current information does not allow JMP to establish a relationship between access to safe water and access to improved sources, but WHO and UNICEF are examining this relationship.
B. Data Source The data for 1998 originate from the 1998 General Population Census of Cambodia. Data for 2000 originate from the Cambodia 2000 Demographic and Health Survey. Data for 2002 were obtained from the WHO/UNEP Joint Monitoring Programme.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The data are representative of the country as a whole and are differentiated by urban or rural population. Figures for 1998 and 1999 are based of a fixed JMP-reported population estimate of 11,426,000 (9,632,000 rural; 1,794,000 urban). Figures for 2002 are based on a JMP estimated total population of 13,810,000 (82% rural; 18% urban). Population projections for 2005, 2010 and 2015 are based on UNSTAT figures of 14,825,000 (11,898,000 in rural areas; 2,927,000 in urban areas) in 2005, approximately 16,612,000 (12,820,000 rural; 3,792,000 urban) in 2010 and 18,421,000 (13,613,000 rural; 4,808,000 urban) in 2015. These are in line with national estimates based on the 1998 Population Census which projects the total population to 14,798,315 in 2006, 16,608,012 in 2011 and 18,466,086 in 2015 but which does not differentiate between urban and rural populations.
D. Temporal Coverage Indicator figures are only available for year 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002. Projections are provided for years 2005, 2010 and 2015.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage The data, percentage of households access to safe drinking water in 1998 which is defined by the Joint Monitoring Program differ from the data in 1998 defined by the National Institute of Statistics. The data collected for the Joint Monitoring Program come from two main sources: assessment questionnaires and household surveys. Assessment questionnaires are normally sent to WHO country representatives, to be completed in liaison with local UNICEF staff and national agencies involved in the sector.
142 143 Household survey results were collected from several sources, including Demographic Health Surveys (DHS), UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), World Health Surveys (WHS) and national demographic censuses. The data collected by the National Institute of Statistics come directly from the General Population Census of Cambodia 1998.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The figures of percentage of households with access to safe drinking water in urban and rural locations are originally provided by WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP), as percentage figures. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The main advantage of this indicator is that it conforms to the indicator and the definitions adopted by WHO and UNICEF. It is also based on readily available household surveys, from which affected population estimates can be derived. The main weakness, at the data level, is that it does not conform with national figures and national statistics, as noted below.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) The Cambodian National Institute of Statistics (NIS) reported 60% of urban households with access to improved/safe drinking water in 1998 and this is used as benchmark target, while JMP reported 53%. The NIS was probably using a different definition of “access”. According to JMP “piped-in” requirements, it underestimates the true population with access to safe potable water. This will require further investigation and may be the explanation as to why NIS figures are not in agreement.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) WHO and UNICEF, through their Joint Monitoring Programme, are constantly monitoring water supply and sanitation at the global level. Future figures are likely to be available through their Internet database (see www.wssinfo.org).
144 145 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Percentage of Households with Access to Safe Drinking Water, Urbanand Rural, 1998, 2000, 2002
90 and Rural, 1998, 2000, 2002 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 8 0 2 5 0 199 200 200 200 201 2015
Urban household Urban Target Rural household Rural Target Total estimated population Total estimated target
Table 1: Urban, Rural and Total Population with Access Safe Drinking Water 1998 to 2002 and Projections to 2015
Urban Population Urban Year Urban Population Connected (%) Urban Population Connected Population 1998 1,794,000R 53R 60T 950,820E 1,076,400ET 2000 1,794,000R 54R 968,760E 2002 2,485,800R 58R 1,441,764E 2005 2,927,000P 68T 1,990,360ET 2010 3,792,000P 74T 2,806,080ET 2015 4,808,000P 80T 3,846,400ET Rural Population Rural Population Year Rural Population Connected (%) Rural Population Connected (millions) 1998 9,632,000R 25R 24T 2,408,000E 2,311,680ET 2000 9,632,000R 27R 2,600,640E 2002 11,324,200R 29R 3,284,018E 2005 11,898,000 P 30T 3,569,400ET 2010 12,820,000 P 40T 5,128,000ET 2015 13,613,000P 50T 6,806,500ET
144 145 Estimated Total Population with Access Urban Rural Total Year % (Thousands) (Thousands) (Thousands) 1998 951E 1,076ET 2,408E 2,312ET 3,359E 3,388ET 29E 30ET 2000 969E 2,601E 3,569E 31E 2002 1,442E 3,284E 4,695R 34R 2005 1,990ET 3,569ET 5,560ET 38ET 2010 2,806ET 5,128ET 7,934TE 48ET 2015 3,846ET 6,806ET 10,653ET 58ET Source: WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme E=Estimated, P=Projected by UNSTAT, R=Reported by JMP, T=CMDG Target, ET=Estimated CMDGTarget
Table 2: Proportion of Population with Access to Safe Potable Water GMS – 2002
% of Population with Access to Safe Po- Country table Water Cambodia 34 PRC 77 Lao PDR 43 Myanmar 80 Thailand 85 Viet Nam 73 Source: WHO/UNICEF-JMP
146 147 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the progress in the accessibility of the population to safe drinking water. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Accessibility to safe drinking water is of fundamental significance to lowering the fecal risk and frequency of associated diseases. In association with other socio-economic characteristics, including education and income, it is also a good universal indicator of human development. When broken down by geographic (such as rural/urban zones), or social or economic criteria, it provides useful information on inequity. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely associated with other socio-economic indicators on the proportion of people covered by adequate sanitation. These indicators are among the eight elements of primary health care. It also has close links to other water indicators such as withdrawals, reserves, consumption, or quality. 4. Targets: The UN Millennium Development Goal related to this indicator is stated as “Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water (and sanitation).” Stated differently using the baseline figure of 31% for 2000 for a population with access to safe drinking water or 69% for a population with no access to safe drinking water, this translates to a target of 65.5% of the total population by 2015. The national target, through the 2003 Cambodia Millennium Development Goals is expressed differently in terms of urban and rural population as “Increase the proportion of rural population with access to safe water source from 24% in 1998 to 50% in 2015 and urban population from 60% to 80% in 1998 to 2015”. Based on projected population estimates in both rural and urban areas (see Table 1), this translates to a target of 58 % of the total population with access to safe drinking water by 2015. There are therefore two sets of targets for this indicator. 5. International Environment Treaties: The International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (IDWSSD) 1980-1990 is an international agreement relevant to this indicator. It is a component of the WHO Global Strategy for Health for All by the Year 2000.
B. Analysis Global Perspective – Developing Countries The population served with improved water supply in developing countries has increased by 8% between 1990 - 2002, which amounts to 1,044 million more people (586 million in urban areas and 459 million in rural settings) served in 12 years (WHO/UNICEF). Regional Perspective – Southeast Asia, including Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam Between 1990 and 2002, some 99 million more people have gained access to drinking water supply in Southeast Asia. No progress has been made in terms of urban coverage due to an important increase of population (+ 82 million), whereas in rural areas, the percentage of the population served has improved by some 5%, mainly due to the small increase in population in these areas (+ 13 million). (WHO/UNICEF)
146 147 National Perspective As can be observed from Figure 1 and Table 1, about 1 million urban population or 53% of the urban population had access to drinking water supply in 1998. This increased up to 1.4 million or 58% of the urban population in 2002. Likewise, for the rural population approximately 2.4 million persons or 25% of the rural population had access to drinking water supply in 1998 and this increased to 3.3 million people or 29% of the rural population in 2002. However, the urban population with access to drinking water supply throughout the period 1998 to 2002 is still short of CMDG targets. The combined urban and rural population with access to drinking water supply was approximately 34% in year 2002. (see Table 1); This is very low percentage if compared to other GMS countries (see Table 2). Based on this comparison with other GMS countries and observed trends of the indicator, it is concluded that the state of access to safe drinking water in Cambodia is relatively poor and marginally improving.
148 149 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Urban and Rural Population 1961-2003
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Pressure
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) How much of an impact do population growth rates have on the provision of safe drinking water?
Priority Concern Water Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
Magnitude & Trend Low and Increasing
Key Message Cambodia’s population has been increasing in both rural and urban areas resulting in increased demand for safe drinking water. The average annual growth rate at 2.5% is relatively high compared with GMS countries.
148 149 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to represent the total population within the urban and rural areas for the whole country for the period 1961 to 2003.It is expressed as the total number of human inhabitants of a specified area, such as urban and rural, at a given time.
B. Data Source The data sources for this indicator originate from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Figures of total population in the urban and rural areas existed in the past, were extracted from the Annual Time Series of Population Domain in FAOSTAT-Agriculture database, and the last one updated in 10 December 2004.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage Total population data are available for both the urban and rural areas for the entire country.
D. Temporal Coverage Total populations in urban and rural areas are provided on an annual basis, starting from 1961 and ending in 2003.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage The total population for annual time series has been obtained from the UN Population Division, which prepares estimates and projections of the total population by sex and age for 1961-2001. These series are biennially revised and the present ones refer to the 2000 revision (“World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision”, United Nations, New York, 2001). The annual series of the urban/rural population have been derived from the interpolation of the series underlying the related long-term estimates and projections prepared by the UN (quinquennial series), respectively. For reference see: “World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision” (UN, New York, 2002). The estimates refer to mid-year assessments.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The total urban and rural populations are originally downloaded from the Annual Time Series of Population Domain in the FAOSTAT-Agriculture database, and the most recent was updated in 10 December 2004. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The advantage of using FAOSTAT statistics for this type of indicator is that it provides long-term, ready-made statistics of total urban and rural population. Furthermore, additional data sources other than FAOSTAT statistics on the total population in urban and rural areas are needed to support this indicator to ensure its strength.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) These data are available in time series since 1961 to 2003 and are continuously being updated by FAO using the statistic database model named FAOSTAT. There appears to be an uncertainty or unreliability of using this FAOSTAT statistic model data to illustrate the urban population for the period 1975 to 1979 as, during this period of the Khmer Rouge regime, Cambodian people were unable to live in urban areas.
150 151 C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) None anticipated. SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1 : Total, Urban and Rural Population, 1961-2003
16,000 14,000 12,000
1000's 10,000
in 8,000 6,000 4,000 Population 2,000 0
1 7 0 6 9 8 1 4 0 3 9 196 1964 196 197 1973 197 197 1982 1985 198 199 19 1997 200 200
Urban Population Rural Population Total Polulation
Table 1 : Urban, Rural and Total Population-Estimates, 1961-2003
Year Urban Population-Estimates Rural Population-Estimates Total Population-Estimates (1000) (1000) (1000) 1961 573 4,991 5,564 1962 588 5,109 5,698 1963 608 5,229 5,836 1964 633 5,350 5,984 1965 665 5,476 6,141 1966 702 5,609 6,311 1967 740 5,747 6,487 1968 774 5,885 6,659 1969 800 6,013 6,813 1970 812 6,126 6,938 1971 808 6,229 7,037 1972 790 6,322 7,112 1973 765 6,388 7,153 1974 743 6,407 7,150 1975 731 6,367 7,098 1976 731 6,256 6,987 1977 742 6,089 6,831 1978 762 5,915 6,677 1979 788 5,801 6,589 1980 818 5,795 6,613 1981 854 5,913 6,767
150 151 Urban Population-Estimates Rural Population-Estimates Total Population-Estimates Year (1000) (1000) (1000) 1982 894 6,141 7,036 1983 938 6,445 7,384 1984 982 6,776 7,758 1985 1,023 7,096 8,119 1986 1,061 7,395 8,456 1987 1,097 7,682 8,779 1988 1,134 7,960 9,093 1989 1,176 8,236 9,412 1990 1,228 8,516 9,744 1991 1,289 8,798 10,088 1992 1,360 9,077 10,437 1993 1,440 9,349 10,789 1994 1,529 9,611 11,140 1995 1,626 9,859 11,485 1996 1,731 10,093 11,824 1997 1,843 10,315 12,158 1998 1,963 10,525 12,488 1999 2,090 10,727 12,817 2000 2,223 10,924 13,147 2001 2,361 11,117 13,478 2002 2,502 11,307 13,810 2003 2,645 11,498 14,144 Source: FAOSTAT, Last update: 10-Dec-04
Table 2: Population in GMS Countries, 2003
Country Population (000) Lao PDR 5,657 Cambodia 14,144 Myanmar 49,485 Thailand 62,833 Viet Nam 81,377 PRC 1,311,709 Source: FAOSTAT, Last update: 02 March 2005
152 153 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the pressure on increases of urban and rural population numbers that impact on drinking water provision. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: The indicator of urban and rural population yields knowledge important for planning, particularly by governments, in the fields such as health, education, housing, social security, employment, environmental preservation, especially in the field of drinking water management and provision, and its expenditure. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: The total population is relevant to a pressure indicator on water resources.
B. Analysis The Cambodian population has increased from 5.5 million in 1961 to 14.1 million in 2003, while the total rural population is much higher than the total urban population (see Figure 1 and Table 1). Figure 1 and Table 1 show that the urban population has slightly increased within the period 1961 to 2003 from 0.6 to 2.6 millions. The rural population has steadily increased from about 6 to 11.5 millions from 1980 to 2003, while it marginally increased from 1961 to 1980. Based on the estimates in Table 1, it is concluded that the total number of the population, and both urban and rural populations has increased rapidly for the whole country and has resulted in pressure on water resources and created a future national water shortage. Based on the comparison shown in Table 2 of the current population in other GMS countries, Cambodia’s population is lower than the other 5 countries except Lao PDR. Based on the observed trend of the indicator that the Cambodian population has increased, it is concluded that the Cambodian population has been Low but Increasing.
152 153 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Urban and Rural Drinking Water Provision - 1998 to 2003
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) How much additional safe water was supplied to urban and rural consumers?
Priority Concern Water Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
Impact & Trend Low and Consistent
Key Message RGC has consistently invested in improving access to safe water to both rural and urban areas. Water supply projects have increased the volume of water in rural areas, and diversified the type of access. However, the level of investment was clearly inadequate given the extremely low percentages of rural access in Cambodia. Comparisons with other GMS countries are difficult but possible to make given the well developed WHO and UNICEF methodology and these comparisons are unfavorable to Cambodia.
154 155 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to represent the source of drinking water provision as well as its expenditure for domestic consumption by taking into account of safe water provision. Water provision expenditure is expressed as US dollars which are available in the Phnom Penh area. Water provision in other provincial towns was not estimated for expenditure, and it can be expressed as volume in cubic meters. In the rural areas, water provision is expressed as a number by which, concerned with contamination, water from reservoirs and rivers is usually processed in a treatment plant before distribution. Water treatment plants are essential for providing water safe for human consumption. Safe water that is safe for drinking and bathing including treated surface water and untreated but uncontaminated water, such as from springs, sanitary wells, and protected boreholes.
B. Data Source The figures used for this indicator are extracted from Significant Achievements of the Royal Government of Cambodia during the Second legislature of the National Assembly (1998-2003). These data on drinking water production and its expenditure originate from the Ministry of Industry, Mine and Energy; and data on drinking water provision such as wells and ponds originate from the Ministry of Rural Development.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The data are representative of the country as a whole and are differentiated by urban or rural areas. Figures for the volume of drinking water provision for 1998 to 2003 represent urban sites such as Phnom Penh city, other municipalities and provincial towns. Exceptionally, drinking water provision expenditure is available only for Phnom Penh city. Figures for drinking water provision sources which are provided as the numbers of wells, giant Jar, water basins and ponds could be presented for urban areas, but they are mostly in rural areas.
D. Temporal Coverage Figures for volume of drinking water provision and its expenditure are available for the period of 1998-2003.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage The data on drinking water volume/production and its expenditure are collected and estimated by the Ministry of Industry, Mine and Energy from different companies that undertake and produce drinking water provision. The data on drinking water provision sources such wells and ponds are recorded by the Ministry of Rural Development and are derived from the different NGOs, companies and other agencies, who provide support to rural population development.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The figure on drinking water production and its expenditure for Phnom Penh city is extracted from the Significant Achievements of the Royal Government of Cambodia during the Second legislature of the National Assembly (1998-2003) which is expressed as cubic meters and Riels. The expenditure is recalculated and expressed as US Dollars with the exchange rate of 1USD = 4000 Riels. However, the figure for drinking water provision in other provincial towns is represented as volume and expenditure figures were not available.
154 155 The data on drinking water provision source such as of wells, giant jars, water basins and ponds are also extracted from Significant Achievements of the Royal Government of Cambodia during the Second legislature of the National Assembly (1998-2003) which is expressed as a number. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) Drinking water provision and its expenditure are indicative of the government’s response to provide the services on safe drinking water for the population in both urban and rural areas. However, it is less indicative of expenditure for urban areas, because data are available only for Phnom Penh city. Furthermore, the numbers of wells, ponds, giant jar and water basins are only indicative of the government’s effort to provide the support to the rural population, and data for the volume of water provided are not accessible/available. There are no data or study related to the safe drinking water level both for the treated and untreated drinking water. There are also no drinking water quality standards for treated water with concentrations of chemical compounds and bacteria that are considered as safe.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) The numbers of wells, ponds, giant jar and water basins are assumed to be used as rural water provision for this purposed indicator, nevertheless they might be provided/ supported for the urban population as well. Moreover, these numbers are not reliable and accountable as the total amount of water provision sources; they cannot be controlled throughout the country. The Ministry of Industry, Mine and Energy is managing and monitoring on drinking water production and its expenditure, and Ministry of Rural Development is managing and monitoring on drinking water supply such providing wells, giant jar, water basins and ponds for the rural population.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) The Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Energy and Ministry of Rural Development are considered as the key ministries in provision of drinking water source data. Meanwhile, the documentation of Achievements of the Royal Government of Cambodia during the Second legislature of the National Assembly (1998-2003) is also considered as an additional data source. Additional figures could be available through Significant Achievements of the Royal Government of Cambodia that reports every five years of the legislature of the National Assembly.
156 157 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1a : Expenditure on Drinking Water Provision for Phnom Penh, US Dollars, 1998-2003
12
10
8 D
6
Million US Million 4
2
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Table 1a : Phnom Penh’s Volume of Drinking Water and Its Expenditure – 1998-2003
Drinking water Year Expenditure (Riels) Expenditure (USD) production (m3) 1998 39,983,794 16,427,655 4,106,914 1999 40,622,481 18,766,305 4,691,576 2000 39,801,167 20,933,172 5,233,293 2001 37,763,647 23,621,322 5,905,331 2002 41,793,679 32,266,943 8,066,736 2003 46,871,146 39,544,816 9,886,204 Source: Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy
Figure 1b : Urban Drinking Water Provision, Cubic Meters, 1998-2003
60
50 s 40 Meter
30 Cubic 20 Million 10
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
PNH's Volumes Other Town's Volumes Total Urban Volumes
156 157 Table 1b: Urban Drinking Water Provision, Cubic Meters, 1998-2003
Other Town’s Urban Volumes Year PNH’s Volumes (m3) Volumes (m3) (m3) 1998 39,983,794 4,591,880 44,575,674 1999 40,622,481 5,520,731 46,143,212 2000 39,801,167 5,586,740 45,387,907 2001 37,763,647 6,013,123 43,776,770 2002 41,793,679 6,289,457 48,083,136 2003 46,871,146 8,767,720 55,638,866 Source: Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy
Figure 2: Rural Drinking Water Provision – 1998-2003
12,000
10,000
8,000 s
6,000 Number 4,000
2,000
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Concrete wells Drilled wells Water basin Pond Giant Jar
Table 2a: Rural Drinking Water Provision Sources, By Year – 1998-2003
Protected Repaired Drilled Drilled wells Water Year Pond Giant jar dug wells wells wells repaired basin 1998 933 460 2747 145 11 243 1999 117 383 924 244 42 299 2000 685 187 1371 286 426 461 2001 308 126 1886 1209 238 127 1851 2002 953 179 1105 565 73 156 796 2003 2741 169 1819 210 90 132 200 Note: These data are expressed as numbers. Source: Ministry of Rural Development
158 159 Table 2b: Rural Drinking Water Provision Sources, By Period – 1998-2003
Year Dug wells Drilled wells Water basin Pond Giant jar 1998 933 2747 11 243 0 1998 - 1999 1050 3671 53 542 0 1998 - 2000 1735 5042 479 1003 0 1998 - 2001 2043 6928 717 1130 1851 1998 - 2002 2996 8033 790 1286 2647 1998 - 2003 5737 9852 880 1418 2847 Note: These data are expressed as numbers. Source: Ministry of Rural Development
158 159 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the progress in the safe drinking water provided for both urban and rural populations. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Adequate quantities of water for meeting basic human needs are a prerequisite for existence, health, and development. If development is to be sustained, adequate quantity of water supply must be available. As development increases, the demand for water will normally also increase for personal, commercial, and agricultural purposes. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely associated with other socio-economic indicators on the water provision. It also has close links to other water indicators such as withdrawals, reserves, consumption, or quality. 4. Targets: The UN Millennium Development Goal indirectly related to this indicator is stated as “Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water (and sanitation).” The national target, through the 2003 Cambodia Millennium Development Goals is expressed differently in terms of urban and rural population as “Increase the proportion of rural population with access to safe water source from 24% in 1998 to 50% in 2015 and urban population from 60% to 80% in 1998 to 2015”. 5. International Environment Treaties: The United Nations Water Conference recommended that Governments reaffirm their commitment made at Habitat to “adopt programmes with realistic standards for quality and quantity to provide water for urban and rural areas.
B. Analysis As can be observed from Figure 1a and Table 1a, drinking water expenditure for Phnom Penh (PNH) increased from approximately USD4 million in 1998 to USD10 million in 2003. The annual rate of increase is approximately USD0.5 million for the first 3 years (1998-2001) and USD2 million during 2001-2003. Figure 1b and Table 1b represent the volume of drinking water for other urban areas in the whole country during 1998 to 2003. It can be observed that the volume of drinking water provision for Phnom Penh is much higher than the volume for the total of all other provincial towns about 35 million m3 each year. Drinking water provision for both Phnom Penh and other provincial towns slightly increased. The annual rate of increaseI is about 4 million m3 of total urban water provision. Figure 2 and Tables 2a and 2b show that the number of dug wells, drilled wells, water basin, pond and giant jars increased steadily, due to the Government’s effort for both new water provision sources and maintenance, and attempts to achieve the national target to increase the proportion of the rural population with access to safe drinking water sources from 24% in 1998 to 50% in 2015, and for the urban population from 60% in 1998 to 80% in 2015. Drinking water provision for other GMS countries is not yet provided. The magnitude of the response indicator is therefore non-comparable with outside countries However based on the trend of the indicator and the overall increase in of urban and rural drinking water provision, it is clear that the response has been consistent over the time span of the indicator.
160 161 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Area under Rice Cultivation 1980-2003
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator State
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Is rice cultivation increasing the demand for additional irrigation water?
Priority Concern Water Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
State & Trend Average and Stabilizing
Key Message The area under rice cultivation has slowly but steadily grown from 1.4 million ha in 1980 to 2.4 million ha in 2003. Most rice producing areas are rain-fed only. The percentage of rice-growing areas regularly irrigated was 16.6% in the late 1990s. Increases in the rice-growing areas recorded in the last fifteen years exposed the limited capacity for irrigation water storage.
160 161 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to measure the state indicator of water resource or potential irrigation that is supplied to rice cultivated areas in both dry and rainy seasons. It is an indirect measurement by measuring rice cultivated area instead of irrigated area. The result is expressed in hectares of rice cultivated area on an annual basis. Rice cultivated area is an area for cropping rice. In Cambodia, most cultivated rice farmers depend on weather (rainy) so that rice fields can be filled up by water for the whole period of growing rice until it is harvested. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also notes that the irrigation potential has never been estimated in terms of physical area which could be irrigated considering water and land resources. However, an assessment has been made of the total potential cropped area if existing and past irrigation systems were rehabilitated and improved.
B. Data Source The figures were extracted from the Year Book 2003, published by the National Institute of Statistics, and the Agricultural Statistics (2003-2004), published by the Statistics Office, Department of Planning, Statistics and International Cooperation. The original source of the data was the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage Data are available for both wet and dry seasons of rice cultivated areas for the entire country.
D. Temporal Coverage The amount of rice cultivated area is provided on annual basis, from 1998 to 2003.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage The data is provided in both wet and dry season. It is collected and estimated by each provincial department and reported to the National Agricultural Statistics Office at MAFF annually.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation Figures are quoted exactly as stated in the Year Book 2003. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The figure of rice cultivated areas is indicative of potential irrigated land which is supplied for growing rice, although it is indirectly measured. However it is less indicative of the state of agricultural water provision if some areas were filled by water, but it is not cultivated rice.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) This data set provides an estimate for agricultural water provision of rice production from 1980 to 2003. However, it is less indicative of the absolute amount of irrigated land due to the data not being a real physical area measurement and it could not be estimated over the country’s total area.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) Figures are recorded and updated by MAFF annually. The Year Book appears to be published annually or frequently by the National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning.
162 163 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1 : Total Rice Cultivated Areas During Wet and Dry Season, 1980-2003
3,000
2,500 s 2,000
Hectare 1,500
1,000
Thousand 500
0 4 0 6 8 0 2 2 199 199 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 199 199 199 200 200
Wet Season Dry Season Total Cultivated Areas
Table 1 : Total Rice Cultivated Areas During Wet and Dry Season, 1998-2003
Total Cultivated Areas Year Wet Season (thousand ha) Dry Season (thousand ha) (thousand ha) 1980 1,441.00 1,346.00 95.0 1981 1,493.00 1,343.00 150.0 1982 1,674.00 1,546.00 128.0 1983 1,740.00 1,624.00 116.0 1984 1,418.00 1,299.00 119.0 1985 1,462.00 1,345.00 117.0 1986 1,535.00 1,413.00 122.0 1987 1,378.00 1,249.00 129.0 1988 1,879.00 1,735.00 144.0 1989 1,932.00 1,787.00 145.0 1990 1,890.00 1,740.00 150.0 1991 1,910.00 1,761.00 149.0 1992 1,853.00 1,710.00 143.0 1993 1,856.60 1,701.60 155.0 1994 1,924.00 1,753.90 170.1 1995 2,086.00 1,870.00 216.0 1996 2,170.90 1,936.90 234.0 1997 2,076.00 1,827.30 248.7 1998 2,094.70 1,873.10 221.6 1999 2,157.60 1,915.60 242.0 2000 2,389.50 1,915.50 474.0 2001 2,241.00 1,974.10 266.9 2002 2,137.10 1,821.10 316.0 2003 2,314.00 2,030.70 283.3 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
162 163 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the state of water resource to be supplied for rice cultivation. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Cambodian socio-economic development requirements and proposals make several references to water resources and their management. Water is seen as contributing to Government priorities including poverty alleviation and economic growth principally as irrigated agriculture, seen as essential to addressing poverty by achieving food security and promoting income generation in rural areas. The importance of water is recognized also in the context of water for irrigation (Source: FAO Corporate Document Repository, by Mr. Chann Sinath, Deputy Director, Irrigated Agriculture Department, Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology). 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: Not applicable. 4. Targets: None applicable. 5. International Environment Treaties: Cambodia is a signatory of the 1995 Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin, together with Lao PDR, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Member countries agree to cooperate in all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of the water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin, such as navigation, flood control, fisheries, agriculture, hydropower, and environmental protection [source: Cambodia Environment Monitor 2003].
B. Analysis Agriculture is the backbone of the Cambodian economy, and it depends on irrigation/water provision for wet season crops and full irrigation for dry season crops. Table 1 and Figure 1 show that the total rice cultivated area steadily increased from 1.44 million ha in 1980 to 2.31 million ha in 2003. Most of the rice cultivation occurs in the wet season, while the cultivated areas in the dry season were very small in comparison to cultivated areas in the wet season and it very slightly increased from about 95,000 in 1980 to 283,000 ha in 2003.. The small increase in rice production may be caused by the lack of an irrigation system or water management.
164 165 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Agricultural Population 1980 - 2003
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Pressure
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Does the increase in the agricultural population threaten the availability of water for irrigation?
Priority Concern Water Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
Magnitude & Trend Medium and Increasing
Key Message Demand for agriculture water is on the rise as the population engaged in agriculture increases. Cambodia has the highest share of rural agricultural population in all of GMS countries. Indications are that the pressure on agricultural water demand from a growing population will continue to rise.
164 165 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator aims to represent the total agricultural population which demands water supply for agriculture in the period 1980 to 2003. It is expressed as the total number of human inhabitants at a given time.
B. Data Source The data sources for this indicator originate from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Figures of total agricultural population were extracted from the Annual Time Series of Population Domain in FAOSTAT-Agriculture database, and the last one was updated on 10 December 2004.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The data are representative of the total agricultural population for the country as a whole.
D. Temporal Coverage Total agricultural population is provided on annual basis, starting from 1980 and ending in year 2003.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage In deriving estimates and projections of agricultural population presented in FAOSTAT- Statistics, FAO has largely relied on the close relationship existing between the ratio of economically active population in agriculture to the total economically active population (EAPA/EAP) and the ratio of agricultural population to total population (AP/TP). For most countries the ratios were assumed to be equal, so that the agricultural population is derived by applying the EAPA/EAP ratio to the total population. The estimates refer to mid-year assessments.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The agricultural populations are originally downloaded from the Annual Time Series of Population Domain in FAOSTAT-Agriculture database, and the last one was updated on 10 December 2004. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The advantage of using FAOSTAT statistics for this type of indicator is that it provides long- term, ready-made statistics of total agricultural population. Furthermore, additional data sources other than FAOSTAT statistics on the total agricultural population are needed to support this indicator to ensure its strength.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) These data are available in time series since 1980 to 2003 and are continuously being and ongoing updated by FAO using the statistic database model named FAOSTAT.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) The data and the fact sheet should be updated on an annual basis as new annual data are published in FAOSTAT.
166 167 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1 : Total Agricultural Population, 1980-2003
12,000
10,000 s
8,000 1000' in 6,000
4,000
Population 2,000
0
000 002 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2 2
Table 1: Total Agricultural Population Estimates, 1980-2003
Year Agricultural Population (1000) 1980 5,004 1981 5,110 1982 5,301 1983 5,548 1984 5,814 1985 6,069 1986 6,305 1987 6,531 1988 6,749 1989 6,969 1990 7,197 1991 7,414 1992 7,633 1993 7,851 1994 8,064 1995 8,271 1996 8,471 1997 8,664 1998 8,851 1999 9,035 2000 9,216 2001 9,395 2002 9,572 2003 9,747 Source: FAOSTAT, Last update: 10 Dec 2004
166 167 Table 2: Agricultural Population in GMS Countries, 2003
Agricultural Population Non-Agricultural Agricultural Population Country (000) Population (000) % Lao PDR 4,297 1,360 76.0 Cambodia 9,747 4,397 68.9 Thailand 29,269 33,564 46.6 Myanmar 34,278 15,208 69.3 Viet Nam 53,797 27,580 66.1 PRC 851,028 460,682 64.9 Source: FAOSTAT, Last update: 2 Mar 2005
SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the pressure on increases of agricultural population numbers which impacts on the demand for agricultural water provision. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: The indicator of agricultural population yields knowledge important for planning, particularly by governments, in the fields such as labor force, employment, economy, housing, social security, environmental preservation, especially in the field of agricultural water management and provision, and its expenditure.
B. Analysis As can be observed in Figure 1 and Table 1, agricultural population has doubled in during 1980-2003 from 5 to 10 million with the average growth rate per year of approximately 0.2 million for the whole country. This has resulted in double the pressure on agricultural water provision for agricultural production. Based on the comparison as shown in Table 2 of the current agricultural population in other GMS countries, Cambodia is third ranked amongst the six GMS countries in terms of the proportion of the population which is termed agricultural. Based on this comparison and observed trends of the indicator, it is concluded that the pressure on water resources coming from the demand from the agricultural population is Medium and Increasing.
168 169 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Expenditure on Irrigation System Construction and Maintenance 1999-2003
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Is government expenditure making a significant contribution to the overall percentage of farmland served by irrigation?
Priority Concern Water Resources
Geographic Area Cambodia
Impact & Trend Non-Comparable and Intermittent
Key Message Many existing irrigation systems do not function well as a result of decay during the time of Khmer Rouge and insufficient budget in the decade immediately following. The RGC, supported by international donors, have since increased expenditure on the rehabilitation and construction of new irrigation systems. During 1999-2003, the irrigation coverage increased from 16.62% of all farmlands to 20% or by about 3.3 to 4% of total farmland areas annually.
168 169 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track government expenditure on the construction and maintenance of irrigation systems; it is expressed as an annual amount in US dollars.
B. Data Source The figures are extracted from Significant Achievements of the Royal Government of Cambodia during the Second Legislature of the National Assembly (1998-2003), published by Office of Council of Ministers, Phnom Penh, October 2004. The data originate from the Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (MOWRAM).
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The data are representative of government expenditure on rural irrigation systems for the country as a whole.
D. Temporal Coverage Expenditure on irrigation system construction and maintenance is provided on an annual basis, beginning in 1998 and ending in the year 2003.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage A variety of construction and maintenance expenditure includes: expenditure on irrigation and drainage, flood protection, polder protection, colmatage, rehabilitation and maintenance of structure, dike rehabilitation, excavation and restoring canals, and rehabilitation and installation of pumping stations. The expenditure originates from government budgets, loans and grants.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The original data were provided in both Riel and US Dollar (USD) currencies. For the purpose of standardizing the indicator values over time, all expenditures were aggregated and re-calculated from Riels to USD based on an exchange rate of USD1 equal to 4000Riels. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The figure of expenditure on irrigation is indicative of the government’s response on water provision and management for the agricultural sector. However, it is less indicative of how much areas and water can be provided or supplied.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) The data may be slightly under-representative of the total expenditure on irrigation systems since it does not include non-government expenditure funded by NGO’s and other non-government contributors.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) Significant Achievements of the Royal Government of Cambodia is published every five years. However, annual data may be available from MOWRAM for further updating of this indicator and fact sheet.
170 171 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1 : Expenditure on Irrigation System Construction and Maintenance, 1999-2003
55 50.37 50 45 40 $ 35 US 30 26.53 25 20 (Millions) 15 13.79 10 5 0.21 2.32 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Table 1 : Total Expenditure on Irrigation System Construction and Maintenance,
Description Unit 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Irrigation and Riel 1,834,602,000 1,545,130,750 drainage USD 196,663 1,312,711 8,240,785 6,651,533 40,559,246 Flood protection Riel 998,040,000 USD 2,209,513 6,778,772 Polder project Riel 806,360,000 USD 4,043,472 176,730 4,292,660 Colmatage project Riel USD 11,724,682 Rehabilitation and Riel 19,882,100 16,420,000 45,244,000 10,970,000 26,385,740 maintenance of USD 83,916 15,060 18,504 6,270 structures Dike rehabilitation Riel 19,964,100 137,765,500 63,830,496 208,178,224 51,232,000 USD 7,602 2,273 720 Excavation and Riel 60,499,900 17,869,900 105,440,000 restoring canals USD 3,700 4,016 80,000 Rehabilitation and Riel 867,198,000 1,730,000 2,424,000 1,524,000 installation of USD 96,000 5,000,000 pumping stations Sub-Total Riel 39,846,200 3,662,345,500 1,169,344,396 239,442,124 1,729,712,490 USD 196,663 1,407,930 26,235,785 13,726,277 49,938,176 Total USD 206,625 2,323,517 26,528,122 13,786,138 50,370,605 Exchange rate: 1US$ = 4000Riels Source: Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (MOWRAM)
170 171 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the response of expenditure on irrigation system construction and maintenance which support water resources for agricultural production. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Cambodian socio-economic development requirements and proposals make several references to water resources and their management. Water is seen as contributing to Government priorities including poverty alleviation and economic growth principally as irrigated agriculture, seen as essential to addressing poverty by achieving food security and promoting income generation in rural areas. This indicator illustrates the government’s effort to expend many funds for agricultural water provision. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: Not applicable. 4. Targets: The main economic infrastructure of Cambodia is agriculture. The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) would enhance the irrigation systems, because agriculture activities in Cambodia are solely dependent on the weather. In five years from 1998-2003, it would increase the irrigation capacity from 16.62% to 20% on farmland, an annual rate of about 3.32% to 4% (source: Significant Achievements of RGC during the Second legislature of the National Assembly 1998-2003). 5. International Environment Treaties: Cambodia is a signatory of the 1995 Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin, together with Lao PDR, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Member countries agree to cooperate in all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin, such as navigation, flood control, fisheries, agriculture, hydropower, and environmental protection.
B. Analysis Most existing irrigation systems were damaged by natural deterioration due to inadequate finance to support farmers to operate and maintain irrigation systems. Since 1999, the Government of Cambodia has expended about USD0.2 million on irrigation system construction and maintenance (see Figure 1 and Table 1). This expenditure has grown steadily during the 5-year period, to approximately USD50 million in 2003. Owing to the lack of comparable figures for other GMS countries and based on the observed trends in Figure 1, it is concluded that government expenditure on irrigation system development and maintenance for the period of record is non-comparable and intermittent.
172 173 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Average Rice Yield 1961-2003
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator State
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ)
Priority Concern Agricultural Land Management
Geographic Area Cambodia
State & Trend Relatively Poor but Improving
Key Message Although the lowest in GMS, rice yields in Cambodia have shown signs of improvement since the early 1990s. Nevertheless it has taken 44 years between 1960 and 2004 to increase the rice yields from 1 to 2 metric tons per hectare. Rice yields have lagged behind population increases recorded during the same period.
172 173 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track, over time, the average yield of one hectare of rice field, as an indicator of the state of the agricultural land resource. The result is expressed as the annual rice yield, in metric tons, from one hectare of cultivated rice field.
B. Data Source The data utilized for the construction of this indicator originate from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Figures for average rice yield were extracted from the Crop Primary of Agricultural Production Database, FAOSTAT-Agriculture, last updated on 20 December 2004.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The data are representative of rice production and rice yields for the country as a whole.
D. Temporal Coverage Average rice yields are provided on an annual basis starting in 1961 and ending in 2004.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage Estimates of average rice yield for Cambodia are continuously being updated by FAO as an ongoing activity. The compilation of the Agricultural Production Database has been made possible by the cooperation of governments, which have supplied most of the information in the form of replies to annual FAO questionnaires. FAO has continued to collaborate with various agencies in order to achieve conformity in the presentation of international figures.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The original data were downloaded in hectograms per hectare. For compatibility with national measurements use, they were converted to metric tons per hectare. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The advantage of using the FAOSTAT statistic for this type of indicator is that it provides a long- term trend for evaluation. Nevertheless, it is less indicative of land degradation where fertilizers are used for agricultural purposes.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) The FAO data source is recommended for this indicator because it is the only data source which can provide a long-term trends for evaluation. National statistics are available for the period 1993 to 2002, as is published in the proceedings of the Annual Conference on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 10-11 April 2003 by Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), but these can only provide short-term trends.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) For the purpose of updating this indicator and this fact sheet, FAOSTAT figures and MAFF’s statistics are published annually.
174 175 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Rough Rice Yield in Metric Tons Per Hectare – 1961-2004
2.5
2
1.5 Hectare
per 1
Tons 0.5
0
1 5 9 7 1 5 3 196 196 196 1973 197 198 198 1989 199 1997 2001
Table 1: Rough Rice Yields in Metric Tons Per Hectare – 1961-2004
Year Yield 1961 1.09 1962 0.89 1963 1.17 1964 1.16 1965 1.07 1966 1.09 1967 1.22 1968 1.40 1969 1.29 1970 1.59 1971 1.45 1972 1.38 1973 1.29 1974 1.14 1975 1.20 1976 1.10 1977 1.00 1978 1.00 1979 0.70 1980 1.19 1981 1.13 1982 1.21 1983 1.26 1984 1.29 1985 1.25 1986 1.38
174 175 Year Yield 1987 1.32 1988 1.37 1989 1.44 1990 1.35 1991 1.40 1992 1.32 1993 1.31 1994 1.49 1995 1.79 1996 1.83 1997 1.77 1998 1.79 1999 1.94 2000 2.12 2001 2.07 2002 1.92 2003 2.15 2004 2.05 Source: FAOSTAT 2004
SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the state of land resource or land quality through indirect measures of the rice production which is represented as metric tons per hectare of agricultural land. However, it is less indicative because the quantity of rice yield depends on fertilizer use to meet the demands of production and water supply is also essential for rice production. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Rice plays an important role in Cambodia for the national economy and food security. Most of the country’s land developed for agriculture is used for rice production. Rice is the staple food of Cambodia, providing 75% of the daily caloric intake. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator may be linked to other land resource indicators, such as fertilizer use and water supply for irrigation.
B. Analysis Rice production in Cambodia is mainly dependent on rainwater. Some populations are using fertilizers for increasing yields. The average rice yield was estimated around 1.2 tons/ha during the 1960s (see Figure 1 and Table 1), and increased significantly by 1970 when rice yield reached 1.6 tons/ha. After 1970, the yield decreased to around 1 tons/ha in the late 1970’s. However, after the 1980’s, the rice yield increased significantly and reached the pre-war level in the mid 1990’s. From the late 1990s and in the early 2000’s, the yield increase significantly and reached an all-time high of 2 tons/ha. It can be concluded that average rice production in Cambodia has increased slightly to feed the increased population for their food security. Since it cannot be compared with other GMS countries, it is concluded that the average rice yield has been Average and Stabilizing.
176 177 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Available Agriculture Land per Capita – 1961 to 2002
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Pressure
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Is availability of farmland becoming a significant factor in the pattern of land use and environmental impacts?
Priority Concern Agricultural Land Management
Geographic Area Cambodia
Magnitude & Trend Low and increasing
Key Message Cambodia has traditionally had sizeable areas of agricultural land. However, the agricultural land per capita has seen a decline (from about 0.65 per capita in 1961 to about 0.37 ha per capita in 2003) due to the rapid growth of the rural population and constraints placed on area expansion.
176 177 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator was developed as an indicator of the pressure that the agriculture sector imposes on a limited land resource and often in conflict with other sectors such as forestry. It is expressed as the ratio of available agricultural area divided by the total population, in hectares per person. It represents the area in hectares that is required to support the agricultural production for one person. It also expressed the agricultural area as a percentage of total land area, 18,103,500 ha, to represent the available agricultural land area in the country over the period. Agriculture Area in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) land use tables is defined as the sum of the area of arable land, permanent crops and permanent pastures. Arable land in turn is defined as land under temporary crops (double-cropped areas are counted only once), temporary meadows for mowing or pasture, land under market and kitchen gardens and land temporarily fallow (less than five years). The abandoned land resulting from shifting cultivation is not included in this category. Data for “Arable land” are not meant to indicate the amount of land that is potentially cultivable. Permanent crop area is defined as land cultivated with crops that occupy the land for long periods and need not be replanted after each harvest, such as cocoa, coffee and rubber; this category includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees and vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber. Permanent pasture is defined as land used permanently (five years or more) for herbaceous forage crops, either cultivated or growing wild (wild prairie or grazing land). The dividing line between this category and the category “Forests and woodland”; is rather indefinite, especially in the case of shrubs, savannah, etc., which may have been reported in either of these two categories.
B. Data Source Both data sources for this indicator originate from FAO. Figures for past and existing Agriculture Areas were extracted from the Land domain and Land Use Database of FAOSTAT, last updated in July, 2004. Corresponding population tables and population projections were extracted from the same FOASTAT source in November, 2004.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The data and the estimates are representative of agricultural land availability for the country as a whole.
D. Temporal Coverage Land cover statistics are provided on an annual basis starting in 1961 and ending in 2002. Population figures and estimates are provided for the same period of record.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage Estimates of agriculture land area are continuously being updated by FAO as an ongoing activity.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation For past performance, the amount of agricultural land (in 1000’s of hectares) was divided by population, or population estimate, (also in 1000’s) to arrive at annual per capita rate. In order to express the available agricultural land area as a percentage of total land area, the amount of agricultural land (in 1000’s of hectares) was divided by total land area of 18,104 thousand ha.
178 179 QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The advantage of using FAOSTAT statistics for this type of indicator is that it provides long- term, ready-made statistics of land cover and population in a consistent manner.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) Although the definition of agriculture area is clearly defined in the FAO database, this definition may not agree with the national definition. As a result of the misinterpretation of this definition, the numbers may not agree with the national figures. Nevertheless, the data, within its level of accuracy, should be adequate to provide long-term trends.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) None anticipated. SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Agriculture Land as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1961-2002
30 28 26 24
t 22 20
Percen 18 16 14 12 10 3 3 5 1 3 1 5 7 9 1 7 9 5 196 197 197 198 198 1989 1991 1997 1999 196 196 196 196 197 197 197 198 1987 1993 1995 2001
Table 1: Agriculture Land as a Percentage of Total Land Area – 1961-2002
Total-Agriculture Land Year Agriculture Land % (Thousands ha) 1961 3,518 19.4 1962 3,533 19.5 1963 3,542 19.6 1964 3,595 19.9 1965 3,627 20.0 1966 3,627 20.0 1967 3,629 20.0 1968 3,577 19.8 1969 3,477 19.2 1970 3,419 18.9 1971 2,450 13.5 1972 2,450 13.5 1973 2,450 13.5
178 179 Total-Agriculture Land Year Agriculture Land % (Thousands ha) 1974 2,500 13.8 1975 2,500 13.8 1976 2,550 14.1 1977 2,550 14.1 1978 2,600 14.4 1979 2,600 14.4 1980 2,650 14.6 1981 2,650 14.6 1982 2,680 14.8 1983 2,690 14.9 1984 2,691 14.9 1985 3,170 17.5 1986 3,680 20.3 1987 4,280 23.6 1988 4,930 27.2 1989 5,285 29.2 1990 5,349 29.5 1991 5,300 29.3 1992 5,300 29.3 1993 5,319 29.4 1994 5,305 29.3 1995 5,307 29.3 1996 5,307 29.3 1997 5,307 29.3 1998 5,307 29.3 1999 5,307 29.3 2000 5,307 29.3 2001 5,307 29.3 2002 5,307 29.3 Total Land Area = 18,103,400 ha Source: FAOSTAT July 2004 – Land Use Database
Figure 2: Agricultural Land Per Capita (ha) – 1961-2002
0.7
0.6 e 0.5 Hectar
0.4
0.3 1 4 7 3 6 9 0 2 5 196 196 196 197 197 197 1988 1991 1994 197 198 198 1997 2000
180 181 Table 2: Agricultural Land Per Capita (ha) – 1961-2002
Total Agricultural Land Total Population Agricultural Land Year (thousand ha) (thousand) Per Capita (ha) 1961 3,518 5,564 0.63 1962 3,533 5,698 0.62 1963 3,542 5,836 0.61 1964 3,595 5,984 0.60 1965 3,627 6,141 0.59 1966 3,627 6,311 0.57 1967 3,629 6,487 0.56 1968 3,577 6,659 0.54 1969 3,477 6,813 0.51 1970 3,419 6,938 0.49 1971 2,450 7,037 0.35 1972 2,450 7,112 0.34 1973 2,450 7,153 0.34 1974 2,500 7,150 0.35 1975 2,500 7,098 0.35 1976 2,550 6,987 0.36 1977 2,550 6,831 0.37 1978 2,600 6,677 0.39 1979 2,600 6,589 0.39 1980 2,650 6,613 0.40 1981 2,650 6,767 0.39 1982 2,680 7,036 0.38 1983 2,690 7,384 0.36 1984 2,691 7,758 0.35 1985 3,170 8,119 0.39 1986 3,680 8,456 0.44 1987 4,280 8,779 0.49 1988 4,930 9,093 0.54 1989 5,285 9,412 0.56 1990 5,349 9,744 0.55 1991 5,300 10,088 0.53 1992 5,300 10,437 0.51 1993 5,319 10,789 0.49 1994 5,305 11,140 0.48 1995 5,307 11,485 0.46 1996 5,307 11,824 0.45 1997 5,307 12,158 0.44 1998 5,307 12,488 0.42 1999 5,307 12,817 0.41 2000 5,307 13,147 0.40 2001 5,307 13,478 0.39 2002 5,307 13,810 0.38 Source: FAOSTAT July 2004 – Population Database
180 181 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The indicator was developed to address the concern for conflicting land resources. It is not meant to be an indicator for land degradation. It could also be utilized as a pressure for forest resources. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: For various reasons, the average value of this indicator will vary dramatically. The absolute value of the result is not the purpose of the indicator. It is the downward trend of the indicator that is the most important factor as more efficient use of the agriculture area is made.The downward trend must continue unless serious compromises are to be made in the country to meet the demands from the agricultural sector. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: A similar indicator could be developed to monitor the pressure from the forestry sector but with the reduced domestic consumption of wood product and the high level of imports and exports, the per capita basis may be in-appropriate. Likewise, a similar indicator could be developed for urban land use to monitor the per capita area of land which is being consumed by urbanization. 4. Targets: As a pressure indicator, there are normally no set targets for the value of this indicator. However, as the analysis below will show, and once the land allocation is fixed, the decreasing value of this indicator over time becomes the target.
B. Analysis Figure 1 and Table 1 illustrate the amount of agricultural land as a percentage of total land area for the period 1961 to 2002. It can be observed that the amount of land allocated for agricultural usage stabilized from 1961 to 1970. However, it dramatically declined within the period 1970 to 1984, as a consequence of the civil wars. Since 1985, the available agricultural land increased consistently to a peak in 1989 and continuously stabilized until 2002. It may be interesting to note the large variance in the percentage of total area that is being utilized by the agricultural sector after 1985. Figure 2 and table 2 show population or population estimates for the same period of record and the land allocated for agriculture per capita which is obtained by dividing the total agricultural area by the population. It can be observed that the per capita rate has been declining since 1989 following an increase from the low figure for 1984. During the conflict period farmland was lost and the population had difficultly in participating in agriculture practices. The pressure on the land resulting from the agriculture sector would increase significantly and this in some cases would result in a serious conflict with targets set out by the forestry sector. Additionally, there will probably be limited additional land allocated to agriculture due to other conflicting needs and a limited land resource. The relative value of the per capita indicator and it’s continued steady decline will be the mark of success in trying to avoid future land use conflicts.
182 183 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Growth of Agricultural Irrigated Area 1961-2002
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Have areas served by irrigation infrastructure increased sufficiently to remove some of the pressure on clearing new land for farming?
Priority Concern Agricultural Land Management
Geographic Area Cambodia
Impact & Trend Significant and Intermittent
Key Message There has been a significant increase of the areas of irrigated farmlands in Cambodia since the late 1970s to a total of about 270,000 ha. It is not clear whether the increase is sustainable and accompanied by adequate maintenance of the larger areas irrigated.
182 183 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition Agricultural Irrigated Area was developed as an indicator of the response that the agriculture sector imposes on a limited land resource. It is expressed as areas equipped to provide water to the crops. These include areas equipped for full and partial control irrigation, spate irrigation areas, and equipped wetland or inland valley bottoms.
B. Data Source The data source for this indicator originates from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Agricultural Irrigated Area and was extracted from FAOSTAT-Agriculture, Land and Irrigation Database last updated in 2 June 2004.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The data are representative of irrigated agricultural areas for the country as a whole.
D. Temporal Coverage Figures for irrigated agricultural area are provided on an annual basis, starting in 1961 and ending in 2002.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage Agricultural statistics, including irrigated area, are continuously being updated by FAO as an ongoing activity.The compilation of irrigated agricultural area figures has been made possible by the cooperation of governments, which have supplied most of the information in the form of replies to annual FAO questionnaires. FAO has continued to collaborate with various agencies in order to achieve conformity in the presentation of international figures.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The figures are repeated from the quoted source and have not been manipulated in any way. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The advantage of using FAOSTAT statistics for this type of indicator is that it provides long-term trend for evaluation.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) While the data are indicative of long-term trends, the FAO estimates may at times not agree with national estimates.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) None anticipated.
184 185 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Irrigated Agricultural Area – 1961-2003
area in 1000 hectar 300
250
200
150
100
50
0 1 2 4 7 3 6 9 5 0 196 196 197 198 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 196 197 197 197 198 Year
Agricultural Irrigated Area(1000 Ha)
Table 1: Irrigated Agricultural Area – 1961-2003
Year Area (1000 ha.) 1961 62 1962 65 F 1963 65 F 1964 68 1965 100 1966 100 1967 100 1968 100 * 1969 89 1970 89 1971 89 1972 89 1973 89 * 1974 89 * 1975 89 * 1976 95 F 1977 100 F 1978 110 F 1979 115 F 1980 120 F 1981 125 F 1982 130 F
184 185 Year Area (1000 ha.) 1983 140 F 1984 160 F 1985 180 F 1986 200 F 1987 210 F 1988 220 F 1989 230 F 1990 240 F 1991 250 F 1992 260 F 1993 269 * 1994 270 F 1995 270 F 1996 270 F 1997 270 F 1998 270 F 1999 270 F 2000 270 F 2001 270 F 2002 270 F Legend: * = Unofficial figure, F= FAO estimate Source: FAOSTAT-Agriculture, 2004
186 187 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the growth of irrigated agricultural area over time. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: Water management has been one of the primary concerns for the rural population. Agricultural production is central to the economy of Cambodia. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator could be used and linked with Agricultural land per capita to monitor the per capita amount of agricultural land which is accessible to irrigation. 4. Targets: There are no targets directly associated with this indicator. 5. International Environment Treaties: Cambodia is a signatory of the 1995 Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin, together with Lao PDR, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Member countries agree to cooperate in all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of the water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin, such as navigation, flood control, fisheries, agriculture, hydropower, and environmental protection.
B. Analysis In Cambodia, agriculture or rice production is dependent on irregular patterns of rainfall, but with dry spells during the growing season or the annual inundation, water management is quite difficult. As can be observed from Figure 1 and Table 1, irrigated agricultural area has steadily increased from 60,000 ha in 1961 to 270,000 ha in1994. However, during the war period from 1969 to 1975, the irrigated area declined slightly. After 1975, the irrigated area rose rapidly to approximately 270,000 ha in 1993 and, according to estimates, has remained stable since then. As can be observed from the trend, the agricultural irrigated area has increased to increase rice production. Hence it can is concluded that the government response to irrigated agriculture has been Significant and Intermittent.
186 187 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Demined areas 1992-2004
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) How much impact do de-mining activities have on making more land available for agricultural production?
Priority Concern Agricultural Land Management
Geographic Area Cambodia
Impact & Trend Significant and consistent
Key Message Cambodia Mine Action Center has been clearing UXO-contaminated land at a rate of approximately 1000 ha per year. As well as eliminating risks to life, this has added significantly to the area of land available for farming.
188 189 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to track the demined areas which are cleared to support the poor people that either benefit by having access to land for resettlement and for agricultural production. Demined areas refer to land which is cleared or made free of mines, Unexploded Ordnance (UXOs) and bombs which were laid during the civil war.
B. Data Source The data source for this indicator originates from the Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC). Figures of demined areas were extracted from web-based CMAC progress reports, last updated in 2005.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The figures are representative of demined areas for the country as a whole.
D. Temporal Coverage Figures are published annually starting in 1992.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage Land mines are continuously being cleared by CMAC, working closely with local communities and through the provincial authorities and by coordinating efforts towards the relief of people who were living in close proximity to mine fields.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation Area figures were originally quoted in square meters but have been converted to hectares for comparison with other indicators and fact sheets. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The indicator is indicative of rehabilitated land to support the demands of agricultural land. However, demined areas are not only important for agricultural land, they are equally important for settlement areas, roads, infrastructure, tourist sites …etc.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) The area figures reported by CMAC are not qualified for accuracy but can be considered quite reliable for indicator development.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) The indicator and the fact sheet should be updated annually as new figures are published by the CMAC.
188 189 SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Cumulative Demined Area – 1992-2004
Area (ha) 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 92-93 92-94 92-95 92-96 92-97 92-98 92-99 92-00 92-01 92-02 92-03 92-04 Period
De-mined areas
Table 1: Cumulative Demined Area – 1992-2004
Period Demined Area (ha) 92-93 547.99 92-94 1,334.51 92-95 2,349.51 92-96 3,398.88 92-97 4,955.42 92-98 6,193.67 92-99 7,273.44 92-00 8,110.41 92-01 9,074.15 92-02 10,232.38 92-03 11,203.24 92-04 12,021.82 Source: Cambodia Mine Action Centre
Table 2: Annual Demined Area – 1992-2004
Period Demined Area (ha) 92/93 547.99 93/94 786.52 1995 1,015.00 1996 1,049.37 1997 1,556.54 1998 1,238.25 1999 1,079.77 2000 836.96 2001 963.75 2002 1,158.22 2003 970.87 2004 818.57 Source: Cambodia Mine Action Centre
190 191 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the rehabilitated land to support the demands of agricultural land. It is understood that the higher the total of demined areas, the better the performance of the country in rehabilitating land to support poor people. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: The true positive impact of de-mining is not only the amount of square meters cleared, but also the number of people that either benefit by having access to land for resettlement and production, or preventing them from becoming victims of land mines and UXOs. 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to land rehabilitation, management and indicator of population growth. 4. Targets: CMAC is to continue to reduce land mine/UXO contamination in Cambodia in a transparent, prioritized, cost-effective and safe manner, so that the maximum number of people - predominantly rural but also urban - can go about their lives free from the threat of landmines/UXO, thus permitting reconstruction, re-integration and development activities to take place in a safe environment, making further significant progress towards the target of zero landmine victims by 2020. (The contaminated landmine/UXO represented approximately 4,466 square kilometers which was recorded by CMAC’s National Level 1 Survey)
B. Analysis Demand for land, especially agricultural land, is increasing and is expected to continue. The land that was mined during the civil war is now required for rural arable land. As can be observed from Figure 1 and Table 1, the demined areas were consistently increased from 500 ha in 1992 to 12,000 ha in 2004. Approximately 1,000 ha of land was freed from landmines annually and the CMAC’s effort supported the rural population by creating agricultural land and settlements etc.. However, mine information, survey and marking is one of the major core activities of CMAC in identification, recording and marking of mined areas to prevent people from unknowingly entering into mined areas. As a long-term vision, CMAC believes that only this activity will support the Government of Cambodia to achieve its end state “Zero Victim” by 2020. (CMAC’s Integrated Work Plan 2004)
190 191 Greater Mekong Subregion Indicator Fact Sheet DATABASE INFORMATION Indicator ID
Indicator Name Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 1994
Year of Assessment 2005
Type of Indicator Response
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Pressure
Priority Concern Climate Change
Geographic Area Cambodia
Magnitude & Trend Low and Increasing
Key Message In 1994, Cambodia sequestered more GHG than it emitted. However, by 2000, it has probably become a net emitter of greenhouse gases and the indications are that the country’s GHG emissions have been rising since then. Activities from agriculture and land use/forestry sectors are the major contributing factors.
192 193 TECHNICAL INFORMATION A. Definition This indicator attempts to measure the anthropogenic emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
in Cambodia contributing to global warming. Three main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). It is expressed as Gigagrams (Gg) of CO2 equivalent emissions per Gg of GHG emissions.
B. Data Source The figures utilized for the construction of this indicator were extracted from “Cambodia’s Initial National Communication” under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), published by the Climate Change Enabling Activity Project under the Ministry of Environment, August 2002.
C. Geographic Area / Population Coverage The figures are representative of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions in 1994 and Cambodia’s contribution to global warming from various sectors such as energy, industry, agriculture, waste, and land use change and forestry.
D. Temporal Coverage As required by the UNFCCC, the baseline year of the greenhouse gas inventory is 1994. Estimates for year 2000, 2010 and 2020 are also provided and based on the 1994 baseline figures.
E. Methodology and Frequency of Coverage For Cambodia, as a developing country (a Non-Annex I party to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC), it is mandatory that the national GHG inventory covers
three main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Following the recommendation of UNFCCC Secretariat, the Cambodian National GHG inventory was developed using the 1996 revised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology with the base year of 1994. The first-ever GHG inventory in Cambodia covers five sectors: (i) energy, (ii) industry, (iii) agriculture, (iv) waste, and (v) land use change and forestry (LUCF). Each of the GHG’s has different contributions to the total greenhouse effect, which can be
expressed as global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is expressed in tons (or units) of CO2
equivalent (CO2-e) emissions per ton (or unit) of GHG emissions. CH4 has 21 tons of CO2-e per ton of
methane emitted. Nitrous oxide (N2O) has 310 tons of CO2-e per ton of N2O emitted. The methane
and nitrous oxide emissions were converted to tons of CO2-e by multiplying the methane emissions by 21 and the tons of nitrous oxide emission by 310.
F. Methodology of Data Manipulation The figures are quoted directly from the Initial National Communication and have not been manipulated for the purpose of this indicator development.
192 193 QUALITATIVE INFORMATION A. Strength and Weakness (data level) The figures for this indicator provide the long-term trend of GHG emissions by the various sources which contribute to global warming. The values of GHGs emissions in 1994 were estimated according to inventory data; figures for 2000 to 2020 are merely future projections of those data based on 1994 baseline data.
B. Reliability, Accuracy, Robustness, Uncertainty (data level) The data utilized for the construction of this indicator are based on 1994 activity data collected from different stakeholders. However, some activity data needed for developing the inventory for certain sectors were not available. In such cases, the data were estimated from related available data by using several assumptions. Some available data which were held and reported from other institutions, however, some uncertainties still exist due to the current weak data management in most agencies. Furthermore, local emission factors were not available for Cambodia. In most cases, the emission factors used for the analysis were IPCC default values or emission factors developed by regional countries such as Thailand, Philippines or Indonesia.
C. Future Work Required (for data level and indicator level) The indicator and the fact sheet should be updated if and when Cambodia conducts further greenhouse gas inventories. SUPPORTING DATA TABLES, GRAPHS AND MAPS Figure 1: Past and Projected GHG Emissions by Sector – 1994-2020
120,000 100,000 t 80,000 60,000 40,000 Equivalen 20,000
CO2 0 1994 2000 2006 201 201 in -20,000 2 8 -40,000 -60,000 Gigagrams -80,000 -100,000
Energy Agriculture Waste LUCF Total Emissions Removal by LUCF Net Emissions
194 195 Table 1: Past and Projected GHG Emissions by Sector – 1994-2020
1994 2000 2010 2020 Emissions Gg % Gg % Gg % Gg % Energy 1,853 2.8 2,622 3.6 4,780 5.9 8,761 9.0 Industry 50 0.1 - - - Agriculture 10,560 15.5 12,030 16.4 17,789 22.1 26,821 27.5 Waste 273 0.4 331 0.4 425 0.5 523 0.5 LUCF 55,216 81.2 58,379 79.6 57,627 71.5 61,512 63.0 Total Emis- 67,952 100.0 73,362 100.0 80,621 100.0 97,617 100.0 sions Removal by -73,122 -67,118 -61,090 -53,769 LUCF Net -5,170 6,244 19,531 43,848 Emissions - Figures of 1994 were inventoried GHG Emissions (IPCC Methodology) - Figures of 2000-2020 were projected based on 1994. - LUCF – Land Use Change and Forestry. Source: Climate Change Enabling Activity Project, Ministry of Environment, August 2002.
Table 2: Inventory and Projected GHG Emissions by Gases – 1994-2020
1994 2000 2010 2020 Gg % Gg % Gg % Gg %
CO2 54,587 80 58,345 79 59,698 74 67,304 69
CH4 9,472 14 10,908 15 14,882 18 20,813 21
N2O 3,844 6 4,109 6 6,040 8 9,500 10 Total 67,902 100 73,362 100 80,620 100 97,617 100
CO2-eqv. - Figures for 1994 were inventoried GHG Emissions (IPCC Methodology) - Figures for 2000-2020 were projected based on 1994 figures - All emission gases are expressed as CO2–equivalents. Source: Climate Change Enabling Activity Project, Ministry of Environment, August 2002.
194 195 Table 3: Inventory and Projection GHG Emissions by Gases from Different Sectors – 1994-2020
1994 2000 2010 2020
GHG Emissions from Energy Sector (Gg of CO2-e)
CO2 1,101 1,775 3,713 7,434
CH4 634 712 892 1,099
N2O 118 135 175 228
Total CO2-e 1,853 2,622 4,780 8,761
GHG Emissions from Agriculture Sector (Gg of CO2-e)
CH4 7,125 8,379 12,270 17,942
N2O 3,435 3,652 5,518 8,878
Total CO2-e 10,560 12,030 17,789 26,821
GHG Emissions from Waste Sector (Gg of CO2-e)
CH4 142 173 220 272
N2O 131 158 205 251
Total CO2-e 273 331 425 523
GHG Emissions from Land Use Change and Forestry Sector (Gg of CO2-e)
CO2 53,486 56,570 55,985 59,870
CH4 1,570 1,644 1,499 1,499
N2O 160 164 143 143
Total CO2-eqv. Emissions 55,216 58,379 57,627 61,512
Total CO2-eqv. Uptake -73,122 -67,118 -61,090 -53,769
Total CO2-eqv. Net Emissions -17,907 -8,739 -3,462 7,744 - Figures for 1994 were inventoried GHG Emissions (IPCC Methodology) - Figures for 2000-2020 were projected based on 1994 figures.
- All emission gases are expressed as CO2 – equivalents. Source: Climate Change Enabling Activity Project, Ministry of Environment, August 2002.
196 197 SUMMARY A. Policy Reference 1. Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the quantity of GHG emissions contributing to global warming. It is understood that the higher the amount of GHG emissions, the greater the country’s contribution. 2. Relevance to Environment Planning and Management: The GHG emissions inventory allows Cambodia not only to better estimate the various emissions but also to focus on a more climate sensitive development program, which entails the formulation of mitigation and vulnerability and adaptation policies.
The main greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O). While there are natural emissions of GHGs, anthropogenic emissions have been identified as a source of climate change (IPCC Second Assessment Report, 1995) and are the subject of an international instrument (the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). Such emissions are largely influenced by a country’s energy use and production systems, its industrial structure, its transportation system, its agricultural and forestry sectors, and the consumption patterns of the population. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions are particularly influenced by a country’s agricultural production, waste management, and livestock management. Climate change results in part from the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. At one level, global warming due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases can be said to have no adverse effect on ecosystems if the increase in global temperature is within 0.1 degree C per decade, with a maximum total warming of 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial situation (IPCC, 1992). In this case, it is suggested that ecosystems can adjust or adapt to the temperature changes within these limits. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has worked out levels for the most important greenhouse gases that should lead to a stabilization of total GHGs at the no-adverse effect level. This is known as the accelerated policies scenario. However, given the increase in the atmospheric concentration of GHG from 280 ppmv in the pre-industrial period (that is, before 1850) to 356 ppmv in 1994, the temperature increase may be occurring more rapidly and randomly than ever before. Based on the findings of three working groups, the IPCC says that the earth’s temperature could rise by between one and 3.5 degrees Celsius by 2010; an average rate of warming probably higher than any in the last 10,000 years 3. Linkage to Other Indicators: None. 4. Targets: The objective of the Climate Change Convention (Article 2) is to achieve the stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. 5. International Environment Treaties: Cambodia ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 18 December 1995. The Convention came into force in Cambodia on 17 March 1996. UNFCCC entered into force in March 1994 and, as of end January 1996, it had been ratified by 152 Parties. Article 4 of the Convention, among other commitments, calls for Annex I Parties to return by 2000 (individually or jointly) their anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs not controlled by the Montreal Protocol to their 1990 level. Additionally, some Annex I Parties to the Convention have set national targets that go beyond those of the Convention.
196 197 B. Analysis
In 1994, Cambodia was contributing GHG emissions of approximately 68,000 Gg of CO2- equivalents which are primarily from land use change and forestry (LUCF) sector (see Table 1). As observed by sector, LUCF contributed to approximately 81% of total GHG emissions, while agriculture and energy contributed to approximately 16% and 3%. The contribution of the industrial sector to the total GHG emissions was insignificant.
However, Cambodia removed approximately 73,000 Gg of CO2-equivalents by land use change and forestry sector. Therefore, in 1994 Cambodia was a net sink country. The overall assessment of Cambodia’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions using Global Warming Potential showed that
Cambodia could offset approximately 5,000 Gg of CO2-equivalents of global GHG emissions.
As can be observed from Table 2 and Table 3, GHG emissions consist of three main gases: CO2,
CH4 and N2O. CO2 emissions were about 80% of total CO2-equivalents, followed by CH4, 14% and N2O emissions, 6%. The main source of CO2 emissions contributed from LUCF sector. The results from this projection analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sectors (see Figure 1 and Table 1) indicated that, in 2000, Cambodia was already a net emitter of GHGs. The net emissions were approximately 6,000 Gg of CO2-e It was prediceted that the net emissions will increase to approximately 44,000 Gg of CO2-e in 2020. Among different sectors, LUCF would be the main source of GHG emissions (63%), followed by agriculture (28%). Energy would only contribute to approximately 9% of the total national emissions. However, projected GHG emissions from the agricultural sector increased more than other sources from 16% to 28% of total national GHG emissions.
198 CAMBODIA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (EPA) REPORT
CASE STUDY 1
COMMUNITY FISHERIES: A CASE 2. The village has existed for more than 100 years STUDY OF PERFORMANCE IN in the present area. Currently, it is home to 93 ALONG RAING, PURSAT families with a total population of 431 people and an adult population of 186 people (100 males, PROVINCE and 86 females). The villagers completely depend 1. The Background on fishing, and none of them own farms. Fish 1. Anlong Raing is a floating community located caught is used both for consumption by the in Kampong Pou Commune, Krakor District, villagers and for sale. The cash income is used to Pursat Province. It floats on water for nine months buy clothes, medicines, kitchen items, ceremony and is based on land from March to May. The contribution, school fees, etc. location of the village depends on the water level 3. The village floats up and down between fishing of the Tonle Sap Lake. lot no.7 and the Kampong Prak fish sanctuary. In
199 the north, it borders fishing lot no.7 for about masking—behind figures of stable or even 480 m. In the south it borders Mat Prey Village, increasing output—a looming scarcity. Provided, Por Robong village and O’sandan Commune; in however, that it is collected over a sufficiently long the west the Kanchor Commune and in the east, period this risk is reduced. the Fish Conservation lot for about 250 m. In 7. Official data on fish catch in Anlong Raing 2000, the RGC released 41% of the area of Community Fisheries are not available. Instead, fishing lot no.7 for use by the local community household fish consumption presented in this who have organized community fisheries on these report is based on information gathered from field waters with the support of a local NGO – surveys and interviews with community members. Cambodia Family Development Service (CFDS). 8. As villagers own no land, fishing is the exclusive method of obtaining food and Table 1.1: Areas of the Along Raing generating cash income. Table 2.1 shows the Community Forestry estimated average annual fish consumption per capita in Angling of 81 kilograms (kg). With an Type of fishing Area (ha) average family size of 5 persons per family, the ground total annual average household consumption is 405 kg. The fish consumption varies throughout areas under inundated 572 the year, depending on the quantity and forest composition of the fish catch. In an open fishing area under water 1,015 season, particularly from January to May, Anlong Total 1,587 Raing community members could catch and consume more fish, approximately 2 kg of fish Source: Statute of Anlong Raing Community Fishery, 2005 per household per day. However, from May
onwards, the water level increases in the Tonle 4. The Anlong Raing Community Fisheries cover Sap Lake and fishing activity is reduced. The an area of 1587 ha, including 572 ha of fishing season is closed and all fishing activities, inundated forest and 1,015 ha of water areas. except subsistence fishing, are prohibited. During 5. The objective of this case study is to assess this period, the output falls to about 0.5 kg per the success of the local community in managing household per day. the fish resource and the use of the performance 9. Not all fish is consumed, some are sold or assessment framework developed under SEF II exchanged. Table 2.2 provides detailed project for this purpose. information about the pattern of household
expenditure of a fishing family in Aling Raing. On 2. The State average, each fishing family spends 7,500 Riels 1 The Indicator: Fish Consumption Per Capita (1.9 US$) per day for food. This expenditure depends on a family’s condition: a rich family
spends around 10,000 Riels and the poor one 6. The fish consumption per capita is taken as the spends around 5,000 Riels per family. Based on principal indicator of the state of fisheries these figures, it is estimated that the annual resources in Anlong Raing area. It measures the expenditure per family is about 547,500 Riels, amount of inland fish catch that is used for excluding other expenditure for non-food items household consumption per capita per annum such as social activities including weddings and and is measured in kilogram of live weight. As an religious ceremonies, etc. indicator of the health of the resource, the indicator has the disadvantage of possibly
1 The exchange rate is about 4,000 Riels = 1 US$
200 201 Table 2.1: Fish Consumption Per Annum in Anlong Raing Village
kg/HH/Day kg/HH/Year kg/Capita/Year Fish consumption (Jan – May) 2.0 300 60 Fish consumption (Jun – Dec) 0.5 105 21 Total annual fish consumption 405 81 Note: - On average there are 5 persons per Household. - kg – Kilogram - HH – Household
Table 2.2: Expenditure for Food Supply
Riels/HH/Day Riels/HH/Year Riels/Capita/Year Minimum expenditure 5,000 1,825,000 365,000 Maximum expenditure 10,000 3,650,000 730,000 Average expenditure 7,500 2,737,500 547,500 Note: - This expenditure is paid only for food such as: rice, vegetable, meat etc. - The exchange rate is about 4,000 Riels = 1 US$
season—the daily fish catch is estimated at about 20 kg of fish in Anlong Raing per household with Suggested Trend and Rating a family size of 5 people. The total household fish of the State: Relatively good catch from January to May is estimated at about 600 kg. However, from June to December, the fish with undetermined trend catch is reduced due partly to it being a closed fishing season, and partly to the high water level. Justification: Fish consumption in Anlong Raing is high The daily fish catch during this period is by Cambodian and GMS standards. However, no trend has been established. The data collected for this case estimated at about 5kg per household and, within study can serve as a benchmark for future assessments this period, the total catch is estimated about 210 of changes in fish abundance in Anlong Raing areas. kg per household of 5 family members. Based on these figures, a yearly fish catch per household in Anlong Raing is estimated at about 810 kg. 3. Pressure 12. However, a more suitable indicator exists in Pressure Indicator: Fishing nets per household, the form of changes in the type of equipment 1995-2005 used by the local fishers (here, the length of the fishing nets used per family) that is a good proxy
for the fishing effort. The values of the indicators 10. The pressure on fisheries comes from were once more based on information gathered increased intensity of fishing and from practices during interviews with community members. that threaten the resource’s sustainable 13. The Anlong Raing’s community members are exploitation. The inland fish catch could be taken small-scale fishers who use simple gear such as as an indicator of the pressure on fisheries harpoon (sang, chbok, snor, sam, changrop), or resources in Anlong Raing, even though it is handled-scooping basket (chheang dai) as well as related to (but not identical with) fish fishing nets. The family scale fishing is allowed consumption used above. year round, without a need for a license. 11. Table 3.1 provides details of fish catch in 14. The fish catch varies from household to Anlong Raing community in the course of a year household depending on the fishing gear used. (2004). From January to May—an open fishing Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1 illustrate the trend of
200 201 Table 3.1: Inland Fish Capture in Anlong Raing Village, 2004
Kg/HH/Day Kg/HH/Year Kg/Capita/Year Fish catch (Jan – May) 20 3000 600 Fish catch (Jun – Dec) 5 1050 210 Total annual fish catch 4050 810 Note: - On average, there are 5 persons per household. - Kg – Kilogram - HH – Household fishing gear use over a period of 10 years. It is observed that the daily fish catch per household Table 3.2: Fishing Nets Per Household throughout the year is maintained at about the 1995-2005 same level. This does not necessarily mean that fish remains abundant, but fishers intensify their 1995 2005 effort to maintain the same catch. This is best Minimum Fishing nets 100 600 demonstrated by the changes in the type of (meters/HH) equipment used. In doing this, fishers have Maximum Fishing nets enlarged the fishing gear. Table 3.2 indicates that 300 2000 (meters/HH) in the last 10 years, fishers in Anlong Raing have Average fishing nets progressively used more fishing nets than before. 200 1300 (meters/HH) Approximately 200 meters of fishing nets used per household were used 10 years ago which has increased to 1300 meters at present. Intensified use of fishing nets is illegal under current legislation.
Figure 3.1: Fishing Nets Per Household 1995-2005
1400 1200 1000 800 600 Meters 400 200 0 1995s 2005
Fishing nets per household
202 203 community based fisheries management around the Tonle Sap Lake and Anlong Raing community Suggested Trend and Rating is one of them. ADB has also been providing other of the Pressure: High and types of assistance under the Tonle Sap Initiative that examines the livelihoods of the communities Increasing living around the Tonle Sap Lake.
Justification: The pressure on fisheries resource in 5. Conclusion Anlong Raing has been steadily increasing as the 19. The fish catch in Anlong Raing is being intensity of fishing efforts has increased. On average, maintained even if the evidence for this is based local fishers use seven times the length of fishing nets on interviews only. Therefore, it is not possible to per family than they did ten years ago. say that the local fisheries have declined. However, it is clear that fishers have intensified 4. Response their efforts to maintain the same level of output. 15. No indicator has been selected as the most As a minimum, this suggests underlying changes relevant responses (the setting up of the in the size composition of the fish stock and it community fishery enterprise) have not been fully could mean that the sustainability of the resource implemented and other responses have been too is being undermined by this illegal intensification sporadic to serve as a basis for an indicator that of fishing efforts. displays a meaningful trend. 20. It is too early to say what the effect of the 16. In 2002, Anlong Raing community organized establishment of the community fishing a community fishery on the fishing areas released enterprise will be. In any event the Sub-decree on from the commercial fishing (lot no.7). This Community Fisheries has yet to be passed by the community enterprise is headed by 12 people Central Government. elected by community members as the fisheries committee under Anlong Raing Community Fisheries by-Law, 2002. The community enterprise is supported by the NGO Cambodia Family Development Service (CFDS) based in Pursat Province. 17. The Sub-decree on Community Fisheries was drafted in 2001 and passed in mid-2005. This Sub-decree provides a legal support for community fisheries countrywide. The by-law of Anlong Community Fisheries (see above) is passed by the community members. At a provincial level, the by-law has been approved by district and provincial authorities and it now awaits national approval. 18. The Asian Development Bank has approved a loan of US$10.91 millions, while the Global Environment Fund and the United Nations Development Programme have provided grants of US$3.93 millions and US$0.61 millions, respectively, including an in-kind contribution by the Royal Government of Cambodia of US$3.91 millions for the Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project covering the entire Lake. One of the components of this program supports
202 203 CAMBODIA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (EPA) REPORT
CASE STUDY 2
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION located near the middle of Tonle Sap on the north IN BOENG CHHMAR, TONLE SAP side of the lake. The southern and western BIOSPHERE RESERVE’S CORE boundaries of Boeng Chhmar area overlap with Tonle Sap lakeshore and the northern and the AREA, PEAM BANG COMMUNE, eastern boundaries are in the floodplain forest. STOUNG DISTRICT, KAMPONG Administratively it lies within Peam Bang THOM PROVINCE commune, Stoung district, Kampong Thom 1. Background province. There are six floating villages, Pov 1. Boeng Chhmar Lake and the associated creek Veung, Stueng Chrov, Pechakrei, Doung Sdaeng, system are part of the Tonle Sap floodplain in the Peam Bang and Ba Lat village, in the Mekong River Basin. The Boeng Chhmar area is neighborhood of Boeng Chhmar area.
Figure 1: Map of Boeng Chhmar Lake
204 205 2. Boeng Chhmar Lake and the associated creek variation and numbers have lead to such diverse system were designated as Ramsar Site in 1996 biodiversity. From the Preliminary Floristic gaining formal recognition by the Convention in Checklist for the Flooded Forest System of the late 1999. The area is also designated as ‘Core Tonle Sap Lake, 190 vascular plant species of 69 Area of the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve’ along families have been identified (McDonald et al. with other two sites within the Tonle Sap flood 1997). Generally the vegetation communities in plain. Its designation owes primarily to its high the area can be distinguished between those that biological diversity and conservation value; and grow along the fringe of waterways, on the levees the role of forestry in subsistence livelihood. of creeks and in the back swamp.. Annex I presents the fauna species in the Boeng 5. Mammals and other vertebrates are largely Chhmar Lake area of Tonle Sap. unknown in Boeng Chhmar area. However, recent 3. Tonle Sap Lake and the surrounding areas, surveys in Boeng Chhmar and associated areas especially Boeng Chhmar, are completely observed small population of Long-tailed inundated during the wet season. Boeng Chhmar Macaque (Macca fascicularis) and Capped Core Area holds a great diversity of flooded Langur, Fishing cat (Felis viverrina), and Otter vegetation such as inundated forest, inundated (Lutra sumatrana). Civets are also among forest mosaic and inundated wood and shrub. The common species reported in the area (McDonald area in Boeng Chhmar is an important habitat for et al. 1997; Doroshenko et al. 1998). Elephants mollusk species and has tremendous scenic were reported to migrate to the flooded forest value. The area serves as an important feeding during the dry season; however they have recently ground for migratory birds. disappeared (McDonald et al. 1997). 6. Boeng Chhmar is one of the important feeding 2. State sites for large water birds in Cambodia, particularly during the post-breeding period, and Indicator: Threatened Plant and Animal Species in Boeng regularly supports significant numbers of Sport- Chhmar billed Pelican (Pelecanus philippensis), Indian Cormorant (Phalacrocorax fuscicollis), Painted 4. Boeng Chhmar area is rich in biodiversity. The Stork (Mycteria leucocephala) and Greater seasonal hydrological fluctuation, associated Adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius) (DFW/DNCP/BLII/ habitat formation and resulting faunal species WCSCP. 2003). However, 20 of a total of 69
Figure 2: Species in Boeng Chhmar and Tonle Sap Lake
240 220 200 s 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 Numbers of Specie of Numbers 40 20 0 Mammals Birds Reptiles Fish Plants
Boeng Chhmar Tonle Sap Lake Threatened Species
204 205 existing species in this area are considered to be threatened species. No study on fish has been Suggested Rating: Relatively conducted specifically within the BC Area. However, regardless of large number of fish good with undetermined species being reported in the Lower Mekong trend Basin, Rainboth (1996) has recorded approximately 500 fish species from the Mekong Justification: State of biodiversity is relatively good in and Tonle Sap. FAO (1994) reported 215 fish Boeng Chhmar and Tonle Sap Lake area by GMS standards. However, no trend has been established. The species in the Tonle Sap Lake of which 19 species data collected for this case study can serve as a are of principal commercial value and another 36 benchmark for future assessments of changes in species have some commercial significance. threatened species. Moreover, 11 species are considered extinct with another 17 species regarded as near extinct in the waters in the Mekong system (MoE & MRC 1999). 3. Pressure 7. Some 23 species of snakes were identified in Indicator: Population growth 1998 - 2003 Boeng Chhmar area (Doroshenko et al.1998).
Turtles were once abundant in the floodplain of 8. Population growth in rural areas is normally Tonle Sap, but have now become rare. Some 7 associated with increased hunting and collection species were identified by Nedeco & Midas 1998 of wildlife, and often, with habitat destruction. and 4 species recorded as threatened by the IUCN This appears to have been the case also in Boeng Red List. Nevertheless, some turtles as large as Chhmar. Figure 3 shows that the population 15kg were reportedly caught once a month in an increased in the 6 villages during 1998 to 2003 area adjacent to the northwest edge of BC Area from 2,290 to 3,154; representing an increase of (McDonald et al. 1997). No study on amphibians 37% in only five years. has been reported.
Table 1: Species in Boeng Chhmar and Tonle Sap Lake
Number of Threat- Number of Species Number of Species Classes ened & Near (Boeng Chhmar) (Tonle Sap Lake) Threatened Species Mammals**** 4 NA 0 Birds* 69 NA 20 Reptiles** 23 30 4+ Fish*** NA 215 17 Plants**** NA 190 NA Sources: * Mundkur et al. 1995; Edwards 1996; Parr et al. 1996; and Goes et al. 1998 ** Doroshenko, et al. 1998; Nedeco & Midas 1998 *** MoE & MRC 1999; Nedeco & Midas 1998; Rainboth 1996; and Chew Nan Phy, pers. comm. 1998 **** McDonald et al. 1997; Doroshenko et al. 1998
206 207 Figure 3: Population increase from 1998-2003
1000
s 900 800 700 Person 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Pov Veuy Pechakrei Peam Bang Ba Lat Doun Sdaeng Stueng Chrov
Population 1998 Population 2003
9. The dependence on local natural resources is 4. Response strong. Fisheries have traditionally been the most 10. Boeng Chhmar is an important area in the important form of livelihood in the area with 72% Tonle Sap Lake. It is protected by the Cambodian of adults engaged in fishing including cage system of protected areas, wetlands of culture in 1996 (Table 2). Other sources of international importance (Ramsar sites) and livelihood included bird collection, wildlife biosphere reserves. It is managed by the Ministry collection, wood collection, small businesses and of Environment (MoE) and the Ministry of wage labor. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Department of Fisheries. Table 2: Sources of income in Boeng Chmar, 1996 Indicator: Protected Species in Boeng Chhmar Alternative Total 11. In November 1993, Royal Degree designating income Frequency Percentage 23 protected areas, including 7 national parks, 10 Raising fish 42 72.4 wildlife sanctuaries, 3 protected landscapes and 3 in cage multiple use areas were established under a Royal Bird collection 2 3.4 Decree, Boeng Chhmar among them. The Boeng Wildlife collection 3 5.1 Chmar portion of Tonle Sap Multiple-Use Area is Small business 25 43.1 one of three areas designated as a Ramsar Site at Wood collection 4 6.9 the time of Cambodia’s accession to the Wage labor 10 17.2 International Convention on Ramsar Site on 23 Total respondents 58 October 1999. Source: Loeung Kesaro, 1996. 12. In April 2001, RGC nominated the Tonle Sap Multiple-Use Area including Boeng Chhmar as a Biosphere Reserve and designated the area as Suggested Rating: Low but ‘transition zone’. Transition zone is an integrated economic zone, which is managed for sustainable rising agriculture, human settlement and land use, with
protection for the flooded forest, water quality Justification: Population pressure is growing in this region of Tonle Sap area; and its impact on local and soil conditions of the area around the Tonle resources and underlying biodiversity is being felt. The Sap Lake. livelihood patterns identified here should be studied further to establish a relationship between increased fisheries and wildlife collection and habitat loss.
206 207 Table 3: Protected Species in Boeng Chhmar and Tonle Sap Lake
Number of Species Number of Species Number of Classes (Boeng Chhmar) (Tonle Sap Lake) Protected Species + Mammals**** 4 NA 1 Birds* 69 NA 23 Reptiles** 23 30 3 Fish*** NA 215 NA Plants**** NA 190 NA Sources: * Mundkur et la. 1995; Edwards 1996; Parr et al. 1996; and Goes et al. 1998 ** Doroshenko, et al. 1998; Nedeco & Midas 1998 *** MoE & MRC 1999; Nedeco & Midas 1998; Rainboth 1996; and Chew Nan Phy, pers. comm. 1998 **** McDonald et al. 1997; Doroshenko et al. 1998 + Prakas on Protected Species 1994
13. Table 3, above gives the number of protected species in Boeng Chhmar area following the issuance of ‘Prakas on Wildlife Protection by Species’, released in 1994. There are 1 of 4 mammals, 23 of 69 birds and 3 of 23 species under protection.
Suggested Rating: Significant
Justification: The Boeng Chhmar area of Tonle Sap area has been accorded appropriate protection status by the Government of Cambodia; including issuance of necessary government decree and declaring it a Ramsar site. However; the impact of these actions on improvement to the biodiversity status in the area remains to be seen; and more information collected over a number of years is needed to assess it.
5. Conclusions 14. Wetland biodiversity in Boeng Chhmar of Tonle Sap area faces threat from growing population and associated human activities. RGC’s response to these threats has been in line with national and international conventions; however the actual impact on the status of biodiversity in the area is not known, due to the absence of relevant data. 15. More studies need to be conducted to better assess the status of protected species and habitat quality following the provisions of ‘Prakas on Wildlife Protection’ and monitoring provision of Ramsar sites.
208 209 Annex: Animal Species in Boeng Tonle Chhmar Area
No. English Name Scientific Name Threatened Protected Mammals 1 Long-tailed Macaque Macca fascicularis 2 Fishing Cat Felis viverrina yes 3 Otter Lutra sumatrana 4 Civet Birds 1 Easter Marsh Harrier Circus spilonotus yes 2 Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus RT yes 3 Grey-headed Fish-eagle Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus GNT 4 Osprey Pandion haliaetus 5 Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis RT 6 Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 7 Stock-billed Kingfisher Pelargopsis capensis 8 White Throated King- Haleyon smyrnensis yes fisher 9 White-breasted King- fisher 10 Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha 11 White-winged Duck Cainrina scutulata GT 12 White-winged Wood Duck 13 Lesser Whistling Duck Dandroeygna javanica yes 14 Cotton Pygmy-Goose Nettapus coromandelinaus 15 Lesser Tree Duck 16 Asian Palm-swift Cypsiurus balasiensis 17 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea RT yes 18 Purple Heron Ardea purpurea RT 19 Little Green Heron 20 Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus yes 21 Javan Pond Heron Ardeola speciosa 22 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis yes 23 Black Bittern Dupetor flavicollis 24 Great Egret Egretta alba yes 25 Immediate Egret Egretta intermedia 26 Little Egret Egretta garzetta yes 27 Unidentified White Egret 28 Cinnamon Bittern Ixobrychus cinnamomeus 29 Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis yes 30 Black-crowned Night- Nycticorax nycticorax Heron 31 Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala GNT 32 Asian Openbill Anastomus oscitans GNT yes 33 Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus RT 34 Greater Adjutant Leptoptilus dubius GT yes
208 209 No. English Name Scientific Name Threatened Protected 35 Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilus javanicus GT yes 36 Common Iora Aegithina tiphia 37 Spotted Dove Streptopelia chinensis 38 Large-billed Crow Corvus macrorhyncos 39 Green-billed Malkoha Phaenicophaeus tristis 40 Lesser Coucal Centropus bengalensis 41 Greater Coucal Centropus sinenais 42 Masked Finfoot Heliopais personata GT 43 Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus 44 Bronze-winged Jacana Metopidius indicus 45 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 46 Brown-headed Gull Larus brunnicephalus 47 Common Tern Sterna hirundo 48 Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus 49 Olive-backed Sunbird Nectarinia jungularis 50 Eurasian Tree-Sparrow Passer montanus 51 Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis GT yes 52 Oriental Darter Anhinga melanogaster GNT yes 53 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carba RT yes 54 Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger RT yes 55 Indian Shag Phalacrocorax fuscicollis RT yes 56 Laced Woodpecker Picus vittatus yes 57 Blue-winged Pitta Pitta moluccensis 58 Baya Weaver Ploceus philippinus RT 59 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 60 Streak-eared Bulbul Pycnonotus blandfordi 61 White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus yes 62 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 63 Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio 64 Black-winged Stilt Himantopus hamantopus 65 White-vented Myna Acridotheres javanicus 66 Dark-necked Tailorbird Orthotomus atrogularis 67 Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus GNT yes 68 Glossy Ibis Plegadis faicinellus RT yes 69 Oriental Magpie-Robin Copsychus saulasis yes Reptiles 1 Blood Phyton Python curtus yes 2 Rock Phyton Python melurus bivittatus yes 3 Reticulated Phyton Python reticulatus yes 4 Red-tailed Pipe Snake Cylindrophis rufus 5 Iridescent Earth Snake Xenopeltis unicolor 6 Elephant’s Trunk Snake Acrochordus javanicus 7 File Snake Chersydrus gramulatus 8 Painted Bronzeback Dendrelaphis pictuss 9 Elegant Bronzeback Dendrelaphis formosus
210 211 No. English Name Scientific Name Threatened Protected 10 Chequered Keelback Xenochrophis piscator 11 Paradise Tree Snake Chrysopelea paradisi 12 Oriental Whip Snake Ahaetulla prasina 13 Long-nosed Whip Snake Ahaetulla nasuta 14 Puff-faced Water Snake Homalopsis buccata 15 Doc-faced Water Snake Cerberus rhynchops 16 Bocourt’s Water Snake Enhydris bocourti 17 Plumbeous Water Snake Enhydris plumbea 18 Rainbow Water Snake Enhydris enhydris 19 Tentacled Snake Herpeton tebaculatum 20 Dog-toothed Cat Snake Boiga cynodon 21 Monocled Cobra Naja naja kaouthia 22 King Cobra or Ophiophagus hannah Hamadryad 23 Popes’ Pit Viper Trimeresurus popciorum Note: • GT – Globally Threatened; • GNT – Globally Near Threatened • RT – Regionally Threatened. Sources: - Mundkur et la. 1995; Edwards 1996; Parr et al. 1996; and Goes et al. 1998; - Doroshenko, et al. 1998; Nedeco & Midas 1998; - MoE & MRC 1999; Nedeco & Midas 1998; Rainboth 1996; and Chew Nan Phy, pers. comm. 1998; - McDonald et al. 1997; Doroshenko et al. 1998; and - Prakas on Protected Species 1994
References of Cambodia Wetlands Project. Ministry of DFW/DNCP/BLII/WCSCP. 2003. Directory of environment and Mekong River Commission. Important Bird Area in Cambodia, Key Sites for Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Conservation. MoE/DoF/WI. 2002. Draft Management Plan for Doroshenko, N., Long Keng and Meas Rithy 1998. the Boeung Chhmar Ramsar Site in Cambodia. Reptiles and small wildlife at Tonle Sap lake. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. SPEC/TCUMoE. Phnom Penh, Cambodia Mundkur, T.,Carr, P. Sun Hean and Chhim Somean Edwards, P.J. 1996. Cambodia Wetland: 1995. Survey for Large Waterbirds in Cambodia, Ornithological survey. Unpublished report to March April 1994. IUCN Species Survival Wetlands International Asia Pacific, Kuala Commission. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Lumpur. Xenus Ecology, Newmarket, England. Cambridge UK. Goes, F., Hong Chamnan, Suon Mean, Luon Keng Nedeco and Midas.1998. Potential for Eco- and Meas Rithy 1998. Waterbird counting and Tourism in the Tonle Sap Area. Draft Report March survey at Prek Toal and Boeng Chhmar/Moat 1998. Cambodian National Mekong Committee. Khla,Core protected area Tonle Sap Biosphere Arnhem, the Netherlands. reserve, Kingdom of Cambodia. SPEC/TCU/MoE. Parr, J.W.K., Eames, J.C., Sun Hean, Hong Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Chamnan, Som Han, Vi La Pich and Seng Kim Kesaro, L. 1996. Case study of Boeng Chhma, Hout 1996. Biological and Socio-economic Tonle Sap lake, Cambodia. AIT, Bangkok, Aspects of Waterbirds Exploitation and Natural Thailand. Resource Utilization at Prek Toal, Tonle Sap Lake, McDonald, A., Pech Bunnat, Phauk Virak and Leen Cambodia. IUCN Species Survival Commission. Bunton 1997. Plant Communities of Tonle Sap IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. Floodplain report to UNESCO, IUCN and Wetland Rainboth, W. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian International, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Mekong. FAO, Rome. MoE and MRC. 1999. Inventory and Management
210 211