Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure from:An integrated assessment for preliminary zoning of Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary, Southwestern Cambodia

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
In Ta Chat village the population of bear sp. steadily declined from 1991 to 2008 whilst otter sp. abundance stayed stayed Notab 1979 the same from 1979-96 and started increasing slightly from 1997-2008. Fishing cat abundance at 4 in 1979-90 whilst it was slightly less abundant during 1991-96 and then increased again. ly, the reported abundance of populations of sunda pangolin and loris sp. remained unchanged from o 2008 in this village area. Hog badger, jungle cat, dhole, and wreathed hornbill were more abun- dant in the first period whilst their number went down in 1991-96, and then stayed the same until 2008. However, other hornbill sp. remained unchanged from the first to the second period, then started to decline from 997 to 2008 (Fig.4).

Figure 4 In Ta Chat village the population of bear sp. steadily declined from 1991 to 2008 whilst otter sp. abundance stayed stayed Notab 1979 the same from 1979-96 and started increasing slightly from 1997-2008. Fishing cat abundance at 4 in 1979-90 whilst it was slightly less abundant during 1991-96 and then increased again. ly, the reported abundance of populations of sunda pangolin and loris sp. remained unchanged from o 2008 in this village area. Hog badger, jungle cat, dhole, and wreathed hornbill were more abun- dant in the first period whilst their number went down in 1991-96, and then stayed the same until 2008. However, other hornbill sp. remained unchanged from the first to the second period, then started to decline from 997 to 2008 (Fig.4).

Related Figures (47)

An Dara, Kong Kimsreng, Hout Piseth, and Robert Mather
An Dara, Kong Kimsreng, Hout Piseth, and Robert Mather
Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata) and Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagacariensis) in the proposed core zone of PKWS © IUCN Cambodia/ Sun Kong
Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata) and Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagacariensis) in the proposed core zone of PKWS © IUCN Cambodia/ Sun Kong
Irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) found ir PKWS © IUCN Cambodia/ Sun Kong
Irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) found ir PKWS © IUCN Cambodia/ Sun Kong
Koh Sralao’s people processing King Crab meat © IUCN Cambodia/ K. Kimsreng
Koh Sralao’s people processing King Crab meat © IUCN Cambodia/ K. Kimsreng
A woman from Phoum Boun (village 4) collecting Oysters in mangrove roots © IUCN Cambodia/ K. Kimsreng
A woman from Phoum Boun (village 4) collecting Oysters in mangrove roots © IUCN Cambodia/ K. Kimsreng
Table 1 — The four classifications of protected areas in Cambodia based on IUCN Protected Areas Categories in 1993 In 1993 Cambodia achieved full peace after the signing of the Peace Accords in Paris. In the meantime, MoE in cooperation with several NGOs played a very significant role in re-establishing 23 PAs throughout the country based on biological and scientific field surveys. Those parks were approved by His Majesty King Norodom Sihanouk in a Royal Decree or “Kret” (ICEM, 2003). Protected areas of Cambodia were classified into four categories - National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, Protected Landscape, and Multiple Use Area (Table 1) based on the IUCN Protected Areas categories in 1993 (Smith, 2001; CPAD, 2004; BPAMP, 2006).
Table 1 — The four classifications of protected areas in Cambodia based on IUCN Protected Areas Categories in 1993 In 1993 Cambodia achieved full peace after the signing of the Peace Accords in Paris. In the meantime, MoE in cooperation with several NGOs played a very significant role in re-establishing 23 PAs throughout the country based on biological and scientific field surveys. Those parks were approved by His Majesty King Norodom Sihanouk in a Royal Decree or “Kret” (ICEM, 2003). Protected areas of Cambodia were classified into four categories - National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, Protected Landscape, and Multiple Use Area (Table 1) based on the IUCN Protected Areas categories in 1993 (Smith, 2001; CPAD, 2004; BPAMP, 2006).
Table 2 - Summary of the four management zones of protected areas based on the Protected Areas Law, MoE in 2008 Source: Cambodia National Keport Protected Areas Law, MoE 20065 However, this zoning system has not been fully implemented throughout Cambodia’s protected areas yet and not in PKWS. Zoning is a crucial step in management of the sanctuary that will benefit all relevant stakeholders; particularly all users would find it useful for the future management of the resources in the sanctuary. Ultimately, it should help ensure their livelihoods, food security, and poverty reduction. The specific objectives of this research assessment were developed with this in mind.
Table 2 - Summary of the four management zones of protected areas based on the Protected Areas Law, MoE in 2008 Source: Cambodia National Keport Protected Areas Law, MoE 20065 However, this zoning system has not been fully implemented throughout Cambodia’s protected areas yet and not in PKWS. Zoning is a crucial step in management of the sanctuary that will benefit all relevant stakeholders; particularly all users would find it useful for the future management of the resources in the sanctuary. Ultimately, it should help ensure their livelihoods, food security, and poverty reduction. The specific objectives of this research assessment were developed with this in mind.
Fig. 1 - The five villages studied in Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary
Fig. 1 - The five villages studied in Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary
Table 3 - The two main ranger stations located in PKWS
Table 3 - The two main ranger stations located in PKWS
3. The presence and absence of wildlife species in PKWS Sixty three species of wildlife were listed during group discussions consisting of 24 mammals, 28 birds, and 11 reptiles (App. A). However, there are probably more important species existing in this sanctuary, which were missed and not pointed out by local villagers. More importantly, the sanctuary still maintains many globally threatened species known by local villagers: Dolphins, Fishing Cat, Otters, Bears, Pelican, Adjutants, Storks, Hornbills, Eagles, etc. (Table 5). No attempt was made to list important fish and amphibians, as the knowledge of the assessors on these groups was considered too limited. Table 4 - The five target study villages selected in PKWS
3. The presence and absence of wildlife species in PKWS Sixty three species of wildlife were listed during group discussions consisting of 24 mammals, 28 birds, and 11 reptiles (App. A). However, there are probably more important species existing in this sanctuary, which were missed and not pointed out by local villagers. More importantly, the sanctuary still maintains many globally threatened species known by local villagers: Dolphins, Fishing Cat, Otters, Bears, Pelican, Adjutants, Storks, Hornbills, Eagles, etc. (Table 5). No attempt was made to list important fish and amphibians, as the knowledge of the assessors on these groups was considered too limited. Table 4 - The five target study villages selected in PKWS
Table 5 - Globally threatened species known or considered likely to still exist in PKWS southwestern Cambodia
Table 5 - Globally threatened species known or considered likely to still exist in PKWS southwestern Cambodia
Abundance of all species of wildlife reported was ranked by village respondents. Ranking of each species status was divided into 5 categories: 5 = very abundant, 4 = abundant, 3 = common, 2 = rare, 1 = extremely rare. In the results highlighted in this report, only the information for globally endangered species of mammals and birds is presented. The common species in each village were not included in the graphs and the chart of reptiles was also not shown in the findings because several key species of reptile particularly turtles and soft-shelled turtle were unclearly identified by local community respondents during the field discussion. However, the general trend of those species seemed to decrease over the three identified periods.
Abundance of all species of wildlife reported was ranked by village respondents. Ranking of each species status was divided into 5 categories: 5 = very abundant, 4 = abundant, 3 = common, 2 = rare, 1 = extremely rare. In the results highlighted in this report, only the information for globally endangered species of mammals and birds is presented. The common species in each village were not included in the graphs and the chart of reptiles was also not shown in the findings because several key species of reptile particularly turtles and soft-shelled turtle were unclearly identified by local community respondents during the field discussion. However, the general trend of those species seemed to decrease over the three identified periods.
Only three globally threatened species were reported by local villagers in Koh Sralao. The graphs below illustrate the historical change of key species from 1981 to 2008. The number of otter sp. and dolphin sp. stayed the same from 1981-93 whilst these two species sharply declined from 1994 to 2008. The fishing cat was more abundant in the first period, but its population dropped from 1987-93 and continued to remain unchanged until 2008 (Fig. 3).
Only three globally threatened species were reported by local villagers in Koh Sralao. The graphs below illustrate the historical change of key species from 1981 to 2008. The number of otter sp. and dolphin sp. stayed the same from 1981-93 whilst these two species sharply declined from 1994 to 2008. The fishing cat was more abundant in the first period, but its population dropped from 1987-93 and continued to remain unchanged until 2008 (Fig. 3).
Koh Andet village was recognized as the second most important village after Peam Krasop Pi in terms of the existence and abundance of key species of wildlife. There were 11 globally threatened species of mammals and birds reported by local villagers namely bear sp., sunda pangolin, otter sp., fishing cat, dhole, gibbon sp., pig-tailed macaque, silvered langur, green peafowl, hornbill sp., and adjutant sp. The charts below indicate the reported historical trend of each species from 1979 to 2008. All key species of mammals and birds steadily declined in abundance from 1979 to 2008 in Koh Andet village of PKWS (Fig.6).
Koh Andet village was recognized as the second most important village after Peam Krasop Pi in terms of the existence and abundance of key species of wildlife. There were 11 globally threatened species of mammals and birds reported by local villagers namely bear sp., sunda pangolin, otter sp., fishing cat, dhole, gibbon sp., pig-tailed macaque, silvered langur, green peafowl, hornbill sp., and adjutant sp. The charts below indicate the reported historical trend of each species from 1979 to 2008. All key species of mammals and birds steadily declined in abundance from 1979 to 2008 in Koh Andet village of PKWS (Fig.6).
Fig. 6 - Historical change of reported population abundance of globally threatened species fron 1979 to 2008 in Koh Andet village
Fig. 6 - Historical change of reported population abundance of globally threatened species fron 1979 to 2008 in Koh Andet village
Fig. 7 - Historical change of habitat types known by Peam Krasop Pi villagers from 1980 to 2008 dramatically reduced between 1987-98 and they began to recover slightly from 1998 to 2008. Kbanh forest (cardamom) stayed the same from 1987 to 2008 whilst Smach remained unchanged from first and the second period and then it began to drop down slightly from 1998 to 2008. Brasac and Sngaw forest were more abundant in the first period whilst they went down sharply within 1987-98 and these two types of forest continued to remain unchanged until 2008. Notably, only Kranheb steadily decreased from 1987 to 2008 in Peam Krasop Pi village (Fig.7).
Fig. 7 - Historical change of habitat types known by Peam Krasop Pi villagers from 1980 to 2008 dramatically reduced between 1987-98 and they began to recover slightly from 1998 to 2008. Kbanh forest (cardamom) stayed the same from 1987 to 2008 whilst Smach remained unchanged from first and the second period and then it began to drop down slightly from 1998 to 2008. Brasac and Sngaw forest were more abundant in the first period whilst they went down sharply within 1987-98 and these two types of forest continued to remain unchanged until 2008. Notably, only Kranheb steadily decreased from 1987 to 2008 in Peam Krasop Pi village (Fig.7).
Six clear habitat types of forest were identified by local villagers of Koh Andet village during the group discussion survey. The bar graphs below illustrate the historical trend of these particular habitats over 29 years from 1979 to 2008 in Koh Andet village. The mangrove, Smach, and Brorng forest steadily decreased, whilst Kranheb remained unchanged from 1979 to 2008. The evergreen forest seemed to be more abundant in the first period whilst it declined dramatically during 1990-98 and it continued to stay the same in 1999 to 2008. The Sme forest declined sharply within 1990 -98, but it began to increase slightly again from 1999 to 2008.
Six clear habitat types of forest were identified by local villagers of Koh Andet village during the group discussion survey. The bar graphs below illustrate the historical trend of these particular habitats over 29 years from 1979 to 2008 in Koh Andet village. The mangrove, Smach, and Brorng forest steadily decreased, whilst Kranheb remained unchanged from 1979 to 2008. The evergreen forest seemed to be more abundant in the first period whilst it declined dramatically during 1990-98 and it continued to stay the same in 1999 to 2008. The Sme forest declined sharply within 1990 -98, but it began to increase slightly again from 1999 to 2008.
Fig. 12 — The proposed areas for initial management zones tentatively agreed by participants in PKWS (See also attach figure 18: Latest PK WS zoning map through various consultation at page 44) to accept the four zones that the team drew up and proposed during the field discussion and consultation. Apart from the output of this assessment, one ecotourism site covering 5,466 hectares was already mapped (Schipani, 2008) and approved by MoE. However, these proposed management zones were only tentative- ly agreed by local communities and other stakeholders. Further ground-truthing survey and discussion sharing with villagers and other stakeholders using a clear topographic map of the four proposed man- agement zones (Fig. 12) will be very important to finalize the management zones for PK WS.
Fig. 12 — The proposed areas for initial management zones tentatively agreed by participants in PKWS (See also attach figure 18: Latest PK WS zoning map through various consultation at page 44) to accept the four zones that the team drew up and proposed during the field discussion and consultation. Apart from the output of this assessment, one ecotourism site covering 5,466 hectares was already mapped (Schipani, 2008) and approved by MoE. However, these proposed management zones were only tentative- ly agreed by local communities and other stakeholders. Further ground-truthing survey and discussion sharing with villagers and other stakeholders using a clear topographic map of the four proposed man- agement zones (Fig. 12) will be very important to finalize the management zones for PK WS.
Table 7 - The main occupation of local communities in PKWS People generally go to fish in the open sea and/or in the estuary as much as they can. Normally, the fishermen fish in the open sea if they have a big boat and good equipment. These fishermen seemed richer han their neighbors who only fished in and around the estuary. These richer fishermen sometimes go to fish extremely far from their village and stay in the open sea for up to half a month. Some residents reported that they went to fish at Koh Sdach, Kompong Som etc. and sometimes they fished in the estuary 00. Local fishermen without a big boat and good engine and enough experience usually fish about 5 to 7 Km from the estuary of PK WS or offshore. During fishing some people return back home daily and some decide to stay one to two nights in the fishing area.
Table 7 - The main occupation of local communities in PKWS People generally go to fish in the open sea and/or in the estuary as much as they can. Normally, the fishermen fish in the open sea if they have a big boat and good equipment. These fishermen seemed richer han their neighbors who only fished in and around the estuary. These richer fishermen sometimes go to fish extremely far from their village and stay in the open sea for up to half a month. Some residents reported that they went to fish at Koh Sdach, Kompong Som etc. and sometimes they fished in the estuary 00. Local fishermen without a big boat and good engine and enough experience usually fish about 5 to 7 Km from the estuary of PK WS or offshore. During fishing some people return back home daily and some decide to stay one to two nights in the fishing area.
In Peam Krasop Pi village 28% of respondents realized the existence of PK WS whilst 72% did not know about PK WS. The knowledge of Peam Krasop Pi villagers on the PK WS boundary was limited to only 8% whilst 92% of them did not recognize the boundary of PKWS. Importantly, none of the informants were aware of the protected areas law of the Ministry of Environment. In general most Peam Krasop Pi villagers seemed not to realize the existence of PK WS, the location of the boundary of PKWS, and the protected areas law which are managed by GDANCP of MoE (Fig. 13). The bar chart below illustrates the knowledge of Koh Sralao villagers on the PK WS, its boundary, and the protected areas law. Eighty percent of respondents knew of the existence of PKWS whilst only 20% of them did not know about the sanctuary. Only 10% of villagers were able to identify the PKWS boundary whilst 90% of them did not know the location of the boundary of this sanctuary at all. Similar to the Peam Krasop Pi villagers, no villagers were aware of the protected areas law. Therefore, the Koh Sralao villagers seemed to know the existence of PK WS, but they did recognise and understand the boundary of PKWS and the protected areas law of MoE (Fig. 14).
In Peam Krasop Pi village 28% of respondents realized the existence of PK WS whilst 72% did not know about PK WS. The knowledge of Peam Krasop Pi villagers on the PK WS boundary was limited to only 8% whilst 92% of them did not recognize the boundary of PKWS. Importantly, none of the informants were aware of the protected areas law of the Ministry of Environment. In general most Peam Krasop Pi villagers seemed not to realize the existence of PK WS, the location of the boundary of PKWS, and the protected areas law which are managed by GDANCP of MoE (Fig. 13). The bar chart below illustrates the knowledge of Koh Sralao villagers on the PK WS, its boundary, and the protected areas law. Eighty percent of respondents knew of the existence of PKWS whilst only 20% of them did not know about the sanctuary. Only 10% of villagers were able to identify the PKWS boundary whilst 90% of them did not know the location of the boundary of this sanctuary at all. Similar to the Peam Krasop Pi villagers, no villagers were aware of the protected areas law. Therefore, the Koh Sralao villagers seemed to know the existence of PK WS, but they did recognise and understand the boundary of PKWS and the protected areas law of MoE (Fig. 14).
Fig. 14 - Local perception and knowledge on conservation of PKWS in Koh Sralao village The bar chart below demonstrates that 70% of Ta Chat villagers were aware of the existence of PKWS whilst 30% did not know about this sanctuary. On the other hand while, 30% of informants in Ta Chat village know about the PK WS boundary, 70% of them were not aware of it at all. Again, no local villagers of Ta Chat village were aware of the protected areas law. Thus, most local community seemed to know about PK WS, but not the PK WS boundary and protected areas law (Fig. 15).
Fig. 14 - Local perception and knowledge on conservation of PKWS in Koh Sralao village The bar chart below demonstrates that 70% of Ta Chat villagers were aware of the existence of PKWS whilst 30% did not know about this sanctuary. On the other hand while, 30% of informants in Ta Chat village know about the PK WS boundary, 70% of them were not aware of it at all. Again, no local villagers of Ta Chat village were aware of the protected areas law. Thus, most local community seemed to know about PK WS, but not the PK WS boundary and protected areas law (Fig. 15).
In Preak Svay village 72% of interviewees were aware of the existence of PKWS whilst 28% of them did not know about it. On the contrary, 28% knew the sanctuary boundary whilst 72% were not able to identify the boundary. Notably, there were 17% of respondents understanding the protected areas law whilst 83% did not understand the law. Hence, most of the local community in Prey Svay village seemed to know about PKWS, but not the PKWS boundary and protected areas law (Fig. 16).
In Preak Svay village 72% of interviewees were aware of the existence of PKWS whilst 28% of them did not know about it. On the contrary, 28% knew the sanctuary boundary whilst 72% were not able to identify the boundary. Notably, there were 17% of respondents understanding the protected areas law whilst 83% did not understand the law. Hence, most of the local community in Prey Svay village seemed to know about PKWS, but not the PKWS boundary and protected areas law (Fig. 16).
Fig. 16 - Local perception and knowledge on conservation of PKWS in Preak Svay village The bar graph below similarly indicates the knowledge and perception of Koh Andet villagers on PK WS, its boundary, and protected area law. Forty percent of informants knew about PKWS whilst 60% of them were not aware of it. Only 5% could identify the boundary of PK WS whilst 95% could not. Likewise, only 10% of Koh Andet respondents understood the protected areas law whilst 90% were not aware of this law at all. Therefore, most local villagers seemed not to know the PK WS, PK WS boundary, and protected areas law in Koh Andet village (Fig. 17).
Fig. 16 - Local perception and knowledge on conservation of PKWS in Preak Svay village The bar graph below similarly indicates the knowledge and perception of Koh Andet villagers on PK WS, its boundary, and protected area law. Forty percent of informants knew about PKWS whilst 60% of them were not aware of it. Only 5% could identify the boundary of PK WS whilst 95% could not. Likewise, only 10% of Koh Andet respondents understood the protected areas law whilst 90% were not aware of this law at all. Therefore, most local villagers seemed not to know the PK WS, PK WS boundary, and protected areas law in Koh Andet village (Fig. 17).
Fig. 17 - Local perception and knowledge on conservation of PKWS in Koh Andet village Taking the five villages together, overall more than 60% of respondents know of the existence of PK WS as one of the protected areas under the authority of MoE whilst only 40% did not know about the existence of PKWS. About 80% of villagers were not aware of the boundary of PK WS, whilst only 20% understooc the boundary of the sanctuary. Ninety one percent did not realize there is a Protected Areas Law, whils only 9% of local people knew of this particular law (Fig.5). It appears that the knowledge of the loca community on the sanctuary has remained very limited in PK WS.
Fig. 17 - Local perception and knowledge on conservation of PKWS in Koh Andet village Taking the five villages together, overall more than 60% of respondents know of the existence of PK WS as one of the protected areas under the authority of MoE whilst only 40% did not know about the existence of PKWS. About 80% of villagers were not aware of the boundary of PK WS, whilst only 20% understooc the boundary of the sanctuary. Ninety one percent did not realize there is a Protected Areas Law, whils only 9% of local people knew of this particular law (Fig.5). It appears that the knowledge of the loca community on the sanctuary has remained very limited in PK WS.
App. A. Wildlife species known or considered likely to still exist in PK WS, southwestern Cambodia
App. A. Wildlife species known or considered likely to still exist in PK WS, southwestern Cambodia
Village: PK = Peam Krasop Pi, TC = Ta Chat, KS = Koh Sralao, PS = Preak Svay, and KA = Koh Andet App. B. Habitat types known or considered likely to still exist in PK WS, southwestern Cambodia
Village: PK = Peam Krasop Pi, TC = Ta Chat, KS = Koh Sralao, PS = Preak Svay, and KA = Koh Andet App. B. Habitat types known or considered likely to still exist in PK WS, southwestern Cambodia
App. D. Seasonal calendar D. 1. Peam Krasob Pi village
App. D. Seasonal calendar D. 1. Peam Krasob Pi village
See the meaning of color in D. 1
See the meaning of color in D. 1
See the meaning of color in D. 1
See the meaning of color in D. 1
D. 4. Preak Svay village See the meaning of color in D. 1
D. 4. Preak Svay village See the meaning of color in D. 1
See the meaning of color in D. 1
See the meaning of color in D. 1