IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Research article
erdAnalysis of Fiscal Gap and Financing of Cambodia’s Protected
Areas
SOMALY CHAN*
National Council for Sustainable Development/Ministry of Environment, Cambodia
Email: somalychan.ca@gmail.com
Received 16 December 2014

Accepted 15 July 2015(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract The Analysis of Fiscal Gap and Financing of Cambodia’s Protected Area (PA)conducted by the Department of International Conventions & Biodiversity, Ministry ofEnvironment (MoE), aimed to identify resource gaps in the management of 23 PAs of
Cambodia. The pressure & response indicators were used to analyze resource gaps. Pressure
indicators were population, number of visitors of each PA, roads, and hiking trails within PAs;
while response indicators included the number of full time staff and operational expenditure. To
examine resource gaps for PAs management, all PAs were classified into three clusters
according to the area size. The comparisons between pressure and response demonstrated trendsof existing resources for the management of PAs, therefore they were analyzed by pairingpressure and response indicator. To calculate resource gaps, two benchmarks were set for eachcluster: the average and the highest. Each PA resource gap was identified based on two rules: 1)
bringing the number of fulltime staff and operational expenditure that was below average to the“average benchmark”; 2) bringing the number of fulltime staff and operational expenditure thatwas higher than the average to the “highest benchmark”. As a result, the total gap of full time
staff in 2009 was 449 personals, equal to 1/3 of existing staff. However, the gap of full time
staff in this context did not take into account of their capacity to fulfill PA management tasks.
The total operational expenditure gap in 2009 was 1,221,405 USD, equal to 25% of thebenchmark estimation of 2,462,881 USD. In conclusion, for better management of 23 PAs, thebudget for PAs operation should be doubled; therefore it should be increased up to 2.5 million
USD per year.
Keywords fiscal gap, Cambodia, protected area, financing

INTRODUCTION
A 1993 degree of the Royal Government of Cambodia designated 23 Protected Areas (PA) comprising
approximately 18% of the total land areas of the country. Following IUCN (2004) categorization, thesePAs can be classified into National Park (7), Wildlife Sanctuary (10), Multiple-use Areas (3), andProtected Landscape (3). Through Royal decree (2001) and Declaration N.4010 (1999), one Biosphere
Reserve has been established and three Ramsar sites have been identified in addition to the 23 PAs.
Those PAs are managed by the General Department of Administration for Nature Conservation andProtection (GDANCP) of the Ministry of Environment by Law on Protected Areas 2008.
In addition, the Royal Government of Cambodia has designated 6 Protected Forests (PF), which
are managed by the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). The management ofProtected Forests is regulated under the Forestry law and relevant Royal Decree, Sub-Decree andDeclaration of the MAFF.
Each type of PA has a specific inclusion definition and a management objective. The managementof PAs has complied with the Royal Decree on the Creation and Designation of Protected Areas (1993),
the Law on Environmental Protection & Natural Resource Management (1996), the Law on ProtectedⒸISERD79

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Areas (2008), which define a framework of PA management, biodiversity conservation, andsustainable use of natural resources within PA. Other PA related legislations and regulations include
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) sub-decree (1999), Biosafety reserve (2008), Forestry
Law (2002), Fisheries Law (2002), Royal Decree, Sub-Decree and Declaration, and other relevant laws.
Protected Areas is the main approach to biodiversity conservation in Cambodia. Data collection andinterview in 2012 by Department of International Convention and Biodiversity, it showed that 23
Protected Areas had residents within or around them; tourism activities, unsustainable use of natural
resources, illegal logging, wildlife trade, and insufficient resources, which were main challenges for
PA management. The resources for PA management are generally considered to be insufficient while
updated information and practical evaluation are lack to support the argument. This research finding
and recommendation options are expected for use by PA responsible institutions to increase budget andsustain finance for effective management of PA System in Cambodia.
OBJECTIVESThis paper aimed to identify the fiscal gap and financing needs for Cambodia’s Protected Area
management. The overall objective was to analyze the resource gaps in PA management. The research
was targeted for 23 Cambodian PAs under administration and management of the Ministry ofEnvironment (MoE). The data were analyzed based on setting internal and external indicators andrelevant criteria as appropriate. The findings of resources gaps and recommendations in filling thegapes by either increase national budgets and recruit more rangers or full time staffs are expected to be
used by PA responsible institutions for effective management of PAs in Cambodia.
METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted using both primary and secondary data/information collected from 23
Protected Areas established by Royal Decree in 1993. The data were collected directly from each PA’s
manager, key experts, relevant institutions, partners, stakeholders, and any available sources. Analysisof data collection, cluster classification, and benchmark identification were based on the following
methodologies:
Primary Data Collection and Surveys
A research questionnaire was designed in Khmer language for data collection from 23 PAs. It was
divided into four parts: part one focused on background information of PA including name, date ofestablishment, land area, location, IUCN’s classification, and its purpose; part two related to thephysical characteristics of PA such as access to PA, inhabitants of PA, travelling within PA, andfacilities available within PA; part three aimed to gather information on visitor characteristics such as
the number of visitors to PA, visitors entry fee, visitor accommodation fee, and activity fee; and partfour captured information on staffing revenues and costs, number of staff, staff capacity, operation
expenditure; fee collection, and annual revenues for an individual PA.
Secondary Data Collection
Some data could not be collected from the field. The research team directly communicated with
relevant institutions, local authorities, and international agencies through available contact persons
before sending official letters to request for cooperation in providing data. Data and information fromresearch projects, annual reports, census, materials from workshops and seminars were also collected.
ⒸISERD80

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Data Analysis
To analyze the Fiscal Gap for each PA, pressure and response indicators were identified. The pressure
indicators included population within 5 km radius, visitors, road, and hiking trail; while the number offull time staff and operational expenditures were identified as respond indicators. The analysis of
population focused on total population in the 5 most populated villages within a 5 km radius of theboundary; the less population caused less pressure on natural resources. The total operational
expenditure from government budget and other external sources supported some PAs’ activities.
The following methods were used to identify resource gaps: analysis pressures and respond, andset benchmark.
Response: This study selected the number of full time staff, and operational expenditures in 2009 as
response variable to assess the response to the pressure factors including: population, visitors, road,and hiking trail.
Benchmarking: According to size variance of PA and to maximize the accuracy of gap analysis, 23
PAs were classified into three clusters as follows:- Cluster 1: PA with total land areas of 0 ≤5,000 ha; 2 Pas- Cluster 2: PA with total land areas of> 5,000 ha ≤50,000 ha; 6 Pas- Cluster 3: PA with total land areas of> 50,000 ha ≤402,500 ha; 15 PAs
A benchmark of response indicators was identified for each cluster to analyze resource gaps, which
was carried out for full time staff (FTS) per 1,000 ha and operational expenditure (OpEx) per ha. The
average and highest indicators of FTS/1,000 ha and OpEX/ha within each cluster were used as
benchmarking tools to estimate gaps.
Resource GAPs: According to the method introduced by the Economy and Environmental Programfor Southeast Asia (EEPSEA, 2012), the following rules were applied for calculation resource gaps.
1. If the Number of Full-Time Staff & Operational Expenditure is lower than the average, bring thevalue of Full Time Staff & Operational Expenditure to the Cluster Average (Avr).
2. If the Number of Full-Time Staff & Operational Expenditure is higher than average in Cluster,
bring the value of Full Time Staff & Operational Expenditure to the Highest (Hst) value in Cluster.
The resource gap analysis was carried out by comparing existing resource allocation for PAs
management with averages & highest of individual clusters. The comparisons scenarios presented forlooking at how PAs were currently managed, and should stimulate discussion as any action was to betaken for further improvement.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Cambodia Protected Areas were divided into three clusters based on size: Cluster 1 was for PA
that had total land areas from 0 ≤5,000 ha; Cluster 2 was for PA with total land area from between
5,000 ha and ≤ 50,000 ha; while Cluster 3 was classified for any PA having land area more than 50,000
ha but less than or equal 402,500 ha (Table 1). Cluster 3 represented highest number of PA in theamount of 15 PAs out of 23 PAs. According to the data in Table 1, the average total land area in cluster
1 is 3,898 ha, cluster 2 is 28,004 ha, cluster 3 is 209,919, and Kulen-Promtep wildlife sanctuary has
highest total land area of 402,500 ha.
In 2009, 204,117 Cambodians visited 9 PAs: three national parks, three wildlife sanctuaries, one
protected landscape, and two multiple use areas. In the same year, 339,199 foreigners visited 10 PAs.
Therefore, the total number of tourists recorded in 2009 was 543,316 people. However, Bokor National& Phnom Kulen National Parks, and Ankor Multiple Use Area were not included in this analysis as theinformation on the number of visitors as these PAs could not be obtained as these were managed byother agencies and private companies.

ⒸISERD81

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Table 1 Cluster and benchmark for full time staff and operational expenditure

No. PA in
Cluster

PA total area clustering
Cluster Interval (ha)Avr.Total Area(ha)

Full time staff (FTS)
Avr. No.
FTS

Avr. No.
FTS per
1000 ha

Hst No.
FTS per
1000 haTotal = 23
0 ≤ 5,000> 5,000 ≤ 50,000

26Highest = 402,500 ha
3,898
10.50
2.97
28,004
30.17
1.03

3.94
1.77

> 50,000 ≤ 402,500

15

209,919

0.52

45.93

0.25

Operation expend (OpEx)
Avr.
OpEx
(USD)

Avr
OpEx/ha(USD)

Lowest = 2795 ha
7,570
2.10
17,5760.60
74,7250.30

Hst OpEx
per ha
(USD)
2.67
0.94
1.24

According to interview information received from PA’s directors, deputy directors, rangers, andcommune chiefs, the revenue of each PA were through entry fees (0.25 - 0.75 for local visitors & USD
5 for foreigner), accommodation, and facilities such as boat rental, car park, guide fee, etc. Tourist
facilities and accommodation rates varied from PA to PA depending on customer demand. As the roadcondition of PA was not so good and far from the town, entry fees were lower, e.g. $0.12 per person.
Some PAs had additional charges for visitors to see rare species.
Response Indicators
Number of full time staff in 2009: The Ministry of Environment set up 32 offices and 78 sub-offices
around and within 23 PAs. For daily operations 891 full-time staff were employed by government towork in 23 PAs.
Operational expenditures in 2009: The operational expenditure for each PA including staff salary,
uniforms, and medicine were covered under the government budget. Other operational costs such as
project based activities supported by other donors. The total operation expenditures in 2009 for 23 PAs
was USD 1,241,476.
Pressure Indicators
Population of five largest villages within 5 km radius in 2009: The total population in the 5 largest
villages in a radius of 5 km from border of each PA was 347,625 people.
Roads and hiking trails: Roads & trails in each PA were constructed for filed monitoring recreationand ecotourism. Phnom Prich wildlife Sanctuary had the longest road (380 km), while Botum Sakor
National Park had more trails (1,750 km) compared to other PAs. On the other hand, for Roniem Daun
Sam Wildlife Sancturay, no road has been constructed and Preah Vihear Protected Landscape only has
a 4 km trail.
Response vs PressureThis research has compared pressure with response in pairs of: Population vs Full Time Staff;
Population vs Operational Expenditure; Visitor vs Full Time Staff; Visitor vs Operational Expenditure;
Road vs Full Time Staff; and Hiking Trail vs Full Time Staff. Road and Hiking Trail identified aspressures factors have elaborated in follow paragraph.
Population vs full time staff: According to data collection from all PAs (2009) the distribution of
population and full time staff in 1000 ha tended to have a positive association in general because themore population was the more full time staff were employed. In this regard, the high pressure by
population within 5 km radius in PAs had a response of higher number of full time staff, exceptⒸISERD82

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Angkor Protected Land Scape which had less full time staff (0.93/1,000 ha) in proportion to populationof 4,212.50 per 1000 ha compared to other PAs.
Population vs operational expenditure: The same source of data from directors and rangers in 23
PAs (2009) on the distribution of population and operational expenditure for 23 PAs resulted inpositive conditions. The results indicated that the greater the population was, the more staff were
employed for management. However, distribution of both factors in Prea Vihar Protected Landscape,Phnom Samkos Wildlife Sanctuary, and Kirorom National Park had more response and less pressure,especially Prea Vihea with operational expenditures of 1,533 USD per 1000 ha in 2009 with nopopulation within this PA. Besides, Angkor Protected Landscape had less resources in term ofoperational expenditures (470.09 USD/1,000 ha) to response with a high population of 4,212.50 per
1,000 ha.
Visitors vs full time staff: Only nine PAs recorded the number of visitors. The distribution ofpressures and response factors for visitors and full time staff was the focus for nine PAs that had data
available. The trend of Visitors vs Full Time Staff moved to a positive relationship although three PAs(Preah Vihea Protected Land Scape, Kirirom National Park, and Peam Krosop Wildlife Sanctuary) had
high pressure because of the number of full time staff did not fully respond to the number of visitors,
so it led to limited human resources for effective management in those PAs.
Visitors vs operational expenditure: The distribution of the number of visitors per 1,000 ha and total
operational expenditure per 1,000 ha in 23 PAs also had a positive trend. Distribution of visitors ranged
from 0 to 3,589 per 1000 ha, while operational expenditure had a distribution range from 82.27 USD
per 1,000 ha in Roniem Daun Sam Wildlife Sanctuary to 2,674.06 USD per 1,000 ha in Kep National
Park. In general, many distributions of both factors showed less pressure.
Roads v full time staff: Length of road per 1,000 ha had been considered as pressure factor for PA
management due to it was potential and easy for poacher to conduct illegal activities within PA.
Besides, it could be considered also as respond factor for PA manager or ranger to control otheractivities. Nevertheless, this study deliberated existing road, which PA was a pressure factor, but its
distribution tended to be positive respond. According to data in this study, there was two contrast
outliers at Angkor Protected Land Scape trended to have high pressure with road distribution in 13.80
km per 1,000 ha, and Kep National Park had high response within 4 full time staffs per 1,000 ha.
Hiking trails vs full time staff: Moreover, the length of hiking trails was also considered as pressure
factor. The results showed that almost of PAs had enough staff to patrol illegal activities if poachers
used only hiking trail.
Benchmarking
This study set benchmarks of full time staff/1,000ha and operational expenditure/ha at average andhighest points for each cluster, to estimate and calculate resource gaps with the above rules andmethodology. However, resource gaps of PAs management did not refer to the quality of full time staff
and sufficient financial resources for effective PAs management.
Resource GAPs
To estimate resource gaps, the number of full time staff/1,000 ha and operational expenditure/ha had
been identified as shown in Table 1. The serial number on horizontal axis in Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4
represent each PA. The 7 National Parks are: 1- Kirirom, 2- Bokor, 3- Kep, 4- Ream, 5- Botum Sakor,
6- Phnom Kulen, and 7-Virachey; 10 Wildlife Sanctuaries are: 8- Phnom Aural, 9- Peam Krasop, 10Phnom Samkos, 11- Roniem Daun Sam, 12- Kulen Promtep, 13- Beng Per, 14- Lomphat, 15- Phnom
Prich, 16- Phnom Nam Lyr, and 17- Snoul; 3 Protected Landscapes are: 18- Angkor, 19- Banteay
Chmar, and 20- Preah Vihear; and 3 Multiple Use Areas are: 21- Dong Peng; 22- Samlaut; and 23Tonle Sap.
ⒸISERD83

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Full time staff GAP: According to the average and highest benchmark of Full Time Staff (Table 1)
and data shown in Fig. 1, cluster 1 had only one PA below average and cluster 2 had four PAs below
and one PA above its average, while cluster 3 had eight PAs below and six PAs over average.
Therefore, Cluster 1 had 0.97/1,000 ha or approximately 5 (4.8) full time staff gap, cluster 2 had
1.47/1,000 ha or 42 full time staff gap and cluster 3 had 1.85/1,000 ha of 402 full time staff gap. The
calculation of full time staff gap in each PA was shown in Fig. 2. Among 23 PAs, only Tonle Sap
multiple use area and Phnom Aural wildlife sanctuary had high full time staff gap: 82 staff gap werefor Tonle Sap and 66 staff gap for Phnom Aural. For other PAs, the gap was between 0 to 45 staff. The
result of full time staff gap assessment indicated that an additional 448.55 staff needed to be employed
to the existing 891 staff to meet the benchmark of 1,339.55 staff. That means 1/3 of existing staff isrequired to recruit in addition.
Full Time Staff per 1000 Hectars for Each PA
4.00

Total Gap in Full Time Staff for Each PA

3.94
90.0
82.4

3.50

80.0

70.0

65.8

60.0

2.50

2.00

Staff Gap in PAs

Full Time Staff/1000 ha

Average for Cluster 1 = 2.97
3.00

1.77

1.50

Average for Cluster 2 = 1.03

50.0

44.8

40.0

35.6

22.9

22.4

20.4

1.00

28.7

28.3

30.0

21.0

19.1

20.0

15.2

13.7

Average for Cluster 3 = 0.25

0.52

0.50

10.0

1.2

0.7

-

7.9

7.0

5.8

4.8
-

0.9

-

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1

23

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Protected Area (PA)Protected Are (PA)Fig. 1 Full time staff / 1000 ha

Fig. 2 Full time staff gap in each PA

Operational expenditure GAP: The assessment of the financial gap was based on the annual budget(2009) for PA management of the Ministry of Environment. The funding for supporting PA
management received from Government was 40 person (equivalent to USD 499,515) and from otherexternal sources was 60 person (equivalent to USD 741,964). This amount of external sources
pertained to only nine PAs. There was not any donor’s funding included, as some portion was
undisclosed due to the confidential policy of the management. Therefore, this paper focused only
donor’s funding that worked with government or had a joint project through the Ministry ofEnvironment.
The operational expenditure for each PA included salary for full time staff, expenditure foruniform, medicine and conservation projects. The average and highest of operational expenditure foreach cluster are presented in Table 1. Figure 3 shows that cluster 1 had an average expenditure of USD
2.10/ha and the highest expenditure USD 2.67/ha, so the total gap was USD 2,853. In cluster 2,
operational expenditure in six PAs was not very diverse and was below the average, only Dong Pengmultiple use area was spending above the average. Therefore, the total gap for this cluster was USD
16,886. Besides, cluster 3 operational expenditure in 15 PAs was variance from one PA to another; and10 PAs were below the average, while 4 PAs were above the average. The total operational
expenditure for cluster 3 was USD 1,201,666. Total gap for each PA is shown in Fig 4. It articulated
that Kelen Promtep wildlife sanctuary had highest gap (347,092.7 USD) while Tonle Sap multiple use
was the second highest gap of operation expenditure in 2009. Phnom Prich wildlife sanctuary and
Botum Sakor national park also presented high gaps.
Total gap of operational expenditure in 2009 for 23 PAs was USD 1,221,405 approximate 50 percent
of benchmark estimation at USD 2,462,881. For better management of PA system in Cambodia,
operational fund should be increased to double of 2009 budget.
As the results of assessment, the resource gaps for full time staff & operational expenditure for 23
PAs are shown in Table 2.
ⒸISERD84

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Total Gap in Opera ng Expenditure for Each PA

Opera ng Expenditure per Ha in 2009
400,000.0

3.00

347,092.7

350,000.0

300,000.0

Average for Cluster 1 = 2.10

Opera ng Gap in PA (USD)

Opera ng Expenditure (USD)

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

255,550.6
250,000.0

194,393.2

200,000.0
162,857.7
150,000.0

100,000.0

Average for Cluster 2 = 0.60
0.50

Average for Cluster 3 = 0.30

50,000.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

-

23

1

2

3

4

Protected Area (PA)

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Protected Area (PA)Fig. 3 Operational expenditure per ha.

Fig. 4 Operational expenditure gap

Table 2 Resource gaps
Resources gap assessment

FTS (Number)

OpEx. (USD)

Existing resources (2009)

891.001,241,476

Estimated resources benchmark

1,339.55

2,462,881

Estimated resources gap

448.55

1,221,405

CONCLUSION
The resource gap analysis is reliant on data availability in setting indicators. The gap analysis is basedon the average and the highest full time staff per 1,000 ha and operational expenditure per ha in year
2009. The average and the highest for both indicators vary from cluster to cluster according to the sizeof PAs. Logically, the bigger size of the PA presents bigger number of full time staff and a bigger
operations budget. However, results of this study showed that the smaller PA size had the higher
average of full time staff, and the higher average of operational expenditure. It is more than double
expenditure compared with PAs which highest size.
Generally, PAs that had high resource gaps were from cluster 3 as this cluster had very wide gap
between the highest and above average. For cluster 1 and cluster 2 each PA was not much different gap
in terms of proportion.
The full time staff gap in this research did not taking into account the qualification of staff.
Therefore, this study focuses on quantity only. To assess the effectiveness of PA management, staff
quality should be considered as an important indicator and it should be considered for further research.
The protected area depending on the government budget was only able to support for staff salaries,
uniforms, and medicine. This budget is neither adequate for effective management nor to improve
facilities for resource mobilization. More than half of the total operational expenditure in 2009 received
from external sources, if this study could assessed more information on budgets of conservation
projects for PA management that supported and implemented by external partners, the figure ofoperation expenditure for 23 PAs would be increased.
In conclusion, to assess the resource gaps for effectiveness in PA management, gap of full time
staff should examine both quantity and quality, including skills & professional requirements, and othercriteria such as management plan, equipment, operation facilities etc. Without quality, motivation, andincentives, even if there are adequate staff, a successful or an effective PA management is notguaranteed. Although 1/3 of existing staff is required to fill the gap; or if existing staff can improvetheir capacity with well equippied facilities, there will be improvement in PAs management.

ⒸISERD85

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the General Department of Administration for Nature Conservation andProtection, MoE for authorization to conduct this research, and thank the research team of the
Department of International Conventions & Biodiversity for strong support in data collection. The
author acknowledges all stakeholders including PAs' directors and rangers who were involved andprovided information/data for this research. The author expresses her sincere thanks to Dr. Fermi
Fransisco, Director of the Economy and Environmental Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) for thefinancial support to conduct this research. Finally, the author would like to give sincere thanks to Prof.
Dr. Machito MIHARA, Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo Universityof Agriculture, for his support and professional guidance on this paper.
REFERENCES
Fransisco, F. 2012. The economy and environmental program for Southeast Asia.
IUCN. 2004. IUCN Protected Areas Categories System. (http://www.iucn.org).
Ministry of Environment. Annual budget for PA management in 2009. Cambodia.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International Cooperation, Declaration No.4010. 1999. Endorsement date for threeRamsar sites on the list of wetlands of international importance to the Ramsar Convention. Cambodia.
Preah Reach Kram, No NS/RKM//0208/007. 2008. The promulgation of the law on protected areas, The
management of protected areas shall be under the jurisdiction of nature protection and conservation
administration of the Ministry of Environment. Cambodia.
Preah Reach Kram, No. NS/RKM//0208/006. 2008. Law on biosafety. Cambodia.
Preah Reach Kram, No. NS/RKM/0802/016.2002. The promulgating of the law on forestry. Cambodia.
Preah Reach Kram, No. NS/RKM/0802/015.2002. The promulgating of the law on fisheries. Cambodia.
Royal Decree. 1993. The creation and designation of the protected areas, national park, wildlife sanctuary,
multiple use area and protected landscape. Cambodia.
Royal Decree. 2001. The establishment and management of Tonle Sap biosphere reserver. Cambodia.
Royal Kret NS/RKM/1296/36.1996. The promulgation of the law on environmental protection and natural
resource management. Cambodia.
Sub Decree. 1999. Ministry of Environment, the environmental impact assessment (EIA). Cambodia.

ⒸISERD86