IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

Research articleerd

An Aassessment of the Natural Resources of Ang TrapeangThmor and Its Impact on the Livelihoods of Pongro andSambour Villages
THIRA PINN*Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: thearapinn@yahoo.com

CHANKAKADA CHHOEUM
Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

NORITHYA SAMAN
Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Received 15 December 2011

Accepted 7 February 2012(*: Corresponding Author)

Abstract Ang Trapeang Thmor (ATT) is a protected area (PA) which history dates back to
the late 1970s with the creation of a huge reservoir for rice irrigation during the Khmer
Rouge reign. The designation of ATT as a crane sanctuary in 2000 led to changes in use
and management of resources around the area. This study sets to identify the local
livelihood strategies in Pongro and Sambour and to define the level of participation,
acceptance and understanding of the need for conservation of the Protected Area. Somemethods have been selected to collect necessary data such as informal interviews,
participatory rural appraisal (PRA) such as a drawing exercise with school children onenvironmental   education   and   children’s   perceptions,   awareness   on   ATT,   and   nature.  
Furthermore, focus group discussions were conducted with two groups of villagers
separately. The findings reveal that a very common practice of households at Pongro andSambuor were wet season rice cultivation in ATT, livestock breeding, vegetable growing,collecting NTFP and fishing in ATT. The general perception of the villagers on ATT is
negative probably because they passively participate in the management of it and due tothe lack of understanding of the aim of the conservation project. There are conflicts
between Pongro and Sambuor opposed to the villages south of the main gate of thereservoir over water levels on the reservoir. Water levels and recent increase in cassava
prices have led to illegal encroachment into a state forest East of ATT. However theconservation of ATT and the surrounding natural resources still present opportunities inconnection to tourism and community forestry that can be beneficial to the villagers ofPongro and Sambuor.
Keywords conservation, Ang Trapeang Thmor, conflicts, livelihoods, natural resources,
community participation

INTRODUCTION
Banteay Meanchey province is situated on the Thai border in north-western Cambodia and its capital province is named Sisophon. This province is poor and there are still many unexploded mines in
the fields and forests of the province. Ang Tropeang Thmor is located in Phnom Srok district, Banteay Meanchey province, about 80 km northwest of Siem Reap town. The protected area covers
about 12,650 ha consisting of a large lake, lowlands and forest (WCS, 2007). It consists of a large
reservoir of water contained by 11 km and 9 km long dykes to the south and east, respectively. The
southern dyke has three water gates with ten decaying Chinese-made sluices. The reservoir covers
less than 1,000 ha during the dry season but expands to cover most of the reserve during the laterainy season (August - October). The PA is a huge reservoir created by forced labor during theⒸISERD72

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

Khmer Rouge regime, which harbors a unique wetland now. The reservoir harbors more than 200species of other birds, of which 18 have been classified as globally threatened or globally nearthreatened. In February 2000, a Royal Decree was signed establishing a Sarus Crane Conservation
Area. Soon after the decree was passed, a local conservation team was set up with the technical andfinancial support of the Wildlife Conservation Foundation (WCF) and International Crane Foundation (ICF).
METHODOLOGY
The objective of this study is to identify the local livelihood strategies in Pongro and Sambour villages and define the level of participation, acceptance and understanding of the need for conservation of the PA in Pongro and Sambour villages. The field study was conducted from 7th - 19thMarch 2009 (duration 12 days) in Ang Trapeang Thmor, Poey Char commune, Phnum Srok district,Banteay Meanchey province. We had done our study in Sambour and Pongro villages which aresituated around PA. To achieve this objective, some methods have been designed such as semi
structured interviews, transect walk, Participatory Rural Appraisal, questionnaire surveys, and GPS
mapping to collect necessary data.
RESULTS
Local Livelihoods
The people living around ATT are strongly depended on natural resources. The state of the naturalresources  directly  affects  local  people’s  livelihoods.  In  this  part,  the  livelihood  of  the  villagers  is  assessed; both concerning how they are affected by the fact that they live on the border of ATT andhow the local livelihoods are affecting the environment in and around ATT. Fig. 1 shows the distribution of livelihood strategies among the households in Pongro and Sambuor. As it can be seen,
most households apply wet season rice cultivation in ATT and livestock breeding. The most common livestock is hens and chickens, followed by cows, ducks and pigs. Only few households havewater buffalos. Only three households had their livestock grazing in ATT, but of the 11 collecting
NTFP in ATT most of them collects fodder for the livestock in ATT. Also 68% of the households
are fishing in ATT making it a very common practice. Only three households cultivate cassava inthe state forest to the east of the villages and two cultivate sweet potato and maize in the forest.

Fig. 1 Livelihood strategies that the households applied
Local participation in conservation
The level of participation and environmental understanding among the villagers has been assessed
through questions about their  awareness  of  the  Wildlife  Conservation  Society’s  (WCS)  presence  in  the area. The majority (86%) of the villagers from Sambuor and Pongro have heard about the WCS(refer to Fig. 2). In most cases information about the NGO has been provided by the authorityⒸISERD73

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2(54%), referring to the local village chief or commune chief. Nonetheless, 29% of the villagers
have heard about the WCS from the organization itself and 14% heard about the NGO from theirneighbors.

Fig. 2 The results of the questionnaire “Have  you  heard  of  WCS,  and  if  so,  from  where?”
There is a general confusion about whether WCS has actually been providing specific training
courses on conservation and sustainable use of the area. It is equally not clear whether they have invited villagers for  information  meetings  or  if  information  and  “training”  has  simply  been  a  part  of  the  village meetings among other important subjects. Therefore, when villagers mention the training
courses and the meeting they have been participating in, this might very well refer to the same activity. 21% of the villagers say that they have been participating in a training course, while 46% (out ofthe 24 persons who had heard about the WCS) has been participating in any kind of activity in relation to ATT and WCS (which may include training courses). 31% of the villagers participated in theplanning of ATT while 69% attend meetings about the PA. Regularly, from these results, it can besaid that although the villagers participate in these activities at a passive level, over half of them takepart in the meetings related to ATT. This means that over half of the villagers have an idea, based onthese meetings, of what management activities have been implemented in ATT.

Fig. 3 Percentage of villagers who attended meetings
Some villagers did not participate in the previous meetings about conservation. When they
were asked about the reason, the answers were; lack of time (45%) or lack of information (55%),
further underlining the point that not everyone has an opportunity to participate.
Perceptions
The different perceptions in Table 1 both positive and negative were expressed by different villagers.
Table 1 Positive and negative perceptions expressed by villagers
Positive perceptions:

Negative perceptions:- Likes ATT because of sustainability and ecology conservation- Likes the birds- Very good, because they can still do farming, fishing, etc.,
inside the PA- Most villagers like it. However, if they can benefit from it,then it would be good. Overall, though, they have lost a lot ofland.
- No idea about the PA, but the water level is a problem.
- The birds destroy the rice.
- It is good for nature, good for wilderness. Not good for villagers though. Most villagers are unhappy.
- Doesn’t  like  the  lake  at  all.
- Eco tourism is good, but the problem of the flooded fields
since 2003 decreased the rice yield.

ⒸISERD74

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

Further livelihood opportunities
Despite the conflicts observed in the use, management and conservation of ATT and the surrounding areas, the natural resources still offer other opportunities for the local livelihoods. Apart fromthe traditional livelihood activities of wet season rice cultivation, fishing, collection of NTFPs andmost recently cassava cultivation, there are a number of other opportunities related to tourism andcommunity forestry.
Tourists are not new to the area. The study investigated the attractiveness of the area for tourists before and after it was declared a PA. 20% of the respondents think they saw tourists before thearea was declared a PA. Meanwhile, 48% of the respondents think they saw tourists in the area only after it was declared a PA. Fig. 4 presents the various categories and their percentages.

Fig. 4 Respondents' views on tourists in the area before and after PA was establishedThe general perception of tourism in the area is very good. 80% of the respondents think it is agood area for tourist though only 16% actually know how they can be benefited from tourism.
Even though tourists visit the area, so far there is no benefit from tourism to Pongro and Sambuor
as none of the respondents have ever sold any items or benefited from the largesse of the visitingtourists.
SWOT analysis
Table 2 presents a synthesis of the analyses of the result in the form of a SWOT
Table 2 SWOT analysis of ATT
STRENGTHS-Biodiversity conservation
Reservoir for irrigation and water utilization
Fishing-Tourism
Community forestry
Increase of biodiversity
Training programmes from WCS
Sustainable natural resource management

WEAKNESS-

Flooding of rice fields
Food insecurity
Field difficulties
Passive participation by local communities-

Conflict in water management and utilization
Increased flood hazard
Illegal occupation of adjacent forest
Destruction of rice fields by birdsWater levels threatens crane habitat

OPPORTUNITIESTHREATSDISCUSSION
The management of ATT certainly affects the villagers in Sambuor and Pongro. This becomes
clear when the villagers mention their flooded rice fields and the fact that they are forced to growcassava in the forest. When asked questions on ATT, the villagers often refer to the floods in PA.
The villagers still blame the conservation project and the WCS.
As mentioned above, several conflicts were found in the area. Due to that, the pressure on thenatural resources in ATT was not  as  high  as  expected.  A  question  like:  “Have  you  seen  any  illegal  activities  in  the  protected  area?”  clearly  indicates  expectations  about  discovering  illegal  activities  (hunting, logging and NFTP collection), performed by poor villagers, who were limited in theiropportunities, and did not have any other choices. However, this was not the case, and fewer illegal
activities than expected were reported, which did not make this issue that important.
ⒸISERD75

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

Concerning the opportunities for the villagers to improve their livelihood and income possibilities, which were not considered initially, they were discovered during the fieldwork undergone.
Tourism seems to be the most obvious opportunity although a lot of efforts still need to be put into
the area, to attract international tourists. The international tourists though, have already started visiting the area. The guesthouse in Pongro may enhance the activity. The natural resources in ATT
were initially expected to produce a positive effect, since this is the aim of the conservation project.
CONCLUSIONIn 2000, the villagers of Pongro and Sambuor experienced changes in the size of their fields for ricecultivation because they both were within the designated PA. This led to the reduction at their rice
yields and made effect on the livelihoods. However, the situation has been affected negatively withthe flooding of the rice fields because of the closure of the main gate. The management of water
resources of the reservoir is in the center of a conflict between Pongro and Sambuor. The land in
ATT is officially owned by the state; however, the villagers cultivate the land without legal rights.
The high water levels and the recent increase in cassava prices have led to the illegal encroachment
on the forest to the east of ATT.
With respect to ATT and its management, the general perception of the villagers is negative.
This is partly because WCS unilaterally manages ATT and only inform the villages of what has
been decided as well as the fact they see ATT as the cause of their flooded rice fields. The level ofparticipation by the villagers is limited to information meetings which is equal to passive participation. Even though they have a negative perception of ATT, they are generally aware of the importance of conservation. However, ATT and the surrounding resources have a potential to sustain
the local livelihoods of Pongro and Sambuor. These potentials can be harnessed from tourism andcommunity forestry.
REFERENCES
International Crane Fondation. 2009. Sarus crane, ICF. http://www.savingcranes.org/saruscrane.html.
WCS, Cambodia Program. 2007. Paoy Char Commune Natural resources management profile.

ⒸISERD76