INTERVENTION SUMMARY

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are a conservation intervention mechanism most commonly applied in the context of strong institutional frameworks and property rights, targeting private land holders. The use of PES in places where these frameworks and rights are weak can be challenging. This case study compares the use of PES programs in Cambodia where land and resource rights are poorly defined, governance is poor, and the threat to species is high. The primary conservation threats were identified as the hunting, habitat destruction, and human disturbances by both long-time residents and new immigrants to the area that are threatening biodiversity sustainability in protected areas in Cambodia’s Northern Plains. The interventions included community-based ecotourism, agri-environmental payments, and a bird-nest protection program; all of which financially benefitted communities that lacked alternative monitoring or legal practices. The interventions were effective at the time, with each intervention providing substantial economic benefit to the communities, though the conservation outcome was not always clear.

INTERVENTION DETAILS

What was the problem?

Hunting, habitat destruction, and human disturbances by both long-time residents and new immigrants to the area that are threatening biodiversity sustainability in protected areas in Cambodia's Northern Plains.

What was the Intervention and How was it Implemented?

Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE): Villagers involved in this intervention developed and enforced the rules about species protection, including land-use regulations. Increased species populations and improved service quality for tourists allowed for local operators to increase prices and diversify the range of services provided, leading to increased financial benefits for community members. (Remove Excuses - assist compliance).

Agri-Environment Payments: Wildlife-Friendly Products (AEP): AEP is a market-based program for rice farmers if they abide by land-use plan and no-hunting rules. If rice farmers abide by these rules, they are provided with start-up capital and training in new agricultural techniques, then their rice is sold directly to a marketing association at preferential pricing, removing middle-men, and increasing income for goods. These goods are, in turn, sold to tourist hotels under "Wildlife Friendly" certification. Profit is shared between farmers and the market association, who rely on a village committee to ensure farmers compliance with rules. (Remove Excuses - assist compliance).

Bird Nest Protection Program (BNPP): Community members (individually contracted) are employed to locate, monitor, and protect nesting sites from wildlife traders and human disturbances. They are paid for locating nests, then employed to monitor and protect nests, and are paid more if nests successfully fledge. If nests fail due to natural causes, like predation, and this is verified by staff, community members are still paid for their work. (Increase the Risks - extend guardianship; Reduce Provocations - reduce frustrations and stress; Remove Excuses - assist compliance).

Was the Intervention Effective, Ineffective, or Promising?

The interventions were effective. Each intervention provided substantial economic benefit to the communities. The study showed that while the community-based ecotourism and bird nest protection programs led to significant conservation benefits, the conservation impacts of agri-environment payment were not as clear. The study also demonstrated that community-based programs were more effective in growing communal belief and involvement in conservation, whereas individual-based payment, such as bird-protection programs, provided rapid conservation outcomes.

How do We Know?

The intervention(s) were effective because they involved the communities in the planning and implementation of the programs, and provided them with a financial benefit. By tailoring the programs to local needs and the weak institutional contexts, the programs addressed intrinsic motivations for community involvement and balanced conservation and sustainability goals with practical, tangible income for the communities.

Were Conservation Outcomes Measured?

Not measured.

ASSESSMENT

In the case of Community-based Ecotourism, the program appears to have contributed to a decline in hunting pressure and an increase in the White-shouldered Ibis population.

The interventions targeted local communities, farmers and village committees, and aimed to change behavior by providing financial incentives for conservation-friendly practices and linking revenue to conservation outcomes.

The researchers conducted a pre-implementation analysis to understand the context of implementing the PES programs in Cambodia. They determined that conservation efforts in Cambodia, primarily focused on protected area management, were insufficient to achieve biodiversity conservation goals due to poorly funded and managed "paper parks" that often had unclear property rights and existing human settlements within their boundaries. The authors also recognized the high level of threat to species and habitats due to weak institutional frameworks, poorly defined property rights, and high rates of deforestation driven by factors like development projects, population growth, and smallholder encroachment. Acknowledging the weakness of the existing institutional framework in this context was a crucial factor in the program design. Several aspects of the Cambodian context influenced the design and effectiveness of the PES programs. Weak institutional frameworks, characterized by unclear land ownership and resource tenure, high levels of corruption, and limited government capacity, posed a challenge to implementing PES programs. High deforestation rates and threats to biodiversity not only created an urgent need for conservation interventions but also increased the opportunity costs for local communities to participate in these programs. Reliance on forest resources as a crucial livelihood safety net and source of cash income for local communities necessitated the design of PES programs that provided both individual and communal benefits. For example, the pre-implementation analysis informed the decision to structure payments in a way that would benefit both individuals and the village as a whole to increase local incentives for collective action, and for bird nest monitoring intervention, the fact that villagers cannot protect bird nests from outsiders. The case study does not provide a specific discussion on the difficulties of replicating the Cambodian PES programs in other contexts. However, the case study emphasizes that the success of these programs, particularly the ecotourism and agri-environment programs, relies heavily on the establishment of strong local institutions and the clarification of property rights. Replicating these programs in other contexts would require careful adaptation to the specific institutional and socioeconomic factors present, as direct transfer of the model might not be effective. The authors suggest that viewing PES programs as a component of a broader strategy for strengthening conservation institutions, rather than a standalone solution, is crucial.

The village-managed programs (ecotourism and agri-environment) involved a two-year participatory land-use planning process before initiating payments. The ecotourism program in Tmatboey began in 2004 after awareness-raising activities in 2002-2003. The agri-environment program started in 2007 and provided training to farmers on new agricultural techniques. The bird nest protection program commenced in 2002 in four pilot villages and expanded to more villages in subsequent years. The ecotourism program involved partnerships between the village committees, PA authorities, Sam Veasna Center (a local NGO), and the private sector. The agri-environment program involved village committees and a marketing association. The case study highlighted a number of factors crucial for the success of PES programs, particularly in contexts with weak institutional frameworks: Strong local institutions: Establishing well-functioning village committees, clarifying property rights, and developing local land-use regulations are essential for long-term sustainability and community support. Clear property rights: Well-defined property rights are crucial for determining payment recipients and preventing elite capture or conflicts. Community support and intrinsic motivation: Ensuring that PES programs are perceived as fair, transparent, and beneficial by local communities is vital for their effectiveness and sustainability. Engaging communities in the design and implementation processes and fostering intrinsic motivations for conservation can contribute to program success. External support: Partnerships with NGOs, government agencies, and the private sector can provide technical expertise, marketing channels, financial resources, and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. The case study also identified several challenges to the success of PES programs: Weak institutional frameworks: The authors recognised the weak institutional context in Cambodia as a fundamental challenge. They attempted to address this by working to build local capacity and institutions, clarify property rights, and establish multi-layered governance structures involving local communities, PA authorities, and external organizations. High opportunity costs: Recognizing the importance of forest resources for local livelihoods, the programs were designed to provide significant economic incentives to offset the opportunity costs of conservation. The ecotourism program aimed to capture a greater proportion of the tourism value chain to increase community benefits, while the agri-environment program sought to provide premium prices for wildlife-friendly products. Potential for elite capture and inequitable benefit distribution: The programs, particularly those managed at the village level, incorporated mechanisms for benefit-sharing, such as community development funds and employment opportunities, to mitigate the risk of elite capture and ensure a more equitable distribution of benefits. Sustainability and long-term funding: While the bird nest program relied on external funding, the ecotourism and agri-environment programs were designed to be financially sustainable through market-based mechanisms. The success of these market-based approaches, however, depended on factors like market demand, product quality, and effective marketing strategies.

The bird nest program cost WCS approximately $25,000 per year, the ecotourism program required an initial investment of $50,000 per village, and the agro-environment program required an initial investment of $50,000 per village. The agri-environment program also provided training to farmers on new agricultural techniques.

SCP COLUMNS

Extend guardianship
Reduce frustrations and stress
Assist compliance

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

Citation

Clements et al. (2010)

Year Range

2002-2008

Country

Cambodia

Landscape

Rainforest,Forest

Target Species

Multiple species

Problem type

Hunting, Deforestation, Poaching, Egg Theft

Source: Clements, T., John, A., Nielsen, K., An, D., Tan, S., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1283-1291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.010.