Community Based Conservation: Tmatboey Ecotourism Project

1. Community Based Conservation: Tmatboey Ecotourism Project Patrick Hurley Keegan Duffy Nick Huntington

2. History of Tmatboey • Once a great deciduous dipterocarp forest • Decimated by heavy agriculture expansion • Now one of the poorest regions in Cambodia • Home to 15 globally-threatened and 6 near-threatened bird species.

3. History of Conservation in Cambodia • Parks in Cambodia were poorly managed • 70% had communities subsisting within park boundaries • “Paper Parks” • Exist on paper but virtually meaningless • Problems: • Rangers were poorly paid • No infrastructure • No community incentives to not deplete resources

4. Integrated Development-Conservation Projects • Most common development paradigm in Cambodia • Rarely successful due to: • Dependences on subsidies • Alternative living strategies treated as additional strategies • Economic gains undermine long-term conservation goals. • ICDP activities tend to favor one objective over the other (biodiversity vs. livelihood & vice-versa)

5. Tmatboey • Chosen as a ideal ecotourism development by the WCS (World Conservation Society) b/c: • Close to large town • Relatively safe • Close to rare bird mating regions • The Great Ibis and the White-Shouldered Ibis became the flagships for the conservation project.

6. Tmatboey Community-based Ecotourism Project • 2003: • Tourists would arrive to poor services • Would be hosted by villagers in their homes • Pay for food, lodging, drinks and other services. • 95% sighting rate for rare Ibis species. • Pay $30 to Village Fund if rare birds were sighted • Pay $15 to Village Fund if no sightings. • Most tourists were budgeted backpackers, friends of the WCS or evaluators from International Birdwatching Tour Operators. • WCS ran the tours and handled tourists logistics (cars, travel, hotels, etc)

7. November 2004 – April 2005 • 51 tourists • 20 separate groups • Revenue from Tourist Services (food, drinks, guides, accommodations, etc) • $21 per tourist 2004-2005 • Village Fund • $30 per tourist • Generated $2,588 for the village

8. 2005 – 2006 • 72 tourists • 21 separate groups • Tourist Services/Village Fund • $21/$30 per tourist • Generated $3,553 for the village • 2006 – 2007 • 78 tourists • 26 groups • Tourist Services/Village Fund • $47/$30 per tourist • Generated $5,961 for the village • 2007 – 2008 • 127 tourists • 37 groups • Tourist Services/Village Fund • $67/$30 per tourist • Generated $12,271 for the village

9. Where were they going wrong? • The project offered very poor accommodations for the tourists and could only charge very little for services rendered. • Food had to be purchased from other villages – reducing the locally-generated economy. • Cooks, guides, and WCS staff had to be hired from other areas to provide consistent services. • WCS was virtually running the entire operation: • Not locally managed. • Very limited local income • Questionable conservation achievements

10. How they changed • 2006: WCS hired two professionals to train villagers: • Community Conservation Management Advisor and Ecotourism Development Coordinator • Trained locals and established Committee: • Comm. Protected Areas Committee: 9 members (2 women) • Guides: 4 expert and 11 local • Cooks: 5 women • Women’s Group: 3-4. • Cleaners: 4 women

11. How they changed • Service Level: • The Tmatboey Ecotour Project grew significantly with the help of grants from WCS contributors other organizations. • Allowed the development of more suitable lodging • Four 2-bedroom bungalows, large dining room, kitchen, staff housing. • Solar Panels sufficient to power lights, fans, small appliances, etc. • Solar Hot Water heater installed

13. Reasons for Success • Community Level: • Contract stipulates that continued inputs of revenue to villagers is conditional on villagers efforts to conserve and manage habitat and species • Committee members decide on each others pay based on involvement • $10 per month + $1.50 per night on staff (Council members) • $3.75 to each Krom Chiefs • Cooks, guides, cleaners, paid additional wages

14. Transferring Management ’06-’08 • The Sam Veasna Center established • “To promote wildlife conservation awareness and education in northwest Cambodia” • 2006: financial prospects were drying up, management was leaving, and was not considered a legal NGO • Opportunity proposed new direction for the SVC

15. Transferring Management… • WCS proposed idea of becoming a responsible ecotourism agency to SVC • WCS provided funding, a development coordinator and hired UC Berkeley business scholars to write a formal business plan • By 2006 SVC was confirmed as a local NGO

16. Transferring Management… • SVC role in program was to: • Operate non-profit responsible travel agency • Manage tourist bookings • Provide tour guides, hotels, fair prices, training and educating community about importance of responsible tourism • Formulate development and construction strategies • Reinvest surplus revenue into conservation projects • Collect data and keep records regarding bird populations.

17. Transferring Management… • Within 3 years: • Grants increased over $30,000 • Tourism numbers grew from just 51 to 266 • Villagers begin to understand the ‘phenomenon’ of tourism • Led to a decrease in the hunting of wild birds • Created a growing sense of pride and ownership and a view of wildlife as an important asset to the community

18. Progress Towards Effective Ecotourism Enterprise • An effective community based operation must satisfy at least 6 conditions: • Site must be viable for ecotourism and not damage biodiversity or local culture • WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? • Community must have management authority over wildlife and resources in tourist area, and must be locally owned • Benefits must be sufficient to local community and is distributed as equitably as possible to all participating members

19. Progress Towards Effective Ecotourism Enterprise • Benefits from tourism for local communities directly depend on maintained presence of the unique wildlife species • Integrated monitoring system exist to ensure that these objectives are met • A sustainable mechanism exist to support the community-based ecotourism site(s) to allow local people to compete and be viable in the international tourism market