Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment of Koh Kong and Kampot Provinces, CambodiaManuela Erazo Bobenrieth, Sun Kong, Kong Kim Sreng and Robert Mather

Building Resilience to Climate Change Impacts - Coastal Southeast Asia, No. 7

Funded by

Our vision is a just world that values and conserves nature.

Our mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or the European Union concerning the legal status of any country , territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or the European Union.

This publication has been made possible in part by funding from the European Union

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Copyright: © 2011 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Bobenrieth, M.E., Sun, K., Kong, K. and Mather, M. (2012). Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment of Koh Kong and Kampot provinces, Cambodia, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 36 pp.

Cover photo: © IUCN Cambodia/Kimsreng Kong

Layout by: Watanyu Ponammara

Produced by: IUCN Asia Regional Office

Available from: Building Coastal Resilience Project http://www.iucn.org/building-coastal-resilience

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of IUCN and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

Acknowledgement

We would firstly like to thank the Provincial Governments of Kampot and Koh Kong Provinces, especially the provincial line agencies of the Department of Environment and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of each province for the enormous help in carrying out the Vulnerability and Capacities Assessments.

Most importantly, this vital step of the project would not have been possible without the support and active participation from all communes and villages where we conducted the assessment, and we would like to voice our thanks to all inhabitants of Koh Kong and Kampot target villages.

Foreword

“Building Resilience to Climate Change Impacts – Coastal Southeast Asia (BCR)” is a four year project supported by the EU and implemented by IUCN together with partners VASI, SDF and GIZ, and operating in 8 provinces of Thailand, Cambodia and Viet Nam, along the stretch of the South China Sea Coast between Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City. The project has developed an integrated community based and ecosystem based approach to building local resilience which it is applying on the ground in project sites. As part of this overall approach there is a need to clearly understand the context and situation of local communities in each project area, with a focus on their vulnerabilities to current climate variability as well as future climate change; and their capacity to address both climate-related and non-climate related stressors affecting their food and water security; health and safety; and local livelihoods. This “Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment” report addresses all of these areas, in target communities of Koh Kong and Kampot Provinces of Cambodia, and provides clear recommendations for priority actions. As such it provides an important contribution to developing and selecting appropriate pilot activities that will be supported in Koh Kong and Kampot by the BCR project.

Robert Mather September 2012

Bangkok

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 7

2. ProfileofTargetVillages 8

2.1. Koh Kong Province 8

2.2. Kampot Province 10

3. Methods 13

4. VulnerabilityandCapacityAssessmentResults 14

4.1. Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary, Koh Kong Province 14

4.1.1. Seasonal distribution of climatic events and potential impacts 14

4.1.2. Historical Trends. Past and present adaptive strategies 16

4.1.3. Climate and Non-Climate Vulnerabilities 20

4.1.4. Internal Strength/Weakness and External Opportunities/Threats 22

4.2. Preak Thnout Commune, Kampot Province 24

4.2.1. Seasonal distribution of climatic events and potential impacts 24

4.2.2. Historical Trends. Past and present adaptive strategies 26

4.2.3. Climate and Non-Climate Vulnerabilities 28

4.2.4. Internal Strength/Weakness and External Opportunities/Threats 32

5. SummaryofFindingsandRecommendations 33

5.1. Koh Kong Province 33

5.2. Kampot Province 33

5.3. Recommendations for potential Resilience Building for the BCR Project to explore in more depth 34

Bibliography 35

List of Figures & Tables

Figure

Figure 1 8

Figure 2 10

Figure 3 11

Table

Table 1 14

Table 2 15

Table 3 16

Table 4 16

Table 5 22

Table 6 23

Table 7 30

Table 8 30

List of Acronyms

CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management

CPA Community Protected Area

CZM Coastal Zone Management-Cambodia

DANIDA Danish International Development Agency

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

MOE Ministry of Environment

NTFP No Timber Forest Products

PKWS Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary

PTC Preak Thnout Commune (PTC)

VCA Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment

7

1. Introduction

Climate change is a global challenge, but a lot can be done at the local level to minimise impacts and capture opportunities. While every effort must be made to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations before the climate systems passes thresholds that cause irreversible damage, we must also accelerate efforts to prepare for those changes that are inevitable. Adaptation will make a major difference to how hard the impacts of climate change are felt. Adaptation involves reducing vulnerability (or increasing resilience) by reducing exposure to climate risks, reducing sensitivity to those risks or increasing capacity to cope with those risks. The importance of both conserving, managing and restoring natural ecosystems and the importance of actions taken for communities, in communities and by communities, are increasingly recognised as critically important in adaptation.

IUCN and partners are implementing the four year EU funded project “Buidling Resilience to Climate Change Impacts: Coastal Southeast Asia” (referred to as the BCR project) in Cambodia, Thailand and Viet Nam. The BCR project in Cambodia aims to support and to strengthen the ability of local government and local people to plan for, and adapt to, future climate risks in target provinces, namely Koh Kong and Kampot. The strategy seeks to boost capacity in these provinces, so that provincial and local government agencies are able to conduct vulnerability assessments, identify pilot activities to reduce vulnerability; design, implement, monitor and evaluate the success of these activities; and conduct cost-benefit analysis and feasibility assessments for replicating pilot actions over a wider area. The project will identify best practices being developed by local people and provide opportunities for communities in different parts of the coastline to learn from each other. The project will use top-down and bottom-up approaches to ensure policy messages are disseminated at all levels.

This report presents the results from Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA) activities implemented in target provinces. The idea behind this report is to ensure future pilot activities are in line with the current conditions of target communities in terms of vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change impacts. The VCA process is a basic approach to understanding: 1) where climate change will have impacts, 2) which ecosystems and livelihood activities are more susceptible to change and 3)

8

what established mechanisms/capabilities will help communities to adapt to climate (and non-climate) impacts (Andrade Perez et al. 2010). VCA methodologies and processes help practitioners to gather, organise and analyse information on the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of communities, households and individuals to climate and non-climate hazards (CARE 2009). VCAs also offers an opportunity for participatory research, analysis and learning, engaging different stakeholders, local communities, sub-national authorities and national institutions in facilitating adaptation.

2. Profile of Target Villages

2.1. Koh Kong Province

The target location in Koh Kong province was the 25,897 hectares Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary (PKWS) (see Figure 1), a protected area declared in 1993 by Royal Decree, that currently falls under the jurisdiction of the General Department of Administration for Nature Conservation and Protection (GDANCP) of MOE. PKWS is dominated by small alluvial islands, formed by sedimentary deposits of mud and sand from Peam Krasop and Stung Kep estuaries (Marschke & Nong 2003). The estuarine areas are influenced through the interaction between freshwater and saltwater, from highlands and intertidal levels during the rainy and dry season, respectively (Peterson 2007). This system plays a significant role in maintaining key aquatic species, facilitating transport and fishing activities (Peterson 2007). The area contains thirteen human settlements, including six communes within three districts, and has approximately 10,000 dwellers (Dara et al. 2009). Accordingly, PKWS provides exceptional conditions for fishing and gathering activities, in turn explaining why many people from different provinces in Cambodia have immigrated to this area over the last decades, seeking natural resources to sustain their livelihoods (Dara et al. 2009).

Figure 1. Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary, Koh Kong ProvinceSource: Dara et al (2009)

9

The area is predominantly covered by mangrove forest (west) and evergreen forest (east) (Dara et al. 2009). In fact PKWS has some of the best remaining examples of mangrove forest in the Gulf of Thailand (Marschke 2012). These productive forests are considered breeding habitats for a variety of species, and thereby constitute as a source of ecosystems services to human communities by the provision of income, fuel, medicines, food and other basics (Ellison 2010). The occurrence of intact mangrove forest also contributes to the stabilization of the coastline against the continuous erosion of storms and high tides (Peterson 2007). There are at least 64 species of mangroves, with Rhizophora mucronata and other Rhizophora species the most dominant, covering the largest part of PKWS (Dara et al. 2009).

Fishing is a main occupation for PKWS communities. Even though most of the fishing livelihoods are referred to as small scale, they can be divided into two pivotal categories: 1) Fishing activities in shallow waters, occurring across the mangrove area, including rivers, creeks and estuaries, which are mainly carried out by fisher folks with small boats (engine and row boats) and those who fish by hand, particularly female gatherers ( of snails, mussels and crabs) (MoE & DANIDA 2003). 2) Fishing in the offshore area (3 to 6 meters depth), which takes place 7 to 20 kilometres away from the coastline, where only those with big engine boats can fish, most of them coming from Koh Kapik, Peam Krasop and Bak Klong communes (MoE & DANIDA 2003). Wage labour is another alternative livelihood for PKWS communities, mainly for fishing and crab-meat processing (women), however as an option it commonly occurs among the poorest. Livelihood sources decrease during the wet season, affecting particularly households with small vessels, since resources in the mangroves are less available due to higher amounts of fresh water influx in the system (resulting from heavy rainfall) (MoE & DANIDA 2003). Furthermore, open sea fishing generates larger catches with a better market value, making the fisher folks who fall into this category wealthier than those confined in the mangrove and shallow waters. Fishing boats and gear/equipment are hence key elements in determining the adaptive capacity of fisher folks and their families, particularly during periods of stress (wet season).

The availability of marine resources has reportedly been gradually decreasing. This can be explained through a combination of several factors such as absence of law enforcement, weak cooperation among fisher folks and line departments, lack of knowledge/skills to exploit resources in a more sustainable way and limited livelihood opportunities to overcome periods of resource scarcity (MoE & DANIDA 2003). Surprisingly despite the reported reduction in marine resources, the total annual fish catch has increased significantly, mostly attributed to the rising number of fishermen and fishing gears in the area (MoE & DANIDA 2003). Fishing gears can also be divided into offshore and inshore. Shrimp nets, motorized push nets, crab traps, squid traps and fishnets account for the offshore activities, whereas for inshore fishing long-line fishing hooks, hand push nets, crab traps, fishnets, motorized push nets and shrimp nets, coastal bag nets and gears for hand collection are the most common (CZM 2003).

The exceptional biophysical conditions of PKWS have attracted immigrants from all across Cambodia; this can be reflected in the composition of the population, where a vast majority declares not having been born in the area (Dara et al. 2009). This has resulted in extra pressure on the resource base and an improved connectivity to both domestic and international markets (Dara et al. 2009). The presence of poachers from neighbouring countries as well as the introduction of new fishing techniques/gears such as push netting, trawling, dynamite fishing, and coastal back net fishing have also contributed to the degradation of habitats (estuarine/marine) and overfishing. Although dynamite fishing has been controlled recently, push nets, trawlers and coastal back net fishing are still widely used.

10

The selected villages within PKWS were chosen in agreement with provincial authorities and other stakeholders, based primarily on their proximity to the coast, and hence their exposure to the effects of potential climate related hazards such as sea level rise, cyclones, storms, etc. Another criterion used to select target villages was the relevance of fishing over other livelihoods activities. The VCAs were implemented in four villages:

• Peam Krasop Commune: Village I and II:

• Koh Kapik Commune: Koh Kapik and Koh Sralao villages.

PeamKrasopVillageIandII:The total population in village 1 and 2 is 950; however the number tends to oscillate as people migrate throughout the year (Nong et al. 1998). It is about 11 km away from Koh Kong town and has approximately 1,400 ha, dominated by mangrove forest, small islands and streams (MoE & DANIDA 2003). Most of the villagers are engaged in fishing activities, while a small proportion works in ecotourism and agriculture (Dara et al. 2009).

KohKapikVillage:This island village, surrounded by open and mangrove channels, has 222 families, equivalent to 1,086 people and is under the supervision of Koh Kapik commune (MoE & DANIDA 2003). Population is mainly composed of immigrants from different provinces in Cambodia, who began to arrive since 1979. The number of people has risen about 1.2 % during a ten-year period (MoE & DANIDA 2003). The village has one primary school building and one health centre (not operating). Main fisheries in the area are: shrimps, blue swimming crabs (BSC), mud crabs and different kinds of fish (especially kamong fish), captured seasonally. The island does not have land for chamkar crops, however it has 10 ha for paddy rice (MoE & DANIDA 2003).

Koh Sralao: This village has 1,309 inhabitants, most of them internal migrants; however Koh Sralao was initially established during the Second World War (Dara et al. 2009; Marschke 2012). The village is placed in an island, which has access to freshwater. As with the other villages, the main livelihood is fishing of fish and non-fish resources in shallow waters (in mangrove and seagrass areas), and in the open sea (Dara et al. 2009).

2.2. Kampot Province

The target location in Kampot province was Preak Thnout Commune (PTC) (see Figure 2). The area is located between the Bokor Mountain (National Park) and the coastline, and has approximately 1,482 households and 7,944 people, with 4,101 males and 3,843 females. The commune includes four villages, which are divided by estuaries. The commune is bisected by the National Route 3, which connects Kampot town with Sihanoukville. The occupation pattern within the commune is dispersed, wherein most of the houses are located either along the road or in the estuaries.

The area is mostly covered by secondary forest, while mangrove forest stands mostly as a greenbelt along the shoreline. Mangroves have been significantly reduced due to land use-changes, overcutting and land encroachment for private ownership (MoE & DANIDA 1999). Currently there are 275 ha of mangroves in PTC. The evergreen forest section corresponds to the Bokor National Park. This area was declared a Sustainable Use Zone in 2003, covering 2,006 ha that spread across all the PTC’s villages.

11

Until 2008 there were 822 registered households, which jointly make up the Prek Thnout Community Protected Area (CPA) which aimed to manage the local Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) and firewood collection (Bunrithy et al. 2009).

Seagrasses are one of the most critical marine habitats found along Kampot coastline, and in the case of PTC most of the fishing activities are conducted within seagrass beds. Seagrass beds have been extensively degraded due to trawlers and unsustainable fishing practices (MoE & DANIDA 1999). Another key ecosystem is mudflat areas, just in front of the mangrove belt, which play an important role in maintaining the mangroves’ health (MoE & DANIDA 1999). During high tides small shrimp fishing and mollusc gathering are carried out in mudflat areas.

Figure 2. Preak Thnout Commune. KampotSource: Bunrithy et al. 2009

Fishing is the principal livelihood in PTC, which is complemented with secondary occupations, such as farming and NTFP harvesting. Local fisheries cover fish, shrimp, squid, crabs and mollusc gathering. As in the case of PKWS, fisher folks in PTC are divided into two groups: those whose infrastructure is limited, called subsistence fishermen, and those who have, for example, trawler and motorised boats, namely small-scale commercial fisher folks (MoE & DANIDA 2003). Within the ‘limited’ resources’ group, people fish using hand push nets and crab traps, while the ‘wealthier’ segment normally employs ‘sophisticated’ fishing gears, allowing them to go fishing into the open sea (MoE & DANIDA 1999). Overall, there are more rowing boats than motorboats and hence more fishing activities in estuaries, mangroves and shallow waters. Fishing activities are mostly for subsistence and commercial fisheries may be declining in importance (MoE & DANIDA 2003). There is an agreed consensus that marine resources have declined as fisher folk numbers have increased the past years. It seems the reduction of marine resource is caused at least partially by outsiders’ fishing activities and the practice of inappropriate

12

fishing techniques such as use of dynamite and illegal fishing gears within teh communities’ fishing grounds (MoE & DANIDA 2003)

An important feature of local fishing management is the existence of two Community Fisheries (CFi) in the area (see Figure 3), Trapeng Ropove and Chong Hourn CFis, which receive their names from the fishing villages that they face (The Learning Institute 2010). Trapeng Ropove CFi has 2,596 members, while Chong Hourn CFi has 412 (The Learning Institute 2010). These areas, operating since 2009, are mainly located in sea grass beds next to the shoreline.

Figure 3. Community Fisheries in Preak Thnout Commune. KampotSource: Adapted from AECID & FAO 2010.

Agriculture activities involve paddy rice and chamkar crops, which are grown in small plots next to major settlements. Since the soil is very sandy and there are not irrigation systems to ensure access to water during dry season, yields are generally very low; in fact rice is produced only for local consumption (MoE & DANIDA 1999). Typically chamkar crops are sugar cane, cassava, maize, watermelon and so on, depending on the time of the year. Crop growing is complemented with livestock raising (buffaloes, cattle, pigs, chicken, ducks, etc.). Thus overall agriculture is more oriented to support household food security, than for commercial activity. Land ownership is therefore an essential factor to boost the household safety net, since landholders can easily diversify their livelihood portfolio, enhance their savings opportunities and ensure a continuous access to food.

Target villages to carry out VCAs in PTC were the four existing villages within the commune: Trapeng Ropove, Preak Kreng, Preak Thnout and Chong Hourn, all located next to each other with approximately 10 kilometres distance amongst them. The villages vary in size; however they share the same bio geographical characteristics as well as livelihood activities. Their proximity to the coastline, and hence exposure to the effects of associated climate-related factors, make PTC’s inhabitants more vulnerable to current and future climatic hazards. According to MoE & DANIDA (1999; 2003) the main characteristics of each village are:

13

TrapengRopove: It is the biggest village in terms of population, with approximately 3,122 people, (51.4% women). The village has one health centre, one primary school, one secondary school, one pagoda and a mosque. The majority of the population is Khmer-Buddhist; however 170 families belong to the Cham ethnic group (Muslims). Major occupations are fishing and farming.

Preak Kreng: It has an estimated population of 1,328 inhabitants, including 611 males and 717 females. There are approximately 94 fisher folks in this village; 11 operate engine boats, while 43 have rowing boats. The village does not have public or religious infrastructure. Major occupations are fishing and farming.

Preak Thnout: There are approximately 121 households in this village, equal to 1,432 people, of which 687 are men and 745 women. The village is located between Preak Kreng and Chong Hourn villages. It has a total land area of 868 ha, including 349 ha of forest cover and 76 ha of farming land. It has a pagoda and a mosque. Major occupations are fishing and farming.

Chong Hourn: This village has 150 families, equivalent to 1,851 people, including 867 males and 984 females. This village as well as the three others is located between Bokor Mountain (northern boundary) and the coastline (southern boundary), with the main settlement placed to the south of the National Road No 3. Major occupations are fishing and farming.

3. Methods

The design of the VCA approach and tools used was influenced by a review of vulnerability assessment approaches conducted for the BCR project (Morgan 2011) as well as BCR experience in designing and implementing VCA processes in Thailand, conducted by the BCR project partner, the Sustainable Development Foundation (SDF) that was shared with the IUCN Cambodia team. This approach has now been synthesised into a package known as CREATE (Climate Resilience Evaluation for Adaptation Through Empowerment). During implementation different participatory tools were used aiming to capture seasonality of climate and non-climate impacts, the vulnerability of major livelihoods, natural resources and land use; historical trajectories of extreme climatic events and how people could manage to mitigate their impacts; and internal strengths/weakness and external opportunities and threats towards climate and human made stressors/shooks.

As the BCR’s project objectives aim to boost the capacity of target provinces, at both government and community level, to be able to plan to adapt to climate change, the implementation of VCAs (broadly following the CREATE approach) in both Koh Kong and Kampot provinces involved the active participation of line departments’ staff as well as representatives from different community-based groups. The participatory component of VCA started with training sessions designed for line departments staff, commune council members, village chiefs and CBNRM groups. The main goal of these sessions was to transfer knowledge in regards to future climate change scenarios (from global and regional models), climate change adaptation, the conceptual framework, participatory tools to assess vulnerability and capacity to climate change and step by step implementation. In total, 16 people were trained in Koh Kong province and 14 in Kampot, and all these participants helped the IUCN team in carrying out VCAs

14

in all target villages. The time allocated between the training sessions and VCA implementation was approximately 7 days in each province.

The VCA toolkit included:

• Seasonal Calendar: To review the annual distribution of livelihoods, natural resources and land use, comparing with climate hazards’ seasonality.

• Historical Matrix: To explore prior climate events and/or issues within the community and mechanisms implemented to cope with them.

• Vulnerability Matrix: To score/rank climate and non-climate hazards and impacts against relevant livelihoods, natural resources and land use.

• Hazard Mapping: To map the occurrence of climate and non-climate hazards over relevant areas and natural resources / ecosystems within the community.

A more detailed description of the VCA approach, methodology and tools can be found in the CREATE Factsheet, and a full handbook/manual is being developed by the BCR project.

4.VulnerabilityandCapacityAssessmentResults

4.1. Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary, Koh Kong Province

4.1.1. Seasonal distribution of climatic events and potential impacts

In this section are displayed some of the main findings from the seasonal calendar activity. Four main components guided the implementation of this tool: livelihoods, natural resources/ecosystem, land use/infrastructure and non-climate hazards. The participants were encouraged to explore the seasonal distribution of most important livelihoods, natural resources/ecosystems, land use/infrastructure, and if applicable non-climatic hazards. These components were analysed against the annual occurrence of the most harmful climatic events being experienced in the area.

15

Table 1. Seasonality of climate-related risks and impacts

Village Livelihoods NaturalResources & Ecosystems

Land Use & Infrastructure

Non-Climate Hazards

Peam Krasop, wI-II

Mud Crab fishing, Jun-Aug. Heavy rainfall.

Blue Swimmer Crab (BSC) fishing, Jan-March in open sea. Storms, high temp, high tides.

Green Mussel culture, harvesting period Oct-Dec. High temp and abnormal rainfall.

Mangrove, relevant in rainy season. Storms, brings +resources, but causes stress on mangroves. Dry seawson stress, high tides +temp increase.

Fish, Feb-April (mangrove and shallow waters). High temp and abnormal rainfall.

Fishing Zone (fishing grounds, CFi), exploited 12 months a year. Increase temp, increase water temp, higher high tides and storms/winds. High vulnerability.

Wells, dry season. High tides (negative), abnormal rainfall (positive).

Sand Mining, Oct-April. Destruction of estuaries, mangroves and sea grass. Increase turbidity.

External Market, it affects 12 months.

Poor Local Development, it affects 12 months.

Fisheries Management, 12 months. Regulation, zoning and patrolling.

Koh Kapik Shrimp Fishing, May-Jul and Oct-Dec. Storms, high tides and abnormal rainfall.

Mud Crab Fishing, June-Sep and Jan-Feb. Storms, high tides, +temperatures.

Small Shrimp Fishing, Feb-April and August-Sept. Rainfall and storms.

Green Mussel Culture, 12 months, spawning, growing, harvesting. +Temp, changes water salinity and storms.

Mangrove, 12 months, peaks May-August. Storms, high tides, +temp.

Estuaries, wet season. Low tides, +fresh water influx, storms (positive).

Fresh Water, +wet season, water scarcity during dry season. High tides (negative), abnormal rainfall (positive).

Waterways, high tides in dry season and low tide in wet season. Floods and navigation problem.

Wells, water availability varies. Scarcity Feb-May. High tide (salt intrusion). Water gathering (abnormal rainfall dry season).

Fishing Zone, open and CFi. High use Oct-Feb. High temp and tides.

Insufficient Fishing Technique, food processing, 12 months. Diversification affected.

External Markets, 12 months.

Fishery Management, absence of accurate management. No zoning and demarcation (illegal fishing). Conflict among local fisher folks.

Koh Sralao Mud Crab Fishing, April-October. +Temp, +rainfall (salinity) and storms.

BSC Fishing, Dry season. +Temp and higher high tides.

Snail Gathering, Aug-Oct. Complementary livelihood. Heavy storms and rainfall (salinity and turbidity).

Farming, 12 months. +Temp, water shortages, high tides (salt water intrusion).

Mangrove, 12 months. +Temp, high tides (soil salinity), less productivity.

Sea Grass, high productivity Jan-June. +Temp (stress beyond thermal tolerance), storms (salinity and turbidity).

Fresh water, monsoon rains (collection). Dry season, no water.

Wells, fresh water sources in village. Critically scarce during Oct-May. Changes in rainfall (both seasons) and high tides.

Fishing Zone, 12 months. Heavy storms (rainy season), water turbidity and no fishing. +Temperatures affect sea grass.

Sand Mining, Oct-April.

External Market, 12 months. No market opportunities, trade unevenness.

Poor Local Development, 12 months.

No Fisheries Management, 12 months. Illegal fishing, conflict local fishermen, no zoning and demarcation.

16

4.1.2. Historical Trends. Past and present adaptive strategies

The results of the historical matrix are shown in this part. The participatory tool covered climate and non-climate events that occurred in the past, observations in regard to the event and applied strategies to cope with and/or adapt to it.

Table 2. Peam Krasop Historical Matrix

Event Observations Adaptation Strategy

Mangrove Cutting Mangrove cutting for charcoal production began by the second half of the 1980s. During the period from 1990 to 1995 this activity started to be more widely used as many people from different parts of Cambodia moved to PKWS motivated by this booming business. Charcoal production was banned in 1994, and activities declined from 1996 to 2000 From 2001 until now, mangrove cutting (for commercial/trade purposes) has completely vanished within the sanctuary, as a result of a combination of law enforcement, the designation of PKWS (MoE administration), and the communities’ involvement in natural resource management initiatives, through which local people started to acknowledge the values and services that mangrove forests provide to their lives.

• Institutional: Law enforcement in 1994.• Change from MoA jurisdiction to MoE. • Local: Community involvement in

cracking down on illegal cutting and in implementing conservation activities.

ReplantingMangroveForest

There was no mangrove planting activity before 1990. After the law enforcement starting in 1994, mangrove planting started to gradually become more common. Since 2000 villagers along community patrolling have extensively implemented replanting activities. MoE also promoted mangrove forest planting and patrolling activities to crack down on illegal charcoal production.

• Institutional: PA and CPA declaration, promotion of implementation activities.

• Local Community: Planting and patrolling groups.

Increase High Tide Since 2006, tides have been higher than normal. The maximum peak was observed during December 2011. As this phenomenon has recently begun -which means there are not previous experiences in this matter- the community has not developed or planned any strategy to adapt to this disturbance in particular.

No strategy implemented yet.

Storm Similar to the case with abnormal high tides, extreme storms have not been experienced before 2001. From this date storm frequency and intensity have increased, damaging roofs in Bak Khlong and Peam Krasop communes, speeding up coastline erosion and potentially mangrove forest loss. As with extreme high tide events, the community has not yet implemented any strategy for storm adaptation.

No strategy implemented yet.

17

Event Observations Adaptation Strategy

CPA Establishment The establishment of CPAs (see community sustainable use zone in PKWS zoning map), sets a new period for community-based management in PKWS, acknowledged as a positive period for community empowerment and mangrove regeneration. This period also represents a shift between community and provincial/central government relationship, as well as the arrival of international donors and NGOs.

CPAs as community-led instrument for mangrove protection can be seen as a strategy for climate change adaptation itself, since mangrove forest operates as a buffer habitat for a number of climate-related impacts.

Sand Dredging Sand mining is new in the area. Since this extractive activity began to take place, habitat destruction and reduction on aquatic species have been noticed more frequently. Even though there are no studies focused on monitoring impacts from sand dredging in PKWS, local perception argues that the extraction of sand is one of the major non-climate hazards.

Communities recognise sand mining impacts. Nevertheless decisions are taken at central level, with no community involvement, consultation and/or compensation. No EIA is required prior to sand dredging activities.

Introduction of Modern Fishing Gear

The modern fishing gear such as trawl nets (also dynamite and cyanide fishing) began to be introduced in Peam Krasop from 1980. From 2001, trawling boats have become more common, challenging small-scale fishermen. The linked impacts of these activities are overfishing, sea grass and coral reef destruction, and water pollution, etc.

Not discussed.

Table 3. Koh Kapik Historical Matrix

Event Observations Adaptation Strategy

Cannabis Planting Cannabis was widely grown from 1980 to 1985. In the 1990s there was a crack down on this activity. .

• Institutional: Law enforcement.

Mangrove Cutting Mangrove cutting began the second half of 1980s. Between 1990 and 1995, this activity started to be more intensive. Mangrove cutting declined from 1996 to 2000 as charcoal production was prohibited in 1994. From 2000 mangrove cutting (for commercial purpose) seems to be non-existent in the area. This follows a similar pattern to Peam Krasop commune.

• Institutional: Law enforcement in 1994.• Local: Community involved in

conservation activities.

18

Event Observations Adaptation Strategy

ReplantingMangroveForest

Mangrove planting began in 2001, since then this activity has become more popular. Villagers argue the relevance of community planting activities, by which they learn the values and services of mangrove forests. This process has encompassed a high level of community participation and cooperation. However the wide usage of engine boats (mangrove seedling destruction) and the absence of good management (in terms of organization, knowledge, role allocation and monitoring) may compromise the continuity of these activities.

• Institutional: PA and CPA declaration, promotion of implementation activities.

• Local Community: Planting and patrolling groups.

High Tides Higher than normal since 2006. The community had never experienced this kind of problem before. Streets and houses were flooded. After this experience, community members have met to plan and to discuss the construction of a new street, in the same place but in a higher level. They also have talked about building the whole village at a higher level.

At local level, community members have started to recognize the severity of this issue. Planning to build a new village.

Coastal Erosion Coastline erosion has been an issue since decades ago. However in the present higher storms, waves and tides have accelerated levels of shoreline erosion in Koh Kapik. Land has decreased dramatically in the last decade. “The water eats the land…” as villagers name this phenomenon, could bring negative impacts for the local ecotourism industry. “In the future maybe we will not have land for housing…” (As participants stated).

No strategy planned or implemented yet.

Storms Since 2006 heavy storms have been experienced more frequently, boosting coastline erosion and moving the mangrove fringe landwards. Huge storms have impacted by uprooting trees, and damaging houses roofs and wharfs. As a result people have thought about re-building the village in a safer zone.

Planning to re-build the village in a safer area, protected from storms.

19

Table 4. Koh Sralao Historical Matrix

Event Observations Adaptation Strategy

Mountain Forest Cutting.

It was widely common from 1980 to 1990. During this period people from other provinces moved to Koh Sralao motivated by personal safety (during the time when other parts of the country would still suffering from conflict) and high availability of natural resources in the area. Cutting mountain forest to plant Indian Hemp (Cannabis indica) and to sell timber stopped in 1991 as a ban on this narcotic plant was introduced and the area was declared protected by MoE.

• Institutional: Law enforcement• Action of provincial government by

enforcing central level dispositions.• People acknowledged problems

associated with logging activities.

Mangrove Cutting Carried out throughout the 1980s. Between 1990 and1995 mangrove cutting for charcoal production was widely practiced by historical and new dwellers. Activities declined from 1996 to 2000. Since 2001 mangrove cutting seems to be non-existent in the area, primarily because of the same factors driving this change in PKWS.

• Institutional: Law enforcement in 1994.• Local: Community involved in cracking

down and conservation activities.

ReplantingMangroveForest

After mangrove cutting prohibition, mangrove planting began in 2001. Villagers claim the importance of community planting activities, by which they have learnt the importance of mangrove forests, community participation and cooperation. Nevertheless the popular usage of engine boats (mangrove seedling destruction) and the absence of good management may compromise the continuity of mangrove planting in Koh Sralao.

• Institutional: PA and CPA declaration, promotion of implementation activities.

• Local Community: Planting and patrolling groups.

Decline in Coastal and MarineResources

Noticed since 1991. Between 1995-2000 the scarcity of resources was critical (related to extensive mangrove cutting). After authorities forbid mangrove cutting, marine resources began to recover. From 2006-2011 fisheries seemed to be stabilized. The decline of marine resources, due to habitat alteration and water pollution, both caused by intensive mangrove cutting, forced the emigration of many people in Koh Sralao.

• Community mangrove forest planting. • CPA• Law enforcement (banning mangrove

cutting).

Sand Dredging Started in 2006. Has affected fishing grounds (sea grass beds) and riverbanks across the Koh Sralao area. Sand dredging licenses are obtained at the central level, approved by the CDC (Council for the Development of Cambodia).

Communities recognise impacts. Yet decisions are taken at central level, with no community involvement, consultation and/or compensation. No EIA is needed for this industry. Villagers stated that government should take actions to control this growing industry.

SeaLevelRise Higher than normal since 2006. Highest peak observed during December 2011. The community had never experienced this kind of problem before. The street and houses were flooded, and some crops died.

No strategy planned or implemented yet.

20

Event Observations Adaptation Strategy

High Temperature Temperatures have never been as high as those experienced since 2006 to date. This increase in temperatures has been mostly noticed throughout the dry-season. This has affected human health and has brought marine animal pests and crop’s diseases.

Not strategy planned or implemented yet.

4.1.3.ClimateandNon-ClimateVulnerabilities

This section discusses the results found in the vulnerability matrix tool, where main livelihoods, natural resources/ecosystems and land use/infrastructure were ranked according to the impacts that climate and non-climate hazards pose to them.

Peam Krasop

In terms of livelihoods, participants pointed to green mussel culture as one of the most vulnerable livelihoods, wherein the major hazards challenging this activity are non-climate (markets/economy and fisheries management). However the climate hazards that green mussel culture is facing are storms and temperature increase. BSC fishing appears to be the second most vulnerable livelihood, more prone to the action of climate hazards such as storms, temperature increase and abnormal rainfall. Finally mud crab fishing, the third most vulnerable livelihood, is predominantly exposed to non-climate hazards such as sand mining, external markets and fisheries management. Nevertheless climate hazards like changes in rainfall and tides, storms and temperature increase, were reported as having had a significant impact on mud crab fishing.

Regarding to natural resources and ecosystems, fish were identified as the most vulnerable - both to climate and non-climate factors such as heavy rainfall (rainy season), water temperature increase, sand mining, market constraints and fisheries management. Surprisingly people did not indicate mangrove forest as the most vulnerable ecosystem, a situation that can be probably attributed to a lack of knowledge (formal and non-informal) concerning the impacts of climate/non climate hazards on mangroves, and how this ecosystem reacts to bioclimatic and human stressors and/or shocks.

“Fishing zone” was chosen as the most vulnerable land use in Peam Krasop. Fishing zones are being more exposed to non-climate hazards like absence of fisheries management, which is reflected in the lack of regulations and proper zoning. This is adversely impacting on fishing activities by increasing conflicts/issues between local small and medium scale fishermen, and between Peam Krasop’s fishermen and poachers from outside. Sand mining is also seen as a critical non-climate hazard, followed by economic constraints, such as lack of market opportunities, low bargaining power (for trading purposes), price fluctuations and impacts of middlemen in commodity/supply chains. “Ecotourism zone” was also chosen as a highly exposed land use, affected by climate hazards such as high tides/storms and non-climate hazards like poor local development including the absence of appropriate ecotourism planning that equitably, distributes benefits and promotes this industry more effectively.

21

Koh Kapik

In terms of the most vulnerable livelihoods, shrimp fishing, small shrimp fishing and green mussel farming are the most exposed and sensitive to climate and non-climate hazards. In the case of shrimp fishing, this activity seems to be more affected by non-climate hazards such as market insecurity and lack of fisheries management, articulated by low bargaining power with internal/external buyers and competition over fishing ground, respectively. Small shrimp fishing and green mussel culture were scored in the same way, nevertheless the first tends to be more affected by climate than non-climate hazards like storms and abnormal rainfall, whereas green mussel appears to be more exposed to non-climate ones e.g. market insecurity, particularly due to the high dependence on Thai market for commercialisation. Small shrimp fishing is also being impacted by market constraints and it seems to be particularly sensitive to the action of abnormal rainfall and higher temperatures.

Storms appear to have a significant impact on mangrove forest and estuaries, in the latter case by accelerating sedimentary deposits along channels, making the waterways shallower. People in Koh Kapik pointed out policy and legal restrictions as major non-climate hazards for estuaries, as they need the authorization of MoE to dig out or dredge the creek (especially since the area was declared a RAMSAR site). Aquifers, highly vulnerable too, are being affected by higher high tides (dry season) and storms (high waves and winds), both producing saltwater intrusion. However aquifers could be positively impacted by abnormal rainfall during the dry season.

For land use and infrastructure people ranked waterways, drinking water supplies areas and fishing zones as the most vulnerable to the effect of climate and non-climate hazards. Waterways are more exposed to human made hazards but also to storms, high tides and abnormal rainfall (through sedimentary deposits). Secondly, fishing zones appears more prone to natural hazards like storms and high temperatures (equally harmful). Storms could compromise the productivity of fishing grounds, but at the same time can benefit small-scale fishermen by bringing marine resources into the estuaries, particularly during the low tides in the wet-season. Water temperature increase affects the productivity of nursery grounds if beyond thermal tolerance, shrinking amount of available fish. Regarding non-climate hazards, fishing zone is more vulnerable to lack of fisheries management, as the absence of local normative instruments and platforms reduces the adaptive capacity of fisher folks under uncertain -and harmful- climate scenarios. Finally, drinking water is highly vulnerable to the impacts of high tides and storms, through saltwater intrusion on fresh water sources. People did not see any particular non-climate hazards affecting drinking water, but it seems that policy making plays an important role here, specifically as the poor institutional planning -meant to ensure water supply in rural and isolated villages- might be argued as one of the factors limiting the availability of drinking water throughout the year.

Koh Sralao

Farming, BSC fishing and snail gathering are the most exposed livelihoods. Farming activities (subsistence) are particularly sensitive the effect of climate hazards such as sea level rise, high temperatures and abnormal rainfall. Secondly, BSC seems more affected by the effects of winds and abnormal rainfall, while snail-gathering -mostly carried out from August to October- shows more sensitivity to sea level rise and higher temperatures, during the dry season and storm actions during then monsoon. In terms of non-climate hazards, snail gathering seems to be slightly more vulnerable to

22

market restraints, maybe as a result of lack of distribution chains and unilaterally on agreed prices (by buyers and middlemen).

According to Koh Sralo villagers, the most vulnerable natural resources and ecosystems are sea grass, mud crab and mangrove forest. Sea grass shows a particular sensitivity to climate hazards such as wind/storms and abnormal rainfall, since both increase levels of turbidity and freshwater discharges into open sea and estuaries, reducing the system’s productivity. In terms of non-climate hazards, sea grass beds are being critically affected by sand dredging through habitat removal and burying, as well as by increased levels of water turbidity and sedimentation. Mud crabs are also vulnerable to sand dredging, but show high sensitivity/exposure to market barriers too, this framed by the absence of market opportunities, low bargaining power to agree prices and role of middlemen in trading schemes. Mangrove forest, on the other hand, displays high vulnerability towards sand extraction, since increase of sedimentary deposits may cause trees’ mortality due to root smothering.

“Fishing zone” and “drinking water supply” accounted for the most vulnerable land use and infrastructure, respectively. Fishing zone shows major exposure to non-climate hazards such as sand dredging, policy/law and market constraints. The negative effects of sand dredging on fishing zones can be deducted from the impacts of this activity on nursery grounds (e.g. mangroves, sea grass and coral reef). Policies and law may enhance levels of vulnerability in fishing zones in terms of poor law enforcement to tackle illegal fishing as well as low institutional support to help develop fisheries management. Markets may also increase the vulnerability of fishing zones, by boosting demand of juvenile species and/or forcing price decrease of products, leading to overexploitation of some key fisheries. In second place, drinking water access is mostly vulnerable to human-made hazards like markets, which tends to challenge drinking water supplies forcing the increment of prices during the dry season, affecting the poorest households of Koh Sralao (as they do not have wells or facilities to gather water during the rainy season).

4.1.4. Internal Strength/Weakness and External Opportunities/Threats

Peam Krasop

The community reports good levels of participation, skills for fishing and traditional ecological knowledge. They state how relevant mangrove ecosystems are, understood as a key natural asset that enhances their capacity to adapt to current and future climate change. Green mussel farming adopts a similar meaning but in this case as a key livelihood. In organizational terms, people point to the CPA committee and other community-based groups as relevant platforms for local capacity building. The support from NGOs and provincial line departments is also seen as a contribution to the community’s adaptive capacity (and risk reduction), support that has been built through good communication channels and legal platforms. Nonetheless, in terms of weakness, villagers argue lack of public broadcasting system and absence of technical knowledge to understand and scale down climate information. They identify limited ability to use mangrove forest in a more sustainable fashion; suggesting more training is needed in this area. Green mussel culture, as a principal source of income, lacks in more ‘sophisticated’ management. Even though the CPA committee is regarded as an important source of strength, the initiative has failed in promoting universal participation of all community members. Since many villagers struggle to find a source of living, there is not enough time to be an active participant of community organizations. In terms

23

of commune budget, people point out not having enough resources to implement agreed development plans.

Heavy rainfall and storms are both perceived as climate opportunities. The first provides more chances for water collection during the rainy season (and dry season) and the second gives the chance to small-scale fishermen to fish resources in estuaries because storms bring marine resources landwards. The non-climate opportunities include ongoing and future support from NGOs and provincial line departments, particularly through training activities. In regard to threats, locals point to storms and high tides as major climate threats. Poachers and illegal mangrove loggers are the main non-climate threats observed by Peam Krasop inhabitants.

Koh Kapik

The internal strengths in Koh Kapik are critically linked with the presence of vast mangrove forest, beaches and wetlands (RAMSAR site). People point to the community organization chart as being at the base of the local organization strength, a ‘blueprint’ to guide role assignations and responsibilities for any initiative. People also identified legal frameworks [Protected Areas Law, Law on Administration and Management of Commune/Sangkat (LAMC), etc.] as sources for internal strength (defining legal boundaries, rights and responsibilities within the sanctuary).

The list of weakness however is larger. Villagers argue lack of understanding of transferred knowledge (from technical assistance and trainings), which is intensified by the poor dissemination of this (uneven access to transferred knowledge and biased targeting of beneficiaries groups). Another limitation emerges from the absence of accurate instruments/platforms of local institutions’ accountability. In regard to natural assets, people claim not having enough techniques to manage key habitats in a more sustainable way; an issue enhanced by not knowing what is the role and relevance of the RAMSAR site designation. Moreover the economic barriers to carry out commune development plans also shrink the possibility to overcome internal weakness. People add the low standard of living of inhabitants as a costraint for more community participation.

Besides its negative impacts, climate change entails positive opportunities for Koh Kapik villagers; for example, higher waves (from storms insurgence) bring marine resources landwards, supporting improved fishing activities in the mangrove and estuaries areas, helping small-scale fishermen. Moreover heavy rainfall boosts the availability of Quadrate Horn Shell in the mangrove area, this is a resource that is gathered for cash and food purposes. Climate change is also seen as stimulating a turning point to develop more community plans towards better resource management (sustainable use) as well as human rights promotion (equitable use). In terms of climate change downsides, strong storms affect particularly those groups that primarily fish in the open sea. Heavy rainfall threatens local health by enhancing the occurrence of mosquito outbreaks (malaria and dengue fever). Storms and rainfall also increase sedimentary deposits in channels, making difficult the transport across waterways. People also claim that climate related threats are compounded by widespread illegal fishing gears, sand dredging activities, the absence of sustainable fishing techniques and the isolated conditions of the village.

24

Koh Sralao Village

People in Koh Sralao argue that having a good understanding of outside information has helped them to strength the internal capacity of the community. Additionally the local organization charts as well as fishing skills are also seen as factors denoting more internal capacity. In terms of natural resources and land uses, people point to sea grass beds, mangroves, access to fishing grounds, fresh water sources and farming land as key local assets to build more capacity for climate change adaptation. Being under a legal umbrella (Fisheries Law and Protected Areas Law) and the collaboration with NGOs and provincial line departments are also counted as important components for the village’s strengths. Observed weaknesses correspond to absence of communication channels to disseminate information across the community (public broadcasting system). They agreed to have a plan for mangrove management, but this has not been implemented yet (lack of financial resources and human resources). People are not being supportive enough with other community members, more reciprocity is required. As normative frameworks lack effective implementation and enforcement people feel more vulnerable to human-made hazards.

In regard to climate change opportunities, storms and heavy rainfall occurrence encourage the availability of mud crab (ensuring wet-season livelihoods). More precipitation also reduces the expenses of drinking water purchase throughout the wet season and during the beginning of the dry season. People in Koh Sralao point out that storms are positive for bringing marine resources closer. Regarding threats, climate hazards limit the chance of medium scale fishermen to go fishing in the open sea. Storms also damage households and farming land and heavy rainfall reduces the productivity of sea grass beds. On the other hand people identify a number of non-climate threats such as illegal fishing, conflicts for resources access (local fishermen), poor local dissemination of institutional arrangements (policies and laws), few market opportunities and limited knowledge regarding food processing, as important.

4.2. Preak Thnout Commune, Kampot Province

4.2.1. Seasonal distribution of climatic events and potential impacts

25

Table 5. Seasonal distribution of impacts, Preak Thnout Commune

Village Livelihoods NaturalResources& Ecosystems

Land Use & Infrastructure

Trapeng Rapove

Rice Farming & Animal Husbandry, May-Nov. Storms, heavy rainfall, storms and high tides. Crop damage, harvest loss, salt-water intrusion. +Temp dry season affects animal rising.

Fishing, Jan-April, squid. Jul-Sept, mackerel. Oct-Nov, BSC. Storms (+turbidity, resources closer), sea temp increase (seawards migration, early stages of fish), heavy rainfall (salinity, +turbidity).

Aquaculture, Nov-Dec. Storms (physical damage, turbidity), heavy rainfall (fresh water influx), sea and channel temp (algal bloom, high mortality).

NTFP, Oct-April. Mushrooms and rattan. High temp + less rainfall, storms (physical damage).

Marine Resources, BSC (Jun-Jan). Fish, Shrimp and Squid. Storms (12 months). Storms (physical disturbance, salinity, turbidity and resources closer), sea temp increase (pathogens, mortality beyond thermal tolerance), high tides (migratory and spawning cycles).

Mangrove, May-Dec (growing season). Storms (physical damage), high tides (reduction in productivity), +temp (combined less rainfall, negative impact).

Sea Grass, Sept-Dec. Storms (physical damage, turbidity), heavy rainfall (fresh water runoffs) and sea temp increase (reduces productivity).

Farming Land, 12 months. Storms (floods and physical damage), high tides (salt water, soil quality), lack of rainfall (drought, water stress).

Fishing Zone, 12 months. Storms, high tides and increase water temp (inferred impacts from seas grass).

Mangrove Zone, 12 months. Feb-May (oyster, shrimp and crab), Jun-Dec (honey). Storms, high tides and high temp (deduced impacts from mangrove ecosystems)

NTFP Zone, Jan-April (rattan & fruits), May-Dec (Nypa frutican). Storms, lack of rainfall.

Preak Kreng

Farming, Dry season (chamkar), wet season (rice farming). Storms, high tides, abnormal rainfall (water stress), temp changes (high/low temp, grain’s quality)

Fishing, 12 months. Nov-December (intensive)

Animal Husbandry, NTFP, Feb-April, Nov-Dec. Mushroom, rattan and medicinal plants. High temp + less rainfall, storms (physical damage).

NTFP, Jan-March, Sept-Oct, rattan. March-May, forest fruits. Nov-Dec, medicinal plants. +Temp, storms, lack rainfall.

Marine Resources, Jun-Dec, Squid, BSC and oyster/snail. Jun-Aug, fish and shrimp. Storms, sea temp increase and high tides.

Mangroves, Jan-April (leaf loss), March-Dec (germination and flowering). Storms, high tides, lack of rainfall and high temp.

Sea Grass, May-Oct (growing period). Storms, sea temp increase and higher high tides.

Farming Land, June-Nov (paddy rice), April-Oct (chamkar). Storms, high tides and abnormal rainfall (water stress).

Grass Land, May-Nov (high availability), Dec-April (low). High tides and high temperatures.

Fishing Zone/CFi, 12 months, April-Jul (high intensity). Storms, higher high tides and sea temp increase.

NTFP Zone, March-April and Oct-Dec (high). Storms and high temperatures. Physical damage and water stress.

26

Village Livelihoods NaturalResources& Ecosystems

Land Use & Infrastructure

Preak Thnout

Farming, May-Dec (paddy rice), Jan-March (chamkar). Storms, high tides, heavy rainfall (Jun-Sept) and high temp.

Fishing, 12 months, Jan-March (fish, shrimp and BSC). Storms, sea temp increase and higher high tides.

Animal Husbandry, 12 months (cattle, poultry and pigs), May-August (high activity). High temperatures and storms.

NTFP, Oct-April (mushroom, rattan and medicinal plants). High temp and storms.

Marine Resources (high basis), May-Dec (BSC), June-Sept (shrimp), Jul-Aug (oyster and snail), Jan-April (squid), Oct-Dec (fish). Storms, high tides and sea temp increase.

NTFP, 12 months. High temp, storms and heavy rainfall.

Mangrove, June-Dec (seedling and flowering). Oct-Dec algal bloom in mangroves. Storms, high tides and high temp.

Sea Grass, May-Sept (growing period). Storms, sea temp increase and high tides.

Farming Land, 12 months. Storms, high tides, high temp and heavy rainfall.

Grass Land, May-Nov (high availability), Dec-April (low). High tides and high temperatures.

Fishing Zone/CFi, 12 months. Storms, higher high tides and sea temp increase.

NTFP Zone, 12 months. Storms and high temperatures. Physical damage and water stress.

Chong Hourn

Farming, Feb-Dec (chamkar), July-Dec (paddy rice). Storms, high tides, heavy rainfall and high temp.

Fishing, 12 months, May-June (mackerel), Oct-Dec (squid, shrimp and BSC). Storms, sea temp increase and high tides.

Aquaculture, June-Dec (fish and crab rising). Storms (physical damage and fresh water influx) and water temp increase (+fresh water, high mortality in cultured systems).

Animal Husbandry, Jan-May. Storms (physical damage)

NTFP, April-May. High temp and storms.

Marine Resources, 12 months. Set-Dec (mackerel), April-Dec (shrimp), Jan-Aug (BSC), Jan-March (squid). Storms, sea temp increase and high tides.

NTFP, Jan-April (rattan), Jun-Aug (forest fruits). High temp, storms, heavy rainfall.

Mangrove, Jan-March (leaf loss), May-Dec (seedling and flowering). Storms, high tides and high temp.

Sea Grass, May-Jul (growing period). Storms, sea temp increase and higher high tides.

Farming Land, 12 months. Storms, high tides, high temp and lack of rainfall (March-May).

Grass Land, Jun-Sep (high use), Jan-April (low). High tides, high temperatures and abnormal rainfall (heavy).

Fishing Zone/CFi, 12 months. Storms, higher high tides and sea temp increase.

NTFP Zone, 12 months. Storms and high temperatures. Physical damage and water stress.

Mangroves Zone, 12 months, Jul-Aug (plantation). Storms, high tides and +temp.

4.2.2. Historical Trends. Past and present adaptive strategies

In the table below are summarised the results from the historical matrix of four target villages in Preak Thnout commune. As villages share similar features, and distance among them is significantly low, most of the historical narratives about climate events and issues were identical or only very slightly different.

27

Table 6. Historical trends

Event Observations Adaptation Strategy

Thunder storms and lightning strikes

These events have increased the last years. Since 2001 onwards, thunderstorms have caused significant damage in all villages.

Affected people relied on the commune’s support.

Floods In 1985 high floods were experienced in the area. According the information provided by the seasonal calendar flood events have been occurring more intensively, causing problems on rice fields. In 1985 the mangrove forest (shoreline fringe) ended up completely flooded, many trees died as a result of increased levels of sediments. Meanwhile, a significant number of domestic livestock were lost.

• No strategy for flooding events has been made yet. All villages.

• During 1985 floods community did not receive any support (civil war).

HeavyRainfall Causing floods, situation that has mainly impacted rice production. Overall, rainfall patterns have changed drastically, for example during July (rainy season) a lack of monsoon rains was observed, compromising the growing period of rain fed rice crops as well as heavy rainfall episodes in the dry-season. High precipitation could also challenge local fishery (freshwater influx/runoff). Recently 18 days of continuous rains were reported.

No strategy for disasters associated with heavy rainfall events has been made yet.

Higher High Tides High tides between 1985-1995 were relatively normal, nevertheless from 1996 onwards a rise of high tides have been experienced. Since 2006 these events have been mainly associated with SLR phenomenon. Shocks linked with saltwater intrusion, have spoiled crops, soil quality and underground water sources, whereas long-term effects of SLR may compromise the extension and distribution of mangrove forest.

Rebuilt old dyke, no positive outcome, salt water intrusion has continued occurring (Preak Kreng village.

Storms Extreme storms events have increased sharply since 2001. Storm episodes have caused massive damage across the commune’s villages, on both livelihoods and human security. Storms (heavy wind/rainfall and storms-surge) have generated problems in farming activities (salt water intrusion, physical damage) and fisheries (sea grass destruction and rise in water turbidity).

• No strategy to cope with severe-storms has been planned yet, despite the regularity and intensity of their occurrence.

• However they have Red Cross support (ex post).

High Temperatures Higher temperatures throughout the dry season have been observed from 2001. Currently ‘heat waves’ have had serious impacts on farming, animal husbandry and fishing activities. Child disease (vomiting, diarrhea and high fever) has increased as a consequence of high temperatures. Nowadays visits to the local health center are higher, and farming activities are becoming increasingly more challenging.

No strategy has been made yet in this matter.

Mangrove Planting (Chong Hourn village)

Started to be carried out in 2009. This practice was part of a GEF-UNDP small grant project called Reforestation of mangrove trees for improving local livelihood (KHM/SGP/OP4/CORE/08/57), and implemented by the CFi committee. Mangrove planting in Chong Hourn was also part of UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project as a demonstration site. 40 ha were planted with community engagement, using 160,000 mangrove tree seedlings.

• Community planting. • Seedling production

technique.

28

Event Observations Adaptation Strategy

Mangrove Planting Failure (Chong Hourn village)

In 2010 the newly planted mangrove trees died. The main reason of this was the time frame of the planting activities, which were carried out too close to the high tide period. The planting activities took place in September, however mangrove planting should be done in May. The lack of preparation and technical advice led to an unsuccessful outcome.

• No solution.• In Chong Hourn village

there is a widespread feeling of disapproval to these kinds of initiatives.

Sea Weed Culture Failure (Chong Hourn village)

During 2005-2006. More than 100 ha were planted with one kind of non-native seaweed. A Malaysian company introduced the seeds. Fisher folks started to buy the seeds through credits (with formal institutions and middlemen). The first harvesting year was successful, after that it was a complete failure. People ended in debt with financial supporters. After this experience the seaweed culture finished. The lack of technical advice and an accurate ecological feasibility assessment are seen as main drivers of failure.

No solution, people just quit culturing seaweed.

4.2.3.ClimateandNon-ClimateVulnerabilities

Trapeng Ropove

In terms of livelihoods, rice farming, fishing, animal husbandry and aquaculture were the most susceptible/exposed livelihoods to the impacts of climate and non-climate hazards. Fishing activities are particularly vulnerable to nature-related hazards such as storm, water temperature increase, heavy rainfall and SLR, where the rise of water temperature in sea and channel creates the highest impact to local fisheries (mostly oriented to in-shallow and/or intertidal water fishing). Storm-surges were also identified as critical, compromising the quality of nursery grounds by sedimentary deposits, fresh water runoffs and physical damage. In terms of non-climate hazards, conflicts among fishermen (in regard to outside poachers and larger trawling boats destroying small size fishing nets), as well as absence of management skills and techniques to carry out sustainable fisheries, were pointed out as major non-climate hazards.

Animal husbandry and aquaculture were identified as second most vulnerable livelihoods, particularly due to their sensitivity/exposure to climate hazards such as storm-surges, changes in temperature (air and water), heavy rainfall and high tides. Storm surges and SLR episodes have destroyed and released fish and crabs form their cages, whilst high water/air temperatures have reduced growth rates in fish (brackish and sea waters) as well as enhancing the incidence of animal disease along the dry season. Additionally fish raising in estuaries has shown decreased growth rates during the rainy season (due to increased fresh water influx), however fish cultured further offshore does not show problems in this regard. Concerning non-climate hazards villagers claimed lack of market opportunities, brackish waters cultured fish water and absence of techniques to adapt animal husbandry activities to extreme temperatures. Rice farming, as the third most vulnerable livelihood seems to be more exposed to climate hazards such as storms, abnormal precipitation (heavy rainfall and drought) and high tides (salt water intrusion). Regarding non-climate hazards, villagers pointed out the lack of local development plans and farming techniques (irrigation infrastructure).

29

The most vulnerable ecosystem is sea grass. Rise in sea temperatures and storms are considered the major climate hazards for sea grass beds, on which the majority of the small-scale fishermen rely. In terms of human-made hazards, extractive practices amongst local and outsider fishermen are posing big challenges to the sustainable and long-term use of sea-grass beds. Marine resources are also highly vulnerable. Climate related phenomena like sea temperature rise, heavy rainfall and storms are some of the climate hazards affecting marine resources. Likewise, non-climate hazards such as social practices (see previous explanation) and lack of techniques/knowledge to carry out sustainable use of fisheries enhance levels of vulnerability over local marine resources. Mangrove ecosystems, as the third most vulnerable, show higher levels of sensitivity/exposure to climate than non-climate hazards, such as storms and rise in air/sea temperature, however high tides were not mentioned (perhaps as a result of lack of knowledge about long term impacts of high tides on mangrove ecosystems). Social practices, in the case of non-climate hazards, referred to the absence of opportunities and initiatives focused on protecting mangrove forest (CPA management?).

The vulnerability of land use & infrastructure shows that the local community fishing zone (CFi), the farming and the mangrove zone are amongst the most vulnerable. According to its own characteristics the fishing zone or CFi is extremely vulnerable to the impact of high tides, storm-surges and heavy rainfall, mostly from the impacts on sea-grass beds and intertidal habitats. The vulnerability of the fishing zone to non-climate hazards is linked to trans boundary conflicts with Vietnamese fishermen and lack of knowledge/expertise within the CFi committee to carry out management plans, towards a more sustainable and profitable use of fishing grounds in both CFi and CPA. Conversely, farming land (paddy rice and chamkar) seems to be more affected by storms, abnormal rainfall (alteration of dry-wet season cycles) and high tides, than human-made hazards, wherein lack of technique to manage farming land (from irrigation infrastructure to crops’ diversification) is seen as major challenge in this regard. Finally, the mangrove zone appears to be more vulnerable to the effects of climate hazards like storms (physical damage, erosion) and high tides (long term impact, affecting distribution of mangrove forest) than non-climate ones. In this last point villagers pointed to the absence of a strong management plan as the main driver of non-climate vulnerability of mangroves.

Preak Kreng

The most vulnerable livelihoods for Preak Kreng village are fishing, rice farming and NTFP processing. Fishing-oriented livelihoods report a high sensitivity/exposure to storm-surge events (highest score), followed by high tides, heavy rainfall and water temperature rise. Storms have affected small-scale and medium-scale fishermen. In terms of non-climate hazards, problems among fishermen (small and medium size) are perceived as critical sources of risk. Rice farming is extremely vulnerable to high tides, storm-surge episodes, temperatures rise and abnormal rainfall (absence of precipitation and heavy rainfall). Lack of irrigation infrastructure to sustain flood recession rice is the only non-climate hazards for rice farming. Livelihoods oriented to NTFP processing seem to be significantly vulnerable to climate hazards such as storms and high temperatures, this last affecting rattan and medicinal plants, risking dry-season livelihoods, whilst in terms of non-climate hazards, the lack of initiatives and techniques to support NTFP activities, is considered as a major source of vulnerability in this area.

NTFP was selected as the most vulnerable natural resource. Climate hazards such as abnormal rainfall, expressed in extreme rainy events and droughts, affect flowering period. Regarding non-

30

climate hazards, villagers pointed to politics and economic decision making as the principal source of vulnerability and future uncertainly towards NTFP long-term economic sustainability. This source of vulnerability is expressed by the allocation of private land concessions in the same areas were locals harvest NTFPs. Marine resources were ranked as the second most vulnerable, claiming climate hazards such as increased water temperature and abnormal rainfall as principal causes of vulnerability. The market demand for crabs in their juvenile stage (mud crab and BSC) is perceived as a non-climate source of exposure/sensitivity. Impacts on resource stocks are higher than economic returns, however local fishermen use revenues to acquire new fishing gear. This situation expresses an ongoing contradiction between resource use limits (established by the Fisheries law) and market demands. Sea grass appears more vulnerable to rise of seawater temperature, storms and air temperature changes. Absence of law enforcement and illegal fishing activities were also considered as drivers of sea grass vulnerability.

In terms of land use and infrastructure, fishing zone (CFi ) is considerably at risk from sea surface temperature increase (same as with sea grass), as well as from high tides, storms and abnormal rainfall. Lack of management to regulate fishing activities, fundamentally by controlling size and type fishing gear in the CFi seems to be the main cause of non-climate vulnerability for the CFi and its surroundings, especially since local and outsider fishermen continue using illegal fishing gears in shallow waters. Farming land and NTFP zone were scored equally. Farming land displays a high vulnerability to higher high tides as well as to the effects of storms and abnormal rainfall. The Lack of irrigation infrastructure to develop rice-recession crops was identified as the main non-climate hazard, affecting the appropriate management of farming land.

Preak Thnout

In terms of livelihoods fishing activities are the most at risk, specifically to the effects of storm-surge and rise of water temperature in both estuaries and seawater, followed by heavy rainfall (freshwater influx). Social practices challenging the long-term availability of resources/habitats and lack of law enforcement to crack down illegal activities in marine waters are perceived as large sources of vulnerability. Farming livelihoods seem to be prone to the negative impacts of high tides, storms and abnormal rainfall (floods, physical damage, harvest lost, etc). Similarly to other villages, the lack of irrigation infrastructure emerges as one of the reasons framing the high vulnerability of local growing activities. NTFP processing and animal husbandry vulnerability are affected by climate and non-climate hazards to different extents. On one hand NTFP processing is more prone to be impacted by non-climate hazards such as absence of market opportunities and techniques. Animal husbandry shows more sensitivity/exposure to climate hazards like high temperatures (animal disease) and abnormal rainfall.

Marine resources, NTFPs, mangrove forest and sea grass were ranked as the most vulnerable natural resources and ecosystems. Marine resources are mostly affected by climate hazards like sea temperature increase and abnormal rainfall, but they show a high sensitivity/exposure to inadequate fishing practices fostered by external market demands (marines resources in their juvenile stage). NTFPs appear to be exposed to the impacts of storms, strong precipitation, high temperatures and poor NTFP management plans. Finally, mangrove forest vulnerability is determined by storms and sea/air temperature increase, which may cause mangrove distribution and biomass reduction, whereas high tides are more a long-term impact.

31

The exclusion of the mangrove zone in the case of land use analysis is explained by the fact that it overlaps with the fishing zone; hence mangrove and fishing zones are understood as part of the same land use. Farming zone (rice and chamkar crops) is particularly vulnerable to the affects of higher high tides and storms surges, as both cause salt-water intrusion. The lack of local development plans focused on farming promotion and the nonexistence of irrigation infrastructure for dry-season crops were pointed out as human-made hazards. Fishing zone (CFi) vulnerability is enhanced by the affects of seawater temperature increase (algal boom) and storms (reductions of sea grass beds), and in terms of non-climate hazards, the absence of knowledge to design and implement a sustainable management plan for the CFi. Ultimately the NTFP zone seems to be more affected by non-climate hazards such as external markets, and poor local development plans. Land-digging activities carried out in the NTFP zone and surroundings, have been identified as important human-made hazards by villagers. People also claim lack of equipment and budget as a barrier to starting mangrove-planting activities; this situation emerges as critical point considering the limited extent of mangrove forest in the commune.

Chong Hourn

In terms of livelihoods fishing, farming and animal husbandry are the most at risk in Chong Hourn village. Fishing activities show a high sensitivity/exposure to storm-surge, rise in seawater temperature, abnormal rainfall and high tides. Some practices (overfishing and use of illegal fishing gear) and lack of appropriate techniques were observed as main drivers for human-made vulnerability of local fisheries. Farming on the other hand, seems to be particularly affected by high tides, storms, increase in air temperature and abnormal rainfall, whereas lack of irrigation infrastructure, was seen as thr main non-natural hazard. Aquaculture can be challenged during the occurrence of water temperature increase (fish/crab raising) and heavy rainfall (particularly for aquaculture in brackish waters). Lack of knowledge/technique to cope with the impacts of the previous climate phenomena is perceived as major hazard in this extent.

Marine resource, NTFPs and sea grass beds were identified as the most vulnerable natural resources and ecosystems. Marine resources appear to be more vulnerable (in terms of their long-term availability) to human-made hazards, such as market demands for marine resources in juvenile stages. NTFPs display a high sensitivity/exposure to storms (physical damage), abnormal rainfall and high temperatures (drought and water stress). Sea grass vulnerability is affected by increased frequency of storm-surges, abnormal rainfall and rising sea temperature. Even though mangrove forest was not counted as one of the most vulnerable ecosystems, the combination of future climate and new development projects along the Kampot coastline -the latter involving large scale mangrove cutting activities- may lead to the total reduction of mangrove forests in the area (and the ecosystem services that they provide).

As with the other villages, farming, fishing and NTFP zones are seen as the most vulnerable land uses in Chong Hourn. Farming land, predominantly vulnerable to the impacts of storms, sea level rise, temperature increase and abnormal rainfall, also shows a degree of sensitivity/exposure to lack of means to implement village/commune development plans, specifically those relating to farming-oriented initiatives. Fishing zone vulnerability is increased by the action of storm-surges (reductions of sea grass beds), while in terms of non-climate hazards, the absence of a sustainable management plan for the CFi as well as cultural barriers and habits, may increase vulnerability of community fishing areas. The NTFP zone seems to be more affected by storms (highest score) and abnormal rainfall. NTFP zone

32

vulnerability and non-climate hazards are linked through the absence of local development plans aiming to promote sustainable and profitable use of the NTFP zone.

4.2.4. Internal Strength/Weakness and External Opportunities/Threats

Preak Thonut commune inhabitants identified the importance of the legal basis aand requirements for using land and natural resources. In this sense the existence of co-management initiatives such as CFi, community forestry (Trapeng Ropove and Preak Kreng villages) and CPA committees are perceived as internal strengths, allowing local people a legitimate and decentralised use of natural assets. People also state the support from NGOs and provincial line departments as an important element to enhance internal capacities. The presences of clear local organization units, from commune to village, have also contributed to boosting internal conditions for adaptation. The commune and village development plans reflect that previous point. In regard to internal weaknesses there was a common perception of not having effective enough mechanisms (or authority) to crack down on illegal activities occurring in the CFi and community forestry areas. Moreover there are not regular meetings for CFi members, and hence no periodical regular setting of objectives and activities, or monitoring of their progress. People complained of poor dissemination of decisions made at community group meetings, and the lack of effective incorporation of all inhabitants in local decision-making processes. Another component of internal weakness is the absence of resources (budget and skills) to implement village and commune development plans.

In terms of the opportunities that climate change impacts pose to the commune, people point to abnormal rainfall events during the dry season as positive for crop irrigation during this period. Abnormal rainfall also offers a good opportunity for water collection. Small-scale fisher folks perceive storms as positive as they bring marine resources (fish, shrimps and BSCs closer the shoreline). Colder temperatures in the rainy season allow more vegetative productivity in forest areas, which is critically positive for NTFPs. Threats from climate change impacts are particularly linked with unstable rainfall patterns during the rainy and dry seasons. Changes in rainfall timing and amount are threating rice farming and local food security. For medium-scale (engine boats), storms represent a highly negative issue since they cannot go fishing in the open sea. Additionally storms (as with higher high tides), lead to salt water intrusion damaging crops and soils. Rise of seawater temperature is seen as a climate threat too, fundamentally because it makes shallow water fishing impossible as resources tend to migrate seawards (affecting sea-grass dependent groups). The low participation of the commune’s inhabitants in broader decision making processes and the poor dissemination of policy and law arrangements are claimed as critical non-climate threats. Finally the decontextualized intervention of NGOs and line departments, without prior understanding of real local needs, is also perceived as a threat from the community’s point of view.

33

5.SummaryofFindingsandRecommendations

5.1. Koh Kong Province

Table7.KohKongVCAfindings

Village Vulnerability Capacity & Opportunities

Peam Krasop Livelihoods: Fishing activities.

NR:Marine/aquatic resources (freshwater influx/sand dredging).

Land Use: Fishing grounds (net gear, fishing practices, lack of management).

• Fishing Skills• Ecological knowledge. • Ecological settings: Mangrove forest. • NR governance (CPA), local

organisation (village-commune).

Koh Kapik Livelihoods: Shrimp fishing, green mussel culture (fishing grounds competition/access, climate hazards).

Ecosystem: Brackish waters & mangrove. (Storm-surges, high temp & rainfall).

Infrastructure: Dry season freshwater availability. (SLR).

• Ecological settings, mangrove, RAMSAR site.

• Open sea access. • PA Law. • Commune (local organization).• CPA. • Line departments support.

Koh Sralao Livelihoods: Fishing and house gardening. Climate hazards (heavy rainfall, high temp. & SLR).

Ecosystems: Sea grass & mangrove forest. Climate & non-climate hazards. (Storms, heavy rainfall, sand mining).

Land Use: Non-exclusive use of fishing grounds, fresh water access (dry season).

• Ecological settings, mangrove and sea grass.

• Availability of fishing grounds. • Legal frameworks (PA, CPA, sub

national level organization. • Commune & Village development

plans. • NGO assistance.

5.2. Kampot Province

Table8.KampotVCAfindings

Village Vulnerability Capacity & Opportunities

TrapengRopove Livelihoods: Fishing and rice farming. (Climate hazards, lack of sustainable fisheries knowledge).

NR&Ecosystems: Sea grass (climate and non climate hazards).

Land Use & Infrastructure: CFi (illegal fishing & sustainable use).

• Legal means (CFi, CPA, CF). • Local development and investment

plans. • Line departments help.

Preak Kreng Livelihoods: Fishing and rice farming.

NR&Ecosystems: NTFP, marine/aquatic resources and sea grass.

Land Use & Infrastructure: CFi, illegal fishing, inappropriate fishing practices and sea grass beds destruction.

• Local organization & participation. • NGO and line departments support. • CBNRM groups.

34

Village Vulnerability Capacity & Opportunities

Preak Thnout Livelihoods: Fishing and farming (rice & chamkar). (Climate hazards, lack of management & law enforcement.)

NR&Ecosystems: Sea grass and mangrove forest.

Land Use & Infrastructure: Irrigation infrastructure.

• Local participation on CF and CPA. • Collaboration with line departments

and NGO.• CPA, CFi & CF boundaries.

Chong Hourn Livelihoods: Fishing, farming and animal husbandry.

NR&Ecosystems: Sea grass, NTFP and mangrove.

Land Use & Infrastructure: CFi, farming land and NTFP zone.

• Collaboration with line departments and NGO.

• Local environmental governance. • Government & Non-Government

supports.

5.3.RecommendationsforpotentialResilienceBuildingfortheBCRProjecttoexplore in more depth

Koh Kong

• Providing safer access to Koh Kapik through dredging of the silted-up creek

• Research to understand sediment dynamics and how to prevent rapid re-silting of the creek

• Improving water supply for Koh Kapik for improved health and hygiene

• Sustainable management of crab fisheries

• Improved management of Paem Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary and enforcement of regulations

Kampot

• Coastal zoning of the entire province, including identification of use and management priorities for different areas

• Detailed survey of sea-grass status and contribution to local livelihoods and development of improved community-based management of sea-grass beds and fisheries in sea-grass areas

• Replanting of mangroves in some areas

35

BibliographyAndrade Pérez, A, Herrera Fernandez, B & Cazzolla Gatti, R (eds) 2010, Building Resilience to Climate Change: Ecosystem-based adaptation and lessons from the field, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 164.

Bunrithy, L., Soviriya, C., Ledecq. T & Ratanaket, O. 2009, Lesson Learnt from Benefit Sharing: Case Study of Rattan Cultivation in Prek Thnout Community Protected Area, Bokor National Park, Kampot Province, Emerging Trends, Challenges and Innovations. In Learning Institute, Emerging Trends, Challenges and Innovations for Community Based Natural Resource Management in Cambodia, CBNRM Learning Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

CARE 2009, Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis, Handbook, CARE International.

Dara, A., Kimsreng, K., Piseth, H. & Mather, R. 2009, An Integrated Assessment for Preliminary Zoning of Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary, Southwestern Cambodia, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 52.

Ellison, J.C. 2010, Climate change impacts on, and vulnerability and adaptation of mangrove ecosystems, Proceedings of the ASEAN Conference on Biodiversity, Singapore, 21-23 October 2009, ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, Laguna Philippines.

Marschke, M. 2012, Life, Fish and Mangroves, Resource Governance in Coastal Cambodia, University of Ottawa Press: Ottawa, Ont.

Marschke, M & Nong, K. 2003, Adaptive Co-Management, Lessons from Cambodia, Canadian Journal for Development Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 369-383.

MoE & DANIDA. 2003, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Report on Local Area Coastal Resources Management (LACRM), Ministry of Environment, Royal Government of Cambodia and Danish International Development Agency.

MoE & DANIDA, 2003, PRA Report: Local Area Coastal Resources Management (LACRM), Koh Kong province, Ministry of Environment, Royal Government of Cambodia and Danish International Development Agency.

MoE & DANIDA, 1999, Socio-economic Investigation into Fisheries in Praek Thnout Village Kampot Province, Environmental Management in the Coastal Zone, Cambodia, Ministry of Environment and Danish International Development Agency.

Morgan, C. L. (2011). Vulnerability Assessment: A Review of Approaches. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN

Paterson, S.J. 2007, Project Document for Cambodia’s Peam Krasop Mangrove and Wetland Habitat Demonstration Site, UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project (SCS).

INTERNATIONAL UNION

FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

Asia Regional Office 63 Sukhumvit Soi 39 Wattana, Bangkok 10110 THAILAND Tel: +66 2 262 0529 upto 31 Fax: +66 2 262 0563 www.iucn.org/asia