Community Based Conservation: Tmatboey Ecotourism Project

Community Based Conservation: Tmatboey Ecotourism

Project

Patrick HurleyKeegan DuffyNick Huntington

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.

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

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)

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.

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)

2004-2005 November 2004 – April 2005 51 tourists20 separate groups

Revenue from Tourist Services (food, drinks, guides, accommodations, etc) $21 per tourist

Village Fund $30 per tourist

Generated $2,588 for the village

• 2005 – 2006 72 tourists 21 separate groups

Tourist Services/Village Fund $21/$30 per tourist


2006 – 2007 78 tourists 26 groups



• 2007 – 2008 127 tourists 37 groups



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

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

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

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

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

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


• 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.


• 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

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

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

Documents

Community Based Conservation: Tmatboey Ecotourism Project