tóm tắt phát triển du lịch sinh thái ở campuchia (the development of ecotourism in cambodia)

Ministry of Education and Training Viet Nam
National Economics University











By
H.E. Thong Khon

A dissertation submitted to the National Economics University in
fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Tourism Management

August, 2011
The development of Ecotourism
in Cambodia

Summary

2

Chapter I Introduction
1.1 Background
Cambodia is located in the heart of Southeast Asia and is laid on a rich tropical region. It

captivates images of a glorious and mysterious past with an abundance of cultural, historical,
natural heritages and patrimonies dating back thousands of years. In abundance with those
resources, this country has been classified as a highly-potential country with competitive
advantages for tourism development. The country actually has full political stability and safety, and
it has been recognized as a tourist destination since 1990’s. Since then, tourism development has
been on the upsurge, gradually growing throughout major priority regions, particularly in the
country’s four priority regions
1
. Beside the legendary Angkor Wat, Cambodia has a wealth of
tourist attractions to offer the visitors including the Phnom Penh Capital City on the banks of the
Mekong River with its cultural assets, the coastal region with its beaches ‘’Cambodia Bay is the
member of the most beautiful bays in the world club’’, forests and mangroves, and the northeastern
part of the country. Actually, tourism destinations are being diversified away from cultural tourism
sites (Angkor Wat and its surroundings) into the southern coastal zone and the northeastern forest
region, with a focus on ecotourism, where environmental protection of the natural resource bases
become increasingly important.
Talking about Ecotourism, some definitions identify ecotourism solely as a form of tourism
that has a natural or exotic area as the destination. Other definitions are more elaborate, and include
conservation and the support of local communities in the planning or implementation of projects.
Since a consistently used definition does not exist, a unique working definition is adopted by
drawing upon recommendation by the Cambodian experiences, and incorporating fundamental
elements occurring within ecotourism definitions worldwide. These elements require that
ecotourism: involve the natural and environmental; allow for ecological and cultural
sustainability; provide for education and interpretation; and generate local and regional benefits.
Based on the Québec declaration on Ecotourism in 2002 and the Oslo Statement on
Ecotourism in 2007, a working definition of ecotourism can be proposed to use in our dissertation:
Ecotourism (known as ecological + tourism) “involves responsible travel to ecological
destinations that contributes to the environment conservation and the well-being of local people
improvement.” (Ref. Author)
Ecotourism development in natural areas is rationally seen and considered as a part of

community-based natural resource management and conservation; and long-term development
programs in such areas. Thus, the introduction of ecotourism is seen as the efficient way to
alleviate environmental problems, to foster democratic society, to improve natural resource
management and conservation, and to reduce poverty in rural communities.
For the RGC, under the brilliant leadership of Samdach Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo
Hun Sen, economic growth is a priority, while conservation is its commitment. The commitment
of the RGC shows a positive indicator which stimulates an interest of relevant stakeholders: the
civil society, international communities and development partners to use ecotourism as one of the


1
Siem Reap, Phnom Penh and surrounding areas, the coastal zone (Kampot, Kep, Sihanouk Ville, Koh Kong), and the
northeastern part of the country (The Ministry of Tourism of Cambodia)
3

integrated development tools in park areas and biosphere reserves and other fragile rural
destinations of strong human-nature relationship. Specifically, in Cambodia, one of the richest
regions in terms of biodiversity and natural resources is the Peam Krosaop mangrove forest,
which is adjoined by Koh Kong Province; and the area serves as a base to visit the Cardamom-
Protecting Forest which is a hotspot supporting a wide variety of flora and fauna species, classified
as 10 ten biodiversity hotspots of the world including the Asian elephant, the Indochinese tiger and
the Siamese crocodile. It’s also important to be noted that Samdach Akka Moha Sena Padei
Techo Hun Sen, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia said, in his Speech in 2003,
Kompong Cham Province, “When tourists want to go to visit temples, they should go to Angkor
and when they want to visit tropical forests they should go to the Cardamoms”. Actually Wildlife
Alliance Organization begins working in Chi Phat Commune in the heart of the Southern
Cardamoms to implement Community-Based Ecotourism (CBET) as a way of conserving and
developing a region of exceptional natural and cultural significance.
Within this framework, ecotourism has become a promising tool for promoting natural
resource’s objectives for providing incentives to maintain ecosystem integrity, biodiversity

2
, and
for improving the livelihoods of local communities dependent upon natural resources. However,
like other developing countries, the challenges occurring in ecotourism or CBET projects in
Cambodia are noticeably: communication among stakeholders; access to development resources;
local support and participation; local capabilities to maintain ecotourism management and
development; and power and control over natural resources.
Though the researcher doubts how ecotourism can work on a local development process in
Cambodia’s protected areas, where social system and conservation course play a crucial role in
development policies, resource access and consumption. Therefore, it is necessary to understand
how ecotourism is useful for conservation and development in Cambodia.
These important issues make it necessary to do research on the development of
ecotourism in Cambodia, and this is a reason why this topic is chosen for my Ph. D. dissertation.
1.2 Research Objectives and Questions:
The main objectives of the study is to evaluate the real situation of ecotourism development
mostly ‘‘based on community’’, at present, which was integrated in Development, Conservation,
and Poverty Alleviation Strategies in Cambodia. Our study is based on the interrelation between
Local Community - Tourism- Nature resource or Protected Area (PA). Therefore, our research
aims to analyze the development of ecotourism in Peam Krasop and Chi Phat by exploring
guiding principles for stakeholders concerned as well as proper mechanisms to use ecotourism in
an effective and sustainable manner.
A number of questions could be raised and resolved in our study as below:
- What is the current ecotourism development process in Cambodia?
- What mechanism should be used to better achieve ecotourism goals in a sustainable and
responsible manner in Cambodia? And how to implement it?


2
Biodiversity refers to various organisms in the same or different species and living organisms of all levels and
sources, including land, marine and fresh water ecosystem, and the ecological relationship in which these ecosystems

exist (RGC, Protected Area Law et al., 2006, p. 16).
4

The analysis of these questions will produce recommendations which will serve as a
foundation for the management, development and planning of ecotourism projects in Cambodia.
1.3 Methodology and Data Sources:
To answer all the above questions, it requires a participatory ecotourism development
approach for ecotourism developers and researchers to investigate the potentials, challenges and
effectiveness in using ecotourism as a tool for conservation and community development in the
complex rural context. Theoretically and methodologically, this approach is explicit for ecotourism
development which previous studies failed to throw a light on factors causing for success or
failures of ecotourism projects. In fact, ecotourism and natural environment conservation success in
national areas are closely linked to the quality of relationships maintained between tourists, local
communities and natural areas (protected areas). The approach used in this case study research is
based on an analytical framework developed by Ross and Wall (1999). This framework allows us
to evaluate the sustainability status of tourism development projects by analyzing the interrelation
between Local Community- Tourism-Natural Resources or Protected Area (PA).
1.4 Dissertation organization
This dissertation is organized into different chapters as follows.
It begins in Chapter 2 with the development of concepts of sustainable tourism or
alternative tourism, which is being used to promote community development and conservation in
natural areas. Chapter 3 starts with an explanation of the overview of the Cambodian economy,
tourism and ecotourism in Cambodia. Interestingly, we make an SWOT analysis for ecotourism
development in Cambodia based on the current situation. Chapter 4 focuses on the case study of
Ecotourism in Peam Krasop and Chi Phat CBET development. Chapter 5 Based on our analysis
of case study, chapter 5 (Conclusion and Recommendation) suggests what can be done at the
policy and operational levels to move ecotourism development in Cambodia in the direction of
sustainable and responsible approaches and showcase the research limitations for further studies.
Chapter II Literature review: Theoretical and Practical Framework
2.1 Theoretical framework

The rise of term “ecotourism” has been relatively rapid. In 1980 the term did not exist and
now, 30 years on, this Encyclopedia represents the thinking of many different authors from around
the world on the topic. For example, Orams (1995) and Hvenegaars (1994) write that the term can
traced back only to the late 1980s, while others (Higgins 1996) suggest that it can be traced to the
late 1970s through the work of Miller on eco-development (1989).
A body of literature dealing with tourism typologies gives grater attention to particular
variations in term of tourism classifications, often with a particular tourism from being placed in 3
or more categories. MieckzKowski (1995) does identify “alternative tourism (AT)” as one of two
broad categories along a spectrum of tourism types.
So, we propose a classification of tourism development in two categories: mass tourism
(MT) and alternative tourism (AT).
Figure: Tourism classification
5

(MT) may be said to be predominantly unsustainable.
On the other hand, most forms of AT are sustainable in nature. (AT) can be broadly defined
as forms of tourism that set out to be consistent with natural, social and community values and
which allow both hosts and guests to enjoy positive and worthwhile interaction and shared
experiences. (AT) comprises of socio-cultural tourism and nature-based tourism.
2.1.2 Principles of Ecotourism
For our research, upon the various principles of ecotourism cited by TIES and the Québec
Declaration and on our working definition, we group the principles of ecotourism into six criteria
for ecotourism: 1) Primary focus on Natural Environment as the attraction 2) Minimizes
negative Impact 3) Builds environmental and cultural awareness 4) Promotes conservation 5)
Provides financial benefits for local people 6/ Encourage community empowerment through
participations.
2.1.3 The Politics of Ecotourism
In this context, the need to have specific legal frameworks and policies to ecotourism seem
to be important to regulate the ecotourism activity to ensure its positive impacts. For that, each

TOURISM
MASS TOURISM
ALTERNATIVE
TOURISM

Unsustainable practice Sustainable practice
Socio-cultural tourism
Nature based tourism
NBT

Non Consumptive

NBT
Agro-tourism Cultural tourism
Consumptive
NBT

Ecotourism
(Passive)
Adventure
tourism
(Active)
Source : - Trevor S. (2005)
- Fennell D. A. (1999), « Ecotourism: an Introduction»
6

government should develop his own ecotourism strategy. According to UNWTO, the sustainable
ecotourism development is based on the integrated elements of ecological, economic and socio-
cultural sustainability (UNWTO, 2001, 2003). For Weaver (2001) and Diamantis (2004),
Ecotourism is largely based on the conservation of biodiversity, mainly in protected areas, together
with environmental education and minimizing the impacts of tourism in natural areas. Thus,
Ecotourism directly benefits the economic development and political empowerment of local
communities, and foster respect for different culture and for human rights, (Honey, 1999). The
ecotourism development strategy must be based on conservation of resources and empowerment of
local people through direct benefits and control over ecotourism activities (local empowerment
which need technical support, ecotourism training and capacity building).
Therefore, there is an agreement in the fact that governmental commitment to conservation
and ecotourism development is one of the most important factors for operational success. Since the
natural environment is the primary attraction in many ecotourism destinations, it is imperative that
public, private, people and partnership cooperate in regulating and developing the destination. For

example, a wider recognition of standards for responsible ecotourism must be adopted by
governments and such standards should govern the development of ecotourism.
2.2 Trends in Global Ecotourism: Some Insightful Examples of
Ecotourism:
The following section will describe with examples a few ecotourism projects from various
parts of the world, especially in Asia. Although all of them are well known, all of them are not
necessarily perfect examples of ecotourism. So, to support the ecotourism development, the key
management issues to be addressed include government supports, sustainable use of local
resources, participation of stakeholders in benefit sharing, strengthening of local institutions,
linkages with regional and national levels, education and training.
2-2-1 Government support:
A characteristic of community-based tourism is that it requires a multi-institutional support
structures in order to success and sustains. Since community based ecotourism is people oriented
approach, working towards a fair benefit sharing and uplifting poverty will encourage the
government and the community to conserve their natural and cultural resources. As a result it
always has positive response from the government. Government agencies usually act as facilitator,
coordinator or advisory agency to the local community by establishing local institutions and
ecotourism developer and helping the institutions in term of human resources development,
capacity building and legal framework.
2-2-2 Participation of tourism development stakeholders:
Even though ecotourism businesses are located in natural areas, they still require much of
the same infrastructure as other businesses to deliver quality experiences for their clients. Indeed,
the successful implementation of ecotourism depends on the development of stable infrastructure.
This increases the scope for wider participation, including the participation of the informal sector.
Due to its direct and indirect relationship with other sectors, tourism contributes to ‘‘internally
generated development’’ by stimulating the establishment of other economic activities such as
industries, services and so on.
7

Through contacts with the tourists, members learn new knowledge and experiences, which

are quite impossible without tourism activities. Community members with entrepreneurship ability
may establish business contacts through tour operators, agents or the tourist themselves in order to
start a new business. While, having visitors at their front doors, tourism offer opportunities to the
community member especially housewives to participate in the economic activities. It can be
pursued through various means such as bed and breakfast, cultural show, souvenir selling,
restaurants, general merchant etc et their own home.
Moreover, various United Nations agencies such as World Bank, IFC, UNESCO, UNDP
and UNEP have also been involved in sustainable tourism and ecotourism for a long time. The
1992 Earth Summit’s action plan for the environment, Agenda 21, reinforced UNEP’s mission of
working with the tourism industry to promote sustainability. UNEP has called on the tourism
industry to be proactive through self-regulation, by adopting codes of conduct and best practices.
UNEP has assisted the tourism industry by conducting training sessions for hospitality and tourism
business leaders and tourism business leaders on developing environmental standards, using low-
impact technologies, and use of ecolabels to certify sound ecotourism practices.
2-2-3 Fair benefit sharing:
The indirect beneficiaries of ecotourism would be the wider community as recipients of
community development projects funded by the tourism revenues. In Zambia for example, a
Wildlife Conservation Revolving Fund was established to grant local chiefs 40% of the revenue
earned from the sale of hunting licenses. This revenue can be used for community projects and has
encouraged tribal leaders to become active in anti-poaching activities. In the case of Bromo-
Tengger-Semeru, the Ngadisari village committee funded three young villagers annually to attend a
tourism-training course. The Conservation Development Committee of Ghalekharka-Sikles Area,
Nepal, spend 15% of the tourism revenue for nature conservation, 35% for repair and maintenance
of tourism facilities and 50% for community development. In Karen village of Huay Hee of Mae
Hong Son town in Thailand, the income from the home stay program, hosts and guides keep 80%
of the money paid for their services, while 20% goes into a village fund (15% go to CBST Group
Fund and 5% go to village fund).
However, lack of organization and maagement of ecotourism activity has led to negative
impacts on wildlife. The majority of revenue stays in the provincial capital. Three lodges
concentrated in one village, all owned by reserve guards, provide the only real benefit to any of the

many villages which surround the reserve. Reserve guards act as guides- local villagers also act as
guides if there are no guards available. Some villagers receive income by renting boats to visitors.
Therefore, the only local people receiving any regular benefits are reserve guards. The reserve
retains virtually none of the profits from tourism, 2% of the total trip cost is collected by the
reserve administration, which is returned to the North Sulawesi Government. This funding is
inadequate to control illegal hunting, which has reduced the macaque population in the reserve by
75% in the past 15 years. Even through guards benefit from the extra-money they receive from
ecotourists for providing guide services, this has not been a sufficient incentive to control hunting;
indeed, time spent on guiding visitors is time away from protection duties.
2-2-4 Sustainable use of local resource:
Ecotourism is highly dependent upon natural capital (e.g. wildlife, scenery) and culture.
These are assets that own and managed by all community members including the poor, individually
8

or through communal properties, even if they have no financial resources. It creates awareness;
self esteem and proud among the community as a whole, as its resources are increasing in value,
priceless and become the sole reasons for the visitors to visit their village. This may trigger
motivation to the community members to be more responsible and caring towards their resources.
2-2-5 Ecotourism and the involvement of local community:
strengthening local institutions
Normally, livelihoods based on activities such as agriculture, cattle farming, hunting,
fishing, wood collection, timber harvesting and mineral extraction require substantial amounts of
natural resources (water, trees, mineral and, most of all, land and soil) to sustain large populations.
But, implementation and enforcement of use restrictions may foster confusion and resentment on
the part of local people accustomed to using such lands and resources. In such situations, local
people may become opponents of tourism and undermine its operation. Such obstacles to the
success of ecotourism can often be countered by involving local people in planning and
management processes, whereby they have some control over and agreed-upon access to the
resources they require (local empowerment). In this case, the involvement of local people to
ecotourism development relate to two levels:

1- Ecotourism needs to be incorporated into the social and economic life of the community.
This involvement should be in a direct form, such as share of the revenue generated,
creation of improved social welfare, education, infrastructure, and most importantly,
employment.
2 - Furthermore, the involvement of local people can partly come in the form of
empowerment: the community is given the responsibility to make decisions or, at least, to
be part of decision (control in development and implementation of ecotourism venture).
There are fives areas where local people can help to bring about ecotourism activities,
Brandon, (1993): information gathering, consultation, decision making, initiating action
and Evaluation.
2-2-6 Linkages with regional and national levels
Linkages between local entrepreneur with regional, national and even international are the
most important platform for long-term success of community based ecotourism businesses in a
given destination. Together with the initial capital investment, foreign (not necessarily overseas)
companies bring with them the advantage of operational expertise, market contacts and the
‘’image’’. The combinations of these factors provide the input to the tourism sector which is
unlikely to be available from the local community. The local community usually lack of the ability
to link directly to the national and international markets which become the main reason why the
benefits of ecotourism do not dissipate down to the community level. The middlemen whom are
able to coordinate the ecotourism activities between the community and the tourist stand greatly to
gain economically. Therefore, a partnership between local community and the middlemen or the
tour operators is a vital component for a successful community based ecotourism project.
2-2-7 How to mitigate negative impact of Ecotourism?
Ecotourism is frequently considered as the ideal form of tourism, allowing for economic
growth and development while protecting the environment upon which it is based. However,
9

numerous examples of ecotourism activities worldwide show that this is not always the case. The
impacts of ecotourism on society and the environment can be positive and negative. For this
reason, the regulatory frameworks and systems should ensure that products that are developed and

marketed as ecotourism are beneficial and not harmful to environments and communities.
a- Regulation of Ecotourism:
In general, it is recognized that a variety of regulations need to be developed such as codes
of conduct, ecotourism guidelines, ecotourism certification and so on, together with legal
regulations that help reduce negative impacts. Actually, in attempts to raise the consistency of
ecotourism experiences, many destinations have chosen to adopt a set of ecotourism
certification
3
.
In continents where ecotourism is well developed, one of the main issues that are discussed
is certification. However, such certification program not only helps to promote the delivery of
high quality and sustainable ecotourism experiences, but provides consumers and authorities with a
basis for discriminating between legitimate and unscrupulous operators (Allock et al. 1994). Based
on voluntary initiatives, ecotourism certification involves setting criteria for measuring the quality
as well as social and environmental impacts of tourism, carrying out audits, awarding eco-labels,
and building consumer and industry demand for such certification programs. The use of
certification standards for labeling various products is not a new concept. “Blue Angel
4
”,
Germany’s ecolabeling program established in 1977, was the first environment seal of approval for
various categories of products. Since then, the use of eco- labels has expanded through the world.
Some ecolabel schemes, such as Green Globe 21, define their accreditation criteria purely in terms
of continuous improvement in major areas such as energy and water consumption, etc, and Costa
Rica Certification in Sustainable Tourism program and Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation
Program (NEAP) in Australia.
b- Ecotourism Guidelines
There have been strong moves over the last decade, to introduce more sustainable forms of
tourism and to demonstrate to visitors this sense of responsibility. This has been found among
countries, destination regions, cities, hospitality chains, groups of separate businesses and
individual businesses. Although few destinations or enterprises have developed comprehensive

ecotourism policies or ecotourism certification, a number of attempts have been made to develop a
more general set of ecotourism ‘guideline’, codes of conduct, and or codes of ethics. Guideline,
manuals, and other technical assistance for enterprises wishing to improve environmental
management performance are another important adjunct to schemes.
In general, even though, programs such as these have no teeth but allow an organization to
claim greater sensitivity and responsibility (Stoesser 2004), but to ensure the sustainability and


3
Certification is the process by which third-party assessment is undertaken, written assurance is given that the
product, process, service or management system conforms to the standard.
4
Blue Angel program is a cooperative effort among several independent organizations, governmental bodies and the
public. The entities develop a set of criteria that promote environmental soundness in various products. An applicant
may pay a fee and have his product tested to determine whether it meets these criteria. If the applicant meets the
criteria, it may display the seal of approval.
10

effectiveness, it is imperative that certification programs (ecolabel) must be developed in
conjunction with ecotourism guideline.
Chapter III An overview of Cambodian Economy, Tourism and
Ecotourism in Cambodia

3.1 Overview on Cambodian Economy
History shows us that Cambodia has come through prosperity and difficult periods along
with its up-and-down national economy. In this sense, there is a particular manner to understand
Cambodia properly. Normally the country is known for its great Angkor history and the so-called
Pol Pot regime. Nevertheless, during the last decade (after the liberation day of 7 Janaury of 1979),
under the brilliant leadership of Samdach Hun Sen, Prime Minister, we are up to a new bright
future of the country with significant development in all areas.

Talking about growth, Cambodia’s economy is among the fastest growing in the world
recently hitting the magic 10%-a-year target during the last few years. Cambodia has achieved a
decade of sustainable strong economic growth and sound macroeconomic management. These
remarkable achievements in economic development and poverty reduction were accomplished
through responsible macroeconomic management and a steady program of reforms by government,
together with the dynamism of the private sector and the productivity and effort of Cambodian
people. Most of this is attributed to the substantial growth in industry and then services. Industrial
growth was driven by the considerable growth of garments and construction. Services sector
growth is due to tourism. Recently, in his address at the closing of tourism stocktaking conference
in 2008 and 1st semester of 2009; and the direction setting for 2nd semester of 2009 and 2010,
Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN, the Prime Minister of the Royal
Government of Cambodia, mentioned that Tourism has been a major growth pillar for Cambodia
for years. It’s clear that tourism is a major part in service platform of the country’s economy. Both
industry and services have made considerable contributions to GDP growth.
We can say that the four main pillars of the country’s economic growth driving forces are
agriculture, garment, tourism and construction.

3.2 Tourism sector in Cambodia: “the new destination”
The tourism sector has been an important and very dynamic engine of growth and generator
of foreign exchange revenues since mid-1990s. International arrivals have increased from a very
low number in the mid-1990s. In 1994 when tourism data was first recorded, Cambodia received
176 617 international tourists. In 2010, Cambodia received 2 508 289 international visitors - an
increase of 16.4 percent. It is worthwhile to note that in the past decade Cambodia witnessed two
digit growth rates, making it one of the country’s strongest growth sectors. Nowadays, Cambodia is
still doing better than the Asia and the Pacific region in general where the growth in international
arrivals was around only 13% in 2010.
In addition to this picture of rapid growth, there are other very positive trends in the
Cambodian tourism sector. The country has moved quickly from dependency on long-haul US and
European source markets to a much more balanced spread of markets, with well over half of the
international market coming from ASEAN member states. In fact, cross-border flows are a

significant factor in the flow of tourists throughout this region of Cambodia. The opening of border
11

checkpoints to Viet Nam and to Laos will create significant growth in visitor traffic. In this sense,
regional markets are extremely important for Cambodia, with Asia and Pacific visitors accounting
for about 60% of all international arrivals. The four major tourism markets to Cambodia are: as a
single destination within the region; medium or long haul tours that include Cambodia among other
regional destinations; as an add-on to a nearby destination such as Thailand, Viet Nam (multi-
destination); As a single long-haul destination for Fully Independent Travelers (FITs).
Moreover, as the domestic economy rapidly develops, there has also been an increase in
domestic tourism. As a result of both domestic and international tourism development, tourism
receipts are making a significant contribution to the national economy. Obviously, due to a
continued increase in the number of foreign tourist arrivals in Cambodia, associated receipts rose
from $ 228 million in 2000 to more than $ 1.78 billion in 2010, representing about 12.5% of the
GDP and situating tourism as Cambodia’s second leading source of foreign exchange earnings. It is
also estimated that 300 000 jobs were directly or indirectly employed by the tourism industry as of
2010.
In sum, Cambodia tourism has been remarkably developed in the last decade. The rapid
expansion of tourism in Cambodia can be attributed to several factors, primary among which is its
natural or “built-in” comparative advantage, namely Angkor Wat. Apart from this unique asset,
Cambodia’s other cultural legacies, natural endowment and position in the region anchored
tourism’s rapid growth, while government policies such as the Open Sky Policy facilitated its rise.
There is strong evidence that Cambodian tourism has developed primarily on the basis of the
comparative advantage of the Angkor Wat temples. The high international recognition of Angkor
as a destination is the result of intensive promotional campaign by the Ministry of Tourism,
“Cambodia: Kingdom of Wonder” along with competitive mouvement “Clean City, Clean
Resort and Good Service”.
However, Cambodia is needed to be diversifying its tourism product beyond the key
attraction of Angkor Wat in Siem Reap and business tourism in Phnom Penh. I believe that
ecotourism provides the best route to diversify tourism in the Kingdom. Cambodia is considered to

have a comparative advantage in tourism in form of cultural and natural attractions.
3.3 Ecotourism: new trend, niche market of Cambodian tourism
Due to the economic, political, cultural, and environmental circumstances in Cambodia, the
country is well-suited for the implementation of the international concept of ecotourism discussed
in Chapter 2. The Ministry of Tourism (MOT) initiated the development of ecotourism in order to:
- diversify the tourism product from culture to nature; - raise the profile of the country as a tourism
destination; - attract a segment of the tourism market which is considered to have growth
potential; - provide an incentive for the sustainable utilization of natural resources; - alleviate
poverty through tourism; - generate renewed pride in local cultures and traditions; - generate
resources for conservation; and facilitate responsible tourism planning and management practices
in an integrated manner.
3.3.1 Cambodia Ecotourism’s potentials:
Cambodia can effectively compete with other potential destinations in ecotourism
sector because of its unique ecosystems and impressive landscapes. Almost 70 percent of
the land is set aside as national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, biosphere and fore
sts. As a result,
12

many tourism attractions in this country are culture and nature-
based. Cambodia holds huge
untapped potential for ecotourism development through its abundant natural resources and
rich biodiversity. Cambodia has a wide range of natural as
sets, making ecotourism a highly
beneficial, sustainable and long-
term form of tourism. This includes lakes, mangroves,
mountains, waterfalls, islands, wildlife and many others. More specifically, there are
23
protected areas (7 national parks, 10 wildlife
sanctuaries, 3 protected landscapes, and 3
multiple-use management areas were designated in 1993)

in Cambodia, covering an area of
47,845 km2. These areas are categorized into national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, protected
landscapes, multiple use areas,
Ramsar sites, protected forests and marine protected areas
based on the IUCN categories and objectives. The priority’s areas are the Northest
Region,
Tonlé Sap Great Lake region and South-west (Costal) region.
So, based on its comparative advantage in terms of the outstanding cultural, wildlife and
natural resources found in the country, ecotourism is seen as a preferable model for sustainable
tourism development in Cambodia.
3.3.2 The current situation of Ecotourism development in Cambodia:
Like most parts of the world, ecotourism is a relatively new concept in Cambodia; however,
with its enormous geographic and biological diversity, Cambodia has various forms of nature-
based travel. Ecotourism is a relatively recent development in Cambodia, and really began with the
expansion of facilities during the end of 1990s. However, in order to understand the current
situation of ecotourism development in Cambodia, we need to develop SWOT analysis as below:
a- Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for Ecotourism Development:
SWOT Analysis
Therefore, the following table is summarized the SWOT analysis on ecotourism
development in Cambodia.
Table 1: Summary of the SWOT-Analysis

Strengths
• Varied cultural and natural resources –
green and blue ecotourism and
adventure tourism (Tonle Sap is the
heart of core environmental zone in
Southeast Asia; Cambodia also posses
the largest dry forest in Southeast
Asia; several globally endangered

species; Cambodia Bay as member of
the most beautiful bay in the world
club)
• Friendly people with special
traditional ways of life
• Institutional support
• Existing market
• Existing infrastructure
• New destination
Weaknesses
• Lack of land management plans
• Limited implementation of policies and
strategies
• Lack of funds/investments and human
resources
• Unclear roles and limited participation
of ecotourism stakeholders
• Limited knowledge of ecotourism
• Poor/limited infrastructure and waste
management
• Limited promotion and marketing
• Time consuming and financial
constraint for ecotourism development
• Still low income generation from
ecotourism development and livelihood
improvement if compared to other
13

development
• Individual insitutions think only about

their projects and these projects often
are not integrated
• Lack of capacity among local
communities members
• Community based tourism/ecotourism
is not officially recognised and
empowered
Opportunities
• Market demand – existing and
potential markets
• Product development: 1) blue and
green ecotourism, 2) adventure
tourism, 3) 3S and cruise tourism
combined with visits to national parks,
and 4) regional ecotourism products
(cooperation with the neighboring
countries)
• Increased government and NGO
support
• Increased interest among development
partners
• Improved infrastructure and border-
crossing facilitation
• Alleviation of poverty through tourism
– ecotourism sites in remote areas
where poverty rates are the highest
, Increased economic benefits from
tourism , increased conservation of
natural resources
• Incrreasing political will and new laws

being developed, for example,
National Ecotourism Policy,
Ecotourism Development Strategic
Plan 2011-2020 etc.
Threats
• Transition – high investment risks
• Disappearance of indigenous cultures
• Extinction of rare species
• Mass tourism and its impacts on nature
and culture (demonstration effect)
• Competition among stakeholders over
funds and human resources



b- Ecotourism Market Demand

Today's marketplace is becoming "greener" and more environmentally sensitive than ever,
with 85 percent of the industrialized world's citizens believing that the environment is the number
one public issue (Wight, 1993). This attitude has evidently had an effect on the rise in popularity
of ecotourism, which has been called the fastest growing tourism market in the world (Jesitus,
1992), and its growth is expected to continue. Statistically, since the 1980’s interest in nature-based
tourism has increased dramatically. With a growing concern for the environment, coupled with a
strong desire to escape from the traditional vacation, many travelers are beginning to discover the
14

benefits and advantages of ecotourism, which has become the fastest growing tourism market in
the world. Ecotourism is a part of a growing niche market of the tourism industry. According to
UNWTO calculations show that, in 2004, the expenditures for ecotourism grow annually with
20%, which is 5 times more than the average expenditure for the tourism industry and it was

growing globally with 20%, which is 4 times faster than the growth of cultural tourism.
For Cambodia, ecotourism demand is expected to increase around 10% annually. We have
conducted an Ecotourism Visitor Survey, about demand on ecotourism in Cambodia, interviewed
around 200 tourists, of which 43% were from Asia (including ASEAN), 38% from Europe, 18%
from Americas and 1% from other regions.
c- Ecotourism Market Supply

Based on the survey conducted by SNV among CATA members in 2008, approximately
55% are aware of ecotourism and its principles. More than 90% of the respondents are interested in
ecotourism due to: improving the well-being of local communities; providing local host-guest
experiences; Diversifying their product. Even though the interest in Ecotourism and CBT is high
among the tour operators, only 46% of the respondents include CBT site in their product offerings.
These sites are mostly located in Tonlé Sap Region (30%) and Northeast Cambodia (27%).
Majority of the respondents (54%) have not included CBT sites in their tours due to the lack of
demand (52%) or lack of information on the CBT sites (37%).
- Community-based ecotourism in Cambodia
:
The ecotourism development in Cambodia is mostly based on community, which is helping
to protect this wildlife as well as the natural environment and local cultures while offering
opportunities for much needed employment and sustainable development to poor, often remote,
local communities.
Below is a map showing the current community based tourism and ecotourism sites in
Cambodia.
Community Based Ecotourism Sites in Cambodia
15


Source: CCBEN, 2009

Actually, most of the current CB(E)T sites assisted by CCBEN

5
members are located in the
northern part of the country. Sites located close to the major tourist gateways- Siem Reap and
Phnom Penh- are more easily accessible due to better infrastructure and public transportation than
sites in the remote areas. Roughly 60 percent of the CBET sites offer home stays (MoT, 2009).
However, there are no minimum standard requirements for the home stays and therefore the level
of comfort and services are very basic at present time.
In 2007, CBET at eight sites generated roughly 75 377 USD of which 55% was allocated to
the villagers providing the service, 23% to environmental conservation, 7% community
development funds and 15% to other purpose such as supporting the poorest families and the
projects in general. It is estimated that around 2000 families are directly or indirectly involved in
CBET activities in the eight sites (SNV, 2009). Yet, the economic sustainability of CBET sites
depends a lot on the number of visitors to the sites. Only a fraction of international tourists to
Cambodia visit CBET sites. It is estimated that roughly 46 400 tourists, of which 17 percent
international, visited the eight CBET sites in 2007. Therefore a lot more work needs to be done in
improving the quality of the sites, engaging private sector in CB(E)T, and in marketing and
promotion.


5

Cambodia community-based ecotourism network (CCBEN), a network of international and local NGOs, educational institutions
and tour operators, which are working on ecotourism related and conservation projects, is working to promote community-based
tourism and ecotourism awareness among public and local community. The organization has conducted a number of CBT trainings
of trainers to its members and CBT awareness programs to local community and several study tours within the country and the
regions to CBT sites. Moreover, CCBEN also produced some materials for CBT training for its members and partners.

16

Chapter IV Case Studies of Peam Krasoap and Chi Phat Community based

Ecotourism
4.1 The case study of Peam Krasop Community based Ecotourism
4.1.1 Strategic diagnosis for development of Peam Krasop CBET
4.1.1.1 The location of Peam Krasop Wildlife Reserve
Peam Krasop wildlife reserve is located in Peam Krasop commune in the province of Koh
Kong, a few kilometers in south of the main town of the province called Koh Kong. Peam Krasop
wildlife Reserve measures 25 987 hectares and is part of mangrove forest of 63 thousand hectares.
It is divided into several spaces, 5 466 hectares are devoted to the development of ecotourism. It
was established by the Royal Government of Cambodia in 1993 in order to preserve the natural
heritage threatened by the production of charcoal, building materials and intensive shrimp farming.
Actually, Peam Krasop Commune devoted to ecotourism is comprised of 2 villages grouped into
community: Boeng kayak (village just created) and Peam Krasop village.
4.1.2 Tourism products in Peam Krasop Community Ecotourism
Tourism services at Boeng kayak and at Peam Krasop wildlife sanctuary: In 2004,
local authorities have developed Peam Krasop to be a tourist site with the help of SEILA project,
DANIDA (the Danish International Development Agency), DFID (The Department for
International Development of UK Government), of the NGO IUCN, CZM Project and the
Governor of Koh Kong.
Peam Krasop tourism site is organized as follows:

At the end of the trail through the village of Boeng Kayak is parking for cars with the
surrounding of the sellers of water, food & beverage. At the reception point, tourists can buy
tickets to visit the mangrove. Flyers both in English and Khmer, described the history of the
biosphere-reserve with some recommendations, are also available for tourists.
Their indications are also given on the type of activities they can do: visit the forest in the
bridges of wood and concrete, boat tours to visit the village Peam Krasop, to visit a beach or go
around an island for a tour of bird nests and watching fireflies after dark, fishing in the estuary
Peam Krasop.
The entree fee is 3 000 riels for local tourists and 5 000 riels for international tourists. Since
2007, tourists are guided by the local guides, who were trained by the Koh Kong tourism

department
6
. Bins and toilets are available throughout the pathways. Moreover, tourists can be
served meals by the restaurant, or by picnic along the trail. Tourists can enjoy their trip by
accessing directly into mangrove by suspension bridges across the estuary. Or they are able to rent
a boat for multiple trips, which its price is ranged from 20 000 to 70 000 Riels (5 to 17.5 $)
according to the chosen route of trips. In 2008, 24 129 local and 374 foreign tourists (including
Thai tourists) came to visit Peam Krasop Ecotourism Community. For the first three months of
2009, community has already received 15 077 local and 711 international tourists.



6

The first training course group 21 peoples and the second and third course to 11 peoples respectively.

17

4.2 The case study of Chi Phat Community based Ecotourism
4.2.1 General Situation of Chi Phat Community based Ecotourism site (CPCES)

4.2.1.1 History of Creation of CPCES and Location
The Chi Phat Community based Ecotourism is gathering four small villages: Chi Phat
village, Dam Sla village, Kam lot and Teuk la ork village, Thmor Bang village, totaling roughly
2328 (555 families) people. It is located in the Southern Cardamoms Protected Forest, in an area
that was severely affected by guerrilla warfare during civil war’s time. Noticeably, covering 6% of
Cambodia, the Cardamom Mountains are a biodiversity hotspot. They are one of the last
remaining elephant corridors and large predator ranges in the region. They host more than half of
Cambodia’s 2,300 plant species and are home to over200 bird and 14 globally endangered mammal
species like Asian Elephants, Indochinese tigers, Malayan sun bears, Siamese crocodiles,

Irrawaddy dolphins, etc. The Cardamoms includes a vast ecosystem with sixteen vegetation types,
from dense evergreen rainforest to coastal mangroves.
Since villagers have comprehensively understood the environmental protection, people
who live in Chi Phat community have their willing to eliminate or reduce cutting down trees,
catching wild animals, and other activities in diverting the old practices to the new livelihood such
as animals raising, crops and rice growing, and guiding the tourists to visit the beauty of nature in
ecotourism site “Chi Phat”.
Noticeably, CPCET has just been created in mid-2007, gathering around 23% (125
families) of total four villages to be its member. Statically, in 2008, CPCET received 256 domestic
tourists and 170 foreign tourists, generating $ 5,892.06 for local people and $ 1,271.47 for
community’ fund. Otherwise in 2009, the community receives 312 domestic tourists and 517
foreign tourists (equal to $ 16,443.78 for local people income and $ 5,709.80 for community’s
fund). The ecotourism’s package tour to CPCET is around 90-100 $ per trip. Optimistically this
destination becomes a beneficial source for local people who can economically or financially earn
more profits in order to support their livelihood. Coincidently, it is also an important part for
eliminating or reducing the unexpected activities. It’s noted that nearly 90% of hunters are actually
involved CPCET activities.
4.2.2 Tourism Products at Chi Phat Community Ecotourism Site
4.2.2.1 Tourism infrastructures
CPCET has provided many facilities and services like home-stay, guest house, and foods
are in orders. The restaurant is available in community. But, it’s more impressive that the guide is
able to prepare food for tourists during their visit in the forest, called wild cooker. In addition, the
community has just set up an information centre. Tourism information is available to provide to
tourists. More impressively, the Internet is available to tourists and local people to use in the area.
The activities in Chi Phat’s information centre at day time. Normally, whenever a group of
tourist arrive at Chi Phat, they must past by information centre at the first entrance where there are
a group of community member who will host them and explain them about their activities in Chi
Phat.

18

4.3 The sustainability status of a CBET at Peam Krasop and Chi Phat
This case study research, based on an explanatory approach, aims at assessing qualitatively
the current sustainability status of a community-based ecotourism project at Peam Krasop and at
Chi Phat. The main focus will be put upon the role played by ecotourism, or what is being
promoted as ecotourism, in a broader natural environment protection context.
As identified by Ross and Wall (1999), local communities, tourists and resources/parks are
central contributors of regional tourism implementation and development.
Figure 1: Ecotourism evaluative framework

Source: adapted from Ross and Wall, 1999
The evaluation of indicators describing the relationships between these three major
elements of essential to evaluate ecotourism benefits in terms of a sustainable regional
development mechanism. Our 2 case studies are intending to draw an overall portrait of
ecotourism’s current capacity to reach its primary objectives in the south-western province of Koh
Kong. It will subsequently lead to recommendations on possible ecotourism planning
improvements in Cambodia, in order to improve future biodiversity conservation and revenue
generating capacity of the ecotourism project. In this sense, ecotourism success depends on the
quality of the relationships developed between three major elements: local communities-tourism-
protected area. The relationships will be summarized and discussed more thoroughly in this
subsequent section.
2.2.1 Relationship between Local Communities and Protected Area:
Ecotourism, as an attempt to increase economic value of parks, has become part of many
development and park-people integration strategies (Lindberg et al., 1996; Place, 1991). This has
been demonstrated in the case of Peam Krasop mangrove and Chi Phat, the degree of dependence
on natural resource being high on most of local communities, suggesting that ecotourism could act
as a compensation mechanism for land and resource use restrictions. This can be highly important
as funds directed toward conservation are sometimes limited in Cambodia, especially when most of
the threats natural resources, especially the mangrove, are facing come from subsistence activities.

This dependence toward natural resources partially comes from the fact, that many illegal
extractive activities are still being perpetrated in and around Peam Krasop mangrove area and Chi
19

Phat. They contribute to degrading future communities’ livelihood, as many local villages have
already observed a decrease in several useful flora and fauna species. Local populations give a
good indication on their knowledge and use of forest products. The eroding livelihood is an
alarming fact when, on average, 55% of local family total income, sometimes an even greater
portion for poorer families, is considered to be derived from mangrove forest. At Chi Phat, before
ecotourism development project took place, the majority of local people are hunters and fishers.
As interviews revealed, local communities were explained the reasons for the creation of
Peam Krasop mangrove. In a harmonious relationship, stewardship of local people toward the
natural environment is vital, since they can take advantage of the benefits triggered by their
contribution (Ross and Wall, 1999b). In the case of Peam Krasop, local communities living around
and near mangrove boundaries are responsible for a conservation zone around their respective
village. Nevertheless, the lack of enforcement capacity from mangrove sometimes led to inter-
villages conflicts, arising from illegal activities (fishing). Thus, even if local communities are not
reluctant toward conservation initiatives, the absence of benefits from conservation and limited
park staff, linked to its lack of ability to strongly implement regulations leads to the continuation of
mangrove management and limited park staff, linked to its lack of ability to strongly implement
regulations leads to the continuation of park resources depletion. This failure to get local people to
support protected area integrity and benefit from a sustainable usage of mangrove resources leads
to say that the ideal PA-people relationship is not a reality. In Chi Phat, with the aid of an NGO
Wildlife Alliance, an Ecotourism Community has been created. Local people were explained and
trained, and conservation attitude has been gradually improved since then.
Table 2 : Summary of the relationship between local communities and protected area

Indicators Peam Krasop Chi Phat
Degree of dependence on
resources

Very High Very High
Resources used from PA Flora, fauna, mangrove Flora and fauna
Sustainability of
livelihoods?
Some sustainable Some sustainable
Activities of the greatest
threat to PA’s ecosystems
Fishing, woody carbons
conduction
Hunting wildlife, cutting the trees
for purpose of construction, sale,
nomad agriculture
Evidence of local benefits
from protection?
Very limited (harvesting of some
species of plants and wildlife)
Very limited
staff/local relations Staff from Environment office :
4-5
Staff from Forest Administration
office : 4-5
Staff from local people : 5 (not
permanent-only one time per
month)
There are 13 member staffs of
Chi Phat community and
seasonal staffs such as cookers,
guides, homestay or guest house
staffs, other service staffs like
boating, biking etc.

Enforcement capacity Weak Weak
Attitudes towards
conservation
Enforcement but questionable Enforcement

2.2.2 Relationship between Local Communities and Tourism
20

The success of the relationship between host communities and tourism can be linked to the
possible economic and social benefits that can contribute to host’s development. The Peam Krasop
is still at an early stage of existence, but economic and social benefits already seem interesting for
some local communities. Many have received revenues representing important shares of their
annual income. These new income are mostly used to buy medicine, household provisions,
blankets and food in periods of shortage (Lyttleton and Allock, 2002). Furthermore, a village
development fund, financed with ecotourism revenues (8% of total ecotourism revenues), has been
crated during the implementation of the pilot project in order to improve local communities
infrastructures. Even through it has been mentioned to have been poorly managed in the past; this
development mechanism was also integrated by new private tour operators, which is important
because positive attitudes towards tourism largely depend on perceived costs and benefits
(Lindberg et al., 1996). Although economic benefits are respectable at this stage of the project, it is
important that economic supplements to local communities, through secondary spending (i.e. sale
of handicrafts), also represent an element of focus. The cost of a handicraft item could be included
within the tour price and given as a gift to tourist once the activity completed.
Ecotourism development project in Chi Phat justifies clearly the importance of tourism’s
contribution to poverty alleviation by providing economic and social benefits to local people. The
income generated from ecotourism is distributed between community and villagers.
Moreover, as impressive as the benefits can be, an effective economic benefit-sharing
scheme is important in order to avoid jealousy and disappointment among villages and villagers,
while ensuring equitability. Indeed, huge economic disparities have been observed between
ecotourism participating villages. The villages are dependent on the beauty of nature, which creates

a considerable difference between villages involved into the ecotourism project. The greater
interest of tourists for specific activities is trekking. However, several questions remain about the
current revenue distribution scheme. It is difficult, based only on the existing data, to assess if the
money is fairly distributed among families and to compare at the family level the percentage of
their total revenues provided by ecotourism and their daily activities.
Ecotourism generated revenues have contributed to reduce the amount of families classified
as “poor” and that more than 50% of the annual budget of some villagers is provided by ecotourism
activities. On a local scale, the distribution scheme seems good, as all families interested in
ecotourism is given the opportunity to benefit economically from ecotourism by performing
activities (food, rent boat, guides ), based on a rotational villagers mechanism. However, as the
regional level important revenue differences have been observed among villages participating in
the same ecotourism activity. This phenomenon could be explained in part because greater
revenues are provided to the villages who welcome tourists for meals, compared to those who only
perform isolated demonstrative activities. The community can have indirect negative impacts on
long term ecotourism success by degrading the surrounding local natural environment. The absence
or the lack of national park protection budget could be partially overcome by a future increase in
ecotourism revenues.
In the case of Peam Krasop, the interaction opportunities between local communities and
tourists are well developed. Yet, direct interaction with local people is very limited due to language
barriers. The majority of local villagers do not speak international language. Thus, in an ecotourism
growing context, where an increasing amount of tourists visiting the site, language formations, for
many people, and not only to guides as it is already the case, but to local communities could be
implemented. For Chi Phat, the interaction opportunities between local community and tourists are
significant. Guides are trained; the language barrier is not the problem. Tourists are warmly
welcomed by community and villagers. Tourist safety and comfort are priority. Even the services
offered are not quite perfect, but they are at least acceptable.
21

Although the quality of the cultural experience offered to tourists is essential for tour
selling, local communities’ participation in ecotourism planning is significant to keep a positive

attitude toward ecotourism and conservation. Participation in planning of local communities in
Peam Krasop and in Chi Phat is well integrated. Villagers are openly invited to share their worries,
complaints and recommendations during monthly meetings, in order to provide necessary future
adjustments. So far, villagers surveyed have no any complaints regarding tourism impacts on local
environment.
Table 3 : Summary of the relationship between tourism and local communities

Indicator Peam Krasop Chi Phat
Interaction opportunities High High
Relationships between tourists
and hosts
Positive
(tourists can stay overnight, have
supper with villagers, witness
cultural particularities, but
interaction is limited by
language)
Positive
Host attitudes to tourism
impact on local environment
Positive Positive
Tourism income for local
community
Good
(but disparities among villages)
Good
Tourism employment Limited Limited
Revenue distribution Fair but questionable Good
Participation in ecotourism
planning

Fair Fair
Quality of village
infrastructure
Good Good

2.2.3 Relationship between Tourism and Protected Area
Ecotourism has been embraced to improve ecological conservation. This can be achieved
by a well managed ecotourism, who redistributes considerable revenues to local communities in
order to encourage changes in local practices, improve stewardship (Bookbinder et al., 1998),
support environmental education and provide revenues for park protection. If some economic
contributions provided to the government for conservation purposes, through a 10% sale tax
(VAT), 5% tourism fund and a permit fee (1.25$ per person/day), are substantial, this has yet to
reflect on local conservation and environmental education activities.
Funding shortage or limitations and lack of expertise are often the reasons for poor
environmental education infrastructures. This has been the case in Peam Krasop, although NPA
management unit and tourism entities have conducted some environmental education activities in
local villages, the quality, extent and frequency of these activities have been limited. In this sense,
even if Peam Krasop is considered as an important biodiversity reservoir and waterfalls, the
chances for tourists to observe mangrove, fauna, species, etc. are very narrow. The opportunity to
observe exotic wildlife in their natural habitat is highly valued by visitors. Thus, tourist’s
acceptability regarding future fee increase might be enhanced if they have the impression that it is
generating concrete benefits towards conservation and that it augments the overall natural
experience offered. Chi Phat case is nearly the same as Peam Krasop. Training courses and/or
seminar for local population about environment and wildlife protection are needed, while creating
22

booklets and posting other educational signs are also a good idea. The quality of experience in
nature is quite good in Chi Phat, and visitors are normally willing to view and observe exotic
wildlife in the real setting environment.
The quality of environmental education infrastructure provided to tourists is also a

determinant key towards park conservation, while contributing to reduce tourism impacts on the
surrounding environment.
Moreover, tourists are required to pay for the service of a guide to have access to the NPA.
Local Guides are encouraged to tourists. But, external Guides are also hired when tourist groups
are larger. Therefore, ecotourists, which are most of the time interested and curious about the
environmental context their visiting, may expect information and answers to their questions. Yet,
as mentioned above, the guides’ speaking abilities in Peam Krasop are often questionable, which
diminishes the possibilities of natural interpretation and education toward tourists. The focus on
environmental and ecotourism education might be a good strategy for the enforcement of park
regulations. In Chi Phat, a guide is mandatory for the visit. Ecotourists need to have guides
accompanied them during their trip due to the difficult situation of the site. It is important to note
that there is a contract about responsibilities to be signed by visitors before they leave to visit the
site. The guide could also be the one who cooks foods for tourists, known as wild cooker (Chong
Phov Prey in Khmer). They are equipped with first aid kit, radio communication, maps and
interpretive materials. All are prepared so as to ensure tourist’s safety. This is a very good example
of “Healthy Tourism” in Chi Phat.
Table 4 : Summary of the relationship between tourism and protected area

Indicator Peam Krasop Chi Phat
Permit/Entrance Fee Yes Yes
Quality of experience in nature Fair Good
Economic contributions to park
protection and NPA
Fair (amount fixe) Fair (Variable)
Contributions to environmental
education
Fair

Fair
Quality of environmental

education
• Potential for improvements
Fair

Good


Passive interpretation
• In the form of
Visitor behaviour guidelines?
One information center is
availabel
There is Chi Phat
community information
center
Active interpretation
• In the form of
Quality
Fair


Fair
Conclusion:
This research has outlined several positive aspects linked to the utilization of ecotourism as
a development tool in Peam Krasop. However, strictly on a definitional standpoint, ecotourism in
Peam Krasop cannot completely be considered a success since the local communities-tourism-
protected area relationships are not optimal. The incapacity to improve biodiversity conservation
effectiveness, by strengthening park management, diminishing local environmental damaging
practices and implementing strong environmental education for local communities, arises from this
case study. In contrast, the success of Chi Phat case is more significant with a rapid development

growth of ecotourism project during the first year after launching date (2007). The changes are
23

remarkable either in terms of economic and socioeconomic development or in terms of
conservation. However, the three principal relationships are not at optimal point yet.
Improvements are still needed, especially cooperation between local communities-relevant
authorities-NGOs/development partners need to be further strengthened in order to ensure a
sustainable ecotourism development and so as to guarantee a much more effective conservation
program.
Table 5: Achievement of ecotourism goals
Ecotourism goals Peam Krasop Chi Phat
Environmental education
- For locals
- For tourists
Fair

Fair
Good

Good
$ Generation
- For locals
- For conservation

Good
Fair

Good
Fair
Conservation

Fair Good
Local participating in
ecotourism planning
Fair Fair
Chapter V Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion: A mixed model for ecotourism development in Cambodia- An integrated
approach
Being developed on a regular basis at the two different fronts, the so-called small scale and
large scale, ecotourism in Cambodia has either beneficiated conservation or local communities. It
creates economic opportunities for the local communities while in turn helping to conserve the
ecosystem and biological diversity. Instead of going just to see a country, an ecotourist who are
ecologically conscious goes to help the country by promoting and contributing to conservation.
Actually, conservation can be combined with measures to meet short term economic needs. In
long term perspective, development must be sustainable and conservation will be the
determining factor. Regarding small scale ecotourism development in Cambodia, Community
based Ecotourism-CBET shows significant local benefit through ownership opportunities and
employment in higher level, managerial positions, and a potentially higher multiplier effect due to
greater linkages between tourism and other sectors in community (Ref. Chi Phat and Peam Krasop
CBET cases). Considering the situation and the real setting of the site where there is firm presence
of local communities living strongly dependent on local natural resources, CBET model-the small
scale ecotourism development- is suitable and practically beneficial for all relevant stakeholders. It
involves goods and services to be purchased locally and support for home businesses. Interestingly,
local empowerment is well taken into account in this case in order to make sure that local people
feel the ownership of their own areas and then do their best to manage and develop it in sustainable
and responsible manner. By profiting from serving ecotourism activities, they will actively protect
and preserve natural resources and environment in the areas.
24

However, in its development as an ecotourism destination, Cambodia continues to face
many challenges, including the desire to increase the number of visits. A lack of financial resources

to invest effectively in ecotourism region, a lack of training facilities, and the need for better
planning and organization of its primary sectors to better supply its growing ecotourism industry
are necessarily to be solved attentively. That is why in some cases an alternative model-large
scale ecotourism development- needs to be taken into consideration to foster the development in
all fronts. It does not mean that we are pushing hard the development by all means at any cost, but
we are trying to use all available means and resources to develop in the right and better way so as
to take maximum benefits without causing any damage in overall perspectives. That is to say we
need to make the right and wise choice of development model to be used in any specific area
regarding its geographical, social and economic characteristics.
In many natural sites where there is normally less or no presence of local communities, like
islands and other large natural/biodiversity hot spots, large scale development model based on
private investment projects has been seen as perfectly suitable and conformingly fit to the
situation of the areas. However, such investment project must be consistent with the ecotourism
principles and uses high-end technology, conforming to National Ecotourism Guideline, to
ensure that their activities are entirely environmentally friendly. With the amount of capital
logically much bigger than the availability at community level, private investment projects could
aim for a higher level of standard for ecotourism development that will serve as another option for
alternative ecotourism products in the country. We encourage the diversification of tourism
destinations as well as the supplies that could match with different expectations and aspirations of
tourists.
Thus, a systematic mechanism that encompasses involvements and contributions from a
wider range of stakeholders is recommended to guarantee a broader development and
comprehensive, sustainable and responsible growth.
Policy Recommendation
: the ecotourism development in Cambodia should be based on
participatory approaches by promoting and strengthening the Public-Private-People Partnership
(4P).
Thus, all ecotourism activity should be controlled and managed by a National Ecotourism
Committee that is comprised of local community representatives as well as representatives of
Ministry of tourism, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Fishes and Forestry,

Ministry of Rural Development, Council for the development of Cambodia (CDC) and/or NGOs,
Tourism Private Sector and financial institutions.
In this sense, every relevant parties and/or
institutions need to cooperate and coordinate well in more responsible way, with clearly defined
roles and responsibilities in advance, in order to achieve success together.
In conclusion, ecotourism development requires active and informed participation of all
relevant stakeholders, as well as strong political leadership to ensure wide participation and
consensus building. A thriving ecotourism sector will be promoted through coordinated support for
the provision of infrastructure and capacity building initiatives that are conducive to the supply of
quality ecotourism products and services that meet market demands and expectations. At the same
time, to avoid adverse and negative impacts, all stakeholders should be aware of the parallel need
for a cautious and considered approach in promoting the sector.

25

PUBLICATIONS
1. Thong Khon, (20…) Ecotourism and Climate Change, The Pracheachun Magazine
2. Thong Khon, (2011): The development of Tourism and Ecotourism in Cambodia,
Journal of Economics and Development, Volume 42, August 2011.
3. Thong Khon, (2011): Sustainable and Responsible Tourism Development in Cambodia,
presentation at Global Ecotourism Conference, Noosa, Brisbane 25-27
th
October, 2010