The development of Ecotourism in Cambodia.PDF

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 highlypotential 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 regions1. 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 longterm 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.
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)

1


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 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,
biodiversity2, 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
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).

2


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?
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).
1.4Dissertation 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.
3


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 1: Tourism classification
TOURISM

Unsustainable practice

Sustainable practice
ALTERNATIVE
TOURISM

MASS TOURISM

Nature based tourism
NBT

Socio-cultural tourism

Cultural tourism

Agro-tourism

Non Consumptive

Consumptive

NBT

NBT

Ecotourism
(Passive)

Source : - Trevor S. (2005)
- Fennell D. A. (1999), “Ecotourism: an Introduction”

4

Adventure
tourism
(Active)


(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.
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.
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 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
5


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 multiinstitutional 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.
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.
6


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 GhalekharkaSikles 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 management 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 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
7


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:
 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.
 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, 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.

8


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 certification3.
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 ecolabels, 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 Angel4”, 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.
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 effectiveness, it is imperative that certification programs
(ecolabel) must be developed in conjunction with ecotourism guideline.
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.

9

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 January 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.

10


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 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 longhaul 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 movement “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
11


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 forests. As a result, 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 assets, 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 Northeast 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:
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for Ecotourism

Development: SWOT Analysis
Therefore, the following table is summarized the SWOT analysis on
ecotourism development in Cambodia.
12


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

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 bordercrossing 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
 Increasing political will and new laws
being developed, for example, National
Ecotourism Policy, Ecotourism
Development Strategic Plan 2011-2020
etc.

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 development
 Individual institutions 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
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

13


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 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.
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
Actually, most of the current CB(E)T sites assisted by CCBEN5 members are
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.

14


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.

Source: CCBEN, 2009
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.

15


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
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 department6. Bins and toilets are available throughout the
6

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

16


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

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.

17


4.2.2 Tourism Products at Chi Phat Community Ecotourism Site
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.

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

18

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 southwestern 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.
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 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
19


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

Some sustainable

Some sustainable

Fishing, woody carbons
conduction

Hunting wildlife, cutting the
trees for purpose of
construction, sale, nomad
agriculture

Very limited (harvesting of
some species of plants and
wildlife)

Very limited

Staff from Environment
office : 4-5

There are 13 member staffs
of Chi Phat community and
seasonal staffs such as
cookers, guides, home stay
or guest house staffs, other
service staffs like boating,
biking etc.

Sustainability of
livelihoods?
Activities of the
greatest threat to PA‟s
ecosystems
Evidence of local
benefits from
protection?
staff/local relations

Staff from Forest
Administration office : 4-5
Staff from local people : 5
(not permanent-only one
time per month)
Enforcement capacity
Attitudes towards

conservation

Weak

Weak

Enforcement but
questionable

Enforcement

Relationship between Local Communities and Tourism
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
20


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 benefitsharing 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.

21


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.
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
Interaction opportunities
Relationships between
tourists and hosts

Host attitudes to tourism

impact on local
environment
Tourism income for local
community
Tourism employment
Revenue distribution
Participation in
ecotourism planning
Quality of village
infrastructure

Peam Krasop
High
Positive
(tourists can stay overnight, have
supper with villagers, witness cultural
particularities, but interaction is limited
by language)
Positive

Chi Phat
High
Positive

Good
(but disparities among villages)
Limited
Fair but questionable
Fair

Good
Limited
Good
Fair

Good

Good

22

Positive


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 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.
23

Table 4 : Summary of the relationship between tourism and protected area
Indicator
Permit/Entrance Fee
Quality of experience in nature
Economic contributions to park protection
and NPA
Contributions to environmental education
Quality of environmental education
• Potential for improvements

Peam Krasop
Yes
Fair
Fair (amount fixed)

Chi Phat
Yes
Good
Fair (Variable)

Fair
Fair

Fair
Good

One information
center is available

There is Chi Phat
community
information center
Fair

Passive interpretation
• In the form of
Visitor behaviour guidelines?
Active interpretation
• In the form of
Quality

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 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
Environmental
education
- For locals
- For tourists
$ Generation
- For locals
- For conservation
Conservation
Local participating
ecotourism planning

in

Peam Krasop
Fair

Chi Phat
Good

Fair

Good

Good
Fair

Good
Fair

Fair
Fair

Good
Fair

24


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.
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
25