Sustainability 2014, 6, 2490-2505; doi:10.3390/su6052490
OPEN ACCESS
sustainability
ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
Can Local Institutions Help Sustain Livelihoods in an Era of
Fish Declines and Persistent Environmental Change?
A Cambodian Case Study
Melissa Marschke 1,*, Ouk Lykhim 2 and Nong Kim 3
1
2
3
School of International Development and Global Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Ottawa, 120 University Private, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
Conservation International, B1-4 Phnom Penh Center, Phnom Penh, Cambodia;
E-Mail: louk@conservation.org
General Department of Administration for Nature Conservation and Protection,
Ministry of Environment, 48 Preah Sihanouk Boulevard, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
E-Mail: moepmcr@gmail.com
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: mmarschk@uottawa.ca;
Tel.: +1-613-562-5800 (ext. 4866); Fax: +1-613-562-5817.
Received: 11 February 2014; in revised form: 15 April 2014 / Accepted: 16 April 2014 /
Published: 30 April 2014
Abstract: This paper sets out to explore fishers’ perceptions of environmental change in
coastal Cambodia and to then examine the role of local institutions in working with
villagers to adapt to such challenges. The analysis shows that: (1) fishers observe species
decline, irregular tides and a change in weather patterns; and (2) local institutions have
been working to address some of these issues through a series of resource management and
livelihood projects for over a decade. We note that local institutions are well placed to deal
with certain types of environmental change projects, such as protecting small patches of
mangrove trees or creating fish sanctuaries, along with less controversial, tourism-related
projects. It is impossible, however, for local institutions to tackle bigger issues, such as
over-fishing or large-scale resource extraction. Fishing villages are dealing with multiple
challenges (environmental change and beyond), which may make fishing a less viable
option for coastal villagers in the medium to long term. As such, key policy responses
include acknowledging and building upon the work of local institutions, enhanced support
for patrolling at national and provincial levels, developing response scenarios for coastal
environmental change, involving local institutions in scientific monitoring and piloting
projects that consider fishing and non-fishing livelihoods.
Sustainability 2014, 6
2491
Keywords: small-scale fisheries; environmental change; perceptions; institutions;
livelihoods; Cambodia
1. Introduction
Fishers, particularly those living in resource-dependent villages, rely upon natural resources for
much of their livelihood. The vitality of these natural resources are influenced by multiple
environmental change factors, including climate variability [1] and fishery management [2]. Evidence
of coastal environmental change include fluctuations in water temperature, precipitation and
oceanographic variables (wave action, sea level rise), all of which can bring about significant
ecological and bio-physical changes directly impacting people whose livelihoods depend on those
ecosystems [3]. Compounding this is the prediction that rising sea temperatures will result in certain
fish species extinctions in the tropics and sub-polar regions, coupled with species invasions of fish
migrating into cooler waters [4]. This suggests major ecological disturbances, particularly as we move
beyond 2 °C of warming, whereby social ecological systems may transform into new, unanticipated
states [5]. Meanwhile, fishery decline and species loss is already proving to be a major issue, with the
majority of the world’s fish stocks being maximized [6] and regional fishery policies not being
enforced [7]. For many small-scale fishers, pressure on fish stocks and coastal resources has increased,
while overall incomes and employment has declined, further marginalizing often impoverished
households [8]. Environmental change is a major issue for the fishery sector and for fishing
households, particularly in the global South, where the majority of fishers live [9].
Extreme events have highlighted significant deficiencies in prevention and preparedness in dealing
with environmental change, particularly in the global South [10]. One response by the donor
community has been to increase funding for climate change adaptation projects. Such projects include
focusing on low carbon development, conducting vulnerability assessments and specific projects to
help communities deal with climate change [11]. This current emphasis enables donors to continue to
fund village-level initiatives, including infrastructure-related projects, particularly in the environment
sector, where market-oriented conservation (certification, payment for ecosystem services) programs
have gained in popularity [12,13]. Adaptation approaches used by development practitioners may draw
from the work done on sustainable livelihoods [14], capabilities and entitlements [15,16] and land
degradation, hazards and risk [17,18]. This work highlights how adaptation in villages is linked to both
adaptive capacity and local vulnerabilities [19]. In spite of a wave of criticism suggesting that current
adaptation efforts are unfocused, this is an area of development intervention that will continue to grow
given the vulnerabilities facing many populations [11].
Our focus is on coastal Cambodia, an area that has seen significant environmentally-focused
development interventions since the late 1990s [20]. Local institutions (which include formal
institutions such as a commune council, a community fisheries committee, or a community-based
protected areas committee or informal institutions such as a group of elders, or Pagoda leaders)
observe environmental change first hand and have undertaken adaptation-related projects within
community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) programs in the mangrove-estuary villages
Sustainability 2014, 6
2492
of coastal Cambodia. More recently, funding for adaptation work has been ramping up: for example,
the World Bank has committed 86 million dollars for a pilot program in climate resilience focusing on
the water, agriculture, food security and infrastructure sectors [21]. Some of these funds will be
allocated to local institutions, likely in coastal areas given general coastal vulnerabilities. Yet, little
analysis, other than a few working papers [22–25], has taken place regarding fishery decline,
environmental change and the role of local institutions in Cambodia. There has been no assessment of:
(1) past projects and practices; (2) what is doable at a local level compared to what needs to be
addressed at other scales; or (3) priority areas of focus for funding. Our paper seeks to address this
research gap.
We begin our paper with a brief overview of common property theory, before outlining Cambodia’s
policy framework for decentralization and support for local forms of resource management. We then
turn to our case study, examining local perceptions of environmental change and considering if on-going
community-led projects can address such issues. Villagers and local institutions [26] hold strong
perceptions of environmental change and are an important resource in the absence of baseline
monitoring. Local institutions are well placed to deal with certain kinds of adaptation measures, such
as small-scale, less controversial protection or tourism-related projects. It is impossible, however,
for local institutions to tackle bigger issues, such as over-fishing or large-scale resource extraction.
We conclude by suggesting that fishing villages are dealing with multiple challenges (environmental
change and beyond), which may make fishing a less viable option for coastal villagers in the medium
to long term. As such, priority focus areas include developing response scenarios for coastal
environmental change, involving local institutions in scientific monitoring, piloting projects that
consider fishing and non-fishing livelihoods for coastal villagers and enhanced support for patrolling at
national and provincial levels.
2. Cambodia’s Policy Framework for Encouraging Village-Level Involvement
Decentralization marks progress in public accountability, environmental sustainability and
empowerment of poor and vulnerable groups [9], since it is a mechanism designed to bring citizens,
local groups and organizations into the policy and decision-making process [27]. Within the
environment sector, the push for decentralized resource governance was in part a reaction to
“command and control” resource management [27] and also drew on insights from commons
scholarship, following from the extensive research done by Elinor Ostrom [28] and others [29–32].
Commons research has shown how community groups are capable of managing resources given
certain conditions and appropriate incentives. Increasingly, it is recognized that government
involvement is an essential component of commons management [33]. The characteristics of a
resource, levels of trust among actors and rules in use also play an important role [34]. Most examples
of common pool governance are small scale, single case and cover short time periods (a few months).
Common property management does have its challenges. For example, it can be part of a general
off-loading of responsibility to lower management units [26]. This type of management arrangement
becomes particularly challenging where resources are transboundary and in areas with high poverty
rates [31]. Even with a plethora of new policy supporting commons management and collective rights
arrangements, getting the right fit between collective goods (conservation) and individual benefits
Sustainability 2014, 6
2493
(livelihoods) remains problematic [20]. Much of the common property and collective-action literature
has focused on the characteristics of the user group and the attributes of the resources [35]. Thus, there
is a need to consider the role of external influences [36] and to take a longer-term perspective to
understand the sustainability of community-led actions over a number of years [37].
This emphasis on local governance and collective rights is in line with the development thinking of
donors and multilateral lending agencies [32] and plays out in the environmental sector within
Cambodia, in so far as the Ministry of Environment, the Fisheries Administration and the Forestry
Administration have each created legislation enabling local involvement in resource management
(i.e., the creation of community forestry, fisheries and resource management committees). Over 300
village committees are working on forestry issues, 469 on fishery issues and over 50 on issues within
protected areas [24,38]. Since the early 2000s, the Cambodian government has passed significant
legislation supporting decentralization measures [20]. Cambodia is the only country in Asia with such
a significant policy thrust on ‘small scale-isation’ within the environment sector [25]. A series of
sub-decrees are in place to support local forms of resource management [20], complemented by
national-level plans that further encourage institutions being involved in general forestry/fisheries, or
protected area conservation or protection measures [38–40].
While significant plans exist to support actions at a village or commune level, plans tend to be
sectoral rather than cross-cutting and do not necessarily build on past experiences [20]. For example,
within the 2006 National Priority Action Plan (NAPA), several projects focussed on coastal issues,
including rehabilitating coastal infrastructure and the sustainable use of natural resources. The challenge
is that these projects have not yet been piloted are written in general terms and are not linked
specifically with the fishery sector [39–41]. The latest NAPA notes that sea level rise is a coastal risk:
no specific suggestions are made regarding how to deal with sea level rise. Cambodia’s Strategic
Planning Framework for Fisheries, 2010–2019, mentions climate change as a threat to fisheries; little
detailed information is given as to what this means. While planning documents touch on key issues,
there remains little assessment, analysis and reflection on how to concretely deal with environmental
challenges, particularly with respect to coastal villages and the fishery sector (there has been greater
emphasis in the forest sector related to carbon credits [42]). Meanwhile, fishery committees and
coastal protected area committees do exist, and some have been working on fisheries, resource
governance or environmental change for more than a decade [20,43,44]. Experience suggests that local
institutions flourish when an NGO or government team provides backstopping support to help resolve
smaller conflicts and remain ‘paper committees’ when there is no one they can call [20,22,25].
Coastal villages and the fishery sector generally is an important sector from a poverty alleviation,
adaptive capacity and economic development perspective. Fisheries contribute around seven percent of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this sector employs 10.5 percent of Cambodians on a full-time
basis along with an additional 34 percent of people being employed on a part time basis [8].
Cambodians rely on a significant amount of fish products as their primary source of protein
(consuming, on average, 52 kilograms per year as compared with other animal proteins, which are
consumed at levels below 10 kilograms per year) [8]. Cambodia is seen to have lower levels of
adaptive capacity to climate change than other countries in the region [45], in large part a product of
high aid dependency (nine percent of GDP), limited state capacity, high levels of poverty and a
Sustainability 2014, 6
2494
dependence on natural resources for many rural livelihoods [46]. A collapse in fish stocks, from
over-fishing or climate variation, will be felt far beyond the local level.
3. Approach, Data Collection and Analysis
To understand environmental change and the role of local institutions in resource management in
coastal areas, a multi-method case study approach was utilized in Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary.
This area (23,750 hectares) was designated as a coastal protected area in 1993. There are over
40 mangrove species, including Rhizophora spp. along the mangrove estuaries, and a mix of species in
the extensive rear or depression areas, e.g., Bruguiera spp., Xylocarpus spp., Avicennia spp. [47].
Many aquatic species move through Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary at some point in their life cycle,
including grouper fish (Epinephelus tauvina and Epinephelus awoara), swimming and mangrove mud
crabs (Callinectes sp., Scylla sp.) and several species of shrimp (Penaeus sp., Metapenaeus sp.).
Around 8750 people (according to 2009 statistics) live in the wildlife sanctuary.
We focus on five mangrove-estuary fishing villages that have developed resource management
institutions at some point over the past fifteen years. All five villages have local institutions (referred
to as resource management committees) that are officially recognized by the Ministry of Environment.
Within and between these five villages, there is a continuum of dependence upon fishing resources,
with fishing being the most important livelihood in four out of five villages. Fishers classify
themselves as small scale, using crab traps and gill nets in the mangrove-estuary areas or using gill
nets and small trawls in the near shore areas along the coast. Peeling crabs for their meat or
smallholder agriculture (three villages have access to some form of agricultural land) is another
important livelihood activity.
We picked this area as a research site, because of a history of local institutions working on resource
management (particularly fishery issues) in this area [23,48]. Case-specific research questions and data
collection addressed core research questions of livelihood challenges, environmental change, the types
of projects funded by donors in the area and the role of local institutions in managing resource
challenges. Data collection included semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and
participant observation (see Table 1). The research builds on findings and data from a series of
investigations in the case study area, secondary literature and a review of environmental change
literature for southwestern Cambodia [48–50].
Villagers who have been fishing and earning a livelihood from natural resources in Peam Krasaop
Wildlife Sanctuary hold a series of observations concerning environmental change. Local committee
members actively working to address local challenges hold strong institutional memory in terms of the
types of projects that have been tried in the area, what works and what does not and the livelihood
challenges they continue to face. This combination of interviews with fishers and representatives of
local institutions has shed the following insights onto perceptions of environmental change, the role of
local institutions and general resource management work found in Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary,
in coastal Cambodia. We draw on these insights to then further reflect on the kinds of adaptation
projects local institutions can work on and where greater higher-level support is necessary to deal with
environmental change.
Sustainability 2014, 6
2495
Table 1. Research methods.
Level
Local institutions in
Peam Krasaop
Description of methods
Timeframe
Key informant interviews (n = 15)
2011–2012 (May, September,
February)
Wildlife Sanctuary,
Focus group discussions (n = 10; 8 people/focus group)
2011 (May, September)
Cambodia
Participant observation
1998–2012, annual visits to area
Government actors
Key informant interviews (n = 5)
2012 (February)
Secondary sources
Literature review
2011–2013
4. Results
4.1. Perceptions of Environmental Change
Villagers observed three broad categories of environmental change, including species loss or
decline, irregularity of tides and shifting weather patterns. The intensity of the observation was linked
with the geography of a particular village. For example, species loss was commented on more often in
mangrove-estuary fishing villages compared with coastal villages that also had access to farmland.
In contrast, mangrove-estuary villages spoke less about flooding than in more exposed coastal areas
that were less buffered by mangrove trees. Table 2 compiles this information, highlighting observed
changes within all five villages, explaining why people believe this change is happening, the perceived
impacts of an observed change, and any local responses.
Table 2. Local perceptions of environmental change.
Observed change
Explanation
Tides are harder to predict,
Irregularity of tides
and the duration of tides has
shifted (from two to four or
five hours).
A perceived rise in
Shift in weather
temperature and change in
patterns
seasons; heavier rains and
increasing storms and floods.
Impacts
Crab fishers can no longer lay
their traps during low tide,
when crabs are attracted to
bait, and be ensured the traps
will soon be submerged.
Storms affect access to fishing
grounds; intense heat affects
sea grass; beaches are eroding
and mangrove stands are
being damaged.
become rare in the past few
People need to fish; “harder”
years, as pressure on aquatic
to survive.
resources have intensified.
Some fishers monitor traps
more consistently.
Measuring peak floods
since 2004, it is believed
that there has been a rise of
0.1 meter since then.
Keep notes of houses
destroyed by floods;
considering a change in
house design.
Tried many activities:
Some aquatic species have
Species decline
Response
patrolling, protesting
against sand mining and
trawls; but general declines
continue.
Fishers argued that tides are irregular and harder to predict than in the past. Crab fishers can no
longer set their crab traps at low tide and assume that they will be submerged (sometimes tides creep
up so quickly that crab traps are covered in water before the crabs can enter, and at other times, the
traps remain un-submerged). As a consequence, fishers need to monitor their traps more carefully,
Sustainability 2014, 6
2496
either fishing closer to home with the consequence of having less overall catch or spending greater
time away from home and sleeping on their fishing boats (in this scenario, people report catching more
crabs, since fewer people are fishing for crabs further away from the villages). This forced behavior
change is not something fishers are happy about. As one crab fisher comments, “I am old now and do
crab fishing because I want to fish near the village. I want to sleep at home, not on the fishing boat.
If the changes continue, the lives of fishers will be harder and harder, and fishing activities will disappear
one day”.
Floods and storms have always been present in this area, particularly in the rainy season. For
example, in 1998, one fisher explained that he was “…afraid to go fishing very far from home in the
rainy season. The waves are big, the wind is strong and the storms are terrible” [50]. However, fishers
perceive that the intensity and frequency of storms is shifting. People talk about storms damaging their
homes or, in a few instances, mangrove trees. With such intense storms come floods. Measurements by
one village chief suggest that the level of flooding has increased by one decimeter (39.37 inches) since
2004. In another village, it was noted that more homes were destroyed in 2011 than were destroyed in
2010 by flooding (30 homes as of September, 2011, as compared with 10 homes throughout 2010).
There has been no specific meteorological data collected for coastal Cambodia, and while general
scientific data suggests that precipitation and heavy rains have been consistent throughout Cambodia
since 1960 [51], it may be that the timing or intensity of flooding is changing, that general trends for
inland Cambodia do not hold true in Cambodia’s coastal area or that climate change is the lens through
which people explain livelihood challenges. Regardless, flooding and storm frequency in coastal areas
requires careful monitoring.
Fishers also comment on an overall rise in temperature, something that farmers have observed in
other parts of Cambodia [46]. This observation is confirmed by long-term scientific monitoring: the
mean annual temperature for Cambodia has increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1960 [51].
Intensifying hot seasons can have multiple impacts upon fisheries. As one interviewee noted, “the
weather patterns are changing. I no longer can follow the water patterns to find krill. It is sometimes
too hot, and the rainy season is shifting so that I can no longer use my traditional knowledge”. Shifting
temperatures impact fishing options, particularly for those fishing in shallow-water areas, whereby the
hot sun easily penetrates the waters’ surface, or for those practicing some form of small-scale fish
grow out, whereby prolonged heat waves can kill an entire fish crop.
Changes in species composition and quantity are complicated to understand, since fisheries tend to
fluctuate, there is no baseline data for coastal Cambodia and fishery management has been poor [52].
Fishers have talked about species loss for over a decade. For example, in interviews from fifteen years
earlier (1998) that took place in several of the study villages, fishers noted several species that had
become rare (i.e., Parastromateus niger or Istiophorus platypterus) and also commented on changes in
consumer tastes (i.e., people now eat frog fish, Antennarius spp.) [48]. In contrast, fishers in 2012
spoke extensively about species size, since it is now hard to find large grouper fish (Epinephelus
tauvina, Epinephelus awoara) on a consistent basis and crabs (Callinectes sp., Scylla sp.) are smaller
than in the past. Rather than targeting large groupers in deeper waters, fishers now target red fish
(Lutjanus spp.) and blue crabs (P. pelagicus) in deeper waters. In the mangrove-estuary areas,
Marschke and Berkes [53] already warned of a collapse in crab species, due to the number of
pre-reproductive species being caught in the early 2000s; a complete collapse does not appear to have
Sustainability 2014, 6
2497
happened, and over-fishing has been seen as an issue for over a decade. Overall, fishery decline is
attributed to the use of certain types of fishing gear (large trawls, circle nets) and the impacts of large-scale
sand extraction taking place in this area since 2008. At the same time, our interviewees admitted that
they respond to fishery declines by increasing their own fishing effort and decreasing the mesh size on
their traps or gill nets. Another coping strategy appears to be migration, both for individual household
members and for entire households [20].
Another crab fisher nicely sums up the challenges fishers face in this area:
Since starting to fish, in 1992, I have had to continuously increase the number of nets that
I use while decreasing my mesh size. There are some seasons that are better than other
seasons, but in general, we all have to work harder than we did in the past. Now that it is
hotter than before does not help. The future of a fisher is not good. Some fishers may be
forced to do something like moving out of the village to an area where they can pursue
agriculture and animal raising.
Environmental change is experienced in coastal villages in complex ways, and it is unclear how
much can be attributed to shifts in climate patterns, over-fishing and general fluctuations. At this point,
over-fishing may be the most critical issue, although climate projections certainly suggest that coastal
areas will face real impacts from climate variation (sea level rise, loss of certain species). Fishers
acknowledge that fishing has never been an easy livelihood and that general stock declines continue to
have a direct impact on their livelihood (fishers have to fish harder to make a living). Add in climate
variation, where a lot of uncertainty lies, since it is unclear how this will play out, and smaller scale
fishing livelihoods become even more complicated.
4.2. Local Institutions Responding to Environmental Change
In response to such challenges, local institutions in Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary, often with
donor backing, have been working to address environmental change issues since the 1990s (see Table 3).
This led to the replanting of over 850 ha of mangroves since 2000, with satellite imagery showing that
an additional 7000 ha of mangroves cut in the 1990s had experienced some form of natural re-growth
by 2007. Mangrove replanting and forest protection has resulted in a perceived increase of one crab
species in the area (the mangrove mud crab), ensured a buffer for wind, storms and, to a lesser extent,
floods in some villages and created a general appreciation for mangrove conservation [20]. As one
villager noted, “It is well known to others that we protect our mangroves. This is a common property
area that is protected. Sure, some people try to come to cut the mangroves, but this happens in very
few places”. Other activities, such as the creation of artificial reefs [54], have provided habitat for
aquatic species, while limiting trawls in shallow-water bay areas. From a communication perspective,
the creation of a fishery federation enabled village committees to work as a larger unit in terms of
protesting over-fishing and the impacts of sand mining activities at a provincial and a national level.
Finally, ecotourism work is seen as a successful blend of entrepreneurship and of mangrove protection,
particularly in one village, where they have built over 600 meters of pathways through the mangroves
and a 17-meter observation tower. In sum, this is a group of villages with local institutions that have a
significant, longer-term experience in thinking about environmental issues, linking this to their
Sustainability 2014, 6
2498
livelihood challenges and being realistic about what might be sustainable in terms of development
projects. See Table 3.
Table 3. Local institutions, key activities and leadership characteristics.
Village
A
Donor funds a
Yes
B
Yes
C
Yes
D
Yes
E
Yes
a
Key activities, 2000–2012
Brief explanation of leadership
within committee
Mangrove re-planting; waste management;
Strong leadership b; long-term
patrolling; fish sanctuary; skill development (hair
support from outside projects
dressing, engine and radio repair); lead committee
(since 1997); high-level
in fishery federation, women’s savings group.
provincial connections.
Committee elected in 2011; rules and regulations
Committee chief appears committed,
are new.
but not active yet.
Environmental education; integrated farming
Weak leadership (committee head
systems; skill development (hair dressing, engine
not respected by villagers); fishing
and radio repair); some mangrove replanting;
challenges are extra complicated
artificial reefs.
due to geography.
Patrolling; integrated farming system; skill
Active, well-organized leader;
development (hair dressing, engine and radio
support of provincial departments,
repair); eco-tourism, including fishing platforms
linked to proximity (a quick boat ride
for tourists.
from town).
Eco-tourism (since the mid-2000s); fish and sea
Active, respected politically-connected
grass sanctuary; integrated farming system; skill
leader; long-term support from
development (hair dressing, engine and radio
outside projects (since 1997);
repair); installment of drinking water system; some
the commune chief is also the
patrolling; some mangrove replanting.
committee chief.
Funds for environment or resource management-type work come from the following organizations: SCW,
Save Cambodia’s Wildlife; Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA); IDRC, International
Development Research Center (Canadian aid); UNDP, United Nations Development Program (UNDP UN
funds); MAP, Mangrove Action Project (Thai-based NGO); IUCN, International Union for Conservation of
Nature (global conservation organization); b In 2012 the leader resigned from the committee. The committee
has a new leader, but is struggling to carry out its work.
As Table 3 indicates, local institutions have been involved in a range of activities related to resource
management, environmental change and livelihoods, some which are more successful than others.
Success is linked to local leadership [55], donor support [20], the choice of activity and broader
political-economy issues (how external factors influence this area). For example, when local leaders
are active and politically connected, they have a greater chance of finding a series of activities that will
work and can handle setbacks if a particular activity fails. At the same time, protection projects (fish
and sea grass sanctuaries, mangrove replanting) and ecotourism projects (creating picnic platforms in
the mangroves, taking tourists to fish in and around a green mussel culture) are regarded as the most
successful kinds of environmental projects. Protection activities help buffer against species decline and
loss; ecotourism is a money-making enterprise, which enables villagers to benefit from their
resource-protection work, and can generate funds for local institutions to sustain their activities once
project money has dried up.
Sustainability 2014, 6
2499
This said, local institutions need far greater support in handling environmental change issues and
for supporting their livelihoods in general. Combatting sea level rise will likely take some form of
infrastructure development or support to build homes in different ways; responding to changing
weather patterns will require fishers, local institutions and scientists to take the time to meet together to
consider realistic options; finally, species decline and loss requires sustained patrols and adherence to
national and regional policies. While several local institutions have attempted to organize systematic
fishery patrols to monitor for illegal activities, they have had little support from local police or
provincial institutions, making it difficult to sustain. Policy exists for local institutions to take an active
role in patrolling, yet policy uptake remains weak at provincial and district levels [56]. Sand mining,
which is believed to greatly affect fish stocks, has also proven to be a contentious issue. Global
Witness [57] highlights the prevalence of sand dredging. By 2010, there were an estimated 27 dredging
sites in this area. Fishers suspect that sand mining is linked to the rapid disappearance of the swimming
crab species. The fishery federation protested at the provincial level and sent thumb-printed petitions to
several national institutions, all to no avail. The owner of the sand mining operation was allegedly
connected to those in the highest levels of government; no one could touch this issue, even though
local fishing livelihoods were being significantly impacted [20,57,58]. In 2012, sand mining operations
had begun to move away from this area, although other fishing villages are now likely facing
similar challenges.
Linking environmental change work with income generation projects generally remains challenging
for local institutions (with the exception of ecotourism, which requires closer examination) and the
NGOs working on such projects. While local committees and NGO teams have worked together to
introduce a series of training activities, many are not sustained past the life of a project. For example,
one women’s savings group fell apart when the group leader ran away with all the funds. Villagers are
now hesitant to create another savings group. Some youth had the chance to be trained in engine repair,
with the idea that they could then service boats in the villages. To our knowledge, these youth now use
these skills to repair their own boats, but none opened a village repair shop (villagers go to the
provincial town for this service). Good ideas do not necessarily translate into workable solutions,
particularly in more isolated coastal fishing villages. To be fair, it is not easy to find solutions to the
environmental and socio-economic challenges facing coastal villagers.
Local institutions acknowledge that bigger political economy issues are not something that they can
easily touch and have become disappointed when funders, government officials and organizations they
are working with cannot help to address such issues. As one committee member noted, “often,
outsiders come in and tell us what to do. We often listen, since they sometimes know more than us, but
it is hard when we ask for support on issues that we cannot solve, and they say that they cannot help
us”. In recent years, villagers have begun to voice that they often do far more work than government
institutions or NGOs and that it is not always worth their while to be involved in such efforts. The head
of another resource management institution noted, “When we list the things we most need help with,
they [donor representatives] say they understand, but that they also have to answer to higher people
and that only certain types of projects will get funded. Since we live in a protected area, it is always
environmental projects, but we have found these do not always help us to earn money, and we do need
to survive”. This quote speaks to a very real challenge: people need to make a livelihood from their
environment, and a mix of development and resource management projects are required to sustain people.
Sustainability 2014, 6
2500
The history of aid projects in this area is important to recognize, particularly with the emerging shift
towards climate change adaptation projects and with a potentially new set of donors coming into this
area to fund projects within an adaptation lens. Not all projects are successful or realistic at a local
level. Village institutions have significant local memory and can help shape realistic interventions and
can point out sustainability challenges that require uptake far beyond the village level.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Environmental change is perceived to be a real phenomenon by fishers in Peam Krasaop Wildlife
Sanctuary and consists of a combination of stock declines, shifting weather patterns and changes in
tide patterns, which affects fishing techniques and catch levels, among other things. Fishers do not
perceive climate variation and change to be the main reason for stock declines (they attribute this to
general over-fishing, particularly by larger trawls, but also themselves); although, they do feel that
climate variation and change is likely also having an impact upon their fishing practices. In a sense,
climate change has emerged as a convenient lens by which to discuss broader environmental
challenges facing fishers in Peam Krasoap Wildlife Sanctuary, particularly since over-fishing vis-à-vis
patrolling is something villagers have tried to address over the years with little outside support. While
it is important to understand the relationship between people’s perceptions and measurable phenomena
to ensure that appropriate responses are generated for environmental change, explaining a situation
through a climate change lens may also be a new way that local people and NGOs can generate
resources for people within an area. Thus, in-coming climate change adaptation projects may be able to
help with certain aspects of village life.
Worth noting, local perceptions relating to climate change are not so different from what scientists
generally suggest, keeping in mind the limited climate data that exists specifically for Cambodia.
Coastal villages do face considerable risks, which will likely increase according to climate change
models [4,59], and extreme weather events are on the rise [60]. Moreover, Perry [1] observes that
climate-related threats for mangrove estuaries include sea level rise and rising temperature, resulting in
habitat loss, altered productivity, changing growth rates and increased desiccation at low tide. This is
not an easy moment to be a small-scale fisher or to live in a tropical coastal area, whereby over-fishing
is felt and the impacts of climate change and variation are also starting to be felt. Fishing these days
demands increased effort, and people question how long this might be sustained. At the same time, not
everyone has the option to switch into non-fishing activities. An important aspect of adapting to
environmental change is thinking through short-term versus longer-term needs of fishers and of
the environment.
While local institutions may have ideas that can somewhat dampen the impacts of climate change
and over-fishing, our longitudinal approach highlights the reality of the kinds of commons dilemmas
that local institutions (resource-focused committees) can and cannot approach. Many projects are not
sustained over time. While local institutions are well placed to deal with certain types of environmental
change, particularly concrete actions, such as on-going monitoring, tree replanting or undertaking
livelihood trials to consider a host of options for fishing or fish raising in warmer waters, higher level
institutions also need to be involved in the day-to-day management of environmental change
challenges. Far greater investment is needed to enforce current fishery policies (to handle over-fishing),
Sustainability 2014, 6
2501
and to carefully think through the types of adaptation measures that could make a difference
(i.e., ensuring that NAPAs are written in a succinct manner, with concrete actions directed at fishing
villages). Ribot [11] (p. 1162) notes how adaptation is a term that “lends itself to shedding the burden
of response onto vulnerable parties; naturalizing what are socially generated conditions”. For such
cases, the burden of adaptation cannot only be upon poor, under-resourced local institutions (although,
there is no doubt that they may have some innovative coping strategies), rather a multi-level,
coordinated governance approach would be more appropriate. There is a need to consider commons
management from a multiscalar perspective if activities are to be effective and, in many cases, sustained.
Fishery declines, climate variability and change are challenges that will require significant attention
beyond the local level; there is a need to move decision-making beyond the scale of a single fishery
and to consider the climatic and non-climatic benefits of any adaption intervention [61].
Table 4 outlines key actions that could enhance environmental change projects in Cambodia. On the
one hand, there is a need for the long-term monitoring of environmental change in the coastal area,
combined with work on regional modeling to better anticipate changes that might occur. If a series of
coastal sites were selected for consistent monitoring, this would help with decision-making in the face
of growing uncertainties. Moreover, there is a need to develop models that consider climatic shifts,
stock declines and economic development [1], particularly for global South nations. Local committees
could be involved in this. There is enough science to have a sense of what is happening, both with
regards to over-fishing and climatic variation and change; this information coupled with local
observations of change could produce an authoritative, locally-relevant picture. Finally, given the
challenges facing coastal villages and the fishery sector more generally, engaging fishers, scientists
and planners together in a series of planning activities would likely produce powerful response
scenarios for the Cambodian context, which could then assist in adaptation plans and in planning for
and in implementing specific interventions.
Table 4. Action areas for addressing aspects of environmental change.
Issue
Lack of environmental
change data
Strengthen fishery
issues within national
plans
Over-fishing
Livelihood challenges
Communication with
local institutions
Action
Monitor coastal perceptions of environmental change on a consistent basis.
Combine this information with on-going scientific analysis to form the basis of
any adaptation strategy.
National planning documents need to move beyond vague discussions of fishery
issues. Key areas to consider include: anticipating what species may move into
cooler waters and how this will impact Cambodian fishers; the role of
aquaculture and what species make sense to fish or farm.
Over-fishing is a known issue throughout the region. Enforcing existing policies
is an important step, particularly in the short to medium term. More money needs
to be dedicated to policing by national or provincial officials.
Fishing livelihoods remain precarious. Environmental change planning has to be
linked to potential future livelihood strategies (fishing and non-fishing).
Communication between scientists, planners and local fishery institutions is
critical for developing response scenarios to climate change impacts and
environmental change more generally on marine social-ecological ecosystems.
Sustainability 2014, 6
2502
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
A special thanks to all those that took the time to meet with us.
Author Contributions
M. Marschke was the lead author on this paper, with O. Lykhim and N. Kim contributing
significantly to fieldwork coordination, participant interviews, data analysis, and writing.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References and Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Perry, I.; Ommer, R.; Barange, M.; Jentoft, S.; Neiss, B.; Sumaila, R. Marine social-ecological
responses to environmental change and the impacts of globalization. Fish Fish. 2011, 12, 427–450.
Pitcher, T.J.; Lam, M.E. Fishful thinking: Rhetoric, reality, and the sea before us. Ecol. Soc. 2010,
15, Article 12.
Badjeck, M.-C.; Allison, E.H.; Halls, A.S.; Dulvy, N.K. Impacts of climate variability and change
on fishery-based livelihoods. Mar. Policy 2010, 34, 375–383.
Cheung, W.; Lam, V.; Sarmiento, J.; Kearney, K.; Watson, R.; Pauly, D. Projecting global marine
biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish Fish. 2009, 10, 235–251.
Adger, N. Commentary—Four reasons for concern about adaptation to climate change.
Environ. Plann. A 2009, 41, 2800–2805.
Worm, B.; Branch, T. The Future of Fish. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27, 594–599.
Axelrod, M. Climate Change and Global Fisheries Management: Linking issues to protect
ecosystems or save political interests? Global Environ. Polit. 2011, 11, 64–85.
Allison, E.H.; Ratner, B.D.; Åsgård, B.; Willmann, R.; Pomeroy, R.; Kurien, J. Rights-based
fisheries governance: From fishing rights to human rights. Fish Fish. 2011, 13, 14–29.
Béné, C.; Hersoug, B.; Allisson, E.H. Not by rent alone: Analyzing the pro-poor functions of
small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Dev. Policy Rev. 2010, 28, 325–358.
Berrang-Ford, L.; Ford, J.D.; Peterson, J. Are We Adapting to Climate Change? Global Environ.
Change 2011, 21, 25–33.
Ribot, J. Vulnerability before Adaptation: Towards transformative climate action. Global Environ.
Change 2011, 21, 1160–1162.
Clements, T.; John, A.; Nielsen, K.; An, D.; Tan, S.; Milner-Gulland, E. Payments for
Biodiversity Conservation in the Context of Weak Institutions: Comparison of Three Programmes
from Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1283–1291.
Milne, S.; Adams, B. Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-level
Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia. Dev. Change 2012, 43, 133–158.
Scoones, I. Livelihoods Perspectives and Rural Development. J. Peasant Stud. 2009, 36, 171–196.
Sen, A. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation; Oxford University Press:
New York, NY, USA, 1981.
Sustainability 2014, 6
2503
16. Leach, M.; Mearns, R.; Scoones, I. Environmental Entitlements: A framework for understanding
the institutional dynamics of environmental change. Available online: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/
dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3716/leach-et-al-environment_entitlements_a_framework_for_
understanding_the_institutional_dynamics_of_environmental_change.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed
on 22 January 2012).
17. Blaikie, P.; Brookfield, H. Land Degradation and Society; Methuen & Co. Ltd.: London, UK, 1987.
18. Wisner, B.; Blaikie, P.; Cannon, T.; Davis, I. At Risk; Routledge: London, UK, 2004.
19. Smit, B.; Wandel, J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environ. Change
2006, 16, 282–292.
20. Marschke, M. Life, Fish and Mangroves: Resource Governance in Coastal Cambodia;
University of Ottawa Press: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2012.
21. Bowen, K.; Miller, F.; Dany, V.; McMichael, A.; Friel, S. Enabling environments? Insights into
the policy context for climate change and health adaptation decision-making in Cambodia.
Clim. Dev. 2013, 5, 277–287.
22. Kurien, J.; Nam, S.; Onn, M.; Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute. Cambodia’s
Aquarian Reforms: The emerging challenges for policy and research. Available online:
http://ideas.repec.org/b/wfi/wfbook/37163.html (accessed on 3 May 2013).
23. Participatory Management Coastal Resources. Learning for Change: Ten Years of Experience on
Community Based Coastal Resource Management and Livelihood Improvement in Koh Kong,
Cambodia; CBNRM Learning Institute: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2008.
24. CBNRM Learning Institute. Emerging Trends, Challenges and Innovations for CBNRM in
Cambodia. Available online: http://www.kh.boell.org/downloads/CBNRM_full_document.pdf
(accessed on 15 August 2013).
25. Kurien, J. On Developing Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries: Sharing
Processes, Resources, and Lessons Learnt from Cambodia; Project Report (Draft); Food and
Agricultural Organization: Rome, Italy, 2014.
26. Although commune councils may be involved in environmental work within our field site, the
main local institutions that we are referring to are locally-elected community fisheries or
community-based protected area management committees. Committee members, of which there
are seven, are selected from village-level candidates and elected for three-year terms. Committee
members may be linked to commune councils or may have a particular political agenda, but most
often are the village “movers and shakers” interested in making change happen. For further details
of committee composition and work, see [20].
27. Berkes, F. Devolution of Environment and Resources Governance: Trends and Future.
Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37, 489–500.
28. Ostrom, E. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems.
Science 2009, 325, 419–422.
29. McCay, B., Acheson, J., Eds. The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of
Communal Resources; University of Arizona Press: Tuscon, AZ, USA, 1987.
30. Schlager, E.; Ostrom, E. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis.
Nature 1992, 413, 591–596.
Sustainability 2014, 6
2504
31. Cox, M. Balancing Accuracy and Meaning in Common-Pool Resource Theory. Ecol. Soc. 2008,
13, Article 44.
32. Andersson, K.; Ostrom, E. Analyzing Decentralized Resource Regimes from a Polycentric
Perspective. Policy Sci. 2008, 41, 71–93.
33. Khumsri, M.; Ruddle, K.; Shivakoti, G. Rights and Conflicts in the Management of Fisheries in
the Lower Songkhram River Basin, Northeast Thailand. Enviorn. Manag. 2009, 43, 557–570.
34. Berge, E.; van Laerhoven, F. Governing the Commons for two decades: A complex story.
Int. J. Commons 2011, 5, 160–187.
35. Agrawal, A. Forests, Governance, and Sustainability: Common property theory and its
contributions. Int. J. Commons 2007, 1, 111–136.
36. Barsimantov, J.; Racelis, A.; Biedenweg, K.; DiGiano, M. When Collective Action and Tenure
Allocations Collide: Outcomes from Community Forests in Quintana Roo, Mexico and Peten,
Guatemala. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 343–352.
37. Rigg, J., Vandergeest, P., Eds. Revisiting Rural Places: Pathways to Poverty and Prosperity in
Southeast Asia; National University of Singapore Press: Singapore, 2012.
38. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The Strategic Planning Framework 2010–2019
for Fisheries—Fishing for the Future. Available online: http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&
rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imm.uk.
com%2FDS%2FOpen.aspx%3Fid%3D7ca41470-d384-4a79-9cd8-c4c1c92cc195&e=akJOU_
uML9W_sQT76oHoCg&usg=AFQjCNEpZwO8q81XENOsbWurM5A8NQ-0Kg (accessed on 09
September 2013).
39. Ministry of Environment of Cambodia. National Adaptation Program of Action To Climate
Change. Available online: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/khm01.pdf (accessed on 11
April 2011).
40. Ministry of Environment of Cambodia. National Adaptation Program of Action To Climate
Change Updated Plan; Ministry of Environment of Cambodia: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2012.
41. D’Agostino, A.; Sovacool, B. Sewing climate-resilient seeds: Implementing climate change
adaptation best practices in rural Cambodia. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2011, 16, 699–720.
42. Mahanty, S.; Dressler, W.; Milne, S.; Filer, C. Unravelling property relations around forest
carbon. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2013, 34, 188–205.
43. Evans, P. Fishing Disarmed. Available online: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/
10535/2836/art02.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 05 October 2013).
44. Evans, P.; Marschke, M.; Paudyal, K. Community Forest Management Trends in Southeast Asia.
Available online: http://www.asiaforestnetwork.org/rcs.htm (accessed on 24 January 2012).
45. Yusuf, A.A.; Francisco, H. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia. Available
online: http://web.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/12324196651Mapping_Report.pdf (accessed on 11
November 2013).
46. United Nations Development Programme. Building Resilience: The Future for Rural Livelihoods
in the Face of Climate Change. Available online: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/building-resilience
(accessed on 14 Novermber 2013).
47. Mastaller, M. Environmental Assessment of the Coastal Zone of Cambodia: Assessment of
Sustainable Livelihood Alternatives to Mangrove Exploitation; Danish International Development
Agency: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 1999.
Sustainability 2014, 6
2505
48. Marschke, M. Mangrove Meanderings: Learning about life in Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary.
Available online: https://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/30977/1/120827.pdf (accessed on
15 August 2012).
49. Eam, D. Changing Property Regimes and Community-based Fishery Management in Cambodia.
Master Thesis, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2008.
50. Marschke, M. Using Local Environmental Knowledge: A Case-study of Mangrove Resource
Management Practices in Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. Master Thesis, Dalhousie
University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 1999.
51. United Nations Development Programme. Climate Change Country Profiles. Available online:
http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk (accessed on 10 April 2012).
52. Arthur, R.; Friend, R. Inland capture fisheries in the Mekong and their place and potential within
food-led regional development. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21, 219–229.
53. Marschke, M.; Berkes, F. Local Level Sustainability Planning for Livelihoods: A Cambodian
Experience. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2005, 12, 21–33.
54. Construction of the artificial reefs began in 2005; in early 2006, 414 concrete artificial reefs and
1000 cement poles were placed throughout Chrouy Pros Bay [50]. The artificial reefs serve two
purposes: (1) as fish habitat; and (2) to prohibit trawl boats from using this area. For more details,
see [20].
55. Marschke, M.; Sinclair, J. Learning for Sustainability through Participatory Resource
Management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 206–216.
56. Ratner, B.D.; Halpern, G.; Kosal, M. Catalyzing Collective Action to Address Natural Resource
Conflict: Lessons form Cambodia’s Tonle Sap. Available online: http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/
capriwp103.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2012).
57. Global Witness. Shifting Sand: How Singapore’s Demand for Cambodian Sand Threatens
Ecosystems and Undermines Good Governance. Available online: http://www.globalwitness.org/
library/shifting-sand-how-singapore%E2%80%99s-demand-cambodian-sand-threatensecosystems-and-undermines-good (accessed on 14 November 2013).
58. Global Witness. Country For Sale: How Cambodia’s Elite Has Captured the Country’s Extractive
Industries. Available online: http://www.globalwitness.org/sites/default/files/library/final_english.pdf
(accessed on 14 November 2013).
59. Cheung, W.; Lam, V.; Sarmiento, J.; Kearney, K.; Watson, R.; Zeller, D.; Pauly, D.
Large-scale redistribution of maximum catch potential in the global ocean under climate change.
Glob. Change Biol. 2010, 16, 24–35.
60. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme
Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Available online: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/
SREX/report/ (accessed on 11 December 2013).
61. Dovers, S. Normalizing adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 2009, 19, 4–6.
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).