Stockholm Environment Institute, Project Report - 2010
Ecosystem Services Supporting
Livelihoods in Cambodia
Linn Persson, Nang Phirun, Chanrith Ngin,
John Pilgrim, Chanthy Sam and Stacey Noel
Ecosystem Services Supporting
Livelihoods in Cambodia
Linn Persson1, Nang Phirun2, Chanrith Ngin3, John Pilgrim3,
Chanthy Sam1 and Stacey Noel1
1 Stockholm Environment Institute
2 Cambodian Development Resource Institute
3 Royal University of Phnom Penh
Stockholm Environment Institute
Kräftriket 2B
SE 106 91 Stockholm
Sweden
Tel: +46 8 674 7070
Fax: +46 8 674 7020
Web: www.sei-international.org
Head of Communications: Robert Watt
Publications Manager: Erik Willis
Layout: Richard Clay
Cover Photo: Rice planting, Cambodia © GilesT1/flickr
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any
form for educational or non-profit purposes, without special permission from the copyright holder(s) provided acknowledgement
of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for
resale or other commercial purpose, without the written permission
of the copyright holder(s).
The study presented in this report has been funded in part by the
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida).
However, Sida was not involved in the design of the study and
does not necessarily support the views expressed in the report.
Copyright © December 2010 by Stockholm Environment Institute
Contents
Acknowledgements
iv
Introduction
1
From ecosystem functions to human well-being
2
Research methodology
3
Measuring the contribution of local ecosystem services to livelihoods
Household interviews and Focus Group Discussions
LIvelihood situation in the villages in the study
Kampong Tnaot village, Kampot province
Kanhchor village, Kratie province
Kralanh, Andoung Trach and Kampong Preah villages, Battambang Province
Por and Tram Khla villages, Kampong Thom province
Ecosystem services and livelihoods
High direct dependence on local ecosystem services across income groups
Links between poverty level and source of income
Fishing – threats to stocks and limitations to access
High dependence on diminishing forest resources
Loss of wild foods such as snails, frogs, eels and crabs
Changes in ecosystem services availability over time
3
4
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
11
12
12
Discussion and conclusions
14
References
17
Annex: The bean count tool
19
Acknowledgements
This report is the result of a joint research project
between Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the
Cambodian Development Resource Institute (CDRI)
and the Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) with
funding from the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (Sida).
The report is based on field studies with household
interviews and Focus Group Discussions carried out
by CDRI and RUPP during 2009 in villages in the
Cambodian provinces Kampot, Kratie, Battambang
and Kampong Thom.
The authors are grateful for the constructive comments
on the draft report by Dr Göran Nilsson Axberg, SEI
and Ms Muanpong Juntopas, SEI.
Bangkok and Phnom Penh, December 2010
iv
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
Introduction
T
he global community committed itself to fighting
poverty and hunger at the Millennium Summit
in 2000 when the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) were agreed upon. These are 8 goals with
specific targets aiming for instance at halving world
poverty by the year 2015. The last update on progress
made towards the MDGs is a grim reading. Much of
the advances that had been made up to 2005 were lost
in the economic downturn during 2008-2009. Low or
negative economic growth, fewer trade opportunities,
reduced flows of development cooperation funds,
higher food prices, as well as impacts of climate
change have contributed to an extra 55-90 million
more people living in extreme poverty compared to
before the crises (UN 2009). Towards the end of 2010,
global hunger was again reported to be declining,
although still not at a rate that would make us meet
the hunger reduction targets (FAO 2010). Adding to the
challenge, the resource base upon which we rely for
food and livelihood is being seriously degraded and the
vital supply of ecosystem services is being threatened
(MA 2005).
In Cambodia, 35 per cent of the population currently
live under the national poverty line, with the poorest
parts of the population being found in the rural areas.
The improvements reached in living conditions over
the recent years have mostly benefited the urban areas
(RGC 2005).
In 2003, the Royal Government of Cambodia produced
its first localized MDG report. The Cambodia MDG
2003 report (RGC 2003) set out targets for 2005, 2010
and 2015. The Government translated the MDGs into
national goals – the Cambodia MDGs (CMDGs) and
also added a ninth goal on “de-mining, unexploded
ordinance and victim assistance”.
The realization of the CMDGs as well as the
global MDGs will require renewed efforts from all
stakeholders. But it will also in a fundamental way
depend on how we manage the natural resource base
of the planet. The natural resource base supplies the
ecosystem services that enable food production and
contribute to human well-being. The purpose of this
case study is to contribute to improved understanding
on the link between ecosystem services and the
reduction of hunger and poverty as set out in the
CMDGs. The study is primarily based on field research
carried out during 2009 at the village and household
level in Cambodia. The study focuses on household
level dependence on local ecosystem services and how
these connect with livelihoods and poverty patterns.
The questions addressed in the study include:
●● Are there any communities or wealth groups that
are especially dependent on certain ecosystem
services for their livelihood?
●● What are the characteristics of this dependency?
Can certain risks/vulnerabilities due to threats to
these ecosystem services be identified?
●● Can improved availability of certain ecosystem
services constitute a road out of poverty for the
poorest households? How could that in this case
be facilitated?
1
ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in cambodia
From ecosystem functions to human well-being
H
umans rely on the natural resource base for mere
survival as well as for higher degrees of wellbeing. One way of illustrating this dependence is with
the concept of ecosystem services. When the results
of the large efforts in the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessments (MA) were made available in 2005,
this showed for the first time in a comprehensive
way that human dependence on the services provided
by ecosystems has never been under a more severe
threat. The MA concluded that the last 50 years have
meant an unprecedented change of ecosystems due
to pressure of the human demands. It also stated that
“this has resulted in a substantial and irreversible loss
in the diversity of life on Earth”. Approximately 60 per
cent of the ecosystem services examined in the MA are
being degraded or used unsustainably. Looking ahead,
this degradation constitutes a barrier to achieving
the MDGs (MA 2005). The changing climate adds
to the challenge and the regions of the world which
today stand furthest away from reaching the MDGs
are also the regions at greatest risks in terms of loss
of ecosystem services and impacts of climate change.
If the vulnerability of ecosystems to the impacts
of climate change is not reduced, the likelihood of
attaining the MDGs will be smaller (Galaz 2008).
While some of the interactions between ecosystems,
their services and human well-being are well known,
other aspects are poorly known and difficult to monitor,
limiting the options for policymakers to act. In a study
led by the World Resources Institute, the connections
between ecosystems and human wellbeing in Kenya
were illustrated in an atlas (WRI 2007). This thorough
study of the spatial distribution of poverty and of supply
of ecosystem services shows that there are no simple
links between the two. There are few overlaps between
the indicators studied of ecosystem services and those
for poverty and livelihoods. The authors interpret this
limited overlap as a sign of the complex relation and
influence of other factors not captured in the study.
But they also refer to the many inherent limitations
in the monitoring techniques and the knowledge gaps
concerning both ecosystem services and poverty and
livelihoods.
2
Between the different ecosystem services of importance
for local livelihoods there are both synergies and
trade-offs (Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2007; Bennett
2009; Raudsepp-Hearne 2010). Some of these are
well-known; other linkages are still to be explored.
The human dependence on ecosystem services is
thus generally acknowledged but the nature of that
dependence is not fully understood in its complexity.
Furthermore, the policy options available to protect and
sustain these services are not always easily identified.
There is thus a need for support to policy makers on
how to ensure sustained ecosystem functions for
livelihoods under increasing human pressure.
Box 1: Environmental protection in the
Constitution of Cambodia
Protection and conservation of ecosystems is prioritised by the Royal Government of Cambodia
as stated in the constitution: “The state shall protect the environment and balance of abundant
natural resources and establish a precise plan of
management of land, water, air, wind geology,
ecologic systems, mines, energy, petrol and gas,
gems, forests and forest products, wild life, fish
and aquatic resources” (article 59 of the Constitution) (CDRI 2010).
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
Research methodology
T
his study is based on household interviews
and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) in
seven villages in Cambodia. The household and
FGD questionnaires were designed to capture
the household dependence on local ecosystem
services and to link the dependence on these
services to the livelihood options and poverty
level of the household. The interviews and FGDs
were carried out by the staff and students of the
Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) and the
Cambodia Development Research Institute (CDRI),
and students in forestry from the Royal University
of Agriculture. This section describes the approach
taken to ecosystem services. It also outlines the other
parts of the methodology for the study and lists the
interviews and Focus Group Discussions carried out.
Further details of the methodology used for the data
collection can be found in separate field data reports
from the project (CDRI 2010; RUPP 2010).
map of these services was created to help guide the
interviews and the FGDs. The interviewees and Focus
Groups were asked to describe their use of and estimate
the relative importance of each of the ecosystem
services to their livelihoods.
The categories of ecosystem services used in the
fieldwork for this study are listed below (the categories
are based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment):
Provisioning and cultural services (resources that
are consumed or sold)
●● Food
Measuring the contribution of local
ecosystem services to livelihoods
The definitions and categories of ecosystem services
defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MA 2005) are used for the study, the focus being on
the provisioning and cultural ecosystem services. A
‚‚Wild foods - edible plant and animal species
gathered or captured in the wild; harvested
wild foods from fisheries and forests for food
and income, examples include insects, birds,
monkeys, mushrooms, bamboo shoots, etc.;
also those wild foods collected for animal/
livestock fodder
‚‚Crops – cultivated plants or agricultural
products harvested by people for human or
animal consumption; examples are rice, maize,
vegetables, fruits, root crops like cassava and
sweet potatoes, legumes, etc.
Table 1: Villages included in the study
Village
District or
commune
Province
Main livelihood
activity
Number of
households in
the village
Number of
households
interviewed
Kanhchor *
Chhloung
Kratie
Forestry
363a
40
Kampong Tnaot*
Kampot
Kampot
Coastal fishing and
salt-farming
267a
40
Kralanh**
Kampong
Preah
Battambang
Lowland agriculture
68
28
Andoung Trach**
Kampong
Preah
Battambang
Lowland agriculture
232
38
Kampong
Preah**
Kampong
Preah
Battambang
Lowland agriculture
340
38
Tram Khla**
Tbaeng
Kampong
Thom
Inland fishery and
floating rice farming
186
26
Por**
Tbaeng
Kampong
Thom
Inland fishery and
floating rice farming
201
22
* CDRI
** RUPP
a The total number of households was taken from FitzGerald (2007).
3
ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in cambodia
‚‚Livestock – animals raised for domestic or
commercial use; included are those raised within
the house premises and pastured; examples are
pig, cattle, water buffalo, horse, chicken, duck,
goat, etc.
‚‚Capture fisheries – wild fish captured through
trawling or other non-farming methods
‚‚Aquaculture – fish, shellfish, and/or plants
that are bred and reared in ponds, enclosures,
and other forms of freshwater or saltwater
confinement for purposes of harvesting,
crocodiles
●● Fibre and timber
energy; examples are fuel wood and materials
used for charcoal production
●● Natural medicines – plants collected for
treatment of disease; examples are ginseng,
garlic, tree extracts for pest control
●● Freshwater – groundwater, rainwater and
surface water for household, industrial and
agricultural uses; including the sources,
purposes and quantities; water consumed
domestically for drinking, cooking, laundry and
bathing; water used in the fields (farming e.g.
irrigation), home gardening, livestock raising,
aquaculture, crop processing, fish and aqua
product processing, etc.
‚‚Timber and other wood products derived from
tree, cultivated or wild; those used as housing/
construction materials, fish gear making, also
timber/logs collected for business
●● Fertilizer for fields – examples are compost or
manure, commercial fertilizer
‚‚Other fibres – non-wood and non-fuel fibres;
examples are cotton, hemp, silk, resin, rattan,
bamboo and kapok (not included are materials
used as fuel/energy – these are reported under
“biomass fuel”)
●● Tourism (cultural ecosystem service) –
recreational pleasure people derive from natural
or cultivated ecosystems (in this context we are
interested in tourism as an income generating
service, the question in the interview is thus if
the interviewee is benefiting from income from
tourists activities e.g. bird-watching or hiking in
the area.)
●● Biomass fuel – biological material from both
animals and plants that serves as a source of
●● Salt farming (NaCl) – in coastal areas
Table 2: Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews
Village
Commune/district
Province
Date
Number of
participants
Partipants
Tram Khla
Tbaeng
Kampong Thom
April
2009
6
Villagers
Tram Khla
Tbaeng
Kampong Thom
April
2009
n.a.
Commune chief
Tram Khla
Tbaeng
Kampong Thom
April
2009
n.a.
Village chief
Kralanh
Kampong Preah
Battambang
Nov
2008
15
Villagers
Kampong
Tnaot
Kampot
Kampot
March
2009
12
Villagers, community
leaders, local authorities
Kanhchor
Chhloung
Kratie
March
2009
24
Villagers, community
leaders, local authorities
4
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
Figure 1: Villages and districts included in the study
Studies looking at the use of the natural resource bas
often use the term Common Pool Resources (CPR) for
the resources shared by a community. This study looks
primarily at the local ecosystem services supporting
livelihoods, which is partly but not entirely the same
resources as the CPR1. The local ecosystem services
include crop production as well as the supporting
and regulating ecosystem services that are necessary
both for maintained agricultural production and for
continued CPR supply.
1
The CPR are often part of the local ecosystem
services. However, the local ecosystem services
supporting a village are greater than the CPR and
include farming, fishing and collection of forest
products on private land as well as regulating and
supporting services such as the provision of soil
fertility and flood regulation.
Household interviews and Focus
Group Discussions
A selection of villages was made to capture different
types of livelihood activities as outlined in Table 1.
Some of the villages were also earlier included in the
Moving Out of Poverty Studies of CDRI (FitzGerald
2007) which gives an extensive set of general data to
lean on in the analysis of the results. The interviews
and FGDs were carried out between November 2008
and April 2009.
In Andoung Trach, Kampong Preah, Kralanh and Tram
Khla a “bean count tool” was used in the FGDs and
interviews for quantification of the resources derived
from the surrounding environment. The bean count
tool is further described in the Annex.
5
ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in cambodia
LIvelihood situation in the villages in the study
T
he socioeconomic reality differs substantially
between the villages included in the study. Some
of the villages were as mentioned earlier part of the
long term Moving Out of Poverty Study (MOPS)
carried out by CDRI in 2001 and 2004/5 (FitzGerald
2007). For these villages there are more data on the
development over time in village and household
income and consumption as well as mobility
patterns concerning households moving in and out
of poverty. In this section the villages are presented
with a description of the poverty situation as well
as a general overview of the livelihoods currently
sustaining each village.
Kampong Tnaot village, Kampot
province
Kanhchor village, Kratie province
Kanhchor village in the Kratie province has a
population of 1107 people and relies mainly on
forest based logging and CPR, with relatively small
agricultural production compared to other villages
in the commune. However, households grow both
wet and dry season rice with relatively good yields
(around 2.5 tons per hectare per crop season).
25 per cent of the population are estimated to be
landless. Many people generate high incomes from
forest timber and fibre. Villagers also fish and raise
livestock. Wild fish stocks have been reported to be
substantially declining over the last ten years due
to illegal fishing (FitzGerald 2007). Rice and crop
cultivation also contributes to the village income
(CDRI 2010).
Kampong Tnaot on the coast in the Kampot
province has a total population of 2150 people
(FitzGerald 2007). The coast location makes fishing
and collection of marine animals and products the
main income for most of the population. Illegal
fishing activities are reported to have increased.
This together with increasing fishing pressure from
growing coastal communities is reported to have
resulted in declining fish stocks and many people
turning to other livelihood activities. Salt farming
is an important source of income, particularly for
women. Wet season rice is grown between July and
January but in general with low yields (0.9 ton per
hectare). 40 per cent of the villagers also grow cash
crops (FitzGerald 2007).
FitzGerald and So (2007) reported that Kanhchor
village had experienced a moderate increase in
consumption and strong income growth between
2001 and 2004/5. However, in 2005 the future
prospects for the village were deemed to be less
bright. The village is not very accessible and has
little arable land. Most households were reported to
be prevented from using forest resources by illegal
interests (FitzGerald 2007). However, today the
situation seems to be somewhat more positive, partly
due to improvement of the agricultural techniques
and new possibilities of wage labour (Mr So
Sovannarith, personal communication, November
2010).
Earlier research showed that Kampong Tnaot and
two other fishing villages were the only villages
in the MOPS which had experienced falling
consumption and increased poverty in the 2004/5
survey compared to 2001. The outlook for the village
given in 2005 was that appropriately managed,
raising livestock could become a supplementary
source of income. The village location between
the towns Kampot and Kep could also benefit the
village if the tourism potential of the area is used
and well managed (including the Ream National
Park) (FitzGerald 2007). Currently, it seems that the
poverty rate is in fact decreasing, but there are no
detailed data available (Mr So Sovannarith, personal
communication, November 2010).
Kralanh, Andoung Trach and
Kampong Preah villages, Battambang
Province
6
The villages Kralanh, Andoung Trach and
Kampong Preah are situated in the Kampong Preah
commune. In this commune wild capture fishery
and rice production (seasonally flooded floating
rice and receding rice2) are the two main sources
of income and food for all sections of society.
80-90 per cent of the protein intake was seen to come
2
When the Tonle sap is flooded, some rice varieties are planted in the deep flooded areas, this rice
is called floating rice. When the water is receding,
rice is planted in the shallow water left behind,
this rice is called receding rice.
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
from wild capture fish, either from own capture
or from purchase from others. 5-10 per cent of the
population generates income through collection
of resin, rattan, reed or palm thatch. The farming
systems are still traditional to some extent, but with
growing influence of other practices, such as the
use of small tractors and pesticides and commercial
fertilizers. People increasingly rely on migration of
household members to industries and services trade
in Phnom Penh or to Thailand for agricultural wage
labour. The reduced availability of common pool
resources such as fisheries and forests were given
as the main cause of people having to migrate for
income. This study again confirmed that the poorest
households were the most dependent on the common
pool resources such as snails, crabs, eels, frogs, toads
and other resources from the rice paddies and canals,
deriving 60-70 percent of the food supply from such
sources (RUPP 2010).
Andoung Trach was included in the MOPS and
was by 2004/5 in the group of strongly performing
villages. However, the trend in wellbeing was in
2005 judged to be a slowdown (FitzGerald 2007).
Por and Tram Khla villages,
Kampong Thom province
Most of the inhabitants of Por and Tram Khla villages
are growing rice for their livelihood. There are floodfed rice fields and also dry season rice cultivation
in tractor ploughed, rented land. The village head
of Tram Khla estimated that about 50 per cent of
the households harvest enough rice for their own
consumption; the rest start to buy in June most years.
Some also cultivate water melon. 15 of the village
household include full time fishermen and live by
the lake about 25 km from the village. Most of the
surrounding forest has been cleared to grow rice,
reducing the supply of timber and non-timber forest
products (RUPP 2010). Both villages have been
experiencing population increase, diminishing land
sizes and rapidly improved transportation and ease
of access. This has led to a substantial proportion
of the households having members who migrate for
work, mainly to Phnom Penh to the garment and
construction industries and to service trades.
7
ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in cambodia
Ecosystem services and livelihoods
I
n this section the local ecosystem services of
importance for livelihoods in the studied villages are
discussed. More detailed data is available in the field
reports of CDRI and RUPP (CDRI 2010; RUPP 2010).
High direct dependence on local
ecosystem services across income
groups
The collected data suggest that the overall direct
dependence on local ecosystem services for livelihoods
is very high across income groups. In the villages
Kanhchor, Kampong Tnaot, Kralanh, Andoung Trach,
Por and Kampong Preah 85-90 per cent of the primary
source of income of the households is based on local
ecosystem services and dependent on the continued
supply of these services (crops, capture fisheries,
wild food, forest timber and biomass). For Tram Khla
the figure is not completely comparable because the
category “wage labour” used in the data collection
there includes both local agricultural wage labour
(here counted as income from local ecosystems) and
other types of wage labour. Figure 2 shows the primary
source of income for the households interviewed in
Kampong Tnaot and Kanhchor. Figure 3 reports the
secondary source of income for the same households.
The distinct livelihood pattern in the two villages with
fishing and farming, respectively, as the main income
source is clearly showing.
The income sources not directly depending on the local
ecosystem services include small trade and migration
of household members to cities or abroad for work in
factories or construction sites. These income sources
can be of vital importance for individual households,
but the overall livelihood situation in the villages
depend on a continued supply of local ecosystem
services such as crops and fisheries (figure 4).
The high overall dependence on the local ecosystem
services shows the vulnerability of the population to
disturbances in the ecosystem functions. It highlights the
importance of safeguarding against further reductions
in the supply of these services, either directly through
for instance land-use changes, or indirectly through
a reduction of supporting ecosystem services such as
pollination and pest and flood regulation.
Figure 2: Households’ primary sources of income (as per cent of households) (CDRI 2010)
Figure 3: Households’ secondary sources of income (as per cent of households) (CDRI 2010)
8
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
Figure 4: 85-90 per cent of the primary source of income is directly derived from local
ecosystem services in the villages in the study.
Links between poverty level and
source of income
Earlier studies (WB 2006; FitzGerald 2007) concluded
that the poorest tend to be the most reliant on the CPR,
and that the CPR dependent villages are the worst off
in terms of wealth (FitzGerald 2007). In this study the
high dependence of the poorest on the CPR was partly
confirmed. However, in some villages, there seem to
be high dependence on common pool resources across
income groups, like in Tram Khla where 20  per cent
of the income source for all households across
income levels is identified as derived from common
pool resources (RUPP 2010). In general, the CPR
dependence is often caused by the lack of other income
opportunities, such as lack of own farm land or lack of
education allowing other income options. In Kampong
Tnaot and Kanhchor villagers were asked both in 2004
and in 2008 to estimate the importance of common
pool resources for their livelihood. The results showed
that both poor and better off households had increased
their dependence on such resources in this time interval
(CDRI 2010).
In one FGD it was also put forward that the poorest
are at the same time not only the most reliant, but also
the ones with the least influence over the management
of the common pool resources, leaving them in a
highly vulnerable situation. For instance participants
mentioned that the Farmer Water User Communities
were created to improve the influence of the
communities on their resource management. However,
this may have been the case for some villagers, but not
for all since this type of community organisation is not
always accessible for the poorest people (RUPP 2010).
For the total dependence on local ecosystem services
the connection between the level of dependence on
the services and the level of income is less clear. For
instance in Kampong Tnaot and Kanhchor, villagers
in all income groupings were dependent on local
ecosystem services such as biomass, crops and capture
fisheries. Of the better off households, none reported
to be collecting wild foods in the two villages (CDRI
2010). However, in general all income groups depended
on the local ecosystem services for their livelihoods
with only minor differences between the poor and the
medium income group of households (figure 5).
Earlier studies found that one factor that well-off
households and villages have in common is the
opportunity to diversify income sources. Being able
to do this signifies an insurance against shock and
changes also in supply of ecosystem services. In Tram
Khla, better off households also seem to have a greater
level of income from their own produce (agriculture
on their own land or fishing with their own equipment)
(RUPP 2010). The findings from Kampong Tnaot and
Kanhchor indicate that the high income households
earn more mainly due to having more plots of land and
that they grow high value cash crops (CDRI 2010).
Thus, the study confirmed that there was a continued
connection between poverty and higher relative
dependence on the CPR. However, the dependence
on local ecosystem services was high across income
groups. It also seems that the resources available in the
common pool are not sufficient to constitute a road out
of poverty.
Fishing – threats to stocks and
limitations to access
For the households in this study, as well as for
Cambodia in general, fish are an important component
of the diet. Wild fish capture in the Tonle Sap provides
up to 70 per cent of the protein in the country’s diet
(Bonheur and Lane 2002). The capture fisheries
consist of commercial fisheries using large motorised
boats and nets in the open lake, and fish traps in the
flooded forest and lake shore. It also includes family
9
ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in cambodia
Figure 5: Use of local ecosystem services as per cent of the households of different income
groups (CDRI, 2010)
fishing for food and for sale. Furthermore, the coast
line offers opportunities for marine fishing. Figure 6
shows examples of the types of products captured in
the fisheries in one inland village (Kanhchor) and one
on the coast (Kampong Tnaot). Fishing in the rice
fields is important in the Tonle Sap area (Hortle 2008).
In Kampong Tnaot village, 60 per cent of the households
identified marine fishing as their main income. They
also noted that the marine resources had declined due to
illegal fishing methods (CDRI 2010). In the Kampong
Phreah and Tbaeng communes, 60-70  per cent of the
households reported fishing activities in 2008. Out of
these, a significant share was fishing in the flooded
forest and only a smaller portion (12 per cent) reported
fishing in the river/canal. In Tbaeng 60 per cent also
were fishing in ponds and in both areas 50 per cent
of the fishing households also used the rice fields for
catches. Furthermore, the majority of the households
reported diminished catches when comparing 2008 to
the year before, and also referred to fewer large size
fish being caught. Also the fish captures in the river/
Figure 6: Percentage distribution of households collecting capture fisheries products, by type.
Kampong Tnaot is a coastal village and Kanhchor is an inland village (Data from CDRI,
2010).
10
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
canal have been reduced according to the fishing
households. The main reason given in Kampong Pres
was increased pressure from more people fishing, in
Tbaeng this reason was combined with illegal fishing
as a cause of decline in the resource (RUPP 2010).
Participants at one of the FGD in Tram Khla village
stated that they believe that fish will be more abundant
in the future since their village and many surrounding
villages now have a community fishery that will help
to make sure that regulations such as prohibited use of
electric fishing gear are enforced (RUPP 2010).
Thus, fishing constituted an important contribution to
livelihoods in most villages in the study, and for some,
the most important. This was true across wealth groups.
In interviews and FGDs, there were many references
being made to captures going down from year to year.
Fish stocks are not easily monitored and the status of
fish stocks in Cambodia is not known in detail (Hortle
2004; IPS 2008). Reduced catches can be caused by
diminishing stocks, but also by more people fishing the
same stocks. However, from a livelihood perspective,
the important aspect is the catch per fisherman and the
time and resources he has to spend to catch each kilo
of fish. The clear message from the studied villages is
that the important fish catches were going down, and
that some people even chose to leave fishing to search
for other livelihood options because of the decline in
the resource.
For some villages, access to fishing waters may be
another important restriction. Illicit rents imposed
by government officials and police on the fishing
community have been reported (RUPP 2010). This
has taken the form of illegal fees being collected by
soldiers under the threat of confiscating the fishing
gear of the fishermen if they don’t pay, or illegal fees
to access fishing waters (Pilgrim 2009b).
High dependence on diminishing
forest resources
Forest resources were used by households in all the
villages in the study. In the forest village Kanhchor,
5 per cent of the villagers get their primary income from
collecting forest products and 25 per cent identified
these resources as their second most important source
of income. The products collected are mainly timber,
bamboo and rattan, but also edible plants and leaves
for household consumption and to a certain extent for
sale (figure 7). In the villages of Kampong Tnaot, less
households reported using forest resources, but also
here some forest products were collected, notably as
fuel wood or as timber to be used in construction.
Box 2: Said at the Focus group discussion in
Tram Khla
“In the past, there were plenty of fish in this village. Now we can catch only a kilo of fish per
day”.
In interviews and FGDs, forest resources were
reported to be seriously reduced. This is in line with
national statistics. In 2003, Cambodia set the target
(2005-2015) of not reducing the forest cover below
60 per cent of the total land area (CMDG 2003);
however, already in 2006, the forest cover was reported
to have reached 59 per cent (TWGFE 2007). Some of
this deforestation has taken place in the northwest. Up
to 2000, this area was a major forest but since then it
has been deforested for the development of cash crop
plantations under Thai and Cambodian companies.
The smaller forested upland southwest of Battambang
is undergoing a similar development. When forest
clearance is ongoing, the clearance and sale of timber
and firewood may constitute an important income
source for many landless people.
In the remaining forests there is sometimes
uncontrolled firewood collection even in protected
areas. Sometimes illicit rents and fines to forestry
staff are paid to gain access for resource collection in
these areas. A focus group discussion in Ta Ngen in
Takhream Commune, Battambang Province reported
that forestry officers ask for payment when wood is
collected in the forest, but also from villagers that
collect wood from their own rice fields or land (RUPP
2010).
The community forestry organisations have been
reported to serve their purpose well for forests where
there is no hard wood or substantial bamboo left. In
these settings the villagers can manage the remaining
forest resources such as fuel wood, mushrooms and
other wild food through their organisation, but when
there is hard wood or substantial bamboo available it
seems more difficult for community organisations to
prevent outside commercial exploitation, and thus to
manage and control the resources (RUPP 2010).
It was also reported by the interviewees that their
access to forest resources has been greatly reduced
since forest concession awards were issued by the
government. The villagers are no longer entitled
to collect forest products in the forest areas owned
or leased by the forest land concession companies
(CDRI 2010).
11
ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in cambodia
Figure 7: Percentage distribution of households collecting forest timber and fibre (CDRI, 2010)
Thus, again there is a local ecosystem service, forest
resources collected for different purposes, that has
high general importance to the livelihood situation
in the studied villages, and that is experiencing a
decline in availability. The deforestation rate is
higher than the target set as part of the CMDGs.
Again, there is also an issue of access rights to the
remaining forested areas where villagers now have
to pay, legal or illegal fees to collect resources that
were earlier part of the CPR and free of charge.
Loss of wild foods such as snails,
frogs, eels and crabs
Many households in the studied villages collected
wild foods for sale or household consumption
such as snails, frogs, eels, crabs and fish in rice
paddies, canals and forest. In some villages the
collection constituted a substantial contribution to
the livelihood situation. 30 of the 40 interviewed
households in Kampong Tnaot village responded
that they collect hard shelled species (crabs, snails,
lobsters etc). The income generated by the sale of
these products was reported to be substantial. In
Kanhchor people primarily gathered edible plants
and roots food from the rice field and chamkar3 or
other non-forest areas which did not significantly
contribute to household incomes.
In both Kanhchor and Kampong Tnaot it was
common to collect edible plants and leaves as
well as wild fruits, birds and amphibians for own
consumption or sale in the local market.
3 Chamkar is the Khmer word for land where other
crops then rice are cultivated.
12
Box 3: Said at the Focus group discussion in
Tram Kla
“In the past we just cut and collected [firewood]
by ourselves. But now the field owners clear forests for farm land so we have to buy the already
cut down trees”
The FGDs in Tonle Sap reported a diminished
supply of these catches, which used to be major
sources of protein supply for the households. The
FGD participants identified the use of pesticides
as a reason for the decline. In Kralanh village,
Battambang province, the FGD with the poorest
villagers reported that it has become difficult to
sell the rice field crabs because people say they are
polluted (RUPP 2010). This study has not collected
data to verify pesticide pollution, but from the
general situation of pesticide use in Cambodia (box
5) and from literature (for a review, see SEI 2010) it
can be noted that it is not unlikely that the reduced
supply of this ecosystem service depends on pesticide
use for certain species. It is also possible that the
food collected in fields where pesticides are used is
contaminated above concentrations considered to be
safe for human consumption (SEI 2010).
Changes in ecosystem services
availability over time
Several ecosystem services that contribute to the
household income in the provinces of Kratie,
Kampot, Battambang and Kampong Thom (such as
fish, wild foods, timber, forest fibre and biomass fuel)
have gradually decreased over the period 1999-2008.
The villagers interviewed explained this decline by
the increase in population, the cutting of forests for
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
Figure 8: Percentage distribution of households gathering wild foods, by type of wild foods
(CDRI 2010)
Box 4: Village Chief in Tram Khla
“There were plenty of wild animals here after the
war. I also went into the forest to catch them. We
caught tortoises, snakes, pythons etc. But now
they are very scarce”.
plantations and agriculture, the banning of access to
forestry resources and the lack of monitoring and
enforcement of regulations. Villagers also referred to
the river becoming shallower and with more growth
of algae at the surface, which they believe may
be consequences of dam construction in the upper
Mekong. They also reported that the dry season has
become longer than the rainy season and that it has
been hotter over the last years. The rainfall is also
reported to be more uneven than before and the
insect pests on the crops to have increased (CDRI
2010).
In Kampong Tnaot where 60 per cent of the
households gave marine fishing as their main
income, it was also noted that the marine resources
have declined due to the use of illegal fishing
methods. As a result of lower catches some people
choose to go further from shore, thus taking higher
risks. Other have chosen to change from fishing to
other income sources (CDRI 2010). Interviewees in
Kampong Tnaot and Kanhchor reported decreased
livestock production due to diseases (CDRI 2010).
The combined effects of these changes have severe
impacts on the livelihood options available at the
village level across income groups.
Box 5: Pesticide use in Cambodia
Pesticide imports to Cambodia have increased every year since 1980 (EFJ 2002). A survey in 2000 found
241 different pesticides for sale in the local markets, compared to 30 and 63 different products in 1994
and 1998, respectively. The 2000 survey also noted that 33 per cent of the products found in the survey
belong to WHO category 1, the most hazardous pesticides, and as such they are forbidden in Cambodia.
Apart from using pesticides in the fields, farmers are also reported to use pesticides for fishing and in the
fish processing (Saing Koma 2000). The traders of pesticides do normally not have any training on pesticide
risk reduction and can therefore not help with instructions to the farmers. Most of the pesticide products are
imported from Thailand and Vietnam, and therefore the labels are in Vietnamese or Thai, which means that
not even literate farmers can access that information.
In a survey carried out in 2008-2009, all 300 interviewed farmers in 10 villages in Battambang and
Prey Veng reported that they use pesticides; many of them also noted worries about the effects on the surrounding wildlife and their own health. Still, many farmers apply pesticides on a calendar basis without first
checking for signs of insect infestations or the presence of natural enemies of the pest organisms. They also
lack the appropriate knowledge about pesticide handling in order to avoid direct health risks to themselves
and their families (Sokha 2009).
13
ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in cambodia
Discussion and conclusions
T
he field data from this study showed a high
overall dependence across income groups on local
ecosystem services for food and livelihoods at the
household level. 85-90 per cent of the primary income
of the households was identified as directly obtained
through local ecosystem services.
Among these services, rice production was the
dominant livelihood source in most villages. Fishing
was also found to constitute an important contribution
to livelihoods across wealth groups in most villages, and
for some, the most important. At the same time, the clear
message from the studied villages was that the important
fish catches were going down, and that some people
even chose to leave fishing to search for other livelihood
options because of the decline in the resource.
The national and local management of the fish resources
will have to balance the interest of many users and the
long-term sustainability of the fish stocks in order to
ensure continued contribution from fish to livelihoods.
Impacts of infrastructure investments and changes in
agricultural systems such as the introduction of dry rice
perimeters4 will also have to be better monitored and
controlled. There are otherwise risks that the ecosystem
service of fish supply will not be able to carry the same
weight in supporting livelihoods in Cambodia in the
future. This will in turn have severe impacts for the food
security of the poorest, but also affect large numbers of
median and better off households in the studied villages.
Forest resources collected for different purposes had
high general importance to the livelihood situation in
the studied villages, and there were many interviewees
who witnessed to a decline in availability of these
resources. The current deforestation rate is higher than
the target set as part of the CMDGs. Many households
in the studied villages also collected wild foods for sale
or household consumption such as snails, frogs, eels,
crabs and fish in rice paddies, canals and forests. In
some villages the collection of wild food constituted a
substantial contribution to the livelihood situation. The
FGDs reported a diminished supply of these catches,
which used to be major sources of protein supply for
some households. For both the forests and wild food,
there was thus a general decline in the resource reported,
but also issues raised regarding access rights to the
remaining resources.
4 Dry rice perimeters are enclosures constructed to keep
irrigation water in place for rice production.
14
While ultimately all ecosystem services are of
importance to everybody for survival and well-being,
certain services, or lack thereof, will be more directly
affecting some groups or communities. The 2005
update on the CMDGs states that “reduced access to
Common Property Resources may well have adversely
affected other efforts aimed at poverty reduction”
(RGC 2005). This study confirmed the connection
between poverty and higher relative dependence on the
CPR. This was also earlier reported by the 2007 study
of Fitzgerald and So on Cambodian poverty. They
concluded that it was the more isolated communities
relying most heavily on CPR that had experienced
the slowest growth and had more households
moving downwards into deeper poverty than other
communities. The villages that were doing best were
those, primarily agricultural, villages that were more
accessible. The actual income from CPR fell in all
studied villages, but the proportion of income from
CPR rose slightly in one of the villages, Kampong
Tnaot (FitzGerald 2007). It can thus be noted that the
resources available in the common pool do not seem
to be sufficient to constitute a road out of poverty for
the poorest part of the population. However, the CPR
still constitute an important safety net for the poorest
households when other income sources fail.
Furthermore, the information in interviews and FGDs
give various examples of trade-offs between different
ecosystem services. For instance, an increase in outtake
of crop production around Tonle Sap affects the fishing
because of loss of vulnerable flooded forests and wetlands
to agriculture and to increased leakage of agrochemicals
into the lake (ADB 2006). The raised levels of nutrients
may cause increased problems of weed infestations in
the lake of for example water hyacinth. The agricultural
expansion is also affecting the flooded forest which
reduces the productivity of fishing and the supply of wild
foods. Dam construction for irrigation and for energy
threatens the water flow through the Tonle Sap system
(Neiland 2008). Upcountry logging affects the water
quality of the lake. The urban population may in the short
term benefit from infrastructure development and large
scale fishing and agricultural activities at the expense
of small scale family fishing and farming (Bonheur and
Lane 2002). Different groups thus have different interest
in the fishing resource giving rise to conflicts over the
management of the fishing access rights (Degen 2000).
The construction of dry rice perimeters in the Tonle Sap
area leads to reduced grassland and grazing areas as
well as reduced access to fishing waters (Diepart 2007;
Pilgrim 2009a).
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
In Cambodia, as in many countries, there is a lack of
data on the current state of the ecosystems and their
ability to supply vital services to the communities.
The 2005 update on the CMDGs notes this lack of
data. The update describes that in order to reach Goal
7 on ensuring environmental sustainability there are
still many challenges remaining such as the rate of
deforestation and the degradation of water resources
(RGC 2005). The Cambodia National Environmental
Action Plan from 1998 also highlighted forest
resources as a major concern. Of the eight forest types
in Cambodia several are threatened, including the
mangroves along the coast and the inundated forest
around Tonle Sap. It was further noted that there are
reports of diminished fish catches per boat and of
collapsed fish stocks of some species in Tonle Sap lake,
but that there was not enough data to substantiate these
reports (MoE 1998).
It can thus be concluded that improved management
of ecosystems and ecosystem services is vital for the
livelihoods in the studied villages and a prerequisite
for improved human well-being in rural Cambodia.
Other measures will most likely also be needed in
order to reduce poverty in line with the CMDGs. These
measures may include improved access to health care
and education as well as vocational training, market
access and facilitation of labour migration.
Box 6: Summary of conclusions
Are there any communities or wealth groups that are especially dependent on certain ecosystem services
for their livelihood?
•85-90 per cent of the primary income of the households was identified as directly obtained through local ecosystem services such as crop production, fisheries and forest resources.
•The study confirmed the continued connection between poverty and higher relative dependence on the
CPR.
•However, the dependence on local ecosystem services was high across all income groups.
What are the characteristics of this dependency? Certain risks/vulnerabilities due to threats to these ecosystem services?
•Fishing constituted an important contribution to livelihoods in many villages in the study. At the same
time, fish catches were reported to be going down.
•Forest resources collected for different purposes had high general importance to the livelihood situation in the studied villages, and there were many interviewees witnessing a decline in availability of and
access to these resources.
•Many households in the studied villages collected wild foods for sale or household consumption such as
snails, frogs, eels, crabs and fish in rice paddies, canals and forest. In some villages the collection constituted a substantial contribution to the livelihood situation, but catches were reported to be declining.
•For fisheries, forests and wild food collection, there were issues both about a general decline in the
resource and about access rights to the remaining resources.
Can improved availability of certain ecosystem services constitute a road out of poverty for the poorest
households? How could that in this case be facilitated?
•Improved management of ecosystems and ecosystem services is vital for the livelihoods across income
groups in the studied villages and a prerequisite for improved human well-being in rural Cambodia.
•The resources available in the common pool are not sufficient to constitute a road out of poverty and
the villages and households with the highest CPR dependence are among the poorest.
•Ensuring continued supply of local ecosystem services is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for
poverty reduction in rural Cambodia.
•Appropriate management of the ecosystems has to be complemented by other efforts such as agricultural development and improved possibilities for wage labour through for example increased market
access and vocational training.
15
ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in cambodia
Box 7: Policy recommendations
•Ensure adequate protection of the ecosystem services on which the rural livelihoods are based, i.e. soil
fertility, water resources, and protected habitats for wild food and pollinating species.
•Ensure access of the poorest and landless to local ecosystem services that are part of the commons, for
instance by eradicating illicit rents for collection of fuel wood or small scale fishing activities.
•Provide additional income possibilities for the poorest and landless through vocational and secondary
schooling and support for internal and international labour migration.
•Ensure that the interests of the poorest people are taken into account in the community based organisations for fisheries and forestries.
•Ensure access to land, forests and fisheries of the poorest.
•Increase the efforts by the authorities to hinder illegal fishing, forest clearance and land encroachments.
•Expand the agricultural extension services and the training of farmers in pesticide risk reduction and
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for poverty reduction and maintained livelihoods.
Box 8: Future research needs
•How can the remaining ecosystem services for livelihoods be monitored, protected and better managed?
•Are new institutions needed or can adequate ecosystem service management be achieved within the
existing institutional framework?
•How can the ecosystem services, including the regulating and supporting services be monitored in
order to ensure improved management and deliberate choices regarding trade-offs?
16
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
References
ADB (2006) Cambodia: Tonle Sap Environmental
Management (Tonle Sap Community Fisheries
Baseline Assessment: Status report 2005) ADB
Consultant’s report, project number 33418.
Hortle, K. G., Lieng, S., Valbo-Jorgensen, J. (2004)
An introduction to Cambodia’s inland fisheries.
Mekong Development Series no 4. Mekong River
Commission, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Bennett, E. M., Peterson, Garry D. and Gordon, Line
J. (2009) “Understanding relationships among
multiple ecosystem services.” Ecology Letters 12:
1394-1404.
Hortle, K. G., Troeung, R., Lieng, S. (2008) Yield
and value of the wild fishery of the rice fields
in Battambang province, near Tonle Sap Lake,
Cambodia. MRC Technical paper no 18. Mekong
River Commission.
Bonheur, N. and Lane, B. D. (2002) “Natural
resources management for human security in
Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve.”
Environmental Science & Policy 5(1): 33-41.
IPS (2008) Inter Press Service: Cambodia, dwindling
fish stocks threaten food security by Andrew
Nette, April 17th 2008. http://ipsnews.net/news.
asp?idnews=42020.
CDRI (2010) Sustainable Pathways for Attaining
the Millennium Development Goals - Cambodia
Case Study. Natural Resources and Environment
Programme of the Cambodia Development
Reserach Institute (CDRI).
MA (2005) The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:
Ecosystems and human wellbeing, synthesis.
Washington, D.C., Island press: www.
millenniumassessment.org.
CMDG (2003) Cambodia Millennium Development
Goals Report 2003. Royal Government of
Cambodia.
MoE (1998) Cambodia National Environmental Action
Plan 1998-2002, Ministry of Environment, Royal
Government of Cambodia.
Degen, P., Van Acker, F., van Zalinge, N., Thuok, N.,
Vuthy, L. (2000) Taken for granted - conflicts over
Cambodia’s freshwater fish resources. 8th IASCP
conference, Bloomington, Indiana, June 2000.
Neiland, A. E., Béné, C. (eds) (2008) Tropical river
fisheries valuation: background papers to a global
synthesis. The World Fish Center Studies and
Reviews 1836. The World Fish Center, Penang,
Malaysia.
Diepart, J. C. (2007) Recent land dynamics in the
Tonle Sap floodplain and its impacts on local
communities. Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve
Bulletin, vol 3, June 2007.
EFJ (2002) Death in small does - Cambodia’s pesticide
problems and solutions. Environmental Justice
Foundation.
FAO (2010) The state of food insecurity in the world:
Addressing food insecurity in protracted crises.
Rome, Italy, FAO.
FitzGerald, I., So, S. (2007) Moving Out of Poverty?
Trends in Community Well-being and Household
Mobility in Nine Cambodian Villages. CDRI,
Phnom Penh.
Galaz, V., Moberg, F., Downing, T.E., Thomalla, F.,
Warner, K. (2008) Ecosystems under pressure. A
policy brief for the International Commission on
Climate and Development.
Pilgrim, J. (2009a) Preliminary review of research
on the environmental factors in migration in
Cambodia. Draft working paper no 2. Royal
University of Phnom Penh, IDRC, Cambodia.
Pilgrim, J. (2009b) Research project on migration,
rural poverty and community natural resource
management. Working paper no 6. Royal
University of Phnom Penh - International
Development Research Centre.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G., Bennett, E. (2010)
”Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs
in diverse landscapes.” PNAS pnas.0907284107.
RGC (2003) Cambodia Millennium Development
Goals Report, Royal Government of Cambodia.
RGC (2005) Achieving the Cambodia Millennium
Development Goals, 2005 update, Royal
Government of Cambodia.
17
ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in cambodia
RUPP (2010) Ecosystem Services Dependence, Rural
Poverty and Population Movement in Battambang
and Kampong Thom Provinces on the Tonle Sap
Lake. Royal University of Phnom Penh.
Saing Koma, Y., Makarady, K., Seng Horng, L. (2000)
Pesticide market in Cambodia. Centre d’Etude and
Developement Agricole Cambodien (CEDAC).
SEI (2010) Persson, L., Arvidson, A., Lannerstad, M.,
Lindskog, H., Morrissey, T., Nilsson, L., Noel, S.,
Senyagwa, J. Impacts of pollution on ecosystem
services for the Millennium Development Goals.
SEI Project Report, Stockholm Environment
Institute, Sweden.
Sokha, P. (2009) Pesticide Risk Reduction in
Cambodia: An assessment of findings from
research on pesticide use, baseline survey in
Battambang and Prey Veng. R. U. o. Agriculture.
Phnom Penh.
Steffan-Dewenter, I., M. Kessler, et al. (2007)
“Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and
ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest
conversion and agroforestry intensification.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 104(12): 49734978.
18
TWGFE (2007) Paper prepared by the Technical
Working Group on Forestry and Environment
(TWGFE) for the Cambodia Development
Cooperation Forum, 19-20 June 2007: Forest cover
changes in Cambodia 2002-2006.
UN (2009) The Millennium Development Goals
Report 2009. New York, United Nations.
WB (2006) Cambodia - halving poverty by 2015?
Poverty Assessment 2006. Prepared by the World
Bank for the Consultative Group Meeting.
WRI (2007) Nature’s benefits in Kenya, an Atlas
of ecosystems and human well-being. World
Resources Institute, Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources of Kenya, Central Bureau of
statistics and Ministry of planning and National
Development in Kenya, and the International
Livestock Research Institute. Washington DC and
Nairobi, World Resources Institute.
s to c k h o l m e n v i r o n m e n t i n s t i t u t e
Annex: The bean count tool
T
he bean count tool is a way to quantify resource use
through interviews and Focus Group Discussions.
The enumerators show the interviewees a diagram of
local ecosystem services (see below) and explain the
different categories with examples.
Thereafter the following procedure was used:
●● Ask the interviewee to:
‚‚mark all services on the map that household/
family is using
‚‚if possible to estimate the volume of each of the
services that is used or collected per year/weak/
season as appropriate
‚‚give a weighted valuation of how important
the different categories are with the help of 30
beans that can be placed on the diagram.
●● Ask how much of the collected that is consumed,
and how much is being sold.
●● Ask if there have been any changes in supply of
the five most important services over the last 10
years and for the reasons behind this change.
●● What do people do to protect the provisioning (re)
sources? (e.g. bees for honey collection)
●● If the interviewee has any other source of income
apart from what is covered by the diagram,
ask the interviewee to list these and rank their
importance in relation to the 5 most important
services identified above (the purpose of this is
to get an estimate on the importance of direct
ecosystem use for the livelihood of the household,
in relation to other incomes).
19
SEI - Africa
Institute of Resource Assessment
University of Dar es Salaam
P.O. Box 35097, Dar es Salaam
Tanzania
Tel: +255-(0)766079061
SEI - Asia
15th Floor Witthyakit Building
254 Chulalongkorn University
Chulalongkorn Soi 64
Phyathai Road Pathumwan
Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Tel: +(66) 22514415
SEI - Oxford
Suite 193
266 Banbury Road,
Oxford, OX2 7DL
UK
Tel: +44 1865 426316
SEI - Stockholm
Kräftriket 2B
SE -106 91 Stockholm
Sweden
Tel: +46 8 674 7070
SEI - Tallinn
Lai 34, Box 160
EE -10502, Tallinn
Estonia
Tel: +372 6 276 100
SEI - U.S.
11 Curtis Avenue
Somerville, MA 02144
USA
Tel: +1 617 627-3786
SEI - York
University of York
Heslington
York YO10 5DD
UK
Tel: +44 1904 43 2897
The Stockholm Environment Institute
SEI is an independent, international research institute. It has been
engaged in environment and development issues at local, national,
regional and global policy levels for more than a quarter of a century.
SEI supports decision making for sustainable development by
bridging science and policy.
sei-international.org
ISBN XX XX XX