This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
MARKET S EGMENTS


Case study:


PACKAGED SERVICES IN CAMBODIA


Cambodia’s deciduous dipterocarp forests are some of the most important conservation areas in southeast Asia, home to many mammals and water birds, including the threatened Giant and White-shouldered Ibises. Deforestation, hunting and the advance of settlers into forest areas have endangered the survival of these species.


Initial conservation measures which focused on establish- ing various protected areas were unsuccessful, mainly due to a lack of supporting infrastructure. In 2002 a series of pilot PES schemes, supported by the Government and the Wildlife Con- servation Society (WCS), were set up in the protected areas. Te PES schemes are packaged to include various ecosystem serv- ices, including ecotourism, payment for bird nest protection and the production of wildlife friendly products.


Under the community-based ecotourism scheme bird watching tourists are charged for their experience – US$30 per person if all key species are viewed and US$15 if a bird watcher views one particular species. Communities thus have a vested interest in protecting bird populations. Alongside this programme, WCS pays US$5 for reports of nests of threatened species and employs local people to monitor and protect chicks. Te nesting scheme is considered to have been successful: more than 1 900 nests were protected between 2002 and 2010. Meanwhile an agricul- tural product scheme includes measures to give local farmers greater access to markets for wildlife-friendly products in return for protecting threatened species and for limiting expansion of agricultural lands into forestry areas.


Tough there are concerns about certain aspects of these


schemes, including the reliance on continued outside funding for the bird nesting programme, it is felt that the packaging and combining of PES programmes has helped conservation efforts and has also provided much needed additional income to local communities (Clements et al. 2010).


58 VITAL GRAPHICS ON PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76