d the organization has moved towards protected cultural zones. Two decades later, over 1000 people are employed full time at the site for cultural sensitivity reasons. Part of this movement to limit the impacts of tourism has been to only open certain areas of the site. However, much of the 1992 precautionary measures and calls for future enforcement have fallen through. Globally, and locally, the policymaking has been successful. But the implementation has failed. This implementation has failed for a number of reasons. First, there are conflicts of interest in Cambodia. While the site is culturally important to them, Cambodia is a poor country. Its GDP is marginally larger than Afghanistan’s. Tourism is a vital part to the Cambodian economy, and shutting down parts of Angkor, the largest tourist destination in the country, is not an option. A second reason stem’s from the government’s inability to organize around the site. The Cambodian government has failed in organizing a robust team of cultural specialists and archaeologists to service the site. What may save the site in the future is not in Cambodia at all. In the Indian state of Bihar, government wants to build an exact replica of Angkor Wat. While religiously, financially, and nationally this is controversial, it is perhaps the only chance we have of saving Angkor Wat for the future
