Chev Chea, Poster Presentation

Economic Land Concession

and Its Impact on Local Livelihoods in Kampong Speu Province

Chea Chev1, Mom Seng

1 and Jean-Christophe Diepart

2

1Graduate School, Royal University of Agriculture

2Department of Economics and Rural Development, University Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Gembloux, Belgium

Over 80%, of the more than 10 million Cambodian currently living in rural

area, depend on land and natural resources to support their livelihoods.

Most are subsistent, relying on one crop (that is rice) every year, with fish

and other aquatic resources, and a range of forest products.

Development of private enterprise in form of Land Concessions granted to

forestry/agro-business has been suggested as a means of development and

poverty reduction in rural Cambodia. However; conflicts over land and nat-

ural resources are becoming a very topical issue in Cambodia. Around 25%

of the population do not have land for agriculture and this, according to the

NGO Forum’s report, is increasing by around 2% every year due to large

concession.

Sustainable livelihoods as a

conceptual framework of analy-

sis were reviewed which sup-

ported the implementation of

the research results.

A total of sixty-six (66) house-

holds were interviewed and oth-

er qualitative methods consist of

village resources maps, transect

walks, time lines, seasonal cal-

endar, observations and groups

discussions were also applied to

understand five livelihood as-

sets, coping strategies, history

changes and resources map in

the area.

Introduction

Methodology

Table 1 The basis of local livelihood situation

Results

Conclusion

Objectives: To examine the necessary economic and social impacts of ELC

development on local people’s livelihoods and to identify ad-

aptation strategies.

The concession has contributed to the loss of access to the land and natural resources which are heavily dependent upon by the rural communities. Nevertheless an

increasing number of ELCs are continued to be granted, further limiting rural communities’ access to land. Meanwhile very low number of the local workforce are

employed on the plantation. There is also poor communication and consultation with local communities, if any at all, it is very minimal with most decisions regard-

ing the concession taken at the central government level leaving the local authorities powerless.

In conclusion, in the case of study area, the ELC development model granted has proven not to be an effective way of promoting development that benefits the ma-

jority of Cambodia’s population. Instead it end up enriching a few and serving the interest of small group and foreign business: whiles compromising the livelihoods

and survival of rural Cambodian communities.

Abstract: The results indicated that the ELC development in case of Choam Sankae commune has hugely negative impacts resulting in the loss of access to land and

natural resources which are the primary assets for the entire means of the local livelihoods, 29.62% are landless household whiles 36.67% hold less than 0.5 ha per

household and most of the respondents have more difficulty to find firewood because of company protection. The purpose of ELC is to develop intensive agriculture

and agro-industry. By the end of the study period; only an estimated 2-3% of total granted lands have been planting and 1.33% of local eligible labour-force have been

employed. The lack of skills and formal training is preventing them from getting opportunities to adjust to the rapid changes. An estimated 62.5% of households have

migrated for jobs with higher risks and low income. In conclusion, local people were not well-prepared for the land transformation; an issue that should be taken into

consideration on policy discussion on the role and strategy of land concession if it is to make any significant contribution to pro-poor development.

Description Unit Phnom Cheas

village

Doun Proung

village

Total sample

selection

Average member per HH Per 5.14 5.35 5.25

Age active labor (18-60) % 67.10 64.23 65.67

Average land size per HH Ha 0.78 0.86 0.82

Average land per active labor Ha 0.335 0.308 0.32

Landlessness % 24.70 35.00 29.85

Accessing to credit ability % 24.00 35.00 29.50

Saving group formation % 0.00 27.03 13.52

Migration ability % 55.20 64.90 60.05

Cattle production (3-6 heads) % 58.00 54.00 56.00

Paddy

land size

Cow

number

Migration

number HH size

Paddy land size Pearson Correlation 1 .463(**) -.422(**) .248(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .045

N 66 66 66 66

Cow number Pearson Correlation .463(**) 1 -.323(**) .322(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .008

N 66 66 66 66

Migration Number Pearson Correlation -.422(**) -.323(**) 1 .038

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .762

N 66 66 66 66

Household size Pearson Correlation .248(*) .322(**) .038 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .045 .008 .762

N 66 66 66 66

Table 2 Correlations between land and other factors

Figure 1 Percentage of local active HH labors work on plantation

Figure 2 Negative impacts of ELC based on farming system analysis

Note: Direct impact

Indirect impact

HH Household

Nearly 70% holding

HHs may complete-

ly lose access to

land for agriculture

Lost of grazing land

6 cases of displace-

ment were forced

without compensation

Loss of access to NTFPs

for daily use

High number of la-

bor migration