Information was collected from related reports on the rubber plantation in Tum Ring, from newspapers, the internet, and from various key people working in fields related to this study. This study relies on information from previous reports on the rubber plantation in the commune, such as reports from Andrew Cock and Cara Kirkpatrick, MA candidate, Dalhousie University, Canada, who conducted a workshop with villagers in the commune.
The field study investigated impacts and the cost-benefit of the rubber plantation in the commune. Four research techniques were used: (i) a household survey; (ii) key informant interviews; (iii) a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) using trend analysis; and (iv) cost-benefit analysis.
The survey collected information on changes of livelihood activities of people in the commune, before and after the rubber plantation. The period of rice sufficiency was used as an indicator to show changes in the villagers’ livelihoods. In addition, the villagers’ perceptions were used as an indication of impacts of the rubber plantation on livelihoods. Three villages were selected as sample sites and 10 percent of households were randomly selected from each village for interview.
Table 1 Villages and household selected for the household survey
Villages | No. of households | No. of households interviewed |
Tum Ar | 147 | 14 |
Samrong | 78 | 10 |
Ronteah | 98 | 10 |
Villages were selected based on their location and the experience of impacts caused by the rubber plantation. Tum Ar, Samrong and Ronteah villages were considered suitable as representative of all villages affected by the rubber plantation. Tum Ar is located south of the rubber plantation area, situated along the main road built by the Colexim logging company. Samrong is located in the middle of the rubber plantation area, but it is quite far from the main road and is next to four other villages in the commune. Ronteah village is located north of the rubber plantation area. (See Figure 10 for a map of Tum Ring commune.)
A PRA trend analysis was carried out with villagers to obtain their perceptions of significant changes in the village over time, before and after the rubber plantation. The direction of the trend could significantly illustrate impacts even though the changes cannot be quantified or statistically analyzed.
Key informants were selected for interview including: the Tum Ring commune chief; the three village chiefs; the Director of Rural Poor Families Development (RPFD) working in the commune; and two rubber company officials.
CBA is used to identify whether the project is economically and environmentally viable by weighing up benefits and costs throughout the project’s life. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate and compare between the net present value (NPV) of two land use options: (i) rubber plantation development; and (ii) upland farming and traditional forest-based livelihoods (status quo).
The NPV of each option is estimated by applying formula:
NPV =
PV(B)-PV(C) or
where Bt denotes the benefits received in period t; Ct denotes the costs incurred in t; t is year, t = 0, 1…, n; and i is discount rate.
The formula shows that the NPV is the difference between the present value of the benefits, PV(B), and the present value of the costs, PV(C), of a project. Costs and benefits of the rubber plantation and cost-benefit of status quo option are monetized to find the NPV of each option. Finally, for decision-making purposes, the NPV of the two options are compared. The option with bigger NPV would provide the larger social net benefits and would be preferable.
Figure 1 Framework adapted for research survey design
[TOP]