[Back]

5.      Discussion and Recommendations

 

6.1.   Overall Income from the red soil cash cropping areas of Mean Rith Commune.

Taking the information from Table 1 and combining it with average family income and average income per ha (Table 19) an indication of the overall income from cash cropping activities in these 4 areas can be developed. This information can be compared to the projected income from rubber development or any other possible use of these red soil areas.

Comparisons of land uses for red soil areas must consider the distribution of benefit between present cash cropping land use and the corporate model being implemented in Tum Ring. Both these activities have been destructive of earlier forest land uses. Some information has been collected on the potential/actual incomes from forest based activities in this general area and this could also usefully be compared. Agroforestry options need to be considered/evaluated. The urgent comparison now however, to avoid another Tum Ring, is between overall benefit from the existing cash cropping land use and rubber.

An approximate calculation of overall income could be as follows (It must be stressed that these calculations represent a bare minimum based on the available information and could significantly understate both the numbers of families living on these red soil areas and therefore the size of land area being used); 

6.1.1.      Total numbers of families/people

This is not precisely known and as discussed many people are wary of registering their names or signing anything at present because they fear it will be taken to mean they are agreeing to their land being taken away, etc. Total number of families from Table 1 is 668. This could be considered a minimum number and the figure could be much higher. Average number of people per family from Table 2 is 5.35. Therefore an approximate number of total inhabitants could be 3574 people. 

6.1.2.      Minimum total number of hectares

This is a more difficult calculation as there has been no mapping or land titling in the area. From Table 10 average land holding per family is 3.3ha (including the house area). This does not include lowland paddy areas of which there are some in Chom Phkar (72 families – see section 5.1). A minimum number of hectares being used by present residents could be 668 families x 3.3ha = 2204 ha.

6.1.3.      Total income from cash cropping for all families

Combining information from Table 1 (Number of families) and Table 19 (Average family cash cropping income) would give a total income figure from cash cropping of 668 families x $547 (2,188,000r) = $365,396 (1,461,584,000r) every year. 

6.1.5.      Total income from cash cropping on minimum total number of hectares

An alternative calculation to arrive at a total income for the areas would be to combine the minimum total number of hectares under cash cropping with the average income from cash cropping per hectare (Table 19), which gives a figure of $363,660 (1,454,640,000r) per year.  

6.1.6.      Income from other sources

As mentioned (see Table 19) the above income calculations only include income from cash crops. To this must be added crops that are consumed by the family, resin tapping, rice milling, the value of domestic animals sold, etc. Income from seasonal labour is not included in these calculations as it represents income earned from the cash crops (costed above) that is internally circulated in the area. This form on income however represents a significant portion of the income of some families as seen in Tables 3, 5, 6, 17 and 18.

6.1.6.1.            Total Income from upland rice

From Table 12 average area of upland rice grown is 1.05ha with and average harvest of 1,137kg/ha or 1289kg/family

Assume: 60% of this remains as grain after milling – 1289 x .6 = 773.4kg

Assume: value of milled rice is 800r/kg (20c US)

           

Value of upland rice grown for family consumption is 773.4 x 800r = 618,720r ($154.7) per family

Total for 668 families = $103,339.6 (413,358,400r)

 

6.1.6.2.            Total Income from lowland rice

From Table 12 average harvest of lowland rice is 1,293kg/ha

Assumptions as above for upland rice –

1,293kg x .6 = 776kg milled rice

776kg milled rice x 800r = 620,800r ($155 per ha)

 

From Section 5.1 72 families have lowland rice in Chom Phkar area

Assume average area of 30 are per family – 72 families x .3ha = 21.6ha

Value of rice for 72 families - 21.6ha x $155 = $3348 (13,392,000r)

 

Total value of the rice harvest for 668 families is $103,339.6 + $3348 = $106,687.6 (426,750,400r)

(This figure does not include the value of the rice bran that is collected and used for animal feed after rice milling)

 

6.1.6.3.            Income from resin tapping

From Table 6 and 21 only 2 families out of 39 interviewed presently tap resin (5%). There is was also mention of resin tapping from families in Chom Phkar. Assuming this ratio of 5% over the whole population and assuming 250 trees as an average number per family, total income from resin tapping could be calculated as

668 families x .05 = 33.4 families

Assume income per tree @ $3.6 (14,400r) per tree per year[1]

250 trees x $3.6 = $900 (3,600,000r)

$900 x 33.4 families = $30,060 (120,240,000r)

 

6.1.6.4.            Total income from rice milling and rice wine making

From Table 6, 5 families out of 39 interviewed are involved in these activities (12%)

Assume: annual income per family of $100 (400,000r)

Total number of families involved - 668 families x 0.12 = 80.16

Total income - 80.16 families x $100 = $8016 (32,064,000r)

 

6.1.6.5.            Total income from animal raising

From Table 5, 15 out of 39 families said they raised some animals (38%)

Given the difficulties of animal raising in this area due to a lack of water in certain times of the year assume and annual income (domestic consumption and sales) per family of $50 (200,000r)

Total number of families involved - 668 families x 0.38 = 253.8

Total income – 253.8 families x $50 = $12,692 (50,768,000r)

 

6.1.7.      Total annual income from all sources for the 668 families living on the red soil cash cropping areas of Mean Rith Commune

Adding the above figures together gives a total of;

Total income from cash cropping for all families -                       $365,396 (1,461,584,000r)

Total Income from upland and lowland rice -                 $106,687.6 (426,750,400r)

Total income from resin tapping -                                              $30,060 (120,240,000r)

Total income from rice milling and rice wine making -     $8016 (32,064,000r)

Total income from animal raising -                                             $12,692 (50,768,000r)

 

Total annual income from all sources -                                 $522,851 (2,091,404r)

 

Total income per family -                                                       $783 (2,996,000)

 

Total income per hectare (excluding resin tapping) -           $223.6 (894,400r)

 

As discussed it is necessary to discount the value of the forest products that existed on these lands before they were cleared for cash cropping to get a true picture of the income and costs that have accompanied this form of land use.

 

6.2.   Comparisons with income from smallholder rubber development

From section 3.3 above the Sandan Asst. District Chief said that he had been informed by rubber company officials that the projected income for a hectare or rubber would be $500 in 7 years rising to $1000 in 10 years. This figure however represents future income with uncertain markets over long time horizons. The cash cropping income above while also subject to uncertain markets is immediate income and does not require a waiting period of 7 -10 years.

The above cash cropping figures represent existing minimum incomes. These figures and farming systems could be significantly improved, in particular with tree crops. The question then is what is the most productive development pathway for these red soil areas and how can benefits be shared most widely for poverty reduction and national development. Even if rubber development is considered an option for areas such as these, the experience from neighbouring Tum Ring is that communities do not have the ability to wait 7 years for income. Small farmers need livelihood security before they can embark on risky long term developments.

The further question is what kind of rubber development would be most appropriate. Traditional swidden farmers have developed diverse rubber agroforest systems that resemble natural forest. These systems have produced the majority of Indonesia’s rubber for some considerable period of time. Smallholder rubber in Indonesia has developed informally and autonomously because villagers have been able to ensure their food security from their swidden fields while they wait for their rubber trees to grow. Swidden fields also ensure that food security is maintained when rubber prices are low. In the Tum Ring development families are expected to put all their hopes on 3 ha of cash crops and rubber. The evidence suggests that the Chup rubber company operating in Tum Ring is not that interested in promoting smallholder rubber. 

Diverse rubber agroforests have been promoted in several countries including Thailand and should be studied for application in Cambodia. (See Appendix 5 for description of Rubber agroforest development) 

6.3.   The right of the present residents to their land

Table 2 shows the origins of the people interviewed and that 37% of these families have arrived in the area in the last 5 years. The Sandan Assistant District Chief commented that all the residents of this area are allowed to be there provisionally but he could not say they would be allowed to stay permanently. This is a difficult situation as many families have cleared land after 2001 when clearing forest for possession became illegal. The Government backed Colexim logging company has also been driving this forest clearing. 

The impression of the Asst District Chief was also that many of the families in this area are not poor farmers, but have large landholdings and are engaging in large scale cash cropping. The results of this research hopefully gives a clearer picture of what these peoples’ livelihoods are. Discussion and negotiation is required to determine what are the rights of the people living in this area, what are the claims of Colexim and what exactly are the intentions of the Government. 

6.4.   Forestry Issues

Logging activities and the companies responsible have been well documented in other reports. Logging is anarchic and actually not all that secret in the area. Colexim staff are implicated in this illegal activity and villagers and Mean Rith Commune Councillors felt that the FA doesn’t respect its own laws.  Colexim and Gat have long claimed this area as theirs and in the past have insisted on people getting permission from them to travel in and through their areas. The existence of ‘dangerous’ ethnic minorities, insecurity as well as rumours that a group of CFF fighters were in the area were all used by logging companies as a way to keep people out of the Tum Ring area (Bon Kuing pers. comm.).  

A key outcome of the trend analysis done in 3 ‘Areas’ (Tables 22-24) was that villagers felt that forest destruction was worse now than when Colexim were the concessionaires because everything is now totally illegal. An elder in O Pork said that during the period when the French ruled Cambodia the forests and logging was managed well. Only the selected trees were logged. When Colexim was operating the forests, logging was not managed well. Now he said it is worse still because everything is illegal and everything is cut. Gangs with chainsaws pay the forestry and Colexim staff $20 per day to use a chainsaw. At present 10 chainsaws can be heard working in the O Pork area. 

When people come to inspect the word is passed around to stop activities for a day or so and then the cutting continues. Logs are sawn up into blocks and these are loaded onto small trucks and the whole load is covered in bananas (or in the soy season bean bags are used full of rice bran) for transporting to Kampong Tmor.

O Laok villagers said the Government doesn’t allow the cutting of trees but they take them out by the truckload. They also say they talk about poverty reduction and yet they don’t let people build houses. For them it is the Government employees who are destroying the forest. Several villagers commented on the inconsistencies in applying for timber to build a house. People say it is very difficult to get permission and people just cut and build their house anyway.

A forestry seed block has been established in the area with support by the World Food Programme (WFP), who gave rice to community forest guards. The plan was that villagers would be paid to collect seed.

[Top]        [Back]


[1] Average income per tree per year from Evans, T., et. al. ‘A Study of Resin-Tapping and Livelihoods in Southern Mondolkiri, Cambodia, with Implications for Conservation and Forest Management.’