Family
Agriculture plays an important role in Cambodia providing employment
opportunities for around two thirds of the population and contributing to
national food security and economy. In addition, it has important cultural and
environmental values and function for Cambodian Society. Under the fast changing
political, economic and technological context, there is an increasing threat to
the sustainability and productivity of family agriculture.
The
main issues of concern in relation to agriculture and rural development are:
-
Increasing
pressure on land resource, as a result of increasing agricultural land and
forest concessions, land speculation and a growing population. This situation
limits the access of a growing farming population to land and forest resources.
-
There is an
increasing inflow of products from other countries. Generally imported
commodities are more competitive than local ones, which discourage small
farmers, mainly subsistence farmers, to invest in agriculture. Cambodian farmers
are not competitive because they have very limited access to technology, seeds,
irrigation and other facilities. In addition, they are not organized. The entry
of Cambodia into WTO will worsen this situation if no appropriate mechanisms are
put in place to improve the capacity of local agriculture to cope with the free
trade.
-
There is a
very high dependency on imported inputs implying high expenditures, especially
with fertilizers and pesticides, which drain small farmers incomes. At least 50
million US$ per year is spent on purchasing these inputs.
-
The number of
rural youth is increasing, but they generally do not have the opportunity to
gain professional skills in agriculture, rural enterprise and local development.
This affects the long-term development of rural communities.
-
Increasing
numbers of small farmers are finding themselves in debt, especially due to
expenditures on health care and purchasing agricultural inputs. As they are
generally subsistence farmers, and they do not have access to non-agricultural
income activities, they have to borrow money from private moneylenders and
micro-finance. The services of micro-finance institute and NGOs are increasingly
available, however the interest rates are still very high for farmers. In
addition, they do not invest money in agricultural production due to a lack of
access to technical information.
In
spite of the importance and the threat to family agriculture, there is no clear
priority and program relating to pro-small farmer agricultural development as
the government has instead focused on agribusiness and large-scale agriculture
in the poverty reduction strategy.
We
would recommend that the government and donor community work with the private
sector, NGOs and rural farmers to develop policies and programs for the
promotion of small farmers and ecologically friendly agriculture development. We
strongly believe that the economic and socio-political stability of Cambodia
depends mainly on the improvement of the livelihood of around 2.5 million small
farmer families. In this regard, we would propose the following specific
recommendations:
·
We strongly recommend that agricultural land concessions should be
limited. If such concessions are granted they should be done in consultation
with the affected community. Cost benefit analysis should be undertaken,
including economic, social and environmental aspects. The access of small
farmers to land and forest should be a priority.
·
Agricultural extension should be strengthened through the establishment
of an effective, decentralized agricultural extension system at the district
level. The office should have a pluralistic service provider system undertaking
various tasks such as: disseminating information; facilitating support to farmer
organizations and networks; and ensuring a supportive environment for a
pluralistic service provider system.
·
In addition, to improve agricultural extension, there is also a need to
support small farmer to cope with the fast changing socio-economic, political,
technological and environmental context. Support should be given to farmers to
organize themselves in associations and/or cooperatives. There should be
organizations that genuinely represent the interests of farmers, allowing
farmers to take collective action for their mutual and community benefit. The
representatives of farmer organization should be invited to participate in any
consultation process related to agricultural development policies and
strategies. Technical, management, credit and marketing support should be
provided to these farmer organizations.
·
There should be investment in pilot projects pertaining to professional
training for rural youth or young farmers, rural enterprise development, local
development, leadership and management. The success of the project would provide
long-term benefit to the rural communities through the availability of competent
human resources at local level.
·
Law enforcement should be strengthened on agrochemicals, especially
pesticides by controlling the import, production, distribution, marketing and
use of class I[1]
pesticides and other pesticides especially, DDT and Endosulfan[2].
MAFF and the Ministry of Health and Environment should be more proactive in
informing the public by using mass media, radio and TV about the problems caused
by pesticides. Training on pesticides and health should be organized for health
officials to inform them of diseases or health problem connected with pesticide
use[3].
·
We encourage government, donors, research institutions and NGOs to focus
resources and expertise on research and dissemination of innovation relating to
low-external inputs, human health and environment friendly agriculture as all
this is proving to be a very promising approach aimed at poverty reduction. For
example, the ecological system of rice intensification or SRI is one of the most
successful methods of achieving a significant increase of rice yield without
depending on external inputs, such as fertilizer and pesticides[4].
At present, around 10,000 farmers in Cambodia have adopted the system, and it
has potential to spread fast. Many NGOs, government departments, donors and
international organization (such as GTZ, Oxfam, JICA and ADB) have already
provided resources to support SRI. With stronger support from donors, government
and NGOs this system can be adopted by farmers in Cambodia within the next five
to ten years, helping to alleviate current problems related to household and
food security.
·
With regard to irrigation, we recommend donors and government support
small-scale irrigation facilities by supporting community to organize themselves
in water users' community, rather than focusing on large-scale irrigation
systems.
·
The government should adopt a policy and program to support a community
-based seed production and exchange initiative, which can ensure the right of
small farmer communities to seeds. In this respect, development effort should
not focus on creating dependency by small farmers to seed companies, but on
strengthening the community in breeding and exchanging seeds. Quality
regulations for seeds sold need to be applied however.
· With growing uncertainty and concerns about the possible negative impact of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) on the health, ecology and livelihoods of small farmers, we strongly support the initiative of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in placing a moratorium on GMOs in Cambodia. All food aid should be screed to ensure it is not GMO.
[1]
According to the government sub decree from October 1998, all class I
pesticides are banned in Cambodia. But, the enforcement has been not
effective.
[2]
Endosulfan was banned in March 2003 by Ministry of Agriculture at the
request of Ministry of Health. DDT belongs to class II pesticides, and it is
in the list of Stockholm Convention on Organic Pollutants, POPs (Cambodia is
a signatory to this convention)
[3]
For example, EJF (2002), Death in small doses: Cambodia’s pesticides
problems and solutions, Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK; CEDAC
(2003), Pesticides Use in Cambodia, CEDAC Field Document, Centre d’Etude
et de Développement Agricole Cambodgien, Phnom Penh
[4]
Yang
Saing Koma (2001), Farmer
Experimentation in System of Rice Intensification (SRI): Results of Wet
Season 2000, Phnom Penh;
Yang Saing Koma (2002), Ecological
Sysem of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Cambodia, Results and Field
Experiences in 2000-2001, Phnom Penh; Yang
Saing Koma, (2003), Ecological
System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Cambodia, Results and Field
Experiences in 2002,
Phnom Penh;
Uphoff,
N. (2003), Report from SRI visit to
Cambodia, Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and
Development, Ithaca, New York, USA
For more information and the issues raised in this paper, please contact Centre d’Etude et de Developpement Agricole Cambodgien (CEDAC)
Tel: 023 880-916, Email: cedac@camnet.com.kh