The NPRS
highlights agriculture and rural development as being key priorities in reducing
poverty. An emphasis on rural livelihoods places sharp focus upon issues such as
land and natural resources, water, agriculture, and transport.
The
significance of agriculture for poverty reduction cannot be overstated. 79% of
Cambodia’s poor live in families whose livelihood depends upon the
agricultural sector. Their lives depend on access both to agricultural land and
to common property resources, in particular fisheries and forest products.
Sustainable access to these resources is essential for any poverty reduction
strategy.
In 2003,
over 1,000 km of rural roads were built, around 700 wells were sunk, and
irrigated land coverage increased by about 20,000 ha.
A draft sub-decree on community fisheries was finalised for consideration
by the Council of Ministers, and a sub-decree on community forestry was finally
approved.
Spending
by MAFF remained insufficiently aligned with poverty-reducing priorities.
Agricultural extension continued to account for less than one percent of
agricultural recurrent spending. Animal
health and agronomy also accounted for relatively low shares.[1]
Despite
its position in the NPRS as a key area for development, the rural sector remains
under-funded. For the RGC to fulfil its aim of increasing rural incomes, some
significant shifts in government policy and donor support will need to take
place.
The
cessation of hostilities and improved roads have hastened the importation of
agricultural products that are more competitive than locally grown goods. With
the entry of Cambodia to the WTO, there is an even greater need to ensure that
farmers are given support and equipped to develop the capacity to cope with free
trade.
Increased
pressure on land and natural resources adds to the problems faced by small-scale
farmers and the landless poor. Although the focus of NPRS remains on pro-poor
development, the government appears focussed on providing large-scale
agricultural concessions to private companies:
-
Figures provided by MAFF at the beginning of 2003 show that in recent
years the COM approved 40 land concessions for agricultural purposes which
encompassed 800,000 hectares of land or 4% of Cambodia’s territory.
The
development benefits of these concessions are unclear, as large-scale
plantations tend to increase vulnerability and conflict over access to land,
reduce access to natural resources and produce few jobs for local people. Income generation tends to be concentrated in already
well-off families and companies who are able to invest in larger scale
agro-industry. Further, the
commitment of the NPRS to promote agro-industrial plantations has put extra
pressure on forests through a reallocation of forest areas to agricultural
production.
The NGO
community would like instead to recommend an emphasis on expanding extension
services to small farmers, support for small-scale
user-maintained irrigation facilities, and the adoption of low-input
methods of increasing crop production.
The
Cambodian government and some members of the donor community have been
trumpeting the potential of increased rubber production.
This bullish appraisal of Cambodia’s potential for rubber production
seems to have ignored the long-term downward trend in the international market
price for rubber, and natural rubber’s substitutability with synthetic rubber.
In contrast, there is little support for traditional resin tapping, even
though the international price for dipterocarp oleoresin has risen considerably
since the 1970s due to the large-scale deforestation that has occurred over the
past few decades in Insular Southeast Asia.
In addition to support for traditional livelihoods, the promotion of
resin tapping would assist the preservation of Cambodia’s dipterocarp
forests.
Land
reform is ongoing, and developments achieved thus
far have been welcomed by NGOs. However, the legislative program is far from
complete, with various sub-decrees relating to land concessions still needed.
Serious problems exist in relation to fertile and well-positioned land being
“bought” for speculation by the urban elite. The NGO community has serious
concerns about the failure of the development community to recognise the danger
inherent in urban elite buying agricultural land, leaving rural people landless
and permanently altering the demographics of land ownership. Agencies supporting
the land titling process should carefully monitor this development and suggest
an appropriate policy response.
The
government has placed much emphasis on administration of the land
title system. In relation to land disputes, the establishment of the
Cadastral Commission has been noted and cautiously welcomed as an alternative to
the previous highly unsatisfactory system. However, those working in the land
sector continue to wait to see if the new Commission will be effective in
introducing a fair system of dispute settlement. Despite its members being fully
trained, the necessary funds have not been provided to the Commission in order
that it can meet investigation, transport and administrative costs.
The
promulgation of a sub-decree on social concessions is welcomed by NGOs as
providing a possible means of distributing land to the landless poor.
Implementation of this sub-decree will require careful monitoring, and
may be best applied on the local level through existing participatory land use
planning (PLUP) processes.
In
relation to environmental management, NGOs welcome the CMDGs targets for
environmental sustainability. These targets fill a gap within the NPRS, which
fails to deal effectively with environmental issues.
Infrastructure
development is also crucial to the improvement of access to markets for
agricultural outputs. In particular, rural roads and irrigation need to be
prioritised. The NPRS indicates that investment in the rural road system will
have a positive impact on rural income and quality of life. The government has
made some progress in improving and extending the rural road network and the NGO
community welcomes this. At the same time, consideration should be given to the
social affects of road building, especially in forested and highlander areas
where roads may speed up land grabbing and the destruction of natural resources.
The NPRS
appears to place energy development as the highest financial priority in
the Action Plan Matrix. However, in
relation to its significance for the rural poor, the provision of electricity is
far less important than access to more fundamental factors for improved
livelihoods such as health, education and agricultural extension services.
The NGO
community makes the following recommendations:
Pro-poor agricultural development will best be achieved through
expanding extension services to small farmers, providing support for
small-scale user-maintained irrigation facilities, and promoting the
adoption of low-input methods of increasing crop production.
Projects need to be rooted in a genuine pro-poor approach that will
boost rural incomes and security.
Political will needs to be shown in dealing with the serious problem
of land-grabbing which removes fertile agricultural land from family
farmers.
The social concession system should be carefully introduced through
the system of participatory land use planning in order that poor families
may be allocated locally available land.
In relation to natural resource management, a strong emphasis should
be placed on community involvement with support being provided for capacity
building and enforcement mechanisms based on a decentralisation of power.
Refocusing forestry interventions on community management and protection will help protect Cambodia’s rich biodiversity, and the livelihoods of many rural communities. The resin tapping industry needs official recognition and support, while the potential of the rubber tapping industry needs to be critically examined.
[1] RGC, Poverty Reduction Strategy Progress Report, draft, December 30, 2003.