1 POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT NEXUS STUDY (PEN II)- CAMBODIA PRESETATION OF CASE STUDY FINDINGS (Poverty and Access to Natural Resources) By Chea Sarin Vientiane, Laos Date: 21 June 2006

The view expressed in this presentation is the result from the case study and it is not necessary to reflect the opinion of agencies/authorities involved.

3 Main Research Questions  Access to natural resources: to what extent do the poor differ from the non-poor?  Access to natural resources: to what extent do the poor differ from the non-poor?  Trends in access to natural resources: do trends differ between poor and non-poor?  Trends in access to natural resources: do trends differ between poor and non-poor?  Differences in environmental impacts of natural resource use by poor and non-poor?  Differences in environmental impacts of natural resource use by poor and non-poor?  Policy options leading to poverty reduction and sustainable natural resource use?

4 Key Natural Resource Access Issues Agricultural land Agricultural land Forest resources Forest resources Grazing land Grazing land Fisheries Fisheries Drinking water Drinking water

5 Data collection methods Semi-structured interviews with government officials (from village to provincial level) Semi-structured interviews with government officials (from village to provincial level) Household survey: 120 HHs total (20 HHs in each village) Household survey: 120 HHs total (20 HHs in each village) Focus group discussions to capture additional information on wealth and gender differences (18 FGDs) Focus group discussions to capture additional information on wealth and gender differences (18 FGDs)

6 Study Area and Key Characteristics Aoral district, Kampong Spue (3 villages) Aoral district, Kampong Spue (3 villages)  High pressure on remaining natural resources  There is protected area called Aoral  Land Area: 2,331 sqm.  Population density in 1998: 6.5  Percentage of poor: 35.7  Total forest cover as % of total district land: 89.2  % of people employed by agriculture, hunting and forestry sector: 88.6

7 Study Area and Key Characteristics Santuk district, Kampong Thom (3 villages) Santuk district, Kampong Thom (3 villages)  Low pressure on natural resources  There were 3 forest concession companies until 2003 and a protected area.  Land Area: 2,823 sqm.  Population density in 1998: 20.6  Percentage of poor: 50.0  Total forest cover as % of total district land: 58.8  % of people employed by agriculture, hunting and forestry sector: 84.5

8 Case Study Findings: Agricultural Land Gaining access and claim to land involves little more than clearing it. Gaining access and claim to land involves little more than clearing it. There are land seekers I.e. landless and better-off “newcomers” There are land seekers I.e. landless and better-off “newcomers” Newcomers hire local people to clear land for agriculture and speculation Newcomers hire local people to clear land for agriculture and speculation In some areas there is plenty access to land but low or unproductive I.e. Aoral in-migrant was given 3ha for each hhs. Due to unproductive land people turn to make living in charcoal production In some areas there is plenty access to land but low or unproductive I.e. Aoral in-migrant was given 3ha for each hhs. Due to unproductive land people turn to make living in charcoal production 25% of surveyed hhs reportedly landless and all are poor and highly depend on access to natural resources especially forest products 25% of surveyed hhs reportedly landless and all are poor and highly depend on access to natural resources especially forest products Respondents express concern that overexploitation of resources may not sustain their livelihood in the future Respondents express concern that overexploitation of resources may not sustain their livelihood in the future There is increasing of land ownership I.e. average land holding in Santuk is 2.77ha for non-poor compare to 0.73ha for poor hhs. There is increasing of land ownership I.e. average land holding in Santuk is 2.77ha for non-poor compare to 0.73ha for poor hhs.

9 Case Study Findings: Forest Resources Forest resources decrease markedly over the past several years I.e. timber, resins and wild animal are declining dramatically Forest resources decrease markedly over the past several years I.e. timber, resins and wild animal are declining dramatically Low value products tend to have less extraction pressure compare to the high value one I.e. wild vegetable and vinery Low value products tend to have less extraction pressure compare to the high value one I.e. wild vegetable and vinery Forest concession limited the access to forest resources. Thus people became poorer. However, it is even worse as forest resource become under FA management I.e. people have to pay informal tax or fee for charcoal product, what they collected from forest or even take away from them Forest concession limited the access to forest resources. Thus people became poorer. However, it is even worse as forest resource become under FA management I.e. people have to pay informal tax or fee for charcoal product, what they collected from forest or even take away from them People found creative ways to collect timber to avoid fees charge and confiscation I.e. cutting up large log into smaller pieces or firewood or construct a house for some period of time and then sell it as salvage materials People found creative ways to collect timber to avoid fees charge and confiscation I.e. cutting up large log into smaller pieces or firewood or construct a house for some period of time and then sell it as salvage materials Access to forest is further from year to year as the surrounding forest was cut. There is second cut of the surrounding forest and people express concern that they may go for third cut “the root” if they have no other option. Access to forest is further from year to year as the surrounding forest was cut. There is second cut of the surrounding forest and people express concern that they may go for third cut “the root” if they have no other option.

10 Case Study Findings: Gazing Land Grazing land is very important for draft animals I.e. cattle and buffalo Grazing land is very important for draft animals I.e. cattle and buffalo 65% of surveyed hhs raised cattle and buffalo. Poor hhs own fewer animals than non-poor hhs and less value animals 65% of surveyed hhs raised cattle and buffalo. Poor hhs own fewer animals than non-poor hhs and less value animals There is open access to gazing land and it is available in all surveyed villages. However, some areas were reportedly decreased grazing land due to conversion of land into cropland There is open access to gazing land and it is available in all surveyed villages. However, some areas were reportedly decreased grazing land due to conversion of land into cropland Some hhs no longer need grazing land as they have opted for machinery (koyun) to replace draft animal Some hhs no longer need grazing land as they have opted for machinery (koyun) to replace draft animal

11 Case Study Findings: Fisheries It is chief of protein in rural diet and play important role in rural livelihood It is chief of protein in rural diet and play important role in rural livelihood Although the surveyed villages are primarily forest-dependent 75% of surveyed hhs benefit from catching fish, frogs and other aquatic resources Although the surveyed villages are primarily forest-dependent 75% of surveyed hhs benefit from catching fish, frogs and other aquatic resources Fish catch is primarily for daily consumption and no restriction to access in the surveyed villages Fish catch is primarily for daily consumption and no restriction to access in the surveyed villages It is reported that in the last 5 years fish catch is declining due to overexploitation and illegal use of destructive fish catch equipment and methods. It is reported that in the last 5 years fish catch is declining due to overexploitation and illegal use of destructive fish catch equipment and methods.

12 Case Study Findings: Drinking Water Access to drinking water is open for both poor and non-poor Access to drinking water is open for both poor and non-poor Access to drinking water in some surveyed villages is difficult due to long distance or limited resources Access to drinking water in some surveyed villages is difficult due to long distance or limited resources In most of the case, respondents complain about the quality of water. In Santuk most of hhs collect water from wells but noted that the water smells and bad tastes In most of the case, respondents complain about the quality of water. In Santuk most of hhs collect water from wells but noted that the water smells and bad tastes In Aoral hhs collect water from different sources but mainly from stream In Aoral hhs collect water from different sources but mainly from stream Although respondents are aware that stream water is not so clean they prefer to use it to water from well because it is less or no smell and more tasty. Although respondents are aware that stream water is not so clean they prefer to use it to water from well because it is less or no smell and more tasty. Less than ¼ of hhs boil water for drink Less than ¼ of hhs boil water for drink Hygienic practice is very low in both studied areas. Most of hhs reported that they don’t wash hand before having meals. Hygienic practice is very low in both studied areas. Most of hhs reported that they don’t wash hand before having meals.

13 Poor Vs Non-poor and Access to NR Access to NR Poor HHs Non-poor HHs Agriculture land - Hold smaller portion of land mostly less than 1ha -High % of landless - Hold bigger portion of land mostly more than 1ha - Low % of landless Forest resource - Highly depends on forest resources - Limited access to the resources due to limited in transport and financial mean - Less depends on forest resource with alternative income earning mean - Having more access to the resources both financial and mean Grazing land -Need more grazing land as they much depends on draft animal and livestock -Need less grazing land as they shift to machinery (koyun) for transport and agriculture purpose Fisheries -catch less fish as they have limited fish catch equipment and mean -catch more fish (twice compare to poor) as they have more fish catch equipment and mean and better access Drinking water -More use of open well or stream -Less hygienic practice??? -More use of dug well More hygienic practice???

14 Implications: Poor vs. Non-Poor and NR Dependent Livelihoods Increase income Subsist Alternative options or migration Resource depletion Invest in increased resource extraction Non-Poor PoorPoverty Poor: subsistence or short-term gains Non-poor: larger short-term gains Poor: continuing poverty, return to poverty, or alternative Non-poor: alternative or possible move into poverty Time

15 Implications: Poverty-Environment Relationships Environmental damage increases Environmental damage decreases Poverty increases Population highly dependent on natural resources No other livelihood options No natural resources of value remain; better return from other labor options No means to over-exploit resources Poverty decreases Natural resources are the driver of poverty reduction; better return than other options or no other options Open access to natural resources Labor available for extraction (e.g., no farming in dry season) Poverty reduction is driven by factors other than natural resources base; better return from other available options Restrictive management of natural resource base Little surplus labor available for natural resource extraction