Commodity Frontiers

An ethnographic study of social-environmental interaction of Upper Stung Prek Thnot River Catchment, Eastern Cardamom Mountains

By Sopheak Chann and Tim Frewer

July 2017

1

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Background ...... 1 1.2. Research objectives ...... 1 1.3. Upper Prek Thnot Ecology ...... 2 1.4. Land and resource administration and demography...... 3 1.5. A brief history ...... 5 1.6. Commodity Frontiers ...... 7 1.6.1. Livelihoods overview ...... 9 1.6.2. Logging ...... 10 1.6.3. Charcoal production...... 11 1.6.4. Land ...... 15 1.6.5. Labour ...... 18 1.6.6. Summary ...... 21 2. Research Methods ...... 22 2.1. Interview and observation ...... 22 2.2. Mapping and landscape observations ...... 22 2.3. Site selection ...... 23 3. Roleak Kong Chueng region of Tasal Commune – Northwestern Upper Prek Thnot Catchment 25 3.1. A brief history ...... 25 3.2. Geographical overview and land restriction ...... 26 3.3. Subsistent farming practice ...... 29 3.4. Charcoal and wood collection ...... 31 3.5. The cnvironmental cost ...... 36 3.6. The Poor and Non-timber Forest Products (NTFP) ...... 37 3.7. Community Forestry ...... 39 3.8. The myth of land claims and territories ...... 42 4. Northern Upper Stung Prek Thnot – Trapeang Chour Commune ...... 44 4.1. General geography and ecology ...... 44 4.2. Demographics and history of settlement ...... 45 4.3. Livelihoods ...... 48 4.4. Timber collection ...... 50

2

4.5. Charcoal production...... 59 4.6. Land ...... 64 4.7. Labour ...... 68 4.8. Case study conclusion ...... 71 5. South-western Prek Thnot Catchment - Chambak and Traeng Trayoueng communes ...... 73 5.1. General geographical context ...... 73 5.2. History ...... 76 5.3. Forest Production...... 77 5.4. From charcoal to mango plantation ...... 80 5.5. Land and local farming ...... 83 5.6. Labouring and source livelihood ...... 86 5.7. Community-based eco-tourism and local livelihood ...... 88 6. Central-west Upper Stung Prek Thnot - Kreung Dai Wai Commune, Phnom Sruoch District ...... 90 6.1. General Geography and Ecology ...... 90 6.2. Demographics and History of Settlement ...... 92 6.3. Livelihoods ...... 93 6.4. Timber harvesting ...... 93 6.5. Charcoal ...... 95 6.6. Land ...... 100 6.7. Community Forests ...... 105 6.8. Labour ...... 110 7. Conclusion ...... 114 References: ...... 115

3

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Stung Prek Thnot is one of the most important watersheds in Cambodia supporting livelihoods throughout the catchment as well as contributing to economic growth in south- western Cambodia. However, over the last three decades, deforestation and changes in land use have posed major challenges to sustaining the watershed’s ecosystem health. Particularly in the upper section of the catchment – the southern Cardamom mountain range, patterns of land and resources have altered dramatically with major effects for the downstream area. More than 20% of land area in the two districts that covering the upper part of the catchment (Aoral and Phnom Sruoch) have been reserved for economic land concessions and more than 45% is located within protected areas. However, not many studies have of yet explored how the relationship between local communities and the landscape have changed over the last three decades. Such changes determine social-environmental interactions which is crucial to long term sustainability of the Stung Prek Thnot watershed. The Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fishery of Cambodia (MAFF) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) have attempted to establish a sustainable watershed management program, which aims to ensure the ongoing health of the upper watershed and improve local livelihoods. However, the project requires nuanced and detailed information on the interactions between local livelihoods and the landscape in terms of how land and resources are being used. Understanding social-environmental interaction is critical for the sustainable management of the watershed. Therefore, this research aims to provide nuanced knowledge on the relationship between local communities, land and resources within the Upper Stung Prek Thnot Catchment focusing on two districts, Aoral and Phnom Sruoch.

1.2. Research objectives

- To gain insights into how people in the project site use water, land and natural resources. - To gain insights into current patterns of land and water usage and their drivers. - To understand the effects these changes are having on people in the ca6chment – especially the poorest. - To broadly understand the socio-economic profile of people in the target area – including common livelihoods, agricultural profiles, how different groups utilise resources in different ways, size of landholdings, income, ethnicity and gender. - To gain insights into watershed protection conservation practices – especially within the four Community Forests (CFs) where Dam Rei Chak Pluk is a priority. This is in orderto understand the effectiveness and challenges of forest management practices of the four CFs. - To gain insights into agricultural practices and related soil issues that emerge from particular agricultural activities. This includes gaining insights into overall issues of

1

land degradation, the local distribution of different soils and how different agricultural practices interact with these processes.

1.3. Upper Prek Thnot Ecology

Stung Prek Thnot catchment is located in central western Cambodia. The head water of the catchment is the Cardamom Mountains (Figure 1.1). Four tributaries Stung Tasal, Stung Kantout, Stung Kirirum and Stun Srea Thlong are prime sources of water to the upper section of the catchment. According to field observations, interviews and observations of aerial imagery, two irrigation dams have been built on two of the major tributaries, Stung Kantout and Stung Tasal. Stung Kantout dam was built during the KR regime and Stung Tasal dam was built in the mid-2010s. From multiple discussions with local authorities, the riverbanks of the Prek Thnout River are high, which limits local water use for irrigation and household consumption.

Based on satellite images, forest cover is restricted largely to the mountainous areas while most of the lowlands are agricultural land or highly degraded forest. Large, medium and small scale agriculture are being practised. Large scale agro-industry crops include sugarcane, teak and cassava. Medium scale agriculture, (between 10 and 100 ha), consists primarily of mango plantations. Most of the small-scale agricultural land being used by local communities is paddy rice located near the Stung Prek Thnot and its major tributary.

2

Figure 1.1 Geophysical condition of the Upper Stung Prek Thnot (Data source: Mekong River Commission and Esri)

1.4. Land and resource administration and demography

The upper catchment of Stung Prek Thnot is located in two districts of Kampong Speu province - Aoral and Phnom Sruoch, covering 56% of the whole catchment area. These are the two largest districts of Kompong Speu where Aoral is larger than Phnom Sruoch but less populated. Aoral contains 5 communes while Phnom Sruoch has 12 communes. Therefore, the size of a commune in Aoral tends to be larger than communes in Phnom Sruoch.

Around the Cardamoms, the higher the altitude the lower the population density tends to be (Figure 1.2). According to the map (Figure 1.2), most of the villages are located along Stung Prek Thnot and its major tributaries implying a close relationship between local livelihoods and the rivers. The majority of the population is Khmer with five indigenous Souy villages in Aoral district near the Cardamom Mountains.

As the result of the considerable amount of land being granted for ELCs and PAs, arable land for smallholders is limited. Approximately 43% of the two districts’ territory is located within three protected areas, namely the Central Cardamom Mountains Protected Forest, Phnum

3

Aoral Wildlife Sanctuary and Kirirom National Park. The three protected areas are under the management of the Ministry of Environment (MoE). Approximately 28% of Aoral - equivalent to 66000 ha, and 21% of Phnom Sruoch – equivalent to approximately 34500 ha, is dedicated to Economic Land Concessions (ELCs). Each district has eleven ELC companies being operated each (Table 1.1). The companies were granted between 1999 and 2011. The crops being harvested include cassava, sugar and pulp.

Figure 1.2 Land classification and demography

4

No Name Crop Area (Ha) Granted date Aoral 1 Fortuna Plantation Cassava 7100 2009-10-12 2 Phnom Penh Sugar Sugar 8506 2010-02-04 3 Kampong Speu Sugar Sugar 8245 2010-02-04 4 Great Field Sugar 9059 2010-01-29 5 Yellow Field Sugar 8591 2010-01-29 6 Kampong Speu Sugar Sugar 4700 2011-03-21 7 HLH Corn 10492 2009-03-30 8 Reththy Kiri Sakor Sugar 1400 2011-04-06 9 Forestry Investment Pulp 839 2011-11-27 10 City Mart Unknown 9853 2006-02-28 11 Grandis Timber Pulp 9820 2009-12-31 Phnom Sruoch 1 Golden Land Cassava 4900 2004-03-05 2 Uk Khun Multi 12506 2001-05-25 3 CJ Cambodia 2 Cassava 3000 1999-11-15 4 CJ Cambodia 1 Cassava 5000 1999-11-15 5 Master International Cassava 889 6 Fortuna Plantation Cassava 7100 2009-10-12 7 Fortuna Plantation Cassava 855 2009-10-12 8 Yun Khean Minerals Unknown 290 2010-12-07 9 Grandis Timber Pulp 9820 2009-12-31 10 Master International Cassava 889 11 Fortuna Plantation Cassava 7100 2009-10-12 Table 1.1 ELCs Profile (source LICHADO)

1.5. A brief history

The history of the Upper Stung Prek Thnot is closely associated with the post-KR history of the Cardamom Region, the timeline of which can be divided into three significant periods; when Vietnamese (VN) troops and the Khmer Rouge (KR) battled during the 1980s, occupation of the Cardamoms by the KR during the 1990s and the post-integration period after late 1990s (Chann, 2017). During the 1980s, the region was caught up in the military conflict between the KR and the central government backed by Vietnamese troops. Civilians were relocated to distant lowland villagers for security reasons. Most of the KR families and troops were based along the Thai border of the western and north-western Cardamom region. Civilians living in the central government controlled territories were located closer to the provincial centres or district centres further from the forested and mountainous areas. Forested and mountainous areas were occupied by militaries. The eastern side of the Cardamom Mountains were primary battlefields. The VN troops withdrew from the region in 1989 which reduced the intensity of the war. However, the result of this battle left the region with thousands of landmines and unexploded bombs.

5

Figure 1.3 Cardamom Mountains and Upper Prek Thnot Catchment

During the early and mid-1990s, the region was controlled mainly by the KR militaries whose primary income was derived from logging. The forest of the Cardamom Mountain was one of the major sources of KR revenue when they were resisting the central government during the 1990s. After the withdrawal of the VN troops, the KR had more control of the Cardamom region lasting until the late 1990s. The KR’s withdrawal from the Paris Peace Accords resulted in the KR taking control over a considerable proportion of the Cardamom region and setting up military strongholds in various places. Near the Thai border, the KR traded with Thai logging companies to collect luxury woods from the Cardamom region and transport them to Thailand. In some locations further away from the Thai borders, specifically to the eastern side of the Cardamom Mountains, instead of trading woods with Thai companies, the KR collected money from loggers. At the same time, other parts of the region were granted logging concessions by the central government of Cambodia. As a consequence, much of the forest within the Cardamom region was heavily logged, especially easily accessible areas.

The Cardamom region was opened up after reintegration of the KR into the central government in the late 1990s. As a result, the region became more accessible to outsiders and it was one of Cambodian resource frontiers. Local villagers who were evacuated to other places for security reasons during the 1980s and 1990s were resettled into their villages prior to 1975. Some new villages were created to accommodate the ex-KR militants and their

6 families. At the same time, large-scale land investments have been granted across the Cardamom region by the government which have caused many land and resource conflicts (Hughes, 2008). As shown in table 1.1, some ELCs were granted as early as 1999, only one year after reintegration.

1.6. Commodity Frontiers

As outlined in the summary, there are several important market driven processes which are dramatically changing land use and livelihood patterns in the Stung Prek Thnot catchment. Although the catchment has experienced a multitude of social, political and ecological changes over the last decade, we hold that these four processes are a) largely an expression of these changes and b) the most important factors for understanding land use and livelihood changes in the catchment. These four processes are: (1) the expansion of a hardwood timber market across the province which is linked to national and international demand, (2) the progressive shift of a national charcoal market into the remaining forested areas of the catchment, (3) the expansion of a land market across the province and (4) rapid expansion of a labour market as smallholder agricultural livelihoods become less and less viable.

These four processes can all be usefully thought of as commodity frontiers. In this report, a commodity frontier refers to the process where something goes from being valued for its use value to being valued for its exchange value. In other words, this refers to the process where timber, charcoal, land and labour are transformed into commodities and become linked to demand determined by markets beyond the locality. With capital determining how these natural resources are organised rather than local demand, local ecologies and the relations between villages and the environment undergo rapid and profound changes that are in many cases irreversible. This is the process of people and things being incorporated into capitalist relations – a process that is ongoing within the Stung Prek Thnot basin. Markets compel people to collect and destroy natural resources. Often people are locked into harmful and damaging practices as they have no other livelihood options and are in urgent need of capital. In other cases, people choose to engage in commodity production – i.e. people harvesting hardwoods. In some instances, people are forced to sell their labour as it is the only productive asset they have left (after forests have been felled and land has been sold). So too commodity frontiers result in waves of ecological destruction that local people have little control over. Local people often participate in these waves of destruction as they observe that if they do not, all monetary benefits will accrue to outsiders and local resources will still be destroyed.

Commodity frontiers are co-determined by geographic, political and social factors. In all cases, specific patterns of settlement and resettlement which were largely determined by the shifting battle lines between the Khmer Rouge and government forces played an important role in shaping resource frontier trajectories for particular places. In a reciprocal manner,

7 these resource frontiers also helped sustain particular militarised populations at different times and places and enabled them to maintain control over particular territories. Forested areas controlled by the Khmer Rouge in the 1990s experienced limited timber and charcoal exploitation due to the difficulties of accessing such areas. Simultaneously, the Khmer Rouge’s control over selective logging in such areas helped to sustain military campaigns. More recently, local authorities and local elites gain by taxing logging and charcoal collection activities. So too national elites gain by controlling large swathes of land through Economic Land Concessions (ELCs). These practices, in turn, shape the characteristics of local resource frontiers and in turn local resource frontiers shape patterns of governance.

The four commodity frontiers dealt with here are all interconnected and play out in particular ways across the catchment. Due to the forested and sparsely populated and difficult to access upstream areas in comparison to the densely populated downstream areas which are close to the national highway, commodity frontiers tend to expand from downstream to upstream areas. As people and natural resources in distant upland areas become engaged in capitalist relations, timber, charcoal, land and labour are rapidly exploited.

Due to much of the lowland area remaining under government control in the turbulent years following the downfall of Democratic Kampuchea, forests, land and labour were incorporated into capitalist relations much earlier than in the highland area. Under Vietnamese occupation, timber exploitation from 1979 to 1989 was limited due to most peasants not having the means to exploit hardwood on a large scale. However, sawmills were established in Trapeang Krolurng and Chbar Morn and as such individuals with logging experience started to scour the area for valuable timber as the area became linked up to the Vietnamese market. Selective logging intensified in the lowlands in the early 1990s as more and more loggers entered the area, and when local farmers were increasingly involved in the logging supply chain. At this time, the Khmer Rouge also allowed small scale logging in their territory as they gained substantial revenues from taxes.

Charcoal production tends to follow logging (although in most cases forests are simultaneously selectively logged for timber and charcoal production). As valuable, slow growing hardwoods become locally extinct from an area – which results in severe ecological changes which often render forests largely useless for local populations – people then ‘log down’ and begin focusing on less valuable, faster-growing species that are used for the much less profitable practice of charcoal production. Once areas have been cleared of all large and medium sized trees they often become converted into private land parcels or Economic Land Concessions (ELC). Mountainous areas that are unsuitable for agriculture or housing often become protected areas. In many cases, people engage in land markets once it is no longer possible to derive an income from logging or charcoal production. For households with capital – or individuals who can act as brokers for outside buyers – the conversion of farmland, communal land and secondary forest into a sellable commodity offers substantial profit. For others, as their traditional land is converted into an asset, they are often left with no other

8 way to generate capital than to sell off this important asset which increasingly alienates them from viable livelihood options. There is a hence a distinct geographical pattern whereby outside land investors acquire increasingly large tracts of land starting from the lowland areas and progressing up into the forested upstream area. ELCs have sped up this process by directly placing land that was still claimed by those in the upstream area under the authority of outsiders.

Finally, for those who are unable to sustain themselves off ever decreasing patches of land, there is little choice but to sell the only asset they have available to them – their own labour. In rural Kompong Speu, livelihood options are severely limited. When small scale agriculture is no longer a viable option for supporting the nutritional or monetary needs of households, they are forced to engage in other income generating options. When logging and charcoal production are also unable to sustain households, people have no choice but to work as day labourers on ELCs or seek other – often highly precarious work – in Phnom Penh, Thailand and further afar. Once again there is a distinct pattern where small scale farmers in the downstream area are much more dependent on precarious and highly exploitative labour work to sustain households. This is largely a result of the fact that land has been incorporated into the land market much earlier than in the upstream area and that many people have long sold or lost productive land.

1.6.1. Livelihoods overview

Kompong Speu has traditionally been an important rice producing area. Flat lands – both downstream and upstream – have long been settled by Khmer and indigenous people where wet season rice has been the focus of livelihoods for as long as people can remember. Right up until the late 2000s, many small-scale farmers have continued traditional livelihoods. This includes cattle production – which provides fertiliser for rice fields, farmlands (in Khmer Chamkar -ំរ) which also provide fruit and vegetables for household consumption and collection of forest products such as game, timber, resin and NTFPs. As land is increasingly incorporated into land markets and divided up into various forms of state lands, many small holders have defiantly retained ever smaller patches of rice and farmland in an attempt to make a living. As rice land is divided to offspring (as is the tradition amongst Khmer and indigenous households), and as there is no longer available land that can be cleared to expand rice fields and farmlands, households often struggle to derive sustenance or an income from their farms. Currently many households still split between rice production for households (slow growing ‘heavy’ traditional varieties, that are drought prone and require few inputs but large amounts of labour) and rice for sale on the market (fast growing ‘light’ varieties that require more inputs and careful irrigation management). Yet with dried rice of both verities facing a long-term low (fast growing varieties from 700-1100 Riel per kilogram and slow growing from 400-700 at the farm gate) households are currently unable to derive significant

9 income from rice production (and many respondents complained that they have lost money in the last few years producing rice). Other crops have failed to offer the prospective of even reasonable income for farmers in the catchment: small scale mango farming is unprofitable (this year 400 Riel per kilogram), pumpkin, which many farmers experimented with over the past few years, is unprofitable at 300 per kg, cassava has seen a major price crash since 2015 where one kg of dried cassava is purchased for between 300-600 Riel. People also grow a variety of other fruits and vegetables throughout the catchment (leafy vegetables, jackfruit, oranges, coconuts) but typically on a small household scale. Many small-scale farmers are unable to enter into higher value crop production (e.g. rubber, cashew, pepper, durian) because they lack capital, land and are often unable to wait out the time to first harvest. Without basic assistance from the Ministry of Agriculture in terms of crop extension services or information on crops prices and markets people across the catchment are left with very few options.

Due to the four mentioned commodity frontiers, rice production is also undergoing substantial changes. People across the catchment increasingly grow fast rice varieties for the market and are increasingly dependent upon inputs. At the same time there is often a shortage of labour available for transplanting rice (most rice cultivators in the watershed transplant rather than broadcast). Similarly, as the land market spreads and land is appropriated by the state for ELCs and conservation areas, there is increasingly less land for cattle to graze. In many places this has resulted in substantial decreases in cattle herds and hence less available fertiliser for farm production.

1.6.2. Logging

People throughout the catchment have traditionally utilised the vast hardwood species around the catchment for a variety of purposes – from timber building, pagoda building to using in oxcarts and farming tools. However, according to interviews, there is little evidence of the presence of a hardwood market before the Khmer Rouge. Some older villagers mentioned that in the pre-KR era people had occasionally traded hardwood timber with lowland farmers for basic products. According to most interviewees, hardwood timber trading began in the 1980s when much of the area was under Vietnamese control. With the establishment of sawmills in major centres along the main highway, valuable hardwood species such as rosewood were harvested from easily accessible areas. In many instances, this was on a limited scale as much of the population was preoccupied with war and farming. In the 1990s the lowland areas were selectively logged for hardwood species. This was particularly the case in areas which were used to accommodate refugees (in the late 1980s the Khmer Rouge retook large swathes of the upstream area). More inaccessible areas in the upstream area around Mt Aoral were also stripped of hardwood species and agar as the Khmer Rouge allowed outside loggers to enter the area (for a tax) and KR soldiers themselves engaged in logging.

10

By the late 1990s, nearly all the downstream area in Phnom Sruoch had been stripped of valuable timber. As the upstream areas were resettled in 1996 and 1997 after Khmer Rouge integration these areas were also rapidly stripped of valuable timber. By the mid-2000s all forested areas directly surrounding towns no longer contained hard wood species. From the mid-2000s loggers were forced to travel further and further into the Cardamom mountains to find woods. Valuable species can still be found in Pursat and Koh Kong but requires trips deep into hard to access areas. In the mid-2000s, Thai made mini-tractors (known in Khmer as Koyon – machinery ox) were increasingly available to small holders as were microfinance institutions which could help finance such purchases. With the mass uptake of these tractors – and chainsaws – farmers could travel deeper into the forest to cut and transport timber. In the early 2000s local middlemen and purchasers of hardwood paid a minimal price for hardwood species collected from farmers (often only paying farmers a fraction of the final selling price). This was due to a local abundance of hardwood species, the desperation of local farmers for capital and the fact that farmers were unaware of the value of such timber.

As valuable species became sparser, and farmers were increasingly aware of the value of such timber, the price harvesters were paid for each log rose substantially. This, in turn, spurred on hardwood harvesters to spend more energy, capital and time on efforts to harvest species in inaccessible areas. In recent years this has however been offset by the large informal taxes collected by the MoE and other authorities who take bribes for each tractor that cross one of their checkpoints. In addition, conservation agencies such as Conservation International have strictly patrolled around the western forested areas of Aoral and Phnom Sruoch destroying harvested timber they come across and confiscating chainsaws and tractors. As such only the very desperate engage in small scale logging or well-connected individuals who can freely harvest high-value species. Many poor farmers continue to harvest low-value timber - ranging from small species used for fence posts to low-value species used in furniture and charcoal production. Due to the low returns (people tend to spend several nights in the forest on a single harvesting run and have to pay substantial bribes to the MoE and other authorities), high risk (in terms of losing harvests, as well as malaria), it tends to be the poor who engage in low value timber harvesting. In addition, many indebted farmers (especially those on long term plans to repay loans for tractors) are forced to engage in low-value timber harvesting regardless of the risks and difficulties. While hardwood species such as rosewood could fetch up to USD$1000 per tree, low value, softwood species would sometimes earn only $20 per tree.

1.6.3. Charcoal production

Many households in Aoral district remain involved in charcoal production – although this tends to vary by village. Charcoal production has tended to follow a similar pattern to timber production where Phnom Sruoch district became a centre of charcoal production in the mid- 2000s and slowly moved northwards upstream as timber resources were increasingly

11 depleted. Currently, Aoral district has become the locus of charcoal production where most timber is collected and baked for charcoal. Increasingly fewer households in Phnom Sruoch are engaged in charcoal production as long distances and associated costs have rendered charcoal production non-profitable. However, some farmers from Phnom Sruoch who have experience collecting charcoal during the earlier wave of charcoal production in Phnom Sruoch continue to travel to Aoral mountain and beyond to collect charcoal. Since the mid- 2000s when demand for charcoal steadily increased, most farmers have collected charcoal before and after planting and harvesting rice. Charcoal production is thus generally seen as a supplementary livelihood activity to agriculture. Farmers typically collect charcoal as a a way to meet monetary shortages – or as a livelihood activity that can be done during the wet season. Yet with increasing pressures on smallholder land, and the general lack of viable income generating crops, some households in both Aoral and Phnom Sruoch are turning to charcoal production as their main source of income.

Charcoal production is typically done in small groups of between two to ten Koyons. Usually, relatives or friends travel together in conveys. Women and children sometimes accompany men although it is more common to see a single man for each Koyon. Like higher value timber harvesting, charcoal timber harvesting is typically done by people between the ages of 25-50 as it requires strenuous work, a knowledge of local areas and experience operating a tractor and chainsaw. Younger men or children often accompany more experienced men assisting with hauling and tractor driving. Some women interviewed also do cutting and hauling. Others help with cooking and light labour work and may even bring small children along. Typically, a convey of charcoal collectors will spend several nights camping in the forest as it usually takes two to three days to collect enough timber to fill a kiln. For villages that are near to the collection area, they can do multiple trips to the forest in consecutive days. When collection areas are more distant, conveys either share together their hauls to fill a kiln (on average three full tractor loads of timber can fill a single kiln). More commonly each household will have its own kiln and either return back on consecutive days or use multiple tractors to haul enough for a bake. Farmers need to make a number of investments to engage in charcoal production. At a minimum this includes a Koyon and a chainsaw. For those who do their own baking they also need to purchase materials to make a kiln. In addition to this each trip incurs incremental costs such as fuel, food and informal fines. For these reasons the very poorest are often unable to engage in charcoal production. Or conversely the poor who take out loans to finance these investments are often forced to continue in charcoal production even when it is unprofitable.

In Ktuot (in Aoral) there is now an area on the outskirts of town that charcoal producers rent from local villagers to produce kilns. Although most farmers usually have their own kilns, there are now many timber suppliers who sell their hauls to kiln operators. Approximately 150 kilns are operated by more than 80 families where each household can receive from 1 to 5 tractor loads of timber each day. Prices paid for timber varies with the type and average size of timber pieces. Denser and larger species that do not over-burn and crackle during the baking process

12 are usually valued higher (from 30-50,000 Rile per load) while lighter and smaller timbers are less valuable (10-30,000 r). Timber that is too small often disintegrates during the baking process as does fast burning timber varieties. A kiln will bake for 3 days to a week depending on the particular load and characteristics of the kiln and prevailing outside temperature. Kilns are carefully constructed from specific muds that are typically purchased (which are hard enough to seal the contents and insulate it from rain and the outside but which will not crack). Kilns also have to be on a sloped surface and on deap soils to ensure groundwater rises during heavy rains will not affect the bake. Each bake comes with a number of risks – if the bake is not carefully monitored, or if there is insufficient or excessive oxygen flow, or rainfall penetration, all the charcoal will be destroyed. Kilns often have to be replaced after 30 bakes as they start to crack and excess oxygen enters.

Kiln operators in Ktout are typically highly indebted, land-poor and itinerant workers. Most operate these kilns out of a lack of other possibilities for income generation. Most are from highly populated provinces and have come to Ktout due to losing land, indebtedness or inability to continue in labour work. Most have had to borrow money to finance the construction of their kilns. Although they can earn approximately 1 million riel for a single bake most will make little profit and live in obviously difficult circumstances around the kilns. Many also live with the constant threat of being evicted from the land (on account of the smoke pollution involved) and all have to pay informal fees to local authorities. Many collectors who live in Phnom Sruoch or come from further afield will often prefer to sell their hauls to these kiln operators as they may lack land for making kilns and informal fines paid for timber hauls tends to increase with the distance travelled from the source.

13

Figure 1.4 A charcoal maker

Figure 1.5 The charcoal producing site near Aoral district town

Smallholders in villages in Aoral district who run their own kilns also complained about making minimal profits. Increasing distances to timber sources, roads being cut off by ELCs and the

14 proliferation of different state agents demanding bribes means that charcoal production is becoming less and less profitable. As such, poor farmers attempt to offset decreasing profitability by going on longer and more arduous trips. During the rainy season travelling even small distances in the forest on tractors is extremely difficult and even dangerous where excessive mud, poor roads and poorly constructed bridges are the norm.

1.6.4. Land

Across Cambodia land is increasingly concentrated amongst large landholders while smallholders tend to have small and fragmented farming land which is on average around one hectare. Most small-scale farmers across the Stung Prek Thnot catchment struggle to continue agricultural based livelihoods. As in many parts of southeast Asia, smallholder households are increasingly reliant on non-agricultural income sources. However, in most of the catchment – especially in the upper catchment where most land is still used for smallholder agriculture, the majority of the households continue to organise livelihood activities around rice production. This is even so in the context of decreasing land sizes, severely constrained harvests due to a lack of irrigation infrastructure, low input usage, and the deflated price for rice. In this context, many households switch to producing rice for household consumption rather than selling (although most households do both simultaneously). Many households attempt to offset an increasing dependence on basic commodities by focusing on food production to reduce expenditure. Subsistence orientated agriculture is thus as much a sign of the proliferation of capitalist relations as a rejection of the market.

The moving away from traditional agricultural production mode also has very important non- agricultural aspects. A generation of farmers who have lived through the war and exceedingly difficult times have invested enormous amounts of labour and passion into ensuring the continual existence of their agricultural enterprises. The process of securing land during the turbulent period of civil war and migration, as well as making these lands productive, is a lifelong project for many. Many farmers view themselves as agriculturalists. Their identity and day to day lifestyle are bound up in the land they cultivate and the skills they have developed as agriculturalists. For those who view themselves primarily as uneducated agriculturalists with few other livelihood options, the loss of agricultural land and livelihoods can be enormously painful at a psychological level. Many farmers – particularly older farmers – who cleared land by hand and then subsequently lost land either to ELCs or were forced to sell in desperation, continue to feel helpless and distraught even years after the event. The prospect of not having land to pass onto offspring is also a continual source of anxiety for both older and younger farmers. For the first time in recollection, there is simply no land for younger household members to expand into. That many poor households lack capital to buy significant patches of new land puts severe limits on the future prospects of agricultural enterprises.

15

Following the fall of Democratic Kampuchea (Khmer Rouge Regime) in 1979 most households in the catchment returned to their original villages. However, throughout the 1980s the Khmer Rouge slowly regrouped and began offensives throughout rural Cambodia. By the mid- 1980s increasing insecurity in forested areas throughout Aoral and Phnom Sruoch districts resulted in mass relocations. Entire villages were shifted to nearby population centres that were under government control. Only until reintegration in 1996 and 1997 did these refugees begin to return to their old farmlands. As many villages in forested areas had been settled prior to the KR takeover where pre-existing rice paddy fields were still present, refugees returned to clear and cultivate these lands. In most cases, older villages have been established along one of the main rivers or streams of the Stung Prek Thnot. Year-round water sources are important in rice production (especially for transplanted rice when it is in the pre-planting seedling stage), for fruit and vegetable production, as a drinking source for cattle and as a source of fresh fish. In the upland areas re-settlement was generally far less problematic than the more populated downstream areas surrounding major towns and highways. Unlike in the more populous areas where forests were already largely cleared and where conflicting land claims were common, the sparsely populated and forested uplands saw few conflicts as farmers had ample land to expand into. Generally, households attempted to re-establish ancestral rice paddy fields while clearing new farmlands.

As farmlands transform rapidly into secondary forest without active cultivation, farmers are generally less concerned about individual ownership. In the context of ample land, ownership was signified though cultivation. Upon ceasing to cultivate a patch for a period of years, such farmlands were only loosely owned by a particular household. Households would frequently clear new patches of forest for particular crops. In general these farmlands are often some distance away from rice lands and villages and are usually at the forest frontier. For villages located far away from the forest frontier their farmlands can be some distance from their rice lands. Hence when people resettled former villages they began to clear small patches of surrounding forest for farmlands or adjacent to rice fields to expand rice fields to accommodate new family members. There were at the time however several limits on such land clearing. Firstly, few farmers had access to tractors, bulldozers or even chainsaws. Thus, what they cleared, they cleared by hand using household labour. Typically, a household could clear a single hectare by hand in one season. Secondly, households would only clear what they could manage. For a typical household, only a few hectares could be actively cultivated and managed with the labour and technology they had at hand. Finally, local authorities made it clear throughout the 1980s and 1990s that all forested land was ‘state land’ that technically farmers had no right to clear or own.1 Under such unsure tenure arrangements, farmers were tentative about clearing large patches of land that may be later confiscated from them. Under the 2001 Land law farmers were further sanctioned from clearing forested ‘state land’. As

1 This excludes land that allocated to local farmers under the 1980s Krom samakii policy.

16 such, after resettlement, most farmers living around forests claimed only around 3-4 hectares per household.

As the forest frontier moved further and further into the highlands and land became increasingly sparse in the 2000s, farmers were forced to exert stronger tenure over their farmlands. In this context farmers would often attempt to claim land which they planned on expanding into. Simultaneously farmers attempted to establish clear ownership over land they ceased to cultivate for a few years. In the mid-2000s the area was opened to private investment in the form of ELCs and private commercial medium sized farms and logging enterprises. In many cases, local and national authorities conspired to transform the farmlands of smallholders into ‘empty’ and ‘degraded’ forest land that was suitable for foreign investment. As many small holders found it difficult to establish clear tenure over secondary forest and distant farmlands, these lands were easily appropriated by state and private actors. The loss of small holder farmland exacerbated livelihood difficulties. The direct loss off farmland and the end of the forest frontier meant that smallholders were ‘locked in’ to small patches of land while ELC owners and private investors were accumulating tens of thousands of hectares. For poor agriculturalists who no longer had access to the forest, land became an important asset that in times of desperation could generate capital. Thus, in the context of the general barely-profitable agricultural sector, there is a tendency for smallholders to gradually have decreasing land size holdings while outsider investors increasingly control productive farmlands. High value land along major highways and town centres is typically under most pressure and now in both Phnom Sruoch and Aoral districts much land along major roads is already owned by newcomers or land investors.

Protected areas also prevent small holders from expanding farmlands and contributes to smallholders being ‘boxed in’. ELCs and protected areas also cut smallholders off from forest products, communal grazing areas and fishing and hunting grounds. Countless villages on the edges of ELCs have experienced problems with ELC managers when cattle inevitably stray into ELC land. With the loss of grazing lands to ELCs cattle often wander onto ELCs and have often been injured or confiscated. ELCs also often restrict and cut-off access to forest lands. In many cases ELCs also extract bribes from farmers who carry timber across ELC territories. All these things exacerbate livelihood difficulties of small holders.

Conservation activities – especially by Conservation International (CI) along the western border of the Cardamom mountains, has also resulted in a marked decrease of timber and charcoal activities in Cardamoms. Unlike the MoE, CI enforce forestry law much more strictly and farmers who log in territory where CI operate risk not only losing their entire haul but having their tractor and chainsaw confiscated. This also restricts access for surrounding villages to forest lands and either forces people to travel further into the norther area of Aoral and Pursat or makes timber collection unprofitable.

Community forests are another form of land use of significance in the catchment. Community forests emerged in the context of smallholder land loss and rapid forest conversion. Key

17 people in villagers throughout the catchment began to preserve forested or recently cleared areas for communal use starting from the early 2000s. In many instances these were village initiated efforts to preserve land for cattle grazing, for future agricultural expansion, to secure access to forest resources and preserve forests for future generations. Many people across the catchment interviewed stated that such initiatives failed due to the intense pressures on forests and land throughout the 2000s. In some cases villagers learnt about community forests laws from NGOs or local authorities and began the process of formerly establishing community forests. In some instances local authorities opposed establishing community forests and such land was transformed into private land and in other instances planned CFs were included within the territories of ELCs. The success of ELCs tends to hinge on several factors. Firstly, pressure on land and forests is a major factor. In areas where forested land has already largely been cleared and valuable timber harvested, CFs are more likely to flourish. Also where there is less pressure on smallholder land from either ELCs or private investors, CFs are more likely to succeed. The second factor is formal acceptance and clear land tenure. Once CFs are formerly established they are technically removed from the land market (although in some cases ELCs have won out over established CFS). This means it is generally harder for individuals to sell CF land (although under CF law MAFF has the right to dissolve CFs where forests are not adequately managed and numerous people interviewed in CFs stated that local authorities had threatened to do this). Yet because many CFs are located on marginal lands with very limited forest resources and with limited agricultural prospects, pressure on CFs usually decrease with time. Yet in Aoral district where land and forests are still actively being converted into commodities, pressure on CFs remains intense. The same applies to indigenous communal land (for the five indigenous villages in Aoral district which are mentioned in further detail in the case study section). Other important factors include the strength of the committee and the support it has from involved villagers and the degree of support of the CF from authorities and other interested parties. Chambak for instance is successful due to the strong support it has received from NGOs, the MoE, surrounding villages and the fact that it offers potential to provide employment and income (however minimal) for those involved.

The value of CFs to villages tends to range widely. While some CFs and communal lands are highly valued by villagers and provides them with timber resources, NTFPs, an important space for cattle grazing or even income from ecotourism in the case of Chambak, other CFs such as Leap Guy and Sen Monorom provide more symbolic values. In these cases local villagers tend to support CF for non-material rather than livelihood benefits.

1.6.5. Labour

As in the three other commodities, the last decade represents an important shift where labour is increasingly commodified. Throughout the catchment people in villages utilise their labour for a wide range of purposes throughout the agricultural and spiritual year. As with

18 anywhere, the types and circumstances of these labour forms vary widely. People prepare foods which they provide to monks and to Pagoda’s at key times during the year. People conduct patrols and other activities to protect CFs. People also assist one another in house building. Traditionally households utilise reciprocal labour for key agricultural activities. At other times labour is more orientated towards individual household reproduction or cash crop production for an income. So too some focus their labour on small scale commercial activities such as selling goods or offering basic services. Yet the divide between labour for a profit and labour that is communal is often not clear – for instance people may collect a small fee to use car batteries to charge phones or to cross bridges that are built by individuals. But these are services often provided by people within the village and with limited profitability. The expansion of the wage relation however is entirely different in nature. Here individuals sell their labour to outsiders who seek to extract a profit from their work. As people become less dependent upon forests and their own land to produce agricultural commodities it is increasingly labour work which they are forced to turn to. Peoples labour is increasingly orientated toward wage labour than other forms of village based labour. As with the other three commodities there is a very distinct temporal and geographic pattern to the expansion of wage relations across the catchment. Labour work is much more likely to be the main source of income for land poor people who are distant from forests in the more populated downstream area. In the upstream semi-forested area many people continue to resist labour work preferring to struggle on with rice production and charcoal and timber harvesting.

Due to an intense shortage of labour work throughout the province many people are forced to migrate outside of their home district in search for work. ELCs offer some work for local villages although this is limited to key parts of the agricultural year. For instance, the large sugar cane ELCs in Aoral district typically employ a large pool of day labourers during the harvest and planting seasons, however, outside this period jobs are limited. Other ELCs in the province have had to reduce their labour force due to economic difficulties (e.g. the Grandis concession in Aoral district). Most people interviewed throughout the province complained about having a lack of stable employment. Outside of work on ELCs, day labourers also work for local villagers planting, transplanting and harvesting rice or working on mango farms. However, the pay for this work is often less than work in other places as many villagers are capital poor. On an ELC, a day labourer is typically payed around 12,000 – 15,000 r per day for low skilled physical work (clearing, planting and harvesting). Labourers either work on a fixed daily rate (where they are closely managed and monitored during the 8 hour day) or paid per the quantity of work (where they are payed based on how much they clear or plant or how much crop they harvest). Work for local villagers on paddy fields or mango farms is typically piece work (people agree on a certain area to be planted or harvested and paid accordingly). Day labour work is extremely physically demanding. Those who are very young, sick or old are generally unable conduct this type of work. On ELCs women are also unable to bring their children with them.

19

Young jobless women increasingly choose to work in garment factories located in Chbar Moan and Phnom Penh. There are approximately 80 garment factories located in Chbar Moan and hundreds in Phnom Penh. Garment factories prefer to hire women due to their supposedly more pliant and hard-working nature. Some factories in Chbar Moan offer transport services to major town centres in the province which transport women to and from garment factories on a daily basis. However many women complained of difficulties in finding work in Chbar Moan (citing the need to have connections in order to receive a job). Most women working in Phnom Penh garment factories would stay in Phnom Penh and come home to visit families when possible (usually a biweekly or monthly basis). All women interviewed working in garment factories complained about long working hours, cramped living conditions, the difficulties of saving money and separation from family members. The minimum pay rate is currently set at USD$166. Numerous women interviewed also worked in Thailand. Due to the proximity of Thailand and large labour demand and relatively higher wages, many people preferred to work in Thailand. Women interviewed worked in a number of industries – garment work, packaging factories and hospitality. However, all women interviewed emphasised that there are a number of risks associated with working in Thailand. First and foremost is that large amounts of people still travel to Thailand without proper documentation making them vulnerable to arbitrary arrest, abuse or underpayment. Travelling to Thailand without work lined up also posed a risk that people would spend large amounts of time unemployed. People generally felt that undergoing formal documentation was too costly and lengthy and inappropriate for those who had not yet formally organised work prior to leaving.

Young jobless men worked in a number of industries throughout the country and abroad. Outside of labour work on local ELCs, the most common form of labour work for young men was construction work in Phnom Penh. Many households interviewed had men who had gone to work in this manner. Due to the construction boom in Phnom Penh, large amounts of unskilled labour are required on a daily basis. Typically, this is untrained work paid on a daily basis which people learn about through word of mouth. Like women working in garment factories, people often migrate in groups or chains where a friend or relative will inform others about work when it comes up. Men typically stay onsite and visit their homes after a project is completed. Men complained about this work being dangerous and difficult. Many also worried that they were easily exploited (there are frequently stories of underpayment or even non-payment) and work is not always constantly available. The average daily wage is 20,000 r per day. Some men interviewed also had experience working in Thailand. Like women, men worked in a range of industries from agriculture, to textiles, to construction and hospitality. Many men also worked without proper documentation.

The rapid shift toward precarious labour work as a major income source for households has a number of import social and economic ramifications. Households across the catchment are increasingly fragmented where younger men and women often live temporarily in Phnom Penh or Thailand. For land poor villages which are distant from forests a high portion of young

20 men and women no longer reside on a permanent basis in the village. Childcare often falls upon older family members and it is not uncommon for husbands and wives to live in different areas. The often itinerant nature of labour work means that many households are under major financial pressures. For those who are unable (or choose not) to reside outside the village, it is often particularly difficult to access labour work. Asset poor households across the province in such a position often face food security issues and face major barriers in terms children’s education attainments and access to quality healthcare.

1.6.6. Summary

This section has given an overall catchment analysis of four important processes that are shaping livelihoods, land and forest use change across the study site. These are hardwood harvesting, charcoal production, the expansion of a land market and the expansion of a labour market. These four processes can usefully be thought of as commodity frontiers. All four frontiers tend to follow a similar temporal and spatial pattern. As forested lands are progressively depleted of high value timber resources, charcoal production typically follows. Due to historic patterns of resettlement and population density, this process has tended to expand from downstream areas to upstream areas as highland forested areas are increasingly opened to resettlement and exploitation. Simultaneously, smallholder and communal land become commodified as forests are cleared and new lands become available to settlement, investment and appropriation. Asset poor small-smallholders are often forced to sell land when in times of need. Smallholders who have no productive land, assets or capital are forced to sell their labour.

21

2. Research Methods

2.1. Interview and observation

This research employed ethnography methods including formal and informal interviews, direct observation and group discussions during field research. Overall more than 150 casual interviews and informal conversations were conducted with various participants (see the Appendix 1 for list of participant involved) to explore the relationship between local villagers and land and resources. During interviews information and further potential interviewees were gained (see section 1.2 for the research themes). The interviews were conducted at the district, commune and village levels. Key research guidelines were created prior to the fieldwork (see appendix 1.1). At the district level, the district governor or deputy governor and relevant non-government organisations working at the district level were interviewed. At the commune level, a total of eight commune heads were interviewed. At the village level, at least two village heads within a selected commune were interviewed. Interviews also included Community Forest heads and 22relevant authorities who were based at the village level. Diverse groups of the local community in terms of gender, age, occupation and geographical locations were interviewed.

The field research also involved intensive field observations. The fieldwork was conducted by two researchers who hold a PhD degree in geography with specific interest in Cambodian land and resource politics. The two researchers also have experiences in conducting ethnographic research in the Cambodian rural context. Field research included observing the relations between different groups who engage in land and resource usages and governance at the local level. Apart from conducting interviews, other daily activities of the researchers included;, participating and observing local use of land and resources and interactions with environmental authorities and their relationship with ELCs.

The field research was conducted over a 16 days period between late June and early July. The research was conducted in two districts - Aoral and Phnom Sruoch. Eight days were spent in each district. The first two days of field work in each district involved multiple interviews with participants at the district and commune levels to gain a better sense of the general geographical, historical and administrative contexts of the district. The other six days were spent on exploring two subsections of the district (see section 4.2 for the details of the field sites). After visiting each site within a district separately, the two researchers discussed and reflected on their specific case studies to inform each other about their results and observations so as to come to a common understanding of the situation at the district level.

2.2. Mapping and landscape observations

During field data collections, the researchers were also equipped with a GPS map of land and resource use at the commune level. This was to better understand the geographical layout of

22 land and resource usage within the communities in relation to changes over the last 3 decades. This mapping approach was also used to elaborate the impacts of different formal boundaries being imposed on the landscape. The results of the mapping exercise are presented in the report where relevant.

2.3. Site selection

Five communes including Tasal and Trapeang Chour of Aoral and Krang Dei Vay, Chambak and Traeng Trayueng of Phnom Sruoch were selected (Figure 2.1). Sites were selected that are undergoing rapid land use change. In Aoral the two case study sites are on the forest frontier where forests and livelihoods are experiencing rapid changes. Research sites were also chosen which could display the realities of ELCs and Protected Areas. Lastly, study sites were chosen to give a picture of different population distributions. For example, Roleak Kong Churng, a collective group of villages at the Tasal Commune was selected to study because it covers the northwest of Stung Prek Thnot while Trapeang Chour was chosen because it can provide insights into the northern area of Stung Prek Thnout catchment. Similar principles were applied to selection of Krang Dei Vay, Chambak and Traeng Trayueng.

Figure 2.1 Study sites presented by commune boundaries

23

24

3. Roleak Kong Chueng region of Tasal Commune – Northwestern Upper Prek Thnot Catchment

3.1. A brief history

The history of the region can be traced back to the post-KR history of Cambodia. This history plays an important role in how land and resources are currently used and organised. All villages in the area were not evacuated during the Khmer Rouge period 1975-1979. However, in 1997, after the arrival of Vietnamese troops, the people of Roleak Kong Chueng were evacuated away from the mountainous areas and located in areas firmly under government control. According to the Aoral district governor, when Vietnamese troops arrived in 1979, the villages relocated to Odong until 1980. Between 1980 and 1990, they lived in Trapeang Chour. Between 1990 and 1997, they lived in O’Koki area.

During the time they lived in relocation sites, villagers were living with their own villager group and communes. While living in the new locations, the communes’ and villages’ names remained the same. Those who lived in a particular village before and during the Khmer period lived in the same village with the same people. This collective movement allowed the people to maintain a very strong sense of belonging to their particular village. According to interviews with villagers of Tang Bampong village, most people decided to come back to the village because this is the only village they have been living in (Interviews A13, A15 and A19). Additionally, as people left and comeback at similar periods of time, land was abandoned, reused, and redistributed at the same time which contributes to the less complicated nature of land tenure in comparison to other areas.

Since early settlement, forest products have played an important role in local livelihoods. Returning to such a remote area also posed a lot of challenges. The first year of resettling in the villages, people were heavily hit by malaria which killed dozens of people. Instead of living in the old location along the creeks near their farms, returning villagers decided to live near the pagoda which is further away from their farmland. While striving to survive through multiple relocations, most of the old farmlands could not be immediately reused. People cleared only small patches of land or reused the paddy rice to grow rice for food. The main source of income was collecting forest products. At the beginning of their resettlement, people were actively engaging in logging and collecting Agarwood as their major income source (Interviews A6 and A32).

By the early 2010s, luxurious woods and highly valuable forest products had disappeared from the forest leaving only low-value timber used for construction. As stated earlier, luxury timber species were heavily exploited during the 1980s and 1990s. According to interviews with villages, not only the KR and civilians were collecting woods from the Cardamom region, Vietnamese troops were also involved in logging in the 1980s. Villagers suggested that trucks were transporting woods out of the forest day and night. During the early 1990s, woods in the area were logged by the military or civilians who associated themselves with the KR. Many

25 villagers said “woods such as Beng and Neang Noun had all disappeared for a very long time” (Interviews A6 and A8).

3.2. Geographical overview and land restriction

Roleak Kong Chueng is a sub-section of Tasal commune located in the north-western edge of the Stung Prek Thnot within Aoral district (Figure 3.1). The area consists of nine villages located near the edge of the Cardamom Mountains. The arable land and open access spaces for collecting natural resources have become very limited because of different restrictions on land and resources. The whole area is located inside the two Protected Areas - the Central Cardamom and Phnom Aural. To the southern part, two ELCs were allocated by the government in 2008 and 2009, both of which grow sugarcane (see Table 1.1). Both these ELCs have had major impacts on surrounding villages. These restrictions are more intense especially for those villages located on the edge of ELC boundaries such as Choam and Dun Choam villages (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Geography of Roleak Kong Chueng

According to the Choam Village head, some families received less than $50 per hectare of land taken by the ELCs. Stories from people in Choam village reveal that they lost their land to ELCs with minimal compensation - or in some cases no compensation at all.

26

Thar, for instance, is a 65-year-old woman, living in Choam village. She has lost most of her land to the Yellow Field ELC. She owned about 5 ha of land near Tasal River where she grew corn and rice mainly to supply food for the family and a small income from the leftover. Most of her land was not yet cleared and only a few plots of the land were used. In the early 2010s when the Yellow Field concession arrived, local authorities began negotiations with local villagers who had lost land. Thar was compensated $600 for her 5ha of land lost to the company. She said even though she would not have agreed to offer them the land, they would have taken it anyway. Thar added that the company compensation was provided to the paddy rice field land only and the Chamkar land and the land that had not yet been cleared received less than $50/ha. Since losing the land to the ELC, the only land she now has is the 40x200 meters residential land along the main road. The only place her family can grow crops is at the back of that land. Thar explained that her land cannot even provide them enough rice to eat for the whole season.

Buthorn in his 40s inform Choam Village explained that apart from losing the land, living near the ELCs restricted their access to natural resources. Similar to Thar, Bunthorn has also lost land to the company without any compensation because the land he lost is not paddy rice, but a mix of farmland and forest land that he had claimed when settling back in the village in the late 1990s. His family income is derived from collecting woods to sell to charcoal producers. He said before the arrival of the ELCs, he could collect woods and NFTPs near the village, but now he has to pass the ELCs in order to reach the forest. Additionally, to transport the forest produce thought the ELCs, he has to pay 10000 Riel per trip with a mini-tractor of wood.

Phai, another villager from Choam, suggested that fish and wild animals are now harder to collect because there is no more forest near the village. People have to pass through ELCs to reach the forest. Therefore, for someone like Tha a 65 year old woman, reaching the forest becomes near impossible. Her only son is now working in another province because their land cannot provide them with enough income.

The region’s ecological features also limit how arable land is used. Located near the mountain edge where most land is rocky, only farmland small percentage of land can be converted into farmland. Many parts of Roleak Kong Chueng are covered by deciduous forest where the soil is poor, sandy and rocky. Therefore, most of the farmlands are located along the creeks

27 flowing to Stung Tasal River (see Figure 3.2). Most of the agricultural land is rain-fed paddy rice.

The following image gives an example of land and resource usage within one of the villages. As shown in the image most of the land is not arable due to the ecological condition of the landscape. According to interviews with people villagers, most households have less than 1 hectares of land including both paddy fields and farmland land (Interviews A26, A27 and A28). To the west, the land is restricted by the mountains, where land is rocky and steep. Therefore, the only paddy rice field people cultivate is the lowland areas concentrated between small streams that flow from the mountains to Stung Tasal River. The other type of farmland is dry farmland, (Chamkar), where people practice upland rice cultivation. Dry farmland is restricted to small patches of land located along the creeks, where the soil is fertile and moist enough to grow fruit trees, vegetable and rice. Currently, the only land people can expand is the land near the edge of their paddy rice and dry farmland and this remaining land is very limited.

Figure 3.2 Tang Bampong land-use map

28

Figure 3.3 A paddy rice field (left) and an irrigation channel (right)

3.3. Subsistent farming practice

Farmland is mainly subsistence-based to supply food and a small income to villagers. From an interview with the village head of Tang Bampong Village, most people own less than 1.5 hectares of farmland including paddy rice fields and small patches of farmland which is used to grow mainly rice, fruit trees and vegetables. Some people suggested that they own more land than the land they currently used. These are forest land or old farmlands inherited from their parents (Interviews A13, A15 and A19). The village head added that most of the harvest from farmland are used for household food supply. Only a few families with large land are able to sell their rice to earn an income (Interview A34). The average yield of rice per hectare is less than 2 tonnes (Interview A34).

In Roleak Kong Chueng limitations of land and labour restrict the commercialisation of agriculture. As mentioned in above, most families own less than 1.5 ha of land which is actively cultivated and many also have land still covered in forest. To convert forest or abundant farmland into a permanent farmland requires a lot of labour and technology. People in Tang Bampong village suggested that after arriving in the village, they were busy with resettling down in the old village after being away from it for two decades. By the time they arrived in their village, their old paddy fields were covered with big trees that require a lot of time and labour to remove. When having to survive a hostile environment with malaria and landmines, people were not able to spend a lot of time to cultivate their abundant land. While the people were returning to their village, conservation NGOs also began operating in the area. Conservation agencies working to conserve the protected areas restricted smallholders converting forest land into farmland. In addition to this land has now been granted by the government to ELCs which also restricts the areas that people can expand and reused their old farmlands. As mentioned above many have straight out lost paddy and farmland to the ELCs.

Another major challenge in commercialising agricultural activities is market instability. In addition to limited farmland, the market for agricultural products is not reliable. Many people complained about a pumpkin crisis last year due to the unexpected price crash. In early 2016,

29 the village head suggested to people grow pumpkin given that pumpkins were being brought for a good price the year earlier. During the harvest season of 2016, the market for pumpkin was saturated. Pumpkins could not be sold, so all the farmers who engaged in pumpkin production lost money, time and labour. This experience left people suspicious of the agricultural commodities market. Therefore, most of the crops are those that can be locally consumed which include primarily rice and some fruit crops such as banana, jackfruit and mango and vegetables.

The other difficulty is transportation. The area is considered to be the worst place in the district for transportation difficulties during the wet season. The closest local market is Kantout market, which is more than 40 kilometres away. Kantout is a remote district centre which only meets a small agricultural demand. To be able to reach Kampong Spue market, it takes about 3 hours. With their limited yield, it is not profitable to transport their own agricultural products by themselves to the markets. People exclaimed that their agricultural products can be sold only if there are middlemen from outside who can make it to the village. These middlemen are very unpredictable. During the wet season when the roads are difficult, they often to do not make it to the village.

Traditional swidden/farmland practices have been reduced and the land is now often converted into paddy rice fields. The reduction of farmlands is because labour required for swidden farming is higher than for paddy cultivation. Phon said that doing swidden rice is a labour and time consuming practice. With the current shortage of labour, people prefer paddy rice than swidden farming. The main benefit of doing swidden farming is that it can generate multiple crops in a small plot of land. While growing rice, they usually grow seasonal vegetables such as pumpkin, bean and corn in between harvests. Therefore, swidden farming can generate substantial and diverse forms of food for their family without relying on food from the market. This form of farming was very popular prior to the KR regime when the village was cut off from the market. These days apart from rice, many vegetables are imported from outside the village. Additionally, with swidden farming, they have to clear the land every year in order to cultivate crops on it. As grasses rapidly grow, large amounts of time are required to clear lands of weeds. Additionally, doing swidden rice exposes harvests to wild animal such as wild pigs, birds and monkey. In the past people were able to do swidden rice because they lived on their farm half of the year during the cultivating season. These days, people are not living on their farms anymore. According to an interview, Phan said that only a few households still do swidden rice and most of them are from the older generation (Interview A14). Some people suggested that most of the non-paddy rice field land is currently being used to grow fruit crops such as jackfruit, mango and banana which are more permanent and require less work throughout the year.

Cultivating paddy rice is the most feasible option in terms of time and labour that allows people to allocate labour for other activities such as collecting forest products. Paddy rice does not usually require weeding regularly as the swidden farm does. Rice is cultivated during

30 the west season, which is between May and November. People started to plough the land during early rains of May and June. After the land is ploughed, they grew saplings. Both processes take a week or two. During July and August, people transplant their rice, the process of which may take another week or two. In November and December, they harvest the rice. In between the active period of seeding, transplanting and harvest, people are able to engage in other activities such as collecting charcoal wood and non-timber forest products e.g., cardamom, mushrooms, and bamboo.

3.4. Charcoal and wood collection

Over the last few years, charcoal wood collection has become a major income for people living in Roleak Kong Chueng. According to the village head of Tang Bampong, most of the households in the village are engaging in collecting charcoal wood. Such a scale of charcoal wood collection in unprecedented in the area. Roleak Kong Cheung is now one of the most important sources of charcoal woods collection in Kampong Spue province. The deforestation rate has dramatically exacerbated, particularly the remaining forest in the lowland areas near the mountain edges. Prior to the charcoal, people in the village involve construction wood collections, hunting and collecting NTFP.

People in Roleak Kong Cheurng area do not usually produce charcoal themselves; instead, most of the timber cut from the region is sold to charcoal producers based in Anlong Sangkea village, about five few kilometres southeast of the district centre. This is mainly because of restrictions due to area being located within a Protected Areas which is supported by international conservation organisation such as Conservation International (CI). From interviews with the Tang Bampong village head and the Community Forestry head, charcoal kilns are not allowed in the village according to protected area law. The other reason is that people in the area do not have skills to produce charcoal as charcoal technology is new to villagers in the area only having come in the last few years. Most of the people who produce charcoal are from other areas such as Kong Pisey District or Baseth (south-eastern district of Kampong Speu), where charcoal timber has already been exhausted.

31

Figure 3.4 Transporting charcoal woods

Figure 3.5 Place where charcoal is produced

Currently, charcoal timber collection is what the majority of labour, time and money are invested on. As charcoal production is labour intensive it is usually done by males who can dedicate large periods of time to it. According the interviews, most young males in Tang Bampong village are collecting charcoal timber. Before wood could be sold to the charcoal makers, several intensive processes are involved. First is to cut the woods from the forest which required chopping them up into pieces. A wood cutter hence needs to know how to use a chainsaw. The second stage is to transport the wood out of the forest to the collector’s

32 house. To do so, they need to be able to drive a mini-tractor - including being able to manoeuvre away from forest authorities. Mini tractors (Koyons) are a hard machinery to operate especially in the forest. Third, they need to transport the woods to the charcoal producers who are based in a village near Kantout. Based on observations of charcoal transporters. In addition to labour, collecting charcoal woods is time-consuming. To be able to fill up a Koyon to sell to the charcoal makers, a young man with one tractor may take up to 1 week. One tractor load of timber for sale typically requires three trips to the forest (as due to the road condition, only small loads from the forest can be transported).

Collecting charcoal woods is also costly. An interview with Chantha reveals how costly it can be to collect charcoal woods. In order to collect charcoal woods, people need to buy a Koyon which can cost more than USD 2000 for each vehicle. On top of paying for the Koyon, people need to be able to afford a chainsaw which typically cost a few hundred dollars to purchase.

To able to purchase this machinery, Chantha borrowed money from the bank. The interest rate for the money he borrowed is about 2% per month. Some people sold their cows to buy a tractor. Sophea has a family two young sons who collect charcoal wood. However, her family could not afford to buy a tractor, so she decided to sell two mature cows. Additionally, to buy machinery, villagers have to spend money on transporting the woods. This includes gasoline and informal payments to authorities along the road. Setha said that to transport the wood from the forest to the charcoal processors, he spent about 150,000 Riel (about 40 USD). The price for one tractor load is about 300000-500000 (75-125 UDS) depending on the quality of the timber. About 30% of the expenses went toward bribing Protected Area rangers and police along the roads. Other expenses are for gasoline and food during the trip. He added that to fill up one track, it took about a week of cutting and transporting the woods from the forest (Interview A14).

The financial risk of collecting charcoal is high especially for people who are borrowing money from the bank. People need to repay the bank on a monthly basis.

Chantha’s family borrowed USD 2000 from the bank and they have to pay USD 125/month for two years to pay off the loan. In order to have a monthly income to pay off the loan, they need to generate income from whatever sources they can. Those sources are mainly from woods and NTFPs. However, such sources of income are not regular and permanent. Timber form the forest is being harvested at an unsustainable rate and soon will be depleted at the current rate of harvesting. Additionally, forest regulations are in many paces unclear and unpredictable. Chantha’s wife said she sometimes earns income

33

from collecting bamboo to help paying off the loan, but bamboo shoots can only be collected a few months of the year. Sometimes there is no market for the bamboo either. To be able to borrow money from the bank, people have to deposit their land titles. Therefore, if people cannot pay back to loan, they may lose their lands (Interview A14).

Producing charcoal is also a risky business.

Sary is a charcoal producer from Kong Pesey District. Because of serving the military until 1997, without land Sary and his family had relied mainly on selling labour before making charcoal. Last year his whole family (his wife and three children) moved to Anlong Sangkea village to produce charcoal. In order to invest in charcoal making, his family borrowed USD 3000 from the bank. Each month he has to save at least 200 USD to repay the bank. With the money he borrowed, he invested in 6 kilns. To build a kiln cost about 100UDS, (75 USD) on digging out a hole and 25 for was filling it up with clay. To fill up one kiln, they need to buy 3 mini-trucks of woods, which cost about 1.5 million riel. Every month he also had to pay 25000 Riel to the landlord and commune/village authority. Occasionally, MoE staff and journalists would come to the site and ask for money. Overall, Sary has to save at least 300USD/month. Sary said if there is no more timber or charcoal production is closed down, he would not be able to pay the loan back to the bank. He added that he would not know what else to do next (Interview A39).

Charcoal collection is not just done by local people but also by people from across the province. Outsiders from other districts also actively engage in collecting charcoal woods in Roleak Kong Chueng. An interview with Bunthy, a rice farmer Krang Dei Vay, a commune of Phnom Sruoch district, reveals that he came to the region because woods from his own locality have already been depleted. Charcoal collection is an important supplementary income for this household apart from cultivating rice. In Krang Dei Vay, he only has a few small plots of rice paddy which could not provide his family enough rice. Therefore, to earn income afyer the rice season, he and his son come to Roleak Kong Chueng to collect charcoal timber. Bunthy said that timber is disappearing very quickly. To get timber they have to go to further away or even up the hills. Sometimes, it is not worth the energy and time to collect the woods because it is too far. He added that some of his friends have moved to Pursat Province to collect charcoal timber because the timber in roleak Kong Cheung has become scarce.

The spread of charcoal production signifies the last stage of deforestation within lowland forest near the edge of the Cardamom Mountains. In comparison to other forms of wood collection e.g., construction wood and luxury timber, charcoal timber is collected less

34 selectively. As long as the wood reaches a certain size, there is demand for it. The quality of these woods is not as high as woods for housing construction. The diameter of the woods can be as small as 10 to 20 centimetres and length can be less than 1 metre long. The shape of the woods does not really matter as much compared to timber used in construction. According to interviews with the local community, a few different types of timber are commonly collected for charcoal production including Chambak, Trayourng and Preaphnov. These tree species mainly grow in lowland deciduous forest or semi-evergreen forest. These woods are not the species that are needed for construction or other usages (Interviews A33 and A34).

Figure 3.6 Charcoal woods

35

Figure 3.7 Land after highly deforested

3.5. The cnvironmental cost

Water pollution from the sugarcane plantation has become one of the major concerns for those who are based downstream of the plantation. According to interviews with local villagers who live nearby the Yellow Field sugar plantation, water quality of Stung Tasal is very poor. Sal used to work for the ELCs and observed that the companies have used a lot of fertilisers and pesticide to grow their sugarcane. He said the people in the village are scared of eating fish from the river near the ELCs (Interview A82). Some people said that the fish from the river goes off quicker compared to fish they had further away. Some local people refuse to work with the sugarcane plantation because concerns over exposure to chemicals (Interviews A81 and A82). In addition to that, sugarcane plantation involves ploughing the land annually which increases sedimentation into the river system. Ratha, a worker for a sugarcane plantation said that every year, the concession would plough the land before the rainy season starts (Interview A82). Each year of cultivating sugarcane, a few tonnes of fertiliser and pesticide are applied. Ratha added that the soil quality is getting worse which requires more fertiliser to be added into the soil.

Due to heavy deforestation, forest fire and soil erosion occurs more frequently and intensively. In 2015, people witnessed an intensive forest fire on the mountains that they had never seen before (Interviews A15, A19 and A21). They suggested that this forest fire was triggered by a long history of logging. Tha and Thy found that when the top canopy threes had been cut, they normally fall and kill smaller trees nearby. During the dry season, the dead trees dried leaving behind a large fuel load. So when people burn their farms as they normally

36 do it often triggers large scale forest fires. In 2015, a forest fire in the mountainous lasted for months. This forest fire damaged forest products such as cardamom, which is considered an important seasonal income source for some local villagers. Furthermore logging activities have also increased soil erosion (Interviews A15 and A21). The following picture shows a mountain near Tang Bammpong Village that had been highly logged and was affected by the intensive forest fire in 2015 (Figure 3.8). This mountain is where the local community used to collect NFTPs such as cardamom and mushroom. However, this year cardamoms have not yet regrown and wild animals have decreased. Bun said he had witnessed large rocks falling into the river after big rains. He had never witnessed this happen befor in his fifty or so odd years living there. Streams are also getting shallower which makes it harder for people to use water for farming.

Figure 3.8 A mountain one year after a major forest fire

3.6. The Poor and Non-timber Forest Products (NTFP)

The poorest groups within the community tend to be those whose labour is limited and financial capital is low including single mothers, the elderly and new in-migrants.

Sitha, a 58 years old, lost her husband since the early 2000s due to sickness. Since then she became a single mother of 5. She is one of the poorest people in the village. She does not have much land left apart from her residential land and a small plot of rice paddy. After her husband died, her family did not have enough labour to clear the land. Her children were too young. The only income she earnt on a daily

37

basis is collecting bamboo shoots from the forest nearby. In one day she can collect about 5-10 kilograms of bamboo shoots from which she can earn about 5000-15000 Riel. One kilogram of bamboo shoot is typically sold for around 1000 to 1500 Riel. Sitha exclaimed that she can collect bamboo shoots near her village. Another NTFP she collects is resin which is mainly from the Community Forestry nearby the village. Her family cannot afford to borrow money from the Bank to buy a tractor, so her children cannot collect fire wood like other people in the village.

The depletion of forest products has increased the vulnerability of the poorer villagers. Accessing NTFPs also requires higher labour than it used to. First, the distance to collect is becoming greater – especially after te arrival of the ELCs. This creates many obstacles for the elderly, women and single mothers to obtain NTFPs such as bamboo shoots, bamboo, resin and mushrooms. Theary said most of the women in her village engage in collecting bamboo shoots (Interview A19). Shitha said she cannot go and collect mushrooms in the mountains with other young men. The place to collect the mushroom is further away from the village and she would have to climb up the hill if she wants to make her journey there. The only place she can reach is the forest nearby. Additionally, for the people living near the ELCs, accessing forests to collect NTFP is even harder. People have to go through the ELCs before reaching the forest. Some people said it is not worth the time and labour (Interviews A13 and A19). Touch exclaimed, “before the ELCs arrived, the forest was just at the back of their land, but now if you go past your land it is the sugar plantation.” Some people said that they cannot find space to raise their cattle because all the grasslands have been converted into plantations. Secondly, the quantity of the NTFPs within the remaining forests has also declined. Srey said that the resin that can be collected from the forest nearby is decreasing rapidly because people are cutting trees for charcoal wood. Each day her children can barely collect a few kilograms of resin. This area being depleted included the Community Forestry which is about 1 kilometre from the village centre.

Demand for NTFP also varies depending on distant markets. Local villagers only collect NTFP when middlemen ask them to. Sitha said that not only are bamboo shoots hard to find, but it also hard to sell. The middlemen would buy the bamboo shoots for a few days then they would ask her to stop collecting. The bamboo shoots would go off easily within a few days without buyers. Without bamboo shoots, Sitha may not have any income. She added that sometimes, the buyers would ask for resin, but the price fluctuates a lot and it may not be worth the time (ranging from 40000 to 10000 Riel and sometimes there is no market demand, so people stop collecting them). Theary also suggested that this year less people are collecting bamboo shoots because buyers have not come to the village as regularly as last year.

38

Figure 3.9 Mushrooms people collected

3.7. Community Forestry

Two years after local villagers resettled back in their villages, a Community Forestry was established in each village under the supervision and support from an NGO called Life With Dignity (LWD) known by local people as “L” organisation. However, according to unsuccessful management, most CFs failed and only one CF remains forested. This CF is known as Tang Bampong Community Forestry. This CF land is covered mainly by deciduous or semi-every green forest where the land are not suitable for agriculture. By 2011, 240 ha of forest land was registered as a Community Forestry by the Forestry Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (see Figure 3.10). Article 2 in Sub-Degree # 79 on Community Forestry Management states “The objectives of this Sub-Decree include the following:…. To define the rights, roles and duties of the Forestry Administration Responsible Authorities, CF Communities…” This means FA is the key actor in relation to CFs. Additionally, the CF was registered by FA because it was located inside the Central Cardamom Protected Area which was under the FA authority. However, in 2016, the Cambodian government transferred all Protected Forests to the Ministry of Environment (MoE). Therefore, the legislative status of the Tang Bampong remains unclear.

39

Figure 3.10 Tang Bampong community forest

In terms of its location and availability of the woods, Tang Bang Bampong CF is likely going to be the only remaining charcoal wood stock when woods elsewhere are depleted and woods are harder to collect. Tang Bampong CF is only one Kilometre from the villager centre and only a few kilometres from the main road (see Figure 3.10). Therefore, to cut the woods from the CF is economically more feasible than cutting the wood from further away. According to interviews and observation, it was observed that only a few plots of unused old farmlands exist in the CF. The CF head suggested that more than 50% of the land inside the CF is rocky and there is no major stream that flows into this CF either. Luxurious woods have already been logged since the early period of resettlement during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Hence, most of trees in the forest are either lower quality construction woods or fire woods. The CF head suggested that about 70% forest remains in the community territory; nevertheless, the forest is under threat by charcoal wood collection. Currently, most of the charcoal woods are collected from outside of the CF, but more and more people are coming to cut the woods from the CF (Interview A33). One transect walk in the forest revealed that some trees in the CF are being cut, while the surrounding areas are highly deforested. The CF management team is finding it difficult to control deforestation, the CF head exclaimed. Figure 6.7 shows a cut tree in the CF with a sign on top saying “no forest cutting in the community forest.”

40

Figure 3.11 A sign saying no cutting forest in the CF placed on a cut tree

Participating in the CF protection is decreasing while cutting timber is increasing. All households in Tang Bampong Village are members of the Tang Bampong CF. They are entitled to protect and utilise the forest inside the CF under the management plans. The CF head and village head explained that in previous years, participation in the CF was a lot higher. People wanted to protect the forest because they want to maintain the woods for housing construction. However, due to the outbreak of charcoal wood collection, more people want to cut the forest and sell timber instead of keeping timber for housing construction. The village head said “when we asked them to go patrolling, they said they are busy or they said their wives did not allow them to join. Only me and the community head are active these days. Without us, there will be no one protecting the forest. As you can see, the forest outside the CF is almost gone.” A villager complained “my wife asks me what do I receive from protecting the forest in the CF. You should look at other people’s husbands who cut the timber. They earn a lot of money. If you spend the time for protecting the forest, you will get nothing.” The FC head suggested that most people cutting charcoal wood in the CF are from the village or from nearby villages. The village head said “we know each other, so it is hard to be strict. Sometime when I see them they just run and I could not do anything.” The CF is one of the most accessible forests remaining in the area. It is only one kilometre from the village centre.

During field work a discussion was overheard between an MoE official and the Tang Bampong village head. During the conversation, the MoE official notified the village head that CFs there are not legally recognised when they are within a PA –they can only be permitted within FA territorial jurisdiction. After the conversation finished, the village head showed the author a formal letter of letter from MAFF which recognises the CF dated from 2010. The village wondered could it could be possible for the MoE official to claim their CF is not official. He

41 added that if he found out there was no legal recognition from the government, he wouldl no longer participate in protecting the forest in the CF.

Although the current CF is under threat, there is also potential to expand the territory of the CF. According to Tang Bampong Village head and the CF head, GEF and UNDP were proposing to create a commune based CF which would include 2462 ha covering multiple villages in the region. However, this new proposed CF is not yet functional.

Figure 3.12 New proposed CF in Tasal Commune

3.8. The myth of land claims and territories

Much of the surrounding land of Roleak Kang Cheung has already been claimed by outsiders- mostly powerful people or as part of proposed ELCs or provincial level investment schemes. For instance, an ELC granted at the provincial level covers approximately 3000 ha of land covering three villages Roneang Sor, Khteah and Cheim (Interview A31). According to interviews, these 3000 ha were sold by local authorities, village and commune heads. Some parts of the land have been cleared to demarcate the territories of the company, but the actual boundary of the land is not known by villagers and no publicly accessible map exists. Therefore, the possibility of future land conflict is high.

The other social land concession being proposed by the provincial government has not yet been implemented. According to the Tang Bampong Village head, the provincial government

42 has a plan to use land near Tang Bampong village for a social land concession. However, the detailed plans are not yet clear. The village head suggested that last month the provincial authorities come to observe the area, but a decision has not yet been made. Soun said she has never heard of the social land concession and does not know where it is (Interview A34).

43

4. Northern Upper Stung Prek Thnot – Trapeang Chour Commune

4.1. General geography and ecology

Trapeang Chour commune is the most northerly commune of Aoral district and encompasses the Aoral mountains and hills. Trapeang Chour is one of the largest (by area) communes of Kompong Speu but also one of the most sparsely populated. Until recently much of the commune was covered in thick evergreen forest (Interview B1). Much of the northern and western parts of the commune – especially the mountainous areas – are still forested, although most hardwood species have been logged. The Kantout river (the headwaters of the Stung Prek Thnot) also flows north-south through the commune and is an important water source for agriculture. It has also been an important source of fish. Villages have been established along this river for as long as people can remember and right up until the mid 2000s were considered highly isolated and forested (Interviews B1 amd B2). Much of the soil in the commune is ideal for agriculture where rolling hills provide rich ferric soils. The soils of the steeper lands surrounding Aoral mountain are typically sandy, rocky and shallow and less suitable for agriculture. The northern section of Trapeang Chour commune consists of the Aural Protected Area (under the management of MoE) and is largely forested. Most of the commune south of this area has been largely deforested and consists of ELCs and small holder agriculture land and some shrub land.

Figure 4.1 Trapeang Chour Commune

44

4.2. Demographics and history of settlement

Up until the mid-2000s Trapeang Chour commune consisted of only a few clusters of isolated villages living in predominantly forested areas (Interviews B1 and B2). There are three main clusters of villages in the commune. The first is the northern cluster (which is technically a single village but in the process of being split into three) named after the original settlement Srai Gen but also know as Aural Leu (‘upper Aural’). These settlement are located on the forest frontier (the southern tip of the Aural Protected Area) in the hills of Aural. The second cluster of villages are located roughly in the middle of the commune on flat lands that are now largely deforested. These villages are centred around Trapeang Angrong and Peam Lvea villages (two old villages). The third cluster consists of Indigenous and Khmer villages on the north-western fringe of the commune that are similarly located on the forest frontier (on the eastern tip of the central Cardamoms protected area and southern tip of Aural protected area). All three clusters consist of old villages that were established well before the Khmer Rouge regime. All three clusters have historically been highly dependent upon the forests that surround them, deriving trade and livelihoods from wood and NTFPs (Interviews B1 and B2). Until the early 2000s resin collecting for instance was widespread across all three areas (Interviews B3, B26).

A number of elderly people throughout the three areas could recount the French regime and attempts by the French to weed out Khmer Issarak guerrilla fighters. For instance an elderly 87 year old indigenous Suy man from Chambak village recalled that ‘in the 40s Issarak soldiers began to cluster around the village using the Cardamom mountains as a base (Interview B37). The forest cover allowed them to attack and escape French forces’. The Khmer Rouge movement also early on used the Cardamoms as an important strategic area and as such people in Trapeang Chour were exposed to conflicts between government forces and the KR much earlier than other areas. By 1970 the KR already had a strong presence in the area and by 1971 much of the villages in the three aforementioned clusters were under KR control (Interviews B37, B41 and B51). By 1971 Lon Nol forces had evacuated out of the commune to more populated areas further south (Interviews B41 and B51). From 1970 until the KR collapse in 1979, villages in the commune were not evacuated, rather people remained in their own villages. In 1975 ‘new people’ from across the country were settled amongst these villages until 1979 when they fled to either the border or their hometowns (Interviews, B3, 37,41,51). People interviewed described the 1979 collapse of the Khmer Rouge as ‘chaotic’ (Interview B39). Most people were unaware of events leading up the Vietnamese invasion and were unsure whether to follow the KR into the Cardamoms or flee behind Vietnamese lines (Interview B34 and B30). One 45-year-old man from Koh Dontei described his experience as:

“When the Vietnamese came we had no idea what was going on. All of a sudden there was fighting and bullets and explosions everywhere. I didn’t know what to do. I saw some people following the Khmer Rouge and others running in the opposite direction. We didn’t know if the

45

Vietnamese would shot us or not. We were scared that they would think we were KR. So I just ran with the KR. But it was too horrific. We weren’t prepared. We had barely and food or water. There were mines and people just kept on dying. So after a week or so I snuck away from the KR and made my way back to the village where I found others [villagers] still there and Vietnamese soldiers” (Interview B31).

From 1979, throughout the early 1990s people began to resettle their former villages, returning back to rice fields and farmland. At that time the Vietnamese assisted with some basic provisioning. A communal farming system was also set up where families would contribute a certain amount of labour to communal rice production in return for basic commodities such as salt, MSG and oil. In the early 90s the basic emphasis was on food security as there were major food shortages throughout the country (Interviews B23, B29 and B31). Simultaneously the KR was regrouping along the Thai border and by the mid to late 1980s was increasingly conducting hit and run attacks throughout the commune. In 1986 and 1987 there were a number of attacks on markets and government positions (Interviews B31 and B32). By 1989 (when the Vietnamese withdrew from Cambodia) the new Government of Cambodia decided to evacuate the entire commune to O’Koki (to the south east of the commune in safe government controlled territory). Upon arriving in O’Koki land from local farmers (which was still abundant) was distributed to the refugees although much of the population in O’Koki was dependent on basic provisions from the government. This was a difficult time for those who had evacuated to O’Koki as they were only given small patches of land on a temporary basis and many worried about their former lands. This was a particularly difficult time for indigenous Suy villagers who for the first time were forced to live in a majority Khmer area. An old Suy women from Banel village expressed that

“…during the time we stayed in O’Koki it was very difficult. Although they (the government) took care of us and gave us food when we needed it we weren’t used to living like them (lowland Khmer). Everyone had to speak Khmer – we had to eat Khmer food and it was difficult to conduct our ceremonies. The kids born their could barely speak Suy. Even now the new entire generation cannot speak Suy. So what will happen when we old people die?” (Interview B28)

Throughout the early and mid 1990s, the KR continued to control the commune. During this time the KR became progressively dependent upon natural resource exploitation in order to fund their ongoing military campaign. Hence KR forces allowed loggers in significant numbers to enter into the commune during the 1990s in order to extract hardwoods. For each tree, timber haulers would have to pay a tax to KR forces. Only some villagers engaged in timber hauling then as many did not have adequate equipment (chainsaws and tractors) although local villagers knew local geography well. As peace talks continued and major defections

46 occurred in Samloat and Anlong Veng the Khmer Rouge soldiers began to enter into the government in substantial numbers until finally in 1998 the KR formally surrendered in exchange for government army positions. In 1998 people from O’Koki moved back to their prior villages in Trapeang Chour commune. Most households interviewed stated that upon return they began working on former rice fields which most people had clear memories of. During the early resettlement there were few contestations over land between villagers as rice lands were clearly owned by particular households and could anyway be expanded as surrounding forested land was still vast. Most people interviewed stated that upon coming back many of the hardwood species in their local area had been cut (including resin trees in some cases). Some interviewees stated that they had also gained experiences doing logging during the resettlement era and returned to their villages to begin logging in the forested areas to the north and west of the commune. Many people stated that former KR came back to log their former territory during this time as they were familiar with areas of hardwood reserves but few former KR from the area stayed to settle. Two villages along the Omleang road were created during 1998 as part of a deal with former KR soldiers during integration.

Throughout the 2000s most households continued to focus on agriculture. Many interviewees stated that during this time they focused on working rice fields and expanding them for new family members. At the same time people began experimenting with several crops in newly established farmlands on the forest frontier where clearing and planting absorbed most of their labour. In the late 2000s the onset of ELCs radically changed the political ecology of the commune. With the creation of the large Sugar plantations under Lee Yong Phat and Chinese owned HLH, large portions of the commune were suddenly off limits to local farmers. Significant numbers of farmers lost rice and farmland to these concessions (which is further discussed below). ELCs also changed the demographics of the commune. With the Lee Yong Phat sugar plantations came new factories, roads and migration. Land was cleared all the way from Srai Gun to the most southern tip of the commune as part of these concessions and new roads were built. This led to the establishment of new villagers and an influx of land speculators and small scale sellers. The road that connects Trapeang Chour to Omleang commune - where a major office to the Phnom Penh Sugar company is also located - is now populated mainly by newcomers which has led to the establishment of new villages. Small scale sellers have been attracted to this area as it offers better business prospects and lower costs than more populated areas of the country (Interviews B35 and B36)). This area has also attracted landless people who seek labour work (and some in turn have managed to establish small houses and businesses along this road) (Interview B5).

As a gateway to Aural mountain and Pursat the commune also has a steady flow of tractors from near and far coming to collect timber. There are two main roads to forest areas – the road from Srai Gen/Upper Aural village into the Aural protected area and the road from Kviet village into the Central Cardamom’s protected area.

47

4.3. Livelihoods

Livelihoods tend to differ throughout the commune from village to village. Although people across the commune could be broadly classified as agriculturalists there are important differences between different villages (and even within villages) depending on particular histories. As mentioned previously people living along major roads (such as the Omleang road) tend to be sellers who have arrived in the area within the last decade and with little or no agricultural land. The vast majority of inhabitants however are rice farmers who were born in the commune (over 70% according to the commune chief) (Interview B3). Yet many people depend on timber collection, charcoal production and migration to different degrees depending on the location of their village.

In Srai Gen village on the southern tip of the Aural Protected Area for instance most people are still agriculturalists. An elderly man and his sons explained their livelihood situation –

“When we returned back from O’Koki we immediately began to work on our former rice fields. They had become overgrown but where still clear to us. We also began to clear land for planting different crops such as corn, sugarcane and various other fruits. Actually at that time there were a lot of people coming to log valuable timber. There were former KR soldiers who had come to know the area since the time they controlled it but there were also increasingly loggers from afar coming to try and make some money. Off course young men here began to get involved in logging. But never on a major scale. We could just borrow a chainsaw – or if we already had one – go and cut a few trees when we needed them. Sometimes this would be to build houses but of course to make money as well. We would do rice most of the year but when we were free and needed money we would cut some trees. But Logging changed after 2011 when the company [Lee Yong Phat] came. More and more people came and big trucks were carting out timber day and night. People realised the forest was being destroyed so they just got what they could. But we could never log on a big scale because we don’t have the connections or equipment. Now we have no land left and there’s no forest. What are we to do? We are farmers with nowhere to farm” (Interview B41).

Based on interviews with the village chief and a number of people living in Srai Gen, most people currently have only around one hectare of rice land on average and typically little or no farmland. This is due to Srai Gen being the location of a numerous and large scale land conflicts between local farmers and the Phnom Penh Sugar company. People born in the village are still largely dependent on their small rice fields as an income source which is supplemented through charcoal collection and cattle raising. Lim a 26 year old male – typical of other young villagers described his livelihood:

48

“It is so difficult! My family has only one hectare of rice land. We don’t even have any farmland. We used to have three but lost two hectares of rice land to the company and several hectares of forest land. Until recently this was a remote area and we never had a problem with land. Now there is no land left. On both sides are company’s and up there is the protected area. Where are we supposed to take our cattle to graze? There’s not anywhere left to take them? People say that living in the city is difficult because its crowded. Well this isn’t even the city and its crowded…. It is very difficult to earn money here. We do a little bit of charcoal collection and we work as day labourers that is it. We can’t earn money from rice, we can’t earn money from mangos, nor pumpkins, nor sugar cane (Interview B49)”

Around Trapeang Angrong and Peam Lvea the livelihood situation was slightly different. As the village chief of Trapeang Angrong explained

“Around 1998 we returned back here from O’Koki. At that time there was still some forest left so in our spare time we could collect timber. But mostly we focused on our paddy fields and farms. Around the mid- 2000s charcoal production became popular. It was only at that time when many people started to buy tractors and chainsaws. Now nearly everyone in this village does charcoal production. Actually, most people prefer to do farm work but we have no choice. The land we cleared before is now the only land we have left. So most people only have a hectare or two of land. Its very difficult to support our families. Some young people go to Phnom Penh and Thailand and some men travel far to collect timber. That’s how it is this era (Interview B10)”.

Although this cluster of villages also lost land to the Phnom Penh Sugar Company, most of the land lost was farmland rather than rice land and as such most households continue to focus on rice farming, cattle raising as well as timber production. Charcoal production is a major occupation for these villages – owing to the their proximity to the forest and ELCs (where they can also collect old timber), that charcoal production can be done around the rice season and that although people are undeniably asset poor most have managed to purchase tractors and chainsaws (usually on credit).

The final cluster of villages in the west of the commune also had a different livelihood situation. Like Srai Gen, several villages on the western edge of the HLC concession had lost large amounts of smallholder and communal land which had devastated livelihoods. Villages further to the northwest were generally less affected by the nearby HLH ELC (this cluster of villagers follow a road which runs from the western tip of the HLH concession north-west to the western tip of the Central Cardamoms Protected Area). As all these villages are remote villages on the forest frontier most households are still dependent upon agriculture which is

49 supplemented through forest based livelihood activities. Many households in these villages are far more subsistence orientated than other villages in the commune. This is largely due to problem of a lack of markets for key agricultural crops (due to remoteness and difficult roads). Most households concentrate on rice, selling any surpluses where possible and supplementing their incomes through timber collecting, charcoal production and labour work. Very few households in this area have successfully managed to produce fruit or vegetable crops, although outside buyers have established a medium sized mango farms along the border of the HLH concession in Samroang and Koh Dontei villages. A group of three women (all in their 30s) from Kviet village on the forest frontier described their livelihood situation as such:

“We only have 1 or two hectares of rice. But the price of rice is so low we cannot make profit from it. We all struggle here together. There’s no market and no work. If we grow mangos no one comes to buy them. This year the price of mangoes was so cheap that we just fed them to pigs. We are poor here. This is a very poor village. So now the women stay home and look after the children and the men go and cut timber. That’s all we can do. But look how we live. We barely have enough food to feed our children” (Interview B35).

Although the precise combination of agricultural work, timber harvesting, charcoal production and labour work tended to vary village by village and household by household, all three village clusters share some commonalities. The majority of households are still agricultural and continue to base their livelihoods around rice production even where this activity has become largely unprofitable. For those villages which have access to forests and the skills and equipment ready at hand, timber harvesting and particularly charcoal production remain important income generating activities. As valuable timber has become increasingly rare charcoal has become an increasingly important income generating activity. Most households have limited assets. Many cannot expand land holdings beyond what they had managed to clear upon returning from O’Koki in the late 1990s. The loss of agricultural land from ELCs thus tends to have a major impact on livelihoods. This in turn partly explains the importance of charcoal production in the commune.

4.4. Timber collection

Timber collection for a variety of purposes (for the Vietnamese and Chinese market, for furniture, fuel wood, house building and fence posts) continues to be an important livelihood activity for those villages which are a reasonable distance from the forest frontier. However as vast areas of forest are depleted of timber, harvesters have to travel further and further to

50 collect their hauls. So too, as local authorities attempt to extract ever more in bribes from local timber collectors, timber hauling becomes less profitable.

In the northern village cluster around Srai Gen timber collection had for some time been an important livelihood activity. As a 83 year old man named Sen who was born in the village explained:

“When we came back from O’Koki most of us did a little timber harvesting, especially around the mid 2000s when we began to get tractors and chainsaws because it was easier to borrow money. I would collect rosewood every now and then. I woud go out with my children and spend a few night in the forest but we would usually only collect a tree or two. It is a lot of energy to take a tree. Rosewoods are large trees. So you have to cut it and chop it and then transport it. But it gets a good price. So we would collect a few when we needed money. At that time it was very difficult to find money. There was no work. So if someone got sick or we needed to buy something we could harvest a tree or two. Things are changing a lot know. I’m too old to collect timber but my children sill go out to collect timber sometimes. But we have never done it on a big scale. We cant. Big people could come and transport timber on large trucks. But in the start we would just use our motorbikes.”

“Because this is a forested area we rely on the forest. But since the company [Phnom Penh Sugar Company] came we can no longer easily find wood. They cleared a lot and they took the opportunity to collect a lot of rosewood and other valuable species from around the area. But now also there are so many outsiders who come here to collect timber. Now there are many more outsiders collecting timber than people who were born here – that’s why the road is so bad and muddy because tractors are all day and all night taking timber out of the forest.”

“There are also many households who don’t bother collecting timber. Some don’t have enough money for equipment and some feel that the price we have to pay to the MoE and forest authorities is too high. But some people do not have a chief. Look at my sons – they both lost three or four hectares to the company. So if they don’t have land how are they supposed to make money?”

“Actually if we didn’t have land problems we wouldn’t have to go to the forest to collect things and getting malaria and being separated

51

from our wives. When we first lost out land many of us just thought ‘ok go and collect timber and don’t make a story about it’. But what happens when all the timber is gone and we have no land left? There’s nothing left for us to do” (Interview B41).

Based on observations and interviews of timber collectors, most collectors were indeed from outside the village. About ten kilometres north of Srai Gen in the Aural Protected Area on the border with Pursat the author came across Chit, a 36-year-old logger from a different commune in Aural district. He no longer has any land as he sold what remained of the 1ha of rice land he inherited from his parents to cover medical expenses of one of his children. Chit was married with two young kids and over the last decade had gone through a series of jobs. He had tried to get a job in garment factories but never succeeded and then had spent around 5 years doing construction work in Phnom Penh. When asked why he returned to collect timber he responded ‘construction work is hard work for low pay. Some days I can get work but sometimes not. It is also dangerous. I prefer to be in the forest collecting wood. Actually the money I make from timber collection isn’t much different. But at least I have no freedom and no boss telling me what to do. This work is also hard. We have to travel far and we often get sick with malaria and other things. But I don’t mind staying in the forest. It is speaceful. But my livelihood is difficult. I have no other choice’(Interview B43). Chit had been collecting timber from around Aural mountain for 5-6 years. Usually he collected low grade timber for fence posts although if he came across something higher value he said he would take it. He would typically spend around two weeks in the forest with around 7 or 8 other people collecting wood. After collecting wood, his convey would transport it to Ktuot where a middleman would collect it. He stated that on average he could receive 80 to 100 thousand for each tractor load of wood. Fuel and bribes however would be subtracted from this. He stated that on average he would be forced to pay 20 thousand in bribes (mostly to the MoE station in Srai Gen).

52

Figure 4.2 Chit waits for his friend to come and pick him up to collect some felled timber.

A group of four young men (all in their 20s) interviewed at one of their homes also collected timber. All four had lost land to the nearby ELC (ranging from less than one ha of farmland to two). All had collected wood before the company took land and were often accompanied by parents or older relatives. All felt an imperative to collect wood before it was all gone. As one 26 year old put it ‘there is less and less timber here. This is an area where people from outside just come and take what is here. We are local people. If we don’t take some we will get nothing’ (Interview B49). All four also expressed they did like collecting timber. As one put it

53

‘we make very little money each time we go to the forest. We can’t do this work our whole lives. It is just for poor and uneducated people. If we had enough land and money we wouldn’t have to be like this’(Interview B49).

Collecting timber was an extremely arduous task. Most of the valuable and large tree species were found on hill tops which could not be accessed even by tractors. Harvesters either had to roll trees down a hillside – which was usually impossible because of other trees – or use buffaloes to drag trunks through the foliage.

4.3 Buffalo carts in the Phnom Aural Protected Area transporting lower grade timber to Ktuot.

Another issue that harvesters had to contend with were roads. Even small patches of mud or rifts in the road can take hours for a convey of timber harvesters to cross. Much of the time that collectors were on a harvest was taken up with securing their loads as they attempted to cross difficult stretches of road. This was particularly the case around Srai Gen where large stretches of road were close to impassable in the rainy season. Timber conveys interviewed stated that it could sometimes take an entire day to travel only 7 or 8 kilometres.

54

A particularly tricky part of road between the upper and lower sections of Srai Gen village.

Around the second village cluster of Peam Lvea and Trapeang Angrong timber harvesters were less visible (not including charcoal collectors). When the area had still been largely forested in the early 2000s many people were actively collecting wood. According to most interviewees in the three villages in this cluster, most timber harvesters now focus on charcoal. Village chiefs of Peam Lvea and Trapenag Angrong both gave identical accounts of timber collection in their villages. When they came back from O’Koki, people could still collect resin. However, by around 2004/2005 most of the larger and valuable trees in the surrounding area had been felled and timber harvesters from outside the village were increasingly cutting resin trees. By the late 2000s even resin trees had all been cut. When the three large concessions of Lee Yong Phat’s companies and HLH were established, valuable timber from the entire commune was rapidly depleted. Before that many households had collected timber from surrounding areas. As the 57 year old male village chief of Peam Lvea Huon stated:

“I have 5 children, 3 married already. My family only has a little bit of land – about 3 ha of rice including my sons families. This village split from Trapeang Angrong by 1993 just before we fled to O’Koki for the second time. When we came back in 1997 many people from outside had come to cut large trees and so had many villages come to their lands during the fighting to cut trees and sell them. When we came back many of us still cut some trees. Me and my sons would go just to the mountain to the west of this village and spend one or two nights to collect a few trees. But the timber there has all been depleted for many years, so people started to go to Aural. But to get timber from Aural people have to go further and further up into Pursat and often get Malaria and have to spend many nights staying in the forest. We used to collect timber in our spare time

55

but there’s less and less people collecting timber now. People focus on charcoal. Of the 94 families here more than half collect charcoal often but only a few go to collect timber. There’s no more timber here to collect anyway” (Interview B6).

Observations of people hauling timber revealed that most people were collecting wood for charcoal rather than high value timber for furniture production. A local 36 year old monk Brum Tomajit stayed on the forest edge roughly four kilometres from Trapenag Angrong. Brum Tomajit is a dedicated and outspoken conservationist who stays in the forest by himself in an attempt to protect around two hundred hectares of surrounding his Pagoda. Protecting the surrounding forest from timber cutters is a constant battle:

“They [people who cut timber] would come every day and night if I wasn’t here. The forest here has been almost entirely destroyed. Mainly it is by poor uneducated outsiders who do not understand about nature. But even the poorest farmer always works alongside powerful people. Only 10 years ago this whole area was like my tiny Community Forest – big trees and wild animals everywhere. But since the company came the whole area has been opened up. People from Phnom Penh - including soldiers and powerful people come and try to buy land so they cut the remaining timber” (Interview B22).

It was also clear from observations and interviews that harvesting of highly valued species often involved a network of people with connections to powerful people. Many small scale harvesters stated that unlike the past they could no longer simply openly transport highly valuable species such as rosewood because of their highly prized nature and that local authorities were quick to clamp down on rosewood trading. Very few harvesters would try to actively evade local authorities as this posed major risks. In most cases harvesters preferred to pay a small bribe to authorities. However, well connected people could openly trade rosewood and other valuable species. These people often collected larger quantities of wood and used vans or trucks and often had police or military escorts. During the late 2000s when the ELCs were clearing the land residents of Ktuot stated that large timber trucks ‘came day and night transporting wood’.

In the western village cluster timber was still an important livelihood activity for those villages closes to the forest frontier. In Kviet for example a group discussion of 7 young men and 5 young women the following was discussed:

Author: So how much do people here still rely on timber harvesting?

56

34 year old Man: we all go to cut timber because it is the only thing we can do to make money. Look at our village – right on the edge of the forest. No one comes here to buy things. We can’t sell rice, we can’t sell mangos.

24 year old Man: But even we collet timber its still not enough – we are still poor…

21 year old Women (wife of man above): look at us we are still poor! Our kids run around naked and dirty. This is a very poor village. Our husbands work hard to get timber but get very little…

21 year old Man: if we go on one trip we can only make around 60- 80,000 Riel. The problem is the roads – its very difficult to transport timber out of here because of the roads and bridges. But the biggest problem is all the people who take money from us along the way. (Interview B36)

All timber harvesters interviewed in these villages were primarily rice farmers and did timber harvesting when they were free from their rice farms. Most also preferred to do farming and complained about timber harvesting being hard work, risky and for little pay. Some people also felt it was not a decent type of work. A 46-year-old timber harvester from Samroang village explained as he was sitting having a quick snack along the road he was hauling his load along:

“This is not good work. We do this work because we are poor and stupid. We know it is bad to cut all the forest down. We don’t want to destroy the forest. But it has already been destroyed by others and we do not have any other options. If we do not collect timber our stomachs will go hungry. I just hope that the next generation will not be like us. That they will study properly in school and have different skills” (Interview B33).

There were also important differences between different villages. In Chambak village on the western tip of the HLC concession, people’s livelihoods had been devastated by land loss. Timber collection was however less frequent here than other villages. One important factor was that in order to reach the forest frontier beyond Kviet, tractors would have to cross a number of hazardous bridges. Along with informal bribes, this made timber collection unprofitable for all but the most desperate farmers. In Chambak which is one of the five indigenous Suy villages people had traditionally relied heavily upon the forests that used to surround them. Even when they came back to the village in 1998 most people continued to carry on semi-subsistence agricultural practises. As an elderly 86 Suy man recounted:

“Right up until the mid 2000s we were still doing farming the old way. We had our rotation swidden farms and we did rice. We also collected resin

57

and many things from the forest like vines, and timber and animals. When the company [HLH] came in the late 2000s they took all the land the west and the south and the north. Most of the forest was destroyed. Many of us don’t know what to do. We are not sellers. We will always be inferior sellers to lowland people. We grow rice and raise cattle. Now we can’t collect resin because there’s no resin trees left and we can’t even find a place to graze our cattle without the cattle going onto private land” (Interview B41).

Another 33 year old man named Chun explained about his experience timber harvesting:

“I have collected timber since I was a little kid. I used to go out with my father. My father would collect wood sometimes ningnoun or beng to build houses in the village. Sometimes we would collect them to sell. In the mid 2000s a lot of people began to collect timber from this area and then all our resin trees were cut until there were no longer any big trees left in the area. Around this time I started a kiln in my house and would produce charcoal. Almost every house then had a kiln. But now I don’t do much timber collecting – only when I’m really short of money. Since the company came and cleared all the land there’s nowhere to go to collect timber. All of us here are in debt. If we go to collect timber its too far and its just ‘money money’ along the road as people demand money from us. Now lots of people work at the company [HLH]” (Interview B39).

Figure 4.4 A timber hauler stuck on a broken bridge between Chambak and Kviet after hauling his load towards Ktuot.

58

In summary timber harvesting remains an important and typically supplemental activity for people across the three village clusters in Trapeang Chour. Compared to even a few years ago, local people are less dependent upon timber harvesting as an income source. As more and more forest is stripped of valuable timber, timber harvesting becomes increasingly difficult and expensive for local people. It is most likely that the entire province of Kompong Speu no longer contains any valuable hardwood species. Thus people are forced to travel further and further into Pursat and Koh Kong where conservation activities are ongoing, in order to harvest trees. The large quantities of informal bribes collected by the MoE and other local authorities is also another important factor that makes timber collection less valuable. However, for villages like Kviet and Srai Gen which are on the edge of the forest frontier and where most people face severe livelihood difficulties, timber harvesting continues to be an important livelihood activity. For those villages further away from the forest frontier timber harvesting tends to be less popular.

4.5. Charcoal production

Charcoal production in Trapeang Chour is an important livelihood activity for people both within and from outside the commune owing to the fact that the commune is an important gateway to surrounding forested areas. Many farmers collect charcoal in the months when they are not busy with paddy rice cultivation. In some instances charcoal production is even the most important income source for households. However, as the forest is increasingly depleted of even medium sized trees, farmers have to travel further and further to collect charcoal making it is less and less profitable.

In the upper northern cluster of villages around Srai Gen, charcoal production remained popular. According to 83 year old Sen who was born in the village:

“nearly every house here used to have a kiln [in their backyards]. Although we were late to produce charcoal. People from outside were coming to collect charcoal for a few years before we started. We are poor and in an isolated area so we didn’t know the techniques until we learnt from outsiders. Then buyers would come straight to our village and many people could start getting money from timber charcoal production. That’s how it is here. Woman help out with farming and take care of the households and men go and collect a little wood here and there so they can get by” (Interview B41).

Driving around the lower section of Srai Gen most houses still had visible kilns, although with less than half active. In the upper section of Srai Gen, most houses could also be seen with kilns. Many houses in this upper area (which are directly in the forest) are owned by newcomers who have come to the area to cut timber and produce charcoal. For instance

59

Lim, a 39 year old male married to the village chief’s daughter was given half a small patch of land to build a house, out of which he and his wife sell coffee and noodles. He had no agricultural land although admitted that he came ‘to collect timber’. Out the back of his house a large kiln was emitting smoke. Lim came from a poor family and was landless in Kompong Cham. When he married his wife the village chief agreed to distribute some land for them to build a house. According to Lim ‘we have to collect timber. Since there are not many big trees left we focus on charcoal. Its not easy but it’s the only way we can get by. We sell a little coffee and noodles here and there but its nothing. Most money we get from charcoal’. In the lower area of Srai Gen many older residents and newcomers were also engaged in charcoal. The four young men interviewed at their home had all done charcoal for a number of years but were not particularly enthusiastic about it. As one put it ‘we used to produce a lot of charcoal, but we only do it a little at the moment. There are less and less and trees and we have to go further and further to collect wood. The money from charcoal production is not enough’. Another 43 year old man from Prey Veng who was married with three kids and had brought 2 hectares of land ten years ago, also had experience collecting charcoal:

“I used to collect charcoal a few years ago. I still have a kiln out the back of my house but I haven’t done a bake for quite some time. The most important thing is our land – but we can’t find anything to grow. Last year we lost a lot of pumpkins. Charcoal is only for a little bit of extra money. Now it is too hard to make money from charcoal. We have to travel too far and pay too much along the road” (Interview B42).

According to the deputy village chief many people in the upper area still engage in charcoal production and timber collection. Many of these people have little or no agricultural land. However, those in the lower section who tend to have more land are less willing to continue collecting charcoal as it becomes more difficult and costly to collect.

In the village cluster of Peam Lvea and Trapenag Angrong, charcoal production was a lot more conspicuous. Most households in these two villages had active kilns running. Both village chiefs stated that most people were engaged in charcoal production to some degree or another. This included the households of the village chiefs themselves. In Peam Lvea a 39 year old women explained why she does charcoal:

“My husband died about three years ago and was sick for a number of years. I spent a lot of money to try and cure him and had to sell land and buffaloes. Now I only have three hectares [of rice and farm land] left. The canal they are building here will flood more than one hectare of my rice land. So without rice land what am I supposed to do? So I go to collect charcoal with my relatives. Sometimes we go to the ELCs,

60

sometimes we go to Aural. Its not much money but we don’t know any other way to make money” (Interview B7).

In many cases, people who had experienced interruptions to their income due to unforeseen circumstances such as sickness of a family member or loss of land, would engage in charcoal to quickly make up for monetary shortages. They key difference between these villages and Srai Gen which are more involved in charcoal production even though they are further away from the forests, is that they villages have a long experience of timber collecting and charcoal production. The Peam Lvea and Trapenag Angrong village cluster is located further south on lowlands that have been deforested for more than a decade. During the initial timber boom and then charcoal boom people had already aquired the expertise and equipment to produce charcoal. And charcoal buyers would frequently come directly to their houses to purchase charcoal. Most farmers had paid of their tractors and chainsaws. Hence when they faced shortage it was naturally charcoal production than many farmers fell back into. Another major factor was that farmers around this area collected much timber for charcoal production from inside the ELCs adjacent to their villages. For a small fee of ten or twenty thousand farmers could enter ELC and dig out remaining stumps. Although stumps had no value for either timber collectors or ELC owners and managers, due to their thickness they produced good quality charcoal. The village chief of Trapeang Angrong for instance spent several days removing stumps from a river that runs through the Lee Yong Phat concession. Many other farmers from here would similarly spend days scouring streams and rivers for submerged stumps that they could use to produce charcoal.

The daughter in law of the village chief of Peam Lvea explained her family’s involvement in charcoal collection:

“Since the early or mid 2000s our family had been producing charcoal. We used to collect most of the timber from around here. When we came back from O’Koki there was still a lot of forest here even though large trees had already been taken. Then when the company came all the forest was cleared. There was nothing left to collect nearby. So people started to go further and further to Aural and Roleak Kong Jeurng to collect wood. We already had a kiln and knew how to produce good charcoal. The problem is that we only have 2 ha of rice land for my whole family. It is not even enough to produce rice for eating. We even have to buy rice. So now all we can do is collect the leftover wood to make charcoal. Those people at the company and along the road make our lives very hard. We always have to pay them for this and that and sometimes they are rude to us or yell at us. We have to collect three tractors of wood for a single bake. Each tractor load we have to pay at least 20,000. Sometimes it takes more than a day to collect a tractor load and it is very hard work hauling out

61

stumps. It then takes a week for a single bake. When we sell the charcoal the buyers look very carefully. Sometimes they reject small pieces or give us a lower price. We usually get less than 1 million – for two weeks work. When you take away the money for fuel, for repairs and for bribes it really isn’t that much” (Interview B7).

Figure 4.5 Farmers in Peam Lvea emptying a recent bake of charcoal as a buyer from Kompong Speu looks on.

Other villages however were a lot less involved in charcoal production. For instance Jan Ping – the village along the Ktuot Omleang road that had been established for ex-Khmer Rouge soldiers had very few charcoal producers. As people settled this village later than surrounding

62 villages they had less experience of charcoal production. The extra six kilometres to the forest was also long enough in many cases to render trips to the forest too distant. As the village chief of Jan Ping explained: ‘when we came to this village we were each given about 1.5 hectares of agricultural land. Many of us have since either sold parts of this land or lost it to the company. A few households collect charcoal but not many. The forest is far from here and it is usually not worth the effort’.

Over in the western village cluster the situation resembled Srai Gen. The wave of charcoal production came later to this area and people only started charcoal production on a moderate scale around the late 2000s when surrounding land began to be cleared from the nearby HLH company. In Chambak village a 53 year old Suy woman who sold small wares out the front of her house explained her decision to start producing charcoal:

Compared to other places not as many people here collect charcoal. Before the company came we would get many things from the forest like vines, resin, mushrooms, deer and timber. But when the company came and cleared the land all that was left was small trees. So we had to clear them because we had nothing else left. Now my family collects charcoal every now and then. Usually we go out towards Kviet and get enough to do one bake and that’s enough for a while. We can only get a little money from this but when combined with the money from the shop and rice its just enough to survive.

An elderly Suy man expressed a similar regret about the state of the forest and the change from diverse forest based livelihoods to just charcoal collection:

“In the past times where tough. We had no medicine and nothing modern. But there were many things we could collect from the forest. We could collect fish from Ktuot river but now because the company uses too much fertiliser, the fish are dead and we have to buy fish. We used to hunt many types of deer and even monitor lizard but now there is no forest left so they have all run off to the border. Even up until the 2000s we could collect resin. Resin can be get a good price and used to be a good way to get money when we need it. But now look at the forest it is all destroyed. Now we have to make charcoal using the left over wood. We are like scavengers. Our own forests are destroyed and then we just pick over what is left” (Interview B41).

Villages further to the west approaching the forest frontier tended to be more dependent on charcoal collection. For instance within Koh Donetei, Samroang, Kbal Domrey and Kviet kilns were much more conspicuous.

In Samroang and Kviet village people had started doing charcoal production much later than other areas such as Trapeng Angrong and Peam Lvea. People here had mainly learnt from outsiders and continue to lug their hauls to collection centres in either Ktout or on the main

63 road in Aural. As people explained in both Samroang and Kviet, with many people engaged in timber harvesting, when forests become depleted of valuable species many people transition to charcoal production. In both these villages this was a case of working down the timber species. Due to desperation people would harvest smaller and less valuable species as larger species became locally extinct.

Figure 4.6 Charcoal producer in Samroang village in the western village cluster

4.6. Land

In Trapeang Chour commune land was a key issue of contestation. Two interrelated process were simultaneously occurring. Firstly, over the last decade land was being commodified. As land used for farming or communal purposes was being cut up into small private land holdings, a land market was rapidly taking hold in the area. As outside investors and local people with capital surpluses became interested in land, those who were able to sell land could make quick profits. Land transactions were often tangled up in local patron-client relations where people of authority used their position to act as land brokers. In other situations the poor were simply forced to sell their land as it was the only asset they could draw upon in a time of need. The second process involved the establishment of ELCs. As mentioned in the introduction ELCs have often had a highly detrimental impact on people’s livelihoods. In Srai Gen and Chambak the effect of ELCs was devastating.

In Srai Gen, the establishment of the Aural Sugar Company had serious consequences on people livelihoods. More than 100 families lost land to the ELC which was established in 2008. In many cases this made many families highly vulnerable. Although the company mostly took

64 only farmland there were many instances were small patches of rice land was also lost. There were also many secondary impacts. A group of young women in their 20s explained:

“The big problem now is we have nowhere to graze our cattle. To the east is Lee Yong Phat to the west is HLH – we are squeezed from both sides. There is now so little land left we don’t even have a place to keep our cattle. My husband and I used to have almost 40 head of cattle, but when we lost land we had to sell many. The problem is now that is hard to find a place for them to graze. This is a big problem in the dry season when there is little grass and there are many problems when our cattle eat peoples rice crops – which now happens a lot. Another big problem we have had is with the company. A few years ago the company confiscated my entire heard because they claimed it was eating all their crops. Its true our cattle went on their land a little bit. But they demanded 100,000 r to release each head of cattle. Our cattle only went on the edge of their land. Actually they were doing this just to get money from us. We called the village chief and commune chief but they couldn’t help much. Our neighbours were also very upset with the company people so we demanded our cattle back. Eventually we agreed to pay 20,000 for each head. I still regret this” (Interview B48).

An elderly man well respected in the village – 88 year old Om Lpow was similarly outraged at the company:

“We have been here since the start and gone through a lot. That people can just come and take our land like this is very distressing. We lost nearly all our land. This land we had been working on for years and cleared by hand. Then in one day they just came and took it. My wife and I are old – look at us – we don’t live well. I don’t expect to live a rich person. But when I’m old in our society we are supposed to live at least in comfort. Now my wife is sick and my children don’t know how to get money. We can’t go in any direction without hitting the company. We collect a little timber here and there or charcoal but its not enough. People here are too scared to speak up when this happens. So we get trampled” (Interview B51).

There were also other land issues going on in the village. While waiting for an interview for the commune chief the author talked with a woman from omleang who had come to act as a land broker for Phnom Penh buyers who wanted to purchase land in Srai Gen. The woman would get a small amount of money if she agreed to act as a seller by registering land in her name with the village chief and commune chief (even though she wasn’t actually from the village). She would then purchase the land and transfer the title to the Phnom Penh buyer once it had been done. This was a way to commodify land and place it in the land market. This

65 happened frequently throughout the commune and often involved highly contested or ambiguous land such as forested land or community land. Once the land began to circulate within the market its origins were often obscured.

By coincidence the author also met the buyer of the land while interviewing the village chief’s son in law. The buyer and the broker had come to get the village chief to sign off on the transaction (and it was clear the village chief was in the process of selling off a number of parcels in this manner). Most of this land fell within the Aural protected area (although technically nearly the entire village was within the bounds of the PA) and was still forested. Driving north of the village through the forest, fence posts could be seen on either side of the forested road, suggesting private ownership. As confirmed by a project manager at the NGO Life with Dignity based in Aural, this was a common strategy to convert public lands into private lands.

In the village cluster around Trapenag Angrong and Peam Lvea, land was a slightly less contentious issue. In Peam Lvea, according to the village chief over twenty (of 94) families lost substantial amounts of land to Lee Yong Phat’s Aural Sugar Company. Other villages claimed it was closer to 40 families. In Trapeang Angrong more than 30 families (out of 85) lost land according to the village chief. Those interviewed who were involved in such conflicts saw them as ongoing (although had minimal hope that they would be resolved in a favourable manner). According to both village chiefs (and confirmed through numerous interviews) most households in both villages focus on rice production and typically have between 1 and 2 hectares of rice land and from 1 to 3 hectares of farmland. As the vast majority of people in both these villages are originally from these villages (In Peam Lvea there are only 4 migrant families and in Trapeang Angrong, only 2) most households have accumulated land through inheritance. As to date only relatively small amounts of people have sold their rice land (and typically small quantities and to people within the village). Village rice land around this area is now relatively secure as land titles have been handed out to nearly all villager’s rice land (except for those whose land was cleared by the ELC). Land around these villages is thus relatively stable.

Further to the north west just 4 kilometres to the residence of the Monk Brum Tomajit, land is relatively less secure. Around the forest edge, there are frequently attempts by some authorities and land brokers to transfer forest land and villagers farmland into private possession by outsiders. On numerous occasions Brum Tomajit and villagers have confronted authorities, soldiers and outside buyers who have tried to claim that both forested land and farmland of local villagers is their private property. In some instances people have successfully resisted these attempts, in others large swathes of former forest land has been converted to either sugar cane farms or mango farms.

In the western village cluster land was a much more contentious issue – especially for those villages who had been devastated by the HLH concession such as Chambak. In Chambak of the 21 people interviewed every single one expressed great anger and distress without being

66 prompted, over the loss of land to the HLH company. Before the company arrived land transactions had been minimal in the indigenous villages. As land was still abundant enough to continue swidden farming right up until the company began clearing land, there was less of a necessity to secure tenure for individually cultivated lands. According to the village chief, even after the company has arrived ‘there are very few people selling land here. Most people have very little land to sell. A few sold land so the company could expand, but most continue farming what they have left of their traditional lands’.

Like in Srai Gen, cattle roaming onto company lands is major problem and people have similarly have their cattle confiscated on numerous occasions by the company and had to pay exorbitant fees to get them back. Another major issue in Chambak is that land established as indigenous communal areas have slowly been eroded as small patches have been sold. Ta Suon, who is an outspoken village representative for the indigenous community explained the situation as follows:

“The problem is that our community land has come under too much pressure. It is not that there are major trees or even anything we can collect on this land but we want to keep it for cattle grazing and future generations. The problem is the local authorities who manage this land – they have been conspiring together. The CF head cannot be trusted. And people who supported the community have lost trust. He has slowly sold off small parts telling us that that land is outside the CF. Actually it is right in the middle of the CF. A little patch here, a little patch there would get sold off until large chunks of land were gone. Then the authorities could claim we haven’t been managing it properly and take it all away from us. Many of us [in the village] are too stupid. We just think ‘its only our swidden land we have lots more so we can sell some and clear new land in a new place’. But now there is no more land left to clear and we are left with almost nothing” (Interview B17).

The establishment of a land market also depended a lot on soil fertility and accessibility. Highly fertile areas that were relatively accessible were rapidly being transformed into private property. For instance in Samroang village along the main road between Chambak and Kviet a highly fertile area of land sits as the base of a mountain. The ELC included most of this fertile land within its concession boundaries, however a strip of land running parallel to the main village remained under local villager ownership. Very rapidly (within the space of 6 years) all the land both sides of this road for a approximately a four kilometre stretch is owned by outsiders – predominantly by people from Phnom Penh to grow mangos. Further west at the village of Kviet there has been little or no such investment into land. Due to the hilly position of the village most land is rocky and sandy and hence unsuitable for most crop production.

67

Figure 4.7 A small farm house in Kviet where a local Kviet farmer raises cattle and plans to cultivate mangos or cassava.

4.7. Labour

As mentioned in the introduction, dependence on labour work tended to be higher in lowland areas of Phnom Sruoch compared to the semi-forested areas of Aural. However, once again this depends greatly upon each individual village.

In the Srai Gen village cluster the deputy village chief estimates that less than 20% of young people have been engaged in distant labour work to Phnom Penh or Thailand. However a majority of people have done labour work on the nearby Aural sugar concession at some stage. As with charcoal and timber production most families tend to do local labour work as a temporary means to acquire money when facing a shortage. Both men and women could work in the sugar plantation and off the 11 different people interviewed who had experience working there all worked as day labourers. The typical pay being 12,000 r per day. Mostly this work was readily available during the harvest season and planting season with few opportunities for work outside of this three month period. A select few people had acquired work in the company’s processing factory on the main road to Omleang –however it was much more difficult to acquire work in this manner. As a 24 year old women explained to the author ‘we do labour work only when we have to. When we need money we can just go there and do work until we get enough money and then leave. It is very difficult to do this work every day. It is very tiring – you have to be ready to go there by 7am and spend the whole day walking around bent over. You have to have strong hands and a strong body otherwise you can’t do it. It gets very hot in the sun and you have to be used to this type of work to make money. If you are too slow you can’t make money.

68

People who worked as labourers outside the village in Phnom Penh or Thailand tended to use this work as their main source of income. However, as mentioned before, even with very small patches of land and a stagnating agricultural market, most people in Srai Gen continue to struggle on with agricultural endeavours – using money earned through timber harvesting, labour work and charcoal collection to meet basic needs or pay for investments into their agricultural endeavours.

In Trapenag Angrong and Peam Lvea many younger people and middle aged people have worked as labourers. Based on interviews covering 14 households, approximately three quarters of households have at least one member doing full time labour work – which is significantly higher than Srai Gen. It appeared from anecdotal evidence that a much higher portion of people – especially women had done day labour on local ELCs. Two sisters Huon and Net explained:

“Most women in our village have worked as day labourers at the company [Aural Sugar company]. Often we go in large groups together – sometimes we use one tractor and it returns and picks us up in the evening. We go especially when we are not too busy with rice farming. Men go and collect timber and charcoal and we go to the company to work. Sometimes we will work for just a few days – sometimes we will work for weeks and months but not many people go every day. It is too difficult to be away from our families – we can’t bring children there and many of us have children and have to cook and do other things around the house. We can’t just leave our kids to their grandparents everyday “(Interview B7).

During random interviews the author also came across a number of households who had younger family members who were currently away in Phnom Penh. Yeh Ton a 78 year old women was looking after two children when interviewed. Both were her daughters children. Her daughter had been working in Phnom Penh for approximately 8 months in a garment factory and tried to come home whenever she could which was usually every second week for one day. Her husband collected timber and wood for charcoal. The family had resorted to these strategies due to the low income they were getting from their less than one hectare of rice land. Both of the young parents (in their late 20s) had decided that it was important to do labour work in order to save money for their children to be educated (as they had almost land to give to them).

In the western cluster of villages labour work tended to be associated with land loss and proximity to the main road. While in Chambak everyone interviewed had at least one family member who had worked on the nearby HLH concession, it seemed like far fewer people had worked on the concession in Kviet due to distances. It was also the case that people were more involved in timber collection and charcoal production in Kviet and tended to focus most of their available labour to these activities. However, of the six households interviewed in

69

Kviet four households had female members who had recently been working on the HLH concession.

In Chambak people tended to feel that labour work was a downgrade from farm work or even timber collecting and charcoal production. Many of the households faced with land loss had little choice but to send family members to work as day labourers. However, working as day labourers continuously for long periods of time was exuasting and often led to health complications. A 53 year old Suy man named Tam has been working everyday on the concession for around 2 years. Tam lost his land to the ELC and also became indebted. He feels he has no other choice but to work as a day labourer –

“I don’t even have a tractor. I have no land and no way to make money. I have to struggle every day because it is the only way I can pay back my debt and get any money. What a poor sight I am! Its absolutely exausting doing this work every day. It has ruined my back. I can barely walk. Everywhere I go I have to go with a cane. I’m like an elderly person but I’m only 53. I lose my land then I end up working like this on my very own land! What an injustice” (Interview B18).

70

Figure 4.8 Tam (background) who has been working as a day labourer for two years on the HLH concession relaxes after a long day’s work.

4.8. Case study conclusion

As can be seen from the above descriptions, Trapeang Chour commune in Aural district is undergoing rapid change. As a formerly forested commune on the forest frontier livelihoods have slowly shifted away from timber harvesting as the whole area has been opened to land markets, in migration and economic land concessions. There is a marked shift away from timber collection towards charcoal production and labour work – although depending on the particular circumstances of each village. As timber becomes increasingly rare due to large

71 scale clearing associated with the Economic Land Concessions (and the rise of the Vietnam timber market), smallholders have been forced to shift into less lucrative charcoal production. Most people continue to struggle on small farms and rice fields with minimal incomes in the context of a stagnating agricultural commodities market. This has forced some people to shift from using charcoal and labour work merely as a supplemental income to using these things as main sources of household income. Loss of land due to economic land concessions has also tended to see households utilise a wide range of income strategies – from using rice as a cheap way to feed households, to using cattle and buffalo herds as an asset, for men doing part time timber collection or charcoal production, for young men to migrate to Phnom Penh as construction workers and young women to work as day labourers on concessions or in garment factories in Phnom Penh. These shifting livelihood strategies in turn changes peoples relations to the environment and natural resources around them. As natural resources are increasingly stripped of valuable commodities and hence biodiversity people are in turn becoming more dependent upon markets to provides basic needs such as meat, fish, rice and even water.

72

5. South-western Prek Thnot Catchment - Chambak and Traeng Trayoueng communes This section illustrates field results from the third case study – two communes Chambak and Traeng Trayoueng on the southern-western edge of the Stung Prekthnot Catchment. In order to provide a nuanced understanding of a particular location focuses on Chambak. This section starts by elaborating on the general geographical context of the area, followed by a brief history of the site. The rest of this section sheds light on socio-environmental relations and changing livelihoods and land usage in the study site.

5.1. General geographical context The geographical context of southwest upper Stung Prekthnot catchment is highly associated with the Cardamom Mountains, the connectivity of the national road number 4 (connecting Phnom Penh to Shihanukvile) and the tributaries of the Stung Prek Thnot river. The main accessible gateway in that region is national road number 4 which cuts through Traeng Trayoueng commune from east to west. Chambak commune is approximately 20 kilometres from the intersection of national number 4. In that regard, the region is considered less remote compared to villages in Aoral district. In the west is a mountain range which covered by forest. Most of population of Traeng Trayoueng are located along the national road number 4 and the southern side of the road. This concentration of this population is also highly related to Stung Srea Thlong. Many villages are located closer to Srea Thlong River (see Figure 5.1). The people of Chambak on the other hand are concentrated within the commune centre near the mountains and not far from Stung Kirirom.

73

Figure 5.1 General geography of Chambak and Traeng Trayoueng

Most of the land is covered by large, medium and small scale agriculture while the forest remains largely on the hills inside the Kirirom National Park. Large scale ELC include cassava plantations at the Southern part of Traeng Trayoueng (see Figure 5.1). Medium scale agricultural land is mainly dedicated to mango plantations which covers most land in Traeng Trayoueng (Interview A45). The commune assistant of Traeng Trayoueng added that most of the mango plantations are owned by people who are not local to this area. Some mango farm owners are from Phnom Penh and some from other provinces such as Kampong Cham (Interview A45). The majority of the people own small scale of paddy rice. According to the interview with commune head of Chambak, most people in his commune own less than 1 hectare of paddy rice field. While more than 85% of the population engage in paddy rice cultivation, less than 5% of the population in the commune has enough land to cultivate other crops such as mango (Interview A59).

The following figure illustrates the general pattern of land use in Chambak commune (Figure 5.2). In three villages within the commune centre are two collective groups of paddy rice fields. In each village there are approximately 100 households. Outside of these village owned paddy fields the rest of land is agricultural land owned by outsiders. Looking at figure 7 it can be seen that this second category of land represents a much higher land area than paddy rice fields. This land is mainly covered by mango plantations owned by people from outside the

74 community. The forest remains mostly on the Kirirom Mountains toward the western section of the commune. The rest of the land is covered by scrublands where land is very unfertile.

Kirirom Mountain

Figure 5.2 Picture showing a creek surrounded by plantations

In some places where forest protection is limited, forest land on the hills is being cleared. Based on observations, toward the South-western section of Treang Trayoung commune, forest land at the hill is also being cleared for plantations (Figure 5.3). This area is claimed by the military. One man who cleared the land on the mountain said he is serving the military in this area, although it also appeared he wanted some land to grow crops.

75

Figure 5.3 new land clearing on the mountain edge

5.2. History The people of both communes were evacuated during the 1980s to settle closer to National Road No 4 in order to be secured by the central government and Vietnamese troops. Further away from the National road number 4 toward the north, Chambak was controlled by the KR until early 1993. After the Khmer Rouge regime collapsed in 1989, people in Chambak moved back to their villages in 1982 only to be evacuated out again in 1985 where they relocated near the national road number 4 in Traeng Trayoueng Commune. They were relocated back in Chambak in 1993.

Cham, currently a villager in Chambak recalled how Chambak villagers were relocated: after 1979, people in this commune including Cham were settled in Krang Deiy Vay, a commune near Chambak. Livelihoods were mainly dependent on rice cultivation because there was an irrigation system established during the KR period. However, in 1986, KR troops attempted to take control over the area they were living in. Charm recalled “they came here and burnt the school and people’s houses. They mobilised all the people in the village and asked us to be part of their group. Fortunately, the day after, the Vietnamese troops arrived and reclaimed the village. In 1987, we were relocated to Traeng Trayoueng, which was closer to the main road. Over there we were considered refugees, who lived collectively in a campsite. In 1990, the government gave us land there. However, our main occupation was not farming, but logging and collecting firewood or charcoal woods. Not long after the government allocated us land, we were relocated back to Chambak. Most people decided to move back here and sold their land. At that time the land price was very cheap; however, we decided not to live there anymore, there is no point to keep the land. When we first arrived back here, the land was full of landmines” (Interview A52).

76

Traeng Trayoueng was not fully controlled by the KR during the 1980s and 1990s, however, occasional clashes occurred. During the 1980s, most of the population was concentrated closer to national road number 4. The forested and mountainous areas further away from the main road were still controlled by the KR troops or considered to be unsafe. By the 1990s, the central government had better control over the area. Therefore, people were gradually relocated to areas further off the main road. According to interviews with villagers in Traeng Trayoueng, most of the villages located further south of the National roads were (re)established in the late 1990s or early 2000s after reintegration. Phum Thum Southeast of Traeng Trayoueng for example, was established in 2000 to accompany disabled ex-soldiers and civilians who were affected by the war (see Figure 7.1). Serey, one of the disabled persons and a former soldier, stated that the village was established after the civil war finished in the late 1990s. People could not permanently live in the village in the early 1990s while the KR was still in control of the region.

5.3. Forest Production

Valuable has timber had largely disappeared since the 1990s. Luxury woods were logged and transported out of the areas since the occupation of Vietnamese military troops in the 1980s. Given its closer location to National road number 4, timber was easily transported. People said the VN troops were heavily involved in logging in the area (Interviews A73 and A76). Charcoal wood production was actively collected from the area starting from the 1990s. While part of the region was still controlled by the KR, some parts of Traeng Trayoueng were cleared for charcoal production. Thus, the only area where timber remains is the mountains located in Kirirom national park.

Fence pole collection is one of the major incomes for people in Chambak commune. This activity is mainly conducted by men. Given the communes location near the Kirirom National Park and the Chambak community based eco-tourism area, there is still a considerable amount of small wood that people can collect and sell for fence plosts. These poles are typically cut from dead woods that can be used to make fences.

77

Figure 5.4 Fence plosts collected by people in Chambak

NTFP such as mushrooms and bamboo still play an important role for communities living closer to the mountainous area such as the villages of Chambak.

Setha, currently in his mid-60, depends heavily on collecting NTFPs such as mushrooms to support his family. He said he could not engage in collecting fence plosts and others activities like young men do in Chambak because he does not have a son. All of his children are females. Setha could not engage in rice cultivation as well because he does not have land. Setha had spent most of his time after the KR and before moving back to Chambak in the military. By the time he returned back his land had been taken by someone else. The paddy rice that his parents used before the KR is currently insider an irrigation reservoir built during the KR period. When I met Setha he was on the way back from the mountain collecting mushrooms. Unfortunately he was very unwell and struggled on his journey, which normally takes 2 or 3 nights in the forest. He decided to return without having collected mushrooms while other people, mostly young males continued their trip.

Sothy and his wife are in their mid-60 living in Peam Lvear Village, the most northern village of Chambak commune. Sothy and his wife have 3 children and 3 grandchildren living with them. All the three children are females and his grandchildren are under 15 years old. The mother of the three grandchildren is currently unwell. He does not have tractor. The only transport his family has is an oxcart. With the

78

limitation of labour and the machinery, his whole family income depens primarily on collecting NTFP such as bamboo and rattans depending on the availability of the NTFP in the forest and market demand. With the labour of 3 adult females, 2 elderly and one male teenager, his family could collect 300 bamboo sticks within 4 days; 3 days to cut and collect from the forest and one day for preparation before selling them to the middlemen. Each batch of bamboos (ten trees) is sold for 5000 Riel which means each bamboo pole is 500 Riel. Therefore, in 4 days his whole family could earn about 150000 Riel (37.5 USD). Sothy stated that not only is bamboo only collected during certain seasons, demand for the bamboo is also unstable. Sometimes middlemen want to buy bamboo and sometimes they do not, Sothy added (Interview A56).

Figure 5.5 Sothy’s family preparing bamboos

79

Figure 5.6 Teenagers and children transporting bamboos with oxcarts

5.4. From charcoal to mango plantation

Once lands have been scoured for charcoal woods, land is often sold on the emerging land market. Most of the land in Traeng Trayoueng is covered by mango plantations which were previously forested land. By the early 1990s, good quality timber had already been taken from the lowland areas of the region both by Vietnamese troops, the KR and civilians. Thus, during the 1990s, remaining timber within the lowland areas were of low quality and suitable only for charcoal and firewood. Charcoal timber and firewood has provided substantial income for people who live in the area throughout the 1990s.

A history of a village called “Lor Village” demonstrates how a previous intensive logging and later charcoal processing location has become a mango plantation site.

A village located a few kilometres South of National Road No 4 was named Lor, which means kiln. Rorn, currently Lor’s village head said in 1996 when he first moved here, the area was still mainly covered by forest. However, all the valuable timber had already been cleared by then. By the time he arrived, Lor was a charcoal producing area where people came from different places to establish kilns and make charcoal from surrounding forest. However, by the early 2010s, all the forest

80

has disappeared from the village and been converted into mango plantations. Rorn added that while people were making a living on charcoal, occupying land was not their main priority. At the same time, the area had only just seen the cessation of conflict and much land was still claimed by powerful military figures. By the late 1990s, land started to be sold to outsiders while people were making charcoal out of it. Rorn said prior to reintegration, the area was controlled by a Khmer Rouge General name Pong. Thus after the integration, he started to reclaim land. If land had already been used, people were forced to give up their land or sell it very cheaply. Land was as cheap as 100000 Riel (25 USD) per plot of more than 1 hectare. Rorn recalled “sometimes during the night time, the (former) militants came into the village with guns forcing peole to sell or give up land. When land was grabbed by these powerful figures, they were later sold to wealthy people from Phnom Penh. Most of the people here do not own any land apart from their residential property. Most livelihoods depend on either their children selling labour outside of the village or working on mango plantations” (Interview A76).

Figure 5.7 A mongo plantation in Chambak

Not all the land was grabbed by the powerful military figures, but some was also sold by villagers who were in need of money or/and do not need the land. People who are currently living in Chambak said, when they moved out of their camp in Traeng Trayoueng, they decided to sell land at a very cheap price because they no longer wanted to live in that village. Sothy said he sold the land for less than 20000 Reil (50 UDS) before moving to Chambak. Noun, 46

81 years old, is living in Phum Themey Village, Chambak Commune. After arriving in the village in the mid-1990s, her late husband who was a soldier claimed land near the village. The land was mainly covered by secondary forest and only a small fracture of land was cleared while her family possessed that land. By the mid-2000s, her husband was sick so they needed the money to have him treated. So her family decided to sell the land they had claimed for a very low price. 10 ha of land was sold at USD$150. The land has now been converted into a mango farm owned by a very rich woman from Phnom Penh. Noun added that the rich woman also bought other people’s land near hers to make a big mango farm of 10 ha. The only property Noun’s family has is two plots of paddy rice and residential land.

In many cases before becoming a mango plantation owned by outsiders, land would be sold multiple times. Ratha who own a mango farm along the National Road No 4 could not track the history of her land anymore because it has been passed through too many owners already. She said by the time she bought the land five years ago, it had already been a mango plantation. She does not know who claimed and owned the land in the first place. A plot of mango plantation in Chambak has a similar history. A woman who lives opposite the land explained that land was claimed and cleared by a villager after they first resettled back in the village in the early mid-1990s. By early 2010, the first owner sold the land for 700$ for 4 ha of land to someone from the provincial town. After the original owner, the second owner cleared the land then sold it for USD $9000. The third owner bought the land, planted mangoes and demarcated the land with a proper fend. After three years of owning the land, they sold it for 25000 USD. The land is currently owned by a Cambodian American family who is barely known by villagers.

82

Figure 5.8 A mango plantation with a sign saying farmland for sale with phone numbers on it

Mango plantations involve more actors and processes than traditional local farming practices. Most mango land owners do not reside on their farms. According to an interview with Seth, a mango plantation owner who is currently based in Phnom Penh it was suggested that most people who own plantations are not living in the region including himself. He is a university lecturer in Phnom Penh and only makes a journey to the farm when needed. Seth owns about 15 ha of mango plantation which is currently rented by middlemen. Each mature mango tree, he rents for USD $15. In order to maintain a productive plantation, the middlemen has to supply fertiliser, pesticide and water to the crop. The middlemen are also responsible for collecting and selling the mango to the market. The other way to rent the farm is calculated by the size of the land not by individual tree. Sophat who is currently working on someone elses farm stated that plantation owners rented her 1000 ha farm for 70000 USD/year. Therefore each hectare of mango is worth 7000 USD. Sophat said it is relatively cheap, because not all the trees are mature enough to be productive. Renters have to take care of the trees. Sophat added that if they do not, the farm owner would not rent out the land again the next year. Other activities such as picking fruits, cutting trees branches and fertiliser application require casual labour.

5.5. Land and local farming

Many people are still in the process of losing land especially the people in Chambak. This typically occurs through two interrelated processes - debt and land grabbing.

83

Chantorn’ situation, a villager in Chambak, shows how people in Chambak have been losing access to their land. Three years ago Chantha’s land was taken by a company which she does not know the name of. She said there was a man called Moa in the village who told her that whether she decided to sell it or not, the company would take the land. After a year, she went back to the man and he told her that the company does not have the money yet. The man told her that when the company had money they would pay her the outstanding money. However, until now, she has not received the money yet. She said she begged him for the money, or to please give her the land back. The land is now fenced and used to grow bananas. Before the land was taken, she grew different crops in the land including rice and bananas. However, she added that most of the land was still covered by shrubs. The land had been owned by her parents since before the KR period.

Currently the only land she has is a plot of paddy field. The land is about 1 hectare where she grows mainly rice for family consumption. She is a single mother with five children, 3 daughters and 2 sons. Two of daughters are windows with three children. Currently the rice field has to support 7 family members all together. Two of her daughters are working in garment factories in Phnom Penh. Her sons, 19 and 20, are living with her in the village to cultivate the only land they have got and spend his non-farming time collecting fence plosts. To collect poles, her sons need an oxcart with two mature oxen. Her family do not have their own oxen because they were sold to treat her husband before he died. Her family borrowed $1000 from the bank to buy two oxen. The money is repaid with income from her daughters working in Phnom Penh and her sons from collecting fence plosts. To borrow the money, her remaining land was deposited. Therefore, if she cannot pay back the money, she may lose all her land. Chantha said she worried that the oxen might die because there is a cattle disease in the village. Collecting fence plosts is not a very secure income both in terms of availability of the woods in the forest and market demand.

84

Figure 5.9 Chantha staring at her remaining land. In the background are the mountains where a mining company is located. Her lost land is located near that mountain.

Many people could not even generate rice for family consumption. Interviews suggested that people are buying to rice to eat because their land can no longer offer them enough food throughout the whole year. Less than one hectare of paddy rice with an increasing number of family members, cannot sufficiently generate rice for family consumption. Noun said after her husband died, her family only has 1.5 hectare of land left and only some of the land is paddy rice. Due to the quality of soil, the rice yield in the area is less than two tonness per hectare. One of her children got married, so she allocated some of the land for him. The remaining land is used for rice for her family of 8 adults and 3 children. Noun said with the land she has, she cannot support the family for the whole year. Some of the rice is purchased from incomes her children working in the garment factories, construction, and migration work in Thailand (Interview ). Chantha also exclaimed that the land she has left could barely generate enough rice for the family especially as the rainy season is unpredictable. This year, for example, by the end of June, there has not been any major rainfall events. People in the village have not started seedling their rice yet because there has not been enough water in the field. The following photo shows Chathan’s land ploughed while waiting for the rain so that they could plant rice. People normally started their paddy rice season during May and this photo is taken in late June (Interview A67).

85

Figure 5.9 Chantha’s paddy rice without water

5.6. Labouring and source livelihood

While land and resources are not sufficiently offering income and food, people are diversifying their income via selling labour outside their village. This mainly involves young women. According to an interview with the Chambak commune head, most of the young women in the commune are selling labour either in Phnom Penh or near the provincial town (Interview A59). A disabled man who was a former militant said many people in Veal Thum Village, a village established in Treang Trayuoeng for disabled people, have been moving out of the village to look for work elsewhere. They sold their land and moved on to sell their labour. His family is still based in Veal Thum, however, to maintain the farm, his two daughters are working in Phnom Penh.

Some people go to work overseas to find a job; however, the proportion is small compare in country migration. Chambak commune head suggested that 16 people in the whole commune are working as labourer in Malaysia and Korea and some work in Thailand which he cannot figure out the number. Out of Noun seven children, two are working in Thailand (Interview A50), two in Phnom Penh, one in construction nearby, and the other two who are married living in the village doing rice farming and collecting forest product (Interview A50).

86

Young adult men either engage in collecting poles in the area, selling labour in the construction industry or going overseas. Channa’s family provide a good example how young males in Chambak allocate their labour. Channa is a single mother of three children who are all male; 19, 25 and 30 respectively. The 19 year old is working in a construction job in Kirirom National Park. He earns about 20000 Riel (5USD)/day. The other two sons are living in the village collecting fence plosts. She has 1 hectare of paddy rice which provide her family with enough rice to eat fthe whole year around. Lay, Chann’s oldest son said him and his brother would go and stay in the forest for a few nights and would comeback with 10 or 20 poles. Each pole can be sold for 9000 Riel. Sary’s husband also engages in the collecting fence plosts. He used to work in Phnom Penh. However, now that he is married and has 5 young children to be taken care of, he decided to stay in the village and rely mostly on forest product such as fence plosts (Interview…). Sary said her husband would go to collect fence plosts one a week and he might spend 4 days in the forest. The forest is far away from the village and so it is not possible to return in one day. Each trip they could earn 300000-400000 Riel (75-100 USD). To collect the poles, her husband joins 2 or 3 other males in the village. They have 2 tractors for transportation. As her husband does not have a tractor, his contribution to the team is that he owns a chainsaw.

People who sell labour in the village are likely those who don’t have land and other alternative options. This group tends to be full-time labourers. For example, many people in Phum Lor become labourers after charcoal woods were exhausted and they don’t have access to agricultural land. A story of a family who migrated from Shaarng District, Kandal Province to live in Phum Lor since early 2000s epitomizes this (Interview A78). The reason her family decided to move to Phum Lor is that they were looking for land to rent so that they could grow vegetables as they did in their hometown. Her family could also engage in charcoal production making at the same time. However, after living in the area for more than 10 years, she never owned any farmland. The land she used to rent for a cheap price was eventually converted into mango plantations. Therefore, her family lost the option to earn money apart from selling labour. She said she is too old to work in garment factories. Her children who are married and have children would prefer to live in the village than selling labour elsewhere. Therefore, her whole family’s income depends largely on selling labour. They tend to work together rather than selling labour individually. If a farm needs a group of people to grow mango, her family would offer an output based rather than a daily rate.

The people who work for mango plantations are necessary for the people who live in the village. The mango plantations generate an irregular labour demand which is harder for local who need regular income to sustain their livelihoods. As mango plantation owners do not usually live on their farms they typically employ one or two people, usually a couple to live and manage their farm. The people who manage the farm are likely landless people from the village. Navy, a young woman working on a mango plantation, stated that she and her husband are working for a mango plantation whose owner is living in Phnom Penh. She does not have any land and nor does her husband. Each month, her husband earns about USD$

87

100. The income from their work could barely provide them with enough food to survive. Navy stated that her husbands duty is to manage the farm and conduct whatever work the landlord requires. However, during the busy period such as the harvesting season, they employ other people to do it. Alternatively the farm owner could rent the farm for a year and the farm renter would decide what activities are required.

An interview with a group of men who came into the area seasonally to sell labour in the mango plantation demonstrates how outsiders contribute to the labour demand for mango plantations. Chey and four other friends live in Kong Pesey District, Kampong Spue province. They are in their 40s and 50s. They said the reason they came to the area to work for the mango planation is because they have spare time after attending to their rice fields back at their hometown. They typically work in the mango plantation for only a short period and then return back to their hometown to do rice cultivation or go somewhere else where there is the need of labour. Chey added that his is in his 40s, so it is hard to get a job in a garment factory. The factories in Phnom Penh prefer younger people especially women. Each day of working in the mango plantation, they could earn about 30000 Riel. Chey said that he had worked in Chambak before, so the farmer owners knew of him and his friends. So when they need labour, they just called him, so he would go around his village or villages nearby to ask if anyone needed work.

5.7. Community-based eco-tourism and local livelihood

In the early 2001, a community based protected area was established in Chambak commune and inside Kirirum National Park under the support of the NGO Mlup Baitong. In 2003, the Community Forest was converted into a community based eco-tourism destination. Chambak eco-tourist community is one of the most successful CBNRM projects in Cambodia. However, its contribution to local incomes is still limited. As mentioned earlier most young women in the village have migrated out looking for jobs in urban areas. Some people have also migrated to Thailand.

Two major forms of benefit people receive from community-based ecotourism are engaging with tourism and collecting forest products. However, neither is a major source of livelihoods for villagers. To participant in tourism activities, people must join the accommodation group that provides homestay accommodation to tourists. One person charges 4 USD/night. However, Channa’s family, one of the families hosting tourist, only has one group of guests (3-4 people) in two months and that is not enough to support the family. Therefore, Channa’s sons have to sell labour and collect forest products (Interview A47). The other way people benefit from the community is collecting forest products. People said if they want to collect wood for housing construction, they need to request the community committee. It takes sometimes to get approval, Noun said. Only a small proportion of the woods that were used to build her house were from the community. Most of the wood she bought from other

88 people who cut it from the forest outside the community. Most of the interviewed people who collect fence plosts stated that they collect timber from outside the community not inside. Community regulation is also strict and there is anyway not a significant stock of timber in the (Interview A50). So it is often a better option to collect woods from the outside while it is still available.

People in Chambak seem to support the community even though they do not necessarily economically benefit from it. The forest was highly depleted before the establishment of the community (Interviews A52 and A59). Through the community, most people in Chambak commune receive household water under the support of UNDP. The water is connected from a stream in the eco-tourist community area. According to the head of the community, the MoE is adding another 2000 ha on top of the existing land of 1345 ha (Interview A52).

89

6. Central-west Upper Stung Prek Thnot - Kreung Dai Wai Commune, Phnom Sruoch District

6.1. General Geography and Ecology

Kreung Dai Wai commune is situated on the far north west of Phnom Sruoch district. To the west, the commune backs on to Koh Kong province. 20% of the commune is covered by a small chain of mountains in the west covered in secondary shrub. The rest of the commune is agricultural land consisting of approximately 60% of rice land, 15% of concession land and 25% of farmland and small mango plantations (Interview B60). All of this land is flat on soils which range from sandy to a sandy-clay loam. The Prek Thnot river runs east west through the commune and the Ktout river enters at the eastern tip of the commune (demarcating it from Aural district). This commune is more populated than the two case studies from Aural although is still sparsely populated in comparison to the communes which are intersected by the national highway. Like Aural, many older rivers have been established within proximity of the two rivers which intersect the commune and most have been in existence for as long as people there can recount. Of the 11 villages representing approximately 9,500 people, most are organised around rice fields in close proximity to the river. One line of villages follows a road that connects-up to Aural where a number of old villages were established along a low plateau which was formerly forested (Interview B60). There is no primary forests remaining in the commune.

90

Figure 6.1 Krang Die Vay Commune

There are a number of ELCs in the commune. The first is the American timber plantation company Grandis which spans both districts but runs from the northern tip to the south along a mountain chain in the west. Grandis cover approximately 3 thousand ha of land in the commune. The other major plantation is Master International a Malaysian oil palm plantation that also spans the two districts, covering approximately 2500 ha in Kreung Dai Wai Commune. Two provincial level concessions also exist; a mango plantation of 700ha and Sanan Agriculture of 500ha. In addition to this a Korean company operates a mango processing factory on the eastern edge of the commune. Also of significance is that a social land concession has been created in Trapeang Prey Thmey village for poor and landless people from throughout the province.

Field work focused on two areas; one village - Dak Por in the east which was also home to the Domrey Jak Tlork Community Forest (CF) and a small cluster of old and new villages on the western side around Banteay Roka village.

91

6.2. Demographics and History of Settlement

Much like Aural, the vast majority of landowners are smallholder rice farmers – 80% according to the commune chief (Interview B60). Approximately 20% of households are people coming to do small business, plantation workers, part of the social land concession or mango farm and other farm owners.

Similar to Aural, the Khmer Rouge movement had gained a foothold in the commune well before the rest of the country – around 1970-71 according to interviews with elderly people. During the Khmer Rouge period most people were not relocated to distant areas -although a few villages were combined into large villages (Interview B73). In 1979 when Vietnamese forces toppled the Khmer Rouge regime the majority of people in the commune were able to stay in their villages as the Khmer Rouge rapidly abandoned and fled across the Cardamom mountains. As the Khmer Rouge regrouped and rearmed in the 1980s, the commune came under repeated Khmer Rouge attacks and by 1989 most of the northern villages in the commune had to be relocated further south. Most people went to three or four different places – some temporarily settled in villages south of the commune, some went Trapeang Grolung along the national highway and a large number went to Knang Krang village in the neighbouring commune of Tang Samroang. Unlike Aural, due to the proximity between evacuation sites and former lands many people would intermittently come back to farm their lands and collect timber during the 1990s when the Khmer Rouge still controlled the area. During the 190s many villagers would go and log forests that were under Khmer Rouge control – paying a tax for each tree extracted. Some villagers even stayed in Khmer Rouge territory or joined the Khmer Rouge in the 1990s in order to facilitate business activities – particularly logging. However, most villages in the commune were not properly resettled to their former villages until 1998.

Like Aural, most people came back to claim former rice fields that their families had traditionally cultivated. During the 1990s and especially after resettlement, people also tried to establish farmlands from surrounding areas. In the 1990s the entire commune was much more aggressively logged in comparison to the two Aural case studies. Not only did the Khmer Rouge encourage logging in the area (although on a limited scale), but local villages and people from across the province and afar came to selectively log valuable timber. Thus by the time of resettlement much of the area was already highly degraded forest. This degraded forest was however important for local livelihoods as local people would clear these patches of forest by hand to grow a variety of crops – corn, bananas, sugar cane, mangos and other fruits and vegetables. These lands were also important for cattle grazing. In most cases however these secondary forest lands being converted to farmlands were some distance away from rice fields that surround villages. This made establishing secure tenure over these lands difficult. When private capital began to flow into the area as a land market slowly established, many smallholders lost land to ELCs and medium size investments. The district governor for instance stated that the Grandis timber concession ‘was not on any land claimed

92 by farmers. It was all secondary shrub land that had been heavily logged and was useless’. Yet when interviewing farmers in the surrounding area many families complained about losing land they had invested countless days and weeks to clear and cultivate.

6.3. Livelihoods

As mentioned above the vast majority of people in the commune are small scale rice farmers – although with a significant portion of small sellers, plantation workers and mango farm owners. In comparison to the Aural cases studies it can be observed from the Phnom Sruoch case studies that livelihoods are generally more diversified although with less dependence upon timber harvesting and charcoal collection. As will be shown the timber and charcoal boom has already largely passed the commune and people tend to be much more reliant on labour work. Land relations are also far more stable. The process of converting forest land into either private property or state land has already largely finished where boundaries between land parcels are far clearer and less contested than in neighbouring Aural. For this same reason, many smallholders have succumbed to selling land as a way to generate quick capital and as such smallholder land holdings are typically smaller than that in Aural. Small holders also tend to live more precariously in this commune than the uplands. People are much more dependent upon markets for basic necessities including rice, water, fish and meat. Households are also much more dependent upon unstable labour work and a such are forced to migrate greater distances and under ever more precarious circumstances just to secure a basic living wage.

6.4. Timber harvesting

During the 1990s most of the valuable timber was opportunistically logged from the area. Due to the proximity to major refugee camps and fairly easy accessibility, the commune was logged much more aggressively and earlier on than areas deeper under the Khmer Rouges control in Aural. A 56 year old man from Dak Por village explained

“Around 1990 we had to leave the village and run to Tang Samroang [commune] because of KR attacks. During the time we stayed there – from 1990 until reintegration many people would come to our village and the surrounding to log. There used to be a lot of luxury wood all around the area – it was thick forest full of animals – it was even dangerous to walk around at night because of all the animals. But during the 90s a lot of timber was taken out – by the time we got back there wasn’t much timber left – only far away on the top of the

93

mountains. I also used to collect timber during that time. I could see a lot of people coming and taking timber everyday and I was worried they would take the trees around my farm so at first I cut anything valuable around where I had farmland. Then I could collect from around the mountains. There were lots of buyers at that time who we could take the timber to and they would sell to sawmills in Trapeng Grolung. But we had to pay the Khmer Rouge for every tree we took out. It was ok to take trees from around here but if we entered deep into their territory it was more difficult – if we didn’t know them or have personal connections. Some people even joined the KR at the time so they could do harvesting easily. I even stayed with the Khmer Rouge for a few months….The government would also take money from us and we had to be careful because they could put is in jail if we took too much timber….now I have stopped logging, I haven’t done it for many years. There is nothing left! Its all gone!” (Interview B71).

A few other men from around Dak Por had similar experiences. One 51 year-old man named Sok emphasised the limitations of harvesting timber at that time:

“A lot of us would cut timber at that time. We had no choice – if we didn’t cut it we would lose everything – so we cut some to make some money before it was all gone. But we were never like those big people who drive truckloads after truckload of rosewood freely along the road. I used to carry timber on my Dailim motorcycle. We could just cut a few trees and take it to a buyer in Trapeang Grolung. It is not like the companies that clear cut the whole forest. Now I regret that the forest is gone.”

“Not many people from this village collect timber. It is all gone from here – its all ready all done. Now its too far to go to collect timber and too much to pay” (Interview B75).

Village chiefs interviewed also confirmed that very few people depended upon timber as a major livelihood activity and income source as had been the case in the 1990s and 2000s when there was still remaining forest. However, from interviews it was also stated that some timber harvesters from that period had ‘professionalised’ and continued to use their skills to collect timber from distant places such as Pursat and Koh Kong. One man interviewed at a coffee shop in Dak Por had even gone all the way to Ratanakiri to work as a timber harvester when he timber boom hit there in the late 2000s. His main income was derived from timber harvesting – which he travelled around the country doing. He owned no agricultural land, but said he had ‘sufficient equipment’ for working as a timber harvester.

94

Timber harvesting – especially of valuable species also went through a farm more complex production chain than in Aural and in comparison to the past. Luxury timber trafficking is now a serious offense and highly politicised. Due to its high value, trafficking of valuable species also tends to attract the attention of broad network of authorities and elites. During the authors stay in Dak Por village, one night a mysterious tractor arrived at the house offering accommodation in the morning which was covered with a tarpaulin. At night transporters arrived to transport the wood onwards to the main road. The whole operation was highly organised and done surreptitiously. The transporters talked about ‘a soldier’ who would ‘make sure the road was clear’ on the way to the main road, however all parties involved were careful not to attract attention of local authorities. The owner of the house was merely being paid to store the wood for a day. Transporting valuable species clearly required major logistical efforts as well as connections to elites.

6.5. Charcoal

Much like timber, charcoal was far less important as a livelihood activity across the commune in comparison to Trapeang Chour in Aural – although it varied with each village and household. Primarily this was because there was next to no forest left to collect charcoal from. Like timber, the charcoal boom had largely come and gone. According to most interviews charcoal production had been an important livelihood activity starting in the early 2000s. Many people interviewed had started off collecting charcoal from around the commune when the area was still forested – some had transitioned from timber collection to charcoal production when timber started becoming scarce. Others had been enticed to become charcoal collectors as it was clear there was a large market in Phnom Penh for charcoal and it could generate at least some minimal income for households. For example a couple in Dak Por (the man 49, the wife 42) explained their situation in relation to timber and charcoal production:

Husband: “we used to collect timber when there was still forest here. I would go out for a few nights at a time. At the very start when we were still in Tang Samnag I would come here and collect timber form around here or the mountain to the west. But when all the timber was gone I started going to Aural. But I haven’t gone for more than five years because its too far and we don’t get enough profit.”

Wife: “I used to help out with charcoal. We would go together to collect from the forest – but now we’re too old! Its too far and difficult. We still have a kiln [pointing to the remains of a mud kiln clearly out of

95

use in her backyard] but we haven’t used it in years. Sometimes Our kids would go and collect charcoal but now they are too busy with work – one works in Phnom Penh and one works at the company in Aural.”

Husband: “if we want to go to collect timber for charcoal production we have to go to collect it from Aural. But every time we cross a checkpoint we have to pay money. We can barely make money from that. We just try to focus on our land that we have left – we are old we can’t get educated or work in the city. Maybe the next generation can but we are just farmers” (Interview B77).

As for many in the area, charcoal production was slowly becoming economically unprofitable. Both felt that as they had to travel further and further to collect charcoal and pay more in bribes it was no longer worth their effort. Increasing dependence on labour work was also an important factor here. As the above quotation shows, with younger family members migrating to work, labour intensive work such as charcoal production and rice farming are left to older family members or abandoned. That older people often feel they have little chance to participate in the rapidly changing economy is also of note.

Elsewhere, charcoal collectors could still be found. In Doung village on the western edge of the commune the author came across a charcoal collector who had been collecting Charcoal in Trapeag Chor commune on the way to Kviet. Ton was 29 year old farmer. Upon meeting him again – this time in his home village – he better explained his livelihood situation and reasoning for continuing charcoal production:

“Just the last time you saw me I had gone to collect charcoal from the mountains for 3 nights. I still have a little over one hectare of rice and had just finished planting. My wife and I worked together on this. Usually in the time after I am busy with my rice field I will go and collect charcoal. I usually do just one bake. If I collect good wood I can get about 1 million for a bake. It isn’t much but we need a little money – so my wife can buy things at the market… I have been collecting charcoal for around 10 years. Its not really a difficult job for me – I get used to it and I still have energy and am healthy. I don’t mind riding in the forests – I know the roads and the good places to collect charcoal because I have gone many times with many different people. The big problem is the

96 money I have to pay along the road. That is difficult! Probably in the future I won’t do this work so much – I hope to work more on my rice field” (Interview B21).

Figure 6.2 Tun relaxing on the roadside in Aural on his way to collect charcoal.

97

According to the village chief of Dak Por about ‘15% of people still regularly collect charcoal. It used to be nearly every household. In the mid 200s you could see smoke coming out of everyone’s house. But as the forest was cleared fewer and fewer people continued to collect charcoal’ (Interview B87). The village chief of Banteay Roka gave a similar figure for his village as did the village chief of Doung. Riding around these villages interviewing people, kilns and tractors full of charcoal were a lot less conspicuous than in Aural.

In 2009 the French NGO GERES had attempted to support people in Dak Por village to produce ‘eco friendly’ charcoal using a specially designed large industrial sized kiln that was made to use smaller tree species (and quicker with less heat required). However, by the time the project was up and running the charcoal boom was already beginning to subside and the locus of charcoal production had begun to move northwards. As this happened fewer people wanted to bake charcoal in their homes – preferring either to have kilns at the collection site or just sell the wood to bakers in Ktuot. In addition to this, sellers would give a very low price for ‘thin’ charcoal. Buyers were primarily interested in thick charcoal chunks that could burn longer.

98

Figure 6.3 NGO supported ‘eco charcoal production’ in Dak Por village abandoned for several years.

99

In the new villages such as Trapenag Prey Thmey (the social land concession) and a newly established village to the west of Banteay Roka simply termed ‘new village’ even fewer people were involved in charcoal production. In Trapenag Prey Thmey every single person interviewed was working on the nearby sugar plantation and in most cases this activity accounted for the majority of income earnt. The soil here was particularly sandy and rocky and unsuitable for agriculture and as all residents were poor (which was a criteria for receiving land) few had assets beyond their homes and land (which they were not allowed to sell). In the ‘new village’ which consisted largely of immigrants who had settled in the area in the last decade, people came from across the country and were involved in a variety of different livelihood activities. Along the main road newcomers had established small businesses – selling noodles, coffee, meat, selling beer and one family even operated a small Karaoke parlour. Some newcomers also came to buy small and moderate patches of land to grow mangos. So too poor land poor villages from nearby villages had come to be close to their farmlands (examine din more detail in the land section). Yet very few had the skills, experience or basic equipment to collect timber or produce charcoal. As a 47 year old man named Guy from Prey Veng who grew 2 ha of mangos put it ‘we newcomers are not like the villagers – we don’t know how to collect timber and charcoal. I don’t even have a tractor or chainsaw and have no idea about that’. Similarly, a coffee seller from Phnom Penh on the same road admitted ‘he had no experience with wood collecting as I am from a city and only know about selling’.

6.6. Land

Land relations are fairly stable across the commune in that most boundaries demarking different types of land are stable and well recognised and most small holders have secure title over their residential and agricultural land. Simultaneously the land market is more active in this commune in comparison to Trapeang Chour in Aural. Many more smallholders have sold land and as such it is not uncommon for one patch of land to have already gone through multiple owners – or actual owners are distant and hard to track down. This contrasts with the case studies in Aural where most land was still owned by the person who had originally cleared it. Ther was also a much more obvious network of land brokers who involved (and enriched) themselves in the process of selling small landholder property to outside investors.

For instance in and around Dak Por discussion in coffee shops often centred around land – who was selling land, where land was being sold, for how much and to whom. One man the author conducted an interview with was in the process of acting as a broker taking around investors from Phnom Penh to view lands ‘that could be made available’. At another coffee shop in Krang Kor village a group of men consisting of local villagers and people from Chbar Moan were discussing land deals they had helped broker and contemplating which other villages may be willing to sell land. Companies and large private investors often secured the services of such people in order to expand their land holdings. For instance one of the men

100 admitted that he worked on behalf of Savanavat Investment company and would receive a percentage of each land transaction he can successfully complete. It was also clear that Lee Yong Phat’s concessions had expanded well beyond their formal concession areas by amassing private landholdings to the south. Although the southern border of the concession area formerly ends in Aural it was common knowledge throughout the commune that ‘Lee yong Phat land’ included large patches of land in the commune. According to interviews with labourers who had worked on lee Yong Phat land, the village chief of Dak Por and the Deputy commune chief, sugar cane land had been amassed on behalf of an influential figure (Oknya) who worked in association with Lee Yong Phat. Land was strategically brought up by this man from smallholders. This land was contiguous with the main concession and all harvested crops would go to the processing factory in Aural. Pressure to sell was often intense. As one farmer who had sold 2 hectares of land in this manner from Dak Por recounted ‘we didn’t want to sell that land because it was the only land we had left. But when all the land is surrounded [by sugarcane] what can we do? We didn’t even have a way to get to our own land anymore because they owned the road.’

The Master Economic Land concession in the north had also been involved in a number of particularly contentious land disputes. Over 100ha of rice fields was taken by the company from people in three different villages (Dak Por, Kor Krang and Kanang Krang). People in these villages felt that the theft of clearly marked rice farms was particularly outrageous. Although land conflicts are common throughout the district, ELCs have tended to enclose farmlands rather than rice lands and since 2011 when Hun Sen announced the ‘Leopard Skin Policy’ that focused on avoiding conflicts between ELCs and smallholder lands there has been efforts to ensure rice fields are cut out of ELC territories. Tha a 37 year old male farmer from Knang Krang who had lost 3ha of land to the company explained –

“ask anyone here we are all against that company – they are bad people. They just came and took our rice land. We worked that land for years and years and they took it in one day… When they took that land we resisted. We went straight there and they met us with soldiers and security guards. They beat people with electric batons and even kicked women. That’s what its like here no justice. We took this issue to many levels – to the commune, district and province. We have even been to Phnom Penh about this issue. But no result. They have our land. When the students came to measure land [and give out land titles] they did not give us title to that land. So now we have no hope” (Interview B79).

After losing his three hectares of land Tha’ family continued to focus on rice farming. However although he and his wife were not happy with her doing garment work in Phnom Penh he now says they feel they have no choice and she was preparing to find work. When asked about timber collection and charcoal production That said he ‘lazy to get into that again’

101 complaining that ‘it is too far to go to do that and it gets little money’. Instead he was preparing to search for construction work in Phnom Penh or somewhere else.

Another family in the same village who had lost two hectares had a slightly different response. Talking to the couple in their 40s who had three small children the husband told the author that

“We will continue to farm our rice land. We have more than two hectares now that my wife has inherited some from her parents – even though we lost land. I have a lot of experience doing labour work. I used to work for Grandis for more than one year and I have done a lot of different labour work around this area. But I am fed up with it. I would much rather focus on my farm. At least my farm can provide me with food. Labourers cannot make money and their lives are difficult. Say for example you can make 12,000 per day. When you calculate the cost of transport, the cost of food, the cost of water and the cost for equipment you will barely save any money. You just spend what you make. So what’s the point? If I work on my farm there’s no one telling me what to do. I have chickens and pigs and cows. We can eat rice. We don’t have a lot and I really worry about my children’s futures but it is better to be poor and on the farm than broken up and poor” (Interview B81).

This resistance to labour work was common throughout interviews. Many small scale farmers who were under great stress financially saw their agricultural endeavours as more than merely income generating activities. As the above quote shows, such farmers viewed rice farming as a struggle – not only for money but to persist in traditional ways of income generation that held out the possibility of a more dignified life. Nearly all people interviewed in villages such as Dak Por and Knang Grang where land conflicts were common and pressure on smallholders was high expressed a high degree of discontent with their situation. A group of young men interviewed one evening while relaxing at a friends house in Dak Por epitomised this. A conversation transpired between the author and four young men ranging from 23 years old to 35. All were born in Dak Por and all also had experience of doing labour work in Phnom Penh and Thailand. The families of all four had also unfairly lost land to Lee Yong Phat’s sugar plantation. Sarat the 35-year-old explained his situation as thus:

“More than 50 families here have lost land to Lee Yong Phat. Some agreed to sell their land, some were tricked and sometimes it was just stolen. People here – even my parents – are uneducated. What they know is farming. They are farmers. When people from Phnom Penh come with contracts and letters and ask them to sign this and sign that they are easily tricked. The village chief and the commune chief – every level – they are in the hands of the powerful people. The problem is

102

that the people who represent us are too weak. We went all the way to Aural – 50 families – to negotiate with the company. But when we got there the older people were too weak. They just sat quietly – they had no clear strategy to demand the land back. The whole community is very weak. It is easy to break us and intimidate us – especially when it is always the old people who do things in the old manner. Look around – the village chief, the commune chief, the district chief, the provincial chief, the government in Phnom Penh – they are all old people who think like soldiers. How can any problem be solved when people think like that.”

“…farming here is very difficult. People try to grow different things but the problem is people don’t have any information or skills. Take for example cassava. People started to hear three years ago that cassava is good to grow. People came to the village saying they would buy for 700 riel. But when the farmers spent the money to grow cassava and take it to the buyers they say they can only buy for 200 riel. The government never helps us to tell us information about crop prices or help us with technical skills to grow new crops. My family grew Pumpkin and we ended up leaving it to rot – almost a tonne. Even rice is the same. When you consider the cost of planting, fertiliser, hiring labour, clearing land you won’t make money from 1 hectare of rice. So people get in debt because there is no other way to get money.”

Of the 13 interviews conducted in Dak Por almost every farmer was in debt. Although people would typically borrow money to pay for tractors and to finance a crop season, in increasing cases debt was not being used to finance productive investments but basic needs. Already there had been three instances of families foreclosing on debt and losing land. One family simply vanished overnight to try and escape the debt. (Interview B73)

Farmers in different areas of the commune were also struggling to retain agricultural lifestyles. The case of Trapeang Prey Jas was illustrative. Trapeang Prey Jas is an old village settled before the Khmer Rouge takeover. When people began to return to their homes in the early 1990s and reclaiming old rice fields they also began clearing new areas – typically some distance from their rice fields where unclaimed secondary scrubland was available. Based on interviews the average family came back to claim around 3ha of rice land and cleared between 1-8 hectares of farmland (with an average of approximately 3ha). Many families initially collected timber and then charcoal but very few families collect either now. Most families have instead moved into highly precarious labour work. Over time those

103 without major reserves or capital have tended to slowly sell off their land or divide it amongst every increasing children. If for example one couple in their 50s have 3ha of rice land and have four children all of which are rice farmers each child will be left with a patch of land that will barely provide enough rice to eat let alone a meaningful income. Throughout the commune the average output of rice was approximately 2 tonnes per hectare. Thus as land is inherited over time and as new land is unavailable except through the land market, small holder properties tend to shrink. Combined with stagnating agricultural prices, and with very few skills and resources to pursue other livelihood options families are increasingly forced into precarious labour.

Based on interviews with 7 different households and with the village chief it appeared that most people born in the village were in this situation. Very few land transactions involved people from the village buying land. Rather land was increasingly being transferred to outsiders who were growing mangos.

This is where farmlands become important. As rice land holding shrunk over time smallholders desperately tried to hold onto distant farmlands. Farmlands were both an important place for growing crops but also an important reserve of land when land becomes scarce. Hence a response of several families from Trapenag Prey Jas has been to relocate to their farmlands to focus on cultivating them and simultaneously ensure their tenure over them. Hence ‘Poom Thmey’ (new village) was born which is mostly of farmers from Trapeang Prey Jas coming to be close to their farmlands. As a 57 year old woman in Poom Thmey explained:

“When we came back to Trapeang Prey in 1998 we still had about three hectares of rice land left over. So we cleared that land again and remade the paddy fields. We farmed that area since that time. But even before 1998 we came to clear land here [in Poom Thmey]. We cleared three hectares. We all did it by hand. Me, my husband and my children. After we took out all the trees and stumps we grew corn and sugar cane. We also planted some mango trees – about 100 trees. We would just use the land to grow food for eating. We hoped to sell some but we are always waiting for something to grow that we can get a reasonable price, but we keep cultivating it every year. We have a fence around it. Our rice land got smaller and smaller. We gave one hectare to my son’s family and then another hectare to my other son and we had to sell some when my grandchildren were sick. So now we have nothing left. That’s why we came here – to be close to our farms” (Interview B96).

104

Three other families interviewed were in a similar position no longer having rice land due to passing it on to children and selling sections. However, securing tenure over the land had been a major challenge for the families in the Poom Thmey. Although the commune chief agreed to allow them to create a new village, it has been much more difficult to get land titles over their farmland. All four families interviewed had brought their new residential land in the village for a low price. This land was properly registered at the cadastral office and all four had proper land titles. However, when requesting land titles for their farmlands the commune chief told them to wait until the national land title project moves forward and surveyors come to properly measure the land. In 2012 surveyors came but when the families requested them to provide land titles for their farmlands they were told that the land was contested and they would have to firstly resolve who has ownership over the land. It was at this point that the families realised that a powerful outsider (Oknya) had claimed a large stretch of land including their farmlands. The commune chief had supported his claim. At the time of interviews the land had been fenced off and villagers no longer had access to it. This placed all four families in a dire situation – without rice land or farmland. All four families thus became heavily dependent upon labour work. This is further explored in the section below on labour.

In other villages the and situation was different again. In O’Klay most agricultural land had been converted into mango plantations. In 1997 when integration between the Khmer Rouge and government was happening the government provided a substantial amount of land in O’Klay village for defecting Khmer Rouge leaders. Based on interviews with three households here many of the ex KR soldiers given land were moderately high ranking. Upon joining the government forces many started to acquire capital throughout the 2000s. Some sold land to wealth people in Phnom Penh and many rented land out to contract farmers. Many also increased their landholdings over time as they brought up surrounding rice farms and farmlands. Now most of the people in the village are those who have come to manage or work on small mango plantations where those interviewed told the author that in relatively few cases do the original recipients of the land still live in the village. This represents a major difference from upland areas of Aural where semi subsistence farming supplemented with forest based livelihoods is still the norm.

6.7. Community Forests

This section will consider three community forests – all visited and studied in depth during field work. The three sites are: 1) Domrey Chak Tlork CF in Dak Por village, 2) Leap Guy CF in Knang Krang village and Sen Monorom Community Forest in Hong Somnam commune (which borders Kreung Dai Vai commune to the north).

105

Domrey Chak Tlork Leap Kuy

Figure 6.4 Community Forestry

Domrey Chak Tlork CF is the biggest of the three CFs and the largest in Aural and Phnom Sruoch districts. The CF covers 1452 hectares of secondary forest. By the late 2000s nearly all the forest in the area was cleared and selectively logged. Already by the late 1990s all large valuable trees had been extracted from the area. According to the CF head much of the land had been cleared at one time or another by local farmers for rice paddies and farmland as well as outsiders who had come to clear land in an attempt to gain tenure over it. In the early 2000s residents of Dak Por village were alarmed at the rate that land was being sold off. They could also see that very soon there would be no forest left in the area. While some people wanted to preserve the land so they could produce charcoal, others saw it as a vital spot to ensure there was still land left for cattle grazing. Still others wanted to use it as a land reserve for future farming (numerous families have small plots of rice land and farming land inside the CF). Initially efforts to preserve the land came from regular village members. The village chief – who is now the CF head – was also supportive at the start but was unaware of CF laws and requirements. In the context of land dealings and the conversion of forest lands into private land, efforts to conserve the area initially received little support. However, with support from the NGO Life with Dignity who started conducted trainings to villagers about CF laws, momentum was slowly made. The NGO Mlup Baitong also helped with technical

106 trainings and provided the community with key documents. Finally by 2014 the CF was officially recognised by MAFF after the community had prepared a comprehensive forestry management plan and established a clear community forestry structure. To do this Dak por villagers had to include two other villages (Grang Kor and Knang Krang). Domrey Chak Tlork CF was also the site where the NGO GERRES established its eco charcoal kiln (see above).

The CF has faced a number of challenges since its inception. In 2012 the nearby Savanna Voat company cleared 190 hectares for growing mangos claiming the land was owned by the company. However, after much deliberation and involvement from MAFF, the company relinquished its claim to the land and UNDP provided a small grant to the community to regrow the affected land. Less commonly people also come to harvest wood for timber collection – although as all of the forest is secondary there are not large numbers of trees which are appropriate for charcoal production. There are trees in reserve however which are appropriate for fence and house building which villagers pay a small fee to harvest. There is also now an increasing population of wild pigs and dear which has attracted hunters who leave snares throughout the forest. The community primarily uses the space for cattle grazing and all people interviewed stated that it remains an important place for communal cattle grazing. People rarely use the forest for other purposes. A few women encountered stated that in the right season they sometimes collect mushrooms – but on a fairly small scale.

Currently the CF has no major donor – although receives sporadic support from the NGO Cambodia Youth Development. The CF head is currently looking for support to build a small road through CF to facilitate CF patrols and possibly tourists (although there is already a series of motorbike paths that cross cut the CF). He also wants to build a pond in the middle of the CF so as there is a year round water source for wild animals. Currently small streams and ponds go dry in the dry season forcing forest animals to leave the protection of the forest.

Figure 6.5 A Young boy grazes his family’s cattle insde the Domrey Chak Tlork CF

107

Leap Kuy is a tiny CF in Knang Krang village of only 107 ha. The noteworthy feature of Leap Guy is that contains a stock of more than 100 rosewoods. Although small the CF is densely packed with large trees and is one of the few areas in the province where the forest still has a large evergreen canopy. The area was protected by many years by local villagers - especially the households who lived adjacent to the small patch of rosewoods. According to interviews the area was protected by an older villager who has now passed away and had a farm adjacent to the trees ensuring that they would not be harvesting. Leap Kuy also early on received high level support from MAFF and MOE and the old Minister of Environment Mok Mareth had personally visited the site and encouraged its protection. Because it is one of the few places where rosewoods still stand, villagers have made a concerted effort to protect the site. The CF head has his house in the middle of the CF ensuring that people cannot easily come to harvest the valuable trees. The community also does regular patrols. Like Domrey Chak Tlork, early on the CF received support from NGOs such as Mlup Baitong to train villagers on community forestry law and assist with the preparation of management plans. Villagers interviewed in Knang Trang were generally supportive of the CF – even though it offered them few tangible benefits. As the community have been planting rosewood seedlings, cows are strictly prohibited from entering the area. There are also restrictions on people collecting forest products and for good reason people are not allowed to harvest trees for house building.

The CF has also faced challenges. Initially it was planned to preserve a much larger portion of the CF. However, the Master ELC boundaries included a substantial amount of land that was to be included in the original CF boundary. The Master concession and the CF now share a boundary (on the eastern and northern edge of the CF). After negotiations between commune and district authorities and the concession managers it was agreed that the concession would refrain from including the rosewood trees in its boundaries and hence the CF was reduced down to the remaining rosewood patch. Due to the value of rosewood the CF also faces the constant threat of thieves coming to harvest the trees at night. Just during the 3 days the author stayed in Dak Por village, 20 trees were stolen in one night. The local CF and authorities were unable to prevent the theft or had any ideas who had taken the trees (even though a tractor load of rosewood turned up at in Dak Por village as mentioned before).

Finally, Sen Monorom CF is located adjacent to Monorom village on the paved road to Aural covering 447 hectares. The CF consists of relatively dense and well preserved evergreen forest which still has some canopy (although all valuable species have been selectively logged). The notable feature of the CF is that it sits adjacent to an important cultural site Phnom Jas (‘old mountain’). People from across the province come to the mountain for religious festivals to pay homage to the monks at the pagoda. A cave in the mountain is also of religious significance and a place of ancestor worship. The Ministry of Religions and Cults has under its management 105 ha of land which directly surrounds Phnom Jas. At the site itself sits a pagoda as well as small ranger hut where monks and pagoda elders stay day and night. Because Phnom Jas is an important religious site where Monks stay on the site twenty-four

108 hours, timber harvesting is not as much a problem as other areas. The main access road to the site passes by both the pagoda and rangers hut. To one side is the 105 ha of forest under the Ministry of Religions and Cults and to the other is the CF.

Early on, the CF received support from the NGO Life with Dignity which helped prepare the site for official registration with MAFF. The site was officially registered with MAFF in 2013. Most villagers interviewed in nearby Monorom village tacitly support the CF – saying it is ‘an important cultural site for visitors to come and see’ according to one 45-year-old man. The CF allows limited cattle grazing and people occasionally collect mushrooms, bamboo and vine.

According to the CF head, there have been challenges with managing the site. The first one concerns a supposed social land concession that was established by local authorities along the main road to Aural on the edge of the CF. After preparing land for supposed ‘poor people’ the land was swiftly sold and cleared for mango farming. A small portion of this land overlapped with the CF (although the head was unable to quantify the exact amount). It also appeared that other interests were putting pressure on the CF committee to allow them to exploit parts of the CF. While waiting to interview the CF head, the author was told by his wife that he was busy ‘taking some men from Phnom Penh to examine the site’. Upon returning the CF head exited a large four-wheel drive owned by a rock mining company from Phnom Penh. The CF explained that the company wanted his help ‘to clarify’ CF borders which also involved whisky drinking. The CF stated that ‘the men were interested in taking rocks from in and around the CF’.

Figure 6.6 Phnom Jas

109

6.8. Labour

Labour work is an important income generating activity across Phnom Sruoch district. As repeatedly mentioned, as smallholders with ever smaller landholdings see stagnating agricultural incomes, it is increasingly labour work which they turn to as the only viable income source. It is important here to make a distinction between forced market participation and voluntary market participation. While some people choose to do labour work to generate small amounts of income when needed, many also fall back on labour work as the last remaining strategy to generate urgently needed income for basic household expenditure. Where labour work is precarious, low paid and the main source of income it is more often a case of forced rather than voluntary market participation. As people across the study sites said time and time again ‘if we don’t do labour work our stomachs go empty’. A very small portion of people also choose to work in jobs that are slightly higher paying (for instances as teachers, in the state bureaucracy, in restaurants, in agricultural companies) but this typically depends on a minimum level of skills and experience.

Nearly all interviewees complained of insecure work. Most people across the various villages were finding it increasingly hard to find labour work. Most people who worked in the commune were doing labour work on a daily or piecemeal basis. This meant that these people were highly susceptible to long periods of time without work. Jobs in the commune were generally difficult to come by, low paid and seasonal. The main labour work available around the commune and district are as follows:

• Rice transplanting, rice planting and rice harvesting were available at key times in the year – although often low paid. This work is typically done on a piecemeal basis and on average a worker would earn around 10,000 r per day. • Work in sugar plantations. This work is also seasonal and concentrated around the planting season and harvesting season. Workers would get between 12,000 – 15,000 r per day. This was less desirable to many people in the commune as workers would have to go to Aural for this work (which could take an hour on a motorbike depending on which village they came from). • Work at the Grandis concession. Grandis had until recently being employing a significant number of people to plant timber species and maintain timber plantations and equipment. However due to financial difficulties the company has repeatedly abruptly stopped hiring people. During the research period the company stopped hiring day labourers (where it was employing around 500 each day). • Work in a Korean owned mango processing factory located within the commune. Work here was also on a daily basis where for an 8 hour day a worker could be expected to receive 12,000 r. The company would typically employ around 100 people per day but fluctuated.

110

In Dak Por, quite a few men had worked at the Grandis concession. During the 3 days of interviews a number of men were encountered who were no longer able to find work there. 37 year Old Tin who is married with two children is a typical example:

I worked at Grandis for almost 2 years. I worked as a day labourer but was paid based on my work not a daily rate. I could usually get around 15,000 r per day. I worked there because our rice land is too small – less than one ha. Actually I still work my rice land but at the same time go to work at Grandis. I don’t need to spend a lot on my rice farm because it is only a very small piece of land and I have cultivated it for many years…. I worked at Grandis because there is no other place I can work without much experience or education. I can’t get a job in garment factories and I don’t want to stay in Phnom Penh to do construction work so I work in Grandis. I have also worked on the sugar plantations but at this time there is no work and its is also far to go…. Its difficult in this village. Most men are like me. Now we don’t just do our farms but we have to do labour work as well to feed our families. Now that I don’t have that job I don’t know what I’ll do. Now I’m just like all the people from this village who lost their work – we just sit at home. We don’t now what to do in the daytime. I will try and find more work but I don’t know where. My kids are too young to work so the family depends on me and my wife to earn money.

The four young men in the same village who were interviewed in the last section also talked in detail about their experiences doing labour work. Sarat explained:

“I was the first from this area to go to Thailand. I went when I was just 16. When I first went there I had no idea about anything. I couldn’t speak Thai and I had never even been to a big city like Bangkok. I had some money from my uncle and I used that to pay to get to Bangkok. When I got there I just walked around the streets trying to listening to people who were speaking Khmer. The first few nights I just slept on the streets. But I found some Khmer people who were sympathetic and gave me some food and let me stay with them. Slowly I asked people for work. At first I would just do this and that a little here and there. After a long time I found work in a factory. It was hard work but it was so much better than before. I worked there for a long time and went through everything. People there treated us like dogs. But It took ten years but I saved some money and came back here. Now I have my own family here and have a little land and run my own business.”

“Two of the others had also worked in Thailand. One had worked for only a few months before the Thai government announced a crackdown on illegal workers and since he was unregistered his employer told him he had to leave and took half his owed pay. The

111

other had worked in Thailand doing agricultural work for two years and managed to save a modest amount but worries he will have to return soon. The fourth man works in Phnom Penh as a construction worker and tries to return home on every second or third week. All felt a level of deep discontent over their livelihood situation and that they were forced to engage in such precarious labour practices. As the construction worker put it ‘that is what its like in this village – we have no work, the government doesn’t help us, no one helps us. Its not like in Thailand or Malaysia or Singapore. If we don’t run here and there to find work – if we just stay here we get nothing. We have to work like slaves. People work on boats and get abused, people work in factories and get abused. Is this really the 21st century?” (Interview B86)

In Trapeang Prey Jas the livelihood situation was similar. However, people in this village were much more dependent upon local work than elsewhere. Every household interviewed had both members doing local labour work as well as members doing migrant work. Due to small patches of land, households required diversified incomes. A 51 year old woman explained:

“My daughter works in Phnom Penh in a garment factory. She send money here regularly. My other daughter is too young and still studying. The grandchildren stay here with me and my husband and we have to look after them. But we all work here. I work cutting grass and on people’s rice farms. I just walk around the place looking for work. Some days I get it some days I don’t. My husband has worked in Grandis but now he mostly works with me. Sometimes he works on mango farms as well.”

“Many other families were in a similar situation. A lack of young people was evident from riding around the village. It was common to see grandparents who had taken on caring responsibilities of grandchildren as their younger children were often working in Phnom Penh or Thailand” (Interview B103).

Over in Trapeang Prey Thmey many people expressed that the dynamic of precarious labour had pushed them to move to claim their old farmlands. As one 43-year-old women explained:

“We sold all our land over there. We used to have three hectares but finally it was all gone. We sold a little bit here for my daughter’s wedding, a little bit there when we are sick until it was all gone. It was too difficult there. We had to work all day every day. We became like a split family. I would do grass-cutting, my husband would go to Phnom

112

Penh and my son went to Thailand. So we came here because we wanted to start with the farm again. But when we lost our farmland here then…. Well its real misery. Now my son and his wife are in Thailand and I have to stay here everyday and look after the child. My husband is in Phnom Penh but tries to come back every week. This is a difficult life.”

For such families, daily life was often difficult. Asking people about daily eating practices and education it became clear that many families were struggling in this regard. As families became increasingly dependent upon market bought goods for basic sustenance they would often try to cut out foods when facing a monetary shortage. A number of families could be seen eating predominantly rice based meals with very little fish, meat or vegetables. On numerous occasions the author observed people in Trapeang Prey Jas and Poom Thmey eating just rice with a single bowl of mostly liquid soup for a whole family or sometimes just rice and eggs. Many were also unable to send their children to more distant areas to pursue upper secondary school. After grade eight, children in both villages have to go to Trapeang Grolung in order to continue. Many families were unable to support their children to do this and as such eduation attainment in the village was extremely low. It was also common for very young children to work as labourers. Based on interviews with families it appeared that it was common for children to begin labour work at 16 and some families even admitted that their children had begun such work at 15 or 14. (Interview B101)

113

7. Conclusion

The Upper Stung Prek Thnot watershed is undergoing rapid changes. Livelihoods are gradually shifting from being forest based toward being plantation and migrant labour based. This report has utilised four in depth case studies and over 180 interviews to give light to changing social-environmental relations in the catchment. In particular it has focused on four interrelated commodity frontiers – timber collection, charcoal production, the expansion of a land market and the expansion of a labour market. As forested areas across the catchment have been systematically stripped of valuable timber species, people’s relations to their environment has begun to change. So have their livelihoods. Without the possibility of timber collection many have moved to charcoal wood collection in order capitalise on even smaller and less valuable tree species. As the poor and often highly indebted struggle to retain traditional agricultural livelihoods, it is still the forest they turn to in times of need – although less and less. Not only can timber provide wood for houses, or income for charcoal producers, but for the very poor NTFPs such as bamboo and mushrooms are often the only chance they have of making income. Yet for those in the downstream areas where all forests are long gone, such options are no longer available.

Pressure on forest and lands is immense – especially in the upstream semi-forested area. As degraded forest is gradually converted in mango plantations, ELCs or Protected Areas smallholders are beginning to feel the squeeze of stagnating rural incomes and a depleted resource base. For the first time in living history many formerly forest based villagers are facing the prospect of no longer have available land to expand into. As landholdings shrink, labour work is often the only option for the asset poor. Throughout the watershed – especially in the downstream areas – people complained that labour work is often highly precarious and unstable. Added to this, people are increasingly dependent upon the market rather than their landscape for basic needs such as fish, rice and water. As such instances of indebtedness and malnutrition are on the rise.

Yet, however bleak the situation many communities are still struggling to protect the ecosystems that they formerly depended upon. Community Forests and other conservation initiatives thus remain important as do people efforts to retain traditional lands taken by ELCs.

114

References:

CHANN, S. 2017. The production of space and the construction of frontier: contesting a Cambodian resource landscape. PhD, University of Sydney. HUGHES, C. 2008. Cambodia in 2007: Development and dispossession. Asian Survey, 48, 69- 74.

115

Code Date Background Sex Age Location A1 21/06/17 Provincial Department of Agriculture M 40s KPS town A2 21/06/17 District Agriculture Office M 40s Aoral district town A3 21/06/17 Aoral District Governor M 50s Aoral distict town A4 22/06/17 Tasal commune chief M 60s Tasal commune A5 22/06/17 Tang Bampong village head M 60s Tang Bampong A6 22/06/17 Tang Bampong CF head M 50s Tang Bampong A7 22/06/17 ELC worker M 20s Aoral A8 22/06/17 Villager M 60s Tang Bampong A9 23/06/17 Villager migrated from Boserth district M 50s Tang Bampong A10 23/06/17 Villager born in Tang Bampong F 30s Tang Bampong A11 23/06/17 Villager who was an ex-Khmer Rouge M 50s Tang Bampong A12 23/06/17 Villager M 40s Tang Bampong A13 23/06/17 Villager F 50s Tang Bampong A14 23/06/17 Villager F 30s Tang Bampong A15 23/06/17 Villager M 40s Tang Bampong A16 23/06/17 Villager born in Tang Bampong M 30s Tang Bampong A17 23/06/17 MoE official M 40s Tang Bampong A18 24/06/17 Send Village head Tang Bampong M 30s Tang Bampong A19 25/06/17 Villager F 50s Tang Bampong A20 25/06/17 Village head’s wife F 50s Tang Bampong A21 25/07/17 Choam Village head M 50s Choam A22 25/07/17 Man at the Choam market near ELC M 30s Choam A23 25/06/17 Villager living near ELC F 20s Choam A24 25/06/17 Villager migrated from Odong district F 60s Choam A25 25/06/17 Villager migrated from Phnom Sruoch district M - Choam A26 26/06/17 Villager who is a single mother F 50s Tang Bampong A27 26/06/17 Villager born in the area M 50s Tang Bampong A28 26/06/17 Villager M - Tang Bampong A29 26/06/17 Single mother F 40s Khtear village A30 26/06/17 Villager F 20s Khtear village A31 26/06/17 Primary school teacher M 40s Khtear village A32 26/06/17 Old villager F 60s Tang Bampong A33 27/06/17 Tang Bampong CF head M 50s Tang Bampong A34 27/06/17 Tang Bampong village head M 50s Tang Bampong A35 27/06/17 Villager F 60s Choam A36 26/06/17 Villager M 50s Tang Bampong A37 27/06/17 Villager F 40s Choam A38 28/06/17 Sangkae Satop commune head M 50s Sangkae Satop A39 28/06/17 Charcoal maker M 40s Sang Kae Satop A40 28/06/17 Charcoal maker M 40s Sangkae Satop A41 28/06/17 Life With Dignity Official M 30s Aoral district town A42 28/06/17 Charcoal buyer M 30s Sangkae Satop A43 29/06/17 Reaksmei Sameakki commune head M 60s Reaksmei Sameakki A44 29/06/17 People living in SLC M 60s Prie Thum A45 30/06/17 Traeng Trayueng commune assistant M 30s Traeng Trayueng A46 30/06/17 Villager F 50s Sbeak Preal

116

A47 30/06/17 Villager F 50s Chambak A48 30/06/17 Mango farmer M 40s Lor village A49 01/07/17 Chambak Dongkor village head M 50s Chambak A50 01/07/17 Villager in Phum Thmey F 40s Chambak A51 01/07/17 Villager in Phum Thmey F 60s Chambak A52 01/07/17 Eco-tourism community head M 40s Chambak A53 01/07/17 Mango plantation worker F 20s Chambak A54 01/07/17 Villager in Phum Thmey F 40s Chambak A55 02/07/17 Villager in Krang Chiek F 30s Chambak A56 02/07/17 Villager in Peam Lvear M 60s Chambak A57 02/07/17 Villager in Peam Lvear M 50s Chambak A58 02/07/17 Villager in Peam Lvear F 30s Chambak A59 02/07/17 Chambak commune head M 50s Chambak A60 02/07/17 Villager in Krang Chiek M 40s Chambak A61 02/07/17 Villager in Trapeang Kranh M 50s Chambak A62 02/07/17 Villager in Krang Chiek M 50s Chambak A63 03/07/17 Villager who collect poles M 30s Chambak A64 03/07/17 Villager in Phum Beng M 60s Chambak A65 03/07/17 Villager in Peam Lvear F 20s Chambak A66 03/07/17 Villager in Peam Lvear M 50s Chambak A67 03/07/17 Villager in Trapeang Kranh F 60s Chambak A68 03/07/17 Villager in Tranpeang Kranh M 40s Chambak A69 04/07/17 Mango farmer along national road number 4 F 40s Traeng Trayueng A70 04/07/17 Villager F 40s Traeng Trayueng A71 04/07/17 Villager who is a militant M 50s Traeng Trayueng A72 04/07/17 Krang Meas village head M 60s Traeng Trayueng A73 04/07/17 Disable villager in Phum Veal Thum M 50s Traeng Trayueng A74 04/07/17 Village in Krang Meas F 60s Traeng Trayueng A75 04/07/17 Villager coming to the village to get land M 40s Traeng Trayueng A76 05/07/17 Lor village head M 50s Traeng Trayueng A77 05/07/17 Villager in Lor and labourer in the mango farm F 50s Traeng Trayueng A78 05/07/17 Villager in Phum Lor F 40s Traeng Trayueng A79 05/07/17 Man working for mango plantation M 40s Traeng Trayueng A80 05/07/17 Villager in Phum Lor F 30s Traeng Trayueng A81 25/06/17 Villager in Choam M 40s Choam A82 25/06/17 Villager in Choam M 40s Choam A83 26/06/17 Mango farmer M 40s Sangkae Satop B1 21/0617 Oun Bonton/ MAFF Aoral District Office deputy M 50s MAFF Aural District Office B2 21/06/17 Aoral District Governor M 50s Aural District Hall B3 22/06/17 Tep Naim/Trapeang Chor commune Chief M 67 Trapeang Chor Commune Hall B4 22/06/07 Land broker F 37 Trapeang Chor commune hall B5 22/06/07 Labourer M 41, Coffee Shope ‘’ M 43, outside Trapeang ‘’ M 40s Chour commune ‘’ M , 50s

117

B6 22/06/07 Peam Lvea village chief M 57 His house in Peam Lvea B7 23/06/17 Farmer F 31 Their house in Huon Gokchea F 39 Peam Lvea B8 23/06/17 Yeh Gen/Peam Lvea resident F 71 Her house in Peam Lvea B9 23/06/17 Nyet/Peam Lvea resident F 55 Her house in Peam Lvea B10 23/06/17 Brait Eat/ Trapenga Angrong village chief M 82 His house in Trapenag Angrong B11 23/06/17 Charcoal collector/Trapenag Angrong resident F 33 Her house in Trapeang Angrong B12 23/06/17 Charcoal collector/ resident trapenag M 36 His house in Angkrong Trapenag Angrong B13 23/06/17 Huon Vorn/ Jan Ping village head M 55 His house in Jan Ping B14 24/06/17 Farmers of Jan Ping F 55 Their house in Jan M 59 Ping B15 24/06/17 Farmer in Jan Ping M 27 At his house in Jan Ping B16 24/06/17 Farming family, Chambak M 31 At their house in F 33 Chambak B17 24/06/17 Tuon Suon/ land rights representative in M 44 At his house in Chambak Chambak B18 24/06/17 Day labourer from Chambak M 52 At his friends house in Chambak B19 24/06/17 Residents of Chambak F 30s At one of their F 50s houses in Chambak B20 25/06/17 Sok Suon/ resident of Trapenag Angrong M 60 At his house in Trapeang Angkrong B21 25/06/17 Residents of Trapeang Angkrong 44 M At their house 39 F B22 25/06/17 Brum Tomajit/Monk 40s M At his dwelling in the forest B23 25/06/17 Resident of Poa Meas village 67 M At his house in Poa meas B24 25/06/17 Resident of Poa Meas 50s M At his shop in Poa Meas B25 25/06/17 Resident of Poa Meas 50s M At their house in 50s F Poa Meas B26 26/06/17 Village chief of Chambak 50s M At his house in Chambak B27 26/06/17 CF head in Chambak 50s M At the village chiefs house in Chambak

118

B28 26/06/17 Residents of Banel village 60s M At one their 60s F houses in Banel 60s F village B29 26/06/17 Village chief Banel 60s M At his house in Banel B30 26/06/17 Village chief of Koh Dontey 70s M At his house in Koh Dontey B31 26/06/17 Resident of Koh Dontey village 40s F At her house in Koh Dontey village B32 26/06/17 Village chief Samroang village 40s M At his house in Samroang village B33 26/06/17 Farmer in Samroang village 40s M At the village chief’s house in Samroang village B34 26/06/17 Farmer in Kviet village 48 F At her house in Kviet village B35 26/06/17 Farmer in Kviet 30s F At her house in Kviet B36 27/06/17 Farmers in Kviet village 70s M At a farmers 20s M house in Kviet 20s M village 30s M 50s F B37 27/06/17 Elder in Chambak village 80s M At Suons house in Chambak B38 27/06/17 Charcoal collector 30s M Along the road to Kviet B39 27/06/17 Farmer from Chambak 40s M Along transect walk B40 27/06/17 Koh Dontey CF head 40s M Road to Koh Dontey CF B41 28/06/17 Elder of Aural 80s M At his house in Son 30s M Aural village son 30s M B42 28/06/17 Recent immigrant to Aural village 30s M At his restaurant in Aural B43 28/06/17 Chit/ timber harvester 30s M In Aural protected area B44 28/06/17 Farmer from Takeo. Now resident in Srai Gen 40s M At his house in Srai Gen B45 28/06/17 Timber harvester 40s M Met along road in Srai Gen B46 28/06/17 Son in law of village chief/ resident of Srai Gen 40s M At his restaurant in Srai Gen B47 28/06/17 Land buyer 40s F “ “ B48 28/06/17 Farmers who lost land to ELC 30s F At her restaurant 30s F in Srai Gen B49 28/06/17 Charcoal collectors and farmers 20s M At one of their 20s M homes in Srai Gen 20s M

119

30s M B50 28/06/17 Farmers in Srai Gen 51 M At their house 46 F B51 28/06/17 Ohm Lapow/ elder of Srai Gen village 80s M At his house B52 29/06/17 Non Sarun commune chief of Sontai Sontop 56 M At the Sontai Sontop commune office B53 29/06/17 Mango farmer along main road to Ktuot 40s M At his small shop in Aural B54 29/06/17 Charcoal producer outside Ktuot 30s M At the charcoal producing site near Ktuot B55 29/06/17 Charcoal producer outside Ktuot 40s M “ “ B56 29/06/17 Senior officer for Life with Dignity NGO 40s M At the LWD office in Ktuot B57 30/06/17 Reasmay Samaki commune chief 50s M At the Reasmay Samaki commune office B58 30/06/17 Social land concession resident 40s M Prey Thmey village B59 30/06/17 Contract Mango farmer 40s F Reasmey Samaki commune on the road to Chambak B60 1/07/17 Mung Mem/Kreung Dai Wai commune chief 40s M At the Kreung Dai 40s M Wai commune office B61 1/07/17 Farmers of Trapeang Thmey 64 F At one of their 53 F houses in 23 F Trapeang Thmey B62 1/07/17 Farmer in Trapenag Thmey 41 M At his house B63 1/07/17 Farmer in Banteay Rokar 40s M At his house B64 1/07/17 Residents of Poom Thmey 60s F At one of their 40s F houses 30s F B65 1/07/17 Seller in Poom Thmey 40s F At her shop B66 1/07/17 Som/ Head of Monorom CF 40s M At his restaurant in Monorom village B67 1/07/17 Resident of Monorom village 40s M At his home B68 1/07/17 Resident of Monorom village 50s F At her home B69 2/07/17 Suong Vann/ head of Domrey Chak Tlork CF 40s M At his home B70 2/07/17 Farmers in Dak Por village 50s M At their house 50s F B71 2/07/17 Farmers in Dak Por village 50s M At their house 40s F B72 2/07/17 Market seller in Dak Por village 40s F At her shop in Dak Por B73 2/07/17 Residents of Dak Por village 35 M At one of their 30s M houses in Dak Por 30s M village.

120

26 M B74 2/07/17 Resident of Chak Por village 65 F At her house B75 3/07/17 Resident of Dak Por 40s M At his house B76 3/07/17 Resident of Dak Por 43 M At his house B77 3/07/17 Resident of Dak Por 49 M At his house B78 3/07/17 Timber harvester 30s M Along the side of the road in Dak Por B79 3/07/17 Resident of Knang Krang 36 M At his house B80 3/07/17 Resident of Knang Krang 50s F At her house B81 3/07/17 Resident of Knang Krang 50s M At his house B82 3/07/17 Migrant worker from Dak por village 28 F At a coffee shop in Dak Por B83 4/07/17 Boo Naim / CF deputy 53 M At his house in Dak Por B84 4/07/17 Dak Por resident 40s M At his house in Dak Por B85 4/07/17 Dak Por residents 50s M At their house in 50s F Dak Por B86 4/07/17 Dak Por resident 46 F At her house in Dak Por B87 4/07/17 Dak Por village chief 48 M At his house in 40s M Dak Por 40s M B88 4/07/17 Knang Krang resident 50s M At his house in Knang Krang B89 4/07/17 Knang Krang resident 55 M At his house in Knang Krang B90 5/07/17 Knang Krang resident 43 M At his house in Knang Krang 1B91 5/07/17 Resident of Knang Krang 50s M At their house in 50s M Knang Krang B92 5/07/17 Resident of Poom Thmey 61 F At her shop in Poom Thmey B93 5/07/17 Coffee seller in Poom Thmey 50s M At his shop in Poom Thmey B94 5/07/17 Noodle seller in Poom Thmey 50s F At her shop in Poom Thmey B95 5/07/17 Resident of Poom Thmey 24 F At her house in Poom Thmey B96 6/07/17 Resident of Poom Thmey 47 F At her house B97 6/07/17 Trapenag Prey Thmey resident 40s M At his house B98 6/07/17 Poom Thmey residents 40s M At their house 40s F B99 6/07/17 Residents of Poom Dong 40s M At one of their 40s M houses 50s M 50s M 20s M 40s F

121

B100 6/07/17 Resident of Poom Dong 38 M At his house B101 6/07/17 Residents of Poom Thmey 40s M At their house 40s F B102 6/07/17 Resident of Poom Pring 38 M At his house B103 6/07/17 Residents of Trapeang Prey Jas 50s M At their house 50s F B104 6/07/17 Mango farmer in O’Klay 40s M At his house B105 6/07/17 Mango farmer in O’Klay 50s M At his house A= Interviews conducted by Sopheak Chan B= Interviews conducted by Tim Frewer

122