POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT NEXUS STUDY PEN II CAMBODIA

1
POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT NEXUS STUDY (PEN II)-
CAMBODIA

• PRESETATION OF CASE STUDY FINDINGS
• (Poverty and Access to Natural Resources)
• By Chea Sarin
• Vientiane, Laos
• Date 21 June 2006

2
The view expressed in this presentation is the
result from the case study and it is not
necessary to reflect the opinion of
agencies/authorities involved.
3
Main Research Questions

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

4
Key Natural Resource Access Issues

• Agricultural land
• Forest resources
• Grazing land
• Fisheries
• Drinking water

5
Data collection methods

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

6
Study Area and Key Characteristics

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

7
Study Area and Key Characteristics

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

8
Case Study Findings Agricultural Land

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

9
Case Study Findings Forest Resources

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

10
Case Study Findings Gazing Land

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

11
Case Study Findings Fisheries

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

12
Case Study Findings Drinking Water

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

13
Poor Vs Non-poor and Access to NR
14
Implications Poor vs. Non-Poor and NR Dependent
Livelihoods
Time
Poor subsistence or short-term gains Non-poor
larger short-term gains
Poor continuing poverty, return to poverty, or
alternative Non-poor alternative or possible
move into poverty
15
Implications Poverty-Environment Relationships