1. Merina Lohani Sitoula M.Sc. Natural Resources Management Asian Institute of Technology August 2008 FINAL DEFENSE MAY 17, 2010

2. Literature review KII Household surveyOBJECTIVES To document land acquisition modalities and procedures, database and guiding laws/policies by foreign companies for large scale plantations of agri- business commodities in Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Lao PDR; To assess the socio-economic impacts of large scale agri-business plantations on the livelihoods of the local people in Laos and Cambodia on case study basis; and - To assess the status of capital asset; and - To identify the direct and indirect impacts of plantations on the livelihood of the local people/community. To recommend strategies, based on the findings, which may overcome the gaps to supplement the processes of rural development.

3. SITE MAP OF LAOS Henankouanin Company Ltd. (Chinese) 3,780 ha for cassava

4. SITE MAP OF CAMBODIA Phu Rieng Company Ltd. (Vietnam)-4906 ha Dong Nai Company Ltd. (Vietnam)- 1082 ha

5. AND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES IN THE FOUR GMS COUNTRIES LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES IN THE FOUR GMS COUNTRIES CountriesLaosCambodiaThailandVietnam Ministries In- charge NLMA/ MAF/ MPI CDC/ MAFF/ MLMUPC BOI/ Ministry of Industry IPB/ Ministry of Planning & Investment ModalitiesELC and contract farming Lease Foreign equity in investment 100% foreign ownership allowed Only 49% foreign ownership allowed 100% foreign ownership allowed Environment certification Required Special specifications for foreign investors Min. investment : US$ 20 million -Labor: 90% must be Laotian -Min. investment :over US$ 1 million - Labor: Preference for Cambodian nationals Min. investment : US$ 62500 -Labor: Only experts/skilled foreign employees allowed Capital investment limited to 30% only (foreigner) -Labor: High priority for Vietnamese

6. SOME KEY DIFFERENCES IN THE LAWS/POLICIES Land acquisition through concession: Cambodia and Laos Land acquisition through lease only : Thailand and Vietnam Concession/lease period: Cambodia -70 years; Laos and Vietnam -50 years; Thailand -30 years 100% ownership by foreigners: Not allowed in Thailand Business License issued only after granting environment certificate in Laos ; issued after IEE report submission in Cambodia Non-recognition of indigenous people in Laotian Law. Only Laos strictly directs 90% Laotian labor force recruitment. Thailand has comparatively high rate. Working hours for labors is comparatively less in Laos. Laos is venturing into communal land titling while Cambodia is giving Social Land Concessions Facilitating factors Constraining factors

7. STATUS OF CAPITAL ASSETS

8. NATURAL CAPITALDistricts Land Holding (ha) Landless HHs Average land holding (ha) Snoul0.05-0.1 ha21.4 Sambour1.01-2 & 2.01-5 ha. 02.3 Phalanxay2.01-5 ha.23

9. FOOD SUFFICIENCY HHs having food not sufficient for whole year Snoul: 75.9% Sambor: 68.4% Phalanxay: 48.3%

10. FINANCIAL CAPITAL Occupation Average annual income from NTFP collection US$ 300

11. FINANCIAL CAPITAL CONTD… Expense on food: 52.8% in Snoul; 54.9% in Sambor and 68% in Phalanxay is spent on food.

12. HUMAN CAPITAL Health Status: 44.8% hhs in Snoul and 57.9% hhs in Sambor do not have good health condition. Majority in Phalanxay have fair health. Trainings and Skills: Large majority in Snoul and Sambor are untrained and unskilled. Phalanxay has 44.8% hhs with trained members in various community development fields.

13. HUMAN CAPITAL CONTD…

14. PHYSICAL CAPITAL District Access to credit (% hhs) Loan taken from (% hhs) Livestock ownership (% hhs) Access to infrastructure and facilities Snoul48.3%Micro-credit institutions 89.7Motorable road, primary school&district hospital Sambour78.9%Friends/ relatives 86.8%Motorable road, primary school&district hospital Phalanxay 58.6%Bank76%Electricity and wells in addition.

15. IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOOD  Land grabbing: 3 hhs each in Snoul and Sambor and 6 hhs in Phalanxay claimed their land ( 0.5-5 ha)taken by the Companies. Of these only 1 hh in Snoul and 1hh in Phalanxay were compensated.  Private enterprises like making coal, wood trade based on the forest resources at risk due to loss of forest.  22% in Sambor and 3% in Phalanxay even faced decrease in income.  Livestock rearing suffering due to loss of grazing land.  Risk in rearing livestock due to fear of compensation if cattle enter plantation area and destroy crops.

16. IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOOD Contd….  Fear of losing cattle, which are hurt/killed by company guards.  Lack of trust was observed among the laborers and the Company and there is no feeling of ownership among the workers as they feel exploited. People doubt the Company’s intention in Phalanxay.  Local employment not promising and existing recruitment of Cambodians decreasing with increase in Vietnamese labor import.  Loss of local forest and biodiversity.

17. IMPACT ON NTFP COLLECTION

18. PERCEPTIONS ON BENEFITS AND SATISFACTION Perceptions In Snoul, 55.2% feel plantations are somewhat beneficial and 24% very harmful. In Sambor, 36.8% feel somewhat beneficial, 21.1% no effect and 28.9% not beneficial. In Phalanxay, 70.8% feel its very harmful and 20.8% say no effect. Satisfaction In Snoul, satisfaction level was neutral. Some still feel, money given compared to hrs. worked is less. In Sambor, laborers are not satisfied with the wage and complained of bias in payment (with the villagers). In Phalanxay also it is a mixed opinion between satisfied and dissatisfied.

19. CAPITAL INDICES District Social capital Human capital Natural capital Physical capital Financial capital Snoul 0.3850.1510.6590.5510.232 Sambour 0.2580.1610.5650.7690.294 Phalanxay 0.6810.3210.6810.6760.209

20. POLICY INTO ACTION: IMPLEMENTATION GAPS AND IMPACTS  Overlapping policy and lack of coordination between horizontal and vertical levels of line agencies.  Lack of transparency.  Inadequate monitoring and supervision.  Lack of strict enforcement of rules and regulations.  Inadequate information dissemination and public consultation.  Violation of traditional rights and non-consideration for community livelihood.

21. CONCLUSION  Weak implementation and enforcement of existing laws/regulations.  Transparency of database and information are lacking.  Only sporadic employment generation at local level as most of the laborers are imported from other villages/provinces.  Measurable negative impacts like land acquisition without compensation to the farmers, loss of biodiversity and NTFPs, impacts on livestock rearing.  Depleting quality and quantity of NTFPs have direct negative impact both on financial capital and food security.  Need to learn lessons from the history of Thai forestry regarding the involvement of community. Laos has been promoting contract farming.  No evidences of programs focused towards human resource development in Cambodia.  Status of concession and its impacts are more or less similar in Cambodia and Laos in many respects, in Laos however things seems to be getting somewhat better in terms of institutional arrangements, laws/policies and governance.

22. RECOMMENDATIONS For Public Authorities:  Establish process monitoring system  Need of a single governing body for ELCs for Cambodia.  Strict prescription of labor % age by Cambodian law.  Credit facilitation and capacity building programs for alternative livelihood options.  Peoples’ participation in all stages of planning, implementing and decision-making.  Dissemination of clear and updated information to the community.  Good health and education facilities for nurturing capable human resources.  Integration of rural development with natural resources management.

23. SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH  A study based on surveys of the plantation workers may be undertaken to assess the actual benefits of the plantation versus the objectives of the governments.  SWOT analysis of the laws/policies across the GMS countries.  Plantations induced land use change and impacts on the environment, soil and water.

24. !!! KHAWP JAI !!! !!! AW KUNH!!! !!! THANK YOU !!! !!! CÁM Ơ N !!! !!! KHOB-KHUN!!!