IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

Research article
erd

Development without Conformity: Impacts of Large-Scale
Economic Development on Indigenous Community
Livelihoods in Northeastern Cambodia
BAROMEY NETH*
Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: baromeyneth@yahoo.com, neth.baromey@rupp.edu.kh

SAM OL RITH
Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

MAKOTO YOKOHARIThe University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Received 18 December 2012

Accepted 10 June 2013(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Large scale economic development (LSED) has undergone rapid policy andsectoral reform in Cambodia. LSED is expected to generate revenues to support economic
growth and development at both macro and micro levels. Yet, it is questionable about
benefits and risks of such natural resource-consumptive and extractive development for
the host areas, especially indigenous people (IP). IP communities in Northeastern (NE)
Cambodia are vulnerable to such development. This region has been put under agricultural
economic land concession, forest concession, and mining concession. The conversion offorestlands and farmlands into commercial cash-crop and agro-industry plantations as well
as logging and mining zones has led IP communities to have limited access to land andnatural resources. This caused to reduced livelihood capabilities (resources, knowledge
and skills, activities, and protective security) and distressed cultural diversity and integrity
and socio-demographic fabric of IP. By using sustainable livelihood approach/framework(SLA/F), this paper aims to investigate IP livelihood problems and identify LSED
opportunities and strategies in Northeastern Cambodia and their impacts on IP livelihoods.
Keywords large scale economic development, SLA/F, indigenous communities,
community capabilities, integrated economic and community development

INTRODUCTION
Growth, conservation, ownership rights, poverty reduction, capacity, equity, empowerment,
participation, collaboration, precautionary approaches and governance considerations areembedded in most conceptualizations of sustainable development (Bryant and White, 1982;
Agyeman et al., 2003; Bouapao, 2005). These considerations have placed importance on ruralcommunity development in order to reduce the imbalance caused by urban-oriented growthmechanism which generates dichotomy between rural and urban areas (Hirsch, 1987). The conceptof rural community development allows (poor or marginalized) rural communities to participate inand benefit from economic growth and development. Their participation allows them to improvetheir economic and social lives and intervene in resource redistribution and consumption for the
betterment of their quality of life and conservation (Chamber, 1983; Hirsch, 1987; Buller & Wright,
1990; Bouapao, 2005).
Successful community development needs to be grounded on the three pillars of sustainable
development, while equitable access to and sustainable utilization of community resources should
not be overlooked (Roberts, 1979; Green and Haines, 2001; Blackstock, 2005; Ashley and Maxwell,2001). Yet, economic imbalance, social inequality and marginalization of the poor usually trigger
over exploitation of resources, although over-consumption of natural resources is central to the© ISERD
82

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

challenge of sustainable community development. Environmental injustice and economic
inequality in rural development cause more poor people suffer from loss of livelihood assets,
opportunities, and traditional knowledge. This happens when developers and planners do not pay
much attention to local social structure/system and immediate needs of communities (Agyeman etal., 2003).
There are many factors that affect community livelihoods (capabilities, assets, and activities)
and community enthusiasm to accept changes in their livelihoods, as well as the dynamic
relationship between these. In response, the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) has been
adapted by an increasing number of researches as a tool for analyzing complex livelihoods ofpeople (Scoones, 1998; DFID, 1999; Ellis, 1998). The SLF is seemingly parallel to the Sustainable
Livelihood Approach (SLA), and is used as a holistic, structural approach to identify influential
factors that are centered on people and important in contributing to community livelihood
diversification and livelihood sustainability supported by existing activities (Neth, 2008). The
Department for International Development (DFID) (1999) and Carney (1998) articulated that thisframework could be used by researchers, planners and developers who deal with a complex humansubject, especially in rural areas, where people live in pressing social and environmental conditions.
This tool helps these stakeholders with a range of perspectives and capacities to participate instructured and coherent study and deliberate over the factors that influence community livelihoods,
their relative significance and the way in which these factors interact.
This paper uses theories and concepts of sustainable livelihood approach / framework(SLA/SLF), communal land management by modernized legal approaches and culture / right ofindigenous community over resource access / use / management to discuss and produce researchfindings from a holistic analysis of literature, policy papers, reports of previous empirical studies,and primary data collected from fieldworks in Dak Dam commune.
OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to: (1) investigate indigenous community livelihoods by stressing their livelihood
shocks, capabilities, and strategies; (2) identity of large scale economic development opportunities
and strategies in Northeastern Cambodia; and (3) determine impacts of large scale economic
development on indigenous community livelihoods.
METHODOLOGYThis study used both primary and secondary data. Documentary review and analysis were carriedout with relevant theories, concepts and empirical facts from previous research findings as well asother sources. As part of a comprehensive, extensive study in NE Cambodia, Dak Dam Communein Mondulkiri (MDK) Province was selected as a case study area due to its unique characteristics
and irreplaceable condition as an overlapped concession area in the IPs communities which lead tocomplex IPs livelihood problems, overlapped mandate and conflict of interest, controversial
government-company-community relations, dynamic land use change, and community responses
based upon IPs collective knowledge and activism. The area has been put under many resourceextractive plans, ranging from commercial logging and community forestry (CFs) since in the late
1990s (McAndrew and Il, 2009), ELCs (economic land concessions) and mining license, since inthe mid 2000s (Guttal, 2006; Neth et al., 2011), and social land concession for communal land
titling, since in the late 2000s (Neth et al., 2011). Primary data were collected from several
methods, such as: (1) household survey in the three villages (Pou Chhorb, Pou Andreng, and PouLes); (2) in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with local authorities, village elders andIPs community leaders; and (3) expert interviews with reps of concerned institutions and academia.
Description of research site
Dak Dam is located in southeastern MDK province and administratively registered as one of the© ISERD
83

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

two communes of O’Reang District. Despite being home to abundant natural wealth, Dak Dam
possesses less cultivated land area than other communes in MDK. Yet, more than 73% of its total
population is engaged in irrigated and non-irrigated rice farming. In addition, crop cultivation, suchas corn, soya bean, mungbean, peanut, cassava, sweet potatoes and sesame also play crucial role in
Dak Dam’s rural production and local livelihood system (Neth et al., 2011). Most of the
agricultural activities in the area are rain-fed and depend largely on local traditional wisdom (ibid.).
The majority of the population belongs to Phnong ethnicity. Their occupations range fromrice and crop cultivators to non-timber forest products (NTFP) collectors (including resin
collection), hunters, and paid workers in nearby plantations (Neth et al., 2011). A few Khmer
households are also found to have settled in Dak Dam, most of who are newcomers from acrossCambodia. These newcomers migrated into Dak Dam in search of agricultural land and business
opportunities with highland indigenous communities who have less experience in business.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Community livelihood problems
Indigenous people living in Dak Dam are seen to be very impoverished, vulnerable and susceptible
to new economic development plans. Because of its large land area, easy access to the provincial
township, fertile agricultural lands, and high mining resource potential, a vast part of Dak Dam’s
territory have been put under LSED plans. The extensive land conversion into agricultural andagro-industrial plantations and mining zones together with the influx of lowlanders, land
speculation, and land encroachment have resulted in limited access to natural resources by theindigenous locals in Dak Dam. Forest resources and by-products have been main sources of theirlivelihoods for generations. Limited or the loss of access to these resources is not only translated
into reduced livelihood capacity or livelihood loss, but it also affects local cultural diversity andintegrity as well as the socio-economic, demographic and cultural fabric of the Phnong ethnicity.
Current environmental problems
The lack of representation within the provincial and national authorities together with language
barriers makes the indigenous Phnong become a disadvantaged group in their own area. The geopolitical conduct of the government and the growing interest of investors are often seen as lack ofclarity and sensitivity to local culture and livelihoods. These leave local communities in Dak Dam
at high risk of further violations, intimidations, livelihood loss, and socio-cultural corrosion. The
designation of the area for macro-economic purposes by disregarding local needs, and theconclusion of concession agreements (between the government and companies) without
consultations with local communities have triggered negative impacts on the locals as well as on
the business environment. For the communities, on the one hand, these actions could be translated
into complete contempt for local wellbeing, culture and livelihoods that depend upon available
lands and resources. On the other hand, the companies have been reported to face constantdisruption to their operations (e.g., the community shows resistance in the forms of publiccondemnation, strike and counteract) which could retard concession processes or even distresscompanie's properties and interests.
Community’s system and right
Current LSED-oriented policies considerably affect local livelihoods and culture. This could set off
declined community’s capabilities (resources, skills, knowledge, activities, and rights), declined
community livelihood strategies, and depletion of natural resources (land, water, and biodiversity).
Especially, it weakens community’s system (i.e., traditional management system) which eventually
results in limited collectivity and community’s customary rights.
At present, community’s system and rights are being influenced by external and internal© ISERD
84

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

factors. Externally, geo-politic development policies of the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC)
have shed light on agro-industrial plantations and mining activities in Dak Dam since in the early
2000s. These investments are conflicting with indigenous communities interests and reducing theextent of legal and legitimate communal land tenure and people’s rights to use natural resources,
especially forest resources. Moreover, the expansion of the investment lands on local ancestral landand sacred forests infringes on community’s rights, and such disrespect of local culture sparks off
constant changes upon local cultural norms and practices. The investment atmosphere in Dak Dam
which is compliant with modern legalities and legitimacies has gradually provoked on-going
conflicts with the customary norms practiced by local IPs. These conflicts are increasing over space
and time, particularly on concessionary lands that overlap indigenous territories.
Nevertheless, several major internal factors are deforming community’s system and limiting
community’s rights. They are: (1) informal rules (social capital); (2) alternation of basic religion
and culture; and (3) poor institution of community which makes it more dependent on external
assistance. Formal and informal social structures and relations formed in Dak Dam have been
important in terms of providing social safety net, trust building, livelihood facilitation, conflict
resolution and management, and reducing transaction costs of conventional economic activities.
However, it is observable that the collective structures of social relations in Dak Dam has beenchanging when the increasing number of IPs want to have individual property rights overtraditional communal lands.
Economic impacts of LSED
Despite stressing negatively, a minority of respondents also perceived agro-industrial and mining
development as opportunities. Their primary attention is devoted to the possibilities for new jobs,
such as mine workers, paid laborers in agricultural plantations, although such jobs often prove to belabor-intensive, low skilled, dangerous, less numerous, and less suitable to IP inhabitants. At
present, because of the geo/socio-cultural conditions (land-based activities) and close proximity to
the working areas, particularly in the adjacent plantations and bauxite mine, this is a good fit
between such jobs and the living environment. Agro-industrial and mining development in Dak
Dam also was remarked to have a possibility to inject capital flow for social development.
The concept of extractive exploitation of mineral resources and the agro-forestry environment
are not perceived as economically attractive options for the majority of the IPs in Dak Dam. Local
key informants and group discussants perceived current economic development in the forms of
economic land concession and mining exploration activities as a negative change agent which canalso lead to economic threats for the entire locality. Those who are mainly dependent on land andnatural resources might be threatened by new geo-politic policies and land law via limited accessand use rights of the IPs over available resources, while those with low income or limited
livelihood alternatives might be pressured by rising costs of living.
The alteration of the IPs’ economic system was perceived as an undesirable impact of current
LSED which could impose burdens on vulnerable and poor community members, whose voices areoften unheard. People were afraid that jobs created by current and future agricultural leases / land
concessions and the mines may trigger greater influx of outsiders into the areas, let alone the lowskilled and unskilled IP inhabitants to have less ability to compete in new labor markets. Moreover,it was perceived that as natural resources extraction and conversion of agricultural lands into large
scale agro-industrial lands continue to grow in capacity-intensity in Dak Dam, there would be lossof or limited capacity of the local economic systems to have proper adaptive economic strategies totackle economic shocks.
Social impacts of LSED
Economic development in Dak Dam which somewhat favors local interests is found to have createda space for reconstructing local social systems. Key local informants hinted this issue in two ways.
First, there is a healthier range of social patterns and options, which help change Dak Dam from© ISERD
85

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

being a previously secluded and closed indigenous community to be a rapidly developing area.
Constant interaction between Dak Dam’s inhabitants and the outsiders, including lowland inmigrants, has contributed positively to new knowledge and technology transfer (especially inagricultural production) into the area. In addition, once the context of Dam Dak becomes widely
open to the public, it brings in various interventions from state and civil society organizations in theforms of infrastructural and social services development and other socio-cultural outreach activities.
Second, local IPs start to realize the substantive value of their traditional community laws andsocial capital which allows them to maintain their solidarity and cultural continuity against the
intrusion of new state-driven development options.
Yet, it was found that community residents are aware of some instances of impacts occurredin Dak Dam. So far, increased contact with outsiders and the coming of unwanted development
have caused various potential risks to the communities, including the risk of community disruptionthat has turned Dak Dam into large-scale industrial development zone. Such development is
extinguishing the sense of community and social system which have often been ignored by inmigrants and external investors. In addition, respondents confessed that community’s social values
are being deteriorated by unfitting new cultures brought in by some newcomers, particularly
workers of the agricultural plantations and mining companies. Some activities, such as sexual
harassment, pre-marriage sexual intercourse between male workers and local female residents,
abduction, and increased divorce rate due to abundance of indigenous wives, have to some extent
demoralized IPs’ socio-cultural value on one hand, while on the other hand they blemish local
cultural norms and practices with regard to sexual interaction patterns.
Cultural impacts of LSED
It was found that the increased contact with mainstream industrialized cultures and gradualintegration into cash economy during economic land concession and mining processes affect Dak
Dam’s indigenous cultures in several ways. First, it undermines cultural norms and practices,
blurring cultural identity in Dak Dam. The invasion of commercial agricultural land and mining
areas over traditional communal land has results in insecure community land tenure and reduction
or discontinuation of traditional lifestyle and livelihood activities. The private intrusion into
traditionally legitimate lands does not only affect local ownership over their agricultural andsettlement land areas, but also cuts off sacred lands covering community spirit forests / sites andreduce locals’ religious practices in Dak Dam.
Second, the isolated indigenous culture in Dak Dam becomes more increasingly vulnerable tocurrent developmental contact through mining and agro-industry businesses and its subsequent
impacts. Currently, there are two distinct cultures – indigenous culture and modern culture – which
are clashing and transforming local traditional cultural systems. Indigenous culture is mainly based
upon traditional community laws shaped by traditional norms and practices for generations, while
modern culture follows modern public policies, laws and regulations of the RGC for developmental
purposes. Modern culture is well-regarded and accepted by the majority of developers and planners
with regard to problem solving approaches for land dispute, conflicts over natural resource accessand use, and other development-driven issues. Therefore, this new cultural system is incessantly
lessening power and status of leaders (community chiefs and village elders) of Dak Dam’s native
culture.
Environmental impacts of LSED
Despite some physical improvements and improved public services, almost all key interviewees
expressed their disappointment with changes of natural landscape and environmental degradation
in Dak Dam. The development-related growth over the last decade has resulted in constantdramatic change of the natural environment and biodiversity systems in the area. It was found that
extensive forestlands have been cleared and converted into large agro-industrial plantations under
agricultural leases or economic land concession policies, and are being disrupted further by current© ISERD
86

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

mining operation plans. The loss of forestlands also leads to the demolishment of natural habitats,wildlife and plant species, as well as substantial forest non-timer forest products in which local
communities depend on. Man-made disasters due to the heavy deforestation and the extraction ofnatural resources, including the soil-terrains, were perceived to have contributed to the existence ofland and soil erosion, seasonal drought and flood, and other climate change related problems.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThis study offers a view of developmental conflicts that are caused by multiple development
approaches and overlapping zoning systems. Especially, it reveals lives of vulnerable indigenous
communities who are living in such conflicted areas and under multi-dimensional pressures. It isfound to be an affected case from large scale development policies since this commune has been
explored and exploited by a number of companies, as well as being under a variety of LSED
schemes. Dak Dam case presents an intense resource curse situation. IP’s lives have been miserable
despite living amid the rich natural resources. The sources of their livelihoods have been constantly
invaded by external forces for the favor of LSED. The age-old cultural systems and social norms
have also been repeatedly violated beyond tolerance. It's also found that at present the IPcommunities have only hope for survival and maintenance of their traditional wisdom and age-old
culture lie with their security of communal land rights, forestlands, and sacred places/forests. These
insurance mechanisms have also been found to be in jeopardy.
A number of key recommendations need to be taken into serious account by governmental,
non-governmental, and private institutions. These include: (1) improve security mechanisms forcommunal land rights, forestlands, and sacred places / forests; (2) improve capacity building andadvocacy programs; (3) strengthen legal, institutional, and policy supports by higher level ofauthorities; (4) improve free, prior informed consent (FPIC) and environmental impact assessment(EIA) enforcement; and (5) improve land zoning system and land use planning.
REFERENCES
Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. and Evans, B. (eds.). 2003. Just sustainabilities: Development in an unequal
world. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Ashley, C., and Maxwell, S. 2001. Rethinking rural development. Development Policy Review, 19 (4), 395425.
Blackstock, K. 2005. A critical Look at community-based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40 (1),39-49.
Bouapao, L., 2005. Rural development in Lao PDR: Managing projects for integrated sustainable livelihoods.
Regional Center for Social Sciences and Sustainable Development, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang
Mai University, Thailand.
Bryant, C. and White, L. G. 1982. Managing development in the third world. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Colorado, USA.
Buller, H. and Wright, S. 1990. Rural development: Problems and practices. Avebury. Aldershot, Brookfield
USA.
Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable livelihoods approaches: Progress and possibilities for change. Department forInternational Development (DFID). Finesse Print. Toronto, Canada.
Chambers, R., 1983. Rural development: Putting the last first. Longman. New York, USA.
DFID, 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. DFID. London, UK.
Ellis, F. 1998. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal of Development Studies,35(1), 1-38.
Green, G.P. and Haines, A. 2001. Asset building and community development. SAGE Publication. California,
USA.
Guttal, S., 2006. Land and natural resource alienation in Cambodia. Focus on the Global South.
(http://focusweb.org/node/1133).
Hirsch, P. 1987. Participation, rural development, and changing production relations in recently settled forest
areas of Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London. UK.

© ISERD
87

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

McAndrew, J., and Il, O., 2009. Access to natural resources: Case studies of Cambodian hill tribes. In: Perera,J. (eds). Land and cultural survival: The communal land rights of indigenous peoples in Asia. AsianDevelopment Bank, Philippines, 94-124.
Neth, B., Sour, S., and Va, D. 2011. Report of the baseline survey on “extractive industries and its
contribution to sustainable development. Oxfam America’s East Asia Regional Office’s EI Program,
Cambodia.
Roberts, H., 1979. Models related to community development process: In Community Development:
Learning and Action, p. 45-65. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. USA.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper, No. 72,
Sussex, UK.

© ISERD88