IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

Research article
erd

Contribution of Organic Agriculture towards Achieving
Sustainable Development in Samrong, Kampong Cham,Cambodia
MITSURU UCHINO
Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo, Japan
Email: mitsuru.yu@gmail.com

MACHITO MIHARA*
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Email: m-mihara@nodai.ac.jp
Received 16 December 2016

Accepted 5 November 2017(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Sustainable development is one of the most important achievements in developing
countries. Organic agriculture is one of the factors contribute to achieve sustainabledevelopment. However, implementation rates of organic agriculture are low in South EastAsia. Several international organizations have been intervening in the agricultural sector inCambodia. Interventions conducted by non-profit organization play a key role in theimplementation of organic agriculture by farmers. However, previous studies have notthoroughly described the economic contribution of these interventions regarding organicagriculture in Cambodia. In Samrong Commune, Kampong Cham Province, a five-year
longitudinal project was conducted to reduce financial losses in agriculture throughinterventions including implementation of organic agriculture and improving the agricultural
skills of farmers. This study is aimed to determine the economic contribution of theinterventions. Sample data from 64 farmers were collected through a questionnaire survey
during the harvest season. Moreover, the amount of E. coli, which is an environmentalindicator, was measured in compost boxes and vegetables in a farmland. The results showeda significant correlation (P<0.05) between the interventions and household income. This
study provides evidence that the implementing of organic agriculture resulted in increased
rural household income. However, E. coli from immature compost was found in 90% overtheir compost boxes and farmland. It implies that knowledge and proper techniques forincreasing quality of organic fertilizer are needed to be emphasized.
Keywords sustainable development, sustainable agriculture, organic agriculture, householdincomeINTRODUCTION
With regard to food supply and economic growth, sustainable development will be a major global
concern in the coming decades (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, 2016). Organicagriculture is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a production management
system for promoting and enhancing agro-ecosystem health through the reduction of chemical inputs
and modified seeds (FAOa, 2016). Organic agriculture is necessary to achieve sustainable
development in the agricultural sector and can benefit both developed and developing countries(Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, 2016). Studies have indicated that organicagriculture has positive environmental effects, and its implementation has therefore become anurgent task (Pimentel et.al.2005). Furthermore, organic agriculture reduces expenditure costs ofagriculture (i.e. fuel cost, chemical fertilizer, etc.) in local households (FAOb, 2001; United Nations,2009). It also contributes to an increased profit margin for farmers (Kilcher, 2007). However,
implementation rates of organic agriculture are low in Asia, especially in some developing countries
in Southeast Asia (Will & Yussefi, 2004). On the situation, nonprofit organizations (NPOs) or otherⒸ ISERD

54

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

international organizations play an important role in introducing organic agriculture to local farmers(Bebbington, 2004). For example, in Cambodia, international organizations have been intervening
more in the agricultural sector than in any other sector (Chanrith, 2002). Limited studies focusing on
the relationship between organic agriculture and local household income have been carried out, while
many studies focusing only on the relationship between organic agriculture and their effect on theenvironment in Cambodia (Bunthan & Siriwattananon, 2009, Vathana et.al.,2002). Therefore, thisstudy aims to determine the economic contribution of organic agriculture in Cambodia.
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to determine of the relationship between organic agriculture and farmer’shousehold income. In Cambodia, non-profit organizations (NPOs) encourage farmers to conductorganic agriculture and improving agriculture skills. In this study, the intervention of one NPO wasfocused on.
METHODOLOGY
Study Site and Characteristics
This study was conducted in October 2016 in Samrong Commune, Prey Chhor District, Kampong
Cham Province (Fig. 1). Prey Chhor district is located around 90 km from Phnom Penh, the capitalof Cambodia. Rainy season in Kampong Cham starts from April to November. The average rainfall
was 22.1mm. The mean minimum and maximum temperatures were 23 and 30 degree Celsius
respectively. The total population is 1,673,390 in 2011, according to economic census (StatisticsJapan).

00

100000km

Fig. 1 Location of Kampong Cham Province (left) and Prey Chhor District (right)
Intervention Methods
The NPO conducted a five-year project supported by the Japan International Cooperative Agency(JICA) from April 2011 to March 2016. The goal of this project was to persuade local farmers inProvince to practice sustainable, recycling-based agriculture. The project area conducted in 11villages in Prey Chhor District, Samrong Commune. The five-year long interventions involved theimplementation of organic agriculture and the impartment of agricultural knowledge related to theuse of organic fertilizer such as compost, recommendation of seeds, etc. (Fig. 2).

Ⓒ ISERD

55

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

Fig. 2 The interventions of NPO (left: compost box, right: liquid fertilizer)
Qualitative Survey (Questionnaire Survey and E. coli Survey)
A Questionnaire survey was conducted in Khmer (Cambodia’s official language) by Cambodian staff
working at the Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conversation (ERECON) as shown in
Fig. 3. The data were collected from 64 participants in intervention and non-intervention groups (Fig.
4). Most of the participants were men, as Cambodian women tend to be involved in other activities(Meinzen-Dick et. al., 2011). The objective was to ascertain whether farmers perceived an increased
income over the course of five years. The questionnaire was based on a publication in theIndependent Evaluation Group of the World Bank (2011). The indexes of the questionnaire included
basic demographic information (sex, age, and location), agricultural style (labor involved, crop type,and number of crops), and participant income. Moreover, the conditions of organic materials(compost box) were checked directly. Organic agriculture should have the advantage of environment(Meinzen-Dick et. al., 2011). However the making organic compost requires proper way (Taiwo,2011). In this study, organic compost in the compost box was target for the measurement of organicagriculture. Subsequently, Petan Check 25 was applied in compost boxes, and on the farmland andcrops of the participants to help detect and measure E. coli, an indicator of prevailing environmentalconditions.

Fig. 3 Questionnaire survey
Data Analysis
A generalized linear model (GLM) was used to examine the measurements organic agriculture
contributes to the increased household income. In the analysis, the response variable was whether
farmer felt that there was increased income in five years. The accurate income was difficult to bemeasured because of the answers are all approximations made by the farmers. The criteria of P value
were under 0.05. The explanatory variables were shown as Table 1. All statistical analysis was doneusing R (R project 3.2.3).
Ⓒ ISERD56

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2●: sample

Fig. 4 Black dots as the location of respondent with Google Earth
Table 1 Index of questionnaire
Index
Response variable

Whether you perceived an increased income over the course of five years

Explanatory variables

Are you a member of the intervention group
Personal information (age)Is your family working only in agriculture
What kind and how many amount of vegetable for sell
Do you use organic fertilizers and how many times in one term
How large is your land (total, rice, vegetable)
How many cattle do you have
How many people support your work
How much is your income (total, only agriculture, non-agriculture)
Do you talk about ERECON in daily conversation

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characteristics of the Respondents
In this study, 41 or respondents are men (64%) and 23 are women (36%). The numbers of participantfrom treatment group are 40 (62.5%) and from non-treatment group are 24 (37.5%). Minimum age
is 29, and maximum age is 70. Subsequently, median age is 52. Total annual income is 170 USD asminimum, 6000 USD as maximum. Median income is 875 USD. Average income is 1137 USD.
Before this intervention, the average income was 943 USD from baseline data.
Result of a Generalized Linear Model
A generalized linear model (GLM) analysis is shown as Table 2. The relation between ERECON’sinterventions and their increased income in five years has significant. Moreover, the relation between
the number of crops in a year and their increased income in five years has significant. According tothe GLM, the co-efficient of ERECON’s interventions and the number of crops is positive. It meansthat people will feel there will be increased income when people involve in the intervention groupand have a opportunity to cultivate more the number of crops as before. Recommendation of seeds
for cultivation and sell is one of the interventions conducted in five long years projects. From thatintervention, farmers know the type of vegetables that have market demand.

Ⓒ ISERD

57

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

Table 2 GLM of whether farmers perceived an increased income over the course of five years
Coefficient

P value-0.238600

0.662390

0.563400
0.000113
0.023630
0.193900-0.000024
0.382900
0.032080-2.392000
2.407000
1.906000
0.059860-0.003814-0.005797
0.005408
0.005939-0.867400
0.571800

0.01309*
0.984330
0.881900
0.00552*
0.367320
0.153380
0.773790
0.619190
0.617430
0.681770
0.084020
0.136000
0.071710
0.076660
0.068400
0.056620
0.237480

Intercept (whether farmers perceived an increased income over the courseof five years)Are you a member of the intervention group
Personal information (age)Is your family working only in agriculture
What kind of vegetable for sell
How many amount vegetables for sell
Do you use organic fertilizers
How many times do you use organic fertilizers in one term
How large is your land (Total)
How large is your land (Rice)How large is your land (Vegetables)
How many cattle do you have
How many people support your work
How much is your income (Total)
How much is your income (only agriculture)
How much is your income (non-agriculture)
Do you talk about ERECON in daily conversation
Are you a member of the intervention group×talk about ERECON* P<0.05

Quality of the Compost
From the investigation, E. coli exists in 39 compost boxes and farmer’s land belong to treatmentgroup (n=40). The detection using Petan Check 25 is shown (Fig. 5). E. coli is green colony foundon the medium. If farmers make compost properly, E. coli will not be found in compost box and land.
However, a result of Petan Check 25 is shown farmers do not conduct proper method to makecompost.

Fig. 5 Detection using Petan Check 25DISCUSSIONSThis study confirmed the economic contribution of organic agriculture in Cambodia, which can tohelp toward the sustainable development. The results showed that both the interventions and the typeof vegetables have the contribution of farmer’s household income. However, according to a reportof the independent evaluation group of World Bank (2011), the number of labors and cultivatedacreage, and some indexes have the relationship with farmer’s household income (Taiwo, 2011).
These variables did not have significant in this study. Given the possibility that the number of thecollecting data was quit few, as there were only 64 respondents in this study. Therefore, theseⒸ ISERD58

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

variables did not have significant. Moreover, the other interventions were not confirmed whether it
have positive effect. The results of quality check of the compost box showed that farmers did not
clearly replicate the proper way to make organic compost. Because of this, next intervention should
focus on the long term education of making organic compost.
CONCLUSION
This study finds there is the economic contribution of organic agriculture in Cambodia. From thisfinding, organic agriculture have the advantages both environmental (Bunthan & Siriwattananon,2009, Vathana et.al.,2002) and economic aspects (Ibrahim, 2008). In conclusion, organic agriculture
achieves sustainable development in Cambodia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank the Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conversation (ERECON) forsupporting to conduct this study.
REFERENCES
Adewale, M.T. 2011. Composting as a sustainable waste management technique in developing countries.
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology.
Bebbington, A. 2004. NGOs and uneven development: geographies of development intervention. Progress in
Human Geography, 28 (6), 725-745.
Bunthan, N. and Siriwattananon, L. 2009. Suitable timing of application of pelletized compost and farmers’
acceptance in Cambodia. Journal of ISSAAS, 15 (1), 91-100.
Chanrith, N. 2002. A study on organizational building of Cambodian development-Oriented NGOs, A focus
on determinants of capacity-building and project success.
Food and Agriculture Organization (a). http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq1/en/. FAO, (retrieved on
14 Dec., 2016).
Food and Agriculture Organization (b). 2001. The economics of conservation agriculture. FAO Publishing andMultimedia Service, Information Division, FAO, Viale Delle Terme Di Caracalla, 73, Italy.
Independent Evaluation Group of World Bank. 2011. Impact evaluations in agriculture impact evaluations inagriculture. World Bank.
Lukas, K. 2007. How organic agriclture contributes to sustainable development. University of Kassel atWitzenhausen JARTS, Supplement, 89, 31-49.
Meinzen-Dick, R., Johnson, N., Quisumbing, A.R., Njuki, J., Behrman, J.A., Rubin, D. and Waitanji, E. 2011.
Gender, assets, and agricultural development programs. CAPRi Working Paper, 99.
Muhammad, I., Anwar-ul, H., Muhammad, I. and Ehsan, V. 2008. Response of wheat growth and yield tovariouslevels of compost and organic manure. Pak. J. Bot, 40 (5), 2135-2141.
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D. and Seidel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic and economic
comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55 (7), 573.
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, I. 2016. The World of Organic Agriculture.
Statistics Japan. http://www.stat.go.jp/english/info/meetings/cambodia/e11f_re1.htm. (retrieved on 07 March,2018).
United Nations. 2009. The contribution of sustainable agriculture and land management to sustainabledevelopment. 7.
Will, H., and Yussefi, M. 2004. The world of organic agriculture statistics and emerging trends. Bonn:
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.

Ⓒ ISERD59