IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

Research article
erd

The Analysis of Rattan Productions in Prek Thnot
Community Protected Area, Kampot Province, Cambodia
SREYNEANG CHHEUN*
Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: chheunsreyneang@yahoo.com

MONIN VORN
Dean of Faclity of Forestry, Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

OU RATANAK
Rattan Project Manager, WWF-Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Received 16 December 2012

Accepted 30 January 2013(*Corresponding author)

Abstract This study generally aims to illustrate, promote and increase the awareness ofthe dwellers in the study area regarding the beneficial aspects of rattan. Particularly, itaims to identify the ways that the committee can use to sustain their rattan production andto determine the advantages (or beneficial effects) of rattan production to committee
members’ livelihood. To achieve these objectives, stratified random sampling wasperformed. Out of 82 respondents, 65 were collectors 13 were processors and 2 weremiddlemen, all living in three villages namely, Prek Thnot, Prek Kreng, and Chang Huon
and 2 retailer reside in Kampot city. The study illustrated that rattan committee sustain
rattan resource in their community by providing harvesting guidelines and initiating
additional jobs from the production chain managing the amount of rattan resource to be
used annually and replanting them, and applying harvesting technique from WWF. Rattan
production with its beneficial effects is extremely important for all households in theproduction chain. It is not only used for food or handicraft but also a source of income
for all actors along the chain.
Keywords rattan, management, rattan benefit, Prek Thnot Community Protected Area

INTRODUCTION
Majority of Cambodian population are farmers living in rural areas and depend on agriculturalactivities (Ros et al., 2011). The level of productivity of agriculture in Cambodia is low incomparison with neighboring countries in Asia (FAO, 2013). Since the lead source of income offarmers is low, additional income from other agricultural activities is significant. Mountainouspeople harvest forest products such as bamboo, resin, honey, and rattan which we know as NonTimer Forest Product (NTFPs) after farming activity. A working paper of CDRI published in 2006shows that average income from NTFPs is 280 USD per year for poor people in Cambodia.
Moreover, NTFPs is used as a source of food, medicine, construction materials, shelter, and income
for rural poor throughout the world (Warner et al., 2007; Khou, 2010). They are scarce resource
and important to people who rely on harvest with sustainability. The people living near forest mustbe allowed to benefit from NTFPs in line with the development and sustainable resource
management, which will encourage them to protect the forest for future generations (Tuan, 2007).
Meanwhile Prek Thnot Community Protected Area had founded a rattan committee in order tomanage rattan resource for the benefit of the community members and to ensure the stability of its
usage. On the other hand, the information regarding rattan harvest, rattan production chain, andincome from rattan production were still limited. In order to overcome these limitations,information about harvest, production chain, and economic condition of rattan were acquired
during the study. This paper will identify the ways that the community can use to sustain rattanⒸ ISERD

14

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

production which serve as an important resource for Cambodians for food, furniture's, shelter, andextra income besides being one of their agricultural activities over centuries (WWF, 2010). Also, itwill determine the profitability of rattan production to the Prek Thnot Community Protect Area
members who are living and using rattan resources in Bokor mountain forest wherein they will bealso encouraged to protect the forest and forest products. The awareness of profitability of rattan
production in the study area is really significant. It is useful not only for protecting rattan resourcesbut also many other important forest products in the study area.
OBJECTIVE
The analysis of rattan production in Prek Thnot Community Protected Area aims to identify theways that the committee can use to sustain their rattan production and to determine the profitabilityof rattan production.
METHODOLOGYThis research was conducted in Prek Thnot commune, Teuk Chhou district, Kampot province
Cambodia. Stratified random sampling was used to determine the representative household out of
118 rattan committee members in the three villages. The samples were composed of collectors,
processor and middleman in three villages: Prek Thnot, Prek Kreng and Chang Huon. The sample
size was 82 households in which 65 households were collectors, 13 were processors 2 middlemenand 2 retailers from Kampot City. Two types of data were collected for analysis; primary data
which was generated from Rural Rapid Appraisal, e.g. key information deep interview, group
discussion, semi-structured interviews using questionnaires, while secondary data was taken fromrattan project publications, community records, committee records, the books, reports, and journals.
All the data were stored and analyzed using the program SPSS version 16 determining useful tools
such as frequency mean, compare mean analysis. Cost and Benefit and Margin method was applied
to generate cost and return to all actors along the production chain. The history of community,
timeline activities, and management strategies were described.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
History of rattan committee: There are three different divisions namely rattan group, medicinegroup and ecotourism group in the Prek Thnot Community Protected Areas. In 2007, Prek Thnot
Community Protected Area founded rattan committee under support from rattan project of WWFCambodia, Forestry Administration and the Ministry of Environment which aims to manage rattan
resource with sustainable manner and to provide job opportunity to community members
throughout rattan collecting and rattan processing. Moreover, rattan project initiated a training
course on how to produce several kinds of rattan furniture such as chair, bookshelf, and table aswell as providing support material for furniture production to those interested. In 2012, there are
1,841 people who benefited indirectly from Prek Thnot Community Protected Area. Therefore,
there are 118 people who got the profit from the rattan committee and they are potential in using
the rattan resource for commercial purpose. Nevertheless, they are actively involved in rattan
committee for setting up and practicing the regulation.
Rattan resource management: The structure of the committee is divided into three divisionnamely marketing, financial management and natural resource management divisions. The divisionof marketing was created to enable market information for processors and collectors. Division ofnatural resource management is very important to manage resources in the forest when destroyedby fire or deforestation as well as planning rattan resource for annually usage and managing rattan
nursery for replanting or sell out for cash income. Division of financial management is responsible
for managing money usage. The income comes from selling rattan cane, contribution free of 1,000
R from members per harvesting, and per selling rattan furniture, and funding from other sources
such as WWF and MAFF, FA. The main harvesting zone of rattan committee is around 78.30Ⓒ ISERD15

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

hectares located in three villages namely Chang Huon (11.37 hectares), Prek Thnot (40.56 hectares)
and Prek Kreng (26.39 hectares) village. Harvesting is being done by cycle in each zone dependingon the time, number, and amount of actual plan of rattan committee. Moreover, around 30,000
rattan plants, from the nursery station of the community, were planted in the Prek Thnot
Community Protected Area zone every year. However, the average rattan harvest of the community
is around 27,000 canes (5 m per cane) per year or more which depending on the ability ofcommittee members (collectors) and market force. The rattan committee helps on management ofrattan resource and also contributes in sharing the profits and solving some problems of thecollectors. Furthermore, the profit will be shared to committee members in case of cash need,hiring someone to manage the nursery, training, replanting, and helping the members in emergency
cases like accidents in harvesting rattan.
Rattan collection technique of committee members: There are 21 species of rattan in Cambodia.
Their harvest season varies according to species of each rattan. There are only five commercial
species namely Calamus rudentom, C. viminalis, C. palustrist, Korthalsia, and Som. Collectors
harvest rattan fallow the traditional and specified committee technique. Traditional technique usedby the dwellers long time ago is unsustainable though because they harvest the rattan by digging its
roots, destroying the young rattan. The committee technique, on the other hand, was taught andsupported by WWF. These included three main activities. First, collectors identify the age andlength of rattan. Second, only 60% of the rattan in clumps is being harvested while the 40% is left
to support and provide nutrition to young rattan. Last, rattan cane should be cut 20-70 cm above theroots because the rattan trunks provide nutrition for young rattan. Only around 80% of therespondents are following the rule of committee harvesting. This technique for harvesting is verysignificant but it still needs to be improved and should be taught to all committee members. This
harvest technique helps to enhance the sustainable resources in the protected area. According to theWWF (2011), the sustainable harvesting of rattan must consider the rattan age, seasonal harvesting,materials consumption and harvesting technique. The rattan recognized to be suitable for
harvesting must have the fallowing characteristics; (a) mature in age; (b) height is over five meters;(c) rattan cane is dark green with black thorn; (d) leaves are dried and falling out; and (c) bearing
flower and fruit. The best season for harvesting is during the dry season wherein the tree isprotected from moles and insects infestation that could affect rattan growth. In addition, the proper
harvesting tools should be utilized such as bush-whacker, special scissors, crampon and jungleknife. These tools are very important. Crampon is being used for isolating cane from other trees
growing with rattan. Bush-whacker is being used to cut and clean leaves from rattan cane which iseasier than knife. Special scissors cuts rattan twigs looped to other tree. These tools avoid
destruction of other plants significant for a sustainable rattan resource. The recommended fourmain steps for harvesting rattan are (a) collectors identify the right species; (b) cutting, rattan ten
centimetres above the root; (c) removal of branches or twig meshed with other cane or tree before
pulling: (d) pilling up of waste to the bush for fertilizer and to avoid fire. These steps are important
harvesting technique for sustainable rattan production.
Importance of Rattan Production
Cost and return of collectors: Rattan is a potential resource for collectors because they do notinvest capital but they can get profits from it. Time of collection of rattan depends on market
demand and households’ consumption. The collectors harvest the rattan around 22 days per person
person. For every harvesting time, men can collect around 47 canes while women can carry 35
canes from the forest. The average capital cost is 61,600 R per household such as jungle-knife,
thick clothes, gloves and so on. Average annual income of collectors is around 474,000 R perhousehold.
Cost and return of processors: According to the study, 70% of processors produce rattan
furniture only after farming or fishing and 30% of processors produce rattan furniture around 7
months and a half in average per year. There are three main types of rattan furniture that processors
produce such as bookshelves (3 shelves with width=0.4 m and height=1.5 m), chairs (width=0.4 m,Height=1 m), and table set (4 chairs and a table with height=0.4 m and width=0.5 m). In averageⒸ ISERD

16

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

processors can earn around 3,872,200 R per year and spend around 466,400 R in average forcapital or expenses. Processors use 100% of family labour.
Detail Cost of Producing Certain Furniture
There are two options for calculating the total cost of processing rattan. First option is that the total
cost includes the cost of hiring labour and cost of buying raw rattan while second option is the useof 100% of family labour of the processors in processing and harvesting rattan from the forest.
Small Knife
Jungle-Knife
HannerGas StandMetters
Saw Handle
Brush
Driller
Iron Bending
scissorFig. 1 Fixed cost of rattan processing

RanttanNailGasoline
VaneyGas
Saw

Fig. 2 Percentage of variable cost
Table 1 Processor’s margin
Main Type ofFurniture
Chair
Table Set
Bookshelf
Note: FG: farm gate

Total Cost
Option1
19,700 R
139,900 R
26,800 R

FG Price
Option 2
4,900 R
23,300 R
4200 R

20,000 R
150,000 R
20,000 R

MarginOption 1300
10,100-6,800

Option 215,100
126,700
15,800

Profit of middleman and retailer: Middlemen are also community members who act as agents tocollect rattan for traders in Phnom Penh City. In average, they earn 200 R commission per cane ofrattan and around 426,600 R per season. Retailers are residents of Kampot market in the Kampot
city; they can earn around 20,000 R profit from selling rattan furniture per month.
Timeline activities of rattan production: Timeline of activities contributed for evaluating andassessing the time spent by the actors in rattan production versus the benefits that they get. Table 2
show that after their main activities or in between of their activities farming or fishing activities,Ⓒ ISERD

17IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

rattan committee members can have more additional income from rattan production aside fromfarming and fishing. Based on the table, committee members don’t harvest rattan the whole year
but only during dry season and a little during rainy season.
Table 2 Timeline activities of committee members
Activities
Rattan Harvest
Processing
Collecting
Selling Furniture
Farming Activities
Fishing Activities
Hiring labourJanFebMar

AprMayJunJulAugSepOctNov

Dec

Furthermore, there are some rattan collectors that go to the forest during rainy season. FromOctober until mid-May, collectors can harvest rattan because they are free from their farming orfishing activities. They can also harvest during mid-May until the end of September but they
harvest during the day when they finished from their farming or fishing activities. With regards tothe collectors, they mostly process furniture almost every day except from mid-May until mid-Julybecause during that time they are busy with their farming activities. Retailers sell out their productevery day because their main job is to sell rattan furniture and other furniture in Kampot Province.
Rattan Production Chain
The production flow shows how rattan resource is used in the community. According to the study,
rattan production is mainly being sold out fresh, about 69% of all rattan from the forest, while only
30% is being processed as furniture and 1% is used as houses building materials
10%
20%

Processors
90%

Rattan in Forest

Consumers(Local)Retailers(Kampot)

Consumers(Resorts, guesthouse)

Middleman(Local)Traders(Phnom Penh)10 %100%Collectors
80%

69%
1%
Household Consumption

Fig. 3 Rattan production flow
Contribution Income to Committee Members
Rattan is very important for people along the production chain. People use rattan for food, and not
only to make handicraft for household usage but also contributes to household gross income. The
benefits of rattan production are extremely important for all households in the study area. They use
the income to support child education, household repairs, food, and other expenditures for dailyliving. Furthermore, rattan production offers employment to all members of the family. It reduces
migrant labor and members of household can earn more profit from collecting rattan and sellingfurniture's. According to Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, rattan processing had shared about 65% to processors
annual income while collection had shared about 9% of collectors’ annual income.

Ⓒ ISERD

18

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

10%
8%

18%
64%

9%

Rice farming

2%

22%

Rice farming

FishingFishing

Selling Labor

Selling Labor

Rattan processing

67%Fig. 4 Income source of rattan processors

Rattan Collecting

Fig. 5 Income source of rattan collectors

CONCLUSION
The rattan committee sustain rattan resource in their community by providing harvesting guidelines
and initiating additional jobs from the production chain managing, the amount of rattan resource tobe used annually and replanting them, and applying harvesting technique from WWF. Rattan
resource in the study area share benefits to all actors along the production chain and it plays animportant role in the income source of committee members after agricultural activities and fishing.
Annually, collectors can earn 474,000 R which shared 9% of annual income and processor can earn3,872,200 R which shared 64% of annual income. Middlemen earn 200 R commission per sellingof cane of rattan, while retailers earn 20,000 R per month on selling rattan furniture. Nevertheless,the rattan resource is limited and need long time to grow for harvesting again plus it requires
management.
ACKNOWLEGEMENT
I am very grateful to express my appreciation to WWF-Cambodia, particularly rattan project teams
who provided input and financial support for this study.
REFERENCES
CDRI (Cambodia Development Resource Institute). 2006. Natural forest benefits and economics analysis ofnatural forest conservation in Cambodia. Working paper, December 2006. Hansen K. K., Top N., CDRI.
Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
FOA. 2013. Asian’s woman in agriculture, environment and rural production. (retrieved from http://www.
fao.org/sd/wpdirect/wpre0106.htm , [23 September 2013]).
Khou, E. H. 2010. A field guide of the rattan of Cambodia. Cambodia: WWF greater Mekong-Cambodia
country programme, 2008. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Tuan, D. P. 2007. NTFPs conservation and development: a strategic task of the forestry sector in Vietnam.
The role of NTFPs in poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation. In: Proc. the International
Workshop on the Theme. Ha Noi, June 2007. IUCN, Ha Noi, Vietnam. 7-10.
Ros, B., Nang, P. and Chhim, C. 2011. Agricultural development and climate changes: the case of Cambodia.
Working Paper No. 65. CDRI, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Warner, K. 2007. Gaining much from little: How ‘minor’ forest products can have a major impact on poverty
alleviation and promote. The role of NTFPs in poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation. In: Proc.
the International Workshop on the Theme. Ha Noi, June 2007. IUCN, Ha Noi, Vietnam. 11-17.
WWF. 2010. Economic return from rattan supports sustainable forest and poverty reduction. (retrieved fromhttp://Cambodia.panda.org/news_cambodia/?202505).
WWF. 2011. Mini guild book: Sustainable rattan harvesting mini guide. WWF-Cambodia, Phnom Penh,Cambodia.

Ⓒ ISERD19