IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Research article
erdCrop Profit Groups and Farmer Participation in Research:Some Experiences from Cambodian Upland Regions
ROBERT J. FARQUHARSONThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Email: bob.farquharson@unimelb.edu.au

ROBERT J. MARTIN
The University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

J. FIONA SCOTT
Industry & Investment NSW, Tamworth, NSW, Australia

CHAN PHALOEUN
Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

TOUCH VAN
CARE-Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

KEO KYNAL
Maddox Jolie-Pitt Foundation, Rotanak Commune,
Battambang, Cambodia
Received 15 January 2010

Accepted 5 March 2010

Abstract Reductions in poverty and improvements in food security are important issues
for farmers and agricultural regions in Cambodia. In this paper we relate our approach andexperience working in upland areas of Battambang Province to improve agricultural,environmental and social outcomes for farm families and villagers. Small farm sizes andobserved low levels of agricultural productivity exacerbate poverty and food insecurity.
We have approached this challenge by first investigating and demonstrating new
agricultural methods (or technologies) in a farming systems context, through developing a
network of farm trials and demonstrations. To this is added activity in contextual
economic and social assessment of new versus old farming methods and management,with the objective of farmer adoption of improved methods and associated increases infarm family incomes. We have formed Crop Profit Groups of local farmers to assess the
economic costs and benefits of changed management in the main cash crops of maize andsoybean. We have also investigated marketing and value-chain issues since these affectupland farmers in important ways. Our approach has been to bring expertise to eachsituation and adopt a co-learning approach with local farmers, government officials andNGOs. Education and capacity-building of Cambodian collaborators has been an
important part of the work. While our work is not yet finished we have found a genuine
willingness by the Cambodian farmers to consider new ‘ways of doing things’ and be
involved in assessing their own incentives to change. A variety of approaches are used intraining and capacity building of the local researchers and officials. There seem to be
substantial economic incentives to change some farming practices, but issues of farm input
supply availability, markets and prices received for farm produce, transport costs andinfrastructure appear to constrain improved farm and regional outcomes.
Keywords Cambodia, agriculture, environment, technology, poverty, food security,© ISERD

194

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

INTRODUCTION
Reductions in poverty and improvements in food security are primary objectives of project funding
supported by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), theCambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI), and non-governmentorganizations (NGOs) such as CARE-Cambodia (CARE) and the Maddox Jolie-Pitt Foundation(MJP). In this paper we draw on information and experiences from a number of ACIAR-funded
projects in the upland regions of Cambodia. In recent years Cambodia has regained self-sufficiency
in rice production and some research and development (R&D) priorities have moved to non-rice
farming systems in upland regions. In the north-western Provinces of Battambang and Pailin themain non-rice field crops are maize and soybean, with mungbean, peanut, sesame and cassava also
being important.
Our objectives in this work have been to investigate typical farms, farming systems, crop
management and use of crop technologies to see whether improved management can be introduced
and demonstrated so that, if adopted by farmers, our activities lead to improved farm-family
incomes. The process followed has been one of assessing the existing situation, choosing andphysically demonstrating new crop technologies and management, and then assessing the financial
and social implications for change at the farm level. Throughout our focus has been on talking tofarmers and farmer groups about how they do things at present, and asking what they might thinkof the opportunity to change - a co-learning approach. Our project work is not yet finished, so theoutcomes of our R&D are not yet obvious - at least in terms of substantial uptake of new crop
technologies by upland farmers.
As well, we have been keen to consider the environmental implications of our work and toneither impose external paradigms on these upland farmers nor to repeat mistakes that might havebeen made in other places and earlier times. This has involved a balancing of agricultural
production, farm-family income and environmental objectives. In this paper we discuss issues thathave been confronted in undertaking this balancing task.
Our recent work has focused on three districts, Pailin and Sala Krau in Pailin Province, andSamlaut in Battambang province, of north-west Cambodia. The target villages and clusters areshown in Fig. 1. Village clusters are Baysey, Bor Tangsu, Ou Ro El and Prey Santeah in Pailin
district, and Beoung Run, Kampong Touk, Kantout and Sre Reach in Samlaut district.

Fig. 1 Target villages and clusters - Samlaut (left) and Pailin (right)© ISERD

195

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

CONDITIONS
Rural development, environmental outcomes and agricultural development ethics
Agricultural development activity in developing countries must face ethical questions such as ‘what
type of agricultural paradigm should be promoted in developing agricultural communities?’ and‘how can the expressed needs of farm families, village communities and national governments be
accounted for in agricultural development activities?’ (Chrispeels and Mandoli 2003). There arealternative ways of improving farm family incomes, in terms of the agricultural technologies andmanagement that can be promoted, and we can make choices based on the underlying moral andethical belief systems of both the funding agency (and country) and the recipient communities (andcountry).
The traditional agricultural paradigm of production to feed the world at the lowest possible
food price is being challenged by changes in societal thinking about the impacts of such changes on
agricultural societies and the natural environment. The (western) utilitarian agricultural ethic of
judging actions by their effects on fellow human beings (the greatest good for the greatest numberof people) can be interpreted as emphasizing production without a full consideration of other (morenuanced) impacts. With a projected increase in world population an important need is for future
agricultural production systems to be able to satisfy the associated increases in demand for food.
But can that be accomplished without further detrimental effects on natural ecosystems andchanges to a (perhaps idealized) view of how rural and urban societies should develop? The
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has a 2020 vision of a world:• where every person has access to sufficient food to sustain a healthy and productive life;• where malnutrition is absent;• where food originates from efficient, effective, and low-cost food systems; and• where food production is compatible with sustainable use of natural resources (IFPRI undated).
How has our project matched against these sustainability and food security goals?: The
current project (Cambodian Crop Production and Marketing Project (CCPMP), see
http://ccpmp.pbworks.com/) has four communities of practice - Production, Socio-Economics,
Marketing and Value Chain. The teams associated with each community of practice conduct
specific and coordinated activities to achieve the project goals. A Continuous Improvement andInnovation Approach to project management and evaluation was used (Madzivhandila et al. 2008).
In this paper we focus on the Production and Socio-Economics team activities, but first we set theoverall project context and report the perspectives of the project participants.
Cambodian agricultural priorities and institutions
National R&D priorities: The Royal Cambodian Government’s National Poverty Reduction
Strategy (2003-2005) committed research centres and extension systems to focus on small-scale
farmers and place emphasis on the use of improved tools and management practices for cropping
systems. Priority was given to diversification and intensification of sustainable agricultural
production with few external inputs as well as cost–effective management practices.
Institutional priorities in Cambodia: CARDI was established in 1999 by the Royal Governmentof Cambodia as a semi-autonomous institute. It has a vision of partnerships for livelihood
improvement and economic growth in Cambodia, and a mission to contribute to the Royal
Government of Cambodia Policies on poverty reduction and economic development (CARDI
undated). CARE has worked for some time in Cambodia, initially (in the 1990s) with the United
Nations to help refugees. Since then CARE has shifted its focus to long-term development
programs, helping poor communities improve their standard of living (CARE undated). MJP isdedicated to eradicating extreme rural poverty, protecting natural resources and conserving
wildlife; MJP promotes sustainable rural economies that directly contribute to the health andvitality of communities, wildlife and forests (MJP undated).

© ISERD

196

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Upland crop production in Cambodia
Constraints to crop production: Dillon and Hardaker’s (1993) conceptualization of theconstraints to production at the farm level has been adapted for this project as shown in Fig. 2.
Biological and bio-physical constraints are addressed by the Production team, and other socioeconomic constraints are addressed by the Socio-Economics, Marketing and Value Chain groups.

Fig. 2 Project focus on constraints to crop production in Cambodia
New crop production technologies considered: The new upland crop management technologies
considered within CCPMP have been: (1) rhizobium inoculation of legume seeds, (2) theapplication of urea (Nitrogen (N)) fertilizer to maize, (3) changes in crop rotations and/or crop
sequencing, (4) use of reduced or conservation tillage, (5) integrated pest management (IPM) for
insects, and (6) weed control in crops. These have been trialed on farmer fields by project staff andsubjected to farm management economic analysis.
Project activities and methodologies
Production team activities: The CCPMP Production team activities have involved establishingtrials of new crop technologies in farmer fields. These trials are supervised in establishment,
maintenance and extension activities by the project team, especially the CARE and MJP officers.
Careful experimental designs and plot planning and management have been conducted to facilitate
farm walks and extension activities to demonstrate to farmer and village groups the possible
physical changes that might accompany changes in crop management and technology use. The
development of crop production information and publications for insect and weed identification has
been an important part of the Production activities.
Socio-Economic team activities: Economic evaluation activities have been conducted on the basisthat farm profits and economic incentives are important to these farmers in considering farm
practice change (further discussion below). Pannell et al (2006) considered that adoption of ruralinnovations depends on a range of personal, social, cultural and economic goals. ‘Adoption occurs
when the landholder perceives that the innovation in question will enhance the achievement ofthese personal goals. Innovations are more likely to be to be adopted when they have a high‘relative advantage’ (perceived superiority to the idea or technology that it supersedes) and when
they are readily trialable (easy to test and learn about prior to adoption)’ (Pannell et al., 2006). We
have focused mainly on the economics of technology and management and less on social analysis
in this project.
The Socio-Economic activities have consisted of several components. One economic activity
has involved conducting economic analyses of new crop management and technology in the uplandfarm context. These activities have allowed us to estimate the likely economic appeal of ourtechnologies to the target farmer groups and hence to rank and prioritize the technologies in terms
of project focus. The economic assessments have considered the likely return on investment (ROI)
to an upland farmer from undertaking the management change (adopting the technology) in thecontext of the cost of capital and size of the economic gain. A second component has involved
training the Cambodian project officers in conducting simple economic comparisons, and thenusing a Crop Profit Framework in farmer workshops to consider new technologies. A third© ISERD

197

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

component involves conducting village workshops to assess economic and social issues for farmers
in possible changes to their crop management and technology use. Each of these activities isdiscussed below.
Economic methodologies used have been relatively simple enterprise profit (gross margin) andpartial budgeting approaches to compare existing and alternative management as set out by, among
others, Malcolm et al. (2005). What do we mean by the ROI, or as it is sometimes called themarginal rate of return (CIMMYT, 1988)? For simplicity let’s use an example of an upland farmer
investing in a crop input like rhizobium - where the rhizobium must be purchased, applied tolegume seed at sowing and a higher yield is expected to be achieved. We want to calculate theexpected return and compare it with the extra cost. This extra cost is the amount of money investedby the farmer in the new crop technology.
From trial information we have an idea of how the yield might change and so we undertake aneconomic analysis for a typical upland farm to show the likely benefits before any farmer decision
is made about using the technology. The analysis is conducted to provide information to the farmer
about the decision to invest in rhizobium. The expected net benefit is the value of extra returns(extra yield multiplied by the price expected to be received by the farmer) less the extra cost (thecost of the rhizobium). There may also be other extra costs (e.g. harvest of a larger crop) which
need to be included. The total extra cost is the amount invested which we assume is borrowed by
the farmer.
The marginal rate of return (CIMMYT, 1988, p.32) is the marginal (or extra) net benefit
divided by the marginal (or extra) cost, expressed as a percentage. As an example if $1 is borrowed
and invested in a new crop input so that the expected net benefit is, say, $0.50 then the ROI is 50%.
The size of this ROI can be compared to the cost of capital or set according to some minimum or
target rate that accounts for such attitudes as the risk attitudes of indigenous farmers (Scott andFreeman, 2007). While it is not possible to provide an exact minimum or target figure, CIMMYT(1988) suggested a possible target rate of (a) twice the cost of capital, or (b) higher rates such as 50
to 100% (especially for farms in developing countries). In Cambodia the cost of capital to farmers
is often 3% per month or more, so that a minimum ROI for new crop technologies or managementchange could be 100% per annum or more.
The Crop Profit Group framework was adapted from an ACIAR project in South Africa aimed
at improving beef production for small farmers (see Madzivhandila et al., 2008). This framework isshown in Fig. 3, where the potential changes in enterprise economic return at the farm level can be
identified in terms of partial productivity measures on the costs or returns side of the enterpriseprofit equation.

Fig. 3 Crop Profit Group framework
The village workshop approach conducted using Participatory Rural Appraisal methods (e.g.
see de Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004) relied on accompanying farmer groups at field walks conductedby the Production team and then taking those groups into workshops to conduct conversations© ISERD198

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

about technologies and rural change. Similar activities have been reported by Sophal and Acharya(2002) and Sedara et al (2002).
RESULTSA picture of upland cropping systems and farm families in Cambodia was developed throughsurveys (Farquharson et al. 2006a). Average farm sizes of the surveyed farms in Battambang,
Kampong Cham and Takeo Provinces were small (2-8 ha), capital (mechanical) equipment
included draft animals, ox carts and mouldboard ploughs as well as tractors and disc ploughs insome areas. Levels of farmer education were relatively low and farm-family incomes were small.
The cost of borrowing money for crop inputs in rural Cambodia can be 3-5% per month or more,
depending on the source of funds. Problem areas for crops included low yields, lack of knowledge(especially about insects), concerns about profitability, land/soil constraints, labour/equipment
issues and agronomic and climate risk (including drought). There were significant numbers offemale farmers.
Other background information has been provided from MJP (2008), where a comprehensive
survey was conducted to identify the poorest and most vulnerable households in Samlaut. Four
categories were identified: poorest (extremely poor) with incomes generally less than US$1/day,poor with an income generally less than $2/day, middle with an income of $5-7/day, and high withan income of $8-10/day. Villages were ranked according to these categories and allocated into
clusters for attention (Fig. 1).
Three reports were available from CARE - Samaiyar and Sopheap (2007a and b) and Kiereini(2007). Samaiyar and Sopheap (2007a, b) specifically targeted 28 villages in three clusters.
Contributing factors to food insecurity were that 14% of rural households were landless in 2004,
another 19% possessed less than 1ha of land, and that the variable climate and the frequency ofnatural calamities also contributed to food insecurity.
Outputs from CCPMP are in a number of different formats. Martin and Chanthy (2007) havepublished a crop weed identification manual in a hard-copy format suitable for farmer/field use.
For the Socio-Economic activities an important early question related to the farmers’ basic
farm management orientation. In contrast to rice production in Cambodia, which has traditionallybeen of a subsistence nature, the upland production of maize and soybean is primarily for sale todomestic and export buyers for human and animal consumption. Hence it is mainly commerciallyoriented and so farm profits and farm management economics were assumed to be importantdrivers for decisions and processes within the project.
Training in economic evaluation methodologies (gross margin, partial budgeting and ROI
analyses) has been conducted via workshops and written notes (Scott 2008). This economic
framework was the basis of the Crop Profit Group framework used in the village workshops.
Economic evaluations of crop production technologies were conducted and reported in
Farquharson et al. (2006b, 2008) and Scott and Freeman (2007). These evaluations were forprospective technologies that were not yet available to farmers. The analysis of Scott and Freeman(2007) in the Samlaut district involved comparing improved with farmer practice based on crop
yields from field demonstrations and expressing the economic result as a ROI figure (as explained
above). Their main result was indicative return of 743% for rhizobium inoculation of peanut seed.
Farquharson et al. (2006b) used data from on-farm trials to assess the likely advantages for upland
farmers of changing crop technology and management. Their main result (expressed in terms of
ROI) was that rhizobium inoculation could return up to 600% for soybean. These are very highnumbers based on a substantial yield improvement from rhizobium trials and an expected low costfor the technology. This technology was not available to upland farmers at the time of theseanalyses.
This indication of high potential return for rhizobium inoculation was mirrored in the village
workshops where upland farmers indicated a strong preference for trying this technology. In 2010
inoculum will be introduced and distributed for farmers to try themselves. Other recent trial data
for the application of N fertilizer (urea) to maize showed only modest yield improvement and it© ISERD

199

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

seems that the upland soils retain a substantial level of the soil fertility that was present when they
were (relatively recently) cleared for farming. Hence the project activities will not proceed with astrong recommendation for farmers to apply N fertilizer to maize. From observation in the field,
adequate fallow and in-crop weed control would do more to improve maize yields.
Another technology considered within the project was of changes in crop rotations or crop
sequencing. Such changes (from a monoculture) in other places have shown substantial
improvement in crop performance due to insect, weed and disease threats being reduced with theuse of varied crop sequences. In the Cambodian uplands the wet season allows two crops to begrown, and generally there is a different crop grown in the early to the main wet season. Given thatthe crops include legumes plus grains there appears to be an adequate amount of crop variation andthere did not seem to be a need to further investigate the gains from changing crop sequences.
The fourth technology considered was reduced or conservation tillage to minimize soil
erosion. Crop establishment methods in the upland areas are mixed, with some traditional methods
such as mouldboard ploughing by oxen and planting by hand and stick, while other farmers own orhire tractors with disc ploughs and planters to establish crops. The development of a small-scale
planter for farmer use has been investigated but the capital costs to construct and market suchplanters are considered prohibitive. No further action has been taken on this technology.
The fifth technology is IPM, especially with respect to insect control. Our project has strongly
emphasized the use of IPM for insects by running workshops on insect identification anddiscussion of appropriate ‘soft’ chemical sprays, and also through training of a PhD student inAustralia. An insect identification manual is being developed. Another approach to IPM has beenthe ‘Jorani project’ to develop educational material (including a children’s book) for the primaryschool Life Skills curriculum (Martin et al., 2010). The Jorani project provides technical training
and resource materials to teachers including an IPM workshop manual and an illustrated insect
identification guide. It is being introduced to years 4-5 in five primary schools on a trial basis in
Samlaut district.
From our observations of farmer crops in the upland regions weed control is a major constraint
to crop yields and profits. A number of issues are relevant here. In the past much crop weeding (byhand) has been performed by (often landless) laborers from nearby villages. More recently upland
farmers have been using chemicals for weed control, but these chemicals are imported mainly fromThailand and the labels and instructions are written in Thai, which the farmers cannot read. We
have discussed this with farmers in our workshops and they report that they do not understand how
to appropriately apply these chemicals and we have observed inappropriate handling procedures
injurious to human health.
We have observed that the price of labour has increased substantially in these districts – in2005 farmers were paying 5000 Riel/day for labour to plant, weed and harvest crops but by 2009
this had risen to 10,000 R/d in Pailin and 12,000 R/d in Samlaut. Such a change in the price of animportant farm input could be expected (by simple economic logic) to force cash-oriented farmers
to adjust the use of crop inputs.
An analysis using a simple model with a limited amount of data developed the relationshipshown in Fig. 4. The natural exponential function applied to data of labour price (P) over time (T),
was analysed as shown in Eq. (1).

P = ae bT(1)

The advantage of this model is that the b-coefficient can be interpreted as an average annual
growth rate in the dependent variable. The estimated b-coefficient of 0.185 (t statistic 5.36)
indicates that the growth rate in the price of labour has been around 18% per annum.
In a recent (2009) visit to the project districts we asked questions of farmers at the field days
and in the village workshops about weed control practices in their crops. In particular we asked
them about the cost of weeding by hand (the traditional practice) and the costs of using herbicides.
The results were that the cash costs of hand weeding were generally double, or more, the cost ofusing chemical sprays to control weeds. However, the farmers confirmed that weed control in crops
is essential for successful crop production, and that if they did not control weeds the resultant
yields would be either zero or completely uneconomic. Hence the project will focus more on© ISERD

200

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

chemical weed control using appropriate (soft) chemicals and application rates, and also on
operational health and safety issues for farmers in applying chemicals.

Price (Riel / day)

12000

8000

4000

0
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year
Labour pricePredicted

Fig. 4 Actual and predicted price of labour, Battambang Province
DISCUSSION
Our Cambodian project experiences have touched on a number of issues relating to agriculturaldevelopment as it relates to poverty alleviation, improvements in food security and agriculturaldevelopment ethics. The farm and village systems that we have worked in are characterized bysmall-scale farmers with low financial reserves, low levels of education and low levels ofagricultural productivity. Their institutions do not provide reliable input supplies or competitivemarkets for their outputs, and their cost of credit is very high. Hence many of them are vulnerable
to climatic and market price risk.
Their farm objectives are stated to be commercial; hence we have used an economic
framework to initially evaluate new crop technologies. We have conducted discussions with
farmers using a Crop Profit Group approach to focus on potential benefits and costs of changing
farming practices. This production economic focus has been set alongside discussions of social
issues for change. We have not considered any fundamental changes to the type of agriculture
practiced (e.g. changing to tree from field crops) in these districts although such changes areinteresting to consider.
Chrispeels and Mandoli (2003) discussed the traditional agricultural production paradigm
which has been criticized for not considering effects on the natural environment or social structures
within communities. The expressed primary concern (by the Royal Cambodian Government, theNGOs and the Australian funding body) for poor farmers in Cambodia has been to reduce poverty
and improve food security, and this has been taken as the primary objective in our project work.
We have interpreted the best means of addressing these goals as through improvements inagricultural productivity and profitability so that farm family incomes are raised. But while doing
this we have been aware of the need to consider environmental and social implications.
There is a (sometimes muted) debate in Cambodia about ‘sustainable’ farm practices,
particularly in relation to the use of agro-chemicals for pest control, and fertilizer and hybrid seeds
for crop production. We are now observing a change in the use of farm labour because of theopportunity cost of labour has risen. These are ongoing challenges that we need to address in our
project.
Our main conclusion regarding agricultural technologies, based on farm trials and contextual
economic analysis of farm trial data, is that rhizobium inoculation of legume seed prior to sowing
seems to offer a major opportunity for improving crop productivity and profitability.
For crop production it is also apparent that insects, weeds and diseases need to be controlled;
otherwise agricultural production is simply not feasible. We have focused on IPM as a desirable© ISERD

201

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

insect control approach and strongly emphasized provision of better information and training tofarmers (and their children), and the education of scientific and extension R&D staff.
For weed control the price of labour has risen – whether because of improved income-earning
opportunities off the farm or a shortage in labour supply is unknown. Because weed control isessential for successful crop production, and because the farmers are profit oriented, the only
option is to use a cheaper means of weed control. An appropriate response from projects such as
ours appears to be to improve the information available to, and skills of, farmers in using
appropriate (softer) chemicals to achieve cost-effective crop production. However, it is not known
whether such a practice is ‘sustainable’.
Capacity building for Cambodian personnel by the project has involved Australian PhD study
for one Cambodian researcher in IPM; training of local research and extension officers in field
identification of insects for IPM, the production and distribution of a weed identification manual,and training workshops for economic and statistical analysis; and discussions with farmer groups
about the crop profit framework including returns, costs and profits.
New research ideas and priorities have been developed in the course of the project, using acontinuous improvement and innovation approach to (1) review, (2) plan, (3) act, and (4) evaluate
project activities. This allowed revision of thinking about project focus, from which new activities
and information were developed. This information was transmitted to farmers through project
activities which included the local agricultural extension network. Other ways of taking new ideas
to upland communities included preparation of education material for primary school curricula(Martin et al. 2010) and further investigation of placing technical material in university courses.
CONCLUSION
As individual project members we have come to this work with our own ideas on agriculturaldevelopment ethics and agricultural development paradigms. The institutional setting ofagricultural development entities in Cambodia (the Government, government institutions andNGOs) have set out their priorities in the stated visions and mission statements as specified here.
Our work has been within the spirit of those institutional objectives and consistent with anagricultural development ethic that is aimed at making immediate improvements in the welfare of
Cambodian upland farm families while minimizing detrimental effects on the natural environment
and local communities.
REFERENCESCARDI (http://www.cardi.org.kh/).
CARE (https://www.careinternational.org.uk/11231/cambodia/care-in-cambodia.html).
Chrispeels, Maartin J. and Mandoli, Dina F. (2003) Agricultural ethics. Plant Physiology, 132, 4-9.
CIMMYT (1988) From agronomic data to farmer recommendations, An economics training manual. Mexico.
Dillon, John L. and Hardaker, J. Brian (1993) Farm management research for small farmer development.
FAO Farm Systems Management Series, 6, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Italy.
Farquharson, R., Chea, S., Chapho, S., Bell, R., Seng, V., Vance, W., Martin, R., Ung, S. and Scott, F.
(2006a) Contemporary practices, constraints and opportunities for non-rice crops in Cambodia.
Cambodian Journal of Agriculture, 7(1), 1-12.
Farquharson, R.J., Chea, S., Chapho, S., Martin, R.J., Haigh, B.M., Scott, J.F. and Ung, S., (2006b) Changes
in management can improve returns from Cambodian upland crops. Paper presented at the 26th
Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, 12-18, Australia.
Farquharson Bob, Scott Fiona and Chea Sareth (2008) Upland crop technologies in Cambodia, Economic
evaluations and some adoption issues. Contributed paper to the 52nd Annual Conference of theAustralian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Australia. (http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.
au/staff/farquharson.html).
IFPRI (http://www.ifpri.org/book-753/ourwork/program/2020-vision-food-agriculture-and-environment).
Kiereini Wanjiku (2007) Assessment of market needs and opportunities for farmers in Pailin. CARE
International in Cambodia, Cambodia.
© ISERD

202

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Madzivhandila Percy, Groenewald Izak, Griffith Garry and Fleming Euan (2008) Continuous improvement
and innovation as an approach to effective research and development, A ‘Trident’ evaluation of the beef
profit partnerships project. Contributed paper to the 52nd Annual Conference of the Australian
Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Inc., Australia.
Malcolm Bill, Makeham Jack and Wright Vic (2005) The farming game. Agricultural Management andMarketing, Cambridge University Press, UK.
Martin Robert and Chanthy Pol (2007) Weeds of upland crops in Cambodia. New South Wales Departmentof Primary Industries (http://www.cardi.org.kh/images/stories/Books/PDF).
Martin Robert J., Matthews Wendy, Bognar Stephan D., Ourm Narap and Keo Kynal (2010) The ‘Jorani’Project, Incorporating principles of sustainable rural development into the education system of
Cambodia. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development, 1(1), 181-187.
MJP (http://www.mjpasia.org/).
MJP (2008) Survey report, Vulnerable households in MV Samlaut. MJP Foundation Agriculture Department,
Mimeo.
Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. and Wilkinson, R. (2006) Understanding andpromoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture, 46, 1407-1424.
Samaiyar Priyajit and Sopheap Seth (2007a) Baseline survey report, Pailin food security project. European
Commission.
Samaiyar Priyajit and Sopheap Seth (2007b) Baseline survey report, Australia Cambodia integrated mine
action project. European Commission.
Sedara Kim, Sophal Chan and Acharya Sarthi (2002) Land, rural livelihoods and food security in Cambodia.
Working Paper, 24, Cambodian Development Research Institute, Cambodia.
Scott Fiona and Freeman Lex (2007) Gross margin budget report, MJP farmer demonstrations. Samlaut
District, Mimeo.
Scott Fiona (2008) Economic evaluation, Workshop on implementation of on-farm demonstrations ofimproved practices for upland crops. ACIAR Project Number ASEM/2006/130, The ATSE Crawford
Fund, Cambodia.
Sophal Chan and Acharya Sarthi (2002) Facing the challenge of rural livelihoods, A perspective from ninevillages in Cambodia. Working Paper, 25, Cambodian Development Research Institute, Cambodia.
de Zeeuw Henk and Wilbers Joanna (2004) PRA tools for studying urban agriculture and gender. The
Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Forestry, Mimeo.

© ISERD

203