One emerging trend in the world economy has been a rush byindustralised nations and first world corporations to secure massivechunks of land in developing countries. As many as fifteen majorcountries including China, Gulf States, India, Japan, and South Koreahave been grabbing large tracks of farm land in Latin America andAfrica. They share a long term view that in the next twenty years orso they will find it difficult to produce foods for their ownpopulation. Their main aim is thus to secure food supplies, and asalways, profits.
Cambodia has become one of the targets of the onslaught. As of 2007,almost one million hectares of rural land concessions were granted tomultinational ventures for mega agricultural estates; about half ofthem are Chinese owned. Latest comer Kuwait gave Cambodia last Augusta $546 million agricultural loan in return for crop productions. Bothgovernments have just signed, among others, to set up an irrigationinfrastructure project worth $350 million covering 130,000 hectares ofarable land. Kuwait is encouraged to import rice from Cambodia for itslocal consumption and export to third countries.
Cambodia will benefit from the land deals and the equivalentdevelopment promised by those foreign investors. It has a chance togrow the economy with new roads, infrastructure, irrigation,technology, etc... Some privileged Cambodians, particularly those whoorganise the land sales and leases, have already pocketed veryhandsome profits, and/or secured shares in joint ventures with thoseinvestors.
Nevertheless, other part of the country has begun to feel the pain.Small land and farm owners are either evicted without appropriatecompensations or coerced to sell their properties far below marketprices. The UN reports a lack of environmental and social assessmentsin Cambodia’s concessions. Global Witness claims the concession inMondulkiri encroaches on grazing grounds, destroyed sacred sites, andused toxic herbicides.
The pain will, without vision and effective interventions, get worsein the stampede. The foreigners prefer their own skilled labour forconstructing and managing their mega agricultural estate projects,which are capital intensive, requiring minimum unskilled labour.Hence, Cambodia with its predominantly unskilled and under-employedworkforce is unlikely to benefit much from these mega projects.
Another major cost to Cambodia is higher prices it will pay for theestates produce, unless local supplies remained plentiful. Cropproductions, including rice, from these estates will first go todistribution centres in the investors’ countries. From there, if theyreturn to Cambodia, they will come with price tags that incorporateoncosts, including freight and possibly value added. And if Cambodiadoes not by then own any freight businesses, it will miss out again.
The list of costs and benefits goes on; and experts can debate themuntil the cow comes home. However, while the investors understandablymaximise their profits and may play the zero-sum game, it is up toCambodia to grab its fair share. Otherwise, it is likely to be crushedin the stampede with only crumbs, pain, and perhaps food insecurity.
Ung Bun Ang
Quotable Quote:
“Economic globalisation has brought prosperity and development to manycountries, but also financial crises to Asia, Latin America andRussia, and increasing poverty and marginalisation... States have theresponsibility to create rules and conditions for growth anddevelopment, and to channel the benefits to all citizens by providingeducation and making people able to participate in the economies, andin decision-making.”
Anna Lindh, (1957-2003), Swedish Politician |
