Evictions and forced relocation, the real cost of economic growth in Cambodia

During a recent visit of some colleagues to Cambodia, I joined a field trip to the An Dong relocation site. On the way to the site, we lost our way. Our guide, a very dedicated volunteer in one of the human rights NGOs in Cambodia, cannot recognise the changed landscape with new roads being built and rice paddies along the way getting covered with earth and fenced with concrete walls.

An Dong is only 22 kilometers from the centre of Phnom Penh, but more importantly, only 7 kilometers away from the Pochentong Airport. It became home, starting in June 2006, to around 1600 families who were evicted from Sambok Chab village in the capital Phnom Penh. The location is now site of an exclusive housing estate, one of the most prestigious residential communities in Phnom Penh.  Quite recently, some 100 families, the remainder of more than a 1,000 who were residents of Dey Krahorm, another community in a prime location in the city, were forcibly evicted and their homes bulldozed by a combined force of police and security personnel of the company that has acquired the property from the government. Dey Kahorm happens to be across the road from the new complex of majestic buildings that house the National Assembly and the soon-to-rise Australian embassy compound.

Development, progress, growth

From the coastal cities of Sihanoukville and Koh Kong, to the forests of Kratie and Preah Vihear, to the mountains of Rattanakiri and Mondulkiri, cases of land conflicts abound. Invariably, the cases involved poor communities in losing battles against wealthy and influential landowners. Invariably the poor end up losing access, and in some cases, even their established rights to land. In a good number of these cases, a number of community members involved were left with not much choice but to sell or accept compensation for the eviction. Some lost their lives and many were hurt staking and standing by their claim.

Meanwhile, in Phnom Penh and in the rest of the country, the price of real estate continues to rise at spectacular rates (although it tapered recently due to the global financial crisis). High-rise residential and commercial buildings are either built, under construction, about to be built, or even just rumoured or advertised to be built. Grand hotels and casinos and sprawling housing complexes mushroomed even in places where one does not expect them to be built. Lakes and floodplains were covered and more residential areas are in the plans for clearing to give way to high-end residential and commercial prime properties. In the not-so-distant future, one can see the An Dong relocation site standing in the way of this kind of development. Like most communities throughout the country, it may just be a matter of time, before residents are once more asked, or more accurately, forced, to leave.

Regardless of the way that rights over these lands fall into the hands of the moneyed and powerful, and setting aside ofr a while the entitlements of the evicted residents to just compensation (in various forms) one thing is certain: the bullish market for land has been driving the  frenzy for the accumulation of what most Cambodians consider to be life itself. For Cambodians, land is not only life itself. More than a source of living, it embodied their identity and history. Land has been witness to their anguish and suffering, as well as a testimony to their hope and resilience as a people. In the last 10 years or so, land has proven to be the most profitable investment for anyone who has capital, moreso if one has capital and political influence, and even more so if this is combined with access to the coercive instruments of state – the police and military. In the 5 years before 2008, the Cambodian economy has been growing at an annual average of 11%, rated by the WB as one of the best-performing economies of the world (the 4th, if I am not mistaken).

Economic Land Concessions

In the countryside, many community claims to land and land-based resources such as forests, had to give way to economic land concessions. Mandated in the Cambodia Land Law of (2000), economic land concessions or ELC allow private companies to lease up to 10,000 hectares of land for commercial agro-forestry purposes for a period of 50 years, renewable for another 25 years. Economic land concessions were conceived to attract much needed investment specifically to agriculture and agro-forestry and generally to the rural areas, where 80% of the population is found and where most people depend on natural resources for their livelihood and subsistence. By 2006, there are over 95 approved ELC, in theory, covering a maximum of 950 hectares of land and forestry area.

In reality, people can rarely point out the actual boundaries of these concessions. Nobody can tell exactly how big are the holdings of one company, or whether a company who have rights to vast contiguous swathes of land is only masquerading as a number of different companies. One such company, notorious for its vast landholdings and forest concessions is reputed to hold 315,000 hectares of ELC in contiguous forest areas in the western part of the country. These investments are expected to boost agricultural and agro-forestry production, create jobs, generate income, and hence contribute to the development of the country.

A study in 2007 conducted by a reputable research institute in Cambodia indicate that based on the approved ELC applications of these companies and on their actual operations, the concessions were only able to deliver a combined total of 5% of what they promised in terms of production, revenue, and employment. One ELC I had the rare privelege to visit in Pursat Province has so far cleared 20% of a 50,000 hectare forest area before being stopped by the provincial governor from further clearing. The manager who surprisingly was willing to discuss the concession operations with visitors complained that this is a problem, getting in the way of the concession and halting the march of progress for the community.

I asked what have they done with the area cleared so far, he said that they have put in several heads of cattle, dug  ponds for small scale fish production, and planted some fruit trees. And how many people from the community have they employed so far? 12. The manager explained that this is because, besides the fact that the governor has stopped the concession from clearing the forest, the community people are lazy and did not want to work in the concession for fear of being seen as poor.

Talking to the community of about 500 families later, I discovered that they used to rely on the forest not only for their subsistence, water, and other basic needs such as food, building materials for their houses, and medicines, they also have a temple located inside the forest. Now they are prevented from accessing any of these and many were forced to leave the community. They also said that when they had access to the forest, they are able to earn at least $20 per month for selling whatever products they get from it. The company offers $12 in monthly salary. Meanwhile, the ELC holders seem bent on sitting it out, unwilling to infuse further capital into the now idle land, and perhaps hoping that one day someone will come along to buy them out of the concession.

It reminded me of the house next to the one I’m renting in Phnom Penh. The property must have been sold 4 times in the last two years I’ve been staying there. According to my landlord, his own property was worth USD180,000 five years ago (with $30,000 of it owing to the personalised woodwork he had ordered for the house). Now, he claims, his property should easily sell for $500,000. Those who have already cashed in, at best, have invested in more lands and other potential prime properties. Many others bought imported Lexus cars and Hummers. All throughout the land, this and many other similar stories about value appreciation of property and instant wealth are multiplied manifold, perhaps fuelling a large part of what is perceived by many as miraculous economic growth and development for the country.

Risks and costs of miracles

A great boxing nation

 

The People's Champ

Few would have realised beforehand how lethal a Manny Pacquiao killer punch actually is.

For the many who have had the misfortune of having been at the receiving end of it, the realisation always came too late. It was either when they were on their way down before hitting the canvas or long after they have regained post-fight consciousness. It is not mere under-estimation on their part, as any good boxer would have trained hard and expect to be at their very best on fight night. It is rather a lack of comprehension of what they are up against. Just when they thought they had Pacquiao’s numbers, they were mercilessly proven to be dead wrong.

Pacquiao vs Hatton

In the end, boxing is a battle between two people. Victory is about understanding how good one’s foe is and making sure that one can do much better… and more. It is no mystery that the fortunate few who managed to come back and get a second shot at the Pac-man fared better than the others or themselves when they first encountered the grinning predator. They more or less understood how impossible the task was - to best a Manny Pacquiao who seems to keep getting better as a boxer.

This realisation came in the form of a hazy afterthought in Hatton’s case. From someone who has been planning ahead for a victory party and ultimately a 3-fight retirement plan, Hatton is suddenly faced with the prospect of a halted career in the heels of a crushing 2-round KO defeat to the Filipino Pacquiao. (Incidentally, pakyaw, which is how Pacquiao should be pronounced, in Filipino means “wholesale or a contract for the whole job,” as against daily wage, for example. In Manny’s case, it could very well mean “to take everything,” hence the monicker Pac-man.) Indeed, everything he has ever dreamed of, and so much more, are now his for the taking.

Much has been said about Pacquiao being a hero to the hapless Filipinos. It is perhaps only the Filipinos who have openly expressed their adulation of the boxing great. Beyond the third-world throngs of supporters, every other boxing fan throughout the world surely feel the same, although they may successfully keep themselves from swooning over the power, speed, and style with which the Filipno boxer disposes of opponents almost everytime he steps into the ring. None even among his foes had anything bad to say about him even after suffering defeat in his hands, except perhaps for Juan Manuel Marquez, who has probably suffered too many blows to his head for his own sanity. Floyd Mayweather Jr. may very well send JMM to his much needed retirement shortly.

Filipinos, meanwhile, would probably do well to reflect on two things: First, how can the Philippines transform from a Manny Pacquiao country to a truly great boxing nation? Second, how can the Philippines transform from a nation who needs heroes, to a nation that looks after their heroes long after they have fallen from grace?

Since the turn of the century, the country has given birth to boxing greats who can be counted among the best of the best in the sport. From Pancho Villa in the early 1900s, Flash Elorde in the 50s, Rolando Navarrete in the 80s, to Luisito Espinosa and Doddy Boy Peñalosa in the 90s. And who could forget Onyok Velasco – denied a gold in the Olympics? Now, it is the reign of Manny Pacquiao, arguably the best there ever was, symbolising all that an ordinary Pinoy could wish for. For a nation that is so enamored with the sport, it is a wonder why our boxing champions came few and far between. The Filipinos will continue to blur the distinction between hero-worship and genuine love of the sport, until Pacquiao stops becoming the beloved champion. Then the Filipnos’ love of boxing as a sport will have to wait until a new hero comes along. Such is the way that the Filipinos took to pool, when Efren “Bata” Reyes lorded it over the table. Such is the way that Filipinos took to excellence; to anything that can make the nation great – whether it is a boxing legend or a great political leader. They are so rare they are treasured and worshipped by the masses to legendary status.

Too many of them boxers.

I wish success could come just as emphatically to, and that as a nation, we could afford the same respect and admiration for, the non-boxers who make equally glorious, if not greater, achievements in their chosen fields – medicine, engineering, commerce, the law, politics, etc. There are millions of others who have also toiled heroically in construction sites from Malaysia to Dubai, in ships from the ports of Hong Kong to the Panama and Suez Canals, in hospitals from the Virginia to London, and in homes from Singapore to Lebanon. They are the so-called modern-day heroes, feeding and keeping afloat a nation of 90 million.

Manny Pacquiao, just like millions of Filipinos, was born to a hard life, is hard-working, and continues to hope that his devotion to his Faith will ultimately lead him to a blissful after-life, if not a better life here on earth. But only very few, like Manny Pacquiao, made it out of poverty and misery, in spite of the everyday heroic efforts they make in or out of the boxing ring that is the Philippines society. It goes without saying that salvation usually came at a cost and can be short-lived. From Pancho Villa who died of throat infection when he was barely 24 years old, to Navarrete who had to rely on Pacquiao’s generosity, to Luisito “Earthquake” Espinosa, who now spends his days washing dishes somewhere in the US, we only need to look at the list, and understand what has become of them shortly or long after they stepped out of the square ring into the arena of life.

How many balikbayans went home to a life of disappointment, regret, and the same old poverty after having toiled in foreign lands for most their lives? How I wish that just as the country look to their heroes for national salvation, the heroes can also look to their country for refuge for when they are no longer superstars or the big dollar earners they used to be.

Then can we only refer to our country as a truly great nation. A nation that allows its children to be the best in whatever or wherever they choose to be and welcome them back with open arms and an abundance of choices. A country where a Manny Pacquiao can come home and be just as great being someone else (without politics being the only option).

A people who live the values and the ways of a true champion. A great boxing nation.

(Photos from The Ring Magazine on-line)

The rice shortage and soaring food prices

“World food shortages to stay; Riots a risk: UN.”

“The rice crisis, How could it happen?”

“Manila caught in rice squeeze; experts call for government action.”

These are but a few of the many similar headlines that hog the news these days. It is both surprising and disturbing that something very basic as food is in short supply in a world that claims to have made revolutionary advances in medicine and bio-technology. In the last 10 years, for example, government and international institutions extolled the virtues of hybrid seed technology as the death blow to world hunger and poverty.

Many reasons are cited for the current crisis. Technologists are quick to claim that this is because investment in bio-technology and R & D in agriculture has tapered off. Specifically, this means funding for the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) – yes, they still exist. Economists point to the rising demand for food from developing economies in Asia, particularly China and India, who together account for a third of the world’s population. Related to this, and perhaps more relevant for some countries than others, is the continued growth in population. Yet other analysts blame increasing production cost and decreasing productivity as the major causes of this crisis. Some scientists blame poor, erratic weather. Another telling factor is the depreciation of the US Dollar, which has heavy implications for countries heavily dependent on importation of food, such as the Philippines, one of the world’s biggest importer of rice, as well as the rising cost of oil.

Perhaps all of these given reasons are true but some analyses extend beyond understanding why this is happening. One controversial claim is that the rising food prices benefit farmers and that they are happier these days due to increased earnings. Others predict that the incentive to farmers to plant early and produce more will stave off the crisis in time.

Then of course there are other expected issues of hoarding, pilferage, and other similar criminal tendencies, as well as importation policies, and the role and responsibilities of government of ensuring that their citizens get access to food.

The Philippines government is reported to have buckled down to work, taking over the monopoly of directly distributing cheaper imported rice, raiding warehouses suspected to be involved in hoarding, especially of the highly political commodity, rice, and threatening life imprisonment for those who will be proven guilty of hoarding.

At the global level, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) says international donors should increase funding for food aid. Other technocrats went to town and called for the revival and agreement of the Doha Round of trade talks.

These are all very interesting views and almost invariably expressed by so-called experts – the technocrats, the bureaucrats, the politicians, and not surprisingly, the development experts. Their views heavily laden with serious political and social implications. Meanwhile, the food crisis continue and more poor – including the small producedrs themselves, continue to go hungry.

In short, scarcity, rising cost, increased demand, worsening poverty, and the inability of various responsible actors to address these issues all contributed to this crisis. The solutions being offered are more aid, more subsidies, more technology development, and further trade liberalisation.

 

Technology, more technology

The many views also give way to more questions than useful answers. For one, how much more investment will it take to ensure that technology developed for improving agriculture productivity is also sustainable, without requiring more and more intensive capital and technology input? The answer will probably go against the logic of what has been driving research and technology development in agriculture – and that is profit. Could it be that the solution lies in technology that is not in itself profitable?

Seeds, for one, is a billion dollar industry. According to earlier research, about 70% of all the commercial rice seeds in the global market today, are controlled by only 5 giant multinational agribusiness corporations – led by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, and Cargill. All these seeds, claimed to be products of innovation and biotechnological processes, promise either increased production and added nutritional value – largely seen as keys to ending world hunger. All these seeds are for sale, and whoever uses these seeds, however they are obtained, are liable to pay for the property rights owned by these companies, or face punitive legal actions. Traditionally, farmers freely save and exchange seeds to breed and continue to improve on their crops. Now, they need to make sure that the stocks they use are not under patent or some form of legal, private property rights.

Not surprisingly, most of the technological innovations on seeds carry with them further requirements for more input of equally high-tech fertilisers, pesticides, and other chemicals, before they realise the promise of increased production. Hybrid seeds, for example, if they are to deliver the promised high-volume yield, need to have exact levels of moisture content and undergo very specific milling techniques – possible only with expensive technology-based application of drying, temperature and humidity-controlled storage, and milling facilities – among the many things beyond the reach of most ordinary farmers.

Obviously, millions of dollars have been poured into the development of these technologies. Hence the high cost of use of and access to these technology products. But is there really any motivation, incentive, or support for developing low-cost / free technology or any inexpensive method for increasing agriculture productivity?

Climate Change?

In Cambodia, the use of an unconventional method of rice cultivation called system for rice intensification (SRI) is spreading. The method, developed by a Jesuit priest in Madagascar, goes against the conventional wisdom of rice planting by espousing the use of a single seedling for transplanting and less, highly-controlled use of water. This method is apparently based on scientific observation and inference on the biology of rice plants – allowing for high growth and robust health of the plant, leading to more yield, sometimes boasting of 2 or 3 times the usual volume.

The proponents are quick to clarify that SRI is not as much a technology package than it is about enabling and empowering farmers to understand better the natural processes and biology of rice growth and reproduction, allowing them to experiment and innovate with confidence. It is also as much about critical thinking and endlessly challenging conventional wisdom.

From the modest beginning of 12 farmer families using the method, one of the main proponents and developer of the method, CEDAC, claims that 40,000-50,000 today practice SRI in Cambodia. This is further boosted by the show of support from the government through the creation of a joint government-NGO SRI secretariat within the Department of Agronomy and Land Improvement (DAALI) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).

Yet, the challenges are daunting, and at times, seem insurmountable. Although SRI does espouse, or even require the use of much less amount of water for irrigation, it still cannot work without water. In fact, it is almost equally impossible to make it work with too much water either, which means in Cambodia, the lack of irrigation (true for almost 80% of farmlands) and water management infrastructure means increased vulnerability not only to drought but, equally, to flooding.  

This illustrates a situation when clearly, initiatives by concerned scientists and farmers, make effective, appropraite, and relevant methods accessible to farmers, but bigger problems get in the way. Scientists predict that in this part of the world, global warming will result to increased precipitation, which should be good news for farmers, if they have a way of storing and distributing water effectively. The scale and cost of ensuring this happens will inevitably have to involve not only the national government but would necessitate the coordinated efforts of aid and development agencies operating in Cambodia and in the neighboring countries up- and downstream the Mekong.

Assuming these obstacles are overcome, will this then mean that farmers and poor people in Cambodia will no longer go hungry?

Celebs, Olympics, China, and the news

From the IHT: 

“WASHINGTON: For the past two years, China has protected the Sudanese government as the United States and Britain have pushed for United Nations Security Council sanctions against Sudan for the violence in Darfur.

But in the past week, strange things have happened. A senior Chinese official, Zhai Jun, traveled to Sudan to push the Sudanese government to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force. Zhai even went all the way to Darfur and toured three refugee camps, a rare event for a high-ranking official from China, which has extensive business and oil ties to Sudan and generally avoids telling other countries how to conduct their internal affairs.

So what gives? Credit goes to Hollywood — Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg in particular. Just when it seemed safe to buy a plane ticket to Beijing for the 2008 Olympic Games, nongovernmental organizations and other groups appear to have scored a surprising success in an effort to link the Olympics, which the Chinese government holds very dear, to the killings in Darfur, which, until recently, Beijing had not seemed too concerned about.

Farrow, a good-will ambassador for the United Nations Children’s Fund, has played a crucial role, starting a campaign last month to label the Games in Beijing the “Genocide Olympics” and calling on corporate sponsors and even Spielberg, who is an artistic adviser to China for the Games, to publicly exhort China to do something about Darfur. In a March 28 Op-Ed article in The Wall Street Journal, she warned Spielberg that he could “go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games,” a reference to a German filmmaker who made Nazi propaganda films.

Four days later, Spielberg sent a letter to President Hu Jintao of China, condemning the killings in Darfur and asking the Chinese government to use its influence in the region “to bring an end to the human suffering there,” according to Spielberg’s spokesman, Marvin Levy.

Today in Americas

A mother’s unconventional life is reflected within Obama

Spitzer’s use of campaign funds now under scrutiny

Congress passes $3 trillion budget 

China soon dispatched Zhai to Darfur, a turnaround that served as a classic study of how a pressure campaign, aimed to strike Beijing in a vulnerable spot at a vulnerable time, could accomplish what years of diplomacy could not.

Groups focusing on many issues, including Tibet and human rights, have called for boycotts of the Games next year. But none of those issues have packed the punch of Darfur, where at least 200,000 people — some say as many as 400,000 — mostly non-Arab men, women and children, have died and 2.5 million have been displaced, as government-backed Arab militias called the janjaweed have attacked the local population.”

I have a lot of respect and admiration for celebs Mia Farrow and Spielberg. I hope they and their fellow celebs would develop similarly profound insights, passionate views, and take strong action on other issues such as the invasion of Iraq and the continued occupation of Palestinian territories so those concerned may likewise take action as China did in Sudan.

I was wondering if Mr. Spielberg already knew that China violates human rights and support human rights violators when he accepted the consultancy for the Beijing Olympics. It makes one wonder whether he realised this only now, or he accepted the consultancy just so he can resign in the most grandstanding manner that he just did.

I’ve been watching the news and I’ve never seen the Western media feature any good news on China. When the news is on China, you can be sure it is bad news – from lead-laced dolls from Mattel to the Chinese support to the junta in Myanmar.

I’m not defending China’s actions in Sudan and Myanmar, but I guess the question really is whether China is behaving any worse than any of the powerful countries in the world now. What the news aren’t saying are perhaps equally interesting: for example, the recent feature on Chemical Ali – who’s awaiting execution for his principal role in the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. I wonder where he got the chemical weapons. Or in other words, who sold Saddam Hussein and his cousin those chemical weapons? Who makes chemical weapons? Is there any good use for chemical weapons?

I recall one of the reporters embeded in the invasion forces joined a raid by US troops of an alleged laboratory and warehouse in Basra where suspected chemical weapons are stored and manufactured. In the abandoned warehouse, the journalist and the soldiers found evidence of materials used for making chemical weapons, including gas masks and other paraphernalia. They examined the materials and realised the labels and instructions are in English. We never heard of the raid and its results again.

The same with Cuba, all we hear from the US media is how evil Castro has been for staying in power for so long and how he espoused communism. Almost nothing is mentioned of the fact that Cubans have longer lifespan, lower infant and maternal mortality rates, has universal health care (and apparently not only for its citizens), higher literacy rates, and higher overall HDI than the US. They are better baseball players and boxers, too. More importantly, they can do the mambo. Thanks to Michael Moore for his documentary Sicko, now US citizens know where to get medical attention if they can’t afford it in the US.

Thanks or no thanks to the US-led economic and trade embargo on Cuba, the country is also the most advanced in the development of organic agriculture. That’s another healthy option for US citizens.

blag!

That’s the sound of Manny Pacquiao’s gloved fist landing on Juan Manuel Marquez’s nose, and probably the last sound the latter heard before he landed on the canvas on the third round, the 4th time in their two bouts.

The last time the two exchanged blows in 2004, Marquez kissed the canvas three times in the first round. Then he rallied to salvage a draw.

This time Pacquiao won by split decision. From the score cards, it sounded like it was also a very close fight, prompting the earstwhile super featherweight champion robbed of his belt by the Filipino prizefighter to declare: “It was a wrong decision. I feel I am stronger than Pacquiao. I am still the champion.”

This blog is for sharing my random thoughts and commentaries on the latest news – good or bad (and in this case it is good news) – such as this one, which makes for an interesting dinner conversation with family and friends. Can’t help it, I always find myself making side comments and quips on how ridiculous some news (or some people in the news) sounded.

Marquez may have received more and heavier blows than what was captured by the judges in the recent fight. He sounded like he’s lost the plot. Pacquiao has knocked him down four times in their two fights and yet he asks for more. He apparently asked for a rematch which, he complained, Pacquiao refused to give him. But later, he had the nerve to say that he is still the champion because he is stronger than Pacquiao and the latter knows it that’s why he refused a rematch. He was floored four times. He was never able to knock Pacquiao down. Now he is claiming he is stronger and that he should have won, saying that he believes he is still the champion. 

One must admire him for his belief, but again, doctors should examine him more closely as he may have sustained more damage than what are immediately apparent. If only he can pause for a while and see the bigger picture here: he’s been floored four times in their two matches. He has never knocked Pacquiao down. Who’s the stronger one?

Here’s to sharing with you all my random thoughts and commentaries on the latest news.