Leapfrogging Agricultural Development: Cooperative Initiatives Among Cambodian Small Farmers to Handle Sustainability Constraints

  • Arnim ScheidelEmail author
  • Bunchhorn Lim
  • Kimchhin Sok
  • Piseth Duk
Part of the Human-Environment Interactions book series (HUEN, volume 7)


Many small farmers across Cambodia are currently facing multidimensional sustainability challenges, such as the need to produce sufficient food for home consumption and income generation, while keeping pressures on land, labour and the environment at bay. This chapter illustrates these challenges through the socio-metabolic analysis of a non-industrialized rice farming village in Kampot Province. Apart from these challenges, the chapter also describes how some villagers have adopted a series of ‘low-capital’ and cooperative innovations and initiatives to handle some of these issues. At the same time, they have partly bypassed more conventional pathways such as green revolution techniques and the transition to fossil LP gas fuels. The adopted initiatives include agroecological techniques such as the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), to increase yields while reducing farming inputs; a small-scale biogas system for cooking and lighting; a community bank to address villagers’ financial needs; a community-operated paddy rice bank to manage transitory food shortages; and a rice mill association to increase farmers’ market performance. These developments can enhance the sustainability of resource use patterns, understood to be strongly embedded in local socio-economic dynamics. Diffusion of such cooperative, knowledge-based initiatives in the small-scale farming economy therefore bears the potential to leapfrog more conventional agricultural development pathways. Simultaneously, they can foment the creation of local agroecological knowledge, cascading resource uses and the closing of nutrient cycles, as well as economic democratization and a fairer participation of farmers in the food trade chain. Cooperative agricultural development may thus be vital for local sustainable food systems.


Cooperative economy Leapfrogging System of rice intensification Community finance Biogas digester Paddy rice bank Cambodia 


  1. ACI. (2005). Final Report for the Cambodian Agrarian Structure Study. Prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Royal Government of Cambodia, the World Bank, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Government of Germany/G. Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  2. ADB. (2001). Participatory poverty assessment in Cambodia. Manila: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  3. ADB. (2012). Technical Assistance Consultant’ s Report: The Rice Situation in Cambodia.Google Scholar
  4. Anthofer, J. (2004). The potential of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) for poverty reduction in Cambodia, Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. Badar, R., & Qureshi, S. A. (2014). Composted rice husk improves the growth and biochemical parameters of sunflower plants. Journal of Botany, 2014, 1–7. doi: 10.1155/2014/427648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballard, B. (2006). Land tenure database development in Cambodia. In M. Torhonen, P. Groppo (Eds.), Land reform—Land settlement and cooperatives (pp. 71–82). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).Google Scholar
  7. CCHR. (2013). Cambodia: Land in conflict. An overview of the land situation. Phnom Penh.Google Scholar
  8. Chandler, D. (2008). A history of Cambodia (4th ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ches, S., & Yamaji, E. (2016). Labor requirements of system of rice intensification (SRI) in Cambodia. Paddy and Water Environment, 14, 335–342. doi: 10.1007/s10333-015-0503-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diepart, J.-C. (2015). The fragmentation of land tenure systems in Cambodia: Peasants and the formalization of land rights. Paris.Google Scholar
  11. Ellis, F. (2000). The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51, 289–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01229.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EMC. (2015). Sustainability study of savings group programs in Cambodia for CARE, Oxfam, and Pact. Phnom Penh.Google Scholar
  13. Erb, K. H. (2012). How a socio-ecological metabolism approach can help to advance our understanding of changes in land-use intensity. Ecological Economics, 76, 8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, A., & Ford, C. (2003). A technical guide to rural finance. Madison: World Council of Credit Unions.Google Scholar
  15. Fairbairn, B. (1991). Farmers, capital, and the state in Germany, c. 1860–1914. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  16. FAO. (2015). FAO Statistical Databases. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  17. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerber, J.-F. (2013). The hidden consequences of credit: An illustration from rural Indonesia. Development and Change, 44, 839–860. doi: 10.1111/dech.12045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giampietro, M. (2003). Multi-scale integrated analysis of agroecosystems. Florida: CRC Press LLC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2000a). Multiple-scale integrated assessment of societal metabolism: Introducing the approach. Population and Environment, 22, 109–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2000b). Multiple-scale integrated assessments of societal metabolism: Integrating biophysical and economic representations across scales. Population and Environment, 22, 155–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., & Ramos-Martin, J. (2009). Multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism (MuSIASEM): Theoretical concepts and basic rationale. Energy, 34, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., et al. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(80), 812–818.Google Scholar
  24. Goglio, S., & Leonardi, A. (2010). The roots of cooperative credit from a theoretical and historical perspective. Trento: European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises.Google Scholar
  25. Gomiero, T., & Giampietro, M. (2001). Multiple-scale integrated analysis of farming systems: The Thuong Lo Commune (Vietnamese Uplands) case study. Population and Environment, 22, 315–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gotaas, H. B. (1956). Composting: Sanitary disposal and reclamation of organic wastes. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO).Google Scholar
  27. Grimsditch, M., & Schoenberger, L. (2015). New actions and existing policies: The implementation and impacts of Order 01. Phnom Penh.Google Scholar
  28. Grünbühel, C., & Schandl, H. (2005). Using land-time-budgets to analyse farming systems and poverty alleviation policies in the Lao PDR. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 5, 142–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hecht, S. (2010). The new rurality: Globalization, peasants and the paradoxes of landscapes. Land Use Policy, 27, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heuveline, P. (1998). “Between One and Three Million”: Towards the demographic reconstruction of a decade of Cambodian history (1970–79). Population Studies (New York), 52, 49–65. doi: 10.1080/0032472031000150176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IRRI. (2013). A second life for rice husk. Rice Today April–June.Google Scholar
  32. Jiao, X., Smith-Hall, C., & Theilade, I. (2015). Rural household incomes and land grabbing in Cambodia. Land Use Policy, 48, 317–328. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelly, P. F. (2011). Migration, agrarian transition, and rural change in Southeast Asia. Critical Asian Studies, 43, 479–506. doi: 10.1080/14672715.2011.623516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kneiding, C., & Rosenberg, R. (2008). Variations in microcredit interest rates. CGAP policy brief, July 2008.Google Scholar
  35. KOICA/UNEP/CAPS. (2011). Biogas digesters for Cambodians: A multi-partner national biodigester program in Cambodia.Google Scholar
  36. Leisz, S. J., Rasmussen, K., Olesen, J. E., et al. (2007). The impacts of local farming system development trajectories on greenhouse gas emissions in the northern mountains of Vietnam. Regional Environmental Change, 7, 187–208. doi: 10.1007/s10113-007-0037-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leuprecht, P. (2004). Land concessions for economic purposes in Cambodia. A human rights perspective. Special Representative of the Secretary General of Human Rights in Cambodia, Phnom Penh.Google Scholar
  38. Licadho. (2009). Land grabbing and poverty in Cambodia: The myth of development. LICADHO—Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights, Phnom Penh.Google Scholar
  39. Licadho. (2015). Cambodia’s concessions. Accessed 23 Nov 2015.
  40. MAFF. (2014). Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). Accessed 12 June 2016.
  41. Mayer, A., Schaffartzik, A., Haas, W., & Sepulveda, A. R. (2015). Patterns of global biomass trade: Implications for food sovereignity and socio-environmental conflicts.Google Scholar
  42. Moser, C. M., & Barrett, C. B. (2003). The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing, low external-input technology: The case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Systems, 76, 1085–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. NBP. (2015). National Biodigester Programme Cambodia. Accessed 19 May 2016.
  44. NCDD. (2009). Kampot Data Book. Phnom Penh: National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development (NCDD).Google Scholar
  45. NIS. (2007). Cambodia socio-economic survey 2004—Time use in Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: National Institute of Statistics (NIS), Ministry of Planning.Google Scholar
  46. NIS. (2008). Cambodia general population census 2008. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: National Institute of Statistics (NIS), Ministry of Planning.Google Scholar
  47. NIS. (2010). Cambodia socio-economic survey 2009. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: National Institute of Statistics (NIS), Ministry of Planning.Google Scholar
  48. NIS. (2015). Census of agriculture of the Kingdom of Cambodia 2013. Phnom Penh.Google Scholar
  49. OECD/IEA. (2007). Chapter 15 Energy for cooking in developing countries. In World Energy Outlook 2006 (pp. 419–445). Paris: International Energy Agency (IEA) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).Google Scholar
  50. Oxfam. (2014). Study on women’s empowerment and leadership in saving for change groups in Cambodia.Google Scholar
  51. Pastore, G., Giampietro, M., & Ji, L. (1999). Conventional and land-time budget analysis of rural villages in Hubei Province, China. CRC Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 18, 331–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Patel, R. (2012). The long green revolution. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 6150, 1–63. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2012.719224.Google Scholar
  53. Perkins, R. (2003). Environmental leapfrogging in developing countries: A critical assessment and reconstruction. Natural Resources Forum, 27, 177–188. doi: 10.1111/1477-8947.00053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pingali, P. (2012). Green revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 109, 12302–12308. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912953109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ravera, F., Scheidel, A., Dell’Angelo, J., et al. (2014). Pathways of rural change: An integrated assessment of metabolic patterns in emerging ruralities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 16, 811–820. doi: 10.1007/s10668-014-9534-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheidel, A. (2013). From MuSIASEM theory to practice: Reflections and experiences from field research in Kampot Province, Cambodia. Working Paper on Environmental Sciences. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona.Google Scholar
  57. Scheidel, A. (2016). Tactics of land capture through claims of poverty reduction in Cambodia. Geoforum, 75, 110–114. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.06.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scheidel, A., & Farrell, K. N. (2015). Small-scale cooperative banking and the production of capital: Reflecting on the role of institutional agreements in supporting rural livelihood in Kampot, Cambodia. Ecological Economics, 119, 230–240. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scheidel, A., Farrell, K. N., Ramos-Martin, J., et al. (2014). Land poverty and emerging ruralities in Cambodia: Insights from Kampot province. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 16, 823–840. doi: 10.1007/s10668-014-9529-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scheidel, A., Giampietro, M., & Ramos-Martin, J. (2013). Self-sufficiency or surplus: Conflicting local and national rural development goals in Cambodia. Land Use Policy, 34, 342–352. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scurrah, N., & Hirsch, P. (2015). The political economy of land governance in Cambodia, 23.Google Scholar
  62. Serrano-Tovar, T., & Giampietro, M. (2014). Multi-scale integrated analysis of rural Laos: Studying metabolic patterns of land uses across different levels and scales. Land Use Policy, 36, 155–170. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Singh, S. J., Ringhofer, L., Haas, W., et al. (2010). Local studies manual—A researcher’s guide for investigating the social metabolism of local rural systems. Vienna: Institute for Social Ecology, IFF Vienna, Alpen-Adria University of Klagenfurt.Google Scholar
  64. Snyder, C. S., Bruulsema, T. W., Jensen, T. L., & Fixen, P. E. (2009). Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133, 247–266. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. SRI-Rice. (2015). SRI International Network and Resources Center, Cambodia. In Cornell University—College of Agriculture and Life Science. Accessed 20 May 2016.
  66. Stoop, W. A., Uphoff, N., & Kassam, A. (2002). A review of agricultural research issues raised by the system of rice intensification (SRI) from Madagascar: opportunities for improving farming systems for resource-poor farmers. Agricultural Systems, 71, 249–274.Google Scholar
  67. Theng, V., Khiev, P., & Phon, D. (2014). Development of the fertiliser industry in Cambodia: Structure of the market, challenges in the demand and supply sides, and the way forward. Phnom Penh.Google Scholar
  68. Tilman, D. (1999). Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 5995–6000. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.11.5995.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. UNDP. (2008). Residential energy demand in rural Cambodia: An empirical study for Kampong Speu and Svay Rieng.Google Scholar
  70. Uphoff, N. (1999). Agroecological implications of the system of rice intensification (SRI) in Madagascar. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ward, B., & Lewis, J. (2002). Making the most of every pound that enters your local economy. London: The New Economics Foundation (NEF).Google Scholar
  72. WHO. (2002). The health effects of indoor air pollution exposure in developing countries. Geneva.Google Scholar
  73. World Bank. (2015). Data Catalog.Google Scholar
  74. Yusuf, A. A., & Francisco, H. (2009). Climate change vulnerability mapping for Southeast Asia. Singapore.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnim Scheidel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bunchhorn Lim
    • 2
  • Kimchhin Sok
    • 3
  • Piseth Duk
    • 3
  1. 1.International Institute of Social Studies (ISS)Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR)The HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of CommerceKampong Thom ProvinceCambodia
  3. 3.Ecosystem Services and Land Use Research Centre (ECOLAND)Royal University of Agriculture (RUA)Phnom PenhCambodia

Personalised recommendations