The main sectors that drive Cambodia’s economic growth are Agriculture (including Fisheries and
Forestry), Industry and Service. Each sector’s share of GDP is 28%, 28.6% and 38.3%, respectively
(NIS, 2008). The Strategic National Development Plan (SNDP) places the agricultural sector as the
central focus of Cambodian development for the next decade, and it is believed that agriculture sector
will be a major contributing factor to inclusive growth (CDRI, 2012). The agricultural sector
currently employs 59% of Cambodia’s total labor force (NIS, 2008).
The industry that generates the most money in Cambodia is Textile, Wearing Apparel and
Footwear (CDRI, 2007). However, the garments produced in Cambodia are created from raw materials
supplied from outside of Cambodia, including fabrics. The Royal Government of Cambodia
(RGC) believes that once the agricultural sector is developed, Cambodia can produce the raw materials
(the agro-industrials) to supply to industry, particularly cotton and rubber. Therefore, the
growth of agriculture will contribute to the growth of the industrial sector.
Paddy rice is the central livelihood of rural people. More than 50% of Cambodian workers are
employed in the agriculture sector, the majority of whom work in the cultivation and harvesting of
paddy rice. Cambodia’s 2008 general census (NIS, 2008) showed that more than 80% of Cambodians
live in rural area and are engaged in subsistence farming. Approximately 47% of them own less
than one hectare of land and have an average of five household members; more than one-fourth of
erd
Special Contribution on EFA and ESD Rsearch article
IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2
ⒸISERD
29
all households in Cambodia are headed by females (NIS, 2009). The majority of paddy fields are
rain fed; therefore, the planting index of rice in Cambodia is around 1.2 per year (MoE, 2005).
Cambodia’s rice yield is low at around two tons per hectare compared to approximately three tons
per hectare in Vietnam and Thailand (Yu and Fan, 2011).
Agricultural activities in Cambodia are not sophisticated and require only low levels of skills
and training. Farmers have an average of seven years of education (NIS, 2009). With this level of
education, it is hard for agricultural experts to share knowledge and skills about how to use hightech
equipment to improve agricultural practices. Since many farmers are still using traditional
methods and tools to cultivate their land, Cambodian farmers are highly sensitive to environmental
changes, especially drought.
Frequently, Cambodia experiences floods, drought, windstorms, insect outbreaks, underground
water salinisation and seawater intrusion (MoE, 2005). Since the country is heavily dependent
on the agriculture sector, these natural hazards have severe effects on the livelihoods of the
80% of Cambodians who live in rural areas (MoE, 2005, NCDM, 2008, Geres-Cambodia, 2009,
MoE and UNDP Cambodia, 2011). On a national scale, flood and drought caused crises in three
consecutive years from 2000 to 2002. Flooding in 2000 was considered the most severe in four
decades and was followed by flooding of a similar intensity in 2001, while in 2002 both flood and
drought hit the country (Chan and Sarthi, 2002).
Due to the negative effects of natural calamities caused by climate change on the agricultural
industry, achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in Cambodia may be hindered, especially
the elimination of poverty and hunger. The United Nations World Food Program (WFP,
2003) identified provinces along the Mekong River as areas prone to flooding and flash flooding,
and found that more than 80% of famers are living in drought-prone areas in Cambodia. This is of
great concern as the irrigation scheme is very limited in Cambodia. Assessments from government
institutions show that flooding did similar damage to drought (Fig. 1) (MoE, 2006). The Economy
and Environment Program for Southeast Asia’s (EEPSEA) Framework to Assess Climate Change
Vulnerability demonstrated that Cambodia is highly vulnerable to climate change; not because of
exposure but because of its low adaptive capacity (Yusuf and Francisco, 2010).
Fig. 1 Flood and drought damages on rice fields in Cambodia 1982-2007
Source: Am, 2010
Shocks, including natural disasters, are regarded as the driving force that pushes vulnerable
people into extreme poverty, especially those who have few assets or savings (World Bank, 2006).
A case study by the Analyzing Development Issues (ADI) Team found that the severe floods and
drought in Cambodia that occurred in 2000/01 and 2004/05 contributed to crop failure and that
people exploited common pool resources (Ang et al., 2007). Droughts have impact when they occur
during the three stages of rice production activities: planting (June-July), growing (AugustSeptember)
and harvesting (October-November) period. At a national level, the National Adaptation
Programme of Action (NAPA) has been developed to mitigate the impact of climate change,
which includes a proposal for an irrigation scheme and a flood prevention dike (MoE, 2006). NAPA
states that the Agriculture and Water resource sectors are the highest priority in both short- and
long-term strategies.
IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2
ⒸISERD
30
This paper investigates the impacts of climate change on farmers in the Kampong Speu (KPS)
province, specifically the dynamic impacts on households. It argues that the natural hazards faced
by households in this province are the major factors in preventing people from escaping poverty
and that integrated policy intervention is necessary to address climate change impacts.
METHODOLOGY
Vulnerability framework
Vulnerability is defined differently in different disciplines. In this study, we adopt the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) definition: “The degree to which a system is susceptible
to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability
and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change
and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” (McCarthy et
al., 2001, p. 995).
Exposure to environmental hazards, especially flood and drought, has been well studied in
many countries where agriculture is dominant. Methods employed to understand the nature of these
climate-induced disasters vary from author to author. Liverman’s (1990) study on vulnerability of
farmers to drought in Mexico, for example, suggests that using diverse quantitative data makes it
possible to identify the places and people who are prone to drought. National Committee for Disaster
Management (NCDM) (2003) identified where drought and flooding occurred through examining
the affected areas, rice dependency and food security based on rice production in Cambodia.
Vulnerability is conceptualized by many scholars (Adger, 2006, Eriksen and O'Brien, 2007,
Smit et al., 1996, Smith et al., 2000, Smit and Wandel, 2006). It can be best understood as an interaction
between exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. At any point in time, the greater the
exposure (of people, agricultural systems and businesses), the higher the vulnerability. Vulnerability,
however, is reduced when the sensitivity of the system(s) is lower. Sensitivity decreases or increases
over time due to the adaptation measures taken following the disaster(s). If exposure and
sensitivity remain constant from household to household, adaptive capacity of individual households
will be highly associated with their vulnerabilities.
This study adopts the approach to measuring household economic vulnerability posited and
elaborated in Chaudhuri’s (2003) study of household vulnerability. Household vulnerability as expected
poverty is defined as the probability that households will move into poverty given certain
environmental shocks, current poverty status and household characteristics of respondents. While
poverty reflects the current state of deprivation, vulnerability reflects what a household’s future
prospects are (Elbers and Jan, 2003). Thus, a household’s consumption or income can be regressed
on household characteristics and shocks in order to obtain the estimated coefficients to be used for
further prediction of the household’s future poverty. In this regard, households with high predicted
poverty are considered vulnerable. Unlike Chaudhuri (2003), who analysed households’ monthly
per capita consumption expenditure, this study analyses households’ monthly income to measure
the household vulnerability index due to the lack of expenditure data.
Technically, the household vulnerability index is derived from the difference between the expected
log per capita income and the minimum log per capita income threshold, with households
having per capita incomes lower than the minimum per capita income defined as vulnerable (poor).
The expected log per capita income is estimated using the three-step feasible generalised least
squares (FGLS) method.
The predictors of log per capita income used in the analysis include: droughts in the past 12
years (dummy); windstorms in the past 12 years (dummy); floods in the past 12 years (dummy);
household size; level of education; possession of motored vehicle (dummy); access to credit
(dummy); presence of disabled persons in the households (dummy); and the dependency of livelihood
on agriculture (dummy).
IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2
ⒸISERD
31
Survey design
The total land area of the KPS province is approximately 653,396 hectares divided into eight districts
and 87 communes. The household survey samples were selected from six communes in six
districts within two geographical areas: highland areas (two districts) and the lowland area (four
districts). Three natural disasters were considered: flash