Rice, while central to Cambodian food security has never really been central to the wealth of its people; its leaders perhaps but not its masses. Yapa (1998: 103) writing of Sri Lanka’s postcolonial rice centric policies argues that;
the leading actors see themselves as fulfilling an historic mission which involves the recreation of an authentic, traditional village, family-farming and rice-based Sinhalese society.
Sometime ago while writing my thesis I discovered similar fantasies of “authentic” and “traditional” Cambodian rice cultivation were being promulgated not only by Cambodia’s leaders but by leading American gourmet food writers prompting me to engage in yet another blog war, yet this time with the productive outcome of a journal article:
M. Thavat (2011). The tyranny of taste: The case of organic rice in Cambodia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint (52) 3: 285-298.
In this article I detail attempts to promote organic/fair-trade rice production by de facto organic Cambodian farmers for export to North American and European markets in order to assist poor farmers to trade their way out of poverty. The article demonstrates that instead of promoting sustainable agriculture and fair trade between developed and developing markets, organic/fair-trade projects may impose First World consumer ideals and tastes that are out of step with the larger realities of agrarian transition in Cambodia and the wider region of developing Southeast Asia.
Globally, recent environmental alarm over climate change and social alarm over growing food insecurity would seem to land squarely on side of agro-ecological farming techniques and food sovereignty movements which often hark back to authentic, traditional, family farm, rice-based systems. Yet what is missing from most of these debates and certainly in Cambodia is a wider contextual understanding of patterns of agrarian transition which continue to propel people away from rice-based livelihoods and towards more diverse income options. This is happening against a backdrop of rising rice yields but one, which is arguably not due to the the recreation of an authentic, traditional village, family-farming and rice-based society but rather a greater mix of production methods including both small scale and large scale farming.
Cambodia’s conundrum seems therefore to be one of fulfilling the illusion of the historic mission of post-war reconstruction of Cambodia’s rice-based family farms whilst simultaneously moving rapidly away from them.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Robert Dayley // Dec 8, 2011 at 8:40 am
Thank you for posting this. I look forward to reading the article–it seems to further expose the myth about the desirability and viability an “authentic,” village-based” agrarian lifestyle in the region. What is needed are modern extension services, public R&D, and public support for the expansion of non-farm income opportunities. Twenty-first century farmers need smart government investment, support, and regulation that cultivates local agro-industry, leads farmers to domestic and export markets, and remains cautious of hegemonic global agro-conglomerates. What is not needed are yet more romantic visions from local elites (or first world consumers) who demand the rice they eat (but never cultivate themselves) be sourced from some timeless rural “peasant” operating in some mythically pure natural order of rice-based village tranquility. It’s funny how those who promote such a lifestyle for others would never embrace it for themselves.
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
2 Rick Dubbeldam // Dec 9, 2011 at 6:13 am
Interesting yes, but the article itself is unavailable, possibly imposing us to scientific tastes? And organic export oriented projects are not comparable to sustainable feel-good projects.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
3 Maylee // Dec 9, 2011 at 10:34 am
Please email me on maylee.thavat@anu.edu.au to request a copy
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
4 Cambodia’s rice conundrum | dasBull // Dec 20, 2011 at 7:18 am
[...] Cambodia’s rice conundrum. [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
5 Rick Dubbeldam // Dec 30, 2011 at 6:31 am
I’ve taken my time to read through Maylee Thavat’s paper and though his findings are based on research of 1 project, he clearly identifies that romance and agricultural development are not marriageable partners. Yes, organic agriculture can be a process in which farmers gain access to markets, however as always western markets with their high quality demands and their fickle nature are not always the best options for rural development to move forward. However there is some merit in getting farmers familiar with common market features.
I’ve experienced the same in Thailand’s north east, back in 2005 where I visited an organic rice project complete with certification and successful marketing of the produce in Germany. The farmers seemed quite content despite whatever way it was calculated lower returns. the only reason why they would accept these was the overall programme of the local NGO which provided literally a wealth of initiatives for the village’s involved. Lower rice returns was just a slight drawback compensated by other activities, notably in investing in rubber.
But despite this there are probably other organic projects which do become successful. However neither a success or a failure are reasons to not initiate organic agricultural projects, but should be regarded on their own merits. But policy makers and increasingly development professionals are constantly required to show results in the short term rather than in the more important long term. The need to ‘show-off’ and the creation of a feel good factor are important considerations alas. Not the hard work of getting the rural populations involved in developing their own destiny.
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
6 Maylee // Jan 9, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Thanks for your comments Rick, just one correction. I’m not a man.
Best
Maylee
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.