Land grabbing and forced evictions by Koh Kong's sugar industry, Cambodia

How bitter can sugar be: bulldozers clearing lands for giving it away to agrobusiness companies, with the support of the European agreement “Everything but Arms” (EBA)

Description

On May 19, 2006, without any prior consultation, bulldozers started to clear farmers’ land in villages in Botum Sakor and Sre Ambel district, Koh Kong province, and forcefully evicted the formal owners: small-farmers who have been living on the land since 1979 (1). Two months later, the land was awarded to the newly established sugar companies Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd (KKPC) and Koh Kong Sugar Co. Ltd (KKSI), both owned by Thai KSL group, Ve Wong Corporation of Taiwan, and Ly Yong Phat, Cambodian ruling party senator and business tycoon. The companies received two adjunct Economic Land Concessions (ELC), amounting to 9,400ha and 9,700ha respectively, to develop industrial sugar plantations and processing factories. The total size of 19,100ha exceeds the legal limit of 10,000ha per company. In January 2010, KKSI opened a processing factory in Sre Ambel and six months later export of sugar to UK giant Tate & Lyle started, who signed a five years contract to buy all sugar output. Since 2010, T&L imported 48,000 tons of sugar, with an estimated value of 24 million €. The investment was strongly motivated by the European agreement “Everything but Arms” (EBA) with least developed countries (LDC) such as Cambodia, offering them access to the European market without tariffs and at a minimum guaranteed price; which for sugar has been three times the world-market price (2).

Obviously, evictions and land clearing were not authorized, nor was there any social and environmental impact assessment, because at the time of land clearing the concession contract was not even signed. Peaceful villager protests were blocked violently backed up my military forces. Villager’s livestock was shot, some persons beaten up and injured and one community activist, who documented the land clearing in 2006, was killed (2;6). His death has never been properly investigated. Inadequate compensation was offered by the company and people were resettled and repressed, such as through shooting of their livestock when crossing concession land. Most lost their livelihood assets and access to important natural resources, such as community forests. In absence of alternatives some were forced to start working as plantations workers on the land belonging to them (2;3;6). In a human rights impacts assessment, 85 children, some of them aged 8 years, where found to work for the companies (2). Release of toxic chemicals from the processing factory into the environment caused further significant environmental problems (3).

People protest against the sugar companies since 2006, trying to get back their land and to receive compensations for the losses, however, with little success. Supported by NGOs, villagers filed formal complaints in Cambodia against the involved companies (July, 2012; see (1)), as well as in the UK against Tate & Lyle (March 2013), claiming human rights abuse and ownership of the land (3). Some of the families received 2000$ as compensation from Tate & lyle (4), which however cannot replace the lost livelihoods, others are still waiting for any compensation or solutions. In July, 2013 Bonsucro, an initiative for responsible and sustainable sugar growing suspended Tate & Lyle, which refused to cooperate with villagers for the investigation of their complaints (3). On behalf of the villagers, NGOs further lobbied to revise the EBA agreement, underlying the need to investigate its devastating impact on human rights, to which the European Union finally agreed (5). While the EBA agreement was set up to ‘support development’, on the ground, it produced a sugar rush by providing bonus payments for national and international companies that established a sugar industry at a devastating cost of local communities and the environment.

(See less)

Basic Data

Name	Land grabbing and forced evictions by Koh Kong's sugar industry, Cambodia
Country	Cambodia
Province	Koh Kong province
Site	Botum Sakor and Sre Ambel district
Accuracy of Location	HIGH local level

Source of Conflict

Type of Conflict (1st level)	Biomass and Land Conflicts (Forests, Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock Management)
Type of Conflict (2nd level)	Land acquisition conflicts Plantation conflicts (incl. Pulp Intensive food production (monoculture and livestock)
Specific Commodities	Land Sugar

Project Details and Actors

Project Details	The European Union (EU) has supported the sugar industry through the agreement “Everything but Arms” (EBA) with least developed countries (LDC) such as Cambodia. Companies operating in Cambodia can access the European market without tariffs and at a minimum guaranteed price. For sugar, the minimum guaranteed price has been on average three times the world-market price. While the extent of Sugarcane plantations in Cambodia was negligible in 2006, in 2012 it amounted to more than 100,000 ha. Cambodian sugar exports jumped to 13.8 million$ in 2011, 92% of which was exported to the EU (2). Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd (KKPC) and Koh Kong Sugar Co. Ltd (KKSI) are both owned by Thai KSL group holding 70% of the shares, as well as by Ve Wong Corporation of Taiwan and Ly Yong Phat, a Cambodian ruling party senator and business tycoon (2). The concession land has been granted under the Economic Land Concession (ELC) scheme of Cambodia, which provides concessions for the development of large-scale agriculture under a lease agreement of up to maximum 99 years. Lease agreements are commonly set for 70 years (see legal ELC framework, below). Both companies received two adjunct Economic Land Concessions (ELC), amounting to 9,400ha and 9,700ha respectively, to develop industrial sugar plantations and processing factories (2). The total size of 19,100ha exceeds the legal limit of 10,000ha per ELC (see legal framework). The concession land overlaps with villagers’ land, protected areas, and other concession land. Since 2010, Tate &Lyle imported 48,000 tons of sugar from both companies, with an estimated value of 24 million € (2). 456 families were dispossessed by the ELCs in Sre Amble District (1). Based on average household size this corresponds to more than 2,100 persons. 1490 ha of farmers land were affected by clearing (1). Other sources say that families lost 5000 ha of land (3). According to the 2001 Cambodian land law, the formal land owners are the villagers, since they have been living over 5 years prior on the land area (see land law framework).
Project Area (in hectares)	19,100
Level of Investment (in USD)	unknown
Type of Population	Rural
Potential Affected Population	> 2,100 (estimate)
Start Date	19/03/2006
Company Names or State Enterprises	Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd (KKPC) from Cambodia - sugar industry, sugarcane Koh Kong Sugar Co. Ltd (KKSI) from Cambodia - sugar-industry, sugarcane Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Public Company Limited (KSL group) from Thailand - sugar-industry, sugarcane Ve Wong Corporation from China - food industry
Relevant government actors	Ly Yong Phat, ruling party (CPP) senator and co-owner of Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd and Koh Kong Sugar Co. Ltd.
Environmental justice organisations and other supporters	Community Legal Education Centre (CLEC) Equitable Cambodia Inclusive development international Hands off the land Alliance The NGOS that signed the joint statement supporting the villagers claim were: - Cambodian Human Rights Action Committee (CHRAC) - Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO) - Equitable Cambodia (EC) - Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) - Community Peace Network (CPN) - NGO FORUM - Building Community Voice (BCV) - Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) - EarthRights International (ERI) - Inclusive Development International (IDI)

The Conflict and the Mobilization

Intensity of Conflict (at highest level)	HIGH (widespread, mass mobilization, violence, arrests, etc...)
When did the mobilization begin	In REACTION to the implementation (during construction or operation)
Groups Mobilizing	Farmers Indigenous groups or traditional communities International ejos Local ejos Local government/political parties Local scientists/professionals Religious groups
Forms of Mobilization	Blockades Creation of alternative reports/knowledge Development of a network/collective action Development of alternative proposals Involvement of national and international NGOs Land occupation Lawsuits, court cases, judicial activism Official complaint letters and petitions Public campaigns Street protest/marches Boycotts of companies-products Refusal of compensation

Impacts

Environmental Impacts	Visible: Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Food insecurity (crop damage), Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity Potential: Air pollution, Noise pollution, Soil contamination, Soil erosion, Groundwater pollution or depletion
Health Impacts	Visible: Accidents, Malnutrition, Mental problems including stress, depression and suicide, Violence related health impacts (homicides, rape, etc..) , Deaths, Other Health impacts
Other	increase in domestic violence
Socio-economic Impacts	Visible: Increase in Corruption/Co-optation of different actors, Displacement, Increase in violence and crime, Lack of work security, labour absenteeism, firings, unemployment, Loss of livelihood, Militarization and increased police presence, Social problems (alcoholism, prostitution, etc..), Specific impacts on women, Violations of human rights, Land dispossession, Loss of landscape/sense of place, Other socio-economic impacts Potential: Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures
Other	abuse of child labour

Outcome

Project Status	In operation
Pathways for conflict outcome / response	Compensation Corruption Court decision (undecided) Court decision (victory for environmental justice) Repression Deaths Violent targeting of activists Land demarcation Migration/displacement One community activist, who documented the land clearing in 2006, was killed. His death has never been properly investigated.
Development of Alternatives	Proposals/recommendations put forward, according to the "Bittersweet Harvest" report (2), released by Equitable Cambodia (EC) and Inclusive Development International (IDI): To the EU: that EU should investigate impacts; temporarily suspend EBA trade; verify that producers are not involved in Human rights abuses or environmental destruction; ban import of agricultural goods produced on illegally acquired land. To The Cambodian Government: Enforce the moratorium on new ELC; assure that the required social and environmental impact assessments are conducted; cancel concessions that violate human rights; support dispossessed families in returning to their land; return illegally granted concession land; and stop state military-backed up evictions, among others. To the involved companies: Stop forced evictions; stop destruction of community natural resources; stop using violence against people; return illegally appropriated land; stop using child labour.
Do you consider this as a success?	No
Why? Explain briefly.	The project goes on and the killing of one community activist has never been properly investigated.

Sources and Materials

Legislations

2005 Subdecree on Economic Land Concessions (ELC) in Cambodia
[click to view]

Cambodia's land law and related regulatory frameworks
[click to view]

References

(1) Joint statement signed by Cambodian NGOs in support of the case (accessed 16/02/2015)
[click to view]

(2) EC & IDI 2013. Bittersweet Harvest: A human rights impact assessment of the European Union's Everything but Arms Initiative in Cambodia. Equitable Cambodia and Inclusive Development International (accessed 16/02/2015)
[click to view]

Links

(3) Earth Rights International on the case (accessed 16/02/2015)
[click to view]

(4) News article Cambodian daily (Feb. 3, 2015): Families to Rejoin Protests Against Sugar Farms (accessed 16/02/2015)
[click to view]

(5) Inclusive Development International on the recent EU's commitment to investigate impacts of the EBA agreement (accessed 16/02/2015)
[click to view]

(6) The Guardian - Cambodia's sugar rush leaves farmers feeling bitter at 'land grab'
[click to view]

Media Links

Video produced in relation to the Bittersweet Harvest report (accessed 16/02/2015)
[click to view]

The Guardian video on Koh Kong Sugar plantations and UK Tate & Lyle company (accessed 16/02/2015)
[click to view]

Contributor	A. Scheidel (ICTA-UAB) / arnim.scheidel "at" gmail.com
Last update	17/02/2015

Thanks for using our platform!