아세안

Amidst complex developments in the Greater Mekong Subregion(GMS) selling latex which is tapped from rubber tree is becoming a major agricultural activity among mainland Southeast Asian countries including Cambodia and Laos. However, large scale rubber plantations in Cambodia and Laos have been associated with several negative phenomena: land grabbing, exploitation through contract farming ironically increasing rural poverty, economic and technological dependence on foreign investors and environmental degradation. Henceforth, there is a need to focus more on smallholders. Rubber smallholdings provide employment and do not lead to landlessness. This article compares rubber smallholder livelihoods in Cambodia and Laos and investigates to what extent rural communities can benefit from the rubber boom and improve their livelihoods. This is done through a case study of smallholders in Tboung Khmum district in Cambodia and Ban Somsanouk in Laos. The empirical analysis is informed by three bodies of knowledge: micro-livelihoods studies, global value chains by and the now substantial academic inquiry on the GMS. The empirical focus is on livelihoods’ trajectories and outcomes; that is employment generation and poverty reduction. Overall, rubber smallholdings appear to be promising, yet given the challenges described above it cannot considered a cash crop that will solve all rural hardships. An important similarity is the socioeconomic contribution of rubber smallholdings. In both research areas smallholders argue that growing rubber trees is a good way to increase living standards Nevertheless, the low educational level makes the strategy vulnerable. In both places many respondents have just followed other villagers and are insufficiently aware of the economic and environmental risks. A related similarity is the virtual absence of governmental authorities to support smallholders. Finance is one of the most pressing issues. Respondents find it hard to obtain access to finance. The clearest differences relate to the upstream value chain, intercropping and social capital. While the Tboung Khmum smallholders sell latex to middlemen, the Ban Somsanouk smallholders sell latex collectively to the highest bidder although the price follows the international price trend. In addition, there is an absence of intercropping in Ban Somsanouk. Investors wish to maximize yields and therefore do not advise smallholders to intercrop. Finally, smallholders in the Cambodian case work sometimes together and share information, whereas there is little cooperation in the Lao case. The research results give rise to three policy implications in the spheres of value chain governance, intercropping and microfinance.