Deal #3571

Location #1

Spatial accuracy level
Coordinates
Location
Roleak Kang Cheung commune, Aoral district, Kampong Speu province

Latitude
11.622175
Longitude
103.934059
Target country
Cambodia

Land area

Size under contract (leased or purchased area, in ha)
[2010-01-29] 8449

Intention of investment

Intention of investment
Food crops, Agriculture unspecified
Comment on intention of investment
sugar cane and other crops

Nature of the deal

Nature of the deal
Concession
Comment on nature of the deal
Economic Land Concession (ELC)

Negotiation status

Negotiation status
[2010-01-29] Concluded (Contract signed)

Implementation status

Implementation status
[2012-01-01] Project not started
[2017-03-16] In operation (production)
Comment on implementation status
According to data in the yet-unpublished annual report of the Ministry of Industry and Handicraft, nearly 100,000 hectares has been earmarked for sugarcane plantations with a planned capacity of 1.8 million tonnes of refined sugar per year. However, just a small portion of this land is currently under cultivation by five producers: Rui Feng and its four sister companies, Kamadhenu Ventures (Cambodia) Ltd, Phnom Penh Sugar Co Ltd, Yellow Field International Ltd, and Koh Kong Sugar Industry Co Ltd.

Contract #1

Contract date
2010-01-29
Duration of the agreement (in years)
50

Number of total jobs created

Jobs created (total)
Yes
Comment on jobs created (total)
some villagers from nearby were employed in the plantation but some refused to work there for fear of health effects by peticides and fertilizers

Operating company

Comment on investment chain
Yellow Field is one of the sister companies of Rui Feng, considered one of the biggest sugarcane plantation player in Cambodia.

 

Network of parent companies and tertiary investors/lenders. Please right-click the nodes to get more details.

Legend
  • Is parent company of
  • Is tertiary investor/lender of
  • Left-click to reveal related parent companies and tertiary investors/lenders.
  • Right-click on investors to get more information.
  • Left-click to hide related parent companies and tertiary investors/lenders.

Data source #1

Data source type
Government sources
File

Data source #2

Data source type
Contract
File
Date
2010-01-29
Comment on data source
Khmer

Data source #3

Data source type
Media report
File
Date
2011-03-10

Data source #4

Data source type
Media report
File
Date
2012-12-27

Data source #5

Data source type
Media report
File
Date
2010-03-02

Data source #6

Data source type
Media report
File
Date
2009-03-10

Data source #7

Data source type
Research Paper / Policy Report
File
Date
2012-09-24

Data source #8

Data source type
Research Paper / Policy Report
File
Date
2014-03-01

Data source #9

Data source type
Government sources
File
Date
2014-01-01

Data source #10

Data source type
Other (Please specify in comment field)
Date
2016-05-03
Comment on data source
Database

Data source #11

Data source type
Media report

How did the community react?

Community reaction
Mixed reaction
Comment on community reaction
criticism from activists who say it will harm Suoy families living nearby; some villagers accepted the offers

Negative impacts for local communities

Negative impacts for local communities
Environmental degradation
Socio-economic
Other
Comment on negative impacts for local communities
Environmental degradation: streams are now shallow and polluted with fertilizers and pesticides used by the company for the sugarcane Socio-economic: some villagers lost their farmlands, lost access to NTFPs in the forest, having difficulty with irrigating fields because of shallow streams, less fish for consumption Other: food insecurity

Promised or received compensation

Received compensation (e.g. for damages or resettlements)
According to the Choam Village head, some families received less than $50 per hectare of land taken by the ELCs. Stories from people in Choam village reveal that they lost their land to ELCs with minimal compensation - or in some cases no compensation at all. Apparently, only rice paddies (productive lands) were compensated. Small farmlands and forest areas were not compensated.

Former land owner (not by constitution)

Former land owner
State
Community

Former land use

Former land use
Smallholder agriculture
Hunting/Gathering
Forestry
Conservation
Comment on former land use
overlaps with Phnom Aoral Wildlife Sanctuary

Former land cover

Former land cover
Cropland
Forest land

Detailed crop, animal and mineral information

Crops area
Sugar Cane

Use of produce

Has domestic use
Yes
Has export
Yes

In country processing of produce

In country processing of produce
Yes

Overall comment

Overall comment
No more information found on the implementation status after 2017.

Sept. 4, 2020, 7:30 a.m.

overwritten

This version

Compare with previous version

July 10, 2015, 5:11 a.m.

overwritten

Show this version

Compare with previous version

July 10, 2014, 7:59 p.m.

overwritten

Show this version

Compare with previous version

July 10, 2014, 7:41 p.m.

overwritten

Show this version

Compare with previous version

May 8, 2013, 9:10 p.m.

active

Show this version

First version

  • Dec. 4, 2019, 9:16 a.m. by Sarin Nhek | Reply

    Neither source for Data source no. 6 worked.

    Some of the PDFs did not match the URLs.

Add a comment

(mandatory)
(mandatory)
(mandatory)

I've read and agree to the Data Policy.