• Home
 • Introduction to MOC
 
• Functional Structure
 
• Trade Statistics
 
• Trade Directories
 • Economic Integration
 • Cambodia's Exporters
 • MOC Links
 • MOC Contacts
 • Legal
 
• Pro-Poor Trade Sector Strategy
 
• Integrated Framework (IF)
 
• Speeches
 
• IPR
 • Cambodia's Imports
 • Licensing & Registration
 
• Activities
 
• Seminar

4.10  Effect of reducing Food and Clothing and Footwear tariffs to 7 per cent

 

Decile (*)

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

avg

Urban areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effect from Food

2.7

2.9

3.7

3.5

3.6

4.1

4.5

4.8

4.6

3.6

3.9

Effect from Clothing & Footwear

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

Total Urban

2.9

3.3

4.1

4.0

4.0

4.4

4.9

5.2

5.1

4.0

4.3

Rural areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effect from Food

2.8

3.2

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.6

3.8

3.7

3.9

3.8

3.5

Effect from Clothing & Footwear

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.5

Total Rural

3.3

3.7

3.9

3.9

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Cambodia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effect from Food

2.8

3.2

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.6

3.8

3.9

4.1

3.7

3.5

Effect from Clothing & Footwear

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.5

Total Rural and Urban

3.2

3.7

3.9

3.9

3.9

4.1

4.4

4.4

4.6

4.1

4.0

(*) Deciles of per capita adult equivalent consumption.
Source: Model results

Land distribution

Land is the only important productive asset and store of wealth for about 85 per cent of Cambodia people, whose main income is derived from agricultural activities for subsistence and marketing (Sik Boreak 2000). Hence, access to land is one key issue in poverty reduction and rural development (Figueiredo and Walraven 2001). This simulation make an assessment of the poverty impact of land distribution. We simulated that 0.5 has of land is given free of charge to all households engaged in farming and with an operated land size of less or equal to 0.5 has. About 265000 households are each receiving 0.5 has of land.

The impact on income of 1 extra hectare of land is calculated as the village average net income per hectare from cultivation activities. Thus, the net impact on household ij income of 0.5 additional hectares of land was imputed as:

where, is the increase in Net Income of household i that belongs to 

village j, and      

is the Average Net Income per hectare from cultivation activities in village j.
Average

by region is presented in the table 4.11. In general, it can be said that the higher the consumption decile, the higher the impact due most probably to a higher use of capital and modern inputs in production. The average net income per hectare is 1126 thousands of 1999 riels (equivalent to U$S 295).

This average seems a bit high if the household is only planting rice. According to the IRRI study (‘Rice production in Cambodia’, H.J. Nesbitt Editor, 1997), the net return to family the household factor is about 80 per cent of total revenue for the case of rice. This means that, if all land is devoted to rice production, the gross average income per hectare is about 1407000 riels (=1126000/0.8). Considering an average of 1.9 tons of paddy rice/ha, this implies a gate price for paddy rice of about 740000 riels per ton, which is higher to the paddy prices that prevailed in 1999 (about 500 000 riels per ton). The figure of 1126000 riels per hectare is more plausible if one consider that on average only 73 per cent of the income from cultivation is coming from rice, the other 27 per cent is coming from other crops, including vegetables and tubers that have a higher income of riel per hectare.

4.11 Average net income per hectare, by region, in thousands of riels of 1999(*)

Decile

Region

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

avg

Phnom Penh, Rural

751

640

812

705

780

765

761

1464

1821

1425

1192

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plain, Urban

1072

866

996

866

992

687

1411

1340

1508

1360

1363

Plain, Rural

944

880

1125

1252

1366

1490

1521

1598

1651

1811

1295

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T.Sap Urban

889

780

564

519

772

1226

635

1067

1207

865

958

T.Sap Rural

835

888

961

938

1035

965

867

880

845

734

918

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coastal, Urban

1063

1137

999

1137

1053

958

989

1013

943

969

1005

Coastal, Rural

678

728

763

688

725

783

930

716

643

525

747

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plateau, Urban

640

1063

1091

1111

1814

2399

1318

2545

1603

1453

1648

Plateau, Rural

593

1119

857

1047

1035

996

1181

1164

902

946

1010

Total

875

878

1017

1067

1155

1248

1274

1343

1281

1331

1126

(*) Average net income of farming households with operating farm size between 0.5 and 1.5 has
(**) Deciles by per capita total equivalent consumption.
Source: Model results

(Agricultural Statistics 1999-2000, Statistics Office, Department of Planning and International Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). Table 4.12 presents the number of households and the number of people affected by the land distribution. The number of hectares distributed is 132600 hectares (=number of households * 0.5). Table 4.13 presents the impact of this simulation as a percentage of total household ij consumption, by decile. Table 4.14 presents the impact of this simulation only on those households that received the 0.5 hectares of land.

Back

Top

Next