A 30-Hectare Lease on the Floodplain
A commune council in Kampong Chhnang province must vote on a 15-year lease of 30 hectares of seasonally flooded grassland on the Tonle Sap floodplain. The land is under water for three to four months each year, to a depth of 0.5–3 metres. Sixty households live nearby; 35 of them fish, taking an average of 900 kg per household per year, and the grassland is the main dry-season grazing area for 120 cattle. A company offers $120 per hectare per year, a 3 km dike and pumps to grow two dry-season rice crops, claiming 6 tonnes per hectare. It says it will hire 40 local workers for 60 days a year. The commune’s 2025 budget is 180 million riel. The district governor has asked for a written recommendation before the next council meeting.
1. Identify the physical and ecological constraints that make the company’s 6 t/ha claim doubtful.
Read the worked answer
Four constraints stand out.
- Flood regime. Land that is under 0.5–3 m of water for three to four months is a floodplain, not a rice field. A 3 km dike would have to hold back a large head of water, and the pumps would run precisely when the land would naturally drain.
- Dry-season water source. The proposal does not say where the dry-season water comes from. If the canal or the river is low in April, the second crop cannot be guaranteed.
- Soils. Floodplain soils are often poorly drained or acid; without a soil test, 6 t/ha is a company claim, not a measured yield.
- Fishery link. The dike would cut lateral fish migration and the flood pulse that renews soil fertility and supports the fishery. That is an ecological cost that shows up as a yield risk elsewhere.
The yield figure is the weakest number in the proposal because it depends on all four being solved at once.
2. Compare the lease revenue with the value of the lost fishing and grazing, and state what data are missing before a vote.
Read the worked answer
Lease revenue: 30 ha × $120 = $3,600 per year, or about 14.4 million riel at 4,000 riel to the dollar.
Fishing: 35 households × 900 kg = 31.5 tonnes per year. At 6,000 riel/kg that is 189 million riel, or about $47,250. Even if only half the catch depends on this grassland, the fishery is worth several times the lease.
Grazing: 120 cattle are harder to price, but the replacement cost of fodder is real and should be counted.
Missing data: the share of the catch that depends on the grassland, cattle weight gain from dry-season grazing, dike maintenance and pumping costs, and who pays compensation if the dike fails. On the figures given, the lease is not obviously beneficial, and the commune should not vote on the company’s numbers alone.
3. Recommend a decision with conditions.
Read the worked answer
Reject the 15-year lease in its current form, but do not reject development outright. Conditions for any revised proposal:
- an environmental impact assessment and a soil and hydrological study before signing;
- a fish passage and a smaller pilot, for example 5 ha for two seasons, with independent monitoring;
- compensation for affected fishers and grazers, agreed before construction;
- a public consultation with the lease terms disclosed;
- a bond or deposit to cover dike failure and land restoration.
Reasoning: the commune carries the downside - flood risk, lost fishery, lost grazing - while the company captures the upside and holds the information. A pilot and a bond shift risk to the party that knows more and can bear it. That is a better decision than a simple yes or no.