Cambodia has become a principal target of transnational (and domestic) land grabs over the past decade, mostly in the form of economic land concessions (ELCs). The northeastern part of the country—where the majority of Cambodia’s indigenous people reside—is a particular hotspot. In this article, we discuss three policy mechanisms that the Cambodian government has employed to extend and legitimize land exclusions in the name of national economic development through the example of two indigenous villages in Srae Preah Commune, Mondulkiri Province. First, we show how the allocation of two ELCs has deprived indigenous communities of their communally managed land. Second, we examine how communal land titling processes have failed to provide indigenous villagers with effective legal mechanisms to counteract ELCs and land encroachment by internal migrants. Third, we elucidate how the promotion of cash crop production contributed to livelihood and land use transitions from a reliance on forest resources in 2003 to a dependence on cash crops in 2012 to a struggle to remain resilient amid a slump in crop prices in 2018. We conclude that the combination of these policies has undermined communal ownership and livelihood resilience under a situation of limited exit strategies.

Migration from Cambodia is a major livelihood strategy for rural communities, with most rural families having at least one, usually younger, member migrating in search of work. The pervasive nature of this phenomenon relates to Cambodia’s troubled political past, and the country’s political economy that structures choice and opportunity. Under-investment in the agrarian economy together with unequal access to credit and productive resources leaves many rural Cambodians with little option but to migrate to boost family income. Thailand is the number one destination for rural Cambodians. Most have an undocumented status, putting them at risk of arrest and deportation. The return of more than 200,000 migrants to Cambodia over a two-week period in 2014 was precipitated by the Thai military’s seizure of power and migrants’ fear of the consequences of political instability, given their still vivid historical memory of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge’s reign of terror during the 1970s. Interviews with Cambodian migrants and members of their families are examined within a wider political and economic context to gain insight into migrants’ motivations and decision-making. The expulsion of migrants from Thailand casts light on the compulsive nature of migration, despite the high risks and precarious conditions under which undocumented migration takes place.

Ensuring treatment adherence is critical for the success of antiretroviral therapy (ART) programs in developing countries. Enlisting NGOs or persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLHA) group members as treatment supporters is one common strategy. Less attention is given to family members and especially older-age parents. Yet ART patients often live with other family members who are highly motivated to ensure treatment success. This study examines the role of family members and especially parents in assisting adherence in Cambodia and Thailand among adult ART patients. Most have a living parent and many live with or near a parent. Family members including parents commonly remind patients to take medications, particularly if coresident in the same household. Parents also remind patients to get resupplies and accompany them to appointments. Some contrasts between Cambodia and Thailand emerged. Fewer Cambodian than Thai patients had a living parent. However, among those who did, equal shares lived with parents. Cambodian parents more commonly reminded patients to take medications and get resupplies and accompanied them when doing so. In both countries correct knowledge of ART among parents was associated with the amount of advice from program personnel. The results underscore both the need to more explicitly incorporate close family members, including parents, into efforts to promote adherence and need for PLHA peers and home based care teams to provide them with adequate information, training and resources to increase their effectiveness.

Emotions matter in struggles over land; they influence resource access, use, and control, and shape people’s lives and relations with each other and the state. However, literature on land and resource grabs has only recently started to give attention to emotion. In this chapter, we draw on long-term fieldwork in a Khmer community and an ethnic minority community in rural Cambodia to reveal how emotions and their effects on collective action are shaped by shifting socio-political contexts and ecologies. We argue that emotions shape land grabs in two ways: first, emotions enable land grabs. State and corporate actors produce both negative emotions of fear and distrust amongst communities through threats, violence and obfuscation, while simultaneously producing desire for development and gratitude through discourses of promised prosperity, gift giving, and plantation employment, which limit collective mobilisation. Second, emotions also disable land grabs, as people organise into social movements and engage in ‘emotion work’ to build collective solidarity and encourage action to resist land grabbing. Emotions do not have universal effects; ‘negative’ emotions such as fear can at times propel collective action, and at other times, paralyse resistance. Comparing our two cases reveals the importance of sociopolitical contexts, affective ties to land, and local leadership in mobilising shared emotions and collective action.