policy for the poor? - heinrich böll stiftung cambodia · in may 2010, the royal government of...

Policy for the Poor? Phnom Penh, Tenure Security & Circular 03

March 2013

Lead author: Nora Lindstrom

overview and LegaL anaLysis: Mark Grimsditch

community mapsand survey: Ket Mengcheang, Tim Sreyleak, Suon Sopiseth

architects: Meas Kimseng, BenjaminBittrich

research advisor: Hallam Goad

The Authors would like to thank everyone whoparticipatedintheresearch,inpar-ticularcommunitymembersfromthetwotargetcommunities.

supported by a grant from the Heinrich Boell Foundation

PoLicy for THe Poor?Phnom Penh, Tenure Security, and circular 03


i

ii

eXecUTiVe SUMMAry

PhnomPenh’surbanpoorareunder threat.Overthe past two decades, 11% of the city’s currentpopulation has been displaced, often forciblyevicted, to poorer futures. A key governmentargument – when such arguments have beenprovided–hasbeen thatmanyof thoseaffectedhave been illegal squatters, living on state publicland.Habitually, however, there is no assessmentofwhetherornottheoccupantshaverightstothelandaslegalpossessors.

InMay2010,theRoyalGovernmentofCambodiaapproved Circular 03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlement on Land Which Has Been Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal, and Urban Areas (C03). In the context of on-going tenureinsecurity among Cambodia’s urban poor, thecircular lays down a process through which the issue of occupation of state public land is to be‘resolved’. With support from Germany throughits development agency, Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), C03implementation has taken place in Battambangprovincialtownsincelate2010.Implementationhascommenced in Phnom Penh too, though seemingly conducted unilaterally by the Municipality ofPhnomPenh.

While implementation continues, fundamentalquestions remain regarding the content of theCircularitselfandtheimpactsofitsimplementation.The aim of this report is to highlight some ofthe issues arising from the Circular as a policydocument,anddrawattentiontotheopportunitiesand risks arising from its implementation. It alsoaimstoprovidestakeholdersinurbandevelopmentinPhnomPenhwithabetterunderstandingoftheextent to which Circular 03 meets the requiredlegal standards to genuinely protect the rights of

the urban poor through increasing their tenuresecurity, and how practicable a tool it is for thatpurpose.

Section 1 includes the introduction andmethodology of the report. It also highlightssome key issues related to terminology, namely the problems surrounding terms such as ‘poor’,‘informal’and‘temporary’settlement,notingthatthelegalityofasettlementshouldbebasedontheexisting Cambodian legal framework; the physicalappearanceofastructureorthelivingstandardsoftheoccupanthavenobearingonthelegalstatusofaparticularparcelofland.ThesectionconcludesbyprovidingabasicoverviewofthehierarchyoflegaldocumentsinCambodia.

Section 2 of the report outlines the contextinto which Circular 03 enters. Starting from thereconstitution of private ownership after theKhmerRouge, itcoversthekeyfeaturesofrecentdonor-supported programmes in the Cambodianland sector. It also shows how large portions ofthe urban poor have alternately been ignored byorexcluded from interventions in the landsector.Exclusionofpoorsettlementsfromsystematiclandregistration is highlighted as a key failure of landsector programmes, contributing to widespreadtenureinsecurityinurbanareas.

ThesectioncontinuesbyoutliningtheexistinglegalframeworkinCambodia’slandsector.Focusingonlegal possession rights versus illegal occupancy, aswell aswhat constitutes state public land, thesection introduces crucial terminology and thelegal framework for understanding Circular 03. ItisshownthatCircular03forthefirsttimeoutlinesa process within Cambodia’s legal framework forconvertingillegaloccupationofstatelandintolegal


iii

occupation or ownership. Previously, householdsillegally occupying state land had no such rights.The Circular also provides a basic framework forconducting resettlement of thosewho cannot begranted on-site upgrading. However, a Circularis located low in the Cambodian legal hierarchy,and any measures outlined in the circular must therefore be implemented in accordance withhigherlegaldocuments,specificallythe2001LandLaw,aswellasSub-decreeNo118 and Prakas No42 whichfurtheroutlinethelegalframeworkforstatelandmanagement.

The section concludes by noting how Circular 03enters thepicture ina contextwhereurbanpoorsettlementshavecontinuedtoexistandevengrowintheabsenceofaclearpolicytodealwiththem.Duetothelackofanaccessibledatabaseonstateland and properties, it is difficult to verify whichareashavesofarbeenofficiallydemarcatedasstateland, and hence which households within urbanpoor settlements occupy land illegally. For thosewhose occupation is indeed illegal, the Circularmay provide options that can eventually lead tomore secure tenure. However, a key challenge in

implementingtheCircularwillbe inensuringthathouseholds who may have claims as legal possessors butcannotaccessthelandregistrationsystemarenot automatically labelled as informal settlers forthesimplefactthattheyhavebeenoverlookedbytheregistrationsystem.

Section 3 focuses on the Circular itself, how itcame about, and its implementation to date inbothBattambangandPhnomPenh. It shows thatGermanyanditsdevelopmentagency,GIZ,playeda key role in the approval of the Circular, amidstconcerns from both other development partnersand civil societyactors.Adetailedanalysisof theCircular finds that the document lacks clarity inkey areas, failing to provide precise definitions.In addition, while it occasionally references theexisting legal framework, particularly in theannexes, it does not explicitly specify that theCircularwillbeimplementedinaccordancewiththe2001LandLaw,Sub-decreeNo118 and Prakas No42.Provisionsrelatedtofuturelanduseplansandtheidentification of ‘resolutions’ for households onstate public land are particularly vague, with noindicationgivenofwhenaparticular resolution–

figure 1: Many have lived in ‘poor settlements’fordecades

iV

on-siteupgrading,relocation,or‘other’–mightbe‘suitable’.This lackofclaritymaycausesignificantchallengesduringimplementationoftheCircular.

An overview of on-going C03 implementationin Battambang City reveals the importance ofpoliticalwill forC03 implementationthat leadstopositive outcomes for households targeted. Thecity’sde factomoratoriumonevictionscombinedwith long-term German development assistance to Battambang Municipality have contributedto an environment in which a multi-stakeholderstakeholder approach, as outlined in the circular, hasbeenabletotakeroot.However,twoyearson,resultsintheformoflong-termtenuresecurityfortargetedhouseholdsremainelusive.

In contrast to Battambang, the context for C03implementation in Phnom Penh is found to besignificantlydifferent.Thefastrateofurbanisationhas put enormous pressure on land in the capital, with commercial interests highly prominent in driving urbandevelopmentleadingtodisplacementofthecity’spoorfromthecentretotheoutskirts.Theon-goingforcedevictionsofresidentshavecontributedtoanenvironmentcharacterisedbydeepmistrustbetween the authorities, communities, and civilsociety actors. TheMunicipality of PhnomPenh’sapparentunilateral implementationofCircular03has,asthereportfinds,donelittletoalleviatethatmistrust.

Two case studies fromPhnomPenh highlight thecomplexities involved in determining the landrightsofhouseholdsinurbanpoorsettlements.Thefirst case study raises important questions aboutdeterminationoftherightsofpoorsettlersvis-à-viscommercialdevelopmentofstatepublicland.Thesecond case study underscores how lack of clearlegal definitions for what constitutes state publiclandcomplicatesassessmentofhouseholds’claimsto land, further emphasizing the importance ofadjudicationoflandinaccordancewiththeexistinglegalframework.

In conclusion, Section 4 of the report identifiesbothopportunitiesandchallengesinvolvedinC03implementationinPhnomPenh.Akeyopportunitypresented by the Circular in Phnom Penh, andelsewhere, is the possibility of formalisinghouseholds on state public land through on-siteupgradingundertheauspicesoftheCircular,aswell

as facilitating better organised resettlement,withimproved resettlement site conditions. However,giventhehistoryofevictionsinPhnomPenh,therearealsolegitimatefearstheCircularwillbeusedasatoolcementtheimageoftheurbanpoorasillegal,inturnenablingtheireviction.On-goingunilateralimplementationoftheCircularaswellassporadicevictionsandlackofacknowledgmentoftherightsoftheurbanpoorindicatealackofpoliticalwilltoaddressthesituationfacingthepoorinanequitableandlegalfashion.Assuch,thereportsuggeststherisks of C03 implementation in the capital mayoutweighthebenefitsatthepresenttime,atleastuntil thepoliticalenvironment isbettersuited foritsapplication.

Thereportconcludesbyoutliningrecommendationsfor key actors involved in C03 implementation,in particular the Municipality of Phnom Penh(MPP), theMinistry of LandManagement, UrbanPlanning, andConstruction (MLMUPC), aswell asdevelopment partners, on steps towards ensuring C03implementationcontributestotheCambodianGovernment’slongtermgoalofpovertyreduction.TheMPPisurgedtocommittotransparent,multi-stakeholder C03 implementation, a moratoriumon evictions during implementation, and toensure thatall identificationof state land isdonein accordance with existing mechanisms anddefinitionsassetout inexisting law, i.e. the2001LandLaw,Sub-decreeNo118 and Prakas No42, and that no households with legal possession rights are subjectedtoC03implementation.Conductingstateland identification and mapping alongside C03implementation is a key recommendation for theRoyal Government of Cambodia (RGC), combinedwith increased transparency in systematic landregistration, and registration and titling of allprivatelandsidentifiedinurbanpoorsettlements.finally, development partners are urged to develop a framework for monitoring C03 implementationas well as lack of implementation in applicablecases, and make any funds contributed towardsimplementation contingent on full transparency,adherence to the existing legal framework,and a multi-stakeholder approach. In addition,all stakeholders are encouraged to commit to programmingwithawiderurbanpoorfocus,whichalso includes interventions to secure tenure andimprove living standards of poor urban residentswithlegalpossessionrights.


8

AcroNyMS

V

ADB Asian Development Bank

ceDT community empowerment and Development Team

cMDP community Managed Development Partners

C03 Circular03onResolutionofTemporarySettlementonLandwhichhasbeenIllegallyOccupiedintheCapital,Municipal,andUrbanAreas

DeD Deutsche entwicklungsdienst

GIZ DeutscheGesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit

GTZ DeutscheGesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit

KAS KonradAdenauerFoundation

LASSP LandAdministrationSub-SectorProgram

LMAP LandManagementandAdministrationProject

MIME MinistryofIndustry,Mines,andEnergy

MLMUPC MinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanning,andConstruction

MPP MunicipalityofPhnomPenh

NGO Non-GovernmentalOrganisation

PPWSA PhnomPenhWaterSupplyAuthority

RGC RoyalGovernmentofCambodia

SOC StateofCambodia

SLMC StateLandManagementCommittee

SLR SystematicLandRegistration

SLWG StateLandWorkingGroup

TWG TechnicalWorkingGroup

UNESCAP UNEconomicandSocialCommissionforAsiaandthePacific

UNOHCHR UNOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights

UPDF UrbanPoorDevelopmentFund

WB WorldBank

figure page1. Manyhavelivedin‘poorsettlements’fordecades ii2. ManyhomesinPhnomPenharelocatedonorbycanals 33. LegalHierarchyinCambodia 6 4. Homesinurbanpoorsettlementsoftenalsofunctionasshops 75. Sanitationremainsanissueinmanypoorsettlementsinthecity 126. State Land 157. Manyurbanpoorhouseholdsliveunderconstantfearofeviction 188. Withsecuretenure,manypoorcommunitiesareoftenwilling toinvestininfrastructuralupgrades 22 9. EkapheapcommunityinBattambang 3310. PotentialC03TargetAreasInPhnomPenh 3811. RiversidehomesweresoughtafterwhenPhnomPenhwas repopulated 4012. MapofCommunity1 4113. SatelliteimageofCommunity1 4214. LengthofresidencyinCommunity1 4215. LanddemarcationinCommunity1 4316. Household ownership in community 1 4417. HouseholdacquisitioninCommunity1 4418. LanddocumentationinCommunity1 4419. MapofHunSenBoulevard 4520. Tenure security in community 1 4521. PhysicallocationofhouseholdsinCommunity1 4622. AlternativedevelopmentPlanforCommunity1 4923. MapofCommunity2 5024. LengthofresidencyinCommunity2 5125. LandtitlinginCommunity2 5126. Household ownership in community 2 5227. HouseholdacquisitioninCommunity2 5228. LanddocumentationinCommunity2 5329. Tenure security community 2 5330. ExampleoflandtitlefromCommunity2 5431. canal edge households in community 2 5632. AlternativedevelopmentplanforCommunity2 5733. SatelliteimageofareabetweenNationalRoad5andtheTonleSap 6134. Poorcommunitieshavebeenexcludedfromland titlingdespiterobustpossessionrights 64

fiGUreS

Vi


coNTeNTS

oNePAGe 2

TWOPAGe 8

THreePAGe 20

introduction1.1Methodology

Objectivesresearch ApproachDesk review and Legal Analysisinterviews and field visitsLimitations

1.2NotesonLanguageandTerminologyPoorSettlementsLegal Hierarchy

1.3AboutTheUrbanInitiative

Background2.1Context

ReconstitutingPrivateOwnershipAfterthe Khmer rouge

ANewLandAdministrationPhnom Penh repopulated

2.2TheLegalFrameworkOwners,LegalPossessors,andIllegalSettlersWhatis‘StateLand’?State Land Management

2.3TheUrbanPoorAheadofCircular03

Vii

the circuLar 3.1Background3.2AnalysisoftheCircular’sProvisionsandAppendices

Step1:DataCollectionontheNumberofTemporarySettlementsSites

Step2:Identification,MappingandClassificationofLandofTemporarySettlements

Step3:CensusontheNumberofHouseholdsandHouseholdMembersinTemporarySettlementSites

Step4:FindingSolutionsStep5:DiscussiontoIdentifySolutionPoliciesStep6:BasicInfrastructureandPublicServicesSupportStep7:ParticipationofStakeholdersinDevelopmentSummary

coNTeNTS the circuLar 3.3CaseStudy:FormalisingCommunitiesinBattambang3.4Circular03inPhnomPenh

ContextImplementationcommunity impact

3.5CaseStudy:Community1CommunityProfileLegal NoteAlternativePlan

3.6CaseStudy:Community2CommunityProfileLegal NoteAlternativePlan

3.7SummaryofSituationinPhnomPenhOpportunitiesconcerns

Viii

THreePAGe 32

foUrPAGE65

fiVePAGe 70

SiXPAGe 72

annexesAnnex1:StatePublicProperties

concLusion4.1Recommendations

BiBLiography


1

2

iNTroDUcTioN 1Tenure security, or more specifically lack thereof, is a pervasive problem in Cambodia. While ruralhouseholdsaredrivenfromtheirlandinthethousandstomakewayforEconomicLandConcessions1 and othertypesofdevelopments,urbanresidents,particularlythepoor,continuetolivewithinsecuretenure.Over150,000peopleinPhnomPenh–representing11%ofthecapital’scurrentpopulation–havebeendisplacedoverthepasttwodecades.2

The Circular on Resolution of Temporary Settlement on Land Which Has Been Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal, and Urban Areas (C03)wasdevelopedfollowingaseriesofviolentforcedevictionsthatshookPhnomPenhin2009.Initiallyforeseenasatooltostandardizethetreatmentofevictees,ithassincefirstconceptiontakenonawiderroledefiningmeasuresrangingfromidentificationofso-called illegalsettlements,toprovisionofon-siteupgradingandresettlementcombinedwithbasicserviceprovision.ManyseetheCircularasanopportunity–perhapstheonlyopportunity–forhouseholdslocatedonstatepubliclandtoberenderedlegal.

Identification of settlements on state public land is a politically complicated exercise in Cambodia.Despite theeffortsofdonor-supportedprojects in thecountry’s land sector therehasbeenvery littleprogressinstatelandmanagement,totheeffectthatnopubliclyaccessibledatabaseonstatelandexists.Simultaneously,landregistration,forthelastdecadeconductedassystematiclandregistration(SLR),butmorerecentlyaspartofthePrimeMinister’sDirective01,hasfocusedmainlyonruralareas,leavingmuchofPhnomPenhuntitled.Assuch,thestatusofthelandinmanyurbanpoorsettlementsremainsunknown.

Evenbeforeitsadoption,theCircularsawstrongbuy-infromGermany,acentraldonortotheCambodianlandsector,whomadeimplementationoftheCircularakeypartofitscontinuedcommitmenttosupportthe sector. Following itsadoption inMay2010, theCircularhasbeenused inaGermandevelopmentagency Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)-supported multi-stakeholderprocesstoformalisecommunitiesinBattambang.3Whilestakeholdersreportgeneralsatisfactionintheprocess, crucially noneof thenine target communitieshave so far had their tenure secured, and theprocesshasyettobecompleted.

In contrast, theMunicipality of PhnomPenh (MPP) appears tohave largely implemented theCircularunilaterallywithlittleoversightbydonors,civilsocietyorcommunities.AccordingtotheMPPwebsite,identificationanddata collectionof all ‘temporary settlements’ hasbeen completed in all nineKhans(districts)ofthecity,whiledatacollectiononindividualhouseholdshasbeencompletedinthreeKhans,andpartiallycompletedinoneKhan.TheimpactsofC03implementationinPhnomPenharehoweveryettobedetermined.WhileinBattambangC03implementationhasledtoadefactocity-widemoratorium

1 LICADHO(2009)Land Grabbing & Poverty in Cambodia: the Myth of Development.2 SahmakumTeangTnaut(2011)Facts & Figures #19: Displaced Families: Phnom Penh 1990-2011.3 GIZwasformedin2010followingthemergingofDeutscheGesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit(GTZ),DeutscheEntwicklungsdienst(DED),

andInternationaleWeiterbildungundEntwicklung(InWEnt).ThisreportwillmainlyrefertoGIZ,althoughoccasionalmentionstoGTZandDEDmayfeatureinreferencetoworkdonebyeitheragencypriorto2010.


3

onevictions,evictionscontinueinPhnomPenhatasteadypaceandthereappearstobelittlepoliticalwilltodealwithpoorsettlementsinatransparent,multi-stakeholderfashionfollowingtheexistinglegalframework.Nevertheless, several donorshaveexpressed interest inbecoming involved in furtherC03implementationinthecity.

This report was conceived to provide stakeholders in urban development in Phnom Penh a betterunderstanding of the extent to which Circular 03 meets the required legal standards to genuinelyprotecttherightsoftheurbanpoorthroughincreasingtheirtenuresecurity,andhowpracticableatoolit is for thatpurpose. Itwaswrittenagainst thebackdropofdonor fundspotentiallybeingdirectedtoC03 implementation inPhnomPenh,withtheofaimofprovidingan insighttobothdonorsandotherstakeholders in theprocess abouthow theCircular hasbeen implemented so far, andwhat risks andopportunitiesthispresentsforthefuture.

figure 2: Many homes in Phnom Penharelocatedonorbycanals

4

1.1MethodologyObjectives

The objective of this report is to examine the extent to which Circular 03 meets the required legalstandardstogenuinelyprotecttherightsoftheurbanpoorthroughincreasingtheirtenuresecurity,andhowpracticableatoolitisforthatpurpose.Thespecificobjectivesoftheresearchwereasfollows:

• ToconductadetailedanalysisofCircular03inordertoassessitslegalandpolicyimplications;

• ToreviewthecontextinwhichtheCircularisimplementedaswellasimplementationtodateinordertoassessthepracticalopportunitiesandchallengespresentedbywidespreadC03 imple-mentationinPhnomPenh;and

• TodevelopfindingsandrecommendationsforkeystakeholderswhichmayhelpensureC03imple-mentationleadstopositiveoutcomesfortheurbanpoor.

ResearchApproach

Afour-partmethodologywasdevelopedtoreachtheaboveobjectives:

1. DeskreviewandlegalanalysisoftheCircular

2. interviews with key stakeholders

3. FieldvisitstotargetcommunitiesinBattambangandPhnomPenh

4. CommunitymappingandsurveyingintwocommunitiesinPhnomPenh

DeskReviewandLegalAnalysis

A desk review was conducted which took into account documents regarding the circular that were producedoverthelasttwoyearsbycivilsocietyorganisationsanddevelopmentpartners, inparticularthosethatcameoutofpublicconsultationsin2009.ThedeskreviewalsoconsideredmediareportsandstatementsoftheMPPregardingtheCircular,andinordertoconductalegalanalysisofitsbroaderlegalimplications,a reviewofCambodia’sexisting legal frameworkwasalsoconducted.Theanalysisof theCircularreliedmainlyontheunofficialEnglishtranslationoftheCircularpublishedbytheCouncilforLandPolicy,butalsoonotherinformaltranslationswhentheEnglishmeaningswerenotclear.

InterviewsandFieldvisits

TogainasenseofhowtheCircularisbeingimplementedinBattambang,afieldvisitwasconductedinJune2012whichincludedvisitstothreecommunities(PonleuPrekPreahSdach,Santepheap,andEkapheap).TwentycommunitiesinPhnomPenhwerealsovisitedbetweenJulyandDecember2012.Duringthevisits,community representatives andmembers, and occasionally village chiefs,were interviewed in Khmerthroughaninterpreter.

KeygovernmentandcivilsocietystakeholdersintheimplementationoftheCircularwerealsointerviewed.Theseincluded:representativesofBattambangMunicipality;staffatGIZ,OfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights (UNOHCHR),Habitat forHumanity,WorldVision; and representativesof local non-governmentalorganisations(NGOs)UrbanPoorWomenDevelopment,CommunityManagedDevelopmentPartners (CMDP) and Community Empowerment and Development Team (CEDT); aswell as staff andconsultantsatVishnuLawGroup.InterviewswithcivilsocietyrepresentativeswereconductedinEnglish,whileinterviewswithgovernmentrepresentativeswereconductedinKhmerthroughaninterpreter.Allinterviewswereconductedonaconfidentialbasistoallowintervieweestospeaktheirmindwithoutfearofrepercussions.StaffattheMinistryofLandManagementUrbanPlanningandConstruction(MLMUPC)andtheMPPwereapproachedforinformation,withlimitedsuccess.


5

CommunitysurveyingandmappingwasconductedintwoPhnomPenhcommunities.Followingfieldvisitstopotentialtargetcommunities,fourcommunitieswereinvitedtoaninformationmeetingregardingtheproposed project. Following themeeting, two communities submittedwritten expressions of interestto The Urban Initiative, after which community mapping and surveying activities commenced. Focusgroupdiscussionswereheldtogetasenseoftheoverallcommunityhistory,combinedwithindividualhouseholdsurveysofallcommunitymembers.Giventhatbothtargetcommunitieswerebasedonsavingsgroups,notallhouseholdsinthesettlementweremembers.Onlymembers’householdsweresurveyed.Communitymappingwasconductedtogetherwithcommunitymembers,firstbysketchingadraftmapbasedonaGeoeyesatelliteimage(0.6mresolution),andlaterbyconfirminghouselocationsandsizesusingahandheldGPS(10mcircularerror)andlasermeasurebeforedigitizingthemaps.Completedmapsanddataweresubmittedtothecommunitiesforverification.DuetotheunavoidableGPSinaccuracy,themapspresentedinthisreportshouldbeconsideredindicative,andcertainlynotdefinitiveproofofthelegalstatusofaparticularparcelofland.

Limitations

EveryefforthasbeenmadetopresentatruthfulpictureoftheopportunitiesandchallengespresentedbyCircular03,thoughtheresearchwasconstrainedbythelackofpubliclyaccessibledataandmapsregardinglandownershipinCambodia,aswellasbytheresearchers’inabilitytogainaccesstogovernmentstaffworkingontheCircular.Assuch,someconclusionsmaybebasedonconjectureorextrapolationbasedonsecondarysources.Theresearchwasalsolimitedbytheamountoftimeandresourcesavailableforfieldvisitsandinterviewswithcommunities,althoughtheresearchendeavouredtogetanaccuratesenseoftheimpactsofC03implementationatthecommunitylevelbyinterviewingavarietyofcommunitiesinPhnomPenhinparticular.

1.2NotesonLanguageandTerminologyPoorSettlements

Across theworld, theurbanpoorand theirhomesgobyavarietyofnames. For some theyare slumdwellers, forothers informal settlers, somecall themmarginalizedorexcluded,others say illegals,yetstillmoresimplycallthempoor.Eachlabelhidesasmuchasitexplains,andaswithanylabel,impliesanelementofuniformityacrossindividuals,households,andcommunities.Therealityisoftenremarkablydifferent,with some ‘poor settlements’ constituting sprawling neighbourhoods, encompassing privateresidencesandplacesofbusiness,aswellasschools,hospitalsandothersocial services,whileothersmaybejustahandfulofhomesconstructedononcevacantland.Somesettlementsaredominatedbypoorqualityhousing,utilisingsalvagedmaterialssuchaswood,cardboardandcorrugatedsteel,whereasothersmayhavebecomewellestablishedandincludewell-built,permanentstructures.

For thepurposesof this report, thedistinctionbetween ‘legal’and ‘illegal’ is critical.The term ‘urbanpoorsettlement’willbeusedasageneraldescriptivetermofpoorsettlementsinthecity,withoutanyassessment or implication as to the settlement’s – or individual households’ in the settlement – landrights,orlackthereof.Theterm‘community’willbeusedforasettlementthatisorganised,e.g.throughasavingsgroup,andthushasanelementoforganisationalstructure.

The term ‘informal settlement’, although not clearly defined in Cambodian law,will be used to referto settlements thatarenot legal, i.e. thosewhodonothave legitimate land rightsas legalownersorpossessorsunder theCambodian Land Law (2001). Such settlementsmaybe illegal if theyhavebeenestablishedonlandthatisthelegalpropertyofthestate,orthatofanotherprivateindividual.Thetermisoftenusedinterchangeablywithtermssuchas‘squattersettlements’,‘illegalsettlements’,and‘temporarysettlements’,andisfrequentlyinvokedbytheCambodianGovernmentanditsadministration.Indeedthe

6

finalversionofCircular03usestheterm‘temporarysettlements’.Asthereportwillshow,however,itcanbeverydifficulttoestablishwhetheranurbanpoorsettlementisalsoaninformalsettlement.Inaddition,therightsofindividualhouseholdswithinaparticularsettlementmaydifferbasedontheexactlocationoftheirrespectivelandparcels.

Asaresult,theuseoftheterm‘temporarysettlement’throughouttheCircularisproblematic,asitimpliesthatasettlementundergoinganystepundertheCircularisbydefinition‘temporary’,andthusillegal.Forexample,althoughStep1oftheCircularcallsfordatacollectiononnumbersof‘temporarysettlements’,itisonlyunderlaterstepsthatlandintargetedsettlementsisadjudicatedandclassified.TheterminologyintheintroductiontotheCircularfurtherimpliesthatpoorsettlementsingeneralare‘temporary’.

Theauthorsofthereportwouldhenceliketonotethatwhetherornotasettlement–orahouseholdwithinasettlement–islegalorillegal(‘temporary’,‘informal’),shouldbebasedontheexistingCambodianlegalframework.Thephysicalappearanceofastructureorthelivingstandardsoftheoccupanthavenobearingonthelegalstatusofaparticularparcelofland.

LegalHierarchy

The below diagram outlines the legal hierarchy in Cambodia. The Constitution is the foremost legaldocumentinthecountry,followedbylaws.Sub-decreesandprakas(declarations)arecommoninstrumentsusedtoadddetailorprocessestooperationalisespecificprovisionscontainedinlaws.Circularsarelocatedrelatively low in the legalhierarchy,andaregenerally issuedbyaministryorgovernmentauthority inordertoclarifyapointoflaworgiveinstructions.

figure 3: Legal Hierarchy in Cambodia

Constitution

Law

RoyalDecree(PreahReachKhet)

Sub-Decree(Anukret)

Declaration(Prakas)

Order(Deka)

Circular(Sarachor)

Decision(SechkdaySamrach)


7

1.3AboutTheUrbanInitiativeTheUrbanInitiative(TheUI)isthepolicyandresearcharmoflocalurbanNGOSahmakumTeangTnaut(STT).TheUIworkswithhighlyqualifiedconsultantsfromaroundtheworldtobringlighttothelatestdevelopmentsintheCambodianurbansector.TheUIwasset-upin2011,andhaspreviouslye.g.providedcommentaryonthedraftSub-DecreeonUrbanisationoftheCapitalCity,Towns,andUrbanAreas,aswellaspublishedareportonurbanisationinCambodia’ssecondarycitiesentitled‘Growing Pains: Urbanisa-tion and Informal Settlement in Cambodia’s Secondary Cities’.

STT isaCambodianorganisationfounded in2005andregisteredwiththeMinistryof Interior in2006.STT’svisionisasocietyinwhichurbaninhabitantsenjoyadequatehousingwithinasustainablydevelopingcity.Itsmissionistoprovidepro-poortechnicalassistanceforhousingandinfrastructureandtoinformdialogueandraiseawarenessabouturbanissues.Formoreinformationvisitwww.teangtnaut.org

Figure4:Homesinurbanpoorsettlementsoftenalsofunctionasshops

8

2.1NationalContextReconstitutingPrivateOwnershipAftertheKhmerRouge

InApril1975,PhnomPenhfelltotheKhmerRouge.Soonafter,thecitywasclearedofallofresidents,whowerepushedoutandforcedintoagriculturalcollectives,insomecasesfarfromtheirhomesinthecity.Thisprocesswasrepeatedinallurbanareas,astheradicalDemocraticKampuchearegimesoughttotransformthecountryintoastrictlyagrariancommunistsociety.Theriseoftheregimewasfollowedbythecompletenationalisationofallprivatelyheldlandandallprivateownershipwasabolished.

AfterthefalloftheKhmerRougein1979andtheestablishmentofthePeople’sRepublicofKampuchea(PRK),peoplebegantoslowlyreturntotheirhomelands,re-populatethecities,andinsomecasessettlewherever they could find productive and safe land. During this time, land still belonged to the state,althoughpeoplewereallocatedagricultural landthroughsocalled’cooperativegroups‘,throughwhichtheywerelargelyallowedtofarmandcontrollandprivately.In1989,thecountrytookasignificantsteptowards liberalising itseconomy,andawayfromtheMarxist-LeninistmodelthathadcontinuedduringthePRKperiod.Thefirstdecreesthatbegantoreconstitutecitizens’rightstoprivatelyowntheirlandandresidenceswereissuedsoonaftertheestablishmentofthenewStateofCambodia(SOC).

InApril1989,theSOCpassedasub-decreerecognizingownershipofresidentialpropertiesaswellastherighttotransferthatpropertythroughsuccession.4 following this, a new land management policy was adoptedconfirmingthatthestatewasthedefaultownerofthecountry’sland,butauthorizingtherighttoacquireownershipofresidentialland.Thiswasdistinguishedfrompossessionofagriculturalland,whichcouldbeusedandcontrolledprivatelyaslongasitwasbeingputtoproductiveuse.5 in 1992, the country adopteditsfirstfulllandlawsincebeforetheKhmerRougetookpower.Thelawsetoutthemeansbywhichownershipcouldbeacquired,principally:succession,contract,orbyconverting‘temporarypossession’intofullownership.6

Subsequent to thedrasticpopulation transferwhich followed the fall of theKhmerRouge, Cambodiahascontinuedtoexperiencearelativelysteadymovementofpeoplefromruraltourbanareas,wherejobopportunitiesaremorefavourableandwageshigher.Thishasresultedinthesomewhathaphazardsettlementof somepartsofPhnomPenhandotherurbanareas. In anattempt tobringorder to theCambodianlandsector,theMinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanning,andConstruction(MLMUPC)wasestablishedin1999andgivencompetencetogovernlandadministrationandmanagementissues.7 A

4 People’sRepublicofKampuchea,CouncilofMinisters(1989)ANK No25, Sub-decree No25 on Providing House Ownership to the Cambodian Population, 22 April 1989.

5 People’sRepublicofKampuchea,CouncilofMinisters(1989)SNN No03, Instruction No03 on Implementation of Land use and Management Policy, 3 June 1989.

6 RGC(1992)Land Law Article 59.7RGC(1999)Law on the Establishment of the Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction.

BAcKGroUND 2


9

newLandLawwasadoptedin2001,whichbuiltonthe1992lawandfilledtheconsiderablegapstherein.Amongstthenewprovisionscontainedinthislaw,afoundationwasprovidedforanationallandregisterandlandregistrationprogramme,whichwas laterelaboratedbysub-decree,andreplacedtheoldandinefficientsporadicregistrationsystem.ThisconstitutedanothercriticalsteptowardsclarifyingownershipstatusofalllandplotsinCambodia.

ANewLandAdministration

ThedevelopmentofCambodia’slandadministrationsystemhasmovedforwardingreatleapsandboundsoverthelastfifteenyears,andinparticularfollowingtheadoptionofthenewLandLaw.Withthesupportofacoregroupofdevelopmentpartners,theCambodianGovernmenthasbeenworkingtodevelopitspolicies,legalframeworkandpracticalcapacitiestopushthroughanambitiousschemeoflandreforms.Themain pillars of the government’s land programmewere brought together in theMLMUPC’s LandAdministration,LandManagementandDistributionProgram.Thefirstactivitiesunderthisprogrammewere conducted through the multi-donor supported Land Management and Administration Program(LMAP).8LMAPbeganoperationsin2002,andranuptotheendof2009,whenitwascancelledprematurelybytheCambodianGovernmentafteraWorldBankInspectionPanelinvestigationfoundseveralbreachesoftheWorldBank’ssafeguardpolicies.9

Theprojecthadanumberofcomponents,principally:developinglandpolicyandregulatoryframework;institutionaldevelopmentof theMLMUPC; landtitlinganddevelopmentofa landregistrationsystem;strengtheningdisputeresolutionmechanisms;andstatelandmanagement.10 The current SLr process was developedthroughLMAP,includingthedraftingofthelegalframeworkandtrainingofstaff,implementationof the registrationprogramme,anddeliveryoftitles. Theprojecthas since transitioned into the LandAdministrationSub-SectorProgram (LASSP),andhas lost thefinancial supportof theWorldBank,butcontinuestoissuetitlesin16outof24provincesacrossthecountry(includingthecapitalPhnomPenh).11

LMAP and LASSP have had considerable success in developing the legal framework and institutionalcapacitiesforconductingsystematiclandregistration(SLR)inCambodia.Theprojecthasalsosucceededinissuingalargenumberoflandtitles,mainlyinruralareas.However,inrecentyearsanumberofcriticalreports have highlighted significant issues in the implementation of its land administration activities.Departuresfromthelegalframeworkthatshouldbeimplementedtoprotecttherightsoflegalpossessorshavebeendocumented,despitethefactthattheLandLawcontainscrucialprovisionsfortheprotectionoflegalpossessorswhohaveyettoreceivelandtitles.Therearealsoconsiderableconcernsthattheabsenceofcoordinatedand transparent state landmapping leavesmanypeopleopen tounjustaccusationsofresidingonstateland.Inaddition,ithasbeenarguedthatSLRhasfocusedonruralareaswithlowlevelsoftenureinsecurity,whileurbanareaswithmorepressureonlandhavebeenoverlooked.

Anotherprominentcriticism,particularlyrelevantintheurbansector,hasbeenthatfromtheoutsetitwasdecidedthattheprojectwouldnotcoverinformalsettlements,unlesstherewasagreementwiththegovernmenttotitleinsuchareas.12 in 2001, when LMAP was designed, it was envisioned that a separate

8 InitiallytheprojectwasfinancedbytheWorldBank,andreceivedtechnicalsupportfromtheGermantechnicalagency,GTZ(sincerenamedGIZ),andFinland’sMinistryofForeignAffairs.TheCanadianInternationalDevelopmentAgency(CIDA)joinedlaterandcontributedbothfinancialsupportandtechnicalassistance.

9 WorldBank(2009)Statement from the World Bank on Termination by Royal Government of Cambodia of the Land Management and Administration Project, 6 September 2009.

10 WorldBank(2002)Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 19.3 Million (US$24.3 Million Equivalent) to The Kingdom of Cambodia for a Land Management and Administration Project, 29 January 2002 (p.2).

11 MinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanning,andConstruction(2011) Land Administration Sub-sector Programme Newsletter, Land is Life, Novem-ber 2011 (p.3).

12 WorldBank(2002)Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 19.3 Million (US$24.3 Million Equivalent) to The Kingdom of Cambodia for a Land Management and Administration Project, 29 January 2002 (p.20).

10

donor supported13 projectwould focuson informal settlementsand seek toeitheragree land sharingarrangementsor facilitate resettlementunderappropriateconditions.14Unfortunately, theprojectwasneverrealised.Likewise,adraftNationalHousingPolicydevelopedin2004andre-visitedin2010proposedsolutionsfordealingwithinformalsettlementsthroughmechanismssuchaslandsharing,siteupgradesandresettlement,butthisalsolanguished.Inevitablythisleftalargegapasfarasinformalsettlementswereconcerned,andtodateillegalsettlershavenolegalprotections,asoutlinedbelow.

Theproject,asmentionedabove,wasalsosubjecttoahighlycriticalWorldBankInspectionPanelreportthathighlightedseriousviolationsoftheBank’spolicies.Theinvestigationcameonthebackofpressurefromanumberofcivilsocietyorganisations,15and,ultimately,acomplaintfromresidentsoftheBoeungKaklakeareaofPhnomPenh.TheareaaroundthelakewasadjudicatedunderLMAPbutsubsequentlydeclaredstateproperty.Theareawasthenleasedtoaprivatecompanyandresidentsissuedwithevictionnotices.Thecomplainantsstatedthattheywereunfairlyexcludedfromtheprocessandtheadjudicationoftheirlanddidnotfollowtheappropriatelegalprocess.Theyheldthatthisweakenedtheirposition,andtheInspectionPanelagreed.16

ThecaseofBoeungKakisnotanisolatedevent.DespitethelackoftransparencyintheimplementationofSLR,andhencealsoinformationaboutwhichareashavenotbeentitled,thesetypesofexclusionsfromthetitlingsystemhavebeenobservedinmultipleareas,andithasbeennotedthattheydisproportionatelyconcern poor communities. Many of these communities are also located in Phnom Penh, where acombinationofhistoricalfactors,strongurbangrowth,andtheinabilityofLMAPandLASSPtoaddressthesituationhaveledtoparticularlydifficultsituationinthelandsector.

PhnomPenhRepopulated

Cambodia’scapitalPhnomPenhisthecountry’smostpopulouscity,aswellasthepolitical,administrative,andculturalcentreoftheKingdom.AlthoughemptiedbytheKhmerRouge,theregime’sfallsawpreviousandnewresidentspromptlyreturningtoPhnomPenh.Duringthe1980s,somereturneeswereauthorisedtooccupybuildingsonafirst-come,first-servedbasis.Buildingsinthecity’sadministrativecentrewereindemand,withmanybuildingssub-dividedandevensold.Onceexistingbuildingswereoccupied,peoplebegansettlingonvacantland,creatingmanyofthesettlementstodayconsideredillegal.Thesesettlementsgrewovertimeasruralmigrantscametothecity insearchofeconomicopportunities,aswellaswithinternallydisplacedpeopleandreturneesfromtherefugeecampssettlinginPhnomPenh.

Untiltheendofthe1990s,theMunicipalityofPhnomPenh(MPP)refusedtorecognisethemajorityoftheurbanpooraslegitimateresidentsinthecity.Instead,severalviolentevictionstookplaceinPhnomPenh,ofteninthenameof‘beautification’.Abreakthroughfortherightsoftheurbanpoorcamein1999,whentheMPPwithsupportfromUN-HabitatdevelopedanUrbanPovertyReductionStrategytoimproveaccesstobasicsocialandphysicalinfrastructure,enhanceeconomicopportunitiesandstrengthenparticipatorygovernancemechanisms.17However, in keepingwith the framingofpoor settlementsashaving illegalstatus,thePrimeMinisterredefined‘squattersettlements’as‘temporarysettlements’andemphasisedanewpolicyofrelocatingthepoorto’liveablecommunities‘attheoutskirtsofthecity18thefollowing

13 UN-Habitat,UnitedNationsDevelopmentProject(UNDP),andtheUK’sDepartmentforInternationalDevelopment(DfID).14 TheproposedprojectwascalledtheUrbanPovertyReductionProject,andisdiscussedin:WorldBank(2002) Project Appraisal Document on a Pro-

posed Credit in the Amount of SDR 19.3 Million (US$24.3 Million Equivalent) to The Kingdom of Cambodia for a Land Management and Administration Project, 29 January 2002 (p87).

15 Seeforexample:Grimsditch,M.&Henderson,N.(2009)Untitled: Tenure Insecurity and Inequality in the Cambodian Land Sector, Bridges Across BordersSoutheastAsia,CentreonHousingRightsandEvictionsandJesuitRefugeeServices.

16 WorldBankInspectionPanel(2009)Cambodia: Land Management and Administration Project.17 MPP(1999)Urban Poverty Reduction Strategy for Phnom Penh.18 ReportssuchasSahmakumTeangTnaut(2009)The 8 Khan SurveyandSahmakumTeangTnaut(2012)Facts & Figures #21: Resettling Phnom Penh:

54 – And Counting,providedetailsonhowmostofthesitesarefarfrom‘liveable’andthatlivingstandardsofresidentsgenerallydropcomparedtopre-evictionlevels.


11

year.19Subsequently,some50relocationsiteshavebeenestablishedaroundPhnomPenh,althoughitiswidelyacknowledgedthatmany‘relocations’havebeenlittlemorethanforcedevictions.20

Overthelastdecade,thecityhasthusseenamajorshiftofitsurbanpoorsettlementsfromtheinnertotheouterdistricts(Khans).Atthesametime,manyoftheremainingurbanpoorsettlementscontinuetobeconsideredillegalandaresubjecttoeviction,orthreatsthereof.Althoughreliablefiguresareextremelyhardtocomeby, it isestimatedsome150,000peoplehavebeendisplacedinPhnomPenhaloneoverthepasttwodecades,representing11%ofthecity’scurrentpopulation.21AmnestyInternationalstatedin a 2008 report that between 2003 and 2008 some 30,000 people were forcibly evicted from thecapital,22

whileanotherestimateputsthefigureofthoseevictedinPhnomPenhbetween1998and2003at11,000.23,24 Currently, at least36 settlementshave receivedevictionnotices,while some100 reportrumoursofimpendingeviction.

Althoughthecausesoftheseevictionsaremyriad,theshortcomingsofLMAP’sandLASSP’sdesignandimplementationhighlightedabove,vis-à-vistheincreasedinvestmentintoCambodiafollowingthereturnofnominalpeaceandstability,haveplayedakeyrole.Comparedtoagoalofsurveyingandadjudicating198,000landplotsbetween2002and2007,withatleast80%(or158,400)ofthesetitlesdistributedbytheendoftheproject25,attheendof2011thefigureforlandtitlesissuedinPhnomPenhwasonly62,934,26 farshortofinitialtargetsandasignoftheextremelychallengingenvironmentforlandregistrationinthecapital.Anumberofhighprofilecasesinthesameperiodalsoshowhowpoorcommunitieshavebeendeniedadjudicationunderthelawandsubsequentlyfacedeviction.

Poorcommunitiesincity’scentralTonleBassacareahavebeenparticularlytargeted.In2004,residentsofKohPich islandwere issuedevictionnotices tomakeway for thedevelopmentofa luxury satellitecity,Diamond Island,despitehavingwell-documented rights to their land. Similarly thenearbyGroup78communitywasevictedin2009followingrepeatedrejectionsoftheirapplicationsforlandtitlesanddespiteanapplicationtotheCadastralCommissiontodecideontheland’slegalstatusandownership.Intotal,atleastadozencommunities–equivalenttoover12,000families–wereevictedfromtheBassacareabetween1998and2009.27WhenSLRwasfinallyconductedintheareain2009and2010,mostofthelandalreadybelongedto‘developers’,whilesevenareasinhabitedbypoorcommunitieswereexcludedfromtheprocessonaccountofbeingtoo‘complicated’toadjudicate.28

AreviewmissionbytheWorldBankhighlightedtheissueofexclusionsina2009report,statingthat:‘therelevantmunicipalauthorityhasgranteditselftheunilateralrighttoexciseportionsoflandssurveyedbytheCadastralAdministration.Indoingso,ithasdecidednottoapplythesystematictitlingtothoseexcisedareas.’Thereportalsostates:‘Ensuringthatanyprocessundertakenbyanyauthoritytoexciseorexcludeaportionof landfromthesystematictitlingarea is transparent,public,andwidelydisseminated isanimportantassumptionstronglygroundedintheapplicablelawsupportedbytheLMAP.’29Unfortunately

19 Fallavier,P(2003)Phnom Penh, CambodiaSummaryExtractedfromUN-Habitat(2003)Global Report on Human Settlements 2003, The Challenge of Slums,Earthscan,London;PartIV:‘SummaryofCityCaseStudies’,pp195-228.

20 SahmakumTeangTnaut(2012).Facts & Figures #21: Resettling Phnom Penh: 54 - And Counting? 21 SahmakumTeangTnaut(2011).Facts & Figures #19: Displaced Families: Phnom Penh 1990-2011.22 AmnestyInternational(2008)Rights Razed: Forced Evictions in Cambodia (p.7).23 WorldBankAsiaandPacificRegion(2006)Cambodia: Halving Poverty by 2015? Cambodia Poverty Assessment (p.48).24 ThisisnotanissuethatisconfinedonlytoPhnomPenh;in2012,thelocalNGOLicadhostatedthatinthe12provinceswheretheyhaveoffices,

theyhaverecorded654landdisputes,involvingthelandof85,000families,or400,000people.Adhoc,anotherlocalhumanrightsorganization,putforwardevenhigherfigures,statingthatsince2000theyhaverecordeddisputesinvolving150,000familiesnationwide,whichinvolveabout700,000people.

25 WorldBank(2002)Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 19.3 Million (US$24.3 Million Equivalent) to The Kingdom Of Cambodia for a Land Management and Administration Project 29 January 2002.

26 MinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanning,andConstruction(2011)Land Administration Sub-sector Programme Newsletter, Land is Life, Novem-ber 2011 (p.7).

27 SahmakumTeangTnaut(2011).Facts & Figures #19: Displaced Families: Phnom Penh 1990-2011.28 Rithysen,C.(2009)Letter 372 PPMO/PHN from the Director of the Phnom Penh Department of LMUPC and director of Project Management of Phnom

Penh to the chair of the administrative committee of Phnom Penh: Request for permission to exclude the following areas from systematic titling Octo-ber 6, 2009 (unofficial translation).

29 WorldBankEnhancedReviewMission(2009)Cambodia Land Management and Administration Project - Enhanced Review Report, 13 July 2009 (p.8).

12

thereareareaswherecommunitieshavebeenexcludedfromthesystematicregistrationprocesswithoutconsultation and in the absence of clear andwell demonstrated legal justifications. In the context ofreneweddonorcommitmentsrelatedtothe‘[a]voidanceof(temporary)exclusionsfromtheregistrationprocess’,30oneconcernisthatsuchareasmayeventuallybesubjecttoCircular03,despiteneverhavinghadtheirlegalstatusfullyadjudicatedthroughtheSLRprocess.

LackofcomprehensivestatelandmanagementinPhnomPenhalsomakestheprocessoflandregistrationmorecomplex,asareasborderingstate landoroverlappingstate landcannotbeadjudicateduntilthestate land isclearly identified.Aspeopleareoccupying landonoraroundpropertiesbelongingtothevariousministries,aswellasalongsideinfrastructuresuchasroadsandcanals,andonthebanksoforevenoverlakes,statelandmappingneedstobeconductedpriortooralongsideregistrationefforts.However,thisisgenerallynotthecase.AsstatedintheWorldBankreportreferencedabove:

‘The state land identification (public and private) should be determined before or rather simultaneously to the individual plot titling. This has not happened to date in urban areas, which is why provincial/municipal authorities are trying to determine what would be state land, and asking it to be excised from the systematic titling process. State land (public and private) identification and mapping, must not be done through unilateral excision, it must be done in a separate, transparent and participatory process as mandated by relevant legal and regulatory provisions.’31

This is alsoa key concern related toCircular03 implementation inPhnomPenh,andgreat caremustbetakentoensurethatpeoplearenotdeemedtobeillegallysettledonstatelandintheabsenceofanadequateprocessof state land identificationandmapping.However, beforediscussing theCircular inmoredetailareviewoftheexistinglegalframeworkisneeded.

30 CambodiaRehabilitationandDevelopmentBoard,CouncilofDevelopmentofCambodia(2011),Summary Record of the Negotiations on Development Cooperation between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Royal Government of Cambodia held in Bonn on 13 and 14 Decem-ber 2011.

31 WorldBankEnhancedReviewMission(2009)Cambodia Land Management and Administration Project - Enhanced Review Report, 13 July 2009 (p.8).

Figure5:Sanitationremainsanissueinmanypoorsettle-ments in the city


13

2.2TheLegalFrameworkOwners,LegalPossessors,andIllegalSettlers

ThecomplexsituationcurrentlyfacingCambodia’slandsectorisinlargeparttheresultofitstumultuoushistory,asalreadydiscussed.Themovefromtotalstateownershipoflandtoprivatisedandindividuallyregisteredholdingshasbeenlongandcomplex.Acrossthecountrytherearepeoplewhohold‘hard’titles,orofficiallandownershipcertificatesissuedbythecadastralauthoritiesoperatingundertheMinistryofAgricultureinthe1990s,orundertheMLMUPCafter2002.However,manypeoplehavenotyetbeenabletoobtainsuchdocumentation,eitherbecausetheirlandhasnotyetbeensubjectto,orhasbeenexcludedfrom,theSLRprocess,orbecausetheyhavenotbeenabletoaffordtoapplyforasporadictitleunderthenewsystem.Thesepeoplerelyonwhatisoftentermedas‘softtitle’,whichincludeslandreceipts,32 officiallywitnessed land sale contracts, andother documents that showat least tacit approval of theoccupationoftheirland.

Cambodia’s reformed landadministrationsystem is in theprocessofphasingout thispluralityof landdocumentation,andworkingtowardstitlingprivatelandplotsacrosstheentirecountry.However,untilthisisachieved,itisimportanttounderstandthedifferentlegalstatusofthevariousgroupsofoccupants.InordertounderstandhowCircular03fitsinwiththeexistinglegalframeworkrelatedtoland,itisimportanttofirstclarifyhowownershipandlegalpossessionaredefinedunderCambodianlaw,andwhoexactlymayberegardedasan‘illegalsettler’.Itisalsocrucialtohaveafirmunderstandingofthedefinitionof‘stateland’,whichisdiscussedinthefollowingsection.

Ownership

Ownershipistheexclusiverighttocontrol,useanddisposeoflandandanythingconnectedtothatland.33 TheCambodianConstitutionrecognisesthatallpersonshavetherighttoprivateownership.Ownershipshouldbeprotectedby law,andtheright toconfiscateprivateproperty fromanypersonmayonlybeexercisedwheninthepublicinterestandonlyafterthepaymentoffairandjustcompensation.34 This is echoedintheLandLawof2001.35

Ownership of land can only be confirmed after survey, adjudication and registration by the cadastralauthorities,workingundertheMLMUPC.Afterreceivinga landtitlethroughthefull legalprocess,theownerisofficiallyrecognisedasthetrueowneroftheland,andtheinformationcontainedontheLandRegisterisdefinitive.Theonlywaytodefinitivelyproveownershipisbyproducinganofficiallandtitle.Thisisthestrongestprotectionthatanyonemayhavefortheirland,andprivatelyownedpropertymayonlybeconfiscatedifthereisalegitimatepublicinterestindoingso.ThismustfollowtheprovisionsoftheConstitutionandLandLaw,aswellastheprocesssetoutintheLawonExpropriation.36

In summary, anyone who has received a land title through the MLMUPC’s land registration system is an owner. As such they may not be dispossessed unless this in the public interest, and only after payment of fair and just compensation.

32 Followingthelandreformsofthelate1980sandearly1990s,citizenswereencouragedtosubmitapplicationsforownershipcertificatestotheMinistryofAgriculturewhichatthetimehadtheresponsibilityofmanagingagriculturallandusethroughoutthecountry.However,theMinistrywasoverwhelmedbyapplicationsandthemajoritywereneverprocessed.Somehouseholdsstillholdreceiptsthattheyreceivedwhentheyfirstappliedforthesecertificates.

33 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 85.34 RGC(2004)Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Article 44.35 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 5.36 The Law on Expropriationwaspassedin2010,butatthetimeofwritingwasstillnotbeingimplementedasitrequiresthedraftingandadoptionofa

numberofcomplementarysub-decreestosetoutkeyprocedures.

14

LegalPossession

Althoughsignificantprogresshasbeenmadeinissuingtitlesacross16ofCambodia’s24provinces,therearestillmanymillionsofpeoplewhohavenotyetreceivedlandtitles,andarethereforenotyetlegallyrecognisedastheownersoftheirland.However,thatisnottosaytheyarewithoutrightsandprotections,andahugenumberofthosewithoutofficiallandtitlesarewhatisknownas‘legalpossessors’.AccordingtotheLandLaw(2001),anypersonwhowasinpossessionoftheirlandpriortothepassingofthelaw(inAugust2001)andsatisfyingafurtherfivecriteria37 isentitledtoapplyfora landtitle.38 Ifsomeonecommencedoccupationoftheirlandafterthisdate,butcanprovethattheypurchasedthelandfromtheoriginallegalpossessor,theirclaimisalsoconsideredlegitimate.39

Thestatusoflegalpossessorprovidessimilarrightsandprotectionstothatofanowner.Whilewaitingforpossessiontobeconvertedintoownership,aslongastheirpossessionisincompliancewiththeLandLaw,possessorshavetherighttouse,occupy,transfer,andexcludeothersfromtheir land.40 However, legalpossessiondoesnotconstituteanindisputableright.Incaseswherethereisadispute,possessors(or competingpossessors)mustprove that theirpossession is legitimate.41 For themanyhundredsofthousandsofCambodianswhohavenotyetreceivedlandtitles,theirstatusaslegalpossessoristhebasisfortheirclaimforlandtitle.Thelawprohibitsanyactionthatinterfereswiththepeacefulpossessionoflandinareaswhereownershipclaimshaveyettobeadjudicated.This,intheoryatleast,providesvaluableprotectionforthelandrightsofthosewhoareyettoreceivelandtitles,butmeettherequirementsoflegalpossession.

Ifapossessorappliesforlandtitle,oriftheareawheretheyliveissubjecttosystematicregistration,itiseach individualpossessor’s responsibility toprovideevidence toprove that theirpossession is legaland therefore can legitimately be recognised as full ownership. In order to prove that theymeet therequirementsof legalpossession, landholdersmustsubmitdocuments thatprovehow long theyhaveoccupiedtheirland,andadjudicationofficerswillinterviewneighboursandlocalofficialstoensurethatthereisnoconflictoverthepossessionofthatlandandthatthereisnodisputeoveritsboundaries.

Asmentionedabove,therequirementsforlegalpossessionareclearlysetoutintheLandLaw.However,thelawalsosetsoutanumberofrestrictions.Importantly,thelawbroughtaboutanendtonewpossessionclaimsbymaking it illegal to initiateanynewpossessionafter thepassingof the law.42 This does not havetheeffectofcriminalising thosealreadysettledat thetimethe lawwaspassed,butmakesclearthatanypossessionthatcommencedorcommencesafter2001isnotlegal.43Additionally,andofcrucialimportancetothisreport,theLandLawmakesclearthatnopossessiononstatepubliclandislegal,nomatterwhenitcommenced.44

In summary, anyone who does not have a land title for their land, but who commenced possession of that land prior to the passing of the Land Law 2001 (or purchased the land from someone who did so) may be a legal possessor. To be legal, this possession must meet a number of criteria as set out in the Land Law, and the land must not be state public property. Legal possessors have similar rights to owners, including the right to control, use, and transfer their land, and have the right to apply for full land titles.

37 Tobelegal,possessionmustbe:unambiguous,non-violent,notorioustothepublic,continuousandingoodfaith(RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 31).38 RGC(2001)Land Law, Articles 30 & 31.39 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 30.40 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 39.41 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 30.42 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 29.43 RGC(2001)Land Law, Articles 18 & 34.Seealso:RGC(2001)NOT No43, Notification on Cessation of Acquisitive Possession of Immovable Property, 6

September 2001.44 RGC(2001)Land Law, Articles 16 & 18.


15

IllegalSettlers

Thosewhodonothaverightsasownersorpossessorsoflandmayinfactbeillegalsettlers.Inmanycases,illegalsettlersmaynotbeawareoftheirstatusassuch.Theymayhaveresidedontheirlandandintheirhomesinfullknowledgeoflocalauthorities,andmayevenbeinpossessionoflandsalecontractsthatwerewitnessedbylocalvillagechiefsorcommuneofficials.However,asdiscussedabove,iftheydonothavelandtitles,andiftheirpossessiondoesnotmeettherequirementsof legalpossessionassetoutintheLandLaw,theiroccupancyis likelytobeviewedasillegal.ThismaybebecausetheirpossessioncommencedaftertheLandLawwaspassed,or theymayberesidingon landthat is regardedasstatepublicproperty.Asmentionedearlier inthereport,duetothe lackofcomprehensiveandtransparentstatelandmapping,thiscanoftenbedifficulttoassess.

Unfortunately,manypeoplehavelivedforyearsinsuchcircumstances,unawareoftheirstatusunderthelaw,andundertheassumptionthatthetacitapprovalofthelocalauthoritiesmeantthattheiroccupationwaslegal.Inothercases,suchastheaforementionedcaseofBoeungKaklake,concernshavebeenraisedthatpeoplehavebeenlabelledas‘illegalsettlers’inanopportunisticmanner,asandwhendevelopmentprioritiesdictate.AsshownbythecasesofBoeungKaklake,KohPichisland,andGroup78,andnodoubtmultiplesmallerandunreportedinstances,peoplewhomaywellhavehadclaimsaslegalpossessorswerenever given the opportunity to have such claims assessed, and have had their homes and lands taken on thegroundsthattheysettledthereillegally.

IllegalsettlersmaywellbeabletobenefitfromtheCircular03processandthe‘resolutions’itsetsout.However,thesituationdescribedabovealsoprovidessupportforwhytheimplementationofCircular03shouldproceedcautiously,andstressestheneedforsettlements,andindividualhouseholdswithinthem,tobeproperlyassessedaccordingtothelegalprocessalreadysetoutintheLandLawandsubsequentlegalframeworkbeforeitisdecidedthattheybesubjecttotheresolutionsofCircular03.

In summary, those people who do not have land titles, and do not meet the conditions of legal possession as defined in the Land Law and/or are living on state public land are most likely to be illegal settlers. These are the people who should in theory be directly affected by the application of Circular 03, which if implemented appropriately could be of significant benefit to them.

Whatis‘StateLand’?

AsCircular03appliesonlytothosewhoareillegallysettledonstatepublicland,itisimportanttohaveaclearunderstandingofwhatstatelandisandhowitisdefinedunderCambodianlaw.The2001LandLawsetsoutthemainclassificationsofland,andprovisionsforstatelandmanagementarefurtherelaboratedbysub-decreeandotherlegalinstruments.

TheLandLaw2001setsoutthreemainclassificationsof land:state,private,andcollective.TheseareoutlineinFigure6.

State Property

StatePublicProperty

State Private Property

Monastery Property

Private Property CollectiveProperty

indigenous Communtiy

Property

figure 6: State Land

16

Forthepurposesofthisreport,understandingofthedefinitionsofstatepublic land and state private land isimportant.Asthenamesuggests,statepubliclandislandheldbythestatethathasageneralpublicuse,benefitorservice.Thisincludesroads,publicgardens,schools,hospitalsandadministrativebuildings.Italsoincludeslandthatisofnaturaloriginsuchasrivers,lakesandseashores,andareasofarchaeologicalorheritagevalue(seeAnnex1forafulllistofstatepublicproperties).Statepublicpropertycannotbeownedorpossessedbyanyoneexceptthestate,45andanyencroachmentonstatepubliclandisinfactacriminaloffencepunishablebyafineortimeinjail.46

Stateprivatelandisallthelandthatisneitherstatepublicland,norlegallyprivatelyorcollectivelyownedorpossessedundertheLandLawof2001.47Basically,thecategoryofstateprivatelandisa’catchall‘forthose landsnotownedor legallypossessedbyanyone,andwhichdonotcomeunderthe listofstatepublicproperties.48Unlikestatepublicproperty,stateprivatepropertymaybesubjecttosale,exchange,distributionortransferofrightstoprivateindividualsorcompanies,providedthisisinaccordancewiththelaw.49

In2006,adecisionwasissuedbytheMLMUPCthatsetcriteriafor identifyingalltypesofstateland.50 Thisclarifiedanumberofimportantquestions,suchas:whatdistancefromtheroadshouldberegardedas‘roadside’,wheredoriverbanksextendto,andwhatdistancefromtherailwayisclassedas‘rightofway’.Thesecriteriaareofvitalimportancetothosepeoplelivingonorclosetothebordersofstateland,andcouldmakethedifferencebetweenwhethertheyareclassedaslegalpossessorsorillegalsettlers.Asalreadymentioned,Circular03appliesonlytothoseillegallysettledonstatepublicland.Thiswouldinclude:

• Thosewhocommencedpossessionofstateprivatelandafterthepassingofthe2001LandLaw,orwhosepossessiondoesnotmeettherequirementsoflegalpossession;and

• Thosewhoaresettledonstatepubliclandatanytime.

TheLandLawisveryclearthatanyonewhocommencedpossessionofstateprivatelandafterthepassingof the Land Law, and anyone who is in possession of state public land (no matter when possessioncommenced), has no legal claim to that land.51 Anyone in this situation has no right to convert theirpossessionintoownership,andcannotclaimcompensationforanysubsequent lossofthis land.52 This raisesaninterestingquestionastohowtheCambodianGovernmentcandealwiththoseillegallysettledonstateland.Circular03providesapotentiallypromisingmechanismfordealingwiththisproblem,thedetailsofwhicharethefocusofSection3ofthisreport.

In summary, state land is divided into state public and state private land. State private land may be subject to legal possession, and may also be converted to private land provided this follows the legal process. State public land cannot be legally possessed or privately transferred, and cannot be subject to private acquisition through possession.

45 ‘Aninfringementagainstpublicpropertyshallbefinedfromfivemillion(5,000,000)Rieltofiftymillion(50,000,000)Rieland/orimprisonedfromone(1)tofiveyears.’RGC(2001)Land Law, Articles 16 & 18.

46 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 259.47 RGC(2005)No118 ANK/BK, Sub-decree on State Land Management, Article 5.48 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 14.49 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 17.50 MLMUPC(2006)Decision No52 on Decision to Put the Text On Criteria for State Land Classification as an Annex of Prakas No42, Dated 10 March 2006

On State Land Identification, Mapping and Classification, 25 December 2006.51 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 18.52 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 19.


17

StateLandManagement

Unfortunately, todate therehasbeennocoordinated identification,mappingandregistrationofstateland.Inanumberofcases,occupantshavebeenissuedevictionnoticesordeniedtitlebasedontheclaimthattheyareillegallysettledonstateland,oftenintheabsenceofanyfulllegalassessmentofthisclaim.Asthereiscurrentlynoaccessibledatabaseonstateland,suchclaimsareeffectivelyunverifiable.

The foundationsof the legal framework for state landmanagementare setout in the2001LandLawandbuiltuponbySub-decreeNo118onStateLandManagement,whichwaspassedin2005.53Thesub-decreestatesthatstatelandidentificationandmappingisa‘coordinatedandtransparentprocess’whichistobeconductedbytheDistrict/KhanStateLandWorkingGroupundertheleadershipoftheProvincial/MunicipalStateLandManagementCommittee.54Thebasicproceduresetoutinthesub-decreewasfurtherelaboratedinMLMUPCPrakasNo42issuedin2006.55Theprocessisdetailedandspecifiestherolesandresponsibilitiesoftherelevantactors.Importantly,forpeoplelivingintheareabeingmapped,itcontainsnumerousprovisionstoensuretransparencyandpublicinvolvement.

As can be seen in the introductory notes to this report, in the Cambodian legal hierarchy, a circularsitsbelowbothaprakasandsub-decree,andcanthereforenotamendthelegalprocessforstatelandidentificationandmapping,andlikewisecannotbeusedtocircumnavigateit.Circular03mustthereforebeimplementedinawaythatfollowsthesepre-existingandhigherlegalinstruments.Therefore,beforeanyoneismadesubjecttothe‘resolutions’setoutintheCircular,thelegalstatusofthelandtheyresideonmusthavebeensubjecttoarobustassessment,followingtheprocesssetoutintheCircularbutalsoinSub-decreeNo118 and Prakas No42.

Sub-decreeNo118setsouttheprinciplesforidentification,mapping,classificationandregistrationofstateland,detailingboththeprocessandtherolesandresponsibilitiesoftherelevantinstitutions.Theprocessofstatelandidentificationisconductedbythemunicipal/provincialStateLandWorkingGroupsunderthedirectionof themunicipal/provincialStateLandManagementCommittees.Theprocessshould involvecooperationwithanyrelevantministriesorstateinstitutionswhosemandateorinterestsareaffectedbythestatelandidentificationactivities,andallstatelandidentificationandmappingmustbeconductedwith the technicalguidanceof theMLMUPC. Identificationandmappingdocumentsshouldbepostedintheaffectedareafora30daypubliccommentperiod,andanycommentsshouldbepassedontotheStateLandManagementCommitteeinasummaryreport.56Thisidentificationprocesscanthenbeusedasabasisforthelandtoberegisteredasstatepublicorstateprivatelandaccordingtothesystematicorsporadicregistrationprocess.57 If therearestillcompetingclaimstothe landafter landclassification isconductedorifthereisinadequateinformationaboutthestatusoftheland,Sub-decreeNo118 provides anadditionalprocedureforclassifyingtheland,againincludinganopportunityforpubliccomment.58

MLMUPc Prakas No42 adds detail to the above process and includes provisions for notifying relevantministriesandstateinstitutionsaswellasaffectedpeoplebeforestatelandidentificationcommences.59 Italsodetailstheprocessofassigningfieldteams,conductingon-sitework,andidentifyingthedifferentclaims–bothprivateandstate–tothelandinquestion.60Theprakasalsodetailstheprocessofpublicparticipationinthestatelandidentification,includingpublicmeetingsandreceivingpubliccomments.61 TheprakasdiscusseshowthisinformationshouldsubsequentlybereportedtotheStateLandManagement

53 RGC(2005)No118 ANK/BK, Sub-decree on State Land Management.54 RGC(2005)No118 ANK/BK, Sub-decree on State Land Management, Article 6.55 MLMUPC(2006)No42 DNS/BK, Prakas on Identification, Mapping and Classification of State Land.56 RGC(2005)No118 ANK/BK, Sub-decree on State Land Management, Chapter 2.57 RGC(2005)No118 ANK/BK, Sub-decree on State Land Management, Chapter 3.58 RGC(2005)No118 ANK/BK, Sub-decree on State Land Management, Chapter 4.59 MLMUPC(2006)No42 DNS/BK, Prakas on Identification, Mapping and Classification of State Land, Articles 7 & 8.60 MLMUPC(2006)No42 DNS/BK, Prakas on Identification, Mapping and Classification of State Land Articles 9-14.61 MLMUPC(2006)No42 DNS/BK, Prakas on Identification, Mapping and Classification of State Land Articles 16-19.

18

Committee,investigatingconflictingclaimsandreachingconsensus.62TheseprovisionsallhavesignificancetotheimplementationoftheCircular03processwhichfollowssimilarsteps.Asacircularholdsalowerpositioninthelegalhierarchyitsimplementationmustfollowtheprakasandsub-decree.

In summary, a legal framework already exists for the identification, mapping, classification and registration of state land in Cambodia. A parcel can only be declared state land following the procedures set out in Sub-decree No118 and supplemented by Prakas No42. Subsequently the land can be added to the Land Register and state land database. State land has to date been identified and registered for the most part on a sporadic basis, and no coordinated state land registration has taken place. Due to the lack of an accessible database on state land, it is difficult to verify which areas have so far been officially demarcated as state land.

62 MLMUPC(2006)No42 DNS/BK, Prakas on Identification, Mapping and Classification of State Land Articles 22-24.

Figure7:Manyurbanpoorhouse-holds live under con-stantfearofeviction


19

2.3TheUrbanPoorAheadofCircular03As discussed earlier, the land registration system has run into some difficulties, and although a largenumberoftitleshavebeenissuedinruralareas,urbanfiguresaremuchlower.Therearealsomultiplecasesofexclusionfromthetitlingsystem,andinmanyofthesecasestheaffectedpeoplehavebeenurbanpoorsettlements.Insomecasestheseurbanpoorsettlementshavebeensubjecttoevictionsinthelastdecade,despitemanyhavingstrongclaimstolegalpossession.

Cambodia’sexistinglegalframeworkclearlystatesthatsettlements,orindividualhouseholdswithinthem,onstatepublicland,andpossessionthatcommencedaftertheLandLawwaspassedarebothillegalandcannotbesubjecttolandtitling.However,atthesametimetheCambodianGovernmenthasobligationstoprotecttherightsofallcitizenstoadequatehousing,whethertheirtenurestatusislegalorillegal.DespiteAsianDevelopmentBank(ADB)-supportedeffortstodevelopaResettlementPolicythroughasub-decree,63 Cambodiastilllacksalawfortheconditionsandregulationsforconductingresettlement,whichmeansthatthequalityofresettlementdiffersgreatlyfromcasetocase.The2010LawonExpropriationincludesbasicprovisionsfortheconditionsofexpropriatinglegallyheldlandwhenitisinthepublicinteresttodoso,butthislawdoesnotapplytoillegalsettlers.Whiletherehavebeensuggestionsovertheyearsthatschemeswouldbelaunchedtoeitherupgradeoradequatelyresettleresidentsofinformalsettlements,suchasthe2003announcementbythePrimeMinisterthatthegovernmentwouldupgrade100slumsperyearforthefollowingfiveyears,64theseschemeshavefailedtocometofruition.Asmentionedabove,draftsoftheNationalHousingPolicyalsoincludedmechanismsforincreasingtenuresecurityofinformalsettlersthroughvariousmeans.However,thispolicyhastodatenotbeenfinalised.

Circular03thusentersthepictureinacontextwhereurbanpoorsettlementshavecontinuedtoexistandevengrowintheabsenceofaclearpolicytodealwiththem.Forsomepeoplelivinginthesesettlements,theCircularmayprovideoptionsthatcaneventuallyleadtomoresecuretenure.However,inadditiontothosewhoselandoccupationmaybeillegal,therearethosewhomayhaveclaimsaslegalpossessorsbutcannotaccessthelandregistrationsystemduetothereasonsoutlinedabove.EnsuringthatthesepeoplearenotautomaticallylabelledasinformalsettlersforthesimplefactthattheyhavebeenoverlookedbytheregistrationsystemwillbeakeychallengeforCircularimplementation.

63 AsianDevelopmentBank(2004)TAR:CAM 37535 Technical Assistance to the Kingdom of Cambodia for Enhancing the Resettlement Legal Framework and Institutional Capacity.

64 UN-HABITAT(2003)Cambodian Prime Minister launches slum upgrading campaign, 1 July 2003.

20

3.1BackgroundInmany respects, Cambodia’s legal framework for landmanagement and administration is fairlywelldeveloped,with the 2001 Land Law providing a strong foundationwhich has been supplemented byvariousadditionalsub-decreesandregulations.Frameworksforlandregistration,statelandmanagement,landconcessions, registering indigenous land,andsoon,haveallbeenadoptedover the lastdecade.Additionally,theLawonExpropriationhasbeenpassed,andsetsouttheconditionsandproceduresunderwhichlegalownersandpossessorsmaybelegallydeprivedoftheirlandifitisrequiredforapublicinterestproject.However,priortotheCircularbeingadoptedtherewasnolegalframeworkthatcoveredpeoplewhoseoccupationwasillegal.

InrecentyearsthenumberofevictionsinPhnomPenhhasincreased,andhasfrequentlyledtonegativemediacoverage,criticismfromtheinternationalcommunity,andconflictbetweentheMunicipalityandlocal communities. 2009was a particularly bad year. In January, 152 families fromDey Krahomwereviolentlyevictedfromtheircity-centrehomes,followedby190familiesevictedfromnearbyReakReay,andanother146familiesfromGroup78,alsointhevicinity.Evictionofsome4,200familiesfromBoeungKaklakewasalsoongoing,andbytheendoftheyeartheWorldBank’sflagshipprojectinthelandsectorwasterminatedearly,astheBoeungKaklakeresidents’complainedtotheBank’sInspectionPanelallegingsafeguardsviolationsunderLMAPimplementation.

Perhaps in response to these issues, and in order to remedy the gap in the legal framework, it wasannouncedthataCircularwouldbeadoptedinordertoprovide‘resolutions’for‘temporarysettlements’.AccordingtoaleakedcablefromtheUSEmbassyinPhnomPenh,theCircularwasdraftedbytheMLMUPC‘in response to a DeutscheGesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) request for a standardoperatingprocedureforresettlementofcommunitiesinevictioncases,inanattempttoavoidthetypesofhigh-profile,sometimesviolentevictionsseeninCambodiainthepast.’65

WhileitiswelcomethatthegovernmenttogetherwithGIZ66hastakenstepstofillthegapinthelegalframeworkpertainingtoillegalsettlers,somehaveraisedconcernsthataCircularisnotthemostappropriateinstrumenttodothis.Circularsaregenerally issuedbyaministryorgovernmentauthority inordertoclarifyapointoflaworgiveinstructions.Assuch,acirculardoesnothaveforceoflaw,andisrelativelylowinthelegalhierarchy.Theycanbemaderedundantthroughtheintroductionofnewlegaldocuments,andtheADBiscurrentlyprovidingtechnicalassistancetodevelopasub-decreeoninformalsettlementswhichwill‘setoutclearlyrightsandresponsibilitiesofthoseaffectedaswellasthoseresponsibleforlandacquisitionandatthesametimeprovidealegalbasisforprovisionofassistancetoinformalsettlers.’67Ifadopted,thesub-decreecouldrendertheCircularobsolete.

65 USEmbassyPhnomPenh(2009)Draft resettlement regulations raise NGO and donor concerns.66 Asnotedpreviously,GTZmergedwithDEDandInWEnttoformGIZin2010.67 AsianDevelopmentBank(2011)TA 7566-REG: Strengthening and Use of Country Safeguard Systems CAM: Preparation of Draft Sub Decree on Informal

Settlers August 2011.

3THe circULAr


21

Nevertheless, theCircular quickly becamea cornerstone forGermandevelopment cooperation in theland sector. During negotiations between the RoyalGovernment of Cambodia (RGC) and theGermangovernmentinOctober2009,approvaloftheCircularcametoformoneoffivemilestonesforcontinuedGermaninvolvementinthelandsector.Accordingtomilestonenumbertwo,‘[a]fterapublicconsultationprocessbyDec2009theCircularonResolutionforTemporarySettlementsinCities,UrbanandRuralAreaswillbeapprovedbyApril2010.Implementationwillbedonebytheappropriateinter-ministerialstructureandwillincludethedistinguishingbetweenlegalpossessorsandillegalsquatters.ApreliminarylistofallPhnomPenhcommunitiesoccupyingstatelandwillbeprepared.’68

The Circular was drafted by the MLMUPC and first released by the Ministry on December 4, 2009.StakeholderswereinvitedtogivecommentsbyDecember18,whenaninvitation-onlyfull-dayconsultationworkshop was held by theMinistry at Sunway Hotel in the capital. The consultation comprised of apresentationoftheCircular,followedbygroupdiscussions,duringwhichcivilsocietyactorspresentraisedseveralkeyissues,including:oppositiontothelabellingofpoorcommunitiesasillegalwithoutdueprocess;concernsregardinglackofharmonybetweentheCircularandtheexistinglegalframeworkandprocesses;appropriatenessofaCircularasthelegaltooltoaddresstheissueofillegalsettlers;concernsregardingfuturelanduseguidinglandclassification;andconcernsregardingthevaguenessofproposedsolutions.Priortotheconsultation,sevencivilsocietyorganisationshadalsosentaletter69 to the MLMUPc outlining theirconcerns,includingthattheconsultationprocesswastooshortandlimited.

DevelopmentpartnersweighedinonthedraftingprocessthroughtheTechnicalWorkingGrouponLand(TWG-L).Concernsraisedamongstdevelopmentpartnersechoedthoseofcivilsociety,includingtheex antelabellingofpoorcommunitiesasillegal,aswellaslackofharmonywiththeexistinglegalframework,particularlythe lackofanexplicitmentionthatdeterminationofthe legalstatusofsettlementswouldtakeplace inaccordancewiththeLandLaw.However,asa leakedcablefromtheUSEmbassyreveals,developmentpartnersinvolvedintheCambodianlandsectorwereunabletodevelopajointresponse:

‘GTZ, the WB [World Bank], and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNOHCHR) attempted to draft a joint donor submission to suggest revisions covering major concerns. However, they failed to reach a compromise on the tone of the statement […] GTZ wanted a more neutral statement of concern, while the WB/UNOHCHR […] preferred a stronger statement reflecting donor concerns raised by the TWG-Land. A UNOHCHR staffer speculated […] that GTZ wanted to keep the donor statement more conservative in order to avoid antagonizing the MLMUPC; GTZ feared facing the same issues encountered by the WB when it began to press the RGC [Royal Government of Cambodia] on LMAP’s limitations.’70

ThepositionofGTZmayalsobeexplainedbythefactthatapprovalandimplementationoftheCircularformedamilestoneforcontinuedGermanengagementintheCambodianlandsector.Assuch,togetherwith the rGc, it had an inherent need to see the circular approved and implemented in accordance with theagreedmilestone.

Following the consultationworkshop on December 18, civil society actors and development partnerscontinuedprovidinginputandcommentsonvariousdraftsoftheCircular.AlthoughthisresultedinsomeimprovementstotheCircular,notablytheremovalofareferenceto569supposedlyillegalsettlementsinthecity,themajorityofconcernsraisedwerenottakenonboard.

TheCircularwasformallyadoptedonMay31,2010.Sincethen,GIZ-supportedimplementationhasbeguninBattambangwheretheagencyhasapreviousrelationshipwiththeMunicipality,whileitseemstheMPPhastakenindependentstepstowardsimplementationinPhnomPenh.DespitepressurefromGermany

68 CambodiaRehabilitationBoard,CouncilofDevelopmentofCambodia.(2009)Summary Record on Development Cooperation between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany Phnom Penh 15-16 October 2009.

69 BABSEA,COHRE,CLECet.al.(2009)NGO Comments on Draft Circular on ‘Settlement of Illegal Temporary Buildings in Cities and Urban Areas’ 70 USEmbassyPhnomPenh(2009)Draft resettlement regulations raise NGO and donor concerns.

22

forGIZ to be involved in C03 implementation in the capital, the agencyhas yet to become so, partlybecauseofcomplicationsarisingfromthefactthatimplementationisdoneatthesub-nationallevel,i.e.throughmunicipalandprovincialauthorities,whileGIZ’snaturalpartnerintheCambodianlandsectoristheMLMUPC.

In December 2011, Germany re-stated its commitment to the Circular, by including ‘avoidance of(temporary)exclusionsfromtheregistrationprocess’asamedium-termmilestonefortheperiod2012-2015.71 A proposalwas subsequently developed by theMLMUPC under the LASSP for ‘[s]peeding upsystematic landregistrationprocessbysolvingexclusionareaandusingcircularNo02 &03’72 WhiletheMPPapparentlyremainsaversetoworkingwithGIZ,theagencyisinnegotiationswithcivilsocietyactorsregardingcommunitydevelopmentandtraininginthecapitaloutsidetheimmediateframeworkoftheCircular.However,anopportunityforincreaseddevelopmentpartnerinvolvementinC03implementationinPhnomPenhcouldbeopenedupinthenearfuture;inJune2012UN-Habitatproposedtore-establishitsofficeattheMPPandbecomeinvolvedinC03implementation,amongotheractivities.

71 CambodiaRehabilitationandDevelopmentBoard,CouncilofDevelopmentofCambodia(2011)Summary Record of the Negotiations on Development Cooperation between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Royal Government of Cambodia held in Bonn on 13 and 14 Decem-ber 2011.

72 MLMUPC(2012)Strategy to Speed Up land Registration in Cambodia (unofficial translation).

Figure8:Withsecuretenure,manypoorcom-munitiesareoftenwillingtoinvestininfrastructuralupgrades


23

3.2AnalysisoftheCircular’sProvisionsandAppendices

TheCircularisafive-pagedocumentconsistingofashortintroductionandsevenarticles.Eacharticleout-linesstepstobetaken‘toprovideresolutionforonlytemporarysettlementsonstatelandwhichhasbeenillegallyoccupied’.OnSeptember27,2010,anMLMUPCDecisionwasissuedwhichadded13appendicestotheCircular;73thesearetemplatesofofficialdocumentationrequiredinordertocompleteallstepsintheCircular.Asnotedabove,theCircularisnotalaw,andislocatedrelativelylowinthelegalhierarchy.Stakeholders involved inon-going implementationeffortshencetendtocall itan ‘administrativetool’,stressingitsflexible,non-prescriptivenature.

TheCircularisimplementedatthesub-nationallevelwithMunicipalorProvincialauthorities,andtheirStateLandManagementCommittees,playingakeyroleinaccordancewiththeOrganicLaw74.LowerlevelauthoritiesarealsoexpectedtotakepartthroughtheStateLandWorkingGroups(SLWGs).GiventhattheOrganicLawisstill intheprocessof implementation,allStateLandManagementCommittees(SLMCs)andWorkingGroupsmay,asyet,nothavebeenestablishedand/orbecomeoperational.TheCircularalsostipulatescommunityandcivilsocietyinvolvementinC03implementation,however,stepsformeaningfulconsultationandinvolvementarenotexplicitlyoutlined.

ThebelowprovidesadetailedanalysisofeachstepoftheCircular.

Step1:DataCollectionontheNumberofTemporarySettlementsSites75

ThefirstarticleoftheCircularcoverscollectionofdatarelatedtothenumberoftemporarysettlementsineachurbanarea.ItstatesthattheChairoftheMunicipalandProvincialSLMCshouldurgetheDistrict/Khan/MunicipalSLWGtoappointfieldteamsattheSangkat/Communeleveltocollectdataonthenumberofsitesoftemporarysettlementswithintheirterritory.Thearticlerequiresthatthisbedonewiththeparticipationoflocalcommunitiesandcivilsocietyorganisations.Thisdatacollectionshouldserveasthebasisforresolutionsofindividualcases.

Analysis

Article 1 refers to both the SLMCs and the SLWGs, which were established by Sub-decreeNo118 on State Land Management. This is a positive sign and indicates that the RGC intends to implement the Circular in accordance with the sub-decree. The act of documenting and conducting data collection on all ’temporary settlements‘ in itself is a positive move, as to date there is inadequate data available regarding such settlements. The process of identifying areas has the potential to create a solid foundation for the future implementation of the Circular – provided it is conducted in an open and transparent way, and that, as specified by the Circular, the process has full participation of affected communities and civil society.

Community leaders, committee members and elders, will have important historical information on the settlement of the area, which should be utilised in assessing the legal status of households in the identified settlement. Likewise, civil society groups who have a working relationship with a given affected community may have information that is useful for the data collection process. Additionally, civil society groups can act as independent observers at all stages of the Circular implementation to ensure that the process is conducted appropriately. An environment of cooperation with both local people and NGOs can help to ensure that the Circular is implemented properly and in accordance with the law, and also in a smooth and efficient manner.

73 MLMUPC(2010)Decision No49, Putting in Use of Template Appendices for Implementation of the Circular on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on Land which has been Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal, and Urban Areas, 27 September 2010.

74 TheOrganicLawreferstotheLawonAdministrativeManagementoftheCapital,Provinces,Municipalities,DistrictsandKhanswhichpromotesde-centralizationanddeconcentrationeffortsaimedatdevolvingpowerfromthenationalleveltosub-nationallevels.

75 RGC(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas, Article 1.

24

At this stage, the fact that a community has been identified in the preliminary data collection as a ‘temporary settlement’, should not affect its legal status, as full identification, mapping and classification is not conducted until stage 2 of the process.

Step 2: Identification,Mapping and Classification of Land of Temporary Settle-ments76

Followingonfromtheinitialdatacollection,theSLWG,togetherwithlocalcommunityrepresentativesandcivilsocietygroups,shouldholdameetingtodiscussandreviewtheaccuracyofthedataforeachsiteidentifiedasa‘temporarysettlement’.Thisdatashouldthenbeincorporatedintoalarge-scalemapoftheCommune/Sangkat.Lookingateachspecificsite,theSLWGandrepresentativesofthelocalcommunityandcivilsocietyshallidentifyeachsitebasedonthephysicalfeaturesoftheland.Itshouldbenotedthatatthisstagethelandisnotbeingclassified,itissimplybeingidentifiedaccordingtoitsphysicalfeaturesanduse.Forthisprocess,theCircularprovidesalistoflandtypes:

• Landusedas:publicparks,publicspace,stateprivateland,privately-ownedorcompanyownedland,andpremisesofBuddhistmonasteries(pagoda),etc;

• Land forwhich land-use plans already exist for: public parks, road networks, sewage or canalsystems,industrialzones,commercialzones,housingzones,andtouristzones,etc;and

• Locationsthatarepotentiallydangerousorharmfulforresidentsbecausetheyare:neardumpinggrounds,nearsewagecanals,onthesidewalk,intherightofway(ROW),byrailways,onflood-controldykes,riverbanks,streams,creeks,androofterraces,etc.

Themapsofallsettlementsshouldbemarkedonthemapsindifferentcolours,specifyingthephysicalfeaturesofthelandinaccordancewiththeabovelist.Thismapanddatashouldbeacknowledgedandthumb-printedbytheSLWG,localcommunityrepresentatives,andcivilsociety,andafterbeingfinalisedthemapsshouldbepubliclydisseminated.

Followingonfromthis,theSLWGshouldconveneameetingtoreachagreementontheclassificationofthelandinquestionas:statepublicland,stateprivateland,orprivately-ownedland.Thisshouldbewrittenupintoareport,alongwithmaps,supportingdocuments,’opinionsofconsentornon-consent‘,aswellascommentsfromthemeeting.TheCapital/ProvincialSLMCmustthenreviewthereport’sfindings.TheCirculargoesontostatethatafterthelandinquestionisidentified,mappedandclassified‘withconsentbyallorapproval’bytheCapital/ProvincialSLMC,thelandshouldbeenteredintotheLandRegister.

Annex5ofDecisionNo49containsasampleformfortheSLWGreportontheidentificationandmappingmeeting.TheformstatesthattheSLWGdeliberationsarebasedonArticle4ofSub-decree No118 on State Land Management‘and/or’Prakas No42 on Identification, Mapping and Classification of State Land, ‘or’ thephysicalfeaturesoftheland.Thesamplereportalsoindicatesthatinidentifyingstateproperties,theSLWGwillusetheannextoPrakas No42asattachedbytheMLMUPCDecisionof2006(thisannexspecifieshowvariousstatepropertiesshouldbeidentified).Thesamplereportformdividestheidentifiedlandsintotwotables,oneforallareasforwhichstatelandidentificationandinstitutionalresponsibilityisagreeduponbyallmembersoftheSLWG,andoneforthoseareasthatdonothaveagreement.Thisdocumentwillbemadepublicfor30daysduringwhichcommentsshouldbereceived.Thepubliccommentswillbecompiledandthendisplayedforafurtherthreedays.77

76 RGC(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas, Article 2.77 MLMUPC(2010)Decision No49, Putting in Use of Template Appendices for Implementation of the Circular on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on

Land which has been Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal, and Urban Areas, 27 September 2010, Appendix 5.


25

Analysis

Step 2 of the Circular process is implemented in two stages: preparation of maps by the SLWG, and approval by the SLMC. This second step is an important process, and serves to identify in more detail the physical nature and legal status of the land. This process of land identification appears to mirror the process set out in Sub-decree No118 and Prakas No42, but is much less detailed.

The data gathered during step 1 should be raised at a public meeting, where it should be discussed and reviewed for accuracy. During this stage it is crucial that the full maps are disclosed and that affected people and civil society representatives are able to review the data. At this stage, it is essential that there is a mechanism for complaints to be raised regarding the identification of specific areas as state land. Without a mechanism to raise concerns and have identification decisions reviewed, the involvement of communities and civil society at this stage will be passive, resembling something more similar to information dissemination by the SLWG, rather than a genuine consultation. Without proper consultation the process risks becoming stalled, as the final land identification maps require thumb-prints from communities and civil society, who are unlikely to agree to do so if they disagree with the contents. Feedback from this meeting will also be used by the SLWG in classifying the various types of land, and should be included in its report to the SLMC. There must therefore be adequate opportunity for community members and civil society to comment.

Of particular concern during the identification stage is the second category of land types listed in Article 2, ‘land for which land-use plans already exist’. Included in this list are some types of property that appear to be included in the existing definitions of state property, such as public parks, road networks, and sewage or canal systems. However, it also includes industrial, commercial, housing, and tourist zones, which are not necessarily state property. If development of these types of zones has been approved and entered into existing land-use maps, it does not necessarily follow that they were approved legally. If a given area of land does not meet the definition of state public property, and is occupied by people with documented possession rights, the development is not legal. Land-use plans in Cambodia are notoriously hard to obtain, and it is thought that many, especially in Phnom Penh, indicate that a considerable amount of land that is legally possessed has been marked for development. These land use maps are not prepared in an open and transparent manner, and should not supersede the law, especially the laws related to state land management and individual land rights. If a private company wishes to develop on the land of legal owners or possessors they must first purchase the land from the occupant at a price negotiated between the involved parties. If the project serves a public interest, as specified in the Law on Expropriation, the owners or possessors must be compensated and/or resettled in accordance with that law.

Following on from the public meeting and identification of the nature of the land located within the identified settlement, the SLWG must reach agreement on the classification of each area. As well as identifying areas of state land, this process provides an opportunity for the land to be classified as privately owned, which is important, as many urban poor settlements that are commonly referred to as ‘temporary’, ‘illegal’ or ‘informal’, are in fact populated by many people with legal possession rights. Also, in some settlements there may be areas that are state land, and areas that are not. At this stage those areas inhabited by legal possessors should be identified, as well as state properties.

It is crucial that the identification of state land utilises the definitions already set out in the Land Law and Sub-decree No118. MLMUPC Decision No52 is also an important tool and provides detailed descriptions of how to identify specific types of state land. For example, the Prakas clearly defines which parts of a lake and its surrounding area are state public property, and which are state private. Likewise it defines the right of way surrounding roads and rail tracks and defines the mechanisms that should be used to identify and demarcate such areas.

26

It is also important that any state land identification is conducted in full compliance with the existing legal process established by Sub-decree No118, and elaborated in Prakas No42. The prakas states that state land identification and mapping ‘is a transparent and coordinated process conducted with joint-cooperation between the ministries, institutions, territorial authorities and local people.’78 The prakas provides details for how relevant institutions and the public should be notified prior to any land identification, including the form for notification, where notices should be posted, and so on,79 and also explains what must happen when a plot of land is claimed both by the state and a private individual.80 The procedure for the SLWG meeting and public posting of maps is defined in the same prakas, as are the requirements for the content of the report that must be forwarded to the SLMC.81

The findings of the SLWG should be written up and a report sent to the SLMC, who must approve the contents of the report and the classifications given to the various areas within the settlement in question. From this stage on, any residents living on land that is classified as belonging to the state are likely to be deemed illegal settlers. For this reason, it is again crucial that the final approval of this report is done in an open and transparent manner, that community and civil society objections can be aired and addressed, and that all classification is in accordance with the law. At this point, the Circular is not clear on what the SLMC should do if it disagrees with the findings of the SLWG, or if the affected community raises objections. However, Prakas No42 states that if there is no disagreement on the classification of the land it may be entered to the state land database. If this is not the case, especially if there is disagreement on the part of affected community members, the Prakas states that the SLMC should conduct an investigation.82

Finally, the Circular states that after the SLMC approves the report of the SLWG, all lands that have been identified, mapped and classified, and over which there are no disagreements or which have been approved by the SLMC, should be registered. Provided that it is conducted in accordance with the law on state land management, this process could provide a sound basis for future state land management, and can be used for improved management of state properties in the future. It also provides an opportunity to register the private land located within the settlement area, which can be used as a way to secure the tenure of legal possessors living there. As residents of such settlements are very often poor, this provides an excellent opportunity for the RGC to make progress towards its goals of securing the tenure of the poor and disadvantage, and, potentially, future poverty reduction. However, it is crucial that if there is disagreement about the classification of a specific area, an open investigation is done into the true nature of that land and legitimate claims of ownership or possession are considered, before it is classified in accordance with existing legal provisions.

Step3:CensusontheNumberofHouseholdsandHouseholdMembersinTempo-rarySettlementSites83

Basedontheinformationgatheredintheidentification,mappingandclassificationprocess,theSLWG,workingwithcommunityrepresentativesandcivilsociety,shouldappointaFieldTeamtocollectstatisticsfor any settlements identified as being illegal. Data should be gathered on all households and familymembers.Eachentryshouldspecifyiftheoccupantsareownersorrenters,andshouldbethumb-printedbyafamilyrepresentative.Oncethecensusiscomplete,itshouldbepostedinapublicplacefor30daysintheareaandatthecommune/sangkatoffice.Localresidentsshouldhavetheopportunitytocommentduringthispublicdisplay.

78 MLMUPC(2006)Prakas No42 on State Land Identification, Mapping and Classification, Article 3.79 MLMUPC(2006)Prakas No42 on State Land Identification, Mapping and Classification, Article 8.80 MLMUPC(2006)Prakas No42 on State Land Identification, Mapping and Classification, Article 13.81 MLMUPC(2006)Prakas No42 on State Land Identification, Mapping and Classification, Articles 16, 17 & 21.82 MLMUPC(2006)Prakas No42 on State Land Identification, Mapping and Classification, Articles 22-24.83 RGC(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas, Article 3.


27

Step4:FindingSolutions84

Afterthecensushasbeencompleted,thenextstageoftheprocessisfortheSLWGtoconveneameetingtodiscussandidentifyoptionsfor‘resolutions’foreachtemporarysettlement.Themeetingshouldincludecommunityrepresentativesandcivilsocietygroups.Theresolutionoptionsaredividedintoresolutionsforthose who are ‘owners’ oftheirhomestructureandresolutionsforthosewhoare‘renters’.Resolutionsfor‘owners’include:

• Relocationfromthesiteintheeventthaton-siteupgradingcannotbeapplied;or

• On-site upgrading,iftheconditionsaresuitable;or

• Other forms of resolutionsbasedonactualconditions(casebycasebasis).85

Theoptionsforrentersaremuchmorelimited,andtheymustdiscussaresolutionwiththe‘illegaloccupant’whoownsthehousethattheyarerenting.RentershavenorighttorequestcompensationfromtheSLWG,SLMCorterritorialauthorities.86

Inreachingaresolution,theCircularstatesthatthediscussionshould‘considerthepublicinterestasapriority’,consideringtheinterestsofthemajorityofpeoplewithinthecommunity,thenecessityoflocaldevelopment,andthesite’sphysicalfeatures.Afterreachingaresolutionagreement,theSLWGshoulddevelopanactionplanandsetatimeframeforitsimplementation.ThismustbeapprovedbytheSLMC.Oncetheresolution isagreedupon,anoticeshouldbemadeavailabletothepublicthrougha30daypublicdisplayintherespectivesettlementsiteandincommune/sangkatoffices.

Ifnoagreementcanbereached,theSLWGshouldreporttotheMunicipal/ProvincialBoardofGovernorswiththeresultsofthemeeting,andrequestcommentontheresults,includingthemajorityopinion,viewsofthelocalcommunity,requestsfromcivilsociety,andpubliccommentsonanyproposedresolutionthatarises.

Analysis

By step 5 of the Circular process, the settlements in question have already been identified as illegal settlements on state land, the residents have been surveyed, and so the discussion moves towards ‘resolutions’.

Based on the results of the earlier mapping, classification and census activities, the SLWG should call a public meeting to discuss resolutions for any settlement deemed to be illegal. Again, it is welcome that community representatives and civil society groups are included in this meeting, but as earlier stated, it is essential that their involvement is meaningful, and that they are able to raise concerns and objections and have them properly heard. At this stage, decisions with potentially far reaching consequences are being discussed, and it is therefore essential that the community representatives who attend the meeting have the support and confidence of the whole community.

It must also be noted that the nature of this dialogue is likely to be complex, and the possible outcomes very serious for those affected, including potential resettlement, so a single meeting is certainly inadequate. It is not clear from the Circular if this meeting is limited to a single event, but it is to be hoped that a series of meetings are held to discuss resolution options.

The resolutions specified in the Circular are lacking in terms of detail. It is promising that on-site upgrading is included in the list of resolutions, but there is no explanation of when on-site upgrading would be

84 RGC(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas, Article 4.85 RGC(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas, Article

4.1.86 RGC(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas, Article

4.2.

28

appropriate. Likewise, relocation should only occur when onsite upgrading ‘cannot be applied’, although it is not clear in what circumstances it cannot be applied, or who is to make such a decision. The final resolution refers to an unspecified ‘resolution policy based on actual conditions’, but has no reference to what policies this may be referring to. The lack of clarity in these resolution options is a considerable cause for concern, and leaves them open to arbitrary interpretation.

After a resolution has been agreed upon, the SLWG needs to develop an action plan and time frame for implementation. The development of this plan and time frame should consider the circumstances of the affected communities and should be developed in consultation with them. If it is decided that relocation is necessary, this should be done within a reasonable time frame, which gives affected people adequate time to make preparations and move.

Another issue that lacks clarity is regarding what should happen in cases where no agreement can be reached on resolution. In such cases the SLWG is instructed by the Circular to report to the Municipal/Provincial Board of Governors with the meeting results and request approval. It is not clear, however, what this approval should be based on. Neither is there any mechanism mentioned for those who do not agree with the proposed resolution.

Finally, the exclusion of renters from the resolutions is unfortunate as this may leave people living in urban-poor settlements losing their homes and struggling to find similar accommodation at an affordable rent.

Step5:DiscussiontoIdentifySolutionPolicies87

Article5of theCircularelaboratesa littleonthe issueof resolutions. It states that foranysettlementwhere on-site upgrading is possible,Municipal/Provincial Governors should discuss with the relevantstakeholdersthedraftingofaninfrastructuredevelopmentplan.Proceduresfordevelopinghousingmustalsobeprepared,alongwithanyotherrelevantpoliciesforthedevelopmentoflocallivelihoods.Incaseswhereon-siteupgradingisnotpossible,aspecificactionplanandpoliciesmustbedevelopedinordertofacilitaterelocation.Thismustbedonepriortoanyrelocation.

Thearticlealsostatesthatboththosewhoaregrantedon-siteupgradingandthosewhoarerelocatedmaybeentitledto:

• Usufructrights(rightstouse,shortofownership)basedonagreement;

• Ownershiprightsafterthebeneficiariescontinuouslyoccupyandresideonthesiteforatleast10years,commencingfromthedateoftheresolutionagreed;or

• Therighttorentforaspecificperiodwithasymbolicrentingfee.

Analysis

The case of each temporary settlement will differ from site to site, so it is important that different options are available depending on the specific circumstances of each settlement. However, this article adds little to clarify specific criteria for the implementation of the different resolutions, or the specifics of ‘policies’ to deal with relocated communities or those who do receive on-site upgrading.

The provision of ownership to those people who live on or use land granted through on-site upgrading or resettlement is a positive step, however, the required 10 years of continuous occupation is lengthy. Provisions may be necessary to provide tenure security for these people for the 10 year period, until they are able to acquire full ownership.

87 RGC(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas, Article 5.


29

Step6:BasicInfrastructureandPublicServicesSupport88

TheCircularstatesthatwhateverresolutionisemployed,ineverycasetheprovisionofbasicinfrastructureandpublicservicesmustbetakenintoaccount.Article6alsostatesthatanylandprovidedmustbeofasuitablesize,andanyresolutionsprovidedmustavoidencouragingfurtherillegaloccupation.Infrastructureandservicesincludes:roadnetworks,watersupply,sewage,andotherbasicservicessuchaseducation,healthcareandemploymentopportunities.TheCircularclearlystatesthatallinfrastructureandservicesshouldbepreparedpriortoon-siteupgradingorresettlement.

Analysis

Although brief, the contents of Article 6 are extremely welcome and reflect calls that civil society have been making for a number of years for resettlement to be conducted only after adequate work has been done to prepare adequate resettlement conditions. In ensuring that this article is complied with, comprehensive data collection and mapping will need to be conducted of communities and local services and infrastructure. The support of local organisations could prove invaluable in preparing a detailed picture of the needs of each community affected by resolutions under the Circular. However, one point that is not covered by the Circular is the location of resettlement sites. Distant resettlement sites are generally far from services, employment and infrastructure, and are therefore often unviable, with residents often leaving soon after resettlement has taken place.

Step7:ParticipationofStakeholdersinDevelopment89

Inimplementingagreedresolutions,theSLWGmustexamineandpreparesitesbeforeimplementinganyactivities.ThefinalarticleoftheCircularstatesthatallrelevantstakeholders‘shallcontinuesupportingthepeopleinbothon-siteupgradingandrelocationtoestablishacommunityorcontinuetheoperationoftheexistingcommunitybyassistingindevelopingcommunityregulationsandcommunitysavingsonavoluntarybasis.’Themanagementstructure,rightsandresponsibilitiesofcommunitymembers,shouldbeclearlysetunderthecommunityregulations.TheCircularconcludesbystatingthatlocalauthorities,alongwithdevelopmentpartners and civil societymay contribute their efforts in the implementationbyprovidingtechnical,financial,andmaterialsupportinimprovinginfrastructure,providingbasicpublicservices,andcreatingjobopportunities.

Analysis

Again, provisions that aim to improve basic infrastructure and services for those who are resettled or who receive on-site upgrading are welcome. In cases where such services are provided to recipients of on-site upgrading, such developments can potentially contribute to Cambodia’s long term goals of poverty reduction. In cases where resettlement is unavoidable, a commitment to providing adequate resettlement conditions will help the Cambodian Government to meet its obligations under international law to protect the right to adequate housing.

Providing adequate resettlement or on-site upgrading conditions will continue to be a challenge for Cambodia, and there are lessons that can be learned from other countries around the world that have been through similar stages of development. There is guidance for how resettlement should be conducted, and what provisions should be made at relocation sites. General Comments 4 and 7 of the Internationalcovenant on economic, cultural and Social rights (to which Cambodia is signatory) set out countries’ legal obligations, and the UNBasicPrinciplesandGuidelinesonDevelopment-basedDisplacementandEvictions could also provide important guidance. These guidelines may also have application to on-site upgrading resolutions.

88 RGC(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas, Article 6.89 RGC(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas, Article 7

30

SummaryAdetailedanalysisofthecontentsofCircularanditsappendicesshowsthattheCircular–despiteitsbrevity–isacomplexdocumentwithwide-rangingimplications.ToensuretheCircularisimplementedinaccordancewiththeexistinglegalframeworksandprocesses,aswellasrecognisedbestpractice,thefollowingspecificrecommenda-tionsforeachofthearticlescanbemade:

RecommendationsStep 1: Data collec-tiononthenumberoftemporarysettle-ments sites

• The process of the initial data collection for temporary settlements must be conducted in an open and transparent way, engaging affected communities and civil society organisations.

• Civil society organisations should not be hindered from playing a role as observers in the process, and indeed, they should be encouraged to do so.

• The MLMUPC has considerable experience in organising and delivering community awareness meetings, which are a part of the SLR process. In areas identified for Circular implementation, similar workshops and awareness raising sessions should be conducted with affected communities, local officials and civil society. NGOs may also be engaged in the delivery of these sessions. Such meetings should be open and accessible to all stakeholders, including the illiterate, people with disabilities, the elderly, and so on.

• It should be made explicit that settlements identified under Step 1 are not necessarily illegal (‘temporary settlements’). This could be achieved by amendments to appendices 1-6 to the effect that any reference to ‘temporary settlements’ is removed and data collection refers only to poor settlements or settlements potentially on state land.

Step2:Identifica-tion,mappingandclassificationoflandoftemporarysettlements

• Ensure that community representatives in contact with SLWGs are chosen by community members and have their continued support.

• Create a mechanism at the public meeting stage to review settlement data and raise concerns and complaints. Concerns and complaints must be reviewed in an open and transparent manner.

• Ensure that all identification of state land is done in accordance with existing mechanisms and definitions as already set out in existing law, i.e. the 2001 Land Law, Sub-decree No118 and Prakas No42.

• Clarify that settlements will not be identified as illegal simply because they lie in the path of development projects, even if they are already approved in existing land-use maps. The basis for identifying a settlement as legal or illegal must be based on existing legal process and definitions.

• Clarify the process by which the SLMC approves the report of the SLWG, and what happens if objections are raised by the affected communities.

• Clarify that after approval of the SLWG report, private properties will be entered into the Land Register, not only state properties.

Step 3: census onthenumberofhouseholds and household mem-bersintemporarysettlementsite

• The process of the household data collection must be conducted in an open and transparent way, engaging affected communities and civil society organisations.

• Households targeted should be made aware of the purpose of the census and its implications prior to and during the census. No household should be forced to thumb-print census documentation against their will.


31

Step4:Resolutionoptions

• Clarify the process by which public meetings on resolution options are announced, and who should be invited. Mechanisms should be put in place that ensure that community members are kept informed of discussions and that resolution options are only agreed by community representatives if the option has the full support of affected community members.

• Clarify that the discussion on resolution options will be conducted over a series of meetings allowing for community members to meet and discuss privately before re-convening with the SLWG to put forward their position.

• The three resolution options need to be clarified, as must the circumstances in which each one can be applied.

• Clarify what action should be taken if there is no agreement from the affected community as to what resolution should be applied in their case. A mechanism should be developed for communities to appeal if they feel that the resolutions proposed are inappropriate.

• As the Circular is brief, and lacks detail in the above areas, its application may benefit from the preparation of a manual that sets out the process in more detail.

• Clarify that onsite upgrading is the preferred option given costs associated with relocation and monetary compensation (both for the households affected and society at large).

Step5:Discussiontoidentifysolutionpolicies

• Clarify in what circumstances people will be entitled to usufruct rights, ownership or the right to rent.

• Clarify that during the 10 years of occupation or use required before a household can acquire ownership, households will have protection from involuntary displacement.

Step6:Basicinfra-structureandpublicservices support

• It is essential that the Municipal/Provincial governments conduct adequate mapping of community needs and access to infrastructure and services so that prior to resolutions being implemented, the on-site upgrade zone or resettlement site meets adequate conditions. The support of local NGOs should be sought in order to develop profiles on affected communities.

• Community and resettlement site assessments must be conducted in an environment of transparency, and the results made public to relevant stakeholders and civil society.

• If at all possible, any employment opportunities that are generated by associated infrastructure development should be offered to people within the affected settlement.

• Whenever possible, resettlement sites should be located as close as possible to the original settlement, so as not to separate households from their employment, education and community networks.

• Ensure there is no retrogression in the enjoyment of human rights as a result of the implementation of whichever ‘resolution’ is chosen.

• While Article 6 outlines some basic needs for successful resettlement, this provision in the Circular does not detract from the need for a comprehensive resettlement policy or legal framework, which should be developed to guide resettlement under the Circular and otherwise.

Step7:Participa-tionofstakeholdersin development

• In the provision of basic infrastructure and services in on-site upgrading areas and resettlement sites, the RGC should comply with its international legal obligations, and utilise UN guidelines in the assessment and provision of basic services.

32

3.3CaseStudy:FormalisingCommunitiesin BattambangBattambangisCambodia’ssecondlargestcitywithapopulationofsome180,000inhabitants.90 compared tothecapital,Battambangisasmallprovincialtown,withlittleofthepressureonlandandlessinvestmentinrealestatethanseeninPhnomPenh.GermandevelopmentcooperationhasbeenactiveinBattambangforanumberofyears,particularlyintheformofsupportfromDeutscheEntwicklungsdienst(DED)91 and theKonradAdenauerFoundation(KAS),whichfocusedondevelopingaspatialplanningframeworkinthecontextoftheRGC’sdeconcentrationanddecentralisationefforts.92 in 2009, Deutsche entwicklungsdienst (DED) and KAS together with the Municipality of Battambang also conducted a survey of ‘informalsettlements’.93 The encompassing survey geo-located settlements in the city’s six inner communes(Sangkats),furtherconductinghouseholdinterviewsintheidentifiedsettlements.

Combinedwiththespatialandlanduseplanningwork,thesurveyof‘informalsettlements’provedausefulstartingpoint fordialogueontheformalisationofthesecommunities.ThisdialoguewasstrengthenedfollowingtheadoptionofCircular03inMay2010,whichaccordingtoMunicipalauthoritiesrepresenteda’greenlight‘fromtheRGCtoconsidertheformalisationof‘informalsettlements’.OtherstakeholdersintheprocesshavealsodescribedtheadoptionoftheCircularasa‘catalyst’or‘trigger’formulti-stakeholderdialogueonthefutureofpoorsettlements.However,somenotethatgiventhepositivepoliticalwilloftheBattambangMunicipalityonthisissue,thiswouldmostlikelyhavehappenedevenwithouttheCircular.

Pilotingof C03began in late 2010,with support fromDED (laterGIZ), and localNGOsCMDP, CEDT,Cambodian Volunteers for Society, and Samreth (later Vishnu) Law Group. Most of the localgroups, although based in Phnom Penh, had already conducted community organisation andempowerment activities with poor settlements in Battambang prior to the adoption of C03.94

Later,theUnitedNationsOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(UNOHCHR) inCambodiamadefundsavailableforcommunityupgradinginthecontextoftheC03process.

Significantly, Battambang Municipality committed itself to implementing Circular 03 with a focus onprovidingtargetcommunitieswithtenuresecurityon-site.

Todate,processesguidedbyCircular03havecommencedinsomeninecommunities.ImplementationappearstohaveproceededfurthestinPonleuPrekPreahSdachcommunity,locatedbetweenasmalldirtroadandtheouterwallofagraveyardwherelocalNGOsinvolvedintheprojecthavemapped,surveyed,helpedorganiseandprovidedlegaladvicetothecommunityaspartofC03implementation.Accordingto stakeholders involved in the process, the community has received a verbal commitment from theProvincialGovernorthatfollowingre-adjustmentofplotsintoauniformsizeinthecommunity,thevastmajorityofthecurrentresidentswillreceivetenuresecurityintheformoflandtitles.AsofOctober2012,however,itisreportedprogressisstalledasaresultoflowcommunitydemandand,fundamentally,lackoffinal,writtenapprovaloflandre-classificationfromtheProvincialSLMC.

Thisstallingoftheprocesshighlightshowadministrativereform,inaccordancewiththeOrganicLaw,isrequiredtofullyimplementtheCircular.WithoutthevariousSLWGsandSLMCsdefinedintheCircularbeinginplace,finaldecisionsregardinglandstatuscannotbetaken.Otherchallengesatthegovernmentlevelalsoimpedeprogress.AlthoughtheMunicipalityisstronglybehindC03implementation,lowerlevel

90 NationalInstituteofStatistics(2008)General Population Census 2008.91 DEDmergedwithGTZandInWentin2010toformGIZ.92 Diepart,Jean-Christoph(2008)Developing a Spatial Planning Framework for Sustainable Land and Natural Resources Management. A perspective

from Battambang Province, Cambodia.93 Thestudylabelsallsettlementsidentifiedas‘informal’.Itishowevernotclearthatlandineachofthesettlementsidentifiedhasbeenadjudicated.As

such,thissectionofthereportwillrefertothesettlementsidentifiedsimplyas‘settlements’.94 TWGBattambangMunicipality(2010)Informal Settlements Survey 2009.


33

authoritieshave limitedunderstandingof the tool andCSOs involvedhavehence called for increasedtraining and mobilisation of commune officials. Cooperation upwards can also be demanding; somestakeholders have noted limited interest in dealing with the issue at the provincial level. Ultimately,successful implementation appears to at least partly hingeon the personalities of those in power. Asonepersoninvolvedintheprojectnoted:’SincetheelectionslastJunewehavegoodcommunechiefsthatunderstandtheproblems.’However,problemswithotherkeyindividualsforimplementationweresubsequentlyhighlighted.

Implementation isatvariousstagesofmapping,surveying,organising,andprovisionof legaladvice inother target communities.Many of the communities targeted appear to be located along roads, andhencelikelyonstatepublicland.However,somestakeholdersintheprocesshaveexpresseduncertaintyregardingthelegalstatusofhouseholdscertaintargetedcommunities,suchasEkapheap,locatedaroundtheouterwall of apagoda, suggesting theymay in factbe legal possessorsof the land, as theyhaveoccupiedthelandsincebefore2001,anditisnotevidentthattheirparcelsoflandmeetsthedefinitionofstatepublicproperty.

Another community of unclear status is Santepheap, located in old factory buildings, reportedly nowownedbytheMinistryofIndustry,Mines,andEnergy(MIME).Land-sharingwithMIMEhasbeenproposedasapossibleresolution,95however,giventhatmanyoftheresidentsinthebuildingshavestatedtheyhaveoccupiedthemonandoffsince1979,theymay in factbeabletoclaimthattheyare legalpossessorsoftheirproperty.Thesetwocaseshighlighttheneedforidentificationofstatelandinaccordancewith

95 CommunityManagedDevelopmentPartners(2012)Mechanism for City Scale C03 Implementation in Battambang.

figure 9: ekapheap community in Battambang

34

existingmechanismsanddefinitionsasalreadysetoutinexistinglaw,i.e.the2001LandLaw,Sub-decreeNo118 and Prakas No42,priortoimplementationofC03,toensurenohouseholdswithlegalpossessionrightsaresubjectedtotheCircular.Unfortunately,itappearsthisisyettotakeplaceinBattambang.

Other challenges in implementationhighlightedby stakeholders include limited communityorganizingandlackofleadership,lackofclarityregardingterminologyusedintheCircularincludinge.g.thelackofguidelinesregardingtherequiredaccuracyofcommunitymaps,andthesheeramountofworkrequiredtocompleteallannexestotheCircular.Theneedforadministrativereformandcapacity-buildingisalsoanessentialpartofsmoothimplementation,somethingstakeholdersinBattambanghavelearntthehardway.

AlthoughtheimplementationoftheCircular03processhasbynomeansbeenperfectinBattambang,stakeholdersintheprocessstressthatworkinvarioustargetcommunitieshasincreaseddialoguebetweenthecommunitiesandtheauthorities,andalsoappearstohaveencouragedcommunitiestoorganiseandplanforthefuture.SomealsonotethattheflexiblenatureoftheCircular–inparticularthevaguenatureoftheresolutionsidentified–allowsfornegotiationstofindcommunity-specificsolutions,asopposedtoone-size-fitsallapproaches.

crucially, however, no target community has at this stage – over two years since the circular was adopted –obtainedsecuretenureintheformoflandtitlesorotherrightstousetheland.SomecommentatorshencearguethatwhatistakingplaceinBattambangcannotbecalledC03implementation,asclarificationofrighttothelandandsecuringtenureformafundamentalpartoftheCircularandshouldprecedeothersteps.Communitymembersinatleasttwoofthetargetedcommunitieshavealsocomplainedthattheyhavebeenadvisedthatinordertobenefitforon-siteupgrading,theyneedtoagreetore-blockingand/orre-adjustmentofthecommunity,totheeffectthatmembershaveuniformplotsizes.Thiscouldbeasourceforcommunityconflict,ascommunitymemberswhohaveinvestedmoreandhavelargerplotsmayresentsharingtheirlandwithneighbourswhohaveinvestedless.

The Garden Area Pilot Project provides an interesting point for comparison. Initiated by BattambangMunicipality in 2007aspart of theUnitedNations Economic and Social Commission forAsia and thePacific’s (UNESCAP) ‘Housing the Urban Poor’ initiative, the project aimed to upgrade and formalizearound330householdslivingonlandsupposedlyreservedtobea‘gardenarea’.Plotsforanadditionalfewhundredfamilieswerealsotobedevelopedaspartofthesociallandconcession,whichwasapprovedbytheCouncilofMinistersandtheMunicipalityinFebruary2009.

Despitethelandconversion,theprojecthadnotachieveditsobjectivesbytheendoftheUNESCAPinitiativeinmid-2008.Subsequently,itbecamepartoftheLandAllocationforSocialandEconomicDevelopment(LASED)programme‘totesttowhatextentthesub-decreeonSocialLandConcession[sic]couldbeapplied’96 withHabitatforHumanityastheimplementingorganisationandtheWorldBankasthefunderthroughtheJapanSocialDevelopmentFund.Fiveyearssinceinitiation,theprojectisfinallyseeingsomeprogress,withatleast123beneficiaryhouseholdshavingreceivedsociallandconcession‘landcertificates’fortheirplots. However, problems with implementation remain, particularly related to households with largeexistingplotsintheareawhorefusetomoveontosmallerplots,aswellasindividualslinkedtothemilitaryattemptingtoclaimlandinthearea.

Afurtherissueistheproject’scurrentstatus,whichsinceimplementationofC03startedinBattambang,isnowdescribedasanSLC-C03hybrid.Assuch,althoughtheMLMUPCin2010announcedthatresidentswouldreceivelandtitlesfiveyearsaftertakingpossessionoftheirplots,itnowappearstheywillreceivetitlesonlyaftertenyearsofoccupancy.Theinitial‘landcertificates’receivedbyhouseholdssecuretheirtenureoftheplots,butprohibittransferofplotsoruseofthemascollateralagainstloans.Accordingto

96 TWGBattambangMunicipality(2010)Informal Settlements Survey 2009.


35

Habitat forHumanity, thehouseholdswillbegivenanew landcertificateafterfiveyears,whichallowplotstobeusedascollateralbutcontinuetoprohibittransfer.Assuch,whileadegreeoftenuresecurityhasbeenachievedforthebeneficiaryhouseholds,whohaverespondedbyupgradingtheirhousingwithsupportfromcommunitysavingsgroups,theprojectstillhassomeway–tenyearstobeprecise–togobeforecompletion.Thisraisestheissueofhowcost-effectiveon-goingmonitoringoflanduseis,althoughHabitatforHumanityhasindicatedtheyarecommittedtocontinuedworkontheproject.

Onthebasisof interviewswithkeystakeholders in theBattambangprocess,somekey featuresof theexperiencemaybeidentified:

• Politicalwill

Itisnotpossibletooverstatetheimportancethatpoliticalwillhasplayedintheon-goingformalisationof urban poor settlements in Battambang. The Municipality has instated a de facto moratorium onevictionsinthecity,andmunicipalstaffappeartounderstandtheneedforandbenefitsofformalisingpoorcommunitieswheretheyare,incontrasttorelocationorforcedeviction.StakeholdersagreethatC03hasactedasacatalystinpromotingmulti-stakeholderdialogueonformalisation,althoughsomesuggestthat this would have happened with or without the circular, especially given the on-going community empowermentworkpre-datingtheCircular.

• Existingrelationships

Donor presence within Battambang Municipality well ahead of the Circular even being conceived isanotherkeyfeatureincreatinganenablingenvironmentforC03implementation.DEDandKAS’s long-standing cooperationwith theMunicipalitynotonlymeantC03 implementationhasbenefited fromastrongworkingrelationshipacrossstakeholders,butalsothatMunicipalstaffcapacitytoundertakeworkofthissorthasbeensignificantlystrengthened.SomeoftheworkconductedbyNGOsalsopre-datestheCircular,whichhasfurthercontributedtothepositivemulti-stakeholderapproachinBattambang.

• Context

Battambangisaprovincialtown,anddespiterelativelystrongeconomicgrowth,landisasyetnotinhighdemand.Therefore,theprovisionofwhatmightlaterbeprimerealestateforthepoorisnotconsideredazero-sumgame.Mostsettlementsalsoappeartoberelativelysmall,withtheclearmajorityof‘informalsettlements’surveyedin2009containinglessthan50households,someasfewasadozen,whileonlyahandfulofsettlementsarehometomorethanonehundredhouseholds.Asaresult,any‘lossof land’throughtheformalisationofthesecommunitiesislikelytobesmall.Afurtherconsiderationisthatalargeamountofthesettlementsarelocatedalongroadsandanyupgradingplansoninner-cityroadcorridorscanbedecidedattheprovinciallevelwithoutnationallevelapproval.97

• Timeframe

ImplementationofelementsofCircular03hasbeenongoinginBattambangforovertwoyears,whiletheGardenAreaPilotProjectwasstartedoverfiveyearsago.AlthoughitmustbeconcededthattheCirculariscurrentlybeingpiloted inBattambang,yearsofworkwithoutobtainingtenuresecurityandtangibleupgradesfortargetcommunitiescanbefrustratingforallinvolvedandleadtolowcommunityparticipation.Already,itseemscommunityenthusiasmfortheprojectinPonleuPrekPreahSdachcommunitymaybedwindling,asevidencedby their reported lackofmotivation topush forproject implementation.ThissituationalsohighlightstheimportanceofcommunityempowermentforC03implementationtogeneratetangibleresults.

97 TWGBattambangMunicipality(2010)Informal Settlements Survey 2009.

36

• Lackoflandclassification

Thesteps identified inC03havenotbeen implemented inorder inBattambang,andthere isa lackofagreement among stakeholderswhether or not this is appropriate. Significantly, Step 2 has not beencompleted.Given the lackofadministrative structures to support land re-classification (Step2)aheadofothersteps(e.g.upgradingplans)thismaybereasonable,however,italsoraisestheriskthatdespitesignificantamountsofplanningandevenupgradingwork,communitiescouldeventuallybeleftwithoutsecure tenure. Lackof secure tenurecould leave thecommunitiesexposed topossibleeviction in thefuture,asurbanizationgainspaceinBattambangandpressureonlandconsequentlybecomesgreater.Inaddition,thelackofformallandclassificationaheadofotherstepsintheCircular,suchasthedevelopmentofupgradingplansunderstep5,mayresult inhouseholdswhomayhavelegalpossessionrightsbeingsubjectedtoCircularimplementation.Thiscanbeavoidedbyafullandproperassessmentofthelandtypeandnatureofresidents’occupationeitherpriortoorintheearlystagesofimplementationoftheCircular.

• Needforadministrativedevelopment

C03 cannotbe implemented in full until theadministrative structure to support its implementation isfullyinplace.Inparticular,StateLandWorkingGroupsandManagementCommitteesareneededatthenecessarylevelsofgovernment.ThelackofacompleteinstitutionalframeworkforC03createsblockagesinitsimplementation,particularlyrelatedtolandclassificationandre-classification.Ontheotherhand,theneedforparticularinstitutionstoexistinordertocontinueimplementationmayformanincentiveforthosestructurestobeestablishedandputinplace.GiventheneedforcooperationacrossdifferentlevelsofgovernmenttoimplementC03,mobilisationnotonlyofMunicipalauthoritiesbutalsodistrict(Khan)andcommune(Sangkat),aswellasProvincial,levelauthoritiesisalsorequired.

• Individualauthorities

Thevagueandflexiblenatureof theCircularmeans that its implementation is strongly foundeduponpoliticalwill,bothinstitutionallyandatthepersonallevel.Aweaknessofrelyingonindividuals’politicalwilltoimplementanypolicy,isthatachangeofthepersonorpersonsinpowermayinturnimpactonimplementation.Thisisofparticularconcernregardingtheidentificationofresolutions,whichasnotedabove lackdetails forwhereandwhenaparticular resolution shouldbeapplied, and couldhencebechangedonaparticularperson’swhim.


37

3.4Circular03inPhnomPenhContext

ItiswidelyrecognisedthattheexperienceofimplementingC03inBattambangcannotsimplybereplicatedin Phnom Penh. This is due to several key factors. Firstly, as outlined above, C03 implementation inBattambanghas facedhurdles and challenges thatmust be addressedprior towider implementationoftheCircular.Secondly,thesheersizeofPhnomPenhcomparedtoBattambangmeansthattherearesignificantlymoreareaswithsettlementsandhouseholdspotentiallylivingonstateland.Thirdly,therateofurbanisation isvisiblyfaster inthecapital,resulting inmorepressureon land,particularlyonprimerealestateinthecity’sexpandingcore,andcommercialinterestsarehighlyprominentindrivingurbandevelopment.Fourthly,whiledistrictandcommunelevelauthoritiesinPhnomPenhmaybemoretechnicallyskilledthantheircounterpartsinBattambang,theMunicipalityanditsstronglinkstocentralgovernmentdominate the capital’s development agenda, limiting the independence of lower level authorities.98

Finally,asoutlinedabove,thehistoryofsettlementsinPhnomPenhandlandsectorprogrammes’failuretoaddressthesituationoftheurbanpoor,meansthereareseveraltensofthousandsofhouseholdswithundeterminedlandrightsinthecapital.Theon-goingevictionsofforcedresidentshavealsocontributedtoanenvironmentcharacterisedbyadeepmistrustbetweentheauthorities,communitiesandcivilsocietyactors.

Thus,unlikeinBattambangwherethecombinationoflowpressureonlandandengagementwithurbanpoorsettlementshasledtoadefactomoratoriumonevictions,despitetheapprovaloftheCircularinMay2010,atleast30communitieshavesincereceivedevictionnotices;householdsfromadozenofthesehavealreadybeenevicted.

Theon-goingevictionsinthecapitalattesttothetwoMunicipalities’widelydifferentattitudestowardsurbanpoorsettlementsandthedifferentpressuresonlandineachcity.Thishasalsobeenexperiencedbydevelopmentpartners;incontrasttoBattambangwhereGIZenjoysapositiveworkingrelationshipwiththeMunicipality,inPhnomPenhtheagencyhasstruggledtogainafootholdwithintheMPP.

Assuch,whileCircular implementation inPhnomPenh intheorypresentsthesameopportunitiesandchallengesasinBattambang,inpracticeanyimplementationislikelytofacesignificantpracticalobstaclesanditseemsunlikelythatlessonsfromBattambangcanbedirectlyappliedinPhnomPenh.

Implementation

InformationregardingtheimplementationofC03inPhnomPenhisavailableindribsanddrabs,withfewoutsidegovernmentbeingcertainofexactlywhatstepshavebeentaken.However,itappearsC03imple-mentationhasbeenongoinginthecapitalsince2010,albeitwithouttheovertsupportandcooperationofdevelopmentpartnersand/orcivilsocietyactors.Infact,itseemstheMPPhasrebuffedatleastGIZofferstoimplementC03withafocusonon-siteupgradinginPhnomPenh,althoughtheMunicipalityiscurrentlyinnegotiationswithUN-Habitatregardingfuturecooperation.

TheMPPwebsiteofferssomeinsightintoon-goingimplementationefforts.Accordingtothesiteafirst,one-day seminaron theCircularwasheld for localauthorities inDecember201099 followedbya ‘dis-seminationmeeting to implementCircularNo03’ inMay.100 Following this, implementation appears tohavebeenswift:byDecember2011,allninedistricts(Khans)hadreportedlycompletedappendices1-4relatedtotheidentificationanddatacollectionofalltemporarysettlements,whileToulKork,DaunPenh,RusseiKeoandDangkor (partially)districtshadalsocompletedtime-consumingappendices6and6.1relatedtodatacollectiononhouseholdsintemporarysettlements.Implementationwasreportedtohave

98 Paling,W.(2012)‘Planning a Future for Phnom Penh: Mega Projects, Aid Dependence and Disjointed Governance’UrbanStudies2049:2889.99 MPP(2010)Khan/Sangkat authorithies must prevent all kinds of illegal shelters on the State Property. December 27, 2010.100 MPP(2011)7 Steps to Effectively Implement Circular No03. May 23 2011.

38

progressedfurthestinMeancheyandChamkarmondistricts,whereappendix5–thefinalreportsoftheSLWG regarding land classification in each settle-ment–hasreportedlyalsobeencompleted.101

The publicly available information thus indicatesthatatleastStep1,datacollectiononactualnum-bersoftemporarysettlements,andStep3,house-hold and population census in temporary com-munities, havebeen completed in sixoutofnineKhansinthecity.Inaddition,Step2–identification,mapping,andclassificationof thesitesof tempo-rary settlements – appears to have been at leastpartiallycompletedinMeancheyandChamkarmondistricts.

TheMPPhasalsobeenrequestedtosubmitase-lectionof100familiesfromvariousdistrictstotheMLMUPCforonsitedevelopmentinthecontextofCircular03.AccordingtoapostontheMPPweb-site in December 2011, ‘Khan Sen Sok, Toul KorkandMeancheyconfirmedtheavailabilityforonsitedevelopment, whereas Khan Toul Kork, chamkar-morn, 7 Makara and russey Keo said they have no siteforsuchdevelopment.’102

LettersfromMeancheyandSenSokdistrictstotheMunicipality in July103 and August104 2011 respec-tivelyattesttothefactthatKhanauthoritieshavebeen requested to identify target communities.However,contrarytotheabove,inhislettertotheMPP,theChairofKhanMeanCheyidentifiesrelo-cationasthesolutionfor114familiesatthreelo-cationsidentified.Accordingtolistsobtainedfromcivilsocietyactorsinvolvedintheprocess,atotaloftenlocationsinthecity(seeFigure10)havebeenidentified as potential target areas, although it isnotclearwhatresolutionisplannedforeachloca-tion.

InDecember2012, theMPPpublishedanassess-mentontheurbanpoorinthecity.Preparedwithtechnical support from the United Nations Chil-dren’s Fund (UNICEF), the assessment featuresa summary of interviews with 281 communitiesacrossthecapital’sninekhans,includingbasicde-

101 MPP(2011)Phnom Penh Speeds up the Process of Circular No03.December 21, 2011.

102 MPP(2011)Phnom Penh Speeds up the Process of Circular No03.December 21, 2011.

103 Kouch,C.(2011)Letter from the Chair of Khan Mean Chey to H.E. Chair of the Capital of Phnom Penh: Request for solution policy for temporary settlements in 6 locations.July18,2011(UnofficialTrans-lation).

104 Ly,S.(2011)Letter from the Chair of Khan Sen Sok to H.E. Chair of the Capital of Phnom Penh: Report on the selection of citizens’ temporary settlement locations. August8,2011(UnofficialTranslation).

Potential C03 Target Areas In Phnom PenhMeanchey District:

• Ta Ngouv, Ta Ngouv Kandal and Boeung Ch-houk, Sangkat Nirout- 54 families

• Deum Makloeu and Deum Ampel, Sangkat Chhba Ampov I - 25 families

• Sangkat Prekpra - 35 families

Russei Keo District:• Stoueng Kombot in Svay Poa commune- 424

houses, 475 families

• Borey Mittepheap in Russey Keo commune- 120 houses.

• Borey Dem Srol in Russey Keo commune - 63 houses, 63 families

• Borey Santepheap Russey Keo commune- approximately 100 houses

• Sen Sabay, Sen Rikreay, Sen Ponlor1, 2, and Sen Sou Sdey Russey Keo commune- 334 houses

Sen Sok District:• Klaing K8 Deiy Thmei village, Sangkat Ph-

nom Penh Thmei - 38 families

• Area of Kok Kleang official centre at Kok Kleang village, Sangkat Phnom Penh Thmei - 8 families

Figure10:PotentialC03targetareasInPhnom Penh


39

tailsonsettlementareas,housing,demographics,socio-economicsituations,andexistinginfrastructureandservices.AlthoughtheassessmentcontainsnoreferencestoCircular03,theexerciseoflocatingandsurveyingurbanpoorsettlementsisremarkablysimilartotheinformalsettlementsurveyconductedinBattambangaheadofC03piloting.

CommunityImpact

While the MPP claims to have conducted extensive work in identifying temporary settlements andevenenumeratinghouseholds inthesettlements, thesettlementstargeted,orpotentially targeted,byC03implementationhaveseeminglybeenkeptoutoftheloop.For instance,althoughtheMPPclaimsappendices6and6.1(relatedtodatacollectiononhouseholdsintemporarysettlements)underStep3oftheCircularhavebeencompletedinfourKhans,noneofthe15communitiesinToulKork,DaunPenh,andRusseiKeodistrictsinterviewedforthisreport(includingcommunitiesontheabovelist)recallanypublicdisplayofhouseholdstatisticsintheircommunities.NeitherdofamiliesintheNirotcommuneareainMeancheydistrict recall joiningmeetings,participating inconsultations,orseeingpublicdisplaysasoutlinedunderSteps1-3oftheCircular.

Instead, at least one community targeted for Circular 03 implementation in Toul Kork district claimshouseholdswere ‘tricked’ into thumb-printing C03 documents. Community representatives state theyweretoldacommunitycensuswasbeingconducted,howeverwhentheauthoritiesreturnedtherelevantdocuments tocommunitymembers thesestatedthehouseholdshadagreedthat theyare illegal.Thisversionofevents iscorroboratedbycivilsocietyactors: ‘Thesurveybeingdone isnotparticipatoryasit shouldbe in theC03process,’ saidoneNGOstafferwhohasbeenmonitoring implementation. ‘Forcommunitiesitisabigconcern:theauthoritiessaytheyhavecomeonlytodoasurveyorcensusofthecommunity,theydon’tinformthecommunityit’saboutC03.’

InRusseiKeodistrict,settlements includedonthe listofpotentialtargetareasalsoexpressconfusion,fear,anduncertaintyregardingC03.Atleastthreeofthecommunitiesstatetheyhavebeendeniedtitlingin thepast,on thebasis that theyare living illegallyon theriversidebutwithoutproperadjudication.CommunityrepresentativesinoneofthecommunitiesstatedtheyhadbeenaskedtothumbprintC03-relateddocumentsin2011,butrefusedtodosobecausetheydonotagreethattheyare‘illegal’.Asaresult,thesituationinthecommunityisatastalemate.

Atthesametime,inTaNgouv,Nirotcommune–oneoftheareasidentifiedintheletterfromMeancheydistrict–48households receivedanevictionnoticeonSeptember28,2012,givingthemoneweektoremovetheirhomesfromonand/oralongacanal.OnOctober23-24,theauthoritiesdemolishedeighthomesintheareabeforecommunityprotestsbroughtthedemolitionstoahalt.InitiallyonlyonefamilyreceivedcompensationofUS$6000,whiletherestweregivenUS$50perfamilyandtoldtheywouldbeable torebuild theirhomes followingcleaningof thecanal,althoughnowrittenassuranceof thiswasprovided.Later,theremaininghouseholdsreceivedbetweenUS$1500andUS$3000eachandweretoldtheywouldnotbeallowedtorebuildinthearea.DespitethecanalareahavingseeminglybeenidentifiedforC03implementation,proceduresoutlinedundertheCircularwereclearlynotfollowedintheevictionoftheeighthouseholds,whilesome40householdsremainunderthreatofeviction.

Thescenariowasrepeatedafewmonthslaterfurtherwestalongthecanal,whensixhouseholdsweretold theyhadoneweek toeitherdismantle theirownhomesand receiveUS$2,000 in compensation,ortheirhomeswouldbedemolishedwithnocompensationprovided.Wheninterviewedthedayafterhavingagreedtodismantletheirhomes,theaffectedhouseholdsstatedtheyfeltthattheyhadnochoicebuttoaccept,sothattheycouldsalvagetheirpossessionsandhouseconstructionmaterials.Theyalsoexpresseddespairregardingtheirfuture;‘Wehavenowheretogo.’Circular03wasnotmentionedinthenegotiations.

40

ProvisionoftenuresecurityforpoorhouseholdsisproceedingwithpotentiallymoresuccessinSenSokdistrict,wherelocalauthoritiestogetherwiththeMPPhavedecidedtoestablishacommitteetomeasureand ‘deliver land’ – meaning on-site tenure security according to local authorities – to ‘residents intemporarysettlementsonstatepubliclandin09communitiesofKhmounhcommune’.105AlthoughaletterobtainedbycommunitiesintheareadoesnotreferencetheCircular,thelogicoftheletterisremarkablysimilartothatofC03.Inaddition,communitiesSenSabay,SenRikreay,SenPonlor1and2,andSenSouSdey,previously identifiedforC03 implementation,are located inKhmuonhcommuneandappearsettobenefit from themeasure.Whileupgradingand formalisationof the communities iswelcome, it isinterestingtonotethatthetargetareaisinfactarelocationsiteknownasAnlongKnganforpeopleevictedfromtheTonleBassacareain2001.ThebeneficiariesappeartobeformerrenterswhofollowingevictionwerenotgivenplotsoflandinAnlongKnganbutbuilttheirhomesthereregardless,oftenonlessdesirablelandsuchasoverswampsandditches.Theareaisalsolocatedattheoutskirtsofthecity,wherepressureonland,althoughgrowing,isrelativelylimited.

TheaboveclearlyshowsthatthewheelsareinmotionforC03implementationinPhnomPenh.However,steps so far have been taken unilaterally by the authorities, in conflict with one the most positiveaspectsoftheCircular,namelyitscommitmenttoatransparent,multi-stakeholderapproachthroughoutimplementation.Asthefollowingcasestudiesillustrate,establishinglandrightstoaparticularparcelisnotalwaysstraightforward,particularlyinpoorcommunitiesneglectedbylandregistrationefforts,andassuch,inclusive,transparentandpubliceffortstoimplementtheCirculararesorelyneeded.

105 MPP(2012)Decision No133 On Establishing a Committee for Observing and Measuring Land for Residents of Temporary Settlements on State Public Land in 09 Communities of Khmounh Commune, Sen Sok district, Phnom Penh.

figure 11: riverside homes were soughtafterwhenPhnomPenh was repopulated


41

3.5CaseStudy:Community1CommunityProfile

Community1islocatedonthenorth-easternedgeofBoeungTompunLake,byStreet271inChamkarmondistrict.19households(24families)aremembersoftheself-definedcommunity,whichformedin1998withassistance fromtheUrbanPoorDevelopmentFund (UPDF).A totalof43householdsoccupy theareainwhichthecommunityresides(SeeFigure12),althoughnotallresidents identifyascommunitymembers.

Accordingtocommunitymembers,in1979thelandclosetothelakewascoveredinreeds,plantsandtrees,andanoldvillawaslocatednexttoStreet271.Inthe1980speoplebeganoccupyingandsettlingtheareaandbuilthousesfreely.ThecommunitywasmainlycomposedofpeoplefromSvayRiengProvince.Thelandclosetothelakewasusedasaricefieldandsolidaritygroupsgrewricecommunallyduringthedryseason.In1984thericefieldwasdividedbetweenthehouseholdswhohadsettledintheareaandtheybegangrowingmorninggloryandwatermimosa.In2000,thelandthatwasusedforhydroculturewaspurchasedbyprivateinvestorsandtheownersinthecommunitywerepaidforthesaleoftheirland.In2009 theareapreviouslyused forhydroculturewasfilledwith sand.As such, the community isnolongerlocatedbythelakeproper,instead,itislocatedbyasmallpondsurroundedbysand(seeFigure14).Communitymembershavenotbeentoldwhatisplannedforthefilledinpartofthelake.

Figure12:MapofCommunity1

42

Year of settlement Before 1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2012Numberofhouseholds 1 6 8 4

Thecommunityisvisiblypoor.Mosthousesinthecommunityhaveonefloorbutarebuiltonstilts/pillarsoverthelake.Thequalityofthesepillarsvarieswithsevenhouseholdshavinglowqualitywoodenpillarsandafurthersevenhavinghighqualityconcretepillars.Manyhouseshavewoodenfloorsandwalls,andmosthavezincorconcreteroofs.Ofthe78communitymembersaged18andabove,57earnincomesinlowpaid,relativelyunskilledjobs.Themostcommonincomeearningactivitiesareworkingingarmentfactories,workingasmotorcycletaxidrivers,andworkinginprivatecompanies.12womenarecurrentlyhousewives;femaleunemploymentisacommunityconcern.Mostcommunitymembersearnanincomerelativelyclosetotheirhomes,andthemajorityofschool-agedchildrenattendnearbystateorprivateschools.

Assetholdingsinthecommunityaremodest;onlyonehouseholdisinpossessionofacarandalthough18outof19householdspossessamotorbikeandmosthouseholdspossesstelevisionsandfans,thereislittleevidenceofotherlargerconsumeritems.Nohouseholdscontainarefrigeratorandonlysixoutof19possessabed.

Accessingstateutilities isachallengefora largeminorityofhouseholdswithinthecommunity.Elevenoutof19householdsareconnectedtostateelectricitysupply,whiletheremainingeightconnectviatheirneighbours,mainlybecausetheycannotaffordtheconnectionfees.Thesehouseholdspaysignificantlyhigheramountsperunitforprivateaccess:themedianpriceforstateelectricityis720Riels/kWh,whilethemedianpriceforsuppliesfromprivateprovidersis1500Riels/kWh.106

106 US$1=4000Riels(approximately)

Figure13:SatelliteimageofCommunity1

Figure14:LengthofresidencyinCommunity1


43

The situation is similar with regards to access to piped water from the Phnom Penh Water SupplyAuthority(PPWSA):eightoutof19householdshaveaccesstoPPWSAwater,eightaccessprivatewatersuppliesthroughfriendsorneighbours,andthreeaccesswaterfrommiddlemen.Thehouseholdswithoutconnectionsreportthattheydonothaveaconnectionbecausetheycannotaffordtheconnectionfee.Privatewaterismoreexpensivethanpublic:themedianpriceforPPWSAwateris550Riels/m3, while the medianpriceforwaterfromprivateprovidersis2000Riels/m3.Eighteenofthe19householdshavetheirowntoilet,with10ofthesebeinglatrinesoverhangingthelake.

In2011,SLRwasconductedintheareaandhouseholdslocatedclosetoStreet271havereceiptsfromtheprocess.AmongthehouseholdsthatunderwentSLR,onlytwoaremembersofthecommunity.Theirhomes are located on the banksofthelakeasopposedtooverthelake.Thehouseholdsthatwereexcludedfromtheprocessarenotawareofthereasonstheywereexcluded.(SeeFigure15fordetails)

No households in the community have land titles, however, communitymembers have a reasonableamountofdocumentation.Ofthe19households,allpossessBirthCertificatesandNationalIDCards,18possessaVoterIDCard,and15possessaResident’sBook,withtheremainingfourhouseholdsrentingtheirhomes.Only13householdshaveFamilyBooks,however,afigurethatisrelativelylowcomparedwithotherpoorcommunities.FivehouseholdsclaimthatthathaveneverhadaFamilyBook,whichmayposeproblemsforthemwhenaccessingservicesandsecuringtenure.

Fifteen house owners in the community were interviewed; the remaining four households rent theirhomes. Of the 15 owners, 12 purchased their home/land and three inherited it from relatives. Twohouseholdsinthecommunityreceivedreceiptsaspartofthesystematiclandtitlingprocess.NoneofthehouseholdspossessownershipdocumentsissuedbytheMunicipalityordistrict,although10outofthe

Figure15:Landdemarcationincommunity 1

44

15possessoccupancysupportlettersissuedbythecommuneorvillage.Eighthouseholdspossesssaletransfer/transactionletterssignedbythecommuneorvillage,onehouseholdhaslostthisdocument,andonehouseholddoesnotcurrentlyhavepossessionofthisdocument.Nooneinthecommunityhaseverbeentoldthattheyarenotallowedtoliveonthelandinthecommunity.

15

4

12 3

4

Full cadastral land title issued by the National government

ownership document issued by the municipality of phnom penh or district

occupancy support document issued by the commune or village

transfer/ transaction letter signed by the commune or village

transfer/ transaction letter not signed by the commune or village

yes 0 0 10 8 0Yesbutnotincurrent possession

0 0 0 1 0

No – lost it 0 0 0 1 0No-never had one 15 15 5 5 15Notapplicable 4 4 4 4 4Total 19 19 19 19 19

Nevertheless,thecommunityiscurrentlyunderthreatofeviction,astheMunicipalityofPhnomPenhisplanningtoconstructHunSenBoulevardacrossBoeungTompunLake.107Theplannedrouteoftheroadthatwill connectHunSenBoulevard toStreet271 transects thecommunity. (SeeFigure19)Althoughthecommunitywillclearlybeaffectedbythisroadconstructionproject,representativesfromthelocalauthoritieshavenotcommunicatedwithcommunitymembers.Thecommunityheardabouttheprojectviatelevisioncoverageandinformalrumours.Thecommunitydoesnotwanttomovefromthislocationbutiftheyhaveto,theybelievethatappropriatecompensationshouldbeprovided.

107 MPP(2011)Samdech HUN SEN Blvd., a New Blood Vessel for Southern Part of Phnom Penh. March 4, 2011.

Figure17:HouseacquisitioninCommunity1figure 16: Household ownership in community 1

Figure18:LanddocumentationinCommunity1

Ownedbyhousehold

rented

PurchasedBy inheritance orgift

Notapplicable


45

MosthouseholdsareunawareofCircular03andhaveneverhadanycontactwithofficialsinrelationtotheCircular.TwooutofthethreehouseholdswhohadheardoftheCircularwereinformedaboutitbythecommunityleaderwhowasinformedbytheSangkatChief.ThecommunityisnotfeaturedinThe Phnom Penh Urban Poor Assessment.

In relation to tenure security, to what extent do you agree with the following statement ‘i feel safe and secure in this community’?

strongly agree agree neither agree nor disagree

disagree

Numberofhouseholds 3 3 2 7*N=15 as renters were not asked

figure 19: MapofHunSenBoulevard

figure 20: Tenure security in community 1

46

LegalNotePreliminaryidentificationofland

Residents inthecommunity liveonoradjacenttoBoeungTompun lake,andtheexact locationof theresidents’homesinrelationtothelakeisimportantinassessingthelegalityoftheirsettlement.Accordingtothe2001LandLaw,anypropertythathasa’naturalorigin‘isstatepublicproperty.Thisincludeslakes.108

TheLandLawisclearinstatingthatstatepublicpropertyisinalienableandcannotbeacquiredthroughlegal possession,109andimproperoccupationofstatepubliclandisanoffencepunishablebyafineand/orimprisonment.110Occupationofstatepublicpropertymaybeauthorized,althoughthisoccupationmustbetemporaryandrevocable,andthiscannotbetransformedintoownership,andtheoccupanthasnorighttotransfertheland.111

TheLandLawandSub-decreeonStatelandManagementdonotclearlydefinewhatisregardedasa‘lake’,butin2006theMinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanningandConstructionissuedaDecisionwhichclarifiedthecriteriaforclassifyingthevarioustypesofstateland.ThisDecisionexplainsthat:

• Thebodyofanaturallake,limitedtothewaterlineofdryseasonisstatepublicland;and

• Thelandareabetweenthehighestwaterlineofrainyseasonandlowestwaterlineofdryseasonisstateprivateland,exceptthosepartsthatclearlyhavepublicuseorpublicinterestthatshallbeclassifiedasstatepublicland.112

Mapsofthesurveyareaindicatethatalargeminorityofstructures(around47%)arelocatedon/overthelakeduringthedryseason,whichmeansthattheyarelocatedonstatepubliclandasdefinedbytheabovelegislation.Theremainingstructuresareatleastpartlylocatedonlandorintheareathatfloodsduringwetseason.(SeeFigure21)Assuch,thesepeoplemaybeabletoclaimlegalpossessionoftheirlandiftheymeetthenecessarycriteria,asdiscussedbelow.Thelakeisintheprocessofbeingfilledwithsandinordertocreatelandfordevelopment,asmentionedabove,whichmeansthatthelakenolongerexistsinitsoriginalformaroundthehouseholdsinquestionandtheoccupantsinquestionarenowsituatedbyasmallpondsurroundedbysand.Itisunclearwhatimpactthiswouldhaveontheoccupantsclaimforlandtitle,asthelakehasnowclearlylostitspublicinterestvalueandhasbeenapprovedfordevelopment.

community households non-community households total households19 24 43

over lake all year round

over lake only in wet season

over lake all year around


over lake all year round


11 8 9 15 20 23

CurrentTenureStatus

Thedatagatheredduringthissurveyisnotdetailedenoughtomakedefinitiveassessmentsofeachfamily’stenuresituation,however,thefollowinggeneralobservationscanbemade:

Ownership

Noonewithinthestudyareawasinpossessionofalandtitle,whichistheonlyundisputableevidenceoflandownership.TheSLRprocessdidcommenceinthearea,buttherehasbeenlittlemovementsince2009.

108 RGC(2001)Land Law 2001, Article 15.Seealso,Sub-decree No118 on State land Management 2005, Article 4.109 RGC(2001)Land Law 2001, Articles 16, 18 & 43.110 RGC(2001)Land Law 2001, Articles 248 & 259.111 RGC(2001)Land Law 2001, Article 16.112 TheMinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanningandConstruction(2006)Decision No52 to Attach the Text on Criteria for State Land Classification as

an Annex of Prakas No42 Dated 10 March 2006 on State Land Identification, Mapping and Classification, 25 December 2006 (point II).

Figure21:PhysicallocationofhouseholdsinCommunity1


47

The survey shows that in late 2009 those households living along Street 271 had their land plots adjudicated andreceiveddemarcationreceiptsfromlandregistrationteams.Thesereceiptsweregivenonlytothoselivingonthelandaroundthelake,andnohouseholdslivingoverthewaterreceivedreceipts.Withinthestudyareaonlytwohouseholdsreceivedsuchreceipts,buttheresidentshaveheardlittlesincethen,andtheregistrationprocessappearstohavestalledforoverthreeyears.

LegalPossession

Thoseresidentsthatdonotliveonstatepubliclandmayhaveclaimstothelandaslegalpossessors.Thisdependsonwhetherpossessionofthelandcommencedpriortothepassingofthe2001LandLaw,andiscontingentontheiroccupationmeetingthefivefurtherbasiccriteriadiscussedinthemainbodyofthereport.

ThebackgroundinformationgatheredduringthesurveyshowsthatthecommunityiswellestablishedandthemajorityofresidentshavelivedtheresincepriortotheLandLawbeingpassed(thecut-offpointforlegalpossession).Onlythreecommunitymembersmovedthereafterthisdate,butthenew-comerscouldalsohavelegitimateclaimsaslegalpossessorsiftheycanprovethepreviousowner(s)legallypossessedthelandpriortotheLandLawbeingpassed.Asexplainedearlier,ifthelandisfoundtobestatepublicland,nopossessionislegal.

OfficialRecognitionofOccupation

Noneofthosesurveyedheldavalidlandtitle,butallofthehomeownersintervieweddidhavesomeformofrecognitionfromlocallevelauthorities.Forthemostpartthistooktheformofadocumentprovidedbythecommuneorvillagelevelconfirmingoccupancy.Thesedocumentsweregenerallyprovidedafterhomeownersapproachedthecommuneorvillageandpaidafee.Atleasthalfofthoseinterviewedhadthelandtransfercontractwitnessedbythecommuneorvillagewhentheypurchasedtheland.

Whilethesedocumentssuggestthatcommunitymembershadtheapprovaloflocalauthoritiestooccupytheland,thesedocumentsarenotevidenceofownership,andmayonlybeusedassupportingevidenceif households do attempt to claimownershipof the land. In particular, thedocumentswouldhelp tosupportaclaimof legalpossessionas they indicatethat theoccupants’possessionwasunambiguous,notoriousandingoodfaith.However,itisillegalforanylocalauthoritytoissuedocumentsthatauthorisetheoccupationofstatepublicland,andifitisfoundthatthelandinquestionisstatepublicland,thesedocumentsarenotvalid.

CommercialDevelopmentoftheArea

Theaboveanalysisiscomplicatedsomewhatbythepresenceofahugeprivatedevelopment,whichliesadjacenttothestudyarea,aswellasextensiveinfrastructureprojects.Theplanned60mwideHunSenBoulevardwilloverlaptheexistingcommunity,andwillnodoubtalsorequireavacantrightofwayareaoneitherside.Thiswillclearlyimpactuponlocalresidents.Additionally,theprivatecompanyINGHoldingshasreportedlybeengrantedtherighttodevelopalarge,over2,500hacommercialandrealestatezonejustsouthofthestudyarea.113Asdiscussedabove,southofthecommunity laysBoeungTompunlake,whichaccordingtotheLandLawisstatepublicproperty.

If thecompanyhas indeed receivedapproval for thisproject (requested inApril2011), the landmustfirsthavebeenre-classifiedasstateprivateproperty.Thisprocess is legal,but isoftenconducted inamannerthatislackingintransparency.IfstatelandlosesitspublicinteresttheLandLawstatesthatsuchreclassificationcanbeconductedaccordingtoaspecific lawontransferringstateproperties,althoughsuchalawdoesnotcurrentlyexist.114Insteadre-classificationiscurrentlybeingconductedinaccordancewithasub-decree.Itisnotclearatpresentifthelandhasindeedbeenclassified,butnoconsultationswereconductedwithlocalpeople,asisrequiredbySub-decreeNo118onStateLandManagement.

113 INGHoldingsCo.Ltd.(2011)AZ Town The Future of Phnom Penh.114 RGC(2001)Land Law, Article 16.

48

LinktoCircular

VeryfewintervieweesintheareahadheardofCircular03,andatpresentthereisnoindicationthatCircular03willbepilotedinthisarea.However,thecasecouldraisesomeinterestingissuesifthecommunityiseventuallysubjecttotheCircular.Principally,thereisalackofclaritybetweenwhereexactlytheboundaryofthelakeis(ifindeeditcanstillbeconsideredalake),andthereforewhichareasarestatepublicproperty.Asthecommunityiswellestablishedandmostresidentscanproveoccupationorachainofpossessiongoingbackmanyyears,providedthelandtheyareoccupyingisnotstatepublicproperty,theymayhaveclaimsaslegalpossessors.Ifso,theyarenotillegaloccupantsandshouldnotbesubjecttotheCircular.

ThecommunitypresentsacasewherethestageoftheCircularconcernedwithidentification,mappingand classificationof land couldbe complex. The communitymayalsobe impactedby thepartof theCircularthatstatesthatduringtheidentificationstages,areaswithan‘existinglanduseplan’beidentifiedassuch.Astheareaisearmarkedforextensivecommercialandinfrastructuredevelopments,itispossiblethattheseapprovedprojectsmayoverrideresidents’landclaims.

A furtherchallengemaybe in identifyingappropriatecommunity representatives.As indicatedabove,withinthesurveyareanotallhouseholds identifiedasbeing‘communitymembers’.Becauseofthis, ifthecommunityweretobesubjecttotheCircular,whenselectingcommunityrepresentativestoengagewiththelocalauthoritiesandsitincommunitymeetingsitshouldbeensuredthattheselectedindividualsadequatelyrepresentallcommunitymembers.

Summary

• Almosthalfofresidentsappeartoberesidingonstatepublicpropertyastheyarepermanentlylocatedonthelake.

• Over50%ofstructuresareatleastpartiallyoneitherdrylandorwithintheareabetweenlowandhighwaterline–notstatepublicproperty.

• Thosewhodonot liveon statepublic propertymayhave claims to their land, andmosthaveresidedtheresincebeforetheLandLawwaspassedin2001.

• It is beyond the scope of this study to assess the potential tenure status of each individualhousehold,butsomegeneralobservationscanbemade:

o Therearenohouseholdswithlandtitlesinthestudyarea;

o Thoselivingalongtheroadreceivedlanddemarcationreceipts,butnotthosearoundoronthelake;

o Landtitlingseemstohavestalled,probablybecauseofthedevelopmentprojectson-goinginthearea;and

o All residentshaverecognition from localauthorities,althoughthesedocumentsarenotstrong,butcouldbeusedasevidenceofpossessionifhouseholdsweretoapplyforlandtitles.

• If legalpossessorsareaffectedbytheroaddevelopment,theyshouldbesubjecttotheLawonExpropriation.IllegalsettlerscouldbesubjecttotheCircular.

• Theprivatelakedevelopmentconfusestheissueofthelegalstatusoftheland.Itisnotclearifthelandhasbeenre-classifiedornot,andwhatimplicationsthishasforthecommunitysurveyed.


49

AlternativePlan

AsnotedaboveatleasttwentyhouseholdsinthesurveyareamaybelocatedonstatepubliclandandhencesubjecttotheCircular.AsaresultoftheconstructionofHunSenBoulevardandtheplansforAZTown, severalmorehouseholds in thegeneralareamayalsobe subject to relocation (SeeFigure19).WhileanyhouseholdwithpossessionrightsintheareashouldreceivemarketratecompensationforanylossoflandorstructuresaspertheLawonExpropriation,householdsonstatelandcouldbenefitfromon-siteupgradingaspertheCircular.

Figure22showsapossibleon-siteupgradingplanforthearea,withhouseholdsoverthelakerelocatedtonewhousingonlandreclaimedfromthelake.Thehousingcomplexfeatures36plots,fittohousenotonlyresidentsofthecommunity,butalsoresidentsintheadjacentareasthatarelikelytobeaffectedbytheconstructionofHunSenBoulevard.Theplanalsoshowshowthehousingareacouldbeexpandedeithertothewestorsouthoftheplannedcomplex.

Whiletheplanincludesfillinginofasmallpartoftheexistinglake,thisappearstobealreadyincludedintheexistingdevelopmentplansforthearea,andassuchshouldnotposeanobstacle.

Figure22:Alternativedevelopmentplan forCommunity1

50

3.6CaseStudy:Community2CommunityProfile

Community2islocatedinacul-de-sacbyadrainagecanalnearBoeungTrabeklakeinChamkarmondis-trict.Eightyeighthouseholdsaremembersoftheself-definedcommunity,whichformedin2004aroundasavingsgroupsupportedbytheUPDF.Thereareapproximately85buildingstructuresinthearea,andcommunitymembersresidein70ofthese(seeFigure23).Aspartofthecommunitysurvey,householdsin69buildingstructuresweresurveyed.Eighteenstructurescontainedtwohouseholds,dividedinto’pri-maryoccupants‘and’secondaryoccupants‘,withthelattergenerallyreferringtomarriedchildrenoftheformer,orrenters.Someofthehousesinthecommunityarelocatedondryland,whileothersarepartiallylocatedoverthecanal,particularlyintherainyseasonwhenthecanalexpands.

Communitymemberssaytheareawasfirstsettledinthe1980s.Atthetime,giventhearea’snaturallowelevationandlocationinbetweentwolakes,itwasfrequentlyflooded,especiallyduringheavyrains.Resi-dentsintheareagrewwaterhyacinthandmorning-gloryontheexistingcanal.Inthe1990s,morepeoplefromotherprovincesaroundPhnomPenhsettleddownintheareaduetoitscentrallocationandeasyaccesstoservicessuchasmarkets,schools,hospitalsandpagodas,aswellasnearbyjobopportunities.Mostofthepeopleworkedasgarmentfactoryworkers,foodsellers,constructionworkers,wastepickersand motodopdrivers.Themajorityofhouseholdssettledinthecommunitybefore2001,while25house-holdssettledinorafter2001.

Figure23:MapofCommunity2


51

Year of settlement Before 1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 after 2011Numberofhouseholds 3 8 32 23 3

In2010,theMunicipalityofPhnomPenhbeganrehabilitatingtheBoeungTrabekcanaltoprotecttheareafromfloodingintherainyseason.OnSeptember17,2010,Chamkarmorndistrictsentajointlettertothecommunity informingallhouseholds, including thosenot livingadjacent to thecanal, that theywouldhavetovacatethearea.AccordingtothelettertheresidentsareillegaloccupantsoftheBoeungTrabekbasin.Thecommunitywastoldithadtendaysto’voluntarily‘leave.Inresponse,thecommunitysentlet-terstoKhanauthoritiesandprotestedtotheMPPaswellasthePrimeMinister’scabinet.Asaresult,thecommunitywasinformallytoldbydistrictauthoritiesthatifthecommunityagreedto’bequiet‘,nohomeswouldbedemolished.

Afewdayslater,residentssawanexcavatordigandpumpmudfromthecanal,buttheyfacednoprob-lems. Although the community has not been threatenedwith eviction since, residents are concernedabouttheirfutureasallexcepttwohouseholdsinthecommunitywereexcludedfromSLRconductedintheareain2010.Thetwohouseholdsthatwereincludedreceivedlandtitlesin2012alongwithothernon-communityhouseholdsinthearea.Figure25showsthatthetwohouseholdsthatreceivedlandtitlesarelocatedattheendoftheformalstreet.However,someofthebiggerplots‘inside’thecommunityalsoreceivedtitles.

Thecommunity isvisiblypoor. It isaccessedthroughnarrowconcretepaths,attheendoftwoformalstreets.Mosthouseshaveoneormorefloorsbutarebuiltonstilts/pillarsoveranareathatoccasionallyfloods.Mosthouseshavewoodenfloors,wallsmadefrommetalsheets,pillarsmadefromlowqualitybambooorwood,andzincroofs.Themajorityofhouseholdshaveprivatetoilets,whichflow intothe

figure 24:LengthofresidencyinCommunity2

Figure25:LandtitlinginCommunity2

52

canal.ThecommunityishoweverservicedbyCINTRIgarbagecollectionsservice,andin2004aconcretebridgewasbuiltinthecommunitywithgovernmentassistance.

Thereare257communitymembersaged18andabove,and188oftheseearnincomesinlowpaid,rel-ativelyunskilledjobs.Themostcommonincomeearningactivitiesareworkingassmall-timevendorsormechanics,inprivatebusinesses,asfactoryandconstructionworkers,andasrubbishcollectorsandclean-ers.Thirtyfourwomenarecurrentlyhousewives.Mostcommunitymembersearnanincomerelativelyclosetotheirhomes,with41communitymembersworkingwithin2kmofthecommunityandafurther46communitymembersworkingwithin5kmofthecommunity.Manycommunitymembershavemobileoccupations.Themajorityofschool-agedchildrenattendschool.

Assetholdingsinthecommunityaremodest;onlytwohouseholdsareinpossessionofacarand42pos-sessamotorbike/scooter.Mosthouseholdspossesstelevisions,fans,andmobilephones,butthereislittleevidenceofotherlargerconsumeritems.Sixhouseholdshaverefrigerators;31havebedsand33havestereos.

Thecommunityisreasonablywelldocumented:Ofthe69primaryoccupanthouseholds,64possessBirthCertificates,53possessaNationalIDCard,and64possessaVoterIDCard.However,only34possessaRes-ident’sBookandonly25householdshaveFamilyBooks,figuresthatappeartoberelativelylowcomparedwithothercommunitiesthathavebeensurveyed.ThirtyninehouseholdsclaimthatthathaveneverhadaFamilyBookandthismayposeproblemsforthemwhenaccessingservices.

Of69primaryoccupanthouseholds,themajority(55)declarethemselvesowners,whilesixhouseholdsrenttheirhomes,threesharetheirlivingspacewiththeownerswithoutpayingrent,andafurtherfivehouseholdsliverent-freeonpropertiestheydonotown.Ofthe55owners,42purchasedtheirhome/land,fourinheriteditfromrelatives,andninehouseholdsclearedandoccupiedvacantland.

55

3 5

6

42

4

9

Twoprimaryoccupanthouseholds in the communityhave received receipts and landtitles aspartofthe systematic landtitlingprocess (although theseare currentlypawned). Twentyeightoutof the55possessoccupancysupportlettersissuedbythecommuneorvillage,onehouseholdstatedithadsuchadocumentbutthatitwascurrentlynotinitspossession,while26householdsstatedtheyhadhadsuchdocumentsbutlostthem.Twentyeightpossesssaletransfer/transactionletterssignedbythecommuneor village, one household has lost this document, and three households do not currently have possession ofthisdocument.Onlyfouroutof87householdsinthecommunityhaveheardoftheCircular.Thecom-munityisfeaturedintheMunicipality’sThe Phnom Penh Urban Poor Assessment.

figure 26: Household ownership in community 2 figure 27: HouseholdacquisitioninCommunity2

Notshared/owned.Norent is paidrent is paid

OwnedbyfamilyShared with owner.Norentispaid.

Purchased

By inheritance orgift

Clearedland/Occupiedforfree


53

Full cadastral land title issued by the National government

occupancy support document issued by the commune or village

transfer/ transaction letter signed by the commune or village

transfer/ transaction letter not signed by the commune or village

yes 0 28 28 9Yesbutnotincurrentpossession

2 1 3 1

No – lost it 0 26 1 45No-never had one 53 0 23 0Notapplicable 0 0 0 0Total 55 55 55 55

Perceptionsoflevelsoftenureinsecurityaregenerallyhigh–39householdsdisagreewiththestatementthatthey‘feelsafeandsecureinthecommunity’

In relation to tenure security, to what extent do you agree with the following statement ‘i feel safe and secure in this community’?

strongly agree agree neither agree nor disagree

disagree strongly disagree

Numberofhouseholds 1 6 8 39 1

Accessingstateutilitiesisstillachallengeforalargeminorityofhouseholdswithinthecommunity.Thir-tyoutof69primaryoccupanthouseholdsareconnectedtostateelectricitysupply,24connectviatheirneighboursormiddlemen,mainlybecausetheycannotaffordtheconnectionfees,while15donothaveaconnectionatall.Thesehouseholdspaysignificantlyhigheramountsperunitforprivateaccess:theme-dianpriceforstateelectricityis720Riels/kWh,whilethemedianpriceforsuppliesfromprivateprovidersis1500Riels/kWh.

Thirtysixoutof69primaryoccupanthouseholdsaccesspipedwaterfromthePPWSA,30accessprivatewatersuppliesthroughfriendsorneighbours,andthreeaccesswaterfrommiddlemen.Themajorityofhouseholdswithoutconnectionsreportthattheydonothaveaconnectionbecausetheycannotaffordtheconnectionfee.ThemedianpriceforPPWSAwateris770Riels/m3,whilethemedianpriceforwaterfromprivateprovidersissignificantlyhigherat2500Riels/m3.

Althoughthesavingsgroupthatstartedthecommunityisnowdefunct,levelsofsocialcapitalandtrustinthecommunityappeartobereasonablyhigh;38ofthe87householdsbelievethatingenerallocalpeoplecanbetrusted,and17householdsstatethat‘alloftheirneighboursaregoodfriendsoftheirs’,with25householdsstatingthattheyhave‘manygoodfriendsorneighboursinthecommunity’.Thereare,how-ever,39householdsthatstatedthattheyhave‘somegoodfriendandneighbours’,andsixhouseholdsdonothave‘manygoodfriendsorneighbours’inthecommunity.

figure 28: LanddocumentationinCommunity2

figure 29: Tenure security community 2

54

LegalNotePreliminaryidentificationofland

ResidentsinCommunity2liveclosetoadrainagecanalthatrunsbetweenBoeungTrabekandBoeungTompun lakes.Somehousessitpartiallyover-hangingthedrainagecanal,whereasothersaresetbackfromthecanal.Thecanalhasbeenthereformanyyearsbutispresumablymanmade,givenitslay-out.SLRwasconductedintheareain2010andtitlesweredeliveredin2012,butonlytwohouseholdswithinthecommunityreceivedlandtitles.ThissuggeststhattheMunicipalitydeemsthecommunitytobeillegallysettledonstateland(thisreturnedtointhefollowingsection).

Thestatusofthelandisnotentirelyclear,asmanmadecanalsarenotincludedinthelistofstatepublicproperties contained in Article 15 of the Land Law. The Sub-decree on State landManagement alsofailstoidentifycanalsasstatepublicproperty.However,Article4(h)ofMLMUPCDecision52(2006)onstandardsforstatelandclassificationsays’Sewage-drainagecanal/systemalongundevelopedroadsmustbeclassifiedasstatepublicland.’Assuch,thecanalitselfisstatepublicland,butthereisalackofclarityastohowmuchland,ifany,adjacenttocanalsisalsostatepublicland.Giventhatoccupationovercanalsandontheirbanksmayleadtopollutionandblockagesbysewageandsolidwaste,whichwillimpactonthefunctionofthecanal,itcanbeexpectedthatsomelandonthebanksofcanalsmayalsoberegardedasstatepublicpropertybytheRGC,althoughthelegalbasisforthisisunclear.AsdiscussedinthecaseofCommunity1,statepublicpropertyisinalienableandcannotbeacquiredthroughlegalpossession.115 Occupationofstatepublicpropertymaybeauthorised,althoughthisoccupationmustbetemporaryandrevocable,andthiscannotbetransformedintoownership,andtheoccupanthasnorighttotransfertheland.116

For the above reasons, the households thatoverhang the canal are likely to be deemed tobe residing on state public property, and it ispossible that households occupying the banks ofthe canalmayalsobe, at leastpartly,deemed toresideonstatepublic land.However,around50%ofhouseholdswithin thecommunityare situatedawayfromthecanal.Thesehouseholdsarelocatedon dry land and run north from the canal to theendofroads97and99.Theseareasdonotclearlyfitanycategoryofstatepublicland,andascanbeseenfromthemaps,largerhousesdirectlyadjacentto Community 2 received land titles through thesystematicregistration.Acopyofalandtitleissuedto one community household located alongside the road indicates that the road is deemed to run all the way to the canal, although in reality no suchroadexists.Itcouldbethattheroaddidonceextendfurther,andnowtheexistingresidentsaredeemedtobeoccupyingthatland,althoughthisisnotevident.

115 RGC(2001)Land Law 2001, Articles 16, 18 & 43.116 RGC(2001)Land Law 2001, Article 16.

Figure30:ExampleoflandtitlefromCommunity2


55

CurrentTenureStatus

Thedatagatheredduringthissurveyisnotdetailedenoughtomakedefinitiveassessmentsofeachfamily’stenuresituation,however,thefollowinggeneralobservationscanbemade:

Ownership

Within the community only two households have received land titles. In the areas adjacent to thecommunitythereareanumberoflargehousesandlargevacantplotsoflandwhichhavereportedlyallbeentitled.Althoughitmaybethecasethatthosehousesonthebanksofthecanalaredeemedtobeonstatepublicproperty,thereasonwhytheotherhouseholdswereexcludedfromtheregistrationprocessislessclear.

LegalPossession

Asdiscussedabove,thereasonwhythecommunitywasnottitledisnotclear,althoughSLRintheareadid coincidewith theevictionnotice to the community in2010.According to the LandLaw,however,thoseresidentsthatdonotliveonstatepubliclandmayhaveclaimstothelandaslegalpossessors.Thisdependsonwhetherpossessionofthelandcommencedpriortothepassingofthe2001LandLaw,andiscontingentontheiroccupationmeetingfivefurtherbasiccriteria.

Thebackgroundinformationgatheredduringthesurveyshowsthatmorethan50%oftheresidentshavelivedintheareasincebeforetheLandLawwaspassed(thecut-offpointforlegalpossession).Thosewhocameafterthisdatecouldalsohavelegitimateclaimsaslegalpossessorsiftheycanprovethepreviousowner(s)acquiredthelandpriortotheLandLawbeingpassed.Asexplainedearlier,ifthelandimmediatelyadjacenttothecanalisfoundtobestatepublicland,nopossessionofthatlandislegal.

OfficialRecognitionofOccupation

Only twohouseholdswithin thecommunityheld fullownershiptitles.The remainderof the residentsonlyhavedocumentsfromlocal levelauthorities.Ofthesehouseholdsthestrongestdocumentheld isrecognitionofoccupancysignedbythecommuneorvillage,althoughmanypeoplehavesincelostthesedocuments.Aroundhalfofresidentshavea landtransfercontractthatwaswitnessedbycommuneorvillageauthorities.

Whilethesedocumentssuggestthatcommunitymembershadtheapprovaloflocalauthoritiestooccupytheland,thesedocumentsarenotevidenceofownership,andmayonlybeusedassupportingevidenceifhouseholdsdoattempt toclaimownershipof the land.Thedocumentswould, inparticular,help tosupportaclaimof legalpossessionas they indicatethat theoccupants’possessionwasunambiguous,notoriousandingoodfaith.However,itisillegalforanylocalauthoritytoissuedocumentsthatauthorisetheoccupationofstatepublicland,andifitisfoundthatthelandinquestionisstatepublicland,thesedocumentsarenotvalid.

LinktoCircular

AsinthecaseofCommunity1,thiscommunityprovidesaninterestingexampleofthecomplexitiesofimplementingtheCircularinPhnomPenh.ItisnotclearwhythecommunitywasexcludedfromSLR,andseverallargelandholdersintheareareportedlyreceivedlandtitles.

The community is well established and at least 50% of residents can prove occupation or a chain ofpossessionstartingprior totheLandLaw.So,providedthe landtheyareoccupying isnotstatepublicproperty,theymayhaveclaimsaslegalpossessors.Ifso,theyarenotillegaloccupantsandshouldnotbesubjecttotheCircular03.

56

As with Community 1, this case presents a case where the stage of the Circular concerned withidentification,mappingandclassificationoflandcouldbecomplex.Therearenolegaldocumentsthatarepubliclyavailablethatexplainclearlythelegalstatusoflandadjacenttocanals,andiftheyarestatepublicproperty.

Summary

• Aroundhalfofresidentslivealongthecanal,whiletheotherhalfliveattheendofroads97and99.

• Thoselivingonthecanalarelikelytobedeemedtobe,atleastpartly,onstatepublicproperty.However,therearenoclearlawsorguidanceondemarcatingthebanksofcanalsasstatepublicproperty.Assuchthestatusofhouseholdsalongthecanal isnotclear,althoughacasemaybemadeforconsideringthebanksofcanalsstatepublicproperty.

• It is not clearwhy the community, particularly the households not located by the canal,wereexcludedfromSLR.

• Thosewhodonotliveonstatepublicpropertymayhaveclaimstotheirland,andatleast50%haveresidedtheresincebeforetheLandLawwaspassed.

• It is beyond the scope of this study to assess the potential tenure status of each individualhousehold,butsomegeneralobservationscanbemade:

o Therearetwohouseholdswithlandtitlesinthecommunity;

o Mostresidentsdidhaverecognitionfromlocalauthoritiesbutmanypeoplehavesincelostthis;

o Aroundhalfhavealandsalecontractwitnessedbylocalauthorities;

o Theremainderholdunwitnessedsalecontracts;

o On the whole the community has fairly weak documentation issued at the lowestadministrativelevel.

figure 31: canal edge households in community 2


57

AlternativePlan

TheabovelegalanalysisofthestatusofthelandinCommunity2raisesseveralquestionmarksregardingthe legal statusof theoccupants.As such, it isnotevident that theCircular shouldbeapplied to thecommunity,or if itwasapplied,exactlywhichhouseholdsare locatedon statepublic landandhencesubject to theCircular,andwhicharenot.What ishoweverobvious is that thecommunity is living ininadequatehousinginunsanitaryconditionsandthatthelackofaconcreteembankmentforthecanalmeansthecommunityisatriskoffloodingduringtherainyseason.Assuch,acaseforon-siteupgradingcanbemaderegardlessofthelegalstatusoftheindividualhouseholds’landparcels,althoughanylandownersinthecommunitywouldhavetobecompensatedforthelossoflandinaccordancewiththeLawonExpropriationaspartoftheupgrading.

Figure32showsapossibleon-siteupgradingplanforallthehouseholdsinthecommunity,featuringatotalof85plots.Theplanacknowledgesthepublicvalueinextendingroads97and99southtothecanal,andbuildinganuninhabitedembankmentforthecanal.Nineplotssized4x16mand76plotssized4x12marelocatedinseveralcomplexes,mainlyonlandthatiscurrentlyprivatelyownedbutunoccupied.Inordertoimplementtheplan,thelandwouldhavetobepurchasedfromitsprivateowners.

TheplanhighlightstheneedforanapproachwiderthanC03inordertoimprovethehousingconditionsof the urban poor. If implemented following adjudication of land rights with meaningful communityparticipation,bothpotentiallylegalandillegalhouseholdscouldbenefitfromimprovedhousingconditions.

Figure32:AlternativedevelopmentplanforCommunity2

58

3.7SummaryofSituationinPhnomPenhPhnomPenhrepresentsacomplexenvironmentforC03implementation.Thecity’scurrentpositionasCambodia’sleadingurbancentrehascreatedmultifacetedpressuresonland,fromrural,economicmi-grantsseekingshelter,tolargelocalandinternationalbusinesseslookingforprimerealestate.Inacontextwhereprivateinterestsdriveurbanisation,therightsandneedsofthepoorareoftendisregardedoreventrampled.Circular03representsanopportunityforincreasedattentiononaneglectedpartofthecity’spopulation,withpotentialpositiveresults including formalisationofpoorsettlements, tenuresecurity,andimprovedhousingconditions.However,giventhehistoryandcurrentpoliticalclimateinthecity,Cir-cular03implementationalsoraisesanumberofconcerns.ThetwocasestudiesofcommunitiesinPhnomPenhshowhowdeterminationofurbanpoorhouseholds’possessionrightscanbecomplex,andhighlighttheneedforcarefulidentification,mappingandclassificationofstatelandandindividualpropertyrightsinconjunctionwithC03implementation.

ThefollowingsectionshighlighttheseopportunitiesaswellasconcernsandchallengesbeforeweprovideconcludingremarksandrecommendationsforC03implementationinPhnomPenh.

Opportunities

• Rightsforhouseholdsonstatepublicland

Althoughofficialdataisnotavailable,thereareundoubtedlyhundreds,ifnotthousands,ofhouseholdsinPhnomPenhlivingonstatepublicland.Circular03fillsagapinthelegalframeworkonlandbyaddingproceduresthroughwhichthesehouseholdsshouldbedealtwith.PriortotheCircular,thistypeofhouse-holdshadnolegalrecourse.Unfortunately,manyhouseholdsmaybehesitanttoengagewiththeprocess,asevocationofCircularimplementationmaybeseentoimplyacceptanceofillegalitypriortoadjudication.

• Formalisationofcommunities

UrbanpoorsettlementsinPhnomPenhhavethusfarbeeneitherneglectedbyorexcludedfromon-goinglandregistrationandlandtitlingschemes.Assuch,theCircular’sfocusonadjudicatingandformalisingthesesettlementsiswelcome.Insecuretenurehasnegativepsychologicaleffectsonfamiliesandoftenpreventslong-termplanningandinvestment,suchasinimprovedshelterandhomeenvironment.Lackoftitlealsotendstoequallackofaccesstoformalcredit,whichinturnmakespoorhouseholdsvulnerabletoprivatemoneylenders(whooftenchargeexorbitantinterestratessuchas7%permonth)incasesofemergency.Assuch,commitmenttotheformalisationofpoorsettlements–whetherthroughon-siteup-gradingorrelocation–couldhavewide-rangingpositiveimpactsforthecity’spoor.

• Multi-stakeholderapproach

Amulti-stakeholderapproachtoissuessurroundingtheimpactsofurbanisationonPhnomPenh’spoorcurrentlydoesnotexist.ThisishoweverattheheartoftheCircular,andassuchtheCircularcouldbeusedtoinstigatedialogueonissuesrelatedtotheurbanpoor.UN-Habitat’spotentialpartnershipwiththeMPPinthecomingyearscouldproveapositivestartingpointfordialogue,similarlytoGIZpresenceinBattam-bangMunicipality.However,giventhechallengingenvironmentrepresentedbythecapital,UN-Habitathasadelicateanddifficulttaskaheadinbringingallrelevantstakeholderstogetherforfrankandmean-ingfuldialogue.


59

• Betterinterventionsfortheurbanpoor

MappingandenumerationofpoorsettlementsformsakeypartofCircularimplementation.Suchdatacol-lection–provideddataismadepubliclyaccessible–canbeextremelyusefulforavarietyofstakeholders.Forthesettlementsthemselves,clearmapsanddatacansupportjointplanningforthefuture,theestab-lishmentofcommunitieswherethesedonotexist,andmoreinformedparticipationindevelopmentinter-ventions.Otherstakeholders,includingthegovernment,developmentpartners,andcivilsocietyactors,canusethedatatodesigninterventionsthatbetterservetheneedsanddesiresoftheurbanpoor.The Phnom Penh Urban Poor Assessment,thoughlimitedinitsscope,representsagoodstartingpointforthis.

• Registrationandtitlingoflandinexcludedareas

LASSPhasalreadycommitteditselftotheregistrationofexcludedareasaswellastheavoidanceofexclu-sionsinthefuture.Thisisapositivecommitment,whichcombinedwiththeadditionalfocusonpoorset-tlementsprovidedbytheCircularcouldleadtocomprehensiveregistrationandtitlingoflands,whetherstateorprivate,inexcludedareas.TheCircularcanalsobeusedasatoolinthisprocess,shouldspecifichouseholdsinexcludedareasbefoundtobelocatedonstatepublicland.Significantly,however,whole-saleC03implementationinexcludedareasshouldbeavoided,toensurenohouseholdwithpossessionrightsistargetedbytheCircular.

• on-site upgrading

Comparedtoon-siteupgrading,relocationofpoorsettlementsiswidelyunderstoodtohavebothhigheconomicandextensivesocialcosts.On-siteupgradingasoneoftheresolutionsidentifiedintheCircularisthereforeapositivesteptowardsmoresustainable,andmorecost-effective,practicesindealingwithpoorsettlements.Whileupgrading isonlyoneof three identifiedresolutions, thereexistsasignificantopportunityinthepromotionofon-siteupgradingastheprimarysolutionforsettlements.

• Existingcommunityorganisingandcapacity-building

ManyurbanpoorsettlementsinPhnomPenhareorganisedintocommunitiesandhaveaccesstocapac-ity-buildingopportunities,mainlythroughNGOs.Thesecommunitiesarethereforelikelytohavetheca-pacitytoengagewithauthoritiesandcivilsocietyonissuesrelatedtotheirtenuresecurity.Whilefurthertrainingisundoubtedlyneeded,existingcommunity-levelorganisationandnetworkingisapositiveassetforinclusiveimplementationofC03inthefuture.

• Varietyoftenure

Article5oftheCircularidentifiesavarietyofformsforachievingsecuretenure,includingusufructrights,ownershiprightsandrentalrights.Thisvarietyofoptionsiswelcome,asitaddstotheavailableresolu-tionsfortargetedsettlementsandopensuppossibilitiesforcreativesolutionsforindividualhouseholdslivingonstatepublic land.Forexample,households locatedwithintherailwaysright-of-way inPhnomPenhcouldbegiveneithertime-boundusufructrightsorlease-contractstotheirland,thussecuringtheirtenureuntilthelandisneededforfurtherdevelopmentoftherailways.

ConcernsandChallenges

• Unilateralimplementationtodate

Sofar,implementationofC03inPhnomPenhappearstohavetakenplaceinaunilateralmanner.Thisun-derminesoneofthemostpositiveaspectsoftheCircular,namelyitsmulti-stakeholderapproach,whichtheBattambangexperienceshowsisakeyelementnotonlyofsuccessfulC03implementation,butalsoofbuildingtrustandpromotingdialogueacrossdifferentstakeholdersmoregenerally.Lackofamulti-stake-holderapproachmayalsoincreasedistrustbetweentheauthorities,communities,andcivilsocietyactors,particularlyifC03implementationisnotconductedinatransparentfashion,asappearstobethecasethusfar.

60

• Hostilitytowardscivilsociety

Themunicipalauthoritiesaresuspicious,ifnotoutrighthostile,towardsbothcivilsocietyorganisationsanddonoragencies.ThisiswellexemplifiedbypostsontheMPP’swebsite,whichaccuseNGOsofma-nipulatingcommunities,117 incitingpeople,118 aswellasbeing ignorant, chauvinisticandcontemptuoustowardsCambodianauthorities.119Itishencedifficulttoseeameaningfulmulti-stakeholderapproachtak-ingrootinPhnomPenh.AlthoughpositiverelationshipsbetweentheauthoritiesandthecommunitycanbeseenasmostsignificantinsuccessfulC03implementation,civilsocietyactorscanplayimportantrolesinempoweringcommunitiesandfacilitatingfrankdialogue.Itisthereforeaconcernthat,forexample,inSenSok,theauthoritieshavesetupacommitteeconsistingmainlyoflocalauthorities,afewcommunitymembers,butnocivilsocietyrepresentatives.

• Previousexperience

Thehistoryofunsuccessful interventionsonbehalfofPhnomPenh’surbanpoorinthepastgiveslittlehopethatthistimewillbedifferent.Promisesofon-siteupgradeshavenotbeendeliveredupon,whilerelocationto’liveablecommunities‘outsidethecityhaveamountedtolittlemorethanforcedevictionsintopoverty.WithoutthekindofpoliticalwillandcommitmentexpressedbyBattambangMunicipality–particularlyintheformofthedefactomoratoriumonevictions–itseemsunlikelytheCircularimplemen-tationbeneficialforthecapital’surbanpoorwillevergetunderway.

• Limited capacity

SuccessfulC03implementationreliesonskilfulapplicationofprocessesandproceduresattheleveloflo-calauthorities.InBattambang,lackofcapacityatthecommunelevelinparticularhasbeenidentifiedasachallenge.Ontheotherhand,GIZpresenceattheMunicipalityleveliscreditedwithhavingstrengthenedthecapacityofmunicipalauthoritiestodealwithissuesrelatedtoland.Theresistancetowardscooper-ationwithoutsideagenciesdisplayedbytheMPPmayhampersuccessfulC03implementationaswellasleadtoincorrectimplementationasaresultoflowcapacityamongofficials.

• On-goingevictionsandevictionthreats

DespitetheapprovaloftheCircularinMay2010,atleast30communitieshavesincereceivedevictionno-tices;householdsfromadozenofthesehavealreadybeenevicted.ThisnumberincludescommunitiesinlocationsidentifiedforC03implementation.On-goingevictionsorthreatsthereofindicatealackofpolit-icalwillonthepartoftheauthoritiestoappropriatelyassesstherightsoftheurbanpoor.ThecaseofthefamiliesevictedfromalongthecanalinMeancheydistrictalsoindicateslackofincentivestocompensatefamilieslivingonstatepubliclandinamannerthatdoesnotleavethemdestitute.Thisbehaviouronthepartoftheauthoritiescreatesanenvironmentoffearandsuspicion,whichmaykeepcommunitiesfromengaginginC03processes,regardlessoftheirultimateaim.

• Incorrectimplementation

Givenon-goingevictionsandunilateralimplementationthusfar,akeyconcernisthattheCircularisnot,andwillnot,be implementedproperly inPhnomPenh.Asnoted inthedetailedanalysisearlier inthereport,thereisalackofclarityregardingmanyprovisionsintheCircular.InPhnomPenh,wherepoliticalwilltorecognisetherightsoftheurbanpoormanifestlydoesnotexistandlandisconsideredazero-sumgame,theCircular’slackofclarityislikelytoplayagainsttheurbanpoor.TheexperiencefromBattambangshowsthatimplementingtheCircularinawaythatbenefitsurbanpoorsettlementsdemandspoliticalwillandamulti-stakeholderapproach,aswellastime-commitmentandresourcesfromallpartiesinvolved

117 MPP(2012)Trapeang Anh Chanh Buon village: Is Ms. Ros Bopha, a victim of NGO’s manipulation? May2,2012.118 MPP(2012.Get the Facts Straight and the Truth Undistorted. June2,2012.119 MPP(2012)Will NGOs, Foreigners and Extremist “human rights” Advocates, and Loud-Mouth “Champions for Democracy” Leave all the Women in the

Cold?June19,2012.


61

Figure33:SatelliteimageofareabetweenNationalRoad5and the Tonle Sap

–localauthorities,NGOs,andthecommunitiesconcerned.NeitherofthesetwofactorsexistsinPhnomPenhandseveraldeparturesfromtheprocessesoutlinedintheCircularcanalreadybeidentified,includ-inglimitedinformation-sharingandconsultationwithtargetcommunities,asexemplifiedbyhouseholdsintargetareasbeingunawareofhavingbeenidentifiedforC03implementation.

• Excludedareasandmixedrights

Althoughofficialdataisnotavailable,therearepresumedtobeseveralareasthathavebeenexcludedfromSLRinPhnomPenh.TherearesignificantconcernsthattheCircularwillbeimplementedintheseareas,eventhoughtheareaswereexcludedfromSLRonaccountofbeing‘difficult’or‘complicated’,notonaccountofbeingillegal.Assuch,whileC03maybeapplicabletosomehouseholdsintheseareas,inordertoensurethatnohouseholdswith legalpossessionrightsaresubjectedtoC03 implementation,statelandidentificationandmappingfollowingexistingmechanismsanddefinitionsasalreadysetoutinexistinglaw,i.e.the2001LandLaw,Sub-decreeNo118 and Prakas No42,isrequiredpriortoorconcomitantwithC03implementation.

ThechallengeofensuringthatonlyhouseholdsclearlylivingonstatepubliclandaresubjectedtotheCir-cularisexemplifiedbytheareabetweentheTonleSapriverandNationalRoad5(seeFigure33).ManyofthesettlementsidentifiedforC03implementationbytheMPParelocatedinthisarea.Asisevidentfromthemaphowever,householdsintheareamayhavedifferinglegalclaimstotheirland;whilehouseholdsimmediatelyontheroadsideandriverbankmaybelocatedonstatepublicland,120 households located in thecentreofthestrip–i.e.themajorityofthehouseholds–havestrongclaimstotheland.Thetwocasestudiesincludedinthisreportalsooutlinethedifferentclaimshouseholdsinthesamesettlementscanlegallymake.ToensurenohouseholdswithlegalpossessionrightsaretargetedbytheCircularandthusdeniedtheirrights,publicandtransparentstatelandmappingandregistrationpriortoorconcomitantwithC03implementationisrequired,yetitisnotclearthisisforthcoming.

120 RGC(2005)No118 ANK/BK, Sub-decree on State Land Management, Article 4.

62

• BiasednatureoftheCircular

TheareabetweenNationalRoad5andtheTonleSaprivermayalsobeusedasanexampleofthebiasednatureoftheCircular,inthesensethatitappearstotargetonlypoorsettlements,notallprivatestruc-tures,onstatepublicland.Inadditiontoseveralpoorsettlements,thestripisalsohometoCambodiaTelevisionNetwork (CTN), Cambodia Beverage Company, and recently a large hotelwas built on landbetweentheriverandthenationalroad.Despitebeinglocatedonpiecesofrealestatesimilartothoseofthetargetedcommunities,thecompaniesareunlikelytocomeunderscrutinyregardingtheirlandrights.

• 10 year rule

Theprovisionofownershiptopeoplewholiveonoruselandgrantedthroughon-siteupgradingorreset-tlementisapositivestep.However,therequired10yearsofcontinuousoccupationislengthy.ItisalsoincontrasttotheSub-DecreeonSocialLandConcessions(SLC),accordingtowhich,beneficiariesofSLCsmustresideonlandforfiveyearsbeforetheyqualifyforlandtitles.Similarly,atmanyrelocationsitesinPhnomPenh,residentshavebeentoldtheywillqualifyfortitlesafterfiveyearsofcontinuousoccupation.

StakeholdersintheimplementationoftheCircularinBattambanghaveexpressedconfusionregardingtherequiredlengthofcontinuousoccupationinordertoqualifyfortitles.Severalofthoseinterviewedstatedthattheybelievedthenumberofyears’continuousoccupationmaybevariabledependingoncontext.IntheGardenProjectinBattambang,theinitial‘landcertificates’receivedbyhouseholdssecuretenuretotheplots,butprohibittransferofplotsoruseofthemascollateralagainstloans.Afterfiveyears,thehouseholdswillbegivenanewlandcertificate,whichallowsplotstobeusedascollateralbutcontinuestoprohibittransfer.Actualtitlestothelandwillonlybedistributedaftertenyearsofcontinuousoccupancy.

Whiletherationalefornot immediatelytitlingrelocationsites issound,andtheprovisionofnewlandcertificatesthatcanbeusedascollateralafterfiveyearsiswelcome,tenyearsremainsalongtimeforpoorhouseholdstowaitforfulltitles.ItalsoincreasesthecostsofimplementingtheCircularbyrequiringregularmonitoringoflanduseforadecade.

• Existinglanduseplansoverridingpoorsettlements’rights

Asthetwocasestudiesshow,itcanbeverydifficulttodeterminethelegalstatusofaparticularplot.InCommunity1forinstance,almost50%oftheresidentsmayhavelegalpossessionrights,whiletherestmostlikelydonotonthebasisthattheyarelocatedonorovertheadjacentlakeduringthedryseason.However,theprivatelakedevelopmentsurroundingthecommunityconfusestheissueofthelegalstatusoftheland.Itisnotclearifthelandhasbeenre-classifiedornot,andwhatimplicationsthishasforthecommunitysurveyed.Ontheonehand,ifthelakehasbeenre-classifiedfromstatepublictostateprivateland,thiscouldstrengthentheresidents’claimstotheirplots.Ontheother,giventheAZTownplanforthearea,thecommunitycouldfallunderthecategoryoflandforwhichthereisalreadyalanduseplanunderStep2oftheCircular,leadingtohouseholdsbeingdeniedtheirpossessionrights.

• Lackofgrievancemechanism

Overthepastseveralyears,severalcommunitiesunderthreatofevictioninPhnomPenhhaveattemptedtolodgecomplaintswiththecourtsortheCadastralCommission.Inthemajorityofthesecases,thecourtshaveeitherrefusedtoreceivethecomplaints(e.g.inthecaseofBoeungKaklake),orignoredcomplaintswhilefamilieshavebeenevicted(e.ginthecaseofGroup78).Therelianceonnegotiatingsolutionscom-binedwiththelackofadistinctgrievancemechanismundertheCircularandajudiciarythatiswidelyac-knowledgednottobeindependent,couldleadtoasituationwhereindividualhouseholdsorevenwholecommunitiesarestrong-armedinto‘resolutions’theydonotagreewith. Indeed, ithasbeenobservedinseveralcommunitiesinPhnomPenhthathouseholdshavebeenpressuredintodismantlingtheirownhomesfollowingthreatsofoutrightdemolition.


63

• Relocation

TheCircularstipulatesthatbasicpublicinfrastructureandservicesaretobeprovidedatnewsiteswheth-erthesefollowon-siteupgradingorrelocation.Specifically,theCircularoutlinesaneedforadvanceprepa-rationofroads,watersupply,sewage,aswellashealthcareandeducationservice,andpossiblyemploy-mentopportunities.Thisisapositivesteptowardsbetterrelocationpracticesthatdonotleaveaffectedhouseholdsworseoff.However,itisnotasubstituteforacomprehensiverelocationpolicy,whichoutlinesparticipatorystepstobetakenbefore,during,andafterrelocationtoensureasuccessfulmove.Todate,relocationinPhnomPenhhasprovedextremelychallenging,withaffectedhouseholdseveninbetter-re-sourcedrelocationsendingupinseveredebt.121Itisthereforeimperativethatthenotesonrelocationpro-videdbytheCirculararetakenasfirststepsonly,tobeexpandeduponanddevelopedintoaresettlementplanforeachaffectedcommunity.

• Othersolutions

Itisnotclearwhatthethirdtypeofresolutionrefersto,althoughitmaybepresumeditalludestomon-etarycompensation.Theextensiveacademicdiscourseanddocumentedpracticesonrelocationclearlystressthatmonetarycompensationaloneisnotarecipeforsuccessfulrelocation.AscanbeseeninthecaseofPrekBarang,sumsbetweenUS$1,500andUS$6,000weregiventohouseholdswhosehomeshadbeendemolished.GivenrealestatepricesinPhnomPenh,thesetypesofsumsarefarlessthanneededtopurchaselandandbuildahomeinthecapitalarea,meaningaffectedhouseholdsarelikelytobecomerentersinotherpoorsettlements,ashappenedtomanyofthosefromBoeungKaklakewhoaccepted(thesignificantlyhigher)compensationofUS$8,500.

• renters

RentersarelargelyexcludedfromtheremitoftheCircular.Theonlyreferencetorenterscomesunderarticle4.2,whichstatesthat‘rentersshallfindasolutionwiththeownersoftheillegalsettlementsandhavenorighttodemandanycompensation’.Thislackofprovisionsforimprovingthesituationofrentersinthecity,whoareoftenevenmoremarginalisedthanthosewithindividualplotsofland,isasignificantlimitationoftheCircular.Giventhelackofaffordableandadequaterentalhousinginthecity,thelackofdistinctpoliciesto improvethesituationofrenterscould leadtomorepeopleseekingshelteronstatepubliclandandothervacantlandsinthecity.

• ACircularislowintheCambodianlegalhierarchy

WhiletheCircularrepresentsbothchallengesandopportunities,thedocument’slowlegalrankingmaymakeitsopportunitieshardertocapitaliseupon.TheAsianDevelopmentBankiscurrentlyprovidingtech-nicalassistance todevelopa sub-decreeon informal settlementswhichwill ‘setout clearly rightsandresponsibilitiesofthoseaffectedaswellasthoseresponsibleforlandacquisitionandatthesametimeprovidealegalbasisforprovisionofassistancetoinformalsettlers.’122Whilethiscouldrepresentanop-portunitytostrengthenthepositiveprovisionsoftheCircular,clarifycertainissues,andmakeitsprovi-sions legally-binding,manystakeholdersareconcerned that thesub-decree isbeingpreparedwithoutwiderconsultation.Inthelegalhierarchy,asub-decreesitsaboveacircular,andcouldthereforerendertheCircularobsoleteifthetwodocumentsarenotharmonised.

121 SahmakumTeangTnaut(2012)Losing the Plot: Rapid Assessment of Household Debt in Trapeang Anhchanh.122 AsianDevelopmentBank(2011) TA 7566-REG: Strengthening and Use of Country Safeguard Systems CAM: Preparation of Draft Sub Decree on Informal

Settlers. August2011.

64

• Lackoftransparencyoverall

ThereisnopubliclyaccessibledatabaseforeitherSLRorstatelands.Withoutthisinformation,itisnotpossibletoindependentlyevaluateaparticularhousehold’sclaimtoaplot,asevidencedinthelegalanal-ysisoflandinCommunities1and2.Thus,shouldtheCircularbeimplementedinforinstanceCommunity1,withoutaccesstoastatelanddatabaseinparticular,itwouldnotbepossibletoverifytheauthorities’claimswithregardstothestatusoftheland.Assuch,thelackoftransparencyinthelandsectoringeneralmaynegativelyimpactonCircularimplementationinPhnomPenh,aswellaselsewhere.

• Communityrepresentation

ParticipationofthecommunitythroughouttheC03process,andespeciallyintheSLWGsisanexcellentopportunitytoensurethatcommunityvoicesareraisedandthatimportantinformationcanbeadequate-lydisseminatedtothecommunity.However,asthereareanumberofinstancesofcommunityrepresen-tativesbeingself-appointed,chosenbytheauthorities,orinsomecase,co-opted,itisessentialthatthecommunityrepresentativeshavethesupportandconfidenceofthecommunitiestheyrepresent.ThiscanbeensuredandmonitoredbytheSLWGcommunicatingandsharinginformationwithcommunitycommit-teesandcivilsocietygroups,aswellascommunitymembersmorebroadly.

Figure30:Exludedareasandmixedrights


65

figure 34: Poor communities have beenexcludedfromlandtitlingdespiterobustpos-session rights

66

coNcLUSioN 4Despiteitsbrevity,theimplicationsofCircular03inCambodia’scontentiouslandsectorarecomplex.Theaboveanalysisshowsthatthedocumentitselfisflawed,primarilyasaresultofalackofspecificityandclearlinkagestotheexistinglegalframework,aswellaslimiteddetailsofhowmanyofthestepsoutlinedintheCircular,suchascommunityandcivilsocietyparticipation,shouldbeconducted.Assuch,theinstru-mentcontainspotentialloopholesthatcouldleadtoproblemsinimplementation.

Nevertheless,Circular03presentsrealopportunities.Itcanbeusedasapotentialtoolfortheformalisingofillegalsettlementsandpromotionoftherighttoadequatehousing,thuscontributingtotheCambodiangovernment’slongtermgoalsofpovertyreduction.Buttherearealsosignificantchallenges.Inparticular,giventheexperienceofthepasttwodecades,therearelegitimateconcernsabouttheCircularbeingusedasaninstrumenttocementtheimageoftheurbanpoorasillegal,inturnenablingtheireviction.BasedontheexperienceinBattambang,pro-poorpoliticalwillistheforemostelementtopositiveimplementation.Aswehaveseen,however,suchwillappearstobelackinginPhnomPenh;therisksofC03implementationinthecapitalmayhenceoutweighthebenefitsatthepresenttime,atleastuntiltheenvironmentismoresuitedforitsapplication.

ProponentsoftheCirculararguethatsuchfearsareunfounded:iftheauthoritieswanttoevictasettle-ment,theycandosowithouttheCircular.Inthisview,theCircularisatoolwithwhichtoengagelocalauthoritiesregardingthelackoftenuresecurityfortheurbanpoor,andallowdonorsandcivilsocietyaninsightintoprocedurestoformalisesettlements.Fundamentally,itcanallowforcurrentlyillegalsettle-mentstobecomelegal.

Thistypeofargumentationmissesthepoint.ThefundamentalquestionwithregardstoC03iswhetheritisaneffectiveandefficienttooltosecuretenureforhouseholdslivingonstatepublicland,andwhetherits implementationcanhaveany‘side-effects’–positiveornegative–onthethousandsofurbanpoorhouseholdswithlegalrightstotheirland.FindingsofthisreportindicatethattheCircularistodatefailinginsecuringtenureforthoseithastargeted,althoughimplementationinBattambangshowspotentialsignsofsuccessinthefuture.

InPhnomPenh,ontheotherhand,itmaybethatimplementationoftheCircularhasallowedforlandoccupiedbypoorsettlementsinatleastMeancheyandChamkarmondistrictstobedeclaredstatelandwithoutfollowingdueprocessasoutlinedintheCircularandtheexistinglegalframework.Ifthishastakenplace,targetedsettlementsinthesetwodistrictsmayfaceincreasedtenureinsecurity.

ThatisnottosaythatpositiveC03implementationisimpossibleinthecity.Thereareopportunitiesthatcanbecapitalisedupon,whichcouldbenefitnotonlyhouseholdslivingonstatelandbutalsotheurbanpoorgenerally,regardlessoftheirlegalstatus.AswithsomanyotherlawsandpoliciesinCambodia,theultimateimpactsofCircular03lieinitsimplementation;politicalcommitmenttoimplementtheCircularinapro-poorfashioncouldgenuinelyimprovethesituationoftheurbanpoorbyencouragingdialogueandpromotingtherighttoadequatehousing.


67

Belowareseveralkeycommitments,whichifadoptedbythePhnomPenhMunicipalitywouldatleastinpartallowfortheseopportunitiestobecapitalisedupon:

• Commitment by the authorities to conduct the initial data collection process of temporarysettlements in an open and transparent way, engaging affected communities and civil societyorganisations,andmakeinformationgatheredpubliclyaccessibleandopenforpubliccomment.Should this alreadyhavebeen completed (as theMPPwebsite implies) information should bemadepubliclyaccessibleandopenforpubliccomment.

• Commitmenttoanopen,multi-stakeholderprocessthroughouttheimplementationoftheCircular,includingclarificationofstepsalreadytaken.

• Commitment to ensure that all identificationof state land is done in accordancewith existingmechanismsanddefinitionsasalreadysetoutinexistinglaw,i.e.the2001LandLaw,Sub-decreeNo118 and Prakas No42,andthatnohouseholdswithlegalpossessionrightsaresubjectedtoC03implementation.

• CommitmenttofacilitateandsupporttheMLMUPCtothecompleteofregistrationofallprivatelandsidentifiedduringC03implementationthroughextensionoflandregistrationandtitlingintotheseareas.

• Clarificationthatsettlementswillnotbeidentifiedasillegaliftheylieinthepathofdevelopmentprojects,evenifthesearealreadyapprovedinexistingland-usemaps.Thebasisforidentifyingasettlement,orindividualhouseholdwithinasettlement,aslegalorillegalmustbebasedontheexistinglegalprocessanddefinitionsofstateland.

• Clarificationthatonsiteupgradingisthepreferredoption,giventhecostsassociatedwithrelocationandmonetary compensation (both for thehouseholds affectedand societyat large). If on-siteupgradingisnotpossible,commitmenttodevelopingrelocationplansandsitesinaccordancewithinternationalstandards.

• commitment to use the circular as an opportunity to strengthen tenure security and improve the livingstandardsoftheurbanpoor,thusfinallydeliveringuponthePrimeMinister’s2003promiseto upgrade 100 settlements per year. Information contained in theMunicipality’sUrban Poor Assessmentcouldbeusedasastartingpointforthis.

• AmoratoriumonevictionsfromstatelandpendingimplementationoftheCircular.

Unfortunately, few seem to think theabove commitments are forthcoming.WhileUN-Habitat is keentoworkwiththeMunicipality,theagencyiscommittingitselftoa’technical‘and’neutral‘approachinworkingwith theMPP,meaning itwill refrain from involvement in political dynamicsdespite the factthat it is precisely the political dynamics that need to be transformed to pave theway for successfulC03implementation.Assuch,itisquestionablewhatrealimpactUN-Habitatwillhaveonon-goingC03implementation in thecity,although theagency’s interventioncouldhave longer-termpositiveeffectsthroughitspresenceattheMPP.

68

4.1RecommendationsTherecommendationsbelowaredirectedatkeystakeholdersinC03implementationandtheCambodianlandsectormoregenerally.TheyaimtoprovidethestakeholderswithinsightsintohowtoensureC03implementationleadstopositiveoutcomesfortheurbanpoor.

municipaLity oF phnom penh (mpp)

• MakedetailsaboutC03implementationandallnon-sensitivedatagatheredtodatepubliclyacces-sibleandopentocomment.

• IssueanopeninvitationtocivilsocietyactorsinPhnomPenhtoengageinimplementationoftheCircular,asoutlinedinthedocument,andengageincontinuing,opendialoguewithallstakehold-ersregardingimplementation.

• Conductextensiveawareness-raisingabouttheCircularatthecommunitylevel.Ensurethatthenatureofthisawarenessraisingisaccessibleandunderstandabletothetargetedbeneficiaries.

• ImplementtheCircularinallinstanceswherehouseholdsarelocatedonstatepublicland,priori-tisingon-siteupgradingasaresolution.

• Ensurethatwhenresettlementisnecessary,allnecessarystepsaretakentoprovideadequatere-settlementconditions,inlinewiththeCircularandinternationalhumanrightsobligations.

• Developinitiativestoensuretenuresecurityandimprovelivelihoodsoflegalpossessorsnottar-getedbytheCircular.

• ReleasedetailsofanylandconcessionsandlanduseplansinPhnomPenhthatmayinfringeuponexistingresidentsrights.

ministry oF Land management, urBan pLanning, and construction (mLmupc)

• MakedetailsaboutSLRpubliclyaccessible,includingcommunity-levelinformationonwherereg-istrationhasbeenconducted,whichareasregistrationwillbeconductedin,andwhichareashavebeenexcluded.

• CommittostatelandidentificationandmappinginurbanareaspriortoorinconjunctionwithC03implementation.

• Committoregistrationandtitlingofallprivatelandsidentifiedinurbanpoorsettlements.

• Supportgovernmenteffortstodeveloparelocationpolicyfollowinginternationalbestpractices,including the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-induced Displacement and evic-tions, thatoutlinesparticipatorymeasurestobetakenbefore,during,andafterrelocationandresettlement.

• Developanationalhousingpolicytoaddressthehousingneedsoflowincomeurbanresidents,includingrenters.

• Togetherwithsub-nationalactors,developagrievancemechanismspecificallyforC03implemen-tation

deveLopment partners

• SeekassurancesfromgovernmentpartnersthatstatelandidentificationandmappingfollowingexistinglawandmechanismsisconductedpriortoorconcomitantwithC03implementation,tosafeguardagainsthouseholdswithpossessionrightsbeingsubjectedtotheCircular


69

• DevelopaC03monitoringframeworkthattakesintoaccountnotonlytheimpactsofC03imple-mentationinspecificsettlements,butalsolackofC03implementationinapplicablecasesinordertoassessitsefficiencyasatooltosecuretenurefortheurbanpoor.Maketheresultsofthemon-itoringpubliclyaccessible.

• Promoteupgradingastheforemostofthe‘solutions’identifiedforhouseholdsfoundtobelocatedonstatepublicland,andencourageuseofalternativetenuresecurityarrangementswherelandtitlesarenotapossiblesolution.Encourageavoidanceofmonetarycompensationasasoleresolu-tionasitalonedoesnotconstituteasuccessfullong-termsolutionforpoorhouseholds.

• TheAsianDevelopmentBankshouldreleasethedraftSub-decreeonInformalSettlementsattheearliestconvenienceandcommittomeaningfulpublicconsultationsasakeypartofitsworkontheSub-decree.

• MakeanyengagementontheCircularcontingentuponfull transparencyregardingtheCircularprocessandallnon-sensitivedatabeingpubliclyaccessible.

• Aspartofeliminationofareasexcludedfromsystematiclandtitling(followingGermany’smile-stones),seekassurancesandverificationfromgovernmentpartnersthatC03isimplementedonlyinareasidentifiedasstatepublicland(followingexistinglegalmechanisms).

• EncouragetheRGCtomakedetailsofSLRpubliclyavailable,includingwhichareashavebeenreg-istered/titled,whichareduetobeso,andwhichareashavebeenexcluded.Thiscouldbeachievedthroughthedevelopmentofapublicdatabase.

• WorkwiththeRGCtodeveloparelocationpolicyaswellasrelocationplansfortargetedcommu-nities/householdspriortoanyrelocationundertheCircular.Thepolicyandplansshouldoutlinestepstobetakenbefore,during,andafterrelocationandresettlementinaccordancewithinter-nationalbestpractice.

• Makeresourcesavailableforawareness-raisingandcapacity-buildingatthecommunity leveltoensurecommunitiesaffectedbytheCircularareabletoplayaninformedroleanddemanddueprocess.

• Makeresourcesavailableforcapacity-buildingoflocalauthoritiesregardingC03implementation.

• Committoprogrammingwithawiderurbanpoorfocusthatalsoincludesinterventionstosecuretenureandimprovelivingstandardsofpoorurbanresidentswithpossessionrights.

• SeekassurancesfromgovernmentpartnersthattheCircularisimplementedatthehouseholdasopposedtothecommunityleveltoensurethatindividualassessmentsoflandrightsaremade,andonlyhouseholdswithoutpossessionrightsaresubjectedtotheCircular.

• EncouragethedevelopmentofanappealmechanismaspartofC03implementationtoavoidde-laysandallowforpromptresponsetocomplaints.

• EncouragetheRGCtoclarifyhowtenureissecuredforhouseholdsundergoingC03implementa-tionduringthe10-yearperiodbeforelandtitlesaregranted

• Seekassurancesfromgovernmentpartnersthatexistinglanduseplansarenotusedtodeclarehouseholdsillegalsettlers.AsGermanymovesaheadinsupportingspatialplanninginCambodia,GIZcouldplayanimportantroleinencouragingtransparencyandcompliancewithexistinglaw.

• WorkwiththeRGCtoensureC03implementationproceedsinatimelyfashionwithtangible,pos-itiveresultsfortargetedcommunities.

70

ANNeXeS 5

Annex1:StatePublicPropertiesPublicstatelandhasapublicinterestuseandfallswithinoneofthefollowingspecifictypesofpropertyhavingapublicinterestuse(adaptedfromSub-decreeNo118 on State Land ManagementArticle4):

a)Propertyhavinganaturalorigin,suchas

(1) forests(2) Coursesofnavigableorfloatablewater(3) Natural lakes(4) Banksofnavigableorfloatablerivers(5) Seashores

b)Propertydevelopedforgeneralpublicuse,suchas

(1) Quays(2) Ports(3) railways(4) Railwaystations(5) Airports

c)Propertymadeavailableinitsnaturalstateorspecificallydevelopedforpublicuse,suchas

(1) roads(2) Tracks(3) Oxcartways(4) Pathways(5) Gardensandpublicparks(6) reserved land

d)Propertyallocatedtorenderapublicservice,such as

(1) Publicschoolsoreducationalbuildings(2) Administrativebuildings(3) Publichospitals

e)Naturalreservesprotectedbylaw f)Archeological,culturalandhistoricalpatrimonies

g)RoyalpropertiesthatarenottheprivatepropertiesoftheRoyalFamily

h)Otherlandhavingpublicinterestusecharacteristicsanddeterminedlegalbasis.


71

72

AmnestyInternational(2008)Rights Razed: Forced Evictions in Cambodia.

AsianDevelopmentBank(2004)TAR: CAM 37535 Technical Assistance to the Kingdom of Cambodia for Enhancing the Resettlement Legal Framework and Institutional Capacity.Retreviedfrom:http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/projdocs/2004/tar-cam-37535.pdf

AsianDevelopmentBank(2011) TA 7566-REG: Strengthening and Use of Country Safeguard Systems CAM: Prepa-ration of Draft Sub Decree on Informal Settlers August 2011.Retrievedfrom:http://www2.adb.org/Documents/Produced-under-TA/44140/44140-012-reg-sp-02.pdf

BABSEA,COHRE,CLECetal.(2009)NGO Comments on Draft Circular on ‘Settlement of Illegal Temporary Buildings in Cities and Urban Areas’.

CambodiaRehabilitationBoard,CouncilofDevelopmentofCambodia (2009)Summary Record on Development Cooperation between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany Phnom Penh 15-16 October 2009.Retrievedfrom:http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/germany.htm

CambodiaRehabilitationBoard,CouncilofDevelopmentofCambodia(2011)Summary Record of the Negotiations on Development Cooperation between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Royal Gov-ernment of Cambodia held in Bonn on 13 and 14 December 2011.Retrievedfrom:https://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/Donor_Development_Cooperation_Programs/Germany/Negotiation_on_Development_Cooperation_2011/sum-mary_record.htm

CommunityManagedDevelopmentPartners(2012)Mechanism for City Scale C03 Implementation in Battambang.

Diepart,J.C.(2008)Developing a Spatial Planning Framework for Sustainable Land and Natural Resources Manage-ment. A prespective from Battambang Province, Cambodia.Retrievedfrom:www.gisdevelopment.net

Fallavier,P.(2003)PhnomPenh,CambodiaSummaryExtractedfromUN-Habitat(2003)Global Report on Human Settlements 2003, The Challenge of Slums,Earthscan,London;PartIV:‘SummaryofCityCaseStudies’.Pages195-228.Retrievedfrom:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/cities/phnompenh.htm

Grimsditch,M.&Henderson,N.(2009)Untitled: Tenure Insecurity and Inequality in the Cambodian Land Sector.BridgesAcrossBordersSoutheastAsia,CentreonHousingRightsandEvictionsandJesuitRefugeeServices

INGHoldingsCo.Ltd.(2011)AZ Town The Future of Phnom Penh.

Kouch,C.(2011)Letter from the Chair of Khan Mean Chey to H.E. Chair of the Capital of Phnom Penh: Request for solution policy for temporary settlements in 6 locations.July18,2011.(UnofficialTranslation)

Ly,S.(2011)Letter from the Chair of Khan Sen Sok to H.E. Chair of the Capital of Phnom Penh: Report on the selection of citizens’ temporary settlement locations. August8,2011(UnofficialTranslation)

LICADHO(2009)Land Grabbing & Poverty in Cambodia: the Myth of Development.

BiBLioGrAPHy 6


73

MLMUPC(MinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanningandConstruction)(2006)Decision No52 on Decision to Put the Text On Criteria for State Land Classification as an Annex of Prakas No.42, Dated 10 March 2006 On State Land Identification, Mapping and Classification, 25 December 2006.

MLMUPC (Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction) (2006) No42 DNS/BK, Prakas on Identification, Mapping and Classification of State Land, Articles 7 & 8

MLMUPC(MinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanningandConstruction)(2010)Decision No49, Putting in Use of Template Appendices for Implementation of the Circular on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on Land which has been Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal, and Urban Areas, 27 September 2010.

MLMUPC(MinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanning,andConstruction)(2011)Land Administration Sub-sector Programme Newsletter: Land is Life November 2011

MLMUPC(MinistryofLand,UrbanPlanningandConstruction)(2012)Strategy to Speed Up Land Registration in Cambodia (unofficial translation)

MPP(MunicipalityofPhnomPenh)(1999)Urban Poverty Reduction Strategy for Phnom Penh Retrieved from: www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/HousingUrbanPolicy/municipalpovertystrategy.pdf

MPP(MunicipalityofPhnomPenh)(27Dec2010)Khan/Sangkat authorithies must prevent all kinds of illegal shel-ters on the State Property.Retrievedfrom:http://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/news-khan-sangkat-authorithies-must-prevent-all-kinds-of-illegal-shelters-on-the-state-property-596.html

MPP(MunicipalitypfPhnomPenh)(4March2011)Samdech HUN SEN Blvd., a New Blood Vessel for Southern Part of Phnom Penh.RetreivedfromMunicipalityofPhnomPenh:http://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/news-samdech-hun-sen-blvd-a-new-blood-vessel-for-southern-part-of-phnom-penh-851.html

MPP(MunicipalityofPhnomPenh)(23May2011)7 Steps to Effectively Implement Circular No.03.Retreivedfrom:http://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/news-7-steps-to-effectively-implement-circular-no03-1163.html

MPP(MunicipalityofPhnomPenh)(21Dec2011)Phnom Penh Speeds up the Process of Circular No03.Retreivedfrom:http://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/news-phnom-penh-speeds-up-the-process-of-circular-no03-2272.html

MPP(MunicipalityofPhnomPenh)(2May2012)Trapeang Anh Chanh Buon village:Is Ms. Ros Bopha, a victim of NGO’s manipulation? Retreived from:http://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/news-trapeang-anh-chanh-buon-village-is-ms-ros-bopha-a-victim-of-ngos-manipulation-2844.html

MPP(MunicipalityofPhnomPenh)(2June2012)Get the Facts Straight and the Truth Undistorted.Retreivedfrom:http://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/news-get-the-facts-straight-and-the-truth-undistorted-2977.html

MPP (Municipality of PhnomPenh) (19 June 2012)Will NGOs, Foreigners and Extremist “human rights” Advo-cates, and Loud-Mouth “Champions for Democracy” Leave all the Women in the Cold?Retreivedfrom:http://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/news-will-ngos-foreigners-and-extremist-human-rights-advocates-and-loud-mouth-champi-ons-for-democracy-leave-all-the-women-in-the-cold-3027.html

MPP(MunicipalityofPhnomPenh)(2012)Decision No133 On Establishing a Committee for Observing and Measuring Land for Residents of Temporary Settlements on State Public Land in 09 Communities of Khmounh Commune, Sen Sok district, Phnom Penh.

MPP(MunicipalityofPhnomPenh)(2012)The Urban Poor Assessment

National InstituteofStatistics (2008)General Population Census 2008. Availableathttp://www.nis.gov.kh/index.php/pop-demog-stat/censuses

Paling,W.(2012)Planning a Future Phnom Penh: Mega Projects, Aid Dependence, and Disjointed Governance. Ur-banStudies,2049-2089.

74

People’sRepublicofKampuchea,CouncilofMinisters(1989)ANK No25, Sub-decree No25 on Providing House Own-ership to the Cambodian Population, 22 April 1989.

People’sRepublicofKampuchea,CouncilofMinisters(1989)SNN No03, Instruction No03 on Implementation of Land use and Management Policy, 3 June 1989.

Rithysen,C.(2009)Letter 372 PPMO/PHN from the Director of the Phnom Penh Department of LMUPC and director of Project Management of Phnom Penh to the chair of the administrative committee of Phnom Penh: Request for permission to exclude the following areas from systematic titling. October6,2009(UnofficialTranslation)

RGC(RoyalGovernmentofCambodia)(1992)Land Law.

RGC(RoyalGovernmentofCambodia)(1999)Law on the Establishment of the Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction.

RGC(RoyalGovernmentofCambodia)(2001) Land Law.

RGC (Royal Government of Cambodia) (2001) NOTNo43, Notification on Cessation of Acquisitive Possession of Immovable Property,6September2001.

RGC(RoyalGovernmentofCambodia)(2004) Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia.

RGC(RoyalGovernmentofCambodia)(2005)No118 ANK/BK, Sub-decree on State Land Management.

RGC(RoyalGovernmentofCambodia)(2010)Law on Expropriation.

RGC(RoyalGovernmentofCambodia)(2010)Circular No03 on Resolution of Temporary Settlements on State Land Illegally Occupied in the Capital, Municipal and Urban Areas.

SahmakumTeangTnaut(2009)The 8 Khan Survey.

SahmakumTeangTnaut(2011)Facts & Figures #19: Displaced Families: Phnom Penh 1990-2011.

SahmakumTeangTnaut(2012)Losing the Plot: Rapid Assessment of Household Debt in Trapeang Anhchanh.

SahmakumTeangTnaut(2012)Facts & Figures #21: Resettling Phnom Penh: 54 - And Counting?

TWGBattambangMunicipality(2010)Informal Settlements Survey 2009.

UNHabitat (2003)Cambodian Prime Minister launches slum upgrading campaign.Retrieved from:http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?cid=3022&catid=281&typeid=6

UnitedNations(2007)Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement. retrieved from:http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/housing/docs/guidelines_en.pdf

UnitedNationsOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(1997) General Comment 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights. Retrieved from:http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+Comment+7.En?OpenDocument

UnitedNationsOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(1991) General Comment 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights. Retrieved from:http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+Comment+4.En?OpenDocument

USEmbassyPhnomPenh (2009)Draft resettlement regulations raise NGO and donor concerns Retrieved from:http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09PHNOMPENH962.html

WorldBank(2002)Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 19.3 Million (US$24.3 Million Equivalent) to The Kingdom Of Cambodia for a Land Management and Administration Project 29 January 2002.


75

WorldBankAsiaPacficRegion(2006)Cambodia: Halving Poverty by 2015? Cambodia Poverty Assessment.

WorldBank(2009)Statement from the World Bank on Termination by Royal Government of Cambodia of the Land Management and Administration Project September 6, 2009.Retrievedfrom:http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/CAMBODIAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:22303344~menuPK:293861~pageP-K:1497618~piPK:217854~theSitePK:293856,00.html

WorldBankEnhancedReviewMission(2009)Cambodia Land Management and Administration Project - Enhanced Review Report.

World Bank Inspection Panel (2009)Cambodia: Land Management and Administration Project Retrieved from:http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/0,,contentMDK:22512162~pagePK:64129751~piPK:64128378~theSitePK:380794,00.html


77MArcH 2013