Citizen’s Rating of Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia by The NGO Forum on Cambodia

REPORT OF BASELINE STUDY on

“CITIZEN’S RATING OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES IN CAMBODIA” For Oxfam’s Project on “STRENGTHENING PARTNERSHIP TOWARDS PARTICIPATORY AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES IN CAMBODIA,”

Dr. Neth Baromey and Dr. Rith Sam Ol August 2013

Strengthening Partnership towards Participatory and Accountable Governance of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia “Citizen’s Rating of Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia”

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this report are those exclusively of the authors and do not essentially reflect or represent the views and opinions of the Oxfam Great Britain (OGB). In pursuit of reprint, reproduction, and quotation of this report document, even its portions, acknowledgement and ethical authorization would be much encouraged and appreciated.

Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 2 PART 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Background to the Study .................................................................................................................. 9 1. 2. Status of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia......................................................................... 10 1.3. Governance of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia ................................................................ 12 1.3.1. Principles of Decentralized Governance ....................................................................................... 14 1.3.2. Challenges for Contemporary Governance .................................................................................. 15 1.3.3. Propositions to Improve Contemporary Governance .................................................................. 16 1.4. OGB Intervention Project............................................................................................................... 17 1.4.1. Project Partners and Target Provinces .......................................................................................... 19 PART 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................. 25 2.1. Conduct of Baseline Study ..................................................................................................................................... 25 2.2. Baseline Study Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.1. Study Design .................................................................................................................................. 25 2.2.2. Data Collection Methods .............................................................................................................. 26 2.2.3. Study Population and Research Sites ............................................................................................. 26 2.2.4. Sampling Techniques ...................................................................................................................... 26 2.2.5. Data Collection Techniques and Instruments ............................................................................... 27 2.2.6. Fieldwork Implementation ............................................................................................................. 28 2.2.7. Data Analysis Methods .................................................................................................................. 29 PART 3: RESULTS OF KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS.......................................................... 32 3.1. Sub-National Authorities ........................................................................................................................................ 33 3.1.1. Empowerment and Subsidiarity ..................................................................................................... 33 3.1.2 Equity/Justice ................................................................................................................................... 34 3.1.3. Transparency and Accountability .................................................................................................. 35 3.1.4. Sustainability ................................................................................................................................... 36 3.2. Non-Governmental Organization......................................................................................................................... 38 3.2.1. Empowerment and Subsidiarity ..................................................................................................... 38 3.2.2. Equity/Justice .................................................................................................................................. 39 3.2.3. Transparency and Accountability .................................................................................................. 39 3.2.4. Sustainability ................................................................................................................................... 41 3.3. Community-Based Organizations ......................................................................................................................... 42 3.3.1. Empowerment and Subsidiarity ..................................................................................................... 42

3.3.2. Equity/Justice .................................................................................................................................. 43 3.3.3. Transparency and Accountability .................................................................................................. 44 3.3.4. Sustainability ................................................................................................................................... 44 PART 4: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................ 47 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 47 4.2. Demographic and Socio-Economic Backgrounds of Interviewed Households .......................................... 47 4.3. Awareness, Knowledge, and Access to Information on Governance of Land and Natural Resources ....... 52 4.4. Issues of Social and Environmental Justice and Development and Management of Land and Natural Resources .................................................................................................................................................................... 63 4.5. Availability, Support, and Intervention of Legal Services and Capabilities .................................................. 68 4.6. Quality Rating of Inclusion, Performance and Consultation .......................................................................... 75 PART 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 81 5.1. Key Survey Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 81 5.2. Key KI Interview Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 84 5.3. Recommendations for Future Actions ................................................................................................................ 85 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 92 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 94

List of Tables Table 1.1: Table 1.2: Table 1.3: Table 1.4: Table 1.5: Table 2.1: Table 2.2: Table 4.2a: Table 4.2b: Table 4.2c: Table 4.2d: Table 4.2e: Table 4.2f: Table 4.3a: Table 4.3b: Table 4.3c: Table 4.3d: Table 4.3e: Table 4.4a: Table 4.4b: Table 4.5a: Table 4.5b: Table 4.5c: Table 4.5d: Table 4.5e: Table 4.6a: Table 4.6b: Table 4.6c: Table 5.3a: Table 5.3b:

Ethnicity Distribution in Preah Vihear ..................................................................................................... 19 Population Density and Occupation ........................................................................................................ 19 Ethnicity Distribution in KPT ..................................................................................................................... 20 Ethnicity Distribution in ST ........................................................................................................................ 22 Ethnicity Distribution in KT ....................................................................................................................... 23 Study indicators and analytical framework ............................................................................................. 28 Study indicators and analytical framework ............................................................................................. 29 Demographics of the surveyed households by province, ethnicity and birth of origin ............... 48 Average household members, dependents and length of stay .......................................................... 49 Possession of household properties and type of possession ............................................................. 49 Sources of livelihoods of the surveyed households ............................................................................. 50 Level of indebtedness of the surveyed households .............................................................................. 51 Average monthly expenses and type of expenses of the surveyed households ............................ 52 Type and level of importance of land and natural resources in the area ........................................ 53 Type and level of abundance of land and natural resources in the area ......................................... 54 Type and level of access of households to land and natural resources........................................... 55 Knowledge and awareness of current governance and development of land and natural resources by province, ethnicity, and birth of origin ........................................................................... 57 Knowledge and awareness of relevant legal documents and frameworks related to land and natural resource governance by province, ethnicity and birth of origin ........................ 62 Knowledge of commercial companies in the area by province, ethnicity, and gender ................ 64 Knowledge about benefits provided by commercial company by province, ethnicity and gender.............................................................................................................................................................. 67 Knowledge and awareness of concerned institutions and their mandates by province, ethnicity and gender..................................................................................................................................... 68 Community perception on appropriate institutions in local governance of land and natural resource by province, ethnicity and gender........................................................................................... 70 Community perceptions on levels of approachability, openness, helpfulness, responsiveness, and influence of concerned institutions by province ............................................. 71 Community perception of performance and program impacts of concerned institutions by province..................................................................................................................................................... 72 Experiences in community participation in related training and workshop by province, ethnicity and gender..................................................................................................................................... 74 Community participation, information and type of information access by province, ethnicity and gender..................................................................................................................................... 75 Community participation and inputs in management and development of land and natural resources by province and gender ........................................................................................................... 77 Community perception of performance and consultation of concerned institutions by province .......................................................................................................................................................... 79 Flow of OGBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Project Objectives, Outcomes and Activities ........................................................... 87 Recommendation for Actions and Outcome Level.............................................................................. 88

Page | i

Table of Figures Figure 1-1: Map of economic land concessions, mining concessions, planned hydro-power dams and oil blocks in Cambodia........................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 1-1: Map of community protected areas, community forestry and community fishery in Cambodia 12 Figure 1.3: Map of community protected areas, community forestry and community fishery in Cambodia 16 Figure 4.1: Percentage of local knowledge of land and resource owners (n = 408) ....................................... 59 Figure 4.2: Percentage of local knowledge of state ownership over land and natural resources (n = 408)... 59 Figure 4-3: Percentage of local knowledge of difference between “public state land” and “private state land” (n = 408) ............................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 4.4: Percentage of local knowledge of land title (n = 408)................................................................... 60 Figure 4.5: Percentage of local knowledge of communal land title (n = 408) ................................................ 60 Figure 4.6: Percentage of local knowledge of community possession of communal land title by IP (n = 408)......................................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 4.7: Percentage of local knowledge of rights over access to and use of land and natural resources (n = 408)......................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 4.8: Percentage of local knowledge of rights and different forms of rights by province (n = 408) ..... 61 Figure 4.9: Percentage of local knowledge of rights and different forms of rights by ethnicity and gender (n = 408)......................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 4.10: Percentage of local knowledge of related laws, regulations, policies and other legal frameworks related to local governance of land and natural resources (n = 408) ........................................... 63 Figure 4.11: Percentage of local knowledge of commercial companies in their areas by province (n = 408) .. 65 Figure 4.12: Percentage of local knowledge of commercial companies in their areas by ethnicity and gender (n = 408)......................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 4.13: Percentage of local knowledge of information related to company by province, ethnicity and gender (n = 408) ............................................................................................................................ 66 Figure 4.14: Percentage of local knowledge about benefits and impacts of company’s operation in the area (n = 408)......................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 4.15: Percentage of local knowledge and awareness of concerned institutions and their mandates (n = 408)......................................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 4.16: Percentage of local experience in community participation in related trainings and workshops (n = 408)83 .................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 4.17: Percentage of community’s experience in being informed about new development and management plans of land and natural resources (n = 408) ........................................................ 76 Figure 4.18: Percentage of community’s experience in being informed about the coming of private company or commercial body into their area (n = 408) ............................................................................... 77 Figure 4.19: Percentage of community’s experience in being invited to participate and provide community inputs in local governance of land and natural resources (n = 408) ............................................. 78 Page | ii

Figure 4.20: Percentage of communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of importance of men and women participation in decision/consent-making and planning for local governance of land and natural resources (n = 408) ........................................................................................................................................ 79

Page | iii

ABBREVIATIONS AFD APA CBNRM CBOs CDCi CDCii CED CFi CFs CLT CPA ELCs FA FAO FiA IP IP3 HH, HHs KI KPT LT MAFF MCs MDG MLMUC MoE MoI MRD N, n NGOs NCDD Non-IP NSDP OGB PAs PDA PDE PDIME PDLM PDRD PKH PV PVT SEZ SNAs ST UNDP USD

Action for Development Organization Angkar Ponleu Aphivat Organization Community-based Natural Resource Management Community-Based Organizations Council for the Development of Cambodia Commune Development Council Community Economic Development Organization Community Fisheries Community Forestry Communal Land Titling Community Protected Area Economic Land Concessions Forestry Administration Food and Agriculture Organization Fishery Administration Indigenous People 10 Years National Programs Household, Households Kratie Kampong Thom Land Title or Land Titling Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Mining Concessions Millennium Development Goal Ministry of Land Management, Urbanization and Construction Ministry of Environment Ministry of Interior Ministry of Rural Development N = total population, n = total sample size Non-Governmental Organization National Committee of Democratic Development Non Indigenous People National Strategic Development Plan OXFAM Great Britain Protected Areas Provincial Department of Agriculture Provincial Department of Environment Provincial Department of Industry, Mine and Energy Provincial Department of Land Management Provincial Department of Rural Development Ponlok Khmer Organization Preah Vihear Prom Vihearthor Special Economic Zone Sub-National Authorities Stung Treng United Nation Development Programme US Dollar

Page | iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Considerable support, assistance and facilitation from many memorable people throughout this research process have enabled our team in our study. We are, of course, responsible for what eventually appears as a result of our study process and outcomes, but the strategies, insights, comments, corrections, contributions, and prods of others have greatly improved our end product. The people we recognize here have demonstrated strong commitment and kindness to us and to excellence. Their contributions and feelings of trust have stimulated us, and especially helped us to complete this baseline study successfully. First and foremost, we are profoundly thankful to two people at OGB – Mr. Sharon Thangadurai, Associate Country Director and Mr. Sok Khim, Program Manager – for making time from their very busy schedules and management duties to provide us their insights and guidance for the study design and to comment us on our report improvement. Next, we would like to express our deepest gratitude for staff at OGB – Mr. Suon Sereyratanak, PMEL Officer, Ms. Sem Chenda, Gender Justice Coordinator, Mr. Tuy Samram, Project Manager, Mr. Than Bunly and Ms. Lim Dalis, Program Officers – for their significant technical inputs to the study. Their unwavering trust and coordination have enabled us to successfully complete the participatory study design and conducting fieldwork in a most timely manner. In addition, their commitments to excellence and kind encouragement have inspired our team to strive our best to produce high quality report as well as appropriate and practical guiding documents for relevant stakeholders in the field of land and natural resource governance in Cambodia and beyond. Facilitation and coordination in administrative, financial and logistic matters have also been very crucial to our project success. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Chan Kanika and the Finance Department for their cooperative arrangement of financial support for the project. A special note of thank is presented to representatives from the five local partner NGOs – Mr. Im Kim, Mr. Ke Sothea, Mr. Sok Vay, Mr. Khem Ra, Mr. Sun Kimhoeun, and Ms. Kim Sother – for their kindest understanding and cooperation throughout the fieldwork implementation. Our team would not be able to complete our fieldwork as planned without their resourcefulness and effective coordination in all steps of the fieldwork (including working overtime at nights and on weekend). Last but not least, we are most grateful to all participants in this research project including all the support teams for data collection and processing, key informants from SNAs, NGOs and CBOs, as well as local respondents for the household interviews. This project fieldwork and report writing are made possible by a team of hard-working, patient and competent university lecturers and students who work tirelessly from the beginning of the fieldwork until the end of coding and computing. All key informants’ and respondents’ most sincere and informative contributions have enabled us to deeply understand the situations in which we are investigating. In addition, we strongly appreciate their willingness and efforts to make time from both personal and professional duties in this busiest period (farming season and time to finish uncompleted tasks before the national election for the new government mandate) to participate in our substantially lengthy interviews.

1|Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cambodia has rigorously implementing democratic and decentralized governance of land and natural resources in the past decades, but such an endeavour has encountered numerous challenges. The government and relevant stakeholders have worked tirelessly and ceaselessly to discover causes, impacts and identify solutions to overcome challenges. Among all elements of governance, the quality of participation and accountability of concerned governance has been highlighted by most researchers and practitioners as a major cause of poor and ineffective governance. In response to the emerging propositions and contribute to enhancing good governance in Cambodia, OGB has contracted with EU to implement a project entitled “Strengthening Partnership towards Participatory and Accountable Governance of Land and Natural Resource in Cambodia”. The project lasts for three years, and its objectives include: to enhance capacities and platforms for engaging with the state agencies at sub-national authorities in governance of land and natural resources; and to build capacity and establish platforms for civil society, right holders and state for advocating for equitable management of land and natural resources.

 

The project’s target groups and beneficiaries are the provincial, district, commune councils, civil society organizations, community-based organizations and land poor and landless villagers, women, indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities. To carry out this project effectively and productively in a participatory manner, OGB works in partnership with five local partner NGOs and takes their coverage areas as targets for OGB’s project implementation. There are four key results expected from the project including: 

  

Strengthened capacity of 260 Sub-National Authorities, 45 NGOs, 90 CommunityBased Organizations members and 170,837 villagers in KPT, PV, KI and ST provinces of Cambodia on participatory engagement in policy dialogues for transparent and accountable governance of land and natural resources. Institutionalized engagement mechanisms and cooperation between SNAs and CSOs for developing and implementing policies and strategies for land use planning and development. Citizens and groups affected by land disputes and conflicts in KPT, PV, KI and ST provinces of Cambodia have accessed to legal services for resolving their cases. Strengthened capacity of local communities and right holders particularly women and vulnerable groups for claim-making and demand for good governance of land and natural resources.

To implement the project, OGB commissioned a research consultancy team from the Royal University of Phnom Penh to conduct a baseline study at the beginning stage of the project. This baseline study entitled “Citizen’s Rating of Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia” focuses on the assessment of current situations of governance of land and natural resources in the four target provinces. The overall objectives of this baseline study were as follows:   

To determine baseline result of citizen rating on local governance in Land and NRM (disaggregated by gender); Identify and recommend appropriate result of key project outcomes’ indicators that serve as a baseline to compare progress of project impact; and To provide on-the-job trainings to field enumerators, project staff and NGO partners’ staff on relevant concepts, techniques and tools to conduct a baseline survey. 2|Page

Design of this study is a participatory process that the consultancy team worked closely with coordinators from OGB as well as their local partner NGO. Both primary and secondary data were employed in this study. Secondary data comprised of previous studies on governance-related issues in Cambodia, especially in the four provinces and documents obtained from OGB and its partners. Primary data were collected through both key informant interviews and HH survey interviews. Fieldworks were conducted for three weeks in June 2013. At the end of fieldworks, 408 households (265 female respondents) were interviewed using survey questionnaires, while 14 CBOs (2 female), 60 SNAs (12 female) and 17 NGOs (3 female) were interviewed using KI guiding questionnaires. Findings from both survey and in-depth interviews were summarized by key indicators as follows: INDICATOR 1: Percentage of local people who are aware of community rights over access to, use of, and local governance of land and natural resources In general, HH respondents did not clearly understand their rights in governance, over access to and use of land and natural resources. More than 50% of respondents mentioned they knew about their rights over access to and use of land and natural resources, but ironically most of them said most land and natural resources were owned by the state and private company (around 50% and 35% respectively), while the minority of them, equally less than 30%, knew about communal land tilting (even though they were indigenous) and community-based management possibility. More than 75% of respondents could not distinguish between public and private state land; they thought the state could do whatever they wanted with the lands it owned except with peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residential and agricultural lands. A large number of respondents, more than 70%, claimed their rights to governance of land and natural resources, but mostly they mentioned about rights to manage and preserve (more than 80%). Less than 30% of them learned about their rights to benefit from those land and natural resources. Knowledge of the granting agents was even less. More than 60% of respondents said the local authority granted them rights to own, access to or use resources. A little of them (less than 20%) learned about MLMUC, FA or FiA, etc. (refer to Table 4.3d for detail information). Ludicrously, more than 60% of them feared of insecurity of their current land possession. Around 50% of them ranked high accessibility of their current permanent farmland, while less than 20% ranked access to common-pool resources (e.g. rivers, streams, lakes, forests, grassland, mountains) and even community-based management areas as high (see Table 4.3c). INDICATOR 2: Percentage of local communities vulnerable and susceptible to as well as affected by land and NR management and development A large number of rural populations represented by HH interviewees appeared to be very vulnerable to and gravely affected by inappropriate land and natural resources development and management. This assumption was drawn from analysis of responses concerning size of land possession and household, sources of livelihoods, dependence on common-pool resources and level of expenses. Nearly 60% of respondents equally owned less than one hectare of permanent farmland, rice paddy or forest farmland when average size of household was up to 5.5 persons. Notably, these types of local-owned lands had not been officially titled by relevant authority yet. Their main sources of livelihoods varied from province to province (see Table 4.2b), but mostly (around 50%) they earned their livings by farming and growing a variety of cash crops or rubber trees in their permanent farmland or forestland above. Then, the majority of these respondents (also around 50%) depended on forest resources (making charcoal, wildlife meat, fishes, and mining, etc.). Respondents mentioned these last categories of livelihoods though they realized that they were mostly illegal since they did not have much alternative option they could pursue (see Table 4.2d). While their sources of 3|Page

livelihoods were uncertain and expenses were high, their incomes were mismatched; up to 45% of them were badly in debt, 24% of whom faced difficulties in repayment (see Tables 4.2d, 4.2e, 4.2f). INDICATOR 3: Understanding of social and environmental justice in governance of land and natural resources Analysis of in-depth interview data with SNAs, NGOs and CBOs indicated that all current forms of governance, both community-based and private sector-owned, had certain negative impacts on the quality of land and natural resources. But the private practices had more and severe impacts than the community ones because of scale, scope, influence and defiance of involved actors. Communitybased management could not be fully sustainable at this stage as the contemporary socio-economic environment was not entirely supportive of local livelihood systems. Vulnerable but ignorant and uninformed local communities, including indigenous people, blindly followed examples of outsiders to degrade environment for their livelihoods while thinking to improve local economy. In contrast, affluent and often highly educated concessionaires chose to exploit environment for personal greed. Actions of these concessionaires also affected the local people gravely. More than 80% of respondents said they lose land (among them 90% of indigenous people and 84% of women), and more than 60% of them equally stated being relocated and having limited access to common-pool resources for livelihoods (64% of indigenous and 55% of women respondents). Yet, all participants in this study, inclusive of SNAs, NGOs, CBOs and ordinary people (HH interviewees), participated very little in making decisions concerning such practices, which consequently provided even less benefits to them (see Tables 4.4a, 4.4b, Sections 3.1.3, 3.2.3, 3.3.3 for details). Around 50% of respondents said they had knowledge of company’s existence, but more than 90% did not know the obvious granting agency (ies) and their real types and purposes of operation. More than 70% of them did not even realize the requirements for contribution or compensation from such the company or commercial entity. In terms of benefits, such as environmental and social funds, only less than 30% of respondents seemingly knew these issues. The majority of respondents (more than 70%) knew about possibility of employment opportunities in which the company was able to provide to the locals. INDICATOR 4: Knowledge and understanding of local people and SNAs of relevant policies, laws, regulations and other legal frameworks as well as key institutions in governance of land and natural resources SNAs had more knowledge and understanding of laws, regulations and legal frameworks in governance of land and natural resources than ordinary people since their mandate is directly involved with these issues. Yet, SNAs’ knowledge about key institutions (especially NGOs and CBOs) that should be engaged in the governance process was imprecise. SNAs were open for NGOs and CBOs to participate in implementation of local governance structures (i.e. CBO organization and development), but not in general local land and resource use planning. In KPT, there were approximately 48% of respondents mentioned they had some knowledge of such political documents, while there were about 49%, 51%, 67% knew about these in PV, ST and KT respectively. Among those knowledgeable respondents, their knowledge mostly concentrated on three types of laws – land law, forestry law and fishery law – depending on their geographical relevance. Four types of important documents – commune and organic laws, law on mineral resource management and exploitation and sub-decree on EIA - concerning decentralization, land and resource governance process and procedure as well as participation strategies had been known only to less than 10% of respondents in nearly all the provinces, exclusive of ST where 21% of 4|Page

respondents knew about EIA sub-decree. Regrettably, indigenous people knew much less than other respondents. Among all indigenous respondents interviewed (n = 96 respondents), only around 26% of them knew something about these documents. It was worthy to note that, all respondents who claimed to know mentioned that they knew about the documents and some contents, but not very clearly. None had read through the documents as they mostly learned from TV / radio (30%-60%) or village and commune meetings (more than 60%) (see Table 4.3e for detail information). Notably, CBOs had also been instrumental in distributing such knowledge. Between 10%-30% of respondents mentioned they learned about those legalities and policies from CBOs. INDICATOR 5: Knowledge and awareness of local community and SNA participation and SNA in governance of land and natural resources Generally, all SNAs were aware of their necessary participation and had been strongly empowered to do so via policies and implementation programs of state and non-state actors. There were two separate patterns of participation among SNA interviewees though. Higher level SNAs (provincial and district levels) were involved more in political than technical issues. Local SNAsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; roles in local governance were more implementers and collaborators than planners or decision-makers. Yet, not all such SNAs were knowledgeable of and participated meaningfully in their supposed roles and duties. The majority of SNAs were involved in mapping, making and implementing plans and rules concerning local communities, but only a handful were involved in making decisions concerning private concessions. Frequently, only chief of each concerned institution appeared to have been informed somehow about private practices in their areas; other relevant SNAs were mostly left in the cloud. Most SNAs were aware of and had good collaboration with NGO stakeholders, but they were estranger to concessionaires (see Section 3.2.2). Local communities represented by the interviewed HH respondents seemed to be less sure of their participation in governance. Apart from findings as described in indicators 2 and 3 above, this uncertainty reflected through their answers concerning issues such as land and resources ownership, types of land and ownership, as well as knowledge of private operators and benefits and impacts their operations could generate in their areas (see Tables 4.3b, 4.4a, 4.4b). For example, approximately 30% of respondents mentioned they knew something about land and resource owners. However, their knowledge was inaccurate. About equally 40% of them said most lands were owned by private companies and in-migrants, while around 30% said some lands were owned by CBOs. The majority of them (more than 50%) perceived land to be owned by the state. See indicator 5 below for complementary information. INDICATOR 6: Realization of access to, availability and responsiveness of key technical and legal services and interventions of concerned stakeholders for governance of land and natural resources HH respondents seemed to be highly aware and knowledgeable of local governance agents. More than 50% of respondents claimed they were aware of institutions in charge of concerned governance, and more than 70% were knowledgeable of conflict resolution institutions. Though approximately 70% of them claimed to know the roles and responsibilities of all relevant institutions, their knowledge was imprecise and sometimes inaccurate. The majority of respondents, between 60%85%, said village chiefs were the most important actors in governance (especially concerning land division/registration and conflict resolution) followed by commune councils (about 40-50%) and district authority (less than 30%). Less than 40% of respondents realized about roles of CBOs in governance too. In contrast, a small number of them (less than 10%) knew about other relevant 5|Page

policies and decision-makers (i.e. provincial or ministerial levels) (see Table 4.5a for detail). Based on this knowledge and assumption, the majority of them placed high trust in performance of village chiefs; they (60%-90%) submitted that village chiefs should be the key actors in local governance followed distantly by commune councils (30%) and district authorities (20%). Unfortunately, HH respondents also placed less confidence in CBOs’ ability to help community in governance of land and natural resources, and less than 20% of respondents mentioned CBOs in this regard (refer to Table 4.5b for further information). INDICATOR 7: Capabilities, attitudes, and practices of key service and intervention stakeholders in local governance of land and natural resources Emphasized on findings in indicator 8, HH respondents chose their preferred institution and ranked them highly based on the essence of approachability and responsiveness since the analysis of stakeholders’ capabilities, attitudes and practices showed that SNAs had low capabilities and chance of practices, as well as less positive attitudes though they strived to be actively involved. 

Capabilities 1. Resources and Skills: NGO partners appeared to have better skills in and resources for governance of land and natural resources than SNAs. Both NGOs and SNAs had organizational resources and skills for governance, but while NGOs had more capable and experienced human resources and continuous financial supports from donors, SNAs have quite limited. NGOs seemed to be adept at mobilizing local resources and building CBOs, while SNAs frequently works as facilitators and technical advisors in some aspects (administration process). Yet, both SNAs and NGOs appeared to be struggling with conflict resolution, political lobby, and engagement strategies. 2. Activities: Both NGOs and SNAs were briskly involved in building CBOs. NGOs were more actively assisting in resolving conflict between locals and outsiders, while SNAs were more active in local conflict resolution. Yet, SNAs had more roles in governance than NGOs; they also had to plan and propose local land use planning (other than that of CBO areas), such as land registration (i.e. private property, communal indigenous land, and social concession land), resource inventory and monitoring of activities / interventions under their jurisdiction. But, as SNAs had limited support from donors and had to rely heavily on government funding, they had not been able to succeed with much of the stated initiatives. 3. Protective Rights: All intervention stakeholders and service providers had a firm legal framework for participatory development, decentralization and deconcentration of land and natural resources (e.g. land laws, forestry laws, fisheries laws, organic laws, etc.) as their protective rights to back them up in actively participating in the governance of land and natural resources. CBOs, especially those with coverage areas having already gone through the registration process, had additional local level (but recognized by upper authorities) documents (by-laws and one community have a master plan) to support the use of and access to community-managed resources.



Attitudes and Practices: SNAs and NGOs had been involved in implementation of governance, while NGOs had more positive attitudes and more chance to practice doing the tasks. NGOs acted energetically and chivalrously strived to overcome the obstacles to assist the vulnerable to reach their goals. SNAs appeared to be ungallant and cautious though they seemed to have a lot of ideas and initiatives; they had less practices and courage since they had always worked bureaucratically and hierarchically. They were not so positive about 6|Page

decentralized governance since most of the decisions were made elsewhere even for the resources under their jurisdiction and within their geographical boundary. INDICATOR 8: Enhancement of capacities and platforms for engaging SNAs with state actors in governance of land and natural resources Frequently, SNAs worked hierarchically and bureaucratically (village to commune to district and to provincial level authority or vice versa) concerning issues like capacity building and conflict resolution. In addition, there was only a horizontal communication between expert offices or divisions that operated in collaboration with commune councils to plan or solve local problems. These offices and divisions worked vertically with their expert department at provincial level as well. These, to some extent, could be considered as platforms for engaging SNAs with other state actors. But, this platform was problematic and malfunctioning; often each division / office worked in solo (or vertically) under their jurisdiction with no or limited engagement with other relevant agencies. Capacity building in skills related to effective participatory planning, meaningful dialogue and consultation, as well as persuasive (not forceful) negotiation was sadly lacking. INDICATOR 9: Rating of performance and consultation quality of concerned institutions with affected people / communities of land and NR development Such trust and confidence as indicated in indicator 6 was strongly related to respondents’ perception of approachability, helpfulness, responsiveness and level of influence. Most respondents (90%) declared they could approach village chiefs for mostly anything concerning land and natural resources, while less than 25% of them similarly mentioned approachability of CBOs, elder groups and provincial authorities. Only about 10% of respondents mentioned they could approach local NGOs concerning governance issues. Even less number of respondents (less than 10%) mentioned helpfulness, responsiveness and influence of provincial authority, elder groups, local NGOs and CBOs, but up to 80% of them championed village chiefs (see Table 4.5c). In addition, community trust and confidence was also related to their perception of stakeholder’s performance and the quality of their consultation. Based on Likert Scale Analysis, the majority of respondents (more than 70%) ranked fairly satisfied and very satisfied with consultation and performance of village chiefs. Local NGOs, CBOs and commune councils were similarly ranked as high by around 50% of respondents, except in KPT where CBOs were favoured by only 30% of respondents (see Table 4.6c for variation). INDICATOR 10: Inclusion quality rating of community and SNAs by state and nonstate (mainly CSOs) actors in decision-making, policy making regarding ownership, access to, and use of land and natural resources SNAs interviewees rated their inclusion in making decision / consent or policy regarding ownership, access to and use of land and natural resources by non-state actors (NGOs) as high. None of NGOs’ interventions was beyond their knowledge and NGOs needed SNAs’ approvals for any new organization of CBOs and local policies. Yet, concerning private sector (i.e. concession land), upper level SNAs (district and provincial) had been more included than the local SNAs (village and commune levels) who had often been only informed after the decision was made. Yet, mostly the commune and / or village chiefs were reported to have been informed. These recipients did not often share such information widely among their fellow officers or with local people. Less than half of HH respondents said they had been slightly included. There were 30%, 36%, 44% and 38% of respondents in KPT, PV, ST and KT respectively mentioned being informed about new development and management plans of land and natural resource. Approximately, 23%, 21%, 2%, 7|Page

19% respondents in KPT, PV, ST and KT respectively claimed to have been informed about operation of private sector in their locality. The mean for such information dissemination was even less reliable or trustworthy, mostly through word-of-mouth. (See more information in Table 4.6a). INDICATOR 11: Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s empowerment (mainly participation and influence) in land and natural resource management and conservation Surprisingly, considerably high amount of female respondents said they were knowledgeable of legalities and policies concerning land and natural resource governance (45%). Such knowledge was mostly acquired from village and commune meetings (65%). Their pattern of knowledge was similar to the majority of respondents described in indicator 6. However, their knowledge of rights over access to and use of land and natural resources was still limited. Approximately 55% of female household respondents mentioned they had rights to access and use, but only 15% of them learned that they could get benefits from those resources (see more information in Table 4.3d). Female respondents expressed as low level of inclusion in making decisions / consent and policies concerning land and natural resources as male respondents. Only 35% of them had been or were being informed about new development and management plans of land and natural resources, while down to 14% were informed about operations of the private sector in the area. Though up to 51% of female respondents attended trainings or seminars related to governance issues, merely 33% of them mentioned being invited to provide inputs in management and development process. About 27% of them used to attend or had attended consultation processes for granting private land concession, but only 17% had gone through the community consent-making stage (see Table 4.6b). Female SNAs also received less inclusion to participate in resource governance in general. Nearly at all levels, they were being assigned to tasks and matters related to domestic violence, health (sanitation and hygiene) as well as children affairs. Among 60 SNAs interviewed, there were only 12 female and only two persons (in Chetr Borei district and Sambour commune) had knowledge about and used to participate in social land concession planning and division as well as trainings in good governance. Other than this, female SNAs had never been invited to attend other relevant trainings or seminars as well as consultation processes or dialogues concerning land and natural resource governance.

8|Page

PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background to the Study Cambodia commenced a journey of transformation towards becoming a modern state after the first national election in 1993. In this transformation, Cambodia embraced a new global paradigm – that of sustainable development. This included aggressively encouraging the decentralization and democratization of traditional top-down government responsibilities to private sector and localized societies and private sector. To ensure that democracy is well rooted in Cambodia, the government has taken steps to ensure that all people, including local communities, have the right to development, especially through democratic governance of land and natural resources. However, encouraging meaningful participation is tough. Economic growth, poverty alleviation, social equity and natural resource governance are intricately linked in Cambodia. Balancing macro-economic growth ambition with more responsible micro socio-economic development and sustainable management of natural and cultural resources is an agonizing challenge. Cambodia is rich in both natural and cultural heritages. It has the highest per capita endowment of arable land, water and freshwater fish, and possesses one of the highest endowments of forests in East Asia. But, amidst the plenty, there is poverty! Poverty remains widespread, especially in rural areas, where an estimated 90% of poor people live (Van Acker, 2010). Uneven population access to land and natural resources is one of the major problems facing economic and social development in Cambodia. The importance of land access is particularly critical for agrarian societies where the majority of people meet their needs directly from it. A large proportion of poor rural households depend critically on natural resources, such as forests and fisheries, as much as they do their agricultural yields (Ratner, 2010). One of the most significant trends undermining poor people’s access to land and common pool resources is the transfer of resource use rights for large-scale commercial exploitation, through international or domestic private-sector investment. Over the past decades, Cambodian government has transferred resource exploitation rights through concessions – previously for forestry and now increasingly for agribusiness, mining and energy development sector, such as hydropower dams that have spurred widespread conflicts with local communities and grave impacts on the natural environment, which eventually may lead to social unrest and instability (Ngo and Chan, 2012). Recognizing these potential drawbacks, the government also set in place policies and legal frameworks that supports protected areas (PAs), and community-based management areas such as community forestry (CF) and community fisheries (CFi). Notably, the government’s approach to addressing land and natural resource challenges has been to focus on nurturing democratic governance systems critical to Cambodia’s development and equity priorities. Governance reforms are considered to be cornerstones for achieving social equity and social justice distribution. Building democratic governance in Cambodia, however, requires not only the appropriate technical frameworks but also the political commitment, technical capacity and financial resources to implement it. Unfortunately, Cambodia’s performance is limited in all of these areas, and the need for supporting external interventions nurturing more democratic governance systems is recognized. Oxfam Great Britain (OGB), funded by EU and its own resources, has launched a new program, “Strengthening Partnership towards Participatory and Accountable Governance of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia”, especially in four target provinces – Kompong Thom (KPT), Preah Vihear (PV), Stung Treng (ST) and Kratie (KT). The major objectives of the project include: 1) to enhance capacities and platforms for engaging with the state agencies at sub-national authorities in governance of land and natural resources; and 2) to build capacity and establish platforms for civil society, right holders and the state for advocating for equitable management of land and natural 9|Page

resources. This baseline study, “Citizen’s Rating of Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia” focuses on the assessment of current situations of governance of land and natural resources in the four target provinces. Indicators for assessment, which have been developed based on the project logframe, will provide answers to questions relevant to current land and natural resource conditions, socio-economic situations as well as governance arrangement based on citizen’s views. Such perceptions and information will provide insightful ideas and a roadmap for further project planning and programming, as well as effective implementation. In addition, it will also act as a basis for future evaluation of the project’s performance and achievement. 1. 2. Status of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia Cambodia’ total land area consists of 181, 035 km2, which comprises of a continuous flat plain (Tonle Sap Lake lowland) and the Mekong River in the central part of the country, a rolling plateau in its eastern part, highlands to the north and northeast and the Cardamom Mountains in the south-west. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) published a chart in 2001 to represent the overall distribution of land use in Cambodia, including 59% as forest land, 21% of agricultural land and the rest for various other purposes. The agricultural area was estimated at 5.5 million hectares (ha) in 2009, with estimated cultivated areas totalling 4.1 million ha. Approximately 96% of this area was used for annual crops and 3.8% for permanent crops (FAO, 2010). According to the World Bank assessment (2006a), Cambodia has the highest per capita endowment of arable land, water and freshwater fish, and possesses one of the highest endowments of forests in East Asia. Yet, land and natural resources in this country are increasingly threatened by rapid over-exploitation on an alarming scale. Accurate and up-to-date information is not easily accessible, but there are many reports of the enhanced pressure and encroachment on forestland, both from large scale operators and individual households. The establishment of land concession system has had profound effects on land use change over the last decades. It is difficult to assess exactly how many concessions have been approved due to widely acknowledged lack of transparency in such process. In April 2010, Ngo and Chan reported 87 large-scale economic land concessions (ELCs) on about 1 million hectares granted to companies based on the Logbook of MAFF. However, NGO Forum reported in their “Special Report” that there were approximately up to 2.8 million hectares of land granted as ELCs and mining concessions (MCs) in 2009. Noticeably, the website of Open Development Cambodia (2013) stated up to 367 ELCs, 209 MC and 23 special economic zones (SEZ) in Cambodia at present (Figure 1.1). On natural resource front, forests in concession lands have often been cleared. The extensive forest clearance has painfully negative environmental consequences on soil erosion and fertility, for surface and groundwater, as well as for biodiversity. Johnsen and Munford have extensively reported such information in their “EU Country Environmental Profile: Cambodia 2012.” On social front, forests are also often home to indigenous peoples (IPs). The clearing of the forest is regularly associated with land conflict and involuntary or forced resettlement of such communities, as well as with denied access to natural resources. Rural landlessness, often caused by forced evictions, rose from 13% in 1997 to 20-25% in 2007 (Johnsen and Munford, 2012). The landless and land poor have either been granted social concession land or have encroached the open-access common land for their residents and livelihoods. Poorly developed governance conditions are reported to be one of the underlying causes of these threats. Recognizing social and environmental challenges, Cambodian government also sets in place more decentralized land and resource governance systems that support direct conservation of common-pool resources and community-based management (e.g. PAs, CF and CFi, etc.) including communal land title for indigenous communities. Cambodia's PAs system includes seven national 10 | P a g e

parks (742,250 ha), ten wildlife sanctuaries (2,030,000 ha), three protected landscapes (9,700 ha), six protection forests (1,350,000 ha) and eight fish sanctuaries (23,544 ha). Cambodia has 3 sites designated as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Wetlands of International Importanceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, with a total surface area of 54,600 ha. The Ministry of Environment (MoE) expects to maintain a total of 3.1 million ha as PAs, of which 140 areas would be designated as Community PAs by 2015 (Figure 1.2). Figure 1-1: Map of economic land concessions, mining concessions, planned hydro-power dams and oil blocks in Cambodia

Source: http://www.opendevelopmentcambodia.net/maps/ Retrieved on 30/06/2013 Legend: Economic Land Concession; Hydro Dam; Oil Blocks Mining Concession Special Economic Zones

However, law enforcement and commitment to integrity of some PAs is questionable, while security of land right is problematic for both individuals and companies. Continued over-exploitation of current scope and scale will undermine future socio-economic development, increase greenhouse gas emissions and may induce social unrest and instability (Johnsen and Munford, 2012). All these reduce the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall natural endowment, while a large portion of benefits flow to the few and equally great burdens fall on many, especially the rural poor as well as marginalized indigenous people and women. About 36% of Cambodians live on an income below the food poverty line of USD 14 per month; poverty remains widespread, especially in rural areas, where an estimated 90% of poor people live (World Bank, 2006a). It is observed that a major driver of changes in land use and in loss of natural resources are conversion of state land into farming and other extractive activities by large corporations and by landless people. Needs for urbanization and industrialization are other driving forces (Johnsen and Munford, 2012). Road development is viewed as a major key driving factor for decrease of natural resources within their studied areas, increasing accessibility and thus facilitating increase in other threats including: agricultural expansion and intensification; illegal logging (for fuel wood and timber); 11 | P a g e

mining; residential and tourism development; and dam developments. Increased access to previously isolated areas has resulted in rapid new land claims, increased wildlife hunting and flourishing of wildlife trade networks on local and international level. The need for energy sector development, especially in the form of hydropower development, to keep up with industrializing themes is another driving factor. Hydropower development on the Mekong and its tributaries is already taking place in Vietnam and China and major dams are planned in Laos and Thailand. Plans to develop hydropower dams on Cambodian part of the Mekong, Sesan and Sekong Rivers will gravely add negative impacts on water and fisheries resources as well as fish habitats and flooded forests. Figure 1-1: Map of community protected areas, community forestry and community fishery in Cambodia

Source: http://www.opendevelopmentcambodia.net/maps/ Retrieved 30/06/2013 Legend: Community Fisheries; Protected Areas (including CF);

Nevertheless, numerous unanticipated, but not unpleasant surprises have happened over the years. For instance, fisheries reforms in 2000-01 saw a dramatic transfer of fishing access rights from commercial users to communities, followed by a surprise announcement by the prime minister in 2011 that suspended all remaining commercial fishing lots on the Tonle Sap Lake, the heart of Cambodia’s highly productive freshwater fishery. In the forest sector, the government has announced an ambitious program to authorize 1,000 CF areas by 2030, a nearly tenfold increase from 2010, aiming to bring the total forest area under community management to 2 million ha. Extraordinarily, in May 2012 the prime minister issued “Directive 01” which postponed all granting of economic land concession and urged relevant state authorities to effectively execute and monitor ELC management effectively. 1.3. Governance of Land and Natural Resources in Cambodia Cambodia’s transformation after 1993, specifically in terms of its embrace of sustainable development, aggressively encourages the decentralization and democratization of government responsibilities to private sector and localized societies. To ensure that democracy is well rooted in Cambodia, the government has taken steps to ensure that all people, including local communities, 12 | P a g e

have the rights to development, especially through democratic governance of land and natural resources. Cambodia’s Rectangular Strategy places good governance at its heart, and highlights the agricultural sector (including forestry and fisheries) as the first among four strategic growth rectangles requiring priority support (RGC, 2008s). Governance of land and natural resource concerns the rules, processes and structures through which decisions are made about access to land and natural resources and its use, the manner in which the decisions are implemented and enforced, the way that competing interests in land are managed (Palmer, Fricska and Wehrmann, 2009). Land and natural resource governance is fundamentally about power and the political economy of land and resources. Cambodian government’s approach to addressing contemporary social and environmental challenges has been to focus on nurturing democratic and decentralized governance systems. Governance and administration reforms are considered to be cornerstones for promoting efficiency, equity and justice in the management of land and natural resources. Democratic and decentralized governance of land and natural resources is a means to ensure better land and environmental management while improving equity and justice for the people including women, indigenous people and marginalized groups. It is also a means to achieve genuine participation in the development process, better management of land and natural resources to improve food security, and increase economic opportunities for the population, especially the poor. Decentralized governance of land and natural resources in Cambodia refers to the process of transferring some of the decision-making powers and responsibilities (fiscal, administrative, legal and technical) to sub-national institutions at provincial, district, city, commune and village levels; as well as capacity building for managing land and natural resources. In addition, effective decentralization involves the flow of information and resources between and among various levels of governance from national to local and local to national. Some of the key modalities to effective decentralization include the full participation of the entire population, as well as active partnerships of various actorsnational and local government, non-governmental government (NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), private firms and donors. According to government’s effort to reform governance of land and natural resources since 1993, Cambodia has witnessed a dynamic and multiple types of land uses and ownership rights, as well as access patterns to natural resources. For example, as stated in section 1.2 above, private sector has participate in governance through participation in land concession ventures, while NGOs, donors and CBOs (incl. local communities) do so through implementation of communal land titling and community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). In Cambodia, commercial exploitation of land and natural resources is typically granted through concessions by the state rather than outright transfer of ownership (Ngo and Chan, 2012). Concessions are rights to use land or natural resources granted by government. These include logging concessions for timber, economic land concessions for agribusiness and mining concessions. Similarly, communal or community-based management consists of a time-bound granting of specific rights to access, use, exploit, and manage a designated area, conditional on compliance with certain criteria. CBNRM approaches in Cambodia focus on the implementation of co-management strategies. This involves collaboration between state agencies and local communities. The intent is to manage the national or local “commons” with consultation and intervention from NGOs. The state actors share management power with local community organizations to manage the local “commons.” (Van Acker, 2010).Recently, as also illustrated above, government policies and regulations, especially within forestry and fisheries sectors, have become more supportive of community-based management practices. 13 | P a g e

1.3.1. Principles of Decentralized Governance This session is adapted from the manual of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) concerning decentralized governance of natural resources prepared by UNDP-Drylands Development Centre (page 8-9). According to this manual, the process can be considered democratic and efficient when it conforms to certain key principles: Equity/Justice: decentralized governance involves participation of all stakeholders in decisionmaking regarding ownership, access and use of resources. The aim is to ensure that there is equity and justice in the sharing of both responsibilities and benefits from decentralization of resources. More importantly, equity and justice requires that all stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights (including intergeneration and off-site stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights) to natural resource are legally recognized and legitimized, and that there is an effective and quick recourse against defaulting on responsibilities and particularly infringement or abuse of rights. The respect of the principle of equity and justice is expected to minimize the potential risk associated with decentralization, i.e., the marginalization of some groups or the elite in the society taking advantage of the less fortunate members. Having representative local decision-makers and institutions that accountable to the people (and not to the government) is key to equity and justice. Empowerment: this refers to the transfer of decision making and implementation responsibilities for management of local resources, both institutional and fiscal to sub-national institutions. True empowerment must include capacity building (civic education, management skills) to allow local institutions and communities perform their assigned responsibilities effectively. Accountability: the first aspect of accountability refers to local decision-makers being answerable / accountable to the people as a mechanism for securing greater equity and justice. If this is the case, it is expected that the elected officials will be more sensitive to the rights and needs of local communities. Elected officials can lose people confidence due to poor performance and hence are subjected to be removed from power at the next elections. The second aspect is local decisionmakers are likely to worry more about the sustainable management of local resources as they are the ones to suffer the consequences of negative environmental impacts. In the situation where local representatives are accountable to the central government officials, it means their powers can be given and taken away any time at the pleasure of the government, a relatively insecure situation. This domain of secure rights and accountability must be established in law and protected through representation and recourse so as to ensure sustainability. Accountability in decentralization can be facilitated through adequate information flow, participatory decision making, clear policies/rules and procedures for decision-making and management of financial resources. The means of verification include transparency in reporting and independent audit and evaluation processes. Transparency: it can be understood as the appropriate, reliable and timely flow of environmental, economic, social and political information made available to all stakeholders, This is the hallmark of democratic decentralization that can be achieved through sharing of information up and down and along the hierarchy chain as well as horizontally among various local institutions and individuals. Subsidiarity: refers to the principle that central government should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. In decentralized governance of land and resources, it is expected that decision making at a given government level is limited to issues that cannot be made by the next lower level without 14 | P a g e

compromising the interests of other off-site stakeholders (e.g. the upper catchment verses lower catchment with a river basin) or national/global interest. The rules adopted or developed to guide the division of decision-making, rule-making, implementation, enforcement and dispute-resolution powers among levels of government and among institutions at each level are referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x153;subsidiary principleâ&#x20AC;?. These rules are necessary as safeguards to security of power transfer and to facilitate accountability. For example, in the absence of environment subsidiary principle, local decision-makers to not know their discretionary powers and rights and therefore cannot account for these to their people. Sustainability: the demands placed upon the land and natural resources by people for their various needs (social, economic, etc.) should be met without reducing the capacity of these resources to provide for future generations. For example, the failure of most early forestry programs was attributed largely to lack of local involvement and ownership. Sustainability also includes institutions, the degree to which local institutions can continue to operate on their own (independently and permanently). 1.3.2. Challenges for Contemporary Governance This session is a review of relevant literature examining consequences of conflicts over different approaches to democratic and decentralized governance of land and natural resources in Cambodia (see Adler, et al., 2009; Muller, 2012; Ngo and Chan, 2012; Ratner, 2011a, 2011b; Vize and Hornung, 2013). Over the decades, Cambodian land was dissected into pieces for a variety of environmental, social, macro and micro economic development purposes including ELCs, MCs, CFs, CFi, PAs, hydropower development areas and oil extraction blocks, etc. (see Figure 1 and 2). Stakeholders, ranging from national to provincial and local levels and inclusive of government agencies, corporate investors, donors, NGOs, CBOs and especially local communities all have a part to play in the governance of land and natural resources in Cambodia. Generally, land is the single greatest resource. Land provides a place for housing, cities, and is a basic factor of economic production as well as a basic for social, cultural, and religious values and practices. Access to land and other natural resources and the associated security of tenure have significant implication for development. However, there are multiple development objectives and multiple stakeholders who have interests that range from basic survival to personal enrichment to societal well-being. As land resources are finite, there is often competition between stakeholders over access to and use of resources. Manifestly, conflicts over land rights have emerged as the single most important issue facing Cambodia in the early 21st century (Vize and Hornung, 2013). In the 1990s and early 2000s decades, there were competition between large-scale commercial exploitation and community access (for subsistent farming and social well-being) in the areas of forest and fisheries particularly (Ratner, 2011b). Contemporarily, such challenges have been substantially reduced due to subsequent moves in fisheries and forestry sectors which work in the favour of community-based management rather than large scale commercial exploitation. However, other sources of land and resources competition still loom large. In the fisheries sector, there are conflicts over illegal fishing by local residents as well as seasonal migrants; competing uses of water and land in the floodplain zone; and the potential impact of new infrastructure, particular dams (Ratner, 2011b). In addition, Ratner (2011a, 2011b) raised many questions concerning the ultimate shape of the new fishery management regime (after the three-year suspension of most large-scale fishing lots). If fishing lots are reintroduced, what safeguards will be put in place to improve transparency in their allocation, reduce illegal fishing, and encourage better relations with residents in adjoining community fisheries areas? 15 | P a g e

In the forestry sector, with a de facto moratorium on new forest concessions, competition between commercial concessionaires and communities (including indigenous people) ceased, but the granting of ELCs and MCs since 2005 has created new themes of conflicts. Forest communities face multiple threats from mining operations, economic land concessions, and logging authorized in advance of planned hydropower development (Muller, 2012; Ngo and Chan, 2012; Ratner, 2011a, 2011b; Vize and Hornung, 2013). These due mostly to overlapping boundaries (see Figure 1.3), direct encroachment/violation or lengthy legalization of communal land titling and community-management areas(Adler, Ironside and Mean, 2009; Muller, 2012; Ngo and Chan, 2012; Ratner, 2011a, 2011b; Vize and Hornung, 2013). Figure 1.3: Map of community protected areas, community forestry and community fishery and overlapped boundaries with concession areas in Cambodia

Source: http://www.opendevelopmentcambodia.net/maps/ Retrieved 30/06/2013 Legend: Refer to the colours and meanings in Figures 1.2 and 1.3.

Frequently, there are also overlapping rights for the same geographic area, which may be distributed among different users, for example, the rights to tap rubber trees or harvest other non-timber forest products (NTFPs) as distinct from timber. Overlaps in the areas designated for economic land concessions, mining concessions, community-managed forest areas, and smallholder agricultural land are fuelling renewed local resistance, protest, and conflict (Ngo and Chan, 2012; Ratner, 2011b). Observably, there is little effective resource available. 1.3.3. Propositions to Improve Contemporary Governance It was observed that individual sectoral reforms inadequately solve problems concerning land and natural resources as well as their multiple users. Therefore, authors has recommended that improving natural resource governance requires much more than getting sectoral policies and regulations right; it depends critically on the effective functioning of state agencies, alongside the 16 | P a g e

private sector and civil society, to help translate policy goals into practice. According to Muller, (2012), Ratner (2011a and 2011b), and Ngo and Chan (2012), beyond distribution of authority, effective governance reform requires measures which also parallel with the principles of democratic and decentralized governance listed above to: Ensure Equitable Representation Future governance effort should endeavour to include adequate representation of affected stakeholders, particularly the poor and vulnerable including indigenous people, in policy formulation and development planning at all levels. The inter-sectoral nature of many of the risks facing community resource access means that addressing the gap in representation requires coordination across sectoral agencies. There is a call for efforts to improve dialogues between stakeholders and those involved in granting and administration of economic land concessions and other relevant infrastructure development projects, as well as well-increased investment to improve law enforcement and governance. As the current decentralization and de-concentration reform agenda already provides another opportunity to improve coordination and stakeholder representation, locating decision-making authority at more local levels should increase the chances for more direct dialogue among local stakeholders. Build Public Accountability Considering current ineffective law enforcement and unjust social situations, enhancement of governance of land and natural resources urgently need robust mechanisms of accountability to ensure that individuals and stakeholders granted decision-making authority are held responsible for the public consequences of their deliberation and do not abuse their authority. When local stakeholders and particularly the poor have a voice in decisions over policies, regulations and investments, it creates opportunities for their interests to be taken into account. Yet, often more direct measures for decisions over natural resource allocation and management are needed to ensure public accountability of decision-makers at commune, district, provincial and national levels. Given the slow progress in improving accountability through the courts, building institutions for conflict resolution and justice accessible to poor natural resource users requires a multifaceted approach. This means simultaneous efforts to strengthen the judicial sector, administrative processes for dispute resolution, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, while protecting the ability of communities to organize and advocate for their rights. Strengthen Institutional Capacities Over the long term, the capacity of community, state, and private sector institutions to adapt to changing environmental and socio-economic conditions is an essential attribute of resilience. In order to improve governance of land and natural resources, strengthening institutional capacity to enable public, private, and civil society actors to fulfil their roles effectively; to adapt to changing circumstances; and to negotiate implementation challenges as they emerge are strongly required. It was suggested that building social capital through enduring institutions alongside direst support to households in need is especially crucial for current governance conditions. 1.4. OGB Intervention Project In response to the emerging propositions and contribute to enhancing good governance in Cambodia, OGB has entered into contract with EU on November 22nd, 2012 to implement a project entitled, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Strengthening Partnership towards Participatory and Accountable Governance of Land 17 | P a g e

and Natural Resource in Cambodia”. The project was officially started on January 1st 2013 and will be lasted for 3 years. The objectives of the Project are:  

to enhance capacities and platforms for engaging with the state agencies at sub-national authorities in governance of land and natural resources; and to build capacity and establish platforms for civil society, right holders and state for advocating for equitable management of land and natural resources. The expected project targeted groups and beneficiaries are the Provincial, District, Commune Councils, Civil Society Organizations, Community-Based Organizations and land poor and landless villagers, women, indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities.

To carry out this project effectively and productively in a participatory manner, Oxfam works in partnership with local partner NGO and takes their coverage areas as target for OGB’s project implementation. These local partners include Action for Development (AFD) and Angkar Ponleu Aphiwat (APA) based in KPT; Ponlok Khmer (PHK) based in PV; Community Economic Development (CED) based in KT; and Prom Vihearthor (PHT) based in ST. The coverage areas of the project are 240 villages, 46 communes, 8 districts in the four provinces. There are four key results expected from the project including: 

  

Strengthened capacity of 260 Sub-National Authorities, 45 NGOs, 90 CommunityBased Organizations members and 170,837 villagers in KPT, PV, KI and ST provinces of Cambodia on participatory engagement in policy dialogues for transparent and accountable governance of land and natural resources. Institutionalized engagement mechanisms and cooperation between SNAs and CSOs for developing and implementing policies and strategies for land use planning and development. Citizens and groups affected by land disputes and conflicts in KPT, PV, KI and ST provinces of Cambodia have accessed to legal services for resolving their cases. And, Strengthened capacity of local communities and right holders particularly women and vulnerable groups for claim-making and demand for good governance of land and natural resources.

To achieve the two major objectives and expected results as stated above, seven key activities have been designed for step by step execution. They are:       

Capacity building aimed at developing skills of SNAs in participatory engagement and accountable, responsive and transparent governance. Capacity building aimed at enhancing awareness and knowledge of SNAs and NGOs on the democratic procedure in the implementation of legislations and policies related to land administration and natural resources management. Establishment of Cambodia Land and Environment Action Network (CLEAN), an advocacy, policy and planning forum comprising of key government and civil society stakeholders. Development of resource manual for effective SNA-CSO engagement and partnership in pursuit of good governance of land and natural resources. Establishment of the access to Justice Committee within the framework of the provincial NGO Network. Capacity building aimed at enhancing cooperation and responsiveness of civil society group in facilitating access to judicial process by affected land-rights holders, either through formal or informal mechanisms. Capacity building aimed at strengthening leadership, advocacy, and claim-making of local citizens particularly women, indigenous people, ethnic minorities, community-based organization on rights to land and natural resources. 18 | P a g e

The following section provides a brief overview of conditions of land and natural resources in the four provinces chosen to implement this project, as well as the partners NGOs that will carry out some major implementation tasks. 1.4.1. Project Partners and Target Provinces Preah Vihear Province Preah Vihear province covers an area of 1,334, 397 ha (NCDD, 2009). It is administratively divided into eight districts namely Chey Saen, Chhaeb, Choam Ksant, Kuleaen, Rovieng, Samkum Thmei, Preah Vihear, and Tbaeng Meanchey District. Land in PV is scarcely populated while the population density of this province is only 12 person/km2 (MoP, 2008). PV is rich in natural resources both on and under the ground. By 2009, land uses in this province are divided as follows: 1) the forest land area (1,241,316 ha); 2) cultivation land area (49,510 ha); 3) construction land area (19,314 ha); and others (24,257 ha). Particularly, there are five protected areas in this province including: 1) Beong Per; 2) Koh Kae; 3) Kulen Promtep; 4) Preah Vihear PA; and 5) Preah Vihear Temple. Table 2.1: Ethnicity Distribution in Preah Vihear Ethnicity Phnong Kouy Others Minority Khmer Islamic Vietnamese Laos

# Families 2 4,198 32 # Families 110 7 2

# Population 17 ` 20,113 169 # Population 493 21 11

Source: NCDD, (2009)

The total population of Preah Vihear province reached 167,789 persons or 34,963 households in 2008 (NCDD, 2009) which included both Khmer and other indigenous minorities (see Table 1.1). The highest populated area is Rovieng district with up to 35,731 persons, while the lowest one is Tbaeng Mean Chey district with only 9,334 persons. District that has population engaged the most in harvesting of natural resources is Chaeb district with 20.5% families of its entire population live in PA (ibid.). Most families in PV tend to get involved highly in agriculture particularly 31, 658 families are engaged in agriculture related occupations. The rest are involved in service (1,244 families), in craft work (42 families) and indefinable occupation (2,019 families). Table 1.3: Population Density and Occupations Districts Population HHs Rovieng

35,731

6,960

Living in PA 410

Chhaeb

17,006

3,310

679

Agriculture- Business and Based HHs Service-Based HHs 6,734 226 3,269

Source: PKH Proposal (2013)

The partner NGO which works in PV is Ponlork Khmer (PKH). PKH is operating in two districts in PV Province â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Rovieng and Chhaeb districts â&#x20AC;&#x201C; covering 48 villages and 12 communes. In Chhaeb, PKH works with 5 communes and 12 villages, while it works with only 7 communes and 31 villages of Rovieng districts. Moreover, for this joint project with OGB, it expands to include other 11 19 | P a g e

villages and 2 more communes. In these two target districts, local people are facing with increasing livelihood challenges since they have been living in PA and made their livelihoods based on agriculture and natural resources. PKH also works with 65 SNAs, 12 NGOs (at provincial and district levels) and 48 CBOs with its outreach intention to include all people in the districts, both Khmer people and indigenous communities. PKH provides that the following governance related reasons have urged them to choose the areas for implementing OGB’s governance project: 

   

 

The two districts has high incident of land disputes, which dramatically increased from 2006 to 2008. According to District Data Book, the cases of land disputes in Chhaeb had increased from 45 cases in 2006 to 60 cases in 2008. In Rovieng, the cases had increased from 109 cases in 2006 to 140 cases in 2007 and 177 cases in 2008; Disputes mostly occurred in lands designated as CF areas, forest state land, PAs, and untitled land, but often they were overlapped with ELC areas; They are places where mines are being heavily extracted by private investors, and local communities fear the loss of natural resources which their livelihoods are dependent upon; Majority of the people in these two districts have limited knowledge of relevant supporting policies and regulations, such as land forestry law, environmental law, and other legal documents related to land and NRM; Local villagers and households have no land ownership or communal land titling, especially in the case of indigenous people (who often fail the many criteria required to complete the registration of their indigenous identity and communal title) and poor families; In these areas all manners of governance related training and civic education are needed to enhance the governance of land and natural resources; In addition, PKH has also worked with all the community forestry and fisheries by strengthening and measuring forest management, fostering and dissemination of land registration, stop illegal fishing and wildlife protection and conservation.

Kampong Thom Province Kampong Thom lies next to the Tonle Sap Lake and covers the area of 1,321,975 ha. It is administratively categorized into eight districts including Baray, Kampong Svay, Stueng Saen, Prasat Balang, Prasat Sambour, Sandan, Santuk, and Stoung. Population density of this province is 46 persons/km2 (MoP, 2008). Land uses in this province are majorly divided into urban settlement (365.29 ha), village settlement (12,621ha), rubber plantation (895.34ha), forest cover (916,684 ha) and agricultural area (221,115ha). There are eight natural and archaeological PAs in KPT including: 1) Beanteay Chhmar temple; 2) Bar Lord; 3) Beng Per; 4) Beong Tonle Chhmar; 5) Flooded forest; 6) Sombo Prie Kok Temple; 7) Stung Sen; and 8) Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve. Presently, there are many ELCs and other private lands in the province (see Appendix D). Total population in KPT in 2008 remained 672,002 persons (135,332 households). The highest populated area is Baray district (181,647 persons) and the lowest is Prasat Sambour (42,428 persons). Most population in KPT tends largely to be involved in agricultural sector (120,140 households) followed by those with multiple occupations (8,301 households), those who serve in service industry (6,612 households), and people who work in craft manship (279 households). Table1.4: Ethnicity Distribution in KPT Ethnicity Kouy Other Minorities

# Families 2,618 # Families

# Population 12,744 # Population 20 | P a g e

Khmer Islamic Vietnamese Source: NCDD, (2009)

826 138

3,847 698

NGO partners that work in KPT are Action for Development (AFD) and Angkar Ponleu Aphiwat (APA). AFD works in 48 villages and 7 communes of Prasat Balang District. It facilitates and supports 48 CBOs such as CFs, CFis, Community Protected Areas (CPAs), Community-Based Enterprises (CBEs),and Community-Based Eco-tourism (CBET), saving group, and women group. Also it collaborates with 12 other NGOs (at provincial and district levels) and 65 SNAs (at provincial, district and commune levels) in KPT. According to AFD, its beneficiaries include 38,642 people in which 52% or 19, 964 persons are women and 7,285 households are landless villagers and indigenous minority (Kouy). AFD chose Prasat Balang to implement this project because: 

  

It has high incidence of land disputes that dramatically increased from 107 cases in 2006 to 236 cases in 2007 and to 138 cases in 2008. Most disputes are found in Dong (30 cases), Phan Nhem (35 cases), Salavisai (41 cases), Toul Kruel (13 cases), and Samaki (10 cases) communes (Prasat Balang District Data Book, NCDD, 2009). There are existing land conflicts, especially between forest state lands and CF areas designated to the local communities; Capacity building on legal aid and policies are needed among commune councils, district authorities and local communities; As stated in District Data Book 2009, this district strongly needs intervention in dissemination of government policies and regulations including land law, environment law, forestry law, fisheries law, wildlife protection programs, forest plantation, fisheries conservation; Local CBOs need support to facilitate and establish CFs and CFis, as well as to create strengthening measures to existing forestry protection programs, land use planning program, land distribution project, capacity building on conflict resolution; Most of the target areas are under previous and existing efforts of AFD under TOP Project and the EC funded CF REED Program; AFD has good relationship with local authorities and communities which would enable the new project to run smoothly.

APA works in Kampong Svay District with 49 villages in 9 communes. It works with 65 SNAs (at provincial, district, and commune levels), 12 NGOs (at provincial and district levels), and 49 CBOs. The beneficiaries include both Khmer and indigenous communities equivalent to 9,368 households (167 indigenous households) or 46,939 person (28,106 or 60% are female). According to APA, reasons for selecting this district to implement OGB project are:     

It has high land disputes cases that increased from 282 cases in 2006 to 396 in 2007, and to 405 in 2008. Conflict cases are mostly concerned with forest land, state forest land, ELC, flooded forest land, and land without legal titling; Majority of the people have limited knowledge about land and/or forestry law, environmental law, as well as other legal documents related to land and natural resource management; Local villagers and households, especially indigenous people and poor families, have no legal land titling; Most of the target areas are under previous and existing efforts of APA-TOP Project and the EC funded CF REED Program; Based on the District Data Book (2009) this district is highly in need of capacity building on and then dissemination of relevant government policies and regulations such good 21 | P a g e

ď&#x201A;§

governance at commune level, policies on decentralization and de-concentration, women in leadership, training and dissemination of land laws, land titling, land registration, and public laws, social land concession, land demarcation and new villages setting (resettlement); It also needs assistance to support establishment of CFs and CFis; to establish measures to strengthen existing forestry management and land registration and to prevent/stop illegal fishing, and to properly demarcate CFi area.

Stung Treng Province Stung Treng is considered to be one of the most remote provinces in the North-Eastern part of Cambodia. It covers 1,201,605 ha of land and is classified into five districts namely Sesan, Siem Bouk, Siem Pang, Stung Treng, and Thala Borivat. Totally, it has 34 communes and 128villages (NCDD, 2009). This province is scarcely populated; population density in 2008 was only10 persons/km2 (MoP, 2008). In 2006, the urban and village settlements covered the area of 696.79 ha and 2,366.78 ha respectively. According to Provincial Department of Planning, forest land covers 928,000 ha; rice fields cover 19,000 ha; farm lands cover 2,193 ha; and a big share of the provincial land is granted to Green Industrial Land Concession Company (100,852 ha) and Flour Industrial Land Concession Company (7,400 ha) (Thoun and Marcus, 2006).Presently, there are many ELCs and other private lands in the province (see Appendix D). The province consists of 4 PAs including: 1) Management and Conservation Area of Mekong Irrawaddy Dolphin (South); 2) Management and Conservation Area of Mekong Irrawady Dophine (North); 3) Ramsar; and 4) Virachey. People in Siem Bok district are engaged mostly in natural resource-related occupations, and 67.2% of the population in the district live in PA. Total population of this province is 106,378 persons (20,819 households). Thala Borivat the highly populated area (30,848 persons); Siem Bok the lowest one (15,326 persons). Ethnic minorities residing in this province consist of Phnong, Kouy, Stieng, Tompounn, Charay, Kroeung, Kavet, Lun, Kachak, Praov, and others (Khmer Islamic, Vietnamese, Laos). Most population in the province has agriculture related occupations (17,683 households), and the least are engaged with craft making occupation (91 households). Table 1.5: Ethnicity Distribution in ST Ethnicity Phnong Kouy Stieng Tompounn Charay Kroeung Kavet Lun Kachak Praov Other Minorities

# Families 117 730 2 3 3 80 710 104 1 146 # Families

# Population 591 3,679 14 9 16 322 3,420 541 3 571 # Population

Khmer Islamic Vietnamese Laos

554 106 8

2,785 528 40

Source: NCDD, (2009) 22 | P a g e

The partner NGO working in this province is Prom Vihearthor (PVT). PVT supports programs related to community livelihoods, natural resource management (NRM), good governance, gender promotion and conflict resolution. It currently works in programs related to livelihood enhancement, food security, NRM, and good governance. PVT collaborates with land management department and local authorities to disseminate laws, build community capacity and community in conflict resolution, and raise their concerns to relevant stakeholders. In its operation in ST province, PVT works with SNAs and CBOs in 42 villages, 10 commune and 2 districts (Siem Bok and Thala Borivat). These two districts are selected to implement OGB’s governance improvement project because:     

They have numerous and diversified issues related to land and NRM; They have low knowledge concerning relevant laws, regulation and policies etc.; They have high level of poverty and big amount of vulnerable indigenous people; There are numerous ELCs and MCs operating in the province which have caused sizeable impacts on people livelihoods and created various conflicts in the area; These areas have been locations of PVT’s former operations which would be supportive of the current program with OGB project.

Kratie Province Kratie covers land area of 1,125,691 ha, and is administratively divided into six districts namely Chhloung, Kracheh, Preaek Prasab, Sambour, Snoul, and Chetr Borie. Land uses in the province include urban settlement (264.79 ha) and village settlement (5,378.35 ha), rubber plantation (5,744.65 ha), agricultural land (3,166.08 ha). The population in Sambour district is engaged mostly with natural resource related occupations. Of the total, 15.8% live in PA. Population density in the province was 29 persons/km2 in 2008 (MoP, 2008). Total population of this province is 318,813 persons (64,060 households). Ordinarily, most people are involved in agricultural sector (52,499 households). There are high number of household claiming to have multiple or unclear occupations (6,283) and be engaged in service-related jobs (4,851). A small amount of them are involved in craft work (427). There are also high number of ethnic minorities residing in this province including Phnong, Kouy, Stieng, Mil, Kroal, Thmorn, Khaonh, and other such as (Khmer Islamic, Vietnamese, and Laos). (See table 1.5). Table 1.6: Ethnicity Distribution in KT Ethnicity

# Families

# Population

Phnong Kouy Stieng Mil Kroal Thmorn Khaonh Other Minorities

2,278 1720 1,772 730 632 155 155 # Families

12,273 8,604 8,271 3,021 3,313 508 820 # Population

Khmer Islamic Vietnamese Laos

3,307 395 2

13,753 2,302 10

Source: NCDD, (2009)

The partner NGO working in this province is Community Economic Development (CED). It works in a wide range of sectors including healthcare, agriculture, development, natural resource rights 23 | P a g e

and management, as well as livelihood programs. CED has been former partner of OGB in various CF establishment project and CF-REDD (clean water, sanitation, resilience and gender). For this new project, CED works with 53 villages, 8 communes, and 2 districts (Sambo and Chetr Borei). These areas are selected because:   

They have abundant natural resources, but severely face with remarkable number of conflicts in terms of getting access to natural resource and land use. Sizeable amount of population in these areas are indigenous people who have low education and less access to information, while their livelihoods depends entirely on natural resources and farming land. The population has no legal land ownership and very vulnerable to governmental development policies.

24 | P a g e

PART 2: METHODOLOGY 2.1. Conduct of Baseline Study The research team from the Royal University of Phnom Penh was commissioned to conduct a baseline study at the beginning of the project implementation. This baseline study entitled “Citizen’s Rating of Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources” focuses on the assessment of current situations of governance of land and natural resources in the four target provinces. The overall objectives of this baseline study, as precisely defined in the Terms of References (ToR), were as follows:  To determine baseline result of citizen rating on local governance in Land and NRM (disaggregated by gender);  Identify and recommend appropriate result of key project outcomes’ indicators that serve as a baseline to compare progress of project impact; and  To provide trainings to field enumerators, project staff and NGO partners’ staff on relevant concepts, techniques and tools to conduct a baseline survey. Indicators for the assessment (Table 2.1), which have been developed based on project logframe, provide answers to questions relevant to current land and natural resource conditions, socioeconomic situations as well as governance arrangement based on citizen’s view. These perceptions and information will provide insightful ideas and a roadmap for future project planning and programming, as well as effective implementation. In addition, it will also act as a basis for future evaluation of the project’s performance and achievement. In order to conduct this baseline study, the following methods have been employed and are described in detail. 2.2. Baseline Study Methods 2.2.1. Study Design Design of this baseline study is a participatory process that the consultancy team works closely with coordinators from OGB as well as their local partner NGOs to prepare the methods and contents of the study as well as to carry out the data collection. Step1 involves identification and adjustment of ECCF’s project indicators and underlying parameters, as well as development of key project outcomes’ indicators for future project evaluation. To do this, consultancy team has widely reviewed relevant governance related literature as well as OGB’s specific project concept note, log frame and district level meeting minutes in order to construct inclusive and extensive assessment indicators, survey questionnaires and guiding questions for key information (KIs) interviews. Then team has constantly communicated with coordinators from OGB to discuss the preliminary indicators and draft the questionnaires. Next, the proposals for this baseline study together with its indicators and questionnaires have been presented and explained to local partners (NGOs) in order to inform them of the process as well as to get their inputs for site selection and collaboration in the implementation of the study. The scope of the study and limited timeline did not enable the consultancy team to conduct the survey in all the coverage areas of partners for this project, so we discussed to identify relevant sites based on consultant’s criteria for site selection (see below). At the end, roles that partners could play to facilitate the implementation of the survey have been discussed and agreed.

25 | P a g e

2.2.2. Data Collection Methods Both primary and secondary data were collected, analysed and interpreted in this study. The secondary data comprised of previous studies related to governance concepts, principles, policies, issues and approaches applied in country, as well as status and conditions of the natural resource, land and environment in Cambodia, especially in the four target provinces. In addition, documents obtained from OGB and its partners, such as project logframe, meeting minutes, concept note, and partner proposals, etc. have been critically scrutinised in order to be able to design a comprehensive evaluation. Furthermore, primary data were collected from the selected samples through both key informant interviews and household surveys. The details are shown in the following sections. 2.2.3. Study Population and Research Sites This baseline study is conducted only in the target areas of the project which include 34,168 households of 240 villages in 46 communes, and 8 districts in KPT, PV, ST, KT provinces. However, according to time limits and scope of the study, consultant and OGBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s local partners selected only 25 villages in 15 communes in the 8 districts that the project covers. The criteria for site selection include: ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§

Representation of areas which remain rich in or have scarce natural resources (including forests, fisheries and mineral resources); Inclusion of ethnicities both Khmer people and indigenous communities; Representation of areas with and without presence of ELCs, MCs, and other infrastructure development projects such as hydropower dams, etc. Representation of areas with and without reported conflicts in land and natural resource access and uses; Representation of areas which already have CBOs or which need assistance in establishment of CBOs. Accessible location (as the study was conducted in the rainy season and near to the time for election campaign);

2.2.4. Sampling Techniques Both probability and non-probability samplings have been employed. Qualitative sampling frames (i.e. reps of local communities and CBOs, reps of SNAs, reps of local NGOs) have been selected by using purposive sampling technique. The key informants for semi-structured interview has been selected purposefully based on key knowledge and experiences of the interview topics, but also based heavily on their availability and cooperation since the election campaign is approaching and government officials (which mostly very political) have been busy with preparation. Multi-stage sampling has been used to help identify target areas for quantitative survey. Then systematic random sampling has been carried out. The total sample size for the household questionnaire survey is 395 households (HHs) with a confidence level of 95% (standard deviation of 1.95 and 5% of margin of error). The calculation for this sample size selection is based upon the following formula:

đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;= Note:

N 1 + N(e2 )

n = estimated sample size for the HH survey

26 | P a g e

N = total population in the study areas (34,168 HHs) of 240 villages in 46 communes, and 8 districts in KPT, PV, KI, and ST provinces e =accepted margin of error (5% allowing 95% confidence level)

đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;=

34,168 1 +34,168(0.052 )

= 395 HHs

Selection criteria (such as type and characteristics of the family, occupation, length of stay in the area, ethnicity, gender equality, location of settlement, etc.) have been applied for selecting HH respondents for HH questionnaire survey. 2.2.5. Data Collection Techniques and Instruments Two types of data collection methods were utilized in this baseline study: 1) key informant interviews with KIs (SNAs, CBOs, and NGOs); and 2) HH survey interviews with local communities in the selected areas based on criteria and numbers as stated above. Three types of instruments have been developed: 1) guiding indicators (Table 2.2); 2) guiding questions for KI interviews; and 3) survey questionnaires for local households. In general, guiding questions for KIs focus on the following issues: ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§ ď&#x201A;§

General informant profile; Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s information and mandate in land and NR governance Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s roles and responsibilities in the institution, especially in relation to land and NR governance; Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge or awareness of development taken place concerning land and NR governance under his or her institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jurisdiction; Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in decision-making concerning development and/or management of land and NR under his or her institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jurisdiction; Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in implementation of strategies concerning development and/or management of land and NR under his or her institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jurisdiction; Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s involvement in land and NR governance at local level (e.g. capacity building, empowerment, crime suppression, conflict resolution, etc.); Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge and awareness of interventions concerning land and NR governance under his institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jurisdiction that are carried out by other agencies (CBOs, NGOs, etc.); Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s view and working relationship with those external agencies; Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of localâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge of and capacity in land and NR governance; Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (and his institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) plans to encourage effective and meaningful participation in governance of land and NR under his institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jurisdiction; and Informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s suggestions of interventions and assistance in the implementation of land and NR governance.

Survey questionnaires were constructed based on the indicators of governance as listed in Table 2.2 together with general profile of respondents, as well as their dependency on land and natural resources in order to draw a benchmark or basis for future project evaluation. See Appendix A for guiding questions for KIs and Appendix C for survey questionnaires.

27 | P a g e

2.2.6. Fieldwork Implementation Fieldworks were conducted for three weeks in June 2013. At the end of fieldworks, 408 households had been interviewed using survey questionnaires; while 14 CBOs, 60 SNAs and 17 NGOs had been interviewed using KI guiding questions. Table 2.1 shows name of selected study areas, numbers of total households, and numbers of selected households. Lists of interviewed SNAs, CBOs, and NGOs and their relevant information are enclosed in Appendix B. Table 2.1: Study indicators and analytical framework Kampong Thom Target Target District Commune PrasatBalang Salavisai Toul Kreul Kampong Svay

Kraya Kampong Svay Chey

Preah Vihear Target District Rovieng

Target Commune Romaniy

Chhaeb

Rung Reung Kampong Sralao I Chhaeb Mouy

Stung Treng Target District Thala Borivat

Target Commune Anlon Chrey Thala Borivat

Siem Bok

Koh Sralay

Kratie Target District Sambo

Target Commune Kbal Damrey

Target Village

Total HH 329 159 167 200 293 186 159 81 211 Total 1,713

No. of Selected HH 26 14 13 17 24 12 18 9 19 152

Total HH 220 77 224 75 226 267 Total 1,089

No. of Selected HH 20 8 18 4 26 11 87

Target Village

Total HH Veal Denh / Anlong Chrey 258 Kang Dek Chou 94 Ou Trel 317 SmaKoh 140 Svay 264 Total 1,073

No. of Selected HH 21 8 24 12 17 82

Target Village

No. of Selected HH 12 21 22 16 16 87 408

Salavisai Korki Mreak Kar Tourl Kreul Sangvat Ta Am Chrang Krahom Kon Thnoat Trapaing Areak Target Village Phnom Dek SreThnong Sre Thom Kampong Sangke Kampong Sralao Chhaeb Keut

Total HH Chang Hop 163 Sreh Treng 413 Chetr Borey Sambok Kbal Chuor 430 Talus 248 Bosleav Leu 219 Total 1,473 Total households Interviewed During Fieldwork (HH Survey)

28 | P a g e

2.2.7. Data Analysis Methods Collected data were analysed using content analysis for qualitative information and SPSS (i.e. frequency, mean and compare mean, cross-tabulation, etc.) for quantitative data. The overall analytical framework was based on the approved indicators (Table 2.2) below which was designed based on both OGB logframe and the principles of good governance at national and sub-national levels, particularly listed in UNDP’s manual for democratic and decentralized governance and adapted in section 1.3.1 above. This set of indicators was developed not only for the execution of this baseline study, but also will be utilized as an analytical framework or key project outcomes’ indicators for monitoring and evaluating future progress of ECCF project design and performance, impact, effectiveness and efficiency, sustainability, and opportunity costs as well as for purposes of comparison. Table 2.2: Study indicators and analytical framework No. Indicators 1 Percentage of local people (especially indigenous ethnic minorities, vulnerable, land poor and landless) who are aware of community rights over access to, use of, and local governance of land and natural resources Components of governance involved: Transparency, accountability

Percentage of local (indigenous) communities vulnerable and susceptible to as well as affected by land and NR management and development (ELCs, hydro-power dam construction, mining, protected areas, etc.) Components of governance involved: Transparency Understanding of social and environmental justice in governance of land and natural resources Components of governance involved: Accountability, rule of law

Information Sources and Methods Purposive sampling to help select potential villages and village participants / discussants in developed and non-developed, affected and non-affected areas coverable by OGB’s partner NGOs for PRA (group meetings and discussions) conduct. Multi-stage sampling and disproportionate stratification sampling will be applied to select household respondents (n=395) for quantitative household questionnaire survey. The structured questionnaire will incorporate mainly close-ended questions, yet allowing some open-ended inquiries for obtaining more substantial information for explanation and specific interpretation of the issues under this baseline study. The selected households will be statistically representative of total household populations in the eight districts of KPT, PV, KRT, and ST with varying characteristics – age, gender, location, level of participation in land & NR governance, occupation, level of vulnerability, level of access, and other socioeconomic and demographic factors. Same sampling approaches for the conduct of same household questionnaire survey. Participatory focus group meetings and discussions with community representatives in potential areas under investigations.

Same sampling approaches for the conduct of same household questionnaire survey. Group meetings and discussions with community representatives, who will be selected purposively.

29 | P a g e

Knowledge and understanding of local people and SNAs of relevant policies, laws, regulations and other legal frameworks as well as key institutions in governance of land and natural resources Components of governance involved: Transparency, accountability, rule of law

Knowledge and awareness of local community participation and SNA (subnational authorities) involvement in governance of land and natural resources Components of governance involved: Transparency, participation, accountability Realization of access to and availability and responsiveness of key technical and legal services and interventions of concerned stakeholders at national and sub-national levels for governance of and conflicts over consumption of land and natural resources Components of governance involved: Transparency, responsiveness, accountability Capabilities (resources, skills, knowledge, activities, and protective rights), attitudes, and practices of key service and intervention stakeholders in local governance of land and natural resources Components of governance involved: Accountability, transparency, effectiveness & efficiency Enhancement of capacities and platforms for engaging SNAs with state actors in governance of land and natural resources Components of governance involved: Participation, equity & inclusiveness Rating of performance and consultation quality of concerned institutions (national state actors, CSOs, SNAs, and private companies) with affected

In-depth key informant interviews with purposively selected representatives of SNAs, CSOs, CBOs, and provincial line departments. Documentary review and analysis of relevant policies, laws, regulations and other legal frameworks as well as reports of OGB and its strategic development partners and I/LNGOs. Same sampling approaches for the conduct of same household questionnaire survey. Group meetings and discussions with community representatives, who will be selected purposively. In-depth key informant interviews with purposively selected representatives of SNAs, CSOs, CBOs, and provincial line departments. Same sampling approaches for the conduct of same household questionnaire survey. Triangulation with qualitative in-depth key informant interviews with purposively selected representatives of SNAs, and CBOs.

Same sampling approaches for the conduct of same household questionnaire survey. Triangulation with in-depth key informant interviews with purposively selected representatives of CSOs and CBOs.

Review of OGBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and partner reports. Group meetings and discussions and key informant interviews with community representatives and OGBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s partner LNGOs. Part of quantitative household questionnaire survey.

Review and analysis of relevant documents and reports. In-depth key informant interviews and discussions with purposively selected representatives of SNAs, CSOs, and provincial line departments. Quantitative household survey. Participatory group meetings and discussions with community representatives. 30 | P a g e

people / communities of land and NR development

Components of governance involved: Responsiveness, participation, effectiveness & efficiency Inclusion quality rating of community and SNAs by state and non-state (mainly CSOs) actors in decisionmaking, policy making regarding ownership, access to, and use of land and natural resources Components of governance involved: Participation, accountability, transparency Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s empowerment (mainly participation and influence) in land and natural resource management and conservation

Key informant interviews with local respondents, provincial line departments, and partner NGOs.

In-depth key informant interviews with CSOs and CBOs, and provincial line departments Triangulation with group meetings and interviews with key local respondents (part of PRA conduct). Combination of data from open-ended and close-ended questions of household questionnaire. Mixed methods for triangulation of data (survey, qualitative interviews with local respondents and key informant interviews with CSOs, CBOs, and concerned departments.

Components of governance involved: Participation, accountability

31 | P a g e

PART 3: RESULTS OF KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS In this section, the consultancy team presents the information and views concerning arrangements and situations of decentralized governance implementation in target areas. These were obtained from key informant interview using KI guiding questions as enclosed in Appendix A. Findings were divided into three major sub-sections based on type of informants (SNAs, NGOs and CBOs). In each sub-sections we offer general profiles of interviewees as well as their knowledge, participation and views of decentralized governance practices in their respective areas. Governance related parts are classified into minor subdivision according to UNDP’s principles for decentralized governance. Particularly, information from KI interviews were categorized into eight themes as presented in Section 2.1.5above, such as:        

Informants’ institutional mandate; Informants’ knowledge/view of local capacity in governance; Informants’ participation in governance (decision-making, implementation and monitoring); Informants’ knowledge and perception of governance; Informants’ knowledge and perception of external interventions; Informants’ perception of stakeholder collaboration in governance; Informants’ knowledge of the status of land and natural resources in their locality; Informants’ propositions for OGB’s and its partners’ interventions.

The total number of key informants is 91 in which 17 persons were female. There were 32 key informants in KPT,24 informants in PV, 19 persons in ST, and the rest 15 persons in KT. Key informants are categorized into 3 types including: 1) sub-national authority (SNAs); 2) international and local non-governmental organization (NGOs); and 3) community-based organizations (CBOs). Among all 91 interviewees, 60 were SNAs (12 females), 17 were NGOs (3 females) and 14 were CBOs (2 females). At provincial and district levels, there were 11 persons interviewed, in which 4 persons were females. Most of SNAs at provincial level have tertiary education qualification (Master and Bachelor Degrees) and at least finish high school. Notably, not all high level SNAs are permanent resident of the province they are currently working at. More than half of them (6 people) live permanently in other province, but come to work in the target province and stay there during work days. In contrary, all SNAs at commune and village level reside permanently in the province and even was born in the area they currently inhabit too. Among 47 local SNAs, 8 were women. Remarkably, there is limited number of women in management positions in the four target areas. Majority of local SNAs have secondary education (26 persons) and minority have primary education (15 persons). Remarkably 1 persons hold doctoral degree (forestry officer at Salavisai commune, KPT), another one hold master degree and 4 persons have Bachelor Degree. Similarly, all CBOs were born in the area they are currently residing in; they said their ancestors were also born there and continued to stay in the same place for generations. Among the 14 CBOs, only one person have finished high school education, while majority have either secondary school education (6 persons) or primary school education (7 persons). Their secular education is not high, but they mentioned themselves to be well-educated in religious matters. Most of them have been educated in the pagoda (the old way of education for rural folks).In contrast to their local counterpart, NGO interviewee were highly educated, but most of them were born in other province and come to work in the target provinces during work days only. Majority of NGO interviewees have post graduate qualification; 12 persons hold Bachelor Degree and 2 persons have Master Degree. Only a very small number have not finished general education; 2 have high school education and 2 primary school education. Their general education maybe low, but these NGO interviewees 32 | P a g e

mentioned themselves to be well-educated in religious matters. Notably, they had been a monk before they gave up their religious practice and came to work for their NGOs. 3.1. Sub-National Authorities 3.1.1. Empowerment and Subsidiarity SNAs (either at provincial, district, commune and village levels) have frequently received attentions from intervention programs, either through government or non-governmental initiatives, aiming at enabling them to meaningfully participate in decentralized governance of land and natural resources within their jurisdiction. SNAs have been empowered to make decisions concerning local matters, enforce laws and regulations in order to provide social services and stimulate local economy and sustain the resource base of all development ventures – land and natural resources. SNAs also directly involve in monitoring of governance systems operating within their jurisdiction.  Institutional Mandate According to the interviews, selecting SNAs were aware of having a variety of goals, roles and responsibilities concerning governance of land and natural resources within their respective domain. These mandates include: 1) protection of the natural resources and environment; 2) management of land for sustainable social and economic development; 3) encouraging gender equity in land and natural resource management; 4) preparing master and strategic plans to implement governance of land and natural resources; and 5) providing/facilitating resolution for conflicts happened at local levels. In order to meet these ambitious goals, the following plans and actions have been devised:      

Participating in and approving of the establishment of local governance structures (e.g. CF, CFi, IP communal land titling, etc.); Proposing to higher authorities to properly register private land title for the people, and to preparing zoning of locally available land for social purposes, as well as for reserved residential areas when the population growth; Preparing programs to raise awareness and disseminate relevant laws and regulations, as well as to build capacity of lower levels SNAs (normally downward transfer process from province to district and to commune and village levels); Putting in place mechanisms to prevent illegal land grabbing and destruction of natural resources by villagers; Collaborating with external stakeholders (i.e. NGOs) to implement their relevant plans and lends their hands and resources whenever possible; Monitoring the implementation of government regulations and decisions (e.g. operation of ELCs and MCs, etc.);

 Knowledge of Local Capacity in Governance Higher levels SNA group (i.e. provincial and district levels) have limited knowledge of local communities and their capacity. Yet, they perceived that local people, especially CBOs, are more capable now than before with interventions from NGOs and local SNAs. Local level SNAs (commune and village levels), on the other hand, work more directly with local communities. They appeared to be more knowledgeable of and sensitive to needs and challenges of local communities than their upper counterparts. They believed that knowledge of local people and CBOs did improve over the years with all intervention programs, but they are still far from profoundly understand the working of natural environment or ecosystem as well as socio-political systems like governance approaches. They thought people may be involved in governance programs for obvious reasons that 33 | P a g e

these programs prevent them from losing access to common-pools resources and enable them to ensure their access rights. Yet, to what extent their rights and responsibilities are, local SNAs did not believe that local communities are absolutely or properly clear, which automatically bring questions to their capacity and confidence to manage land and natural resources sustainably. 3.1.2 Equity/Justice SNAs perceived that current democratic and decentralized governance is not completely just and equal yet, but it is a work in progress. Both SNAs and local organizations are enjoying their rights to participate in decentralized governance practices of local resources. Most interviewed SNAs thought it is a positive step toward sustainable management of land and natural resources.  Participation in Governance Issues There were two separate patterns of participation among SNA interviewees. Observably, the higher levels SNAs involved more in political than technical issues; they dealt with local communities from a distant rather than closely. Generally, they tended to:        

Make overall maps and plans (e.g. inventorying of land and natural resource availability and abundance; zoning of lands and categorizing natural resources for social well- being and economic growth; preparing investment/development plans, etc.); Set up rules and regulations (i.e. how to use and access land and natural resources), Put in place working mechanisms to carry out plans and rules (e.g. deciding and allocating resources for implementing plans and enforce rules); Review and approve of proposals and registration of community-management lands and natural resources, as well as indigenous identity and communal land titling; Participate directly in EIA and demarcation processes for concession lands approved by the national level governance; Review and approve of concession lands (both economic and social) under the scope and size to be approved only by provincial or district level authorities; Perform the juridical roles to resolve conflicts among different user groups (either among local communities or between local communities and external stakeholders) if they received complain; Monitor performance of both private concessionaire’s (ELC investors) and CBOs in terms of their compliance with rules and regulations, as well as their own master plans.

Yet, not all interviewed SNAs at provincial and district levels are knowledgeable of and participate meaningfully in the listed roles and duties SNAs performed in regularly basis. Majority of them have been involved in making development plans and rules, mapping land and natural resources, as well as implementing plans and enforcing rules with local stakeholder, but only a minority of them said to be involved in granting and monitoring of private concession lands. Female interviewees have the least participation in governance of land and natural resources though they are specifically designated by their institutions to be responsible for the welfare of women and children. Female SNAs’ roles are frequently curtailed to providing services concerning matters of health, sanitation, education and domestic violence. Only two interviewees (in Chetr Borei district) mentioned they took part in division of social concession land for local people in her district. Local SNAs strived to find solutions to local problems and to implement supporting governance programs – in collaboration with external entities like NGOs, as well as in compliance with the instructions from upper SNAs – in order to ensure access rights and usage of land and natural resources for local people. Notably, local SNAs’ roles in local governance are more implementers 34 | P a g e

and collaborators than planners or decision-makers. In addition, they said to be participating with local governance practices through community-management areas rather than private concessions. Concerning private concession, only interviewed chiefs of communes appeared to have been informed in certain ways about concession lands being granted in their communes, but village chiefs or even some members of commune councils and commune deputy chiefs did not know much about such practices, though they are normally aware of the operations. In contrary, their participation with CBOs concerning governance of land and natural resources are vital and instrumental. They supported CBOs from the beginning in establishment stages to development stages and until operation stages. Their roles in these included:     

provide legal and administrative support in terms of setting up and submitting proposals for community management areas; collaborate with NGOs to elect concerned CBO management committees, as well as to develop overriding rules and regulations for management of the concerning areas; participate in demarcation and development of necessary infrastructure for community management areas; lend a hands to facilitating NGOs in technical supports whenever needed; support operations of CBOs and involve in local conflict resolution as much as possible.

3.1.3. Transparency and Accountability All interviewed SNAs believed they are transparent and accountable to the people concerned as far as they can, but supporting evidences say otherwise. Matters of transparency and accountability directly link to participation in governance as stated above. Since there were two patterns of participation, there were also two different results concerning transparency and accountability. Upper level SNAs have been found to be quite discreet, while local SNAs seemed to be very openminded and responsible.  Knowledge and Perception of Governance Issues High level SNAs appeared to be quite knowledge of governance issues; unfortunately they also found most issues to be confidential and unable to be shared widely among stakeholders including the consultant. It was nearly impossible to extract answers concerning certain governance matters, especially decisions concerning problematic ELCs (either the granting decisions were made at provincial level or national level); how would conflicts between local communities and investors be resolved, and what delay local registrations (e.g. indigenous identity, communal land titling, CF, CFi, CPAs), etc. Similar to other types of KI interviewed in this study, the high level SNAs understood the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of decentralized governance practices. They dissimilarly view the consequences, however. They believed all forms of governance to be important for management of land and natural resource in the country, and different types of stakeholders play different and complementary roles. They submitted, which consultant strongly agree, that the government cannot ignore one form of governance in favour of another. What is needed is not to cease granting concessions, but to grant them in a more inclusive and thoughtful manners together with implementing and monitoring them appropriately and effectively. Local SNAs have been open-minded, down-to-earth and very sensitive to local problems. Some of them did not absolutely share the views of their upper counterparts. They believed concessions are good for the country’s economic if only concessionaires properly abide by rules and regulations; they said that the problems are caused by investors’ incompliance of laws and regulations. Local governance practices such as CF, CPA, CFi may not be entirely sustainable since the poor rural people need to overcome their immediate needs for livelihoods and survival before they can 35 | P a g e

meaningfully protect their land and natural resources. The local people are not entire innocent or faultless in the matter of land degradation and natural resource depletion, but their contribution is much smaller in comparison to that caused by concessionaires. Furthermore, local people and their locality did not seem to receive much benefit from any concession operation besides a handful of manual works which are not overly high-paid. Whereas the very basis of their survivals and livelihoods (land and common pools resources) have been taken from them. When majority of local communities suffered the adverse consequences, handful outsiders enjoy the benefits. Nonetheless, local SNAs emphasized that they did not blame the government’s ways of land and resource governance; they hoped things will get better. They believed policy-makers at upper levels know more about governances and development than do lowly educated people like themselves since they made very good policies so far; only that these authorities may not be made aware of incompliance happened on the ground. They regrettably thought that they are not in the position to make known to the government of what actually happened.  Knowledge of External Interventions and Stakeholder Collaboration All interviewed SNAs have been aware of operations initiated by outsiders (i.e. NGOs and private investors) concerning governance of land and natural resources under their jurisdiction. The upper SNAs reported they have been informed of or requested to grant permission by concessionaires, and sought approval for registration of community-management areas. Yet, this type of SNAs participated more actively with private matters than with NGOs’, though relationships among them are equally good. Upper level SNAs acted as observers and regulators, while local level SNAs participated as co-implementers to NGO programs. Upper level SNAs mentioned their familiarity and acquaintance with NGOs and officers working in their areas, while local SNAs boasted of their close friendship and collaboration. The first group seem not to be much impressed with external interventions as the scale seemed to them too small, and interventions sometime were unreliable. They said some NGOs ceased in the middle of a process when the community were not ready, and some NGOs’ assistance was too small that it did not contribute meaningfully to any change the communities seem to need. Most local SNAs did not seem to mind very much. Some of them expressed their resentment stated above too, but they tolerated it because they believed their locality and the people benefit from the programs; they said that it is better little than nothing. 3.1.4. Sustainability SNAs perceived that it is difficult to say outright if current governance of land and natural resources would bring sustainability. They saw both advantages and disadvantages of all forms of governance. In addition, they believed that it is not a matter of implementing governance policies alone that would bring sustainability to land and natural resources. There are two things needed to be taken into account when consider about sustainability: people and context. SNAs at all levels championed that Cambodia has good laws and policies concerning land and natural resources, but many problems still occur currently because people either do not completely understand laws and policies or they disobey and ignore them. They pointed out that the overriding causes of both disobedience and incomprehension are contemporary socio-economic and socio-political structures.  Knowledge of Status of Land and Natural Resources Despite everything that happened so far, SNAs still believed that Cambodia, especially the four provinces, still have abundance of natural resources and plentiful of land for both social and economic purposes. They did confess that available land have been shrinking rapidly, while natural resources are disappearing at alarming rates. Both local communities and external stakeholders in the new decentralized governance systems have contributed to these situations. In this new context 36 | P a g e

of free market economy, the local communities find themselves trapped and very difficult to integrate or compete with more cunning outsiders; thus they somehow turned out to be greedier and took every opportunity to grab anything they can regardless of laws, rules or regulations. They would participate in the governance practices such as CF, CFi, CPA, communal land titling if they perceived these to be only ways they can ensure their rights to access and use local resources, but if the rules (even the one they made themselves such as by-laws) are too strict and their immediate needs are more urgent they would not hesitate to break rules and laws (sell lands, hunt wildlife and cut timber for sale and trees for charcoal or firewood for sale). There is no guarantee that community-managed areas sustain land or natural resources unless people’s alternative livelihoods are thoroughly considered and provided. Private concessionaires caused other bigger problems. Some operations (i.e. mining) are dangerous to both human and natural environment alike, but they did not seem to care very much about applying precautionary techniques. Such negligence caused grave negative impacts on health of people and nature. Some operations did not actually comply with what they have proposed to do (often hydro power dam or agribusiness concessions). They just took advantage of the government’s permission to rid the land of forests for valuable timbers and wildlife then disserted the lands or transfer the right to other company so that they did not need to be responsible for environmental restoration or adverse social consequence. Some other concessionaires took so much land and very long time for their operation to fully take shape (mostly agribusiness ventures) until they can contribute somehow to the areas and communities living in adjacent to their operations. These disheartened the anxiously waiting people with urgent needs for jobs which are viewed as alternative livelihoods when they no longer have access to common-pools resources in those private lands. Moreover, additional contribution in terms of social funds for community development and environmental funds for environmental programs are minimal and often absent. Worst of all, some concessionaires grabbed more land than they originally granted because that piece of land has resources they coveted (i.e. mines and timber). Several interviewees in Chaeb, said people did not only lose forest or agricultural land, they even have no reserved land for future settlement if local families grow. This case is severe in Chaeb since people in this district used to inhabited closely together in only a small plot of land for security reasons when they were surrounded by forest and live in isolation from modern society, but when the roads and company come to make them feel safe and want proper living space they have no land to expand to because most of the district land was granted to private companies. This last category of concessionaires caused most of the conflict with local communities. Some problems and conflicts are beyond capacity of SNAs to resolve or stop. No solution is found until the time of this study. Anyway, SNAs still hope and believe in the government to find the right solutions for their current dilemma.  Propositions for OGB’s Intervention To enhance effectiveness of contemporary governance practices and attempt to find solutions for current dilemma, SNAs proposed the following intervention from OGB: 



Technical support in terms of capacity building (especially local SNAs) in relevant laws, rules, regulations, development and governance policies, as well as conflict resolution mechanisms. SNAs thought that NGOs and donors pay much attention to local communities but less to SNAs which are one of the most important players in governance of land and natural resources. They suggested that future governance programs should widely be inclusive of SNAs at both local, district and provincial levels; Technical support in terms of seriously organized and systematic studies in issues related to overriding causes of conflicts in land and natural resources, as well as to factors 37 | P a g e



 



encouraging land grabbing, delaying land titling, and preventing effective enforcement of governance laws and policies; Organizational support in terms of setting structures or coordinating networks that link all or most of important players in governance of land and natural resources in order to provide forums for sharing experiences, debating differences and finding mutually beneficial solutions. Many problems and conflicts are beyond the capacity of SNAs to resolve; maybe public forums with wide range of stakeholders can help; Financial support for land registration programs (private, communal or social concession land). Some SNAs wish to speed up the process of land titling for local people; they believe with needed financial support from OGB, they could implement that swiftly; Financial support for initiating economic development programs for local communities. NGOs and donors should not only focus on conservation and tenure rights, but pay attentions to creating economic activities and working alternative livelihood programs because conservation and communal tenure would not work until local socio-economic conditions are improved to local community’s satisfaction; Last, but not least, all SNAs strongly suggested that whatever program OGB or partners would implement, please implement them through (from the beginning to the end). Do not leave work undone and abandon the project when fund runs out! This will only dishearten the communities and worsen conditions of land and natural resources, when trust and confidence in NGOs operations falling.

3.2. Non-Governmental Organization 3.2.1. Empowerment and Subsidiarity NGO stakeholders appeared to have been empowered a great deal in governance of land and natural resources as they have been actively involved in governance to a large extent. Their involvements are either in advocacy of and assistance in decentralized governance practices as well as in various dialogues concerning the formation of decentralized governance policies.  Institutional Mandate All selected NGOs reported to have organizational gaols in a variety of governance issues. These ranged from outright advocacy to establish local governance structures, especially for CBOs, to proactive facilitation in governance related conflict resolution, to subtly support intervention programs aiming at strengthening local capacity to actively participate in decentralized governance or to deal with side impacts of governance implementation. Their areas of coverage include direct governance of land and natural resources, implementation of livelihoods and economic development programs, as well as social intervention programs in terms of gender empowerment, health issues, and disaster mitigation. To date all interviewed NGOs, both current OGB partners and potential partners, are deeply engaged in decentralized governance implementation in one way or another. Frequently, their contemporary actions focused on:   

Facilitating the establishment of community management areas based on geographical conditions of their coverage regions; Nurturing the established CBOs through capacity building, networking and support in infrastructure building as well as conflict resolution; Setting up intervention programs to provide alternative livelihoods and enable those without assets to benefits from decentralized governance advantages in order to 38 | P a g e



minimize risk of inequity and vulnerability that often result from such form of governance; and finally Setting up special programs to enable the most vulnerable and marginalized people (i.e. women and indigenous people) to meaningfully participate in and benefits from governance of land and natural resources.

 Knowledge of Local Capacity in Governance As a matter of fact, NGOs are fully aware of local capacity concerning governance of land and natural resources (both CBOs and ordinary villagers) as mostly they work closely and directly with this section of the population. All interviewed NGOs reported that local communities have limited knowledge of and less capacity to carry out decentralized governance. Owing to the fact that most communities have low level of general education, they accordingly have low knowledge of civic right. However, NGOs perceived that those communities that benefits from their interventions in relevant areas have improved knowledge and capacity in governance. Yet, these capacities and knowledge are far from adequate since governance issues and elements are wide and diverse. Despite previous efforts, the communities remain in no shape to completely understand governance and carry out their roles and responsibilities responsibly and successfully. They still need much more interventions and assistances in building organizational, social, financial and technical capacities. Unsurprisingly, these views are shared among various types of NGOs and across the provinces under this study. 3.2.2. Equity/Justice Though contemporary democratic and decentralized governance is not fully just and equal, it is already in progress as witnessed through inclusive participation of stakeholders including NGOs and grassroots communities in the governance practices.  Participation in Governance Issues NGO interviewees expressed their joy for the freedom to participate in democratic and decentralized governance of land and natural resources. However, they slightly regretted that they weren’t able to actively participate in the issues that matters most, particularly in policy formation and decision-making concerning granting of concession rights which take a big chunk of Cambodian land and most of valuable natural resources. Minor participation, for example in EIA consultation process for such concession lands has not been enough to influence anything. Nevertheless, they have been contented to be able to influence the practices in terms of policy dialogues and especially advocating communities and preparing them in this new quest for decentralized governance. Local communities, according to NGOs, are the stakeholders that have the least voice in decision over governance of land and natural resources, and if not well-prepared, they will become the disadvantage and suffer endlessly from the practice of this new system. 3.2.3. Transparency and Accountability To NGO officers, current decentralized governance system is not wholly accountable and transparent to the people yet, but it is transparent to some stakeholders, especially civil society like NGOs to a large extent.  Knowledge and Perception of Governance Issues NGOs participate a lot in implementation of new decentralized governance practices, except making certain decisions (e.g. granting of ELCs) concerning land and natural resources. Hence, they have a 39 | P a g e

fair knowledge of governance issues. Concerning principles of transparency and accountability, NGOs have two separate perceptions for government and community stakeholders. They believed CBOs did try their best to promote transparency among themselves and members with stringent encouragement from facilitating NGOs. Yet, they have not been fully accountable to their fellow members. The local communities, in general, have low or no general education, limited understanding of civic matters such as rules of laws and relevant policies, as well as how decentralized governance actually works; therefore, CBOs feared less of dissatisfying their members than of losing their rights to community management areas since all community-managed areas come with a time-bound lease agreement with relevant ministries (i.e. co-management model) rather than outright transfer of ownership rights. Sometimes, they were forced to turn blind eyes on minor local crime as they totally understand the action to be their membersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; only course of survival and livelihoods. Concerning communal land titling, NGOs (especially in PV) accepted that identity registration processes prepared by Ministry of Interior (MoI) are tiresome and gruelling, but indigenous people have also been one of the influencing factors. Most indigenous communities have gradually and unfortunately lose their culture and identity due to protracted civil wars and socioeconomic dynamism taken place in Cambodia so far. To NGOs, Cambodian government is jogging around the issues of land and natural resource governance in order to balance between macro-economic growth and micro-economic development. NGOs perceived that the government, to their credit, did try to create supportive environment and to legislate legal framework that encourage multiple forms of decentralized governance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; establishment of private concession lands and community management lands. The mere fact that NGOs can do what they are doing today is strongly thanked to the openness of the government and its embrace of democratic governance. Yet, the government is forced to face the dilemma of uncertainty concerning land and environment. They understood that issues of overlapping boundaries and rights, as well as conflicting development priorities cannot be solved easily. Supporting policy directives alone have not been enough to firmly establish democratic and decentralized governance because the implementing sub-national levels are not fully empowered and capable despite the various programs to build their capacity in such matters. Specifically, SNAs have not yet felt accountable to the people yet; they feared of losing their positions if they displeased their seniors rather than the local people. In addition, information flows downward from national level authorities to implementers and practitioners have not been smooth and free yet. Most conflicts over land and natural resources happened because either SNAs were not fully aware of decisions being made at upper levels or powerless to deal with more influential private entities. Often they resorted to taking hefty bribes for their silence and cooperation. ď&#x201A;ą Knowledge of External Intervention and Stakeholder Collaboration None of the interviewed NGO officers said their organization work in isolation. Instead, they proudly emphasized their integrated and inclusive ways of working with a wide range of stakeholders including SNAs as well as other NGOs and CBOs in particular. They have always been aware of other programs or interventions being offered by other agencies, either government or nongovernment institutions, in their coverage areas. Dissimilar to what normally happened at national level where NGOs have often been accused of being watch-dog of the government affairs, the relationship between local NGOs and SNAs have been perceived to be good. Often different NGOs and SNAs that work in the same areas discussed among themselves how best to implement programs that would complement each other for the best outcome rather than competing with each other.

40 | P a g e

3.2.4. Sustainability Interviewed NGOs believed that natural resources and land use based on current local governance (i.e. community-based management forms) is viable, but other forms (e.g. ELCs and MCs) could be destructive without proper management with inclusive participation from all relevant stakeholders, especially NGOs and grassroots communities. Issues arising from both forms of governance have to be addressed in order to govern land and natural resources in sustainable manners.  Knowledge of Status of Land and Natural Resources Like their local counterparts, NGOs seemed to know a great deal about current status of land and natural resources in target provinces, especially in their coverage areas. NGOs reported that these provinces have housed a diversity and huge number of indigenous communities in Cambodia, as well as been very rich in natural resources (i.e. forests with valuable timbers, wildlife, rivers, and mineral resources, etc.) and had extensive expansion of land, that is generally scarcely populated, available for either micro or macro development purposes. Many PAs, which are the undeniable proofs of such richness, locate within or share a part of these provinces’ lands. For these reasons, the provinces attract both welcome and unwelcome attentions of numerous stakeholders concerning land and governance of natural resources. These are major reasons that interviewed NGOs decided to work in the areas. Since the beginning, NGOs have overseen potential conflicts concerning land uses and access to natural resources when multiple forms of governance were encouraged in the same areas. Especially they could envision potential dreadful outcomes that would incontestably occur when those diverse forms of governance came into conflicts, particularly when the helpless and ignorant rural poor and indigenous communities have to confront the powerful and affluent private investors. Over the years, NGOs observed and recorded the ever increasing number of cases concerning environmental destruction and social disruption/violation. Concessionaires have little care with their uses of land and natural resources; most of them have been opportunists who frequently rip direct benefits from land and natural resources (i.e. cut timbers and extract mines) and run away declaring the investment projects failed or bankrupt. Commonly, these opportunist investors did not fulfil their environmental restoration promise in decommissioning stage of their projects. As a result, natural resources and land quality in these provinces have been gravely degraded, while the marginalized local inhabitants have been left with the dire consequences with little interventions which have been far from helping them to revive the foundation for their society, culture and livelihoods. Local people and indigenous communities have not been entirely innocent and blameless either; they also took part in destruction process because of their conventional ways of life (i.e. slash and burn agriculture), ignorant greed (encroachment forest land to expand their private property for fear of losing the common-pool resources entirely to outsiders) as well as uninformed attempts to integrate into the new market economy (forest clearance for cash crop agriculture; involvement in timber and wildlife trade which enabled by improved access to other provinces and countries, land speculation and sale to enjoy modern lifestyle, etc.).  Propositions for OGB’s Intervention NGO interviewee confessed they have not been all powerful to prevent all dire consequences, but they have been instrumental in altering some of them, especially in relation to provision of the much needed interventions to local communities and indigenous people to prepare them to legally and meaningfully engage in decentralized governance. However, they are not entirely capable of and

41 | P a g e

resourceful enough to operate on their own, thus the following proposals have been submitted to OGB in this new project.    

Political support in terms of lobbying relevant government ministries in order to finally secure land rights for vulnerable and marginalized communities, especially throughout the legalization processes; Financial support for community capacity building and strengthening programs; Technical support in enhancing knowledge and capacity of NGO officers in terms of laws, political advocacy, law enforcement techniques, and monitoring and evaluation implementation, etc. to enable them to intervene more properly; Social capital building in terms of:  Setting up relevant provincial or district level networks concerning governance of land and natural resources inclusive of local NGOs, SNAs as well as CBOs; and  Facilitating public forums at provincial or district levels so that all relevant stakeholders have opportunities to share ideas, debate over different views and share decision to find solutions for future strategic actions for the benefits of all, especially the poorest and vulnerable groups.

3.3. Community-Based Organizations 3.3.1. Empowerment and Subsidiarity In general, CBOs have been partly empowered to participate in governance of land and natural resources. There were establishment of numerous CBOs in various stages of legalization processes in the four provinces. However, subsidiarity remains minimal. Though decision-making concerning governance policies, rules and regulation for access to and uses of resources can be made locally by CBOs, but they need to be conformed to higher policy frame and to be approved by upper authorities.  Institutional Mandate All CBOs in the four provinces expressed that their institutions have mandate in governance of land and especially natural resources. These organizations are mostly CFs and CFis, a few CPAs and CBEs. Generally, they underlined that their organizations aim at contributing to sustainable uses of these resources by utilization of both protection and conservation. They planned to do so by pursuing advocacy for establishment and legalization for their relevant community-based management areas. Then, they seek supports from and collaboration with NGOs in terms of financial, technical and organizational resources to either establish or nurture their maturity in management issues. Presently, CBOs in KPT appeared to be more proactive than those in other three provinces1. They have already implements sizeable amount of actions to date including:   

Mobilizing membership; Prepare local rules and regulations concerning access to and uses of local resources within their jurisdiction; Raising awareness concerning governance and management of these resources;

This is also due to the fact that many CBOs in KPT were available and eager to participate in this baseline study than those in other provinces. Officers from partner NGOs participated in this study tried their best to communicate and make appointment before implementation of KI interviews, but not many CBOs in ST and KT turned up.

42 | P a g e

 

Build local capacity to participate in governance (decision-making, monitoring and conflict resolution); and finally Take actions in replenishment of the degraded resources in their jurisdiction.

CBOs in PV are second in terms of activeness and interest in governance issues. However, most CBOs were not yet capable of doing so (some are in an early stage of legalization processes yet), while they have to face larger problems than those in KPT. Their priority actions are: 1) to finalize their legalization process so that they can safeguard them against violation from ever increasing private investors (MCs and ELCs); and 2) to draft appropriate rules and regulations for access to and uses of local resources, as well as mechanisms to resolve conflicts that work in favour of their communities. In ST and KT, CBOs, in either existing areas of NGOs partners or the future expanded areas for the new governance project are less proactive. We were able to meet only one in ST and none in KT. The interviewed CBO revealed similar aims and plan for resource under their jurisdiction, but were less sure of what they would need to take action in order to achieve such aims and plans.  Knowledge of Local Capacity in Governance CBOs’ knowledge of local capacity in governance inclusive of their own and their members’ capacity is clear and straight to the point. They indicated that they clearly know the state of land and natural resources in their locality or jurisdiction, as well as problems they are facing but they remain incapable of managing them well. In comparison to the past five years, especially before they were mobilized to organize CBOs for land natural resource management, they knew more about land and environmental issues. However, their technical capacities in terms of deeper civic right, such as relevant laws, rules, regulations etc., as well as financial, organizational and social aspects are thoroughly lacking. 3.3.2. Equity/Justice These aspects of governance may be one of the weakest parts of decentralized governance in Cambodia. Participation of all stakeholders in decision-making regarding ownership, access and use of resources is very questionable. Concession granting, for example, is considered and approved by high level of authority, and other stakeholders can mostly participate in implementation and slightly in monitoring.  Participation in Governance Issues CBOs in all provinces under this study participate mostly in management of land and natural resources designated under community jurisdiction, but not in other related resources though they are both on-site and off-site stakeholders of the resource being granted to other entities for different uses other than for community livelihoods (e.g. private investors in terms of MCs, ELCs). Most of the interviewed CBOs have some knowledge of the existing concession or planned development lands adjacent to or even overlapping their community management areas. Yet, they have no voice in decision over granting of or monitoring of those operations. In other words, they involve in implementation stage of areas designated for them, but not in decision-making stage of the overall and related resources in the province they reside in. Their participation in terms of implementation appeared mostly in forms of public/member awareness raising, suppression of illegal activities within their boundaries, and build capacity of their own organization and relative members.

43 | P a g e

3.3.3. Transparency and Accountability Other important weak element in the implementation of decentralized governance in Cambodia is transparency and accountability. Not only that CBOs have no voice in decision-making concerning governance of local resources, they also know very little of what’s going on around them. Democratic flows of information are limited to only a few key persons in the locality, which often share next to nothing with others. Most didn’t even participate in environmental/social impact assessment (ESIA) which is the most common form of information sharing and local consultation. When negative impacts or when conflicts among stakeholders occurred it was extremely hard to resolve, most of the time CBOs have no power to intervene as needed.  Knowledge of and Perception of Governance Issues As describe above, participation in governance is still low at local level even with CBO representatives. Accordingly, flow of information and knowledge of who would be responsible when adverse impacts occurred is most limited. Few CBOs reported they knew about governance actions involving land and natural resources in their locality. For example, they mostly know about ELCs existence and the nature of ELC investment, but how they could benefit from such venture is minimal. PV province is found to have high conflicts between local particularly indigenous communities and concessionaires over land use or access to natural resources. CBOs in PV, however, confessed to be helpless when impacts or conflicts occurred. They perceived that they have no say in the matter of ELCs. At most, they can report conflicts or crime to upper level SNAs and wait for their intervention, which frequently take too long to come.  Knowledge of External Interventions and Stakeholder Collaboration Unsurprisingly, CBOs know about intervention programs both from governmental or nongovernmental institutions since those programs usually worked directly with them. However, such knowledge is not precise and much helpful. Normally, CBOs worked with several institutions in the same or similar issues and they often have no or limited recollection of name or mandate of each organization. In case of NGOs, most CBOs (especially in PV) remember their officer names rather than the organization itself. This knowledge somehow made CBOs difficult or unable to seek information or assistance, and even to question NGO approaches to local governance if they would like to. 3.3.4. Sustainability From CBOs’ perspective sustainability of natural resources and land use based on current local governance (i.e. community-based management forms) is favourable, but other forms (e.g. ELCs and MCs) are destructive. Issues arising from both forms of governance have to be addressed in order to govern land and natural resources in sustainable manners.  Knowledge of Status of Land and Natural Resources CBOs interviewees are all very knowledgeable of the current state of land and natural resources including issues of abundance, challenges, as well as access and use. Most community management areas still have relatively plentiful of natural resources including fisheries, forests, and wildlife though they are not as much as they were five years ago. They readily acknowledged that the establishment of community management areas somehow help to safeguard those resources from the tragedy of the commons. After the establishment of community-management areas, the local people began to learn to use natural resources and land more responsibly. This owing to the perception that they 44 | P a g e

no longer fear of losing the chance to utilize those resources before other more influential persons grasped them for themselves. The abundance was also due to the fact that local people cannot use community resources for commercial purposes (i.e. logging and hunting) as they used to do before. They can only use for conventional purposes (harvest NTFPs, housing and communal/ social activities or building, etc.). Nonetheless, CBOs reported that they are facing a large amount of crises from both internal and external sources. Some local resource users were not happy with communities’ rules and regulations concerning land and natural resources, so they purposefully violated them and confront CBOs. Most communities in the community-management areas are still very poor and their livelihoods are highly dependent on land and natural resources (as will be illustrated in findings of the questionnaire survey). Land yield and fertility is medium at best, while size of individual household’s private land is considerably small; therefore, local people turn to extracting natural resources for additional livelihoods (charcoal making, timber and wild meat selling, etc.). Frequently, local people(including members of CFs), especially in Prasat Balang, Chhaeb and Rovieng districts)encroached on the community management areas by clearing a plot of forest to make land for cultivating cash crops (chamkar) or for family expansion. Notably, this can be done easily since people in most of the areas under this study did not have ownership to their private land yet. In Kampong Svay, CBO has problem dealing with fishers who used illegal gears since they need more catches for trade than the traditional gears can provide as fisheries resources become scared. External sources of crises are land and mine concessionaires. CBOs perceived that the richer the natural resources (especially in terms of mine and forest) in the community management lands the more problems they have to deal with. CBOs in KPT reported no case of conflict with external stakeholders. But CBOs in PV, especially in Rovieng district where a lot of indigenous communities reside, reported repeatedly of violation from external sources. This area has plentiful of natural resources, especially iron ore and gold mines, as well as thick forests with valuable timber (i.e. it shares borders with both Boeung Per and Preylong). Land in Rovieng, and PV in general, has been dissected into pieces for various types of concession lands and community management areas. However, boundaries are not always clear, and often overlapping. When this problem occurred, the company simply bribe to get their way to include such area in their land. Sometimes, they agreed to cut that plot of land (often in the middle of an ELC) to deliver to the communities in charge, but denied access to these lands through their concession areas. So, ultimately communities cannot access to these lands and either abandon them or desperately keep fighting with investors.  Propositions for OGB’s Intervention CBOs made the following proposals to OGB based on their perceptions of needs and governance issues as stated above.    

Institutional support through advocacy in legalization of the community-based management areas that remain in processing stage is strongly need since this is the first step in securing land tenure and uses of and access to natural resources; Institutional support in registration of indigenous identity in order to secure communal land titling; Organizational support through capacity building in terms of civic and policy education (rules of laws and relevant policies and regulations) management techniques (especially via study trips to best practice areas or direct training ); Financial support in early stages of establishment and implementation (draft rules and regulations, build necessary infrastructures, patrolling, etc.)

45 | P a g e

ď&#x201A;§

Social support through building mechanism such as networking with relevant stakeholders to prevent and resolve conflicts so that they can seek timely interventions/resolution when needed or when crisis arises;

46 | P a g e

PART 4: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESULTS 4.1. Introduction This part is divided into five major sections and mainly based on the results of the baseline survey with 408 household surveys in 25 villages, 15 communes, and 8 districts across four target provinces – Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear, Stung Treng and Kratie. The first section highlights background information covering demographic and socio-economic conditions of the interviewed households. The second section presents household responses to questions addressing (IP) community awareness and knowledge of as well as access to information on local governance of land and natural resources, including community’s legal and legitimate rights. The third section addresses the issues of social and environmental justice and development and management of land and natural resources in the target places. Section four reveals community’s perspectives and perceptions of availability, support, and interventions of legal services provided by concerned governmental, semigovernmental, and non-governmental bodies, particularly sub-national authorities and local NGOs, working in the area of land and natural resource governance. In addition, the capabilities of such state and non-state actors in the forms of their resources, skills, knowledge, activities, mandates and roles and responsibilities, and rights or power perceived and rated by local communities are also emphasized. The last section concentrates on community’s quality rating of inclusion, performance and consultation patterns by different relevant agencies with regard to management, development and conservation of land and natural resources with a particular focus on the implementation of governance policy at sub-national and local levels. For analyzing differences and similarities, most of the data are disaggregated by province, gender (male and female respondents), ethnicity (IP and non-IP households), and birth or origin or length of stay in the area (in-migrant and non-in-migrant households). All the surveyed households were approached and targeted as control and non-control household populations to represent variable proximity to company’s area, variable participation in related land and natural resource governance projects / programs, different level of access to and use of land and natural resources in the area, village size, and demographic and ethnic set-up. Almost two third of the household questionnaire surveys were undertaken with female respondents due to two major reasons: (1) most male members in the study area have out-migrated to work in the neighboring Thailand, Korea and Malaysia; and (2) the remaining male members, who are at labor-productive ages, were gone to work on their farms or left home to do agricultural cultivation and logging in the far-off forestland. Open-ended responses are incorporated into the analysis, discussion, and interpretation of survey results when deemed illustrative and appropriate. 4.2. Demographic and Socio-Economic Backgrounds of Interviewed Households According to Table 4.2a, the average members of household size in the study area is 5.6 with a slightly higher prevalence of male members (1.64 male to every female). However, of total household respondents, female is the dominant sex of interviewees (64.75%) due to the fact that most of male members, including male household heads, have gone to work on farms for agricultural production in the rainy season while other have out-migrated to work in urban areas as well as in the neighboring Thailand. Almost one fourth (23.5%) of the interviewed households report the following indigenous identities -Kuoy, Pnorng, and Mil – while Kuoy remains the majority IP respondents in the Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear, and Stung Treng provinces. Khmer (76.2%) is the dominant nonIP group interviewed in the four target provinces. The average annual income of all the surveyed households was significantly disperse between all the provinces with Stung Treng having the highest average (USD 5,290) which is approximately twice 47 | P a g e

that of Preah Vihear (USD 2,629) and Kratie (USD 2,991), whilst households in Kampong Thom are placed into the second highest average of annual income generation. The level of annual income is fluctuated depending on the location of settlement and proximity to township, social and public services, and the heart of natural resources, particularly forest and non-forest products. The distribution of in-migrant households in the overall household sample size (n = 408) was between 26% and 32% having Preah Vihear and Kratie to have the most in-migrant households. Most of in-migrant households were IP households (62%) and the rest were those coming from lowland provinces (38%), such as Takeo, Kampong Cham, Kandal, and Kampong Speu. Reasons for inmigration were reported in the survey. The first priority was to look for available arable land for agricultural production, both at subsistence and commercial levels, followed by the reasons to buy larger residential land, run business and small trade, work in agro-business plantation, and marry a highlander. Table 4.2a: Demographics of the surveyed households by province, ethnicity and birth of origin Province of Household Settlement

No of HH Interviewed

Average Members per HH

% of Female HH Respondents

Sex Ratio of HH Members

% of Indigenous HH

% of Inmigrant HH

Kampong Thom

152 (37.25%)

5.5

64%

1.64

26%

Preah Vihear

87 (21.3%)

5.6

62%

1.62

32%

USD 2,629

Stung Treng

82 (20%)

5.7

67%

1.67

26%

USD 5,290

Kratie

87 (21.45%)

5.6

66%

1.66

32%

USD 2,991

Total Households

408 (100%)

5.6

64.75%

1.64

27.6% (mostly Kuoy) 24% (Kuoy & Steang) 19.5% (Kuoy & Steang) 19.5% (Pnorng & Mil) 23.5%

Average Annual Income of Interviewe d HH USD 3, 993

29%

USD 3,725

The information in Table 4.2b illustrates that the average household members who possess basic literacy skills is between 2 and 3 members in all the provinces. Of total household respondents, only 0.2% and 3.9% used to attend university education and finished upper secondary school respectively. The majority of them did not finish even primary school (28.9%), had no education (26.4%), or quitted their study from lower secondary education (26%) due to schooling system and householdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic condition. The average length of stay was between 20-33 years for all the provinces, excluding permanent in-migrant households which mostly have been residing less than 10 years. Household dependents, particularly children, disables and elderly reached the average of 2.3 members per household, let alone the household heads (84.8% were married) to shoulder household economy for food security and livelihood improvement reasons.

48 | P a g e

Table 4.2b: Average household members, dependents and length of stay Province of Household Settlement Kampong Thom (n = 152) Preah Vihear (n = 87) Stung Treng (n = 82) Kratie (n = 87) Total Households

Average HH Members Can Read & Write 2 – 3 members

Average Dependents per HH 2.4

Average Length of Residence in the Area

2.1 2.4 2.2 2.3

20 – 34 years 20 – 24 years 20 – 33 years 20 – 33 years yet inmigrants reside < 10 years < 20 years

20 – 35 years

The review of Table 4.2c portrays that almost all households in the target provinces possess land (98%), at least residential land (96%). Different types of land were significantly addressed by each household respondent. Of total selected household population, 45.8% reported having permanent farmland or Chamkar (orchard) with 57.6% of which had not more than one hectare. Rice paddy was categorized into dry and wet rice paddy. Only 38.2% households disclosed land tenure for rice cultivation, 64.1% and 64.4% of which had about one hectare of dry rice paddy and wet rice paddy in that order. Accessing and using shifting or swidden agricultural ground was only commonly practiced among some IP households (6.4%) with 4.1% of them possess between one and five hectares of such land for traditional land management and cultivation. Home-gardening was not a habitual rural production and livelihood system in the areas surveyed. Yet, 12% of the total household respondents had sufficient land for home-gardening, usually for mixed cropping. Getting access to and clearance of forestland for agricultural practices was noticed in the survey. Although very few (17.9%) committed, it was becoming widespread among some IP and in-migrant households. There are considerable variations among the provinces between type of land possessed and used for different purposes. The average sizes of farmland, rice cultivation land, shifting agricultural land, and forestland of the four provinces were 1.19 hectare, 2.11 (dry rice land) and 2.21 hectares (wet rice land, 2.21 hectares, and 2.25 hectares respectively with Stung Treng having the greatest proportions of almost all types of land. In terms of permanent farmland, interviewed households in Kratie and Preah Vihear had less opportunity to have such land as part of household asset which could improve their livelihood strategies through an inflow of income generation ability. Remarkably, according to the survey, leasing land was not a common activity in the study areas. Only between 4% and 6% of the total households respectively experienced it in the past years and are currently involved in land lease for agricultural production, both rice and cash crops. Price of land lease spent per household committed ranged from USD 10 to USD 200 per month depending on neighbourhood, social networking, economic status, soil quality and fertility, and land productivity. Table 4.2c: Possession of household properties and type of possession Land Possession (n = 408) Yes

No Missing system

Residential Land % 392 (96%)

Permanent Farmland (ha) % 187 (45.8%) 57.6% have less than or equal one ha

4 (1%) 12

149 (36.5%) 72

Rice Paddy (ha) % 156 (38.2%) 64.1% and 64.4% have less than or equal one ha of dry rice paddy and wet rice paddy respectively 161(39.5%) 91

Shifting Cultivation Land (ha) % 26 (6.4%) 4.1% possess between one and five ha

HomeGarden (ha) % 49 (12%)

232 (56.9%) 150

222 (54.4%) 137

Forestland (ha) % 73 (17.9%) >50% have less than one ha

210 (51.5%) 125

49 | P a g e

Total

408

Kampong Thom Preah Vihear Stung Treng Kratie Total

408

Compare Mean Compare Mean Compare Mean Compare Mean Compare Mean

1.45 0.58 2.17 0.67 1.19

408 Dry 2.16 2.08 2.1 2.11 2.11

Wet 2.19 2.13 2.22 2.33 2.21

408

2.09 2.07 2.68 2.00 2.21

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2.23 2.24 2.32 2.21 2.25

Household activities as sources of livelihoods and income generation opportunities were also reported by all household respondents in the target provinces. As shown in Table 4.2d, the most commonly practiced livelihood activities among households interviewed was rice farming on permanent plot (79.7%) followed by other farm-based and off-farm occupations, such as animal husbandry (59%), paid-labor work in agro-business plantation and agricultural land (46.7%), cashew nut plantation (36.1%), trading and small business operations (34.9%), and cassava cropping (32.2%). Yet, there are substantial variations among the provinces, indigenous and non-indigenous groups, inmigrant and non-in-migrant groups between household income generating activities. For provincial variation, Kampong Thom had the most households involved as the majority group in all these main livelihood activities. Following Kampong Thom, households in Preah Vihear found livestock rearing (22.8%), business and trading (25.5%), cashew nut planting (19.3%), and artisanal mining (94.7%)as popular sources of income. While remittances was very much involved by households in Kampong Thom and Preah Vihear, household respondents surveyed in Kratie preferred cassava cultivation, wage labor, and rice farming to other livelihood sources. Much different from non-indigenous households, indigenous respondents in all the provinces, especially Kuoy ethnic minority, were proactively engaged with swidden rice farming, wage labor work in mining business and artisanal mining, and craft-making activity compared to those of non-indigenous households. Similar considerable differences were noticed as the in-migrant households were more interested in paid labor work (100%) and mining (57.9%) than the non-in-migrant households. Men and women participation in household income generation and livelihood improvement activities was both similar and different depending on location, nature, and degree of danger involved of each work. Male and female members of the surveyed households almost participate equally in farmbased works, such as rice, cassava, and cashew nut farming and animal rearing activity. However, the variation was found in term of labor works in mining and agro-industrial plantation when almost none of the female household members was reported to have been involved in such activity.

Stung Treng (n = 82)

Kratie (n = 87)

Indigenous (n = 96)

Non-Indigenous (n = 312)

In-Migrant HH (n = 115)

Non-In-migrant (n = 284)

1. Swidden rice farming 2. Rice farming on permanent plot 3. Rubber plantation

Multiple Responses Frequency of HH Involvement in Sources of Livelihood Options (n = 408) 11 3.9%

Preah Vihear (n = 87)

Sources of Livelihoods

Kampong Thom (n=152)

Table 4.2d: Sources of livelihoods of the surveyed households

54.5%

9.1%

36.4%

10%

2.1%

45.5%

54.5%

311

79.7%

41.8%

21.2%

18%

19%

22.8%

77.1%

25.6%

74.4%

1.4%

75%

25%

100%

4. Cashew nut plantation 5. Corn cultivation

119

36.1%

65.5%

19.3%

15.1%

26.9%

73.1%

28.2%

71.8%

6.5%

11.1%

22.2%

11.1%

55.6%

27.8%

72.2%

17.6%

82.4%

6. Cassava cultivation

32.2%

18.2%

16.2%

43.4%

22.2%

26.3%

73.7%

28.9%

71.1%

Number of Male and Female Members Involved (M = 143, F = 265)

Men: very few Women: very few Men: mostly bet. 1-4 Women: mostly bet. 1-2 Men: very few Women: very few Men: mostly bet. 1-3 Women: mostly bet. 1-2 Men: very few Women: mostly 1 Men: mostly bet. 1-3 Women: mostly bet. 1-2

50 | P a g e

7. Peppercorn cultivation 8. Mungbean cultivation 9. Other (strategic) crop farming

2.2%

16.7%

50%

33.3%

50%

33.3%

66.7%

4.7%

30.8%

23.1%

46.2%

53.8%

16.7%

83.3%

31.6%

20.8%

12.5%

34.4%

32.3%

11.5%

88.5%

16.3%

83.7%

Men: mostly bet. 1-2 Women: mostly 1

25.4%

42.3%

15.4%

25.6%

16.7%

20.5%

79.5%

19.7%

80.3%

Men: mostly bet. 1-2 Women: mostly bet. 1-2

206

59%

41.3%

22.8%

17.5%

18.4%

21.4%

78.6%

25.7%

74.3%

20.1%

31.7%

21.7%

28.3%

18.3%

25%

75%

28.8%

71.2%

Men: mostly bet. 1-3 Women: mostly bet. 1-2 Men: mostly 1 Women: mostly 1

5.3%

60%

20%

13.3%

6.7%

40%

60%

33.3%

66.7%

120

38.1%

46.7%

19.2%

14.2%

20%

30%

70%

26.7%

73.3%

69%

23.7%

39.1%

24.6%

11.6%

24.6%

39.1%

60.9%

29%

71%

1.1%

66.7%

33.3%

66.7%

100%

18. Business (SME, trading, shop, etc.) 19. Wood / timber cutting and /or selling 20.Forest and nonforest products collecting 21. Hunting

106

34.9%

30.2%

25.5%

21.7%

22.6%

14.2%

85.8%

35%

65%

25.3%

33.8%

17.6%

24.3%

31.1%

68.9%

33.3%

66.7%

16.3%

36.2%

25.5%

21.3%

17%

34%

66%

19.6%

81.4%

5.8%

25%

12.5%

37.5%

25%

31.2%

68.7%

25%

22. Handicraft

4.7%

46.2%

15.4%

7.7%

30.8%

76.9%

23.1%

76.9%

23. Artisanal mining

6.9%

94.7%

5.3%

47.4%

52.6%

57.9%

42.1%

24. Wage labor in mining

0.7%

50%

100%

25. Remittances

12.5%

52.8%

27.8%

8.3%

11.1%

22.2%

77.8%

17.1%

89.2%

26. Land leasing

2.9%

12.5%

37.5%

25%

75%

25%

10. Fishing and sale of catches, both fresh and fermented ones 11. Vegetable gardening or mixed cropping 12. Livestock / animal rearing 13. Official regular work with NGOs, government, and / or company 14. Official regular part-time employment 15. Casual wage labor in agricultural land / agro-industrial plantation 16. Other wage labors 17. Money lending

75%

Men: none Women: none Men: very few Women: very few Men: very few Women: very few

Men: very few Women: very few Men: mostly bet. 1-2 Women: mostly 1 Men: mostly 1 Women: mostly 1 Men: very few Women: very few Men: mostly 1 Women: mostly 1 Men: mostly bet. 1-2 Women: mostly 1 Men: mostly 1 Women: mostly 1 Men: mostly 1 Women: almost none Men: very few Women: very few Men: mostly 1 Women: very few Men: very few Women: none Men: mostly 1 Women: mostly 1 Men: very few Women: almost none

Overall, according to Table 4.2e, almost half of the household surveyed felt that their livelihood activities were able to meet their household needs. Indebtedness was one of the critical issues in which 45% of them shared experienced during the survey, and 24% of the indebted households often encountered many difficulties in repayment. The reasons why household needs were not met while being susceptible to indebtedness were due to: (1) low income and seasonal work, (2) lack of agricultural land, capital, knowledge and technology for increasing agricultural productivity, (3) fluctuation of prices for agricultural produces, (4) decline in land and forest resources, and (5) disequilibrium between earnings and expenses. Table 4.2e: Level of indebtedness of the surveyed households Money Borrowing Experience Yes

Frequency

Percentage (%)

184 (45%)

45.1

51 | P a g e

No Total

224 (55%) 408 (100%)

(24% of total faced difficulty in repayment) 54.9 100

Table 4.2f presents average monthly expenses and list of priority expenses by all the households surveyed in the four provinces. Across all households, the average spending was USD 135, yet there was a big gap between the lowest monthly expense (USD 15) and the highest monthly expense (USD 620) of each household. Money spending for purchase of food stuffs (21.3%) was regarded as the most expense of all, and it was followed by other expenses, including social events (17.7%), health care services or medication (16%), childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education (14.3%), buying clothes (11.3%), and buying materials for agriculture (8.1%). It was slightly astonishing to learn that participation in social events was reported as the second must-do activity and expense for all the survey households. This might denote that amidst many livelihood challenges and vulnerability, the majority of the local inhabitants in the surveyed provinces still possess strong social network, bonding and bridging social capitals as well as opportunities to solidarity and happiness building. Table 4.2f: Average monthly expenses and type of expenses of the surveyed households Average Monthly Expenses (n = 408) Average: USD 135 Lowest: USD 15 Highest: USD 620

Priority Expenses Food stuffs Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education Buying jewellery Health care House construction & maintenance Buying materials for agriculture Clothes Buying goods / commodities (i.e. TV, motor, radio, phone, etc.) Social events (wedding, feasts, etc.)

Multiple Responses Frequency 390 261 20 293 52 149 207 134

Percentage (%) (Total Responses = 1,829) 21.3 14.3 1.1 16 2.8 8.1 11.3 7.3

323

17.7

4.3. Awareness, Knowledge, and Access to Information on Governance of Land and Natural Resources All the households were inquired about the level of importance of different types of land and natural resources in their areas. Table 4.3a depicts that the majority of the household respondents regarded residential land (KPT = 91.4%, PV = 96.6%, ST = 90.2%, KT = 89%), permanent farmland or cultivation land (KPT = 57.9%, PV = 73.3%, ST = 74.4%, KT = 47.7%), water resources especially river / stream / lake and other creek system (KPT = 27%, PV = 29.1%, ST = 52.4%, KT = 44.2%), sacred land / forestland (KPT = 19.7%, PV = 21%, ST = 25.6% , KT = 15.1%), burial ground (KPT = 25%, PV = 48.8%, ST = 56.8%, KT = 31.4), and community forestry land and its underlying common pool resources (KPT = 32.9%, PV = 54.7%, ST = 31.7%, KT = 8.1%) as very important or at least important land and natural resources to support their daily livelihoods. The variations among the provinces and between IP and non-IP households denote that burial ground is more important for the surveyed households in Stung Treng and Preah Vihear than those in Kratie and Kampong Thom. Likewise, fishery resources and water resources play more vital role for households in Stung Treng and Kratie than in Preah Vihear and Kampong Thom.

52 | P a g e

Frequency

Table 4.3a: Type and level of importance of land and natural resources in the area Kampong Thom (n = 152) Level of Importance (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

Preah Vihear (n = 87) Level of Importance (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

Stung Treng (n = 82) Level of Importance (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

Kratie (n = 87) Level of Importance (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

1 2

1.3 3.3

1.3 1.3

2.6 3.9

3.3 11.8

91.4 57.9

1.1 3.5

2.3 2.3

96.6 73.3

1.2 -

2.4 1.2

3.7 7.3

90.2 74.4

3.5

2.3

1.2 3.5

5.8 7

89 47.7

379

0.7

1.3

2.6

1.2

3.5

1.2

7.3

1.2

326 377

0.7 -

3.3 0.7

6.6 2

1.2 -

2.3 -

3.5 4.7

15.1 7

3.7 -

1.2 1.2

4.9 4.9

18.3 3.7

5.8 -

1.2 -

4.7 2.3

12.8 5.8

388

0.7

2.3

1.2

2.3

1.2

2.4

6.1

2.3

281

0.7

4.6

7.9

19.7

1.2

9.3

1.2

3.7

25.6

1.2

15.1

161

0.7

3.3

6.6

14.5

1.2

4.7

10.5

48.8

1.2

2.7

4.9

22.2

56.8

2.3

1.2

2.3

12.8

31.4

313 375

3.9 -

1.3 -

3.3 0.7

7.2 -

5.9 -

2.3

3.5 1.2

3.5 3.5

7 5.8

8.1 15.1

1.2 1.2

2.4 1.2

1.2 -

11 -

9.8 1.2

3.5 2.3

1.2 -

2.3 -

7 1.2

11.6 2.3

334

0.7

1.3

2.6

2.3

4.7

20.9

1.2

3.8

6.2

7.5

11.2

2.3

1.2

2.3

1.2

8.1

177

1.3

3.9

4.6

10.5

4.7

1.2

4.7

8.8

29.1

1.2

3.7

52.4

10.5

4.7

8.1

44.2

283 252

2 2

5.9 3.9

2.6 6.6

2.6 5.9

5.3 11.2

2.3 1.2

4.7 1.2

5.8 5.8

4.7 8.1

15.1 26.7

8.5 3.7

2.4 3.7

7.3 7.3

9.8 6.1

17.1 22

5.8 11.6

3.5 3.5

3.5 8.1

3.5 5.8

20.9 16.3

287

0.7

1.3

2.6

7.2

2.3

4.7

11.6

1.2

4.9

1.2

6.1

35.4

10.5

1.2

2.3

34.9

208

1.3

3.9

9.9

32.9

2.3

1.2

4.7

16.3

54.7

7.3

1.2

3.7

8.5

31.7

2.3

8.1

331

0.7

3.9

9.2

1.2

2.3

3.5

1.2

2.4

25.6

1.2

3.5

1.2

3.5

Note: Scale 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 5 (1 = least important, 2 = less important, 3 = neutral, 4 = important, 5 = very important).

The existence and level of availability and abundance of each land and natural resource perceived by local households in all the provinces, regardless of ethnicity and birth origin, are shown in Table 4.3b. The most common resources available for local consumption are residential land and permanent farmland or cultivation land, grassland, and waterway in the areas, let alone other major resources in which the locals used to rely on as main sources of livelihoods to be in jeopardized condition. This phenomenon was explained during the survey by local households to have strong connection with several main factors, such as rapid population growth, over-consumption and overexploitation of land and forest and fishery resources, large scale economic development projects (i.e. ELC and mining) introduced by the government, and newly restricted legal frameworks which define who fits what as a legal and legitimate citizen. Such dramatic change upon volume and quality of land and natural resources were perceived to have affected local inhabitants, especially the IP, the vulnerable and the poor. Nevertheless, land and forest resources would remain in good condition for better use and long-term benefits for the people should they are managed, owned, and consumed by a formal group of people or community on the basis sustainable resource governance and community development at a cooperative scale. For example, local households in Preah Vihear and 53 | P a g e

Stung Treng recognized that although their land and natural resources was shrinking in the past decades, at present they are working in concerted effort to safeguard and manage their forest resources for the long-term biodiversity preservation and benefits for all community forestry members. Table 4.3b: Type and level of abundance of land and natural resources in the area

Kampong Thom (n = 152) Level of Abundance (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

Preah Vihear (n = 87) Level of Abundance (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

Stung Treng (n = 82) Level of Abundance (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

Kratie (n = 87) Level of Abundance (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

17.1

21.7

35.5

15.8

8.6

4.6

16.5

51.7

19.5

3.4

9.8

42.7

17.1

6.1

11.6

16.3

40.7

12.8

11.8

20.4

5.9

20.9

17.4

24.4

8.1

3.7

13.4

23.2

34.1

7.3

10.5

12.8

0.7

3.3

2.6

0.7

1.2

2.3

1.2

2.4

4.9

2.4

2.3

1.2

1.3 0.7

2 0.7

3.9 0.7

1,3 0.7

2 -

1.2 1.2

4.7 2.3

3.5 4.7

10.5 3.5

2.4

2.4 2.4

4.9 1.2

7.3 1.2

17.1 2.4

3.5 -

2.3 1.2

8.1 3.5

9.3 4.7

0.7

1.3

0.7

4.7

2.3

3.7

2.4

1.2

9.3

14.6

4.6

1.3

2.3

15.1

9.3

5.8

8.1

3.7

6.1

8.5

4.9

7.3

2.3

4.7

1.2

2.3

9.3

3.3

15.1

9.0

5.3

1.2

15.1

17.4

16.3

4.9

15.9

23,2

20.7

2.3

10.5

4.7

15.1

6.3

2 -

3.9 -

5.3 -

7.9 0.7

2.6 -

2.2

2.3 5.9

5.8 4.7

3.5 2.4

9.3 10.6

1.2 -

3.7 1.2

6.1 2.4

6.1 1.2

7.3 1.2

1.2 -

4.7 -

3.5 1.2

5,8 2.3

8.1 3.5

0.7

1.3

0.7

2.6

1.2

2.3

7.0

11.6

12.8

7.3

2.4

9.8

4.7

1.2

4.7

5.8

1.3

9.9

9.3

16.6

9.3

5.8

12.8

6.1

9.8

13.4

31.5

1.2

10.5

8.1

11.6

39.5

2.6

7.9

1.3

3.3

2.3

4.7

4.9

14.6

8.5

6.1

1.2

18.6

5.8

8.6

5.3

7.9

5.8

9.3

11.6

17.4

2.4

8.5

10.3

8.5

11.6

2,3

11.6

3.5

3.3

2.6

1.3

3.5

5.8

3.5

1.2

15.9

8.5

13.4

12.8

16.3

9.3

2.7

6.7

13.,3

1.2

24.4

19.8

37.2

2.4

28.3

13.4

19.5

1.2

3.5

4.7

3.5

2.3

54 | P a g e

Community fishery land

0.7

2.7

5.3

2.3

1.2

4.9

12.2

7.3

4.7

3.5

8.1

5.8

Note: Scale 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 5 (1 = least abundant, 2 = less abundant, 3 = like before or no idea, 4 = abundant, 5 = very abundant).

As pointed out in Table 4.3c, the majority of the surveyed households knew that the level of access had been restricted on many conventionally used and accessed land and natural resources, exclusive of the officially recognized ones allowed by new laws, policies and other related legalities. Residential land (KPT = 61.2%, PV = 78.2%, ST = 79.3%, KT = 74.4%), permanent farmland or cultivation land (KPT = 46.4%, PV = 59.3%, ST = 65.9%, KT = 58.1%), waterway and water system (KPT = 36.5%, PV = 32.6%, ST = 47.6%, KT = 53.5%) was noticed by local households in all the provinces as the first and second most accessible resources in their localities. Of total, Stung Treng had the greatest proportion of households who got the easiest access to permanent farmland. Different to households in Preah Vihear and Stung Treng who accessed to and use burial ground (PV = 48.8%, ST = 67.1%) and sacred land or forestland (PV = 24.2%, ST = 22%) easily, the surveyed households in Kratie found it much accessible for them to forest and non-timber forest products (30.2%), fishery resources (37.2%) and wild animals (19.8%). However, the level of access to land and natural resources varies in accordance with geographical condition, ethnicity, and the level of resource abundance in the areas. Table 4.3c: Type and level of access of households to land and natural resources Type of Land & Natural Resources Residential land Permanent farmland / cultivation land Shifting / swidden cultivation land Grassland Reserved land for new settlement Reserved land for agriculture Sacred land / forestland (prey arek) Burial ground (deykob sob) Forestland Mineral deposits (gold, gemstone, etc.) Mountain, hill, and natural landscape

Kampong Thom (n = 152) Level of Access (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

Preah Vihear (n = 87) Level of Access (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

Stung Treng (n = 82) Level of Access (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

Kratie (n = 87) Level of Access (Multiple Responses %) 1 2 3 4 5

5.3

11.3

13.9

61.2

2.3

4.6

13.8

78.2

3.7

14.6

79.3

1.2

11.6

74.4

3.3

9.3

11.9

46.4

2.3

9.3

59.3

1.2

3.7

12.2

65.9

1.2

5.8

58.1

0.7

1.3

1.2

3.5

2.4

1.2

7.3

1.2

0.7 -

0.7 1.3

2 -

6.6 1.3

1.2 -

1.2

19.8 11.6

2.4 -

26.8 9.8

1.2

24.4 7

0.7

1.3

3.5

4.7

1.2

7.3

2.3

1.2

5.3

7.3

2.3

1.2

3.5

24.2

2.4

1.2

4.9

1.2

2.3

12.8

3.3

7.9

9.9

25.8

5.8

3.5

9.3

48.8

1,2

1.2

3.7

13.4

67.1

1.2

3.5

4.7

39.5

2.6 -

2 -

4 -

2.6 -

9.3 1.3

4.7

1.2 8.1

4.7 4.7

4.7 5.8

11.6 4.7

1.2 2.4

1.2 1.2

3.7 1.2

4.9 1.2

11 -

2.3 1.2

4.7 1.2

1.2

17.4 2.3

0.7

2.3

3.5

5.8

17.4

1.2

3.7

4.9

12.2

3.5

2.3

1.2

9.3

55 | P a g e

River, stream, lake & other creek systems Wild animals Forest and non-timber forest products Fish and other fishery resources Community forestry land Community fishery land

3.4

4.7

36.5

1.2

1,2

11.6

32.6

2.4

12.2

4.6

47.6

1.2

11.6

4.7

53.5

3.3

4.7

11.6

5.3

3.5

5.8

8.8

2.5

4.7

3.5

5.8

3.5

19.8

2.7

3.3

1.3

5.3

16.7

1.2

5.8

29.1

1.2

2.5

4.9

29.6

1.2

5.8

3.5

30.2

0.7

2.6

3.3

6.6

1.2

4.7

2.3

10,5

4.9

9.8

8.5

25.6

3.5

2.3

5.8

4.7

37.2

11.9

1.3

13.9

18.5

12.8

15.1

9.3

9.8

8.5

7.3

19.5

1.2

3.5

5.8

1.2

3.5

1.3

2.6

5.3

2.3

6.1

7.3

1.2

13.4

1.2

3.5

10.5

Note: Scale 1 – 5 (1 = strongly limited, 2 = limited, 3 = like before or no idea, 4 = not limited, 5 = very much accessible).

Local households were asked about their knowledge of concerned institutions or legal entities that own most of the land and natural resources in their areas (Table 4.3d, Figure 4.1). Overall, only a small portion of the total household respondents (KPT = 36.9%, PV = 23%, ST = 26.8%, KT = 22.1%) was knowledgeable about definite owners of such resources. The lack of such knowledge was not notably variable between indigenous (23.5%) and non-indigenous (29.2%) households, between inmigrant (28.7%) and non-in-migrant (29.2%) households, as well as between male (36.9%) and female (24.3%) respondents. It was attested by those having knowledge of this particular issue that owners usually were the in-migrants and the companies. Yet, the analysis shows a slight difference among the provinces and between different groups (IP and non-IP, in-migrant versus non-in-migrant respondents). Considerable amounts of the surveyed households in Kampong Thom (44.8%) and Stung Treng (69.2%) realized that in-migrants were the majority owners, which completely poled a part from those in Preah Vihear having a view that companies (38.9%) possess most of the resources in the area. State ownership over land and natural resources was one of the critical questions to ask the target households in the four provinces (Figure 4.2). The majority of respondents, regardless of province of living (KPT = 48.7%, PV = 64.4%, ST = 65.9%, KT = 42.5%) and birth origin (in-migrants = 53%, non-in-migrants = 54.6%), perceived that those resources fell under ownership and supervision of the state. Quite a contrary to this acknowledgment, the IP households (76.5%) did not know whether the state had such power and responsibility to manage a large volume of land and natural resources in their areas. Particularly, they were much accustomed to mobile settlement and swidden agriculture as descendants of their forefathers who were regarded as auto-managers of land, water, and forest resources in the area. When disaggregated by gender, male respondents (65.7%) had more belief that state owned these resources than female respondents (47.9%). The results in Table 4.3d and Figure 4.3 astonishingly bring to light a fact that local households interviewed do have limited knowledge about the difference between public state land and private state land. Almost all the respondents, regardless of province, gender, ethnicity, and birth of origin knew no details about such differentiation. Some households in all the provinces even cited that “public state land is the land property being used by the government and private state land is our land property being used for people’s benefits.” Having limited knowledge among the interviewed households also applied to the issue of IP community possession of communal land title in the area 56 | P a g e

(Figure 4.6). In the case of land title, more than half of the households had between basic and good knowledge about it except most IP households (76.5%) which did not know much besides information on communal land title (IP = 72.9%) that they were aiming for the sake of their communities. However, the remaining sum of IP respondents (23.5%) shared similar knowledge with non-IP groups that land title, especially at individual household level, was significant for them to have well-defined ownership certificate which could be used for many purposes including loaning money from a bank or a micro-credit institution on a collateral base. Having delicate knowledge of rights over access to and use of land and natural resources was found quite similar among households in the provinces (KPT = 54.6%, PV = 58.6%, KT = 59.8%), between IP (58.3%) and non-IP (56.6%), between in-migrant (58.3%) and non-in-migrant (59.2%) households, and between male (63.6%) and female (55.5%) respondents (See also Figure 4.8). In contrast, local households in Stung Treng (6.4%) were not fairly acquainted with this respective issue. Overall, the majority of surveyed households in all the provinces comprehended community right to use (KPT = 99.8%, PV = 88.5%, ST = 98%, KT = 78.7%, IP = 91.4%, non-IP = 91.8%, in-migrant = 91.4%, nonin-migrant = 91.8%, male = 89.6%, female = 92.6%) and right to preserve and protect (KPT = 87.9%, PV = 82.7%, ST = 91.7%, IP = 77.7%, non-IP = 78.6%, in-migrant = 77%, non-in-migrant = 79.7%. male = 81.6%, female = 76.5%) excluding those in Kratie (5.7%). Both male (25%) and female (15.5%) respondents had limited knowledge about this aspect (Figure 4.8). However, very few households realized about their rights to benefit from land and natural resources in the area. When asked about the institution (s) granting such rights to local IP and non-IP communities, a significant number of them chose local authority as they normally worked closely with and approach to. Table 4.3d: Knowledge and awareness of current governance and development of land and natural resources by province, ethnicity, and birth of origin Kampong Thom % (n=152)

Preah Vihear % (n = 87)

Stung Treng % (n = 82)

Kratie % (n = 87)

Indigenous % (n = 96)

NonIndigenous % (n = 312)

In-Migrant HH % (n = 115)

Non-Inmigrant % (n = 284)

Male % (n = 143)

Female % (n = 265)

Knowledge of Land and Resource Owners

Yes

36.9

26.8

22.1

23.5

29.2

28.7

28.1

36.9

24.3

No Multiple Responses – Cross-tabulation State Commune development council Village chief Company CPA authority Community forestry

63.1

73.2

77.9

76.5

70.8

71.3

71.9

63.1

75.7

10.7 -

28.6 -

5.9 -

6.2 -

5.3 -

6.2 -

2.3 -

9.1 -

26.7 38.7 16.7 30

5.6 38.9 5.6 33.3

11.8 -

16.7 24.4 11.1 27.8

9.1 20.6 6.1 17.9

25 9.5 22.7

13.4 26.9 6.2 18.5

4.7 22.2 6.8 18.2

15.2 28.9 6.7 19.6

In-migrants

44.8

11.1

69.2

11.8

24.4

26.8

36.4

26.5

22.7

1.6

2.3

Knowledge of State Ownership over Land & Natural Resources (Frequency) Yes

48.7

64.4

65.9

42.5

23.5

57.9

54.6

65.7

47.9

37.3

21.3

20.1

21.3

76.5

42.1

45.4

Knowledge of Different between “Public State Land” & “Private State Land” (Frequency) Yes No

25 75.0

25.3 74.7

17.1 82.9

8 92

51.3 48.7

18.6 81.4

20.9 79.1

19.7 80.3

23.8 76.2

17.7 82.3

IP community

57 | P a g e

Knowledge of Land Title (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge of Communal Land Titling (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge of Community Possession of Communal Land Title by IP (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge of Rights over Access to & Use of Land & NR Yes No Knowledge of Type of Rights (Frequency) Right to access Right to use Right to preserve & protect Right to benefit Knowledge of Institutions Granting Rights (Frequency) Local authority PDLM PDE PDA PDIME PDRD FiA FA MLMUC MoE MAFF MRD NGOs

53.3 46.7

56.3 43.7

64.6 35.4

57.5 42.5

23.5 76.5

55.9 4.1

67.8 32.2

52.5 47.5

73.4 26.6

48.3 51.7

33.6 66.4

36.8 63.2

28 72

12.6 87.4

72.9 27.1

27 73

35.7 64.3

25.7 74.3

38.5 61.5

23.4 76.6

27.6 71.1

32.2 67.8

20.7 76.8

6.9 89.7

26.2 73.8

20.9 77.2

25.2 72.2

22.2 76.4

30.1 69.9

18.9 78.5

54.6 45.4

58.6 41.4

6.4 36.6

59.8 40.2

58.3 41.7

56.6 43.4

58.3 41.7

59.2 40.8

63.6 36.4

55.5 44.5

64.6 99.8 87.9

42.3 88.5 82.7

47.1 98 91.7

26.2 78.7 5.7

20.9 91.4 77.7

47.3 91.8 78.6

48.3 91.4 77

44.6 91.8 79.7

48.3 89.6 81.6

43.1 92.6 76.5

36.7

32.1

4.9

19.4

19.6

19.3

15.5

60 2.6 5.1 26.1 5 2.6 2.5 28.3

38.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 18.2 2.3 6.8 -

70.8 5.9 11.1 17.6 5.9 -

36.2 1.7 5.2 1.7 19

27.9 2.6 2.6 7.9 21.9 2.6 5.3 2.6 15.2

53.2 0.9 1.9 4.6 12.3 1.9 0.9 1.9 17.2

51.1 2.3 23.9 2.3 12.5

48 0.9 0.9 1.8 7.1 10.4 2.7 1.8 0.9 0.9 14.3

50 1.4 1.4 4.2 2.8 18.4 2.8 4.2 1.4 13.2

46.9 6.9 11.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 16.8

58 | P a g e

Figure 4.1: Percentage of local knowledge of land and resource owners (n = 408) 77

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

77.9

73.2

76.5

63.1 36.9 23

26.8

22.1

29.2

23.5

28.7

75.7

71.9

71.3

70.8

28.1

63.1 36.9 24.3 Yes No

Figure 4.2: Percentage of local knowledge of state ownership over land and natural resources (n = 408) 76.5

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

64.4

65.9

48.7

21.3

20.1

42.1

42.5

37.3

65.7

57.9

54.6

47.9

45.4 35

21.3 23.5 Yes No

Figure 4-3 : Percentage of local knowledge of difference between “public state land” and “private state land” (n = 408)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

74.7

82.9

81.4

79.1

80.3

76.2

82.3

51.3 48.7 25

25.3

17.1

18.6

20.9

19.7

23.8

17.7 Yes No

59 | P a g e

Figure 4.4: Percentage of local knowledge of land title (n = 408) 76.5 80 65.9 65 65.7 64.4 70 76.5 57.9 54.6 53 73.4 47.9 6080 48.7 47 45.4 42.1 67.8 64.6 42.5 5070 37.3 35 57.5 55.9 40 53.3 56.3 52.5 51.7 23.5 60 21.3 21.3 20.1 48.3 47.5 46.7 43.7 30 42.5 2050 35.4 32.2 1040 26.6 23.5 030 20 4.1 10 0

Yes No Yes No

Figure 4.5: Percentage of local knowledge of communal land title (n = 408) 87.4

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 4.6:

66.4 33.6

63.2 36.8

72.9

27.1 27

64.3 35.7

76.6

74.3 61.5 38.5 25.7

23.4

12.6

Yes No

Percentage of local knowledge of community possession of communal land title by IP (n = 408) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

71.1

27.6

67.8 32.2

76.8

89.7 73.8

26.2

20.7 6.9

77.2

20.9

72.2

25.2

76.4

22.2

69.9 30.1

78.5

18.9 Yes No

60 | P a g e

Figure 4.7: Percentage of local knowledge of rights over access to and use of land and natural resources (n = 408)

Figure 4.8:

59.8

58.6 54.6 45.4 41.4

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

36.6

58.3

56.6 43.4 41.7

40.2

63.6 36.4

55.5 44.5

6.4

Yes No

Percentage of local knowledge of rights and different forms of rights by province (n = 408) Right to access 100 Kampong Thom (n = 152) Preah Vihear (n = 87)

80 60 Knowledge of right

Right to use

20 0

Kratie (n = 87)

Right to benefit

Figure 4.9:

Stung Treng (n = 82)

Right to preserve

Percentage of local knowledge of rights and different forms of rights by ethnicity and gender (n = 408)

Right to access 100

Knowledge of right

IP (n = 96)

50 Right to use

Non-IP (n = 312) Male (n = 143)

Female (n = 265)

Right to benefit

Right to preserve

61 | P a g e

Respondents were asked if they knew or ever heard about related laws, policies, and other legal frameworks related to the management, development and conservation of land and natural resources. In Cambodia, there are four main institutions responsible for land and natural resource governance – Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Ministry of Land Management, Urbanization and Construction, Ministry of Industry, Mine and Energy, and Ministry of Interior. All related laws, policies and regulations have been well discussed and disseminated among state and non-state actors at national and sub-national levels. Yet, at the village, commune and district levels, it could be clear that information distribution is lacking. According to Table 4.3e and Figure 4.10, only about half of local households in the provinces (KPT = 47.7%, PV = 49.4%, ST = 51.2%, KT = 67.5%) knew these legalities, but it was quite a pretty limited knowledge among IP households (23.5%). Men (66.2%) tended to know more than women (45.6%) in this same regard. Despite realization of their existence, only land law, forestry law, and fishery law were commonly known among the surveyed respondents, leaving other related legalities – agricultural land law, organic law, protected area law, sub-decree on economic land concession, law on environmental protection and NRM, sub-decree on community forestry management, sub-decree on EIA, and law on mineral resources management and exploitation – to be moderately unknown. Interestingly, village and commune meetings the considered as the most preferable opportunity for getting access to such information and knowledge followed watching television and listening to radio (except in Kratie). While these two modes of information and knowledge access were mostly common in Stung Tren (75.8% to 60%), word-of mouth was the most accessible mode for households in Kratie (40.9%). For ethnicity variation, IP households (62.2%) received information mostly from attending village and commune meeting compared to watching television and listen to radio by 49% of non-IP households. According to Figure 4.10, of total means of information access, female respondents (64.9%) preferred village and commune meetings the most and this preference was even higher than that of male respondents (58.8%). This can be comfortably interpreted that women participate more in village and commune meetings.

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

Kratie (n = 87) %

Indigenous (n = 96) %

NonIndigenous (n = 312) %

In-Migrant HH (n = 115) %

Non-Inmigrant (n = 284) %

Male % (n = 143)

Female % (n = 265)

Knowledge of Related Laws, Policies & Other Legal Frameworks Related to Governance of Land & Natural Resources (Frequency) Yes No Type of Knowledge (Multiple Responses) Land Law Forestry Law Fishery Law Agricultural Land Law Organic Law Protected Area Law Sub-decree on ELC Law on Environmental Protection & NRM Sub-decree on CF Management Sub-decree on EIA Law on Mineral Resources Management & Exploitation Modes of Knowledge Access

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Knowledge and awareness of relevant legal documents and frameworks related to land and natural resource governance by province, ethnicity and birth of origin Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Table 4.3e:

47.7 52.3

49.4 50.6

51.2 48.8

67.5 32.5

23.5 76.2

54.1 45.9

60.2 39.8

50.9 49.1

66.2 33.8

45.6 54.4

75.9 80 43.5 37.8 16.2 26.3 6.1 26.2

75.9 90.9 7 16.3 2.3 25.6 2.3 19.3

91.4 100 66.7 32 18.2 33.3 9.5 292

58.2 74.6 49.3 19.4 3 4.5 7.5 16.4

25.8 17.6 22.9 24.5 6.7 25.8 6.7 12.1

74.2 82.4 52.4 28.1 8.1 18.3 6.7 22.3

72.6 92.6 37.3 20 5.9 30.9 5.9 29.3

74.8 80.6 47.8 27.3 8.7 13.2 6.4 16.5

70.5 79.3 42.4 20.7 10 21.8 4 16.9

75.9 84.4 41.1 28.6 5.6 16 7.9 23.7

35.9

12.9

19.7

14.8

17.9

16.8

5.9 2.9

2.3 7

21.7 5

6 -

6.7 -

8.2 4.2

9.4 2

6.3 3.6

3.9 4

9.9 2.2

62 | P a g e

(Multiple Responses) Watch TV & listen to Radio Read newspaper Word-of-mouth Village & commune meeting Information release or meetings with district authority Information release or meetings with local CBOs Information release or meetings with provincial line departments Information release or meetings with concerned local NGOs Information release or meetings with concerned ministries

Figure 4.10:

46.7

43.2

30.3

40.6

49.2

39.5

3 30.8 66.7

2.3 163 72.1

31.8 75.8

1.5 40.9 45.5

31.2 62.2

1.7 33.1 14

3.8 34.6 64.5

0.9 29.6 61.5

0 25.3 58.8

3.4 36.3 64.9

11.1

7.1

7.6

7.3

6.7

5.9

8.1

7.7

6.9

33.3

11.9

29.2

4.5

16.1

18.8

19.8

17.1

9.5

17.4

4.5

9.7

11.7

3.9

13.4

11.7

25.7

11.9

30.8

10.6

19.4

18.7

19.8

10.1

13.9

9.1

5.4

5.3

7.8

Percentage of local knowledge of related laws, regulations, policies and other legal frameworks related to local governance of land and natural resources (n = 408)

Female (n = 265)

45.6 33.8

Male (n = 143)

66.2 49.1 50.9

Non-In-Migrant (n = 284) 39.8

In-Migrant (n = 115)

60.2 45.9

Non-IP (n = 312) IP (n = 96)

54.1

No 76.2

23.5

Yes

32.5

Kratie (n = 87)

67.5 48.8 51.2 50.6 49.4

Stung Treng (n = 82) Preah Vihear (n = 87) Kampong Thom (n = 152)

47.7 0

4.4.

54.4

52.3 60

Issues of Social and Environmental Justice and Development and Management of Land and Natural Resources

Survey respondents were inquired a series of questions related to the issues of social and environmental justice and local governance of land and natural resources (Table 4.4a, Figures 4.11, 4.12, 4.13). Only more than half of households in Kampong Thom (51.7%) knew about the existence of companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operation in the area. In comparison, households in Stung Treng (7.3%) had the lowest knowledge of companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existence and operation. The variation of such knowledge between different sex and ethnicity groups was well-noticed. IP respondents (64.2%) had more knowledge than non-IP respondents, while female respondents knew about this issue less than the male respondents (41.5%) despite their majority population in the survey. 63 | P a g e

Overall, the respondents knew almost no details about concerned institutions and type of institution granting license or permission for company’s operation in their areas, either in the form of agroindustrial business, mining business, or forest concession business. For those who were slimly familiar with such information (less than 10%), mostly they only knew about type of company (KPT = 60%, PV = 62.9%, ST = 66.7%, KT = 51.6%) and type of activity (KPT = 75, PV = 77.1%, ST = 40%, KT = 66.7%). Non-IP (75%) and female respondents (75.3%) seemed to know more about type of activity of the company investing in their areas. Different from other provinces, households in Kampong Thom also had some knowledge about coverage area or boundary (66.7%) and duration of operation (58.3%) of the company. About two third of the surveyed households had very limited understanding and awareness of compensation for the affected areas and possible impacts of company’s operation on their localities. Table 4.4a:

Knowledge of commercial companies in the area by province, ethnicity, and gender

Knowledge of Company’s Existence and Operation (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge of Institutions Granting License (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge of Type of Institutions Granting License for AgroIndustrial Business (Frequnecy) Yes No Knowledge of Type of Institutions Granting License for Mining Business (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge of Type of Institutions Granting License for Forest Concession Business (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge of Information Related to Company (Multiple Responses) Type of company Type of activity Stage of development Company’s name Company’s origin Type of license / permission Coverage area / company’s boundary Duration of operation

Kampong Thom % (n=152)

Preah Vihear % (n = 87)

Stung Treng % (n = 82)

Kratie % (n = 87)

Indigenous % (n = 96)

Male % (n = 143)

64.2 19.35

NonIndigenous % (n = 312) 32 47.6

51.7 31.1

41.4 28.7

7.3 73.2

37.2 47.7

6.8 93.2

1.9 98.1

0.1 99.9

10.6 89.4

2.2 97.8

0.6 99.4

Female % (n = 265)

41.5 43.3

35.2 42.8

1.5 98.5

4 96

4.8 95.2

6.9 93.1

3 97

100

3 97

5.4 94.6

7.1 92.9

11.5 89.5

3.8 6.2

3.7 96.3

100

1.1 98.9

1.3 98.7

2.6 97.4

9.4 90.6

100

0.4 99.6

1.7 98.3

5.7 94.3

6 9

6.6 93.4

5.2 94.8

60 75 14.3 52.5 25.6 5.9

62.9 77.1 8.3 37.1 25 -

66.7 40 20 -

51.6 66.7 13.3 36.7 33.3 3.3

9 66 7.2 35.8 22.3 -

60.8 75 10.5 43.5 33.9 5.4

52 67.3 17.1 56.1 26.8 2.5

63.9 75.3 7.7 31.9 27.5 3.1

66.7

25.7

26.3

49.3

48.9

39.4

58.3

28.6

16.7

21.7

40.6

42.6

33.8

64 | P a g e

Knowledge of Compensation for Affected Areas (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge and Awareness of Impacts of Companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Operation on Their Localities (Frequency) Yes No

26.9 73.1

22.2 77.8

33.3 66.7

37.5 62.5

36.2 63.8

30.6 69.4

33.9 66.1

24.7 75.3

26.9 73.1

27.8 72.2

16.7 83.3

25.8 74.2

16.6 83.4

30.9 69.1

35.6 64.4

20.7 79.3

Figure 4.11: Percentage of local knowledge of commercial companies in their areas by province (n = 408) Knowledge of company's existence and operation 60 Knowledge & awareness of impacts of company's operation on their localities

40 Knowledge of institutions granting license

20 0

Kampong Thom (n = 152) Preah Vihear (n = 87) Stung Treng (n = 82) Kratie (n = 87)

Knowledge of compensation for affected areas

Knowledge of information related to company

Figure 4.12: Percentage of local knowledge of commercial companies in their areas by ethnicity and gender (n = 408)

Knowledge of company's existence and operation 80 60 Knowledge & awareness of impacts of company's operation on their localities

40 20

Knowledge of institutions granting license

IP (n = 96) Non-IP (n = 312) Male (n = 143) Female (n = 265)

Knowledge of compensation for affected areas

Knowledge of information related to company

65 | P a g e

Figure 4.13: Percentage of local knowledge of information related to company by province, ethnicity and gender (n = 408)

Accumulated knowledge Duration of operation Female (n = 284)

Coverage area / companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s boundary

Male (n = 115) Type of license / permission

Non-IP (n = 312) IP (n = 96)

Companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s origin

Kratie (n = 87) Companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s name

Stung Treng (n = 82) Preah Vihear (n = 87)

Stage of development

Kampong Thom (n = 152)

Type of activity Type of company 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Household respondents were also asked about the benefits provided by company or commercial business in the area (Table 4.4b, Figure 4.14). Respondents in all provinces Thom reported that the companies, especially rubber plantations and forest concessionaires, had given a range of jobs, mostly at unskilled or low-skilled levels (land clearance, grass cutting, logging, rubber tree tendering and rubber harvesting) to the locals. This case was commonly found in Kampong Thom (84.6%) and Kratie (71.9%) as well as among IP households (76.2%) and female respondents (73.1%). Other benefits, such as social fund and environmental fund, were also reflected by the surveyed respondents. Overall, they perceived to have received less contribution from the company or commercial entity in terms of social and environmental funds for social development and environmental governance in their localities. Despite its small amount, all the provinces admitted receiving some fund (KPT = 10.4%, PV = 25%, ST = 50%, KT = 22.6%) for social and infrastructural development, such as road construction, school renovation, basic health care service, water and electricity supply, etc. Yet, no environmental fund had been provided by the company for environmental restoration or conservation programs in the area. About 30.9% of the total households interviewed knew about community receipt of negative impacts of current development and management of land and natural resources in their regions. The majority of respondents having such knowledge perceived that the most negative impact was land loss (KPT = 93.9%, PV = 81.5%, ST = 93.8%, KT = 65.9%) followed by two other main concerns: (1) limited access to land and natural resources (KPT = 65.1%%, PV = 52%%, ST = 50%, KT = 31.7%) and relocation and resettlement (KPT = 53.3%, PV = 24%, ST = 18.2%, KT = 19.5%).

66 | P a g e

Table 4.4b:

Knowledge about benefits provided by commercial company by province, ethnicity and gender

Provision of Job Opportunities by the Company or Commercial Business in the Area (Frequency) Yes No Provision of Funding for Social Development Projects by the Company or Commercial Body (Frequency) Yes No Provision of Funding for Environmental Management Projects by the Company or Commercial Body (Frequency) Yes No Community Receipt of Negative Impacts of Current Development & Management of Land & Natural Resources (Frequency) Yes No Type of Perceived Negative Impacts (Multiple Responses) Land loss Relocation and resettlement Limited access to land and natural resources Changing or loss of traditional livelihoods Decline in or loss of culture and tradition Injury Emergence of disease Loss of raised animals Out-migration

Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

Kratie (n = 87) %

Indigenous (n = 96) %

NonIndigenous (n = 312) %

Male (n = 143) %

Female (n = 265) %

84.6 15.4

47.2 52.8

33.3 66.7

71.9 28.1

76.2 23.8

69.4 30.6

67.8 32.2

73.1 26.9

10.4 89.6

25 75

50 50

22.6 77.4

29.2 70.8

18.8 81.2

6.8 93.2

25.3 74.7

6.5 93.5

100

16.7 83.3

100

6.3 937

5.4 94.6

3.3 96.3

37.9 62.1

31 69

22.8 77.2

35 65

47.6 52.4

29.2 70.8

33.3 66.7

32.3 67.7

93.9 53.3

81.5 24

93.8 18.2

65.9 19.5

90.3 50.2

80.6 29

80 25

84.3 33.3

65.1

31.7

51.2

31.3

54.7

43.3

7.3

20.1

11.8

15.9

16.1

19.2

10.7

4.8

4.9

6.6

4.3 8.3 41.1

8 8 12 -

2.4 4.9 -

30.1 25 34.7 11.1

1.6 1.7 16.4 13.4

2.5 20.9 15.6

5.1 3.4 16.1 8.3

67 | P a g e

Figure 4.14: Percentage of local knowledge about benefits and impacts of companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operation in the area (n = 408) 90 80

84.6 76.2

71.9

69.4

67.8

73.1

60 50 40

37.9

30 20 10 0

10.4 6.5

47.2

31 25

33.3

22.8 16.7

22.6

47.6 29.2

29.2

33.3

18.8 6.3

32.3 25.3

6.8 5.4

3.3 0 0 Kampong Preah Stung Kratie (n = IP (n = 96) Non-IP (n Male (n = Female (n = Thom (n = Vihear (n = Treng (n = 87) = 312) 143) 265) 152) 87) 82) 0

Provision of job opportunities by the company Provision of funding for social development projects by the company Provision of funding for environmental management projects by the company

4.5. Availability, Support, and Intervention of Legal Services and Capabilities This part analyzes community perceptions of availability support and intervention of concerned legal service providers and their capabilities with regard to local governance of land and natural resources. Table 4.5a and Figure 4.15 demonstrate that more than half of the surveyed households in the provinces knew and were aware of concerned institutions in charge of this work performance. Of total, respondents in Stung Treng (74.4%) had the most knowledge followed by those in Preah Vihear (64.4%). Variation analysis shows that IP households (68.9%) knew more than the non-IP ones. Yet, equal share (62.2%) of male and female respondents realized this fact in general. Likewise, most of them knew about responsible institutions for land and natural resource governance (KPT = 83.2%, PV = 79.1%, ST = 87.8%, KT = 73.1%) as well as their roles and responsibilities involved (KPT = 57.3%, PV = 59.4%, ST = 72.6%, KT = 72.9%). Household respondents in Stung Treng and Kratie were inclined to know more about these issues compared to households in other provinces, while male respondents (83.1% and 75.2% respectively) knew more than the female ones. However, out of all concerned institutions, village chief was regarded as the most common actor by the majority of households interviewed (KPT = 85.5%, PV = 69.8%, ST = 87.7%, KT = 62.7%) followed by commune development council. Among the four provinces, the surveyed households in Kampong Thom (57.1%) and Stung Treng (55.9%) prioritized commune development council before opting for village chief as the change agent in this particular issue. Table 4.5a: Knowledge and awareness of concerned institutions and their mandates by province, ethnicity and gender Knowledge and Awareness of Institutions In Charge of Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge and Awareness of Type of Concerned Institutions (Multiple Responses) Provincial authority District authority Commune development council Village chief

Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

Kratie (n = 87) %

Indigenous (n = 96) %

NonIndigenous (n = 312) %

Male (n = 143) %

Female (n = 265) %

59.5 40.5

64.4 35.6

74.4 25.6

55.7 44.3

68.9 38

62 31.1

66.2 33.8

62.2 38.8

16.3 29.1 57.1

3.8 7.4 28.3

14.3 14.8 55.9

12.1 10.2 28.8

6.7 11.2 49.8

13.3 17.9 45.8

14.3 17.1 44

9 14.2 39

85.5

69.8

87.7

62.7

77.4

77.9

67.4

83.4

68 | P a g e

Provincial Department of Land Management Community forestry Community fishery CPA management committee Provincial Department of Environment Provincial Department of Agriculture Provincial Department of Industry, Mine & Energy Provincial Department of Rural Development Ministry of Rural Development Fishery Administration Forestry Administration Ministry of Land Management, Urbanization, and Construction Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Village elder group National Authority for Land Dispute Resolution Concerned local NGOs Knowledge & Awareness of Responsible Institutions for Land and Natural Resource Conflict Resolution (Frequency) Yes No Knowledge and Awareness of Their Roles and Responsibilities (Frequency) Yes No

Figure 4.15:

8.9

1.9

11.1

1.7

6.8

6.4

3.8

38.6 6.5 2.2

32.7 1.9 -

18.5 7.7 -

1.7 -

10.4 1.7 -

18.2 2.4 0.8 0.8

31 2.6 2.6 -

16.2 1 1.9 1

7.7

1.7

2.4

2.6

4.4 10.9

1.9 3.8 1.9

11.1 7.4 3.8

3.4 1.7

7.3 4.4

3.2 4 4.8

1.3 5.1 8.9

2.8 3.8 1

6.5 4.4

3.8 -

7.4

2.3 4.5

3.3 1.6

3.8 2.6

1.9 1.9

8.5 2.2

1.9 -

3.8 -

1.7 -

4.5 -

4 0.8

5.1 1.3

2.8 -

14.9

7.7

3.4

4.2

6.5

7.8

4.7

83.2 16.8

79.1 20.9

87.8 12.2

73.1 26.9

83.8 16.1

80.5 19.5

83.1 16.9

80.2 19.8

57.3 42.7

59.4 40.6

72.6 27.4

72.9 27.1

63.1 36.8

67.4 32.6

75.2 24.8

58.9 41.1

Percentage of local knowledge and awareness of concerned institutions and their mandates (n = 408)

Female (n = 265)

Male (n = 143)

Kampong Thom (n = 152) 100 50 0

Non-IP (n = 312)

Preah Vihear (n = 87) Stung Treng (n = 82)

Kratie (n = 87)

Knowledge and awareness of institutions in charge of local governance of land and natural resources Knowledge and awareness of respnsible institutions for land and natural resources conflict resolution Knowledg and awareness of roles and responsibilities of concerned institutions

IP (n = 96)

69 | P a g e

When asked who or which institution could best represent in local governance of land and natural resources, a majority of the households interviewed selected village chief as their most trusted and approachable agent for this subject matter (Table 4.5b). Such a response was given by most of the households in Stung Treng (92.1%) followed by those in Kampong Thom (81.9%), and such response was also provided by the most non-IP households (78.6%) and female respondents (81.1%) in the provinces. Following village chief, the commune development council was ranked the second most important representative for this work, especially by households in Stung Treng (52.5%) and Kampong Thom 45.1%). Other representatives were also mentioned, but at a very small scale. Table 4.5b:

Community perception on appropriate institutions in local governance of land and natural resource by province, ethnicity and gender

Local Perception of Institutions Best Representing in Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources (Multiple Responses) Provincial authority District authority Commune development council Village chief Provincial Department of Land Management Community forestry Community fishery CPA management committee Provincial Department of Environment Provincial Department of Agriculture Provincial Department of Industry, Mine & Energy Provincial Department of Rural Development Ministry of Rural Development Fishery Administration Forestry Administration Ministry of Land Management, Urbanization, and Construction Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Village elder group National Authority for Land Dispute Resolution Concerned local NGOs

Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

Kratie (n = 87) %

Indigenous (n = 96) %

NonIndigenous (n = 312) %

Male (n = 143) %

Female (n = 265) %

12.9 22.4 45.1

2.5 22.2 26.9

18.4 11.5 52.5

2.8 22.5 31

3.9 10.9 21.5

8.7 16.8 40.8

8.8 15.8 41.4

81.9 -

58.2 3.8

92.1 -

66.2 -

63.7 1.5

78.6 1.3

64.2 -

81.1 2

18.1 3.1 -

10.1 1.3 1.3

15.2 3 -

2.8 1.4 -

17.6 0.6 -

9.6 1.9 -

15 2 1

8.4 2 -

0.6

0.7

1.5

0.6

1.5 4.6 1.6

1.3 1.3

5.9 8.6 3

1.4 -

1.1 1.5

1.9 3 1.2

2 2 -

0.7 3.9 2

1.5

5.9

1.3

12.5 3.1

5.1 3.8

2.8 -

4.2 1.5

6 3.1

7.9 3.1

4.6 2

19.7

3.8

11.8

5.6

12.6

7.8

13.8 34.4

Results of multiple responses and cross-tabulation analysis in Table 4.5c illustrates that although the Royal Government of Cambodia has been striving to implement and enforce local governance of land and natural resources via sub-national authorities (from provincial to village level), not many people in rural Cambodia are fully aware of which institutions having what mandate and playing what roles and responsibilities in compliance with the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s policy. Homogenous to responses given to previous questions, a majority of the household respondents mentioned that village chief and / or commune council were wholeheartedly considered as an institution or a legal entity that could best representing in local governance of land and natural resources in the area. They were perceived to have played the most important function and been the most approachable body (KPT 70 | P a g e

= 93%, PV = 84%, ST = 94%, KT = 83%), the most open body (KPT = 73%, PV = 82%, ST = 78%, KT = 71%), the most helpful and handful body (KPT = 72%, PV = 84%, ST = 81%, KT = 76%), the most responsive body (KPT = 71%, PV = 78%, ST = 79%, KT = 72%). The village chief and commune development council were also looked upon by over half of household respondents as the most influential body for providing outreach programs and helping local communities in the region. Community perceptions on levels of approachability, openness, helpfulness, responsiveness, and influence of concerned institutions by province Kratie (n = 87) %

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

10 25

90 75

1 -

99 100

6 16

94 84

1 3

99 97

3 5

97 95

100 100

3 7

97 93

1 3

99 97

26 22

74 78

4 10

96 90

14 17

86 83

12 -

88 100

11 7

89 93

1 9

99 91

7 8

93 92

9 -

91 100

3 7

97 93

100 100

1 5

99 95

1 -

99 100

2 9

98 91

100 100

1 7

99 93

100

10 8

90 92

3 9

97 91

7 8

93 92

9 1

91 99

9 7

91 93

4 11

Kratie (n = 87) %

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Level of Responsiveness

Kratie (n = 87) %

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Level of Helpfulness Local Perception of Institutions Best Representing in Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources (Multiple Responses) Concerned ministries Concerned provincial authorities Concerned line departments Concerned local NGOs Village elder group Community-based organizations Village chief and/or commune council

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Level of Openness

Kratie (n = 87) %

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Level of Approachability Local Perception of Institutions Best Representing in Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources (Multiple Responses) Concerned ministries Concerned provincial authorities Concerned line departments Concerned local NGOs Village elder group Community-based organizations Village chief and/or commune council

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

Table 4.5c:

99 100

96 89

3 8

97 92

9 -

91 100

Kratie (n = 87) %

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Level of Influence Local Perception of Institutions Best Representing in Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources (Multiple Responses) Concerned ministries Concerned provincial authorities Concerned line departments

1 7

99 93

100 100

1 5

99 95

1 3

99 97

71 | P a g e

Concerned local NGOs Village elder group Community-based organizations Village chief and/or commune council

10 7

90 93

3 3

97 97

3 7

97 93

9 -

91 100

Note: Multiple responses cross-tabulation with 1 = Yes, 2 = No.

Survey respondents were also asked to rate the capacity, performance, and intervention of concerned institutions in local governance of land and natural resources in their areas. As shown in Table 4.5d, similar community perception of similar popularity was given at a dramatic rate (65.7% of total responses) to village chief and / or commune development council which have been working closely with local inhabitants in the area. This agent was well regarded by over half of the total household respondents in terms of being capable (KPT = 83%, PV = 63%, ST = 87%, KT = 58%), providing handy training and awareness raising activities (KPT = 57%, PV = 67%, ST = 59%, KT = 58%), best representing in advocacy activities (KPT = 53%, PV = 63%), helping in boundary demarcation (KPT = 53%, PV = 57%, ST = 54%), and providing most effective consultation and dialogue (KPT = 62%, PV = 72%, ST = 57%, KT = 57%). However, the average proportion of community perceptions and rating on the capacity, performance, and work impact of village chief and commune development council in dealing with land titling was lower in all the provinces. Noticeably, the respondents reported that none of the concerned institutions was able to stop or at least reduce illegality over land and natural resource access and use (KPT = 57%, PV = 62%, ST = 57%, KT = 54%) as well as to render fair judgment (KPT = 51%, PV = 59%, ST = 54%, KT = 48%) in the area except the village chief and commune development council. Table 4.5d: Local Perceptions of Performance and Impacts of Concerned Institutions Concerned ministries Concerned provincial authorities Concerned line departments Concerned local NGOs Village elder group Communitybased organizations Village chief and/or commune council Local Perceptions of Performance and Impacts of Concerned Institutions

Community perception of performance and program impacts of concerned institutions by province

KPT Y N

Capable % (Multiple Responses) PV ST Y N Y N

Training/Awareness Raising % (Multiple Responses) KPT PV ST KT Y N Y N Y N Y N

Advocacy % (Multiple Responses) KPT PV ST KT Y N Y N Y N Y N

100

Boundary Demarcation % (Multiple Responses) KPT PV ST KT Y N Y N Y N Y N

KPT Y N

Land Titling % (Multiple Responses) PV ST KT Y N Y N Y N

Consultation & Dialogue % (Multiple Responses) KPT PV ST KT Y N Y N Y N Y N

72 | P a g e

Concerned ministries Concerned provincial authorities Concerned line departments Concerned local NGOs Village elder group Communitybased organizations Village chief and/or commune council Local Perceptions of Performance and Impacts of Concerned Institutions Concerned ministries Concerned provincial authorities Concerned line departments Concerned local NGOs Village elder group Communitybased organizations Village chief and/or commune council

100

Stop / Reduce Illegality % (Multiple Responses) KPT PV ST KT Y N Y N Y N Y N

KPT Y N

100

Note:

Render Judgment % (Multiple Responses) PV ST KT Y N Y N Y N

Multiple responses cross-tabulation with Y = Yes, N = No, KPT = Kampong Thom, PV = Preah Vihear, ST = Stung Treng, KT = Kratie.

Table 4.5e and Figure 4.16 reveal the surveyed householdsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experiences in participating in awareness raising and capacity building programs provided by concerned state and non-state actors. Over half of the total respondents (53.4%) reported having attended at least one training or workshop related to the local governance of land and natural resources for the betterment of sustainable resource use and protection. Among all the provinces, respondents in Preah Vihear (59.8%) received the most opportunity to participate while those in Kratie had the least participation record (45.2%). Of total participants, IP households (60%) and male respondents (60.4%) participated more than non-IP and female respondents in the provinces. Mostly, local households participated in the training or workshop on forestry law (KPT = 67.7%, PV = 54%, ST = 71.4%, KT = 45.8%), and there was not much variation between IP (59%) and non-IP households (59.3% as well as male (56.8%) and female (60.7%) respondents. At least about half of the surveyed households in Stung Treng participated in a much variety of training / workshop programs, such as forestry law (71.4%), agricultural land law (62.5%), land law (58.3%), organic agriculture (43.5%), livelihood strategy improvement (43.5%) and others compared to those in Kratie and Preah Vihear. Yet, only households in Kampong Thom had the most involvement in community-based natural resource management (50%) and community 73 | P a g e

forestry management (48%). Interestingly, women participated less than men in almost all types of training and workshop programs except on agricultural land law (50%), forestry law (60.7%), organic agriculture and livelihood improvement. Table 4.5e:

Experiences in community participation in related training and workshop by province, ethnicity and gender

Participation in Training / Workshop Related to Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources (Frequency) Yes (53.4%, n = 408) No (46.6%) Type of Training & Workshop (Multiple Responses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Crosstabulation) CBNRM Agricultural Land Law Community & IP rights Land Law Fishery Law Forestry Law Organic Law Protected Area Law Community protected area Management Community forestry management Community fishery management Economic land concession management Mineral resource management & exploitation Small, medium enterprise development Resource patrolling & protection CBT / CBET management Organic agriculture Livelihood strategy improvement Sustainable land use Land use planning & development Sustainable NRM & harvesting

Kampong Thom (n=152) %

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Stung Treng (n = 82) %

Kratie (n = 87) %

Indigenous (n = 96) %

NonIndigenous (n = 312) %

Male (n = 143) %

Female (n = 265) %

56 44

59.8 40.2

53.7 46.3

45.2 44.8

60 40

52.9 47.1

60.4 39.6

50.8 49.2

50 53.6 25 46.9 12.2 67.7 7.3 21.4 31.1

18 32 24 42 4 54 2 14 14

34.8 62.5 31.8 58.3 50 71.4 25 22.2 22.7

10.4 29.2 14.6 37.5 16.7 45.8 10.4 2.1 -

40 12.8 44.4 7.5 59 10 20.5 17.9

32.8 42.2 24.6 43.8 22.2 59.3 9.3 12 15.7

36.8 45.2 23.6 52.6 22.7 56.8 8.5 18.3 20

20.6 50 21.7 37.9 13 60.7 9.1 9.2 12.2

33.3

4.2

30.2

29.8

18.6

38.5

4.2

5.1

15.4

15.8

8.8

15.6

5.3

6.2

7.5

7.2

6.8

7.9

2.8

2.1

2.6

1.5

2.3

11.9

5.1

4.7

3.4

8.1

5.6

2.1

5.8

7.6

1.1

8.1 26.2 22

6 12 14

18.2 43.5 43.5

18.8 16.7

6.4 18.8 44.8

5.6 23.4 22.5

5.9 19.1 18.8

6.7 24.2 22.6

5.4 12.5

4 4

5.6

14.6

2.5 7.3

2.9 9.6

1.5 9.1

3.4 10

2.8

5.6

2.9

1.2

74 | P a g e

Figure 4.16:

Percentage of local experience in community participation in related trainings and workshops (n = 408)

50.8%

53% Of total province (n = 408) IP (n = 96)

60.4%

60%

Non-IP (n = 312) Male (n = 143) Female (n = 265)

52.9%

4.6. Quality Rating of Inclusion, Performance and Consultation Respondents were also asked about their experience with community participation, community access to information, type of information and means of access to information regarding local governance of land and natural resources (Table 4.6a, Figures 4.17, 4.18). The highest proportion of household respondents in all the provinces, regardless of sex and ethnicity, had neither been informed about new development and management plans of land and natural resources (KPT = 69.9%, PV = 64.4%, ST = 55.6%, KT = 62.2%, male = 62.7%, female = 64.9%) nor about the coming of private company or investor into the area (KPT = 67.7%, PV = 79.3%, ST = 98.7%, KT = 80.5%, IP = 55.9%, non-IP = 57.1%, male = 75.8%, female = 85.8%). Word-of-mouth was considered as the most common means of access to related information (KPT = 65.4%, PV = 50, KT = 43.8%) followed by village / commune meeting (KPT = 45.5%, PV = 40%, KT = 52.9%) in the provinces excluding Stung Treng. Usually, village / commune meeting had been initiated and organized by concerned CBOs and LNGOs or concerned line offices (district level) and departments (provincial level). Exclusive of respondents in Stung Treng who almost received no details about the company / investor in the area, the households surveyed in Kratie and Preah Vihear had been informed about type of company (KT = 69.2%, PV = 42.9%) and name o f the company (KT = 57.1%, PV = 64.3%). Differences in responses about all types of information received were not much statistically different when disaggregated by gender and ethnicity as well as by province in the form of knowledge about companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s coverage area. Table 4.6a: Community participation, information and type of information access by province, ethnicity and gender Been informed about New Development & Management Plans of Land & NR (Frequency) Yes No Been Informed about the Coming of Private Company or Investor into the Area (Frequency) Yes No

Kampong Thom (n=152) % 30.1 69.9

Preah Vihear (n = 87) %

Kratie (n = 87) %

Indigenous (n = 96) %

35.6 64.4

Stung Treng (n = 82) % 44.4 55.6

23.3 76.7

Male (n = 143) %

39.1 27.2

NonIndigenous (n = 312) % 36.5 14.1

37.8 62.2

20.7 79.3

1.3 98.7

19.5 80.5

Female (n = 265) %

37.3 62.7

35.1 64.9

45.5 55.9

40.6 57.1

24.2 75.8

14.2 85.8

75 | P a g e

Means of Information Access (Frequency) Village or commune meeting Word-of-mouth Posting announcement Training and / or awareness raising CBO meeting LNGO meeting / workshop Type of Information Received about the Company / Investor (Frequency) Type of company Name of company Duration of operation Coverage area of company Business license / permission Business process Type of impacts Compensation Revenue management Job opportunities Supply of local products & other benefits for IP & non-IP community

Figure 4.17:

45.5

52.9

12.5

39.3

51.9

65.4 5.3

50 7.1 -

1.7 -

43.8 15.4 -

4.2 8.7 4.2

57.1 4

54.8 13 -

7.7 -

52.9 48.1

53.6 41.4

8.3 -

4.3

52.2 34.8 42.9 45 -

42.9 64.3 7 42.9 -

69.2 57.1 7.1 42.9 -

8.3 48.1 22 42.9 -

18.5 41.4 18.5 38.5 -

52 39.3 20 40 -

53.8 58.3 24 45.8 -

20 15.8 5.6 56 -

21.4 28.6 14.3 -

2.1 1.9 -

7.7 15.4 50 -

16.7 21.3 5.6 40 -

20 20.8 55.2 -

19.2 20.8 4.2 32.1 -

13.6 21.7 57.7 -

Percentage of communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience in being informed about new development and management plans of land and natural resources (n = 408) 69.9

64.4

64.9

55.6

44.4

50 40

62.7

62.2

30.1

37.8

35.6

39.1

36.5

37.3

35.1

27.2

Yes 14.1

10 0 Kampong Preah Thom (n Vihear (n = 152) = 87)

Stung Treng (n = 82)

Kratie (n IP (n = 96) Non-IP (n Male (n = Female (n = 87) = 312) 143) = 265)

76 | P a g e

Figure 4.18:

Percentage of community’s experience in being informed about the coming of private company or commercial body into their area (n = 408)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Yes No

Kampong Preah Stung Kratie (n = IP (n = 96) Non-IP (n Male (n = Female (n Thom (n = Vihear (n Treng (n = 87) = 312) 143) = 265) 152) = 87) 82)

The surveyed households were also questioned about their experiences and interest in community involvement, particularly in the terms of providing community inputs for sustainable management and development and management of land and natural resources in their areas (Table 4.6b). Despite their enthusiasms and perceptions (n = 408) of significant involvement of men (97%) and women (about 95%), less than one third (29.9%) of the total respondents had been invited to provide community inputs or asked to provide community consent, to attend stakeholder consultation meetings, and to participate in decision-making and planning for company’s operation as well as for sustainable governance of land and natural resources in their areas as a whole (Figures 4.19, 4.20). When disaggregated by province and gender, it was not statistically different in terms of experiences in community participation (KPT = 30.8%, PV = 31%, ST = 30, KT = 32.9%, male = 26.5%, female = 33.5%) and interest (KPT = 87.3%, PV = 92.4%, ST = 89.4%, KT = 85.9%, male = 85.1%, female = 90.4%) in community participation in such socio-political platforms. For those having experiences in community participation, they explained that they, regardless of gender, had mostly been invited by village chief (average of 95% across provinces) followed by a minority who had been asked to participate by village elder groups (mostly for IP households), relevant local NGOs, and commune development council. Table 4.6b:

Community participation and inputs in management and development of land and natural resources by province and gender

Been Invited to Participate and Provide Community Inputs into Management & Development of Land & NR (Frequency) Yes No Type of Inputs Provided (Multiple Responses) Decision-making for company’s operation Consent-making for company’s operation Consultation with the company & concerned stakeholders for mutual understanding & benefit sharing Planning for company’s existence in the area Types of Inviters (Multiple Responses) Concerned ministries Concerned line departments Provincial authority District authority

Kampong Thom (n=152) % 30.8 69.2

Preah Vihear (n = 87) % 31 69

Stung Treng (n = 82) % 30 70

Kratie (n = 87) %

Male (n = 143) %

Female (n = 265) %

32.9 67.1

26.5 73.5

33.5 66.5

38.1 16.7 35

23.7 9.5 9.5

40 22.2

53.3 7.1 28.6

21.7 4.3 16.7

45.5 12.8 27.5

27.8

4.8

7.1

16.7

10.3

5.6 10.5

8.3 8.3 12

16.7 9.1

6.7 -

8.3 16 15.4

4.5 4.5

77 | P a g e

Commune development council Village chief Concerned LNGOs Concerned CBOs Village elder group Women association / group Private investor / company If you have never participated or been invited, do you want to participate? (Frequency) Yes No Importance of Men Participation in DecisionMaking, Consent-making, and Planning in Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources (Frequency) Yes No Importance of Women Participation in Decision-Making, Consent-making, and Planning in Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources (Frequency) Yes No

Figure 4.19:

23.8 97.6 20 9.5 38.1 5.3

8.3 92 8.3 4.2 4.2 -

20 94.7 20 27.3 -

6.7 95.8 22.2 6.7 13.3 -

24 93.8 20 23.1 4

8.9 96.6 14.9 8.9 17.8 -

87.3 12.7

92.4 7.6

89.4 10.6

85.9 14.1

85.1 14.9

90.4 9.6

95.9 4.1

97.6 2.4

97.4 2.6

97.6 2.4

97 3

93.8 6.2

92.9 7.1

94.7 5.3

98.8 1.2

95.2 4.8

94.6 5.4

Percentage of communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience in being invited to participate and provide community inputs in local governance of land and natural resources (n = 408)

69.2

73.5

67.1

66.5

60 50 40

30.8

33.5

32.9 26.5

Yes No

20 10 0 Kampong Thom (n = 152)

Preah Vihear (n = 87)

Stung Treng (n = 82)

Kratie (n = 87)

Male (n = 143)

Female (n = 265)

78 | P a g e

Figure 4.20:

Percentage of communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of importance of men and women participation in decision/consent-making and planning for local governance of land and natural resources (n = 408)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Yes (men participation) No (men participation) Yes (women participation) No (women participation) Kampong Preah Stung Treng Kratie (n = Male (n = Female (n = Thom (n = Vihear (n = (n = 82) 87) 143) 265) 152) 87)

Differences in terms of communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perceptions or rating of performance or previous and existing consultation process committed by concerned institutions / bodies involved in local governance of land and natural resources were noticed among household respondents in the provinces (Table 4.6c). Respondents in Preah Vihear (62.5%) and Stung Treng (70.8%) rated village chief to be the most vital performer and consultation provider compared to those in Kampong Thom and Kratie who gave the most priority at equal share (66.7%) to concerned local NGOs working in the area. The third best institutions perceived to have performed and consulted in a right manner with local households in all the provinces was the commune development council, and of total provinces, respondents in Kratie preferred this agency the most (62.5%). While the analysis of these differences suggests that other concerned institutions are less or partly responsible for the increased community participation, there are possible factors that could be attributed to such differences. These factors include nature and type of work or institutional mandate, type and nature of challenges to current community livelihoods and land and natural resource governance at case/area-specific level, social networking and trust building issues, and the level of impact and viability of intervention programs carried out by each institution in the area. Table 4.6c: Community perception of performance and consultation of concerned institutions by province Rating of Performance / Consultation Process of Concerned Institutions Involved in Local Governance of Land and Natural Resources Concerned ministries Concerned line departments Provincial authority

Kampong Thom (n=152)% Multiple Responses

Preah Vihear (n = 87)% Multiple Responses

Stung Treng (n = 82)% Multiple Responses

Kratie (n = 87)% Multiple Responses

11.1

44.4

33.3

12.5

100

16.7

83.3

14.3

85.7

12.5

62.5

12.5

62.5

12.5

62.5

33.3

79 | P a g e

District authority Commune development council Village chief Concerned LNGOs Concerned CBOs Village elder group Women association / grou Private investor / company

26.7

6.7

33.3

6.7

26.7

12.5

30.8

46.2

23.1

62.5

12.5

13.5 -

5.8 -

3.8 6.7

23.1 13.3

51.9 66.7

1.9 13.3

4.2 -

8.3 -

4.2 -

20.8 -

62.5 44.4

55.6

16.7 -

12.5 16.7

70.8 58.3

7.7 -

23.1 -

15.4 -

19.2 11.1

30.8 66.7

3.8 22.2

16.7

66.7

57.1

42.9

55.6

44.4

66.7

33.3

11.1

33.3

38.9

11.1

28.6

77.4

11.1

33.3

11.1

44.4

33.3

16.7

12.5

37.5

16.7

83.3

12.5

87.5

33.3

28.6

14.3

42.9

16.7

67.7

100

Note: Multiple responses cross-tabulation with the scaling items of 1 = not satisfied at all, 2 = less than satisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = fairly satisfied, 5 = very satisfied, 6 or DK = donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know.

80 | P a g e

PART 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Two of the fundamental objectives of this baseline study were to: (1) identify and confirm baseline study results on citizen’s rating on local governance in land and natural resources with a particular focus on perceptions of relevant local inhabitants, CBOs, partner local NGOs, and concerned SNAs in Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear, Stung Treng, and Kratie; and (2) identify and suggest related indicators that can be used to monitor and evaluate the progress and key outcomes of the ECCF project over time and space to ensure coherent and sustainability-oriented responses as well as relevant, effective, efficient, and impactful performance and intervention in good governance and sustainable management of land and natural resources at sub-national and local levels. The list of primary indicators (See Table 2.2 in Section 2.2.7) and methodological frameworks developed and used in this baseline study were supportive to the comprehensive and holistic analysis to better understand perceptions of household respondents disaggregated by province, gender, ethnicity, and birth of origin or length of stay in the area. In addition, they were critically relevant and crucial to comprehend and analyze SNAs’ responses in a systematic and profound manner. These indicators are strongly recommended to be reused in pursuit of mid-term project review and / or final ECCF project evaluation study. However, to make the review or future evaluation comprehensive, holistic, and systematic, it is also suggested that governance case-specific indicators for assessing other key stakeholders’ perceptions should be taken into serious account. These indicators are crisscrossed by six main elements of local or decentralized governance – empowerment, subsidiarity, equity and justice, transparency, accountability, and sustainability (See Part 2). Based upon the pre-designed list of indicators (See Table 2.2. in Section 2.2.7), key baseline findings could be summarised as follows (please see Executive Summary for detail findings with support baseline numerical facts summarized in response to each indicator for this baseline study): 5.1. Key Survey Findings Overall, the survey findings confirm the prevalence of low knowledge and awareness of community ownership and rights over land and natural resource access and consumption in the target provinces. More critically, despite a strong commitment from the community side to sustainable management and development of land and natural resources, the local inhabitants do not possess sufficient capability in terms of knowledge, skills, resources, protective rights and realistic and strongly determined activities to use, preserve and benefit from such resources in a sustainable way. Only a significant number of them realize about their rights to access, use, preserve and protect, but are commonly stunt on what and how to get and ensure benefits for the long-run. Knowledge and understanding of legal and legitimate resource owners, land and natural resource tenure by state, private entity and civic groups are also found statistically limited among the surveyed households. Low capacity, political segregation, lack of inquiry-based and community asset and need based community development and environmental governance programs, poor social and public services, and household economy severely limit their knowledge and awareness as well as household access to existing legal frameworks and structures implemented by state and non-state actors. Physical distance and limited public facilities in rural settings trigger further challenges to community’s capacity building on land and natural resource governance. The convoluted system of misusing private and public properties for mixed livelihood purposes have provoked local communities, including IP, to disregard the importance of proper resource governance for the benefits for all, while having inadequate knowledge about current legalization process of land and nature resource owners (i.e. systematic land titling, communal land titling) . The long-drawn out conservation 81 | P a g e

activities which involve the locals in conservation regime without differentiating or demonstrating immediate and long-term benefits are also potential of disheartening community involvement in knowledge and awareness raising. The survey evidence reveals that there is a linkage between the abundance of land and natural resources and the importance of those resources among the surveyed households. While rating the level of their access to resource use as having been increasingly restricted due to practices of new policy and legal frameworks (i.e. land law, forestry law, etc.) and resource shrinking or scarcity (i.e. land, forest and wildlife resources), the majority of respondents indicate that the existing legalized resources (i.e. CLT, residential land, permanent farmland) are of great importance for their livelihoods. Inquiry into land and natural resource based livelihoods vindicates and confirm different livelihood options of household respondents disaggregated by province, ethnicity, and birth of origin. The analysis of in-depth household responses finds that there are both household-wide and province-wide acknowledgment of local citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; demand for greater capacity and right development around legalization processes for ownership over and sustainable use of land and natural resources in the area. The study reveals a fairly high proportion of vulnerability and receptiveness of local households in the four provinces to current large scale economic land development plans as well as increased environmental governance efforts in the area without proper concerns on community wellbeing and freedom (economic, socio-political, educational). The level of community vulnerability is significantly correlated with a number of factors: (1) absence of FPIC (free, prior, informed consent) practice as a communication, information sharing, and community input making tool before development, conservation, and privatization of land and natural resources take place in the area; (2) deficient knowledge and understanding of the existence and implementation of relevant modern laws, policies and other legal frameworks as well as modern economic system; (3) reduced community livelihood capital assets, particularly natural assets which are main livelihood sources; (4) lack of communitystate and community-private sector linkages and collaboration; and (5) complexity of law enforcement and prolonged land (or CLT for IP) registration and titling process. Most household respondents rated the level of their vulnerability and susceptibility to negative impacts of current development and management of land and natural resources as significantly receptive. The level of their vulnerability is increasing and ranges from socio-cultural to economic loss. The most common issues found are land loss, limited access to land and natural resource use and ownership, resettlement and relocation, and out-migration and change upon traditional livelihoods (only typical among households in Kampong Thom). The study points out that communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge about and participation in promoting social and environmental justice of land and natural resource governance in the area is found very fractional or confined, at least at the current stage. Getting access to right institutions, especially social service providers, for the right information and interventions is yet ambiguous among household respondents in the target provinces. Limited capacity, capitals, and right possessed by most household respondents together with volatile institutional frameworks and interventions from concerned state agencies have hindered local communities to understand their roles as active citizens for impactful (more engaged and collaborative) development of their localities. The analysis of survey data shows that most respondents knew very little about companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s investment in their areas and almost no details about concerned institutions, type of institutions and the mechanisms involved in granting license or permission to accompany. The deficiency of FPIC practice among companies and state actors impedes community from getting access to information regarding benefits and negative impacts on their areas as well as prospective compensation that a 82 | P a g e

company has to offer in the form of social fund, environmental fund, and others. This could be translated that local communities, especially IP and the poor, are prone to social and environmental bads caused by current development processes. The survey results about potential land loss, limitation of community rights over access to and use of land and natural resources and the like denote a necessity to immediately refrain the restriction of local powers and rights to participation, decision and consent-making, and planning for company’s existence and operation. Despite continuous assurance and effort of state and non-state actors to discuss, disseminate, and enforce related laws, policies and other legal documents / frameworks in local governance of land and natural resources across the surveyed provinces, there is evidence that information distribution is still not comprehensive and demonstrative. Despite approximately half of the respondents, exclusive of most IP households, realize that are many related legal frameworks, they only have diminutive knowledge about a few of those frameworks. Frequent means of information access have been interestingly spotlighted – village and commune meetings, watching TV and listen to radio, word-of mouth – and these are statistically different when disaggregated by province, ethnicity, and gender. The survey results specify that more than half of household respondents are basically aware of concerned institutions, including legal service providers, in local governance of land and natural resources, yet cautious about their roles and responsibilities. Out of all concerned institutions, village chief followed by commune development council are considered as the first and second most important institutions in terms of performance, connection, and community representation. The survey results validate increased knowledge and awareness of local community involvement among household respondents. Involvement of local communities is segregated into three types: (1) involvement in capacity building programs through various trainings and workshops; (2) involvement in public consultation and dialogue with commercial entities and concerned institutions; and (3) involvement in providing community inputs for decision-making, consent-giving, communitycompany negotiation, and planning for company’s operation in the area. The survey results signify a considerable amount of participation from over half of the total household respondents in land and natural resource governance related trainings and workshops. Their participations are found statistically and significantly different in terms of type of trainings / workshops, frequency of involvement, and nature of knowledge gained when disaggregated by province, ethnicity, birth of origin and gender. However, high proportion of them, regardless of province, gender, and ethnicity have never been informed about previous, current and future macro economic development plans, status of land and natural resource governance, and the coming of private investors / companies into their area. This has extremely distracted most of them from participating and providing community inputs for sustainable development and management of land and natural resources while building community’s ownership and active citizenship over resource governance and community development. Current critical contextual, socio-political, policy, legal and institutional challenges do not even reduce community’s enthusiasm in participating in such socio-political platforms. The survey findings have provided strong support evidence that approximately 95% of all households wish to participate in different forms: providing community inputs, providing community consent, having their voices heard through stakeholder consultation meetings especially with the company, and getting involved in decision-making and for planning for the company’s existence in their localities. The survey findings confirm increasing knowledge and awareness of concerned stakeholders or institutions working at different levels to provide consultation, capacity building programs, and 83 | P a g e

interventions in land and resource governance and conflict resolution. Such knowledge and awareness even span over their understandings (though superficial or deficient) of basic institutional mandates of those concerned institutions. Yet, the survey evidence generates an interesting conventional communication and networking patterns of most local households which often work closely with and trust the village chief and commune development council since they are active agents in their localities. From communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspectives, the community system and structure dealing with local governance of land and natural resources could be well represented by village chief, commune development council, and related local NGOs in chronological order. Other institutions of sub-national and national authorities have been highlighted but dimly acknowledged by the respondents. The survey findings proves that note many people in rural Cambodia are fully aware of which institutions owing what mandates, although the government has been struggling to execute and enforce land and natural resource governance related policies, laws and other legal frameworks at local level. Despite their limited supremacy, village chief and commune development council are perceived to have played most of the important roles and been the most approachable, open, helpful, responsive, and influential body with regard to community outreach programs and interventions in land and resource governance. Likewise, community perceptions of similar popularity at a high rate have been bestowed to village chief and commune development council that have been working local communities in the area. They are not only rated as the most applicable institution in local governance of land and natural resources, but also as being capable in providing handy awareness raising programs, representing communities in advocacy activities, demarcating land and resource boundaries, and providing the most effective consultation and dialogue. However, these authorities are not really empowered to tackle land titling and CLT issues. In addition, none of the concerned institutions are rated as having restricted legality and legitimacy to reduce illegal activities and render fair judgment over land and natural resource access, consumption and management. In view of different community perceptions or ratings of performance and consultation impacts of concerned institutions in local governance of land and natural resources, the survey suggests some possible factors that could be attributed to subjective responses. These include nature and type of work or institutional mandate, type and nature of challenges to current community livelihoods and land and resource governance in the area, social networking and trust building (social capital) issues, and the level of impacts and viability of intervention programs carried out by each concerned body in the region. 5.2. Key KI Interview Findings Empowerment and Subsidiarity Among all KIs interviewed, SNAs have been empowered the most to participate in decentralized local governance of land and natural resources within their jurisdiction; empowerment appears in forms of supporting policies and implementation programs. SNAs have been empowered to make certain decisions concerning local matters, enforce laws and regulations in order to provide social services, stimulate local economy and sustain the resource base. SNAs also directly involve in monitoring of governance practices operating within their jurisdiction. Roles of SNAs are mainly decision-makers and regulators. Second in line of empowerment have been NGO stakeholders; this stakeholder plays role of facilitator and observer in governance practices. Their involvement is mostly in advocacy of and assistance in decentralized governance implementation for community stakeholder, as well as slightly in policy formation and decision-makings in the forms of participation 84 | P a g e

in policy dialogues and consultation process. CBOs were found to be partly empowered; however, subsidiarity remains minimal. Though decision-making concerning governance policies, rules and regulation for access to and uses of designated local resources can be made by CBOs, these rules and policies need to be firmly conformed to higher policy framework and are subject to be approved by upper authorities. Equity/Justice In general majority of KIs perceived that current democratic and decentralized governance is not completely just and equal yet, but it is a work in progress. Most stakeholders are enjoying their rights to participate in decentralized governance practices of local resources. Most interviewee thought it is a positive step toward sustainable management of land and natural resources. CBOs, however, felt this aspect is very weak since they are only recipient of governance policies and decisions made by others, but have the least to say in matters in affect them the most. When negative impacts or conflicts occur and affect them, especially when these impacts caused by more influential and affluent people, there is no recourse. Transparency and Accountability Transparency and accountability is the most controversial component of governance. Interviewed SNAs believed they are transparent and accountable to the people concerned as far as they can, but NGOs and CBOs thought there is very low transparency and little accountability. Upper level SNAs have been found to be less transparent and accountable, while local SNAs seemed to be responsible and very sensitive of local challenges. Most interviewees found if extremely difficult to obtain relevant and adequate information concerning governance issues and even more difficult to find responsible entity when adverse impacts from current governance practices occur. Sustainability All interviewees perceived that it is to outright judge if current governance of land and natural resources would bring sustainability. They saw both advantages and disadvantages of all forms of governance. NGOs and CBOs believed that natural resources and land use based on current local governance (i.e. community-based management forms) is viable, but other forms (e.g. ELCs and MCs) could be destructive without proper management with inclusive participation from all relevant stakeholders, especially NGOs and grassroots communities. 5.3. Recommendations for Future Actions The following general suggestions are based on assessment of level and extent of decentralized governance being currently implemented together with direct appropriate proposals from KIs interviewed and situations of HH respondents. ď&#x201A;§

First of all, to enhance empowerment and subsidiarity, which is to ensure rights for use and access to land and natural resources, support in complete legalization process for community-based management areas, especially communal land titling for indigenous people is urgently needed. CBOs and indigenous communities are the least empowered stakeholders and their participation in governance is the most uncertain. Their management rights are mostly unsecure; the registration process for both grassroots Khmer people and indigenous communities for communal land is lengthy, and people can lose their rights at any time when competition for the same resources occur; 85 | P a g e



Secondly, institutional and individual capacity building for stakeholders at all levels concerning relevant governance policies, rules and regulations are strongly required. The vulnerable poor and indigenous communities also strongly need civic education to enable them to better understand their rights, roles and responsibility concerning local governance of land and natural resources;



Thirdly, to ensure equity/justice, as well as transparency and accountability future governance effort should endeavour to include adequate representation of affected stakeholders, particularly the vulnerable poor and indigenous communities, in policy formulation and development planning at all levels. This requires coordination across sectoral agencies. There is a call for efforts to improve dialogues between stakeholders and those involved in granting and administration of land and natural resources. Network of stakeholders across sectors and at all levels, and regular public forums among members of such network would enable all relevant stakeholders to share information and experiences, debate different views and find solutions for challenges;



Fourthly, another important component that is need immediate attention is accountability. Enhancement of governance of land and natural resources urgently need robust mechanisms of accountability to ensure that individuals and stakeholders granted decision-making authority are held responsible for the public consequences of their deliberation and do not abuse their authority. Presently, direct measures for decisions over natural resource allocation and management are needed to ensure public accountability of decision-makers at all levels. Given the slow progress in improving accountability through the courts, efforts to determine alternative conflict resolution mechanisms, while protecting the ability of communities to organize and advocate for their rights is compulsory.

Subsequently, consultants attempt to categorize OGB’s key activities into appropriate key outcomes and original objectives, so that afterward we can suggest actions and target for each action based on intended activities, which in turn help to realize project outcomes and objectives.

86 | P a g e

Table 5.3a: Flow of OGBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Project Objectives, Outcomes and Activities Project Objectives ď&#x201A;§ To build capacity and establish platforms for civil society, right holders and state for advocating for equitable management of land and natural resources. ď&#x201A;§ To enhance capacities and platforms for engaging with the state agencies at sub-national authorities in governance of land and natural resources; and

Key Expected Outcomes Key Activities 1. Strengthened capacity of 260 1. Capacity building aimed at Sub-National Authorities, 45 developing skills of SNAs in NGOs, 90 Communityparticipatory engagement and Based Organizations accountable, responsive and members and 170,837 transparent governance. villagers in KPT, PV, KI and 2. Capacity building aimed at ST provinces of Cambodia enhancing awareness and on participatory engagement knowledge of SNAs and NGOs in policy dialogues for on the democratic procedure in transparent and accountable the implementation of governance of land and legislations and policies related natural resources. to land administration and natural resources management. 2. Institutionalized engagement mechanisms and cooperation between SNAs and CSOs for developing and implementing policies and strategies for land use planning and development.

3. Establishment of Cambodia Land and Environment Action Network (CLEAN), an advocacy, policy and planning forum comprising of key government and civil society stakeholders. 4. Development of resource manual for effective SNA-CSO engagement and partnership in pursuit of good governance of land and natural resources.

3. Citizens and groups affected by land disputes and conflicts in KPT, PV, KI and ST provinces of Cambodia have accessed to legal services for resolving their cases. And,

5. Establishment of the access to Justice Committee within the framework of the provincial NGO Network.

4. Strengthened capacity of local communities and right holders particularly women and vulnerable groups for claim-making and demand for good governance of land and natural resources.

7. Capacity building aimed at strengthening leadership, advocacy, and claim-making of local citizens particularly women, indigenous people, ethnic minorities, communitybased organization on rights to land and natural resources.

6. Capacity building aimed at enhancing cooperation and responsiveness of civil society group in facilitating access to judicial process by affected land-rights holders, either through formal or informal mechanisms.

87 | P a g e

Table 5.3b: Recommendation for Actions and Outcome Level Key Activities

Current Situations

1. Capacity building aimed at developing skills of SNAs in participatory engagement and accountable, responsive and transparent governance.

 Approximately 60% of SNAs and NGOs (only 1% of female) are knowledgeable of laws, rules and regulations concerning land and natural resources;

 Target capacity building about concerned legislations and policies to at least 80% of involved SNAs, especially those at the local level, by making sure that not only chief of each institution is able to attend training;

 Majority of SNAs (80%) and nearly 50% of NGOs (esp. project officers) are unclear about strategies to engage and consult with relevant actors in local governance issues;

 Target capacity building about democratic and participatory planning and development process and procedure in implementing project or program to at least 50% of involved SNAs and 80% of NGO officers;

 Majority of SNAs (80%) and 40% of NGOs (esp. project officers) do not know how to make themselves more accountable, responsive and transparent than they are at present given the sociopolitical environment;  There is no such network operating in the four target provinces currently. This network can act as an alternative mechanism to promote accountability (when progress of accountability through court is slow). It is also timely and supportive to current dilemma concerning transparency, responsiveness and accountability;

 Target capacity building about a variety of information distributing channels and networking to optimize transparency, responsiveness and accountability to at least 50% of involved SNAs and 70% of NGO officers;

 In complimentary to training about democratic and participatory planning and development process and procedure in implementing project or program, this manual will remain with trainee and provide them needed guidelines for their governance journey in the future;

 This manual should be accomplished not later than second quarter (latest third) of the second year of the project in order to allow adequate time for training and implementation, so that stakeholders can practice building partnership and witness outcomes;

2. Capacity building aimed at enhancing awareness and knowledge of SNAs and NGOs on the democratic procedure in the implementation of legislations and policies related to land administration and natural resources management. 3. Establishment of Cambodia Land and Environment Action Network (CLEAN), an advocacy, policy and planning forum comprising of key government and civil society stakeholders.

4. Development of resource manual for effective SNA-CSO engagement and partnership in pursuit of good governance of land and natural resources.

Recommended Actions and Expected Outcomes

 This network should be established not later than the first quarter of the second year of the project and host the forum quarterly regularly in order to allow adequate time for network members to practice participating in the events and witness outcomes;

88 | P a g e

5. Establishment of the access to Justice Committee within the framework of the provincial NGO Network.

 No such network is operating at the time of the study; it is timely and relevant;

 This network should be established not later than the first quarter of the second year of the project and host the forum monthly regularly in order to allow adequate time for network members to practice participating in the events and witness outcomes;

 But current level of confidence and trust in NGOs among local people is very low; only 10% of HH respondents mentioned approachability of NGOs in their area;

 Assist partner NGOs to identify mechanisms to build trust and confidence within at least 50% of target people to encourage them to turn to NGOs in time of conflict or difficulty;

 As high as 90% of HH respondents claimed approachability and 80% stated helpfulness and responsiveness of village chiefs in time of conflicts and difficulty;

 Establish a channel for village chiefs to connect with this Committee when they are unable to turn to upper level SNAs;

 CBOs’ approachability, responsiveness, helpful-ness and influence was stated only by a minority of HH respondents (less than 30%);

 Assist partner NGOs to complete CBOs registration process to ensure rights to management and access to common-pool resources, as well as set up permanent infrastructures and resources for operation within reach of members;

 Only 40% of CBOs are knowledgeable of laws, rules and regulations concerning land and natural resources;

 Assist partner NGOs to target capacity building about concerned legislations and policies to at least 70% of involved CBOs;

 Majority of CBOs (more than 80%) are unclear about strategies to engage and consult with relevant actors in local governance issues;

 Assist partner NGOs to target capacity building about democratic and participatory planning and development process and procedure in implementing project to at least 50% of involved CBOs;

 Majority of CBOs (more than 80%) do not know how to make themselves more accountable, responsive and transparent than they are at present given the sociopolitical & socio-economic environment;

 Assist partner NGOs to target capacity building about information distributing channels and set up infrastructures for distribution, dialogues and knowledge transfer;

89 | P a g e

7. Capacity building aimed at strengthening leadership, advocacy, and claim-making of local citizens particularly women, indigenous people, ethnic minorities, community-based organization on rights to land and natural resources.

 Yet, nearly 50% of respondents ranked CBOs’ performance as satisfied or very satisfied whenever they are able to perform their tasks;

 Assist partner NGOs to connect CBOs with major Justice Committee and CLEAN to optimize their performance and promote transparency, responsiveness and accountability;

 Majority of them fear the insecurity of their current land possession and access to common-pool resources;

 Support relevant SNAs and NGOs to encourage the formal registration of private property land for local residents in order to ensure their ownership rights and security;

 Majority of respondents (more than 60%) are unclear about land ownership patterns and access rights  More than 70% of respondents do not know clearly about how to enact on their rights to participate in decision-making concerning management of land and natural resources in their area, as well as how to benefit from such management practices;

 Assist NGO partners to work with CBOs to produce or compile extensive but comprehensible manuals or materials and distribute widely among local communities to raise awareness of issues:  policies and legislations related to land and natural resources,  land types and ownership patterns,  civic rights  community management and development rights,  mechanisms enabling local participation in making decisions or enquiries concerning land and resource uses (even by private sector) that directly or indirectly affect them,  key local governance agents, their roles and responsibilities  Assist partner NGOs to encourage /enable CBOs to directly work with members and wider local communities concerning issues such as capacity building, information sharing, claim-making and political advocacy, etc.

 Less than 60% of respondents know about some policies and legislations concerning land and natural resources, but more than 60% of have only heard of it from others, radio or TV; they do not understand it precisely;  Around 70% of respondents know about governance institutions, as well as their roles and responsibilities, but the information are not clear and often inaccurate;

90 | P a g e

8. Specific suggestions for women and indigenous communities

 Situations of women and indigenous people are not different from other informants, but more severe due to their additional specific constraints  Women’s personal barriers mostly associated with confidence and economic performance  Social and institutional barriers mostly caused by discrimination from communities and institutions (esp. case of SNAs, CBOs)

 Suggestions above are applicable to women and indigenous people, but pay specially attention to:  how to really reach them (how to remove their personal barriers);  how to directly enable their participation in upcoming trainings or seminars (how to remove social and institutional barriers);  how to design supporting manuals and materials comprehensible and available to them (esp. indigenous people);  Assist NGOs partners to establish new or support existing functions of women association and groups to boost the level of confidence and practices in participatory development, as well as economic contribution to family and communities;  Dedicate special invitation for women participants in training and seminars

 Indigenous people’s main barriers to participating in governance are languages, as well as their attitudes and understanding of the general socio-economic environments, civic rights and special IP rights.

 Ensure that contents of training and seminar are inclusive of and highlighting gender roles and importance in governance;  Design specific manuals and materials (preferable in their language) for indigenous communities and CBOs;  Hold separate training, seminars and forums for these groups by emphasizing their special IP rights in addition to civic rights to land and natural resources;  Assist them in completing their identity registration, as well as advocate the rights to registration for those remaining communities;  Raise their awareness in general situations concerning free-market economy and its relations with governance of land and natural resources 91 | P a g e

REFERENCES Blake D. Ratner. (2011). Natural Resource Governance and Food Security in Cambodia: Policy Discussion Note. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: CDRI, CARD, IFPRI. Community Economic Development. (2013). A Proposal on Strengthening Partnership Towards Participatory and Accountable Governance of Land and Natural Resources in Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear, Kratie, Stung Treng Province. European Union and OXFAM. Daniel, A.; Jeremy, I. & Mean, R. (2009). Mapping and Tenure Security in Cambodia’s Indigenous Communities. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Heinrich Böll Stiftung. Ewers Andersen, K. (2011). Communal Tenure and the Governance of Common Property Resources in Asia: Lessons from experiences in selected countries. FAO. FOA, 2010. http://www.foa.org/nr/water/aquasat/countries/cambodia/index.stm. Retrieved 05/07/2013 Jeff, V. & Manfred, H. (2013). Indigenous People and Land Titling in Cambodia: A Study of Six Villages. Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty 2013. Johnsen, S. and Munford, G. (2012). EU Country Environment Profile: Cambodia, Royal Government of Cambodia, DryLand Development Centre Kimchoeun, P.; Vuthy, H.; Sovatha, A. & Ngo Ngoun, T. (2005). Strengthening Provincial Governance in Cambodia’s Decentralization and Deconcentration Reforms: Accountability in the New Management System. Cambodia Development Resource Institute Men, P. (2011). Land Acquisition by Non-local Actors and Consequences for Local Development: Impact of economic land concessions on the livelihood of indigenous communities in Northeast province of Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Royal University of Phnom Penh. Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction. (2012). Manual on Implementation of Order 01 dated 01 May, 2012 on Measure Strengthening and Increasing Effectiveness of ELC Management. Müller, F. (2012). Commune-Based Land Allocation for Poverty Reduction in Cambodia: Achievement and lessons learned from the project: Land allocation for social and economic development (LASED). Washington DC, United State: World Bank. Naizi, T. H. (2011). Deconcentration and Decentralization Reforms in Cambodia: Recommendations for an Institutional Framework. Mandaluyong City, Philippine: Asian Development Bank. National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development. Kampong Thom Data Book 2009. (2009). Ministry of Interior. National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development. Preah Vihear Data Book 2009. (2009). Ministry of Interior. National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development. Stung Treng Data Book 2009. (2009). Ministry of Interior. National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development. Kratie Data Book 2009. (2009). Ministry of Interior. National institute of statistic, Ministry of Planning. (2008). General population census of Cambodia 2008. Retrieve May 08, 2013 from Ngo, S. & Chan, S. (2012). Economic land concessions and local communities. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: NGO Forum on Cambodia. Opendevelopment. 2013. Opendevelopment Cambodia. Retrieved July 08, 2013 from http://www.opendevelopmentcambodia.net/natural-resources/protected-areas/ OXFAM of Great Britain. (2013). Concept Note: ECCF Project Introductory Meeting. OXFAM. Palmer, D. Fricska, S. and Wehrmann, B. (2009). Toward Improved Land Governance. Land Tenure Working Paper 11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC). (2008). Rectangular Strategy Phase II (2009-2013) 92 | P a g e

Steffen, J. & Greg, M. (2012). Country environment profile: Royal Kingdom of Cambodia. European Union and Euronet Consulting. Try. T. and Chambers. M. (2006). Situation Analysis: Stung Treng Province, Cambodia. Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Programme, Vientiane, Lao PDR. 93 pp. UNDP &Dryland Development Centre. (nd). Decentralized Governance of Natural Resources: Manual and Guideline for Practitioners. United Nation Development Programme UNDP, IUCN, MRC GEF. (2006). Participatory poverty assessment (PPA) Stung Treng, Cambodia. Mekong wetlands biodiversity conservation and sustainable use program. Van Acker, F. (2010). Free Riders and Social Fences: Common Property, Collective Action and Decentralized Natural Resource Management in Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: CBNRMLI. World Bank (2006a). Cambodia: Halving Poverty by 2015? Poverty Assessment 2006. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: World Bank.

93 | P a g e

APPENDICES Appendix A: Guiding Questions for KIs 1. General informant profile Sex:  Male  Female Education:  Primary  Secondary University  Postgraduate Marital status:  Married  Single  Divorced  Separate Occupation:…………………………………………………………………………… Place of residence: born and live the province stays in the area during workday, live permanently somewhere else comes from another province but stay in the area permanently 2. Informant’s institution information and mandate in land and NR governance Institutional goals: …………………………………………………………… Institutional plans: …………………………………………………………… 3. Informant’s roles and responsibilities in the institution, especially in relation to land and NR governance ………………………………………………………………………………………… 4. Informant’s knowledge of availability and abundance of land and NR governance under his institution’s jurisdiction ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5. Informant’s knowledge or awareness of development taken place concerning land and NR governance under his institution’s jurisdiction  Knowledge of land concession:  Yes  No  Knowledge of community land titling or empowerment:  Yes  No Why: …………………………………………………………………………………  Knowledge of illegal activities:  Yes  No What: ………………………………………………………………………………… 6. Informant’s participation in decision-making concerning development and/or management of land and NR under his institution’s jurisdiction  Participation in decision-making of land concession:  Yes  No How: …………………………………………………………………………………  Participation in deciding community land titling or organization:  Yes  No How: …………………………………………………………………………………  Participation in planning suppression of illegal activities:  Yes  No How: ………………………………………………………………………………… Informant’s participation in implementation of strategies concerning development and/or management of land and NR under his institution’s jurisdiction  Participation in implementing land concession:  Yes  No How: …………………………………………………………………………………  Participation in implementing community empowerment:  Yes  No How: …………………………………………………………………………………  Participation in implementing suppression of illegal activities:  Yes  No How: ………………………………………………………………………………… 7. Informant’s involvement in land and NR governance at local level (e.g. capacity building, empowerment, crime suppression, conflict resolution, etc.) 94 | P a g e

 Involvement in capacity building:  Yes  No How: …………………………………………………………………………………  Involvement in community empowerment:  Yes  No How: …………………………………………………………………………………  Involvement in local crime suppression:  Yes  No How: …………………………………………………………………………………  Involvement in local conflict resolution:  Yes  No How: ………………………………………………………………………………… 8. Informant’s knowledge and awareness of intervention concerning land and NR governance under his institution’s jurisdiction but carried out by other agencies (CBOs, NGOs, etc.) ………………………………………………………………………………………… 9. Informant’s view and working relationship with those external agencies ………………………………………………………………………………………… 10. Informant’s perception of local’s people’s knowledge of and capacity in land and NR governance  Perception of local knowledge: …………………………………………………………………………………………  Perception of local capacity in land and NR governance: ………………………………………………………………………………………… 11. Informant’s (and his institution’s) plans to encourage effective and meaningful participation in governance of land and NR under his institution’s jurisdiction ………………………………………………………………………………………… 12. Informant’s suggestions of interventions and assistance in the implementation of land and NR governance …………………………………………………………………………………………

95 | P a g e

Appendix B: List of KI Interviewees and Contact Information N Name Position Kampong Thom Province Community-Based Organizations 1 Mr.RounRean Vice chief 2 3

Mr.Ton Tin Mr. Chi Nem

Secretary Chief of key persons Council member Vice Chief

4 Ms. Kean Sokim 5 Mr. Pin Rin Sub-National Authorities 6 Mr.RosChol Vice Chief 7

Mr.HomVirak

Chief

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Mr. Kong Sam Art Mr.OumOt Mr. Mao Chhun Mr. Soeu Sen Mr. Soung Soeun Mr. Khut Dout Ms. Chum Sakhem

Governor Chief Chief Chief Vice Chief Chief Deputy Director

15 16 17

Council Member Council Member Director

18 19

Mr. Pech Ki Mr. Chhon Nary Mr. Chhao Bun Thoeun Mr. Lay Samut Mr. Sun Choun

Mr. Nhem Khieng

Officer

Mr DithThien

Director

Chief Vice Chief

22 Mr.Chhean Sari Council Member 23 Mr. Ean Mut Chief 24 Mr. Kheak Mean Village Chief Non-Governmental Organizations 25 Mr. Ol Sam Eat Executive Director 26 Mr. Im Kim Project Officer 27 Mr. SeyKhom Director 28 Mr. Som Sophaek Project Officer 29 Mr. Phin Phat Project Assistance of Local Information Accessing Right Project 30 Ms. Sek Dany Executive Director 31 Mr. Phun Sophea Executive Mr. Cheam Tem Director Project Manager

Institution

Contact

Ou Som Community Forestry

Tra Pang Roung Community Forestry Tra Pang Roung Community Forestry

NA NA

Tra Pang Roung Community Forestry Tra Pang Roung Community Forestry

NA NA

Environment Office, KompongSvay District Forestry Administration Office, SalaVisay District Pra Sat Balang District Chey Commune Kampong Svay Commune Ta Am Village Tra Pang Arak Village Sangvat Village Department of Woman Affair Kampong Thom Pra Sat Balang District Kampong Svay District Beng Per Wildlife Sanctuary

NA 012 833 017 012 86 44 45 092 14 17 90 NA NA NA 097 22 41 372 NA NA NA NA

Kon Tanot Village IP Office, Department of Rural Development Fishery Administration Cantonment of Kampong Thom Provincial Department of Land Management Kampong Svay District Chrang Krahom Village Tra Pang Arak Village

088 52 94 773 012 73 13 58

HOM

012 75 98 76

012 233 854 NA 092 436 556 NA NA

APA Buddhist For Provincial Development Action for Development COWS

NA NA NA NA

EHE

APA

96 | P a g e

Preah Vihear Province Non-Government Organization 1 Mr. Sok Vay Assistant Project Coordinator 2 Mr. Kim Than Area Development Project Manager Sub-National Authorities 3 Mr. Khim Veasna Officer 4

Mr. Lach Leh

Chief

5 6 7 8 9

Mr. Van Mut Mr.Khim Sa Vo Mr. Mut Ser Mr. Net Leng Ms. Sovann Dy

Chief Chief Chief Chief District

10 11 12

Mr.YimVeasna Mr. Chhun Sophon Mr.Chhong Rithy

Officer Advisor Chief

Mr. Seng Leang Mr. Kol Savuth Mrs. Chheang Sourkea Mr. Moeung Sakhoeun Mr.Phat Y

Officers

14 15 16

Deputy Governor Chief of Council

Second Vice Chief Community-Based Organizations 17 Mr. Dem Yoeun Chief 18

Mr. Hem Sophal

19 20

Mr. Sorn SoYn Ms.Phumea Thorn

21 22 23

Mr. Soun Chan Thavorn Mr. Kong Thin Mr. Sao Bun Korn

Khea Sok Chea

PHK World Vision

012 33 45 47

Forestry Administration Office, Ravieng District Communal Supporting Office of Chheb District Kampong Sralao Commune Phnom Dek Village KampongSraLao Village Environmental Office, Chheb District Development Plan Office, Rovieng District Fishery Office of Rovieng District Council of District District Land Management Office of Rovieng District Forestry Officer, Chheb District

097 60 34 474

Chheb District, Preah Vihear Rovieng District Chheb I Commune

Phnom ProleanSreThnong Natural Protected Area Community, SreThnong Village Committee Chief ChrabProuy RongRoeung Community, Sre Thom Village Vice Chief Kampong Sra Nos Forestry Community Chief Kampong Sangke Protected Forest Community Secretary Community Forestry, Chheb Koeut Village Chief Chheb Koeut Forestry Community Secretary Phnom Dek Cham Bok Hos Forestry Community Chief Phnom Dek Cham Bok Hos Forestry Community

Stung Treng Province Sub-National Authorities 1 Ms.EngSophea Director 2

Mr. Yen Run

Director

3 4

Mr. Ly Ousaphea Ms.KeoVannara

Deputy Director Officer

Economic and Social Work Office, Stung Treng Provincial Hall Environmental Dissemination, Department of Environment Department of Land Management Gender Equity Office, Department of Women Affair

NA 088 345 81 81 097 98 30 836 097 89 13 771 097 21 14 598 097 207 14 42 097 60 34 474 011 900 905 012 300 108 097 711 99 25 097 84 66 566 099 51 80 30 092 700 115 097 98 310 26 088 88 72 154 077 63 58 94 097 82 15 925 NA 088 60 46 405 NA 097 30 24 965 NA 097 88 40 402

012 91 92 88 097 76 18 16 5 012 66 36 61 017 22 08 12

97 | P a g e

Mr.SreySamvichet

Director

Mr. Rey Reasmey

Chief

Vice Chief

Ms. Sambath Rachana Mr. Nut Sarom

First Vice Chief

Stung Treng Fishery Administration Cantonment Preah Rumkel and AnlungChrey Forestry Office, Thalaborivat District Inter-Sectors Office, Thalaborivat District KohSralay Commune

Ms. KePhally

Council Member

Thalaborivat District

Mr. Sao Men

First Vice Chief

AnlungChrey Commune

11 12

Mr. PhanNoy Mr. Han Roeun

Vice Chief Chief

OuTrel Village Thalaborivat Commune

Mr. HeanSamret

Chief

Svay Village

Mr. Mam Ret

Chief

Trapaing Chheu Teal Forestry Community Anlung Chrey Village Kang Techo Village

15 Mr. Yuk Mao Chief 16 Mr. But Ham Chief Non-Governmental Organizations 17 Mr.Khem Ra Project Coordinator 18 Mr. Krey Solany Program Officer 19 Mr. Sorn Bunthoeun Project Officer Kratie Province Non-Governmental Organizations 1 Mr. Sun Kimhoeun Project Coordinator 2 Ms. Nguon Director Sophanny 3 Mr. Reach Lila Executive Director 4 Ms. Kim Suther Community Coordinator Sub-National Authorities 5 Mr. Sre Ton First Vice Chief

Prum Vihearthor MVI Mlup Baitong

011 35 58 83 097 87 77 76 2 097 48 19 59 8 088 84 85 33 4 097 75 35 24 5 097 97 05 92 5 088 35 61 23 7 Not Available 097 92 31 83 5 097 57 72 67 7 088 35 72 60 3 NA NA 088 75 11 11 2 NA 097 38 60 86 2

CED

012 34 68 11

KAFFDOC

012 95 29 92

Vulnerable People Support

012 77 66 31

CED KbalDamrie

Mr. OukKum

Chief

SreTreng Village

7 8 9 10

Mr. NhakSok Mr. Nut Seak Mr.PechPhorn Mr. Thin Sothy

Chief Chief Council Member Chief

Changhob Village KbalChour Village Chet Borie District Planning Office, Chet Borei District

11 12

Mr. NaiKhy Ms. Cho Kimsork

BosLeav Commune Chet Borei District

Ms. Chan Thida

Chief Deputy Governor Head

Women Affair Office, Chet Borie District

NA 097 67 43 12 4 097 46 64 05 6 011 46 03 07 099 71 91 34 011 76 21 83 012 94 78 50 097 88 00 19 6 011 93 51 07 092 28 28 97 097 87 71 71 0 070 96 94 14 98 | P a g e

14 15

Ms. Peng Ponnarann Ms. Tep Phara

Program Manager Second Vice Chief

Kratie Community Radio, Department of Women Affairs Sambok Commune

088 33 33 58 6 012 27 26 32

99 | P a g e

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIREFOR HOUSEHOLD SURVEY Questionnaire No: ………………………………… Interviewer’s name: ………………………………… Village:………………………… Commune: ………………

Date: ……………………………… Time: ……………………………... District: …………………………...

PART 1: Background Information 1. 2. 3. 4.

Respondent’s code: ………………. Sex: Male Female Age: ……………………. Are you the household head? Yes No If no, please identify your relationship with the household head.

Wife Son

Husband Daughter Others (please specify): …………………………..

Marital status: Married

Single

Divorced

Separate

Demographic Information 6. 7.

8..

9. 10. 11. 12.

How many people are there in your family? …………… Members (M: …….. F: …….) Ethnicity: Khmer Chinese Vietnamese Cham Kuoy Kavet Pnorng Mil Kroul Thmorn Steang Khaonh  Others (please specify): ………………..…. Level of education: No education Functional literacy Education at local pagoda or mosque Primary school Lower secondary school Upper secondary school University Graduate and postgraduate study (1 = finished, 2 = not finished) Can some members of your family can read and write in Khmer language? How many of them? Yes No ………….. member (s) How many dependents are there in your family? ……… Members (M: …….. F: …….) Children: …………...; Disables: ……..….…..; Elderly: ……….….…; Jobless: ……….……….. How long have you been residing in this village? ……………. Years Are you an in-migrant? Yes No (Lowland in-migrant  Highland in-migrant ) If yes, where do you or your family migrant from? ……………………………………………… Year of migration into the area: ………………… Reasons for in-migration: …………………………………………………………………………

Socio-Economic Information 13.

14.

15.

Do you or does your family have any land? Yes No (If yes, continue to the followings.) Residential land: Yes No ……………. m2 Permanent farmland: Yes No ……………. ha Rice paddy: Yes No ……………. ha (Dry rice paddy) ……………. ha (Wet rice paddy) Shifting cultivation land: Yes No ……………. ha Home-garden: Yes No ……………. ha Forestland: Yes No ……………. ha Others (please specify): …………………………………………………………………………... (continue from Q13) If no land for rice/crop cultivation or agricultural production, did your family lease land in the previous year and is your family leasing out at present? And how much do you often spend for the rent(currency could be in riel or US dollar; if riel, convert to dollar)? Previous year Yes No Riel / USD ……………… At present Yes No Riel / USD ……………… What are the main sources of your household livelihoods? Sources of Livelihoods

Importance of Livelihood Activities(please rate by

N0 of Women & Men Involved in

Estimated Annual Income from

100 | P a g e

1. Swidden rice farming

circling the following scaling items with 1 = least important and 5 = most important) 1 2 3 4 5

This Livelihood Activity M: ….... M: ….... M: ….... M: ….... M: ….... M: ….... M: ….... M: ….... M: …....

Each Livelihood Source(in US Dollar, 4,000 riels = USD 1)

……

USD ...………………...

……

USD ...………………...

……

USD ...………………...

……

USD ...………………...

……

USD ...………………...

……

USD ...………………...

……

USD ...………………...

……

USD ...………………...

……

USD ...………………...

M: …… ….... M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

2. Rice farming on permanent plot

3. Rubber plantation

4. Cashew nut plantation

5. Corn cultivation

6. Cassava cultivation

7. Peppercorn cultivation

8. Mungbean cultivation

9. Other (strategic) crop farming (please specify): …………………… …………………………………..... 10. Fishing and sale of catches, both fresh and fermented ones 11. Vegetable gardening or mixed cropping (please specify): …………. …………………………………..... 12. Livestock / animal rearing (please specify): …………………… ……………………………………. 13. Official regular work with NGOs, government, and / or company (please specify): ………… ……………………………………. 14. Official regular part-time employment (please specify): ……... ……………………………………. 15. Casual wage labor in agricultural land / agro-industrial plantation 16. Other wage labors (please specify): ……………………...……. 17. Money lending

M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

18. Business (SME, trading, shop, etc.) (please specify): ……………... ……………………………………. 19. Wood / timber cutting and /or selling 20. Forest and non-forest products collecting (please specify): ……….... ……………………………………. 21. Hunting (please specify): ……… ……………………………………. 22. Handicraft (please specify): ….... …………………………………….

M: …… ….... M: …… ….... M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

M: …… ….... M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

M: …… ….... M: …… …....

101 | P a g e

23. Artisanal mining (please indicate nature of mining): …………………. ……………………………………. 24. Wage labor in mining (please indicate nature of work): …………... ……………………………………. 25. Remittances (please indicate the sender[s]): ………………………… ……………………………………. 26. Land leasing

M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

M: …… …....

USD ...………………...

27. Others (please specify): …………………………………….

M: …… W: ….... 5 M: …… W: ….... Total annual income

16.

Top 2 [……….]

Top 3 [……….]

Top 4 [……….]

Top 5 [……….]

18.

USD ...………………...

List down the top 5 sources of livelihood activities and income involved by you / your family. Use numbers in the first column of Q14 to fill out the blanks. And how do you compare your annual household income during these past 12 months with the previous year and the next year? Top 5 Livelihood Activities / Income Top 1 [……….]

17.

USD ...………………...

Comparison of Annual Income with the Previous Year  Increased  Same as previous year  Decreased  Don’t know  Increased  Same as previous year  Decreased  Don’t know  Increased  Same as previous year  Decreased  Don’t know  Increased  Same as previous year  Decreased  Don’t know  Increased  Same as previous year  Decreased  Don’t know

Comparison of Annual Income with the Next Year  Increased  Same as this year  Decreased  Don’t know  Increased  Same as this year  Decreased  Don’t know  Increased  Same as this year  Decreased  Don’t know  Increased  Same as this year  Decreased  Don’t know  Increased  Same as this year  Decreased  Don’t know

Do you or does your family borrow money from a bank, a micro-financing institution, and /or a local money lender? Yes No (If yes, go to the following) How much for the previous year? Riel / USD ………………………………….. How much for this year? Riel / USD ………………………………….. Is it difficult to repay them? Yes No (Specify): …………………………………... What is your family’s average monthly spending? Riel / USD ………………………………... Please priority five of the following expenses by ranking them from 1 (top priority) to 5. Food stuffs [……….] Children’s education [……….] Buying jewelry [……….] Health care [……….] House construction [……….] House maintenance [……….] Buying materials for agriculture [……….] Clothes [……….] Buying goods (TV, motor, radio, phone, etc.) [……….]

Social events (wedding, feast, etc.) [……….]

102 | P a g e

PART 2: (IP) Community Awareness and Knowledge & Access to Information on Governance of Land and Natural Resources 19.

What are the land and natural resources that you, your family, and your (IP) community have or usually get access to? Please rate the importance of these resources with Scale 1 – 5 (1 = least important, 5 = most important) and specify your reasons briefly, rate the level of abundance (1 = least abundant, 2 = less abundant, 3 = like before or no idea, 4 = abundant, 5 = very abundant), and rate the level of access for you, your family and IP community to each resource (1 = strongly limited, 2 = limited, 3 = like before or no idea, 4 = not limited, 5 = very much accessible).

Type of Land & Natural Resources Residential land Permanent farmland / cultivation land Shifting / swidden cultivation land Grassland Reserved land for new settlement Reserved land for agriculture Sacred land / forestland (prey arek) Burial ground (deykob sob) Forestland Mineral deposits (gold, gemstone, etc.) (specify): …………………………………... Mountain, hill, and natural landscape River, stream, lake & other creek systems Wild animals (specify): …………………………………... Forest and non-timber forest products (specify): …………………………………... Fish and other fishery resources (specify): …………………………………... Community forestry land Community fishery land Others (specify): …………………………... …………………………………………….. 20.

Level of Importance 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... …………………………… … 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………... 1 2 3 4 5 Reasons: ……………………...

Level of Abundance 12 3 4 5

Level of Access 12 3 4 5

12 3 4 5

Do you know who own most of the land and natural resources in your region? Yes No If yes, please tick the following answer (s). You can tick more than one answer. State Commune Development Council Village Chief Company Community Protected Areas Authority Community Forestry In-migrant IP Community Others (please specify): ……………………

103 | P a g e

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Do you know that state own natural resources under the ground, in the water and along the waterway, and on the ground as well as most land and land-related resources? Yes No If no, according to your idea, who own these resources? ……………………………………….. Do you know the difference between “public state land” and“private state land”? Yes No If yes, please explain briefly: ……………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Do you know what a land title for individual property is for? Yes No If yes, what is the benefit? ………………………………………………………………………... Do you know what the communal land titling is for? Yes No If yes, what is the benefit? ………………………………………………………………………... Does your (IP) community possess a communal land title? Yes No If yes, when did you get this title? ………………….. Who issued this title? …………………… If no, does your (IP) community plan to get this title? Yes No When? ……………. Do you know that you and your (IP) community have rights over land and natural resources in your locality? Yes No If yes, what rights do you / your (IP) community have? (You can choose more than one answer)

Right to access Right to preserve and protect

Right to use Right to benefit from its management and development Others (please specify): …………………………………………………… Who, what, or which institution granted such rights to you and your (IP) community? (You can select more than one)  Local authority  Provincial Department of Environment  Provincial Department of Industry, Mine & Energy  Fishery Administration  Ministry of Land Management, Urbanization & Construction Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery Others (specify): ………………………………….......................... 27.

 Provincial Department of Land Management  Provincial Department of Agriculture  Provincial Department of Rural Development  Forestry Administration  Ministry of Environment Ministry of Rural Development

Do you ever know or hear about laws, regulations, policies, and other legal frameworks related to the management, conservation and development of land and natural resources? Yes No If yes, what do you know or hear about? (You can more than one)

 Land Law Fishery Law  Organic Law  Sub-Decree on Economic Land Concession Sub-Decree on Community Forestry Management  Law on Mineral Resources Management and Exploitation

Forestry Law  Agricultural Land Law  Protected Area Law  Law on Environmental Protection and NRM  Sub-Decree on EIA  Others (specify): ……………………………

If yes, how do you know about this information? (You can tick more than one)  Watch TV Listen to the radio  Word-of-mouth  Information release or meetings with district authority  Information release or meetings with local CBOs  Information release or meetings with provincial line departments  Information release or meetings with concerned local NGOs  Information release or meetings with concerned ministries  Others

 Read newspaper  Village and commune meetings (specify): …………………….…… (specify): …………………….…… (specify): …………………….…… (specify): …………………….…… (specify): …………………….……

104 | P a g e

PART 3: 28. 29.

Issues of Social and Environmental Justice & Development and Management of Land and Natural Resources

Are there any private companies / commercial bodies presently investing or operating their businesses in land and natural resources? Yes No No idea (If “no” or “no idea”, skip to Q37) If yes, what type of business are they investing? (Can be more than one answer) Agro-industrial business

 Rubber plantation  Cashew nut plantation

 Cassava plantation  Others (please specify): ……………………

Mining business

 Goldmine  Gemstone mine  Iron ore  Bauxite  Coal mine  Construction material minerals (i.e. marble, granite, sandstone, etc.) (please specify): ……………  Other metallic minerals (please specify): ……………  Other non-metallic / industrial minerals (please specify): ……………  Other solid fuel minerals (please specify): …………… Forest concession business

 Logging  Eucalyptus plantation 30.

 Acacia plantation  Others (please specify): …………………………

Do you know who granted license or permission for this (theses) company (ies)? (You can tick more than one)Yes No

Agro-industrial Business (ELC)

Mining Business

Forest Concession Business(ELC)

Council for the Development of Cambodia Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry andFishery Ministry of Environment Ministry of Industry, Mine and Energy Local authorities Provincial Department of Agriculture Provincial Department of Environment Provincial Department of Industry, Mine and Energy Military groups & their local partners Others (specify): ………………………….

Council for the Development of Cambodia Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Ministry of Environment Ministry of Industry, Mine and Energy Local authorities Provincial Department of Agriculture Provincial Department of Environment Provincial Department of Industry, Mine and Energy Military groups & their local partners Others (specify): ………………………….

31.

How much do you know about this (these) company (ies) business? (You can tick more than one answer)  Type of company Type of activity Stage of development Company’s name Company’s origin Type of license / permission Coverage area / boundary of company Duration of operation  Others (please specify): ……………………………………………………...

32.

Has anyone explained to you and your (IP) community about compensation and how it works when a company’s operation affects your / community’s properties? Yes No If yes, please specify who: ………………………………………………………………………... Has anyone ever told, explained or presented to you how each company’s operation is going to impact on your / your (IP) community’s livelihoods and land and natural resources? Yes No If yes, about positive impacts  (specify): ………………………………………... about negative impacts  (specify): ……….……………………………….. Has any company in your area provided job opportunities for the locals? Yes No If yes, please specify type and amount of job: …………………………………………………….

33.

34.

105 | P a g e

35.

Has any company in your area provided funding for social development projects? Yes No If yes, please specify name (s) of the company …………………………………………………... and tick the followings (can tick more than one):

 Road construction or renovation  Health care center construction or renovation Water supply Provide or support literacy class

School construction or renovation Supply of electricity Local pagoda construction or renovation Others (please specify): …………………………

36.

Has any company in your area provided support or funding for environmental restoration or conservation activities? Yes No If yes, please specify name (s) of the company, amount of fund, and activities: …………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 37. Have your family and your (IP) community affected or being affected by current development and management of land and natural resources in your locality? Yes No If yes, what type of effect? (You can tick more than one)  Land loss Relocation and resettlement Limited access to land and natural resources Changing or loss of traditional livelihoods Decline in or loss of culture and tradition Injury Emergence of disease Loss of raised animals Out-migration  Others (please specify): …………………………… PART 4: Availability, Support, and Interventions of Legal Services & Capabilities 38.

Do you know which institutions are in charge of local governance of land and natural resources in your region? Yes No If yes, tick the followings (can be more than one)

 Provincial authority  Commune Development Council  Provincial Department of Land Management  Community Fishery  Provincial Department of Environment  Provincial Department of Industry, Mine & Energy  Ministry of Rural Development  Forestry Administration  Ministry of Environment  Village Elder Group  Concerned local NGOs(specify): …………………

 District authority  Village Chief  Community Forestry  CPA Management Committee  Provincial Department of Agriculture  Provincial Department of Rural Development  Fishery Administration Ministry of Land Management, Urbanization & Construction  Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery  National Authority for Land Dispute Resolution  Others(specify): …………………………………

Do you know their roles and responsibilities for land and natural resources governance? Yes  No  If yes, please specify: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 39. Do you know which institutions are responsible for conflict resolution over ownership, access to and use of land and natural resources?Yes No If yes, what are they? (Can tick more than one)  Provincial authority  District authority  Commune Development Council  Village Chief  Provincial Department of Land Management  Community Forestry  Community Fishery  CPA Management Committee  Provincial Department of Environment  Provincial Department of Agriculture  Provincial Department of Industry, Mine & Energy  Provincial Department of Rural Development  Ministry of Rural Development  Fishery Administration  Forestry Administration Ministry of Land Management, Urbanization & Construction  Ministry of Environment  Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery  Village Elder Group  National Authority for Land Dispute Resolution  Concerned local NGOs(specify): ……………………………  Others(specify): ………………………………… Do you know their roles and responsibilities for conflict resolution? Yes  No  106 | P a g e

If yes, please specify: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 40. Do you think who or which institution could be representing well in local governance of land and natural resources in your region? (You can tick more than one)  Provincial authority  District authority  Commune Development Council  Village Chief  Provincial Department of Land Management  Community Forestry  Community Fishery  CPA Management Committee  Provincial Department of Environment  Provincial Department of Agriculture  Provincial Department of Industry, Mine & Energy  Provincial Department of Rural Development  Ministry of Rural Development  Fishery Administration  Forestry Administration Ministry of Land Management, Urbanization & Construction  Ministry of Environment  Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery  Village Elder Group  National Authority for Land Dispute Resolution  Concerned local NGOs(specify): ……………………………  Others(specify): ………………………………… Why? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………... 41.

Who or which institution do you and your family or does your (IP) community approach to when you have concerns or problems related to management and development of land and natural resources in your locality? Are they approachable, open, helpful, and responsive? (Answer can be more than one; scaling items: 1 = No, 2 = No Idea, 3 = Yes)

Type of Institution Concerned ministries (Specify): …………………………… Concerned provincial authorities (Specify): …………………………… Concerned line departments (Specify): …………………………… Concerned local NGOs (Specify): …………………………… Village elder group (Specify): …………………………… Community-base Organizations (Specify): …………………………… Other 1 (Specify): …………………………… Other 2 (Specify): ……………………………

42.

Approachable 1 2 3 ………………...

Open 1 2 3 ………………...

Helpful 1 2 3 ………………...

Responsive 1 2 3 ………………...

Influential 1 2 3 ………………...

1 2 3 ………………...

Who or which institution do you / does your (IP) community think to be capable and have provided good and effective interventions in local governance of land and natural resources? (Answer can be more than one; circling the scaling items: 1 = Yes, 2 = No)

Type of Institution Concerned ministries (Specify): ………………… Concerned provincial authorities

Capable 1 2 …………... 1 2 …………...

Training / Awareness Raising 1 2 …………... 1 2 …………...

Advocacy 1 2 …………... 1 2 …………...

Type of Intervention Boundary Land Titling Consultation Demarcation & Dialogue

Stop/Reduce Illegality

1 2 …………... 1 2 …………...

Render Judgment 1 2 …………... 1 2 …………...

107 | P a g e

(Specify): ………………… Concerned line departments (Specify): …………………  Concerned local NGOs (Specify): ………………… Village elder group (Specify): …………………  Community-based Organizations (Specify): ………………… Other 1 (Specify): ………………… Other 2 (Specify): …………………

43.

1 2 …………...

1 2 …………... 1 2 …………... 1 2 …………...

1 2 …………... 1 2 …………...

Did you and / or any member of your family ever attend any training or workshop related to local governance of land and natural resources in your area? Yes No If yes, how many members (including you) of you family have attended? M: ………. F: ……….. What kind of training or workshop did you and / or your family attend? (You can tick more than one)

 Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)  Community and/or IP community rights  Fishery Law  Organic Law  Community protected area management  Community fishery management  Mineral resource management & exploitation  Resource patrolling and protection  Organic agriculture  Sustainable land use  Sustainable NRM & harvesting

 Agricultural Land Law  Land Law  Forestry Law  Protected Area Law  Community forestry management  Economic land concession management  SME development  CBT / CBET management  Livelihood strategy improvement  Land use planning & development  Others (please specify): ……………………………

PART 5: Quality Rating of Inclusion, Performance and Consultation 44. 45.

Have you been (or were you) informed about new development and management plans of land and natural resources in your area? Yes No (Specify): ……………………………………... If yes, who informed you? ………………………………………………………………………... Have you been (or were you) informed about the coming of private company or investor into your area? Yes No (Specify): …………………………………………………….………….. If yes, who informed you? ………………………………………………………………………... If yes, how were or have you been informed? (You can tick more than one answer)  Village or commune meeting  Word-of-mouth  Posting announcement  Training and / or awareness raising  CBO meeting  LNGO meeting/workshop  Others (please specify): …………………..…………………

What were or have you been informed? (You can tick more than one)  Type of company  Name of company  Duration of operation  Coverage area of company  Business license / permission  Business process  Type of impacts  Compensation  Revenue management  Job opportunities  Supply of local products & other benefits for IP community  Others (please specify): ………………………… 46.

Have you or any of your family members been invited to participate in providing community input into management and development of land and natural resources in your area? Yes No (If no, skip to Q48) If yes, please tick the followings for your input (can be more than one) 108 | P a g e

 Decision-making for the operation of the company  Consultation with the company and other concerned stakeholders for mutual understanding and benefit sharing  Others (please specify): ………………………………………

 Consent-making for the operation of the company  Planning for the existence of the company in the area

If yes, how many members (including you) of your family have been invited? M: …….. F: ……... If yes, who invited you? (Can tick more than one)  Concerned ministries  Provincial authority  Commune development council  Concerned LNGOs  Village elder group  Private investor / company 47.

 Concerned line departments  District authority  Village Chief  Concerned CBOs  Women association  Others (please specify): ………………….…………

If yes (continue from Q46), how do you rate their performance and consultation process? (Scaling items: 1 = Not satisfied at all, 2 = less than satisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = fairly satisfied, 5 = very satisfied, 6 = don’t know – DK) Stakeholders Concerned ministries Concerned line departments Provincial authority District authority Commune development council Village Chief Concerned LNGOs Concerned CBOs (CF, CFi, CPA, CBT) Village elder group Women association Private investor / company Others (specify): ………………………...

48. 49.

Rate of Performance / Consultation Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (DK)

If no (continue Q46), do you want to participate? Yes No Why? ……………………………………………………………………………………………... Do you think participation of local (IP) community in decision-making, consent-making, and planning in local governance of land and natural resources important? For men: Yes No Why? ……………………………………………………………………………………………… For women: Yes No Why? ………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your time and collaboration!

109 | P a g e

APPENDIX D: List

of ELCs and MCs in OGB Target Areas KAMPONG THOM Economic Land Concession

Name

Land Area

LOCATION Location

Unknown concession 1. 9863 hectares

9,863 ha

Unknown concession 2. 9993 hectares

9,993 ha

Unknown concession 3. 7000 hectares

7,000 ha

Santuk, Prasat Sambo District, Kompong Thom

Unknown concession 4. 7984 hectares

7,984 ha

Santuk District, Kompong Thom

Unknown concession 5. 1000 hectares

1,000 ha

Prasat Balang District, Sendan District, Kompong Thom

Unknown concession 6. 8320 hectares

8,320 ha

(Cambodia) Farming 7. Investment Co.,Ltd

901.22 ha

8. An Mady Group Co., Ltd 9,863 ha

Prasat Balang District, Kampong Thom Sendan District , Kampong Thom , Rovieng,Preah Vihear

Preah Vihea, Kampong Thom District Santuk District, Kompong Thom Balang District, Kompong Thom Sendan District, Kampong Thom and Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

9. An Mady Group Co., Ltd 9,993 ha An Sophy Farming 10. Cambodia Bean Heach Investment 11. Co., Ltd

Coverage Area

967 ha

Santuk District , Kampong Thom

4,385 ha

Prasat Balang District, Stoung district , Kampong Thom Chi Kraeng District, Siem Reap, Stoung District, Kampong Thom, Sangkom Thmie District, Preah Vihear

Bean Heach Investment 12. Co., Ltd

5,095 ha

13. BNA (Cam) Corp

7,500 ha

Santuk district, Kampong Thom

14. C C V Co., Ltd

5,730 ha

Santuk District, Kampong Thom

110 | P a g e

C R C K Rubber 15. Development Co., Ltd

6,155 ha

Sandann District, Kampong Thom

C R C K Rubber 16. Development Co., Ltd

2,183 ha

C R C K Rubber 17. Development Co., Ltd

7,289 ha

Kampong Thom , Stoung District

Cambodia Eversky Agricultural 18. Development and Investment Co., Ltd

10,000 ha

Kampong Thom , Santul District

19. Caoutchouc Mekong

8,000 ha

Chamroeun Rong 20. Roeung Peanich Co., Ltd

1,064 ha

Kampong Thom , Santuk District

Ching Kor Import 21. Export Co., Ltd

1,091 ha

Kampong Thom , Santuk District

Gold Foison (Cambodia) 22. A/C Import Export & Construction

7,000 ha

Kampong Thom , Prasat Sambo and Santuk District

Golden farming 23. investment Co., Ltd

925 ha

Kampong Thom , Santuk District

24. H.M.H. Co., Ltd

5,914 ha

Kampong Thom, Santuk District

Heam Kom Ham Co., 25. Ltd

400 ha

Kampong Thom, Santuk District

26. Mean Rithy Co., Ltd

9784 ha

Kampong Thom, San Tuk District

Mok Chhay Import 27. Export Co., Ltd

716 ha

Kampong Thom, Santuk District

Pour Khouch Aphivath 28. Group Co., Ltd

350 ha

Ream Na Viniyuk Co., 29. Ltd

410 ha

Sal Sophea Peanich 30. Group Co., Ltd

2995 ha

Kampong Thom

Sambath Platinum Co., 31. Ltd

2496 ha

Kampong Thom

Siv Guek Investment 32. Co., Ltd

600.88 ha

Kampong Thom, Santuk District

Stoung District, Kampong Thom, Chi Kraeng District Siem Reap

Kampong Thom , Prasat Balang District, Rovieng District

Prasat Balang District, Kampong Thom and Rovieng District, Preah Vihear, Preah Vihear, Kampong Thom

111 | P a g e

Srey Panha Aphivath 33. Co.,Ltd

588 ha

Souy Chheng Import 34. Export Co., Ltd

1033 ha

Kampong Thom, Santuk District

Ta Bien Kampong Thom 35. Rubber Development

8100 ha

Kampong Thom, Santuk District

Tepi Agro Investment 36. Co., Ltd

1000 ha

Kampong Thom, Prasat Balang, Sandann District

58658 ha

Kratie Kamong Thom, Preaek Prasab, Santuk District

37. Timas Resources

Preah Vihear, Kampong Thom

Mining Concessions N

Name

Land Area

LOCATION Location

Alex Corporation

0 ha

Kampong Thom, Sandan District

Delcome Cambodia Pte., Ltd

19800 ha

Kampong Thom , Baray District

Indochine Resources (OA Chos)

Indochine Resources (Phno Pros)

Coverage Area

24700 ha

Siembok District, Stung Treng and Sandan District, Kompong Thom

27100 ha

Sandan, District, Santuk District, Kampong Thom and Sanbour District, Kratie

Indochine Resources (Preaek Prasab and Sambo)

30000 ha

Preaek Prasab, Kratie and Santuk District, Kampong Thom

Indochine Resources (Sambour)

30000 ha

Preaek Prasab District, 112 | P a g e

Kratie and Santuk District Kampong Thom 7.

NGOV PET

1 ha

Kampong Thom, Santuk District

O D MJ Cola Mine Co., Ltd

0 ha

Kampong Thom, Sambour District

Vannymex Co., Ltd

7800 ha

Kampong Thom , Sandan District

10.

Wing Srun Co., Ltd

0 ha

Kampong Thom, Prasat Balag District

PREAH VIHEAR Economic Land Concession N

Name

Land Area

LOCATION Location

Unknown concession 8320 hectares

8,320 ha

Unknown concession 9000 hectares

9000 ha

Kulen District, Preah Vihear

Unknown concession 984.33 hectares

9854.33

Choam Kshan Distric, Preah Vihear

Unknown concession 8528 hectares

8520 hectares

Preah Vihear

Unknown concession 9916 hectares

9916hect ares

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

Unknown concession 980 hectares

980 ha

Choam Kshan Distric, Preah Vihear

Am Phal Focus Cambodia

8000 ha

Sangkum Thmie District, Preah Vihear

An Mady Group Co., Ltd

9,993 ha

BEST ROYAL (K) Co., Ltd

6500 ha

Choam Kshan , Preah Vihear and Kulen District, Trapang Prasat District, Oddarmeanchey,

10.

Cambodia Blue Haven Limited

9126 ha

Preah Vihear

11.

Camboia Dawn Plantation Ltd

9237 ha

Choam Kshan Distric, Preah Vihear

Coverage Area Kampong Thom District , Preah Vihear

Sendan District, Kampong Thom, and Rovieng District, Preah Vihear,

113 | P a g e

12.

China Great Cause (Cambodia) Investment

5980 ha

Sankum Thmei District and Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

13.

Distinct Harvest (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

7960 ha

Sankum Thmei District and Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

14.

Eminent Elite (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

7359 ha

Kulen District, Preah Vihear

15.

Fephy Malaysia (Cambodia)Plathasin Co., Ltd

8200 ha

Sangkum Thmie District and Kulen District, Preah Vihear

16.

Green Choice (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

7863 ha

Sangkum Thmie, Preah Vihear

17.

Kim Chea Toun Group

884 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

18.

Lon A Grid Thaek Investment Company

4095 ha

Oddarmeanchey, Preah Vihear

19.

Ly Chhung Construction and Import Export

6000 ha

Kulen District, Preah Vihear, and Svay Leu District Siem Reap

20.

Metrey Pheap Kaksek Ouksahakam Co., Ltd

8520 ha

Preah Vihear City

21.

P N T Co., Ltd

7900 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

22.

Pour Khouch Aphivath Group Co., Ltd

350 ha

Prasat Balang, Kampong Thom, and Rovieng District , Preah Vihear,

23.

Ream Na Viniyuk Co., Ltd

410 ha

Preah Vihear City, Kampong Thom

24.

Rethy Granite (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

2036 ha

25.

Se Hong Plantation Company Limited

9700 ha

Oddarmeanchey , Preah Vihear

26.

Serey Mony Transportation & Construction Co., Ltd

6870 ha

Preah Vihear , Siem Reap

27.

Sovannaphum Viniyok KaseUsahakam

9913 ha

28.

Srey Panha Aphivat Co., Ltd

988 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear Preah Vihear , Kampong Thom

114 | P a g e

Mining Concessions No

Name

LOCATION

Land Area Location

Cambodia Iron And Steel Mining Industry Group

130674 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

Cambodia Ws Mining Industry Holding Limited

0 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

Cambodia Hue Yi Mining Co., Ltd

0 ha

Preah Vihear, Chie Sen District

Chhong Kor Chhean Pean Co., Ltd

6000 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

Delcome Cambodia Pte.,Ltd

43233.68 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

Delcome Cambodia Pte., Ltd, II

43233.68 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

Delcome Cambodia Pte.,Ltd

43233.68 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

Dinghua Group Corporation Limited

0 ha

Preah Vihear, Chie Sen District

Golden Resource Development Co., Ltd

0 ha

Chhaeb, Preah Vihear

10.

Guangxi Nonferrous Metal Group (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

0 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

11.

Kenertec (A)

11522.58 ha

Chie Sen District , Preah Vihear

12.

Kenertec (B)

41383.06 ha

Chhaeb, Preah Vihear

13.

Kenertec (C)

23973.43 ha

Preah Vihear, Chie Sen District

14.

Kenertec (C1)

20400 ha

15.

Kenertec (D)

18445.7 ha

Chhaeb, Preah Vihear

16.

Kenertec (E)

7063.87 ha

Chhaeb, Preah Vihear

17.

Kenertec (H)

29039.2 ha

Sangkum Thmie, Preah Vihear

Coverage Area

Chie Sen District, Preah Vihear and Thala District Borivat , Stung Treng,

115 | P a g e

18.

Kenertec (J)

2643.62 ha

Sangkum Thmie, Preah Vihear

19.

Kep Power Supply Co., Ltd

0 ha

Choam Kshan Distric, Preah Vihear

20.

Kingdom Mining Co., Ltd

0 ha

Chhaeb and Choam Kshan District, Preah Vihear

21.

Kingdom Resource Co., Ltd

0 ha

Sangkum Thmie, Preah Vihear

22.

Kou Sa Geopacific

15800 ha

Chhaeb, Preah Vihear

23.

Liberty Mining International PYT Ltd (Transol Corporation Limited)

36350 ha

24.

Mekong Mining Investment

0 ha

Chhaeb , Preah Vihear

25.

Queen Property and Resource Holding

1600 ha

Preah Vihear, Sdao Commune

26.

Queen Property and Resource Holding

20000 ha

Sangkum Thmie, Preah Vihear

27.

Ratanak Stone (Cambodia) Development Co., Ltd I

375 ha

Sangkum Thmie, Preah Vihear

28.

Ratanak Stone (Cambodia) Development Co., Ltd II

3200 ha

Rovieng District, Preah Vihear

29.

Ratanak Stone (Cambodia) Development Co., Ltd III

3600 ha

Preah Vihear

30.

U B E Development Co., Ltd

0 ha

Preah Vihear

Oddarmeanchey, Preah Vihear

KRATIE Economic Land Concession No 1.

Name Unknown Concession 9996 hectares

Land Area 9996 ha

LOCATION Location

Coverage Area

Snoul District , Kratie,

116 | P a g e

Unknown Concession 1225 hectares

1225 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

Unknown Concession 1000 hectares

1000 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

Unknown Concession 9780 hectares

9780 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

Unknown Concession 2282 hectares

2282ha

Sambo District, Kratie

Unknown Concession 6450 hectares

6450 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

Unknown Concession 1000 hectares

1000 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

Unknown Concession 9855 hectares

9855 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

Unknown Concession 8977 hectares

8977 ha

Kratie, Sambo District

10. Unknown Concession 6432 hectares

6432 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

11. (Cambodia) Tong Min Group Engineering

7465 ha

Chet Borie District, Kratie

12. Agri-Industrial Crops Development

7000 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

13. Asia World Agriculture Development (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

10000 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

14. C &V group

7000 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

15. C X P B Development

8202 ha

Preaek Prasab District , Kratie

16. Carmadeno Venture (Cambodia) Limited

7635 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

17. Central First Company Limited

7000 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

18. Chan Sophea

5088 ha

Kratie, Chhlong District

19. Chhun Hong Rubber Better

8202 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

20. CIV Development Agro Industry

740 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

117 | P a g e

21. Crops & Land Development (Cambodia)

7200 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

22. Dau Thieng (Cambodia) Rubber Development Co., Ltd

7972 ha

Snoul and Chhlong District, Kratie

23. Dau Thieng (Kratie) Rubber Development Co., Ltd

6592 ha

Snoul and Chhlong District, Kratie

24. Doty Siagon-Binh Phouc (SBK)

6436 ha

Chet Borie District, Kratie

25. E-Investment Co., Ltd

6450 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

26. Eastern Agro (Cambodia)

7844 ha

Chet Borie District, Kratie

27. Global Agriculture Development (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

9800 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

28. Great asset Development (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

8984 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

29. Great Wonder Agriculture Development (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

8231 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

30. Green Island Agriculture Development Co., Ltd

9583ha

Sambo District, Kratie

31. Hai Yong Investment Agrindustrial Company

701 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

32. Hout Sambat Co., Ltd

6432 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

33. JPE Co., Ltd

678 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

34. Mega Star Development Investment and Forest

8000 ha

Chet Borie District, Kratie

35. Memot Rubber Plantation Co., Ltd

9855 ha

Snould District, Kratie,

36. N. K. Agri (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

8892 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

37. PDA (Cambodia)

5256 ha

Snoul District , Kratie

38. Rattanak Stone

479 ha

Snoul District, Kratie 118 | P a g e

39. Samang Angkor Development Co., Ltd

1225 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

40. Snoul Rubber Estate (A01) `

140.81 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

41. Snoul Rubber Estate (A02) `

258.24 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

42. Snoul Rubber Estate (A03) `

375.56 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

43. Snoul Rubber Estate (A04) `

1396.66 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

44. Snoul Rubber Estate (A05) `

111.51 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

45. Snoul Rubber Estate (A06) `

33.19 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

46. Snoul Rubber Estate (A08) `

11.45 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

47. Snoul Rubber Estate (A09) `

279.48 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

48. Snoul Rubber Estate (A10) `

7975 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

49. Snoul Rubber Estate (A11)

29.49 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

50. Snoul Rubber Estate (B01)

146.34 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

51. Snoul Rubber Estate (B02)

17.82 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

52. Snoul Rubber Estate (B03)

406.6 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

53. Snoul Rubber Estate (B04)

423.82 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

54. Snoul Rubber Estate (C01)

568.57 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

55. Snoul Rubber Estate (C02)

459.05 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

56. Sovvann Reachsey Co., Ltd

6525 ha

57. Sovan Vuthy Co., Ltd

5000 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

58. Tay Ninh Kratie Sugar

8725 ha

Sambo District, Kratie

Snoul District, Kratie, and Keoseima District, Mondulkiri

119 | P a g e

59. Thera Investment

520 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

60. Think Biotech Co., Ltd

34007ha

Sambo District, Kratie& Stung Treng Siembok

61. Tima Resources

58658 ha

Kratie, Preaek Prasab, and Kampong Thom, Santuk District

62. Trach Niem Han Dua Tu-Phat Trien Dia Nam (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

4468 ha

Snoul District, Kratie

63. Tty Agriculture Plant Development Co., Ltd

9780 ha

Snoul District, Kratie STUNG TRENG

Economic Land Concessions N

Name

Land Area

LOCATION Location

(Cambodia) Research Mining and Development

7200 ha

Sesan District, Stung Treng

Cambodia Farmer Investment

13993 ha

Stung Treng City and Siem Bok District

Cassava Starch Production Co., Ltd

7400 ha

Stung Treng City, Stung Treng

Flour Manufacturing Co., Ltd

7400 ha

Stung Treng City, Stung Treng

GG World Group (Cambodia) Development Co., Ltd

5000 ha

Stung Treng City, Stung Treng

Grand Land Agriculture Development (Cambodia) Co., Ltd

9854 ha

Sésan District, Stung Treng

Green Sea Agriculture Co., Ltd

100852 ha

Stung Treng City and Siem Pang District , Stung Treng

Phou Mady Investment Group

10000 ha

Sésan District, Stung Treng

Prestige Finance and Investment Pty., Ltd

350000 ha

Sésan District, Stung Treng

Coverage Area

120 | P a g e

10. Sal Sophea Peanich Group Co., Ltd (Region I)

8508 ha

Sésan District, Stung Treng

11. Sal Sophea Peanich Group Co., Ltd (Region II)

1409 ha

Sésan District, Stung Treng

12. Sekong Aphivath Co., Ltd

9850 ha

Siem Pang District, Stung Treng

13. Siv Guek Investment Co., Ltd

10000 ha

Sésan District, Stung Treng

14. Sopheak Nika Investment AgroIndustrial Plant Co. Ltd

10000 ha

Sésan District, Stung Treng

15. Think BioTech Co., Ltd

34007 ha

16. Un-Inter Trading and Development

7000 ha

Sambo District, Kratieand Siem Pang District, Stung Treng Sésan District, Stung Treng

Mining Concession No

Name

Land Area

LOCATION Location

Coverage Area

1. Angkor Gold Crop (Siem Pang)

67200 ha

Stung Treng , Siem Pang and Sesan

2. Capital Mineral Resource Investment Co., Ltd

0 ha

Thala Boriavat, Stung Treng

3. Indochine Resources (Boeung Nging Kang)

20000 ha

Vunsai Distric, Rattanakiri and Siem Pang Distric, Stung Treng

4. Indochine Resources (Bor Kham)

20000 ha

Vunsai Distric, Rattanakiri and Siem Pang Distric, Stung Treng

5. Indochine Resources (Ka Chhuk)

20000 ha

Vunsai Distric, Rattanakiri and Siem Pang Distric, Stung Treng

6. Indochine Resources (Om Smang)

25200 ha

Vunsai Distric, Rattanakiri and Siem Pang Distric, Stung Treng

121 | P a g e

7. Indochine Resources (Paung PeaY)

20000 ha

Vunsai Distric, Rattanakiri and Siem Pang Distric, Stung Treng

8. Indochine Resources (Preak Kousieb)

24800 ha

Stung Treng, Siem Pang

9. Jin Gold Development Co., Ltd

0 ha

SĂŠsan District, Stung Treng

10. Kenertec (C1)

20400 ha

Thala Borivat, Stung Treng and Chey Sen District, Preah Vihear

11. Kenertec (E)

7063.87 ha

Thala Borivat, Stung Trengs and Chhaeb District, Preah Vihear

12. Kenertec (F)

10845.83 ha

Stung Treng, Thala Borivat

13. Kenertec (G)

220.93 ha

Stung Treng, Thala Borivat

14. Khun Sea Development Group Co., Ltd

0 ha

Stung Treng, Siem Bok, and Sesan

15. Liberty Mining International Pty.,Ltd

24000 ha

16. Mong Good Luck Mining Co., Ltd

9000 ha

Stung Treng District

17. Phi Mining Group (Limestone Stung Treng)

20000 ha

Thala Borivat, Stung Treng

18. Ta Yi CO., Ltd

1825 ha

SĂŠsan District, Stung Treng

19. The Stung Treng Minerl Join Venture Company

0 ha

Thala Borivat, Stung Treng

20. Try Pheap Co., Ltd (Region I)

4200 ha

Thala Borivat, Stung Treng

21. Try Pheap Co., Ltd (Region II)

1800 ha

Thala Borivat, Stung Treng

Konmom District and Lom Phat, Rattanakiri

122 | P a g e