Back

(18).  Resettlement and Rights of Project-Affected People

Project-affected people are not included in the NPRS definition of vulnerable people, and as result do not receive specific consideration in the document. Resettlement and relocation are treated solely in the context of urban development (Section 4.2.8.).

The term “resettlement” appears to be used only twice. One reference is found in the section concerning Consultation with the Poor, in which the NPRS observes that “towards the end of June/early July, GTZ joined in assisting with a series of consultations for the poor with the Ministry of Health in Kampong Thom province and in Anlong Kngan, the resettlement area from the Tonle Bassac.” There is no further explanation concerning this reference.

In the section on Improved Access to Land, under Land Management, the NPRS refers a long list of objectives, including “informal resettlement upgrading and adoption of resettlement policy.” There is no further reference in this section.

In Section 4.2.8. concerning Urban Development, the NPRS observes that “Poverty forces the urban poor to live in squatter settlements, which, as illegal settlements, are denied security of tenure and access to most basic services.” In this section, the NPRS uses the word “relocation.” 

The NPRS states that a second step “towards triggering community-based urban poverty reduction from 1995 to 1999” was the implementation of small-scale in-situ upgrading, and the organisation of a few successful voluntary relocation programs outside the city. The two main civic organisations representing the urban poor (among a dozen or so smaller NGOs), the Solidarity and Urban Poor Federation (SUPF) and the Urban Sector Group (USG), have organised about 180 squatter settlements in total, federated them with other communities and significantly empowered many of them in the process.”

The NPRS goes on to observe that “Conspicuously absent in the implementation of the UPRS to date has been the recognition that rural to urban migration will continue for decades to come. Consequently Municipal efforts have focused excessively on 'voluntary relocation' of inner-city squatters to the Municipality provided sites on the city's periphery.  Now that participatory monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of such relocations have revealed that they are more likely to exacerbate the livelihoods and living conditions of the poor, there is a clear need to pursue squatter in situ upgrading programmes more seriously.”  

In terms of providing “adequate housing and living conditions for the urban poor,” the NPRS proposes (among other actions) to:

• “Provide adequate sanitation in up-gradable settlements and relocation sites;”
• “Improve transportation networks and services for low-income populations in existing up-gradable settlements and on relocation sites;” and
• “Develop disaster prevention and mitigation programme for existing settlements (whether up-gradable or not) and on relocation.”

 In the Annex 3 Matrix, under 2.8 (Urban Development) there are several references to relocation. These include the strategic objectives of (1) “Relocate the urban poor to improve their living condition,” with a target of 1,500 households and (2) Upgrade urban poor communities through improving water and sanitation, and economic infrastructure, by (among other actions) “Develop policy on maximizing in situ upgrading and minimizing relocation,” with a target of 6,000 households in situ completed. The time frame for the targets is not clear. The matrix also indicates that sanitation, water, and electricity are to be supplied to relocation sites. Elsewhere the matrix refers to using “existing school facilities for relocation sites, rather than establishing new ones.”

As for project-affected people, in the section concerning Roads and Transport in 4.1.2 Improving Rural Livelihoods, there is no reference to people affected by road construction, as indicated in the NGO CG Statement. Nor is there any reference elsewhere in the NPRS, including the Annex 3 Matrix.

NGO Action:

• Monitoring the adoption of the National Resettlement Policy;
• Promoting the development of a National Resettlement Plan (including attention on rights and legal matters, such as compensation);
• Monitoring and evaluation of resettlement practices (e.g., urban squatters, people affected by road and transport projects);
• Continue raising the issue of project-affected people in the context of the APRI process by making a stronger link between resettlement and poverty reduction.

  Back