CHAPTER II.

Findings from RAN’s Counter Survey

2.1  Brief Explanation of RAN’s Counter Survey to the PAP’s Survey

Cambodian authorities are conducting a survey of people to be affected by the improvement of National Route One (Phnom Penh – Neak Leung) to collect their agreement to compensation packages.  Portions of this survey have already been completed.  Members of the Resettlement Action Network (RAN) conducted a survey to collect affected people’s accounts of the way the PAP’s survey was conducted and to find out how affected people felt in regard to the compensation packages offered by the PAP’s survey team.  This survey was conducted in September 2004, and is considered to be a “counter survey” to the PAP’s Survey.

2.1.1  Objectives of the Counter Survey

RAN’s counter survey to the PAP’s Survey was done to assess whether or not agreement given by local communities was indeed free and informed, and to find out if they were generally satisfied with the promised compensation or not.  More details regarding the counter survey’s objectives can be found in Appendix A1.

2.1.2  Methods of Data Gathering

Members of RAN conducted the counter survey by interviewing 74 affected people who had already been interviewed by the PAP’s survey team.  A questionnaire was prepared, and RAN members went to eight villages where people are to be affected by the improvement of National Route One.  Interviewees were asked to respond to each question of the questionnaire (the questionnaire can be seen in Appendix A2).  More details on how the survey was conducted are available in Appendix A1. 

In order to complete the analysis for this report, other primary data on the project and its formulation process gathered from field visits to communities to be affected by the project, and formal and informal correspondence with JICA staff (both Tokyo headquarters and Cambodia Office) was used.

Other sources of information used to assist in analyzing survey data to come to the conclusions in this report include the following:

• Letters exchanged between JICA, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), and NGOs

• Studies produced by JICA, including the Feasibility Study and Preparatory Study

• Studies and reports produced by NGOs and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) on the Highway One Rehabilitation Project.

• Cambodian laws and provisions related to issues of land, resettlement, and compensation

• ADB policy on Involuntary Resettlement

• JICA’s new Guidelines

2.1.3 Scope and Limitations                                                   [Top]

The study focuses mainly on the social considerations in the National Route One project, namely expected impacts from resettlement of affected communities, as well as the mitigation measures and public consultation process.  The study does not consider technical design or the need for the project.

Most information obtained about measures prepared by JICA depended on inquiries to JICA’s headquarters in Tokyo and its Cambodia Office.  While JICA has shown willingness to hear NGO concerns and has responded to inquiries, information obtained was sometimes contradictory or incomplete.  Some important information, such as the results of the Detailed Measurement Survey (DMS) and the draft Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), which should have identified the rates and contents of compensation for the affected people, has not yet been disclosed.  Comprehensive critique of measures prepared by JICA and how those measures are being implemented by the Cambodian government is, therefore, not yet possible.  Critique of the PAP’s Survey depends almost entirely on the information RAN members collected in the field.

As mentioned above, 74 people were interviewed in the counter survey to the PAP’s Survey.  This is a small portion of the total number of people to be affected, and therefore the results cannot necessarily be generalized to all people to be affected by the rehabilitation of National Route One.  We do believe, however, that the experiences of the people interviewed provide invaluable insight into the problems that exist and should not be dismissed simply due to the small sample.

While the results of RAN’s counter survey point to problems in the way the PAP’s survey was conducted, it also points to problems beyond the PAP’s survey.  Insufficient compensation and the likelihood that current practices will impoverish affected people raise concerns about the Detailed Measurement Study and the Resettlement Action Plan.  It may require examination of all of these in order to comprehensively resolve the problems affected people are reporting.  

2.2  Findings

Major findings from RAN’s counter survey to the PAP’s Survey can be summarized into 9 major points.

Finding #1:  Majority of those to be relocated will not receive assistance to acquire new land

Of the total 74 respondents to RAN’s counter survey, 68 respondents reported being required to relocate.  Of these 68, only 17 said that they were promised some form of compensation for land loss, including five who were promised substitute land.  This indicates that 75% of those needing to resettle would be required to do so without any assistance to acquire new land to live upon, nor would they be compensated for lost land.                                  [Top]

Finding #2:  Problems related to “moving behind the house”

At present, the Cambodian Government has said it will not provide compensation for lost land, and will provide substitute land to people who must resettle only if they “cannot move behind their houses.”  In some cases, people will be able to move to the land behind their current residences, and in other cases, people will need to move elsewhere.  In either case, people will be required to move and will not be compensated for the land they lose, and this could lead to their impoverishment.  Of the 68 people who reported having to move, 27 said that they would not be able to move to the land behind their houses.

Unclear Criteria:  It is unclear what criteria the Cambodian Government will use to determine whether or not people can actually move to the land behind their houses.  Ten respondents to the RAN’s counter survey reported that they would not be able to move to the land behind their house because it is owned by someone else.  Five respondents said that while they own the land behind their house, they would not be able to move there because, for example, the land was not suitable for building upon and they did not have the financial capacity to fill the land. The responses to the question of people’s ability to move behind their houses indicate that the existence of vacant land does not necessarily mean people feel they can move there. 

The unclear criteria and inconsistent implementation indicated by RAN’s counter survey makes it clear that there is possibility for land conflict.  While the Cambodian Government and JICA do not recognize land ownership in the Right-Of-Way (see BOX I), respondents do have a sense of land ownership, and ignoring this in the resettlement process could mean either leaving affected people landless or sparking land-related conflicts.  Another possible impact is that if they are unable to prepare the land to which they are told to move, they may end up having no place to go.                                                    [Top]

We are concerned that a fair and uniform program is not being planned and implemented to ensure the people who lose land as a result of the rehabilitation of National Route One receive the compensation they deserve. 

Finding #3:  Compensation packages will not cover all lost non-land assets

While all but one respondent reported that they were offered a monetary amount to compensate for lost non-land assets, 66 respondents replied that the compensation package would not cover all such affected assets.  This means that they will be unable to replace their assets with the amount of compensation offered.  It could also mean that the compensation package is insufficient to minimize negative impacts.  Examples of assets not fully compensated include houses, loss of papaya trees, coconut trees, buildings for raising pigs, a small bridge connecting the road to the house, and soil used to fill land. 

Finding #4:  People are likely to refrain from raising grievances to authorities

During RAN’s counter survey to the PAP’s Survey, people were asked to whom they would voice their concerns.  Findings suggest a sense of fear or powerlessness among affected people, as 24 respondents reported that they would not raise grievances to anyone.  People were asked to list parties to whom they would raise concerns.   Of those who said they would raise concerns, 23 reported that they would do so only to NGOs, which suggests a sense of distrust or fear of local authorities and institutions.  Six more included NGOs among those to whom they would raise concerns, while only 8 included local authorities, 3 included government officers, and 1 included military police.  Fourteen responded that they could not answer. 

This finding indicates a strong need for a grievance mechanism that is understood and trusted by affected people. Currently, the Inter-ministerial Resettlement Committee (IRC) is responsible for hearing grievances, but people’s distrust of authorities prevents this from being an effective mechanism.                            [Top]

Finding #5:  Intimidation was used to gain agreement to resettlement package

The PAP’s Survey is currently being conducted by the Cambodian Government to obtain agreements on compensation content.  When asked about who the PAP’s Survey team consisted of (multiple answers were allowed for this question), 62 respondents to RAN’s counter survey said they were aware of police officers, 67 were aware of local authorities, and 35 were aware of government officials.  Fourteen respondents were aware of either a Japanese government official, JICA official or Japanese consultant.  One respondent noticed an “other” official. 

RAN’s counter survey also shows that various levels of threats were used to intimidate the affected communities into accepting the compensation packages.  As summarized in Table 1, some people were told that they would be physically harmed if they did not accept the proposed compensation package, or that the government would take the respondents’ houses and assets for road construction regardless of whether they liked it or not (see Table 1 Column B).  Some respondents who did not report receiving verbal threats still reported that they felt there could be negative repercussions to disagreeing with the compensation packages explained by the PAP’s Survey team. 

* Multiple responses allowed.  Some responses said they were both told and felt the same threat, hence the numbers in Column D are not the sum of Column B and C.

RAN’s counter survey also recorded remarks made by the PAP’s Survey team to discourage affected people from disagreeing with the compensation package. Multiple answers were allowed.  A total of 34 respondents reported the following remarks of discouragement:

• “You have to follow the government’s rules” (reported by 12 respondents)

• “Government has only small budget or limit to compensation” (12 respondents)

• “Everyone else agreed so you must agree too” (14 respondents)

• “You have no right to object with development project of the Government” (10 respondents).

• “You live on the public land so you shouldn’t receive compensation” (4 respondents).

• “You don’t have the rights to receive appropriate amount of compensation for all the assets you will lose” (2 respondents).

• “Road will not be constructed if you disagreed” (2 respondents).

Ten respondents reported that they simply felt powerless to object to the compensation package offered, citing the following reasons: multiple answers allowed. 

• It is impossible to object to the PAP’s Survey team (10 respondents);

• The government would take his/her house and assets for the road construction, regardless of his/her opinion (one respondent).

Of all 74 people interviewed, 66 respondents reported being threatened, feeling threatened, being discouraged from voicing disagreement to the compensation packages, or feeling powerless to object.                                [Top]

Finding #6:  JICA’s presence during the PAP’s Survey did not stop the use of intimidation

*Multiple answers allowed

Finding #7:  People’s voices not respected in determining content of resettlement package

Respondents to RAN’s counter survey who reported dissatisfaction with the compensation package did not necessarily ask for better compensation packages.  As seen from the pie chart below, Forty-six respondents did not request changes in the compensation package.  Twenty-eight respondents asked the PAP’s survey team to change the amount of compensation.  Of the 28, only 1 reported that s/he succeeded in convincing the PAP’s Survey team to increase the compensation amount.  Twenty-one people reported that the amount did not change.  Five said that their compensation was actually decreased as a result of trying to negotiate.  One answer was not recorded According to JICA, the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is currently being prepared by the Cambodian Government.  Although affected people are reported to have expressed concerns about the compensation packages during the public consultation in Kien Svay District, it is still unknown whether or not their concerns have been incorporated into the RAP.  As the RAP provides crucial information on and procedures for compensation, public consultation, grievance mechanism, and the actual resettlement, NGOs are concerned about the current lack of participation of the affected people to the formation of RAP.                                    [Top]

[Top]      [Back]