I- Introduction [BACK]
The NGO Forum first raised concern about possible relocation
problems in early November 1999, when they sent a message to a visiting
Asian Development Bank (ADB) mission regarding a government edict
requiring a 30 metre right-of-way on National Highway One.
The email, dated 6 November, stated "there would be dire
consequences if [the edict] was enforced", and suggested that the
ADB should advise a narrower right-of-way and leniency in the edict's
application. While
involuntary relocation is a potential problem throughout Cambodia,
citizens living along National Highway One, which is being upgraded
through a loan from the ADB, are theoretically protected by the ADB's
strict policy requirements for involuntary resettlement. In
mid-December, 1999, non-governmental organizations were invited by the
ADB Project Management Unit at the Ministry of Public Works and
Transport to express interest in monitoring the implementation of a
Resettlement Action Plan for the National Highway One Improvement
Project.[1]
The time available for replying to the invitation was only five
working days. Months later,
after receiving no reply from the Ministry, NGOs who regularly meet
together in the NGO Forum's Working Group on Development Banks decided
to conduct their own survey of the people affected by the highway
project from Neak Leung to Bavet. In
February 2000, the survey began with an initial survey conducted by
volunteers from the human rights group LICADHO.
Thirty-four households in the two affected provinces,
Prey Veng and Svay Rieng, were surveyed.
On 10 April 2000, a second survey was conducted by NGOs from
LICADHO, Legal Aid of Cambodia, CEPA, Sor Sor Troung and ADHOC together
with a staff member of the UN Centre for Human Rights. 11 households
were visited and a meeting was held with the Svay Rieng resettlement
sub-committee for the project. On 28 April 2000, a third visit by the
same group, and including also staff of the Oxfam Land Study Project,
had a dialogue with the resettlement sub-committee in Prey Veng to get
to know more about the policy implementation of the provincial
authorities. The
survey attempted to examine the affects of relocation on the livelihood
and assets of the people and to see how the project responded to any
losses. In
February and March 2000, the NGO Forum made a number of enquiries to the
Ministry's ADB Project Management Unit asking which organization had
been officially selected to do the monitoring, but received no reply.
The ADB Resident Representative told NGO Forum in a meeting on 8
May 2000 that he did not know the details of the project but would be
very interested to follow up the relocation issue.
On 5 June 2000, the ADB office informed the NGO Forum that the
NGO NICFEC had been selected by the ministry to do the official
monitoring and had begun their contract in early March.
After receiving this news, the NGO Forum has been collaborating
with NICFEC to share and compare information. 1.1 Background of the Project [BACK]
The project is the first to be developed under the Bank's Greater
Mekong Subregion (GMS) initiative. This project aims to assist
Government in improving the highway linking Phnom Penh with Ho Chi Minh
City. The road is 240 kilometers (km) long, of which 160 km is in
Cambodia and 80 km is in Vietnam. The objective of the project is to
encourage traffic and trade flows between Cambodia and Vietnam by
improving the project road, and by Government efforts to reduce
bureaucratic and procedural constraints to cross-border trade[2].
The project implementation commenced in January 2000 and is due to be
completed by 30 June 2003. The
project will improve the project road to the standard required for the
projected traffic volume, both domestic and international, over the
ten-year period from 2002 to 2012.
The estimated cost of the project is US$ 195.5 million. The
Cambodian component is estimated to cost US$ 50.7 million. The
Government of Cambodia contributed US$ 10.7 million and the remaining $
40 million was borrowed from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) Special
Fund Resources, with an amortization period of 40 years, including a
grace period of 10 years, and a service charge of 1 percent per annum.
The cost of the compensation and resettlement plan was originally
estimated at approximately US$ 5 million, including about US $ 4 million
for land[3].
According
to the technical assistance survey, it is estimated that the project
would require the acquisition of approximately 210 hectares of land
(including about 200 hectares with building structures), affecting 5,920
people living in 1,184 dwellings. The buildings affected comprise: 33
houses with woven or mat walls and thatched roofs on wooden stilts; 682
buildings with wooden walls and tile or tin roofs on cement stilts; 75
single storey houses; and 94 multiple-story concrete houses. Sixty-one
percent of the structures are wholly residential, 37 percent are
combined business and residential, and 21 percent are commercial
premises[4].
1.2 Objectives of this Study [BACK]-
To
find out the difficulties faced by people living along the road due to
the road widening from Neak Loeung to Baveth. -
To
understand the Government's policy regarding support to and compensation
for the affected people. -
To
find out whether the implementation of the Government's policy regarding
support and compensation of the affected people is fair and sufficient
and in line with ADB guidelines. 1.3 Scope and Limitation [BACK]
Some difficulties were met during this voluntary study because of
time limitation and lack of information, especially lack of access to
secondary data. For
example, NGO Forum requested from the Project Management Unit a copy of
the Social Survey of Affected People completed earlier, but were unable
to obtain a copy. The Resettlement Action Plan was not made available
either. Information
was collected mainly through interviews with local people and discussion
with the provincial sub-committees. The sample of respondents was small. This study, which focuses on the impact of the road widening
to the livelihood of the people living along the road, nevertheless
collected some important information which require further follow-up by
the relevant authorities. II- Methodology for the Study [BACK]2-1 Data Gathering Primary
data was gathered by interviewing affected people and by interviewing
the provincial resettlement committees in Prey Veng and Svay Rieng
provinces. The survey questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix 6.
The chief secondary data used were: -
The report and recommendation of the President of ADB to the
Board of Directors on proposed loans to the Royal Government of Cambodia
and to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for the Greater Mekong
Subregion: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project, November
1998. -
Asian Development Bank, Involuntary Resettlement policy
document, August1995. -
Ministry of Economy and Finance, Loan No. 1659-CAM (SF) Phnom
Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project, Booklet for Resettlement
Implementation Plan, 2000. (See Appendix 8). 2-2
Locations of Interviews
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Province |
District |
Commune |
Village |
N° of families |
|
Prey
Veng |
Kampong
Trabek |
Kampong
Trabek |
Phsar |
12 |
|
Peamro |
Prey
Khsach "B" |
Muoy |
6 |
|
|
Pheah
Sdach |
Kompong
Seung |
Kampong
Seung |
6 |
|
|
Salasrok
Chas |
Prey
Thleak |
3 |
||
|
Svay
Rieng |
Svay
Rieng |
Svay
Rieng |
Monty
Peth |
1 |
|
Svay
Rieng |
Srah
Vong |
1 |
||
|
Svay
Teap |
Sambuor |
Tuol
Lakup |
2 |
|
|
Svay
Toeur |
Samakki |
7 |
||
|
Kampong
Ro |
Sambuor |
Trapaing
Ampeou |
2 |
|
|
Prasoth |
Prasoth |
1 |
||
|
Thlork |
2 |
|||
|
Svay
Chrum |
Kraul
Ko |
Kraul
Ko |
1 |
|
|
Prey
Nhay |
1 |
|||
|
Total |
45 |
|||
In
1995, the Asian Development Bank produced an Involuntary Resettlement
Policy. The objectives of the Bank's policy on involuntary resettlement
are to:
(i)
avoid involuntary resettlement where feasible;
(ii)
minimize
resettlement where population displacement is unavoidable, and ensure
that displaced people receive assistance, preferably under the project,
so that they would be at least as well-off as they would have been in
absence of the project.[5]
Further, the policy states that:
Involuntary resettlement should be an important consideration in
project identification. The three important elements of involuntary
resettlement are (i) compensation for lost assets and loss of livelihood
and income, (ii) assistance for relocation including provision of
relocation sites with appropriate facilities and services, and (iii)
assistance for rehabilitation to achieve at least the same level of
well-being with the project as without it.
...The absence of formal legal title to land by some affected
groups should not be a bar to compensation.
...To better assure timely availability of required resources and
to ensure compliance with involuntary resettlement procedures during
implementation, eligible costs of resettlement and compensation may be
considered for inclusion in Bank loan financing for the project, if
requested.[6]
The ADB also promotes the involvement of NGOs, especially in
tasks such as monitoring involuntary settlement.
"For the Bank, NGO input is important in addressing specific
concerns such as involuntary resettlement, protection of indigenous
peoples, participation in development planning by beneficiaries and
affected persons, and benefit monitoring and evaluation."[7]
The
Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has accepted full responsibility for
financing the cost of relocation, including land acquisition,
resettlement and compensation for people affected by the project.[8]
The
RGC's Interministerial Resettlement Committee (IRC) has stated that full
compensation will not be provided to people whose houses are on the side
of the road because this area is state property.
However, those people are still eligible to receive a
contribution towards the cost of removing their house and constructing a
new one. Those who do not
have a backyard behind their present location or other land for
sustaining their livelihood, are eligible to receive additional
assistance. In this case provincial authorities will provide a plot of
land where they can live and make a business.[9]
The
IRC has created a working group consisting of representatives of both
the IRC and the provincial authorities.
According to the policy of the IRC, there should also be a
representative of a non-governmental organization (NGO) or independent
organization in the working group to monitor and survey the disbursement
of compensation. Representatives of the IRC, provincial authorities and
a representative of an NGO or independent monitoring group should
establish a facilitation-working group to meet with affected the people[10].
The RGC has in the past assumed a right-of-way on National Roads
of 25 meters from the axis of the road, although this has generally not
been enforced. The ADB notes that "while the Government assumes the
right-of-way for national roads of 25 meters from the axis, this
assumption is based on pre-1975 practices and modern legislation
specifying Government right-of-way has yet to be enacted."[11]
Following discussion with the ADB, the government considered
reducing the required right-of-way to just 10 to 15 meters from the axis
of the road in order to prevent too many problems and delays in
relocation of affected people. On 1 December 1999, the Minister of
Economy and Finance, H.E. Keat Chhon, wrote to the Prime Minister noting
that relocation for a 10-15 meter right-of-way would cost an estimated
$1,062,375.58 while relocation for a 25 meter right-of-way would cost
around $2,063,537.55. In Edict (Prakas)
No. 1872 s
p N,
dated 28 December 1999, the Council of Ministers replied that a
right-of-way of 25 meters is to be implemented.
However, two months later, on 25 February 2000, Under Secretary
of State, H.E. Ut Chhon, wrote to H.E. Keat Chhon to point out that
Prime Ministerial Edict (Prakas) No. 6, dated 27 September 1999, requires a 30 meter
right-of-way on National Route 1. This
edict states, however, that the required right-of-ways for the roads
mentioned in the edict are "not applicable in towns."[12]
The
following analysis is based on the two surveys and the meetings with the
Svay Rieng and Prey Veng Provincial project resettlement sub-committees.
The NGO representatives involved in the surveys and meetings are
listed in Appendices 1, 2 and 3.
66%
of respondents reported that they agreed to receive limited
compensation, referred to as a "contribution" to the cost of
relocation, stating that that is the Government's policy and that they
had no choice. Although most respondents thought that the offered
amounts of compensation were not enough, they understood that if they
refused they would have nothing. 27% of respondents said that they did
not agree with the amount of compensation because it was not enough for
them to relocate to a new place. Only 7% said that they fully agreed
with the contribution, and most of these were people who had their own
land on which to build immediately. (See Table 4-1).
Table 4-1:
Comments of the interviewed people on the "contribution"
offered by the Government
|
Satisfaction |
Number of
Respondent |
% |
|
Fully
agreed |
3 |
7 |
|
No
alternative; has to agree |
30 |
66 |
|
Did
not agree |
12 |
27 |
|
Total |
45 |
100 |
Source: Field Survey
55%
of the respondents said that they had not clearly understood the
Government policy regarding the contribution to the affected people and
also did not know exactly what distance (in meters) from the road axis
that the Government required the people to move. 38% understood clearly
that their houses would be removed if they were situated less than 25
meters from the road axis, 55% had an unclear understanding, and 7% had
no response (See Table 4-2). Most felt that
they had received an unclear explanation from the sub-committee and the
local authorities. The areas required for the right-of-way had not been
clearly marked. No
respondents were able to explain what formula the Government used to
calculate the contribution to be offered to the people affected.
Table
4-2 Awareness of Government's policy
|
Level of
Understanding |
N° of
interviewed people |
% |
|
Clear
understanding |
17 |
38 |
|
Unclear
understanding |
25 |
55 |
|
No
answer |
3 |
7 |
|
Total |
45 |
100 |
Source: Field Survey
Most
respondents said that the sub-committee and authorities measured their
house in square meters and then, without giving further explanation,
requested the house owners to fingerprint a document.
They later returned to ask the house owners to sign a document
which certified their agreement to move their house and receive the
government's contribution. Those
who had already received the compensation said that they were given a
receipt. No respondents
showed any awareness of the Provisional Resettlement Sub-Committees'
intention to relocate people without land near the Cambodian-Vietnamese
border.
65%
of respondents reported that they had neither a backyard behind their
present location nor land elsewhere to which they could relocate. Those
who did not have a backyard said that they faced many difficulties,
since the amount of the Government contribution was not enough to
relocate to a new place. Neighbors were reluctant to allow them to
relocate on their land temporarily, fearing that the affected people may
never leave. A number of
people in Kompong Trabek district went to live temporarily at the side
of Kompong Trabek lake. Other families need to borrow money at high
interest from middlemen or relatives in order to buy land and rebuild
their houses. The majority
of the respondents with no backyard stated that they had no idea where
to go (Table 4-3).
Table
4-3 Land for Relocation
|
Land |
Number of
Respondent |
% |
|
Land
behind their existing houses |
14 |
31 |
|
Purchased
land |
2 |
4 |
|
No
land |
29 |
65 |
|
Total |
45 |
100 |
Source: Field Survey
A number of complaints have been filed by project affected people
with provincial offices of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
At least one of those complaints pertains to the spray painting
of large red marks on the side of people's houses.
Provincial Resettlement Sub-Committees have spray
painted large numbers or question marks, clearly visible from the road,
on the outside walls of most affected people's houses. While this may be an easy way to identify project affected
houses, it is not a polite way to treat people's property.
Houses whose owners have not accepted the contract for relocation
have been spray painted with large question marks, and this may be seen
as intimidating.
Other complaints concern disagreement over the amount of compensation offered. In one case, the owner of a rice mill in the affected area was offered just 80,000 Riel. The owner considered US$ 300 to be more appropriate. [BACK]
Unofficial minutes of the NGO's interviews with the Provincial
Resettlement Sub-Committees in Svay Rieng and Prey Veng provinces are
contained in Appendices 4 and 5. The
following summarizes the main points learnt through these meetings.
The
sub-committees said they are fully aware that some affected people are
not happy with the compensation provided.
The sub-committees understand the compensation to be just a
contribution to the cost of relocation, and that it is not intended to
cover all costs.
In
Prey Veng province, some people are now demanding extra compensation, as
the previously announced 25 meter right-of-way was increased to 30
meters. In Prey Veng, there are 716 affected households, of which 46 do
not agree with the government contribution offered.
Greater leniency is being applied in Svay Rieng province, where affected people in some locations have apparently been allowed to remain within 10 to 15 meters from the road axis, at least until further road widening scheduled for 2010 occurs. As a result, only 460 families in Svay Rieng need to be relocated, as compared to 845 families if a 25 meter right-of-way was enforced. 246 families have already signed an agreement for receiving a government contribution to their relocation costs, and 10 families have refused to sign.
The Prey Veng Second Deputy Governor explained the formula for paying the government contribution, which is set by Ministry of Economic and Finance, as follows:
1) Houses with woven or mat walls and thatched roof will receive a contribution of $25,75 per square meter ($25,75/m2).
2) Buildings with wooden walls, tile or tin roof, on cement stilts receive $ 50/ m2.
3) Single-story concrete houses receive $100/m2 and,
4) Multiple-story concrete houses receive $185/m2.
[According to information collected by the official NGO monitor,
NICFEC, the actual amounts offered are substantially less after
discounting for the quality or age of the house and the potential
salvage value.]
For
the households who will lose their land, the government is offering land
to people who are willing to go and live along the Cambodia-Vietnam
border, although this area may be far from major centers and have fewer
business opportunities.
Case
study 1: Resident who felt he had to accept the Government contribution
Mr. Sim Thea lives in Thlork village,
Kraul Ko commune, Svay Chhrum district,
Svay Rieng Province. He gains income for his family of six
members. He has settled on this land since 1979, which he inherited
from his parents, and he owns a land title paper. His house is 8
meters long and 6 meters wide. In 1999, he learnt about the road
widening from the local authorities but he did not clearly understand
the compensation for removal. After the measurement from the
sub-committee he received a compensation amount of US$ 1,050.
"This amount I must agree with because it is a State's demand,
which is defined by the provincial authorities." The amount is
only sufficient for removal. He plans to move his house to the space
behind its present location. He said that he would meet many difficulties because the
state contribution is not sufficient for him to build a new house. And
meanwhile he will have no time to earn his living and so will not be
able to pay for his children's schooling while removing and rebuilding
his house.
Case
study 2: Resident who must borrow
money to rebuild his house
Mr. Sok Sary, 32 year old, lives in
Prey Nhay village, Kraul Kor commune, Svay Chrum district, Svay Rieng
province and earns his living by doing small business as a grocer. He
has 3 children. Since 1979 he has settled here on land inherited from his
parents. He has been
given a land title paper by the district authorities. This house, if
purchased, would cost over US$ 2,000. It is a wooden house with tile
roof, is 15 meters long and 5 meters wide. In 1985, the house was
built with authorization papers from the district authorities. This
house is used as both a home and a small shop. In 1999, he learnt
about the planned removal but did not receive a clear explanation. He
only understood that his house was measured and found to be 25 square
meters in size and that the compensation that would be paid is US$
930. He did not protest against such compensation, as he feared being
threatened by higher authorities. He must borrow US$ 2,000 to buy a
plot behind his house that is over 25 meters from the road axis. He
thinks that the 25 meters road extension is a good thing but the
Government should be transparent regarding the compensation. While
relocating he will have some difficulties in earning his daily living
and his small business will be suspended. The family's daily living
depends on daily income from his small business.
Case
study 3: Resident who does not
accept the Government contribution
Mr. Mey Vath lives in Thlork village,
Kraul Ko commune, Svay Chrum district, Svay Rieng province. Since 1990
he has settled here on land which he bought for about US$ 3,000 with a
brick house of 12 × 4.5 meters size. The compensation for removal is
US$ 1,300. He does not
accept such compensation because his present house is made of brick
and because he has no land on which to build a new house.
Case study 4: Resident who protests confusion over the road widening
Mrs.
Ly Eng, 65 years old, chicken and ox-skin buyer, and her husband live
in Phsar village, Kampong Trabek commune, Kampong Trabek district,
Prey Veng province with her family of 4 members. Their daily income is
between Riels 6,000 and 7,000. She has lived here since 1990 on land
that is recognized by the district authorities as belonging to her.
Her house is 15×5 meters size. She learnt about the house removal in
October 1999 but it was not clearly explained. Regarding compensation,
the Government will pay US$ 890 plus US$ 40 additional compensation.
Her house is over 60 square meters. She has some land behind the
houses present location where she can build a new house. She says that
when she was first asked to sign her agreement to move her house, she
was told that the road widening was to be 25 meters, but when the
authorities returned to give the compensation, they said that it will
be widened to 30 meters. She said she heard Samdech Hun Sen say at the
road inauguration at Neak Keung that the right-of-way will be 25
meters for brick houses and only 15 meters for wooden houses.
The problems she is facing during relocation of her house are
the temporary suspension of her small business and inadequate budget
for rebuilding her house.
Case
study 5: "I Don't Know Where I Will Go To Live"
Mr.
Bun Vimean has lived in Prek Khsach "B" village, Peamro
commune, Prey Veng province since 1995 and he is now a bicycle-taxi
driver. He lives in a straw hut with straw walls and wooden columns
situated on the land he bought for one damleung of gold (around
US$380). After the sub-committee measurement he received US$ 200. So
far he got in advance half of the contribution equal to US$ 100. He
spent nearly all this on medical treatment, as he was ill. And with a
last payment of just US$ 100 yet to be received he does not know where
to go to live because land prices are too expensive and the amount of
contribution given by the sub-committee is very small.
Upon
becoming aware of NICFEC's involvement as the official NGO monitor, the
NGO Forum met with NICFEC in order to share and compare information.
Reports from NICFEC's surveys in March and April are shown in
Appendix 10. NICFEC
surveyed 196 families in March, 83 families in May and 61 families in
June.
NICFEC's findings largely confirm those of the NGO Forum's brief
survey. The most common
problem discovered was that numbers of project affected people had
insufficient funds to buy land and erect a new house.
Some people complained about the change of the right-of-way from
25 meters to 30 meters. Project
affected people perceived a lack of consistency and fairness regarding
the calculation of compensation, and requested that the compensation
policy be made public "to avoid being jealous or bad rumors."
In some cases, percentage deductions made to the standard
government contribution for quality or salvage value were made for
reasons which were "not specific".
In
addition, the NICFEC survey discovered a number of problems not revealed
by the NGO Forum survey, including families who had not yet had their
houses measured, families
who did not receive compensation for wells and crops, and families who
disputed the compensation offered for these items.
There
were also complaints that the border of the right-of-way was not marked
clearly on the ground, making it difficult for the people to know where
to relocate their houses and how to assess their compensation needs.
Although NICFEC is the official monitor, they did not receive the
Resettlement Action Plan which they are meant to be monitoring until
June, following inquiries made by the ADB Resident Mission to the
Government. An ADB Project
Officer, who met with the NGO Forum on 7 June, said that the ADB is
strongly recommending to the Government to make this document public.
This
brief survey found that many of the affected people along National
Highway One had accepted the Government contribution because they felt
they had no choice. Most respondents felt that they had no way of
checking whether the resettlement policy of the Government was being
followed correctly, nor whether the amount of contribution offered was
the correct entitlement. Since
the Government has so far not made the Resettlement Implementation Plan
public, NGOs were not in a position to assure people that the
contribution received was in accordance with the plan.
Some people
refused to receive the Government's contribution because the amount of
the contribution was not enough to relocate to a new place.
In addition, there was not any compensation given for buying land
or finding an alternative place to set up a new business. Although the
Provincial Sub-Committees said they would offer land near the
Cambodian-Vietnamese border, respondents seemed unaware of this plan and
it is doubtful whether this is a realistic option for many of the
affected people. In
conclusion, we could say that the people who had no land and no
additional money for relocation and rebuilding their houses have met
difficulties and have become poorer.
Some people became indebted as they borrowed money to purchase
land as well as spent money to rebuild their houses.
The
formula used to calculate the Government contribution was not clearly
explained to the affected people. This led to a perceived unfair
disbursement of compensation, with some households receiving more than
others did, even though their house's size was the same.
The
Government uses the term "contribution" to assist the affected
people, while the ADB uses the term "compensation". This
reflects the fact that the Government did not follow the resettlement
policy of the Asian Development Bank, which requires that displaced
people should be "at least as well-off as they would have been in the
absence of the project."
1.
Relocation problems should be fully solved before the commencement of
road construction in the affected areas.
2.
Project-affected people should be given adequate compensation so that
they are "at
least as well-off as they would have been in absence of the
project", in accordance with the requirements of the Asian
Development Bank's Resettlement Policy.
3.
The Provincial Resettlement Sub-Committees should follow-up with people
who have been scattered by the project to new locations so as to ensure
that they are not worse off.
4.
The Provincial Resettlement Sub-committees should take extra time and
effort to explain to the affected people the formula used in calculating
the compensation. Percentage
deductions for quality and salvage value should be applied
systematically so that the compensation provided is equitable.
5.
The Resettlement Action Plan should be made public so that affected
people and concerned organizations can see whether the compensation they
are receiving is in accordance with the plan. The previously completed
Social Survey of the Affected People should also be made public.
6.
Plans clearly demarcating the area required by the road and the
right-of-way should be made public.
The demarcated area for the right-of-way should also be more
clearly marked on the ground.
7.
Lack of land title should not be a barrier to receiving full
compensation, as per ADB policy.
8.
Project-affected people needing to relocate to new land should be
compensated for the cost of buying new land.
9.
Project-affected people should be given options and not relocated to
remote border areas without their consent.
Relocation areas should have good security and the necessary
infrastructure, facilities, services and livelihood opportunities.
10. The
Provincial Resettlement Sub-Committees should be lenient in allowing
people to stay closer than 30 meters from the road axis in cases where
this is physically possible and the people have nowhere else to go.
These people should be eligible for compensation when relocated
at a later date.
11. People
should be further compensated for the extension of the right-of-way from
25 meters to 30 meters, including cost of purchase of new land for
people with no remaining land on which to rebuild their house.
1.
The ADB should put more effort into monitoring to ensure that borrowing
Governments fulfill the requirements of their loan agreements.
2.
The ADB should take action based on the findings of this survey and
advise the government regarding ways the Government's resettlement
program is not in accordance with the loan agreement, the ADB's
Resettlement Policy and other ADB requirements.
3.
The ADB should require the Government to make the Resettlement
Implementation Plan public, in the interests of transparency and to
avoid confusion over entitlements.
4.
Where Government resources are insufficient, the ADB should consider
providing additional assistance to the relocated people, in accordance
with ADB policy.
5.
The ADB should make future loan disbursements for this project dependent
on satisfactory implementation of the resettlement program.
A1 - Coordinator of the First Survey
1.
Mr. Pen Thy
LICADHO
A2 - List of Participants Involved in the Second Survey and Svay Rieng Meeting
1.
Mr. Chhith Sam Ath
NGO Forum on Cambodia
2.
Mr. Pen Thay
LICADHO
3.
Mr. Am Sokha
Legal Aid of Cambodia
4. Mr. Thoun Try
CEPA (Cultural and Environmental
Protection Association)
5. Mr. Touch Varin
Sor Sor Troung
6. Ms. Phally
ADHOC, Svay Rieng office
7. Mr. Sam Kuntheamy
UNHCHR , Prey Veng Office
A3 - List of Participants Involved in the Prey Veng Meeting
1.
Mr. Yeng Virak
NGO Forum on Cambodia
2.
Ms. Vonn Vinary
Oxfam GB Land Study Project
3.
Mr. Pen Thay
LICADHO
4.
Mr Am Sokha
Legal Aid of Cambodia
5.
Mr George Cooper
Legal Aid of Cambodia
6.
Mr Thoun Try
CEPA
7.
Mr Sam Kuntheamy
UNHCHR, Prey Veng Office
A4 - Unofficial Minutes of meeting with the Svay Rieng Project Resettlement Sub-Committee
Discussion
with:
- Mr. Kim Thea, Chief of Cabinet of the Provincial Governor's office and
member of the Provincial Resettlement Sub-Committee.
- Mr. Nguon Sovann, Director of the Provincial Public Works and Transport
Department and member of the Provincial Resettlement Sub-Committee.
Mr.
Kim Thea, Chief of Cabinet of the Governor's office explained his
understanding of the Government's policy on the Neak Loeung-Bavet Road
Improvement Project. The Ministry's involved are the Ministry of Interior,
the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and the Ministry of Public Works and
Transport. This is a long-term project which became active in 1999. The
first step was to investigate the affected people, collect information on their
number and make a suggestion to the Government. Regarding the impact on
the local population, it should be resolved by the Government's formula
which states that the Government pays a contribution to the affected
people with its counterpart budget. As the National Road is to be widened
with a right-of-way of 25 meters from its axis, 845 families will be
affected in Svay Rieng. The Government thought that this number is too
large and badly affects the people in places like Kroul Kor, Prasoth, and
Chea Ho, who after their best effort over nearly 20 years earned just
enough money to build such houses. Thus, in some areas this standard
should be reduced to 10-15 meters and thus only 460 families will be
affected including 246 families who have already signed a contract for
receiving a government contribution. We established investigation groups
and persuaded the people to sign a contract, otherwise most of the
affected people would request more compensation so that they might have
something left over after they relocate. But we must follow the formula
set up by the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of Public
Works and Transport.
Mr.
Nguon Sovann said that the formula included a smaller contribution for
newly built houses as there would be less damage to them during
reconstruction and relocation; and also a smaller contribution for very
old houses which would be pulled down even if there were no road
reconstruction.
Q :
According to the investigation conducted by an NGO in February, out of 34
families interviewed there were 7 families who were not willing to
relocate. How does a working group of the Provincial Sub-Committee solve
this problem so that its decision will be made fairly and properly for the
people?
A :
We follow the Government's policy. In
1996-97 the Public Works and Transport Department made a field visit and a
study on this subject and then issued a circular directly to local
authorities. Our policy is to "assist" the people affected by
the road extension but not pay for damages, so the contribution made is
different from what the people may expect. We follow the formula issued by
the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the decision was made through the
joint sub-committee that has gone to measure, set landmarks and make
statistics concerning the impact on the people and to evaluate this
compensation. In Svay Rieng some did not agree with the widening of the
road with a 10-15 meter right-of-way from its axis because:
- The house owner requested more budget
but we gave them a limited sum that was enough for them.
- The calculation and
measurement of the people's house in square meters were not proper.
Q :
Regarding
the affected people who have no land on which to rebuild their houses, how
does the sub-committee deal with this issue?
A : There
is not any impact on people's housing but only on their small business
shops along the road. There are not any affected people that have no land
on which to rebuild their houses.
And we are waiting for lawsuits from the people related to various
kinds of protests. According to the Government's policy, the affected
people must be assisted and for the poor and disabled who are affected 50%
by the project (have to partially move their house) we add US$ 40 to the
subvention, and for those who are affected 100% (have to move the whole
house) we have to add US$ 80.
Q :
What is the formula that is applied by the RGC?
A :
I would like to say that this formula is defined by the Ministry of
Economy and Finance and the Ministry of Public Works and Transports, but
we provincial authorities deal with the matter only as coordinator and
applicant.
Q :
According to the investigation made by a consultant in 1996, there were
996 families and their immovable property, house fences and trees that
would be affected by this road widening. Does the Sub-Committee deal with
this matter?
A :
We are dealing with this problem but at a lower level because the house
fences were set up too close to the pavement but not within the housing
land. And I think that it's not a real problem as some fences were built
under the previous regime and still remain. Concerning the affected trees,
we permit people to plant trees only on their own land.
Most trees along the road were cultivated by the local Government.
Where the road is diverted through people's land, we will pay completely
for affected trees. The 10-15 meters policy is provisional, but we still
keep the 25 meters standard and forbid the people to build houses or hard
constructions and planting crops in this area. According to the Ministry
of Economy and Finance, a 25 meter road widening scheme is planned for
2010, and then all 845 families will be affected and their houses and
house fences will also be damaged.
Q :
Today's interview with the affected people showed that there was not
enough compensation for them. Even building support columns cannot be done
with this sum. What is the comment of the Sub-Committee?
A :
The contribution we pay is only a subvention for them to remove their
houses and can meet not all their needs. Geographically, Prey Veng lands
are different from Svay Rieng ones as in Prey Veng the road crosses flood
plains and the people built their houses at the roadside; it is really an
impact. In Svay Rieng we need only 10-15 meters road widening and in some
areas this widening is reduced to 6-10 meters.
Q :
According to some people in Kraul Ko, Svay Chrum district, Svay Rieng
province, the working group of the Provincial Sub-Committee was not
impartial in calculating the compensation.
For example, some people who own small houses are being paid more than
those with large houses. Why is this?
A : Regarding this, the working group also has problems. There are just 10 families that protested and refused the contribution. While we went to investigate we conducted a meeting and wrote down the people's names and read them in the communes. As for those who did not agree, they can protest and we openly receive affected people's lawsuits. Following the Governments' policy, the people must not be abandoned to die. We still own tens of thousands of hectares of land along the Cambodian-Vietnamese border. So we can provide each affected family with 2-3 hectares for relocation. [BACK]
A5 - Unofficial Summary of Meeting with the Prey Veng Project Resettlement Sub-Committee
On April 28, the NGO delegation (see the list of NGO participants in Appendix 3) met with the Second Governor, who is head of the sub-committee, and the First General Secretary of the Governor's Cabinet, who is head of the Sub-Committee's working group.
The Governor reported that there were 716 households affected by the project in Prey Veng, of which 46 households do not agree with the compensation amount. 50 households will lose their land. The Governor explained the formula of paying compensation, which is set by Ministry of Economic and Finance, and said that the Sub-Committee is only responsible for the implementation of this formula. The formula is divided into four categories according to the type or quality of the affected house as follows:
1) Houses with woven or mat walls and thatched rooves will receive a contribution of $25,75 per square meter ($25,75/m2). The calculation does not consider whether the whole or only part of the house is affected, but only the house's quality. The Governor stated that their survey found that 75 to 80% of the affected people were happy with this formula.
2) Building with wooden walls, tile or tin roofs on cement stilts receive $ 50/ m2.
3) Single-story concrete houses receive $100/m2 and,
4) Multiple-story concrete houses receive $185/m2. Within this category the affected people are not so upset with the sub-committee regarding the amount of compensation. 89-90% of the affected people were happy with this formula.
The governor stated that there were many difficulties related to the implementation of the resettlement policy. Some affected people did not relocate when they received compensation, some complained that the amount of compensation was not enough for them to relocate, and some did not agree to sign the agreement. The government officials and local authorities have much difficulty in implementing this policy.
The right-of-way being implemented was 25 meters from the axis. Now, according to the Prakas (Government Edict) Number 6, the widening must be 30 meters from the axis. Due to the additional 5-meter widening, the affected people come to meet with the Sub-Committee and demand more compensation.
For the 50 households who will lose their land, the government can provide land if the people are willing to go and live along the Cambodia-Vietnam border, although this is far away. The Inter-Ministerial Committee has proposed a budget for organizing a new village for the affected people to the Asian Development Bank.
The head of the working group responded to the questions of the NGO representatives (see the detailed minutes of the discussion in Appendix 5b) as follows. For those who do not agree with the compensation, the working group will try to explain as much as possible the government's policy. If they still do not agree, the working group will take the necessary action. He also stated that he strongly believed that when the affected people hear the sound of the bulldozer come close to their house, they will relocate even they do not want to. The United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights based in Prey Veng proposed to the Governor that the problem be solved by peaceful means without using force on the poor people. The idea was well accepted by the head of the Sub-Committee and the head of the Working Group.
The Sub-Committee and the Working Group heads were optimistic about the implementation of the resettlement policy. Their strategy is to use persuasion at the beginning and only use force at the end if it is necessary to ensure the affected people will move.
[1] The Invitation for Expression of Interest is shown in Appendix 7.
[2] Asian Development Bank (November 1998), Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on Proposed Loans to the Kingdom of Cambodia and to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for the Greater Mekong Subregion: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project, p.15.
[3] Ibid, page 23
[4] Ibid, page 52
[5] Asian Development Bank (1995), Involuntary Resettlement Policy, para. 33.
[6] Ibid, para. 34.
[7] Asian Development Bank (August 1998), Policy on NGOs
[8] Asian Development Bank (1998), op.cit, p. 57.
[9] Ministry of Economy and Finance (2000), Interministerial Resettlement Committee, "Booklet for Resettlement Implementation Plan"
[10] Ibid.
[11] Asian Development Bank (1998), op. cit., p.55.
[12] The government edicts and correspondence concerning the required right-of-way are shown in Appendix No. 9.
[BACK]