World Bank Document Topics and methods of study for case study areas Table 5 : Participatory of the proposed community infrastructure for animal raising and vegetable cultivations

MMiinniissttrryy ooff IInntteerriioorr WWoorrlldd BBaannkk

LLiivveelliihhoooodd EEnnhhaanncceemmeenntt && AAssssoocciiaattiioonn ooff tthhee PPoooorr iinn SSiieemm RReeaapp ((LLEEAAPP))

PPHHRRDD GGrraanntt NNoo.. TTFF –– 005588001144

RREEPPOORRTT

OONN

SSOOCCIIAALL AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT

SSiieemm RReeaapp PPrroovviinnccee--CChhoobb TTaattrraavv CCoommmmuunnee

Prepared by: Mr. DANH Serey

Social Expert

July, 2010

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb20439

Typewritten Text

E2519 v2

Livelihood Enhancement & Association of the Poor (LEAP)

-i-

TABLE OF CONTENT

Page

List of tables and figures .................................................................................................... iv

List of abbreviations and acronyms .....................................................................................v

Executive summary ..............................................................................................................1

I. Introduction

1. General situation of Siem Reap Province……………………………….. ……..7

2. LEAP Project Objective………………………………………………………...8

II. Legal frameworks and Policies

1 National laws and regulations ..................................................................................9

1.1 Law on Land ................................................................................................9

1.2 Law on Forest ..............................................................................................9

1.3 Law on environmental protection and natural resource management .........9

1.4 Sub-decree on environmental impact assessment process .........................10

1.5 Land Management Policies of Government...…………………………..10

III. Social Assesment

1 Objective of the study……………...……..………………………………… 10

2 Scope of the study…..………………………......……………………….…….11

3 Methodology…..………...…...……………..………………………….…...…14

IV. Outcomes: Social Assessment Findings

1. Voluntary Land Donation (Task 1) ……………...……………...………….…19

(i). The proposed community infrastructure ………….…………...………….…19

(ii). Voluntary land donation of poor people ………….……..……………….…21

(iii). Voluntary land donation process…….…….…………………………….…22

(iv). Special case of voluntary land donation ………….…………….………..…22

(v). Land title ………….…………………..………...………………………..…24

(vi). Problems for poor people ………….…………..………………………...…25

(vii). Advantages of Self Help Group ………….………..…………………....…26

2. Vulnerable people (Task 2)………………………….…..……..….……...…...26


-ii-

(i). Introduction …………..………………...………...……………………….…26

(ii). Handicap people ………….…………………..……………………………..26

(iii). Widows ………….…………………..………...………………………...…27

(iv). Orphans ………….…………………..………...…………………...………27

(v). Abandoned elerly people….………………….....………………………...…28

(vi). Indigenous people…………………………………………………………..28

(vii). Problems for vulnerable people ………….…………………………….... 28

(viii). Advantages for vulnerable people ………….…………….……..….…….29

V. Guidance Notes

A. Guidance Notes for Task 1……………………………….…………………...29

(A-i) Guidance Note for Land Donation Process………………….………….…29

1. Introduction ………….…………………..………...……………………….…29

2. Voluntary land donation status for community infrastructure…..………….…30

3. Conclusion ………….…………………..………...………………………..…34

(A-ii). Guidance Note for Dispute Resolution on VDL/Benefit sharing……..…39

1. Introduction ………….…………………..………...……………………….…39

2. Dispute resolving procedure at the SHG Level …………......……..…………39

3. Dispute resolving procedure at the local authorities …………...…..…..…..…39

4. Conclusion ………….…………………..………...………………………..…40

B. Guidance Note for Vulnerable People (Task 2): Guidance Note on special

measure for Gender sensitive and pro poor measures………….…………...40

1. Introduction ………….…………………..………...……………………….…40

2. Special measure of LEAP Project for vulnerable people ………….……….…40

3. Poor and vulnerable people networks ………….………………………….….41

4. Conclusion ………….……….…………..………...…………………….……41

VI. Recommendation and Conclusion ..........................................................................42

REFERENCE ...................................................................................................................43

Appendix 1: Map of LEAP targeted communes...……………………………………44

Appendix 2: List of Participants in the Field Survey..………………………. ........…45


-iii-

Appendix 3: Photos in the field survey from 23 Nov-01 Dec 2009 ..............................47

Appendix 4: General Findings ………………………………………………………...52

Appendix 5: Guidance Note for SHG Formation…………………………………….56

Appendix 6: Questionnaires of A & B forms ................................................................60

Appendix 7: Term of Reference for Social Assessment (SA) .......................................72

Appendix 8: Presentation on Draft Social Assessment Report ...................................77


-iv-

List of tables and figures Table 1 : Targeted districts of the LEAP Project

Table 2 : Criteria of site selection in Siem Reap Province

Table 3 : Sampling Size of Poor Population in Chob Tatrav commune

Table 4 : Research Topics and methods of study for case study areas

Table 5 : Participatory of the proposed community infrastructure for animal raising and

vegetable cultivations

Table 6 : Participants of land donation in these five villages

Table 7 : Percentage of voluntary land donation

Table 8 : Participants of Voluntary Land Donation for the pig and chicken raisings

in these five villages

Table 9 : Land Title of these five villages

Table 10 : Vulnerable people in Chob Tatrav commune

Table 11 : Example of the VLD Report Form

Table 12 : Poor Population in Chob Tatrav Commune

Table 13 : Land use types in Chob Tatrav Commune

Table 14 : Primary job/occupation in these five villages

Table 15 : Secondary job/occupation in these five villages

Table 16 : Revenue in these five villages

Figure 1 : The five villages map and a number of respondents selected

Figure 2 : Voluntary Land Donation Process

Figure 3 : The institution of the poor


-v-

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ADB : Asian Development Bank

CBOs : Commune Based Organizations

CLFs : Commune Level Federations

DFs : District Federations

EIA : Environmental Impact Assessment

Ha/ha : Hectare

HH : Household

ID : Identification

IFAD : International Fund for Agricultural Development

IVL : Involuntary Land Donation

Km : Kilometer

LEAP : Livelihood Enhancement & Association of the Poor

M/m : Meter

MFI : Microfinance Institute

MOE : Ministry of Environment

MOI : Ministry of Interior

M&E : Monitoring and Evaluation

No : Number

NGOs : Non Government Organizations

NTFP : Non Timber Forest Product

PADEK : Partnership for Development in Kampuchea

PLUAC : Provincial Land Use and Allocation Committee

PMC : Project Management Committee

RGC : Royal Government of Cambodia

SHGs : Self Help Groups

T&L : Tourism & Leisure

Tonle : Khmer name for a large river

VA : Village Associations

VLD : Voluntary Land Donation

WB : World Bank


-1-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Objective of LEAP

Livelihood Enhancement & Association of the Poor (LEAP) project objectives are to reduce poverty through rural livelihoods interventions such as rice productions, vegetable cultivations, handicrafts, poultry, and fish raisings. The project aims to promote the creation of Self Help Groups (SHGs) and/or producers’ groups intended to increase incomes and improve livelihoods of the rural poor households in selected communes, Siem Reap province.

LEAP consists of four-project components: (1)-Building and Strengthening Institutions of the Poor, (2)-Access to Finance, (3)- Access to market and Supporting Linkages of the Poor to Key Value Chains, and (4)-Project Management, Coordination, and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). 2. Objective of Social Assessment for LEAP The LEAP project needs to conduct the social assessment study in the purpose to support the project’s overall objectives development. 3. Methodology of Social Assessment

Literature review Before establishing questions, social expert had reviewed secondary data and relevant literature of former studies and evaluation reports related to targeted commune and Tourism&Leasure documents, prakas and other legal and related documents. The fieldwork for this study was planned to span a period of 10 days starting from 22 November to 1 December 2009. Two days were dedicated to testing of field instruments. The fieldwork was completed earlier in December 2009. A draft report of the SA was submitted for comments by mid of December 2009. A final report was submitted one week following the date comments were received.

Fieldwork Strategy In Phnom Penh, the expert interviewed LEAP Project Director and Manger at MoI working in areas related to targeted communes. The interviews were meant to capture the lessons learned from previous evaluations and to see whether those lessons captured were currently applied or used in decision or policy making by those policy makers at national level. At the provincial level, the expert interviewed Local Administrative Unit Director as manager of LEAP Project in Siem Reap Province. Moreover, the expert conducted meeting with LEAP Project staffs in Siem Reap Province, TOURISM&LEISURE staffs, and the Company’s Key Consultants. These interviews helped us understand more about the site selection for the pilot study and the working relation between the targeted communes and the pilot study. At the commune level, the expert interviewed chief, vice-chief and members of Commune Council who are responsible for poverty alleviation sector. The expert planed to ask the chief and vice-chief of communes and villages about the ID Poor 1 and Poor 2,


-2-

land management, operation of SHG, the kind of mechanism to solve the problems and the intervention of LEAP project for vulnerable people. Interviews with poor and vulnerable people were done using two methods. One focused on group discussions and semi-structured interviews were used for these groups of informants. Second method was the random selection of poor and vulnerable people at whose homew the interviews took place. The total sample size of poor people in Chob Tatrav commune from B questionnaire was 26 households or 10% of total poor 1 and poor 2 households in each village. 4. Outcomes

Voluntary Land Donation Process Of all the respondents in the Chob Tatrav commune 85% agreed with the proposed community infrastructure for animal raisings and vegetable cultivations. In this number, 82% of respondents requested for pig raisings, 17% for chicken raisings and 1% of for mixed proposal. By contract, 15% of respondents were not agreed because they were landless or having small land, etc. Of the respondents in commune about 64% indicated that they were willing to provide their residential land to SHG formation and 36% not willing to provide the land because their residential land are small or they were landless. They were able to provide less than 5% of their total land within the residential district. The percentage of the respondents showed that 93% of of them were willing to provide less than 5%. of their residential land while 7% others o were willing to donate more than 5% of their residential land to SHG formation (one household donated 23% of her residential lands in comparison with the total land she owns within the residential district). The respondents added that the land donation must be free of squatters, encroachers or other claims or encumbrances. At that time, the land donation of each family had to recognize by the village and commune authorities through written commitment..

Problems for Voluntary Land Donation and Vulnerable Groups

The voluntary land donation affects the land use of poor people, while the people are going to meet a challenge of landless or small land area. The contribution made them lose a piece of home land, agricultural land, vegetable cultivated land, flood land and other lands in villages. For example, the pig raisings will affect to the land use of each household in Chob Tatrav commune between 06m2 to 100m2. The vulnerable groups will face more challenges since they are unqualified to do something as a sample physical person and they do not participate enough for the pig raisings, particularly their feeling is not happy with other group members. Moreover, they will create more disputes and unpleasant feeling during benefit sharing because most of vulnerable people always are misunderstanding or illiteracies.


-3-

Otherwise, the representative of commune and villages, and respondents informed that there are no indigenous people in Chob Tatrav commune. 5- Guidance Note According to the findings 64% of respondents are willing to provide their land for SHG use. So, the SHGs and Facilitators should use the Guidance Note on Voluntary Land Donation.

(i) Guidance Note on Voluntary Land Donation Process Step 1. SHG Discussion on Sub-project Choice

Public consultation meetings will be held by Commune Federation (CF), Village Association (VA) and SHGs, in each village where there are affected people and where the SHGs have decided themselves that their chosen sub-projects will require lands for public goods. Step 2. SHG and Facilitators The Facilitators and SHGs will refer to the Social Assessment in addition to the Environment Management Framework. They shall use the conditions for the voluntary land donation as specified below:

The property owners or possessors are willing to provide land no more than 5% of their total land within the residential district.

The voluntary contribution of lands must be free of squatters, encroachers, or other claims or encumbrances.

The VLD for SHG formation will not affect to water sources, noise, smell, revenue, livelihood, public health and social safety resulting from the various investments. The Facilitators and SHGs shall refer to the Environmental Management Framework (EMF) as mentioned in the Environmental Assessment Report . Step 3. Preparation of VLD Report

The VLD report is prepared by the commune chief as follows: Land map shows about the land use by the project; List of the VLD and signatures or finger prints of land donors with

agreement. Disclosure of the land owners and SHG member rights. Minutes

Step 4. Review and disclosure the VLD Report In case of the VLD report is not fair. The SHG chief, the affected people and stakeholders shall request the chief of commune and the village to make revision and edition of the report. In case of the VLD report is acceptable and the problem solved by the local authorities as mentioned in the Guidance Note for the Dispute Resolution, the Facilitators advise the commune chief to initiate the project implementation. Principles of Voluntary Land Donation followed by the LEAP

The project design will not entail involuntary relocation of households or involuntary land acquisition but since the LEAP project is embedded in a community driven development model whereby local communities/groups of households (the SHGs) will be


-4-

making decisions regarding the types of interventions they seek and since these may require the acquisition of land, the project will follow key criteria in ensuring that such community based land donations are voluntary (without coercion) and reflect good practice. Landlessness is a threat for the poor in Cambodia, thus potentially rendering certain segments of the project population vulnerable if they are not in a position to make land donations in the context of community decisions for infrastructure projects. The Project will ensure that voluntary land transactions (if any) amongst and between community members is truly voluntary and based on informed consent. Project Facilitators together with the PMU will be responsible for ensuring the following steps are implemented:

1. Steps to establish that any community infrastructure is not site specific. In other words, if there are disagreements regarding location or problems in obtaining lands, the proposed community infrastructure can be moved (i.e., poultry shed, rice mill etc). 2. Steps to determine that impacts on persons or households donating lands is minor, that is, involve no more than 5% of the area of any holding and require no physical relocation. 3. Steps to ensure that communities decide that if lands meet the technical criteria of the proposed investment (the physical structure). Communities may seek guidance from project authorities (i.e., to make sure that the land is appropriate for project purposes and that the project will produce no health or environmental safety hazards). 4. Steps to establish that the land in question must be free of squatters, encroachers, or other claims or encumbrances. 5. Verification (for example, notarized or witnessed statements) of the voluntary nature of land donations must be obtained from each person donating land. 6. Steps to ensure that if community services are to be provided under the project, land title must be vested in the community, or appropriate guarantees of public access to services must be given by the private titleholder. 7. Steps on establishing grievance mechanisms that is workable and appropriate to the local context. These must be developed in consultation with local communities."

Public Consultation and Disclosure

The LEAP Project would ensure the SHGs and Facilitators to prepare appropriate planning and implementation documents for the acquisition of land in consultation with the land owners. The land owners will receive prior information of the land rental or purchase including:

The relevance details of the project; Land acquisition planning principle; Information concerning dispute procedures.

(ii) Guidance Note on Disputed Resolving Procedure

1- Dispute resolving procedure at the SHG level


-5-

- SHG shall invite its leader and members to a consultation meeting and find root cause of the problems and the solution, particularly to reconcile the two disputing parties;

- SHG leader shall solve the problems in accordance with the agreement/contract. Anyway, the contract is acknowledged by the village and commune authorities. It seems law obligation for each member but it will not be applied as fine or a punishment for the violation activities on the contract.

- Educate or guide the members of group to avoid the mistakes with group regulation,

- Guide the SHG's members to understand that the SHG is not belonging to someone. Thus, all members should try to struggle for their livelihood enhancement, particularly for their children future. 2- Dispute resolving procedure at Local authorities

In case of the problems shall not be solved by the SHG level. All members of SHG will request the village chief or village facilitator for find the solutions and reasons of problems. If the issues are not solved by the village chief or village association, the problems will move to commune councils or commune facilitators. If no solved, the chief of commune will submit to the district coordinator. If no solved, the district coordinator shall submit the files to the local administration unit of Siem Reap Province. And the complaint of VLD or benefit sharing will be replied within 10 working days after submission the complaint application.

(iii) Guidance Note on Special Measures for vulnerable people In the finding above, the special measures for vulnerable people needed to find good solutions and provide some recommendation as describe below.

All SHG members should include the vulnerable people at least one household; if any;

Provide good opportunities to vulnerable people for group selections; they should not be left out;

Capacity Building of member group as handicap people or abandoned elderly people etc;

Create more SHG for vulnerable people, if the poor people are not selected enough yet;

Consultation meeting with vulnerable people to encourage the project implementation;

Instruct vulnerable member of SHG to continue the project implementation for poverty alleviation;

Arrange or provide jobs of vulnerable people base on their human body. Provide food and drink for daily consumptions to disable person. This person

works unqualified in the SHG; Instruct them about their work and subsidize money or something, while the SHG

get benefit from animals or crops selling; Have to moral strengthening of vulnerable people and avoid someone in the SHG

get jealous with them; Saving some money for implementing anything in the future plan;


-6-

6- Recommendation According to the project type such as poultry shed; raise pig, fishing, vegetable cultivation projects, etc is small scale and low negative social impacts. Moreover, these projects did not mentioned in the national legislations and regulations of Kingdom of Cambodia. So, these projects were not required conducting the environmental and social impact assessment report. Local authorities, SHGs and Facilitators shall implement following the social assessment report and guidance note to be successful and efficiency. The LEAP project will intervene and take measures to solve all the relevant problems during the project implementation within five years such as SHGs trainings, budget supports and material supplies, etc. Once the project is completed, the SHG groups and local authorities will become self managed as stated in the guidance note of the social assessment report.


-7-

I. INTRODUCTION

1. General situation of Seim Reap Province

Siem Reap province has total land area about 10,299 km2 that is equal to 5.68% of the total land area of Cambodia 181,035 km2. Just for Siem Reap alone there is 1,098 km2, or 11.66% of the province’s total land, are human settlements and infrastructures areas. Another 1,970 km2, or 19.2% of the Siem Reap’s total land, are agricultural areas. For the 5,570 km2, or 54% of the total land in the province, are forest areas. Another 1,016 km2

or 9.89% are water bodies, and the rest 645 km2 or 6.26% are non use areas. (Source: National Report on Environmental Impact Assessment of Tourism in the Lower Mekong Basin in the Cambodia Country, CNMC, January 2008). Siem Reap province consists of 12 districts, 100 communes, and approximately 900 villages. Artery roads (paved as well as none paved) cover roughly two-thirds of the province, except for the north and east-west belt. Rural roads (secondary and tertiary levels) are limited and difficult to access to remote villages, particularly during the rainy season. The province has highest economic potential in term of tourism industry for the Kingdom of Cambodia. Siem Reap has been recognized throughout the world given it is world’s heritage. The Angkor Wat temple itself has been attracted by foreign visitors approximately more than hundred thousand people visited there every year. Moreover, foreign visitors are continuous augmentation since 1995 until 2008; it means that amount of visitors has been gradually increased 6 to 7 times during the last 13 years. The total population is approximately 900,000, which most of them lived in rural areas and 17% to 18% lived in the urban areas. The total amount of households is 136.185, where 13.99% belongs to ID Poor group 1 (19.055 households) and 14.63% to ID Poor group 2 (19.933 households). The population growth in Siem Reap is around 2.6% per annum since last ten years or so, faster than the national average population growth rate of 1.6%. The Province, which is one of the three poorest in the country, has greater intensity of poverty in the northern districts compared to the southern ones. (Source: Siem Reap Province, Livelihood Enhancement & Association of the Poor (LEAP) project, Project Proposal 1st draft, December 10, 2009). Most population is preponderance of immigrants. As many less developed countries, Cambodia has been increasingly became urbanization. Since 1975, the population was only 10.3% and increased to 15.6% in 1999. It is estimated that by 2015 the proportion will be at 22.8%. The vast majority of migrants are from other parts of the provinces, and the town continues to be overwhelmingly Khmer, but migrants also come from as far as Phnom Penh to seek work in the town. The figures reflect several factors: the movement of populations under stress; rural-urban migration, and natural growth of urban centres. The process is writ large in Siem Reap and no less than 55% of Siem Reap District’s population was migrants in 1998, predominantly (74%) from other parts of the Province.


-8-

2. LEAP Project Objectives

Livelihood Enhancement & Association of the Poor (LEAP) project objectives are to reduce poverty through rural livelihoods interventions such as rice production, vegetable cultivation, handicrafts, poultry and fisheries. The project will promote the creation of Self Help Groups (SHGs) and/or producers’ groups which intended to increase incomes and improve livelihoods of the rural poor household in selected Siem Reap communes. A summary of the 4 project components are as follows:

Component 1 – Building and Strengthening Institutions of the Poor: This component will build and strengthen self-managed primary institutions of the poor including thrift based Self Help Groups (SHGs). In the second phase, the SHGs will be federated at the commune level into Commune Level Federations (CLFs). The project would also invest, on need basis, in facilitating specialized institutions of poor producers (Producer Groups) for developing linkages with service providers and market institutions in key value chains.

Component 2 – Access to Finance: This component aims to transfer financial and technical resources to the poor to support basic livelihood investments. The component is divided into three sub-components:

a) Seed Grants to Primary Institutions of the Poor: These grants would be provided, on demand driven basis, to groups that have achieved threshold performance in basic organizational and financial management and have developed micro investment plans through a participatory process.

b) Livelihood Investment Fund: Under this sub-component, the project would support mature SHGs to federate with CLFs. The CLFs would be trained in managing the financial institution, appraising of small loan proposals and monitoring and recovery of loans.

c) Linkage with Formal Financial Sector: The project will support training and exposure of staff of partner commercial banks and MFIs, product and process development efforts.

Component 3 – Supporting Linkages of the Poor to Key Value Chains: This component would support activities that the help poor producers to link with markets through skill development, productivity improvement, local level value addition, aggregation of production/marketing, and value chain linkages. This component would have two sub-components as described below:

a) Livelihood Support and Value Chain Linkage: This sub-component would encourage organization of small and medium size producer associations.

b) Vocational training and job linkages: The component would also support skills training of targeted poor in project communities based on assessments of job market demand.

Component 4 – Project Management, Coordination, and Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E): This component would facilitate overall co-ordination, implementation, and financial management, monitoring and learning of the project.


-9-

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND POLICIES 1. National laws, regulations and policies

1.1. Law on Land The current legislation governing land ownership is the Land Law dated 30 August 2001. This new Land Law was replaced the former Land Law enacted October 1992. This Act contains some provision that is relevant in relation to a national resettlement policy that presently under process of formulation. Article 5: "No person shall be deprived of their ownership unless this action is for the public interest consistent with formalities and procedures which provided by laws and regulations, and after just and fair compensation is provided." Article 6: "All transfers or changes of rights of ownership shall be made under the rules of general procedures of sale, succession, exchange, or donation, or by the court decision." Accordingly, a number of legal documents supporting the implementation of the Land Law and Policy have been prepared and issued, most notably those of Sub-decree 19 on Social Land Concessions (dated 19 March 2003), Sub-decree 118 on State Land Management (dated 07 October 2005) and Prakas on Guidelines to Implement Sub-decree on Social Land Concession (dated 19 November 2003).

1.2. Law on Forestry This law was prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery which promulgated by the King on September 30, 2002, and its associated Sub-decree 53 on Procedures for Establishment, Classification and Registration of Permanent Forest Estate (dated 20 April 2005), Sub-decree 79 on Community Forestry Management (dated 02 December 2003).

1.3. Law on environmental protection and natural resource management This law was prepared by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and promulgated by the King on December 24, 1996. This law is the main legal instrument in governing the environmental protection and natural resource management in Cambodia. The purposes of this law are: To protect and promote environmental quality and public health through the

prevention, reduction, and control of pollution, To assess the environmental impacts of all proposed projects prior to the issuance

of a decision by the Royal Government, To ensure the rational and sustainable conservation, development, management,

and use of the natural resources of the Kingdom of Cambodia, To encourage and enable the public to participate in environmental protection and

natural resource management, To suppress any acts that cause harm to the environment.


-10-

1.4. Sub-decree on environmental impact assessment process (1999) This sub-decree was prepared by the MOE and promulgated by the RGC on August 11, 1999. The main objectives of this sub-decree are: To determine an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for every

private and public project or activity. The assessment shall be reviewed by the Ministry of Environment prior to submission to the Royal Government for a decision making.

To determine the type and size of the proposed private and public projects and activities, including existing and ongoing activities subject to the process of EIA.

To encourage public participation by implementing the EIA process, taking into account its input, and suggesting in the process of project approval.

This sub-decree covers every proposed and ongoing projects and activities (whether of private sector, joint venture, or state government or ministries/institutions described in the annex of this sub-decree, except for special and crucial projects approved by the Royal Government.

1.5. Land Management Policies of Government

The policy governing the Social Land Concessions originates outlined in the Royal Government of Cambodia’s Interim Paper for Strategy of Land Policy Framework (06 September 2002). This document was written to provide guidance on how to interpret, implement and use the Land Law of the Kingdom of Cambodia (dated 30 August 2001). As noted in the section on land distribution, “many poor people have no land or too little land to earn a living…some people cannot afford to buy or rent land…This means that other mechanisms of land allocation such as social concessions or leasing of public land are needed for some groups to fill needs for shelter and livelihood.” Accordingly, a number of legal documents supporting the implementation of the Land Law and Policy have been prepared and issued, most notably those of Sub-decree 19 on Social Land Concessions (dated 19 March 2003), Sub-decree 118 on State Land Management ( dated 07 October 2005) and Prakas 200 on Guidelines to Implement Sub-decree on Social Land Concession (dated 19 November 2003). At national level, the National Social Land Concession Committee (NSLCC) is the institution to make national policy with respect to land concessions as well as review, adjust, manage and monitor all SLC activities at provincial level. The NSLCC is subject to the supervision of the Council for Land Policy who also has a role in the approval process for registration of SLC as State Private Land. The NSLCC operates primarily through the General Secretariat for SLC (GSSLC). A role is played within this process by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) that also involves in SLC and D&D financial management and procurement. The Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction (MLMUPC) provide general technical and administrative support and overall supervision.

III. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

1. Objective of the study Furthermore, the project needs to conduct the social assessment study in the purpose to support the project’s overall objectives development through the two main tasks. The social assessment is an approach which draws on qualitative (focus group discussions,


-11-

key informant interviews, individual household interviews) and secondary or quantitative data to analyze a situation or problem and to reach the solutions or design measures, in this case, the development of community guidelines for voluntary land donations (Task 1) and data to inform the design of a vulnerable people. This social assessment (SA) study will not focus the national legal frameworks and the principles of the Bank’s social safeguards policies such as Land Law, Sub decree on Environmental Impact Assessment.

The objective of assessments consistently highlighted importance of:

(i). Effective information dissemination approaches targeted to reach the poor people and vulnerable groups (e.g., female-headed households and the disabled people);

(ii). Support to encourage participation of vulnerable people in the process as potential impacted people under the program;

(iii). Transparent processes with ample scope for civil society organizations to participate during key steps of the process;

(iv). Dispute resolution mechanisms that are consistent with the local context but also provide for transparency and accountability in terms of resolution of disputes;

(v). Promoting participation of both men and women in voluntary land donation planning and activity implementations;

(vi). Follow-up household visits by social support teams to identify problems with men and women and;

(vii). Assistance to beneficiaries to form groups to more effectively express their needs and concerns as well as a basis for collaborative livelihood activities.

2. Scope of the study

The project will be implemented in 50 rural communes from nine districts of Siem Reap province in Cambodia. These communes represent a series of defining characteristics - (a) high poverty density and/or incidence, (b) opportunity to link to key markets and value chains, (c) presence of existing SHGs and producer groups, and (d) avoidance of overlap with the ADB-IFAD project. The table below provides further information on the project districts:

Table 1: Targeted districts of the LEAP Project

S.N Name of Districts

No. of total Communes

No. of Project Communes

No. of Villages

Total No. of HHs

No. of ID-1 & ID-2 poor in these

communes

% of Poor HHs

1. Angkor Thum 04 04 27 4.265 1.639 38% 2. Chi Kraeng 12 05 79 9.877 3.289 33% 3. Kralanh 10 03 23 3.124 798 26% 4. Prasat Bakong 08 08 57 10.883 2.323 21% 5. Puok 14 14 132 21.253 5.746 27% 6. Svay Leu 05 05 31 4.081 1.603 39% 7. Siem Reab 13 05 53 10.459 1.947 19% 8. Srei Snam 06 06 46 6.045 2.093 35% 9 Soutr Nikom 10 02 23 4.046 1.450 36% Total 72 52* 471 74.033 20.888 28%

Source: LEAP Project, Interim Output Report, 10th November 2009.


-12-

The Government of Cambodia considers poor and vulnerable people at rural area as an utmost priority ‘for livelihood enhancement for the poor people in Siem Reap province’ and ‘a driving force for poverty alleviation’. It is thus vital to develop an understanding of the consequences of this phenomenon on the economic and socio-cultural conditions of the proposed community infrastructure destination areas. To identify the study site, the Social Assessment consultant conducted meeting with LEAP Project of Siem Reap Province, TOURISM&LEISURE staffs, and Key Consultant Company staffs on November 23, 2009 at 9:00am at meeting room of the LEAP Project in Siem Reap province. The discussion led the consultant to consider four pilot study sites such as:

1. Peak Snaeng Commune in Angkor Thum District; 2. Chob Tatrav Communes in Angkor Thum District; 3. Trei Nhoar Commune in Puok District; 4. Reul Commune in Puok District.

Then, the consultant went to visit these communes within two days for considering as targeted commune. As a result; the consultant selected Chob Tatrav commune as a case study because:

- The commune has ID Poor 1 & 2 as like other three communes; - Agricultural landlessness of poor people is high; - Most poor people have no opportunity to link to key markets and value

chain; - This commune is high natural resources in a number of 5,672 ha.

After site selection, the consultant prepared the methods of the study, questionnaires (for interview Chob Tatrav commune council, village authorities, poor and vulnerable people) and outline of the draft report. Then, the consultant met with LEAP Project Director and representative of World Bank on 25 November 2009 at Somadevi Angkor Hotel & Spa to discuss about targeted commune (Chob Tatrav commune), on methods of study and outline of the draft report. In addition, the consultant did sent those draft documents to the LEAP project and WB officials for comment.

Table 2: Criteria of site selection in Siem Reap Province

Criteria Angkor Thum District

Puok District

Commune Chob Tatrav* Peak Snaeng Trei Nhoar Reul

Total household 727 889 1,557 2,520 ID Poor household

P1 + P2 = 241 P1 + P2 = 405 P1 + P2 = 621 P1 + P2 = 1,135

Agricultural productivity coupled with

HIGH: Agricultural landless is around

LOW Agricultural landless is around 15%

LOW Agricultural landless is 10%

N/A


-13-

rural landlessness 30% Market access and diversification

LOW No opportunity to link to key markets and value chains

MODERATE There are tow ways of market access. (i). Take the product to Puok or Angkor Chum districts. (ii). Buyers come and buy directly the products at the commune.

MODERATE Buyers at Puok and Poipet markets go to buy the rice and basket products.

MODERATE Buyers at Puok and Poipet markets go to buy the rice and basket products

Indebtedness and lack of access to finance

LOW Indebtedness is around 20% (last time was around 70%).

MODERATE Indebtedness is around 50%

LOW Indebtedness is around 3 households (before was around 80%).

MODERATE Indebtedness is around 50% (Before was around 80%)

Reserve land for Commune

No No No No

Natural resources MODERATE Forest land is 5,672 ha

LOW There are two forest communities such as Prey Prah community (06 ha) and Prah Angcheng (306 ha).

No No

Proposed community infrastructure

Livestock: Poultry, cow and pig raisings.

Livestock: Poultry, cow and pig raisings but fishery raisings are not available.

Livestock: Poultry, cow and pig raisings.

- Livestock: Poultry, cow, pig and fish raisings. - Vegetable cultivation.

Source: - 1st draft proposed project of LEAP (T&L), November 2009. - Interview with four commune council members on 23-24 November 2009. Note: (*) Chob Tatrav Commune was selected for the case study. General data on social aspects, identification of poor 1 and 2, and the way they were perceived by the draft report of T&L. However, Chob Tatrav commune was surveyed for several days by the Social Expert in November 2009, for part of these visits he was joined by Mr. Morn Sam Art, Livelihood Officer, and LEAP Project of Siem Reap Province. As a consequence, the data collections were indicative specific issues under investigation. It should also be emphasised that the sites were chosen to be representative of any specific type of voluntary land donation and vulnerable people destination. Rather, they were selected for illustrative purposes, to provide some indication of benefits and problems which involve with the relationship of the proposed community infrastructure


-14-

to the socio-economic aspects of the Nine Districts were under the project, and to provide a basis for ascertaining the potential for poverty alleviation and livelihood enhancement of the poor people in Siem Reap province where the cultural tourism and ecotourism areas.

3. Methodology

Methods followed in obtaining data in this LEAP project, draft report of T&L Company and were based on field survey of the consultant. The methods obtained no objection from LEAP project and Project Team of Siem Reap. It was accepted at these meetings that research emphases would vary from case study site to case study site, according to such variations as their levels of poor people and the actual vulnerable people at the sites, and the amount of data that were readily available. In addition, given time and budget restrictions on carrying out the case study, and the relative scarcity of much relevant information in Siem Reap, there was little time for collecting primary data and compiling report. Thus, the expert was largely reliant on secondary sources of Tourism & Leasure Firm and on provided information by respondents. Therefore, some methods of obtaining data would be more important at that site than others.

3-1 Literature review

The study mostly made use of qualitative methodology in order to get in-depth understanding of the perceptions of informants on poor and vulnerable people, and the kinds of impacts assessment have on their lives. Mostly it made use of open-ended interviews, some semi-structured interviews, and some case observations. A small survey was used to investigate if there were any differences in the prices paid and the prices quoted or claimed to have been received by officials at the LEAP project office. Before preparing the questions, social expert had reviewed secondary data and relevant literature of former studies and evaluation reports related to targeted commune and Tourism&Leasure Firm, prakas and other legal and related documents. By the time expert had developed all sets of questions, he already interviewed some key informants in Phnom Penh. All these were done so that the expert could grasp the whole idea of what was going on with the social assessment including objective of LEAP, objective of SA, general findings, outcomes and recommendation. The fieldwork for this study was planned to span a period of 10 days, starting from 22 November to 1 December 2009. Two days were dedicated to testing of field instruments. The fieldwork would be completed earlier of December 2009. A draft report of the SA would be submitted for comments by mid of December 2009. A final report would be submitted one week following the date comments were received.

3-2 Fieldwork Strategy During our fieldwork, at the end of each interview day, expert met and discussed the data and information they had received and analyzed them accordingly. Notes, descriptive and analytical, taken during the interviews were written up once expert arrived back in Phnom Penh. The fieldwork revolved around 10 days.


-15-

We identified our informants mainly from purposive sampling (our informants were chosen because they either had relevant work or directly or indirectly involved or will involve with the LEAP Project) and some snowball sampling with the help from LEAP Project officer in Siem Reap Province as well as recommendations from some interviewees. Our informants range from staff at the commune to village, and poor and vulnerable people. Different sets of guided questions were prepared for them to capture relevant information as well as relevant insights of the informants. In Phnom Penh, expert intervied LEAP Project Director and Manger, MoI working in areas related to targeted communes. The interviews were meant to capture the lessons learned from previous evaluations and to see whether those lessons captured were currently applied or used in decision or policy making by those policy makers at national level. Besides, the interviews were carried out to look into the changes and progress made and the perceptions of those involved in the pilot study. The interviews also aim to capture the factors that constitute the sustainability of poor and vulnerable people livelihood enhancement and the likelihood of its future expansion. At the provincial level, expert interviewed Local Administrative Unit Director as manager of LEAP Project in Siem Reap Province. Moreover, expert conducted meeting with LEAP Project staffs of Siem Reap Province, TOURISM&LEISURE staffs, and Key Consultant Company staffs. These interviews helped us understand more about the site selection for the pilot study. The working relates between the targeted communes and the pilot study. At the commune level, the expert interviewed chief, vice-chief and members of commune council who are responsible for poverty alleviation sector. The expert planed to ask the chief and vice-chief of communes and villages about the ID Poor 1 and Poor 2, the voluntary land donation for the animal or fish raisings and vegetable cultivations, land management, operation of SHG, the kind of mechanism for solve the problems and the intervention of LEAP project for vulnerable people. Interviews with poor and vulnerable people comprised two methods. One focused on group discussions and semi-structured interviews were used for these groups of informants. Second method was the random selection of poor and vulnerable people at whose respective homes the interviews took place. The expert chose to use these two methods since he wanted to understand the perceptions of voluntary land donation and their problems for the SHG formations. Basic data were frequently available for specific sites. However, the efforts were made to obtain where it did exist, and where it was absent to seek estimates from local authorities, e.g. in Chob Tatrav commune. Where possible, too, the experience and views of poor people and vulnerable groups were sought, and all these sources were supplemented by direct observation at the case study sites, especially where there were Trapaing Tourk, Chob, Prasad, Toap Svay and Pang Toek villages in Chob Tatrav commune.


-16-

3-3 Team composition

The survey team was composed of one social expert and two enumerators. The enumerators were hired by the expert. They were trained to perform the local people questionnaire survey form B for the five villages. The social expert performs the questionnaire form A that are for the chief, vice-chief and members of the Chob Tatrav commune, and these five chiefs, vice- chiefs and members of Trapaing Tourk, Chob, Prasad, Toap Svay and Pang Toek villages.

3.4 Sampling method

The total sample size of poor people in Chob Tatrav commune from B questionnaire was 26 households; it was equal 10% of total poor 1 and poor 2 households in each village. But, the total sample size of commune and village authorities from A questionnaire was selected 12 persons including chief, first chief of commune and member of commune council, and chief, vice chief and assistant of these five villages to interview as showed in the appendix 1. The sample size distribution among the five targeted villages was based on the updated number of household in each village, using the Chob Tratrav commune data in 2009.

Table 3: Sampling Size of Poor Population in Chob Tatrav commune

Village P1 & P2 (HH)

Population (Person)

Sample size (10%)

Total land (ha)

Total FemaleTrapaing Tourk 46 231 120 05 1,230

Chob 35 174 89 04 1,265 Prasad 48 240 123 05 1,255 Toap Svay 56 254 128 06 1,376

Pang Toek 56 247 125 06 1,284 Total 241 1,146 585 26 6,410

Source: Interview with 1st Vice Chief of Chob Tatrav Commune Council, November 2009. Before performing the household survey, a simple map of the village was illustrated as shown in the following figure 1. The sample size selection was collected based on the proportional method of group discussion and Randum. The filled questionnaire form was checked by the Social Assessment consultant. The error was corrected and the missing information was completed by repeating the questionnaire to the respondents. As the poor people were in rural area approximately 60km from Siem Reap town, local facilitator was recruited. His involvement was indispensable especially for the Trapaing Tourk, Chup, Prasad, Toap Svay and Pang Toek villages.

3.5 Accessibility of targeted commune The Chob Tatrave commune is located about 70 km from Siem Reap town and 60 km from Angkor Thom Temple. The access road is a laterite road in bad condition during the dry and wet seasons. The commune consists of these five villages such as Trapaing Tourk, Chob, Prasad, Toap Svay and Pang Toek villages.


-17-

Figure 1: The five villages map and a number of respondents selected

3.6 Existing projects within the survey area

Nowadays in the five targeted villages, Trapaing Tourk, Chob, Prasad, Toap Svay and Pang Toek in the Chob Tatrav commune, there are Plans, Our family Association (name of organization) and PADEX organizations which supported one part of these five villages. The main task of Plans organization is involved with the saving and credit. Our family Association supported a sector of weaving and poultry raisings. In accordance with, the PADEK organization supported a sector of saving and rice bank.

Table 4: Research Topics and methods of study for case study areas

Research aim. Methods Description of destination area (Case study sites) 1st draft project proposal review and field work. Task 1: Voluntary Land Donation 1. Levels of poor people: who goes where, when and why? 1st draft report of T&L review; LEAP project

documents; formal and informal interviews with commune councils, village authorities, SHG, producer groups and poor people. Observation

1.1. How do poor people get there and what do they do there, especially involving their products? Types of transport and careers; relevance of activities to their livelihoods. Where do they pick up their products?

Interviews with poor people, SHG, producer groups and other stakeholders. Observation.

1.2. In what ways? Do they want the community or SHG? How size of land donation per household? Causes? Where and how many people donate the land, including poorest and


Primary School

Chob Primary School

5 samples Trapaing Tourk

6 samples Pang Toek

4 samples Chob

6 samples Toap Svay

Mountain

ChT commune and Police station

Angkor Thom Temple

5 samples Prasad

Mountain

Literite road 60km.

Prasad Pagoda

Pagoda


-18-

unable people? 1.3. Do they have the existing SHG or Producer groups in the targeted commune?


1.4. If people is disagreed. Where and how efficiency? Perceived and actual impact on the proposed community infrastructure?

Interviews with poor people, SHG, producer groups and other stakeholders; observation.

2. How many percentages of land donation? Land donation is more than 5%, how to do? And is it acceptable? Who is responsible to reply to the project?


3. How the commune council and village facilitator's ideas related to the proposed community infrastructure? Who are responsible for next five years or the project closed?

Interviews with commune council, village association, SHG, producer groups and poor people.

3.1. Health details of the case study areas, and how related to land and revenue sources.

Major health problems and mortality; interviews with poor people, village association, SHG, and producer groups, including medical professionals. Literature review. EVIDENCE.

3.2. Social Impacts: forms of association, e.g. rice mill, cow bank, poultry shed or craft associations etc.

On site measurement of land donation where appropriate in destination area, urban and rural areas. Survey of existing data, including T & L and LEAP. Interview with commune council, village association, SHG, and producer groups and others causes and remedies.

4. Evidence of voluntary land donation. When you occupied on the land? What type of land do they provided? Where?

Interview with commune council, village association, SHG, and producer groups.

5. Legal land? Evidence and perception of land types? Verification.

Interview with commune council, village authorities, SHG, and producer groups.

6. Economic Impact e.g. jobs, new forms of employment, impact on and links with agriculture and other work; hospitals and other facilities?

Observation; local records and statistics, interviews with existing SHG and producers. Who wins and who loses?

7. Do they believe the community service? Do they appropriate guarantees of public access?

Interview with SHG members.

8. Do they have the conflict mechanisms? How to solve all problems in the communities?

Observation. Interviews with different stakeholders; possible conflict situations. Winners and losers.

8.1. What are recommendation of problems and negative impacts? Who are responsible for the next 5 years?

Interview with the community, commune council and village facilitators.

Task 2: Vulnerable people: Poorest, less education, widower, disable persons, orphaned and elderly people with little support.

Interview with vulnerable people. Observation.

1. How to ensure for vulnerable people constitute major groups within the project site? How does economic analysis of vulnerable people? What kind of the special measure of the issues?

Interview with vulnerable people, VA and producer groups.

2. What does the project adversely or positively affect them? What the special measure should be designed? When they would be done for next step?

Interview with vulnerable people, commune and village facilitators.

3. Who are to be taken care strongly in the proposed community infrastructure? How they get benefit from the community when they are unable to do some things such elderly or handicap people etc.

Observation. Vulnerable people such handicaps, widowers, unable persons, elderly people, and orphaned.

Source: Prepared by Social Expert, November 2009.


-19-

IV. OUTCOMES: SOCIAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

Actually, the social expert selected the total 32 households in Chob Tatrav commune as a sample size of poor and vulnerable people. There is more than 10% in some villages such as Chob village, 6 households and Toap Svay, 10 households. 1. Voluntary Land Donation (Task 1)

(i) The proposed community infrastructure

According to interview with the poor people in the Chob Tatrav commune in November 2009 emphasized that 80% of the respondents in Trapaing Tourk village considered the pig raisings as a first priority. And the second priority is vegetable cultivation and poultry raisings. By contrast, 20% of the respondents in Trapaing Tourk village did not consider the pig raisings and vegetable cultivation due to their landlessness or their small residential land. The respondents in this village would like to format the SHG as a mixed group including men, women and vulnerable people which their house is closely. On the other hand, the respondents in Chob village requested the pig raisings about 67%. And 33% of respondents did not reply the proposed community infrastructure for the pig raisings dues to:

- Some people got sick; - Some people were landless in the village; - Some people were not willing to provide their land because they do not

want problems in the future. Furthermore, the respondents of this village need to SHG formation with the neighbours that get house closely. And the SHG formation should mix between men and women because the main key of the pig raisings must be taken care daily and regularly. 80% of the respondents in Prasad village requested the pig raisings in the first priority. And, the secondary priority was the vegetable cultivation, chicken and cow raisings. By contrast, 20% of the respondents were not willing to donate their land for SHG development but they wanted to participate in the SHG and requested to raise the pigs, chickens and cows. The respondents of this village emphasized that the SHG formation should be participated from the neighbours in a mix group including men, women, handicap people, and widow etc. And SHG's members should be got a loyalty and trust each other. Most respondents in Toap Svay village were poorest than other villages. Actually, 70% of respondents have the small scale size of residential land and no paddy/Chamkar land. These respondents were not willing to provide the land but they strongly supported to participate in the SHG formation for the pig raisings. Beside, 30% of respondents were willing to donate the residential land to the pigpen construction but they have three different opinions which describe below:


-20-

- First opinion, one household was willing to provide the residential land under 5% and he requested that the pigpen construction should be located in his land;

- Second opinion, one household was willing to provide the residential land more than 5%. However her residential land was the small scale size. She was willing to provide the land because she thinks that other SHG's members are very difficult than her in both livelihood and landless;

- Third opinion, one household is handicap, he did not want to joint in the group for the pig raisings. He needs to raise the pig in his family without participation from group's member because he thinks that the group formation is difficulty and it gets problems more than individual household, particularly when someone in the group get drunk, she/he will create the problems with other group's members. Therefore, he did not want to participate in group.

On the other hand, the respondents in Pang Toek village proposed the pig raisings approximately 83%. Beside 17% of respondents requested the chicken raisings. 60% of respondents needed SHG's member as widows only because they though that it is not care about the discrimination amongst of their members. For 30% of respondents needed a mix group and 10% of respondents was handicap people and they wanted to establish the SHG that members come from handicap group.

Table 5: Participatory of the proposed community infrastructure for animal raisings and

vegetable cultivations

Village Disagree Agree Pig raising

Chicken raising

Fish raising

Cow raising

Vegetable cultivation

Trapaing Tourk

20%

80% 80% a 00 00 a

Chob 33%

67% 67% 0% 00 00 00

Prasad 20%

80%

80%

a 00 a a

Toap Svay 00 100%

100%

00 00 00 00

Pang Toek 00

100% 83%

17% 00 00 00

Total

15%

85% 82% 17% 00 a a

Source: Interview with poor people in these five villages, November 2009. Note: (a): Additional request after the pig raisings (0): No requested. Therefore, 85% of respondents in the Chob Tatrav commune agreed with the proposed community infrastructure for animal raisings and vegetable cultivations. In this number, 82% of respondents requested the pig raisings, 17% of respondents requested chicken


-21-

raisings and 1% of respondents made mixed proposal. By contract, 15% of respondents did not agree because they were landless or with small piece of land, etc.

(ii). Voluntary Land Donation of Poor People

According to field survey in November 2009 with poor people in these five villages in Chob Tatrav commune showed that: 60% of respondents in Trapaing Tourk village were willing to provide residential land for SHG formation for the pigpen construction. Beside 20% of respondents wanted to participate in the SHG formation but they were not willing to provide their land to the SHG because they worried about the problems in the future with other group members. And, other 20% of respondents were the small land owners this is why they were not willing to provide. 50% of respondents in Chob village were willing to provide their land for SHG formation, but other 50% of respondents were not willing to provide the land because some respondents get sick and other respondents are residential landless. There are 80% of respondents in Prasad village were willing to contribute their residential land by volunteering and 20% of respondents are small scale that made them not willing to provide. The respondents in Toap Svay village were willing to provide their residential land about 30% to SHG formation and other 70% of respondents were not willing to provide the land because their residential land are small scale. However, 100% of respondents strongly supported to participate in the SHG formation. Otherwise, the respondents in Pang Toek village were willing to provide 100% of their residential land for SHG formation.

Table 6: Participants of land donation in these five villages

Village Disagree (%)

Agree (%)

Willing to provide

land (%)

Not willing to provide land

(%) Trapaing Tourk 20 80 60 40 Chob 33 67 50 50 Prasad 20 80 80 20

Toap Svay 00 100 30 70 Pang Toek 00 100 100 00

Total (%) 15 85 64 36 Source: Interview with poor people in these five villages, November 2009. Therefore, the respondents in commune indicated that they were willing to provide their residential land about 64% to SHG formation and 36% of respondents were not willing to provide the land because their residential land are small scale or they were not landless.


-22-

(iii) Voluntary land donation process Refer to interview with villagers in the Chob Tatrav commune, figured out that 93% of respondents willing to provide their residential land for SHG formation. The land providing was less than 5% of total their own land within the residential district. (Voluntary Land Donation was less than 5% refers to the Commune/Sangkat Fund) Beside, 7% of respondents also were willing to donate their residential land to SHG formation. But the land providing was more than 5% (one household donated her residential land in a number of 23% of a total own land within the residential district). In addition, the respondents emphasized that the residential land and the paddy/Chamkar lands in Chob Tatrav commune did not register with competence authorities but those lands were recognized by the village and commune authorities. Moreover, all respondents lived on their land since they were born and some respondents inhabited in the commune more than 10 years with the house construction, vegetable cultivation, tree plantation and poultry raisings etc. The respondents added that the land donation must be free of squatters, encroachers or other claims or encumbrances. At that time, the land donation of each family had to recognize by the village and commune authorities, particularly the most respondents requested for lease with SHG's members to make clear and avoid the problems in the future. Moreover, the contract of the voluntary land donation were agreed by land owners and recognized by the village and commune authorities. The voluntary land donors will not be revoked the land within the project implementation because a period of land donation is not limited, except the HSG was closed or abolished by most members. However, the duration of land donation will be determined by the contract of the voluntary land donation.

(iv). Special case of voluntary land donation

During the field survey in November 2009, one respondent was voluntary land donation more than 5%. A respondent in Toap Svay village she is a 34-year-old, head of household with six family members, four females and two males. Cultivation is her primary job, and worker is her secondary job. She owns 225m2 of residential land, few cattle and chickens, but no paddy and Chamkar lands. She borrowed Chamkar land for cultivation in purpose for her family consumption. Actually, she was willing to donate 48m2 (8m x 8m) of the residential land to construct the pigpen for SHG. So, her provided land was equal 21%. Why she did so? Refer to interview with her; she said that she wants to establish the SHG with her neighbours because the neighbour (member of SHG) requested her to be a chief of SHG. In addition, the livelihood situation of neighbour members are very poor than her. Some members are landless because they resided with brother or they lived on the land of rest house.

Table 7: Percentage of voluntary land donation

Village Willing to provide

land

Willing to provide

land

Remark


-23-

(< 5%) (>5%) Trapaing Tourk 100% 00 N/A

Chob 100% 00 N/A Prasad 100% 00 N/A

Toap Svay 67%

33 Only one household willing to provide the residential land more than 5% of the total land area.

Pang Toek 100% 00 N/A Total (%) 93 07 N/A

Source: Interview with poor people in these five villages, November 2009. Furthermore, the respondents in each village agreed and disagreed on the residential land donation as mentioned in the table below. Table 8: Participants of Voluntary Land Donation for the pig and chicken raisings in these

five villages

N. Name of participant

Residential land (m2)

Paddy land (m2)

Total land (m2)

Willing to provide

land (m2)

Willing to provide

land (%)

Trapaing Tourk Village

1 Mrs. Chhay San 24m x 150m

= 3,600m2 00 3,600m2 5m x 2m =

10m2 0.3%

2 Mrs. Mil Oeb 25m x 150m

= 3,750m2 00 3,750m2 4m x 2m =

8m2 0.2%

3 Mr. Yun Yean 20m x 70m =

1,400m2 00 1,400m2 3m x 10m =

30m2 2.%

4 Mr. Yim Huy 10m x 75m =

750m2 0.5 ha = 5,000m2

5,750m2 00(not given)

0%

5 Mr. Chey Bak 8m x 30m =

240m2 00 240m2 00 (small

land) 0%

Chob Village

1 Mr. Chranh Kong 20m x 20m =

400m2 0.5 ha= 5,000m2

5,400m2 10m x 10m = 100m2

2%

2 Mrs. Gnoy Khhea 20m x 30m =

600m2 01 ha=

10,000m2 10,600m2 5m x 5m=

25m2 0.2%

3 Mrs. Chheam Boir 15m x 50m

=750m2 00 750m2 6m x 3m=

18m2 2%

4 Mrs. Chhum Puth 10m x 50m =

500m2 00 500m2 00 (sick) 0%

5 Mrs. Kang Kin 00 02 ha =

20,000m2 20,000m2 00 (no

residential land)

0%

6 Mrs. Kuon Yeng 50m x 100m

= 5,000m2 30m x 30m

= 900m2 5,900m2 00(not

given) 0%

Prasad Village

1 Mr. You Sun 15m x 20m =

300m2 00 300m2 00 (small

land) 0%

2 Mr. Toeng Toey 25m x 35m = 01 ha= 10,875m2 5m x 5m = 0.2%


-24-

875m2 10,000m2 25m2

3 Mr. Vat Rab 30m x 100m

= 3,000m2 0.5 ha = 5,000m2

8,000m2 5m x 3m = 15m2

0.2%

4 Mrs. Deb Mao 30m x 70m =

2,100m2 00 2,100m2 4m x 6m =

24m2 1.%

5 Mrs. Khhoeu Loeu 30m x 50m =

1,500m2 0.5 ha= 5,000m2

6,500m2 5m x 6m = 30m2

0.5%

Toap Svay Village

1 Mr. Koen Koeum 20m x 40m =

800m2 01ha=

10,000m2 10,800m2 3m x6m =

18m2 0.2%

2 Mr. Vat Vann 20m x 30m = 600m2

01= 10,000m2

10,600m2 10m x10m = 100m2

1%

3 Mr. Toch Tean 16m x 70m = 1,120m2

00 1,120m2 00 (small land)

0%

4 Ms. Sok Sou (orphaned)

15m x 15m = 225m2

00 225m2 00 (small land)

0%

5 Mrs. Leng Phlatt 15m x 20m = 300m2

00 300m2 00 (small land)

0%

6 Mrs. Khoy Nay 15m x 15m =

225m2 00 225m2 8m x 8m =

48m2 21%

7 Mrs. Chham Sey 15m x 15m =

225m2 00 225m2 00 (small

land) 0%

8 Mrs. Toem Noey 15m x 15m =

225m2 00 225m2 00 (small

land) 0%

9 Mrs. Leng Ngeum Living with

brother 00 00 00 (landless) 0%

10 Mrs. Loeun Bok Landless

(lives on land of rest house)

00 00 00 (landless) 0%

Pang Toek Village

1 Mrs. Chheum San 20m x 40m =

800m2 01ha=

10,000m2 10,800m2 4m x 5m =

20m2 0.2%

2 Mr. Sun Let 5m x 150m =

750m2 01ha=

10,000m2 10,750m2 2m x 3m =

6m2 0.05%

3 Mrs. Yim Khann (widower)

23m x 150m = 3,450m2

00 3,450m2 10m x 8m = 80m2

2%

4 Mrs. Yoem Yoet (widower)

23m x 150m = 3,450m2

00 3,450m2 8m x 10m = 80m2

2%

5 Mrs. Chhlam Rein (widower)

30m x 150m = 4,500m2

0.5 ha= 5,000m2

9,500m2 10m x 8m = 80m2

0.1%

6 Mrs. Phen En (handicap)

33m x 150m = 4,950m2

1.5 ha= 15,000m2

19,950m2 5m x 10m= 50m2

0.25%

Source: Interview with poor and vulnerable people, November 2009. (v). Land title

Concerning to the land title, most land titles were occupied by spouse, they always find a other land for independent living and cultivate them self, it is different so far from what people lives in Siem Reap town, most families depend on their parent land because they


-25-

did not have anymore land for their living. The table below shows about land title amongst five villages.

Table 9: Land title of these five villages

Land Title Owner (%) Spouse (%) Parents (%) Other (%)

Trapaing Tourk 40 20 40 00 Chob 50 33 00 17

Prasad 33 67 00 00 Toap Svay 10 70 10 10 Pang Toek 67 33 00 00 Average 40 45 10 05

Source: Interview with poor people, November 2009. The poor people in these five villages determined that land is very important because it has a lot of nutrients for cultivation support. About the land use of those respondents are divided into four mains categories such as the parents, the spouse, the owner and other land titles. At the same time, the spouse title was higher than the parents, the owner and other belongings. For example, the spouse land occupation was 45%, owner land was 40%, parents' land was 10% and other land titles were 5%.

(vi). Problems for poor people

Activity of voluntary land donation and the proposed community infrastructure of Chob Tatrav commune have produced all kind of problems that affect the social and economic development of poor people in the project site. So, these activities should be taken cared and considered carefully all the time in order to assess the negative impacts and seek necessary measures to prevent and reduce harmful effects while the increasing of maximized positive impacts. The voluntary land donation affects to land use of poor people, while the people are going to meet a challenge of landless or small land area. The contribution made them to loss a home land, agricultural land, vegetable cultivated land, flood land and other lands in villages. For example, the pig raisings will affect to the land use of each household in Chob Tatrav commune between 06m2 to 100m2. Furthermore, the pig raisings will cause the unpleasant from the pig dung and it will affect to the neighbor households and land owners. In case of the pigs escape from the pigpen, they will damage the vegetable products and other crops. Moreover, the pig raisings will create the infected diseases such as A/H1N1 etc. The respondents were also worries about lost pigs, sick pigs and dead pigs. Those need to find the mitigation measures.


-26-

The main problems of SHG formation, some respondents did not participate in SHG dues to their sickness, landless, and their home is far from the village. These factors let them will become the poorest forever.

(vii). Advantages of Self Help Group - The SHG will give positive results to poor people follows along their possibility

and voluntary basic needs, and will improve livelihood for daily food consumptions. - Increase the poor people‘s income through new job opportunity, including pig

raisings, vegetable cultivations and poultry raisings for supply daily food in markets and shops at Siem Reap Town.

- Provide the best livelihood of poor people through vegetable cultivations, pig and poultry raisings;

- Poor people are more likely to receive better facilities - Poor people improve their housing - Government has to reduce poverty by providing work for poor people to have

better livelihood and they can be self helping. 2 Vulnerable people (Task 2)

(i). Introduction Refer to first Vice Chief of Chob Tatrav Commune Council informed that the commune consists of 241 households, 1,146 persons of poor people. In this number, it includes 06 persons of handicap, 23 persons of widow, 03 persons of orphan and 06 persons of abandoned elderly people. In the above number of widows are also consisting of 03 persons in Trapaing Tourk village, 03 persons in Chob village, 01 person in Prasad village, 11 persons in Toap Svay village and 05 persons in Pang Toek village. Most women are a head of family as mentioned in the table below.

Table 10: Vulnerable people in Chob Tatrav commune

Village Population (P1 & P2) Handicap

(person) Widow (person)

Orphan (person)

abandoned elderly (person)

HH Person Female

Trapaing Tourk 46 231 120 01 03 01 03 Chob 35 174 89 01 03 01 01

Prasad 48 240 123 02 01 00 01 Toap Svay 56 254 128 01 11 01 00 Pang Toek 56 247 125 01 05 00 01

Total 241 1,146 585 06 23 03 06 Source: Interview with 1st Vice Chief of Chob Tratrav Commune Council, November 2009.

(ii) Handicap people

As survey in November 2009, the respondents in Prasad village our sample was a 49-year-old married man and head of household with six family members, three female and


-27-

three male. Cultivation is his primary job and firewood selling is his secondary job. His spouse land is 3,000m2 of home land and 0.5 ha of paddy land. His cultivation purpose is for his family consumption. He also borrowed 200,000 riel (USD 50) from Plans organization (people always said that Visan Kvan Organization) and pay the interest to the organization about 3% per month. Regarding to SHG, he would like to propose the pig and chicken raisings. He was willing to donate residential land 15m2 of total land area, it is equal 0.2%. He added that the joint partners of land donation for a pigpen construction. It will get more problems than individual donation. For example, Mr. A was willing to provide a part of his residential land and Mrs. B also was willing to provide a small part of her residential land. And, the residential land of two peoples is not next each other. So, how do they joint of land for the pigpen construction? However, if someone in the SHG were not willing to provide the land, he was responsible for land donation to the pigpen construction. At the same time, he needs the village and commune chief to acknowledge. With problems of the SHG, he thinks that he will not work hard and qualified as well as a sample physical person. Although, he is not angry with other member of SHG when they get more benefit than him.

(iii) Widows

The respondents in Pang Toek village our sample was a 61-year-old widowed and head of household with four family members, two females and two males. Farmer is her primary job and cake selling is her secondary job. She occupied 3,450m2 of residential land and no paddy land. She tries to do everything in a purpose for her family consumption. In addition, she had borrowed 600,000 riel (USD 15) from M.K Organization within two year and she has to pay 18,000 riel (USD 45) of interest rate per month for the organization. Related to SHG formation, she was willing to donate residential land around 80m2 of total own land within the residential district, it is equal 2%. Her land donation purpose formats the SHG for the pig raisings. She supported 100% to establish the SHG and she can do everything without worry about problems in the future. Anyway, before she was willing to provide the land, she needs the local authorities to acknowledge.

(iv) Orphans

The respondents in Toap Svay village our sample was an 18-year-old orphaned girl both farther and mother. She lived with one brother and three sisters in family. Cultivation is her primary job with borrowed a paddy land from neighbours. Rice harvester is her secondary job. The joint land of brother and sisters is 225m2 of residential land and no paddy or Chamkar lands. Her cultivation purpose is for her family consumption.


-28-

Regarding to SHG, she would like to raise the pig but she does not have the land to provide in a group formation. She raised that if someone lets her to participate in the SHG, she can do everything without worry. According to the pig raisings is important job than her job, she requested to the village chief to register her household into the SHG. Her revenue per month is less than 20,000 riel (USD 05) and she needed to pay around 2,000 riel (USD 0.50) per day for foods and spices.

(v) Abandoned elderly people

As survey in November 2009, the respondents in Trapaing Tourk village our sample was a 58-year-old married man and household head with six members in family that get four women and two men. He has never done anything due to his cough disease. Cultivation is a primary job for his family. His spouse land is 1,4000m2 of residential land and no paddy land. At the same time, he borrowed 100,000 riel (USD 25) from Plans organization (people always called that Visan Kvan Organization) and he has to pay 3,500 riel (USD 0.90) of interest per month for the organization. Regarding to SHG, he would like to propose the pig raisings. He was voluntary land donation about 30m2 of total own land within the residential district, it is equal 2%. He emphasized that he supported 100% to establish the SHG for the pig raisings. Anyway, he can not help the group but he will let his son or daughter to participate instead of him. He added that it is very difficult for me that get sick and no money, if the project really happens, it will help to improve his livelihood.

(vi) Indigenous people

As survey in November 2009, the expert interviewed with representative of commune and villages about the indigenous people but they had no the data of these people. At the same time, the expert interviewed with the respondents but there were not information about the indigenous people in the Chob Tatrav commune.

(vii) Problems for vulnerable people - Vulnerable people is unqualified to do something as well as a sample physical

person; - Vulnerable people does not participate enough and qualified for the pig

raisings, particularly their feeling is not happy with other group members; - Create more disputes and unpleasant feeling during benefit sharing; - Vulnerable people is always misunderstanding or illiteracies - The pig raisings will affect to public health of vulnerable people due to bad

smell from the pig dung; - The SHG will increase addable load for handicap or disable persons, while,

their physicals were exhausted; - The oldest persons are very slow working; - Loss incomes when the pigs get sick, lost and dead.


-29-

(viii). Advantages for vulnerable people - Provide good livelihoods for vulnerable people through SHG's member for the pig raisings, vegetable cultivation, poultry raisings or rice mill etc; - SHG will increase the vulnerable people's income through new job opportunities, including workers, sellers, cleaner and coordinator between SHG and buyer to supply for restaurants, markets and shops etc; - Participate to reduce one part of poverty in the village; - Avoid migration to other places and reduce beggars in the Siem Reap town

particularly handicap, orphan and elderly abandoned people etc. - SHG reduces vulnerable hard working people; - The pig raisings are better job in the Chob Tatrav commune because the pig is

popular business in Siem Reap.

V. GUIDANCE NOTES

A. Guidance Note for Task 1

(A-i). Guidance Note for Voluntary Land Donation Processes

1. Introduction According to the Commune/ Sangkat Fund rose that the voluntary land donation (VLD) was no more than 5%. Thus, the LEAP project has to follow up the principle. In case of land owner still donate upto 5% of total own land within the residential district. There are two ways for solve the problems such as first, if the land donation is not affecting the land owner's livelihood and living, the project should be obtained the land due to the Government Policies encourages and makes incentive for all developments that help to improve the people livelihoods and poverty alleviation near the project site. Second, if the land donation will be impoverished the people livelihood, the project shall refuse to obtaining of lands. The land provided is the legal land or the land registered. Generally, most land uses in the rural area of Siem Reap province had not cadastral register yet. Actually, all land uses in Chob Tatrav commune were not registered by the cadastral administration. Refer to Land Law, 2001, the Article 30 mentioned that "Any person who, for no less than five years prior to the promulgation of this law, enjoyed peaceful, uncontested possession of immovable property that can lawfully be privately possessed, has the right to request a definitive title of ownership", and the Article 38 mentioned that "In order to transform into ownership of immovable property, the possession shall be unambiguous, non-violent, notorious to the public, continuous and in good faith, etc". Moreover, the residential and paddy land of people in Chob Tatrav commune were acknowledged by the commune council and village authorities. And, they occupied the land more than ten years. Then, they also used the land for other use such as home constructions, vegetable cultivations and rice crops, etc. These conditions allowed the legal possessors become the ownership of the immovable properties. Therefore, the legal possession may be the subject of exchange, transfers of rights and transactions.


-30-

2. Voluntary Land Donation Status for Proposed Project Actually, the poor people in the commune would like to establish the SHG for pig, chicken, cow raisings, and vegetable cultivations. The SHG formation is supported by the World Bank Fund and facilitated by the LEAP Project, Ministry of Interior. As field survey indicated that most people are the voluntary land donation for the SHG formation because the SHG will give positive results to poor people follows along their possibility and voluntary basic needs, and will improve livelihood for daily food consumptions. The SHG increase the poor people‘s income through new job opportunity, including pig raisings, vegetable cultivations and poultry raisings for supply daily food in markets and shops at Siem Reap Town. It helps the Government to reduce poverty by providing work for poor people to have better livelihood and they can be self helping. But they did not know about the processes of land donation to ensure sustainable SHG development, particularly the village chief and commune council. As based on the survey found that some people were willing to donate their land for community. But some people were not willing to donate their land because they think that it will get more challenges such as landless, conflict of interest and create infected diseases. So, to clarify the VLD of poor people and to avoid the problems in the future, the guidance note provides four steps on the voluntary land donation processes for the commune council, village authorities, facilitators, SHGs and land owners to operate as below:

Step 1. SHG Discussion on Sub-project Choice

The first stage, the VLD report preparation has to ensure all affected people from the proposed project to know about the objectives, the project site selections, and the property owners and possessor rights. This step will only be necessary under the rare circumstances that the group decides that some apportionment of lands are needed in order to carry out project objectives to benefit community members. There is no assumption or expectation that voluntary land donations will be incurred frequently. Public consultation meetings will be held by Commune Federation (CF), Village Association (VA) and SHG, in each village where there are affected people and where the SHGs have decided themselves that their chosen sub-projects will require lands for public goods. In the meeting, the community/SHG is under facilitating from CF and VA. The community/SHG has to explain the right of property owners or possessors or SHG members and the project implementation procedure to the VLD report preparation. The project map and the announcement of the property owners or possessors shall put on the information board or other attractive places in each village. The announcement has to disclosure at least two weeks for get more information from all people that they are not available to participate in the meeting as mentioned above. Those people have enough time for understanding, considering and discussing on the proposed project for animal raisings and vegetable cultivations, etc. and the voluntary land donation.

Step 2. SHG and Facilitators

In the second stage, the Facilitators and SHGs shall request the property owners, possessors and SHG members for prepare the project maps such as animal raisings and


-31-

vegetable cultivations, etc. The maps will show about each lot of land which will be affected. The Facilitators and SHGs request to the people whom are willing to provide land for the proposed project. Then, they will identify the site of land contribution in each village. Beside, commune chief will prepare the VLD report. The role and responsibility of the Facilitators and SGHs as more elaborated in the Appendix. In the principle of laws, the Facilitators and SHGs or Commune Council can not deprive the private properties or assets of an individual without fair compensation and approval from the ownership except the individual decided for giving up land voluntarily only and it is her/his interest. Therefore, to obtain land without problems in the future and based on the Government policies and land laws of Cambodia, the Facilitators and SHGs shall use the conditions for the voluntary land donation as specified below:

1. The property owners or possessors are willing to provide land no more than 5% of their total land within the residential district. The VLD has to agree together with their family such as spouse, etc. (Refer to the Wedding Law of Cambodia mentioned that the joint properties such as land shall be sold, transferred, donated and rented by agree together with both wife and husband (the joint properties happened after the wedding) except an individual property can be did by only individual (the individual property happened before the wedding) before they make signature or finger print on the VLD report. By contrast, if people would like to provide land more than 5% of their total land within the residential district, the facilitators and SHG will be deniable for this land obtaining. It means that, no one can make a contribution that is more than 5 % of their land assets.

2. The voluntary contribution of lands must be free of squatters, encroachers, or other claims or encumbrances. The Commune Council has agreed to make this determination/clarification. No entity however, including the Commune Council or facilitators and SHG will forcibly remove squatters/encroachers from lands.

3. One the SHGs, together with the Facilitators, make sub-project decision, if and only if, there are land requirement needs and the SHG decides that lands will be allocated from within, then it is the responsibility of the Facilitators and SHGs to ensure that no environmental or social adverse effects will result from the proposed activities that will occur on these lands. These may include impacts such as on water sources, noise, smell, revenue, livelihood, public health and social safety resulting from the various investments. The facilitators and SHG will be applied by refer to the Environmental Management Framework (EMF) as mentioned in the Environmental Assessment Report.

The VLD Process was participated by the affected people (land owner), commune chiefs and stakeholders concerning the proposed projects. Also non involved people could encourage to participate in the working teams. Moreover, the public participation


-32-

includes all people such as young children, men and women, farmers, elderly people, monks, etc. It is very good processes.

Step 3. Preparation of VLD Report The Facilitators and SHGs play role to coordinate and support the commune chief for VLD report preparation. The commune chief has to prepare the list of land donors, lot of land, land size, and other assets such as vegetable, tree, etc. Then, the commune chief requires the land donors to sign or make finger print on VLD form as show in Form 1 below. Furthermore, all proposed community infrastructure projects concerning the VLD report are prepared by the commune chief as following:

Land map shows about the land use by the project; List of the VLD and signatures or finger prints of land donors with

agreement. For example as mentioned in the table 10 below; Table 11: Example of VLD List

N. Name Villages Occupation Code of land title

Willing to provide land

Signature

1 A Trapaing Tourk

Farmer 001 0.002 ha = 1.5%

-

2 B Chob Farmer 002 0.005 ha = 2% - 3 C Prasad Farmer 003 - - 4 D Toap Svay Worker 004 - - 4 E Pang Teok Worker 005 - -

Finger print

Name

Note: the voluntary land donor shall sign or make finger print on the VLD report which are prepared by the chief of commune.

Disclosure of the land owner and SHG member rights: The property owners and possessors concerning the VLD, they have full right in obtaining the information about the proposed project and any assets damage. The property owners or possessors are deniable for the VLD and they have full right to know about the procedure of complain on the VLD without payment.

Minute: Assistance of commune shall do the minute. All comments of participants shall write down in the minute. Finally, the commune chief, an assistant of commune council and participants shall sign or make finger print on the minute.

Step 4. Review and disclosure the VLD report

In case of the VLD report is not fair, the SHG chief, the affected people and stakeholders shall request for the chief of commune through the village chief for make revision and


-33-

edition of the report. For example, the VLD report lacks the finger print or the signature of land owners. At the same time, the proposed project will not be implemented while the problems are not solved. In case of the VLD report is acceptable and the problems were solved by the local authorities as mentioned in the Guidance Note for the Dispute Resolution. The Facilitators advise to the commune chief to initiate the project implementation.

Principles of Voluntary Land Donation followed by the LEAP

The project design will not entail involuntary relocation of households or involuntary land acquisition but since the LEAP project is embedded in a community driven development model whereby local communities/groups of households (the SHGs) will be making decisions regarding the types of interventions they seek and since these may require the acquisition of land, the project will follow key criteria in ensuring that such community based land donations are voluntary (without coercion) and reflect good practice. Landlessness is a threat for the poor in Cambodia, thus potentially rendering certain segments of the project population vulnerable if they are not in a position to make land donations in the context of community decisions for infrastructure projects. The Project will ensure that voluntary land transactions (if any) amongst and between community members is truly voluntary and based on informed consent. Project Facilitators together with the PMU will be responsible for ensuring the following steps are implemented:

1. Steps to establish that any community infrastructure is not site specific. In other words, if there are disagreements regarding location or problems in obtaining lands, the proposed community infrastructure can be moved (i.e., poultry shed, rice mill etc). 2. Steps to determine that impacts on persons or households donating lands is minor, that is, involve no more than 5% of the area of any holding and require no physical relocation. 3. Steps to ensure that communities decide that if lands meet the technical criteria of the proposed investment (the physical structure). Communities may seek guidance from project authorities (i.e., to make sure that the land is appropriate for project purposes and that the project will produce no health or environmental safety hazards). 4. Steps to establish that the land in question must be free of squatters, encroachers, or other claims or encumbrances. 5. Verification (for example, notarized or witnessed statements) of the voluntary nature of land donations must be obtained from each person donating land. 6. Steps to ensure that if community services are to be provided under the project, land title must be vested in the community, or appropriate guarantees of public access to services must be given by the private titleholder.


-34-

7. Steps on establishing grievance mechanisms that is workable and appropriate to the local context. These must be developed in consultation with local communities."

3. Conclusion

To sum up, the local authorities, Facilitators, SHGs, and land owners shall implement these steps and all forms as well as legal applications to avoid the conflicts in the future.


-35-

Voluntary Land Donation Processes

Figure 2: Voluntary Land Donation Processes

SHG Discussion on Sub-project

SHG and Facilitators

VLD<5% Legal land

Voluntary Land Donation

EMF

VLD Report Preparation

Review and Disclosure VLD Report

Disagree Agree

Revision

Project Implement


-36-

Form 1: VLD Form for the Property Owners or Possessors

1. Name of land donor:………………………….…ID No.: ……………….…….

2. Sex: …………….. Age: ……………….. Occupation: ……………………….

3. Spouse (if any) name:……………………………ID No………………………

3. Address: ……………………………………………………………………..…

4. Land description: …………………………………………………………..….

…………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………….

5. Total land area: ………………………… Location: ………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

6. Actual price: …………………………………Riel

7. Vegetable product per year: ……………………………………………..……. 8. Price of tree: ………………………………………………………..

Therefore, we agree the voluntary donation of lands for the proposed project for ……………………………….……………………………………..(Ex. Pig raisings)

9. Land donated (m2): …………………………………………….….…...……….

10. Location: ………………………………………………………………………

11. Percentage of land donation:……………………………………….…………

To clarify the voluntary land donation for ………………………………………....

We make signature or finger print for evidence as below.

Seen and Approved Agreement of voluntary land donation Chief of Commune Land owners Name (Spouse, if any) Date: Date: Note: Do not sign or make finger print on the form for the Involuntary Land Donation.


-37-

Form 2: VLD Report Form Province: …………………….District: ………………………..Commune: …………….. Code Number of Commune: ……………………………………………………………… Project Name: …………………………………………………………………………….. Date of the project operation: …………………………………………………………….. Project Description: ………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1-Public Communication

a- To describe the ways of information receiving for the proposed project and right on behalf of the property owners or possessors or SHG members (land users) …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. b- Date of the public consultation: ………………………………………………….. c- Public Consultation Meeting (attach the participant list)

2- The land controlling with stakeholders a- Date of the land information collection and the affected assets ……………………………………………………………………………………..

b- Date of the consultation, discussion and agreement with people ……………………………………………………………………………………..

c- Participant numbers (attached participant list) …………………………………………………………………………………….. d- Total Voluntary Land Donation (m2 ) …………………………………………………………………………………….. e- Other Voluntary Asset Donation …………………………………………………………………………………….. Chief of Commune Date

Attached documents: - Land controlling map - Participant list of voluntary land donation - Participant list of land controlling - Minute


-38-

Form 3: Participant List of Voluntary Land Donors for the Proposed Project for………………………………………………………………………………………... The property owners or possessors are willing to provide land for the proposed community infrastructure for ……………………………………………………………… by made sign and finger print on the form. The providing land is voluntary, agreement and without force. If the property owners or possessors were not willing to provide land, they have to refuse to sign or put finger print in the form.

N. Name Villages Occupation Map code

Willing to

provide land (m2)

% of willing

to provide

land

Signature or finger

print

Seen and approved Commune Chief Date: ……………..


-39-

(A-ii) Guidance Note for Dispute Resolution on VLD/Benefit sharing

1. Introduction

The participatory planning process is under chief of SHG, village facilitators and commune authorities to take action in case of complaints on VLD or benefit sharing. When, SHG's member complaints on VLD or benefit sharing to SHG chief or village chief or commune chief, what does the process to solve in SHG level? And what does the procedure of disputed solving in the village and commune levels? The best ways for solving the problems as describe below: 2. Dispute resolving procedure at the SHG level

- Shall invite members of SHG and chief of group to conduct the consultation meeting and find the reason of problems and the solution, particularly to reconcile two parties;

- Chief of SHG shall solve the problems as following the agreement/contract. Anyway, the contract is acknowledged by the village and commune authorities. It seems law obligation for each member but it will not be applied as fine or a punishment for the violation activities on the contract.

- To be facilitated and solved problems by peaceful means. - Educate or guide the member of group to avoid the mistakes with group

regulation, - To be aware together in the SHG's members; - Guide the SHG's members to understand that the SHG is not belonging for

someone. Thus, all members should try to struggle for our livelihood enhancement, particularly for our children in the future.

- If the member of group is not satisfied with the solution of SHG. SHG chief have to submit the complaint file to village and commune chief.

3. Dispute resolving procedure at Local authorities

In case of the problems shall not be solved by the SHG level. All members of SHG will request the village chief or village facilitator for find the solutions and reasons of problems. If the issues are not solved by the village chief or village association, the problems will move to commune councils or commune facilitators. The Commune Councils at different stages during the preparation of the SHG Plan and the project implementation can be made and resolved at the commune level. All complaints of VLD or benefit sharing that related to the SHG must be recorded by the chief of SHG with the date of complaint, and report to chief of village. Then, the village chief will report to commune chief unless chief of commune will submit to the district coordinator. If the problem is not resolved; the district coordinator shall submit the profiles to the local administration unit of Siem Reap Province. And the


-40-

complaint of VLD or benefit sharing will be replied within 10 working days after submission the complaint application.

Otherwise, in case of complaints not resolved at the commune level are forwarded to Provincial Land Use and Allocation Committee (PLUAC), which maintains a consolidated province-wide register of complaints received and processed, and reports to LEAP Project (If mandated). Civil society organization are informed about the arrangements for resolution of complaints under LEAP Project (If mandated), and Commune Councils are informed about civil society organizations with experience in providing training on procedures for management of dispute resolution, so that Commune Councils may use these to develop procedures and build capacity.

4. Conclusion

The problems are not good for the poor people in the SHG because it will make the cancellation of SHG. As a result, the poor people are still poor and the government will not reduce the poverty. However, the problem is not avoidable. Therefore the above procedures shall be applied by the SHG chief and local authorities.

B. Guidance Note for Vulnerable People (Task 2): Guidance Note on Special Measures for Gender Sensitive and Pro Poor Measure

1. Introduction The vulnerable people focus on the incapacity people including the handicap people, orphans, widows and elderly abandoned people. SHG formation will help them to avoid the poverty and improve their livelihoods. Although, the LEAP project must be careful to identify the vulnerable households, and it has to find the special measure for them.

2. Special Measures of LEAP Project for vulnerable people

In the finding above, the special measures for vulnerable people needed to find good solutions and provide some recommendation as describe below.

All SHG members should include the vulnerable people at least one household; if any;

Provide good opportunities to vulnerable people for group selections; they should not be left out;

Capacity Building of member group as handicap people or abandoned elderly people etc;

Create more SHG for vulnerable people, if the poor people are not selected enough yet;

Consultation meeting with vulnerable people to encourage the project implementation;

Instruct vulnerable member of SHG to continue the project implementation for poverty alleviation;

Training of vulnerable people on what they want to work with their groups;


-41-

Human resource training of vulnerable people to understand and get experiences from other SHG;

Move beggar job of handicap or orphaned children to the animal raisings or vegetable cultivations;

SHG has to discuss with the members before purchase or expend on whatever; Look for markets to sell their products; Arrange or provide jobs of vulnerable people base on their human body. For

example, the handicap people or elderly abandoned people should become the animal guards and cleaners etc. And it should allow them to do a little work;

Provide food and drink for daily consumptions to disable person. This person works unqualified in the SHG;

Instruct them about their work and subsidize money or something, while the SHG get benefit from animals or crops selling;

Have to moral strengthening of vulnerable people and avoid someone in the SHG get jealous with them;

The vulnerable people should not want the benefits more than their activities. For example, if hard working person receives USD 10, the vulnerable people should get USD 7 or 8 dues to their work activities. The benefit sharing is not equal. Therefore, to avoid the problems with hard and less working people particularly facilitate the vulnerable people to understand together and instruct them when they get low benefits from the animal or vegetable selling.

Saving some money for implementing anything in the future plan; The infrastructure construction for animal raisings or vegetable cultivations

should locate far away from home about 50m or 100m.

3. Poor and vulnerable People Networks

From the social interaction analysis, there was excellent communication among households of vulnerable people and poor people. Women and men came together on the number of occasions to celebrate and support each other. The occasions included birth and death ceremonies, weddings, village meetings, labor exchange, providing help in house construction, and several other formal and informal activities. Relationship and communication are very limited to families that have conflicts with others. Family is usually supported when members of a family get sick, death or pregnant. They support each other by giving cash and material as well as giving labor and encouragement/motivation. The poorest and vulnerable groups are not much involved in weddings and ceremonies.

4. Conclusion

LEAP Project should consider on the vulnerable people both morals and materials than other poor people through the special measure action. Generally, The SHG has to include the vulnerable people at least one household.


-42-

VI. Recommendation and Conclusion

1- Recommendation

The LEAP project helps and serves for poor and vulnerable people to poverty alleviation following the Royal Government of Cambodia Policies. According to the project type such as poultry shed; raise pig, fishing, vegetable cultivation projects, etc is small scale and low negative social impacts. Moreover, these projects did not mentioned in the national legislations and regulations of Kingdom of Cambodia. So, these projects were not required conducting the environmental and social impact assessment report and involuntary resettlement plan. LEAP project conducts the social assessment of the proposed community infrastructure in real practice basic to avoid any risk or minimizing of negative impacts from these proposed projects and increasing the positive impacts remarkably.

2- Conclusion The LEAP Project required improvement of the livelihood and daily food consumptions of poor households because the poor people need incomes to survive and health prevention. SHG formation needs several households to participate, particularly men, women and instruments to successfully raise animals and vegetable cultivations for SHG use and sale. In the regarding to SHG formation, vulnerable people situation is unable to compete with poor people such as men and good physical people. The vulnerable people such as handicap people, elderly abandoned people and female-headed households/widows and those with many small children without many men. Generally to be out of poverty, the poor and vulnerable people themselves could do their best for income generation by paddy rice and farm cultivation; fish raisings; animal raisings; growing vegetable and other crops; collect other NTFP like resin, rattan, malva nuts, bamboo, etc. Moreover, for poor and vulnerable people who do not have paddy land, they should provide labor for rice harvester. For people lives near water sources such as Tonle Sap river, lake and stream, they usually produce Prahouk and Pha Ak, dried fish, etc for selling after fishing season (when fish price increase). Furthermore, the Guidance Note on VLD Process, Dispute Resolution Procedure and Special Measure for Vulnerable People are a main instrument for community livelihood improvement, reduce the conflicts, increase income through animal raisings and vegetable cultivations particularly poverty alleviation. Therefore, Commune Council, village authorities, poor people and vulnerable people shall apply the general principle in these guidelines to be successful and efficiency.


-43-

REFERENCE

- TOURISM&LEISURE, Livelihood Enhancement & Association of the Poor (LEAP) Project, Project Proposal (1st Draft) Report, Siem Reap Province, 13th November 2009. - TOURISM&LEISURE, Livelihood Enhancement & Association of the Poor (LEAP) Project, Interim Output Report, Siem Reap Province, 13th November 2009. - Aide Memoir (AM), Empowerment of the Poor in Siem Reap (EPSR)-Preparation Mission, 7th – 30th September 2009. - Project Working Group of Ministry of Interior, Manual Book on the Community Support Fund, Tonle Sap Lake Household Enhancement Project, ADB, June 2009. - Project Appraisal Document, Land Allocation for Social Economic Development Project, World Bank, Cambodia, May 30 2008. - Power Engineering Consulting Joint Stock Company 1-Vietnam, Resettlement Plan Report, Lower Sa San 2 Hydropower Project, Stung Treng Province, Cambodia, 31 May 2009. - Integrated Rural Development and Natural Resources Management, Draft Feasibility Study, ADB-UNDP-GEF, Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia, June 2001. - Land Allocation for Social and Economic Development (LASED), Environment Assessment and Environmental Management Plan (EA-EMP), Cambodia, December 2007. - Safeguard Policies-Draft Matrices, Tools for Learning of the World Bank's 10 Safeguard Policies, 202-473-2001/[email protected], Updated in September 2006. - Commune Budget and Plan Building Committee, Commune Investment Programme for 2007-2009, Chob Tatrav Commune, Siem Reap Province, 2007. - Commune Budget and Plan Building Committee, Commune Investment Programme, Chob Tatrav Commune, Siem Reap Province, 2008. - Commune/Sangkat Data Book in 2009, Report on Commune development Plan Building, Chob Tatrav Commune, Siem Reap Province, 18 December 2008. - Village Data Book in 2008, Report on Commune development Plan Building, Trapaing Tourk, Chob, Prasad, Toap Svay and Pang Toek villages, Chob Tatrav Commune, Siem Reap Province, 18 December 2008. - Website : www.worldbank.org - Website : www.moi.gov.kh - Website : www.maff.gov.kh

World Bank Document Topics and methods of study for case study areas Table 5 : Participatory of the proposed community infrastructure for animal raising and vegetable cultivations

Documents