Showing posts with label Land law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Land law. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Property rights threatened, NGOs claim [-FAO's shenanigans in Cambodia in collusion with Hun Xen's regime?]

Tuesday, 24 July 2012
David Boyle and May Titthara
The Phnom Penh Post

A draft agricultural land law threatens to eliminate property rights and effectively remove all limitations on the size of economic land concessions, a coalition of civil society groups said in a statement released.

The draft of The Law on the Management and Use of Agricultural Land, which was formulated with the help of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, also contains criminal sanctions that impose jail terms of up to one year.

The FAO has said that controversial agricultural land leases that had no apparent limitations in size had been removed from a new draft formulated in April, but yesterday declined to provide an updated copy of the law, which the government has also so far declined to circulate.

But the continued existence of Agricultural Development Areas in the draft law would allow the government to force farmers to switch the crops they are growing if an undefined majority of landholders in the area agree to the plan, said Licahdo director Naly Pilorge.

“This is another law that could potentially allow the government to arbitrarily award land without consulting the affected people,” she said, adding that the ADAs were effectively a form of forced collectivisation.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Understanding the law: Property ownership without title

The occupation of a real estate without title

02 April 2010
By Seng Dina
Radio France Internationale
Translated from Khmer by Komping Puoy


Land disputes are quagmires in Cambodia. The old ownership rule prior to 1979 was canceled. The number of those who occupy lands after 1979 without having a land tile is still high. Therefore, the “Understanding the law” program will touch upon the land dispute issue first, and on this Thursday, we will first start with the occupation of land without having property title. The clarifications will be provided by Dr. Hel Chamroeun.

1- I occupied a piece of land since 1979. I was a legal occupation, but I did not have the property title. What is my right on this piece of land?

Those who occupy lands or any other real estate since 1979, even if they do not have a property title issued by the authorities, then they are not the owner of that real estate, they are only considered as “legal occupant.”

2- As the “legal occupant”, what are my rights on this piece of land?

The “legal occupant” has similar rights to the title owner as well, i.e. he has the rights to use, to live, to plant, to rent, to pawn, to sell, to transfer the rights to their children, etc…

In the case of transfer of right, the recipient of the real estate also retains the right of “legal occupancy”, he is not turning into the title owner.

The “legal occupancy” and the ownership have the same amount of rights, what differs between the two is that the ownership is a final right and he can receive full protection from the law. As for the right of the “legal occupant”, it is only a temporary right that could lead to dispute in the future.

3- Can the “legal occupant” become the owner or not?

Yes! If the occupation was done legally according to 5 conditions:
  • It’s a true occupation, i.e. it’s not an occupation by someone who is just a land keeper, a housekeeper, or a farm keeper for somebody else.
  • It was not an occupation that took place with violence, i.e. there was no forced entry to occupy.
  • The occupation is publicly known, i.e., it was not a surreptitious occupation without anybody’s knowledge.
  • It was a continuous occupation, i.e. there was no abandon of this real estate during a long period of time.
  • The occupation was done honestly, i.e., when the “legal occupant” came to occupy, he does not know that the real estate had a prior owner already.
The “legal occupant” who fulfills these 5 conditions above will become the property owner after he occupies that real estate continuously for 5 years without any interruption.

4- After occupying according to the conditions (above) for a period prescribed by the law, can I automatically become the property owner?

The property ownership is not automatic. The “legal occupant” can become the final property owner only if the authority issues a title for him, following a registration of the property.

5- During the waiting period to receive the final land title, can the “legal occupant” receive a document to recognize the occupation of this real estate or not?

Yes! The authority must issue a document certifying the occupation of the real estate to the “legal occupant” who legally occupies. However, this document is a proof of the right to occupy only, it is not a title that nobody can protest about.

6- If I see an empty real estate without an owner, can I enter into its occupation as a “legal occupant” at any time or not?

The occupation of a real estate as a “legal occupant” that the law recognizes is only for an occupation that took place prior the adoption of the land law, i.e. before 2001. All real estate occupation after the adoption of the land law is illegal and is a crime punishable by the law.

Poor people who want land, they must send a petition to the authority through the social land concession program.
---------
Note: The following article in entirely in Khmer Unicode

ការកាន់កាប់​អចលនវត្ថុ​ដោយ​គ្មាន​ប័ណ្ណ​កម្មសិទ្ធិ

04/02/2010
ដោយ សេង ឌីណា
Radio France Internationale


បញ្ហា​ដីធ្លី នៅ​តែ​ជា​រឿង​ចម្រូងចម្រាស់​មួយ នៅ​ប្រទេស​កម្ពុជា។ របបកម្មសិទ្ធិ​ចាស់ មុន​ឆ្នាំ​១៩៧៩ ត្រូវ​បាន​លុបចោល។ អ្នក​ដែល​​កាន់កាប់​​​ដីធ្លី ក្រោយ​ឆ្នាំ​១៩៧៩ នៅ​តែ​មាន​ច្រើន ដែល​កាន់កាប់​ដោយ​គ្មាន​ប័ណ្ណ​សម្គាល់​កម្មសិទ្ធិ។ វិវាទ​បាន​កើត​ឡើង​ជា​ញឹកញាប់ ជុំវិញ​បញ្ហា​ដីធ្លីនេះ។ ហេតុ​ដូច្នេះ​ហើយបាន​ជា នៅ​ក្នុង​នាទី​យល់​ដឹង​អំពី​ច្បាប់​នេះ វិទ្យុយើង​​​នឹង​លើក​យក​បញ្ហា​ដីធ្លី មក​និយាយ​មុនគេ ដោយ​ចាប់​ផ្តើម​ដំបូង នៅ​ថ្ងៃ​ព្រហស្បតិ៍​នេះ អំពី​​​ការ​កាន់កាប់​ដី ដោយ​មិនមាន​ប័ណ្ណ ដោយ​មាន​​ការ​ឆ្លើយ​បំភ្លឺ​ពី​បណ្ឌិត ហ៊ែល ចំរើន។​

សូម​ចុចខាងក្រោម ដើម្បីស្តាប់ ការ​ឆ្លើយ​បំភ្លឺ​របស់​បណ្ឌិត ហ៊ែល ចំរើន
Click here to listen to the audio program in Khmer

១-ខ្ញុំកាន់កាប់​ដី​មួយ​កន្លែង​តាំងពី​ឆ្នាំ​១៩៧៩​មក។ ជា​ការ​កាន់កាប់​ដោយ​ស្របច្បាប់ ក៏ប៉ុន្តែ មិនមាន​ប័ណ្ណ​កម្មសិទ្ធិ។ តើ​ខ្ញុំ​មាន​សិទ្ធិ​ជា​អ្វី​ លើ​ដីនេះ?

អ្នក​ដែល​បាន​កាន់កាប់​ដី ឬ​អចលន​វត្ថុ​ផ្សេងទៀត ពី​ឆ្នាំ​១៩៧៩​មក បើ​សិន​ជា​មិនទាន់​មាន​ប័ណ្ណកម្មសិទ្ធិ​ចេញ​ដោយ​អាជ្ញាធរ​មាន​សមត្ថកិច្ចទេ អ្នក​នោះ​មិនមែន​ជា​ម្ចាស់​កម្មសិទ្ធិ​លើ​អចលនវត្ថុ​នេះ​ទេ គឺ​មាន​សិទ្ធិ​ត្រឹម​តែ​ជា​ភោគី (អ្នក​កាន់កាប់​ស្របច្បាប់) ប៉ុណ្ណោះ។

២-​ក្នុង​ឋានៈជា​ភោគី តើ​ខ្ញុំ​មាន​សិទ្ធិ​​អ្វី​ខ្លះ​លើ​ដីនេះ?

ភោគី​​មាន​សិទ្ធិ​ប្រហាក់​ប្រហែល​នឹង​ម្ចាស់​កម្មសិទ្ធិ​ដែរ ពោល​គឺ​មាន​សិទ្ធិ​ប្រើប្រាស់ អាស្រ័យ​នៅ ដាំដុះ ប្រវាស់ ជួល បញ្ចាំ លក់ ឬ​ផ្ទេរ​ទៅ​ឲ្យ​កូនចៅ ។ល។

នៅ​ក្នុង​ករណី​មាន​ការ​ផ្ទេរ​កម្មសិទ្ធិ​នេះ អ្នក​ទទួល​អចលនវត្ថុ​ពី​ភោគី គឺ​ទទួល​បាន​ត្រឹម​តែ​សិទ្ធិ​​ជា​ភោគី​ដដែល មិនមែន​ជា​ម្ចាស់​កម្មសិទ្ធិ​នោះទេ។

ភោគី និង​កម្មសិទ្ធិករ​ មាន​ទំហំ​សិទ្ធិ​ដូចគ្នា។ អ្វី​ដែល​ខុសគ្នា គឺ​នៅត្រង់ថា សិទ្ធិ​ជា​កម្មសិទ្ធិករ​គឺ​ជា​សិទ្ធិ​ស្ថាពរ​ ហើយ​អាច​ទទួល​បាន​ការ​គាំពារ​ពីច្បាប់ ដោយ​ពេញលេញ។ ចំណែក​សិទ្ធិ​ជា​ភោគី​វិញ គឺ​ជា​សិទ្ធិ ដែល​មាន​លក្ខណៈ​បណ្ដោះអាសន្ន ដែល​អាច​មាន​ការ​ជំទាស់​តវ៉ា​បាន ទៅ​ថ្ងៃ​ក្រោយ។

៣-តើ​ភោគី​​អាច​ក្លាយ​ជា​​កម្មសិទ្ធិករ​​បាន​ដែរ​ឬទេ?

បាន! ប្រសិន​បើ​​ការ​កាន់កាប់​នេះ ធ្វើ​ឡើង​ដោយ​ស្របច្បាប់ ដោយ​គោរព​តាម​ល័ក្ខខ័ណ្ឌ ៥៖

-កាន់កាប់​ដោយ​ពិតប្រាកដ ពោលគឺ​ មិនមែន​ជា​ការ​កាន់កាប់ ក្នុង​ឋានៈ​ជា​អ្នក​ចាំដី ចាំ​ផ្ទះ ឬ​ចាំ​ចម្ការ​ឲ្យ​គេ។

-កាន់កាប់​ដោយ​គ្មានហិង្សា ពោលគឺ មិន​ប្រើ​កម្លាំង​ចូល​ទៅ​ដណ្តើម​កាន់កាប់។

-​កាន់កាប់​ដោយ​មាន​ការ​ដឹងឮ​ជាសាធារណៈ ពោល​គឺ​ មិនមែន​​ចូល​កាន់កាប់​ដោយ​លួចលាក់ មិន​ឲ្យ​គេ​ដឹង។

-​កាន់កាប់​ដោយ​គ្មាន​ការអាក់ខាន ពោលគឺ​ មិនបាន​បោះបង់​អចលនវត្ថុ​នេះ​ចោល ក្នុង​គម្លាត​មួយ​ធំ។

-កាន់កាប់​ដោយ​សុចរិត ពោល​គឺ ​ពេលចូលកាន់កាប់ ភោគី​មិនបាន​ដឹង​​ថា អចលនវត្ថុ​នេះ​មាន​ម្ចាស់​រួចទៅហើយ​នោះទេ។

ភោគី ដែល​បំពេញ​តាម​ល័ក្ខខ័ណ្ឌ​ទាំង ៥ ខាង​លើ​នេះ អាច​ក្លាយ​ជា​ម្ចាស់​កម្មសិទ្ធិ​បាន ក្រោយ​ពីបាន​កាន់កាប់​អចលនវត្ថុ រយៈពេល ៥ឆ្នាំ ជាប់ៗ​គ្នា​ឥតដាច់។

៤- ក្រោយ​ពី​បាន​កាន់កាប់​តាម​ល័ក្ខខ័ណ្ឌ និង​គ្រប់​រយៈពេល ដែល​កំណត់​ដោយ​ច្បាប់​ហើយ​ តើ​ខ្ញុំ​អាច​ក្លាយ​ជា​ម្ចាស់​កម្មសិទ្ធិ​ដោយ​ស្វ័យប្រវត្តិ​ឬទេ?

សិទ្ធិ​ជា​កម្មសិទ្ធិករ មិន​អាច​ទទួល​បាន​ដោយ​ស្វ័យប្រវត្តិ​នោះទេ។ ភោគី អាច​ក្លាយ​ជា​ម្ចាស់​កម្មសិទ្ធិ​ស្ថាពរ លុះត្រា​តែ​​អាជ្ញាធរ​មាន​សមត្ថកិច្ច​​ចេញ​ប័ណ្ណ​សម្គាល់​កម្មសិទ្ធិ​ឲ្យ ក្រោយ​មាន​ការ​ចុះ​បញ្ជីដីធ្លី​មានលក្ខណៈ​ជា​ប្រព័ន្ធ។

៥-ក្នុងពេលរង់ចាំ​ការទទួល​បាន​ប័ណ្ណកម្មសិទ្ធិ​ស្ថាពរ តើ​ភោគី​អាច​ទទួល​បាន​​ប័ណ្ណ​អ្វី ដែល​សម្គាល់​ការកាន់កាប់​អចលនវត្ថុ​​នេះ​ដែរឬទេ?

បាន! អាជ្ញាធរ​មាន​សមត្ថកិច្ច​ត្រូវ​ចេញ​ប័ណ្ណ​សម្គាល់​សិទ្ធិ​កាន់កាប់​អចលនវត្ថុ​ ទៅ​ឲ្យ​ភោគី ដែល​កាន់កាប់​ស្រប់ច្បាប់។ ក៏ប៉ុន្តែ ប័ណ្ណនេះ​ គ្រាន់តែ​ជា​ភស្តុតាង​បញ្ជាក់​អំពី​សិទ្ធិ​កាន់កាប់​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ មិនមែន​ជា​ប័ណ្ណ​កម្មសិទ្ធិ ដែល​តវ៉ា​មិនបាន​នោះទេ។

៦-ប្រសិន​បើ​ខ្ញុំ​ឃើញ​មាន​អចលនវត្ថុ​ទំនេរ​គ្មាន​ម្ចាស់ តើ​ខ្ញុំ​អាច​ចូល​កាន់កាប់​ធ្វើ​ជា​ភោគី​បាន​គ្រប់ពេលឬ?

ការកាន់កាប់​អចលនវត្ថុ ក្នុង​នាម​ជា​ភោគី ដែល​ច្បាប់​ទទួល​ស្គាល់ គឺ​មាន​តែ​ការកាន់កាប់ មុន​​ពេល​ច្បាប់​ភូមិបាល​​ចូល​ជា​ធរមាន​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ ពោល​គឺ​ មុន​ឆ្នាំ​២០០១។ រាល់​ការ​​ចូល​កាន់កាប់​អចលនវត្ថុ នៅ​ក្រោយ​​ច្បាប់​ភូមិបាល​ចូលជាធរមាន គឺ​ជា​ការ​កាន់កាប់​ខុសច្បាប់ ដែល​អាច​ទទួល​ទោស​ព្រហ្មទ័ណ្ឌ។

ប្រជាជន​ក្រីក្រ ដែល​ចង់​បាន​ដី ត្រូវ​តែ​ធ្វើ​ពាក្យ​សុំ​ទៅ​អាជ្ញាធរ តាម​រយៈ​យន្តការ “​សម្បទាន​ដី​សង្គមកិច្ច”។

Friday, March 20, 2009

Cambodia: Eliminating opportunists in land disputes requires effective local administration and proper public consultations

Friday, 20 March 2009
Press Release: Asian Human Rights Commission

The Cambodian government’s drive for the all out development and beautification of urban centres has created one of the most serious problems for its people. This particular problem is widely known as land grabbing. It is characterized by the grabbing of the land belonging to the poor and weak with unjust or no compensation, by the rich and powerful. Over recent years, and very likely in the years to come, land grabbing has and will affect hundreds of thousands of such people.

In many cases, victims of land grabbing have protested their evictions when they felt the compensation was unjust. This resistance has invariably ended up with the authorities using brute force to evict residents from their homes and lands. The latest of such brutal forced evictions took place in January 2009 when, in the early hours of the morning, hundreds of armed police and company workers, backed up by demolition machines, went to demolish hundreds of homes in the Dey Kraham community in the centre of Phnom Penh and forcibly trucked the residents away to a resettlement area.

In many land grabbing cases, the authorities have claimed that opportunist people had moved on to the land and pressed for compensation when such land was state property now used for other purposes or after such land had been made into private property or granted as concession to the rich and powerful for economic purposes. The claim of the presence of such opportunists has weakened the resistance and demand for just compensation of bona fide residents on the concerned land. As mentioned above, when they are poor and weak, such resistance and demands have eventually lead to their forced eviction.

Very recently over 50 people from the remote northern province of Oddar Meanchey went to stage a protest in front the Prime Minister’s residence on the outskirts of Phnom Penh to request him to get fair compensation for them from a sugar plantation company which had allegedly grabbed their land. But this company claimed that it had received this land as a concession from the government for a sugar plantation. The provincial governor, Pich Sokhin, said more than 200 families affected had already agreed to accept compensation ranging from US$300 to 1000 per family. However, Pich said, when the company started the plantation of sugar cane some local villagers and other people from other provinces moved on to the land and built small cottages with the intention of causing trouble and claiming compensation from the company.

Earlier on, in November 2008, armed police and soldiers used force and fire to evict hundreds of families in an area which the authorities said was located in a state-owned land, which was part of the Bokor National Park in the province of Kampot. The park’s director, Chey Uterith, said that those families had built small homes in that part of the park in the previous year. Chey accused them of grabbing the land with the intention of selling it to others. They then move on to a new site and repeat the process.

The presence and demand for compensation of such opportunists who have moved on to the land in dispute, national parks or the like could have been avoided if the concerned public authorities, especially the local authorities, were effective in the administration of the territory under their jurisdiction. As monitors have observed, in all elections, those local authorities are very effective in identifying people who are supporters or not supporters of the ruling party, and use their influence on them and pressurize others to vote for this party.

If they are that effective, they should also be able to identify people who are residents and know the exact location of their homes under their jurisdiction. Furthermore, they should be able to recognize all new people who have moved on to the disputed land and take necessary measures to prevent them from doing so at the outset. They could for instance get court orders to get them out of the land and/or prevent their construction work. At the very least they could distinguish the newly built homes from the older ones of the bona fide residents and legitimate claimants for compensation. The governor of Oddar Meanchey province and the director of the Bokor National Park could have and should have stopped those opportunists from moving on to that land for sugar plantation and that park, respectively, right from the start when they knew of their first move. These two officials have yet to explain their inaction at the time.

Furthermore, the problem with these opportunists could have been avoided. The distinction between them and those bona fide residents and legitimate claimants could be made a straight forward and perhaps disputes could have been avoided altogether if all the concerned authorities were to effectively enforce and comply with the Land Law of 2001 and all the regulations thereof.

The Land Law determines the ownership and acquisition of land. A government Sub-Decree on Economic Land Concession issued thereof, dated 27 December 2005, sets out a detailed procedure to be followed by all concerned authorities before deciding to grant any concession of land for economic purposes. Article 4 of this sub-decree for instance lays down a set of criteria that must be met first. For instance, the use of the land whose concession is under consideration must be consistent with the land use plan adopted by the Provincial-Municipal State Land Management Committee (Criterion 2), and there must be public consultations with territorial authorities and residents of the locality (Criterion 5). Not all residents have to be included in these public consultations, however, when Article 35 of the same sub-decree stipulates that the concession granting authority has to organize such consultations with territorial authorities and “representatives of local residents.”

Large numbers of residents may justify this limitation of consultations to representatives of local residents. But for these consultations to yield binding outcomes and to avoid disagreements and protests from any other residents, the concession granting authority must ensure that these people are genuine representatives of all residents and are not handpicked or selected by it or any other authority or the applicant for the concession, and that these representatives are subject to no influence or pressure whatsoever. Such consultations would help ascertain further the bona fide residents and henceforth thwart any attempt by opportunists to move on to the concerned land to demand compensation.

Effective public administration and compliance with the Land Law and the regulations thereof, especially the Sub-Decree on Economic Land Concession, could not only thwart attempts by opportunist to make money out of moving on to the lands of others, but could also go some way to avoid land disputes and address the land grabbing problem.

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

SRP Statement for The Second Cambodian Development Cooperation Forum

Source: SRP
STATEMENT
FOR
THE SECOND CAMBODIAN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION FORUM
( DECEMBER 3-5, 2008)

December 3, 2008


The high level meetings between the Royal Government of Cambodia and its development partners to be conducted during the 2nd Cambodian Development Cooperation Forum (CDCF) comes at a very critical moment as Cambodia, like other countries in the world, is facing the impact of the world economic crisis. This 2nd CDCF also comes at a time when democracy in Cambodia is further eroding following the 2008 parliamentarian election, much criticized by local and international observers for falling short of international standards.

1/ PARLIAMENTARY REFORMS: PROMOTION OF THE CONCEPT OF THE OPPOSITION, THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY

Only with the political will and determination to adhere to the principles of the separation of powers and with the recognition of the roles and functions of The Minority can the Cambodian Legislature function properly as a body in which democratic principles can begin to take roots. Formal recognition of the role and functions of The Minority ought to bring the provision of an adequate budget and resources in order to function independently and to serve as a check and balance within the Legislature.

The Minority welcomes training programs aiming at enhancing the knowledge and performance of elected Members of Parliament so long as this valuable technical assistance can lead to a true democratization process, is not used as mere ceremonial events and can help in decreasing the rubber stamping role of the National Assembly.

The Minority values the roles played by bilateral, multilateral donors and NGOs in helping Cambodia in its transition to democracy, but it considers that the marginalization of The Minority can only further prolong the current status quo and the anti-democratic culture of “winner takes all”.

2/ ADOPTION OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW

The Minority urges that public hearings be conducted, as a practice adopted in democratic countries, in order for the people of Cambodia to air their views on the type of anti-corruption law they wish to have adopted. It must be noted that good practices are available from neighboring countries that have demonstrated political will and determination to tackle corruption. The Minority is in agreement with donors and NGOs that there should be no reasons to link the passage of this law with the adoption of the draft Penal Code. The Minority is also in agreement with development partners in encouraging the RGC to become party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). Cambodia should join the global community in the fight against the improper benefiting of a small group of officials and their business allies at the expense of the majority of citizens. This hinders progress and growth, contrary to the basic development goals agreed upon by all major stakeholders.

3/ LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND PROBLEMS OF DECENTRALIZATION

The lack of mechanism to monitor the processes of local democratization which should allow for a full “co-operation between commune councils and other stakeholders for more effective and responsive local governance policies and greater local ownership, participation, civic engagement, and implementation of pro-poor inter-commune projects”* has left the control of power in the hands of the local authorities who act according to the interests and order of the party in power. The indirect election of village chiefs, whose preponderant influence on the daily lives of the people has added more force to the CPP local machinery, is further excluding people from the processes of local governance. The recent protests and complaints filed by villagers who should be beneficiaries of the Asian Development Bank distribution of food is a full result of a system of power of the CPP-dominated machinery at the local level that determine and control donor projects. By violating the law on decentralization, local authorities block democracy at the grassroots level, allowing more and more irregularities to occur. The Cambodian government and the international donor community should both abandon their ineffective piecemeal approach and start to solve problems from a comprehensive perspective by meeting conditions that are prerequisites of good governance: effective law enactment, effective decentralization and effective democracy at the grassroots levels.

The Minority calls on the Ministry of Interior to ensure that its directives for the replacement of commune councilors replaced by their party be strictly implemented. Up to date more than half of the Sam Rainsy Party requests to replace its elected commune councilors have been ignored. The Minority also calls on the Courts to immediately release commune chiefs and councilors of the Sam Rainsy Party wrongly accused and detained prior to the 2008 elections as such detentions are groundless and politically motivated.

4/ IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAND LAW: GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

According to Amnesty International and reports from local human rights organizations involved in monitoring land reforms, forced evictions are driving 80,000 urban poor from their homes. Once removed from their homes, these victims of land grabbing and forced evictions are moved away from their daily livelihoods to distant areas where food, shelter and health care are almost non-existent. Land grabbing by local and high ranking government officials and the practice of economic land concessions to private companies threatened the daily existence of around 150,000 rural villagers in 2008 alone. The Minority acknowledges with full respect and support the work of local human rights organizations and local leaders who took very courageous steps to protect their land and their community forests despite facing threats, intimidation, detention and even death.

*World Bank document on Decentralization

The Minority calls on the government and the courts to take the following immediate measures in dealing with land issues:
  • 1/ use evictions as a last resort, only following adequate notice and consultation with those affected.
  • 2/ declare a moratorium for all mass evictions until legislative and policy measures are in place to ensure that evictions are conducted only in full compliance with international human rights laws and standards.
  • 3/ investigate cases where excessive force were used and bring those responsible to justice;
  • 4/ immediately release villagers who have been wrongly detained for protesting against illegal eviction;
  • 5/ immediately stop the targeting and harassment of human rights defenders, and ensure that full protection is provided for their safety when on duty;
  • 6/ stop the issuance of orders from provincial and national authorities that overrule the decisions of the Court or initiatives taken by villagers to protect community land or other natural resources.
During the two days of high level deliberations, The Minority calls on the government, donors and key development partners to:
  • 1/ strictly use the Joint Monitoring Indicators(JMI) which are agreed tools to measure progress in the implementation of strategy for growth;
  • 2/ take concrete measures to stop grave violations of Cambodia’s laws and serious violations of human rights; and
  • 3/ take further steps towards strengthening a true system of checks and balances to uphold democratic principles.