COUNCIL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAMBODIA (CDC)


Land Reform

(i) Introduction After three years of intensive consultations the new Land Law was passed 30 August 2001. The Ministry of Land Management; Urban Planning and Construction (MLMUPC) deserves much credit for the consultative process which it facilitated in order to support the drafting of this law. The result is a law that is far more pro-poor and of a far higher technical quality than the early drafts that circulated in 1998. Much work remains to be done. Sixteen sub-decrees need to be written in order to enable the law to be implemented. This work is proceeding under the guidance of the Council for Land Policy. Once more, both policy-makers and the technical assistants who are drafting the law deserve credit for keeping the process open to consultation, both before drafting begins and then after each piece of legislation is redrafted. The Cadastral Commission sub-decrees drafting process has been quite controversial, as different stakeholders have advocated different approaches. The Cadastral Commissions will have the key role in settling land disputes under the new land administration regime. Most land disputes pit groups of poor people against powerful businessmen or officials. It is therefore both very difficult and very important to develop an approach that will generate confidence that the rights of the poor will be protected. A key development since the 2001 CG meeting has been die approval of a Land Management and Administration Project funded by a $3.5m grant from the German government; a $3.5m grant from the Finnish government and a $24.3m concessionary loan from the World Bank. (ii) Key Issues We support the broad policy approach described in the Royal Government’s Land Policy paper. Our recommendations to the 2001 CG meeting can be considered a statement of support to the government’s programme. Similarly, we endorse the consultative approach initiated by the Ministry for Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction (MLMUPC) and now continuing under the auspices of the Council for Land Policy. We also recognize that even though the process has been good it could be improved. On the NGO side we could be more systematic in involving poor stakeholders in consultations. On the government side more advanced notice of consultation schedules could be given, and slightly longer windows for comment could be granted. Our major concern at this stage, however, is regarding prioritization of activities within the reform programme. Over the past four years great efforts have been made by the Royal Government and civil society actors to ensure pro-poor policies and legislation within the land sector. After these achievements, it is now imperative that decisions about implementation of policies and programmes are made such that a real poverty reduction impact is delivered. International experience shows that the large organizations that finance land reform programmes often prefer to concentrate on land administration (rather than land management and land redistribution). Furthermore, within land administration, they prefer to concentrate on titling land in areas where there are no conflicts. We believe that if Land Reform is going to be tailored to fit the Cambodian situation, then the emphasis must be quite different from this. In Cambodia, the rural population is rising rapidly and neither the urban nor the rural private sector will be able to absorb the increased demand for employment. Dramatic increases in poverty and severe political and social unrest are real dangers. Rural Cambodians rely on a combination of access to agricultural land, forestry resources and fisheries in order to have a diversified and sustainable livelihood. Safeguarding and broadening access to common property resources (forestry and fisheries) and disturbing land to rural landless families are the largest opportunities for direct poverty reduction within the land reform programme in Cambodia. The implication of this is that land distribution (through a nationwide programme of Social Concessions) and land management (especially demarcation and registration of State Land) should be the highest implementation priorities. Land administration does contain important potentials for poverty alleviation, but here too the international hat must be tailored to the Cambodian head. The 2001 Land Law provides possession rights to people who were peaceful occupants of land at the time the law was passed. Most rural farmers have occupied their land for many years and despite the lack of formal title are secure in their occupancy. For these people, insecurity of tenure is not a constraint to investment in their land, nor is it difficult for than to obtain credit by using their land as security. In other words, the most important direct poverty alleviation opportunities lie elsewhere. Priorities for land administration should be titling in areas where poor people are most vulnerable to being dispossessed. Surveys suggest that these are particularly: areas that were fought over during the 1990s; areas where the local economy is booming areas with high land values and potential for commercial exploitation (e.g. as plantation land); national borders and along national roads. We hope that when we write our 2003 submission that we will be able to report that many poor people have been able to access agricultural and housing land through social concessions, and that the demarcation of State land will have begun, and will be safeguarding poor people’s access to the resources upon which they depend for their livelihoods. We would also acknowledge that achieving poverty reduction through land reform is difficult this is a new journey for Cambodia. We would therefore encourage the Royal Government; and all those who support it in the national and international community, to explore a diverse range of solutions. If we only try one way, then it may well be the wrong one. If we test three or four different ways, we are more likely to find the one that works best in Cambodia. We would therefore encourage an approach to reform implementation that encourages diversity in the early stages. It will be dangerous for Cambodia if anyone pretends that they know all the right solutions before the implementation begins. (iii) Recommendations Land Distribution before Land Administration. We would like to see a programme of distribution that extends to every commune in the country. This should either be at the same time as systematic land titling or in advance of it. Land Management before Land Administration. Public land should be demarcated at the same time as private land under the systematic titling regime. This means developing criteria for demarcation in advance of the systematic land titling programme. Land Administration to assist the vulnerable. Once systematic land titling pilots have been completed the Priority must be to carry out titling where people are most vulnerable to losing their land, i.e. where conflicts are most prevalent. Pilot several ways, not just one way. For key processes (e.g. demarcation of different sorts of State land, Implementation of Social Concessions) the Council for Land Policy should elicit a number of trials (action research projects) so that implementation decisions can be take on the basis of a range of available choices. \| Content\| Back \| Top \| Next \|