5.0 The land titling process
In the following section the land titling process will be summarised in order to give an indication on some of the problems that can be entered in such a titling process. These are however only broadly sketched out since this study did not have the capacity to get more in-depth into the different aspects of the process. The information has been obtained through interviews with both authorities and regular villagers and also with NPA staff members.
To begin with 1998 families were getting a plot each in the village. Between August 2001 and March 2002 NPA provided temporary land titles to 1837 families. 161 plots were not issued with temporary titles because they had broken the regulations. In May to July 2003 there were undertaken a survey in order to prepare full land titles to the ones that had complied with the regulation of the village. This survey showed that only 831 families had followed the regulations. Of the non-complying group 28 % had pawned their plot. Of these, 174 families had done it out of reasons regarding sickness and 386 had done it of business reason. 22 % had not been living permanently on the land. 7 % had transferred their plots to other families (probably sold it), and the last 1 % appeared to have abandoned it (Theam Rithy 2004).
Because of this study and the one done by Theam Rithy (2004) in the same period, NPA together with the Provincial Department of Land Use Management and Urban Planning (LUMUP) and the WG decided to review some of the cases that had failed to meet the requirements for the formal land title. In the cases were families had pawned their land because of sickness or accident, for employment reasons, to pay for weddings or funerals, or due to loss of the head of household, they could still be entitled to the land. Orphans, disabled families and single-headed households would also be given special consideration. Given the criteria that they were listed on the original beneficiary list, had the possession of the temporary title and stayed on their land they would still be eligible. From this second evaluation 1407 families were now deemed to be eligible (Theam Rithy 2004).
NPA had by 2004 withdrawn their other activities in the village in order for the village authorities to take over. However, in a Memorandum of Understanding between NPA, the Ministry of Rural Development and the MLUMPC it was ensured that the poor resettled families would be able to gain legal title to their land in accordance with the Cambodian land law. Land titles were to be the responsibility of the MLUMPC. The 28th of May however the Inter-Ministerial Proclamation regarding the income Scale of Registration Fees was passed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance. This meant that neither the settlers nor NPA had the ability to pay the fee for the official titles. In response NPA proposed to pay the costs for the provincial staff to measure and produce the land documents at the community level and after negotiations, the Ministry of Economy and Finance agreed in principle to waive the cadastral fee for the land title deeds in PT. This step by the government could be seen as a willingness on their part to take positive steps for social change. So in August 2004 the NPA and the LUMUP negotiated a deal in order to facilitate the eligible beneficiaries with the formal title. 1407 plots were found eligible and with the cost of 20 $ each. If NPA had not agreed to facilitate this process the villagers would probably never have received their formal titles, or at least not before the government are getting serious about doing a systematically land titling. However there were other levels in the bureaucracy that did not receive any compensation. Something that were not thought of at that stage on the part of NPA and this was a reason for complaint in the different bureaucratic levels also involved in the process.
5.1 Reasons behind the delays in the titling process
In 2004 the temporary titles were collected, but there have been several problems that have complicated the issuing of the formal titles. One problem was that during the collection of the temporary titles many of the beneficiaries were not present. This was reported by both the village authorities and the cluster chiefs as a problem. Then they had to come back or try to get in contact with them. However, this was not always possible and then people got disappointed when they found out that the temporary land title had been collected without them being there. Because of this some were not able to deliver their temporary title and have to wait on a next phase, if there will be one.
Another problem which many thought was a major reason for why the titling process has been delayed is the many mistakes or wrong out-fillings of the documents. This could for instance be a different letter in the name of the applicants from one document to another. Then this had to be corrected through filling out new forms of which one of the forms stated what was the real name. Some people said that this was the only cost they had to pay in the titling process, except for the 50 b to the community fund. A woman said: I had to spend money on copying different documents. Maybe I had to pay about 50 b altogether, because when I made a mistake I had to do it again. For me, I didn’t make many mistakes, but others did.
There was also a problem with different names on the application for the formal title compared to the list of the official beneficiaries or not sufficient witnesses for the land owner. In the former case they had to find the original beneficiary or in the case where this one had for instance passed away death certificate had to be provided by the family and then the one to inherit the plot had to be recognised. In the latter case, when they were going to apply for the formal title the provincial land management came to measure the land once again. The borders and the owner had also to be recognised by the three neighbours around the plot (to the right, left and at the back). This was a must so in the cases where a neighbour was not present it could be a problem. One family had met this problem and told us:
After land management had measured the plot they needed witnesses, the neighbours. But the neighbour behind us wasn’t there. The village chief said that unless we found sufficient witnesses we wouldn’t get the land title. So we were told to pay 100 b to the cluster and village chief in order for them to get some other witnesses. The other plots next to this had to do the same thing.
This could then be such a case, because also the witnesses/neighbours got checked with the original list of beneficiaries and if the names of the witness did not correspond with the name of the neighbour on the plot this was a problem that had to be sorted out as well. Of course the other neighbours to the one missing would also have the same problem. This is an example of problems that have been met in the process that have complicated it a lot and also might have been an opportunity for people to gain some kind of advantage in the process. It has also to be mentioned that a mistake at one level can involve more work at other levels in the bureaucracy as well, which makes it necessary for all levels to be followed up when it comes to external actors (like NGOs) facilitating the process.
There have also been some cases of orphans in the village (there are now about 30 cases). These cases has shown to be particular difficult to solve. After their parents death the children have often been separated in order to live with different relatives or neighbours for instance. Since the children also can be several it can take some time to identify all since the WG need their birth certificate and neighbours and relatives to be witnesses. These cases have been very complex and at this point they are still being sorted out to find a suitable way to solve the problem.
By this point it seems that 1264 have been found eligible in the first place for the formal titles, but of these only 1240 were submitted to the MLUMPC. 24 still remains at the WG because of the different reasons mentioned above. 9 were not being found eligible by the central office and have been withheld in Phnom Penh. So by now it seems like 1231 have been issued, but still have not been handed out. However, this might have happened before this report gets out.
To this date (early May 2006) no titles have yet been issued. Some of the reasons have been mentioned, but also some of the reasons can be found in the different levels that have been handling the cases. As mentioned only the provincial department of land management was compensated for their work which can be one of the factors of why it has taken until the spring of 2006 before most of the titles eligible now are ready to be handed out. By members of the WG it was said that they did not know why it had taken such a long time after they had sent away their documents and that the responsibility for this were in the government bureaucracy, like the land management. It seems anyway as this process has taken longer time than strictly necessary even though there have been many obstacles to be overcome. This can therefore be seen as also a management problem where the procedures in itself is a complex one and on top of that at the different levels there are no incentives for the involved persons to handle the cases effectively if no compensation has been given. Because of low salaries and small governmental funds these are used as reasons for why the government officials need to be compensated for work which really is their responsibility and obligation to follow up.
At this stage in the process there is being discussed how the formal titles are going to be handed over. Here it seems to be some different views where politics seems to play a role. It has been mentioned that this can be a way for political actors to score some popularity points among the villagers when they can get credit in a big official ceremony for handing over the official titles. PT in this regard is a quite important village since it is in fact the biggest in Cambodia. This has not been resolved yet so the final delivery of the titles is still on a hold.
5.2 The opinion of the villagers on the process
The delay in the titling process was frequently mentioned as a reason of concern by the villagers. There has not been given out any formal information on the delays by any kind of authority. It seems like the village authorities didn’t know the reason for the delays after the WG had sent away the documents to the land management. The only information that has been given is the one that the village authorities have received from the land management when people have come to ask. This has not been very useful since the date when the titles were supposed to come has been postponed several times.
Many families were worried about not having received their titles yet. This can be related to the lack of information. In such a situation rumours are easily being started and one of them was that more money would have to be paid in order to get the land title. A concern mentioned by both the villagers and a few of the cluster chiefs was what would happen if NPA was not going to distribute the titles by themselves. Like one cluster chief said: I’m concerned about the land titling distribution. I think that NPA should do it themselves. If it’s up to the land management I’m afraid that they will charge more money from the villagers.
The concerns that people have about their land titles must be seen in the context of the overall land situation in Cambodia and also because some lacks faith in their local authorities, in that regards many are relying on NGOs for facilitating them. It will be interesting to see however what will happen to the land titles that are not being issued at this stage. For instance there seemed to be beneficiaries who are otherwise eligible to the formal title, but were absent on the day of collecting. It seems like some of these believes that they will get to turn in their temporary titles after the ones who already have turned in theirs have received it. It will certainly be a great disappointment for these people if they are not getting a formal title before NPA withdraws from the process totally.
Another aspect which is unfortunate with the delay is that in the meantime while waiting, people can still lose their land. It is difficult to say if this has happened to many people, but several of our informants had been taking up high interest loans the last year. For instance one family which will be referred to later in the report were about to lose their land about this time because of a loan that were taken last year after turning in their temporary title. The point is that if the titles had been handed out in time there would maybe have been more of a chance for some of the families to keep their land. Provided that these titles can be used to get access to larger amounts of credit and in a less complicated way than the situation is now. Credit access will however be expanded upon in the next section of the report.
5.3 Concluding remarks
The land titling process is a witness on how complex this process is in Cambodia. Not only the procedure itself with the documents having to go all the way in the different levels of authorities, but also the co-operation has to be ensured and followed up at the different levels. Correct mode of bureaucratic procedures and efficiency is not obvious in a country where most of the income often is derived from other sources than the regular salary.
Also, in such a case like PT consisting of the poorest people in the society, the titling process shows that to get the right information in order to provide the formal title is not a straightforward process either. Probably there can be taken measures to ease the process.
In the following section the land titling process will be summarised in order to give an indication on some of the problems that can be entered in such a titling process. These are however only broadly sketched out since this study did not have the capacity to get more in-depth into the different aspects of the process. The information has been obtained through interviews with both authorities and regular villagers and also with NPA staff members.
To begin with 1998 families were getting a plot each in the village. Between August 2001 and March 2002 NPA provided temporary land titles to 1837 families. 161 plots were not issued with temporary titles because they had broken the regulations. In May to July 2003 there were undertaken a survey in order to prepare full land titles to the ones that had complied with the regulation of the village. This survey showed that only 831 families had followed the regulations. Of the non-complying group 28 % had pawned their plot. Of these, 174 families had done it out of reasons regarding sickness and 386 had done it of business reason. 22 % had not been living permanently on the land. 7 % had transferred their plots to other families (probably sold it), and the last 1 % appeared to have abandoned it (Theam Rithy 2004).
Because of this study and the one done by Theam Rithy (2004) in the same period, NPA together with the Provincial Department of Land Use Management and Urban Planning (LUMUP) and the WG decided to review some of the cases that had failed to meet the requirements for the formal land title. In the cases were families had pawned their land because of sickness or accident, for employment reasons, to pay for weddings or funerals, or due to loss of the head of household, they could still be entitled to the land. Orphans, disabled families and single-headed households would also be given special consideration. Given the criteria that they were listed on the original beneficiary list, had the possession of the temporary title and stayed on their land they would still be eligible. From this second evaluation 1407 families were now deemed to be eligible (Theam Rithy 2004).
NPA had by 2004 withdrawn their other activities in the village in order for the village authorities to take over. However, in a Memorandum of Understanding between NPA, the Ministry of Rural Development and the MLUMPC it was ensured that the poor resettled families would be able to gain legal title to their land in accordance with the Cambodian land law. Land titles were to be the responsibility of the MLUMPC. The 28th of May however the Inter-Ministerial Proclamation regarding the income Scale of Registration Fees was passed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance. This meant that neither the settlers nor NPA had the ability to pay the fee for the official titles. In response NPA proposed to pay the costs for the provincial staff to measure and produce the land documents at the community level and after negotiations, the Ministry of Economy and Finance agreed in principle to waive the cadastral fee for the land title deeds in PT. This step by the government could be seen as a willingness on their part to take positive steps for social change. So in August 2004 the NPA and the LUMUP negotiated a deal in order to facilitate the eligible beneficiaries with the formal title. 1407 plots were found eligible and with the cost of 20 $ each. If NPA had not agreed to facilitate this process the villagers would probably never have received their formal titles, or at least not before the government are getting serious about doing a systematically land titling. However there were other levels in the bureaucracy that did not receive any compensation. Something that were not thought of at that stage on the part of NPA and this was a reason for complaint in the different bureaucratic levels also involved in the process.
5.1 Reasons behind the delays in the titling process
In 2004 the temporary titles were collected, but there have been several problems that have complicated the issuing of the formal titles. One problem was that during the collection of the temporary titles many of the beneficiaries were not present. This was reported by both the village authorities and the cluster chiefs as a problem. Then they had to come back or try to get in contact with them. However, this was not always possible and then people got disappointed when they found out that the temporary land title had been collected without them being there. Because of this some were not able to deliver their temporary title and have to wait on a next phase, if there will be one.
Another problem which many thought was a major reason for why the titling process has been delayed is the many mistakes or wrong out-fillings of the documents. This could for instance be a different letter in the name of the applicants from one document to another. Then this had to be corrected through filling out new forms of which one of the forms stated what was the real name. Some people said that this was the only cost they had to pay in the titling process, except for the 50 b to the community fund. A woman said: I had to spend money on copying different documents. Maybe I had to pay about 50 b altogether, because when I made a mistake I had to do it again. For me, I didn’t make many mistakes, but others did.
There was also a problem with different names on the application for the formal title compared to the list of the official beneficiaries or not sufficient witnesses for the land owner. In the former case they had to find the original beneficiary or in the case where this one had for instance passed away death certificate had to be provided by the family and then the one to inherit the plot had to be recognised. In the latter case, when they were going to apply for the formal title the provincial land management came to measure the land once again. The borders and the owner had also to be recognised by the three neighbours around the plot (to the right, left and at the back). This was a must so in the cases where a neighbour was not present it could be a problem. One family had met this problem and told us:
After land management had measured the plot they needed witnesses, the neighbours. But the neighbour behind us wasn’t there. The village chief said that unless we found sufficient witnesses we wouldn’t get the land title. So we were told to pay 100 b to the cluster and village chief in order for them to get some other witnesses. The other plots next to this had to do the same thing.
This could then be such a case, because also the witnesses/neighbours got checked with the original list of beneficiaries and if the names of the witness did not correspond with the name of the neighbour on the plot this was a problem that had to be sorted out as well. Of course the other neighbours to the one missing would also have the same problem. This is an example of problems that have been met in the process that have complicated it a lot and also might have been an opportunity for people to gain some kind of advantage in the process. It has also to be mentioned that a mistake at one level can involve more work at other levels in the bureaucracy as well, which makes it necessary for all levels to be followed up when it comes to external actors (like NGOs) facilitating the process.
There have also been some cases of orphans in the village (there are now about 30 cases). These cases has shown to be particular difficult to solve. After their parents death the children have often been separated in order to live with different relatives or neighbours for instance. Since the children also can be several it can take some time to identify all since the WG need their birth certificate and neighbours and relatives to be witnesses. These cases have been very complex and at this point they are still being sorted out to find a suitable way to solve the problem.
By this point it seems that 1264 have been found eligible in the first place for the formal titles, but of these only 1240 were submitted to the MLUMPC. 24 still remains at the WG because of the different reasons mentioned above. 9 were not being found eligible by the central office and have been withheld in Phnom Penh. So by now it seems like 1231 have been issued, but still have not been handed out. However, this might have happened before this report gets out.
To this date (early May 2006) no titles have yet been issued. Some of the reasons have been mentioned, but also some of the reasons can be found in the different levels that have been handling the cases. As mentioned only the provincial department of land management was compensated for their work which can be one of the factors of why it has taken until the spring of 2006 before most of the titles eligible now are ready to be handed out. By members of the WG it was said that they did not know why it had taken such a long time after they had sent away their documents and that the responsibility for this were in the government bureaucracy, like the land management. It seems anyway as this process has taken longer time than strictly necessary even though there have been many obstacles to be overcome. This can therefore be seen as also a management problem where the procedures in itself is a complex one and on top of that at the different levels there are no incentives for the involved persons to handle the cases effectively if no compensation has been given. Because of low salaries and small governmental funds these are used as reasons for why the government officials need to be compensated for work which really is their responsibility and obligation to follow up.
At this stage in the process there is being discussed how the formal titles are going to be handed over. Here it seems to be some different views where politics seems to play a role. It has been mentioned that this can be a way for political actors to score some popularity points among the villagers when they can get credit in a big official ceremony for handing over the official titles. PT in this regard is a quite important village since it is in fact the biggest in Cambodia. This has not been resolved yet so the final delivery of the titles is still on a hold.
5.2 The opinion of the villagers on the process
The delay in the titling process was frequently mentioned as a reason of concern by the villagers. There has not been given out any formal information on the delays by any kind of authority. It seems like the village authorities didn’t know the reason for the delays after the WG had sent away the documents to the land management. The only information that has been given is the one that the village authorities have received from the land management when people have come to ask. This has not been very useful since the date when the titles were supposed to come has been postponed several times.
Many families were worried about not having received their titles yet. This can be related to the lack of information. In such a situation rumours are easily being started and one of them was that more money would have to be paid in order to get the land title. A concern mentioned by both the villagers and a few of the cluster chiefs was what would happen if NPA was not going to distribute the titles by themselves. Like one cluster chief said: I’m concerned about the land titling distribution. I think that NPA should do it themselves. If it’s up to the land management I’m afraid that they will charge more money from the villagers.
The concerns that people have about their land titles must be seen in the context of the overall land situation in Cambodia and also because some lacks faith in their local authorities, in that regards many are relying on NGOs for facilitating them. It will be interesting to see however what will happen to the land titles that are not being issued at this stage. For instance there seemed to be beneficiaries who are otherwise eligible to the formal title, but were absent on the day of collecting. It seems like some of these believes that they will get to turn in their temporary titles after the ones who already have turned in theirs have received it. It will certainly be a great disappointment for these people if they are not getting a formal title before NPA withdraws from the process totally.
Another aspect which is unfortunate with the delay is that in the meantime while waiting, people can still lose their land. It is difficult to say if this has happened to many people, but several of our informants had been taking up high interest loans the last year. For instance one family which will be referred to later in the report were about to lose their land about this time because of a loan that were taken last year after turning in their temporary title. The point is that if the titles had been handed out in time there would maybe have been more of a chance for some of the families to keep their land. Provided that these titles can be used to get access to larger amounts of credit and in a less complicated way than the situation is now. Credit access will however be expanded upon in the next section of the report.
5.3 Concluding remarks
The land titling process is a witness on how complex this process is in Cambodia. Not only the procedure itself with the documents having to go all the way in the different levels of authorities, but also the co-operation has to be ensured and followed up at the different levels. Correct mode of bureaucratic procedures and efficiency is not obvious in a country where most of the income often is derived from other sources than the regular salary.
Also, in such a case like PT consisting of the poorest people in the society, the titling process shows that to get the right information in order to provide the formal title is not a straightforward process either. Probably there can be taken measures to ease the process.