As described in the first section of the report, the land situation in Cambodia has been changing for some years now and several problems can be identified. This was by So et al. (2001) mentioned as increasing land inequality, lack of secure tenure, increasing land conflict and growth of illegal squatter areas in the cities. Some possible reasons for the increasing land inequality could be demographic pressure, large unsettled populations that have emerged throughout the 1990s, a lack of formal credit markets and also speculative purchases.
In this report we have seen some of these problems illustrated. The village is of course an answer to some of these problems as it was directed towards slum settlements in Poipet consisting of people who can be classified as unsettled populations and mainly consisted of refugees and economic migrants. Moreover, this village has also displayed some of the mechanisms that show how people are getting landless in this country and also how some people are acquiring more land. This place is special though since these people when coming to the village were more or less at the same level. All were poor. In PT we got to see then how increasing land inequality is taking place in such a setting. This is related to both a lack of suitable credit options and also speculative purchases. However, it is difficult to say in PT how many of the buyers were doing it for speculative reasons. Many probably acquired land there because they wanted to live there and it was possible to get it to a cheap price. There is however no sign of land disputes in the village which was seemed as a result of the basic structure of the village and also the clear ownership rights. However, this also meant that PT was a good place for buying land and a result of this is that the proof of ownership is being deteriorated compared to the ideal situation with every plot with a formal title.
PT is also a special case in so far that it is in the form of a social land concession program. If similar projects are going to take place in the future some of the problems discovered in PT have probably to be dealt with. The large part of the original beneficiaries who sold or pawned their land before they got the formal title is such a problem.
When it comes to the land titling process in itself there are also several issues to be pointed out. The titling process has for instance been delayed because of both a complicated application/registration process and also because the sporadic titling system is complicated to begin with. Even though this also makes it possible for individuals in certain positions to get more out of the process at the expense of the beneficiaries, most we talked to did not have large expenses in acquiring the land title. However, since only one level got compensated for by NPA this might have had the effect of slowing down the process somewhat. Also, because of lack of information people got worried about what would happen with their land titles and rumours started going about having to pay more money.
For most people the formal title was important because of the security it would get them and because of different financial gains that the title could bring. This was not least related to the title being able to get them out of trouble by giving them easier access to credit and also better terms. Also they thought that a formal title would increase the price of the plot. However, no one said that they intended to sell their plot when they received the title, even though some said that they thought others were going to do it. This can indicate that PT is an attractive place to be living in and that the push factors are stronger than the pull factors for why people are selling their plots. Push factors are here mainly problems relating to difficult living conditions, like not sufficient income and especially combined with emergency situations like sickness. Because of existing demand for land in PT and the push mechanism that have been identified it seems like the village has a development pattern where poor people eventually are giving way for more affluent people. If this is the case the village will perhaps look very different in maybe 5 years from now with more concrete houses covering the area than houses built of bamboo.
When it comes to the more general debate of property rights it has to be remembered that PT is a special case compared to other cases were land titling processes are being implemented. PT has been built from scratch on a site where it previously was forest. There are therefore no other claims of ownership or other problems regarding different forms of tenure ship for instance. It seems that formal titles can be important to improve credit possibilities for people. However, it is still difficult to say if people are going to use their titles for getting loans for business or improving their houses. This seems to be related to the income of the families as well. Without a steady income for instance, even a loan with small interest can be difficult to pay down. Also like in other land titling processes one problem is how to ensure that the poor families are the ones that are getting the benefits of the titling and not people who come from the outside and reap the benefits by getting the land in the process.
In this report we have seen some of these problems illustrated. The village is of course an answer to some of these problems as it was directed towards slum settlements in Poipet consisting of people who can be classified as unsettled populations and mainly consisted of refugees and economic migrants. Moreover, this village has also displayed some of the mechanisms that show how people are getting landless in this country and also how some people are acquiring more land. This place is special though since these people when coming to the village were more or less at the same level. All were poor. In PT we got to see then how increasing land inequality is taking place in such a setting. This is related to both a lack of suitable credit options and also speculative purchases. However, it is difficult to say in PT how many of the buyers were doing it for speculative reasons. Many probably acquired land there because they wanted to live there and it was possible to get it to a cheap price. There is however no sign of land disputes in the village which was seemed as a result of the basic structure of the village and also the clear ownership rights. However, this also meant that PT was a good place for buying land and a result of this is that the proof of ownership is being deteriorated compared to the ideal situation with every plot with a formal title.
PT is also a special case in so far that it is in the form of a social land concession program. If similar projects are going to take place in the future some of the problems discovered in PT have probably to be dealt with. The large part of the original beneficiaries who sold or pawned their land before they got the formal title is such a problem.
When it comes to the land titling process in itself there are also several issues to be pointed out. The titling process has for instance been delayed because of both a complicated application/registration process and also because the sporadic titling system is complicated to begin with. Even though this also makes it possible for individuals in certain positions to get more out of the process at the expense of the beneficiaries, most we talked to did not have large expenses in acquiring the land title. However, since only one level got compensated for by NPA this might have had the effect of slowing down the process somewhat. Also, because of lack of information people got worried about what would happen with their land titles and rumours started going about having to pay more money.
For most people the formal title was important because of the security it would get them and because of different financial gains that the title could bring. This was not least related to the title being able to get them out of trouble by giving them easier access to credit and also better terms. Also they thought that a formal title would increase the price of the plot. However, no one said that they intended to sell their plot when they received the title, even though some said that they thought others were going to do it. This can indicate that PT is an attractive place to be living in and that the push factors are stronger than the pull factors for why people are selling their plots. Push factors are here mainly problems relating to difficult living conditions, like not sufficient income and especially combined with emergency situations like sickness. Because of existing demand for land in PT and the push mechanism that have been identified it seems like the village has a development pattern where poor people eventually are giving way for more affluent people. If this is the case the village will perhaps look very different in maybe 5 years from now with more concrete houses covering the area than houses built of bamboo.
When it comes to the more general debate of property rights it has to be remembered that PT is a special case compared to other cases were land titling processes are being implemented. PT has been built from scratch on a site where it previously was forest. There are therefore no other claims of ownership or other problems regarding different forms of tenure ship for instance. It seems that formal titles can be important to improve credit possibilities for people. However, it is still difficult to say if people are going to use their titles for getting loans for business or improving their houses. This seems to be related to the income of the families as well. Without a steady income for instance, even a loan with small interest can be difficult to pay down. Also like in other land titling processes one problem is how to ensure that the poor families are the ones that are getting the benefits of the titling and not people who come from the outside and reap the benefits by getting the land in the process.