This part can be seen as supplementing some of the findings of Theam Rithy in his research in 2003. He looked at reasons why families had not been able to comply with many of the conditions in the regulations and therefore were not eligible for the formal title. The main reasons for pawning, selling or abandoning the plots he cited as lack of job opportunities, health problems, market pressure and social problems.
This study has been done three years later, at a time when many families are about to receive their formal title. Even if it had been interesting to also have some statistical data to back up our findings it seems anyway that some patterns can be identified about the development in PT in the years to come. The information collected about the inhabitants was done by asking the informants about their plots and also about their knowledge about the surrounding area. This of course makes the data somewhat less reliable, since for instance many have incomplete information or are reluctant to answer on behalf of others. But the main problem seems anyway to be an inability to provide an answer in the first place. Altogether we think that the data still can be reliable enough to indicate a pattern of development in the village.
The main space is however used on describing the different cases that we entered of people either losing or acquiring land in PT.
7.1 Overall development trends for Prachea Thom
Two of the key points uncovered by Theam Rithy (2003) were that:
These findings can be said to be supported by this study as well. The major reason for people losing their land in our interviews was said to be related to health problems and the following indebtedness this caused. Most of the persons asked of the reasons why they had sold or pawned their land or why they thought other families had done it mentioned this as the primary reason. Not being said that people have not sold for other reasons but for the small selection of informants available for this study this was the major reason. For instance social problems like gambling, alcoholism or drug addiction were only mentioned as reasons for problems of others and not as a cause of their own problems. This can perhaps be a result of the sensitivity of the issue or because of the small selection of informants. Anyway, these problems are not likely to have disappeared in the time since the other studies done by the NPA in the village. Health problems and indebtedness leading to losing of land will therefore most likely still be related to these kinds of social problems, without them being mentioned in this study.
Because so many of these families are living from hand to mouth without being able to save any money, it seems that these families are bound to meet some kind of problem at one point or another that makes it necessary to take upon a loan. Even if many are also receiving support from relatives and friends this is often not enough in the longer term or when the expenses are getting large. As mentioned these kind of problems are often related to health like sickness for instance, which can be very expensive as the person might have to be sent far away for being examined with the risk of not being cured, in which case the procedure often has to be repeated. Even if the sanitary conditions and the overall health facilities were mentioned by the informants as far superior in PT to the previous conditions they had been living under in Poipet, many of the parents told us that some of their children were sick or that they earlier had been forced to borrow money because of this.
Such reasons for loosing land are consistent with other studies done on the Cambodian land market as well. So et al. cited that in the majority of cases of land selling, the primary motivation “is the need for short-term cash, which cannot be met from subsistence activities. In the case of distress sales, people cited the need for cash to pay for family health care (Kampot) and/or pay off outstanding high-cost loans (Piem Ro).” (So et al. 2001: 16)
The trend in PT can therefore be seemed as poor people eventually losing their land through either indebtedness and then being forced to hand over the plot to their moneylender or through selling it as they see no other option. However, of the people asked who had not already pawned it or was heavily indebted, few had any intentions of selling the land provided that they could sustain their current living conditions. The fact that people were eager to point out their gratefulness towards NPA and for the land given to them might have made them reluctant to tell us about their plans of selling. Still several had mentioned that being able to sell was an important option even if they didn’t have plans to do it in the present situation. Even if some thought that other villagers after receiving their title would sell in order to buy for instance agricultural land in their home province, most seemed to believe that the main reason for land transactions in PT in the years to come would be poor people leaving because of difficult living conditions, being replaced by more affluent people.
This study has been done three years later, at a time when many families are about to receive their formal title. Even if it had been interesting to also have some statistical data to back up our findings it seems anyway that some patterns can be identified about the development in PT in the years to come. The information collected about the inhabitants was done by asking the informants about their plots and also about their knowledge about the surrounding area. This of course makes the data somewhat less reliable, since for instance many have incomplete information or are reluctant to answer on behalf of others. But the main problem seems anyway to be an inability to provide an answer in the first place. Altogether we think that the data still can be reliable enough to indicate a pattern of development in the village.
The main space is however used on describing the different cases that we entered of people either losing or acquiring land in PT.
7.1 Overall development trends for Prachea Thom
Two of the key points uncovered by Theam Rithy (2003) were that:
- The inadequacy of income coupled with illness and high-interest rates on loans meant that families found themselves unable to comply with the village regulations.
- Poor health and illness are key factors that push people into debt and thus into pawning or selling their land.
These findings can be said to be supported by this study as well. The major reason for people losing their land in our interviews was said to be related to health problems and the following indebtedness this caused. Most of the persons asked of the reasons why they had sold or pawned their land or why they thought other families had done it mentioned this as the primary reason. Not being said that people have not sold for other reasons but for the small selection of informants available for this study this was the major reason. For instance social problems like gambling, alcoholism or drug addiction were only mentioned as reasons for problems of others and not as a cause of their own problems. This can perhaps be a result of the sensitivity of the issue or because of the small selection of informants. Anyway, these problems are not likely to have disappeared in the time since the other studies done by the NPA in the village. Health problems and indebtedness leading to losing of land will therefore most likely still be related to these kinds of social problems, without them being mentioned in this study.
Because so many of these families are living from hand to mouth without being able to save any money, it seems that these families are bound to meet some kind of problem at one point or another that makes it necessary to take upon a loan. Even if many are also receiving support from relatives and friends this is often not enough in the longer term or when the expenses are getting large. As mentioned these kind of problems are often related to health like sickness for instance, which can be very expensive as the person might have to be sent far away for being examined with the risk of not being cured, in which case the procedure often has to be repeated. Even if the sanitary conditions and the overall health facilities were mentioned by the informants as far superior in PT to the previous conditions they had been living under in Poipet, many of the parents told us that some of their children were sick or that they earlier had been forced to borrow money because of this.
Such reasons for loosing land are consistent with other studies done on the Cambodian land market as well. So et al. cited that in the majority of cases of land selling, the primary motivation “is the need for short-term cash, which cannot be met from subsistence activities. In the case of distress sales, people cited the need for cash to pay for family health care (Kampot) and/or pay off outstanding high-cost loans (Piem Ro).” (So et al. 2001: 16)
The trend in PT can therefore be seemed as poor people eventually losing their land through either indebtedness and then being forced to hand over the plot to their moneylender or through selling it as they see no other option. However, of the people asked who had not already pawned it or was heavily indebted, few had any intentions of selling the land provided that they could sustain their current living conditions. The fact that people were eager to point out their gratefulness towards NPA and for the land given to them might have made them reluctant to tell us about their plans of selling. Still several had mentioned that being able to sell was an important option even if they didn’t have plans to do it in the present situation. Even if some thought that other villagers after receiving their title would sell in order to buy for instance agricultural land in their home province, most seemed to believe that the main reason for land transactions in PT in the years to come would be poor people leaving because of difficult living conditions, being replaced by more affluent people.
The impression is that among the original beneficiaries both the poor and the ones with sufficient income wanted to stay in the village. Reasons that were mentioned for not selling was that they did not have any other place to go and also that the living conditions in PT were perceived as good compared to other places. Positive aspects of the village that were mentioned were electricity, easy access to water and the sanitary conditions. Closeness to school could also be seen as important and not least the basic structure of the village with clear boundaries and undisputed land relations. This made PT a good place to stay at even though for many it was as difficult to get income now as before and therefore their living conditions were still a struggle.
7.1.1 People losing their land
Case study of a family about to lose their land:
Thok Thea (33) is married to her second husband and lives on the plot with him and her 4 children. Their income they get from trading garbage and their average income is about 70-80 b a day for the two of them. She tells us that she wasn’t eligible for a loan in the bank and she had to take a loan from the neighbour in order to make capital for business. She borrowed 2000 b for which they could buy for instance used bottles which they resell and make a small profit. She has to pay 20 b in interest each day. They can only manage to pay the interest and some times they don’t have enough money and have to pay more another day. She says that sometimes they cannot make enough money to support their living conditions and then it happens that they have to starve. Even if it’s a little better here than when she lived in Poipet they still live from hand to mouth.
She is now waiting for the formal title which she turned in a long time ago. But because her first husband got sick some years ago she had to borrow 30 000 b to send him to hospital in Siem Reap. But he didn’t get better so she had to borrow 10 000 b more to send him to Phnom Penh. Later she also got the same amount and so she had a debt of 50 000 b. None of the treatment worked unfortunately and her husband died later. The debtor is now waiting to get her title. She is also wondering when it will be delivered because then they maybe will get some more money.
The new landowner has however asked them to find a new buyer for the plot to the price of 100 000 b. If they find one, they will receive some money. She is very sorry that she had to sell it. “Even if I try all my life I will never be able to buy a plot like this.”
This case illustrates how a family can lose their land over health problems when they have no ability to pay back the loan and also in an emergency situation like this the amounts needed are making it almost impossible to pay it back. Also this is a case were the moneylenders obviously had other intentions with the plot than live on it. In this case the amount being borrowed seems to sum up to a reasonable value of what the plot could be worth.
Generally, however, from our research it is difficult to tell about the tactics or intentions behind the moneylenders involved in the village and who have acquired land through their business. For instance if the loans are used strategically with the intentions of getting the land or if they primarily are interested in the rent and the acquiring of land is just something that happens if the borrower is unfortunate enough to not be able to pay. However, the large number of unused plots in the village can be an indication that at least some people are acquiring plots with the intentions of reselling it. It was also mentioned in some of the interviews that some plots had already been sold several times, each time with a better price. Or that plots had been bought and were now just laying empty which they meant was with the intentions of reselling it.
Case study on the problem of increasing interest:
Another family can illustrate the problem of high interest which increases over time. Kong Sophal (41) and Yoeun Sam Orn (41) have 7 children and the only income they have is his income of 50-100 b a day and around 1400 b a month from a daughter who works at the casino at the border. The wife stays home to take care of the children. They borrowed money from a moneylender in Poipet when the children got sick, with amounts of about 2000 and 3000 b a time until they had a debt of 15 000 b. They were only to pay on the interest rate of 30 %, but after a while the sum of only the interest had become the double of the original loan. Since they weren’t able to pay back the moneylender provided them with 15 000 b more in order to acquire the land. They were forced to leave the land at the end of the month when we talked to them. Then they have to go back to the place that they once had lived, along the railway in Poipet. They are afraid that the government will chase them.
The reason why they now have to move they say is because of NPA’s mandate now is running out. “When we got indebted the moneylender didn’t dare to chase us away because the NPA was supervising the process. But when their mandate now is up he gave us some more money to leave.” They had given the temporary title to the cluster chief to sort it out with the new owner so they didn’t know what would happen to it. Many in their area had sold their plot because they were poor, but most of them still resided on their plot. According to them most of the land buyers come from Poipet.
This illustrates the problem with high interest rates. When people are overdue with their payments the amount can increase fast since what they owe in rent are added to the original sum. In that way the amount owed in rent can soon exceed the original loan. Another aspect of this case shows the importance of authorities monitoring the process. Especially seems this to be related to NGOs which are seen to be more impartial than maybe the local authorities. As mentioned under the section about the land titling process families were worried what would happen when the NPA would end their mandate. And this case illustrates it. Also the making of the formal titles have most likely prevented many families from being chased away from their land at an earlier stage. As another woman (58) said: There have been some conflicts between buyer and seller, because the new try to chase the old away. But the old owner says that “if we cannot stay, you will have to get the formal title by yourself”.
This woman was a widow who also had lost her plot because she had to take up loan to pay for her former husband’s sickness and later funeral. She lived on the plot taking care of four children, two grandchildren and two other children whose mother had had left for working in Thailand. Now she only received money from her daughter because the other mother had stopped sending her money. She had no other income. When we visited her there were also another boy there whose mother had killed his father and now she was in jail. In our stay in PT we heard many stories like this of endless poverty and people who had passed away mostly from sickness but also from other reasons like crime. But the difference of this case compared to most others was that the neighbours who had lent her the money and also now were the unofficial owners of the plot were letting her stay on the plot as long as she wanted, even after she (or really they) would receive the official title. The neighbours had also provided her with food when she was in need and helped her build the modest house she lived in. In return she looked after their plot which they had left in order to live in Poipet. She was very grateful towards them and they had promised her that if she was able to get the same amount as she had borrowed, she would get her plot back. They had not charged any interest on her loan.
7.1.2 People acquiring land
So who are the people who are acquiring land in PT? Obviously there are different intentions behind acquiring a piece of land. Unfortunately this research could not go in-depth on the matter and so for instance we did not get to speak with people that admitted they were involved in land speculating. Even though some of the persons that we talked to were in a position were this could be an option if they wanted. However, they did not reveal any other intentions behind acquiring the land than that this happened through debt or selling and that their intentions with the land were to keep it. The case below shows however the opportunity this village has been for some of the original beneficiaries for making quite a lot of social progress, but also that this in some cases can come at the expense of others.
A case study of social ladder dynamics:
Chourn Rout (44) is living with her husband and two children on a large plot together with a sister and her son and also a brother and his wife. The income of the family is between 300-400 b a day as three members in the family have a steady income, selling clothes and doing construction work. For them their living conditions have improved much since they were living in the Kbal Spean village in Poipet.
The plot we were visiting was once two plots, but she got her neighbours’ plot after they had got indebted to her. She says that six plots have been pawned to her altogether so now she owns seven. It’s difficult to say whether she got them by pawning or buying, but we got to know that she had acquired four plots for 20 000 b and the other two for 30 000 b. When she lent them money she had received 20 % in interest. Now she had three temporary land titles in her custody and the three others together with her own has been delivered to the village authorities in order to make the formal ones. She didn’t know what would happen to the ones that didn’t get turned in. She thought it might be up to the cluster chief (even though the real authorities on the matter would be the WG). When asked about what she think a plot is worth she says 30 000-40 000 b, but thinks that they will increase much in price when the formal title arrives.
She had been asked several times by the neighbours to sell them plots for 40 000 b, but she didn’t want to sell she told us. On one of the plots some relatives were staying looking after it, the others were standing empty. The most important aspect of the plots was to pass them over to her children, but she also wanted to grow plants. When asked if she wanted more land in PT she answered “My wish is to have more land.” (Laughs) “If we have 10 plots we want to have 20.”
This family had obviously made some big progress in the years since they arrived to the village. The plot on which they lived was as mentioned actually two plots, but their house were a regular one, not among the poor ones but nothing special either. However, with a total of seven plots they had assets worth quite a lot. We were not able to go much deeper into each of the cases with the plots which got pawned but the people who had lost their land had done it because of the same reasons as most others. Since the families more or less should have gone through the same criteria’s for coming to the village it is interesting to see how different this have turned out for many of the families.
Of course, even if they all should have been among the poorest to be eligible for a plot in PT, their starting point could still be somewhat different in terms of health problems, handicaps or income opportunities. Maybe these are differences that could have determined whether a family became the creditor or the debtor for instance. Because in PT there are obviously good opportunities for acquiring land if a person have some resources. In our study we got to hear about many families who had taken up loans which started out small, but which could end up big if they were not able to follow up the payment. Then someone could lose their land for the initial sum of for example 5000 b. This seems to be a golden opportunity for people without so much money to acquire land which they can sell for a very good profit. This study has, however, no data on how some people have been able to improve their living conditions and others not. In some interviews there was mentioned that for instance the poorest ones did not have any relatives to support them. This could be a reason why some are making it through crisis and others not. Also since many people mentioned sickness related to their children it can also indicate that at certain phases families are more economically vulnerable. Such a phase could be when the children are small and maybe more vulnerable to sickness and when they and their mother cannot contribute to the income of the family. The more money earners compared to mouths to feed the better of course. Whatever reasons why some people have made it where others have not there are little doubt by this case that some have been able to capitalize on others misfortune.
It is also difficult to say how common it is to have more than one plot. We did not hear of any other cases of people owning several plots, but owning one extra plot does not seem to be uncommon. This can often be seen while going around in the village and we also talked to or heard about many people who had one more plot. It is easy to spot as many of these are combined into one with fences around, or where there are no demarcations between the previous plots and they are obviously being used by the same owner. For instance one part with a house on it and the other part being used to grow things on. The main reason for acquiring land was the same as always of the neighbour getting indebted or meeting such a big problem that they had to sell.
Examples of land acquiring by outsiders
There are obviously many families now living in the village that were not among the original beneficiaries. We only got to speak with a few. (Int 16) One man had gotten his plot through a previous working companion whose wife got sick and then he pawned his land for 40 000 b at 10 % interest. The contract had said that if the debtor could not pay back the money he would lose his land. The buyer was however not able to get the formal title as the former owner had not been eligible to get one since he had broken the regulations like not paying the 50 b a month. Getting a temporary title from the district authorities he had heard would cost 8000 b, so because of this he has to live on the plot with the transfer document as the proof of his ownership. This document had the deputy village chief as a witness together with two more, probably neighbours, who all provided their fingerprints. Because of the death of the deputy he told us he is not 100 % confident of his document and he will have to await the decision from the local authorities if he has to pay more money or not. This was his own speculation. However, he thinks that he is not alone to be in this situation as there are maybe 300-400 cases similar to his in the village where the old have sold and new ones have arrived.
In another plot, the family we talked to were now the third owners and had paid 80 000 b from the previous owner. The husband in the family had bought the plot for his mother, but the transfer document was in his son name. It is only his mother who is going to live in the house, because he and his family also have land in Poipet. He has only the transfer documents which are signed by the village chief and cluster chief. Like other families we also talked to he said that he did not have to pay for making the transfer document just giving the facilitators some packages of cigarettes. When asked about if he was going to get himself an official title he said that it was too expensive, maybe about 2000 $. Even if he did not know the exact amount other people thought that a formal title would cost up to 1500 $. The village chief thought for instance that it would cost about 1300 $. This is of course an unrealistic amount of money not only for poor people, but even if it sounds unlikely these kinds of costs for registration of property have also been documented in other developing countries (de Soto 2001). As shown in the appendix, the road to formalisation is a long one.
Another aspect with the land transferring is to which degree the obligatory tax fee on 4 % is being paid (Chan and Sarthi 2002). Of course in general in a country where almost all land being transferred is of the informal kind not much tax is being paid. The tax can also in some cases be a reason for why people try to avoid more formal procedures and so they for instance get local authorities to change the name on their receipts for a small fee instead of going to the land management (So et al. 2001). The man in the latter example above also did not pay any tax and there is not any reason to think that others who have bought land in the village have done it either. First of all the people who sold them the land did not own it in the first place, but it would also have been interesting to see what happens to the formal plots when they are being transferred in the future. Then they should be obliged to pay the 4 % transferring tax of the selling sum unless they are not actively trying to avoid it. In total, the country is missing out of quite a lot of revenue and also it shows that it does not help just issuing the titles. If the procedure does not get improved and people still have to pay off the bureaucracy they will still try to avoid the formal arrangements and the previous formal titled properties will after a while get their status deteriorated because of land transactions and sub-dividing.
7.1.3 Information for acquiring land
Generally it seems that a common way of acquiring plots in the village is through relatives. Many of the outsiders who have bought their land in PT have done it through information they received from their relatives who already lives there. At least this is what the people living in PT seemed to think was the reason. In that regard the inside families will also be the ones who have the best information about the living conditions of their neighbours so then they also can tell relatives of neighbours who need a loan or maybe want to sell their plot. As a woman (49) told us: When some of the original families have rich relatives and they hear of poor people who want to sell their land they inform them so that they can come and buy it.
But PT being the largest village in Cambodia situated right outside Poipet, a place with a lot of economic activity going on, not least related to land investments it seems, the information of the village as a good place to buy land should not be difficult to obtain. As mentioned from this research it is not possible to tell if there are active land speculators in the area or just small scale operators, and therefore we do not have much data on how these are getting their information either, but as mentioned it should not be to difficult also considered how many of the inhabitants who are working at the border or in the markets in Poipet.
We asked also the informants about if someone had tried to buy their plot. A few said yes, but several answered that no one had come and asked because the land was not for sale. If they wanted to sell they would not have a problem of finding a buyer. So it might seem like the land acquiring is primarily being done by people themselves letting out the news.
7.1.4 Sub-dividing
It is difficult to say if there has been a large degree of sub-dividing of plots. When it comes to combination of plots it is easier to see as these often will be enclosed by a fence. In a few places we could see that one plot was divided into two parts with a fence. However, for the most cases we got to know the new plot was not marked with any boundaries and often only one half of the original plot was being used for living on. On some plots there are also more than one house. As mentioned it is common for several families to be living on the same plot, especially relatives. This does not mean that the original beneficiaries necessarily have sold parts of their plot, but it is probably not that uncommon either.
A case study on sub-dividing:
Run Sean (55) a widower from before she received her plot lives on her plot together with two of her children who goes to school. Her third child has gotten married and lives elsewhere. Her income she derives from picking leafs and vegetables to sell at the market. She makes about 20-30 b a day. Sometimes she can make 50 b. Sometimes her children go and work other places and receive food there and sometimes they go and eat with other people.
She has 6000 b in debt to another villager and owes now 4000 b in interest. If she didn’t pay back within a year she would lose her land. This got settled in a contract signed by the cluster chief and now the family has to move in June. This is her part of the plot. She showed us the contract which had the fingerprints of the moneylenders (husband and wife) and hers and her daughter. The cluster chief had given his signature as a witness.
The other half of the plot she had given away for her daughter to live on. But when her daughter had complications during giving birth Run Sean had to borrow money, altogether 5000 b. This was to another moneylender. She signed a contract which provided the private moneylender with her temporary land title. After this her daughter had moved to go and work in Thailand and now no one was living there.
This is probably not a unique case. For people who get indebted with smaller loans they are not enabled to pay down, to sell half their plot would be a way to part with the loan and still have land left to live on. In this case the original beneficiary in the end lost the whole plot and as a result the plot is now divided into two parts neither eligible for a formal title and where only one creditor has the temporary land title. This land transferring had been facilitated by the cluster chief something which seems to be not uncommon. If this continues however it makes the property ownership in PT not more formal than many other places.
However, because of the already small size of the plots (15x20 m) it is limited how much the plots can be divided. Also since the pattern is that more affluent people slowly are taking over the village on behalf of the poor ones, this might indicate that the degree of ownership structure will not deteriorate so much more in the future as these families will build more solid houses and have the means to at least obtain some form of semi-officially ownership document that is a more solid proof than a cluster chiefs signature.
It would also be interesting to see what happens with the temporary land titles which many of the new owners now are sitting on. If they are going to be used as proof of ownership names have to be changed or these documents have to be used to get a more formal title with the blessings of the authorities.
7.2 Prachea Thom in the years to come
It seems thus likely from the cases of land transfers above and the main reasons behind them that this land transferring is going to continue as long as families are living from hand to mouth on an asset who can help them in case of an emergency. For the ones who are making the formal title but still live on small economic margins they will, however, probably be better off than before because of the increased access to credit possibilities and also by a possible increase in the value of their plot.
When the village authorities and villagers were asked about how they thought the village would develop in the years to come the answers were mostly indicating the same pattern as has been indicated above. As the VDC leader Mr. Sombat (54) said:
After the villagers receive their title the area will change from huts to buildings because villagers will sell to people with more money. For poor people it’s hopeless to stay because of their living conditions. It is not a problem to move far for the villagers. Because of the policy situation in Cambodia it is easy to sell a plot and move. People will move to a place were they can get a job.
The most common answer to the question was that poor people would leave and more affluent people would buy and after a while build houses of more permanent structure like concrete. When we visited the village there where many concrete houses already and also quite a lot of building activity. Many of these were owned by the original beneficiaries, but the impression was also that these types of houses often were built by newcomers to the village. And most of the outsiders we talked to had a house of concrete. These houses can vary from pretty basic concrete houses, to more expensive ones, for instance partly covered by coloured tiles both on the outside and inside.
There are also a lot of plots lying empty in the village. At every line it seemed that at least a couple of plots were lying empty, or at least with no house on it. From the research in 2003 it was clear that 28 plots had been abandoned so this cannot be an important reason for all these empty plots. A guess would be that most of them has a new owner already, but who stays absent for whatever reasons. Maybe the building activity is going to catch up after the formal titles have been delivered or maybe this is going at a slower pace, but the plots will probably not be staying empty forever.
The rate of land transferring is impossible to predict out of this study. It seemed to be very different between some areas in how many who already had sold their land. In some places we were told that most families had sold their plot in other areas not so many had sold. However, in most of the interviews, we got to know of at least some people nearby that had sold their plot or lost it through debt.
Most people therefore predicted that the village would improve over the years as the poor moved out and people with more money moved in. Also some mentioned future plans of making Poipet a city which and thought that this would also benefit Prachea Thom. Others said however that they thought the improvements in the village would go slower when NPA pulled out and also there were made complaints about the newcomers to the village not knowing about the village regulations and therefore did not care about littering for instance. Still, the overall impression we got from the villagers and their authorities was that the village is going to change in the future with the bamboo houses giving in for concrete and that it is dubious that it will be the same people living there then as now.
7.3 Concluding remarks
NPA when giving out the plots in the initial phase gave information about the value of having a formal title and that people should not sell but keep their plot in order to at least capitalize on the increasing value these plots would get. The informants seemed also to be aware that a title is important and that it also would increase the value of their land. But as many cases showed, when meeting a crisis pawning or selling the land can be seemed as inevitable. However it is not sure that all people are aware of the real value of their plot and also even if they are the circumstances can make them vulnerable for other people to take advantage of their situation. Like one woman (36) told us: People from Poipet wanted to buy my plot for 60 000 b. Because my husband got into a fight at work we had to sell half our land in order to pay compensation. But when I needed to sell my other half I only got 12 000 b from another villager here in PT. I’m very upset by it.
Because of the nature of many of the land sales, like distress sales or forced sales through debts, it seems like many of the poor people transferring their land to others are not getting what their land is really worth. Some of the informants pointed out poor people’s living conditions as a way for other people to acquire land cheaply and that people also were speculating on giving high interest loans in order to take over their land. It seems, however, difficult to prevent people from selling their land. And also it can be perceived as unavoidable face to face with an emergency.
7.3.1 PT as social land concession
These kinds of problems of losing land through distress sales or indebtedness from health problems or other reasons have not only been documented in PT, but also have been documented in other studies elsewhere in the country. In PT however this is in the context of a social land concession. This is a resettlement village which land has been provided by the government for helping poor people squatting in Poipet to a better place to live. Even though it also came into place as an answer to an emergency when an epidemic of cholera had broken out and got facilitated by NPA who have covered most of the costs except the land itself. This village is not under the social land concession law, but has been implemented largely in accordance with it. For example are the regulations fitting to the ones in the social land concession law. As far as we have gotten to know by now the law of social land concession have not been brought into practice, but hopefully it will in the not too far future and then PT could be a case of experience.
With regards to the overall number of original families who are going to get their formal title, it will have to be asked if this is satisfactory. To ensure that every family are following the regulations seems however as an overwhelming task. The findings in this report would however point to the many families who are losing their land through reasons of poverty as a major obstacle to overcome. It can be seen as a problem that the resources that was being used for making the village a good place to live in, combined with the location close to Poipet, have made it also a good place for making land investments. The main problem is that this started to happen before the titles had been issued and so the original beneficiaries did not get even the benefit of an increasing price. What is worse is that it seems like many have lost their land for amounts of money that are far below what the plots seems to be worth. For many it is mainly interest that is being calculated into the final selling price being mentioned.
Not being said that people have not benefited from the process. In the interviews people were very grateful and even though for some it became very temporary at least they had something that gave them a one time benefit in some kind or another. The other side of the coin is that the resources being put into the resettlement village are then in many cases being taken advantage of by other people who have exploited the people this project was meant to benefit. This seems not to go well together with social land concession.
The obstacle to be overcome is then 1) how to prevent people from getting into the situation were they have to take high interest loans and 2) how to prevent moneylenders to acquire the land meant to benefit the poor.
For the first problem it has been mentioned that many are losing their land through taking high interest loans. It seems that without a formal title even if people have access to credit in a bank like the VB they still have to take these kinds of loans when meeting a crisis. Some indications were given that with a formal title this could be easier, but this is yet to be proven. These high interest loans are often related to issues like health. Some kind of credit access directed to this problem would then seem to improve the families’ chances of keeping their land during these kinds of hardship. One way could be through an equity fund. More to come… Shall get some research results from a friend of Marc’s who said that these funds have targeted this problem with success.
For the second problem it seems like an issue that could be dealt with within the laws and regulations that already exists. But in our interviews with village authorities, cluster chiefs and one of the commune council members it seemed that their opinion was that so long as the two involved parties agreed on the land transferring through a contract, this made it their problem and not for authorities to be interfering with. Another commune council member said however that the private moneylenders anyway break the business law which should in the first place make such a contract eligible for scrutiny. The land law is quite clear as well on the ability for creditors to take the land of their debtors. A creditor can never become the owner of a piece of land even though he might have the right to cause a sale of the property to recover his debt. Anyway, for the latter to take effect a contract has to be made before the competent authority (that is not the cluster chief) and then be registered with the cadastral administrative body. Finally, these transactions that have been taking place in PT seem all to have been made on a false foundation. Before the original beneficiaries receive their formal title to the plot they can be seen to have a right to their plot of land, but this is only a right which can be taken away from them if they do not follow the regulations that has been set up. As we have seen many of the original beneficiaries have lost this right to the formal title and will not receive it. This happened both before and after the temporary title had been given away. The authority to decide whether families are eligible for the formal title or not, is the WG. This means that before the families receive their title they do not own the land and they cannot therefore engage in legally binding contracts of transferring for this is officially still government land. The government should therefore also be able to take back the land from the people who have acquired it. The original beneficiaries have then lost their right to the land of course, but the new owners do not seem to have any right to it either.
The point then is that it seems that the government has both the right and sufficient reasons to do something about this situation. In theory they could take the land back and give it either back to the people who lost it for an unreasonable price or reallocate it to someone else who are filling the criteria for social land concession. To let land speculators have it seems not like a good idea as it undermines the very purpose and idea of social land concession. Also land speculation can also be seen as a reason to some of the land problems in Cambodia in the first place, like also stated in So et al (2001).
But this is a bit more complicated than just a question of enforcement if transferred to other resettlement villages. For instance if this was to be enforced, the possibility for getting loans from private moneylenders would probably be less and then other credit possibilities would have to be available, or else people would be in an even worse situation because their plot would only be of value as a place to live on. An alternative would maybe be to ensure that people who are transferring their land to others are getting a fair price from their plot. This would however be a kind of acceptance towards the breaking of the regulations and how it should be done is also another matter that will not be proposed here. Maybe a kind of village legal advisory service could be an asset in villages like this. At least then people would know where to get information if they wanted it.