Poipet town, in Banteay Meanchey district is the main official border crossing to Thailand for most of north-western Cambodia and much of the activity in the area is concentrated on the transfer of goods between the two countries. As an area of economic growth and perceived job opportunities Poipet has experienced fast population growth. In 1998 the population was estimated at 41 000 people where among them around 25 000 were landless poor people living in squatter areas. Many of these were people who had to leave their homes during the civil war which lasted from 1979 to 1993 and on returning found out that their land had been occupied by others in the time of their absence. Other people can be categorized as internal economical migrants as their land could not support their living conditions. These people came gradually to the Poipet border area after the 1993 national election and also many are still continuing to arrive. In 2003 the estimate of the total population had risen to about 77 000.
In 1998 there was a particular severe outbreak of cholera within the slum settlements and the district and provincial authorities called for assistance from the NGOs working in the area to help solve these problems. NPA reacted to this and together with ZOA worked out a plan for moving the poorest of the inhabitants from the slum and to a new village site.
The land allocated from the district authorities was sufficient for resettling 2000 families. This was 116 hectares situated about 4 km outside Poipet centre. The families were selected by interviews among the almost 5000 families living in the squatter areas. The initial criteria were families who had been living for at least three years in Poipet, poor families who comprised over 5 dependents and families whose daily income was less then 100 b. After these criteria’s 1674 families were selected. The rest were selected through the prioritization of disabled, widowed and elderly people, and the selection of very poor families with up to three family members or those who had lived for over one year in Poipet. Altogether 1998 families were selected and volunteered to come and live in the resettlement area.
There were arranged several meetings where the process of resettlement were outlined and the regulations of the village was explained. These regulations had to be followed for the families to be eligible for a temporary land title after three years of living in the village and a formal one after 5 years of living there. They also had to contribute 50 b a month to a community fund during the first three years. This was agreed upon by the villagers by signing a contract. The regulations included rules against selling, pawning or renting out the plots of land without prior permission from the Resettlement Working Group (WG) and different rules about keeping the property and common grounds in order. The WG was a group comprising members of the village and local authorities that was set up in order to manage the process together with the NPA.
Each family was provided with their plot of land by lottery, each in the size of 15 x 20 metres. They were also donated some materials and tools to build their homes with. The village was divided in to 10 clusters comprising 200 plots of land. In each cluster there were elected a cluster chief responsible for the administration of the cluster under the leadership of the village chief. The clusters were also organised into groups of 25 families, each with one group leader. Representing the villagers and consisting of the cluster chiefs and elected representatives was the Village Development Committee (VDC).
From August 2001 to March 2002, NPA and the WG issued temporary land titles to 1837 families. 161 plots did not receive the temporary title because the families had either failed to take up residence, had abandoned, pawned or sold their plots, or other families had been found to live on the land. These 161 plots were supposed to be dealt with by the WG but this did not happen because, among them, of lack of capacity with the WG.
2.1 The study on population movement
In 2003, NPA worked with the WG to monitor and evaluate the land use and living conditions in Prachea Thom in according to the 12 articles in the community regulations. This was with the intention of preparing full land titles to those families who had complied with the above requirements. The resulting survey showed that only 831 families of the original 1998 had fulfilled their obligations.
Among the objectives of Theam Rithy’s study which were conducted by fieldwork in Prachea Thom during May to July 2003 was to assess the living conditions of families within the resettlement site to determine whether differences in these conditions could be a factor in encouraging some people to leave the resettlement and others to stay. The report you are about to read now can be said to follow up some of the issues that Theam Rithy discovered with his research so a brief summary of his main findings can be in place.
There can be said to be different reasons for why so many families weren’t able to fulfil their obligations, but most of them are related to problems of lacking job opportunities, low salaries, no savings and ill health. Some of the key points relating to people breaking the regulations can be summarized as the following:
As a result of these findings it was felt that some of the families living in Prachea Thom village had been forced to break the regulations as a consequence of poverty and not because of lack of will. Together with the Provincial Department of Land Use Management and Urban Planning (LUMUP), NPA and the WG decided to review the situation of some of the families who had violated some of the regulations. The entitlement of these families would apply if they were listed as the original beneficiaries, if they possessed the temporary land title, and if they stayed on their land. No allowances would be given to the families who had abandoned or sold their plots. As a result of this second appraisal, 1407 families were deemed to be eligible for the permanent land title.
In 1998 there was a particular severe outbreak of cholera within the slum settlements and the district and provincial authorities called for assistance from the NGOs working in the area to help solve these problems. NPA reacted to this and together with ZOA worked out a plan for moving the poorest of the inhabitants from the slum and to a new village site.
The land allocated from the district authorities was sufficient for resettling 2000 families. This was 116 hectares situated about 4 km outside Poipet centre. The families were selected by interviews among the almost 5000 families living in the squatter areas. The initial criteria were families who had been living for at least three years in Poipet, poor families who comprised over 5 dependents and families whose daily income was less then 100 b. After these criteria’s 1674 families were selected. The rest were selected through the prioritization of disabled, widowed and elderly people, and the selection of very poor families with up to three family members or those who had lived for over one year in Poipet. Altogether 1998 families were selected and volunteered to come and live in the resettlement area.
There were arranged several meetings where the process of resettlement were outlined and the regulations of the village was explained. These regulations had to be followed for the families to be eligible for a temporary land title after three years of living in the village and a formal one after 5 years of living there. They also had to contribute 50 b a month to a community fund during the first three years. This was agreed upon by the villagers by signing a contract. The regulations included rules against selling, pawning or renting out the plots of land without prior permission from the Resettlement Working Group (WG) and different rules about keeping the property and common grounds in order. The WG was a group comprising members of the village and local authorities that was set up in order to manage the process together with the NPA.
Each family was provided with their plot of land by lottery, each in the size of 15 x 20 metres. They were also donated some materials and tools to build their homes with. The village was divided in to 10 clusters comprising 200 plots of land. In each cluster there were elected a cluster chief responsible for the administration of the cluster under the leadership of the village chief. The clusters were also organised into groups of 25 families, each with one group leader. Representing the villagers and consisting of the cluster chiefs and elected representatives was the Village Development Committee (VDC).
From August 2001 to March 2002, NPA and the WG issued temporary land titles to 1837 families. 161 plots did not receive the temporary title because the families had either failed to take up residence, had abandoned, pawned or sold their plots, or other families had been found to live on the land. These 161 plots were supposed to be dealt with by the WG but this did not happen because, among them, of lack of capacity with the WG.
2.1 The study on population movement
In 2003, NPA worked with the WG to monitor and evaluate the land use and living conditions in Prachea Thom in according to the 12 articles in the community regulations. This was with the intention of preparing full land titles to those families who had complied with the above requirements. The resulting survey showed that only 831 families of the original 1998 had fulfilled their obligations.
Among the objectives of Theam Rithy’s study which were conducted by fieldwork in Prachea Thom during May to July 2003 was to assess the living conditions of families within the resettlement site to determine whether differences in these conditions could be a factor in encouraging some people to leave the resettlement and others to stay. The report you are about to read now can be said to follow up some of the issues that Theam Rithy discovered with his research so a brief summary of his main findings can be in place.
There can be said to be different reasons for why so many families weren’t able to fulfil their obligations, but most of them are related to problems of lacking job opportunities, low salaries, no savings and ill health. Some of the key points relating to people breaking the regulations can be summarized as the following:
- Respondents said that they had left Prachea Thom because of poverty, no job or an unstable job, transportation expenses and the monthly community fund payment.
- The inadequacy of income coupled with illness and high-interest rates on loans meant that many families found themselves unable to comply with the village regulations.
- Some families did not sell or pawn their land, but simply abandoned it because they could not find work and they had no farming land. These families had moved on to other places in search of work and more land. Some of those who had returned to Poipet did come back once in a while to check on their land.
- Poor health and illness are key factors that push people into debt and thus into pawning or selling their land.
- Some families did maintain land elsewhere in the country and some families returned to this land after failing to make a good living in Poipet.
- Some of the land speculators who bought land in PT were aware of the NPA commitment to provide land titles to the original families and so allowed these families to stay on the land until they have gained their title. This title will then be provided to the new land owner and the value of the land will rise as a result.
- Some families no longer occupy plots of land because of their involvement in crime, or because they have accumulated debts through gambling, alcoholism or drug addiction.
As a result of these findings it was felt that some of the families living in Prachea Thom village had been forced to break the regulations as a consequence of poverty and not because of lack of will. Together with the Provincial Department of Land Use Management and Urban Planning (LUMUP), NPA and the WG decided to review the situation of some of the families who had violated some of the regulations. The entitlement of these families would apply if they were listed as the original beneficiaries, if they possessed the temporary land title, and if they stayed on their land. No allowances would be given to the families who had abandoned or sold their plots. As a result of this second appraisal, 1407 families were deemed to be eligible for the permanent land title.