One of the main objectives with this study was to investigate what the opinions of the villagers were on having a formal land title. As has been mentioned in the introductory sections of the study, different opinions about the importance of and what a formal land title can be used to can be found not only by common people, but also among the ones who are specializing in the field of property and tenure rights. In our research we wanted to get to know what kind a difference a formal title would make compared to a temporary title or in some cases no title at all. This could be in terms of feeling of security, but also what it could mean for them as a physical object. They were therefore asked such questions as to tell us about what kind of benefits, if any, such a title would bring the family and also if they had any special intentions with the formal title when they would receive it. If someone wasn’t going to get one he/she was still being asked what his/her opinion of such a title was. Beneath we have sorted out the different answers under some main headings.
6.1 Tenure security
All the informants were asked of their opinions of what kind of benefits a formal title could bring their family. The answer that got cited the most was that the formal title would secure the owners right to the plot. Several people said that this would reassure them that they could not be victims of land abuse like being chased away from their land. This has to be seen in the context of the land situation in Cambodia in general. Like one of the cluster chiefs said: Outside Prachea Thom land conflict is common and a plot of land often has two or three owners. The land title identifies the owners so no one can chase them away.
The possibility of losing their land was something many informants were concerned of and also one of the reasons why people were worried about the delay in the formal land title issuing. Land grabbing is a serious problem in Cambodia and poor people are especially vulnerable. A formal title is seen as a reassurance against this type of land abuse. Another respondent can illustrate the reason why some people do not trust other proofs of ownership. This was in 1995 when she still was living in her home province. We need a title because earlier I owned plots of land. I hired workers to clear the forest so that we had 5 plots. The land was distributed to me by the commune chief who took 100 b for one plot and I received a temporary title. At that time the commune council was changed and the new commune council didn’t know that the land had any owner. When another man wanted the land we got chased away. It didn’t help to have the temporary land title because the land management had issued him another title. He was of high rank and so he had soldiers to protect the land.
This sort of cases can be seemed as the reasons why people are concerned about having the formal title. Many of the original beneficiaries in PT have previously owned or occupied land which they at some point lost. For many this happened during the war when they were staying other places like at refugee camps. When they came back their land was already occupied by others and they had to move on. That is one of the reasons why dome of the people in PT ended up in Poipet.
As mentioned earlier to have a formal title is a rarity, but most have some kind of proof of their ownership to the land. The perceived necessity of having land certificates can also be different from place to place. So et al. (2001) points out that people may not value land certificates under specific conditions. For example in areas where subsistence farming still is continuing and where there is little demographic pressure on land, or little demand of land. These findings were however derived from studies conducted in rural areas. But people’s perception of the necessity of ownership proofs was also changed where the demand for land was increasing. This increased also the need for more formal institutions of land rights governance were this before maybe was settled in agreement with the neighbours and the local authorities and without more official certificates. Land titles are then getting in demand for their ability to reduce transaction costs, to clarify boundaries and confirming ownership for buyers, and to sub-divide property (So et al. 2001).
PT is actually the largest village in Cambodia and located close to Poipet which makes it different from the rural cases were land titles sometimes are not perceived as necessary. But as illustrated above by the woman who lost her land there is an important difference between what is perceived as a proof of a land right and a factual one. So et al. (2001) found that a common way in some of their research areas to facilitate land transaction is to get the local village or commune chief to change the names of the receipts for an unofficial fee. This practice cuts down both official and unofficial costs and reduces the time and process with bothersome officials. The problem can arise however when there is interface with external agents and unwritten laws are being ignored by the written. Even if the woman above had a receipt signed by the previous commune chief this document had not been registered with the land management office and so it was not worth anything when a more influential person wanted the same land. This shows how important it can be with official recognition of an ownership. At the same time it shows also that what is official enough also depends on the situation and not least is a power issue. Probably this woman thought that this signature was sufficient enough and most likely it would have been, if the other land claim had not come from a person with superior purchasing power and connections. For her to get the right documents at the district level would probably be too much of a hassle and too expensive. To get a formal title with the whole procedure that involves makes it a non-option for common people. Only people with money in the cities or where there is an active land market and commercial interests are then making the formal title. So it is no wonder why these titles are being so requested in PT, for these are titles that are reserved for only a few in the society and in this case people get them for free.
It also shows that PT is a special case when it comes to the land titling process and can therefore only be used as an example provided that the conditions for the village is clearly provided. With regards to tenure security for instance, none of the informants in the research had been in a land dispute or even heard about one since they came to the village. In the cases of people losing their land to moneylenders this can maybe in some cases be classified as land disputes, but the issue with these cases is that in most instances the losing part seems to not be able to make much resistance because they have signed a contract and also will not get all the money they are entitled to before they either have left the land or provided the new land owner with the formal title. PT then is different from other places where titling processes are being done because it is a village made from scratch without any previous ownership to the land. In this setting it is kind of obvious that people do want their formal property title since this also have been a right for them provided that they upheld the regulations. Also because of the location of the village which is situated next to Poipet town a perceived economic growth area there is bound to be demand for the land and so the formal title will be the ultimate proof of ownership. In most other cases involving poor in titling programs the cases are more complicated than this and there is often no NGO to facilitate the process. Certainly in PT NPA’s involvement has provided a feeling of security on the behalf of the villagers.
6.2 Financial gains
Several of the other benefits that the villagers thought the formal title would provide them with were related to some kind of financial gain that it could bring. It was mentioned that the title both would make it easier to sell the plot and also that it would increase the money value of it. Following the regulations it was not allowed to sell, pawn or rent out the plot without permission from the village authorities prior to the formalisation of the title, but still this had been done to quite a large degree according to Theam Rithy (2004). When asked to estimate the value of the plot many of the informants were not sure since they had not received an offer or made any attempt to sell it, but others seemed to have a good perception about what the value of the plot could be. Most of the answers ranged between 50 000-100 000 b which in a rough estimate becomes 1250-2500 $, but there were also mentioned prices from 30 000 up to 200 000 b.
These estimates have different credibility after on which basis they were derived from. Some just said an amount they thought seemed reasonable, others could give an estimate out of knowledge of for instance how much themselves or others had purchased it for or been offered. The location of the plot was anyway said to inflict on the price where the locations near a corner, the big road to Poipet, the market or the school for instance was seen as more lucrative locations. This might also be confirmed by the difference in housing types in different areas. In some areas there were higher frequencies of concrete buildings which can be an indication that these had been sold to other people and thereby also be an indication of their more popular location. That outsiders often built concrete houses was also confirmed by the informants. As mentioned, an increase in the land price was cited by some to be one of the benefits of the formal title. Most of the informants believed that the value of the plot would increase when they would receive their title even though most thought it was difficult to make an estimate on how much. The difference in the perceived prices of the plots might also show some of the imperfections in the land market where the information of the value of the plots can be very different from person to person. This may not only derive from the different locations, but can also bee a result of difference in knowledge. With poor people perhaps not being aware of their plots’ value this could make a good opportunity for land buyers or speculators to make some good money.
6.2.1 Land title as insurance
There were also other perceived benefits of the formal title that was related to financial aspects of a formal title. The possibility of pawning (or selling) and getting loans on the title was cited by several. This option was mentioned as especially important with regards to the possibility of the family meeting problems like an emergency. Many families said that they would not take a loan unless they received problems which made them do it, but being able to take the loan or to pawn the title was seen as an important option. In a country without other security nets other than what families can provide by themselves or with the help from relatives and friends, having land can be seen as an asset not only to be living on but also as a form of insurance. Obviously, many have already used their plot in this regard without having the formal title, but this only gives support to the importance of this function of a formal land title. With a formal title, informants said that they could get more money through pawning or selling and they could provide the title to the bank and not to the private moneylender. Even though one respondent said that with the title he would receive even better interest rate with a private moneylender than in formal institutions. The reason to the high interest rates was according to him that on the temporary land title it says that it cannot be pawned or sold. So then the moneylenders wanted a higher interest rate.
But in our interviews wanting the formal title to get loan from a private moneylender is more like the exception that can be said to confirm the rule. Most people would prefer to get credit in formal institutions. It seems that since the Village Bank came to provide their credit services in PT in 2005, many have used this option. The reason is simple, when private moneylenders often take interest rates up to 20-30 %, the VB take 3 %. They can also provide this credit without the formal land title as collateral since the villagers have to make an insurance group consisting of 3 persons all taking a loan. Also their credibility is being checked during an interview and the village chief and cluster chief needs to be witnesses. The payback time is 10 months and if one of the members of the insurance group cannot meet his/hers payment the others have to step in. In according to a cluster chief (#3) the first time people can only get a loan up to 10 000 b. This has to be repaid before they can receive another one. Then they can get loans up to 20 000-50 000 b. This was also confirmed by other interviews even though we did not speak with VB ourselves. The cluster chief also said that before the VB started providing loans in the village more people took loans with the private moneylenders. However, taking loan in the VB requires a certain procedure which takes some time and also not everyone are eligible for getting a loan, so in emergency situations people still have to go to the private moneylenders.
Of emergency situations sickness and health was cited most frequently, but there were also other reasons. A woman (58) who sold cakes as a living had to take a loan from a neighbour: I borrowed 5000 b from the VB 7 months ago. This I will repay in the next couple of months. Since I already had a loan I couldn’t take another when we had a financial crisis. So I had to borrow from the neighbour two months ago. The first time I borrowed 500 b for getting cake ingredients and another time we met a food shortage. Now I have 3000 b in debt to them and pay 30 % interest. We can only afford paying back the interest.
This was not the only family who had to pay on two loans. But in some cases families took loan in the VB in order to pay back their other loan or were planning to do it. One problem mentioned about the formal institutions was that they required you to pay on time. With the private moneylenders you could postpone the payment. However, this seems to be very different from case to case. Private moneylenders can be of different sorts from relatives and friends to professionals, and also the criteria’s they set for the loans are different. This man paid for instance only 5 % interest which can be seen as more of a favour compared to other moneylenders taking 20-30 % without even blinking. But still private moneylenders might be more flexible in general than the formal institutions.
6.2.2 Land title for investments
It is generally very different if families want loans or not. Only a few families had never had a loan, but also these could not exclude the possibility of having to take a loan in the future. The most common reason why people seems reluctant to take a loan is their ability to pay it back, although some just did not want to take one even if it seemed that they could afford a loan in an official institution. Other important reasons for taking loans or wanting to take one could be to invest in business, to build a house or to pay down another loan. The main reason for why people had to take loan with private moneylenders was however because of health problems, especially sickness. A woman (44) said: Before I had debt, but it’s repaid. I took a loan on 700 $ to make business at 8 % interest. To repay the loan I had to sell the land I lived on then. (...) Now my husband drives a moto, but we have to rent it from the neighbours for 100 b a day. When we get the title I want to use it to get a loan to buy a moto so we don’t have to rent.
This can illustrate both the reasons behind the reluctance of many to take a loan even if the interest is not as high as it could have been with private moneylenders. Also it shows that to get a loan often is the only way to get capital in order to start a business or improve their livelihoods in any way especially since in PT there are many families who do not have the ability to save enough money to make such investments. Even if the formal title is not necessary for making a loan in the VB the procedures required makes it difficult to get money fast or if you are alone. One woman (48) (int 26) said that she wanted to take a loan to build a house on her plot but since she did not have an insurance group she would have to wait until she got the formal title. She also heard that other institutions like ACLEDA bank provided bigger loans than the VB but that this required the formal title. Others said that with a formal title you could get money faster than through a bank like the VB who seems to specialise in smaller loans.
When the informants were asked if they had heard about credit options available to them and if so, how, there were mixed responses. Some said that they did not know, but others had learned of it through family and friends or had learned of the VB because they had come to the village and given information. It seems that the VB has filled a necessary function in the village even if some is reluctant to use it and others have to use private moneylenders anyway. There were also intentions of using some of the 50 b which got collected each month to the community fund to serve a credit purpose and also help people being able to cover necessary costs as repair work and small scale emergencies. Because of problems that the community fund received, among them a lack of capability by families to pay the 50 b and other problems like the administration of the fund, the credit service never got into use. The money is now being spent on infrastructure instead. More can be read about the community fund in the study by Chak Sakheoun (2005). The demand for low interest credit is however obvious so such a mechanism would be en asset if it could be made sustainable through village funds. The collecting of the community fund payment has however stopped in PT since it was only a requirement the first three years.
6.3 Other benefits
Some women also mentioned the aspect of inheritance of the formal title as a main benefit of the formal title. For them the title is a guarantee that their children do get the same kind of secure tenure ship of the plot as themselves. The problem is that the land is not very big and the children can be plenty. So when the third generation comes there hopefully some of the children will have gotten land other places. On some plots there could be maybe two houses and even three. One plot we visited there were for instance 14 people living in one house and this is probably not uncommon and can be related to the increasing demand for land and also land which is close to where the job opportunities are. Subdividing of plots has already taken place in PT and since it is common to share a plot with relatives people have probably in some cases sold part of their plot to relatives as well. That being said, the formal land title can still be seemed as a kind of security. If their children will not find anything else at least they will have roof over their heads which belongs to them, instead of being completely landless. This is an important security since squatters can be chased away if the government does not want them there.
For the people with money one solution to the problem of housing for the future was to build a concrete house which stretched from the front of the plot all the way to the plot behind, but only covering half in width. This is cheaper than building a house covering the whole plot, but leaves the possibility of building another house in the future with the same size, or selling the plot if that is a preference.
Only one person mentioned the ability to go and work outside their home for longer periods as a main benefit which the formal title would bring, but other people mentioned the possibility as well. Without a doubt many have already chosen this solution and left for example relatives or others to live on their plot or take care of it. However, this has also turned out to be a problem in cases when the owner have not been present when the cluster chief or group leader came to collect their temporary land titles in the titling process. As mentioned this is one of the reasons why some people still have not been able to turn in their temporary title and therefore have to wait and see what will happen after the first ones have received theirs.
6.4 Concluding remarks
In PT most people were concerned about having their formal title. This can be related to the fact that they are getting it for free of course and also because of the overall land situation in Cambodia which makes people want the most secure proof of ownership they can. This is however restricted by the cost of acquiring it and so people get the proofs they think is “formal enough”. This means that outside of PT very few are having official certificates because the cost is too high and sometimes their proof shows to be not sufficient at all. The answers most cited were therefore that the formal title would be a guarantee of ownership that nobody could contest and therefore would give the beneficiaries relief about their tenure ship for the future.
The formal title was also perceived to give financial gains. Both in terms of how the title would affect the value of the plot, but more importantly that the title would be an insurance in case of future problems as it was then thought to bring easier access to credit and also better terms. Other reasons for taking loans could be for business purposes or improving the house. But quite a few people seemed reluctant about taking loans other than those strictly necessary. Whatever the interest rate the loan still has to be repaid and in times of insecure income a low interest loan can be quite a burden. However, for people without the ability to save money credit access is still crucial to get capital for business purposes and the VB seems to have filled an important role in that respect as many had taken this kind of loan. So how people will use their title when they finally receive it is still a question to be answered.
6.1 Tenure security
All the informants were asked of their opinions of what kind of benefits a formal title could bring their family. The answer that got cited the most was that the formal title would secure the owners right to the plot. Several people said that this would reassure them that they could not be victims of land abuse like being chased away from their land. This has to be seen in the context of the land situation in Cambodia in general. Like one of the cluster chiefs said: Outside Prachea Thom land conflict is common and a plot of land often has two or three owners. The land title identifies the owners so no one can chase them away.
The possibility of losing their land was something many informants were concerned of and also one of the reasons why people were worried about the delay in the formal land title issuing. Land grabbing is a serious problem in Cambodia and poor people are especially vulnerable. A formal title is seen as a reassurance against this type of land abuse. Another respondent can illustrate the reason why some people do not trust other proofs of ownership. This was in 1995 when she still was living in her home province. We need a title because earlier I owned plots of land. I hired workers to clear the forest so that we had 5 plots. The land was distributed to me by the commune chief who took 100 b for one plot and I received a temporary title. At that time the commune council was changed and the new commune council didn’t know that the land had any owner. When another man wanted the land we got chased away. It didn’t help to have the temporary land title because the land management had issued him another title. He was of high rank and so he had soldiers to protect the land.
This sort of cases can be seemed as the reasons why people are concerned about having the formal title. Many of the original beneficiaries in PT have previously owned or occupied land which they at some point lost. For many this happened during the war when they were staying other places like at refugee camps. When they came back their land was already occupied by others and they had to move on. That is one of the reasons why dome of the people in PT ended up in Poipet.
As mentioned earlier to have a formal title is a rarity, but most have some kind of proof of their ownership to the land. The perceived necessity of having land certificates can also be different from place to place. So et al. (2001) points out that people may not value land certificates under specific conditions. For example in areas where subsistence farming still is continuing and where there is little demographic pressure on land, or little demand of land. These findings were however derived from studies conducted in rural areas. But people’s perception of the necessity of ownership proofs was also changed where the demand for land was increasing. This increased also the need for more formal institutions of land rights governance were this before maybe was settled in agreement with the neighbours and the local authorities and without more official certificates. Land titles are then getting in demand for their ability to reduce transaction costs, to clarify boundaries and confirming ownership for buyers, and to sub-divide property (So et al. 2001).
PT is actually the largest village in Cambodia and located close to Poipet which makes it different from the rural cases were land titles sometimes are not perceived as necessary. But as illustrated above by the woman who lost her land there is an important difference between what is perceived as a proof of a land right and a factual one. So et al. (2001) found that a common way in some of their research areas to facilitate land transaction is to get the local village or commune chief to change the names of the receipts for an unofficial fee. This practice cuts down both official and unofficial costs and reduces the time and process with bothersome officials. The problem can arise however when there is interface with external agents and unwritten laws are being ignored by the written. Even if the woman above had a receipt signed by the previous commune chief this document had not been registered with the land management office and so it was not worth anything when a more influential person wanted the same land. This shows how important it can be with official recognition of an ownership. At the same time it shows also that what is official enough also depends on the situation and not least is a power issue. Probably this woman thought that this signature was sufficient enough and most likely it would have been, if the other land claim had not come from a person with superior purchasing power and connections. For her to get the right documents at the district level would probably be too much of a hassle and too expensive. To get a formal title with the whole procedure that involves makes it a non-option for common people. Only people with money in the cities or where there is an active land market and commercial interests are then making the formal title. So it is no wonder why these titles are being so requested in PT, for these are titles that are reserved for only a few in the society and in this case people get them for free.
It also shows that PT is a special case when it comes to the land titling process and can therefore only be used as an example provided that the conditions for the village is clearly provided. With regards to tenure security for instance, none of the informants in the research had been in a land dispute or even heard about one since they came to the village. In the cases of people losing their land to moneylenders this can maybe in some cases be classified as land disputes, but the issue with these cases is that in most instances the losing part seems to not be able to make much resistance because they have signed a contract and also will not get all the money they are entitled to before they either have left the land or provided the new land owner with the formal title. PT then is different from other places where titling processes are being done because it is a village made from scratch without any previous ownership to the land. In this setting it is kind of obvious that people do want their formal property title since this also have been a right for them provided that they upheld the regulations. Also because of the location of the village which is situated next to Poipet town a perceived economic growth area there is bound to be demand for the land and so the formal title will be the ultimate proof of ownership. In most other cases involving poor in titling programs the cases are more complicated than this and there is often no NGO to facilitate the process. Certainly in PT NPA’s involvement has provided a feeling of security on the behalf of the villagers.
6.2 Financial gains
Several of the other benefits that the villagers thought the formal title would provide them with were related to some kind of financial gain that it could bring. It was mentioned that the title both would make it easier to sell the plot and also that it would increase the money value of it. Following the regulations it was not allowed to sell, pawn or rent out the plot without permission from the village authorities prior to the formalisation of the title, but still this had been done to quite a large degree according to Theam Rithy (2004). When asked to estimate the value of the plot many of the informants were not sure since they had not received an offer or made any attempt to sell it, but others seemed to have a good perception about what the value of the plot could be. Most of the answers ranged between 50 000-100 000 b which in a rough estimate becomes 1250-2500 $, but there were also mentioned prices from 30 000 up to 200 000 b.
These estimates have different credibility after on which basis they were derived from. Some just said an amount they thought seemed reasonable, others could give an estimate out of knowledge of for instance how much themselves or others had purchased it for or been offered. The location of the plot was anyway said to inflict on the price where the locations near a corner, the big road to Poipet, the market or the school for instance was seen as more lucrative locations. This might also be confirmed by the difference in housing types in different areas. In some areas there were higher frequencies of concrete buildings which can be an indication that these had been sold to other people and thereby also be an indication of their more popular location. That outsiders often built concrete houses was also confirmed by the informants. As mentioned, an increase in the land price was cited by some to be one of the benefits of the formal title. Most of the informants believed that the value of the plot would increase when they would receive their title even though most thought it was difficult to make an estimate on how much. The difference in the perceived prices of the plots might also show some of the imperfections in the land market where the information of the value of the plots can be very different from person to person. This may not only derive from the different locations, but can also bee a result of difference in knowledge. With poor people perhaps not being aware of their plots’ value this could make a good opportunity for land buyers or speculators to make some good money.
6.2.1 Land title as insurance
There were also other perceived benefits of the formal title that was related to financial aspects of a formal title. The possibility of pawning (or selling) and getting loans on the title was cited by several. This option was mentioned as especially important with regards to the possibility of the family meeting problems like an emergency. Many families said that they would not take a loan unless they received problems which made them do it, but being able to take the loan or to pawn the title was seen as an important option. In a country without other security nets other than what families can provide by themselves or with the help from relatives and friends, having land can be seen as an asset not only to be living on but also as a form of insurance. Obviously, many have already used their plot in this regard without having the formal title, but this only gives support to the importance of this function of a formal land title. With a formal title, informants said that they could get more money through pawning or selling and they could provide the title to the bank and not to the private moneylender. Even though one respondent said that with the title he would receive even better interest rate with a private moneylender than in formal institutions. The reason to the high interest rates was according to him that on the temporary land title it says that it cannot be pawned or sold. So then the moneylenders wanted a higher interest rate.
But in our interviews wanting the formal title to get loan from a private moneylender is more like the exception that can be said to confirm the rule. Most people would prefer to get credit in formal institutions. It seems that since the Village Bank came to provide their credit services in PT in 2005, many have used this option. The reason is simple, when private moneylenders often take interest rates up to 20-30 %, the VB take 3 %. They can also provide this credit without the formal land title as collateral since the villagers have to make an insurance group consisting of 3 persons all taking a loan. Also their credibility is being checked during an interview and the village chief and cluster chief needs to be witnesses. The payback time is 10 months and if one of the members of the insurance group cannot meet his/hers payment the others have to step in. In according to a cluster chief (#3) the first time people can only get a loan up to 10 000 b. This has to be repaid before they can receive another one. Then they can get loans up to 20 000-50 000 b. This was also confirmed by other interviews even though we did not speak with VB ourselves. The cluster chief also said that before the VB started providing loans in the village more people took loans with the private moneylenders. However, taking loan in the VB requires a certain procedure which takes some time and also not everyone are eligible for getting a loan, so in emergency situations people still have to go to the private moneylenders.
Of emergency situations sickness and health was cited most frequently, but there were also other reasons. A woman (58) who sold cakes as a living had to take a loan from a neighbour: I borrowed 5000 b from the VB 7 months ago. This I will repay in the next couple of months. Since I already had a loan I couldn’t take another when we had a financial crisis. So I had to borrow from the neighbour two months ago. The first time I borrowed 500 b for getting cake ingredients and another time we met a food shortage. Now I have 3000 b in debt to them and pay 30 % interest. We can only afford paying back the interest.
This was not the only family who had to pay on two loans. But in some cases families took loan in the VB in order to pay back their other loan or were planning to do it. One problem mentioned about the formal institutions was that they required you to pay on time. With the private moneylenders you could postpone the payment. However, this seems to be very different from case to case. Private moneylenders can be of different sorts from relatives and friends to professionals, and also the criteria’s they set for the loans are different. This man paid for instance only 5 % interest which can be seen as more of a favour compared to other moneylenders taking 20-30 % without even blinking. But still private moneylenders might be more flexible in general than the formal institutions.
6.2.2 Land title for investments
It is generally very different if families want loans or not. Only a few families had never had a loan, but also these could not exclude the possibility of having to take a loan in the future. The most common reason why people seems reluctant to take a loan is their ability to pay it back, although some just did not want to take one even if it seemed that they could afford a loan in an official institution. Other important reasons for taking loans or wanting to take one could be to invest in business, to build a house or to pay down another loan. The main reason for why people had to take loan with private moneylenders was however because of health problems, especially sickness. A woman (44) said: Before I had debt, but it’s repaid. I took a loan on 700 $ to make business at 8 % interest. To repay the loan I had to sell the land I lived on then. (...) Now my husband drives a moto, but we have to rent it from the neighbours for 100 b a day. When we get the title I want to use it to get a loan to buy a moto so we don’t have to rent.
This can illustrate both the reasons behind the reluctance of many to take a loan even if the interest is not as high as it could have been with private moneylenders. Also it shows that to get a loan often is the only way to get capital in order to start a business or improve their livelihoods in any way especially since in PT there are many families who do not have the ability to save enough money to make such investments. Even if the formal title is not necessary for making a loan in the VB the procedures required makes it difficult to get money fast or if you are alone. One woman (48) (int 26) said that she wanted to take a loan to build a house on her plot but since she did not have an insurance group she would have to wait until she got the formal title. She also heard that other institutions like ACLEDA bank provided bigger loans than the VB but that this required the formal title. Others said that with a formal title you could get money faster than through a bank like the VB who seems to specialise in smaller loans.
When the informants were asked if they had heard about credit options available to them and if so, how, there were mixed responses. Some said that they did not know, but others had learned of it through family and friends or had learned of the VB because they had come to the village and given information. It seems that the VB has filled a necessary function in the village even if some is reluctant to use it and others have to use private moneylenders anyway. There were also intentions of using some of the 50 b which got collected each month to the community fund to serve a credit purpose and also help people being able to cover necessary costs as repair work and small scale emergencies. Because of problems that the community fund received, among them a lack of capability by families to pay the 50 b and other problems like the administration of the fund, the credit service never got into use. The money is now being spent on infrastructure instead. More can be read about the community fund in the study by Chak Sakheoun (2005). The demand for low interest credit is however obvious so such a mechanism would be en asset if it could be made sustainable through village funds. The collecting of the community fund payment has however stopped in PT since it was only a requirement the first three years.
6.3 Other benefits
Some women also mentioned the aspect of inheritance of the formal title as a main benefit of the formal title. For them the title is a guarantee that their children do get the same kind of secure tenure ship of the plot as themselves. The problem is that the land is not very big and the children can be plenty. So when the third generation comes there hopefully some of the children will have gotten land other places. On some plots there could be maybe two houses and even three. One plot we visited there were for instance 14 people living in one house and this is probably not uncommon and can be related to the increasing demand for land and also land which is close to where the job opportunities are. Subdividing of plots has already taken place in PT and since it is common to share a plot with relatives people have probably in some cases sold part of their plot to relatives as well. That being said, the formal land title can still be seemed as a kind of security. If their children will not find anything else at least they will have roof over their heads which belongs to them, instead of being completely landless. This is an important security since squatters can be chased away if the government does not want them there.
For the people with money one solution to the problem of housing for the future was to build a concrete house which stretched from the front of the plot all the way to the plot behind, but only covering half in width. This is cheaper than building a house covering the whole plot, but leaves the possibility of building another house in the future with the same size, or selling the plot if that is a preference.
Only one person mentioned the ability to go and work outside their home for longer periods as a main benefit which the formal title would bring, but other people mentioned the possibility as well. Without a doubt many have already chosen this solution and left for example relatives or others to live on their plot or take care of it. However, this has also turned out to be a problem in cases when the owner have not been present when the cluster chief or group leader came to collect their temporary land titles in the titling process. As mentioned this is one of the reasons why some people still have not been able to turn in their temporary title and therefore have to wait and see what will happen after the first ones have received theirs.
6.4 Concluding remarks
In PT most people were concerned about having their formal title. This can be related to the fact that they are getting it for free of course and also because of the overall land situation in Cambodia which makes people want the most secure proof of ownership they can. This is however restricted by the cost of acquiring it and so people get the proofs they think is “formal enough”. This means that outside of PT very few are having official certificates because the cost is too high and sometimes their proof shows to be not sufficient at all. The answers most cited were therefore that the formal title would be a guarantee of ownership that nobody could contest and therefore would give the beneficiaries relief about their tenure ship for the future.
The formal title was also perceived to give financial gains. Both in terms of how the title would affect the value of the plot, but more importantly that the title would be an insurance in case of future problems as it was then thought to bring easier access to credit and also better terms. Other reasons for taking loans could be for business purposes or improving the house. But quite a few people seemed reluctant about taking loans other than those strictly necessary. Whatever the interest rate the loan still has to be repaid and in times of insecure income a low interest loan can be quite a burden. However, for people without the ability to save money credit access is still crucial to get capital for business purposes and the VB seems to have filled an important role in that respect as many had taken this kind of loan. So how people will use their title when they finally receive it is still a question to be answered.