February 2016

Access to Collective Land Titles for Indigenous Communities in Cambodia

Generously supported by

i

CambodianCenterforHumanRightsThe Cambodian Center for Human Rights (“CCHR”) is a leading, non-aligned, independent, non-governmentalorganization(“NGO”)thatworkstopromoteandprotectdemocracyandrespect forhuman rights – primarily civil and political rights - throughout the Kingdom of Cambodia(“Cambodia”). CCHR’s vision is of a non-violent Cambodia in which people can enjoy theirfundamental human rights, are empowered to participate in democracy, and share equally thebenefits of Cambodia’s development. CCHR promotes the rule of law over impunity; stronginstitutionsover strongmen;andapluralistic society inwhichvariety isharnessedandcelebratedratherthanignoredorpunished.CCHR’slogo–adoveflyinginacircleofbluesky–representsthetwinprinciplesofpeaceandfreedom.

This Report – “Access to Collective Land Titles for Indigenous Communities in Cambodia” (the“Report”)-isanoutputoftheLandReformProject(the“Project”)carriedoutbyCCHR.Ithighlightsthe obstacles to registrationof collective land for indigenous communities in Cambodia, basedondatacollectedbytheProject.

AcknowledgmentsThis Report is made possible by the generous support of the European Union (the “EU”). Thecontents are solely the responsibility of CCHR and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EU.CCHR would also like to express its deepest appreciation to all those who participated in theinterviewstocontributevaluableinsightstotheReport.

QueriesandFeedbackThisReportandallotherpublicationsbyCCHRareavailableonlineatwww.cchrcambodia.org,andalsoontheawardwinningCambodianHumanRightsPortal,www.sithi.org,whichishostedbyCCHR.

ShouldyouhaveanyquestionsorrequireanyfurtherinformationabouttheReport,orifyouwouldliketogiveanyfeedback,pleaseemailCCHRatinfo@cchrcambodia.org.AlternativelypleasecontactCCHRat:

#798,Street99,BoeungTrabek,KhanChamkarmon,PhnomPenh,CambodiaTel: +855(0)23726901Fax: +855(0)23726902Web: www.cchrcambodia.org

ii

Contents

Page

CambodianCenterforHumanRights................................................................................................i

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................i

QueriesandFeedback......................................................................................................................i

DefinitionsandAcronyms..............................................................................................................iv

ExecutiveSummary.........................................................................................................................1

1.Introduction................................................................................................................................31.1OverviewofCambodia’sLandSituation.......................................................................................31.2OverviewofCambodia’sIndigenousCommunities......................................................................4

2.IndigenousLandRightsinCambodia............................................................................................72.1TheTheory:AProtectiveLegalFramework.................................................................................7

2.1.1Protectionofindigenouslandrightsunderinternationallaw................................................72.1.2Protectionofindigenouslandrightsindomesticlaw............................................................8

2.2InPractice:RegistrationofIndigenousLand...............................................................................112.2.1Registrationprocessforcollectivelandtitles.......................................................................112.2.2Interimprotectivemeasures................................................................................................122.2.3Participatorylanduseplanning...........................................................................................122.2.4Acceleratedlandtitlingcampaign........................................................................................12

3.Purpose,ScopeandMethodology.............................................................................................143.1.Purposeoftheresearch.............................................................................................................143.2Methodology...............................................................................................................................143.3ScopeandLimitationsoftheResearch.......................................................................................16

4.ObstaclestoCollectiveLandRegistration..................................................................................174.1TheCLTProcess...........................................................................................................................17

4.1.1Lackofunderstandingoftheprocessamongcommunities.................................................174.1.2Lackofunderstandingoftheprocessamonglocalauthorities............................................174.1.3Associatedcosts...................................................................................................................184.1.4Lackofpoliticalwilltofacilitatetheprocess........................................................................19

4.2TheLocalAuthorities...................................................................................................................204.2.1Lackofsupport.....................................................................................................................204.2.2Lackofauthorityandcapacity.............................................................................................224.2.3Collusionwiththecompanies...............................................................................................224.2.4Pressuretoacceptprivatelandtitles...................................................................................234.2.5Judicialharassment..............................................................................................................234.2.6Otherformsofharassment..................................................................................................26

4.3TheCompanies............................................................................................................................264.4TheCommunities........................................................................................................................28

4.4.1Lackofknowledgeofrights..................................................................................................28

iii

4.4.2Lackofconfidence................................................................................................................304.4.3Lackofunity.........................................................................................................................30

4.5NGOsandDevelopmentPartners...............................................................................................32

5.RegionalLessons.......................................................................................................................35

6.ConclusionandRecommendations............................................................................................386.1RoyalGovernmentofCambodia.................................................................................................396.2Companies...................................................................................................................................396.3CSOsandDevelopmentPartners................................................................................................406.4Communities...............................................................................................................................40

Bibliography..................................................................................................................................41

iv

DefinitionsandAcronyms

ADHOC TheCambodianHumanRightsandDevelopmentAssociation

ArengValley Chumnoabvillage,ArengValley,ThmoBangdistrict,KohKongprovince

BinhPhouc1 BinhPhoucKratieRubber1CompanyLimited

BuSracommune

BuSracommune,PechChreadadistrict,Mondulkiriprovince

Cambodia KingdomofCambodia

CCHR CambodianCenterforHumanRights

CheongVillage Cheongvillage,Khsiemcommune,Snouldistrict,Kratieprovince

ChorkChaVillage

ChorkChavillage,KeoSimadistrict,Mondulkiriprovince

CLEC CommunityLegalEducationCenter

CLT Collectivelandtitle

Constitution ConstitutionoftheKingdomofCambodia,1993(asamended)

CSO Civilsocietyorganization

Directive01 Order01BBissuedbytheRGCon07May2012

EU EuropeanUnion

EIA EnvironmentalImpactAssessment

ELC EconomicLandConcession

GuidingPrinciples

UnitedNationsGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights

HPLS2 Chinese-CambodianHydroPowerLowerSesan2Company

ICCPR InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights

ICERD International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination

ICESCR InternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights

ILO InternationalLabourOrganization

ILO169 ILOConventionNo.169onIndigenousandTribalPeoples

IPRA IndigenousPeoples’RightsAct

IWGIA InternationalWorkingGrouponIndigenousAffairs

Kbal Romeasvillage

KbalRomeasvillage,Sesandistrict,StungTrengprovince

v

LandLaw LandLaw2001

MOI MinistryofInterior

MLMUPC MinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanningandConstruction

MRD MinistryofRuralDevelopment

MVi MyVillage

NGO Non-governmentalorganization

PLT Privatelandtitle

PLUP Participatorylanduseplanning

TheProject CCHR’sLandReformProject

Report This Report entitled “Access to Collective Land Titles for IndigenousCommunitiesinCambodia”

RGC RoyalGovernmentofCambodia

Sinohydro Sinohyrdo(Cambodia)UnitedLtd.

SLC SocialLandConcession

SLG SamrethLawGroup

Socfin-KCD Socfin-KCDCompany

Sub-Decree83 Sub-Decree on the Procedures of Registration of Land of IndigenousCommunitiesNo.83

UDHR UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights

UN UnitedNations

UNDRIP UNDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples

UNIPP UNIndigenousPeoples’Partnership

WCS WildlifeConservationSociety

1

ExecutiveSummary

Over the last three decades, the survival of indigenous peoples and cultures across the globe hasbeenthreatenedbythemountingdemandforlandandnaturalresources.Theglobaltrendtowardsindividual land ownership - which allows for privatization of land and resources - rather thancollective ownership, has been particularly damaging to indigenous communities; for manyindigenous peoples, communal land use is of paramount importance for traditional cultures,identitiesand livelihoods.The increaseddemand for landandresources,coupledwithadvances ininfrastructureandtechnologies,hasledtopreviouslyremoteindigenouscommunitiescollidingwiththemodernworldwith largelydisastrousconsequences.Moreover, thediscriminationagainst,andexclusion of, indigenous peoples from decision-making has led to the approval of large-scaledevelopmentprojectsbynationalgovernments,whichoftenencroachonindigenouslandsandleadto serious violations of indigenous land rights. As such, dispossession of traditional lands andterritories isoneof themajorproblems facedby indigenouspeoplesworldwide, threatening theirveryexistence.

The threat to the existence of indigenous communities has resulted in an increased focus onindigenousrightswithin international lawandpolicy,astheworldseekstoprotectuniqueculturesandwaysoflife,aswellastherightsofindividualsaffected.Affirmingthevulnerabilityofindigenouspeoples and the need for nations to take measures to ensure their rights are protected, theInternationalWorkingGrouponIndigenousAffairs(“IWGIA”)hasstated:“Indigenouspeoplesremainonthemarginsofsociety:theyarepoorer,lesseducated,dieatayoungerage,aremuchmorelikelytocommitsuicide,andaregenerallyinworsehealththantherestofthepopulation.”1

In Cambodia, the systematic violation of land rights is one of the most prevalent human rightsviolationstoday.Theindigenouspopulationinparticularislosingtheirlandatanalarmingrateduetolarge-scaleloggingofforests,resourceextraction,infrastructureprojectssuchasdamandpipelineconstructions,andlandconcessionsforagri-business.Whilecollectivelandownershipbyindigenouspeoples is theoretically recognized in Cambodia, collective land registration for indigenouscommunitieshasinpracticebeenalmostnon-existent.OfCambodia’s4582indigenouscommunities,only113havebeenabletocompletetheprocessandregistertheircollectivelands.

ThisReportexaminestheobstaclestoregistrationofcollective landfor indigenouscommunities inCambodia,basedondatacollectedby theProject. Itaims tohighlight reasons for shortcomings inthe implementation of land registration for indigenous communities, and identifiesrecommendations for all stakeholders that will promote better implementation, with a view toincreasedprotectionofindigenouslandrightsinCambodia.

1IWGIA,‘TheIndigenousWorld2006’(2006)http://bit.ly/21bgrsZ2Thisisthenumberofvillagesinwhichindigenouspeoplesinhabit,citedintheDepartmentofLocalAdministrationoftheMinistryofInterior’s‘TheListofIndigenousPeoplesAreas’(06March2009)LocalAdministrativeDepartment,howeversomebelievetheactualnumbertobehigher.3SevenindigenouscommunitiesinMondulkiriprovince,twoinRatanakiriprovince,andtwoinKratieprovince,accordingtotheMinistryofLandManagement,UrbanPlanningandConstruction

2

Chapter1(Introduction)providesabriefoverviewofthe landsituation inCambodia,outliningthestatus of land rights, before providing an overview of Cambodia’s indigenous population and thethreatstheyfacetolandtenuresecurity.

Chapter 2 (Indigenous Land Rights in Cambodia) outlines the status of indigenous land rights inCambodia, looking at relevant applicable international and domestic rights and obligations. It isrevealed that in practice, poor implementation of applicable laws has left many indigenouscommunitieswithalackoftenuresecurity,vulnerabletolandgrabsanddispossession.

Chapter 3 (Purpose, Scope and Methodology) outlines the purpose of the research, themethodologythatwasusedtoobtaintheinformationthatinformsthisReport,anditslimitations.

Chapter4(ObstaclestoCollectiveLandRegistration)presentsthecasesselectedfortheresearch,andtheresearchfindings.Thefindingsrevealthenumerousobstaclestocollectivelandregistrationposed by the various actors involved in the process, in addition to the complex and arduousregistrationprocedure,andpoorimplementationofthelaw.

Chapter5 (Regional Lessons)examines case studies from the SouthAsian region tohighlightbestpracticesinprotectingindigenouslandrightsandassessestheirrelevancetotheCambodiancontext.

Chapter 6 (Conclusion and Recommendations) summarizes some of the main findings from theresearchand,basedon these,offersconcrete recommendations toavarietyof stakeholders– theRoyal Government of Cambodia (the “RGC”), companies operating in indigenous areas, NGOs anddevelopment partners working to assist indigenous land registration, and the indigenouscommunities themselves. These recommendations aim to facilitate the process of collective landregistration, and thereby ensure greater land tenure security for indigenous communities inCambodia.

3

1.Introduction

1.1OverviewofCambodia’sLandSituationEconomic liberalization, rapid export expansion and growing foreign investment over the last twodecadeshaveledtoahugedemandforlandinCambodia.TheRGChaspermittedlargeswathesofland to be leased for commercial interests through economic land concessions (“ELCs”). Thisreadinesson thepart of theRGC to reallocate land, alongwith insecurityof land tenuredue to awidespreadlackofformaltitlesandweakruleoflaw,hasfacilitatedawaveoflandgrabsandforcedevictions. ELCspermit beneficiaries to lease State-owned landup to 10,000hectares for industrialagriculturaluse foramaximumof99years,4althoughtheRGCrecentlyannounced its intentiontograduallyreduceallELCcontractsto50years.5AccordingtoSub-DecreeNo.146onEconomicLandConcessions,whichregulatesELCs,allELCsmustmeetcertainprerequisitespriortobeinggranted.These include: the completion of environmental and social impact assessments; the provision ofsolutions for resettlement, which do not necessitate involuntary resettlement; and publicconsultations with stakeholders, including the affected communities.6 In practice however, ELCshave been granted without the fulfillment of such criteria. It has been estimated that over twomillion hectares of land in Cambodia have been granted through ELCs to foreign and domesticcompanies,aswellastowealthypoliticalelitesforindustrial-agriculturalactivities.7

In addition to ELCs, other supposeddevelopment activities have been initiated that have severelyimpacted citizens’ land rights in Cambodia. A further twomillion hectares have been affected bymining concessions, and the construction of at least nine major hydropower dams is underway,8whichthreatenstofloodvasttractsoflandthroughoutthecountry.Consequently,landrightsabusesareamongthemostprevalenthumanrightsviolationsinCambodiatoday,predominantlyfeltbythemostvulnerableandmarginalizedgroupsinsociety.

Acknowledgingtheproblemssurroundinglandconcessions,theRGCissuedamoratoriumonELCson07May2012byOrder01BB(“Directive01”).ThisprohibitedfurtherELCs frombeinggranted,andcalled for the review of existing ELCs.9 In August 2014, the RGC created an Inter-MinisterialCommitteetoInspect,DemarcateandAssessEconomicLandConcessions,10taskedtoexamineELCsandrevokethemininstanceswherecompanieshadfailedtocomplywiththetermsandconditionsaspertheircontracts.In2014,24concessionswererevokedorreducedinsizebyatotalof202,210hectaresin11provinces,duetonon-compliancewiththelaw.11

4LandLaw,Article615StatementNo.683,dated28July2015,releasedbytheMinistryofEnvironmentannouncedthattheRGCinprinciplehaddecidedtoreduceallELCcontractsto50years.6Sub-DecreeNo.146onEconomicLandConcessions,ANK/BK(27December2005)7LICADHO,‘Cambodia’sConcessions’(May2015)http://bit.ly/1LdkawE8SarahMilne,‘Extraction:IllicitLoggingintheShadowofTransnationalGovernanceandInvestment’,CriticalAsianStudies,Vol.47,No.2,(May2015)9Order01BB,May7,2012ontheMeasuresStrengtheningandIncreasingtheEffectivenessoftheManagementofEconomicLandConcessions10DecisionNo.125SSR,August18,2014onestablishmentoftheInter-MinisterialCommitteetoInspect,DemarcateandAssessELCs11ADHOC,‘WhoseLand?ReportontheLandRightsSituationinCambodia2014andfirsthalfof2015’(July2015)http://bit.ly/1Hhk4qe

4

Yet, the majority of ELCs that have been granted under dubious legal circumstances remainunchecked. This is largely due to the endemic corruption among the powerful elite in Cambodia,which allows private actors to commit human rights abuses with complete impunity. It has beenestimatedthat20percentofthetotallandthathasbeenallocatedthroughELCsisheldbyjustfivesenatorsoftherulingCambodianPeople’sParty,12 indicativeoftheextentofcorruptionwithinthecountry.Moreover,ELCsandinfrastructureprojectsgiverisetoarangeofloggingactivities,includingwidespread illegal logging,13 which further impacts on land rights and causes conflict. The linkbetween land concessions and illegal logging has been acknowledged by the former SpecialRapporteuronthesituationofhumanrightsinCambodia,SuryaSubediin2012,whoremarkedthat,“manyconcessionairesoperatebehindaveilofsecrecy.”14

The culture of corruption in Cambodia that facilitates such clandestine activities has led to thecountry being ranked 150th out of 168 countries by Transparency International’s 2015 CorruptionPerceptions Index.15 Inparticular, the lowscorereflects therampantcorruptionwithinCambodia’sjudiciary, as theWorld JusticeProject’sRuleof Law Indexwasused toassess thecountry’s justicesector, which ranked Cambodia 98th out of 102 countries.16 Corruption within the judiciarycontributestoageneral lackofenforcementand implementationofrelevant lawsandregulations.Moreover, theendemic corruption inCambodia is alsoamajor factoras towhycitizensareoftendeniedsatisfactoryresolutionoflanddisputesinwhichtheyareinvolved,despitethenumberoflandconflict resolutionmechanisms inexistence inCambodia.17While in theory suchmechanismshavebeenestablished toprotect citizens’ land rights, in practice they are known to favor thepowerfulelite.

1.2OverviewofCambodia’sIndigenousCommunitiesItisestimatedthatthereareover370millionindigenouspeoplelivinginapproximately90countriesworldwide.Anofficialdefinitionofwhatconstitutesan“indigenous”personhasnotbeenadoptedby the United Nations (“UN”) due to the diversity of the world’s indigenous peoples. Instead, amodern and all-encompassing understanding of the term “indigenous” has been developed. Thisincludes people who: have a historical continuity with pre-colonial and pre-settler societies thatdevelopedontheirterritories;havedistinctsocial,economicorpoliticalsystems;formnon-dominantgroups of society; identify themselves and are recognized and accepted by their community asindigenous; maintain distinct languages, cultures, and beliefs; have strong links to territories andsurroundingnaturalresources;andresolvetomaintainandreproducetheirancestralenvironmentsandsystemsasdistinctivepeoplesandcommunities.18

12GlobalWitness,‘RubberBarons:HowVietnameseCompaniesandInternationalFinanciersareDrivingaLandGrabbingCrisisinCambodiaandLaos’(May2013)http://bit.ly/1HgC1V813SarahMilne,‘Extraction:IllicitLoggingintheShadowofTransnationalGovernanceandInvestment’,CriticalAsianStudies,Vol.47,No.2,(May2015)14SuryaP.Subedi,‘ReportoftheSpecialRapporteuronthesituationofhumanrightsinCambodia’(24September2012)http://bit.ly/1kUyGln15TransparencyInternational,‘CorruptionPerceptionsIndex2015’(January2016)http://bit.ly/1JKBrkS16WorldJusticeProject,‘RuleofLawIndex2015’(2015)http://bit.ly/1cwTwCz17Formoreontheshortcomingsofdisputeresolutionmechanisms,see:CCHR,‘TheFailureofLandDisputeResolutionMechanisms’,(BriefingNote)(July2014)http://bit.ly/12zx4nE18UNPermanentForumonIndigenousIssues,‘FifthSession,FactSheet1:IndigenousPeoplesandIdentity’http://bit.ly/1mOcHLo

5

In Cambodia, there are as many as 190,000 indigenous people, representing approximately 1.4percent of Cambodia’s population.19 Cambodia’s indigenous population comprises 24 differentindigenousethnicities- includingtheJarai,Tampuan,Brao,Kavet,Kreung,Lun,Bunong,Stieng,Kuyand others - and 23 minority languages have thus far been identified.20 Cambodia’s indigenouspopulation inhabits 15 of the country’s 24 provinces,21 although the majority resides in thenortheasternprovincesofRatanakiriandMondulkiri.22The indigenouscommunitiestypically live inself-organized autonomous villages governed by a council of elders, who are responsible for themaintenance of peace and order among their people, and adjudicate based on customary law toresolvedisputeswhentheyarise.23

Traditionally, indigenous people in Cambodia sustain their livelihoods through cultivating forestedland, utilizing a technique known as shifting cultivation or rotational agriculture.24 They also huntwild animals and gather forest by-products including fruit, honey, flowers, fungus and resin. Inaddition, Cambodia’s indigenous communities’ beliefs, traditions, and identities are closely tied tothe land. The land, and especially the forest, carriesmajor spiritual significance as a link to theirancestorsandnatural spirits.Relationshipswith theseancestorsand spirits formakeypartof thecommunities’ cultural identity and spirituality. In fact, it is difficult for non-indigenous people tocomprehendtheintimateconnectionthatindigenouspeopleshavewiththeirland.Itseemsthatitisthis lackofunderstandingof the special linkbetween indigenouspeopleand their landwhichhashaddisastrous impacts for indigenous communities - as statedbyErica-IreneDaes, former SpecialRapporteur on Protection of the Cultural and Intellectual Property of Indigenous Peoples, “thegradual deteriorationof indigenous societies canbe traced to thenon-recognitionof theprofoundrelationshipthatindigenouspeopleshavetotheirlands,territoriesandresources…”25

In recent years, improved infrastructure has enabled commercial enterprises to access onceinaccessible and remote areas of the country, which are typically inhabited by large numbers ofindigenouspeoples.Assuch,Cambodia’s indigenouspopulations–whogenerally inhabit resource-richareasofthecountry–are increasinglyvulnerableto landgrabs,deforestationandcommercialpressure. The prioritization of large-scale infrastructure developments and the lease of landconcessionsintheareaswhereindigenouspeopleshavetraditionallyinhabitedthreatenindigenouscommunities’ livelihoods, cultures and identities. As noted by the UN in 2007, “The alienation ofindigenouslandthroughthegrantofeconomiclandandotherconcessionsisunderminingtheabilityofindigenouscommunitiestoregistertheircollectiveownershipoftraditionallands,andenforcetheirrights to landunder the Land Law.”26 Such rapid changes to their environments areoccurring in a

19NGOForumonCambodia,‘IndigenousPeoplesinCambodia’(April2006)http://bit.ly/21tZ1rr20IanBaird,“IndigenousPeoples’andland:ComparingcommunallandtitlinganditsimplicationsinCambodiaandLaos’AsiaPacificViewpoint,Vol.54,No.3(December2013)21LauraM.Kirchner,‘Livingonthemargins:OntheStatusandStandingofMinoritiesandIndigenousPeoplesinCambodia’,HeinrichBöllStiftungCambodia(June2015)http://bit.ly/1XFN91122NGOForumonCambodia,‘IndigenousPeoplesinCambodia’(April2006)http://bit.ly/21tZ1rr23LauraM.Kirchner,‘Livingonthemargins:OntheStatusandStandingofMinoritiesandIndigenousPeoplesinCambodia’,HeinrichBöllStiftungCambodia(June2015)http://bit.ly/1XFN91124Alsoreferredtoasswiddenagriculture.Thisisaformofrotationalagricultureinwhichlandisclearedforcultivation,usuallybycuttingandburningvegetation,andthencultivatedforashortperiodoftime,beforebeingabandonedforanewareauntilitsfertilityhasbeennaturallyrestored.25UNSub-CommissiononthePromotionandProtectionofHumanRights,‘Indigenouspeoplesandtheirrelationshiptoland:FinalworkingpaperpreparedbySpecialRapporteur,Mrs.Erica-IreneA.Daes’E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21(June2001)http://bit.ly/1MJYUy726OHCHR,‘EconomiclandconcessionsinCambodia:Ahumanrightsperspective’(June2007)http://bit.ly/1a47Sss

6

context whereby indigenous people in Cambodia are often functionally illiterate in the nationallanguage, Khmer, and where weak local governance and a lack of transparency pose significantbarrierstotheparticipationofindigenouspeoplesindecision-making.27

Cambodia’sindigenouscommunitiesarefastlosingtheircommunallandandnaturalresources,andconsequentlytheircustomsandtraditionswhicharecrucialforthepreservationoftheirindigenousidentity.Aspreviouslystated,existingdisputeresolutionmechanismsarewoefully inadequate,butparticularlysoforindigenouscommunitieswholargelylackanawarenessofsuchmechanisms,andlackthemeanstoaccessthem.Withoutformalregistrationandlegalprotectionoftheircommunallands, indigenous peoples in Cambodia remain particularly vulnerable to land grabs by thebeneficiaries of land concessions and the powerful elite. Collective land titles (“CLTs”) provideprotectionfor indigenouslands;howevertheprocessofobtainingthemisarduousandprotracted,andalmostimpossibleforthecommunitiestoobtainwithoutexternalassistance.

MuchexternalsupporthasbeenprovidedforindigenouslandregistrationinCambodia.Forexample,theInternationalLabourOrganization(“ILO”)’sSupportforIndigenousPeoples’Project,whichbeganin2005 toassist indigenouscommunities register forCLTs inCambodia, supported166 indigenouscommunitiesinCambodiaduringtheproject’simplementation;ofthese,114hadcompletedthefirstofthreestagesintheCLTprocess,successfullygainingidentityrecognition,and97hadreachedthesecondstageofregistrationaslegalentities.28Externalsupportforindigenouslandregistrationhasalsobeenprovidedsince2009throughtheLandAdministrationSub-SectorProgram,whichismulti-donorsupported. However,at the timeofwriting,only11 indigenouscommunitieshavereceivedCLTs throughout the country; and it is likely thatwithout external support this numberwould beeven lower. As the coordinator of the Support for Indigenous Peoples’ Project told theCambodiaDailyatthetimetheprojectwasdrawingtoaclose,“WithoutcoordinationfromtheILO,itwilltakemuchmoretimeandsomevillageswon’thaveanymorechanges[togetCLTs].”29

Thus, without significantly accelerated intervention, the continued land alienation experienced byindigenouscommunitieswilllikelyseetheindigenouspopulationinCambodiacriticallydiminishedascommunitieslosetheirtraditionsandcustoms.

27IRAM,‘Facing–CrisisIndigenousPeopleofCambodia’SubmissionbyindigenouspeopleofCambodiatotheAsiaPreparatoryMeetingfortheUnitedNationsPermanentForumonIndigenousIssuesHeldinMalaysiaon04-06March,2009http://bit.ly/1Ufbvi328UNPermanentForumonIndigenousIssues,‘UpdateonILOactivitiesconcerningindigenouspeoples’,Fourteenthsession,NewYork,20Aprilto01May2015http://bit.ly/1NrZHUT29MaliaGuyer-StevensandKuchNaren,‘FundsDryUpforProjectAdvancingIndigenousLandRights’,TheCambodiaDaily,(February2015)http://bit.ly/1VB50qn

7

2.IndigenousLandRightsinCambodia

With land being appropriated at an alarming rate throughout the country, Cambodia’s indigenouscommunitiesareparticularlyvulnerabletolosingthelandthatsustainsthem;theyareoftensubjectto forced evictions and blocked from accessing their traditional lands, alongwith a host of otherviolations of their land rights. Accordingly, the importance of a comprehensive system of legalprotectionsforlandrightsofindigenouspeoplescannotbeoverstated.Cambodiandomesticlawtoalargeextentincorporatesinternationallegalstandardsinrelationtolandrightsofindigenouspeopleandshould,intheory,provideadequateformalprotectionstotheindigenouspopulation.However,despitetheexistingcomprehensivesetoflegalsafeguards,theseprotectionsarerarelyimplementedinpractice.

This Chapter provides an overview of the legislative context regarding the land rights of theindigenous population in Cambodia by looking at relevant provisions in both international anddomesticlaw,andexamineswhethertheexistinglegislationisupheldinpractice.

2.1TheTheory:AProtectiveLegalFramework

2.1.1ProtectionofindigenouslandrightsunderinternationallawIndigenous peoples’ land rights are resolutely protected under international law. InternationalhumanrightsprotectionisincorporatedintoCambodianlawbyArticle31oftheConstitutionoftheKingdomofCambodia(the“Constitution”),whichstatesthatCambodiashallrecognizeandrespecttheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(the“UDHR”)andthecovenantsandconventionsrelatedto human rights.30 Thus, international human rights standards are directly applicable within theCambodianlegalsystem,asreaffirmedbyadecisionmadebytheConstitutionalCouncilin2007.31

TheUDHR,acornerstonedocumentinthehistoryofhumanrights,statesinArticle17that“everyonehas the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” and, “no one shall bearbitrarily deprived of his property.”32 Article 25 of the UDHR guarantees the right to adequatehousing,33whichencompassestherighttosecurityoftenureandprotectionfromforcedevictions.The right toadequatehousing is alsoprotected in the InternationalCovenantonEconomic, SocialandCulturalRights(the“ICESCR”),34theConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationagainst Women,35 and the Convention on the Right of the Child.36 In addition, the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (the “ICERD”) specificallyprohibitsracialdiscriminationintheenjoymentoftherighttohousing.37Cambodiabecameapartyto the ICERD in 1983, and is therefore obligated to ensure that all minority groups – includingindigenous peoples – enjoy the rights laid out by the ICERD. Finally, Principle 9 of the GuidingPrinciplesonInternalDisplacementemphasizes,“Statesareunderaparticularobligationtoprotect

30TheConstitution,Article3131ConstitutionalCounciloftheKingdomofCambodia,DecisionNo.092/003/2007(10July2007)http://bit.ly/1rmdbcj32UDHR,(10December1948),Article17http://bit.ly/1O8f0nS33Ibid,Article25(1)34ICESCR,(16December1996),Article11(1)http://bit.ly/J1E1V335ConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationagainstWomen(18December1979),Article14http://bit.ly/1jkl3IM36ConventionontheRightoftheChild,(20November1989),Article27http://bit.ly/1fGCcXV37InternationalConventionontheEliminationofallFormsofRacialDiscrimination,Article5(e),http://bit.ly/1k1MoiX

8

against the displacement of indigenous peoples, minorities… and other groups with a specialdependencyonandattachmenttotheirlands.”38

Providing specific protection for Cambodia’s indigenous population is the UN Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”). Cambodia voted in favor of UNDRIP in 2007, whichcontains a number of provisions explicitly protecting indigenous peoples’ rights to land. By thisdeclaration,indigenouspeopleshavetherighttoown,use,developandcontrolthelands,territoriesandresourcesthattheypossessbyreasonoftraditionalownership,occupationoruse,39andStatesshould give legal recognition and protection to these lands.40 States must also provide effectivemechanisms to prevent actions that dispossess indigenous peoples of their lands, territories andresources.41 Furthermore, States shall consult with the indigenous peoples concerned in order toobtaintheirfree,informedconsentpriortotheapprovalofanyprojectsaffectingtheirlands.42Thedeclaration stipulates that indigenouspeoplesmustnotbe forcibly removed from their lands, andthat no relocation should take place without free, prior and informed consent of the indigenouspeoples concerned.43 Moreover, by this instrument indigenous peoples are to have the right toredressfortheirlands,territoriesandresources,whichhavebeenconfiscated,occupiedordamagedwithouttheirfree,priorandinformedconsent.44WhileasaGeneralAssemblyDeclarationUNDRIPisnot legally binding, it does “represent the dynamic development of international legal norms andreflectthecommitmentofstatestomoveincertaindirections,abidingbycertainprinciples.”45

However,whileCambodiavotedinfavorofUNDRIP,ithasyettoratifytheILO’sConventionNo.169onIndigenousandTribalPeoples,whichoffersconcretelegalprotectionforindigenouspeoples.Thisconvention is a key international legal instrument supporting the principle of self-management,protecting indigenous peoples’ cultures and communities, and the rights to traditional land andresources, and encouraging equal treatment and access to State services. Importantly, it requiresparticipation and consultation of indigenous peoples on issues that affect them - particularlydevelopment issues.46 By failing to ratify Convention No. 169, Cambodia has displayed its lack ofintentiontogivereallegalforcetotheprotectionofindigenouspeoples’rights.

2.1.2ProtectionofindigenouslandrightsindomesticlawThe Constitution guarantees all citizens the same rights “regardless of race, color, sex, language…religious belief” or other differences,47 while the 2001 Land Law (the “Land Law”)48 and the Sub-DecreeNo.83 on the Procedures of Registration of Land of Indigenous Communities (“Sub-Decree83”)49providespecificprotectionof indigenouspeople’s rights to land inCambodia.TheLandLaw

38UNEconomicandSocialCouncil,‘GuidingPrinciplesonInternalDisplacement’,Principle9,(11February1998)http://bit.ly/1GxBOfU39UNDRIP,(GeneralAssemblyresolution61/295of13December2007),Article26(2)http://bit.ly/1bKIrMs40Ibid,Article26(3)41Ibid,Article8(2)(b)42Ibid,Article23(2)43Ibid,Article1044Ibid,Article2845UNPermanentForumonIndigenousIssues,‘FrequentlyAskedQuestions:DeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeopleshttp://bit.ly/1QNk9Wq46ILO,IndigenousandTribalPeoplesConvention1989,(No.169),76thILCsession(27June1989)(enteredintoforceon05September1991)http://bit.ly/1O0X1Dc47TheConstitution,Article3148LandLaw,NS/RKM/0801/14,(20July2001)49Sub-DecreeNo.83,ANK/BK,(09June2009)

9

was the first piece of legislation in Cambodia to explicitly recognize the existence of indigenouspeoples, and clearly outlines the land rights of indigenous people in Chapter 3, Part 2, entitled“Immovable Property of Indigenous Communities,” which defines an indigenous community as “agroupofpeoplethatresides intheterritoryoftheKingdomofCambodiawhosemembersmanifestethnic,social,culturalandeconomicunityandwhopracticeatraditionallifestyle,andwhocultivatethe lands intheirpossessionaccordingtocustomaryrulesofcollectiveuse.”50UnderArticle26,theLand Law explicitly recognizes the concept of collective ownership of land for indigenouscommunities in the formofCLTs.51Thus, theLandLaw isof theutmost importance for indigenouspeople’scollectiverightstoland.

Figure1:

Sub-Decree83furtherdefinesindigenouscommunitylandandstatesthatitcanconsistoffivetypes:(1)residentialland;(2)cultivatedland;(3)reservelandnecessaryforshiftingcultivation;(4)spiritualforest land; and (5) burial ground forestland.52 The first two categories (residential land andcultivated land)mayonlybe land thathas alreadybeen registeredwith the State as Stateprivateland53 (seeFigure1).The remaining threecategoriesmay include land thathasbeen registeredasStatepublicland.BoththisrequirementandtheunderlyingassumptionthatlandusedbyindigenouscommunitiesisStateland,putssuchlandatriskofbeingappropriatedbytheState.Thisisbecause,untilregisteredasindigenouscommunityland,thesecategoriesoflandareclassifiedaspropertyofthe State and thus can be granted as ELCs.54 However, according to the Land Law, indigenouscommunitieshavetherighttocontinuetomanageandusetheir landaccordingtotheirtraditionalcustoms.55Moreover, indigenouscommunitieshave the right tocontinue traditionalusesof forestland as per the 2002 Law on Forestry, which includes the right to collect forest by-products, usetimber to build houses and stables, and cut grass and allow livestock to graze.56 Sub-Decree 83further adds that indigenous communities have the right to continue using water sources in theforest, forexamplestreamsandrivers.However,Sub-Decree83states that tocontinuetraditionalusesof the land,communitiesmustmakeanagreementwiththerelevantauthorities,57conflicting

50LandLaw,Article2351LandLaw,Article2652Sub-Decree83,Article453Ibid,Article654CCHR,‘Cambodia:LandinConflict,AnOverviewoftheLandSituation’,(Report)(December2013)http://bit.ly/1KtPNVy55LandLaw,Article2356LawonForestry,NS/RKM/0802/016,(30July2002),Article40http://bit.ly/1tbrB3i57Sub-Decree83

LandtypeseligiblefortheCLT

State-ownedland

Stateprivateland(vulnerabletobegrantedasanELC)

Residentalland

Cultvatedland

Statepublicland

Spiritualforests

Burialgrounds

Reservelands(forShiuingCultvaton)

10

withtheLawonForestry,whichstatesthatnopermitisrequired.58AstheLawonForestryisahigherlegalinstrumentthanSub-Decree83,ittakesprecedence,59andthusinpracticecommunitiesshouldnotrequirepermissiontocontinuetraditionaluseoftheirland.

Table1:IndigenousLandRightsinCambodia–Summary

Right UDHR ICESCR ICERD UNDRIP ILOConvention

169

Constitution Domesticlaw

Righttoownproperty

✓ ✓ ✓

Righttoadequatehousing

✓ ✓

Righttoequalitybeforethelaw

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Righttoprotectionfromracialdiscriminationinenjoymentofhousing

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Righttoownandusetraditionallands

✓ ✓ ✓

Right to legalprotection oftraditionallandownership

✓ ✓ ✓

Righttoconsultationbeforedevelopmentaffecting

✓ ✓ ✓

58LawonForestry,Article4059FormoreonhierarchyoflawsinCambodia,see:CCHR,‘HierarchyofLawsinCambodia’(Factsheet)(January2014)http://bit.ly/1IKTN4m

11

indigenouslands

Righttoredressforabuseoflandrights

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Righttoprotectthecommunity’smeansofsubsistence

✓

2.2InPractice:RegistrationofIndigenousLandWhiletheLandLawrecognizestherightofindigenouscommunitiestoregistertheirlandandobtainCLTs,inpracticetheprocesstoobtainaCLTiscomplexandprotracted.Asofthetimeofwriting,only11outofthe16660indigenouscommunitieswhohavebeguntheprocesshavemanagedtoobtainaCLT inorder toprotect their land.Thecomplexityof the legal framework thatprotects indigenouslandrights,coupledwithinadequateimplementationofthelawarethemainreasonsastowhysofewCLTshavethusfarbeenawarded.GuidelinesonhowindigenouscommunitiescouldobtainaCLTwereonlyissuedin2009,61eightyearsaftertheadoptionoftheLandLaw.Thislosttimewascritical:intheperiodbetweentheimplementationoftheLandLawin2001andtheissuanceofSub-Decree83inJune2009,over2,106,343hectaresoflandinCambodiaweregrantedviaELCs.62

2.2.1RegistrationprocessforcollectivelandtitlesTheprocessfortheregistrationofCLTsislengthyandextremelycomplex,asoutlinedinSub-Decree83. Inpractice,thecommunitymustcompletethreestages involvingseveralstepstoobtainaCLT:first the communitymust obtain formal self-identification recognition as a “traditional culture” bytheMinistryofRuralDevelopment(the“MRD”);thenthecommunitymustapplyforrecognitionasa“legal entity” with the Ministry of Interior (the “MOI”); and finally, the community has to file acollective land registration request with the Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning andConstruction(the“MLMUPC”)toregistertheirlandandbeissuedwithaCLT.63

Thecomplexnatureoftheprocess,coupledwithalackofresourceswithinindigenouscommunities,necessitates external assistance to complete the CLT process. Moreover, under Sub-Decree 83,indigenous communities are only permitted to register seven hectares of burial ground and spiritforest respectively, a limitation in conflict with the Land Law, which does not allow arbitrarylimitationsonsuchland.

60FigureaccordingtotheILO’s‘UpdatedListofCollectiveLandTitlingProgresswithSupportofILO,GIZandNGOandTargetAffectedbyDirective01from2003-13/01/2015’(January2015)61Sub-Decree8362LICADHO,‘TheGreatCambodianGiveaway:VisualizingLandConcessionsoverTime’(01March2013)http://bit.ly/HxpSOV63Sub-Decree83

12

2.2.2InterimprotectivemeasuresGiven theprotractednatureof the registrationprocess, the lackof tenure security for indigenouscommunities in the process of applying for CLTs is of great concern. In 2011, an inter-ministerialcircular on interim protectivemeasures regarding the lands of indigenous communitieswho haveapplied for collective ownership titling was issued, whereby local regulations are to be issuedinstructingpeopletotemporarilyceaseallformsoflandtransactionsandinforminglocalauthoritiestohaltcertifyinglandtransactionsforlandparcelsrequestedintheCLT.Howeverprotectionsunderthese guidelines are severely limited - tenure security is only guaranteed at the final stage of theprocess,when the community has actually applied for a CLTwith theMLMUPC.64 In addition, theprotectivemeasuresexcludeplotstheRGChadagreedforinvestmentordevelopmentpriortothesemeasurescomingintoeffect65–thus,affectedlandwithinexistingELCsisnotprotected.

2.2.3ParticipatorylanduseplanningParticipatory land use planning (“PLUP”) is a model of land use management aiming to give allrelevantstakeholdersan input into theallocationof landwithinacertainarea.PLUP involves landuse regulations being drafted, land allocation carried out, and protections for land conservationareasbeingdevised.IntroducedinCambodiaintheearly2000sfollowingtrials,PLUPwaseventuallydissolved in 2008. During its implementation in Cambodia, PLUP was used in rural communities,includingsomeindigenouscommunities,toprovideclarityonthecurrentlanduseineacharea,andin some instances to resolve landdisputes.AlthoughPLUP received criticismand landconcessionshave been granted over land recognized by PLUP maps, for those indigenous communities whopossessthem,themapsareausefultoolthatlegitimizetheirlanduseastheyrecognizevariousland-usecategoriessuchasspiritforests,burialforests,andlandusedforshiftingagriculture.66

2.2.4AcceleratedlandtitlingcampaignOn14June2012,theRGCannounceditsintentiontolaunchanacceleratedlandtitlingcampaigntobe implemented by youth volunteers, to cover areas where citizens live without proper legaldocumentation on State land granted as economic or forestry concessions. The program – whichexcluded disputed areas of land, thus excluding the most vulnerable populations from the titlingprogram– has received criticismdue to its ineffectiveness, lack of transparency, highly politicizedandextra-legalnature.67Reportshavearisenoftheauthoritieswithholdinglandtitles,whileothershavelosttheirlandintheprocess.SincetheprogramwasresumedinNovember2013followingsitssuspensionon11June2013aheadofthenationalelectionof28July,implementationhasbeenslow.

Remarkably, indigenous communities have been excluded from this program – only days afterInstruction 15was issued by the RGC,which allowed for the issuance of CLTs, Instruction 20wasreleased,revokingtherighttoCLTs.Instruction20statedthereasoningbehindthesuspensionoftheCLTaspectoftheprogramwasthedifficultiesinidentifyingindigenousland,whichwouldrequire“aprotracted period of time and large budgetary expenses.”68 Moreover, Instruction 20 included aprovision allowing indigenous peoples to “opt out” of their communities if they desired a PLT, by

64MOIandMLMUPC,Inter-ministerialcircularoninterimprotectivemeasuresprotectinglandofindigenouspeoples(2011)65MOIandMLMUPC,Inter-ministerialcircularoninterimprotectivemeasuresprotectinglandofindigenouspeoples(2011)66SarahMilneandBillAdams,‘MarketMasquerades:UncoveringthePoliticsofCommunity-levelPaymentsforEnvironmentalServicesinCambodia’,DevelopmentandChange,Vol.43,No.1(February2012)67CCHR,‘Cambodia:LandinConflict,AnOverviewoftheLandSituation’(December2013)http://bit.ly/1KtPNVy68JeffVizeandManfredHornung,HeinrichBöllFoundation,‘IndigenousPeopleandLandTitlinginCambodia,’AnnualWorldBankConferenceonLandandPoverty2013,8-11April2013http://bit.ly/1XntSBe

13

simplythumbprintingacontractinordertodoso.Unsurprisingly,therehavebeenseveralreportsofindigenous communities being pressured to accept PLTs.69 This is of great concern as underCambodian law,once theyhaveacceptedPLTs, indigenouspeoplesare ineligible to receiveCLTs.70Consequently,anindigenousfamilywhoacceptsaPLTwillbeexcludedfromthecommunity’sCLT–aswilltheirland.

Thus,whilethelegalframeworkinCambodiaintheoryprotectsindigenouscommunities’landrights,in practice they are left without protection, completely vulnerable to land grabs and relatedviolations.

69Ibid70Ibid

14

3.Purpose,ScopeandMethodology

3.1.PurposeoftheresearchThis Report follows the publication of a number of profiles within CCHR’s Land Activist Profileseries,71whichfocusonindigenouscommunitiesaffectedbythecountry’svolatile landconflicts. Inadditiontotheprofiles inthisseries, theReportbuilds furtheruponfindingsofCCHR’sroundtablediscussionson“LandandtheRightsofIndigenousPeople”,72heldin2013amongrepresentativesofindigenous communities, civil society and local authorities, and CCHR’s 2013 report entitled“Cambodia:LandinConflict,AnOverviewoftheLandSituation.”73

This Report focuses in particular on the issues indigenous communities have encountered whenattempting to protect their communal lands by attempting to register such lands under CLTs. TherationalebehindtheReport isbasedontherecognitionthat issuespertainingtotheacquisitionofformal land titles are one of the most pressing problems facing vulnerable groups, in particularindigenous communities, as evidenced by CCHR’s Land Activist Profile series and the roundtablediscussionon“LandandtheRightsofIndigenousPeople”.

ThepurposeofthisReportistopresentdatacollectedfromtheProject’sresearchontheobstaclesthatindigenouscommunitiesinCambodiafacewhenseekinglandtenuresecuritythroughapplyingfor a CLT. The Project hopes that by highlighting the reasons for the shortcomings in theimplementation of the CLT process and identifying recommendations, this Report will promotebetterimplementationofcollectivelandregistrationandprotectionofindigenouslandrightsamongrelevantstakeholders.

3.2MethodologyBoth primary and secondary research was conducted with a view to gaining information on thedifficulties faced by indigenous communities attempting to protect their land. Extensive deskresearch inbothKhmerandEnglishbuiltupontheProject’spreviousresearch,andwasconductedby: analyzing the basic laws and legal structures that define Cambodian land law and provideprotectionforindigenouslandrights;reviewingdocumentsandresearchfromrelevantagenciesandinstitutions;andreviewingreportsbylocalandinternationalcivilsocietyorganizations(“CSOs”)thatareworkingonland-relatedissues.ThechairpersonofCCHR’sBoardofDirectors,whoisindigenousBunong,alsoprovidedinsightfortheReport,andassistedwiththeresearchdesign.

Primaryresearch,intheformofsemi-structuredinterviews,wasconductedinNovember2015infiveindigenouscommunitiesthroughoutthecountry(seeFigure2:MapofPrimaryResearchSites).Thecommunities, who have not yet received land titles, were identified based on previous researchconductedbytheProject.Atotalof39communityrepresentatives,18ofwhomwerefemale,wereinterviewed as part of the research: nine from the Bunong community at Cheong village, Khsiemcommune, Snoul district, Kratie province (“Cheong village”); eight from the Bunong community atChorkChavillage,KeoSimadistrict,Mondulkiriprovince(“ChorkChavillage”);ninefromtheBunong

71CCHR,‘LandActivistProfiles’(September2015)http://bit.ly/21b6V9672CCHR,‘CambodianCenterforHumanrights(CCHR)hostsRoundtableDiscussiononLandandtheRightsofIndigenousPeople’(MediaAlert)(13January2013)http://bit.ly/1QWvIJE73CCHR,‘Cambodia:LandinConflict,AnOverviewoftheLandSituation’,(Report)(December2013)http://bit.ly/1KtPNVy

15

community at Bu Sra commune, Pech Chreada district,Mondulkiri province (“Bu Sra commune”);seven from thePuNong74 community at KbalRomeas village, Sesandistrict, StungTrengprovince(“Kbal Romeas village”); and finally six from the Chorng75 community at Chumnoab village, ArengValley,ThmoBangdistrict,KohKongprovince(“ArengValley”). Interviewquestionsfocusedontheimportance of the land to the indigenous communities; the impact of the land disputes on theirlivelihoods and identities; discrimination and human rights violations suffered at the hands of theauthoritiesorcompaniesinvolvedinthedisputes;awarenessamongthecommunitiesofCambodianlandlawandindigenouslandrights;awarenessoftheprocessofobtainingCLTs;andthedifficultiesencounteredwhenlandtitleshavebeensought.

Figure2:MapofPrimaryResearchSites:

In addition, interviews were conducted in November 2015 with: eight relevant local governmentofficials, twoofwhomwere female, including commune chiefs, commune councilmembers and arepresentativefromtheForestryAdministration;andsixrepresentativesofCSOsthathaveworkedwith the indigenous communities CCHR identified, including the Cambodian Human Rights and

74PleasenotethatPuNongandBunongrefertothesameindigenousgroup,andarereferredtobytheMRDas“Phnong”.CCHRusesthenameidentifiedbytheindividualcommunities.75Alsoknownas“Jong”

16

DevelopmentAssociation (“ADHOC”), theCambodianLegalEducationCenter (“CLEC”), theWildlifeConservationSociety (“WCS”),MyVillage (“MVi”),andMotherNature. In January2016,CCHRmetwiththeMLMUPCregardinginformationfortheReport.

3.3ScopeandLimitationsoftheResearchDuetotimeandresourceconstraints,theProjectresolvedtofocustheresearchonfiveindigenouscommunities that it hadalreadyobtained informationon fromprevious researchefforts.Notonlydidthissavetimeandresources,butitalsofedintoCCHR’sethosoffollowingupwithcommunitiesandcontinuingtomonitortheircases.WhileconstraintsmeantthattheProjectteamwasunabletocollect data from indigenous communities from all parts of the country, it is hoped that the fivecommunitiesselectedrepresenta largeenoughspreadtodraw insights intocountrywidepatterns.Furthermore,itishopedthattheresultsofthisresearchprovidethebasisforamorecomprehensivestudyinthenearfuture.

17

4.ObstaclestoCollectiveLandRegistration

4.1TheCLTProcessThereareanumberofissueswithintheCLTprocessitselfthatpreventindigenouscommunitiesfromobtainingCLTs. The complexityof theprocess and lackof informationhas led toa general lackofunderstanding of the process among indigenous communitymembers, and even among the localauthoritiesandsomeNGOs.Whilethecommunitiesandthosethataremeanttoassistthemremaininthedarkabouttheprocess,obtainingCLTsremainsachallenge.Inaddition,communitieslacktheresourcestofulfillthenumerousstepsinvolvedintheCLTprocess,andtocoverthecostsassociatedwith obtaining a CLT. These factors necessitate external support for a community to effectivelyengageintheCLTprocess.ThischapterwillelaboratefurtherontheissueswiththeCLTprocessandhowtheypresentobstaclestolandregistrationforindigenouscommunities.

4.1.1LackofunderstandingoftheprocessamongcommunitiesAll of the communitymembers interviewedwere familiarwith the conceptof CLTs - for themostpart, they had obtained this knowledge through attending trainings delivered by various CSOs, ordissemination of information from those community representatives who had attended thetrainings. In addition, listening to the radio, and to a lesser extent reading the newspaper, wereidentified as sources of information that had increased the communities’ knowledge of CLTs.However, themajorityofparticipantsacknowledgeda lackofawarenessof theprocessofhow toobtain a CLT. As a community representative from Areng Valley stated: “We do not have legalknowledge,it iscomplicated,that’swhythe[CLT]processisstillstuck.”InChorkChavillage,duringtheinterviewsthecommunityrequestedthatCCHRexplaintothemthedifferencesbetweenthePLTand CLT, indicating a lack of detailed understanding ofwhat the two different types of land titlesentail. Similarly, in Areng Valley the community requested that CCHR provide them with furtherinformationontheCLTprocess.

In addition, it is important to remember that the individuals thatwere interviewed as part of theresearch – community representatives and activists – are the communitymembersmost likely tohaveknowledgeof theCLTprocessamongtheircommunity.Therefore, it is reasonable toassumethattheoveralllevelofawarenessoftheCLTprocedureamongothercommunitymemberswouldbealotlower.ItisevidentthatwithouttheassistanceofCSOs,thesecommunitieswouldbeunabletobegin the CLT registration process as they lack the knowledge of what it entails. As therepresentative fromWCSsurmised: “[thecommunities]donothave theability so they relyonourassistanceaswellasotherpartners.Itisdifficultforthemtoprocesstheregistrationontheirown.”

4.1.2LackofunderstandingoftheprocessamonglocalauthoritiesEven among the local authorities there is a marked lack of knowledge of, or confusion over theprocess to obtain a CLT. For example, inArengValley, the community allege, “Even the communeauthoritiesdonotknowabouttherightsofindigenouspeopleandtheCLTprocess,”citinganeedforthe RGC to “strengthen the capacity of local authorities and educate them on the land rights ofindigenouspeople.”CSOrepresentativesconfirmedthisoveralllackofknowledgeamongthelower-levelauthorities–asoneCSOrepresentativestated:“theauthoritiesatthesub-nationallevelarelessunderstandingoftheCLTprocess.”

18

Moreover, the local authorities themselves conceded a lack of knowledge in this area.Within thecommune council in Khsem Commune, which has authority over Cheong village, neither thecommunechiefnorthecouncilmemberspresentduringtheinterviewhadanyknowledgeoftheCLTprocess.Thecommunechiefstated:“IhaveneverknownabouttheprocessofregistrationforCLTs…thegovernmenthasneverprovidedany informationor trainingonhowtohelp indigenouspeopleswithCLTs.” In someareas,CSOsareproviding trainings to fill thegapwhere theRGChas failed toprovide local authoritieswith this knowledge – in Bu Sra commune, a commune councilmemberrevealed: “Before I did not know about how to obtain a CLT, until when CLEC came to discussindigenouspeoples’landrights.”However,evenwithCSOsattemptingtofillthisgap,theircapacitytotrainthe localauthorities is limited.Thesamecommunecouncilmemberadded,“eventhoughIhavejoinedtrainings,Istilldon’tknoweverything.”

WhilethecommunecouncilsinindigenousareaslackknowledgeregardingtheCLTprocess,theyareunabletoeffectivelyfulfilltheirmandateofrepresentingthecitizensintheircommunesandservingtheirgeneralinterests,aspertheLawonAdministrativeManagementofCommunes.76Theresearchfindingsmake it clear that it is vital that local authorities are briefed fully about the CLT process,however,regrettablyinsomeareasitistoolate–inKhsemcommune,thecommunecouncilstatedthattheywould,“welcomeNGOstoprovidetrainingontheCLTprocessforindigenouspeoples,butitistoolatenowasthereisnomorelandherefortheindigenouspeople.Everythingistoolate,iftheauthoritieswanttohelptheindigenouspeople,it’suseless,there’snolandforthemnow.”

4.1.3AssociatedcostsThesubstantial costs involved in theprocess toobtainaCLTwere revealedasoneof thegreatestobstaclesthatneedtobeovercomebythecommunitytoregistertheir land.Forexample,thefirststage of the process – identity recognition with the MRD – is alone estimated to cost between$10,000 and $20,000.77 This huge cost supposedly covers transportation of the MRD to thecommunity,accommodation,perdiemandothercostsassociatedwiththeprocess.Withoutexternalassistance, it is difficult to imagine how indigenous communities and local CSOs can cover theinsurmountablecostsinvolvedwiththeCLTprocess.

AcommunecouncilmemberinBuSracommune,whoisherselfindigenousandalsoinvolvedintheCLTprocesswiththecommunityexplained:“Themaindifficultyisthatwedon’thaveenoughmoneyfortheregistrationprocess-formeasuringtheland,forsubmission,foreverythingweneedmoney,exceptwhenorganizationssupportus.”Yet,thelocalauthoritiesdonothavethefinancialcapacitytoassistwith this - the commune chief of KhsemCommune described the financial restraints of thelocal authorities: “Unless there is financial assistance from organizations involved, the communecouncil cannotprocess the registrationdue to limitedbudget… thegovernmentneverprovidesanybudgetforthis.”TherepresentativefromWCSalsoemphasizedtheassociatedcostscoupledwithalack of money: “The first obstacle is the cost. For everything, even the processing of registration,demarcating, meeting, processing in the relevant ministries, they always need money. So thecommunitydoesnothavemoneythemselves,sotheyrelyonassistancefromourprojectstosupportthem.”However,theassociatedcostscanalsoactasabarriertoexternalassistance,andtherehavebeeninstanceswhereorganizationshavebeenhelpingindigenouscommunitieswiththeCLTprocess

76CCHR,‘LawonAdministrativeManagementofCommunes/Sangkats’(CCHRFactsheet)(June2012)http://bit.ly/1QvgfiZ77EstimatescamefromCSOsanddevelopmentpartnersworkingoncommunallandtitling,whichtheyreceivedfromtheMRD

19

havebeenforcedtoceasesupportduetobudgetaryconstraints,effectivelyleavingthecommunitieswithout themeans toprotect their land. For example, inArengValley, the indigenous communitybegan receivingassistancewith the first stageof theCLTprocess inearly2014 fromSamreth LawGroup (“SLG”) -aCambodian law firmthatoffersprobonoassistance–howeveraccording to thecommunity: “now SLG say they do not have enough funds to support the identity recognitionprocess.”

AccordingtotheMLMUPC,theRGChasallocated$300,000ayeartoregisterthecollectivelandofup to ten communities per year in the final stage of the process; thus the communities are notrequiredtocoveranycostsduringthisstage.TheMLMUPCwasunabletocommentoncostsduringotherstagesoftheprocesswiththeMRDandMOI.

4.1.4LackofpoliticalwilltofacilitatetheprocessIt is not surprising that amajor issue raised during the researchwas a lack of governmentwill toprovidecommunitieswithCLTs;whilethereisalegalframeworkinplacetoprotectindigenouslands,inpracticethelawssimplyarenot implemented. InBuSracommune,acommunecouncilmemberacknowledgedthatwhiletheRGChasadoptedlawsandissuedsub-decreestoprotectthelandrightsof indigenous peoples, in reality this has no impact, stating, “They just have the law, but noimplementation.”Themajorityoflocalauthoritiesincludedintheresearchreiteratedthissentiment.

CertainlywithintheindigenouscommunitiesthereisalackoffaithintheRGCtoprotecttheirlands.Forexample, inKbalRomeasvillage,whenaskedwhatthemainobstacletoobtainingtheCLTwas,one communitymember surmised: “Themain difficulty is the government, they are the ones thatgavetheconcessions.TheyarepreventingtheregistrationofourCLT.It’snooneelse.”Indeed,whilethe RGC allows beneficiaries of ELCs to encroach upon the land of indigenous communities, andsanctions development projects that will impact on indigenous areas, the lack of concern overprotectingindigenouslandsseemsevident.

ArecurringthemethatwasrevealedintheresearchwasthelackofpoliticalresolvewithinvaryingstagesoftheCLTprocess,whichultimatelystallstheprocess.AcommunecouncilmemberinBuSracommune noted: “Each level of government says they don’t have the authority to resolve thesituation and then refers it to a higher level. It just goes back and forth.” This was a sentimentreiteratedbythedeputyofSreChhoukcommune,inChorkChavillage,whorevealed:“Theproblemis that the competent authorities do not pay much attention to accelerate the CLT process.” TherepresentativefromWCSdescribedthesituationas follows:“Sometimesthepeople intherelevantinstitutions do not pay attention in their role to accelerate the process, evenwhenwe submit thedocumentsthosepeopleignorethemandkeepquietsothisisverydifficult.”

AccordingtotheILO,ofthe166indigenouscommunitiesthathavebeguntheCLTprocess,114havecompletedthefirststageandhavebeenrecognizedbytheMRD.78AsindigenouscommunitiesmustcompleteeachstageoftheCLTprocessbeforemovingontothenext,delaysduringtheearlystagesbefore interim protectivemeasures can be granted are crucial – lengthy delays have catastrophicimpacts for the communities due to their vulnerability to land grabs. According to informationprovidedbytheMLMUPC,asofJanuary2016theMLMUPChasreceivedCLTapplicationsfromonly

78FigureaccordingtotheILO’s‘UpdatedListofCollectiveLandTitlingProgresswithSupportofILO,GIZandNGOandTargetAffectedbyDirective01from2003-13/01/2015’

20

43communities,ofwhich11havealreadyreceivedCLTs,andninemorewillreceiveCLTsbysummer2016.This further suggests that communitiesattempting to register their collective landarebeingobstructedatlowerstagesoftheCLTprocess.

One CSO representative remarked on the lack of political will to facilitate the CLT process:“Companiesimmediatelyreceivelandconcessionsfromthegovernmentwhentheysubmitrequests,however for the indigenous communities to receive CLTs, it takes them a long time to get it, forexample,ittookonecommunityalmosttenyearstogettheCLT.”

4.2TheLocalAuthorities

4.2.1LackofsupportIn Bu Sra commune, the community revealed that the local authorities hadmade no attempts toassist themwith the CLT process, noting, “They never support us, but if they were committed tosupportingus,wewouldreceivetheCLTshortly.”InCheongvillage,wheretheindigenouscommunityisindireneedofsupporttoprotecttheirremainingplotsofland,thecommunityhascompletelylostconfidenceinthelocalauthoritiestoprovidethemwithassistanceduetothelackofsupport.Asonecommunityrepresentativestated:“theauthoritiesneversupportus,theydismissourrequeststohelpus registerasa legalentity.”Aclear lackof support fromthe localauthoritiescanbeseen inKbalRomeas village, where one sympathetic commune council member has identified the lack ofcommitment by the local authorities to support the community as the main obstacle in the CLTprocess.

Case Study: Lackof supportby the local authorities for the indigenousPuNong in KbalRomeasvillage79

CLTStatus:AwaitingformalrecognitionofidentityfromtheMRD.

The land, livelihoodsandentirewayof lifeof the indigenousPuNong inhabitantsofKbalRomeasvillageinStungTrengprovince’sSesandistrictareunderthreatfromtheLowerSesanIIdam,whichwas approved in November 2012 and is currently under construction by the Chinese-CambodianHydroPowerLowerSesan2Company (“HPLS2”)on theSesanRiver.80Residentshave livedon theland since the time of their ancestors, and rely on the river and surrounding forests for theirlivelihoods,wheretheyhuntwildanimalsandgatherforestby-productssuchasfruit,honey,fungusandresin.Thelandandforestsalsocarrymajorspiritualsignificanceasalinktotheirancestorsandnaturalspirits,containingimportantsiteswherelocalpeoplepraytothesespirits,invokingtheirhelpinmaintainingthespiritualandphysicalhealthofthecommunity.

Construction of the hydropower dam, which will supply electricity to Kampong Cham and Kratieprovinces, began in February 2014 and by some estimates is due to be operational by 2017.According to an environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) completed in October 2008, the

79Formoreinformationonthiscase,see:CCHR,‘KbalRomeasvillage,LowerSesanIIDamProfile’(LandActivistProfile)http://bit.ly/21U8oB480KbalRomeasvillageliesonabendoftheSrepokRiver,whichjoinstheSesanandSekongriversbeforetheyfeedintotheMekongfurtherdownstream.Thissocalled3SriversystemformspartoftheLowerMekongDryForestEco-Region,anareaofrichbiodiversityhometoawiderangeofrareandendangeredspecies.

21

constructionofthedamwilldestroy30,000hectaresofforestadjoiningtheSrepokandSesanrivers,and24%ofthetotalagriculturallandinSesandistrict,greatlyreducingtheproductivecapacityofthearea. In addition, the project will flood an area of 335km². The dam requires the involuntaryresettlement of 1,579 households to six resettlement areas, some of which are in approvedforest/land concessionareas “likelybe subject to considerabledisturbancenowand in the future.”Moreover,localandinternationalCSOshavearguedthattheimpactsofthedamarelikelytobeevenmoreseverethanoriginallyacknowledged,callingforanewEIAtobeconducted.

VillagershavegraffitiedtheirhousestodisplaytheiroppositiontotheLowerSesanIIdamPhotocredit:CCHR

TheforestnearKbalRomeasvillageisalreadybeingclearedtomakewayforthereservoirthatwilllater flood the village,making it increasingly difficult for local residents to sustain their traditionalmeansof income. In2014,HPLS2promisedtorelocatevillagers,offeringeachfamilyaplotof landmeasuring 80m², five hectares of farmland, $6,000 in financial compensation and the provision offood for one year, in addition to various infrastructure at the relocation site. Communityrepresentatives claim that many of those who have agreed to relocate are those communitymembers that have married non-indigenous peoples and had left the community, only to returnwhen they learned of the company’s offer. Yet, the authorities attempt to use their relocation asevidence toportray the remaining communitymembers asbeing stubborn in refusing to relocate.When villagers have tried to convene meetings in the village to discuss the relocation andcompensationissue,theyhavemetwithobstructionfromthelocalauthorities.

Inaddition,an11,257-hectareELCgrantedtoChinese-ownedSivGuekInvestmentCoLtd.in2006iscausing further problems for the Pu Nong in Kbal Romeas village. The ELC encroaches uponcommunity land and forest, including spirit forests, and the company has been accused of illegallogginginthearea.81

TheprovincialgovernordecidedtorecognizethecommunityasanindigenouscommunityinOctober2012andsubmittedthecommunity’srequesttotheMRD;however,thecommunityisstillawaitingformal recognition of identity from theMRD. Community representatives want the RGC to grantthem a CLT to protect their land, reconsider the dam project, and conduct further EIAs. The

81PhakSeangly&DanielPye,‘Luxurywoodfoundburied’,ThePhnomPenhPost,(17February2014)http://bit.ly/1QiweCH

22

communecouncilmemberthatcontinuestosupportthecommunityintheireffortstoobtaintheCLTrevealedthathebelievestheprocess,“isstuckbecauseoftheauthoritiesatthelowerlevelsastheyalwaysignoreimplementationofthelaw,”andrefusetohelpthecommunitydemarcatetheirland.Headded:“IamveryconcernedaboutthefutureifIcannotprotectthepeopleanymore,becausethecommunecouncilareseekingastrategytowin,andIamaloneinsupportingthem.”

Commune council members in some areas do continue to support the communities in the CLTprocess,especiallywhentheythemselvesaremembersoftheindigenousgroup.However,theyarefew and far between, and support the community at great personal risk. The second deputy ofChumnoabcommunecouncilexplainedthatwhileshesupportstheindigenouscommunityinArengValleyintheCLTprocessandhashelpedwiththepreparationoftherequireddocumentsforthefirststage,shefearstheconsequencesofhersupport:“IamafraidthatonedayIwillberemovedfromthe commune council. I amwell known for being active in supporting the community and not thecompany,soIamatarget.”Thisfear isnotunfounded–theothercommunecouncilmemberthatsupports the community, Ven Vorn, was arrested in October 2015 and has since been arbitrarilydetainedonspuriouschargesduetohisactivisminsupportofthecommunity.

4.2.2LackofauthorityandcapacityEven in the rare instanceswhere the local authorities dowant to support the communities, theysimply do not possess the capacity or authority to take supportive action. As revealed previously,manyofthecommune-levelauthorities lackknowledgeoftheCLTprocessandthenecessarystepsinvolved. In addition, the companies involved in land disputes with indigenous communities haveobtained their licenses from the RGC, so in order to support the community, ultimately the localauthoritieswouldhavetochallengedecisionsthatweremadeatthetoplevelsofthegovernment.With very little actual power, the local authorities simply act under orders fromhigher levels andmanyfearthatinsubordinationwillresultinremovalfromtheirpositions.AsarepresentativefromADHOCdescribed:

“The problemwith the local authorities, especially the commune level, is they do not know aboutdecentralization, they do not know their rights, their power, they rarely can make decisions bythemselves,theyjustwaitforordersfromtheprovincialgovernor.Theydonotunderstandtheirrolesohowcantheyimplementthelaw?Andtheyareafraidoftheirsuperiors,thatiftheydonotfolloworderstheywillfaceproblems.”

4.2.3CollusionwiththecompaniesAmongallthecommunitiesattemptingtoobtainCLTs,instanceswherebythelocalauthoritieswereactingagainstthecommunitiesincollusionwiththecompanieswererevealed.InArengValley,thecommunity recounted howpreviously the commune chief and council completely supported theirattemptstoregistertheirlandunderaCLT,however,since,“thechiefhaschangedhisattitudeandnow supports the company.” Among the five commune council members, only two continue tosupportthecommunity’sefforts.“Itwasprobablybribery,butwehavenoevidence,”explainedthecommunityrepresentative,regardingthechangeinattitudeofthelocalauthorities.Theauthoritiesnowroutinelypressurethecommunitytoacceptthehydropowerdamprojectandrelocate.

Similarly in Chork Cha village, the local authorities reneged on their initial support for thecommunity’sattempts toobtain theCLT,which thecommunityclaims isdue topressure fromthe

23

company.InKbalRomeasvillage,acommunecouncilmemberwhoallegesthecompanyhasbribedthe rest of the council members, described how the company has approached him on severaloccasions,whichhebelievesareattemptstobuyhissupport:“Idonottrustthecompanyandnevergowith them…Theynever saydirectlyabout themoney,butwhen they inviteme togo in thecarwiththemsomewhere,fordrinks,thisisasign.”

4.2.4PressuretoacceptprivatelandtitlesAshasbeennoted,itisnotuncommonforindigenouscommunitiestofacepressurefromthelocalauthorities, student volunteers, or private companies involved in the land dispute to accept PLTsthroughamixtureofthreatsandincentives.DespitetheirresolutenesstoobtaintheCLT,accordingto the community in Kbal Romeas village they have faced considerable pressure from HPLS2 toacceptPLTs,onememberdescribinghow,“almostdailytheycometopressureustoacceptPLTsattherelocationsite.”InBuSracommunealso,thelocalauthoritiesroutinelyattempttoconvincethecommunitytoacceptPLTs.ThecommunechiefhastriedtoconvincethecommunitybytellingthemthatbankswillonlylendmoneytothosewithaPLT-whichcanbeusedascollateralfortheloan-whereasiftheycontinuetopursueaCLTtheywillbeunabletoborrowmoney,andinsteadwill“livelike in the Pol Pot regime.” Constant references to Pol Pot has long been a tactic utilized by theauthorities to keep people in fear, and grateful for the relative peace, stability and basicdevelopmentthathasenduredunderthecurrentregime.82ThecommunechiefinBuSracommunehasattemptedtourgethecommunitytorequestasocial landconcession(“SLC”)andacceptPLTs,however even in the face of such harassment and intimidation the community representativesremainfirmintheircommitmenttoobtainingaCLT.Asonecommunityrepresentativeexplained:“IfwegettheCLTwewillhaveallourtypesof traditional land. IfwegetPLTsthensomefamilieswilllosetheirlandinthefuture,asiftheyfacemoneyissuestheymaysellthePLTs.TheCLTprotectsthelandforthenextgenerations.”

ThedistrictcadastralofficershavealsopressuredcommunitymembersinBuSracommunetoacceptPLTs to recognize their land.Theofficers threaten thatwithoutPLTs thecommunitywill lose theirlandandtheauthoritieswillacceptnoresponsibility,asentimentthatstudentvolunteershavealsoreiterated. In addition, the community in Areng Valley has faced pressure from the studentvolunteerstoacceptPLTsattherelocationsite,whohavethreatenedthecommunitythatiftheyfailtoaccept,theywillbeleftwithnothing.

4.2.5JudicialharassmentSeveralmembers of the communities have faced judicial harassmentwhen trying to protect theirland.Forexample,fivecommunitymembersinCheongvillagewhoattemptedtoprotecttheirfast-disappearing land were arrested and detained on charges of “fraud” (Article 377 of the CriminalCode) inFebruary2014.Thisoccurredthreedaysafter filingacomplaintagainst thedeputypoliceinspector, who has deforested and then sold approximately 40 hectares of the community’sforestland.Thecommunitymemberswere releasedonbail fourmonths later, in June2014.Morerecently, while the Project team was conducting the research, a family member of a communityrepresentative received an anonymous phone call threatening the representative’s arrest. Thisoccurredthedayaftervillagershadsubmittedapetitiontodistrict levelauthoritiesrequestingthedismissal of the village chief due to his lack of support. Such arrests, and threats of arrest are

82SebastianStrangio,‘HunSen’sCambodia’(2014)

24

undoubtedly a cause for concern among community activists, members, and a stark reminder tootherswhomayhaveotherwisebeenmotivatedtoadvocatefortheprotectionoftheirland.

In Chork Cha village, it is widely acknowledged by the local communities and NGOs that theprovincial authorities are involvedwith illegal logging that is rampant throughout the area.83 Yet,whiletheauthoritiesturnablindeyetotherealperpetratorsofthe illegal logging,thecommunitymembersthemselveshavebeenaccusedofthisillegalpractice,despitethefactthatthelawpermitsindigenouscommunitiestocontinuetraditionaluseof theforest,which includestheuseof timberfor houses and stables. Accusing indigenous communities of illegal logging, when they are simplyusing the forest and land in line with tradition and the law, is clearly a tactic utilized by theauthorities to harass communities and prevent them from protecting their land. The judicialharassmentfacedbycommunityactivistsinArengValleyisdemonstrativeofthis:

CaseStudy:JudicialHarassmentoftheIndigenousChornginArengValley84

CLTStatus:StillintheprocessofattemptingtogainformalrecognitionofidentityfromtheMRD

TheArengRiver,whichwillfloodtheArengValleyifthehydropowerdamisconstructedPhotocredit:CCHR

The Areng Valley, located in the Thmo Bang District of Koh Kong province, is part of the CentralCardamomProtectedForest,aregionofhighbiodiversityhometoanumberofendangeredspeciesofwildlifeandapproximately1,500people,mostofwhobelongtotheChorngindigenousgroup.Theinhabitantsandtheirancestorshavelivedonthelandsincetimeimmemorial;however,aproposedhydroelectric dam project being implemented by Sinohyrdo (Cambodia) United Ltd. (“Sinohydro”)threatenstheirland,livelihoodsandthenaturalenvironment.Twoothercompanieshadpreviouslybeen tasked with implementing the project, but pulled out after conducting feasibility studies.

83On21May2015,communitymembersfromChorkChavillage,withADHOCandotherNGOpartners,submittedapetitiontotheRGC,regardingtheprovincialmilitarypolice’sinvolvementinillegallogginginthearea84Formoreinformationonthiscase,see:CCHR,‘ArengValley:IndigenousPeople’sLandThreatenedbyHydroelectricDam’(LandActivistProfile)http://bit.ly/1GvNUBJ

25

SinohydrotookoverthedamprojectinJanuary2014.Itisnotclearwhenthedamwillbecompleted,howeverPrimeMinisterHunSenhasannouncedthatconstructionwillnotcommencebefore2018.85

The affected indigenous communities have consistently opposed the dam and rejected offers ofcompensation and resettlement. If built, the dam’s reservoir would flood approximately 20,000hectares of land in the area, submerging their ancestral lands, sacred forests and burial sites. Inattemptstodefendtheirland,thecommunityhasstagedprotestsagainstthecompanyandcreatedroadblocks to prevent company staff from reaching the site of the proposed dam. Subsequently,communitymembershavebeenarbitrarilyarrestedanddetainedonanumberofoccasions.

On07October2015, community leader andactivistVenVornwas arrestedand sent toKohKongprovincial prison where he has been detained since, charged with “harvesting timber productsand/ornon-timberforestproductswithoutapermit”(Article98oftheForestryLaw)and“destructionof evidence” (Article 533of theCriminal Code). Both charges relate to the constructionof a smallvisitorcenterandcommunitymeetingplacefor localactivists involved inthecampaignagainsttheproposed hydropower dam in the Areng Valley, by Ven Vorn and a group of local activists. TheObservatory for theProtectionofHumanRightsDefendershascriticizedthearbitrarydetentionofVenVornasapenalty for“his legitimatehumanrightsactivities”andhascalled forhis immediateandunconditionalrelease.86

ThecommunitycenterbuiltbyVenVornandfellowactivists,forwhichtheywereaccusedofillegalloggingPhotocredit:CCHR

PLUPwasconductedinallthreecommunes,evidencingthatindigenousland-useexistsinthearea.In early 2014SLGbeganassisting the communitywith the first stageof theCLTprocess, howeverbudgetary constraints have paralyzed this process and the community are yet to gain formalrecognition of identity by the MRD. More recently the community’s prospects at gaining formalidentity recognition have increased however, as the Office of the High Commissioner for HumanRights (“OHCHR”)hasexpressedan interest insupportingthecommunities in thisstageof theCLT

85HulReaksmey,‘PMThreatensUseofRocketsinArengValley’,TheCambodiaDaily,(25February2015)http://bit.ly/1IZ1kYm86OMCT&FIDH,‘Cambodia:ArbitrarydetentionandjudicialharassmentofMr.VenVorn’UrgentAppeal–TheObservatory(09October2015)http://bit.ly/1Qe9pjq

26

process.ThecommunitywantstheRGCtoacceleratetheCLTprocess,andcancelthedamproject,whichwillnotonlyruintheirlivelihoods,butalsothreatenstheirexistenceasanindigenousgroup.Asonecommunityrepresentativesurmised:“Whenweareevictedfromhere,everythingregardingour identity will disappear. Our culture and tradition relies on this land.Wewill become ordinaryKhmerpeople,wewillnolongerbeChorng.”

4.2.6OtherformsofharassmentIn addition to judicial harassment, in Areng Valley the community has faced extensive verbal andpsychologicalharassment.Forexample,thelocalauthoritiesaccusethecommunityof livingonthelandillegally,andofnotbeingindigenous,duetotheirabilitytospeakKhmer,askingthem,“Ifyouareindigenouspeople,whydoyouspeaktheKhmerlanguage?”TheChorngcommunityhaslosttheirancestral language (although it was observed that some indigenous words were interspersedthroughouttheirspeech)andclearlytheauthoritiesusethisasatoolforintimidatingthecommunity–asthecommunityclaim:“theauthoritiesusethistorejectusfrombeingrecognizedasindigenouspeople.” The authorities also use the reputation of prominent environmentalist Alex Gonzalez-Davidson87againstthecommunity.Accordingtoonecommunitymember,“[theauthorities]saythisistheareagovernedbyAlex.Eventhoughhe’sgonenowfromthecountry,theystillusehisnametopreventusfromgettingaCLT.” Inaddition, followingcommunityprotestsagainstthedamproject,thecommunecouncilhas threatenedtocancelsavingsgroups in thearea,whichmanyrelyon forfinancialsecurity.

The indigenouscommunity inBuSracommunehasalso facedharassmentby the localauthorities,who have accused the community of having double standards – working for the company andearningmoney,yetprotestingagainstthecompany.Ratherthanempathizingwiththecommunity’sprecarioussituation,thecommunityallegethelocalauthoritiesdisrespecttheiridentityandcultureasPuNong,concluding,“Thediscrimination,itaffectsourcommunityidentity.”

4.3TheCompaniesWhile the RGC alone grants ELCs and CLTs, the actions of the companies can also hinder the CLTprocess.Companies inCambodiaoftencolludewith theauthorities toallow themtooperateELCswhilstcircumventingrequirements.Forinstance,inKbalRomeasvillage,acommunecouncilmemberexplained to theProject teamhowSivGuek InvestmentCo. Ltdwas granted an ELC in 2006aftercolluding with the local authorities; the company had the local authorities rubber stampenvironmentalandsocial impactassessmentmapssotheywouldpass inspectionfurtherupwithinthegovernment.Companiesalsoattempttoremovesupportfortheindigenouscommunitiesbythelocal authorities through bribery. They are often directly complicit in harassing indigenouscommunitymembers, forcibly evicting them from their land and quashing community confidenceand therefore their ability to advocate for their land rights. Furthermore, companies operating inindigenous areas in Cambodia often physically obstruct the CLT process through land grabs andcomplicitywith illegal loggingwithin theirconcessions,preventingcommunities frombeingable to

87Anenvironmentalactivistandco-founderofMotherNature,AlexhastirelesslyworkedtosupportthelocalcommunitytoprotecttheArengValleyfromillegalloggingandtheproposedhydropowerdam.HewasdeportedfromCambodiainFebruary2015aftertheRGCrefusedtorenewhisvisa.

27

demarcatewhatwasoncetheirtraditionallands.TheobstructionofdemarcationofindigenouslandhasbeenevidencedinChorkChavillage:

CaseStudy:ChorkChavillage88

CLT Status:Gained formal identity recognition in 2010; registered as a legal entity in November2013;appliedforaCLTinDecember2014.

IndigenousBunongelderinChorkChavillagePhotocredit:CCHR

In the remote and densely forested north eastern province ofMondulkiri, the indigenous Bunongresidents of Chork Cha village in Keo Sima District say that their land, livelihoods and culture areunderthreatfromanELCheldbyBinhPhoucKratieRubber1CompanyLimited89(“BinPhouc1”).InOctober 2011, Bin Phouc 1, a subsidiary of themajority Vietnamese-Government owned VietnamRubberGroup,wasgrantedanELCintheareacovering8,890hectares,5,100hectaresofwhichtheyarepermittedtousetocultivaterubber.TheELCencroachesuponcommunityland,andinlate2013,Binh Phouc 1 began clearing community land in Chork Cha village, including sacred burial land,despite attempts by local people to prevent this. A number of villagers have been arrestedthroughoutthedisputefortheirinvolvementinprotests,andBinPhouc1hasfiledlawsuitsagainstvillagers who have taken part in protests, accusing them of damaging company property. Thevillagers have lodged numerous complaints with various institutions, yet the case remainsunresolved. InMarch2015,thecompanyandarmedforcesdestroyedsheltersonthecommunity’sland,burningdownover130shelters.

Inaddition, thevillagersallegethatBinPhouc1 iscomplicit in illegal loggingwithin itsconcession,whichhasledtoaninabilitytodemarcatetheirland.ThedeputyofthecommunecouncilraisedtheissueofillegalloggingasanobstructiontothemobtainingtheCLT:“Theycommitillegalloggingandnowthelandcannotbemappedanymore,iftheyask,“Whereisyourcommunityland?”,thereisnoevidence,we’velostalloftheboundariesalready.”Thisisamajorobstacleforcommunitiesandan

88Formoreinformationonthiscase,see:CCHR,‘Mondulkiri–IndigenousBunongVillagerssaythatLandClearancebyRubberPlantationThreatenstheirLivelihoodsandTraditionalWayofLife’(LandActivistProfile)http://bit.ly/1OWBit889Alsoknownas‘BinPhouc1’,‘BenhHoeurkKratieRubber1CompanyLimited’,andsimply‘BinhPhouc’

28

immediate threat to their identity, as a community representative in Chork Cha village lamented:“Unlesswehaveourlands,wecannotberecognized,thenhowcanwesayweareBunonganymore?”A representative from the Forestry Administration, a government agency under the Ministry ofAgricultureForestryandFisheries, taskedwithmanaging forestsand forest resources, commentedonillegallogginginChorkChavillageandtheseeminglackofpoliticalwilltotackletheissue:“[Inthepast]thegovernmentforexamplewasvocalaboutillegalloggingandtherewerecrackdownstotryand suppress the illegal loggers. But now the government is quiet. So illegal logging is happeningalmosteverywhere.”

ThecommunityhascompletedtheearlystagesoftheCLTprocess,gainingformalrecognitionasanindigenouscommunityinMay2010,andregisteringasalegalentityinNovember2013.InDecember2014thecommunityappliedtotheMLMUPCforaCLT.Meanwhile,ongoing landclearancebythecompanyand illegal logging throughout thearea threatens todestroymuchof the remaining landbeforethecommunityisabletocompletetheprocess.

ItisclearthatBinPhouc1hasnotonlyviolatedtheindigenouscommunity’srightsintheabovecase,buthasalsodecreased theabilityof thecommunity todemarcate their land, thusobstructing theCLTprocess.Suchactionsindicateafailuretotakenecessarymeasurestoavoidviolationsofhumanrights,contrarytoobligationsundertheUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights.90

4.4TheCommunitiesInternal factors within the communities themselves can also act as obstacles to the CLT process.Strong,empoweredandunitedcommunitiesaremore likelytobeabletodemandtheirrightsandprotect their communal lands. In contrast, a lack of knowledge, confidence, and unity, can allcontributetoalossoflandandthusinabilitytoobtaintheCLT,ashasbeendemonstratedinCheongvillage. This section outlines potential weaknesses within indigenous communities, and providessuggestions,basedontheresearch,astohowtheseweaknessescanbeovercome.

4.4.1LackofknowledgeofrightsInadditiontothecommunitymembersrevealingalackofknowledgeofthecomplexitiesoftheCLTprocess,moregenerallytheresearchmadeclearthatnotallofthecommunitymembersareawareoftheirlegalrightstotheland.

90OHCHR,‘GuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights’(2011)http://bit.ly/18WbEUy

29

Overall,therewasalevelofsomeunderstandingamongthecommunitiesoftheLandLaw(62%)andoflandrights(77%).Nonetheless,itmustbereiteratedthatthosecommunitymembersincludedintheresearch,thecommunityrepresentatives,arethemembersofthecommunitymostlikelytohaveknowledgeinthisarea.Assuch,thislevelofunderstandingisnotrepresentativeofthecommunitiesasawhole.Moreover,itisalsoimportanttohighlightthatthelowestoverallknowledgeoftheLandLawandlandrightsamongtheindigenouscommunitieswasinCheongvillage,wherethecommunityhaseffectivelylosttheirlandandassuch,theirabilitytoobtainaCLT:

CaseStudy:LossofIndigenousBunongCommunityLandinCheongVillage

CLTStatus:IneligibleforaCLTasnocommunallandslefttoregister

ThelittleremaininglandinCheongvillagePhotocredit:CCHR

TheBunongindigenouspeoplehaveenjoyedlivingontheir land,situatedinwhatisnowknownasCheongvillageinKhsemcommune,Snouldistrict,Kratieprovince,sincethetimeoftheirancestors.Howeveranumberof landgrabsperpetratedinrecentyearsandtheinabilityofthecommunityto

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Areng BuSra Cheong ChorkCha KbalRomeas

AwarenessofLandLawandRightsamongIndigenousCommuni`es

LandLaw

Landrights

30

protectitslandhaveleftthecommunitywithverylittlelandoftheirown.Thecommunityrevealedpowerful and well-connected individuals, including a deputy police inspector (known to thecommunityasMao)andahigh-rankingofficer,HELengOrn,haveperpetratedsuchlandgrabs.Thecommunityhas filedanumberof complaints to theauthorities, however theyhaveyet to receiveinterventionontheircase.Further,communitymembershavefacedjudicialharassmentandarrestinresponsetotheirefforts.

Severalnewcomershavealsosincecometosettleonthe land,andsome indigenous familieshavesoldtheirindividualplots,effectivelyleavingthemlandless.Moreover,thelandhasbeensubjecttoextensive illegal logging. As a result of the land grabs, individual sales and illegal logging, thecommunityhavelosttheirspiritland,theirburiallandandlandreservedforrotationagriculture.

Thecommunitywantstheirindigenousidentitytobeformallyrecognized,andfortheRGCtograntthemPLTs,astheyhavenocommunal land left forwhichtoregisterunderaCLT.Asacommunityrepresentativeobserved:“Thereisnolifeanymorefortheindigenouspeople…everythingislost.”

It is notable that Cheong village has faced greater exposure to outsiders seeking land than in theother case studies, due to its proximity to the National Road No. 7 and the main town in Snouldistrict. However, while it is impossible to say definitively, it is likely that if the community werebetter informedof their land rights, theywouldhavebeenbetterequipped toadvocate for thoserightsanddefendtheirland.ThistheoryisevidencedbycommunitymembersinKbalRomeasvillage,whoattributed theirability todefend their land to their knowledgeof land rights,which theyhadobtained throughCSO trainings.As such, further trainings anddisseminationof informationaboutlandrightswouldensurethatindigenouscommunitiesarebetterequippedtoprotecttheirland.

4.4.2LackofconfidenceAlackofconfidencealsopresentsachallengetocommunitiesattemptingtoobtainCLTs.Confidenceisimperativetocarryoutvigorousadvocacystrategiesduringtheregistrationprocess,resistongoingharassmentfromauthorities,andtopreventlandgrabsandintimidationbycompanies.Communityconfidence can be difficult tomaintain throughout long periods of struggle. Representatives fromWCSandMotherNaturesuggested that inorder tobetterassist indigenouscommunitieswith theCLTprocess,CSOsshouldvisitthecommunitiesregularly,asnotonlydoesthishelptoincreasetheirknowledgeoftheirlandrightsandtheCLTprocess,whichinitselfisempowering,butitalsoprovidescommunities that have been struggling to protect their land with a much needed boost inconfidence.TheWCSrepresentativeexplained,“wecannotvisitoftenasweworkinover20villages,sotheyloseconfidenceastheyfeelthereisnostrongattentiontotheirsituationfromtheNGOs,sotheylosetheircommitment.NGOsshouldincreasecooperationandvisitthemfrequently.”

4.4.3LackofunityWhile themajorityof the indigenous communitymembers expressed their preference for theCLToverthePLT,theresearchdidrevealalackofunityamongsomeofthecommunities,whichhasthepotentialtohindertheCLTprocess.

31

Only in Cheong village did the community representatives all state their desire for PLTs, howevertheywentontoexplainthattheyhavenocommunallandslefttoregisterunderaCLT,andthushavenochoicebuttotrytoobtainPLTstopreventthelittlelandtheyhaveleftfrombeinggrabbed.Therewasunanimousagreementthatiftherewerelandsandforestleftforthem,theywouldwantaCLTtoprotect their landsandconsequently their identity.A lackofcohesionamongthecommunity inCheongvillagewas identifiedasamajor reason for the inabilityof thecommunity todefend theirlandfromlandgrabsandnewcomers.Accordingtothecommunityrepresentative,somecommunitymemberswentagainsttheadviceoftheirleader,whourgedthemnottoselltheir landinordertomaintain their identity. Instead, the community members sold their plots to newcomers to easefinancialwoes,contributingtotheoveralllossofcommunityland.

AsidefromCheongvillage, inChorkChavillageonecommunityrepresentativeprofessedhisdesireforaPLT,explainingthathewouldbeabletousethetitletoobtainaloanfromthebank.Again,itisimportanttonotethatthemajorityofcommunitymemberswhoparticipatedintheinterviewsarerepresentativescommittedtoprotectingtheircommunityland,andthereforetheircommitmenttosecuring CLTs may not necessarily reflect the desires of every individual within their respectivecommunities.Forexample, InArengValley,allcommunityrepresentatives includedintheresearchexpressed their desire for a CLT, however they acknowledged that in one of the eight affectedvillages–Prolayvillage–therearecommunitymemberswhowantPLTs.However,thecommunityrepresentativesconfirmedthemajorityofthecommunityremainscommittedtoobtainingtheCLT,stating: “Ifweget theCLTeverything,our identityandculture, cancontinue,andnocompaniesorpowerfulmencanstealourland.”

A lackofunity,oranuncertaintyoverwhich typeof land registrationcommunitymembersprefercan significantly contribute to delays within the process. According to the MLMUPC, they haveobserved that during the land registration phase of the process, some communitymembers havedecidedtheynolongerwishtobepartoftheclaimfortheCLT,andinsteadwouldratheraPLT.Thisdelaystheprocess,astheMLMUPCthenhavetoreturntothecommunityandre-evaluatetheland,whichtakestimeandresources.

In addition, although a family’s decision to accept a PLT does not deprive the remainder of thecommunity of its right to obtain a CLT, it does have the effect of diminishing the community’spopulation and solidarity. In addition, those with PLTs are permitted to sell what was formerly

72%

28%

LandTitlePreferenceamongIndigenousCommuni`es

PrefersCLT

PrefersPLT

32

indigenous land to outsiders, which has the potential to add further burden to the rest of thecommunitywhoremaincommittedtopreservingcollectiveland.91

There are undoubtedly benefits for those indigenous familieswho legitimately accept PLTs – theyofferthemimmediateprotectionoftheir land,andallowtheownertouse itascollateral forbankloans (in contrast to theCLTwhichby law cannotbeused for thispurpose).However, indigenousfamiliesoftendecidetoacceptPLTsunderpressurefromthe localauthoritiesoryouthvolunteers,withoutbeing fully informedof the consequences, and in the faceof increasing encroachmentontheirland.Inthiscontext,itisfairtoconcludethatmanyofthosefamiliesacceptPLTsunderduress.InthefaceofthiscoercionitisnotablethatPLTscanbeincorporatedintoCLTs;Sub-Decree83doesallow for indigenous peoples in possession of PLTs to relinquish their privately owned land to beincorporatedintocommunityownership.92However,this isadifficultandcomplicatedprocessthatverymuchdependsonthecommitmentofthecompetentauthorities.Toincorporateapieceoflandinto indigenous community land, the community representative must request the CadastralAdministrationforsubsequentregistrationofallchanges.93Consideringthatlackofassistancefromauthorities is often a barrier to initial CLT registration, subsequent reincorporation of PLTs seemsoptimisticatbest.

Inaddition,alossoffaithintheRGCtoensureprotectionoftheirlandrightshasledtoindigenouscommunity members to seek short-term solutions - for example, accepting PLTs so they can sellthem to overcome financial difficulties - rather than following indigenous traditions.94 Oncecommunity members have sold their land, they are unable to re-join their respective indigenouscommunities.ThishasbecomearealityformanyindigenousfamiliesinBuSracommune,whohavesinceattempted to re-join the restof thecommunity inobtainingaCLT.However, thecommunitystates they are unwilling to receive thesemembers back into the community as per their internalrules.

Whileincreasedknowledgeandincreasedconfidencewillcertainlybolstertheabilityofcommunitiesto defend their rights, the many pressures on indigenous communities mean that communitycohesion is perhaps equally as important. This is true to the extent that in Cheong village acommunity representative requested that NGOs “please conduct training on how to improvecommunitysolidarity.”

4.5NGOsandDevelopmentPartnersIt is clear that indigenous communities need external assistance to register their communal landgiven themultiple challenges they faceunder the existingCLTprocess.However,whileNGOs andother organizations that work to support communal land titling for indigenous communitiesundoubtedlyhavegoodintentions,theyhavethepotentialtocauseunintendedobstaclesandevendodisservicetothosetheyaremeanttobeassisting.TheCSOsthatwereinterviewedaspartofthisresearchwereabletoshedfurther lightonthis.Amajor issuethatwasrevealedwascompetition,rather than cooperation among organizations. As a representative from ADHOC candidlyacknowledged:“Wealwayscriticizethegovernment’sweaknessbutwerarelycriticizeourselves,the

91Ibid92Sub-Decree83,Article1393Ibid,Article1494NGOForumonCambodia,‘IndigenousPeoplesinCambodia’(April2006)http://bit.ly/21tZ1rr

33

gap of civil society… One of the main obstacles is the gap in the cooperation between CSOs.” ArepresentativefromCLECcorroboratedthelackofcooperationasproblematic:“Ihaveobservedthatorganizationscompetewitheachother, forexample,theysay“this ismyproject,”- theyarenot insolidarity and do not cooperatewell to push for the registration process for the CLT.” This lack ofcooperation was particularly highlighted by NGOs working in Bu Sra commune, where thecommunityhasyettoreceiveaCLTalthoughthereareseveralorganizationsworkingonthecase:

CaseStudy:IndigenousPuNonginBuSracommune95andNGOCooperation

CLTStatus: Received formal identity recognition in2011; registeredas a legal entity inMay2012.SubmittedapplicationfortheCLTin2012,buthaveyettoreceivearesponse.

The Pu Nong community in Bu Sra commune commune, Pech Chreada District, say that rubberplantations owned by the Socfin-KCD Company (“Socfin-KCD”) have encroached on land that theydependonfor theirsurvival,affecting788families.A largemajorityof theaffectedpopulationareindigenousPuNongpeople,whohaveastrongconnectiontotheland,whichtheyhavelivedonforgenerations.

Socfin-KCD, alongwith Varanasi and Sethikula companies, operates two ELCs in Bu Sra communecommune.Asof2012,theELCstotaled6,978hectares,ofwhichrubberhadbeenplantedon4,062hectares. Socfin-KCD began clearing land for the plantation in April 2008, before comprehensiveEnvironmentalandSocial ImpactAssessmentshadbeencompletedorcompensationpackageshadbeen finalized. Despite lodging numerous complaints and staging on-going protests, Socfin-KCDcontinues to clear the land and has destroyed cultivated farmland, land reserved for rotationalagriculture,traditionalburialsitesandspiritforests,withseriousnegativeimpactsonlocalvillagers’economicandspirituallife.Sofar,compensationthathasbeenofferedtothevillagersisconsideredgrosslyinadequate.

RubberplantationinBuSracommuneownedbySocfin-KCDPhotocredit:CCHR

95Formoreinformationonthiscase,see:CCHR,‘BuSracommune,Mondulkiri’(LandActivistProfile)(Date?)http://bit.ly/1Q5PIdR

34

InadditiontothepressuresfacedbythecommunityfromtheSocfin-KCDplantations,anearbySLC

(believed tohavebeenestablished in in 2010or 2011)on theoutskirts of LasMehvillage, is alsocausingconsiderabletension;theSLChasencroachedonburialsites,spiritforests,landforrotationalagricultureandresidentialland,displacingnearly100indigenousfamilies,inadditiontocreatinganinfluxofnewcomersintothearea.

TheindigenouscommunityinBuSracommunehasbeenengagedintheCLTprocessformanyyearsnow,andanumberorCSOshavebeenassistingtheminthisprocess.In2011,thelocalcommunityreceivedformalrecognitionoftheiridentitybytheMRD,andinMay2012,theMOIregisteredthemasa legalentity. In2012,theysubmittedtheirapplicationtoregisterwiththeMLMUPC.Asofyet,theyarestillwaitingforaresponse.ThefactthattheSLCencroachesuponlandthatthecommunityhaddemarcatedfortheirCLTis,asidentifiedbythecommunity,amajorobstacletotheCLTprocess.However, better cooperation between CSOs working on this case would greatly benefit thecommunity in this process. The community claims that at the beginning of this process theorganizations supporting them “were very active” but more recently they have become “not soactive.”Thecommunitystillneedshelpwithcompletingtheirprimarymap.

ADHOC cited the need for NGOs in Bu Sra commune to “conduct meetings together and divideresponsibilities.”AccordingtoCLEC,suchcooperationcanbeeasilyachieved:“Organizationsshouldconduct meetings together to seek resolutions and to divide responsibilities – for example, whichorganizationshouldassisttheIDrecognitionprocessetc.?Whichorganizationshavespecialiststodothemapping?Whichorganizationcanprovidelegalassistance?”Headdedfurther,“Weshouldhaveajointbudgetbetweenorganizationssowecanprocesstheregistrationtogether.”Aswasidentifiedpreviously,thehighcosts involvedintheregistrationprocesscanbeburdensomefororganizationsassistingindigenouscommunities.Bycooperatingwitheachother,organizationscanovercomesuchfinancial restraints, thereby ensuring that assistance to indigenous communities is not suddenlyhaltedwhenfundsdryup.

The affected community members want the RGC to cancel the SLC and ensure the ELCs do notencroach on their land. In addition, they request that NGOs: “accelerate the process for theregistrationoftheCLT,otherwisetherewillbenomorelandleftforustoprotectanymore.”

The lack of cooperation between organizations was also remarked upon by the indigenouscommunities – in Kbal Romeas village, the community appealed for greater cooperation betweenorganizationsassistingthem,stating:“Wewantorganizationstocooperatewitheachother,cometothe village to support us with our advocacy, and the registration process. If organizations cometogether,maybetheycaninfluencetheregistrationprocessandmoveitforward.”ItisimportantfororganizationstorememberthatevenwhenacaseseemswellsupportedbyalargenumberofNGOsanddevelopmentpartners,thereisalwaysspaceforbettercoordinationandsupport.

35

5.RegionalLessons

The impactof landgrabson the traditionsandculturesof indigenouscommunities inCambodia isdevastatingandoften irreversible.When indigenous communities canno longer relyon their landandtraditionalactivitiestosustainthemselves,theyhavefewoptionsbuttoengageinwagelabortosurvive.Forexample, inCheongvillage,wheremostofthelandhasdisappeared,manycommunitymembersnowhavelittlechoicebuttoworkfornewcomersandillegalloggers.SimilarlyinChorkChavillageandBuSracommune,duetothelossoflandsomeindigenouscommunitymembershavehadtoacceptjobswiththecompaniesinvolvedinthelanddisputes.Notonlydoeswagelaborrepresenta breakdown in indigenous peoples’ traditional culture, due to a lack of education indigenouspeoplesareoftenconfinedtojobsintheinformaleconomy.Thisleavesthemparticularlyvulnerabletoahostof furtherhumanrightsabuses.Moreover,as their identity is soclosely tied to the land,loss of land ultimately leads to a loss of identity among indigenous peoples. As one communityrepresentative fromKbalRomeas village said: “Ifwemove to the [relocation site]wewill loseourland and they will give us PLTs. This is not our culture. If we lose everything our identity willdisappear,wewillnotbePuNonganymore,wewillbecomeKhmerpeople.”

Many countries around the world, including some in the South Asian region, have begun toimplementmeasurestomitigatesuchimpactsandprotectindigenouspeoples’rights.Cambodiacandrawuponexperiencesofcountriesintheregionthathavetakenstepstoensuretheprotectionofindigenouspeoples.Forexample,thePhilippinesisoneofthefewcountries,andthefirstinAsia,toestablishacomprehensivelegalsystemfortheprotectionof indigenouslandrights,acknowledgingtheirhistoricalmarginalizationandprovidingaccesstomechanismsforredress:

CaseStudy:ThePhilippinesandtheIndigenousPeoples’RightsAct

It is estimated that between 10% and 20% of the Philippines’ population of approximately 102.9million are indigenous.96 Generally inhabiting geographically isolated, but resource rich areas, thePhilippines’indigenouscommunitiesarecontinuouslyvulnerabletolandgrabbinganddevelopmentprojectsthatviolatetheirhumanrights.

Colonized by both the United States and Spain, the passage of various colonial era laws in thePhilippineshashaddeleterious impactsonthe indigenouspopulationandtheir land.97 In thepost-colonial period, while the Filipino government introduced laws that recognized the rights ofindigenouspeoplestothelandtheyoccupy,italsointroducedlawstothecontrary.Theintroductionof Republic Act 8370, also known as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (“IPRA”) in 1997, widelyconsideredalandmarklaw,recognizedcommunallandtenureofindigenouspeoplesasalegitimateright.TheIPRAincludesprovisionsfocusingonfourcoreprinciples:therighttoculturalidentity;theright to self-governance and empowerment; the right to social justice and human rights; and therighttoancestraldomainsandlands.

The IPRA has been lauded for the protections it affords to indigenous people,98 and includesmeasuresprovidingfor theState’srecognitionofnativetitles,aswellasastatutoryprohibitionon

96IWGIA,‘TheIndigenousWorld2015:Philippines’(2015)http://bit.ly/1RItbTA97ADB,‘LandandCulturalSurvival:TheCommunalLandRightsofIndigenousPeoplesinAsia’(2009)http://bit.ly/1OX5QLg98IWGIA,‘TheIndigenousWorld2015:Philippines’(2015)http://bit.ly/1RItbTA

36

thedevelopmentofindigenouslandbytheStateoroutsideentitywithouttheinformedconsentofthe affected community. Furthermore, the IPRA also mandated the creation of the NationalCommission for the Indigenous Peoples (the “NCIP”), which is tasked with overseeing theimplementation of the IPRA, and protecting and promoting the interests and well-being ofindigenouspeopleswithdueregardtotheircultureandbeliefsystems.

In 2007, theWorld Bank conducted a detailed study99 reviewing the successes and failures of theIPRA. The main criticism focused on the poor implementation of the IPRA, which was largelyattributedtotheIPRA’slackofcompatibilitywithotherlaws,andorganizationalchallengessuchasthe lackof capacityof theNCIPandother statutorybodies toadequately fulfill their role. On theother hand, the World Bank considered the institutional and legal framework of the IPRA to beadequate and in conformitywith accepteduniversal standards.Within the first ten years since itspassage,57certificatesofancestraldomaintitlecoveringnearlyafifthoftheestimatedtotalofsixmillionhectaresofancestraldomainhadbeenissuedundertheIPRAbenefitting300,000families,inadditionto172certificatesofancestrallandtitlescovering4,838hectares.100

Inspiteofitsflaws,onecannotdiscounttheframeworktheIPRAprovides,andthepotentialithastoprotect the rights of indigenous communities. Even if the law’s efficacy is hampered by poorimplementation, it doesnot necessary follow that thiswouldbe a problem inother countries if asimilar lawwere passed. Indeed, the sheer number of indigenous people among the Philippines’populationis likelytobeafactorfortheIPRA’spoorimplementation–thereareapproximately12millionindigenouspeoplesfrommorethan100ethnicgroupsresidingwiththecountry.Ultimately,the IPRA represents the Filipino governments’ desire topromotediversitywithin the country, andcanbeseenasacomprehensiveandrobust instrument intheprotectionof indigenouslandrights.The IPRA represented a keymilestone inAsia in becomingoneof the first pieces of legislation tospecificallyprovideforacomprehensivesystemfortheprotectionofindigenouslandrights.

AlthoughtheIPRAhasencounteredchallengesdue,inpart,tothevastindigenouspopulationinthePhilippines,inCambodiatheproportionofindigenouspeopleintheoverallpopulationismuchlower– estimated at one to two percent,101 around a tenth of the figure in the Philippines. Thus, theadministrative burden of implementing such a law in Cambodia would be considerably less.Therefore, theexampleof the IPRAandthebundleofprotections itprescribes intheformof landrightsforindigenouscommunitiescanstillbeseenasusefulblueprintforCambodiatofollow.

Nepal provides a further example from the region where the State has committed to improvingindigenous rights,bybecoming the first country inSouthAsia to ratify ILOConventionNo.169onIndigenousandTribalPeoples(“ILO169”):

99WorldBankGroup,‘TheIndigenousPeoplesRightsAct:LegalandInstitutionalFrameworks,ImplementationandChallenges’(June2007)http://bit.ly/1HYJ5r8100RorieR.Rajardo,‘Stillstrangersintheirownland’,PhilippineCenterforInvestigativeJournalism,(Report)(July2007)http://bit.ly/1GvNUBJ101IWGIA,‘IndigenouspeoplesinCambodia’(2015)http://bit.ly/1Qj4FsT

37

CaseStudy:NepalandILOConventionNo.169onIndigenousandTribalPeoples

Accordingtothelatestnationwidecensusin2011,indigenouscommunitiescomprisearound36%ofNepal’s26.5millionpopulation,andcanbeseparatedinto59legally-recognizeddistinctgroups.102InSeptember 2007, Nepal became the first country in South Asia to ratify ILO 169, thus becominglegallyboundtoenactingpolicytoensuretheprotectionofindigenouspeoplesandtheirlands.

Nepal’s indigenous communities warmly welcomed the ratification of the ILO 169; however, itsimplementation has been stymied by the lack of understanding by both indigenous and non-indigenouspeopleofsomeofitskeycomponents.103Nevertheless,recenteffortsonimprovingboththeunderstandingandimplementationofILO169’scoretenetshavebeenledbytheUN-IndigenousPeoples’ Partnership (“UNIPP”) – a UN initiative with a core purpose of promoting progress inindigenouspeoples’rightsandtheirinvolvementindecision-making.Takingintoconsiderationviewsfrom a range of key stakeholders, including indigenous communities, in collaboration with theNepalesegovernment,UNIPPandILOdevelopeda“FrequentlyaskedQuestions”bookletonILO169,andtranslatedintoNepalesetheILOHandbookonUnderstandingtheIndigenousandTribalPeoplesConvention, 1989 (No. 169).104 These tools were widely disseminated throughout 2015, and it ishopedthatsubsequentlytherewillbeanimprovementinILO169’simplementationinNepal.

Notwithstanding the various issues with implementation, Nepal’s ratification of ILO 169 was alandmark event, signalling the country’s commitment to the recognition and advancement ofindigenous rights. One hopes that in time, implementation of ILO 169 will improve and its coreprinciples become entrenched within Nepalese domestic law. By ratifying ILO 169, an importantmilestonewasachievedandavitalframeworklaidforthelegalprotectionofindigenousrights.

While Nepal’s implementation of ILO 169 is not without its flaws, Nepal has set an importantexample to fellow Asian countries where indigenous peoples are also experiencing violations ofrightsand insecurityof landtenure.AlthoughCambodiavotedforUNDRIP, ifCambodiaweretrulycommittedtoprotectingthelandofindigenouspeoples,itwouldfollowNepal’sleadandratifyILO169.IftheRGClookstobenefitfromtheexperiencesandlessonstobedrawnfromthePhilippinesand Nepal, in addition to other countries across the globe where measures have been taken toprotectindigenousrights,itmaybeabletobeginmoreeffectivelyprotectingCambodianindigenouscommunitiesandtheirlands.

102IWGIA,‘IndigenouspeoplesinNepal’(2015)http://bit.ly/1McCjZB103UNIPP,‘UNIPPSuccessStories:Cooperatingtopromote&protectindigenouspeoples’rights’(May2014)http://bit.ly/1lHQfpP104UNPermanentForumonIndigenousIssues,‘UpdateonILOactivitiesconcerningindigenouspeoples’,Fourteenthsession,NewYork,20Aprilto01May2015http://bit.ly/1NrZHUT

38

6.ConclusionandRecommendations

Astheresearchhasrevealed,therearenumerousobstaclesfacingindigenouscommunitieswhowishtoregistertheircommunallandsunderaCLT.SuchchallengesariseduetothecomplexandlengthynatureoftheCLTprocess,alackofpoliticalwill,andtheactionsofthevariousstakeholdersinvolved,includingthelocalauthoritiesandcompanies,andevenamongCSOsworkingtoassisttheindigenouscommunitiesandthecommunitiesthemselves.Whilstallstakeholdersmustprioritizetheprotectionof indigenouspeoples’rightsandsupporttheCLTprocess,ultimatelytheonuslieswiththeRGCtoprotect indigenous land rights and ensure communities are able to register their land in a timelymanner. Yet, the RGC continues to display amarked lack of political will to safeguard indigenouspeoples’ lands,clearlyevidencedbythesmallnumberofCLTsthathavethusfarbeenawarded. Inthe absence of formal protection provided by land titles and inadequate interim protectivemeasures, time is of the essence as indigenous land is fast disappearing, threatening the veryexistenceofCambodia’sindigenouspopulation.

Yet, in spite of the seemingly insurmountable obstacles facing them, indigenous communitiescontinuetogotogreatlengthsinordertoprotecttheir lands.Forexample,thecommunityinKbalRomeasvillagerecountedtotheProjectteam:“Almosteveryday,ifwehearaboutillegalloggingorbulldozinginthisarea,40-50ofusgoimmediatelytostopit.”Withlimitedresourcesandsupport,itis unlikely that indigenous communities will be able to effectively sustain such protests endlesslywhilst sustaining their livelihoods. However, the indigenous communities involved in the researchwere eager to emphasize their commitment to continuing to safeguard their land – as onecommunityresolutelydeclared:“Weremainstrongtoprotectour landfrombeinggrabbedandwewillstruggletoprotectituntilwedie.”

Moreover, obtaining aCLTdoesnot guarantee an end to land rights violations – therehavebeenreportsthatindigenouscommunitiesthathavereceivedCLTsstillsufferencroachmentofcommunitylandfromlandgrabbingandillegalloggingduetoalackoflawenforcementfromtheauthorities.Inaddition, concerns have been expressed in relation to the political implications of the legislationsurrounding CLTs – as in order to be recognized by the MRD as an indigenous community, thecommunitymustprovetheir‘indigeneity’andtraditionalwayoflife,whichhasthepotentialto“boxpeopleintocertainpositionsthatcouldactuallylimittheiropportunitiestochangeinwaysthatmightadvantagethemselves.”105

Nevertheless, CLTs do offer Cambodia’s indigenous communities a level of protection in that theyformalize their land rightsand serveasameansofdefense if landdisputesdoarise.Greater landtenure security and the preservation of customs, traditions and natural resources are positiveimpacts feltby indigenouscommunitieswhohave receivedCLTs.Thus, the importanceofCLTs forindigenouscommunitiesinprotectingtheirlandrightsandtheirveryexistenceasindigenouspeoplescannotbeoverstated.

105IanBaird,“IndigenousPeoples’andland:ComparingcommunallandtitlinganditsimplicationsinCambodiaandLaos’AsiaPacificViewpoint,Vol.54,No.3(December2013)

39

Withthisinmind,CCHRwishestomakethefollowingrecommendationstostakeholders,basedontheresearchpresentedinthisReport:

6.1RoyalGovernmentofCambodia• Ratify the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples as part of its

commitmenttoprotectingindigenouspeoples’rights;• Amend the existing policy on the use and registration of indigenous community land by

removing any sentence or articlewhosemeaning: determines that indigenous communityland is Stateproperty; or provides limitations to the sizeof burial groundand spirit forestthatcanberegisteredundertheCLT;

• Strengthenthecapacityofgovernmentatalllevelstoensureproperlawenforcement;• IncreaseawarenessofbothCLTsandPLTssoindigenouspeoplescanmakeindependentand

informeddecisionsastowhichlegalprotectiontheywillseekfortheirlands;• Disseminate information on the CLT process so communities are clearly aware of how to

registerforcollectiveland;• Allocate anational budget for collective land registration at each stageof theCLTprocess

andstrengthenthecapacityofthoseinstitutionsinvolved;• Haltapprovaloffurtherconcessionsanddevelopmentprojectsinindigenousareas,untilthe

boundariesofindigenouspeoples’landshavebeendemarcated;• Amendinterimprotectivemeasuressotheyguaranteetenuresecurityforcommunitiesfrom

thefirststageoftheCLTprocess,anddonotexcludelandagreedforinvestmentpriortothemeasurescomingintoeffect;

• PrioritizethedemarcationofindigenouspeopleslandsunderNGOobservationandwiththecooperationofthecommunities;

• Reviewandrevokethecontractswithcompanieswhohavebrokenthelawinobtaininglandfromindigenouscommunities;

• Takemeasures to immediately halt illegal logging occurring within indigenous communitylands,andtherestofthecountry;

• PutanendtoforciblypressuringindigenouspeoplesintoacceptingPLTs,andbringtojusticetheperpetratorsofsuchactions;and

• Ceaseintimidationandharassmentofindigenouscommunityactivistswhoadvocatefortheprotectionoftheirlandrights.

6.2Companies• Adhere to both Cambodian and international legislation in all operations, and ensure

compliancewithrequirementsunderILOConventionNo.169andUNDRIPsuchasfree,priorandinformedconsent;

• In accordance with Cambodian law, ensure proper environmental and social impactassessmentsarecarriedoutpriortobeginningoperations;

• CommittoahumanrightspolicywhichprotectsindigenousrightsandisinlinewiththeUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights,aswellasensureallstaffareprovidedwithtrainingonsuchapolicy;

• Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts throughout operations, bymeaningfully involving indigenous communities in every phase of proposed projects,

40

including design, evaluation of potential impacts, and implementation, and ensuringtransparencythroughout;and

• Address and remedy such impacts when they occur through the establishment ofoperational-level grievance mechanisms, which recognize indigenous governance andcustomarylaws.

6.3CSOsandDevelopmentPartners• Improve cooperation with other organizations working to assist the same indigenous

communities, dividing responsibilities and combining financial resources, thusensuring thecommunitiesreceivethebestpossiblesupport;

• ProvidetechnicalandpracticalsupporttorelevantState institutionstostrengthencapacitytoenablethoseinstitutionstobettersupportindigenouscommunitiesintheCLTprocess;

• Inparticular,assistcommunitieswithdemarcationandcreatingprimarymaps;• EnsurecooperationinadvocacyeffortswithanaimtoacceleratetheCLTprocess;• Providecapacitystrengtheningprogramsfor indigenouscommunitiesonthe land law, land

rights, available land dispute mechanisms, the CLT process, and advocacy techniques, toincreaseknowledgeandconfidence;

• Ensure beneficiaries of trainings include community members other than communityrepresentatives;

• Visitindigenouscommunitiesregularlytomaintaincommunitymoralandconfidence;and• Facilitateandsupportnetworkingbetweenindigenouscommunitiestostrengthensolidarity.

6.4Communities• Strengthencommunitycohesionbyhostingregularmeetingsbetweencommunitymembers,

encouraging younger generations to participate in community activities, engaging withvillagechiefsandthecommunecouncil,andnetworkingwithotherindigenouscommunities;

• Encourage and support those communitymembers that are facing difficulties or pressurefromexternalsources;

• Ensure community members who wish to accept PLTs are aware of the consequences ofleavingthecommunity,butaretreatedwithrespect;

• Encourage community members other than community representatives to attend CSOtrainings;and

• Ensurecommunitymembers thatattendCSO trainingsdisseminateknowledgeobtained tothe rest of the community members to increase overall awareness of rights among thecommunity.

41

Bibliography

Cambodianlaws,decrees,ordersanddecisions

ConstitutionalCounciloftheKingdomofCambodia,DecisionNo.092/003/2007(10July2007)

ConstitutionoftheKingdomofCambodia(1993,asamendedin2006),http://bit.ly/1hcJqYV

Decision No. 125 SSR, August 18, 2014 on establishment of the Inter-Ministerial Committee toInspect,DemarcateandAssessELCs

LandLaw,Kret-Chhbab/100(10August1992)

LandLaw,NS/RKM/0801/14,(20July2001)

LawonForestry,NS/RKM/0802/016,(30July2002)http://bit.ly/1tbrB3i

MOI and MLMUPIC, Inter-ministerial circular on interim protective measures protecting land ofindigenouspeoples(2011)

OrderontheStrengtheningMeasureandEffectivenessofEconomicLandConcessionManagementNo.01BB(May2012)

Sub-decree No. 22 on the Decentralization of Power, Roles and Duties to the Commune/SangkatCouncils,ANK/BK(25March2002)

Sub-DecreeNo.83ontheProceduresofRegistrationofLandof IndigenousCommunities,ANK/BK,(09June2009)

Sub-DecreeNo.146onEconomicLandConcessions,ANK/BK(27December2005)

Internationallawsandconventions

Internationaltreatiesanddeclarations

Conventionon theEliminationofAll FormsofDiscriminationagainstWomen (18December1979)http://bit.ly/1jkl3IM

ConventionontheRightoftheChild,(20November1989)http://bit.ly/1fGCcXV

ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 76th ILO session (27 June1989)(enteredintoforceon05September1991)http://bit.ly/1O0X1Dc

InternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights(GeneralAssemblyresolution2200A(XXI)of16December1966,enteredintoforce03January1976),http://bit.ly/15WUwtO

International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination,http://bit.ly/1k1MoiX

UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(GeneralAssemblyresolution217AIIIof10December1948),http://bit.ly/1O8f0nS

42

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (General Assembly resolution 61/295 of 13December2007)http://bit.ly/1bKIrMs

Otherinternationalinstruments

CESCRGeneral CommentNo. 4, ‘The right to adequate housing (Art.11 (1))’, (13December 1991)http://bit.ly/1NREsLV

OHCHR,‘FactSheetNo.25,ForcedEvictionsandHumanRights’(May1996)http://bit.ly/1NKzQKM

OHCHR,‘GuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights’(2011)http://bit.ly/18WbEUy

UN Economic and Social Council, ‘Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement’, Principle 9, (11February1998)http://bit.ly/1GxBOfU

Reportsandpublications

ADB, ‘LandandCultural Survival: TheCommunal LandRightsof IndigenousPeoples inAsia’ (2009)http://bit.ly/1OX5QLg

ADHOC,‘WhoseLand?ReportontheLandRightsSituationinCambodia2014andfirsthalfof2015’,(July2015)http://bit.ly/1Hhk4qe

CCHR,‘ArengValley:IndigenousPeople’sLandThreatenedbyHydroelectricDam’(LandActivistProfile)http://bit.ly/1GvNUBJ

CCHR,‘BuSracommune,Mondulkiri’(LandActivistProfile)http://bit.ly/1Q5PIdR

CCHR,‘Cambodia:LandinConflict,AnOverviewoftheLandSituation’,(Report)(December2013)http://bit.ly/1KtPNVy

CCHR,‘HierarchyofLawsinCambodia’(Factsheet)(January2014)http://bit.ly/1IKTN4m

CCHR,‘KbalRomeasvillage,LowerSesanIIDamProfile’(LandActivistProfile)http://bit.ly/21U8oB4

CCHR,‘LandActivistProfiles’(September2015)http://bit.ly/21b6V96

CCHR,‘LandReformPolicyReport:FindingsfromRoundtableDiscussionsandPolicyPlatforms’,(July2013)http://bit.ly/1O6PcvT

CCHR,‘LawonAdministrativeManagementofCommunes/Sangkats’(CCHRFactsheet)(June2012)http://bit.ly/1QvgfiZ

CCHR,‘Mondulkiri–IndigenousBunongVillagerssaythatLandClearancebyRubberPlantationThreatenstheirLivelihoodsandTraditionalWayofLife’(LandActivistProfile)http://bit.ly/1OWBit8

CCHR,‘TheFailureofLandDisputeResolutionMechanisms’,(BriefingNote),(July2014)http://bit.ly/12zx4nE

Global Witness, ‘Rubber Barons: How Vietnamese Companies and International Financiers areDrivingaLandGrabbingCrisisinCambodiaandLaos’(May2013)http://bit.ly/1HgC1V8

43

Human Rights Watch, ‘Cambodia: Land Titling Campaign Open to Abuse’ (12 June 2013)http://bit.ly/1U5ECUL

Ian Baird, “Indigenous Peoples’ and land: Comparing communal land titling and its implications inCambodiaandLaos’AsiaPacificViewpoint,Vol.54,No.3(December2013)

IWGIA,‘IndigenouspeoplesinCambodia’(2015)http://bit.ly/1Qj4FsT

IWGIA,‘IndigenouspeoplesinNepal’(2015)http://bit.ly/1McCjZB

IWGIA,‘TheIndigenousWorld2006’(2006)http://bit.ly/21bgrsZ

IWGIA,‘TheIndigenousWorld2015:Philippines’(2015)http://bit.ly/1RItbTA

Jeff Vize andManfred Hornung, Heinrich Böll Foundation, ‘Indigenous People and Land Titling inCambodia,’ Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty 2013, 8-11 April 2013http://bit.ly/1XntSBe

LauraM.Kirchner, ‘Livingonthemargins:OntheStatusandStandingofMinoritiesandIndigenousPeoplesinCambodia’,HeinrichBöllStiftungCambodia(June2015)http://bit.ly/1XFN911

LICADHO,‘TheGreatCambodianGiveaway:VisualizingLandConcessionsoverTime’(1March2013)http://bit.ly/HxpSOV

NGOForumonCambodia,‘IndigenousPeoplesinCambodia’(April2006)http://bit.ly/21tZ1rr

Oxfam, ‘Free prior and informed consent in the Philippines: Regulations and realities’ (September2013)http://bit.ly/1jU3Eco

Rorie R. Rajardo, ‘Still strangers in their own land’, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism,(Report)(July2007)http://bit.ly/1GvNUBJ

SarahMilne,‘Extraction:IllicitLoggingintheShadowofTransnationalGovernanceandInvestment’,CriticalAsianStudies,Vol.47,No.2,(May2015)

Sarah Milne, ‘Under the leopard’s skin: Land commodification and the dilemmas of IndigenouscommunaltitleinuplandCambodia’,AsiaPacificViewpoint,Vol.54,No.3,(December2013)

Sarah Milne and Bill Adams, ‘Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-levelPayments for Environmental Services in Cambodia’, Development and Change, Vol. 43, No. 1(February2012)

SebastianStrangio,‘HunSen’sCambodia’(2014)

SuryaP.Subedi,‘ReportoftheSpecialRapporteuronthesituationofhumanrightsinCambodia’(24September2012)http://bit.ly/1kUyGln

TransparencyInternational,‘CorruptionPerceptionsIndex2014’(2014)http://bit.ly/1AgRivL

UNIPP, ‘UNIPPSuccessStories:Cooperatingtopromote&protect indigenouspeoples’ rights’ (May2014)http://bit.ly/1lHQfpP

44

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, ‘Fifth Session, Fact Sheet 1: Indigenous Peoples andIdentity’http://bit.ly/1mOcHLo

UNPermanentForumonIndigenousIssues,‘FrequentlyAskedQuestions:DeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeopleshttp://bit.ly/1QNk9Wq

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, ‘Update on ILO activities concerning indigenouspeoples’,Fourteenthsession,NewYork,20Aprilto01May2015http://bit.ly/1NrZHUT

UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, ‘Indigenous peoples andtheir relationship to land: Finalworkingpaperpreparedby SpecialRapporteur,Mrs. Erica-IreneA.Daes’E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21(June2001)http://bit.ly/1MJYUy7

WorldBankGroup,‘TheIndigenousPeoplesRightsAct:LegalandInstitutionalFrameworks,

ImplementationandChallenges’(June2007)http://bit.ly/1HYJ5r8

World Economic Forum ‘Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015’ (September 2015)http://bit.ly/1pnKzuv

Newspaperarticlesandpressreleases

CCHR, ‘Cambodian Center for Human rights (CCHR) hosts Roundtable Discussion on Land and theRightsofIndigenousPeople’(MediaAlert)(13January2013)http://bit.ly/1QWvIJE

Hul Reaksmey, ‘PM Threatens Use of Rockets in Areng Valley’, The Cambodia Daily, (25 February2015)http://bit.ly/1IZ1kYm

IRAM,‘Facing–CrisisIndigenousPeopleofCambodia’SubmissionbyindigenouspeopleofCambodiatotheAsiaPreparatoryMeetingfortheUnitedNationsPermanentForumonIndigenousIssuesHeldinMalaysiaon04-06March,2009http://bit.ly/1Ufbvi3

LICADHO,‘Cambodia’sConcessions’(May2015)http://bit.ly/1LdkawE

LICADHO, ‘Renewed Surge in Land Disputes Must be Addressed not Denied’, (February 2015)http://bit.ly/1DG8IaO

MaliaGuyer-StevensandKuchNaren,‘FundsDryUpforProjectAdvancingIndigenousLandRights’,TheCambodiaDaily,(February2015)http://bit.ly/1VB50qn

OHCHR, ‘Economic land concessions in Cambodia: A human rights perspective’ (June 2007)http://bit.ly/1a47Sss

OMCT & FIDH, ‘Cambodia: Arbitrary detention and judicial harassment of Mr. Ven Vorn’ UrgentAppeal–TheObservatory(09October2015)http://bit.ly/1Qe9pjq

PhakSeangly&DanielPye,‘Luxurywoodfoundburied’,ThePhnomPenhPost,(17February2014)http://bit.ly/1QiweCH