customary land tenure and practices of khmer communities ... · keo bora star kampuchea pheap...

Customary Land Tenure and Practices

of Khmer Communities in Lowland Rural Cambodia

A Case Study In Choam Thnanh Village, Kampong Thom Province

June 2018

i

Acknowledgement

We would to express sincere appreciation to theMekong Region Land Governance (MRLG)teamforfinancialandtechnicalsupportinprovidingdirectionforthestudyandprovidedusefulcommentsforthedraftreport.TheyincludeMr.NgoSothath,Mr.PochSophorn,andChristianCastellanet.Weexpressprofoundgratitudetoelders,villagechiefandvillagerswhospenttheirtimeasindividualandingrouptosharetheirexperienceandthoughtwiththeresearchteam.WegiveduerecognitiontotheADICfordiligenceandhardworkinthefield.AllowustogivecredencetoMr.SemSopheakdeyforfieldsupport,andMr.SoDaneinproducingusefulgraphsanddata for the report.Also,muchappreciation isdue to thecomments to thedraft reportprovidedbytheSKManagementTeamincludingMr.NhekSarinandMs.ChetCharya.Lastly,wearegratefultoAbelardoCruz(Jake)forcommentingandeditingthereport.Toall,Buddha’sblessingforahopefulyear.

AnalyzingDevelopmentIssuesCentre

IlOeurChamSoeunKeoBora

STARKampuchea

PheapSochea

VillagerspatrolthecommunityForest(photo@ADIC)

ii

ExecutiveSummary

Cambodiahasalonghistoryoftraditionalpracticeonlandandnaturalresourcesmanagement.Buttherehasbeenchangeduetoemergingdemandsforpoliciesandhumanneeds.Adecadeandahalfago,theLandLawandnecessaryregulationswereadoptedandenforcednationwide.However, landandnaturalresourcesmanagementcustomarypracticeamongnon-indigenousgroups still exist in Cambodia and still widely accepted among Cambodian people. Tounderstand this in greater depth, theAnalyzingDevelopment Issues Centre (ADIC) and STARKampuchea (SK) undertook a study on non-IP (indigenous people) customary tenure in onecommunityselectedbasedongivencriteriainextensiveconsultationwithMekongLandRegionGovernance (MRLG). ChoamThnanh village, Tipor commune, Santukdistrict, KampongThomprovincewasselectedbasedonthesetofcriteriaagreeduponbybothpartners,ADIC,SKandMRLG and from a number of pre-visits tomany places in Takeo, Battambang and KampongThom.

Thestudyrespondedtothetwospecificobjectives:todocumentthecustomarypracticesandhow it has changed concerning land use and management, resource tenure and transfer,institutions,conflictresolutionsmechanismsovertime;and,toassessthecommunity’scapacityto sustain land and natural resources-dependent livelihoods, and the cultural practices thathaveanimplicationoncustomarylandandresourcesgovernance.TheframeworkfromMRLG’sGuidebook was applied; it placed the main themes for this study: resources tenure andtransfer, local institutions, land use and community livelihoods, and conflict resolutionmechanism.Theperiod covered in the studywasabout ahalf centuryofperiod—startingofearlystepofthevillageuptonowadays(beforePolPotor1975,theperiodsfrom1979to1998,theperiodfrom1999to2008whenCFwasinplacein2005,andfrom2009uptowhenELCswerestartedin2009andGovernment’sDirective01in2013.

Thestudyexaminedkeyeventsandculturalvaluesasathemethatranacrossthefourthemeswithlandusemanagementintegratedtocommunitylivelihoods.Thesethemeswerecarriedasquestionsintheinterviewguide—theformal(legal)structurealongsidethecustomarysystemrelatingoraffectingeachother.

ResourcesTenureandTransfer.Before theKhmerRouge, localpeoplecouldaccess the landmostlyfreeandenjoyedlanduseastheirownchoicesduetolargelandsavailableagainstthefew village population. Local practiceswere fully applied as no formal local structureswereestablished in the village. Elder people were widely accepted and recognized for their rolesamong local people not bymandate but as a commonpractice. Local people popularly usedshifting cultivation practice and no private land ownership or formal access to land. Thecustomary practices remained widely accepted from 1979 to early 1990s but with added

iii

inclusionofthevillagechief.Bythe1990stoearly2000s,formalauthoritywaswidelyenforcedandstrengthenedasgovernmentconnectedwithvillageandpeople.Sincethen,therolesandinfluenceofelderlypeoplehavestarteddeclining,buttheinformalwayofverbalconsentsstillapplied on land transfers. After the presence of the Community Forestry, the government’sroleismoreprevalentyetcustomarypracticesstillpersistamongthelocalpeoplewithaccessto CF areas within the CF committee who has learned to work both with the ForestryAdministrationandthelocalnuances.

Local Institutions. Therewasno formalgovernance systemat thevillage for the firstperiod,except the elders group. The Khmer Rouge period has two co-installed village chiefs yetworkingwiththeeldergrouponmanaginglandtransactionsandcommonpropertyresources.After 1979, the village chief assumed a more prominent role, with elder’s relegated towitnessing on land transactions, but the lattermore active in CFmanagement inmobilizingpeopleand localdecisionsthatconcernthe lossof landandnaturalresources.Morerecentlydecision is more with the village chief and commune council and technical authorities;however, the traditional ways of practice aremaintained through traditional protection andpatrollingsystem.

LandUseandCommunitylivelihoods.ThemainlivelihoodsremainedagricultureandaccesstoNTFPsinsurroundingandCFareas.Theexchangeoflocalproductstransitionedfrombartertocommercialtransactions.Shiftingcultivationinriceandvegetablefarmingwasprevalentuptotheendof1990s.Butloggingfollowed,alongwiththeELCforagro-industrialproductsandcashcrops of cashew and cassava. The recent periods saw land encroachment withoutcompensation to affected people and restricted access to previous NTFP areas. Thus, manyvillagersfoundpaidworkincashcropplantationsorwork-migrated.Theseemergingchanges,especiallyELC,erasedtheculturalpracticeofshiftingcultivationcompletely,asthevastareasbecameclaimed.

Conflict resolutionmechanism. The elder groupwasprominent during the early periodsbutwithveryrareconflictcasesinthecontextoflargeswathoflandareasandresourcesavailable.Theperiodsfrom1999-2008foundamediatingroleforthevillagechiefbutalsorarecasesoflanddisputesinthevillage.Theeldergroup’sroleerodedbutremainedvitalonwitnessinglandtransactions and inmanaging commonproperty resourcesor community rituals. The recentyearsbroughtconflict-resolutionmainlywithinthevillagechiefandcommunecouncilortaskasprivate ownership and land title documents are the norm and the CF areas having cleardemarcation.

The findings on the community’s current capacity to sustain land and natural resources-dependent livelihoodsandculturalpracticessawpositivesigns intheunityofthecommunityon a common objective to protect their remaining resources in the CF area. This is well-

iv

manifested by their regular patrolling, sustainable harvesting of NTFPs and timber resourcesonly for domestic use not for commercial sales and two important swath of resources inTrapaing Sdac Soay pond and Prey Trapeang Boeng still maintained by tradition. Anothermanifestationofsolidarityweretheceremonialfunctionsthatenablesharingofandexchange-labour on house construction and rice cultivation that showed a strong sense of mutualsupport.ThestudyfoundthatCFmembersareskilledinCFleadershipandmanagementthatisbacked by training and mentoring support from local forestry administration. There is stillneeded capacity on resource-generation to sustain protection work and there is need forsupportbydevelopmentpartners.Inoverall,thevillagehasstillsomepracticeofcustomaryoflanduseamonglocalpeopleevensome significant changes in long period ago even declining of elderly role in mediation forcommunity issues in recent timewhere formalvillageadministrativeandpoliticalmechanismhasbeenwidelyadopted.However, the twosystemsare still seen in itshybrid formwhen itcomestolandandnaturalresourcesgovernanceasformalvillageleaderdoesnotabandonedthe role of elders in consultation, and in some case elders even becoming part of thecompositionoftheleadershipgroupsuchas inCFcommittee.Similarly,whenelderstaketheceremonialfunctions,theyalsoconsultwithformalvillageleadertoensurethesmoothrunningof theevent.Despite the somemajordecisionsmaybypass the roleof eldersdue toofficialadministrativeprocess,eldershavebeeninanadvantageouspositiontosharetheirtraditionalknowledgeandexperiences,andinfluencinglocalrulesorpracticeontheground.Therefore,asawayforward,themixofcustomarypracticesandlegalapproachinmanagementwerefoundtobere-assuringandshouldbeencouragedasmodelforCFandotherformsofmanagement,especially in ensuring a certain percentage of elder representation due to their seniority ofexperienceandtogainbalancedviewsinfuturelandandnaturalresourcesgovernance.

BeforePolPot(pre-1975)

1979 to1998 1999to2008(CF2005)

2009uptoNow

A.LandUse,ResourcesTenureandTransfer

• Elders solve landdisputes

• Open access toland by villagerswith informalsharing

• No registry butverbalagreement

• Limitedpopulation

• Informal elderscouncils stillprevalent butwithappointed villagechief(VC)

• Land transactionswere limited,mainly verbal butwitnessed

• “new families’ and‘old families’ co-existed

• CF set up in 2005 (149ha)

• VCassumeleadrolein land transactionsand disputeresolutions.

• Written documentsin transaction(receipt or letter ofagreement)

• Available land onlyinnorthernpart

• common resourcesin Prey TapeangBoeng andTrapeang Sdach

• ELCs in 2009 andDirective001in2013

• By 2009 nomore openaccess to land, noshifting cultivation, andforest

• Lands subject toprivatization andindividualholders

• CF areas is only thecommon resourcesarea

• Land transfers withdocumented throughvillage chief (not forwithin-familytransfer)

v

Soay• Local authorities

have lead role inlawenforcement

• Social land concessionset up (housing andown-clearedland)

• Families thatmoved tonew village haveconflicts

B.LocalInstitutions

• Subsistencefarming andtraditional foodcrops

• No formal tradingonly barter, usedof money mainlyforoutsidegoods

• Conflicting villagechiefs(KhmerRougevs.SoC).

• Elders were thestronger andrespectedauthority

• Farmer solidaritygroup set up bySoC

• Community planinitiated by theelders and villagefor forestmanagement

• More roles ofVillage chief andcommunechief

• CF established withelders mobilizingvillagers and bigroleindecisions

• Youth active inpatrols

• Minor influencefrom outside (e.g.FAofficers)

• Formal actors: villagechief, commune chief,FA officer and landofficer.

• Directive 01 applied onlandonthenorthofthevillagewithlandtitles.

• Majority still practicedsharing the resourceandhelpingeachother.

• Access to CF throughtraditionalpractice.

• Traditional protectionandpatrollingsystem

C.Communitylivelihoods

• Agriculturecultivation fishing,hunting,collection offorestproducts

• Manual labourandworkanimals

• Trade for goodsand materialsthrough exchangeand money(outsidegoods).

• villageconsiderablyisolated

• Paddy and uplandricecultivation

• Seasonal NTFPcollection, fishingandhunting

• Logging from1980sto1990s

• shifting cultivationfor paddy remainsinpractice

• Conversion to cashcrops (cashew,cassava)

• Small-scale LoggingandNTFPcollection

• Wagework in cashcropplantations

• BNA (Cam) Corp, in2009 (7500ha. forcassavaandrubber)

• Landencroachment;nocompensation

• RestrictedaccesstooldNTFP

• Villagers sell labor orworkinfactories

• ReducedNTFP;charcoalandlogging

• Subsistence farmingprevail

• DebtswithMFI

D.Conflictresolutionmechanism

• informalandeldergroup in thevillage

• noconflictonlandduetowide,openspace

• Armed conflictbetween KhmerRougeandStateofCambodia

• Rare conflict incommunity butresolutionfacilitatedby villagechiefwithelders

• Declining role ofelders

• Conflicts betweenfamilies from the oldvillage living inthenewvillage

• internal land conflictswithin the communitymembers

• Elderly people lessinvolved, inactive andnon-functioningconflict-resolution.

• Village chief andcommune councilormore prominent inconflict-resolutions.

• Privateownershipwithsecure land title andclear demarcationimportant

vi

ListofAbbreviation

ADIC AnalyzingDevelopmentIssuesCentre

CF CommunityForestry

CLT CommunalLandTitle

CT CustomaryTenure

ELC EconomicLandConcession

FA ForestryAdministration

FGD FocusGroupDiscussion

KII KeyInformantInterview

L&A LearningandAdvocacy

MRLG MekongLandRegionGovernance

NCDD NationalCommitteeforSub-NationalDemocraticDevelopment

NTFP Non-TimberForestProducts

RECOFTC TheCenterforPeopleandForests

SoC StateofCambodia

SK STARKampuchea

VC VillageChief

vii

ListofTableandFigures

Table1:KeyComponentsoftheStudy..........................................................................................8

Figure1:SketchMapofChoamThnanhVillage.............................................................................9Figure2:GPS-markedpointsonCommunityForestryArea........................................................10Figure3:MapindicatingCFareas................................................................................................17Figure4:HistoricalSnapshotofChoamThnanhvillage...............................................................27

viii

ContentsAcknowledgement.......................................................................................................................i

ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................ii

ListofAbbreviation....................................................................................................................vi

ListofTableandFigures...........................................................................................................vii

I.Introduction................................................................................................................................1

II.ReviewofExistingStudies.........................................................................................................2

2.1ConceptualFramework.........................................................................................................2

2.2ChangeofCustomaryTenureinCambodia..........................................................................4

3.3KeyComponentsforDocumentingCustomaryTenure........................................................5

III.ResearchObjectives.................................................................................................................6

IV.ResearchMethodology............................................................................................................7

V.EvolutionofCustomaryPractices...........................................................................................11

5.1BeforePolPot(before1975)..............................................................................................11

A.ResourcesTenureandTransfer........................................................................................11

B.LocalInstitutions...............................................................................................................11

C.LandUseandCommunitylivelihoods...............................................................................12

D.Conflictresolutionmechanism.........................................................................................13

5.2Theperiodsfrom1979 to1998..........................................................................................13


B.LocalInstitutions...............................................................................................................14



ix

5.3Theperiodfrom1999to2008(CFin2005andBeforeELCs).............................................15


B.Localinstitutions...............................................................................................................18



5.4.From2009uptoNow(ELCsin2009andDirective01in2013).........................................20


B.Localinstitution................................................................................................................21



VI.CommunityCapacitiestoSustainCustomaryPractices........................................................28

VII.Conclusions............................................................................................................................31

1

I.IntroductionThe thirdMRLG national stakeholderworkshop on L&A “Effective Recognition of CustomaryTenure” was held in November 2016. Partner organizations came together in order tounderstand the customary tenure of Khmer farmers in the uplands and low lands. Theworkshop was documented by Analyzing Development Issues Centre (ADIC) in collaborationwithSK.Thisput forwardaneed foravalidationstudy.Thiswasconsequentlycarriedout inChhoamThnanhvillage,Tiporcommune,Santukdistrict,KampongThomprovince,theselectedareawasbasedonthecriteriaagreeduponbybothpartners.ThisreportontheMRLGresultedfromvisitstothearea.

Choam Thnanh village is one of the 14 village of Ti Pou commune1. It borders north withBosChombokandSvay village, eastwithChhoukRumdoul village, south toPlong village, andwest by Somrong village. This village existed before the Khmer Rule regime. Its populationcontinuestoincrease—from29Khmerfamilies119familiesin2017.Thisareawasthickforestbefore1979andexperiencedgovernancebybothKhmerRougeCambodiaStatesoldiers.Theresidenceof thepeopledidnotmoveto themainroadbecausenatural resourcessupportedtheir livelihoods. In the1980s to theearly 1990s, these resourcewere lost to illegal logging,hunting, and land grabbing for agricultural purposes. By 1992, the impact of the forestdestructionwasheavilyfeltandvillagersthoughtofprotectingtheirremainingforest.ThePreyCheungPhumCommunityForest(CF)wasestablishedin2001withthedemarcatedlandareaof143.86hectares.2

Article 40 of the Forest Law states recognizes traditional land-user rights and ensurestraditionalcustoms,beliefs,religionandlivelihoods.3Asub-decree4onthemanagementoftheCFwasapprovedin2003andaPrakas5in2006thatsetupdirectionsonhowtoestablishtheCFwith the official documents that would lead to the CF’s official recognition. The process of

1 NCCDDatabase,http://db.ncdd.gov.kh,CambodiaGazeteer2MeasSothunVathanakandImMaredi,Casestudy4,TheMarketSystemofNTFPinaCommunityForestryOrganization,ParticipatoryMonitoringandEvaluationSystemforSustainableCommunityForestryManagement,CBNRMLearningInstitute,January20083NS/RKM/0802/016TheLawonForestry,ForestAdministration2003,RoyalGovernmentofCambodia4No:79OrNorKrar.BorKar,Sub-decreeonCommunityForestryManagement,2003,RoyalGovernmentofCambodia5Thereare8stepsinthesequencedprocesstoformtheCF;IntroductoryMeeting,EstablishthemanagementstructureoftheCF,PreparetheCFManagementCommitteeBy-Law,DemarcateandapprovetheCFboundary,PrepareandapprovetheCFRegulation,PrepareandApprovetheCFAreaAgreement,PrepareandApprovetheCFManagementPlan,MonitorandEvaluatetheCFDevelopment

2

formingCFincludeshavingaCFmanagementplansincetheforestwasalreadyunderthreatsofdestruction.6This is themain challenge for theForestryAdministration (FA) staff required toworkwiththeCFcommitteeandmemberssoastogainlegitimacy.7

ThestudyfoundinavisitinJanuary,20188thattheCFsizewasmaintained.Thepeoplewereinvolvedinforestconservationforthreemandated-terms.Theyhavetheirby-laws,regulationsandmanagementplanwithacommonpurposetomaintaintheforestfortheirnextgeneration.TheCFwassustainedbecausethepeopleappliedtraditionalpracticestoaccessandyetprotecttheirNTFP.

TheForestry LawandProtectedAreasLawrecognize thecustomarypractices,butnot in theLand Law.However, besides theCF, there are still other kinds of practices of the customarytenure that had aspects on culture, livelihoods, land transfer, land management, andleadership.Thestudyattemptedtocaptureabroadscopeofviewsthroughoutthevillageontheseaspectsthroughitshistoryofchanges.Thisstudyelaboratedstrategiesandwillusetheevidence for advocacy purposes, and will be presented to concerned stakeholders and thewiderpublic.

II.ReviewofExistingStudies

2.1ConceptualFrameworkLandcoversawidevarietyofaspects,includinglandforcultivatingrice,cashcropsororchards,forests,grazingland,rivers,streamsandwatersources.Landisakeyassetforpeopleengagedinagriculture, livestockbreeding, forestproducts, inlandfisheriesandothernaturalresource.Besides being an asset, it has inherent value as an inheritance from ancestors. It representscultureandidentity,suchasintheburialgroundsandspiritualforestlands.Customarypracticesonmanagingthesetypesoflandhavepassedonfromonegenerationtoanother.Thepeopleexercisefullcarebecausetheyownedit.

CustomaryTenureisasociallylegitimateandacceptedsetofrulesdefininghowrightstolandand associated natural resources are to be allocated within a community.9 The GuideBookdefineditas“asetofrulesandregulationsdefinedthroughtimebyacommunitytomanagesustainablytheirlandsandnaturalresources.Theserulesdonotformpartofofficialstatelawsbutarebasedonhistoricallyconferredsocialandpoliticallegitimacy.Althoughnotrecognizedinformalstatutorylaw,customaryrightsandassociatedrulesandinstitutionsarelegitimatein6SummarynotefromKIIandFGD,ADICforDPA-PADEKBaselineSurveyinPreahVihearandOdormeanchey,20177Srey&Dipart,ParticipatoryMonitoringandEvaluationSystemforSustainableCommunityForestryManagement,SreyMaronaandDiepartJean-Christophe,January20088Thepurposeofthepre-visitwastoseetheexistingpracticeofcustomarytenure,thechangesandtheeffectonthepractice,howpeopleresponseandplanforfuturecoping 9MekongRegionCustomaryTenureWorkshop,7-9March2017

3

theeyesofcommunities:theyarewellknown,acceptedandenforcedbycommunitiesandinmost cases by neighboring communities, too. The group boundaries and right-holders ofspecificresourcesarewellknownandrespected.However,asforstatutorytenure,customarytenure is about a social relation between the users and thosewith the authoritywithin thecommunitytorecognizetherightsoftheusers.”10

A review on the existing bibliographies on customary tenure concludes that the naturalresource ismanagedbythecommunityorbythecommunityandhouseholdsandrecognizedbylocalauthority,especiallywhenitcomestoaccess,use,transfers,andsaleoftheresources.Localrulescanbecomeintertwinedorhybridizedwiththestatelawsandpolicieswhiletherewasmuchchangeonlocal institutionandnaturalresources.11Srey&Diepartarguedthatit isnotsecureeither fromthe landtitleor fromthe localauthority,but rather theyco-existandformhybridformsoflandtenuresecurity.12

Therearedifferentformsof landtenuremanagementincludingprivateproperty,state/publicproperty,commonproperty,andopenaccessproperty.Commonpropertywasthesubjectofthisstudy.Commonpropertyisjointlyheldandmanagedwiththesomerules,decisionmaking,allocatetheaccess,monitoringandenforcementmechanism,andconflictsolutionmechanism.Keypracticesofthemanagementofcustomarytenurewere:(1)definedrulesandoperationalrights that regulate theexternal resources/lands; (2) applied sanctions for thosewhodonotfollow; (3) inclusion of and exclusion of others from benefiting from the resources; and (4)definedprocesstotransferlands/resources.13

The GuideBook’s provison on tenure arrangements under customary tenure suggested thateachlandusetypehasdifferentuseandmanagement.Customarytenure includescommunalland (by a community/village, a clan or a larger ethnic group) and land plots or resourcesmanagedbyindividualsorhouseholds(forestsandshiftingcultivationareasarecommunal,butorchardsandriceterracesbyarebyhouseholds).Severalcasesofcustomarysystemaroundtheworld contains cases of claims to land by households or individuals but need to abide bycommunalrulefortheuse,sharingandtransferasnorighttoselltoothers(ex.whichareasareallowedtodoclearance).The internalruleswerecontextspecificandoftenthereweresomelevelofadjustment.Customarytenuresystemspossessthreeelements:14

10TheguidebookondocumentingcustomarytenureinMyanmar,March2017,page2611SivhuochOu,Thebibliographicalreviewofexistingresearchonthenatureandextentofcustomarytenure(CT)inCambodiawithinKhmer(nonIP)communities,MekongRegionLandGovernance(MRLG)Project,201712Diepart&Sem,FragmentedTerritories:IncompleteEnclosuresandAgrarianChangeontheAgriculturalFrontierofSamlotDistrict,North-WestCambodia,201613TheguidebookondocumentingcustomarytenureinMyanmar,March2017,page26 14 Mekong Region Customary Tenure Workshop, 7-9 March 2017

4

• Aterritoryclaimedandcontrolledbyacommunity• Acustomarypoliticalsystemthatdefinedwhoareitsleaders,whomakesdecisionand

whoregulatepotentialconflictsandclaims(customaryconflictresolutionsystem)• Thecustomaryrulesorlawforallocatingrightstouse,control,andtransferonlandand

natural resourceswithin the customary territory, aswell as associated responsibilitiesandrestraints.

2.2ChangeofCustomaryTenureinCambodiaDespite rules and governance structure for customary practices in place, formal or statutorylaws on private ownership and land registration and the social changes influenced thecommunities and gradually eroded the customary rules. For example, it was observed thatDirective 01 has shifted the desire of community from obtaining communal title to that ofprivateownership.

Historically,customarypracticesinCambodiachangesfromoneregimetoanother.BeforetheFrench came, private property did not exist. The French introduced private land ownershipaimedatcontrollingpeasants,boostingriceproduction,andprovidingfreelandforlargescaleplantation for French investors through land titleswith tax imposition.However,only10percentoflandsfelltosuchtypeofownership.Thatwaswhythetraditionalappropriationofland“by theplough” remained theprevailingnorm. TheKingNorodomSihanouk’s administrationdidnotaltertheresourcetenurearrangementscreatedbytheFrenchbutallowedtherighttoclaimthelandinthreeways:ownershiptitle;fixedassetregistration;andsimplybyoccupation(by the plough). This resulted in a conflict between the claim and clearing of land undercustomaryarrangementandthemodernsystemofprivatepropertyrights.15PrivatepropertywasabolishedduringtheKhmerRougeperiodbetween1975andearly1979.After1979on,thePeople’sRepublicofKampucheaintroducedKromSamaki(SolidaryGroup)andprivatepropertyremainedunrecognized.Whencollectivizationno longerworked in theendof1980s,privatepropertywasthenrestored.By1989variouslegalprovisionsrelatedtolandwereincludedintotheConstitution.The1992LandLawstipulatedthatallthelandbelongstotheStateandthatCambodianshadprivatepossessionrights.16Also,theLandLaw2001recognizedthecustomarytenurepracticebytheindigenouscommunitythroughtheCommunalLandTitling(CLT).

It is difficult to see the pure customary practice in Cambodia when it has been affected byeconomic and political changes the last decades. There are cases documented about theconflictbetweenthe legalsystemagainstthe localpracticeortheirtraditionalway.Acaseof15Jean-ChristopheDiepart,TheFragmentationofLandTenureSysteminCambodia,June201516SivhuochOu,Thebibliographicalreviewofexistingresearchonthenatureandextentofcustomarytenure(CT)inCambodiawithinKhmer(nonIP)communities,MekongRegionLandGovernance(MRLG)Project,2017

5

conflicthappenedbetweentheBunongindigenouscommunitywiththeWuzhishanL.S.Groupoverthepinetreeplantation inSenMonoromandDakDamcommunes inOuReangDistrict,Mondulkir province. The indigenous communities were marginalized within the formal legalsystemwhichwasoftenusedasatoolbypowerfulintereststofurtherexcludetheformer.Theformal and customary legal systems often addressed different kinds of conflict and that thelattercannotsubstitutetheformer.17

3.3KeyComponentsforDocumentingCustomaryTenure• According to theGuideBook, thereare several components thatmayhelp to increase

betterunderstandingofcustomarylandtenuresystem.Theyincludehistory,institution,conflictsolution,livelihoods,landuseandmanagement,cultureandvalues,andtenureandtransfer.18Eachisdiscussedbelow:

• History:This isnecessary toguideourunderstandingofchangesover timeonvariouscomponentsofthecustomarytenure.Thisallowsabetterunderstandingofkeyeventsthatoccurinaspecificcommunity.

• LandUseandManagement:Thisfocusesonthedifferenttypesoflandbeingoccupiedandusedincludingfarmland,residentialareas,grazingland,forestland,lakesandrivers.It also covers resources related to land such as trees (for timber or firewood), non-timber forest products, wildlife, fish and aquatic products which are important forlivelihoodsofcommunity.Moreimportantly,itisaboutspecificrulesstipulatedfortheaccess and use of lands, and use of natural resources in that particular land domain.Normally,ithasrulesfromdifferentlandusetypesuchaswherethelivestockcangraze,andwhereNTFPscanbecollatedandwhocanbenefitfromit,andsoon.

• Resource Tenure and Transfer: This is about if a person or family or community hasrights to land and access to resources. Resources tenures comprise many rightsincludingrightstoaccess,withdrawal,management,exclusionandalienation,butuseinawaythatdoesnothaveadverseeffectsonotherpeopleorcommunity.Italsoincludesright totransferwhichcanbepermanent (inheritance,saleordonation)ortemporary(renting/sharecroppingorlendingforfree).

• Institutions: Itcovers1)organizationsand individualsasdecisionmakerson landandnatural resources and; 2) the norms, rules and regulations concerning the use andgovernanceoflandandresources(includingrulesabouthowdecisionsaremade).Thishelpsustogaininsightontherelationshipbetweentheformal/legal(government)andcustomaryrules/institutions.

17LandandCulturalSurvival,Chapter4:AccesstoNaturalResources:CaseStudiesofCambodian,HillTribes,JohnP.McAndrew&OeurIl18TheguidebookondocumentingcustomarytenureinMyanmar,March2017,page26

6

• Livelihoods:Thisincludesthecapabilitiesandassets(resources,claimsandaccess)andtheactivitiesthatpeopleinvolvedtoforsustainingtheirlivinguntilthenextgenerationaswellaswaysinwhichtheycopeswithexigencies.Thishelpsustounderstandthingsthatpeople sell forearning incomeand things that theyconsume in theirhouseholdspertheresources/assetsmentionedabove.

• Conflict Resolution: competition and conflict is part of land and Natural resourcemanagementconcerningaccess,controlanduseofit.Thekindsofconflictandwaytoaddressmaydifferfromoneplacetoanother.Itisimportanttounderstandthecauseofconflictsandhowtheyhavebeenrespondedthroughcustomaryorstateinstitutions,orboth.

• Cultural Values: Apart from economic value or assets, land and its resources has aculturaldimensionthatneedtobeexamined.Thiscanbe landareaforburialground,andspiritforestwhichtheymaintainandcareforgenerations.

III.ResearchObjectives

The purpose of this study was to examine and document the existing practices on thecustomarytenurebyKhmercommunityinthisvillage.Thereweretwomaindistinctions:1)theperiod before the establishment of the community forestry (CF) and 2) the period since theestablishmentof the community forestry (CF). For the first, the research looked at landuse,forest andother resources usedone in the traditionalway, andmechanismof protectionorresolutiontheyhavehad;thesecondly,wasareviewofchangesofthepreviouspracticewithspecial reference to CF. Both periods shows the changes of norms, rules, and practices overtimeintheentirevillage.

Thegeneralobjectiveofthisstudywastogainadeepunderstandingofthehistoryandchangesof customary practices of the selected villagers over time. Thiswould be based on recall bycommunity people and their leaders against changes that occurred since 1990s and theseimpededthelocalpracticesacrossgenerations.Thetwospecificobjectivesbelowencompassedthe 7 components per the GuideBook framework cited earlier. This was the basis for theinterviewguides:

• TodocumentthecustomarypracticesandhowithaschangedconcerningLanduseandmanagement, Resource tenure and transfer, Institutions, conflict resolutionsmechanismsovertime.

• To assess the community’s capacity to sustain land and natural resources-dependentlivelihoods,and theculturalpractices thathavean implicationoncustomary landandresourcesgovernance.

7

Thestudyaimedtoanswerthefollowingkeyresearchquestions:- How have customary practices been maintained or adjusted concerning land and

resource governance within Thnanh village since the formal (legal) governmentstructure/systemwasinplaceandbecameoperational?

o Weformulatedthefollowingsub-questions:§ What are the decisions making over time by people without influence

fromoutsiders?

§ Whathasbeenchangedinthecommunityandwhy?E.g.roleofelderly,internalandexternalrulesandregulationsetc.

§ What has been kept in the community and why? E.g. rules andregulationsetc.

§ Anything that has been abandonedbut then came-back?Whyhas thathappened?

- How have the changes in land and natural resources governance affected their

livelihoodsandculturalvaluesthathavebeenmaintainedforgenerations?o Weformulatedthefollowingsub-questions:

§ Arecommunityabletokeeptheircustomarytenureovertime?§ What are the factors that made it possible for customary practices to

surviveinthisvillage(ina"hybridform"),whereasinmostothercasesitwasdestroyedbytheprivatizationorotherforces?

§ What are the advantages / benefits of the present / hybrid CT systemfrom the perspective of the community, but also maybe from theperspective of government (the forest Office), and as well the mainconstraints/disadvantages?

IV.ResearchMethodologyThestudyemployedaqualitativeapproachtogatherevidencethatrespondedtotheresearchquestionsand thekeyproblem.Thequalitativeapproachenabledan in-depthunderstandingaboutthehistoryofthecustomarypractice,thepeople’sresponsestotheeffectofissues,andtheirstrategytocopewiththecurrentsituationandfuturethreats.TheGuideBooksuggestedthattheevidence-gatheringtoolswerenottobeusedasaboxtofillininformation.Themain

8

thing was to ensure the participatory process of engagement where the research teamparticipated in daily life activities of community. The researchers stayed in the village andengaged in theactivitiesofvillagersor theirdaily routines, suchaspatrolling thecommunityforestwiththemandlisteningtopeople’sstoriesinaninformalwaywhichhelpedtogainthetrustofthecommunity.

The following table combined the seven components of the study’s objectives into fivecomponents.Thefirstone(history)examinedthekeyevents,andthelastone(culturalvalues)was as a theme that ran across the other components. Also, land use management wasintegrated with community livelihoods. In each component, the researchers looked at theformal(legal)structurealongsidethecustomarysystemtoseehowtheyrelateoraffecteachother.

Table1:KeyComponentsoftheStudy

Thekey informant interview(KII)wasconductedwiththreetraditionalelders, theheadofCFcommittee, the village chief, and the FA officer of Sangkat Taing Krasang. The KIIs providesmorebasic informationof thevillagesuchas location,demography,historyof theCTandCFpractice,alongwithpeople’sinvolvement,perceptionsonfuturetrendsandtheirplantocopewiththosechangesoreffectsandtheotherissues.

TheFocusGroupDiscussion(FGD)wasdonewithcommitteemembers,somewomengroups,andyouthgroups.Theresults fromthesewere interactedwith thecommunitygroups togetbetter understanding, validate findings and interpretation. This was guided by a semi-

No Objectives Pre-PolPotRegime

1979-1998(internalstrife)

1999-2008(CFin2005&BeforeELC)

From2009uptoNow(ELCsin

2009andDirective01in

2013)1 History 2 LandUse

Management

3 Resourcetenureandtransfer

4 Localinstitutions 5 Community

livelihoods

6 Conflictsolutionmechanism

7 Culture

9

structured interviewwith tools such as village resourcesmapping, timeline, and stakeholderanalysis.

Figure1:SketchMapofChoamThnanhVillage

10

Figure2:GPS-markedpointsonCommunityForestryArea

Directobservationsweredone throughwalkingaround the village to see the typesof crops,differentlandusetypesofthelandscapeandvillagers’dailyactivities.TheCommunityForestryareawasvisitedtoseethenaturalenvironment,otherlivelihoodsystem,andotherimportantareas. These walks were done with informal talk, geo-tracking and taking photos. This wasmadetorecordtheexistingdatainthevillagethatwerelatercross-checkedwithinformationcollectedbytheotherresearchmethods.

ConsultationandfeedbackmeetingsweredoneamongtheteamofMRLGsincetheinitialstageof the project design to the drafting of the report. Consultations were made in the designprocess,afterpre-visittogetthecomments, feedback,andtomakethenextfieldworkplan.Debriefingofthekeyfindingswasdonelaterandpresentedformorecommentsandfeedbacksontheproposedreportoutline.Consultationwas importantpartofthestudyprocess,wheremoreinputsandcommentsfromparticipantscanbeintegratedintothefinalresearchreport.

11

V.EvolutionofCustomaryPractices

5.1BeforePolPot(before1975)

A.ResourcesTenureandTransferInthisperiod,landwasmoreavailablethanwhatthelocalpopulationneeds.Accesstolandasopen space was not an issue. Few households resided in the village this time so landmanagementwas not complicated, as therewas open access to all.When villages exchangelandfromonetoanother,itwasdoneinaninformalprocessbutwithdecisionsacceptedandrecognized among the local people in the village. The residential and farming land, in somecases,weresharedatwillbylandholderswithoutwrittenpapersoragreementsbutwithverbalconsent.Aslandareaswerelargeasopposedtothedemand,villagersenjoyedhavingaccesstoitfreely,andhencethepracticesbecameinformalortraditional.Villagersrespectedeachotherandweremore compromising. Therefore, nowritten papers or contracts/agreementsmade.So,farmingandresidentiallandoccupationsweredonethroughverbalagreementwithconsentandwitnessingbyelders.19

B.LocalInstitutionsPeopletookresidentialandexistingfarminglanddirectlyfromtheirancestorssincethevillageexistedduring the Sihanoukperiod andeven the French colonial time.Openaccess and richnaturalresourcesmadelandsavailablemoreadequatethanwhatthepeopleneeds.Therewasno formal village chief in the village. Elderswere the decision-making facilitators. No formaltrading activities were done yet except bartering. People gave things as gift (land or otherforms)toanotherpersonthroughverbalconsentandbyinvolvingeldersandfamilymembers.Notmanypeoplewereinterestedtobuybecausetheytherewasopenlandfortheirtaking.

BeforetheKhmerRouge,eldershasthekeyroleofsolvinglanddisputes,asnoformalauthorityorvillagechiefwasinplace.Eldersactedasmediatorforthepeoplewithinthevillageandtheirideasorsuggestionswerealwaysaccepted.Sincethevillagewasinabattlearea,theleadershipandmanagementdependedonrespectedpersons--theelders.Theeldershadtheroletokeepandmaintain peace in the village. They played a key role in other kinds of conflict, as landconflict was rarely heard. People shared the resources of timber and non-timber forestproducts.Theeldersledtheritualceremonyandwedding.Theyprovidedadvicetothepeopleto live together in harmony, reconciliated conflict within and between the families, and19Eldersrefertopersonsorgroupofolderpersonsinthevillage,whoactivelyadviseandparticipateintheprocessofresolvingallissuesinthevillage.Therewasnoformalformofelders’grouporanyregularmembership;buttheyareoneswhowereapproachedduetotheirseniority,experienceofworkingwithFrench,andtherespecttheygainedfromvillagersandtheyareoftenrequestedforadviceorsupport,especiallyinmediation.Therewasnomentionaboutwomeneldersplayinganyroleinvillageleadership.

12

prepared plans to avoid any harm to the village. They facilitated people to live with bothwarringfactionsoftheKhmerRougeversustheLonNolforces.

Remembranceofhistorywastheonlyrecordoftheprivatelandsoccupation.Thepeoplewhoknowthehistoryofthepropertyorhadtherelationshipwithitweretheoneswhooccupiedit.Thegroupofeldersexistedwithsharedresponsibilities,forexample,somearefortunetellers,traditionalhealers,waterresourcesorienteers,andlandforcroporsoilsurveyors.Tathuonwaspart of the elder group. In one example, one elder Tathuon who knew the history aboutTrapeang Sdach Soay pond20 occupied it as legacy from his ancestor. He has died and hischildrenownthispondnow.Ifthereisnoanygrandchild,hiscloserelativeswouldcontinuetoownthepond.

C.LandUseandCommunitylivelihoodsThecommunitypeoplereliedmainlyonagricultureasamajorlivelihoodsource,cultivatingriceand vegetables. The villagers helped each through an exchange of labour (Pravas Dai). Forexample, if a family asked for help in harvesting rice, a familymember has to exchange thesamehelpintothosewhocometohelpinthelatter’sownharvest.Apartfromthat,villagersengaged in fishing, hunting, collection of non-timber forest products nearby or surroundingvillage’sforests.Paddyricefieldandshiftingcultivationforuplandricewaspracticedforalongtime using traditional tools, including plough and cows/buffalo. The villagers cultivated andshiftedthelandaftereverytwoyears.

Trade for goods and materials was also commonly applied through the exchange of rawmaterials(woods,honey,animalskinsorhorns,etc.)andgoods(clothes,salt,etc.)andmoney(payingtaxtoFrenchcolonyandSihanoukregime).Duringshortage,thosewithoutborrowedricefrom better-off households without any interest, especially from their siblings, relatives and closefriends.Thevillagewasconsiderablyisolatedinthebigjungleandfarfromthemainroad.Itwaswhere people can easily extract the non-timber and timber-resources from the surroundingareastosupplementtheirfarminglivelihood.

20TrapeangSdachSoayisanaturalpondlocatedinthefarmareawhichnowaprivatelandholdingbyTaThuonfamily.However,thispondwasaccessedbyanyoneinthevillageasacommonareaforfishing,collectingaquaticplants,anduseofwaterforthericefarmingnearbythepond,andalsoforbuffalosandcows.Pertheirrule,inthedryseason,no-onecanfarminsidethepond,exceptTaThuonfamily.Thisheritage“Pond”wasoccupiedsinceTaThuon’sancestor.TrapeangSdachSoayisthecombinationbetweentheKhmerwordsof“TrapeangforPond”and“SdachSoayTiVongkotorinshortSdachSoayfortheKingdied”,soitisaplacewheretheKingdied.Thisareawasnarratedasastoryaboutakingandhissoldiersescapedfromthewarwhenlosingthebattle,andendedupatthisplaceforawhilebeforemovedontotheotherplace.Buthediedhere.So,TrapeangSdachSoaywasnamedafterthekingdiedinthatarea.TaThuonwastheonewhoknewverywellaboutthisstoryfromhisancestor.TaThuonalreadydiedandnowhischildrenownthispond.ItisbelievedbymostpeoplethatincasethatnootherchildrenofTaThuontoownthis,hiscloserelativeswouldcontinuetooccupy.

13

D.ConflictresolutionmechanismTheinformalandeldergroupinthevillagewasthemechanismtosolveconflict.Theyhandledthe issue based on the high level of respect accorded them by the villagers. Outsiderinterventionwas out of the question, since this was the period of civil war; with poor roadconditionstoo.However,therewasnoreportedseriousconflictamongpeoplerelatedtolandoccupationorresources-usebecauseresourcesweregreaterthandemand.

5.2Theperiodsfrom1979 to1998

A.ResourcesTenureandTransferTherewasstillopenaccesstolandandforestresourcesduringthisperiod.Morepeoplestartedtooccupylandsthroughthetraditionalwayofrelyingonverbalconsentinanyexchange.Butthere was a shift in land management and administration as government enforcement hadslowlypenetrated.Forlandtransferswithinfamilyfromparentstotheirchildren,therewasnoneedfordocuments,merelyrecognitionbythevillagechiefandwitnessingbyneighborsandthe elders is enough. However, for selling land from person to another, a contract betweeneachpartywasmade,dulyrecognizedandsignedbythevillagechief.Attheearlyphase,verbalconsentinlandtransactionwasadequate,asreported,buttowardtheendofthisperiod,thevillagechief’sroleemergedimportantalongwithwitnessingbytheelders.

Amorestableandformalsystemofgovernmentwasenforcedandexpandedafterthegeneralelection in 1993. During this time there were as yet no decentralized local authorities. Theministryauthoritiesengagedcloselywiththevillagelevelstructure.Butthevillagechief’srolewasbeingstrengthenedalongwiththecommunelevel.Thecentralstatewaslegallyenforcingthepatternandwhichaffectedthelevelofinfluenceofelders.Withlandsinthecentralareasof Cambodia becoming concentrated on few rich families, people started entering andexpanding landclaims in themoreremoteareasaround1997to1998.Eventhe localpeoplestartedexpandinglandareasastheirfamiliesexpandedandmarriedchildrenstartedtheirownfamilies.Peopleworkonthefarmsandclearedtheadditionallandforthefarmingthroughthepractice of shifting cultivation.21 This period saw local people focused on individual landownership as private land holders with documents recognized by the village chief or higherauthorities. However, there were still open leftover land areas for common access by localpeopleandbroadlyrecognizedbylocalvillagersandvillageleaders.

Interesting inthisvillageunderstudywasthe issueof ‘newfamilies’and ‘oldfamilies.’ThosewhocametoliveafterKhmerRougewereconsiderednewcomers,althoughtheylivehereforalmost 30 years already; the old families were those originally from this village. Only a fewfamiliesmigratedtothisvillage,anduntilnowwerestillconsiderednewcomers.Oldfamilies21Theothervillagerscouldaccessandusetheleftoverland.Theyjustdecidewhetherornottoinformbecausepreviousownersalreadyabandonedandmovedtheothernewlandareas.

14

canaccesslandforshift-cultivation.Butnewcomerswereabletoaccessandoccupylandonlyin open spaces nearby forest areas. They were unable to own or access rice lands andresidential lands owned by the ‘old’ villagers as this was not recognized informally. If ‘new’comersneededland,theyneededtopurchasefromtheoldfamilies.Ricelandsintheplainorlowlandsbecamescarce,buttherewerestillvastareasofforestlandinthehighlandsorrockylands.Culturally,people likedto live inthevillagenot innear forestorrice farms.Therewasinsecuritydue to in-fightingbetweenwarring factions.So, recognition through informalwaysandverbalconsentbytheeldersandvillagechiefwasimportant.

B.LocalInstitutionsAfterthecollapseoftheKhmerRouge,thetraditionalinformalwaywasstillwidelypracticed.The role of elders was still strongwith regards land occupation and recognition of transfer.Therewasalreadyavillagechief(VC)appointedbythecommunechief.However,therewasaweak connection to the outside due to the distance and the poor roads, including thecommunicationwithcommuneandupperlevelauthorities.TheVCrolewasnotasprominentasthatoftheelders.Slowlytowardstheendoftheperiod,theelders’roleinconflictmediationbecomeslessprominentastheformalleadershipsystemwasbetterinstalledinthevillage.

The conflict period after 1979brought two village chiefs—one selectedby theKhmerRougeand the other nominated by the State of Cambodia (SoC). These two worked together inbalancetoavoidconflictorattackbybothfactions.Theinformalvillagechiefwasanelderwhowasgreatlyrespectandtrustedbyvillagers,includingtheKhmerRougefaction.Therefore,theelder’s roleaswitnesson landdistributionof rice landandconflict resolutionwassustained.Farmandhousinglandwereallocatedthroughfamily’sinheritanceinaninformalwaywithnoproperdocumentation.TheSoCintroducedthesolidaritygroupforfarminganditwasadoptedwithlocalrules.The29families, that time,weredivided into4groupsanddid farmingon lands they inherited fromtheirancestors; thegroupsorganizedby theproximityofeach family toeachother’s land toeaseworkingtogetherandwithfairness inoutputdistribution.Aftertheendofthesolidaritygroupfarming,thosefamiliesautomaticallyoccupiedtheirsamefarmingplots.Thereciprocityorexchangelabourwerestillcommonpractices.

The formal village chief appeared tohaveplayeda role in the landdistributionand transfer.New families received land from village chief when the land is still available. Plantation(chamkar) landwasfreelyaccessibleandexpandablebutnoownershipwasintroducedinthevillage. However, when it comes to selling and buying of residential and farming land, theagreementbetweenthetwopartieswasmadebutneedstoberecognizedbythevillagechief.

15

Whenloggingactivitiesinthesurroundingareasincreased,aCommunityPlanwasinitiatedbytheeldersandthevillagechiefwithacommonpurposeofpreservingthebigtreesandforestfor the next generation. They planned forms of protection after consultationwith communechief and put the proposal to the other relevant agencies for support. The ForestryAdministration (FA) introduced the Community Forest, which was later supported by theRECOFTCwith itsprocessofcommunityforestryestablishment.Theformalauthority’srole inland and natural resource management became more prominent while the role of elderseroded.

C.LandUseandCommunitylivelihoodsAfter the collapse of the Khmer Rouge Regime, the villagers returned to their old village tocultivatepaddyandupland rice. Thevillagers couldgrowupland riceandvegetables suchaschilly, eggplants, pumpkins, herbs, etc. The collectionofnon-timber forestproducts (NTFPs)supplemented their farming livelihood. Seasonal fishing and hunting for householdconsumptionwere still practiced andalso amajor sourceof income for the community. Thevillageexperiencedshortageofricesupplybetween1980sandlate1990s,especiallyduringthelaterainyseason(September–October).Thattime,thelandareasforshiftingandpaddyricefieldwereconsiderablysmallcomparedtothecurrentcultivatedlands.

Thehighdemand for logsduring the1980s to1990s createdanewopportunity for villagerswhologgedpreciouswoodsandsoldtheminTaingKrasangdistricttown.Theeaseofaccesstothe remainingdense forest resulted toa speedy lossof forestcover.Thisalarmed theeldersand the village chief. This led toplans for establishingapermanentprotection for theirownforestbehindtheircommunity.

D.ConflictresolutionmechanismChoamThnanhvillagewasabattlegroundbetweenthetwowarringfactionsofKhmerRougeandStateofCambodia.Anattackhappenedoncewhenthetwofactionsaccidentlymeteachother.However,withthetwovillagechiefsworkingincollaboration,furtherconfrontationwasavoided.Despite on-going tensions between the two factions, the villagers returned to theirancestrallandallocatedearlier.Conflictamongvillagersonresourcesrarelyhappenedbecauseofacommonaccesstothese.Thevillagersweremorekindandwillingtosolveproblemslocallywith their elders and the village chief.When large land areaswere still available, it did notdemandhighprice,therefore,thesolidarityofthevillagerswasmaintained.

5.3Theperiodfrom1999to2008(CFin2005andBeforeELCs)

A.ResourcesTenureandTransferLandwasopenaccessforlocalpeopleandvillagerswerestillabletocollectNTFPsbefore2005(CommunityForestry).Afterthat,accesswaslimitedtothePreyCheungPhumCFlandareaof

16

149hectares andwith specific rules and regulations. The elders’ role has since declined andvillagersstartedtolookuptovillagechiefforlandmanagement,andlocaldisputeresolutions.Villagersstartedusingdocuments for transaction (receiptor letterofagreement)withvillagechiefsigningoffontransferoflandandresourcesfromparentstochildrenandcloserelatives.

ShiftingcultivationwasstillpracticedevenwiththeCF,particularlyinthenorthernpartofthevillage and extending across the neighbouring village. People cultivated the land for 1 or 2years,abandoneditforthesameperiod,thencamebacktore-useitwhenthelandbecamemorefertile.Otherfamiliescouldalsouselandleftunusedifthepreviouscultivatorconsented.However,key informantstoldthatoriginalcultivatorrarelyabandonedthoselandareassinceotherpeoplealsohavethesamepracticeandtherewerefewoutsidersyetthatdemanduseofsuch lands. Besides the CF, villagers still continued access to common resources in PreyTapeangBoeng22andTrapeangSdachSoaywhichareareasalsoprotectedbyvillagersasspiritforestinheritedwithinonefamilyforgeneration.

22PreyTrapeangBoengorthespiritforestlocatednearthemainroadofthevillage,about3kmawayfromtheCF.Itwas not registered as theCFbut it is the state landwith the size about 8 hectares that has been commonlyaccessedandprotectedbypeopleinthisandneighbouringvillages.Therearemanybigtreesandalargepondinit.Thewater resources in the forestareavailable foralmost thewholeyear.Thevillagershaveaccess toNTFPssuchasKorkoh,Kuy,Romdeng,Sbaey,Mkakandalsovillagershuntthewildanimalssuchasfrog,Cheav,chicken,squirrelsandmonkeys.However,no-onebravestocutanybigtrees,orclearthelandforfarminginsidethisforestbecausetheyareafraidofNaktaorBongBot(spirit)destroyingthemormakingthemsick.Thevillagersbelievedinamythofasubmergedtemplesituated inthemiddleof thepondasasacredplace.Thepeoplefromthethreevillages (Phlong, Samrong, Choam Thnanh) always organize traditional ceremony and offer food to themonks.VillagersoftensawthesnakesofNakta.Therewasthecasethatsomeonekilledthesnakeandate itandfinallydiedbecauseofNaktawasreallymagical.Also,ifsomeonewantedtoseethetigerorbigsnakeinthisforest,theywouldappearatwillandletpeopleseeit.Later,no-onebravestokillthemoreatthem.Inthepast,therewasabigmangotreeandpeopleoftensawtheballof fire flying in thearea,butnotanymoresincethetreecut.Thefamilymemberswhocutthemangotreedied.Therewasalsotheothercasethatthepeoplecutothertypesoftreesbuttheywerenotabletoremovelogsfromtheforest.

17

Figure3:MapindicatingCFareas

Source: Map 1: Community Forest selected for the M&E initiative, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation System forSustainableCommunityForestManagement,AnExperiencefromKampongThomProvince,CBNRMLearningInstitute,2008

Government’s structures and personnel have strengthened their inroad into the area. Lawenforcement by agencies from national and sub-national levels were more active with thevillagechief.Outsideagencieshaveintervenedinspecificcasesdirectly.Therefore,thereisnowamixofformallawenforcementandinformalpracticesappliedontheaccesstotheCFareas.Thelocalpeopleagreedtogovernmentjurisdictionbutalsomaintainedtheirlocalpracticesinorder to ensure their local benefits and interests. For instance, the CF requires Forestry

18

AdministrationapprovalforcuttinglogsinCFarea,buttheCFcommitteeallowedlocalpeopletocuttreesfornon-commercialpurpose.

B.LocalinstitutionsMore roles of the Village Chief and Commune officers were seen by the villagers on landtransfer and the land management, lesser role for the elders. However, the elders hadconspicuous role in the CF in setting it up, mobilizing villagers and young people to worktogethertoconservetheforestanditsresourcesforthenextgeneration.Theeldersprovidedadvicetothevillagechief,CFcommittees,andthevillagers,andinsomecasetheyarepartofthe committee. The advice of the elders was often respected among the young group, forexample,theprohibitiononthewildanimalsandbirdshuntingandmaintainingtheforestforthepeopleinthenextgeneration.

However, there seems to be a gap between the elders and the young people in decision-making;eldersdidthetalkingwhileyoungpeopleweremorelistenersandfollowers.Youngerpatrol groupmembers said, “Wedo not knowwhen the CFwas created andwhat rules andregulationwehave,butwelistentotheeldersonwhattheyprohibitandwhattheywantustodo”.

The community forestry was initiated by villagers in 2001. They set their own by-laws,regulationandmanagementplan.However,traditionalpracticeswereappliedontheiraccessto NTFP and they extracted the timbers with verbal consent by the CF committee (oftenwithout letter to Forestry Administration officer). All villagers were treated as members,despite not formally registered as members, and still took part in the traditional patrollingsystem.23

Outside influence is ineffective. For example, the Forestry Administration (FA) officers oftencometopromoteawarenesstothevillagers24byinvitingonepersonperfamilytojoin,butnotall the families participated. FA officer rarely came to the village during the rainy seasonbecauseofpoorroadconditions.

23ThelocationoftheCommunityForestislikeanislandnexttothepeoplehouseandsurroundedbythericefarmandChamkar.ThepeoplegototheirChamkarandricefieldeverytimeacrosstheCFaswellascollecttheNTFPintheforest.ItislikethenaturalwayofpatrollingtheCF.

24TheprocesstoformtheCFtooktoolonguntilthetoplevelapproved.TheFAofficerprovidethecapacitybuildingwithseriesoftrainingsuchasmaintainthetrees,growthetrees,inventorizethetrees,andotherprogramforsustainableforestuse.

19

C.LandUseandCommunitylivelihoodsShiftingcultivationwaspracticedwhenthe landstillavailableonthenorthernpartofvillage.Theycultivatedthelandfor1to2yearsafterthatabandonedtheland.Thispracticeendedbythe time theCFwasestablished in2005.Somevillagers convertedsuch lands forpermanentcashewcrops.

Thepracticeofexchangeof labour, commonbefore1993,hasalreadybeenpushedasidebycash-orientedpractices.Somefamiliesstartedchoosingwagework inexchangeformoneyatcashcropplantationandotherfarmingactivitiesofnewrichimmigrantfarmers.Cashforlabourbecame common. All products produced in the villages now have cash value, e.g., charcoalcosts200riel/kg,palmsugarwas1,000riels/kg,andricewas1,500riel/kg.

TherearenowmanyvillagerswhocutlogsandcollectedNTFPtosellatTaingKrasangmarket.Thisactivitywasusheredbefore2000swhenlargetreeswerestillavailable intheforest.Thelarger logging concessionwas done at the big forest areas of Kampong Thom province. Butlogging activities in this study area were mainly small scale. Nonetheless, it has impactedadverselyondeforestationandlossofcommonpropertylands.

D.ConflictresolutionmechanismLikethepreviousperiod,theconflictamongthecommunityrarelyhappenedbuttheeldersandvillagechiefplaystherolesintheconflictresolution.Thevillagechiefroleasreconciliationandtheeldersarethewitnessesastheytheonewhorememberthehistoryofthoseresourcesandthefamilylinagesofthepeopleinthevillage.Itisnotedthattheelders’rolehassincedeclinedwhile the formal structure become more seen. For example, the community forestmanagement committeewasestablishedby theFA through the formalprocess.At the sametime,thevillagersstartedusingpaperforlandtransactions.

In2001,thecashcropsuchasthecashewandcassavacometothevillageandstartedtogrow.However thecaseof landconflictamongthepeople toclear thenew land forcashcropandshiftcultivationhasnotbeenheardbecausethepopulationstillinlittleamountcomparetothehugeopenaccessareabut thepeopledidnothavetheability toclear for the large land. Atthattime,the locationoftheircultivate landswerefarfromeachotherthatdidnotcausetohaveconflictbetweenthetailsoftheirland.Incontrast,thelocationofcultivatedlandresultednegativewhichseenthegapstohelpeachother.TherewaschangedinthefuturebytheECLsencroachedtheirlandthatwashardforthemtomobilizefromthefurtherplacetohelp.

20

5.4.From2009uptoNow(ELCsin2009andDirective01in2013)

A.ResourcesTenureandTransferTheCFhadstrengtheneditsrolesonforestareas.Thelocalpeoplehavebeenbarredaccesstothe Economic LandConcession (ELC) land areas. TheVChad its role strengthened,while theroleofeldershadweakenedtothatofmerelywitnessing indisputes-resolutionsonlanduse.By2009,therewasnomoreopenaccesstoland,noshiftingcultivation,andashrunkenforestduetoprivatizationbyindividuallandholders.TheCFareaisthelastcommonaccessareabutwithinconditionsenforcedbyCFcommittees.

Land transfers are now document-based under the village chief’s participation andinvolvement. Although, land transfers within families, parents-to-children, may still be donetraditionallythroughverbalconsentwitheldersaswitnesses.Someplantationlandswerealsoofferedandgrantedofficiallandcertificatesissuedbygovernment’sDirective01toensureandpromote local entitlement against land grabbing by investors and through economic landconcessionsbythegovernment.

Thesocial landconcessionthatwassetuphasresidential landwithadimensionof30by100meters thatwasallocated to thosewhoopted to live there. The schemealsoallocated farmlands for both ‘new’ comers and ‘old’ people who do not have land, particularly the poorhouseholds. Each family got two hectares, one hectare they have to clear themselves. TheUnited Nations World Food Program (WFP) helped clear the land for cultivation for thesefamiliestogrowcashew.Manyclearedtheirlandbutdidnotgrowthecashewbutrathersoldtheirlandstootherrichpeople.

Furthermore, thepeoplewhowent to thenewvillage just built their housesover there andcamebacktotheoriginalhomes.TheyonlygobacktothenewvillageonceamonthtogetWFPfoodgrants:eachfamilygoteightbagsofrice,cannedfish,fishsauceandfood.Onefamilycangetasmuchasonehand-tractor-full. These they sold:30,000 riels (US$7.50) foronebagofrice,verycheapbecausetheygotitfree.Plankwoodsweregiventothemtobuildtheirhouses,butsomealsosoldthese.

Atpresent,villagersunderstoodtheycannottofindanotherplaceto livebecausethere isnomorefreelandhasbeenscarce. Inthelast5-6years,peopleinthenewvillagesoldofftheselandandcameback to live in theoldvillage.But landswerealso sold in theiroldvillage, sotheseun-landedpeoplecanonlymigrate.Thepoor1and2householdswereassistedtoalargeextentbutwenttonaught.Forexample,the landwhichWFPhelpedtoclearwassoldtotherichatthepriceofclearingtheland.ThepondWFPhelpeddugandintendedforgrowingfishwentunused.Thepoorreceivedcows,chickensandfishforraisingbutnotonewasgrown.The

21

elder informants saidhave thepeople in thenew landsdidnotengage inproductiveactivitythat can benefit their households. The families in the new village have their name in theCommunelistbutnoletterofrecognitionfromlocalauthorities.Theycannotsellthelandtheyhavethere,onlytransferittotheirsiblingsorcloserelatives.Untiltheylivetherefor5years,theywillgettheletterofrecognition.

The access to CF areas abides by the enforcement byCF committee. The local practices andtraditionalwaysprevailratherthanformalmeanslikelegalbiddingandinstructedregulations.It is a hybrid of customary and the legal process as applied in the communities: customarypracticesapplytoaccessingtoCFareasinasustainablewayamongoldfamiliesinthevillage,butthelegalappliesonCFoperationswithinthelegalframework,suchasdocumentationformanagement plan, the support from FA and local authorities and involving elders and thecommunity.Analarming trendwas thatwhilepeopleaccessNTFPmostly seasonalproducts,manypeoplenowmakecharcoalwhichcanputheavydemandonforestresources.

B.LocalinstitutionFor land administration, some villagers have experienced getting an ad hoc official landcertificatesundertheDirective01implementationwhilethemajoritystilldonothaveofficialpapers and continue to transfer ormanage inheritance through informal processes. In 2013,somevillagerswhoselandpieceslocatedtotheNorthofthevillagenexttoELCCompanyweremeasuredbythedistrictlandofficersandagroupofstudentswhocameintothevillage.Asaresult,thosefamiliesreceivedtheofficial landtitles,buttherestofvillagersdonothave.So,this leaves rooms forvillagers tomaintain traditionalpracticesof land transfer. Forexample,parents who inherit a piece of land to their children have the transaction through verbalconsent,butforallocationtotherelativestheynormallyrequiretheacknowledgementoftheeldersandvillagechief.

Withregardstoforestresourcesmanagement, it isclearthatwhile legallytheofficialsoftheForestryAdministrationhasaroletoplay,inrealityitisalsothetraditionalpracticebeingdoneorencouragedbythelocalrepresentative,inthiscasetheCFcommittee.ItisunderstandablethatvillagerscanfreelyaccesstoNTFPsinCFareasbutwhentheyaskforsomepieceofwoodfor their house construction, should get permission in writing from FA official25 at the locallevel,butinsteadtheCFcommitteeallowedthemtodoso.Therefore,therearewaysinwhich

25 EventhetreeswhichhadbeenplantedbythefamilybutwhencuttingthetreetheyhavetorequesttotheFAofficebecausethosearetheproductsfromtheforest,notthedomestictrees.Itisthesamewhentheytransportthetimberornon-timerfromoneplacetoanotherplaceneedtohavetheletter.AtdistrictlevelorSangkatoftheforest,theofficercannotapprovethepeopletotakethetimberornon-timberbuttheyrefertheproposaltotheseniorlevelfordecision.Inthecommunityforest,theyhavetoaskfromthecommunityleader.Thecommunityleaderknowhowtoextractthetimberandnon-timberbecausetheyweretrainedandhavethemanagementplanfortheforest.

22

localpracticethatcanbeaccommodatedtosuitlocalneeds.CFcommitteeevenplayedmoreactiverole inmanagingtheorganizedpatrolsandappreciatingthe informalpatrollingsystemwhere they can detect unusual activities when they go to their farms as the CF area is inbetweentheresidentialareasandtheirfarmingland.

TheCFwasestablishedwiththecommonpurposetokeeptheforestfortheirnextgenerationbyconsentsofallvillagersfortheconcernofthefurtherlossofforestandevenland.BesidesaccesstheNTFP,nowtheycanaskforafewtreestomaketheboatortrailerofhandtractor,buildthesmallroomoracottage.Thevillagersusedtobenefitfromtheloggingin1990sandsaw that the acceleration of the forest lost encouraged them to establish the CommunityForestry.AlthoughmosthouseshavethecharcoalkilnsbuttheforestinCFareaisstill intact.Therehavebeenamovementofpeopletogotocollecttheleftoverwoodinthecompanyarea,andothers.Theriskofhavingnowoodleftatleastinsomeyearstocomeremindedthemtoidentifyalternativesuchascashcrops.

Fortraditionalbeliefandceremonialpractices,eldershaveplayedimportantroleinmanagingtheeventseffectively.Theymobilizedpeopleandresourcesincludingsecuritymeasuretoavoidanypotentialharms. Itwasreportedthatvillagersarehappytosharetheresourcesandhelpeach other in any events. During the field visit, there was the funeral ceremony at ChoukRumduol village, and the people from this village came to collect the coconut from ChoamThnanhvillageinordertoservetomonksandelderswhowerepresentattheceremony.Atthesametime,thenunswhoalwaysspendtheirtimechantingDharmaatSalaBon(CharityHall)didnotgothere,butchoseinsteadtojointhefuneralatChhoukRumduolvillage.Furthermore,the people of the three villages (Phlong, Samrong, Choam Thnanh), especially elders, oftenorganizearegularceremonytogetheratthespiritforestareaknownasPreyTrapeangBoeng,

23

where there is no pagoda but having the Sanlum.26 So, elders and villagers are guardians ofspiritforestgivenitssacredplacewhicharewellprotected.

C.LandUseandCommunitylivelihoods Thevillagesexperienced livelihoodchangeswhen theBNA (Cam)Corp, theKoreaneconomiclandconcessions,camein200927forcassavaandrubberplantationforthe landsize7,500ha.Over 200 hectares of the villagers’ land were encroached and their crops were damagedwithout any form of compensation. They fought for their land, however,most of their landareasweretakenoverbythecompanybecauseofuntitledland.Thereareabout50familiesinthevillagewhostillhavefoodshortage,partlyduetolackoflandforfarming.LimitedofaccesstoNTFPssinceELChasalsograntedto investors.Peoplecansomewhataccesstootherareasoutside of ELC’s area and still access to CF area but they need to abide by CF’s rules andregulations.

Thenewgenerationwouldeventuallyleavethevillageforsellingtheirlabororworkinginthegarment factories, around 3-4 young women sought to work at factory in Phnom Penh,Thailand,Malaysia(mainlygarmentworkersandhousemaid).Mostofthosechildrenthosewhogaveupschoolatgrade9-10.TheythenworkatgarmentfactoryinPhnomPenh.Besidetheirownwork, some families chose the casualwork for cashew nut plantationwithin or nearbytheir communities. The trend was increased the last recent years and trends to increase inincomingyearsaswell.

Therearemajorsourcesoflivelihoodcategorizedaspercentagecontributingtotheirhouseholdincome for the old villagers, the new villagers who came to settle in the villages have notconsidered in this categories because theway of their generation incomes is quite differentfromtheoldvillagers:

• Beside of gathering some woods, non-timber forest product collected such asmushrooms,wildfruit(Kuy),firewood,andherbalsfromCF.Thevillagersalsogofishingtothesouthernpartofvillagebeyondthenationalmainroad.Paddyricefieldstillthemajorsourceoffoodinthecommunity.

26 Sanlumisasmallhouseforthemonkorpriest,ornuntodotheprayer. 27 https://opendevelopmentcambodia.net/profiles/economic-land-concessions/?feature_id=elc_gdc_116

24

• Asreportedbykey informants,50%of income is fromcharcoalproduction:Thereareapproximately 80% of villagers who produced charcoal for generating income. Eachfamilycanproduce500kg–600kgofcharcoalpermonth(600riels/kgofcoal)whichthey can earn around 300,000 – 360,000 riels/month. This charcoal production wasstarted in 2011 whichmost of woods brought out from far distance forests or fromeconomiclandconcessionsorprivatefarmcropslands.

25

• According to key informants, 40% of income is from paddy rice field and agricultureactivities: As an average, each family has 1 ha of land for paddy rice field. They canproduce50–100sacksofpaddyricefieldperyear.ThosewhohavesmalllandandlesslabortoworkinthefieldinresultsuffersfromshortageoffoodthereasonsisthatLandinvillagecannolongerplantthericeanymoreduetoitssandyland.Anumberofbetteroffamiliesalsocultivatethelandforcashewnuts.

• Smallportionofincomeisfromsellinglaborandnon-timberforestproduct:Locallaborselling: thevillagerscanearn15,000–20,000riels/day forcashewnutplantationandrice fieldwork.Theycanalsobenefit fromcollectingseasonal forestproducts suchasdifferentkindsofmushroomwhichcanbesoldat8,000–10,000riels/kg,anumbersofwild fruitswhichcanbesoldat least500riels/kgto8,000riels/kgandeatable insects(spiders and crickets) at least 5,000 riels/day. Most often, they collect the forestproducts and herbals for their foods and medicine. The villagers also selling cubefirewood from 10 – 15 meter squares/month with the price of 30,000 riels/metersquaresoffreshwoodsto35,000riels/metersquaresofdrywoods.

Thenewvillagers/newcomers,normallyfoundproducingpalmsugarandcasualwork.Oneofsugarproducersharedherstorylikethis.Thereareonlyfourfamiliesproducepalmsugarinthisvillage.Allofusarenewcomers,justsettledin2008.Theycanproduce7-10kg/dayswiththecostof4000Riels/kg.Thosefamilyperceivethatproductionofpalmsugar isasafeandeasierjobeventhoughtheymaylittleincomedaily.Whereas,theoldvillagers’jobsareriskierintermof financeandsecurity.Thosewhoproducepalmsugarcaneasilychangetheiroccupation tocasualworkerswhentheseasonofpalmunproductive.

26

Thevillagershaveraisedtheirconcernsoncetheyexperiencedoneofshortageof logswhichthentheystoppedthe loggingsatsomepoints inthepastduetoshortageofwoodsand lawrestriction.Now,whenaskedabouthowtocopeforburningcharcoalwhenthewoodisgone.They simply responded that they will change their occupation from charcoal producer togarmentworkersorhouseconstructionworkersandtheirCommunityForestryisonlyfortheirnextgenerations.Thelifeofvillagershasnowexperiencedharderandharderbecausetheyareindebtswithmicrofinancewheretheyneedtogenerateincometopaytheloan.

D.ConflictresolutionmechanismIntheoldvillagetheoriginalvillagerswerefriendlywithastrongsenseofsolidarity,exceptthefewnewcomerswho residedhereabout10yearsagowho still donotactively join in villageceremonies.Most newcomerswere not part of the community forestry. A gap also showedbetweenpeople in theoldvillageandpeople in thenewvillage,withminorconflicts seen intheirtreatmentofeachother.

Eldersarenow less involvedand inactive inconflict-resolution.Therewerealso internal landconflicts among community members. Some parties asked elders and the village head tomediate,butsuchcaseswerenotproperlyaddressed.Someofthevictimsplannedtoabandonthelandtotheencroacher.

The Village Chief and commune councilors are prominent actors with functions for conflict-resolutions.Buttheseconflictsareaddressedalongtheconceptofprivateownershipandlegaldocuments take precedence over any traditional solving. Authorities suggest to villagers tosecure land title and cleardemarcation to avoid future land conflict. The rolesof authoritieswere strengthened and eased by better road access and communication technology thatconnects them to higher-level authorities. The collaboration between local authority and FAexpert seemsgoodoncommunity forestprotection.TheFA interveneswhen thecommunitycallsthemtoarrestillegalloggers.TheCFsystemisprovingeffectivetodeterbreachingontheCFandotherprotectedareas.

TheKoreancompanycontinuedtogrowtherubbertreesafterhavingclearedlandandforestwithout any compensation. The families who defended their land had these measured bydistrictlandofficersandtheDirective01,butnotintheTradevecharea,wherevillagersdidnotget the land back nor compensation, even after their call for intercession by province andPhnomPenhauthorities.Theirlandswereclearedevenwhentheirriceandcashewcropswerereadyforharvest.Despitethis,thevillagersfeltfortunatethattheirCFwasestablishedbeforethe arrival of the Company. The ELC could not approach and encroach on the CF areas andregularpatroldetersencroachmentbyotherindividualoutsiders.

27

Figure4:HistoricalSnapshotofChoamThnanhvillage

28

VI.CommunityCapacitiestoSustainCustomaryPractices

Therearefourareasoffocustoanalyzethecommunitycapacitiesinsustainingtheirpracticetoland and natural resources as well as other practices. These include unity within thecommunity,theskillofcommunityleadership,resourcesmobilizationandtheabilitytolinkupwithothers.

On unity within the community, villagers have been able to work together to divert fromfollowing the rules and regularly entirely to some traditional practices that suit them,particularlyaccessingtoCFareasinthefaceofexistingCFlawsandregulations.TheyhavebeenabletomanagethedifferenceswithlocalauthorityandFAofficials.Forinstance,villagerscanlog the forest for their household use without getting approval from local forestryadministration, even regulations required them to do so but they still enjoy their traditionalways.Also,despiteCommunityForestrywasformallyregisteredbutany initiativetendtogetdonecollectivelyamongstvillagers,eldersandthevillagechief.Forexample,theCFcommitteemade the schedule for allmembers to patrol everyday but it is indeed they patrol naturallythroughaprocesswhichvillagercome to their farmsaround the forestareaseveryday. It isstrategicallylocatedinanareaforitisinbetweenvillager’sresidentialareaandthericefield.Inaddition,astherearemanyfamilieswhohavemanycoalkilnsbutnoneofthemcuttreesinCFarea,insteadtheycollectedthewoodfromtheELCCompany’sarea.TheyestimatethewoodintheCompanywillbegoneinthenext3yearsbuttheyalreadypreparedforalternativethroughcashew crops. Another case is that solidarity is also seen in the form of customary practicesharing their limited resources, for example, Trapaing Sdac Soay (pond) is the supposedlyprivate landownership for itsbeingmanagedbya family forgenerationsbutall thevillagerscan access it with fishing, growing vegetable, cattle washing, water for rice growing exceptgrowingthericeinthepondatthedryseason.

Another manifestation of solidarity lies in the ceremonial functions where they continue toshareresourcestomaketheeventhappen inandevenacrossthevillages.Traditionally,theyhelped each other when having the ceremony. There was the funeral in Chhouk Rumdouladjacentvillage,peoplefromthatvillagecametocollectcoconutsfromChoamThnagnvillagetoservemonksandelders.Atthesametime,thenunsfromChoamThnanhvillagesalsowenttosupportrunningofthefuneralceremony.Anothermajorpracticethathassustainedsofaristhebeliefthatitwouldbringpeace,andprosperitytothevillagethatbindspeopleinthisandotherneighboringcommunitiestocometohelptogether.Everyyear,theneighboringvillages(Phlong,BosChombock,Samrong,ChhoukRumduol)organized jointlytheceremonytogetheratthespiritforest,asacredplace,inChoamThanhvillage.ItwasnotregisteredformallyaspartoftheCommunityForestryareabutitwaswellprotectedbythevillagersandledbythevillagechiefandelders.Thesearepractices,whileitsdeeplyrootedtheirbelief,itisimpliedthelong

29

term protection of land despite small area. This would likely continue for they have hadexperienceinleadingtheprocessionsfromtimeimmemorial,andtheresourcesaremobilizedlocallyannuallywhichappeartobeatease.

Anotherformofreciprocitystillexistsbeyondfuneralsandotherceremonialfunctionsmaybeseeninhouseconstructionandricecultivation.Villagershavestrongsenseofsupportingeachother because of the realization that it would be eventually their turn to ask for help fromothers.Thisisseeninthecasewhichafamilybuildsthehouse(LeukPhteah)andmanyfamiliescometohelpandthehouseownerprovideareceptiontothemwithfoodanddrinks.This iscreateornurturedfurthermutualandcooperativespiritwithinthecommunity.Anothercaseisthe exchange of labor (prvas dai) in rice farming. While there is still some practice it hasgradually changed into the cash transaction when one works on another person’s farm.However, this is seenas responding theon-goingdemand forhouseholdconsumption in thiscontemporaryperiod.Itseemsthatthepatternofcashexchangewouldeventuallyreplacethetraditionalpracticeoflaborsharingcompletely,evenhouseconstructionwherecontractormaybehired.

Withregardtoskillsofcommunityleadership,theCFstructurewassetupaccordingtothelawsand regulationswhich go through election among itsmembers.With this structure in place,theycoordinateandmakeplanswithmemberstomanagethearea.Forinstance,localpeoplehavealwayssoughtapproval fromtheCF leadership inordertoaccesstoCFareasorcuttingtimber for their household needs—this is widely applied among community. An on-goingcapacity gap inmanaging the CF is still there and that’s why CF leaders normally got sometraining and mentoring support from local forestry administration. While, CF chief has thepowertomakethedecisiononmattersrelatedtoCF,thevillagechiefisalwaysconsulted.CFcommitteewasjustelectedforthenewmandateandnewmembers.Theyneedtohavemorecapacitybuildingsupporttoimprovetheirpractice.

The parallel structures that are now functioning in close tie include formal and social ortraditional structures, whose role is to manage the land and forest resources as well asceremonialfunctions.Theformalstructureincludethevillagechief,communechief,andtheCFcommitteewhilethesocialstructureisexistinginformaleldercouncilorgroupwhoareseenasrespectfulpeople.Whilethesedaystheyhavearatherdistinctivedivisionofrolewhereformaloneisforpoliticalandadministrativeaffairsandthesocialoneforceremonialrole,theyworktogether hand in hand with one taking lead while another advisory, and vice versa. Theysupporteachothertothepointthattheycanprotectthelandofvillagersinthefaceofhavingnotitlesaswellastheinformalpracticeoflandtransferalthoughsuchaspracticeisstilllimited.However,becauseofon-going landpolicyandregulationenforcementandtoavoidpotential

30

conflict in the future, suchaspracticemayno longerbe relevantor important to themevenfromthesedays.

As forresourcesmobilization, it isseenthat twomainresourceshavebeenmobilized, firstly,through its membership contribution annually to cover some expenses of patrolling andanotheroneisresourcemobilizationthroughexternalpartnership,however,thisisstilllimitedtocovertheneedsformaintainingtheCFarea.For2017-2020,theCFhasgotannualbudgetsupport from local forestry administration through development partnership to cover theirbasic expenses, particularly on patrol activities. While some traditional patrols are donecoupled with organized one, the resources constrained may later be seen more of thetraditionalpracticewhichisrathersuitabletotheircontext.However,thereareadministrativeexpenses, especially for CF committee, and CF area development such as rehabilitate thenaturalpondinCFareastostoresufficientwaterforwildanimalsandbirds.SuchasresourcesupportmaybeseenthroughallocationfromcommuneinvestmentfundwithwhichCFschemeshould be part of, and another source is to have planned extraction of timbers to generateadditional revenue to fulfill suchneeds, andwithoutwhich the sustainability inmanagingCFwouldbeinquestion.

Lastly,fornetworkingandlinkage,theregularchannelofcommunicationandnetworkingthatappeartofunctionwelliswithlocalforestryadministration,andcommunecouncilfortechnicalaswellas resourcessupportbut theability to link toothersappear tobeunclear.With localforestry administration, the CF can get more opportunities such as technical support andtrainings from them; while the most recently, the CF can manage to get some resourcesallocatedfromtheminperiodofthreeyearsthroughsupportfromdevelopmentpartners.Withgood network, the CF leadership has able to update their technical skills and with someresourcesmobilizationandtheCFcanbegoodfunctional;particularlyonpatrollingactivitiestoprotect CF areas andmaintain resources andNTFPs for local needs. However, they do havelinked with broader network at the district and provincial level, for example, the Prey Langnetwork.Atthebeginning,theyreceivedthetechnicalandfundingsupportfromRECOFTCandForestAdministration;butnowremainedonly theFAwith financial support tomake the firepathsandprovidedequipmentforforestpatrols.WhilethestructureformanagingCFismoreofahybridformwhereeldersisincludedalongwithvillagechiefandothers,theprotectionofCFlandandforestwouldeventuallyrelyontraditionalpracticesoffarminginsurroundingareasratherthanorganizedpatrolsiftheoutsidersupportisover,andiftheCFareasprovidedthemwitheconomicbenefitssuchastimbersforhousingconstructionandNTFPs.

31

VII.Conclusions

There have been major changes in the governance structure of this village over timeconsidering the fourmajor periods: 1) before the Khmer Rouge, 2) after the collapse of theKhmerRougeorinternalstrife,3)theperiod1998till2008and4)from2009tillnow.

Giventhegeographicandhistoricalcontexts,thevillagegovernanceduringthefirstperiodsawaprominentroleofeldersgroup.Thiswasduetothehighrespectaccordedthemforreasonoftheir seniority, knowledgeof the landand forestownership, and theabsenceof village chiefthat represented the state in the most basic structure. The elders’ role were frequentlyreferencedtoallocationoflandtovillagers,newly-wedcouplesandthoseinneedoflandbasedonverbalagreementandofinheritanceinanytransactedtransfers.Villagersappearedtohavebeenlivinghappyandpeacefulliveswhenresourceswerestillabundantandlessdemographicpressure.

The second period towards the collapse of the Khmer Rouge Regime brought politicalcircumstances of tug-of-war between them and the SoC. The role of elders remained intact.Twoco-villagechiefswereabletoworkcollaborativelytomediatethedifferencesandavoidedconfrontation between the two factions to the benefit of their villagers. With collaborativeleadership, the informality to land management was still practiced with villagers occupyingtheir own land, and enjoyed the expansion.However, the transition of power becamemorevisibleduring this secondperiod too,withvillagers lookingup to the formal authorityof thevillagechief.Newcomerscametoliveinthevillage,thus,requiringthemtobuyfromfamiliesoriginallyfromthisvillagewithtransactionspassingthroughthevillagechief.

Theroleofformalvillagechiefbecameevenmorevisiblewhengovernment-designedprogramor policies were to be followed. Such was the case in setting up the community forestryprogramwhereconsultationwithhigherauthorityandVCsignaturewasrequired.ThissetuptheCFin2001.Fromthatpointforward,theeldersplayedanassistingrolebysharingconcernsonthelossofforestandsuggestingideasaboutmobilizingvillagersandyoungpeopletoworkonpatrollingtoprotecttheforestresources.

Asgovernmentprogramskeepmounting,theformalroleoftheVCwasmoremanifest,whileinformalcustomarypracticesdiminished.ThiswasthecasewithDirective01in2013wherethevillage chief took on dispute resolution on the conflict between villagers and Korean ELCCompanythattookawaylandwithoutanycompensationtovillagersthatusedtocultivateit,despitesomefamilieshavinggottenlandtitlesfromtheDirective01scheme.

Thesecondperiodpersistedwithunresolveddifferencesbetween‘old’peopleandsome‘new’peoplewhocametothevillageabout10yearsago.Theydonotgetalongwitheachotherin

32

attendingthevillageceremonies. Thenewcomersarenoteventakingpartofthecommunityforestryprogram.Infact,allthefamilieswereexpectedtobemembersofCFbutthelatterdonotfilltheapplicationform.Therewasalsotensionbetweenpeoplein‘old’villageandthosethatmoved intothe ‘new’village.The latteroftencamebacktorelyonthose in ‘old’village.Thoseinthenewvillageusedtoliveinoldvillagebutweregrantedsociallandconcession(SLC)where they receivedplotsof land. Insteadof livingandworking the land there, theysoldoffandreturnedtothe‘old’village.Thisissuehasnotbeenaddressedbybothtypesofleadership,perhaps the issue is rather intangible or complex for them to be able to see through anyoptions.

The transition in the village leadership occurred within a bigger context of changes in thecommunity’ssocialandeconomic life.Thekeyelementswerethegrowingpopulationagainstlesseravailabilityoflandandtheeconomicchangesofcashcrops,plantationeconomythroughtheKoreanELCCompany,and theCFprogram in2001 to restrict landsencroachment in theremaining forest. It brought about villagers who now engaged in cash crops, became paid-workers,andmadetoliveinanewvillagewithnosecureresources.

ThestartoftheCFprograminvolvedNGOssuchasRECOFTCthatprovidedfinancialsupport,FAofficers that provide the technical support and national and sub-nationaladministrative/politicalstructurethatprovidelegitimacytotheCFsetup.Thiscameaboutwiththe loss of forest resources. The process was led by the VC but elders were included in CFcommittees. The CF was appreciated by villagers as it still gave them common propertyresourcestofallbackon—forNTFPresourcesthatsupplementstheirfarminglivelihoods.Thischange had little effect on their traditional rules for areas of CF, spirit forest, and TrapeangBoeng.

TheintrusionoftheELCCompanyin2008tookawaylandandshrunkareaswhichpeoplecancultivate to sustain their lives. Thevillagersandvillage chiefwent to theprovincial authorityand officials in Phnom Penh to intervene; they did this for one year until their personalresourcesdriedup,but itwasnot successful.With formaldocumentgrantedbygovernmentthe company went ahead even it meant to destroy villagers’ crops. The company startedgrowingrubbertreessincethen.Thestrongeconomicforcessupportedbygovernmentpoliciesoverwhelmingly crushed community advocacy and installed the local governmentrepresentativeastheprominentauthoritytobacknotthecommunity’interest

The historical changes place customary practices on three levels: first, for most areas thecustomary practices were completely lost; in two narrow and remote small areas of PreyTrapeangBoengspiritforestandTrapeangSdachSoay,thecustomarypracticesarestillstrong;and, in the CF areas, there is a hybrid type of customary practice and government-backedmanagement.

33

Forthefirsttypewhichisthemajorityofthevillageareas,thearrivaloftheKoreancompanyswept largeareasofshiftingcultivationlandwipedtraditionalpracticecompletely.Therewasefforttofightagainstthisbybothvillagersandtheirvillagechief,butgovernment-backingtotheELCpoliciesandprivatebusiness interestswonover the community’sunitedeffort. Thesimplelessonherewasthatcommunityunity,evenbackedbystrongcustomarypractices,arenowwithinasystemthatistoocommercialanddominatedbybigbusinesscolludingwiththestatewhichdoesnotcareabitaboutcustomsandneedsofpoorcommunities.

ThepeopleinPreyTrapeangBoenghaveastrongancestralbeliefsystem.Theyorganizeannualrituals toworship their ancestor’s spirit and believed that one is curse if he/she abuses theresources within the spirit forest. This system enabled them to keep the area intact forgenerations.ThishealthytraditionalpracticeenabledthemtostayvigilantagainstdestructionoftheareaandfostertheirsolidaritybeyondChoamThnanhvillageboundary.

The area of Trapeang Sdach Soay pond has remained intact regardless of changes ingovernancethroughtheyears.Theoccupationandmanagementof thearearemained in thehandsofonefamily.Thefamilyallowedvillagersaccesstotheareaforwaterconsumptionandcollecting of aquatic resources during wet season but not in dry season because the familybenefitfromitthroughdryseasonricefarming.Thisinheritedpracticewasneverinfluencedbyvillageleadershipyetacceptedbyallvillagers.Theareaisadequatetothepresentandfutureuseoftheheirfamilyandwillsustainablybepassedontoheirsofthesamefamily.Thesetwodocumented areas were examples of the prestige in retaining cultural heritage against thepitfallofresourcescompetitionandgreedforland.

The co-existence or a hybrid form of governance can be seen in the management of thecommunityforestry(CF).Thereisafearoffurtherlandlossbycommunitymembersduetotherapidencroachmentofexternalforces.TheareasforcollectingNTFPsandtimbersfordomesticuse have shrunk. Therefore, the villagers worked very hard to engage forestry officials toestablishtheCF,withinacommonsentimentofacceptingsomethingsmaller thannothingatall.TheCFwassetupthroughabureaucraticprocess,involvinganddictatedbydifferentlevelsofauthorityandofficialsofForestry.Theprocessesmayhavebypassedtheroleofelders,buteventuallyinvolvedasmembersoftheCFcommittee.Despiteabidingbytheforestrylawandrelatedpolicies, theelders reliedontheir traditionalknowledgeandexperiences to influencethe localrulesandput it intopractice.Thereby,there isabalancebetweenofficialprocessesandamorecustomarywayofdoingthings.Movingforward,itwouldbegoodtostructureCFmanagement is to elder representation. This will enable elders to balance sustaining thecommunityforestrydevelopmentintegratedtosustainingcustomaryvalues.

customary land tenure and practices of khmer communities ... · keo bora star kampuchea pheap...

Documents