External Monitoring Report

Project Number: 36353 June 2012

CAM: Greater Mekong Subregion Southern Coastal Corridor Project For the Sixth Quarter Report – Resettlement Plan

Prepared by SBK Research and Development for the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Asian Development Bank.

NOTE

In this report, "$" refers to US dollars unless otherwise stated.

This external monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

Kingdom of Cambodia Nation Religion King

Asian Development Bank Ministry of Economy and Finance SIXTH QUARTERLY REPORT (06 March 2012 – 06 June 2012)

of Consulting Services:

EXTERNAL MONITORING AND POST-EVALUATION: CORRIDOR NATIONAL ROAD NO. 33

For the Project: “GMS- Southern Coastal Corridor Project Resettlement Plan” Loan No 2373”

Submitted by

SBK RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Phnom Penh, Cambodia August, 2012

Table of Contents ABBREVIATION ...... i Executive Summary ...... ii I. Background ...... 1 1.1 Category of Affected Persons ...... 1 1.2 Updated New Detailed Measurement Survey and Socioeconomic Survey ...... 2 1.3 Relocation Strategy ...... 2 1.4 Grievance Redress Process ...... 3 1.5 Methodology ...... 3 1.5.1 Instruments and Materials ...... 5 1.5.2 Data Gathering Strategy ...... 5 1.6 Schedule of EMA Team ...... 4 II. Follow-Up Action on Issues Identified in the previous monitoring period ...... 9 III. Status of accomplishment during the Monitoring Period ...... 9 3.1 Observation ...... 10 3.1.1 The Case of Heng Chreb and Kheiv Pet at the Cross-Border Facility Development regarding the dispute over the piece of land ...... 10 3.1.2 Land Acquisition and Land Transfer Procedure ...... 14 3.2 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) ...... 16 3.3 Interview with Village Chiefs ...... 17 3.4 Interview with APs along Road No. 33 and in Cross Border Facility area (CBF) ...... 19 3.4.1 Demographic-related information ...... 19 3.4.2 Project-related Information ...... 20 3.4.3 Detail Measurement Survey (DMS) ...... 21 3.4.4 Negotiation and contract making ...... 21 3.4.5 Compensation ...... 21 3.4.6 Livelihood of affected household after compensation ...... 22 3.5 Interview with landless affected people ...... 23 3.5.1 Demographic-related information ...... 23 3.5.2. Project-related Information ...... 24 IV. Issues Identified during the Monitoring Period ...... 27 V. Time-Bound Recommendation ...... 27 Annex 1: List of Persons met ...... 28 Annex 2: Report on the Results of Judgment on the Disputed Land ...... 30 Annex 3: Complaint Letter of Mr. Khiev Pet ...... 34

ABBREVIATION

ADB : Asian Development Bank Ahs : Affected Household CBF : Cross Border Facility COI : Corridor of Impact DMS : Detail Measurement Survey EM : External Monitoring and Evaluation’s Team of SBK GRC : Grievance Redress Committee IRC : Inter-Ministerial Resettlement Committee IRC’s WG : Inter-Ministerial Resettlement Committee’s WG SBK : SBK Research and Development, Independent Agency

i

Executive Summary SBK R&D project team had conducted many activities during the sixth quarter of monitoring of the GMS Southern Coastal Corridor National road No.33 project. The purposes of this monitoring were to monitor the achievements on the issues identified in the past, to observe the level of satisfaction of affected people with the provisions and implementation of the resettlement plan, to identify the capacity of affected people, especially severely and vulnerable people to restore or re-establish livelihoods and living standard, and to identify problems occurring during monitoring period. In this quarter, the project team monitored the issues occurred in the previous quarter, interviewed with 9 village chiefs, 9 landless Ahs, and 62 APs along the road and in cross border facility area.

During monitoring the project team joined in the meeting organized by IRC’s WG. The purpose of the meeting was to solve one complaint of one household, namely Mr. Kheiv Pet on the case of Mrs. Heng Chreb, the affected household at cross border facility area. According to the clarification made by the Lork village chief, Russey Srok Lech commune chief about the disputed land between Ms. Heng Chreb and Mr. Kheiv Pet, the disputed land belonged to Mrs. Heng Chreb. The same was verified and confirmed by the Provincial Cadastral Department with legal land ownership transfer documents issued by Kampot Provincial Office. Furthermore, according to the legal letter from Kampot Provincial Office, the IRC’s WG decided to compensate this disputed land to Mrs. Heng Chreb. However, Mr. Khiev Pet does not agree with the final verdict. Mr. Khiev Pet and his family are residing on this land and are creating problem for the contractor. As stated by the IRC’s WG and the external M&E agency, Mr. Khiev Pet should move out of the land, and if he was still not satisfied with the decision, he could submit complaint letter again to the higher level of court or through Grievance Redness Committee to review his complaint.

It was found that the IRC’s WG had already compensated to Mrs. Heng Chreb for her affected land of 800m2 after receiving the formal letter from the Kampot provincial office about the ownership of the affected land.

The project team also observed the relocation site for the 10 landless affected households at Lork village, Russey Srok Lech commune, Kampong Trach district, and Kampot province. By this quarter, 9 AHs have already moved to the relocation site while one AH has not yet moved because she was transferring her children to the school nearby the relocation site. It was noticed that each affected household was eligible to receive 105 m2 plot of land with free of charge and with basic amenities.

The results from the focus group discussions with vulnerable APs in Kampong Trach Keut and Russey Srok Lech commune showed that the process of project consultation, DMS, contract making, negotiation and compensation were fair and reliable. There was no complaint letter submitted to the village chief in all target villages. The vulnerable APs received 150US$ plus the money compensation on the affected properties. Furthermore, they were able to restore their livelihood because all of them have already started business.

Additionally, the project team also interviewed with the village chiefs and/or deputy village chiefs. As reported by all village chiefs, all the processes conducted by the IRC’s WG were with full justice. For example the IRC’s WG recorded all affected private as well as public properties in the DMS. Moreover, most of the AHs moved

ii

their affected properties out of the road. Some people were starting new business while some expended their existing business with the money compensation to restore their livelihood.

Affected households along the road in Kampong Trach Keut and Russey Srok Lech commune as well as in cross border facility were also interviewed. In terms of educational status, the results showed that more than 60% of the respondents had completed their primary school and most of them were farmers. Most of them received project information and booklets. They also reported that the DMS, contract making and compensation were accurate and they were satisfied with the project. It was observed that the money compensation provided to APs responded to the replacement cost stated in the resettlement plan. In addition, most AP respondents stated that they were able to restore their livelihood because they started business immediately after moving out the affected properties. The income of the AP respondents before and during project implementation was not significantly different. The average income before implementation was 985,588.24 riel/month, which is higher than the current income of 967,941.18 riel/month during project implementation (p=0.899>0.05).

Furthermore, it was not different between the affected households along the road and in cross border facility area. The landless affected households stated that all activities carried out by the IRC’s WG was correct and with full of justice. Approximately 89% of the interviewed APs had moved to the relocation site and started business while the others have not moved in yet. About 55.6% of landless AP respondents were able to restore their livelihood during and after moving to the relocation site while 44.4% could not. The reasons given were due to APs more time spent for construction of house and search for new land for business operation. It is expected that their livelihood would be restored once they complete their house construction and begin new business.

Finally, all responded were encouraged to express their opinions regarding the resettlement issues. Some of them gave suggestions such as the road should be watered in order to reduce the whirling cloud of dust; the drainage system (water pipe) should be deep down to avoid flooding; the construction activities should be faster; and the traffic sign should be displayed in order to reduce traffic accident.

In conclusion, the affected people were found satisfied with the resettlement provision. For the issues in cross border facility area, the project team will continue monitoring and assessing the new development.

iii

I. Background

The National Road No.33 (NR 33) in the section from Kompong Trach to Preak Chak and cross border facilities (CBF) will be widened and improved with financial support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). In order to minimize negative impacts on households whose their properties are going to be affected by the widening and improvement of the NR 33 and CBF, the Resettlement Plan (RP) was firstly prepared in 2006 and updated from 15th December 2009 to 21 February 2010 to develop comprehensive resettlement policies to compensate their impacts at least to the same level before the improvement of This National Road. Thus, the compensation on affected assets has to follow the final updated RP.

At the Ministry of Public Works and Transports (MPWT), the principle office which is responsible for the project is the Project Management Unit (PMU3) under the guideline of the Environmental and Social Office (ESO). The Inter-Ministerial Resettlement Committee (IRC), on behalf of the Royal Government of Cambodia, is responsible for resettlement operations and management in the project. The IRC has established a dedicated working group (IRC-WG) for the project. The Resettlement Department (RD) of the Ministry of Economic and Finance (MEF) is tasked to updating, implementation and monitoring of the RP activities implemented by the IRC’s WG. The IRC-WG has established Provincial Resettlement Sub-Committee (PRSC) in each province to implement field work following work plan in the update RP.

SBK Research and Development (SBK R &D) is officially awarded a contract to conduct monitoring and evaluation of resettlement plan implemented by IRC-WG and its PRSC and produce periodic monitoring and evaluation report (Quarterly Report) to submit to IRC to report their performance on implementation of the RP.

1.1 Category of Affected Persons

APs have been grouped into three broad categories such as Individual, Household and Communities, and within each group other sub-groups have been defined. Particularly, with this category, there are vulnerable groups defined as those that are social or economic disadvantages and who will more economically and socially suffer from relocation and improvement plan than the general population. Furthermore, APs falling into one or more of the following categories are defined as vulnerable groups:

(i) female-headed households; (ii) households living below the generally accepted poverty line; (iii) displaced households that have no other land holding; and (iv) households that are headed by elderly persons

According to the inventory of losses (IOL) and the social surveys, four categories of losses have been identified including (1) loss of agricultural land and land use, (2) loss of residential and/or commercial land and land use, as well as structures and trees affected on that land, (3) loss of livelihood, and (4) loss of community assets. Therefore, a number of APs and their losses have been estimated based on these results. The compensation rates have been followed with ADB Guideline and the results of a Replacement Cost Survey (RCS).

1 | Page

1.2 Updated New Detailed Measurement Survey and Socioeconomic Survey

Based on the detail measurement survey (DMS) and socioeconomic survey (SES) from 15 December 2009 to 21 February 2010 in 9 villages, the number of Ahs has increased from 570 to 632 Ahs estimated in 2006 (i.e. 12% increase). A total of 617 Ahs will be affected by the road while 15 Ahs will be affected by the construction of CBF. Almost 10 Ahs out of 617 Ahs will be entirely affected in the corridors of impact (COI), and 607 will be partly affected in the COI and in the ROW. The impacts of land acquisition on Ahs are detailed as below:

• A total of 84,845 m2 of agricultural land will be affected including 44,615 m2 by the road and 40,030 m2 by the CBF. • Around 1,817 m2 of land used for commercial activities will be captured from 32 Ahs, and around 28,620 m2 of house plots/gardens will be taken from 409 Ahs associated with along the road. • For affected structures, there are 66 houses, 116 stalls and shops, and 373 other structures. • A total of 1,566 trees will be affected including 1,468 trees along the COI and 98 trees in the CBF.

Table 1: Summary of Resettlement Impacts

Number of AHs Affected Land (in m2) Number of Affected Structures Commune/ Number Villages of Trees In In COI Agricultural Commer- Plot/ Staffs& Other Total House COI &ROW land cial land gardens Shops structures**

A. For NR 33 Kamp. Trach 212 212 4278 334 12529 14 37 148 527 Keut Kampong Trach 24 - 24 - - 1120 5 1 18 62 1 Koh Khlout 141 - 141 2448 304 8065 4 20 120 361 Koh Tachan 11 - 11 - - 1378 - 6 6 54 Robang Krass 36 - 36 1830 30 1966 5 10 4 50 Reussey Srok 405 10 400 40537 1423 16967 51 79 218 941 Lech Kampoul Meas 122 - 122 8503 1428 4347 22 43 60 188 Damnak Trobek 61 - 61 7937 55 2334 2 8 16 136 Tropeang Neal 76 - 76 19550 - 2827 - 6 6 232 Lork 86 9 82 4397 - 3930 17 7 82 255 Thkov/Praek 60 1 59 150 - 3529 10 15 54 130 Chak Total for NR 33 617 10 612 44815 1817 29496 65 116 366 1468 B. For CBF 15 40030 - - 1 - 7 98 Grand Total 632 84845 1817 29496 66 166 373 1566 Source: Draft resettlement plan (updated); Processed data from DMS **: Includes the affected 156 Samyabs

1.3 Relocation Strategy The landless in the corridor of impact will not be compensated for the land on which their house are built but will have the option to (i) self-relocate and receive a cash assistance of $6,880 each, or (ii) receive a 105m2 plot each in a relocation site that will be developed by the government in the same commune, free of charge and with basic amenities, such as latrine for each plot, road and drainage network, and communal water wells. The Ahs may not sell or use as collateral the plots in the 2 | Page

relocation site for 5 consecutive years and that land title for these plots will be given to the Ahs after 5 years of actual occupation or residency. These options will be discussed with the Ahs during the disclosure meeting-consultations that the IRC will hold with the affected following completion of the DMS. The schedule of delivery of entitlements, relocation, and the start of civil works will likewise be discussed and agreed with the Ahs during said disclosure meeting-consultations. It is imperative that the Ahs are provided sufficient lead time to find a place to relocate and rebuild their homes and shops, including finding a replacement for their lost productive assets, prior to displacement.

1.4 Grievance Redress Process Grievances of eligible Ahs will be handled through negotiation with the aim of achieving consensus. The grievance redress process has four stages. Any complaints from the Ahs have to be deliberated in the three stages and resolved as much as possible before they are elevated to a court of law, as a last resort. The process is described as follows:

• First stage: Ahs will present their complaints and grievances to the village or commune resettlement sub-committee or to IRC working group and, if the Ahs wish, to the nominated NGO working with the GRC. The NGO will record the complaint in writing and accompany the Ahs to meet the village or commune resettlement sub-committee. The sub-committee is obliged to provide immediate written confirmation of receiving the complaint. If after 15 days the aggrieved Ahs do not hear from, or if they are not satisfied with decision, the complaints may be brought to the district GRC

• Second stage: The district GRC has 15 days within which to resolve the complaints to the satisfaction of all concerned. If the complaints are not resolved, the district GRC will bring the case to the provincial GRC.

• Third stage: The provincial GRC meets the complaining Ahs to resolve the complaints. The committee may ask to EMO for a review of the DMS. Within 30 days of the submission of the grievance, the GRC must make a written decision and submit copies to MPWT-ESO, the EMO, the IRC-RD and the AP.

• Final stage: If the complainants do not hear from the provincial GRC or is not satisfied with its decisions, the Ahs will bring the case to the provincial court of laws as the final stage for adjudicating complaints. Within 30 days of the submission of the grievance, the court shall prepare its judgment and distribute copies to RD, ESO, the EMO, and the AP. If any of the contending party is unsatisfied to the judgment of the provincial court judgment, they can bring the case to a higher court, in which judgment is final and executory.

1.5 Methodology

During this quarter the monitoring and evaluation of the RP implementation was conducted through the following technique:

- Discussion with village chief and elderly people: Semi-structure questionnaire was prepared in order to gain more information during discussion. A village chief or elderly people in each affected village were

3 | Page

met in the purpose to identify the public affected assets, DMS, negotiation and contract making procedure, compensation, situation of APs after receiving compensation, ability of normal APs and vulnerable APs to restore their livelihood and overall resettlement problem in village. After identification of each case, a field visit was conducted to verify those problems and reported to the project for solution.

- Observation on public consultation and DMS implementation: All activities which were undertaking during implementation activities were observed. DMS procedure, public meeting or consultation, negotiation, contract making, compensation, grievance redress mechanism and other activities which were being implemented by the IRC’s WG were carefully observed. The project team also conducted observation at relocation site in Lork village, Ressey Sroklech commune, Kampong Trach district, Kampot province.

- Focus group discussion: Two focus group discussions were conducted with vulnerable and severable APs at Kampong Trach Keut and Russey Srok Lech commune. DMS procedure, public meeting or consultation, negotiation, contract making, compensation and the ability to restore livelihood and living standard were also discussed.

- Indirect interview with APs along the road, in CBF area and landless APs: APs along the road 33 and CBF area were randomly selected and all landless APs were also selected for interview (Table 2). Semi-structured questionnaire were used to interview with affected people with the purpose of identifying any errors or problems created by the IRC’s WG during measurement or if they felt afraid to express their idea during measurement. These interviews were also conducted to observe the level of satisfaction of APs with the provision and implementation of RP, ability of normal and vulnerable APs to restore their living standard, and to monitor the process of contract negotiation, contract making, compensation and livelihood restoration.

Table 2: Sample selection for the6th quarterly period No. of APs No. Description Total APs interview 1 Interview with village chief in 9 villages x 9 Indirect interview with APs for Road No. 33 1. Kampong Trach Keut Kampong Trach 1 (10% of total APs) 24 2 Koh Khlout (10% of total APs) 141 14 Koh Tachan (10% of total APs) 11 1 2 Robang Krass (10% of total APs) 36 4 2. Reussey Srok Lech Kampoul Meas (10% of total APs) 122 12 Damnak Trobe (10% of total APs) 61 6 Tropeang Neal (10% of total APs) 76 8 Lork (10% of total APs) 91 9

4 | Page

No. of APs No. Description Total APs interview Thkov/Praek Chak (10% of total APs) 60 6 3. Interview with landless Aps 11 9 Total number of APs 73 Indirect interview with APs for CBF (10% of 3 15 8 total Aps) Focus Group Discussion with APs along the 4 x 30 road Follow-up previous issues and observation 5 x 2 of landless Aps

1.5.1 Instruments and Materials

Checklists and semi-structured questionnaires were designed and developed so that it can be precisely collected accurate information. The checklists, questionnaires, and survey forms were intended to conduct both, direct and indirect investigation on the implementation of the Resettlement Plan (RP).

1.5.2 Data Gathering Strategy

Data and information gathering was mainly from secondary and primary data. Primary data collection was derived from direct meeting/consultations, and face to face described by the APs’ group providers etc. Secondary data collection was taken from the IRC, the APs files and other documents.

Data gathering strategies within this quarterly report were through the discussion with village chief in each village, observation on public consultation and DMS implementation, and indirect interview involved in DMS measurement, negotiation on price of affected assets, contract making and compensation. The important parts of the data collection strategies were to evaluate whether APs were satisfied with the provision and implementation of RP, to evaluate of DMS activities, negotiation, contract making and compensation process, and to identify any outstanding issues.

5 | Page

1.6 Schedule of EMA Team

The schedule of SBK R & D has been prepared on quarterly basis for a total of six quarters by including all activities assigned in the ToR for External Monitoring and Evaluation to enable the client and reader to understand its specific tasks easily. Table 3: Schedule of EMA Team

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 No Description M19 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 I. Inception Period (First Month) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Reviewing existing documents, discussion with key 1 stakeholders and conduct field visit Preparing quesitonnaires for monitoring and evaluation, rapid appraisal and other required materials and finalize 2 indicator for monitoring and evaluation Conduct direct and indirect observation on DMS 3 implemented by PRSC and IRC-WG 4 Preparing inception Report 5 Submission of Draft Inception Report 6 Discussion with IRC-WG on draft inception Report Delivery 1: Inception Report II. Quarterly Period Disccucssion with village chief and eldery people in eacch 7 village to identify impact Observe on Public consultation and DMS implemented by 8 IRC-WG Conduct indirect interview with APs who were arleady measured their affeccted assets to indentify any erors or problem which occure during measurement and they feel 9 afraid to express their idea during measurement Conduct PRA (FGD) if needed to indentify detail issues of 10 each found cases Conduct study (in-dept interview) wtih Aps, local authorities and IRC to identify details of each founding issues before 11 including the case in the report. Verification of replacement cost prepared by IRC after DMS and during contract negotiation is in accordance with replacement cost studied by independent agency

12 13 Reviewed Grievance Redress Mechanism 14 Receive complaints from APs

6 | Page

15 Monitoring solutions of complaints raised by APs Observe lelvel of satisfaction of APs with the 16 provision and implementation of RP Review the capacity of APs to restore/re-establish 17 livelihoods and living standards (severely APs and Vulnerable Groups) Undertaking a special market study to validate whether the rates used in compensating for land and other non-land 18 assets were at replacement cost if the compensation take longer than 2 years of the study of replacement cost.

Review of detailed measurement survey documents to be able to establish a baseline for monitoring and evaluating 19 project benefits. The EMA to check on a random basis the DMS process with APs from identification to agreement on DMS results 20 Review socio-economic data in the updated RP 21 Review land acquisition and transfer procedure Coordination of resettlement activities with resettlment 22 schedule Conduct direct observation and questionnaires interview of 23 the implementation of contract negotiation and contract making Conduct random direct observation and random questionnaires interview of the implementation of payment 24 disbursement comparing with DMS, replacement cost study and contract agreement documents

Monitoring of construction of replacment house and 25 structure Monitoring other impacts occuring during construction 26 activities

7 | Page

Observe and Monitore the progress of APs who are making to restore their living standards through direct observation and survey during training, practice and after training if training are organized during monitoring period 27

Observe ability of APs to be able to purchase comparable replacement lands with the compensation money, location of 28 such land, distance from affected land and other assistance.

Discussion with all village chiefs, radnom interview with APs and verifying all founding issues to determine issues 29 which has not yet solved and already solved to produce completion reports. Observe severely APs, vulnerable group and relocated APs to ensure that they all received compensation amount and 30 such assistances following RP and reporting outstanding issues 31 Preparing urgent report case by case if have 32 Preparing quarterly Report 33 Submission of Draft quarterly report Review of draft quarterly report joinlty by SBK and IRC 34 35 Submission of final quartelry report 36 Preparing completion Report Submission of Draft Completion Report 37 38 Revise completion Report combining all comments 39 Submission of final report III Post Evaluation Survey Conduct post evaluation within one years after completion of 40 all concerned resettlemernt activities

7 | Page

II. Follow-Up Action on Issues Identified in the previous monitoring period

According to previous monitoring report, a number of issues occurred; therefore, those issues are checked and monitored during this sixth quarterly report.

Table 4: Follow-up action on Issus identified in the previous monitoring period Reporting Status Reason/Additional Issues period (if resolved or not) Action Required Ms. Heng Chrep (PK 15+675) agreed to IRC’s WG need to receive money investigate whether compensation from the the compensation IRC’s WG; however, Mr. was given to the Kiev Pet claimed his actual affected ownership and asked for She agreed to receive household. One sharing on this money compensation meeting with a compensated land. as policy. But, Mr. Kiev Family of Khiev Pet Pet, the older brother was organized and of the father of Ms. another meeting Heng Chreb with the with Mrs. Heng same mother, but Chreb should also different farther has been organized to been claiming his compare the evident 4th and ownership and share and reasons 5th on this compensated provided by both Quarterly land. The detail is parties. After 2012 described in Section organizing 3.1.1 separated meeting with both parties, a joint meeting between both parties should be organized to look for a common agreement. Mr. Kim Lay (PK He agreed to the 15+590) did not agreed compensation but he on the compensation has not yet signed the IRC’s WG need policy contract. However, he verify this case has no objection to civil works for proceeding on the land.

III. Status of accomplishment during the Monitoring Period

During this quarterly period, the EMA has conducted and achieved the following key tasks: 1. Followed-up action on issues identified in the previous monitoring period, first and second quarterly.

9 | Page

2. Discussed and conducted indirect interviews with village chiefs in 9 affected villages. 3. Reviewed grievance redress mechanism. 4. Received complaints from APs and monitor solution of complaints raised by APs 5. Conducted focus group discussion with vulnerable and severely affected group to observe level of satisfaction with the provision and implementation of RP and to review the capacity of APs to restore/re-establish livelihoods and living standards. 6. Conducted random direct observation and random questionnaires interview of the implementation of payment disbursement comparing with DMS, replacement cost study and contract agreement documents. 7. Reviewed land acquisition and transfer procedure. 8. Coordinated of resettlement activities with resettlement schedule. 9. Monitored of construction of replacement house and structure. 10. Monitored other impacts occurring during construction activities. 11. Monitored the progress of APs to restore their living standards. 12. Observed ability of APs to be able to purchase comparable replacement lands with the compensation money. 13. Observed severely APs, vulnerable group and relocated APs to ensure that they all received compensation amount and such assistances following RP 14. Observed relocation site

During this sixth quarter, some of the activities stated in the work plan of the EMA could not be completed. Table 4 below explains the reasons for uncompleted activities in the sixth quarter.

Table 5: Reasons of Missing Activities No Activities not completed Reasons Verification of replacement cost Most APs have agreed with cost as or undertaking a special market listed in replacement cost study study to validate whether the conducted by independent agency. 1 rates used in compensating for land and other non-land assets are at replacement cost Observe and monitor the There was no training provided to progress of APs who are making APs during monitoring period. to restore their living standards 2 through direct observation and survey during training, practice and after training

3.1 Observation

3.1.1 The Case of Heng Chreb and Kheiv Pet at the Cross-Border Facility Development regarding the dispute over the piece of land

A meeting was organized with the family of Mr. Kheiv Pet on 25 June 2012at the Office of Consultant at the Cross-Border Facility by the Representative of PMU3 of MPWT and RD with participation of concerned parties such as Egis International-

10 | Page

Consulting Firm for design and construction supervision, SBK Research and Development for external monitoring and evaluation, Construction Company, and the representative from the Kampot Provincial Office to discuss on the root problem and to seek a win-win situation to solve the problem and avoid any delay for construction work.

Through the discussion with Mr. Khiev Pet and his family and subsequent minutes of the meeting between provincial and local authorities with Mrs. Heng Chreb and Mr. Khiev Pet, the following family chart has been drawn to get clear picture, and for an in-depth understanding about the relationship between Ms. Heng Chreb and Mr. Khiev Pet.

Fig: Chart showing relationship between Mr. Khiev pet and Mrs. Heng Chrep

Ex-Husband of Ms. Siv Ros (Died) Ms. Siv Pos (Died) Mr. Khiev Vit The Farther of Mrs. Srorn Mother of Mr. Khiev Pet Husband (Died) and Grand-Mother of Mrs. The Farther of Mr. Khiev Pet Heng Chreb

Mrs. Srorn Mr. Khiev Pet (Mother of Ms. Heng Chreb) Disputed Land (Buried Ms A family who recently came to Siv Pos’s ex-Husband) claim for compensation

Note: Mrs. Heng Chreb Dotted line shows thin or no relationship (AP who is legally authorized by Bold line shows strong relationship Provincial authority to receive)

Chronology of Events

No Date/Time Venue/ Participants Issues /Complaints 1 20 January Meeting at Provincial To facilitate two APs - Mrs. Heng Chreb and Owner 2012 Office of Casino Hatien Vigas who disagreed to receive compensation provided by the Project. 2 27 January Mr. Khiev Pet submitted a Mr. Khiev Pet submitted a complaints to claim for a 2012 complaint letter to the sharing of compensation on disputed land (the land of Governor of Kampot 800m2 which is claimed as joint-sharing land from Province their parents) located at Cross-Border Facility. Based on his complaint: o Mr. Khiev Pet confirmed that he is the son of Mrs. Siv Pok and Mr. Khiev Vit but Mrs. Heng Chreb is the grand-daughter of Mrs. Siv Pok and her ex- husband. o He added that his parent received ownership to hold two lands from his grand-parent and his parent cleared one new plot of land to occupy. o His mother-Mrs. Siv Pok died in 1993 and his farther Mr. Khiev Vit died in 2010 in Prah Sihanuk Province. o He proposed Governor to block the disputed land till it is solved legally. 3 01 March Meeting with Mr. Vit Discussed on root causes and tried to settle the 2012 Vatana, Director, Inter- problem on Disputed Land.

11 | Page

No Date/Time Venue/ Participants Issues /Complaints Sector of Provincial; Mr. Both commune and village chiefs confirmed that: Em Chany, Provincial o This disputed land belonged to Mrs. Siv Pok and Officer; Mr. Keo Savuth: Mr. Khiev Vit who are the parent and grand-parent Provincial Officer; Mr. Ma of Mr. Khiev Pet and Mrs. Heng Chreb, Lann, Village Chief; Mr. respectively. Kim Heng, Commune o After the death of Mrs. Siv Pok, Mr. Khiev Pet Council Officer moved to live in Prah Sihanuk Province and Mrs. Heng Chreb has taken care of this land and her father’s grave. o They added that this disputed land has not been offered official land title yet. But it was measured and offered Land Receipt by Provincial Cadastral Office on 18th February 2009.

4 23 April Meeting with Mr. Vit Invited Mrs. Heng Chreb to clarify the case in regard 2012 Vatana, Director, Inter- to the complaint raised by Mr. Khiev Pet in relation to Sector of Provincial office; the disputed land. Mrs Chreb confirmed that: Mr. Em Chany, Provincial o Mrs. Heng Chreb is 32 year old and her present Officer; Mr. Keo Savuth, residential place is in Thkov village, Russey Srok Provincial Officer; Yim Khang Lich Commune, Kampong Trach District, Sotheara; and Mrs. Heng Kampot province. Chreb o She is the daughter of Mrs. Siv Pok. Her father who is the ex-husband of Mrs. Siv Pok died and buried in this disputed land. o She confirmed that she bought three plots of lands (one residential land and two plots of rice land) from Mr. Khiev Vit (Father of Mr. Khiev Pet) in 2001 and paid in gold in amount of 1.5 Damleng (1.807 Ounce) with certified letter of acquiring this land by Commune and Village Chief and with other three witnesses. The certified letter of purchase of this disputed land from Mr. Khiev Vit by local authorities is attached. o She added that she sold one plot of land and presently she has another plot of rice land with her father’s grave and one residential land which is presently renting to others. o She added that she agreed to receive compensation from the government to construct the Prek Chak Cross-Border Facility. o She clearly mentioned that there was no question of sharing any portion of compensation with Mr. Khiev Pet because she bought this land from Mr. Khiev Vit with certification from village chief and commune chief. 5 24 April Meeting with Mr. Vit Invited Mr. Khiev Pek and his wife to clarify on his 2012 Vatana: Director of Inter- complaints against Mrs. Heng Chreb on the disputed Sector of Provincial Office; land so called “A joint-Sharing Land from his parent). Mr. Em Chany: Provincial Officer; Mr. Keo Savuth: o Mr. Khiev Pet confirmed that his father sold one Provincial Officer; Mr. plot of residential land to Mrs. Heng Chreb, and Khiev Pet: Husband; Mrs. other two plots of rice land were not sold by his Srei Nai Houy: Wife father to Mrs. Heng Chreb. Therefore, he requested the Governor to help for justice and give this disputed land back to him.

6 06 May Meeting with Mr. Vit Invited Commune and Village Chief to describe the 2012 Vatana: Director of Inter- background of this disputed land and to clarify the Sector of Provincial; Mr. legal ownership of land whether it belongs to Heng

12 | Page

No Date/Time Venue/ Participants Issues /Complaints Em Chany: Provincial Chreb or Mr. Khiev Vit. Officer; Mr. Keo Savuth: Provincial Officer; Mr. Ma o Both commune chief and village chief strongly Lan: Village Chief; Mr. confirmed that The Father of Mr. Khiev Pet really Thai Sari: Commune Chief sold three plots of lands (one residential land and two plots of rice land) to Mrs. Heng Chreb. And both of them are the local officers who signed and stamped to acknowledge this ownership transferred.

7 08 May Kampot Provincial Office o Kampot Provincial Office produced report about 2012 the result of their judgment on the disputed land. The report mentioned about location and history of disputed land, opinions clarified by village chief and commune chief and the conclusion from Mr. Vit Vattana, Director of Inter-Sector Provincial Office. Then the report was submitted to the Director of IRC with their official conclusion that the disputed land belonged to Mrs. Heng Chreb as Mrs. Heng Chreb had strong evident with legal land ownership transfer documents certified by the local commune and village chief (See Annex- 2)

o With this official and legal letter from Kampot Provincial Office, the IRC decided to compensate this disputed land to Mrs. Heng Chreb, as the rightful owner as adjudicated by the Kampot Provincial Office. 26 June Meeting with Mr. Pheng o Meeting was held at the Office of Consultant at the 2012 Sovicheavo, PMU3; Mr. Cross-Border Facility to seek for the detail and root Sun Sokny: chief of office, causes of the problem by the Project Manager, IRC; Mr. Vith Vathna: PMU3, MPWT and IRC. Director of Inter-Sector of o The committee explained the importance and Provincial; Andre Krocker: benefit of the project to Mr. Khiev Pet and his team leader, Egis family to understand and give up his intention of international; Mr. Khnel disturbance to the contractor to develop the area. Bora, external monitoring The team requested Mr. Khiev Pet and his family and evaluation, SBK R&D; to cooperate with the project and move away from Mr. Khiev Pet and his the land which was already given the final verdict family by the Kampot Provincial Office. Mr. Khiev Pet and his family were advised that if they were still not satisfied with the decision made by the provincial court, they could re-submit their complaints to court or through grievance redness committee. o The team also explained Mr. Khiev Pet that it was their family problem and he should not bring such intention to harm the benefit of others. o The External Monitoring agency, SBK R & D, also encouraged Mr. Khiev Pet to move away from this land to enable contractor to proceed with their construction process. SBK also told him that if he is not satisfied with the previous results of the Provincial department he could re-submit his complaint to the court or through Grievance Redness Committee. SBK R & D could assist him to facilitate the further process. o However, at the end neither Mr. Khiev Pet accepted the facilitation of SBK nor the proposal of

13 | Page

No Date/Time Venue/ Participants Issues /Complaints the committee. He and his family reiterated that they would not move away from the land until and unless an acceptable solution was provided to them. o Finally, the committee set the deadline for Mr. Khiev Pet to cooperate and move out of this land before 30 June 2012. If he failed moving out, the committee will submit complaint to the court to move them out and speed-up the construction as per the schedule.

It is also important to note that this disputed land was measured and registered by the Provincial Cadastral Department on 18 February 2012 and Mrs. Heng Chreb was issued one note/receipt by the Provincial Cadastral Department as the owner of this land. Similarly, this disputed land was measured by the provincial resettlement sub- committee in 2010 to provide compensation for the construction of cross-border facility. In fact, if Mr. Khiev Pet was the owner of this land he should have submitted his complaints letter or his grievances to the Provincial Cadastral Department at the time of measurement and registration made by Provincial Cadastral Department in 2009 or after measurement by the provincial resettlement sub-committee.

Mr. Khiev Pet and his family are still residing on this already resolved land and constantly creating problem for contractor to develop this area. Mr. Pethas the expectation that he should receive additional compensation or could share compensation amount with Mrs. Heng Chreb. His intention and activity has seriously affected the constructor’s performance and construction schedule.

Perspective of the External M&E Agency: Mr. Khiev Pet should move away from this land because this land is already judged by provincial court with legal support documents to the IRC. If he is not happy or satisfied with this solution judged by the provincial court, he should submit his complaints to the higher level of court or through Grievance Redness Committee to reassess his complaint. His present activity affects the schedule and cost of the construction project.

3.1.2 Land Acquisition and Land Transfer Procedure

Until this quarter, affected households who totally lost residential land moved to relocation site in Lork village, Russey Srok Lech commune, Kampong Trach district, and Kampot province.

14 | Page

The project team observed that each affected household received 105m2 per household. The relocation site was accessed by a good road about 150 meters from the national road No.33 and around 1 km from the public gathering place. Furthermore, water system, electricity, drainage and latrine were already constructed and prepared for the eligible relocation households.

As stated in resettlement plan, the landless APs have to receive a 105 m2 plot each in relocation site that will be developed by the government in the same commune, free of charge and with basic amenities, such as latrine for each plot, road and drainage network and communal water wells. As per observation, the landless affected households received compensation, for example land with free of charge as well as basic amenities as mentioned in resettlement plan.

According to the resettlement plan, there were in total 11 affected households who were eligible to move to the relocation site. However, the IRC’s WG reported that one affected household, namely Mr. Ching Eung has decided not to move to the relocation site but wanted to live on his remaining land. The IRC’s WG has already compensated on the loss of his land property. The project team also interviewed with Mr. Ching Eung on this case and he reported that he had received money compensation for the loss of his land. He currently shifted his house in the adjoining plot of land, 15 meter from the road corridor which is not affected by the facility development plan. With this, there are only 10 affected people who will be eligible to receive land at the relocation site.

Until this quarter, 9 affected households have moved to the relocation site while 1 affected household has not moved yet (table 6). The household, namely Mao Muoyleang has not moved because the relocation site was far away from her children school so she has to transfer her children to the school nearby the relocation site. She currently lived in Khos Khlot village and she would move to the relocation site next month.

Table6: Names of affected people have to move to relocation site No. Name of APs Village Commune Remark 1 Sang Kea Lork Russey Srok Lech Have moved 2 Doung Puth Lork Russey Srok Lech Have moved 3 Ngeng Kimngeung Lork Russey Srok Lech Have moved 4 Chey Toch Lork Russey Srok Lech Have moved 5 Sek Phen Lork Russey Srok Lech Have moved 6 Tich Measphearom Lork Russey Srok Lech Have moved 7 Vy Kimsang Lork Russey Srok Lech Have moved 8 Hem Ouk Lork Russey Srok Lech Have moved 9 Seang Reng Lork Russey Srok Lech Have moved Kampong Trach Kampong Trach Have not moved 10 Mao Muoyleang Muoy Keut Total = 10 households

15 | Page

3.2 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) The project team organized two focus group discussions with vulnerable and severely affected people in Kampong Trach Keut commune and Russey Srok Lech commune. The vulnerable and severely affected people were invited to join in discussion. The total numbers of participants were 15 APs in which 7 APs were female and 8 APs were male. The purposes of the discussion were to understand about the AP’s opinion related to DMS process, negotiation, contract making and compensation, to gather information about the progress of livelihood and living standard among normal APs as well as severely and vulnerable APs after removing affected properties, to search for problems or additional impacts occurring among APs during project implementation, and to observe level of satisfaction of APs with the provision and implementation of resettlement plan.

The focus group discussions were held at commune office of Kampong Trach Keut and Russey Srok Lech commune. All participants were encouraged to share their opinion on the questions as well as to raise their issue related to the project.Before moving to the main questions, the project team asked about the project information they received. Generally, all of them received information on benefits of project, disadvantages of the project, DMS contract making and compensation.

During discussion, the project facilitator also asked how they got that information. All of them said they got information through the meeting with IRC’s WG, village chief and through leaflet. Most of the participants expressed that the project did provided many good benefits such as compensation on the loss, good road, easy to travel and transport, save time and gasoline for traveling, easy to communicate from one district to other district. However, a number of them also stated that the project contributed to some negative consequences such as too much time spent for moving affected properties, health problems due to cloud of dust, affect to their business leading to loss of income especially of those people who run their business along the roadside. However, they were convinced that all the problems would be solved after project implementation.

In addition, most of them also responded that they received information approximately 7 days before DMS. The IRC’s WG listed the affected properties and gave information to the owner. The IRC’s WG also informed to all affected households about the compensation, right to complaint and allowance for vulnerable APs. All of them were allowed to monitor during DMS; therefore, there was no complaint raised by these participants. They also stated that the DMS process was fair and correct because all affected properties were listed.

After DMS process, all affected households were asked to sign in contract before receiving money compensation. The contract making between IRC’s WG and

16 | Page

affected households were held at commune office and house of affected people. When the project team asked whether IRC’s WG explain the meaning in contract before thumb print, all of participants said that the IRC’s WG gave contract to all AH participants and explained clearly step by step. The people were also allowed to raise their query if they did not understand. Moreover, most of them reported that the contract making and negotiation were carried out by negotiation on the public manner without threatening. There was no affected household did not agree on replacement cost stated in contract. Furthermore, the IRC’s WG also informed to all Ahs about the way to receive money compensation. For instance, the Ahs had to bring Cambodian identity card, family book and yellow notice to receive money compensation. As mentioned by the participants, the IRC’s WG also informed them about right to complaint in case of not satisfaction. For example, the affected people should submit complaint letter during 30 days after contract making to the local authority, particularly village chief and commune chief.

All the vulnerable participants responded that the money compensation was carried out at commune office of Kampong Trach Keut and Russey Srok Lech commune. It was noticed that the local authority was also present during compensation. The compensation was in public manner without threatening. All of them reported that they were satisfied with the all activities carried out by the IRC’s WG. Obviously, they informed to the project team that the money compensation responded to the loss. They used the money compensation for reconstruction of house or stall, purposing household material and expense on family treatment, child school and food.

Additionally, the project team also asked whether all of them have ability to restore their livelihood or living standard after receiving money compensation. All of them responded that they had received money allowance of 150 US$ per household plus money compensation for the case of vulnerable APs. All of them expressed that women received money compensation as men, and they were satisfied with the compensation as well as allowance. With this compensation, they were able to reconstruct their property and start up their business. Up to now, they had already reconstructed their stall and were running their business. Furthermore, their livelihood was the same before project implementation because the project little affected their business and properties. The project team also asked whether there was additional impact during road construction. All participants said that there was no additional impact and they were happy to see the construction because they would be less expense on traveling and transportation.

Finally, the project team encouraged all participants to raise their suggestion or comment related to the project. A number of participants both in Russey Srok Lech and Kampong Trach Keut commune suggested as follows: • Traffic sign should be displayed properly in order to reduce traffic accident • Drainage system should be put because we are afraid of flood • The road should be watered in order to reduce the whirling cloud of dust.

3.3 Interview with Village Chiefs To receive more reliable information, the project team met and interviewed with village chiefs or deputy village chiefs in all affected villages such as Kampong Trach Muoy, Koh Khlout, Koh Tachan, Robong Krass, Kampol Meas, Damnak Trobek, Tropeang Neal, Lork, Thkov/Preak Chak located in Kampong Trach Keut and Russey

17 | Page

Srok Lech commune. All village chiefs usually participated in all activities carried out by IRC’s WG and they were suggested to reply the prepared questions honestly. Obviously, all village chiefs participated in project information distribution, facilitation and explanation about the project benefits, DMS, contract making, negotiation, compensation, and receiving complaint letter from affected household.

For DMS process, all interviewed village chief and deputy village chiefs reported that the DMS was fair and accurate because all affected properties (private and public) were listed. Furthermore, all of them also attended during contract making. The contract making was through negotiation between IRC’s WG and affected people. The affected people were thumb print on agreement without threatening. The money compensation was also given to affected households at the commune office and the amount of compensation was as stated in the contract. Moreover, the women affected household received compensation as men affected household, and the vulnerable affected household received allowance of 150$ plus money compensation. The people used money compensation to reconstruct their house and stall, purchase household material, enlarge their business, spend on child study, purchase pig and so on.

The project team also asked whether all affected households moved their affected properties after receiving money compensation. As stated by some village chiefs, all affected people moved their properties out of road. However, there were approximately 1% of Ahs in Kampou Meas village and 2% in Lork village had not moved their properties yet. As reported by the village chiefs, the people did not move their properties because they got small effect and they spent little time to move it out of the road.

During the road construction, there was no additional impact on the private and public properties. A number of village chiefs mentioned that the construction did not affect or disturb on people’s business. However, the village chief in Khos Tachan, Damnak Trabek, Trapeang Nil and Khos Khlot reported that there was little impact on people’s livelihood, for example disturbance their customers. This would be better after completion of construction.

The affected households have started their business after moving all affected properties. Some affected households run their previous business while some started the new business to restore their livelihood. For the landless affect households, the received land in size of 105m2 at the relocation site in Lork village, Russey Srok Lech commune. As mentioned by the village chiefs, the relocation site consisted of electricity, sewage system, latrine and water system.

18 | Page

In addition, all village chiefs were also suggested to express their idea on the people livelihood especially the livelihood of the vulnerable affected households. All village chiefs reported that the vulnerable people were able to restore their livelihood after they received compensation. Obviously, the village chief in Kampou Meas, Damnak Trabek, Trapeang Nil and Lork village mentioned that the vulnerable APs started their business and earned income as before project implementation. The village in Kampong Trach Muoy stated that the vulnerable APs were able to restore their livelihood because they got little impacts by the project. Additionally, the village chief in Koh Khlot and Thkov village mentioned that they could restore their livelihood because they got allowance (150$ per household) plus money compensation. With the compensation, they were able to enlarge their existing business or start up the new business. There was also no complaint letter submitted to all village chiefs.

Finally, the village chiefs expressed that all people were happy to see the construction and their livelihood would be better than before because they spend less time to travel and transport, spend less money and are easy to run the business. All people were happy to see the construction. At the mean time, they also raised some suggestion as follows:

• The road should be watered in order to reduce the whirling cloud of dust • The drainage system (water pipe) should be deeper to avoid flooding • The construction activities should be faster • The traffic sign should be displayed in order to reduce traffic accidence

3.4 Interview with APs along Road No. 33 and in Cross Border Facility area (CBF) 3.4.1 Demographic-related information The total nine target villages such as Kampong Trach Muoy, Khos Khlot, Khos Tachan, Robong Krass, Kampol Meas, Damnak Trobek, Tropeang Neal, Lork and Thov/Prek Chak village and cross border facility area were selected for data collection in this quarter. The project team met and interviewed with 62 selected affected people in the target villages along the road No.33 and 6 APs in cross border facility area.

In this quarter, the project team randomly interviewed with 68 APs in which 56 were male and 12 were female. As illustrated in figure 1, the non- vulnerable affected people were mostly met and interviewed more than the severely and vulnerable APs. For instance, the project team interviewed with 86.8% of non- vulnerable APs, 1.5% widows, 8.8% elderly and 1.5% differently able (disabled) APs.

19 | Page

Furthermore, some APs were vulnerable households for more than one reason, for example one household was with several statuses such as widow, elderly and loss land greater than 10%.

The level of education of the household head was also asked by the project team. As depicted in figure 2, approximately 60% of interviewed affected people completed primary school and only 1.5% graduated university. Therefore, the level of education of these affected people was still limited.

Whereas the occupation of the household head was not too difference, most of them were farmer and seller. As shown in figure 3, about 44% cultivated rice and 38.2% sold grocery and goods at the market or at home. The other occupations such as taxi driver, worker, motor repairer and government official were also found in small percentage in these affected villages.

3.4.2 Project-related Information The information related to the project was asked to all selected APs in order to make sure that the activities were followed the project work plan as well as resettlement plan and whether all affected households satisfied with the project.

According to the results from the interview, more than 97% of AP respondents reported that they attended the meeting organized by IRC’s WGs. Only 3% stated that they did not join in meeting because they were busy with their business at market and at rice field. The AP respondents who attended the meeting reported that they received much project information.

Obviously, they received information on project impacts, project benefits, compensation policy, rights to complain in case of not satisfaction and grievance

20 | Page

redress process (figure 4). Furthermore, project booklets were also distributed to all participants during meeting. A number of respondents stated that they knew this information through booklet. However, few respondents reported that they did not receive booklet because they did not attend the meeting, but they knew all information from the village chief and other affected people.

3.4.3 Detail Measurement Survey (DMS) Before DMS process, IRC’s WG informed to all affected households about the specific day they would conduct DMS. As mentioned by some AP respondents, they were told 7 days before the DMS process while some stated that they received information on DMS about 10 days before the actual measurement. When the project team asked how the IRC’s WG acted to them, all of them expressed that IRC’s WG had a good relationship with all people, for example they gave information before DMS measurement, they used polite words and they encouraged all people join during DMS. Therefore, all affected properties were recorded in the list and there was no complaint during this process.

3.4.4 Negotiation and contract making Negotiation and contract making were carried out after DMS. All affected household were asked to have thump print on the contract before receiving money compensation. A number of APs said that the contract making was done at the commune office of Kampong Trach Keut and Russey Srok Lech commune while some said that they had thump print on the contract at the house of village chief and at the house of the non affected household. Furthermore, before thump print on the contract, IRC’s WGs read and explained to all affected people. They were also encouraged to ask if they did not understand well. All of them said the agreement between IRC’s WG and the affected households were conducted by negotiation without threatening. Moreover, the IRC’s WG also told them how to receive money compensation, for instance they had to bring family book, Cambodia identity card and the yellow notice receiving from the IRC’s WG at the day of compensation. The project team also asked whether the IRC’s WG told them about the right to complain if they did not satisfy with the activities carried out by the IRC’s WG. Responding to this mention, most of the AP respondents expressed that the IRC’s WG told them that all affected households had right to complain, for example the affected household who did not satisfy with any activities conducted by IRC’s WG, they were able to submit field of complaint to the local authority.

3.4.5 Compensation The project team also asked whether all affected households had received money compensation yet. All AP respondents in Kampong Trach Keut and Russey Srok Lech commune as well as in cross border facility said they had already received the compensation as stated in contract. According to the results from the interview, approximately 92.65% of the total number of respondents received money compensation from the IRC’s WG at the commune office of Kampong Trach Keut and Russey Srok Lech and only 7.35% received compensation at bank in Kampot town.

As illustrated in table 6, the money compensation which affected households received from the IRC’s WG followed the replacement cost stated in the project resettlement plan. The vulnerable APs receive allowance plus money compensation,

21 | Page

for instance 150$ per household. Thus, we can conclude that the compensation was fair and correct.

Table 6: Cost of compensation of affected properties per unit Description Unit Cost per unit (USD) Rice Field Land m2 0.50 Samyab m2 40.00 Stall m2 20.00 Wire fence m2 4.00 Guava Tree 25.00 Mango Tree 51.00 Coconut Tree 31.00 Palm tree Tree 40.50 Bamboo Tree 15.50 Tamarind Tree 30.50 Banana Tree 25.00 Other tree Tree 25.00 Allowance for Elderly AP HH 150 Allowance for Widow AP HH 150 Transport allowance for stall and shop HH 20

Level of satisfaction was also asked by the project team. Approximately 95.5% of the total AP respondents expressed that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the money compensation they received.

Within this mention, a number of AP respondents told the project team that the compensation was fair and correct because they received compensation responded to the loss properties. With the money compensation, they were able to reconstruct their house and stall, enlarge their existing business and purchased household material.

3.4.6 Livelihood of affected household after compensation

All interviewed affected people reported to the project team that they had already prepared and moved all affected properties out of the road. Furthermore, all of them were running their business to restore their livelihood. During the road construction, the project team also asked whether there were any additional impacts by the construction. Around 82.4% of respondents said there was no additional impact while 17.6% reported that they got little impacts, for example disturbance of customer or whirling cloud of dust. However, they expressed that the situation would be better soon after completion of the road construction. All of them also expressed that they were happy to see the construction in their village.

22 | Page

To find out whether the project was significant impact on people livelihood, income of affected household before and during project implementation was gathered.

Although some AP respondents reported that they got little impact by the road construction after they received compensation, their income seemed not much difference. As shown in figure 6, the average income of Ahs was 985,588.24 riel per month before project implementation and it was 967,941.18 riel per month during the implementation.

Although the income per month of the affected households varied, there was no significant difference between the average income (985,588.24 riel/month) before and during the project implementation (967,941.18 riel/month) (p=0.899>0.05) in 95% of level of confidence (table 7). Therefore, we can conclude that up to this quarter, the affected households were able to restore their livelihood and living standard.

Table 7: Significant difference of income before and during project implementation Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval Sig. Income Std. Std. Error t df Mean of the Difference (2-tailed) Deviation Mean Lower Upper

Income of affected households before 1.765E4 1142616.946 138562.658 -258925.163 294219.281 .127 67 .899 and during project implementation

Finally, the project team encouraged all AP respondents to express their general opinions as well as their suggestion related to the project. A number of them stated that they were very happy to see the construction and they hoped that they would save time and money for traveling and transportation. Some APs raised some suggestions as follows: • The road should be watered in order to reduce the whirling cloud of dust • The drainage system should be put properly in order to avoid flooding.

3.5 Interview with landless affected people

3.5.1 Demographic-related information There were totally 10 affected households in which 1 affected household from Kampong Trach Keut commune and 9 affected households from Russey Srok lech

23 | Page

commune were categorized as landless households and had to move to relocation site in Lork village, Russey Srok Lech commune and Kampong Trach district.

In this quarter, the project team had proposed to interview all landless affected households; however, there was only 9 landless affected households were met and interviewed while the other 1 AHs were not at the village and could not contact. Approximately 66.7% of the interviewed APs were male and 33.3 APs were female with different household status as well as level of education.

As shown in figure 7, 55.6% were non vulnerable AHs and 44.4% were vulnerable AHs, for example widow and elderly people. Furthermore, it was noticed that most landless APs had completed primary school and only few percentage had graduated university (figure 8).

Current occupations of the landless affected households were also asked by the project team. As depicted in figure 9, more than 44% of the interviewed APs were farmer, particularly they cultivated rice. Other jobs were also found in small percentages with the landless APs such as worker, motor taxi driver, seller and other business.

3.5.2. Project-related Information The project team asked whether the landless affected households attended the meeting organized by IRC’s WG and received project information. All of them reported that they attended the meeting, received booklet and project information. It was clear that they knew much information such as project impacts, project benefits, compensation policy, right to complain and grievance redress process. Moreover, all of them reported that the IRC’s WG informed them about 30 days before DMS process. The IRC’s WG had a good relationship and asked them to be present and monitor during the DMS process. All affected properties had been recorded in list and they were satisfied with the results of the DMS.

24 | Page

Contract making, compensation and the livelihood of these landless APs were also asked during the interview. All of the interviewed APs stated that the contract making and negotiation were held at the commune office and the IRC’s WG explained them clearly before they decided to put thumb print on the contract. Furthermore, all of them expressed that the contract making and negotiation were fair and acceptable. Generally, the landless affected households received 105 m2 of residential land without charge and other allowance. As stated by all landless APs respondents, they received a 105m2 per household free of charge and with basic amenities such as latrine for each plot, road and drainage network and communal water wells. Moreover, they received the money compensation and other allowance (table 8). It was observed that the compensation and allowance reported by the landless APs responded to replacement cost stated in the resettlement plan. Therefore, it can be concluded that the compensation and allowance for the landless affected households were correct and justice.

Table 8: Compensation for landless affected household Affected Properties Unit Cost per unit (US$) Residential land (105m2) m2 0 Samyab m2 39.97 House type 2 E m2 57.1 House type 2A m2 25.3 Custard apple tree 25 Guava tree 25 Pomegranate tree 25 Jujube tree 25 Allowance for landless AP HH 150 Allowance for vulnerable AP HH 150 Allowance for moving less than 60 m2 to far distance HH 75 Transport allowance HH 70 Living allowance HH 75

The project team also asked whether all the landless affected households had moved to the relocation site after random selection the land plot as well as after receiving money compensation. Approximately 88.9% had moved to the relocation site while the other had not moved in yet. Furthermore, 66.7% of them started business after moving to the site while the other had not started yet.

25 | Page

When the project team asked the reasons why they did not move to the site and why they had not started their business, most of them responded that their house was being constructed and they would move and start business after the construction was finished. One respondent reported that he had not moved because he needs time to transfer his children’s name from the current school to the other school near the relocation site.

The project team also asked whether the landless AP respondents were able to restore their livelihood after or during moving to the relocation site. As presented in figure 12, about 55.6% (5 AHs) of landless AP respondents reported that they were able to restore their livelihood while 44.4% (4 AHs) said they were not. Further questions on the reasons and the livelihood were asked to AHs who stated their livelihood was not restored. Most of them expressed that they lost income because they were busy in construction of their house, so they could not operate their business regularly or some even could not start their business yet. One landless AP respondent reported that he could not restore his business because he did not have land to operate his business. He was trying to find new location for business operation so that he can restore his business.

T better understand whether the landless affected households were able to restore their livelihood during or after moving to the relocation site, their monthly income was asked. As shown in figure 13, their income seemed not difference during or after they moved to the relocation site since most of them were in the stage of construction of house and starting business. The income (700000 riel/month) of those landless Ahs before the project and the income (561111.1 riel/month) during they move to the relocation site was not significantly difference (p= 0.196>0.05) in 95% of confident level.

26 | Page

Table: 9 Income of landless AHs before and during moving to relocation site Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of Sig. Income Std. Std. Error t df Mean the Difference (2-tailed) Deviation Mean Lower Upper

Income before and during moving to the 1.38889E5 2.95569E5 98523.04362 -88305.65710 3.66083E5 1.410 8 .196 relocation site

Finally, they were happy to see the road construction because they would not spend much money on traveling as well as transportation.

IV. Issues Identified during the Monitoring Period

Table 10: Issues found during fourth quarterly period Project Status Issues Area Mr. Kim Lay (PK 15+590) (owner of IRC’s WG verified that Mr. Kim Ha Tieng Vegas Resort) did not Lay agreed to the compensation agree on the compensation policy but he has not yet signed the CBF provided by IRC’s WG. contract. However, he has no objection to civil works commencing on the affected land. Ms. Heng Chrep (PK 15+675) IRC’s WG verified that the agreed to receive money affected land of 800m2 was Ms. compensation as policy. However, Heng Chreb so they already Mr. Kiev Pet, the uncle of Ms. Heng provided money compensation to Chreb complained on the ownership this family. The official from CBF of the affected land of Ms. Heng Ministry of Public Works and Chreb. Mr. Kiev Pet and his family Transport informed that Mr. Kiev were settling on the affected land. Pet and his family had not moved from the affected land yet. SBK R&D would monitor this case strictly.

V. Time-Bound Recommendation Table 11: Recommendation responding to identified issues Project Responsible Issues Recommendation Timing/Resolved Area Group Issues occur in CBF Should be At appropriate IRC’s WG area reviewed time as and local CBF according to the possible as authorities requests they can

27 | Page

Annex 1 List of Persons met

Table 12: List of interviewed APs along the road and in cross border facility area No. HH_Name Village Commune Status1 1 An Chron Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 2 Press Khy Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 3 Sun Sokchea Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 4 Pov Rouy Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 5 Svay Kuon Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 6 Un Buntheun Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 7 Bo Sokha Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 8 Luy Sorn Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 9 Soth Mol Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 10 Lok Lun Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 11 Sao Hor Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 12 Mao San Kom Pol Meas Russey Srok Lech Simple 13 Chiv Sin Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 14 Dan Leang Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 15 Lim Cheng Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 16 Thom Pheng Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 17 Uk Saveth Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 18 Siv Mony Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 19 Nuth Toun Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Disable 20 Mol Chanla Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 21 Troy Sarin Koh Kloth Kompong trach keut Simple 22 Khoun Phorn Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 23 Ek Savoeun Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 24 Kao Mark Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 25 Ek Chron Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 26 Thaim Dara Koh Kloth Russey Srok Lech Simple 27 Soth Korn Koh ta chan Kompong trach keut Simple 28 Lean Dul Robang Kras Russey Srok Lech Simple 29 Chey Cheum Robang Kras Russey Srok Lech Simple 30 Seung Choun Robang Kras Russey Srok Lech Elderly 31 Kheng Shy Robang Kras Russey Srok Lech Simple 32 Park Teak Damnak Trorbek Russey Srok Lech Widow 33 Keng Moy Damnak Trorbek Russey Srok Lech Simple 34 Pao Khat Damnak Trorbek Russey Srok Lech Simple 35 Keo Mey Damnak Trorbek Russey Srok Lech Simple 36 Tep Marb Damnak Trorbek Russey Srok Lech Simple 37 Park Cheng Damnak Trorbek Russey Srok Lech Simple 38 Eung Kea Tropeang Neal Russey Srok Lech Simple 39 Deang Sin Tropeang Neal Russey Srok Lech Simple 40 Hor Sunhak Tropeang Neal Russey Srok Lech Simple 41 Chhun Khna Tropeang Neal Russey Srok Lech Loss land>10% 42 Bun Thavy Tropeang Neal Russey Srok Lech Simple 43 Cham Choeun Tropeang Neal Russey Srok Lech Simple

28 | Page

No. HH_Name Village Commune Status1 44 Ben Dun Tropeang Neal Russey Srok Lech Simple 45 Phan Tay Tropeang Neal Russey Srok Lech Simple 46 Kim Thos Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 47 Kung Leath Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 48 Chiv Cheav Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Elderly 49 Chhang Sothy Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 50 Ty Hour Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 51 Chea Kin Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 52 Cheng Ngov Lork Russey Srok Lech Elderly 53 Khiev Phy Lork Russey Srok Lech Simple 54 Heng Chai Lork Russey Srok Lech Simple 55 Bun Heang Lork Russey Srok Lech Elderly 56 Say Dy Lork Russey Srok Lech Simple 57 Sean Ly Lork Russey Srok Lech Simple 58 Ly Sun Lork Russey Srok Lech Elderly 59 Sean Reang Lork Russey Srok Lech Simple 60 Toun Chanchaya Lork Russey Srok Lech Simple Kompong Trach Ti 61 Mok Seng 1 Russey Srok Lech Elderly Kompong Trach Ti 62 Houn Sok 1 Russey Srok Lech Simple 63 Kim Thery Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 64 Suon Kheab Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 65 Koy Ngor Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 66 Mea Savean Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 67 Nub Tou Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple 68 Siv Sanh Tkov/Preak Chak Russey Srok Lech Simple

Table 13: List of interviewed landless APs No. AH's Name Village Commune District Province Status Kompong Kompong trach 1 Mao MouyLeang Trach 1 keut Kompong trach Kampot Simple Tich 2 Measphearom Lork Russey Srok Lech Kompong trach Kampot Elderly 3 Saing Kea Lork Russey Srok Lech Kompong trach Kampot Simple 4 Vy Kimsang Lork Russey Srok Lech Kompong trach Kampot Widow 5 Doung Puth Lork Russey Srok Lech Kompong trach Kampot Elderly 6 Sek Phin Lork Russey Srok Lech Kompong trach Kampot Simple 7 San Reng Lork Russey Srok Lech Kompong trach Kampot Widow Ngeng Kim 8 Ngorng Lork Russey Srok Lech Kompong trach Kampot Widow 9 Chey Touch Lork Russey Srok Lech Kompong trach Kampot Simple

29 | Page

Annex 2 Kingdom of Cambodia Nation, Religion and King

Report on the Results of Judgment on the Disputed Land (Unofficial Translation from Khmer version)

From Kampot Provincial Office Provincial Resettlement Team

To The Director of Ressettlement Committee of Cross-Border Facility

Subject Report on investigated result of disputed land between Mr. Khiev Pet and Mrs. Heng Chreb in Thkov village, Russey Srok Lech commune, Kampong Trach district, Kampot province.

Reference: - Complaint letter between Mr. Khiev Pet and Ms. Heng Chreb dated 27 January 2012 - Meeting minute dated 20 January 2012 about “Discussion and facilitation on conflict of the two families in Thkov village, Russey Srok Lech commune, Kampong Trach district” - Meeting minute dated 01 March 2012 about “Discussion and confict solving between Mr. Khiev Pet and Ms. Heng Chreb in Thkov village, Russey Srok Lech commune, Kampong Trach district” - Meeting minute dated 23 April 2012 - Meetining minute dated 24 April 2012 - Meeting minute dated 05 May 2012 - Meetining minute dated 6 May 2012

As stated above subject and references, we are very please to inform IRC’s WG that for the case of disputed land of Mr. Khiev Pet and Ms. Heng Chreb in Thkov village, Russey Srok Lech commune, Kampong Trach district, we have already invited both parties to clarify for 5 times in the presence of the village/commune authority and we also visited the disputed land. We hereby would like to present the investigated results as follows:

I. Location of disputed land The disputed land is the rice field land with stone grave (1440 m2) located in Thkov village, Russey Srok Lech commune, Kampong Trach district and Kampot province and it is along the road between Kampong Trach and Vetnam border.

II. History of disputed land

Clarification by Mrs. Heng Chreb: My name is Heng Chreb, 32 years old and I am living in Thkov village, Russey Srok Lech commune and Kampong Trach district.

On 30 January 2001, I bought 3 plots of land from Mr. Khiev Vit in 1.5 Damleung Gold. One plot was the residential land and the other 2 plots were the rice field. There was also formal

30 | Page

transfer certificate acknowledged by the village and commune authority. I had sold one plots of rice field and I currentyly have only one plot (disputed land).

Clarification by Mr. Mea Lach (village chief): I clarified that the transfer certificate dated on 09 October 2001 was my confirmation on the agreement of purchasing of 1 plots for residential land and 2 plots for rice field land.

Clarification by Mr. Thay Sari (commune chief): I had clarifed on the agreement of purchasing/selling land as follows: - First, Mr. Khiev Vit sold one plot of residential land - Second, Mr. Khiev Vit sold the other two plots of rice field land. The village chief wrote down on the agreement of selling/purchassing of three plots of land and I clarified and signed on 01 October 2001.

III. Conclusion

According to the above investigation, the overal conclusions are: 1. The disputed land which Mr. Khiev Pet complained for his ownership was formally belonged to Mrs. Heng Chreb (the formal transfer of ownership of land acknowledged by village/commune authority). 2. Mr. Khiev Pet is residenting at Khos Khchong village, Ochrov commune, Prey Nob district, Sihanok province. All documents of Mr. Khiev Pet clarified by the local community at Khos Khchong village, thus they were not related to the disputed land located in Thkov Village, Russey Srok Lech commune, Kamong Trach districk, Kampot province.

According to the above conclusions, the Provincial Office team recommends that: 1. Conduct the process of contract making and compensation to Mrs. Heng Chreb who is the righful owner of the disputed land. 2. Complaint letter of Mr. Khiev Pet is eliminated at the provincial administration since it does not have enough evidents to pass through the law.

As per the above mentioned information, please the IRC’s WGs take this as the final information and proceed with your work. Kampot, 08 June 2012 Signed by

Mr. Vit Vatana Director, Inter-Sector of Provincial Office

Approved by

Mr. Heng Vantha Director, Sub-committee for Provincial Resettlement

31 | Page

32 | Page

33 | Page

Annex 3: Complaint Letter of Mr. Khiev Pet

34 | Page

35 | Page