The Land Management Ministry, a few months later, released its point of view that the land contribution could not be from government as social land concession as it was not in accordance with articles of the land law and as the area is not vacant land and the people have occupied it without approval. On the other hand, the principle of land sharing is not stated in land law. If this is correct, should the principle of land sharing be added to the land law? It has been observed that, apart from the arguments of whether land sharing is or is not covered by law, interest and ideas for developing those areas have now emerged. Namely, one company voluntarily proposed to build multi storey-buildings for the communities, in exchange for 60% of land from each area. All development processes require significant participation from investors. However when attracting private investment companies, one must know that they think mainly about profit and take a little interest in the other factors such as living condition for the poor.

The proposed construction will be conducted by one company alone without open bidding. This will cause many unavoidable mistakes such as low quality of buildings and technical faults. A monitoring committee is now to come from several different institutions. A lot of progress has been made thanks to the endurance of the poor who work together to resist intimidation, custody and damage. Information about technical and design options and the cost of the buildings should also be released to the target groups so they understand the situation clearly. One group of people who work for themselves cannot decide for all. Failure to release information, seek information or listen has caused much government and international agencies funding to be wasted, without solving problems and relieving the suffering of the people. Enough time has passed so we can learn from these lessons. If the land sharing project completely follows the previous models, the same problems will happen again. This means that poverty reduction programmes will in fact result in accumulation of development resources in rich people’s pockets.

This change in direction was included in the presentation of the City Development Strategy (CDS) at municipality hall in 2002. However a controversy emerged among the participants who refused to accept the research results such as number of plots sold, rates of diseases, poor water supply and the returning of relocated people to the areas. But later when the results were accepted this provided impetus for government and local authorities to learn from the mistakes of previous implementation.

But less than one year after the speech of the Prime Minister, a new style of eviction has been occurring from private sector companies through the final judgment of the courts. Examples included that occurring at Ponleu Pich where the lawyer, prosecutor, armed forces (around 150 people) and fire engine were sent to evict residents of the settlement. Community members from seven districts, URC, SUPF, UN-Habitat, UN-COHCHR meanwhile implored the lawyer and prosecutor to postpone the eviction for a while so that people could manage the changes to the place where they could live. The replied was a dispassionate: “No one can object to the final judgment of the court which we now have to implement.” People involved in the event sought advice on whether the answer of the layer and prosecutor was true or not? All replies were similar: “This case is now beyond further intervention as it has been to court already.”

A few later, another eviction before the court resulted in a final judgment for a similar in Rik Reay community. Again the landlord said that there was: “No option allowing residents to stay.”, but the people doubted why the court issued the final judgment without hearing further submissions.

It has been observed that the people in two cases above had to obey the final judgment of the court and that they could not appeal against it and the lawyers confirmed that the case was finished. The one hundred communities being upgrading are now in an unclear situation as the private company sites do not participate in the government policy and the communities can only depend on the courts which they can not appeal against. Some people are now worrying if their settlement is located on land belonging to private companies. The tragic eviction of 09.01.2004 has reminded us of the past to recall what happened one decade ago. Again, there has been no facilitation, no networking, no training, no advocacy, no working group, no consultation, no negotiating and generally no community. “Participation in all levels is one step toward good governance”

CLAIRE'S VIEW ON URBAN POOR COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT

UPLIFTING NEWS

A 415-meter section of road in Kolalom community, Village 2, Sangkat Chroy Changvar, Khan Russey Keo, Phnom Penh was raised above flood levels during the rainy season. The new road was initiated by a close cooperation between Urban Resource Centre (URC), the community and Sangkat Chroy Changvar authority. The new construction cost $6,346.45 including $5,846 from Urban Resource Centre (URC), $375 from community and $125 from Sankat authority. This new achievement encouraged the villagers, neighbours and Sangkat Chroy Changvar authority to complete an additional 602 meters of road construction. The total cost of site preparation was around $3000. Villagers removed the trees but as they realized the long term value of the new road they plan to plant new trees after project completion.

It endangered the right to life of the residents and violated the right to security of the person, the right to non-interference with privacy, family and home and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. He refused to engage in a dialogue with the Office and other observers except with Man Chhouern chief of the cabinet of Phnom Penh and chief of Urban Poverty Reduction Unit. Man Chhouern arrived at approximately 1 PM, and engaged in a protracted negotiation attempt. The violence ceased, and police and military police stopped the forced eviction. During the first violent attempt to evict the 44 families, COHCHR asked the general prosecutor, chief prosecutor and other court officials to petition for a stop to the violence. This stand-off lasted for a couple of hours, and left eleven of the residents wounded, mostly from stones. Licadho first treated a handful who had escaped through the back. Licadho was later called back to treat the rest on site, as they did not want to leave. One person was reported to be more seriously wounded, to the head, by a stone. The deputy governor managed to get an agreement by some of the residents to accept the eviction. The residents were promised $US1200 per family, put into a common fund so that they could buy- with the assistance of the municipality - a new plot of land. Man Chhoeurn also tried to convince the lawyer and the prosecutor to halt the forced eviction, allowing residents to take down their houses themselves in an orderly fashion. Meanwhile, a group of community members went with-UN Habitat to look at the temporary land. Trucks were brought in for the families to load their belongings. Some families started to pack up and break apart their shelters.

While the group of residents were away, the negotiations broke down, partly because the lawyer refused to extend the Friday deadline, which was too short for the residents to prepare for the move. Also, the temporary land lacks basic amenities, and according to what we heard, this influenced the residents’ decision to back out of the negotiations. Man Chhoeurn led the negotiations, but after not receiving an agreement from the lawyer, he left the area. Around the same time, the lawyer threatened COHCHR, stating that he would file a law suit against the Office for interfering with implementation of the court order. By 3 PM, it was clear that the authorities were again preparing to carry out the eviction. At 3.30 PM they vigorously pushed all observers back and allowed us to stand no nearer than 250m away from the area. Because of the distance, COHCHR was no longer in a position to fully observe the human rights situation. The water cannon was used, and within ten minutes the squatter area was set ablaze, residents fleeing out the back. Miraculously, we heard of no injuries in this process. One witness said she had seen Military Police standing on the roof d the next-door building, throwing two bottles of fuel down on the huts, setting them on fire. One representative of the community said that the lawyer was also on the roof at this time, Within 25 minutes, the whole area was burnt down. A neighboring house, a construction site, also caught fire, but it was put out. Forced eviction and house demolition as a punitive measure are inconsistent with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The destruction of private property as it relates to the practice of forced eviction is also prohibited. Three people were arrested by district police, two men and one 14 year old girl. The warrants were issued by the deputy prosecutor on charges of arson. They were kept in custody overnight, questioned at the Charnkar Morn police station, and released on Saturday 10 January 2004. There have been allegations of an additional five arrests, including one community representative, which have not been corroborated following, consultation with NG0s and the community. Last night a female representative of the community hid with UN-Habitat (Someth). The residents have been able to resettle on the temporary land as previously agreed. The land, Prey Tituy community, Toul Rokkoh village, Khan Dangko, is around 15km from the center of Phnom Penh. It is still unclear whether they will get any compensation or other assistance.

CQHCHR monitored the incident, called the MoI, national and municipal police, and held lengthy discussions with the deputy governor and the lawyer. The Office tried to intervene to stop the use of force, visited the district police for follow-up information about arrests, and made some initial enquiries about the fire.

A building construction expert, who requested not to be named, said that Phan Imix company will gain at least 11 million or more in cash from selling land amounting to 2.6 ha surrounding Borrei Keila which was given by the municipality and Ministry of Education. The calculation was carried out in accordance with detailed plans issued by the municipality, Ministry of Education, city land department and the company's agent. A copy of the paper" Borrei Keila's land-distributing plan" issued and agreed by the ministry of Education, municipality and city land department clearly showed that they had taken land east, north, west and south totaling 2,6 ha around Borrei Keila to give to Phan Imix company in exchange for constructing the building for Borrei Keila's squatters. The plan indicates that in the west, where up to 2ha of land was set aside for constructing shelter for squatters, 25m by 66,6m was given to Phan Imix for development. The company could then build at least 16 flats (size 4m by 20m). The land is being sold for $US40,000 – a total 16 flats gives over $US640,000. In the south, along a road of wooden furniture shops, two blocks were given to the company. The first block, 148 m length and 30m width, could accommodate 37 flats. The second block, adjacent to the first and 30 by 88.6m could accommodate 22 flats. If they sell at $US50,000 per unit, which is typical, the company are able to collect $US 2,950,000 million in cash for just the south part. In the east, along the road in front of Back Touk High School, two blocks were subdivided for selling. The first, from the corner of Total Gas Station in front of the Mekong Bar to the Borrei Keila's entry, is 43m by 114,4m. This site is now in two sections for two flats. The first building comprises 27 flats. At $US 70,000 for a front flat and $US20,000-25,000 for a back flat, the first block can make up to $US2,430,000. The second site from Borrei Keila's entry before Soup Souki Restaurant to the corner of City hospital front road measures 43m by 144m. The second block can have up to 72 flats (36 front flats and 36 back flats), estimated to sell for up to $US3,240,000. In the North, the company obtained a site 25,2m by 177,7m, which could build 43 flats. They could also sell these at $US50,000 per or a total of $US2,150,000. With these calculations, they could obtain at least $US11.4 million for the four parts of the development. However, the Phnom Penh municipal officials maintain that Phan Imix promised to construct 10 buildings for the 10 communities and 1776 families living in Borrei Keila. Officials also confirm that the company would spend at least $US 7 million for this construction. But the construction company says that the development only spent half of the $US 7 million for building for the above estimated benefits. Some of Borrei Keila’s squatters have expressed concern over the buildings as they do not know how it is constructed and suspect the units are small and without quality. They also heard that the company guaranteed it would take only 18 months to complete the building and that they also have the right to sell the land around Borrei Keila for cash. The company stated they would need to be careful because it would be in trouble if the buildings are not completed in time and if they forced the people to leave this place.