Case Example: Cambodia

Method for Preliminary Assessment Focus: 2 REDD+ demonstration projects: Oddar Meanchey, CFMCs (FA) and Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary, CPAs (MoE) – experience in conflict and local structures for resolution … to some extent Desk Review Scoping meetings - National Level (FA, MoE, REDD+ Task Force, IP/CSO networks, WCS, PACT etc.) Field visit – Local Level (Community Forestry Chiefs, Local Authorities – Commune Council, Provincial Governor) Consolidate findings, recommendations, debrief with CO + partners

Dispute Patterns Within REDD+ pilot site communities (Community Forests and Community Protected Areas): community members extracting resources and/or converting land to agricultural use. – disputes on right to cut trees, expand cultivated areas, and to site new settlements Local logging and commercial agriculture: sometimes linked to migrants sponsored by land developers or the government, or associated with the military. Economic Land Concessions, provided by the government to companies to develop the land, without consulting local communities. SLCs = Military personnel and families: settlements and roads, for national security reasons, near e.g. border with Thailand. Road and infrastructure development: areas closest to roads are most likely to be encroached or cleared.

Commune, District & Prov. Govt Dispute Res. CDC & MAFF: ELC decision making; MoE: ESIA and PA zoning process (NCRPAM?) MLMUPC & Prov. govts: land plans & infrastructure decisions Commune/CF/CF network: decision making on land/forest use, benefit sharing, dealing with other stakeholders Natl Authority for Land Dispute Resolution? Council for Land Policy? FA/GDANCP/FiA: demarcation/zoning /permitting; co- management and enforcement; certification and carbon marketing (FA: Forest Reserve Dispute Res Ctee? Encroachment Ctee?) MLMUPC/CC: land, ELC &SLC titling (AC & DKCC mediation)

Provincial gov’t using ad hoc decision making/problem solving; unclear effectiveness CF/CPA members using CF/CPA structures; community members using CF/CPA and commune councils; mid/high effectiveness Provincial governor, senior FA and senior GDANCP involved for provincial and some national ELCs and military bases/SLCs; uneven effectiveness; low transparency CF/CPA groups (with NGOs) and communes are first line for dispute resolution; FA/GDANCP staff first/second line; provincial government third line; mid/high effectiveness PM’s Directive 01 land titling teams active in 2013, with commune gov’t and CF/CPA groups; FA/GDANCP involvement unclear; effectiveness unclear; no linkage to longer-term tenure/land use dispute prevention

Initial Findings Identification of strengths / gaps in existing grievance processes at local, provincial and national levels Identification of entry points to strengthen existing processes Initial plan for more detailed assessment, design and piloting of a strengthened mechanism (linked to ICA?)

Initial Assessment: Strengths/Gaps Overall: Local level has substantial capacity to deal with internal disputes and they have been delegated this authority from higher levels As disputes escalate or involve external actors, capacity to address conflicts decreases Need: Clearly defined and well understood grievance procedures More consistent documentation of disputes Enhanced capacity to resolve disputes with external actors More effective channels to refer disputes to higher levels Clearer strategy for land use decision making, consulting on and then communicating those decisions

Entry Points for Strengthening Dispute prevention: Boundary demarcation and zoning for State Forests and Protected Areas; Joint, integrated local land use planning and zoning Local level: clarify roles/responsibilities of community management bodies Provincial level: develop inter-agency team to receive/respond to requests for dispute resolution, with authority from national level National level: allocate budget for local capacity building for dispute resolution; authorize staff of provincial level to manage disputes, provide guidance on how to; create interagency to oversee, evaluate and support

Next Steps for Cambodia Explore findings and options more deeply; more joint assessments Develop a roadmap Institutional context analysis to clarify political bottlenecks and entry points

Thank You Jennifer Laughlin Website: