Human Rights Based Spatial Planning in Cambodia. Learning from the past and identifying new win- win spatial solutions in Phnom Penh.

• The population of Phnom Penh grows at 4% per annum (the highest urban growth in the region). 78% of the population still live in the rural areas

• In 1975 the city was depopulated by Khmer Rouge forces and all the cadastral information lost

• While we need to recognize that the city’s infrastructure in the central districts of Phnom Penh improved, at the same time, 150 000 urban poor were relocated from Phnom Penh

• In 2003 the Phnom Penh Municipality launched a program for poverty reduction with 4 urban poor communities selected for “land sharing” (500 slums upgrades in 5 years).

Phnom Penh urban development

• In 2003, 4 locations in the city’s prime areas were selected for “land sharing” piloting in Phnom Penh: Day Krohom (1465), Borei Kheila (1776), Railway A (70) and B (255) communities

• By 2008, only 1261 original residents’ families in Borei Kheila received flats (with 154 excluded from the process). Families from 3 other sites had to accept compensations offered by the companies and relocation outside of the city.

•It resulted in a huge wave of mistrust among urban poor towards any initiatives of the Phnom Penh Municipality

Land Sharing in Phnom Penh

•Number of NGOs emerged in Phnom Penh as a result of urban growth and growing concerns over the evictions and effective urban poverty reduction

•The typical response would include: mapping and enumeration of the urban poor settlements, community organizing, legal land surveys of the settlements, small scale upgrades, community events and in some cases drafts of the onsite re-development plans

• The municipal authorities expressed willingness to engage in the “troubled” cases and try to resolve the land disputes such as Borei Kheila and Baoung Kak Lake. However, the final deals were not finalized up till now.

•The HRBSP project of PIN and STT presents a more comprehensive process for on-site development

Urban NGOs response

• It uses the good practice tools developed in the past: mapping, enumeration, community organizing

• …but instead of general land tenure status analysis it looks at the individual possession rights, analysis of official legal documents which become the basis for architectural and urban re-development plans which is later developed with local authorities and communities under threat of eviction to find satisfactory solutions for all parties

• It engages private sector real estate companies in land valuation and financial and economic feasibility studies to ensure the re-development plan is financially, legally and economically sound yet preserve the land, housing and property rights of the urban poor dwellers

How?

• Members of the communities gain land/ property titles; improved living environment and valuable assets over time

• Local authorities gain political incentive demonstrating they are genuinely interested in working for the people and thanks to their initiative important part of the city is revitalized; land value increases

•Private sector gains well located parcels of land for commercial development which is not contested by local communities

What is there to win?

•Chrang Chamres target area is populated by 1295 households mainly Cham Muslim families

•It is located along road no. 5 and Tonle Sap river and frequently affected by flooding

•Out of 1295 only 25% families reside fully in the “white zone”, which is not considered a state public land

•The project team has developed an acceptable architectural plan for the community members which will be presented to PPM for revision and approval

Case of Chrang Chamres

Case of Chrang Chamres

Case of Chrang Chamres

RESULTS OF LAND PRICE SURVEY IN Q4 2013 BY VTRUST GROUP

LAND PRICE REPORT 2014 BY VTRUST REALTY (ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS)

Location

Asking Price On main street On sub-street

Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max

Chrang Chamres I 360 100 1300 475 400 550 225 200 250

Case of Chrang Chamres- How much does it cost?

Total

number

of m2a

Total cost of

construction

Cost of

construction

(m2)

Estimated value of the

adjacent land transferred

to the developer

Adjusted

total cost of

construction

Adjusted cost of

construction (m2)

transferred to the

households

71821.59 16 374 000

USD

228 USD 4 320 000 USD (12000 m2

x 360 USD)

12 054 000

USD

167.83 USD

1. Do nothing leave it as it is- It is too complicated

2. Do the same PPP model as in Thailand in 70’ and 80’’ but with a third party responsible for monitoring, facilitation of the process and liaisioning between the parties involved

•The investor would use the adjacent land (1.2 ha) for commercial development

•15 year mortgages would be offered to the target families

3. or establish a legal entity which applies for a communal land title representing ALL families and manages the construction themselves. It will be definitely cheaper and a better deal

• …but can we get 1300 families to agree to form a trust? And manage such complex project?

How to implement it?