Presentation Outline

Civil Society, Decentralization, and Common Pool Resource Conflicts in Cambodia: Preliminary Findings Dr. Ngin Chanrith, Royal University of Phnom Penh Dr. WillemijnVerkoren, Radboud University Nijmegen Dr. Heidi Dahles, VU University Amsterdam With research assistance from: KhieuDany 1

Presentation Outline • Conceptualizing “civil society” • Conceptualizing “decentralization” • Why civil society and decentralization? • Exploring collaboration between CCs and CSOs in land conflict resolution • Preliminary findings • Some doubts... 2

1. Conceptualizing “civil society” • Area-related definitions • society located between the state, economy and the private sphere/family State Economy State Economy Civil Society Civil Society Private Sphere Source: Chhim (2008)

Interaction-related definitions quality of social action and societal context the locus for democratic learning processes civic action in which actors are involved all areas, spheres & subfields of society including society-oriented structures of economic associations such as cooperatives Source: Chhim (2008)

A realm or ‘intermediate level of operating between economic structures on the one hand and the state apparatus on the other’ ‘The organizational and coordinating capabilities of non-state society’ Includes not only actors but also the contextual conditions and environment in which free association is possible Includes not only NGOs but all forms of associational life An Operational Definition of Civil Society Source: Chhim (2008)

This means: • Individuals are not considered civil society; they become civil society when they join a group (CSO) that pursues a common objective. • The strength of civil society is largely determined by the breadth, depth and quality of this associational life. Source: Chhim (2008)

2. Conceptualizing “decentralization” • Transfer of administrative, fiscal and political responsibilities from a higher-level government to a lower-level one (Dosch, 2007) • Devolution of funds, authority and powers in terms of decision-making and sometimes revenue-raising powers from the central government to elected local bodies (Crook and Manor, 2001) • Commune/Sangkat Councils; District/Khan Councils; Provincial/Municipality Councils

3. The role of civil society in decentralization: Why? • Engagement with civil society makes councils more legitimate as CSOs help councils better comprehend local needs and increase trust in councils by making their decisions and actions more transparent and accountable (Manor, 2008). • Once decentralization works, it stimulates the growth of civil society (Manor, 2008). • Civil society has limited reach; the government has wider reach (Manor, 2008).

Source: Chhim (2008)

Avenues of collaboration • Participation in decision-making in planning, budgeting, management, and monitoring and evaluation of development schemes (eg. in CIP/CDP; DIW) • Delivery of social and economic services • Ensuring accountability (eg. in P/MAWG) • Capacity building

Challenges in collaboration • Councillors are party-nominated. • CCs focus more on infrastructure development. • Complex procedures hinder CCs’ work and innovation. • CSOs (esp. NGOs) are donor-oriented. • Beneficiary communities need to be more active.

4. Exploring collaboration between CCs and CSOs in land conflict resolution: Literature review • Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC): An avenue of collaboration • DRCs with CS elements are effectual in mediating small-scale land conflicts. • In large-scale land disputes: (1) CCs often act as representatives, leaders, or mobilizers of the villagers involved. (2) CCs do not back up villagers to pursue grievances with higher authorities. (3) Legal and human rights NGOs act as “legal and administrative brokers” for local communities.

5. Preliminary findings Methods: • Interviews with 2 community forestries (CFs), 2 LNGOs, and Village and Commune Authorities in 2 communes in Kampong Thom Province • Secondary data analysis • Site observation Sites: • 1 Khmer CF and 1 Kouy CF • Conflicts involved private companies

Cases in Brief Case 1: TK Community Forestry Cause of Conflict: • CF was established in 1999, with assistance from a local NGO. • A Cambodian ELC-grantee company did mapping over the whole area of CF. Stakeholders’ Involvement: • Villagers directly protested with the company. • LNGO was approached by CF to mediate the conflict. • LNGO worked with village, commune, district, provincial and national authorities to assist CF. • Company tried to associate some high-ranking provincial figures with them.

Case 2: TA Community Forestry Cause of Conflict: • CF was established in 2006, with assistance from a local NGO. • A consortium of Cambodian companies wanted to buy the area of CF before its inception. • Villagers of a neighboring commune encroached the area of CF. Stakeholders’ Involvement: • Villagers directly protested with the company. • LNGO was approached by CF to mediate the conflict. • LNGO worked with village, commune, district, provincial and national authorities to assist CF.

Key Discussion on Stakeholders’ Involvement • Role of LNGOs: • Technical and financial assistance • Intermediary between conflict parties • Bridge for CFs to upper level authorities (use of informal power lines at times) • Tainted by association with opposition parties sometimes

2. Role of Commune Council: • Legal support (for registration) • Avoidance of confrontation with higher level authorities and companies • Some councilors are CF advisors.

3. Role of Village Authority: • Legal support (for registration) • Avoidance of confrontation with higher level authorities and companies • Some village chiefs or deputy chiefs are chief, deputy chief, or members of CF committee.

4. Role of District, Provincial and National Authorities: • Legal support (for registration) • Intervention per requests made by LNGOs

6. Some doubts… 1. Can CCs maneuver a concerted and collective voice (eg. through Association of Commune/ Sangkat Councilors) to safeguard commons for their constituents? “Commune chiefs and village chiefs seem to work for both sides. If the community wins, they will support the community. If the company wins, they will support the company. If the company wins, they will work with the company. If the community wins, they are the residents in that community.” (LNGO Director)

2. How can CSOs (esp. CBOs, NGOs, and the mass media) synergize with CCs to safeguard commons for the constituents? “Factors contributing to the success of resolution were based on people’s aspiration and their active participation as well as encouragement from NGOs and some institutions (institutions that supported the community). If the institutions did not support and encourage them, but instead blamed them, they would lose their hope and they would give up their will. Because NGOs helped and supported them, they realized that what they were doing was right and they could achieve it.” (LNGO Director)

3. How can the constituents assert a leverage to safeguard their commons? “Some authorities also threatened the community. Some villagers lost their hope and they wanted to give up because they thought they could not protest against powerful people. However, our advocacy work encouraged them to think thoroughly again. I asked them: “Where is the power?” It is from our cooperation and collaboration.” (LNGO Director)

Some pics…

Thank You for Your Attention!!! We appreciate your reaction, feedback, advice… Confidential comment may be sent to: chanrith@rupp.edu.kh. 31

Presentation Outline