Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

Still Struggling: A Cambodian Community’s Assessment and Response toLong-Term Negative Effects of Involuntary Relocation

Research Report Submitted to the Takagi Fund for Citizen Science
Kol Leakhana
April 2021
1

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

4EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

1. INTRODUCTION

7

2. RESEARCH DESIGN

8

2.1 Research Target
2.2 Methodology
2.3 Research Schedule and Activities
3. RESULTS
3.1. Demography
3.2. Livelihood and Income
3.3. Housing, Land, and Property Ownership3.4. Community Development
3.5. Children’s Education
3.6. Health and Disabilities
3.7. Water and Sanitation
3.8. Food Security and Safety
3.9. Physical Safety and Security
3.10. Resettlement Experience
4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
4.1 HW1’s Economic Development and Benefits to the SSC Families
4.2 SSC’s Disintegration as a Coherent Community
4.3 The SSC Families’ Dependence on Natural Resources in the Project Area
4.4 COVID-19 Impacts on the SSC Families

8
8
8
10
10
10
12
13
13
15
16
16
16
17
18
18
19
19
20

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

21

6. CONCLUSIONS

21

APPENDICES

23

Appendix 1: Resettlement Challenges of ADB’s HW1 Project
Appendix 2: Household Survey Questionnaire
Appendix 3: Pictures

23
28
42

2

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This action research has been funded by The Takagi Fund for Citizen Science under the title
Still Struggling: A Cambodian Community's Assessment and Response to Long-Term
Negative Effects of Involuntary Relocation (Research Grant for Asia in 2020 awarded to Kol
Leakhana).1 I am very thankful to the fund for its kind support of the research project. The
views expressed here are those of mine and do not represent the fund.

1 http://www.takagifund.org/e/archives/19/193-018_kol.html

3

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADB
ADF
CARM
CDCam
COVID-19
FGD
HHS
HW1
JICA
LSP
MFI
NTFP
PCR
PID
RAR
ROW
RRP
SEA
SPF
SSC
USD

Asian Development Bank
Asian Development Fund
Cambodia Resident Mission
Conservation and Development on Cambodia
Coronavirus Disease in 2019
Focus Group Discussion
Household Survey
Highway One
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Livelihood Stabilization Program
Micro-finance Institution
Non-timber Forest ProductProject Completion Report
Project Information Document
Review and Assessment Report
Right of the Way
Reports and Recommendations of the President
Southeast Asia
Special Project Facilitator
Stung Slot Community
US dollars

4

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This participatory action research tried to document long-term effects of development-induced
resettlement experienced by a small suburban community, Stung Slot Community (SSC),
located in southern Cambodia. Sixty-three families were involuntarily resettled in early 2000s
due to the Highway One (HW1) rehabilitation project financed by the Asian Development Bank
(ADB). The research was led by three community members in close consultation andcoordination with the author and involved more than 50 other SSC members. The researchteam used household survey (HHS) and focus group discussion (FGD) as main ways to collectdata systematically. The team also took numerous pictures and video clips on the resettlementsite and elsewhere in the HW1 project area.
Quantitative data, collected mainly through HHS, have updated SSC’s profile as follows:
1) A significant proportion of the SSC families (19.0%) is still self-employed, engaging inhome-based work, waste collection, driving a cyclo or a tuktuk, small businesses, andtrading as before they were relocated. Only a slightly more proportion engages inunskilled daily-waged labour, skilled labour, and housekeeping. This seems to indicatethat the HW1 project has not significantly changed the SSC families’ livelihood means;
2) A proportion of housewives has decreased considerably (24.0%) as compared to the
pre-relocation stage, while the families who rely on remittance from family members’
migratory labor has more than doubled. This can indicate the SSC families’ increased
difficulty accessing opportunities to earn cash income in the HW1 project area;
3) The SSC families’ average monthly income might have returned to the pre-relocationlevel, which is about 100.00 USD. On the other hand, a gap between the households
who earn more and those who earn less than the average might have widened;4) More than half (56.0%) of the survey respondents have children under 18 years old in
their households, but 44.0% answered that their children do not attend school
regularly. Major reasons for the parents’ not sending their children to school regularly
include: Schools are far from home, they need their children to work to help earn family
income, and they have no money to pay for teachers;5) While a good majority, around three-fourth, of the SSC families seem to have someone
in their household with health challenges, only a small portion has ever been registeredas an ID Poor Household. Of these households, only 5.0% have actually received freehealth services;
6) Some SSC families have yet to have a flush toilet at home: 71.0% use a toilet at theirneighbors’ house and 16.0% a toilet in an abandoned house. Some have no access togarbage services: 65.0% said that they throw garbage on vacant land/rice fields and4.0% bury it in the ground; and
7) Only 7.0% of the survey respondents said that they can afford three meals a day:
62.5% felt that they have no secure access to food; 49.0% have tried to collect nontimber forest products (NTFPs) for their own consumption; and 5.0% eat only rice withlittle vegetables or meat and borrow money to buy food.
Qualitative data, collected mainly through FDG, show the HW1 project’s long-term negative
impacts on the SSC families as follows:
1) The area around the resettlement site, and in fact the entire area where the HW1
project was implemented, has developed considerably especially in economic terms.
This economic development, however, has not seemed to benefit most of the SSC
families. On the contrary, it has created new challenges to the families, including a
price hike of consumer goods and land speculation;
2) SSC is disintegrating as a coherent community. About half of the families who used tolive on the resettlement site have sold their land and moved out to seek better
economic opportunities and living conditions;
3) Many SSC families still engage in menial works such as selling goods in front of their
5

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

house, growing garden vegetables for sale, and cashing recyclable materials. Cashincome from these works is supplemented by income by collecting and selling edible
animals, vegetables, firewood, and so forth in the neighborhood. However,environmental degradation triggered by the HW1 project has limited the SSC families’
access to local natural resources; and
4) Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the SSC families’ income level has dropped. Manyare laid off from factory or construction work and have come back home to stay
unemployed. While schools are shut, children with poor access to equipment such as
TV sets and mobile phones are little benefitted by the government’s remotecompensatory education programs.
A majority (73.0%) of the HHS respondents answered that the HW1 project has made thempoorer, while only 13.0% felt that they have become less poor. As for reasons for becoming
poorer, 26.0% replied that they would still live close to HW1 (if not for the project), 17.5% said
that they would not be in debt, 16.0% thought that they would not have lost their business, and14.0% answered that they would not have lost good customers. After more than 20 years, theSSC families are still struggling to recover from the project’s resettlement effects. The SSC
case shows how involuntary resettlement, especially when it is mismanaged initially, could
impact vulnerable communities over a long period of time.
The following are a list of suggestions, most of which were voiced by the SSC families
themselves during the action research, to be further discussed and put into practice to restore
the community:
1) Collectively rent a space in the local market to sell goods and products;
2) Encourage the members who owe the community a debt to return the money, withwhich to reactivate the revolving fund to support both existing and new jobs;
3) Invest in the agricultural sector, i.e., collectively rent a farmland to plant organic crops,
make rice field, raise chickens and other animals;
4) Focus first on ways to resolve a land dispute with the squatters on the resettlement
site, for instance, by asking authorities to approve a social land concession for thesquatters. Then start reorganizing the community to make other improvements, e.g.,renovating community infrastructures such as entry roads and pump-wells andinitiating livelihood enhancement programs;5) Contact school principals and ask them to provide scholarships and other support tothe children from the SSC families;6) Involve more male members in the community committee to integrate their views andsupport into community activities;7) Outreach groups of farmers, middle-men, retailers, and buyers to establish a networkof producers, transporters, and consumers of SSC goods and products;8) Clean the resettlement site together by installing rubbish bins, planting more trees, andhelping the SSC members reduce the amount of waste they produce daily; and
9) Carry out more detailed research on SSC’s food security and safety to learn how to
improve health conditions of the community members, especially children, elderlies,
and members with disabilities.

6

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

1. INTRODUCTION
Stung Slot Community (SSC) is located in Kampong Soeung Commune, Neak Loeung District,Prey Veng Province in southern Cambodia. It sits next to Highway One (HW1) about two
kilometers from Neak Loeung, which is one of the provincial centers (See the map below).
Families in SSC were relocated due to the HW1 rehabilitation project financed by the AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB).2

In December 1998, the ADB’s Board of Directors approved a 40 million USD loan to support
the Cambodian government’s plan to rehabilitate a section of a national road that runs from
Phnom Penh to the Cambodia-Vietnam border, a 105.5 km section of HW1 between the
Mekong River ferry crossing and the Cambodia-Vietnam border. The project was financed bya loan from ADB’s concession arm, the Asian Development Fund (ADF). ADB’s 1997
feasibility study estimated that 5,920 Cambodians in 1,184 households would be affected.3
ADB’s 1995 Policy on Involuntary Resettlement was to safeguard these families frombecoming economically and socially worse-off after the resettlement. The reality, however,turned out to be quite the opposite. Many families, including those at SCC, became
impoverished.4
The SSC members, especially women, tried in so many ways to lift themselves out of the
impacts of the HW1 project’s involuntary resettlement. They were helped by both Cambodian
and international NGOs. Their collective efforts, including participation at ADB’s annual
meetings, led to some mitigation measures on ADB’s part, including the 2004 resettlement
audit (and succeeding compensation repayment), the 2007 acceptance of SSC’s complaint at
the Special Project Facilitator (SPF) office, the management’s socio-economic survey thesame year, and the 2009 income restoration grant.5
After more than 20 years, however, SCC members are still struggling to restore their life andlivelihoods. One of the community members who were interviewed said, “The road is betterbut our livelihoods have gotten worse. We have to work harder and we have more debts.”6
In May 2019, Ms. Sin Chhin, elected SSC leader, called the author, who helped a number of

2 For the HW1 project’s overview, see ADB (1998) Reports and Recommendations of the President (RRP).
3 See ADB (2008) Project Performance Evaluation Report: Greater Mekong Subregion: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi

Minh City Highway Project. https://www.adb.org/documents/greater-mekong-subregion-phnom-penh-ho-chi-minhcity-highway-project-1659-camsf-and-1660-v Other numerous project-related documents are found on ADB’s
website.
4 See NGO Forum on ADB “GMS Road Network Improvement Project” https://www.forumadb.org/adbroadnetproject and Mekong Watch “Highway One”
http://www.mekongwatch.org/english/country/cambodia/HighwayOne/index.html.
5 See a summary of SSC’s struggles to restore their life and livelihoods in Appendix 1.
6 All quotes in this report are from the action research.

7

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

communities affected by the HW1 project intensively from 2002 to 20077 and has since thenbeen in occasional touch with the SSC families, especially Ming Chhin.8 Ming Chhin explained
to me about the community’s delayed restoration from the relocation in the early 2000s. While
she and I discussed what could be done, she voiced the need to collect evidence on therelocation effects, based on which the SSC members could develop action plans to restoreand develop their life and livelihoods.
In mid-2019, I had further discussions with a few SSC leaders and developed ideas on anaction research project to document challenges facing the community and design action plans
for the future. I explained that action research could also help some SCC members develop
research skills and strengthen links among the community members, especially those who
had left the resettlement site. The SCC leaders, including Ming Chhin, agreed that action
research was a good idea. In early 2020, I formed a research team with Ming Chhin and twoother SCC women and began the research project (See the community researchers in PIC1
in Appendix 3).
2. RESEARCH DESIGN
2.1 Research Target
SSC evolved out of two separate communities, Stung Slot and Kraing Kaok Communities.
They decided to merge into the Stung Slot Community. In 2007, around the time of the merger,
there were 63 members: About two-thirds lived on the resettlement site; the others lived
outside.
As of the beginning of the action research, only 21 or approximately 100 individuals stayed on
the resettlement site. Eight families have migrated to larger urban centers, especially Phnom
Penh, or even abroad, to seek better economic opportunities. The eight families, however, still
keep their house at the resettlement site. 34 families sold their land and moved out of theresettlement site. Many in this group currently live along HW1’s old route in Neak Loeung.
In the action research, the research team tried to outreach not only the SSC members who
still lived on the resettlement site but also those who have moved out and live elsewhere.
2.2 Methodology
The research team used the following methodologies to collect data:
1) Making observations of the physical landscape of the resettlement site and areaaround it, including Neak Loeung and the area along HW1, and taking pictures andvideo clips;2) Conducting focus group discussion (FGD) moderated through a list of guided
questions; and
3) Conducting a household survey (HHS) based on a pre-developed questionnaire.
2.3 Research Schedule and Activities
31 January 2020: Field visit I
I visited SSC and met with the three community researchers. I explained to them the research
objectives, expectations, outputs/outcomes, methodologies, timeframe, budget as well as the
7 Former officer of the NGO Forum on Cambodia who used to work with SSC and other affected communities

since 2002
8 “Ming'' means “Aunt” in Khmer. For Ming Chhin’s story, see Soentoro, Tea (2011a) “Eleven Years of Promises(Part 1 of 2)” https://www.forum-adb.org/post/eleven-years-of-promises-part-1-of-2 and Soentoro (2011b) “ElevenYears of Promises (Part 2 of 2)” https://www.forum-adb.org/post/eleven-years-of-promises-part-2-of-2

8

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

community researchers’ roles. The community researchers and I also discussed and agreed
upon issues to be covered in the research, and co-drafted a list of questions to solicit
interactions at FGD.
The research team also walked around in the resettlement site to understand the current
situations of the community. I took many pictures and notes of any changes I observed since
my last visit several months before. For instance, someone from outside SSC bought a land
plot of one community member and constructed a two-story concrete house. I also stopped
by at some SSC members’ houses to rebuild rapport with them and explained the research
project to them.
After I had come back from a field trip, I translated the FGD questions into English and sent
them to field survey experts for feedback. I received feedback after about a week andincorporated it to complete guiding questions for FGD. I then finalized the Khmer original andsent it through Facebook to the community researchers for verification.
Mid-February to early May: Online communication
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Phnom Penh, where I am based, was locked down for a few
weeks in March 2020. The public transportation to travel to provinces, including Prey Veng,
was closed until early May. It was also not advisable for me to visit SSC and risk the community,
particularly elderlies, with the virus. I thus regularly contacted the three community researchers,
in particular Ming Chhin, online and collected some demographic data, such as the number ofmen and women, children, and elderly persons in each household on the resettlement site.
Ming Chhin also helped make a list of SSC members and their contact information.
17 May: Field visit II
I visited and met with the community researchers in person. We discussed a fieldwork plan.
We also visited four families who have moved out of the resettlement site. They currently live
along HW1’s old route in the Neak Loeung district, the same district where the resettlementsite is located.
20-22 July: Field visit III
I met with the community researchers again to develop an FGD research plan and gave thema research orientation. We also piloted FGD with some SSC families in the resettlement site.
On the following days, we conducted two FGD sessions (See scenes from the FGD sessions
in PIC4 in Appendix 3).
25-26 September: Field visit IV
The research team conducted FGD with more community members. Altogether, we conductedfour FGD sessions, which included not only SSC members on the resettlement site but also
those who had moved out from the resettlement site to the old HW 1, those who lived far awayfrom the resettlement site, as well as those who got cash compensation to continue to live in
Kampong Soeung Commune where their original houses were located.
Having come back home after the field visit, I drafted an HHS questionnaire in English andsent it to the same field survey experts as before for comments. After about a week, I received
comments from them, incorporated them, and finalized a HHS questionnaire. I then translated
it into Khmer.
24 October: Field visit V
I met with the community researchers and co-developed a plan for HHS. I then gave them an
9Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

orientation on how to conduct HHS through a role play. I asked the community researchers totake turns to play the roles of researcher and respondent.
12 December: Field visit VI
I met with the community researchers and we went over the HHS plan again. The threecommunity researchers then interviewed 40 SSC members over two weeks. The respondents
included both those who lived on the resettlement site and who had already moved out fromthe resettlement site. The community researchers conducted HHS in person and by phone(See scenes from the HHS interviews in PIC5 in Appendix 3).
January 2021: Coding and entering the data
I met with the community researchers. We coded the results of both FGD and HHS. An
external database expert helped enter the HHS results into one database. Based on the two
sets of data, I drafted both FGD and HHS reports and sent them to research experts forcomments. The following sections are based on the two reports.
3. RESULTS
I will now provide detailed descriptions, mostly quantitative, of SSC’s current situations based
mainly on my HHS analysis report. Of the 40 HHS respondents, 44.0% live on the resettlementsite or nearby villages in Kampong Soeung Commune; the others live in villages outside
Kampong Soeung Commune. 69.0% are female and 31.0% male. As for ethnicity, a great
majority or 97.0% are Khmer and 3.0% Vietnamese. The respondents’ average age is 59
years old with the youngest 33 and the oldest 83 years old.
3.1 Demography
With regard to a household composition, 74.0%
of the respondents have 5-7 members in theirfamily, 13.0% 2-4 members, 8.0% 7-10
members, and only 5.0% ≥2 members. 79.0%
live with children: 66.0% have ≥2 children, while
22.0% 3-4 and 13.0% 4-5 children in their family(See Figure 1 below). 69.0% have elderly
members in their household: 97.0% have ≥2 and
8.0% 3-4 elderlies. 21.0% have ≥2 disabled
members in their household. 26.0% have atleast one family member who has migrated towork: 15.0% have 1-2 members, of whom amajority or 79.0% work in Phnom Penh.

Figure 1: # of Children in SSC Household

3.2 Livelihood and Income
The respondents recalled their work before they had been relocated by the HW1 project. To
list major ones, 19.0% engaged in self-employed home-based work, small businesses, andtransportation service; 10.0% were employed in the informal sector (i.e., unskilled daily-waged
labour and skilled labour), 11.0% raised livestock; 7.0% worked in the agriculture sector (i.e.,10

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

helping paddy cultivation and harvesting plantation crops), and 5.0% fished and collected
NTFPs (See Figure 2 below).

Figure 2: Livelihood Means among SSC members before Relocation
The same proportion of respondents (19.0%) is still self-employed, engaging in home-based
work, waste collection, driving a cyclo or a tuktuk, small businesses, and trading. A slightly
more proportion (14.0%) now engages in unskilled daily-waged labour, skilled labour, andhousekeeping. A proportion of housewives has considerably decreased (24.0%), while therespondents who rely on remittance from other family members who have migrated to work inurban areas and aboard (13.0%) have more than doubled (See Figure 3 below). The
respondents use various types of vehicles for their daily activities, especially commuting:
42.5% own a motorbike, 17.5% a bicycle, 12.5% a tuktuk, and 25.0% none.

Figure 3: Current Livelihood Means among SSC Members
20 years have also seen dramatic changes in the landscape around the respondents and quite
a few no longer depend on NTFPs, important natural resources for their livelihoods. When
asked which natural resource(s) they use, 45.5% answered rivers; 15.0% public lakes; 9.0%
wetlands; and 3.0% bushes, mountains, and forests. 35.0% of the respondents said that they
have facilities for and/or access to jobs, while 18.0% said that they go somewhere else toaccess facilities for various services (See PIC2 in Appendix 3).
With regard to the respondents’ current monthly income levels on average, 26.0% earn 51100.00 USD, 15.0% 151-200.00 USD, and 13.0% 26-50.00 USD. It has been reported
elsewhere that the 63 SSC families’ average daily income at the pre-resettlement stage was
3.06 USD. It then decreased 1.93 USD in November 2007 and then slightly recovered to 2.21
USD in October 2008. These sets of data are not exactly comparable. However, it can beinferred that the SSC families’ average monthly income might have come back to the preresettlement level, about 100.00 USD. On the other hand, a gap between the families whoearn more and those who earn less than the average might have widened.
76.0% of the respondents said that their largest expense is on food, 35.0% education, 25.0%
gasoline/travelling, and 22.0% house repairing. 87.0% have borrowed money. When asked
11

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

how they have spent the money, 27.0% answered for healthcare, 18.0% for food andrepairing/building a house; and 21.0% for other household needs. As for where they haveborrowed the money, 33.0% answered from MFIs, 29.0% from private creditors, 25.0% fromsaving groups, and 5.5% from commercial banks.
When asked about plans to improve their livelihoods, the respondents answered working in
the agricultural sector (i.e., raising animals/cattle, fishing, and planting vegetables), running asmall business (i.e., selling food, various goods, and/or gasoline in front of their house or along
HW1), and providing transportation services (i.e., driving a motor taxi and/or a tuk tuk).
3.3 Housing, Land, and Property Ownership
95.0% of the respondents own a house. 44.0% said that their house is made from a mixtureof wood and concrete with a zinc roof, 23.0% from metals, 13.0% wood, and 8.0% concrete.
76.0% own a plot of land with only a house on it; they have no space where they can farm or
garden. 15.0% own a plot of land with a house as well as enough space for farming andgardening. 5.0% of the respondents live in a small house/hut on agricultural land and use theland primarily for agriculture. 47.5% live on the land plots given by the Cambodian governmenton the resettlement site, while 30.0% have sold the land on the resettlement and bought newland, and 15.0% inherited the land from their parents/relatives.
The respondents started land transactions as early as in 2000. They have paid over 2,000
USD/plot on average. Only 38.5% have signed a formal contract, 23.0% had a witness, and3.0% gotten verification by local authorities. As of now, 61.5% have a land title, and 5.0% arein the process of land title registration. 64.0% of the respondents feel secure about their landownership; in contrast 31.0% have experienced problems in these three years. In facing land
conflicts, the respondents have tried to find solutions from different institutes: 69.0% havesought help from local authorities; 19.0% have taken the case to the court; and 12.5% haveasked for support from NGOs. Only 8.0%, however, have found a solution.
3.4 Community Development
18.0% of the respondents have been helped by a commune council of administrative affairs,
and 15.0% have received food assistance. There has been no recent support from NGOs.
77.0% do not think that the SCC community is well organized. While 67.0% have joined asaving group, many have pointed out challenges in running the group: 34.0% feel that themembers become jealous with one another, 33.0% say that borrowing members do not returna loan, 11.0% say that some members do not save regularly, and 10.0% feel that credits fromthe saving group are too small to cover any meaningful expenses (See Figure 4 below).

Figure 4: Challenges Faced by SSC Saving Group
33.0% attend a community meeting regularly. As for topics at a community meeting, 31.5%
responded that they discuss challenges faced by the community, 24.0% responded that they
vote for committee members and community development projects, and 13.0% responded
that they review saving reports. For the respondents who do not participate in a community
meeting, reasons include: they are not invited (38.5%); and they do not know about meetings
12Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

(15.0%).
After having moved out of the resettlement site, 61.5% still maintain their relationships withthe families on the resettlement site: 47.0% are still SSC members; 34.0% participate incommunity meetings; and 10.0% often visit the resettlement site. The other respondents do
not keep contact anymore because 80.0% said that they now live far from the resettlement
site.
When asked about challenges facing the community, the respondents voiced poverty mostfrequently (21.0%) followed by debt, gambling, squatters (all 20.0%), and alcoholism (13.0%)(See Figure 5 below).
These challenges are getting
worse recently. So many
respondents suggest that thecommunity focus finding
ways to resolve a land
dispute with the squatters
first and then start reorganizing themselves tomake other improvements by1) renovating infrastructures
such as roads, a community
office, and pump-wells on theresettlement site and 2)
initiating livelihood
enhancement programs,
especially for vulnerable
groups such as elderlies, thedisabled, and children so thatthey can repay the debt.
Figure 5: Challenges Facing SSC
They also suggest that the community ask local authorities to develop public roads so thatthey can access river banks and preserve national resources so that they can fish and collect
NTFPs. Furthermore, they suggest that the government provide a land social concession to
the landless squatters and that they take measures to stop more squatters from coming into
the resettlement site from Neak Loeung. They want local authorities to crack down on
gambling and even make interventions into disputes in the community.
3.5 Children’s Education
56.0% of the respondents have children under 18 years old in their households: 44.0%
answered that their children do not attend school regularly. They do not go to school regularly
because schools are far from home (44.0%), they need the children to work to help them earn
income, and they have no money to pay for teachers (19.0%). The respondents spend very
little money on their children’s education: 20.5% spend less than 25.00 USD, 18.0% 25-50.00
USD, and only 3.0% 51-100.00 USD.
The respondents also explained why children have dropped out of school: Schools are far
from home (50.0%); they do not have study materials and equipment and the children cannot
concentrate on school work (15.0%); and schools do not have enough facilities and/or they
have no money to pay for teachers (10.0%) (See Figure 6 below).
13

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

Figure 6: Reasons for SSC Children’s Dropout from School
The COVID-19 outbreak seems to have had mixed impacts on the SSC children’s schooling:
while 68.0% feel that the outbreak has disrupted their children’s schooling and 21.0% thinkthat the children have more time to play freely and gamble, 10.0% feel that they are able tospend more time taking care of their children (See Figure 7 below).

Figure 7: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on SSC Children’s Schooling
Strong awareness-building is needed to help the SSC parents understand the importance of14

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

education so that they send their children to school regularly. It is also important to motivate
the SSC children into studying at school instead of building inappropriate habits such asgambling. The parents also have to improve their career/business to earn more income tosupport their children’s study at school.
3.6 Health and Disabilities
With regard to types of health challenges faced by the respondents, 56.5% named common
diseases, 20.0% chronic diseases, and 6.5% mental health problems. The respondents
access health services in various locations: 27.0% use health services in private clinics; 25.0%
visit health centers, 23.0% buy medicine in pharmacies; and 10.0% go to hospital in Phnom
Penh and/or use traditional herb medicine. As for means of transportation to access healthservices, 74.0% use a tuktuk, 17.0% a bus, and 7.0% a taxi.
While a good majority or 74.0% have someone in their household with health challenges, only
36.0% have ever been registered as an ID Poor Household. Of these households, only 5.0%
have actually received free health services through ID Poor Card. 36.0% are helped bygenerous people, 23.0% by friends and relatives, 9.0% by family members, and 6.0% get aloan to pay medical bills (See Figure 8 below).

Figure 8: Financial Sources among SSC Members for Health Treatment
With regard to impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak on the respondents’ health conditions anddisabilities, 48.5% spend more money on food, masks and hand sanitizer, 38.0% experience
home quarantine/self-isolation, and 3.0% cannot continue their work, including migratory work,and need to spend more money on the Internet and paying utility fees. During the pandemic
29.0% have been helped by neighbours, 18.0% by CRC, and 6.0% by family members andfriends. As for types of help they received, 16.0% answered food, 12.0% practical tips for
COVID-19 prevention, and 8.0% medicine, masks and hand sanitizer, as well as financial
support.
To address health challenges faced by SSC, hygiene, the healthy living environment, andintake of nutritious food are particularly important. It is good that the respondents are awareof some COVID-19 infection preventive measures, such as washing hands with soap and/or
sanitizer and not going out from home unless necessary, in accordance with recommendations
by the Ministry of Health. The respondents also want the community to keep public space on
15

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

the resettlement site as a meeting point for the community members, as well as a place torehabilitate disabled people and a playground for children.
3.7 Water and Sanitation
A great majority or 92.0% use water from pump-wells. At the same time, 94.0% do not thinkthat pump-well water is safe enough and 12.0% are aware that the water from the community
pump-wells have been tested by experts. For drinking and cooking, 65.0% use bottled water,while 12.0% and 18.0% pump-well water and river water respectively. 38.5% use a filter forwater treatment. However, a majority or 79.0% have no plan to access piped water. The others
want piped water because pump-well water is safe and/or not carrying water home from thepump-wells is troublesome.
Some families do not have a flush toilet at home. 71.0% use a toilet at their neighbors’ house,
16.0% a toilet in an abandoned house, and 10.5% vacant land. Some respondents have noaccess to garbage services: 65.0% throw garbage on vacant land/rice fields and 4.0% bury
garbage in the ground. When asked how they want to improve the environment of thecommunity, an overwhelming majority suggested that they should place rubbish bins andclean the community together. They also suggested that they should reduce the amount ofwaste and that they should plant more trees.
3.8 Food Security and Safety
71.0% buy some food at a local market and some at their neighbors’/relatives’. 24.0% buy all
food at their neighbors’/relatives’. 20.5% still fishing in rivers and lakes: 50.0% fishing for theirown consumption; and 29.0% for their consumption as well as for selling. 25.0% have land togrow vegetables and 26.0% have enough land to raise livestock. 33.0% raise chicken andducks and 14.0% pigs. As for how often they buy food, 68.0% responded every day and 32.0%
two to three times a week. 30.0% buy food from street venders, 26.0% from their neighbors,and 17.0% from the Neak Loeung market.
Only 7.0% afford three meals a day. 62.5% feel that they do not have secure access to food.
49.0% have tried to collect NTFPs for their own consumption, and 5.0% eat only rice with little
vegetables or meat and borrow money to buy food. 58.0% also feel that food they purchaseare not properly stored: 51.5% think that their food is unhealthy, 31.0% think that it is spoiled,and 17.0% feel that it is contaminated. To improve their food safety, the respondents have
tried to save money by eating less. They need to learn to keep meat, vegetables, and otherfood in a bucket with ice until they are used up. The respondents also proposed that they ask
the government for a food support program.
3.9 Physical Safety and Security
Since January 2020, 20.0% have experienced some crime: 29.0% have been mugged/robbed;
14.0% physically assaulted and robbed; and 7.0% sexually abused/harassed and robbed ofvehicles and farm products. The respondents are most afraid of crimes in their neighborhood,including gang-related crimes and house-breaking/theft (21.0%), drug-related incidents(16.0%), and robbery (12.0%). In facing crimes, 22.0% turn to their neighbors for help and
11.0% to friends, police officers, and lawyers, while 33.0% do not seek help from others. The
most frequently mentioned help is emotional support. Asked whether the respondents havenoticed if the police are on duty or not in the community, 28.0% answered seldom, 24.0%
sometimes, and 19.0% often. They also responded that the number of crimes has decreased
when compared to the previous year. While depending on the police for suppressing crimes,
the respondents said that they use some measures to protect themselves: 35.0% haveinstalled special security door locks; 12.0% patrol the neighborhood; 10.0% avoid working
after dark; and 9.0% try not to go out with much cash.
16

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

The respondents feel that crime incidents take place due to drinking alcohol, gambling, andusing drugs. They also think that poverty and unemployment among youth lead to formationof gangster groups and that crimes and violence occur because laws are poorly enforced andauthorities do not take appropriate and timely actions.
3.10 Resettlement Experience
Many respondents associated inadequate compensation with their HW1 resettlement
experiences. They also said that they had had to move many times while demanding a landplot, that they could not work or run a business for a while, and that they had been in debt.
Some responded that they might not have a land conflict if they had not moved to theresettlement site. The HW1 project has also impacted the landscape around the respondents
and decreased their access to natural resources, which are important particularly to theirlivelihoods. For instance, it has become very difficult to go fishing. In addition, not many job
opportunities are available and so some families have migrated to urban areas and/or evenabroad.
With respect to the HW1 project’s benefits, 43.0% said that it has become easy to commute
to Phnom Penh and elsewhere, 29.0% said that they have gotten a land title/tenure security,and 10.0% said that they have a better house (See Figure 9 below).

Figure 9: Perceived Benefits of HW1 Project among SSC Respondents
After having moved out of the resettlement site, 13.0% think that their life is improved.
However, 38.5% feel that it is worse and 10.0% think that it is about the same (See Figure 10
below). Of those whose life is better, 8.0% have a better job/business, 12.5% own bigger land,and 10.0% have a better living environment. 40.0% feel that they are still poor.99 44.0% have already moved out of the resettlement. 32.0% of them responded that they have found a better

place, 29.0% have sold their land to return debts, and 23.0% have moved closer to a workplace.

17

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

Figure 10: Life after Moving out of the Resettlement Site
Overall 73.0% think that the HW1 project has made them poorer, while 13.0% feel that they
have become less poor. With regards to reasons for becoming poorer, 51.0% think that without
the HW1 project they would be less poor, 26.0% think that they would still live close to HW1,
17.5% think that they would not be in debt, 16.0% think that they would not have lost theirbusiness, and 14.0% think that they would not have lost good customers (See Figure 11
below).

Figure 11: Overall Perception on the HW1 Resettlement among SSC Respondents
4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Based on the results of HHS and FGD, this action research has brought about major findings
which can be presented under the following four headlines.
4.1 HW1’s Economic Development and Benefits to the SSC Families
The area around the resettlement site has developed considerably but the SSC families are
not being benefitted very much. The area around SSC, especially along HW1, has developed
considerably in economic terms compared to when the community members were resettled
about 20 years ago. Many big hotels, guesthouses, and restaurants have been built. Largecommercial banks and companies have started business. Both sides of HW1 are seasonally
flooded but many parts have now been reclaimed. A modern concrete bridge has been
constructed across the Mekong river through financial assistance by Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) (See PIC6, PIC7, and PIC8 in Appendix 3).
The economic development in the area, however, has not benefited the SSC families verymuch. Although it has created new employment opportunities, for instance, hotel clerks andrestaurant waitresses/waiters, the SSC members have not been trained to be hired for these
positions. A few members work as cleaners and guards at guesthouses. Wages/salaries forthese and other available positions are higher than before. So are living expenses, however.
Living costs in the area are getting close to those in urban centers. Many SSC families haveborrowed money to build a house and start/keep a business. Some have needed money to
pay medical bills. They borrow money from community saving groups, private leaders, and/or
micro-finance institutions.
18Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

The rapid economic development is bringing about new challenges. Most serious is land
speculation. Land prices in the area have sky-rocketed. Rich people have started visiting theresettlement site and telling the SSC families to sell their land plot, which they got forresettlement compensation. The rich people have succeeded purchasing quite a few landplots, especially from the families who were struggling with debts and/or looking for a bigger
piece of land. Moreover, a number of new families, some of whom are landless, have come tooccupy public and other open spaces, for instance, land around pump-wells, along the entry
road, and even inside HW1’s ROW (right of the way) in and next to the resettlement site. 10
This is making it difficult for the SSC families to access clean water and hold community
activities. The squatter families have also sold the occupied land to others and often continue
to stay where they are. This is making land ownerships in the resettlement site extremelycomplicated.
4.2 SSC’s Disintegration as a Coherent Community
Almost half of the SSC members have left the resettlement site and the community is
disintegrating. In 2003, when the SSC families moved into the resettlement site, 39 land plots
were allocated to them.11 Now, 21 families still live there, which means that 18 have moved
out. Some of them have sold their land plot, have purchased less expensive land along HW1’s
old route, and are living there. Eight families keep their properties on the resettlement site andhave migrated to urban centers such as the capital Phnom Penh, which is 70.0 km away. A
few have gone to work in neighboring Thailand.
Major reasons so many SSC families have left the resettlement site are economic, that is,seeking for better livelihood means elsewhere. On the resettlement site, most families earn
income by selling goods, such as snacks, cigarettes, coffee, and gasoline, at a small space infront of their house. Running shops, however, gets harder for the members whose houses arefurther in the back and away from HW1. For some, the allotted 7 x 13 m land is too small toplant vegetables and raise animals. The SSC families also earn additional income by collecting
and selling snails, crickets, morning glory, firewood, recyclable materials, etc. around theresettlement site. However, finding NTFPs (non-timber forest products) and other natural
resources has also become more difficult because forests, lakes, and creeks are disappearing.
The SSC members who have moved to the HW1’s old route grow and sell mango trees. Some
plant cucumbers, pumpkins, and gourds; Others collect recyclable materials (See PIC3 in
Appendix 3). The families who have migrated to urban centers are often employed at garment
factories and construction sites. Although the members who live close to the resettlement site
try to maintain ties with the community, SSC has been disintegrating and weakened as acommunity. This is very worrying because group coherence and solidarity function as a mutual
support system and give the community power to cope with challenges. One of the motivations
behind the action research was to create opportunities for the SSC members to meet and talkwith each other so that they could reactivate mutual relationships. One of the members who
still stays in touch with the community said, “We are poor and affected people by the HW1
project. We have to have solidarity among ourselves and help each other”.
4.3 The SSC Families’ Dependence on Natural Resources in the Project Area
Natural resources the SSC families have depended on are mostly gone or have become
private properties, which makes it very hard for the families to continue to utilize them. The
action research has revealed how much the SSC families have depended on natural resourcesin the area for their livelihoods. Some testified that there used to be a big lake named Boeung
Tros nearby, which was surrounded by many tall trees. They went fishing there or to otherlakes/wetlands and often took sand to use it to build houses and pagodas. They also collected
10 The total number of squatters is around 30.
11 When the resettlement site was established in 2003, 48 land plots were allotted, of which 9 were given to flood

victims who moved in from the Varmy village. Most of the 39 SSC families also got a land title later on.

19

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

a variety of NTFPs in forests. They used to see many more rice paddies, farmlands, andorchards, too. In fact, the area is known for its agricultural productivity. One woman said, while
recalling:“This area was in between farms and local markets where villagers from Svay
Rieng and Prey Veng Provinces always passed by, commuting to farms andgoing to buy crops and vegetables…. Many men practiced fishing and provided
services like repairing bikes, operating transportations, and working as
seasonal laborers on rice paddies”.
Many of the lakes and forests, however, have become private properties and are blocked
access from the public. Worse, some companies take soil there and sell it to construction sites
in cities. Farmlands and orchards have been sold to private owners, too. Both sides of HW1
around the resettlement site are flood plains but many parts have been reclaimed to create
new land. People who have capitals have purchased these lands but often keep them for
speculation and leave them unused for productive purposes such as agriculture, decreasing
livelihood opportunities for the SSC families, who used to be hired as seasonal workers.
In retrospect, HW1 project-related materials, not only those made by ADB but also those bysympathetic NGOs and researchers tended not to sufficiently address the importance of
natural resources to the SSC and some other project-affected families. SSC women weretypically thought of as running small-scale house-shops and men involved in the transport
sector as horse cart/tricycle/tuk tuk/motor drivers and repairers. The reality was that theyearned quite a bit of complementary cash income through these more ad-hoc, less visible (andsometimes gender-differentiated) livelihood means.
4.4 COVID-19 Impacts on the SSC Families
Although no member has contracted COVID-19, the pandemic has still affected the SSC
families badly in several ways. As of this writing, the number of reported COVID-19 infection
cases in Cambodia is low compared to other countries in Southeast Asia (SEA). No infection
case has been reported among the SSC families. However, many Cambodians, especiallythose who work in the informal sector, have lost their jobs due to the economic slow-down inthe country and globally.
Many SSC members who were employed in and around urban centers have been laid off andcome back home. Those who work at home have suffered income loss. For instance, an SSC
member who regularly collects garbage has told that his average daily income has dropped
from 5.0-7.0 to 2.5 USD, which is about or less than half of what he was earning before thepandemic. Some families try to eat less and/or mostly rice with prahok to save money.
The Cambodian government has announced provision of a 40.0 USD relief fund to every
citizen and encouraged company/factory owners to give 30.0 USD to laid-off workers. A
number of international institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have offeredemergency assistance to Cambodia with most focusing on Phnom Penh and the country’s
eastern/northeastern provinces where many indigenous/ethnic minority groups live. Not muchassistance has reached the central and southern provinces, including Prey Veng Province,
where SSC is located.
All schools were shut between March and November 2020. 12 Public schools broadcastedcompensatory teaching programs for children on TV and the social media. Children at the
SSC families, however, have limited access to communication devices such as TV sets andsmartphones, and so were able to make little use of the remote teaching. This is alarming
12 All Cambodian schools were shut again for two weeks at the end of November 2020 due to the second waveof the COVID-19 pandemic. As of this writing, schools are shut yet again after 22 February 2021 due to the third
wave of the outbreak.

20

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

because SSC teenagers, especially girls, were known to drop out of school very frequently
even before the COVID-19 outbreak, mainly due to their parents’ lack of money to spend fortheir children’s education. Not being able to fully participate in the compensatory program
during the pandemic makes it difficult for the SSC teenagers to keep up with school work.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
Throughout the action research, the SSC families voiced several ideas to improve theirsituations. For instance, several SSC members have the government-issued “ID Poor Card”,
which entitles the holder with free medical/health treatment as well as a monthly COVID-19
relief fund. According to them, the village chief played a key role in getting them the card. So,some families suggested that SSC as a group contact and ask the village chief for help so that
more families could be registered in the program.
The SSC families also suggested that the community should:
1) Collectively rent a space in the local market to sell goods and products;
2) Encourage the members who owe the community a debt to return the money, withwhich to reactivate the revolving fund to support both existing and new jobs;
3) Invest in the agricultural sector, i.e., collectively rent a farmland to plant crops, makerice field, raise chickens and other animals;
4) Focus first on ways to resolve a land dispute with the squatters on the resettlement
site, for instance, by asking authorities to approve a social land concession for thesquatters. Then start reorganizing the community to make other improvements, e.g.,renovating community infrastructures such as entry roads and pump-wells andinitiating livelihood enhancement programs;5) Contact school principals and ask them to provide scholarships and other support tothe children from the SSC families;6) Involve more male members in the community committee to integrate their views andsupport into community activities;7) Outreach groups of farmers, middle-men, retailers, and buyers to establish a networkof producers, transporters, and consumers of SSC goods and products;8) Clean the resettlement site together by installing rubbish bins, planting more trees,and helping the SSC members reduce the amount of waste they produce daily; and
9) Carry out more detailed research on SSC’s food security and safety to learn how to
improve health conditions of the community members, especially children, elderlies,
and members with disabilities.
I would like to discuss the ideas with the SSC members, assess feasibility of each idea andneeded resources, and put prioritized ones into practice.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Individual differences do emerge among the SSC families in terms of the current level of theirliving conditions. While some have managed to save part of the money they got by selling theland on the resettlement site, started a new business, and become able to pay for theirchildren’s education or even job training courses, a few others have become landless.
However, the following statement made by one participant in the action research seems tocapture the overall feelings of many SSC families:“Suppose there was no HW1 (expansion) project, we would still be living along
the road, selling things, and having much work to do because we would live
along the road. We would not have such problems as land conflicts with newsquatters. We would still have lakes. We would go fishing and collecting plants
at lakes and NTFPs in forests as before. We would never buy food and our
income would be saved. Now, we have to buy everything. There is no nature
21

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

around us. There is no organic food, which makes our health worse. Also, we
don’t have cars to make use of this road. Instead, we experience traffic
accidents.”
It would require more full-fledged research to conclude that the challenges facing SSC
currently are due to ADB’s lack of supervision over the HW1 project’s resettlement more than
20 years ago. At the same time, it should be fair to say that if the SSC families had been
resettled more properly, or not resettled at all, their hardships would be much less. This partof their story should be taken by ADB to its heart. In other words, ADB should pay particularattention to socially vulnerable communities like SSC rights at the very beginning of its
safeguard due diligence. Otherwise, the institution would always end up leaving some people
behind.
For that, NGOs are expected to continue to watch large-scale development projects supported
by ADB and other financial institutions closely and carefully. It is hoped that no other local
community will have to experience the same hardships SCC members are still going through.

22

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Resettlement Challenges of ADB’s HW1 Project13
The Highway 1 ProjectOn 15 December 1998, ADB’s Board of Directors approved a 40 million USD loan to support the
Cambodian government’s plan to rehabilitate HW1 that runs from Phnom Penh to the CambodiaVietnam border. The project was to renovate a 105.5 km section of HW1 between the Mekong Riverferry crossing and the Cambodia-Vietnam border. The project was financed by a loan from ADB’s
concession arm, the Asian Development Fund (ADF). ADB’s 1997 feasibility study estimated that 5,920
Cambodians in 1,184 households would be affected. ADB’s 1995 Policy on Involuntary Resettlement
was to safeguard these families from becoming economically and socially worse-off after the
resettlement.
Failed Resettlement Program
The reality was quite the opposite. When the resettlement started in 2000, most families received nocompensation for lost land. They did receive compensation for affected structures, such as the house,but the amount was significantly deducted. Relocated villagers ended up living temporarily on
somebody else’s land. They were sometimes told by the landowner to move out. This made it extremely
difficult for them to restore their life and livelihood. Every time they relocated, they had to spend somemoney to re-establish. Some families had to borrow a high-interest loan from private lenders because
they had no access to commercial loans. In short, many project-affected villagers were made landless,houseless, and jobless. These problems occurred because the ADB Management had mistakenly
approved a sub-standard resettlement program submitted by the Cambodian government.
Cambodian NGOs documented the problems facing resettled families living along HW1.14 They issued
a report on 14 February 2002 and pointed out to ADB that the Project had not complied with the bank’s
1995 resettlement policy. The NGOs’ report also suggested that ADB should immediately conduct a
more comprehensive investigation over the entire project area. ADB sent several missions to Cambodia
to improve the implementation of the resettlement program but only in localized ways. ADB did not
respond to the project’s failures in more systematic ways until much later.
Resettlement Audit and Unsolved Problems
In November 2004, more than two years after having become aware of the resettlement’s failure, ADB
finally started the Project’s resettlement audit research. An audit report submitted to the Cambodian
government in March 2005 confirmed most of the problems that had been pointed out by CambodianNGOs three years before for the entire project area. The report also admitted that ADB had mistakenly
approved the Cambodian government’s resettlement program, which was not in compliance with ADB’s
Policy on Involuntary Resettlement.15
Based on the audit results, ADB recommended to the Cambodian government that eligible families
should be repaid the compensation. ADB also suggested that a tripartite working group, consisting of
the government, ADB, and NGO representatives, should be formed to oversee repayment processes
and to address any outstanding complaints that might arise. 16 After the first quarter of 2006, many
resettled villagers finally received compensation that had originally been anticipated under ADB’s
policies and procedures. However, affected villagers’ complaints persisted. Some argued that they werelandless, when the government told them that they had enough land left to live on even after the
13 Based on Mekong Watch. “Highway One: Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City Highway Project (ADB Loan 1659-

CAM)--Cambodian Communities’ Struggles to Hold the ADB Accountable for a Failed Resettlement Program.”
http://www.mekongwatch.org/english/country/cambodia/HighwayOne/index.html
14 NGOs’ documentation of the resettlement failure: NGO Forum on Cambodia’s Letter to the Cambodian
Government on Behalf of 99 Affected Families, dated 14 February 2002.
15 Resettlement problems documented in the ADB-funded research: Chea Sarin. 2005. Country Report:
Cambodia; and Chea Sarin. 2007. Capacity Building for Resettlement Risk Management: Cambodia Country
Report16 Results of the ADB’s resettlement audit: ADB’s Resettlement Audit Report, dated 7 May 2008. NGOs’ critiqueof the audit: Sugita, Rena. 2005. Challenges for Implementing ADB’s Resettlement Policy in Cambodia: The
Case of Highway One.

23

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

resettlement. Others reported that their compensation money had never reached them for some reason.
Yet others complained that they had ended up using the compensation to pay back the debt they had
accumulated and that they still could not restore their living standards to those at the pre-project level.17
63 Families’ Filing of an Official GrievanceOn 28 July 2007, 63 members of the Kraing Kaok and Steung Slot Communities living in Neak Loeung
Commune, Prey Veng Province asked a Cambodian NGO, the Conservation and Development on
Cambodia (CDCam), to represent them in a case filed with ADB’s Office of Special Project Facilitator(SPF).18 Most of the 63 families were already repaid the compensation in 2006. However, in their letterof grievance they claimed, among other things: 1) that they still could not restore their life and livelihood;2) that they could not pay back the debt accumulated during the time when they had not been properly
compensated; and 3) that they should immediately be given a land title for a resettled land at no cost,
as promised in ADB’s project document. The two communities also requested that SPF should examinecomplaints voiced by other villagers affected by the HW1 Project.
The Case Found Eligible
Mr. Robert May, SPF, visited Cambodia in August 2007 and met with two community leaders, as wellas CDCam staff. CDCam strongly suggested that SPF should take the opportunity and speak with as
many villagers as possible in the Kraing Kaok and Steung Slot Communities. However, SPF said thatthe purpose of his visit that time was to check the eligibility of the two community leaders, who hadsigned the grievance letters, and promised that he would come back to meet the other villagers.
Likewise, Mr. May did not agree to visit other affected communities along HW1. NGOs and affectedvillagers were disappointed because SPF had missed a great opportunity to learn about the problems
created by the ADB-funded project. After having returned to the ADB headquarters in Manila, SPF
declared the 63 families’ case as eligible on 19 September 2007.
The next step was for SPF to revisit the 63 families, interview them to gather more information, anddraft a Review and Assessment Report (RAR). However, SPF was not able to meet the communities.
SPF explained that he had failed to obtain permission from the Cambodian government to carry out his
second mission to Cambodia. On 7 October 2007, without any prior consultations, SPF informed thetwo communities and CDCam that he would draft an RAR without a site visit. SPF subsequently sent a
draft RAR in English and Khmer to CDCam and the 63 families, seeking for their comments through a
Cambodian consultant. However, the families found it hard to comment on SPF’s draft report, as it was
not as full-fledged as had been expected.
CARM Pressured to Conduct a New Survey
On 1 November 2007, CARM contacted CDCam and proposed a new socio-economic survey to be
conducted on the Kraing Kaok and Steung Slot Communities. It was suspected that CARM had beenpressured by SPF’s acceptance of the 63 families’ grievance into taking some action. The two
communities and CDCam agreed to work with CARM on this research. Between 21 and 27 November,
two ADB officials interviewed 62 families (in a few cases their relatives and/or neighbors who could
speak on their behalf). One family was not available for the survey. It was obvious to the ADB officialsthat the 63 families’ debt and livelihood problems had emerged as a result of the HW1 Project’s
resettlement failure. They said that they would analyze survey results and make proposals by midFebruary 2008.
“The Massive Disruption…was a Disaster”
CARM’s report on the socio-economic survey, while being careful about directly attributing the 63
families’ hardships to ADB’s lack of supervision over the HW1 Project’s resettlement processes,

17 For unsolved issues, see Levitt, Joanna, et al. 2007. Slide Show at the ADB Safeguards Panel, May 2007 in

Kyoto, Japan. Sin, Chhin & Leakhana Kol. 2007. Testimony at the ADB Safeguards Panel, May 2007 in Kyoto,
Japan (01:57-04:26).
18 63 families’ grievance: The Kraing Kaok Community’s Grievance Letter to SPF, dated 25 July 2007 (original in
Khmer). The Steung Slot Community’s Grievance Letter to SPF, dated 25 July 2007 (original in Khmer). Selected
Narratives from the Kraing Kaok Community, submitted to SPF on 20 August 2007. Selected Narratives from the
Steung Slot Community, submitted to SPF on 20 August 2007.

24

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

stated:19
It is not correct to conclude that the ill-planned and executed resettlement plan for the Highway 1
Project is the root of the present impoverished situation of most of the 63 APs [affected persons].
These APs were mostly very poor even before the Project, with no reliable back-up source ofsustenance and livelihood in case of disasters happening, such as during floods, death of a
productive member of the household, and even displacement from domicile and place ofbusiness…Barring unforeseen calamities, such as floods and illness or deaths, the people were
earning barely enough to keep the household alive, but not enough to send children to school…The
massive disruption brought about by the Project to the lives of the people living along the ROW[Right of Way] was a disaster. Families had to be uprooted over and over again, disrupting theirsocio-economic activities. With no properties and tangible assets to depend on, coupled with a faulty
resettlement carried out by Project authorities, the APs had very slim chance of being able to recoverfrom the Project’s adverse social and economic impacts and restore their lives to pre-Project levels(emphasis added).
It is not totally incorrect to compare what happened to the 63 families to a natural disaster. Their
impoverished situations are becoming a humanitarian issue. Indeed, had this been a case ofcommunities hit by a natural disaster, the families might not have been left unattended for such a longtime.
Further Grievance Blocked
The grievance initiated by the 63 families encouraged other HW1-affected communities into considering
sending their cases to SPF, too. However, in December 2007, the ADB Management issued HW1’s
Project Completion Report (PCR). ADB’s policy on Accountability Mechanism states that a complaint
submitted to SPF on a project for which a PCR has already been issued is no longer eligible to beinvestigated. This greatly surprised affected families and NGOs, because the ADB Management had
earlier promised to NGOs that HW1’s PCR would not be issued until all outstanding complaints wereresolved. The ADB Management took away project-affected villager’s rights to file a grievance with the
Accountability Mechanism. The issued PCR did not mention the 63 families’ case filed with SPF, either.
ADB downplayed the magnitude of the problems experienced by the 63 families and the significance of
their grievance.
On 11 March 2008, NGO Forum on Cambodia wrote to ADB on the issuance of the HW1 Project’s PCR,
reminding ADB, among others, about their earlier commitment on 16 March 2007, i.e., "[ADB accepts
NGO Forum on Cambodia’s] suggestion of not having a final closure of the Resettlement Audit Report
and PCR until the outstanding issues are reviewed and finalized during a next tripartite meeting between
the NGO Forum on Cambodia (NGO Forum), IRC, and ADB." NGO Forum on Cambodia also pointed
out that Mr. Nessim Ahmad, ADB’s Director of the Environment and Social Safeguards Division,reiterated this commitment in public, while he was speaking at a panel discussion during ADB’s annual
meeting in Kyoto, Japan in May 2007. In their response on 21 March 2008, ADB defended the issuanceof the PCR. One of the main reasons they cited was, “the [PCR] has to be issued by the ADB 12 to 24
months after project completion (civil works completion). This is a mandatory requirement under ADB's
Operations Manual (OM Section KIIOP paragraph 5) for operations evaluation purposes related toindependent evaluation by ADB's Operations Evaluation Department. The project completion for the[HW1 Project] occurred in September 2005, and Loan Account was closed on 12 May 2006.
Consequently, the PCR should have been issued at the very latest by September 2007.”20
Communities Situations Worsened
The mid-February 2008 deadline for CARM’s proposals on solutions was not met. CDCam contacted
CARM several times for inquiries but was only told a new deadline. CARM also did not give CDCamand the two communities much information on what solutions might look like. In May 2008, CDCamsent a letter to CARM, calling for a tripartite meeting to update all the parties involved, CARM, theCambodian government, and NGOs. CARM’s answer was that they were designing a livelihood
19 Results of CARM’s socio-economic survey: ADB’s November 2007 Mission Report in Appendix 7 of the ADB’s

Resettlement Audit Report, dated 7 May 2008.
20 ADB’s HW1 Project Completion Report (PCR), dated December 2007. ADB Director’s Reference to the HW1
PCR at the ADB’s Annual Meeting in May 2007 in Kyoto, Japan. NGO Forum’s Letter to the ADB, dated 11
March 2008. ADB’s Response to the NGO Forum Letter, dated 21 March 2008.

25

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

stabilization program and would conduct an operations review by mid-June 2008. CARM did not agree
to hold a tripartite meeting, however. In June 2008, CDCam wrote another letter, asking CARM for moredetails about the proposed program, but received no response. In the meantime, the 63 families’situations worsened. By May 2008, a few families in the communities had reportedly sold their land tothe creditors. This was the land that they had received as part of the compensation repayment in 2006.
The two community leaders were afraid that several more families might lose their land to the creditors,
unless effective measures were taken immediately.
NGO Survey on the 63 Families’ Debt and Income
In October 2008, CDCam conducted a short survey to find out the current debt and income levels of
the 63 families.21 Results were compared with those of CARM’s November 2007 socio-economic survey.
CDCam’s findings included:
1. The total debt shouldered by all the 63 families decreased from 42,777.50 USD in November
2007 to 40,657.91 USD in October 2008 by 2,119.59 USD;
2. The average debt for each family was 666.52 USD in October 2008 with a slight decrease, ascompared to 689.96 USD in November 2007; and3. The average daily income earned by each family decreased from 3.06 USD at the pre-projectstage to 1.93 USD in November 2007. It then slightly increased to 2.21 USD in October 2008.
The 63 families’ total debt dropped by about 2,000 USD between November 2007 and October 2008.
This, however, was not necessarily because they were able to pay back the money themselves. After
having asked the 63 families more questions, CDCam found that at least one more family seemed tohave sold their land to the creditor presumably to pay back their debt. Some families received
assistance from relatives and/or depended on family members who had migrated to work in larger cities,
where better income-generating jobs could be available. Thus, some villagers are working much harderand under less favorable conditions to return the family debt. CDCam’s analysis does not include themoney, either the principal or the interest, which might have already been returned by the villagers totheir creditors.
SPF Agreed to Put the Case on Hold
Now that CARM had completed its own survey, the 63 families had to work simultaneously with two
ADB Management offices, SPF and CARM. This was very confusing to the villagers. SPF could directly
report to the ADB President and thus might be more effective. But SPF was not able to come and visit
them in Cambodia to learn more about their problems. CARM interviewed each member of the two
communities face-to-face and recorded their problems in detail. However, it was still very unclear if the
CARM survey would actually lead to effective redressing measures. In January 2008, after somediscussions with NGOs, the 63 families proposed that SPF should temporarily postpone the grievanceprocesses until they would learn more about the outcomes of CARM’s survey.[10] In February 2008,
SPF agreed with the families and decided to put the case on hold.
Neither ADB’s Policy on the Accountability Mechanism or SPF’s grievance procedures talk about putting
a case on hold after it is filed with the mechanism. So SPF had to make up his mind and did respondfavorably to the communities’ request. Both NGOs and the 63 families welcomed SPF’s precedentsetting decision to wait until the families could learn more from the ADB Management about the outcomeof the November 2007 CARM research. SPF’s action was in line with one of the mechanism’s
fundamental principles that it had been created to benefit people who are affected by ADB-funded
projects.
The Livelihood Stabilization Program (LSP)
In mid-July, CARM distributed to some Cambodian NGOs a concept paper on a 1.8 million grant tolaunch the Livelihood Stabilization Program (LSP). ADB also created a Project/Program Information
Document (PID) on LSP on 5 August 2008, as per its Public Communication Policy. 22 According tothese two documents and what CARM explained to NGOs and the 63 families, LSP would mainly
21 CDCam’s Letter to Reiterate the Communities’ Request to Postpone the Case, dated 4 February 2008. SPF’s

Response to Agree to Postpone the Case, dated 7 February 2008.
22 The Livelihood Stabilization Program (LSP): ADB’s Concept Paper on the LSP, dated 30 May 2008. ADB’s
Program Information Document (PID) on the LSP, created on 5 August 2008.

26

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

provide recipients with a four-year low-interest (1% a month) micro-credit loan and job skills training forlivelihood improvement. The proposed amount of LSP was rather huge. This was because LSP wasdesigned to support not only the 63 families, but also all the other eligible villagers living along HW1, as
well as those to be resettled by a different section of the same road, which was at that time underrenovation through the Japanese government’s bilateral grant aid to the Cambodian government. LSP’smain purposes were to improve project-affected families’ livelihood means and to increase their cash
income by micro-finance operations and job skills training. LSP was to be financed by ADB’s Japan
Poverty Reduction Fund.
While the 63 families welcomed ADB’s intentions to help them restore their life and livelihood, they had
a number of questions and concerns over the architecture of LSP, including:
1. The communities should be given a grant to pay off all their debt, because the Cambodian
government will be funded with a grant from ADB;
2. The 1% monthly interest is still too high;
3. The four-year program implementation period is too short;
4. LSP may not benefit very poor families, e.g., families with only elderly members, or those whoneed to spend much time to complete job skills training. It is not fair to expect these families
to quickly improve their livelihood and pay back the LSP loan; and5. ADB should immediately implement solutions to improve the situations of the 63 families.
Unless ADB responds sufficiently to these shortcomings, the communities felt that LSP would not solve
all of their problems. Also, LSP’s details were not yet disclosed to them. They wanted CARM to givethem more information on LSP in Khmer. They then wanted ADB to incorporate their input into LSP
before ADB makes any important decisions, such as approving LSP. The 63 families submitted thesecomments to CARM in writing in July and December 2008.23
The 63 families’ situations were not getting better and would not significantly improve without effective
external interventions, which ADB was most responsible for, because the families’ hardships started
from ADB’s lack of sufficient supervision over the HW1 Project’s resettlement procedures. ADB needed
to work with the Cambodian government to provide the families with a grant to pay back all the debt, as
opposed to merely setting up a micro-credit to continue to tie them with new loans, so that the families
could restore their life and livelihood to the pre-project levels. Otherwise, ADB could not claim that the
HW1 Project was implemented in compliance with its Policy on Involuntary Resettlement.
LSP’s PID originally indicated that ADB’s Board of Directors would approve the LSP in October 2008.
Subsequently, the approval date was delayed until 26 January 2009.

23 Reactions from the communities/NGOs and the ADB’s response: The 63 Families’ Initial Comments on the

LSP, dated 28 June 2008 (original in Khmer). Mekong Watch’s Submission to ADB’s Southeast Asia Department,
dated 20 November 2008. ADB’s Response to Mekong Watch’s Submission, dated 14 December 2008. The 63
Families Requests on the LSP, dated 7 December 2008 (original in Khmer). ADB’s Response to the 63 Families’
Request, dated 23 December 2008.

27

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

Appendix 2: Household Survey Questionnaire
Still Struggling: A Cambodian Community’s Assessment and Response to Long-Term Negative
Effects of Involuntary Relocation
In May 2019, Ms. Sin Chhin, elected leader of Stung Slot Community, called Leakhana Kol, former
officer of the NGO Forum on Cambodia who used to work with Stung Slot Community since 2002. Ms.
Chhin explained to her about the community's delayed restoration from the relocation in the early 2000s.
While Ms. Chhin and Leakhana discussed what could be done, she brought up needs to collect goodevidence on the relocation effects based on which the community members could develop suggestions
on possible solutions.
This interview won’t take much of your time and your answer will be treated confidentially andanonymously. The survey will help your community people, the authorities and the development
organizations to learn of your feelings about relocation, income restoration here, and any problems you
may face. I would be grateful if you would take 40 minutes or 1 hour to answer these questions.
1. GENERALFirstly, may I ask some questions that provide a description profile of yourself?

1.1

Date of Interview

1.2(Use listing dd/m)
1.3

Name of Interviewer(Use allocated code number)

Place of Interview

1.4(village name, commune, district)Sex of Respondent
1=male 2= female

1= Stung Slot resettlement site
2= village in Kampong Soeung
Commune3= village not in Kampong Soeung
Commune
1.5

Race of Respondent
1= Vietnam

2= Khmer Muslim

3= Khmer Krom

1.6

Age of Respondent(Enter actual age at next birthday)

4= Khmer

28

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

2. DEMOGRAPHICS AND LIVELIHOODS

2.1

Name of area that respondent works/studies in(Enter known common name and telephone no., if s/he has)

2.2

How many people live in your household?
(Include all family members and relatives but exclude tenants)

2.3

1= 1-22= 2-44= 7-10

5= 10+ (more than 10 people)

Do you have children in your household?
1= yes2.4

2= 3≥42= 3≥43= 4≥5

Do you have any disabled people in your household?
2= no. If no, move to Q. 2.9.

How many disabled people do you have in your household?
1= ≥2

2.9

6= 10+ (more than 10 people)

How many elderly people in your household?

1= yes2.8

4= 5≥6

2= no. If no, move to Q. 2.7.

1= ≥2

2.7

3= 4≥5

Do you have elderly people in your household? (people over 65)
1= yes2.6

2= no. If no, move to Q. 2.5.

How many children do you have in your household?
1= ≥2

2.5

3= 5-72= 3≥4

How many people in your household are migrants?
(Include all family members and relatives but exclude tenants)
1= 1-22= 2-43= 5-74= 7-10

5= 10+ (more than 10 people)

29

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

2.10

Do you or any other mem9ber of your household where you live own any of the following
vehicles?
1= bicycle

2.11

2= motor-bike

3= car4= van5= tuk-tuk

6= noneWhat do you do for a living?
1= student

2= unemployed

3= housewife

4= retired

5= employed in the informal sector (unskilled daily wage labour, skilled labour, house maid, etc.)
6= self-employed in the informal sector (home-based work, waste collector, cyclo or tuk tuk
driver, small business, trade, etc.)
7= disabled, thus do not work

8= fishing

9= livestock/poultry rearing 10= agriculture (paddy cultivation and plantation crops)
11= Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) collection
12= handcraft

13= waste collector

14= government sector
15= remittance from family members (migration work abroad, migration work in city, etc.)
16= other (specify) ……………………………………………………

2.12

Is anyone of your family members migrant workers?
1= yes2.13

2= no. If no, move to Q. 2.14.

Where do they work?
1= Phnom Penh

2.14

3= abroad

Are there any natural resources around that are important for your livelihood?
1= public lake
6= forest

2.15

2= other city

2= river

3= bush4= mountain5= wetland

7= other (specify) ………………………………………

What factors facilitate making a living for your family in this settlement?
1= access to jobs

2= services

3= transport

4= other (specify) …………………………..

30

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

2.16

What is the average monthly income of your family? (including household head and all household
members) Record in KHR how much the family earns in a month (exchange rate is 4,000KHR/$).
Tick one of the following in US$ as it applies:
1= US 25 or less

2.17

2= 26-50

3= 51-100

4= 101-150

5= 151-200

6= 201-250

7= 251-300

7= 301-500

8= 501-1,000

9= 1,000 or more

What is the monthly expense of your household? Record in the table as it applies.

Item

Percent

Monthly Total

Rice
Meat, pork, fish, poultry, vegetable
Water
Fuel (for lighting and cooking)Gasoline/travelling
Electricity/power
House repairing
Health
Education
Clothes
Toiletries/hygiene/cosmetics
Furniture/TV, etc.
Communication/telephone/internet
Entertainment/ceremonies
Other

2.18

Did your family have to borrow money from somebody?
1= yes2= no. If no, move to Q. 3.

3= I don’t know. If not, move to Q. 3.

31

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

2.19

What did you spend loaning money for?
1= farming

2= education

5= repairing/building house

2.20

3= health

4= food

6= other household needs, etc.

Who do you borrow from?
1= MFI

2= private creditors

3= saving group

4= bank

5= friends/relatives 6= others (specify) ………………………………………………..

2.21

Do you have any plan to improve your livelihoods? (Explain in your own words)……………………………………………………………..….…………………………………………
…………………………..……………………………………………..………………..………………
……………………………………………………..…………………….………………………………
…………………..…………………………………………………………..…..………………………
……………………………………………..…………………………………………………………….

3. HW 1 RESETTLEMENT EXPERIENCES
In order to assist in combating poverty, we would like to ask some specific questions about yourexperiences. Please specify whether it was an actual or your view.
3.1

What did you or your family members do before the HW1 project?
1= student

2= unemployed

3= housewife

4= retired

5= employed in the informal sector (unskilled daily wage labour, skilled labour, house maid, etc.)
6= self-employed in the informal sector (home-based work, waste collector, cyclo or tuk tuk
drivers, small business, trade)
7= disabled, thus do no work

8= fishing

9= livestock/poultry rearing 10= agriculture (paddy cultivation, plantation crops)
11= Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) collection
12= handcraft

13= waste collector

14= government sector

15= remittance from family members (migration work abroad, migration work in city, etc.)
16= other (specify) …………………………………………………………………….

32

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

3.2

Did you move out from the resettlement site?
1= yes3.3

2= no. If no, move to Q. 3.7.

Why did you move out from the resettlement site?
1= I had to move closer to my work place.

2= I sold land to return my debt.

3= Creditor took my land. 4= I found the place is better than the resettlement site.
5= other (specify) ……………………………………………….
3.4

Do you still maintain your relations with the families on the resettlement site?
1= yes. If yes, continues to Q. 3.5.

2= no. If no, move to Q. 3.6.

How do you maintain your relations with the families on the resettlement site or community?
3.5
1= I join community meetings.

2= I often visit friends there.

3= I have my relatives living there.

4= I am still a member of the community.

5= other (specify) ……………………………………………………………….

3.6

What are the reasons that you do not keep contact with the families on the resettlement site
anymore?
1= Live far from the resettlement site. 2= No longer a member of the community.
3= I have been busy.

4= I don’t like to contact them.

5= I had a conflict with my ex-neighbor.
6= other (specify) …………………………………………………………...
3.7

How has your life changed/improved/gotten worse after moving out of the resettlement site?
1= improved

2= get worse

3= the same

4= I don’t know

5= other (specify) ………………………………………………………………

3.7.1

Why?
1= Have a better job/business

2= Got bigger land than in the resettlement site

3= I can grow a home garden.

4= better environment

5= I can use money from the land sale to buy a new house and rice field.
6= I become landless.

7= I live with my relatives.

8= I am still poor.

9= other (specify) ……………………………………………………………………….

33

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

3.8

Do you think the resettlement caused by the HW1 project has made you poorer or given you an
opportunity to become less poor?
1= became less poor

3.9

3= I don’t know.

Suppose there was no HW1 project and you have not been resettled, do you think you are morepoor or less poor?
1= less poor

3.9.1

2= made poorer

2= more poor

3= I don’t know.

Why?
1= I would still have had land near the main HW1.
2= I would not be in debt.

3= I would not have lost my business.

4= I would not have left my good customers.
5= My ex-house and land was bigger than the resettlement site.
6= I would not have spent money on moving.
7= other (specify)…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…
3.10

Please tell me one or two benefits you have gotten (one or two things that have become better)because of the HW1 project/resettlement.
1= I got land title/tenure security.
3= I got a better job/business.

2= I have a better house.
4= My house has no flooding any more.

5= I find it easy to commute to PP and other places.
7= Now, we have more facilities for our living.
8= other (specify)………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.11

Please tell me one or two problems you have experienced (one or two things that have becomebad) because of the HW1 project/resettlement.
.............................................................................………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………..……………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………..………………………………………

34

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

4. HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

4.1

What year did you start living in this land?

4.2

Do you own or rent the house where you reside?
1= rent2= own3= squatter
What type of house do you live in? What is the house made from (roof)?

4.3

4.4

1= <5 month. If less than 5 months
3= 1-5 years
5= 11-15 years
7= 20+ years, if more than 20 years

2= 6-12 months
4= 6-10 years
6= 16-20 years

Question to be answered by interviewer observations
1= wood
2= thatch
3= metal
4= brick
5= tile6= concrete
7= other/mixture, please specify …………………………………………………..
Please describe the land you are living on. (Tick only one)
1= plot of land with only a house (The answer is plot of land with only a house, if the interviewee andhis/her family live in a house with no or very little land around it, i.e., if there is no land for growing
anything around the house where they live).
2= plot of land with a house and home garden (The answer is plot of land with a house and homegarden, if the interviewee and his/her family live in a house with some land around, i.e., land big
enough to grow some plants or crops).
3= agricultural land (The answer is agricultural land if the interviewee and his/her family live on land
primarily used for agriculture and a small house or hut on that land to live in).
4= other (The answer is other if none of the above answers apply. Please specify the type of land andwhat it was used for) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4.5

How did you come to live and/or acquire the land you are living on?

4.6

If bought (Level 2) please state:

4.7

Did the land that you live on already have a title?

4.8

Do you feel secure in this land? Are there any fears of eviction/forced relocation?

Tick one of the following as it applies.
1= given by authority after my land lost land by HW1
2= cleared this land myself
3= heritage land from my parent/relative
4= exchanged for labour and goods/exchanged for my land in resettlement site
5= I took money from sold land in a resettlement site to buy this land. If answer 4, 5 if bought land go
to Q.4.6.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

When did you buy it? Or when did you exchange it? ……...........
At what price and from whom? ..................................................
Did you use a formal contract? ……………..……………………………..
Did you get it witnessed? If yes by whom? …………………………..
Why did you move here? .........................................................

1= yes2= no
3= under process of land title registration 4= other (specify) ……………………………………………
1= yes

2= no

3= I don’t know.

4.9

Has your family had problems with land in these 3 years?

4.10

What was your action towards the problem?

4.11

Did you obtain a solution?

1= yes2= no. If no, move to Q.5.

1= sue to court
2= seeking help from local authority
4= other (specify) …………………………………………………………………..
1= yes3= support from NGO

2= no

35

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

5.1

Do you get any support from the commune council, district, provincial governor’s office, etc.?

5.2

Does any NGO assist your community?

5.3

What is the name of the NGO? …………………………………….
What services do they provide?

1= land registration 2= administrative affairs
3= food assistance
4= medicine aid
5= helping to access job
6= helping to access agricultural market
7= other (specify) ……………………………………………………………………….
1= yes2= no. If no, move to Q.5.4.

1= awareness training
3= livelihoods restoration program
5= assisting legal of land conflict

5.4

2= development of infrastructure
4= helping process of land registration
6= other (specify) ……………………….………..

Do you think that your community organizes well?
1= yes5.5

3= I don’t know.

2= no

3= I don’t know.

Do you or your family members join a saving group?
1= Yes2= No

3= I don’t know.

5.6

What have been the challenges and success factors in organizing the saving group?

5.7

Do you or anyone in your family join community meetings regularly?

1= People don’t save.
2= Borrowers have no refunds.
3= People don’t trust saving groups.
4= no report of saving to members/poor management of saving committee
5= Amount of credit from the savings group is too small for covering anything.
6= People get jealous among members.
7= other (specify) …………………………………………….
1= yes2= no. If no, continue to Q.5.9.

5.8

What do you discuss in the meeting?

5.9

If not, why do you not join the meeting?

5.10

What are the main challenges of the people in your community? (Can tick multiples)

1= saving report
2= community challenges
4= community development project
1= I was not invited.
2= I don’t know.
4= other (specify) ……………….
1= alcoholism
5= seasonal flooding
8= debt

5.11

3= elect community committee
5= other (specify) ………………….
3= I am not a member of a saving group.

2= gambling
3= DV
4= disabilities
6= trespassing of squatters7= poverty
9= other (specify) …………………………………………………….

Have you obtained solutions to your community problems?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

36

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

6. EDUCATION

6.1

Do you or anyone in your household have children under age 18?

6.2

Do your children attend school regularly?

6.3

Why don’t your children attend school regularly?

6.4

How much do you spend on your children’s study per month?

6.5

Do any of your children drop out from school?

6.6

What is the main challenge for children in their study?

1= yes2= no. If no, continue to Q.6.8.

1= yes. If yes, move to Q.6.4.

2= no

1= No money to pay for teacher
2= School is far from home.
4= other (specify) ……………..……………………………………………………
1= <US 25. If less than
4= 101-150
1= yes2= 25-50
5= 151-200

3= Help family’s income

3= 51-100
6= 200+, if more than 200

2= no

1= do not have study materials & equipment
2= Schools don’t have facilities of education.
3= don’t have enough textbooks
4= far from school
5= no money to pay for teachers
6= Children don’t pay attention to study.
7= other (specify) …………………………………………………….

6.7

What impacts have COVID-19 had on your children’s study?

6.8

What initiatives are positive in providing support to children?

1= disrupted education
2= I spend more time to take care my children.
3= Children need someone to teach them at home.
4= Children have more free time to play and gamble.
5= I have to suspend my job/close business to take care of my children.
6= other (specify) ………..…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

37

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

7. HEALTH AND DISABILITIES

7.1

Have you ever been registered as an ID Poor Household?

7.2

Do you or anyone in your household have health problems?

7.3

Which kind of diseases?

1= yes (The answer is yes, if the interviewee is or was registered as an ID Poor Household). If the answer
is yes, input the poverty category 1 or 2.
2= no (The answer is no, if the interviewee has never been registered as an ID Poor Household).
3= I don’t know (The answer is I don’t know, if the interviewee does not know or is unsure whether s/heis or has ever been registered as an ID Poor Household).
1= yes1= common diseases
4= mental health2= no. If no, continue to Q.7.4.
2= chronic disease
3= cancer
5= other (specify) ……………………………………………….………………..

7.4

Where do you go when you get sick?

7.5

How do you go to hospital?

1= health center
2= district hospital
3= provincial hospital
4= private clinic
5= buying medicine at pharmacy
6= hospital in Phnom Penh7= hospital in Viet Nam
8= using traditional herb medicine 9= other (specify) ………………………………………………………………………
1= motorbike

2= Tuk Tuk

3= taxi

4= bus5= other (specify) ………..…..…

7.6

How do you get money to spend for health treatment?

7.7

Has any organization/health centre conducted health education in your community?

7.8

What activity regarding health education has been done in your community?

7.9

How has COVID-19 impacted your family?

1= from saving
5= generous people
7= using ID Poor
1= yes1= maternal and child care
4= hygiene and sanitation2= family
3= relative/friends
4= loan
6= government, NGO, church/pagoda
8= other (specify) ………………………………………….
2= no. If no, continues to Q7.9.
2= common diseases
5= COVID-19 protection

3= sexual STD
6= other (specify) …………………………..

1= lost job
2= more spending on food, mask and hand sanitizer
3= home quarantine/self-isolate
4= close business
5= cannot go back to work abroad
6= buy internet device for children’s education
7= more pay on the internet and utilities fee 8= other (specify) ………………………….………………

7.10

After the COVID-19 pandemic period, who will help you?

7.11

What kind of help would you get?

7.12

Do you have any idea to improve health problems and to benefit disabled people in yourcommunity? How?

1= family
2= friends
5= health center/hospital 6= CRC
1= practical COVID-19 prevention
4= medicine, mask and hand sanitizer

3= village chief/commune 4= neighbor
9= no one
10= other (specify) ………………………
2= financial
3= food
5= other (specify) ………………………………………

......................................................................................................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

38

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

8. WATSAN

8.1

Where do you get water from?

8.2

Where do you usually get water for drinking and cooking?

8.3

How do you treat water?

8.4

Is the pump well water safe?

8.5

Has any organization or expert had the water examined?

8.6

Do you plan to connect piped running water?

8.7

Why do you want to connect piped water?

8.8

Does your house have a flash toilet?

8.9

Where do you go to use the toilet?

1= community pump well
3= river2= running water
4= other (specify) ……………………………….

1= running water
3= community pump well

2= pure bottle water (4= river5= other (specify) …………………………………….

1= using filter treatment
2= directly use from pump well3= other (specify) …………………………………….
1= yes1= yes1= yes

2= no
2= no

3= I don’t know.
3= I don’t know.

2= no. If no, move to Q.8.8.

3= I don’t know.

1= I feel water from the pump well isn’t safe.
2= I have to carry water from well to my place.
3= Running water is safer and cleaner.
4= other (specify) ………………………………………..
1= yes. If yes, move to Q.8.10.
1= neighbor’s house
3= abandoned house2= no
2= spare land around village
4= using potty
5= other (specify) …………………….……

8.10 What do you do to dispose of garbage?
1= I pay for garbage collection service.
2= burn garbage
3= throw it in vacant land plot/rice field
4= bury garbage
5= other (specify) …………………………………………………………………………..

8.11 Do you have any ideas to improve the community environment in your community? How?
.....................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................……………………………………………….

39

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

9. FOOD SECURITY/SAFETY

9.1

How do you access food? Do you buy food or access it from your own production?

9.2

Do you or does anyone in your family fish in the river/lake?

1= I buy some food and some from my production.
2= I buy all the food.
3= I buy some food and some food from neighbors/relatives.
4= other (specify) ……………………………………………………………..……………………………..
1= yes.

2= no. If no, continue to Q.9.4.

9.3

Do you fish for consumption or selling?

9.4

Do you have land to grow vegetables?

9.5

Do you raise livestock, i.e., chicken, duck, pig, and cow?

9.6

Which kind of livestock have you raised? (Tick multiple answers below.)

1= for consumption only
2= for consumption and selling
3= other (specify) ………………………………………………………..……………….
1= yes1= yes2= no
2= no. If no, continue to Q.9.7.

1= chicken
2= duck
3= pig5= other (specify) ………………………………………………………...

9.7

4= cow

How often do you buy food?
1= every day

2= two/three times a week

3= once a week

9.8

Where do you buy food?

9.9

How many meal courses do your family have?

9.10

Do your family have enough money to buy food?

9.11

1= yes. If yes, move to Q.9.12.
2= somehow
3= no
4= other (specify) ………………………………………………………………
If no. (Tick multiple answers below.)
1= I borrow money from others.
2= I try to collect NTFP for consumption.
3= We eat only rice and little food.
4= other (specify) ……………………………………………………………………

9.12

Do you buy food which you believe is high-quality?

1= food street vender2= neighbor’s food product
4= other (specify) ………………………………………….
1= breakfast, lunch, dinner

1= yes

9.13

2= no

2= lunch and dinner

3= market at NL

3= other (specify) ……………………..

3= I don’t know.

Do you think food in the stores where you bought are properly stored (i.e., put in the shadow,cool pots, covered, no leak/teared cap of can/bottles, etc.)?
1= yes

2= no

3= I don’t know.

9.14

What is your concern for food safety?

9.15

How often do you change kitchen clothes?

1= contaminated food2= unhealthy food3= spoiled food4= other (specify) …………………………………………………………………………………..
1= after used it too many times
3= torn washing sponges

9.16

2= unclean, smelly
4= other (specify) ……………………………………………………
What do you think you can do to get better food security and safety? (explain in your own
words)…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………

40

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

10. SAFETY AND SECURITY
In order to assist in combating crimes, we would like to ask some specific questions about your experiences.
Please specify whether it was an actual or attempted incident.

10.1

Did you experience crimes since last January?

10.2

Since last January, have you experienced any of the following?

1= yes2= no. If no, move to Q.10.5.

1= mugging/theft
3= physical assault
5= robbery of a vehicle
7= home burglary
9= having farm products stolen

10.3

2= robbery
4=sexual abuse or harassment
6= murder
8= theft of vehicle
10= other (specify) …………………………………………
After the crime happened, whom did you turn to for help? (Allow for multiple responses)
1= family
2= friends
3= village chief
4= police
5= neighbor
6= doctor
7= lawyer
9= no one
10= other (specify) ……………………………..

10.4

What kind of help did you get?

10.5

Compared to the previous year, do you think the level of crime in your area increased,
decreased or stayed the same?

1= practical advice
4= legal

1= Increased crime level

10.6

2= financial
3= emotional
5= other (specify) …………………………………..

2= Decreased crime level

3= Stayed the same

What type of crime are you most scared of in your neighborhood?
1= house-breaking/theft
5= mugging/stabbing
8= gang-related crime

2= murder
6= car-jacking
9= robberies

3= rape
4= child abuse
7= drug related crime
10= other (specify) ………………………………….

10.7

Do you undertake any of the following measures to protect yourself from crime/violence?

10.8

How often do you see a police officer on duty in your place where you live?

10.9

What do you think are the causes of crime? (explain in your own words)

1= special security door locks
2= razor wire/broken bottles
3= armed response
4= avoid working after dark
5= high fence/wall
6= carry a weapon
7= avoid going out with valuables
8= rarely go out
9= traditional methods
10= neighborhood watch
11= avoid going out with much money
12= other (specify) …………………………………………………………………………………….
1= all the time
4= seldom

2= often
5= never3= sometimes………….…………………………………………………………………………..……………………
……………….……………………………………………………………………..……………………
…………………….………………………………………………………………..……………………
………………………….…………………………………………………………..……………………
……………………………………………………………………….……………..….…………………

41

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

Appendix 3: Pictures

PIC 1: A scene from the February site visit. The three women on the right are community researchers.

PIC 2: A woman at SSC tries to sell another woman snails and morning glory she has collected at a
nearby lake and rice field. This is one of the common livelihood means for the SSC families.

42

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

PIC 3: Many families who have moved out of SSC live along HW1’s old route. Their main livelihood
activities include growing mango trees and collecting recyclable materials for sale.

PIC 4: Scenes from the July FGD with SSC families

43Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

PIC 5: The three community researchers conducting HHS with SSC members at their home

PIC 6: (Left) the Tsubasa (Neak Loeung) Bridge across the mainstream Mekong River financed by
JICA; (Right) HW1 with heavy traffic

44

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

PIC 7: Various scenes to show rapid urbanization and commercialization along HW1 near Mekong River

45

Final draft: Please do not quote without the author’s permission. Thank you.

PIC 8: Various scenes to show current situations along HW1 around the research site. Urbanization
has not reached SSC yet. However, the land price has gone up considerably.

46