VZCZCXRO5382
RR RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNH
DE RUEHPF #0017/01 0120426
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 120426Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1539
INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PHNOM PENH 000017 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/MLS, DRL 
USAID FOR ASIA BUREAU 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM EAGR SENV KDEM ECON CB
SUBJECT:  EXPROPRIATION LAW PASSAGE REVEALS FLAWS IN THE 
PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS 
 
REF: A) 09 PHNOM PENH 654, B) 09 PHNOM PENH 962 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY.  On December 29, the National Assembly (NA) 
approved a new draft expropriation law, which has raised concerns 
with its wide definition of "public interest" projects that justify 
confiscation of private property and vague provisions on "fair and 
just" compensation.  There was limited public consultation during 
the drafting process, and human rights NGOs and land-sector donors 
missed a narrow opportunity to provide substantive input into the 
law.  During NA debate, Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) parliamentarians 
challenged specific articles in the law and questioned its timing, 
given that the majority of Cambodian land owners still lack hard 
titles.  Cambodian People's Party (CPP) lawmakers, however, 
displayed little interest in debating or changing the law, and it 
passed without amendments in a vote along party lines.  As a result, 
this process will reinforce criticisms that the legislature is 
essentially a rubber stamp for the executive.  END SUMMARY. 
 
DRAFT EXPROPRIATION LAW REACHES NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶2. (SBU) On October 9, the Council of Ministers (CoM) passed a draft 
Law on Expropriation to the NA for debate and approval.  Developed 
by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MoEF) and based on French 
expropriation statutes, the new law aims to define the principles 
and procedures for confiscation of and compensation for private land 
to make way for infrastructure construction, rehabilitation, or 
expansion projects deemed to be in the "public and national 
interest".  The MoEF plans to draft sub-decrees detailing the 
expropriation complaint procedure, the membership and structure of a 
new MoEF-led Expropriation Committee, and the process for 
compensation. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The definition of "public interest" has been a contentious 
issue in some of Phnom Penh's high-profile land disputes (Ref A). 
The law attempts to alleviate this problem by including an extensive 
list of permissible public infrastructure projects, such as roads, 
airports, power stations, and construction for national defense and 
security.  However, the last item on the list is a blanket clause 
permitting expropriation for any activity "as required by the nation 
in accordance with the determination made by the government."  NGOs 
highlighted this and the lack of clarity regarding the definition of 
"fair and just" compensation as their top concerns. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The draft law establishes an inter-ministerial committee 
led by the MoEF to implement expropriation measures.  The committee 
would: 1) notify affected property owners of the timeline for a 
particular project; 2) announce the project publicly; 3) determine 
compensation based on the property's market or replacement price; 
and 4) set a deadline for owners dissatisfied with the results to 
file complaints with a separate Complaint Resolution Committee. 
Property owners are given one month from the time they receive 
compensation to vacate expropriated property, and an eviction cannot 
be carried out unless compensation has been provided, except for 
emergency situations. 
 
WHY A NEW LAW? 
-------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) The 2001 Land Law and Cambodian Constitution each include a 
provision that mandates fair and just compensation for land owners 
in advance of expropriation measures.  SRP lawmakers have argued 
that because the Land Law addresses state seizure of private land, a 
separate expropriation law is unnecessary.  According to an official 
at the MoEF, the regulations indeed initially began as a sub-decree 
to the Land Law.  Nhean Somunin, a land law expert at the East-West 
Management Institute (EWMI), told Poloff that the MoEF had drafted 
the sub-decree with financial support from the Asian Development 
Bank (ADB) and technical support from EWMI.  The sub-decree focused 
on addressing socio-economic impacts caused by development projects 
and provided a standardized process to support an expropriation 
provision already in the Land Law. 
 
¶6. (SBU) However, human rights NGOs and some donors protested the 
lack of wider public consultation and criticized the provisions of 
the sub-decree as inadequate to protect land owners' interests.  An 
ADB consultant acknowledged that there may have been weaknesses in 
the sub-decree, but countered that its passage would have filled a 
significant hole in the legal framework necessary to address the 
impact of state development projects.  Critics argued that 
government expropriation was such a complex and important subject 
that it warranted its own law, passed by the NA, followed by a 
series of implementing sub-decrees.  The MoEF subsequently abandoned 
the sub-decree and began to craft a separate statute.  A MoEF 
official said that the RGC preferred a NA-approved law anyway, as it 
would be as a stronger legal instrument to cite when facing 
 
PHNOM PENH 00000017  002 OF 003 
 
 
criticism from NGOs and donors over evictions. 
 
¶7. (SBU) (NOTE:  Although the sub-decree's critics got what they 
wanted, they now face an expropriation law that will be tougher to 
oppose because of its independent status.  An independent 
expropriation law allows for legal activities beyond the scope of 
other laws, such as the seizure of private land without prior 
compensation in emergency situations, which the Land Law would not 
permit.  However, ambitious opponents could try to challenge the new 
law on grounds that some of its provisions contradict articles of 
the Constitution.  END NOTE.) 
 
NGOs, LEADING LAND DONORS HAVE LIMITED INPUT 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Unlike the relatively more open process for the draft 
circular on urban resettlement (Ref B), there was limited public 
consultation on the draft expropriation law.  Even representatives 
of the ADB claimed in early 2009 not to have seen the draft, despite 
having worked with the MoEF on the original expropriation sub-decree 
and a related sub-decree on resettlement.  In May 2009, the Cambodia 
Daily newspaper received an unofficial draft that was close to the 
final version of the law but could not be independently verified as 
many RGC officials were unfamiliar with the legislation.  When human 
rights NGOs received an official copy of the draft law in October, 
after it had passed the CoM, they quickly organized public 
consultation sessions on the law, in which RGC representatives chose 
not to participate. 
 
¶9. (SBU) At a December 9 civil society workshop on the draft law, 
NGOs presented an extensive list of issues and requested changes.  A 
representative of German development agency GTZ, one of the largest 
donors involved in the land sector, advised the NGOs that changes to 
the draft law at that late stage were unrealistic, and recommended 
that they focus on one or two priority issues in a submission to the 
NA.  However, the NGOs only narrowed the list down to 14 items 
before submitting it to lawmakers for review, and NA Vice President 
Ngoun Nhel quickly responded that legislators were unlikely to 
accept the majority of the proposed changes. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Donor engagement with the NA on the draft expropriation 
law was similarly limited.  In late December, the Canadian 
International Development Agency (CIDA), the other large land sector 
donor, organized a technical briefing through its Cambodian-Canadian 
Legislative Support Program (CCLSP) for the Cambodian Senate's 
Finance and Banking Committee; representatives of the World Bank and 
the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) 
conducted the briefing.  As the briefing took place the same week 
the legislation was being debated in the NA, the World Bank had 
suggested that the Senate include NA members in the session. 
However, the World Bank representative, Daniel Adler, told Poloff 
that the Committee Chair, Chea Cheth, considered the topic 
"sensitive" and did not want to discuss it with Cheam Yeap, his 
counterpart at the NA. 
 
SENATOR:  THE CPP CAUCUS IS WHERE DEBATE TAKES PLACE 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) Adler described the briefing as lively, with the group of 
five CPP and two FUNCINPEC Senators discussing the controversial 
"public interest" definition in the draft law and how the Cambodian 
law compared to international standards.  Senators also raised 
concerns about whether the law would reduce instances of land 
conflict, given the experiences of past state expropriations, as 
well as concerns over potential corruption in the implementation of 
the law.  Adler said that Chea Cheth was very clear, however, that 
the Senate would recommend no changes to the law.  (NOTE: Under 
Cambodian parliamentary procedures, the Senate does not pass laws; 
it can only recommend changes.  END NOTE.) 
 
¶12. (SBU) Chea found though that the technical briefing was 
informative, according to Adler, and he noted that similar exercises 
would be helpful in the future for lawmakers as they evaluate other 
important pieces of legislation.  The Senator recommended technical 
briefings for future laws take place at the time of the CPP caucus, 
where CPP Senators and NA Members gather to discuss pending bills. 
According to Adler, Chea indicated that the CPP caucus was the point 
where real debate took place and changes were possible, behind 
closed doors; by the time a draft law reached the floor of the NA, 
the CPP would have already finalized its parliamentary position. 
 
NA PASSES LAW UNAMENDED, CHAPTER BY CHAPTER 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) The following week on December 28, the NA opened debate on 
the draft law with SRP parliamentarians challenging specific 
articles in the law and questioning the timing of the new bill.  SRP 
MP Yim Sovann questioned how the law could be implemented, given 
 
PHNOM PENH 00000017  003 OF 003 
 
 
that the vast majority of Cambodian land owners still lacked hard 
titles.  SRP parliamentarian Mu Sochua pushed for specific language 
clarifying property owner compensation and participation in the 
expropriation process.  Others drifted into a broader debate about 
the definition of "public interest" and argued that many current 
development projects, such as economic land concessions, did little 
to benefit poor Cambodians and enhance national or public interests. 
 
 
¶14. (SBU) CPP lawmakers displayed little interest in debating or 
entertaining changes to the law.  NA Vice President Ngoun Nhel had 
told the press before the debate even began that the government 
wanted to speed up the passage of the law, so allowing changes that 
would require the draft to be sent back to the MoEF for revision 
would be "in opposition to the government's principle."  Cheam Yeap, 
Chairman of the NA's Economy, Finance, Banking, and Audits 
Commission, co-drafted the law and insisted in the December 28 
session that it was adequate in its current form to protect the 
interests of Cambodian land owners.  Midway through the second day 
of debate, MoEF Secretary of State Ouk Rabun, who was present to 
answer questions, stated simply that no changes would be made to the 
draft. 
 
¶15. (SBU) On December 29, the NA passed the final chapters for the 
draft law in a vote along party lines.  The Senate will formally 
review it next, after which the King will sign it.  Cheam Yeap 
announced that he expected the law to take effect by late January. 
 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶16. (SBU) A clear framework for expropriation is without question 
necessary as Cambodia continues to require space for its 
infrastructure development.  However, the law's open-ended 
definition of "public interest" projects may lead to more 
questionable but technically legal evictions of individuals from 
private land.  Phnom Penh municipal officials, for example, have 
used the public interest argument to justify removal of urban poor 
communities (Ref A); now they will have a legal guideline under 
which to continue.  In many countries, expropriation laws are 
purposefully vague given the variety of situations to which they 
might apply; rulings on issues such as "fair and just" compensation 
are often left to the courts.  However, in Cambodia, impartial 
implementation of the regulations by the RGC and fair interpretation 
by the judiciary are unlikely. 
 
¶17. (SBU) The journey of the law from the CoM to the NA also 
illustrated issues regarding NGO and donor engagement with the RGC, 
as well as some worrying flaws in CPP's use of majority status in 
the parliamentary process.  NGOs' inability to focus their arguments 
cost them an already limited opportunity to potentially have input 
into the law.  CIDA's last-minute Senate briefing revealed that it 
is still growing into its role as a leading land sector donor since 
the withdrawal of the World Bank (Ref B).  Even if CIDA and the NGOs 
had been more focused and proactive, however, their influence would 
likely still have been limited.  Actions of the CPP majority -- both 
in caucus and during opens sessions in the NA -- only serve to 
reinforce criticisms that the legislature is essentially a rubber 
stamp for the executive. 
 
 
 
ALLEGRA