Protecting World Heritage: Regulating Ownership and Land Use at Angkor Archaeological Park, Cambodia

Abstract

This paper contemplates whether, and in what ways, proprietary interests in land and land usage are affected by a World Heritage listing, using Angkor Archaeological Park, Cambodia, as the case study. The effect is measured through the identification and synthesis of the national legislative and local regulatory response to the implementation of the World Heritage listing. Such an analysis illustrates that the listing imposes significant restraints on land use and ownership which impact directly on the local resident communities of Angkor. A breakdown of the regulatory response also highlights the limitations inherent in the existing regulatory framework. There is a consideration of the concept of ‘ownership’ in a World Heritage site of ‘outstanding universal value’. In raising these issues, this paper highlights the challenges facing heritage managers in attempting to marry local needs with the demands of international heritage protection in the setting of a post‐conflict Southeast Asian nation.

Keywords:

• World Heritage
• Angkor
• Cambodia
• Law
• Land Use
• Ownership

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the Living with Heritage Project, a collaborative research programme between, inter alia, the University of Sydney, the École Française d’Extrême‐Orient (EFEO), APSARA (the management authority for the Angkor World Heritage site), UNESCO and Godden McKay Logan Heritage Consultants. Funding is provided by the Australian Research Council (Discovery Linkage Project LP0454989) and Industry Partners (for details see http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/angkor/lwh/).

Notes

[1] Article 4, and more specifically, Article 5(d), World Heritage Convention, which is formerly referred to as the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972 and paragraph 92 Operational Guidelines, which act to complement the Convention and are authored by UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee, for the latest version dated February 2005, available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines.

[2] UNESCO, ‘Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage’, 2004.

[3] Sullivan, ‘Local Involvement and Traditional Practices in the World Heritage System’, 49.

[4] Mumma, ‘Community‐Based Legal Systems and the Management of World Heritage Sites’, 43–4.

[5] See for example, the questionnaire for state parties to complete as part of the periodic reporting exercise especially the sections on ‘Management’ (II.4) and ‘Factors affecting the property’ (II.5), available at http://whc.unesco.org/documents/pg-287-2.pdf, 9–18, 18–21.

[6] Kimsong and Ten Kate, ‘Villagers Welcome Titles Granting Them Their Own Land’; Vachon, ‘Pressures over Property’; ABC Radio, ‘Radio Australia—News—Cambodia facing land disputes’.

[7] Some examples include, Baars, Land of Their Own; ABC Radio, ‘Radio Australia—News—Cambodia Facing Land Disputes’.

[8] Siem Reap Province, in which Angkor Archaeological Park is located, is the poorest province in Cambodia, see Save Cambodia’s Wildlife, ‘Atlas of Cambodia, National Poverty and Environmental Maps’.

[9] Some examples include the Royal Government of Cambodian, ‘Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency’, 7, and the Royal Government of Cambodia, ‘National Forum on Land Management 2004’.

[10] AusAID, ‘Australia–Cambodia Development Cooperation Strategy 2003–2006’, 5.

[11] Chandler, ‘A History of Cambodia’, 210.

[12] Ibid., 230.

[13] Sub‐Decree No.6 (Control and Utilization of Agricultural Land) cited in Russell, ‘Land Law in the Kingdom of Cambodia’, 103.

[14] Ibid., 105.

[15] Frings, ‘Cambodia after Decollectivisation (1989–1992)’, 50–54.

[16] As at the time of this review, dated 1999, see Williams, ‘Review of Current and Proposed Cambodian Land Legislation, Cambodia Land Study Project’, 2.

[17] East–West Management Institute, Land Law of Cambodia, 31.

[18] Mabbet and Chandler, The Khmers.

[19] APSARA, Internal Census.

[20] UNESCO, ‘World Heritage Committee Report of the 16th Session, Santa Fe, 1992’.

[21] Wager, ‘Environmental Planning for a World Heritage Site’, 422.

[22] Beschaouch, ‘Exceptional Measures for a Site of Exceptional Value’.

[23] UNESCO, ‘World Heritage Committee Report of the 16th Session, Santa Fe, 1992’, 38; Chau Sun, ‘Angkor Sites, Cultural World Heritage’, 148.

[24] Wager, ‘Environmental Planning for a World Heritage Site’, 423–4.

[25] A notation of the use of terms: in Cambodia, laws are stratified according to a specific hierarchy, from the Constitution as the ‘Supreme Law of the Kingdom of Cambodia’ through to the ‘Provincial Deka (“arête”): used by provincial governors within the geographical limit of their provinces’, Sok and Sarin, ‘The Legal System of Cambodia’, 37–9. In this paper a reference to law, legal frameworks and/or regulations is a reference to all the provisions which apply to the area, regardless of their place in the legislative hierarchy, unless a detailed explanation is warranted.

[26] See APSARA Authority website, http://www.autoriteapsara.org/en/apsara/about_apsara/legal_texts/decree3.html.

[27] This direction can be gleaned from a review of the documentation produced by the International Co‐ordinating Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of the Historic Site of Angkor (ICC). The ICC is an overseeing body that is jointly chaired by French and Japanese representatives. The ICC meets twice per year in meetings involving the APSARA Authority, UNESCO and international, national and local projects working in Angkor Archaeological Park. The Committee produced two reports per year which document the meetings.

[28] Ibid.; Khuon, ‘A Commitment to Community Engagement’, 115–18.

[29] UNESCO, ‘World Heritage Reports 12’, 34.

[30] A note on terminology is fruitful. This paper adopts the definition of ‘ownership’ pursuant to Article 85 of the 2001 Land Law as follows: ‘The owner of immovable property has the exclusive and extensive right to use, enjoy, and dispose of his property, except in a manner that is prohibited by law.’

[31] Royal Decree No. NS/RD/0295/12 dated 19 February 1995 on creation of the Authority for the Protection of Angkor and the Region of Siem Reap known as ‘APSARA Authority’.

[32] Article 5 reads ‘in the Siem Reap/Angkor region, the Authority for the Protection and Management of Angkor and the Region of Siem Reap, called APSARA, is responsible for the protection, the preservation and the enhancement of the national cultural heritage.’

[33] Royal Government of Cambodia, Kret NS/RKT/0199/18 dated 22 January 1999 amending some provisions of the Kret establishing the APSARA Authority.

[34] Circular of the Royal Government of Cambodia No.01/SR dated 6 May 2003.

[35] Order of the Royal Government of Cambodia No.02/BB dated 23 June 2004.

[36] Decision of the Royal Government of Cambodia No.70/SSR dated 16 September 2004.

[37] A useful definition of ‘existing user rights’ is ‘the general principle with regard to existing development which does not conform to the provisions of a scheme is that the regulatory power of the State limits the use which an owner may make of his property, but does not deprive him of ownership, so that whatever rights he may lose are not taken over’, Fogg, Australian Town Planning Law, 196.

[38] Surveys (questionnaires) conducted in October 2007 with residents of two villages in Zone 1 of the Park and conducted as part of the author’s postgraduate research.

[39] Pursuant to Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention; Cambodia accepted the Convention on 28 November 1991.

[40] ICC, Plenary Session 2005, 49, author’s emphasis.

[41] Semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews were conducted in December 2006 within villages located within the zone of the protected World Heritage Park.

[42] ICC, Plenary Session 2005.

[43] See Luco, Between a Tiger and a Crocodile. Interestingly, in fieldwork conducted by the author using semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews revealed that the informal dispute resolution system was not unanimously favoured by either residents or administrators at a local level.

[44] Sok & Sarin, The Legal System of Cambodia, 2.

[45] Article 44 says, inter alia, ‘The right to confiscate properties from any person shall be exercised only in the public interest as provided for under the law and shall require fair and just compensation in advance.’

[46] Available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/.

[47] Sullivan, ‘Local Involvement and Traditional Practices in the World Heritage System’, 51

[48] This is reinforced with findings from the author’s postgraduate research.

[49] Available at http://www.deh.gov.au/heritage/worldheritage/implications.html.

[50] See http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/854/.

[51] Moreover, the efficacy of different tenure arrangements is beyond the scope of this paper, however, the works of de Soto, The Mystery of Capital, or Baland and Platteau, Halting Degradation of Natural Resources.

[52] Luco, ‘The People of Angkor: Between Tradition and Development’, 126.

[53] UNESCO, 2004, op. cit., and see, for example, Velaszquez et al., ‘Innovative Communities’; Miura, ‘Conservation of a “Living Heritage Site”’, 3–18.