GOVERNANCE OF DECENTRALIZED COMMUNE

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN CAMBODIA: CASE STUDIES OF

COMMUNE COUNCILS IN BATTAMBANG PROVINCE

by

Young Sokphea

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Science
in Regional and Rural Development Planning

Examination Committee: Dr. Soparth Pongquan (Chairperson)

Dr. Mokbul M. Ahmad
Dr. Kyoko Kusakabe

Nationality: Cambodian
Previous Degree: Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Economics and
Rural Development
Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia

Scholarship Donor: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway

Asian Institute of Technology

School of Environment, Resources and Development
Thailand
May 2010
 Acknowledgement

I would like to express my great gratitude to my thesis advisor chairperson, Dr. Soparth
Pongquan, who was always playing very crucial role in providing advice and guiding me
since the academic coursework until my thesis research. Without her support, affection,
kindness, motivation, encouragement, constructive comments and pressure, fulfillments for
my Master degree would be impossible.

In addition, I would like to pay my sincere to my thesis committees, Dr. Kyoko Kusakabe,
and Dr. Morshed M. Ahmad, for their kind advice and constructive comments on my
thesis. Their comments and critics had improved the quality of thesis, and enhance analyst
capacity for future application.

Sincere thanks to SERD Office II staff for their support in administrative affairs during my
study at AIT. Special thanks to Mr. Vitoon Nil-Ubol, a SERD Field Laboratory Supervisor,
who always provided his assistance on statistical analysis, which strengthen quantitative
statistic analysis of my thesis.

I would like to extend my appreciation to NCCD staff, especially local administration and
reform advisors, in Battambang province for their kind assistances and coordination during
fieldwork, data collection, and key informants interview, and other relevant secondary
information. Moreover, thanks to commune chief, and commune councilors in Khnach
Romeas and Prey Khpos commune are given for their kind collaboration and assistances in
providing data and information on CDPs and local governance issues, and also to village
chiefs and villagers in the study commune for their kindness and warmest welcome and
provided information which was valuable for this study.

I am very thankful to my brothers and sisters of Cambodia AIT Student Associate (CASA)
who inspired and shared information, and provided warmest living environment at AIT as
home. Special thanks to Mr. Sin Kandarith and Mr. Keat Kunthea for their kindness
incalculable caring during my hospitalization in the period of proposal development of this
thesis. Moreover, big thanks to RRDP classmates, who always provided advice and
assistance in academic activities during the study at AIT.

More than the word of thanks I would like to express from the bottomless of my heart of
gratitude to my beloved father, Mr. Young Peak, and mother, Mrs. Rouen Eap, and sisters
and brothers, who inspired, encouraged, motivated and supported me since I was born until
this stage of my life and beyond. Without these invaluable incentives motion and spirits,
author would not be able to join AIT.

Finally yet importantly, I would like to express my appreciation feeling to those who are
not mentioned above.

ii
 Abstract

The research focuses on the applications of local good governance (LGG) in decentralized
commune development planning in Cambodia. The main objectives are to study the
institutional framework and mechanism of LGG application in CDPs; to examine the
applications of LGG in the implementation of CDPs; to gain the perception and
satisfaction of CCs members and local people on the application of LGGs in the CDPs; to
analyze facilitating and constraining factors in the application of LGG in CDPs and to
suggest recommendations to strengthen LGG performance for effective implementation of
the CDPs and provide planning and policy implications.

Royal Government of Cambodia launched its formal decentralization policy in 2002, while
communes of a few provinces of Cambodia were piloted since 1996. There were a number
of policies and development plans developed in order to support decentralized level (CCs),
and LGG was a part of these.

Two communes namely Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos communes in Battambang
province, which were experienced decentralized policy since 1996 and 2002 respectively
were purposively selected for this research. Six elements of LGG including rule of law,
participation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and
efficiency were covered in this research. Standardized questionnaires were developed for
60 CCs and committees, and 110 sampled households, checklists were used for focus
group discussion, key informants interview, observation and case studies on CDP projects.
Secondary data including laws, policies and plans, sub-decree, declaration and manuals
were collected from NCDD of MoI, MoP and development agencies. Both quantitative and
qualitative techniques were used in this research.

There were institutional and mechanisms on enforcing and supporting LGG in CDPs at
decentralized level, which defined by regulations, laws, sub-decrees, decisions, guidelines
and manuals. Nonetheless, LGG in CDPs was not adopted. Although LGG elements were
introduced to CCs, these were broad indicators. Significant findings of the research found
that commune with relative longer working experience, through understanding and
learning process, which enabled them to modify LGG in CDP, had achieved better
performance on several key elements of LGG than the other one that had relatively shorter
working experience. In comparative study,
it shows that the better performance in LGG brought the higher level of satisfaction in
CDPs by both CCs and sampled households. The performance in LGG in CDPs is
determined by various institutional, economic and social factors.

Research concluded that commune with higher achievements on the applications of LGG
in CDPs is the one that had relatively longer experience in working and accumulating
learning process in adjustments of LGG in the CDP and also capacity of the CCs on local
planning. A set of recommendations were given to strengthen the LGG in specific
development stages of CDPs as well as outlining key planning and policy implications to
support the overall implementation to make it more effective in the context of Cambodia.

iii
 Table of Contents

Chapter Title ........................................................................................................ Page

Tile Page .......................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgement .......................................................................................... ii
Abstract .......................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures .............................................................................................. viii
List of Maps ................................................................................................. viii
Abbreviations ................................................................................................. ix

1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ..................................................................... 2
1.3 Research Questions .............................................................................. 5
1.4 Research Objectives ............................................................................. 5
1.5 Rationale of the Research ..................................................................... 5
1.6 Conceptual Framework......................................................................... 7
1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Research .............................................. 11

2 Literature Review ....................................................................................... 13

2.1 Concept of Governance ...................................................................... 13
2.2 Principles of Good Governance .......................................................... 15
2.3 Actors in Governance ......................................................................... 21
2.4 Impacts of Governance in Development ............................................ 22
2.5 Concept of Decentralization ............................................................... 24
2.6 Decentralized Local Government ....................................................... 25
2.7 Decentralization and Local Governance in Asia ................................ 26
2.8 Governance Policy in Cambodia ........................................................ 29
2.9 Public Administrative Reform in Cambodia ...................................... 29
2.10 Local Governance Performance of Decentralized Local Government
in Cambodia........................................................................................ 30
2.11 Decentralized Planning and Local Development in Cambodia .......... 32

3 Research Design .......................................................................................... 36

3.1 Type of Research and Research Design ............................................. 36
3.2 Selection of the Study Area ................................................................ 36
3.3 Local Good Governance Development Measurement for CDPs........ 38
3.4 Selection of CCs Members and Sampled Households ....................... 40
3.5 Data Sources and Data Collection Methods ....................................... 42
3.6 Data Analysis and Technique ............................................................. 44

4 Profiles of Study Area, Respondents and CCs ......................................... 49

4.1 Battambang Province.......................................................................... 49
4.2 Bavel District ...................................................................................... 52
4.3 Prey Khpos Commune ........................................................................ 53
4.4 Khnach Romeas Commune ................................................................ 58
4.5 Profile of Respondents ....................................................................... 62

iv
5 Institutional Framework and Mechanism of Local Good Governance
(LGG) Application in Commune Development Planning (CDPs) .......... 70
5.1 Policies and Development Strategies to Support Local Good
Governance ......................................................................................... 70
5.2 Institutional Arrangement and Mechanisms for LGG ........................ 72
5.3 Existing Legislatives to Support LGG Applications in CDPs............ 80
5.4 Development Agencies (NGOs and Donors) ..................................... 86

6 Applications of Local Good Governance (LGG) in Commune

Development Planning (CDPs) .................................................................. 88
6.1 Khnach Romeas Commune ................................................................ 88
6.2 Analysis of LGG in CDPs of Khnach Romea Commune .................. 94
6.3 Prey Khpos Commune ........................................................................ 97
6.4 Case Studies on Infrastructure Projects in Prey Khpos Commune .. 102
6.5 Analysis of Local Good Governance in Prey Khpos Commune ...... 105
6.6 Comparative Analysis on LGGs in CDPs of Khnach Romeas and Prey
Khpos Commune .............................................................................. 108

7 Opinions on Local Good Governance (LGG) in Commune Development

Planning (CDPs) ........................................................................................ 121
7.1 Awareness of Local People on LGG in CDPs.................................. 121
7.2 Opinions of Stakeholders on Achievements of LGG Applied in CDPs .
.......................................................................................................... 124
7.3 Impacts of LGG Applications in CDPs ............................................ 132
7.4 Satisfaction on Applications of LGG in CDPs ................................. 134

8 Factors Facilitating and Constraining of LGG Application in CDPs .. 147

8.1 Factors Facilitating the Applications of LGG in CDPs .................... 147
8.2 Factors Constraining the Applications of LGG in CDPs ................. 155

9 Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations ................. 161

9.1 Summary of Findings ....................................................................... 161
9.2 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 165
9.3 Recommendations ............................................................................ 166
9.4 Recommendations for Further Research .......................................... 170

References .................................................................................................. 171

Appendices ................................................................................................ 180

v
 List of Tables

Table Title Page

2.1 Various Definitions of Good Governance ......................................................... 14

2. 2 Different Definitions of Elements of Good Governance ................................... 16
2.3 Roles of Actor in Governance ........................................................................... 21
2.4 Levels of Local Government in Asia................................................................. 25
2.5 Commune Development Planning Process Applied in Research ...................... 32
2.6 NCDD's Development Program and Resources 2009 ....................................... 35
3.2.1 Conceptual Definition and Operationalized Indicators of LGG in CDPs ......... 38
3.2.2 Sampled Housholds ........................................................................................... 42
4.2.1 Distribution of Population by Commune within Bavel District ........................ 52
4.3.1 Distribution Number of Population by Village of Prey Khpos Commune........ 53
4.3.2 Top Ten Development Priority of Prey Khpos Commune (2007-2012) ........... 57
4.4.1 Top Ten Development Priority of Khnach Romeas Commune (2007-2012) ... 61
4.5.1 Distribution of Respondents by Gender ............................................................ 62
4.5.2 Distribution of Respondents by Age ................................................................. 64
4.5.3 Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status ................................................. 64
4.5.4 Distribution of Respondents by Education Level .............................................. 65
4.5.5 Distribution of Attended Training by Commune Council Members ................. 65
4.5.6 Membership of CCs and Committees in Development Organizations ............. 66
4.5.7 Major Problems, Needs, and Solution Analysis of Khnach Romeas Commune
......................................................................................................................... 201
4.5.8 Major Problems, Needs, and Solution Analysis of Khnach Romeas Commune
......................................................................................................................... 202
5.2.1 Institutional Arrangements and Mechanisms to Support LGG ......................... 72
6.1.1 Number of Projects Supported by Development Agencies and Line
Departments ....................................................................................................... 89
6.1.2 Sources of Revenue of Khanch Romeas Commune .......................................... 90
6.1.3 Khnach Romeas Commune Projects Bided in 2007-2009 ................................ 91
6.1.4 Number of Projects Supported by Development Agencies and Line Department
........................................................................................................................... 99
6.1.5 Sources of Revenue of Prey Khpos Commune ................................................. 99
6.1.6 Khnach Romeas Commune Projects Bided in 2007-2009 .............................. 100
6.3.1 Comparative Local Governance Analysis in CDPs of Khnach Romeas and Prey
Khpos ............................................................................................................... 112
7.1.1 Awareness of Households on LGG Applications in CDPs Classified by
Commune ........................................................................................................ 122
7.2.1 Achievement of Participation Applied in CDP by Commune......................... 125
7.2.2 Achievement of Accountability Applied in CDP Perceived by Commune..... 126
7.2.3 Achievement of Transparency Applied in CDPs Perceived by CCs ............... 127
7.2.4 Achievement of Effectiveness and Efficiency Applied in CDPs by CCs ....... 127
7.4.1 Satisfaction of CCs and Committees on LGG Applied in CDPs .................... 135
7.4.2 Satisfaction on Accountability Applied in CDPs ............................................ 136
7.4.3 Satisfaction on Transparency Applied in CDPs .............................................. 136
7.4.4 Satisfaction on Effectiveness and Efficiency Applied in CDPs ...................... 138
7.4.5 Satisfaction of Sampled Households on Participation Applied in CDPs ........ 140
7.4.6 Satisfaction of Participation in CDPs by Commune and Gender .................... 141
7.4.7 Satisfaction on Transparency Applied in CDPs .............................................. 142

vi
7.4.8 Satisfaction of Sampled Households on Effectiveness and Efficiency in CDPs
......................................................................................................................... 143
7.4.9 Satisfaction on Responsiveness Applications in CDPs ................................... 144
8.1.1 Institutional Factors Facilitating the Application of LGG Applications in CDPs
......................................................................................................................... 147
8.1.2 Economic Factors Facilitating the Application of LGG in CDPs ................... 152
8.1.3 Social Factors Facilitating Applications of LGG in CDPs .............................. 153

vii
 List of Figures

Figure Title Page

2.1 Main Actor in Governance and their Relationship 22

2.2 Decentralization towards Local Good Governance and Services Delivery 27
2.3 Dimension of Citizen-Centre Local Governance 28
2.4 Local Good Governance Principles 28
2.5 Governance Reform in Cambodia 29
2.6 Public Administrative Reform and Good Governance in Cambodia 30
2.7 Commune Development Planning Cycle Applied in Research 34
3.1 Structure of Communes Councils 40
3.2 Sampling Procedures and Methods 41
3.3 Research Design 48
4.1.1 Development Vision of Battambang Province 51
4.3.1 Distribution of Working Experience of CCs and Committees in Prey Khpos 55
4.5.2 Organizational Structure of Khanh Romeas Commune 63
4.5.3 Sources of Household Income of CCs and committees 68
4.5.4 Sources of Household Income of Sampled Households 69
5.2.1 Mechanisms and Institutional Framework of LGG Support 75
8.1.1 Fund Generated from NGOs and Line Agencies by Year 150

List of Maps

Map Title Page

3.1 The Study Area of Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos Communes 37
4.1.1 Map of Battambang Province 50

viii
 Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

AFDB African Development Bank
AMARA Local NGOs in Cambodia
Ausaid Australian Agency for International Development
CAR Councils for Administrative Reform
CARERE Cambodia Resettlement and Reintegration
CAU Contract Administration Unit
CBOs Community Based Organizations
CCF Commune Councils Fund
CCs Commune Councils
CDC Councils of Development of Cambodia
CDP Commune Development Plans
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CIP Commune Investment Plan
CMDG Cambodian Millennium Development Goals
COMFREL Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
DANIDA Denish International Development Agency
DDLG Democratic Development and Local Governance
DFID Department for International Development of United Kingdom
DFT District Facilitator Team
EC European Commission
ECOSORN Economic and Social Relaunch of Northwest Provinces
GAP Governance Action Plan
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GG Good Governance
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GRET Research and Technological Exchange Group
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IDLD Innovation for Decentralization Development
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IGA Income Generation Activities
IMF International Monetary Fund
IOs International Organizations
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
KPI King Prajadhipok’s Institute
LAA Local Administration Advisor
LAAR Local Administration And Reform
LAMC Law on Administrative and Management of Commune
LGG Local Good Governance
LNGOs Local Non-governmental Organizations
M and E Monitoring and Evaluation
M&EC Monitoring and Evaluation Committee
MoI Ministry of Interior
NCDD National Committee for Sub-nation Deconcentration and Decentralization
NCSC National Committee for Support to Commune/Sangkat
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
NPAR National Public Administrative Reform

ix
NRML Natural Resources Management and Livelihood
NSSD National Strategy for Sustainable Development
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PACT PACT Cambodia
PBC Planning and Budgeting Committee
PIM Project Implement Manual
PLAU Provincial Local Administration Unit
PMESA Provincial Monitoring and Evaluation and Sector Advisor
PPP Public Private Partnership
Prakas Proclamation
PRDC Provincial Rural Development Committee
PSDD The Project to Support Democratic Development through Decentralization
and Deconcentration (PSDD)
PVOs Private\People’s Voluntary Organizations
RGC Royal Government of Cambodia
RILG Rural Investment and Local Governance
RLIP Rural Livelihood Improvement Project
RPRP Rural Poverty Reduction Project
Seila Seila Program
Seth Koma Children’s Right
TSO Technical Support Officer
UK United Kingdom
UNCDF United Nations Capital for Development Fund
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNESCAP United Nations Economics and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
UNOHRC United Nations Office for Human Right Commission
UNTAC United Nations Authority to Cambodia
USAID United State Agency for International Development
VDC Village Development Committee
VSG Village Support Group
WB World Bank

x
 Chapter 1

Introduction

This chapter consists of seven sections. The background of the study is given in the first
section, while the second section mainly focuses on the research problem. Research
questions and its objectives are discussed in the third, and the forth sections, respectively.
The fifth and sixth sections present the rationale of the research and the conceptual
framework, while the last section defines the scope and limitations of the research.

1.1 Background

Situated in Southeast Asia, Cambodia has total area of 181 035 square km with total
population of 13,388,910 in 2008 and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita was US$
358 in 2007 (UNESCAP, 2008) and real GDP growth rate was 7.0 per cent in 2008. In
2004, there was 35 per cent of total population were living under national poverty line
(UNESCAP, 2009).

The political system in deferent regimes defined deferent types of governance models in
Cambodia (Te, 2007:58). After the election, which was arranged United Nations Authority
to Cambodia (UNTAC), which is known as UN peacekeeper, held in 1993, Cambodia is
known as “The Kingdom of Cambodia” and its political system is known as multiparty
democracy constitutional monarchy (Kato et al, 2000:7). In other means the establishment
of constitution is identified as the foundation for the development of Cambodia’s
governance system (Royal Government of Cambodia, 2000).

In 2004, Royal Government of Cambodia adopted new plan called “Rectangular Strategy”.
Good governance lies at the cornerstone of this strategy. Royal Government of Cambodia
(2004:6) perceived that “Good governance is the most important pre-condition to
economic development with sustainability, equity and social justice. Good governance
requires wide participation, enhanced sharing of information, accountability,
transparency, equality, inclusiveness and the rule of law”. To achieve good governance,
separately, Royal Government of Cambodia developed the Governance Action Plan
(GAP). Among other elements of this action plan, administrative reforms, decentralization
and deconcentration are imperative elements to achieve the good governance. Under this
pillar, decentralization and local governance is a target of it and it is perceived that local
governance is as a mean to further democratize the nation and to improve service delivery
at local level (RGC, 2004:9,11).

The term of local development and local governance have been emerged in the
development context of Cambodia since 1996 when the Seila Program was initiated by
applying decentralization policy in order to achieve poverty reduction through improved
local governance and local development. Thus, the Seila Program initiated decentralized
commune development planning, financing, management system and monitoring,
evaluation and information system in Cambodia since that time (RGC, 2000:37). At the
first pilot projects were implemented in five provinces, in 1996, and gradually extended to
12 provinces by the end of 2000. It was supported by Cambodia Area Rehabilitation and
Regeneration Project (CARERE 2) (CDC, 2004). CARERE 2 was designed to support the
implementation of the Seila Program of Royal Government of Cambodia, which followed
by the CARERE 1 (Cambodia Resettlement and Reintegration) which conducted after the

1
Paris Peace Accords in 1993 (CARERE, 1996:1,3). By 2003, the Seila Program expanded
its coverage area to 24 provinces that were funded by numerous donors through co-
funding. The expansion occurred after the official decentralization and deconcentration
reform started in February 2002 and based on the commune administrative management
law and commune councils election law, then 1621 new local governments have initiated
throughout Cambodia through election since that time (COMFREL, 2007:6).

As in Seila (2000:37) decentralized planning system, it has been working to support and
develop the adoption of participatory planning institution including organization and
procedures and technical for the preparation of medium term development plan and yearly
budget investment program at commune and provincial level. The key identities of Seila
decentralized planning system are institutions of people’s participation in public decision
making and consultative mechanism between commune and provincial investment
program.

As decentralization promotes local development and local governance through

decentralized commune development planning, two guidelines for Commune Development
Planning (CDP) and Commune Investment Plan (CIP) have been endorsed by Inter-
ministerial Praks (proclamation) (Ministries of Interior and Planning) for commune
councils (decentralized local government). First Prakas along with the guideline was
released in 2001, which the commune development planning consists of 11 steps and the
second Prakas with guideline endorsed in 2007, which commune development plan has
been narrow to 5 steps, during the second mandate of commune council’s election in 2007.
Based on the second Inter-ministerial Prakas (Proclamation) (Article 25, 2007), previous
guidelines and Prakas (Proclamations) in 2001 have been annulled. The guideline and
Prakas present how local people get involve in each step of commune development
planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation (Inter-ministerial Prakas on CDP and
CIP, 2007).

By 2005 the National Committee for Support to Commune/Sangkat (NCSC) of Royal

Government of Cambodia (2005b:1-2) developed good governance for commune/sangkat
council’s hip pocket to guide commune councils to apply good governance at local level
and to enhance governance at this level. Thus, commune councils are required to apply
good governance principles. The hip pocket explains how the eight elements (participation,
rule of law, transparency, consensus oriented, equity, effectiveness and efficiency,
accountability and responsiveness) can be applied in development and administration of
commune councils’ affairs. Good governance has been integrated into decentralization
process through new local government institutional structure and commune development
planning, budgeting and implements process which has been seen at the commune level
and it built the credibility of decentralized local government (Commune Councils) by
improving accountability, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness in its service delivery
(World Bank, 20003:2). In this regard, good governance has been mainstreamed into a
commune development plan.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Decentralization has been recognized as the mean to achieve good governance (Yankson,
2007:379). As decentralization renders local governance (Wanyande, 2004:7), then the
idea of local governance has been regarded as a central part of local development strategy
(Bonfiglioli, 2003:17). In context of Cambodia, decentralization and deconcentration

2
reform started in February 2002 (Romeo, 2003:1) after almost a decade of pilot projects.
Decentralization is meant the devolution of authorities, position and responsibilities local
democracy to commune level (Seila, 2000:24). Promoting and enhancing good governance
is one of objectives of decentralization policy in Cambodia. Based on article 2 and 3
(LAMC, 2002), commune is defined as a legal entity, and a system of local governance
shall be carried out at this level. However, it has been facing several impediments in this
regard.

According to ADB (2000:71-73) there were fragmentation in local governance and

incomplete legal framework for local governance in Cambodia as decision making which
made by top officials in planning which is considered as the serious constraint in
decentralization reform. Moreover, NCSC (2005a:96) and Pellini and Ayres (2007:404)
respectively found lack of truth in participatory local governance for the participatory and
democratic decision-making is yet well understood and internalized within the committee
of commune councils and as the result of low capacity of commune councils, officials and
local people and lack of social mobilization and capital formation; and discouragement in
participatory local governance as local people accepted the decisions of their leaders
without any question. To some extent, commune councils have limitation of good
governance application because they tend to follow traditional and hierarchical decision
making although they understand the principles of good governance (NCSC, 2005a:9).
Lack of good governance has been demonstrated to have adversely affected on the
development process in developing countries (Hop, 2009:79).

Pellini and Ayres (2007:405) claimed that spaces for civil society participation are not
clearly defined in the regulations. Besides, if there is participation, the people understand
that it is just to attend only (Sedara and Ojendal, 2007:41), thus participation planning was
not so effective. Decentralization law allows several spaces for village level representation
and participation in commune development planning process; particularly as the members
of Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC). Nonetheless, the selection of the village
representatives in commune development planning process remains unclear. If there is
participation, it is inadequate as there is no incentive for those who are member of PBC. In
general, participation in commune development plan and commune investment plan (CDP
and CIP) is low as a few needs of local people are addressed (Vuthy and Craig, 2008:80).
Not only in during commune development process, Sotheary (2006:113) also asserted that
commune councils’ projects lack of participatory monitoring and evaluation. In addition,
World Bank (2004:58-9) demonstrates that the guideline and Prakas (Proclamation) on
Commune Development Planning (CDP) process does not indicate the scope for
participation in every step in the planning process of commune councils, and the meeting
of PBC is not suggested to open to neither public nor posting notice to motivate broader
participation. The Inter-Ministerial Prakas for broader public participation in the planning
process is not known by villagers, civil society organizations, generally, and or even
commune councils themselves. Thus, the inclusiveness and transparency of commune
development planning process is still matter. Not only the aspect from guideline of
planning, officials who facilitate the planning process from provincial and district lack of
experience in enhancing local people participation and community development (Charny,
1999:186). Based on these arguments the participation in commune development planning
and implementation is still problematic. Similarly, to Thailand case, Tambon
Administrative Organizations (TAOs) can be corrupted easily as the lack of local
participation (Sopchokchai, 2001:9).

3
Accountability of commune councils toward citizen via commune development planning is
weak and difficult to establish, as there are many reasons behind this including commune
councils are likely to deal with plans and funds that are not reflected in commune
investment plan (CIP) (Rohdewohld and Porter, 2006:20), thus they created multiple
accountabilities to donors, NGOs, philanthropists, and political parties. In this regard,
commune councils increased the gear to meet the demand of external factors, hence formal
commune planning process and commune councils fund allocation rendered less
significant overall accountability to the electorate (Vuthy and Craig, 2008:93). In
additional to Vuthy and Craig assertion, Ayres (2001:61) claimed that commune councils
are likely upward accountability to their respectively political party rather than downward
accountability (accountability to citizens). The weaknesses of commune councils’
accountability are seen in the system of above and below commune councils itself. The
below itself is insufficient capacity to demand for accountability from CCs by civil society
or local people, and the above itself is the support from ministries were not offered to CCs
on what they need, while the democratic decentralization reform has been operated by CCs
since 2002, the district and provincial authorities have not yet organized their formal
mandates (Sedara and Ojendal, 2007:46).

Transparency and accountability systems are inefficient in the area of public administrative
reform in Cambodia (Sokha, 2005:114). Commune council are lacking of financial
transparency as many reasons including the collected fees are not accounted, the project
costs are over estimated; especially infrastructure project. Moreover, it is seen as well that
the commune councils lack of transparency regarding the selection of contractors for
infrastructure project implementation and how much amount of budget which received and
how it has been spent was not reported to and accessed by citizens (NCSC, 2005a). Vuthy
and CRAIG (2008:79) argued that there are cases are reported that commune chiefs have
collusion with contractors regarding the chosen type of project, contractors who awarded
the contracts, and the cost of project and degree of quality control. This collusion was even
supported by political and other networking of elites at provincial level. Sotheary
(2006:113) argued that limited budget for commune development fund and the delay of
commune councils fund transfer from the central level of government and complicated
financial management at commune level derives to lack of transparency. Romeo and
Pyckerelle, (2003:iv) add more that the cost of commune councils’ project is lower than
the reference price which calculated based on average market cost and other cost incurred
by other agencies, thus the commune’s project failed to reflect the true cost of the work,
which resulted in “cut corners’ and low quality outputs. Moreover, commune chiefs are
still unclear about their powers and their responsibilities to stop payments when they found
that contractors’ performance was unsatisfactory. Hence, the endeavors of commune
councils were not transparent as mentioned in above causes. These problems are seen in
the processes of commune development planning; particularly during project cost
estimation, procurement, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation process. As the
case in Thailand, local government so called Tambon Administrative Organization (TAOs)
can be easily corrupted as the lack of transparency and participation of local people;
evidently, the relatives and friends of TAOs awarded the TAOs contracts and the conflict
of corruption was found in many places, and sometimes among the TAO members
(Sopchokchai, 2001:9)

Based on above statements, many aspects of local governance including low participation,
lack of transparency, weak accountability, and inclusiveness problems are found in the
commune development planning process and implementation. These have impacts on the

4
effectiveness of local development planning such as weak planning, planning does not
reflect to the local needs, poor accountability in planning, inefficiency cost and output of
project, not transparent in fund utilization and create collusion, inequity of the project,
quantity and low quality of the project output.

1.3 Research Questions

Based on the above issues and problems which are encountered in the commune
development planning (CDP) by members of CCs as a decentralized local government who
play the key role in executing local development, the following research questions are
formulated for this research hereunder.

• How local good governance concepts are applied in CDP performed by CC members
as decentralized local government in Cambodia?
• What are the perception of commune council and committee members, and local
people on the application of local good governance in CDPs and their satisfaction?
• What are the factors facilitating and/or constraining the practices of local good
governance in CDPs?

1.4 Research Objectives

The general objective of this research is to study the application of local good governance
in the implementation of the CDP by commune councils in Cambodia.

The specific objectives are:

• To study institutional framework and mechanism of local good governance for
application in CDP;
• To examine the applications of local good governance in the implementation of CDP;
• To gain the perception and satisfaction of commune council members and local
people on the application of local good governance in the CDP;
• To analyze facilitating and/or constraining factors in the application of local good
governance in the CDP and identify challenges and prospects; and
• To suggest recommendations to strengthen local good governance performance for
effective implementation of the CDP and provide planning and policy implications.

1.5 Rationale of the Research

Good governance has been perceived by the Royal Government of Cambodia as the pre-
condition to sustainable socio-economic development of the country (RGC, 2004:6). Good
governance provides huge benefit to either local or national level. Think-tanks and policy
makers have notion that good governance is important for economic development. They
explored that high-quality institutions have the contribution, in a long run, to increase the
per capita incomes and promote growth around the world (World Bank, 2007:1). On the
other hand, there are limited empirical studies regarding the application of local good
governance in commune development planning. Although there are existing researches
which have been conducted related to good governance and aid, capacity, and poverty
reduction, local good governance in decentralized development planning is missing.

5
Recently, by using six principles of governance of Kaufmann et al’s (1999); such as voice
and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, rule of law, control of
corruption and regulatory quality to measure the impact of aid on governance in Cambodia,
Ear (2007) found that aid has impact on only voice and accountability and political
stability; while another principles of governance were not impacted by aid.

Another finding related to participation for local governance of Penili and Ayres (2007)
which figured out the community participation in local governance in Cambodia through
village networks. They found that village networks (small groups within the commune)
took imperative role to promote local governance, as the voice of villagers are heard by
commune councils through village networks and group representatives at the commune
meeting, planning and etc,. However, it can be done unless the village networks at grass
root level received trainings from external agents related to decentralization, roles of
village networks and good governance, which are the catalysts to motivate people to
participate.

Holloway et al (2004:28), applied components of good governance of World Bank, found

around 80 per cent of respondents (include commune councils) understood what is good
governance and its important and benefits. Other than this finding, they found that more
than two-third of correspondents believe that good management in development means
more consultation in development decision making between villagers and
commune/sangkat official, and majority of respondents think that good planning in
development means planning that embodies views, decisions and voluntary participation of
the community effected by the planning, while another majority viewed that planning that
is clear and can be implemented. Thus, it means that they understand the meaning of good
governance, yet how it contributes to commune development planning.

Finding from Sotheary (2006) showed that there were many conflicts in project
prioritization due to incompatible of local people’s ideas and interest, low participation of
local people in contribution, resource mobilization is limited due to the low well being to
local people, CCs and PBCs lack of commitment as uncertainty role in the implementation
of decentralization task, low salary and local government motivation. These lead to
ineffectiveness and inefficient commune development planning and implementation

Seneh (2000) found that the capacity building provided benefit to commune development
committee (CDC) and the capacity building of Seila Program was very effective and
successful. The CDC had high level of understanding and their performance and
responsibilities in decentralized planning. Capacity building of commune development
committee was influenced by education, income and gender factor. However, researcher
found several constraints related to capacity building of commune development committee
including low incentive, inappropriate schedule of training, insufficient resource person
and level of education CDC. In this regard, when the capacity building didn’t deliver
effectively, then it affected the efficiency and effectiveness of commune development
planning.

From the above discourses on existing literatures, there were many findings related to good
governance in Cambodia from various authors, researchers and aspects, on the other hand
there were very limited literatures on local good governance in decentralized commune
development planning, especially the study related to rule of law, participation,
accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and efficiency and effectiveness in local-level

6
planning. Therefore, this research provided an insight on the applications of local good
governance in decentralized commune development planning, and analyzed facilitating and
constraining factors of local good governance application in CDP, and challenges and
prospects for future improvements.

The results from this empirical research would benefited many stakeholders; in particular,
INGOs and LNGOs, and local government (commune councils), district and provincial
councils; and in general, it would used by the government; especially its development
programs that is related to local good governance strengthening, and decentralized
commune planning implementation; and other aid agencies and finance institutions.
Ministries of Interior and Planning would use key findings of this research for improving
commune development planning, as each commune is required to evaluate the
effectiveness of commune development planning in its mandatory. Governance quality
from the aspect of commune development planning would use by both government and aid
agencies to measure the progress of development and as condition to allocate fund to the
commune. From this perception, it would contribute to the long term development of
Cambodia, as good governance lies on the heart of Royal Government of Cambodia’s
development strategy.

1.6 Conceptual Framework

The research focused on how local good governance applied in commune development
planning and its consequences, factors facilitating and constraining.

The principles of local good governance was extracted and simplified from various
sources; including UNESCAP (2004), NCSC (2005b), which developed by the Royal
Government of Cambodia as the guideline for commune councils, and King Prajadhipok’s
Institute (2005), which has been experiencing on local good governance assessment and
research in Thailand for several year. The principles which developed by these
organizations are suitable to the context of Cambodia. Six principles of local good
governance were used in this study; those were rules of law, participation, accountability,
transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency. As there are many
definitions are given to each principle, some of those, which reflect to the local good
governance context in Cambodia, were using in this research as follows.

Rule of law: Rule of law in local good governance was meant the ratification of legislation
and predominance of regular and just law and which the freedom, equity and right of all
people must be regulated and protected under the law (King Prajadhipok’s Institute,
2005:10). Under this principle, legal framework meant legal framework related to
commune development planning and implementation including law on commune
administrative and management, sub decree on commune fund, proclamations on
commune development plan, commune financial management system, project implement
manual of commune fund (NCSC, 2005b:8) were used in commune development planning
and implementation.

Participation: this meant the creation of opportunities for public participation in politics
and governance that entailed decision making in various affairs, including community
resource allocations, what would mostly likely have impacted on the lifestyle and
livelihood of the people. It was to be achieved through sharing data, giving opinions and
views, consultation, joint planning, joint implementation, as well as direct controlled by the

7
people (King Prajadhipok’s Institute, 2005:10). It consisted of joint decision making which
meant people not just only present but made decision in commune development planning,
participation in project implementation meant local people participate in providing
information related to project implement and directly participation in implementation and
contribution, and in monitoring and evaluation which meant participation in monitoring the
commune councils’ contract monitoring and progress of project implementation.

Accountability: It was related to the implementation of role, tasks in the process of

decision making and implement those decisions made and take responsibility in all of their
performances by reporting, explaining the reasons on those decisions made. Accountability
at commune level was for all stakeholders. Accountability was seen in two ways. Upward
accountability which commune councils were accountable to their leaders and donors.
Downward accountability which commune councils were accountable for the electorate
and public (NCSC, 2005b). Under this principle, commune councils accountable to local
people meant the commune councils kept reporting to citizen and evaluation on
performance planning to public and implementation meant commune councils were
responsible on the outcomes of the project implementation and their performance in CDP,
while role of PBC, and M and E means that they were accountable in their responsibilities
in CDP preparation and implementation.

Transparency: Transparency meant that decisions taken and their enforcement were done
in a manner that follows rules and regulations. It also meant that information was freely
available and directly accessible to those who would be affected by such decisions and
their enforcement. It also meant that enough information was provided and that it is
provided in easily understandable forms and media (UNESCAP, 2004). Transparency in
finance meant financial system is operated based on procurement guideline, commune
financial management system, financial auditing in each project, transparent in awarding
the contract and contract payment and liquidation; internal regulation which set by
commune councils, information dissemination meant information as easily and open to
access by public and had to be simple and accurate which easily to understand, and
resources allocation meant commune councils allocate resources for CDP implementation
in a transparency manner to every target area and group.

Responsiveness: In local good governance it was meant that the effort of commune
councils’ institution and processes seek to serve all stakeholders equally regardless
discrimination within reasonable timeframe (UNESCAP, 2004, NCSC, 2005b:23). It
consisted of three sub points; (i) time frame meant the commune development plan
implements to address the need or problem, and planning had to be conducted within the
time frame; (ii) discrimination in planning meant CDP of commune councils did not
discriminate or was equity among group of people or individuals vulnerable within the
commune; and (iii) local needs meant planning matched and addressed the needs and
problems of local people.

Efficiency and effectiveness: In local good governance it was meant the process and
institutional management system in best use of resources at their disposal with saving
manner to produce high quality and quantity of outputs and able to provide optimum
benefits and to meet real needs of the community. It also covered the sustainable use of
natural resources and the protection of the environment (UNESCAP, 2004). Under this
principle, resource (finance) utilization and optimization in related to how commune fund
was used in its plan implementation and optimized outputs of the project and matching

8
resource with local problems and needs meant the resources were used in the right
priorities and urgent needs which were considered as first priority and taken action in
commune development planning by whole community members, and optimization of
human resource in commune development planning preparation and implementation.

The conceptual framework of this research is presented in Figure 1.1.

9

Applied in the whole
process of CDPs
Effectiveness and Efficiency
• Resource utilization and
optimization
• Matching resource with
local problems and needs
10
Responsiveness
• Plans match with local
needs
• Time frame (scheduling)
• Equity and avoid
discrimination in selection
of beneficiaries/target area
Applied in stage 1, 2, 3
and 6 of CDPs
Figure1.1 Conceptual Framework of the Research
Applied in the whole
process of CDPs
Rule of Law
• Related legal framework (CDP, Applied in stage 2, 6 and
Commune Fund, Project Implement 7 of CDPs
Manual, Commune Financial
Management System). Participation
• Women participation
• In decision making
• In implement
• In Monitoring & Evaluation
Local Good Governance
in Decentralized
Commune Development
Planning Accountability
• Evaluation of planning
performance
• Accountable to electorate
Transparency (local people) (downward)
• Transparency in finance based on • Role of PBC, PC, and M
related regulations and guidelines and E
• Openly disseminated information Applied in all stages of
• Resource allocation CDPs
Applied in stage 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7 of CDPs
1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Research

Decentralized local government in this research was referred to commune or commune

councils who elected by their respective citizens. Hence, local good governance in this
research was defined as an institutional system which is a set of organization and
procedural measures, for managing local public affairs (Romeo, 2002:2) and development.

Principles of local good governance in this research were extracted and simplified from
various sources, of which are mostly extracted from the local governance framework
designed for commune councils which was developed by NCSC (2005b) of the Royal
Government of Cambodia including rule of law, participation, accountability,
transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency, yet some of these principles
were similar to UNESCAP (2004), CIDA (1997) and ADB (1995). Under each principle of
local good governance in commune development planning, there were many sub-elements,
these elements were extracted and simplified from the operational indicators of good
governance of King Prajadhipok’s Institute in 2005 and NCSC (2005b) and therefore the
research covered on the following sub operational indicators. Participation covered on the
participation in jointing decision making, implementation and monitoring and evaluation
the plan and project of commune councils. Accountability focused on the planning that
accountable to the local people, decision in planning and implementation of the plan.
Responsiveness included the planning addressed the needs of local people, responded to
needs within the time frame and avoiding discrimination in planning. Transparency
covered in financial, opened and disseminated information; information was easy and
accurate to access. Effectiveness and efficiency related to resource utilization at its
optimum and cost effective, plan addressed the right priorities covered on this research.
Rules of law focuses on existing legal framework of commune development planning,
commune project procurement, commune fund, commune fund project implement manual
and commune project monitoring and evaluation.

The decentralized commune development planning in this research was developed in a

combination between Commune Development Planning (CDP), which consisted of five
steps, and Commune Investment Planning (CIP), comprising of five steps. Both CDP and
CIP guidelines was endorsed by Inter-ministerial (Ministries of Interior and Planning)
proclamation in 2007 which were contemporary used by commune councils throughout
Cambodia. The combination of commune development plan consisted of seven stages
including plan formulation, problems and needs identification and review; identify and
select priority development project, district integration, approve on commune development
plan, project implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. However, district integration
process was partially focusing of this study. Each stage comprised of steps to be
undertaken which were explained in detail in chapter 2. The period of planning in this
research was covering from 2007 to 2009, and all projects under this study were funded by
only commune council’s fund (CCF), while other projects which funded by NGOs and
development agencies were not considered. In 2007, it was the second mandate of
commune councils, and the first time that new commune councils started to develop their
five years plan and annual implementation plan respectively.

The perception on local good governance gained based on satisfaction of commune council
members, local people and concerned government agencies (provincial and district
officers) and NGOs on various aspects of local good governance components applied in
the commune development planning process.

11
The research was undertaken at commune level, where two communes were selected;
namely, Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos commune in Bovel district, Battambang
province. The communes were purposively selected in order to make comparison of local
good governance in CDPs which they have been experiencing. Khnach Romeas commune
in Bovel district, Battambang province was the commune that had been obtaining pilot
decentralization financial support for local development and local governance from the
Royal Government of Cambodia through various previous programs of CARERE I and II,
Seila Program and NCDD since 1996, while Prey Khpos commune had just experienced
with the local development and local governance fund from Royal Government of
Cambodia’s programs through Seila Program and NCDD since 2002 after the first formal
election of commune councils started. Thus, these communes were investigated for the
comparison purpose of local good governance application in CDPs.

12
 Chapter 2

Literature Review

Eleven sections are organized in this chapter. Concept of governance, principle of good
governance and actors in governance are given in the first, the second and the third
sections respectively. The impacts of governance in development are illustrated in the
fourth sections. Literature about decentralization and local governance, the concept of
decentralization, decentralized local government, decentralization and local governance in
Asia are respectively reviewed in the fifth, sixth and seventh sections. To bring broad
concept into the reality within the study area, governance policy, public administrative
reform, local governance performance of local government and decentralized planning and
local development in Cambodia are brought respectively into review of related literatures
in the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh sections, accordingly.

2.1 Concept of Governance

Governance jargon is being popular in development literature and development discourse

although it is not the new term in development as it has emerged in development issues
since late 1980s (CIDA, 1997:3). It has been used and debated in the different contexts and
fields, including corporate governance, international governance, national governance and
local governance (UNESCAP, 2004); field of economic development and urban study,
international institution, corporate studies, new political economy, political science and
economic studies (Barilettie and Zoli, 2004:316). Thus, governance has been defined
based on the contexts that they are referring to.

According to UNESCAP (2004), governance has been defined as the process of making
decision and the process by which the decisions are implemented or not implemented.
While another definition which is given by United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
“as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a nation’s
affairs. It is the complex mechanisms, processes, relationships and institutions through
which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights and obligations
and mediate their differences. Governance embraces all of the methods-good and bad-that
societies use to distribute power and manage public resource and problems… wherein
public resources and problems are managed effectively, efficiently and in response to
critical needs of society” (UNDP, 1997:9). These are the definitions which defined by the
United Nations body.
The followings are some contributions from financial institutes.

Asian Development Bank (ADB) defines the governance as is “the manner in which power
is exercised in the management of a country’s social and economic resources for
development. Governance means the way those with power use that power.”(ADB, cited in
McCawley, 2005:2). Another meaning, World Bank (1992:3) defined the meaning of
governance based on the definition of Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
which released in 1979 and based on three distinct aspects: (i) the capacity of government
to design, formulate, and implement policies and discharge government function; (ii) the
form of political regime; and (iii) the process by which authority is exercised in the
management of a country’s economic and social resources for development. Based on
these and the dictionary, World Bank determines “the manner in which power is exercised

13
in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development” as the
definition of governance (World Bank, 1992:3).
According to the above definitions, mostly, governance has been seen as the process of
exercising for the management of a country’s affairs in terms of economic and social
resources for the development and it has also been attached another meaning of decision
making over economic and resources for development purposes.

2.1.1 Definitions of Good Governance

Since 1978, World Bank emerged the term called “good governance” due to un-
international standardized of management (Te, 2007:648). Governance embodies of good
and bad (governance) (UNDP, 1997:09) and the concept of good governance become
popular in 1990s as it has been mainstreamed in the policy of international development
agencies (Parnini, 2006:189).

“Good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and
promoting development. By good governance is meant creating well functioning and
accountable institution-political, judicial and administrative” (UN Secretary-General,
Kofi Annanm, 1998, cited in Te, 2007:648). Good governance has therefore been
identified as a cornerstone of development strategy. But what does it mean by good
governance? Many definitions are defined by many development agencies, individual
scholars and finance institutions. The table below summarizes some definitions which
defined by those.

Table 2.1: Various Definitions of Good Governance

Year Institution Definitions of Good Governance
ADB’s notion on good governance is focusing on the principles of
1995 ADB effective management. Those principles are accountability,
participation, predictability and transparency (p.04).
Good governance is the exercise of power by various tires of
1997 CIDA government including effective, honest, equitable, transparent and
accountable (p03).
Characterized as ‘transparent, participatory, accountable, effective
and equitable, promotes the rule of law, ensures that political, social
and economic priorities are based on broad consensus in society and
1997 UNDP
that the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable are heard in
decision-making over the allocation of development resources’ (p.
12)
‘Seven key governance capabilities: to operate political systems
which provide opportunities for all people, to influence government
policy and practice; to provide macroeconomic stability, to promote
the growth as essential to reduce poverty; to implement pro-poor
2001 DFID
policy; to guarantee the equitable and universal provision of
effective basic services; ensure personal safety and security; to
manage national security arrangements accountably; to develop
honest and accountable government’ (p. 9)
Can be measured along six dimensions (voice and external
Kaufman accountability; political stability and lack of violence, crime, and
2003
n terrorism; government effectiveness; lack of regulatory burden; rule
of law; control of corruption) (p. 5)
14
 Year Institution Definitions of Good Governance
Democratic governance: ‘transparency, pluralism, citizen
involvement in decision-making, representation, and accountability;
2005 USAID focusing particularly on five areas: legislative strengthening,
decentralization and democratic local governance, anti-corruption,
civil-military relations, and improving policy implementation’ (p. 1)
‘ensuring the rule of law, improving the efficiency and
2005 IMF
accountability of the public sector, and tackling corruption’ (p. 1)
Inclusiveness and accountability established in three key areas:
‘selection, accountability and replacement of authorities (voice and
World accountability; stability and lack of violence); efficiency of
(unda
Bank institutions, regulations, resource management (regulatory
ted)
framework; government effectiveness); respect for institutions, laws
and interactions among players in civil society, business, and politics
(control of corruption; rule of law) (pp. 3, 7)
Source: Adapted Grindle (2007:556-7) and from various sources.

2.2 Principles of Good Governance

Many scholars, donor and development agencies, financial institutions and think-tanks
developed different indicators and elements of good governance to measure the quality of
governance based on their purposes and notions.

These principles of good governance are defined slightly different meanings. The
following principles of good governance definition was scrutinized from the various
renowned institutes, and development entities and also from Cambodia. Therefore, local
good governance in this research was defined, as in the scope and limitation of the study in
previous chapter, as an institutional system that is a set of organization and procedural
measures, for managing local public affairs (Romeo, 2002:2) and development. Based on
Table 2.3 below, research defined six principles of good governance from these institutes
for examination of the application of these elements in commune development planning.
Based on these definitions, UNESCAP, UNDP, and KPI, and Ministry of Interior of
Cambodia definitions were used as the basis for developing sub indicators for
measurement of local good governance in commune development planning, as UNESCAP,
UNDP and KPI had defined similarly to local good governance which defined by Ministry
of Interior of Cambodia.

15
 Table 2.2: Different Definitions of Elements of Good Governance
World Bank King Prajadhipok’s
Principles ADB (1995) UNESCAP (2004), UNDP (2000) Cambodia (2005)
(2007) Institute (2005)
ADB used The extent to Rule of law means Good governance requires fair Rule of Law in the meaning of
predictability term which agents have the enactment of legal frameworks that are good governance requires fair
that is meant the confidence in and legislations and enforced impartially. It also legal framework to serve and
exercise of laws, abide by the rules predominance of requires full protection of human protect public benefits and need
regulations, and of society, and in regular and just law, rights, particularly those of to be enforced impartially.
policies to regulate particular the and that the rights, minorities. Impartial enforcement Furthermore, it also requires full
society and their quality of contract freedom and equity of laws requires an independent protection of human rights,
fair and consistent enforcement, the of all members of judiciary and an impartial and particularly those of minorities,
application. Rules- police, and the society must be incorruptible police force. and vulnerable groups. Thus, it
based systems for courts, as well as regulated and needs independent judiciary and
economic life are the likelihood of protected under the incorruptible authority forces.
Rule of law an essential crime and law (in the ordinary
16

component of the violence courts) and the

environment within regular issuance and
which economic strict enforcement of
actors’ plan and rules and covenants
take investment as agreed.
decisions. Besides
legal and regulatory
frameworks,
consistency of
public policy is also
important
It derives from the It is meant the Participation by both men and Participation in good governance
acceptance that creation of women is a key cornerstone of intents to be participated by both
Participation people are at the N/A opportunities for good governance. Participation men and women in the process of
heart of public participation could be either direct or through decision making and
development. in politics and legitimate intermediate implementing those decisions
 World Bank King Prajadhipok’s
Principles ADB (1995) UNESCAP (2004), UNDP (2000) Cambodia (2005)
(2007) Institute (2005)
Development is governance that institutions or representatives. It is made.
both for and by entails decision important to point out that
people; hence they making in various representative democracy does not
need to have access affairs, including necessarily mean that the concerns
to the institutions community and of the most vulnerable in society
that promote it. national resource would be taken into consideration
Participation also allocations, that will in decision making. Participation
relates to such most likely have needs to be informed and
issues as ownership impact on the organized. This means freedom of
and the interface lifestyle and association and expression on the
between public livelihood of the one hand and an organized civil
agencies and both people. It is to be society on the other
private individuals achieved through hand.
17

and private entities. sharing data, giving

opinions and views,
consultation, joint
planning, joint
implementation, as
well as direct
controls by the
people
Accountability is World Bank used It is meant the Accountability is a key Accountability in good
meant the voice and awareness of one’s requirement of good governance. governance means that the
imperative to make accountability rights and duties, Not only governmental implementation of role, tasks in
Accountabil public officials term which awareness of one’s institutions but also the private the process decision making and
ity answerable for defined as the accountability to sector and civil society implement those decision made
government extent to which a society, showing organizations must be accountable and take responsibility in all of
behavior and country’s citizens concern for public to the public and to their their performances by reporting,
responsive to the are able to issues and institutional stakeholders. Who is explaining the reasons on those
 World Bank King Prajadhipok’s
Principles ADB (1995) UNESCAP (2004), UNDP (2000) Cambodia (2005)
(2007) Institute (2005)
entity from which participate in enthusiasm in accountable to who varies decisions made.
they derive their selecting their solving those depending on whether decisions
authority. government, as problems as well as or actions taken are internal or
Accountability also well as freedom having respect and external to an organization or
means establishing of expression, tolerance for institution. In general an
criteria to measure freedom of difference of opinion organization or an institution is
the performance of association, and and the courage to accountable to those who will be
public officials, as free media face up to the good affected by its decisions or actions
well as oversight and disastrous
mechanisms to consequences of
ensure that the one’s action.
standards are met.
Which is referred to It is meant on Transparency means that Transparency in good governance
18

the availability of openness and decisions taken and their means that all decision making
information to the accessibility, and enforcement are done in a manner and implementation of those
public and clarity covers all categories that follows rules and regulations. decisions made must: follow the
about government of conduct and It also means that information is legal framework, information
rules, regulations actions that are the freely available and directly related to decision making and
Transparenc and decisions. opposites, or near accessible to those who will be implementation of those decision
N/A
y Thus, it both opposites, of corrupt affected by such decisions and made is openly disseminated and
complements and practices. The term their enforcement. It also means freely access specially to those
reinforces corruption has that enough information is who will be affected by such
predictability. negative implications provided and that it is provided in decisions and their enforcement,
while transparency easily understandable forms and and all information must be
connotes positive media. simple and accurate.
perceptions.
Good governance requires that In good governance, it means the
Responsiven
N/A N/A N/A institutions and process try to efforts of C/S and institutions to
ess
serve all stakeholders (reacting serve all stakeholders equally
 World Bank King Prajadhipok’s
Principles ADB (1995) UNESCAP (2004), UNDP (2000) Cambodia (2005)
(2007) Institute (2005)
quickly and efficiently) within a without discrimination within
reasonable time frame reasonable timeframe.
World Bank used KPI used value of Good governance means that Effectiveness and efficiency in
Government money term, which processes and institutions produce good governance is the process
effectiveness defined that the results that meet the needs of and institutional management
term, which system in best use of resources at
optimization of society while making the best use
defined the their disposal with saving manner
quality of public limited resources for of resources at their disposal. The to produce high quality and
services, the all by launching concept of efficiency in the quantity of outputs, and able to
quality of the civil campaigns to context of good governance also provide maximum benefits ant to
service and the convinces the people covers the sustainable use of meet real needs of the
degree of it of the value of natural resources and the community. The concept of
Effectivenes independence economy and wise protection of the environment. effective and efficiency in the
19

s and N/A from political context of good governance also

use of things, to
efficiency pressures, the covers the sustainable use of
quality of policy produce goods and natural resources and the
formulation and services that are protection of the environment
implementation, competitive in the
and the credibility world arena, and to
of the sustain and optimize
government’s natural resources
commitment to
through proper
such policies
management and use
of limited resources.

Equity and A society’s well being depends on In good governance, Equity

inclusivenes N/A N/A N/A ensuring that all its members feel means that all people or groups in
s that they have a stake in it and do community, specially minorities
 World Bank King Prajadhipok’s
Principles ADB (1995) UNESCAP (2004), UNDP (2000) Cambodia (2005)
(2007) Institute (2005)
not feel excluded from the and vulnerable groups have
mainstream of society. This opportunity to participate, raise
requires all groups, but issues and needs, involve in
particularly the most vulnerable, implementation, and get
have opportunities to improve or reasonable interests to improve
maintain their well-being. and maintain their well-being.
Furthermore, they have a stake in
it and do not feel excluded from
the mainstreaming society
There are several actors and as In good governance, it means that
many view points in a given the long term perspective and
society. Good governance requires consideration of different
mediation of the different interests interests and needs in society to
20

in society to reach a broad reach a broad consensus on best

consensus in society on what is in option and method to serve
the best interest of the whole interest of the whole community.
community and how this can be
achieved. It also requires a broad
Consensus and long-term perspective on what
N/A N/A N/A
Oriented is needed for sustainable human
development and how to achieve
the goals of such development.
This
can only result from an
understanding of the historical,
cultural and social contexts of a
given society or community
2.3 Actors in Governance

Governance has been referred to all activities that undertaken by common interests.
Common interests are made unless the consensus decision making. UNESCAP mentioned
that decision making involves formal and informal actors in governance (UNESCAP,
2004). Based on UNDP (1997:iii) governance actors are classified into three realms
include private sector, civil society and government. In contribution to governance, these
actors have different roles.

Table 2.3: Roles of Actor in Governance

Actors Roles in Governance
• Create a conducive political environment
• Decentralize administration and democratize the political system by
strengthening the financial and administrative capacities local government
Govern • Empowering people by providing equal opportunities and assertion of the
ment inclusion of social, economic and political
• Protecting environment by ensuring social harmony, stabilizing macro-
economic, generate revenue to finance public services, infrastructure, health
and safety and regulating monopolies economic activities.
• Create job and expand employment according to economic development
• Improve livelihood by providing sufficient income according to productive
employment
Private
• Provide incentive and support the state privatization enterprises, improve small
Sector
and medium sized enterprise
• Expand their operation beyond the national boundaries that government cannot
do so
• Checks and balances on the power of government and on private sector, but
also contribute to strengthen both sectors
• Coordinate political and social interaction by mobilizing a numerous actors in
society to take part in social, economic and political
• Create society
• Monitor on natural resource and environment depletion, pollution, social
exploitation, which contribute to economic growth with equity within the
society
Civil
• Mitigate adverse impact of economic fluctuation
Society
• Represent and providing a voice for poor or vulnerable groups in decision
Organiz
making and political
ation
• Strengthening and protecting religious, culture, beliefs and values
• Help to solve market failures and weakness
• Strengthening marginalized household a greater purchasing power and abolish
middlemen transaction
Source: UNDP, 1997:15-18.

The challenge of governance is to balance between government, private sector and civil
society (Romeo, 2000:263, Miller, 2004:9) within national environment and within the
global communities and the consensuses appear as the crucial point for balancing in
governance (Miller, 2004:9). Miller (2004:10) mentioned that to establish consensus
parliament centre emerged ecology of governance in order to address the consensus, which
diagramming the interrelation between government sector, private sector and civil society
and constitute active citizen. This concept has given the balance between three sectors,

21
while the unbalance between three sectors is that the civil society and private sector are
isolated from the government sector (executive, judiciary and legislation) (Miller,
2004:12). To add more arguments on the balancing and interaction between three sectors
(Martin:1998:5), Institute on Governance in Ottawa in 1997 (Institute on Governance
Ottawa, 1997) defined additional terms in each sector and developed the consensus and
balancing terms as the result of integrated response to various sectors.

Figure 2.1 below illustrates the interaction of these key actors on their governance
performance which was outlined by Miller (2004:9), Institute on Governance in Ottawa
(1997) and Parnini (2006:194) who conducted his research on civil society and good
governance in Bangladesh.

Sources: Adapted from Parnini (2006:194), Miller (2004) and Institute on Governance in
Ottawa (1997).
Figure 2.1: Main Actor in Governance and their Relationship

2.4 Impacts of Governance in Development

World Bank (1992:v) pays more attention on governance issue as it is considered as a

matter for sustainable and equitable development, and good governance has been identified
as a synonym of the development management by this institution. Enhancing quality of
governance is necessary for economic development (Sharma, 2007:29). Moreover,
development policy contemporary determined good governance as pre condition to achieve
development goal (Epstein and Gang, 2009:12). From this perception, the implications of
governance on economic, poverty and political aspects are discussed below

22
2.4.1 Economic

Economic governance is the endeavors of decision making that affect, both directly and
indirectly, economic manners of a nation and its influence on other economies. Economic
governance has influence on society issues, such as poverty, quality of life and social
equity (UNDP, 1997:10). World Bank (1992:1) mentioned that good governance is the
centre approach to foster equitable and strong development and it is needed to complement
economic policy sound. As governance involve three actors, government takes a major role
in public goods service deliver and they develop regulation for market efficiency and
correct the market when it fails. However, government needs capital to take these actions.
In turn, the government needs accountability, reliable and adequate information and
efficiency in those capital or resource management and public good service delivery.

The good governance provides huge benefit to either local or national level. Think-tanks
and policy makers identified it as an imperative for economic development. They explored
that high-quality institutions, in long run, increase the per capita incomes and promote
growth. When the governance improved by a level, income increased about three times in
long run (World Bank, 2007:1).

Meisel and Aoudia (2008:4,12) conducted their verification by using the data from World
Bank Institute that the work of Kaufmann et al., 1999 mentioning that the good governance
has significant correlation with development of a nation. Findings concluded that there is
correlation between governance and level of development; however, there is no correlation
between it and the pace of development; especially from medium to a long-term growth, as
there are changes behind the social, economic, institutional and politics.

Another notion believed that good governance facilitated the growth and enabling business
environment, which leads to economic development. Governance impacts on the business
activities through taxation, rule of policy decisions, and economic. Policy implement relies
on the performance of public institutions; especially the bureaucracy manner. However,
good accountability structure may lead to good institutional endeavor. Hence, when other
things are performed well, it renders good business environment and attracts more
investment which leads to better growth (World Bank, 2003:77).

2.4.2 Poverty

Empowerment of citizens by raising awareness to access to opportunity, social investment

and sustainable livelihoods are the attributions to poverty alleviation. Inequality and
poverty are matter of power, and it worsened poor governance which resulted from the
marginalized the poor from social, economic and political and unable to voice their voice
to government. Poverty can be broken by empowerment, social education and awareness of
citizens’ rights and responsibilities, access to justice as they can redress through
grievances. Greater access to education can eradicate poverty and inequality and empower
poor in public decision making (UNDP, 1997:77).

ADB (1999:12) stated that quality of governance is essential for poverty alleviation. Good
governance rendered participation and pro poor policies and maintains transparency and
effectiveness public fund utilization and public service delivery and formulate rule of law.
Poor governance adversely affected poor people as they affected from the efficiency and
effectiveness of service delivery mad by government. It is realized that inefficiency,

23
corruption failed to anti poverty. To cope with these issues, enhancing government
accountability to the poor is needed and action to strengthen public expenditure
management and administration must be undertaken at national level to motivate pro poor
growth and social development. At the time being, devolution the basic public service
delivery to the lowest local government should be made; although it is found that local
governments are weak in this area, they should start from the basic education and primary
health care and gradually focus on poor empowerment, participation and accountability at
local level. Not only these, to reach poverty reduction goal, involvement diversified
stakeholders is also imperative.

2.4.3 Political

Political governance has been referred by UNDP as the decision making and policy
performance of a state. The State consists of independent legislative, judicial and executive
body. Developing countries are reforming the political institution by seeking the updated
governance modalities and strengthen the capacity of political to guide social and
economic activities to achieve sustainable human development (UNDP, 1997:10). Thus,
governance and political are interlink together.

As political stability and absence of violence is a dimension of governance indicators,

which defined by Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi (2004), as “perceptions of the
likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or
violent means, including political violence and terrorism” (Kaufmann, Kraay, and
Mastruzzi, 2006:4). From this perception, Worldwide Governance Indicators used it to
evaluate the quality of governance of individual country and compare with other countries;
hence it increased the competitiveness to improve governance. The outcome of governance
of individual country has been used by donor agencies, international financial institutions
and other bilateral donor agencies to make decision on their policies formulation and
explicitly tie aid allocation. In this regards, governance influence political endeavor of
individual country; especially political stability of Algeria, Angola, Libya, Rwanda and
Sierra Leone has significant improvement during 1998-2006 as a result of governance
indication measurement (World Bank, 2007:2).

2.5 Concept of Decentralization

In 1981, Rondinelii differentiated four types of decentralization forms, that is,

deconcentration, delegation, devolution, and divestment or privatization. Deconcentration
is meant the transfer power from central government to specific lower tier of government.
Delegation is meant the transfer power to sub national government. Devolution is meant
the transfer of authorities and power to elected sub-national government entities.
Divestment is meant the transfer or delegate power to business sector (Rondinelii, 1981,
cited in Rondinelii et al, 1984:10-26, Parker, A.N, 1995:19). Besides, decentralization was
defined as the transfer of authority, responsibility, and resources—through
deconcentration, delegation, or devolution—from the center to lower levels of
administration (Cheema and Rondinelli, 2007).

Decentralization has been seen in three dimensions, that is, political, fiscal and institutional
or administrative dimensions (Parker, 1995:23). Administrative/Institutional
decentralization, which consists of deconcentration, devolution and delegation, aims to
redistribute authority, responsibility, financial resources for public service delivery to

24
different tiers of government. Political decentralization aims to provide citizens to elect
their local leaders, and those who they elected represent them and have more power in
public decision-making. Financial/fiscal decentralization; financial resources are needed to
cover the cost of public goods and other services delivery (Parker, 1995:23-35). The
financial resources can be generated from external sources, including central government
grant and borrowing from lending entities; and local revenue through local taxation, rental,
administrative fee, and other public enterprise (Sundaram, 1997:37).

However, it is claimed that there is no exact formula for decentralization, as it depends on

the context of specific country and decentralization is built upon the expected outcomes of
those countries (Smoke, 2000:19). On the other hand, decentralization has been defined the
meaning of different things according to different scholars, it means that “the transfer of
planning, decision-making, or administrative authority from the central government to its
field organizations, local administrative units, semi-autonomous and parastatal
organizations, local government or non-governmental organization”, while the most
imperative objective of decentralization is to reduce overwork and complication, enhance
efficiency and effectiveness of government’s service delivery to fulfill the needs of citizen
for the purpose of development (Rondinelli, 1981, cited in Rondinelli and Cheema,
1983:18).

Based on the meaning and forms of decentralization, decentralization seems to create other
entities of government which are accountable to national government. By this mean, lower
government, take responsibilities in lower tires governance.

2.6 Decentralized Local Government

Local government has been referred to a particular entities or institutions formulated by a

national constitutions, which is seen in Brazil, France, India, Japan, Italy, and Sweden); by
a state constitutions which applied in Australia and the United States; ordinary legislation
of the higher level of central government such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom (most
countries); by provincial or state legislation such as Canada and Pakistan; or by executive
order like China in order to deliver a range of particular services to a small area (World
Bank, 2006:1). Based on this assertion, local government is rendered when the state
applied the decentralization policy. Within the decentralization concept, it derives sub
national government which varies from one country to another based on their
decentralization and deconcentration policy. Table 4 below illustrates sub national
government tires in Asia.

Table 2.4: Levels of Local Government in Asia

Country Sub-national level of government
Two levels:
- Provincial administrative and municipalities which divided into districts
Cambodia and
Khans
- Elected commune and sangkat (urban) which divided into villages
Four levels:
- Provincial, autonomous regions and large cities
China - Prefectures and cities
- Counties
- Township
Indonesia Three levels:

25
 Country Sub-national level of government
- Provinces, special regions and capital city
- Local governments: kotamadya (cities) and kabupaten (district)
- Desa (village)
Four levels:
- Provinces
Philippines - Cities
- Municipalities
- Barangays (villages)
Four levels:
- Provinces
Thailand - District/municipalities
- Tambons (sub district)
- Villages
Three levels:
- Provinces and municipalities
Vietnam - Districts
- Communes
Source: White and Smoke, 2005:2.

2.7 Decentralization and Local Governance in Asia

2.7.1 Decentralization in Asia

Decentralization has emerged in the debate since 1970s when the development paradigm
changed from growth pole to redistribution with growth to fulfill the basic minimum needs
to the grass root. On the other hand, decentralized planning started in India since 1951s
(Sundaram, 1997:23). Before 1990s, most East Asian countries were highly centralized and
adopted decentralization later than the countries in some parts of the world. Governments
adopted decentralization process is matter as it influences other interrelated fields,
including economy, governance, and service delivery (White and Smoke, 2005:2).
Moreover, there were two factors that drove decentralization in East Asia; those include
structural factors and political factors. Structural factors; East Asia countries’ economic
growth and urbanization were the reason behind decentralization process. It was seen that
there was rapid urbanization in Philippine, Thailand, China and Indonesia, although
Cambodia and Viet Nam urbanized slower, as the increasing of population. Linking
between economic growth and demographic creates conducive decentralization reform in
East Asia. Political factors; democratization triggered the decentralization reform, such as
Philippine and Indonesia took on decentralization reform after the failure of dictatorship
power. But it was not happened in Viet Nam and China. However, grass root demands for
good government and participation derived decentralization reform (Ibid: 4).

2.7.2 Decentralized Local Governance in Asia

In last two decades, financial support on local governance and decentralization has been
turned into the international development agencies and co-operation interest (OECD,
2004:9). There are many literatures discourse about the relationship between
decentralization and local governance. It is revealed that decentralization makes possible to
foster development through local self-governance (Omiya, 2000:197), while another
scholars mentioned that decentralization eases local governance (Wanyande, 2004:7).
Moreover, Parker and Serrano, (2000:3), and Nikolov (2006:05) asserted that
decentralization has widely asserted as imperative tool and factor to constitute good local
governance and encourages development at local level. As decentralization is the process

26
of transferring authorities, responsibilities, decision making on resources, for the purpose
of services delivery to grass root people, from national government to lower government
(local government), thus local governance rendered when governance has been applied in
local government. In the period of 1990s, decentralization was a mean to open governance
to motivate public involvement, from this regards, governance emerged in the concept of
decentralization (Cheema and Rondinelli, 2007:3), that is, decentralized local governance.

Decentralization Local Good Governance

Better Service Delivery Better Governance Quality

Source: Adapted from Romeo (2000).
Figure 2.2: Decentralization towards Local Good Governance and Services Delivery

By providing enabling environment that decision making and services delivery are brought
closer to local citizen, decentralization and local governance are indentified as the
foundation of democratic governance. Process of transferring powers, responsibilities,
resources and functions from national government to local government has been
commonly identified as decentralized governance. From the view of organizational,
decentralized governance is meant as a process of reorganizing the authority to enhance the
effectiveness and overall quality of governance system, and to build the capacity of sub
national authority. Restructuring authority can be seen in terms of co-responsibility
between and among tiers of governance, central, regional and local. From the top level of
authority to local level, decentralized governance supports regulation (legal), financial and
administrative for the purpose to empower citizen and organizational aspect at local level.
Besides, UNDP defines decentralized governance as the interaction of balancing
responsibilities and authorities between national government and other tiers of
government, civil society organizations and the local entities’ ability to implement the
responsibilities that have been transferred by using participatory approach. Decentralized
governance is used to build up governance at local level for better public service delivery,
and as an instrument for promotion democratic and poverty reduction; especially, in
developing countries in Central Asia (Nikolov, 2006:3-4).
Another important aspects of decentralized governance in enhanced and efficient service
delivery are have been seen as follows: decentralized governance rendered the
participatory management of development, decentralized finance for local service delivery,
cooperation among local government, monitoring and evaluation of service delivery in
decentralized governance, human resources development and building the capacity in local
governance performance, and also building public trust (Nikolov, 2006:3).

Another term which similar to decentralized governance is local governance derives from
the concept of decentralization process, as mentioned elsewhere in this section that
decentralization creates local governance. World Bank (2006:1) defines local governance
the collective action which formulated and executed at local tier; therefore, it conserves
self-governing communities. UNDP (2004:4) argued that procedure, process and
institution are a set of local governance. These can be seen when grass root people and
collective group articulate their needs and interests and their right was exercised.
Reorganizing local governance institution needs the consensus on the following principles
to achieve citizen-centre local governance that presents in Figure 2.3 below.

27
 Responsible Governance:
local governments do it right, to
administer the financial resource
carefully. Building the trust from
citizens by reducing cost,
improve working, managing
fiscal and social risks for the
community.

Citizen-Centre
Local Governance
Accountable Governance:
Responsive Governance:
local governments are
local governments do the
accountable to the
right things (deliver the
electorate to ensure the
service based on citizen
local governments serve
preferences)
integral public interest

Source: Andrews and Shah, 2005, cited in World Bank, 2006:22

Figure 2.3: Dimension of Citizen-Centre Local Governance

2.7.3 Local Good Governance in Asia

Many literatures shared that decentralization is the pre condition to achieve good
governance, as good governance involves the sharing power between national and sub
national government (Oyugi, 2000:v). Local good governance is therefore defined as a set
of mechanisms/ procedures and a set of organizations intended to manage local public
affairs (Reomeo, 2002:2, Bongfiglioli, 2003:18). The very concept of ‘good governance’ at
local levels indicate the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of local administration and
public service delivery; the quality of local public policy and decision-making procedures,
their inclusiveness, their transparency, and their accountability; and the manner in which
power and authority are exercised at the local level (Bonfiglioli, 2003:18). This is
illustrated in Figure 2.4 below.

Exercising Power and Authority Effectiveness and Efficiency

Quality Participation
Local Good Governance
Transparency Partnership

Performance Inclusiveness Accountability

Sources: Romeo, 2002:2 and Bongfiglioli, 2003:18.

Figure 2.4: Local Good Governance Principles

Local good governance is not providing local services but also preserving liberty and
quality of residents, creating space for participation and civic dialogue, enabling
environment for local sustainable development and supporting market-led and facilitating
outcomes that improve the quality of life of residents (World Bank, 2006:02).

28
2.8 Governance Policy in Cambodia

The Royal Government of Cambodia (2004:6) perceived good governance as the main
issue for sustainable economic development, equity and social inclusion. Over the recent
years, good governance in Cambodia is enquired by many external and internal actors in
development politically and administratively; however, governance in Cambodia has not
yet been proved that is good and acceptable (Te, 2007:55). Moreover, Sokha (2005:114)
and (Pak and David, 2008:79) evaluated that governance in Cambodia is still weak and
hierarchical. To achieve the good governance, Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC)
developed Governance Action Plan (GAP) which comprises of short, medium and long-
term action plans to be formulated. The RGC identified key areas of governance action to
be reformed in the near and medium terms for further improvement (RGC, 2004:1).

As the government recognized that certain cross cutting areas are inevitable actions to
achieve merit of good governance in Cambodia. Five cross-cutting areas: (i) legal and
judicial reform through the establishment of basic rules of fairness and predictability; (ii)
public finance by providing the financial support through all activities of government
which taken place, (iii) public administrative, decentralization and deconcentration reform
as it determines the effectiveness of government and its employees in undertaking the
public program; (iv) anticorruption which is regarded as a cross-cutting area of actions that
establish the framework of behavioral rules that set standards of probity in economic,
social and political life; (v) gender equity which is regarded as the serious area to achieve
poverty eradication and social justice of government. They are summarized in Figures 2.5
below.

Governance Reform

Legal and Public Administrative Public Finance Anti-

Judicial Reform Reform Reform corruption

Legal Reform Public Administrative Customs

and Decentralization Administration
Reform

Decentralization and Tax and

Local Governance Administrative
Reform
Budget
Management
Source: RGC, 2004.
Figure 2.5: Governance Reform in Cambodia

2.9 Public Administrative Reform in Cambodia

Public administrative reform or administrative reform is lying as one of the among other
importance elements of governance reform and governance action plan of the RGC and in
its rectangular strategy. The RGC developed National Public Administrative Reform

29
(NPAR) in 1999 in other to address the issue and to continue building the capacity of civil
service and maximize the functioning of public administrative. NPAR emphasizes mainly
on civil service and public services by building and enhancing service delivery, enhancing
of administrative payment including salaries reform and employment, building the capacity
of institution and people and Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
promotion. Apart from these, decentralization and deconcentration which is known as local
democracy and critical structure of government and territorial organization, is also
acknowledged as the objective of NPAR. In 1999, Councils for Administrative Reform
(CAR) was established in order to coordinate, implement and supervise administrative
reform (Natacha, 2006:4). As public administrative reform and governance action plan are
interrelation policy of Royal Government of Cambodia (Figure 2.5), Figure 2.6 illustrates a
possible structure of public administrative reform and its enabling environment.

Source: Natacha, 2006:4.

Figure 2.6: Public Administrative Reform and Good Governance in Cambodia

2.10 Local Governance Performance of Decentralized Local Government in

Cambodia

Local governance performance can be measured based on its components which mentioned
in the section 2.7 in this chapter, some of those are brought into discussion in the context
of local government in Cambodia.

Partnership, it has been seen that positive cooperation with NGOs occurred at all tires of
government (NCSC, 2005a:32). Provincial line departments, INGOs, and LNGOs have
financed CCs’ development plans. NGOs provided capacity building on the topic related to
planning, human right, advocacy, gender awareness and domestic violence, and they

30
cooperated with CCs during planning process. In some provinces meeting conducted
among NGOs (NCSC, 2005a:82). In local development context, commune councils
partnered with other development agencies, especially NGOs and CBOs which have been
made through agreements with CCs during the district integration process. Rather than
these, CCs follows Public-Private Partnership (PPP) by outsourcing their infrastructure
projects through procurement process as specified in CCs Fund Project Implement Manual
(PIM) (NCDD, 2009b).

Accountability, it is found that CCs have been improved its accountability to the electorate
if compare with previous commune authority which controlled by one party during 1980s.
CCs fulfilled a numbers of promises and plans, although those were mostly related to
infrastructure, it improved accessibility of local people to other services. On the other
hand, accountability of provincial authorities to CCs is hindered as there is gap of planning
and implementation coordination between line department and the CCs. CCs are unable to
express their satisfaction and dissatisfaction to those provincial authorities. Consequently,
it has hindered the services accountability to local people (COMFREL, 2007:17).

Participation, citizen participation at commune level is increasing, especially numbers of

citizens to poll because they aware of and satisfy with the performance of CCs. NGO is a
factor to improve participation of local people in CCs’ affairs (COMFREL, 2007:24).
However, the participation in commune development planning is low and the effectiveness
of participation is still in question mark as the citizen just only to present and participate
(Sedara and Ojendal, 2007).

Quality, effectiveness and efficiency of services delivery by CCs, variety of public services
are delivered including voter registration, civic registration and social and local
development services, especially infrastructure (COMFREL, 2007). Allocative efficiency
and productive efficiency was used to measure the quality of service delivery by Romeo
and Luc (2003). Generally, citizens were satisfied the output of the planning resource
allocation and the anticipate advantages from commune projects (roads, irrigation and
schools) reflect the needs of those. Yet, from the allocative efficiency terms, there was
inadequate attention on maintenance and sustainability of those projects. From the
productive efficiency, the cost of commune’s project was lower than the reference prices
based on market average cots and cost incurred by other agencies. Thus, it did not reflect
the actual cost of the project, and resulted in low quality outputs.

Exercising power and authority; in the past commune authority decision was influenced by
upper government tires, recently decision making of CCs was taken by discussion and
majority vote. However, the commune chiefs have had influence over the decision-making
among the CCs. Rather than this, councilors from minority parties were not able to express
their ideas and views, and their decisions opposed the majority party (NCSC, 2005: 109,
COMFREL, 2007:18).

As governance of decentralized local government in Cambodia has been promoted since

2002, when formal decentralization reform started, there have been many positive changes
if compared to former commune authorities before 2002, as mentioned above, on the other
hand, there were some remain limitations to be improved. The improvement is being
conducted through capacity building, new regulations formulation and enforcement such as
organic law.

31
2.11 Decentralized Planning and Local Development in Cambodia
2.11.1 Decentralized Planning in Cambodia

Decentralized planning in Cambodia is seen in terms of Commune Development Plan

(CDP) and Commune Investment Plan (CIP), which rendered participatory bottom-up
planning. Based on proclamation of Inter-ministerial (Ministries of Interior and Planning)
in 2002 and CDP and CIP guidelines in 2003, the commune councils’ development plan
and investment plan consists of 11 steps which promulgated during the first mandate of
commune councils election in 2002. On the other hand, it was found that both of CDP and
CIP were complicated, time consuming and beyond the capacity of commune councils
(NCSC, 2005:34, Sotheary, 2006: iii) as these are reported by CCs. At the mean time of
second mandate of election in 2007, proclamation and provision of guidelines on CDP and
CIP have been redesigned and promulgated to address the above concerns. Based on
second proclamation of Inter-ministerial (2007), CDP consists of 5 steps and CIP consists
of 5 steps as well, which ease commune councils to develop its own CDP and CIP
respectively (see Appendix 1 and 2).

A CDP is a 5 year strategic development plan of CCs in each mandates, while the CIP is
the annual action plan of CCs. Thus, at the beginning of its mandate, each commune is
required to set a development strategic planning framework which to be achieved within 5
years. In each CDP and CIP, CCs; especially, budgeting and planning committee should
consider any issue to achieve Cambodia Millennium Development Goal (CMDG),
comprising of following (Inter-ministerial proclamation on CDP and CIP for 2007, these
are:

• Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;

• Achieve universal primary education;
• Promote gender equality and empower women;
• Reduce child mortality;
• Improve maternal health;
• Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases;
• Ensure environmental sustainability;
• Develop a global partnership for development; and
• Move towards zero victims and a country without mines.

Certain modifications between the CDP and CIP (see details in Appendix 1) have been
made to set a framework for this research, the newly developed CDP for this research
consists of seven key stages. Each planning stage consists of certain steps which are
presented in Table 2.5 and Figure 2.7 respectively.

Table 2.5: Commune Development Planning Process Applied in Research

CDP Stages
1. Plan formulation
2. Identification/Review problem
and needs
3. Identify/select priority
Steps
PBCs draft development framework and budget
2.1 PBC hold a meeting at commune level to
review local problems, needs, constraints and
solutions
2.1 PBC hold a meeting at village level where
villagers are invited to participate
3.1 Based on the results from step 2, select projects

32
 CDP Stages
development project
4. District integration
5. Approve on commune
development plan
6. Development project
implementation
7. Monitoring and Evaluation
(M&E)
Source: Modification and Compiled from Prakas (Proclamation) on Commune
Development Planning (2007).
Steps
to be implemented in the current year
3.2. Select project in priority to present at a district
integration workshop
4.1. CCs present the current year projects and
previous year outputs
4.2. Get comments from participants (NGOs, civil
society, government line department, etc).
4.3. Make temporary agreement
5.1. List the plan to be funded by commune fund
and others
5.2. Meeting to give comments among participants
(CCs, DFT, PBC, etc)
5.3. Approve CDP and dissemination the approval
result
Non- infrastructure
6.1. Identify implementation partners and make
agreement
6.2. Implementation
Infrastructure
6.1. Site study
6.2. Design and cost estimation
6.3. Procurement
6.4. Contracting
6.5. Implementation
Monitoring
7.1. Formulate M&E committee
7.2. M&E focal person assists CCs for monitoring
7.3. Site monitoring and reporting
7.4. Follow-up
Evaluation
7.5.Existing M&E committee select projects to be
evaluated
7.6. Field evaluation
7.7. Reporting and dissemination
33
 Stage 1: Plan formulation
Stage 7: Monitoring - PBC draft development
and Evaluation (M&E) framework and budget Stage 2: Identification/Review
problems and needs
Monitoring
Step 7.1: Formulate M&E committee Step 2.1: PBC hold a meeting at commune level to
Step 7.2: M&E focal person assists CCs for monitoring review problems, needs, constraints and solutions
Step 7.3: Site monitoring and reporting Step 2.2: PBC hold a meeting at village level where villagers
Step 7.4: Follow-up are invited to participate
Evaluation
Step 7.5: Existing M&E committee select projects to be evaluated
Step 7.6: Field evaluation Stage 3: Identification/Select
Step 7.7: Reporting and dissemination priority development project
Step 3.1: Selected the project to be implemented in the
Stage 6: Development project implementation current year based on results from stage 2
Step 3.2: Select project in priority to present at district
34

integration workshop
Non-infrastructure
Step 6.1: Identify implementation partners and make
agreement Stage 4: District integration
Step 6.2: Implementation
Infrastructure Step 4.1: Commune chief presents the current year projects
Step 6.1: Site study and previous year outputs
Step 6.2: Design and cost estimation Step 4.2: Get comments from participations
Step 6.3: Procurement Step 4 3: Make temporary agreement
Step 6.4: Contracting
Step 6.5: Implementation Stage 5: Approve on
commune development plan
Step 5.1: List the plan to be funded by commune fund and others
Step 5.2: Meeting to give comments among participants
Step 5.3: Approve CDP and dissemination the approval result
Source: Adapted from CDP and CIP (MoI and MoI, 2007)
Figure 2.7: Commune Development Planning Cycle Applied in Research
2.11.2 Local Development

To align with the development strategy of RGC, many local and international NGOs are
developing and implementing various projects to support decentralization and
deconcentraton reform, and enhancing local governance through local development or
local development fund, apart from nation programs of Royal Government of Cambodia.
To promote local development and general responsibilities for local administrative,
commune has its own fund, so called commune fund (CF), which disburses from central
government (Article 2, Sub decree on Commune Fund, 2002:2). The fund is used based on
commune development planning in each year.

Recently, decentralization and deconcentration reform is coordinated by the National

Committee for Sub-nation Deconcentration and Decentralization (NCDD) that is the inter-
ministerial body which consists of 10-12 Ministries/Institution. NCDD is currently
implementing many projects related to local development and enhance local governance
which funded by various aid agencies and finance institutes (co-fund). Under technical
support from the Project to Support Democratic Development through Decentralization
and Deconcentration (PSDD), NCDD is working to support local governance and local
development in 24 provinces and support for planning and implementation of the
commune/sangkat 1,621 commune/sangkat councils. NCDD is running various projects to
meet its objectives with amount of fund as follows (PSDD, 2009:18).
The NCDD development program and resources 2009 are presented in the Table 2.6
below.
Table 2.6: NCDD's Development Program and Resources 2009
Fund/Project Title Province Budget 2009 ($) %
Royal Government of Cambodia 24 26,143,902 31.53
World Bank-Rural Investment and Local Governance 23 19,500,000 23.51
World Bank- Land Allocation for Social and Economic
3 3,222,167 3.88
Development (LASED)
World Bank, Demand for Good Governance, One Window One
9 727,303 0.87
Service
International Fund for Agricultural Development-Rural Poverty
2 1,840,101 2.21
Reduction Project (IFAD-RPRP)
International Fund for Agricultural Development-Rural
3 1,226,384 1.47
Livelihood Improvement Project (IFAD-RLIP)
DANIDA/UK/NRML (Natural Resources Management and
10 7,073,000 8.53
Livelihood)
EC-UNDP-DDLG (Democratic Development and Local
10 3,458,332 4.17
Governance)
UNICEF-SK (Seth Koma) 6 3,552,933 4.28
UNCDF-IDLD (United Nation Capital for Development Fund-
2 804,000 0.97
Innovation for Decentralization Development)
CANADA 3 443,720 0.53
Others (ADB’s Commune Councils Development Project,
Tonle Sap Sustainable Livelihood Initiative, USAID/PACT
24 14,025,867 16.91
Local Administration and Reform Project, UNFPA, GRET and
Ausaid)
Subtotal 24 65,844,948
PSDD 24 17,065,000 20.58
Grand Total 82,909,948 100
Source: PSDD, 2009:18.

35
 Chapter 3

Research Design

This chapter consists of five sections. First describes the type of research and its design
while the second focuses on the selection of the study area. Section of CCs members and
households are explained in the third sections. Data collection sources and methods and
data analysis and technique are explained in the fourth and the fifth sections of this chapter
respectively.

3.1 Type of Research and Research Design

This research was an exploratory type aiming to explore the applications of local good
governance principles and its consequences in the implementation of the CDPs. This
research was conducted based on a combination of a case study and a survey design
applying both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Case studies were conducted in order to examine specific aspects of local governance from
CDPs in the two communes. These were conducted at two levels, at a commune level on
local governance in CDPs and other type of case studies were focused on the selected
development projects of CDPs included infrastructure projects in order to analysis plan
implementation, management, quality and the application of local good governance.

A survey design was applied to gather information related to the perception on local good
governance in CDPs, views on the benefits of local good governance in CDPs and
feedback of respondents on applications and improvements of local good governance for
the effectiveness of CDPs.

3.2 Selection of the Study Area

Decentralized local development planning and local governance at commune level have
been seen two phases in Cambodia. First phase has started since 1996 when local
development planning emerged at commune level which initiated by local development
fund project of the UNCDF and implemented its pilot project in Banteay Meanchey and
Battambang provinces in association with CARERE (Cambodia Rehabilitation and
Regeneration) in order to assist returnees from the border camps (CARERE, 1995 cited in
Demaine and Pongquan et al, 1997). In the later years, the project expanded to other
provinces, namely CARERE II, Partnership for Local Governance (PLG) and Seila
Program, and it financed by various donors. However, these projects did not cover all
communes in all provinces. Second phase started after 2002, based on experiences and
competencies of previous pilots project in local development planning, Royal Government
of Cambodia (RCG) started implementing its formal decentralization policy in 2002 when
commune councils within 1621 communes throughout Cambodia were elected
(COMFREL, 2007). The elected commune councils have been involving local
development by formulating local development plan and the plans have been financing by
commune fund of RGC and other donors since 2002 so far.

As mentioned in above context, two communes with longer and shorter experience in
performing commune development plans (CDPs) were selected respectively. In this
respect, it was believed that the longer experienced decentralized local government has

36
more capable to apply local good governance more effectively in the CDPs than the
commune with relatively shorter experience. Therefore, the commune was selected based
on following criteria:
• A commune that has obtained financial support pilot program on decentralization
from the government program through the commune fund or local development fund
since 1996.
• Another commune that has obtained financial support from the government program
through the commune fund or local development fund after 2002, national commune
council’s election.

Based on the above criteria, Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas communes of Bavel district,
Battambang province were purposively selected as these communes matched the first and
second criteria of this research respectively (Map 3.1).

According to Demaine and Pongquan et al (1997), Khnach Romeas commune was the only
commune that implemented local development planning and has obtained the financial
support since 1996. Prey Khpos commune has just implemented commune development
plan and obtained financial support after formal commune council’s election in 2002.

Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune consists of 10 villages and 8 villages,
respectively, of Bovel district in Battmbang province located in the northwestern part of
Cambodia, near the border of Thailand. These communes are about 50 km from the central
province of Battambang and approximately 340 km from the capital of Phnom Penh. The
majority of residents within these communes are engaging in seasonal farming and rice
cultivation, seasonal labourer and other small business with Thai people.

Source: JICA GIS Database (2003).

Map 3.1: Study Area Showing Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos Communes

37
3.3 Local Good Governance Development Measurement for CDPs

To analyze LGG in CDPs, as mentioned in conceptual framework and in the LGGs

assessment criteria in CDPs, following operationalized concept and indicators were used
for analysis of LGG in project case studies and CDPs in Chapter 6.

Table 3.2.1: Conceptual Definition and Operationalized Indicators of LGG in CDPs

Conceptualized Definitions Operationalized Indicators
Rule of Law: Ratification of • The application of related rules, regulations,
legislation and predominance of guidelines and law in CDPs.
regular and just law and which the • Practices of CDPs and implementation process are
freedom, equity and right of all based on CDP manual and guidelines consisting of:
people must be regulated and • CDP manual
protected under the law (King • Project Implement Manual (guiding on project
Prajadhipok’s Institute, 2005:10) preparation, procurement, project implementation
and project monitoring and evaluation)
• Internal regulation of CCs
Participation: The creation of • Participation of both men and women in the process
opportunities for public of decision making and implement those decisions in
participation in politics and CDPs
governance that entails decision • Participation in those stages of CDPs
making in various affairs, • Problems and needs identification
including community resource • Project implementation
allocations, what will mostly likely • Project monitoring and evaluation
have impact on the lifestyle and • Decision Making
livelihood of the people King • Participation in problems and needs identification
Prajadhipok’s Institute, 2005:10). • Identification types of project and project’s
location and beneficiaries
• Implementation:
• Contribution of labor, cash and kind (local
contribution of 10% of infrastructure projects)
• Executing of project activities
• Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E):
• Providing feedback to M&E team
• Join in M&E meetings
• Participatory M&E on project quality
• Operation and Maintenance (O&M for infrastructure
projects)
• Join in O&M meetings
• CCs exchanging idea with NGOs and among CCs
about CDPs
Accountability: It is related to the • The accountability of PBC and other involved
implementation of role, tasks in the committees in CDPs preparation and output of the
process of decision making and CDPs
implement those decisions made • CC members, PBC, Procurement Committee, M&E
and take responsibility in all of committee have performed their roles and
their performances by reporting, responsibilities mentioned in CDP manual and PIM
explaining the reasons on those • Committees involved in CDP take responsibility of
decisions made (NCSC, 2005b). their roles respectively
• CC members accountable to the project output

38
 Conceptualized Definitions
• All committees are responsible for project outputs:
Transparency: decisions taken and •
their enforcement are done in a
manner that follows rules and
regulations. It also means that •
information is freely available and
directly accessible to those who
will be affected by such decisions
and their enforcement and the
information is provided and that it •
is provided in easily
understandable forms and media
(UNESCAP, 2004). In similar
meaning, CIDA (2000) defined •
transparency as the decision-
making processes, but well-
intentioned, must be open to public
scrutiny or transparent which an
essential ingredient avoiding
corruption. One of the biggest •
barriers to development today is
lack of transparency in official
governance endeavor.
• Any complaint of corruption in CDP:
• Information about CDP opened to all:
Responsiveness: Institutions and •
processes that demonstrate their
responsiveness to the hopes and •
aspirations of not just certain social
group or elites, but public.
Responsiveness includes the extent
to which public service agencies
demonstrate receptivity to the •
views, complaints and suggestions
of citizens and service users, by
changing their own structure,
culture and service delivery
patterns. Allowing citizens to
obtain redress for their grievances
and advocate for change in policies
and processes increases
Operationalized Indicators
• CC members keep reporting about the CDP project
progress
• CC members keep reporting about the decision of
CDP activities
All information especially budgeting, expenditure,
concerning CDPs are disseminated by any means to
public and can be easily accessed.
CC members make decision on budget allocation to
local projects:
• Budget allocated to the priority project of CDPs
• Target the poor and vulnerable group including
women
Budget was fairly distributed in a commune with
clear objective criteria on their decision making:
• Geographically balance (to all villages)
• Target poorest village within the commune
CDPs have clear budgeting system that is regularly
audited and monitored by authority:
• CCs invited external financial audit from
provincial finance officer/advisor (NCDD)
• Financial report is disclosed to public
• Posting project signboards
Transparent bidding and procurement systems and
processes established and performed:
• Bidding meeting conduct in public
• Bidding documents expose to the public
• No corruption/collusion in CDP project
• Information about the CDP are accessible by
public
• Those who affect by CDPs project are informed
CDP addresses local needs and problems within time
frame, irrespective discrimination
Projects of CDP match with local problems and
needs in general and for vulnerable groups including
women:
• CDP matches local needs and problems within
time frame
Local people and various vulnerable groups satisfied
with the implementation of the projects under CDP:
• Local people satisfy CDP projects
39
 Conceptualized Definitions
participation and promotes
transparency CIDA, 2000.
Effectiveness and Efficiency: the •
process and institutional
management system in best use of
resources at their disposal with •
saving manner to produce high
quality and quantity of outputs and
able to provide optimum benefits
and to meet real needs of the
community. It also covers the
sustainable use of natural resources
and the protection of the
environment (UNESCAP, 2004).
Operationalized Indicators
Using resources in commune development plan to
maximize viable benefits for local people and their
community.
The projects under CDP have achieved their
objectives and project implementation according to
its schedule:
• Project implement at the time of needs and
problems
• CDP develop and implement within time frame

3.4 Selection of CCs Members and Sampled Households

Selection of CCs members, PBC members, M&E committee members, procurement

committee and villagers were elaborated in this section which composes of two sub
sections.

3.4.1 Selection of CCs Members

All CC members were all selected as the whole populations; Planning and Budgeting
Committees (PBCs), Monitoring and Evaluation Committee, Procurement Committee and
other committees were purposively selected. Therefore, 18 CCs including commune chief,
first and second deputy commune chief, 47 PBCs members, 11 M and E committee
members 9 procurement committee and 2 clerks were interviewed. Figure 3.1 illustrates
the commune council members were interviewed based on commune administrative
structure.
Elected Members Appointed
members
(2) Commune

Second Deputy First Deputy

Commune Chief (2) Commune Chief (2)
2 Clerks
12 Councilors (6 Khnach Romeas and 6 Prey Khpos)

47 PBC (22 Khnach 11 M and E 9 Procurement Other Committees

Romea and 25 Prey Committee Committees (7 members of
Khpos) (6 Khnach Romeas (5 Khnach Romeas women and
and 5 Prey Khpos) and 4 Prey Khpos) children)

Source: Adapted from Pellini (2007) and Mansfield, C. et al (2004)

Figure 3.1: Structure of Communes Councils

All related commune council members and commune clerks were interviewed on issues
related to local good governance applied in CDPs. PBC members were partially collected
information related to planning and budgeting, who took role as the main respondents, at

40
commune level while procurement committee and M and E committee were inquired
information related to procurement and bidding process, and outcome of infrastructure
projects, respectively.

3.4.2 Selection of Sampled Households

The six focused villages have approximately 1435 households that majority CDP projects
undertaken and concentrated during the last one to three years were selected purposively as
sampled villages. The purposive sample selection of these six villages was also due to
limited budget and time of this research. Therefore, Ta Mat, Dangko Pen and Boeung Chan
Neang villages among other 10 villages of Prey Khpos commune was purposively selected
and around 56 sampled households from these villages were randomly selected and
interviewed, and Prey Sangha, Balung Leu and Balung Meanchey villages among other 10
villages of Khach Romeas commune were purposively selected, and 54 sampled
households from these villages were randomly selected and interviewed. Thus, totally 110
sampled households will be selected for interview in this study. As gender concept has
been mainstreaming in CDP, 50 per cent of sampled households were women, and was
randomly selected in each village. Figure 3.2 illustrates the sampling procedures and
methods applied in this research.

Province
(Battambang)

District
Purposive
(Bavel)
sampling

Commune 1 Commune 2
(Prey Khpos) (Khnach Romeas)

Village 1 Village 2 Village 3 Village 1 Village 2 Village 3

Ta Mat Dangko Pen Chan Neang Prey Sangha B. Mean Chey Balung Leu
(24 sampled HHs) (24 sampled HHs) (8 sampled HHs) (30 sampled HHs) (8 sampled HHs) (16 sampled HHs)

Simple Random Total Sampled

Sampling Households 110

Figure 3.2: Sampling Procedures and Methods

The number of sampled households were calculated based on Yamene’ (1967) formula.
The sample size in each village is presented in table 3.1 below.

𝐍𝐍
𝒏𝒏 =
𝟏𝟏 + 𝐍𝐍(𝒆𝒆)𝟐𝟐

Where n = Sampled households

N = Total household of six villages (1435)
e = level of precision (0.091)

41
 Table 3.2.2: Sampled Housholds
Commune Village Total Household % Sample Size %
Prey Sangha 392 27.31 30 27.27
Khnach
Balung Leu 219 15.26 16 14.54
Romeas
Balung Meanchey 98 6.82 8 7.27
Ta Mat 303 21.11 24 21.81
Prey
Dangko Pen 311 21.67 24 21.81
Khpos
Boeung Chan Neang 112 7.80 8 7.27
Total 6 villages 1435 100 110 100

3.5 Data Sources and Data Collection Methods

The research was undertaken based on both secondary and primary data sources. Tools
used for gathering information from both sources are elaborated as below:

3.5.1 Secondary Data

The secondary data was collected from various sources which are reliable and valid
including journals, existing CDP and CIP document, commune database, commune profile,
procurement and project documents of CCs, NCDD program reports, PDRC reports,
district and provincial development plans, research papers which conducted by domestic
and international consultants, researchers, research institutes (CDRI), financial institute
(ADB, World Bank) and theses (AIT and RUA). Rather than these, decentralization and
deconcentration and local governance policy documents, laws and sub-decree related to
CCs, Prakas (Proclamation) and guidelines were also collected from NCDD and Ministry
of Interior and Planning.

A list of secondary data to be collected for this research is presented in appendix 6.

3.5.2 Primary Data

Primary data was an imperative for this research, thus it was collected from sampled
households involved in CDPs, village head, village deputy heads, and assistants as member
of PBC, CCs, commune clerks and other committees within the communes administrative,
district facilitators, district councils, NGOs, PRDC officers, and NCDD staff.

Several methods were applied in this research consisting of followings.

a) Reconnaissance Survey

A reconnaissance survey was conducted to get a sampling framework on key villages so

that a sampling design played practically and a framework and details of sampling design
was finalized to identify key informants and households including women household head
for interview. This survey explored and identified types of projects under CDPs for
investigation in a depth study of each commune.

42
b) Field Observation

Observation was conducted during the field survey, 4 infrastructure projects were observed
in depth. Monthly CCs meetings, district integration workshop, and other committee
meeting was observed on their on-going activities. The observation was applied to collect
the following data.
• Quality of infrastructure projects
• Organization of CCs meetings
• On-going activities related to participation in project implementation
• Local contribution of villagers
• Ways that the meetings are organized and discussed at village and project site
• Organization of bidding for infrastructure projects

c) Key Informants Interview

By using a checklist of questions, identified key informants below were interviewed to get
their views in local good governance practices. The government officers included 1 PRDC
Officer, 1 district council and 2 district facilitators, and 2 NCDD staff who are mostly
known as an advisor to decentralization and deconcentration, were interviewed regarding
the institutional framework and mechanism in local good governance for application in
CDP and the current applications of local good governance in CDPs, and its strengths and
limitations and policies related to local governance issue in CDPs. 2 LNGOs staff will be
asked on their involvement in local good governance applications and practices in CDPs in
terms of transparency, effectiveness and efficiency, facilitating and/or constraining factors
of local good governance and their perceptions on the current local governance applied by
CCs. Moreover, commune chief and clerk who were considered as an important key
informant were interviewed related current local good governance applications;
constraints/problems in the application in their respective commune (see Appendix 8).

d) Questionnaire Survey

A standardized questionnaire was developed for a face-to-face interview with CCs, PBCs,
M&E committee, procurement committee and other committees within the commune in
order to obtain both qualitative and quantitative information. The questionnaire was
divided into two sets (A and B) for primarily CC members and selected committees, and
for sampled households.

Set A is designed for CCs members including PBC including VDC as member, M& E
committee and procurement committee. This set consisted of information regarding profile
of respondents, respondents’ understanding of local good governance components and
applications in of local good governance in CDPs, their perception on local good
governance in CDPs in terms of degree of satisfaction, achievement and influencing,
constraining and/ or facilitating factors of local good governance’s principles applications
in CDPs, and challenges and prospects of local good governance in CDPs.

Set B is designed for sampled households. It consisted of information related respondents’

profile, involvement of local people in CDPs in terms of participation in decision making
including project selection and resource allocation, in implementation and in M & E, the
benefits in response to their problems and needs from CDPs, and the application of local
good governance in CDP of commune council members, perceptions on the applications of

43
local good governance in CDPs of CCs in terms of level of satisfaction, their feedbacks on
local good governance in CDPs and CDP performance of CCs.

Basic framework used for designing operational indicator for local good governance were
developed and modified from KPI (2005).
Both sets of questionnaires are shown in Appendix 7 which was translated from English
into Khmer language and then pre-test was conducted to 5 CC members and 5 sampled
households, and were modified.

e) Focus Group Discussion

Focus group discussion was conducted using a checklist of guiding questions. Two
different groups discussion was arranged.

Group A, at commune level, a group consisted of commune chief, and all commune
councilors was conducted in order to discuss on instructional framework and mechanism
for the application of local good governance, facilitating and constraining factors the
application of local good governance in CDP, and strengths and limitation on planning and
implementations of CDPs from the perspective of local good governance and
recommendations on local good governance for the strengthening the effectiveness and
efficiency of CDPs. It will be conducted in each study commune (see Appendix 9).

Group B, at village level, a group consisted of a village headperson, village deputy head, 4
representatives of primary beneficiaries from infrastructure projects, 2 representatives of
vulnerable groups including gender and other user groups of each commune administrative
was discussing on participation, transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and
efficiency and their feedbacks on these components in CDPs (see Appendix 10).

3.6 Data Analysis and Technique

The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) and Microsoft EXCEL will be used to
process and analyze data to be obtained from a survey questionnaire.

3.6.1 Weighted Average Index (WAI)

Based on a Likert’s five-social scales to be developed in assessing perception of CC

members and from sampled households. The measurement on the perception was
developed to assess various aspects of local good governance including:
• Degree of influential factors and achievement
• Degree of satisfaction

All of above three-social scales consist of the following:

Low Moderate High
0.33 0.66 1

Thus the following formula was applied for the degree of achievement according to Maih
(1993):
WAI = [{fL(0.33)+ fM(0.66)+ fH(1)}/N]

44
 Where: WAI = Weighted Average Index
fH = Frequency of high
fM = Frequency of moderate
fL = Frequency of low
N = Total number of observation (respondents)

Lowest Low Moderate High Highest

0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0

Thus formula is formulated based on the degree of influential of factors in local good
governance in CDPs as follow.

WAI = [{fLW(0.2) + fL(0.4)+ fM(0.6)+ fH(0.8)+ fHH(1.0)}/N]

Where: WAI = Weighted Average Index

fHH = Frequency of highest
fH = Frequency of high
fM = Frequency of moderate
fL = Frequency of low
fLW = Frequency of lowest
N = Total number of observation

The perception of local people and local government on the degree of satisfaction on local
good governance’s principles applied in CDPs was measured as below.

Strongly dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Strongly Satisfied

-2 -1 0 1 2

The following formula was applied according to Maih (1993):

WAI = [{fSDS(-2) + fDS(-1) + fNe(0)+ fS(1) + fSTS(2)}/N]

Where: WAI = Weighted Average Index

fSTS = Frequency of strongly satisfied
fS = Frequency of satisfied
fNe = Frequency of neutral
fDS = Frequency of dissatisfied
fSDS = Frequency of strongly dissatisfied
N = Total number of observation (respondents)

3.6.2 Quantitative Analysis

The following statistical applications were applied.

a) Descriptive Statistics

It was used to describe profiles of CCs, CIPs and CDPs of CCs and sampled households,
and was analyzed by using percentages, frequency, cross-tabulation, graphs, charts and
other illustrations.

45
b) T- test

It was applied to test the statistical similarities and differences of means of two communes
in terms of the perception of the CCs and villagers on the degree of satisfaction, degree of
application, understanding of local good governance applied in CDPs. The test was applied
based on the WAI values.

3.6.3 Qualitative Analysis

This was applied to analyze the performance of various aspects of local good governance
of the two selected communes, the specific commune development project in details and to
examine, explain the application of local good governance in CDPs and its consequences.

a) Case Studies

As the research was primarily focusing on qualitative data, case studies were conducted on
CCs of two selected communes and specific project of CCs was selected as case studies.
A comparison between two case studies on the CCs of the selected two communes were
conducted in order to compare the applications of local governance aspects in CDPs of the
communes which have respectively experienced with decentralization and support from
government program since 1996 and 2002 on rules of law, participation, accountability,
transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency, and facilitating and
constraining factors of application of above elements, and strength and weakness of the
application in each commune respectively.

Multiple case studies were conducted on the specific CDP projects of selected communes
on infrastructure projects and were analyzed on:
• Participation was focused on the participation in decision making, implement,
monitoring and evaluation, local people contribution in terms of cash and labour, and
operation and maintenance the projects.
• Accountability covered on roles and responsibilities of each committee within
commune, technical support officer and contractor in project implementation.
• Transparency which was covered on dissemination and sharing information about the
project to public, process of project procurement and the dissemination the result of
bidding for infrastructure project, procedures of payment to contractors and reporting
about how budget has been spent in each project.
• Responsiveness focused on the whether the project matches the local people
problems and needs and it has been implemented within the time frame, and the
project benefits to local people and community as a whole.
• Effectiveness and efficiency was covered on quality of the project, output of the
project in comparison with cost, using time efficiently in project implement and long
term thinking on natural resource use in project implement.

From the above elements of local governance analyzed in specific project studies, strengths
and limitations within those studies projects were identified. Successful and failed
infrastructure projects including culvert, village earth road, and laterite road will be
selected for case studies.

46
b) Qualitative Statement

This was applied in order to analyze the qualitative statement on the perceptions, views,
opinions of respondents (CCs, local people and key informants) and group discussion, and
to explain the applications of local good governance in CDP and how it was applied and
factors facilitating and constraining the application and relationship.

The research design framework is depicted in Figure 3.3

47
 Research Problems/Issues

Research Questions and

Objectives

Conceptual Framework

Literature Review

Research Design

Selection of the - Selection Data Collection Methods and Research

Study Area of CCs Data Sources Coordination
members Schema
and
villagers
- Key
informants Primary Data Secondary Data
- Reconnaissance - Journals
- Field - Theses
observation - NCDD reports
- Key informants - PDRC reports
interview - NGOs reports
- Questionnaire - CDC and CIP
survey documents
- Focus group - Research papers
discussion - CCs project documents
- Decentralization and
Deconcentration policy
- Internet source

Data Entry and Processing

Findings, Interpretations and Analysis

Applications Consequenc Perception of CCs and Factors

of LGG in es of LGG Local People on LGG in Explaining
CDP in CDP CDP LGG in CDP

Conclusions and Recommendation to Strengthen Local Governance in CDP

Figure 3.3: Research Design

48
 Chapter 4
Profiles of Study Area, Respondents and CCs

Profile of study area, respondents including CCs and other committees, and sampled
households are described in this chapter. The first section summarizes general information
at provincial level of the study area, while the second and third sections provide
information about socio-economic condition, development strategy of district, and
development needs, goals at district, and CDPs process, respectively. The profile of
respondents is described in the last sections.

4.1 Battambang Province

4.1.1 General Setting

Situated in northwestern part of Cambodia, Battambang province lies at 103 degrees of

east longitude and 13 degrees of north latitude (Map 4.1.1) (JICA, 2006) and connects to
Thailand and Pailin municipality to the northeast, Pursat province to the west and Banteay
Meanchey province to the north, and Tonle Sap Great Lake. It can be reached through
national road No. 5 from Phnom Penh Capital (291 Km) and No. 6 from Siam Reap
province (150 km).

Battambang province occupies 11,929.05 sq km (around 6.58 per cent) of Cambodia area.
Its administrative management is divided in to 14 districts, which is comprised of 96
communes and 741 villages. With reference to National Census in 2008, it has total
population of 1,025,174 inhabitants, and 210,853 as in households of which majority of
these household are settled in rural area (174,749 households) while 36,104 households are
in urban area. It is the fourth largest inhabitation (7.6 per cent) after Kandal (9.5 per cent),
Phnom Penh capital (9.9 per cent) and Kampong Cham province (12 per cent) of a total
population in Cambodia (MoP, 2008).

4.1.2 Socio-economic Aspects

As it is well known as Rice Bowl of Cambodia, rice cultivation plays as a major economic
activity. After consumption, seeds reserving, animal feeding and losing during harvesting,
approximately 300,000 tons of rice were sold. Besides, there were cash crops planted every
year on 98,342 hectares, of which corn (420 square km), red corn (400 square km), cassava
(180 square km), sweet potatoes (2.42 square km), and several of other cash crops
including chilly, orange and green bean. Moreover, there were also 501.78 square km
occupied by groundnuts, soybean, juts, sugarcane that are categorized as industrial crops
(DoP, 2008).

As it lies along the Great Lake of Tone Sap and the watershed area, fishing is also a major
income source of families who are living along the Sangke river and Tonle Sap lake.
Practically, greater than 7,000 tons were commercially caught and of which 990 tons were
caught by households in the rice field and cannel. In addition to their major economic
activities for income generation, livestock and husbandry raising were supplementary
occupation.

49
50

Source: DATA extracted from JICA, 2006.

Map 4.1.1: Map of Battambang Province
Cultivation accounted of over half (56.9 per cent) of total income of household, while less
than one third accounted from Charmcar (orchard), fishing accounted of 2.0 per cent,
livestock accounted of 0.5 per cent, enterprise or small business constituted 0.3 per cent,
other services accounted of 6.8 per cent, and other unidentified occupation accounted 12.4
per cent of household income. In relation to occupation, there were 31,871 males
unemployed, and 15, 5578 individual females unemployed in 2008 (DoP, 2008b).

There were 124 kindergarten schools, of which 21 were private kindergartens, and 103
kindergartens owned by government which provided basic education to pupil below 6
years old. There were 615 primary schools, secondary school 91, 24 highs schools that
provide general education to above 6 years old children, and other 8 private schools
providing other training related to English, Khmer and skills training. An average distance
for students access to primary school is about 0.79 km, 4.74 km to secondary school, and
12.35 km to high school (DoP, 2008), therefore, higher the education level, the distance
increased. Not only the basic education, there are four universities, one of these is owned
by government.

All 69 health centers are administered by 4 referral hospitals of 5 operational districts.

Higher density of health centers (10 health centers in each) in Sangke, Thmar Koul, and
Mong Russei districts dominated other districts as populous of inhabitant’s settlement.
Rattanak Mondol, Koas Krala, and Sampov Lun district have the least number of health
centre, 2 for each district, as these districts located in the remote area, and less population
in comparison to other districts as health center was allocated on the basis of population
(DoP, 2008a).

4.1.3 Development Vision of Battambang Province

As the Law on Administrative Management of the Capital, Provinces, Municipalities,

Districts and Khans (2008) adopted, provincial and district, council shall have its own
territory and jurisdiction, which is defined by the royal decree and shall have its own
development plan. The vision rested on 5 important components as depicted in Figure 4.1.1
below.

Source: Battambang Province, 2009.

Figure 4.1.1: Development Vision of Battambang Province
51
4.1.4 Development Strategic Plan

In order to achieve its above development vision, regional planning committee, based on
their study of the whole province, defined strategic development plan of Battambang lying
on 6 arrays at provincial level as followings (Battambang Province, 2009):

 Develop sustainable watershed management

 Irrigation system and agricultural development
 Transport system development
 Tourism development
 Industries and energy development
 Urbanization and the function of the urban centers

4.2 Bavel District

4.2.1 General Setting

Situated in the northwestern rural area of Battambang province, it is about 50 km far from
provincial centre and connects to the other districts next to the border of Thailand. There
are 6 communes under its jurisdiction which Bavel commune is the centre. The district has
administrative boundary with Sampov Lun district to the North-west, Phnom Prek district
to the West, Kamrieng and Ratanak Mondul district to the South-West, Thmar Koul
district to the East, Bannon district to the South-east, and with Banteay Meanchey province
to the North.

4.2.2 Socio-economic Aspects

As shown in Table 4.2.1, Bavel district had a total population of 100,029 inhabitants, of
which 50,655 were females and 49,374 were males, which equivalence to 21,033
households. Among 6 communes, Bavel commune was the highest population constituted
of 26.75 per cent, as it is a central settlement of the district, and followed by Kdol Ta Haen
commune which accounted for 20.79 per cent of total population. Remarkable, population
in Prey Khpos commune deployed 11.64 per cent which is the least populated, as this
commune is situated in the remote area and has poor accessibility to and from the central
settlement.

Table 4.2.1: Distribution of Population by Commune within Bavel District

Households Males Females Total Population
Commune
F % F % f % f %
Bavel 5511 26.20 13042 26.41 13716 27.07 26758 26.75
Khnach Romeas 2277 10.82 5825 11.79 5966 11.77 11791 11.78
Lvea 2683 12.75 6304 12.76 6586 13.00 12890 12.88
Prey Khpos 2460 11.69 5632 11.40 6015 11.87 11647 11.64
Ampil Pram Daeum 3703 17.60 8132 16.47 8007 15.80 16139 16.13
Kdol Ta Haen 4399 20.91 10439 21.14 10365 20.46 20804 20.79
Total 21033 100.0 49374 100.0 50655 100.0 100029 100.0
Source: MoP, 2008.

Majority income of the inhabitants (90.8 per cent) in Bavel district earned from rice
cultivation, while a few percentages of them engage in Chamcar (orchard), hitherto there

52
were a few households earning income from enterprise and other services (0.1 per cent, 0.2
per cent, respectively)(DoP, 2008b).

There were also 3 kindergarten schools; one of these was private school, in Bevel district.
There were 71 primary schools, and 7 secondary schools, and 2 high schools. Student had
to travel long distance, 8.22 km on an average, in order to reach schools or stay with their
relatives, in order to pursue higher education. Meanwhile to get to primary and secondary
school, students had to travel around 0.87 km, 3.99 km, respectively (DoP, 2008b).
Moreover, student who can afford to pursue higher education at university level, had to
travel or stay in Battambang municipal.

4.2.3 Development Strategic Plan of Bavel District

Development strategy of Bavel district was formulated based on three major economic
activities including agricultural, infrastructure and accessibility and natural resource
management, and these were broken into 5 pillars (Kam, 2009):
 A district of high productivity of strategic and short team crops
 A district of agricultural product market
 A district of better agricultural product processing
 A district of good services, infrastructure, and high technology
 A district of sustainable use and management natural resources

4.3 Prey Khpos Commune

4.3.1 General Setting

Prey Khpos commune is located about 11.5 km from and of the north of Bavel district
centre. It is about 66.05 km far from the provincial of Battambang and it can reach through
provincial road No. 160 from Bavel district toward Lvea commune and Banteay Meanchey
province. Prey Khpos commune occupied 91,000.00 squares km of total area of Bavel
district. The commune lies along the Mongkol Borey River, which diverts to Banteay
Meanchey province (DoP, 2008b).

The commune has a total of 11, 647.0 persons including 2460 households (see table 4.3.1),
and majority of them lived along the river and spreads over to the central of Bavel district.
For those villages that located in the remote area have less population, almost all of them
migrated from other communes and villages within the commune as the result of
agriculture land less.

Table 4.3. 1: Distribution Number of Population by Village of Prey Khpos Commune

Households Males Females Population
Village
f % f % f % f %
Ta Hi 191 7.8 433 7.69 438 7.2 871 7.4
Pou 231 9.4 520 9.2 601 9.9 1121 9.6
Ta Mat 303 12 772 13.7 795 13.2 1567 13.4
Meakkloea 317 13 684 12.1 743 12.4 1427 12.2
Prey Khpos 460 19 1078 19.1 1167 19.4 2245 19.2
Sranal 331 13 687 12.2 749 12.5 1436 12.3
Dangkao Pen 311 13 680 12.1 723 12 1403 12.0
Kbal Thnal 204 8.3 513 9.1 521 8.6 1034 8.8

53
 Households Males Females Population
Village
f % f % f % f %
Boeng Chumnieng 112 4.6 265 4.7 278 4.6 543 4.6
Total 2460 100.0 5632 100.0 6015 100.0 11647 100.0
Source: MoP, 2008.

There were 10 villages which were classified as rural settlement, under the administrative
boundary of Prey Khpos commune, one of these is newly established (Kbal Ang village) as
the consequent of rapid population growth at 4 per cent annually (Prey Khpos commune,
2008). Majority of these villages settle along the river bank, yet a villages (Boueng
Chamieng) located in the isolated area of the commune which the accessibility to and from
the commune is poor.

Majority of villagers (87 per cent) were involved in cultivation as their major economic
activities, while the rest engaged with non and off farm activities, such as worker in other
countries, seasonal migration, and retailers. As it is also a commune of rice producer, there
were 4 small rice mills for local rice processing and 2 medium rice mills which consumed
the processes of rice processing throughout the commune.

As in commune database of Prey Khpos in 2008, it has total road length of 11, 711 meters
for agricultural production transportation to either market in Bavel district or Lvea
commune market. Prey Khpos commune has 7 primary schools, which consist of 47 class
rooms, which are allocated to almost throughout the commune, and there is only a
secondary school which consists of 5 class rooms. The average distance from central of
commune to primary school is 0.45 km, to secondary school 4.8 km and to high school
around 5 km. Therefore, primary and high school student have to travel with long distance,
which it takes around 1 to 2 hours as poor road condition. The commune has a health
centre which is located in the central of commune territory which is easy for accessibility
of all villagers, but Beung Camnieng is difficult to access to the health centre as poor road
condition, and they have to travel with long distance by foot.

4.3.2 Administration of Commune

a) Commune Administrative Structure

As shown in Figure 4.3.1, Prey Khpos commune consisted of 9 councilors who were
elected by villagers from three different parties including Cambodian People Party, Sam
Ransy Party and FUNCIPEC party, majority of councilors were dominated by Cambodian
People Party (CPP) while a few from the above two parties.

There were 8 committees were established by the decision of CCs those including
Budgeting and Planning Committee, Procurement Committee (PBC), Monitoring and
Evaluation Committee which usually called Project Management Committee, Conflict
Compromising Committee, Project Maintenance Committee, Disaster Management
Committee, LAAR Program Committee, and Women Children Committee. Majority of
those who involved in the above committees were villager heads, deputy village heads, and
village members. At least 2 councilors took role in each committee, while the commune
councilor chief took role as chairperson of all committees, while commune clerk involved
as assistant or secretary of each committees. Members of each committee varied
accordingly as depicted in the Figure 4.3.1 and they had overlap roles. Besides CCs,

54
commune also had an engineering technical assistant which incentive was paid by PRDC,
yet appointed by CC chief decision.

b) Duration of Working Experience with Commune

As presented in Figure 4.5.1, less than half of CCs and other committees from Prey Khpos
commune had working experience with CCs ranged from 7 to 14 years, and followed by a
fewer which greater than two-third of those had working experience with CCs ranging
from 2 to 6 years, and less than two-third of them (20 per cent) had working experience of
above 15 years. The average working experience with CCs was 9.4 years; it means
majority of them have been working with CCs before the first commune councilor’s
election in 2001, and a few of them have had working experience with commune since the
1979 after the civil war terminated in Cambodia.

Source: Field Survey, 2009.

Figure 4.3.1: Distribution of Working Experience of CCs and Committees in Prey Khpos

4.3.3 5-Year Development Strategic Plan and Priority

As mentioned in the law of commune management and administrative in 2001, in each

initial the session of CCs, they have to develop 5 years CDPs, so called 5 development
strategic plan for CCs. The commune development consists of the following components
(Prey Khpos Commune, 2007).

a) Development Needs

Within five-year Prey Khpos commune has the following development needs:
 Economic aspects: improved accessibility and more convenient road within the
commune, enough water to irrigate cultivation area, improved the livelihood of
villages, and available hygiene water use.
 Social aspects: to reduce diseases within the commune, drug trafficking and using
reduced, HIV/AIDs awareness, vocational training on provided to handicap person to
raise more income, pregnancy care awareness raised, all children enrolled school,
sanitation within each village, mine victimization awareness improved.
 Natural resource and environment aspects: capable to use chemical fertilizer and
pesticide with high technical and produced pure rice, vegetable and fruit seeds, and fish
species population increased, established tree seedling and land dispute reduced
 Administrative services and security: action on criminal and gangster taken and birth
registration service improved.

55
 Elected Members

(1) Commune Chief

(1) Second Deputy (1) First Deputy

Commune Chief Commune Chief

Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor

(28) (13) (13) (17) (13) (13) (13) (13)

Budgeting Monitoring and Procurement Women and Disaster LAAR Conflict Project
56

and Planning Evaluation Committee Children Management Program Compromise Maintenance

Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee

(1) Engineering (1) Clerk

Ta Hi Pou Ta Mat Meakkloea Prey Sranal Boeng Kbal Kbal Ang Dangkao
Village Village Village Village Khpos Village Chumnien Thnal Village Pen
Village g Village Village Village

Source: Field Survey, 2009.

Figure 4.3.2: Organizational Structure of Prey Khpos CCs
 Gender aspects: women and children abuse were eliminated, and victimized women’s
problem had been solved, domestic violence eliminated, increased awareness on
gender, and protected women and children trafficking (Prey Khpos commune, 2007).

b) Development Goals

Within next five years, CCs of Prey Khpos commune anticipated that (Prey Khpos
commune, 2007);
 There were better accessibility and convenient road to transport agricultural products
by 60 per cent within the commune, and irrigation system improved and irrigated 80
per cent of the agriculture land, villagers increased their income by 60 per cent and 85
per cent of villagers had pure vegetable and rice seed

 Without children and women abuse, and were able to solve problem for them by 50 per
cent, 80 per cent of those who affected by diseases reduced, 80 per cent of drug using
reduced, 95 per cent of domestic violence reduced, villagers actively involved in
gender promotion, 80 per cent children who have enough age to study enrolled class,
and women trafficking reduced by 95 per cent
 Majority of villagers (90 per cents) were able to use chemical fertilizer and pesticide
with knowledge of prevention, 80 per cent of village understood hygiene and 95 per
cent of them accessed to clean water, land dispute reduce by 65 per cent, and
population of fish increased

c) Development Strategic and Priority Projects

In order to achieve the above stated indicators of development needs and development
goals within next 5 years (2007-2012), development strategies with 76 priority projects
were developed by CCs of Prey Khpos commune. Table 4.3.2 below presents 10 most
priority projects.

Table 4.3. 2: Top Ten Development Priority of Prey Khpos Commune (2007-2012)
No Projects and Activities Priority
1 Village earth road 1st
2 Repair village earth road 2nd
3 Culverts 3rd
4 Construct concrete bridge 4th
5 Build new laterite road 5th
6 Repair laterite road 6th
7 Dig new canals 7th
8 Rehabilitate canals 8th
9 Repair earth dams 9th
10 Construct new concrete drift 10th
Source: Prey Khpos Commune (CDP), 2007.

4.3.4 Development Agencies

Development agencies are considering as a crucial partner by Royal Government of

Cambodia for local good governance. Therefore, there were around 30 local and
international NGOs, CBOs, MFIs and Bank, and other associations involved in local

57
development in Prey Khpos commune. Annually, there were around 24 proposed projects,
mostly non-infrastructure projects, supported by these development agencies, while a few
infrastructure projects funded by commune development fund. Those development
agencies supported the project ranged from agricultural training including vegetable
growing, livestock raising and farm demonstration, public awareness raising on human
right and child right, drug trafficking, UXO, handicap person, community saving,
vocational training, rice and cow bank, health, capacity building including good
governance and infrastructure etc. In the period of study, there were 17 local NGOs, 7
international NGOs, 1 Bank, and 7 MFIs were working in Prey Khpos commune.

4.4 Khnach Romeas Commune

4.4.1 General Setting

It is located along the road from Thmar Kol district, which connects to National Road
No.5, to Bavel district central through provincial road No. 159, and about 8 km from Bavel
district central and 45 km from Battambang province centre. Its territory occupies 5,643.0
square km of which 4823 hectares belong to agriculture area, 35 hectares belong to
Chamcar (Orchard) and 564 hectares belong to homestead. It has political boundary with
Bavel commune to the West, Kdol Ta Haen to the West-South, Kram commune to the
South, Rung Chrey commune to the West-east, and Lvea commune to the North (Khnach
Romeas Commune, 2007).

There are 8 villages (defined as rural area by Ministry of Planning) with total population of
11791 inhabitants which equivalence to 2277 households as shown in Table 4.4.1. Khnach
Romeas village defined as the largest population (25.5 per cent) and followed by Kaoh
Ream village (19.8 per cent) as these villages situated along the road provincial road No.
159 and central of Khnach Romeas commune (MoP, 2008).

Table 4.4.1: Distribution of Population by Village of Khnach Romeas Commune

Households Males Females Total Population
Village
f % f % f % F %
Prey Sangha 392 17.2 986 16.9 967 16.2 1953 16.5
Kaoh Ream 471 20.7 1129 19.4 1207 20.2 2336 19.8
Rung Ampil 263 11.6 731 12.5 703 11.7 1434 12.1
Ballangk Leu 219 9.62 542 9.3 635 10.6 1177 9.9
Svay Sa 135 5.93 327 5.61 383 6.4 710 6.0
Khnach Romeas 576 25.3 1528 26.2 1490 24.9 3018 25.5
Ballang Mean Chey 98 4.3 263 4.5 276 4.6 539 4.5
Chrouy Sna 123 5.4 319 5.4 305 5.1 624 5.2
Total 2277 100.0 5825 100.0 5966 100.0 11791 100.0
Source: MoP, 2008.

Majority of households (92 per cent) in Khnach Romeas commune engaged in agricultural
activities as their major income generation activities (IGA), while the rest engaged in small
business within the villages and communes. Some of households in commune were
depending on remittance as the result of migration of their household heads, and adult
children to work labourer in Thailand and other countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and
South Korea. Khnach Romeas commune’s soil is agricultural category, so 18,350 meters of
canal length were irrigating for rice cultivation and vegetable growing. There were rural

58
earth and laterite road of 35, 635 meters totally which served as a major accessibility for
economic activities and transportation of agricultural product to markets. As it is passed by
provincial road No. 159 towards the Bavel district central and to the border of Thailand, it
expands accessibility of Khnach Romeas people to and in Bavel district, Thmar Koul
district and Battambang provincial and even to national road No. 5, which connects to
other provinces (Khnach Romeas Commune, 2008d).

There were 13 building of primary schools which constituted of 41 rooms and 4 buildings
of secondary school (18 rooms), serving as general education for children, under the
administrative of the commune. There was also private kindergarten school available for
those households who were able to send their children to study either basic Khmer or
English language. There was no high school in Khnach Romeas, thus students have to
travel to Bavel district which around 8 km far from the commune. Nevertheless, there was
a health centre of 6 rooms and they also have 16 health agencies, 2 people from each
village. A few percentages of women involved in commune affair and as village head,
accounted only 2.64 per cent only (Ibid, 2008d).

4.4.2 Administration of Commune

a) Commune Administrative Structure

Figure 4.5.2 shown that Khnach Romeas has 9 councilors, who were elected from different
political parties including Cambodian People Party (CPP), Sam Ransy Party and
FUNCIPEC party, councilors from CPP dominated the councils while a few from the two
parties. As there were many workloads, CCs were assigned according to their interests and
capacities in each committee, 12 committees were established by councilors chief. At least
3 councilors were deployed to each committee while commune chief took role as
chairperson of each committee, besides there were some key persons, village heads, deputy
village heads and members who were selected from each village into the committee. Thus,
these had overlap role between each committee.

Having no woman as councilor, a woman was recruited and appointed to work and took
major role in women and children committee while another staff hired to work as
commune office guard and cleaning. Commune fund was used for physical infrastructure
development purpose; an engineering technical assistant was appointed and paid by PRDC.

b) Duration of Working Experience with Commune

As illustrated in Figure 4.5.2, it was found that more than half the CCs and other
committees have been working and experiencing with commune ranged from 2 to 30 years,
as most of them started working when the first CCs elections started in 2002, and 2007.
The minimum working experience was 2 years, as they recently joined, while the longest
working experience was 30 years as they have started working since 1979, when Khmer
Rough was defeated by RGC, as commune officer or village head. An average working
experience with commune was relatively high 10.1 years. Therefore, most of the CCs and
other committees have not recently joined the commune affair.

59
 Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Figure 4.4.1: Distribution of Working Experience of CCs and Committees in Khnach
Romeas

4.4.3 5-Year Development Strategic Plan and Priority

As it is prescribed in law of administrative and management of commune (LAMC, 2001),

every mandate of CCs has to formulate 5-year commune development (CDP), so called
commune development strategic plan which included development needs, development
goals and development strategies and other priorities activities. Khnach Romeas commune
has the following development frameworks for the year of 2007 to 2012 (Khnach Romeas
Commune, 2008).

a) Development Needs

In order to alleviate extremely poor, hunger and illiteracy, CCs of Khnach Romeas
commune defined development needs in to five aspects, as followings.

 Economic aspects: increasing the irrigated area of agricultural purpose, improve,

rehabilitate and build new rural road which able to use in dry and rainy season, in order
to generate more income to villagers by providing vocational training and agricultural
technique related to rice to increase rice yield, these are leading to alleviate extremely
poverty and hunger within the commune.
 Social aspects: increasing the awareness on the value of education to villagers, construct
new and additional school buildings, especially high school within the commune in
order to reduce the dropout rate. Rather than these, reducing the child mortality by
focusing on pregnancy women through awareness and motivate them to consult with
health centre without any fee constraints. Last but not least, reducing the victimize rate
by unexploded Ordnance (UXO) through mine clearance in and around Chroy Sna
mountain.
 Natural resources and environment aspects: reducing illegal fishing and water
contamination and pollution within the canal and paddy field, more specifically solid
waste which discard from Khnach Romeas market into river, and at the mean time
encouraging tree plantation in public places and conserve existing trees.
 Administrative service and security: in good collaboration with local policies and arm
force to reduce gangsters, criminal, robbery, drug trafficking, gambling and domestic
violence through laws awareness raising and on time intervention. Moreover,
encouragement birth registration through awareness raising on its disadvantages

60
 Gender aspects: increase equity of gender and women empowerment by enhancing
women participation in development, particularly in decision making, encouragement
continuous studying and providing vocation training, improving recognition, welfare
and equal right between men and women (Khnach Romeas commune, 2008).

b) Development Goals

The CCs of Khan Romeas commune expected that by the end of year 2012:
 More than halve (60 per cent) of agricultural area irrigated which increased agricultural
yields, and villager was able to transport their agricultural products increased income
and poverty reduced.
 All of 6 to 11 years old children were able to enroll school, reduced dropout rate,
healthy, reduced victimize rate by unexploded ordnance (UXO), and female students
understood the advantages of education. Furthermore, high school was built, and
villagers were able to access to clean and safe water and each household had toilet.
 Fish increased and reduced pollution from solid waste and other wastes through laws
awareness and unity in environment, natural resources protection and conservation.
 Villagers understood the related laws on domestic violence, women aware of their
roles and rights and participated in development activities, and have respective
vocational skills, and finally women abuse reduced.
 Women participated as candidate for CCs election

c) Development Strategies and Priority Activities

In order to accomplish the development needs and goals within 5 years (2007-2012), CCs
of Khnach Romeas developed development strategies with 91 priorities projects and
activities, which benefited and addressed the needs in each village, the top ten are as
followings.

Table 4.4.1: Top Ten Development Priority of Khnach Romeas Commune (2007-2012)
No Projects and Activities Priority
1 Rehabilitate village earth road 1st
2 Rehabilitate laterite road 2nd
3 Repair bridge 3rd
4 Build new village earth road 4th
5 Build new village laterite road 5th
6 Establish road maintenance committees 6th
7 Construct culverts 7th
8 Pigs vaccination 8th
9 Animal (duck and chicken) breeding 9th
10 Fish seedling 10th
Source: Khnach Romeas Commune, 2008.

4.4.4 Development Agencies

As the local development fund of commune fund in Cambodia were less than the demand
of local development, there were many local and international NGOs rather than
government departments, projects of Royal Government of Cambodia joined with other
development agencies in terms of loan and grant, and community based organization

61
(CBOs). Regarding this, there were around 30 development agencies as shown in Table
4.4.3 below. These development agencies working on every sector including agriculture,
infrastructure, and education, and health, good governance of CCs, rural finance, and
capacity building of community based organization, UXO, etc. There were 12 local NGOs,
5 international NGOs, 1 bank, and 6 MFIs, and EU and RGC project were operating in
Khnach Romeas.

4.5 Profile of Respondents

Initially, the demographic aspects which include gender, age and marital status of CCs and
other committees as well as sampled households, and while the second part describes the
institution aspects of respondent both CCs and other committees, and sampled households.
The last part provides future more vivid information related to income background of both
levels of respondent.

4.5.1 Demographic Aspects

a) Gender

Table 4.5.2 shows the equal distribution of respondents at household level (50 per cent
were males and females). However, at the commune level, majority of respondents (80 per
cent) were men working for commune and within other committees, and a few women (12
out of 60) occupied positions either at commune and village level, although women were
encouraged to join development activities. At commune level, Khnach Romeas commune
has comparative advantage of women working for and with commune (23.3 per cent)
which is higher than these of Prey Khpos commune as there were 16.7 per cent.

Table 4.5.1: Distribution of Respondents by Gender

CCs and Other Committees Sampled Households
Khnach Khnach
Gender Prey Khpos Total Prey Khpos Total
Romeas Romeas
f % f % f % f % f % f %
Male 25 83.3 23 76.6 48 80.0 28 50.0 27 50.0 55 50.0
Female 5 16.7 7 23.3 12 20.0 28 50.0 27 50.0 55 50.0
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0 60 100.0 56 100.0 54 100.0 110 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2009.

b) Age

As shown in Table 4.5.2, at commune level more than half of CCs and other committees
(66.7 per cent) were in the middle-age (41-60) and followed by less than one-third (18.3
per cent) were in the age group of 21-40 years. In this regard, only middle-age people
joined with the CCs and committees as there were about 51 years old on average. Khnach
Romeas CCs and committees’ average age (about 53 years old) have comparative over
those from Prey Khpos commune (49.6 years old). At household level, over half (52.7 per
cent) of them from both communes were in age group of 40-61, and followed by the 21-40
years of age (31.8 per cent), with average age of 46 among respondents from both
communes. Majority of 41-60 years were married.

62
 Elected

(1) Commune Chief

(1) Second Deputy (1) First Deputy

Commune Chief Commune Chief

Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor

(27) (11) (10) (20) (4) (10) (11) (11) (6) (6)
63

Budgeting Monitoring Procurement Women Philanthro Rural Earth and LAAR Conflict Market Market
Committee and py Compromise Committee Committee
and Planning and Laterite Road Program
Committee Evaluation Children Relation Committee Committee Committee
Committee Committe

(3) Commune (1) Clerk

Prey Kaoh Rung Ballang Svay Sa Khnach Ballangk Chrouy

Sangha Ream Ampil Leu Village Romeas Mean Sna
Village Village Village Village Village Chey Village
Village
Source: MoI and Field Survey, 2009.
Figure 4.5.2: Organizational Structure of Khnach Romeas Commune
 Table 4.5.2: Distribution of Respondents by Age
CCs and Committees Sampled Households
Age Prey Khnach Khnach
(years) Total Prey Khpos Total
Khpos Romeas Romeas
f % f % f % f % F % f %
21-40 6 20.0 5 16.7 11 18.3 21 37.5 14 25.9 35 31.8
41-60 23 76.7 17 56.7 40 66.7 26 46.4 32 59.3 58 52.7
61 above 1 3.3 8 26.7 9 15.0 9 16.1 8 14.8 17 15.5
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0 60 100.0 56 100.0 54 100.0 110 100.0
Average 49.6 53.27 51.43 44.86 47.50 46.15
Source: Field Survey, 2009.

c) Marital Status
Table 4.5.3 shown that majority of respondents from both commune and household level
were married were married, and a few percentages of them were single. A single from
Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos commune joined in the committee of both communes.
Likewise, sampled households from Prey Khpos were found 5.4 per cent of them were
single, which exactly the same Khnach Romeas commune. Yet, among the sampled
households there were a few widows in Khnach Romeas commune.

Table 4.5.3: Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status

CCs and committees Sampled Households
Marital Khnach Khnach
Prey Khpos Total Prey Khpos Total
Status Romeas Romeas
f % f % f % f % f % f %
Married 29 96.7 29 96.7 58 96.7 53 94.6 49 90.7 102 92.7
Single 1 3.33 1 3.3 2 3.3 3 5.4 3 5.6 6 5.5
Separated/
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.7 2 1.8
Divorced
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0 60 100.0 56 100.0 54 100.0 110 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2009.

4.5.2 Social and Institutional Aspects

a) Education Level

From Table 4.5.4 below, fewer less than half of CCs and other committees (48 per cent),
completed at primary level, which followed by than half of them completed from
secondary level (47 per cent). There were only 2 respondents (6.6 per cent) from Khnach
Romeas commune finished at tertiary level, as they quit from their education and joined
the CCs, which were considered as higher percentage than in Prey Khpos commune.
Respondents from these two communes have almost similar qualification in education
level. Less than two third sampled households completed primary level (59.0 per cent) and
followed by secondary education accounting 20.9 per cent. Overall respondents from
Khnach Romeas commune have higher comparative education than Prey Khpos commune.
The respondents from these communes completed only at primary level as they had
experienced in civil war and Khmer Rouge regime which they were not allowed to study
higher.

64
 Table 4.5.4: Distribution of Respondents by Education Level
CCs and Committees Sampled Households
Education Khnach Prey Khnach
Prey Khpos Total Total
Level Romeas Khpos Romeas
f % f % f % f % f % f %
Illiteracy 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 8.9 7 13.0 12 10.9
Literacy class 1 3.33 0 0.0 1 1.7 6 10.7 1 1.9 7 6.3
Primary 15 50 14 46.6 29 48 33 58.9 32 59.3 65 59.0
Secondary 14 46.7 14 46.6 28 47 11 19.6 12 22.2 23 20.9
Tertiary 0 0.0 2 6.6 2 3.3 1 1.8 2 3.7 3 2.7
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0 60 100.0 56 100.0 54 100.0 110 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2009.

b) Training on Local Good Governance

Since the decentralization has been initiated in late 1996, both government and NGOs’
delivered many capacity building programs to CCs. More specifically, while the
decentralization policy was fully adopted in 2001 which reflected when CCs elected in
2002, it provided training on decentralization, participatory planning, participatory
monitoring and evaluation, local contribution and good governance.

As CCs are mandate based, replacement and changing as the result of election, and
resignation, trainings are being needed. According to Table 4.5.5 below, majority of CCs
and its committees from bother communes, Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos (respectively,
80 per cent, and 86.7 per cent), attended training on local good governance; however Prey
Khpos commune has related higher percentages than Khnach Romeas commune.
Participatory planning, almost all CCs and committees (93.3 per cent) in Prey Khpos
commune attended, while a majority of CCs and committees (80 per cent) from Khnach
Romeas attended the course. In comparison to other courses, majority of respondents from
both communes attended training on local good governance, participatory planning (CDPs,
project monitoring and evaluation), these were seen through NGOs and refreshment
training provided by NCDD every years. In overall, Prey Khpos commune has higher
number of respondents than Khnach Romeas commune, who attended training courses
related to local good governance, as majority of committee from Khnach Romeas
commune were just selected and elected earlier, while the committees in Prey Khpos was
not.

Table 4.5.5: Distribution of Attended Training by Commune Council Members

(Multiple Responses)
Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas
Related Local Good Governance Total (N=60)
(n=30) (n=30)
Courses
f % f % f %
Good Local Governance 26 86.7 24 80.0 50 83.3
Participatory Planning 28 93.3 24 80.0 52 86.7
Project Monitoring and Evaluation 22 73.3 14 46.7 36 60.0
Basic Financial Management 6 20.0 5 16.7 11 18.3
Administrative 3 10.0 4 13.3 7 11.7
Conflict Solving 1 3.3 6 20.0 7 11.7
Other trainings 14 46.7 16 53.3 30 50.0
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
65
c) Involvement in Development Agencies

As there were many NGOs and other development agencies working for enhancing
livelihood of villagers in Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos communes, some of these
respondents at commune level were involved as members and focal persons of those
agencies. Around two third (31.7 per cent) of the respondents from both communes were
membership of saving and micro-credit groups of either NGOs or MFI accounting 31.7 per
cent of those CCs who were the member of CCs Association of Cambodia (CCAC). All of
CCs were accounted for these members as it was national association, and these
memberships were served as focal person for NGOs (30 per cent), and government projects
such as ECOSORN, 18.3 per cent.

Table 4.5.6: Membership of CCs and Committees in Development Organizations

(Multiple Responses)
Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas Total
Membership (N=30) (N=30) (N=60)
f % f % F %
Rice plantation (Department of Agriculture) 4 13.3 3 10.0 7 11.7
Livestock raising (pig, chicken) 1 3.3 0 0.0 1 1.67
Saving and micro credit (MFI) 8 26.7 11 36.7 19 31.7
Focal person for NGOs 11 36.7 7 23.3 18 30.0
CCs Association of Cambodia 9 30.0 9 30.0 19 31.7
Focal person for Government Project
4 13.3 7 23.3 11 18.3
(ECOSORN)
Source: Field Survey, 2009.

Besides the membership of CCs and other committees, respondents at household level also
joined in other development agencies. Table 4.5.6 shows the membership of household
respondents. A few respondents from both communes joined the project of government,
which is called ECOSORN (16.4 per cent of 60 respondents), which equal to the
percentage of those households who joined in saving group of either NGOs or MFI, and
followed other memberships as cow bank group which organized by NGOs within these
communes. Khnach Romeas commune’s respondents were the membership of other
organizations greater than those from Prey Khpos commune. Those are due to
geographical areas, and the accessibility to the Prey Khpos commune where was more
inconvenient than Khnach Romeas, thus there were less development agencies had
launched the development activities in the area.

Table 5.4.6: Membership of Sampled Households in Development Organizations

(Multiple Responses)
Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas Total
Organizations (N=56) (N=54) (N=110)
f % f % F %
Agricultural Project of Government
3 5.3 15 27.7 18 16.4
(ECOSORN)
Village Cow Bank of NGO 4 7.1 10 18.5 14 12.7
Village Saving Group of NGOs or MFI 6 10.7 12 22.2 18 16.4
Key Informant of NGOs (Health, Red Cross,) 2 3.5 3 1.0 5 4.5
Livestock Raising (pig, chicken) 1 1.7 1 1.8 2 1.8

66
 Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas Total
Organizations (N=56) (N=54) (N=110)
f % f % F %
Vegetable Growing Group 1 1.7 1 1.8 2 1.8
Micro-finance (borrower) 1 1.7 1 1.8 2 1.8
Rice Bank of NGO 2 3.5 2 3.7 4 3.6
Human Right Key Informant 2 3.5 1 1.8 3 2.7
Source: Field Survey, 2009.

4.5.3 Economic Aspects

a) Main Occupations

As shown in Table 4.5.7 below, more than two-third of respondents at commune level
were farmers from Prey Khpos commune constituted of 76.6 per cent. While Khnach
Romeas commune had higher percentage of farmers, up to 83 per cent. In contrast, less
than one-third of CCs and other committees were engaged in small business (10 per cent)
which was higher than Khnach Romeas commune, 3.3 per cent. Main occupation of
respondents at household level from both communes as farmers were almost the same,
91.1 per cent and 90.9 per cent in Prey Kphos and Khnach Romeas, respectively, and
followed by small business accounted 5.4 per cent. It was followed by other occupations
which accounted of 5.6 per cent, Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune, respectively.

In general, majority of respondents from CCs and committees, or sampled households were
farmer, and followed by other occupations such as CC clerk, handicraft, and wedding
organizer. Some elder households were dependent on their children’s remittance. Thus,
most income of respondents was earned from agricultural sector.

Table 5.4.7: Distribution of Respondents by Main Occupation

CCs and Committees Sampled Households
Prey Khnach Total Prey Khnach Total
Occupations
Khpos Romeas (N=60) Khpos Romeas (N=110)
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Chamcar (Orchard) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 1 0.9
Farmer 23 76.6 25 83 48 80 51 91.1 49 90.9 100 90.9
Small Business 3 10 1 3.3 4 6.6 3 5.4 1 1.9 4 3.6
Others (CC clerk,
Handicraft, Wedding 4 13.3 4 13 8 13.3 2 3.6 3 5.6 5 4.5
Organizer, Dependent)
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0 60 100.0 56 100.0 60 100.0 110 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2009.

b) Household Income

For CCs and other committees respondents, as shown in Table 4.5.8, half them (56.7 per
cent) earned the income ranging from less than and equal 4 million to 8 million Riel per
annum, and Less than two-third of them (31.7 per cent) had earned the income of above 16
million Riel per annum. Overall, CCs and other committees’ member from Prey Khpos
commune had higher income than those from Khnach Romeas commune, 13, 210, 766.9
million Riel, and 6, 753, 816.6 million Riel annually on average, respectively.

67
At household level, the annual income were dominated by a group who had income
ranging from less than and equal 4 million Riel to 8 million riel (72.7 per cent), and
followed by those who had a annual income of ranged from more than 8 million riel to 16
million riel (22.7 per cent), while a few of those respondents had an annual income of
above 16 million Riel. Similarly to CCs and other committee annual income on average,
Prey Khpos commune had higher average income than Khnach Romeas commune, round
4.2 per cent greater than. Other than, annual household income from both communes had
average income of 6,139,272.7 Riel per year which was less than those respondents from
the commune level.

Table 4.5.8: Distribution of Household Income of Respondents

CCs and Committees Sampled Households
Income Khnach Khnach
Prey Khpos Total Prey Khpos Total
Level (Riel) Romeas Romeas
F % F % F % F % F % F %
≤ 8,000,000 12 40.0 22 73.3 34 56.7 42 75.0 38 70.4 80 72.7
8,000,001 –
12 40.0 7 23.4 19 31.7 11 19.6 14 26.0 25 22.7
16,000,000
Above
6 20.0 1 3.3 7 11.6 3 5.4 2 3.7 5 4.5
16,000,001
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0 60 100.0 56 100 54 100 110 100.0
Average 13,210,766.9 6,753,816.6 9,982,291.0 6,263,571.4 6,010,370.3 6,139,272.7
Source: Field Survey, 2009.

As illustrated in Figure 4.5.8, less than half of (47 per cent) CCs and other committees
earned their income from farming, and followed by other sources from remittance
accounting 26.4 per cent, because those communes under the study were located along the
border between Cambodia and Thailand. Therefore, majority remittances were from
Thailand, while a few of them from Malaysia and South Korea. Although they were
working for commune, they earned incentive of 9.55 per cent of household income only;
therefore, in come source from agriculture dominated their annual income of both CCs and
committees.

Source: Field Survey, 2009

Figure 4.5.3: Sources of Household Income of CCs and committees

Similarly to the income sources of respondents at commune level, more than half of their
income (58 per cent) earned from farming, and followed by remittance which constituted

68
of 15 per cent of their total income annually. However, a few of them were working for
some organizations and community-based organizations (CBOs) within the commune
accounting 3 per cent of their annual income. Overall, agriculture dominated the major
income source of sampled households.

Source: Field Survey, 2009.

Figure 4.5.4: Sources of Household Income of Sampled Households

69
 Chapter 5

Institutional Framework and Mechanism of Local Good Governance (LGG)

Application in Commune Development Planning (CDPs)

In this chapter, institutional frameworks and mechanisms to support the application of

LGG in CDPs analyzed from the policy level to practice at commune level. First section
analyzed the existing policies and development strategies and plans, while the second
sections were focusing on how national level support the application of LGG to commune
level, either indirect or direct, by discourse institutions and other secretariats. Third and
fourth sections respectively synthesized sub-national including provincial and district level,
and decentralized commune level, including existing legislatives and mechanism to
promote LGG application. Lastly, development agencies’ involvement in LGG was
discussed.

5.1 Policies and Development Strategies to Support Local Good Governance

In each mandate of Royal Government of Cambodia, several policies, development

strategies and plan were adopted which pictured the commitments for national
development; local development and local governance were highlighted.

5.1.1 Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency in

Cambodia

As it lies on the heart of Royal Government of Cambodia’s development strategies and

policies for almost a half of decade since the third session of parliament, good governance
can be achieved through other four components. These included the reform of royal
Cambodian arm force, public administrative reform, legal and judicial reform, and fighting
corruption, based on rectangular development strategy in 2008, third mandate of RGC.
Three of above pillars were brought into discussion to support LGG as below.

a) Fighting Corruption

Taking concrete action to tackle the roots of corruption through promulgating combating
corruption laws as recently there have not had enough tools including regulations and code
of conducts are insufficient, and resources to substantially prevent and fight corruption.
Moreover, RGC also promoted transparency, accountability and effectiveness of public
finances management, particularly by strengthening audit processes and procurement of
public goods and services. Not only vertical governance reform, but also horizontal, cross-
and multi sectorals, reform of governance through a wide range of participation from
government ministries and institutions, development agencies (partners) and civil society
organizations (CSO). These can be done through Governance Action Plan (GAP) (RGC,
2008). It was mainstreamed into the development activities at commune level.

b) Public Administrative Reform

To achieve sustainable development, strengthening institutional capacity has been regarded

as a vital, and the administrative system and the civil service must be done through the
ethic of neutral, professional, transparent, responsiveness and responsible. It was applied at
either local or higher level of service delivery to the grass root people. In this respect,

70
public service delivery to people with quality and effectiveness can be done through four
priority areas. These are (i) services related to the sovereignty of the state (including vital
records, permits, and land registration titles), (ii) services related to investments, (iii) basic
services, especially education and health, and (iii) services related to the collection of
revenues collection and expenditure of the state. To some extend land titles registration
through CCs system, and to address to local needs of above priorities CCs involved not
only small-scale road infrastructure but also basic health and education through school
construction and raising awareness on primary health to villagers (Ibid, 2008).

Administrative reform is well known through decentralization and deconcentration

implementation at commune level which moving public administration closer to grass root
and in consistent with the transfer of authority from higher to the lower level. It also
defined and assigned clear roles, responsibilities, powers of several entities of government
at the province, municipal, district/Khan and commune level. At commune, it improved
quality of public service delivery, participatory local development in all aspects, and it was
a vital priority to enhance LGG through building local management capacity, financing
resources and enhancing culture of participation. Practically, decentralization
complemented deconcentration (seen at municipal, provincial, and district level), which is
set and forth supportive and complementary implementations with local communities.
Thus, village heads, deputy village heads, and assistants were appointed a long with the
procedure of decentralization (Ibid, 2008).

c) Governance Action Plan

As a part of rectangular strategic of Royal Government of Cambodia, separately

governance action plan was developed in order to address governance reform from national
to the lowest level, commune level. In this framework, public administration,
deconcentration and decentralization were a part of it for governance reform, which
decentralization and local governance was a crucial component. RGC has committed,
within a short-term, to complete studies, and coordinate the discourse on local governance
topic, and to develop policy framework with absolute stakeholder consultation, and
conduct needs assessment for effective CCs service delivery. Furthermore, within medium
term, RGC committed to implement the adopted laws and develop managerial and human
resources of the elected CCs (GAP I and II, RGC, 2001)

5.1.2 National Development Plan 2006-2010

In alignment with rectangular strategy, good governance has been a concern of national
development plan 2006-2010 of RGC and it addressed the enhancement of full
participatory governance system at grass root, which has been seen in terms of commune
council’s election in 2002, in order to improve quality of services delivery. There were
several achievements not only local democratic governance strengthening, but also poverty
alleviation and capacity building at the lowest tire of government. This has been
sharpening and deepening of local governance by inspiring participation in decision-
making and implementation of development at grass root level (RGC, 2006). In this view,
national development plan translated the development strategy of RGC, not even focusing
at national tire also inspiring LGG through participatory processes in decision-making and
development implementation; therefore it has been seen at commune level through
participatory planning and implementation of local development project of CCs.

71
 5.1.3 Strategic Framework for Deconcentration and Decentralization Reform

This strategic derived from the Royal Government of Cambodia’s rectangular strategic
first phase, which deconcentration and decentralization a crucial component to achieve
good governance. It is a policy document of Royal Government of Cambodia that defines
vision and basic principles to guide governance reform from sub-national
(provincial/municipal/district) to decentralized level (commune) for effective management
systems at provincial/municipal, district and commune levels. The policy is based on two
strategic goals; to preliterate and strengthening local democracy, and to promote local
development and to eradicate poverty, these goals are inevitable to achieve democratic
governance in Cambodia. These can be done based on vital principles that consist of
democratic representation by expanding powers, duties, responsibilities and resources from
sub-national to local level; participation of all tires of people by ensuring participation of
people, particularly vulnerable group and indigenous minorities in decision making at all
tires of government; accountability by strengthening accountability at all level of
administration; effectiveness by bringing the services closer to grass root through citizens’
participation in planning and monitoring to meet their needs and priorities (RGC, 2005).
Thus, the stated principles demonstrated governance concepts that assigned to apply it at
all tires, especially local level (commune level) that has to be done in prior to the sub-
national level.

5.2 Institutional Arrangement and Mechanisms for LGG

Table 5.2.1 defined the institutional and mechanism to inspire and implement LGG in
CDPs either in direct or indirect aspect which ranged from national, sub-national to
decentralized level. The mechanism and institutional arrangements had been seen three
levels, first at national, second at sub-national as mostly recognized as deconcentration
level, and the third at decentralized level, lowest tire of government (CCs). Several,
legislatives, policies and development strategies, as mentioned in section one of this
chapter, were adopted in relation to local governance mainstreaming, and these were
elaborated consequently.

Table 5.2.1: Institutional Arrangements and Mechanisms to Support LGG

Institutional
Existing Legislatives Supportive Supporting Level
Arrangement
• Councils of• Rectangular Strategies (I,II)
Ministers • National Development Plan 2006-2010
• Governance Action Plan (I, II)
• NCDD Chair by• Strategic Framework for
MoI (MEF: Deconcentration and Decentralization
Ministry of• Royal Decree on Establishment of The
Economic and National Committee for Sub-National
National(Central)
Finance, OCM: Democratic Development (NCDD)
Office of Councils• Sub-Decree Establishment and
of Minister, Functioning of the Secretariat of the
MLMUC: Ministry National Committee for Democratic
of Land Development at Subnational Level
Management and• Sub-Decree Establishment of the Sub-
Urban Committees of the National Committee
Construction, MoP: for Democratic Development at Sub-

72
 Institutional
Existing Legislatives Supportive Supporting Level
Arrangement
Ministry of national Level
Planning, MRD:• Prakas on Roles, Duties and Structure of
Ministry of Rural the Department of Local Administration
Development,
MWA: Ministry of
Women Affair,
MH: Ministry of
Health, MAFF:
Ministry of
Agriculture,
Fishery and
Forestry, MEYS:
Ministry of
Education Youth
and Sports, MIME:
Ministry of
Industry, Mining
and Energy, CDC:
Council of
Development of
Cambodia)
• Department of
Local
Administration
• Provincial unit of• Law on Administrative Management of
local administrative the Capital, Provinces, Municipalities,
unit of MoI Districts and Khans (Organic Law)
• Provincial • Law on Election of the Capital Councils,
department of Province Councils, Khan Councils
Provincial
above priority (Organic Law Election)
ministries • Declaration on the Organization and
• Provincial rural Functioning of Provincial/Municipal
development Local Administration Units
committee (PRDC)• Declaration on Transferring of Authority Sub-national
and Executive to the Sub-National Governors to (deconcentration)
Committee Support Commune Council
• District offices of• Declaration on the preparation and
priority provincial implementation of Under national Local
department Administration Unit
• District offices of• Declaration on Reorganization of District
Provincial Hall Structure, Roles and Responsibilities of
the Provincial/Municipal Rural
Development Committee and Executive
Committee

73
 Institutional
Existing Legislatives Supportive Supporting Level
Arrangement
•Law on Administrative Management of
CCs
• Law on the Elections of CCs
• Sub-decree on Decentralization of
Powers, Role and Duties to
Commune/Sangkats Councils
• Sub-decree on Commune Financial
Management System
• Declaration on Delegation of Powers to
Provincial/Municipal Governors in
Support of CCs
• Sub-decree on the Establishment of the
Commune fund (CF)
• Declaration on Roles, Duties and Rights Decentralized Commune
of Commune Clerks
• Inter-ministerial Prakas on CDPs
• Declaration on Duties and Rights of
Commune Secretary
• Declaration on Guideline of Procurement
of Commune/Sangkat
• Declaration on Recruitment of Commune
Focal Person for Monitoring and
Evaluation Work
• Hip Pocket on good governance for CCs
• Project Implement Manual of
Commune/Sangkat
• Manual on CDPs (CDP) and commune
investment program (CIP)
Source: Compiled from Royal Decrees, Sub-decrees, and Declarations

Figure 5.2.1 presented the mechanism, framework, and its relationship to support LGG
from the central government of the lowest level of government in Cambodia. The
mechanism and framework could be seen three typologies, enforcing, supply and
demanding LGG in CDPs. Enforcing was seen as top down approached that CCs were
prescribed to apply and maintain LGG in CDPs through royal decree, sub decrees, and
declaration, and policies and strategies of RGC, and these were seen in terms of command
from central government to sub-national, and to decentralized level (CC), while the supply
to the grass root was seen at decentralized level to local people, village authorities, and
grass root group. Another typology was the demand from grass root groups, and local
people for LGG in CDPs. Involved institutions (ministries, and departments) took major
role in terms of command (management), and advisory for LGG application in CDPs, as
depicted in the below graph.

74
 Members Ministries Ministry of Interior

Department of
NCDD General Local
Administration

Department of Local
NCDD Secretariat
Administration

Provincial Rural Capital/Province/ Capital/Province/

Development Committee Municipal Hal Municipal Council

Provincial Local Administration

Execution Committee
Departments Unit

Contract Office of
Administration Unit administration
Offices
(M and E, and
Contract)
Offices
Office of monitoring
Finance Unit and evaluation, and
(Accountant) intervention

Technical Support Unit Office of planning,

(Technical Staff) statistic and finance

Local Administration Office of training,

Unit education, capacity
building and
information

District Offices District Hals District/Khan Council

Provincial Facilitation District Facilitation

Team Team
Supply

Commune Council
Demand

Management
Advisory Villages

Source: RGC, 2003 and David, 2005

Figure 5.2.1: Mechanisms and Institutional Framework of LGG Support

5.2.1 National Level

At national level, Ministry of Interior (MoI) is a focal and coordinate institution to support
LGG application either in general or in CDPs. As illustrated in the previous section, that
MoI is a chair institution to enforce laws, royal decrees, sub-decrees, and declarations on
either regulations or manuals into practical for local good governance. As it interlinks with

75
MoI’s departments, national committee for sub-national democratic development (NCDD)
was established by royal decree in order to coordinate and support CCs and sub-national
councils (provincial and district level), and in alignment with department of local
administration of MoI. NCDD was established in composition of around 11 ministries, of
which ministry of planning, and economy and finance have been taking as major roles after
ministry of interior in local development planning and LGG at commune level.

a) Ministry of Interior (MoI)

Ministry of interior was established 1996 in composition of around 7 departments,

nevertheless, department of local administration (DOLA) actively involved local
administrative reform and deconcentration and decentralization policy implementation. As
it is linked with other provincial halls throughout the country under its administration, it
played very vital role in LGG application.

• Department of Local Administration

Based on declaration of Ministry of Interior in 2002, department of local administration

was established which composed of office of administrative, monitoring and evaluation
and supporting commune/sangkat, planning, statistic and information, technical research,
education and capacity building, and finance supporting. Their roles and responsibilities to
support commune were highlighted in the declaration as followings (MoI, 2002).

Regularly monitoring and evaluation of CCs’ capacity, resources and the processes of
responsibility implementation, and conflict compromising which happens among CCs, and
provides advises and instructions in order to select village head.

In collaboration with other entities and ministries to design CDPs, rather than this, to
develop manual for CDPs preparation, design to implement and evaluate the CDPs
implementation.

Prepare and register inventory of CCs’ current and long-term properties, and allocate the
CCs fund according to the regulation and other orders, take action on annual commune
budget planning of CCs and also follow up the expenditure and revenues of CCs.
Moreover, to ensure that CCs fund is used according to the development and budget lines.

As briefed above, these are key important roles and duties of the department of local
administrative to enhance the application of LGG in general or CDPs aspects.

b) Ministry of Planning

As prescribed in the royal decree of the establishment of national committee for sub-
national democratic development (NCDD), ministry of planning and its subsidiaries at
either provincial or district level played a very important role in CDPs. It has to ensure
that CDPs preparation in accordance to the inter-ministerial (Ministry of Interior and
Planning) declaration on CDPs and manual. In addition, it also took very important role in
district integration.

In this regard, ministry of planning indirectly mainstreamed the application of LGG in

planning through facilitating and providing technical support to CCs to follow the

76
regulations and rules in CDPs, especially manual which clearly defined steps and how
grass root people can involved in planning at commune level (MoI and MoP, 2007). Major
activities of planning department are to review technical of CDPs and investment program
in addition to district integration, and in collaboration with the provincial local
administrative unit to build the capacity of provincial/municipal and district facilitators and
other related stakeholders to formulate plan, monitoring and evaluation the impacts of plan
implementation.

c) National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development (NCDD)

Before 2007, the support of commune affair managed by National Committee to Support
Commune (NCSC). By 2008, National Committee for Sub-National Democratic
Development, so called NCDD, was established by Royal Decree in order to lead and
coordinate the execution of the Law on Administrative Management of
Communes/Sangkats and Law on Administrative Management of Capital, Provinces,
Municipalities, Districts, and Khans (Organic Law) and deconcentration and
decentralization reform policy. NCDD is eligible to establish NCDD secretariat, which
several sub-committees under this were established, where its office located in the Ministry
of Interior.

NCDD composes of 16 members who are representatives of the most priority ministries
and institutions, however, other ministers and heads of the related ministries and
institutions within the authority of government may be requested by NCDD when
necessary. These members were deployed in order to implement organic and commune
administration and management laws. In this aspect, these members have been taking very
an important role in order to enforce laws into practical from sub-national (provincial and
district level) to decentralized level (commune level) for the democratic development
within Cambodia.

5.2.2 Sub-national Level

Sub-national level has been referred the Capital, Provinces, Municipalities, Districts and
Khans which has been defined by organic law in order to promote sustainable democratic
development through the deconcentration and decentralization policy in Cambodia.
Democratic development, as defined by the organic law, consists of local autonomy, public
representation, responsiveness and accountability, consultation and participation,
promotion of equity, transparency and integrity, and measuring of fighting corruption and
abuse of power (Law on Administrative Management of Capital, Provinces,
Municipalities, Khans, 2008).

Hence sub-national level, capital provincial, municipal, district and khan councils were
elected in 2008 by the representative of villagers, CCs, these elected councils either at
provincial and district level work as mentor and coach for better governance at commune
level. Moreover, as defined in organic law, provincial and district councils will develop
their development plan which based on and in accordance to CDPs, therefore, they also
take part to ensure that CCs develop better CDPs, otherwise their development plans at
neither district and provincial level are not effective. These would help CCs to apply better
governance aspect at local level.

77
a) Provincial/Municipal Local Administration Unit

Under the administrative management of and working in accountable to Ministry of

Interior, provincial hall established a local administrative unit by the declaration of
Ministry of Interior (MoI, 2004). Local administrative unit is divided into three important
offices. These offices included the office administration, monitoring, evaluation, and
intervention, office of planning, statistic and finance, and office of training, education,
capacity building and information. Each office has similar structure to department of local
administration at national level, and even roles and responsibilities of each office are to
support and better local development and administrative affair of CCs. Moreover, these
offices working in alignment with Provincial Rural Development Committee and its
Execution Committee (PRDC’s Ex-com) which established and restructured by the
declaration of Ministry of Interior in 2002, and 2008 respectively.

Moreover, it is defined by inter-ministerial declaration (MoI and MoP, 2007) that the
department is responsible for a window for CCs to contact with other provincial/municipal
administration, and to provide training to councils, especially commune planning and
budgeting committee (PBC) members, and other concerned parties as needed. In addition,
it assists the councils to prepare and implement the CDPs, and investment plan, and to
monitor and evaluate the results and impacts of the plan.

b) Provincial Rural Development Committee (PRDC) and Execution Committee (Ex-

com)

Under the provincial hall structure and in alignment with the provincial unit of local
administration, Provincial Rural Development Committee and Execution Committee (so
called PRDC’s Ex-com) working as representative and under the structure of National
Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development (NCDD).

Provincial Rural Development Committee (PRDC) was established in order to manage

development affair within province and municipality. It was established in composition of
provincial governor as a chairperson, and one or two deputy provincial governors as
deputy, provincial and municipality director of all sectors or line departments as member,
and all district or Khan governor of all district and khan as member. The important roles of
this committee, among other important, are to oversee the district, provincial development
plan and investment plan, and budget plan in accordance to the criteria of NCDD, and
rather than this is to facilitate and support the implementation of decentralization and
deconcentratation policy of NCDD, also to mainstream gender strategic, natural resources
and environment in development plan. In order to assist daily work of PRDC and it is
authorized to establish Execution Committee (Ex-com) (MoI, 2008).

Ex-com was established in order to assist a regular work of PRDC. It composes provincial
or municipality governor as chairperson, deputy provincial or municipality governor as
deputy, director of provincial/municipality of department of rural development as member,
director of provincial/municipality department of planning as member, director of
provincial/municipality department of finance and economy as members, director of
provincial/municipality department of agriculture as member, director of
provincial/municipality department of women affair as member, director of
provincial/municipality department of water resource as member, director of provincial or
municipality treasury as member and director of provincial or municipality unit of local

78
administrative as member. These members were deployed almost from all priority sectors.
Having similar structure to NCDD, PRDC Ex-com has the following units and working on
the respective specialist unit; Contract Administrative Unit (CAU), Local Administrative
Unit (LAU), Technical Support Unit (TSU), Finance Unit (FU) for better local governance
(Ibid, 2008).

These units work to support sub-national and commune level in their respective role and
duties; hence, they built local good governance. Moreover, they also played as important
institution to implement any guidelines, declarations, sub-decrees, and laws in order to
support CCs.

• Provincial facilitator team

Under the supervision of local administrative unit, provincial facilitator team was recruited
in order to assist and provide technical support to CCs and as the bridge for
communication between CCs and local administrative unit of provincial hall, and other
institutions; especially PRDC’s Ex-com and line departments at either national or local
level. It also played very vital role to implement the law on administrative management of
CCs and provided capacity building to CCs in general aspect related local development or
administrative affairs.

c) District and District Councils

At district level, as recently district councils were elected by CCs, serve as a major role to
assist commune council to sustain and promote democratic development within the district.
As provided in a special provisions in the law on administrative management of capital,
province, municipality, district and khan, district/khan council are obligated to assist CCs
to promote and ensure democratic development, and getting work together in order to
ensure public participation in governance process within the district, commune, and figure
out and response to requests from CCs and needs within the district (Article 96,97).

Moreover, the law also defined that district councils has obligate to, by consulting with
stakeholders, assess the capacity of commune council, and on regular basic provide
capacity building to CCs, and improve the awareness of citizens to promote and ensure
democratic development (Article 99).

From the aspect of local development planning, article 100 of the law also prescribed that
commune; district/khan councils shall integrate program, identified strategies and activities
for responding the proposal, needs and or request of CCs in their three years rolling
investment program and 5 years development plan.

In this regard, it already defined the linkage between the CCs and district/khan councils in
development sub-national or local development at commune level through supporting
democratic development. On the other hand, as the law has just been adopted, the practical
results were not likely to be found and reported.

• District facilitator team

As assistant to district governor to monitor and evaluate commune council’s performance

through coaching and mentoring approach. District Facilitator Team (DFT) played very

79
important role not only in preparation of CDPs and commune investment program,
especially from the feasibility phase to project implement and evaluation phase, but also
involve in financial management system of CCs either in general or in specifically on
commune development project. Moreover, the team also pay more attention how CCs
mainstream LGG in their development affair by assurance of eight components of LGG
including equity, consensus, rules of law, transparency, accountability, responsiveness,
efficiency and effectiveness and participation. As local development that reflected through
commune development is a crucial task besides administrative affair, the LGG components
must be mainstreamed and applied by CCs.

5.2.3 Decentralized Level

As illustrated in the institutional arrangement figure 5.2.1 for LGG support, commune is
defined as the lowest level of local administrative management, as vitally defined by the
law on administrative management of commune that CCs is an entity to support good
governance at local level and leading to democratic development (Article, 3 and 41).

a) Commune Focal Point

Based on the declaration of Ministry of Interior (2003), commune focal point person ( both
male and female) were recruited by CCs in order to ensure that the implementation of
commune works are based on transparent, effective and high responsible by monitoring
and evaluation of important activities in the commune. The declaration tinted that
commune focal point persons have to be proposed by budgeting and planning committee
by unanimous vote. Among other important roles, commune focal person involved with
organization of training on monitoring and evaluation to councilors and members of PBC
that provided by either government or NGOs, and participated in monitoring project
implementation of commune fund projects and enough participation from both men and
female in this regard. Therefore, it is a part to support governance at commune level
through commune focal person.

5.3 Existing Legislatives to Support LGG Applications in CDPs

The synthesis ranged from the existing laws, royal-decrees, sub-decrees, declarations, and
other manuals and guidelines to support local good governance, particularly from the
aspects of CDPs.

5.3.1 Laws

There are two levels of laws, which were adopted in order to support deconcentration and
decentralization policy in Cambodia. First, it was adopted in 2001; law on administrative
management of commune, and the second is law on administrative management of the
capital, provinces, municipalities, districts and khans, so called Organic Law. These laws
were compliance with law on the election of sub-national council and commune council.

Law on Administrative Management of the Capital, Provinces, Municipalities, Districts

and Khans was adopted in 2008 in order to define administrative management of capital,
provinces, municipal and district/Khans, to inspire sustainable democratic development
based on deconcentration and decentralization policy (Article 1 and 2). To achieve this,
sub-national councils, who were elected by CCs, and based on the sub-national council’s

80
election law, shall formulate its development plan which included vision, goal and
objectives under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, councils’ development plan shall ensure
transparency and accountability to entire citizens under its jurisdiction (Law on
Administrative Management of the Capital, Provinces, Municipalities, Districts, and
Khans, 2008). Nonetheless, this was just adopted and practical activities were no
significant so far, but there were some pilot projects. This would help CCs to counter other
inter-commune problem and development issues which can be solved, thus sub-national
councils (provincial and district level) would address the local governance issue of CCs by
solving the above issue.

As commune is being governed by the law of administrative management of

commune/sangkat, in each mandate of 5 years, CCs have to develop CDPs which
prescribed by the law. As stated in article 41 of the law, a commune has been obligated to
support and inspire good governance by managing and using existing resources in a
sustainable manner to meet the basic needs and serve as the common interests of the
citizens and its commune/sangkat. To achieve this, other articles of the law also define the
CDPs, which needs be consistency with national socio-economic development plan, and it
defines that by any mean or method, CCs have to encourage participation of citizens within
its territory in entire of planning process. What is more, monitoring and evaluation of the
CDPs shall be conducted by commune council to ensure transparency and high
accountability, and disseminate the outcomes of CDPs implementation to grass root people
and its councils (Law on Administrative Management of Commune/Sangkat, 2001).

5.3.2 Royal Decrees

There are several royal decrees in relation to administrative management of sub-national,

yet a royal decree was issued for the management and implementation of policy of
deconcentration and decentralization policy, namely royal decree on establishment of the
national committee for sub-national democratic development, so called NCDD. The royal
decree prescribes NCDD and its secretariat to oversee and implement the law on
administrative management of Capital, Provinces, Municipalities, Districts and Khans and
the law on administrative management of commune according to deconcentration and
decentralization policy (Royal Decree on Establishment of National Committee for Sub-
National Democratic Development, 2008). In this regard, it plays very imperative role in
facilitating democratic development, which good governance is imperative, from sub-
national to decentralized level.

5.3.3 Sub-Decrees

There were several sub-decrees which issued in additional to the laws, both law on
administrative management of commune/sangkat, and also law on administrative
management of capital, province and municipality, district and khan, even so there were
around 4 sub-decrees which directly and indirectly supported the LGG at either commune
and sub-national level, particularly in CDPs. Some sub-decrees defined involvement and
implementation institutions to work on the related laws above according to deconcentration
and decentralization policy.

• Sub-Decree establishment and functioning of the secretariat of the National Committee

for Democratic Development at Sub-national Level (RGC, 2009). The objective of this
sub-decree is to define the composition, rule, duties, establishment and functioning of

81
 the sub-committees of the national committee for democratic development at sub-
national level. Based on this sub-decree, NCDD has four sub-committees including
functions and resources, financial and fiscal affairs, sub-national administration
personnel and sub-national development plan. Membership for these committees was
selected from ministry of planning, ministry of economy and finance, ministry of
women affaire, ministry of interior and under secretary of state of NCDD
ministries/institutions. Among these sub-committees, sub-committee on finance and
fiscal affairs plays very important role is allocating finance to sub-national, and sub-
committee on sub-national development planning, which assists NCDD on all affairs
related to development plans and investment program of sub-national administrations.
Thus, it contributed to democratic development at sub-national level either in general
affair or in development planning aspect, and it also linked to the CCs which under the
administrative management, and territory, jurisdiction. However, as the sub-decree has
just adopted after organic law in 2009, the practical work were not seen through this
process, but similar aspects have been done before.

• Sub-decree on decentralization of powers, role, and duties to CCs (RGC, 2002). This
sub-decree composes of seven chapters, however chapter first prescribed insight
meaning related to empowering CCs and governance of commune for general affairs
and services delivery of CCs, while the second chapter provides more information how
commune chief, committee and assistant work, and it also highlighted budgeting and
planning committee role. Moreover, being the commune chief has to seek advice from
neighboring commune to prepare budget and development plan, implement the plan,
monitor and evaluate the plan and prepare and approve annual report of commune
council. Even so, defined the space for village headperson to advise budgeting and
planning committee on the real needs, priorities of village into CDPs and budget plan,
implement the plan within the village, and advise the committee on monitoring and
evaluation of commune development and budgeting implementation. Besides these, the
rest chapters define the role, authorities and right of CCs to explain in addition to the
law on administrative management of CCs. In this instance, the sub-decree provides
more insight on local governance through CDPs by defined the role, duties and powers
of CCs.

• Sub-decree on the establishment of the commune fund (CF) (RGC, 2002). The objective
of this sub-decree is to determine the commune fund establishment according to the law
on administrative management of commune, which enables commune to implement
their responsibilities for local administrative and local development. Moreover, it
created more incentive to build the capacity for good governance of CCs in order to
address the needs of grass root people. From this aspect, the sub-decree provides clearly
insight on how commune fund can be used in transparency, accountability,
responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency manner as it explains more details in
addition to the law. Thus, this sub decree is very important for CCs to use the fund for
local development, through CDPs, from the aspect of local good governance.

• Sub-decree on commune financial management system (RGC, 2002). Among other

things, financial aspects were the sensitive in governance issue for CCs. This sub-decree
provides clear procedures and regulations relating to commune budget, payment and
accounting system, expenditure management, durable assets, financial reporting and
auditing. From the context of CDPs or general aspects of commune affairs, this sub-
decree clearly defined how commune manage the finance in good governance manner.

82
 In the context of local development which reflected through CDPs, the sub-decree
prescribed how CCs manage the budget of local development categories other than
investment on administrative categories. More specifically is that it mentions on
procurement of commune council’s goods and services have to be established to
procure, particularly commune development projects, to ensure the most transparent and
economical. Thus, the decree provides clear guideline manage commune finance from
transparency manner.

5.3.4 Declarations

To explain more intensive in addition to laws, royal decrees and sub-decrees, several
declarations were made by involved ministries, especially ministry of planning, interior,
economic and finance. Those declarations prescribed the rule, duties and how each
institution work with CCs either in a broad concept of governance or in specific.

• Declaration on roles, duties and structure of the department of local administration

(MoI, 2002). It explains how department of local administration work in accountable to
department of general administration of ministry of interior (at national level), and how
to deal with and assist CCs. The declaration defined 6 offices under its administration
including office of administration, monitoring, control and support of
commune/sangkat, education and capacity building, planning, statistics and information,
finance and technical research. The roles and duties of these offices were mentioned in
the previous section on department of local administration.

• Declaration on the organization, and functioning of provincial, municipal local

administration units (MoI, 2004). Similarly, to department of local administration at
national level, this declaration was announced in order to establish its subsidiary in each
provincial/municipality throughout Cambodia to assist the department of local
administration to work on aspect related to commune council. On the other hand,
provincial/municipality local administrative unit has three offices including office of
administration, monitoring and evaluation intervention, office of planning, data and
finance, office of training, education and capacity building and information. How these
offices assist the CCs in governance issue was elaborated in previous section at sub-
national level.

• Declaration transferring of authority to the sub-national governors to support commune

council (MoI, 2002). The declaration aims to delegate power from ministry of interior to
provincial/municipal governors to assist, build capacity, monitor, evaluate and facilitate
CCs to implement decentralization policy on behalf of ministry of interior. From the
context of LGG in CDPs, provincial governor were authorized to monitor and evaluate
the performance of committee which established by CCs how it performs in a better
manner, and even so in relation to village head, deputy head, and village assistant
recruitment. Thus, it reflected not only in general aspects of provincial governor to
support CCs, but also aspect related to governance in CDPs, which budgeting and
planning committee is among other committees of CCs which have to be monitored for
proper performance. Moreover, it authorized provincial/municipal governor to
compromise the conflict of CCs, and also to temporary manage the commune and
cancelation of commune, were transferred to provincial governor.

83
• Inter-ministerial declaration on CDPs (MoI and MoP, 2007). It provides more intensive
in the context of LGG in CDPs and commune investment program, which so called in
this research as CDPs. Clear steps either in 5 CDPs and annual commune investment
program were prescribed in this declaration. Moreover, it also provide mechanisms and
institutional arrangement in order to implement CDP and CIP especially
provincial/municipality of planning and provincial/municipality of local administration
unit under the provincial hall, and other provincial departments and institutions in
involvement in planning implementation. The declaration defined governance aspects
range from participation, responsiveness, accountability, transparency, rule of law, and
efficiency and effectiveness in planning which have been elaborated in chapter one, and
also in the Appendix of this study.

• Declaration on duties and rights of commune secretary (MoI, 2001). Commune clerk
acted as a very important secretary and representative of commune council in making
and implementing decisions pursuance to the law on administrative and management of
commune, sub-decrees, declarations, other legal instruments that adopted by National
Committee for Support to Commune/Sangkat (NSCS), (Article 10) recently National
Committee to Support Democratic Development at Sub-national level (NCDD).
Therefore, commune clerk took role as important person to ensure LGG of CCs as if
CCs applied relevance laws, sub-decrees, declaration, guidelines and other legal
instruments, governance would be good.

• Declaration on reorganization of structure, roles and responsibilities of the

provincial/municipal rural development committee and executive committee (PRDC’s
Excom) (MoI, 2008). As it mentioned in the previous section on institutional
arrangements, the declaration is just to reorganize structure, roles and responsibilities of
PRDC and Ex-com in relation to implementation the law on management of
administration of capital, provinces/municipalities, districts and Khan, and the law on
management and administrative of commune/sangkat, which previously focused on only
the commune level, but recently also on sub-national level.

• Declaration on commune procurement (MoEF, 2005). The declaration has been used in
replacement of previous declaration in 2003, and in order to reflect to the sub-decree on
commune financial management system. As CCs fund was a part of sensitive matter
among other affairs of CCs, it provided how CCs handle procurement by providing
advices in relation to procurement method, procedure, and principle of procurement. It
is such a regulation that commune have to be followed to ensure transparent,
participation, efficiency and effectiveness, and rules of law in bidding, thus it supports
LGG from aspect of project biding.

5.3.5 Manuals and Guidelines

Several guidelines and manuals have been developed for CCs to apply, however, as hug
amount of commune fund allocated to local development category; many guidelines and
manual were developed to serve this purpose.

• Hip pocket good governance for commune council (MoI, 2005). As it is realized that
good governance is a crucial components to support the process of sustainable and
institutional resources, National Committee for Support to Commune (NCSC), which
recently took over role and responsibilities by NCDD, developed a good governance

84
 handbook for CCs. It simplified to the real situation of commune in Cambodia to
manage and develop their commune/sangkat. Eight components were simplified from
UNESCAP, including participation, rule of law, transparency, consensus oriented,
equity, effective and efficiency, accountability and responsiveness which explain either
in general affair, and in CDPs affair of CCs. Although it covers general aspect of
commune, more than 50 per cent of commune affair are local development, which
reflected through CDPs, so it provided better understanding through handbook to apply
good governance. This handbook has been using local administrative unit, provincial
and district facilitators, and other advisors to deliver training, coach and mentor CCs,
although there is not any regulation was adopted be used.

• Manual on CDPs and CIP (MoI and MoP, 2007). Several manuals related to planning of
CCs were developed and updated based on the previous experience. This manual was
developed which revised from the previous one after the second mandate of CCs in
2007, and defined shorter steps in CDPs and CIP. In each step, the manual defines how
local people and CCs prepare and implement the plan in participatory approach,
accordingly. Details planning steps and how LGG can be applied and mainstreamed
were defined in chapter 1 and the Appendix of this study.

• Manual on project implement manual of commune (NCDD, 2009). The manual was
developed in order to assist CCs and other stakeholders to implement commune fund
projects. The manual has been used since 2001, and recently, 2009, decision making
was officially made by Ministry of Interior based on several revisions to use for
commune fund project implement. This manual was developed based on several laws,
royal decrees, sub-decrees, and declarations which mentioned in the above section, and
it is specially designed for local development fund component of commune fund. The
manual has been used generally after the annual investment plan approved. It consists of
four sections, first section provides overview how manual can be used, second section
explains about project preparation and technical clearance, third section about
procurement and contract management, and the fourth elaborates tools and instruments
in project monitoring and evaluation. In overall concept, it provides clear guidelines and
forms to be used by CCs and stakeholders in the implementation, monitoring and
evaluation process.

The manual is not only a guideline for CCs, but also explains the institutional
arrangements ranking from national to commune level. It defines roles and
responsibilities of CCs, planning and budgeting committee, commune chief, project
management committee, community and beneficiaries, technical support unit,
provincial/municipal of local administration unit, technical line departments, executive
committee (Excom) of PRDC, and working group of NCDD secretariat.

Although it is not clearly defined that governance has been mainstreamed, as if it is

followed properly, better governance would gain to CCs as it is an instrument which
defined transparent, accountability, and participation, rule of law, efficiency and
effectiveness and responsiveness in each stage of project implement, and monitoring
and evaluation.

85
5.4 Development Agencies (NGOs and Donors)

As development partners have been regarded by RGC as imperative to achieve its

development goals, especially good governance, which lies in the cornerstone of RGC
development strategy, many development agencies funded in terms of grant and loan in
this regard.

A package of budget through NCDD is a part of LGG strengthening, and implementation

of deconcentration and decentralization policy. There were around 13 international
development agencies and international development organizations working toward
governance strengthening at decentralized level in several aspects, those including (NCDD,
2009):

• Asian Development Bank (ADB): provided loan as well as grant for local governance
capacity building and LGG enhancement.
• The World Bank (WB): provided loan and other grant for LGG and rural livelihood
through NCDD’s commune fund.
• Department for International Development (DFID): Provided grant for natural resource
management and livelihood program, and local governance, and decentralization to
NCDD, and other local and international NGOs for local administration reform in
Cambodia.
• Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID): join bilateral with other
international development agencies for local development to reduce poverty through
agricultural development, strengthening law and justice system.
• Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): Implementation of the Cambodia
program particularly as the political and economic environments and its policy of
strengthening aid effectiveness has placed more emphasis upon working smarter in the
field and using local resources to improve CIDA’s knowledge base and program
effectiveness. It provide grant to local NGOs in Cambodia through local initiative fund
to implement various program related to local governance, land right and poverty
reduction.
• Danish Development Assistance (DANIDA): implementing democratization, human
right, and good governance program, and natural resource management and livelihood
through NCDD.
• European Commission (EU): small grant for small scale infrastructure development in
some provinces of Cambodia in line with NCDD program and UNDP
• GTZ-German (GTZ): developed its own project for local administration reform and
local governance with other local and NGOs networking, and capacity building of local
government.
• Groupe de Recherche et d’Echanges Technologiques (GRET): Its actions there, reducted
in partnership with various local institutions and NGOs, notably focus on: rural
development, drinking water, micro-finance, micro-insurance, and funds was
contributed to NCDD.
• Japan International Development Agency (JICA): developed development project
related law enforcement for sub national development and decentralization in
Cambodia.
• Pact Cambodia: granted fund from various sources to support local administration and
reform through local NGOs some provinces of Cambodia.
• The Swedish Agency for International Development Cooperation (SIDA): contributed
fund to support PSDD, in the course to reduce poverty in Cambodia through support to

86
 Decentralization and Deconcentration reform, by improve governance, service delivery
and development for the rural poor by: strengthening local government systems and
structures to enable better pro-poor investments; improving the quality, accessibility and
equity of services at the sub-national level; and prior to and following enactment of the
organic law on D&D, supporting a more effective policy, legal, political, institutional
and administrative framework that will give the poor greater access to and benefits from
local services.
• International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD): funded NCDD’s CDPs to
improve agricultural product and agriculture infrastructure.
• The United States Agency for International Development (USAID): funded other local
and international NGOs for local development, democratic and local administration
reform.
• The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF): funded NCDD’s commune fund to
address the issues (infrastructure) related to women and children in CDPs.
• United National Capital Development Fund (UNCDF): working with and funded NCDD
to support local development and local governance through commune fund.
• United Nations Development Program (UNDP): mobilized fund and grant from other
donors and international financial institution to strengthen democratic development at
national, sub national and local government, as well as other technical support in
decentralization and deconcentration.

Each development agency funded not only through NCDD projects, which mentioned in
chapter two of this study, but also to various local and international NGOs in Cambodia in
order to enhance local governance, decentralization and deconcentration, and local
administration reform. Those development agencies or international donors who registered
at councils of development of Cambodia, but also other donors from other countries did
not fund some local and international NGOs.

These local and international NGOs designed different approaches to enhance governance
of CCs in different regions. Some of them were focusing on research, capacity building,
mentoring and coaching, while the other were focusing on financing local development of
CCs, networking, exposure visit, and on the job training and general affairs of CCs
services through local development activities, while the other were focusing on advocacy
or voice up grass root people CDPs for better governance.

87
 Chapter 6

Applications of Local Good Governance (LGG) in Commune Development Planning

(CDPs)

This chapter analyzed how LGG applied in both CDPs and specific projects of CDPs of
each commune and cross communes comparison. First section; analyzed LGG issues from
CDPs and case projects evidence in Khnach Romeas commune, while the second sections
analyzed LGG issue from CDPs and case project evidence in Prey Khpos commune. Third
section scrutinized comparative analysis on application of LGG in both communes, while
last section summarizes the findings of this chapter.

6.1 Khnach Romeas Commune

Understanding the process of CDPs is necessary to understand the local good governance
in CDPs of Khanch Romeas commune hereunder.

6.1.1 Performance of CDP Process

In comparison with the designed CDPs cycle which applied in this research, it was found
that Khnach Romeas commune formed the Budgeting and Planning Committee (PBC) who
took responsibilities for budget planning, and CDPs, 5 years and annual planning, through
commune chief decision No. 008/007 which consisted of 27 people including CCs, villager
representatives, village chiefs, assistant of village chief, and a women in charge of women
affair. Annually this committee prepared commune development plan as consequently.

First Stage: Plan Formulation

PBCs reviewed the existing 5 years CDPs in 2007 by focusing on situation analysis of the
commune, development framework, and investment framework in the following sectors
including economic, natural resource and environment, administrative service and security,
and gender aspects, as mentioned above section in Chapter 4. It was undertaken by holding
meetings with PBCs at the commune office in order to verify the constraints, needs and
what were not done in the last year, and have to be done in the next year CDPs.

The meeting conducted among 9 CCs plus other key informants, totally 23 people
participated the meeting in order to conduct analysis by using the following tools:
commune map, commune database, commune situation information, and other evidences
in order to figure out problems, causes, needs and solutions, and District Facilitator Team
were informed to advice PBC at the mean time. The commune figured out 4 priority
problems including bad road condition, low rice yield, student drop out, and low
households income which were analyzed about causes, needs and solutions as shown in
Appendix 12 of Khnach Romeas.

Second Stage: Identification/Review Problems and Needs

PBC members were assigned to conduct meeting at village level in order to identify
problems, causes of problem, locations, needs, constraints and solutions, to prioritize the
project in each village with villagers. In 2007, there were totally 293 people (226 females
and 67 males) with other key informants participated the meetings at the villages. After the
village level meeting, key informants were invited to the meeting at the commune level in
order to prioritize the project to be implemented. In the mean time, CCs and village chief

88
were collecting cash contribution from villagers in advance, they was expected that the
project were awarded to the respective village. 10 per cent of total amount of project cost
was collected from villagers, yet the amount of the contribution from each household was
applied based on well being of each households.

Third Stage: Identification and Selection of Priority Development Project

Base on the result in the second stage, commune prepared all proposed projects into a list
and in flip chart in order to mobilize support from the District Integration Workshop
(DIW) which usually held in October and November annually.

Fourth Stage: District Integration Workshop (DIW)

Commune chief presented what were done and what were not done by those (development
agencies and line departments) who pledged to support the commune projects in the
previous year, and also presented the projects that were seeking the support for the next
year. After presentation, development agencies and line departments were advised to
inquiry the commune chief and participated PBC regarding the project title, location
(village), which presented in the flip chart, and sometimes PBC was advised to change the
title of the project to fit with their objectives. These supporters were invited to sign the
temporary contract agreement with communes what they wished to support and district of
planning. Majority of the project were not always supported, around 50 per cent out of the
total projects in each year, and majority of these projects were non-infrastructure projects.
The following consequents were the projects which supported by those who were working
for development in Khnach Romeas.

Table 6.1.1: Projects Supported by Development Agencies and Line Departments in DIW
Year Pledged to Non-support Total Projects Actual
Support Projects Projects Implemented
2007 25 38 63 89
2008 61 67 128 65
2009 31 47 78 43
Source: Khnach Romeas CIP, 2007, 2008, 2009.

Fifth Stage: Approval on CDPs

After the DIW, commune chief, PBC, District Facilitator Team, and other CCs were
invited to the meeting at commune level for projects approval to be funded by the
commune fund as on objectives and critieria (to the poorest village, top priority in the list
and infrastructure). All commune fund were used to support infrastructure, and projects
which supported by the development agencies and line departments, and the participants
including 9 out 9 CCs, as require, and other 23 of PBC members, to provide comments,
and vote for approval of CDPs in the respective years. It was bunched into a book
including minute of commune meeting, and along with attendance list, commune map,
commune situation analysis, approved projects, non-approved projects, projects were
implemented in previous year, and budget from different sources and also commune fund,
and was sent to Provincial Local Administration Unit (PLAU) for comment. As these were
mostly positively comment and some a few points related to map, and writing style were
usually commented to be improved. Table 6.1.2 below demonstrates comparison sources of
fund mobilized from different sources during DIW.

89
 Table 6.1.2: Sources of Revenue of Khanch Romeas Commune
2007 2008 2009
Sources of Revenue
Riel % Riel % Riel %
Villagers Contribution 2,013,200.0 0.51 2,727,300.0 0.6 3,534,900.0 0.3
Commune Development Fund 57,630,800.0 14.7 35,039,100.0 7.9 45,902,000.0 5.0
Other budget of Commune 0.0 0 8,219,000.0 1.8 15,120,000.0 1.6
Line Departments 3,459,200.0 0.8 1,698,600.0 0.3 81,540,000.0 9.0
NGOs 327,335,320.0 83.8 395,657,200.0 89.2 758,960,000.0 83.8
Total Fund 390,438,520.0 100 443,341,200.0 100 905,056,900.0 100
Source: Khnach Romeas CIP, 2007, 2008, 2009.

As the project was completely approved, the information about the CDPs was
disseminated, and was available at the commune office, district office and department of
planning of Batambang province. Khnach Romeas commune listed down the projects that
were going to be implemented and posted the commune information board which was
available in every village of Khnach Romeas commune.

Sixth Stage: Implementation of Development Project

Once CDPs approved, commune chief and CCs assigned M&EC including commune
chief, a CCs, village chief, and village chief assistant from the village that awarded the
commune fund to implement the project. These people will took role to conduct feasibility
study including land acquisition with villagers, by compromising with villagers concerning
properties and land affected by projects. Majority of the villagers agreed to contribute the
land as there was slightly affect to their properties (land), and contract agreements with
commune were made with print thumb of villagers and commune chief signature. The
projects were implemented by the commune fund in 2007, 2008, and 2009 were presented
below table. Site studies were conducted by the technical support officer from PRDC’s
Excom of Battambang province, in order to conduct technical measurement, technical
design, plan, and cost estimation, and other related documents. As the technical design of
commune project were available, CCs, with technical support officer and district
facilitators, prepared a bid request or bid announcement from qualified contractors, which
took generally one week period, and the documents for bidding were made available at
Khnach Romeas commune, and PRDC of Battambang province. Before that procurement
committee was established including commune chief, 2 CCs, and a commune clerk as
assistant. At the mean time Khnach Romeas commune chief issued the letter to invite some
contractors to participate the procurement. Bidding was usually conducted in October and
November, and sometimes was delayed in accordance to the arrangement of District
Facilitator Team in order to fit with those communes that were late in preparing their CDPs
and site studies. Khnach Romeas commune usually finished on time, and awaiting for the
other communes.

The procurement processes were undertaken at the district level, where all communes
within the Bavel district were gathering. The procurement event was chaired by district
governors, and NCDD advisor of Battambang province, DFT, TSO, PLAU, PMESA, CAU
of PRDC’s Excom, village chief who benefited from the projects, and other contractors. At
least three contractors were required as effective bidding competition. It was found three
contractors submitted the bid documents to procure following projects.

90
 Table 6.1.3: Khnach Romeas Commune Projects Bided in 2007-2009
2007 2008 2009
1 Repair laterite road in 1 Repair an alignment of 1 Build an alignment of
Khnach Romeas village 1.042 km laterite road in 0.8 km of earth road in
Koh Ream village Rung Amplil village
2 Repair laterite road in 2 Rehabilitate an alignment of 2 Build an alignment of
Balang Leu and Balang 1.276 km laterite road in 0.87 km of earth road
Meanchey village Balang Leu and Balang in Svay Sa village
Meanchey village
3 3 Repair an alignment of 3 Construct a single
1.134 km earth road in culvert in Rung Ampil
Khnach Romeas village village
4 4 Rehabilitate an alignment of 4 Construct a single
1 km earth road in Khnach culvert in Svay Sa
Romeas village village
Source: Khnach Romeas Commune, 2007, 2008b, 2009.

All the above projects were procured in a package. The request cost was around 5 per cent
lower than the cost estimation of CCs in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The remaining amount of
commune fund that exceeded the estimated cost was used to add the length of road
alignment, and therefore it was fully used up. After the procurement event, Khanch
Romeas commune issued a letter request for the approval from provincial governor and to
affirm that the contractors have had good reputation in construction. Separate letters were
issued by the commune chief to invite the contractors to assign the contract agreement
within 45 days; otherwise the contract would be awarded to the reserved contractors.
Contracts were usually made between Khanch Romeas commune with commune chief as
signatory and contractors. Contractors were usually agreed to implement the project, as
agreed in the contract, in December and January, however they were mostly delayed the
commencing date of project implement due to myriad of reasons including raining, and the
project site could not be accessed as the land still wet. These cases were not so often seen
in Khnach Romeas commune, as Khnach Romeas commune chief has good relation with
higher government office at sub-national and cental level, which enforced those contractors
to implement the project according to time frame.

Seventh Stage: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

Contracts were usually paid as three installments, first installment paid after the project
completed 50 per cent and paid 45 per cent of total amount, and second installment after
the project completed 100 per cent paid 45 per cent of total amount, and the rest 10 per
cent of total amount paid after the retention period of 6 months. Before the project
commencing to implement, M&EC requested through verbal to villagers who live along
the project site to facilitate in terms of land clearance for the convenience of contractors to
implement the project. Majority of villagers participated this event, said the commune
chief. Before the commencement of project implement, village chief and their colleagues
were explained and given the design of project documents in order to follow up, however
these people were not every good understanding of the design, they just requested for verb
explanation which helped them to follow up with the contractors. “Commune chief of
Khnach Romeas was frequency, almost every day, to follow up the projects which were
being implemented by the contractors, said village chief and villagers around the
projects.”

91
Once the project was implemented according to the contract, 50 per cent were completed,
contractors submitted the request including progress of project report first installment
payment. Project M&E commitee and technical support officer conducted field monitor to
confirm that whether the project completed according to the contractors report or not.
Village chief and elder people who live along the road were invited to participate the
monitoring at the project site, and allowed to comment on the quality of project with
technical officer, and commune chief and CCs of Khanh Romeas commune. Field
monitoring and evaluation reports with attendance list during field monitoring were issued
by technical officer, and there not so many comments were found to improve the quality of
the project, and verify that the project was completed according to the request of
contractors. Commune clerk prepared the cheque to be signed by commune chief for
contractor to get the money from the provincial treasury. It was undertaken the same
process for the second installment payment. By completion 100 per cent, project sign
boards were needed to post along the project site, yet there was not found any project sign
board was posted, and it was reported that contractors forgot to post. After 6 months
retention period, contractors requested for final payment, and technical officer and project
monitoring and evaluation conducted field monitor again in order to ensure that the project
outputs were according to the design, and reports issued by the technical officer. There was
not much people participate the evaluation team, it usually undertaken by informal
monitoring, and issued the report to affirm that quality were guaranted during retention
period. The report regarding the project evaluation and monitoring were not issued in
publicly through information boards, however it was asserted that village chief understood
the amount of budget spent for the project, and commune chief usually conduct public
meeting to announce the amount of budget spent for project implement after the project
completion, how much it was contributed by villagers and how much it was paid by
commune fund. Besides, monthly meetings were arranged by CCs in order to reflect what
they had done monthly and as well annually and CDPs was an agenda of the meeting, and
villagers, village chiefs, NGOs, key people, district facilitators and all CCs were invited to
participate the meeting, and allowed to inquire about the progress of CDPs and its financial
expenditures.

6.1.2 Case Study on Infrastructure Project in Knach Romeas Commune

In additional to understanding of CDPs in Khnach Romeas commune, project case studies

analysis on governance issues was used in order analyze governance issue in deep at
project operation level.

Case A: Case Study on Rural Laterite Road in Balung Leu and Balung Mean Chey of
Khnach Romeas Commune

Rural infrastructure was identified as the major input in order to improve rural livelihood
and economic activities. There was found difficulty for villagers from Balung Leu and
Balung Meanchey to access to the market in Khnach Romease village, and connect to the
central of the Bavel district, and other districts and to other provinces. The villages’ earth
road was fully of muddy, and villagers found difficulty to transport their products such
potatoes, cassava, rice, crop and vegetable to markets. Therefore, it was proposed in
commune investment plan in 2008.

As the rural laterite road in each village was identified as a top priority after earth road,
1.276 km of rural laterite road in Balung Le and Balung Meachey village was supported by

92
commune fund. After project design study and land acquisition conducted, technical
support officer came up with plan (technical design, measurements and cost estimation).
The estimated cost for this laterite road was 32, 503,250.00 Riel. After a week of bid
announcement, procurement ceremony held on 11 September 2008 at the district level.
There were three contractors attended and submitted bid documents. Contract was awarded
to the lowest price bidder at 32,301,845.00 Riel after procurement. The project was
implemented on 26 September to 26 November 2008, as was expected, and as agreed in
the contract between Khnach Romeas commune and the contractor.

It addressed the needs and issues of local people in these two villages because it was
ranked as the top priority in the CDPs as in above CDPs process of Khnach Romeas. It
increased the accessibility to not only central of Khan Romeas commune, and markets, but
to other districts, and moreover; facilitated the convenience for students to access to
primary and secondary schools. On the other hand, it was not addressed within the time
frame of issue because the process took long time to in order to reach the implementation
stage of this project.

The project was proposed by villagers, and they who made decision to select the project as
the most priority. They contributed their cash for project implementation (as mentioned in
CDPs process above) and labour for site clearance to facilitate contractor to implement the
project smoothly. A few people participated during the project monitoring and evaluation,
there were only key people within the village such as village chief, deputy village chief and
their colleagues, and also a few villagers around the road were also invited to report and
join the monitoring and evaluation on the quality of the laterite road rehabilitation. At the
time of studying, villagers still satisfied the quality of the project, and expected that it
would last longer, and villagers were able to travel and transport their products more
convenience than before. Maintenance committee was established, the committee included
village chief, deputy village chief, and a CC who assigned to specific village, and elder
people. They used to repair or fill in some puddles along the road.

Villagers understood that both village chief and CCs had high responsible to the output of
laterite road in these villages, for they regularly monitored the project site almost every day
during the construction. However, technical officer were not usually visited the project in
order to monitor the project, just around 3 times only during the project implementation.
Project M&E committee who has commune chief as a chair took very important role to
monitor the project, and villagers were very much appreciated their responsibilities.

Although CCs and committees did very good thing for this project implementation, lack of
transparency in terms of financial report and information about the project was not posted
nearby the project site, as mentioned in the contract between the commune and contractor,
contractor missed to place the project signboards, and lack of contract enforcement.
However, CCs explained that they announced by CCs about the project where fund was
supported, and how much the cash contribution from villagers was. The project was funded
by commune fund and villagers’ cash contribution. Villagers used to hear once the project
was completed; however, those villagers who lived far from the road understood that it was
funded by a political party as pledged in 2007, during the second mandate of CCs’
election. As the result of having no permanent project signboards, some political parties
cheated the villagers that it was their contributions to development within the commune.

93
Committees, village chief and villagers understood that the project was very much
appreciative by villagers as the result of the project fitted to cost of the project and
villagers’ cash contribution. If it was just an earth road again, there might be damaged soon
after a year. Villagers anticipated that the output of project will last longer and at the mean
time maintenance will be needed, and participation from all villagers to maintain project
quality.

6.2 Analysis of LGG in CDPs of Khnach Romea Commune

The analysis was based on the conceptualized indicators, which were defined in Chapter 3.

6.2.1 Rule of law

The most important CCs had to be followed by Khnach Romeas commune was the
declaration on CDPs and CIPs and its manual which were used as guiding to prepare 5
years CDPs and annual CDPs. In this regard, Khnach Romeas commune councils,
especially Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC), followed the 5 steps to develop 5
years CDPs in 2007, and annual CDPs, respectively in 2007, 2008, 2009, and matched
with 7 steps of the study CDPs cycle given in Chapter 2. In the planning process, meeting
was regarded as a major medium to develop CDPs, which held at either commune or
village level. Without this CCs, especially budgeting and planning committee, were
impossible to handle planning process. Format of CDPs book was available in the
guideline, and were used by PBC in Khnach Romeas commune as mentioned in CDPs
process above section.

Besides, PIM in terms of project preparation, project implementation, and project

monitoring and evaluation steps were used by Khanch Romeas CCs in order to implement
the project after the CDPs was proved annually. This manual combined declarations on
procurement, monitoring and evaluation which were elaborated in Chapter 5 on
institutional, frameworks and mechanisms to apply LGG in CDPs. It was inevitable to
implement the project of commune fund without this manual, otherwise it againsts the
decision which made by minister of interior and planning. Although this manual was used,
not a hundred per cent was followed, for there was many forms had to be filled out which
consumed long time. PIM also defined how monitoring and evaluation of the project of
commune fund was executed, and this was followed by Khnach Roemas’ CCs. Monitoring
and evaluated committee was established as prescribed by the manual. Participatory
monitoring and evaluation was applied by CCs of Khnach Romeas.

Besides the regulations related to CDPs preparation and implementation, the declaration on
commune financial management system was made and used by CCs of Khnach Romeas in
order to manage and liquidate the local development fund as mentioned in CDPs process
that step of payment was followed according to the contract. This declaration was made
available guidelines and forms how to pay for contractor who awarded the contract to
implement the project of CDPs. The expenditure on each project was properly recorded
according to the codes of finance system by commune clerk to insure clear financial
system, and checked by commune accountant who was based at the provincial treasury to
make ensure properly documents from further internal and external audit.

Internal regulation was made with approval of CCs and commune chief in order to regulate
all CCs. In this aspect, it was used by CCs in respect to CDPs especially monthly meeting

94
which project monitoring and valuation committee, beneficiaries (village head, deputy
village head and or representative of village), association, NGOs, and other government
sectors at commune level, district facilitator, were invited to participate public meeting
which held at the commune office as seen in CDPs process and Case A section above.
Therefore, progress of project implementation and constraints were reported and inquired
by participant. Moreover, annual meeting which reflected the achievements of CCs
throughout the year was conducted and arranged by CCs which held in public at commune
office. Most of the achievements were reported by CCs to the public, and minutes of
meeting were recorded as archive at Khnach Romeas commune office where it was
accessible by interested people.

6.2.2 Participation

As mentioned in annual CDPs process of Khnach Romeas commune, Khnach Romeas’

CDP was undertaken based on participatory approach, participation among the PBC and
among the villagers to identify the needs, problems, solutions, and location of the project
during the consultation, as seen in stage 2 of CDPs, at village level as seen above. Another
participation in Khnach Romeas commune was seen in terms of cash contribution for
project implementation (10 per cent of the total project cost), but the amount of cash varied
and applied to different well being of households according to CDPs process and Case A
above. Besides, participated in project site clearance in terms of cutting small tree in front
of their houses, fence renovation, and other disposal material collection for the
convenience of contractors to implement the project were conducted.

During project monitoring and evaluation, M&E committee of Khnach Romeas commune
held meeting at the project site where beneficiaries representative either men and women,
village head, deputy village head, village assistants, elder men and women, and
maintenance committee at village level were encouraged to participate monitoring and
evaluation of the project with CCs and technical support office. The meeting minutes were
recorded and attendance list was attached. In this respect, villagers were able to express
their idea and feeling toward the project at their village, and M and E committee of Knach
Romeas commune accepted villagers’ comments.

The last step of participation of villagers in CDPs was the participation in operation and
maintenance. Not only the committee of maintenance group in each village, all villagers
were also encouraged to do so for the longer use of the project output, as seen in above
CDPs process and Case A.

6.2.3 Accountability

From the overall process of CDPs of Khnach Romeas commune was found that it’s PBC,
who took major role in preparation of CDPs, was assigned according to CCs interests, and
was established according to the decision of commune chief and CCs letter. PBC took their
roles according to assigned tasks which defined in CDPs guideline including prepare 5
years CDP and CIP. Regarding the work performance of PBC, it was properly not
evaluated but conducted based on verbal during PBC meeting.

M&E committee, Procurement Committee took their responsibilities as assigned, as seen

in the CDP process highlighted above, and these committees were accountable to the
outcome of the projects of CDPs, as it was seen that the maintenance committee was being

95
functioning to maintain the output of the project, as seen in Case A in Khnach Romeas
commune in above.

As mentioned in implementation, and M & E stage in CDPs above, there were limitations
on regarding keeping report to villagers on what CCs had made decision in terms of budget
expenditure on project implementation to contractors, and it was not broadly disseminated
all villagers through public information boards, but those decisions were accessible at the
commune office if needed. “Although accountability boxes were put in the public place for
any grievance on corruption by local people within the commune, there were not found any
complaint letter from the local people inside the boxes when those was monthly collected
by provincial and district facilitators.” Local Administration Reform Advisor of
Battambang said. However, Khnach Romeas commune monthly meeting shown the
process of keeping report to public, as CDPs was also the regular agenda of the CCs, and
thus any decision making was undertaken openly during the meeting.

6.2.4 Transparency

Khnach Romeas commune fund was allocated to the most priority infrastructure projects
(as infrastructure was identified by village as the most priority issues and needs in CDPs
above), allocating project to each village, and poorest village in Khnach Romeas
commune. As in Case A, as commune development fund was used for infrastructure
projects, women and vulnerable group totally benefited from these projects, especially
connectivity of either rural earth or laterite road to school and health centre which mostly
benefited women and children, respectively access to the public service. Other projects
which proposed by them were addressed by development agencies as seen in CDPs of
Khnach Romeas during DIW.

Khnach Romeas commune bidding announcement was made by CCs in public places,
within the province. As mentioned in CDPs process and Case A, information about bidding
was accessible at commune office, PRDC’s Excom. Contract award was made to the
lowest price bidder contractor, and announced publicly. Although bidding meeting were
arranged in public places at district office where villagers, village heads, deputy village
head, and their colleagues, and especially beneficiaries from each village, were invited to
observe the process, villagers were not able to participate the bidding ceremony as district
office located very far from the village and commune.

According to commune chief and clerk of Khnach Romeas commune, financial auditing
was conducted annually by finance officers of PRDC’s Excom and NCDD, and as well as
donors to spot check on their CDPs and CIP, contract management and financial
liquidation documents (request for payment documents, project progress reports, and
minute of meetings) of each project of commune fund. Moreover, commune fund was
publicly reported during the monthly meeting of CCs, which around 20 participants were
invited to participate, as mentioned in previous paragraph and summary of commune
monthly and annually financial reports were posted in all information boards in each
village of Khnach Romeas commune. These information boards were supported by Local
Administrative and Reform (LAAR) of USAID through Pact Cambodia and implementing
by VSF. Nevertheless, those reports were not paid attention by villagers and maintenance
of information board was not taken into account. Moreover, CCs of Khnach Romeas
reported their financial status to provincial treasury and district and provincial facilitators
who acted as important person to monitor and coach CCs to follow financial system and

96
transparency manner. At the mean time, there was found no any grievance about
corruption and collusion undertaken in Khnach Romeas commune. CDPs were
disseminated to district office, provincial hall, provincial department of planning, and to
other related NGOs, which made through DIW, and moreover also available at commune
offices and were able to be accessed by the public when inquiring was undertaken.

6.2.5 Responsiveness

Among a hundred of projects of CDPs which proposed by villagers in Khnach Romeas

commune, infrastructure remained a high priority every year, and to some extent it was
responded by commune fund. Infrastructure projects were not only addressed the need of
community, but also the vulnerable group in the commune as mentioned in Case A.
Besides, a number of proposed projects including small business for handicap person,
widow, and domestic violence, women right education and awareness raising, children
abuse and trafficking, and sexual harassment were supported in DIW as elaborated in
CDPs. This was the result of participation practicing which allow majority of villagers to
articulate their real needs and problems. Thus, the projects of CCs addressed not only in
general but particularly to vulnerable groups, women and children without any
discrimination.

Although CCs tried their best efforts in order to address the local needs and problems
within the right time and at the time problems occurred, due to limitation commune fund
those were not able to address. Moreover, some projects were approved, and tended, and
contracts were both signed by CCs and contractors, yet the contractor postponed to
implement the project due to many reasons including raining and other constraints,
increasing of construction price as consequent from economic crisis, thus they did not
respect to the contract. However, villagers still satisfied the project which implemented by
CCs.

6.2.6 Effectiveness and Efficiency

By considering on the overall CDPs of Khnach Romeas commune, the study was found
that CDPs completed beyond the time frame which was fixed by PRDC’s Excom, yet were
considered it was late- a month late. Khnach Romeas CCs said that commune projects
implement, after bidding, was delayed around a month due to many reasons which raised
by contractors including raining season, unable to access to laterite sources.

In financial resource perception, CCs claimed themselves that commune fund was used in
effectiveness and efficiency way to maximize benefits as it was seen in the process of
competitive project procurement which the lowest cost, with the designed technical plan,
was awarded the contractor which elaborated in CDPs process above and also in Case A.
Although CCs were not able to respond the numerous needs of local people within Khnach
Romeas commune due to limitation amount of commune fund, it was step by step process
to address the issue, and moreover, these were addressed through DIW as in CDPs process
above.

6.3 Prey Khpos Commune

Understanding the process of CDPs is necessary to understand the local good governance
in CDPs of Khanch Romeas commune, are as consequent.

97
6.3.1 Performance in CDPs Process

In the initial step of second mandatory of Prey Khpos commune, CCs were obligated to
established PBCs according commune administrative law in 2001, royal decree on the
establishment of NCDD in 2006, sub decree on commune fund in 2002, sub decree on
power, function and duties delegation, sub decree on commune financial management in
2002, and inter-ministerial declaration on CDP in 2007. According to the decision of
commune chief No 005/07 in 2007, PBC consists of 28 people including commune chief as
a chair, a CCs as permanent member, and other 4 CCs, and village chief from each village
of 10 villages in Prey Khpos, a woman representative, and villagers representatives. The
establishment was undertaken in the 8th meeting of CCs, which 9 out of 9 CCs participated
the meeting, in its second mandate. This committee took major role in order to prepare 5
years CDPs and annual CDPs. They usually prepare commune planning accordingly.

First Stage: Plan Formulation

The designated PBC members prepare the 5 years CDPs by focusing on the situation
analysis of the 5 sectors including economic, social, natural resource and environment,
administrative service and security, and gender. The first meeting was held at the
commune level, where 28 PBC members (11 females) of Prey Khpos commune
participated the meeting (Khnach Romeas Annual Report, 2007). Refer to these analysis
CCs of Prey Khpos were able to set the development framework which including
development needs, development goal, and development strategic, which these were
mentioned above. The analysis was taking place based on commune database, commune
information, and reality analysis at the local level. After analysis, PBC came up with 8
priority problems, causes, needs, and solution analysis in Appendix 12 of problem, causes,
needs and solution analysis of Prey Khpos commune.

Second Stage: Identification/Review Problems and Needs

Based on the result for the development framework, PBCs of Prey Khpos were divided
into sub group in order to conduct village meeting with villagers and representative to
identify problems, causes of problems, needs, and solution. Totally, there were about 3658
villagers (1928 females), 6726 (2017 female) participated in the village meeting in 2007
and 2008, respectively (Prey Khpos Annual Report, 2007 and 2008). Citizens were asked
about their problems and needs in the meeting, and these were written down in the list of
PBC. Consolidate meeting were undertaken among the PBCs at commune level in order to
consolidate the problems, needs, constraints and solutions which collected from the village.
At mean time, cash contribution was collected by village chief and CCs in charge, usually
10 per cent of total project cost.

Third Stage: Identification and Selection of Priority Development Project

Based on the result of the second stage, PBCs of Prey Khpos commune conduct meeting
among member at the commune level in order to identify the annual projects to be invested
by determining location of the project, cost estimation in draft, and number of beneficiaries
in the table with available format. Permanent CCs who assigned to oversee the CDPs and
CIPs prepared the priority projects in order to present at the District Integration Workshop
(DIW) where all communes of Bavel district gathered together in order to present their
projects and mobilized the fund to support. The proposed projects were written down into
the flip charts which facilitate convenience of funders to understand the projects. All
proposed projects from villagers were incorporated in a list to seek support from
development agencies.

98
Forth Stage: District Integration Workshop (DIW)
Commune chief presented what were done and what were not done by those (development
agencies and line departments) who pledged to support the commune project in the
previous year, and also presented the projects that were seeking the support for the next
year. After presentation, development agencies and line departments were advised to
inquiry the commune chief, and participated CCs on project title, location (village), which
presented in the flip charts, and sometimes CCs was advised to change the title of the
project to fit with the objectives. These supporters were invited to sign the temporary
contract agreement with communes what they pledged to support. Majority of the project
were not always supported, around 30 per cent out of the total projects in each year, and
majority of these projects were non-infrastructure projects. The following consequents
were the projects which supported by those who involved with Prey Khpos. Besides,
development agencies and line departments also supported the projects which not proposed
in the CDPs, so called “out of box”, which undertaken through temporary agreement as
well.

Table 6.1.4: Projects Supported by Development Agencies and Line Departments in DIW
Year Pledged to Non-support Total Projects Actual
Support Projects Projects Implemented
2007 22 37 59 30
2008 15 37 52 45
2009 22 35 58 36
Source: Prey Khpos CIP, 2007, 2008, 2009.

Fifth Stage: Approval on CDPs

After the DIW, commune chief, PBC, District Facilitator Team, and other CCs, totally 9
CCs in 2007 and 2008, 23 (PBCs, DFT, and CCs) in 2009 were invited to the meeting at
commune office in order to approve the project to be invested by commune fund,
especially top priority small scale infrastructure projects, and projects which supported by
the development agencies and line departments. Overall decision from all CCs of Prey
Khpos commune was needed to approve annual CDPs. It was bunched into a book
including minutes of commune meetings, and along with attendance list, commune map,
commune situation analysis, approved projects, non approval project, projects were
implemented in previous year, and budget from different sources and also commune fund,
and was sent to Provincial Local Administration Unit (PLAU) to criticize and approval
from provincial governor. General comments were made to PBCs in Prey Khpos commune
were on map (lacking of commune map), unclear responsibilities were defined among
CCs who took roles to oversee the project that pledged to support by development agencies
and line departments, calculation of commune revenue sources in terms of percentage, and
analytical writing on commune situation. After the DIW, Prey Khpos commune generated
the following fund, which was declining as the result of lack of negotiation and not willing
to attract donors to support the proposed projects.

Table 6.1.5: Sources of Revenue of Prey Khpos Commune

2007 2008 2009
Sources of Revenue
Riel % Riel % Riel %
Villagers Contribution 2,063,300.00 1.9 1,027,800.0 1.2 1,340,800.0 0.9
Commune Development Fund 68,105,400.00 63.5 34,255,100.0 42.0 44,691,000.0 30.2
Other budget of Commune 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

99
 2007 2008 2009
Sources of Revenue
Riel % Riel % Riel %
Line Departments 4,484,200.00 4.1 1,090,000.0 1.3 85,220,000.0 57.6
NGOs 32,433,000.00 30.2 45,020,000.0 55.3 16,500,000.0 11.1
Total Fund 107,085,900.00 100 81,392,900.0 100 147,751,800.0 100
Source: Prey Khpos CIP, 2007, 2008, 2009.

When the annual commune development projects were approved by governor and PLAU,
it was became a legal document, and this was available at the commune office. A copy of
annual CDPs was delivered to district planning office, provincial planning department of
Battambang province, PLAU of Battambang province.

Sixth Stage: Implementation of Development Project

Once the CDPs approved, commune chief and CCs assigned the procurement committee
which consists of commune chief as chair person, 2 CCs, and commune clerk in order to
prepare project procurement, with the assistance from technical support unit of PRDC’s
Excom. These people will took role to conduct feasibility study including land acquisition
with villagers, by compromising with villagers to contribute the land or any property that
affected by the commune project. During the study there had been found that land
acquisition process was not undertaken smoothly with villagers, as some of them did not
agreed to contribute their land. Intervention was requested from line departments such as
provincial of land administrative, and provincial governor as there was no compensation
made within commune fund, complain on this was usually encountered. For those who had
willing to contribute land were encouraged to sign and provide print thumb, and any
agreement with CCs of Prey Khpos commune. During this stage, there was participation
from the district facilitator team.

Site studies were conducted by the technical support officer who’s responsible for Bavel
district from PRDC’s Exom of Battambang province, to conduct technical measurement,
technical design, plan, and cost estimation, and other related documents for project
preparation. As this completed, procurement committee of Prey Khpos commune, with
technical assistance from technical support officer and district facilitators, prepared a bid
request or bid announcement from qualified contractors, which took generally a week, and
the documents for bidding were made available at Prey Khpos commune, and PRDC of
Battambang province. At the mean time, Khnach Romeas commune chief issued the letter
to invite some contractors to participate the procurement as they understood that those
were not get aware of the commune procurement. Bidding was usually conducted in
October or November, and sometimes was delayed in accordance to the arrangement of
District Facilitator Team in order to fit with those communes within the district that was
late in preparing their CDPs and site studies.

The procurement process was undertaken at the district level, where all communes within
the Bavel district were gathering. The procurement event was chaired by district governors,
and NCDD advisor of Battambang province, DFT, TSO, PLAU, PMESA, CAU of
PRDC’s Exom, village chief who benefited from the projects, and other contractors. Three
contractors submitted the bid documents to bid Prey Khpos commune, were following.

Table 6.1.6: Prey Khpos Commune Projects Bided in 2007-2009

2007 2008 2009

100
 2007 2008 2009
1 Rehabilitate an alignment of 1 Build a new alignment of 1 Build a new
0.602 km of laterite road in 1.65 Km of earth road in alignment of 1.8
Markleu village Tamat village to Boeng Km earth road to
(implemented in 2008) Chumnieng Boeng Chumnieng
2 Construct a twin triangular of 2 Construct a twin culvert in 2 Construct two
culvert in Tamat village Tamat village single culverts in
(implemented in 2008) Boeng Chumnieng
3 3 Construct a single culvert in 3
Tamat village
Source: Prey Khpos Commune, 2008a, 2008b, and 2009.

All the above projects were procured in a package; it meant that the cost of an alignment of
road and culvert were putting together. Contracts were awarded to the lowest cost bidder
after bid document examination among procurement committee. The results were publicly
announced among the participants at the mean time. After procurement, around 3 per cent
was lower than the estimate cost of CCs, and this amount was used to increase the length
of road alignment, and therefore it was fully used up. Separate letters were issued by the
commune chief to invite the contractors to sign the contract agreement within 45 days;
otherwise the contract would be awarded to the second contractor who was the reserved
winner. Contracts were usually made between Prey Khpos commune with commune chief
as signatory and contractors. Contract were usually paid as three installments, first
installment paid after the project completed 50 per cent and paid 45 per cent of total
amount, and second installment after the project completed 100 per cent paid 45 per cent of
total amount, and the rest 10 per cent of total amount paid after the retention period of 6
months.

Contractors were usually agreed to implement the project, as agreed in the contract, in
December and January, however it was mostly delayed the commencing date of project
implement due to myriad of reasons including raining, unable to access the project site as
land was still wet. There was about a month to a year delayed in project implementation. In
this regard, CCs of Prey Khpos commune used to request to withdraw those contractors
from the list of qualified contractors for commune procurement projects, still they had
name at the provincial list, as there might be ignorance of any intervention from the
provincial authorities. This was overseen by the M&EC which consists of village chief
from each village that awarded the project, commune chief, 2 CCs, and technical support
officer.

Before the project commencing to implement, project M&E committee requested through
verbal to villagers who live along the project site to facilitate in terms of land clearance for
the convenience of contractors to implement the project. Majority of villagers who located
nearby the project, and those who have land nearby the project participated. Village chief
and their colleagues were explained and given the design of project documents in order to
follow up during project implementation. During the project implementation, there was
complaints made by village chief that contractors did not follow the design and even did
not listen to the comments of villagers, Prey Khpos commune chief was also complained
that was not able to monitor the project frequently, and village chief did not satisfied the
performance of contractors. In reserve, commune chief complained village chief that they
did not pay attention on the project implementation, and report to CCs and commune chief.
Technical officer was not seen very often during project implement, only in
commencement and when the project completed.
101
Seventh Stage: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
Once the project was implemented according to the contract, 50 per cent were completed
contractors submitted the request including progress of project report first installment
payment. M&EC and technical support officer conducted field monitor to figure out
whether the project completed according to the contractors report or not. A few people,
especially village chief, village chief assistant and elder people participated field
monitoring, and complained about the quality of project, yet the payment was still made
for the project in Dong Kor Pen and Tamat village. While the project towards Boeung
Chumnieng village was perceived that there was no participation from villagers at all. They
perceived that there might be report verified that all projects were completed with the
technical design, and then commune clerk of Prey Khpos commune prepared cheque which
signed by commune chief for contractor to get the money from the provincial treasury. It
was undertaken the same process for the second installment payment. By completion 100
per cent, project sign boards were not posted in the project sites as needed. It was reported
that contractors forgot to post, said commune clerk. After 6 months retention period,
contractors requested for final payment, and technical officer and project monitoring and
evaluation was expected to conduct again, as reported by villagers and commune chief that
there was no post evaluation conducted during the retention period at all. However, the
contractors were paid accordingly. Consultation meeting were not conducted with village
chief and villagers in advance was not made before payment to contractors. Commune
chief usually conducted public meeting to announce the amount of budget spent for project
implement after the project completion, how much it was contributed by villagers and how
much it was paid by commune fund, but it was not always remembered by villagers.
Besides, monthly meeting was seen but not many people were invited to the meeting as it
usually conducted among 9 CCs only in Prey Khpos due to over workload, and meeting
was an ad hoc basis.

6.4 Case Studies on Infrastructure Projects in Prey Khpos Commune

Similarly analysis in Khnach Romeas commune, specific project case study analysis on
governance issues was used in order analyze governance issue in deep at project operation
level, in additional to CDPs process above by using case study approach mentioned in
Chapter 3.

Case B: Case Study on Rural Earth Road towards Boeung Chumnieng Village of
Prey Khpos Commune

The project was proposed by villager for quite a long time before the second mandate
(2007) of CCs, as there was strong demand of villagers from each village under the
administrative of Prey Khpos commune other than Boueung Chumnieng; it was not
addressed by CCs’ fund. Villagers from Boueung Chumieng have to travel in the detour
road to Lvea commune, which took them around halve day by bike cycle and small tractor
in 15 km distance, in order to access to Prey Khpos commune and public services provided
within the commune because there was no short cut way. During dry season village can
walk across the rice paddy in 3 km distance, and take them around 2.5 hours.

As village earth road, under the economic sector, was identified as the first/top priority of
commune three years rolling plan of Prey Khpos in 2007, the annual CDPs was called 3
years rolling plan (2007-2009), and therefore rural earth road of 1.156 km towards Boeung
Chumnieng village, which is located in the most isolated area of Prey Khpos commune,

102
was given priority, and allocated commune fund in 2008 to implement the project. The
project was not only building earth road but also included a twin culvert and a single
culvert construction on the earth road to Boeung Chumneing village.

After land acquisition and project design study conducted by technical engineering from
Technical Support Unity (TSU) and CCs, they came up with 35, 295, 206.00 Riel of which
1,040,000.00 Riel was contributed by villagers from Boueng Chumnieng, Tamat and Ma
Kleu village. Ma Kleu village was identified to contribute some amount of fund because
some farmers’ rice paddy located nearby the earth road. After procurement held in 11
September 2008, when 3 contractors attended and submitted the bid request, the cost of the
project was reduced to 35,134,556.00 Riel, which was the lowest bid price among the other
two contractors. The rest amount of cost after procurement was added to extend the length
of earth road, and therefore it was increased to 1.65 km. In the contract for project
implementation, the contractor and commune agreed to implement the project for a period
of 1 month from 01 to 30 December 2008.

Therefore, CCs addressed the need of local people in order to improve the accessibility
between the villagers in Boeung Chumnieng from and to commune central. But, the project
did not fully address the need of local people in Boeung Chumnieng because the project
implemented only 50 per cent of the road length only. The villagers were not able to used
the earth road although it was supported, and during the study period, they used the detour
road via Lvea commune in order to access to the Prey Khpos commune and Bavel district
central settlement. There might be collusion among the contractors who attended the
procurement event because the other two contractors’ bided cost exceed the estimated cost
of technical staff, and the cost of these contractors were equally calculated. The length of
the project have not yet reached the target village, and this concern was defended by the
CCs that they have to address the needs and issues in other village as well, and because of
limited amount commune fund. However, they expected to support the project again in
2009. At the mean time of study, the project conducted the procurement and contractor
signed the agreement and excused that it was raining season, project site was still wet, and
therefore it was unable to implement the project in 2009, and they have postpone to early
2010.

Regardless the connectivity of earth road to Boueng Chumnieng village, it was found that
the project output, which implemented in 2008, was found very poor. People attended the
meeting in order to define it and propose the project, and yet there were no people
participation in project feasibility as it was conducted by only CCs and technical support
officer. As the result earth road was still flooded as the height of the earth road was not
higher than the flood and annual raining water level. Majority of road was damage by
raining. Even so, some parts of the road which was not flood was dug by the farmers who
has rice paddy nearby because the earth road constrained the flow of water to their rice
paddy.

From above aspect, it was seen the participation was applied in the identification of the
need of local people, while during the project implement was not encouraged to
participate; especially during the project design and feasibility study, poor consultation
with farmers around the project, and lacking of participatory monitoring and evaluation
from villagers during project implementation. Majority of villagers from both Tamat and
Boeung Chumnieng villages did not satisfy the output of earth road. Some of villagers did
not even know whose project was belonging to because project signboard was not posted

103
besides the earth road, although they understood that CCs and village chief used to collect
cash contribution. Moreover, all of the villagers, who were the beneficiaries, did not know
and were not informed the cost of project, only village chief but not clear as well.

Although it was mentioned in the contract that the project would take 6 months for
retention period, which will be finished by 25 June 2009, villagers did not understand
about that. Village chief and commune chief were lacking of accountability regarding the
quality of the project, and contractor excused that it was the natural disaster which was an
exceptional case during the retention period of the contract.

Case C: Case Study on Triangle Culvert in Tamat Village of Prey Khpos Commune

Agricultural product was the most important source of income for villagers in Prey Khpos
commune as mentioned in CDPs process; it was inevitable to do rice cultivation without
water. Majority of cultivation activities in Prey Khpos commune were depending on rain
feed, and canal was the most important system to divert water to irrigate rice paddy. There
was not any water gate to divert water in Tamat village which connected to other village
rice paddy including Ma Kleu, Boeung Chumnieng, and Sranal village. Villagers and local
authorities but earth dam to store water for up land farmers, while the low land farmers
were confronting of water shortage. There were usually earth dam destruction, and
therefore water gate (twin culvert) was proposed into the 3-years commune rolling plan
(2007-2009) under economic sector. It was supported by commune fund in 2007.

After project design study at the project site, technical support officer and CCs came up
with the project cost of estimation of twin rectangular culvert (water gate) of 54, 801,
488.00 Riel. After a week of request for bid was announced, it was procured on 11 Sept
2008 along with earth road towards Boeung Chumnieng village project. There were three
contractors attended and submitted the bid request, and the contract was awarded to the
contractor who bided the lowest price at 54,799,000.00 Riel of which 1,051,300.00 Riel
was the contribution of villagers. The agreement between winner contractor and CCs was
made on 25 September 2008, and agreed to start construction for the period of a month
from 20 November to 25 December 2008, and the retention period was six months after
project completion, by 20 June 2009.

The project was identified by participatory approach, yet there was lacking of participatory
monitoring and evaluation because the villagers who were doing rice cultivation around
did not satisfy the quality of the project, and said that they were not invited to the meeting
to comment on the quality of the project during project implementation.

There were confusion regarding the transparency of project expenditure, farmers around
the twin rectangular culvert understood that it was supported by some political party
leaders from provincial of Battambang province. Actually, it was the commune fund
support and also villagers’ cash contribution. Moreover, they used to collect cash for twin
rectangular construction, yet there was not clear explanation what it would be used for.
There was no project sign board or any written letter on the culvert to assert that who was
the funder for this construction. Moreover, there were three contractors attended the
bidding event, and the same contractor who was awarded the contract for earth road
construction towards Bueng Chumnieng won the bid again, while the other two contractors
were always bided higher price exceed the estimation cost.

104
Although the project addressed the needs and issue of rice cultivation of local people, there
were dispute occurred regarding the management of twin culvert, when to release and close
the water for lower rice paddy was not clearly managed. The project was proposed by
villagers since 2007, and was just addressed by commune fund earlier in 2008, and this
presumed it took time in order to implement the project. In this regard, villagers have to
wait and suffered as the result of long process of project implementation. Therefore, the
project did not address within the time frame as long process was needed.

6.5 Analysis of Local Good Governance in Prey Khpos Commune

Analysis of local governance in CDPs in Prey Khpos as well as in Khnach Romeas

commune was undertaken by using conceptualized indicators that designed in Chapter 3.

6.5.1 Rule of Law

Prey Khpos commune followed declaration on CDPs and CIPs, which mentioned in
Chapter 2, 4, and 5 of this study, for preparation of 5 years CDPs and annual CDPs. To
prepare CDP, CCs established Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC), and this
committee followed the above guideline to develop 5 years CDPs in 2007-2012, and
annual CDPs in 2007, 2008, 2009. On the other hand, LGGs of Prey Khpos commune was
about the practicing of these manual, but the result beyond the manuals.

Whenever CDPs was prepared and approved, PIM, which defined project preparation,
project procurement, and project M &E, was used by Prey Khpos CCs. This manual was
developed based on sub-decrees and declarations which were elaborated in the previous
Chapter 5 on institutional, framework and mechanism to support LGG in CDPs. It was
inevitable to implement the project of commune fund without this manual, otherwise it
against the decision which made by minister of interior. Procurement declaration was
synthesized in PIM which Prey Khpos follow in order to procure the infrastructure projects
in 2007, 2008, and 2009 as seen in CDP process above.

Declaration on commune financial management system was used by Prey Khpos CCs for
local development fund. Prey Khpos CCs used forms on how to pay for contractor who
awarded the contract to implement the project of CDPs step by step according to the
contract, yet payment after retention period was not according to the procedure as the
project was not properly monitor after 100 per cent completion as in CDPs process above.
The expenditure code on each project was properly recorded according to the codes of
finance system by commune clerk. This was usually checked by commune accountant who
was based at the provincial treasury to make ensure properly documents from further
internal and external audit.

Internal regulation which developed and approved by CCs and commune chief were used
in order to regulate all CCs and CDPs affair. In this aspect, it was used by CCs of Prey
Khpos in respect to CDPs, especially monthly meetings which project monitoring and
valuation committee. As it prescribed that beneficiaries (village head, deputy village head
and or representative of village), association, NGOs, and other government sector at
commune level, district facilitator, were invited to participate public meetings which held
at the commune office. As in CDPs process, the meetings was not undertaken by CCs of
Prey Khpos regularly, as sometimes meeting were conducted among 9 CCs only, and the
above interested people were not invited to participate. Some of the reasons were including
tight schedule, and availability of all CCs of Prey Khpos commune.
105
6.5.2 Participation

Participation in CDPs was seen as in CDPs process and Case B and C, a number of women
and men participated in planning in terms of identification of needs, problems, solutions,
and location of the project during the consultation. “Villager just participated to listen only
and when they asked to raise their hand, villagers followed them, and idea and concerns
from their heart were not really articulated, said Commune Monitoring Committee (CMC)
in Prey Khpos.” Another participation in Prey Khpos commune was seen in terms of cash
contribution for project implementation as mentioned in Case B and C, and in CDP
process, rather than labour contribution, in some projects of Prey Khpos commune. As
seen in the earth road towards Boeung Chumnieng.

M and E committee of Prey Khpos commune held informal meeting at the project site with
a few people, village chief, elder people, and technical engineering, who were not often
visit the project site during the project implementation, and beneficiaries were not
mobilized to participate. In contrary, villagers’ comments on project quality were not taken
action by commune chief if participation was undertaken. At the mean time, maintenance
groups were not established as seen in the case of earth road, and even the maintenance
group in laterite road were not functioning as lacking of motivation from CCs of Prey
Khpos, see detailed in CDPs process and Case B and C.

6.5.3 Accountability

All CCs in Prey Khpos were assigned the tasks according to the skill and their capacities in
PBC, PC, and M&E committee. As mentioned earlier in rule of law, PBC took their roles
and responsibilities in prepare and implementation of CDPs. Procurement Committee (PC)
took their responsibilities in procurement. Yet, land acquisition was found as the matter
because as in the case B and CDPs process above.

Meanwhile, M&EC took roles and responsibilities to monitor and evaluate during the
project implementation. The progress of project implementation and quality of project was
keeping reported by village head to M&EC. As in Case C and B, and in CDPs process
above the committee did not mobilize local people participation in M and E, and in the
mean time commune chief did not pay much attend on this regard. Moreover, CDPs
implementation progress was not reported to public as seen in Case C, and in CDPs that
Prey Khpos commune monthly meeting did not regularly held and stakeholders were not
invited. In this respect, village head took roles as key informant of CCs’ decision making
in the meeting to villagers, however there was interaction from village chief in Prey Khpos
commune that they were not so active, and as this was a burden of village chief and deputy
chief which have lower authority to argue with contractors regarding the fault or any
unacceptable quality of the project implementation, as seen in above Case and CDPs
process. Finally none of CCs in Prey Khpos commune was accountable to quality of
project output, and they accused to village chief who did not assist them to monitor the
project during implementation. “It was expected that rural laterite road was able to used
for about 5 years after construction regardless disaster, yet only one year the quality of
project output was not satisfied and had to be maintenance by villagers, and none of CCs
accountable to this as they reported it was not used properly by villagers, a villagers said
in Prey Khpos commune.”

106
6.5.4 Transparency

Prey Khpos commune fund was allocated to the most priority infrastructure projects which
were not able to support by development agencies, as seen in the CDPs and Case B and C.
Nonetheless, allocation commune fund by CCs to each village was not seen as some
villages have not yet received as seen number of village in Chapter 6, and villages received
fund in CDPs process of Prey Khpos. As commune development fund was used for
infrastructure projects, least women and vulnerable group totally benefited from these
projects as seen in Case B and C, as the project was perceived not last longer as expected
and lack of maintenance, and poorest and isolated village was not allocated the project.

Although expenditure of commune fund for local development was undertaken based on
commune financial management system, local development expenditure was recorded in
the accounting system and code of CCs’ finance, and usually checked by commune
accountant who based at provincial treasury, Prey Khpos commune was not usually
selected to be audited as it was considered as weakness in financial management lacking of
financial liquidation documents (request for payment documents, project progress reports,
and minute of meeting) of each project of commune fund. Moreover, commune fund was
not always publicly reported during the monthly meeting of CCs as sometimes monthly
meetings were conducted among 9 CCs of Prey Khpos only, as mentioned in
accountability, rule of law, and participation components. Monthly financial summary was
not disclosed to villagers through information boards in each village as it thought that
villagers did not much pay attention. Thus, some villagers felt that there might be collusion
made in this regards, yet evidence was not found.

Procurement Committee of Prey Khpos procured the commune development projects in

public places, at district office, where qualified contractors were able to access to the
information and bidding documents. Bidding was undertaken one time at the district office,
where all communes in Bavel were gathering. Meanwhile, contract award was made to the
lowest price bidder contractor, and announced publicly, however participation from
villagers, key informants and village heads were not seen.

Transparency in information regarding five years CDPs and CIP were disseminated to
district office, provincial hall, provincial department of planning, and other related NGOs,
available at commune offices and were able to be accessed by the public when inquiring
was undertaken, and through District Integration Workshop (DIW), as in CDPs process
above.

6.5.5 Responsiveness

A number of small scale infrastructure projects were supported by commune fund of Prey
Khpos commune as it remained a high priority every year and even in the its 5 years
development plan. Infrastructure project was not only addressed the need of all people, but
also the vulnerable group in the commune such as women and children as seen in the
project Case C and B and CDPs process above, yet output did not really responds to the
need. Besides, non-infrastructure projects were supported by development agencies
through DIW.

Due to limitation commune fund, all proposed projects were not able to address local needs
and problems within the right time and at the time problems occurred. Moreover, the

107
contractor postponed implementing the project due above reason in CDPs and Case B and
C. In this regards, CCs had requested to withdraw those contractors from the list of
qualified contractors for commune projects procurement at PDRC’s Excom, still they have
had name at the provincial level, as there might be many reasons including the ignorance
of any intervention from the provincial authorities. Although it was late to address the
needs and problem of local people due to time constraining, more or less local people
satisfied the projects when it was implemented. “It was better than nothing, we still
satisfied even it was not t last longer as we expected, but it was better than the situation
before, a villager said.”

6.5.6 Effectiveness and Efficiency

CDPs of Prey Khpos commune addressed the top priority issues and needs (as seen in
CDPs process that infrastructure was ranked as the top priority, and also in Chapter 4)
which were raised by villagers, and these were responded through commune fund projects,
however it was not really achieved the objectives of the CDPs as CDPs projects were not
properly implemented as mentioned in the above on accountability, participation,
responsiveness, and as seen in Case B and C and CDPs process above. As failure to
achieve objective, CDP implementation had least addressing the issues of women and
vulnerable group as expected.
CDPs projects of Prey Khpos commune were usually extended and postponed after
bidding, and there were many reasons which raised by contractors as in Case C and also in
CDPs process of Prey Khpso commune above.

CCs of Prey Khpos claimed themselves that commune fund (resource) was used in
effectiveness and efficiency way as it was seen in the process of competitive project
procurement as in CDP process and Case B and C above in Prey Khpos commune. On the
other than, it was commonly reported and complained by villagers that quality of projects
of commune fund was found in satisfactory in short term only, as the quality of project
output declined and was not satisfied after one year, which was not as expected in the
design. This leading not to achievement the objective of CDPs. There were many reasons
which were given by CCs that villagers, and other stakeholders including low participation
in project designed, lack of commitment of CCs to put more pressure on contractors, and
they were likely had collusion with contractor. Participatory monitoring was taken place,
but the intervention on contractor to follow the comment was not made.

6.6 Comparative Analysis on LGGs in CDPs of Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos
Commune

Comparative local governance analysis is made based on the above analysis of LGG
principles practices in CDPs of both communes and case studies in each commune.

6.6.1 Rule of Law

Both communes were found in practicing rule of law they were relying on CDPs and CIPs
manual, and PIM. However, Prey Khpos commune seemed weaker in terms of project
implement, as it was seen incompatibility with villagers during project feasibility study,
especially the earth road towards Boeung Chumnieng village, and participatory monitoring
and evaluation on project quality was not really mobilized by M&E committee. Moreover,
monthly meeting of CCs were not regularly conducted in Prey Khpos communeas seen in

108
the above section analysis, which contrasted internal rule and regulation of Prey Khpos
commune as consequent of lack of rule of law enforcement. Meanwhile, Khnach Romeas
seemed better in practice these in CDPs as explained in the above section and also in
project case study, and in CDPs process and Case A in this Chapter and also resulted to
strictly rule of law enforcement by CCs in Khnach Romeas commune.

6.6.2 Participation

It was fully mainstreamed into CDPs by both communes, especially during the early stage
of CDPs which majority of villagers, as seen in the above elaboration CDPs process of
both communes, and project case studies A, B and C. However, the ways of mobilizing
and facilitation between these communes were difference, Prey Khpos commune was weak
in terms of mobilizing villagers to articulate the real issues, while Khnach Romeas
facilitated better, the result was seen during the district DIW (Prey Khpos commune
project was supported by outbox project-which did not proposed by village, while Khnach
Romeas commune was a few). Prey Khpos commune did not take into account much
during the project monitoring and evaluation in project quality which prescribed in PIM
and CDPs manual above, as seen in rule of law which was not strictly applied. Although it
was better conducted during the project feasibility study, villagers perceived least
satisfaction as there were no compensation made over the land that they lost, while Khnach
Romeas commune was not a big deal as seen in case studies. Khnach Romeas commune
had done well during project monitoring and evaluation as majority of the project located
nearby the village, where villagers gartering and easy to access to the project site, were
invited to oversee the project quality, and they were encouraged to provide comments and
comments were accepted by commune chief of Khnach Romeas, and these were also the
consequent of rule of law practicing by Khnach Romeas commune. Besides, participation
in maintenance and operation were seen different between these communes. Prey Khpos
did not established the committee, although a few but not active in comparison with
Khnach Romeas commune which participation in maintenance was so active. However,
CDPs dissemination was seen similarly applied by both communes that reflected in DIW
and as mentioned in these communes CDPs above.

6.6.3 Accountability

In overall CDPs of Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas was different. PBC from both
communes were highly responsible to the CDPs from the beginning stage (stage 1) of to
stage 7 of CDP. However, Prey Khpos commune’s accountability regarding the CDPs
implementation was seen weaker than Khnach Romeas commune. In this case it was seen
in terms of M&E committee’s accountability during project implementation, especially
project monitoring and evaluation as this committee rarely visited the project site to
mobilize citizen to monitor the project quality/output as seen in CDPs process of Prey
Khpos. It was not seen accountability of CCs over the project output as in the project case
and CDPs of Prey Khpos commune, and this was also resulted of lacking of participation
practicing in monitoring and evaluation on project implement quality/output, and moreover
CCs of Prey Khpos complained and refused that poor quality was not because of their
endeavors, but also villagers, village chief, and village assistants who did not care during
the project implementation. In contrast, high accountability was seen in Khnach Romeas
commune even during the project implementation, also on the project output such as
project output maintenance. Besides, as mentioned in rule of law on internal regulation,
Prey Khpos commune did not regularly hold monthly meeting in order to report the project

109
of CDPs project implementation to public, while Khnach Romeas commune did. Yet, this
reporting was not conducted through information boards in each village of these
communes. Therefore, Prey Khpos was lacking of rule of law (as defined above section)
enforcement, and participation in CDPs implementation leading weaker accountability,
while Khnach Romeas commune enforced rule of law and strict participation principles
were seen better in practicing accountability concept.

6.6.4 Transparency

Both communes were seen slightly different in transparency application. CDPs were
openly disseminated as seen in DIW of CDPs and everyone can access these documents at
both commune offices. Commune fund allocation was allocated to each village for Khnach
Romeas, while Prey Khpos commune was not due to large area of commune constraint of
the commune. All commune funds were allocated to the most priority project which
proposed by villagers. The slightly different was that Khnach Romeas commune posted the
CDPs list (summary list of projects) on the project information boards in the public place
in every village, while it was not done by Prey Khpos commune. Moreover, during the
project implementation, Prey Khpos commune made decision regarding contract payment
with limited consultation with beneficiaries regarding the project output as in Case B and
C, while Khnach Romeas commune was. Monthly summary financial report was posted by
Khnach Romeas commune in the information boards, while Prey Khpos information
boards in each village were not seen anything new in each month, as they believed these
were not paid attention by villagers at all. On the other hand, project signboards to be
posted nearby the projects were not done by both communes that were considered as the
weakness of these communes as seen in the CDPs process of both communes. Meanwhile,
Khnach Romeas’ CDPs and financial auditing was conducted more often, while Prey
Khpos was not, hence financial transparency was not seen much in Prey Khpos commune.
Similarly, they conducted bidding according to the process, yet least participation from
village level was found in both communes. Thus, weak in participation in monitoring and
evaluation as mentioned in above, and lack of attention from villager triggered poor
transparency in terms of financial reporting, financial auditing, and allocation project to all
villages of Prey Khpos commune.

6.6.5 Responsiveness

CDPs of both communes addressed the real needs, as in the top prioritized CDPs, of local
people in general (as these were proposed the real need of local people) and in particularly
to vulnerable group such as women, children and handicap person as their concerns were
incorporated into CDPs and funded through DIW. Infrastructure addressed the needs of
local people, yet the addressing on issues of villagers was seen different between these
communes (short term and long term). Prey Khpos commune as seen in short term period
(around 1 to 2 years) as villagers complained on the quality of the project after 1 or 2
years, as lacking of maintenance and poor quality, as seen in Case B and C. Khnach
Romeas commune was difference, villagers still satisfied on quality of the projects after the
same years with Prey Khpos. Besides, addressing the needs and issues of local people
through CDPs was not within the time frame due to the long process of CDPs as the seen
in CDPs process of Prey Khpos, and also in Khnach Romeas commune.

6.6.6 Effectiveness and Efficiency

110
Different perceptions from both communes were found; even all communes followed the
same guidelines. Prey Khpos commune did not really touch the objectives of CDPs,
because (quality) output of the project was not satisfied by villagers as seen in Case B and
C, while Khnach Romeas commune touched the objective of CDPs to some extent. Prey
Khpos CDPs implementation was extended not according to the time frame due to various
reasons as mentioned in the above CDPs analysis of Prey Khpos commune in this chapter,
while Khnach Romeas commune was not, for they have good connection from higher
government level which intervened with contractor to implement the project on time.
Another effectiveness of CDPs were seen when the projects were supported by NGOs and
line agencies were working in both communes. Prey Khpos commune received greater
number of projects which supported from outbox of CDPs rather than inbox (project which
proposed in CDPs), and while Khnach Romeas commune was least than. That meant the
CDPs did not really match the issues which found by development agencies. Besides, Prey
Khpos commune seemed lower in comparison to the quality of the projects in 2007 and
2008 with Khnach Romeas, as it was better, as seen in responsiveness component above.

Therefore, Prey Khpos was weaker in transparency in terms of financial reporting,

financial auditiong, posting project sign boards and display information regarding decision
of CCs to public; responsiveness in terms of project was not satisfied by villagers, and
implement the project was not according to time frame; participation in term of project
monitoring and evaluation, and accepting idea of local people on output of the project;
accountability in terms of M&E committee was not responsible for mobilizing
participation in monitoring and evaluation, CCs was not accountable to project output, and
in reporting about CDPs to public; effectiveness and efficiency in terms of project was not
really touch the objectives of CDPs as mention in responsiveness, and delaying in CDPs
implementation. At the mean time, Khnach Romeas commune was better than Prey Khpos
commune on responsiveness in terms of local people satisfied the project; accountability in
terms of all committee took their responsibilities accordingly, and CCs were responsible
for project output; effectiveness and efficiency in terms of CDP implemented according to
objectives, and resources (financial) were used with high return-project output was
satisfied by villagers; participation in terms of CDPs preparation, implementation and
monitoring and evaluation; and transparency in terms of allocating project to all villages
and target the poor and vulnerable, financial and CDPs was audited frequency, summary of
financial report were posted in public information boards monthly, and bidding was
conducted according to guideline and openly, CDPs information was disseminated and
people perceived having no collusion on CDPs projects. Rule of law was seen slightly
different between both communes because Prey Khpos commune did not applied properly
on their internal rule and regulation, while Prey Khpos was in as seen in the above
analysis.

Following table summarized the analysis of local governance in CDPs process of both
communes which were analyzed above. This was based on stage of CDPs, which designed
and applied in this research; however infrastructure case studies A, B and C were also used
to analyze and these resulted the following.

111
 Table 6.3.1: Comparative Local Governance Analysis in CDPs of Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos
Commune Applications of Key Good Governance
Development Khnach Romeas Prey Khpos Comparison
Planning Process
(CDPP)
Stage 1(Plan • Rule of law in terms of guidelines and manual on CDPs planning and • Both commune practiced similar elements of
Formulation): implementation were used (steps in CDPs) preparation were followed rule of law, participation and accountability
1.1 PBCs draft • Participation among PBCs preparing budget and development framework in this stage of planning
development as mentioned in above CDPs process were practiced
framework and • Accountability was practiced in terms of assigning PBC to handle CDPs
budget preparation
Stage 2 • Participation among PBC • Participation among PBC members • Participation among PBC between these
(Identification/ members (27 members) in in review problems and needs which communes were different as all (27 PBC
Review Problem and meeting to review problems and were not addressed last year was not members) members participated the
112

Needs): needs which were not addressed undertaken smoothly during this meeting, while some PBC in Prey Khpos
2.1 PBC hold a last year was well arranged and stage at commune office, as some of was absent in the meeting
meeting at commune figured out in the following years PBC did not join the meeting as • Participation in terms of needs and issues
level to review local (needs and issues to be addressed mentioned in CDPs process of Prey identification at village level was used by
problems, needs, by CCs and information about Khpos above both communes, but the ways of facilitating
constraints and CDPs were shared among PBC) • Participation was strictly applied for and mobilizing villagers to articulate their
solutions • Participation was strictly applied meeting with villagers, and they idea on problems and needs were different
2.1 PBC hold a for meeting with villagers, and were mobilized to express needs and between Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos
meeting at village they were mobilized to express issues, prioritize the needs and commune. Khnach Romeas commune better
level where villagers needs and issues, prioritize the issues, and identified the projects motivated villagers to express their real
are invited to needs and issues, and identified site. Women and vulnerable group needs as they followed participatory
participate location of the project site. and individuals were invited to the discussion approach, brainstorming using
Women and vulnerable groups meeting and expressed their concerns flipchart, mapping, using problems and
and individuals were invited to the in CDPs. However, PBC has limited causal analysis, while Prey Khpos commune
meeting and expressed their facilitation skill to mobilize people did not follow the approaches at village
concerns in the CDPs. Group to participate, as reported that they level. Meeting at village level was
 Commune Applications of Key Good Governance
Development Khnach Romeas Prey Khpos Comparison
Planning Process
(CDPP)
discussion among men and just attended and listened to PBCs, conducted in rapid action which lack of
women were separately conducted and PBCs led decision making action of people participation.
which similiarly vulnerable • Accountability in terms of • Accountability in organizing meeting at
groups organizing meeting among PBC to commune level, and village level of identify
• Accountability of PBCs in terms conduct cause, constraints, needs and needs and issues, and mobilizing
of organizing meetings among solution analysis at commune level participation in CDPs preparation was
PBC, conduct causes, constraints were performed well, while practiced by PBCs from both communes
and solution analysis, organizing performing needs and issues accordingly. Yet, as mentioned earlier PBCs
village meeting level to identify identification at village level was not in Prey Khpos did not performed well ask
problems and needs, and took well as they were lacking of lacking of skill in facilitation in mobilizing
responsibilities to complete CDPs facilitation skill in mobilizing people people participation in expressing their ideas
113

process in all villages participation, and this was not regarding needs and issues, and also because
satisfied by households of PBCs members were using guiding
question to ask for approval only, as
consequences real needs and issues were not
articulated by local people.
Stage 3 • Accountability was seen when • Accountability was seen when PBCs • Both communes applied accountability of
(Identification/Select PBCs took their responsibilities in took their responsibilities in PBC in preparing CDPs for DIW and
Priority Development preparing CDPs for DIW, and preparing CDPs for DIW, and selection of project to be funded by
Project): selection of project to be selection of project to be commune fund. Meanwhile they applied
3.1 Based on the implemented. implemented. similar transparency concept in terms of
results from step 2, • Transparency in terms of • Transparency in terms of allocation project based on objectives and
select projects to be development project approved development project approved based selecting priority project to be implemented.
implemented in the based on priority, which on priority, which undertaken among Yet, allocation of commune fund was
current year undertaken among PBC member PBC members who participated the perceived dissatisfaction in Prey Khpos
3.2. Select project in who participated the meeting. An meeting. Transparency in terms of commune due to limited amount of fund,
priority to present at other transparency was practiced allocation commune fund was not and the project require greater amount of
 Commune Applications of Key Good Governance
Development Khnach Romeas Prey Khpos Comparison
Planning Process
(CDPP)
a DIW in terms of allocation commune based on objectives criteria (to each budget.
fund based on criteria (to each village, poorest village within the
village, poorest village within thecommune, top priority project) like
commune, top priority project) Boeung Chumnieng not was not
allocated the project due to limited
fund and big project which requires
big amount of budget to construct a
long earth road
Stage 4 (District • Participation among NGOs and • Participation among NGOs and line • Participation in exchanging ideas between
Integration): line departments in providing departments in providing comments these communes were similar. Yet, endeavor
114

4.1. CCs present the comments and support projects and support projects presented by of exchanging ideas with stakeholders were
current year projects which presented by PBC through PBCs through temporary different because Khnach Romeas keened
and previous year temporary agreements, and PBCs agreements, yet PBCs were not so and actively to attract more donors in
outputs were quite active in exchanging active in exchanging ideas and mobilizing resources to support the
4.2. Get comments idea and explaining the CDP to explaining CDP to NGOs, line proposed projects, while Prey Khpos
from participants NGOs, line agencies, and department, and interested commune was weaker in this regard. Thus
(NGOs, civil society, interested stakeholders stakeholders this reflected through a number of projects
government line • Accountability of PBCs was seen • Accountability of PBCs was seen which pledged to supported by development
department, etc). when PBC took their role when PBC took their role according agencies, as in CDP process of both
4.3. Make temporary according to the assigned tasks to the assigned tasks during DIW communes.
agreement during DIW • Transparency in terms of information • Greater numbers of proposed projects were
• Transparency in terms of about CDPs were disseminated supported in Khnach Romeas by
information about CDPs were among participants, line agencies, government line agencies and NGOs, while
disseminated among participants, and NGOs least projects were supported in Prey Khpos,
line agencies, and NGOs • DIW supported funding proposed because better facilitated and mobilized
• DIW supported funding on non-infrastructure projects as seen in people’s participation in problems and needs
majority of proposed non- CDP process in DIW stage of Prey identification in earlier stage, and
 Commune Applications of Key Good Governance
Development Khnach Romeas Prey Khpos Comparison
Planning Process
(CDPP)
infrastructure projects as seen in Khpos commune exchanging CDPs with NGOs and
CDP process in DIW stage of development agencies than Prey Khpos
Khnach Romeas commune commune.
• Transparency in terms of dissemination the
CDPs information through DIW, and
stakeholders had access to the CDPs
information at commune office were seen in
both communes
• Accountability of PBCs in taking
responsibilities in this stage was seen
similarly in both communes.
115

Stage 5(Approved on • Participation among PBCs and • Participation among PBCs and CCs • Participation over decision making was
CDPs) CCs to make decision for CDPs for decision making for CDPs different between Prey Khpos and Khnach
5.1. List the plan to approval approval not really appreciated as Romeas commune, because PBC member in
be funded by • Accountability of PBCs in terms absence some of PBC members Prey Khpos commune was regular absence
commune fund and of taking responsibilities over • Accountability of PBCs in terms of during the meeting, thus the project might
others preparing CDPs decision making taking responsibilities over preparing allocated to the only village which
5.2. Meeting to give process for endorsement was CDPs approval was made representative of PBCs participated the
comments among made • Transparency in terms of allocation meetings.
participants (CCs, • Transparency was seen when the of commune fund was not practicing • Accountability of PBCs in terms of taking
DFT, PBC, etc) allocation of commune fund to to all villages, thus there was bias responsibilities in preparing list of project to
5.3. Approve CDP each village and transparent among villages, as the most be funed by commune fund, and other
and dissemination the among villages, as it was given to vulnerable and poor villages were supported, organizing meeting among PBCs
approval result priority projects in the poor not given the project or fund to be and CCs to get comments and make
village with more vulnerable implemented as the project from approval over the CDPs, which assigned
group. Besides, all proposed these village required much amount was practice similarly by both communes
projects incorporated in CDPs, of budget to implement. However, • Transparency in terms of all proposed
 Commune Applications of Key Good Governance
Development Khnach Romeas Prey Khpos Comparison
Planning Process
(CDPP)
and approved CDPs was available all proposed projects were projects were incorporated in CDPs and
at commune office incorporated in CDPs, which were approved, and disseminated, and selection of
available at commune office most priority projects to be invested by
commune fund was done through
participation among PCBs and consensus
decision-making among PBCs were seen in
both communes. Moreover, poor villages
were given priority to support, as seen in the
case of Khnach Romeas commune, while in
Prey Khpos commune was not seen this
approach, as the most poor and vulnerable
116

villages complained that they had not get

any project, and thus criteria mentioned
earlier was not followed.
Stage 6 (Project • Participation of villagers in cash • Participation of villagers in cash • Participation was seen practicing in both
Implementation contribution for project contribution for project communes, yet Khnach Romeas facilitation
Development): implementation was collected by implementation was collected by was well conducted, while Prey Khpos was
6.1. Site study PBCs PBCs not so satisfied by villagers during
6.2. Design and cost • Participation was seen when • Participation was seen when feasibility study and land acquisition, as
estimation project feasibility study conducted villagers participated the feasibility bigger area of land was lost and grabbed for
6.3. Procurement where villagers were invited to study, yet proper action was not project implementation without any
6.4. Contracting participate, and with harmony undertaken by CCs in order to solve compensation. Participation in project
6.5. Implementation solution regarding land land acquisition matter and land implementation better practiced in
contribution. Moreover, villagers contribution. Meanwhile, a few of mobilizing people in site clearance before
involved in project villagers involved in project the project implement started in Khnach
implementation in terms of site implement in terms of site clearance, Romeas, and while in Prey Khpos commune
clearance and other labour rather than cash contribution above was weak due to lack of taking
 Commune Applications of Key Good Governance
Development Khnach Romeas Prey Khpos Comparison
Planning Process
(CDPP)
contribution for the convenience • Transparency in terms of bidding responsibilities of M&E committee in
of contractors besides above cash was conducted in public place and mobilizing people participation in this
contribution. encouraged participation from all regard.
• Transparency in terms of bidding interested stakeholders, but they did • Transparency in terms of bidding was seen
conducted in public place and not participate due to the bidding when bidding was conducted in public place
encouraged to participate from all process was held at district office and encouraged participation from interested
interested stakeholders, but they where located far from the villages people, documents were accessible, and
did not participate due to the and commune. Thus, contract was contracting out the project through the
bidding place was far from the awarded to the same contractors who contract format. These were done similar as
villages and commune. However, had poor reputation in the village. it was facilitated by district authority. Yet
bidding documents were available However, bidding documents were there was lacking of public participation, as
117

at commune offices and PRDC’s available at commune offices and the bidding was undertaken at district office.
Ex-com, which were accessible by PRDC’s Excom, which were
every interested group. Contract accessible by every interested group.
was awarded based on the lowest Contract was awarded based on the
cost criteria, and the result of lowest cost criteria, result of bidding
bidding was announced publicly, was announced publicly, and also
and also signed the contract based signed the contract based on the clear
on the clear format. format.
• Project commencement was • Project implement commencement
delayed around one month beyond delayed for a duration of one month
the time frame which agreed in to a years as seen in CDPs process of
the contract Prey Khpos commune
Stage 7 (Monitoring • Participation of villagers in • Weak participation of villagers in • Participation was differently between
and Evaluation): project monitoring and evaluation project monitoring and evaluation, Khnach Romeas and Prey Khpos commune,
Monitoring was undertaken, and comments and comments from villagers were as there were poor participation in project
7.1. Formulate M&E from villagers and village chief not taken any action by CCs and M&E in Prey Khpos commune, while
 Commune Applications of Key Good Governance
Development Khnach Romeas Prey Khpos Comparison
Planning Process
(CDPP)
committee were accepted and action was M&E committee. Meanwhile, Khnach Romeas was actively solicited
7.2. M&E focal undertaken, participation in participation in project output participation. Participation in project output
person assists CCs project maintenance maintenance committee was not so maintenance was not really seen in Prey
for monitoring • Accountability of M&E active Khpos, while better mobilized by Khnach
7.3. Site monitoring committee in mobilizing people • Accountability was seen when M & Romeas commune.
and reporting participation in project monitoring E committee established, but did not • Accountability was seen more actively in
7.4. Follow-up and evaluation, reporting about take action in mobilizing people Khnach Romeas commune than Prey Khpos,
Evaluation the project progress to the participation, reporting on progress as seen that M&E committee took
7.5.Existing M&E monthly meeting was not reported, and even financial responsibilities in mobilizing people
committee select • Transparency in reporting on status was not post in the public participation in M and E, and conducted
projects to be CDPs implementation was information boards field monitoring regularly while it was not
118

evaluated undertaken by CCs and even • Transparency was not really seen on seen in Prey Khpos commune. Besides,
7.6. Field evaluation financial report through posting in financial reports were not posted in reporting on progress was made only in
7.7. Reporting and public information boards, and the existing information boards, and Khnach Romeas, while Prey Khpos was not
dissemination information project was financial auditing conducted only performed at the field level.
disseminated among participants once a year, and CDPs evaluation • Khnach Romeas was better in transparency
during monthly meeting. Payment was not conducted often. Moreover, than Prey Khpos, as all information
to contractor was based on decision making on payment to regarding budgeting was posted in public
consensus decision among CCs, contractors was not conducted based boards and disseminated during meeting, as
M&E committee. Besides, CDPs on consensus among CCs and from these were not undertaken by Prey Khpos
evaluation was conducted and village heads who benefited from the because they Prey Khpos was lacking of
hosted visitors around three times projects, and project sign boards CDPs evaluation and financial auditing
annually, similarly to financial were not placed in the project sites, conducted by external, and monthly meeting
auditing were often conducted by and thus political parties gained was not undertaken regularly.
external and internal (NCDD and benefit from this gap. • Responsiveness in terms of project outputs
donor). However, in additional to • Responsiveness was not seen as the addressed the needs and issues of all groups
above financial report, project project output was not satisfied by of local people was better in Khnach
 Commune Applications of Key Good Governance
Development Khnach Romeas Prey Khpos Comparison
Planning Process
(CDPP)
signboards were not posted in the village, and CCs were not Romeas commune, while Prey Khpos was
project sites, and thus political accountable to the result, and not. These was because of project output in
parties gained from this practice. meanwhile it did not address the Prey Khpos did not address the issue, and
• Responsiveness was seen as issue of local people as the Case C. lack of participatory project monitoring and
project output was satisfied by • Effectiveness and efficiency was not evaluation, lack of responsibilities of M&E
villagers, and CCs were really seen due to the project was during project implementation.
accountable to the result, and implemented beyond the time line, • Effectiveness and efficiency in terms of time
maintenance committee was usually delayed due to many reasons frame in implement CDPs and the projects
established, and the project solved as mentioned in CDPs process. addressed the objectives of CDPs better
the issues and needs of all groups Besides, the projects did not address practiced in Khnach Romeas commune,
of people the objectives of CDPs which while in Prey Khpos was not as the result of
119

• Effectiveness and efficiency was regarded as low effectiveness. delaying project implementation and this
seen when project implemented was lack of intervention from provincial
and finished within time line, and authority level to enforce contractor to
objectives of CDPs have implement the project within time frame.
achieved.
Summary
• It was found that that these communes had slightly different practiced on local good governance as seen in the above CDPs process
comparison.
• Both communes applied rule of law similarly, as these communes followed manual of CDPs, and PIM, which developed for CCs. Participation
in terms of problems and needs identification was similarly applied in earlier stage of CDPs by both communes. Yet the way of facilitating
applied by CCs was different, as Prey Khpos commune did not used much participatory methods. However, both communes applied similarly
in stage 3 and 4 regarding participation of PBC in decision-making, accountability in taking responsibilities of both communes. Yet, Khnach
Romeas commune did better in mobilizing donors to support their projects as they did well in second stage in mobilizing people’s participation
in needs and issues identification, and good at exchanging ideas with donors to mobilize resources, while Prey Khpos commune was not.
During stage 6, participation in feasibility study conducted by both communes were undertaken well, yet land acquisition created matter in
 Commune Applications of Key Good Governance
Development Khnach Romeas Prey Khpos Comparison
Planning Process
(CDPP)
Prey Khpos commune as there was no compensation was made, while Khnach Romeas commune solved the problem properly due to least
impact of the project over the villagers properties. Meanwhile, accountability of M&E was not well undertaken in Prey Khpos commune
because they did not take responsibilities in project implementation and mobilization people in site clearance during project implementation,
while Khnach Romeas did it. Transparency in this stage was also seen better in Khnach Romeas commune as budgeting, and information about
CDPs were displayed in information boards and during monthly meeting, while Prey Khpos did not follow this. Moreover, both communes
were lacking of participatory procurement among villagers, however it was conducted in public place. Participation in the last stage of CDPs
was applied properly by Khnach Romeas commune in M&E, and also in operation and maintenance, while it was not practicing by Prey Khpos
commune, as a result of poor accountability in taking responsibilities and lack of mobilization in M&E of Prey Khpos commune. Khnach
Romeas was better in transparency performance than Prey Khpos, as all information regarding budgeting was posted in public boards and
disseminated during meeting, as these were not undertaken by Prey Khpos because it lacked of CDPs evaluation and financial auditing
conducted by external, and monthly meeting was not undertaken regularly. Responsiveness in terms of project outputs addressed the needs and
120

issues of all groups of local people were better in Khnach Romeas commune, while Prey Khpos was not as its project outputs in Prey Khpos
did not address the issues and needs. Effectiveness and efficiency in terms of time frame in implement CDPs was seen better in Khnach
Romeas as project implemented on time and CDPs objectives were achieved, while Prey Khpos was not as the result of delaying project
implementation.
 Chapter 7

Opinions on Local Good Governance (LGG) in Commune Development Planning

(CDPs)

This chapter consists of five sections elaborate the opinions on LGG application in CDPs.
First section provides awareness of local people on LGG in CDPs. Achievement on the
application, benefits from the application, satisfaction on the application were discussed in
the second and third sections respectively, while fourth section explained opinions on
satisfaction, and the last section summarized the above sections findings.

7.1 Awareness of Local People on LGG in CDPs

As in Table 7.1.1, it was seen that two third of local people (73.4 per cent) in Prey Khpos
commune were aware that participation approach was applied by CCs during planning,
while more than two third (86.8 per cent) of local people Khnach Romeas asserted that
there was participation in CDPs. For transparency aspects, more than halve of local people
in Prey Khpos (59.9 per cent) understood that there was transparency applied in CDPs,
while more than two third of local people in Khanch Romeas commune understood that
there was, and less than one third was not. Awareness on whether the CDPs addressed the
local needs and issues or not was shown that majority of local people in Prey Khpos
commune (80.7 per cent) were aware that plan responded to their needs and issues, while
almost all local people in Khnach Romeas commune (94.8 per cent) were. Regarding to the
efficiency and effectiveness of CDPs, majority of local people in Prey Khpos (83.8 per
cent), and almost all local people in Khnach Romeas (95.3 per cent) perceived that there
was, as they considered that they have spent a small contribution of cash and received
better output.

As it was discussed among local people in both communes, rule of law and accountability,
which defined and discussed in Chapter 1 and 3, were understood that these were applied
in CDPs, yet there was not always totally applied. Rule of law in CDPs defined how the
plan preparation and implementation were undertaken. It defined in the manuals, especially
CDPs and PIM, which were not fulfilled by CCs. Accountability was seen by local people
that CCs performed their responsibilities to the electorate to some extents as they always
not fulfilled the multiple responsibilities/accountabilities (political parties, commune
affaires, NGOs relationship, and other civil service responsibilities) other than CDPs
performance. However, CDPs reflected a number of needs of local people, and this was the
result of accountability of CCs in planning.

Local people from these communes had different perceptions on the awareness of LGG in
CDPs. Local people in Khnach Romeas commune were very much appreciated their CCs,
while in Prey Khpos perceived lower than on general concept of LGG principles applied in
CDPs. Local people in Prey Khpos perceived that CCs’ projects addressed their needs and
issues to some extent, yet they were not happy with the endeavors of commune chief
regarding sharing information among CCs; especially procurement committee who always
awarded the contract to the same company that had poor reputation among villagers.
Moreover, participations were not much strictly applied by CCs in Prey Khpos commune,
and then they could not understand well.

121
 Table 7.1.1: Awareness of Households on LGG Applications in CDPs Classified by Commune
Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas Total
Items Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total
f % F % f f % f % f f % f % f
Participation 73.4 26.4 86.8 13.0 80.0 19.8
• Appointment of PBC members to perform their roles 50 89.2 6 10.7 56 45 83.3 9 16.6 54 95 86.3 15 13.6 110
on behalf of local people
• Appointment of procurement committee member to 7 12.5 49 87.5 56 10 18.5 44 81.4 54 17 15.4 93 84.5 110
perform their roles on behalf of local people
• Appointment of M and E committee members to 35 62.5 21 37.5 56 47 87.0 7 12.9 54 82 74.5 28 25.4 110
perform their roles on behalf of local people
• Decision on the priority problems and needs within the 53 94.6 3 5.3 56 54 100.0 0 0.00 54 107 97.2 3 2.7 110
village
• Vulnerable groups and individual, especially women 54 96.4 2 3.5 56 53 98.1 1 1.8 54 107 97.2 3 2.7 110
122

are given a chance to participate in CDPs

• Decision on project selection and site identification 51 91.0 58.9 56 52 96.3 2 3.7 54 10393.6 7 6.3 110
• Project feasibility study 45 80.3 11
19.6 56 48 88.8 6 11.1 54 9384.5 17 15.4 110
• Implementation project activities of CDP projects 37 66.0 19
33.9 56 53 98.1 1 1.8 54 9081.8 20 18.1 110
• Resource contribution (cash and in kind) 55 98.2 11.7 56 53 98.1 1 1.8 54 10898.1 2 1.8 110
• Field monitoring and evaluation 37 66.0 19
33.9 56 50 92.5 4 7.4 54 8779.0 23 20.9 110
• Executing maintenance group 29 51.7 27
48.2 56 51 94.4 3 5.5 54 8072.7 30 27.2 110
Transparency 59.9 39.9 76.1 23.8 67.9 31.9
• Budget allocation to the CDP project 10 17.8 46 82.1 56 24 44.4 30 55.5 54 34 30.9 76 69.0 110
• Financial report about CDP projects disclosed to public 30 53.5 26 46.4 56 40 74.0 14 25.9 54 70 63.6 40 36.3 110
• Signboard contains project budget and contribution 15 26.7 41 73.2 56 27 50.0 27 50.0 54 42 38.1 68 61.8 110
present at each project site
• Result of bidding expose to the public 36 64.2 20 35.7 56 38 70.3 16 29.6 54 74 67.2 36 32.7 110
• CCs gives information to the public about CDPs 48 85.7 8 14.2 56 49 90.7 5 9.2 54 97 88.1 13 11.8 110
• CCs spread information about the project in public post 29 51.7 27 48.2 56 50 92.5 4 7.4 54 79 71.8 31 28.1 110
• CCs encourage village headmen to spread information 50 89.2 6 10.7 56 52 96.3 2 3.7 54 102 92.7 8 7.2 110
 Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas Total
Items Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total
f % F % f f % f % f f % f % f
about project
• CCs gives information to those impacted by project of 51 91.0 5 8.9 56 49 90.7 5 9.2 54 100 90.9 10 9.0 110
CDPs
Responsiveness 80.7 19.1 94.8 5.05 87.6 12.2
• CDPs addressed local problems and needs 54 96.4 2 3.5 56 53 98.1 1 1.8 54 107 97.2 3 2.7 110
• Project of CDPs addressed on time (at the time of needs 22 39.2 34 60.7 56 49 90.7 5 9.2 54 71 64.5 39 35.4 110
and problems occurred)
• Project of CDPs benefited to the community (including 52 92.8 4 7.1 56 54 100.0 0 0.0 54 106 96.3 4 3.6 110
vulnerable groups and individual and women)
• All poor villages included in CDP project 53 94.6 3 5.3 56 49 90.7 5 9.2 54 102 92.7 8 7.2 110
Effectiveness and Efficiency 83.8 16.0 95.3 4.6 89.5 10.4
• Cost of the project in appropriate to the output 46 82.1 10 17.8 56 51 94.4 3 5.5 54 97 88.1 13 11.8 110
123

• Local people trust CCs in CDP performance 50 89.2 6 10.7 56 52 96.3 2 3.7 54 102 92.7 8 7.2 110
• Project of CDP completed in time 39 69.6 17 30.3 56 51 94.4 3 5.5 54 90 81.8 20 18.1 110
• Projects of CDP are top priority of CDPs 53 94.6 3 5.3 56 52 96.3 2 3.7 54 105 95.4 5 4.5 110
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
7.2 Opinions of Stakeholders on Achievements of LGG Applied in CDPs
7.2.1 Opinions on Achievements of LGG in CDPs of CCs and Committees

Opinions of CCs and committees on the achievement were made from different approaches
including group discussion for rule of law and responsiveness, while the rest from
individual interview.

a) Rule of Law

Rule of law in CDPs means legal framework related to CDPs and implementation
including law on commune administrative and management, sub decree on commune fund,
proclamations on CDPs, commune financial management system and PIM, which defined
in Chapter 3 and 5, were used and followed by both communes. However, governance
from rule of law was beyond the application of manuals. Based on group discussion, CCs
and committees within commune asserted that they had higher achievement on rule of law
in CDPs for Khnach Romeas commune, while Prey Khpos commune mentioned that they
had only high achievement. CCs from these communes asserted that if they did not follow
the manual of CDPs (CDP and CIP), CDPs would not be accepted by the provincial
governor and local administrative unit of provincial hall. Moreover, the procurements of
commune projects were conducted according to the guidelines that mentioned and
elaborated in Project Implement Manual (PIM) for commune.

b) Participation

In overall, Prey Khpos commune moderately (WAI=0.66) applied participation in CDPs,

implement, monitoring and evaluation. On the other than, Prey Khpos commune applied
participation in the early stage of CDPs such as local people participation in problem and
need identification, and prioritization of CDPs project, selection of CDPs project location,
and cash and labour contribution had higher of WAI (around 0.71), while the lowest value
of WAI in the achievement of participation in CDPs was local participation in project
activities implementation, and participation in project monitoring and evaluation, at
WAI=0.52, as seen in CDPs process and case B and C that participation in these were not
properly mobilized by CCs and M&EC.

Khnach Romeas commune highly (WAI= 0.79 on average) applied participation in CDPs.
Exchanging ideas on CDPs with NGOs, among CCs and PBC, participation in problems
and needs identification, prioritization, project site selection, local people contribution in
cash and labour for project implementation had higher value of WAI achievement than
other items of participation (around WAI=0.82). Local people participation in project
monitoring and evaluation was achieved moderately only, at WAI=0.69, as all villagers
were not mobilized to participated the monitoring and evaluation, but key information and
villagers who live around the project site, as seen in Case A and CDPs process in Chapter
6.

Nonetheless, these communes had no statistically difference in terms of participation

applications in CDPs, especially exchanging ideas about CDPs with district facilitators,
local CBOs, project site selection, contribution of local people in terms of cash and labour,
project activities implementation, and M and E. Yet, these communes had statistically
difference (respectively of ɒ=0.03, ɒ=0.03) on the application of participation in needs and
problems identification, and participation in project prioritizations at 95% of level of

124
confident, as Khnach Romeas had higher value of achievement than Prey Khpos commune,
as seen in Chapter 6 that mobilizing participation approach of Prey Khpos commune was
not satisfied by CCs and committees as villagers were just to present and listen during
problem and needs identification only. Moreover, both communes had statistically
difference at 99% of confident level on the exchanging idea in CDPs with NGOs, CCs and
among PBC (ɒ=0.00, ɒ=0.01 respectively) as Khnach Romeas commune had higher of
WAI on the achievement of these items in CDPs, reason was that Khnach Romeas had
done well in participation in problem and needs identification, while Prey Khpos was not,
and these were seen the number of projects which supported by NGOs during DIW in this
Chapter 6, and thus which created difference between these communes.

Table 7.2.1: Achievement of Participation Applied in CDP Perceived by CCs and Local
Committees
Prey Khnach
Participation Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Participation 0.66 0.79
• CCs exchange ideas about project of CDPs with district
0.70 0.76 0.21
officers
• CCs exchange ideas about project of CDPs with local CBOs 0.69 0.75 0.09
• CCs exchange ideas about project of CDP with NGOs 0.66 0.80 0.00**
• Information about project are shared among CC and PBC 0.71 0.80 0.01**
• People’s participation in problems and need identification 0.70 0.81 0.03*
• People’s participation in prioritization of project of CDPs 0.70 0.83 0.03*
• People’s participation in project site selection 0.71 0.85 0.22
• People’s contribute labour and financial resource for project
0.71 0.87 0.41
implementation
• People’s participation in activities of project implementation 0.52 0.77 0.29
• People’s participation in project monitoring and evaluation 0.52 0.69 0.41
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Notes: * Statistically difference at 95 % confident level, ** statistically difference at 99 %
of confident level.

c) Accountability

Prey Khpos commune had high (WAI=0.72) achievement on the application of

accountability in CDPs, generally. However, among other items of accountability in CDPs,
reporting about the decision making during project activities implementation, and CDP
performance evaluation were low achieved at moderately of WAIs of 0.66, 0.68,
respectively, as explained in CDPs and Case B and C above that reporting on CDPs
process was not made by CCs of Prey Khpos commune.

Khnach Romeas commune was perceived high achievement (WAI=0.84) on accountability

in CDPs in overall. PBC, Procurement committee, and M and E committee’s
accountability to the outcome of CDP projects items were achieved highly as well but in
lower value of WAI (WAI=0.79) other items which achieve greater than 0.80 of WAI, as
CCs and committees perceived that there was high responsible of the output of the project
after completion.

125
Both communes accomplished highly on the application of accountability in CDPs.
Nonetheless, Khnach Romeas commune performed better in terms of WAI value. Yet,
there were statistically difference at 99 % of confident level on CDPs evaluation
performance, keeping reporting on the project progress to the public, and solving conflicts
of interest among villages between these communes, respectively atɒ=0.01, 0.00, 0.01, as
explained earlier in Chapter 6 that Khnach Romeas commune kept reporting by display the
information on the public information boards, and land acquisition for project
implementation was handled smoothly in Khnach Romeas commune, while Prey Khpos
commune was different as consensus decision making was not undertaken with villagers
and among CCs.

Table 7.2.2: Achievement of Accountability Applied in CDP Perceived by CCs and Local
Committees
Prey Khnach
Accountability Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Accountability 0.72 0.84
• PBCs members perform according to assigned tasks in CDP
0.74 0.80 0.12
guideline
• Procurement committee execute their responsibilities in project
0.74 0.83 0.47
procurement as assigned tasks
• M and E committee members performance in project
monitoring and evaluation according to the assigned tasks in 0.72 0.86 0.60
CDPs
• PBC, Procurement committee and M and E committee are
0.72 0.79 0.16
accountable to the outcome of CDP projects
• CCs conduct evaluation on CDPs performance 0.68 0.80 0.01**
• CCs keep reporting about CDP projects progress to public 0.73 0.86 0.00**
• CCs reporting about decision made during CDPs project
0.66 0.85 0.64
activities to public
• Conflicts conflict of interest of CDP project and fund has been
0.75 0.94 0.01**
solve
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Notes: ** Statistically difference at 99 % of confident level

d) Transparency

As seen in Table 7.2.3, CCs and committees evaluated that they had achieved highly
(WAI=0.71) for Prey Khpos commune, while Khnach Romeas was perceived higher at
WAI=0.82. There was no statistically difference on the achievement on the announcement
of bidding result to the public and among bidders; expenses of commune development
were recorded into the system of CCs’ financial management system, and project
signboards were posted in the project site.

Meanwhile, there were statistically difference at 99% of confident level (ɒ=0.00) on the
achievements regarding awarding the contract based on majority vote, financial auditing by
provincial officers, participatory budgeting planning among the PBC members, and
financial reports were disclosed to the public as in Table 7.2.3 below. The signification
difference of awarding the contract was seen that there were the same contractors were
awarded the contract in Prey Khpos, and thus some of the CCs and committees did not
126
satisfied this endeavor as these contractors’ reputation was not good enough to villagers, as
seen in the project case studies and CDPs process, while Khnach Romeas CCs and
committees appreciated their procurement committee in this. There was statistically
difference (ɒ=0.00) on achievement of participatory budgeting planning among the PBC
members, Prey Khpos commune’s large area was quite difficult for members from the
isolated village to participate in planning at commune level as seen in CDPs process of
Prey Khpos commune, and therefore it was achieved less than Khnach Romeas. Although
there were many information boards to disclose commune information and its financial
report, Prey Khpos commune did not pay much attention on posting the information by
using it and it was lacking of maintenance, while Khnach Romeas always monthly posted
the information and financial report and it was better maintenance by village chief. These
created statistically difference (ɒ=0.00) between these communes at 99 % of confident
level.

Table 7.2.3: Achievement of Transparency Applied in CDPs Perceived by CCs

and Local Committees
Prey Khnach
Transparency Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Transparency 0.71 0.82
• Awarding the contract based on majority voting of committee
0.89 0.95 0.00**
members
• Bidding results announced to public and among bidding
0.83 0.88 0.25
companies
• External financial audit conducted by provincial finance officer 0.64 0.85 0.00**
• Expenses on project of CDPs recorded according to CC
0.81 0.89 0.18
financial system
• Project expense expose at the project site (signboard) 0.21 0.28 0.27
• Participatory annual budgeting planning applied among PBC
0.83 0.90 0.00**
members
• Financial reporting about the project disclose to the public 0.77 0.95 0.00**
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Notes: ** Statistically difference at 99 % of confident level

e) Effectiveness and Efficiency

As show in Table 7.2.4, in overall, Khnach Romeas commune still had comparative
achievement on every items of effectiveness and efficiency at WAI=0.90, while WAI=0.91
for Prey Khpos commune. There were statistically difference at 99 per cent of level of
precision on annually preparation of CDPs, CDPs finished within a time frame

CCs and committee thought that CDPs was finished on time before it was not postponed to
the next time, yet Prey Khpos claimed that they always finished before time, while Khnach
Romeas just considered on time, in fact Prey Khpos commune had delayed in CDPs
process for about one month to a year.

Table 7.2.4: Achievement of Effectiveness and Efficiency Applied in CDPs Perceived by

CCs and Local Committees

127
 Prey Khnach
Effectiveness and Efficiency Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Effectiveness and Efficiency 0.91 0.90
• CDPs developed according to its annual 0.98 0.88 0.00**
• Completing of CDPs on time 0.98 0.86 0.00**
• Budget allocated to the priority project of CDPs 0.91 0.93 0.23
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Notes: ** Statistically difference at 99 % of confident level, * statistically difference at 95
% of confident level

f) Responsiveness

Based on group discussion, CDPs responded to the needs and issues of local people.
Although infrastructure project did not address directly to vulnerable group or individual,
children and women benefited from this as well as seen in Case A, B and C in Chapter 6.
Local people from both communes understood that there were many needs proposed in the
CDPs; however it was not always fulfilled the needs because inadequacy amount of budget
of CCs, and thus both communes did not respond to the needs and issues within a time
frame. However, as in Cases A, B, C and CDPs process in Chapter 6, Khnach Romeas
commune projects were achieved high level by CCs and committee, and villagers also,
while Prey Khpos was only moderate. According to Chapter 6, number of projects
supported by NGOs and line departments were greater than Prey Khpos, to some extend
Khnach Romeas commune done better in resource mobilization to response to the needs,
while Prey Khpos was lower. Besides, Prey Khpos perceived that responsiveness was
weaker than Khnach Romeas commune, as the result of poorer quality of project output
after project completion.

In overall, as presented in Figure 7.1 below, there were gray areas between the perceptions
on the achievement of LGG applied in CDPs of both communes. As mentioned early that
Khnach Romeas had achieved higher perception on achievement, while Prey Khpos
commune was perceived lower achievement on LGG in CDPs. As in the figure,
effectiveness and efficiency were perceived higher achievement by both communes,
however in the reality Prey Khpos commune’s achievement was not like in the presented
spider web because they, Prey Khpos’ CCs, seemed proud of themselves in order to attract
more attention, which was not in reality.

128
 Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Figure 7.1: Perception of CCs and committees on Achievement on Application of LGG in
CDPs of both communes

7.2.2 Opinions on Achievements of LGG in CDPs of VSG and AMARA

Village Support Group (VSG) and AMARA, local NGOs that were working on local good
governance in Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune, and within Battambang
province implementing Local Administration and Reform (LAAR), were interviewed on
the opinions on the achievement of general concept of LGG in CDPs.

a) Rule of Law

Village Support Group (VSG) and AMARA proved that these communes had moderately
applied rule of law in CDPs. There were many regulations, manuals and declarations
related to CDPs were mentioned to be followed (as defined in chapter 3, 5 and 6), on the
other hand, capacity of CCs constrained the application of these regulations although they
tried their best efforts. Meanwhile, Khnach Romeas commune was perceived much better
than Prey Khpos, as rule of law, which defined in the previous chapters, was critically
practicing by Khnach Romeas commune, while Prey Khpos was not much seen in
practicing.

b) Participation

These NGOs perceived that they had done very good in mobilizing the local people
participation in CDPs. As it was mainstreamed for such a long time ago in CDPs since the
decentralization was introduced in early 2002. Based on these NGOs experiences with CCs
in both communes, participation was always enforced by their programs; every step of
CDPs needed participation from neither PBC nor villagers. Villagers and stakeholders
were invited to articulate their ideas for problems and needs identification, and also invited
to the monthly meeting of CCs. Participation was the focal point to be seen, and therefore
it was achieved better rather than other components. They perceived that there were found
no different on participation mobilization between Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas
commune.
129
c) Accountability

As local accountability was identified as a component for LGG of LAAR program, this has
been enforcing by the local NGOs. They perceived that, under their coaching and
mentoring approaches to apply this component, it was highly applied and mainstreamed in
CDPs. They were responsible for the tasks, which assigned by CCs and commune chief;
especially PBCs were accountable to needs and issues of local people and those were
incorporated into the CDPs and it was reflected and supported by various development
agencies through DIW as in Chapter 6. However, they perceived lower achievement
towards Prey Khpos commune, and they found that the tasks which introduced by them
were not fulfilled within a time frame in comparison with Khnach Romeas commune.

d) Transparency

VSG which was working with these communes perceived and evaluated that both
communes achieved high transparency in CDPs. Amount of commune development fund
were allocated to CDPs. All expenses of commune fund from this regard were properly
recorded in the system of commune financial management, and month summary financial
reported of CCs were posted in the commune information boards in each village. Besides
all information about CDPs were opened to be accessed by all interested people, and
development stakeholders; more specifically it was presented at DIW, and posted at the
commune information boards. During monthly meeting commune information, both
finance and general information were subjected to be inquired by participants. These
enhanced comprehensively on transparency of CCs in CDPs. In terms of this, based on
observation, it was found that Prey Khpos commune seemed to apply lower transparency
principle in CDPs as monthly reports were not posted at the information board-this was
also resulted from weak information dissemination, while Khnach Romeas was not.

e) Effectiveness and Efficiency

NGOs perceived it was moderately achieved in CDPs in both communes, yet Prey Khpos
was perceived lower. It was asserted that CCs did not feel ownership over commune
development project as technical skills related to infrastructure was relying on the technical
support unit, and therefore their decision making was driven by technical support officer,
poor result of the project accordingly, and this leading not likely to achieve CDPs
objective, as elaborated in CDPs process and Case studies in Chapter 6. However, CCs,
with their best efforts, conduct procurement in order to reduce the cost of infrastructure,
and sought lower cost contractors with high-standardized technical. It was found that
majority of commune infrastructure was lower than the estimated cost after procurement.
Yet the output of the projects were problematic in Prey Khpos commune, while Khnach
Romeas commune was not the matter.

f) Responsiveness

Local people’s needs have not always been fulfilled as the problems derived from time to
time. Thus, it was good that the CCs addressed a number of needs in terms of infrastructure
which was the most priority in annual CDPs, although it was adequately addressed. In the
course of this issue CCs had moderately achieved in responsiveness to the local needs
through CDPs, majority of needs of local people were incorporated in the planning,
commune fund has not yet covered all the proposed projects while some of non-

130
infrastructure projects supported by other development agencies. As participation was
introduced, local people articulated their needs and issues in CDPs, which can be asserted
that the plan addressed the needs of local people, whether the needs were addressed or not
was still in question. During the DIW in Chapter 6, it was found that majority of
development agencies supported in box (in CDPs) of the project while Prey Khpos were
many outside the project (out box). Therefore, Prey Khpos was lacking of skills to voice up
the real needs and issues of the villagers based on this assertion.

7.2.3 Overall Opinions of Stakeholders on Achievements of LGG in CDPs

Different opinions on the achievements of LGG in CDPs were articulated, including

households, CCs and committees, Development Agencies (NGOs), District Facilitators,
and NCDD (PRDC’s Excom). Opinions on the achievements were conducted based on the
general concept of LGG, which defined in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3. Different people
perceived different achievements of LGG in CDPs. Across the components (from general
concept of LGG) local people perceived that CCs of Prey Khpos had moderately achieved
rule of law, participation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness
and efficiency in CDPs, which were similarly to CCs and its committees’ opinions.
Meanwhile, local people in Khnach Romeas commune perceived that CCs had achieve
higher than Prey Khpos, reasons regarding these were shown in Chapter 6 and above
sections.

However, local NGOs that were working on the area of LGG (from general concept)
highly evaluated the achievements of participation, accountability, and transparency, while
the rule of law, responsiveness, and efficiency and effectiveness were moderately achieved
for Prey Khpos, while Khnach Romeas commune was perceived relatively higher than,
similarly reasons were elaborated in Chapter 6.

In contract district facilitators who were playing important role to coach and mentor CCs to
apply LGG highly evaluated the achievement of rule of law, participation, accountability,
and transparency, while responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency were moderately
achieved in CDPs of both communes, they were the working to enhance this area.

NCDD viewed on the achievement of LGG in CDPs that CCs had achieved moderately
across the components of LGG in CDPs to Khnach Romeas commune, while Prey Khpos
relatively lower, reason hindered this was explained in this case studies, CDPs process and
local governance in CDP analysis in Chapter 6. Its evaluation was not ambitious although
they were playing important role in additional to district facilitators team in mainstreaming
the application of LGG in CDPs.

Those who were working directly on LGG at commune level seemed very appreciative on
CCs in both communes that they had done well in LGG in CDPs, while CCs of both
communes were not much self appreciative, only moderate achievement. Being an advisor
to CCs and sub-national development, NCDD staff evaluated across the components of
LGG that were moderately achieved by CCs in CDPs. These could be concluded that there
were moderately achieved on LGG in CDPs based on the different sources of opinions and
comparison, however based on previous analysis it was found that Khnach Romeas
commune had higher achievements on WAIs in comparison with Prey Khpos commune.

131
7.3 Impacts of LGG Applications in CDPs

The impacts of LGG application in CDPs were seen in two types including the impacts to
community and CCs.

7.3.1 CCs Capacity in CDPs

CDPs were not only for the responsibility of PBC, but also for the all CCs of both
communes, as these were assigned according to their specific skills and interest. CDPs
needs participation as members of PBC and CCs were necessary to get involve especially
during monthly meeting, meeting to get approval on CDPs, and problem solving for
conflict committee. Sharing information about CDPs among CCs was needed for
transparency in terms of information about CDPs and CDPs projects and accountability in
terms of responsibilities to the assigned tasks, from this aspect CCs learn from this process
and therefore it increased their capacity although they did not directly involve in CDPs.
More or less these communes improved the capacity of their CCs, as this was the on the
job training process as given in Chapter 8. However, this was totally benefited to CCs in
Khnach Romeas commune as information about the projects of CDPs and CDPs were
shared among CCs, while Prey Khpos commune was relative lower as the above
information was not really shared among CCs.

7.3.2 Reputation and Truth

Transparency in terms of information sharing, financial report disclosing and allocation

commune fund to all villages and to the poorest village; accountability in terms of taking
responsibilities according to the assigned tasks; responsiveness on the real problems and
needs were addressed through CDPs, and participation in CDPs preparation, and during
project monitoring and evaluation enhanced reputation and trusting of local people with
CCs whom they elected. Khnach Romeas commune that achieved higher these principles
in CDPs had better reward in terms of reputation and trusting from local people.
Consequently, it benefited the political parties’ renowned and trusting which would be
considered for next mandate election. In the mean time, CCs of Prey Khpos had relative
lower reputation and trusting among local people in comparison with CCs in Khnach
Romeas commune as mentioned in this Chapter that Prey Khpos commune had lower
achievement above components in CDPs, besides some of local people reported that they
have not known who were their CCs, and even commune chief, and other factors were
including the project outputs in Prey Khpos which was not satisfied by local people which
mentioned in CDPs process and in case studies in Chapter 6. In contrary, Khnach Romeas
CCs were populous and recognized by the local people, and had better popularity rather
than Prey Khpos commune.

7.3.3 Fund Generating (NGOs support)

In order to response to the local needs, CCs were not only depending on the commune
fund, but also the fund from potential sources had to be generated. Different communes
had different ideas how fund was generated in order to implement CDPs. DIW was also
important event for CCs to generate fund and seeking supportive from donors and as well
as local and international NGOs, as mentioned in Chapter 6 in DIW stage of CDPs.
Khnach Romeas CCs were very much appreciative by their colleagues and committees,
and even local people, in raising fund for local development, yet Prey Khpos commune had

132
relative lower capacity in fund raising for local development as seen in commune revenue
raised in each year in Chapter 6 on CDPs process of both communes. Khnach Romeas
commune generated increasingly fund, while Prey Khpos fluctuated and lower than
Khnach Romeas commune consequently. Therefore, implement LGG in CDPs stimulated
CCs to build capacity to raise fund for commune development other than commune fund.
An important way to address responsiveness (response to the needs and issues within the
village and within time frame), and to ensure transparency (other projects were also funded
not only infrastructure projects) of LGG was to generate more funds through DIW process.
The more commune applied responsiveness principle of LGG, the more funds were
generated.

7.3.4 Effectiveness of CDPs

The effectiveness of CDPs was found based on the reflection of CDPs whether it addressed
the real needs and issues of local people or not. This was seen during the DIW, where all
stakeholders including LNGOs, INGOs, and sector departments of RGC participated.
These stakeholders supported their projects which proposed in CDPs of both communes.
As seen in CDPs process of both communes in Chapter 6 that majority of Khnach Romeas
commune projects were supported by them, while Prey Khpos commune was least than. It
meant that if they (CCs) applied more on participation (intensively in problems and needs
identification), responsiveness (figure out the real needs and problems in order to address
within time frame) and women, vulnerable groups and individual, NGOs and associations
were invited to articulate their real issues and needs, there were many supports from
NGOs, as these people articulated real needs and issues which matched to the needs and
problem analysis of those supporters. As seen in this Chapter 7 on the achievement of
participation in CDPs, Khnach Romeas achieved better, while Prey Khpos achieved lower,
and therefore greater numbers of projects of Khnach Romeas were supported every year,
and therefore objectives of CDPs were addressed. Hence, Khnach Romeas CDPs was more
effective based on this analysis.

7.3.5 Equity, Participation, and Gendering

Equity and participation were always encouraged and mentioned in the CDPs manual, and
exact percentages (60 per cent of households of which 30 per cent are women) of
participation were mentioned in the manual. By applying the principles of participation,
transparency in information sharing, open and consensus in decision making, and
accountability in terms of taking responsibilities which assigned, vulnerability such as
window, handicap, elder people, and representative of vulnerable groups were invited to
join the meeting to raise their issues and needs in CDPs. Their needs and issues were not
about the infrastructure, but also many non-infrastructure projects, which were supported
by development agencies through DIW, and therefore, it promoted gender aspect in CDPs
as it was seen in Chapter 6, and in this Chapter on the problems and needs identifications
stage majority of women participated meetings rather than men, as in CDPs process.
Besides consensus building was made among women and men voices. As amount of
commune fund was limited, project prioritization was made and only the project which was
the top priority was funded by commune fund, and therefore equity and transparency
among villagers and villages were building. On the other than, this was seen much better in
Khnach Romeas, while Prey Khpos was lower even participation was undertaken as
mentioned in above sections that facilitation skill, the way of motivation, encouragement
participation was not so effective enough, was weaker in comparison to Khnach Romeas.

133
7.3.6 Adverse Workloads of CCs

CCs were working on voluntary basis, there were many workloads have to be completed
by CCs with less human resource available in the commune. Applying LGG needs efforts,
willing, and time spend of CCs, while CCs incentive was very low, at 70,000.00 Riel
(17.5USD) to 100,000.00 Riel (25 USD) per month, and greater amount of expenses for
their family living cost was needed. CCs from both communes complained they could not
work for long or fulltime at commune office or for villagers. They need time for their
family income generation activities. “LAAR project came to the commune in 2007 made
me very busy, he did not have enough time for their family, said a commune councilor of
Prey Khpos commune.” However, there was no complaint undertaken by Khnach Romeas
commune, thus Khnach Romeas commune had more willingness and contributed their
efforts to work for electorate through CDPs, as mentioned in previous section that CCs in
Khnach Romeas was always came to work at commune office.

7.4 Satisfaction on Applications of LGG in CDPs

7.4.1 Satisfaction of CCs and Committees

Level of satisfaction on the performance of CCs and committees within the respective
communes on the application of rule of law, participation, accountability, responsiveness,
transparency, and effectiveness and efficiency were observed and interviewed on sub
components of each principle.

a) Rule of Law

From the group discussion, rule of law of both communes were satisfied the application of
rule of law including PIM, CDP and CIP manual, Financial Management Declaration, and
related regulations and manuals in CDPs. Without these guidelines and manual CDPs
would not possible. Satisfied opinions were given in this regards as not all the regulations
were applied in CDPs; it needed flexibility in order to reach the goal annually. However,
rule of law was very important for CCs and committees as it prescribes the direction for
CCs. Yet, Prey Khpos commune was not really satisfied by villagers and CCs, as
mentioned in Chapter 6 that it was not strictly considered in the last stage of CDPs in terms
of information dissemination through monthly meeting which defined in internal rule and
regulation of CCs, while Khnach Romeas commune was undertaken.

b) Participation

As seen in Table 7.4.1 below, majority of participation items were satisfied by CCs and
committees from Prey Khpos commune. However, it was found at the lowest score of WAI
in satisfaction at 0.63. This was because of rule of law enforcement in terms of CDPs
manual (which defined participation). However, CCs and committees from Prey Khpos
were strongly satisfied on sharing information about project, CDPs among CCs and
committees, participation of local people in problems and needs identification, project
selection and prioritization, and local people contribution in terms of cash and labour. CCs
and committees were strongly satisfied the cash contribution by local people at the highest
WAI=1.37 in comparison to the rest items.

All sub items of participation in CDPs were perceived by CCs and committees from
Khnach Romeas commune at strong satisfaction on the application in CDPs; particularly

134
the exchanging idea of CDP with CBOs and NGOs at WAI=1.37 as the CCs and
committees were very appreciative the performance in mobilizing NGOs support during
the DIW as seen in Chapter 6.

CCs and committees in Khnach Romeas were strongly satisfied on participation in CDPs at
WAI=1.30 which was higher than Prey Khpos commune at WAI=1.07. It was found
statistically difference at 95 per cent of level of precision (ɒ=0.02) on the level of
satisfaction on the application of participation in project M and E for it was asserted that
Prey Khpos commune was weaker participation mobilization while Khnach Romeas was
better, as seen in Chapter 6.

Table 7.4.1: Satisfaction of CCs and Committees on LGG Applied in CDPs

Prey Khnach
Participation Components Khpos Romeas
T-test
WAI WAI
Participation 1.07 1.30
• Sharing ideas of CCs about CDP with district officers 1.00 1.33 0.73
• Exchanging ideas about CDPs of CCs with CBOs 1.00 1.37 0.61
• Exchanging ideas of out CDPs with NGOs 0.87 1.37 0.85
• Sharing of information about CDP projects and CDP among CCs
1.10 1.33 0.82
member and other committee members
• People’s participation in problems and need identification 1.30 1.33 0.28
• People’s participation in project identification and prioritization 1.30 1.33 0.28
• People's participation in project site selection of PBC member
1.30 1.33 0.28
and CCs
• Local resource mobilization (budget contribution) for project
1.37 1.27 0.11
implementation of CDPs of CCs and PBC
• People’s participation in project implementation activities of
0.83 1.17 0.50
PBC and CCs
• People's participation in project monitoring and evaluation 0.63 1.17 0.02*
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Notes: * Statistically difference at 95 % of confident level

c) Accountability

Table 7.4.2 below shown that performance of PBC members, procurement committee, M
and E committee, and accountability of these committees on output of the project,
reporting about the project to public, and problems solving on CDP conflict were strongly
satisfied by CCs and committees in Prey Khpos commune at WAI was from 1 to 1.37, yet
they were not strongly satisfied (WAI=0.83) on the decision making of Prey Khpos
commune chief on the decision making during project implement; especially during project
monitoring and payment to contractor without any consultation with other members and
village chiefs as in CDPs process in Chapter 6. In contract, all items of accountability were
strongly satisfied by CCs and committees of Khnach Romeas, at minimum WAI= 1.30 and
maximum WAI=1.50, Khnach Romeas commune applied these items strictly referring to
Chapter 6 and in above sections.

There was no statistically difference between the level of satisfaction on the application of
accountability in CDPs of both communes except the satisfaction of decision making
during project implementation; especially payment to contractor, was statistically

135
difference at 95% of confident level (ɒ=0.02), as mentioned above that lack of
participatory decision making conducted by commune chief of Prey Khpos in CDPs
process and decision making, and participation section above, while Khnach Romeas was
better than.

Table 7.4.2: Satisfaction on Accountability Applied in CDPs

Prey Khnach
Accountability Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Accountability 1.20 1.39
• Overall task performance of PBCs members 1.37 1.37 1.00
• Overall performance of procurement committees responsibility 1.10 1.30 0.29
• Tasks performance of M and E committee members 1.20 1.37 0.65
• Responsibilities of PBC, Procurement committee and M and E
1.27 1.33 0.27
committee regarding the output of the project
• Reporting of CCs about the project to the public 1.27 1.40 0.19
• Decision making of CCs during project implementation 0.83 1.47 0.02*
• Problem solving on CDP conflict of CCs 1.33 1.50 0.63
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Notes: * Statistically difference at 95 % of confident level

d) Transparency

Majority of Prey Khpos CCs and committees satisfied the application of transparency
items in CDPs; however, there was objection on the project signboards as it was not
practiced by CCs, as it is not seen any project signboard was posted as information to the
villagers and any interested stakeholders (WAI=-0.43). Yet, they perceived strong
satisfaction in project information dissemination at (WAI=1.47).

Except the posting of project signboards to inform all villagers and any interested
stakeholders, CCs and committees in Khnach Romeas commune were strongly satisfied on
all items of as in Table 7.4.3 below.

In general, transparency in CDPs in Prey Khpos was satisfied CCs and committees at
WAI=0.99, while it was stronger satisfied by Khnach Romeas CCs and committees on this
application. Table below shown no statistically difference on the level of satisfaction on
the application of transparency in CDPs across the sub components, except participatory
budgeting planning among PBC which was statistically difference at 99 % of confident
level (ɒ=0.00). It was mentioned earlier in this Chapter and Chapter 6 that it was not
applied properly by Prey Khpos commune as some PBC members in some villages who
locate very far from the commune office could not attend planning process, while Khnach
Romeas was easy to access by majority of PBC members.

Table 7.4.3: Satisfaction on Transparency Applied in CDPs

Prey Khnach
Transparency Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WA I
Transparency 0.99 1.21
• Decision making of PBC and CC members in budget allocation 1.03 1.33 0.96

136
 Prey Khnach
Transparency Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WA I
• Allocation of CDP projects to each village 1.03 1.43 0.35
• Bidding process of CDP project 1.17 1.27 0.25
• Bidding result of procurement committee 1.10 1.30 0.29
• Awarding the contract of procurement committee 1.07 1.27 0.57
• Invitation for external financial audit which conducted by
0.87 1.17 0.69
provincial finance officer/advisor
• Way of exposing project expense at the project site
-0.43 -0.40 0.46
(signboards)
• Participatory annual budgeting planning of PBC 1.23 1.47 0.00**
• Disclosing of financial reporting about the project to the public 1.37 1.57 0.32
• Information dissemination about CDPs and CDP projects 1.47 1.50 0.72
• Information dissemination to those who affected by CDP
1.00 1.40 0.15
project
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Notes: ** Statistically significant difference at 99 % of confident level

e) Effectiveness and Efficiency

Table 7.4.4 shown that CCs and committees in Prey Khpos commune perceived negative
satisfactions on pending on project implementation, project outputs, inadequate amount of
budget for CDP implementation, respectively WAI=-0.80, WAI=-0.10, WAI=0.50, as
explained in Chapter 6; however they perceived strongly satisfaction on cost of the benefit
of CDP projects (lower cost, higher benefits to local people), and priority of the project,
while only satisfaction perception was given on project output, having no collusion within
the project and group maintenance performance, (WAI=1.33, 1.17). Negative perception
was perceived on project implement time frame as majority of projects were pending
beyond the agreement in the contract, and output of project were not much satisfied, as
elaborated in project Case B, C and CDPs process in Chapter 6.

CCs and committees in Khnach Romeas commune perceived negative satisfaction on the
adequacy amount of commune fund in project implementation, (WAI=-0.07), and least
satisfaction on project implementation within time frame, performance of maintenance
groups, and lifespan of the project output at WAIs of 0.37, 0.90, 0.53; respectively.
Reasons hindered these were mentioned in Chapter 6 and above achievement section in
this Chapter. Strong satisfaction were given on project output, having no collusion, priority
of projects, and lower cost higher benefits at WAIs =1.10, 1.33, 1.37, 1.40.

Khnach Romeas commune perceived positive satisfaction on the implementation of

effectiveness and efficiency in CDPs at WAI=0.87, while Prey Khpos was positive as well
but lower WAI at 0.34. Nonetheless, there was statistically difference at 95% of confident
level (ɒ= 0.05) on the output of project between Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas
commune, CCs and committees from Prey Khpos were not satisfied the output of the
project (as the Case B and C in Chapter 6) while majority of Khnach Romeas were.
Consequently, there were statistically difference at 99 % of confident level on the opinion
on project outputs, and having no collusion (ɒ= 0.00, 0.01); Khnach Romeas commune
strongly satisfied the output of project while Prey Khpos was not as the result of poor
project outputs and thus least satisfaction was perceived than Khnach Romeas commune.

137
 Table 7.4.4: Satisfaction on Effectiveness and Efficiency Applied in CDPs
Prey Khnach
Effectiveness and Efficiency Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Effectiveness and Efficiency 0.34 0.87
• CDP project implement within time frame (no delay) -0.80 0.37 0.28
• CDP projects quality/output 0.50 1.10 0.05*
• CDP projects have no collusion 0.80 1.33 0.01**
• Long lasting of the CDP projects (sustainability) -0.10 0.90 0.00**
• Adequate amount of commune fund for CDP project implement -0.50 -0.07 0.38
• CDP projects are priority 1.33 1.37 0.87
• Cost-benefit of CDP projects (lower cost, high benefit) 1.17 1.40 0.84
• Maintenance group (maintenance of CDP project) 0.30 0.53 0.38
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Notes: ** Statistically difference at 99 % of confident level, * statistically difference at 95
% of confident level,

f) Responsiveness

Although the commune fund was not able to address all the needs and issues which were
proposed in CDPs, majority of CCs and committees satisfied that CDPs as it reflected to
the needs and issues in the commune of Khnach Romeas. Majority of the projects were
supported by development agencies during DIW other than infrastructure projects of
commune fund. As seen in Chapter 6, and in this Chapter, Prey Khpos commune was less
satisfied on the responsiveness of its CDPs, as it was found that there many outbox projects
(outside the CDPs projects which supported by NGOs during DIW), and moreover as the
result of projects implement in this commune were usually postponed and the problems
were not solved on time, and not addressed the issue in long term, and therefore they
perceived less satisfaction to Prey Khpos commune, while Khnach Romeas commune was
better according to Chapter 6, and responsiveness achievements in this Chapter.

From the above perceptions on satisfaction on six elements of local good governance, the
following figure illustrated the average score of satisfaction perception which made by
CCs and committee in both communes. As mentioned previous section, Khnach Romeas
commune was perceived higher satisfaction on the achievement on participation,
accountability, transparency, and effectiveness and efficiency. The rest of elements were
not mentioned in the figure as it was based on group discussion, and therefore exact score
was not calculated. Meanwhile, Prey Khpos commune was perceived lower satisfaction in
comparison to Khnach Romeas commune, due to many reasons which elaborated in this
section above.

138
 Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Figure 7.2: Perception of CCs and Committee on Satisfaction on Application of LGG in
CDPs of Both Communes
Note:
Strongly dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Strongly Satisfied
-2 -1 0 1 2

7.4.2 Satisfaction on Application of LGG of Sampled Households

Different opinions on the level of satisfaction of households from different communes and
from both males and females were elaborated below.

a) Rule of Law

As defined in Chapter 6, villagers in Khnach Romeas commune satisfied rule of law in

CDPs of CCs based on group discussion. Villagers recognized that CCs always visit their
villages every year in order to mobilize villagers to the meeting to identify needs and
issues. Moreover, monthly meeting at commune office, villagers; especially key
informants and elder people, were invited to the meeting. Besides participatory monitoring
and evaluation from villagers was practicing by CCs in Khnach Romeas communes during
project implementation as seen in Case A, and CDPs process of Khnach Romeas commune
in Chapter 6. On the other hand, households in Prey Khpos commune perceived less
satisfaction on the CCs and committee although there were CDPs meetings were conducted
annually in their villages. As mentioned in Chapter 6 on CDPs process and achievement of
six components in CDPs in this Chapter that facilitation skills and approaches were not
satisfied by villagers. In addition, monthly meeting was not conducted regularly, and
villagers; especially key informants and elder people were not motivated to participate the
meeting as in Khnach Romeas commune. As this was the result of lacking of technical
support from district facilitators in Prey Khpos commune.

139
b) Participation

As seen in Table 7.4.5, among eleven items of participation component application in

CDPs were found that sampled household had negative opinion on the level of satisfaction
on the performance of procurement committee, and participation of sampled household in
project monitoring and evaluation in Prey Khpos commune, because they rarely seen these
went to villages, and moreover sampled households were not satisfied the contractors, who
chosen by procurement committee, who always postponed the project implement time line,
and participatory monitoring and evaluation during project implement were not mobilized
by M&E committee. While the rest were perceived satisfied.

Likewise, it was found only an item of participation was perceived negative satisfaction
that was the performance of procurement committee, who chosen the contractors who
always delayed the project time frame in Khnach Romeas commune. However, they
perceived satisfaction on PBC performance, monitoring and evaluation, project preparation
study (land acquisition), and participation on project monitoring and evaluation, while the
rest items were perceived strongly satisfaction such as problem and needs prioritization,
vulnerability participation, site selection and identification for project implementation,
participation in project activities, cash contribution, and functioning of maintenance group,
as these were intensively practiced by CCs.

There was statistically difference at 99% of confident level (ɒ=0.00) on monitoring and
evaluation committee, participation in project implementation activities, participation in
project monitoring and evaluation in the field, and the functioning of maintenance groups
between Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune. Reasons hindered these were
mentioned earlier in achievement of LGG in CDPs above section in this Chapter, and in
Chapter 6 as well. In addition, there was statistically difference at 95% of confident level
of satisfaction on the performance of PBC between Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas
commune (ɒ=0.03), as sampled household s perceived that CCs of Prey Khpos lack of
facilitation skills in mobilizing participation, while Khnach Romeas commune was better,
and as seen in above analysis and in Case study B and C and CDPs process in Chapter 6.

Table 7.4.5: Satisfaction of Sampled Households on Participation Applied in CDPs

Prey Khnach
Participation Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Participation 0.57 0.95
• Performance of PBC members 0.80 0.81 0.03*
• Performance of procurement committee -0.64 -0.39 0.23
• Performance of M and E committee members on behalf of you 0.36 0.96 0.00**
• Decision making of local people in problems and needs
1.07 1.31 0.17
prioritization
• Way of CCs enhance participation of vulnerable groups
1.23 1.28 0.43
(women) in decision making
• Decision making in project selection and site identification
1.02 1.13 0.69
which arranged by CCs
• People’s participation in project preparation study 0.73 0.83 0.29
• People’s participation in project implement activities 0.34 1.41 0.00**
• Local budget contribution collection and labour contribution
1.13 1.11 0.83
for project implementation of CCs and PBC
140
 Prey Khnach
Participation Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
• People’s participation in field monitoring and evaluation the
-0.09 0.98 0.00**
CDP project which arranged by CC members
• Formulation maintenance group and it functioning 0.36 1.06 0.00**
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Notes: ** Statistically difference at 99% of confident level, * Statistically difference at
95% of confident level.

Meanwhile, there were similar opinions on the level of satisfaction on of women and men
in Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune on the above items of satisfaction. On the
other hand, as seen in Table 7.4.6, there was statistically difference (ɒ=0.05) at 95% of
confident level on problems and needs identification and the way of CCs enhance
participation of vulnerable groups (women) in decision making between Prey Khpos and
Khnach Romeas commune as the result of weak encouragement of women in articulate
their ideas and problems conducted by CCs in Prey Khpos, as mentioned in above section.
Similarly, to Appendix 13, there were found statistically difference on the way of
mobilizing vulnerable participation in decision making between levels of education of
households in Khnach Romeas commune. As higher education level people perceived
higher satisfaction while lower perceived least, while there was statistically difference on
the perception on level of satisfaction with level of education on PBC performance in Prey
Khpos commune. Thus, different education level perceived difference satisfaction.

Table 7.4.6: Satisfaction of Participation in CDPs by Commune and Gender

Khnach
Prey Khpos
Romeas
Participation Components T-test
Male Female Male Female
WAI WAI WAI WAI
• Decision making of local people in problems and
1.07 1.07 1.33 1.30 0.05*
needs prioritization
• Way of CCs enhance participation of vulnerable
1.43 1.04 1.19 1.37 0.05*
groups (women) in decision making
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Note: * Statistically difference at 95% of confident level

Besides gender aspect, it was found that there was no statistically difference among the
level of education on satisfaction of participation items in Table 7.4.5 above as seen in
Appendix 10. However, there was a case of statistically different (ɒ=0.03) on the level of
satisfaction on according to education level on PBC performance at 95 per cent level of
precision, mean satisfaction varied according to the level of education in Khnach Romeas.
Meanwhile, there was statistically different (ɒ=0.00) at 99% of confident level between
level of education on satisfaction on facilitating and mobilizing participation of CCs in
Prey Khpos.

141
c) Accountability

Based on group discussion among the villagers from these communes, they satisfied the
application of accountability in terms of performance of CCs according to their
responsibilities such as procurement, M and E committee, PBC, and moreover the
responsibility on the output of the project implementation. On the other hand, Khnach
Romeas had higher satisfaction; reasons were mentioned in the above section. However,
villagers from Prey Khpos commune hesitated to confirm satisfied on this regard as the
result that they have got from the project was not so satisfied, but within a short period
only, as asserted in Chapter 6; especially case studies, and in this Chapter, while women in
Khnach Romeas commune firmly satisfied CCs. Among men and women during the group
discussion in these communes, men firmly argued satisfaction, while women were not able
to articulate much in this issue as there was no special provision project for women from
the commune development fund.

d) Transparency

Table 7.4.7 describes that Prey Khpos commune was found negative satisfaction (WAI=-
0.27) on imbalance allocation of project to all village, as mentioned earlier that Boeung
Chumnieng village was not allocated the project for about 5 years ago and was the most
isolated village, and the signboards of the project were not posted along the project site.
Nevertheless, villagers perceived satisfaction on information dissemination of CDPs during
the DIW, as mentioned in Chapter 6, and perceived strong satisfaction (WAI=1.13) in the
information dissemination to those affected by the project, yet the solution was the
concerns of villagers as there was no compensation made as mentioned the stage 6 of
CDPs process in Chapter 6.

Khnach Romeas commune was found negative satisfaction on the allocation of project to
every village (WAI=-0.06), this was the because of the high demands for each village
which were not able to supply but the commune fund, however they were trying to cover
all villages by the end of 2009. Sampled households still perceived satisfaction on posting
project signboards (as it was explained verbally about the project information after project
completion made by CCs), and the dissemination about CDP information of CCs, and
perceived strong satisfaction on the dissemination to those who affected by the projects at
WAI=0.84, WAI=1.09, respectively.

There was statistically difference at 99% of confident level of satisfaction (ɒ=0.01), as

Prey Khpos commune have not yet delivered its commune projects to all village, while
Khnach Romeas commune was being conducted by 2009, and thus low satisfaction was
perceived.

Table 7.4.7: Satisfaction on Transparency Applied in CDPs

Prey Khnach
Transparency Components Khpos Romeas
T-test
WAI WAI
Transparency 0.17 0.52
• Distribution of project to all village -0.27 -0.06 0.01**
• Signboards which depicted cost, cash contribution posted at
-0.91 0.11 0.67
each project site

142
 Prey Khnach
Transparency Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
• Dissemination of information about the CDPs to the public 0.71 0.96 0.13
• Information provided to local people who affected by the
1.13 1.06 0.48
project
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Note: **Statistically difference at 99 per cent of level of precision.

Among the above items of transparency, there was no significant difference between men
and women opinions from both communes although women were populous in CDPs
participation, yet the perceived similarly. Moreover, in comparison with education and
income level of households, there was no statistically difference between households on
the above items level of satisfaction.

e) Effectiveness and Efficiency

Table 7.4.8 shown that sampled households in Prey Khpos commune perceived negative
satisfaction on lifespan of the project (WAI=0.01); however they perceived less
satisfaction on the project outputs, benefits gain from the expense (low cost, high benefits)
(WAI=0.48, WAI=0.79, respectively). Although they satisfied the output of the projects, it
was in a short-term period only after the project completion, and lifespan of the project
output was not really seen, as in the worse project case studies C in Chapter 6.

All sub components of effectiveness and efficiency were strongly satisfied by sampled
households in Khnach Romeas, which were better than in comparison to Prey Khpos
commune. These were the result of critical implications of participation concept in
monitoring and evaluation as in Chapter 6, and achievement perception in this Chapter.
Therefore, there was statistically difference at 99% of confident level (ɒ=0.00) between
these communes on the project outputs and lifespan of the project, as mentioned in Case C
and B that villagers in Prey Khpos perceived low satisfaction on project outputs; while
statistically difference at 95% of confident level on the lower cost-higher benefit of the
project which implemented by CCs of Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas, as the project
outputs were not satisfied

Table 7.4.8: Satisfaction of Sampled Households on Effectiveness and Efficiency in CDPs

Prey Khnach
Effectiveness and Efficiency Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Effectiveness and Efficiency 0.42 1.20
• Project outputs 0.48 1.19 0.00**
• Lifespan of the project -0.01 1.04 0.00**
• Cost-benefit of the project (low cost, high benefit) 0.79 1.37 0.04*
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Note: * Statistically difference at 95% of confident level, ** statistically difference at 99%
of confident level,

Women and men’s perception on the level of satisfaction within and between communes
there were found no any statistically difference of above items of effectiveness and

143
efficiency. This due to the output of the projects were shown physically and was able to
comment from both men and women. As seen in Appendix 13, there were found no
statistically difference between households’ income, and household education on level of
satisfaction of above items of effectiveness and efficiency in CDPs, thus these people
perceived similar satisfaction.

f) Responsiveness

As in Table 7.4.9, sampled households perceived strong satisfaction on problems and

needs addressed by CDP projects, benefits of the project to community including
vulnerable groups and individuals, and women, and addressed to the needs and issues of
specific village (WAI=1.13, WAI=1.09, WAI=1.09, respectively), while duration of
project implement according to time frame was only satisfaction level, as majority of the
projects in Prey Khpos commune were delayed, and long process of CDPs as per
discussion in project case studies and CDP process in Chapter 6.

Meanwhile, Khnach Romeas commune perceived similarly to Prey Khpos, yet the WAIs in
Khnach Romeas were higher. Thus, there were statistically difference at 99% of confident
level on the time frame of CDP project implementation, and benefits of CDP project to the
community and including vulnerable groups and individual woman at ɒ=0.01, and ɒ=0.00,
respectively, as number of projects which supported by development agencies in Khnach
Romeas were greater supported than Prey Khpos, also the duration of project of
implementation in Khnach Romeas was not prolonged as longer as Prey Khpos. As in
CDPs process Chapter 6, and the output of projects were stronger satisfied by villagers
which addressed women issues, and group of people.

Table 7.4.9: Satisfaction on Responsiveness Applications in CDPs

Prey Khnach
Responsiveness Components Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Responsiveness 0.90 1.19
• Problems and needs were addressed by CDP project 1.13 1.26 0.61
• Duration (time frame) of CDP project implementation 0.30 0.72 0.01**
• Benefit of CDP project to the community (including vulnerable
1.09 1.56 0.00**
groups, individual and women)
• Project address to each village problems and needs 1.09 1.24 0.15
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Note: ** statistically difference at 99% of confident level

From the above Table 7.4.9 and analysis, there was found no statistically difference on the
opinions of women and men respondents between Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas,
although women were actively participating in CDPs process in the early stage, but they
perceived similarly satisfaction. Besides, there was found no statistically difference
regarding the level of satisfaction with level of education, and income categories of
households as seen in Appendix 11.

From people’s perception on local good governance elements, as illustrated in figure

below, Khnach Romeas commune was still perceived higher satisfaction by sampled
households in participation, transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and
efficiency, which were higher in comparison to Prey Khpos commune. While the
144
perception on the rest elements of local good governance, including rule of law, and
accountability, was perceived based on group discussion, and thus exact score was not able
to calculated; however Khnach Romeas commune was still perceived higher satisfaction in
these two elements in comparison to Prey Khpos commune.

Source: Field Survey, 2009.

Figure 7.3: Perception of Sampled Households on Satisfaction on Application of LGGs in
CDPs of Both Communes
Note:
Strongly dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Strongly Satisfied
-2 -1 0 1 2

7.3.3 Satisfaction on LGG in CDPs by Key Stakeholders

As discussed above section, households from Prey Khpos commune satisfied (in general
concept) on the application of rule of law, participation, accountability, transparency, and
effectiveness and efficiency, and responsiveness, this was seen that CDPs of Prey Khpos
commune addressed most priority issues; especially small scale infrastructures, in the
villages which these were not responded by other development agencies; but not totally
fulfilled in long term requirement. In contrary, households from Khnach Romeas commune
perceived higher satisfaction than Prey Khpos commune as mentioned seen in successful
projects case study and CDPs process, and perception on achievements, respectively in
Chapter 6, and in this Chapter.

CCs and committees in Prey Khpos commune self-assessed that they satisfied with rule of
law, accountability, while firmly strongly satisfied on the participation, transparency,
responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness in CDPs, meanwhile Khnach Romeas
commune was perceived higher. Myriad of reasons behind these were including many
years working experience with participation mobilization, villagers understood the process
of participation in CDP (as seen in first section on local people awareness on LGGs in

145
CDPs that majority of Khnach Romeas household (86.8 per cent) understood participation
in CDPs), and were able to articulate their concerns in comparison to past years, and
Khnach Romeas commune had strong commitment to enforce above components while
Prey Khpos was not (CCs did not come to work regularly as they supposed to). All CCs
were assigned according to their capability and skills, and able to handle majority of tasks;
especially PBCs, and accountable to feedbacks of villagers. Moreover, information about
commune affairs including commune development projects, and particularly summary
financial reports were posted every month in the information boards which available
everywhere within the communes, these were strongly practiced by CCs in Khnach
Romeas commune.

As mentioned earlier VSG and AMARA asserted that they were strongly satisfied all items
of LGG in Khnach Romeas commune, while Prey Khpos was perceived less satisfaction on
these, especially on the accountability of CCs in Prey Khpos, as it was not a short term
period, but long terms responsibility. They had done well in short term accountability to
project output while longer term was forgotten, and none of them were accountable to
those projects at all. For instance, after one or two years completion of the project, output
of project failed as there was no one taking responsibility on its and they blamed villagers
and commune chief as lack of maintenance (as seen in Case B and C).

District facilitators, who took role to oversee CCs performance as mentioned in Chapter 5,
satisfied the application of six principles of LGG in CDPs; nevertheless, responsiveness
component was an exception case as there were many proposed projects, which were not
able to handle by CCs fund, and even the development agencies funds. Between Khnach
Romeas and Prey Khpos communes, district facilitators perceived higher satisfaction on
Khnach Romeas, as reasons were mentioned. It was observed that district facilitator in
Prey Khpos was employed recently in 2008, which could not able to coach and mentor
properly to Khnach Romeas commune, while Khnach Romeas commune had been working
with CCs since 2005. Thus, knowledge on how to coach and mentor was different.

NCDD (PRDC’s Ex-com) perceived satisfaction on the application of six principles of

LGG in CDPs, as it was thought that only 8 years on the application of local government
and administration reform though decentralization in comparison to other countries in
Africa. Conversely, least satisfaction was given to CCs regarding the effectiveness and
efficiency in CDPs projects as it was seen that lifespan of the project outputs were not like
the design in the project, they (CCs) were paid low incentive, and how can they handle like
a state workload with 9 CCs? However, least satisfaction was given to Prey Khpos
commune, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Khnach Romeas commune was usually selected for
auditing and as sample for other communes.

From all above sources, these key informants satisfied the application of six principles of
LGG (in general concept) of LGG in CDPs. However, Khnach Romeas commune was
perceived strong satisfaction; while Prey Khpos was lower (still in satisfaction level).
These people understood that these were a great achievements had done by both commune
councilors who working without any payment with overloaded working and
responsibilities, and these were not expected to be accomplished by those who had higher
education level.

146
 Chapter 8

Factors Facilitating and Constraining of LGG Application in CDPs

Three main sections figure out the facilitating and constraining factors of LGG application
in CDPs in this chapter. Section one elaborates factors facilitating the application of LGG
in CDPs from the aspects of institutional, economic and social factors, in contradiction to
first section factors constraining are given in section two; by focusing on how these factors
had constrained the achievement of LGG practicing in CDPs, while the last section
summarizes the whole findings the chapter.

8.1 Factors Facilitating the Applications of LGG in CDPs

There were various factors that facilitating the application of LGG application in CDPs,
among those were categorized in three aspects of the study including institutional,
economic and social factors.

8.1.1 Institutional Factors

Institutional aspects were identified as the factors facilitating the application of LGG in
CDPs. It included local people participation, institutional support from local and
international NGOs, existing regulations, and coaching, mentoring and on the job training,
NGOs fund for promoting LGG at commune level, fund supported from local and
international NGOs for CDP implementation, training on LGG, and exposure visit and
sharing experience were elaborated below.

Table 8.1.1: Institutional Factors Facilitating the Application of LGG in CDPs

Prey Khnach
T-
Factors Khpos Romeas
test
WAI WAI
Institutional 0.69 0.81
• Availability of law/legislation, rules and regulation to support
0.71 0.81 0.25
LGG
• Capacity building provided by NCDD on local governance 0.70 0.85 0.71
• People’s participation in planning and implementation and M and
0.67 0.79 0.32
E of CDPs
• Coaching and mentoring of district facilitators to CC members 0.71 0.79 0.86
• Fund from NGOs program on LGG enhancement 0.69 0.83 0.48
• Other agencies (NGOs/Line Agencies) local development fund to
0.75 0.85 0.44
support CDP implementation
• Training on LGG provided to CC members and related committee 0.69 0.79 0.84
• Organizing study visit for CC members and selected members to
0.68 0.81 0.15
other communes that are experienced in LGG
• Training provided to local people in participatory planning,
0.65 0.76 0.94
implementation, and M and E
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Criteria of WAI Value:
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
0.00-0.20 0.21-0.40 0.41-0.60 0.61-0.80 0.81-1.00

147
a) Existing Rules and Regulations

As rule of law is a part of institutional aspects, it has been an important factor to enforce
LGG applications in CDPs as it was elaborated earlier in the institutional and mechanism
to apply LGG application in CDPs in Chapter 5. Regulation factors were including CDPs
and CIPs declarations and manual, Project Implement Manual (PIM) for CCs, Commune
Procurement Declaration, Commune Financial Management System Declaration and,
especially manual on LGG application, therefore, had high, and very high, at WAI=0.70,
WAI=0.82, Prey Khpos, and Khnach Romeas commune, respectively, influence on LGG
application in CDPs, and had high influence on both commune in overall at WAI=0.76.
Thus, the influential of regulation on LGG applications in CDPs of both communes were
quite similar between these communes as it had been mainstreamed and enforce since the
first CCs election in 2002. Nonetheless, as seen in Chapter 6 and 7 that Khnach Romeas
commune achieve more on existing rules and regulation, while Prey Khpos commune was
lower, therefore as Khnach Romeas commune considered it as higher influential on LGG
in CDPs.

b) People’s Participation

From this aspect, CCs encouraged local people to participate in every step of CDPs
although the approach of mobilizing participation was different between Khnach Romeas
and Prey Khpos commune. People participation was a part of increasing transparency,
responsiveness in terms of identification of real needs and issues, increasing accountability
of PBC and CCs in take responsibilities which assigned, and effectiveness and efficiency
in terms of CDPs touch the objectives, and implemented within time-frame. CCs and
committees evaluated that participation of local people in planning (identification of needs
and issues), implementation plan, and monitoring and evaluation had high influence on the
above aspects in CDPs at WAI=0.67, WAI=0.79, Prey Khpos and Khan Romeas commune
respectively. People participation had in planning (identification of needs and issues stage),
implementation of plan, and monitoring and evaluation had similar influence on
transparency in terms of information sharing and budget reporting, responsiveness in terms
of real needs and issues identification, accountability in terms of take responsibilities over
the assigned tasks, and effectiveness and efficiency CDPs of both communes. However,
Khnach Romeas commune highly considered that these factors had stronger influence
more than CCs and committees in Prey Khpos as they found that the method of mobilizing
participation was not strongly mobilized in CDPs by CCs in Prey Khpos. As participation
was more mobilized by Khnach Romeas commune than Prey Khpos commune, and this
participation had high influence on LGGs in CDP in Khnach Romeas, as this was seen in
the participation achievement and satisfaction on participation in Chapter 6 and 7. Hence,
stronger enforcement participation resulted better LGG in CDPs.

c) Coaching, Mentoring and on the Job Training

Provincial and district facilitator teams were playing important role to coach and mentor
CCs; especially PBC, PC, and M&EC, on LGG in CDPs. CCs understood that it had high
influence on LGG application in CDPs, WAI=0.71, WAI= 0.79, respectively of Prey
Khpos, and Khnach Romeas commune, and WAI=0.75 in overall, for the teams were
responsible for many communes in the district of Bavel, thus they did not engaged with
CCs on regular basis. Coaching and mentoring were including CDPs preparation, DIW,
feasibility study before project implementation, procurement documents preparation, and

148
participation in monitoring and evaluation of project implementation, and reporting to
improve CCs and PBC performance. Trainings were also provided by these teams which
mentioned in Chapter 4 of this study for the courses that they delivered. These communes
received coaching and mentoring from the same team, and therefore there were no
statistically difference on these factors on the LGG in CDPs of both communes. However,
as mentioned in Chapter 6 and 7 on the view of VSG found that Khnach Romeas
considered that this had higher influence on enforcing LGG in CDPs, and led CCs of
Khnach Romeas to achieve LGGs better than Prey Khpos commune, as CCs in Khnach
Romeas were willing to learn more, and also their education level was higher than Prey
Khpos commune that training did not work much on this regard.

On the job training

Pact Cambodia awarded the contract on Local Administrative and Reform (LAAR) from
USAID and implemented its program throughout Cambodia through local NGOs since
2007. Village Support Group (VSG), local NGO was responsible for LAAR program in
Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune mentioned that not only training on LGG and
other decentralization topics. It also provided small grant to CCs to implement their CIPs
which were not related to physical infrastructure such as drug addict, women right,
domestic violence, and other related laws based on the issues in each commune. LAAR
program identified four principles of LGG at commune level including partnership,
accountability, transparency, responsiveness and rule of law, and these were enforced by
the program through the following approaches. The program was designed to require
CCs to set up committee to execute it, and implement the small grant themselves directly
with grass root people. Officers from VSG regularly followed up, coaching, mentoring on
the job training related to financial planning and financial management, monthly
meeting, monthly financial report dissemination through information boards which
provided by CCs, promote local people engagement in CDPs and CIPs, and especially
recruited Commune Monitoring Committee (CMC) in each village to follow up CCs
performance especially from the aspect of LGG. Moreover, exposure visits to other
communes that had better governance either within or outside the province were
arranged in order share and learn from each other. The program was really touching
CCs to apply LGG aspect in their local development work.

d) NGOs Fund for LGG

Irrespective of commune fund support projects in CDPs, VSG, a local NGOs, also
supported CCs of both communes in order to implement CDPs project, for some non-
infrastructure projects. The fund was directly implemented the projects by CCs. The
projects were about enforcing law on drug abuse, and human trafficking, domestic
violence, children education sponsorship. CCs from both communes were required to
prepare project proposal, financial report to display in public through information boards,
and monthly commune meeting. The fund was specifically used in order to enhance LGG
as VSG and its donors considered that CCs were not able to address non-infrastructure due
to limited fund, and therefore addressing non-infrastructure in additional to infrastructure
will satisfy and improve governance of CCs from the aspect of partnership with
development agencies, transparency in information sharing and budgeting reporting;
accountability in terms of taking responsibilities of CCs and committees; participation in
terms of problems and needs identification, project implementation and monitoring and
evaluation; and rule of law in terms of practicing manuals and guidelines mentioned

149
earlier. From this aspect, CCs considered it was a major factor which was in line, and
enforced CCs to apply LGG in CDPs. As responsiveness was also an important component
of LGG, which was implicitly seen by villagers based on what they have proposed in CIP,
as if it was addressed the villagers would satisfy the governance of CCs. Thus another fund
which was either indirectly or directly supported annual CDPs had high influence
(WAI=0.76) on both communes in overall, and had high (WAI=0.69) and very high
(WAI=0.83), for Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune, respectively. Prey Khpos
commune considered high influence, while Khnach Romeas commune had very high
influence as Khnach Romeas strictly follow the NGOs guideline through summary
financial reports were displayed monthly on the information boards, while Prey Khpos was
not really seen that the projects financial report of VSG fund was not posted regularly as
Khnach Romeas commune, due to working load, as explained in Chapter 4, 6 and 7.

e) Support from Local NGOs/Line Departments for CDPs Implementation

As mention in Chapter 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this research finding that there were difference
amount of commune fund which calculated based on formula which developed by NCDD.
This fund was not able to cover all the proposed projects of CDPs of both communes,
however DIW helped CCs from both communes to mobilize resources to support from
local and international NGOs, line agencies, which these were mentioned in Chapter 4, to
support implementation of CCs. Khnach Romeas commune, annually, generated greater
amount of fund, other than commune fund greater than Prey Khpos communes, as seen in
Figure 8.1.1 below, to support implementation of CDPs projects (non-infrastructure),
which were not able to support by commune fund. Hence, supporting from these agencies
had high, and very high influential on LGG, from the aspect of responsiveness in terms of
CDPs addressed real needs and problems, participation in terms of needs and problems
identification, implement, monitoring and evaluation; effectiveness and efficiency in terms
of CDPs’ objectives were addressed and within time frame, and accountability of PBC and
CCs in CDPs preparation and implementation, at WAI of 0.75, WAI=0.85 for Prey Khpos
and Khnach Romeas commune, respectively. Khnach Romeas commune was able to
generate more fund as the result CCs popularity and ability to communicate, accessing to
each commune (Prey Khpos commune was difficult to access while Khnach Romeass road
was better), negotiation with NGOs, and friendly and therefore attracted more NGOs to
support.

900,000,000.0
NGOs and Line Agencies Fund

800,000,000.0
700,000,000.0
600,000,000.0
500,000,000.0
(Riel)

400,000,000.0
300,000,000.0
200,000,000.0
100,000,000.0
0.0
2007 2008 2009
Khnach Romeas 330,794,520.0 399,116,400.0 762,419,200.0
Prey Khpos 36,917,200.0 49,504,200.0 20,984,200.0

Source: Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas CIP, 2007, 2008, 2009.
Figure 8.1.1: Fund Generated from NGOs and Line Agencies by Year in Prey Khpos

150
f) Training on LGG

Changing CCs from a mandate to another made difficulty to apply LGG in CDPs in
particular and general aspect of CCs affair. Training courses as seen in Chapter 4, and
especially course related to participatory planning and good governance would help CCs to
apply LGG; as these training introduced how participation, transparency, accountability,
responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, and consensus building among CCs and
villagers were used in CDPs activities. These trainings, particular LGG, were regularly or
on annual basic, provided by NCDD; especially local administrative unit of PRDC’s Ex-
com, other than local and international NGOs, such as Pact Cambodia through Village
Support Group (VSG), ICCON of ECOSORN Project, Islami Rural Development
Organization (IRDO). Besides, different approaches were used including on the job
training, coaching and mentoring methods as mentioned earlier in Chapter 4 on the profile
of CCs and committees. In this regard, it had high and very high (WAI= 0.68 for Prey
Khpos, WAI=0.72 for Khnach Romeas, and WAI=0.69 on an average for both communes)
influence on LGG (in general aspect) application in CDPs. Although CCs and committees
from Prey Khpos commune received more training on LGG, the application was not seen
as they did not perceive all the contents of training and the training did not help them
much, while Khnach Romeas was better as majority of them got higher education level in
comparison to Prey Khpos as elaborated in Chapter 4, and 6.

g) Sharing Experience on LGG

VSG was implementing LAAR program throughout Bavel district, and CCs within the
district were invited to exposure visit in order to exchange and share experience related to
governance issue; specifically partnership, accountability, transparency, participation and
rule of law which introduced by LAAR program for CCs in both communes. From this
visiting CCs in Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune were able to exchanged idea
how to implement good CDPs with high impact on local people livelihood, and how the
above components of LGG were achieved, weakness and strength among CCs were shared
among during the exposure visits. Prey Khpos commune thought that it had high influence
at WAI=0.68, and while Khnach Romeas commune considered that it had very high
influence at WAI=0.81 on LGG application in CDPs, as CCs and committees from Khnach
Romeas had high commitment to learn from the other CCs, while Prey Khpos was not
really seen as majority of CCs who invited to visit were not regularly working at CCs.
However, there was no statistically difference between these communes.

In overall institutional, during the study period, had high and very high influence on LGG
application in CDPs of Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune, respectively, of
WAI=0.69, WAI=0.81, and in general had high influence (WAI=0.75) on both communes
to apply LGG in CDPs. Nonetheless institutional aspect had higher influence on LGG
applications in CDPs for Khnach Romeas commune. There were a number of reasons
hindered these, including the accessibility to commune office that Khnach Romeas
commune was easily accessible by many institutions (NGOs and line agencies), ability to
generate more fund from NGOs and line agencies, willingness of Khnach Romeas CCs to
apply LGG, were better than CCs in Prey Khpos commune, and moreover the education of
CCs in Khnach Romeas was relatively higher than Prey Khpos commune, which enabled
CCs to perceive better LGG in CDPs.

151
8.1.2 Economic Factors

Not only institutional factors which had influence on LGG application in CDPs, but
economic aspects were also another which had mentioned by both communes. Commune
fund allocation and allocation criteria to each village, existing financial management
system and commune financial auditing were regarded as the influential factors the
achievements of LGG applications in CDPs in the LGG in CDPs and achievement of LGG
analysis in CDPs in Chapter 6, and 7.

Table 8.1.2: Economic Factors Facilitating the Application of LGG in CDPs

Prey Khnach
Factors Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Economics 0.67 0.82
Budget allocation to each CDP project are not bias (allocated to
0.68 0.81 0.01**
all target village)
Effective external auditing system 0.67 0.87 0.59
Effective mentoring by commune accountant 0.66 0.81 0.62
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Note: ** statistically difference at 99% of confident level.

a) Commune Fund Allocation Criteria

Financial aspects of commune were a sensitive which had been considered by many
institutions on their capacity and transparency system. CCs and committees evaluated that
existing financial allocation criteria which were set up by commune was an influential
factor of achievement of transparency, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability and
responsiveness of LGG in CDPs. The criteria were included the allocation of commune
fund for project implement irrespective of discrimination among the village within the
commune, and the poorest among the poor was given priority by commune fund, equity
and fair among the villages. Therefore, villagers saw the fair and transparent,
responsiveness and accountability in commune fund allocation. Prey Khpos CCs and
committee regarded this had high influence (WAI=0.69), and very high influence
(WAI=0.85) on transparency, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability and
responsiveness in CDPs of both communes. This factor had statistically difference at 99
per cent of precision level (ɒ=0.01) between Prey Khpos commune and Khnach Romeas
commune, as Khnach Romeas commune allocated fund to all villages, and majority of
fund were strongly supported by NGOs and line agencies as elaborated in institutional
factors above, while Prey Khpos commune was not according to its large commune area,
and least fund generated from NGOs and line agencies to implement CDPs as seen in
above section and also in Chapter 6, and 7.

b) Financial Auditing and CDPs Evaluation

Financial auditing and CDPs evaluation were conducted by internal people (PRDC’s Ex-
com), and external people (donors, independents evaluation, and auditing firms) which
usually conducted on annual basis. Therefore, CCs and committees understood that either
financial audit or CDPs evaluation were an important factor to achieve LGG application in
CDPs in Chapter 6, and 7. These had influence at WAI=0.67, WAI=0.87, in Prey Khpos
and Khnach Romeas commune. Khnach Romeas commune had higher influence of these
152
principles in CDPs as it was often selected to be evaluated and audited, thus it enforced for
more transparency in financial disclosing, and sharing and enhanced CDPs responsiveness
in terms of real needs and problems identification; and effectiveness and efficiency in
terms of project of meet the objectives of CDPs and within time frame, and because
Khnach Romeas commune was popular in governance performance as seen in transparency
achievement in Chapter 7, and also in Chapter 6. Auditing was usually conducted in order
to ensure that commune fund was used according the purpose and properly recorded with
support documents such as invoices, minutes and other related documents in the existing
system, while CDPs auditing or evaluation was attempted to check whether CDPs prepared
and implemented according to the guideline or process, especially minute of meetings with
list attendance (signature, and or any mean to prove attendance) which usually applied in
the stage of village meeting, feasibility study (land acquisition and project designs), and
monitoring and evaluation on the quality of the project.

Other than financial auditing by external and internal people to maintain and check that
commune budget expenses with sufficient support documents before releasing the fund.
Although accountants did not engage closely at commune level, to some extent they helped
CCs to ensure transparent, rule of law, effectiveness and efficiency its expenses and
financial system. Therefore it had high and very high influence to achieve these items in
CDPs from the financial aspect, at WAI=0.66, and WAI=0.81 of Prey Khpos and Khnach
Romeas commune, respectively, and at high (WAI=0.74) for both communes. Khnach
Romeas was better regarding this as it had always been appreciated by commune
accountant due to sufficient supporting documents, and capability of commune clerk, were
greater than Prey Khpos commune regarding documentations. Khnach Romeas commune
was much appreciated by from CCs and committees as it financial reports were
disseminated in the public board, while Prey Khpos was rarely seen as elaborated in
Chapter 6 and 7 of this study.

8.1.3 Social Factors

There were many factors which facilitated the application of LGG in CDPs, social aspects
had been considered by CCs of both communes other than institutional and economic
aspects. Among other dimensions of social aspects public awareness, CC’s leadership, and
monthly meetings were the main factors facilitating the applications of LGG in CDPs.

Table 8.1.3: Social Factors Facilitating Applications of LGG in CDPs

Prey Khnach
Factors Khpos Romeas T-test
WAI WAI
Social 0.66 0.84
• Create communication channel for dissemination information
0.66 0.85 0.02*
(public awareness through meeting, media and by words)
• Local leadership in local resources mobilization and generating 0.63 0.85 0.86
• Frequency of meeting among CCs, PBCs and other committees 0.71 0.85 0.04*
Source: Field Survey, 2009.
Note: * statistically difference at 95 % of confident level.

153
a) Public Awareness on CDPs

Both communes made information boards in each village which supported by VSG to
display information and disseminate it to the local people including poster about LGG.
Monthly and annual summary of commune financial support, information about the CDPs
and CIPs, and other related information in both communes. During the study period, there
were TVs spots, which produced by Ministry of Interior, on LGG and its benefit to the
community within the commune as if LGG applied by CCs, thus it increased the awareness
of public about LGG in local development. Through these means of public awareness, it
increased the awareness of local people on governance which improved interaction with,
and the demand or voice up for better governance from CCs, if there was no public
awareness on local governance, there was not better governance provided. CCs and
committee from Prey Khpos believed that this had high influence (WAI=0.63) on
participation in problems and needs identification, and implementation, and M&E,
responsiveness in addressing real needs and issue of all people, transparency in
information and financial aspect in CDPs, while Khnach Romeas commune evaluated that
it had very high influence (WAI=0.82). There was statistically difference at 95% of
confident level (ɒ=0.02) between these communes, as Khnach Romeas was better than
Prey Khpos as CCs and committees from Khnach Romeas commune had seen that CCs
had actively done above activities. Meanwhile, Prey Khpos was not so active, and also as
mentioned earlier in Chapter 7 that Khnach Romeas posted financial report, and CDP
information in the boards for public interest while Prey Khpos was not seen, and moreover
the villagers in Khnach Romeas commune understood LGG in general concept in CDPs
better than Prey Khpos villagers. Moreover, villagers in Khnach Romeas was understood
more on LGG in CDPs if compare to Prey Khpos as mentioned in Chapter VII, and thus
they could observe what CCs in Khnach Romeas had done, whether it followed the LGG
concept or not. Hence, this had stronger influence on LGG in CDPs of Khnach Romeas
than Prey Khpos.

b) CCs Leadership to Generate and Mobilize Fund

From the perception of local people, responsiveness of what they had proposed was a
crucial issue to be addressed by CCs, governance of CCs was meaningless, otherwise.
Therefore, CCs, with their best efforts, had to act as a good leader to mobilize fund from
various sources including development agencies (LNGOs, and INGOs) and philanthropies
to address the issues besides commune development fund of CCs. A commune assigned
CCs who were good at communication and fund raising from individual philanthropy. CCs
and committees from both communes noticed that this had high (WAI=0.63) and very high
(WAI=0.81) influential on responsiveness, participation, accountability, and effectiveness
and efficiency in CDPs, in Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune, respectively.
However, there was no significant difference between these concept in the application of
LGG in CDPs. However, this was still very highly affected in Khnach Romeas commune,
as the case they could generate more fund for CDPs implementation rather than Prey
Khpos commune as seen in the above elaboration and in Chapter 6 and 7. Capacity to
generate more funds helped to improve participation in planning process (identification,
implement, and M&E), responsiveness in addressing the needs and issues, accountability
in terms of willing to perform the assigned tasks, and effectiveness and efficiency in term
of address the objectives of CDPs and within time frame; especially in Khnach Romeas
commune.

154
c) Monthly Meeting of CCs

As discussed in previous Chapter 6 and 7 that CCs monthly meetings were required to be
conducted according to CCs’ regulation in Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune.
Stakeholders, NGOs, CBOs, village chiefs, and villagers’ representatives were invited to
participate the meeting at commune office. Agenda on CDPs, commune development
project, financial report, and any approval were usually opened to be discussed, and
allowed to be inquired by participants. From this perception, Khnach Romeas commune
considered that it had very high influence (WAI=0.85) on participation, accountability,
transparency, and rule of law in CDPs, while Prey Khpos considered that it had high
influence (WAI=0.71) only on this regard. Thus there was statistically difference at 95 per
cent of level of confident between these communes. CCs and committee considered that it
had lower influence as they had seen that were no regularly monthly meeting, and
sometimes the meetings were held among CCs of Prey Khpos while the above stakeholders
were not invited to participate, while Khnach Romeas was.

8.2 Factors Constraining the Applications of LGG in CDPs

Several factors constraining the application of LGG in CDPs ranged from institutional,
social to economic factors. These constrained the above achievements of LGG in CDPs in
Chapter 6 and 7.

8.1.4 Institutional Factors

Low education level, multi-responsibilities of CCs and PBC, and lack of infrastructure
technical knowledge was identified as the factors constraining the application of LGG in
CDPs.

a) Lower Education Level

As mentioned in Chapter 4 on profile of respondents, CCs and committees’ education were

found different between Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune, majority of Khnach
Romeas commune CCs and committees received higher education level ranged from
primary to tertiary level in comparison with Prey Khpos commune that gained education
level from literacy class to secondary level only as seen in Table 4.5.4 in Chapter 4. Lower
education level constrained, and took longer time in order to perceive new knowledge
related CDPs and governance aspects. This affected on the performance of effectiveness
and efficiency, responsiveness, and participation of local people in CDPs; especially in
Prey Khpos commune, while Khnach Romeas commune seemed better as majority of them
gained higher education level.

b) Multi-responsibilities of CCs and PBCs

Lacking of voluntary staff in order to perform multiple responsibilities of CCs and

especially in local development fund of CCs of Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune
was found it as the constraining factor to response to the unlimited demand of local people.
Although specific tasks were assigned to each CCs, and PBC committee, they were
working on the basis of voluntary, and thus it had adverse effect on handling workload and
demand from villagers. Besides working in CDPs, they had overlap roles with other
committees within each commune as mention in Chapter 4 on the structure and roles of

155
CCs in both communes. As it was decentralized, CCs took responsibilities for several
sectors including health, education, infrastructure, women and children affair, agriculture,
water etc. There were only 9 CCs who were not enough in order to response to the above
sectors. “How can they handle the overloaded responsibilities with low incentive and with
a few CCs and sometimes some of them did not so active in CCs affair too, said local
administration advisor in Battambang.” Therefore, lacking of number of staff or human
resource in order to respond or perform overloaded working requirements, highly
constrained to the achievement of effectiveness and efficiency, responsiveness and
accountability in CDPs of both communes. However, these had strongly affected and
constrained the practice of LGG in CDPs in Prey Khpos commune, while Khnach Romeas
commune was better as all CCs in Khnach Romeas were more active than Prey Khpos
commune. Therefore, they could handle the workload relative better than Prey Khpos.

c) Lacking of Small Scale Infrastructure Technical Knowledge

“Working with CCs was not about understanding on how to read and write Khmer
language, but was also understanding technical knowledge such as planning, calculation,
management, problem solving, leadership, and about infrastructure knowledge etc, said
local administrative adviser of Battambang province.” CCs were performing various
aspects of works as mentioned earlier, and they therefore required beyond the capacity to
read and write. Small scale infrastructure was usually addressed by commune fund, and it
was still in question that to what extent that the CCs understood the infrastructure
technique and this was driven by technical engineering from outside commune. As it was
mentioned project case study B and C, and CDPs process in Chapter 6 on the output, and
effectiveness and efficiency of commune infrastructure project that failed to respond to the
expected standards; especially Prey Khpos commune where technical officer was not often
conduct site monitoring and evaluation during project implementation. This was the
consequence of lacking of technical knowledge and it failed to address the needs and issues
of local people in long terms. Therefore; this was a bearer to achieve effectiveness and
efficiency in terms of project outputs against the objectives, and time frame of CDPs
implementation, responsiveness in terms of problems and needs were addressed,
transparency in terms of financial report about project, and participation in monitoring and
evaluation; especially in Prey Khpos commune, while Khnach Romeas commune was able
to handle this to some extent as they were working closely with technical support officer.
Therefore lacking of technical knowledge was found as a factor constraining the expected
of degree of achievement in LGG applications in CDPs in these communes as mentioned
in Chapter 6 and 7.

8.1.5 Economic Factors

Several economic aspects which constrained of the achievement of LGG in CDPs included
postponement of contract implementation, inadequate commune fund, lack of frequency
financial and CDPs auditing, and low CCs incentive and motivation.

a) Postponement of Project Implementation

Increased the price of construction materials, which were estimated during last 6 months
before the procurement. If the project was not broken the contract, many projects of CCs
were postponed to be implemented, and therefore, at the time being, construction
materials’ price increased beyond the contract price or bid price. Contractors or companies

156
were not able to implement their projects with CCs, lost otherwise. As the result of this,
many projects failed to response to the time frame and pending for around a year, as the
case in Prey Khpos commune, and therefore failed to respond to the need of local people
within time frame. This constrained to achieve responsiveness in terms of real needs and
issues, participation in terms of reluctant to participate in needs and problems
identification, monitoring and evaluation, and effectiveness and efficiency in terms of
addressing the objectives of CDPs within time frame. Prey Khpos commune had highly
impact from this, as mentioned in Chapter 6, and 7 that the projects, which bided in 2007
was implemented in 2008. In the mean time, Khnach Romeas was not found like Prey
Khpos as commune chief was strongly in pushing contractor to implement the contract
which was not allow to postpone as longer as Prey Khpos commune, as they have good
connection with provincial authority.

As mentioned in Chapter 6 and in this Chapter that villagers were reluctant of villagers in
participation in CDPs preparation as the projects which were proposed by them were not
promptly responded according to the time of needs and issues occurred and within the
villages, as seen in CDPs process in Chapter 6. It took a year in order to implement the
project which proposed by villagers, and only a few projects were implemented while the
rest of the project was not seen and had to wait for the next few year commune
development fund. It constrained CCs to address the needs and issues of local people in
both communes. However, it was seen strongly affected to Prey Khpos commune as the
capacity to generate additional fund was weaker than Khnach Romeas as seen in DIW in
Chapter 6.

b) Inadequate Amount of Commune Fund

Recently, commune fund was declined, as described in Chapter 4, and 6, and in this
Chapter, that amount of fund was not fixed to be awarded, as it was calculated based on
population, poverty index, and equal share amongst communes. However, this amount of
commune fund did not increase according to the market situation as economic crisis being
an issue of increasing construction materials price. As discussed in Chapter 6, an average
from 2007 to 2009, Khnach Romeas commune fund contributed only 9.2 per cent of total
fund, as Khnach Romeas commune generated more fund from external funder, while Prey
Khpos was 45.23 per cent of total fund which generated by CCs of Prey Khpos. Thus, Prey
Khpos commune was depending on in adequate amount of commune fund, while Khnach
Romeas commune generated was not solely depending on commune fund. Thus,
inadequate amount of commune fund constrained on responsiveness, effectiveness and
efficiency, and participation in CDPs of both communes; especially to address the
infrastructure needs, which was the most priority. On the other hand, Khnach Romeas
commune was not highly adverse effect, as they were not relying solely on commune fund,
while Prey Khpos was strongly adverse effect as it was depending on only commune fund.

c) Irregular Financial Auditing and CDP Evaluation

The case was found in Prey Khpos commune, where it was not usually selected to be
audited in terms of CDPs and financial auditing by donors and independent auditors. As
the result, CCs performance of was ignored from the higher level of government. Auditing
was conducted in Khnach Romeas commune that have done well in CDPs and other
aspects of financial management for further fund attraction. Therefore lacking of financial
and CDPs auditing had adverse impact on transparency, rule of law, and accountability of

157
CCs in Prey Khpos commune. This was seen high influence on Prey Khpos commune,
rather than Khnach Romeas commune.

d) Low Incentives and Motivation

More than willingness to serve local people, CCs considered incentives which provided by
government as a part of their daily living. Incentives of CCs ranged from 17.5 USD to 25
USD per month, which it was not able to cover the daily expenses of CCs and family. Low
incentives discouraged or limited the willingness of CCs work hard in order to address the
local needs. “My wife always cursed me if I work longer at commune office, and do not
work at the rice paddy, and other income generation activities (IGA) to support my
children and family, said a commune councilor.” This concern discouraged CCs to
perform their responsibilities to address issues and needs of local people. “Villagers have
never thought about my difficulties in my family, if I do not come to work, they will curse
me that I am lazy, and in contrast when I come to work regularly, no one appreciate, and
who will support my family daily expenses?, said a commune councilor.” Low incentives
were absolutely a factor constraining on rule of law, participation in terms of mobilizing
people to participate in CDPs, accountability in terms of taking responsibilities to do plan,
responsiveness in terms of mobilizing people to figure out the real needs and problems,
and mobilize fund to support those vulnerable groups and individuals, transparency, and
effectiveness and efficiency in terms of preparing CDPs within the time frame of both
communes, and achieve objectives of CDPs. Although a commune like Khnach Romeas
performed better in terms of development activities and local governance, there was no
motivation from higher government level in terms of reward. This affected both
communes, willingness of CCs help CCs to work hard to some extent. These had high
constrained Prey Khpos commune, while Khnach Romeas commune had relative lower
constraining, as high commitment and willing to work for local people.

8.1.6 Social Factors

Several social aspects constrained the performance LGG of CCs in CDPs was debated
during the group discussion, and found based on previous Chapters analysis including the
following.

a) Dissatisfaction of Local People on Land Compensation

Before the project implementation, feasibility studies were conducted; more specifically on
land acquisition which was the most important and hottest issue that CCs, PBC,
procurement committee had to deal with local people. As this discussed earlier in the
Chapter 6 and 7 of this study found that there were conflicts over land contribution for
CDPs implementation in Prey Khpos, especially the earth road Case B. Although the
project was implemented, some villagers felt not happy, as compensation was not made to
them over the land contribution. Moreover, outputs of CDPs was damaged by villagers as
the result after project completion. This case had high effected on achievement of
effectiveness and efficiency in terms of time frame and using optimum resources of better
outputs, participation in CDPs preparation, CDPs implementation, and accountability in
terms of taking responsibilities according to the assigned tasks in CDPs of Prey Khpos
commune. Meanwhile, Khnach Romeas commune was had better in terms of land
acquisition as majority of the projects implemented over the existing road, and had least
affective their properties.

158
b) Limited Local People Participation in CDPs

CDPs was beyond the mandate of small scale infrastructure, including health, IGA, draft
animal, social security, food and agriculture; these were not responded by the CCs. Limited
amount of commune fund discouraged people’s participation, as majority of infrastructure
projects which were always ranked in the top priority of CDPs annually were not addressed
by commune fund, and therefore villagers were reluctant to participate during the next year
meeting. They claimed that “last year proposed projects were not addressed, why we have
to propose another projects this year again? said a villagers in Prey Khpos commune.”
Thus, the issue of which proposed in CDPs were not addressed by CDPs on time as
inadequate amount of commune fund. This had constrained CCs to achieve responsiveness
in terms of CDPs addressing the real needs and issues, and of vulnerable group and
individual, participation in problem and needs identification, project activities
implementation, cash and labour contribution, and in monitoring and evaluation.
Accountability in taking responsibilities according to the assigned tasks of CCs, and
effectiveness and efficiency in terms of time frame in CDPs in Prey Khpos commune,
while Khnach Romeas commune was lower affected, as elaborated in previous sections
that Khnach Romeas capability to generate more support was higher than Prey Khpos.

c) Replacement, and Mandatory of PBC and CCs

CCs served the electorates on the basis of mandatory of five years per term. It was found
that around 40 per cent of studied CCs and PBCs were replaced after the election in 2007,
and some of them had no working experience before and hence it adversely impacted on
understanding of CDPs performance. New CCs and PBC members have to spend time to
catch up the system of CDPs and learn about LGG. It spent almost more than a year in
order to learn about CDPs preparation, procurement, project monitoring and evaluation,
etc; as seen in Chapter 4 on the training courses related to LGG. Pending to understand the
CDPs worsened the performance of CCs in preparation planning to address the local
people needs and issues, although several trainings were provided to Prey Khpos, but it
was not work well. Evidently, there were several out box projects were supported by
development agencies, mentioned Chapter 6, as these issues and needs of local people,
which identified by NGOs, were not included in the CDPs. Thus these affected on
responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, participation and accountability of CCs and
PBC in CDPs. These cases had adversely impacted in Prey Khpos commune, while
Khnach Romeas commune was better as out of box projects supported by NGOs in Khnach
Romeas was lesser than Prey Khpos.

d) Lack of Participation in Decision Making

As it was elaborated in Chapter 6 on CDPs process and project case study B and C, it was
found that decision making over payment to contractors without consultation with
villagers, village chiefs, and participatory project monitoring and evaluation, and among
CCs had adverse effected on the project outputs. This was not seen practicing by Prey
Khpos commune, and in reserve, it constrained CCs to achieve better LGGs in CDPs in
comparison with Khnach Romeas commune.

159
e) Lack of Participation in Bidding Process

There was no strong satisfaction by villagers and committees on the selection of contractor
selection, and on the performance of procurement committee within both communes, as
seen in Chapter 6 and 7 that a few people participated in procurement event which
undertaken at the district office. It located very far from the village and commune office,
villagers and key informants were not able to participate the event although it was
encouraged to participate. As result, Prey Khpos was not much satisfied by villagers and
committees as seen the result of Case B and C projects, while Khnach Romeas commune
were better, as villagers and committee had perceived better satisfaction on procurement
process and procurement committee. This had high adverse affected and constrained to
achieve transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency in CDPs; especially
in Prey Khpos commune.

f) Lack of Public Information Disclosing

Based on the analysis in Chapter 6 and achievements and satisfaction in Chapter 7 on

respective principles of LGGs in CDPs was found that lacking of disclosing information
regarding the decision making of CCs during project implementation in terms of payment
to contractors, reporting on financial status, and progress of CDPs implemented by
contractor through public information boards constrained to achieve better transparency,
accountability, participation, rule of law, and accountability of CCs. These issues were
found in Prey Khpos commune, while Khnach Romeas commune was seen practicing, to
some extent, in these aspects.

g) Lack of Local People’s Awareness

As in Chapter 7 regarding awareness of local people on general and specific concept of

LGG in CDPs, and with reference to Appendix 13, it was found that local people in Prey
Khpos commune had lower awareness on each principles of LGGs practicing in CDPs.
Majority of local people in Khnach Romeas at 86.86, 76.15, 95.06, 91.35 per cent had
respectively understood participation, transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and
efficiency in CDPs, while Prey Khpos commune had 73.53, 60.04, 82.44, 86.30 per cent
respective understood these principles. These were the consequent of least attention of
local people in Prey Khpos on LGG performance in CDPs, and therefore the enforcement
on these aspects were not properly practicing in Prey Khpos commune. Lack of attention
from local people had constrained on enforcement LGGs in practicing in CDPs
accordingly.

160
 Chapter 9

Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations

The chapter provides key summary of the findings from the research in the first section,
while the second section draws up the main conclusion from the research.
Recommendations are made based on the findings of the study to strengthen LGG in CDPs
and on planning and policy implications of LGG for local level planning in Cambodia.

9.1 Summary of Findings

9.1.1 Institutional Framework and Mechanisms to Support LGG in CDPs.

The institutional frameworks and mechanisms to support LGG application in CDPs were
seen from the national to decentralized levels, and each level was supported by existing
royal decrees/laws, sub-decree, declarations, and others regulations in Cambodia. At
national, the NCDD took a major role in line with the Ministry of Interior (Department of
Local Administration), and Ministry of Planning. It played a vital role to coordinate other
relevant ministries/institutions to implement the adopted strategies, plans, and laws
including organic law, and law on commune administration management. At the sub-
national level, by working in accountable to national level, PRDC and its Execution
Committee (Ex-com) which comprises of several units including local administration unit,
finance unit, technical support unit and contract administration unit that worked on their
expertise to enforce local governance at commune level. Meanwhile, line departments,
particularly Departments of Planning, Local Administration unit of Provincial, Municipal,
and Provincial treasury performed the key roles to apply organic and commune
administration and management law, and sub-decrees, declarations and manuals. These
were push institutions from the higher government to promote local governance at the
lowest level, CCs. Besides, it was seen at decentralized level, CCs was the entity to apply
and promote local good governance, especially through CDPs, other than the external or
push institutions, by applying various laws, declarations and manuals. Within the
commune, there were commune focal persons who were working on monitoring and
evaluation of commune performance for better governance through encouragement
participation approach.

To facilitate the implementation of the CDPs at commune level, many manuals including
local planning and implementation manual, good governance manual for CCs, CDPs and
CIPs, have been using at commune level based on the concept and elements of good
governance applied in CDPs consisted of rule of law, participation, accountability,
transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency, consensus orientation,
equity and just. However, indicators to measure LGG also have not yet been defined.

9.1.2 Applications of LGG in CDPs

Six key elements of LGG including rule of law, participation, accountability, transparency,
responsiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency were analyzed from CDPs practices and
illustrated in a few project case studies of both study communes.

These elements were seen slightly different in practices by both communes. In Khnach
Romeas commune, rule of law was applied by CCs in CDPs. From the beginning to the
end of CDPs stage. Rule of law including CDPs and CIPs manual, PIM, which were

161
followed by CCs in Khnach Romeas commune. Participation was strictly applied as
majority of people were invited to the meeting to identify needs and problems, and
majority of women participated, and in project implementation of contract by labour, and
in project monitoring and evaluation, in additional to cash contribution. Accountability in
CDPs was seen through assigning PBC for CDPs preparation, and majority of them
performance according to guidelines mention in rule of law. Moreover, Procurement
Committee, and M&E performed their roles after PBC in order to implement CDP.
Accountability after CDPs implementation was seen in terms of establishment of
maintenance group, which was really active in road operation and maintenance. However,
reporting to villagers was limited, but information was accessible at commune office.
Transparency in CDPs was seen through the allocation of commune fund to the most
priority projects, and allocated to all villages for equity among them, and all proposed
projects were incorporated into CDPs, and mobilized to support from development
agencies. Other than these, it was seen through procurement, which information were
accessed by interested groups, and report on progress and financial report were posted at
public information boards by CCs. Responsiveness was seen through commune fund for
infrastructure projects which was the most prioritized projects, while the rest of the
projects were supported from development agencies through DIW. Effectiveness in terms
of achievement CDPs objectives and efficiency in terms of implement CDPs within time
frame were satisfied by CCs and committees, and villagers in Khnach Romeas.

In Prey Khpos commune, rule of law was followed by CCs as CDPs was developed
according to CDPs and CIP manual, while PIM was used during the project
implementation, yet these were not properly considered in CDPs during the last stage of
CDPs. Participation was applied by CCs of Prey Khpos during the early stage of CDPs;
especially during the problems and needs identification at village level, and cash
contribution by villagers to implement the projects, yet participation during project
implementation in terms of monitoring and evaluation was weak, and was not properly
mobilized by M&E committee. CCs of Prey Khpos applied accountability in CDPs;
especially PBCs performed their roles and responsibilities. Consequently, procurement
committee was set-up to facilitate bidding process of the project including feasibility study
(land acquisition), yet it was not satisfied by villagers as there were no compensation
policy was made to those whose properties affected by the projects. However, project
procurement was undertaken according to the rule of law (implementation manual) which a
few CCs and commune chief participated. Besides, M&E committee was not seen taking
responsibilities during project M&E during project implementation. Moreover,
accountability on project output was not really seen in Prey Khpos as the output of the
projects was not really satisfied by villagers, and CCs lacked of accountability in terms of
mobilizing people’s participation in project output M&E, and they complained villagers
that they did not help in project M&E although villagers provided comments to them.
Transparency was applied during the fund allocation to the most priority, and all projects
were incorporated into CDPs and mobilized fund to support from development agencies;
especially non-infrastructure projects. Yet, allocation fund to each village was explicit.
Besides, procurement documents were accessible, and result of biddings were public
announced, CDPs information and financial reports were not displayed in the existing
information board, but accessible at commune, and the projects signboards were not posted
for public interest. Effectiveness and efficiency in terms of implementation the project to
achieve objective CDPs, and implementation of CDPs within time frame were not satisfied
as expected. Majority of commune fund project was delayed for about one month to a year
after it was approved to implement.

162
Overall, Prey Khpos need improvements in transparency in term of financial report was not
delayed in public information boards, allocation of commune fund was bias in decision
making, and financial auditing was not undertaken regularly; responsiveness in term of
time frame, needs and issues of villagers were not fully addressed, but within a short term
period, and poor satisfaction on the project outputs. Accountability on responsibilities of
M&E committee was not undertaken and reporting about CDPs progress to the public.
Effectiveness and efficiency in terms projects achieving the objectives of CDPs was not
seen. CDPs implementation was not according to the time frame, and lack of participation
implementation, and monitoring and evaluation while the early was better. Khnach
Romeas commune performed relatively better in good governance performance in
planning, implementation, and M&E stages. Besides, rule of law in term of CDPs manual,
PIM and financial management system were similarly used by both communes.

9.1.3 Perceptions on LGG in CDPs

CCs and committee perceived that rules of law in terms of internal rule and regulation,
manual of CDPs, and PIM were used in CDPs of both communes. However, Khnach
Romeas commune was perceived higher achievements in this regard by specific
governance’s elements. Participation in problems and needs identification, CDPs
implementation, and monitoring and evaluation, were perceived by CCs and local
committees that it was moderately applied by CCs in Prey Khpos commune which was
lower than Khanch Romeas commune, which was perceived higher. Accountability was
highly applied by both communes. However, Khnach Romeas commune had better
applications. There were a slightly differences in their application on transparency
including evaluation performance of CDPs, and keeping reporting progress of CDPs to
public. Prey Khpos commune achieved lower level in terms of financial reporting and
sharing information, while Khnach Romeas was higher on sharing information, financial
reporting which displayed through information boards, and disclosing financial report to
public, participatory budgeting planning, financial audited by external, and decision
making over the contract award. This was because Khnach Romeas displayed their
summary financial report on the board every month; all PBCs were invited to the meetings,
while Prey Khpos commune was not. Prey Khpos perceived lower achievement on
responsiveness in terms of time frame, target poor village and vulnerable groups, and also
identification of real needs and problem than Khnach Romeas commune. Effectiveness and
efficiency was found that Khnach Romeas commune performed better than Prey Khpos
commune, but still at the high level of achievement based on their perceptions.

In comparison perceptions achievement and satisfaction, households perceived high

achievements on all elements of LGG in CDP in Khanch Romeas, while relatively lower
achievement was perceived in Prey Khpos commune. Yet, CCs and committees perceived
moderately achievement on all element of LGG in CDPs in Khnach Romeas, while lower
achievements were perceived in Prey Khpos. NGOs (VSG) who involved in LGG
perceived high achievement on participation, accountability, and transparency, and
moderate achievement was given to responsiveness, rule of law, and effectiveness and
efficiency. Meanwhile, district facilitators who perceived high achievement on rule of law,
participation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and
efficiency. NCDD (PRDC’s Ex-com) evaluated all components were moderately achieved
by CCs. However, these informants perceived relatively higher achievement towards
Khnach Romeas commune, while relatively lower was perceived in Prey Khpos commune.
Those who were working directly to enhance LGG perceived higher achievement.

163
Both communes were satisfied on rule of law by practicing internal rules and regulations,
and followed the steps planning of CDPs; effectiveness and efficiency in terms of time
frame of CDPs preparation, implementation of CDPs to achieve the objectives, and
responsiveness in terms of project outputs. Yet, strong satisfaction was given to
participation in problems and needs identification, cash contribution, monitoring and
evaluation; accountability in terms of taking responsibilities according to the assigned
tasks and transparency in terms of CDPs information dissemination. Overall, Khnach
Romeas commune had a relatively high level of satisfaction than Prey Khpos commune in
the application of LGG in CDPs.

The sampled households had stronger satisfaction level on participation in problems and
needs identification, project implementation, and monitoring and evaluation; accountability
in taking responsibilities according to the assigned tasks; transparency in information
dissemination, financial reporting, and CDPs information sharing, and effectiveness and
efficiency of CDPs in Khnach Romeas commune, while lower satisfactions levels were
perceived in Prey Khpos commune. There was no difference between the perception of
women and men from the two communes. Likewise, level of education and income
categories of sampled households had no difference perception on the level of satisfaction.
The comparative perception of stakeholders involved in the CDPs showed that the sampled
households were satisfied with the achievement of six elements of LGG in CDP, while
CCs and committees appreciated and perceived stronger satisfaction level on
achievements, which was similar to development agencies and district facilitators.

9.1.4 Factors Facilitating LGG in CDPs

There were a number of institutional factors that facilitated the applications of LGG in
CDPs including existing rules and regulations, local people’s participation, coaching,
mentoring and on-the-job-training, NGO fund support for LGG, funding support from
local/international NGOs, training on LGG, and exchanging and sharing experience on
LGG in terms of exposure visit. Nonetheless, these were different between the two
communes. Khnach Romeas commune had higher influential from these factors than Prey
Khpos commune did. Economic factors included clear commune fund allocation criteria
(allocated fund to all villages and priority needs and issues of local people); financial and
CDPs auditing including on the regular basis of financial auditing from financial officers
and external auditor were factors facilitating the application of LGG in CDPs. Khnach
Romeas commune evaluated these factors had very high influential on LGG in CDPs,
while Prey Khpos had only at high level. Besides economic and institutional factors, public
awareness, local leadership to generate and mobilize fund for CDPs implementation,
monthly meeting of CCs which interested people were invited to participate, and had very
high influence on governance in CDPs for Khnach Romeas commune.

Constraining factors on the application of LGG were lower education level, multi-
responsibilities, and lacking of small-scale infrastructure technical knowledge of
institutional factors which were seen more important factors on Prey Khpos commune.
Postponement of project implementation, inadequate amount of commune fund, lack of
frequency CDPs evaluation and financial auditing, and low incentive and motivation were
perceived more important in both communes. Dissatisfaction on compensation, reluctant of
local people participation, replacement and mandatory of PBC, inadequate of participatory
decision making, lack of public information disclosing, and limitation of participation in
bidding process of CCs had constrained governance applications in CDPs in social factors.

164
These had identified as the most important in Prey Khpos commune. Thus, these should be
improved and enhanced to achieve better governance in CDPs and planning and policy
implications.

9.2 Conclusions
Finding from the research shows that there were clear guidelines in planning and
implementation of CDPs which defined by declarations, and manuals on CDPs and CIPs
which endorsed by Ministries of Interior and Planning, on the other hand there was very
little guideline on LGG in CDPs although the good governance policy was declared at
national and local level. Therefore, different interpretations and practices of LGG concept
in CDPs were made by both communes. However, the effort has been done by both
communes to apply LGG in CDPs although there was no clear guidelines. This made
difficulty for both communes to translate LGG into practice in CDPs and achievements in
each key elements of the LGG were different based on the understanding and development
experience between the two study communes.

Khnach Romeas commune had higher achievement over elements of local good
governance. Therefore, commune with longer experience in decentralization and
deconcentration since 1996, Khnach Romeas commune, had higher achievements and
satisfactions on local good governance practices in CDPs, and its CDPs performance, than
Prey Khpos commune that had relative lower experience in decentralization and
deconcentration in 2002. The reasons were that Khnach Romeas commune with longer
experience through education and understanding was able to modify, manage CDPs
performance, and combined governance concept in CDPs, while Prey Khpos commune
was based primarily on manual of CDPs and lack of understanding LGG in CDPs.
Therefore, LGG in CDPs were differently practiced, and led to different achievements of
both communes.

Prey Khpos had low achievements on of participation in problems and needs identification,
implement and M&E; transparency in information dissemination and budgeting reporting;
accountability in terms of taking responsibilities over M&E during project implementation;
responsiveness to real needs and problem of different groups of people; effectiveness and
efficiency in terms of addressing objectives of CDPs and completion of the projects within
time frame. However, rule of law based on CDPs manual and rule and regulations to
follow was better achieved.

It shows better performance for Khnach Romeas commune in rule of law and guidelines of
planning and implementation was followed. Participation from the stage of planning,
implementation, to monitoring and evaluation; accountability in terms of taking
responsibilities according to the assigned tasks in each stage by respective committees;
transparency in terms of information sharing, financial report disclosing through
information boards, and allocation project based on given criteria; responsiveness in terms
of taking into account of priority and real needs and issues of all groups of local people;
and effectiveness and efficiency in terms of time frame of CDPs, achieving its objectives;
were well practiced by this commune.

Different practices of local good governance in CDPs were found on both communes.
Khnach Romeas commune that performed better with high satisfaction level by local
people in local good governance practices in CDPs produced better CDPs performance in
comparison with Prey Khpos. As a result, it got funding support from various NGOs and

165
line agencies supported CDPs of Khnach Romeas commune, while Prey Khpos were not
much supported by NGOs and line agencies, as also lack of willingness to negotiate and
funding raising skills. Projects of CDPs addressed the needs and issues of local people in
Khnach Romeas commune, and while Prey Khpos commune was not. Therefore, LGG in
CDPs was then perceived higher satisfaction level from CCs and committees, and sampled
households in Khnach Romeas, while Prey Khpos commune was perceived relatively
lower satisfaction.

The achievements in the application of LGGs in CDPs, led to better CDPs performance,
were determined by several factors. Factors facilitating good governance were experience
and expertise of CCs following rules and regulations, local people’s participation;
coaching, mentoring and on-the-job-training, NGO funding support and from training on
LGG, exchanging and sharing experience on LGG, clear commune fund allocation criteria,
financial auditing and CDPs evaluation, public awareness, local leadership to generate and
mobilize fund for CDPs implementation, regular meetings of CCs. These found
significantly in Khnach Romeas. Prey Khpos forced by constraining factors including
lower education level, multi-responsibilities, and lacking of small scale infrastructure
technical knowledge, postponement of project implementation, inadequate commune fund,
irregularly financial auditing, reluctant of local people’s participation, replacement and
mandatory of PBC, lack of participatory decision making, lack of public information
disclosing, and lack of participation in bidding process. Meanwhile, Khnach Romeas
commune had least adversely impacted from these factors. Therefore, these were leading to
different achievements of practicing LGG in CDPs of both communes. Thus, coping with
these constraining factors would enhance more effectiveness of CDPs in Prey Khpos
commune, while Khnach Romeas commune would be much better. However, both study
communes faced key policy challenges on incentive and motivation of local government
and compensation policy, which should be considered in future.

As lack of clear operation guideline in practicing LGG in CDPs, leading practices of LGG
concept and elements in CDPs process by both communes, resulting different
achievements of LGG in CDPs. In this respect, improvement are essential to strengthen
LGGs in various stages of CDPs based on factors affecting CDPs performance in line with
planning and policy implications are needed.

9.3 Recommendations

Recommendations are made based on the findings of the studies, specific

recommendations are provided to strengthen LGG in CDPs, and for planning policy
implications on LGG in local level planning accordingly.

9.3.1 Strengthening LGG in CDPs

Recommendations to strengthen local good governance in CDPs are made to both study
communes by specific planning stage of CDPs hereunder.

a) Stage 2: Identification and Review Problem and Needs

Based on the findings in section six of Chapter 6, and in Chapter 7 from the study of two
communes found that participation problems and needs identification which applied Prey
Khpos commune should be improved by introducing participatory approach such as

166
problem tree analysis, group discussion (women and men group, and other vulnerable
groups) to motivate them to articulate their real needs and issues within the villages, and
enhancing these skills to CCs, and PBCs in Prey Khpos commune should be provided
through facilitation skill and participatory approach’s courses including methods and
techniques. Meanwhile, accountability in terms of taking responsibilities of PBCs in Prey
Khpos commune to mobilize people’s participation should be enhanced by defining
specific tasks to be taken by each member of PBCs, and performance evaluation should be
imposed after field visit in order to measure the tasks which fulfilled by the member.

b) Stage 3: Identification and Selection Priority Development Project

As seen in the finding on process of identification, and selection priority development

project of CDPs process in Chapter 6 and 7, and perception of CCs and committees, and
sampled households, NGOs and district facilitators, Prey Khpos commune should try to
select the projects to be funded by commune fund based on given objectives criteria (to
each village, poorest village, top priority project) as this would enhance transparency in
fund allocation, as it found that villagers perceived low satisfaction on this aspect.
Although the commune fund could not able to cover the project which requires big amount
of budget, step by step would address the issues which were identified in a top priority
projects and villages.

c) Stage 4: District Integration Workshop (DIW)

Although Khnach Romeas commune did very well and was perceived stronger satisfaction
from CCs and committee, sampled households, and district facilitators, in mobilizing
resources to support the proposed non-infrastructure during DIW enhancing more effort to
mobilize resources from this process would enhance responsiveness in terms of real needs
and issues which proposed by villagers. Meanwhile, Prey Khpos PBCs and CCs’
responsibilities in terms of negotiation, exchanging ideas with NGOs and line agencies to
mobilize resources to support the proposed projects should be improved by providing
training course related to negotiation and mediation skill, communication and resource
mobilization skill training. Thus, it would help CCs in Prey Khpos to mobilize more
resources (finance) to address issues and needs (responsiveness) and objectives of CDPs
(effectiveness).

d) Stage 5: CDPs Approval

Lack of participatory decision making among PBC and CCs in Prey Khpos commune in
the CDPs approval stage create bias in allocate commune fund based on criteria, as the non
priority project was approved to be funded while the poorest, most vulnerable and top
priority was not given fund to implement as seen in Case C of Prey Khpos commune, and
this was perceived least satisfaction from sampled households. Thus, participation from all
PBC members is needed for further CDPs approval to ensure transparency in terms of
allocated budget based on criteria, and participation decision making among PBCs.

e) Stage 6: Project Implement Development Stage

During project implement development stage (stage 6 of CDPs process), it was found that
land acquisition was the problematic in Prey Khpos commune, thus smoothly decision
making, discussion among villagers whose land affected by the projects to reach consensus

167
is needed, and appropriate intervention from district level is needed as well, which should
have been done by CCs in Prey Khpos commune. Transparency in bidding of commune
project was manipulated by district authority, which lack of participate from villagers,
village head and beneficiaries from each commune. Therefore, to increase transparency in
bidding procurement at commune level (Prey Khpos and Khnach Romeas commune)
where villagers, village heads, and interested people would be able to participate the
bidding process.

f) Stage 7: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

In the last stage of CDPs process, the research found that participation in project
monitoring and evaluation was weaker enforced by M&E committee in Prey Khpos
commune, and this was perceived lower satisfaction from CCs and committees, and
sampled households because people were not invited to participate and provide comments
during field monitoring and evaluation. Meanwhile M&E lacked of accountability in terms
of taking responsibilities to mobilize people participation in M&E through meeting
regularly at the project site, providing comments, and asking perception on the satisfaction
of project output was not undertaken. Thus enhancing these aspects enhance participation
and accountability of M&E and CCs in Prey Khpos commune. To ensure transparency in
information dissemination, and budgeting report sharing during this stage, Prey Khpos
commune should disclose these information monthly through information boards which
available in each village, as Khnach Romeas commune did, and monthly meeting should
conduct regularly not among CCs but also stakeholders such as NGOs, associations, line
department, district facilitators and villager representatives. Although Khnach Romeas
commune was better in disclosing information about CDPs and financial report, project
signboards should be posted to ensure permanent information dissemination about the
project, as well as Prey Khpos commune. Moreover, to ensure transparency in financial
and CDPs, NCDD should impose more often CDPs evaluation and financial auditing in
Prey Khpos commune. Increasing regularly participatory monitoring and evaluation in
project implementation should be enforced by M and E committee in Prey Khpos
commune in order to achieve effectiveness in terms of projects output achieved the
objectives of CDPs, and also the responsiveness as problems would be solved through the
project, and using their authorities as project owner to enforce contractors to implement
project within time frame in order to achieve efficiency in CDPs implementation.

9.3.2 Planning and Policy Implications on LGG for Local Level Planning

Based on the finding of this research, following recommendations are made in order to
strengthen planning and policy implications on LGGs in local level planning in Cambodia.

a) Capacity Building

Refer to profile of respondents in Chapter 4 and LGG in CDPs practice in Chapter 6, and
respondents perception in Chapter 7, and in factors constraining section in Chapter 8,
majority of CCs and committee’s education levels were low and old age, appropriate
training should be delivered based on clear Training Needs Assessment (TNA), and
appropriate training approach should be delivered such as learning by doing, on the job
training, by practicing principles of local good governance in the daily work and real CDPs
process practices. This would enhance and inspire understanding local good governance in
local planning process of CCs.

168
Besides, specific training on local good governance’s elements in CDPs, participatory
monitoring and evaluation should be delivered through appropriate approach such as
practicing work during M&E stage of CDPs, this would enhance more comprehensive
understanding how participatory monitoring and evaluation conducted. As seen that CCs
and committee was lacking of technical knowledge on basic infrastructure project
monitoring and evaluation, skills related to this calculation, drawing and design reading,
and measurement would help CCs to increase its independent in decision making in this
regard.

b) Incentives Policy for Commune Councils

As in Chapter 8, reward should be given to the commune that had better performance in
local good governance. This can be done through the medal award, and awarding in terms
of additional local development fund in order to implement CDPs, and it would motivate
CCs to work harder, and increase truth from villagers. Besides, award as group, individual
incentive should be given to commune councilors who had performed well in application
and understanding of local good governance in CDPs. To endorse this, policy support from
ministry level, especially Ministry of Interior is needed to enforce policy implications at
local level planning.

c) Promoting Transparency in Various Aspects of Local Planning

Transparency among CCs regarding the endorsement any payment related to CDPs should
be conducted based on participation and approval from commune councilors. By doing
consultation before the payment is endorsed, increasing information sharing among CCs,
and create consensus building among CCs, and reduce individual decision making in using
commune fund.

Enhancing transparency by posting project signboards, which is the only way to

demonstrate transparency of commune fund expenditure, cash contribution other than
monthly financial report, and announcing of the fund after project completion, as this
would be a long-term illustration to interested people, and would be able to reduce the
misunderstanding between villagers and political parties.

Besides, financial auditing in commune development planning should be imposed by

NCDD as more often as they can in order to ensure transparency in terms of payment to
contractors, procurement commune projects, contract management, financial record of
commune councils, and endeavors in disclosing information regarding financial report to
public.

d) Developing Local Good Governance Framework and Measurement

As in Chapter 5, 6, 7 and 8, research found that there was no specific law or regulation as
guidelines to enforce local good governance’s elements practicing in CDPs in institutional
framework and mechanism, specific guidelines other than existing guideline should be
developed for practicing in CDPs. Existing guideline introduced rule of law, participation,
accountability, transparency, responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, equity and
justice which are broad elements which leading to different interpretation in the application
of these elements in CDPs, as lack of clear indicators to measure these. Thus developing

169
indicators for each element of LGG are needed. Quantitative and qualitative techniques of
indicators of these elements should be measured together with the achievement of CDPs.
Meanwhile, law endorsement to enforce these principles is also needed to support the
application in CDPs.

9.4 Recommendations for Further Research

• Impacts of application of good governance in CDPs to livelihood of local people

• A comparative study between good governance applied in local projects supported by
government agencies and NGOs

170
References

171
 Appendix 1: Commune Development Plan (CDP) and Commune Investment Plan (CIP)

Table 1: Five Steps of Commune Development Planning Process

Steps Objectives Main Activities Expected Outputs
1. Draft of - The main objective of this - Meeting at commune level to analyze the village data, - Drafted of commune
developme step is to draft commune commune data, commune profiles and other information development framework
nt development framework and data and use other analytical tools to find out problems and budget for consultative
framework budget for consultative location of problem, causes of problem, needs, constraints meeting on commune
and budget meeting on commune and solutions. development to feedbacks
development to get - Meeting at village level where members of PBC list down and recommendations. It
recommendation and other the problems, location, causes of problems, needs, consists of development
feedbacks. constraints and solutions to discuss with villagers. There needs, development goals,
- Draft framework includes the should be at least 60% of total villagers participate the development strategies,
needs, goals, strategies, meeting of which 30% are females priorities activities and the
priority activities and - Meeting at commune level (after meeting at village) to estimation of financial
172

estimated possible resources identify development needs, development goals, strategies resources and expenditure
(the resources required for and priority activities needed.
capital and current - PBC discuss how big each project and make project cost
expenditures) for next 5 years. estimation
2. Public - To present the framework of - Public meeting: inform villagers by using announcement - Drafted of commune
meeting development and budget to form 5 day before public meeting development framework
on citizens - Facilitator uses the output from step one to illustrate and budget to citizens and
commune - To get public comments to project or activities, development goals, estimate cost and relevant stakeholders.
developme draft commune development priority activities to be done within 5 years and ask - Got public comments to
nt plan to draft commune citizen to provide comment, discuss or revise draft the commune
development plan. - After meeting PBC revise the previous output based on development plan and
comment in the public meeting record those comments for
drafting the commune
development plan
3. Draft - PBC prepare commune development plan according to - Drafted of commune
commune outline provided in the guideline and result in step 1 and 2 development plan and the
 Steps Objectives Main Activities Expected Outputs
developme (District Focal Point (DFP) will assist the PBC to improve sending of this draft
nt plan the content and quality of commune development plan) document to provincial
- PBC submit the plan to commune chief to be reviewed governor to review and
and agreed and commune chief submit to provincial comment
governor review and provide comment
4. Approve - To review, revise, approve - With support from PLAU, provincial governor review and - Commune development
commune and disseminate the commune provide comment on commune development plan document approved for the
developme development plan - DFT, PBC and commune clerk review comments from commune mandate and for
nt plan provincial governor and revise commune development the basic to prepare
plan. commune investment plan
- Commune chief conduct commune councils meeting to
review and approve on commune development plan and
disseminate the commune development plan document
and for the basic for commune investment plan
173

preparation
5. Evaluation - To review and evaluate the - Set up the committee to evaluate preparation and - The result of commune
on effectiveness of implementation of commune development plan. development plan
implement implementation the commune Committee consists of commune chief as a chairperson, implementation
ation of development plan to find out commune councilors, commune M&E focal persons, - Strengths and weaknesses
commune experiences for improving the beneficiary representatives, and other stakeholders as of commune development
developme next plan implementation and member. The evaluation should be conducted within 6 plan found
nt plan preparation. month before new mandate - Feedback for improving the
- Commune M&E focal person assist commune chief in preparation and
regular collection of data, information and documents management of commune
related to the preparation and implementation of commune development plan
development implementation
- Commune councils review and approve on the evaluation - Lesson learned and
report and disseminate the report publicly and to all experiences for next
related stakeholders commune development
preparation
 Source: Prakas (Proclamation) on Commune Development Planning and Commune Investment Plan in 2007

Table 2: Scope of Commune Investment Plan

Steps Objectives Main Activities Expected Outputs
1. Review the • The main objective of this - Meeting at commune level where PBC review problem The list of problem, causes and
problem or step is to review the including lack of services, problem location, cause of solutions of citizens are written
needs with problem, location of the problem, needs, constraints and solutions by reflecting down
the citizens problem, cause of with the village data, commune data, commune data,
problem, needs, commune profiles and other information data
constraints, and solutions - The representatives of the villager and as the members of
in order to prepare C/S PBC list out problems, location, problems causes, needs,
annual investment constraints and solutions and discuss with villagers,
projects. villagers should divide into two groups, women and men to
discuss the above.
- Meeting at commune level after finishing the meeting at
174

village level, the PBC meet at C/S to consolidate the

2. Prepare • The main objective of this -
commune step is to prepare C/S
investment priority investment
project project and budget, that
will be presented for
mobilize resources
support during DIW.
3. District • Give chance to link CIP
integrated with plans of the
problems, location of problem, causes of problems, needs,
constraints and solutions collected from the villages
PBC reflect the results in step 1 with the projects in the Listed the proposed commune
following years of CDP and identify annual investment investment project, priority
project , and PBC continue to discuss and determine the project to be invested and
type of project, location of project, estimate cost, output outputs of previous years
sizes and numbers of beneficiary implementation
- Priority the investment project to present at District
Integration Workshop
- PBC review the last year project again the current year
investment project
- Commune chief send priority project to department of
planning and PLAU
- Commune chief present the output of last year and Temporary agreement between
investment for the coming year to participants commune and development
 Steps Objectives Main Activities Expected Outputs
workshop Provincial Line - Provincial line departments, NGOs, donors, civil society Partners made.
Departments, NGOs, civil give their comment and support to the C/S proposed
society and other projects.
development partners. - Signing on temporary agreement
• Mobilize the resources - Provincial planning department representative should
from different sources to summary the result of District Integration Workshop
support C/S investment
projects.
• Guide the local activities
to be in line with the
national and provincial
development policies.
4. Approve • The main objective of this - PBC chooses the project to be invested without Document for commune
commune step is to compile, review, committed fund to use commune fund, the method of investment program approved
175

investment approve and disseminate selection depends on agreement among PBC member by
program the C/S Investment maintaining the participation, transparency and equity of
Program document. using commune fund should be include into table of
funded commune investment projects.
- PBC arrange table of investment by sources, table of
investment project with committed fund and schedule for
disseminating and consulting with citizen in each village
in commune, then commune chief prepare announcement
letter on the dissemination and consultation with citizens.
- PBC presents the table of investment by sources and with
committed fund to get idea and comment from
participant. This process encourages people to participate
in commune investment project and in implement the
project.
- Draft commune investment project based on outputs of
step 1, 2 and 3 of commune investment process.
 Steps Objectives Main Activities Expected Outputs
- Commune councils organize meeting to review and
approve on the draft of commune investment project
document, the approval is valid base on the 50% support
from commune councils
- Disseminate the commune investment project document
5. Monitoring • To monitor the progress Monitoring Monitoring report on:
and and effectiveness of - Commune M&E focal persons should prepare action - The progress of project
Evaluation investment project plan to monitor all project implementation and collect all implementation.
on implementation in order useful data, reports and documents related to investment - The weakness of project
implementat to ensure the project implement implementation.
ion implementation of the - Commune M&E focal persons should prepare monitoring - Comments for
commune projects are on the right reports including others comments and submit to improvement
investment ways and on time. commune councils for review and discuss during Evaluation report on:
program • To review and evaluate commune monthly meeting - The results of CIP
176

the effectiveness of the Evaluation implementation.

implementation of CIP - CCs should set up a committee to evaluate the - The strengths and
and get experiences for implementation of CIP. This committee shall be led by weakness of commune
improvement the next C/S chief and has its membership of C/S councilors, C/S investment program
implementation M&E focal persons, other C/S focal persons, beneficiary - The lesson learnt on
management and planning representatives, and other concerned stakeholders. preparation and
process. - The committee can select some projects as sample to be management of commune
evaluated. investment program
- The detail evaluation guideline should be followed the implementation
“Commune manual on M&E of local development” - Recommendation for
- The project evaluation should be conducted during and at further improvement on the
the end of project implementation. next commune investment
- Commune councilors shall review and approve the program implementation
evaluation report, then disseminate this report to public and process.
and to all concerned stakeholders.
Source: Prakas (Proclamation) on Commune Development Planning and Commune Investment Plan in 2007
Appendix 2: Cycle of Commune Development Plan and Commune Investment Plan

177
 Appendix 3: Research Coordination Schema

Data Collection Methods/

Objective Parameter Complex/Simple Variable Data Analysis
Target informants
CCs and sampled households
Demographi • Age
• Gender
c
• Marital status
• Education
CC members
• Position in the commune
- CC chief
- Deputy commune chief
- Clerk
Characteristics of - PBC members (VDCs and villager headperson) • Questionnaire
178

• Descriptive
CCs and Social/situat - M and E committee - CCs
statistics
households - Procurement Committee - Households
ional
- Women and children committee
• Members of local organization within the commune
• Duration of working within commune
Sampled households
• Duration of involvement in CDPs (CIPs)
• Duration of living within the commune
• Member of any group or CBOs
CC members and sampled households
Economic • Annual income
• Occupation
1. Institutional Legal - Law on commune administrative and management Secondary data • Descriptive
framework and - Good governance guideline for commune councils • Qualitative
framework
mechanisms to - CDP guideline/manual statement
apply local good and
 Data Collection Methods/
Objective Parameter Complex/Simple Variable Data Analysis
Target informants
governance institutional - Project Implement Manual
mechanism - Participation of vulnerable facilitation hand book
facilitation - Power and function transfer decision
local good - Sub decree
governance - Institutional arrangement
application
2.1 CCs • Training course on related topics: • Questionnaire • Descriptive
capacity - Local (good) governance, - CCs statistics
building - participatory governance, • Qualitative
on local - planning and management statement
good - Civil society and networking
governan
179

2. To examine the ce
application of Rules of law: • Secondary data
local good • Clear rules and procedures enforcements • Focus group discussion • Qualitative
governance in - Laws related to planning, budgeting, and M and E - CCs statement
2.2 Local
commune Participation: • Questionnaire • Descriptive
good
governan • Exchanging view with inside/outside agencies
development - CCs statistics
planning • Use of media/civil society in giving information • Questionnaire • WAIs for
ce
principles • Ways of involvement in CDPs - Households social scaling
applied in - Indirect participation through PBC, Procurement, and M on degree of
CDP and E committee application
- Direct participation in decision making, implementation, (low,
M and E, and operation and maintenance moderate,
high)
 Data Collection Methods/
Objective Parameter Complex/Simple Variable Data Analysis
Target informants
Accountability • T-test
• Execution of responsible individuals or groups or committee • Questionnaire
in various tasks assigned in CDPs guidelines - CCs
- PBCs execute their responsibilities
- Procurement committee execute their responsibilities
- M and E committee execute their responsibilities
• Evaluation of work performance of various committees in
responsible for CDPs
• Managing and resolving conflict
- With other committees
- With local people
Transparency • Questionnaire
• Information dissemination and sharing to public - Households
180

- Project identification
- Financial report
- Bidding procedures and results
• Financial monitoring of accounting system • Questionnaire
- External audit - CCs
- Internal audit
Responsiveness:
• Matching of CDPs with local problems and needs • Questionnaire
• Time frame (scheduling) of project - Households
• Equity and avoid discrimination in selection of beneficiaries
by involvement of vulnerable group/people)
Efficiency and effectiveness: • Questionnaire
• Using time efficiency and effectively in CDPs - CCs
• Technical and financial support to CDPs
• Resource utilization and optimization
 Data Collection Methods/
Objective Parameter Complex/Simple Variable Data Analysis
Target informants
• Capacity of CCs and technical support staff
• Quality of development projects • Questionnaire
• No corruption/collusion - Households
Rules of law • Secondary data
• Clear rules and procedures enforcements Focus group discussion
- Laws related to planning, budgeting, and M and E - CCs
Participation
• Exchanging view with inside/outside agencies • Questionnaire
3.1 Perceptio • Use of media/civil society in giving information - CCs • Qualitative
n on • Willingness of CCs to listen to opinion • Questionnaire statement
3. To gain the satisfactio • Ways of involvement in CDPs - Households • Descriptive
perception and n of CCs - Indirect participation through PBC, Procurement, and M statistics
• WAIs for
181

satisfaction of and local and E committee

commune people on - Direct participation in decision making, implementation, social scaling
council local M and E, and operation and maintenance on degree of
members and good Accountability satisfaction
local people on governan • Execution of responsible individuals or groups or committee • Questionnaire (strongly
the application ce in various tasks assigned in CDPs guidelines - CCs dissatisfy,
of local good compone - PBCs execute their responsibilities dissatisfy,
governance in nts - Procurement committee execute their responsibilities neutral, satisfy
the CDP applied in - M and E committee execute their responsibilities and strongly
CDP • Evaluation of work performance of various committees in satisfy)
process responsible for CDPs • T-test
• Managing and resolving conflict
- With other committees
- With local people
Transparency • Questionnaire
• Information dissemination and sharing to public - Households
 Data Collection Methods/
Objective Parameter Complex/Simple Variable Data Analysis
Target informants
- Project identification
- Financial report
- Bidding procedures and results
• Financial monitoring of accounting system • Questionnaire
- External audit - CCs
- Internal audit
Responsiveness:
• Matching of CDPs with local problems and needs • Questionnaire
• Time frame (scheduling) of project - Households
• Equity and avoid discrimination in selection of beneficiaries
by involvement of vulnerable group/people)
Efficiency and effectiveness: • Questionnaire
• Using time efficiency and effectively in CDPs - CCs
182

• Technical and financial support to CDP

• Resource utilization and optimization
• Quality of development projects • Questionnaire
- Households
4. To analyze • Policy, legal and institutional framework of CCs in relation • Focus group discussion • Qualitative
facilitating and to CDPs on local good governance - CC statement
constraining • Coordination mechanism CCs, district, provincial levels and • Questionnaire
• Qualitative
factors in the 4.1 Institutio civil society - CCs
statement
application of • Capacity of CCs
local good
nal
- Leadership • WAIs for
aspects social scaling
governance in • Technical and financial aspect to CCs in performing local
the CDP and on degree of
good governance
influential
identify • Participation of local people and civil society • Questionnaire
challenges and (very low, low,
- Local people - CCs
prospects moderate, high
- NGOs
 Data Collection Methods/
Objective Parameter Complex/Simple Variable Data Analysis
Target informants
- CBOs and very high)
• T-test
• Attitude, feedback and satisfaction of local people • Questionnaire
4.2 Social - Benefit of local people from CDPs - CCs
aspects • Public awareness raising by media program • Group discussion
• Social networking - CCs
• Budget allocation system and procedure • Questionnaire
4.3 Economic • Resource generation and mobilization through local - CCs
aspects contribution
• Financial management
183
 Appendix 4: Checklist for Secondary Data Collection

1. Profiles of Battambang province and study district and communes

• Geographical conditions
• Demography
• Agriculture (land holding, major crops, crop yields, aquaculture, agriculture area
and farm income)
• Non-agriculture (trading and other)
• Economic conditions (household income, poverty line, occupation, employment)
• Education (numbers of primary, secondary and high schools, universities and other
vocational training centers, number of educated and illiteracy people)
• Health (health centers, hospital, private clinics and facilities)
• Development problems, potentials and future plans

2. Commune information
• Organic law related to commune administration and decentralized local government
(commune councils)
• Sub-degree on commune fund
• Prakas (Proclamation) on commune development plan and its guidelines
• Prakas on procurement procedure
• Manual and guidelines on commune development plans (CDPs)
• Good local governance manual for commune councils (CCs)

3. Commune administration
• Commune administrative structure, functions, planning and management system
• Role and functions of decentralized local government in planning performance of
CCs and sub-committees
• Commune budget and revenue generation
• Sources of fund to support commune administration and development projects

4. Commune development plans (CDPs) 2007, 2008, 2009

• List of proposed and actual development projects of infrastructure and non-
infrastructure projects
• Infrastructure projects (road, pond, well, culvert, school building)
• Non-infrastructure projects
- Social
- Environment
- Economic (income generation, saving, credit)

184
 Appendix 5: Questionnaires
Questionnaire No:

GOVERNANCE OF DECENTRALIZED COMMUNE DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING IN CAMBODIA: CASE STUDIES OF COMMUNE
COUNCILS IN BATTAMBANG PROVINCE

A Questionnaire for Commune Council and Committees

(Set A)

Name of Respondent: …………………………………………………………………………

Commune  Prey Khpos  Khnach Romeas

Date of Interview: ………………………………………………………………………………

Name of Interviewer: …………………………………………………………………………...

Remark:…………………………………………………………………………………………

By

Mr. Young Sokphea

MSc Student
Regional and Rural Development Planning
School of Environment, Resources and Development
Asian Institute of Technology
Bangkok, Thailand
October, 2009

185
A. Profile of Respondents
A.1 Gender:  Male  Female
A.2 Age: …………….. years
A.3 Marital Status:  Married  Single  Separated
A.4 Education background
 Primary school  Secondary school  High school
 University  Vocational training  other (specify) ……….
A.5 Position within commune: (Multiple answers)
 CC chief  1st deputy commune chief  2nd second commune
chief
 Clerk  PBC members
 M and E committee  Procurement committee  Women and children
committee


A.6 Member of other organizations and development agencies: (Multiple answers)
 Member of CCSP
 Member of Commune Councils Association of Cambodia
 Member of Decentralization Network (Pact)


A.7 Duration of involvement within commune:
………………years  1st mandate  2nd second mandate
A.8 what is your household annual income?
Source of Income Amount in Riel
1. Crops
• Rice
• Maize
• Other (specify) ______
Sub-total
2. Animal husbandry
• Cattle
• Piglets
• Pigs
• Poultry
• Other (specify) ______
Sub-total
3. Non-farm sources
• Trade
• Service
• Construction
• Other (specify) ______
4. Wage labor
5. Pension/Salary
6. Remittance
7. Other (specify)______
Grand Total

186
A.9 What is your main occupation besides working for CCs?
 Farming  Middle man  Retailer/small business
 other (specify)……………………………………

B. Application of Local Good Governance in Commune Development Planning (CDP)

B.1 Have you ever attended training course related to the following courses? (Multiple
answers)
Training Course Attended Yes No If yes, what did you learn
Local (good) governance
Participatory governance
Participatory planning
Project Monitoring and Evaluation
Civic Engagement
Financial Management
Civil Society and Networking

187
 B.2 Have the following aspects of local good governance been applied in commune development plan? If yes, to what degree in each item has
been applied?
Degree of application 1= low, 2=moderate and 3=high
No Items Applied Degree of If yes (how?),
Application no(why?)
Yes No 1 2 3
Participation
1 CCs exchange ideas about project of CDPs with district officers
2 CCs exchange ideas about project of CDPs with local CBOs
3 CCs exchange ideas about project of CDP with NGOs
4 Information about project are shared among CC and PBC
5 Local people participation in problems and need identification
6 Local people participation in prioritization of project of CDPs
7 Local people participation in project site selection
188

8 Local people contribute labour and financial resource for project implementation
9 Local people participation in activities of project implementation
10 Local people participation in project implement monitoring and evaluation
Accountability
1 PBCs members perform according to assigned tasks in CDP guideline
Procurement committee execute their responsibilities in project procurement as
2
assigned tasks
M and E committee members performance in project monitoring and evaluation
3
according to the assigned tasks in CDPs
PBC, Procurement committee and M and E committee are accountable to the outcome
4
of CDP projects
5 CCs conduct evaluation on CDPs performance
6 CCs keep reporting about CDP projects progress to public
7 CCs reporting about decision made during CDPs project activities to public
8 Conflicts conflict of interest of CDP project and fund has been solve
Transparency
 No Items Applied Degree of If yes (how?),
Application no(why?)
Yes No 1 2 3
1 Awarding the contract based on majority voting of committee members
2 Bidding results announce to public and among bidding companies
3 External financial audit conducted by provincial finance officer
4 Expense on project of CDPs recorded according to CC financial system
5 Project expense expose at the project site (signboard)
6 Participatory annual budgeting planning among PBC members
7 Financial reporting about the project disclose to the public
Efficiency and Effectiveness
1 CDPs developed according to the schedule annually
2 CDPs finished on time
3 CC members assigned task according to their skills and capacity
4 Commune fund disbursed on time for CDPs implement
189

5 Budget allocated to the priority project of CDPs

Technical staff from provincial and district fully committed to support CCs in technical
6
project design, site study and cost estimation (infrastructure project)
7 Commune fund is economically used in CDPs investments

C. Perception of Commune Councils Members on the Satisfaction of Local Good Governance Application in Commune Development
Plan

D1. To what extent are you satisfied with the following application of local good governance items in CDPs?
Degree of satisfaction: 1= strongly dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3= neutral, 4= satisfied and 5=strongly satisfied
No Items Satisfied Degree of Comments
Satisfaction
Yes No 1 2 3 4 5
Participation
 No Items Satisfied Degree of Comments
Satisfaction
Yes No 1 2 3 4 5
1 Sharing ideas of CCs about CDP with district officers
2 Exchanging ideas about CDPs of CCs with CBOs
3 Exchanging ideas of CCs about CDPs with NGOs
Sharing of information about CDP projects and CDP among CCs member and other
4
committee members
5 People’s participation in problems and need identification
6 People’s participation in project identification and priorization
7 People’s participation in project site selection of PBC member and CCs
Local resource mobilization (budget contribution) for project implementation of CDPs
8
of CCs and PBC
9 People’s participation in project implementation activities of PBC and CCs
10 People’s participation in project monitoring and evaluation
190

Accountability
1 Overall task performance of PBCs members
2 Overall performance of procurement committee’s responsibility
3 Tasks performance of M and E committee members
Responsibilities of PBC, Procurement committee and M and E committee regarding the
4
output and quality of project
6 Reporting of CCs about the project to the public
7 Decision making of CCs during project implementation
8 Problem solving of CCs
Transparency
1 Decision making of PBC and CC members in budget allocation to local project
2 Allocation of CDP projects to each village
3 You satisfied the bidding process of CDP project
4 Bidding result of procurement committee
5 Awarding the contract of procurement committee
 No Items Satisfied Degree of Comments
Satisfaction
Yes No 1 2 3 4 5
Invitation for external financial audit which conducted by provincial finance
6
officer/advisor
7 Way of exposing project expense at the project site (signboard)
8 Participatory annual budgeting planning of PBC
9 Disclosing of financial reporting about the project to the public
10 Information dissemination about CDP and CDP projects
11 Information dissemination to those who affected by CDP project
Efficiency and Effectiveness
1 CDP project implement within time frame (no delay)
2 CDP projects quality
3 CDP projects have no collusion
4 Long lasting of the CDP projects (sustainability)
191

5 Adequate amount of commune fund for CDP project implement

6 CDP projects are priority
7 Cost-benefit of CDP projects (lower cost, high benefit)
8 Maintenance group (maintenance of CDP project)

D. Perception on Influencing Local Good Governance Performance in CDPs

E1. To what extent do you think the following local good governance items are affected to the performance of CDPs? Please rate the degree of
influence.
Degree of influence: 1= very low, 2 = low, 3= moderate, 4= high and 5= very high
Degree of
No Items Influence Comment?
1 2 3 4 5
Institutional Aspects
1 Availability of law/legislation, rules and regulation to support local good governance
2 Capacity building provided by NCDD on local governance
 Degree of
No Items Influence Comment?
1 2 3 4 5
3 People’s participation in planning and implementation and M and E of CDPs
4 Coaching and mentoring of district facilitators to CC members
5 Fund from NGOs program on local good governance enhancement
6 Other agencies’ local development fund to support CDP implementation
7 Training on local good governance provided to CC members and related committee
Organizing study visit for CC members and selected members to other communes that
8 are experienced in local good governance
Training provided to local people in participatory planning, implementation, and M and
9 E
10 Manual on local good governance
Economic Aspects
1 Budget allocation to each CDP project are not bias (allocated to all target village)
192

2 Clear budget allocation criteria and process defined by commune councils

3 Transparent financial management system
4 Effective external auditing system
5 Effective mentoring by commune accountant
6 Existing guidelines/procedures for CDP project budgeting
7 Financial support from other agencies to implement CDP projects
Social
1 Create communication channel for dissemination information (public awareness
through meeting, media and by words)
2 Social networking to strengthen coordination and support from various agencies
(NGOs, Government Projects)
3 Local leadership in local resources mobilization and generating
4 Frequency of meeting among CCs, PBCs and other committees
 Questionnaire No:

GOVERNANCE OF DECENTRALIZED COMMUNE DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING IN CAMBODIA: CASE STUDIES OF COMMUNE
COUNCILS IN BATTAMBANG PROVINCE

A Questionnaire for Sampled Households

(Set B)

Name of Respondent: …………………………………………………………………………

Commune  Prey Khpos  Khnach Romeas

Village  Prey Sangha  Balung Leu  Balung Mean Chey

 Ta Man  Dangko Pen  Boueng Chan Neang

Date of Interview: ………………………………………………………………………………

Name of Interviewer: …………………………………………………………………………...

Remark:…………………………………………………………………………………………

By

Mr. Young Sokphea

MSc Student
Regional and Rural Development Planning
School of Environment, Resources and Development
Asian Institute of Technology
Bangkok, Thailand
October, 2009

193
A. Characteristics of Respondents
A.1 Gender:  Male  Female
A.2 Age: …………….. years
A.3 Marital Status:  Married  Single  Separated
A.4 Education background
 Primary school  Secondary school  High school
 University  Vocational training  Literacy class
 Other (specify) ……….
A.5 Member of any organizations, development agencies and CBOs:
………………………………………………………………………………………….
A.6 How long have you been living in this commune?
Since ………………. (………… year)
A.8 What is your main occupation besides working for CCs?
 Farming  Rice cultivation  Retailer/small business
 other (specify) ……………………………………
A.9 What is your annual income?
Source of Income Amount in Riel
1. Crops
• Rice
• Maize
• Other (specify) ______
Sub-total
2. Animal husbandry
• Cattle
• Piglets
• Pigs
• Poultry
• Other (specify) ______
Sub-total
3. Non-farm sources
• Trade
• Service
• Construction
• Other (specify) ______
4. Wage labor
5. Pension/Salary
6. Remittance
7. Other (specify)______
Grand Total

194
 B. Awareness on the Application of Local Good Governance in Commune Development Plan

B.1 By considering the following items of local good governance items, do you think that these have been used or applied by
commune councils in commune development planning? If these have been applied, to what extent do you think these have been
applied by CCs?
Awareness
No Items How?
Yes No
Participation
1 Appointment of PBC members to perform their roles on behalf of local people
2 Appointment of procurement committee member to perform their roles on behalf of local people
3 Appointment of M and E committee members to perform their roles on behalf of local people
4 Decision on the priority problems and needs within the village
5 Vulnerable groups and individual, especially women are given a chance to participate in CDPs
6 Decision on project selection and site identification
195

7 Project feasibility study

8 Implementation project activities of CDP project
9 Resource contribution (cash and in kind)
10 Field monitoring and evaluation
11 Executing maintenance group
Transparency
1 Budget allocation to the CDP project
2 Financial report about CDP projects disclosed to public
3 Signboard contains project budget and contribution present at each project site
4 Result of bidding expose to the public
5 CCs gives information to the public about CDPs
6 CCs spread information about the project in public post
7 CCs encourage village headmen to spread information about project
8 CCs gives information to those impacted by project of CDPs
Responsiveness
1 CDPs addressed local problems and needs
2 Project of CDPs addressed on time (at the time of needs and problems occurred)
 Awareness
No Items How?
Yes No
3 Project of CDPs benefited to the community (including vulnerable groups and individual and
women)
4 All poor villages included in CDP project
Efficiency and effectiveness
1 Cost of the project in appropriate to the output
2 Local people trust CCs in CDP performance
3 Project of CDP completed in time
4 Projects of CDP are priority

C. Satisfaction of Local People in the Applications of Local Good Governance Principles in CDPs

D1.Are you satisfied with the application of local good governance applied in CDPs?
196

Degree of satisfaction: 1= strongly dissatisfied, 2= dissatisfied, 3= neutral, 4 = satisfied and 5 = strongly dissatisfied
Degree of
Satisfied
No Items Satisfaction Comments
yes No 1 2 3 4 5
Participation
1 Performance of PBC members on behalf of you
2 Performance of procurement committee on behalf of you
3 Performance of M and E committee members on behalf of you
4 Decision making of local people in problems and needs prioritization
5 Way of CCs enhance participation of vulnerable groups (women) in decision making
6 Decision making in project selection and site identification which arranged by CCs

7 People’s participation in project preparation study

8 People’s participation in project implement activities
9 Local budget contribution collection and labour contribution for project
implementation of CCs and PBC?
 Degree of
Satisfied
No Items Satisfaction Comments
yes No 1 2 3 4 5
10 People’s participation in field monitoring and evaluation the CDP project which
arranged by CC members?
11 Formulation maintenance group and it functioning
Transparency
1 Distribution of project to all village
2 Signboard which depicted cost, cash contribution posted at each project site
3 Dissemination of information about the CDPs to the public
4 Information provided to local people who affected by the project
Responsiveness
1 Problems and needs are addressed by CDP project
2 Duration (time frame) of CDP project implementation
3 Benefit of CDP project to the community (including vulnerable groups and
197

individual and women

4 Project address to each village problems and needs
Efficiency and effectiveness
1 Project quality
2 Long lasting of the project (sustainability)
3 Cost-benefit of the project (low cost, high benefit)

Thank you very much for your kind cooperation.

 Appendix 6: A Checklist for Key Informants Interview

1. A Checklist for NCDD and PRDC Interview

Name: ………………………………………………………………………………………
Position: ……………………………………………………………………………………
Place of interview: …………………………………………………………………………
Date of interview: ………………………………………………………………………….
Remark: …………………………………………………………………………………….

1. What are the policies (institutional framework) describe and facilitating the applications
of local good governance of commune councils?
2. What are the key principles of local good governance which designed for commune
councils?
3. Do you think that these principles have been applied in CDP process? If yes, how and
list down the key items that they applied? If no, why?
4. Do you think political parties enforce local good governance at commune level? Why?
5. What are the policies, strategies and regulations that enforce commune councils to
apply local good governance in CDPs? How these enforce CCs? To what extent?
6. What is capacity building program provided to commune councils?
7. What are the mechanisms to support local good governance?
8. What are the roles and programs of NCDD and PDRC to enhance local good
governance applications? How it enhanced? To what extent?
9. How do you strengthen financial transparency of commune councils?
10. What are the strengths and limitations of local good governance applications in CDPs?
11. Do you have any comment on local good governance application for the effective CDPs
implementation and performance?

2. A Checklist for Commune Councils and Commune Clerks

Name: ………………………………………………………………………………………
Position: ……………………………………………………………………………………
Place of interview: …………………………………………………………………………
Date of interview: ………………………………………………………………………….
Remark: …………………………………………………………………………………….

1. What are the CDPs process in practice of your commune?

2. What are the key principles of local good governance?
3. Have your commune applied these key principles in CDPs? How? To what extent?
4. Are rules of law applied in CDPs? How? What are the relevance laws, sub-decrees,
proclamations and decisions which are applicable in CDPs?
5. What are the principles of local good governance which have been used the most in
CDPs? Why?
6. What are the benefits of local good governance application to beneficiaries?
7. What do you evaluate the level of understanding of local good governance in CDPs of
CCs, PBCs, Procurement Committee, and M and E committee? Why?
8. What is your overall satisfaction of local good governance application in CDPs of CCs?
Why?
9. What are your suggestions on local good governance application in CDPs
implementation and performance?

198
3. A Checklist for District Councils and District Facilitators Interview

Name: ………………………………………………………………………………………
Position: ……………………………………………………………………………………
Place of interview: …………………………………………………………………………
Date of interview: ………………………………………………………………………….
Remark: …………………………………………………………………………………….
1. What do you evaluate local good governance of commune councils?
2. By considering on the following key principles of local good governance: rules of law,
participation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and effectiveness and
efficiency, to what extent have these been applied and achieved? How?
3. Among the above principles what principles have been applied the most by commune
councils?
4. What is your overall satisfaction on the application of local good governance in CDPs
performance by CCs? Why?
5. What are your coaching and mentoring activities to enhance the implementation of
local good governance application in CDP?
6. What are the strengths and limitations of local good governance in CDPs?
7. Give comments and suggestions on local good governance application for the effective
implementation of CDPs?

4. A Checklist for Local NGOs

Name: ………………………………………………………………………………………
Position: ……………………………From (Name of NGOs).……………………………
Place of interview: …………………………………………………………………………
Date of interview: ………………………………………………………………………….
Remark: …………………………………………………………………………………….
1. How long have your organization been working and supporting these communes?
2. What kinds of program are being provided by your organization to these communes?
3. What are your organization strategies or activities to enhance local good governance
practices at a commune level?
4. Based on your working experience with these communes, do you think that these
(commune councils) have applied local good governance principles effectively in
CDPs? Why?
5. What are key elements of local good governance they have applied with your support?
How?
6. Are you involved in the application of local good governance in CDPs? How?
7. What is/are the difference (s) of local good governance applied in CCs’ and NGOs’
project?
8. What are the facilitating factors of local good governance application in CDPs? Why?
9. What are the strengths and limitations of local good governance applications in CDPs?
10. Give comments and suggestions on local good governance application for the effective
implementation of CDPs?

199
 Appendix 7: A Checklist for Group Discussion of CCs

Date : ...........................................................................................................................
Place: ...........................................................................................................................
Time: ...........................................................................................................................
Moderator: ...........................................................................................................................
Minute Taker: ...........................................................................................................................

1. Among various components of local good governance, what components have been
achieved? Why? To what extent these have been achieved?
2. In relation to above, in which components have not yet been achieved in the
implementation of CDPs? Why?
3. What are the benefits of local good governance application to villagers? How?
4. Identify key facilitating factors of local good governance application in CDPs? Please
discuss on institutional, social and economic aspect? Why? To what extent these
influenced the application of local good governance in CDPs?
5. What are the strengths and limitations/constraints on the application of local good
governance in CDPs?
6. What are your suggestions how to improve local good governance to make CDPs more
effective?

Appendix 8: A Checklist for Group Discussion of Villagers

Date : ...........................................................................................................................
Place: ...........................................................................................................................
Time: ...........................................................................................................................
Moderator: ...........................................................................................................................
Minute Taker: ...........................................................................................................................

1. Are you aware of local good governance applied in CDPs? If yes, what are those?
2. In which aspects of local good governance do you think that have been applied
effectively? Why?
3. What are the benefits of local good governance application to villagers? How?
4. In general, are you satisfied with the application of local good governance in CDPs of
your commune councils? Why?
5. What are you suggestions and recommendations on the application of local good
governance in CDPs?

200
 Appendix 9: Problems, Needs and Solution Analysis

Table 4.5. 7: Major Problems, Needs, and Solution Analysis of Khnach Romeas Commune 2007-2012
No Problem Causes Needs Solutions
1 Bad road condition Roads were damaged in rainy Need enough road Rehabilitate, repairs, construct new culvert, rehabilitate
season, and without to transport with laterite, and establish maintenance committee
maintenance agricultural products
2 Inadequate Not enough canals, low canals, Adequate amount of Dig new canal, rehabilitate the canal, earth canal
irrigation system water gate, water for irrigate repairing, construct water gate, and spill way
3 Increasing number Villagers have not understood High school within Construct new high school building, and provide
of drug addict on drug addict the commune housing for teachers, provide full framework for
teachers
4 Increasing Alcoholism, gambling, lack of Eliminate domestic Training on reducing alcoholism, extension law against
domestic violence awareness on domestic violence gambling, and domestic violence
violence law
201

5 Children did not Parents are poor, schools are Encourage enough Primary school construction, educate parent on the
enroll when far from home, age children to value of education and child right, and provide study
enough enroll school materials to poor student
6 Lack of sanitation Lack of latrines, lack of Construct latrine and Construct household toilet,
sewage in the villages individual household
toilet
7 Unemployment of Lack of vocational training Raising income of Provide vocational training to handicap person.
handicap person and specific skills handicap households
8 Land dispute Lack of awareness on land Reduce land dispute Awareness raising on land law, provide land tenure,
law, lack of clear land tenure, and increasing compromising communication
and lack of communication
Source: Prey Khpos Commune 5 Years CDPs, 2008.
 Table 4.5. 8: Major Problems, Needs, and Solution Analysis of Khnach Romeas Commune 2007-2012
No Problem Causes Needs Solutions
Bad road condition Lack of road as needed in the whole Need enough road for Rehabilitate, repairs and new laterite
1 commune and many alignments of transportation all seasons road
was damaged
Low rice yield Not enough of water gates and lack of High rice yield Repair, rehabilitate, and excavate
2 canal canals, provide technical training on
agriculture
Student drop out No high school in the commune High school within the Construct new high school building,
3 commune and provide housing for teachers,
provide full framework for teachers
Low households Domestic unemployment Generating employment Vocational training, provide low
4
income within the commune interest rate to villagers
Source: Khnach Romeas 5 Years CDPs, 2008.
202
 Appendix 10: Satisfaction by Education Level

Prey Khpos Khnach Romeas

Items 1 2 3 4 5 F- 1 2 3 4 5 F-test
Satisfaction WAI test Satisfaction WAI
Participation 0.52 0.97 -0.18 0.33 0.51 0.91 1.25 0.50 0.91
0.81
• Performance of PBC members 0.88 1.00 -1.00 0.33 0.80 0.03* 0.72 1.33 0.00 1.00
0.57 0.29
• Performance of procurement committee -0.73 -0.55 -2.00 -0.50 -0.20 0.46 -0.56 -0.17 1.00 0.00
-0.43 0.32
• Performance of M and E committee members on behalf of you 0.21 0.64 -1.00 0.67 0.60 0.50 0.91 1.17 1.00 1.00
0.86 0.87
• Decision making of local people in problems and needs prioritization 1.00 1.27 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.74 1.22 1.58 1.50 1.00
1.29 0.19
• Way of CCs enhance participation of vulnerable groups (women) in decision making 1.24 1.45 1.00 0.67 1.40 0.19 1.34 1.67 0.00 1.00
0.71 0.00**
• Decision making in project selection and site identification which arranged by CCs 0.94 1.18 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.74 1.09 1.25 1.00 1.00
1.14 0.95
• Peoples participation in project preparation study 0.73 1.27 -1.00 0.50 0.20 0.08 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.29 0.58
• Peoples participation in project implement activities 0.33 1.27 -1.00 -0.50 -0.40 0.06 1.44 1.50 1.00 1.00
1.29 0.82
• Local budget contribution collection and labour contribution for project implementation 0.57 0.67
0.97 1.36 1.00 1.33 1.40 1.09 1.42 -0.50 1.00 1.14
of CCs and PBC
• Peoples participation in field monitoring and evaluation the CDP project which arranged
203

0.32 0.08
0.00 0.45 -1.00 -0.83 -0.80 1.03 1.33 -0.50 1.00 0.57
by CC members
• Formulation maintenance group and it functioning 0.12 1.27 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.16 1.03 1.67 0.00 1.00 0.43 0.42
Transparency 0.36 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.15 1.48 0.00 1.00 0.86
• Distribution of project to all village -0.33 -0.45 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.66 0.16 0.00 -0.50 0.00 -1.00 0.19
• Signboard which depicted cost, cash contribution posted at each project site -0.64 -1.00 -2.00 -1.50 -1.60 0.29 -0.13 0.75 -1.50 0.00 0.57 0.07
• Dissemination of information about the CDPs to the public 0.82 0.82 -2.00 0.50 0.60 0.21 0.91 1.25 0.50 1.00 0.86 0.82
• Information provided to local people who affected by the project 1.15 1.36 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.65 0.81 1.33 2.00 1.00 1.43 0.34
Responsiveness 0.25 0.18 -0.75 0.00 -0.05 0.44 0.83 0.13 0.50 0.46
• Distribution of project to all village 1.00 1.36 1.00 1.33 1.20 0.63 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.43 0.94
• Signboard which depicted cost, cash contribution posted at each project site 0.15 0.45 -1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.63 0.83 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.44
• Dissemination of information about the CDPs to the public 1.12 1.36 -1.00 1.17 0.60 0.25 1.47 1.75 2.00 2.00 1.43 0.31
• Information provided to local people who affected by the project 1.06 1.18 1.00 1.17 1.00 0.95 1.16 1.42 1.50 1.00 1.29 0.75
Effectiveness and efficiency 0.31 0.73 1.00 0.33 0.40 1.19 1.33 0.17 1.00 1.33
• Project quality 0.33 1.09 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.54 1.16 1.25 0.00 2.00 1.43 0.16
• Lifespan of the project (sustainability) -0.15 0.45 1.00 -0.50 0.20 0.58 1.06 1.17 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.27
• Cost-benefit of the project (low cost, high benefit) 0.76 0.64 1.00 1.17 0.80 0.91 1.34 1.58 0.50 1.00 1.43 0.43
Education Categories: 1: Primary educated, 2: Secondary Educated, 3: High school, 4: literacy class, 5: Illiteracy
Satisfaction by income categories
 Appendix 11: Satisfaction and Income Categories

Prey Kpos Khnach Romeas

Items 1 2 3 4 5 F-test 1 2 3 4 5 F-test
Satisfaction WAI Satisfaction WAI
Participation 0.47 0.82 0.25 0.70 0.21 0.97 0.97 0.87 1.27 1.00
• Performance of PBC members 0.79 0.94 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.51 0.67 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.90
• Performance of procurement committee -0.63 -0.72 -0.40 -0.50 -1.00 0.91 -0.57 -0.29 -0.38 0.00 0.50 0.71
• Performance of M and E committee members on behalf of you 0.38 0.33 0.20 0.83 -0.33 0.68 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
• Decision making of local people in problems and needs prioritization 1.08 1.06 1.00 1.17 1.00 0.99 1.29 1.47 1.23 1.00 1.00 0.45
• Way of CCs enhance participation of vulnerable groups (women) in decision making 1.21 1.50 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.18 1.24 1.29 1.23 2.00 1.50 0.87
• Decision making in project selection and site identification which arranged by CCs 0.92 1.11 1.00 1.17 1.00 0.85 1.19 1.06 1.15 1.00 1.00 0.96
• Peoples participation in project preparation study 0.58 0.94 0.20 1.33 0.33 0.25 0.90 0.76 0.69 2.00 1.00 0.76
• Peoples participation in project implement activities 0.08 1.06 -0.60 0.33 -0.33 0.09 1.38 1.47 1.38 2.00 1.00 0.81
• Local budget contribution collection and labour contribution for project 0.52 0.41
1.00 1.17 1.00 1.67 1.00 1.33 1.00 0.85 2.00 1.00
implementation of CCs and PBC
• Peoples participation in field monitoring and evaluation the CDP project which 0.22 0.78
-0.29 0.50 -0.80 0.00 -1.00 1.19 0.82 0.85 1.00 1.00
204

arranged by CC members
• Formulation maintenance group and it functioning 0.00 1.17 -0.80 0.33 0.33 0.01** 1.19 1.06 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.92
Transparency 0.07 0.39 0.20 0.21 -0.58 0.60 0.50 0.44 0.25 0.50
• Distribution of project to all village -0.42 -0.33 0.60 0.00 -0.67 0.18 -0.29 -0.18 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.37
• Signboard which depicted cost, cash contribution posted at each project site -0.75 -0.39 -1.60 -2.00 -2.00 0.01** 0.48 0.24 -0.62 1.00 -0.50 0.12
• Dissemination of information about the CDPs to the public 0.33 1.17 1.00 1.33 -0.67 0.20 1.05 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.95
• Information provided to local people who affected by the project 1.13 1.11 0.80 1.50 1.00 0.80 1.14 1.06 1.15 -2.00 1.00 0.09
Responsiveness 0.82 1.06 0.55 1.21 0.58 1.21 1.34 1.00 1.25 1.00
• Distribution of project to all village 0.96 1.22 1.00 1.67 1.00 0.29 1.24 1.47 1.08 1.00 1.00 0.63
• Signboard which depicted cost, cash contribution posted at each project site 0.21 0.33 0.40 0.33 0.67 0.98 0.81 0.88 0.46 1.00 0.00 0.68
• Dissemination of information about the CDPs to the public 1.13 1.44 0.20 1.33 -0.33 0.02* 1.48 1.65 1.54 2.00 1.50 0.80
• Information provided to local people who affected by the project 1.00 1.22 0.60 1.50 1.00 0.52 1.33 1.35 0.92 1.00 1.50 0.33
Effectiveness and efficiency 0.17 1.11 -0.27 0.44 -0.67 1.37 1.25 0.85 1.33 1.17
• Project quality 0.21 1.17 -0.20 0.67 -0.67 0.45 1.33 1.18 0.85 2.00 1.50 0.33
• Lifespan of the project (sustainability) -0.29 0.89 -1.40 -0.17 -0.67 0.00** 1.14 1.18 0.77 1.00 0.50 0.56
• Cost-benefit of the project (low cost, high benefit) 0.58 1.28 0.80 0.83 -0.67 0.37 1.62 1.41 0.92 1.00 1.50 0.12
Income Categories: 1: <= 4000000.0 Riel, 2: 4000001.0- 8000000.0 Riel, 3: 8000001.0 - 12000000.0 Riel, 4: 12000001.0 - 16000000.0 Riel,
5: =>16000000.0
 Appendix 12: Awareness of LGG by Gender
Prey Kpos Khnach Romeas
Male =28 Female=28 Male=27 Female=27
Items
Yes Yes Yes Yes
F % F % F % F %
Participation 73.38 73.70 85.52 88.22
• Appointment of PBC members to perform their roles on behalf of local people 26 92.86 24 85.71 21 77.78 24 88.89
• Appointment of procurement committee member to perform their roles on behalf of local people 4 14.29 3 10.71 7 25.93 3 11.11
• Appointment of M and E committee members to perform their roles on behalf of local people 18 64.29 17 60.71 22 81.48 25 92.59
• Decision on the priority problems and needs within the village 25 89.29 28 100.0 27 100.0 27 100.0
• Vulnerable groups and individual, especially women are given a chance to participate in CDPs 27 96.43 27 96.43 26 96.30 27 100.0
• Decision on project selection and site identification 25 89.29 26 92.86 25 92.59 27 100.0
• Project feasibility study 23 82.14 22 78.57 25 92.59 23 85.19
• Implementation project activities of CDP project 17 60.71 20 71.43 27 100.0 26 96.30
• Resource contribution (cash and in kind) 27 96.43 28 100.00 26 96.30 27 100.0
• Field monitoring and evaluation 19 67.86 18 64.29 24 88.89 26 96.30
• Executing maintenance group 15 53.57 14 50.00 24 88.89 27 100.0
205

Transparency 61.61 58.48 76.39 75.93

• Budget allocation to the CDP project 8 28.57 2 7.14 13 48.15 11 40.74
• Financial report about CDP projects disclosed to public 15 53.57 15 53.57 19 70.37 21 77.78
• Signboard contains project budget and contribution present at each project site 6 21.43 9 32.14 16 59.26 11 40.74
• Result of bidding expose to the public 19 67.86 17 60.71 19 70.37 19 70.37
• CCs gives information to the public about CDPs 24 85.71 24 85.71 23 85.19 26 96.30
• CCs spread information about the project in public post 15 53.57 14 50.00 24 88.89 26 96.30
• CCs encourage village headmen to spread information about project 26 92.86 24 85.71 26 96.30 26 96.30
• CCs gives information to those impacted by project of CDPs 25 89.29 26 92.86 25 92.59 24 88.89
Responsiveness 80.95 83.93 93.83 96.30
• CDPs addressed local problems and needs 26 92.86 28 100.00 26 96.30 27 100.00
• Project of CDPs addressed on time (at the time of needs and problems occurred) 10 35.71 12 42.86 24 88.89 25 92.59
• Project of CDPs benefited to the community (including vulnerable groups and individual and women) 26 92.86 26 92.86 27 100.0 27 100.0
• All poor villages included in CDP project 27 96.43 26 92.86 25 92.59 24 88.89
• Cost of the project in appropriate to the output 23 82.14 23 82.14 24 88.89 27 100.0
• Local people trust CCs in CDP performance 24 85.71 26 92.86 26 96.30 26 96.30
Effectiveness and Efficiency 86.90 85.71 90.12 92.59
• Project of CDP completed in time 19 67.86 20 71.43 26 96.30 25 92.59
• Projects of CDP are priority 26 92.86 27 96.43 26 96.30 26 96.30
• Performance of PBC members on behalf of you 28 100.0 25 89.29 21 77.78 24 88.89
 Appendix 13: Photographic Presentation of the Study

Photo 1: Khnach Romeas Commune Councils Meeting

Photo 2: PBC and Clerk in Knach Romeas Commune Preparing CDP for District
Integration Workshop 2009

Photo 3: Commune Chief of Khnach Romeas Explaining CDP during District

Integration Workshop

206
 Photo 4: Group Discussion with Villagers in Khnach Romeas Commune

Photo 5: Group Discussion with Commune Councilors in Khnach Romeas Commune

Photo 6: Group Discussion among Villagers in Prey Khpos Commune

207
 Photo 7: Interviewing with Villagers

Photo 8: Laterite Road in Khnach Romeas Balung Leu and Balang Meanchey Village,
Khnach Romeas Commune

Photo 9: Earth Road towards Boueng Chumneang Village, Prey Khpos Commune

208