Human Rights & Democracy Program 2017-19 - Openaid
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Human Rights & Democracy Program 2017-19
Information about the applicant
Name of the Organisation: Diakonia
Contribution title: Human Rights and Democracy Program 2017-2019
Proposed budget in SEK: Budget for three years, 2017-2019, SEK 44,024,663
Applicant address: Diakonia Cambodia Country Office
P.O. Box 959
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Tel +855 (0) 12 465 117
Regional office address: Diakonia Asia Regional Office
P O Box 302
Chiang Mai 50000, Thailand
Tel: +66(0)53 300 099, Fax: +66(0)53 247 494
Head office address: Diakonia
Box 14037
167 14 Bromma, Sweden
Tel: +46 (0)8 453 69 00, Fax: +46 (0)8 453 69 29
Contact persons: At the Cambodia country office, Phnom Penh:
Ms Thiounn Neva, Country Manager
E-mail: neva.thiounn@diakonia.se
At regional office, Chiang Mai, Thailand:
Ms Ankin Ljungman, Regional Manager
Email: ankin.ljungman@diakonia.se
1Table of Contents
Information about the applicant............................................................................................................................................. 1
1. A New Phase ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Why We Need a New Phase: Context Analysis/ Problem Statement ................................................................. 4
1.2 Building on Our Past Results ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.2.1 Democracy .................................................................................................................................................. 8
1.2.2 Gender Equality........................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2.3 Human Rights ............................................................................................................................................ 10
1.2.4 ICT.............................................................................................................................................................. 10
1.3 Summary of the Intervention Areas for the New Phase - 2017-2019 .............................................................. 11
1.3.1 HRDEM Partners’ Workshop ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.3.2 Democracy ................................................................................................................................................ 12
1.3.3 Gender equality......................................................................................................................................... 12
1.3.4 Human rights ............................................................................................................................................. 12
1.4 Risks and Challenges for the New Phase .......................................................................................................... 13
1.4.1 Shrinking Space for Civil Society ............................................................................................................... 13
1.4.2 Internal Accountability .............................................................................................................................. 14
1.4.3 Weak Ownership and Sustainability ......................................................................................................... 14
1.4.4 Other risks ................................................................................................................................................. 15
1.5 Lessons Learned that Inform the New Phase ................................................................................................... 16
1.5.1 LANGO ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
1.5.2 The Judiciary and Enforcement ................................................................................................................. 16
1.5.3 Grassroots Empowerment ........................................................................................................................ 17
1.5.4 Political Tension ........................................................................................................................................ 17
1.5.5 Difficulty in challenging culture norms discriminating women’s rights: ................................................... 17
1.5.6 Working with Duty Bearers ....................................................................................................................... 17
1.5.7 Media ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
1.5.8 Social Media .............................................................................................................................................. 17
1.5.9 Risk Management: .................................................................................................................................... 18
1.5.10 Theory of Change: ..................................................................................................................................... 18
1.5.11 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................ 18
1.6 Diakonia’s Gender Perspective ......................................................................................................................... 18
1.7 Other Cross-Cutting Issues ................................................................................................................................ 19
2. Diakonia’s Strategy, Added Value, Capacity Building and Sustainability .................................................................. 20
2.1. Diakonia Cambodia’s Strategy 2016-2020 ........................................................................................................ 20
2.2. Sida’s Strategy for Cambodia 2014-2018 .......................................................................................................... 21
2.3. Diakonia’s Added Value and Capacity Building ................................................................................................. 22
22.4. Guiding principles. ............................................................................................................................................ 23
2.4.1. The Strategy for Change (SfC) and the Rights Based Approach (RBA) ...................................................... 23
2.5. Sustainability, Ownership and Accountability .................................................................................................. 23
2.5.1. Working with partners .............................................................................................................................. 24
2.5.2. Qualitative participation ........................................................................................................................... 24
2.5.3. Enable stakeholders to complain and give feedback ................................................................................ 24
2.6. Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation................................................................................................................ 24
2.6.1. Planning: looking for opportunities; rationalising them and incorporating them in project designs. ..... 24
2.6.2. Financial control and management .......................................................................................................... 25
2.6.3. Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 25
3. Changes in the Geographic Area/ Target Groups ..................................................................................................... 26
4. Results Areas/ Indicators/ Yearly Targets ................................................................................................................. 27
4.1. Strategic Programme composition ................................................................................................................... 27
4.2. Result Areas ...................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.3. Indicators .......................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.4. Yearly Targets .................................................................................................................................................... 28
5. Changes in Partners .................................................................................................................................................. 28
5.1 Phased Out ........................................................................................................................................................ 28
5.2 Phased In ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
6. Partners ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28
6.1 ADHOC............................................................................................................................................................... 28
6.2 BCV .................................................................................................................................................................... 29
6.3 BS....................................................................................................................................................................... 29
6.4 CCFC .................................................................................................................................................................. 30
6.5 CCIM .................................................................................................................................................................. 30
6.6 CENTRAL ............................................................................................................................................................ 31
6.7 CLEC ................................................................................................................................................................... 31
6.8 COMFREL ........................................................................................................................................................... 32
6.9 EC ...................................................................................................................................................................... 32
6.10 GADC ................................................................................................................................................................. 33
6.11 LICADHO ............................................................................................................................................................ 34
6.12 NGO Forum ....................................................................................................................................................... 34
6.13 STT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 35
7. Proposed Budget and Explanation ............................................................................................................................ 36
7.1 Understanding Diakonia’s Costs ................................................................................................................... 37
7.2 Overhead costs.............................................................................................................................................. 37
Annex 1 - DIAKONIA HRDEM LFA 2017-2019.................................................................................................................... 40
3DIAKONIA HRDEM PROPOSAL - 2017-2019
1. A New Phase
This proposal is designed as a new phase in the Diakonia HRDEM Program but it should be read in conjunction with
the previous five year application dated 2014-2018. Diakonia has maintained essentially the same partner
organizations from the original proposal but this new phase both introduces new strategies to respond to the
changing country context and challenges while building on the results of previous years, particularly our partners’
successes in engaging and empowering rights holders to claim their human rights and to participate in democratic
processes; supporting and protecting victims of abuses and injustices; and lobbying and advocating for systemic
change and justice.
1.1 Why We Need a New Phase: Context Analysis/ Problem Statement
Human rights abuses in Cambodia are widespread: land grabbing, labor rights abuses, human trafficking, rape and
domestic violence affect the poorest and most vulnerable, and perpetuate the cycles of poverty and violence. Rule
of law is weak and corruption endemic, meaning the rich and powerful can infringe on the rights of others with
impunity. The lack of a functioning and independent judiciary continues to be a major impediment to bringing
perpetrators of human rights violations to justice, thus encouraging perpetrators and further abuses. Freedom of
expression and assembly are regularly curtailed on spurious grounds, while killings, physical assaults and judicial
harassment of political opponents, grassroots activists and media workers are committed with little to no
accountability. Although on paper, men and women enjoy equal rights, the reality is very different. The corrupt
judicial system makes it very difficult for victims of abuses to seek justice, and continues to work against women
who are unable to pay the expenses demanded by the courts. Many in local communities remain unaware of
women and children’s rights, particularly in relation to domestic violence and rape.
The upcoming commune and national elections in 2017 and 2018, respectively, will likely represent a turning point
for Cambodia. In the context of the contested 2013 national election which the ruling party won by a thin margin
amidst evidence of fraud and vote rigging, Cambodia has witnessed the growth of a strong and confident social
movement calling for democracy. As Cambodia is approaching elections in the coming two years, the ruling party
has shown that it is willing to do whatever it takes to maintain its grip on power. In the area of elections these
problems include, new voter registration regulations and procedures, new voter lists, bipartisan National Election
Commission (NEC), enforcement of electoral rules, impunity for election crimes, fair media access, campaign
finance, use of state resources for electoral purposes, acceptance of election results, youth and female
representatives, and restrictions introduced by the new Law on Election of Members of the National Assembly
(LEMNA). Key problems with democratic governance include: lack of accountability from elected officials, abuse of
power by the executive and legislative branches of government and weak institutions. Key problems with freedoms
and access to information include: creation of new laws without proper consultation with stakeholders, arbitrary use
of courts and criminal justice system for political purposes, censorship of free flows of information, lack of open
communication between state institutions and citizens and a politically constrained press.
In 2014, the Cambodian government attempted to crush the emerging social movement by resorting to killings,
disappearances and incommunicado detentions. In 2015 and 2016, the government passed a number of new laws
which can be used to repress freedom of association and expression, such as the Law on NGOs and Associations
(LANGO), the Telecommunications Law, and the Trade Union Law. Meanwhile, the crucial electoral reform process
shows little progress.
The government is creating an atmosphere of fear among civil society and the opposition to stifle dissent and the
exercise of fundamental freedoms. A compliant judiciary is used as a political tool by the government to harass and
imprison members of the opposition and civil society activists. Currently 29 opposition officials and civil society
activists remain detained or imprisoned. In the latest move by the Cambodian government to silence critics and stall
4electoral reform still further, six human rights activists – four staff members of a prominent local human rights NGO,
a member of the National Election Committee, and an UN human rights official – were subject to politically-
motivated charges and could face prison sentences of up to 10 years.
In April 2015, after continual discussion and negotiation since 2011, the amendment of Election Law for the
Commune Election in 2017, National Election in 2018 and the Election of Capital/Provincial and
Municipality/District/Khan Councils has been approved. This amended law has not shown a commitment to
promoting women's participation in politics even though the civil society organizations advocated with the state on
the articles relating to the measurement of gender equality in the election law, so this made the CSOs and NGOs
disappointed with the government.
Lack of Gender Equity in Representation - Cambodia faces a cultural imbalance between men and women. Most
Cambodian politicians are men and there are fewer opportunities for women in the political arena. Part of this
problem is a result of the conservative traditional norms within Khmer culture that place a lower value on women
than men in all sectors of society. Moreover, poverty, illiteracy, discrimination, lack of encouragement and
opportunity, and the absence of a specific policy on promoting and providing opportunities to women, are obstacles
for women who want to participate in politics and social affairs.
Cambodia has yet to achieve equality of gender political empowerment, especially in regards to elected officials.
Even though 53% of eligible voters are women, women representatives make up only 22% of the fourth mandate
(2008-2013) and women commune councillors only 16.8% of the second mandate (2007-2012). According to UNDP’s
Human Development Index 2009, Cambodia has one of the lowest ratings of gender empowerment in Asia; a gender
development index of 0.588 and gender empowerment index of 0.427. This ranks Cambodia at 91st, with the worst
ranked at 109th.
Progress in reform and gender mainstreaming has been weak. The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) is making
efforts to address the imbalance and has appointed 24 women as Deputy Governors in all (24) municipalities and
provinces. In the total 185 districts or Khan - there are 169 women appointed as vice-chief of district/Khan and
388(12%) women have been elected (by commune councillors and members of the national assembly) at sub-
national level to member of either municipality, province, Krong/city, Srok/Khan/ or district council. There are only
453 (3%) women of village chief.
This figure shows that the Royal Cambodian Cambodia still faces challenges in meeting the Cambodia Millennium
Development Goal (CMDG) which states that by 2015 women hold 30% of positions at National Level and 25% at
Commune Level. This challenge arises as a result of a lack of commitment on the part of political decision makers at
the national level in establishing an adequate legal framework/or plan of action for promoting gender political
empowerment and participation.
Once elected, women still face many challenges. Persisting gender bias in society, specifically amongst their male
colleagues, prevents women from participating and performing well in leadership positions. Within political parties
women remain a small minority among powerful men decision makers, and decision-making by women is
constrained by both factors such as male-based structures and party-specific factors. The lack of opportunities for
capacity building within the party and the lack of financial resources also have a negative impact on women
councilors’ performances.
A specific area in which women in leadership positions face a number of challenges is that of budgeting at both the
national and sub-national level. General budget transparency in Cambodia is regarded as low, and men and women
have very little to no opportunity to be engaged in the budget process.1 Given the present low participation of
women in the public sphere, including women’s voice in these processes is very challenging. The difficulties,
1
Cambodia Open Budget Survey 2015 (IBP, 2015) p. 1
5highlighted by recently published report of the Committee to Promote Women in Politics (CPWP), are the limited
number of women in leadership positions, their limited capacities to analyze budget information, the lack of
information for women councilors and a lack of support from male leaders for more gender sensitive budgeting.2
Influence in the budgeting process at the national and the sub-national level is an important factor for an increased
level of implementation of policies and plans. There are still gaps in the implementation of policies and plans, and
there is a lack of coordination between responsible institutions. The Ministry of Women Affairs (MoWA)
acknowledges this gap in their Cambodia Gender Assessment, published in 2014.
Another instrument to influence the implementation of gender responsive policies is that of social accountability.
The concept of social accountability is gaining more and more importance in development. The concept of
accountability is linked to democratization and decentralization, a process that started in Cambodia in 2002, with
the first commune elections. Realizing a form of accountability has met with and still faces certain challenges.
Accountability lines between the public at community level and the different levels of sub-national administration
are blurred, and the existing participation mechanisms at commune level are often not effective. Besides this, the
commune councils face a number of difficulties in performing their governing role, such as lack of financial resources
and low level of human capital due to limited education and experience.3
The lack of political empowerment of women, the lack of policy implementation and the challenges of social
accountability have a negative impact on the situation of violence against women (VAW) in Cambodia. VAW
prevalence in Cambodia remains high, and sexual harassment is prevalent in the workplace and in communities. The
prevalence of gang rape is higher in Cambodia than in other countries in the region. 4 One in five women aged 15-49
has experienced physical violence at least once since age 15. 5 Approximately 21% of ever-married women aged 15-
45 reported experiencing physical violence at least once since age 15. Only two in five women have sought
assistance to stop the violence they have experienced.6 However, the current average provincial figure in the three
target provinces has decreased significantly to 19%, 11.9%, 12.1% in Pursat, Kampong Chhnang and Prey Veng
respectively compared to the last 10 years, which is lower than a nationwide average figure.7
In Cambodian society violence against women is widely accepted and tolerated. It is perpetuated by traditional
gender norms and a variety of factors on the personal level. An indicator of women’s low status is the attitude
towards wife-beating. Data collected in 2014 show that 50% of Cambodian women and 27% of the men believe that
a husband is justified in beating his wife for at least one of 6 given reasons. 8 Gender inequality and a culture of
impunity reinforce these practices.
Social and legal support services for survivors of VAW are not systematically provided, available and accessible for all
women and girls. Policy frameworks to address VAW are improved, but there is also still a lack of coordination
between authorities, a lack of investigative resources and skills, and no clear guideline to carry out and enforce the
laws. There is a ‘lack of public trust in the justice system and the negative attitudes of judicial officers and law
enforcement personnel towards women victims of violence continue to impede the effective prosecution of cases.’ 9
Since 2000, more than half a million Cambodians have been involved in conflict with the authorities regarding land
and property. Forced eviction and insecure tenure continues to be one of Cambodia’s most pressing and widespread
2
Challenges of sub-national female leaders in taking budgets for women’s and children’s issues 2015 (CPWP 2015)
3
Social Accountability in Cambodia (JSRP Paper, LSE London, 2014) p. 8-9
4
Cambodia Gender Assessment 2014 (MOWA, Summary} p. 14-15
5
In GADC’s target provinces the percentages of women who experienced violence are as follows: Pursat 19%, Kampong Chhnang 11,9%, Prey
Veng 12,1% and Battambang 22.4%. Of these women 9 % experienced violence within the last 12 months prior to the survey. For the GADC
target provinces the percentages are: Pursat 5.7%, Kampong Chhnang 4.2%, Prey Veng 5.0% and Battambang 5.5%.
6
CDHS 2014
7
CDHS 2014 and 2005. In 2005 the provincial figure was 30%, 22.8% and 31% in this respective province.
8
Ibid.
9
Concluding observations on the combined 4th and 5th periodic reports of Cambodia (CEDAW, 2013) par. 18 & 20
6human rights issue today. Despite legal protections, at least 30,000 residents of the capital city Phnom Penh have
been forcibly evicted, and approximately 145,000 Cambodians throughout the country are at risk of forced eviction10
and in the first months of 2014 over 2 thousand households across the country have been subjected to violent
forced evictions. In urban areas, settlements have been cleared to make way for infrastructure development and
beautification schemes while a growing number of forced evictions and land-grabbing have been taking place in
rural areas due competition over land and natural resources with ELC (Economic Land Concession) companies
resulting in their dispossession and displacement.
Commercial, industrial and urban development has led to widespread land and housing abuses including forced
evictions with limited compensation (if any), further impoverishing many of Cambodia’s most vulnerable
populations. Evictions have been conducted with little or no warning in blatant disregard of both Cambodian and
international law and human rights treaties to which Cambodia is a signatory. The relationship between the ruling
party and the Judiciary means that there are few formal legal avenues for affected communities to pursue to secure
their existing homes, or adequate compensation where this is not possible. As such, too often families are left to
fight for their homes through protest and activism. Communities at risk of eviction, and community activists in
particular – the majority of whom are women - frequently endure coercion, bribery, threats, and even assault from
authorities in order to remove them from their land and/or to stifle their protests against this action.
The majority of Cambodian people are living in rural areas with limited access to basic facilities. It is common that
rural people in Cambodia, particularly indigenous people, are not regularly heard in public debates or policy-making
processes, both at the local or national level. There are many reasons for this. In part, it is because community
members may not know how to raise their voices due to lack of confidence in doing so, or they may believe that
their voices will not make a difference. It is also because deeply held beliefs suggest that communities should not be
allowed to be heard and that they should accept whatever happens to them. In particular, many power brokers in
Cambodia simply do not consider it important to listen to others. Lack of independent media is another factor that
keeps them from expressing their views. With all of these factors considered, the people who are often most
affected by the substantial economic and social changes occurring across the country are prevented from taking part
in their own future development. In many cases, communities have been subjected to decisions about their future
that they have had no part in making, often with devastating consequences.
There is no minimum wage in Cambodia, despite the Labor Law (1997) requiring one to be set in the private sector
through sub-decree. More than 10 years after the law was passed, this has not been done. The exception is the
garment industry which has a minimum wage created through a special agreement between the Cambodian
government, unions and the Garment Manufacturers’ Association of Cambodia (GMAC). Currently the minimum
wage for garment workers is US$140 per month. However, this is a very recent improvement and one paid for in
blood.11 Exploitation has become rampant throughout the garment industry and the formal sector which despite its
reputation is typified by poverty wage, forced labor and discrimination and violence against pregnant women and
trade union leaders.
The combination of landlessness, poverty wages, unsafe working conditions and an influx of an estimated 250,000
new workers into the job market annually has seen one million of Cambodia’s poorest and most vulnerable workers
migrate in search of employment over the last decade. Offences suffered by Cambodian migrant workers have
ranged in severity and included non-payment of wages, forced labor, bonded labor or debt bondage, illegal
confinement, physical, mental and sexual abuse, rape, torture and death.
10
The most recent qualitative data available: Amnesty International, Homes razed, Lives ruined, 2008
http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/9074/
11 Available at: http://www.licadho-cambodia.org/video.php?perm=43.
71.2 Building on Our Past Results
1.2.1 Democracy
As a result of the partner’s work, which has been ongoing for many years, rights holders have increased their
knowledge and awareness of democracy. The use of the traditional media and social media have been useful as a
tool to increase awareness however the government has responded with draconian laws, such as the cybercrime
law, that aims to suppress freedom of speech and increase monitoring of information within civil society. Partners
were very active campaigning and advocating against the cybercrime law, Law of Association and Non-Government
Organisations (LANGO) which was enacted in July 2015 and the law on labour unions, with a focus on public
campaigns and information awareness raising. Campaigning and advocacy for freedom of information laws were
building with a view to increase efforts in the coming years.
Partners also campaigned to amend the problematic law on the management and use of agricultural land,
particularly as it relates to indigenous rights, and while the government pledged to provide space for civil society
input into the drafting of this bill, the government withdrew from engagement in 2014 and little progress was
achieved in 2015. Nevertheless, communities increased their knowledge and awareness and forged closer links in
preparation to claim their land rights.
It should be noted that regarding ongoing government business such as the national budget and the national
strategic development plan, the government continued to engage with civil society, including our partners through
our NGO Forum’s Technical Working Group. Partners also used social media to raise public awareness and improve
accountability and transparency about these issues.
In 2015, most partners were engaged in the NGO Governance & Professional Practice (GPP) processes (a minimum
standard for accountability, internal democracy and good governance) at some level, be it an application,
certification or on-going monitoring. A few of our partners, having looked at the upgraded certification process,
improved areas of internal governance to meet the minimum requirements and two (CCIM & COMFREL) of the four
partners are in the final stages of this process. Diakonia continued to work with STT and partners at Solidary House
to improve their financial policies and management systems and finished this process in 2015. In 2016, we continued
to work with those and other partners to assist them through the application process, including facilitating capacity
building, for future applications.
National level partners were very active and successful in engaging political parties about breaking the political
deadlock in the first half of 2014 and then engaged with the development of a viable reform roadmap in the second
half. As a result, more than half of the recommendations for electoral reform by civil society’s Election Reform
Alliance (ERA) were accepted by the government. In 2015, a stream of the newly drafted election laws was released
and due to capacity limitations, just two laws were reviewed in detail by ERA – voter registration and restrictions on
NGO involvement in political campaigns. Regarding the voter registration laws, 70 per cent of key reforms
recommended by COMFREL and the ERA where endorsed by NEC while ERA reforms relating to restrictions on
involvement of NGOs in political campaigns were rejected by the NEC. By the second half of 2015, the culture of
dialogue that enabled these reforms and reviews had disappeared. Despite these problems, the NGO Forum
continued to build dialogue with the government on issues including the national budget and environmental
protection.
While in 2014 violent crackdowns on peaceful protests were more common, in 2015 the government was more
effective banning or stopping protests from occurring. Nevertheless, the LANGO generated a lot of street protests
but were contained by the government forces. Thus while the levels of violence was down from last year, the
judiciary continued to be used to silence critics of the government and 24 political prisoners remained in detention.
Nevertheless, communities are empowered and know about their rights and the role of duties bearers. They have
already started to develop advocacy plans, make complaints, raise concerns, negotiate, and discuss with
stakeholders, companies, and local authorities to protect their community property.
81.2.2 Gender Equality
Monitoring shows that campaigns and days of action about gender equality, GBV and women’s rights have increased
the knowledge and awareness of the public. As a result, partners have helped break the silence about Domestic
Violence (DV) and evidence shows more cases are being reported to authorities. Public forums and press
conferences on safe migration and violence against women have been affective, not only to raise the awareness of
rights holders about these issues, but also resulted in authorities responding to exploitative migration practices at
the national level, with the government setting up a hotline service for migrant workers.
Partners have been successful in educating women leaders to influence and assist commune councillors in the
provision of support services for women survivors of domestic violence, resulting in women accessing, for example,
livelihood training and counselling support. Targeted women at the commune and village levels continued to be
empowered and were very active progressing issues related to gender equality such as, family development plans,
GBV and equal opportunities for women with disabilities, all of which were included in the Village Development
Plans (VDPs) and integrated into Commune Investment Plans (CIPs). Public forums coordinated by partners resulted
in commune councillors increasing the budget allocation to support women and children, for example, in Siem Reap
per targeted commune from USD700 to USD4000 in 2015.
In 2015, there is evidence to show that men in the target groups stopped VAW and DV as a result of training and
capacity building within families and communities, including engagement with networks and local authorities to
better respond to the needs of survivors of GBV, however this is an area requiring more work to achieve greater
impact, particularly breaking down traditional community resolution mechanisms and replacing them with legal
outcomes that provide justice and security for women survivors of violence. Partners successfully changed negative
behaviours within the family and community that restricted women’s full socio-cultural participation and promote
more equal distribution of household chores and income.
Women’s participation in local governance structures has increased in the past 10 years, both in elected and
appointed positions. There was a nationwide increase in the proportion of women members in Provincial Councils
from about 10% in 2009 to 13.23% in 2014. This is partly as a result of the RGC’s gender mainstreaming policy but
also the work of our women’s rights partners has seen more women showing leaderships abilities, taking the
opportunity to challenge decision makers and demand their voice and young women nominating for commune
elections. As a result of the work of our partners, women are demanding better services from authorities as well as
achieving results in gender budgeting in local authorities.
There is, however, much work left to be done. In April 2015, after continual discussions and negotiations since 2011,
the amendment of Election Law for the Commune Election in 2017, National Election in 2018 and the Election of
Capital/Provincial and Municipality/District/Khan Councils has been approved. This amended law has shown a lack
of commitment to promoting women's participation in politics even after civil society organizations advocated with
the state on the articles relating to the measurement of gender equality in the election law; so generally speaking
CSOs and NGOs were disappointed with the government on this issue.
GADC, our gender equality training partner, delivered the annual gender mainstreaming and gender equality
training for four targeted partners and as a result all four have reviewed or developed their gender policy. Diakonia
will continue to facilitate future training with GADC to develop internal policies, such as gender budgeting.
Moreover, empowered women are developing their capacity to claim their rights to land and natural resources with
a view to engage at the sub-national level, and in 2015, as a result of partner’s work empowering women.
National level partners are strong advocates protecting women’s rights and supporting women whose rights have
been violated, including women in leadership roles or are political representatives. Partners and civil society need to
increase efforts to make space for women to become political candidates at the national level and breakdown the
institutionalised discriminatory structures within the political parties in future years. In 2015, GADC, COMFREL and
9Banteay Srei were part of a coalition of women’s organisations called the Committee for Promotion of Women in
Politics that continued to advocate for increased women’s political representation and were active making
recommendations for electoral law reform.
1.2.3 Human Rights
Despite the growing oppressive human rights environment during 2015, we saw greater people participation,
grassroots actions and a growing civil society movement of people prepared to claim their rights. It is Diakonia’s
assessment that our partners form part of this empowered and growing grassroots movement.
All partners and targeted human rights defenders and activists utilised online social media platforms to grow the
movement, mobilise people around rights issues and raise awareness about rights. Community based media, such as
community radio, was instrumental in providing an inclusive and safe mechanism to expand the community voice
and share information across the country. Community days of action and human rights day celebrations raised
awareness and mobilised communities.
In 2015, partners built the capacity of at-risk rights holders, such as farmers, informal workers and unionists, to
protect their rights through dialogue, planning, collective organising and action empowering rights holders to
address their claims directly with the authorities and companies at the local level and taking direct action to claim
rights. Progress is being made empowering rights holders to defend their land claims but stopping forced evictions
remains a long term goal. Dialogue regarding minimum wage was at the core of political negotiations over the year
and in October 2015, garment workers received an inadequate wage increase to USD140, a USD12 increase. Protests
continued in 2015, with 8000 workers taking to the street where the government responded with water cannons to
disperse the gathering. Diakonia’s partners, including CLEC, continued to be very vocal in the campaign to improve
the minimum wage.
In 2015, partners were very active monitoring, documenting and advocating human rights and labour rights and
abuses, for example, in prisons and during land disputes, for use in advocacy and campaigning, such as the “Free the
19” imprisoned land activists, opposition party activists and Buddhist monks. They were all released by the end of
2015. The “Free the 11” activists imprisoned in 2014 for their actions protesting the LANGO, were released in April
2015. In 2015, the crackdown on LANGO activists attracted international attention. In cases of arrests and trauma,
our partners were well prepared and equipped to support victims through legal and medical services.
Legal and psychosocial support for victims of human rights abuses, violence and sexual violence, land grabbing as
well as for political prisoners and their families ensured that the most vulnerable in the community were supported
at their time of need, helping them through the most difficult times in their lives.
At the policy level, the NGO Forum continued to play a key role in facilitating dialogue between members and
development partners and the government about the national housing and land valuation policy.
The voices and concerns of the poor and vulnerable people from different corners of Cambodia have been heard
publicly by different stakeholders, especially decision makers through the dissemination of research and
investigations. The advocacy strategy of producing evidence based documents influenced the government and
policy makers forcing them to be more accountable and transparent on land and natural resources issues.
1.2.4 ICT
It is also important to note and recognise the influence of the Sida funded 2013-2015 ICT project, Human Rights
Defenders in the Cyber-Age: Information Communications Technology for Emerging Civic Movement. This project
provided our partners with the scope and flexibility to test what is possible when using new technologies and built
the capacity of activists and themselves. They discovered an exciting and powerful array of possibilities from instant
awareness raising and information sharing, to social-media coordinated community actions as exemplified by the
mass protests at Freedom Park and other sites during July 2014, to empowering and providing space for the most
vulnerable people in society to raise their voice and tell their stories, to protecting the urban poor from land
10grabbing and dispossession, just to name a few examples. Fundamentally, ICT has proved to be an invaluable
resource for human rights defenders in Cambodia and the exploration of the technology could not have been
possible without the Sida funding. All four partner organisations now consider the development of ICT to be of such
crucial importance to the growth of rights based movements in Cambodia, they are integrating ICT into all their core
awareness raising, civil society mobilising and evidence based advocacy across their project portfolios as well as
utilising new forms of ICT, such as LINE, and gradually moving to other newer and safer apps for cost effective and
safe internal communications.
During the project, rights holders were trained to use ICT and deployed to safeguard freedom of expression and
improve human rights monitoring. Relayed audio or video was used for live-streaming and posted on websites,
enhancing and extending the reach of authoritative news, human rights reports, advocacy and litigation. The project
has improved access to new social media and new secure ways of communications that could deter impediments to
freedom of expression and increase security for human rights actors during the project, particularly in light of the
looming restrictive draft ICT laws.
Human Rights Defenders, local journalists and active citizens increased awareness and understanding of their online
rights, gaining confidence and avoiding becoming victims of digital crime and self-censorship. Community radio
reached audiences beyond what was expected and it became a place for communities to voice their concerns.
Despite the increasing clampdown on digital freedom of expression, the project helped to sustain the extensive civil
society movement in Cambodia. Cambodians increasingly relied on digital technology to communicate with one
another and to inform themselves about current affairs. As such the increasing use of ICT by civil society groups was
vital to effective human rights monitoring and advocacy.
Our partners increased their ability to build better capacity for the target citizen journalists to be more professional
in reporting to media organizations. Some of them were equipped with both required technical skills and materials
including laptops and higher capacity smartphones devices and other accessories in order for them to collect,
produce, and share information in broader way. Partners also provided an enabling environment through annual
forums, workshops, and field mentoring in order for activists to have closer linkage or networks with other activists,
citizen journalists, professional journalists, media organizations, Human Right NGOs, and relevant stakeholders
including the government.
Throughout the years, partners contributed to improving the freedom of the expression, freedom of the press,
access to information and related human right issues in the general Cambodian society. Also, they played critical
roles in promoting and disseminating the independent media through ICT tools that have been used for multiple
purposes and advocacy work.
A strength of the project was its focus on capacity building at the grassroots level. This not only increased basic skill
in ICT, but also a sense of ownership of, for example, urban issues among civil society. It also motivated these
stakeholders to address these issues and gave them tools with which to achieve this. Another strength was that this
project stimulated creativity among the staff. They learned about and develop new and innovative ways of using ICT
for advocacy, communication, data collection and dissemination.
Overall, the project has greatly supported the increasingly vibrant human rights movement in Cambodia and has
provided the foundations for our partners to integrate ICT across their projects to build innovative and effective
techniques that grow social movements and address human rights violations.
1.3 Summary of the Intervention Areas for the New Phase - 2017-2019
1.3.1 HRDEM Partners’ Workshop
Diakonia ran a two day workshop with HRDEM partners in April 2016 and developed this proposal through a
participatory process. That process allowed Diakonia and our partners to clearly identify our targets for the next
11three years and update the log frame analysis (LFA) to reflect changes to the socio-political environment in
Cambodia and upcoming challenges, with a particular focus on the elections.
1.3.2 Democracy
The upcoming commune and national elections in 2017 and 2018 respectively will likely represent a turning point for
Cambodia; one in which the prospect of political violence and government crackdowns looms large. During this new
phase, our human rights and democracy partners will be heavily engaged - prior to, during and after the elections -
advocating for free and fair elections, increased democratic space and dialogue between rights holders and duty
bearers; monitoring the elections; increasing rights holder’s knowledge and understanding of democracy and
election processes; protecting and supporting victims of political and judicial harassment; and supporting women’s
participation in politics.
Meanwhile, other important work will continue such as increasing rights holder’s knowledge and understanding of
community good practices in networking and community ownership of local good governance as well as
empowering female community leaders to increase the budget allocation to gender responsive issues by sub-
national and national government and institutions in a transparent way. Strengthening existing CSOs to continue to
be more strategic and coordinated and encouraging new and emerging CSOs to be more visible will also be a feature
as well as continuing to offer NGO-GPP certification for our CSO’s to enshrine internal management policies and
systems that promote internal democracy and good governance, making the organizations more sustainable.
1.3.3 Gender equality
For this new phase, Diakonia holds high but realistic ambitions to achieve greater gender equality. Again, the
elections feature heavily in our strategy where we will work to promote an increase in women candidates which will
translate into more opportunities for women to become political representatives. Furthermore, the elections offer
an opportunity to advance women’s full and effective participation in leadership at all levels of decision making in
political, economic, and public life.
Due to the high levels of VAW in the country, we must continue our work addressing the root causes of violence and
discrimination, thus much of our gender equality program is directed at this issue, from raising knowledge and
awareness; to strengthening communities, networks and women’s groups to respond effectively to VAW and
discrimination; to providing essential support to survivors of VAW; through to local national and international
lobbying and advocacy to achieve change in structural inequalities that perpetuate VAW and gender discrimination.
With this holistic approach, we aim to empower more women so that they can lead a life free of violence.
1.3.4 Human rights
The human rights situation is Cambodia remains dire and an ongoing struggle for human rights defenders,
communities, rights holders and CSOs. It is here that we need to consolidate our work, building on the strengths of
our previous actions. In this next phase we will continue to utilize new and alternative forms of media, such as social
media, and existing media to build a regular following of the targeted population and report human rights, land
grabbing and labor rights abuses so as to increase pressure on government authorities and increase awareness
amongst the target population. Of course, a priority is to empower at-risk communities with the capacity to assert
and claim their rights to land and against land grabbing. Monitoring and documentation of human rights conditions,
will also raise the voice of the vulnerable rights holders and increased awareness of abuses amongst the target
group and rights holders will continue to be supported to collectively exercise fundamental freedoms such as
participating in peaceful demonstrations for respecting human rights, freedom of assembly, and freedom of
expression. And through the use of national advocacy undertaken on human rights cases (such as the arrest of rights
activists, the minimum wage demands of the garment factory workers and the adoption of ILO conventions) we aim
to garner support from the national and international community to increase the likelihood of successful campaigns
and claims.
Trained formal, informal and migrant workers will learn to assert their labor rights, understand labor laws and other
relevant laws and improve negotiation, arbitration and dispute settling skills. Furthermore, human rights, labor
12rights and land grabbing abuses will be investigated and victims/ community activists supported with medical care,
psychosocial support and access to legal representation resulting in improved opportunities for justice and health.
Each year, the farmer’s network capacity will be strengthened and more committees established in each community
and they are able to demand land tenure, fair compensation and favorable legal provisions for farmers.
1.4 Risks and Challenges for the New Phase
As we embark on the next three years of work, it is important to acknowledge and reflect on the risks and challenges
we and our partners face. We have identified three main risks which we will need to prioritise:
1.4.1 Shrinking Space for Civil Society
The aftermath of the 2013 election included serious and stepped-up attempts to silence and control civil society. We
saw a return to old patterns of overt oppression of human rights defenders. Partners’ staff faced arrest, death
threats and independent media (CCiM) faced pressure to broadcast political propaganda. The shrinking space for
civil society had worsened by end of 2014, as the Government disclosed its intention to pass some laws to restrict
freedom of association like the Law on Associations and Non-Government Organisations (LANGO), Cyber Crime Law,
Unions Laws, Law on Management of agricultural land. Two leaders of Diakonia’s partner organisations (CCFC and
IDEA) were gaoled in early 2014. In 2015, the LANGO was enacted resulting in increased scrutiny and increased
reporting burden. Furthermore, many INGOs are now are more cautious about challenging the government or
openly supporting organisations that challenge the government. Local CSOs risk harassment and legal sanctions
should they participate in political activities outlawed under the LANGO.
The Law on Free and Fair elections had been ratified but with clauses which put stronger restriction on civil societies
who have been monitoring voter registration, election processes and who have been very vocal critics about
irregularities.
Extensive effort was invested in attempts to build trust and a cooperative atmosphere through dialogue and
interaction with authorities, especially at the local level where partner organisations were more exposed. When
possible, there was a very transparent and cooperative attitude towards authorities. Even organisations known to be
very vocal and “controversial” such as LICADHO and ADHOC to a large extent informed and tried to engage with
authorities in their activities. Nevertheless, the crackdown on HRDs continued and four ADHOC staff were detained
on politically motived charges and have remained imprisoned since 28 April 2016 while LICADHO staff have
witnessed increased covert monitoring of their office and one staff member was assaulted by security forces at a
rally for World Habitat Day on 10, October 2016.
Partners also tried to handle pressure by sharing the risk with others - through networking and cooperation with
likeminded organisations and through attempts to build collective strength. Often a number of different
organisations, with different competencies were involved in high profile human rights cases. Often smaller, more
vulnerable organisations kept a low profile and the bigger well-renowned human rights organisations acted as the
front for joint initiatives.
National and international advocacy networks were nurtured and activated to create awareness and support human
rights defenders when civil society space was at risk. It is worth noting, at the same time as the government was
trying to control civil society; we see a very positive development with the growth of member based organisations
and networks that have introduced very different dynamics and a greater degree of independence to Cambodian
civil society groups. These groups offer tough resistance to attempts to control civil society. 2011 and 2012 saw
remarkable examples of civil society strength manifested in networks of cooperation and coordination as well as in
highly successful advocacy. The pre-amble and aftermath of the 2013 election saw unprecedented levels of civic
activism which has continued through to the end of 2014. In 2015 and 2016, intimidation and harassment and
surveillance and monitoring of civil society continued, affecting peace assembly and community meetings.
Diakonia will continue to cooperate with our offices on the Regional and Global levels, and with the Embassy, on
international advocacy efforts to protect and defend the space for civil society and the partners.
13You can also read
