[BACK]   [HOME PAGE]

1. INTRODUCTION

1. Background
2. Rationale of the Study
3. Objectives of the Study
4. Scope and Limitation of the Study

2. METHODOLOGY

1. Data Collection
1. Primary Data
2. Secondary Data
2. Data Analysis

2. BACKGROUND TO THE TOXIC WASTE PROBLEM

1. Import of Toxic Waste
2. Involvement of Institutions and Officials in Toxic Waste Import
3. Law Related Issues
4. Result of Toxic Waste Analyses

1. Livelihood Impacts
2. Impact on Health
3. Economic Impact
4. Environmental Impact

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Concluding Remarks
2. Recommendations
References
Appendix

PREFACE

In December 1998, a toxic waste scandal in Cambodia caused an uproar. At the height of the furore, three Cambodian NGO workers made an urgent investigation. In a short period of time, they managed to meet a large number of the affected people. This preliminary report is not intended to be a scientific study. It is an attempt by the three Cambodian NGO workers to better understand the affects of the toxic waste, as seen by the affected people themselves, and to understand better how NGOs may help. Through this study, the affects on poor villagers and dock workers are clearly shown. The report contains a wealth of information. The draft version of this report has already proved to be a useful starting point for international experts and government personnel carrying out further investigations.

However, the purpose is not to go on investigating, but to assist the victims. It is hoped that this study will help to ensure that the needs of the poor villagers and dock workers will not be forgotten or overlooked.

This report was commissioned by the Environment Working Group of the NGO Forum on Cambodia. The NGO Forum on Cambodia is made up of local and international NGOs and exists to advocate issues of concern to the Cambodian people. The NGO investigation team was composed of two Environment Working Group members, Mak Sithirith and Vann Piseth, joined by Chheun Kun Cheat representing Star Kampuchea.

The authors wish to thank Redd Barna and CIDSE for funding their visit to Sihanoukville in order to do this investigation.

1. Background

Cambodia is one of the poorest countries in the world. The country has experienced many problems over the last two decades. The suffering has included war, civil war, genocide, human rights violations, AIDS and poverty. The poor are most affected by the above factors due to their rights not being protected.

The recent scandal of toxic waste is another example. The import of toxic wastes to Cambodia from Taiwan may have caused some deaths and resulted in wide-spread fear. Social unrest occurs as a result of anger and fear. This type of problem reflects the weakness of the government’s management and will continue to happen in the future if the government structures remain unchanged.

The waste has been dumped on the watershed areas about 14-15 km from Sihanoukville. The villagers living near the dumps and the dock workers are victims of the actions of powerful people. The safety of villagers and dock workers has not been ensured. Although it has been recognized that the situation is serious, villagers have not been prevented from being at risk by the authorities concerned. The existence of the toxic waste has had an impact not only people’s health and on the environment but also the local livelihoods. A quick response is needed to help the most vulnerable people.

2. Rationale of the Study

The issue of toxic waste has now been exposed, causing surprise at all levels of the community. Many people question how and why toxic waste was imported to Cambodia. Information given through the media, from both government and independent sources, has been somewhat limited. More detailed information is required. For this reason, concerned NGOs decided to carry out this study.

Cambodian firms often import goods that are second hand or of little value in other countries. They can gain high profits from local sale and from commissions given by the foreign companies. The same is true for the recent import of toxic wastes. The problem behind this is the impact these wastes may have on the environment and on people’s livelihood. The NGO team conducting this study was interested to find how the toxic waste affects the environment, the people and their livelihood. The study provides some information related to the imported waste and its impacts in Cambodia. The study will hopefully help those exploring the possibility of banning the future import of any toxic waste.

The NGO team was composed of two Environment Working Group members, Mak Sithirith and Vann Piseth, joined by Chheun Kun Cheat representing Star Kampuchea. The study intends to help fill some of the information gaps in order that concerned NGOs can take action. The result of the study will be a guide to what NGOs can do to help affected people.

3. Objectives

The main objective of the study is to conduct a preliminary investigation into the impact of toxic wastes on people and make recommendations for future action.

The specific objectives are:

to meet residents near dumping sites and port carriers who may be victims of toxic waste;

to meet with NGOs working in Sihanoukville;

to meet local authorities and concerned institutions; and

to study the impact of toxic waste on the environment, health, micro-economy and tourism, as reported by the residents and local organisations themselves.

4. Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study gathered secondary information from the media, newspapers and primary data from the field study in Sihanoukville. The main primary data was collected from villages surrounding the dumpsite, especially those villagers who emptied rubble out of the sacks and took the sacks away to make cots, to store rice or to pave local roads and paths. Primary data was also collected from the dock workers at the seaport of Sihanoukville.

The study did not cover all villages and villagers who were affected by the dumpsite but only selected people and sites. The study was conducted by the Environment Working Group of NGO Forum independently from other sources like government and newspapers. The technical issues related to the toxic waste such as identifying diseases and the testing of samples are not addressed. The issues of corruption and political scandals are not covered in our study. The study is concerned only with the impact of toxic waste on peoples' livelihoods, health and environment, as perceived by the people themselves. However, similarities in the reported symptoms of villagers and dock workers who became ill after exposure to the waste were noted.

The team met government officials and NGO staff in Sihanoukville in order to discuss toxic waste issues and the possibility of working together in the future. However, the meetings involved only a limited number of officials and NGOs due to limits of time and financial support. Another problem was that the study was done on an urgent basis over a short period of time. Christmas Day, Saturday and Sunday were days off for NGOs and government staff, which caused difficulty for our team to meet some people.

1. Data Collection

Data was gathered in three villages, Phou Theung, Chamnot Ream and Koki, which are located in the sub-district of Betrang, in the Prey Noub District of Sihanoukville. These three villages are nearby the dumpsite and some villagers were involved in emptying the rubble out of the sacks. Further data was collected at the seaport located in Sihanoukville town.

The data collection was carried out for four days from December 25 to 28, 1998. Two types of data were gathered; primary and secondary data. The main focus was on the primary data.

1.1 Primary Data

The primary data was gathered through group discussion, detailed interviews with key informants, questionnaires and direct observation in the chosen villages and in the seaport.

The interviews were conducted purposely, using the questionnaire shown in the Appendix. The numbers of respondents are presented in the Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Respondents of Primary Data Types of Respondents

Source: Field Survey, 1998

In addition, group discussions were held with groups of villagers, dock workers and monks in their respective locations. The group discussions were mainly focused on the impact of the toxic waste on their livelihoods.

Table 2.2 The Types of Interview Group

Source: Field Survey, 1998

1.2 Secondary Data

The secondary data was gathered through newspapers and some documents in both Khmer and English languages. The secondary data was mainly used to provide background information. It was also used to complement the primary data we collected in the field.

2. Data Analysis

This is a type of explorative research. Qualitative methods and description are used to analyze the data. As the sample of respondents was small, it is not suggested that the data has any statistical significance. However, it does intend to provide a means by which the voice of the poor villagers and dock workers can be heard.

1. The Import of Toxic Waste

About 3,000 tons of toxic waste was imported from Taiwan on November 30, 1998 and dumped four days later in Batrang Sub-district, Prey Nob District, Sihanoukville, about 15 kilometers from Sihanoukville town. The waste was contained in triple lined sacks bearing the skull and crossbones warning sign. The materials were labeled construction waste. The workers in the seaport and the villagers near the dumpsite were told that the waste was raw cement (mecimen). A sample of toxic waste has been sent to Hong Kong for analysis. The United Nations Development Program also assisted in sending a sample for analysis to Singapore. The source of these wastes was the Taiwanese petrochemical company Formosa Plastics.

Thai Army specialists, including nuclear scientists and chemists, came to examine the waste and concluded that there is no abnormal radiation. However, it is suspected that the waste contains hazardous materials such as lead, zinc and mercury. They have taken samples back to Thailand to test for chemical hazard.

The company strongly denied that the waste was toxic but admitted it contains traces of mercury. They claimed it had been certified by Taiwan's Environmental Protection Administration as well below hazardous levels and safe for landfill disposal. The question remains that if they thought this was not really hazardous why did they ship it to Cambodia at such a high cost? Even though the material is reported to be twenty years old, it is believed that the toxicity still remains. The Taiwanese government has called on the Cambodian government to launch an thorough inquiry, saying that it is "irrational" to blame Taiwan without sufficient evidence.

The waste was dumped in white garbage bags in an open area. Villagers went through the waste, scavenging some of the plastic bags to store rice and to make mats and cots, and took some pieces of waste to use as landfill because they were told that the waste was raw cement. No warning sign was displayed at the dumpsite.

The problem is that no landfill in Taiwan could take the waste in the face of protests by local opponents. Therefore, Cambodia is a target place that Taiwan could use unaccountably. The Cambodian government has appealed to international organizations with experience in environmental issues to help examine the waste. Prime Minister Hun Sen also appealed to the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and environment-related international organizations to provide Cambodia with facilities to protect against the waste.

The Cambodian Government ordered that the waste be sent back to Taiwan without waiting for the result of toxicology tests from Hong Kong and Singapore. On the other hand, Taiwan's environmental agency requested the Formosa Plastics company to take responsibility for returning the wastes to Taiwan.

2. Involvement of Institutions and Officials in Toxic Waste Import

The shipment was apparently approved by high officials. At least 100 people are believed to be involved in this case because it is not normal to import 3,000 tons of waste to a country. One unidentified high ranking official is said to have received US$ 300,000 in bribes. According to many newspapers, a US$3 million bribe had been paid to officials to allow the waste from Taiwan into Cambodia. The government blamed unidentified government officials and port authorities for letting the waste into the country.

According to the Raksmey Kampuchea newspaper, the government has said it will remove all officials involved in the import of the wastes. So far, more than 30 customs officials have been suspended, including the National Customs Director. Not only customs, but other institutions are suspected to be involved, such as KAM KONTROL, KAM SAB, the Economic Police and Port Authority.

The Cambodian import-export company, Muth Vuthy, was involved in the import of the toxic waste. The company had claimed to have imported raw cement (Me Siment) to be used for making crockery. The Ministry of Environment has complained to the Council of Ministers about the import of the waste saying that the involved officials must be brought to court. An Inter-Ministerial Committee was established to follow up the case.

The Taiwanese company, Formosa Plastics, that sent the waste said it had obtained permits from Taiwanese and Cambodian authorities. Customs officials and some officials from KAMSAB and KAM KONTROL, who faced public condemnation for allegedly allowing the waste into the country, have fled their homes and offices with their families.

In Sihanoukville, more than 1,000 protesters sacked the offices of local authorities who allegedly allowed the wastes to be imported. Ten demonstrators were subsequently arrested, as were two workers from the human rights group Licadho who were accused of inciting the demonstrators. At the dumpsite, about 60 demonstrators marched on district offices near where the waste was dumped.

3. Law related Issues

Legal action is expected. Government leaders have promised that those responsible will be brought to trial according to law. It has now been found that the shipment had been approved by both Taiwanese and Cambodian authorities and was inspected on its arrival in Cambodia on November 30. Cambodian authorities have already arrested the head of the local company, Muth Vuthy.

In Taiwan, the Taiwanese petrochemical company Formosa Plastics has been fined only US$ 1000 for exporting the waste to Cambodia. However, the company may face further legal action. If Cambodia proves that the waste is toxic and entered Cambodia illegally, the Taiwanese government has promised to impose a stiffer fine and to ask Formosa Plastics to retrieve the waste.

Mok Mareth, Minister of Environment, expressed concern that the toxic waste may affect the environment. According to him, Cambodian environmental law has defined clearly that even if the waste did not have harmful effects or was not toxic, the import of waste is not allowed. The Cambodian environmental law strongly bans the import of toxic waste to Cambodia. The Cambodian government threatened to suspend any government official who was found to be involved in importing toxic waste from Taiwan. Those who are involved in the matter will have to face the courts. Prime Minister Hun Sen described the import of toxic waste to Cambodia as heavier than the bombardment that United States fired into Iraq! He said Cambodia has banned importation of wastes into the country since 1990.

Mok Mareth has also explained that the import or export the waste from one country to another is banned by an international treaty [although neither Cambodia nor Taiwan are signatories]. Nevertheless, according to Taiwanese law, the import of waste to another country is not permitted. The current situation, in which a Taiwanese company has spent lots of money to bring waste to dump in Cambodia, is extremely unusual. Considering that the law of both Taiwan and Cambodia forbid the import of waste to Cambodia, corruption must be involved.

However, according to Ira Dassa, former legal advisor to the National Assembly the 1996 Law on Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management does not, in fact, prevent the import of toxic waste. What the law does is call for a sub-decree on the prevention, reduction and control of air, water and land pollution. But until a sub-decree is issued, no industrial practices, including importation and disposal of toxic waste, are indictable.

4. Result of Toxic Waste Analyses

Initial test results conducted in Singapore show that the waste is highly toxic. Three preliminary analyses of a soil sample from the site show a mercury content of 675 parts per million, which far exceeds safety standards. The environmental NGO, Green Formosa, advised that the safety standards in Taiwan require mercury levels to be under 0.2 parts per million. Additional testing is being conducted in Thailand and Hong Kong.

The second test conducted in Japan has also judged a sample of the mercury-tainted waste dumped near Sihanoukville to be highly toxic. Five soil samples taken at the site showed a mercury content ranging from 97 parts per million to 3,984 parts per million. While a range of toxicity levels were found, in all cases the toxicity was high compared to normal safety standards.

Although there are differences in the results of the tests done in Singapore and Japan, both tests show the waste to be highly toxic. The waste is widespread in the water, soil and possibly the air. This has not been made clear to the public nor has the possible present and future affects on people been explained. The most vulnerable people are the poor, especially the villagers living in the villages nearby the dumpsite and the dock workers who carried the waste. The impact of toxic waste on these people has not been on the agenda. Therefore, the NGO team focused its study on the impact on the poor, as perceived by the poor villagers and dock workers themselves. The study covered the perceived impacts to livelihoods, health, economy and environment of the poor villagers.

1. Livelihood Impacts

All respondents that the team interviewed said that they had not known that the waste, which arrived in Cambodia on 30 November, contained high toxicity. All villagers and port workers that the team interviewed are poor and from subsistence families. At both the seaport and at the dump site, people were told that the waste was raw cement (Me Siment). They were told that the waste was imported as raw material for the making of crockery. People were told that a crockery factory would be built sooner or later and would provide employment to the surrounding villagers.

At the dumpsite, many people at first wondered why, if it is raw cement, they let people take and damage the bags of cement. People said that the dumpsite was not guarded. Villagers therefore went there to gather the bags and take some rubble home to fill the ground. People spread rumors about raw cement from one to another and finally many villagers went there. Most of those who went to the dumpsite and collected the sacks are poor. They expected to find some materials like sacks to store rice, make mats and cots and to fulfill other needs. Most of the respondents expressed that they had not known the waste is toxic. All respondents from the villages said they found out that the waste is toxic only after they heard radio broadcasts or after people from Sihanoukville told them. The dock workers said they first heard this information either from the radio or from villagers at the dumpsite. Similarly, the two officials said they knew only from the radio.

The fear of toxicity intensified following repeated broadcasts on radio. Demonstrations occurred to protest the import of toxic wastes. About 1,000 protestors sacked the offices of the officials who were suspected of being responsible. Demonstrators damaged a KAMSAP-owned hotel where the KAMSAP office is located because they suspected that KAMSAP officials were involved in the toxic waste importation. The fear has doubled compared to the first days. According to Reuters, some 30% of residents of Sihanoukville town have left the area because they are worried about the toxic waste. Some even believed it may be radioactive.

Table 4.1 Percentage of families who moved out and did not move out

Among the respondents, 13% moved families out, 78% did not move and 12% moved only some of their family members. Some people could not move out because they are poor and have no clear destination. If they move, they will lose their jobs or their property will be stolen. Villagers at this time are busy with their harvest so that they cannot leave their rice field behind. Another perception is that it is already too late to move out because they have touched the waste already. They feel that they are the victims of other people’s action. Corrupt officials may have benefited from the waste, but villagers were victimized by the waste. The people who can move their families are generally those who are better off. The percentage of families that did not move is high. But the fact that people did not move does not mean they have the means to protect themselves.

In Sihanoukville town, most of the people are better off and play a key role in daily business. These people reacted quickly to the situation. However, the surrounding villages are poor and make their living by supplying fish, charcoal, fuelwood, and vegetables to the markets. Since many people fled the city, the demand for daily supplies has decreased and the market sellers' income has also reduced by 20-30%. However, people at the dumpsite received new customers for their produce when military personnel came to begin clearing up the waste. The port workers receive monthly wages, so in the short term there has been no impact on their livelihoods.

About 91% of the total respondents expressed that they did not get any support in terms of food, protective materials, medicine or care from the government, NGOs or businessmen. But 9% of total respondents did get some assistance in the form of drugs. All of these respondents were workers at the port in Sihanoukville, who received drugs mainly from the clinic in the port.

Table 4.2 People’s Perception of the Need for Compensation

Source: Field Survey, 1998

About 74% of the respondents requested compensation. 17% did not seek compensation and 9% did not even say. Among the people requesting compensation, 82% of respondents requested compensation from both the Taiwanese company and the local company involved because both companies caused the situation. The other 18% said that the government must compensate the victims. If the government was concerned about people, they claimed, the waste would not have been imported to Cambodia.

There are three types of compensation requested by the people. About 47% of respondents requested compensation in the form of money in order to use this money to buy drugs and improve business. Another 12% requested compensation in the form of medicines for their health. 41% of respondents requested money and medicine. They expressed that any compensation payments made by the Taiwanese and local companies must be used to compensate the victims.

The schools near the dumpsite and in the city were closed. According to all the respondents, their children were not going to school because they feared the toxic waste. Some teachers live far away from the school and are not willing to come to the area. In Batrang sub-district, the school is located just 1200 meters from the dumpsite, so the fear remains deep in their hearts. However, in town, although the schools are not close to the dump site, the schools are still not open. The children did not go to school due to fear. In some cases, the children and their families had moved out of the area. In the villages, some children were also involved in collection of sacks and are now sick.

2. Impact on Health

So far, two people exposed to the toxic waste have died: one in Koki village and a port worker. The Ministry of Health reported five other dock workers to be seriously sick. In the three villages, there are also people who got sick but the team could not identify how serious their sickness was. The villagers said that they became sick after they went to empty the rubble out of the sacks.

Both people died following acute vomiting and thirst. At first they felt tired, exhausted and then vomited. The one who lived and died in the village was bleeding through the nose. The team cannot prove the death was due to toxic waste but the team just compared the symptoms of the two cases and found similarities.

Dr. Sok Pheng, from the Sihanoukville hospital that treated the dock worker, told the public on television that the death of the dock worker had no connection to the waste. In tests requested by the World Health Organization (WHO) and performed by the Minamata Institute in Japan, the blood and urine of nine dock workers and five soldiers who had complained of sickness after contact with the waste show only normal levels of mercury. However, WHO has since confirmed their symptoms may be caused by other contents of the waste.

The NGO team collected further information that strongly suggests a link between the waste and the illness of villagers and dock workers. According to the sub-district official, 139 villagers went and took sacks and waste to their houses and it is believed that their health has been affected. In Phou Theung village, 41 people were reported to have collected the sacks and wastes. There were no data directly available from the other two villages on the number of people involved, but we have no reason to doubt the overall figures given by the sub-district official.

Table 4.3 presents a comparative study of symptoms of affected people in both the villages and at the port. At village levels, 75% of respondents went to gather sacks from the dumpsite. These people are reported to be sick. Although some of them are not seriously ill, they felt weak and exhausted after they went to gather sacks from the dumpsite.

At the seaport, there are 8 teams of dock workers (kong). Each team consisted of 39 workers. The respondents said that every team was involved in loading the waste into trucks. Thus, it is obvious that the waste could affect all port workers. However, team number 6 was required to clean up the ship, which gave them more exposure than the other teams. The finding shows that all the people who have been seriously sick or who have died are from team number 6.

Table 4.3 The comparative study of symptoms by locations

Source: Field Survey, 1998

The study shows that the symptoms of the villagers and dock workers who were sick are similar. 76% of the affected respondents said they never have had such sickness before. They became sick as described only after they came in direct contact with the waste at the seaport or at the dumpsite. A further 12% of the respondents said that they have had these kind of symptoms before, like diarrhea, cough, and so on, but in a different way to what they are experiencing now. 12% of others did not say anything about how they felt.

The interesting thing is that dock workers and villagers were not initially aware that their sickness may have been because of the waste. However, two cases that triggered this issue for our team. were the deaths of two pigs and many rats in Phou Theung and Chham Notream villages. The pigs died after rooting in the pile of rubble wastes that the pig owner had gathered from the dumpsite. The owner did not say whether he sold the pork! The rats died after nibbling the pile of sacks that another family had kept inside their house. Later, they realized that the waste must contain some poisonous elements that had killed the rats. The children in this house also became sick after playing with the sacks. So, based on these experiences, the villagers came to the conclusion that the people had died or got sick because of the toxic wastes.

Table 4.4 shows that a high percentage of people used drugs to cure their illness without seeking clinical advice. However, the port carriers sought clinical advice more than villagers.

The affected respondents who treated themselves without advice say it is because they do not have enough money. Buying drugs and using them is the best cheapest way, and what they always do when they become sick. The people who approached the clinics are mostly better off. Some people in the villages use herbal medicines such as Rainsap to cure the diseases, especially those did not have enough money to buy drugs.

Table 4.4 The Types of Treatment

Source: Field Survey, 1998

At present, villagers and dock workers are facing health problems and it is possible that in the future more and more people will face health problems. If the water and soil is contaminated then, of course, people will be in real danger.

About 600 soldiers were involved in the cleaning up program. Although they were given protective clothing, some did not perform their duty according to regulation. They seem to have had careless attitudes during working times. As the weather is hot in the afternoon, some soldiers took off the clothing. When they come to stay in the temple near the village, their unwashed clothes may also spread contamination. Therefore, the wastes still exist around the dumpsite.

3. Economic Impact

Most villagers are farmers. They supplement their incomes through fishing, cutting timber in the forest and selling products in the villages. Most of the farmers sold their lands to companies. At present, they hire land back from the companies to farm and pay 20-30% of their harvest in rent.

Table 4.5 Types of Activities for Villagers

Source: Field Survey, 1998

From Table 4.5, we see that 25% of respondents supplement their income by fishing, 12% by making charcoal and wood for sale, and 44% by having small business in the villages or by being moto-taxi drivers.

Ever since the waste was imported and dumped in Sihanoukville, people have been afraid of the toxic waste, and this has had direct and indirect impacts on their day to day business. The direct impact is that the dock workers and villagers who were sick have used their limited earnings to buy medicines. Some families chose to leave home for Phnom Penh and other places. This has caused them to stop their family businesses for a while. Those who were sick could not do their business effectively.

The indirect impact is that the level of activity in markets in both Sihanouk and Smat Deng has slowed down. There are fewer buyers and sellers. People are scared to buy seafood because they suspect that more wastes were dumped in offshore. As people in the villages also fish for a living, the decrease in the price of shrimp and fish adversely affected their living condition. Their income from fishing declined 30% to 40% a day. In contrast, the sellers and moto-taxi drivers in the villages near the dumpsite earned more than before because of the military deployed there to clean up the waste. Each soldier received 20,000 riel per day from the government. They probably spent 5,000 to 10,000 riel a day. The people who cut the forest to make a living stopped doing this because the road in the area of the dumpsite was closed and they were afraid to cross the area.

The number of tourists has also declined rapidly. People said that during the Christmas period more tourists were expected, but ever since rumors began to spread about the waste dumped in Sihanoukville, only a few went there. The sharp decline in tourists has had an impact on small to medium scale businesses. The team was told that the number of tourists accommodated in hotels had reduced by two to three times compared to the same time of year in previous years.

The toxic waste affected the whole area of Sihanoukville. All types of people (rich, poor, middle class, business folk, government employees etc.) were affected by the waste dumped inSihanoukville. But the poorest people, especially those living in the villages, and the dock workers are those most affected from the toxic wastes.

4. Environmental Impact

As previously mentioned, the dumpsite is located in the upland in Betrang Sub-district, Prey Noub District, Sihanoukville, which is about 14 kilometers from Sihanoukville town. The estimated size of the dumpsite is 70 x 60 meters squared. It is located just 1200 to 1500 meters from the nearest villages. The waste was dumped in a watershed area. This place was never used for dumping wastes before. None of the villager respondents knew who decided to dump the waste in this area. People were never consulted before the waste was dumped.

Previously, the military owned this land, but the land had since been sold to a local company. Three villager respondents were able to name the owners of the land. They believed that there must be a deal between the owners of the land and the company that imported the waste, otherwise the owners would not have allowed the dumping of the waste there.

The waste was dumped about one kilometer from a much used water source, and just 500 metres from Highway 4. The waste was dumped on high land from which it could easily wash downstream after heavy rains. There had been heavy raining two or three days after the waste was dumped in the area. People in the area believe that the rain caused some waste to wash downstream to fill the stream in the low lands. The main water sources that the villagers use originate from underground. If the waste has absorbed into the ground and entered the underground water sources, it will be dangerous for a long time.

On the eastern side of the dump, there is a river and a stream called Stung Tuksap and Phou Theung respectively. The Phou Theung stream provides water for some of the villagers in the upper part of Phou Theung. The stream is situated very close to the dumpsite and people strongly believe that the stream could be contaminated by the toxic waste. Yet, people in the upper part of Phou Theung village still use the stream water for multiple purposes.

There are also some small springs near the dump side. People said that, after they emptied the waste out of the sacks, they washed the sacks and their bodies in the springs. Some were reported to drink the water from these springs. In addition to that, some cleaned the sacks at the well in the village. Therefore, the fear of toxic waste contaminating the water is high.

The villagers said that to their knowledge no one had yet come to test the villagers’ water sources to confirm that the water is free of toxic waste.

Table 4.6 shows how people felt about the water quality. Among the respondents, who included one monk and an environmental official, 44% expressed that water could contain toxic substances if they looked back at what has happened and consider the geography of the area. A further 44% of respondents said they do not know yet because so far they still use the water and nothing has happened to them and their families. Similarly, 11% of respondents claimed that the water is free of toxic substances, but did not really substantiate their claim. They just explained that they did not see any changes at the moment.

Table 4.6 People Perception of Waste Impact on Water at the dumpsite

Source: Field Survey, 1998

The rice fields lie on the lowlands. The rainwater enters the lowland from the upland. If the water contains mercury and other toxic elements, it will affect the rice lands. We do not know how the toxic waste will affect the rice cultivation and the crop plantation.

From our observation, the wastes remain around the dumpsite. Some waste was thrown in the water and some was taken into the villages. Although the authorities persuaded villagers to bring the waste back, not all of it has been returned the dumpsite.

Most of the respondents believe that the toxic elements like mercury will absorb into the soils. Absorption will probably be rapid in the rainy season. The rainfall will speed up the absorption process and further affect the underground water.

At the moment, the clean up team is intensifying the collection process. Tools and machines have been used for speeding up the cleaning operation. Bulldozers and trucks move around to gather and put the waste into drums and containers. As a result, the dust flies around into the air. Therefore, the air in area surrounding the dump site may be polluted by the waste.

1. Concluding Remarks

From what we were told during our investigation, this import of waste to Cambodia may not be the first time, but could be the third or fourth time already. The dumpsites of waste may be in more than three places. The fear resulting from the dumping of toxic wastes remains deep among the people. The wastes contain high toxicity, which is a hazard to health. The result of the test shows that it has a mercury content of at least 675 parts per million, which highly exceeds safety standards. Normal safety standards require mercury levels to be under 0.2 parts per million.

The import of toxic waste is an illegal action, in violation of the environmental law of the Kingdom of Cambodia. However, the gap in the law remains wide. What the law does is call for a sub-decree on the prevention, reduction and control of air, water and land pollution. But until a sub-decree is issued, no industrial practices, including the importation and disposal of toxic waste, are indictable under Cambodian law.

The poor are the victims of this illegal import of waste by corrupt officials and private companies, both Taiwanese and Cambodian. Corruption is the root cause of the import of toxic wastes and causes disturbance to the society across the whole kingdom. The poor are at the front edge, and the impacts hurt them before any other types of people in the society. They did not benefit, but suffered from this event. Measures to rescue the victims from risk have not been put in place. About 139 villagers gathered the sacks from the dumpsite, and we have good reason to believe the health or these villagers and their families has been affected. These people need help immediately.

The result of blood and urine tests of dock workers and soldiers who were sick really surprises many people. But the World Health Organization has since explained that their complaints may be caused by contents of the waste other than mercury. Further testing on the contents of the waste is needed, including checking for the existence of dioxin.

Although the government did take action to clean up the waste, some rubble still remains. Some wastes were thrown into the water or were taken to the villages. The rubble at the dumpsite will remain in the soil invisibly, despite the clean up.

Measures to assist the victims have not been applied, nor planned. So far, no organization has gone to help people there. However, the victims must be compensated for present and future impacts. Any compensation received from local and Taiwanese companies must be used for the victims and reach the victims.

2. Recommendations

· Immediate help in terms of health care must be started soon. Preventive measures need to be taken to help victims avoiding future risk.

· Set up of a committee of NGOs which will work out strategies for future help to the victims.

· Network with NGOs in Sihanoukville on toxic waste issues must be strengthened.

· Follow up possible means of compensation for affected villagers and dock workers.

· Further study of toxic wastes and its impacts should be conducted.

· A workshop or public debate on toxic waste should be organized. The concerned government ministries and other agencies should be invited to participate and share common concerns about the import of toxic waste and how to avoid it in the future.

· Encourage the government to issue a sub-degree on the prevention, reduction and control of air, water and land pollution and to sign the Basel Convention, which bans the import of toxic wastes, as soon as possible.

· Encourage public support and pressure for the banning of toxic waste imports.

REFFERENCE

Name: --------------------------, Sex:-------, Village:-----------------, Commune:---------------

dependents:-------------------------------------

1. Livelihood and Social Issues

· Did you know beforehand that the toxic waste would arrive?---------------

I did'nt know ( ) I did know ( )

· How many people were affected by the toxic waste?-----------------------

· What kinds of affect?-----------------------------------------------

· Where are affect people?-----------------------------------------

· Do you know how many people were displaced?-------------------------------------

· Who has supported them to redress the affects?

Government ( ), NGO ( ), Nobody ( )

· What kind of support?

Financial support ( ), Food support ( ), Material support ( )

· Can you describe what change has occurred ?------------------------------------------------

· Do you fear this toxic waste?---------------------------------------------, Why---------------

· Do you have any suggestion to combat this problem?---------------------------------------

· To whom do you wish to make your suggestion?--------------------------------------------

· Do you expect compensation? Yes: No:

· Why do you need compensation?---------------------------------------------------

· From whom do you need compensation? Government ( ), Company ( )

· What kind of compensation do you request?

Land ( ), Business ( ), Money ( )

· Is your child going to school? Yes: No:

If no, why--------------------------------

· We hear that many people moved out of their residence. Why didn't you move?--------

· Do you have protected tools from toxic waste? Yes: No:

· Will the social situation improve in future?---------------------------------------------------

2. Business

· What is your business?--------------------------------------------------------------------------

· Where do you do your business? --------------------------------------------------------------

· How far from the dump site is the nearest market?------------------------------------------

· How does toxic waste affects your business?------------------------------------------------

· Does the toxic waste affect only the nearby market place or the whole area of Sihanoukville?

· Please tell use what factors have made your business slow down?

Fewer buyers ( )

People have fear of eating the food ( )

Fewer visitors ( )

Others ( )

· How much do you earn daily, at present and before?----------------------------------------- Why?

· Since your business has been disturbed, how has it had an impact on your family condition?

· Can you say what types of people are most affected by the toxic waste issues?

Rich people ( )

Poor people ( ),

Poorest people ( )

Medium ( )

Business people ( )

Government employee ( )

· Do you expect your business will be improved if they remove the toxic waste?

Yes: No:

Why?---------------------------------

· Does toxic waste affect only your family business or other people’s business as well?

Only my family ( )

All ( )

· Is there any increase of tourists coming to visit here?--------------------

3. Health

· What kind of disease occurred as a result of toxic dumping here?

· Have these kinds of diseases been had here before?

Yes ( ), No ( )

· How long did it take for people to realize that these diseases are because of the toxic waste that is dumped nearby there?

· Did you come to know about these diseases from the people here? Or who told you that these diseases are because of toxic waste?

· Can you tell us about the symptoms of the diseases?

· How did people get sick?

By touching the waste ( )

By drinking contaminated water ( )

By eating food ( )

· How many people have got sick so far and how many already died from the toxic waste?

· What kind of treatment has been carried out? --------------------------------------------

· Who did treatment?-------------------------------------------------

· Where do you treat this disease? Do you pay for the treatment?

If yes, how much?----------------- If no, why-------------------------

· Who brought them to be treated? ----------------------------------------------

· Does this toxic waste also affect your animals? -----------, your food?------------------

4. Environment

· Is the dumpsite located on high land or low land?

· How big is the dumpsite?

· Was this place used as a dumpsite before, or just used now?

· Who decided to use this place as a dumpsite?

· Did they consult the people before using this land as a dumpsite?

· Have they managed the dumpsite?

· For your opinion, can the toxic waste flow to the downstream area?

· Is the water contaminated? Yes: No:

· How far is it from the dumpsite to the water sources?-----------, to the villages:--------,

to the military camp:------------, to the main road:-------------- to Sihanoukville-------------

· Do people have wells for safe drinking water?

· Have you seen the fish die in the nearby water source?

· Do people buy or eat fish from this water source?

· Do you still use the water there? , ----- --If yes, why? --------------------------------

If no, why?-----------------------------------------and where do you take water for drink------

· What type of land-use existed here before?Agricultural land( ) Forest land ( )Pasture ( )

· Does the toxic waste affect soil also? ------------------, why?----------------

and whose lands are under dump site?-----------------------------------------------------------

· If the toxic has a long term affect on the land and water, will you still stay in this place

or will you move? -------------------------------------------------------------------

· Do you observe the toxic affects in your rice?---------------------, crops?-----------------

and plants?-------------------------------------------------------------------------

· How is the air quality? Please describe:-----------------------------------------------------

[BACK]   [HOME PAGE]