Large-scale hydropower development has created enormous social and ecological problems in many countries. Cambodia, the downstream neighbor to Vietnam and Laos for three major Mekong tributaries, is already experiencing a range of costly and uncompensated impacts in the northeast from upstream hydropower activity. Planned and operating foreign dams with potential or current cross-border impacts on Cambodia are too numerous to list in full, but they include Vietnam’s 720-MW Yali Falls and 330-MW Sesan 4, as well as Laos’s 300-MW Xekamen. A number of projects are also in the early planning stages within Cambodia. Throughout the Lower Mekong Region, hydropower development is accelerating.
As countries, including Cambodia, move to exploit the Mekong River Basin’s hydropower potential, the challenges posed by such development will mount. In neighboring Thailand, the Pak Mun Dam destroyed fisheries and local livelihoods until prolonged popular protest led to its partial decommissioning. Besides disrupting fisheries, large dams can make river flow unpredictable for downstream communities (causing drownings, lost property, and reduced riverbank agriculture), impact water quality (with potential health affects), and alter natural flooding. Indigenous Cambodian communities, who live downstream from the Yali Falls Dam on the Se San River, already suffer from such impacts and have had their livelihoods harmed accordingly. “After the construction of the dams, the fish have disappeared … Now the river is unusual. The river can be so dry one day and rise … the next day. It is unpredictable,” explained Mrs. Nuan Moum, Pong Village, Ratanakiri Province (quoted in Watershed, June 2005). Beyond downstream impacts, large dams are traditionally sites of corruption with hidden costs and unrealistic projected benefits, especially when the planning process lacks public participation and transparency.
The Royal Government committed itself to strong regional water governance when it joined the 1995 Mekong River Agreement, and subsequent actions, such as the sub-decree on Environmental Impact Assessments Process (EIA) and the “5 Solutions” negotiated with Vietnam in 2000, were also positive. Cambodian NGOs have worked with local communities for over five years to document cross-border hydropower impacts and raise villager concerns with the government, the Mekong River Commission (MRC), and other stakeholders, but this dialogue has not translated into effective action and results.
We have the following main concerns:
1. Availability of information could be significantly better and could include greater public participation.
EIAs produced for cross-border dams continually fail to consider complete downstream impacts and are not provided in a timely manner, such that many stakeholders are unable to participate in the planning process. While Electricity of Vietnam, with assistance from Nordic consultants, is conducting cross-border Se San and Sre Pok River impact studies, which are supposed to include recommendations for mitigation, Cambodian stakeholders have not had access to the consultants’ recommendations, nor has a neutral forum or third-party oversight been made available to ensure the representation of Cambodian viewpoints.
The government has taken few steps to ensure that diverse stakeholder information is included in the hydro development process, though there has been preliminary work made towards setting transboundary EIA guidelines through the MRC. When information on hydropower planning and operation is provided to the Cambodian government, it is often difficult for NGOs and affected-communities to gain access.
For downstream communities in particular, once dams begin operating, vital information, such as notification for dam-related water releases, is given insufficiently.
2. Government and donors could dramatically improve how villager complaints concerning cross-border hydropower impacts are considered and addressed.
In the late 1990s, Se San communities began reporting problems with the river linked to upstream hydropower construction and operation. In a series of thumb-printed petitions to the government, villagers have made requests including: restoring the natural flow of the river; suspending further dam construction until current impacts are addressed; compensation for past and current harms; improved notification on water-releases; involvement in the planning process; and life insurance for future impacts and potential dam breakages.
To date, these concerns remain insufficiently addressed. Although there have been recent MRC-led water quality and hydrodynamic modeling studies, there has been little assessment and no specific compensation for past and current harms, even when such harms have been officially acknowledged. International donor agencies and Mekong governments continue to advance hydro development along these rivers without seeking consent from or providing compensation to downstream villagers.
3. Government and donors could promote compliance with existing laws and guidelines and also strengthen regulatory bodies.
A framework already exists for cross-border and domestic hydropower development with the MRC, and that body has approved requirements for public participation in project planning. Additionally, Cambodia’s and Vietnam’s own domestic laws prescribe EIAs that are in compliance with international best practices. National bodies such as the Cambodian National Mekong Committee and the Standing Committee that coordinates border dams are specifically tasked with overseeing hydropower development affecting Cambodia within the Mekong Basin and along the borders, respectively. Despite these safeguards, large dam projects advance without complying.
4. Government and donors should recognize that hydropower development is likely to compromise food security and have impacts beyond individual rivers.
Extensive hydropower development throughout the Mekong Basin will inevitably affect the hydrological cycle of the Mekong River to an as of yet unevaluated degree. The Tonle Sap Lake’s fisheries productivity is known to be directly linked to the Mekong River’s flood cycle (see Van Zalinge et al., 2000), in that fish production is a function of the amount of area of flooded forest submerged by the annual flood together with the length of time of inundation. Damming along the Mekong will ‘flatten’ out the flood cycle, leading to less extensive flooding during the rainy season and higher water levels during the dry season. Were fish stocks of the Tonle Sap Lake to decrease, and taking account that the Lake’s ecosystem is already exhibiting signs of stress from intensive fishing activity, this will have a serious, potentially catastrophic, impact on Cambodia’s food security. The fisheries of Tonle Sap Lake have been estimated to provide between 40 and 70% of the Cambodian population’s protein intake.
In light of these conclusions and in order to strengthen commitments to poverty reduction, sustainable development, and public participation in governance, we the Cambodian NGOs call upon government and international donors to take the following actions:
1. Access to information and public participation
2. Addressing villager concerns
3. Strengthen compliance and regulatory bodies
4. Broader issues
For more information on the issues raised in this paper, please contact:
NGO Forum on Cambodia, Tel: 023 994 063, Email: ngoforum@ngoforum.org.kh
Culture and Environment Preservation Association (CEPA), Tel: 023 881 613, Email: cepa@cepa-cambodia.org
Sesan, Sre Pok and Sekong Protection Network (3SPN), Tel: 011 942 621, Email: sesan@camintel.com
[TOP]