"Development is for other people"
Zhang Hong, Caixin
September 15, 2011
Fishermen and rice farmers in Cambodia's Ratanakiri province don't want
dams, electricity or even compensation, argues Zhang Hong. They just
want to preserve their way of life.
In the Cambodian province of Ratanakiri ï¿½ bordering Vietnam to the east
and Laos to the north ï¿½ local people are fighting to protect their
rivers from hydroelectric dams, and their lifestyles from disruption. In
early August, I spent two days in Ratanakiri at the invitation of 3SPN,
a local NGO focused on the "three Ss": Srepok, Sesan and Sekong, all
tributaries of the mighty Mekong.
Founded by Cambodians, 3SPN aims to bring together communities in this
north-eastern region of Cambodia to campaign for the rivers and the
livelihoods that depend on them. Joining me on the trip were journalists
from Hong Kong, Vietnam and Korea ï¿½ all home to companies that have
built or are planning to build hydroelectric dams here. 3SPN wanted to
show these reporters the impact dam construction has on local lives.
On our first day in Ratanakiri, we travelled to the village of Thmey,
outside the provincial capital of Banlung. Lying on the Srepok River,
Thmey has neither electricity nor running water. The village is home to
899 people, divided between 178 households. It has four television sets
and a collection of radios ï¿½ some of the richer families have small
generators to provide electricity.
Through a translator, village head Sela Ratha told us that people here
mostly make a living through fishing and rice farming. Any surplus fish
can be sold and the income used to buy new fishing equipment or other
Downstream Cambodia is often affected by dams built beyond its borders.
Even if upstream nations carry out environmental and social impact
assessments on their dams, they rarely consider what will happen over
the border, much less provide compensation for people living there.
Several years ago, Vietnam built a dam on the Srepok, which the fishing
communities of Thmey say has made their lives more difficult.
The villagers complain that the dam causes unpredictable changes in
water level ï¿½ meaning their nets are never in the right place. They set
the nets up, then come back the next day to find that theyï¿½re hanging
above the water or are completely submerged, or even that they have been
swept away. Via the village head, they have asked the Vietnamese to keep
them informed about their dam operations, but by the time they get the
phone call, the flood peak has already passed.
The dams also block the path of migrating fish. In the past, a 100-metre
net could catch 20 kilograms of fish in an evening. Now, it's only two
or three kilograms. Water quality has also declined, as vegetation
submerged by the dam waters rots. Reduced flows have also increased
sedimentation, and the Srepok is turning into another "Yellow River"
(which contains more sediment than any other river in the world).
The villagers know thereï¿½s not much that can be done about the dams
Vietnam has already built ï¿½ they are more worried about one due to be
constructed right next door. At the end of last year, a team of Chinese
workers suddenly appeared and started drilling bore holes in the rice
fields by the river. Their translator told the locals that they were
carrying out a geological survey as part of proposals to build a dam.
The villagers say they were never informed about the project, let alone
consulted. Even the village authorities didnï¿½t know about it.
With help from local NGOs, the villagers found out that, in 2008, the
Cambodian government signed a memorandum of understanding with Guangxi
Guiguan Electric Power on the construction of two hydropower dams on the
Srepok River, with generating capacity initially planned at 300
megawatts and 100 megawatts respectively.
"We donï¿½t want dams," a villager told me. On January 11 this year, they
put this message in writing to the village and district governments ï¿½
but have received no response.
Is it really true they don't want dams under any conditions? Although I
knew the villagers had strong objections to dam development, I thought
that they would be asking for reasonable compensation and minimisation
of the environmental and social impacts, for talks and hearings ï¿½ I
didn't expect their attitude to be so absolute.
The first reason the villagers give is this: they donï¿½t want
electricity, nor do they want hydroelectric dams. What use is
electricity to this primitive fishing and farming village? Even if they
wanted it, neither the government nor the company plans to give it to
them ï¿½ there's no distribution network. The power from the dam will go
to industry in Phnom Penh, Cambodiaï¿½s capital, or be exported to
Vietnam. The locals will pay with their homes, but get nothing in return.
What if the government gives them adequate compensation? The villagers
answer that they might get a one-off payment, but that wonï¿½t help their
children and grandchildren. The dam will flood fields and fishing will
be even harder. With no livelihoods, what use will the money be? The
villagers also feel certain the government and the Chinese company will
not be generous: they didn't tell the locals about the agreement with
the electricity company or the feasibility study, so itï¿½s clear that
they donï¿½t see any need to consider them.
The villagers also report that, this year, the government leased a
nearby parcel of land to a Cambodian company to use as a rubber
plantation. That land included some of their rice fields, but no
compensation was paid. Events like this are common in Cambodia, and the
villagers are worried they will keep happening.
I asked people here if they would be prepared to go and work for that
company ï¿½ itï¿½s a job, after all. The response was a forceful "No!" The
translator summed it up: "They would rather work for themselves."
As in many parts of the world, villagers are facing modern realities of
land acquisitions by private companies and have no choice but to sell
their labour on the open market.
I started to understand why, to the people of Thmey, development isn't a
priority ï¿½ for them, development is something for other people; they
donï¿½t get anything out of it.
The next day, we went to Padal Thom, near the border with Vietnam. This
is a Jarai village, with a population of 552, living in 103 households.
The people here are even poorer, and even more dependent on fishing than
in Thmey. The village used to get everything they needed from the Sesan
River, but Vietnam has built five dams upstream and there are no longer
enough fish ï¿½ when thereï¿½s not enough to eat, the villagers have to take
a one hour motorbike ride to the border with Vietnam to buy more. When
Typhoon Ketsana struck in 2009, the Sesan River experienced a rare
flood, which carried away the villageï¿½s livestock and poultry. The
villagers believe the size of the flood is related to the dams upstream.
The villagers here are equally firm: no dams, even if there is compensation.
These people live in a "pre-capitalist" era, and are accustomed to
traditional farming and simple living. They think their descendants can
maintain the same lifestyle and see nothing wrong with it.
The Jarai are animists, and that's another reason they donï¿½t want to
move ï¿½ this is the place where generations have made sacrifices to the
gods and their ancestors, and they need to stay within its protection.
Some might call this "ignorant", even ï¿½backwardï¿½. But who are we to say
the lifestyles others choose aren't as good as ours, or that we must
"help" by giving them "more advanced" ways of working and living? Surely
that's the same attitude adopted by Europeans arriving in Africa and
Asia in the nineteenth century.
I tried to look at it from the point of view of the government and
investors: without industry, Cambodia will always be at the end of the
global value chain ï¿½ and, with less than ideal energy resources,
hydropower is the only way out. Thereï¿½s no alternative but to sacrifice
the interests of a few for the sake of the many.
But, in this case, do the benefits for the many really outweigh the
costs for the few ï¿½ including the environmental costs and future risks
that havenï¿½t been calculated? Iï¿½m not sure, but I know that for these
villagers who know nothing but farming and fishing, relocation might
mean hunger and disease. Have the many thought how to repay the few?
Have the Chinese companies, who think all they need to do is reach a
deal with the Cambodian government, heard their pleas?
A Cambodian working for an international research institution, told me
that there are good dams and bad dams. The World Commission on Dams has
a set of detailed guidelines: if you follow these closely, you can
maximise the benefits and reduce the negative impact. But those
guidelines arenï¿½t compulsory, and many nations, especially developing
nations, donï¿½t use them in their own projects. Even in the European
Union and United States, where they are followed, new issues often arise
after construction, and dams remain controversial.
So is the villagers' stance ï¿½ no dams at all ï¿½ too extreme?
"It's because they donï¿½t have very good information," said the NGO
worker. "Some environmentalists just tell them about the disadvantages,
but not about the advantages ï¿½ and the disadvantages arenï¿½t always there."
"So . . ." he paused. "You need the best researchers mediating between
the government and the environmentalists. We wonï¿½t tell the government
not to build dams ï¿½ on the contrary, we'll tell them when you build a
dam, you need to do this and this."
Zhang Hong is European correspondent at Caixin.
A longer version of this article first appeared on the authorï¿½s Caixin
blog in August (http://zhanghong.blog.caixin.cn/archives/23408)
This is International Rivers' mailing list on China's global footprint, and particularly Chinese investment in
international dam projects.
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: firstname.lastname@example.org
To be removed from the list, please visit: