I"

DPP-2014

INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE MASTER IN DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES (DPP)

ACADEMIC YEAR 2014 - 2015

DPP THESIS

Meaningful participation? The case of Cambodian fishermen in the transboundary consultation processes for Don Sahong Hydropower Dam (Lao PDR)

DPP participant’s name: Sambo Sok

Supervisor: Willi Zimmerman

Submission date: 17 December 2014

II"

Abstract

The Don Sahong dam site in Champassak Province, Lao PDR, is located less than 2 kilometres away from Steung Treng Province in northeastern Cambodia. This thesis examines the extent of Cambodian stakeholders’ participation in the transboundary consultation process for the Don Sahong Hydropower Project in Champassak Province, Lao PDR, focusing in particular on the extent of Stung Treng fishermen’s participation. By comparing the initial 2009 consultation conducted in Cambodia by the Lao government with the 2014 consultation conducted by the Cambodian government as part of the Mekong Agreement’s Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA) mandated for Mekong mainstream dams, this study examines both consultations for elements of meaningful participation, using the Canadian Environmental Agency’s framework for what constitutes meaningful public participation. Using this normative tool to analyze both events, “participation” in the 2009 consultation counts only at the “inform” level of the “inform-consult-involve-collaborate” scale and the recent 2014 consultation involves limited participation at the “consult’ level.

While the 2014 consultation is more extensive and inclusive than the 2009 consultation, both processes have not meaningfully involved local Cambodian fishermen who stand to lose the most from this large-scale development project. Very few fishermen were invited to attend these consultations even though they are the ones whose livelihoods will be most significantly affected by the dam. There is also insufficient urgency in raising awareness of the environmental and social impacts of the dam to all community members so that they can start considering alternative livelihood strategies. Policy recommendations are proposed to strengthen participation in future consultation processes and mitigate potential impacts of the dam, which has been under construction at the time of writing in November 2014 despite the fact that the transboundary prior consultation process concludes only on 24 January 2015.

III"

"

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. II

Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................................... V

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................... VI

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... VII

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background of the Don Sahong Hydropower Project ............................................................................. 1

2. Research problem and rationale ...................................................................................................................... 1

3. Key concepts and definitions .......................................................................................................................... 3

4. Research objectives and questions .................................................................................................................. 4

5. Methods .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Sampling design ........................................................................................................................................ 5

6. Research scope and limitations ....................................................................................................................... 6 6.1 Scope ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 6.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................ 6

7. Literature review ............................................................................................................................................. 6

8. Research Findings and Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9 8.1 General information on Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas .............................................................................. 9 8.2 Livelihoods of Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas residents ............................................................................. 9 8.3 The 2009 consultation with Cambodia for the Don Sahong Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessments .................................................................................................................................................. 12 8.4 Collective action by Cambodia's fishermen, civil society, and government .......................................... 15 8.5 The 2014 PNPCA Prior Consultation process organized by the Cambodian National Mekong Committee ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 8.6 Comparison of the 2009 Lao consultation with the 2014 CNMC consultation ...................................... 21

9. Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 9.1 Appropriate planning for meaningful participation ................................................................................ 24 9.2 A local network for information-sharing ................................................................................................ 25 9.3 A strong, united NGO/civil society front at the PNPCA ........................................................................ 25 9.4 Women’s participation ............................................................................................................................ 25

10. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 26

11. Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 26

"

IV"

List of tables "

Table 1: Natural Capital of Kalapeas Village!........................................................................................................................!10! Table 2: Natural Capital of Koh Cheuteal Toch village!.....................................................................................................!10! Table 3: Comparison of the 2009 Lao consultation and the 2014 CNMC consultation!..........................................!22!"

V"

Abbreviations

3SPN Sesan, Srepok and Sekong Protecting Network CBO Community Based Organization CED Community Economic Development CEPA Culture and Environment Preservation Association CETO Cooperation Environment Tourism Organization CFi Community Fishery CIA Cumulative Impact Assessment CNMC Cambodian National Mekong Committee CRDT Cambodian Rural Development Team CVS Cambodia Volunteer Services DSHPP Don Sahong Hydropower Project EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FACT Fishery Action Coalition Tonle Sap GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation) GoL Government of Lao ICT Information and Communications Technology IFREDI Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute KFA Khmer Farmer Association MRC Mekong River Commission MRCS Mekong River Commission Secretariat MVi My Village NCC National Consulting Company NGO Non-governmental organization NRD Northeast Rural Development PDAO Peace and Development Aid Organization PNPCA Procedure for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement RCC Rivers Coalition in Cambodia SACRED Society for Action and Change for Rural Education and Development SIA Social Impact Assessment SVC Save Vulnerable Cambodia

VI"

Acknowledgements "

This thesis on Cambodian fishermen's transboundary participation in the consultation process of Don Sahong hydropower dam is produced with support from the Development Policy and Practice program of the Graduate Institute, Geneva. I would like to thank the school, DPP Director Dr. Alexandre Dormeier Freire and Coordinator of the program Dr. Luna Iacopini for giving me the opportunity to work on this research, and for their strategic guidance.

Special thanks goes to my research supervisor Dr. Willi Zimmerman who generously read many drafts of my work and helped shape and improve this research.

This project would not have been possible without the support of the fishermen, village chiefs, commune chiefs, NGO representatives and CNMC representative who spent time sharing their knowledge and perspectives during my research interviews. Mr. Chhuon La and Mr. Tek Vannara were invaluable resources and put me in touch with many excellent contacts. Mr. Chanthy Kong, an activist, fisherman and resident of Ou Run village helped coordinate my interviews with the fishermen/women of Koh Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas villages. I would like to express sincere thanks to all these people for giving substance to my research. Thanks also to my friends for editing and proofreading this work.

Last but not least, I would like to thank OXFAM Australia and my boss Ms. Pauline McKeown for providing financial support for the DPP program fees and giving me time off work to further my education. It is my hope that this thesis contributes in some way towards making meaningful participation more of a reality in Mekong mainstream dam projects, rather than a development catchword.

VII"

Executive Summary The Don Sahong Hydropower Project is located on the Mekong River in Champassak province, southern Lao PDR, less than 2 kilometres from the Cambodian border. It is a controversial dam that has received much media and public attention because its transboundary impacts on downstream communities in Cambodia are potentially devastating for fishermen’s diets and livelihoods. It is also the second dam to be subjected to the Procedures for Notification, Prior Consent and Agreement (PNPCA) that was signed by the 4 Mekong River Commission (MRC) countries in 2003, the first PNPCA process (for Xayaburi Dam, also in Lao PDR) having been deemed a failure by local and regional groups. In June 2014, the Mekong countries disputed Laos’s contention that Don Sahong was not a mainstream dam and mandated that the project undergo the PNPCA (Prior Consultation). This thesis compares the initial transboundary consultation undertaken by the Lao government in 2009 with the 2014 consultation conducted by the Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC) as part of the PNPCA, focusing on the extent of fishermen and civil society participation in both consultations.

The 2009 consultation organized by GoL was not recognized by Cambodia as an official one since there was no knowledge among the MRC signatory nations who signed in the 1995 Mekong agreement about this consultation process. This so-called consultation involved only 16 people, mostly commune and village chiefs and other local authorities. It did not include community fishermen people, and villagers had no idea it had taken place.

After GoL officially notified the MRC of the hydropower project in October 2013, there was a public outcry about its impact on fishermen’s livelihoods. Potentially affected fishermen expressed their concerns through the political space eked out by NGOs in several events such as a national workshop on the impact of Don Sahong organized by the NGO Forum of Cambodia, peace walk campaigns in Kratie and Stung Treng, press conferences, a WWF petition, and a thumbprinted petition against the dam. The stance of environmental rights groups and fishermen regarding the development of this hydropower dam is that it is not worth the damage to their natural surroundings and livelihoods so they want construction on the dam to stop, and or that the dam be relocated.

The Prior Consultation organized by the Cambodia National Mekong Committee in 2014 is the second official Mekong transboundary consultation after the Xayaburi case. Like its predecessor, this consultation process contains many gaps in meaningful pubic participation. Few community members were invited to the consultation, and NGOs such as International Rivers, WWF and the Rivers Coalition in Cambodia (RCC) boycotted the process. There was a lack of transparency and real purpose in the Prior Consultation since construction of the dam has begun and is ongoing during this 6 month long consultation process and no independent transboundary impact assessment has been produced.

As an observer at the recent Don Sahong transboundary consultation process conducted in Cambodia by the Cambodia National Mekong Committee, I outline the participation of various stakeholders in the process and analyse transboundary fishermen’s participation in particular. Using the concept of meaningful public participation developed by the Canadian Environmental Agency, I show that both the 2009 Lao consultation and the 2014 Cambodian consultation lacked meaningful participation by fishermen for various reasons, the key issue being that very few fishermen are invited to attend, and end up attending these consultations even though they are the ones whose livelihoods will be most significantly affected by the dam. There is also insufficient urgency in raising awareness of the environmental and social impacts of the dam to all affected community members so that they can start considering alternative livelihood strategies. Based on my analysis and comparison of the consultation processes for the Don Sahong Hydropower Project (DSHPP) in 2009 and 2014 according to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s guidelines, I suggest that the initial 2009 consultation commissioned by GoL counts only at the “inform” level of public participation, which is the lowest of 4 levels, while the 2014 consultation organized by the Cambodian government

VIII"

marginally counts at the “consult” level of participation, the second-lowest of the 4 levels (inform, consult, involve, collaborate).

This thesis concludes with some recommendations for better public participation in decision-making for hydropower development in the lower Mekong basin:

1. Improve budgeting, logistics and planning for Prior Consultation processes.

2. Mobilize civil society to demand transparent and meaningful public involvement in future consultations.

3. Increase women’s participation in consultations on Mekong hydropower development.

4. Establish a local network or community-based organization for sharing information on proposed hydropower projects.

"

"

1"

1. Introduction As Laos is still a developing country, the Lao government is focusing its efforts on getting out of low development by the year 2020. Its natural resources, such as forestry, mining and the Mekong River are targeted for income generation through exports and foreign investment. Serving as an electricity supplier - “the battery of Southeast Asia” (Lao Industry and Commerce Minister Nam Viyaketh, in Ferrie 2010 para. 2) - for neighboring countries is a major part of GoL’s strategy to improve the country’s economy. Laos currently has 17 hydropower dams in operation, and 16 more are under construction on the Mekong River (CPWF, 2013). Located 2 kilometres away from the Lao-Cambodian border in Cong Commune, Khong district, Champassak Province, southern Lao PDR, Don Sahong hydropower dam is one of these 16 upcoming dams. Its construction was announced in September 2013 and is expected to finish in 2018. It is estimated to produce 260 megawatts of electricity per year.

The Mekong River is the 12th longest river in the world, flowing from Lasagongma Spring on the Tibetan plateau through 5 countries including Myanmar, Lao PDR, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam to the South China Sea. 70 million people live along its banks; this population includes more than a hundred different ethnic groups. The Mekong is home to approximately 781 fish species (OXFAM 2013). Most importantly, this river provides food, employment and income to around 55 million people who depend directly on it for their survival (CNMC & WorldFish Centre 2007, cited in Estoria 2012: 4). Geographically, Cambodia is located downstream of the Don Sahong Dam as the Mekong River flows from Laos to Cambodia and Vietnam. What happens in Lao affects neighboring Cambodia. This is especially the case with dams constructed in 'upstream Lao'. The construction of this dam impacts the livelihoods of people who live on the river banks and endangers many different local fish species. Last but not least, it changes the ecosystem of the river. Although it is not a mega-dam, the Don Sahong Hydropower Project is controversial: "[it] is essentially gambling with the future of the Mekong River. It's located in one of the worst possible places imaginable as it is a point where the maximum concentration of fish migration in the river is happening" (Ame Trandem, cited in Corben 2014 December 9: para. 14).

1.1. Background of the Don Sahong Hydropower Project The proposed Don Sahong Dam is located on the Hou Sahong channel between Don Sadam and Don Sahong islands in Khong District, Champassak Province. The Hou Sahong waterway is about 5 km long and 130 meters wide. This area is generally known as Si Phan Don (Four Thousand Islands) and the dam site is located 150km downstream of the provincial capital, Pakse, and about 2 kilometers upstream from Stung Treng province in Cambodia. (A map of Don Sahong can be found in Annex I). The Lao government began the planning of Don Sahong Hydropower Project (DSHPP) in 2006 and the first feasibility study for building this hydropower dam was completed in 2007. Run-of-river hydropower was proposed and the feasibility report, EIA and SIA were submitted to the Mekong River Commission (MRC) in 2007. For a comprehensive list of key official and civil society events related to this hydropower project, please refer to Annex II.

2. Research problem and rationale Given the hydropower boom in the Mekong basin, my research asks, “To what extent have downstream communities been consulted and to what extent have they participated in decision making in hydropower dam development?” This study focuses on the Cambodian fishermen's participation in the transboundary consultation process of Don Sahong hydropower dam through a case study of two villages, Kalapeas and Koh Cheuteal Toch, which are part of Preah Rumkel Commune in Thalabarivat District, Stung Treng Province, northeastern Cambodia. The trigger to carry out this study on the consultation of downstream river communities arose during the 20th Meeting of the Mekong River Commission Council on the 26th June 2014. There are reasons that gave rise to this initiative, including concerns voiced by the users of the river, as will be argued in the following paragraphs. We start with a short sketch of the two villages

2"

and its fishermen, which will help the reader understand the actions and reactions of multiple actors as described in the chronology below. The majority of Kalapeas and Koh Cheuteal Toch villagers are fishermen who rely on the river for their livelihoods. This will change significantly if fish stocks decrease. The hydropower dam will be built right on the channel of fish migration between Cambodia and Laos near these two villages so the river ecology, fish catch in this area are under threat. Fish is a source of both income and daily nutrition for the villagers. Apart from fish, the two villages rely on agriculture and livestock for their livelihood, which means that water and sediment from the river is crucial for them. The dam will affect their water supply and the amount of sediment in the river, in turn having an effect on soil quality. On 26th December 2011, the Cambodian Fisheries Administration (Prakas No 628) officially recognized Kalapeas and Koh Cheuteal Toch villages as community fisheries. These newly established fisheries will almost certainly be impacted by the construction and full operation of Don Sahong dam. With that short portrait of the villages and fishermen, we now move to the chronology of events. The Lao government conducted the feasibility study and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Don Sahong in 2007. The dam proposal was submitted to The Mekong River Commission (MRC) in the same year. MRC provided numerous comments on the feasibility study in response, especially regarding prior consultation with communities downstream that appeared to be missing in the 2007 EIA report. The Lao government was asked to carry out further study on the environmental, social, cumulative and transboundary impacts of the project.

To address the MRC’s feedback, the Lao government conducted a series of meetings in Cambodia in Stung Treng and Tonle Sap with relevant provincial and local officials. Their consultants met with 8 Stung Treng village authorities, among them the Deputy Chiefs of Kalapeas and d Koh Cheuteal Toch villages in Preah Rumkel commune on 21st October 2009.

In January 2013, Laos produced a revised Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA), using the report of the consultation that they conducted in 2009 as evidence of prior consultation.

In October 2013, the Lao government announced that Laos was submitting to the MRC the notification to begin construction on the dam by the end of the year. NGOs and local communities protested this decision. The lack of adequate prior consultation was one of the issues raised in objection to the dam’s construction.

Under public and regional pressure, Lao PDR agreed on 26th June 2014 at the 20th Mekong River Commission Council meeting in Bangkok to submit the Don Sahong Dam to the Procedures for Notification and Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA) - Prior Consultation. This means that proper, prior consultations need to be conducted by the National Mekong Committees of all four countries who signed the Mekong Agreement before construction of a hydropower dam can commence. Each country has six months to carry out more a intensive consideration of the dam’s potential impacts and public concerns about the project

From October to December 2014, the Cambodian National Mekong Committee conducted its own consultation in accordance with the PNPCA and it is part of this research study to find out how this prior consultation process was put in practice and how it compares with the one conducted by Lao consultants in 2009 at which the heads of Kalapeas and Koh Cheuteal Toch villages were present. These two villages were selected as target sites for this research in order to compare their inclusion and participation in the consultation processes of 2009 and 2014.

As mentioned earlier, a public outcry ensued in several riparian countries when the Lao government notified the Mekong River Commission of the start of the construction of Don Sahong dam in October 2013.

3"

A series of further protests, campaigns and discussions with villagers, NGOs and the Rivers Coalition in Cambodia about the impact on the environment and livelihoods of people downstream subsequently took place. The key reasons for requesting for the construction of the dam to stop, at least until further consultation was carried out with affected communities so that they could participate in the decision-making process are condensed below:

"The Don Sahong Dam would block the only channel suitable for year-round fish migration between Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR) and Thailand. Would cause a very high risk for national and local fisheries with impacts likely to be experienced throughout the Lower Mekong Basin and repercussions for food security and nutrition for at least 75% of Cambodia’s population, and the nation’s economy. There currently exist no proven methods to mitigate the dam’s impact on Mekong fisheries. The EIA and supporting documents submitted by Mega First incorporates inappropriate methodologies with recommendations not supported by scientific evidence. Financial returns of the US$300 million dam are limited and disproportionate with the expected high risks. Construction and operation of the dam would likely hasten the extinction of the remaining 85 Critically Endangered Mekong River population Irrawaddy dolphins" (WWF 2014:1)

In September 2014, The Lao government officially announced that construction on Don Sahong would stop until the official prior consultation process conducted by the four members countries is completed1. After a series of meetings to decide on how to carry out the PNPCA, the Cambodian National Mekong Committee scheduled its own public consultations with downstream communities in Stung Treng city on 16-17 October, in Battambang 30-31 October for Tonle Sap communities and 13 November 2014 in Phnom Penh. The author of this research study was an observer at this process as a researcher.

This research seeks to find out how fishermen have participated in the consultation processes and whether their concerns and suggestions have had any impact in the decision-making on the final construction and operation of the dam. We look at the degree of consultation during the EIA and CIA, the fishermen’s concerns and the reasons behind the dissatisfaction and unrest; and how the PNPCA is being implemented. This qualitative study on fishermen's participation can be a knowledge base for future analysis and an improved 'guide' for collective action to support communities downstream.

3. Key concepts and definitions The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA 2008) provides a useful definition of participation. In their framework, participation is a general term for any process that involves public input in decision-making. It involves the process or activity of informing the public and inviting them to have input into the decisions that affect them. Key elements of meaningful public participation include:

• Early notification • Accessible information • Shared knowledge • Sensitivity to community values • Reasonable timing • Appropriate levels of participation • Adaptive processes • Transparent results (CEAA 2008:1-12)

These elements complement the Mekong River Commission’s 2003 Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA) for infrastructure development on the Mekong River among Laos, """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1 Local eyewitnesses report that construction of a bridge to transport building materials to the dam site has continued

4"

Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand, which call for adequate public consultation as a crucial aspect of an Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) framework. Level of public participation and opportunity for public input "In the context of an environmental assessment, the common levels of participation are inform, consult, involve and collaborate". (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2008: 4-24), referring to the opportunity provided for public input on the environmental assessment process from the lowest to highest respectively. The CEAA outlines the actions associated with each level of participation: Inform: “provide the public with balanced and objective information that assists them in understanding the proposed project and environmental assessment process.” Consult: “obtain and consider public feedback on aspects of the environmental assessment analysis (e.g. scope, alternatives, mitigation) or the environmental assessment report.” Involve: “work directly with the public by providing opportunity for dialogue and interaction during the environmental assessment process to ensure consistent understanding and incorporation of their interests.” Collaborate: “partner with the representatives of the public the resolve issues jointly or make recommendations about an aspect of the environmental assessment. For example, to identify, evaluate and recommend preferred alternatives in a collaborative manner.” (CEEA 2008:4/25 - 4/26) For this study, I will use the concepts of 'meaningful participation' and ‘levels of public participation’ to gauge community participation in the Don Sahong consultation process. In the context of sustainable hydropower development in Mekong region countries, this is a realistic normative framework for identifying community participation. (Other definitions of participation can be found in Annex III)

4. Research objectives and questions Research Objective 1: To understand the 2009 Lao consultation process with fishermen in the target villages that was carried out for the final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA), both released in January 2013.

• Research question 1.1: How have fishermen been consulted for the EIA and CIA? • Research question 1.2: How have the Cambodian Government and the Developer (Mega First

Corporation Berhad from Malaysia), the Laos Government and their consultant been involved in EIA/CIA process?

• Research question 1.3: Did fishermen participate meaningfully in this process? Research Objective 2: To learn about fishermen’s actions and attitudes regarding the Don Sahong Hydropower Project.

• Research question 2.1: When and how have the fishermen exercised their rights at different levels of the political hierarchy (village, provincial, national)?

• Research question 2.2: How have their concerns during the EIA/CIA consultation process and possible other interventions been taken into account?

• Research question 2.3: What are fishermen’s plans and livelihood strategies once the dam becomes operational?

Research Objective 3: To understand the process of the Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA) for Don Sahong dam carried out by the Cambodian National Mekong Committee in 2014:

5"

• Research question 3.1: How is the PNPCA put into practice? • Research question 3.2: How are fishermen involved in this consultation process? • Research question 3.3: Does fishermen's participation in this process count as meaningful?

5. Methods This qualitative study is based on primary and secondary data collected from target participants and desk review. Discourse analysis was used to investigate social interactions, local practices, conversations, interview transcripts, and my direct observation of the PNPCA Prior Consultation workshops in Cambodia for information relating to key themes in the research objectives. In order to carry out this research, I obtained permission from the commune and village chiefs to interview fishermen in their villages. I also obtained permission from the Cambodian National Mekong Committee to attend all three Prior Consultation meetings in October and November 2014 that were open to the public2. These consultations took place in Stung Treng city (15-16 October), Battambang (30 - 31 October) and in Phnom Penh on 13 November 2014. Attending them as an observer gave me the opportunity to collect primary data on the PNPCA Prior Consultation process. I conducted in-depth interviews with the following stakeholders:

• Kalapeas village o 4 fisherman (2 full-time and 2 part-time, female) o 1 chief of Kalapeas village

• Koh Cheuteal Toch village o 4 fisherman (2 full-time and 2 part-time, female) o 1 chief of Koh Cheuteal Toch village

• 1 chief of Preah Rumkel commune • 1 fisherman full time from Ou Run Village (Mekong community representative) • 1 Stung Treng provincial council member • 2 experts on hydropower development on the Mekong (International Rivers and NGO Forum) • 1 Cambodia National Mekong Committee member (Acting Director) (A detailed list of interviewees can be found in Annex IV)

The preparation of semi-directive interviews took place during the month of September 2014 and interviews were conducted at the end of September and the beginning of October while data analysis and writing-up took place from October to December 2014. The interview guidelines can be found in Annex V. The work plan and timeline of the research can be found in Annex VI.

! 5.1!Sampling design • Sample size: face-to-face interviews; I conducted the interviews in Khmer and English (in the

interview with International Rivers) and each lasted between 45 and 90 minutes. • Sampling procedure: Purposive convenience sampling

I contacted government officials and NGO staff whose work relates to water governance and hydropower development and all agreed to be interviewed. With the help of a Mekong community representative from neighbouring Ou Run village whom I met at the Prior Consultation meeting in Stung Treng city, I made contact with and interviewed the village chiefs of the two target villages, who then introduced me to other villagers to interview. I used an audio recorder and took notes during the interviews, transcribing them immediately afterwards. In addition to these interviews, I also relied on secondary data from relevant sources such as NGOs like the Rivers Coalition in Cambodia and International Rivers as well as government reports, news articles and academic journals.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""2 The final consultation held in December was open only to high-level government officials.

6"

6. Research scope and limitations

! 6.1 Scope This research was conducted primarily at Kalapeas and Koh Cheuteal Toch villages, in Preah Rumkel commune, Thalabarivat district, Stung Treng province, northeastern Cambodia. Koh Cheuteal Toch village is located near Kalapeas but is closer to the dam site. This applied study focused primarily on several stakeholders during data collection including fisherman, village chiefs, government officials, the dam developer and ecosystem experts. Fishermen are vulnerable key stakeholders in hydropower development but have the least power. The village chiefs are also important interviewees. As local authorities, they are community members mostly likely to be invited to consultations and can therefore provide data for reconstructing the participatory process since 2009. Finally, environmental experts on the Mekong River are able to provide scientific and technical knowledge for the concerns raised by stakeholders, on the consultation process, and on downstream impacts on fishermen.

! 6.2 Limitations Due to time constraints, I was only able to focus on 2 downstream villages in Stung Treng. Furthermore, it was only be possible to interview a limited number of stakeholders. The selection of the respondents was purposive, and I interviewed those who were willing and/or allowed to give information. At the target villages, the time span of certain interviews was not particularly long as some that villagers were not used to interviewing and others were busy with their daily work.

Given the handful of attendees from the target villages who were at the 2009 community consultation conducted by the Lao consultants (4, to be exact – 2 of whom do not recall the event and one who is deceased), my description of the Lao consultation in Cambodia is based only on the account of the deputy chief of Preah Rumkel commune (who is from Kalapeas), from my interview with the head of the Stung Treng Provincial Council, and from the field report on the consultation included in the Don Sahong Cumulative Impact Assessment released in 2013. Because of the 5 years that have passed since the 2009 Lao consultation, primary data from the two interviewees who remembered the event is limited and based on memory compared to other interviewees’ more recent perspectives on the 2014 CNMC consultation. I was also unable to speak to the dam developer Mega First Corporation Berhad as they did not respond to my requests for an interview.

7. Literature review “The Don Sahong Project is representative of what is happening across much of Southeast Asia. Large scale

development projects, funded and owned by foreign companies, are being developed without the participation of affected communities and in countries where domestic accountability measures are weak.”

(Tanya Venisnik, press statement cited in Finney 2014: para. 22) Meaningful participation in consultation, defined in Chapter 3, is a critical component of sustainable hydropower development. The 1995 Mekong agreement, the PNPCA, and public consultation are central to MRC’s policy framework of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Such public consultation should carefully reflect international best practices by conducting adequate consultation with potential affected parties (MRCS, Sep 14: 9). However, water governance in the Mekong River basin is subject to a complex “hydropolitics” (Sneddon & Fox 2006) of scale, place and position (Lebel, Garden & Imamura 2005). Researchers have highlighted the contradictory quality of upstream-downstream relations as politically reducible on the one hand to relations between nation-states, since the governments, corporations and power elites who are largely located away from dam sites and impacted communities often have something to gain from dam projects, and as far more complex on the other, for "while the benefits of power sales would accrue primarily to governments, state owned enterprises, investors, construction companies, and hydropower operators, with some presumed trickle-down effects, the costs would be overwhelmingly borne by millions of rural poor” (Mather & Brunner 2010:3, cited in Kuenzer et al. 2012: 580). Kuenzer et al

7"

succinctly capture the inter-scalar dynamics and impacts of hydropower development in their statement that “it is not nations that are the winners or losers in the hydropower schemes in the Mekong, but rather parts of the riparian population: a few influential and powerful elites versus the large mass of rural poor” (2013: 565). Upstream-downstream relations therefore map onto different scales and interests. For example, due to public pressure, Thailand offsets the impacts of hydropower development by financing dam projects in neighboring countries, which then export electricity back to Thailand (Matthews 2012). The anti-dam lobbies of the Mekong countries criticize the construction of upstream dams while national governments approve dam constructions in their own territories (Kuenzer et al. 2013: 582): “each country tries to capitalise on its river location, regardless of the pending consequences further downstream for the overall health of the hydraulic system” (ibid), sometimes even irrespective of that fact that the downstream impacts take place on domestic soil. In the Greater Mekong Subregion, food, water and energy are tightly connected.

Regional supranational organizations such as the Mekong River Commission, established to oversee watershed management and sustainable development in the Mekong countries seek to foster transboundary dialogue and cooperation in the use of the river. The Mekong River Commission (MRC) was established in 1995 under the Mekong Agreement. "The vision was to have a world class, financially secure, International River Basin Organisation serving the Mekong countries to achieve an economically prosperous, socially just and environmentally sound Mekong River Basin. MRC’s mission is to promote and coordinate sustainable management and development of water resources for the countries' mutual benefit and the people's wellbeing" (Mekong River Commission, Vision & Mission, n.d.).

4 countries, Cambodia, Vietnam, Lao and Cambodia signed the Mekong Agreement on the 5th April 1995 pledging to cooperate for the sustainable development of the Mekong river basin. This cooperation includes "all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin such as irrigation, hydro-power, navigation, flood control, fisheries, timber floating, recreation and tourism, so as to optimize multiple-use and mutual benefits for all riparians and to minimize the harmful effects that might result from natural occurrences and man-made activities" (Mekong Agreement 1995: 3).

The Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and agreement (PNPCA) was signed in 13 November 2003 at the 10th MRC Council meeting. It mandates that different types of water use go through " Notification", "Prior Consultation", or "Agreement" before taking place. The stated objectives of the procedures are: • "To provide steps for the MRC member states to support the establishment the rules for water utilization

and Inter Basin Diversions. • To promote better understanding and cooperation among the MRC member countries in a constructive

and mutually beneficial manner to ensure the sustainable development, management and conservation of the water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin." (PNPCA 2003: 2)

River type Seasonal use Basin use Procedure required Tributary Any season Intra-basin use Notification

Inter-basin diversion Mainstream Rainy season Intra-basin use Notification

Inter-basin diversion Prior Consultation Dry season Intra-basin use Prior Consultation

Inter-basin diversion Agreement The procedures above are stipulated by Article 5 of the Mekong Agreement. The construction of Don Sahong Dam constitutes dry season mainstream intra-basin use, which requires Prior Consultation. According to hydropower development expert Ame Trandem from International Rivers, “the rationale behind

8"

the prior consultation process is to allow other countries to evaluate and comment on the project, giving them time to carry out "due-diligence" to assess any adverse impacts the project may have on their rights and interests. The intended outcome of the process is for the four governments to arrive at an agreement on how to proceed.” (2014 October 9: para. 5). Don Sahong is the second dam to undergo the PNPCA Prior Consultation. Whitehead (2011) documents the recent PNPCA (Prior Consultation) process undertaken for Xayaburi Dam in Lao PDR. In her thesis, she embeds the process in various sociopolitical realities and understandings of difference stakeholders, to argue that “the Xayaburi dam proposal is being negotiated and contested by a diverse array of people and organisations; through multiple channels; with reference to multiple sites, scales and dimensions of potential impact.” (2011: 11). Clearly, the PNPCA is not an abstract legal instrument that is implemented by an organizing body, the MRC, but is variously perceived and represented by different actors with different interests and from different localities. My thesis is a similar attempt to understand the PNPCA process for Don Sahong Dam and Cambodian fishermen’s transboundary participation (or lack thereof) in public consultation, in real time as the various consultative meetings take place in Cambodia. Don Sahong Dam is a particularly transboundary case because the proposed dam is less than 2 kilometers upstream from the Lao-Cambodian border. Numerous reports predict severe consequences for the livelihoods and food security of surrounding communities in Laos and downstream in Cambodia (e.g. Baran & Ratner 2007; Baird 2011), not to mention on the biodiversity of the unique river-island ecosystem, especially on the emblematic “megafauna” species of Mekong dolphin and Mekong Giant Catfish. And not only will immediate downstream fisheries be affected, but also those in the Tonle Sap, the largest freshwater lake in Southeast Asia and designated UNESCO biosphere, as fish migration patterns along the Mekong from the Tonle Sap river are disrupted by the presence of the dam. The projected social and environmental costs of the dam outweigh the profits and savings from the amount of electricity Don Sahong is expected to generate (e.g. Baird 2011, The Rivers Coalition in Cambodia & International Rivers 2014). Public participation in the decision-making process for dam construction is negligible in Laos, and minimal in Cambodia (Khamin & Middleton 2008). For the reasons outlined so far in this literature review, transboundary water governance is a prickly issue.

GIZ’s case study of transboundary impacts from the Yali Falls Dam in Vietnam, which began operation in 2000, on downstream communities on the Sesan River on the Vietnam-Cambodia border details the effects of poor information flow regarding the release of water from the dam, which resulted in sudden flooding downstream leading to one death and many instances of lost property (Lor & Ham 2013). Such negative impacts among others prompted the formation of a network of concerned community groups and NGOs that became the Rivers Coalition of Cambodia in 2007 (2013: 43). Only after downstream communities together with NGOs approached the Cambodian government for help were impact mitigation strategies put in place, although affected communities have yet to be compensated financially (2013: 47).

Another comparative transboundary case involves the aforementioned Xayaburi Dam, whose PNPCA process has been considered a failed effort by the media and environmental protection groups since Laos ignored Vietnam and Cambodia’s concerns about potential impacts on fish catch and sediment flow and went ahead with construction on the 1,285 megawatt dam without a green light from MRC countries. It is now 45% complete (Phnom Penh Post, 2 November 2014). Conflicts of interest in hydropower development exist on cross-cutting scales, between nations, governing bodies, international banks, donor governments, corporations, and non-governmental organizations, between classes, between up and downstream communities or countries, with “upper class decision makers directly or indirectly profiting from the dams and the majority of the rural poor, whose livelihoods they put at risk.” (Kuenzer et al. 2013: 581). This is clearly illustrated when Thai fishermen at the Thai National Mekong Committee’s Xayaburi prior consultation asked, “Who do I go to for compensation? Who do I go to with my grievances? Do I go to the local district office? They will say, well, it’s nothing to do with us – it is a dam in Laos! Do I go to the

9"

province? They will say the same thing: it’s nothing to do with us – it’s the dam in Laos! How can I, as a Thai fisherman, go to the Lao government and ask for compensation?” (Whitehead 2011: 45).

The Xayaburi case was a pivotal test of the MRC’s ability and political will since Xayaburi was the first Mekong mainstream project that was initiated under the auspices of the PNPCA-Prior Consultation in 2010 - meaning that it was the first time this transboundary prior consultation process was being conducted for a proposed dam on the mainstream Mekong. As another highly-contested project in the Lower Mekong basin that is part of Lao PDR’s energy policy to become “the battery of Southeast Asia”, the PNPCA process in Cambodia for Don Sahong warrants in-depth investigation that may shed light on how to bring about meaningful public participation in Mekong regional and transboundary hydropower development.

8. Research Findings and Analysis

8.1 General information on Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas Cheuteal Toch Village

Cheuteal Toch village is one of the 8 villages in Preah Rumkel commune, Thalabarivat district, Stung Treng province. It borders Koh Reusey village in the north, the Mekong River in the south, Osvay commune in the east and Kalapeas village in the west. There are 111 families with a total population of 533 (230 females, of which 15 are breadwinners). Land used for agriculture amounts to 581 hectares and land for housing takes up 38.4 hectares. 90% of the islanders are involved in fishing and farming for a living. There is one primary school and 1 pagoda. 95% of villagers are Lao. There is no access to electricity in the village; villagers use batteries and private generators. It located about 1.5 km to the Lao border.

Kalapeas Village

Kalapeas is another of eight villages in Preah Rumkel Commune, located 48 km north of Stung Treng city. It borders Autas Kambor village in the south, Auchamroeun Krom village in the north, Koh Cheuteal Toch in the east, National Road 7 in the west. The population is 707 with 369 females (13 female breadwinners), making up 153 families. 860 hectares of land is used for agriculture and 51.6 hectares for housing. Like Koh Cheuteal Toch, it is located about 1.5 km from the Lao border and villagers have not electricity yet. The geography of Stung Treng province and the maps of the two villages can be found in Annex VII.

8.2 Livelihoods of Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas residents

I rely on farming and fishing. If I lose this job, I'll die - I have no ability to look for other job.” - Fisherman No. 1, from Kalapeas Village

"If I lose fish and farming, I may migrate to another village or to Thailand so I will have to be separated from my family." - Fisherwoman No. 1, part-time, from Koh Cheuteal Toch Village

"I am happy if I get cheap electricity as I don’t currently have access to it but I would rather use battery-generated electricity if hydropower-generated electricity will impact the fish that villagers catch everyday." - Fisherwoman No. 2 from Kalapeas Village; this sentiment was expressed by nearly all interviewees from

both villages.

Villagers on Koh Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas islands farm rice throughout the year and fish for their daily meals and for market sale in Stung Treng city and Veurn Kam at the Lao border. Other supplementary occupations include raising livestock, ferryboat running, hunting and multi-crop farming (e.g. banana, beans, tobacco and corn)."

10"

Table 1: Natural Capital of Kalapeas Village

Type of asset Size/Yield Period Deep pools 9 Fish 5 tones/year All year round, June-August (more fish than other

months) Land for agriculture: 860 hectares Total 153 families in the village Rice 100 tones/year June - December Agrarians 10 tones/year September - April Source: Head of community fishery, Kalapeas village, October 2014 Table 2: Natural Capital of Koh Cheuteal Toch village

Type of asset Size/ Yield Period Deep pools 3 Fish 3 tonnes/year All year round, June-August (more fish than other

months - high season) Land for agriculture: 581 hectares Total 111 families in the village Rice 62 tones/year June- December Agrarians 10 tones/year September- April Source: Deputy Chief of Koh Cheuteal Toch village, October 2014 The agricultural and fish yields in Koh Cheuteal Toch village are lower than those in Kalapeas as it is a smaller island/village with fewer deep pools surrounding it. In the past 5 years, these two villages have had higher yields from fishing than at present in 2014. An interviewee from Kalapeas village estimated that the fish yield for the entire village ranged between 5 – 10 tonnes, based on the number of large catches that were weighed. According to another interviewee from nearby Ou Run village who worked for the Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFREDI), fish yields have decreased 5 times since 2009. He goes fishing all year round and the yield has decreased from 3 tonnes to 500 kg per year3 during these 5 years. This noticeable decline of the fish yield is a major issue for the livelihoods of fishermen/women living along the river. The majority of villagers from Koh Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas depend on fishing either for food and income, so fish is important for their daily meals in one way or another. In my interviews, I found that fishermen currently have daily fish yields of at least 1kg in the low season and up to 10kg during the high season from June to August each year. Fish catch is not only for immediate consumption and/or sale. To ensure a supply of fish year-round, a portion of the yield is preserved with salt to produce fermented fish (prahok and trei prai). Prahok is made mainly from small fish and trei prai is made from larger fish and is mainly produced for sale. These are both traditional foods of Cambodia, especially for riparian folk. Prahok is a powerful culinary symbol of Cambodia. It can keep for a year, providing backup sustenance for villagers when fresh fish is in short supply. According to interviewees in the two villages, most of them still make prahok. Each family makes at least three 25kg pots of prahok for home consumption throughout the year. "If there is no more fish and no prahok, Cambodia will lose its identity," an interviewee at Koh Cheuteal Toch declared. The fishermen I interviewed raised concerns about declining fish stocks. They 2 main factors affecting the fish population: over-fishing and hydropower dams. To deal with the issue of over-fishing, Koh Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas Villages have registered with the Fisheries Administration since 2012. The Fisheries Administration establishes community fisheries to guard against illegal fishing in the conservation

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""3 This interviewee from the nearby village of Ou Run received a fee from IFREDI to count and weigh every single fish he had caught each year as part of their fish monitoring program.

11"

pools so that the fish population remains stable. An interviewee from Kalapeas Village who is the head of the Kalapeas Community Fishery mentioned that the number of illegal fishing has decreased since then, thanks to community fishery members who patrol the fishing zone. Villagers are now also more aware of when to use season-appropriate fishing equipment so as not to endanger fish stocks. Interviewees in both villages noted the construction of hydropower dams such as Xayaburi, and more recently Don Sahong, on the Mekong River near Stung Treng and fear that these will prevent fish migration, leading to a dramatic decline of the fish population. Migratory fish make up 87% of Mekong fish species whose migration status is known, and these include many species that are eaten and sold (Baran & Ratner 2007:2). Based on interviews from the target villages and community people’s inputs during a national workshop on Don Sahong Dam held in Phnom Penh on 20 March 2014 and at the CNMC consultations in October - November 2014, fishermen are especially concerned about the impacts of the dam on the following:

1. Livelihood in general

" Koh Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas are small islands where people depend on natural resources to live. The majority of villagers are fishermen with no other livelihood skills. The hydropower dam may change river levels causing floods or low water, which will adversely affect crop (especially rice) cultivation. People in these two villages also earn money from tourists who come to see the dolphins who live in the Anlong Cheuteal pool. This income may cease as the dolphins will not survive the construction and operation of the dam. There is no clear policy on compensation for the dam’s impact on fishermen’s livelihoods in Stung Treng and it is still not clear who will be responsible for this.

2. Health Villagers eat fish in all their daily meals so a reduction of the fish population could be detrimental to their daily nutrient uptake. Fish contribute to an average of 36.59% of each Cambodian's protein intake (IFREDI 2012: 19). Declining fish stocks will affect the diets of rural children over the age of 11 months, whose protein derive mainly from prahok (UNICEF/WFP survey, cited in IFREDI 2012: 43). Additionally, changes in water quality could bring diseases or render river water unpalatable and unsafe for use.

3. Natural resources Changes to water composition and to the navigation of the river will affect fish and dolphin populations, soil quality, sediment levels, forest and farmlands. This endangers the natural capital of the two villages.

4. Island-village security, culture and the future Villagers have seasonal riparian cultures. During the dry season they move to other low-lying islands to catch fish, but changes to river navigation brought about by the dam may put an end to this. There are also no security assurances to these two villages about dam breakage or the erratic discharge of water from the reservoir.

Fishermen anticipate that when the dam begins operation and fish stocks decrease significantly they may need to focus on livestock and cropping as livelihood strategies. However, changes to the river hydrology may affect irrigation and sediment quality for farming. Interviewees were concerned that they lacked the skill and experience to produce enough agricultural and livestock yields to support themselves. Villagers at Koh Cheuteal Toch are more likely to migrate to other villages, provinces or neighbouring countries for work as low-skilled workers as there is little land area on their island for growing crops. In 2014, Koh Cheuteal Toch had 69 migrants, 19 female who left the village to live and work elsewhere (Preah Rumkel Deputy Chief of Commune, 2014). The two target communities have limited alternative livelihood strategies because they are steeped in a traditional way of life that depends heavily on the natural environment. For generations, villagers have been fishermen, and many also crop rice as a family on their land. As the impacts of the dam begin to be felt, villagers will need government and NGO support in terms of

12"

agricultural expertise and assistance in finding markets for their produce. The Cambodian government and its partners need to design an effective road map for livelihood restoration support.

! 8.3 The 2009 consultation with Cambodia for the Don Sahong Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessments 8.3.1 History of the Don Sahong consultation process

Laos has claimed from the outset that Don Sahong is neither a tributary nor mainstream dam, as it will divert only 15% of the Mekong flow (since it will be built only across one channel rather than the entire span of the river), so notification was sufficient for construction to begin. By categorizing Don Sahong as a non-mainstream nor tributary dam, the Lao government can be construed as attempting to bypass the PNPCA and any consultation process entirely. In March 2006, GoL signed an agreement with Mega First Corporation Berhad to begin technical, environmental and economic feasibility studies on Don Sahong. In 2007, Australian Power and Water and PEC Konsult Sdn Bhd produced the first Don Sahong Hydropower Dam Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP), Social Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP), Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) on behalf of Mega First. The feasibility study focused mainly on site surveys, investigations and data collection that included:

"a. Establishment of a first order control network in the project area, topographical survey and production of 1:1,000 and 1:5,000 scale maps of the area b. Geotechnical investigation, including site mapping, refraction seismic traversing, diamond drilling of foundations, test pitting, materials investigation and laboratory testing of samples. c. Stream gauging over a period of nine months to determine basic relationships between flows at Pakse, at Thakho and in the Hou Sahong, using also historic data from staff gauge records from stations in the area. d. Collection of 82 years of flow records at the Pakse gauging station and other hydrology related data available for the Project area. e. Socioeconomic surveys of the six villages directly affected by the construction of the project. f. Survey of tourism (tour operators, boat operators and guesthouses). g. Field surveys and data collection relating to fisheries, birdlife and vegetation." (Don Sahong Feasibility Study Report 2007 Volume 1: xiii-xiv)

The Cambodian government did not provide any comments on the feasability study or get involved in 2007 as Laos did not have concrete plans for the hydropower project yet, and since it could not formally respond until Laos officially notified MRC about the dam. In its capacity as an inter-governmental institution, the MRC secretariat provided official comments on the documents submitted by GoL to the MRC with its request to build the dam. It called primarily for the Lao government to conduct transboundary and Cumulative Impact Assessments. (A summary of the comments provided by MRCS on the feasibility study 2007 can be found in Annex VIII). In response to these comments, GoL commissioned several studies – the Lao Engineering Status Report 2011, Hydrological and Sedimentation Investigations 2011, and a field investigation in Cambodia 2009 (see below), which were compiled into a consultation report in the 2013 Cumulative Impact Assessment. This 2009 field investigation became the basis for GoL’s claim to have conducted a transboundary consultation and therefore marks the inception of the Don Sahong consultation process in Cambodia.

" 8.3.2 The 2009 Lao “consultation” in Cambodia

In 2009, the National Consulting Company (NCC) was privately contracted by GoL to finalize the environmental assessments for the Don Sahong hydropower project in light of the MRCS’s comments. The Lao consultants conducted a “field investigation” in Stung Treng, Cambodia lasting from 18 – 24 October

13"

2009. The purpose of what they later called a consultation was to collect data on the points of view of Cambodian authorities, districts and villages that are located close to the dam site (Don Sahong CIA 2013:35). These included people at Stung Treng market, the Department of Energy and Mining, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Environment, Department of Planning, Stung Treng Referral Hospital, 4 village chiefs from Preah Rumkel commune, the chief of Preah Rumkel commune in Stung Treng, his 2 deputies, and a member of the Preah Rumkel Commune Council. (A list of the people consulted and the dates they were interviewed in 2009, excerpted from the 2013 CIA, can be found in Annex IX.)

This 6-day field investigation with government and local officials produced the following findings:

"1.There is over-fishing, and fishing using prohibited gear.

2. Lack of fisheries management.

3. Perceived reduction of fish populations.

4. Increased of the local population which results in increased demand for fish for nutrition.

5. The DSHPP should provide information about the project to people in downstream areas at each stage of the project development.

6. Local people of Cambodia near the project area would like to have some support to the community from the project as Lao and Cambodia are close relatives where culture and languages allow easy communication" (Don Sahong Cumulative Impact Assessment January 2013: 35).

4 interviewees were listed in the CIA report as having participated in the 2009 consultation, but at two different meetings. The Stung Treng provincial authority met individually with the Lao consultants, who asked him about Cambodian environmental laws and assessments related to hydropower development. No mention of the dam was made. At the community meeting at the Preah Rumkel commune office in Kalapeas village, 8 village and commune authorities were present and 4 of them were from the target villages: the Deputy Chief of Koh Cheuteal Toch village, the Deputy Chief of Kalapeas village, the Preah Rumkel Commune Chief (from Kalapeas) and the Deputy Chief of Preah Rumkel Commune (from Kalapeas). In my interviews with the deputy chiefs of Koh Cheuteal Toch and Kalapeas, they reported that no such consultation had taken place. The deputy commune chief of Preah Rumkel commune was the only target villager who recalled this so-called consultation. To him, it did not count as a consultation as participants were unclear about the purpose the hour-long meeting. In fact, it was only towards the end of the hour-long meeting that the proposed dam was brought up, possibly accounting for why the village chiefs have no recollection of the event.

When asked about the 2009 consultation, one of the interviewees working at an NGO noted, "I never heard anything of the consultation taking place, and when we’ve had a consultant who has gone to visit the villagers, no one remembers this consultation ever taking place. So, we have no record of it. I know that the CIA mentions it, but there’s also discrepancies, because, within the report, it says that no transboundary impact assessment was carried out, that more consultation is required in Cambodia – so right now, our position is that there has not been adequate consultation in Cambodia yet, or even in Laos, it’s been poor in Laos as well. When I visited the dam site and met with local communities, very few people had real information about the project. So I know that what’s happened to date has been inadequate, and not very transparent."

Furthermore, there was no involvement from CNMC in this alleged consultation. No promises were made, and no information about the dam was provided in advance. The interview with local authorities lasted only about 1 hour and touched on general issues in the village on agriculture and fishery. Including the 8 participants at the commune-level meeting with village representatives, a grand total of 16 people in Stung Treng, Cambodia were involved in this “consultation” process (this count is based on the name list in the CIA); no other public consultation/workshops in Cambodia were organized. After this alleged consultation,

14"

no further action was taken by the Lao side with respect to investigating transboundary impacts of the dam in Cambodia, nor the remaining MRC countries (Thailand and Vietnam) for that matter.

From the time of the feasibility in 2007 up until the official notification date in October 2013, neighboring countries could not formally provide any feedback to the Lao government since no report had been officially submitted to the Mekong River Commission Secretariat. From the beginning, GoL’s position was that official notification to neighbouring countries was sufficient for the Don Sahong hydropower project to go ahead, since the Hou Sahong is only one of several Mekong channels created by islands in the river. Officially, Cambodia considers Don Sahong a mainstream dam because the Hou Sahong channel flows year-round (during both dry and wet seasons) and so requires prior consultation under the PNPCA.

8.3.3 Analysis of the 2009 consultation for key elements of meaningful public participation

This consultation has no indication of a sense of meaningful participation and it would barely rate at the “inform” level of public participation since it failed to “provide the public with balanced and objective information that assists them in understanding the proposed project” (CEAA 2008:4-26). Please see the breakdown below for reasons why."

Early notification There was no formal communication between Laos and Cambodia for the consultation. It was an informal meeting arranged by Lao government representatives and their consultants in Cambodia. Only a few people were contacted non-officially for appointments prior to the meeting and there was no public announcement about the consultation through the media such as through community newspapers, announcements on local radio or some other form of news release.

Accessible information

No presentation or information about the dam was provided in advance. The purpose of the meeting was not clear as participants were confused and thought that it was just a meeting to gather data on the general issues related to fishery and agriculture in the villages. The Lao consultants made no mention of the dam at their meeting with the Stung Treng provincial authority.

Shared knowledge

Cambodian authorities who attended at the meeting in 2009 shared information regarding environmental law in Cambodia, agriculture and fisheries with the Lao consultants but there was little information sharing about the dam on the consultants’ part. There was no two-way communication; consultants just collected the information from the village and commune chiefs.

Sensitivity to community values

The meeting was conducted at the Preah Rumkel district office; however only a few village and deputy village chiefs (village authorities, and not regular fishermen) were invited to the meeting.

Reasonable timing

An hour-long meeting was insufficient for real discussion, or knowledge and information-sharing.

Appropriate levels of participation There was no involvement of the CNMC who is in charge of Mekong development in Cambodia. No community people (only village and/or commune chiefs) were invited to join the consultation and there were only 8 participants at the local community meeting.

Adaptive processes

Adaptive processes are the product of “public participation processes [that are] designed, implemented and revised as necessary… This process may be iterative and dynamic in keeping with the reasonable expectations of participants” (Canadian Environmental Agency 2008). Since the 2009 consultation process was so perfunctory as to even be called a consultation, lasting only a few days, actual

15"

adaptive processes could hardly have been developed, assuming the intention to even do so.

Transparent results No reports on this consultation were shared with villagers or the village and commune chiefs. No further action was carried out by the Lao government, nor was any new information disseminated.

8.4 Collective action by Cambodia's fishermen, civil society, and government Even though the dam site is close to Stung Treng province, there is still no mechanism for fishermen on the Cambodian side of the border to ask questions and express their concerns about the development of this project. So far, community people have raised their concerns through workshops, press conferences, and peace walk campaigns arranged by NGOs.

8.4.1 Non-Governmental Organizations and civil society

Communities and NGOs expressed their concerns at the national level through press conferences, radio talkshows, workshops; however an interviewee from a local NGO commented that “there is limited space to voice our concerns as NGOs and community, we also have limited resources and information about the project.” Few subnational events or dialogues were conducted, as the political space at the provincial level is more circumscribed. Within Cambodia, there is also a poor track record of consultations taking place on any project. Companies will document consultations in their EIAs, but these consultations are always inadequate and not meaningful. Civil society groups and NGOs are consulted, but affected people rarely so. "I think that the Cambodian government also has a role to enable more consultation to take place inside Cambodia and information-sharing meetings, and making sure that people living along the Mekong and Tonle Sap lake are informed of what’s happening" one of the interviewees from an INGO said. Since the Don Sahong feasibility study was released in 2007, INGOs and NGOs have responded in the following ways:

• In April 2007, when the project of Don Sahong was first known after the completion of the feasibility study, 28 NGOs sent an open letter to the Lao government, the Lao National Mekong Committee and the MRC Secretariat to reconsider this project in light of its impacts to fisheries, pointing out that the area had Ramsar4 status, and the (sealed) fate of the Irrawaddy dolphin.

• In May 2007, 34 scientists sent a letter to the Lao government citing evidence that this project could have serious impacts to local livelihoods, and that the economic costs from lost fisheries production could outweigh the expected economic benefits of the dam. (The Rivers Coalition in Cambodia & International Rivers 2014: 4)

• In June 2007, World Fish released a science brief regarding Don Sahong to disseminate (critical) research findings on fish migration in the Hou Sahong channel, impacts to food security and rural livelihoods, and the lack of effective measures in the region to mitigate the impact of dams on fisheries.

Since Laos’ notification to the MRC in October 2013, community people from several Cambodian provinces, namely Stung Treng, Kratie, Tonle Sap, Takeo, Kampong Cham and Prey Veng have organized protests to express their concerns on the potential environmental impacts of the dam. Open letters to the prime ministers of the four MRC countries, press conferences, statements, Don Sahong briefs, peace walks, petitions, and campaigns organized during this period requested that Mega First and the Lao government halt construction on the dam until further consultation with downstream communities is carried out.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""4 More formally known as the ‘Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat’ signed 1971 in Ramsar, Iran, recognizes Ramsar Sites in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance.

16"

• On 20 March 2014, the NGO Forum of Cambodia and the Rivers Coalition in Cambodia hosted a national workshop on Don Sahong Dam with the support from relevant ministries such as the Ministry of Environment, CNMC, in order to discuss the importance of the Mekong River and the challenges to local livelihoods from the Don Sahong dam. There were 122 participants (45 females) including government agencies, development partners, academics, fishery scientists, local and international NGOs and communities. The main objective of this workshop was to share information and increase awareness of the dam and its potential impacts to Mekong and Tonle Sap livelihoods. It opened the floor for participants, especially community members, to discuss their concerns about Don Sahong dam and ways forward to mitigate them. As a result of this workshop, a joint statement was issued. It addressed the 4 prime ministers in four countries including Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and Laos. The letter mainly requested the four countries’ leaders to consider stopping the construction of Don Sahong dam.

• Between 29 – 31 March 2014, 1180 villagers, 800 from Kratie and 380 from Stung Treng signed a petition with their thumbprints expressing their concern regarding the construction of Don Sahong Dam.

• Peace walk, 29-31 March 2014, in Kratie and Stung Treng, 400 villagers from Stung Treng and Kratie participated in this campaign to express their concerns about the impact of the dam on their livelihoods.

• In May 2014, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) started a global online petition condemning the Don Sahong dam project. 255,596 people from around the world have signed it. 12,404 people in Cambodia itself signed this petition.

On the day of the first subnational PNPCA consultation in Cambodia (16 October 2014), a group of NGOs, activists and a few community members from Cambodia, Thailand and the United States (a group of 6 people from Cambodia with 2 community people and 4 NGO staff (NGO Forum, NRD), and 2 community members and 2 NGO staff from Thailand) traveled to Kuala Lumpur to submit a complaint at the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, SUHAKAM, against Malaysian dam developer Mega First for threatening the livelihoods of downstream Mekong communities, and violating the communities’ rights to informed consent to a development project that jeopardizes their food and livelihood security. This is apparently the first transnational human rights petition triggered by a dam project on the Mekong River; the company had stonewalled earlier requests by the environmental rights groups to conduct a full transboundary impact assessment of the project (Manibo 2014, para.11) 8.4.2. Fishermen

The key events fishermen participated in or contributed to include joint statements, peace walks, press conferences, thumbprint signatures described earlier in Section 8.5.1. NGOs have been active in raising awareness of the dam and its impacts among Mekong and Tonle Sap communities in Cambodia who will be affected by the DSHPP. Because they are the primary purveyors of dam information to fishermen, both stakeholders tend to share the same position regarding the dam, representing civil society voices at large.

8.4.3. Government of Cambodia The Cambodian National Mekong Committee (CNMC) plays an important role in coordinating among NGOs, community people, and relevant ministries to provide feedback on behalf of the Government of Cambodia to the Mekong River Commission Secretariat. The Cambodian government has paid close attention to possible impacts of the dam on the communities who live along the river including villagers in Stung Treng, Kratie and Tonle Sap. Feedback was given to Laos through the formal platforms below:

• 16 January 2014, MRC Joint Committee meeting in Vientiane, Lao PDR, special session on the proposed Don Sahong Project.

17"

• 7 March 2014, technical consultation among MRC member countries and stakeholders in Vientiane, Lao PDR.

• Two field visits to the Don Sahong project site on 11-12 November 2013 and 11 March 2014. • 26 June 2014, 20th MRC Council meeting in Bangkok • 12 December 2014, Don Sahong PNPCA regional consultation organised by MRC in Pakse, Laos

The Cambodian government considers the 1995 Mekong Agreement binding for any development on the mainstream Mekong River. During these meetings, CNMC raised several concerns related to the disputed status of Don Sahong during the notification process, and the dam’s downstream impact on Cambodia:

• Don Sahong is a project on the mainstream Mekong where "intra basin use on the mainstream [takes place] in dry season", therefore prior consultation is required to allow the riparian states to discuss and evaluate the impacts of the proposed project and any other effects. These will form the basis for arriving at an agreement.

• There is no transboundary assessment for downstream Cambodia resulting in the following concerns: a. 100 fish species migrate through the Hou Sahong channel so the dam will significantly impact

fisheries and the nutritional security of Cambodian people. b. The adjacent Hou Sangpeuk and Hou Sadam fish passage channels will not be effective, as heavy

water flow would come through Hou Sahong for the turbines. c. There has been limited compilation of baseline data and information on physical and biological

resources and socio-economic capitals at the proposed project and surrounding transboundary area. d. Studies and analysis were conducted only on the Lao side of the dam but given its proximity to

Cambodia it is obvious that it will have immediate environmental and socioeconomic impacts on the neighbouring country resulting from the changes in water flow, sediment/silt levels and nutrient content, obstacles to fish migration, reduction of biomass, water quality degradation, the destruction of habitats of endangered and rare species, especially in the Khone Falls area, and undermining the status of the Cambodian Ramsar site in Stung Treng.

e. The impacts to income generation, food security, livelihoods for people resulting from transboundary fish migration require further study and analysis.

f. Detailed planning of sediment extraction and excavating/blasting of bed rocks, minimizing water quality degradation and other health impacts and minimizing the loss/destruction of fish habitats, especially species in deep pools are needed.

g. Cost and benefit sharing analysis in the upstream and downstream transboundary context is needed.

Beside high-level advocacy addressed to MRCS and the Lao government, the Cambodian government to some degree has also encouraged community people and NGOs to provide feedback. The national workshop on Don Sahong held on 20 March 2014 was a government-supported forum for collecting feedback from the grassroots level. According to an interviewee, community representatives who attended this workshop passed information about the development of the dam to the rest of the village upon their return. However, communities still have limited information about the hydropower dam.

! 8.5 The 2014 PNPCA Prior Consultation process organized by the Cambodian National Mekong Committee As we have seen, the villagers raised important concerns about their livelihood and futures. Another major concern is their participation in all these activities described above; whether they are 'overrun', their voices not properly heard; in other words, whether their participation is meaningful. In this section, I present the positions of various stakeholders on the 2014 PNPCA and analyze the CNMC consultation for elements of meaningful participation

18"

8.5.1 Non-governmental organizations and civil society "The consultation should not happen now and should be delayed for another few years, in order to allow for a transboundary EIA to be done and also the MRC's council study to be finished." - Interviewee who works

at an NGO

6 non-governmental organizations, NGOF, MVi, CEPA, SACRED, CRDT, PDOA were invited by the CNMC for the Stung Treng subnational workshop. Beside these organizations, staff from RCC, WWF, OXFAM, International Rivers, Mekong Watch worked really hard to provide feedback for the consultation process. However, INGOs, namely International Rivers and WWF, together with the Rivers Coalition of Cambodia are extremely dissatisfied with the PNPCA process and have boycotted the prior consultations because there is no transboundary impact assessment and the developer has continued construction the dam even during the consultation phase. NGOs who are committed to environmental conservation and community development in Cambodia feel that the consultations are just a “decoration” workshop for Laos to go ahead in building the dam legally. Even though some members of these organizations or their affiliates were present at the consultations, they have rejected the process of the PNPCA organized by CNMC. On the surface, the workshops appeared to take place smoothly, but there was a lot of anxiety behind the scenes from civil society groups as they fought with each other and agonized over whether to participate and try to make the most of the defective PNPCA process (at the risk of being seen as legitimizing it), or to boycott it altogether.

On the second day of the first subnational consultation (17 October 2014), the Rivers Coalition in Cambodia and several allied NGOs wrote an open letter in Khmer to the Cambodian prime minister to detail their concerns about the inadequate PNPCA process. (The open letter can be found in Annex X).

8.5.2 Fishermen "I don't believe what was mentioned in the report during the consultation process – that the artificial stream will allow the fish to migrate." - Stung Treng fisherman/community representative from Ou Run village who

participated in the PNPCA process

According to the interviewees in the two villages, most of the villagers were not aware of the CNMC consultation workshop. The interviewees mentioned that they would very much liked to have participated in this consultation if they had been invited. They also indicated that the CNMC to should organize the workshop at their village(s) so that they can participate easily. Interviewees did not consider the CNMC Prior Consultation a proper consultation since only one of them knew about the event. He was also the only member of both villages to be invited to attend the subnational consultation in Stung Treng city in his capacity as the head of the Kalapeas community fishery. Fishermen/women also mentioned that so little information has been shared with them that some of the villagers did not even know that there is a dam under construction nearby. The ones who were more informed about the hydropower project were skeptical of the dam developer’s claims that the alternate fish migration channels it was engineering would mitigate the presence of the dam. In the words of a fisherman and community activist: “currently, fishermen/women are subsisting on diets and incomes from fish. There is limited support from the government and few NGOs for poverty reduction, and if there is no fish the situation in the villages will be disastrous. This [CNMC] consultation should include more fishermen/women so that they are included in the consultation, if not decision-making process, and are fully aware of what is happening to their surrounding environment so they can prepare for the resulting changes to their livelihoods.” 8.5.3 Cambodia National Mekong Committee (Government of Cambodia)

"This process was conducted with [the] meaningful participation [of stakeholders], when you consider the limited budget and short time-frame we had," CNMC representative

19"

The CNMC representative I interviewed mentioned that given the 6 months allowed for the prior consultation process, CNMC was subject to time constraints. In his view, CNMC staff worked hard despite this to encourage public participation from community members, NGOs, local authorities and relevant ministries. A road map was developed as a guideline for the Prior Consultation process (see Annex XI). Impacted communities and local authorities along the Mekong and Tonle Sap were earmarked and invited to the workshop. However, the turnout of participants from various sectors was limited. Concerns raised during group discussions at the workshops can be found in Annex XII. 8.5.4 Mega First Corporation Berhad (Dam developer)

Because the dam developer has been absent throughout the consultation process and did not respond to my requests for an interview, we can only infer their position on the hydropower project (and not on the Prior Consultation) from secondary data such as news articles and new releases on the Don Sahong Power Company website. Mega First has expressed a rosy view of potential environmental and social impacts. Peter Hawkins, the senior environmental manager at Mega First Corporation Berhad has dismissed as exaggerations civil society concerns that the construction of the dam will destroy the habitat of the Irrawaddy dolphins who live near the dam site and will also cause many fish species who are unable to migrate to become extinct. He claims that the proposed dam is sustainable and "offers many tangible benefits; it will have almost no environmental footprint" since the dam built on the Hou Sahong channel would only partially divert the river's flow (Phnom Penh Post, Tue 15 October 2014). Hawkins and his project team challenge the general NGO consensus that the Hou Sahong channel is the only year-round migratory passage for fish moving up or downstream. In April 2014, they completed the modification of alternative river channels to enable continuous fish migration all year round. According to the fisheries biologist in charge of these modifications, “There is always some uncertainty, but in my expert opinion, the development of new pathways in the Xang Pheuak and restoration of pathways in the Sadam channel, will be sufficient to replace loss of upstream dry season passage caused by the Don Sahong barrage” (Don Sahong Power Company, 14 May 2014). Indeed, Hawkins and his team are confident of improving rates of fish migration in the vicinity of the dam and have tagged fish in a bid to demonstrate that fish migrate successfully through other channels other than the Hou Sahong. As such, the developer's view of the dam project is that it is a boon to Don Sahong's development through the construction of a new road and bridge that will link it to the mainland, along with improving fisheries management and local livelihoods. 8.5.5 Analysis of the 2014 consultation for key elements of meaningful public participation

Through observations made at the subnational workshops held in Stung Treng and Battambang and interviews with fishermen in Kalapeas and Koh Cheuteal Toch, I examine the level of public participation by looking at the opportunities provided for fishermen’s input on the process. This consultation would rate as a "limited consultation," based on the CEAA’s levels of participation outlined in Section 3 that falls short of meaningful. Below, I develop an analysis using the key elements of meaningful public participation, synthesizing the participation of the 3 main stakeholders in Cambodia. Early notification There was limited notification to community people even though the prior consultation workshop was announced on the MRC website inviting public participation. However, this is insufficient since most community members do not have internet connections, may only be semi-literate and most likely have no idea what the MRC is, let alone know how to access their website. There was no public announcement of the consultation; only invitees from NGOs, government authorities, and community representatives were personally notified about this workshop. No educational information packages were provided to participants and communities in advance. No background information, factsheets or brochures were produced to raise

20"

awareness among the public of the dam project and its impacts. Among 9 interviewees (fishermen/women from Stung Treng province), only two of them - one from Ou Run village (which is not one of the target villages) and the other from Kalapeas village – were aware of and had been invited to participate in the prior consultation workshop in Stung Treng city conducted in mid-October 2014. The interviewee (fisherman) from Ou Run village who participated as a Mekong community representative was concerned that information sharing to the villagers insufficient; villagers needed to be more aware of the dam and its impending effects on their lives. Accessible Information MRCS and CNMC made presentations on the hydropower project on the first day of each workshop but it was not enough for the participants to have an in-depth understanding of the situation and to provide worthwhile comments. Relevant information on Don Sahong Dam is posted on the MRC website in English but community people still have no access to the internet and in any case do not read English. All important documents such as the EIA, SIA and CIA are in English so are effectively unavailable to communities and local authorities. Important documents such as EIA, SIA and CIA were not translated or summarized for participants before hand to give them time to review them and contribute to the discussion. Shared Knowledge There was limited knowledge sharing on the project with communities who live near the dam. The few NGOs who work in these villages have limited budgets so it has been difficult for them to advocate and raise awareness about the dam development project and its impact. A presentation about the project, the PNPCA, the dam’s impacts on fisheries took place at the first day of all the CNMC workshops to give participants an overview of the project but it is too cursory for community members to provide real feedback on the development of the dam. Certain documents such as EIA, SIA and CIA are very technical so it is hard for community and local authorities to understand them in English (and even if they are translated, for that matter) and provide feedback. Sensitivity to community values The CNMC consultation demonstrated varying levels of sensitivity to community values and local lifeways. The venue of the subnational consultation in Stung Treng was held in the provincial capital, at least 3 hours away by boat and taxi from the affected communities belies a consideration for the fishermen’s occupations and the time, expenditure and lost income incurred in order to attend the consultation. There was no forum or local consultation at the community level where more villagers could attend and where they would feel more “at home” asking questions and voicing concerns. However, facilitators and other participants at the prior consultation workshops avoided using any technical terms to create a conducive environment for community members to contribute to the discussion. Their knowledge of fish species, yields, migratory pathways, fishing techniques and river hydrology was also respected. Reasonable timing The consultation process is premature as no transboundary impact assessment has been produced yet, nor any independently conducted EIA, SIA and CIA or at least an independent consultant review of these assessments. The six month period for prior consultation with meaningful participation is also short. To begin with, the MRC countries argued among each other about the starting date of the 6-month Prior Consultation process, as Laos did not submit hard copies of the official documents to the MRC Secretariat until 25th July 2014, having only submitted a link previously. This ate into the designated amount of time, for the start date was only retroactively confirmed by the MRC 2 months after the process began (Trandem 2014, para. 1-2). Furthermore, the dates and locations for both subnational consultations in Cambodia kept changing and were only confirmed a few days before each meeting. Before and while the consultations were conducted, Laos went ahead with the construction of a bridge from the mainland to Don Sadam Island for the transportation of building material. This violates the PNPCA since no construction is allowed until the prior consultation is completed. Two-day workshops (of which there were only 2) are insufficient for community and local authorities to properly grasp the issues and dam impacts and therefore participate meaningfully in

21"

the debate. Finally, the national and subnational consultations would be more useful if it is delayed until a proper report on transboundary impacts has been produced. Appropriate levels of participation Only 6 members from affected communities were invited to each subnational workshop in Stung Treng and Battambang. For the Stung Treng consultation, only 4 of the 6 villagers invited ended up attending the workshop. These fishermen came from Ou Run Village, Kalapeas Village, Koh Sneng Village and Kadin Village. The villages situated closest to the dam site and therefore most vulnerable to its effects, such as Koh Lagnor Village, Leur Village and Koh Cheuteal Toch village were not represented at the consultation at all.

The proportion of the community people in the Prior Consultation meetings was therefore very low, comprising less than 10% of the total number of participants. Cambodian civil society groups were present at the consultations but INGOs such as International Rivers and WWF, together with the Rivers Coalition in Cambodia have boycotted the entire consultation process as no independent transboundary impact assessment has been produced. There was no participation by the developer, a major stakeholder and decision-maker, at any of the 4 consultative workshops organized by CNMC. Mega First was invited to the national technical consultation on 13 November 2014 but did not show up. As such, community people were have not been given any chance to meet with the developer to raise their concerns and receive direct information on how the developer plans to mitigate the impacts of the dam. So far, MRCS has presented on behalf of the developer at the subnational and national level consultations but there have been no developer dialogues with community people to see how they might both come up with a common plan for sustainable hydropower development. There is no clear commitment from the developer to support any livelihood restoration as they deny any real impact to local livelihoods. Adaptive processes The entire consultation process was organised as a one-way discussion with no mechanism for a back and forth dialog with fishing communities. The consultations should also be conducted at the village or commune level and in a way that is flexible to the needs and daily schedules of the fishermen/villagers so that they can raise their concerns effectively. In any case, like the 2009 Lao consultation, the brief, stand-alone workshops organized by CNMC do not lend themselves to adaptive consultative processes and are insufficient for obtaining informed feedback. Transparent results CNMC has been trying to ensure public participation in order to demonstrate the transparency of its results. The subnational consultation result with will be combined with those from the 2 consultations at the national level. However, there were no deeper explanations given for, or real discussion of the concerns raised prior to and during the workshops, undermining the quality of any results from the PNPCA Prior Consultations. The Cambodian government is likely to have a vested interest in not “rocking the boat” and objecting to the DSHPP too strongly as Cambodia too has its own plans for domestic hydropower development, for example the Lower Sesan 2 Dam in Stung Treng, the controversial Cheay Areng Dam in Koh Kong and the massive 2200MW Sambo Dam on the Mekong in Kratie province next to Stung Treng. At the MRC joint committee level, the ministers who chair these joint committees are also subject to other geopolitical and economic considerations related to collaboration among neighbouring countries that may override grassroots and civil society voices. NGOs in Cambodia are concerned about the results from this prior consultation, fearing that the Lao government and Mega First will ignore the perspectives and concerns of fishermen and community people as they have not provided any transboundary livelihood restoration plan for Lao PDR’s riparian neighbours.

! 8.6 Comparison of the 2009 Lao consultation with the 2014 CNMC consultation In short, both the 2009 and 2014 consultations did not have meaningful participation, as evidenced by the analysis conducted in Sections 8.4.3 and 8.6.4. However, to a certain degree, the CNMC consultation in

22"

2014 had more involvement from stakeholders such as government authorities, a handful of villagers and some NGOs. It was also official recognized by Cambodian government with a clearly defined roadmap designed with the help of the MRCS. As for the 2009 consultation, it was conducted by privately contracted Lao consultants was not endorsed by the Cambodian government not the MRCS. It consisted of 8 informal meetings/interviews with provincial government officials and one hour-long meeting with group of 8 village and commune chiefs that involved little information sharing about the proposed dam. Perhaps the only thing it did better than the CNMC consultation was that the meeting with village and commune chiefs was held at the Preah Rumkel commune office, which did not require participants to spend much time or money making their way to. Appropriate levels of participation is a noticeable problem in these two consultations as there was very limited participation from communities and fishermen/women who are the group most vulnerable to the effects of dam development. The dam developer, Mega First, was conspicuously absent from both consultations and therefore unable to show any accountability to the fishermen. From the details we know, the 2009 consultation counts only at the minimal “inform” level of participation and 2014 consultation counts at a very limited “consult” level since it “obtain and consider public feedback” (CEAA 2008:4-26) to some extent even though the consultation sessions and information about the dam were poorly publicized. Using the CEAA’s instrument for determining the appropriate level of public participation in an environmental assessment as a rough guide, the DSHPP warrants at least an “involve,” if not “collaborate” level of participation5 in order for its consultation and larger decision-making process to be meaningful and fair (see Annex XIII for the CEEA’s worksheet for assessing the appropriate level of participation required for a particular issue). Table 4 summarizes the various factors that account for the lack of meaningful participation in both the 2009 and 2014 consultations. ! Table 3: Comparison of the 2009 Lao consultation and the 2014 CNMC consultation

Consultation in 2009 (National Consulting Company)

Consultation in 2014 (CNMC)

Legal status o There was no recognition by Cambodia,

Vietnam and Thailand about the consultation process.

o It was an informal “knowledge-sharing" meeting.

o An official agreement by Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand on the Prior Consultation process of Don Sahong was signed in June 2014, in accordance with the PNPCA.

Early notification o There was no formal communication

between Laos and Cambodia regarding the consultation.

o Only a few people were contacted for appointments prior to the meeting; there was no public announcement.

o Participants received notification about consultative workshops about a week in advance and they were announced on the MRC website.

o However, workshop dates and locations kept changing until the last minute.

o There was no public announcement through media, no information packages were provided to participants in advance.

o No background information, factsheets or brochures

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""5"As covered in Section 3, these levels of participation respectively involve “work[ing] directly with the public by providing opportunity for dialogue and interaction during the environmental assessment process to ensure consistent understanding and incorporation of their interests” and “partner[ing] with the representatives of the public the resolve issues jointly or make recommendations… to identify, evaluate and recommend preferred alternatives in a collaborative manner.” (CEEA 2008:4-26)

23"

were produced to raise awareness among the public prior the workshop.

Accessible information

o Informal meetings so no presentation or information package about the dam was provided

o According to an interviewee who was present at the meeting with village authorities in Preah Rumkel commune, the dam project was only mentioned at the end of the meeting.

o Relevant information on Don Sahong posted on the MRC website.

o A brief presentation of the project was conducted at the first day in Khmer at all the consultative workshops to give participants an overview of the project.

o Important documents such as the EIA, SIA and CIA are in English.

o No relevant documents provided in advance Shared knowledge o Cambodian authorities who participated

shared information about Cambodian environmental law, agriculture and fisheries to the Lao consultants.

o No information was provided to participants.

o A brief presentation about the dam development project took place at the first day of each workshop.

o Documents such as EIA, SIA and CIA are only in English.

Sensitivity to community values o The consultative meeting with

downstream fishing communities was conducted on-location at Preah Rumkel commune; however only the village and commune chiefs were invited

o Consultation venues located in provincial capitals (Stung Treng and Battambang cities) which require time, money and effort to attend.

o There was no forum at the community level where they would feel more confident about voicing their concerns

o Technical jargon in English and Khmer were avoided to create a friendly space for participants to speak up.

o Local knowledge from community people was valued.

Reasonable timing o It was only an hour-long meeting; there

was no time for a real discussion or knowledge-sharing.

o MRC countries argued among each other about the start date of the 6-month Prior Consultation process.

o The dates and locations for both subnational consultations in Cambodia kept changing and were only confirmed a few days before each meeting.

o Before and while the consultations were conducted, Lao went ahead with the construction of a bridge from the mainland to Ho Sadam Island.

o Two-day workshops are insufficient for community and local authorities to properly grasp the issues and dam impacts.

o The national and subnational consultations would be more useful if they are delayed until a proper report on transboundary impacts has been produced.

Appropriate levels of participation o There was no involvement of CNMC,

community people or any talk of potential dam impacts, let alone compensation for

o Limited participants from NGOs, local authorities, and communities were involved in this process.

o The proportion of the community people at the

24"

these impacts. o There was no two-way communication;

consultants just collected information from the village and commune chiefs.

o A total of only 16 people participated in this consultation; only 8 people (village and commune authorities) were present at the local community meeting.

subnational workshops was very low, less than 10% of the total number of participants (only 4 people out of about 60 at the Stung Treng consultation).

o Villages located closest to the dam severely under-represented

o No forum at village or commune level. o International non-governmental organization such as

International Rivers and WWF, together with the Rivers Coalition of Cambodia have boycotted the entire consultation process as no independent transboundary impact assessment has been produced. This undermines the extent of participation by all stakeholders.

o Developer has been absent from the entire PNCPA process so far.

Adaptive processes The consultation was conducted on-location in an informal way so it was easier for participants to be involved but one hour is inadequate for discussing a major issue such as a hydropower project.

o The workshops should be conducted at the village or commune level so that community members can raise their concerns effectively.

o The organizer kept changing the venue of the workshops.

Transparent results No report, promises or further actions by the Lao government and dam developer materialized after the consultation.

o Geopolitical and trade relations calling for cooperation among neighbouring countries that may override grassroots and civil society voices and opinions.

o Cambodian government may want to withhold strong critiques of DSHPP due to its own plans for domestic hydropower development.

o NGOs in Cambodia are concerned about the results from this Prior Consultation as it is likely to follow to the footsteps of the failed Xayaburi PNPCA process.

9. Discussion In this section, I cover certain issues that were not captured or analysed in earlier sections on my research findings: the lack of 1) appropriate planning for meaningful participation; 2) a local network for information-sharing; 3) a strong, united NGO/civil society front at the PNPCA and 4) women’s participation. These gaps call for a better road map for public participation in the decision-making process for hydropower development, as the CNMC road map for the 2014 prior consultation has not led to meaningful participation in Cambodia for the Don Sahong PNPCA. Essentially, the road map focused only on the consultation meeting dates and did not allocate enough time community stakeholders to take in crucial information prior to the consultative workshops. There was insufficient outreach, information-sharing and opportunities provided to men and women in downstream communities to learn about the dam’s impacts, and to have a say in the management of their environments.

! 9.1 Appropriate planning for meaningful participation Fishermen’s participation in the Don Sahong Prior Consultation was hampered by the travel distance to the meeting locations and by the low number of invitations. A quota of only 6 fishermen each were invited to the two subnational consultations in Stung Treng and Battambang. No fishermen from any of the Mekong

25"

countries were present at the regional PNPCA consultation orgnanized by the MRC on 12th December 2014 in Pakse, Laos. As the group whose livelihoods are the most threatened by the dam, they have been weakly represented at all levels of the PNPCA. A better allocation of the consultation quota and budget may have enabled more fishermen to meaningfully participate in the PNPCA Prior Consultations process.

! 9.2 A local network for information-sharing"" According to the villagers I interviewed, community people would love to have consultations at the commune or village level. They would love to have a forum among communities along the Mekong and Tonle Sap so that everyone can get together to discuss their concerns. The establishment of a local network or community-based organization may serve as a contact point or space for community people in Preah Rumkel commune in Stung Treng, for example, may enable villagers to continue to have a voice, however limited, in expressing concerns and receiving information about the dam and its impacts as it is constructed. Fishermen are the most vulnerable stakeholder group as they rely on fishing for their daily food and income. However, there have not been many platforms for them to raise their concerns regarding the development of Don Sahong even though it is clear that it will impact their livelihoods. Only few fishermen have informal access to information about the dam through community fishery members and village chiefs who were able to join workshops or meetings and receive information from NGOs based in Stung Treng such as MVi, CEPA and CRDT and RCC. When community fishery members and village chiefs return from such events, they share what information they receive to other villagers. However, they have little hope of reversing the decision to build the dam as they know that even if they raise their concerns, Laos will still continue building the dam. Due to inadequate information or misunderstandings about the civil society campaigns launched against the construction of the dam, some villagers believed that these NGO-facilitated campaigns or protests had political undertones and thought that their participation might get them into trouble.""

! 9.3 A strong, united NGO/civil society front at the PNPCA"" Local and international NGOs cared deeply about the impacts of the dam and the validity of the Prior Consultation but were divided on how to respond to the faulty consultation process with no independent transboundary impact assessment and with the ongoing construction of Don Sahong during the PNPCA. Caught between supporting a doomed process from the start and having their non-participation used against them, the NGOs, activists and community members argued among themselves about whether to attend the CNMC consultations as they believed this whole prior consultation process to be a sham that would allow Lao PDR to go ahead building the dam legally. This resulted in a mixed turnout at the CNMC Prior Consultation. Groups such as WWF, International Rivers and RCC decided to boycott the PNPCA entirely, not showing up at any of the subnational, national or regional consultation workshops. Given the role civil society played in demanding transboundary prior consultations for Don Sahong, one wonders if more concerted and unanimous action – perhaps if a mass boycott or peaceful demonstrations at the consultations had been planned – may have at least given cause for the MRC, CNMC, GoL and Mega First to reconsider their decisions and policies regarding the consultation and the dam project.

" 9.4 Women’s participation" Only 10% of the participants at the prior consultation meetings were female. Despite the importance of the river to their livelihoods, none of the community people at the subnational consultations were female. In the target village of Koh Cheuteal Toch, 14% of the 111 families have female breadwinners and the island population of 533 is 43% female. In Kalapeas village, 8 % of its 153 families have female breadwinners and its population of 707 is 52% female. Given these numbers and the obvious fact that women form about half

26"

of any population, they need to be included in the consultation process of any development project as it will impact their livelihoods. The women villagers I interviewed were very concerned about development of Don Sahong; all of them had thumbprinted a petition to the halt the dam’s construction.

10. Conclusion This thesis documents Cambodian stakeholders perspectives on the DSHPP in Lao PDR and their participation in its transboundary consultations processes in 2009 and 2014. It focused in particular on the actions and concerns of Stung Treng fishermen and the environmental groups who support them. Using the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s (2008) criteria for meaningful participation, this research found that the consultation process for the EIA, SIA and CIA prepared by Laos and the prior consultation organized by the CNMC involved very limited participation and consultation with potentially affected communities living along the Mekong. However, Cambodian civil society emerged as a significant actor in submitting the Don Sahong Dam to the PNPCA, however inadequate the process has turned out to be. This is a force to be tapped for future action advocating sustainable and participatory development. Due to the availability of sources, and the opportunity for direct, concurrent observation of the 2014 consultation process, this study has focused more heavily on the consultation process in Cambodia, and the participation of NGOs and local fishermen. Fishermen’s participation so far does not count as meaningful because there is no adequate mechanism or platform for notifying community people about the dam and raising widespread and informed awareness of its effects; for notifying them about the prior consultation meetings, and for collecting their concerns and responding to these concerns on an ongoing basis. Communication with a wider public in Cambodia, especially those who stand to be disadvantaged by the dam project, has not been efficient.

The implementation of the Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement in Cambodia for the Don Sahong Hydropower Project has been flawed, and governments and developers continue this trend of complicity in going through the motions of the PNPCA in order to minimally satisfy legal requirements for hydropower projects. In such a scenario, the question to research is not whether there has been meaningful participation in decision-making for development, but what to do in the absence of meaningful participation. Nonetheless, the following recommendations may help to bring about a more meaningful level of public participation in future prior consultation processes.

11. Recommendations “People must be front and centre of natural resource management decision-making that affects them. When faced with mining, logging/forestry, dams, palm oil, agribusiness or aquaculture projects, communities have

rights that must be respected by their government and by companies.” (Hill 2014: 4)

1. Improved budgeting, logistics and planning for Prior Consultation processes.

Better budgeting and logistical planning may help bring about more meaningful participation in future consultations. More fishermen should be invited to join the consultations, and they should be compensated for their travel expenses as well as for any loss in income from the length of time away from their occupation. Alternatively, the consultations should simply be held where the affected communities are to make it easier for community members to attend them. Oxfam Australia’s Strengthening Community Understanding of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Trainer’s Manual (Hill 2014) and other similar FPIC instruments could be useful for community people who are potentially impacted by large-scale development that is growing in South East Asia. This manual could provide guidance to communities on how to navigate hydropower development issues and exercise their rights effectively to claim equity, accountability and transparency towards sustainable hydropower development. NGOs and the Cambodian government should consider the suggestions and

27"

activities laid out in the manual for notifying and providing awareness to communities at large scale development locations while the project is still in the planning stage so that local people know what is happening and can make informed decisions about development in their vicinity. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s 2008 Public Participation Guide is another useful resource with a dedicated section for practitioners with chapters on “Planning for Public Participation”, “Implementing Public Participation” and “Evaluating the Process and Communicating Outcomes”. Governments, National Mekong Committees, the MRC and dam developers should provide adequate resources (e.g. time, materials such as information packages, venues, reimbursements) for the meaningful participation of all major stakeholders, and efforts should be made to secure funding to make this possible. This requirement should actually be included in the initial budgets and contracts between governments and developers. 2. Mobilize civil society to demand transparent and meaningful public involvement in future consultations.

This study has shown that an active civil society has been important in bringing about an official transboundary and regional consultation for the DSHPP under the PNPCA. To strengthen the role of civil society in pushing for meaningful public participation in hydropower development, more awareness of its environmental and social impacts needs to be raised among riparian communities and the general public. Celebrity publicity, and traditional and social media campaigns may help to engage Cambodia’s ICT-savvy “Facebook generation”. Given the country’s significant youth population (according to UNFPA statistics, 1 in 3 Cambodians are aged between 15 to 29), NGOs could establish a youth environmental network to connect youth activists, community organizers and advocates of sustainable hydropower development and environmental justice. 3. Increase women’s participation in consultation for Mekong hydropower development. Gender equity in participation in decision-making should be a key component in hydropower development as women constitute at least half of the population and they are the most vulnerable to poverty. NGOs and the Government should create a platform where women can voice their concerns without discrimination. Ongoing support and capacity building can empower vulnerable women to have an influence in the decision-making process. CNMC should give priority to women’s involvement in the PNPCA process as the river is also an integral part of their livelihoods. 4. Establish a local network or community-based organization for sharing information on proposed hydropower projects.

This serves as a contact point and meeting place for villagers to obtain information about the dam in person or in print (e.g. illustrated pamphlets or booklets in Khmer) and for them to submit queries and concerns about the am during its planning, consultation, environmental and social impact assessment, construction and operational stages. Environmental groups can have a physical base to liaise with local staff and authorities in potentially affected communities, and fishermen can at least have some recourse to a grassroots body with connections to advocacy experts. Through such a network or CBO, NGOs and the Cambodian government should also provide information and awareness on how to adapt to the new changes to the ecosystem of the Mekong River so that villagers can consider alternative livelihood strategies and prepare for the environmental impacts of dam development well in advance. This is crucial given the hydropower boom on the Mekong with plans for several dams to be built on the river and its tributaries in China, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

28"

References

Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin. 5 April 1995. Mekong River Commission. Retrieved 5 August 2014 from http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/policies/MRC-1995-Agreement-n-procedures.pdf

Arnstein, S. R. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’ in Journal of the American Planning Association 35(4) July: 216-224.

Baird, I. G. (2011). The Don Sahong Dam: Potential impacts on regional fish migrations, livelihoods, and human health. Critical Asian Studies 43(2), 211-235.

Bangkok Post 11 September 2014 Cambodians oppose Lao dam, available from http://www.bangkokpost.com/most-recent/431752/cambodians-oppose-don-sahong-dam-in-laos

Baran E, & B Ratner, 2007. The Don Sahong dam and Mekong Fisheries. A Science Brief from the WorldFish Centre. The WorldFish Centre – Greater Mekong Regional Office, Phnom Penh, 2007. Retrieved 2 November 2014 from http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/DonSahong-final.pdf

Challenges Programme on Water and Food (CPWF), 2013, Hydroelectric Dams in the Mekong River Basin: Planned, Commissioned and under construction 2013.

CNMC & WorldFish Centre. 2007. Influence of Built Structures on Tole Sap Fisheries: Findings and Recommendations. CNMC & WorldFish Centre, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Corben, R. 9 December 2014. Environmentalists Skeptical Ahead of Laos Meeting on Hydropower Dam. Retrieved 12 December 2014 from http://www.voanews.com/content/environmentalists-skeptical-ahead-of-laos-meeting-on-hydropower-dam/2552305.html

Don Sahong Hydroelectic Project, Lao PDR Feasibility Study Report. Volume 1. 2007. Mega First Corporation Berhard. Retrieved 31 July 2014 from http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/mega_first_2007_don_sahong_feasibility_study_0.pdf

Don Sahong Hydropower Project, Lao PDR Cumulative Impact Assessment. January 2013. Mega First Corporation Berhad. Retrieved 31 July 2014 from http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Other-Documents/Don-Sahong/DSHPP-CIA-FINAL-2013.pdf

Estoria, Estela. April 2012. Mekong River-Dependent Livelihoods: The Sambor Baseline Survey. The NGO Forum on Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Finney, Richard. 20 October 2014. NGOs Petition Malaysian Human Rights Body Over Laos Dam. Retrieved 11 November 2014 from http://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/petition-10202014173545.html

Fisheries Administration of Cambodia, 2011, Community fishery approval by Fishery Administration of Cambodia -Prakas No 628 (26 Dec 2011)

Fisheries Administration of Cambodia, December 2012, Food and Nutrition Security Vulnerability to Mainstream Hydropower Dam Development In Cambodia Inland. Retrieved 25 September 2014 from http://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/media/cambodia-dams-and-food-security-2013.pdf Hill, C. (2014) Strengthening Community Understanding of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Trainer’s

Manual.Oxfam Australia. Khamin, N., & Middleton, C. (2008). Case study eleven: Don Sahong hydropower project. In Power surge:

The impacts of rapid dam development in Laos. Sharon Lawrence, ed (pp. 80-85). Berkeley, CA: International Rivers.

Kuenzer, C., Campbell, I., Roch, M., Leinenkugel, P., Tuan, V. Q., & Dech, S. (2013). Understanding the impact of hydropower developments in the context of upstream--downstream relations in the Mekong river basin. Sustainability Science, 8(4), 565-584.

Lebel, L., Garden, P., & Imamura, M. (2005). The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong region. Ecology and Society, 10(2), 18.

Lor, R., & Ham, K. (2013). Case study: Transboundary impacts from hydropower development on the Sesan River on the downstream communities. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.

Manibo, M. (2014, 7 November). Mekong NGOs file complaint against Mega First to Malaysia's human rights body. Retrieved 10 November 2014 from http://www.eco-business.com/news/mekong-ngos-file-

29"

complaint-against-Mega-First-Malaysia-human-rights-body/ Mather R, Brunner J. (2010). The Mekong river. Droughts, dams, and a defining moment in time. IUCN.

Retrived 1 November 2014 from http://www.iucn.org/es/noticias/noticias_por_fecha/2010_news_sp/abril_ news_2010/?5105/The-Mekong-River-droughts-dams-and-defining-a-moment-in-time

Matthews, N. (2012). Water grabbing in the Mekong basin: an analysis of the winners and losers of Thailand's hydropower development in Lao PDR. Water Alternatives, 5(2), 392-411.

Mekong River Commission Vision & Mission. (n.d.). Retrieved 12 October 2014 from http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-mrc/vision-and-mission/

Mekong River Commission Secretariat, Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA) Prior Consultation, Summary Background Document In support of Prior Consultation on the Proposed Don Sahong Hydropower Project September14, Retrieved 31 September 2014, from http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/Consultations/Don-Sahong/Don-Sahong-summary background-Ver.-2.pdf OXFAM Australia Water Governance Regional Program leaflet, 2013, A River of Life. Phak, S. (2014, 31 March) Hundreds protest Laos dam. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved 16 October 2014

from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/hundreds-protest-laos-dam Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement. February 2003. Mekong River Commission.

Retrieved 4 August 2014 from http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/policies/Procedures-Notification-Prior-Consultation-Agreement.pdf

Rieu-Clarke, A. (2014). Notification and consultation procedures under the Mekong agreement: Insights from the Xayaburi controversy. Asian Journal of International Law, FirstView Article April 2014, pp 1-33.

Sneddon, C., & Fox, C. (2006). Rethinking transboundary waters: A critical hydropolitics of the Mekong basin. Political Geography, 25(2), 181-202. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2008. Public Participation Guide. Retrieved 29 August 2014 from https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/Content/4/6/4/46425CAF-50B2-408D-A2A4-EDFAD2A72807/Public_Participation_Guide.pdf

The Rivers Coalition in Cambodia, & International Rivers. (2014). The Don Sahong hydropower project. Briefing sheet. Retrieved 18 July 2014 from http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/don_sahong_briefing_sheet_2.7.14.pdf

Trandem, A. (2014, October 9). Nearly over before it started: Prior consultation for Don Sahong Dam silently begins. Retrieved 16 October 2014 from http://www.internationalrivers.org/blogs/263

Whitehead, I. (2011). Closed channels or open waters? Mekong dams, transboundary law and the Xayaburi prior consultation process. Honours Thesis. Department of Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney.

Worrell, S. (2014, November 3). Xayaburi dam nearly half done. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved 9 November 2014 from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/xayaburi-dam-nearly-half-done

WWF Don Sahong Dam Brief: Very High Risk For Cambodia, January 2014, Retrieved 1 October 2014 from http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/don_sahong_brief___final_05feb.pdf

!

! 1!

ANNEX

Table of Contents

Annex I: Map!................................................................................................................................................................................!2!Annex II: Summary of the event for Don Sahong dam development:!.......................................................................!3!Annex III. Concepts and definitions!......................................................................................................................................!6!Annex IV: List of interviewees!...............................................................................................................................................!7!Annex V: Interview guideline and questions!.....................................................................................................................!9!Annex VI: Work plan and timeline!....................................................................................................................................!15!Annex VII: Map and Geographic information on Steung Treng province!............................................................!16!Annex VIII: MRCS comments on the Don Sahong's feasibility study in 2007!...................................................!17!Annex IX: Key dates for 2009 consultation conducted by Laos National Consulting Company!................!24!Annex X: Joint Statement NGOs and RCC!.....................................................................................................................!26!Annex XI: Prior consultation in Cambodia road map!..................................................................................................!29!Annex XII: Concern raise at the Prior consultation in Steung Treng!.....................................................................!31!Annex XIII: CEEA’s worksheet for assessing the appropriate level of participation!.......................................!36!Annex XIV: PNPCA process and Mekong Agreement 1995!....................................................................................!38!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! 2!

Annex I: Map Map of Don Sahong Dam

(Source: WWF, 2013)

!

! 3!

Annex II: Summary of the event for Don Sahong dam development:

Date Events

23 March 2006 Mega First Corporation Berhad (MFCB) signed an agreement with the GOL to conduct an 18-month feasibility study for DSHPP

December 2007 (first) Feasibility study and EIA were completed

13 Feb 2008 MFCB signed a Project Development Agreement (PDA) with the GOL – Range of technical, environmental/social, financing and contractual documents necessary to implement the Project conducted.

2009 Fishery studies, mitigation & monitoring programs commenced

2010 Detailed E&S studies presented to GOL & local people

2012 MoNRE review & approval of ESIA

2013 All E&S studies updated & resubmitted:

• Testing of fisheries mitigation • Detailing resettlement, compensation, livelihood &

environment programs • Completion of CA, PPA, FC, & Engineering

30 September 2013 Lao PDR submitted a notification of the Don Sahong Hydropower Project to the MRC Secretariat along with project documents such as the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Social Impact Assessment. The Secretariat then circulated the documents to the Joint Committee (JC) of the other three Member Countries, Cambodia, Thailand and Viet Nam and made all the documents available on the MRC website.

10-12 November 2013

The Lao government arranged a site visit for representatives of the MRC Member Countries, diplomats, non-governmental organisations and the media to observe the location in the wet season.

16 January 2014 The MRC held a Special Session of the Joint Committee to discuss the Don Sahong Hydropower Project. The Member Countries had divergent views on the process required for the project and referred the matter to the MRC Council.

22 January 2014 The Lao government requested data on fisheries, hydrology and water quality from the MRC Secretariat to support its assessment of potential impacts of the project.

27 January 2014 The MRC Secretariat provided a number of available data to Lao PDR as requested.

!

! 4!

7 March 2014 The Lao government held a technical consultation workshop in Vientiane, Lao PDR for discussion on initial assessments of the project with a number of representatives from the Member Countries, the MRC Secretariat, the MRC Development Partners (donor governments, regional and international organisations) and non-governmental organisations. The project’s developer, Mega First Corporation Berhard, presented its proposed fish monitoring measures.

11-12 March 2014 The Lao government arranged a second visit to the Don Sahong Hydropower Project site for representatives from the MRC Member Countries, the MRC Secretariat, the Development Partners, non-governmental organisations and the media to observe the location in the dry season.

20 March 2014 National awareness workshop on Don Sahong

29-30 March 2014 Villagers in Stung Treng and Kratie protest the dam

26 June 2014 At the annual MRC Council Meeting, Lao PDR agreed to have the Don Sahong Hydropower Project undergo the MRC’s prior consultation (PC) process

30 June 2014 Lao PDR submitted the project for the MRC prior consultation.

3 July 2014 The MRC Secretariat circulated the submission to the other Member Countries.

25 July 2014 The start date of the prior consultation process. Lao PDR notified the other Member Countries of the availability of additional information on the project website.

22 August 2014 The 1st meeting of the PNPCA Joint Committee Working Group (PNPCA JCWG) to discuss and agree on a road map for the process, the scope of a technical review of the project and public participation activities such as national consultations, national information sharing meetings (for Thailand), regional consultations and web-based information sharing.

11 September 2014 Protest in Phnom Penh requesting Mega First and GoL to stop construction on Don Sahong

25 September 2014 National consultation in Can Tho, Viet Nam

30 September – 2 October 2014 The 40th Meeting of the MRC Joint Committee

17-18 October 2014 National consultation in Stueng Treng, Cambodia

20 October 2014 A group of activists and community people travelled to Malaysia to submit a complaint letter to Mega First and the Malaysian Human Rights committee

November 2014 The 2nd PNPCA JCWG meeting on the Don Sahong prior consultation

!

! 5!

11 December 2014 Site visit ahead of regional public consultation

12 December 2014 Regional Public Consultation in Pakse, Lao PDR

December 2014 Completion of technical review Complete the Don Sahong Prior Consultation Technical Review Report and submit it to the Joint Committee

January 2015 The 3rd PNPCA Working Group meeting on the Don Sahong prior consultation. Discuss the draft Don Sahong PNPCA Technical Review Report. Share and discuss national review findings on the PC. Share inputs and perspectives from public participation activities

January 2015 Submission of the Reply Form Decision on the Don Sahong project prior consultation by the Joint Committee

!

! 6!

! Annex III. Concepts and definitions! There are many approaches to identify the degree of community participation. Sherry Arnstein first elaborated the definition of participation in 1969 through the ‘ladder of participation' that has three degrees: 1. Non-participation consists of manipulation and Therapy, 2. Degrees of tokenism consist of informing, consultation, placation, and 3. Degrees of citizen power consist of partnership, delegated power and citizen control.

Rank Type Degree 8 Citizen control Citizen power 7 Delegated power 6 Partnership 5 Placation Tokenism 4 Consultation 3 Informing 2 Therapy Non participation 1 Manipulation

Figure 1. Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation However, in terms of community participation, Wilcox provides 5 interconnected levels of community participation. Wilcox's ladder is a continuum of involvement in five components: information sharing, consultation, decision-making, acting together and supporting community initiatives.

Information Consultation Deciding together Acting together Supporting individual community initiatives

Figure 2. Wilcox’s (1999) ladder of citizen participation

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency provides another useful definition of participation. In their analysis, participation is a general term for any process that involves public input in decision-making. It involves the process or activity of informing the public and inviting them to have input into the decisions that affect them.

!

! 7!

Annex IV: List of interviewees Ministry/Institution/organization

Name Title Address and contact

Community leadership (government)

Mr. Se Pheng Chief of Cheuteal Toch village

088 687 246

Community leadership (government)

Mr. Kam Phan Deputy Chief of Kalapeas village

088 399 4850

Fishermen Mr. Chub Phalla Fisherman, Kalapeas village

Community fishery head

088 356 4271

Mr. Gnem Pov Fisherman, Kalapeas village 097 542 6766

Ms. Phem Leun Villager, Kalapeas village 071 933 748 8

Ms. Sur Cheun Villager, Kalapeas village 088 9344230

Mr. Orn Yv Fisherman Cheu Teal Toch village, Deputy Chief village

0979960951

Mr. Mi Ken Fisherman Cheu Teal Toch village

097 9715 623

Ms. Noy Hat Villager, Cheu Teal Toch village

097 729 2156

Ms. Man Sokhom Villager, Cheu Teal Toch village

088 838 6998

Mekong Fishermen representative

Mr. Kong Chanthy Fisherman, Ou Run village 092 509879

Community leadership (government)

Mr. Yan Suntak Deputy commune chief of Preah Romkel commune

088 948 3074

International River (International Organization)

Ms. Ame Trandem

(Skype interview)

Southeast Asia Program Director

ame@internationalrivers.org

NGO Forum Cambodia (Local Organization)

Mr. Tek Vannara Director of NGO Forum 012 793 489

Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC)

H.E. Kol Vatanna Deputy Secretary General of CNMC and Communication Focal Point for CNMC

vathanakol@gmail.com

Fisheries Administration,

Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFReDI)

Mr. Chheng Phen Acting Director, IFReDI 012 875 072

!

! 8!

Provincial council, Steung Treng Province

HE. Hak Vimen Provincial council, Steung Treng Province

092 740109

!

! 9!

Annex V: Interview guideline and questions!Research questions Your suggestions and comments

Research Objective 1: To understand the 2009 consultation process with fishermen in the target villages that was carried out in the final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) released in January 2013

Research question 1.1: How have fishermen been consulted in the EIA/CIA process?

• Secondary Data: data and documents from the report of the consultation in 2009 attached to CIA/EIA Jan 2013, EIA and social impact assessment (SIA) 2007; CIA 2013 and consultation 2009

• Primary data: face-to-face interviews with 16 people including 1 person from the Cambodia National Mekong River Commission, 1 from the Department of Environment Steung Treng Province, 1 commune chief, 2 village chiefs and 1 person from Mega First (dam developer), 2 NGO staff and 8 fishermen

Research question 1.2: How have the Cambodian Government and the Developer (Mega First Corporation Berhad from Malaysia); Lao government and their consultant company been involved in EIA/CIA process?

• Secondary Data: Data and documents from the reports of the consultation in 2009 attached to AIA/EIA 2013, EIA and SIA 2007, and 2009 consultation, Mega first website on Don Sahong.

• Primary data: face-to-face interviews with 8 people including 1 person from the Cambodia National Mekong River Commission, 1 from the Department of Environment, Steung Treng Province, 1 commune chief, 2 village chiefs, 2 NGO staff

Research question 1.3: What promises have been made to villagers?

• Secondary Data: Data and documents from the reports of the consultation in 2009 attached to the 2013 CIA/EIA.

• Primary data: Face-to-face interviews with 12 people including 1.Commune Chief, 2 village chiefs, 8 fishermen and 1 Developer

Research question 1.4: Does the consultation of the villagers and Cambodian Government constitute of meaningful participation?

• Secondary Data: News and minutes from the meetings of MRC on Don Sahong and Mega first website on Don Sahong.

• Primary data: Face-to-face interviews with 13 people including: 1 person from the Cambodia National Mekong River Commission, 1 from the Department of Environment of Steung Treng Province, 1 commune chief, 2 village chiefs and 8 fishermen

Research question 1.5: As of today (2014), what is the status of the 2009 consultation from the point of view of

• Secondary Data: News and minutes from the meetings of MRC on Don Sahong and Mega first website on Don

!

! 10!

the Lao government and the developer?

Sahong.

• Primary data: Face-to-face interviews with 2 people including: 1 person from the Cambodia National Mekong River Commission, and 1 developer representative

Research Objective 2 To learn about the fishermen’s former (2009) and current (2014) perspectives on hydropower development

Research question 2.1: When and how have the fishermen exercised their rights at different levels (village, province, national)?

• Secondary Data: News

• Primary data: Face-to-face interviews with 14 people including 8 fisherman; 2 village chiefs; 1 commune chief, 1 person from the Cambodia National Mekong River Commission and two NGO workers

Research question 2.2: How have been fishermen's concerns during the EIA/CIA consultation process and possible other interventions been taken into account?

• Secondary Data: minutes from the meetings of MRC on Don Sahong and news

• Primary data: Face-to-face interviews with 5 people including 2 village chiefs, 1 person from the Cambodia National Mekong River Commission and 2 NGO staff

Research question 2.3: From the fishermen's point of view what are their perspectives once the construction of dam development is finished and becomes operational?

• Primary data: Face-to-face interviews with 8 fishermen

Research Objective 3 To understand the process of the Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA) for Don Sahong dam that Cambodia National Mekong River Commission is currently (2014) carrying out:

Research question 3.1: How is PNPCA put into practice?

• Secondary Data: Independent consultations report on Don Sahong. EIA and SIA, CIA

• Primary data: Face-to-face interviews with 7 people including 1 person from the Cambodia National Mekong River Commission, 1 from the Department of Environment, Steung Treng Province, 1 Commune Chief, 2 Village Chiefs and two NGO staff.

Research question 3.2: How is the PNPCA addressing the limitations of the previous consultation from 2009?

• Secondary Data: PNPCA, Mekong Agreement 1995

• Primary data: Face-to-face interviews with 7 people including 1 person from the Cambodia National Mekong River Commission, 1 from the Department of Environment, Steung Treng Province, 1 Commune Chief, 2 Village Chiefs and two NGO staff.

Research question 3.3: How are fishermen involved in this consultation

• Data from the report of the PNPCA workshop organize by CNMRC on 15-16 October 2014 in Steung Treng with

!

! 11!

process?

villagers, two NGOs and relevant ministries

• Primary data: Face-to-face interviews with 15 people including 1 person from the Cambodia National Mekong River Commission, 1 from the Department of Environment, Steung Treng Province, 1 Commune Chief, 2 Village Chiefs, 8 Fishermen and two NGO staff.

Research question 3.4: Does their involvement count as meaningful participation?

• Data from the report of the PNPCA workshop organize by CNMRC on 15-16 October 2014 in Steung Treng with villagers, NGOs and relevant ministries

• Primary data: I will participate as an observer and answer to this questions

Research questions and interview guideline

Research questions Interview guideline: Specific topics to discuss in the face-to-face interview

Research Objective 1: To understand the 2009 consultation process with fishermen in the target villages that was carried out in the final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) released in January 2013

Research question 1.1: How have fishermen been consulted in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) /Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) process?

1.1.1 Can you describe how fishermen have been consult in this process since the consultation feasibility study from 2007, EIA 2007, consultation in 2009 and EIA 2013? 1.1.2 At what stage in the process did fishermen begin to participate? 1.1.3 What are the fishermens’ major concerns and what have the parties involved in the consultation agreed on?

Research question 1.2: How have the Cambodian Government and the Developer (Mega First Corporation Berhad from Malaysia; Lao government and consultant company) been involved in EIA/CIA process?

1.2.1 Can you describe the Cambodian government and Mega First’s involve in EIA/CIA process?

1.2.2 At what stage in the process did the Cambodian government become involved in the consultation? 1.2.3 What are the concerns of a) the Cambodian government; b) Mega First; the Lao government and consultant? What have they agreed on with each other and with the fishermen?

Research question 1.3: What promises were made to villagers?

1.3.1 Have you ever participated/ been involved in consultations on hydropower development with government officials or company representatives?

1.3.2 What did the company or government representatives say or agree to when they consulted with you/them?

!

! 12!

1.3.3 Did the company agree to your request(s) or other villagers' request(s) to take intervention before starting construction?

1.3.4 Did you face any problems that prevented you from participating in the consultation process of hydropower dam development in your community?

1.3.5 What were key challenges you faced?

Research question 1.4: Does the consultation of the villagers and Cambodian Government constitute of meaningful participation?

1.4.1 Did the fishermen, government receive necessary information from Lao government and Mega First about potential impacts of the dam?

1.4.2 Did the consultation enhance understanding of the fisher's interests, concerns and priorities?

1.4.2 Did fishermen; government and developer create a positive foundation for working together to build trust, resolve problems, make informed decisions?

1.4.4 Did the project align the project design with the fishermen priorities and expectations before significant resources have been invested in detailed project planning?

1.4.5 In your opinion, has your participation in the consultation process been meaningful?

Note: During the interviews, I will ask relevant questions relating to the key elements of meaningful participation (early notification, accessible information, shared knowledge, sensitivity to community to community values, reasonable timing, appropriate levels of participation, adaptive processes and transparent results)

Research question 1.5: As of today (2014), what is the status of the 2009 consultation from the point of view of the Lao government and the developer?

1.5.1 What is the status of the consultation as of September 14?

1.5.2 Do you think the consultation with downstream people has been adequate? Why and why not?

1.5.3 What are key challenges in the consultation process that the government and developer conducted has so far with people downstream in Cambodia?

1.5.4 What lessons have been learnt from the consultation that government and developer has conducted so far with people downstream in Cambodia?

Research Objective 2 To learn about the fishermen’s former (2009) and current (2014) perspectives

!

! 13!

on hydropower development Research question 2.1: When and how have the fishermen exercised their rights at different levels (village, province, national)?

2.1.1 Have you been involved as a member of any civil society group such as CBOs, CFis?

2.1.2 Did you attend meetings at the village, commune, provincial and national level regarding the building of the dam?

2.1.3 Have you ever raised any concerns about the dam with the village chief? Or with other villagers?

2.1.4 Have you and other villagers ever discussed and raised your concerns as a group?

2.1.5 Did you face any problems in raising your concerns? What were key challenges you faced?

Research question 2.2: How have been fishermen's concerns during the EIA/AIA consultation process and possible other interventions been taken into account?

2.2.1 Did the developer/government take into account the concerns raised?

2.2.2. What interventions did the developer, government or other authorities make after concerns were raised?

2.2.3 Did this intervention address the concerns?

Research question 2.3: From the fishermen's point of view what are their perspectives once the construction of dam development is finished and becomes operational?

2.3.1 What do you think will happen if/when Don Sahong dam is completed and becomes operational?

2.3.2 Will this dam affect your livelihood? If so, in what ways? If not, why not?

2.3.3 How do your see your livelihood in 2018 when the dam is projected to be in operation?

2.3.4 Do you have strategies to adapt to change and support your livelihood when the dam is completed?

2.3.5 Do you need electricity for your today’s living? Will you happy if you have electricity at a cheap price in your village? In your opinion, is cheap electricity worth it for the construction of the dam?

Research Objective 3 To understand the process of the Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA) for Don Sahong dam that Cambodia National Mekong River Commission is currently (2014) carrying out:

Research question 3.1: How is the PNPCA put into practice?

3.1.1 Why do we need the PNPCA for Don Sahong?

3.1.2 How does the PNPCA work in Cambodia?

!

! 14!

3.1.3 What are the processes involved?

3.1.4 Who are involved in carrying out the PNPCA?

3.1.5 What is the result of the PNPCA process up to date?

Research question 3.2: How is the PNPCA addressing the limitations of the previous consultation from 2009?

3.2.1 Does the PNPCA build on the 2009 consultation to address its shortcomings and continue the dialog with fishermen?

3.2.2 Are the concerns raised by fishermen in 2009 addressed in the current PNPCA process?

3.2.3 How do the mechanisms of the PNPCA compare to those of the consultation in 2009?

Research question 3.3: How are fishermen involved in this PNPCA process?

3.3.1 How have fishermen been involved in the PNPCA process?

3.3.2 Do you find PNPCA useful?

3.3.3 Do you think that this process will lead to sustainable hydropower development?

Research question 3.4: Does their involvement count as meaningful participation?

3.4.1 Did the fishermen, NGOs and government receive necessary information from Lao government and Mega First about potential impacts of the dam?

3.4.2 Did the PNPCA enhance understanding of the public's interests, concerns and priorities?

3.4.2 Did fishermen; NGOs government and developer creating a positive foundation for working together to build trust, resolve problems, make informed decisions and reach common goals?

3.4.4 Did the project align the project design with the fishermen priorities and expectations before significant resources have been invested in detailed project planning?

3.4.5 In your opinion, has your participation in the consultation process been meaningful?

Note: During the interviews, I will ask relevant questions relating to the key elements of meaningful participation (early notification, accessible information, shared knowledge, sensitivity to community to community values, reasonable timing, appropriate levels of participation, adaptive processes and transparent results)

!

! 15!

Annex VI: Work plan and timeline Activities September October November December Weeks 7-

13 15-19

22 -26

29-30

1-3 6-10

13-17

20-24

27-31

3-7 10-14

15-16

17 17

Develop and finalize the research question and guideline

X

Desk review for relevant information to reconstruct the social and natural resources of fisherman before the dam build

X

Interview 2 expertises on ecosystem (International River and MRC)

X

Submit request to chief of village for interviewing fishermen

X

Interview 8 fishermen, 2 chief of village, 1 chief of commune at the target village and

X X

1 representative of department of environment of Steung Treng province 1 developer representative and

X

Analysis of interview data X X

Write up thesis and submit to supervisor the draft of the thesis to review

X X

Review thesis based on suppoervisor comments

X X

Prepare presentation X Submit draft of thesis X

Submit thesis X Literature review X X X X X X X X X X X X X

!

! 16!

Annex VII: Map and Geographic information on Steung Treng province Stung Treng is located in the northeast of Cambodia. Stung Treng borders Preah Vihear province on the west, Ratanakiri province to the east, Lao PDR on the north and Kratie Province in the south. It is about 455 km from Phnom Penh and the provincial capital is 40 km from the Laos border. Stung Treng covers 11092 square kilometers, and consists of 5 districts, 34 communes and 128 villages. The population of Stung Treng is 89,264 with 17,008 families (IUCN, Cambodia, 2002). Stung Treng has a diverse population that includes Khmer, Lao, Chinese, Vietnamese, Kuoy, Khek, Kavet, Phnong, Tumpuon, Lun, Stieng and Prov. The majority of the livelihoods of villagers rely on traditional agriculture (slash and burn), fishing, animal raising, hunting and non-timber forest products (NTFP) collection. Stung Treng has a lot of potential natural resources that has supported the people who live in this province for generations. The Mekong and Sekong Rivers meet up in Stung Treng. Stung Treng has many deep pools and floating forests with a diversified ecosystem that is suitable for fish spawn. There are many fish species in this province, including a famous fish species call Pa Se Y, which is an endangered species.

Map of the Kalapeah and Koh Cheuteal Touch village

(Source: Open Development 2014

Koh!Cheuteal!Touch!village!Kralapeah!village!

Lao!

!

! 17!

Annex VIII: MRCS comments on the Don Sahong's feasibility study in 2007

!

! 18!

!

! 19!

!

! 20!

!

! 21!

!

! 22!

!

! 23!

!

! 24!

Annex IX: Key dates for 2009 consultation conducted by National Consulting Company from Laos

!

! 25!

!

! 26!

Annex X: Joint Statement NGOs and RCC

!

! 27!

!

! 28!

!

! 29!

Annex XI: Prior consultation in Cambodia road map

Six months Prior consultation process in practice in Cambodia led by Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC) At the 20th MRC Council meeting on 26 June 2014, Lao finally agreed to submit the Don Sahong Hydropower Project for the Prior Consultation process under the PNPCA. After several rounds of discussion, the start date for the 6 months long consultation process was finally taken to be 25 July 2014. This was the second times that MRCs process the prior consultation process. During these six months, MRCS set up the institutional mechanisms to perform and manage the Prior Consultation process:

• A PNPCA Joint Committee working group (PNPCA JCWG), representatives from National Mekong Committee of 4 members countries (Cambodia, Vietnam, Lao, Thailand) to discuss and agree the technical content of the technical review report.

• MRCS Task Group, MRCS support staff to provide technical support to JCWG to process the prior consultation

• Sector Expert Groups: Expertise available in MRCS for any priority thematic related to the Don Sahong issues. Fisheries were proposed to be focused for this case.

These three groups will work together to finalize the report of the various public consultations taking place in the MRC countries to support the MRC Join Committee (ministerial level) for further decision-making at the regional level. The Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC) is responsible for organizing public consultations in Cambodia to collect feedback especially from potentially affected people in the country. The key objectives of public participation in the Don Sahong Prior Consultation are:

o To seek input and opinions from target stakeholder groups and the general public in support of the Don Sahong Project Consultation process.

o To provide information and understanding on the proposed Don Sahong Project, its national and regional benefits and potential environmental and socio-economic impacts for upstream and downstream communities.

o To provide information and understanding on the MRC's Prior Consultation process under the PNPCA and the 1995 Mekong Agreement.

o To seek a representative range of views from potentially affected communities. o To collect views from a wide group of stakeholders expressed through various means and

provide a holistic overview to decision makers. o To reflect all these views as part of the MRC Prior Consultation Review Report for

consideration by the MRC Joint Committee. Table 4: CNMC's Roadmap for coming public consultation To achieve this, CNMC has designed a roadmap to conduct the public consultation. (Please see the annex IV for this roadmap.) It is mainly divided to 4 differences workshops: Events Date Venue Participants

Sub-national Consultation Meeting I: Mekong, Cambodia

16 - 17 October 2014 Stung Treng

• Concerned Provincial Technical Line Departments and Local Authorities of Stung Treng, Kratie & Kandal, Kampong Cham, Takeo,

!

! 30!

& Prey Veng • NGOs • Local Community Members • PNPCA Joint Committee Working

Group • CNMC Working Group • MRCS Representatives

Sub-national Consultation II: Tonle Sap Great Lake, Cambodia

30-31 October 2014 Battambang

• Concerned Provincial Technical Line Departments and Local Authorities of Kampong Thom, Siem Reap & Pursat, Bantey Mean Chey, Battambang & Kampong Chhnang

• NGOs • Local Communities • PNPCA JCWG • CNMC WG • MRCS Representative

National Consultation (Technical Level) 12 November 2014 Phnom Penh

• Relevant ministries, Academics, NGOs, International Organization,

• PNPCA JCWG • CNMC WG • MRCS Representative

CNMC Inter-ministerial Consultation Meeting (Policy and Technical Levels)

26 - 27 November 2014

Ministry Of Water Resource

• Relevant ministries • PNPCA JCWG • CNMC WG • MRCS Representative

DSHPP Prior Consultation Replying Form from Cambodia should be ready

15 December 2014 CNMC • PNPCA JCWG • CNMC WG

3 meeting PNPCA working group Submission of the Reply Form

January 2015 CNMC • PNPCA JCWG • CNMC WG

Source: Compiled by the author, field study 2014

!

! 31!

Annex XII: Concern raise at the Prior consultation in Steung Treng !កុមពិ'ក(េខត,ក-.ល និងេខត,កំពង់4ម ១- ស"#នុពល ៃនផលប៉ះ-ល់

ប៉ះ!ល់$រែ'ប'ប)លរបបទឹកៈ ថយបរិ&ណដីល+ប់ និង ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់វិស័យកសិកម0ប៉ះ$ល់ធន3ន ជលផលៈ !របំ%ល់ទីនិងច%ចររបស់*តី,!ត់បង់ពូជ)តីមួយចំនួន ែដលមិន5ច បន#៊ំានឹង)*ន+ពថ.ី,ថយ ទិន$ផល'តី។ ថយចំណី និងជ+មកេផ#ត ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់សុខ+ល,ព.ប/ពលរដ1ៈ 3រេ.បើ.6ស់ទឹក!ប#ំៃថ' ប៉ះ$ល់'បព័ន+ជីវច'មុះ: ប៉ះ$ល់ចំណី និងជ/មក/តី, ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់តំបន់ដី,៉ម/ ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់វិស័យ េទសចរណ៏ៈ ចំនួនេទសចរណ៏ថយចុះ, ថយឪ$ស$រ'ររបស់*ប+ពលរដ/, ថយ#$ក់ចំណ*ល។ ២- វិ#ន%រែកលម+ សិក$េ&យ(នសីុជេ-.េ"េលើផលប៉ះ)ល់ឆ,ងែដនមុនេពល សេ#មច (អ"កសិក" ឯក#ជ%) និង ផ"ព$ផ%យេ"យ$នទូលំទូ*យ េ+ដល់ប/0សហគមន៏ែដល7ក់ព័ន;។សិក>េ"យ$នសីុជេBC េលើ ផលប៉ះ&ល់ៃនដំេណើរច1ចរផ2ូវ5ត(ីអ9កសិក= ឯក#ជ%)។

៣- ក"ីកង%ល់របស់សហគមន ៏

ប៉ះ$ល់ជីវ*ពរស់េ/0ប1ំៃថ5ៈ បរិ8ណ0តីថយចុះ,!ត់ពូជ'តីក'មមួយចំនួន,ថយបរិ&ណដីល"ប ់

និង ប៉ះ'ល់ឪ+ស+រ.រ។ ៤- !រែកលម' របស់សហគមន៏ សំណ$មពរ េ"យ$បេទស(ំងពីរេ.រព/មកិច4$ពមេ$ពៀងេមគង7១៩៩៥, MOU និងគួរែបងែចក ផល#បេ&ជន៏េ*យ,នសមធម៏ រ"ងកម&ុ( និង+វ។ សិក$េ&យ(នសីុជេ-. េ/េលើផលប៉ះ6ល់ឆ9ង ែដនមុនេពល សេ#មច(អ'កសិក*ឯក,ជ.) និងផ2ព4ផ"យ េ%យ&នទូលំទូ,យ េ-ដល់ប12 សហគមន៏ែដល*ក់ព័ន/។ !គី$វ រង់)ំ+រសិក/ផលប៉ះ5ល់6ងេលើ េ9យ;នចប់សព?@គប់សិនមុន សេ#មច និងេធ*ើ,រ ផ"ព$ផ%យ េ(យ)នទូលំទូ/យ។

!កុម អ&'ធរ ១.ស"#នុពលៃនផលប៉ះ-ល់ និងផលប៉ះ&ល់ឆ)ងែដនប៉ះ$ល់'ចកេធ,ើច.ចរណ៍ធម34តិរបស់$តីេ"យ"ត ់ !"ច់%រត()ប់រ+ងទី/ជក (កែន$ងពងកូន នឹងរកចំណីរបស់1តី)ប៉ះ5ល់ដល់កូន1តីេម: (ឧ. កូន$តី$') អែណ$ត&មទឹកចុះេ/0ម ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់សត*េផ-តេ.អន1ុងេឈើ6ល(និងអូរប(មះ) ប៉ះ$ល់ះ េអកូេទសចរណ៍ធម-.តិ ប៉ះ4ល់78ក់ចំណ:លសហគមន៍ េធ#ើេ%យលំហូេខ,យែដលបង"ផលប៉ះ(ល់ ដល់$រដឹកជញ*ូនកំណកល/ប់ស23ប់ដកីសិកម%េ'តបន់,លទំ0បេខត2ៃ4ពែវង និងទេន9:បេ'រដូវ4>ំង !ចខ$ះ&តទឹកស,-ប់ែ,ស,1ំង ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់គុណ+ពទឹក !នដូច&ទឹកេ%បើ%(ស់របស់%ប,ពលរដ0 េ"#មដងទេន) (ងូត បរិេ/គ) និង កំណកល%ប់ក$ុង'ង(ន*តិពុលដូច*េម#ន អុក$ន(ខុសព ីល"ប ់ធម#$តិែដលកំណកល-ប់សរី3ង5) - េធ#ើេ%យរ(ស់។ !"ចរ៖ េធ#ើដំេណើ(ប*ំៃថ-របស់%ប&ពលរដ* រ"ងេ%ះ និងវឺន&ំ និង ទឹកេ%េ&'មទំនប់-ន ក"មិត&ប (ចេធ,ើេ(យប៉ះ1ល់ដល់56ចរណ៍ចុះេឡើង (!មដងទេន( និងវឺន,ំ)។ តំបន់&ម( !ន ជីវច%មុះ និង ែក#កទឹក(!តីែដល'ចំណី+ន-រថយចុះ) !ច#ត់េ'ះល* (០១ភូមិ) េ&យលំហួរេចញពី ធឺបីនរបស់ទំបន់។

៣. វិ#ន%រែកលម+

!

! 32!

ជលផលជួយជ$មុញ(រីវប-កម/ បេញ$ៀសលំហូេចញពីទំនប់កំេ3យប៉ះ7ល់ដល់អន:ុង និងសត&េផ)ត និងសិក$លំអិតពីផ,ូវ/តីពី (េ"យ"ចដំេណើរ*រ+ន-ំងរដូវ1+ំង និងវស&)។ គុណ$ពទឹក េរៀបចំ !បព័ន&ទឹក$%ត (តៃម)េ+ក)និង េលើកកំពស់)រយល់ដឹងដល់សហគមនព៍ីសុខ&ព'(រណ !ក់ព័ន'នឹងគុណ-ពទឹកែដល$ចប៉ះ)ល់ពីទំនប។់ គិតគូរពីេ)ល+រែចករំែលកផល1បេ3ជន៍។ !"រចរណ៍ ជូនដំណឹងដល់+ប-ពល់រដ0ពី2រែ+ប+ប4លកំពស់ទឹក និង េធ#ើផ&ូវគម+គមន៍.មដងទេន' ៤ សហគមន៍'នក)ីកង,ល់

!"ក់ចំណ()*ក់ចុះ សុខ$ព !រេធ%ើដំេណើរ !រដឹកជញ(ូនផ,ូវទឹក សន#ិសុខេស(ៀង !ត់បង់លំេ)*+ន

រំ#នពីសំេលង និងរំញ័រ។

៥ សហគមន៍ជួយែកលម- ផ"ល់ពត៌(នបែន,មេទៀតពីផលប៉ះ4ល់ អភិរក&តំបន់ធម./តិ0ន12ប់ និង បន#$រសិក)បែន+ម េទៀត េដើម(ី*ត់បន.យ និងបេញ3ៀសផលប៉ះ:ល់។

!កុមតំ#ងសហគមន៍មូ,-ន ១ ស"#នុពល ៃនផលប៉ះ-ល់ !ត់បងធន(នជលផល !ត់បង&!ក់ចំណ+ល !ត់បងមុខរបរ !ត់បងដីល)ប់ែដល+នជីវ/តិ ស"#ប់ េធ#ើកសិកម) !ត់តំបន់េទសចរណ៍ធម01តិ !នចំ%ត់(សុកេដើម0ីរក(3ក់ចំណ5ល !"នឳ%ស ក"ុង"រ េរៀនសូ'ត !ត់បងវប'ធម៌+បៃពណី េ"#ះទឹកជំនន់ ២ !កុមសូមមិនេឆ+ើយនឹងសំណ2រេនះ ៣ !កុមេស'ើមិនឲ,-ន.រ0ងសង

៤ សហគមន៍'នក)ីកង,ល់

!ត់បង&តីែដល+&បភព./រដ៏សំ4ន់ !ត់បង់&!ក់ចំណ+ល&ប-ពលរដ1 !ត់បងសត'េផ*ត ែដល$%បេភទជិតផុតពូជ !ត់បងមុខរបរេន,ទ.ប!ណ៩០% សហគមន៍'ត)វចំ-ក់'សុក !ត់បង មុខរបរ ពុំ$នឳ'សក*ុង'រចូេរៀន េធ#ើឲ&ប៉ះ*ល់ជីវ0ពរស់េ4 េសដ6កិច: សង#ម វប'ធម៌ សិក,អប់រំ !បៃពណី !ន#រែ&ប&ប(លដល់&តីេធ0ើច3ចណ៍ពងកូន េធ#ើ%ត់បង*តីេមពូជ0នដូច4 *តី5ជ *តីគល់5ំង !តី!ព%ល... !ត់ដីល'ប់)នជ!ីត ិប៉ះ$លដល់សន*ិសុខេស/ៀង ែ"ប"ប$លរបបទឹកហូរ ខ"ះទឹកេ()ច(សប

ែ"ប"ប$លគុណ)ពទឹក.ចប៉ះ2ល់សុខ)ពមនុស8 សត:។

តំ#ង%&'េធរ េខត,-កេចះ និងេខត,3ែកវ ទី១៖ស#$នុពលៃនផលប៉ះ.ល់េចញពីទំនប់6រីអគ;ីសន ី

១-ែ"ប"ប$លរបបជល()ស+ !រហូរ%ំដីល*ប់ (!ត់បន/យដលី"ប់មកកម'ុ))គុណ-ពទឹក ( ទឹកល%ក់ )'រទឹក និងចរន-ទឹក (បរិ0ណទឹកក2ុងទេន5រ6ប0ន7រថយចុះ , េល<ឿនចរន-ទឹកហូរ0ន !រថយចុះ។ ២-ែ"ប"ប$លធន(នជលផល ធន(នជលផលថយចុះ(0របំ3ស់ទីរបស់"ត ីជ"មក"ត ី)។ ៣-

!"ចរ (%រេធ(ើច*ចរណ៍ផ.ូវទឹក4ន%រែ7ប7ប9ល)។ ៤-កសិកម% ប៉ះ!ល់ដំ&ំកសិកម+ (គុណ/ពដី2ន !រថយចុះ , បរិ*ណទឹកេ01ច0សបថយចុះ) ៃផ#ដីកសិកម*+ត-វ/នរួមតូច (ដំ6ំ+សូវ)៥-បរិ$%ន (!ន#រែ&ប&ប(ល&បពន+័េអកូសីុសេស4មក6ុងទឹក)៦-ជីវ$ព និងសុខ$ព,ប.ពលរដ2 3ន4រថយចុះ។

ទី៣៖លក$ណ៍' និងវិ&ន'រែកលម-រ ែដល$ជួយបេញ+ៀស

!

! 33!

គណៈកម&'រទេន,េមគង./ត1វែតេរៀបចំឲ()ន+កុមសិក1បេច2កេទស និង ផលប៉ះ&ល់ែដល*ន លទ#ផល%ចទទួលយក*ន,គប់0គ។ី េស#ើសុះឲ()កុមហ៊ុនសិក0និងប%&ញលទ*លៃនផលប៉ះ/ល់ ឲ"#នច&ស់)ស់ *ពម-ំងេ1រព3មលក6ណ8័កិច;សន< ប"#ញពីលក)ណៈបេច.កេទសៃន!រ#ងសង់ឲ( !នច$ស់។ !កុមហ៊ុន!ត)វេធ-ើ/៉ង2ឲ4ចរន7ទឹកហូេ;យធម=>តិនឹង ចរន(ទឹកហូរេ.យវរីអគ4ីសនី!ត#វ%ន េល#ឿន និងបរិ+ណទឹក0ប1ក់0បែហល56 !កុមហ៊ុន!ត)វសិក-ឲ/0នច2ស់អពីផ8ូវបំ<ស់ទីរបស់!តី និងជ%មក%តី%បសិនេបើ.នផល់ប៉ះ4ល់ែមនគួរបែង9គេ%.ងេ:ទី<ំងថ?ី។

ទី៤៖ប!"សហគមន៍ៃន*បេទសកម/ុ1 2នក3ីកង6ល់1ក់ែស3ង

ប៉ះ$ល់ជីវ*ព(ផលេន%ទ ,ដីកសិកម-, សុខ0ព...) !ត់បងតំបន់េទសចរណ៍របស់សហគមន៍ !រ#ក់ទំនប់*រីអគ.ីសនី។

ទី៥៖ ប#$សហគមន៍ៃន,បេទសកម0ុ23ចជួយ េធ#ើសំេណើរជួលគណៈកម01រទេន4េមគង6ស7ីពីផល់ប៉ះ?ល់ េស#ើឲ&'កុមហ៊ុនចុះមកសិក1ផលប៉ះ6ល់ ឲ"#នច&ស់ )ន*ពឯក.ជ" និងេ3ះ56យផលប៉ះ<ល់ េស#ើឲ&'ក់ពន,័ចូលរួមសិក5។

ទី៦៖!រ#ព%យ'រម)របស់#កុម /ន២ចំណុច គឺ (១/េពលកំពុង(ងសង់ ២/េ"#យេពល'ងសង់) របសិនេបើ'ន(រផលប៉ះ.ល់01ំង 4កុមសូមេស9ើសំុកុះឲ;'ន(រ<ងសង់ េស#ើឲ&'ន)រចូលរួម !កុមពិ'គ)*ន'ពទូ.យ។

!កុម %&ក់ដឹក*ំ!សុក និង ឃំុ ១ ស"#នុពលែដលប៉ះ-ល់

ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់និរន+,ពៃនធន0នធម23ត ិនិងជលផល ដូចេធ&ើឲ)*ច់ពូជ.តីេផ2តែដល !"បេភទ

សត#ែដលជិតផុតពូជ ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់អន*ង់ពូជ/ត ី!ន អន#ង់សុខន)េដើម ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់បរិ&'ន)ំងរយៈេពល

ែវង និងរយៈេពលខ+ី ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់()ំងជីវ/ពរស់េ4របស់5ប6ពលរដ7 ែដល$នពឹងែផ*ក និង$%ស័យផល

េ"េលើ ទេន$ចចំនួន៣ឃុ ំ១៧ភូមិ ែដល$ន&បជ)លរដ+សរុបចំនួន ១១,៥៤២ !ស៤ី,៧៩៩!ក ់ពិេសស

៤ភូមិែដលេ)*ប់នឹង0រី34ល់ !ន ភូមិ េ"ះេឈើ&លធ ំេ"ះប%&យ េ"ះល% និង េ"ះេ$% ែដល$ន&ប(

ពលរដ%ចំនួន ៤៥០!គ#$រ និង ក៏ប៉%ល់ ផងែដរដល់(បជពលរដ,ែដលរសេ/ និង$%ស័យផលពីទេន/េមគង2 នឹងេធ&ើឲ)*នចំ-ក/សុកេកើតេឡើងចំេ4ះ !រ#ន%រម'ណ៍ភ+័យ./ចពី3និភ័យ55។

៣ វិ#ន%របន(ូបន*យផលប៉ះ0ល់ប៉ះ0ល់

សូមកុំ'ងសង ់ឬក៏ប%ូទី)ំងកុំឲ%ប៉ះ)ល់ទេន/ងេមគង# េស#ើសំុឲ()គី,វបញ0ប់2រ4ងសង់ ចំែណក មួយចំនួនែដល*ក់ព័ន/នឹងគេ45ង និង សូមអនុវត)*មកិច./ពមេ/ពៀង។

!

! 34!

៤ ក"ីកង%ល់

!រ#ត់បង់(ំង*សុងៃនធន0នធម23តិ និងជលផល ពិេសសសត&េផ(ត)គី,វេ.ែតបន23រ !ងសង់ទំនប់េ*យ មិនអនុវត()មកិច,-ពមេ"ពៀង !ប#ពលរដ(រងផលប៉ះ-ល់/0ល់នឹង3ន!បតិកម8ែដល

!ក#$%ំឲ()នអសន-ិសុខ ក"ុងមូល()ន ។

តំ#ងអង&'រេ*+រ,-ភិ0ល

១. ស"#នុពលៃនផលប៉ះ-ល់/បសិនេបើ3ងសង់ទំនប់7រីអគ<ិសន ីដន !ហុង

លំហូរទឹក នឹង$ន%រែ(ប(ប*លខុសពីលក2ណៈធម78តិ ផលប៉ះ&ល់េលើជីវច.មុះ គុណ$ពទឹក៖

ផលប៉ះ&ល់ដល់សុខ,ពរបស់/ប0ជនែដលរស់េ56មបេ89យដងទេន=េមគង? !ពិេសសេ&េលើ គុណ$ពទឹក)កខ+ក់ !ត់បង់&តី និងប៉ះ'ល់ដល់ជីវ.ពរបស់2ប3ជន !ពិេសស&ប!េន)ទប៉ះ-ល់

ដល់េផ&តទឹក+ប !ពិេសសេ&អន)ង់េផ-តេឈើ1ល របបទឹកហូរ(ចនឹង,ន-រែ/ប/ប0លមិន េទៀង%ត់ ខុសពីលក%ណៈធម*+តិែដលេធ1ើឲ4កសិករមិន8ចពឹងេលើទ=>ប់ៃនសB=ប់CរDរកសិកម*(ទឹកេឡើង()ំង

!ចេធ%ើឲ(រលួយ-សូវនិងផលកសិកម7ដៃទេទៀត)ដីល$បថ់យចុះេធ(ើឲ+,ត់បង់ជីវ4តិដី ែដលេធ&ើឲ)កសិករ ចំ#យ%&ក់)ន់ែតេ%ចើនេលើ)រេធ2ើកសិកម6 ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់វិស័យេទសចរធម34តិ4ពិេសស8រទស#$

េផ#តទេន'េមគង+ ែដល$ំឲ'(ត់បង់-រ/ររបស់1ប2ជនក6ុងមូល:;នែដលពឹងែផ?កេលើ វិស័យេទសចរ (អ"កលក់ដូរ, !េដើម)ខ"ះទឹកេ()ច(សប់ដំ0ំកសិកម3។

៣. លក#ខណ& ឬវិ$ន&រែកលម, ែដល$ចជួយបេញ,ៀស !ត់បន&យ និងែកលម(ៃនផលប៉ះ.ល

៖មិន$នេ&បល់។

៤ ក"ីកង%ល់របស់អង,!រេ$%រ&'ភិ*ល

វិ#ល%ពៃនផលប៉ះ-ល់មកេលើ3ប4ជនេ63បេទសកម9ុ4េ"ចើន ែតផលចំេណញពីទំនប់េនះ1ន

េ"#បេទស'វ ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់វប)ធម៌ អរិយធម៌របស់ជន-តិេដើម3គតិច (!រ#$ស់ទីលំេ, ដីជំេនឿ ផ"ូរកប់ េ"#ចដូន(...) !និភ័យៃន(រ*ក់ទំនប់ េធ#ើឲ&'នទឹកជំនន់េលើ0ប2ជន និងដីកសិកម# និង$នផល

ប៉ះ$ល់ដល់ជីវ+ព-ប.ជនក។2រទទួល6នព័ត៌:នពី2រ;ងសង់ទំនប់របស់-ប.ជនេ@ABក់មូលEFន

!នតិចតួចបំផុត។ សំណ$មពរឲ)*ន,រ-បឹក1េ3បល់ដល់-ប7ជនេ9:;ក់មូល=>នឲ)?នេ-ចើន។ !រ ែចករំែលកព័ត៌+នេ.+នក/មិតេហើយ(ឯក#រ%&#បរេទសសហគមន៍មិនយល់)។"រ$បជុំពិេ$%ះេ"បល់&'ន់ែត+,រេធ/ើេដើម3ីប5ង7ប់កិច; េដើម%ីឲ()គី+វដំេណើរ0រ1ងសង់ទំនប់។ !រម$% ក"ីកង%ល់

របស់សង&មសីុវិលនិងសហគមន៍មិន2ត4វ5នរ67ភិ5ល6ក់បញ;ូល។ !រម$%លទ(ផលៃន,រសិក0ពីផលប៉ះ !ល់មកេលើ(បេទសកម,ុ. មិន$ត&វ(ន$កុមហ៊ុនយកេ/អនុវត12ម។ ជុំរុញេ'យ)ន+រសិក/េ0ចើនពី អ"ក/!"ប័នឯក(ជ*ែត-រសេ1មចចិត5ចុងេ1-យេ9ែតែផ;កេ<េលើលទ@ផលៃន-រ1!វ1Cវរបស់EFស់

គេ#$ង។

!

! 35!

៥ ក"ីកង%ល់របស់អង,-រសង,មសីុវិល េលើដំេណើរ(រ PNPCA

មិន$ន%រផ(ព*ផ+យព័ត៌$នពីគេ3$ងទំនប់9:;រណៈ9មួយ?គី@ក់ព័នB9មុន។មិន!ន#រពិេ$%ះេ'បល់+,-រណៈ+1,+តិ+មួយ1គី8ក់ព័ន<+មុន។មិន?ន@រ$ពមេ$ពៀងេលើលកDណៈ វិនិច&័យរបស់PNCPA។ មិន$ន%រសិក)*យតៃម.េហតុប៉ះ5ល់បរិ9:ន និងផលប៉ះ)ល់ឆ,ងែដន។មិន1ន

!រ#ពមេ#ពៀងេលើគេ#,ង-ងសង់ទំនប់ក5ុងចំេ8ម#បេទស9ស,ជិក។មិន=នអេញ@ើញសហគមន៍Dមដងទេន%េមគង( ឲ"ចូលរួមេពលេលញក"ុងដំេណើរគេ,-ង។មិន-ន2រេឆ4ើយតប89:រណៈនិងេ<ះ,9យ

េ"យត%&'ពពីកង,ល់របស់សហគមន៍។

៦ េ"លជំហររបស់អង-.រេ/0រ12ភិ5ល

សំេណើរសំុបញ*ប់,រ-ងសង់ទំនប់1រីអគ5ិសនីដន !ហុងេធ'ើ)រសិក.ពីេហតុផលប៉ះ7ល់បរិ!:ន

និងផលប៉ះ)ល់ឆ,ងែដន (េ"យ$ន&រចូលរួមពី/បេទស3គី5ក់ព័ន9)សិក$ពីផលប៉ះ,ល់េលើធន2ន

ជលផលទេន'េមគង+។ផ-ព/ផ0យព័ត៌5នពីគេ75ងទំនប់ ដន !ហុង !"#រណៈ!'"!តិ។េបើកឲ0 !ន#រពិេ()ះេ+បល់េពញេលញ !"#រណៈ !មួយ%គី(ក់ព័ន.!មុន។គណៈក345រទេន9េមគង; និងរ%&ភិ(ល*ស,ជិក !ត#វកំណត់ និងឯក&ពេលើលក+ណៈវិនិច1័យ របស់ដំេណើរ*រ PNPCAមុន$ប់េផ)ើម

ពិេ$%ះេ'បល់។

៧ សំណ$មពរ េ"ក$ុង'រពិេ+,ះេ.បល់ពីគេ+4ង5ងសង់7មួយគួរែតេធ>ើ@លកAណៈវិស័យ។ !រពិេ&'ះ េ"បល់&មួយសហគមន៍គួរែតេធ3ើេឡើង7ច់េ7យែឡកេដើម;ីផ>ល់ឱ@សដល់សហគមន៍Aនចូលរួមេពញេលញ។

!

! 36!

!Annex XIII: CEEA’s worksheet for assessing the appropriate level of participation required for a particular issue

!

! 37!

!

! 38!

!

Annex XIV: PNPCA process and Mekong Agreement 1995 Link!for!PNPCA!process!and!Mekong!Agreement!1995:!

PNPCA (http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/policies/Guidelines-on-implementation-of-the-PNPCA.pdf)

Mekong agreement 1995 (http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/policies/agreement-Apr95.pdf)

!

! 39!

!

! 40!

!