|
|
|
|
Report of Workshop on “NGO’s Concerns on the Infrastructure Development and Greater Mekong Sub-region Projects in Cambodia” 21-22 September 2004 Phnom Penh |
Acknowledgement
This report is the summary proceeding of the workshop on “NGO’s Concerns on the Infrastructure Development and Greater Mekong Sub-region Projects in Cambodia”, which was held on 21-22 September 2004 in Phnom Penh.
On behalf of NGO Forum on Cambodia and my own behalf as the organizer of this workshop, I would like to acknowledge the presence of ladies and gentlemen who had spared your valuable time to participate and make presentation at this workshop. I would also like to thank Mr. Sameer Dossani, Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB based in the Philippines; Mr. Boy Neura, Mekong Basin Coordinator of NGO Forum on ADB Philippines; Ms. Premrudee Daoroung from TERRA Thailand; Mr. Vann Pisedh, Program Manager from Fisheries Action Coalition Team (FACT); Miss Sugita Rena from Mekong Watch Cambodia; Miss Kol Leakhena, Resettlement Project Officer from NGO Forum on Cambodia; Mr. Kim Sangha from Se San Network; and Mr. Khatri A. Rashid, Asian Coalition for Residence Rights (ACHR), for your insights to the workshop.
Background
The Joint Statement on Greater Mekong Sub-region issued by the leaders of countries along the Mekong River on November 2002 embodied the vision to eliminate poverty in the region, and to give opportunities to sustainable development for their own people. In its 2004-2008 strategies and regional cooperation programs issued on March 2004, ADB underlined a must to increase sub-regional integration to attain the set goals and competitiveness in the world. The prime aims of the Asian Development Bank were market development in the Greater Mekong Sub-region, and cross-border movement of people and goods. The promotion of transport sector in commercial corridor was the heart of these aims. The Asian Development Bank said that this was essential to achieve improved competitiveness while deepening the understanding of the mindset of community among people in this region.
The Asian Development Bank realized that the sub-regional programs were the most effective means to underpin the economic development that would lead to improved daily livelihood of the poor in the region. However, past experiences showed that the Asian Development Bank did not take a comprehensive consideration regarding negative impacts generating from these development projects and its various development policies. These had become a great concern for many Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), particularly those working in the Mekong river downstream countries. Past practices proved that some development programs produced dangerous consequences to people’s livelihoods, and environmental and natural depletion as well. Based on local experiences, NGOs needed to voice their concerns in order to ensure that development in the Mekong region focus on the needs of human being, particularly the poor.
Development Policy Project of NGO Forum on Cambodia organized this workshop on these days of 21-22 September 2004 in the convention hall of the World Vision Organization. It was attended by approximately 35 national and international NGOs from the local and national levels, 5 Representatives of affected communities; and it was joined by speakers from TERRA Thailand, NGO Forum on ADB Philippines, and some other speakers working in concerned fields in Cambodia.
This workshop was aimed to discuss the possible impacts from regional development plans of the Asian Development Bank, which included transport, energy, telecommunication, and trade sector on local communities and the have-nots in the Greater Mekong Sub-region. Other issues such as environment (namely Tonle Sap Development Initiative) and governance were also brought up. This workshop gave all participants the opportunity to express their views and ideas, and share experiences in relation to advocacy with the Asian Development Bank, and responses from Asian Development Bank.
This workshop was two-day-long. In Day 1, the workshop proceeded with presentation on the background of the Greater Mekong Sub-region Development projects accompanied by experiences from some countries, and views and ideas from speakers regarding the impacts from GMS and the Asian Development Bank’s programs. In the morning of Day 2, the workshop continued with some presentations; and then in the afternoon, participants were split in smaller groups to discuss the negative impacts of GMS’s programs and projects, and infrastructure development in Cambodia, and then come up with recommendations to be submitted to Asian Development Bank and the Royal Government of Cambodia. [TOP]
Day 1
Mr. Russell Peterson, Representative of NGO Forum on Cambodia, informed participants of the objectives and importance of the workshop. He highlighted the ADB’s views on programs and strategies for development in the Greater Mekong Sub-region.
Mr. Boy Neura from NGO Forum on ADB, Philippines, gave an overview of programs under GMS encompassing both regional aspect and the spending of fund from ADB. He also highlighted ADB long-term plan for development in countries in GMS. He cast concerns over these projects. Economic concern was also touched upon as to who would benefit and lose from these projects.
Ms. Premrudee Daoroung from TERRA, Thailand, raised similar concerns, particularly over the economic impacts on poor countries such as Cambodia and Laos. Through her presentation, countries with strong economic power would benefit from these development projects while weaker countries in the Greater Mekong Sub-region would greatly lose economic interests, and even had to pay back to the Asian Development Bank as well. By the end of the day, the weaker countries would be worst off.
Miss Sugita Rena from Mekong Watch Cambodia raised the negative impacts from the construction of harbor in Chong Khneas in the form of improving environment in the Great Lake. To her, the construction of harbor in Chong Khneas would produce severe consequences to environment in Chong Khneas area, particularly impacts on ecological system. It would affect endangered fish habitat, and subsequently wipe out some fish species; it would affect the livelihood of fishing-dependant people in that area; and it would end up with extreme poverty and shortage of food. It was reported that it would have a decrease in fish yield and species, worst environment system, if no measures were taken to take protect or preserve them. Conflicts often happened due to the lack of natural resources preservation. There was criticism on fish trade in this area with regard to overexploitation of fish resources in that area, which affected the livelihood of people. The increase of people coming to that area exacerbated the use of natural resources and environment. The construction of harbor would increase fish trade, which would therefore wipe out fish in the Great Lake.
She also touched on the irresponsibility of ADB for its development projects. Environmental impacts and the loss of natural resources were the major concerns of Cambodian people, and natural resources and environment conservatist. Therefore the study of environmental impacts from these development projects must be conducted in a thorough and participatory manner.
Mr. Vann Pisedh from Fisheries Action Coalition Team (FACT) Cambodia, an organization working to preserve the Great Lake, also raised similar comments.
Day 2
Miss Kol Leakhena, resettlement project officer of NGO Forum on Cambodia and who was working actively to monitor the implementation of resettlement projects affected by various development projects, raised past practices that the communities affected by infrastructure development had not received appropriate compensation, and in some communities the authorities even compelled people to dismantle their home without any compensation, and though those projects were in the course of negotiation with ADB (Krakor district, Pursat province). It indicated that the Royal Government of Cambodia was not willing to resolve issues with its people. She also raised the impacts from the rehabilitation project of national road No. 1 Phnom Penh-Bavet, and there were some outstanding issues remained to be resolved with people. 4 people attending the workshop raised that the Government did not give appropriate compensation- they had to move to a new location without sufficient infrastructure (bathroom, clean water...).
Mr. Khatri A. Rashid from ACHR raised a question: what kind of development do we need? Based on past practices, he gave his personal idea that development should be simple while the project itself should not be so large. Development planning should be participatory from the local community. Large-scale development projects required big investment; and when there was no fund for development, Cambodia would borrow money, which would end up with the increase in indebtedness. The construction of large road such as ASEAN highway would benefit Cambodia in terms of tourism while ordinary Cambodian people would lose in terms of trade due to the fact that Cambodia did not have products for export to those markets; and poor people or communities would not benefit from the tourism growth, and instead only large-scale investors or a handful of Oknhas with close relation with government officials would benefit. In contrast Cambodian people were the ones who had to pay money back. In the wake of these, would we need such large-scale development projects?
Mr. Sameer Dossani, Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB labeled the Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank and Inter-American Development Bank as mafia group, and the International Monetary Fund was their leader. Through his presentation, Cambodia was increasingly indebted to ADB, WB and IMF because new debt was used to pay old debt, and by the end of the day Cambodian people would become victims. He also informed of the procedure to file complaint about the incompliance with procedure or the policy of the Asian Development Bank.
At the end of each presentation, our speakers gave opportunity to participants to ask questions, give comments, and to share their experiences. Representatives from Prey Veng province, which was affected by Rehabilitation Project of national road No.1 Phnom Penh-Bavet, and representatives from Chong Khneas voiced their concerns over the impacts they had encountered, particularly representatives from Prey Veng province whose livelihood was severely affected; and so far they had not received appropriate compensation from the Government.
In the afternoon session of Day 2, participants were split in smaller groups to discuss and to give recommendations to both the Asian Development Bank and the Royal Government of Cambodia, and explore approaches to resolve those issues.
Group 1 discussed the impacts from transport development projects, particularly land transport. Group 2 discussed the impacts from hydroelectricity development projects. Each group focused their discussion on the followings:
1. Environmental impacts: cross-border issues, natural resources management, air and water pollution, and cultural values...etc.
2. Social impacts: governance, resettlement, community’s livelihood, human rights and trafficking in persons...etc.
3. Economic and trade impacts: national economic impacts and rural community, agriculture and national industry...etc.
[TOP]
Results of Group Discussion
Group 1
Recommendations:
Organize an appropriate location for residence in advance;
Conduct survey from all projects stakeholders;
The project should be transparent and participatory;
Strengthen community;
Compensation must be given to the people by the project owner;
Suggest that the Royal Government complies with the agreed principle between people and donor;
Government officials, namely ministry of Environment, take steps to protect water pollution, dried river...etc;
Suggest that project owner visits the construction site and monitor all sub-contract work;
Suggest that the Royal Government preserves national patrimony, which is a historical heritage;
Enforcement of Law against trafficking in persons.
Suggest that the Royal Government strengthen the implementation of a genuine decentralization system;
Suggest that good coordination between people and authorities should be built;
Suggest that the Royal Government gets involved in the dissemination of Laws, human rights, right to decent resettlement, and social and economic rights;
The Royal Government and local authorities apply the equitable principle in development.
Suggest to find market place for people’s products;
Suggest that the Royal Government creates appropriate jobs once garments factories are closed;
Suggest to have good laws to attract investment;
People who lose their job would borrow money from financial private institutions with high interest rate, then they would be worst off;
Create jobs for people in the rural area;
The Royal Government makes a thorough study on micro-economy;
The Royal Government uses loan effectively
Strategies:
NGOs put forward recommendations to the Royal Government and donors;
NGOs organize workshops, and follow-up those recommendations;
Organize Public Forum in the local areas concerning various development projects;
Celebrate Environment Day in areas where there are development projects;
Community networking in areas affected by development projects.
[TOP]
Group 2
Recommendations
Solar power
Ensure a balance of a seasonally based ecological system;
EIA must show both the negative and positive impacts, and gives clear information to the community;
Participation from the community in making EIA;
Options for development (social environment);
Socioeconomic impact analysis must be made;
The impacts from hydroelectricity development project must be revealed to the public;
EIA must be completed before the commencement of the project;
The Royal Government makes known to the public of its Action Plan for the building of hydroelectricity dams;
ADB should examines thoroughly the projects put forward by the Royal Government;
Appropriate compensation to people affected by various development projects;
Suitable trade arrangements with neighboring countries should be made at the soonest;
ADB should make minute of consultative meeting with civil society.
Strategies:
Lobby big donors at various fora;
Establish mechanism to build network between NGOs and community at the national and international level;
Empower and extend community’s power through dissemination, workshop, training courses, radios; encourage affected villagers and community to daringly advocate with ADB and the Royal Government;
Put forward petition to ADB and the Royal Government;
Organize fora between victims and ADB and the Royal Government;
Monitor ADB’s development projects;
Organize a march at the national and international level;
If we can not succeed with SPF, proceed to CRP.
Mr. Ek Siden mentioned that: These were the recommendations we needed to make to ADB and the Royal Government: the paramount importance was the victims affected by ADB projects receive appropriate compensation, which was not sort of support money or allowance but the real compensation; development projects must be revealed to the public; road construction must be road construction and not the difference; there should have obvious location once people were to be resettled. Human trafficking might lead to social problems. So the Royal Government must take strong measures to tackle not only sexual trafficking, but also all forms of trafficking such as child trafficking to work as laborers and beggars in neighboring such as Thailand and Vietnam ...etc; the government has to enforce the law very strictly. On the other hand, they have to ensure that no single project affects our national patrimony because it was our national heritage and properties that needed protection. As far as trade with neighboring countries was concerned, we have to think how could we compete with them? Our economy was far different behind their economy; so the government needed to prepare a sound basis for economic arrangements. In terms of environmental impacts, EIA must be studied thoroughly and participatory manner- this was also another concern.
The loans must be used in a sound and most transparent basis. It was also suggested that ADB should be accountable for its projects, that’s to say once the loan was disbursed, it should not take it for granted afterward. It shall be accountable for any projects affecting the interests of people, so it must make compensation. It was recommended that during each meeting, ADB should make a clear minute of meeting indicating how it responded to the community, and issues that it did not respond.
At the end of the workshop, Mr. Russell Peterson gave a vote of thanks to all speakers, workshop organizers and all participants in attending the workshop for their rigorous participation in order to continue to work together, and explore recommendations to put forward to the ADB the Royal Government in such a way to liberate people from these difficulties.
Prepared by: Mr. Ek Siden
Development Issues Program Coordinator
NOG Forum on Cambodia
2004
