Environmental changes in the Sesan catchment

This section focuses on land and water appropriation in Ratanakiri province. In addition to the impacts of Sesan dams, it highlights the complexity of transboundary impacts contributed by the degradations of the local watershed. Land and water resources appropriation in the Sesan river basin takes place through the promotion of economic development projects initiated by actors at the local, national and regional scales. The information presented in this chapter is based on secondary data from reports prepared by NGOs (such as the Indigenous Community Support Organization (ICSO), Non- Timber-Forest-Product or NTFP and Development Partnership in Action or DPA), consultants and academics and newspapers such as Cambodia Daily and Phnom Penh

Post.

Environmental changes in the Sesan catchment have been very intense due to the over-exploitation of natural resources by illegal logging, rapid economic development projects and decisions made by the Cambodian government to grant economic

concessions to investors (from Vietnam and Australia) in the mining and rubber plantations business which include resources exploitation in the Virachey National Park, Cambodia’s largest national park. The growing of rubber and cash crops such as coffee and cashew nuts and the granting of concessions to outsiders has been a priority for the development of rural communities in Cambodia, and especially in northeast Cambodia, since 1996 (G. Brown, Ironside, Poffenberger, & Stephens, 2006). Khmer in- migration to Ratanakiri province, economic development in terms of markets expansion and increasing border mobility and transnational investments are major processes attributable to resource exploitation and environmental changes in Ratanakiri. In addition, the expansion of mining projects and rubber plantations and other cash crops contribute to the pressures of environmental change and livelihood struggles faced by the indigenous communities living in the Sesan basin. The Sesan watershed is situated at the border of Cambodia and Vietnam and the border makes this an area of high

Page | 100

mobility; labourers crossing from Cambodia to work in the rubber plantations of Vietnam are common.

Figure 16. Virachey National Park. (Ironside & Baird, 2006, p. 6)

Environmental changes in the Sesan are dramatic and the changes are happening rapidly; the changes include the commodification of natural resources, the expansion of mining businesses, even within the national park, deforestation, illegal logging, river bank erosion, river sand extraction, expansion of rubber plantations and massive

intrusions into national park lands. The main reason for articulating the environmental changes occurring in the Sesan catchment is that these changes in the Sesan are

contributing to the severity and intensity of the transboundary impacts at the local scale (in different locales) where livelihoods are impacted.

Natural resources in Ratanakiri are under massive threat; the forces at work include extensive illegal logging, the expansion of mining concessions (in Virachey National Park and nearby), the granting of indigenous land for economic concessions such as rubber plantations and cash crops such as cashew nuts, sand extraction on the Sesan River, and impacts from upstream hydropower operations in upstream Sesan. Both land and river resources are being exploited at an excessive scale and the river is becoming highly degraded. Land appropriation for economic and agricultural

concessions and cash crops was undertaken during the period of the 90s, as was illegal logging. According to Colm (1997),

In December 1996, three logging companies were granted rights to transport 29,000 cubic metres (m3) of already felled timber from Ratanakiri to Vietnam in

Page | 101

exchange for public infrastructure improvements in Ratanakiri. Two of the concessions, Kikimex Company (11,711 m3) and Reaksmey Angkor (12,500 m3), were special concessions approved from Cambodia's two Prime Ministers. The third concession, an economic exchange agreement between Ratmalun and Gia Lai Province in Vietnam, authorized transport of 4,740 m3 by a Vietnamese company, Lam San Mot (Colm, 1997, p. 6). Furthermore, “Ratanakiri ... has become the new frontier for proposed industrial plantations, hydroelectric projects, and logging concessions. The needs, customs, and traditional

livelihoods of province's 50,000 indigenous inhabitants are being overlooked in this business boom, as highland farms and "collection forests" are threatened by commercial interests. (Colm, 1997, p. 1)

Several large logging operations were also approved in Ratanakiri in the late 1990s, including the Pheapimex forest concession located to the north of the Sesan River, near the newly formed Virachey National Park”(G. Brown, et al., 2006, p. 3). The park is listed as ASEAN national heritage. Koy Sokha, Director of Virachey National Park in Ratanakkiri, was shocked to discover that a large part of the proposed buffer zone had already been allocated to the logging concessionaire Fuchan-Pheapimex (reported by Bou Saroeun and Phelim Kyne in Phnom Penh Post, dated 3 September, 1999).

Turning the Virachey National Park into a hotspot for investment was a decision made by the Cambodian government to attract foreign investors such as China and Vietnam, especially for development in the sectors of mining and rubber plantations.

Virachey is experiencing environmental degradation, unsustainable resource extraction, human population pressure, unclear boundaries and uncontrollable wildfires, according to a report of the Virachey National Park Management Plan 2003-2007 issued by the Ministry of Environment. (Reported by Vong Sokheng in Phnom Penh Post, dated 30 June, 2006)

Biodiversity in the park is at a high risk. “On 1 February 2011, Cambodian Prime

Minister, Hun Sen, approved a 9,000 hectare (22,200 acre) rubber plantation in Virachey National Park despite its status as a protected area” (Cambodia Daily, dated 11 March 2011). "Cutting some part of Virachey National Park may not affect villagers, but it seriously affects the forest and this province will lose even more forest land" Pen Bonnar, coordinator for local rights group Adhoc, told the Phnom Penh Post. There are currently 19 economic land concessions in Ratanakiri province; rubber plantation investment by companies such as CRD, Cheng Ly investment, Fu Sheng Hai and Brewer National Resources Co. Ltd have a range of 1900-8000 hectares of rubber

plantation in Andong Meas and Vuensai districts (www.opendevelopmentcambodia.net). In addition to deforestation, mining has been intensive, especially in Virachey National

Page | 102

Park, which has granted concessions to outside investors such as Indochina Resources. “The government revealed in 2007 that it had also granted exploratory mining rights to the Australian company Indochine Resources, now known as Indochine Mining, on 60 percent of the park, without informing the Environment Ministry or the World Bank” (Phnom Penh Post, dated 13 March, 2011). Deforestation and illegal logging as well as increasing concessions for logging are key threats to the biodiversity of the park.

The World Bank and Global Environment Facility funded biodiversity and protected area management project (BPAMP) was implemented by the Ministry of Environment in early 2000. One of the main objectives was to establish an appropriate mechanism to minimise biodiversity degradation in the Virachey National Park. “The vision of the park is to conserve and sustainably manage the natural and cultural

resources of the park in a partnership with local communities and other stakeholders for the benefit of the people of the local communities and Cambodia as a nation” (Ironside & Baird, 2006, p. 2). The study emphasised the importance of the historical context of indigenous people who live around the park which has to be taken into account by engaging them in planning and community-based forest management projects. The researchers identified two misconceptions which have contributed to the belief that indigenous people living near the park are the cause of forest deforestation. Claiming that the indigenous practices of farming are environmentally destructive and the understanding that they are nomadic are incorrect, the report claimed that the farming practices in the park and especially the indigenous farming practices of Brao and Kavet have been “highly organized” and “closely adapt to the local environment” (p.7). It is recommended that the historical context of the way that people who live around Virachey National Park adjust to the rapid changes has to be integrated into natural resources planning and biodiversity management (Ironside & Baird, 2006).

According to Ironside (2008), “Where traditional communal land and forest management systems offer/offered livelihood security for all community members, market oriented systems are leading to the dispossession of several villages from their land and large scale deforestation” (p.97). He strongly asserts that development which takes place without the participation of the powerless communities makes no sense. “The result of fast changing demographics in these areas means the indigenous voice, which has never been strong, will likely to continue to receive limited attention, unless more effective strategies are developed”(Ironside, 2008, p. 99).

The rapid exploitation of natural resources in Ratanakiri province has impacted on indigenous communities, especially the Tampuan indigenous communities with approximately 15,000 people, who live in the forest on the plateau between the Sesan

Page | 103

and Srepok rivers (Bourdier, 2006). The developments are driven primarily by the market and economic and commercial purposes. He stated, “Recent geo-political

considerations and the priority accorded to economic development are in the process of modifying socio-cultural phenomena in Ratanakiri” (p.11). The development-induced change has had significant impacts on the livelihoods of the indigenous communities living in the province, especially the pressure to adapt to the new environment and conflict over natural resources. These have far reaching implications for the livelihood of indigenous communities and their cultural identities (Backstrom, Ironside, Paterson, Padwe, & Baird, 2007; Bourdier, 2006; G. Brown, et al., 2006; Colm, 1997; Hutchinson, Ironside, & Clark, 2008).

“The rapid acceleration of the region’s integration into the market economy has provided opportunities as well as setbacks” (Backstrom, et al., 2007, p. 19). They argue that development projects in Ratanakiri have contributed to a certain extent to social fragmentation and marginalisation within the indigenous communities of Ratanakiri. Central to this concern is how the indigenous communities are excluded from the planning of development and that their losses are not compensated. Bourdier (2006) claimed that “A proper understanding of the social dynamics is needed if we are to know how and under what circumstances vernacular societies may be in a position to negotiate with outsiders and numerous development actors who are interacting with them” (p.6). “Changes in the social order and threats to the cultural identity of

indigenous people are having an impact on indigenous societies, which are pushed to adapt to modernity. Some communities have entered a process of disintegration, where the loss of resources, land and forests, accompanies the loss of community solidarity, links and shared values” (Maffii, 2008, p. 129).

The environment in which indigenous communities live is changing rapidly and this is having a profound impact within the community itself. Historically,

cultural practices and traditional authorities are forces maintaining the collective identity, solidarity, and cohesion of indigenous communities and, importantly, protecting communal rights and assets such as land and natural resources. Working with cultural practices and traditional authorities must be central to community led development. (Hutchinson, et al., 2008, p. 1)

Recognising the worldviews of indigenous people and their deep connection with nature should be integrated to shape up the development programme taking place in Ratanakiri (Hutchinson, et al., 2008).

Development Partnership in Action or DPA has articulated the context of development that is occurring in Ratanakiri without participation by the indigenous communities as a threat to indigenous society, especially when they are not part of any decision-making process on those projects. Their lives and culture are at risk. Central to

Page | 104

the DPA’s mission is to argue for an integration of the indigenous traditional decision- making system and needs into the development processes taking place in Ratanakiri. The challenging task is to recognise the benefits of the projects in terms of livelihood improvement, while protecting the environment and natural resources that they rely on. Central to the integrated community development programme, and a key task for the DPA, is to ensure that the needs of the indigenous people are put upfront and to recognise that the complex understanding of social dynamics of the indigenous communities and their relationship to land and water are very important for the sustainability of the development programme. Recognising power inequality in access and control over natural resource is also a key factor to be integrated (Hutchinson, et al., 2008).

In addition to recognising indigenous values and integrating their voices into the development programme taking place in Ratanakiri, the mechanism for addressing grievances is highly important. Peter Hammer’s research focused on a narrative analysis of the ADB’s development in Ratanakiri. He noted that the projects are dominated by the Bank’s worldview which disregards indigenous values and their reliance on natural resources. Hammer (2009) came up with the narrative of ‘development as tragedy’ (especially the kind of development that ADB initiated in Ratanakiri province) to describe the situation of development that impacts the lives and culture of the

indigenous communities. Development projects introduced to the province by the ADB are revealed to be based on the poor empathetic mindset of the ADB towards the

indigenous people. He highlighted that:

The Bank’s failure to empathize stems from its tendency to view indigenous communities exclusively through the lens of its own economic models. As such, the needs of the indigenous peoples that the Bank identified are often more projections of its own policy prescriptions. The Bank is unable to perceive, let alone transcend, the biases of its own worldview. (Hammer, 2009 p.156)

Using the economic lens in which the ADB’s views are embedded to plan and undertake development projects in Ratanakiri exposes the Bank’s views of the Sesan as a place which is static. There is no recognition of the complex web of social relations embedded in the unique culture of the Ratanakiri indigenous peoples.

5.6 Conclusion

Using political ecology to illustrate hydropower development and its underpinning social and political processes helps to trace the problem of Sesan transboundary impacts in connection with actors’ interests at the multiple scales which influence Sesan

Page | 105

hydropower development and the decisions made. The use of a political ecology approach in this thesis has allowed the connection to be made between Sesan transboundary impacts (four dimensions of river changes) and actors’ interests at different scales (local livelihood struggles and voices raised through advocacy, national decision-making processes about Sesan dams, regional development initiatives and investments boosting the Sesan).

This study has revealed that the scale of Sesan river basin is fixed and re-fixed according to the hegemonic actors involved, such as development bank agents, state agencies and the associated national and regional initiatives engaging them, as well as by the political agendas of the key water players. The Sesan is imagined as

‘transnational space’ serving sub-regional water resources development and transnational investments. Also, it is the planning unit where IWRM-led

transboundary resources planning are embedded. The Sesan river basin is rescaled, according to different scalar narratives to serve the agendas of the hegemonic actors through dam developments where downstream affected people and NGO actors

organise anti-dam advocacy to reclaim the scale of river basin to serve the livelihoods of the riverside communities.

Hydropower development discourse on the Sesan River resembles Routledge’s (2003) notion of ‘development as erasure’. In the case of the Sesan catchment and its transformation, hydropower development as erasure is a process that involves complex actors at different scales (national, regional and local), actors’ interventions and projects to appropriate land and river resources. The researcher further contends that the

intensive dam developments on the Sesan may be regarded as ‘ecological and economic erasure’. Ecological erasure means dams have changed the river’s ecology and reduced the fishery resources that are important for river-based livelihoods. As a result of changes in the river, livelihoods have been cut off so that the river no longer provides a livelihood for the riverside communities. Income generations from fisheries, other aquatic animals and river bank agriculture have been cut-off; this illustrates how economic erasure is undertaken. Also, economic erasure is reflected in the form of lack of compensation provided for the affected people.

Page | 106

Chapter 6: Sesan, Sekong and Srepok rivers protection