Strengthening Accountability and Inclusiveness in Economic Development Projects: The Case of the Lower Sesan II dam
Transcript
Strengthening Accountability and Inclusiveness in Economic Development Projects: The Case of the Lower Sesan II dam
Background to the Research The project is funded by Oxfam Australia and
Monash University The central goal of this project is to investigate
existing barriers to community driven accountability, and the factors enabling some communities to develop relatively stronger community centred accountability processes than others.
Examine three cases studies in different geographic locations in Cambodia.
People impacted by large-scale development projects This presentation draws on findings from LSS2 case
study.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The project is funded under the Oxfam Australia and Monash University partnership. What we mean by community driven accountability is the ability of communities to ensure that they can participate meaningfully, they can influence and they can demand a response and answers from those who impact their village as a result of large scale development projects. We want to find out why some villages and communities are more able to demand accountability than others. What are the factors that contribute to this. The three case studies are in rural and urban areas of Cambodia and each case study is of a population affected by a large-scale development project, although it may be at a different stage of the project (before, during or after). The case studies are villages on the Mekong in Kratie and Stung Treng which may be affected by upper Mekong hydropower dams and ELCs; the Boeung Kak community; and villages in Sesan district that will be impacted by the Lower Sesan 2 dam. In this presentation we are looking at some of the findings from the Lower Sesan 2 dam case study.
Introduction The ASEAN countries are increasingly
looking at hydropower as the solution to power needs.
Cambodian gov’t has signed the agreement for LSS2 dam project in Se San district Stung Treng province.
Capacity proposed 400MW Project Developers ◦ RGC with Royal Group, Hydrolancang
International Energy Co. Ltd and Electricity of Vietnam (10%)
Presentation question
How much has the Se San 2 dam project involved affected people in consultation and decision making processes according to the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)?
Research Methods for LSS2 Fieldwork from Nov-2012 to March-2013. Target Areas: Four villages in Se San district Criteria for selection: ethnicity, geographic
situation, identified strong & weak networks Semi-Structure Interview with provincial
departments, district & commune authorities, NGOs, community networks, affected villagers
Participatory mapping exercises: Time line, Venn Diagram, Force Field Analysis with NGOs, community networks, villagers.
Secondary data review
What is FPIC ? Free, Prior and Informed Consent FPIC is a right for indigenous people as stated
in International law and in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People ◦ Free: free from force, intimidation, manipulation or
pressure by company or gov’t. ◦ Prior: To gov’t allocating land for particular land
uses and prior to approval of specific project. Gov’t must give enough time to peoples consider all information and make decisions. ◦ Informed: Developers must give all relevant
information to affected communities. ◦ Consent: Requires that the project developers
allow affected peoples to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to each stage of the project.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
When large-scale economic development occurs in areas that will affect the lands and natural resources of indigenous people, under international law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, they have the right to be involved in any decision-making concerning the development. Cambodia is one of the countries that supports the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. While FPIC refers to indigenous people, it is also the case that non-indigenous project-affected people also have the right to consultation and negotiation in decision-making processes when their land, homes or natural resources are affected.
Findings Prior Consent ◦ The villagers living in the reservoir area were not
informed prior to the decision to plan for a dam in Sesan. ◦ According to interviews, villagers heard about the
dam through two main channels, both informal: Canadian Researcher Ian Baird 2008 Vietnamese surveyors in 2008
◦ No official visits from company representatives ◦ Most information regarding the dam has been
received from NGOs.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
A pre-feasibility study on the Lower Sesan 2 dam had been conducted in 1999 by Halcrow and Partners, funded by the Asian Development Bank. Villagers heard about the dam through informal rather than formal means: Through the visit of the Canadian researcher in 2008 who was investigating best practices for compensation and resettlement for large dams Through the arrival of Vietnamese surveyors in the village in 2008
Findings cont. The right to say yes or no ◦ Whether villagers have been directly asked whether
they agree with the project and give their consent, yes or no, is unclear but; ◦ Villagers have expressed discontent about the dam
project and stated that they did not want it to go ahead. ◦ Villagers themselves are unclear about their right to
give consent to the project. ◦ Frustration that opinions are not being taken into
consideration. ◦ Don’t want to be seen to oppose the ‘development’ of
Cambodia.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Ian Baird noted in his study that 100% of people who had participated in the village meetings during his study clearly indicated that they were opposed to the dam. However, it appears that villagers have not been asked by the developers and the government whether they agree or disagree. Most discussions with the villagers have been around whether they agree or disagree with the compensation being offered, which is different to saying yes or no to the actual dam project. Villagers still express discontent about the dam project and that they don’t want it to go ahead, although many feel that now the dam has been approved by the government, the building will go ahead and there is nothing they can do to stop it. Villagers do not know they have a right to give consent to the project. They do not know about their right to FPIC. Villagers and local authorities feel frustrated that their opinions have not been taken into consideration Many were worried that if they opposed the dam construction they would be seen to be opposing the development of Cambodia and so they felt it was not right to express their opinions or oppose the dam
Findings cont. Free Consent ◦ Affected families have been provided with partial
information and do not have a full picture to base their decisions on.
◦ Forms that families were expected to thumb print were in Vietnamese and people were unable to read. ◦ Circumstances of meetings have sometimes meant
that people are encouraged to agree without being able to discuss their feelings and ideas in more detail.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
People have not been given full information about the dam project – when it will happen, what both the positive and negative impacts will be, how their villages will be affected etc. Most discussions with villagers have focused on compensation and resettlement, but even then they do not have the full information and still have a lot of questions they need answered. Villagers reported that at the time of the visit of the Vietnamese surveyors, they were asked to thumbprint a document, and were told that they would not receive compensation unless they did so. However, they were unable to read the document as it was in Vietnamese and they have been concerned that their thumbprints might have been used to show their agreement for the dam project. Ian Baird also reported that villagers had felt pressured into thumb-printing the data collection documents without having a chance to verify that the information recorded was accurate. A meeting with the Govenor was held in Sre Sronok village in February 2013 to confirm the dam construction was going ahead. Reportedly the governor asked the villagers if they agreed to receive good compensation and most villagers in attendance at the meeting raised their hands, although they later told the researchers that they did not agree about the dam. It seems only a few villagers from each village attended the meeting and many did not feel brave enough to ask questions. Some interviewees mentioned that they didn’t agree to the dam but they agreed that if they had to move they should get good compensation. Some people said that they didn’t agree but they felt that they had to raise their hand in the meeting (they weren’t brave enough to disagree). Some people reported that the governor had his security with him and so the people were scared to say anything
Findings cont. Clear Information ◦ The affected people have heard about the dam, but
few have clear information on what the project involves, what the real impacts will be (+ & -) and what resettlement and compensation was being offered to them. ◦ They also had NO information on their rights as
affected indigenous people to be consulted and to participate in the project planning and dialogue. ◦ The provision of information has not always been
given in the language of the people ◦ Little is documented at meetings. People rely on
their memory of what was said
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The few times the people have received information from the authorities or project developers (the Vietnamese) they say they talked mainly about the positive impacts rather than the negative impacts. People don’t have information on their rights to be consulted and to participate in the planning and dialogue. Often they feel they have no right to be involved In the villages many people, particularly women, do not feel confident to communicate in Khmer and so even when meetings are held in Khmer language they don’t understand everything and they feel they cannot speak There appears to be very little documentation made when meetings are held and so villagers have to rely on their memory of what has been said. This means that villagers don’t have clear information and are unable to pass on clear information to those villagers who couldn’t attend the meetings.
Cont. Clear Information ◦ The provision of information is also constrained
by the village context. ◦ NGOs have helped to provide information to
the communities. ◦ But NGOs also do not have the full information
as they have not been able to meet with government and the company to discuss the issues in depth. ◦ The lack of clear information has meant that
people are left guessing about their situation. This has created a high degree of stress and worry.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The affected villagers are mainly subsistence farmers and they spend a lot of time in the forest or working on their farms which means they are not always available to attend meetings, or they attend sporadically. This also makes it difficult to ensure people receive information. People miss out on information if they don’t attend meetings and they then hear the information second-hand, but it may not be clear information. NGOs have helped to provide information to communities, but NGOs also do not have all the information required. NGOs also work mainly with key representatives and ask them to pass on information to other villagers, but this doesn’t always happen. People are very worried about the resettlement, about the housing and land, about what they will receive They are worried how they can continue their livelihoods away from the river They are worried about their cemeteries, their spirit forests and their neak-ta Elders are worried the government may not provide money for them to do the necessary sacrifices to the spirits in both the old and new locations Lack of information has meant that people have not moved ahead with livelihood plans – for example, clearing more land for production or building or repairing houses
Cont. Spaces for Community voices to be heard ◦ Affected communities have a lack of opportunity to
meet with the project developers or the gov’t from national level ◦ Local authorities are still working in a subservient
way to the upper authorities and have not been able to raise the communities’ concerns to the upper levels. ◦ Meetings held in Khmer result in some people not
being confident to talk. ◦ Communities are relying on NGOs and sometimes
the media to help them to pass the message up to higher levels of government.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The main contact the villagers have had with the project developers has been with the company staff on the ground – for example the Vietnamese surveyors – who are often unable to answer the questions the villagers have and who don’t feed back concerns to the higher levels Local authorities mainly continue to work within the traditional hierarchy where they follow orders from above but they do not bring people’s concerns up to the higher levels. There is the exception of the Srekor commune chief, but he then faces accusations of causing trouble because he is the opposition party representative. Despite decentralisation, this has not provided more space for people to raise their concerns to the government As noted already in the communities with different ethnicities, the language of meetings may prevent people from participating actively Communities are relying on NGOs and sometimes the media to help them to pass the message up to higher levels of government, because they say if they report to commune, the message will be blocked at commune or district level.
Conclusions Lack of clear and complete info. about dam project and
resettlement. Language issues - big barrier to people having
information Geography- remote area difficult to access the key
decision makers of project and the media. People are not aware their right to consent and
consultation. Daily livelihood limits people’s ability to participate in
meetings. Local authorities lack capacity to raise concerns to
upper levels (not represent of people) Lack of opportunity for dialogue make it difficult to
express opinions in a free and informed way.
Recommendations Need for government, company developers to respect the
right of people to FPIC. ◦ Regular consultation and dialogue between developers &
communities ◦ More capacity for local authorities to raise concerns to upper levels ◦ More effort to ensure meetings are clearly documented ◦ More effort to ensure meetings are in local languages ◦ More effort to ensure people feel comfortable to raise their
concerns
Increase use of media to share information to communities and to raise community concerns
Recommendations NGOs to support communities by informing them of their
rights to FPIC and by developing strategies and plans for them to use FPIC to protect their rights. ◦ Educate communities on FPIC ◦ Provide information regarding the projects that can provide an
alternative view to that provided by government & developers ◦ Act as facilitator to help set up and ensure community participation
in dialogue and meetings ◦ Brief communities before meetings and assist in documentation of
meetings ◦ Assist community to facilitate discussion in communities so they can
come up with a clear decision and strategy ◦ Help communities seek independent advice
