Assesing Impacts of Hydropower Plant on Livelihood of Local Residents in Cambodia: the Case of Sambor Project

ASSESING IMPACTS OF HYDROPOWER PLANT ON LIVELIHOOD OF LOCAL RESIDENTS IN CAMBODIA: THE CASE OF SAMBOR PROJECT

A thesis submitted To Kent State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

Sokvisal Kimsroy

May 2017

Thesis written by

Sokvisal Kimsroy

B.A., The Royal University of Phnom Penh, 2008

LL.M., The University of Hong Kong, 2013

M.A., Kent State University, 2017

Approved by

James A. Tyner , Advisor

Scott C. Sheridan , Chair, Department of Geography

James L. Blank , Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………….. iii & iv

LISTv OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………... v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………………………... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………………….. vii & viii

CHAPTERS

I. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………. 1

My story ...…….…………… ……………………………………………………….. 2 A Brief History of Cambodia ……………………………………...... 6 The Mekong River ….……………………………………………………………….. 7 Organization of my thesis ……………………...... 10

II. The Hydropower Development along the Mekong River ……………………………. 12

The UMB Hydropower Development, China ……………………………...... 13 The LMB Hydropower Development ……………………………………...... 15

Lao PDR …………………………………………………...... 19

Thailand…………………………………………………...... 20

Cambodia ………………………………………...... 20

Vietnam ……………………………………………...... 21 The impacts of the hydropower dams …………………………………...... 21

III. The Hydropower development in Cambodia: The Case of Sambor …...... 30

The first phase development the Sambor Project (1952-1970s) …………...... 31

The second phase development (1990s-present) …………………………...... 34

The existing studies of the Sambor Dam …………………………………...... 39

The contested mainstream dams in Lao PDR ……………………………………... 43

IV. Research Methodology, Site Study, and Positionality ……………………...... 46

Political Ecology Framework ……………………………………………………… 47 Site study …………………………………………………...... 49 Kaoh Phdau Village ……………………………………………………………. 51

Kaoh Khnhaer Village …………………………………………………………. 52

Sandan Village ………………………………………………………………… 53 Voadthonak Village …………………………………………………………… 55 Research Methodology ……………………………………………………………. 57 Archival research ……………………………………………………………… 57 Site observation ………………………………………………...... 58

iii

Interview……………………………………………………...... 59 Data analysis ……………………………………………...... 61 Definitions …………………………………………………………………….. 62 Positionality …………………………………...... 63

V. Discussion of the Livelihood of Local Residents in Sambor ………………………. 67

Specification ……………………………...... 67 Agriculture ……………………………………………………………………… 68

Fishing ………………………………………………………………………….. 69 Culture ………………………………………………………………………….. 69 Discussion of the socio-economic of each village …………………...... 72 Kaoh Khnhaer Village …………………………………………………………. 72 Kaoh Phdau Village ………………………………………………...... 79 Voadthonak Village …………………………………………………...... 87 Sandan Village …………………………………………………...... 93 Comparative upstream-downstream impacts ……………………...... 98 Awareness, knowledge, and future plan …………………………………………… 101

VI. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………. 107

Significance of the research ……………………………………………...... 107 Summary of main findings ………………………………………………...... 108 Limitations ………………………………………………………………...... 111

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………. 113

APPENDICES …………………………………………………………...... 123

List of interviews the author conducted for the research study ……………………. 123

A questionnaire used for conducting interview for the research study …………….. 126 List of fish mentioned by participants during filed research ………………………. 127

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of the MRB …………………………………………………………………….. 9

Figure 2: List of operational, under-construction, and proposed mainstream dams

along the Mekong River ……………………………………………………………. 13

Figure 3: List of characteristics of the Sambor Dam from several sources …………...... 38

Figure 4: Map of Site studies of Sambor produced by the NHI ………………………………. 40

Figure 5: Map of the study site of the four villages and the Sambor Dam ……………...... 50

Figure 6: Kaoh Phdau’s Ecotourism Center where people hold meeting

and performance …………………………………………………………………….. 52

Figure 7: Commercial fisher and his catch for sale …………………………………………… 53

Figure 8: Fishers in Sandan Village getting Henicorhynchus from the net for sale …………… 55

Figure 9: A motorbike with small logs at the back in Voadthonak Village …………………… 57

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank CNMC Cambodian National Mekong Committee CRDT Cambodian Rural Development Team ECAF Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East ECAFE United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and Far East GMS Greater Mekong Sub-Region HCKEC Hydro-China Kunming Engineering Cooperation HLRHC Huaneng Lancang River Hydropower Cooperation LMB Lower Mekong Basin NHI Natural Heritage Institute IMC Interim Mekong Committee IMF International Monetary Fund ICEM International Centre for Environmental Management MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MME Ministry of Mines and Energy MoE Ministry of Environment MoPI Ministry of Power Industry MoWRPI Ministry of Water Resources and the Power Industry MRB Mekong River Basin MRC Mekong River Committee NDR Northeastern Rural Development NDRC National Development and Reform Commission SPCC State Power Cooperation of China UMB Upper Mekong Basin UNDP United Nations Development Programs WB World Bank WCD World Commission on Dam WWF World Wild Fund YPG Yunnan Provincial Government

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would not have finished this thesis without the generous support, patience, and guidance from countless individuals and institutions. First, I would like express my gratitude to Prof.

James Tyner, my advisor and mentor. Next, I wish to thank Profs. Kelly Turner, Andrew Curtis, and Thomas Schmidlin for their kind assistant and constructive comments. I thank them very much for their valuable time of reviewing my work and many meetings to discussion about this thesis. As English is not my first language, I thank my friend, Chris Willer, for helping me to edit this thesis.

I would like to express my appreciation to Youk Chhang, the director of the

Documentation Center of Cambodia, (DC-Cam) who has provided me opportunities to serve for his institution and motivated me to seek higher education for my personal and professional growth, which can contribute to the Cambodian society.

Many individuals who serve at various institutions namely the Mekong River

Commission, World Wild Fund, International Rivers, Cambodian Rural Development Team,

NGO Forum, Northeastern Rural Development, Ministry of Environment, and Ministry of Mines and Energy, have enthusiastically assisted me in collecting data for thesis. I am grateful for their assistance. At the study site, I would like to thank my Uncle, Sophal, and his family members who provided me accommodation every time I went to Kratie Province. I thank him for always reminding not to cross Mekong River before it rained each time I was there. I am in debt to all the people of Sambor District I have met. I thank the commune chiefs, the village chiefs, and all villagers I have met and interviewed whose spent their valuable times talking with me, guiding

vii me through the villages and expressing their frank thoughts to me without any hesitation. My thesis is all about you all.

Lastly, I cannot thank my family members enough for all the things they have done to me. I thank my mother and father for their hard work, supports, and motivation. I thank Chhunly

Chhay, my girlfriend, fiancée, and then wife, for her continuous support during my study in Kent

State University.

viii

Chapter I

Introduction

In the introductory chapter, I provide my personal experiences along the Mekong River and connect it to the Sambor1 Project. This reflects myself as being one of millions of

Cambodians residing along the Mekong and its tributaries. And it helps define my position in this research, and especially how I am able to communicate with villagers of Sambor during my field research. Regarding this issue, England (1994), for example, argues that field research is very personal and shaped greatly by the positionality and biography of the researchers which connects to participants through dialogical process. It is about understanding the positions of the researcher and how knowledge with their subject study takes place, which establishes engagement between the two (Katz, 1994).

Then I outline a brief history of Cambodia particularly about its development and economic growth. Next, I discuss about the Mekong River and its vital contributions to millions of people who rely on fishing and agriculture. The last section finishes with the organization of my thesis.

1 For the purpose of this study, I use this spelling “Sambor”, despite that some government sources and other studies spell it as “Sambour”.

1 My story

I grew up along one of the Mekong River’s tributaries in Cambodia. Locally, we call it

Tonle Touch, “Small River” in English, whereas the Mekong River is called Tonle Thom, or simply, “Big River”. As a child growing in a neighborhood where the river water was just underneath my home during the flooding season, especially in July and August, and only about

20 meters away during the dry season, I enjoyed swimming, fishing, and playing with other children in the river. I started swimming of age of 4 or 5. During my young years, I never thought that death could take place at any time. However, it was common that kids never had such thought, only the parents.

I enjoyed swimming and doing any other activities in the river so much that my father had to whip me from time to time to stop me from doing so. My parents were so worried about me, being cut by debris, getting bitten by poisonous snakes, and especially drowning. In my society, it was a big deal to be born as a first son and only to have another younger sister after 6 years.

My father was a civil servant, but had to help my mother run a small restaurant all day. I knew that was why having me out of their sights and especially in the river was indeed a serious concern. However, I continued to resist and went swimming and fishing as usual. After going to high school, I learned that the river was more important than to fulfill my childhood’s enjoyment respectively. During the dry season, December-April, my mother, aunt, and I grew most of vegetables we used to supply our restaurants namely different types of mints, morning glory, eggplants, potatoes, long green bean, cabbage, leeks, and wage melon. We did not have any big farms. We just grew them behind our home, along the riverbank. They provided insufficient supply to our restaurant, which we sold coffee, noodle, and food to customers. However, they

2 helped us a great deal. The trees grew well because the land was fertilized after being flooded for several months during the flooding season. My aunt, whom I called a professional farmer, used to tell many times, “Just clear the grasses and place the seeds and small trees! Then we will have them to eat.” They did.

I could just carry buckets of water on my shoulder and water them in the evening. I did not have to carry water daily because every three days my dad would use small water-pump to get water to our small pool and several jars in our home. I watered all crops with the pipe and filled a few small jars near crops. We consumed too much water compared with our neighbors.

However, the good things were that my mother did not have to go to river to wash our clothes or take a shower there. And we did not have to pay for water. Still, I preferred taking shower in the river.

During the wet season, especially from June to November, it was the perfect season for me. School was out; I had no class. I could swim and fish as long as I wanted. Most villages, fields, and even my school were flooded for a while. We could no longer grow any vegetables, but our restaurant still ran well, as the front part of my home was not flooded. Our restaurant was located near a quite hilly area and the market. Therefore, villagers whose villages were flooded and fishers who came to buy food and supplies as well as sell their fish at the market normally stopped by, drank coffee or ate noodle as usual. Every day, I served my customers tea, coffee, chicken rice, and noodle, hearing all stories about lives in the flooded villages and especially how fishers caught their fish during the flooding season.

To me, flooding season was all about swimming and fishing. I was not a commercial fisher, but a leisure one. I enjoyed catching many fishes to cook and eat among our families daily. When the river water went up, I used scoop net to catch small fish, hooks with worms and

3 fish paste as baits, and gillnet. Commercial fishers used gillnets along the river, lorb2, scoop net, and castnet fishing. During the highest flooding period, they fished in the lakes, especially through canals. After the Mekong flood reached its peak and started to decrease, it was the time to use hooks and lines (placing small fish as bait in a hook) to get especially catfish, fish with hook, and grill net. Commercial fisher use hooks and lines across the river and lorb, gillnet, and cast net along the riverbank. Such practices along the Tonle Touch were similar to those who fished in the Tonle Thom. I did catch quite lots of fish, and the commercial fishers along the

Tonle Touch did make lots of income, like those fishing in the Tonle Thom.

In term of water usage, my family members just took shower in the river all day, because it was just behind our house.

We especially washed our clothes in the river because it was easily to get rid of soap than washing in the container. When washing in the container, we had to change water for several times. It was also rainy season, and we got water from the rain, which went through our home’s roof into our pool and jar. We can use them to cook food and make coffee.

Unfortunately, yields, fish catch, and water usages have later become problematic gradually. During some dry season, the Tonle Touch dried up, and my family could not use water because it was polluted. We had to switch to using well water. Fishers along both the Tonle

Touch and the Tonle Thom could not catch many fish during the dry season lower catch and especially in the flooding season. Some ordinary people blamed illegal fisher, who use electrocution, banned gill nets, and fishing during fish laying-egg season, while teachers and civil servants who followed the news said that it might be because too many dams have been built upstream.

2 An arrow-shaped fishing trap

Farmers could no longer make prediction to grow their crops and rice in the fields, and their fields were flooded sooner than expected. Farmers who practiced growing their crops and rice after river water decreased had their rice seedlings and young crops damaged because the

Tonle Thom rose again and stayed high for sometimes. Indeed, when those people did not make income as before, my parents’ restaurant suffered with shortage profit as well.

The Mekong River, the Tonle Thom, is in fact under duress. Various changes have impacts on millions of Cambodian living along not only the mainstream but also its countless tributaries. Several large dams (mostly in China and Lao PDR) have already been constructed.

Many more are planned. Indeed, if all plans currently contemplated are realized, there would be almost 300 hydropower dams diverting the flow of the Mekong—all to satisfy Asia’s incessant demand for electricity to promote industrial growth (Xue et al. 2010).

For my study, I am interested in examining the daily lives and possible impacts at the village-level of four selected villages (two upstream and two downstream). Most often, dams are known to impact fishing, farming, and traditional practices in some areas. However, there are limited studies which examine upstream-downstream impacts at the village-level. To accomplish this goal, this thesis seeks to answer the following questions as follow:

1. What are daily lives of local residents like along the Sambor’s Mekong River and

how do they use the river?

2. How will the Sambor Project change their lives?

3. How will they respond if the dam is officially approved?

A Brief History of Cambodia

Cambodia’s recent past includes civil war (1970-1975), genocide (1975-1979), foreign occupation (1979-1989), and armed insurgency (1979-1998). Throughout these decades, the people of Cambodia have endured violence, deprivation, and periods of famine. Signs of optimism, however, are on the horizon—although even these need to be tempered. Since the early part of the twenty-first century, Cambodia’s economy has experienced modest economic growth. In part, this has resulted from substantial foreign investment, namely from China,

Taiwan, South Korea, and various countries in Southeast Asia. Economic growth, however, is potentially limited because of energy deficiencies, most notably electricity. On the one hand, the price of electricity in Cambodia is among the highest in the world; on the other hand, the country has to import electricity from Thailand and Vietnam to meet local demands (Lei, 2012).

Though its impressive economic growth has been 9.7 percent annum in the past decade

(ADB, 2012), 74 percent of Cambodian residents have no access to electricity. The electricity price is the highest in the region and the world. In response, Cambodia is pursuing the development of hydropower dams—a strategy similar to neighboring countries, including Lao

PRK, Myanmar, and China. Cambodia’s hydrology is dominated by the Mekong River, which flows for 468 kilometers through Cambodia, and its many tributaries. Cambodia’s hydrology is pivotal to people’s livelihood’s; the river is utilized for agriculture (i.e., through small canals constructed for irrigation), fishing, and transportation. Millions of Cambodians are living around the Mekong River and its tributaries. Any significant engineering project on the Mekong, consequently, may have significant impacts on millions of people.

The Mekong River

The Mekong River is the 12th largest river in the world and 7th largest in Asia with 8th largest annual discharge of 475 cubic kilometers. It originates from the Tibetan Plateau and travels through six countries, China, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia over a length of 4,800 kilometers. From Qinghai, Tibetan to Yunnan Province, it flows about 2,200 kilometers, with another additional 2,700 kilometers through the Lower Mekong countries

(Grumbine et al. 2012).

The Mekong Basin is divided into seven physical regions based on the topography, drainage patterns, and the geomorphology of river channels (Gupta, 2009; MRC, 2010). The upper three regions namely the Tibetan Plateau, Three Rivers, and Lancang Basin, as well as

Myanmar, are known as the UMB, whereas the LMB comprises of four regions namely,

Northern Highlands, Khorat Plateau, Tonle Sap Basin and the Mekong Delta.

Climate plays significant role in controlling the seasonal flow in the Mekong. The

Southwest Monsoon creates wet and dry season in the regions, tropical typhoons, rainfall, and drought. For instance, due to local variations in rainfall, Khorat Plateau in Thailand often suffers with droughts, whereas central highland Vietnam is heavily affected by the tropical storm.

Rainfall significantly contributes to the relatively large volume of runoff per unit catchment in the area (Adamson et al. 2009). Of the total annual discharge, between 85 percent and 90 percent, takes place from June to December.

The Mekong is the second most biodiverse river in the world after the Amazon River

(Ziv et al. 2012). Valbo-Jorgensen, et al. (2009), citing from the Mekong Fish Database of the

MRC (2003), states that 924 named species and 898 indigenous fish have been recorded in the entire Mekong. As for such number, some coastal species are not recorded. The authors add that

60 percent of the listed fishes are freshwater, while another 40 percent are from the sea and estuarine. Ziv et al. (2012), on the other hand, identify 877 fish species in the entire basin, excluding the estuary marine species. Such countless fish provide direct and indirect income to my family and millions more.

It is estimated that there are about 70 million people living along the Mekong basin

(CDRI, 2008). They rely mainly on fishing and agricultural products. It is estimated that 81 percent of the population of Cambodia (11.6 million), 89 percent of the population of Laos (5.3 million), 23 percent of the population of Thailand (23 million), and 20.7 percent of the population of Vietnam (20 million) living within the Mekong basin (MRC, 2011).

Agricultural activities in lowland and especially the delta are knowingly the most productive. Such activities comprise of wet season rice, floating season rice, dry season irrigated rice, flood recession rice, and various crops including raising fish and shrimps, and growing vegetables and varieties of fruits. In Cambodia, 86 percent of the country’s territory lies within the MRB, which comprises of 20 percent of the total basin area and 18 percent of the total flow, and it is deeply dependent on the developments in the Mekong Basin (MoE and UNDP, 2013).

Figure 1: Map of the MRB (Source: The MRC)

In terms of fishing and catchment, countless studies have focused on the Lower Mekong

Basin rather than those in China and Burma. Based on FAO statistic, the total amount catch in the Lower Mekong River ranks between 1 million to 2.6 million tons of fish, but the most reliable assessment is 2.1 million tons (ICEM, 2010). That’s why the catchment in the Mekong

River constitute between 6 and 22 percent of the world’s freshwater fish, and most likely 18 percent. Its economic value is estimated to be between 1.4 and 2 billion USD per year per first sale (ICEM, 2010) and between 4.3 and 7.8 billion USD in retail market (Hortle, 2009). On average, the fish consumption for one person is 13.8 kilograms per year and 1.55 million ton of fish for the entire population downstream (ICEM, 2010).

Among all the LMB countries, Cambodia is the largest and most productive fisheries and especially in the Tonle Sap Great Lake floodplain. The total annual catch is estimated to be

395,000 tons in 2007 (MRC, 2010). In 2002, the Department of Fisheries of Ministry of

Agriculture stated the Cambodian inland fisheries amounted to 360 000 tons in 2002, contributing to 16 percent of the GDP (Sarkkula et al. 2005). For such reason, Cambodians, especially those living with the Mekong Basin and the Tonle Sap, will face critical changes due to any major development along the Mekong’s mainstream.

Organization of my thesis

In addition to the introductory chapter, Chapter II reviews the hydropower development along the entire Mekong River countries, as literatures on the Mekong dams tend to focus on the

UMB and the LMB separately (Matthews and Geheb, 2014; Tilt, 2014). It details their complex political, economic, and social development. As for the LMB one, it is important to look at its history, because the Sambor Project was one of the main focuses during the initial stage in the

1950s. Specifically, this chapter provides background on the existing studies of socio-economic and cultural impacts of the existing mainstream dams and small scale along the Mekong’s tributaries, which shapes the research framework for this my study.

Chapter III provides background information to the Sambor Project, particularly after

Cambodia rejoined the MRC through available information and existing studies. The characteristic of the Sambor Dam has changed accordingly. It notes all the studies and mostly newspaper articles with remarks of government officials to highlight its development and all actors involved. It describes dam awareness and anti-dam movement in Cambodia in connection with the Laotian dams, namely the Xayaburi and Don Sahong.

Chapter IV details the site study, rational of site selection and the political ecology framework to examine the daily lives of local community with the Mekong River. It accompanies by the discussion of my positionality upon writing this thesis. Chapter V answers the main research questions about the daily lives of local residents in the four villages and the connection with the river, the future changes, and the villagers’ responses to such development if it were to take place.

Chapter VI ends with the summary of the significance, summary findings, and limitation of the study. Also, it describes the limitations of the study due to the contested and limited data and available information about the Sambor Dam.

Chapter II

Hydropower Development along the Mekong River

In this chapter, I focus on the hydropower development along all Mekong river countries within the field of geography and many other disciplines. The reasons are three-fold. First, the development of hydropower dams along the Mekong is politically, economically, and socially constructed, especially those along the LMB countries. Second, it is part of the literature review section, as many studies have discussed changes made by dam development to grassroots level, particularly in term of socio-economic and cultural factors. Third, it helps me establish the conceptual framework for my case study, the political ecology.

This chapter outlines 3 sections: 1) The UMB Hydropower Development, China, 2) The

LMB Hydropower Development, and 3) The impacts of large dams in the region. It also provides an overview of actors involved in the development stages, such as states, donors, dam developers, international and local NGOs, and affected communities. This can be applied into the current Sambor case study.

Figure 2: List of operational, under-construction, and proposed mainstream

dams along the Mekong River (Source: The MRC)

The UMB Hydropower Development, China

China contributes to 16 percent of the water discharge of the Mekong River, while 2 percent is in Myanmar. Myanmar has not had any major hydropower development along this main river, except those along the Salween River (Magee and Kelly, 2009; Osborne, 2007).

China has been the most active nation in pursuing mainstream dam development. The state-run system and available financial sources have enabled the country to peruse their goal.

The main reason of the high rise of hydropower power development is the fact that China needs high demand of electric energy (Habic, 2015; Hori, 2000). Its main source of electricity is

78 percent from coal (Brown and Xu, 2010). China needs high-energy demand to sustain the industry section, which attracts rapid investment due mainly to low-labor cost, loose environmental protection, and increase demand of the global market (Lyu, 2015).

The first initiative of hydropower projects took place in 1956 when the HCKEC, a consulting company, conducted studies and water resource investigation and identified 21 potential sites along the Lancang. Then in 1973, instructed by the China’s MoWRPI, the

HCKEC submitted its Planning Report to the Central Government for review. In 1979, the MoPI officially declared Lancang as one of the 10 key energy development areas.

In 1980, Belgium experts in mining, hydropower, and transportation were invited by the

Central Government to visit the sites and share their expertise. After visiting and reviewing the projects, the experts supported such plans. Feasibility studies were conducted and presented to the Central Government. In 1980, the planning process was complete. MoPI, MoWRPI, and

Yunnan Provincial Government, with technical support from HCKEC, pushed the project into the National Seventh Five-Year Plan and received approval from the NDRC.

During the development process, the YGP played a key role in convincing the Central

Government until Manwan, the first mainstream dam, was officially approved and integrated into the 1985 Annual National Development Plan. This project was the first the joint-investment between the Central Government and YPG. YPG was known to play a major role in seeking for provincial energy buyers.

When the MoPI later became the SPCC, the YPG continued to lobby for building more dams in Yunnan Province. They submitted plans that were more feasible and assembled Chinese scholars to convince the Central Government for joint-investment run by state and the provincial investment cooperation. Through various joint investment and development process, the HLRHC later became the main driving force of hydropower dam development, which was responsible for the interests of shareholders. The YPG’s responsibility, on the other hand, included the administration, implementation, and monitoring.

The state-run system and investment on large mainstream dams have made China realize their goals. While Tilts (2014) notes that there are 6 mainstream dams completed and 1 was under construction, the International Rivers (2013) states that there are 16 dams along Lancang.

The LMB Hydropower Development

The hydropower development along the LMB Countries also took place in the early

1950s. However, it began mainly with the support of the US Bureau of Reclamation and the

ECAFE (Cosslett and Cosslett, 2014; Jacob, 1995; Jacob 2002; Hori, 2000; Hudson-Rodd and

Shaw, 2003; Middleton et al, 2009, MRC, 2013; Weatherbee, 1997). Its development started with notion of establishing flood control and modernizing the agricultural techniques. The

United States was introducing their hydropower technology and large dams along the Mekong

River to politically block the spread of communism in the regions, mainly through Thailand

(Boer et al. 2015).

The working groups conducted studies on the basin’s physical features and potential sites for irrigation, hydropower, flood control, and navigation and proposed ambitious projects. The first initial study is known to cost 9.2 million USD. After the 1952 ECAFE and the 1956 United

State reports were completed, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and South Vietnam formed the

Mekong Committee (1957-1977). The main objective was to combat poverty and political instability and promote peace and prosperity. China and Myanmar were not part of it because

China was not a member of ECAFE, and Burma was simply not interested.

In 1957, the ECAFE stressed about the mainstreams dam projects especially in Laos and

Cambodia namely at Luang Prababang, Pa Mong, Thakhek, Mhemarat, Khone Fall, Stung Treng and Sambor. The Japanese teams, with assistance from France, and Australia, conducted the studies of these dams. As for the United States, Dr. Gillbert White, a geography professor, supervised a team of experts, conducting the social and economic features of the proposed projects as well as providing 14 recommendations which discussed about the human resource development, inventories of basin resources, economic and organizational issues, flood broadcasting and warning, and agricultural improvement (Hori, 2000; Jacobs, 2002). One of his recommendations is to concentrate on the small-scale projects on the Mekong tributaries rather than its mainstream due to their potential impacts.

By 1969, more than 70 individual projects were planned along the Mekong. Those included dams, power stations, farms, irrigation, bridges, flood control and navigation (Hudson-

Rodd and Shaw, 2003). During the times, the Mekong Committee was committed to collecting data, establishing programs of flood forecasting, dike construction, fishery, and postponing large dams along the mainstream (Jacob, 1995). However, the 1970 Indicative Basin Plan proposed 17 mainstream dams. Hydrological data gathering and studies were complete, but the projects did not go forward. The riparian countries suffered from shortage of funds due to the political and economic instability during the Vietnam War and Cambodian civil war.

More specifically in Cambodia, major development project was stalled after the Khmer

Rouge came to power in 1975. The new regime stopped participating in the development. All the proposed dams in Cambodia, Sambor, Stung Treng, and Prek Thnaot, were stalled. They started to establish their own irrigation scheme nationwide mostly for agricultural purpose.

After its recovery, the MC continued to carry out it proposed studies with the participation of only three nations, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. In 1978, the three nations ultimately agreed to proceed and establish the IMC (1978-1994). Without Cambodia, the IMC produced another important study, called the 1987 Indicative Basin Plan, besides running the previous programs. This study highlighted the environmental impacts, resettlement plans, and especially proposed smaller version of dams proposed in the past. However, Jacobs (1995) argues that the study still failed to take into account of the economic and socio-political changes.

By the 1980s, 16 mainstream projects had been evaluated, and five were given priority in 1980

(MRC, 2013)

From its early development, 60 million USD was invested for the investigation and data collection along the LMB. The Sambor Project was their priority. Its capacity was estimated to produce 3,300-megawatt electricity, and the estimate cost was more than 300 million USD.

However, conflict and economic challenges have constrained such development. While

Cambodia was not able to follow the proposed plan, Thailand and Laos have made significant progress with their hydropower development.

In the late 1980s, the WB and the ADB began funding hydropower development in the region. In 1992, the ADB introduced the GMS program, part of which was mainly to development hydropower dams and regional transmission line through the Mekong countries, including China. Thailand and Vietnam have remained the electricity main importers, and the

South China Grid (SCG), a Chinese-state run company, has been a major driver for hydropower planning along these countries, especially in Laos, the major electricity contributor in the region.

The WB and the ADB provided large amount of fund to Laotian government for dam projects.

Besides these two institutions, countries such as Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden financially supported the IMC in conducting studies about the redevelopment of hydropower dams along the Mekong (Matthews, 2012, cited from KPMG,

2009).

In 1995, with the United States re-establishing its relations with Vietnam and Cambodia, the MRC (1995-now) was established based on the sustainable development principle, which country along the Mekong River agreed upon. Per the 1995 agreement, the MRC is the inter- governmental agency working with the four riparian countries, Cambodian donors, and the dialogues partners, China and Myanmar, in promoting the sustainable development along the

Mekong River.

The committee has taken various approaches to challenge climate change and drought and establish integrated-water management and procedures regarding hydropower development.

For instance, the Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement requires each member to notify and seek consultation among others before executing their plan. Likewise, the

Procedures for Water Quality ensures that there is sufficient and good quality water from the mainstream. These measures are simply guidelines and agreements by each country in acting prior to any development. Technical and ministry level meetings are usually held to discuss about the best options before proceeding. However, the measures lack legal binding forces, which means each country can proceed on to work in their own territory.

Though having accomplished some works, the MRC has been under criticism (Ha, 2011;

Suhardiman et al. 2012). First, donors influence their agendas, as they rely mostly on donor fund.

For example, donors shift more focus on regional development program rather on each state policy and desire. Second, there are significant disconnection between the MRC’s programs and the objectives of the regional government. MRC has its own programs, but each country also has its agendas to follow, some of which contradict with those of MRC. Third, the MRC does not have the enforcing mechanism over any state member, because only agreement and procedures exist.

By mid-2000s, the Mekong riparian countries began to rely on direct investment from

Thai, Malaysian, Vietnamese, Russian, and especially Chinese companies to study and construct the mainstream dams and along the tributaries. Most of the investment has taken place in Laos.

Below is the contemporary information of dam development and country profiles.

Lao PDR

By 2015, Lao has built 17 large dams, producing 3,300 megawatts of electricity with additional between 40 and 50 projects under construction (Boer et al. 2015). Among the four riparian countries, Laos is the first country to start construction mainstream dam, Xayaburi, of the 12 proposed dams planned by the MRC, despite Cambodia, Vietnam, and civil society rejected the plan and requested for delay. With the remaining controversial on socio-economic and resettlement impacts, the ADB and the WB have pressured and worked with Lao PDR to establish related laws and implement them, for example Nam Song, Nam Theu 1, and Nam Theu

2 Dam. However, international NGOs, such as the International River, still identified severe flaws of implementations and worked with affected communities to lobby the government and

19 donors against funding and approving the dam projects. However, as indicated above, Lao PDR has turned to particularly Thailand’s investments, a country which exports almost 95 percent of its hydropower energy.

Thailand

Thailand did not experience any political hardship, civil war, deteriorating instability, and even colonialism in its modern history like other neighboring countries, except financial hardship in the 1980s. Thailand was the first country in the regions to advance the large-scale development during the basin by the support of United States and the WB in attempt to stop the spread of communism in the region. In the 1980s, Thailand was forced by credit crisis to borrow large amount of money from the IMF and the WB, but their dependency later declined because of its rapid economic growth (Middleton et al, 2009). In the past decade, Thailand has played vital role in increasing hydropower projects in Lao PDR because it imports most of Laos’s electricity and put direct investment with the dam project and Laos government (Matthews,

2012).

Cambodia

Cambodia has experienced civil war, genocidal regime, and political instability, which hindered most of the proposed dams in the 1960s. Its electricity is amongst the highest, in not only the region but also the world. While the electrification in neighboring countries have increased Thailand 95 percent, Vietnam 85 percent, and Lao PDR from 16 percent to 60 percent between 1996 and 2006. Cambodia does not have national grid. Its electricity is the most

20 expensive in the region in the region. Several small-scale hydropower dams have been under operation, and Cambodia is pursuing the Sambor Dam.

Vietnam

Vietnam does not have mainstream dams. However, it is known to suffer severely from the mainstream on its large population and huge agricultural field in the Mekong Delta. Recently, this most productive rice growing area has already suffered from drought and water shortage.

Like Thailand, Vietnam needs electricity for its industrial growth. In 2006, its electricity was 40 percent imported from China (Kuenzer et al. 2013, citing from Methonen, 2008). The country needs electricity supply from Lao PDR and China, besides their hydropower dams supported by the WB and the ADB since the early 1990s. Vietnam also built dams along the Sesan and the

Srepok Rivers and expanded its hydropower investment Lao PDR and Cambodia.

The impacts of the hydropower dams

Dam developers generally point to the positive outcomes of large dams, such as power generation, flood control, irrigation, navigation, and climate change reduction. Through its vigorous and extensive review on dams around the world, the World Commission on Dam

(WCD, 2000), cautions some of the above justifications. Broadly speaking, dams have impacts on ecosystem, biodiversity, change flow of regime, reduction of sediment, fishery, displacement, socio-economic and cultural aspects of local resident’s daily life and noticeably indigenous people. Large dam construction is found to contribute between 1 percent and 28 percent of greenhouse gas around the globe due to the clearance of vegetable clearing and carbon from the catchment areas at a global scale.

As for upstream-downstream socioeconomic impacts, this study broadly notes the loss of land from reservoir, water release, and resettlement and release and loss of fish production. More details of discussion go to cultural factor, as it says that dam causes loss of local culture, such as temples, shrined, sacred place, burial sites, archeological sites, buried sites, and others.

Impacts of large dams are enormous. There is a very large literature on large dams along the Mekong River, which examine the hydropower development from different perspective and disciplines. There are studies which mention about the roles of MRC, politics of the riparian countries, China’s involvement, hydropower sustainable development, and case studies of the impacts of large dam on the livelihood. Some of them were mentioned in the early section.

Specifically, the UMB studies tend to focus on broader impacts rather than the village level. Local livelihood is briefly mentioned mostly in the analysis of resettlement policy and programs. As for the literatures on the LMB Dams, we can see similar pattern. The priority is the loss of fish production. Then it follows by sediment reduction, farming, and contested resettlement programs. Unlike the UMB literatures, there are many case studies which describe the local livelihood of residents along the Mekong. However, there is not much discussion about the cultural impacts.

For this literature review section, I organize and categorize those studies into two: the

UMB and the LMB dams. To be more specific, mainstream dams and dams along the Mekong’s tributaries will be included.

For the UMB dams, a consideration attention has been studied on Manwan Dam. The first part will be discussion on impacts of upstream dams on downstream countries by Kuenzer et al (2013). The second part views different topics, such as water quality, climate change, and sediment. And the last part is mostly about resettlement cases.

Kuenzer et al (2013) compare the impacts of Manwan Dam in China on downstream countries. The authors provide a great deal of information of downstream impacts of Lancang

Dam on two main themes: water level and sediment, by citing from various studies. The authors, citing from Lu et al. (2008), Chapman and He (1996), and Kummu, and Varis (2007), find that

Manwan Dam establish more flow of water downstream during the dry season, and Lu et al.

(2008) estimate that 70 percent increase as far as 1,000 kilometers during the dry season. The water discharge increases nearly 30 percent during the wet season and over 60 percent during the dry season because of this dam. The study by MRC (2010), cited in Kuenzer et al, (2013) states the increase average discharge of between 20 percent and 40 percent during the dry season and decrease of flood between 5 and 15 percent during the flooding season. This creates irregular seasonal change, for example, in Cambodia will impact the flow of the Mekong and the Great

Lake, especially the fisheries and ecosystem productivity and biodiversity of the lake.

In term of the impacts of downstream sediment, the upstream reservoirs trap significant amount sediment flow downstream. However, the certain number of sediment loss is provided in the study. In general, the sediment loss will increase for downstream countries, if other mainstream dams in China are to be built. One of the biggest problems is the floodplain in Tonle

Sap and Vietnam delta. While the downstream impacts are too obvious, there have not been any serious measures being put in place because all countries are economically involved in the dam projects.

Zhao et al. (2013) use Landsat MSS and TM images from 1974, 1988, and 2004, to study the impacts of impoundment on land use of Manwan Dam. Through spatio-temporal land use dynamic, the authors find upstream dams have more effect upstream than downstream within the distance of 5,000 and 1,000 meters. Wei et al. (2009) focus on water quality from the pre-

23 construction period and seven years of the construction of Manwan Dam. They find that water reservoir quality is mostly polluted during the dry season than the flooding season. The water self-purification capacity for BOD5, CODMn and NH3 is found to have decreased in the reservoir and below-dam segment. Fu et al. (2008) provide that Manwan Dam reduced sediment load for downstream, but do not specify any certain number. ICEM (2010), on the other hand, estimates that if all the 8 UMB mainstream dams are built, they will reduce between 75 percent and 81 percent of sediment flow downstream. At the broad scale, Li et al. (2012) find that 8 cascading hydropower dams in China will disturb vegetation’s upstream and the especially major endangered shrub and grass communities, causing damage to regional ecological integrity and riparian ecosystem. Li et al. (2008) raises that climate change play vital role in affecting downstream flow.

The biggest challenge of large dams revolves around resettlement. Scholars have approached this issue differently. In case study of Nuozhadu Dam, Zhang et al. (2013) study physiographic elements in their new resettled community at the village level. The authors find physical element determines whether the socio-economic factor will increase or not. They find that villagers were relocated to areas where insufficient means of economics activities suffer the most. In contrast, Tilt (2014) conducts survey in three counties near the Xiaowna Dam, Manwan

Dam, and Nuozhadu Dam, which had high record of agricultural products, such as rice, sugar cane, mango, melon, chestnut, and rubber. The study finds resettled households could produce and sell more rice and tobacco than non-resettled households who grew tea and walnuts.

Furthermore, resettled communities had at least a family member who could go and do labor work for the dam construction or in town to generate more income for the family. Villagers who had social connection with political officials could find jobs in the hydropower facility. They

24 were satisfied with their community environment. The author points that the results of the study are contradicted by the work of Scudder (2005), who argues that only a few cases which relocated community could improve their living standard.

Wang et al. (2013) examine historical development and improvement of compensation policy at three stages of the Manwan Dam: first transition (1949–1977), operated through the

Central Government planning mechanism, the second transition (1994–2000), which included market mechanism, and third transition (2001-Present) which involved related shareholders. For example, farmers were moved to a less fertilized settlement, and they were not given any compensation for the loss of their previous land.

Chen (2008), who conducts a 4-year study at the village level in the case of Manwan,

Dachaoshan and Xiaowan dams, argues that resettlement program is unlikely to be effective because the agendas of the government and local communities are not parallel. In study area of

Luolongzai, for instance, affected residents were relocated twice because of erosion and continued to suffer land shortage for practicing agriculture. The author also examines the cultural diversity, which include, “daily production, house styles, clothes, customs, feelings, social relationships and values” (Chen 2008:106). Because of relocation, some ethnic groups have integrated with each other. Hongyan, one of the ethnic groups, has lost their spoken language.

The study provides that their next generation does not know about the traditional practices such as farming practices, which their ancestors have used.

As for the studies on impacts of the LMB Dams, the first part covers the broad study conducted by the International Centre for Environmental Management (ICEM, 2010), called the

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The second part examines impacts of fisheries, and is followed by some studies from each riparian country, and the relocation respectively.

However, it is vital to note that studies normally use different scenarios because the characteristic of the LMB dams change accordingly.

The SEA is one of the most intensive and most cited study on the impacts of LMB mainstream dams. The study is carried out to provide the LMB countries broader strategic issues under certain aspect of time and space relating to their LMB 12 proposals, one of which is the

Sambor Project. Specifically, it provides two main objectives -- sustainable mainstream hydropower and tools for transboundary development planning.

Aside from the benefits of those 12 proposals, which estimate to be 18-25 billion USD, the broad impacts will be on fisheries, agriculture, forestry, tourism, navigation, construction, and ministry industry sector. As for the negative effects on communities, study finds the impacts on, “way of life, culture, sense of community, natural environment, access to and availability of food, physical safety and hazard risk, access to control source underlying livelihood, and physical and spiritual health” (ICEM, 2010:134). In term of statistic, fishery loss that includes fish catch, fish loss from lack of nutrients, is estimated to be 38,535 tons per year or about 516 million per year. Loss of paddy field land might be 7,962 hectares and 22,475 tons of rice per year, which amounts to 4.1 million per year. Though expected to suffer with severe impacts on tourism, navigation, and construction sector, no quantitative data is available. As for resettlement, the preliminary overall estimate of settled will be 106,942 people.

At the national level, this study points that Cambodia will loss fish resources, especially sediment loss to the Tonle Sap lake, riverbank gardens, fertility and agriculture production in flood plain, and biodiversity. Similarly, Lao PDR and Thailand will experience possible macro- economic imbalances, loss of fishery, riverbank gardens, tourism, and biodiversity. Vietnam, the most downstream country, will suffer with loss of fish production and especially nutrients for the

Mekong delta for agricultural product. The study cautions that available information has been an obstacle to seek accuracy. One of its recommendations is to delay construction for a period of 10 years, with review studies conducted with every three years. The required studies include sediment, aquatic habitats, fish passage, riparian communities, climate change, alternative hydropower and energy, macroeconomics, fund, and designs.

Besides the large-scale study by the ICEM (2010), there has been a lot of discussion of fish loss. Results of those studies vary because they use different scenarios and models.

However, all of them agree that the severe impact of LMB dams on fish production. Barlow et al.

(2008) use the 11-proposal dam scenario and examine three different methods – survey experts, existing literature and combination of fish migration with catch survey data – to estimate loss downstream. The authors estimate the loss between 0.7 and 1.6 million tons per year due to mainly to blockage of fish migration. Ziv et al. (2012), on the other hand, use ecological model of fish migration to examine fish loss in the scenarios 78 tributary dams and 11 mainstreams dams to study fish biomass and biodiversity losses. The authors find that the construction of all tributary dams and mainstream dams in Lao PDR will have severe impacts on Cambodia and

Vietnam’s floodplain and food productivity.

Orr et al. (2012) use the scenario of 11 planned mainstream dams and 77 dams along the

LMB to study food security -- fishery, land and water usage. Despite the increase of water usage, especially for irrigation, fish and food production are at high risk of disruption. Cambodia and

Lao PDR are more vulnerable to high risk of loss of fish production.

In Lao PDR, studies of impacts of hydropower dams mostly discuss about resettlement cases. In Laos’s Theun-Hinboun Dam, Jusi (2006) interviews NGOs staff and affected community representatives, to find out that participation approach did not work to due to Laotian

27 government and lack of competence by the ADB. Similarly, Virtanen (2006) finds that only villagers were involved in the participatory process, but not government officials. In the case of

Nam Theun 2 Dam of Laos, resettled farmers who used to rely on rice, protein from fishing and non-timber production, and forest productions were provided better housing, roads, access to water, and medical care, but had to do farming in less fertilized soil because it was the reservoir shore (Lawrence, 2009). A large population of buffaloes is reported to have decreased because new environment is not suitable for them. The resettlement programs failed because of the lack of rule of law and qualified and committed staff members, and poor studies conducted by dam developer. In addition to those arguments, Vandergeest (2003) argues that the absence of land title is the main challenge of each resettlement program in Laos.

In the latest controversial mainstream Laotian Dam, Baird (2011) critiques the EIA conducted by dam developer, as it fails to consider the significant roles of fish. The author uses local knowledge to find out different types of fish and fish migration along the Khone Falls and local livelihood of residents along the river and its tributaries. The author finds that it is unlikely that it would be possible to deal with loss fish production from impacts of Don Sahong.

In Cambodia, there have been experiences with Kamchay Dam and Lower Se San 2. In recent incident of Cambodia’s Kamchay Dam, three communes and the provincial town were severely flooded when water was immediately released from the reservoir. Villagers had no time to prepare for evacuation. Issues erupted because the EIA was complete after the operation of the dam (Grimsditch, 2012). Recently, Lower Sesan 2 Dam in Cambodia was finished. Looking at the ongoing problems, Baird (2009) points to critical issues taking place at the grassroots level in the case of Lower Sesan 2 Dam. Such issues involved serious and complex compensations namely new houses, trees, farmland, and forestry compensation. Residents in some villages did

28 not want to move to the designed areas because of socio-economic reason. The proposed compensation for fruit trees and farmland were lower than the amount of money each fruit generated per day and the market price of the land. In addition, the compensation for forestry resource and grazing land went to the state, 1 million USD per year, instead of residents who used to make use of the forest. The issues remained controversial. Ham et al. (2014) point that the project did not even meet the minimum standard for public participation, as upstream-and- downstream people were not aware of the compensation agenda.

Vietnam also experienced the same problem with resettlement and reparation. Dao

(2010), through interviewing people and reviewing policy documents, finds that compensation and relocation were tedious, and local residents did not receive same amount of land they used to have. In case of Yali Dam in Vietnam, Hirsh and Wyatt (2007) provide that countless floods caused by the release of water from the dam reservoir has taken place and affected 9 different indigenous groups in Ratanakiri Province, causing the rise of water level, decreasing tremendous fish catch, and creating polluted water. Farmers have lost their daily income mainly due to irregular flooding and increase of dry season flow of the river. There have been people drowning, and boats and fishing nets being washed away. The impacts on daily incomes include fishing practices, shellfish collection, agricultural production and the harvesting of wild vegetables. Farmers lost their land to the increase of water volume during the dry season, while fishers cannot fish because of unstable water level.

Chapter III

Hydropower Development in Cambodia: The Case of Sambor

In this chapter, I review the historical, political, and the currently contested development of the Sambor Project. As introduced in Chapter II, the Sambor Project has been part of the LMB development, backed by the United States, United Nations, Japan, and various other countries.

After decades of political turmoil, civil war, Sambor remained in the strong interest of

Cambodia, foreign donors and other institutions. However, there have so far been limited studies about this project. Studies focused on its historical component. There are limited data and discussion about Sambor. Its development has remained uncertain, while major mainstream development has controversially taken place in Laos, particularly the Xayaburi and Don Sahong

Dam. At some certain level, the upstream hydropower in Lao PDR have politically related to the

Sambor case, especially anti-dam campaign in Lao PDR by Cambodian citizens.

This chapter outlines four sections namely 1) the development of Sambor in the first phase (1952-1970s), 2) the second phase development (1990s-present), and 3) the existing literatures of Sambor dam, and 4) Sambor’s relation to development of the Xayaburi and Don

Sahong Dam.

The first phase development the Sambor Project (1952-1970s)

The hydropower development along the LMB took place in 1952 by the ECAFE. With support from Japan, France, Canada, and the United States at the initial stage, progressive outcomes were made (Jenkin 1968; Sewell 1968.) In particular, the Wheeler Report 1958 called for the construction of large three dams namely Pa Mong, Sambor and the Tonle Sap and four smaller versions in Laos, Thailand, Battambang of Cambodia, and South Vietnam.

Though Stung Treng project was mentioned in the study, the United States and Japanese team were more into establishing a joint-project of Pa Mong and Sambor, the first and second main project. It was mentioned that the link-up, cost of construction, the electricity outcome and benefits for irrigation downstream would be enormous if the two dams were to be built together.

Then the Australian, Japanese, and US teams started conducting feasibly studies of the sites.

Detailed information of the existing documents of Sambor Project from the 1960s is accessible at the MRC library in Phnom Penh. Those documents include geological investigation conducted by the Australian Team from December, 1960 to June 1961, the primary and second progress from 1962 to 1964 reports conducted by the Japanese team, and the Eight Volumes of

Sambor Project namely General Report One and Two, Dam and Hydroelectric Power, Irrigation and Agriculture, Navigation, Fishery, Basic data, and Drill hole logs.

Drawing from these documents, I provide relevant points relating to its development, especially the benefits and impacts. The discussion will be mostly about the chronological development of the project. Some aspects, however, are excluded, especially the technical components of the Sambor Project, such as construction part, needed materials, and power plant.

In 1960 and 1961, the Australian team conducted geological investigation at the Sambor site. The main finding of their investigation was the indication that the selected site in Sambor

31 was the best location for project mainly because of its wide rocky rapid. The team provided four possible locations for the construction. In 1962, the Japanese team began their primary investigation in Sambor and studied the economical technical aspects of power generation, irrigation, flood control, navigation, and industrialization phases in order to produce the general plan.

Several positive outputs were provided in their studies. First, the selected location could provide good practical transmission for industrial growth in the coastal area and other locations.

Second, it maintained flood control to the Mekong delta and Tonle Sap, especially river flow during the dry season. Third, Sambor would be built with smaller scale than Pa Mong and Strung

Treng Project. Fourth, if Sambor and Pa Mong were to be built together, Sambor would generate more electricity and provide downstream with more water during the dry season. With the estimated cost of more than 300 million USD, the report cautioned that economic program and feasibility of the Sambor Project would have to be carefully made and investigated in details.

From 1963 to 1964, the Japanese team conducted the second investigation and focused mainly on hydro-electro power aspect of the project. The study mainly laid out the geological survey, topographical survey, material investigation, hydrological investigation, hydrologic model test, tests on materials for dam body, survey on inland navigation, agriculture, power market survey. The report, however, did not mention about any possible impacts of the Sambor

Dam.

After first three reports conducted by the Australian and Japanese teams, the first and second general reports were made available. These reports mostly drew upon the findings from the previous studies. The general reports seem to point the positive outputs of the Sambor

Project, given only some was mentioned about its impacts. It was noted that Sambor Project was

32 feasible from the technical, economic, and financial points. The estimate cost of the project alone was about 356 million USD, but would increase to about 478 million USD if the upstream dams were built. Its total installed capacity would be 875 MW, if constructed alone. However, if the upstream dams were to be finished, the total capacity would be 2,100 MW.

Although its reservoir was expected to be smaller than those upstream and with low construction cost, the Sambor Dam was expected to submerge 680 kilometers of freeway upstream for navigation, while 5 kilometers downstream was unsafe any navigation. The studies further asserted that only limited downstream would benefit from water release.

As for the irrigation scheme, the investigation team examined areas of 34,000 hectares downstream and most agricultural activities locals practiced. They found that reservoir would help increase 60,739 hectares of lowland and highland agricultural field. Fisheries, on the other hand, were obviously problematic. The team specifically stated that the Sambor Dam would decrease spawning and breeding activities of fish in the upstream reservoir because fish could not migrate beyond the dam, especially the migration period from November to March.

It was recommended that a fish ladder or path on the spillway be incorporated to the project, if the construction was to be made. Areas upstream-and-downstream reservoir could become the main fishing spot. That was why, effective enforcement and strict fishing regulations had to be implemented in such areas, particularly the laying-egg season, because fish were expected to reproduce in and below the reservoir.

Though expected to provide electricity in 1985, the project was stalled due to Vietnam

War, Cambodian civil war (1970-1975), and later Cambodian genocide period (1975-1979) until the 1990s. Similarly, Pa Mong Project, which the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimated to cost 1 billion USD and the world’s biggest multipurpose dam, was abandoned when the Laotian

33 communist groups went to power in 1975 (Molle et al. 2014). Without political and regime changes, the defeat of the United State military in Southeast Asia, and the withdrawal of

Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge from the MIC, four mainstream projects with estimate cost of 10 billion USD, such as Pa Mong, Stung Treng and Sambor, and the Tonle Sap would have been finished.

The second phase development (1990s-present)

In the early 1990s, the UNDP and the Government of France funded the Run-of-River

Study, the redevelopment of the hydropower plants projects along the Mekong River (MRC,

1994). Don Sahong, Xayaburi, Sambor, Pa Mong, Stung Treng and Tonle Sap projects were reintroduced for the region. In Cambodia, Sambor drew a great deal of attention, despite internal conflict and security posed a very critical challenge. The Cambodian government was concerned about protecting the dams after the construction finished. However, they were still pursuing the project.

During the period, the Sambor Project attracted lots of attention in Cambodia, especially at the ministry level and the MRC national committee. There has been a mixture of enthusiasm and skepticism remarks expressed by its representatives. Most of them were available in local newspapers articles.

In October 1995, Mok Mareth, the Minister of Environment, warned about future impact on environment rather than the short-term economic income of Sambor Project (Wallengren and

Grainger, 1995, October 20). His statement was supported with a fishery advisor to MAFF, who cautioned about the impacts on thousands of Cambodian people from change of river water of large dam. In contrast, Khy Taing Lim, a vice-chairman of the CNMC and a former engineer

34 who was involved in building three dams in Cambodia and Canada and served in the MC in the

1960s, proposed that another 500 MW option, which he said would have no impacts on locals.

In February 1996, Khy Taing Lim continued to express his enthusiasm about the project and stated that the Sambor project was vital for foreign exchange (Grainger, 1996, February 9).

A month later, he confirmed, “Water is our gold … Sambor is a good project, a very good project. It’s economically viable and easy to build…. If we export Sambor electricity; we will have the money to build other projects especially dams, canals, and irrigation schemes,”

(Grainger, 1996, March 8). He continued that the outcome, 500 megawatts, would be exported to

Thailand and Vietnam, because they needed electricity. At the same time, Mok Mareth, expressed that mainstream dam should not be built because of its tremendous impacts on fishing.

Later, the MRC asked for almost 1 million USD for the feasibility study of the Sambor

Project. At that time, Khy Taing Lim, continued to express his positive thought of the project and was quoted, “The environment is important, … But I give you one simple questions. People need electricity to cook. With what? They take tree, but then we say no…. We need electricity, we need to develop” (Grainger, 1996, March 22).

On September 20, 1996, the Phnom Penh Post, reported that there were 17 proposed dams in Cambodia and Sambor was the third priority of the MRC’s mainstream dams, which would resettle 5,000 people in 1969, and 60,000 people in 1996. 3 Both France and the WB were considering providing fund for the feasibility study. Cambodia proposed a smaller option, 700 million USD with 20-kilometer canal, but the MRC was pushing for the larger one.

3 The Phnom Penh Post (1996, September 20). Rivers of power: the dam debate heats up. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved from, http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/rivers-power-dam- debate-heats

A year after Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen condemned hydropower development in China, the CNMC permitted a Malaysian consulting company to conduct the feasibility study of Sambor in January 2000 (Chandara, 2000, March 22). It was said the feasibility study would be conducted for cost of 700 million USD, but the government officials said Sambor was chosen for 4-billion USD cost which generated 3,300 MW. They expected to generate foreign income from exporting electricity to the neighboring countries. Following his stance on large dam, Khy

Taing Lim, who then served as the director of the MRC committee and Minister of Public Works and Transport, asserted that there would be no impact because the design would allow natural flow of river and migration patterns. This statement is questionable, as even now, Dugan et al.

(2010) point that no existing mitigation technology namely fish-way, lock and lift can help the

Mekong River fish move upstream. No official result of the feasibility study was made available or known to the public because of various reasons. The Sambor Project remained silent for a while due to political, financial, and considerable environmental and social consequences.

In early November 2006, the SCG Company, the state-run company known to be involved in mainstream dam in Lancang River and other parts of the world, announced that they signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Cambodian government and would conduct the feasibility study of Sambor. The study is conducted for the installed capacity of

2,600 MW, 30 percent for local use and 70 percent for exporting to Vietnam (ICEM, 2010). It was estimated that 3,000 people would be recruited for the construction workforces, while 3,369 hectares of irrigated fields, rained agriculture, shifting cultivation, and crop farms and 13,143 hectares of forest would be inundated. The inundated infrastructure included houses, paved roads, government buildings, hospitals, schools, and others. Tourism and cultural sites such as

36 caves, waterfall, historic sites, and temples will be flooded. Also, 19,034 people would be resettled.

In September 2011, the SCG announced that they no longer invested in the project because of the intense environmental impacts and debates. It was replaced by China Guodian

Corporation (CGC), another Chinese company. This company conducted studies on the same projects with two proposed smaller version -- 600 megawatts and 460 megawatts (Hirsh, 2010

April 8).

As explained earlier, many contradicting views, information, and development of Sambor have emerged during the second phase. First, at the national level, the minsters and the MRC official have expressed different views towards the Sambor Dam. Second, the Mekong riparian country seems to have the same agenda, despite that they, on the one hand, condemned hydropower development in China’s Lancang. However, they, on the other hand, took action to build their own mainstream dam. Third, it is known that three dam developers were involved in the feasibility studies. However, those studies have not been made publicly available. Finally, one of the most uncertain aspects of Sambor Dam, besides its exact location, is its capacity. It has changed respectively. Different people and sources have mentioned it differently. In particular, there are 460 MW, 465 MW, 500 MW, 875 MW, 2,600 MW and 3,300 MW. Figure 3 below discloses the characteristic of the Sambor Project from several sources.

Figure 3: List of characteristics of the Sambor Dam from several sources

(Source: Pederen, 2013)

Through personal discussion with NGOs staff members who have been involved in the

Sambor Project development, I learned that the feasibility study submitted by the Chinese dam developer was reviewed. The related governmental institutions recommended a new design because of its immense environmental impacts on fisheries, sediment flows, and the technical issues of channel bypass. The new design has been ongoing at the NHI with funding from the

USAID. It was expected that the final design would be finished some time in 2016. Recently,

Cambodian environmental activists have called for the public release of the new study by the

NHI. However, no official news of the new design has been made publicly available.

The existing studies of the Sambor Dam

There has been very limited literature on the Sambor Dam. The existing studies can be categorized into two groups. One group directly addresses the controversial issues of the hydropower dams and Sambor. The other group studies the Sambor’s physical environment and its people, by focusing on different topics such as climate change, biology survey, and local livelihood. As for this second group, the Sambor dam scheme is included in the discussion, and interestingly most of their findings are aligned with those of the first group.

The first group starts with the SEA final report (ICEM, 2010), which use the scenario

2,600 MW. The Sambor Dam will cause the most severe impacts on fish migration, blocking up to 81 percent of the migrant flood plains. As for resettlement, 19,000 people are expected to be resettled, and the dam will flood more than 16,000 hectares of land. The Cambodian government was asked to carefully postpone the project for another 10 years and evaluate pros and cons of the 460 MW and 2,600 MW.

Besides fish loss, Wild and Loucks (2015), using the 2,600 MW scenario, provide that the

Sambor Dam poses severe reduction to sediment and nutrient to two main areas downstream, the

Tonle Sap and Vietnam Delta. The study notes that small and narrow reservoir built on the best alternative site will be fitted with the natural sediment bypass channel. Kondolf et al. (2014) do not mention the capacity of the Sambor Dam, but use a reservoir sedimentation model, the 3W model, to calculate cumulative sediment trapping and finds that the Sambor Dam could block up to 48 percent of sediment.

At a more technical level, study conducted by the NHI (2013), submitted to the Ministry of Industry, Mines, and Energy and Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology of Cambodia examines the best site for reduction of sediment. It uses sediment data from existing studies and topographic from Google Earth and the University of Florida, Digital Collections.

Figure 4: Map of Site studies of Sambor produced by the NHI

(Source: NHI, 2013)

Three site alternatives are provided. Site 1 (2,000 MW) and Site 2 (1,363 MW) are about

25 kilometers downstream of the proposed site, whereas Site 3 (1,703 MW) is located upstream of the proposed site. The study finds alternative 3 is the best option because it has the “the ability to remove most of the sediment that may deposit in the reservoir via drawdown flushing” (NHI,

2013:28). This alternative will help ensure that about 28 percent of sediment will flow downstream directly.

As for the second group of study, between 2006 and2007, the WWF and the Fisheries and Forestry Administrations of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries conduced a

9-month biological survey of 130 kilometers section of the Mekong River from Kratie to Stung

Treng Province to document vegetation and flora, birds, large mammals, amphibians, reptiles and fish (Bezuijen et al. 2008). It examines the socio-economic of locals and their dependency on the biodiversity such as logging, shifting cultivation, hunting, rice and corn cultivation, subsistence fishing, wild trade, livestock, and NTP (bamboo, snail, mollusk, and honey)

(Bezuijen and Bunna, 2008). As for Koh Khnhaer Village, where almost all residents are Kuy indigenous group, rained-field rice, fishing and hunting are the most common principles of living. Fish and wildlife trade in this village is well-organized and productive, as fish traders go and buy fish from residents daily.

As for the impact of Sambor Dam in the case of 3,300 MW and 465 MW, the study notes downstream could alter river bank stability, bed incision, delta stability, loss of deep pools between Kratie and Stung Treng and loss of other critical channel habitats used by aquatic invertebrates, fish, turtles and fauna. As for the upstream impacts, it could cause flood a large area of riverine habitats and severe loss of species and habitats. In addition to the blockage of fish mitigation, 4 of 9 deep pools are located within the 15 kilometers of the proposed sites.

Besides the biological survey, Rodgers et al. (2012) study vulnerability and adaptation assessment to climate change of the Mekong Flooded Forest, a 56 linear-kilometer stretch of the

Mekong River mid-way from Kratie to Stung Treng. They examine how climate change related factor, such as drought and flooded, have impacted locals, especially through the change of flooded forest, riparian forest, terrestrial forest, deep pools, river channels, rapids and rocky outcrops, and sand formations. While river is the first top ten environmental asset of all villages, the study warns the Sambor Project will pose immediate and more severe environmental change in the study area than climate change. In response to the hydropower project, it proposes critical evaluation of the biodiversity and socio-economic value of the area among all actors and the smaller scale of Sambor Project, the diversion channel.

The last study is the one conducted by the NGO Forum (2012). It provides a great deal information of the daily life, the socio-economic of the 6 villages of Sambor District, and their dependencies on the Mekong River. To be specific, it examines fishing, riverbank gardening, agriculture, livestock, the water usage, and tourism, which will be at great risk of the Sambor

Dam.

In Kaoh Pdau Village, for example, people fish daily and get between 1 and 2 kilograms of fish per day from spending 2-3 hours in the river. With an average of 0.7 hectare of rice field, villagers normally keep rice harvest for local use rather than selling. Besides fishing and growing rice, villagers raise buffaloes, cows, and chicken for extra income for building necessity needs

(clothing and motorbike), medical treatment, children education.

This study points that the proposed Sambor Dam has caused level of uncertainty and concern among villagers, as all the 52 villages of Sambor District are located along the river.

Villagers were worried of the possible future resettlement and transformation of their lives in new area.

The contested mainstream dams in Lao PDR

The focus on constructing Sambor Project took place after mainstream development in

Laos, specially the under-construction the Xayaburi and Don Sahong Dam. The two dams have been very controversial and drew attention not only the residents in the region but various international agencies and governments. As Pa Mong remained out of priority, the Xayaburi and

Don Sahong Dams are brought for discussion for two reasons. First their constructions were believed to possibly open door for further development of mainstream dams in Cambodia.

Second, they have sparked public participation, particularly at grassroots level through local and international NGOs, and the anti-dam movement in Cambodia.

Built in 2010, the Xayaburi is the first mainstream dam along the proposed LMB mainstream with an estimate cost of over 3.5 billion USD, and 95 percent of electricity output is to be exported to Thailand. This project is funded by six Thai commercial banks (The

International River, 2011). It became very contested with regional politics of the Mekong River

Countries (Grumbine et al. 2012; Hensengerth, 2015). The MRC has policies which require prior notice and consultation among members, but lack of enforcement mechanism and cannot exercise any rights in any country territory, which ultimately enabled Lao PDR to go ahead with the Xayaburi Project.

There were issues of project implementation by Laotian government (Hirsch, 2011; Stone

2011; Yasuda 2015). For instance, when Laotian government informed their counterparts that the

Xayaburi Project was halted, the construction was in fact carried out on the ground. Official

43 approval was granted, despite other countries did not fully support the project and requested for

10 more years of studies. There were even critiques of failures to notify and establish participation among related stakeholders, particularly grassroots and NGOs. As for its impact, fish experts (Braran et al. 2011) challenge the flaws of the EIA of the Xayaburi Project and point that tremendous impact of fish production and blockage of fish migration, as the design of fish passes are not suitable for migratory species.

Similar patterns are found with the case of Don Sahong, 260 MW dam, less than 2 kilometers away from Cambodian-Laotian border. Construction started when the Laotian government announced they had halted the project (Barron, 2014, June 19). In 2015, Laotian government officially approved the construction of Don Sahong, arguing for its limited impacts as much as possible. The Don Sahong Dam will block long distant migration fish, which leads to loss of protein and health related disease, and impacts on poverty (Baird, 2011) and harm tourism in Cambodia through the extinction of Irrawaddy Mekong dolphin (Bezuijen et al.

2007).

In response to rapid hydropower development along the Mekong and particularly in Lao

PDR and besides countless scholars and experts’ publications, anti-dam movements have grown vigorously among international agencies, local NGOs, and local residents. The actors include

International River, WWF, The River Coalition of Cambodia, which comprises of many

Cambodia local NGOs, locals and activists and various others. They collaborate and provide training as well as conduct outreach at the grassroots level. Meeting with government and state agencies to discuss impacts and bring local voices to the table discussion.

To oppose the dam construction, two forms of movement have bene practiced, petition through collection of thumbprint and demonstration, usually before any national MRC meeting.

In the case of the Xayaburi Dam, for example, the International River (2011) states that 22,589 people from 106 countries submitted an international petition to Prime Ministers of Lao PDR and

Thailand to cancel the development. In Cambodia March 2014, hundreds of activists demonstrated in Kampong Cham Province to convince Lao PDR halt the construction of Don

Sahong (Pheap and Henderson, 2014 March 31) and more than 400 people travelled along the boats in Kratie and Stung Province (Seangly, 2014 March 31) to campaign against the construction. A month later, the WWF’s Cambodia and its partners announced 12,404

Cambodians had petitioned against Don Sahong, together with 255,596 people representing more than 200 countries4.

Almost all the participants whom I interviewed for my study during my field research in

Cambodia stated that they were well-aware of the Xayaburi and Don Sahong. Their basic and general knowledge derive from contested development of the Xayaburi and Don Sahong from local news and through NGOs who conducted outreach in Sambor and train local residents of the general impacts of Laotian dams on Cambodia, especially the biodiversity, fish production, and tourism in Kratie. Some of the participants in fact thumb printed on the petition against construction of both Xayaburi and Don Sahong.

4 WWF (2014). More than a quarter of a million people say no to Don Sahong dam. Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?228618/More-than-a-quarter-of-a-million-people-say-no- to-Don-Sahong-dam 45

Chapter IV

Research Methodology, Site Study, and Positionality

As articulated in the previous chapters, a large literature on large dams discusses the large dams’ impacts from a broader perspective and scale. There has been little discussion about village life and villagers’ daily activities, especially for proposed dam Sambor, except (NGO forum, 2012). It is often said relocated communities cannot generate the same income as before, because the new settlement is not suitable for agricultural activities. There are indeed a few exceptions. Likewise, locals are widely understood to suffer from loss of fish production, protein and inaccessibility to their traditional practices such as collecting non-timber product and hunting.

My thesis follows a new direction, by examining the proposed dam rather those under operation and specifically examining village level. First, it seeks to provide detail information on the daily practices in each village and describe the fundamental understanding and the significance of river to their lives. Specifically, it intends to provide in-depth understanding of the socio-economic relations and cultural practices of residents. Second, despite the limited data of the Sambor Dam, the study will provide a comparative study of the consequences of the dam to two villages upstream and two villages downstream. Third, it explores villagers’ knowledge of the hydropower dam and their participation in the project since the 2000s, which contribute to their reactions towards to the hydropower development in their land.

To reiterate, my study aims at answering the three main questions as follow.

1. What are daily lives of local residents like along the Sambor’s Mekong River and

how do they use the river?

2. How will the Sambor Dam change their lives?

3. How will they respond if the dam is officially approved?

This chapter outlines four sections: political ecology framework, site study, research methodology, and positionality.

Political Ecology Framework

To accomplish this goal, I apply political ecology approach, a sub-discipline and approach widely used to seek critical understanding of interrelation between nature and society

(Bryant and Bailey 1997; Zimmerer and Bassett, 2003; Forsyth; 2004; Walker, 2005; Robbins

2011). As pointed out by Robbins (2011: 22), political ecologists have considered environmental degradation and the marginal group, conservation and control, environmental conflicts, environmental subjects and identity, and political objects and actors. In addition, various concepts have been applied in their studies such as common property theory, Marxism and historical materialism, dependency, accumulation and degradation, state and non-state actor, environmental justice, urban metabolism and others.

Some examples can be found in the literatures of Mekong Dam. Drawing from Marxism,

Bakker (1999) views the commodification and politicization of resource use of the Mekong, which lead to problems with development and resource management. Similarly, Mathews (2012) examines how Thailand and its private sector and those in Lao PDR are able to invest in hydropower and control the resource which causes environmental effects on villagers. Baghel

47 and Nüsser (2010:231), on the other hand, advocate for the focus on using post-structural political ecology to examine “the multiple actors and driving forces, as well as the underlying power relations within this politicized environment.”

Among them -- and for the purpose of my research study -- I follow the definition and concept of Bryant and Bailey (1997: 24-25) that “political ecology interrogates the interactions between state, non-state actor, and the physical environment in the third world.” Its significant contributions are three-folds. First, researchers can situate the findings at the local and empirical research, which fits into the theoretical and comparative perspective. Second, researchers question the comprehensive motivation, interests, and actions of those actors involved. Third, it is about the significance of the politics of political ecology, which describes interaction of actors with the environment and their powers to go for their own interest.

The concept fits into my research objectives, as I especially wish to explore the impacts of the Sambor mainstream project at the grassroots’ village level and draw comparative upstream-downstream impacts. Questions on the motions of non-state actors, foreign nations and international agencies, and the Cambodian government have been described on the background information and development of the Sambor Project. Questions on the importance of the physical environment, especially the Mekong River to each village and perception and response to the project will be provided in the discussion chapter.

To explore those objectives, I not only have to observe the daily life of local residents but conduct interview with regard to their daily activities in the village and with the Mekong River.

More specifically, I seek to understand their local knowledge, which Raymond et al (2010) argue that it represents the culture and social aspects of certain groups, which provide guidance for the

48 integration of scientific knowledge to solve complex socio-economic and cultural issues and build trust between outsiders and their community.

Site study

The Sambor Dam is located in Sambor District, Kratie Province, northeast of the country.

Sambor means “Plenty.” It surely indicates that there are many things which supply the daily needs of native settlers. Cornford (2010: 4) says “It is a name that evokes a vision of people living well, living well together, and lives well with the land.” Local residents state that there were plentiful of forests, plentiful of fish, and plentiful animals in the past. Per the National

Institute of Statistics 2009 Report, there are 55,702 people, 30 percent of whom are indigenous and 27,896 of whom are women (NGO Forum, 2012).

Most of the residents live along the riverbank and countless islands. It is estimated that more than 80 percent of the people in the district are directly involved in smallholder agriculture, growing their own foods and selling to local market. They grow rice, raise livestock (cow, buffalo, pig, and chicken), fishing, and collecting non-timber products for their economical income. This report states that at least one family practices three of the four activities mentioned above.

For my research study, I select four villages as detail below. First, these four villages are accessible. I was able to drive motorbike and meet the people in the village daily, except Kaoh

Khnhaer Village where I had to drive for more than 3 hours. Second, each village provides unique connection with the Mekong River. Third, these four village fall under the impacts of the

Sambor Project, if officially approved.

Figure 5: Map of the study site of the four villages and Sambor Dam (Source: The author)

Kaoh Phdau Village

The village was named after “Phdau” tree, and villagers believe that the spirit possesses in the trees, located on a small island nearby the village. It is believed that such trees never die and cannot be cut off. The village was established in the early 1950s, with about 15 families. All of them were farmers and subsistence fishers. Village was surrounded with trees and countless wild animals. People went hunting using arrows or crossbows.

There were many Viet Cong troops crossing the village during the Lon Nol regime. They brought clothes and exchanged with villagers’ dogs, chickens, and rice. That was why, bombardment took place in the village. Some houses were completely burned down. Then some villagers were relocated from their village and put to clear forest and do agricultural work elsewhere of Kratie Province. Most people returned home after the fall of the Khmer Rouge and resumed their daily life.

A large majority of the population percent of residents are subsistence fishers and farmers. Since 2005, ecotourism project has been initiated by a few local NGOs. Most Western tourists stay with local residents, watching dolphins, learning culture, and mainly making donations by building chicken and pig coops and bathroom for the villagers. Financially, they receive 12,000 riels (3 USD) for one guest per night and 10,000 riels (2.5 USD) from each guest for each meal time.

Figure 6: Kaoh Phdau’s Ecotourism Center where people hold meeting and

performance, (Source: The author)

Kaoh Khnhaer Village

During the first settlement, the Kuy indigenous community settled on an island named

Koh Khnhaer, because there were too many ‘Khnhaer’ trees there. They then adopted such name. During the Sangkum Reastr Niyum regime, population growth and annual flood forced the

Kuy community to move and settle in the current village, opposite the island, leaving a small portion of the rest settling there until the present day.

At that time, the village was full of dense forests, almost all types of wild animals, and fish, which villager could easily catch for food. People did not sell anything, but simply shared among their groups. They only went to Sambor Market once or twice a month if they needed salt and materials, which they could not produce.

However, the village fell under heavy bombardment during the Lon Nol regime, because it was alleged that Viet Cong were there. When coming to power, the Khmer Rouge abandoned the village and forcibly relocated Kuy community to Koh Thnaot Island. They suffered hardship as other groups. However, shortly after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, all of them immediately returned to their village and started new lives. Presently, the population is about 1,000 people, and only about 10 families are commercial fishers, and the rest fish at the family scale. This community has long integrated with Khmer majority. They speak Khmer as the locals do, but in a quite different dialect, which I am able to comprehend.

Figure 7: Commercial fisher and his catch for sale (Source: The author)

Sandan Village

Sandan Village has existed a long time ago. The name came from a tree called Sandan, and there were many of them in the village. During the Sangkum Reastr Niyum regime, the village and entire commune was part of Sambor Commune. Villagers comprised of indigenous group and Khmer, who later married one another from generation to generation. However, life

53 was life, because people grew and produced large amount of rice, bean, sesame, and corn. Fish was never a problem, despite that there were many commercial fishers in the village rather the other 3 selected.

After the Lon Nol’s coup in 1970 against King Sihanouk, the Khmer Rouge immediately separated Sandan from Sambor and established a new commune. Villagers suffered gradually.

All bridges and some state buildings were heavily bombed. According to most participants, U.S. planes bombed the same place over and over again. Sadan Pagoda was completely burned down.

Villagers could not fish in the lake freely because plans could comb and fire at the boats.

When coming to power in 1975, the Khmer Rouge forced villagers out and put them to work in the forests, doing agricultural work, while their houses were used by mostly Khmer

Rouge cadres. They then suffered from forced labor, starvation, and execution. After the fall of the regime, people returned and started rebuilding their homes.

Presently, the population of the village about 10,271 people. According the commune and village chief, 90 families are commercial fishers, and the rest of the population is most farmers and subsistence fisher who fish in Sandan Lake behind their home. Residents are all Khmer ethnicity. Commercial fishers fish in most part of Sambor, most of whom go fishing upstream to

Kaoh Khnhaer Village or even further.

Figure 8: Fishers in Sandan Village getting Henicorhynchus from the net for sale;

(Source: The author)

Voadthonak Village

In the early 1950s, new settlers from especially lowland area began moving to live in

Voadthonak due to its rich soil and sounding environment. The number grew from 6 to 20 and about 50 families from the early 1950s to the early 1960s. Voadthonak means prosperous, and named by one of among the first settlers in the area. The name represents both village and commune. However, its original name was Anlong Kamprok and used to part of Kampong Cham

Commune. Its official name as Voadthonak emerged in the early 1960s, and the commune was then separated from the Kampong Cham by the Khmer Rouge in 1971.

Villagers could grow and produce large yield of corn, bean, and rice. Chinese merchant from the provincial town came and bought products from villagers. There was no formal market

55 in the village, because like others villages people just simply caught more than enough fish to eat and share among their groups. However, they had to be careful with bandits who lived in and near the villages. It was fortunate that they did not steal cattle from local villagers.

During the Lon Nol regime, the village came under bombardment. The US plans came and dropped bombs, destroying bridges and some boats. On one incident, they bombed the Viet

Cong’s camp about 2 kilometers from the village. There were Viet Cong troops coming and staying in their hammock underneath villagers’ houses. When coming to power, the Khmer

Rouge evacuated new people and put them to live in the village. Some villagers were relocated elsewhere. At first, people ate rice, but later were put to eat gruel. After the fall of the regime, they all returned to their home village and started new lives.

Population growth made parents divided their lands, which used to be 80 or 100 meters wide into separate scale for their children. Presently, the population is about 1,200 people, mostly Khmer ethnicity. The majority of the population is farmers, while small number of families are commercial fishers. However, most of the farmers are subsistence fishers. Unlike other villages, residents of Voadthnonak particularly rely on the Mekong River for growing crops, especially Cambodian pamelo fruit. During the dry season, level of water near this village is relatively still high and near the bank, if compared with others, making it easier for residents to pump water from the river for their crops. There is only a small number of fishers because most the villagers are involved with timber business.

Figure 9: A motorbike with small logs at the back in Voadthonak Village;

(Source: The author)

Research methodology

My research study involves archival research, field observation, and interviews in

Sambor District, Kratie Province.

Archival research

Archival research has been conducted through Kent State University’s Library regarding journals, books, news and reports. Theoretical and case studies of the impacts of hydropower dams around the Mekong River and NGOs reports have been collected. In Cambodia, there were several institutions which I had to approach in order to obtain relevant data of the Sambor. The most important one is through archival research at the MRC’s archive to review feasibility studies and complete reports of the Sambor Dam from the 1960s; undated reports of the MRC’s technical working group with regard to Sambor. As for the MoE and MME, I went to meet and

57 ask for update development of Sambor Project and a copy of the feasibility study conducted by the Chinese company, which was not available to obtain.

Site observation

Ritchie (2003:33) says, “Observation is needed to help participants uncover and relay the delicacy of their perceptions and responses.” I conducted site observations twice prior to the interview. The first visit was to learn about the geographical location of the selected area and select two villages downstream (Sandan and Voadthonak) and two villages upstream (Koh Pdao and Kaoh Khnhaer). The second visit was to establish relationship and build trust with local residents and especially learn of their daily activities with the river and farm land. I visited the site during monsoon season when most communities were busy, plowing and transplanting rice seedlings and fishing in the Mekong River. June and July are the highest catch period of the wet season.

Therefore, the field observation was to adjust to the availability of key participants and approached the commune chiefs and village chiefs prior to contacting residents from each village. I used my notebook to take some notes and take some photos of the views and some local activities. Through communication with the commune and village chiefs, I identified key participants from those four villages. In Cambodian society and culture, village and commune are normally elderly people selected because they are the most respected, kind, and well-known among people. Therefore, this process helped me greatly in establishing credible sampling.

Interview

After visiting the site, I began to interview voluntary villagers from those four villages based on the semi-structure interview. Studies about dams have used this method widely

(Raymond et al 2010; Baid, 2011; Sovacool and Valentine, 2011). As for this stage, the purposive and snowball sampling was used in this case study, especially with the local residents.

Two men and two women were selected for the interview, because I wanted to explore the gender role and social relations. In rural Cambodian culture, women play the household roles which consumed more water. The NGOs and government officials were selected based on their availability and willingness to share information for supplementary information to the focus on villagers. In addition, purposive sample was used as the village and commune chiefs substantially provided names to me during the interview. However, as mentioned earlier, if the targeted people were busy due to agricultural work and fishing during the monsoon season, I would use snowball sampling, trying to meet people who were available at home or nearby areas for the interview.

After decades of civil wars, illiteracy has been quite widespread especially among rural area residents, particularly those who did not go to school during the 1970s. Most of my participants were not well-educated, some of whom could not read and write. To solve this problem, I used spoken language in my informed consented, approved by the Institutional

Review Board (IRB), and explained to them with very simple language and the ‘riverer’ language which I have always used upon living in my hometown and visiting most parts of

Cambodia’s rural areas. For example, I did not use the words, such as “mainstream dam,” but

“big dam across the Mekong” upon talking to villagers. I first anticipated of having village chiefs help explain my purpose and study to participant when he or she did not understand, because the

59 village chief in Cambodian culture cannot only read and write, but also the most respectable person in the community. Fortunately, none of the participant said they did not understand me.

At the village level, I conducted interview with 24 residents of Sambor. There are 4 commune chiefs, 4 village chiefs (all male, except one female village chief) and 16 villagers (8 men and 8 women) from the four villages. All of the participants were above 18 years and married. To protect their identity, only the terms “male or female participant” would be used in the finding chapter to project their identity. To be more specific, number of interview, for example, author’s interview No 10 with male participant, is used for the citation part because I interviewed more than one person a day.

Based on this selection, the commune and village chiefs provided me historical, socio- economic and cultural background and statistics of their commune and villages. The village chiefs provided me more in-depth interviews with their socio-economic status, cultural belief and practices, agricultural and fishing activities with the river. However, it is important to know they also answered my designed questionnaire like other ordinary citizens.

The semi-structure questionnaire was designed and divided into six main themes, namely

1) history of their village, 2) awareness of the dam construction and its impacts, 3) impacts of dam project, 4) economic factor which comprised of farming and fishing activities and their interrelations with the Mekong River, 5) cultural practices, 6) their future plans.

Five NGOs representatives were interviewed, as their institutions have collaborated and conducted campaigns not only against the dam construction in Lao PDR but also directly at the

Sambor site. The main themes were to learn of their institutions’ objective with the Sambor

Project, their advocacy and training with local resident, and future direction with the Sambor

Project, given all of them worked directly with the communities. In addition, two officials from

60 the MoE and MME were interviewed to find out the outreach activities conducted with villagers, their policy for sustainable development, and future direction of the Samjor Project.

Data Analysis

The analytic portion of this thesis consists of several interrelated components. Fist, following the collection of interview data, all recordings were transcribed and translated into

English. This translation was necessary to facilitate the writing of this thesis in English.

However, I remained sensitive to the difficulties of working between Khmer and English, noting where relevant that some concepts do not translate well. Second, a codebook was established based on the six themes that informed the semi-structure interviews with local residents: history, awareness, impacts, economic factors, cultural factors, and future plans. These themes were developed to answer my three guiding questions, that is, (1) What are daily activities among local residents along the Sambo’s Mekong Review experienced; (2) How will the construction of the Sambo Dam project change daily life; and (3) How do local resident plan to respond to any potential changes? The development of a codebook enabled me to highlight both similarities and similarities within and between the four villages. More specifically, I was able to compare and contrast the potential impact of the dam across serval dimensions, including water usage, agriculture, fishing, and spirituality. Emphasis was placed on the expectation of change from the perception of local villagers.

Open-ended and semi-structure interview with local resents in the four study sites were supplemented with interviews conducted with NGO representatives and officials from two government ministries. The information acquired from these additional interviews was designated to provide background as to the overall scope of the Sambo Dam project. Information

61 was also used to collaborate local villagers’ perception of the project, for example the initiation of the project and officially projected impact of the dam.

Result of analyses, presented in Chapter V, are organized through a case-by-case format, in that I discuss first one village, followed by the subsequent three villages. Whereas this may result in some repetitiveness, this method was adopted to accentuate the uniqueness of each village, before stepping back to highlight deviations. An alternative approach would have been to adopt a thematic format, whereby I could have developed sub-sections based on the aforementioned dimensions of water usage, agriculture, fishing, and spirituality. This approach, I decided, would have sacrificed generalities for particularities, whereas it was my intention to emphasize local conditions.

Definitions

Three terms, namely large dam, socio-economic, and culture, are discussed to shape the research objective. First, per the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), which was established in 1928, a large dam has the height of between 5 meters and 15 meters or more from the foundation and have the reservoir of 3 million cubic meter (WCD, 2000). By this definition, not only Sambor but most of the Mekong Dam are categorized as large dam.

Second, socioeconomic impact was developed in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in relation to the major development projects namely nuclear, hydro-electricity, and oil and gas

(Glasson, 2009). Examples of the included factors are changes in community demographics, housing, employment and income, market effects, public services, and aesthetic qualities of the community. Large dams are known to cause displacement, impacts on local livelihood, ecological degradation, fishing, deforestation, loss of agricultural productivity (WCD, 2000).

Jackson and Sleigh (2001) note that socio-economic are mainly about resettlement and health impacts. For my study, the scope of socio-economic impacts is limited to fishing, land use, water usage in household and agricultural activities, and displacement.

Third, WCD (2000:116) notes, “Large dams have had significant adverse effects on this heritage through the loss of local cultural resources (temples, shrines, and sacred elements of the landscape, artefacts and buildings) and the submergence and degradation of archaeological resources (plant and animal remains, burial sites and architectural elements).” Culture is very broad and abstract. There have been countless interpretations of this abstract. Mitchell (1995) conceptualizes culture and argues that there is no such thing called culture. For my study, I follow the definition of Matsumoto (1996: 16), cited in Van Dyk and De Kock (2004), which says, culture refers “the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of people, but different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the next.’”

Positionality

I provided my personal background and experience in the first chapter to indicate my familiarity and the likelihood of getting to know and gain trust from the participants, given that there have been discussions about positionality in conducting social science research. Scholars have argued for critical understanding of knowing their positionality in connection with collecting and interpreting their data for their research studies. Rose (1997), citing from Madge

(1993), provides that positionality is about understanding the researcher’s position regarding their own race, nationality, age, gender, social and economic status, sexuality, as these elements can form a certain type of knowledge.

Chacko (2004: 61) argues, “Acknowledging positionality as a critical element in formulating, conducting and reporting fieldwork can make the researcher more vigilant about power relations and their impacts on the exchange and production of information and knowledge.” Sultana (2007) cautions positionality is vital for ethical and participatory research because the university frameworks and what researchers do in the fields can be different. For example, in a study of contamination of groundwater sources in rural Bangladesh for her PhD dissertation, the author reflects herself as a city resident with a privilege educated class, trying to understand issues at the village level in rural area and having to be flexible from day-to-day in order to adjust to new communities and build trust for interactive communication with both men and women.

Sultana (2007) conducts her study in rural area of Bangladesh where area, socioeconomic, and social class are different from her family and education background. In her article, she described the way she speaks and dresses are different local, which do not post any serious problem in term of data gathering. If compared with my research study, I am not from

Sambor District, Kratie Province. In the past 10 years, I might have been there several times a year, except my summer break 2015 when I went there very often. However, I have lots of personal experiences, most of which I mentioned in Chapter I, which connect me to understand the livelihood of people in Sambor.

The first chapter began with the history of the Mekong and fish catchment which I have learned my grandfather, a commercial fisherman. He often recalled and told me how easy fishing was in the 1950s, 1960s, and partly the 1970s and up to the 1980s and early 1990s. The local expression is “as long as you go to the river, there will be fish to cook.” In the village, people rarely bought fish from the market, because they could use fishing traps, hooks, single net, and

64 dig V-shape net to catch cat fish, wallago attu, cyclocheilichthys enoplos, henicorhynchus lobatus, and various others easily. He made money by selling fish to wealthy families in district town.

About 140 kilometers away from my ancestors’ hometown, I learned similar stories with residents of Sambor District. In particular, male participants said fishes were so easy to catch.

There were many giant cat fish weighting between 100 and 200 kilograms. Interestingly, they said people there did not eat small fish, because there were too many big fishes to eat. During the catching season, people could just use the scoop net to catch henicorhynchus lobatus to make prahok5 or pha-ok6. Food security was never a problem because of the regular flow of the

Mekong, rainfall, and low population.

Speaking of agriculture, I have learned a great deal from my mother and aunt, who were regular rice growers along the Mekong’s tributary and my father who grew different crops namely bean, potatoes, and corns near the lake. Though having no practical experiences of growing rice, I have seen countless people near my home growing rice in their farmland. In addition, as stated in Chapter I, I have personally grown some crops and vegetables along the small river to supply my parents’ restaurant and been familiar with water usage during the flooding and dry season.

Traditional fishing practices have remained in-use, especially for the subsistent fishermen, namely using hooks, scoop net, gillnet, and some fishing traps. Such methods are used in Sambor, and I have known and used some of those upon living along the Mekong’s tributary. Modern and destructive fishing methods, for instance electrocution and fishing during

5 A typical type of fish paste in Cambodia used for cooking. 6 It is very similar to Prahok used for cooking.

65 the laying-egg season, have been notorious along the Mekong and its tributaries. Therefore, I have already had a good understanding of fishing activities along the river.

I speak Khmer and understand the riverer language. I went to meet local people and used very simple language, despite my student’s name card and informed consent disclose my high privilege of education, especially graduate program in America to them. I was able to build trust and talk freely with those villagers based on my personal and professional background.

However, some participants expressed concerns, I had to caution and explicitly explain that I did not have any answer for the future of Sambor.

Chapter V

Discussion of the Livelihood of Local Residents in Sambor

This chapter begins by addressing the specific elements I wish to examine in the four selected villages, because socioeconomic and cultural impacts are broad. I reintegrate my research questions and apply to specific points in comparison with the existing studies on agriculture, fishing, and local cultural practices in relation to pagoda, burial site, and spirit house.

The second section focuses on the discussion of the socioeconomic and culture of the four villages. The socio-economic and cultural practice is structured and discussed from one village to another. The third section examines the potential changes in the upstream-downstream context.

The last section ends with awareness of local residents, their public participation, and mostly the responses and future plan of local residents towards the Sambor Project.

Specification

This section focuses on the discussion of the agriculture, fishing, and culture. It mainly provides the overviews of these elements and general practices in Cambodia, which then lead to the specific cases in each village in the next section.

Agriculture

In 2012, agriculture contributes to 37 percent of the GDP, covering about 3.7 million hectares of cultivated land, 75 percent of which is mainly for rice (FAO, 2014). It is estimated

Cambodian household farmers have land less than two or one hectare of paddy field (FAO, 2014;

Mund, 2011). The wet season crops cover about 2 million hectares, 90 percent of rice growing area in Cambodia (de Silva, 2014, cited from Rickman and Sinath, 2004). Through rapid investment and rehabilitation on the irrigation scheme, approximately 43 percent of cultivated land area has been made available during the dry season (de Silva, 2014, cited from CDRI,

2010).

The most productive area is located around the Tonle Sap lake, while crops in the plateau and mountainous areas mostly depends on rainwater. Agricultural practices might differ from one area to another depending on the geographical local, water resources, and financial resources. For example, lowland farmers might do rice nursey prior to planting them in the fields. Some might use tractors, and some use cattle. In some areas, farmers just spread rice seeds directly in the fields and put them to grow. At the mountainous region, agricultural activities in the mountainous areas involve shifting cultivation, slash and burn farming, swidden and rainfed farming.

For this research study, I aim to look at the development and daily practice of agricultural production and farmers’ activities for survival and its possible relations with the Mekong River.

It includes rice production, crops, and riverbank and home gardening.

Fishing

Cambodia’s inland fisheries are the 4th largest, generating about 400,000 tons per year after China, India, and Bangladesh (Hortle, 2004). This sector is known to create jobs through forms of fish selling, fish processing, fish culture, and fishing gear making (Baran 2005).

Various types of fishing are available in Cambodia such as fishing lot, dai fishing, middle-scale or commercial fishing, family scale, and rice-fied fishing (Baran, 2005). While most studies on fishery tend to focus on fishing and fish production along the Mekong River and Tonle Sap, a few studies have looked into fishing at the village level. In a study of two fishing villages in

Kampong Thom Province, Hori et al (2006) point that fishers who fish far in the Tonle Sap than from the village areas such rice field, small ponds, some streams, river, and lake near their villages, catch more fish than the rest.

This study narrows down the discussion to the historical change and comparison of both commercial and subsistence fishers as well as the gender role in fishing.

Culture

The selected places for discussing cultural aspects and practices of each village include pagoda, Buddhist dining hall, spirit house, and burial sites. The following statements describe villagers’ routines with those places during certain festivals, whereas the next section analysis the existence of their physical structure and local practice.

It begins with the Buddhist pagoda, the most vital element of Buddhism in Cambodia society where more than about 90 percent of the total population is Buddhist. Its long history plays crucial roles in Cambodian society (Marston and Guthrie 2004, Hansen, 2007; Harris,

2008). Pagoda is not only the place where Buddhist monks, laymen or nuns reside and practice

Buddhist rituals but for celebrating other countless ceremonies and traditional practice. For the purpose of my thesis, only several ceremonies celebrated in the pagoda are discussed.

Firstly, Pchum Ben, a 15-day Buddhist ceremony which takes place in September or

October, depending on the change of the lunar calendar, is the most crucial sustenance and coherences of Cambodian families and its nation (Holt, 2012). It is known as “a family homecoming affair as members of the family, both the living and the dead, are reconnected through solemn observance within a village context” (Holt, 2012:70). Various Buddhist ceremonies are performed at that time in order to make offering the deceased, make their souls rest in peace and reborn as well help protect their children or grandchildren.

Secondly, the Khmer New Year festival is celebrated in the pagoda. After harvesting season, Cambodian celebrated Khmer New Year on mostly on April 13-15 annually. For the first day, Maha Sangkran, people cook and bring food to the pagoda with their family members and receive blessing from monks. On the second day, Vireak Vanabat, people go and build sand mountain at the pagoda as a symbol of bringing happiness and propensity to them and family members. On the last day, Vearak Loeng Sak, ends with people showing Buddha statues and their own parents as washing way bad luck and obtaining best luck for new year. During this festival, countless traditional games are mostly played inside the pagoda compound.

Thirdly, in some cases, the burial site or cemetery are part of the pagoda compound where both Cambodian and ethnic Chinese bury their deceased members. Cambodian make offering at their ancestors grave during Khmer New Year, while the ethnic Chinese minority make offering at their ancestors’ grave during Qingming or Ching Ming Festival, which starts from mid-April to the 5th of May. They bring food, drink, and other religious materials to make offering and ask for forgiveness and happiness for their family members and propensity.

Lastly, pagodas can be seen all over Cambodia, but not all villages have their own pagoda. Usually, village which has no pagoda is replaced Buddha public dining hall, where elderly people go and chant Buddhist rituals during Buddhist holy day. Village festival are normally celebrated there, normally shortly before or after the spirit house festival. People celebrate it as a day of gathering Different regions name such festival differently, but process is similar.

Besides the pagoda and various ceremony celebrated there, in Cambodia, there are countless spirt houses based on the geographical locations. So me of them are well-known nationwide, but there are no clear-cut hierarchy orders (Bertrand,

2001; O’Lemmon 2004). At the village level, the spirit house has always been one of the most powerful figure in Cambodian’s beliefs and tradition. They are present in everywhere throughout the country. It is rooted since ancient time and even prior to the Angkorian era. Ang Choulean, a renowned Cambodian anthropologist, notes the spirit house refers to the man – the village ancestor and guardian – who clears forest for farming and protect the village (Phnom Penh Post,

2000). The spirit house is believed to protect villagers’ home, eases illness and provide adequate rain (O’Lemmon; 2014). While its object is the same, the practices and procedures varies from place and place, and its name varies differently.

The obvious examples of each section will be discussed in the following section. They will follow with the description of livestock, water usage, and some specific element in each village, for example the spirit forest in Kuy community. The reasons these elements were discussed because they vary from place to place and community to community. That is why, I will describe them afterwards.

Discussion of the socio-economic of each village

Kaoh Khnhaer Village

Agriculture

Rice is the main crop in the village and mostly grown during the rainy season, from approximately late May to December, as there is no irrigation system. According to the participants, rice accounts for about 60 percent of the entire food production because of the irregular rainfall in the past five or six years. In average, each family has about more than one hectare of rice fields. Some of them have farmland on the island across the village where their ancestors first settled down and the current village’s compound. The farmland in the village is mostly for growing rice. Some are located behind villagers’ houses and near the canals, which is normally fertilized by the Mekong flood, whereas others are situated quite far from the village and water sources (lake and canal).

Unlike any other indigenous groups, especially mountainous tribes, the Kuy community does not practice rice-shifting cultivation. Instead, they raise buffaloes to plow rice fields and grow rice seeds directly without doing rice nursery. All family members are involved in the process of plowing, spreading rice seeds, clearing grass, putting fertilizer and harvesting rice.

That is why, fishers are normally very busy during the rainy season. Women are known to be involved with farming from the beginning until harvest.

Only some of the 20 families residing on island are able to grow rice twice a year, given that it is located next to the river. However, a majority of them prefers growing crops and vegetables, such as corn, soybean, sesame, cucumber, and bananas. They can easily use waterpump to irrigate water into their fields because of the short distance of their farmland to the river. In general, the islanders and inland villagers who have land on the island are more likely to

72 produce enough rice to eat for the entire year, while those who only grow rice in the village or hilly areas could produce only enough rice to eat only half-a-year. This group relies on fishing, hunting and other forms of income to secure enough rice to eat for their survival.

Similarly, riverbank gardening is mostly available on the island because of the fertilized soil and the short distance to water. The inland villagers do not grow any crops along the riverbank because two reasons. First, the bank is steep because of erosion. Second, it is rocky and sandy. Some residents grow coconut, banana and mango trees behind and around their home.

However, there are some residents growing crops along the canals which connect from the

Mekong to the back of the villages. The land is normally fertilized with the flood, but sometimes their crops are at risk of being damaged from flooding.

Home gardening in the village is rare if compared with other 3 selected villages. Only a few family members grow vegetables, and they have to make fence or put net around it. The reason is the villagers let their livestock, chicken, duck, and pigs go and eat freely in the village.

However, people grow coconuts, mango, jackfruit, and custard-trees in the village.

Fishing

The Kuy indigenous have always practiced fishing as a way of daily living since their first settlement in the area. In the past, traditional fishing gears such as chouch7, dai phdao8, lorb, snor9, hooks and sometimes gillnet were used as well as others. It was easy to catch hemibagrus wyckioides, hemibagrus nemurus, labeo chrysophekadion, cyclocheilichthys furcatus, and others. Most of the fish weighted 20 or 30 kilos. In most cases, villagers kept and

7 A cone-shaped flat-bottom rattan basket used for fishing 8 A stationary trawl fishing trap 9 A sharp steel spear fitted on one end

73 shared fish with their neighbors. They traded their fish only, as indicated earlier, when they needed salt, farming and fishing tools, clothes and others from Sandan Market.

The fish trade became intense progressively in the past decade due to the population growth of both Kuy and new settlers, especially fish traders, from lowland provinces and the availability of transportation as well as the existing infrastructure. In the mornings, subsistence fishers go and check their traps and hooks to collect fish and sell them to fish dealers, if they catch more than enough to eat in their family. Commercial fishers also bring their fish for sale, mostly fish dealers, who buy large quantity of fish and distribute them in Stung Treng Province or even to Laos.

Presently, about 10 families are commercial fishers, and the rest of the 70 families are subsistence fishers. Each family own at least one boat for fishing and transportation during the flooding season. While some of the traditional fishing gears are no longer used in most places, both groups have been using lorb, chouch, and hooks due to the village’ plateau and rocky areas where most Mekong fish seek shelter. The subsistence fishers have about 8 lorb‘s’ and 8 chouch‘s’, while the commercial fishers have about or more 30 lorb‘s’ and chouch‘s’. On the one hand, the subsistence fishers only check their traps and hooks once or twice a day, especially in the mornings. It is common that only one family member, mostly husband or son, who goes, checks, and picks up traps and hooks because of two reasons. One, a person is enough to drive the boat, and two their fishing tools are located near riverbank and bushes where they can tie boat to tree or shore when checking their traps and hooks.

In addition, the subsistence fishers normally spend only a few hours fishing because their fishing tools are placed near the village. The commercial fishers, on the other hand, normally fish in the river for the entire night, because they also use gillnet and cash net to catch extra fish

74 besides their traps and hooks. There are normally two people in one boat, as one needs to use the nets and the other one control the boat. They have so many traps to check, many of which are located far from the village. Normally, father and son go fishing together, as mother has to take care of young children. If they are newlyweds and have no children, they go fishing together.

However, women generally tend to take charge selling fish to the traders and cooking.

In average, the subsistence fisher catches between 5 or 7 kilograms of fish per day. A family of six normally consumes about 2 or 2.5 kilograms of fish per day. The commercial fishers catch a large amount of fish and make more daily income. However, it is hard to make an estimation of their income, as the participants responded their catch varies from day to day.

Although fish price varies on size and difference types of fish, it can be estimated that the subsistence fishers can make about 20,000 riels (5 USD) from fishing per day. If they are lucky and their trap catches a big hemibagrus wyckioides, which weights over 3 kilograms, they can make up to 60,000 riels (15 USD) or more, especially during the rainy or flooding season.

Usually, it is women who are responsible for selling fish to dealers and household use, cooking for family members.

May, June, and July are known as the highest catch period, while in August, the flood peak, both fishers fish in the lakes and canals behind the village. Some commercial fishers are known to take a short break from fishing for half or the entire month, providing that the islands, villages, and other fishing locations are submerged under water. During the dry season, the villagers are able to catch large amount of fish if compared with other villages. For this season, both fishers do not use traps, but cashnet, gillnet, and hooks and lines. They spend more time in the river because of the low level of Mekong River and the increase of the population of fishers.

The villagers do not do the dry-season farming, making household incomes mainly rely on

75 fishing. Due to the intensity of fishing, they sometimes guard their hooks and net at some points of the day to make sure that no one steals fish from their hooks and nets.

Based on their experiences, fish catch has decreased dramatically. It is rare that fishers catch a 20-kilogram hemibagrus wyckioides due to two reasons. First, population and demand of fish have increased. Countless fishers from downstream village, especially Sandan, have come and fished in their area. Second, illegal and destructive fishing methods have been widespread and uncontrollable. In the 1980s and 1990s, after emerging from the genocidal regime, people used explosion, such as DNT, to catch fish from various pools in the area. After the explosion, electrocution emerged and has been widely used in the area. It also accompanies by the use of

Dai, the stationary trawl, during the breeding season. However, participants inserted that it is still easy to catch fish in their area if compared to the other villages, because fish are believed to always seek shelter in this area before migrating up and down the Mekong River.

Water usage

In the past, people went and carried buckets of water from the river during the dry season.

Men usually went and carried several buckets of water for household use. Women preferred washing their clothes in the river. In recent years, the villagers began to buy water from water dealers, 3,000 riels (0.80 USD) per jar, who pump water from the river. Still, poor families normally go and shower and wash clothes in the river as usual. There are wells in the village, but people could not drink or use it to cook because they smell bad.

During the rainy season, people use rainwater. It is mostly women who use such water.

However, when it comes to washing clothes and cutting large amount of fish, they prefer going to the river. Again, this is usually the women’s or daughters’ responsibility. Though during the

76 rainy season, men tend to shower in the river after they return from checking their traps and after cleaning cattle in the river.

Livestock

As stated previously, Kuy indigenous people raise chicken, ducks, and pigs at home, but not in large quantity. However, they let them go freely in the village, especially the pig. Water buffaloes are raised to help farming. It is usually men or boys’ job of tending, looking for grasses, and taking them to a bath in the lake behind the village or in the river.

Spirit houses

There are two sprit houses in the village named Kramham Ka and Machas Srok, both located at the far edge of the village. Unlike other practices, the Kuoy indigenous community makes offering twice a year, before growing rice and after harvesting rice field. One half of the villagers makes offering for the Kramham Ka, while the other half makes offering to the Machas

Srok. They usually celebrate Kraham Ka first and then Machas Srok, which is 10 days apart. In the past, Kraham Ka was very powerful. For example, an outsider who came to our village might have sickness. These days, upon making offering, the villagers ask and make sure the spirit houses do no harm to new comers or visitors and welcome them into our village.

The offering takes place in the afternoon and lasts for 2 hours. Prior to the ceremony, the spirit house’s committee and chairperson go from house to house and collect donation. People could give money or provide cooked chicken, cooked chicken eggs, and rice wine. The specialty of the Kuy indigenous in term of making offering to the spirit house are the fact that 1) rice wine

77 is not a must, but 2) they have to sacrifice lizards. If they cannot catch lizards, they will have to replace it with wild tortoise. This is what they have been practicing for generations.

During the ceremony, people gather around and make offering to the spirit house’s location. Areak music is played, and exorcism takes place on the selected elderly person in the village. When the spirit possesses inside the selected person, villagers ask the guardian spirit for forgiveness, happiness, and instructions to make village become prosperity. In some cases, the guardian spirit tells villager to make raft and place food, rice, flowers, husked, and unhusked rice, and flow it away from the middle of the river. It is a symbol of washing all the bad lucks from the village. However, sometimes, the spirit asks villagers to make raft and place it offshore.

One common thing villagers normally do is to throw rice grains on the raft, making sure all the bad lucks are washed away.

Men and women are both involved in the ceremony, except the women are usually responsible for cooking food for the ceremony.

Burial sites

There are two sites. The first one is located near the village, where their ancestors were buried. However, coming to power in the 1975, the Khmer Rouge forced people out of the village. After returning to the village, they buried their deceased family members on the new plot of land. Unlike some Khmer majority, the Kuy buries their deceased instead of cremating them.

The tradition is that they do not make offering at the grave for the first 3 years. After 3 years, they make offering to the ancestors during the Khmer New Year like the Khmer people do.

Buddha dining hall

The Kuy indigenous has adopted to the Khmer culture for a long time. That is why, they have followed Buddhism and various other ceremonies, one of which is wedding. In the village, there are not many elderly people going to chant Buddha rituals, but the hall has existed since the

Sangkum Reastr Niyum regime. During Khmer New Year, the villagers invite monks from nearby pagodas and give prayers for prosperity. Some traditional and public activities, such as village festival, are also celebrated at the hall as well.

Spirit forest

Unlike other groups of the selected four villages, the Kuy indigenous people has a spirit forest, a collective land where local villagers can go and grow rice or crops. However, they have to make offering or ask for permission before engaging in any activities. They are not supposed to cut any big trees in the area.

Kaoh Phdau Village

Agriculture

Rice is also the main crop. Unlike other village, most of this village’s land is sandy and less fertilized. From one generation to generation, people keep sharing land to their children, especially after they got married. As a result, each family in average now has about 0.5 hectare.

In general, they are not able to produce enough rice to eat.

The villagers grow rice only once a year, the rainy season. Though located on the island and in the middle of the Mekong River, only very few families can afford to pump water to their

79 rice fields. They plow the fields with buffaloes and do rice nursery. Then they transplant rice seedlings until the harvest time.

After the harvest, most families abandon their field because it is too dried to grow any crops during the dry season. Only a small number of families grow sesame or corn in their farmland, especially those who have farmland near the water source or canals connecting from the Mekong River. These groups of families normally produce surplus product for sale in the market. A male participant has two plots of land, one of which is located near his home, stated that he grew sesame after harvesting rice because he could pump water into the fields (Author’s interview No. 10, July 7, 2015.) Agriculture helps him earn about 800,000 riels (200 USD) or more per year.

Like the first village, people do not really grow any riverbank crops because it is too slope and sandy. In addition, any major activities along the river can lead to land erosion, especially during the rainy season. However, due to the Ecotourism project -- homestay service and food-- people have been strongly motivated to make chicken coops and pig pen and raise them as way of increasing local livelihood. This action opens door for home gardening, growing tomato, eggplant, morning glory, cabbage, lemongrass, and other types of vegetables for the service.

In this village, women and men are both involved with farming rice. When it comes to home gardening, it is more of women’s responsibility. Normally, they water vegetables and crops and collect them for cooking.

Fishing

Unlike the first upstream village, almost all villagers are subsistence fishers. They not only use traditional traps such as lorb, trou10, and chouch, and hooks near the village, but sometimes go upstream far from the village, especially when using gillnet because there are dolphin pools located nearby the village. They are the main attraction of Ecotourism service of this village.

Those fishing upstream use gillnet and cashnet. They just spend several hours fishing and return to the village when they catch enough fish. Mostly, those fishing upstream catch extra amount of fish for sale sometimes. They usually aim for big type of fish such as labeo chrysophekadion, channa melasoma, wallago attu, and catlocarpio siamenis. Those fishing in the village only wish to get enough fish to consume at home and look for all types of fish to fulfill their daily needs and seldom sell if caught extra amount of fish. However, they occasionally do not have enough fish to eat lately. Most participants stated that in the 1980s and

1990s, there were countless fish near the area around their village. However, population growth and illegal fishing have caused such significant decrease.

Seasonality plays major role in fishing section in the village. The flooding season is the most productive season for the fishers. However, when the flood reaches its peak and flood the entire area, the fishers cannot catch any fish. They have to lay gillnet and traps in the village, especially through the two river channels, to catch mostly enough fish to eat. Fishing becomes a big challenge during the dry season. A large number of farmers who cannot do the dry-season farming normally go and do labor in the land concession areas, such as growing cassava and

10 A kind of tubular cage or fishing trap

81 rubber trees. They could only use cashnet, while gillnet is strictly regulated because it is located near deep pools.

It is estimated that a family of 6 generally consume 2 kilo of fish per day. Like the first upstream village, women do not usually accompany their husbands fishing, and it is usually father and son. Sometimes, it is known that one fisher goes fishing, but most participants state it is a risky habit, especially during the flooding season. Therefore, women are normally responsible for cooking fish and sometimes buy fish for cooking for the tourists.

Ecotourism

The Oxfam Australia international agency was the first to arrive in the village and tried to improve local livelihood of residents through various programs, such as providing villagers buffaloes to raise and increase rice production. Later on, CRDT established a pilot project in the village to establish the ecotourism service in 2008. Their objectives are to promote local livelihood and coordinate with the WWF to preserve the rich biodiversity, especially the dolphin because there are dolphin pools next to the village.

Through assistance of CRDT, the villagers were able to build toilets, chicken and pigpens, small concrete reservoir, and raise chicken and pigs in the village. Through ecotourism service, villagers were trained to provide homestay, food, transportation, and tour guide to mostly foreign visitors who come to stay in the village, learn about the culture, watch dolphins, and also make donations such as building chicken and pig cage, toilet, and water reservoirs.

As for the direct benefit of the ecotourism service, the villagers are divided to share the responsibilities in order get income. For example, cooking group earns 10,000 riels (2.5 USD) per person from each meal, 12,000 riels (3 USD) for each person for homestay and the

82 transportation group receive another amount. If tourists come through the CRDT, the villagers will receive payment through this institution after the tourists leave. However, villagers receive direct payment when tourists come directly and stay in their home.

It is through this project that more awareness and restriction of illegal fishing, especially using gillnet near the pool and during the laying-egg season, and impacts of mainstream dams have been imposed and made available. In particular, the Ecotourism service has contributed greatly to protecting biodiversity and preventing illegal fishing activities, building upon the works of WFF and MAFF. For example, art performance was established to perform and raise awareness of the related issues, which impacts their community. It is believed that villagers can teach and spread information of their gained knowledge quickly and easier because they trust their own groups well.

Perhaps, about 35 families receive direct benefit from the service (Author’s interview No.

27, August 16, 2015). Tourists who go and visit Kaoh Phdau range from four to forty-five people each time. And one of the biggest achievement is CRDT was able to contact and asked from the

Japanese donation of a Water Tower which can contribute to clean water for about 90 percent in the village.

Livestock

People in the village raise chicken, pigs, a few cows, and buffaloes. Unlike the first village, the villagers do better job in term of managing their animals because they have chicken coops and big pens, while cow and buffaloes are normally tied to one particularly area where they could go free and eat other people crops. The CRDT has provided financial support for

83 local residents to build fence around their houses, and keep the village clean so that tourists can come and enjoy their home-stay service.

The villagers tend to raise buffaloes to produce income besides the agricultural work.

One adult buffalo cost more about 1,000 USD while one chicken of being raised for 3 months cost about 16,000 riels (4 USD). Chickens are especially raised to sell and also cook for tourists who come and visit the area. Some families raise up to 100 or 200 hundred chicken.

Water usage

In the past, villagers normally went to shower, wash their clothes, and cattle in the river.

When they returned, they normally carried with them buckets of water for elderly people and necessary household use. Like most cases, women consume water for household use, cleaning and cooking. Men or son occasionally carry water for their home after showing, returning from fishing or washing cattle.

In 2004, the water towel, donated by Japanese people, was made available, leaving about

90 percent of villagers have access to water daily. One cubic meter of water cost 1,500 riel (0.30

USD). The village committee is in charge of the income and use for fixing the system or other used. They tend to consume more water during the dry season. They might consume up 40,000 riels (10 USD) per month, especially families who entirely rely on pipe water for household use and watering pigs.

Families who use waterpump to pump water from the river do not consume much pipe water because they supply water to their crops near their home.

Spirit house

In the village, the spirit house is called Ta Chan, and people make offering in after harvesting their fields. Sometimes, people make offering two times a year, especially and only when animals get sick and die.

Shortly before the ceremony, the spirit committee goes from house to house to collect 5 pieces of Khmer noodle, 5 coconut or banana cake, 5 incense, and chicken, which is their norm.

Those who do not have any chicken at home can just donate 3,000 riels (0.80 USD) or 4,000 riels (1 USD). At 4.00 p.m. villagers make offering with areak music, where exorcism takes place. After offering, some people eat and drink together at the dining hall. Some return and eat at home.

There is a story of one NGO staff member, believed to be cursed by the guardian spirit.

He might have done something wrong, and the guardian spirit cursed to get lost in the forest from 6.00 p.m. Villagers could only find him after they made offering to the guardian spirit.

Village festival

During the festival, the villagers invite monks from the nearby pagoda and make Khmer noodles. They make offering to the monks. In the afternoon, people bring their own unhusked rice and make mountain. They give to money and sell unhusked rice for public donation in order to build public property. In 2015, for example, villagers sold unhusked rice and build the wall of school.

In this village, people normally celebrate it one or a few days after the guardian spiirt ceremony at the public hall, and it lasts a day and a half. On the first day, local residnets invite monks to chant Buddha rituals, and they cook for the monks. In the afternoon, poeple make rice mountain because they bring thier unhusked rice to the area. At night, people play loud music, eat and dance togteher. The following morning, they offer breakfast to the monks. Then they donate the unhusked rice to the monks and keep some to sell and build collective property such as road.

Burial site

People from Kaoh Phdau and the nearby village, Kampong Krabei, share the same burial site area along the border of these two villages. Anyone can go and bury their loved one in that area. They go and make offering at the graves during Khmer New Year. After the fall of the

Khmer Rouge regime, some families have begun to bury their deceased next to their home, which is more convenient and easy to hold any ceremony.

Buddha public dining hall

During Phcum Ben ceremony, people go to the pagoda in Kampong Krabei Village.

However, they sometimes invite monk from the nearby pagoda and chant Buddhist ritual to village, especially during holy day and village festival.

Voadthonak Village

Agriculture

Presently, nearly 50 percent of the total population is rice farmers. In average, they have about 1-hectare rice field or less. Most villagers do farming only during the rainy season because they have to rely on rainwater. They do farming from usually October to January. Some villagers grow crops along the canals which connect from the Mekong River. Villagers whose farms are located near a dam behind the village called Tuol Dai Khla, could grow rice twice because they can pump or irrigation water from the dam. If there is enough rain, farmers who have 1-hectare field can produce enough rice to eat for the entire year and sell small amount of it. And those who have 2-hectare field can sell about half of the yield. Unfortunately, droughts have often taken place lately. People have not had good harvest.

Besides growing rice in the farmland, quite far from the village, some local residents grow rice near their home compound, where some farmers can pump water from the river, as it is located near their river. Some farmers also grow bean, corn, and cassava in farm land near the mountains and particularly the village farm land. It is very common that people grow banana, papaya, mango, water spinach, various kinds of herbaceous plants, leeks, lemon grass, peppers, and long beans for their consumption. During the rainy season, they do not need to carry or pump water to irrigate these crops. They have to during the dry season. Most people grow their own vegetables to eat at home, except carrots and cucumber.

Pamelo fruit is well-known in the village, as one tree, if well-taken off, can generate about 400,000 riels (100 USD) or 600,000 riels (150 USD) per year. Street vendors come and buy the fruit directly from the farm, and one pamelo is around 4,000 riels (1 USD) or 5,000 (1.25

USD). One participant has been actively involved in growing and spreading pamelo trees to all

87 villagers to grow. it. In the past 10 years, most villagers have grown this tree at home and some have pamelo farm. However, there are several steps to do if villagers want to get benefit from growing pamelo tree. First, they have to avoid cattle getting inside the farm or near the trees.

Second, they have to clear grass. Third, they have to put fertilizer. Fourth, they have to water them, which require them to use pump water, especially during the dry season. During the dry season, they need sufficient water for those trees, and the only best way is to pump from the river.

Fishing

Among 150 families, only about 30 are subsistent fisher and about 15 families are commercial fishermen in the village. A number of fishers are fewer than the rest of the selected village because timber business is the main factor. Some villagers go and buy pieces of woods from forest cutters and sell to furniture shop. Some go and cut forests for other people. And the rest go and transport timbers for the dealers. They go inside the forests with chainsaw and buffalo carts. It is said that those people make an average income of about 60,000 riels (15 USD) per day.

The subsistence and commercial fisher practice fishing almost on a daily basic. On the one hand, the subsistent fishers just use one or a few among the fishing gears namely Lorb, gillnet, scoop net, and horizontal longline hooks. They just spend several hours in the river to get enough fish to cook at home. On the other hand, commercial fish use several methods when they go fishing from 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. until they can bring fish to sell at the fish market in

Sandan. Their fishing gears include gillnet, hooks and lines, cashnet, and scoop net.

May and July are considered to be most productive season because fishers can catch a lot of labeo chrysophekadion. One kilo of labeo chrysophekadion fish is about 8,000 (2 USD) or

10,000 (2.5 USD). Fisher who use cashnet fisher can get about 20 kilos and generate about

200,000 riels (50 USD). Other fishers also use lorb and hooks and lines. They leave at about 4.00 p.m. and fish in the river for the entire night before selling their fish at Sandan Market at 6.00 a.m. They have tents in case it rains at night. They seek shelter only when there is storm.

In August, the fishers cannot fish in the Mekong when the river level reaches its peak.

Some take a break, and others fish in the villages because water flood the village. They resume fishing and make a lot of catch from September to December. In late March and April, there is so much algae that fishers cannot catch as many fish as possible. During henicorhynchus season, fisher use gillnet and scoop net. People use this type of fish to make prahok and pha-ak. Fishing is productive as normal from January to March. A male participant said, “The best and easiest part of fishing is that we can eat any fish and big fish we want.” (Author’s interview No 24,

August 14, 2015)

In average, five people eat about 2 kilograms of fish per day, and its average price is between 8,000 riels (2 USD) and 13,000 riels (3.25 USD)

Water usage

Nowadays, it is common that people buy water from the water sellers. Amount of water which is equal to one big jar costs 2,500 riels (0.65 USD). And one container, 2,000 liter costs

8,000 riels (2 USD). However, some families have water pump to extract water from the river for their own use, especially those who have pamelo farm and banana farms near their home.

Water pump costs about 40,000 riels (100 USD) and the pipe is between 200,000 (50

USD) and 280,000 riels (70 USD), because the water degrades and is located about 50 and 120 meters from village houses during the dry season.

During the rainy season, people spend less water, because they rely on rain water for cooking and household use. However, there have not been regular and sufficient rains in the past few years. During the dry season, some people prefers to shower in the river and wash their clothes. The good advantage of their geographical location is the fact the river is normally located near the shore in spite of the dry season.

The practice of men carrying water from the river for household use and women washing clothes in the river only existed in the past. Most participants state that people do not use well water because their village is situated in a rocky area which makes it quite hard to dig a well.

Livestock

Local villagers also raise chicken and duck for food and selling during any specific festivals as the price is normally high. A small number of families raise pigs. However, they might prefer to sell them during big festivals such as Pchum Ben, Khmer New Year, or Chinese

New Year because the price is normally high.

Most local residents raise water buffaloes instead of cows in the area. They are used for agricultural purpose, but some might use them to transport timber from the forest. They let them go and eat grass or tree leaves in group during the dry season. Water buffaloes normally go to the river by themselves to stay cold and reduce heat. During the rainy season, they have to tend or be careful when releasing water buffaloes in order to prevent them from eating villagers’ crops.

Spirit house

A spirit house is called Baramey Chan Reangsy. It has existed for a long time. At first, it stationed on a hilly area west of the village. That was no warehouse, but only a big tree there.

Then people moved him near the riverside. Due to riverbank erosion and bombardment, people finally moved him to a location in front of the pagoda, where they celebrate annually.

Offering is normally celebrated after the harvesting season. A spirit house committee goes from house to house connecting donation which reigns from 2,000 riels (0.5 USD) to

10,000 riels (2.5 USD). The money is used for food, rice wine, drink, and areak music. Some family prefers bringing their own unhusked rice, Khmer noodle, and others. Sometimes, families who live each other agree to work together and make Khmer noodle.

The ceremony takes place in the afternoon. Upon making offering, the exorcism is performed. An elderly man or woman is normally chosen and the spirit possesses in his or her body so that villagers can talk directly to the spirit. Some years, villager make sang khoek, a raft made of banana trees, and placed unhusked rice, rice wine, bean, sesame, Khmer noodle, chicken and drink on it. Then they make offering. However, prior to flowing it along the river as a symbol of washing way bad luck, they take chicken and drink out. It is because after the ceremony people, especially those being directly involved in preparing the ceremony, gather around, eat, and drink with others. These days, people prefers having loud music and speaking for dancing.

Village festival

The village festival in Voadthonak Village takes place in the similar forms as those of other villages. However, villagers call it Thngai Ney Samaki, a solidarity day, which means villagers come together and celebrate their solidarity as people who live in the same village. It has never been called Dalien or Village festival. And it is celebrated after the spirit house festival.

Like the spirit house festival, the committee uses the donation money to cover for food, drink, and other necessary items for the ceremony. After the spirit house ceremony, people eat and drink and normally dance together. The following, they invite monks to give prayers and people make offering to the monks, by giving them food, which they cooked, and other items packed together. Usually, the villager make porridge for breakfast for the monks and different dishes of food for lunch before the ceremony is over.

Pagoda and burial site

In 1963, local residents agreed and donated money to build a pagoda and named its

Voadthonak Serey Watanaram Pagoda. Prior to the establishment of this pagoda, there was a wooden dining hall where elderly people went and chanted, particularly on Buddhist holyday.

People celebrate Phcum Ben and Khmer New Year like other places. In addition, the burial site is located behind the Buddhist monastery. People have buried the deceased there.

Khmer citizen make offering at the grave during Khmer New Year, while the Chinese ethnic minority make offering during Ching Ming festival.

Sandan Village

Fishing

Known as the fishing village in the district, Sadan has more than 90 out of 150 families as commercial fishers. The rest are mostly subsistence fisher who use traps hooks, and V-shape next to the river and fish in Sadan Lake behind the village. Some families have more than one boat. As mentioned earlier, trade and especially Sandan Market, located at the district hall area, has become the main driven factor for fishing business.

The commercial fishers normally leave home at 3.00 p.m. and return at 5.00 or 6.00 a.m. to sell their fish in the market. They bring food and tents to cover their boats when it rains. They seek shelter on island where there is big storm. Some travels about 20 or 30 kilometers from their village to Kaoh Khnhaer Village or even up to Kratie-Stung Treng border. Other commercial fishers go fishing downstream as. They are sometimes called the ‘invaders’.

One boat normally comprises of two members. Woman will go and accompany their husband if they do not have to look after small children. If they do not go, they will stay at home and bring fish to sell at market for their husband. The reason for two people is especially for gillnet and cash net, which one person needs to control the boat and another control the fishing gear. During the rainy season, gillnet and scope net are used, while cash net and hooks are used during the dry season. The only two challenging months are August, the highest peak, when commercial fishers turn to fish along the 3 channels, and in Sandan lake and March where alge is the problem.

In average, the commercial fishers make about 60,000 riels (15 USD) from fishing, and subsistence fishers normally just catch enough fish to eat. During the rainy season, labeo chrysophekadion fish is very popular, and fish can make 6,000 (1.5 USD) for 1 kilo of it. If they

93 are lucky and catch hemibagrus wyckioides over 3 kilograms, they can make one kilo 20,000 riels (5 USD). And for the dry season or during the henicorhynchus season, they catch about 20 or 30 kilos, one kilo is 1,600 riels (4 USD). During the dry season, the fish are not expensive during the dry season, only the big fish are expensive.

The subsistence fishers normally go and pick their traps or check their hooks in the evening or morning and pick fish for sale if they catch more than enough. However, they sometimes fish in the lake, especially after they finish working in the rice field or finding grasses for their cattle. The best part is that the lake never dried up, even during the dry season. Fishers normally use hooks, gillnet, and fish traps to catch fish. They never have to worry about having to take a break. They can normally catch 1 or 2 kilo fish to eat at home. During the dry season, some subsistence fishers have to leave the village and do labor work in other areas to find income for their families.

Agriculture

Rice is the main crops. In average, people have about 1 hectare of rice field or less because of the population growth. One female participant said that her paddy is 2 hectares and she received in 30 sacks of rice from harvest if there is not enough water (Author’s interview No

16, on July 8, 2015). However, if there is enough rain, he receives 100 sacks of unhusked rice which she could then sell for some money to save.

Generally, farming starts from June to September or October. About 150 out of about 500 families do farm work in the village. The reasons are two-folds. One, some families have land far away from the village, which needs rainwater. Two, some families have their paddy fields

94 flooded almost every year. Some families who reside near the Sandan Lake could use water pump to get water and do farming, especially during the dry season.

In a recent decade, farmers have suffered from shortage of rainwater. Sometimes, the floods damage their rice field. During the dry season, only small number of farmers grows rice or other crops, especially those living near the water source or Sandan Lake.

Besides rice and other crops, people have their home garden, such as ginger, eggplant, chilly, morning glory and other vegetables for cooking. Unlike the indigenous Kuy village, they do not let, especially cattle go freely and eat other people vegetables or crops. Banana, mango, coconuts, and sugar palm trees are present almost everywhere in the village. Villagers living close to the river do not grow any vegetables or crops along the bank because of land erosion.

Water usage

In the past, the villagers carried water from the river. Gender rule was projected that t mostly men carry water from the river or well for household use. However, water distribution was made available in the village after 2010. Villagers who do not have well or do not want to go to the river can buy water, one containers which costs 2,500 riel (0.60 USD). Some villagers also use well water. However, most participants indicate that well water is insufficient. Only people who near next to the wells use it. Villagers who resides next to the river prefer taking bath and washing clothes in the river, because it helps reduce water consumption in their home.

During the rainy season, people do not buy water often because they have rainwater.

Some families pump water from the river for their household use and their home gardening.

Those living and growing rice around or next Sandan Lake pump water for their rice and crops during the dry season.

Livestock

Local residents raise ducks and mostly chicken at home for food and selling during festival and big ceremonies. For example, 1 kilogram of chicken costs 18,000 riel or 20,000 riels

(5 USD). Growing pigs at the family scale are also becoming popular in the village. Some families raise between 5 and 15 pigs.

People prefer growing buffaloes than cows and using for helping farming, but sometimes, they also sell them. They normally bring water buffaloes to drink water in Sandan

Lake. Villagers are normally caution with their cattle getting stolen because several crimes have been reported in the village.

Pagoda

Sandan Pagoda was established in 1953 but destroyed by bombardment during the Lon

Nol regime. The Khmer Rouge converted to a communal hospital. After the collapse of the

Khmer Rouge, it was rebuilt and currently one of the 5 pagodas in the commune. Nowadays, people celebrate village, Khmer New Year, and Phchum Ben in the pagoda.

Spirit house

There are two spirit houses in the village. The old one is called Ta Keo which people normally make offering. The new one is called Neak Ta Dambang Dek, brought to Sandan

Pagoda in recent years by one of the wealthy woman from Phnom Penh.

As usual, spirit house committee goes and collect donation in preparation for the ceremony. People make donation based on their well-being. The amount rank from 2,000 riels to

1,000 riels. Some families bring unhusked rice and cook food and noodle on their own. The

96 ceremony normally takes place at 3.00 or 4.00 p.m. Villagers gather around the spirit house, and areak music is played when the spirit is called to possess in some selected individual. Villagers ask him questions of what to do for happiness and prosperity and forgiveness.

Sometimes, they are instructed by the spirit to make chaom, a raft made of banana trees.

They place fruits, incent, candle, and some food on chaom and make offering to the spirit house before flowing it away along the river.

Village festival

In Sandan, village festival is called Dalien. It is celebrated with either before or after the spirit house festival. The festival committee collects between 5,000 riels (1.25 USD) and 1,000 riels (2.50 USD) from villagers who do not have sufficient time.

In the mornings, the monks give prayers to followers. People prepare breakfast for the monks. There are several activities, one of which is people making mountain of unhusked rice. In the afternoon, villagers prepare lunch for the monks and donate the prepared items, unhusked rice, and money for the monks. The donation and requirement are pretty much the same as other villages’ ceremonies.

Burial sites

In Sadan Village, there are two burial sites, Trong Tea, used prior to the Khmer Rouge regime, and Yeay Vin, used after the Khmer Rouge regime. During Khmer New Year, people go and make offering at the graves. Some people who have Chinese blood go and make offering during Ching Ming ceremony.

Both burial sides are for public. They are not specifically used by only villagers, but other people who resides in Kratie or other place could come and bury their deceased there, as long as they informed and requested the village chief and especially Buddhism layman.

Comparative upstream-downstream impacts

The socio-economic and cultural practice of each village indicated above helps me understand the significant of the Mekong River, the main reason why their ancestor and themselves have chosen the place, and the cultural practice which associate with the river and what constitute the notion of village life in Cambodian context. It is well-connected to answer my second research question of what will happen to their daily life if the dam is built, and their future plan.

However, it is important to note that any possible impacts of the Sambor Project on the four village mainly rely on the available data and the characteristic of the project. Throughout its development, the Sambor Project has been proposed with many different sites and reservoir capacities as described in detail in Chapter III. At the proposed stage and due to its particularly political sensitivity, it is not unusual that the absence of any official and latest data of the Sambor

Project poses a challenge for the discussion of upstream-downstream impact. For the purpose of this discussion, I agree with Pedersen (2013) which regards MRC’s data and the ICEM (2009) seems to be the most reliable one. The scenario 2,600 MW is the same as what was mentioned in

SEA final report (ICEM, 2010). And its location, - Latitude,12°46’59.4” N and Longitude,

105°57’0.62” E, - (Pedersen, 2013:111) is quite the exact site which local residents described to me during my field work.

To begin with the upstream impact, Kaoh Phdau Village will be severely impacted and mostly be inundated forever. It is located only 6 kilometers away above the proposed site.

Therefore, resettlement might seem inevitable. Local residents have been concerned about their future after witnessing the Chinese engineers conducting studies on the Sambor Dam in approximately 2007. For 6 or 7 years, residents did not renovate or even build new houses for any newlyweds, fearing of relocation. Only recently have they started building new houses in their village, on the belief that the project would not move forward. However, if it did, fishing, the Ecotourism project, farmland, houses, burial site, spirit houses, Buddha dining hall, and others will be gone.

As for the second upstream village, Kaoh Khnhaer is situated about 40 kilometers above the proposed site. The Kuy community is not too far from being at risk. Within the 2,600 MW scenario, Sambor Dam is 18 kilometers long, but its reservoir will increase to 90 kilometers long during the wet season (ICEM, 2010). This will more likely make the Kuy community and their land be a part of the 16,000 hectares of territorial land and more than 19,000 residents to be flooded and evacuated from their villages. Their ancestor island, Kaoh Khnhaer island will be inundated, which causes loss of land and islands for agriculture and hunting. Farmland and crops situated behind the village can potentially flooded through the several canals which connect the

Mekong to the lake and lowland areas.

If the village was not flooded and relocation would not take, still the Kuy indigenous will not be able to fish as they used to. Food security will be a severe problem due to the impacts of fishing. Sambor Dam alone will block 81 percent of the Mekong migration fish. Then it is added by the upstream Don Sahong dam in Laos, which has already been constructed. With high

99 volume of water, no more fishing traps can be placed at the site which they have practiced for so long.

For downstream villages, Sandan is located 13 kilometers below the proposed site. There is no available information on possible resettlement for Sandan residents from most studies, and a majority of them thinks that they will not be relocated. However, direct economic impact will be more severe for Sandan residents than the rest because more than 60 percent are commercial fishers, and the rest of are mostly subsistence fishers and farmers. Many of the commercial fishers do not have any farmland or have sold their farmland to only focus on fishing. The volume of the water released from the reservoir and its seasonality will be crucial for socioeconomic and environmental downstream. If the released water is insufficient to flow through the 3 canals to the back of the village, Sandan Lake, for instance, will perhaps dries up.

Therefore, subsistence fishers cannot even fish in the lake nor have sufficient water for agriculture. If it is too much most of the time, some residents will lose some agricultural land along the canals and at the back of the village. Residents whose houses are closed to the river have relocated and lived far from the riverbank because of countless riverbank erosion.

Therefore, erosion will be another main threat, for especially fishers’ family who residents to the

Mekong.

The last downstream village, Voadthonak, there is no existing studies which point that residents of this village will have to be relocated. Similar to those of Sandan, most residents think that they will not be relocated, because their village is about 12 kilometers below the dam site. Though having limited fishers in the village, 30 subsistence and 15 commercial fishers, residents of Sambor as a whole will suffer indirectly from loss of fish protein. A female participant says there will be no bigger and affordable fish or just fish for us to consume from

100

Sandan Village and our local fishers when the dam is built (Author’s interview No 25, August

15, 2015). The pamelo fruits and nearby crops will be as severely impacted as the above villages.

However, if the volume and flow of water released from the reservoir changes dramatically, it will impact crops near the canals connected from the Mekong River.

Awareness, knowledge of the dam, and future plan

To understand the future plan of residents if the dam construction will take place, it is imperative that I have to look into the awareness of local resident and their knowledge of the dam, which influence the future decision or perceptions toward the development of Sambor. This is mainly because the discussion of Sambor has been made widely available. One, it remains politically sensitive and two, NGOs have been done any active role informing the local residents about the future of Sambor Project, although they have done campaign against construction of

Laotian dams. In addition, they have done lots of work in combating illegal fishing and preservation of the rich biodiversity of the Mekong in the area, especially the Mekong dolphin and landscape project for tourism, by the WWF and other related partners. As for from the two government representatives, I only learn that the project is being evaluated with the new design by the NHI to reduce the environmental impacts, and that they do not have any EIA documents nor are certain of its current development.

Reportedly, in October 2006, the CSG company signed the MoU with the Government of

Cambodia to conduct the feasibility of Sambor Dam. This decision was made available through local news and radio accordingly. During my field work in Sambor District and especially through avoiding any leading questions about their awareness and future plan, I learned through

101 their responses that the local residents became aware of the feasibility study of Sambor Dam through two forms, 1) witnessing the Chinese engineer at the study site and 2) word of mouth.

Among the 24 villagers interviewed for this study, 50 percent states that they witnessed the Chinese company and engineers working at the site in Sambor Commune, Sambor District,

Kratie Province. Among those witnesses, 77 percent is male, and 23 percent is female. Most of them confirm that the study might have taken place in 2007. They went and visited the site due to their curiosity and personal business which required them to travel pass the area.

To be more specific, residents in Kaoh Phdau Village could easily witness the engineer’s activities than the rest because of two reasons. First, their village is located close to the site where the Chinese company was conducting study. Second, they have to go to Sandan Market to either buy equipment or food for tourists or medical treatment in Sambor District Town.

As for word of mouth, 42 percent of the participants learn about the Chinese company doing construction in Sambor town. Among them, 45 percent is male and 55 percent is female.

There is no huge gap in term of awareness between men and women. Noticeably, the Kuy indigenous housewives from upstream, Kaoh Khnhaer Village, rarely come to Sambor, and the fishers there no go fishing downstream in Sandan. As for the two downstream villages – Sandan and Voadthonak Village – fishers all know and witness the site, except some female participants who are housewives.

Interestingly, all participants point that there have been no official notification, discussion, and meeting organized by NGOs or state to specifically address the development of

Sambor Project before and after the feasibility study of the Chinese company. This is perhaps due to its political sensitivity. And only two participants become aware that the dam will not block the entire river. Most participants and other local residents, on the other hand, are well-

102 aware that Don Sahong Dam is being constructed in Laos. Through communication with various

NGOs, I learned that they have organized meeting and talked about village and commune chiefs of collecting thumbprint to petition against that mainstream dam, not far from Cambodia, because of its tremendous downstream impacts. As mentioned in the previous chapter, there have even public campaigns against Don Sahong Dam. And all of them joined and thumbprinted on the petition in order resist and preserve their collective resource, the Mekong River.

In term of the knowledge of dam and its impacts, on the other hand, a majority of participants are aware of some basic impacts of large dam. The most common knowledge are the facts that mainstream will change water current and have negative impacts on fishing. Upstream villagers state that their villages can be flooded, and fishing will be no longer productive because water is everywhere. Downstream villagers note that they are afraid of unexpected release of water from reservoir and irregular change of water current, which impacts their fishing activities.

As natural flow of water during rainy and dry season will be changed, the participants state that their crops will also be impacted. That is why, there is a big concern of dealing with a new way of food security and ways for survival in the village. Examples of the participant’s statements are as follow.

Statements from an upstream Kaoh Khnhaer Villager are as follow.

“When the dam is built, we will no longer have dry season and rainy season in our Mekong River’s area. I am certain that they will not be as many fish as now ever. And if there is lots of water, we cannot grow anything. Water will increase more during the flooding season. I do think the level of water is always high, and it will go nowhere. (Author’s interview No 19, August 13, 2015)

103

Another male participant from downstream Sandan Village points:

“The fish could not move up and down this area. People used to eat fish, because fish is a lot easier to eat than pork and chicken. We can eat pork and chicken for only a few days. It is different from eating fish. We can eat fish every day.” (Author’s interview No 13, July 8, 2015)

Among all participants, 27 percent of the participant attends training organized by mostly

NGOs and the training normally takes place in Kratie town. Among them, 28 percent is female and 73 percent is male. They seem to have a broader understanding about the positive and negative impacts of the dam than those who learn from hearsay. Their gained knowledge from the meeting include decrease fish population, blockage of fish migration, change of water current, possible and unexpected flooding downstream, destruction of the ecosystem and biodiversity of the Mekong, especially absolute the disappearance of Mekong Dolphin, and possible relocations. Two participants clearly indicate examples from the impacts of Yali Dam in

Vietnam on Cambodia, and Kamchay Dam in Kampot Province on downstream residents in

Cambodia. Interesting, a male participant state development of Sambor Dam might bring electricity and provide job to local residents, especially those involved in construction (Author’s interview No 29, August 17, 2015). However, he cautions of possible pollution cause on downstream residents.

On the positive side, all of them are aware of the electricity output of the dam. However, only two participants provide pro-dam opinions about Sambor. One male participant states that when the dam is complete, life will be a lot better with cheap and 24-hour electricity (Author’s interview No 14, July 8, 2015). He adds that it will be easy to catch fish when there is less water below the reservoir. Another male participant who, of course, knows about the impacts, but provides his enthusiastic opinion as follow:

104

“My thought about that dam development is part of the plans to develop the nation. However, it is also important for the people. Speaking of the environment, it will affect fish, dolphin, and biodiversity. However, development is universal, and if we do not make it, we cannot be civilized like other developed nations. There will be impacts, but there are also solutions. When one thing gets broken, we will be able to fix and replace it with another one. For example, there are no fish in the river, so then we can have fish farm. We do not have dolphin for international tourists, and people can no longer see them, but we earn something back.” (Author’s interview No 26, August 16, 2015)

In term of their future plan, the participants in Kaoh Khnhaer Village note that they do not have any plan to leave their village, in spite of highly expecting and worrying that their original settlement, the island, will be flooded. Only one participant expresses concern about possible relocation. The rest does not because of two reasons. One, their village is located quite far from the dam. Two, if their village is flooded, the entire commune and highway will be all inundated too.

Unlike those of other villages, the participants in Kaoh Phdau Village will take activist approach and indicate they will petition against the construction of the Sambor Dam, if officially approved. They do not want to leave their village. All of them believe that the long-term benefits of the rich biodiversity and ecosystem on the Kratie’s Mekong River, especially ecotourism with regard to the Mekong dolphins will outweigh the benefits from the dam. One male participant says,

We do not have any other plans, besides requesting people here and the whole province to oppose the construction of the dam. We will petition against the construction of the dam. Every day, people want to see the dolphin. Local people across the country want to see the fish too. People in my village get some money because they stay here. It will have lots of negative impacts on the environment. (Author’s interview No 08, July 7, 2015)

105

In term of the future, another important aspect of their concerns is about future reparation. Though settling and benefiting from unfertilized and sandy soil, residents of Kaoh

Phdau are very concerned they would not receive the same amount of land and have all the things they used to have in the village. They further that it is hard to find unoccupied land near the Mekong where they are very familiar with the surrounding environment.

In Sandan Village, the participants all are quite concerned about the future impacts on their local livelihood, particularly fishing, except one gentleman who believe that dam will greatly bring both increase of fish and cheap electricity. Interestingly, only one person expresses concern about possible relocation, but cannot think of elsewhere to go due to economic condition. And only this person stresses that he will petition against the possible construction.

The rest has no plan to move out of the village because they believe they are located far from the village.

In Voadthonak Village, there are many similar expressions like those of Sandan Village.

All participants say that they do not want or plan to leave their village, because at least three generations of their family members have settled and enjoyed the rich natural resources in the area. Although a majority of local residents are farmers, especially pamelo fruit growers, and involved in small-scale timber trade, the Mekong is so important for them. A female participant says that her family will not be able to buy big and cheap fish to eat daily because fish population will be gone when the dam is built (Author’s interview No 23, August 14, 2015). One female participant says she is quite concerned about possible relocation and will petition against the construction. Whereas a male participant who supports the development says if eventually approved, he will leave the village.

106

Chapter VI

Conclusion

Significance of the research

This study provides three main contributions. First, the study contributes to the broader understanding of the political, economic and cultural dimensions of human-environment interactions, notably those resultant from the possible future of the construction of large-scale hydroelectric dams. Second, more narrowly, this study adds to the existing literature on political ecology - the environmental change in Cambodia, especially on large dam and roles of involved actors in this project. Heretofore, much scholarship has addressed political and economic issues in Cambodia; very limited studies have examined the impact of proposed dams at the grassroots

(village) level in term of its socioeconomic and cultural impacts. Third, this study raises awareness to the vulnerability of people impacted by the proposed dam and may better inform international stakeholders, for example ADB, World Bank, and others to provide logistic and political support any forms of critical studies on biodiversity impacts and long term plans for future of Sambor Project and especially the Cambodian government of potentially deleterious impacts of the dam. Drawing with from the examples of socioeconomic and cultural impacts, my study conforms to, and aligns with, present calls for more participatory governance and various institutions in the planning and implementation of the Sambor Dam. The study brings local knowledge, their understanding of the large dam, and particularly the concerns to the public

107 audience, academic, and international and local NGOs as well the Cambodian through future publication.

Summary of main findings

The Sambor Project has been through countless development processes, from the 1950s to the present days. The main actors involve include foreign nations such as Japan, Australia,

America, Canada, and France, and international agencies UNDP, USAID, and World Bank.

Political instability, regime change, civil war, and insufficient investment have prevented this ambitious process from happening. The main arguments were to increase economic growth and also stop the spread of communism in the regime.

Through the next stage, actors such some NGOs and international agencies have played anti-role against the construction, stressing on environmental impacts on the rich biodiversity of the Mekong and most importantly on millions of lives residents along the river. On the other hand, local government see it as opportunity to boost economic growth and development for the poor nations when the MRC is heavily criticized its inactive in promoting sustainable development along the Mekong.

Sambor has been aimed to increase economic growth, generate electricity to Cambodia and neighboring countries, control the Mekong flood, facilitate navigation, and expand agricultural activities. On the other hand, anti-dam movement from local and international

NGOs, scholars, and activists point out the tremendous impacts on sediment flow, destruction of rich biodiversity of the Mekong, and mostly fish and agricultural products of millions of

Cambodians and Vietnam who entirely rely on fishing and agricultural activities. This has been an ongoing debate. That is why, the characteristics of Sambor have been changed respectively,

108 such as 460 MW, 465 MW, 500 MW, 875 MW, 2,600 MW and 3,300 MW and several proposed sites.

However, the fact is that the Mekong River is under duress. Through various studies, countless development of Chinese mainstream dams in Lancang have caused tremendous downstream impacts. Bordering Cambodia, Lao PDR has proceeded to go for many dams’ projects and most importantly the mainstream ones, Xayaburi and Don Sahong Dams. This leaves Cambodia to face two biggest challenges. One, the country lacks sufficient electricity to keep pace with the economic growth. The electricity is the most expensive one in the region and perhaps around the world. Two, Don Sahong Dam, only 2 kilometers from the Cambodian border, has been underway. Surprisingly, the Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen signaled Lao

PDR to go ahead with Don Sahong because it would have no impacts on Cambodia (Sokheng and Maza, 2016 November 24).

In its latest development, Sambor Project has been first invested by China companies – by SCG and SGC. Then it has recently been reported that one of the wealthiest Cambodian tycoon, whose company already had a stake in the 400-MW Lower Sesan II dam in Stung Treng

Province, signed another MoU with MME to thoroughly conduct pre-feasibility, feasibility, and social environmental impacts assessments of the 3 dams in Cambodia (Peter and Sokhean, 2017

February 3). One of them is Sambor with the capacity of 2,600 MW.

Through archival research, site observation, and especially interview with the local residents, the study shed light on the village and fill in gaps of the previous studies. It finds residents of each village suffering with the socioeconomic and cultural impacts at both similar and quite different levels due to its geographical location and the socioeconomic factors.

However, in general, it is obvious that residents of the four selected villages have long settled

109 and enjoyed their lives as the ‘rivers’. They have shown resilience of resisting to live in their village. Historically, their villages were under US bombardment during the civil, but they remained there. Although forcibly relocated from villages by the Khmer Rouge, they all returned and started new life after 1979. With the recent environmental degradation and decrease of fish population which they mostly blamed population growth and illegal fishing through prohibited tools and laying-egg season, they could manage to survive and continue to enjoy life, especially from the Mekong River.

As for the upstream-down comparative study, it is clear that if Sambor were to be officially approved on the current proposed site, Kaoh Phdau Village will most likely be submerged into the reservoir storage. All the cultural sites and socioeconomic activities in the village will gone. The entire village will be gone, and people will have no choice but to move out and keep worrying about the future compensation. And for the Kuy indigenous village, Kaoh

Khnhaer, it is more likely that their island will be under the reservoir storage capacity, especially during the wet season. It is possible that their inland village can be flooded too; therefore, relocation might take place. However, if it did not take place, they will not be able to fish as they have done before ever. The Mekong will be too deep to put traps, and no more fish settling and laying eggs there because of the blockage of the dam and the geological changes of the terrain there. It is much anticipated that that the back of the village will be flooded, leaving farmers to lose some plots of land near the canals. The Kuy indigenous groups will lose income from hunting, fishing, and the intensive and productive agricultural land on the island.

As for downstream, residents of Sandan might suffer greatly because most of them are professional fishers. Though one male participant believes that he will be able to catch fish easily because the volume of water is normally low downstream, it is not the case. Particularly

110 commercials fishers will not find any productive fishing place as of Sambor District. Due to the absence of available data, it is uncertain whether they will suffer from changes of water current, especially through canals which connects to the Sandan lake and nearby fields of the village.

And for Voadthonak Village, residents will suffer indirectly from shortage of fish protein. The village is on higher elevation, but it is possible that they could face with change of water current and possible on agriculture along the canals which connect from the Mekong River.

For future plan, the residents of Kaoh Phdau Village will petition against the construction and try to resist until the final stage, the technique which they have practiced against the construction of dams in Lao PDR and training or workshop. As for the future displacement, they are really concerned with the given reparation, especially places near the Mekong River because all, they believe, have been occupied. For upstream villages, it was reported that some villagers have cleared lands at the hill and prepare for future relocation. Residents of Kuy village in particular expanded more agricultural land along the way to the highway, because they do not believe that Sambor will flood the highway. Interestingly, only some participants from the rest of the village indicated that they would petition against the construction and are worried about relocation. The rest is skeptic about relocation because they have never been notified or heard about the complete information with regard to the possible relocation due to Sambor Project.

Limitations

There are several limitations for this study. First, the concepts of culture and socioeconomic impacts are broad. To cover all of them in one study is entirely impossible. For example, the basic elements of village which represents culture are more than just pagoda, burial site, individual resident’s home, village festival and spirit houses. Similarly, socio-economic is

111 too much to cover all than what I touched upon. Therefore, there should be specific case study focusing on for example, tourism in Sambor.

Second, there is limited data available for the study. The most important one is the environmental impact assessments conducted by the Chinese companies and, if possible, the most recent one conducted by the NHI, which has been made public. The political sensitivity of this topic overwhelmingly make it hard for me to not only obtain documents but also find people who could talk freely and openly about such development, especially from the government side.

Lastly, the impacts scope of large dam is huge. Some specific topics include water pollution, disease, reduce of sediment, and specifically hydrological changes between the flow of the Mekong River to the Tonle Sap.

112

REFERENCES

ADB, (2012). Rural Development for Cambodia Key Issues and Constraints. Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Adamson, P. T., Rutherfurd, I. D., Peel, M. C., & Conlan, I. A. (2009). The hydrology of the Mekong River. In (Ed) The hydrology of the Mekong River. The hydrology of the Mekong River. (pp. 53-76). New York: Elsevier

Baghel, R., & Nüsser, M. (2010). Discussing large dams in Asia after the World Commission on Dams: Is a political ecology approach the way forward?. Water Alternatives, 3(2), 231

Bakker, K. (1999). The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong. Political Geography, 18(2), 209-232.

Bakker, K. J. (2003). A political ecology of water privatization. Studies in Political Economy, 70.

Baird I. G. (2009). Best practices in compensation and resettlement for large dams: The case of the planned lower Sesan 2 hydropower project in northeastern Cambodia. The River Coalition in Cambodia, Phnom Penh: Cambodia

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.

Baran, E. (2005). Cambodian inland fisheries: facts, figures and context (Vol. 1751). Malaysia: WorldFish.

Baran, E., Larinier, M., Ziv, G., & Marmulla, G. (2011). Review of the fish and fisheries aspects in the feasibility study and the environmental impact assessment of the proposed Xayaburi dam on the Mekong mainstream. Report prepared for the WWF Greater Mekong (www. panda. org/greater Mekong).

Barlow, C., Baran, E., Halls, A. S., & Kshatriya, M. (2008). How much of the Mekong fish catch is at risk from mainstream dam? Catch and Culture, 14(3).

Barron, L. (2014, June 19). NGO says work on Don Sahong dam under way. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/ngo-says-work-don- sahong-dam-under-way

Bell, M. G. (2015). Historical Political Ecology of Water: Access to Municipal Drinking Water in Colonial Lima, Peru (1578–1700). The Professional Geographer, 67(4), 504-526.

Bertrand, D. (2001). The Names and Identities of the" Boramey" Spirits Possessing Cambodian Mediums. Asian folklore studies, 31-47.

113

Bezuijen, M., Zanre, R., & Goichot, M. (2007). The Don Sahong dam and the Irrawaddy dolphin. Vientiane: WWF

Bezuijen, M. R., R. Timmins and, T. Seng, editors. 2008. Biological surveys of the Mekong River between Kratie and Stung Treng Towns, northeast Cambodia, 2006- 2007.WWF Greater Mekong - Cambodia Country Programme, Cambodia Fisheries Administration and Cambodia Forestry Administration, Phnom Penh.

Boer, B., Hirsch, P., Johns, F., Saul, B., & Scurrah, N. (2015). The Mekong: A Socio-legal Approach to River Basin Development. New York: Routledge.

Brown, P. H., & Xu, K. (2010). Hydropower development and resettlement policy on China's Nu River. Journal of Contemporary China, 19(66), 777-797.

Bryant, R. L., & Bailey, S. (1997). Third world political ecology. London: Routledge

CDRI, (2008). Framing research on water resources management and governance in Cambodia: A literature review. Working Paper 37, Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute.

Cosslett, T. L., & Cosslett, P. D. (2014). Water Resources and Food Security in the Vietnam Mekong Delta. New York: Springer International Publishing.

Chacko, E. (2004). Positionality and praxis: fieldwork experiences in rural India. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(1), 51-63.

Chandara., L (2000, March 22). Malaysian Study Will Gauge Feasibility of Mekong Dam. The Cambodia Daily. Retrieved from https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/malaysian- study-will-gauge-feasibility-of-mekong-dam-15839/

Chen, L. (2008). Contradictions in Dam Building in Yunnan, China Cultural Impacts versus Economic Growth. China Report, 44(2), 97-110.

Dao, N. (2010). Dam development in Vietnam: The evolution of dam-induced resettlement policy. Water Alternatives, 3(2), 324.

Dugan, P. J., Barlow, C., Agostinho, A. A., Baran, E., Cada, G. F., Chen, D., ... & Marmulla, G. (2010). Fish migration, dams, and loss of ecosystem services in the Mekong basin. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 39(4), 344-348.

FOA (2014). Country fact sheet on food and agriculture policy trends. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/009/i3761e/i3761e.pdf

114

Forsyth, T. (2004). Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science. New York: Routledge.

Fu, K. D., He, D. M., & Lu, X. X. (2008). Sedimentation in the Manwan reservoir in the Upper Mekong and its downstream impacts. Quaternary International, 186(1), 91-99.

Gezon, L. L. (1997). Political ecology and conflict in Ankarana, Madagascar. Ethnology, 85- 100.

Glasson, J. (2009). Socio-economic impacts 1: overview and economic impacts. In Morris, P & Therivel R. (Eds). Methods of environmental impact assessment, (P22-50). New York: Routledge

Grainger, M. (1996, February 9). Donors offer to fund three dams in Cambodia. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/donors-offer-fund- three-dams-cambodia

Grainger, M. (1996, March 8). "Water is our gold" - the battle of words begins. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/water-our-gold- battle-words-begins

Grainger, M. (1996, March 22). Government signals need to study hydro options now. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/government-signals-need-study-hydro-options- now

Grimsditch, M. (2012). China’s investments in hydropower in the Mekong region: The Kamchay hydropower dam, Kampot, Cambodia. Washington DC: Bank Information Center.

Grumbine, R. E., Dore, J., & Xu, J. (2012). Mekong hydropower: drivers of change and governance challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(2), 91-98.

Gupta, A. (2009). Geology and landforms of the Mekong Basin. In: Campbell. I.C.(Ed). The Mekong. Biophysical environment of an international river basin (pp 29–52). New York: Elsevier

Ha, M. L. (2011). The role of regional institutions in sustainable development: a review of the Mekong River Commission’s First 15 Years. Cons J Sustain Dev, 5(1), 125-140.

Habich, S. (2015). Dams, Migration and Authoritarianism in China: The Local State in Yunnan. New York: Routledge.

115

Ham, K., Hay, S., & Sok, T. (2014). The Politics of Lower Se San 2 Dam in Cambodia. In Matthews, N., & Geheb, K. (Ed), Hydropower Development in the Mekong Region: Political, Socio-economic and Environmental Perspectives. (pp.153-172)

Hansen, A. R. (2007). How to behave: Buddhism and modernity in colonial Cambodia, 1860- 1930. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Harris, I. (2008). Cambodian Buddhism: history and practice. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Hensengerth, O. (2015). Where is the power? Transnational networks, authority and the dispute over the Xayaburi Dam on the Lower Mekong Mainstream. Water International, 40(5-6), 911-928.

Hirsch, P. (2011). China and the cascading geopolitics of lower Mekong dams. The Asia-Pacific Journal, 9(20), 1-5.

Hirsch, P., & Wyatt, A. (2004). Negotiating local livelihoods: Scales of conflict in the Se San River Basin. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 45(1), 51-68.

Hori, H. (2000). The Mekong: environment and development. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Hori, M., Ishikawa, S., Heng, P., Thay, S., Ly, V., Nao, T., & Kurokura, H. (2006). Role of small‐scale fishing in Kompong Thom Province, Cambodia. Fisheries Science, 72(4), 846-854.

Hortle, K.G., (2009), Fisheries of the Mekong River Basin. In Campbell, I.C., (Ed)., The Mekong—Biophysical environment of an international river basin (p. 197–247.) New York: Elsevier.

Hudson-Rodd, N., & Shaw, B. J. (2003). Mekong river development: Whose dreams? Which visions?. Water International, 28(2), 268-275.

ICEM, (2010a), MRC Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of hydropower on the Mekong mainstream. International Center for Environmental Management, Hanoi Hanoi: Vietnam

Jackson, S., & Sleigh, A. C. (2001). The political economy and socio‐economic impact of China's three Gorges dam. Asian studies review, 25(1), 57-72.

Le Billon, P. (2001). The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts. Political geography, 20(5), 561-584.

116

Li, S., & He, D. (2008). Water level response to hydropower development in the Upper Mekong River. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment,37(3), 170-176.

Li, J., Dong, S., Yang, Z., Peng, M., Liu, S., & Li, X. (2012). Effects of cascade hydropower dams on the structure and distribution of riparian and upland vegetation along the middle- lower Lancang-Mekong River. Forest Ecology and Management, 284, 251-259.

Jacobs, J. W. (1995). Mekong Committee history and lessons for river basin development. The Geographical Journal, 135-148

Jacobs, J. W. (2002). The Mekong River Commission: transboundary water resources planning and regional security. The Geographical Journal, 168(4), 354-364.

Jenkins, D. (1968). The Lower Mekong Scheme. Asian Survey, 8(6), 456-464.

Jusi, S. (2006). The Asian Development Bank and the case study of the Theun-Hinboun hydropower project in Lao PDR. Water policy, 8(5), 371-394.

Lyu, X. (2015) From Manwan to Nuozhadu: the political ecology of hydropower on China’s Lançang Jiang. In Matthews, N., & Geheb, K. (Eds). Hydropower development in the Mekong Region: Political, socio-economic and environmental perspectives. (P.54-83). New York: Routledge.

Lawrence, S. (2009). The Nam Theun 2 controversy and its lessons for Laos. In Molle, F., Foran, T., & Kakonen, M.(Eds). In Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region: Hydropower, livelihoods and governance. London: Earthscan

Katz, C. (1994). Playing the field: questions of fieldwork in geography. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 67-72.

Kondolf, G. M., Rubin, Z. K., & Minear, J. T. (2014). Dams on the Mekong: Cumulative sediment starvation. Water Resources Research, 50(6), 5158-5169.

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.

Lei, Z. (2012). Greater Mekong subregion cooperation in hydropower development and power interconnection: potentials, Challenges, and progress. In De Jong, W (Ed.), Transborder governance of forests, rivers and seas (Ed). Routledge, 2012.

Loftus, A. J., & McDonald, D. A. (2001). Of liquid dreams: a political ecology of water privatization in Buenos Aires. Environment and Urbanization, 13(2), 179-199

117

Magee, D., & Kelley, S. (2009). Damming the Salween river. (Ed) Contested waterscapes in the Mekong Region: Hydropower, livelihoods and governance, 115-142.

Marston, J. A., & Guthrie, E. (2004). History, Buddhism, and new religious movements in Cambodia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

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.

MoE & UNDP (2013). Human development report 2011; Building Resilience: The Future of Rural Livelihoods in the Face of Climate Change. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Environment and he United Nations Development Program. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/cambodia_2011_nhdr.pdf

MRC, (1994). Mekong Mainstream Run-of-river Hydropower. Mekong Secretariat.

MRC (Mekong River Commission). (2010). State of the basin report 2010. Vientiane, Laos: MRC.

MRC, (Mekong River Commission). (2011). Basin Development Plan Progamme. Planning Atlas of the Lower Mekong River Basin. Vientiane, Laos: MRC

MRC, (Mekong River Commission). (2013). Mekong Basin Planning the Story Behind the Basin Development Plan. Vientiane, Laos: MRC

Mark R. Bezuijen., & Bunna V. (2009). Settlement and resource use in the “Central Section” In Bezuijen, M. R., Timmins, R., & Seng, T. (Ed.). Biological surveys of the Mekong River between Kratie and Stung Treng towns, northeast Cambodia, 2006-2007. WWF Greater Mekong, Cambodia

Matthews, N., & Geheb, K. (2014). Hydropower development in the Mekong Region: Political, socio-economic and environmental perspectives. New York: Routledge.

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.

Middleton, C., Garcia, J., & Foran, T. (2009). Old and new hydropower players in the Mekong region: Agendas and strategies. Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region: Hydropower, livelihoods and governance, 23-54.

Mitchell, D. (1995). There's no such thing as culture: towards a reconceptualization of the idea of culture in geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 102-116.

118

Molle, F., Foran, T., & Flock, P. (2014). Introduction: changing waterscapes in the Mekong region e historical background and context,” In (Ed). Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region: hydropower, Livelihoods and governance. London: Earthscan

Mund, J. P. (2011). The agricultural sector in Cambodia: Trends, processes and disparities. Pacific News, 35, 10-14.

NGO Forum (2012). Mekong River-Dependent Livelihoods: The Sambor Baseline Survey. Phnom Penh: NGO Forum

NHI (Natural Heritage Institute). (2013). A Climate Resilient Mekong: Technical Memorandum on Options for Sediment Passage through Sambor dam. Natural heritage international Retrieved from http://n-h-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Technical_Memo_Sediment- Mgmt_Sambor_Annandale_2013.pdf

O’Lemmon, M. (2014). Spirit cults and Buddhist practice in Kep province, Cambodia. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 45(01), 25-49.

Orr, S., Pittock, J., Chapagain, A., & Dumaresq, D. (2012). Dams on the Mekong River: Lost fish protein and the implications for land and water resources. Global Environmental Change, 22(4), 925-932.

Osborne, M. (2007). The water politics of China and Southeast Asia: Rivers, dams, cargo boats and the environment. Japan Focus.

Pedersen, L.J., (2013). The Climate Effect of Land Use Changes Related to Hydroelectric Development: Developing a method for discussing good site selection of hydropower dams (Master thesis) Retrieved from http://rudar.ruc.dk:8080/handle/1800/10490

Peter, Z., & Sokhean, B., (2017, February 3). Kith Meng Backs Plans for Three Hydropower Dams. The Cambodia Daily. Retrieved from https://www.cambodiadaily.com/morenews/kith-meng-backs-plans-for-three- hydropower-dams-124528/

Pheap. A., & Henderson. S,. (2014, March 31). Opposition Grows to Laos’ Mega Dams Ahead of Summit. The Cambodia Daily. Retrieved from https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/opposition-grows-to-laos-mega-dams-ahead- of-summit-55246/

Phnom Penh Post (2000, June 23). Spirit houses enshrine pre-Buddhist beliefs. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/spirit-houses- enshrine-pre-buddhist-beliefs

119

Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of environmental management, 91(8), 1766-1777.

Ritchie, J. (2003). The applications of qualitative methods to social research. In Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 24-46.

Robbins, P. (2011). Political ecology: A critical introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B., & Wangari, E. (2013). Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experience. New York: Routledge.

Rodgers, M., E. Nash, G. Blate, G. Congdon, and G.E. Ryan. (2012). Resilience on the Mekong: a vulnerability and adaptation assessment in North-East Cambodia. WWF- Cambodia Technical Report, WWF Cambodia, Phnom Penh

Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in human geography, 21(3), 305-320.

Sarkkula, J., Baran, E., Chheng, P., Keskinen, M., Koponen, J., & Kummu, M. (2005). Tonle Sap pulsing system and fisheries productivity. Verh Internat Verein Limnol, 29, 1099- 1102.

Seangly, P. (2014 March 31). Hundreds protest Laos dam. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/hundreds-protest-laos-dam

Sewell, W. D. (1968). The Mekong scheme: guideline for a solution to Strife in Southeast Asia. Asian Survey, 448-455.

Scudder, T. T. (2012). The Future of Large Dams:" Dealing with Social, Environmental, Institutional and Political Costs". London: Cromwell

Siciliano, G., Urban, F., Tan-Mullins, M., Pichdara, L., & Kim, S. (2016). The Political Ecology of Chinese Large Dams in Cambodia: Implications, Challenges and Lessons Learnt from the Kamchay Dam. Water, 8(9), 405.

Sokheng, V., & Maza, C., (2016 November 24). Don Sahong dam ‘no problem’, says premier. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/don- sahong-dam-no-problem-says-premier

Sovacool, B. K., & Valentine, S. V. (2011). Bending bamboo: restructuring rural electrification in Sarawak, Malaysia. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(3), 240-253.

120

Stone, R. (2011). Mayhem on the Mekong. Science, 333(6044), 814-818.

Suhardiman, D., Giordano, M., & Molle, F. (2012). Scalar disconnect: The logic of transboundary water governance in the Mekong. Society & Natural Resources, 25(6), 572-586.

Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An international journal for critical geographies, 6(3), 374-385.

Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Power, nature, and the city. The conquest of water and the political ecology of urbanization in Guayaquil, Ecuador: 1880–1990.Environment and planning A, 29(2), 311-332.

The International River (2011). The Xayaburi Dam: A looming threat to the Mekong River. Retrieved from https://www.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/files/attached-files/the_xayaburi_dam_eng.pdf

The International River (2013). Lancang River Dams: Threatening the Flow of the Lower Mekong. Berkley: The International River Retrieved from https://www.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/files/attached- files/ir_lacang_dams_2013_5.pdf

Tilt, B. (2014). Dams and Development in China: The Moral Economy of Water and Power. New York: Columbia University Press

Valbo-Jorgensen, J., Coates, D., & Hortle, K. G. (2009). Fish diversity in the Mekong River basin. In (Ed) The Mekong: Biophysical Environment of an International River Basin, (P.161-196). Amsterdam: Elsevier

Van Dyk, G. A. J., & De Kock, F. S. (2004). The relevance of the individualism-collectivism (IC) factor for the management of diversity in the South African national defence force. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(2), 90-95.

Virtanen, M. (2006). Foreign direct investment and hydropower in Lao PDR: The Theun‐Hinboun hydropower project. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(4), 183-193.

Vandergeest, P. (2003). Land to some tillers: development‐induced displacement in Laos. International Social Science Journal, 55(175), 47-56.

Xue, Z., Liu, J.P., & Ge, Q. (2010). Changes in hydrology and sediment delivery of the Mekong River in the last 50 years: connection to damming, monsoon, and ENSO. Earth Surface Process and Landforms. 36:296-308

121

Yasuda, Y. (2015). Rules, norms and NGO advocacy strategies: Hydropower development on the Mekong River. New York: Routledge.

Walker, P. A. (2005). Political ecology: where is the ecology. Progress in Human Geography, 29(1), 73-82.

Wallengren, M. & Grainger, M. (1995, October 20). Mekong "shopping list" up for grabs next month. The Phnom Penh Post. Retrieved from http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/mekong-shopping-list-grabs-next- month

Wang, P., Wolf, S. A., Lassoie, J. P., & Dong, S. (2013). Compensation policy for displacement caused by dam construction in China: An institutional analysis. Geoforum, 48, 1-9.

Weatherbee, D. E. (1997). Cooperation and conflict in the Mekong River Basin. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 20(2), 167-184.

Wei, G., Yang, Z., Cui, B., Li, B., Chen, H., Bai, J., & Dong, S. (2009). Impact of dam construction on water quality and water self-purification capacity of the Lancang River, China. Water resources management, 23(9), 1763-1780.

Wild, T. B., & Loucks, D. P. (2015). Mitigating dam conflicts in the Mekong River Basin. In (Ed). Conflict Resolution in Water Resources and Environmental Management (pp. 25-48). Gewerbestrasse: Springer International Publishing.

Zhao, Q., Liu, S., Deng, L., Dong, S., Yang, Z., & Liu, Q. (2013). Determining the influencing distance of dam construction and reservoir impoundment on land use: A case study of Manwan Dam, Lancang River. Ecological Engineering, 53, 235-242.

Zimmerer, K. S., & Bassett, T. J. (Eds.). (2003). Political ecology: an integrative approach to geography and environment-development studies. Guilford Press

Ziv, G., Baran, E., Nam, S., Rodríguez-Iturbe, I., & Levin, S. A. (2012). Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(15), 5609-5614.

Zhang, Y., He, D., Lu, Y., Feng, Y., & Reznick, J. (2013). The influence of large dams building on resettlement in the Upper Mekong River. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 23(5), 947-957.

122

APPENDICES

List of interviews the author conducted for the research study

01. Author’s interview No 01 with male participant in Kaoh Phdau Village, Kampong Cham Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on June 21, 2015. 02. Author’s interview No 02 with male participant from Sandan Village, Sandan Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on June 21, 2015. 03. Author’s interview No 03 with female participant in Kaoh Khnhaer Village, Ou Krieng Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on June 22, 2015. 04. Author’s interview No 04 with male participant in Kaoh Khnhaer Village, Ou Krieng Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on June 22, 2015. 05. Author’s interview No 05 with female NGO forum NGO, Phnom Penh, dated on July 3, 2015. 06. Author’s interview No 06 with male staff of NRD, Phnom Penh, dated on July 3, 2015. 07. Author’s interview No 07 with female staff of WWF Organization, dated on July 3, 2015. 08. Author’s interview No 08 with male participant in Kaoh Phdau Village, Kampong Cham Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 7, 2015. 09. Author’s interview No 09 with female participant in Kaoh Phdau Village, Kampong Cham Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 7, 2015. 10. Author’s interview No 10 with male participant in Kaoh Phdau Village, Kampong Cham Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 7, 2015. 11. Author’s interview No 11 with male participant in Kaoh Phdau Village, Kampong Cham Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 7, 2015. 12. Author’s interview No 12 with female participant in Kaoh Phdau Village, Kampong Cham Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 7, 2015. 13. Author’s interview No 13 with male participant in Sandan Village, Sandan Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 8, 2015 14. Author’s interview No 14 with male participant in Sandan Village, Sandan Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 8, 2015.

123

15. Author’s interview No 15with male participant in Sandan Village, Sandan Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 8, 2015. 16. Author’s interview No 16 with female participant in Sandan Village, Sandan Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 8, 2015. 17. Author’s interview No 17 with female participant in Sandan Village, Sandan Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on July 8, 2015. 18. Author’s interview No 18 with female participant in Kaoh Khnhaer Village, Ou Krieng Commune, Sambour District, Kratie Province, dated on August 13, 2015 19. Author’s interview No 19 with male participant in Kaoh Khnhaer Village, Ou Krieng Commune, Sambour District, Kratie Province, dated on August 13, 2015 20. Author’s interview No 20 with male participant in Kaoh Khnhaer Village, Ou Krieng Commune, Sambour District, Kratie Province, dated on August 13, 2015 21. Author’s interview No 21 with male participant in Kaoh Khnhaer Village, Ou Krieng Commune, Sambour District, Kratie Province dated on August 13, 2015 22. Author’s interview No 22 with female participant in Voadthonak Village, Voadthonak Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on August 14, 2015. 23. Author’s interview No 23 with female participant in Voadthonak Village, Voadthonak Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on August 14, 2015. 24. Author’s interview No 24 with male participant in Voadthonak Village, Voadthonak Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on August 14, 2015. 25. Author’s interview No 25 with female participant in Voadthonak Village, Voadthonak Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on August 15, 2015. 26. Author’s interview No 26 with male participant in Voadthonak Village, Voadthonak Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on August 16, 2015. 27. Author’s interview No 27 with a male participant of CRDT, dated on August 16, 2015. 28. Author’s interview No 28 with male participant of WWF, Kratie town, dated on August 17, 2015 29. Author’s interview No 29 with male participant of Voadthonak Village, Voadthonak Commune, Sambor District, Kratie Province, dated on August 17, 2015. 30. Author’s interview No 30 with a staff member of Ministry of Mine and Energy, Phnom Penh, dated on August 24, 2015.

124

31. Author’s interview No 31 with a staff member of Ministry of Environment, Phnom Penh, dated on August 27, 2015.

125

A questionnaire used for conducting interview for the research study

Questionnaire

1. Please kindly tell me the history of your village and how long have lived here? 2. Please describe a typical day? What activities do you perform? 3. How do your activities involve the Mekong River? 4. What are the local cultural sites and practices in the village? 5. How do your religious practices connect with the river? 6. How do you think that the proposed dam will affect your daily activities, cultural or spiritual beliefs? 7. What preparation have you made or what will you do in the event that the dam will be constructed?

126

List of fish mentioned by most participants during data collection and filed research11

English Photos Barbonymus gonionotus (Silver barb)

Cyclocheilichthys furcatus: chhkok

Hemibagrus wyckioides (redtail catfish)

Henicorhynchus siamensis:

Pangasianodon gigas(Mekong Giant catfish)

Hemibagrus nemurus (Asian redtail catfish)

11 It is important to note that they just represent a small partition of fish in the Cambodia’s Mekong.

127

Bagarius suchus (crocodile catfish)

Lobocheilos melanotaenia Wallago attu (Wallago)

Puntioplites proctozystron

Belodontichthys truncatus (twisted-jaw sheatfish)

Labeo chrysophekadion (Black sharkminow)

Catlocarpio siamenis (Giant Mekong barb)

128

Channa melasoma (black snakehead)

Chitala blanci

Channidae

Source: http://fishbase.org/country/CountryChecklist.php?showAll=yes&what=list&trpp=50&c_code=1 16&sortby=alpha2&ext_CL=on&ext_pic=on&vhabitat=fresh

129