14 Panel 1

Dams in the Philippines and in Thailand: Social and Environmental Impacts of Natural Resources Development Projects Yu Terashima

Abstract Large-scale development projects in Southeast Asia such as dams and irrigation schemes,have often forced drastic change on local communities. Although local people are the most seriously affected by the projects, they have often been left out of decision-making processes and without even access to relevant information. However persistent challenges from communities and their allies in Thailand and the Philippines have shown that local communities, together with outsiders such as domestic and international NGOs and academics, can play an important role in calling for alternative approaches. Outside groups such as NGOs can support communities by sharing information, networking, lobbying government and project proponents and introducing various other ways to support communities to make responsible decisions by themselves. Introduction It is well known that for some decades, rural communities in Southeast Asia have been facing rapid changes and the loss of traditional livelihoods that depend on natural resources such as mountains, rivers and forests. Today, the need is clear for greater awareness of the limitations of central government-led development projects, and of the importance of local people’s participation, open consultations, Environmental Impact Assessments, socialenvironmental guidelines and other open processes. Rapid economic growth in recent decades in urban areas has areas also seen substantial change in rural areas. Such changes include a move from self-reliant agriculture to the production of cash crops for export, population movement to cities, and the restructuring of cultural and territorial bonds. Large-scale projects have been implemented under the name of national economic development or community development, but have also caused exhaustion of forests, rivers, wetlands, mountains and traditional agricultural lands.

The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows

New approaches are being taken to solve or mitigate these negative impacts. Communities today can learn from the experiences of others and can often predict a project’s impact before it starts. With an understanding of their own past, present and future situations, they are better able to reflect upon and choose their own alternative development for their areas. Communities already negatively affected by projects are working to solve their problems and improve their situations. These efforts are sometimes supported by local, national or international nongovernment organizations (NGOs). Objective and significance This research was conducted to identify processes of people’s participation around large projects, to ascertain how the communities felt about processes implemented by project proponents, how communities acted to try to avoid negative impacts, and how NGOs and academics became involved. I conducted interviews with community members and NGO workers connected to three separate projects; The Songkhram river basin dam in Northeastern Thailand, and the San Roque Dam and the Bohol Irrigation Project in the Philippines. The Songkhram river basin dam was planned in the 1990s but was canceled in 2002 because of a strong opposition movement by the river basin communities and the influence of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The San Roque Dam in north Luzon Island, the Philippines, was planned in the 1970s and completed in 2003. The Bohol Irrigation Project, which includes three big dams and water management systems in the central Visayas islands, the Philippines, started in the 1980s and was completed in 2007. Methodology The objectives of the intensive interviews were to identify: 1. Project Information 2. The possible and actual project impact on the local communities and on natural resources

MULTIPLE MODERNITIES: GLOBALIZATION IN ASIAN CONTEXT

3. How people were informed about and participated in the decision-making process of the project 4. What the project proponents / the concerned community / the NGOs or academics did to solve or mitigate negative impact from the project 5. The present situation Thailand Thailand’s First National Economic Development Plan (1961-1966) began the country’s economic development in earnest. At the beginning of the 1970s, however, the economic gap between the cities and the rural communities became a prominent social issue. Thailand began to move away from importsubstituting industrialization towards export-oriented industrialization. The development of natural resources, a population policy and poverty reduction were identified as ways to reduce the domestic economic gap. In the mid-1980s industrial exports overtook agricultural exports. The main agricultural produce for export included kenaf pulp, tapioca, sugar corn, corn and natural rubber. Agri-businesses such as frozen shrimp and broilers also developed in this period. The market price for agricultural produce fell but the arrival of more private companies from Japan, Korea and Taiwan helped the Thai GDP to grow. In 1997, the Asian Financial Crash halted growth but since then the Thai economy has gradually recovered. In a speech by the King Bhumibol Adyulyadej after the economic crisis, the concept of Seethakit Phoo Phiang (Sufficiency Economy) was elaborated and has since become a pillar of the national development strategy. Songkhram river dam: Project outline The Songkhram river is located in northeastern Thailand, also known as Isan. It is 420 km long and flows through Nong Khai, Udon Thani, and Sakhon Nakhon provinces before joining the Mekong river in Nakhon Phanom province. The name Songkhram means “indigo-blue forest” in the local language. The Songkhram river dam project was planned as a major part of the Kon Chi Mun mega-project. This project was started in 1992 and was intended to develop the Mekong river, the Mun river, (a tributary of the Mekong river), and the Chi river (a tributary of the Mun river). It was designed to create electricity, improve irrigation, and help turn the “poor” and “dry” Isan into a green and rich area with agricultural produce throughout the year.

15

When communities began to learn about the Songkhram dam project in the early 1990s, its objectives were understood to be focused on fisheries, tourism and flood-control. However through the mid1990s, the Rasi Salai Dam and the Pak Mun Dam projects became widely known and gained notoriety in Thai society. The Rasi Salai Dam in Si Sakhet province was constructed in 1992 for irrigation purposes, but caused widespread salt damage in agricultural fields. There was a serious reduction of fish stocks after the construction of the Pak Mun Dam in Ubon Ratchathani province in 1994. These two controversial dams influenced the communities along the Songkhram river to form a strong movement with a desire to save the river as “the last river without dams in Thailand”. Meanwhile, the Thai government had established the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act (NEQA) in 1992. Five years later in 1997 the passing of the new Constitution of Thailand guaranteed communities the right to participate in the process of conducting Environmental Impact Assessments. As a result of the EIA for the Songkhram dam project, the committee proposed that the project was inappropriate, citing imbalances between environmental issues and economic factors, and the impact on biodiversity. The Thai cabinet approved the committee’s proposal and in 2002 the Songkram Dam was canceled. Impacts for the local communities There are 30 communities along the Songkhram river basin and produce from the river feeds around 20,000 persons. There is rich biodiversity in the seasonal flooded area called Phaa Bun Phaa Tam, a flooded forest located on the river bank and on the lakeshore. Its fertile soil and diverse eco-system provide the communities with wild vegetables, herbs, bamboo shoots, mushrooms, small edible animals and insects and rice fields. In the rainy season, flood waters flow into the lowlands and forests, creating u-shaped lakes, natural ponds and tributaries that are sources of fishing, agriculture, wild harvesting and also transportation. Local people feared they would lose these rich flooded forests and with it the fertile land for farming and the fishing since the lower dam gate would cut off the seasonal migration of fish.

The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows

16 Panel 1 Participatory process and information Though people had heard about the dam project since the 1990s the project proponents failed to inform communities that the dam construction could result in the submerging of the Phaa Bun Phaa Tam, their fields, and some homes. They were also unaware of the potential impacts on fish stocks. “The government didn’t explain about the dam to us. When we noticed, the dam site was already purchased and then the government gave information to the local people,” a fisherman in Don San village said. The communities received genuine and detailed information through their contacts with outside groups, such as The Assembly of the Poor, a local people’s network organization, and TERRA/PER, an environmental NGO in Bangkok, that were already working closely together to solve issues around deforestation of a community forest and problems caused by commercial eucalyptus plantations. NGO role The flooded forest had already been decreasing since the 1980s because of eucalyptus plantations and cattlegrazing. The communities had seen great changes to their natural environment over many years. There was intensive deforestation because of farm expansion, charcoal gathering and logging. There was water contamination as a result of the use of agricultural chemicals, increasing population and commercial industries. The capacity of the flooded forest had been reduced as a result of aquaculture, overfishing, inappropriate fishing gear and changes to natural streams due to the construction of irrigation systems. By collaborating with NGOs and academics, local communities succeeded in raising awareness of the rich biodiversity of their area and about their opposition to the dam. NGOs and local community networks researched the Songkhram river basin’s potential and produced an alternative community development plan in 2001. These activities empowered the community and raised awareness in wider Thai society. It took intensive work and a lot of collaboration from TERRA/PER and the Assembly of the Poor to raise this local issue to the level of a nationwide issue. The NGOs supported the communities on the dam issue by giving information, organizing a network, conducting campaigns and supporting advocacy activities to the government.

The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows

A village leader looked back at that time with deep emotion. He said: “We had two important issues at that time but couldn’t keep them separate. The biggest fear over the Songkhram Dam was that our village would be a second “Rasi Salai” or “Pak Mun”. NGOs brought us very necessary information, including about the legal system and about how to organize a movement”. Reevaluation of local resources The activities in relation to the dam raised awareness within the communities as well. As a result of research, workshops, campaigns and collaborations with other communities, academics and NGOs, more people realized the urgent situation that they were facing, and the close connection between their daily lives and their local natural resources. This change in awareness gradually raised the level of networking among 30 different communities along the river basin. After the dam was canceled, the communities and NGOs conducted a four-year project in all the communities along the river basin in order to submit a Community Alternative Development Plan to the Department of Natural Resource Strategy in 2005. The objective of the project was to make sure the dam would not be continued and to prove that rather than going down the road of modernization or industrialization, the best option would be to use traditional industries and livelihood methods in an alternative form of community development. The groups coordinated public fora in Sakhon Nakhon Ratchapat University and Mahasarakham University which were supported by the Ministry of Natural Resource Management and other public bodies and were attended by more than 700 people. In addition, in 2003-2004, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and Thai NGOs and people’s organizations (POs) conducted Thai Baan (Village) Research at four villages along the Songkhram river basin as part of the Mekong Wetlands and Biodiversity Project (MWBP), funded by the Mekong River Commission (MRC) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The Thai Baan approach was a participatory model of social and environmental research. The communities documented local resources, knowledge about the use of resources, knowledge of livelihoods based on six different species of fish, fishing gear, local vegetation, agriculture and gardens, cattle and buffaloes, and local ecosystems.

MULTIPLE MODERNITIES: GLOBALIZATION IN ASIAN CONTEXT

The Philippines After gaining independence in 1946 from the United States, successive Philippines governments have introduced numerous development plans. During the period of reconstruction after World War II the country introduced an export-oriented industrialization policy. Foreign and technological investment increased. There was agrarian reform to increase agricultural production. However, the eruption of social and economic problems in the 1970s, including an extreme population explosion in the cities, a widening of the gap between the cities and rural communities, unrest under the Marcos government and deterioration of the international balance of payments resulting in an increase in accumulated debt, created an economic crisis which led to negative economic growth in the 1980s. By the end of the 1980s, agrarian reform, industrial decentralization and a policy of liberalization and inviting foreign capital to the country was adopted. The present Arroyo government is aiming at economic growth, poverty reduction, and increased levels of employment. 1. San Roque Dam project: Project outline The multi-purpose San Roque Dam on the river Agno in northern Luzon island was completed in 2003. The dam aimed at generating as much as 345 MW of hydropower, the irrigation of the downstream Pangasinan plain and to improve flood-control in the area. It is the largest dam in Asia, with a height of 200m, a gate of 1.2km width and a reservoir of 850 million square meters. The project proponents were the San Roque Power Corporation (SRPC) and The National Power Corporation (NPC) of the Philippines. The dam was supported by Japanese Official Development Assistance (ODA) loans. Japanese private companies also funded the SRPC. The impact on the local communities The vast area of land, which became the submergence zone was home to indigenous Ibaloi people. As many as 2,500 Ibaloi farmers who worked fields on the dam site and gold panners who collected gold dust in the Agno river started an anti-dam movement in the mid1990s. Gold from the river had become the main or side income for many people. Farmers, for example, sometimes used their income from gold panning to

17

buying rice seed rice or fertilizer. A total of 780 households were forced to leave their homes because of the project. The dam also affected the lives of many people living in the upper basin, around the gate and in the lower basin. Participatory process and information The Ibaloi people living in upstream Benguet States were concerned that the accumulation of silt might eventually bury their villages and opposed the project since the 1990s. They have complained of a violation of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of the Philippines (IPRA), because the proponents implemented the project without agreement from the indigenous people. The committee having jurisdiction over the IPRA conducted research and issued a final report recognizing it as illegal. The gold panners insisted that they were not formally or appropriately informed before the construction of the dam, and that they would in effect lose their jobs. After the construction started, they began to organize themselves into a federation and requested proper compensation for the money that they had lost so far and demanded substitute livelihoods from the SRPC and the NPC. Failed livelihood program People affected by involuntary resettlement were allowed to choose between compensation in the form of cash or substitute housing. Four new substitute communities were proposed. The SRPC introduced a livelihoods program with projects such as pig-raising, growing vegetables and fruits, producing banana paper, growing rice, stock- raising, managing a grocery store, micro-finance and so on. The projects were not a great success. The substitute farms were often too small for farmer’s needs, the soil was sometimes unproductive and the union of stock raisers that was organized under the program collapsed. A training program for making sandals and sewing was implemented, but few of those who participated were able to establish businesses, and those who did were left with incomes too small to provide a livelihood. Today, the lives of affected people are getting worse year by year. In Kamangan substitute community where 180 households settled after the project, around 50 households had to sell or rent out their houses because of poverty in 2010.

The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows

18 Panel 1 In 2004, the gold panners’ federation had to be organized formally in order to become a subject for compensation from the proponents. After approval from the SRPC, the NPC and the local administration, they were allowed to participate in a cattle-fattening program. Their request for cash compensation was refused on the grounds that they were asking for too much. The fattening program needed to be continued for several years and, thus far, the income from it is very small. Those who lost their main livelihoods have been unable to find realistic substitutes. NGO roles Local people organized as a movement of indigenous people and under the Peasant Movement to Free the Agno River, (TIMMAWA). The Cordillera Peoples Alliance working on local issues in the northern Luzon or a university student group also supported the community. In 2006, Mr. Jose Doton, the leader of the TIMMAWA, was shot and killed in a political murder1. After this affair, the anti-dam movement as well as some local NGOs became much weaker. Only a few outside NGOs, including FoE Japan, are now monitoring the resettled people’s situation. There remain many unsolved issues. FoE Japan is lobbying the Japanese government and private companies asking them to take responsibility as the largest donor and major shareholders respectively in the project. 2. Bohol Irrigation Project: Project outline Bohol Island is located next to Cebu Island in the central Visayas. The idea for the Bohol Irrigation Project started in the 1970s, for the purpose of strengthening the base of agricultural production, increasing production and improving farmer’s living standards. The construction of the project, including three large dams with water systems, was intended to supply water to an area of 10,000 hectares. Construction lasted from 1988 to 2007. The three dams are the Malinao (Pillar), Bayongan and Kapayasu dams, and the project proponent was the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) of the Philippines. The Malinao and Kapayasu dams were completed in the 1990s and the Bayongan dam, was completed in 2007. The project was supported by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) who supported a feasibility study. It was funded partly by loans of 12 billion yen from the Japan Bank for

The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows

International Cooperation (JBIC). The total expense of the project was 17 billion yen. Impacts on the local communities A total of 200 households were to be resettled to new communities and 6,000 farmers were supposed to become the beneficiaries of the three dams. Water management unions were organized for each group of farmers receiving water from the same pipelines. Members had to pay a water fee based on the number of hectares they owned, irrespective of the size of harvest they got for that year. It has turned out to be a heavy burden for farmers. Some fields have not received water but the farmers still have to pay the fee. Farmers also had taken out loans to pay for the leveling of their lands. Many are now in debt as a result. In 1996, the Malinao Dam was the first to be constructed. The project forced farmers to change their fertile farms totaling 2,953 hectares into land to be used for rice paddies. Land-leveling was carried out for this purpose from 1996 to 1998. Farmers had to pay for the land-leveling, which put some of them into debt. The money had to be paid back within 10 years and if not, they will have to hand over the deeds of the land to NIA, in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement. However, the water from the dam reaches only 30 percent of the project area, leaving some farmers who once produced corn, coconuts, cassava, sweet potato and bananas continuously throughout the year are now left with unproductive rice paddies. Without receiving water from the dam, the new rice fields can produce only once a year from natural rainwater. It is because rice-growing that depends on rainwater is influenced easily by the weather each year that local people produced diversified crops. Some people lost their entire livelihood. Some can produce crops but only get very unstable incomes. Even in the paddies that the water reaches, regular water shortages causes conflict between farmers in the upper stream and downstream who are living along the same pipeline. Participatory process and information The movement to oppose the project began to grow in the 1990s. But it was weak from the start as many people were afraid the government would deprive them of their land using the Compulsory Purchase Act. The movement faltered and the project went ahead.

MULTIPLE MODERNITIES: GLOBALIZATION IN ASIAN CONTEXT

The proponent, the NIA, explained to the affected people that the project would provide them with plenty of water so they could produce rice more than once a year, gaining a lot of income by selling it on the market. The NIA asked people to sign a document to join the project. But some people, at least, said that noone ever explained the loans connected with the landleveling and the possibility of losing the deeds of their land to them. The farmers who would benefit from the Malinao Dam would have to pay a water supply fee of 150kg of rice per hectare. This amount is fixed by the NIA with the water management union. The farmers do not have any rights in the decision. The water management system was originally formed by the local administration. The NIA and the water management union, often doesn’t function properly and causes conflicts concerning the amount of water supplied to the various communities. While I was conducting my research, in December 2010, a consultation for the people affected by the Malinao Dam was organized by the NIA. It was the second multi-stakeholder meeting to try to solve the negative impacts caused by the dam (the first had been held two months earlier in September 2010). JICA, which is the largest donor to the Malinao Dam and to other future prospective mega-development projects planned for Bohol, had encouraged the NIA to hold the meeting. The first meeting had decided that at the second meeting NIA would report on the progress of its study to evaluate the situation at the paddy fields where farmers had complained that water hadn’t reached them. However, the attending farmers complained that the study was faulty, that sites surveyed had been “hand-picked,” and that measures proposed to solve the shortages were very general and impractical. In the middle of the meeting, attending farmers and NGOs found out that the NIA had forged the memorandum document agreed to in the first meeting. and that a farmer’s signature had been added to show that she was in agreement with the NIA’s study when in fact she hadn’t signed at all2. Local people began to say that they could no longer trust the NIA, and that their assumptions of its sincerity were misplaced. They felt that the “good governance” talked about by JICA and the NIA was meaningless and that the participatory and fair

19

processes necessary to mitigate the project’s negative impacts remained unsecured. NGO role Farmers affected seriously by the Malinao Dam, also known as the Pilar Dam, organized a federation of peasants who suffered damage from the project (ALMABIPDA), and have since worked together with NGOs to solve problems experienced because of the project. The NGOs working with the farmers include The Farmers Development Centre (FARDEC), a local NGO based in Bohol city, the People’s Network for Life and Environment (KINABUHI), another local NGO based in Bohol city, the Women’s Development Center (WDC), a network NGO working for women, farmers and primary health care issues in Bohol island Central Visayas, and FoE Japan, a Japanese NGO. The local NGOs help the farmers to gather information and to inform people all over the Philippines and in the international society of their situation. In 2010 WDC conducted a hearing and created a video documenting farmer’s views on their situations. The Japanese NGO advocated to the Japanese Government and JICA to put pressure on the NIA to make a response. This succeeded in the holding of the first stage of an evaluation of the situation by NIA, affected farmers and NGOs, even though unfortunately the consultation has been spoiled so far because of NIA’s betrayal of the confidence that had been built up in the relationship. In the Philippines, even if the affected farmers complain repeatedly to the NIA, they have not so far been able to get a satisfactory response. The political situation makes the local people’s movement nervous3. It seems that it is more effective to complain internationally by raising awareness, spreading information, setting up a dialogue by using international pressure and holding peaceful rallies in urban centers. Conclusions Through this research I realized that the definition of “development” should not be confused with economic growth. The general thinking behind economic globalization is that economic development is an essential and supremely important element in the

The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows

20 Panel 1 process. But to put the economy first can cause depletion and disruption of natural resources, the environment, and health. The negative impacts can destroy the very basis of local communities. Genuine endogenous development is necessary for communities to develop independence and solve the problems they face. Endogenous development was theorized after the 1970s as a development model which would solve industrial pollution and other social and environmental issues within local communities. The key elements of endogenous development could be characterized as follows: • Local development must have its basis in local tradition, culture and resources • Independence and participation community is a prerequisite

of

the

• Evaluating positively connections and exchange with those outside of the community • Regarding ecology and environmental conservation as an important part of the methods used for community development • Regarding development not as economic development but as a broader concept which has at its center the expression of human potential and improvements in the quality of life and amenities. Economic growth is only a part of development. The development of each community evolves should evolve naturally from its social, historical, environmental and economic background, and should include the standpoint of human development and be based on self-governance by the community itself. When development from outside is difficult for the community to accept, for example if it needs to destroy the natural resources their lives are based on, it is reasonable for them to oppose and reject it. If other external connections such as with NGOs threaten their culture and basic resources, they may also reject those approaches. Such external approaches and connections may have success in developing the communities’ potential, but only if the communities themselves are motivated, in agreement, and ready to make changes from within. In Thailand, as civil society grows, matures and becomes more democratic, NGOs and academics are working closely with communities. They provide their special knowledge, skills, networking, information and other supports that are necessary for communities to

The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows

clarify their situations and support them to make their own best decisions. The outsiders’ role is always quite different to that of the communities. In the Songkhram river basin, the joint attempt by the communities and outside groups was not limited to the anti-dam movement but geared to develop alternative development visions. It is not always necessary that NGOs or other outsiders participate when a community tries to protect its rights and livelihoods and propose alternatives. Some communities already have members to gather information, to recognize their own situation and to lead e community members in harmony with their cultural and social background. In Songkhram the people, local leaders, POs and NGOs worked together to complement each other. Local people were provided with information and the external networks that they needed, without compromising their independence. In the relationship between directly affected local people and outsiders who are willing to support the community, it is important that the outsiders should understand the community, guarantee local people’s independence and continue to support them as they choose a responsible future by themselves. In the two case studies in the Philippines the projects are completed. However a number of affected people are in distressing circumstances as a result of the projects. Due to the local political and social situation, NGO commitment is sometimes difficult. A leader of the farmers involved in the anti-San Roque Dam project was murdered in 2006. POs and NGOs are now working together with local people to solve problems, whilst respecting their independence and the fact that some may fear for their lives. For the most part, policy-making for large-scaled projects is carried out according to the wishes of governments and private companies. There is minimal involvement by those with the least power and those most affected by the projects. The terms “participatory development” or “endogenous development” are commonly known nowadays. However it is not clearly theorized or understood how outsiders including NGOs, academics and even international cooperation institutes can get involved with the community to create this endogenous development. Essentially standard modernization theory is still the main idea behind the great vortex of globalization.

MULTIPLE MODERNITIES: GLOBALIZATION IN ASIAN CONTEXT

21

NOTES 1

A local human rights NGO announced 700 as the number of NGO activists, journalists, or churchmen, who were victims of extra-judicial killings from 2001 to June 2006.

2

A woman attending the meeting pointed out that the NIA’s report said she agreed to the resolution for water shortage NIA presented, although NIA had never visited her when carrying out the study. By referring to the original document of the agreement, she and her allies found the signature on it was different from hers. The NIA provided no satisfactory explanation.

3

A local leader of the farmer’s movement involved in solving the Bohol irrigation project was killed in a political murder in 2006.

REFERENCES Lauren Baker. 2004. Thai Baan Research in Lower Songkhram River Basin, Thailand. A Publication of the Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Programme FoE Japan. “Project Monitoring”. FoE Japan Public Finance & Environment program, http://www.foejapan.org/aid/ Hiroaki Obitani. 2004. Environmental Movements against Dam Construction and Community Revitalization in Japan: The Dynamics of Conflict and Collaboration. Showado.

The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows