On September 3rd, Mekong Watch inquired to Japan's Ministry of Finance (MOF) about the World Bank's position on the negative impacts on villagers as a result of the Lam Ta Khong Pump Storage Project in Thailand. MOF explained that the World Bank is very concerned about the negative impacts, and is considering taking steps to encourage the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), the project implementer, to take action.
While this is welcome news, both MOF and the World Bank need to understand that stronger steps are still necessary. Background information follows.
WHAT IS THE LAM TA KHONG PUMP STORAGE PROJECT?
The Lam Ta Khong Pump Storage Project is located in Nakhon Ratchasima, in central Thailand. It was the first (and so far only) pump storage dam constructed in Thailand. The development and feasibility studies for this project were done in 1991 by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
In 1994, the Japanese government provided 18.2 billion yen (approx 170 million US dollars), and the World Bank provided 100 million US dollars in financing. Construction was supervised by the Electric Power Development Co., Ltd (EPDC). Construction was completed in 2001 with an installed capacity of 500MW.
World Bank: Lam Takhong Pumped Storage Project
http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=104231&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P004799
NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE LAM TO KHONG PROJECT
As part of this project, a reservoir was built on the top of a large hill by blasting away slabs of rock, and a tunnel was drilled from the top reservoir to another reservoir at the base of the hill. This blasting work continued over a period of 2.5 years, and the dust from the blasting rained on nearby villages. Since then, villagers have developed serious respiratory disorders and other health problems, some resulting in death. Crops have been damaged, and cows and other domestic animals have also become sick and died.
FAILED MITIGATION MEASURES
To minimize environmental damage, an Environment Mitigation and Development Plan was made for this project in 1992, but most of it has not been implemented. In cases where parts of the mitigation plan were implemented, affected people did not benefit. For example, the mitigation plan recommended blasting be done only once a day to prevent dust pollution. In actual practice, blasting occurred twice a day. A measure that was actually implemented was the construction of a pond for water supply, since the project would decrease availability of ground water. The water in this pond was so muddy, however, that it could not be used even for bathing, much less drinking.
AFFECTED PEOPLE CALL FOR A STUDY OF DAMAGES
Residents affected by the dust pollution from blasting have requested that EGAT, the project implementer, take steps to determine the precise cause of the deterioration in villagers' health and other damages, and to implement necessary remedial measures. As a result of the residents' requests, a government committee was established in 2001 to look for solutions to the problems. EGAT, however, refused to provide any funding for a survey into the health impacts, paralyzing the committee. Hence, no measures have been implemented to resolve problems.
Affected people and NGOs have demanded that the World Bank and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) apply more pressure on EGAT to fund the government committee to conduct a fair study on the impacts of the project on villagers' health. The World Bank and JBIC promised to convey the people's concerns to EGAT, but have not moved much further than this. While they could conduct their own surveys, they have instead stopped at watching what EGAT will do (or not do) next.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT
Upon inquiry by Mekong Watch, Japan's Finance Ministry has made it clear that the World Bank is aware of the environmental impacts of the Lam Ta Khong dam. In order to continue monitoring the project after completion, the World Bank is now requiring EGAT to report periodically to the World Bank on the steps it is taking to deal with the environmental impacts of the project. MOF also explained that it is urging the World Bank to disclose the currently classified Implementation Completion Report, as well as the periodical reports that EGAT is supposed to submit.
The villagers affected by the Lam Ta Khong project have suffered tremendous damage, and EGAT has failed to respond to their claims. As a start, the World Bank and JBIC must step up pressure so that EGAT will support a fair survey of the impacts on the villagers. The World Bank and JBIC themselves should also disclose relevant information. Only then will we know if the Environment Mitigation and Development Plan will be helpful, and even then, independent monitoring of the Mitigation Plan”Ēs implementation will be necessary.
NOTE: This is a brief update on the "JICA Environmental and Social Guidelines Revision Committee," a committee established in December 2002 to draft recommendations for a new set of guidelines for JICA operations. Please see Catfish Tales Issue #9 for background information if necessary.
UPDATE ON JICA's NEW ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL GUIDELINES
Official recommendations for new environmental and social guidelines for the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) will soon be complete, after a grueling series of 18 sessions. At the next meeting of the "JICA Environmental and Social Guidelines Revision Committee" on September 22nd, its Recommendations for the new guidelines will be finalized and submitted to JICA. The Revision Committee is a group comprised of JICA and ministry officials, academics, NGOs, and the corporate sector. The Recommendations have been written primarily by a group composed of several members of the Revision Committee, which has been taken section-by-section to the entire Committee for feedback and revision.
JICA will then write a first draft of the Environmental and Social Guidelines based on the Recommendations of the Revision Committee. JICA's draft is expected to be complete in October, and this draft will then be submitted back to the Revision Committee. The Revision Committee will then review JICA's draft, and may demand explanations for any differences or contradictions with its Recommendations. Revisions to JICA's draft may also be recommended.
After JICA revises the draft guidelines based on the Revision Committee's review, a second draft will be released for public comment. An English version of this second draft will also be available so that a wider range of comments can be collected.
We expect that public consultations will be held so that the public can give their comments regarding JICA's draft, and that additional revisions may be made based on the input from these consultations. After these revisions, a final draft will again be released for public comment and another set of public consultations held, where JICA will explain any changes made (or not made) and the reasons for them.
On 1 April 2004, the JICA's new Environmental and Social Guidelines will be enacted. We expect a discussion process to establish a complaints mechanism to be complete by the time of implementation.
At this time, it is no longer possible to influence the content of the Recommendations, but we hope that interested people from the Mekong Region and elsewhere will share their ideas once JICA's draft is available for public comment in October.
IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REVISION COMMITTEE'S DRAFT
1) Early Project Categorization: Proposals for aid from developing countries will be screened at this early stage and categorized for each project's expected social and environmental impacts. This screening will be done before any decisions are made on whether or not to provide assistance for the project.
2) Information Disclosure: Brief descriptions of projects categorized as "Category A" (having significant environmental/social impacts) will be disclosed before decisions are made on whether or not to approve the project for assistance. Third parties can provide information about concerns and negative impacts to JICA. After projects are approved, more details of the project will be disclosed (regardless of categorization).
3) Broad inclusion of Social Impacts: A broad range of social impacts has been defined as within the scope of consideration when making decisions on a project. They include social capital, distribution of land, poverty, and land-related interests.
4) Political and Social considerations: Freedom of expression (or lack of) and regional conflicts have also been included as factors for consideration in deciding whether or not to approve a project, and how it should be implemented.
MEKONG WATCH'S INVOLVEMENT
The director of Mekong Watch has been an active member of the Revision Committee as well as the Drafting Committee for the new guidelines. Mekong Watch has participated in this process primarily with the hope that the resulting guidelines can be a useful tool for project-affected communities in the Mekong Region to either prevent or address negative impacts from JICA operations.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
If you would like more information about the Guidelines, please write to
JICA.