The Tatay River Hydropower Dam (TRHD)

China National Heavy Machinery Corporation (CHMC), a subsidiary of SINOMACH, created the joint venture Beijing Sanlian International Investment Co., Ltd. along with two other Chinese companies: PowerChina Northwest Engineering Corporation Limited of China Hydropower Engineering Consulting Group Co. (CHECC, a subsidiary of China Electric Power Construction Group Co., Ltd. or CEPCA) and CHINT Company Limited. However, current Chinese corporate records describe CHMC and CHINT Group as the sole shareholders of Beijing Sanlian International Investment Co., Ltd., at 93.13 and 6.88 percent respectively. Cambodian Tatay Hydropower Limited (CTHL) was subsequently established as the sole recipient of Beijing Sanlian International Investment Co., Ltd. investments. CTHL stands as the sole owner of the Tatay dam under the BOT agreement and was established specifically for this project.

Cambodia Tatay Hydropower Ltd. contracted China Gezhouba Group Corporation–in the firm’s own words, a “core member” of the state-owned enterprise China Energy Engineering Group–to perform the bulk of the construction.

Environmental Impacts: Assessment, Transparency, and Outcomes

The official environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Tatay River Hydropower Dam is not readily available to the public. A draft EIA published on Open Development Cambodia in 2010 states that the reservoir created by the project will flood 2,949 hectares permanently and 182 hectares temporarily. The flooding would affect wildlife and the livelihoods of locals who depend on the forest and its resources to make a living. The EIA further mentioned concerns regarding diminished air and water quality during construction and some years after project completion.

Moreover, in June 2009, a public forum was held to discuss the impacts of the Tatay project prior to its approval and to release preliminary findings from the KCC-prepared EIA. While the Cambodian government defended large dams, claiming that their economic benefits outweigh their environmental impacts, local residents raised concerns over the preliminary results. Although journalists highlighted officials’ preliminary considerations on the relocation of impacted households, the lack of transparency and public disclosure of official documents pertaining to project specifics leaves it unclear whether relocation and/ or displacement actually occurred.

Legislative Gaps

At the time of the assessment, there are no laws specifically governing projects conducted by foreign SOEs. They are primarily governed and overseen via ad-hoc mechanisms within related ministries. This same general framework also governs PPP projects in Cambodia. The two companies contracted to undertake the feasibility studies under this project either have the same parent company or have some other related interest to the project. This overlap is further illuminated by the leadership of the companies involved, who also have shareholder interests in the project. Under the Standard Operating Procedures on Procurement for All Externally Financed Projects/Programs, such shared interest of ownership and leadership would typically disqualify contractors or subcontractors in Public Procurement projects. However, it is explicitly stated that this does not apply to public-private partnerships (PPP) or private sector projects.

Project Transparency

There is still no public disclosure of the procurement bidding or other related documents, the feasibility study, the budget, the MoU, or the EIA. The relative lack of transparency during project planning and operationalization continues to present challenges for stakeholders and development partners in determining the impacts of the project. For example, multiple reports listed differing project budget figures, ranging from US$215 million to US$540 million. Differing reports of the estimated construction and completion dates from SINOMACH also causes confusion around the project’s timeline. It is unclear whether the original estimates were simply misinformed or if the project experienced delays or took longer than expected and what implications this had on the overall project budget.

To capture different practices, quality and level of transparency, researchers are asked to answer six related questions for each data point. 1 point is assigned for each question to which the answer is “yes.” Each data point therefore has a total score between 0 and 6, where “0” means no information was publicly available at the time of research (not transparent) and “6” means full transparency.