Lower Sesan II, Cambodia: A Narrow View of a Widespread Threat

Availability of water: Clear challenges of the Lower Sesan II (LS2) Dam construction to flooded communities in Cambodia because of the reservoir filling.

Water Quality: Not indicated in the case study. However, important to examine the potential impact of flooding on the quality of water for utilization.

Accessibility of water: The flooded communities rely on the Sesan River for agriculture, fishing, and cultural activities as part of their livelihood. The LS2 would cause a negative impact on their livelihood.

Acceptability of water: Not clear from the case study.

Water as a Social Good: Evidence of the individual and community significance of water as a social good, and the effect of the reservoir flooding on the reduction of quality of lives in the communities.

Water as a Cultural Good: Clear indication that the flooded communities attach cultural and religious significance to the flooded lands, with the lands constituting part of their ancestors’ graveyards, Buddhist temples, among others and the erasure of these connections with the measure.

Protection and Preservation of Intergenerational Rights and Interests: The environmental management plan provides resettlement for affected flooded villages inside protected forests and land concession zones. These lands are characterized as unsuitable for rice and vegetable production, and there is fish unavailability. This calls into question the protection and preservation of intergenerational interests.

The Environmental management plan provides compensation as money, lands, and assets for lost assets such as houses, trees, and fisheries, but fails to provide compensation for cultural and spiritual assets which are difficult to monetize.

Adaptation of present and future generations to the man-built structures. Potential erosion of their cultural identities and loss of identity for the present and future generations.

Non-Retrogression Obligation: Clear evidence that the compensation policy of the government of Cambodia results in lower living conditions and quality of life. Doing this reduces the extent of human rights protection such as the right to adequate standard of living.

Reservoir filling for the LS2 affects the flooded communities’ right to engage in the farming and production of crops and fisheries. Will an assessment be conducted prior to the dam installation to ascertain whether the people’s right to self-determine their means of livelihood would be affected by the dam construction?

The relocation of the flooded communities to protected forests or land concession zones (resettlement sites) affects the fish production and consumption, leading to increased cost of fish and reduced quality of fishes. These signal adverse impacts for the free pursuit of economic, social, and cultural development. Will a needs assessment be conducted prior to the installation to determine the extent of effect of the LS2 construction on the free pursuit of economic, social, and cultural development of the flooded communities?

The resettlement plan approved by the Royal Government of Cambodia compensated and relocated fewer than 800 households. The relocation raises issues ranging from the unsuitability of the soil for rice and vegetable production,  the far distance of the fields and farmlands from the previous residences of the affected villagers, and the losses of the ancestral burial sites, Buddhist temples and guardian spirits of the forest. This speaks to the impact of water as not just an economic good but a social and cultural good. Consequently, will the manner in which the reservoir filling  process for LS2 is carried out consider that water is not just an economic resource but a social and cultural good that affects the rights of the flooded communities to freely pursue economic, social and cultural development?

Cambodia is a signatory to ICCPR and ICESCR complaint mechanisms.

Are there sufficient mechanisms that would ensure the rights of the flooded community members to self-determine their economic, social and cultural development and guarantee full and free control of their means of subsistence?

If these mechanisms would be insufficient, would there be other mechanisms that can curb the excesses of the Cambodian government in this respect?

Will the Royal government of Cambodia conduct a prior sustainability assessment into the compensation plans and how this affects the future generations rights protection from  virtual water insecurity?

Will the Royal government of Cambodia conduct a prior sustainability assessment into the compensation plans and how this affects the future generations rights to self-determination

Will the compensation provided be adequate for the indigenous minorities of the flooded communities when it introduces man-built structures, different from the structures they are used to? Will the minorities be given an opportunity to determine the content of their compensation package?

It is recorded that the reservoir filling for the LS2 would displace 4,785 villages in 1,059 households in the environmental impact assessment provided by consultants in Cambodia. However, these figures were downplayed to fewer than 800 households, resulting in the provision of compensation for some families and the non-provision for some others. This leads to discrimination of some families over other affected families. Will there be a preliminary assessment to determine the criteria for the disbursement of the compensation sum and land settlement?

Will all victims be treated equally or equitably in the distribution of the compensation

Will there be a needs assessment carried out to determine the most vulnerable victims?

The reservoir filling process for the LS2 occasions a relocation and compensation plan. This was awarded by the Royal Government of Cambodia, contrary to the environmental impact assessment conducted by key consultants in Cambodia, resulting in downplaying the compensation and relocation estimates of the assessment. Doing this means that there are affected communities who did not benefit from the environmental management plan of the government containing the policy. Will there be a further investigation to determine the number of families  excluded from the flooded communities’ compensation plan and will the exclusion occasion  differential treatment on a prohibited ground, resulting in the deprivation of the right to the use of water as an economic, social, and cultural good?

Will the environmental management plan include compensation for cultural and spiritual assets, knowing that a failure to do so has the possibility of occasioning differential treatment against people with cultural and spiritual inclinations and beliefs?

The reservoir filling process results in the adjustment of the minority ethnic groups to man-built structures. Determining this shows that this affects them in a different way from the majority group and evidences discrimination in different forms. How best would this be addressed to cater for the different needs of minority and majority groups and prevent their discrimination?

The reservoir filling process provides for a compensation plan for affected flooded indigenous communities. Will there be a plan to consider the varied effects of the reservoir filling process on different affected persons

Will there be an assessment to determine whether the compensation policy avoids the adoption of a one-size-fits-all approach for all affected members or considers the different effects on the members of the community in a manner that protects  against discrimination?

Will there be an investigation to determine whether the compensation plan considers the religious and cultural needs of several indigenous communities in its compensation plan and does so in a manner that is non-discriminatory of their needs and beliefs?

The environmental management plan provides compensation (though inadequate). The inadequacy in the compensation package speaks to the restriction of the people on the free disposition of their resources under the principle of mutual benefit under international law. Will there be an investigation into the ownership of the rivers, and any agreement among communities on the peaceful usage of the river to determine ownership and the free disposition of natural resources?

Are there provisions under the Cambodian law that provides for the public complaint mechanism for indigenous communities to air their grievances on infringements of their right to the free disposition of natural resources?

The evidence of the  blue, virtual and cultural water scarcity will raise prior concerns  on the indigenous peoples’ rights to freely dispose of their natural resources under the principle of mutual benefit and international law.

Will there be an investigation to assess whether the Cambodian government  ensures that it obtains free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous communities prior to the reservoir filling process in a manner that guarantees the rights of the indigenous communities to the free disposition of water as their natural resource?

Will it be determined whether the Cambodian government obtains free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous communities, recognizing their social and cultural uses of the water?

Will the Cambodia government embark on investigations in order to determine the sustainability policies  of the compensation plan, prior to the reservoir filling process?

The Cambodian government downplays the environmental impact assessment, providing for lesser compensation. Will there be an assessment to determine whether the compensation package contains a sustainability policy that ensures that all present and future generations of affected indigenous communities are considered?

Will there be an investigation into whether the Cambodian government conducts a sustainability assessment of the environmental management plan and its compensation policies?

Will such policies be obtained with the free, prior, and informed consent of the affected indigenous communities?

The environmental management plan provides a compensation of $127 million for lost assets (rice fields, trees, gardens, houses, and fisheries), with reference to the royal government of Cambodia law that downplayed the overall impact of the LS2 by reducing the impact of affected households from 1,059 to 800 households. Doing this means that the amount to be provided as compensation would be insufficient, resulting in the deprivation of the means of subsistence for a large number of households in the flooded communities.

Will there be an assessment into the adequacy of the compensation first, for the 259 (or over) affected households not incorporated in the compensation cost and how this affects their means of subsistence?

Will there be an assessment on the adequacy of the $127 million for the affected flooded communities and whether the costs affect their livelihood?

There is an adaptation from a cashless tradition to rural market-based community, buying and selling in everyday living. Will there be an assessment on the impact of this adaptation for the sustainability of the present and future generations?

There is an adaptation of the minority ethnic groups to a new living environment and man-built structures. Will there be an assessment carried out on whether such adaptation is sustainable for the present and future generations’ preservation of subsistence?

The reservoir filling process occasions a relocation of affected indigenous communities to resettlement areas. This creates scarcity for fish, regularly consumed by the indigenous communities, leading to increased costs of fish and low quality of fish. Are there sustainability policies mapped out that would address the reduction of fish costs and quality control measures?

The reservoir filling provides a compensation plan for about 800 or fewer persons, which is inadequate for the total number of persons affected. Will there be an investigation on whether the compensation plan ensures the equal enjoyment of all human rights for all water users, particularly the vulnerable groups (women, children, disabled persons and indigenous persons?

Will there be an investigation on whether the compensation package that entails monetary sum and relocation affects the rights of all affected communities to the enjoyment of their human rights for vulnerable groups?

Requires fact-finding and field investigation with affected flooded communities and indigenous peoples, Cambodian environmental and cultural ministry/regulatory authorities.

Requires fact-finding and field investigation with affected flooded communities and indigenous peoples, Cambodian environmental and cultural ministry/regulatory authorities.

Requires fact-finding and field investigation (especially interviews with affected communities and Cambodian regulatory authorities).

Availability of Water

Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

The resettlement villages approved and provided by the Cambodian communities are not suitable for producing rice or vegetables, creating food insecurity. Will there be an assessment on whether this would cause hunger or increase poverty for affected communities, especially for the vulnerable populations?

Effects on baseline civil and political freedoms: Will there be an investigation into the impact of the resettlement site locations (located inside protected forests or land concession zones) on the civil and political freedoms of the affected flooded communities, and the specific impact to the vulnerable populations?

Will there be an assessment of the distance of the resettlement sites from the previous location of the flooded communities (flooded lands) and how the distance of the resettlement sites affects their access to water?

Will there be an investigation on whether the reservoir filling is sustainable in the future and protects the rights of the present and future generations without a denial of basic human rights?

Is there going to be an investigation on whether the reservoir filling processes causes transboundary harm for neighboring communities in a manner that affects their right to a healthy environment for their present and their future generations?

Human rights-related legal principles on accountable governance, transparency in governmental decision-making, community participation in public affairs are raised for this process. Will there be an investigation on whether there are transparency and accountability  mechanisms, especially about the approval of permits for the reservoir filling of LS2, the compensation packages, resettlement and relocation plans?

Will there be an investigation into whether the SDG 6 targets of clean water and sanitation are affected in the reservoir filling processes for the present and future generations?

Right to the adequate standard of living.

Right to health.

The resettlement villages create a scarcity in fish availability, forcing the communities to revert to the consumption of low quality and expensive sea fish. Will there be a possibility that these would occasion increased costs of living standards for affected communities, leading to austerity measures such as cutting fish from the diet and nutritional deficiencies in children and adults?

Will there be clear evidence of the non-suitability of resettlement zones for rice and vegetable products? If yes,  will a scientific assessment be conducted to determine the soil suitability for other crops and for what can be done to improve the soil for rice and vegetable production?

Will an assessment be conducted on whether there are scientific and technical standards on water quality and whether they consider the multidimensional uses/water as social and cultural goods

Will there be an assessment conducted to determine whether the scientific measures of the reservoir filling process recognizes that the water in the Sesan and Srepok rivers ensures food availability, reduced fish costs, healthy and nutritious living of the indigenous communities?

Will there be an investigation carried out to determine whether the scientific and technical standards on water quality contain any considerations for long-term sustainability of water quality for future generations, and the non-retrogression of these water quality standards as applied to all indigenous communities?

Will the scientific and technical standards on water quality be assessed to determine whether they contain any considerations for long-term sustainability of fish  quality for future generations, and the non-retrogression of  fish quality standards as applied to all indigenous communities?

Physical accessibility: Will there be an investigation on whether the reservoir filling process generates impacts on civil and political rights to freedom of movement and choice of residence, privacy, security, as well as rights to just and favorable conditions of work, education, cultural participation, and gender equality

Economic accessibility: Will there be an assessment on whether the reservoir filling process (or any reliance on privatized markets for water) results in less affordability of water and fishes for indigenous peoples and all other affected communities? 

Will there be an assessment on whether the reservoir filling  operations affect Cambodia’s obligation under ICESCR Article 2(1) to take steps for the progressive realization of Covenant rights such as social security, social insurance, social protection measures?

Informational accessibility: Will all  affected flooded indigenous communities have rights to information, public participation, transparency with respect to these reservoir filling operations?

Will there. be an assessment that would be carried out to determine whether water accessibility factors in the importance of water as a social good and cultural good to affected indigenous peoples of flooded communities?

Rights to work and just and favorable conditions of work, and religious beliefs.

Will the flooded communities be able to claim that their right to work is affected by the reservoir filling processes, since it makes the land unsuitable for rice and vegetable production?

Will the indigenous communities be able to claim that their right to the protection of their religious and cultural beliefs are affected because the resettlement plan  caused a loss of their burial sites, Buddhist temple and ancestral lands?

Further investigation would be required to determine ways in which a balance can be reached that would guarantee the work and religious rights of affected communities.

Will an assessment be conducted to determine whether the accessibility policies consider the long-term sustainability measures for all flooded communities and not just Cambodia’s interests?

Since the reservoir filling process causes a change in flood pattern, will there be an assessment to determine whether there are sustainability policies that protect accessibility for present and future generations?

Availability of water: Clear challenges of the Lower Sesan II (LS2) Dam construction to riparian communities in Cambodia due to reservoir filling.

Water Quality: The lower quality of water downstream for riparian communities causes a decrease in fish abundance and diversity and affects the health of the riparian population.

Accessibility of water: The riparian communities rely on the Sesan River for agriculture, fishing, and cultural activities as part of their livelihood. The LS2 would have a negative impact on their livelihood.

Water as a Social Good: Clear evidence of the individual and community significance of water as a social good, and the effect of the reservoir flooding on the reduction of quality of lives in the communities.

Water as a Cultural Good: Clear indication that the flooded communities attach cultural and religious significance to the flooded lands, with the lands constituting part of their ancestors’ graveyards and Buddhist temples, among others, and the erasure of these connections with the measure.

Protection and Preservation of Intergenerational Rights and Interests: The environmental management plan provides resettlement for affected villages inside protected forests and land concession zones. These lands are characterized as unsuitable for rice and vegetable production, and fish unavailability. This calls into question the protection and preservation of intergenerational interests.

The Environmental management plan provides compensation for lost assets such as houses, trees, and fisheries, but fails to provide compensation for cultural and spiritual assets which are difficult to monetize.

Adaptation of present and future generations to the man-built structures. Potential erosion of the cultural identity for present and future generations.

Non-Retrogression Obligation: Clear evidence that the compensation policy of the government of Cambodia results in lower living conditions and quality of life. Doing this reduces the extent of human rights protection- such as the right to adequate standard of living.

Will there be an assessment on whether the reservoir filling for the LS2 affects the riparian communities’ right to rely on fisheries to sustain their traditional livelihood affecting ecosystems and agriculture?

Will there be an investigation to determine whether the riparian communities determine the timing for the reservoir filling based on their own free will?

Will there be an investigation on whether the timing for the reservoir filling process affects the right of the riparian peoples to the free pursuit of their economic, social, and cultural development?

The riparian community sustains itself through maintaining a  traditional livelihood by relying on agriculture and the  ecosystem. This means that the fertility of the soil to produce crops is important to sustain themselves. This highlights the importance of water, not just as a commodity but as an economic, social and cultural good. Will there be an assessment of the impact of the LS2’s reservoir filling in order to consider whether water is recognized as not just a commodity or economic resource, but a social good and cultural good, that affects the riparian indigenous communities’ free pursuit of economic, social, cultural development?

Do the ICCPR and ICESCR complaint mechanisms (all of which Cambodia is a party to) suffice to respect the rights of the riparian indigenous peoples to self-determination, particularly the free pursuit of their development in relation to water as a social and cultural good without

being deprived of their means of subsistence?

Will the reservoir filling process be assessed to determine whether the processes result in the deprivation of the riparian communities’ right to participate in the preservation of the development of their ecosystems?

Will there be further investigation to know if the reservoir filling operations contain any counterpart policy for sustainability and non-retrogression (not lowering the human rights protections of indigenous riparian communities?

If there is such a sustainability policy written into the reservoir filling operations, will it be consistent with the right of the riparian communities to self-determination?

It has been stated that generally, short-term impacts for reservoir filling have been poorly researched on and studied. However, some short-term impacts include water quality, land use change, among others. Will there be an investigation to determine whether there are other possible short-term impacts and if there is a sustainability policy to mitigate these impacts for the riparian communities?

The reservoir filling for LS2 would cause changes in the living conditions of the riparian communities such as lower water quality and decreased fish abundance. Will there be an assessment to determine how altering the traditional livelihoods and decreased access to traditional water sources infringe the non-discrimination obligation owed towards riparian indigenous communities?

Will there be an investigation that would be carried out to  determine whether the long term and short-term impacts affects different members of the riparian communities (particularly vulnerable groups) differently in a manner that encourages discrimination of some members over the others?

Will there be an investigation carried out to determine if there is a sustainability policy that applies to reservoir filling operations and whether it is consistent with the guarantee against non-discrimination

Will there be an investigation that will assess the short-term and long-term impacts of the filling phases,  determine whether there are sustainability measures that should be put in place and whether such measures are consistent with the guarantee against non-discrimination?

The documented reduction of both economic and cultural water scarcity raises questions on the riparian indigenous peoples’ rights to freely dispose of their natural resources under the principle of mutual benefit and international law.

Will there be further investigation carried out to determine if the domestic laws provide compensation and consultation mechanisms to negotiate with the riparian indigenous peoples, consistent with the right to free disposition of water as their natural resource?

Will the Cambodian government obtain free, prior, and informed consent of riparian indigenous communities, prior to using water for reservoir filling processes?

Will there be an assessment on whether the reservoir filling process occurs in a manner that impedes the free disposition of their natural resources especially given that there is economic, virtual, and cultural water scarcity through reservoir filling operations that result in counterpart decrease in water availability for indigenous peoples?

The reservoir filling for the LS2 causes changes in hydrology and flood patterns of the downstream water affecting ecosystems and agriculture of the riparian indigenous communities. How will this be assessed to determine the effect on the right of the riparian communities to freely dispose of their natural resources?

Will there be an investigation on whether the original arrangements reached by the Cambodian government as part of its economic development plans to pursue reservoir filling operations, contain any sustainability policy which is informed by the right to the free disposition of natural resources of the indigenous peoples, based on the principle of mutual benefit and international law

The reservoir filling does not indicate any environmental impact assessment carried out to determine the effects and impact of the reservoir filling on riparian communities and appropriate compensation sums. Will there be an investigation on whether the compensation sums were awarded to the communities and the sustainability of these sums?

The reservoir filling for the LS2 causes hydrological and flood change patterns, leading to the decrease in virtual water security, lower water quality and decreased fish abundance. Will an investigation be carried out to determine how the reservoir filling of the LS2 causes a change in hydrology and flood patterns of the downstream water, affecting the ecosystems and agriculture of the traditional livelihood of the riparian communities, and depriving indigenous peoples of their means of subsistence?

Will there be an investigation to determine whether the long and short-term ecological impacts of the reservoir filling for the LS2 deprives the riparian indigenous people their means of subsistence?

Is there going to be a determination of the effectiveness of  the sustainability policy that addresses and mitigates the traditional livelihood of the riparian communities and whether the policy can help to mitigate the effects of water deprivation for the traditional livelihood of the riparian communities?

Will there be an assessment on  whether the formulation and implementation of a sustainability policy can help to avoid triggering any deprivation of water as a means of subsistence, especially for the riparian indigenous communities?

Availability of Water

Start here

Rights to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Rights to work and just and favorable conditions of work.

Specific human rights protections for vulnerable groups (women, children, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities).

Right to an adequate standard of living.

Baseline civil and political freedoms: Will the decrease in the total available water downstream be investigated to determine whether it can cause nuisance and social uprising to downstream riparian communities, occasioning  cultural water insecurities that affect the access to water by community members?

Human right to a healthy environment and State duties to prohibit causing transboundary harm: Will there be an investigation that would determine whether there are short-term and long-term impacts of the reservoir filling process for the riparian communities and whether there are measures set in place to mitigate such effects?

Will the human rights-related legal principles on accountable governance, transparency in governmental decision-making, community participation in public affairs be assessed to determine the extent of their application on the reservoir filling processes

ICESCR Article 2 progressive realization and non-retrogression obligations: The reservoir filling affects the agricultural and ecosystem of the riparian community, causing a negative effect on the traditional livelihood of the riparian community. Will the non-realization of the obligation to progressively realize the right to

water and the obligation of non-retrogression be assessed?

Will there be an assessment on whether SDG 6 targets adversely affects the reservoir filling processes?

Right to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Right to a healthy environment.

Right to benefits of scientific progress and applications.

Will there be an examination of whether there are other short-term ecological impacts  (apart from disturbances such as land use change and amplifying long-term alterations) of the reservoir filling on water quality for the riparian communities?

Will an investigation be carried out to determine whether there are other long-term ecological impacts of the reservoir filling on water for the riparian communities?

Will there be an assessment on the scientific and technical standards on water quality to determine whether they contain any considerations for long-term sustainability of water quality for future generations, and the non-retrogression of these water quality standards, as applied to riparian communities?

The reservoir filling has caused a low water quality and further exacerbated by the river connectivity disruptions. Consequently, this has caused a lower water quality for the riparian communities. Will assessments be carried out to determine whether there are  mitigating measures that can be explored to improve the water quality for the riparian communities?

Physical accessibility: Will there be an assessment on whether the reservoir filling process impacts on civil and political rights to freedom of movement and choice of residence, privacy, security, as well as rights to just and favorable conditions of work, education, cultural participation, and gender equality?

Economic accessibility: Will the reservoir filling process (or any reliance on privatized markets for water) result in less affordability of water for indigenous peoples and all other affected communities?

Will the reservoir filling operations be assessed to determine whether they affect Cambodia’s obligation under ICESCR Article 2(1) to take steps for the progressive realization of Covenant rights such as social security, social insurance, social protection measures?

Informational accessibility: Will there be an assessment on whether the riparian  indigenous peoples have rights to information, public participation, transparency with respect to these reservoir filling operations?

Availability of water: Challenges to availability for affected riparian demographics.

Water Quality: Possible decrease in water quality affecting the diversity of fish ecosystems and productive soil for farming.

Accessibility of water: Requires further investigation on whether there are challenges to all riparian communities.

Water as a Social Good: Requires further investigation into the nature of water as a social good and whether the food scarcity occasioned by the loss of access to migratory fish exacerbates this condition.

Water as a Cultural Good: The riparian communities live a traditional life and maintain their traditional livelihood using the Mekong River's fertile water and productive soil. The river connectivity disruptions for the LS2 have caused cultural and virtual water insecurities, affecting the traditional livelihood and means of subsistence. The river connectivity disruption overlooks the nature of water as a social good for riparian communities.

Protection and Preservation of Intergenerational Rights and Interests: The river connectivity disruption restricts fish migration through the dam to the upstream Sesan and Srepok Rivers, affecting the fish diversity and extinction of over 50 species. This affects protecting and preserving fish species and diversity for future generations.

Non-Retrogression Obligation:  not described in the case study if the Kingdom of Cambodia and the other state/non-state actors are taking steps to avoid a lower quality of human rights protection.

How best can the LS2’s river connectivity disruptions be assessed to ascertain if the measures explored recognize that water is a social and cultural good for the riparian communities?

Water is held as a social and cultural good for the riparian community’s sustenance of their traditional livelihood, where there is a strong reliance on the ecosystem for agriculture and fishing. Will there be an assessment to determine whether the LS2’s river connectivity disruptions recognize that water held as a social and cultural good impedes indigenous peoples’ free pursuit of economic, social, and cultural development?

Will the ICCPR, ICESCR complaint mechanisms (both of which Cambodia is a party to) be assessed to determine their adequacy in respecting the rights of the indigenous peoples to self-determination, particularly the free pursuit of their development and means of subsistence as it relates to water as a social and cultural good?

Will the LS2’s river connectivity disruptions be investigated to ascertain whether they contain any counterpart policies for sustainability and non-retrogression (not lowering the human rights protections) for indigenous peoples of the riparian communities?

If there is such a sustainability policy written into the LS2’s operations, will it be assessed to determine its consistency with the right of the riparian communities to self-determination?

Will the LS2’s river connectivity disruptions be assessed to determine whether they result in a deprivation of indigenous communities’ access to water as an economic, cultural good resulting in discrimination for the vulnerable populations of the riparian communities?

The LS2 dam disconnects the 3S river system from the broader Mekong River basin, preventing fish migration through the dam to the Sesan and Srepok rivers. The reservoir acts as a sink to the fish, reducing the diversity of fish in the reservoir and rivers. 78,000 villagers along the Sesan and Srepok rivers and 87 villages along the tributaries of the two rivers will lose access to migratory fish, increasing food scarcity of riparian communities. Will there be an investigation into the effects to determine whether the river connectivity on the 78,000 villagers and 87 tributaries results in discrimination as compared to other villagers and villages?

Will there be an investigation to determine whether there are  differences in the access to water caused by the river connectivity disruptions that result in discriminatory acts for some members over other members?

When water is treated only as a commodity or economic resource, and LS2’s operation wholly overlooks the nature of water as a social good and cultural good, will there be an investigation to determine whether there is differential treatment, based on a prohibited ground (e.g., ethnicity or culture), with the intent to discriminate, that impedes the enjoyment of the right to water in its dimensions as social and cultural goods?

Members of the riparian communities are farmers and fishermen focused on agriculture and fishing respectively. This speaks to the different forms of traditional livelihood for the riparian communities. Will an assessment be carried out to determine whether the river connectivity disruptions create effects that result in the differential treatment (based on a prohibited ground with the intent to discriminate), that impedes the enjoyment of the right to water as a social or cultural good?

Will there be an assessment to determine whether any sustainability policies apply to LS2’s river connectivity disruptions and are they consistent with the guarantee against non-discrimination?

Will there be an investigation to determine whether there are  sustainability policies that protect the various forms of livelihood for all members of the community?

Will there be an investigation on  whether there are compensation policies for riparian communities and if there is none, whether this results in discriminatory acts, favoring some members of the flooded communities over the riparian communities?

Prior to the river connectivity disruptions for the LS2’s dam operations, were the indigenous peoples of the riparian communities consulted and their consent obtained before the river connectivity disruptions, considering that they are dependent on the river flow for their food and sustenance of livelihoods?

Is there a need to conduct further investigation to ascertain whether there are consultation and compensation mechanisms for the indigenous riparian communities and whether they are consistent with the right to free disposition of their natural resources?

Will research conducted to determine whether the original arrangements reached by the Cambodian government to conduct river connectivity disruptions in hydrological connectivity contain any language that obtains free and meaningful consent from the indigenous peoples of riparian communities in the river basin that portrays their free disposition of their natural resources?

Will there be an assessment on whether  the river connectivity disruptions result in a denial of the free disposition of the natural resources for the riparian communities?

Will an assessment be carried out on whether the river connectivity disruptions  consider the importance of water not just as an economic good but as a social and cultural means of survival?

Will there be an investigation on whether the river connectivity disruptions decrease the amount of water available to indigenous peoples of riparian communities for consumption and agricultural purposes?

Will there be an assessment on whether the original arrangements agreed on by the Cambodian government (as part of its economic development plans that caused disruptions in hydrological connectivity), contain any sustainability policies, informed by the right to free disposition of natural resources of the indigenous peoples, based on the principle of mutual benefit and international law

Will there be an investigation into the existing agreements in Cambodia that protect indigenous peoples’ rights to due consultation and consent over the use of their natural resources?

Will an assessment be carried out to determine whether the river connectivity disruptions cause disconnections in hydrological connectivity that  deprive the riparian indigenous peoples of their means of subsistence and traditional livelihoods?

Will there be an investigation on whether  there are compensation mechanisms set in place and whether the mechanisms consider the riparian communities’ traditional livelihood of sustenance with agriculture and fishing, in a manner that results in the non-deprivation of the means of subsistence?

The river connectivity disruptions cause a disconnection of the 3S river system, reducing fish migration from the 3S to the Mekong river basin. This pushes over 50 species of fish to extinction. Will there be an assessment on whether the river connectivity disruptions consider the importance of various species of fish in sustaining the livelihood for riparian communities?

Will there be preliminary inquiries into the importance of fish migration to the Mekong river basin and its importance in sustaining their social and cultural good that sustains the livelihood of the riparian communities?

Will there be an investigation into whether the long and short-term implementation of LS2’s operations that cause disruptions in hydrological connectivity would result in deprivation of water as a social good and cultural good, in a manner that erodes the indigenous communities’ means of subsistence?

The river connectivity disruptions cause a disconnection of the 3S river system, reducing fish migration from the 3S to the Mekong river basin. This pushes over 50 species of fish to extinction. Will there be an assessment to ascertain whether this results in conflicts between the riparian communities over the limited available fish species?

Will there be sustainability measures that can be put in place to ensure that the fish species lost are recovered or more species introduced into the Mekong River Basin?

Will there be any studies carried out to determine whether other fish species can be introduced into the Mekong River and their life span sustainability?

Will there be an investigation on whether the formulation and implementation of a sustainability policy can help prevent the triggering of any  water scarcity or deprivation as a means of subsistence (especially for indigenous peoples and the most vulnerable groups)?

Will an investigation be carried out to ascertain the possible effects of the river connectivity disruptions for the users of the Tonle Sap lake’s ecosystem?

Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Rights to work and just and favorable conditions of work.

Specific human rights protections for vulnerable groups (women, children, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities).

Right to an adequate standard of living.

Right to development of indigenous peoples.

Baseline civil and political freedom.

Will there be an assessment into the application of specific human rights principles (treaty-based and custom-based) for the preservation and protection of social and cultural goods, including environmental preservation of natural resources and public commons, indigenous peoples’ rights to cultural integrity, identity, and human dignity?

Water quality and preservation of water quality: Will there be a preliminary assessment to ascertain whether the river connectivity disruptions would consider water quality and the change in quality as reducing the cultural and social significance of water?

Human right to a healthy environment and State duties to prohibit causing transboundary harm. Will there be an investigation into the measures that have been set in place to prevent transboundary harm (extinction of fish species) and how best this can be mitigated?

Will there be an assessment to determine the application of human rights-related legal principles on accountable governance, transparency in governmental decision-making, community participation of the riparian communities in the decisions that affect their livelihood?

ICESCR Article 2 progressive realization and non-retrogression obligations: Will the river connectivity disruptions result in the retrogression of the right to water and other interrelated rights?

Will there be an investigation to determine whether the river connectivity disruption processes negate the obligation of progressive realization of water not just as a commodity but as a social and cultural good?

Will  there be an assessment on whether the SDG 6 targets are significantly and negatively affected by the river connectivity disruptions for the  LS2?

Right to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Right to a healthy environment.

Right to benefits of scientific progress and applications.

Will there be an assessment to determine whether the scientific and technical standards on water quality also consider its multidimensional uses/nature as social goods and cultural goods?

Will there be an investigation to determine the decrease in water nutrients and its effect on the health of the riparian communities in their use of water for consumption?

Will an investigation be conducted into the possible decrease in nutrients for the fishes and how this prolongs or shortens the life span of the surviving species?

Physical accessibility: Will there be an investigation to ascertain whether the LS2’s hydrological connectivity disruptions generate impacts on civil and political rights to freedom of movement and choice of residence, privacy, security, as well as rights to just and favorable conditions of work, education, cultural participation, and gender equality?

Economic accessibility: Will there be an assessment to determine whether the LS2’s hydrological connectivity disruptions result in less affordability of water for indigenous peoples and all other affected communities?

Will it also cause decreased access to water and create competition over scarce resources by the riparian communities?

Will there be an assessment on whether the LS2’s hydrological connectivity disruptions affect Cambodia’s obligation under ICESCR Article 2(1) to take steps for the progressive realization of Covenant rights such as social security, social insurance, social protection measures?

Informational accessibility: Will there be an assessment to determine whether all  indigenous peoples of the riparian communities have rights to information, public participation and transparency with respect to the operations relating to the river connectivity disruptions?

Will the information on river connectivity disruption be in the language that the riparian communities understand, in an acceptable medium of communication and will they have access to such information?

Availability of water: Clear challenges to availability for all demographics affected.

Water Quality: Clear changes in the river hydrology and water quality for the indigenes of riparian communities and the river ecosystem of fishes.

Accessibility of water: Challenges for all riparian communities to access water.

Water as a Social Good: Not clear from the described measure if the measure considers the nature of water as a social good.

Water as a Cultural Good: The described measure completely overlooks the nature of water as a social and cultural good for indigenous peoples of the riparian communities and other peoples connected to the Tonle Sap Lake.

Protection and Preservation of Intergenerational Rights and Interests: Not described in the case study.

Non-Retrogression Obligation:  The construction of the dam creates conditions that promote retrogression of human rights protection such as protection of food sources, environment and work conditions.

The flow regime disruption occasioned by the LS2 construction creates water level fluctuations, particularly during the high demand for electricity. Because the hydropower dam is not operated to control floods, during the wet seasons, the reservoir is usually full, releasing huge amounts of water that causes flooding downstream and harming riparian livelihoods and ecosystems downstream.

Will there be an assessment on whether the flooding has adverse impacts and affects the rights of the riparian communities to the free pursuit of economic, social, and cultural development?
Will an investigation be carried out to determine the various negative effects of the LS2 on the 22,000 villagers living downstream as a result of the changes in river hydrology and water quality and how this impairs their rights to the free pursuit of economic, social and cultural development?

Will there be an assessment to determine whether there are various negative effects of the LS2 on the users of the Tonle Sap Lake and how the changes in the water quality and hydrology affects their rights to the free pursuit of economic, social and cultural development?

Considering the water quality degradation of the river water for consumption, affects the health of all consumers, will the  rights of the riparian communities to the free pursuit of their economic, social and cultural development be affected?

The people of the riparian communities sustain a traditional livelihood of agriculture and fishing, leading to a sustenance of their traditional livelihood based on this understanding. This leads to frequent social and cultural interactions among members of the community. However, the river connectivity disruptions of the LS2 have transformed the ethnic groups of the riparian communities from a rural-river based community to a rural-market-based community, where buying and selling has become the way of life for them. Given that there have been imposed changes in their maintenance of livelihood, will there be an assessment to determine whether this would affect the rights of the riparian communities to the free pursuit of their economic, social, and cultural development?

Are the ICCPR, ICESCR complaint mechanisms (both of which Cambodia is a party to) sufficient to respect the rights of the indigenous peoples to self-determination, particularly the free pursuit of their development in relation to water as a social and cultural good without being deprived of their means of subsistence?

Due to the river fluctuations that have altered the volume of river flow, this has caused flooding and affected the traditional livelihood of the riparian communities. Will there be research conducted on the sustainability of these changes and its effects on the riparian communities?

Will there be research into whether any sustainability policy is written into the LS2 dam construction and were they consistent with the right of the people to the free pursuit of their economic, social, and cultural development?

The river connectivity disruptions have negatively impacted the lives of the riparian communities that rely on agriculture and fishing to sustain their livelihood. For community members who rely on fishing, the river connectivity disruption has altered the seasonal difference that guaranteed food security and availability of fish during all seasons. Conversely, the agriculturalists, particularly those along the Sesan and Srepok rivers have  experienced  unpredictable fluctuations in the level of the Sesan River, causing damage to rice crops and property. Will  there be an investigation into whether the river fluctuations result in the discrimination of  certain groups (particularly vulnerable groups) in the community?

Will an investigation be conducted to determine the measures that would be taken to mitigate these effects for the agriculturalists and the fishermen? Would there be ways in which these measures can be effectively carried out in a manner that ensures that one group is not discriminated against or that some members of a group are not discriminated against?

The Sesan and Srepok rivers have many uses ranging from serving as drinking water, providing good condition for crops for agricultural purposes and a habitat for sustenance of fish ecosystems. These uses point to the importance of water not just as an economic resource but as a social and cultural good. Will there be an assessment on whether the measures for the river connectivity disruption acknowledges water as a commodity or economic resource and  a social and cultural good?

Will an investigation be conducted to determine whether there are differential treatments based on a prohibited ground (e.g., ethnicity or culture) with the intent to discriminate that impedes the enjoyment of the right to water as a social and cultural good?

Considering the different uses of water not just as an economic good but as a social and cultural good, will there be impact assessments undertaken to consider the different long-term and short-term effects of the river connectivity disruptions on the indigenes of the riparian communities and whether they are consistent with the right to non-discrimination?

Will there be policies that would protect other communities (outside the riparian communities) from discrimination and the effects of such discrimination?

Will an investigation be carried out to ascertain whether there are any  existing sustainability policies that would be applied to LS2’s river connectivity disruptions, and whether they are consistent with the guarantee against non-discrimination?

Considering the varied effects of the river connectivity disruptions on the indigenous peoples of the riparian communities, will there be prior consultations and measures to obtain free consent of indigenous peoples who are dependent on the condition of the river for their water, food, sustenance of livelihood and social interactions?

Will there be further investigations to determine whether there are consultation and compensation mechanisms set in place prior to the river connectivity disruptions?

Will an investigation be carried out to determine whether the Cambodian government carries out an impact assessment that determines the compensation policies and how failure to do this affects the rights of the people to freely exercise control over their natural resources?

Will the original arrangements reached by the Cambodian government to conduct LS2’s river flow regime disruptions and volume fluctuations be assessed to determine whether they contain any language that obtains free and meaningful consent by the indigenous peoples (and other affected riparian communities in the river basin) to the free disposition of their natural resources?

The water dispositions through the LS2’s operations have caused disruptions in hydrological connectivity that result in counterpart decreases in available water to indigenous peoples and other affected communities. Will there be assessment to determine the effects on the rights of the riparian communities to the free disposition of their natural resources? If yes, how?

Will the formulation and implementation of a sustainability policy be assessed to confirm whether it can help to prevent the deprivation of water as a means of subsistence, especially for indigenous peoples and the most vulnerable groups?

The flow regime disruptions have caused increased dry-season flows, decreased wet-season flows and occasional heavy and unpredictable floods. Will an assessment be conducted to determine whether the effects impact the short-term and long-term sustenance of the indigenous agriculturalists and fishermen of the riparian communities?

The flow regime disruption has affected the fish habitat in the dam’s reservoir, changing it from a flowing river to a homogenous flow reservoir. This has removed the seasonal difference in fish catch that ensured food security that previously existed. If food security is affected, will an investigation be

carried out to determine whether there are going to be counterpart or sustainability policies that would be set in place as mitigating measures in order not to deprive the riparian communities of their means of subsistence?

The flow regime disruption has also affected the production of Prahok, a traditional staple of Cambodian cuisine that uses fermentation techniques developed to conserve fish between seasons. Will an assessment be carried out to determine whether there are sustainability policies that would consider this in order not to deprive the fishermen of their means of subsistence?

Will an investigation be conducted to discover whether all water users (especially vulnerable groups such as women, children, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples) are equally enjoying all human rights in the context of the ongoing LS2’s river flow and volume fluctuations and giving the morphological and ecological impacts?

Will there be an investigation into the effects of the flow regime disruptions on the users of the Tonle Sap Lake and if the water users (especially the vulnerable groups) are equally enjoying the right to the equal enjoyment of all human rights?

Rights to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Will there be an assessment to determine the water quality and how these impact on the health of the affected riparian communities?

Will an investigation be carried out to discover the possible health problems of the affected peoples and how this affects their living conditions?

Will there be an assessment into the impact of flow regime disruption on the water hydrology and its effect on the riparian indigenous communities?

Will an assessment be conducted to determine the extent of damage to the rice crops and property and its effect on the health of the indigenous riparian communities?

Rights to work and just and favorable work conditions.

Will there be an investigation to determine if there is damage to the rice crops and how it would affect the indigenous people’s rights to work and earn a living?

Will there be investigation to assess the extent of  the transformation of ethnic groups from rural-river based community to rural-market based community and how this would affect the livelihood of the riparian indigenous communities?

Specific human rights protections for vulnerable groups (women, children, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities).

Right to an adequate standard of living.

Baseline civil and political freedoms.

Will there be an investigation into the application of specific human rights principles (treaty-based and custom-based) to preservation and protection of social and cultural goods, including environmental preservation of natural resources and public commons, indigenous peoples’ rights to cultural integrity, identity, and human dignity?

Will there be an assessment to determine whether there would be any effect of the flow regime disruption on the sustenance of traditional livelihood, the requirement to make a living from agriculture and fishing and its effect on the people’s identities?

Will research be carried out to determine what the changes of a switch from rural-river based community to rural-market based community would be and its effects on the rights of the riparian indigenous communities to earn a living?

Will there be an assessment carried out to determine the extent of consumption of new and different fish species (different from the ones they are used to and what their effects are on the affected populations?

Will an assessment be carried out to determine the cost of fish prior to the flow regime disruption, how it increases food insecurity and if it does, whether it causes tension between/among communities?

Will an investigation be carried out to determine the effects of the cultural and water insecurities on the affected riparian communities and the indigenous populations?

Human right to a healthy environment and State duties to prohibit causing transboundary harm.

Will there be an assessment on whether the water quality degradation has other effects on the environment and how this affects the present and future generations?

Will there be an assessment to determine  the level of changes in the seasonal fluctuations, how this would  increase food insecurity and how this would affect the indigenous riparian communities presently and in the future?

Will the human rights-related legal principles on accountability, governance, transparency in governmental decision-making, community participation in public affairs be assessed to determine their application in the LS2 hydro-industrial processes and the effect of the application on the present and future generations?

ICESCR Article 2 progressive realization and non-retrogression obligations.

Will there be an investigation on whether the SDG 6 targets are significantly and negatively affected by LS2’s operations?

Rights to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Will an assessment of the water quality be conducted to determine its impacts on the health of the affected riparian communities?

Will the possible health problems associated with the reduced water quality and its  effects on the affected populations be investigated?

Will there be an assessment on the impact of the water hydrology and its effect on the riparian indigenous communities?

Right to a healthy environment.

Right to benefits of scientific progress and applications.

Will the scientific and technical standards on water quality also consider water’s multidimensional uses/nature as social and cultural goods?

Will there be an investigation into other foreseeable possible impacts in the reduced water quality and its effects on the present and future generations?

Will there be an assessment on whether the scientific and technical standards on water quality contain any considerations for long-term sustainability of water quality for future generations, and the non-retrogression of these water quality standards as applied to all indigenous communities?

Will there be an investigation into the changes in the flood patterns and whether they have other significant short and long-term effects on the riparian communities and other minority communities?

Physical accessibility: Will the LS2’s river flow and volume fluctuations, generate impacts on civil and political rights to freedom of movement and choice of residence, privacy, security, as well as rights to just and favorable conditions of work, education, cultural participation, and gender equality?

Economic accessibility: Will there be an assessment to determine whether the LS2’s river flow and volume fluctuations result in less affordability of water for indigenous peoples and all affected flooded, and riparian communities?

Will there be any study carried out into the LS2’s river flow and volume fluctuations, that would affect Cambodia’s obligation under ICESCR Article 2(1) to take steps for the progressive realization of Covenant rights such as social security, social insurance, social protection measures?

Informational accessibility: Will the indigenous peoples and flooded, riparian communities have the rights to information, public participation, transparency with respect to these operations?

Element 1 of the Human Right to Water: ADEQUACY

Availability of water

Water Quality

Accessibility of Water

a. Cross-Cutting obligations

b. Interrelated Specific Human Rights Obligations

Considering the strong reliance of the indigenous communities on the water in the rivers for agricultural farming and fishing, will there be an investigation into whether the Cambodian government considers the LS2’s negative impacts on indigenous communities’ livelihoods, way of life, and ecosystems that result in the deprivation of the communities’ human rights?

The importance of having NGOs is that they are supporters and advocates for local communities and put pressure on the government to meet their environmental and social obligations. There are cases of some Cambodian NGOs representing their own unique interests instead of the indigenous communities, by pressuring the communities to accept the reality of the dam and focus on pursuing compensation and resettlement schemes. Will there be an investigation into whether this ignores the rights and interests of the indigenous peoples to pursue their own interests and development on their own terms?

Will there be an assessment on whether the divergent interests between the NGOs and the indigenous communities raise issues of representation concerns for indigenous communities, particularly those whose interests should be concentrated on?

Will there be an investigation into whether the Cambodian government understands the importance of the cultural and life-sustaining importance of rivers as the local indigenous communities view the rivers?

Will there be an investigation to discover whether the Cambodian government views the rivers as an untapped economic resource, (different from the indigenous communities) where the interests of the indigenous communities  will supersede that of the government’s interests because of their interests as indigenous communities and as owners of the rivers and water bodies?

Will investigations be carried out to determine whether there are engagements between the Cambodian government, local indigenous communities and vulnerable populations to obtain free and informed consent before beginning major infrastructure projects directly affecting the indigenous peoples?

Will there be an assessment on whether the indigenous communities are excluded in the decision-making processes leading to the construction of the dam? If yes, will this infer the non-participation of the people and their exclusion in determining issues affecting their right to water as an independent and interdependent human right?

Will research be conducted to determine whether Cambodian law sufficiently addresses transparency of information on policies affecting water rights and water adequacy for the indigenous communities?

Will there be an investigation into whether the Cambodian law or Constitution provides for accountability for violations of the right to water penalties?

Will the inability of some Cambodian NGOs projecting their interests over the interests of the indigenous communities raise concerns over their transparency and accountability and whether there has been adequate representation by these organizations?

The compensation and resettlement schemes were provided by the Cambodian government for the flooded communities. However, the government downplayed the assessment of effects of the LS2 communities, provided compensation for roughly 800 households as opposed to over 1000 families that the environmental impact assessment conducted recognized. Will this be assessed to ascertain whether this raises transparency and accountability concerns on the provision of adequate compensation for affected families?

Will an investigation be carried out to determine whether the impact assessment conducted by relevant stakeholders narrowly defines the affected communities, limiting them to the flooded communities, ignoring those who depend on the free flow of the river (riparian communities)?

There is a lack of trust on the part of some interviewed indigenous persons that they would see or reap the benefits of the dam. This  speaks to the Cambodia government’s reputation of a lack of transparency and accountability in handling previous projects.

Will there be research conducted to identify ways to improve the citizen’s confidence in the government?

Given existing threats to hydro social relations in the river basin, will there be assessments to determine what roles Cambodian law would play to impute the responsibility of policy makers and the other state/non-state actors?

Will there be research carried out to assess the business (ethical and legal) responsibilities of the government operating in the LS2 region and whether they affect the water adequacy with threats to hydro-social relations?

The narrow identification of the effect of the LS2 construction  by the stakeholders in the impact assessment shows that they considered villages that would be flooded, ignoring villages that rely on the water for their social and cultural growth, relationship and development.

Element 2 of the Human Right to Water:

MULTIDIMENSIONALITY

Water as a Social Good

Water as a Cultural Good

a. Cross-Cutting Obligations

b. Interrelated Specific Human Rights Obligations

Will there be an investigation into whether  the Cambodian government and other state/non state actors influence the characterization of water solely as an economic resource, instead of a resource that also addresses the social or cultural goods of the indigenous communities?

Cambodia sees the untapped hydropower as an expansion and transition to middle-income status by 2023. Will there be ways this can be reconciled with the interests of the indigenous peoples’ idea of social and cultural development?

How have the indigenous peoples quantified and described their social and cultural development?

Considering the social and cultural connections of the indigenous communities to the water, will they constitute relevant actors in water governance in Cambodia?

Will there be research conducted on whether the Cambodian government gives enough room for indigenous communities to participate in decision making processes, or do they have decentralized water management, especially considering  that water is treated as a social and cultural good?

Will all affected parties have a meaningful, comprehensive, and equally resourced participation in the consultation and dispute resolution processes that relate to the right to water?

Will there be an investigation into whether differences exist between the needs, uses and connections of the rivers between the majority and minority ethnic groups?

Considering the social and cultural connections of the indigenous communities to the water, will the participation of indigenous peoples in the decision-making processes be encouraged to promote inclusivity in decision-making processes?

Given the dearth of holistic or integrated regulation of the LS2’s region that respects ecology, culture, and allows for indigenous participation in water governance, are there going to be roles that the Cambodian government and other actors can play given this gap?

The Cambodian government restricts compensation for the flooded communities to the provision of monetary and material compensation, leaving off compensation for the cultural and social connections of the communities to the rivers.

Will there be an assessment to determine whether the current public and private responses to the threats to hydro- social relations recognize the multidimensional nature of water and the ensuing legal obligations on the Kingdom of Cambodia?

Will research be carried out to determine the business (ethical and legal) responsibilities of all state and non-state actors when threats to hydro social relations arise?

Element 3 of the Human Right to Water:

SUSTAINABILITY

Protection and preservation of intergenerational rights and interests

Non-retrogression obligation

a. Cross-Cutting Obligations

b. Interrelated Specific Human Rights Obligations

Will there be an assessment on whether the sustainability policies set in place by the influential water governance  actors in Cambodia are sufficiently consistent with the Kingdom of Cambodia’s related human rights obligations?

Will the Cambodian government exercise its responsibility in prescribing sustainability standards and ensure compliance on water resources and management?

Will the indigenous peoples and vulnerable affected communities have any co-authorship over sustainability policies crafted by the influential State and non-State (corporate) actors in water governance?

The indigenous communities (particularly the riparian communities) are excluded from the environmental impact assessment. Will there be an investigation into the effects on the present and future generations?

Will the Cambodian water policy and institutional environment make it easier for the indigenous peoples to monitor and extend sustainability oversight?

Will these sustainability oversights be transparent, accountable and have a strong enforcement mechanism?

Will there be threats to hydrosocial relations that implicate the long-term ability of the Kingdom of Cambodia to safeguard and ensure peaceful relations among indigenous populations?

To what extent will the private sector have a role in supporting and respecting sustainability measures  in the face of threats to hydro social relations?

Will the threats to the social and cultural connections of the indigenous communities have any long-term and short-term implications for the indigenous communities’ hydro-social relations?

Will there be competing ownerships of the three rivers and how best have issues such as peaceful usage been managed over time?

Will there be any research conducted to determine whether there is a proof of government allocation of ownership of a river to a particular community?