How Cambodia’s elite has captured
the country’s extractive industries

A report by Global Witness, February 2009

The same political elite who squandered Cambodia’s timber resources
are now responsible for managing its mineral and petroleum wealth.
Like high-value timber, these resources are a one-off opportunity. Oncethey are gone, they are gone forever.

Contents
Map
Glossary of key terms

2
2

Recommendations

3

Summary5

Chapter one: Cambodia’s extractive
industries – the stakes are highMinerals – an introduction
Oil and gas – an introduction
Cambodia today: From democracy experiment to
one-party kleptocracy
Box 1: Wasted wood – the lessons of illegal logging
Process matters: Why the allocation of concessions
in Cambodia is importantBox 2: Cambodian land investment – it’s a steal!

9
11
11
12
13
14
14

Chapter two: Mining
Map of known mining activity in Cambodia
The regulation of mining in Cambodia
Licensed to drill?
Who owns the land?
Access to information“Conservation areas are not inviolable”
Box 3: Mining in Virachey National Park
Rattanak Stone-Kenertec mine
Early ownership
Box 4: How much do mining rights cost?
Hongfu-Try Pheap mineBox 5: Pheapimex-ploitation
Southern Mining
Rangers blocked
Cambodian soldiers, Vietnamese owners
Box 6: The role of Cambodia’s armed forces in thetheft of public assets
Float Asia Friendly Mation
Box 7: The return of Dy Chouch
Koh Kong sandBox 8: Singapore – the shifting sands of land
reclamation
The Phat of the sand
The Cham Borey connection
Chart 1: Key players in Cambodia’s mining industry

15
16
17
18
18
18
18
20
21
21
22
23
24
25
26
26

Chapter three: Oil and gas
Legal framework and legislative process

35
36

27
27
30
31
32
33
33
34

Transfers of powerBox 9: Sok An
Governing Cambodia’s oil and gas sector:
A case of contract law?
Chart 2: Fees requested in the Cambodian
government’s draft Petroleum Agreement
Structure of the Cambodian National Petroleum
Authority: The rift within…
Chart 3: Structure of Cambodian National Petroleum
Authority
Box 10: Pay day politics
Information flows?
Bidding rounds and the allocation of Production
Sharing Contracts
Box 11: New kids on the block?
Map of known oil and gas concessions
Who is behind the names? The allocation of oil
and gas concessions in Cambodia
Block A
Block BBox 12: Chevron – the challenge of transparency
Block C
Block D
Block E
Block F
Block XIIBlocks X and XVOther blocks
Cambodian signature bonuses – whoever signs thesignature gets the bonus
Thump if you love oil:
Exploring onshore in Battambang and Pursat
Chapter four: Cambodia’s donors –who do they work for?
Box 13: Missing in action – Cambodia’santi-corruption law
To be or not to be? The Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative
The complexities of partnership
Chart 4: How to give money and still not influencepeopleConclusion
Abbreviations
Endnotes

37
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
43
43
44
45
46
47
48
48
48
48
49
50

53
55
55
55
56
58
59
60

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 20091

Recommendations

Glossary of key terms
Resource curse – the phenomenon by which natural
resource wealth often results in poor standards ofhuman development, bad governance, increased
corruption and sometimes conflict.
Extractive industries – for the purposes of this report,
the extractive industries are defined as the oil, gas, andmining industries.
Kleptocracy – a style of governance characterised byhigh-level corruption and looting of state funds for the
purpose of increasing the personal wealth and politicalpower of the ruling class.

2

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

Shadow state1 – a state where political power iswielded as a means to personal self-enrichment andstate institutions are subverted to support those needs.
Behind the laws and government institutions of suchstates is a parallel system of personal rule. Leaders ofthese states are typically able to exploit their country’s
public assets, particularly natural resources, throughthe subversion of bureaucratic institutions and themonopoly on the use of violence. In this way, they canenrich themselves and pay for the means to stay inpower.

recommendations

recommendations
The Royal Government of Cambodia should:
Take immediate steps to implement and enforce a
moratorium on the granting of further mineral or
petroleum concessions until it has established abasic legal, environmental and social framework to
adequately govern the oil, gas and mining sectors• Assemble the best possible data on resource deposits, so as
to provide all companies with the same information and toensure fair competition between the companies.
• Finalise and publish the national legal frameworks for
guiding the extraction of mineral and petroleum resources.
• Design and publish a long-term strategy for exploiting
Cambodia’s mineral base, including plans to mitigate any
undesirable social or environmental side effects.
• Establish an independent public agency to award rights
to these resources. The agency should possess appropriatetechnical expertise and legitimacy and be subject to public
scrutiny and parliamentary oversight.
• Complete the indigenous communal land titling process.
• Complete the zoning process for Cambodia’s protected areas.
Take immediate steps to review all existing
concessions and cancel concession agreements
if they do not meet the criteria set out below. Only
companies which can provide the public andgovernment with clear evidence of their capabilities
should be allowed to start or to continue work in
Cambodia. This evidence should include:• The names of all people who hold any stake in thecompany and who will benefit from this business and thatof any partners in their bid.
• Their sources of funds.
• A track record in the industry.
• A proven technical and financial ability to exploit any
rights that are offered in legal compliance.
• An ability to protect against environmental or social costs,
and satisfactory planning and funding to address any
damage incurred.
Take immediate steps to ensure transparency in the
allocation of oil, gas and mineral assets• Require all government officials, parliamentarians andhigh-ranking military personnel to publish their businessinterests and those of their immediate families.
• Award oil, gas and mining rights in open and competitive
bidding to ensure the best deal for Cambodia. The
criteria for pre-qualification of bidders and for awarding
concessions or licences should be available to the public.
• Publish all contracts for oil, gas or mining rights, and the fulldetails of unsuccessful bids, within a reasonable time after
the end of bidding and before the contract comes into force.

Take immediate steps to increase transparency inthe management of oil, gas and mineral assets• Ensure full and continued disclosure of information
concerning the management of public assets to include,
but not be limited to, information on oil, gas and mineraldeposits.
• Ensure that this information includes the following: theoperator (and any partners) of each concession or licence,
its size and location, and details of any commitments madein return for being awarded the rights.
• Require all companies operating in sectors of Cambodia’s
natural resource economy to publish the same information.
• Prohibit ownership of companies engaging in Cambodia’s
extractive sectors by members of government and thecivil service and their family members, on the basis that it
represents a conflict of interests.
Ensure transparent management of oil, gas andmineral revenues by adopting best international
practice• Publish information on signature bonuses and any otherpayments made by companies involved in the oil, gas andmining sectors to the government of Cambodia.
• Implement the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF)
Guide to Resource Revenue Transparency.
• Endorse and implement the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative (EITI).
• All payments relating to the resource extraction should
be made into a single government bank account whichis independently audited on a regular basis, the results ofwhich are made available to the public.

The National Assembly of Cambodia should:
Take a more active role in the governance of thecountry’s natural resources• Debate and approve all aspects of the process for awarding
oil and mining, land and forest rights, before any awards
are made. Once the process is deliberated and approved, itshould apply equally to all companies and not be adapted
without further parliamentary approval.
• Oversee the creation of, and any amendments to, legislation
governing the management of Cambodia’s natural resources.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 20093

Recommendations

Cambodia’s international donors, including
China, should:
Recognise that there is a direct link between
governance and development outcomes, and use
aid as leverage to improve governance• Take immediate steps to ensure that commitments of nonhumanitarian aid follow, not lead, demonstrable progressin implementing the necessary measures to achieve better
governance.
Take immediate steps to integrate and coordinate
the donor aid agenda with the urgent need to reformand strengthen the governance of Cambodia’s
emerging extractive sectors• Make future assistance conditional on fulfilment of therecommendations outlined above.
• Establish joint donor-government working groups anddevelop associated monitoring indicators on Cambodia’s
extractive industries within the Cambodia Development
Cooperation Forum (CDCF) process.
• With reference to the mining sector, highlight the
deforestation and long-term damage that mining inprotected areas and in the area surrounding Prey Long
forest will entail, especially in an era of climate change.
Instead, promote alternative land and resource use basedon sustainable financing options and pro-poor economic
development. These options could include communitybased enterprise development, ecotourism, non-timber
forest products, carbon sequestration and storage, payments
for water quality, and other payments for ecological services(PES), including potentially under a Reduced Emissions
from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).
Ensure that anti-corruption efforts are integrated
within the core activities of all petroleum andmineral related aid programmes to Cambodia• This should include both financial and political support tocivil society, competent individuals within the institutions,parliamentarians, the media and any other players orprocesses.
• Further investment in understanding the political economy
of Cambodia.

Support Cambodian civil society in its efforts toincrease transparency and accountability in the
management of Cambodia’s public assets• Publicly adopt and implement a zero tolerance policy forstate-sponsored violence or threats against civil society
activists or organisations.
• Set up a system of response to support members of civilsociety whose lives are threatened or organisations thatface threat of closure due to their work on governmenttransparency and accountability.
• Provide support to civil society to document, monitor andscrutinise the management of natural resources.
• Provide support to help build the capacity of civil society tomonitor and ensure transparent public sector spending.
Governments should:• Follow the lead of the U.S., and impose travel ban measureson any individual and their immediate family members
against whom there is credible evidence to believe are
involved in corruption relating to the extraction of natural
resources in their countries.i• Demand and support strong anti-corruption actions taken
by individuals at a country level in this regard.
• Create a system of promotional incentives which are geared
towards rewarding individuals who disburse money on thebasis of governance considerations.

Companies operating in Cambodia should:• Publish information on the size of any concessions andlocations, and details of any commitments or payments
made in return for being awarded the rights.
• Not make any payment to any member of the Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces, unless that payment is requiredby law.
• Declare any payments made to any member of the Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces in full. All payments should be
independently audited.

For the full legislation, see the U.S. Consolidated Appropriations Act http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_
bills&docid=f:h2764enr.txt.pdf. The provisions relating to Cambodia in the Consolidated Appropriations Act can be found in the accompanying Division J report which
provides additional information on the implementation of the Act. The Division J report endorses the language on Cambodia found within the 2008 State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill. This contained the following text: “The Committee urges the administration to exercise Presidential Proclamation
7750 [the anti-Kleptocracy Initiative travel ban] to prohibit corrupt Cambodian officials identified in the June 2007 Global Witness report entitled ‘Cambodia’s Family
Trees: Illegal Logging and the Stripping of Public Assets by Cambodia’s Elite’ from entering the United States. The Committee encourages other developed countries,
particularly in Europe and Asia, to implement similar restrictions.”i

4Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

Summarysummary
Cambodia today is a country for sale. Having madetheir fortunes from logging much of the country’s
forest resources, Cambodia’s elite have diversified theircommercial interests to encompass other forms of state
assets. These include land, fisheries, tropical islands andbeaches, minerals and petroleum. The country is rapidly
being parcelled up and sold off. Over the past 15 years, 45
per cent of the country’s land has been purchased by privateinterests. The economic wisdom of the sell-off has yet to be
proven. The social and environmental consequences havealready been devastating.ii
This report is based on investigations carried out by Global
Witness in 2008 and looks at one part of this wider
phenomenon – the emerging oil, gas and mineral sectors.
It makes the case for greater efforts by the Cambodian
government and the country’s international donors tostrengthen the governance of these resources.

1

Cambodia is on the vergeof a petroleum andminerals windfall.
If managed well, revenue fromthese new extractive industries
could provide the Cambodian
government with the best
chance in a generation to rebuild
state infrastructure and lift its
people out of poverty. If mismanaged
through corruption or ineptitude, themoney generated runs the risk of widening the gap between
rich and poor and weakening democracy still further byentrenching the positions of the ruling elite.

2

Cambodia’s extractive industries are exhibiting
early warning signs of kleptocratic state
capture.
Global Witness surveyed the emerging extractive industries
through a combination of interviews with industry insiders
and field work. The results were alarming. Patterns ofcorruption and patronage found in the forest sector, anddocumented by Global Witness over 13 years, are now being
duplicated in the extractive industries. The same politicalelite who squandered the country’s timber resources are
now responsible for managing its mineral and petroleum
wealth. Like high-value timber, these resources are a one-off
opportunity. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.2

The small numbers of elite powerbrokers who run the state
have sold off potentially valuable concessions to companies in amanner that is non-transparent and highly dubious. On current
trends, these powerbrokers stand to benefit from Cambodia’s
extractive industries. The Cambodian people do not. They are
aided in doing so by a total lack of transparency in both thepetroleum and mineral sectors. The legitimacy and technicalcapabilities of some of the companies who have boughtthese concessions is uncertain. Meanwhile, the risks to theenvironment and the people who live on the land are enormous.

3

Payments from extractive companies totalling
millions of dollars appear to have gone
missing.
Financial bonuses paid to secure concessions – totalling
millions of dollars – do not show up, as far as Global Witness
can see, in the 2006 or 2007 revenue reports from the
Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Workers test the soil for minerals at a mine site in Preah
Vihear Province

Full references for the points covered in this summary can be found in themain body of the report.

iiCountry for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 20095

SummaryIn the case of the minerals sector:

In the case of the oil and gas sector:

4

7

Exploratory mining licences have been quietly
allocated to members of the ruling elite or theirrelatives.
Of the mine sites investigated by Global Witness in 2008,
every single one was owned or controlled by members of
Cambodia’s political or military elite. The roll call includes:• General Ouk Kosa,3 head of the Royal Cambodian Armed
Forces (RCAF) military development zones;• Cham Borey,4 brother of Cambodia’s Minister forCommerce, Cham Prasidh;5• Dy Chouch,6 (also known as Hun Chouch), first cousin to
Prime Minister Hun Sen;
• General Meas Sophea,7 Commander of the RCAF
infantry forces;• Ly Yong Phat,8 Cambodia Peoples Party (CPP) senatorand wealthy tycoon;• Om Yen Tieng,9 Hun Sen’s senior advisor and chairman of
the Cambodian government’s Human Rights commission;• Senator Lao Meng Khin,10 a Hun Sen confidante anddirector of Pheapimex, one of Cambodia’s most powerfulcompanies;• General Pol Saroeun,11 Commander-in-Chief of the Royal
Cambodian Army;• Oknha Try Pheap,12 pro-CPP tycoon.

5

There is obvious and extensive involvementof the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces in theemerging mining sector.
Global Witness investigators found the RCAF forces
employed to guard mine sites in Stung Treng, Preah Vihear
and Pursat Provinces. On some sites, land has been takenfrom local people and cases of intimidation of residents arereported. There has been no free, prior and informed consent
by the local population in any of these cases.

6

Cambodia’s protected or environmentallysensitive areas are of particular concern. On
current trends, previously unexplored areasin the Cardamoms, Prey Long Forest and Phnom
Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary will be permanently
damaged or destroyed.
The Royal Government of Cambodia has made the decision
to prioritise mining over environmental needs and protection.
This has led to extensive exploratory mining activity. At leastsix out of Cambodia’s 23 protected areas now have some formof mining activity within their boundaries.

The institution in charge of Cambodia’s
oil and gas industry – the Cambodian
National Petroleum Authority (CNPA) – is aconstitutionally dubious body under the directcontrol of Prime Minister Hun Sen and his deputy,
Sok An.13
The CNPA was established by royal decree. In the opinion oflegal experts consulted by Global Witness, the transfer of suchsignificant powers to a new organisation by royal decree only,
without primary legislation passed by the National Assembly,
is out of keeping with normal practice and constitutionally
dubious.
Meanwhile, quiet amendments made to the 1991 Petroleum
Legislation appear to have placed power and control of theinstitution directly into the hands of the prime minister andhis deputy, Sok An.

8

The centralisation and politicisation of power
within the CNPA has created a dysfunctionalorganisation over which the Cambodian
parliament has no oversight, and other essential
ministries have no say.
Control and management of the CNPA is highly politicised.
Those wielding power are pro-Hun Sen CPP politicians.
Exercise of this power sidelines and marginalises those whoare supportive of the Senate President, Chea Sim.14 Director
General of the CNPA, Te Duong Tara,15 maintains a vice-like
grip on information by recruiting his own pool of loyal staff
from other ministries, bypassing the trained staff within the
CNPA, and by keeping documents in his own home, rather
than the office.
There is no parliamentary oversight of the CNPA.
Parliamentarians appear unaware and uninformed of the
CNPA’s work. Likewise, the CNPA is not coordinating withother ministries: the finance ministry – which will be responsible
for collecting revenue from the oil and gas supplies when
they come online – has not been included by the CNPA in
discussions on management of this resource and future revenue.

9

Allocation of concessions has taken place
under a blanket of secrecy.
Oil company contracts and information on concession
allocations are a closely guarded secret within the CNPA.
It is known however that the CNPA has allocated all ofCambodia’s undisputed offshore blocks to private companies.

Cambodia is on the verge of a petroleum
and minerals windfall
6

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

Summary

Hun Sen (right) has direct control of the Cambodian National Petroleum Authority (CNPA), which is responsible for coordinatingCambodia’s oil sector

Meanwhile it continues to allocate blocks onshore aroundthe Tonle Sap Basin, and to re-license offshore blocks in
the Overlapping Claims Areas – areas which are contested
between Cambodia and Thailand.

be just under US$800,000 per concession. As far as Global
Witness can see, none of this money has appeared on the
non-tax revenue reports from the Ministry of Economy and
Finance for 2006 or 2007.

A mix of companies have been allocated concessions. Someare operators who bring legitimate expertise to the table. Withother companies, it is less clear what experience they will bringor to whom they are connected.

11

The prime minister’s economic advisor, the tycoon Dr. Chen
Lip Keong,16 is the owner of Resourceful Petroleum,17 a
company which holds a 30 per cent share of offshore Block
B. Dr. Chen Lip Keong’s lawyers told Global Witness that
Resourceful Petroleum conducts other oil and gas businesselsewhere in the world.18 Other companies such as China
Zhen Rong Cambodia Company19 appear to have been
specifically set up with a view to accessing Cambodia’s oil
and gas resources.

10

Millions of dollars have been paid to the
CNPA by extractive companies, but thismoney does not appear to have reachedthe national treasury.
Each company is required to pay a negotiable signaturebonus to the CNPA. Indonesian firm PT Medco Energi
Internasional has paid a total of US$7.5 million to the CNPA
so far. In addition, each company holding a production
sharing contract for a concession block is also required to pay
significant fees on an annual basis. In the first year, this would

The onshore area known as the Tonle Sap
Basin is currently being explored.
The basin covers part of the Tonle Sap Lake,a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve whose waters provide anestimated 230,000 tonnes of fish each year. These fish stocks
supply 40-70 per cent of the country’s annual protein intake
and afford an essential source of livelihoods for around two
million Cambodians.

At the time of writing, seismic surveying of the Tonle Sap
Basin was being carried out by a private company known as
Petroleum Geo Services (PGS).20 The results have not been
made public, but Global Witness has been told that the data is‘highly prospective’.
PT Medco Energi Internasional21 has been awarded one
onshore block. Others also claim to have been allocatedconcessions. As of August 2008, there had been little
consultation or awareness-raising with local people, despite
the fact that Cambodian officials have already given PGS
permission to extend their survey into the rice paddies after
the harvest in late 2008.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 20097

SummaryChildren walk past a truck delivering Chinese equipment to a mine site in Rovieng District, Preah Vihear Province

12

Cambodia’s international donors are notusing the influence that their development
aid gives them to improve governance.
International donors provide aid equivalent to approximately
half Cambodia’s national budget each year. Donors havenot used the leverage that this aid gives them effectively.
Specifically, they have refused to acknowledge the fact thatthe government is thoroughly corrupt and does not act in thebest interests of the population. As a result, billions of dollarsworth of aid funded by western taxpayers, and now China,
has done relatively little to improve the lives of ordinary
Cambodians. Moreover, donor support has failed to produce
reforms that would make the government more accountable toits citizens. Instead, the government is successfully exploiting
international aid as a source of political legitimacy.

13

The government has already backtracked
on basic transparency requirements for the
extractive industries.
After initially agreeing to endorse the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative, the Cambodian government hasannounced that it will not endorse it.

8

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200914

The damage done is not yet irreparable
and there is a narrow window ofopportunity to improve the governance ofCambodia’s extractive industries.
This must start with an immediate moratorium on any
new concessions, a review of existing concessions, and fulltransparency on the allocation and management of these
critical public assets. Donors should link the disbursal of nonhumanitarian aid to demonstrable progress in implementing
these measures.

Cambodia’s
extractive
industries are
exhibiting early
warning signs ofkleptocratic state
capture...

CHAPter one | Cambodia’s extractive industries – the stakes are highchapter one
Cambodia’s
extractive
industries

9CHAPter one | Cambodia’s extractive industries – the stakes are highchapter one
Cambodia’s extractive industries– the stakes are high“We’re in the phase of what we call transition.”

Mok Mareth,22 Cambodia’s Minister for Environment, commenting on the emerging extractive industries.23

Cambodia appears to be on the verge of an oil, gas andminerals windfall. High demand worldwide for thesecommodities has, until recently, led to high prices. As a resultcompanies are beginning to search for economically viable
reserves in previously untapped countries once thought to be
too politically unstable to operate in. Cambodia is an exampleof this phenomenon in action.
Over the last two years, Cambodia’s mining and oil sectors
have developed rapidly, with new companies exploring
the potential for mineral and petroleum wealth under thecountry’s land and sea. The revenues generated are likely to besmall compared to petroleum or mineral mega-producers suchas Iraq or South Africa but, if properly managed, they could
represent Cambodia’s best chance in a generation to escape
the poverty trap.

CORBIS

While Cambodia has experienced rapid economic growth
in recent years much of the population remains poor andwithout access to the most basic facilities. The United Nations
Development Programme’s 2007 ‘Human Development
Index’ ranked Cambodia at 131 out of 177 nations, with
78 per cent of the population estimated to live on less than
US$2 a day.24 Meanwhile, life expectancy is only 58 years, and10

one-third of children aged under five years old are classed
as malnourished.25 For the majority of Cambodians, life
continues to be short and tough.
The IMF predicts that annual oil revenue will increase
gradually from about US$174 million in 2011 to a maximumof US$1.7 billion in 2021, before dropping rapidly thereafter.26
If this estimate is accurate, the oil revenues would radicallyalter the country’s economic outlook.
Other sources are less optimistic. Industry experts withaccess to the latest data have expressed concern that the IMF,
government and media have failed to adequately differentiate
between how much oil and gas lies below the ground and how
much it is possible to extract. They counsel that that the IMF
estimates are inaccurate and need to be revised downwards.
On their forecasts, the anticipated flood of revenue into thesystem may not materialise. Nevertheless, the potential income
would still be significant by Cambodian standards.27

Meanwhile, the mining sector is quietly developing in the
background. Due to the lack of data on Cambodia’s mineralreserves and the early stage of exploration of many of themining sites, it is impossible to quantify how much revenue
Cambodia’s mining sector could
produce, yet investment and interest isincreasing rapidly. In the mid-1990s nomajor mining projects were initiated,but by 2006, a rush for mineral resources
was clearly on: the government bodyin charge of encouraging foreign
investment – the Council for theDevelopment of Cambodia 28 –approved US$403 million of investmentin the mining sector in that year alone.29
This raises the possibility that despite
its quiet start, it could be Cambodia’s
mining sector – not oil – which has the
While Cambodia has experienced rapid economic growth in recent years, much ofgreater potential to contribute to thethe population remains poor and without access to the most basic facilities
national economy.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter one | Cambodia’s extractive industries: the stakes are highmineral exploration purposes.34 Meanwhile the Cambodian
government has established mining as a ‘priority’ over the
coming years and is proactively seeking further investment
from foreign and Cambodian companies.35
These mining concessions are at various stages ofdevelopment. Some concessionaires are actively drilling test
holes and analysing samples. For example, there are early
indications of gold and iron deposits worth tens of millions ofdollars in Preah Vihear Province.36 Some concessions simply
marked out land that was already being used for mining, suchas marble quarries in remote corners of Pursat Province. Other
concessions appear to be purely speculative, and have not yet
been developed.

In short, the national treasury could soon be earning hundredsof millions of dollars from its extractive industries, somethingwhich should be a cause for celebration for a country whichstill relies on the international donor community foraid equivalent to almost half of its annual budget.30
However, the precedent set by the management of
the state’s other assets – its land, fisheries, forestsand heritage sites – suggests that the Cambodian
government might squander this opportunity. Rather
than using these millions to lift its people out of poverty,
Cambodia’s government could instead continue to follow theexample of neighbouring Burma, where an autocratic eliteuses money generated from the country’s natural resource
wealth to rule over an impoverished majority with little regard
for their welfare or rights.
Decisions are being made now about how to manage theseindustries. The outcome will determine whether Cambodia’s‘transition’ phase moves the country out of poverty or
headlong into the resource curse.

Minerals – an introduction
Cambodia’s mineral wealth was being mapped as early as
the latter half of the 19th century by French and Chinese
geologists.31 Minerals identified include bauxite, carbonate
rocks, gemstones, gold, manganese, phosphate, salt, silica andzircon.32 More recently, other important minerals such as
chromium, copper, iron ore, limestone, nickel and tungsten havebeen discovered.33 Despite the prospects, most of Cambodia’s
mineral resources have remained underdeveloped up until now
because of war, internal conflict and a lack of investment.
Today the mining sector is poised to shift from small-scaledigging by local communities to full-scale extraction by large
companies. Increasing numbers of companies are now making
a significant commitment to the sector. Although information
about the allocation of mining licences in Cambodia isdifficult to obtain, Global Witness research in 2008 has
identified more than 100 mining licences allocated for

Oil and Gas – an introduction“The oil is still in the ground. It is like the fish in the sea. We don’tknow if it is the big fish or the small fish. Does it have scales?
Before we can cook the fish we have to know whatkind it is.”Te Duong Tara, Director General of

the Cambodian National Petroleum
Authority offers this analysis of oil andgas exploration in Cambodia at aninternational petroleum conference inPhnom Penh, 26-28 March 2008.37

Al Jezeera English

Investment and interest in Cambodia’s mining sector isincreasing rapidly

Like the mining industry, Cambodia’s petroleum
sector is in its infancy. Unlike the mining industry however,it has attracted considerable media attention and speculation,and it is clear that the oil and gas industry in Cambodia isregarded as an emerging, major element in the economic
future of the country. The prospect of oil riches has sparked offa ‘black gold’ rush involving American, Australian, Chinese,Indonesian, Japanese, and Korean companies, all battling forpotentially lucrative rights.
All of Cambodia’s offshore blocks (labelled A-F) and at least
one onshore block have already been allocated to domestic
or foreign companies. Only the 27,000 km2 area in thenorthern Gulf of Thailand known as the Overlapping Claims
Area (OCA) remains undecided because of an ownershipdispute between Thailand and Cambodia. Talks to settle thedispute between the Thai and Cambodian governments wererestarted in April 2008. However, the recent political turmoil
in Thailand, combined with a border dispute between the twocountries, means that there is no immediate solution in sight.38
Despite this impasse, as of September 2008 the CNPA had
begun to reallocate oil concessions on any licences which had
expired within the OCA blocks in order to help strengthen
its claim on the resource.39 The government is planning todevelop a small domestic oil refinery, while the Cambodian
National Petroleum Authority has begun talking about setting
up a national oil company.40 The U.S. oil company Chevron41
holds the rights to Block A – the most advanced in terms of
exploration of Cambodia’s offshore blocks. Industry observers
expect oil production in this block to start in 2011.42
Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200911

CHAPter one | Cambodia’s extractive industries – the stakes are high“Human dignity, equity, meeting the basic needs of the people, participationand the development of people’s capacity and choice are among the principal
values and objectives of human rights. Economic and political policies andpractices in Cambodia do not accord any particular importance to these values.”
Quote from statement to the UN Human Rights Council by the Special Representative of the Secretary General in
Cambodia for Human Rights, Yash Ghai, 12 June 2007.43

Cambodia today: From democracy
experiment to one-party kleptocracy
After decades of war and one of the most horrific episodes
in recent human history – the Khmer Rouge regime –Cambodia’s warring factions signed a peace agreement in1991. This heralded the start of one of the biggest and most
costly peacekeeping operations in history, and the beginningof international efforts to bring democracy and development
to Cambodia. Expectations that the UN-organised electionsin 1993 would bring major political change were not realised,however. The incumbent Cambodian People’s Party, whose
leadership is drawn from former Khmer Rouge cadres,refused to accept that they had lost the vote and muscledtheir way into the government. They completed their reversalof Cambodia’s tentative progress towards democracy in July
1997, when they dislodged their coalition partners in a bloody
coup d’état.44
It is now 17 years since the signing of the Paris Peace Accords,
and the country once regarded as the international model
for post-conflict nation-building has become Southeast
Asia’s newest kleptocracy; its reputation marred by massive
corruption, human rights abuses, impunity, repression andundemocratic governance. Contrary to the spirit of the1991 Peace Accords, Cambodia’s political influence andwealth is concentrated in the hands of a small ruling elite.
The misappropriation of the country’s rich natural resources– its forests, land and fisheries – has been central to thisaccumulation of wealth and consolidation of political power.
Government officials, senior military figures and theirbusiness associates use the police and armed forces as theirown private armies, with little balance from a politicallycontrolled judiciary or a civil society slowly beaten down over
the years by killings and threats. State officials and powerfulinterests around them are able to appropriate natural andeconomic resources as well as the property of others, harass
any opponents and suppress their rights.45
Cambodia’s natural resources could have provided the means
with which to kick-start the post-conflict economy. Revenue
generated from logging, plantations and fisheries should havegone towards poverty alleviation and rebuilding essential
infrastructure. Instead, systematic and institutionalised
12Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

Prime Minister Hun Sen

corruption and economic mismanagement have deprived theentire population of the revenue that could have come fromthese public goods.
Since the suspension of the country’s logging concessionairesystem in 2002, focus has shifted to alternative sources ofincome generation through the exploitation of remaining
state assets, including fisheries, land and mineral deposits. The
rise of Cambodia’s mining and oil sectors represents just one
part of the diversification of natural resource exploitation in
Cambodia.
An examination of Cambodia’s business sector reveals that thecountry’s beaches, casinos, forests, hotels, islands, land, nationalbuildings and ports and are now predominantly controlled
by a handful of government-affiliated tycoons, high-ranking
police and military brass, or family members of senior politicalfigures. Meanwhile, residents who have lived on the land aresimply forced to leave, often with brutal evictions enforced by
the police, military police and the armed forces.

CHAPter one | Cambodia’s extractive industries – the stakes are highBox 1 | Wasted wood – the lessons of illegal logging
In the 1990s Cambodia’s forests
were described by the World Bank as
the country’s ‘most developmentally
important resource’.46 Today they arelargely degraded. Over the years,
much of the valuable timber has beensold off by the political elite to privatecompanies or individuals looking to
make large profits quickly out of rapid
unrestricted logging. Most of the vast
wealth generated from this logging has
not reached the national coffers; instead
it appears to have gone straight into theprivate bank accounts of the loggers andtheir political patrons.47
Global Witness first began exposing
illegal logging in Cambodia and its links with conflict,corruption and human rights abuses in 1995. Early work
revealed how, in the last years of Cambodia’s civil war,both the Khmer Rouge and the Phnom Penh government
used logging to fund military campaigns and, conversely,used military campaigns as a pretext for further logging.
Investigations revealed a cross-border timber trade withThailand worth US$10-20 million per month. Following
publication of these findings, the Thai border was closed to
Cambodian timber – cutting off a critical source of militaryfunding for the civil war.
This did not spell the end of illegal logging in Cambodia’s
forests however. In the mid-1990s, senior government
ministers awarded between 30 and 40 logging concessions
to Cambodian and foreign-owned companies. Over sevenmillion hectares of forest – or 39 percent of Cambodia’s land area – weresigned away in these contracts on terms
that greatly favoured the interests of theconcessionaires.48 All the concessionaires
proceeded to break the law or the termsof their contracts, or both, in order to reap
fast profits. By the end of the decade, they
were responsible for most of the illegal
logging in Cambodia.49
During this time, company staff
committed serious human rights abuses
against people living inside or adjacent toforest concessions. These included denialof access to forest areas, intimidation,rape and, in at least one case, murder.
Eventually, pressure from international donors andNGOs led to the suspension of the ‘concessionaire’logging system by the Cambodian government in2002. However, despite public commitments to reform,
Cambodia’s shadow state has continued to generatemoney from the timber sector. Officials charged with
implementing reforms have instead subverted them; withthe result that illegal logging has continued in a variety offorms and is still causing severe damage to Cambodia’s
remaining forests.
The same political elite who squandered the country’s
timber resources are now responsible for its mineral andpetroleum wealth. Like high-value timber, these resources
represent a one-off opportunity. Once they are exhausted,
they are gone forever.51

Inset top: A forest concessionaire contract signed in 1997 by Sok An, who is now Cambodia’s deputy prime minister andchairman of the CNPA. In the mid-1990s he signed contracts which awarded over seven million hectares of forest to privatecompanies on terms which greatly favoured the interests of the logging companies50
Above: Concessionaire logging trucks. In the 1990s the activities of these companies severely degraded Cambodia’s valuable
forest resourcesCountry for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200913

CHAPter one | Cambodia’s extractive industries – the stakes are highProcess matters: Why the allocation ofconcessions in Cambodia is important
To date, much of the attention on the oil and mineral sectors
has focused on what will become of the money once theserevenues begin to be generated. Relatively little has been said
about who the concessions have already been given to andthe process by which they have been allocated. Yet, while
corruption and illegal acts can be found at all stages of thenatural resource extraction process in Cambodia and otherresource-rich countries around the world, corruption has
always started at the point of entry in the natural resource
chain: with the allocation of concessions for the resource itself.
Where assets have been allocated corruptly, it distorts themarket. Typically, this has resulted in sub-optimal use of theseresources and poor development outcomes. Corrupt allocationof resources has also altered the political landscape. The
revenue generated by their misappropriation has reinforced
the position and impunity of elites, further strengthening theirhold on the levers of power: government, the law, the judiciary,
the armed forces and the bureaucracy. In other words, theequitable allocation of concessions is an essential component

for the development of a state which functions in the interestsof its citizens. When viewed in this context, the process
behind the allocation of concessions in Cambodia’s oil andmineral industries becomes a core issue.

In this report Global Witness examinescase studies from Cambodia’s
emerging extractive industries sector
with a view to assessing the conductof the Cambodian government
and partner companies, and tounderstanding the future prospects foroil and mining revenues.

Box 2 | Cambodian land investment – it’s a steal!

Human Rights Watch commenting on forced evictions in
Cambodia in 2006.52

thousands of people displaced each year.55
Instead of protecting Cambodian citizens from theugly side of commercial development, the authorities
have themselves carried out the evictions at the behestof those who wield economic and political power.56 The
victims are evicted from their homes and land by thoseorgans of state responsible for the use of force – the army,
military police or police – usually with little or no advancenotice, no access to adequate alternative housing and noreal recourse to justice. The use of threats, intimidation,
excessive force and arson has been widely reported.

Cambodia is in the midst of a land grabbing epidemic.
Between 1993 and 1999, the government granted
economic land concessions
for around one third of thecountry’s most productive lands
for commercial development byprivate companies.53 Since then,the government has continued toallocate concessions at a brisk pace.
Hun Sen’s government has givenout huge areas of countryside andvaluable urban plots now amounting
to 45 per cent of Cambodia’s land.54
Investors are offered favourable
rates and a tax holiday. Thosealready living on the land are usuallyoffered a less favourable deal, often
involving a forced eviction fromthe land with no compensation.
The result is that land grabbing is
An eviction: On the morning of 20 April 2007, 150 members of the military police,
currently one of the main causes
police and Royal Cambodian Armed Forces, arrived at Village 6 in Sihanoukville’sof human rights abuses andMittaheap District armed with guns, electric batons, shields and tear gas. They
impoverishment in Cambodia, withproceeded to evict 105 families from the village.57

14

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

Licadho“The recent evictions bear striking similarities. Riot police
armed with guns, shock batons, tear gas and shields cordon off
the eviction sites before dawn to bar human rights monitors,
U.N. observers and journalists. In many cases, police use or
threaten unnecessary or excessive force to remove residents andtear down their homes.”CHAPter one | Cambodia’s extractive industries – the stakes are highchapter two
Mining15

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Map of known mining activity in Cambodiaiii
103°

THAILAND

104°

22 23

16
18

PREAH
VIHEAR

97
C

SIEM
REAP

10

59 60

57

58
92

P U R S AT
M

12°

65

F
F
F

13 A
12
14
72
A
71
B
11

95

G

KOH KONG

55

KANDALTA K E O

103°

7
8

81

11°

66

North

V I E T N A M 106°0

105°

Mining activity compiled from secondary sources

John C Wu, 'The Mineral Industry of Cambodia' in U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, 2007. Oxfam America,'Large Scale Extractive Industry Scoping Study: Cambodia', 22 June 2007. NGO Forum, Map of Mining Concessions

16

6 1

Protected Area

K A M P OT

Liberty Mining Pty Ltd
Suvithilthon Co. Ltd
Ultra Marine Kiri (Cambodia) Co. Ltd
Seoul Digem Cambodia Co. Ltd
Liberty Mining Pty Ltd
Ting Fung Enterprise (Cambodia Mines Industry
Investment & Development Co. Ltd)
7 (Cambodia) Mines Industry Investment &Development Co. Ltd
8 Mining Industry Investment Development(Delcom Cambodia Pte Ltd)
9 Jupiter International Resources (Ting Fung Enterprise Ltd)
10 Chhong Kor Chhean Pean Co. Ltd
11 Mining activity – company not known
12 Lohak Aphivath (Cambodia) Co. Ltd
13 Mining activity – company not known
14 Rattanak-Kenertec
15 Rattanak Stone Cambodia Development Co. Ltd
16 Rattanak Stone Cambodia Development Co. Ltd
17 Han Seng Coal Mine Co. Ltd
18 KD Power Group Co. Ltd
19 Khmer Venture Management Co. Ltd
20 Inter Ship Group Co. Ltd
21 Aqua Engineering Co. Ltd
22 Angkor Wat Cement Ltd
23 Neoneer
24 Mining activity – company not known
25 Mining activity – company not known
26 Mining activity – company not known
27 Mining activity – company not known
28 Mining activity – company not known
29 China Forwin International Investment
30 Gold Metal Group Co. Ltd
31 Mining activity – company not known
32 Zhong Xin Industries (was Jinqu Mineral)

9

3 J
5

Information on mining activity
obtained by Global Witness
Mining activity compiled fromsecondary sources
SVAY
RIENG

11°

1
2
3
4
5
6

82

4

91

P R EY
VENG

F

Gulf ofThailand

78

53

47

Phnom Penh

F
93

STUNG
TRENG

14°

R ATA N A K I R I

H

107°

KOMPONG
SPEU
94

96

54

E

E

79
86 80
87 84 43 44 83
M
89 O N D U L- 13°
KIRI
38 33
34 85
36
56
KOMPONG
L
31
68
THOM
99
37
30
KRATIE
90
61
62
42
45
75
D 77 76
39
73
40 29
63
51
27 52
74
41
49
48
64
50
KOMPONG
KOMPONG
46
12°
67
Mekong C H A M
CHHNANG88enl
To a pS

B AT TA M B A N G

15

E

100

98

101

17

70

K

107°

H

19

20 21

B A N T E AY
M E A N C H EY

13°

106°

LAOS

ODDAR
M E A N C H EY
69
2
14°

105°

33 Kr. Yn
34 Mining activity – company not known
35 Mining activity – company not known
36 Mining activity – company not known
37 Mining activity – company not known
38 Chhong Kor Chhean Pean
39 Mining activity – company not known
40 Anquing Cambodia Investment Company
41 Cambodia Hai Lan Mineral Co. Ltd /Wang Fa Investment Group
42 Oxiana
43 Mining activity – company not known
44 Southern Gold
45 Southern Gold
46 Southern Gold
47 Southern Gold48 Khmer Morok Banteay Sray
49 An Mardy
50 Locam Mining
51 Chong Kor Chian Pean
52 Svay Chreah
53 Ta Yi
54 Try Pheap
55 Try Pheap
56 Vannvy Mex
57 Rattanak Stone
58 Cambodia Mining Development
59 Altra Mirinkiri
60 Sonuba Chemical AG
61 Pol Cham Group
62 Pol Cham Group63 Pol Cham Group64 Meas Sopheap
65 Future Environment
66 EverGreen Concess.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200967 Sun Trading
68 Gold Metal Group Co. Ltd
69 Mining activity – company not known
70 Delcom
71 Mining activity – company not known
72 Mining activity – company not known
73 BHP Billiton
74 Sonuba Paul Cham Bauxite Mine
75 AZ Distribution
76 Mining activity – company not known
77 Mining activity – company not known
78 Mining activity – company not known
79 Eisan Development Co. Ltd
80 Eisan Development Co. Ltd
81 Angkor Wat (Cambodia) Co. Ltd
82 Angkor Wat (Cambodia) Co. Ltd
83 Oxiana
84 Mega Mining
85 Mega Mining
86 Firstnorth Eastern
87 Kr. Yn
88 SGCL Phnum Khnach
89 SGCL Puchar Leu
90 Oxiana O Chung
91 Mining activity – company not known
92 Southern Mining Co. Ltd
93 Mining activity – company not known
94 Mining activity – company not known
95 T.S.S.M Group Co. Ltd
96 Kenertec Co. Ltd
97 Kenertec Co. Ltd
98 Kenertec Co. Ltd
99 Indochine Resources
100 Indochine Resources
101 Kenertec Co. Ltd

20

40

60

80

100 kmInformation on mining activity
obtained by Global Witness
A Cambodian Hua Yi Mining Co. Ltd
B Cambodia Iron and Steel Mining Industry GroupC Cambodia Tonle Sap International
Investment Co. Ltd
D Golden Resource Development Co. Ltd
E Indochine Resources (Cambodia) Limited
F L.Y.P Group Co. Ltd
G Rattanak Stone Cambodia Development Co. Ltd
H Ratanakiri Consultancy Company Pte Ltd
I Titan Mineral Group Co
J Transol Mining And Exploration Company Pty Ltd
K The VC Group Co. Ltd
L Xing Yuan Kanng Yeak Co. Ltd
M Float Asia Friendly Mation

CHAPter TWO | Mining

chapter two
MiningTo date, Cambodia’s mining industry has beendeveloping off the radar. Yet mining has the potential
for major economic, social and environmental
impacts which have so far been largely ignored.
Global Witness has compiled a list of mining
exploratory licences which have been awarded by
the government. Based on information from primaryand secondary sources, the Cambodian government
has awarded mining exploration licences for over
100 different sites across the country, and theprocess seems to be accelerating. Global Witness
knows of 21 mining licences allocated in 2008
alone.58 Almost no information about these licence
allocations has been made public by the relevant
ministries or by the companies themselves.
Global Witness visited a number of mining sites
in 2008 to see the development of the mines forourselves. Our investigators found evidence that,as with the forest sector before it, ownership orcontrol of these mining companies rests in thehands of elite regime figures. If the mines become
fully operational, it is these individuals who stand tobenefit financially.
There is also obvious and extensive militarisationof the mining sector, with members of the Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF) engaged in
guarding five of the six mines surveyed by Global
Witness investigators in Stung Treng, Preah Vihear
and Pursat Provinces. In other cases, membersof the RCAF are reported to be the beneficial
owners of companies engaged in mining activities.
On some sites, land has been taken from local
people and cases of intimidation of residents havebeen reported. There has been no free, prior andinformed consent by the local population in any ofthese cases.
iii
Due to the opacity under which the mining sector is currently operating, Global
Witness has not been able to confirm the legal or operational status of all of theseconcessions. This map therefore represents the best of Global Witness’ knowledge
at the time of publication in early 2009.
iv
The protected areas in question are Virachey National Park, Samlaut Multiple
Use Area and the Phnom Aural, Phnom Prich, Phnom Samkos and Pream Krasop
Wildlife Sanctuaries.

The Cambodian government has made the decision
to prioritise mining over environmental needs andprotection. On current trends, previously unexplored
areas in the Cardamoms, Prey Long Forest andPhnom Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary will be permanently
damaged or destroyed. At least six out of Cambodia’s
23 protected areas now have some form of mining
activity within their boundaries.iv Once these mines
become fully operational and roads are built to thesites, whole areas of previously untouched forest will
be opened up to other threats, such as illegal logging
and wildlife poaching.
The following section provides further information to
support these findings.

The regulation of mining in Cambodia“The state shall protect the environment and balance ofabundant natural resources and establish a precise plan ofmanagement of land, water, air, wind, geology, ecological system,
mines, energy, petrol and gas, rocks and sand, gems, forests andforestry products, wildlife, fish and aquatic resources.”
Article 59 of the Cambodian Constitution“Companies are just walking through the forest and drillingsome land to test for minerals.”

Suy Sem, Minister for Industry, Mines and Energy, responding
to NGO calls for stronger measures to govern the mining sector,
as reported by The Cambodia Daily, 25 November 2008.59

Under Cambodia’s Constitution all mineral resources are
the property of the state and should be regulated by law.60
The 2001 Law on the Management and Exploitation of
Mineral Resources and the 1996 Law on Environmental
Protection and Natural Resources Management form thepolicy framework around which all mineral exploration in
Cambodia should be based. In Cambodia’s legal system, laws
are elaborated by sub-decrees and prakasv which give morev
A sub-decree (anu-kret in Khmer) is adopted by the Council of Ministers andsigned by the Prime Minister. A sub-decree must be in strict conformity with
the Constitution and conform to the law to which it refers. A proclamation (morecommonly known in Cambodia as a Prakas) is a ministerial or inter-ministerial
decision signed by the relevant Minister(s). A proclamation must conform to theConstitution and to the law or sub-decree to which it refers. (http://cambodia.
ohchr.org/klc_pages/klc_english.htm)

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200917

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Minister for Mines, Suy Sem (pictured),62 holds responsibility for the allocation of mining licenses in
Cambodia. Global Witness has learned that his wife, Chea Kheng,63 is the beneficial owner of at least
one mining site in Pursat Province, Cambodia. She is reportedly a powerful figure and is known to
be close to Prime Minister Hun Sen’s wife, Bun Rany.64

specific details on procedures for obtaining and operating a
mining concession.61 These are not currently available to the
public, but Global Witness has obtained copies of some of the
sub decrees and prakas. These can be downloaded from http://
www.globalwitness.org. Global Witness is concerned that thelaws on mineral management are weak, contradictory, havesignificant gaps, and are poorly implemented.

Licensed to drill?
The 2001 Law on the Management and Exploitation of
Mineral Resources places the management of these mineral
resources and responsibility for allocating exploration or
exploitation licences with ‘the competent institution’. At
present, this institution is seen to be the Ministry of Industry,
Mines and Energy (MIME).65 However, a mining company
wishing to operate in Cambodia also needs to apply to theCouncil for Development of Cambodia (CDC) for a mining
concession. The legal framework for how these companies
are awarded these concessions is not clear, but one MIME
employee claimed that the decision was taken at a top-levelmeeting between MIME and CDC officials.66 Beyond thisambiguity on how concessions are granted, it is also unclear
how these concessions are used, who administers them, andhow they relate to mining licences. Currently, concessions
are being given during or before the exploration stage, before
extraction agreements have been signed. A significant number
are larger than the legal maximum size.67

Who owns the land?
One of the most worrying gaps in mining legislation is theinadequate provision for those displaced by mining operations.
The law states that before entering any privately owned landfor exploration or mining, the concessionaire must compensate
the ‘private land owner’ for any inconvenience and damage
to the land.68 Private land ownership refers to those withtitle on the land registry. Given the massive displacementof the Khmer Rouge period, the majority of Cambodian

households do not have legal title to the land on which theylive. They therefore have little protection against the activities
of mining companies who wish to explore on the land they
depend on for their livelihoods.69 Theoretically, those without
legal title and indigenous communal land title should still beprotected because the Cambodian government has ratified
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) which includes the obligation to respect
citizens’ right to adequate housing and forbids the destructionof land necessary for subsistence. However, as seen on
numerous occasions previously, the arms of state responsiblefor implementing these commitments have frequently ignoredand subverted them (see Boxes 1, 2, 5 and 6).

Access to information
Legal requirements regarding access to information in
Cambodia’s mining industry are conflicting. The 2001 Law
on the Management and Exploitation of Mineral Resources
specifically states that all applications, reports, plans and notices
concerning exploration and exploitation are confidential.70
This means that lack of transparency is actually built into
the legal framework and raises the prospect that Cambodian
citizens could lose the land on which they live to a company
about whom they know nothing because the state holds
that information confidential. By contrast, the Environment
Law provides that, on request from the public, the Ministryof Environment (MoE) should provide information on acompany’s ‘activities’ and encourage public participation inenvironmental protection and natural resource management.71“Conservation areas are not inviolable”“Comments by Your Excellency … would seem to suggest that all
the effort so far committed by the government and conservation
organisations may have been in vain.”
Quote from joint NGO letter dated October 31 2007. The letter
was a request for a meeting in response to Minister Mok
Mareth’s earlier comments (see below).73“When we developed that [system of protected areas] we didn’t know all thepotential of our natural resources, our richness…If I accept conservation ofthis area, a core zone, if we can find a billion dollars for the mining there,
how can we exploit these millions of dollars in this area?”

Minister for Environment, Mok Mareth, quoted in The Cambodia Daily article ‘Conservation Areas Not Inviolable, Says Minister’.72
18

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Those forests that have escaped illegal logging are now under threat from mining activity

The laws on mining become even more ambiguous whenapplied to mining in areas of land classified as ‘protected’
under Cambodian law in recognition of their highconservation values and biodiversity.
Cambodia’s 23 protected areas were created in 1993 by royal
decree. Combined, they cover 32,289 km2.74 Nominally, theDepartment of Nature Conservation and Protection under the
MoE has responsibility for overseeing these areas.75
In August 2006, the 1994 Prakas on protected areas –under which mining in protected areas had previously beenprohibited – was quietly annulled.76 As mining in thesezones is not explicitly banned under the 2001 Law on theManagement and Exploitation of Mineral Resources, this left
Cambodia’s protected areas in a legal vacuum.77
The lack of legal protection against mining in protected areas
was rapidly exploited, and between August 2006 and January
2008, Global Witness noted the start of mining operations
in five of Cambodia’s protected areas.78 The situation isparticularly acute in Mondulkiri Province, a heavily forested
area of northeast Cambodia, where a large number of mining
concessions have already been allocated. 282,700 ha of thesemining concessions are inside protected areas – the equivalentof 21 per cent of the Province’s total protected areas.79
Confusion over the status of protected areas should have beencleared by the new Protected Area Law, which was draftedwith technical assistance from the World Bank’s ‘Biodiversity
and Protected Areas Management Project’ and passed in
January 2008.80 However, the new legislation appears only tohave extended the period of legal ambiguity.

The new law provides for each protected area to be divided
into four management zoning systems: a core zone, aconservation zone, a sustainable use zone and a community
zone. Under the law, each protected area should first go
through a process of zoning its territory; after which it
can potentially allow mining activity to take place, but
only in those areas classified as ‘sustainable use zones’.81
Following consultation with relevant ministries, authorities
and communities, the Cambodian government may permit
development and investment activities in the zone, but only inaccordance with a request from the MoE. 82
Discussion over the interpretation of legislation, however,appears to have been rendered academic by the actions of thegovernment. Immediately following the passing of the law,
the government granted exploration rights to several mining
companies within the protected areas of the Cardamom
Mountains and Virachey National Park – some in areas which
had previously been classified as core zones of a protected area.
In the majority of these cases, the MoE was not consulted,
and was unaware of mining plans for the areas.83
When the issue was raised at a meeting between industry,NGOs and the MoE in December 2007, concerned NGOs
were told that a national development plan for mining will
be produced first, and only after that will decisions be madeover which areas should be classified as open to commercial
activity.84 In other words, the zoning of protected areas will
be based on economic rather than ecological values, and theactivity will determine the application of the law rather thanvice-versa. The impact of this policy is already being felt in a
number of crucial protected areas, including, but not limited
to, Virachey National Park.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200919

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Box 3 | Mining in Virachey National Park
Although severely depleted over the years by illegal
logging, Cambodia’s protected areas still hold considerable
environmental value. Several important flagship speciesvi
occur in significant numbers in Cambodia, as do more
species of globally threatened mammals, birds and fish perunit area than in any other Southeast Asian country.85
In recognition of this, the World Bank worked with theCambodian government between 2000 and 2007 on
a project geared towards managing these areas more
effectively. Known as the Biodiversity and Protected Areas
Management Project, or BPAMP, the initiative was supposedto ‘develop an effective national protected areas systemthat is based on a consistent and well articulated set ofmanagement, financial, and institutional procedures’. BPAMP
was big in scale – costing nearly US$5 million, of which the
majority was paid for via a loan from the World Bank and a
grant from the Global Environment Facility Trust.86
The focus area for BPAMP was Virachey National
Park, a 3,325 km² protected area which stretches acrossRatanakiri and Stung Treng Provinces in north-eastern
Cambodia. Virachey is home to a diverse array of both
flora and fauna, containing many flagship species such as
the Asian elephant and the sun bear, as well as providing
the habitat for endangered species including the clouded
leopard.87 The mosaics of habitats, from upland savannah
to fragile mountain ecosystems help create a landscaperich in biodiversity. The park also has important value as awatershed and catchment area. The water from the nationalpark flows into the Sesan and Sekong Rivers, and together
with the Srepok River system, accounts for approximately 20
per cent of the Mekong River’s flow.88 Furthermore the area

is home to a number of ethnic minority groups who depend
upon Virachey’s resources for their own livelihoods.89
BPAMP’s work there included the drafting of a five-year
ecotourism strategy, agreement on the boundaries of fourcommunity protected areas and community protected area
regulations.90 All of this endeavour appears to have been
completely undermined however when, in the second half of2007, the government awarded exploratory rights for 1,800
km2 – 54 per cent – of Virachey National Park to a little-known
Australian mining company called Indochine Resources.91
Instead of expressing outrage that the government had
ridden roughshod over the work of a five year, US$5 million
project, a World Bank representative responded with thefollowing statement to the Cambodian media:“We have raised the issue with the government andinitiated a discussion with the Ministry of Environment
in an effort to clarify the government’s intention.” The
spokesman added, “It is our understanding that thelicences issued to Indochine Resources Ltd authorise
exploration for, but not exploitation of, mineral resources.”93
As this report went to print, Indochine had begun tobuild helicopter pads within Virachey National Park to
enable geologists to access the area and begin mapping
for minerals.94
Given the National Park’s identification as an area ofgreat environmental value, and the ensuing US$5 million
investment in preserving that value, Global Witness finds
it difficult to understand why the Cambodian government
has chosen to open the area to mining exploration, andwhy the World Bank did not react more forcefully to thethreat this presented to the integrity of BPAMP.

Above: In the second half of 2007, the Cambodian government awarded exploratory rights for 1,800 km2 – 54 per cent – of
Virachey National Park to an Australian mining company called Indochine Resources
Above, right: A letter from the Ministry for Industry, Mines and Energy informing the Ministry of Environment that Indochine
Resources has permission to establish three base camps for mineral exploration in Ratanakiri and Stung Treng Provinces, dated
25 September 200892
vi
A flagship species is a species selected to act as an ambassador, icon or symbol for a defined habitat, issue, campaign or environmental cause. By focusing on, andachieving conservation of that species, the status of many other species which share its habitat – or are vulnerable to the same threats – may also be improved.

20

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Preah Vihear Province. According to the MIME, Rattanak
Stone was granted permission to carry out exploratory ironore mining in 2004 and 2005 at two sites within Rovieng
District – Phnom Koh Keo and Phnom Thmor.96 Despite
this permission, the unannounced opening of a mine andthe subsequent fencing off of a 32 km2 area of land came assomething of a surprise to the local communities who were
living and farming there.97

Entrance to Rattanak Stone’s mine site. Until May 2008, thisiron mine in Preah Vihear appears to have been under thecontrol of a Chinese state-owned company, one of Cambodia’s
most powerful companies and a company controlled by theCommander-in-Chief of the Army, General Pol Saroeun

Rattanak Stone–Kenertec MineThe Rattanak Stone mine in Preah Vihear Province
is believed to be beneficially owned by General
Pol Saroeun, Commander-in-Chief of the Royal
Cambodian Army and Chief of Joint Staff. Media
reports claim that Rattanak Stone formed a joint
venture in 2005 with one of Cambodia’s mostpowerful companies, Pheapimex, and the Chinesestate-owned company China National Machinery& Equipment Import & Export Corporation. In May
2008, Korean company Kenertec announced thatit bought 85 per cent of the mine in a joint ventureagreement with Rattanak Stone.
Members of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces(RCAF) are employed to guard the site. Local people
have reported early incidents of land grabbing, andfear more may be on their way.
Although there are no known Environmental orSocial Impact Assessments for this project, theinformation available points to rapid transformationof the highly sensitive and environmentally critical
Prey Long and Upper Mekong areas into anindustrial zone.
The Rattanak Stone Cambodia Development Company Ltd95
first came to the attention of Global Witness in 2005 whenjournalists began reporting on iron mining operations on thenorthern border of Prey Long Forest in Rovieng District,

Early ownership
The arrival of the mine caught the attention of the Chinese
media due to the involvement of one of China’s majorstate-owned companies, the China National Machinery &Equipment Import & Export Corporation.98 On 20 March
2005, the Chinese news-wire Xinhua reported that the China
National Machinery and Equipment Corp had decided
to cooperate in exploiting an iron mine in Preah Vihear
Province, Cambodia. The two Cambodian parties were cited
as Cambodia’s Pheapimex Group (Pheapimex) and Rattanak
Stone Cambodia Development Co Ltd.99
The involvement of Pheapimex, one of Cambodia’s mostpowerful companies, marked a move away from its main
business of logging. Prime Minister Hun Sen is reported tohave given his full support to the project at the time.100
When Global Witness visited the Rattanak Stone site in 2005
and 2008, mine workers, local officials and military personnel
guarding the site all said that the Rattanak Stone mine isowned by General Pol Saroeun, Commander-in-Chief of theRoyal Cambodian Army and Chief of Joint Staff.101 A worker
at one of the mine sites described to Global Witness how
General Pol Saroeun visited the site in early 2008. On thisoccasion the soldiers guarding the site stood to attention andsaluted him.102 Global Witness has previously documented
General Pol Saroeun’s involvement in the illegal logging tradein Cambodia.103
In summary then, until May 2008, the iron mine in Preah
Vihear appears to have been under the control of a Chinesestate-owned company, one of Cambodia’s most powerfulcompanies and a company controlled by the Commander-inChief of the Royal Cambodian Army, General Pol Saroeun.
In May 2008 Kenertec Co Ltd,106 a South Korean mining
company, issued a press release claiming to have concluded acontract to take over 85 per cent of the Rovieng iron mine asCommander-in-Chief of the Royal Cambodian Army, General Pol Saroeun, is believed to be thebeneficial owner of the Rattanak Stone Company which has been operating an iron mine inRovieng District, Preah Vihear Province since 2005. More recently, the Rattanak Stone Company
has expanded its commercial interests. In August 2008, the company was granted 479 ha offorested land in Pithnou Commune, Snoul District, Kratie Province with a view to conversion into
rubber plantation.104 In September 2008, it was granted a mining concession of 25 km2 from which
to extract construction stone. This new mine site is situated at Sra Ngam, Kirivorn Commune,
Phnom Sroch District, Kampong Speu Province.105

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200921

CHAPter TWO | Mining“I see money everywhere. In the trees,in the land, everywhere!”
Kenertec employee commenting on Cambodia’s potential
as an investment opportunity in a Global Witness interview,
2008.119

Global Witness wrote to Cambodia’s Ministry of Finance in
October 2008 to ask if the money had been received in thenational budget, but has not received a response.
When Global Witness visited the Rattanak-Kenertec site in
2008, investigators observed drill samples which they weretold showed the presence of iron, copper and gold deposits

a joint venture with Rattanak Stone. It is unclear whether
Pheapimex and China National Machinery & Equipment
Import & Export Corporation retain shares or whether
they pulled out of the venture at this stage. Global Witness
has written to General Pol Saroeun, Pheapimex and the
China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export
Corporation to ask them about their involvement in the mine.
At the time of publication, Global Witness had not received
any response.
107

A source close to the company claimed that it was necessary
to pay a ‘bonus’ to start work, and that Kenertec had made an
upfront payment of approximately US$1 million to secure
permission to begin work.108 The legal status of this bonus
payment is unclear. Cambodia’s Law on the Managementand Exploitation of Mineral Resources makes no mention of
bonus payments to secure concessions.109

Since the takeover, Kenertec has been enthusiastic about themine’s prospects. A May 2008 press release stated:“This mine lot is estimated to have about 200 million tons ofiron ore…Kenertec has planned a 2 million ton production
plan and expects its annual sales to be at 160 billion won (soldat $80/ton) and profits to be over 40 billion won each year.”120
In other words, they estimate their profits from iron ore at justshort of US$32 million a year.
Other minerals are also present on the site. When Global
Witness visited in 2008, investigators observed drill samples
taken at the Phnom Thmor site which they were told showed
the presence of iron, copper and gold deposits. According toa Kenertec worker, the Phnom Thmor site could hold around
two grams of gold per metric tonne. He estimated that gold
deposits on this site alone would be worth US$40 million.121
The two concessions in Preah Vihear are not the only ones
licensed to Kenertec. A 2007 review stated that Kenertec

Box 4 | How much do mining rights cost?
Whilst exploratory mining concessions are being allocatedin Cambodia at a brisk pace, there is a lack of clear andtransparent procedures for company payments to secureaccess to these mineral resources.
Under Cambodia’s Law on the Management andExploitation of Mineral Resources, companies are required
to pay the Cambodian state fees for registration, application
for suspension, renewal, transfer rights and annual land
rental, but the finer details of these payments are notknown.110 Global Witness interviewed a Ministry of Industry,
Mines and Energy employee in late 2008, and was told
that, while standard rates were in place for things such as
royalties and tax on companies, these had not yet been
approved or finalised by Parliament.111 Despite this opacity,
income is clearly being generated from the sector. Basedon monthly revenue reports provided by the Ministry of
Economy and Finance, Global Witness has analysed thecontribution Cambodia’s mining sector has made to thenational economy over the past six years. According tothese figures, between 2002 and 2008, the sector has

22

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

contributed US$3 million.
This account is at odds with information given to Global
Witness however. On the basis of those few companies
from whom information is available, the amount of money
entering state coffers should be far higher. Given the lackof transparency surrounding these deals it is difficult toaccurately estimate the totals, but based on evidence
gathered from a variety of sources, Global Witness
estimates the total should be closer to US$7 million.
An industry analyst interviewed by Global Witness
claimed that mining companies wishing to operate in
Cambodia pay a standard rate of US$50,000 for eachmining licence.112 Other companies seem to pay more than
this. As well as the claim that Kenertec has made a bonus
payment of approximately US$1 million, Australian mining
giant, BHP Billiton,113 has been cited by the Cambodian
government as making significant payments in return for
exploration rights to a 100,000 ha of Mondulkiri Province inwhich to explore for bauxite.114
According to an article published in The Cambodia Daily

CHAPter TWO | Mining

was awarded exploration rights for eight sites in Cambodia,
covering 1,520 km2.122 A company representative told Global
Witness the concessions included three in the northwest
corner of Cambodia that were thought to contain gems, while
the rest were thought to contain iron or gold, or both.123
Aside from the connection to General Pol Saroeun, there is
obvious and extensive military involvement at the mine site.
When Global Witness visited the site in 2008, 15 soldiers
were employed by Kenertec to guard the mine site, under
the leadership of an individual described as the district army
chief and known as Mr. Chai.124 Kenertec pays approximately
US$1000 directly to Mr. Chai each month, who in turn
distributes this money amongst the soldiers.125

Hongfu-Try Pheap mine
The company responsible for the Hongfu-Try Pheap
iron mine appears to be the (Cambodia) HongfuTry Pheap Mining Development Construction Co.
Ltd, which lists among its directors two leading
members of Cambodia’s elite – Oknha Try Pheap
and Senator Lao Meng Khin. Oknha Try Pheap is aprominent tycoon. Senator Lao Meng Khin is a wellknown CPP senator and director of the notorious
Pheapimex Company.

Since 2005, the mine has developed its operations and a
graded dirt access road has been built by Chinese workers.126

Members of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces
play a heavy role in guarding the mine site. Local
people living in the area surrounding the minesite fear eviction from their homes once company
operations expand in the future.

As of August 2008, the company had begun to build a roadto link the Koh Keo and Phnom Thmor sites. At the time ofwriting, the road reportedly ran up to the edge of rice paddies,but construction had halted for the rainy season to allow the
locals to harvest their rice. Residents remained concerned
however that the road building would continue after the
rainy season ends and their land would be taken withoutcompensation.127 In May 2008, community representatives
called a meeting with the Deputy District Governor Kieth
Kim Toh128 to raise their concerns over land grabbing. In
the meeting they were told to wait for a solution from thegovernment.129 At the time of publication, this had not been
forthcoming.

The Hongfu-Try Pheap iron mine is situated in Anlong Phae
Commune, Thalaborivat District, in the neighbouring provinceof Stung Treng. Here too the company’s security is picked fromthe ranks of the RCAF. They exert a heavy presence in thearea, with three base camps situated in villages surrounding thesite: Anlong Chrea village, Mong village, and Chhveng village.
Unlike the mine sites in Preah Vihear, which are in forest andrice paddies, the Try Pheap mine is situated in a populated
area. According to NGO workers, people living around themine area expect to be forcibly evicted from their homes once
operations expand in the future; an impression which was only
heightened when workers from the site placed cement poles on
their land to mark off a site for building in March 2008.130
Company registration documents for the Hongfu-Try Pheap
Mining company show the company’s director to be Tryon 24 May 2007, Cambodia’s Minister for Water Resources,
Lim Kean Hor,115 told the National Assembly that BHP Billiton
had paid US$2.5 million to the government to secure abauxite mining concession. In the same article, Lim Kean Hor
is reported to have described this payment as ‘tea money’, acustomary term for an unofficial payment in Cambodia.116
Global Witness wrote to BHP in October 2008 to ask it
to confirm whether or not the Minister’s comments were
accurate. The company’s response confirmed it has set up
a social development fund of US$2.5 million for Cambodia,
but stated: “BHP Billiton has never made a payment to a
Cambodian Government official or representative and we
reject any assertion that the payment under the minerals
exploration agreement is, or the amounts contributed to theSocial Development Projects Fund are, ‘tea money’”.
According to the letter from BHP to Global Witness, theSocial Development Programme is “designed to improve
the general health, education, culture and welfare of thepeople of Cambodia … this money can only be spenton community programmes that benefit the people ofCambodia. BHP as representative for the joint venture
partners must authorise any payments and we intend
to exercise power of veto in the event that we have any
concerns about a potential project.” BHP also confirmedthat it had made an additional payment to the Cambodian
government to secure access to the minerals concession,
stating: “In accordance with the terms of a minerals
exploration agreement with the Cambodian government
which granted BHP Billiton and Mitsubishi the right toexplore for bauxite an amount of US$1 million was formally
paid to the Cambodian government in September 2006.”117
Global Witness has obtained a copy of the Ministryof Economy and Finance’s ‘Tableau des Opérations
Financières de l’Etat’ (TOFE), which provides information
on annual income to the Cambodian state. According tothis document, non-tax revenue from mining concessions in2006 was US$443,866.118 If the money appears elsewherein the TOFE, it is not clear where. This raises questions
as to where BHP Billiton’s US$1 million payment made in
September 2006 has gone.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200923

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Pheap: a powerful business tycoon who holds the honorary
title of oknha and a business portfolio which encompasses
casinos, island redevelopment and rubber plantations. He has
previously been criticised by NGOs for his company’s role inforced evictions surrounding some of these projects.131
Also named as co-director
on the company registrationis Senator Lao Meng
Khin – one half of thenotorious couple which
run Pheapimex and also a
director of a company called
Shukaku Ltd (see Box 5 forfurther details).132
According to Vietnamese
media and government,
the Try Pheap group
Company registration documents for the Hongfu-Try Pheap
Mining company show the company’s director to be Try Pheap,
a powerful tycoon who holds the honorary title of oknha. Also
named as director is Lao Meng Khin; a pro-CPP Senator andsigned a deal in July 2007 to operate the site jointly with
Vietnam’s Coal and Mineral Industries Group (better known
as Vinacomin)149 and the Cambodian company Mom Good
Luck Mining.150 (Vinacomin will reappear in the following
section of this report, on Southern Mining). Sources claimthat Vinacomin is also planning to build a refinery in the
district.151 Global Witness asked both companies to confirm
whether or not this is the case. Vinacomin replied, stating thefollowing:“Vinacomin has only started its activities in mineralinvestigation and exploration in Cambodia with thepermission and support from the Royal Government of
Cambodia and its related ministries and agencies. Vinacominis implementing its investigation and exploration activities
while at the same time studying and researching in detail theregulations issued by the Royal Government of Cambodia
concerning the mineral extraction industry.”“All the issues raised by Global Witness are also thosethat draw our interest. We are in the process of studying
and researching these issues so we do not have adequate
information to answer questions from Global Witness.” 152co-director of the Pheapimex Company

Box 5 | Pheapimex-ploitation
The activities of the Pheapimex Company have beena recurrent feature of Global Witness reports on illegal
logging over the past 13 years. Pheapimex, one of
Cambodia’s most powerful companies, is led by a married
couple close to Prime Minister Hun Sen and his wife Bun
Rany.133 The company director, Lao Meng Khin, is a wellknown senator with the ruling Cambodia People’s Party.
His wife, Choeung Sopheap134 (better known as Yeay Phu)
is a leading member of the Cambodian Red Cross andregularly appears publicly alongside the prime minister’s
wife. Both Choeung Sopheap and Lao Meng Khin havepreviously accompanied Prime Minister Hun Sen on his
diplomatic trips to China.135
Pheapimex first came to prominence as a logging
concessionaire in the 1990s (see Box 1 for further details
on the concession system). In a forest industry dominatedby illegal logging and conflict with local people, Pheapimex
held the dubious distinction of being notorious amongst
the concessionaires for its ruthlessness and the level ofdestruction inflicted upon its concession areas. It hasenjoyed a long relationship with the Cambodian armed
forces, and has used members of the military to provide
security and exert control over its forest concessions.136
When donor and NGO pressure led Prime Minister
Hun Sen to place a moratorium on concession logging in
Cambodia in 2002, Pheapimex was unfazed. In every year
between 2001 and 2004, Global Witness caught Pheapimex
subcontractors and members of RCAF illegally felling andprocessing significant volumes of timber in its concession.137

24

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

Lao Meng Khin and Choeung Sopheap (also known as Yeay
Phu) together run Pheapimex, one of Cambodia’s most powerfulcompanies. Through its logging, land and mining concessions,Pheapimex controls over 7 per cent of Cambodia’s total land area

Global Witness published details of these activities inJune 2004. As a company, Pheapimex has never publicly
defended itself, and June 2004 was no exception. Instead,
Hun Sen publicly attacked the report, telling journalists that
“Global Witness has lied before and today they are lying
again.”138
In an attempt to obtain an explanation, Global Witness
wrote to Hun Sen and his wife Bun Rany in October 2008
to ask for the second time whether they hold any shares orother beneficial relationship with the Pheapimex Company

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Southern Mining
The Southern Mining Company holds a concession
to explore for chromium in Phnom Samkos Wildlife
Sanctuary. The area in question was previously
designated by the sanctuary’s management as a‘core’ zone in recognition of its high conservation
value. The Ministry for Industry, Mines and Energy
has granted permission to explore the area forminerals regardless.

Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF). A seniorguard on site claimed to represent the interests ofGeneral Meas Sophea, the commander of the RCAF
infantry forces. Guards told Global Witness staff that
General Ouk Kosa – the head of Cambodia’s militarydevelopment zones – is the CEO of the mine.
In 2008, Vinacomin purchased a 70 per cent shareof the Southern Mining Company. The beneficial
owners of the remaining 30 per cent are notcurrently known.

The mine site is heavily guarded by members of the

A sign at the start of the Southern Mining concession

The existence of this mine is controversial and its legal status
unclear. As such, it exemplifies the tension between protectedareas and the emerging mining sector. It lies within the 334,000
ha Phnom Samkos Sanctuary in the western Cardamom
Mountains, which stretches across the three provinces of Pursat,
Battambang and Koh Kong. As a designated protected area,
the sanctuary is nominally under the control of the Ministryof Environment (MoE). The arrival of Southern Mining153
therefore caused something of a stir amongst the sanctuary’s
MoE management in 2006 when huge trucks carrying
bulldozers and tractors began to arrive unannounced in the
sanctuary. The heavy machinery was used to stake a 10,000 haconcession claim in Phnom Samkos’ core zone.154

Amnesty International

central Phnom Penh.143 The company has agreed to acquireor any of its affiliates. At the time of publication, Global
Witness had not received any response.
90 per cent of the lake from the Phnom Penh Municipality
Since the mid-nineties, Pheapimex has diversified
on a 99-year lease. According to the Municipality144 theits business portfolio to encompass concessions fordevelopment will provide “pleasant, trade, and service places
pharmaceutical imports, hotel construction and special
for domestic and international tourists”.145 This development
139
economic zones. Through its logging and economic
will come at a cost: the homes and livelihoods of thousandsof local residents. The UN Office of the High Commissioner
land concessions, Pheapimex controls 7.4 per cent offor Human Rights in Cambodia claims that around 4,225
Cambodia’s total land area.140 More recently, Pheapimex
families face eviction when the lake is filled in.146 Residents
has become involved in the proliferation of hydropowerdams sweeping across Cambodia. Documents obtained
maintain that compensation offered is below the market value
by Global Witness name both Choeung Sopheap and Laoof the land, and that alternative housing from the company
Meng Khin as directors of two new dam companies slated
is inadequate and far from the city centre.147 They also claim
to build dams in Kampot Province – Petro Camchin andthat they have not been adequately consulted on the deals.148
141
Sino Hydropower.
This business empire is now being
expanded to encompass mine sites acrossthe country. As well as holding the title ofdirector for the Hongfu-Try Pheap mining
company, Global Witness investigations
show that Pheapimex owner Lao Meng Khinis also the named director on at least one
further company engaged in mining; theZhong Xin Industrial Investment (Cambodia)
Co. Ltd which has a mineral licence toexplore in Sambo District, Kratie Province.142
Pheapimex owner Lao Meng Khin also
holds a directorship of a company called
A house sinks as Boeung Kak Lake in central Phnom Penh is filled. Senator Lao
Shukaku Ltd, which is currently engaged in a
Meng Khin is named as director of the company responsible for this projectcontroversial project to fill Boeung Kak Lake inCountry for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200925

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Rangers blocked
The uneasy co-existence of a mining company side by side withconservation efforts reached a climax on 3 June 2007 when,according to media reports, the MoE rangers attempted toenter the mine site to investigate allegations that poaching andillegal logging were taking place on the site. They were barredfrom entering by the RCAF soldiers armed with AK-47 assault
rifles.155 Legally, the MoE rangers have a mandate to patrol
all areas of the park, but on this occasion they were prevented
from doing so by the soldiers, who pulled up in a luxury car,surrounded the rangers and told them to leave, claiming they
did not have the correct papers to enter the site.156
Global Witness wrote to the Southern Mining Company in
October 2008 to ask for comment on the incident. At thetime of publication, no response had been received.
On visits to the mining concession in 2008, Global Witness
investigators were told by the mine’s guards that there are
two exploration sites in the area, and that the company was
two years into four years of exploration.157 The guards also
stated that geologists are searching for iron, chromium andantimony (a metal used as a hardening alloy for lead).158 They
were told that the site might also have gold or copper, but
the main focus has remained on chromium, a mineral used
to produce the chrome used in the automobile industry andelsewhere. According to the site guards, if sufficient quantities
of chromium are found in the concession, a processing factory
will be built on site.
Cambodian soldiers, Vietnamese owners?
Global Witness investigators attempted to visit the Southern
Mining concession in mid-2008, but their access was blocked
by guards, some of whom were wearing the RCAF militaryuniform. The guards had radios which they said were capableof communicating with the head office in Phnom Penh.
When asked why they needed to talk with Phnom Penh,
the Global Witness team were told by the guards that thecompany bosses were furious that environmentalists werepreviously able to access the site and blamed them. Thereafter,
the guards have been told to carry radios and to contact
headquarters if anyone tried to access the site again.

A worker at the Southern Mining site wearing a Geosimcologo jacket. Geosimco is a branch of Vietnam’s Coal andMineral Industries Group, which reportedly bought 70 per
cent of the Southern Mining Company in 2008

The site is guarded by approximately 100 RCAF soldiers from
Battalion 501. A senior guard on site claimed to represent
the interests of General Meas Sophea, the commander of the
RCAF infantry forces.159
Workers at the mine also claimed that General Ouk Kosa– the head of Cambodia’s military development zonesvii – isthe president and CEO of the mine.160 Global Witness
investigators were given his phone number to obtain permission
to visit the site and that of his deputy, Colonel Aoch Chany.161
When Global Witness contacted General Ouk Kosa, he said
that the mine had been sold to the Vietnamese, but would notgive a name or contact number for the new owners.
According to the soldiers guarding the site, the Southern Mining
concession had been previously owned by a Chinese company,and had only been taken over by the Vietnamese owners around
April 2008. The guards were pleased with the new arrangements,
claiming that the former owners had not paid their salaries
on time, while the Vietnamese company regularly paid them
US$150 a month, including medical insurance.162
On site visits Global Witness investigators noted that
one of the mine employees was wearing a jacket with theGeosimco163 logo and Vietnamese writing. Geosimco is abranch of the Vietnam Coal and Mineral Industries group,
otherwise known as Vinacomin.164

General Ouk Kosa’s business card. General Ouk Kosa is headof Cambodia’s military development zones. He is also reported
to be the CEO of the Southern Mining project in Phnom Samkos
Wildlife Sanctuary

26

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

In August 2008, the The Cambodia Daily reported that
Vinacomin had bought a 70 per cent share of the Southern
Mining Company.165 The beneficial owners of the remaining
30 per cent are still unclear.
Cambodia’s military development zones consist of an undisclosed portfolio
covering 700,000 ha or almost four per cent of Cambodia’s land area.

vii

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Box 6 | The role of Cambodia’s armed forces in the theft of public assets
Among the many serious issues highlighted by thesemining case studies is the role of the Royal Cambodian
Armed Forces (RCAF) in the misappropriation of public
assets. In five of the six mine sites surveyed, there is
obvious and extensive involvement of RCAF – either in theprovision of private security services to the mine site, or
through beneficial ownership of the mine itself.166
Since the end of Cambodia’s civil war, the government
has continued to spend approximately 25 per cent of its
limited budget on a bloated army of around 110,000.167
Global Witness has documented over many years how,
despite receiving this sizeable chunk of state funding,members of RCAF are engaged in alternative sources ofillicit revenue generation. This applies in particular to thosearms of the military which are loyal to the prime minister– including his own personal bodyguard unit.168 Over the
past ten years, Global Witness and other CambodianNGOs have extensively documented how revenues fromthe illegal timber trade and other illicit activities underwrite
the military arm of Cambodia’s shadow state. Those
involved exploit their capacity to threaten and use armed
force to maintain a dominant role in many of the shadiersides of Cambodia’s business world. The institution’s
overall profile is that of a vast organised crime network.169
RCAF’s involvement in the mining industry isunwelcome on a number of fronts. From a human rights

Float Asia Friendly Mation
The Float Asia Friendly Mation Company isextracting marble from the protected areas ofPhnom Aural Wildlife Sanctuary and the Central
Cardamoms Protected Forest (CCPF).
Company registration documents show the mine tobe owned by a man named Ching Kimnguon. Thoseinterviewed by Global Witness however have a
different account. They identified two of Cambodia’s
elite – Om Yen Tieng and Dy Chouch – as the mine’s
backers. Om Yen Tieng is an advisor to Prime
Minister Hun Sen and chairman of the government’s

perspective, it represents a subversion of organs ofstate to suit private interests against those of the wider
population. The threat of armed force makes it muchharder for local communities to assert their rights to theland and resources which may be situated within themining concession. From a corporate perspective, there is
the risk that soldiers guarding the mine will commit humanrights abuses. In this case, any payments made by thecompany that operates the mine could make it complicit inthose abuses. From a governance perspective, the armed
forces acting as a gun for hire enterprise is also highly
undesirable. Once a military force begins to generate
its own revenue from private activities, and not from thenational budget, these funds undermine the ability of thecivilian government to be in command of the military via
control of its budget.

A soldier in Phnom Aural Wildlife Sanctuary. Global Witness
investigations there in 2004 revealed extensive involvementof the military in illegal logging in the sanctuary

Human Rights Committee. Dy Chouch is the prime
minister’s first cousin.
Guards drawn from the RCAF ranks are using thethreat of armed violence to maintain the company’s
position in Phnom Aural and have, so far, fended
off attempts by Ministry of Environment rangers toremove them.

“The uplands of Mount Aural sequester one of the most
expansive and pristine forests of Indochina. They also sequester anatural ecosystem and ‘biodiversity hotspot’ that is still virtually
unknown to science.”170

Dr J. Andrew McDonald, Plant Resources Center, University ofTexas at Austin, 2004

“Cambodian sculptures draw the attention of tourists. Finely
carved sculptures represent the artistic, cultures and spiritual
artefacts of Cambodia.”
Quote taken from the Float Asia Friendly Mation Company
Brochure (see left).171

The Float Asia Friendly Mation marble mining activities arelocated in Rokat and Santre Communes, Phnom KravanhDistrict, Pursat Province.172 According to documents
obtained by Global Witness the company has three sites
for marble extraction. Two are situated within Phnom
Aural Wildlife Sanctuary. The third is within the Central
Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200927

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Phnom Aural Wildlife Sanctuary. Two Float Asia Friendly Mation mining sites are located here according to company documents

Cardamom Protected Forest.173 The company also has amarble processing business depot in Tasai village, Rokat
Commune, Pursat Province and a marble depot in Phnom
Kravanh town.174
When Global Witness investigators visited the area in 2008,
it was too dangerous to go to the quarry mining sites due tothe poor quality of the road to the site and the risk of flash
flooding during the rainy season. A company representative
claimed Float Asia had brought in Chinese workers toconstruct a road to the mine site in 2006. The operation
was run by an individual named Mr. Ta Tri,175 who held thenickname of Ta Venta – or ‘grandpa specs’.176 These workers
had cleared the forest but failed to construct a decent roadand it had quickly deteriorated. As a consequence of the lackof road infrastructure, even in the dry season, Float Asia isforced to use local labour and oxcarts rather than trucks.177
Investigators noted that the depot itself still had considerable
stock, mining equipment and a sales staff. Customers wereobserved buying rock and loading it onto trucks.178

Left: Mining and stone-breaking licence for Float Asia Friendly Mation
Right: Company registration documents showing Ching Kimnguon as Float Asia Friendly Mation’s owner

28

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter TWO | Mining

The chair of the government’s Human Rights Committee, Om Yen Tieng (pictured), and the prime
minister’s first cousin, Dy Chouch, are both named as backers of the Float Asia Friendly Mationmine by sources close to the company’s operations

Float Asia’s own brochure is very precise about the legal basisof its operations, stating that it was granted a licence by The
MIME for an ‘open-pit mining and stone quarry No. 597’ inJune 2006.179
However, the MoE staff operating in the area disagreed withthe legal basis of the company’s operations, claiming it was
operating illegally under the 1996 law on Environmental
Protection and Natural Resource Management.180
Global Witness has obtained a copy of an MoE submission to
the prosecutor of the court of Pursat Province concerning Float
Asia’s activities which vividly outlines the tensions between
these two arms of state. According to the court submission,on 2 March 2008 an MoE ranger mission confiscated one
big truck, one tractor and two air compressors from the Float
Asia operations.181 As the team was heading back from thesite, the Float Asia company representative Mr. Eang Soknai182
instructed a group of military personnel to stop the ranger teamand threatened to open fire on them.183 Despite the threats ofviolence against the MoE staff, sources claim that the Pursat
Court did not bring a legal case against Float Asia or pursue theallegations outlined in the MoE submission.184

From interviews withcompany employees, theMoE staff and local residents, itappears that the Float Asia company iscontrolled and backed by some powerful individuals.
When Global Witness investigators visited the company’s
office in Phnom Penh in mid-2008, registration certificates on
the wall identified an individual named Ching Kimnguon as
the company’s owner.185 However, when asked, a staff member
and another official familiar with the company’s operations,
identified one of Hun Sen’s advisors and chairman of thegovernment’s Human Rights Committee, Om Yen Tieng,
as the mine’s major backer.186 Global Witness wrote to Om
Yen Tieng in October 2008 to ask what the nature of his
relationship was with the company. At the time of publishinghe had not responded. Another source close to the company
also claimed an individual named Dy Chouch is a controlling
force behind the Float Asia mine (see Box 7 for further
details).187

Marble statues photographed by Global Witness investigators at the company’s Phnom Penh headquarters. Float Asia Friendly
Mation is extracting marble from the protected Phnom Aural Wildlife SanctuaryCountry for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200929

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Box 7 | The return of Dy Chouch
In June 2007, Global Witness published Cambodia’s
Family Trees, an in-depth exposé showing how a wellconnected syndicate comprising relatives of the prime
minister and other senior officials had run illegal logging
operations with complete impunity over a number of years.
Dy Chouch, first cousin to Prime Minister Hun Sen, was a
key member of this group. As well as illegal logging, thesyndicate was also implicated in more mafia-type activities,
including kidnapping and attempted murder.188
In the wake of the report, the patterns of impunity
which allowed the members of the Seng Keang Company
to carry out illegal logging have continued unabatedand unchecked. Instead of investigating the report’s
allegations, Cambodia’s authorities responded by banningit, confiscating copies and harassing journalists whoreported on its findings. The prime minister’s brother isreported to have threatened that “if they [Global Witness
staff] come to Cambodia, I will hit them until their heads
are broken.” While a government spokesman promised
an investigation at the time, to the best of Global
Witness’ knowledge, there has not been any follow-up orprosecutions, nor has any government authority contacted

Global Witness directly
regarding theallegations.189
Dy Chouchmeanwhile appears
to have undergone
something of a rebranding exercise. Ina Cambodia Daily article
titled ‘Timber Company
Owner Denies Illegal Logging’, Dy Chouch was described
as a ‘marble tycoon.’190
Global Witness has reason to believe that Dy Chouch isa major force behind the Float Asia Friendly Mation mine.
A source close to the company’s operations has identified
Dy Chouch as another owner or protector of the Float
Asia Friendly Mation company and workers on the site arereported to have seen Dy Chouch on the mine site after
the company started operations.191 Global Witness wrote
to Dy Chouch in October 2008 to ask whether he holds
any relationship with the Float Asia mine. At the time of
publication he had not responded.

Cambodia’s premier logging syndicate, Seng Keang, and associates. This network was exposed by Global Witness in the 2007
report, Cambodia’s Family Trees“The most powerful logging syndicate in Cambodia is led by Dy Chouch,his ex-wife Seng Keang and Khun Thong, their business partner. This
group operates under the name Seng Keang Company.”
Extract taken from the June 2007 Global Witness report, Cambodia’s Family Trees.
30

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Koh Kong sandIn 2008, a huge sand dredging operation began
in Koh Kong Province. Global Witness estimates
the activity to be worth at least US$8.6 million peryear in Cambodia, and US$35 million per year in
Singapore.
There are a number of different sand dredgers andbuyers working in the area, but those interviewed
claim that the overall operation is controlled by Ly
Yong Phat – a well-known CPP Senator and tycoon.
As such, the Koh Kong sand dredging business isanother example of elite state capture in Cambodia’s
mining industry.
The case also further illustrates the role played byregional actors in the exploitation of Cambodia’s
natural resources. Evidence collected by Global
Witness suggests that the Koh Kong sand is being
shipped to Singapore for use in land reclamationand construction.
In early 2008, Global Witness received reports of large sanddredging operations in the estuarine systems of western
Koh Kong and the open seas off the coast of southern
Cambodia.192
When Global Witness investigators visited the area, theyfound a complex situation with multiple sand suppliers andbuyers. The common denominator, however, was that all

those interviewed claimed that sand taken from the area wasdestined for Singapore.193
Local people told Global Witness that the bulk of the sandis dredged from a site known as Lam Dam, which is situatedapproximately 15 km upriver from Koh Kong town in Koh
Kong District.194 Sand is also dredged from the Koh Pao river,at a site in Mondul Seima District around 10 km upriver fromKoh Kong town. The companies involved in the dredging
at Koh Pao include the Thai-owned Saroon Concrete Part
Ltd195 and an unnamed Chinese company. Other companies
are reported to be dredging in the areas known as Koh Kong
Knong and Choy Pros.196
Two sources in a position to know claimed that two
Cambodian-owned companies were heavily involved in the
supply of sand: Odom Cement Co. Ltd197 and the Ly Yong
Phat Co. Ltd198 It is unclear whether these companies arecarrying out dredging themselves or control the operations ofothers in the town.
Sand is generally taken on 300 tonne barges from thedredging sites to sand depots, where the sand is cleaned andstored for export. Two of these depots lie across the river fromKoh Kong town.199
Global Witness investigators visited these depots in mid2008. One of the companies visited was Saroon Concrete, theother was a Chinese-owned company which was stockpilingsand.200 Global Witness asked the name of this company,
but was told it does not yet have a name.201 Workers at

A smaller boat transfers sand to the Ally II, photographed in August 2008 approximately 30 km off the coast of Koh Kong Province,
Cambodia. Inset: Chinese workers dressed in military fatigues working aboard the Ally II

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200931

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Saroon Concrete claimed that sand was transferred from 300
tonne barges coming from upriver to 5000 tonne barges attheir depot. In turn, the sand is transferred to 15,000 tonne
ships anchored approximately 30 km offshore. From there,
these ships export the sand to Singapore for use in land
reclamation.202
Global Witness was unable to obtain a definitive answer
on the amount of sand being shipped from Koh Kong.
Nevertheless from our own observations and interviews withcompanies it is clear that the volume is significant, and nolimits appeared to be placed on the amount of sand available
for export. At one of the depots, workers claimed that they
were spending US$10,000 a month alone on water to clean
sand for construction purposes. They also claimed that in threedays – working around the clock – they could fill one of the
15,000 tonne ships for exports.
One of the suppliers quoted the price for sand at US$11 per
metric tonne. At these rates, a 15,000 tonne ship would hold
US$165,000 worth of sand. Given the number of operators
working in the area, Global Witness can conservatively
estimate that at least one of these ships would be filled
once a week. On the rates quoted, this would mean that theannual revenue for the sand industry in Koh Kong is US$8.6
million.203 Once in Singapore, the value of sand quadruples;at 2007 Singapore rates, the value of one metric tonne ofconstruction sand is US$45.204 This would bring the retailvalue of Koh Kong’s annual sand exports to US$35 million.
It was less clear who the exporters of sand are. Global Witness
visited this offshore transport point and observed two ofthese Panamanian-registered, 15,000 tonne ships. One of thepair – the Ally II – was being loaded at the time with sandfrom a 5,000 tonne barge. Staff on board the larger vessel
were observed wearing army-style fatigues without any kindof insignias or weapons. When spoken to they replied in
Mandarin with a mainland Chinese accent. Global Witness
asked permission to board the ship but was refused access.
While local residents in Koh Kong town referred to theuniformed workers as ‘the Chinese soldiers’ Global Witness
was unable to confirm whether or not they were from China’s
military.205
According to reports from local residents and workers, theChinese are not the only operators exporting to Singapore
from Koh Kong. Malaysian and Korean companies werereported to be purchasing sand for shipping.206

Box 8 | Singapore – the shifting sands of land reclamation
sand industry has wrought in its coastal areas.210 In the
Riau Islands near Singapore, where as much as 250,000
to 300,000 tonnes of terrestrial sand a month was being
exported, some islands have already disappeared andothers have been severely degraded.211 Sand-mining has
depleted fish stocks in Riau, a major problem in a country
where fish forms an important element of people’s diets.212
Global Witness wrote to the government of Singapore in
October 2008 to ask about its role in sand extraction in Koh
Kong Province and received the following response:“Singapore uses land sand for construction purposes,
and sea sand for land reclamation projects. Both types ofsand are imported by contractors from other countries.
The import of sand is a purely commercial activity andthe Singapore Government is not
involved. The Singapore Government
does not impose restrictions on
where the sand contractors source
for supplies, but we expect thecontractors to abide by the laws of
the source country governing theextraction, processing and transportof sand, as well as environmental
regulations. Our trade records showthat some of the imported sand usedin construction and reclamation
projects originate from Cambodia.
Singapore ceased imports of land
Singapore imports millions of tonnes of sand each year for use in landand sea sand from Indonesia sincereclamation projects
2007 and 2003 respectively.”213

istock/Colin and Linda McKie

Singapore is growing fast. Since independence, extensive
land reclamation has helped the borders of this small
island to expand nearly 20 per cent, and it intends to gaina further 98 km2 in the next five decades to accommodate
its rising population.207 This is accomplished by land
reclamation, which needs huge volumes of sand: much of
the 3.8 million tonnes Singapore imports annually is used
for this purpose.208 Having exhausted its own supplies ofsand in the years following independence, Singapore has
had to look elsewhere to meet its sand requirements.
Up until 2007, Indonesia was Singapore’s main supplierof sand. However, in January 2007, the Indonesian
government imposed a blanket ban on all sand exports.209
This ban was partly motivated by the serious damage the32

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter TWO | Mining

as the recipient of all payments from theoff-shore buyers to the onshore dredgers.
The workers claimed that wheneverpolice or other local officials visited theirsite, they would direct them to the KohKong office of Ly Yong Phat.218

CPP Senator, Ly Yong Phat, reportedly owns a villa and a speedboat kept at one of
the sand depots opposite from Koh Kong town, Koh Kong Province, Cambodia

The Phat of the sandThai businessman turned CPP Senator Ly Yong Phatviii is
known as the ‘King of Koh Kong’ due to his domination ofbusiness enterprise in the Province. His fortune appears tostem from his extensive ownership of casinos and hotels. Morerecently he has branched out into land ownership and sugar
cane production.214 This has brought him into the spotlightof human rights groups in Cambodia who have criticised therole played by his companies in the forced evictions of land
intended for sugar cane production.215
Unsurprisingly, the Koh Kong magnate has taken an interestin this burgeoning sand industry on his front doorstep andindustry insiders claim he exerts complete control over thesand sector in Koh Kong. Up until the busy period leading
up to the 2008 Cambodian national elections he is reported
to have set the industry prices, and acted as the mainintermediary for the sand buyers and sand dredgers.216
Both the Thai and Chinese depots opposite Koh Kong town arelocated on land reportedly owned by Ly Yong Phat. He is also
said to own a villa and a speedboat kept at the Thai depot.217
Senator Ly Yong Phat was described by workers at the Saroon
Cement company site as a ‘referee’ for all sand contracts andGlobal Witness has also obtained
documents which show Senator Ly Yong
Phat to be the owner of the Ly Yong
Phat or LYP Group Company, which
two well-placed sources have claimed isinvolved in the supply of sand.219

Global Witness wrote to Senator Ly
Yong Phat in October 2008 to ask forcomment on these claims. At the time of publication, he had
not responded.

The Cham Borey connection
Global Witness also obtained information relating to theownership of other mining companies beyond those we wereable to visit in 2008. This revealed other cases of mining
companies beneficially owned or controlled by members of
Cambodia’s ruling elite.
Eight Star Mining, 220 Angkor Wat Minerals221, and Elray
Resources222 are examples of this. All three companies list
among their directors or shareholders a Cambodian national
named Cham Borey.223
Cham Borey is the brother of Cambodia’s Minister forCommerce, Cham Prasidh, and personal advisor to the
President of Cambodia’s National Assembly, Heng Samrin.
Global Witness wrote to Cham Borey and Cham Prasidhin October 2008 to ask for their comments. At the time of
publication, neither had responded.
In May 2008, Angkor Wat Minerals was brought by a
Nevada-registered company named Elray Resources Inc.
Cham Borey however, maintained shares in the enterprise.
Both Angkor Wat Minerals/Elray Resources have claimed tohold a portfolio of three prospective gold concessions in Preah
Vihear and Kompong Thom Provinces.224
The Eight Star Mining website states that the company holds
a portfolio of several highly prospective, heavily mineralised
mining concessions in Cambodia and elsewhere, but does notprovide details of where these are situated.225
Elray Resources and Angkor Wat Minerals are under the
directorship of two Australian Nationals named Barry Lucasand Michael Malbourne.226 Eight Star mining lists Michael
Malbourne as a director.
viii

Extracts from LYP Group’s licence to quarry sandLy Yong Phat is also known as Phat Suphapha on his Thai passport.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200933

CHAPter TWO | Mining

Chart 1 | Key players in Cambodia’s mining industry

34

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter Three | OIl and gas

chapter three

IStock/Brasil2

Oil and gas

35

CHAPter Three | Oil and gas

chapter three
Oil and gas
Whereas Cambodia’s elite primarily stand to gainfrom the mining industry through direct ownershipor beneficial control of mining companies,
Cambodia’s burgeoning oil and gas industry has
been captured via different means. Here, control ofthe sector has sprung from constitutionally dubious
amendments to national legislation which have
had the effect of placing control of the Cambodian
National Petroleum Authority – and hence accessto the resource – directly in the hands of the prime
minister and his deputy. The establishment ofthese amendments has effectively circumvented
parliamentary and public oversight of the industry.
The end result is zero transparency in the process
behind concession allocation in the oil industry.
What little information there is available has leaked
into the public domain, seemingly by accident rather
than intent. Some of the companies that have been
allocated all or part of oil concessions have little
experience in the oil and gas sector, and unprovenfinancial means to exploit the resource. In somecases, it is not publicly known who controls thecompany or benefits from its activities.
All this adds up to the development of an oil
industry over which the Cambodian people – whocollectively own this resource – have no say orcontrol.

Legal framework and legislative process
Cambodia’s petroleum legislation is even less developed
than that of the mining sector. Technically, the industry is
still governed by the 1991 Petroleum Regulations whichwere passed under the State of Cambodia government,
shortly before the United Nation’s Transitional Authority
to Cambodia took over on 31 October 1991.ix Under thislegislation, the government body in charge of petroleum isthe Ministry of Industry, which later became the Ministry ofIndustry, Mines and Energy (MIME).
There are those who argue that legal texts adopted prior to either the current
constitution or UNTAC are invalid, but in practice all manner of legal texts
adopted between the fall of the Khmer Rouge in 1979 and the adoption of theconstitution in 1991 are followed.

ix

36

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

Prime Minister Hun Sen (right) and Deputy Prime Minister
Sok An (left). Together they control the Cambodian National
Petroleum Authority

Nominally at least, the 1991 Petroleum Regulations require
some degree of government and public oversight andtransparency in the allocation of state concessions to privatecompanies. The Ministry of Industry is required by theRegulations to issue public notices of bidding rounds foroil concessions and the criteria by which these bids will be
judged. These bids should be submitted to the Ministry ofIndustry which in turn should evaluate the bids on the basisof technical and financial competence. After this process,the bids should be forwarded, with recommendations, to the
Cambodian government for approval.227 If the Cambodian
government then decides to approve a bid, the Minister for
Industry is authorised to sign the Petroleum Agreement
on behalf of the government. The legislation also includes
provisions for a Petroleum Advisory Board comprising of awide cross-departmental government membership.228
In practice however, the terms of this legislation appear tohave been overridden at a later date by the secretive passingof amendments via royal decree. These have the effect oftransferring control over the oil resource or fundamentally
altering transparency requirements within the originallegislation.

CHAPter Three | OIl and gas“The Cambodian National Petroleum Authority shall be the permanent
institution governed directly by the prime minister.”
Extract from the royal decree on the formation of the Cambodian National Petroleum Authority, 22 January 1998.229

Transfers of power
One example of this transfer
of control can be found in theformation of the Cambodian
National Petroleum Authority(CNPA) by royal decree on
22 January 1998.230 Under theterms of this royal decree, all phases of petroleum activities
should be coordinated by the CNPA. Article 3 of the royal
decree declares that the CNPA is a permanent institution,
governed directly by the prime minister.231 In this way, theroyal decree transferred responsibility for the oil and gas sector
away from the MIME to a new institution under the directcontrol of the prime minister.
Global Witness wrote to Hun Sen in October 2008 toenquire into the rationale behind this decision. At the timeof publication we had not received a response. There has been
no official explanation as to why, in 1998, Hun Sen made thedecision to transfer responsibility for the oil sector away from the
MIME to the CNPA and himself. Global Witness however, hasconcerns about the use of the royal decree as a legal tool which
has circumvented public and parliamentary debate.
There are various different ways in which laws can be madeand implemented in Cambodia. The Cambodian constitution
states that legislative power sits with the National Assembly,
and that legislative power is not transferable to any otherorgan or individual.232

less powerful institutions. In this context, the use of a royal
decree to establish the CNPA – a powerful state institution in
charge of disbursing oil concessions of potentially significant
value – is out of keeping with normal practice.234
In the opinion of legal experts consulted by Global Witness,
the transfer of such significant powers to a new organisation
by royal decree only, without primary legislation passed by the
National Assembly, is not only out of keeping with normal
practice but is constitutionally dubious.235
Shortly after the establishment of the CNPA in January 1998,
the first of two amendments to the 1991 legislation was passed.
This agreed to change the principles of procedures for the
public announcement of bids, stating that “the Ministry ofIndustry may establish alternative procedures for the issue ofbid invitation to companies.”236 In effect, this phrase removed
the requirement for the CNPA to hold open bidding rounds
for the allocation of the petroleum concessions and opened
the door for private, bilateral negotiations.
Bizarrely, the amendment contains a number ofinconsistencies. Firstly, it claims to have been signed by
Cambodia’s two prime ministers of the time, Norodom
Ranariddh237 and Hun Sen. Six months before theamendment was signed, Hun Sen had ousted Ranariddh
in a brutal and violent coup. Global Witness wrote to
Ranariddh to ask whether he had signed this legislation,

In practice a number of other legal instruments are used toelaborate and provide implementing mechanisms for laws passedby the National Assembly. These include sub decrees, (which go
past the Council of Ministers, prime minister and King) androyal decrees (which only go past the King and prime minister).
Typically, when creating a state institution or body which has
the authority to award state property or make a state decisionthat has financial value, Cambodia’s legislative arm – theNational Assembly – would pass a law.233 The use of sub decrees
or royal decrees tends to be reserved for the establishment of

Sok An is the chairman of the Cambodia National Petroleum
Authority (CNPA). Under a 1998 Royal Decree responsibility
for Cambodia’s oil and gas sectors were transferred from the
Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy to the CNPACountry for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200937

CHAPter Three | Oil and gas

but did not receive any response. Secondly, it refers to the
Ministry of Industry as the controlling power, and ignores
the newly established role of the CNPA. Regardless of thesecontradictions, the amendment has been applied to practice,and no open bidding rounds for Cambodia’s oil concessions
have taken place since then.
One year later in 1999, a second amendment to the Petroleum
Regulations appeared to place the power to decide upon the
allocation of petroleum concessions solely in the hands of one
individual – Cambodia’s deputy prime minister and chairmanof the CNPA, Sok An.238“Following evaluation and examination of a proposal, theChairman of the Cambodian National Petroleum Authority

may execute such agreement, including, without limitation, an
option to enter into a Petroleum Agreement, as is consideredappropriate for the development of the petroleum resource
industry within Cambodia … Any agreement executed by the
Chairman of the Cambodian National Petroleum Authority
pursuant to this Article 5B shall be binding on the Cambodian
Government in accordance with its terms.”
Extract from Article 5B on ‘Decision on the amendment of

the petroleum Regulations 1991 of the Royal Government of
Cambodia, No.25’, signed by Prime Minister Hun Sen on 19
March 1999.239

The combined impact of both is to remove any safeguards inthe initial 1991 Petroleum Regulations for the transparent andequitable allocation of Cambodia’s petroleum concessions.

Box 9 | Sok An
Sok An is the current deputy prime
minister for Cambodia and chairmanof the Cambodian National Petroleum
Authority (CNPA). Like many of his peersin the in the Cambodian Peoples’ Party(CPP), Sok An began his career as abureaucrat during Vietnam’s occupationin the early 1980s and rose to prominencealongside Prime Minister Hun Sen. An
astute political operator, he remained by
Hun Sen’s side throughout the CPP’s
ruthless consolidation of power and is
now one of the prime minister’s closest
allies. Their relationship was recently
strengthened through the arranged
marriage of Sok An’s son Sok Puthyvuth
to Hun Sen’s daughter Hun Mali.240
Global Witness has written about
Sok An previously in his capacity as
co-signatory on many of the original
agreements for logging concessionaires
in Cambodia.241 These concessionagreements formed the basis of thedisastrous destruction of forests which
followed, at great cost to Cambodia’s
environment and little benefit toCambodia’s economy.
As the regime’s second-in-command,
Sok An holds a number of otherimportant governmental positions, somany in fact that he has been likened toa many-armed Hindu god,242 due to histendency to have a hand in everything.
It came as little surprise that, when the
CNPA was established in 1998, Sok
An was elected as its chairman. Since
then he has presided over all contracts
awarded to oil companies, acting as thepoint person for potential investors.243

38

One cartoonist’s view of the many-armed Sok An. He is currently the Permanent Vice
Chairman of the Supreme Council for State Reform,244 Chairman of the Council for
Administrative Reform,245 Chairman of the National Tourism Authority. He is also Vice
Chairman of the Centralist Democratic Institute (CDI), the Asia Pacific Institute; Chiefof the Apasara Authority, Chief of the National Land Dispute Authority, Chief of theCambodia Training Board, Chief of the Royal Academy, Chief of the Khmer Rouge
Tribunal, a member of the Council of Royal Administration and Chief of the State
Investment Board on Rubber Enterprise.246 In his spare time he also finds time tochair the Cambodian National Scout Association247

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter Three | OIl and gas

Governing Cambodia’s oil and gas sector:
A case of contract law?

While this is not uncommon in the oil industry, the lack ofpublic legislation governing the conduct of oil companies
does raise concerns in a country with a poor track recordin transparency and corruption. In the words of one source
close to the CNPA “whilst this is not disastrous, neither is it
ideal. Private contracts provide no transparency and the terms
between companies may differ.”254

Since it became apparent that the development of an oil
industry was actually going ahead in Cambodia, donors haverushed to build the capacity of the CNPA and develop a newlegislative structure on which to base the industry.248 Three
previous donor efforts to draft a petroleum law have failed
however, ostensibly due to a lack of ownership on the partof the CNPA.249 Following these attempts the Norwegian
Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) has been
helping the CNPA to develop a petroleum law and associatedsub decree.250

Global Witness understands that fees charged by the
Cambodian Government in the PSCs vary depending on thecontracting company. In a draft model petroleum agreement x
the following charges were set out. Global Witness has not beenable to confirm whether this form of contract was entered into
by any of the PSC holders, but understands that the draft islikely to have been used as a model for the final contracts.

When completed, the new petroleum law will need to
go in front of the National Assembly for discussion. The
accompanying sub decrees are scheduled to pass via theCouncil of Ministers.251 Currently the work is at the stageof conciliation of contracts, laws, and sub decrees to ensurethat there is no contradiction between them. According toindustry insiders, there is no definite end date in sight for thecompletion and passing of the legislation into law.252 In themeantime therefore, companies wishing to operate their oilblocks in Cambodia will continue to refer back to their private
individual contracts – known as Production Sharing Contracts(PSCs) – as the legal basis for their operations. A ‘Petroleum
Agreement’ defines the terms of these PSCs.253

On the basis of this petroleum agreement, the CNPA would
expect a minimum of US$746,000 from each Production
Sharing Contract in the first year of the agreement. If one
assumes that this is applied uniformly and without variation
to all six offshore oil blocks, the CNPA and Cambodian
government should have already received almost US$4.5
million in fees from the PSC holders.
To view the full version of the draft Petroleum Agreement, go to
http://www.globalwitness.org
xChart 2 | Fees requested in the Cambodian government’s draft Petroleum Agreement255
Fee

AmountDestinationof fees

Administration Fee

US$272,000

CNPA

Education and Training of Cambodian Nationals

Minimum of US$150,000

CNPA

For Exploration Area during Stage 1 of the Exploration
Period

US$10 per square kilometre of unrelinquished
Exploration Area.

Government

For Exploration Area during Stage 2 and 3 of the
Exploration Period

US$20 per square kilometre of unrelinquished
Exploration Area.

Government

For Exploration Area during any additional extension of
Exploration Period

US$40 per square kilometre of unrelinquished
Exploration Area.

Government

For a Production Area

US$500 per square kilometre of unrelinquished
Production Area.

Government

For each extension of the Exploration Period

US$ 1,000

CNPA

For each Production Permit

US$ 10,000

CNPA

For any adjustment to Production Permit

US$ 1,000

CNPA

For each extension of Production Permit

US$ 10,000

CNPA

For transfer of any rights for Petroleum Operations

US$ 15,000

CNPA

CNPA assistance for survey work

At cost

CNPA

CNPA assistance with boundary location for Contract Area

At costCNPA

The CNPA shall assign two representatives (or more than
two upon Contractor request) on a permanent basis toassist Contractors.

US$24,000

CNPA

Goodwill payment

US$300,000

CNPA

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200939

Al Jezeera English

CHAPter Three | Oil and gas

Where pro-Chea Sim Vice President of the CNPA, Ho Vichett,263 is given more political duties, such as
the drafting of legislation, pro-Hun Sen Director General of the CNPA, Te Duong Tara (pictured), is incharge of the contracts and the more commercial side of the business

Structure of the CNPA: The rift within…
“Transparency is defined very differently by the Director
General.”Industry insider commenting on the lack of institutionaltransparency within Cambodia’s National Petroleum
Authority.256

Constitutional and legislative matters aside, Global Witness
has learned from a variety of sources that there is a serious
split at the top of the CNPA which raises serious questions
about the way in which power is exercised within theorganisation itself.
The CNPA’s Board of Management comprises of thechairman, Sok An; the vice chairman, Ho Vichett; the director
general, Te Duong Tara and a legal team.257 The director of
the Upstream Division is an individual named Men Den.258
The organisation itself has between 80 and 100 employees.259
Ultimately, employees of the CNPA report to the chairman,
Deputy Prime Minister Sok An and he, in turn, reports
directly to Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Senior roles are drawn from members of the leading Cambodian
Peoples Party (CPP). Global Witness has learned howeverthat a fission within the CPP between Hun Sen and thecurrent Senate President, Chea Sim, is being duplicatedwithin the CNPA. Those loyal to Hun Sen have control of
the organisation, meaning that large chunks of the CNPA are
cut out of the information flow and decision-making process,effectively leaving them paralysed and unable to fulfil theirown roles.260
According to several sources Te Duong Tara, who is pro-Hun
Sen, has drafted in administrative staff with few relevant
qualifications from outside of the CNPA to assist him with his
activities, rather than work with the trained staff that are under
the leadership of Men Den, who is pro-Chea Sim.261
While donors have been pouring funds into capacity training
of upstream staff within the CNPA, observers claim thatin practice, the office of the Director General fulfils all
upstream duties, and that the qualified staff of the upstream
departments are unable to contribute.262

Chart 3 | Structure of the Cambodian National Petroleum Authority

40

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter Three | OIl and gas

Box 10 | Pay day politics
Common to the vast majority of civil service jobs inCambodia, the effectiveness of the CNPA is undermined by
the low salary level for employees. Most CNPA employees
do not earn a salary sufficient to cover their families’ costsof living. The typical salary for a CNPA employee is US$45
each month: only 20-25 per cent of what is needed tocover the costs of living.266
For many trained staff within the CNPA, a combination of
the politicisation of work responsibilities and these low levelsalaries mean that they hold second jobs. One observer
claimed that some staff only show up in the office on pay
day.267 The Bridge Group’s independent Training Needs
Assessment again offers a more diplomatic explanation:“On a typical day, some 30 employees come in themorning and only some 10-12 return after lunch… Many
employed have received further training… However, they
have not had the opportunity to apply the knowledge
gained in their daily work, and it has not been developed
but instead been continuously eroded. The training has
therefore to a large extent been wasted, and this is thesource of much frustration among the employees.”268
The lack of adequate funding of salaries for CNPA
employees appears out of step with the funding for staff
development which, according to the CNPA’s model
petroleum agreement, is due to the CNPA each year. This
contract states that each oil signatory is required to pay
US$150,000 each year for staff training and development.
Given this, the CNPA should currently be the direct

recipient of at least US$900,000 each year for staff training
and development.269
It is doubtful whether money paid by investing
companies for staff training could be used for salary
payments. However, when compared, the disparity
between staff salaries and income to the CNPA does raisequestions as to the wisdom or rationale of keeping staff
wages so low, or what any payments are being used for.
Global Witness wrote to the Director General of the
CNPA, Te Duong Tara, to ask what the staff training anddevelopment fund is used for. At the time of publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.

Whether or not the division of power is due solely to politicalaffiliations, or whether it stems more from a desire to control
information flow – or both combined – the net effect is tomarginalise those staff that have the core competencies which
would allow the CNPA to function as an effective institution.

Information flows?
“If your goal is to have a functioning government agency, you
would want to share information.”270

A leaked internal ‘Training Needs Assessment’ of the CNPA
carried out by the Norwegian consultancy firm, Bridge Group,
describes the situation as follows:

information is not shared within the organisation.

“The organisation is not working towards a common goal, andthere is distrust between the top leadership and some of thedepartment management. This has led to a situation where thedepartments are not contributing to the overall objectives of
the CNPA, but rather form their own isolated cells with theirown limited agendas. In order to circumvent this problem,
a secretariat reporting to the Director General staffed withtrusted employees has been created, duplicating some of thedepartment qualifications.”264
Other, slightly less diplomatic industry insiders have describedthe end result to Global Witness as ‘dysfunctional’.265

The CNPA fails to pay its workers a living wage

“Information is power.”271

Quotes taken from industry analysts when asked why

Dysfunctional or not, control over information and power
within the CNPA is certainly effective. The division within
the organisation means that only a handful of individuals at
the top of the Cambodian government have any knowledge,
or involvement in, the negotiation of contracts signed withpetroleum companies.272
Global Witness has asked the obvious question to a numberof individuals acquainted with the CNPA: is this lack ofinternal communication an outcome of poor management or adeliberate strategy to withhold information? The response has
been unanimous.
Those interviewed perceived this as part of a deliberate
strategy to divide the institution and maintain a hold on
power to allow for corruption. As one industry insider put it:“With this kind of set up, it’s easy to see how revenue will be lost.”273
Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200941

CHAPter Three | Oil and gas

Bidding rounds and the allocation of
Production Sharing Contracts
In line with the requirements of the 1991 Petroleum
Regulations an initial bidding round was announced in 1991.
Successful bidders for the offshore blocks included EnterpriseOil, Campex and Premier Oil.274
This marked the last of the open bidding rounds for oilconcessions in Cambodia however. Once exploratory licences
for those concessions expired, the CNPA began a new roundof resource allocation – this time behind closed doors andwithout any transparent bidding process.
In March 2002, the CNPA awarded offshore Block A to a
subsidiary of U.S. oil company Chevron and its partners.275
Since that point, the CNPA appears to have allocated all
remaining oil blocks to other petroleum companies of varying
degrees of experience. None of this information has come into
the public domain directly from the CNPA. Instead it has
leaked out in dribs and drabs via oil companies, the media andgovernment power-point presentations that have been posted
online by other organisations.276

Neither has there been any parliamentary oversight of
the allocation of exploration rights. Global Witness has
interviewed a number of sources within the National
Assembly and close to the CNPA who all claim that there
has been no parliamentary oversight or coordination on thesedecisions whatsoever.278 One source claimed that the scope of
discussions to date has only extended to two workshops forparliamentarians, organised and run by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) in Cambodia.279
Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance (MoEF) is theinstitution which will nominally be responsible for collecting
and managing the distribution of potential petroleum
revenues. As such, representatives of the MoEF have been
attending conferences on petroleum related issues.280 Sources
close to the CNPA claim that there has been some limited
engagement of the CNPA by the MoEF about ensuringthat Cambodia’s Tax Law and the petroleum contracts
apply the same taxation rates. However, the same sources
claim that, in practice, the Ministry is cut out of the CNPA
communications loop about future revenue management.281“No question is more stupid than this question”

Deputy Prime Minister Sok An’s response to a query on the management of future petroleum money, reported in the
Cambodia Daily on 13 November 2007.277

Box 11 | New kids on the block?
The CNPA gained a public website for the
first time on 25 September 2007 at http://
www.cnpa-cambodia.com. It is registered to
a company called Petroleum Geo Services(PGS) – a company currently carrying out
2D seismic testing in Cambodia’s Tonle
Sap region – and appears to be set up toencourage other companies to apply for
petroleum concessions in Cambodia.
As of October 2008 the site contained
only the index for an application
guidelines webpage: the documents
providing information on how to make anapplication were not yet available. Given that all six (A-F)
of Cambodia’s offshore blocks and a handful of onshore
concessions appeared to have been allocated by May
2008, the arrival of a public website with this information
seems rather late in the day.282
Global Witness has also learned that the CNPA iscurrently reallocating old exploration licences for the ThaiCambodian Overlapping Claims Areas (OCAs).283 Given
that geologists claim the most prospective areas for oil
and gas are situated onshore and in the OCAs, allocationof these concessions should be considered a matterof crucial public interest. At the time of publication, no
information on the allocation of these resources has been
provided by the CNPA or the Cambodian government.

42

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

The Cambodian National Petroleum Authority website (above)
provides application information for companies wanting to
explore Cambodia’s oil reserves

CHAPter Three | OIl and gas

Map of known oil and gas concessions
Onshore blocks
Block
XVIII

Block XII PT Medco – 52.5%
CNPA – 40%
JHL Petroleum – 7.5%
Block X
and XVATI Petroleum (unconfirmed)
Block
XIII

Other Blocks: Guangdong ChenguanEnterprise Investment Group(location unknown)

Block
XIX
Block
XIV

Block
XX

Block
XVII

Tonle
Sap

Block
XV

Block
XII

Block
X

of

Block
XXIV
Block
XVI

ThailandArea I

Block
VIII

Block
E
Area II

Block
XXV

Block
IX

OCA

Block
D

Block B PTTEP – 33.3%
SPC – 33.3%
Resourceful Petroleum – 33.3%
Block C Polytec – 100%

Block
A

Block D China Petrotech Holdings
Limited (Cambodia) Co. – 100%

Block
B

Block E Medco (PSC holder) – 41.3%
Kuwait Energy – 20.6%
JHL Petroleum – 4.1%
Lundin Petroleum – 34%

Area
IV

With the exception of Chevron, the government of Cambodia
has not publicly announced the names of those companies towhom it has awarded oil and gas exploration rights. However,despite this reticence, information on who holds what has
leaked into the public domain.284
Offshore, all six concession blocks appear to have been soldoff to a varied cast of companies. Some are well known in theoil and gas business with track records in delivering oil andgas reserves to the market. Others are less well known, with
no apparent track record in the industry. Global Witness
has focused its research on these companies with a view toproviding further information about them to the Cambodian
public and to understanding what their involvement in theemerging sector may bring to Cambodia.

Block AThe production sharing contract (PSC) to Block A wasawarded to U.S. oil company Chevron in 2002. Chevron’s
activities in Block A are the most advanced of all the oilcompanies currently operating in Cambodia. A five-well
exploration and appraisal programme was completed in 2006.
This was followed by the exploration and appraisal of four

Offshore blocks
Block A Chevron – 55%
Moeco – 30%
GS Caltex 15%

Block
F

Who is behind the names? The allocation of oil
and gas concessions in Cambodia

V I E T N A M

Block
XXVI

Block
C
Area
III

Block
XXIII

C A M B O D I A

Block
XI

Gulf

Block
XXII

Block
XXI

Block F Under negotiation with
CNOOC (unconfirmed)

more wells in 2007. As of early 2008, the results were being
evaluated. At the time of writing, the CNPA were waiting fora block development plan from Chevron. 285
Since then two other companies have acquired a participatinginterest in the exploration and development project.
Chevron now holds 55 per cent, Japanese company Mitsui
Oil Exploration Co. Ltd (Moeco)286 holds 30 per cent andSouth Korean company GS Caltex Corporation287 holds
15 per cent.288 All three appear to be well-established andwell-known oil companies with a successful track record in
exploration and exploitation of oil reserves.

Block B
Exploration rights are currently held by Thailand’s PTTEPInternational293 in a joint venture with Singapore Petroleum
Company (SPC)294 and Malaysia’s Resourceful Petroleum Ltd.
Each holds a one-third stake. Australia’s Cooper Energy295
pulled out in October 2007, selling its share to its partners for
US$1 million.296
Both PTTEP International and SPC appear to be wellestablished regional oil and gas companies with operations
in a number of countries outside of Cambodia.297 The third
company in the triumvirate, Resourceful Petroleum Limited,
Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200943

CHAPter Three | Oil and gas

Box 12 | Chevron – the challenge of transparency
International oil company Chevron is a leading memberof the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI),a coalition of governments, companies and civil society
which supports improved governance in resource-richcountries through the verification and full publicationof company payments and government revenues fromoil, gas and mining. It is also the primary investor in
Cambodia’s offshore Block A petroleum concession.289
Although the two commitments are not necessarily
conflicting, Chevron’s behaviour to date raises questions
as to whether or not its conduct is in keeping with the spiritof the EITI.
Industry insiders claim that Chevron has signed anagreement with the CNPA not to publicly disclose any
information regarding its concession.290 Global Witness
notes that under Article 27 of the model PSC any contractor
is required to treat all data and other information relating toPetroleum Operations or the Contract Area as confidential.291
They also claim that Chevron, along with all otheris less well known. Global Witness investigations found thatthe company is owned by an individual named Dr. Chen
Lip Keong, who is the personal economic advisor to Prime
Minister Hun Sen.298 Global Witness wrote to Dr. Chen Lip
Keong in October 2008 and received a response from hislawyers in Hong Kong, Richards Butler Reed Smith LLP.
They wrote:“Dr. Chen is aware of Global Witness’ positive work inhighlighting natural resource-related conflicts, corruption,
environmental and human rights abuses around the world.
These are worthy goals that justify responsible investigationcompanies investing in Cambodia’s petroleum sector, hasmade an upfront payment – also known as a signaturebonus – to the CNPA in order to secure its concession.
According to one well-placed source, the company is also
paying ‘significant’ sums to the Cambodian government in
the form of tax.292
Global Witness wrote to Chevron in October 2008 to ask
for further information on its involvement in Cambodia. The
letter also requested that Chevron disclose the amount it
had paid to the government of Cambodia as a signaturebonus and any other payments made to the Cambodian
government. At the time of publication, no response had
been received.
Neither the payment of any signature bonus nor thesigning of any confidentiality agreement with the governmentof Cambodia are against the terms of Chevron’s EITI
membership. However, they do raise questions as to how
deeply committed Chevron is to supporting transparency
and good governance in the countries in which it operates.

and reporting…Dr. Chen has asked us to inform you that
he is the ultimate sole shareholder of Resourceful Petroleum
Limited. It is public information that RPL is one of a numberof members of a consortium formed to explore and extract
oil and gas in Cambodia’s offshore ‘Block B’. We are further
informed that this is not RPL’s only oil and gas interest…
RPL conducts other oil and gas business elsewhere in theworld. The Cambodia Block B consortium members are
subject to confidentiality restrictions. That said, Dr. Chen
informs us that RPL was invited to join the consortium
as a financial investor, the operator of which is PTTEPInternational Limited of Thailand (PTTEP).”299

Dr. Chen Lip Keong is the sole beneficial owner of Resourceful Petroleum Ltd, a company which holds a one third stake in
Cambodia’s Block B. He is also the CEO and largest shareholder in NagaCorp, the company which owns Phnom Penh’s only
casino, NagaWorld

44

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter Three | OIl and gas

Dr Chen is also the President of a Malaysian-listed property
and tourism company called Karambunai Corp Berhad, of
which he is the controlling shareholder.303 The company madea profit of 49.2 million Malaysian Ringitts in 2007 – about
US$14.4 million.304 The jewel in the company’s crown is the
exclusive Nexus Resort Karambunai in Borneo, where a room
can cost up to US$350 per night.305 The resort is also home
to an international championship 18-hole golf course, where
keen golfer and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen enjoyeda round in June 2000.306
It would appear then that one third of Cambodia’s offshore
Block B is controlled by a company which is owned by aneconomic advisor to Hun Sen.

Block C
According to Cambodian government presentations seen by
Global Witness, a company named Polytec holds 100 per cent of
the rights to explore Block C.307 A press report in May 2008 said
that the company intended to start drilling in the area soon.308

AP/PA Photos

Documents obtained by Global Witness suggest that the
Polytec company which holds the rights to Block C is thesame company as Polytec Asset Holdings Limited, which isincorporated in the Caymans and headquartered in HongKong.309
Prime Minister Hun Sen is a keen golfer, pictured hereplaying in 1998. He played a round of golf at Dr. Chen Lip
Keong’s luxury 18-hole golf course in Borneo in 2000

Dr. Chen Lip Keong is an important figure in Cambodia andacross Southeast Asia. He has been awarded several honours
for economic services to Malaysia, and is the CEO and largest
shareholder in NagaCorp, the company which owns Phnom
Penh’s only casino, NagaWorld. NagaWorld has an exclusive
licence from the Cambodian government to operate casinosin Phnom Penh until 2035. The company’s 2007 annual reportclaims its profits rose by over 50 per cent to US$51.9 million
in that financial year.300
NagaCorp has been listed in Hong Kong since October
2006, but its journey to the stock exchange has not been
without obstacles. The company tried to join the Singapore
Stock Exchange in 2003, but its application was rejectedby the Monetary Authority of Singapore which stated at
the time: “We are of the opinion that it would not be in the
public interest to register Nagacorp’s prospectus. MAS has
reservations that Nagacorp’s operations are not subject toa fully developed and implemented legal and supervisory
framework for the regulation of casinos and the prevention ofmoney laundering, as recommended by the Financial Action
Task Force. Nagacorp also does not possess an establishedtrack record of independent audits of the effectiveness of its
internal controls for addressing money laundering risks.”301
The company turned to the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong,
where it listed in 2006.302

The documents seen by Global Witness show that a
Polytec Petroleum Corporation was registered in 2006
with Cambodia’s Ministry of Commerce for the purposeof oil exploration. The directors of this Cambodia-based oil
exploration company are Mr. Tommy Lam Chi Chung and
Mr. Or Wei Sheun.310
According to the Polytec Asset Holdings website both Mr.
Lam Chi Chung and Mr. Or Wei Sheun also hold senior
management positions
with the Hong Kongbased company. Mr.
Lam Chi Chung is the
Executive Director 311
and Mr. Or Wei Sheun
has held the positionof Chairman of Polytec
Asset Holdings since heacquired a controllingstake in the company
in 2001. He now owns
59.5 per cent of thecompany’s shares.312
Global Witness wrote
to Polytec Asset
Documents obtained by Global Witness show that the directorsof Block C’s Polytec also hold senior management positions in a
Hong Kong based company named Polytec Asset Holdings

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200945

CHAPter Three | Oil and gas

Block D

Istockphoto.com/Brazil2

Exploration rights to Cambodia’s Block D are perhaps themost opaque of all the concessions. It has been reported ingovernment documents and the Cambodian media as 100
per cent owned by a Singapore-registered company named
China Petrotech,320 a former software company which
specialises in providing oil exploration software to clients
including China’s major state run oil companies.321 Yet when
Global Witness examined the evidence available, it seemedthat other companies are also involved. Rather than being thesole operator of Block D, it appears that China Petrotech hasbought part of a company which holds the rights to operate
the block. China Petrotech changed its name to Mirach
Energy in 2008.
According to China Petrotech/Mirach Energy’s own
website, the PSC for Cambodia’s Block D was granted to a
Cambodian-registered company named China Zhen Rong
Cambodia Energy (CZRCE)322 in April 2006. Under theterms of the PSC, CZRCE has the sole exploration rights to
Block D for seven years and production rights for 30 years.323
This means that, technically, the rights to explore Block D restwith CZRCE, not China Petrotech/Mirach Energy.
Oil production in Cambodia has yet to begin, yet there isalready a worrying lack of transparency in the sector

Holdings Limited in October 2008 to ask about the nature of
any involvement in Cambodia. At the time of publication, no
response had been received.
According to the company’s own information, Polytec Asset
Holdings Limited does not appear to have any expertise in theoil and gas business. Instead it says its main business areas areproperty, ice and frozen products, and finance and investment.
The company currently has a number of property development
and investment projects in the tiny but wealthy territory of
Macau.313 It also owns the Hong Kong Ice and Cold Storage
Company.314 There is no mention of Cambodia or oil explorationin any of the company’s last five annual reports.315 It made ahealthy profit in 2007 – HK$222 million, or US$29 million.316

Also in April 2006, China Petrotech/Mirach Energy
announced that it had secured an overseas oilfield service
contract with CZRCE. Under the service contract, China
Petrotech/Mirach Energy would provide technical advisoryand project management services for the development andproduction operations of CZRCE’s offshore oil project inCambodia.324 Three months later, on 26 July 2006, China
Petrotech/Mirach Energy purchased 48 per cent of CZRCE,
making it the largest shareholder in the company.325 It
paid US$5.8 million for this share. Under the terms of theagreement, once the purchase was complete, China Petrotech/
Mirach Energy became the sole operator of Block D.326

Until 2004, Polytec Asset Holdings was known as Kin Don
Holdings Limited, and was engaged in the garments industry.
It had been in financial difficulties before being taken over by
Mr. Or Wei Sheun.317 Mr. Or himself is clearly a successful
businessman. According to Forbes, he is the 22nd richest man
in Hong Kong, with a personal fortune of US$2.4 billion.318
He is also a member of the Chinese People’s Political
Consultative Conference (CPPCC), an important politicalbody which advises China on national policy.319
To summarise, Cambodia’s offshore Block C seems to be heldby a company with no obvious previous experience in physicaloil and gas exploration and which does not publicly disclose
investment in Cambodia in its annual reports. It is not clear to
Global Witness why the company was granted the concession
or what expertise it will bring.
46

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

Company registration documents for the China Zhen Rong
Cambodia Energy Company, which holds the production
sharing contract for Block D

CHAPter Three | OIl and gas

The acquisition of CZRCE by China Petrotech/Mirach
Energy raised questions with the Singapore Stock Exchange,
which asked China Petrotech/Mirach Energy to clarify
what CZRCE actually did and how much it was worth.327
The company responded that CZRCE “was incorporated in
Cambodia to hold an offshore oil and gas field production
sharing contract known as Block D PSC granted by the
Cambodian National Petroleum Authority,” adding “The net
asset value of CZRCE as of 30 June 2006 was US$5,000.”328
In other words, the CNPA had signed a PSC with a company
with no obvious previous track record in oil or gas explorationand – with net assets of only US$5,000 – no clear financial
capacity to explore or exploit any reserves.
Given that CZRCE is not well known, Global Witness
attempted to find out more about the company and its owners.
Company registration documents obtained by Global Witnessshow that CZRCE was registered with the Cambodian
Ministry of Commerce on 7 April 2006 to a director named
Mr. Xiong Shaohui.329
In late 2008, Global Witness investigators visited the address
in Phnom Penh to which CZRCE was registered. No
company of that name could be found at the address.
Global Witness has also looked into the ownership records of
CZRCE. According to China Petrotech/Mirach Energy, in
July 2006 it purchased its 48 per cent share of CZRCE froma Cambodian-registered company named Power Unicorn
Investments Limited.330 This move reduced Power Unicorn’s
equity stake of CZRCE to 27 per cent.331 Enquiries by Global
Witness did not yield further information on the activities ofPower Unicorn Investments or its beneficial owners.
A press release from China Petrotech claims that, subsequent
to China Petrotech’s purchase of 48 per cent of CZRCE in
July 2006, a company named China Finance Fund332 holds
5 per cent of CZRCE, while another company named
Guangdong Zhen Rong Energy Company Limited holds 20
per cent.333 China Finance Fund is a Hong Kong-registeredcompany under the directorship of an individual named Lut
Tim Cheng which provides financial services to unknown
Chinese customers.334 Guangdong Zhen Rong Energy isa subsidiary of the Zhuhai Zhen Rong Limited Company
which is part of the Zhen Rong Group. The Zhen RongGroup is reportedly one of the five largest state-owned
Chinese companies with a crude oil import licence.335
In April 2007, CZRCE changed its name to China Petrotech
Holdings Limited (Cambodia) Co – or CPHL Cambodia.336
After exploratory drilling in 2007, China Petrotech
announced that Block D could contain either 226.9 million
barrels of recoverable oil or 496.2 billion cubic feet of gas.337
Despite these claims however, the company has had a bad
few years. Three directors resigned between March 2007 andFebruary 2008.338 The company’s shares have lost about 90 per
cent of their value since September 2007.339 In April 2007, its

auditors KPMG340 declared themselves unable to provide an
opinion on the company’s accounts, on the grounds that they
could not find evidence of some of the services and customers
listed in its financial reports. Their statement claimed they
were “not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence
to provide a basis for an audit opinion.” 341 KPMG pulled out
in late 2007, to be replaced by LTC and Associates.342
Rights to Block D then, comprise one Singaporean oil
software services firm and a mysterious Cambodian-registeredcompany set up for the purpose of owning the concession,
which in turn is part-owned by another unknown company,a Chinese investment company and a Chinese state-owned
crude oil import company.
Global Witness wrote to all of these companies in October
2008 to ask them to comment, but at the time of publication
had not received any responses.

Block EIn 2006, Indonesian oil company PT Medco Energi
Internasional (Medco) was awarded a 90 per cent working
interest in Block E, while JHL Petroleum343 was awarded theremaining ten per cent.344 In 2007 Medco sold 31 per cent of
its share to a company named Kuwait Energy.345 Later thatyear, the Swedish company, Lundin Petroleum346 purchased
a 34 per cent share in the Block from all three companies –Medco, JHL Petroleum and Kuwait Energy.
Today then, Cambodia’s Block E is allocated as follows:
Medco (PSC holder)- 41.3 per centKuwait Energy- 20.6 per centJHL Petroleum- 4.1 per centLundin Petroleum- 34 per centGlobal Witness wrote to all four in October 2008 to ask about
the nature of their involvement in Block E. Only Lundin
responded, pointing Global Witness towards its website forfurther information, and stating:“As set out in our press release dated 29 October 2007, which
can be found on our website, Lundin Petroleum acquired a 34
per cent non operated interest in Block E, offshore Cambodia
from Medco International Petroleum Limited, Kuwait
Energy Company, and JHL Petroleum.”“Following completion of that acquisition, Lundin Petroleum
became party to the Petroleum Agreement relating to Block
E with Medco, KEC, JHL Petroleum and the Cambodian
National Petroleum Authority. Medco is the ‘operator’ of theBlock E concession…”“Lundin Petroleum adopted at its creation a Code of
Conduct and developed a Corporate Responsibility
framework for ethical issues that may arise in the courseof its activities.” It added “While Lundin Petroleum has
not formally joined the Extractive Industries Transparency
Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200947

CHAPter Three | Oil and gas

onshore Block XIII. This is unconfirmed, however.352
Global Witness wrote to CNOOC in October 2008 to ask it
to confirm whether or not the information reported is correct.
At the time of publication, CNOOC had not responded.

Block XIIThe Indonesian company Medco is the main holder of
exploration rights for Block XII. This block is currently
being surveyed by a Norwegian-based company named PGS,
which in turn is believed to be working as a subcontractor for
Medco.353

Documents obtained by Global Witness show that JHL Ltd was
registered to the Bahamas in January 2004

Initiative (EITI), it supports the transparency principle that
EITI stands to promote.”347
Lundin did not however, answer Global Witness’ request to
disclose the amount of any payments or signature bonuses
made to the Cambodian government.
While Medco, Lundin and Kuwait Energy are all relatively
well known petroleum operators, far less is known about JHLPetroleum. Further digging by Global Witness investigators
found information submitted to the Jakarta Stock Exchange
in October 2006 by Medco which stated:“JHL Petroleum ( JHL), a Bahamas company, is a private oiland gas company owned by a group of companies operating inIndonesia and has been participating in several international
oil and gas tenders including for acquisition of Block L(Offshore and Onshore) and Block M (Onshore) of Brunei
Darussalam.”348
Global Witness was also able to secure company registration
documents which confirm JHL’s certificate of incorporation in
the Bahamas on 22 January 2004. However, Global Witness
was not able to find further details on who the group ofcompanies behind JHL are.349
Like CZRCE in Block D, JHL does not appear to haveany former track record in oil concession management. The
rationale behind the allocation of a concession share to thecompany is therefore unclear.

Block F
Very little is known about the control of Cambodia’s offshore
Block F. However, government documents and newspaper
reports suggest that the Chinese state-run oil company, theChinese National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC),350 holds
these rights.351 The Chinese news service Xinhua claims
CNOOC successfully signed for Block F in May 2007 andexpressed an interest in signing a second agreement for48

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

The investors behind the exploration of Block XII are Medcowith 52.5 per cent, the CNPA with 40 per cent and JHLPetroleum Ltd with the remaining 7.5 per cent.354 (For further
details on JHL Petroleum see previous section on Block E).
The three year deal – with possible extensions – was signed on
28 September 2007.355

Blocks X and XVATI Petroleum (ATIP)356 is a petroleum exploration company.
According to its website, it is currently operating in Côte
d’Ivoire, Vietnam and Tunisia.357 The company also claims tohave reached an agreement in principle with the Cambodian
Government to explore for oil onshore in Blocks X and XV,
located respectively on the Cambodian coastline and in thenorth-eastern corner of Tonle Sap Lake. Its website states thatthe deal will “help build roads, hospitals, schools and enhance
the living standard of Cambodians.” 358
It is however, unclear at this point whether ATIP has officiallybeen granted rights to explore these blocks for oil and gas.
Either way, no information on the company and its potential
activities has been provided to the Cambodian public.

Other blocks
Another company which appears to have laid claim toonshore resources in Cambodia is the Guangdong ChenguanEnterprise Investment Group – a private real estate developerfrom Guangdong Province, China. According to an industry
news report Guandong Chenguan has signed a contract to
explore four onshore blocks for oil and gas. Global Witness
has not been able to confirm whether or not this is the caseor, if so, where these blocks are situated. According to thenews report, the company claims each block is worth US$10
million and it will consider working with China’s state-run
oil and gas companies to explore the blocks. The same reportclaims that the company’s chairman, Zhang Gouhui359 is also
the chairman of the China-Cambodia Enterprise Investment
Coordination Committee.360
Again, it is unclear what previous oil and gas exploration andexploitation experience a real estate property developer willbring to developing any onshore concessions.

CHAPter Three | OIl and gas

Cambodian signature bonuses“Whoever signs the signature getsthe bonus”

Comment on the nature of Cambodian signature bonuses
from a source close to the Cambodian National Petroleum
Authority’s operations.361

A signature bonus is a one off, upfront payment made byan oil company to a government in return for the rights
to explore or exploit oil and has become standard industry
practice in many parts of the world. Depending on theprospective buzz around a concession area, the amounts
involved can be stunning. BP for example paid a signaturebonus to the Angolan government of US$111,689,000 tosecure petroleum Block 31 in 1999.362
There is a general acknowledgement on the part of oilcompanies and government sources that signature bonuses
have been paid to the CNPA.363 Government documents
confirm that signature bonuses are expected and that they are‘negotiable’.364 While the amounts involved are likely to bemuch smaller when compared to the likes of Angola, the sums
will still be significant on a Cambodian scale. However, aswith the allocation of concessions, information regarding thepayment of any signature bonuses is scarce.

istockOne company which has been transparent in its dealings with
the CNPA is the Indonesian oil company PT Medco Energi
Internasional (Medco) which currently holds 41.3 per cent ofoffshore Cambodian Block E and 52.5 per cent of Cambodian
onshore Block XII.365

On 1 October 2006, Medco announced on its website it hadsecured rights to explore Block E off the Cambodian coast.
In the same statement Medco announced that it had paid
US$4.5 million of ‘Social Development Project Funds’ to theKingdom of Cambodia.366
On 28 September 2007, Medco once again announced thatit had received a concession from the CNPA – Block XII,an onshore area adjacent to the Tonle Sap lake.367 According
to Medco’s annual report, the signature bonus paid on thisconcession was US$3 million.368
Global Witness has cross-checked this payment with the
Ministry of Economy and Finance’s ‘Tableau des Opérations
Financières de l’Etat’ (TOFE), which provides information
on annual income to the Cambodian state.369 The results
were worrying. In 2006, the Ministry claims to have received
US$19,300 in non-tax revenues from oil and gas. In 2007, it
claims to have received US$22,000. Over the same period,
Medco claims to have paid US$7.5 million in fees andbonuses to the Cambodian government.370 If the money
appears elsewhere in the TOFE, it is not clear where. This
raises questions as to where the Medco payments have gone.
Global Witness wrote to Medco in October 2008 to ask thecompany to clarify who it had paid. At the time of publication,
the company had not responded.
Other companies are reported to have been asked to make lesslegitimate payments to secure rights to explore a concession.
In October 2005, Indocan Resources Inc. of Vancouver,
Canada announced that it had filed applications with theCambodian government for the exploration rights to coastaland offshore areas.371 The company never completed theapplication to explore and, when interviewed in the Bangkok
Post one year on, company president Jeffrey Bruhjell said
Indocan had tried toobtain two permits,
but was told that highranking officials in the
Cambodian government
were demanding “large
sums of money as bribes.”
He added that thecompany “was asked to
pay huge sums of money
for permits that nevermaterialised.”372

Onshore oil and gas exploration has begun in the Tonle Sap Basin: a vast area surrounding
Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake

Global Witness has
written to all of thecompanies it believes havebeen allocated exploratory
blocks in Cambodia to ask
whether they have paid asignature bonus and if so,
how much and to whom?
At the time of publication,none had responded.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200949

CHAPter Three | Oil and gas

Thump if you love oil: Exploring onshore inBattambang and Pursat
Most of the attention given to Cambodia’s oil and gas
exploration has focused on the offshore blocks, but onshore
exploration has also begun around the Tonle Sap Basin – avast area surrounding the Tonle Sap Lake which comprises
parts of seven onshore Blocks numbered XI to XVII.373
Surveys done in 1996 by the Japanese National Oil
Corporation show areas where oil or gas may be present to thesouth and the west of the Tonle Sap, but more tests are needed
to determine exactly what lies below Cambodia’s Great Lakeand rice paddies.374

Despite concerns about its potential environmental impact,
the Cambodian government has begun to allocate licences foroil exploration in the Tonle Sap Basin.

The lake is one of the most important natural phenomena of
Cambodia in terms of the ecological and livelihood services
it provides. As well as being the largest freshwater lake inSoutheast Asia, the Tonle Sap is a designated UNESCO
Biosphere Reserve375 and has been nominated for World
Heritage status.376

In the first half of 2008, the Norwegian company Petroleum
Geo-Services (PGS) conducted two-dimensional seismic
testing along roads in Battambang and Pursat Provinces.
PGS was working as a subcontractor for the Indonesiancompany PT Medco Energi Internasional (Medco) which,as explained earlier, is the main holder of exploration rights
for Block XII.

Despite legal protection under the 2001 Royal Decree on the
Establishment and Management of the Tonle Sap Biosphere
Reserve,377 this fragile biodiversity hotspot is under threat
from a variety of man-made factors. Overpopulation in thearea is severe, with approximately 1.2 million people livingin the floodplain alone378 and the highest rate of poverty in
Cambodia, according to the Asian Development Bank.379 The
deterioration of the Tonle Sap’s ecosystem is already beginningto show: soil and water quality have declined and there are

According to information obtained by Global Witness, thesurvey in Battambang and Pursat Provinces covered the
districts of Banon, Sangkai, Mong Russei, Koh Kralor andtwo communes within Svay Doan Keo District.382 However,seismic testing could extend further than this. Most of thesurveying was conducted well away from the Tonle Sap
Lake – which lies about 40 kms from Highway 5 – but one
PGS company official commented that “the lake was also ofinterest.”383

Corbis/ Remi Benali

50

fears that the Tonle Sap’s fish stocks are decreasing.380 The
consequences of any reduction could extend to food security
throughout the whole of Cambodia, as the estimated 230,000
tonnes of fish caught in the Tonle Sap every year amounts to
40-70 per cent of the country’s annual protein intake and is an
essential source of food and livelihoods for around two million
Cambodians.381

Poor management of oil infrastructure has the potential for disastrous environmental consequences

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter Three | OIl and gas

The testing involved laying out a 5 km-long tangle of wires alongside stretches of Highway 5 and the smaller roads running off the
highway. Small sensors were inserted into the ground at intervals of 10-20 meters. Once the cables and sensors were in place, a‘thumper’ mounted on the back of a small truck drove slowly along, stopping at each sensor to slam down a heavy square block.384
This low-impact method provides data which will tell if there are petroleum reserves underground.

While no official results have been released, there is excitement
amongst locals that a major oil discovery is, quite literally, justaround the corner. A commune chief in Pursat Province who
accompanied the international testing team, was told by acompany representative to expect investment of US$1 billion
in the area, including new roads.385 Local officials who spoke to
Global Witness welcomed the potential oil boom, thinking it
would lower the price of petrol and provide jobs.
Despite the government’s involvement in facilitating the
exploration at a national, provincial, district and commune
level, there seems to have been little consultation with thecommunity. Some residents wereconcerned about the possibilityof future drilling causing anearthquake, and approached theircommune chief. They were assured
that any liquid removed fromthe earth would be replaced withwater and that there would be noenvironmental damage.
The next stage of testing
involves drilling and Cambodian
officials have already given PGS
permission to extend their survey
into the rice paddies after the
harvest in late 2008.386 As of
mid-2008, there had been nocommunity consultation about thisdevelopment, but one commune chief thought public forums
might happen some time in the future.
Given the instability of its ecosystem, the development of
the extensive infrastructure needed to extract and transport
fossil fuels could pose a serious hazard to the Tonle Sap
Basin. However, despite concerns among environmentalgroups, the government has so far appeared reluctant to takeits potential impact seriously.387According to the official in
charge of the management of the Tonle Sap’s oil reserves,the government “will make sure there is no pollution” duringexploration.388

Wire cables used for onshore oil exploration. Locals told Global Witness in August 2008
that Cambodian officials had granted permission for the survey to be extended into the ricepaddies after the harvest in late 2008

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200951

CHAPter Three | Oil and gas

Global Witness is concerned that the CNPA does not havethe capacity or experience to ensure that future exploitationof oil or gas within the Tonle Sap Basin is safe or efficient. In
other countries, such as Nigeria, the results of mismanagement
have been environmentally disastrous. Given the weak
governance structure of Cambodia’s oil industry to date, thequestion of environmental safeguards in an area so essential to
Cambodia’s health must be urgently addressed.

Ed Kashi StudioIn summary then, the marketing of Cambodia’s oil and gas
concessions is now well underway, with all of the offshore andsome of the onshore blocks allocated to companies. Global
Witness’ concern is that, in a country notorious for corruption,
not enough is known about the beneficial ownership of someof these businesses and, with several of them, it is unclear
what skills and capabilities they will bring to allow for thedevelopment of Cambodia’s young oil and gas industry.
As with the mining sector, the danger is that this void ineven such basic information leaves the country’s importantresources potentially open to capture by individuals for
personal gain rather than national benefit.

52

Global Witness is concerned that
the CNPA does not have the capacity
or experience to ensure that future
exploitation of oil or gas within the
Tonle Sap Basin is safe or efficient. In
other countries, such as Nigeria, theresults of mismanagement have beenenvironmentally disastrous.

In countries such as Nigeria, the results of the mismanagement of onshore oil extraction have been environmentally disastrous.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter one | Cambodia’s extractive industries: the stakes are highchapter four
Cambodia’s
donors53

CHAPter Four | Cambodia’s donors

chapter four
Cambodia’s donors – who dothey work for?

Quote taken from the Monterrey Consensus, International

Conference on Financing for Development, March 2002.389“With aid-giving comes the responsibility to ensure that it helps
the people… It is not sufficient to rely on technical assistanceand capacity building, or emphasize adherence to human rights
treaties and protocols (useful as these are). Nor are new laws orsuddenly created institutions the panacea, for the Government
has disregarded laws, or through abuse, turned them to its own
partisan advantage.”

Quote take from a 2006 statement to the UN’s Human
Rights Council by Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral for Human Rights in Cambodia, Yash Ghai.390

prepared or reluctant to apply this policy. Instead, there is afundamental disconnect between commitments made at theinternational level and the action of Cambodia’s donors at anational level. Cambodia’s international donor community has
consistently failed to bring the government to book for blatantviolations of its commitments to protect the human rights of
Cambodians, fight corruption, and ensure the protection ofland and natural resources.

“In the context of the reconstruction effort, economic aid should
benefit all areas of Cambodia, especially the more disadvantaged,
and reach all levels of society.”
Point 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rehabilitation
and Reconstruction of Cambodia, 23 October 1991.392

Having committed to bankroll Cambodia’s post-conflictrehabilitation, the country’s international donors haveprovided the equivalent of over 50 per cent of thegovernment’s annual budget for more than a decade now.
This peaked in 2008 with pledges to provide nearly US$1
billion in aid.393 The money has undeniably done much torebuild the country’s infrastructure and help provide essential
services, yet its impact has been limited by poor governanceand corruption.

The way in which international development aid is given
and used is changing. Thereis now a consensus at theinternational level that good
governance is essential forsustainable development andthat fighting corruption at alllevels is a priority to increase
the effectiveness of aid. As thevast majority of government
and multilateral aid agencies
now profess to have thereduction of poverty andinequality at the heart of theirmandate, one would therefore
expect issues of governanceand corruption to be central totheir application and disbursal
Attendees at the annual donor-government meeting. In 2008, Cambodia’s donors pledged US$1
of development aid.391
Yet the donor community
in Cambodia appears ill54

billion in development assistance. Despite the leverage that this money gives them, Cambodia’s
donors have consistently failed to make the government account for its failure to implement
basic governance reforms

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

AP/PA Photos“Good governance is essential for sustainable development.
Sound economic policies, solid democratic institutions responsive
to the needs of the people and improved infrastructure are thebasis for sustained economic growth, poverty eradication andemployment creation…Fighting corruption at all levels is apriority. Corruption is a serious barrier to effective resource
mobilization and allocation, and diverts resources away from
activities that are vital for poverty eradication and economic
and sustainable development.”

CHAPter four | Cambodia’s donors

To be or not to be? The Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative (EITI)xii

Prime Minister Hun Sen“Reform is not just a shallow word.”
Quote taken from Hun Sen’s speeches to the country’s
international donors in 2004, 2005 and 2007.394

In the 1990s, turning a blind eye to poor governance andcorruption was justified by the need to ensure ‘stability’. Fromstability would flow economic development, and in turn
political pluralism would follow.395 The past sixteen years haverevealed the impotence of such logic. With each successive
failure of the donor community to ask tough questions and deal
realistically with the regime’s failure to honour commitments togood governance, those responsible have increased their politicalpower, wealth and impunity. The end result is that ordinary
Cambodians find it harder and harder to call their government
to account and the benefits of Cambodia’s development remain
concentrated in the hands of a few.
Box 13 | Missing in action – Cambodia’santi-corruption law
One of the most striking examples of the donors’ inability
to tackle government intransigence is the long-awaitedanti-corruption law. Originally drafted in 1994 and tabled
as an agreed donor-government target in 2002,396 thegovernment has succeeded in failing to pass the law for
14 years, blaming slow progress on the lack of an updated
penal code.397 Despite the year-on-year failure to moveahead with the law, Cambodia’s donors have continued
to give money without making it a non-negotiablerequirement for the disbursal of non-humanitarian funds.
In August 2008, government spokesman Khieu
Kanharith announced that the long-awaited draft of theanti-corruption law was finalised and would be given
to the National Assembly in the following months – but
only after the penal code has been approved. This draft
penal code is currently under review with the Councilof Ministers. As of September 2008 however, only 40 of
the 700 articles had been examined by the council.398
Despite the government’s pledges of the past fourteen
years, the anti-corruption law is still a distant prospect.

The lack of a coordinated donor response to effectively deal
with high-level corruption vis-à-vis donor giving can alreadybe seen in the donors’ approach to governance of Cambodia’s
extractive industries. In June 2007, Global Witness held ameeting with members of the donor community in which
they were told that government endorsement of the EITI wasto be made a non-negotiable benchmark of a direct budget
support package.399 In November 2007, Global Witness
attended a meeting at which the same donor admitted thatthe requirement to endorse the EITI had been watereddown to a ‘agreement to consider endorsing the EITI’.400 In
October 2008, it was announced that the government had
decided not to join the initiative.401 Global Witness has raised
this with members of the donor community, to be told thatthe government is now working towards the broad financial
principles of the initiative, but to use the term EITI is toopolitically sensitive and they fear pushing the government too
hard on the issue will lead them to walk away from the table.402

The complexities of partnershipOver the years, Cambodia’s donors have cited multiple
justifications for not insisting that the government implement
reforms which would be in the interests of the Cambodian
people. Most recently they have argued that taking a stronger
stance on governance will push Cambodia further into thepockets of its biggest donor – China. Yet the Western donors’
eagerness to accept and use this argument overlooks the factthat China, despite its generosity, cannot offer the Cambodian
government the international respectability it seeks. In
practice, the ‘China factor’ has become a convenient shorthand to be used to explain away a number of complicatedgeopolitical and bureaucratic factors which are prioritised overthe need to improve governance.
The reality is that, as the initial horror of the Khmer Rouge
regime has faded from power brokers’ memories, Cambodia
has slid further and further down the international league
table of current crises. Diplomats sent to Phnom Penh know
they will not be thanked for rocking the diplomatic boat
and calling on the time of their seniors back at headquarters.
Practically too, Cambodia is not the biggest priority for manyof those in the civil service who have the whole of Southeast
Asia – an area which includes a number of needy states –within their remit. Cambodia, and the suffering of its people,
are therefore often placed low on the ‘to do’ list, beneath theatrocities of the Burmese junta, and the latest natural disasterto hit the Indonesian archipelago.
The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is a coalition made up
of governments, companies, civil society groups, investors and internationalorganisations. The initiative supports improved governance in resource-richcountries through the verification and full publication of company payments andgovernment revenues from oil, gas and mining. Information on the Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative is available at: www.eitransparency.org

xiiCountry for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200955

CHAPter Four | Cambodia’s donors

Chart 4 | How to give money and still not influence people

56

Year

Agreed reforms

Progress towards
reform targets

Donor comments

2002

Set in 2001404• Anti-corruption law adopted• Forest law adopted and completion of negotiations with concessionaires• Adoption of land law• Anti-corruption law
not passed.405• Continued impunityand high level
corruption.406• Chaotic forest/
natural resource
management.407

UK – “Overall disappointing
progress against the action
points agreed at the 2001
[meeting] [The] pattern ofincreased donor supportshould not be regarded asa given. We need to seethat Government is doing
its part […] The passage ofan anti-corruption law is still
awaited.”408

2003

No meeting held

2004

Set in 2002412
Anti-corruption:• ‘Reported cases of corruption investigated and prosecuted
appropriately within existing legal framework.’ Due immediately• ‘Anti-corruption law submitted to National Assembly.’ Due 30 June 2003.
Concessions:• ‘Public disclosure and opportunity for independent experts [to] comment
on Sustainable Forest Management Policies and Environmental and Social
Impact Assessments prior to finalisation of Government review’Information disclosure:• ‘Increased transparency of terms of Government contracts.’
Due immediately• Anti-corruption law
not passed.413• Very limited action
on corruption.414• Suspension offorest concessions,but continued illegal
logging.415• Poor implementationof existing policies andlaws.416

World Bank – “Corruption
is endemic […] The volume
of bilateral and multilateral
donor support needs to beconditioned on the adequacyof Cambodia’s reform effort.”417

2005

No meeting held

2006

Set in 2004423
Anti-corruption:• ‘Reported cases of corruption shall be brought before the courts forinvestigation and hearing.’• ‘The existing draft law on anti-corruption shall be brought into compliancewith international best practice.’
Concessions:• ‘Enforcement of Article 18 of Land Law, that private sales transactions onstate lands are illegal.’• ‘Increase transparency of state management of natural resources throughimmediate public disclosure of existing contracts and compliance status(royalties and other key provisions) of contracts governing economic land
concessions, mining concessions, fishing lots and continued disclosure ofstatus of review of forest concessions.’• ‘RGC [to] disclose the location and legal status and process for termination ofmining concessions, Military Development Zones, economic land concessions
and other development arrangement situated on forest land or in protectedareas and inconsistent with law governing management of these areas.’
Information disclosure:• ‘Public authorities must change current practice by displaying apreparedness to share information with the general public.’• Anti-corruption law
not passed.424• Partial disclosureof information on
concessions, but limited
detail.425• Illegal logging
and land grabbing
continued.426

Germany – “The still unsolved
problems of land grabbing
and land speculation are ofgreat concern […] We hopethe information provided on
economic land concessions
will be quickly followed up withmore complete disclosure.”427

2007

Set in 2006432
Anti-corruption:• ‘Finalise and approve anti-corruption law, based on best international
practices.’ Due end June 2006.
Concessions:• ‘Periodically disseminate information on economic land concessions’.
• ‘[Disseminate] all relevant sector information on the activities ofgovernment agencies, including information on mining concessions andmilitary development zones, as well as donors and NGOs by periodicallypostings on the Technical Working Group-Forest and Environment website.’Due 4th quarter 2006
• ‘Strengthening the enforcement of the Forestry Law, especially combating
forest land clearing and encroachment’
Information disclosure:• ‘Develop a clear policy framework on access to information’. Due
December 2006

• Anti-corruption law
not passed.433• Limited transparency
on the awarding of ELC
contracts.434• Poor management of
natural resources.435

World Bank representative– “We are very concernedthat provisions for transparent
bidding on ELC contracts arebeing circumvented.”436Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

CHAPter four | Cambodia’s donors

NGO comments

Media comments

Cambodiangovernmentcomments

Aid requestedby thegovernment

Aid given by
the donors403

NGO Forum – “The progressin policy has not translated into
progress in impact […] Corruption
and the culture of impunity remain
rampant.”409“[Analysts] warned [that] theslow pace of reforms, endemic
corruption and a failure to try
surviving Khmer Rouge leaders
was testing donor patience, andcould result in conditions being
attached to aid for the first time.”410

Hun Sen – “The Royal
Government is committed
to finalise the draft of theanti-corruption law before
end June 2003.” 411

US$485 million

US$530.9 million

US$539.5 million
NGO Forum – “NGOs feel there are
currently a proliferation of plans,
policies, and strategies in circulation.
The challenge at this point is toensure that these plans are being
implemented […] How confident are
donors that funds are being usedefficiently and have a positive impact
on improving livelihoods, rather thanbeing used to support unnecessary
technical assistance, fuel corruption
and widen social inequity?”418“Despite the government failingto fulfil many previously set
benchmarks, international donors
pledged US$504 million dollars
in aid to Cambodia for next year,
but warned that future support will
directly hinge on real changes in2005 […] ‘It’s a repackaging of
the same old system that hasn’t
seemed to work before,’ said one
Phnom Penh based diplomat
involved in the CG meeting.”419

Sok An – “[The anticorruption] law will
be resubmitted to the
National Assembly andthe Senate as a matter ofurgency.”420
Hun Sen – “Reform is notjust a shallow word.”421

US$500 million422

US$555.4 million

US$610 million
NGO letter to attendees – “there
has been an increase in the misuseof natural resources and other public
assets by elite families and crony
companies.”428“The request was for US$513
million, but the pledges amounted
to US$601 million,” said Finance
Minister Keat Chhon429 […]“Donors have praised theachievements under Prime
Minister Hun Sen.”430

Hun Sen – “A draft of
the Anti-Corruption Law[…] is in its final stagesof consideration within
the government before
being sent to the National
Assembly.”– “Reform is not just ashallow word.”431

US$513 million

US$713.2 million

President of Cambodian Human
Rights organisation Licadho– “The meeting has become aroutine. We know that nothing willchange. There will be promises fromthe government – the same promises
as last year – and after the meeting
everything will remain the same.”437“I worry that maybe the time forbeing firm with the government
has passed,” said one sourcewith extensive experience ofdonor-government meetings,
who requested anonymity. “Iworry that the donor community
have missed their opportunity
now. […] A year on and the anticorruption law is still languishingin draft form, judicial reform is
progressing at a glacial pace, andthe government’s managementof natural resources is beinglambasted from all sides.”438

Hun Sen – “The Royal
Government is committed
without any hesitation
to fighting corruption
by undertaking many
concrete actions to meetthis objective including
the drafting of the anticorruption law itself.”– “Reform is not just ashallow word”439

US$689 million440

US$790.4 million

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200957

Conclusion

conclusion
To date, much of the debate on Cambodia’s
emerging extractive industries has centred on how
much money will be generated for the state by thisactivity and how this money could help to lift ageneration out of poverty. This is based however on
the false assumption that revenue flows generated
from mining, oil and gas will automatically betranslated into cash for development. Global
Witness’ experience of natural resource
management in Cambodia and elsewhere paints a
different picture. In many resource-rich countries
where Global Witness works, resource exploitation
has contributed to a deepening, not lessening,of poverty. In all of these cases, the way in which
concessions are allocated and access to resources
is given, sets the trend for the future management ofthat same resource.
Experience of Cambodia’s forest sector hardly sets anencouraging precedent. The country’s forests – previously
termed by the World Bank as Cambodia’s “mostdevelopmentally important natural resource” – have beensteadily degraded over the past decade. Very little of therevenue generated ever made it to the state’s coffers. Instead,it enriched a ruling elite who raided and logged the forests
with impunity.
It does not take an expert in governance to appreciate thatthe first signs of how Cambodia will handle its mineral andoil resources are deeply worrying. The government lacks theproper mechanisms for regulating exploration and extraction,and in some cases has deliberately subverted those that werein place. The small number of elite powerbrokers who run
the state have sold off large concessions in a manner thatis non-transparent and highly dubious. The legitimacy andtechnical capabilities of some of the companies who havebought these concessions is uncertain. Meanwhile, the risks

to the environment and the people who live on the land areenormous. Everything about the way in which access to theseresources has been allocated and managed so far suggests anentrenchment of patterns of exploitation geared more towards
the profits of individual officials and companies rather thanpoverty reduction.
All is not lost however. Extraction of these resources has
not yet begun in earnest and, until it does, there is a narrowwindow of opportunity to get things right. As a first step, there
needs to be a moratorium on any new concessions, a review
of existing concessions, and full transparency on the allocationand management of these public assets. Yet technocratic fixes
will only provide a partial solution. The real challenge comesin generating the political will from the country’s international
donors to challenge some of the entrenched interests which are
currently being served by the status quo – a political will thathas been singularly lacking to date.
A consistent failure on the part of Cambodia’s donors to
demand improvements in governance in exchange for the
disbursement of funds has only served to legitimise andstrengthen the process of state asset stripping. The resulting
total lack of transparency in the ownership of companies withthe responsibility to handle public assets and the destinationof payments made to secure these concessions, serves only
one purpose – to protect and entrench the interests of those
who benefit from the continued functioning of Cambodia’s
shadow state.
It is not too late for the international donors to redefine theirterms of engagement with Cambodia, but it will require afundamental shift in mindset to go beyond the sanitised
rhetoric of good governance. The core of this shift must be arecognition that stripping a country of its assets for personal
gain represents a mass violation of the social and economic
rights of the country’s people.

It is time to decide whether
Cambodia’s people will be able toshare in its natural resource wealthor whether a self-serving kleptocratic
elite will once again keep the spoils ofa country for sale.
Scales photographed near a Mondulkiri gold mine. The future of
Cambodia’s extractive industries hangs in the balance

58

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

Abbreviations

Sand extraction in Koh Kong, photographed in August 2008. Revenue from new extractive industries could provide the Cambodian
government with the best chance in a generation to lift its people out of poverty. If mismanaged through corruption or ineptitude,
the income risks widening the gap between rich and poor and further entrenching the position of the political elite

Abbreviations
ADB 	Asia Development BankBPAMP 	Biodiversity and Protected Areas
Management Project
CDC
Council for the Development of Cambodia
CDCF	Cambodia Development Cooperation ForumCG
Consultative GroupCNPA	
Cambodian National Petroleum Authority
CPP
Cambodian People’s Party
EITI 	Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
ELC
economic land concession
ESIA 	environmental and social impact
assessment
FA 	Forest AdministrationhahectareIMF	
International Monetary Fundkm
kilometre
MAFF 	Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries

MIME
Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy
MoE	
Ministry of Environment
MoEF
Ministry of Economy and Finance
MP
Military PoliceNGO
non-governmental organisation
NORAD	The Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation
PSC
Production Sharing Contract
RCAF 	Royal Cambodian Armed Forces
RGC 	Royal Government of Cambodia
SEZ
special economic zone
SRP
Sam Rainsy Party
UN 	United Nations
UNDP 	United Nations Development Programme
UNOHCHR 	United Nations Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200959

Endnotes

Endnotes
1 William Reno, ‘Clandestine Economies,
Violence and States in Africa,’ Journal ofInternational Affairs, Vol. 53, 2000.
2 To get an insight into how Cambodia’s oil, gas
and mineral resources could be squandered,read previous reports about illegal logging at
www.globalwitness.org.
3 Global Witness wrote a letter to Ouk Kosa in
November 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
4 Global Witness wrote a letter to Cham Boreyin October 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
5 Global Witness wrote a letter to Cham Prasidhin October 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
6 Global Witness wrote a letter to Dy Chouchin November 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
7 Global Witness wrote a letter to Meas Sophea
in October 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
8 Global Witness wrote a letter to Senator Ly
Yong Phat in November 2008 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
9 Global Witness wrote a letter to Om Yen Tieng
in October 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
10 Global Witness wrote a letter to Lao Meng
Khin in November 2008 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
11 Global Witness wrote a letter to General
Pol Saroeun in October 2008 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
12 Global Witness wrote a letter to the Try Pheap
Group in November 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to the company. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
13 Global Witness wrote a letter to Prime
Minister Hun Sen in October 2008 to ask forhis comments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.

60

14 Global Witness wrote a letter to Chea Sim
in November 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
15 Global Witness wrote two letters to Te Duong
Tara in October 2008 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
16 Global Witness wrote a letter to Chen Lip
Keong in October 2008 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him and received a response. For
more information on this response, see p. 44.
17 Global Witness wrote a letter to ResourcefulPetroleum in October 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to the company. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
18 Letter from Richards Butler Reed Smith
sent on behalf of Dr. Chen Lip Keong to Global
Witness, 31 October 2008.
19 Global Witness wrote a letter to China Zhen
Rong Cambodia Energy Company in October
2008 to ask for comments on the main issues
raised in this report as involve or relate to thecompany. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
20 Global Witness wrote a letter to PGS in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate
to the company. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
21 Global Witness wrote a letter to PT Medcoin October 2008 to ask for comments on themain issues raised in this report as involve or
relate to the company. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
22 Global Witness wrote a letter to Minister Mok
Mareth in October 2008 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
23 Douglas Gillison, ‘Conservation Areas Not
Inviolable, Says Minister’, The Cambodia Daily,
14 September 2007, p. 1-2.
24 UNDP, ‘Human Development Report 20072008: Fighting Climate Change – Human Solidarity
in a Divided World’, p. 259, http://hdr.undp.org/en/
media/HDR_20072008_EN_Indicator_tables.pdf(last accessed 20 August 2008).
25 World Bank, ‘2008 World Development
Indicators Database,’ 11 April 2008; UNDP,‘Human Development Report 2007-2008:
Fighting Climate Change – Human Solidarity ina Divided World’, p. 259, http://hdr.undp.org/en/
media/HDR_20072008_EN_Indicator_tables.pdf(last accessed 20 August 2008).
26 IMF, ‘Cambodia: Selected Issues andStatistical Appendix’, August 2007, p. 5.
27 Interviews with industry analysts, 2008.
28 The Council for the Development of
Cambodia is the body responsible for promoting
and approving investment projects in Cambodia.
29 Prospectors and Developers Association of
Canada, ‘Cambodia’s Mining Sector’, 30 May

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 20092007, http://www.pdac.ca/pdac/publications/na/070530-cambodia-mining-sector.htm (lastaccessed 9 December 2008); Interview witha MIME employee, September 2007; John
C Wu, ‘The Mineral Industry of Cambodia’ in
U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook,2007, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/
country/2007/myb3-2007-cb.pdf (last accessed
12 September 2008).
30 Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of
Cambodia to the United Nations bulletin, March
2006, http://www.un.int/cambodia/Bulletin_Files/
March06/Donors_give_Cambodia.pdf (lastaccessed 9 December 2008); Permanent Missionof the Kingdom of Cambodia to the United Nations
bulletin, June 2007, http://www.un.int/cambodia/
Bulletin_Files/June07/Donors_pledged_aid.pdf(last accessed 1 December 2008).
31 Chea Sieng Hong, ‘Mineral Exploration and
Mining Projects in Cambodia’, 2006, http://www.
gmsbizforum.com/dmdocuments/MGS_MI~2.
pdf (last accessed 12 September 2008).
32 John C Wu, ‘The Mineral Industry of
Cambodia’ in U.S. Geological Survey Minerals
Yearbook, 2006, http://minerals.usgs.gov/
minerals/pubs/country/2006/myb3-2006-cb.pdf(last accessed 12 September 2008).
33 John C Wu, ‘The Mineral Industry of
Cambodia’ in U.S. Geological Survey Minerals
Yearbook, 2007, http://minerals.usgs.gov/
minerals/pubs/country/2007/myb3-2007-cb.pdf(last accessed 12 Sep 2008).
34 Global Witness research, 2008; John CWu, ‘The Mineral Industry of Cambodia’ in
U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook,2007, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/
country/2007/myb3-2007-cb.pdf (last accessed
12 Sep 2008); Oxfam America, ‘Large Scale
Extractive Industry Scoping Study: Cambodia’,
22 June 2007.
35 Interview with a MIME official, 2008;
Prospectors and Developers Association of
Canada, ‘Cambodia’s Mining Sector’, 30 May
2007, http://www.pdac.ca/pdac/publications/na/070530-cambodia-mining-sector.htm (lastaccessed 9 December 2008); John C Wu, ‘The
Mineral Industry of Cambodia’ in U.S. Geological
Survey Minerals Yearbook, 2007, http://minerals.
usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2007/myb32007-cb.pdf (last accessed 12 Sep 2008).
36 Global Witness field investigations, 2008.
37 Susan Postlewaite, ‘Big fish, small fish, oily
fish…or gas?’, The Phnom Penh Post, 4 April 2008.
38 Interviews with industry analysts, 2008.
39 Global Witness interview with an industry
analyst, 2008; Coordinating Committee forGeoscience Programmes in East and Southeast
Asia, http://www.ccop.or.th/epf/cambodia/
cambodia_info.html (last accessed 1 December2008); Susan Postlewaite, ‘Overlapping Claims
Complicate Gas Hunt’, The Phnom Penh Post,
29 May 2008.
40 Global Witness interview with an industry
expert, 2008; The Bridge Group, ‘Training
Needs Assessment for the Cambodian National
Petroleum Authority’, December 2004; Interview
with an MP, 2008; Personal communications withan NGO worker, 2008.
41 Global Witness wrote a letter to Chevron in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate to thecompany. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.

Endnotes

42 Interview with a member of the donor
community, 2008; Eric Watkins, ‘Cambodia’s
first oil to be delayed, officials says’, Oil &Gas Journal, 4 November 2008; Reuters,‘Cambodia’s first oil unlikely before 2010’, 4November 2008.
43 Quote from a statement to the UN Human
Rights Council by the Special Representative of
the Secretary General in Cambodia for Human
Rights, Yash Ghai, 12 June 2007.
44 Evan Gottesman, ‘Cambodia after the Khmer
Rouge: Inside the Politics of Nation Building’,
2003, pp.45-48.
45 Report of the Special Representative of
the Secretary General for Human Rights in
Cambodia, Yash Ghai, 29 February 2008, p. 6.
46 World Bank, ‘Structural Adjustment Credit toCambodia’, 2000.
47 See for example reports produced by Global
Witness, available at www.globalwitness.org.
48 The World Bank, ‘Cambodia – A Vision
for Forestry Sector Development’, 1999, p. i;
Asian Development Bank Sustainable Forest
Management Project, ‘Cambodian Forest
Concession Review Report’, 2000, p. 20.
49 See for example reports produced by Global
Witness, available at www.globalwitness.org;
Asian Development Bank Sustainable Forest
Management Project, ‘Cambodian Forest
Concession Review Report’, April 2000.
50 Asian Development Bank Sustainable
Forest Management Project, Cambodian Forest
Concession Review Report, 2000.
51 To get an insight into how Cambodia’soil, gas and mineral resources could besquandered, read previous reports about illegal
logging available at www.globalwitness.org.
52 Human Rights Watch, ‘Phnom Penh’s Poor
Face Evictions’, 1 August 2006, http://www.hrw.
org/english/docs/2006/08/02/cambod13889.htm(last accessed on 19 November 2008).
53 UN Cambodia Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights, ‘Land
concessions for economic purposes in
Cambodia – A human rights perspective’, 14
November 2004, p. 3.
54 Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, ‘Country
for Sale’, The Guardian, 26 April 2008; NGO
Forum Sectoral Paper on land issues, http://
www.ngoforum.org.kh/Development/Docs/
CGPaper/SectoralPapers.htm#LAND%20
ISSUES (last accessed 1 December 2008);
Personal communications with a journalist, 2008.
55 Amnesty International, ‘Rights Razed: Forced
Evictions in Cambodia’, 2008; Presentationby the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights and fundamental
freedoms of indigenous people, Mr. Rodolfo
Stavenhagen, ‘General considerations on thesituation of human rights and fundamental
freedoms of indigenous peoples in Asia’,
May 2008; UN Cambodia Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights, ‘Land
Concessions for Economic Purposes in
Cambodia, A Human Rights Perspective’, 14
November 2004.
56 Amnesty International, ‘Rights Razed: Forced
Evictions in Cambodia’, 2008, p. 2; Licadho(various reports), http://www.licadho.org/ (lastaccessed 1 December 2008).
57 Licadho, ‘Violent land eviction in Cambodia’s
tranquil beachside municipality’, 3 May 2007,
http://www.licadho.org/articles/20070503/52/
index.html (last accessed 1 December 2008);
Statement on situation of evicted families from
Mittaheap 4 village in Sihanoukville by Bridges
Across Borders Southeast Asia (BABSEA)
and the Centre on Housing Rights andEvictions (COHRE), 18 May 2008, http://www.

cohre.org/store/attachments/Cambodia%20-%20COHRE%20and%20BAB%20Joint%20
Statement%20on%20Sihanoukville%20(18%20
May%202008).doc (last accessed 1 December2008); Licadho, ‘Nine residents found guiltyof assaulting Cambodian police during land
eviction,’ 10 July 2007.
58 MIME, assorted mining exploration licences,
2008.
59 Douglas Gillison, ‘NGOs call for a Moratoriumon Mining Licences’, The Cambodia Daily, 25
November 2008.
60 Kingdom of Cambodia, Constitution of theKingdom of Cambodia, 1999.
61 Jane Mélanie, Marina Kim, Sam Hester,Peter Berry, Allison Ball and Karen Schneider,‘Enhancing ASEAN Minerals Trade andInvestment: Cambodia’, 2005, p. 3, http://
www.aadcp-repsf.org/docs/04-009bFinalCountryReport.pdf (last accessed 10
September 2008); See for example, Circular#001 on Suspension and Revocation of Mineral
Resources (25th May 2004) ; Circular #002 on
Preventing Measures Against Anarchic Mineral
Exploitation in Provinces / Municipalities in theKingdom of Cambodia (25th May 2004) and SubDecree #08 on Defining Investment Principles for
All Kinds of Mineral Resources (31st January 2005).
62 Global Witness wrote a letter to Minister Suy
Sem in October 2008 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
63 Global Witness wrote a letter to Chea Khengin October 2008 to ask for her comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
64 Personal communications with a humanrights worker, 2008; Interview with a MIME
official, 2008.
65 Royal Government of Cambodia, ‘Law on
the Management and Exploitation of Mineral
Resources’, 2001, Article 11, http://www.
gocambodia.com/laws/pdf/LAW-01-Mineral
per cent20Resource per cent20Mgt-E.pdf (lastaccessed 10 September 2008).
66 Interview with a MIME official, 2008;
Cambodian Council for Development, http://
www.cambodiainvestment.gov.kh/?q=ii_land(last accessed 1 December 2008).
67 NGO Forum, ‘Environmental and Social
Impacts of Expansion of the Extractive
Industries Sector’, November 2008; http://www.
cambodiainvestment.gov.kh/?q=ii_land (lastaccessed 1 December 2008).
68 Articles 7 & 25, ‘Law on the Managementand Exploitation of Mineral Resources’, 2001:
Those with possession rights are normally notinterpreted to meet the conditions or Article 7 of
the Law on Mineral Resources until they havetransformed their possession rights into a title(based on Article 39 of the Land Law), neither
are indigenous communal land titles included in‘private land ownership’.
69 NGO Forum, ‘Environmental and Social
Impacts of Expansion of the Extractive Industries
Sector’, November 2008; Amnesty International,‘Rights Razed: Forced Evictions in Cambodia’,
11 February 2008.
70 Article 20, Law on the Management andExploitation of Mineral Resources’, 2001.
71 Article 16, ‘1996 Law on Environment
Protection and Natural Resource Management’.
72 Douglas Gillison, ‘Conservation Areas Not
Inviolable, Says Minister’, The Cambodia Daily,
14 September 2007, p. 1-2.

73 Douglas Gillison, ‘NGOs to Meet Minister
Over Protected Areas’, The Cambodia Daily
Weekly Review, 2-7 December 2007.
74 World Bank, Biodiversity and Protected Areas
Management Project, http://www.bpamp.org.
kh/Main/bpamp_protect.htm (last accessed 1
December 2008).
75 The Royal Government of Cambodia, Article
3, ‘Anukret on the Organisation and Functioningof the Ministry of Environment’, 25 September
1997; World Bank, Biodiversity and Protected
Areas Management Project website, http://www.
bpamp.org.kh/Main/bpamp_protect.htm (lastaccessed on 11 September 2008).
76 The Royal Government of Cambodia, ‘Prakas(Declaration) on the Protection of Natural
Areas – Ministry of Environment Declaration
no. 1033’, 1994, Article 4, ‘prohibit[s] the
exploitation of minerals and the use of explosives
in protected natural areas’, http://sunsite.nus.
edu.sg/apcel/dbase/cambodia/regs/cadnat.
html#Top (last accessed 10 September 2008);
Royal Government of Cambodia, ‘Prakas on
the Management and Suppression of Crimes
against Natural Resources in the Prohibited
Areas of Natural Resources Preservation –Ministry of Environment Declaration no. 258’,
2006.
77 Royal Government of Cambodia, ‘Law on
the Management and Exploitation of Mineral
Resources’, 2001, http://www.gocambodia.com/
laws/pdf/LAW-01-Mineralpercent20Resourceper
cent20Mgt-E.pdf (last accessed 10 September2008).
78 Erika Kinetz and Kay Kimsong, ‘More
Companies Look to Mine Cambodia’s
Wealth’, The Cambodia Daily, 29 September
2006; Douglas Gillison and Thet Sambath,‘Global Witness: Gov’t Contradicting Itself’,
The Cambodia Daily, 1 December 2006; Yun
Samean, ‘Firms Get Rights To Explore Protected
Areas’, The Cambodia Daily, 23 December 2007.
79 NGO Forum, ‘Forests, Plantations andConcessions’ submission for the CDCF
conference, November 2008.
80 World Bank, ‘Biodiversity and Protected
Areas Management Project’, http://www.bpamp.
org.kh/index.htm (last accessed 10 September2008); Kingdom of Cambodia, ‘Protected Area
Law’, 2008.
81 Interview with a confidential source, 2008;
Article 11, ‘Kingdom of Cambodia Protected
Area Law’, 2008.
82 Article 11, ‘Kingdom of Cambodia Protected
Area Law’, 2008.
83 Interviews with NGO workers and an MoE
official, 2008.
84 Personal communication with an NGO
worker, April 2008; NGO Forum, ‘Environmental
and Social Impacts of Expansion of theExtractive Industries Sector’, submission to the
CDCF, p. 5.
85 World Bank, ‘Biodiversity and Protected
Areas Management Project’, http://www.bpamp.
org.kh/Main/bpamp_protect.htm (last accessed
10 September 2008).
86 World Bank, Biodiversity and Protected
Areas Management Project, Annual Project
Progress Report 2004, p. 11, http://www.bpamp.
org.kh/Download/Anual_Report/BPAMP%20
2004%20annual%20report.pdf (last accessed 11
November 2008).
87 IUCN, ‘The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species’, 2008, http://www.iucnredlist.org/
details/14519 (last accessed 7 November 2008).
See also: Conservation International, ‘Cambodia
Profile’, 2008, p. 11, http://www.conservation.org/
explore/regions/asia-pacific/cambodia/Pages/
overview.aspx (last accessed 12 November 2008).

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200961

Endnotes

88 Ian Baird and Philip Dearden, ‘Biodiversity,
conservation and resource tenure regimes:
A case study for Northeast Cambodia
Environmental Management’, 2003, pp. 541-550;
Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management
Project, Final Report, March 2000-December
2006, p. 8.
89 Louis Lebel, Rajesh Daniel, and Nathan
Badenoch, ‘State, commerce and commons:conservation with communities in upper tributarywatersheds’, USER Working Paper WP-2006-02,
Unit for Social and Environmental Research,
Chiang Mai University, 2006, pp. 1-23.
90 World Bank, Biodiversity and Protected Areas
Management Project, http://www.bpamp.org.
kh/Main/bpamp_vnp.htm (last accessed 10
September 2008).
91 Personal communications with a confidential
source, 2008; Douglas Gillison, ‘World Bank
Seeking Answers Over Dragon’s Tail’, The
Cambodia Daily, 17 August 2007; Douglas
Gillison, ‘Cambodia Braces for Mining
Invasion’, Asia Sentinel, 21 September 2007;
Global Witness wrote letters to both Directorsof Indochine Resources, Jeremy Snaith andDavid Evans, in October 2008 to ask fortheir comments on the main issues raised inthis report as involve or relate to them, andIndochine Resources. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
92 Letter from Minister of MIME, Suy Sem,to Minister of MoE, Mok Mareth, requesting
permission for Indochine to establish basecamps in Ratanakiri and Stung Treng for
exploration purposes, 25 September 2008.
93 Douglas Gillison, ‘World Bank Seeking
Answers Over Dragon’s Tail’, The Cambodia
Daily, 17 August 2007.
94 Personal communication with an industry
analyst, June 2008.
95 Global Witness wrote a letter to Rattanak
Stone in November 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to Rattanak Stone. At the time of thereport’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
96 John C Wu, ‘The Mineral Industry of
Cambodia’ in U.S. Geological Survey Minerals
Yearbook, 2006; Chea Sieng Hong, ‘Mineral
Exploration and Mining Projects in Cambodia’,
2006, http://www.gmsbizforum.com/
dmdocuments/MGS_MI~2.pdf (last accessed
12 September 2008).
97 Global Witness field investigations, 2005,
2006 and 2008.
98 Global Witness wrote a letter to China
National Machinery Import Export Corporation in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate
to the China National Import Corporation. At thetime of the report’s publication, Global Witness
had not received a response.
99 Xinhua News Agency, ‘Cambodia, China
to Cooperate on Iron Mine Exploration’,People’s Daily Online, 20 March 2005,
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/20/
eng20050320_177505.html (last accessed 12
September 2008).
100 BBC Monitoring International Reports,‘Cambodia, China to Cooperate on Iron Mining’,
Xinhua, 19 March 2005.
101 Global Witness field investigations, 2005,
2006 and 2008; Bill Bainbridge, ‘Another Island
Resort Planned’, The Phnom Penh Post, 27
September 2002; Ministry of Defence, ‘Directoryof the High Command’, http://www.mond.gov.
kh/index/keypersonal.asp?kp=kphigh (lastaccessed 19 September 2008).

62

102 Interview with a mine site employee, 2008.
103 Global Witness, ‘Cambodia’s Family Trees’,
June 2007, p. 79.
104 DFDL Mekong, ‘Weekly Law Update’, 12August 2008, p. 3.
105 Kingdom of Cambodia, ‘Ministry of Industry,
Mines and Energy Exploration Licence for
Rattanak Stone’, 3 September 2008.
106 Global Witness wrote a letter to Kenertec in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate to
Kenertec. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
107 Kenertec, ‘Kenertec takes over Rovieng ironmine in Cambodia’, 14 May 2008, http://www.
kenertec.co.kr/english/relations/whatsnew_read.
asp?page=1&num= (last accessed 20
November 2008).
108 Interview with a company representative,
2008.
109 Royal Government of Cambodia, ‘Law on
the Management and Exploitation of Mineral
Resources’, 2001, http://www.gocambodia.com/
laws/pdf/LAW-01-Mineralpercent20Resourcepe
rcent20Mgt-E.pdf (last accessed 12 September2008).
110 Royal Government of Cambodia, Article
27, ‘Law on the Management and Exploitationof Mineral Resources’, 2001, http://www.
gocambodia.com/laws/pdf/LAW-01-Mineralpercent20Resourcepercent20Mgt-E.pdf (lastaccessed 10 September 2008).
111 Global Witness interview with a MIME
official, 2008.
112 Interview with a confidential source, 2008.
113 Global Witness wrote a letter to BHP Billiton
in October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate to
the company and received a response. For more
information on this response, see p. 23. For acopy of the full response, please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
114 The Cambodia Daily, ‘Gov’t gets $2.5 Million
for Mine Exploration Contract’, 22 May 2007.
115 Global Witness wrote a letter to Lim Kean
Hor in October 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
116 The Cambodia Daily, ‘Gov’t gets $2.5 Million
for Mine Exploration Contract’, 22 May 2007;
Interview with an MP, 2008.
117 Letter from BHP Billiton to Global Witness,
13 November 2008.
118 Ministry of Economy and Finance, ‘Tableau
des Opérations Financières de l’Etat’, non-tax
revenue from mining concessions, 2006.
119 Global Witness interview with a company
representative, 2008.
120 Kenertec, ‘Kenertec takes over Rovieng ironmine in Cambodia’, 14 May 2008, http://www.
kenertec.co.kr/english/relations/whatsnew_read.
asp?page=1&num= (last accessed 20
November 2008).
121 Global Witness interview with a company
representative, 2008.
122 John C Wu, ‘The Mineral Industry of
Cambodia’ in U.S. Geological Survey Minerals
Yearbook, 2007, http://minerals.usgs.gov/
minerals/pubs/country/2007/myb3-2007-cb.pdf(last accessed 12 September 2008).
123 Interview with a company representative, 2008.
124 Global Witness wrote a letter to Mr. Chaiin November 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

125 Interview with a local resident, 2008;
Interview with a company representative, 2008.
126 Field observation, 2008; Interview with acompany representative, 2008.
127 Interview with a local resident, 2008;
Personal communications with NGO workers,
2008.
128 Global Witness wrote a letter to Kieth Kim
Toh in November 2008 to ask for his commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
129 Interview with local resident, 2008; Personalcommunications with NGO workers, 2008.
130 Personal communications with NGO
workers, 2008.
131 Personal communications with a humanrights worker, 2008; Suon Kanika, ‘Land Disputesin Kampong Thom’, 2 February 2008; Yun
Samean, ‘Casino Planned on Minority Landin Ratanakiri’, The Cambodia Daily, 8 March
2007; Kenneth Fernandes, ‘Cambodia Eviction
Monitor’, Issue 1, June 2007, http://www.cohre.
org/store/attachments/Eviction%20Monitor%20
Jan-Dec%202006.pdf (last accessed 15 Sep
2008); Pascal Khoy, ‘Vers de casinos dans lenord-est du pays’, La Lettre du Cambodge,
April 2007, http://ccfcambodge.org/lettre/
LettreDuCambodge05.pdf (last accessed 15
September 2008); Kuch Naren, ‘Koh Tonsay
Families Say Relocation Will Ruin Them’, The
Cambodia Daily, 2 August 2006.
132 James Welsh and Prak Chan Thul,‘Lakeside Owners in Dark Over Development
Plans’, The Cambodia Daily, 23 February 2007;
Personal communications with a journalist, 2008.
133 Global Witness wrote a letter to Bun Ranyin October 2008 to ask for her comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to her. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
134 Global Witness wrote a letter to Choeung
Sopheap in October 2008 to ask for hercomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to her. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
135 Images from Cambodian television news
footage, 2004, obtained by Global Witness;
China-ASEAN Business and Investment Summit,
list of participants, http://www.cabiforum.org/
foreign.html.
136 Minutes from a Ministry of Agriculture
meeting at the General Headquarters of the
RCAF, 3 February 1997.
137 Field observations, 2003, 2004 and 2005;
Interviews with loggers and local residents, 2003
and 2004.
138 Solana Pyne and Yun Samean, ‘Hun
Sen says Global Witness lied in Report’, The
Cambodia Daily, 7 June 2004. Hun Sen andother senior officials have made several widelyreported verbal attacks on Global Witness over a
period of several years.
139 Ministry of Commerce registration of
Wuzhishan LS Group Ltd., 24 May 2004 (thisdocument lists the three shareholders of
Wuzhishan as Liu Wei, Lao Meng Khin and
Si Kong Triv); Contract granting an economic
land concession of 176,065 ha in Kompong
Chhnang Province, signed by MAFF Minister
Chhea Song, 8 January 2000; Contract granting
an ELC of 138,963 ha in Pursat Province, signed
by MAFF Minister Chhea Song, 8 January
2000; MAFF, profile of Wuzhishan’s 10,000 ha
Mondulkiri ELC, http://www.maff.gov.kh/elc/
comprofiles/mdwuzhis.html (last accessedEndnotes

9 December 2008); Contract for two ELCs of
70,000 ha (Banteay Meanchey) and 230,000 ha(Battambang) signed by Ministers to the Councilof Ministers, Sum Manit and Nouv Kanon,
Phnom Penh, 8 June 1998; Ministry of Land
Management, Urban Planning & Construction,
GIS data-set showing the two ELCs in Banteay
Meanchey and Battambang, 2004; DFDL,‘Weekly Law Update’, 1 November 2006; Kay
Kimsong, ‘High Hopes for New Economic Zone
in S’ville’, The Cambodia Daily, 30 November
2006; Personal communication with a memberof staff of UNOHCHR, 2007; World Rainforest
Movement, The Death of the Forest – A
Report on Wuzhishan’s and Green Rich’s Tree
Plantation Activities in Cambodia, WRM Series
on Tree Plantations No. 4, 2006, p.21.
140 Global Witness has calculated that
Pheapimex holds 1,333,931 ha in logging andeconomic land concessions. Cambodia’s total
land area is 18,104,000 ha.
141 Ministry of Commerce, company ownershipregistration documents for Sino Hydropower andPetro Camchin.
142 Royal Government of Cambodia,
Exploration licence no. 727, 8 August 2008;
Ministry of Commerce certificate of company
ownership 2315/05E for Zhong Xin, 24 March
2005; Royal Government of Cambodia, Ministryof Commerce certificate of company ownership
2356/05E for Hongfu-Try Pheap, 20 April 2005.
143 Personal communications with a confidential
source, 2008; James Welsh and Prak Chan Thul,‘Lakeside Owners in Dark Over Development
Plans’, The Cambodia Daily, 23 February 2007.
144 Global Witness wrote a letter to theGovernor of Phnom Penh Municipality in October
2008 to ask for his comments on the main issues
raised in this report as involve or relate to him.
At the time of the report’s publication, Global
Witness had not received a response.
145 Amnesty International Press Release,‘Cambodia: Lake Filling Must Not Lead to
Forced Evictions’, 27 August 2008.
146 United Nations Cambodia Office ofthe High Commissioner for Human Rights,‘Economic Land Concessions: A Human Rights
Perspective’, 2007.
147 Chhay Channyda, ‘Lake residents wantjustice’, The Phnom Penh Post, 28 August 2008.
148 Personal communications with a humanrights worker, 2008; Save Boeung Kak Lake
Coalition, http://saveboeungkak.wordpress.com(last accessed 1 December 2008).
149 Global Witness wrote a letter to Vinacomin in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate to
Vinacomin and received a response. For more
information on this response, see p. 24. For acopy of the full response, please contact Global
Witness via mail@globalwitness.org.
150 Personal communication with a journalist,
2008; ‘Viet Nam, Cambodia Sign Mineral
Exploration Deal’, VNS, 3 July 2007, http://
vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.
php?num=01ECO030707 (last accessed 15
September 2008); ‘Vinacomin to Explore Metal
Ore in Cambodia’, Vietnamese Diplomatic
Missions, http://www.mofa.gov.vn/vnemb.be/vi/vnemb.vn/cn_vakv/ca_tbd/nr040824144816/
ns070703034527/ (last accessed 15 September2008); Global Witness wrote a letter to Mom
Good Luck Mining in October 2008 to ask forcomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to the company. At thetime of the report’s publication, Global Witness
had not received a response.
151 Personal communication with a journalist,
2008.

152 Letter from Vinacomin to Global Witness, 5November 2008.
153 Global Witness wrote a letter to Southern
Mining Company in October 2008 to ask forcomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to the Southern Mining
Company. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
154 Interview with a local resident, 2008; Douglas
Gillison and Thet Sambath, ‘Global Witness:
Gov’t Contradicting Itself,’ The Cambodia Daily, 1
December 2006; Kingdom of Cambodia, Article
11, ‘Protected Area Law’, January 2008.
155 Douglas Gillison and Thet Sambath, ‘NGO:
Ministry to Probe Sanctuary Confrontation’, The
Cambodia Daily, 27 August 2008.
156 Ibid.
157 Interview with RCAF soldiers at Southern
Mining site, 2008.
158 Interview with RCAF guards, 2008; Mineral
Information Institute, ‘Antimony’, http://www.mii.
org/Minerals/photoant.html (last accessed 20
November 2008).
159 Global Witness field work, 2008.
160 Global Witness field work, 2008.
161 Global Witness wrote a letter to Aoch Chany
in November 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involve or
relate to him. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
162 Global Witness field work, 2008.
163 Global Witness wrote a letter to Geosimco
and Vinacomin in October 2008 to ask forcomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to Geosimco. At thetime of the report’s publication, Global Witness
had received a response from Vinacomin. For
more information on this response, see p. 24.
164 Geosimco, ‘About Us’, http://geosimco.
vn/default.asp?langID=1&CatID=3&itemID=
117&objCode=&npage= (last accessed 15
September 2008).
165 Douglas Gillison and Kuch Naren, ‘VN Co
Takes 70 Per cent in Sanctuary Mining’, The
Cambodia Daily, 1 August 2008.
166 Global Witness field investigations, 2008;
Personal communications with an NGO worker,
2008.
167 Col. DJ Mead (Ret.), ‘Reforming the Royal
Cambodian Armed Forces: Leadership is theKey’, The Phnom Penh Post, 30 January – 12
February 2004; AFP, ‘Cambodia Pushes Ahead
with Military Conscription Plans,’ 19 July 2006;
Global Witness, ‘Taking a Cut’, 2004.
168 Global Witness, ‘Cambodia’s Family
Trees’, June 2007, Chapter IV; Personalcommunications with NGO workers, 2008.
169 Global Witness, ‘Taking a Cut’, 2004; Global
Witness, ‘Cambodia’s Family Trees’, June 2007.
170 Personal communication from Dr. J. Andrew
McDonald, Plant Resources Center, University ofTexas at Austin, September 2004.
171 Float Asia Friendly Mation company
brochure, obtained in June 2008.
172 Global Witness field observations, 2008;
Interview with a confidential source, 2008;
Ministry of Environment submission to the Pursat
Province Court, 7 March 2008.
173 Ministry of Environment submission to
the Pursat Province Court, 7 March 2008;
Communications with two confidential sources,
2008.
174 Float Asia Friendly Mation company
brochure, obtained in June 2008.
175 Global Witness wrote a letter to Mr. Ta Tri in
November 2008 to ask for his comments on themain issues raised in this report as involve or
relate to him. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.

176 Interview with a confidential source, 2008.
177 Interview with a confidential source, 2008.
178 Global Witness field work, 2008.
179 Ministry of Commerce, company registration
document for Float Asia Friendly Mation
Company, 2006; Float Asia Friendly Mationcompany brochure, obtained in June 2008.
180 Ministry of Environment submission to the
Pursat Province Court, 7 March 2008.
181 Ibid.
182 Global Witness wrote a letter to Eang Soknai
in November 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
183 Ministry of Environment submission to the
Pursat Province Court, 7 March 2008; Interview
with an NGO worker, 2008.
184 Interview with three confidential sources, 2008.
185 Global Witness wrote a letter to Ching
Kimnguon in November 2008 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
186 Interview with two confidential sources, 2008.
187 Interview with two confidential sources, 2008.
188 Global Witness, ‘Cambodia’s Family Trees,’
June 2007, Chapters II and III.
189 Yun Samean and Douglas Gillison, ‘Gov’t
seeks to clear name with Global Witness probe’,
The Cambodia Daily, 4 June 2007; Global
Witness wrote to Prime Minister Hun Sen in
October 2008 to ask whether the government
has taken any steps to investigate the findingsof ‘Cambodia’s Family Trees’. At the time of
publication, no response had been received.
190 Yun Samean, ‘Timber Company Owner
Denies Illegal Logging,’ The Cambodia Daily, 9October 2007.
191 Interviews with two confidential sources,
October 2008.
192 Personal communications with a confidential
source, 2008.
193 Global Witness field work, 2008; Personalcommunications with a shipping industry expert,
2008; Global Witness wrote letters to the Headof the Building and Construction Authority andthe Head of the Ministry of National Development
at the Government of Singapore in October
2008 to ask for their comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate to
the Government of Singapore. Global Witness
received a response from the Head of the
Building and Construction Authority. For further
information on the contents of this letter, see p. 32.
194 Global Witness interview with a company
representative, 2008.
195 Global Witness wrote a letter to Saroon
Concrete in November 2008 to ask forcomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to Saroon Concrete.
At the time of the report’s publication, Global
Witness had not received a response.
196 Global Witness field work, 2008.
197 Global Witness wrote a letter to Odom
Cement in November 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to Odom Cement. At the time of thereport’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
198 Interview with two confidential sources, 2008.
199 Global Witness field observations, 2008.
200 Global Witness observations, 2008; Saroon
Concrete was spelt in a number of different
ways in Koh Kong town and surrounding area,
including Sor Aroon Concrete and S-Aroon
Concrete Part Ltd.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200963

Endnotes

201 Interview with company representatives,
2008.
202 Global Witness field work, 2008.
203 Interview with sand workers, 2008.
204 Government of Singapore, Yearbook of
Statistics, 2008, p. 17, http://www.singstat.gov.
sg/pubn/reference/yos/statsT-prices.pdf (lastaccessed 2 December 2008).
205 Global Witness wrote a letter to the
Chairman of the Central Military Commissionof the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s
Republic of China in October 2008 to ask forcomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to the military. At thetime of the report’s publication, Global Witness
had not received a response.
206 Global Witness investigations, 2008.
207 Singapore government statistics, http://
www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hist/
popn.html (last accessed 15 December 2008);
Reuters, ‘Singapore finds it hard to survive
without sand’, 14 April 2005.
208 United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics
Division, 2007, http://comtrade.un.org (lastaccessed 15 Sep 2008).
209 Singapore Ministry of National
Development/Building Construction Authority
Media Release, ‘Indonesian Sand Export Ban
is Unlikely to Slow Construction in Singapore’,
24 January 2007, http://www.bca.gov.sg/
newsroom/others/pr240107.pdf (last accessed
16 September 2008).
210 BBC News, ‘Indonesia Bans Sand to
Singapore’, 12 February 2007, http://news.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/business/6353633.stm (last accessed
16 Sep 2008).
211 WALHI, ‘The Sand’s Dredged, the Country’s
in the Dirt’, 27 March 2007, http://www.eng.walhi.
or.id/kampanye/tambang/galianc/070327_sand_mining_cu/ (last accessed 16 September 2008).
212 Ian M. Dutton, ‘If Only Fish Could Vote…’,in Budy P. Resosudasmo, ed., ‘The Politics andEconomics of Indonesia’s Natural Resources’,2005.
213 Government of Singapore, letter from theHead of the Building and Construction Authority
to Global Witness, 19 November 2008.
214 Economic land concessions: MAFF, profile
of Koh Kong Plantation Company Ltd, http://www.
maff.gov.kh/elc/comprofiles/kkplantation.html(accessed 9 December 2008); MAFF, profile of
Koh Kong Sugar Company Ltd, http://www.maff.
gov.kh/elc/comprofiles/kksugar.html (accessed 9
December 2008); Licadho, ‘Cambodian military
police mobilised to protect land concession ofruling party Senator’, 8 February 2007, http://www.
licadho.org/articles/20070208/51/index.html (lastaccessed 1 December 2008); Kang Kallyan, ‘Des
familles de Koh Kong manifestent’, Cambodge
Soir, 8 March 2007.
Permits to build and operate casinos: Personalcommunication with an official, 2007; Personalcommunication with a member of Cambodia’s
business community; Agence France Presse,‘Cambodia maps out plan to lure tourists to
Khmer Rouge sites,’ 13 April, 2005 http://www.
fourelephants.com/travel.php?sid=286; Phnom
Penh Hotel website, http://www.phnompenhhotel.
com/recreation.php; Koh Kong International Resort
Club website, http://www.kohkonginter.com;
Permit to build and operate a port: Hun
Sen, ‘Inaugurating a Zoo in Koh Kong
Province’, Cambodia New Vision, Issue
60, January 2003, http://209.85.135.104/
search?q=cache:X5MqLtCiV_MJ:www.cnv.
org.kh/cnv_html_pdf/cnv_60.pdf+ly+yong+p
hat&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=10; Personalcommunications with a researcher, 2006 and2007. Contract to construct/renovate roads:

64

DFDL ‘Weekly Law Update’, 18 February 2003,
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:1uy_
LFIJ9QIJ:www.dfdl.com.kh/pdf/03Feb18eml_
weely_law_update.pdf+ports+cambodia+Ly+Y
ong+Phat&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk.
Contract to construct a bridge: Ek Madra(Reuters), ‘Cambodia’s ‘Wild West’ poised ona bridge between two eras,’ The Philadelphia
Inquirer, 16 June 2002; Hun Sen, ‘Address tothe inauguration of Spien Koh Kong over the
Koh Pao Canal in Koh Kong Province’, 4 April
2002, www.cnv.org.kh/2002_releases/040402_
kohkong_bridge_bot.htm; Contracts to generate/
distribute electrical power: Electricity Authority
of Cambodia, ‘Generation Licence for providing
electric power generation service at Phnom
Penh, 31 May 2006, http://www.eac.gov.kh/pdf/
licences/generation/LD_CEP per cent20_08-606__en.pdf; Electricity Authority of Cambodia,‘Distribution licence for providing electric power
distribution service at provincial town of KohKong and Osmarch town, Khum Osmarch,
Samrong District, Oddor Meanchey Province –Duty Free Shop Co. Ltd.’, 22 November 2002,
http://www.eac.gov.kh/pdf/licences/distribute/
dutyfreeshop_eng.pdf; Electricity Authority
of Cambodia, Report on Power Sector of theKingdom of Cambodia for the year 2003,
October 2004, http://www.eac.gov.kh/pdf/report/
Annual per cent20Report per cent202003_
Eg.pdf. Sits on board of the Cambodian Red
Cross: Cambodian Red Cross, ‘CRC has a new
governing board and a new Secretary General’,August 2006, http://www.redcross.org.kh/
english/event2006_4thGA.asp.
215 Licadho, ‘Cambodian military police mobilised
to protect land concession of ruling party
Senator’, 8 February 2007, http://www.licadho.org/
articles/20070208/51/index.html; Asian Human
Rights Commission Hong Kong, Urgent appeal,‘Two villagers shot and several injured during theillegal forced eviction in Koh Kong’, http://www.
ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2006/1998/ (all lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
216 Global Witness field work, 2008.
217 Ibid.
218 Interview with sand workers, 2008.
219 MIME, Open pit and quarry licence for the
LYP Group Co. Ltd, 15 August 2008; Personalcommunications with an MIME official, 2008.
220 Global Witness wrote a letter to Eight Star
Mining in October 2008 to ask for comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to Eight Star Mining. At the time of thereport’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
221 Global Witness wrote a letter to Angkor Wat
Minerals in October 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to Angkor Wat Resources. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
222 Global Witness wrote a letter to Elray
Resources in October 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to Elray Resources. At the time of thereport’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
223 Ministry of Commerce, Registration of
Angkor Wat Minerals Ltd, 26 June 2006; Ministryof Commerce, Registration of Eight Star Mining
Ltd; Royal Government of Cambodia, Royal
Decree appointing Cham Borey as advisor toHeng Samrin, 10 April 2007; Elray Mining, SEC
filing, 19 August 2008, http://www.elraymining.
com/documents/filings.html (last accessed 28
October 2008).
224 Angkor Wat Minerals website,
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

qZQ593vC6XUJ:www.angkormineral.com/
industries.php+angkor+minerals+overview&
hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk (last accessed
28 October 2008); Elray Mining, SEC filing,
19 August 2008, http://www.elraymining.com/
documents/filings.html (last accessed 28
October 2008).
225 Eight Star Mining website, http://eightstarmining.com/index.php (last accessed
29 October 2008).
226 Ibid.
227 Articles 2 to 9, Petroleum Regulations, 28
September 1991.
228 Article 43.1, Petroleum Regulations, 28
September 1991.
229 Article 3, Royal Decree on the Formation of
the Cambodian National Petroleum Authority,
ChorSor/RorTorkor 0198/020, 22 January 1998.
230 Article 1, Royal Decree on the Formation of
the Cambodian National Petroleum Authority,
ChorSor/RorTorkor 0198/020, 22 January 1998.
231 Article 3, Royal Decree on the formation of
the Cambodian National Petroleum Authority,
ChorSor/RorTorkor 0198/020, 22 January 1998.
232 Kingdom of Cambodia, Article 51,‘Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia’,1999.
233 See for example, Royal Kram NS/
RKM/0607/016 on Promulgation of the Law on
Water Resource Management, 29 June 2007;
Royal Kingdom of Cambodia, ‘Law on the Bar’,
http://www.cdpcambodia.org/bar_law.asp(last accessed 1 December 2008); Kingdomof Cambodia, ‘Law on the Management andExploitation of Mineral Resources’, 2001; Article
3, ‘Law on Land Management, Urban Planningand Constructions’, 24 May 1994.
234 Interviews with legal experts, 2008.
235 Global Witness conversations with legal
experts, 2008.
236 Kingdom of Cambodia, Article 5A, ‘Decisionon the Amendment of the Chapter 2 of thePetroleum Regulations 1991’.
237 Global Witness wrote a letter to Norodom
Ranariddh in November 2008 to ask for hiscomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to him. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
238 Global Witness wrote two letters to Sok An
in October 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
239 Article 5B, ‘Decision on the amendment of
the petroleum Regulations 1991 of the Royal
Government of Cambodia, No.25’, 19 March
1999.
240 Bertil Lintner, ‘One Big Happy Family in
Cambodia’, Asia Times, 20 March 2007, http://
www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/
IC20Ae03.html (last accessed 13 August 2008).
241 Asian Development Bank Sustainable
Forest Management Project, Cambodian Forest
Concession Review Report, 2000.
242 Dr. Milton Osborne, ‘Stalemate Suits Hun
Sen’, April 2004, http://www.aseanfocus.com/
asiananalysis/article.cfm?articleID=725 (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
243 Interview with an industry analyst, 2008; World
Investment News & Far Eastern Review, ‘Interview
with Sok An’, 16 March 2003, http://www.winne.
com/asia/cambodia/2004/vi11.php (last accessed
24 September 2008); Petronas website, http://www.
petronas.com.my/intranet/ascope/ascope.nsf/82
8d93c5dee3de59482568a3001a276a/bd7519c4f
f2efb8948256a1d00307927?opendocument (lastaccessed 24 September 2008).

Endnotes

244 Interview with Sok An, in Royal Embassy of
Cambodia (UK), Trade Promotion Today, 2007
issue 1, http://www.cambodianembassy.org.uk/
index.php?menu=18&link=1&slink=1&year=20
07 (accessed 5 January 2009).
245 Ibid.
246 ‘Opening Remarks by His Excellency
Veng Sereyvuth Senior Minister, Minister ofTourism During the General Conference of
1998-2002’, 7th May 2003, http://www.mot.gov.
kh/speech/may_07_veng_speech.htm (lastaccessed 5 January 2009); National Information
Communication Technology Development
Authority, History of H.E. Sok An, http://www.
nida.gov.kh/History/H.E.Sok per cent20An.html(last accessed 19 September 2008).
247 Cambodian Government Council of
Administrative Reform website, http://www.
car.gov.kh/default_en.asp (last accessed
23 September 2008); Email from the World
Organisation of the Scout Movement to Global
Witness, 2008.
248 Asian Development Bank, ‘Kingdom of
Cambodia: Institutional Strengthening of theCambodian National Petroleum Authority’,
December 2000, p. 4, http://www.adb.org/
Documents/TARs/CAM/40079-CAM-TAR.pdf(last accessed 1 December 2008); Personalcommunications with a diplomat, 2008.
249 Personal communications with a diplomat,
2008; The Bridge Group, ‘Training Needs
Assessment of the CNPA’, December 2004.
250 NORAD, ‘Oil for Development Annual
Report 2007-2008’, http://www.npd.no/NR/
rdonlyres/F3C2FB10-E608-4F18-B0D99C6CD552488B/16857/Cambodia1.pdf (lastaccessed 8 December 2008), p. 52.
251 Interview with a CNPA official, 2008.
252 Interview with a CNPA official, 2008.
253 Interview with a CNPA official, 2008;
Kingdom of Cambodia, ‘Petroleum Agreement’,
2004; The Bridge Group, ‘Training Needs
Assessment of the CNPA’, December 2004.
254 Interview with a CNPA official, 2008.
255 Kingdom of Cambodia, ‘Petroleum
Agreement’, 2004.
256 Interview with an industry analyst, 2008.
257 Petronas website, ‘Cambodia’, http://www.
petronas.com.my/intranet/ascope/ascope.nsf/8
28d93c5dee3de59482568a3001a276a/bd7519
c4ff2efb8948256a1d00307927?OpenDocument(last accessed 10 December 2008).
258 Global Witness wrote a letter to Men Den
in October 2008 to ask for his comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
259 The Bridge Group, ‘Training Needs
Assessment of the CNPA’, December 2004.
260 Interviews with officials, 2008.
261 Ibid.
262 Ibid.
263 Global Witness wrote a letter to Ho Vichett in
October 2008 to ask for his comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate tohim. At the time of the report’s publication, Global
Witness had not received a response.
264 The Bridge Group, ‘Training Needs
Assessment of the CNPA’, December 2004.
265 Interview with officials, 2008.
266 The Bridge Group, ‘Training Needs
Assessment of the CNPA’, December 2004.
267 Interview with officials, 2008.
268 The Bridge Group, ‘Training Needs
Assessment of the CNPA’, December 2004, p.
14 & 23.
269 Kingdom of Cambodia, ‘Petroleum
Agreement’, 2004.

270 Interview with an industry official, 2008.
271 Ibid.
272 Ibid.
273 Ibid.
274 Presentation by Lim Vatha, ‘Update on
Petroleum Activities in Cambodia,’ 21-25
February 2006, http://www.ccop.or.th/PPM/
document/CAWS6/CAWS6DOC04_vatha.pdf(last accessed 1 December 2008); Presentation
by Men Den, ‘National Petroleum Policy andPetroleum Promotions and Contract’, 21-25
February 2006, http://www.ccop.or.th/ppm/
document/CAWS6/CAWS6DOC02_menden.pdf;
Petroleum Regulations, 28 September 1991.
275 Presentation by Men Den, ‘National
Petroleum Policy and Petroleum Promotions
and Contract’, 21-25 February 2006, http://
www.ccop.or.th/ppm/document/CAWS6/CAWS6DOC02_menden.pdf (last accessed 1
December 2008); Chevron, ‘Chevron Texaco
Finds Oil in Four Wells Drilled in Cambodia’s
Block A’, 12 January 2005, http://investor.
chevron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=662300&
highlight= (last accessed 1 December 2008).
276 CCOP website, Presentation by Lim Vatha,‘Update on Petroleum Activities in Cambodia,’21-25 February 2006, http://www.ccop.or.th/
PPM/document/CAWS6/CAWS6DOC04_vatha.
pdf (last accessed 1 December 2008);
Presentation by Men Den, ‘National Petroleum
Policy and Petroleum Promotions and Contract’,21-25 February 2006, http://www.ccop.or.th/ppm/
document/CAWS6/CAWS6DOC02_menden.pdf(last accessed 1 December 2008); Petroleum
Regulations, 28 September 1991.
277 Douglas Gillison, ‘Government Urges
Calm on Oil Deposits’, The Cambodia Daily, 13
November 2007.
278 Interview with officials, 2008.
279 Interview with an MP, 2008; Letter from the
UNDP to Global Witness, 2008.
280 Internal communications, Global Witness,
2007; Attendance list for the EITI Conference
Oslo, October 2006.
281 Interviews with industry analysts, 2008.
282 Director General of CNPA, Te Duong
Tara, presentation, ‘Petroleum Resource
Management: Standard Reserves Classification’,22-23 February, 2007, http://www.cdri.org.kh/
webdata/download/oc07/day2/Session%204%20(PM)%20-%2023%20Feb%2007/H.E.%20Te%20
Duong%20Tara%20(Director%20General%20
CNPA).pdf (last accessed 3 December 2008);
Susan Postlewaite, ‘Big fish, small fish, oily fish…
or gas?’, The Phnom Penh Post, 4 April 2008;
interview with a diplomat, 2008.
283 Interview with an industry analyst, 2008.
284 CCOP website, Presentation by Lim Vatha,‘Update on Petroleum Activities in Cambodia,’21-25 February 2006, http://www.ccop.or.th/
PPM/document/CAWS6/CAWS6DOC04_vatha.
pdf (last accessed 1 December 2008);
Presentation by Men Den, ‘National Petroleum
Policy and Petroleum Promotions and Contract’,21-25 February 2006, http://www.ccop.or.th/ppm/
document/CAWS6/CAWS6DOC02_menden.
pdf (last accessed 1 December 2008); Susan
Postlewaite, ‘Overlapping Claims Complicate
Gas Hunt’, The Phnom Penh Post, 29 May 2008.
285 Chevron, ‘Thailand Fact Sheet’, http://
www.chevron.com/Documents/Pdf/
ThailandFactSheet.pdf (last accessed 8
December 2008).
286 Global Witness wrote a letter to Moeco in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate to
Moeco. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.

287 Global Witness wrote a letter to GS Caltex in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate to
GS Caltex. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
288 Susan Postlewaite, ‘Overlapping Claims
Complicate Gas Hunt’, The Phnom Penh Post,
29 May 2008; Moeco website, http://www.
moeco.co.jp/english/project/cambodia.html (lastaccessed 9 December 2008); GS Caltex website,
http://www.gscaltex.com/Domain/gs_Exploration.
asp (last accessed 9 December 2008).
289 Chevron press release, ‘Chevron Signs Joint
Study Agreement with the Royal Governmentof Cambodia’, 6 July 2006, http://www.chevron.
com/news/press/Release/?id=2006-07-06 (lastaccessed 8 December 2008).
290 Interview with an industry analyst, 2008;
Kingdom of Cambodia, ‘Petroleum Agreement’,2004.
291 Article 27, Kingdom of Cambodia,‘Petroleum Agreement’, 2004.
292 Global Witness interview with a diplomat,
December 2008.
293 Global Witness wrote two letters to PTTEP in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate
to PTTEP. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
294 Global Witness wrote two letters to SPC in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate
to SPC. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
295 Global Witness wrote a letter to Cooper
Energy in October 2008 to ask for theircomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to Cooper Energy.
At the time of the report’s publication, Global
Witness had not received a response.
296 Susan Postlewaite, ‘Overlapping Claims
Complicate Gas Hunt’, The Phnom Penh Post,
29 May 2008; Global Witness communications
with Cooper Energy, 2008; Nagacorp Annual
Report, 2007, p. 23; Singapore Petroleum
Company website, http://www.spc.com.sg/
investorcentre/press_details.asp?id=1419 (lastaccessed 1 December 2008).
297 Singapore Petroleum Corporation website,
http://www.spc.com.sg/ourbusiness/exploration_
production.asp (last accessed 8 December2008); PTTEP website, http://www.pttep.com/en/
ourBusiness_EAndPprojects.aspx (last accessed
8 December 2008).
298 NagaCorp Annual Report 2007, http://www.
nagacorp.com/PDF/Annualper cent20Reportper
cent202007.pdf (last accessed 24 September2008).
299 Letter from Richards Butler Reed Smith
sent on behalf of Dr. Chen Lip Keong to Global
Witness, 31 October 2008.
300 NagaCorp Annual Report 2007, http://www.
nagacorp.com/PDF/Annualper cent20Reportper
cent202007.pdf (last accessed 24 September2008).
301 MAS Press Release, ‘MAS Intends toRefuse Registration of NagaCorp’s Limited’s
Prospectus’, 8 September 2003, http://www.mas.
gov.sg/news_room/press_releases/2003/MAS_
Intends_to_refuse_registration_of_Nagacorp_
Ltd.html (last accessed 24 September 2008).
302 MAS Press Release, ‘MAS Refuses
Registration of NagaCorp’s Limited’s
Prospectus’, 21 October 2003, http://www.mas.
gov.sg/news_room/press_releases/2003/MAS_
Refuses_Registration_of_Nagacorp_21_Oct_03.
html (last accessed 24 September 2008);
Hong Kong Stock Exchange Listed Company
Information, http://www.hkex.com.hk/invest/

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200965

Endnotes

index.asp?id=company/profile_page_e.asp?Wid
CoID=03918&WidCoAbbName=&Month=&langcode=e (last accessed 5 December 2008).
303 NagaCorp Annual Report 2007, http://www.
nagacorp.com/PDF/Annualper cent20Reportper
cent202007.pdf, p. 23 (last accessed 24
September 2008).
304 Karambunai Corp Berhad, ‘Annual Report2007’, http://www.karambunaicorp.com/Annual_
Report/KBUNAI-AnnualReport2007(3MB).pdf(last accessed 24 September 2008). Exchange
rate correct at 24 September 2008.
305 Nexus Karambunai website, http://www.
nexusresort.com/new/ (last accessed 1
December 2008), prices and exchange rate
correct at 24 September 2008.
306 Cambodia New Vision website, ‘Biographyof Hun Sen’, http://www.cnv.org.kh/personInfo/biography_of_hun_sen.htm (last accessed 24
September 2008).
307 Presentation by Te Duong Tara at the 2007
Cambodia Outlook Conference, ‘Petroleum
Resource Management – Standard Reserves
Classification’, February 2007, http://www.
cdri.org.kh/webdata/download/oc07/day2/
Sessionper cent204per cent20(PM)per cent20per cent2023per cent20Febper cent2007/H.E.per
cent20Teper cent20Duongper cent20Taraper
cent20(Directorper cent20Generalper
cent20CNPA).pdf (last accessed 25 September2008).
308 Susan Postlewaite, ‘Overlapping Claims
Complicate Gas Hunt’, The Phnom Penh Post,
29 May 2008.
309 Global Witness wrote a letter to Polytec
Hong Kong in October 2008 to ask forcomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to Polytec. At the timeof the report’s publication, Global Witness had
not received a response; Polytec Asset Holdings
website, http://www.polytecasset.com/CorpInfo.
html (last accessed 9 December 2008).
310 Ministry of Commerce company ownershipregistration documents for Polytech Petroleum(Cambodia) Corporation, 2006.
311 Polytec Asset Holdings website,
Management Team, http://www.polytecasset.com/
MTeam.html (last accessed 9 December 2008).
312 Polytec, ‘Annual Report2007’, http://www.polytecasset.
com/Doc/AnnualReport/2007AR_
17MAR08_E.pdf , p. 16 (last accessed 29
September 2008).
313 Polytec, ‘Annual Report 2007’,
http://www.polytecasset.com/Doc/
AnnualReport/2007AR_17MAR08_E.pdf , p. 7-8(last accessed 29 September 2008).
314 Polytec Asset Holdings, ‘Annual Report2007’, http://www.polytecasset.com/Doc/
AnnualReport/2007AR_17MAR08_E.pdf (lastaccessed 29 September 2008).
315 Polytec Financial Information, http://www.
polytecasset.com/Financial.html (last accessed
29 September 2008).
316 Polytec Asset Holdings, ‘Annual Report2007’, http://www.polytecasset.com/Doc/
AnnualReport/2007AR_17MAR08_E.pdf, p. 6,(last accessed 29 September 2008). Exchange
rate correct at 29 September 2008.
317 Polytec Asset Holdings website, http://www.
polytecasset.com/CorpInfo.html (last accessed 9
December 2008).
318 Forbes Rich List – Hong Kong, #22 Or Wai
Sheun, 16 January 2008, http://www.forbes.com/
lists/2008/82/biz_08hkrichest_Or-Wai-Sheun_R7DT.html (last accessed 29 September 2008).
319 The website of the CPPCC: http://cppcc.
people.com.cn/GB/6927535.html (last accessed
7 January 2009).

66

320 Global Witness wrote a letter to China
Petrotech/Mirach Energy in October 2008 to ask
for comments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to the China Petrotech/
Mirach Energy. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
321 China Petrotech press release, ‘China
Petrotech Record 38% Rise In Net Profit To
RMB41.6 Million’, 24 February 2005, http://
mirachenergy.listedcompany.com/newsroom/
China.Petrotech.Holdings.Press.Release.pdf(last accessed 9 December 2008); Presentation
by Te Duong Tara at 2007 Cambodia Outlook
Conference, ‘Petroleum Resource Management– Standard Reserves Classification’, February
2007.
322 Global Witness wrote a letter to CZRCE in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate to
CZRCE. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
323 China Petrotech press release, ‘China
Petrotech Acquires 48% effective interest ina Cambodia offshore oil and gas block,’ 26
July 2006, http://mirachenergy.listedcompany.
com/newsroom/CPHL.Cambodia.pdf (lastaccessed 9 December 2008); China Petrotechpress release, ‘Replies to the SGX’s request for
additional information as required under Rule
1010 of the Listing Manual on Press Release China Petrotech Acquires 48% effective interestin a Cambodia offshore oil and Gas Block’, 28
July 2008, http://mirachenergy.listedcompany.
com/newsroom/CPHL.Replies.to.SGX.
Cambodia.pdf (last accessed 9 December2008).
324 China Petrotech press release, ‘China
Petrotech clinches milestone first overseas
oilfield service contract’, 17 April 2006, http://
mirachenergy.listedcompany.com/newsroom/
CPHL.Cambodia.Oilfield.Service.pdf (lastaccessed 9 December 2008).
325 China Petrotech press release, ‘China
Petrotech Acquires 48% effective interest in a
Cambodia offshore oil and gas block,’ 26 July
2006, http://mirachenergy.listedcompany.com/
newsroom/CPHL.Cambodia.pdf (last accessed
9 December 2008)
326 Ibid.
327 China Petrotech press release, ‘Replies
to the SGX’s request for additional information
as required under Rule 1010 of the Listing
Manual on Press Release - China Petrotech
Acquires 48% effective interest in a Cambodia
offshore oil and Gas Block’, 28 July 2008, http://
mirachenergy.listedcompany.com/newsroom/
CPHL.Replies.to.SGX.Cambodia.pdf (lastaccessed 9 December 2008).
328 Ibid.
329 Ministry of Commerce, company registration
documents for CZRCE, 7 April 2006; China
Petrotech press release, 17 April 2006, http://
mirachenergy.listedcompany.com/newsroom/
CPHL.Cambodia.Oilfield.Service.pdf (lastaccessed 9 December 2008).
330 Global Witness wrote a letter to Power
Unicorn Ltd in October 2008 to ask forcomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to Power Unicorn.
At the time of the report’s publication, Global
Witness had not received a response.
331 China Petrotech, ‘Full year financial
statement for year ending December 31 2007’,
p. 5, http://mirachenergy.listedcompany.com/
newsroom/CPHL_31_12_2007_4Q.pdf (lastaccessed 9 December 2008).
332 Global Witness wrote a letter to the China
Finance Fund in October 2008 to ask forCountry for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

comments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate the China FinanceFund. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
333 Global Witness wrote a letter to Guangdong
Zhen Rong Energy Company Limited in October
2008 to ask for comments on the main issues
raised in this report as involve or relate to thecompany. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response;
China Petrotech press release, ‘China Petrotech
Holdings Limited Acquires Interest In China
Zhen Rong Cambodia Energy Co Ltd,’ 26 July
2006, http://mirachenergy.listedcompany.com/
newsroom/CPHL.Cambodia.pdf (last accessed
9 December 2008)
334 Hong Kong company registration
documents for the China Finance Fund,
accessed September 2008; China Petrotech,‘Replies to SGX’s query regarding China
Petrotech signs agreement with Canadabased Liburdi to set up Asia Venture,’ http://
mirachenergy.listedcompany.com/newsroom/
China_Petrotech_Replies_to_SGX_Query210207.
pdf (last accessed 9 December 2008).
335 Zhuhai Zhen Rong website, http://www.
zhzrgs.com.cn/en/index.asp (last accessed 9
December 2008); Sunny Global Holdings Limitedpress release, ‘Sunny Global entered into MOU
for the cooperation with Zhen Rong Group,
one of the largest crude oil importers in China
to develop the crude oil, fuel oil and natural
gas business,’ 7 December 2007, http://www2.
synchronic.com.hk/sc_upload/images/Sunnyper
cent20Global_MOU_English.pdf (last accessed
9 December 2008).
336 China Petrotech press release, ‘Change ofName of China Zhenrong (Cambodia) Energy
Co. Ltd’, 12 April 2007, www.chinapetrotech.
com/irm (last accessed 26 September 2008).
337 China Petrotech press release, ‘China
Petrotech Completes 3-D Seismic Survey for
360 SQKM in Cambodia’, 16 April 2007, www.
chinapetrotech.com/ir.html (last accessed 26
September 2008).
338 China Petrotech investor announcements,
30 March 2007 and 28 February 2008, http://
www.chinapetrotech.com/ir.html (last accessed
26 September 2008).
339 Financial Times Share Performance Datafor Mirach Energy Limited, http://markets.
ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=SGpercent3AMIEL, (last accessed 26 September 2008),
share details correct at 22 September 2008.
340 Global Witness wrote a letter to KPMG
Singapore in October 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to KPMG. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
341 KPMG, ‘Independent Auditor’s Report’, 1
April 2007, http://chinapetrotech.listedcompany.
com/newsroom/CPHL.independent.auditors.pdf(last accessed 25 September 2008).
342 Press Release, ‘Notice of Extraordinary
General Meeting’, 19 November 2007, www.
chinapetrotech.com/ir.html (last accessed 25
September 2007); Global Witness wrote a letter
to LTC Associates in October 2008 to ask forcomments on the main issues raised in thisreport as involve or relate to LTC Associates.
At the time of the report’s publication, Global
Witness had not received a response.
343 Global Witness wrote a letter to JHLPetroleum in October 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to the company. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.

Endnotes

344 PT Medco, Annual Report 2006, http://
www.medcoenergi.com/userfiles/file/annual_report/2006/ar2006.pdf (last accessed
9 December 2008); PT Medco, fax sent to the
Jakarta Stock Exchange, 4 October 2006.
345 Global Witness wrote a letter to Kuwait
Energy in October 2008 to ask for comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to Kuwait Energy. At the time of thereport’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response; Presentation by Te Duong
Tara at 2007 Cambodia Outlook Conference,‘Petroleum Resource Management – Standard
Reserves Classification’, February 2007; Kuwait
Energy, ‘Annual Report 2007’, p. 12.
346 Global Witness wrote a letter to Lundin
Petroleum in October 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to Lundin Petroleum, andreceived a response. For more informationon this response, see p. 47. For a copy of thefull response, please contact Global Witness
via mail@globalwitness.org; Douglas Gillison,‘Swedish Oil Firm Acquires 34 Per cent Stakein Block E’, The Cambodia Daily, 30 October
2007; Angus Rodger, ‘Lundin Joins Pack Eyeing
Cambodian Oil’, International Oil Daily, 30
October 2007.
347 Letter from Lundin Petroleum to Global
Witness, 4 November 2008.
348 PT Medco, fax sent to the Jakarta Stock
Exchange, 4 October 2006.
349 Commonwealth of the Bahamas, Certificate
of Incorporation for JHL Petroleum Limited, no.
129567b, 22 January 2004.
350 Global Witness wrote a letter to CNOOC in
October 2008 to ask for comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate to
CNOOC. At the time of the report’s publication,
Global Witness had not received a response.
351 Susan Postlewaite, ‘Overlapping Claims
Complicate Gas Hunt’, The Phnom Penh Post,
29 May 2008; Te Duong Tara, Director Generalof the CNPA, speech titled ‘Petroleum Resource
Management: Standard Reserves Classification’,
23 February 2007 and conversation with ajournalist who had seen confidential documents
in August 2007; Shanghai Zoom Intelligence,‘CNOOC Signs PSC Contract with Cambodia’,12 June 2007, http://www.zoomchina.com.cn/
new/content/view/25873/81/ (last accessed 10
December 2008).
352 Xinhua News Agency, ‘CNOOC signs
PSC contract with Cambodia’, 11 June 2007;
Dow Jones Energy Service, ‘Cambodia OKs
CNOOC Invest In Oil Production’, 6 July 2006;
Ker Munthit, ‘Cambodia says Asian, European
companies are flocking to the country in searchof oil,’ 16 January 2007.
353 Global Witness investigations, 2008.
354 PT Medco website, http://www.
medcoenergi.com/page.asp?id=210027 (lastaccessed 19 Sept 2008).
355 Ibid.
356 Global Witness wrote a letter to ATIPetroleum in October 2008 to ask for commentson the main issues raised in this report asinvolve or relate to the company. At the time of
the report’s publication, Global Witness had notreceived a response.
357 ATI Group website, http://www.atipetroleum.com/about.html (last accessed 15
December 2008).
358 ATI Petroleum website, http://www.
atipetroleum.com (last accessed 25 September2008); ATI Petroleum press release, 11 January
2008, http://www.atipetroleum.com/press.html(last accessed 25 September 2008).
359 Global Witness wrote a letter to Mr Zhang

Gouhui in January 2009 to ask for comments on
the main issues raised in this report as involveor relate to him. At the time of the report’s
publication, Global Witness had not received a
response.
360 Upstream, ‘Cambodia Block Lure for China’,
9 November 2007.
361 Interview with an oil official, 2008.
362 BP Exploration (Angola) Ltd, Annual Reportto Companies House, 31 December 1999, p. 11.
363 Interviews with industry analysts, 2008; PT
Medco, Annual Report 2007, p. 50.
364 Presentation by Men Den, ‘National
Petroleum Policy and Petroleum Promotions
and Contract’, 21-25 February 2006, http://
www.ccop.or.th/ppm/document/CAWS6/CAWS6DOC02_menden.pdf;
365 PT Medco, ‘Annual Report’, 2007, p. 61;
PT Medco website, http://www.medcoenergi.
com/page.asp?id=210027 (last accessed 19
September 2008)
366 PT Medco announcement, ‘Cambodia –Block E’, 1 October 2006, www.medcoenergi.
com/page.asp?id=210026 (last accessed 10
December 2008).
367 PT Medco website, http://www.
medcoenergi.com/page.asp?id=210027 (lastaccessed 19 September 2008).
368 PT Medco, ‘Annual Report 2007’, p. 50.
369 Ministry of Economy and Finance, ‘Tableau
des Opérations Financières de l’Etat’, non-tax
revenue from mining concessions, 2006.
370 PT Medco website, http://www.
medcoenergi.com/page.asp?id=210026 (lastaccessed 8 December 2008); PT Medco,‘Annual Report 2007’, p. 50; Ministry of
Economy and Finance, ‘Tableau des Opérations
Financières de l’Etat’, non-tax revenue frommining concessions, 2006 and 2007.
371 Rigzone, ‘Indocan Resources applies for
Cambodian Exploration Rights’, 10 October
2005.
372 George Mcleod, ‘Cambodia finds oil andchanging fortunes’, The Bangkok Post, 17
December 2006.
373 Asian Development Bank, ‘The Tonle Sap
Initiative: Future Solutions Now’, 13 December
2007, p. 2, http://www.adb.org/Projects/
Tonle_Sap/basin.asp (last accessed 9 December2008).
374 CCOP website, ‘Cambodia–present status’,
http://www.ccop.or.th/epf/cambodia/cambodia_
status.html (last accessed on 27 October 2008).
375 UNESCO, http://portal.unesco.org/
en/ev.php-URL_ID=9765&URL_DO=DO_
TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
376 UNEP, ‘A Global Overview of Wetland andMarine Protected Areas on the World Heritage
List’, http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wh/reviews/
wetlands/t11.htm; www.undp.org/gef/05/
documents/writeups_doc/bio/Cambodia_
TonleSap.doc; UNDP, TonleSap Conservation
Project’, p. 1, http://www.un.org.kh/undp/
resources/publications/projectSummary/tscp.
pdf; 2007 IUNC Red List of Threatened Species,
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.
php/40235/summ and http://www.iucnredlist.
org/search/details.php/15944/summ (all lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
377 Royal Government of Cambodia, ‘Royal
Decree on the Establishment and Managementof the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve’, 2001.
378 Oxfam America, ‘Keeping Community
Fisheries Afloat in Cambodia’, http://www.
oxfamamericOxfam America.org/workspaces/
where_we_work/east_asia/news_publications/art6783.html (last accessed 10 December 2008).
379 Asian Development Bank, ‘Conservation

Initiative to Protect Resources and Livelihoods in
Cambodia’s Tonle Sap’, 21 November 2002, http://
www.adb.org/Documents/News/2002/nr2002217.
asp (last accessed 10 December 2008).
380 Asian Development Bank website, http://
www.Asian Development Bank.org/Projects/
Tonle_Sap/basin.asp (last accessed 10
December 2008); Fisheries Action Coalition
Team, Sithirith M., ‘The Tonle Sap and its
Fisheries: a Case in Cambodia’, p. 7, http://
www.fact.org.kh/Download per cent20online/
fisheriesmanagement.pdf; Asian Development
Bank, ‘Conservation Initiative to Protect
Resources and Livelihoods in Cambodia’s Tonle
Sap’, 21 November 2002, http://www.adb.org/
Documents/News/2002/nr2002217.asp (lastaccessed 10 December 2008); Andrew Nette,‘Cambodia: Dwindling Fish Stocks Threaten
Food Security’, IPS, 17 April 2008.
381 Asian Development Bank, ‘Report andRecommendation of the President of theBoard of Directors on a Proposed Loan andtechnical Assistance Grant to the Kingdom of
Cambodia for the Tonle Sap Environmental
Management Project’, p. 1, http://www.adb.
org/Documents/RRPs/CAM/RRP_CAM_33418.
pdf; Asian Development Bank, ‘Proposed
Asian Development Fund Grant Kingdom of
Cambodia: Tonle Sap Sustainable Livelihoods
Project’, 2005, p. 2, http://www.adb.org/
Documents/RRPs/CAM/39603-CAM-RRP.pdf(both last accessed 10 December 2008).
382 Global Witness interview with a local
resident, Pursat Province, 6 August 2008.
383 Global Witness interview with an oil official,
2008.
384 Global Witness field observations, 2008.
385 Global Witness interview with a local
resident, Pursat Province, 6 August 2008.
386 Global Witness investigations, 2008.
387 AFP, ‘Cambodia ‘Set to Probe for Oil’despite Environment Worries’, 12 October
2007, http://afp.google.com/article/
ALeqM5iDWu8uQKvc0wgWBIsT-TEHo4vwMQ(last accessed 10 December 2008).
388 International Herald Tribune, ‘Cambodia
forms body to deal with prospect of onshore oilin Tonle Sap lake’, October 12 2007 http://www.
iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/12/asia/AS-GENCambodia-Onshore-Oil.php (last accessed 10
December 2008).
389 Monterrey Consensus, International
Conference on Financing for Development,
18-22 March 2002, http://www.un.org/esa/
ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
390 Yash Ghai’s Statement to the UN Human
Rights Council, 26 September 2006.
391 See for example the websites of the UK’s
Department for International Development,
the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank,France’s Agence Francais de Developpement,
the International Monetary Fund, Japan
International Cooperation Agency.
392 United Nations, ‘Declaration on the
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Cambodia,’in ‘Agreements on a Comprehensive Political
Settlement of the Cambodia Conflict’, 23
October 1991.
393 Heng Reaksmey, ‘Cambodia Awarded
Nearly $1 Billion in Aid’, VOA Khmer, 5 December
2008; AFP, ‘International Donors Pledge Nearly$1 Billion To Cambodia’, 5 December 2008.
394 Hun Sen, ‘Opening remarks at the
Cambodian Consultative Group Meeting, Phnom
Penh, 6 December 2004’, http://www.cdc-crdb.
gov.kh/cdc/7cg_meeting/7cg_document/
opening_remark_hunsen_eng.htm (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 200967

Endnotes

395 Harold Mathisen, ‘Addressing Corruption
in Fragile States: what role for donors?’, U4
Resource Centre, 2007, http://www.u4.no/document/u4-issue/u4_issue1_2007_fragile_states.pdf (last accessed 10 December 2008).
396 Duncan Gillison and Kay Kimsong, ‘A
Decade of Donor Meetings: Donor Discontent
May Not Lessen Donor Largesse’, The
Cambodia Daily, 3 March 2007.
397 Xinhua News Agency, ‘Cambodian anticorruption law to be submitted to parliament for
approval’, 25 August 2008.

398 The Phnom Penh Post, ‘Anti-graft
legislation in sight: govt’, 10 September 2008.
399 Global Witness meeting with DFID,
Bangkok, June 2007.
400 Global Witness meeting with DFID,
November 2007.
401 Personal communications with NGO
workers, 2008.
402 Global Witness meetings with donors, 2008.
403 Total money given out, 1997-2006: The
Cambodia Aid Effectiveness Report 2007, Annex
6, Table 1, ‘Development Partner Disbursements
1992-2006’, http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/
first_cdcf/aer_report/annex_vi.htm; Indicative
figure for 2007: ‘Multi-Year Indicative Funding
Framework 2007-2009’, http://www.cdc-crdb.
gov.kh/cdc/first_cdcf/session4/myiff2007-2009.
htm (all last accessed 10 December 2008).
404 GTZ, ‘Overview of Government – Donor
Coordination Events, Cambodia 1992 – 2005’,
p. 8, http://www.donorplatform.org/component/
option,com_docman/Itemid,/task,doc_
download/gid,313/.
405 ‘Cambodia Consultative Group Meeting,
19-21 June 2002: United Kingdom Brief, http://
www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/statement_united_
kingdom.htm (last accessed 10 December2008).
406 Statement of the Presidency, on behalf ofthe European Union, at the Consultative Group
Meeting on Cambodia, June 19-21 2002, inPhnom Penh’, http://www.cdc-crdb
gov.kh/cdc/statement_behalt_european.htm;‘Executive Summary’ in ‘NGO Statement to the2002 Consultative Group Meeting on Cambodia,
Phnom Penh, 19-21 June, 2002’, http://www.
ngoforum.org.kh/Development/Docs/ngo_2002/1.
htm (all last accessed 10 December 2008).
407 ‘Cambodia Consultative Group Meeting,Phnom Penh, 19-21 June, 2002: Denmark briefon Specific Areas’, http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/
cdc/denmark_specific_areas.htm (last accessed
10 December 2008).
408 ‘Cambodia Consultative Group Meeting, 1921 June 2002: United Kingdom Brief’, http://www.
cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/statement_united_kingdom.
htm (last accessed 10 December 2008).
409 ‘Executive Summary’ in ‘NGO Statement to the2002 Consultative Group Meeting on Cambodia,
Phnom Penh, 19-21 June, 2002’, http://www.
ngoforum.org.kh/Development/Docs/ngo_2002/1.
htm (last accessed 10 December 2008).
410 ‘Cambodia banking on donors for annual
handout after a troubled year, AFP, 12 June 2002.
411 Hun Sen, ‘Opening address at the
Cambodia Consultative Group Meeting, Phnom
Penh, 20 June 2002’, http://www.camnet.com.
kh/ocm/government/government127.htm (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).

412 ‘2002 Cambodia Consultation Group
Meeting: Priority Areas for Joint Monitoring’,
http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/priority_areas.
htm (last accessed 10 December 2008).
413 ‘Consultative Group meeting: Presentationby H.E. Sok An’, 6 December 2004, http://
www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/7cg_meeting/7cg_

68

document/speak_not_sokan_eng.htm (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
414 ‘Promoting Good Governance: Fighting
Corruption And Increasing Accountability’,
Remarks on Behalf of the Donor Community
by the Ambassador of the United States, CG
Meetings, 6 December 2004, http://www.cdccrdb.gov.kh/cdc/7cg_meeting/7cg_document/
fighting_corrupton_usa_eng.htm (last accessed
10 December 2008).
415 Cambodia: 7th Consultative Group Meeting,Phnom Penh, 6-7 December 2004, ‘Concluding
Remarks by Co-Chair, Ian C. Porter, World BankCountry Director for Cambodia’, http://www.cdccrdb.gov.kh/cdc/7cg_meeting/7cg_document/
concluding_remark_wb.htm (last accessed 10
December 2008).
416 Main Statement of NGOs to the 2004
Consultative Group Meeting, http://www.
ngoforum.org.kh/Development/Docs/CG%20
2004/main_statment.htm (last accessed 10
December 2008).
417 World Bank, ‘Cambodia at the Crossroads’,
2004, p.3, p. 24, http://siteresources.worldbank.
org/INTCAMBODIA/Resources/Overview.pdf(last accessed 10 December 2008).
418 Main Statement of NGOs to the 2004
Consultative Group Meeting, http://www.
ngoforum.org.kh/Development/Docs/CG%20
2004/main_statment.htm (last accessed 10
December 2008).
419 Liam Cochrane, ‘Cambodia takes scolding,$500 million from donors’, The Phnom Penh
Post, 17 December 2004.
420 ‘Consultative Group meeting: Presentationby H.E. Sok An’, 6 December 2004, http://
www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/7cg_meeting/7cg_
document/speak_not_sokan_eng.htm (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
421 Hun Sen, ‘Opening remarks at the
Cambodian Consultative Group Meeting, Phnom
Penh, 6 December 2004’, http://www.cdc-crdb.
gov.kh/cdc/7cg_meeting/7cg_document/
opening_remark_hunsen_eng.htm (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
422 Liam Cochrane, ‘Cambodia takes scolding,$500 million from donors’, The Phnom Penh
Post, 17 December 2004.
423 ‘2004 CG Monitoring Indicators’, http://
www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/7cg_meeting/7cg_
document/2004cg_monitoring.htm; Annex:‘2004 CG Monitoring Indicators: Annex’, http://
www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/7cg_meeting/7cg_
document/2004cg_monitoring_annex.htm (bothlast accessed 10 December 2008).
424 Consultative Group Remarks Delivered by
US Ambassador Joseph A. Mussomeli on Behalfof the Donor Community ‘Concrete Steps forFighting Corruption’, 2 March 2006, http://www.
cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/8cg_meeting/session3/
delivered_usa_eng.htm (last accessed 10
December 2008).
425 Consultative Group Meeting for Cambodia,
2-3 March 2006, ‘Joint Donor Statement on
Natural Resources Management, Land andAgriculture by the German Representative’,
http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/8cg_meeting/session3/joint_german_eng.htm (last accessed
10 December 2008).
426 Ibid.
427 Ibid.
428 Letter quoted in ‘Human rights groups
reprove government’s benefactors’, The Phnom
Penh Post, 24 February 2006.
429 Global Witness wrote a letter to Keat Chhon in
October 2008 to ask for his comments on the main
issues raised in this report as involve or relate tohim. At the time of the report’s publication, Global
Witness had not received a response.

Country for Sale | A report by Global Witness | February 2009

430 Charles McDermid and Vong Sokheng,‘RGC counts $601 million blessings’, The Phnom
Penh Post, 10 March 2006
431 Hun Sen, ‘Opening Address at the
Cambodia Consultative Group Meeting, 2 March
2006’, http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/8cg_
meeting/session1/opening_address_hunsen.htm(last accessed 10 December 2008).
432 Items for change, 2006: ‘Joint Monitoring
Indicators for 8th CG Meeting’, http://www.
cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/8cg_meeting/session3/
yanara_jmis_final_eng.htm (last accessed 10
December 2008).
433 ‘Development Partner’s Consensus
Statement On Governance For The Cambodian
Development Cooperation Forum, 19-20 June
2007’, http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/first_cdcf/
session1/consensus_statement.htm (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
434 ‘1st Cambodia Development Cooperation
Forum 19-20 June 2007: Statement on
Agriculture and Natural Resources Management,
Mr. Michael Brownell, Director, Southeast Asia
Programme, CIDA’, http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/
cdc/first_cdcf/session1/statement_cida.htm (lastaccessed 10 December 2008).
435 Global Witness, ‘Cambodia’s Family Trees’,
June 2007.
436 ‘First Cambodia Development Cooperation
Forum, Phnom Penh, June 19-20, 2007:
Opening Statement by Lead Development
Partner Coordinator, Ian C. Porter, Country
Director for Cambodia, World Bank’, http://www.
cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/first_cdcf/opening_session/statement_wb.htm (last accessed 10 December2008).
437 Quoted in Cat Barton and Vong Sokheng,‘$690 million: pledges, promises and faintpraise’, The Phnom Penh Post, 29 June 2007.
438 Cat Barton, ‘Government deeds to face CG’,
The Phnom Penh Post, 15 June 2007.
439 Hun Sen, ‘Opening Address at the First
Cambodia Development Cooperation Forum,
19 June 2007’, http://www.cdc-crdb.gov.kh/cdc/
first_cdcf/opening_session/open_hunsen_eng.
htm (last accessed 10 December 2008).
440 AFP, ‘Cambodia boosts aid request to 689
million dollars’, 20 June 2007.

CHAPter one | Cambodia’s extractive industries: the stakes are highGlobal Witness is a UK-based non-governmental organisation
which investigates the role of natural resources in funding
conflict and corruption around the world.
References to ‘Global Witness’ above and in the body of thisreport are to Global Witness Limited, a company limited byguarantee and registered in England and Wales.
This report is compiled, published and distributed by Global
Witness Publishing Inc. from the results of the investigations
carried out by Global Witness Limited and is used to brief
governments, inter-governmental organisations, civil society andthe media.

The conclusions in this report are based on results from Global
Witness’ use of i2 Limited’s award-winning software, which isused as standard by enforcement and intelligence agencies
worldwide. The software allows organisations to undertake
complex investigations involving huge and varied datasets,
providing visualisation and analysis tools which are used by 1500
organisations in 90 countries. i2 Limited has very generously
supplied this software to Global Witness, along with intensive
support and consultancy.

Global Witness Publishing Inc
Presidential Plaza
900 19th St., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Email: mail@globalwitness.org
ISBN 0-9796847-8-1© Global Witness Publishing Inc. 2009

The real challenge comes in generating the political will from thecountry’s international donors to challenge some of the entrenchedinterests which are currently being served by the status quo –a political will that has been singularly lacking to dateFOR SALE
Forests!

Have you got somecash to invest?
Want a quick return?
No questions asked?
• Exclusive investment
opportunityLand!

• Beautiful location with lush
countryside and scenic
views• Priced for a quick sale
• Discretion guaranteed• No unwanted tenants• Cash offers welcome

Sand!

Contact us NOW!

A unique opportunity – what are you waiting for?
www.countryforsale.net