Land acquisition for proposed aerotropolis in Kedah, Malaysia

A proposed aerotropolis in Malaysia, KXP AirportCity, is one of a number of strategic infrastructure projects under the Northern Corridor Economic Region (NCER) Strategic Development Plan 2021-2025. The project, also referred to as Kedah Aerotropolis, comprises a new airport, Kulim International Airport and Sidam Logistics, Aerospace and Manufacturing Hub (SLAM). The Kedah Aerotropolis page on the NCER website describes an aerotropolis as ‘a metropolitan subregion whose infrastructure, land use and economy are centred on an airport’. It states that the proposed development would take up 9,841 acres (3,983 hectares) of land and that ‘KXP has readily available land that can cater for its expansion for the next 20 to 50 years’. Images in the sildeshow below show: a map of the proposed KXP AirportCity site with associated road development including a new expressway interchange, an aerial image with a digitised boundary of the proposed site, predominantly consisting of farmland, and a Kedah Aerotropolis infographic.

The Kedah state government appointed KXP AirportCity Holdings (KAHSB) to manage and coordinate construction of Kulim Airport. In February 2020, after witnessed a signing ceremony between the CEO of KAHSB and Aeroport de Paris Ingenierie (ADPI), the firm appointed to draw up a development master plan for KXP, Kedah Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) Mukhriz Mahathir invited airport investors, operators and concession holders to invest in the project. He said “The risks of uncertainties regarding land acquisition have been settled” and announced that 3,982 hectares of land had been gazetted to KXP and the Federal Government had approved a “large loan facility” for Kedah to acquire the land, currently belonging to private owners.

But land acquisition for KXP AirportCity met with a protest by villagers concerned they would lose their land and livelihoods. Many Pantai Cicar villagers were concerned that land they had lived on for almost a century could be lost as it was within the area earmarked for construction of the airport city project. On 28th February 2020 about 300 residents of Pantai Cicar village gathered in front of the mosque to protest against land acquisition for the proposed KXP project. The chairman of a village action committee said the earmarked land included more than 200 houses, the mosque that had been built by the community and the cemetary where their ancestors were buried. Implementation of the airport project would impact upon residents whose main livelihoods are from rubber tapping, working on palm plantations and self-employment.

On 28th February 2020 about residents of Pantai Cicar village protested against proposed construction of KXP AirportCity / Kulim Airport in their village, Sinar Hinan, 2nd March 2020

A video of the 28th February protest against taking Pantai Cicar village land for KXP AirportCity shows a large gathering of people. Some of the banners at the protest are written in English and read:

OUR LAND FOR NEXT GENERATION AND NOT FOR NEW AIRPORT, WHY NEED TO CONSTRUCT NEW AIRPORT AT TRADITIONAL VILLAGES

DON’T TAKE OUR BELOVED VILLAGE, AVOID THE KXP, FROM OUR VILLAGE, MOVE THE KXP TO THE PKNK OWN PROPERTY

DON’T DISTURB OUR COMMUNITY WITH NEW AIRPORT PROJECT

OUR LAND FOR NEXT GENERATION AND NOT FOR NEW KXP CITY & AIRPORT

WE LOVE STAY UNITY. PLEASE DON’T DEVIDE US WITH SPLIT SETTLEMENT, WE DO NOT NEED NEW AIRPORT AT THIS MOMENT

WE LOVE STAY UNITY. PLEASE DON’T DEVIDE US WITH SPLIT SETTLEMENT, DEALING WITH BIAS NOT OUR CULTURE!

At the time of the protest preparations were underway to hand over a memorandum containing almost 1,000 residents’ signatures to the state government. In addition to Pantai Cicar several nearby villages were also listed in the proposed land acquisition: Kuala Sedim, Jerung, Kemumbong, Lubuk Kiab, Batu Pekaka and Tanah Licin. The local government and housing committee chairman said the Kedah state government would investigate and review the project’s impact on the environment, saying planning was just beginning and there would be a discussion session.

Since a Kulim airport project was being considered in 2014 there has been an emphasis on potential air cargo operations. In December 2014 Mukhriz said the Kedah state government planned to construct an ‘aerocity’ at the proposed Kulim Airport; an industrial and business area, located on what was at that juncture specified as a 600 hectare airport precinct, would “accommodate all industries related to air transportation”. In March 2015 Mukhriz said Kulim Airport would initially operate as a cargo facility. In November 2020 KXP was described as ‘an airport city that will be an integral part of the Kedah Aerotropolis economic region driven by intermodal connectivity focussing on cargo, logistics and industrial development’. It is envisaged that Kulim Airport’s cargo facilities and the development of the aerotropolis will be complemented by the Sidam Logistics, Aerospace and Manufacturing Hub (SLAM).

Allegations of land encroachment for Anambra Airport City/Cargo Airport

A large area of farmland was cleared for an airport city/cargo airport in Anambra, southern Nigeria and neighbouring communities complain of expansion of the project site and land grabbing. Two satellite images of the site show major changes over a four year period. The image on the left shows the airport site in January 2016, before announcement of the project, containing many plots of farmland. On the right, an image dated February 2020 shows a large expanse of farmland has been cleared for Anambra Airport City runway and other facilities.

Slide bar in the middle of the two images to see changes to landscape from clearing farmland for airport construction

The Anambra Airport City project, also also referred to as Umueri Airport City and Anambra Cargo Airport, was launched in April 2017. A two-runway airport with an airport hotel, business park, international convention centre along with aviation fuel and aircraft maintenance facilities, costing more than USD2.2 billion was announced by the governor of Anambra State, Willie Obiano. Two years later a large expanse of land had been cleared but little work had been done on the site. Igbo Renaissance Council stated that the employment for local people that was promised had not materialized and residents whose homes had been razed to make way for the project had been left ‘dejected and depressed with no sign of hope on the horizon’.

In July 2020 – in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, with airports that had been closed since March only slowly recommencing operations – residents of several communities around the Anmbra Airport site complained that government agents responsible for executing the project were encroaching beyond the boundary of the land area that had been allocated. People of Umuopo, Umuinu and Enuagu kindreds in Umueri, north of the airport site, stated that they were being dispossessed of their remaining portions of land and had been “thrown into pains and agony“. They said the government was deliberately making them refugees on their own land. Community investigation revealed that unscupulous individuals were annexing their land and they called on the state government for help, stating:

“By extending their hand into other portions of our land, what does the government expect us to survive with as we are just farmers? We have written, we have cried, we have pleaded and we have engaged in all forms of diplomacy to demand that government restricts itself to the agreed portion of land, all to no avail.”

It was also reported that residents of Ifite Nteje, a community to the south of the Anambra airport project, were suffering from violence meted out by youths who had seized communal land. A band of youths had ‘unleashed mayhem on the community, sacking villagers from their homes’. People opposing sale of their communal land had been beaten with many being injured and homes had been burned down. Members of the community said the crisis had ‘brought hunger and famine as they no longer have land for farming’ and ‘they dared no go to their farms anymore for fear of being maimed, while the women among them were raped’. One woman, a widow, said their formerly peaceful community had been taken over by violence and she was one of many women who no longer had land to farm that they needed to feed their families.

On 14th October 2020 it was reported that youths from the Umueri community had dispersed bulldozers that had been had been stationed, without notice, to demolish farmland and privately owned agro-investments. A farm owner maintained his affected farm was not within the airport area and appealed for intervention from the state government to halt trespassing. On 19th October residents of Umuopo, Enuagu and Umuinu protested against alleged encroachment on their land, lighting a bonfire and blocking the road to the airport site. Some of the placards read: “We can’t be refugees and IDPs in our own land”; “We’re farmers why collect our land to build housing estate”; “Anambra State government go to the portion of land given for the airport.” The protestors described the government’s action as a deliberate attempt to impoverish the people, who were predominantly farmers. The Chairman of Ifite Umueri Community claimed that they had given the government 729.60 hectares for the airport project, but over 1,901 hectares had been taken.

Obiano, Anambra State governor, continues to support the Anambra Airport project, saying it will have the second longest runway in Nigeria after Murtala Muhammed Airport in Lagos. Then on 4th November the Anambra State Government set aside Naira 5.8 billion (USD15.2 million) for completion of the Anambra Airport project during the presentation of the 2021 Appropriation Bill.

cluster of airport-related conflicts in Nigeria

Information about Anambra Airport City/Cargo Airport and its impact on neighbouring communities is a new addition to a cluster of similar airport projects in southern Nigeria, all of which are documented and analyzed in the Map of Airport-Related Injustice and Resistance, a partnership project coordinated by EnvJustice and the Stay Grounded Network. Land has been cleared to make way for proposed cargo airports in Ekiti, Ogun, Obudu and Ebonyi. In all four cases bulldozers arrived without warning and began destroying people’s farmland and crops to make way for airport construction.

In the case of the proposed Ekiti airport bulldozers ripped down trees and cleared farmland before even consulting affected farm owners from five villages. Farmers succeeded in stalling the project and secured a major court victory with all their claims against the state government being vindicated. Hundreds of farmers protested against land-grabbing for a cargo airport in Ogun State. In 2018 it was reported that 5,000 farmers were affected by the project and some had been intimidated and their crops bulldozed. Earth moving equipment began destroying farmland and felling trees in three Obudu villages where land has been earmarked for an airport, flouting project planning and land procedures. Allocation of a large land area for a proposed cargo airport in Ebonyi cargo triggered protests by people facing displacement from their ancestral homes and farmland. Bulldozers began clearing land and destroying crops and landowners raised alarm over imminent hunger in their community.

NAINA (Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area) shrinks and fragments

A plan for a major city extending over up to 600 square kilometres around a new airport in Navi Mumbai diverges from the aerotopolis model of development; the land area and number of villages included in the jurisdiction has reduced.

NAINA (Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area) originated when the Indian government granted clearance for a second Mumbai airport, in Navi Mumbai. One of the conditions for approval of the new airport was ‘that the Master Plan, Development Plan of Navi Mumbai shall be revised and recast in view of the Airport development and to avoid unplanned haphazard growth around the proposed airport’. Factors considered in assessment of the Influence Zone around the new airport included ‘the requirements of International Airport as per the aerotropolis concept’, connectivity and operation of various planning authorities in the region. Appointment of a ‘Planning Authority for a Planned and orderly development within a radial distance of about 25km from the proposed International Airport site’ was deemed necessary. On 10th January 2013 City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) was appointed as the Special Planning Authority.

Map of NAINA (Navi Mumbai Airport Notified Area), 2013
Map of NAINA, CIDCO, 10th January 2013

Even at this stage it was evident that NAINA (the pink shaded areas on the map) diverged from the aerotropolis model of development.  The designated NAINA area was fragmented and not even contiguous with the Navi Mumbai International Airport site (shown on the map as an orange rectangular area to the west of NAINA). The new jurisdiction, encompassing 270 villages in six talukas in the Raigad and Thane districts, a mix of peri-urban and rural areas, was not the recilinear greenfield site of an archetypal aerotropolis.

A large land area was designated for NAINA, estimated at between 550 and 600 square kilometres (1.5 times larger than the city of Mumbai). Inception of NAINA transferred planning powers to CIDCO; notification specified that all proposals for development permission would henceforth be processed by CIDCO. Land acquisition for the initial phase met with opposition. In 2014, while a survey was being undertaken, residents of the 23 villages notified for development in phase 1 of NAINA (to the east of the Navi Mumbai International Airport site) voiced strong objection saying they were not informed about the project which would adversely affect agriculture, their main source of income.

A spokesperson for the 23 villages said people did not trust CIDCO because farmers who lost their land in the 1970s, for development of Navi Mumbai city, had still not been compensated. Affected families had been promised employment but many were still doing odd jobs to make ends meet. Villagers also raised objections to CIDCO’s practice of providing information in English, a language most of them did not understand. A hearing was rocked by protest and villagers claimed that developers’ land was being treated preferentially, left untouched while theirs was earmarked for public utility purposes.

Map of 23 villages in NAINA phase 1. Source: Navi Mumbai International Airport – Unofficial, 10th February 2015

A rural tabula rasa and highway urbanisation

In an article published in Economic & Political WeeklyFragmentary Planning and Spaced of Opportunity in Peri-urban Mumbai‘ Malini Krishnankutty describes how the Interim Development Plan (IDP) prepared for the first phase of NAINA, encompassing 23 villages, ‘reinforces the planners’ lack of deep engagement with the rural’. NAINA’s role of amassing land for implementation of its master plan exemplified modern urban planning’s disregard for rural areas. Such planning interventions viewed land merely as a resource, the rural as a ‘tabula rasa’ destined for urban development, villages from ‘the narrow perspective of providing very specific social amenities or transport infrastructure’, thus rural villagers and their ways of life were rendered invisible. With regard to NAINA she writes:

‘Once again what is visible here is a superimposition of a vision of a city on these villages, a view of urbanisation that is a foregone conclusion, and a lack of engagement with the future of the villagers, once they are divorced from their lands and livelihoods. There is also no engagement of planners with any idea of conservation, tangible or intangible or of productive farmlands’.

NAINA’s proximity to the Navi Mumbai International Airport site had given impetus to speculative interest in the area. The airport and several major road and rail projects in the pipeline – Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL), Delhi-Mumbai Insustrial Corridor (DMIC) and a road + rail corridor extending from Virar to Alibaug linking peri-urban regions in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) – all require land acquisition by the government that ‘inevitably means dispossession and loss of livelihoods’. In addition these infrastructure projects activate the ‘highway urbanisation’ that is prevalent throught India and the global south. Announcement of new infrastructure triggers commodification of land, opening up rural areas for urban development.

During June, July and August 2015 journalist Rahul Batia travelled along the path of the Virar – Alibaug road and rail corridor running through NAINA, talking with people affected by land acquisition for the project. The route of the road, a transportation corridor 126 kilometres in length and 120 metres wide, stretches from the city of Virar to the north of Navi Mumbai, running southwards through NAINA then curving easwards to the coastal town of Alibaug. On the interim development plan the transportation corridor appeared as ‘a thick white strip snaking through residential areas, growth centres, forests, and urban villages’. Twelve kilometres of the road were within NAINA phase 1 and impacts upon the 23 villages within this area loomed.

NAINA map showing route of road through Nere and other villages
NAINA map showing route of road through Nere and other villages. Source: cidco naina

The poorest locals were the most perturbed by the ‘corridor of uncertainty’, believing it would ‘hit them hardest’; some were convinced that they had been ‘singled out for some kind of punishment’. There were allegations that the route being marked out for the road curved to avoid homes and land owned by rich and influential residents. Adivasis at a hamlet in Nere, one of the affected villages, came across a mark painted into an approach road and thought it was connected with the new transport corridor. The sarpanch (head of village) of Nere knew little about the road except that people would be relocated to make way for it, and did not know where they would go to. He had not seen the map of NAINA. Pointing out a notice with a yellow diagonal stripe marked ‘CH 51554’ he said, “They came here, made markings, and left. Nobody told us anything.” Inhabitants of the 23 villages in the first phase of NAINA lived in uneasy uncertainty. NAINA officials were holding consultations but many affected residents complained of a ‘disconcerting lack of information available about exactly what shape NAINA will take’ and said that rates for people wanting to build on their land were ‘exhorbitant’.

Opposition to land-pooling scheme

Unrest over NAINA plans continued into in 2016. In February farmers of 111 villages opposing NAINA united to form a committee, Shektari Utkarsh Samiti, and marched from Khargar to Panvel. They voiced many demands for changes to NAINA policy, including that the amount of their land to be given to CIDCO under the land pooling scheme, whereby groups of land owners hand over their land to a government agency for development of infrastructure, with a proportion of the land being returned to the landowners, be decreased from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. In September representatives of 36 villages in the Panvel taluka (administrative district) immediately to the east of the Navi Mumbai International Airport site, said they did not want to be part of NAINA and wished to be excluded from the plans and instead be included in the Panvel municipality. Together these villages cover 69.6 square kilometres, a substantial proportion of the total NAINA area.

Rajendra Patil, a representative of one of the villages, Kolkhe, said that waiting for finalization of NAINA plans had stalled development in their villages, and that the development model was tilted in favour of big developers whilst working against the interests of local farmers. Anesh Dawale, a former head of Shivkar village, said of NAINA’s land pooling scheme: “It is just a garb to release farm lands held by villagers to the builder lobby”. In particular, local people were of the view that the minimum land pooling norm of 18 acres favoured construction magnates. Dawale also said that the curbing of village council powers under NAINA had a negative impact on civic services, a view shared by Panvel’s MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly), Prashant Thakur.

In December 2016 it was reported that 14 villages on the outskirts of Navi Mumbai and included in NAINA feared losing their land due to the project. Community representatives said that authorities were reserving plots of land without consulting local people and that inclusion in NAINA was blocking development in their villages, in contrast with surrounding areas that were flourishing. The 14 villages repeated demands first made in July 2015 to be merged with the civic body NMMC (Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation) instead.

NAINA area reduced

NAINA was described as ‘potentially the biggest smart city in India‘ at approximately 600 square kilometres in November 2014 but by May 2016 CIDCO appeared to favour polycentric urbanisation, in the form of ‘30 smart cities‘, Special Economic Zones and growth centres. CIDCO officials estimated that, in its initial years of operation, the new airport would handle two to three million passengers, a fraction of the widely publicised projection of 20 million passengers per year in the first phase, rising to 90 million when expanded to full capacity. By July 2017 many parcels of land in the 1st phase of NAINA had not been acquired due to opposition from villagers. The state urban development department had approved development of the 23 villages three months previously but the development plan was still not publicly available.

NAINA Modified Draft Development Plan, September 2017
Map of NAINA, reduced to 474 sq km, September 2017. Source: CIDCO

CIDCO’s Modified Draft Development Plan for NAINA, published in September 2017, anticipates an inflow of passengers from the new airport, but there is no mention of mulitiple millions of passengers annually. The plan does not include the aviation-dependent tourism or freight facilities that form the mainstay of an aerotropolis. The plan details a substantial reduction in NAINA’s footprint and a map shows further fragmentation of the designated areas. Several villages were transferred to other jurisdictions, becoming part of Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (MSRDC – a development plan for the area along the Mumbai-Pune Expressway), Matheran Eco-Sensitive zone (MESC) and Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). Thus the number of villages incorporated in the NAINA plan decreased to 224 and the land area was reduced to 474 square kilometres. 

The voluntary land-pooling scheme was causing delays, so, in April 2018, at the request of CIDCO, the state government moved to fast-track the NAINA project by way of invoking town planning scheme (TPS) provisions for compulsory participation of villagers residing in areas encompassed in the development plan. Participation in the project was made compulsory for the 23 villages in Phase 1 of NAINA. A draft plan for this 37 square kilometre pilot area was published, giving villagers just 30 days to make suggestions and objections, enabling CIDCO tosanction the scheme in three months. CIDCO also moved to expedite road building, using a fast-track TPS process, allowing a total of 21 months from announcement to execution.

Diverting water to NAINA

NAINA will take up water as well as land. CIDCO’s September 2017 Modified Draft Development Plan for NAINA calculates NAINA phase 1 water demands to be 8.33 MLD (millions of litres per day) in 2021, rising to 29.75 MLD by 2031 then reaching 45.07 MLD by 2041. New sources of water are anticipated to meet the increasing demands of NAINA and other CIDCO projects: the Balganga dam from which 150 MLD would be available for NAINA and Khopta Area (another CIDCO project) and the proposed Kondhane dam from which CIDCO expects to receive 250 MLD. The state transferred the Kondhane dam project from the water resources department to CIDCO in August 2017. The dam will draw water from the Ulhas river.

Shortage of water supplies is a perennial problem in many areas of Mumbai. In 2018 water scarcity was exacerbated by construction activity for Navi Mumbai Airport, which put pressure on water supplies impacting on surrounding communities, including those within NAINA. By May 2018 Panvel had been suffering a severe water crisis for three months. Every summer water scarcity forced residents to rely on water tankers. But in 2018 the situation was more serious. Many areas in Panvel were only receiving water on alternate days. Villages under NAINA were only getting water every three or four days. A resident of Khanda colony, Vishnu Gavali, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) requesting the court to direct civic authorities to resolve the issue. The PIL states that, under the constitution, all citizens have the right to food, water and a decent environment, and that CIDCO was failing in its duty to provide basic amenities. Gavali said “As airport work has started, a lot of water is being used for the construction activities but sadly, the locals have been neglected.” A resident of Roadpali said “Cidco has given permissions for so many upcoming projects in the city, I don’t understand how they would fulfill water needs of so many projects.”

In March 2019 residents of Panvel gathered near the CIDCO water tank premises in protest over poor and erratic water supplies, denying their fundamental rights to a basic amenity. Leader of the delegation, Apoorva Prabhu, said they had suffered water scarcity for six months and were requesting regular water supplies of least two hours daily. In September 2019, with many areas facing water shortages, CIDCO took measures to ensure that NAINA would not be affected by the water crisis. A detailed project report (DPR) on Kondhane dam, to help ensure adequate water for NAINA, was expected to be completed within a year and revive the project.

Objections to NAINA plans

On 28th June 2019 the Times of India reported that the urban development department would publish the final approved plans for NAINA and Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited MSRDC after the monsoon season. Citizens demanded the government publish the report of the planning committee on the objections and suggestions made by the public in order for there to be transparency over whether or not these concerns raised were addressed or not. Pankaj Joshi, architect and executive director of the Urban Design Institute said “Objections were raised to the government proposing industries in green zones in the metropolitan regional plan. The entire green belt will become brown if it is approved.”

Map of NAINA September 2019, area shrunk to 371 sq km.
Map of NAINA September 2019, area shrunk to 371 sq km. Source: Times of India

By September 2019 NAINA, promoted as India’s largest planned city in 2014, had shrunk to just over half its original size. The plan for a new city, spread over up to 600 square kilometres of land, had shrunk substantially, now occupying a 371 square kilometre plot. The map indicated further fragmentation of the NAINA area and the number of villages incorporated in the plan had reduced from 270 to 175. The most recent government notification granted sanction for the development plan for the remaining 152 villages covering 334 square kilometres, along with the 23 villages included in the 37 square kilometres allocated for phase 1.

Unrest among farmers affected by land acquisition for NAINA was reported again in January 2020. A protest against CIDCO had already taken place and farmers were planning further agitation. Several local leaders were raising their voices against the scheme. By 17th March CIDCO was reportedly ‘going ahead aggressively’ with implementation of NAINA, in the face of unrest by impacted people. About 10,000 farmers from the 23 villages of the first phase of NAINA were planning a demonstration. The farmers alleged that the town planning scheme was not beneficial to them and demanded a review. Vaman Shelke of NAINA Prakalpbadhit Shetkari Utkarsh Committee (NPSUC) said they were given notice if carrying out any construction work on their land, leaving them with no option but to accept the scheme. “This is a participatory scheme and we cannot be forced to join” said Shelke, explaining that farmers were demanding return of 50 per cent of developed land under the land pooling scheme instead of 40 per cent, along with additional benefits for loss of their agricultural land.

Map of Airport-related Injustice and Resistance, an introduction

Around the world communities are opposing new airports, expansion of existing airports and aerotropolis/airport city developments. A total of 67 cases have now been documented and are published on the Global map of aviation-related socio-environmental conflicts. Several cases and some of the emerging themes are outlined in this short introductory video. The map is a joint project of EnvJustice and the Stay Grounded Network.

Links to airport conflict cases mentioned in video:

Six aerotropolis-type projects added to socio-environmental conflicts map

Six more aerotropolis-type developments have been added to the Global Map of Aviation-Related Socio-Environmental Conflicts. All the projects – in the USA, Canada, Jamaica, India and China – have met with opposition from affected communities and/or environmental groups. In each case the site, or proposed site, covers a large land area. Launched in July 2019, the map is a joint project by the EnvJustice project and the Stay Grounded network. There are now 67 cases on the map. The new aerotropolis-type additions are listed below. Please click on the links to read the case reports which contain a wealth of information on the environmental and social justice impacts of the aerotropolis projects, the government bodies and firms that are responsible and how affected communities are fighting for their rights.

Northwest Florida Beaches Airport

In the USA, a private landowner stands to benefit from industrial, defence, retail and hotel development on land it owns around Northwest Florida Beaches Airport. Construction of the airport, located in the midst of forested wetlands providing a haven for black bears, red-cockaded woodpeckers and the endangered gopher tortoise, caused a decline in in spite of six environmental lawsuits. After the airport opened in 2010 a 404 hectare ‘airport city’ began taking shape on adjacent land. In December 2019 the landowner broke ground on a hotel next to the airport.

Northwest Florida Beaches Airport - aerial view
Aerial view of Northwest Florida Beaches Airport. Photo: Airport of the World, 25th May 2010 https://airportsworld.keypublishing.com/2010/05/25/first-new-us-airport-in-15-years/

Eastgate Air Cargo Facility

In California, a massive air cargo project, Eastgate Air Cargo Facility, is planned in San Bernardino, an area where residents already suffer health problems caused by high levels of air pollution from a concentration of logistics traffic. The site is 41 hectares and the project also entails new taxiways and an aircraft parking apron at San Bernardino Airport, construction of new driveways to the project site and two bridges. Hundreds of people have attended a church gathering and a hearing on the project. Workers, community and environmental groups, united under the banner SB Airport Communities, are campaigning for a ‘community benefit agreements guaranteeing well-paid, secure jobs along with measures to limit air pollution’.

Eastgate Air Cargo Facility, residents at FAA hearing
On 8th August 2019 hundreds of residents contributed their comments at Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) hearing on the air cargo project. Photo: Manny B Sandoval. Source: Inland Empire Community News http://iecn.com/hundreds-of-san-bernardino-residents-speak-out-at-faa-hearing-on-air-cargo-logistics-project-eastgate/

Hamilton Aerotropolis / AEGD

In Ontario, Canada, groundbreaking for Hamilton Aerotropolis, identified by authorities as a strategic priority in 2005 and subsequently re-named Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD), has commenced. A 555 hectare area of productive farmland around Hamilton Airport has been allocated to the project, which was approved in spite of local opposition, over many issues including the costs to taxpayers and availability of alternative sites on brownfield land, sustained over a long period.

Hamilton Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD) land use and infrastructure plan
Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD) land use and infrastructure plan. Image: City of Hamilton Airport Employment Growth District, Transportation Master Plan Implementation Update https://d3fpllf1m7bbt3.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/media/browser/2017-08-04/aegd-update-transportation-assessment-report-2017.pdf

Vernamfield Aerotropolis and Logistics Hub project

In Jamaica communities are concerned they may face forcible eviction for the proposed Vernamfield Aerotropolis. A letter sent to residents in December 2019 gave residents the impression that the “stage had been set for a massive land grab”. The total site area is 2,428 hectares of land, some of which is among the most fertile in the country and had been used to cultivate sugarcane, is a key component of a broader Logistics Hub plan which spans the southeast coast of the island.

Vernamfield Air Cargo Logistics Facility, architect's impression
Vernamfield Aerotropolis is a key component of the Jamaica Logistics Hub project. Image: Jamaica Logistics Hub, 9th February 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v5hWd9tcLc

Shivdaspura Aero City

In the Jaipur District of Rajasthan, Northern India, residents of 20 villages have organized major protests against plans for an aerotropolis-type development called Shivdaspura Aero City, a ‘greenfield airport’ (on undeveloped land) along with hotels, shopping malls, cinemas, restaurants and a cargo hub. A series of protests by farmers affected by land acquisition began in January 2018. Landholders say they have been left in lurch” unable to develop or sell their land. The site is about 2,100 hectares and approximately 80,000 people are affected by land acquisition.

Protest against Shivdaspura airport project
January 2018 protest against Shivdsapura greenfield airport. Photo: Patrika https://www.patrika.com/jaipur-news/farmers-and-residents-warned-govt-on-greenfield-airport-project-2179532/

Sanya Hongtangwan International Airport, Hainan, China

Scheduled to cover an area of 26 square kilometers on an artificial island Sanya Hongtangwan International Airport is expected to be a gateway to Southeast Asia and the South China Sea. In addition to the airport and to support its operations an aviation economic zone, seaport operation area, international aviation CBD (central business district) and industrial zone will be built. Environmental activists raised concerns over damage to wildlife including coral reefs and Chinese white dolphins, listed as ‘vulnerable’ in the on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. They achieved a partial victory, halting the airport island reclamation project for more than two years.

Illustration of the proposed new Sanya airport.
Illustration of the proposed new Sanya airport. Image: Handout. Source: South China Morning Post https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/2119921/china-puts-massive-island-airport-project-hold-over-environmental

 

New report – DeGrowth of Aviation

DeGrowth of Aviation report - cover

On 2nd December 2019, the first day of the COP25 international climate summit in Madrid, Spain, an important new report was published. Degrowth of Aviation: Reducing Air Travel in a Just Way, examines a range of possible policy instruments and strategies for degrowing (contracting) the aviation sector. This is increasingly urgent as the climate and other negative impacts of aviation are set to escalate with as many as 1,200 infrastructure projects – new airport and expansion of existing airports – underway and planned. The report is based on a flight-free conference involving 150 participants attending in person and online, held in Barcelona in July 2019, along with subsequent discussions.

In marked contrast to a plethora of articles exhorting an undefined, generalized “we” to reduce flying the report is cognizant of the global context; only about 10 per cent of the world’s people, predominantly residing in the Global North, have ever taken a flight. Within this small proportion of air travellers is an even smaller minority of wealthy, hypermobile frequent flyers. The first chapter, Reducing Emissions, critiques and dismisses illusory ‘solutions’ of biofuels and offsetting (whereby airlines claim to reduce emissions by buying carbon credits) and the purported technofix of electrically powered aircraft. Biophysical reality necessitates degrowth of the aviation sector.

The second chapter calls for elimination of tax exemptions, specifically on aviation fuel (kerosene), air tickets and VAT (value added tax), which enables aviation growth and subsequent environmental damage. Taxing aviation would boost the competitiveness of surface transport (road, rail and ship) and the resulting income stream could be used to support more sustainable transport. Chapter 3 looks at the potential of a frequent flyer levy or air miles levy to address the injustice of astonishingly high emissions from a tiny minority of frequent flyers, recognizing the complexities of tackling aeromobility inequalities within and between nations. Setting limits of aviation/flights is considered in chapter 4, focusing on capping or ending short-haul flights where alternative options exist, a measure which could constitute ‘low hanging fruit’ in climate mitigation and might lead to closure of many regional airports.

Map - Aviation related conflicts
Map of aviation related conflicts. Image credit: Judith Holzer, Stay Grounded

Chapter 5 proposes drawing a ‘Red Line for Airports’, a moratorium on new infrastructure and possibly scaling down established facilities. Hundreds of new airports and expansions of existing airports are planned and underway, many involving land acquisition resulting in displacement of entire communities. A Map of Airport Conflicts. shows more than 60 cases which have been documented and analyzed along with 300 cases which merit further investigation. Several of these airport projects are aerotropolis-type developments. Resistance against airport projects necessitates global networking, in order to avoid ‘nimby’ arguments confined to negative impacts on local communities; global solidarity spurs deeper socio-economic transformation. A number of examples of judicial processes which have successfully stopped or stalled airport projects are outlined: in Germany, France, Mexico, Bangladesh, Thailand and the US.

Chapter 6, Fostering Alternatives, looks at improving alternatives to flying, i.e. surface transportation, specifically shipping and rail. Decelerated societies, along the lines of the Slow Food movement, might be part of the solution and a comparable Slow Travel movement is emerging. The report cautions against uncritical advocacy of high-speed rail which is energy intensive, expensive and requires large areas of land. Similarly, expansion of shipping is not, in itself, wholly positive as emissions are growing and there is a high level of pollution from the heavy oil that is used. Alternative propulsion, not using fossil fuels, is already operational for some small ferries and some examples of ships powered by wind, solar and hydrogen are listed. A shift towards slower travel and surface transport could work synergistically with improvements in and increased uptake of video-conferencing technology.

Chapter 7 examines changes in the travel policies of institutions: academic and research organizations along with municipalities, cultural, public and business organizations. Flights are the largest contributor to many of such organizations’ carbon footprints so action on this issue offers the opportunity to become climate leaders. Telephone and online conferences can bring a major reduction in travel for work. In addition to obviating the need to travel through use of videoconferencing and other technologies organizations can take measures to reduce emissions from travel, such as encouraging train journeys as an alternative to flights, allowing more time for this travel which can be used for work projects.

Each of the chapters consider obstacles and disadvantages for the proposals, opening up future debate and discussions and a final chapter summarizes the report. Visit the Stay Grounded website to view and download the in-depth 52 page report along with a briefing paper, chapter summaries and illustrations. There is also a short video introducing the report, featuring some of the participants in the July 2019 DeGrowth of Aviation conference.

Global map of aviation-related socio-environmental conflicts and justice movements

A global map of socio-environmental conflicts and justice movements related to aviation-related projects includes 60 cases that have already been analyzed. The map provides a wealth of information on how people and the environment can be negatively impacted by new airports and expansion of existing airports. Affected communities contend with a multitude of injustices: eviction, land dispossession, loss of farmland and fishing grounds, destruction of ecosystems, construction work impacts and health damage from aircraft pollution and noise once airport projects become operational. More than 300 such cases around the world have been registered in the research project, conducted by the EnvJustice project and the Stay Grounded network.

Global map of aviation-related conflicts and environmental justice movements produced by The EnvJustice project of the Environmental Science and Technology Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Autonomous University of Barcelona) ICTA-UAB and the Stay Grounded network
Map of aviation-related conflicts and environmental justice movements around the world

Several aerotropolis or airport city projects, i.e. substantial commercial and/or industrial development constructed or planned on land surrounding or adjoining an airport, are documented and analyzed. Examples include Kertajati Airport and New Yogyakarta International Airport in Indonesia, both of which involved forcible eviction of communities from several villages from their homes and farmlands. In Cambodia, the government has approved a plan for a new Phnom Penh Airport, one of the world’s largest airports by land area, along with an associated ‘airport city’. The proposed site, predominantly agricultural land, encompasses land that Kandal Stueng villages have resided on for two decades, including communally held wetlands. About 2,000 families could be affected and hundreds of people have protested against the development.

In India, Andal Aerotropolis is a private airport city development that was stalled by sharecroppers protesting delays in receiving compensation for land taken for the project. Landowners from seven villages in Purandar sustained resistance against loss of their homes and farmland for a new airport since the location of the project was announced in 2016. Then in 2018 it was reported that the state government was forming a consortium to drive investment in an ‘airport city’ around the airport. Villagers’ resistance against displacement from their farmland for Bhogapuram Aerotropolis, also referred to as an ‘aerocity’, succeeded in reducing the land area allocated to the project from 6,000 hectares to 1,122 hectares, along with securing higher compensation for a group of farmers.

A plan for a new airport on the Arial Beel wetlands in Bangladesh is an example of a aerotropolis-type megaproject that was halted by mass mobilisation. A vast swath of land had been earmarked for development, 10,117 hectares for the airport and an accompanying ‘satellite city’, and the farming and fishing livelihoods of thousands of people were set to be seriously affected with wetlands paved over. The government cancelled the project after major protests, the largest of which involved 30,000 people. In the Philippines, mangroves, coastal wetlands providing a vital habitat for many species and protection from erosion and flooding, have already been destroyed to make way for the proposed Bulacan Aerotopolis which threatens to destroy fishing livelihoods. Airport projects can entail deforestation. In Nepal, the proposed Nijgadh Airport, a massive 8,000 hectare aerotropolis, raises the prospect of over 2.4 million trees being felled.

A number of airport projects shown on the map are key components of tourism development schemes that are based upon aviation dependency. A proposed new airport on the Island of Fainu, in The Maldives, is accompanied by a plan for an adjoining hotel. The project would destroy a long stretch of white sand coastline, dense forest and agricultural land, the airport and hotel projects combined swallowing up much of the small island. Another example is the Philippine island of Sicogon where, in the aftermath of the devastation wreaked by Typhoon Yolanda, developers seized upon the opportunity for tourism development, the first phase of which includes an airport specifically for tourism along with beachfront accommodation. Disaster capitalism is also evident in the Caribbean island of Barbuda where land clearance for construction of a new airport, intended to support tourism growth in particular high-end resorts, began shortly after residents were evacuated following Hurricane Irma.

The map includes two major airports built to support fossil fuel projects. Uganda’s second international airport, Hoima Airport, currently under construction, is a key component of the 29 square kilometre Kabaale Petrochemical Industrial Park. With a 3.5 kilometre length runway, capable of accommodating the world’s largest cargo aircraft, it is envisaged that in its first phase of operations Hoima Airport will handle delivery of heavy equipment for the oil refinery on the site. In a similar vein, Komo Airfield, in the southern highlands of Papua New Guinea, has the country’s longest runway and was built for delivery of heavyweight and outsize equipment for the ExxonMobil led PNG LNG (liquefied natural gas) project.

A number of cases shown on the map involve allocation of larger areas of land than would be required for aviation operations, increasing the number of people potentially facing displacement due to land acquisition, but without clear information on what the excess land might be utilized for. For example, in Nigeria the Cross River State government intends to acquire 900 hectares of land for a proposed Obudu International Passenger and Cargo Airport and people have been evicted from their homes and farmlands. In a similar case in Nigeria, bulldozers arrived without warning to clear 4,000 hectares of farmland where crops including cocoa, palm trees and bananas were cultivated for a cargo airport in Ekiti. This airport project is one instance of a successful court case where affected people secured a court victory that halted the airport project. Also in Nigeria, about 5,000 people from 20 villages could be affected by a proposed Ogun cargo airport and hundreds of farmers protested against land-grabbing.

The map of aviation-related conflicts and environmental justice movements is an ongoing project in development coordinated by the EnvJustice (ICTA-UAB) project and the Stay Grounded network. In addition to the 60 airport-related cases already included, a great many further cases have been registered as meriting further investigation. A total of 300 cases have been registered. The information gathered for the global map has been provided by a wide variety of organizations, local collectives and academics. The research team is coordinated by Rose Bridger (Stay Grounded) and Sara Mingorria (ICTA-UAB). This already substantial database and interactive map related to airports is part of Ejatlas, the biggest global inventory of socio-environmental conflicts around the world. As of 11th July 2019 2,831 cases were registered on Ejatlas and this is anticipated to increase to 3,000 cases by the end of the year.

Maps of New Mexico City International Airport (NAICM) and aerotropolis

GAAM is delighted to share an incredibly informative set of maps elucidating the complex socio-economic and environmental impacts of construction of New Mexico City International Airport (NAICM). The maps were produced by GeoComunes, a collective working with communities to use maps as an analytical tool to strengthen the struggle for defence of common goods, in collaboration with affected residents and NGOs supported by Coordinadora de Pueblos y Organizaciones del Oriente del Estado de México (CPOOEM), which supports people’s defence of land, water and culture in eastern Mexico. The NAICM site, covering over 4,431 hectares, is the waterlogged Texcoco lakebed. Aerotropolis development is planned: a specific area within the airport site and commercial and industrial development over an extensive area surrounding it.

NAICM maps

The first map, below, shows uncontrolled urbanization between 2000 and 2015, preceded by highway expansion, driven by real estate and encroaching on ejidos (communally held agricultural land) near the shores of Texcoco Lake. Landfill sites receiving waste from Mexico City have damaged farmland and polluted aquifers. The airport site is in the ‘Zona Federal’ area in the centre of the map. The existing Mexico City International Airport (officially named Benito Juárez International Airport) is shown near the bottom of the map.NAICM map 1

A perimeter fence has been erected around the NAICM Phase 1 project area. The site includes ejidal lands, in spite of assurances that the airport would be built entirely on federally-owned land. Ejidal lands were also appropriated for a highway and housing developments, and many Ejidos (land holders) were violently evicted by state security forces. Plans for Aerotropolis phase 1 include a shopping mall, hotels, industrial park, exclusive high-end housing, golf courses and a free trade zone. NAICM map 2

The third map shows satellite imagery of the three Ejido areas directly affected by airport construction. Over 330 hectares of ejidal lands, in the communities of Ixtapan, Nexquipayac and Atenco, were seized from its rightful owners by the government and now lie within the NAICM perimeter fence.NAICM map 3

Land-levelling to prepare the site for construction of the airport involved clearing saline sludge from the lakebed and toxic waste that has been dumped, polluting the Texcoco aquifer and damaging farmland. Extraction of materials for use in has had a devastating impact on sacred mountains, in the Valley of Mexico. Blasting with dynamite has damaged, forests, biodiversity, springs and archaeological remains. It is estimated that 64 million tonnes of tezontle (red volcanic rock) along with stone and other materials, carried on 400 trucks per day, will be deposited to fill in the Texcoco lakebed.NAICM map 4

Water drained from the Lake Texcoco area will be channelled into Nabo Carrillo, an artificial lake and newly created lagoons, along with water from the area east of the airport site channelled via several culverted rivers. Lying at the bottom of a downward slope the airport site is at risk of flooding from concentration of water flow in this area. The flood risk could become more severe as Texcoco lakebed is sinking at a rate of about 12 inches annually. NAICM map 5

An extensive road network linking NAICM to key urban centres is planned and under construction, encroaching on ejidal land and opening up additional land for real estate and commercial development. Many of the roads are toll roads which will generate profits for construction firms holding the concessions and thus set to benefit from the traffic flow.NAICM map 6

Data from all the maps is combined in the final map, which covers a wider geographical area revealing the extent of the urbanization that is underway and planned. See the larger version of the map for more detail. NAICM is shown within a wider context as the most important of, and the focal point for, a series of megaprojects combining to form a ‘Megalopolis’, an agglomeration of cities and other urban areas. New road and rail corridors will foster further real estate development. Mexico City already suffers chronic water shortages and springs and groundwater are over-exploited. The current model of urbanization will increase stress on water supplies and aqueducts are planned to access more distant sources.  NAICM map 7 s

All the maps of NAICM and aerotropolis plans can be seen here in their entirety and are best viewed on the largest computer screen that you can find so you can zoom in and see the intricate detail.

New mega-airport and ‘Airport City’ in Cambodia triggers land disputes

A plan for a new airport, one of the largest in the world on a 2,600 hectare site in the Kandal District of Cambodia, with an accompanying ‘Airport City’, has reignited one of the country’s fiercest land disputes.

In January the Cambodian government approved a plan for a new airport, one of the largest in the world by land area, on farmland in the Kandal Province, about 30 kilometres south of Phnom Penh. Construction of the new airport is anticipated to commence in 2019 and a 21st December 2017 document from the Council of Ministers approved an investment proposal from Cambodia Airport Investment, a joint venture between the State Secretariat of Aviation (SSCA) and Overseas Cambodia Investment Corporation (OCIC). OCIC is a private firm, one of the largest finance, infrastructure and real estate companies in Cambodia, owned by tycoon Pung Khiev Se, with a track record of financing major development projects.

The land area earmarked for the airport project, 2,600 hectares, is more than six times larger than the existing Phnom Penh Airport’s 400 hectares and considerably larger than Beijing Capital Airport, the world’s second busiest passenger airport, with a 1,480 hectare site and handling over 94 million passengers in 2016. Predominantly low-lying agricultural land, the proposed site is on the northwestern shore of a large lake, Boueng Cheung Loung. Preparing the lakeside area of the proposed site for airport construction would require land reclamation and it is thought that there is some overlap with the lake itself.

Proposed site of new Phnom Penh airport and Airporrot City

A map produced by GAAM shows the proposed airport site, based on a modified satellite image published in the Phnom Penh Post. The authors of the article were not certain whether the proposed airport site is state-owned or part of OCIC’s vast land bank. The rectangular area outlined in red is the approximately 700 hectare area allocated for the airport, the adjoining shaded area, approximately 1,900 hectares, is earmarked for development of an ‘Airport City’, described by SSCA spokesman Sinn Chanserey Vutha as a mixed-use development including a commercial centre and residential housing. Chanserey Vutha explained that investors will not be able to generate a profit from the airport itself, so the land for the Airport City is being offered to investors for generating profits from commercial centres and other amenities.

Land rights protests as villagers fear eviction

Announcement of the new airport and associated development sent land prices soaring upwards and within days land for sale signs were hastily erected. Rice fields and lakeside properties in the area that had been valued at between US$20,000 – 50,000 per hectare before announcement of the new airport began selling for as much as US$100,000 or even US$200,000 per hectare. Kandal District villagers were shocked by sudden news of the airport project, along with publication of maps appearing to show the new airport and a massive multi-use development on land they have resided on and near for more than two decades. Their land ownership is disputed by a local ‘oknha’ or tycoon, Seang Chanheng, who has long laid claim to it. A government-aligned media outlet, Fresh News, released documents purporting to show that the land had belonged to Seang Chenheng all along, but even provincial authorities profess uncertainty regarding rights to the land. Regardless of this uncertainty, a large area of disputed land was recently purchased for the airport project, by OCIC in partnership with the SSCA.

Several communes in the Kandal Stung district are wracked by long-running land disputes; the airport project has raked up old tensions and new potential conflicts are looming. Already, there are indications that the authorities are siding with Chanheng’s company and criminalizing protest by villagers residing near the land earmarked for the new development. At the beginning of February over 100 villagers blocked bulldozers from digging a dam on disputed land adjacent to the proposed airport site. Subsequently, Kandal Military Police summoned six villagers to appear for questioning after Chanheng accused them of “incitement” and obstructing her machinery. Oeung Sary, one of the villagers called in for questioning, was undeterred by the order, saying “We will go to meet with the Military Police whether they arrest us or not, because we are fighting for our land…We have no guns or power to fight them with. If they want to jail us, let them jail us.”

On 19th February affected villagers staged a major protest. Over 200 people from four communes gathered at Kandal Provincial Hall to voice their complaints regarding land earmarked for the new airport and seek resolution of the dispute with Seang Chanheng. Oeung Sary remained defiant and determined to stay on the land. Refusing to appear before the military police she said “We will not go to answer. If they want to arrest us, let it be” and accused the government of “bias” in favour of Chanheng’s company. Another villager, Sorn An, said she was one of several villagers who had sold land, in her case belonging to her grandmother, to Chanheng’s company but been underpaid, selling it for $250 per hectare but receiving a fraction this amount, just $25 or $50. She said they had been intimidated during negotiation over the land, that representatives of the company had slammed the table in front of them, threatened them, locked the door and called the police.

Reigniting one of Cambodia’s fiercest land disputes

One of the fiercest and lengthiest land disputes in Cambodia has been reignited by the new airport project. Nearly 300 families living in three villages in the Kandal District, still bearing their Pol Pot era names of Point 92, Point 93 and Point 94, have resided in the area for more than twenty years. Before the residents settled upon it the land was uncultivated. Their ownership of it appears to be legitimate on the basis of a 2001 law that people living peacefully on uncontested land for five years can lay claim to it.

But in 2005 Chenheng’s men began bulldozing the land in order to claim ownership of it. The villagers achieved a rare legal victory in 2006-7 when the Kandal Provincial Court upheld their claim to the land. Some families were issued with temporary land titles, but the official land titles that they were assured of were not issued. Chanheng’s company began clearing the land again in 2009, bulldozing villagers’ farms and a much loved local temple. Company security guards and Military Police fired on villagers who came to protest, wounding three of them. Prime Minister Hun Sen did not respond to a protest outside his house. In 2010 ten villagers attempting to block bulldozers from destroying their ripening rice crops were arrested and charged with land grabbing and incitement in connection with the protests, a move decried as harassment by human rights organizations.

Suddenly, in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that the disputed land belongs to Min You Cultural Foundation, a company which appeared to be unregistered with no trace of it to be found in Ministry of Commerce records. The Court made this ruling even though it acknowledged “many irregularities” in the sale of the land to this company. Villagers had not heard of the company or the court case or the hearing and were not even called to testify at the hearing.

As land disputes erupt again in the wake of the planned new airport, with villagers fearing they will be stripped of their land and evicted, human rights groups argue that development on the land should cease until land disputes are resolved. Vann Sopathi, business and human rights coordinator for the Cambodian Center for Human Rights, said that government and developers should conduct a social and environmental impact assessment of the airport project, and that it should not be permitted to proceed until a mutually acceptable solution is agreed between the company and the affected people.

Villagers are not the only people embroiled in land disputes relating to the new airport; several high-ranking officials own land in the Kandork commune which overlaps with the northernmost portion of the proposed site and a group of them complained of encroachment by an un-named Chinese company. Villagers were hired to guard their plots and one woman said she had climbed onto a bulldozer to prevent men digging her employer’s land.

Cambodia is beset with a multitude of land disputes due to ambiguities over, and  haphazard implementation of, land rights laws. The dispute over the land that is now announced as the site for a new airport is a typical example of tensions between elites with legal claims and villagers who have lived on the land for long periods and whose informal claims are backed by local authorities. Such land disputes are usually settled in favour of people with power and money, as they have the necessary influence and social connections to produce the requisite documentation.

Airport project financing

The projected cost of the new airport is $1.5 billion. Of this sum, OCIC will invest US$280 million and US$120 million will come from public funds, but the bulk of the funding, $1.1 billion, will come from “foreign banks” that at the time of the announcement remained unspecified. But it is clear that at least a significant proportion of the foreign investment will be from China. OCIC signed a “co-operation framework agreement” for the new airport with the state-run China Development Bank. Chinese financing of the new airport is one of 19 agreements to develop Cambodia’s infrastructure, agriculture and health system, signed on 11th January during a visit by Premier Li Keqiang. The deals were signed by various representatives of the Cambodian and Chinese governments in a ceremony lasting less than 10 minutes. Officials did not ask any questions and few details were given about the agreements, even though they are likely to impact heavily on Cambodia’s future development.

At this juncture it is unclear whether the new airport is intended supplement or replace the established Phnom Penh Airport. SSCA spokesman Chanserey Vutha declined to comment on whether the existing airport will be dismantled once the new airport becomes operational. Closing down the existing airport would render the considerable amount of investment in the facility in recent years wasteful and short-sighted. A US$100 million expansion of Phnom Penh and Siem Reap airports commenced in 2014, extending the passenger terminals and parking lots and enlarging the commercial space with more shops and food and beverage outlets. In December 2017, as plans for the new airport were announced, a new US$26 million arrivals hall was inaugurated at Phnom Penh Airport, incorporating extension of the boarding concourse.

China has also confirmed financing for a new airport in Siem Reap, a resort town most renowned for Cambodia’s most famous tourist attraction, the Angkor Wat temple complex. The new airport is to be constructed on a 700 hectare site in the Sotr Nikom district 50 kilometres outside Siem Reap city. Groundbreaking, marking the beginning of construction of the new airport, is imminent. The US$880 million agreement with China’s Yunnan Investment Holding Ltd (YIHL) allowing the state-owned company to manage the new Siem Reap airport under a 55-year build-operate-transfer (BOT) concession was actually announced in August 2017, with YIHL reportedly having already commenced land clearance. Double the capacity of the existing Siem Reap Airport the new airport will be able to handle 10 million passengers per year.

Road projects

Number 13 in the list of 19 China-Cambodia development deals is an expressway linking two hotspots for Chinese investment: Sihanoukville and the existing Phnom Penh Airport. Sihanoukville, a resort city on the Gulf of Thailand, is a major destination for Chinese property investment, construction boom in recent years, hotels, casinos and thousands of apartments. China has also invested heavily in Sihanoukville Special Economic Zone, promoted as Cambodian equivalent of the Shenzhen tech hub, with about 100 Chinese firms already operational.

The Sen Sok district surrounding Phnom Penh Airport is also a magnet for Chinese residential development and investment. The 190 kilometre highway, 4 lanes wide for most of its length, is expected to cost nearly US$2 billion. It could lead to evictions. Ministry of Public Works and Transport spokesman, Va Sim Sorya, said that the expressway would likely infringe upon people’s homes and land, but that it would be the responsibility of China’s state-owned China Communication Construction Co. to provide fair compensation for affected people, with the assistance of the ministry.

The planned new Phnom Penh airport appears to be linked with another road project. An article on the Construction & Property website, which includes a map of the new airport site and a video of the joint Cambodia and China signing ceremony, shows Ringroad Number 3 running through the north of the site. The Cambodian government is building three ring roads around the outskirts of Phnom Penh; construction of the third outer ring road, part of an expressway development masterplan US$9 billion expenditure on 850 kilometres of roads by 2020, is expected to commence in 2018.

Evictions for OCIC ‘satellite city’

By land area, the airport and ‘Airport City’ project is an even bigger project for OCIC than its 387 hectare, Chroy Changvar satellite city. The airport project’s US$1.5 billion budget is comparable with US$1.6 billion for Chroy Changvar, which is now under construction and the largest property development in Phnom Penh. A protracted land dispute with residents from six communities, living on and depending upon the land for years, dates back to 1994 when the government banned construction of homes on the land, designating it for development two years later. In 1998 Prime Minister Hun Sen reassured landowners who had lived on the site for a minimum of five years that they would not be evicted, reiterating this in a 2002 speech. A number of residences were duly excluded from the project site. But 200 families were not so fortunate, in spite of being in possession of official documentation proving their land ownership, and in 2016 were informed they would have to accept the compensation offer.

In February 2016 100 people representing 359 affected families facing eviction for Chroy Changvar petitioned Phnom Penh City Hall in a bid to resolve the land dispute with OCIC. They urged the government to halt alleged housing rights violations, calling either for higher compensation of US$400 per square metre as opposed to OCIC’s offer of just US$15, or to be given back half of their land, not merely 10 per cent of it as was proposed. In April 2016, in spite of the ongoing land dispute, OCIC, protected by 50 security guards, resumed bulldozing to make way for a new road and drainage system to serve the planned city, in spite of two families laying claim to the land being cleared and one resident stating that she had not been compensated. High security echoed 2014 when security guards stopped an attempt by 40 villagers to stop machinery pumping sand onto wetlands, causing water to rush back into the river, destabilizing their homes and putting them at risk of flooding. Protest continued into 2017, in February 40 villagers gathered to demand compensation for land taken for the new city.

Cambodia’s crackdown on democracy and human rights

China is, by far, Cambodia’s biggest trading partner and and its biggest source of foreign aid, investment and tourists. Backing from China has bolstered the Hun Sen government, the world’s longest serving Prime Minister, since 1985, and its investment increases in the face of a crackdown on democracy, freedom of expression and human rights. Cambodia is regressing to its authoritarian past as a political crackdown silences opposition figures, civil society groups and independent media. Critics are slammed with accusations of treason, defamation, collusion with foreign governments and being a threat to national security. Democracy is in a death spiral. The Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) has been dissolved, its leader Kem Sokha is in jail awaiting trial on charges of ‘treason’ and 118 senior party members have been banned from political activity for five years. CNRP is the only real opposition party, so Hun Sen’s Cambodian People’s Party (CCP) will effectively run unchallenged in the upcoming national elections in July. Human Rights Watch warned of the “death of democracy”.

In November 2017 two former Radio Free Asia (RFA) journalists were charged with espionage; still in custody, they could face a 15 year jail sentence if found guilty. They were arrested on the basis of a vaguely worded provision in the penal code criminalizing passing information to a foreign state that could damage national security. Their defence lawyer says the charges against them are baseless and a petition for their release is currently before the Supreme Court. Under the same provision, an Australian film-maker was jailed for flying a drone at an opposition rally. Two former Cambodia Daily reporters were charged with incitement after asking questions during the lead-up to the June 2017 local elections. Both RFA and Cambodia Daily closed down their Cambodia newsrooms after being suddenly issued with enormous tax bills, US$6.3 million with one month to pay in the case of Cambodia Daily, a 24-year old independent newspaper which published its final edition with the damning headline “Descent Into Outright Dictatorship”. A representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists said that the Cambodian government’s arrests and threats against journalists are a “clear and present danger to press freedom”.

The tightening grip of repression is also restricting activists. Amnesty International called for convictions against two environmental activists who filmed large vessels off Cambodia’s coast suspected of illegally carrying sand for export. Hun Vannak and Doem Kundy, from the NGO Mother Nature, were sentenced to one year in prison plus fines for this exposé aiming to galvanize action to curb the illicit trade on 26th January 2018. Foreign NGOs have been targeted, for example staff of US-based National Democratic Institute were ordered to leave the country, accused of receiving assistance from foreign governments.

As the Cambodian government persecutes citizens and NGOs for collaboration with foreign governments it is bending over backwards to enable China to increase its economic and geopolitical influence. As the 19 agreements for billions of dollars worth of Chinese investment in Cambodia’s infrastructure, including the new airport, were signed Cambodia pledged its support for China’s international goals. Specifically, Cambodia agreed to support China’s claims to disputed territory in the South China Sea, where jurisdictional disputes and construction of ports, military installations and airstrips are straining its relationships with several countries in Southeast Asia. China also gains increased access to Cambodian resources, such as oil, gas and timber, and can take advantage of low tax rates and cheap labour. Critics argue that Cambodia is selling itself short and will pay a price for China’s financial support, warning of ending up in its giant ally’s pocket and already losing its voice on regional issues.

Report – Kulon Progo farmers against airport and aerotropolis

A new report ‘Solidarity Calls for Kulon Progo Farmers against Airport and Airport City‘ about farmers’ resistance against eviction for New Yogyakarta International Airport (NYIA) gives many insights into one of Indonesia’s key land rights struggles. Opposition to the airport dates back to 2011. The site, on the south coast of Java, comprises six villages which, before eviction commenced, hosted 11,501 residents. Farmers worked for many generations to increase the fertility of the land, establishing successful farms and thriving communities. Eviction from farmland means many thousands of agricultural labourers also lose their livelihoods and excavation of coastal areas has destroyed fishing farmers’ ponds.

The megaproject was approved without the requisite Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) even though there are serious ecological concerns, including the destruction of sand dunes which act as a bulwark protecting from coastal erosion and tsunamis and prevention salinization of groundwater. The report includes a map of the tsunami hazard area. Cultural heritage, such as the Glagah Stupa historical Buddhist site and Mount Lanang prayer monument, is also being obliterated.

The report is filled with striking photographs showing the progress of the airport and the resistance: bulldozers at work clearing land for the airport and the devastation that is left behind, evictions and protest actions including roadside banners, marches, blocking bulldozers, a road block and a hunger strike. Infographics show the projected development of NYIA not just as airport infrastructure but as an airport city, the affected areas of construction and inhabitants, and the food crops (approximately 450 tonnes annually per hectare including melons, eggplant and chilies) and livelihoods being displaced by the airport.

The airport project has divided the community. Many citizens have refused to sell their land for the airport, whilst some are willing to sell their land for compensation. Supporters of the airport worked to widen the social, economic and political rifts, facilitating the project. Resistance to land acquisition has met with state intimidation, repression and criminalization. Four farmers were imprisoned for four months. The report contains a chronology of violence against local residents resisting eviction and their supporters. Most recently, beginning on 28th November 2017, as another phase of eviction took place, police blocked road access to a group of residents’ homes, cut off their electricity supply, destroyed plants in their gardens and intimidated them. Police attacked a woman causing bruising on her neck and a number of citizens supporting the residents experienced violence at the hands of police, one person suffered a head injury and another suffered injuries from being dragged along the road.

An ‘airport city’ or aerotropolis – comprising shopping malls, offices, hotels, golf resort, tourism village, leisure town, industrial park and residential areas – is planned around the new airport, increasing the land area to 2,000 hectares and potentially leading to eviction of even more citizens. A new solidarity organization Paguyuban Warga Penolak Penggusuran Kulon Progo (PWPP-KP), has been formed to oppose the airport and airport city, allied with an organization of neighbouring farmers resisting sand mining, and supported by many citizens and environmental groups, including Jogja Darurat Agraria.