Hydropower development and local livelihood adaptation:
a longitudinal case study in Lao PDR
Olivier Joffre and Yumiko KuraResilience 2014, Montpellier 8th Mai 2014
Water Resource Development in the Lower Mekong Basin
• Trans-boundary river system over the territories of six countries: Myanmar, Cambodia, China (Yunnan Province), Lao PDR, Thailand, and Vietnam
• Rapid increase in hydropower dams: at least 110 existing or planned, 22 operational or under construction in Lao PDR alone.
• Negative impacts predicted on the world’s largest wild freshwater fishery (2.1 million metric tons/year, 5 times the production of entire West Europe)
• About 40 million rural people (2/3 of population in LMB) derive livelihood benefits from capture fisheries
3
T-H Extension Project
NG Reservoir and resettlement villages
Case Study in Lao PDR – Upstream Site • 180 Households from 4
villages upstream of the dam were resettled to a single site near the new reservoir
Objectives of the Case Study• To understand how local communities use the river water, river
ecosystems and later reservoir ecosystem
• To assess the economic importance of the river and reservoir for local livelihood and income
• To compare water use patterns and economic values before and after the resettlement
FGDs and Stakeholder
Consultation
Upstream HH survey in
4 villagesBefore
Resettlement100 HH
April 2011 Sept. 2012
Upstream HH survey in 4
villages After Resettlement
100 HH
Validation Workshop
May 2013Feb 2011
Resettlementof 180 HH
Longitudinal Survey 2011-2013
Upstream HH survey in 4
villages > 2 Year After Resettlement
December 2013
% Households Considering Nam Gnouang River/Reservoir as “Important” or “Very Important”
ForBefore
Resettlement
After Resettlement
YEAR 1
After Resettlement
YEAR 2
Alternatives at Resettlement Site (provided by the power
company)
Drinking 44 - - Public and private wells
Bathing 74 - 11 Public and private wells
Washing 76 - 11 Public and private wells
Irrigation (e.g. river bank garden)
36 - 1 Homestead garden irrigated with water from wells
Fishing 98 99 75 Reservoir
Livestock watering 55 25 26 Reservoir, wells
Transportation 91 4 66 Road access
Transporting goods 16 - - Road access
Micro-hydropower 25 - - Public power grid
Village events and festivals (e.g. wedding)
68 - 61 Public and private wells
Rituals (e.g. funeral) 32 - 4 Public and private wells
Use of Nam Gnouang Reservoir is less diverse compared to the use of Nam Gnouang River before resettlement
Water supply significantly improved
River54%
Spring44%
Tap 2%
Dry Season
River36%
Spring50%
Rain and river5%
Rain and spring7%
Tap2%
Rain Season
Before Resettlement
After Resettlement
Before re-settlement
After 1 Year
After 2 Year
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Water Consumption per Household
Dry season
Rainy season
Wat
er co
nsum
ption
(l/d
ay/H
H)
Significant reduction and shift in income portfolio
Before After 1 Year After 2 Year -
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
Change of Household Income
Remittances
Livestock
Non/Off-farm
TFP/NTFP
Fisheries
Agriculture
Inco
me
(MKi
p/ye
ar/H
H)
Compensation from company- Food-Agriculture inputs- Cash
Compen-sation from company
Year 1
Average household income fell by approximately 72%, primarily due to the significant reduction in agriculture-related income, not yet fully re-established
Fisheries became the biggest contributor to household income, due to reduction in income from agriculture
Year 2
Overall income recovered– reaching 50% of the income before resettlement.
Agriculture income is the most important
Income from fisheries fell compare to Year 1, and less households were engaged in fishing
Non-farm wages, remittances and trading large livestock generated higher share of income
Before re-settlement
After 1 Year After 2 Year0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
River / Reservoir-based household income
Non Farm
Irrigated Agricul-ture
Forestry
Fisheries
Inco
me
(M. K
ip/H
H/ye
ar)
Fisheries important during transition, but declining • Year 1 - 71% of resettled households
reported increase in fishing activities, while 11% reported reduction in fishing activity after resettlement
• Fish catch is distributed more evenly throughout the year, no seasonal peaks
• Average household fish catch decreased significantly between Year 1 and Year 2
• Some households have quit fishing:
- 100% of households engaged in fishing before resettlement
- 95% in Year 1 after resettlement
- only 75% in Year 2
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0
50
100
150
200
250
Average monthly fish catchper household
Before After 1 Year After 2 Year
Kg
Households strategies for adaptation• Location and distance are important factors
determining household strategy• After 1 year, some households negotiated
house swaps to stay closer to original upland rice fields
• Households located closer to the reservoir invested more in fishing while households farther away stopped fishing and focused on NTFP and agriculture
• Large livestock decreased by 50% due to lack of grazing land near the resettlement site but households whose original grazing land is closer were able to keep more animals
• With better road access, more households are involved in non-farm wage labor and trading
Before After Before After Before After0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Change in River Related Income Portfolio -
Before & 1 year After Resettlement
Non Farm
Irrigated Agricul-ture
Forestry
Fisheries
Mill
ion
Kip/
HH/y
ear
CLOSE
MEDIUM
FAR
Conclusions• Domestic water access has dramatically
improved and made more time available for income generation through other activities
• During the transition period, resettled households rely more on natural resources - important to ensure their access to fisheries resources and forests
• Reservoir fisheries need to be sustained as it has become the most important local use of the reservoir and the main source of income for some households
• Need to consider the differences within the resettlement village in terms of access to reservoir, forest and grazing land while designing resettlement villages
