Redistribution of water use and benefits among hydropower affected communities in Lao PDR

Redistribution of water use and benefits amonghydropower affected communities in Lao PDRYumiko Kura a,*, Olivier Joffre a,b, Benoit Laplante c,Bounthong Sengvilaykham d

a WorldFish, P.O. Box 1135 (Wat Phnom), Phnom Penh, Cambodiab Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlandsc Independent Consultant, Sooke, British Columbia, Canadad Savannakhet University, Kaison Pomvihan District, Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:Received 18 February 2014Revised 6 August 2014Accepted 8 September 2014Available online 28 September 2014

Keywords:EcosystemHydropowerLivelihoodsResettlementWater benefitWater use

A B S T R A C T

In this paper, we assess how resettlement and changes in wateraccess have altered livelihoods of local communities upstream ofthe Theun Hinboun Expansion Project in Lao PDR. Based on house-hold surveys conducted both before and after resettlement, weestimate changes in water use and benefits among households of4 resettled villages. Results show that access to domestic watersupply as well as water consumption have significantly improvedafter resettlement, while river-based livelihoods have for the mostpart been adversely impacted by the conversion of the Nam GnouangRiver into a hydropower dam reservoir, and subsequent loss of riv-erbank gardens and the overall change in the ecosystem. In particular,the sources of income have become concentrated to much feweroptions than before resettlement, with some households more spe-cialized in fisheries than others. Our results represent a transitionalstate of economic activities by rural communities immediately afterresettlement, rather than a fully evolved livelihood portfolio in a newenvironment. The results also suggest that a better understandingof changes in water use and benefits and of the determinants of ad-aptation is needed to better design appropriate interventions forrebuilding local livelihoods.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +855 23 223 208; fax: +855 23 223 209.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Kura).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2014.09.0012212-6082/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Water resources and rural development 4 (2014) 67–84

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water resources and rural development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/ locate /wrr

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2014.09.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2014.09.001

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01678809

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/WRR

http://crossmark.dyndns.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.wrr.2014.09.001&domain=pdf

1. Introduction

One of the major drivers of change in water resource management in the Mekong River basin ishydropower development. Over 130 large-scale hydropower dams1 are either operational, under con-struction, or planned in the Lower Mekong Basin alone [1]. Across the world, hydropower dams, asmany other forms of water development schemes, have altered the patterns of water availability andthe flow of goods and services derived from water ecosystems, and subsequently affected human well-being [2]. Conventional cost–benefit analyses and environmental impact assessments of hydropowerprojects have often neglected documenting and accounting for the full range of water values prior toproject development, and of possible changes post development. As such, project analyses often poorlyarticulate the extent and complexity of trade-offs involved [3].

In this paper, we assess how hydropower development has altered the livelihoods of local com-munities including changes in water access, use, and benefits. Resettled communities upstream of theTheun Hinboun Expansion Project (THXP) in Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) are used asa case study for the analysis.

While a few studies have documented improved living conditions and income for households in-voluntarily resettled by hydropower development [4,5], the bulk of studies have shown that mostresettled households generally experience a sharp deterioration of living conditions and reduced income(Cernea [6]; Bui and Schreinemachers [7]; Bui et al. [8]; and Tilt et al. [9] among others). For example,Bui and Schreinemachers [7] have estimated a 66% reduction in net household income after resettle-ment by the Son La Hydropower Development project in Vietnam.

As noted by Galipeau et al. [5], researchers seeking to understand the socio-economic impacts ofhydropower development on either resettled households and/or host communities face a number ofmethodological challenges to estimate changes in socio-economic and livelihood conditions beforeand after resettlement. One methodology commonly used is the double recall method [8] in whichtargeted households are asked to assess conditions as they are after resettlement relative to what theyremember them being before resettlement. Depending on the amount of time elapsed since resettle-ment, this approach is subject to errors as interviewed participants may not precisely remember howconditions used to be. A second approach (cross-sectional) relies on comparing the socio-economicand livelihood conditions of resettled households with those of nearby communities which have notexperienced resettlement [5]. However, this approach requires controlling for the fact that such con-ditions across resettled and non-resettled communities may have been different even before resettlement.

For the purpose of this study, we have conducted surveys of households resettled in the contextof the THXP both before and after resettlement took place – the same households being interviewedapproximately one year after resettlement. We believe this to be a significant contribution of the studyto the existing literature.

Based on these two surveys (pre and post resettlement), the relative importance of water, and aquaticand terrestrial ecosystems to the household livelihood portfolio are quantified and compared amongresettled villages. While we do estimate significant reductions in household income following re-settlement, perhaps more importantly we observe a reduction in the number of activities source oflivelihood thus leaving households at significant risk if those reduced sources of livelihood were tobe disrupted. Furthermore, unlike Bui et al. [8], we estimate that gross farm output was considerablymore equally distributed after resettlement than before.

Comparison of livelihoods before and after hydropower development of a similar set of house-holds allows a quantification of losses and benefits induced by the development project whileaddressing a number of methodological challenges generally experienced by researchers. The analy-sis of these changes provides new insight for appropriate intervention that integrates economicbenefits of water for local communities into hydropower resettlement planning. It also identifiespotential opportunities for increasing the range of water benefit accessible to the affectedcommunities.

1 Large-scale hydropower refers to those with an installed capacity of 10 megawatts or higher.

68 Y. Kura et al./Water resources and rural development 4 (2014) 67–84

The next section briefly describes the study site and the survey methods. Sections 3–7 present anddiscuss the documented changes in water use and benefits. Conclusion and recommendations are offeredin Section 8.

2. Survey site and methods

The study site is located within the Nam Theun-Nam Kading watershed, a sub-basin of the MekongRiver system in the Khammouane and Bolikhamxay provinces of central Lao PDR. Several hydro-power dams and other water storage infrastructures have already been built or under constructionon the river system including the Nam Theun 1, Nam Theun 2 and Theun Hinboun hydropower proj-ects. The THXP implemented by the Theun Hinboun Power Company (THPC) is located on the NamGnouang River. It includes the construction of a dam, the creation of a reservoir, and the resettle-ment of 12 villages upstream of the dam and of 23 villages downstream of the dam [10,11]. Significantinvestments from the hydropower company have gone into rebuilding the livelihoods of the dis-placed communities [12]. Conducting a case study at this site allowed for an assessment of livelihoodchanges before and after the resettlement of local communities.

This paper focuses on assessing the nature and extent of the changes experienced by 4 villagesthat were previously located along the Nam Gnouang River upstream of the new dam (Phonkeo, Sensi,Sopchat, and Thambing). These villages have been resettled to a single resettlement site calledKeosenkham, constructed adjacent to the new Nam Gnouang Reservoir which replaced the river. Forlogistical reasons, it was not possible to include all resettled villages in the survey exercise. For example,8 other upstream villages had already been resettled at the time of the survey. Including these in thestudy would have elicited responses based on recall (before resettlement) which often introduces errorsin data. The 4 villages included in this study had not yet been resettled at the time of the first survey,and then had been fully resettled at the time of the second survey.

The 4 villages were resettled to a site known as Keosenkham (Fig. 1). Unlike other resettlementsites, Keosenkham was constructed closer to the new reservoir and to the original villages specifical-ly to allow the resettled villagers to access the reservoir for economic activities and to maintain somelevel of continuity with the previous lifestyle and livelihoods.

Fig. 1. Location of villages and resettlement site. (based on THPC, 2011 [13], with modifications for clarity).

69Y. Kura et al./Water resources and rural development 4 (2014) 67–84

The Keosenkham resettlement site is long and narrow in its layout. Within the site, Phonkeo andSensi villagers were given the residential areas closer to the reservoir and the location of original vil-lages, while Sopchat and Thambing villagers were placed farther away from the reservoir [14].

The 4 villages comprise 180 households with a combined population of approximately 1210 in-dividuals (Table 1). The study team randomly selected 100 households (55% of the entire number ofhouseholds) proportional to the number of households in each village. The number of interviewedhouseholds in each village ranged from 21 (Sensi) to 30 (Phonkeo).

Two household surveys were conducted. The first survey took place in April 2011 before resettle-ment took place, and a second survey took place in September 2012 after resettlement was completed.The resettlement itself took place in June/July 2011. The same set of households participated in bothsurveys, and the same individual in each household completed the questionnaire with the support ofthe enumerator. Five of the 6 enumerators participated in both surveys.2

Quantitative as well as qualitative information about economic activities and livelihood portfolioof each household was collected. A set of variables was developed to understand the relative impor-tance of water resources and natural habitats within the household livelihood portfolio and quantifythe changes in the pattern of direct water uses, and the sources of water. Additional qualitative in-formation about the changes in livelihood activities and access to water was documented during focusgroup discussion to help interpret the quantitative results. The nature of key quantitative variables ispresented in Table 2.

3. Domestic water supply

Besides resettlement, the most important change the surveyed villages experienced was the trans-formation of the Nam Gnouang River into a dam reservoir. Because of these changes the pattern oftheir water uses and the sources of water have also transformed.

Before the resettlement took place, the river and local springs provided most of the domestic watersupply in the dry season while in the wet season rainwater was also used as a source of domestic watersupply (Table 3). In Thambing, the only source of drinking water was the river in both dry and wetseasons while in both Sensi and Sopchat, local springs were the most cited sources of domestic water.

The local villagers used Nam Gnouang River for a variety of purposes before the resettlement; over90% considered it important not only for fishing but also as transportation route (Table 4). Many usedthe river and its water as a source of drinking water, for irrigation and livestock, and for micro-hydropower generation. However, as indicated in Table 4, when the river was converted to a reservoir,its use became far less diverse. The single most important use of the reservoir for those villages isfishing, followed by livestock to a much lesser degree.

After resettlement, the sources of domestic water completely changed. In the dry season, almostall water demand is met by public and private wells newly made available by the project, while in

2 For the purpose of facilitating resettlement, the hydropower company had assigned an identification (ID) number to eachhousehold in each of the four villages. The survey team randomly selected a sample of households to be interviewed from theset of ID numbers.

Table 1Number of households resettled and interviewed.

Village Number ofhouseholdsresettled

Number ofhouseholdsinterviewed

Phonkeo 54 30Sensi 38 21Sopchat 49 27Thambing 39 22Total 180 100


Table 2Key quantitative livelihood variablesa.

Variables/unit Definition

Income from fisheries (Kip/HH/year) Total annual cash income from fisheries (sold to markets).This informationwas collected on a monthly basis and aggregated over a period of 12 months.

Value of fisheries (Kip/HH/year) Total annual value of fisheries based on monthly fish catch reported byrespondent. In addition to cash income, this variable includes imputed incomedefined as the market value of fish retained for home consumption.

Fish catch (kg/HH/year) Reported quantity of fish catch per fishing trip per month, then aggregatedover the year.

OAA catch (kg/HH/year) Reported catch of other aquatic organisms (OAA), such as frogs and snails,reported as quantity per day, extrapolated to a month and then a year.

Investment on fishing gear (Kip/HH/year)

Cost of all fishing gear purchased in the last 12 months.

Investment on boat (Kip/HH/year) Cost of boat purchased in the last 12 months.Fuel cost per fishing trip (Kip/HH/

fishing trip)Average fuel cost per fishing trip as estimated by fisherman.

Fishing license fee (Kip/HH/year) Annual cost of fishing license fee.Income from agriculture (Kip/HH/year) Total cash income generated by the sale of agriculture products.Livestock production cost (Kip/HH/

year)Cost of caring for livestock and poultry, including vaccine, forage, and cost oftransportation for the cattle and the herders.

Income from livestock (Kip/HH/year) Total cash income generated from the sale of all livestock and poultry in thelast 12 months, as reported by respondent.

Value of livestock production (Kip/HH/year)

Total annual cash income plus imputed income resulting from livestock andpoultry production. It does not include large livestock (cattle and buffalos)which is considered as longer-term assets and are not regularly sold forincome.

Income from forest products (Kip/HH/year)

Total annual cash income generated by the sale of all timber (TFP) and non-timber forest products (NTFP).

Value of forest products (Kip/HH/year) Total annual quantity of all TFP/NTFP collected by household plus imputedincome.

Non-farm income (Kip/HH/year) Total annual cash income generated from activities off the own farm (non-farm wages and salaries, remittances, etc.) including those requiring migrationout of home village. Also includes income from on-farm wage labor providedto other households and companies.

Total river-based income (Kip/HH/year) Total annual cash income from economic activities that depend on access toriver and water from it: agriculture irrigated with river water, flood recessionagriculture, river bank gardens, fisheries, NTFP collection from wetlands andriverine forests, and river transportation.

Total income (Kip/HH/year) Total annual cash income from all economic activities – agriculture, fisheries,NTFP, wage labor, remittance, livestock.

Total value of natural resources (Kip/HH/year)

All cash income from sales and imputed income

Total value of all economic activities(Kip/HH/year)

Total value of all economic activities and outputs, including fisheries, livestock,forests, agriculture, including imputed income for those products for whichthe information is available.

aKip is the currency of Lao PDR. At the time of the study, the exchange rate averaged 8000 Kip to 1 US dollar. HH: house-hold; kg: kilogram.

Table 3Number of HH indicating water source as most important before resettlement.

Sources of water Phonkeo Sensi Sopchat Thambing Total

Dry seasonRiver 30 1 5 22 58Spring 8 20 21 0 49Other 0 0 1 0 1

Rainy seasonRiver 12 0 2 22 36Spring 10 21 21 0 52Rain and river 5 0 0 0 5Rain and spring 3 0 4 0 7


the rainy season, rain and spring water constitute the bulk of the water supply (Table 5). Public andprivate wells—which require the payment of fixed monthly fee of 2000 Kip3 to access—are used lessduring rainy season. The importance of rain as a source of water supply is further explained by thefact that after resettlement, all new dwellings provided by the project were equipped with a rainwa-ter collection system connecting gutters to water storage facilities. In all cases, water from the reservoirhas almost completely ceased to be a source of water supply.4

As a result of the changes in sources of water, ease of access to water improved very significantly.On a scale of 1–5 (from ‘very easy’ to ‘very difficult’) the average degree of difficulty of collecting waterbefore resettlement was rated as 2.3 in the dry season and 2.8 in the rainy season5. Of the 4 villages,Sensi appeared to benefit from the easiest access (2.1 and 2.5 respectively) and Thambing appearedto experience more difficult access (2.7 and 3.4 respectively). After resettlement, the average degreeof difficulty of collecting water was rated as 1.5 in the dry season (down from 2.3) and 1.4 in the rainyseason (down from 2.8). The ease of access improved particularly in the rainy season (Fig. 2). Perhapsmore importantly, while the ease of access to water was rated differently across villages before re-settlement, the rating became almost identical across all villages after the resettlement in both thedry and rainy seasons.

3 Equivalent to 0.25 US dollar.4 During the focus group discussion the villagers expressed reluctance to using water from the reservoir, especially for drink-

ing, because their ancestral tombs and cemeteries were submerged under the reservoir.5 Higher level of water in the river and faster speed of current generally make it more difficult to collect water from the river

in rainy season.

Table 4% Households considering Nam Gnouang River/Reservoir as “important” or “very important”.

For Beforeresettlement

Afterresettlement

Alternatives at resettlement site(provided by the power company)

Drinking 44 0 Public and private wellsBathing 74 0 Public and private wellsWashing 76 0 Public and private wellsIrrigation (e.g. river bank

garden)36 0 Homestead garden irrigated with

water from wellsFishing 98 99 ReservoirLivestock watering 55 25 Reservoir, wellsTransportation 91 4 Road accessTransporting goods 16 0 Road accessMicro-hydropower 25 0 Public power gridVillage events and festivals

(e.g. wedding)68 0 Public and private wells

Rituals (e.g. funeral) 32 0 Public and private wells

Table 5Number of HH indicating water source as most important after resettlement.

Phonkeo Sensi Sopchat Thambing Total

Dry seasonPublic well 13 12 13 11 49Private well 16 6 14 11 47Rain water 0 1 0 0 1Spring water 0 2 0 0 2

Rainy seasonPublic well 8 5 6 5 24Private well 5 1 2 0 8Rain water 15 12 11 13 51Spring water 2 3 8 4 17


Before resettlement, average collection time (minutes per roundtrip from dwelling to water source)was estimated to be 14.1 minutes in the dry season (the lowest being in Sensi with 10.9 minutes) and16.1 minutes in the rainy season (the highest being 20.0 minutes in Thambing). Respondents also in-dicated undertaking 38.0 roundtrips (on average across all villages) for the purpose of water collectionper week in the dry season, and 30.6 roundtrips in the rainy season. Extrapolating these numbers tothe entire population of all 4 villages would indicate a total water collection time of approximately1600 hours per week in the dry season, and 1475 hours per week in the wet season. As indicated inTable 6, average collection time decreased significantly after resettlement. The average time spent byeach household per week to collect water fell by approximately 95%, to 22.5 minutes (rainy season)and 28.0 minutes (dry season), which represent an average 8 hours of potentially productive time savedper week for each household. Extrapolating these numbers to the entire population of all 4 villages,this translates into a total water collection time of 84 hours in the dry season (down from 1600 hours)and 68 hours in the wet season (down from 1475 hours). Time saved every week devoted to watercollection activities was reduced by 1515 hours in the dry season and 1407 hours in the wet season.

As a result of the greater ease of access and reduced water collection time, combined with a fixedpricing scheme to access public wells (2000 Kip per month regardless of the water consumed), waterconsumption drastically increased from 109 to 383 liters/household/day (l/HH/d) in the dry season,and from 128 to 347 l/HH/d in the rainy season. Water consumption in the dry season is now 3.5 timeshigher than before resettlement, and 2.7 times higher in the rainy season (Fig. 3).

Assuming that the year splits equally between the dry and rainy seasons (26 weeks) and assum-ing a $2 per day6 of economic productivity (with 8 hour working day), then the total annual economicbenefit of the reduction in water collection time reaches approximately $19,000 for all 4 villages. Sopchatappears to capture 44% of this estimated annual economic benefit. Phonkeo, Sensi, and Thambing capture22%, 19% and 15% of this benefit respectively. It should be mentioned that this estimated benefit per-tains solely to reduced water collection time and does not include the benefit of the incremental waterconsumption. There is thus every reason to suggest that the greater ease of access to domestic watersupply has provided households of all 4 resettled villages with very significant benefits.

4. Agriculture and farmland

Before resettlement, every household was farming a total land size of approximately 3.91 hect-ares on average. The average plot size was higher in Phonkeo (4.88 hectares) and lower in Thambing

6 Income of $2 per day roughly corresponds to the poverty line for Lao PDR.

0

1

2

3

4

Average all Sopchat Thambing Sensi Phonkeo

Dry Season

Before resettlement After resettlement

0

1

2

3

4


Rainy Season


Fig. 2. Ease of access to water sources before and after resettlement in dry and rainy seasons (1: very easy; 5: very difficult).


Table 6Estimated water collection time before and after resettlement.


BEFORE RESETTLEMENTTotal minutes (hours) spent collecting water

per week per HHAll water consumption

Dry season 812.3 (13.5) 366.0 (6.1) 376.3 (6.3) 563.1 (9.4) 533.0 (8.9)Rainy season 677.7 (11.3) 379.4 (6.3) 355.4 (5.9) 527.3 (8.8) 491.5 (8.2)

Of which domestic consumptionDry season 128.1 (2.6) 101.0 (1.6) 94.0 (1.6) 162.9 (2.7) 128.1 (2.1)Rainy season 108.4 (2.0) 83.5 (1.3) 75.8 (1.3) 163.6 (2.7) 108.4 (1.8)

Total hours spent collecting water per weekfor whole villageAll water consumption

Dry season 731.1 231.8 307.3 366.0 1599.0Rainy season 231.8 240.3 290.2 342.7 1474.6

Of which domestic consumptionDry season 140.4 63.9 76.7 105.9 384.3Rainy season 109.1 52.9 61.9 106.4 325.3

AFTER RESETTLEMENTTotal minutes (hours) spent collecting water

per week per HHAll water consumption

Dry season 32.5 (0.54) 27.7 (0.46) 24.3 (0.40) 26.1 (0.43) 28.0 (0.47)Rainy season 21.4 (0.36) 16.2 (0.27) 16.9 (0.28) 35.9 (0.60) 22.5 (0.38)

Of which domestic consumptionDry season 20.7 (0.34) 16.9 (0.28) 13.7 (0.23) 16.1 (0.27) 16.9 (0.28)Rainy season 14.4 (0.24) 12.2 (0.20) 10.9 (0.18) 24.2 (0.40) 15.3 (0.26)

Total hours spent collecting water per weekfor whole villageAll water consumption

Dry season 29.3 17.6 19.8 16.9 83.9Rainy season 19.3 10.3 13.8 23.3 67.5

Of which domestic consumptionDry season 18.6 10.7 11.2 10.4 50.8Rainy season 13.0 7.76 8.9 15.7 45.9

0

100

200

300

400

500


Dry Season


0

100

200

300

400

500


Rainy Season


Liter/household/day Liter/household/day

Fig. 3. Water consumption before and after resettlement (l/HH/day).


(3.31 hectares). 75% of the households had access to riverbank garden and 87% of those plots wereirrigated, either as drawdown irrigation, or with supplementary (bucket) irrigation from the river. Inaddition to riverbank garden, some garden (20% of households) and homestead gardens (37% of house-holds) were also irrigated with river water using buckets. The total farmland irrigated by the river rangedbetween 1.3 hectares and 1.8 hectares per households on average.

The study results show clearly that resettlement had a significant impact on the average size offarmlands held by each household. The average plot size fell from 3.91 to 2.13 hectares, a reductionof approximately 45% (Table 7). The reduction in average size of plot was particularly severe in Phonkeowith an average reduction of approximately 56%. Note also that the average plot size became consid-erably more uniform after resettlement – ranging between 2.0 and 2.2 hectares in each village – whilebefore resettlement, average plot size was considerably higher in Phonkeo and lower in Thambing.This result indicates that the loss of farmland was not equally distributed across villages and house-holds. As far as the size of farmland is concerned, it appears that some villagers in Phonkeo and Sensiwho used to own larger size farmland lost more land than others as a result of resettlement. The largestplot size held by a household is now 3.5 hectares although before resettlement 13 out of the 100 sur-veyed households reported having a farmland of 6 hectares or more.

The overall reduction in the total cultivated farmland had a significant impact on the quantity ofharvested products. When the second survey was conducted, only 14–15 months after the resettle-ment, a large number of households had not started cultivating or not yet harvested a number of crops,such as fruits and cassava. Low soil quality at the newly allocated plots was cited as the most commonreason why a number of crops were not cultivated, in particular chili and vegetables. The lack of ad-equate plot size was also cited as an important reason for quitting the cultivation of some crops.

Ten households from Sensi and Phonkeo villages, that are located closer to the new resettlementvillage, reported continued use of original upland fields in addition to the new farm plots providedby the company. These households harvested a significant amount of rice from the old field, all forhome consumption.

Total harvested crops fell from approximately 425,400 kg before resettlement to 50,440 kg afterresettlement. In terms of the quantity harvested, rice represented 58% of the crops before resettle-ment but the proportion rose to 90% after resettlement (Fig. 4). More importantly, following resettlement,none of the harvested crops were sold to markets for the purpose of cash income generation; all wereretained for household consumption.

All types of crop production was reduced in overall quantity and resulted in the average house-hold income from crop farming falling from 14 million Kip (or approximately USD 1750) beforeresettlement to 1.5 million Kip (USD 187.5) after resettlement.

Insofar as farming is concerned, the most important and significant change is the loss of river-bank gardens, which represented about 60% of the cash generated from agriculture activities beforeresettlement. The disappearance of riverbank gardens following the reservoir impoundment reducedsignificantly the irrigated farmland per household. At the time of the second survey, less than 40% ofhouseholds had started cultivating their homestead garden at the resettlement site, using well waterfor irrigation. The average loss of household income from not having access to river-based irrigatedagriculture is estimated to be 4.4 million Kip (USD 550). The loss was not evenly distributed amongthe affected villages, as some villages relied more on river-based agriculture than others (Table 8).

Table 7Average farmland plot size before and after resettlement.

Averageplot sizebefore

Averageplot sizeafter

% Reduction

All villages 3.91 2.13 45.6Phonkeo 4.88 2.13 56.4Sensi 3.76 2.14 43.0Sopchat 3.44 2.04 40.8Thambing 3.31 2.23 32.6


5. Livestock

Before resettlement, the 4 villages held approximately 3600 animals, 33% of which are in Phonkeo,26% in Sensi, and approximately 20% in Sensi and Thambing. Chickens represented 66% of all animalsraised in the villages. Phonkeo appeared to hold a significant share of larger animals: 84% of all buf-faloes, 47% of all pigs, and 44% of all cattle. On the other hand, 61% of all ducks were raised in Sensi(Table 9).

The resettlement led to an overall reduction of approximately 45% in the total number of animals.The number of pigs fell by 73%, buffaloes by 52% and chickens by 47%. However, there is a clear dif-ference between the two villages whose original location is farther away from the resettlement village,and the other two that relocated from closer locations. Phonkeo and Sensi, previously located closerto the resettlement site, experienced a 20% reduction in the number of chickens raised while Sopchatand Thambing, previously located much farther away, experienced a 76% reduction (Fig. 5).

As a result of the absence of pasture land within or in proximity of the new resettlement site, anumber of households continue to use grazing land near the original villages before resettlement tookplace. Grazing land is located between 10 and 240 minutes away from the new village and requiresboat transportation up the reservoir of both cattle and herders. However, the increment of operation-al cost is not homogeneous across the sample, with the distance to the pasture land depending onthe location of the original village. Transportation costs were found to be significantly higher for Thambingand Sopchat households (whose villages were originally located further away from the resettlementsite), and lower for Sensi and Phonkeo households (original villages located near the resettlement village).

6. Fisheries

Before resettlement, all 100 households who participated in the survey were involved in capturefisheries from the Nam Gnouang River system and almost all households generated cash income fromthe activity. Fish catch per household was higher in dry season (from December to May) and lowerin wet season (from June to November), and relatively similar across all 4 surveyed villages (Fig. 6).

Bean Cassava/Taro

Chili Fruit tree

Pineapple

Rice

SugarcaneVegetablesCotton

Rice

Potato

Cassava/Taro

Maize

Pineapple

Fruit treeVegetables

Sugarcane Bean

Chili

Tobacco Black bean

Fig. 4. Share of crops in total harvest before (left) and after resettlement (right).

Table 8Average income from river-based agriculture (Kip/year).

Beforeresettlement

Afterresettlement

Phonkeo 3,755,356 0Sensi 6,557,526 0Sopchat 3,073,192 0Thambing 5,065,830 0


Thambing and Sopchat, the villages originally located father upstream, were selling 55%–75% of thecatch to generate cash income throughout the year, while Sensi and Phonkeo were selling smaller pro-portions, between 35 and 65%.

Fisheries have continued to be one of the most important sources of income for the surveyed vil-lages after the resettlement. However, following reservoir impoundment, the nature of the fisherieschanged significantly, from river-based activity to reservoir-based activity. It involved a major changein fishing technique and equipment, and seasonality.

The change in fisheries included two components. First, it meant a change in physical access tofishing grounds, from a river flowing next to the original villages with ease of access, to a large res-ervoir that requires a boat to fish from, through a small landing area. Second, access to the reservoirfisheries is now institutionally restricted, requiring a fishing license fee paid to the newly created res-ervoir fishery management committee.

The license costs 30,000 Kip per year (USD 3.75) for purpose of subsistence fishing while it costs30,000 Kip per month for commercial fishing. Despite this additional investment now required for fishing,

Table 9Number of livestock before and after resettlement.


Before resettlementBuffaloes 133 5 20 0 158Cattle 228 150 51 86 515Chickens 637 589 643 529 2398Ducks 25 83 2 26 136Goats 0 24 0 32 56Goose 0 0 0 0 0Other poultry 0 0 0 0 0Pigs 170 87 37 61 355Total 1193 938 753 734 3618After resettlementBuffaloes 71 0 0 5 76Cattle 185 140 57 26 408Chickens 467 510 186 97 1260Ducks 40 62 2 3 107Goats 10 4 0 30 44Goose 0 0 2 0 2Other poultry 0 0 0 0 0Pigs 44 36 13 3 96Total 817 752 260 164 1993

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Phonkeo Sensi Sopchat Thambing

Before After

Fig. 5. Total number of livestock before and after resettlement by village.


83% of the interviewed households have stated buying a fishing license, 26% for a subsistence fishinglicense and 57% for a commercial fishing license.

The pattern of fisheries catch changed significantly. Following reservoir impoundment, the sea-sonality of fisheries catch changed considerably with a peak in wet season from August to October,instead of dry season from December to April. Equally important, Fig. 7 clearly indicates that fisher-ies catch is distributed more evenly throughout the year. While total reported fish catch fell fromapproximately 151,600 to 122,370 kg in the first year following resettlement, the smoothing of fishcatch over the entire year could potentially contribute to income stabilization over the year.

These changes resulted in advantages to some villages and households. Of all households inter-viewed, 71% of them have acknowledged an increase in fishing activity following resettlement. Statedreasons include (1) easier access to fishing ground (43%); (2) increase in market demand for the fish

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Phonkeo

Sensi

Sopchat

Thambing

All

Kilograms

Fig. 6. Average monthly fish catch per household before resettlement.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Phonkeo

Sensi

Sopchat

Thambing

All

Kilograms

Fig. 7. Average monthly fish catch per household after resettlement.


caught (43%); and (3) the presence of a greater quantity of fish immediately following impoundment(60%).

On the other hand, 11% of the households have acknowledged a decrease in fishing activity. Statedreasons include (1) distance to the reservoir being too high to justify fishing (2%); (2) the high capitalcost associated with investing in a fishing boat; and (3) water level being too deep thus requiring dif-ferent fishing tools (6%).

Consequently, the distribution of fish catch across villages changed significantly. As shown in Fig. 8,before resettlement Phonkeo and Sensi together accounted for approximately 46% of the total fish catchin the 4 villages. This combined share increased to 61% after resettlement, with declining share of thecatch from Sopchat and Thambing.

Sopchat, which represented the largest share of fisheries before resettlement, had the lowest shareafter resettlement. Furthermore, the average fish catch per household decreased after resettlementfrom 726 kg per household per year to 414. The average fish catch per household per month is sig-nificantly lower in Sopchat than in the other 3 villages (Fig. 7). Sopchat is also the village with thelowest average number of boat per household after resettlement as well as the lowest number offishing gears. All of the above may be explained by one important factor; after resettlement, thehouseholds of Sopchat need to travel approximately 40 minutes to reach the shore of the reservoir.Phonkeo and Sensi lie within 17–23 minutes traveling time respectively from the reservoir. It doesappear that traveling distance (and thereby travel cost inclusive of the economic value of travelingtime) is a key determinant of the overall willingness to invest and to engage in reservoir fisheriesactivities.

Analysis of changes in fisheries income before and after resettlement revealed an association betweenthe distance to the reservoir and the percentage loss of household income from fisheries; if the dwell-ing is more than 15 minutes walking distance from the reservoir, the households tend to invest lesson boats and fishing gears and lose higher percentage of household income from fisheries after re-settlement (Table 10).

Perhaps as a result of more stable fish catch across months, the percentage of fish catch sold tomarket fluctuates less throughout the year. Fish trading activity has also become more organized, withthe daily presence of fish middlemen and access to market by road. Phonkeo’s share of fish sold tomarkets is much higher than for the other 3 villages, and in fact has increased compared to pre-resettlement level. On the other hand, Sopchat and Thambing both retain a higher proportion of thefish catch for home consumption and sell much less for cash income generation after resettlement(Fig. 9).

Phonkeo27%

Sensi19%

Sopchat28%

Thambing26%

Before

Phonkeo34%

Sensi27%

Sopchat15%

Thambing24%

After

Fig. 8. Share of fish catch before and after resettlement.


7. Economic benefits of water use

The results of the surveys conducted before and after resettlement and reservoir impoundmentillustrate gains and losses in the nature of the water benefits that the local communities derive fromthe river and the reservoir. For all 4 villages surveyed, the access of resettled communities to domes-tic water supply has drastically improved after the resettlement, significantly saving time to collectwater, especially for women and children who typically carry out this household chore. On the otherhand, almost all river-based livelihood options were lost, with the exception of fishing. While all 4villages experienced similar losses in some major areas of economic activities, these losses are notevenly distributed across villages and households.

The average income7 portfolio of the affected communities changed from a relatively more diver-sified one that takes full advantage of the Nam Gnouang River and its water, to livelihoods that arestill very much in transition and make limited use of the new reservoir. The sources of income havebecome concentrated to much fewer options that can turn profit with relatively short-term inputs,such as fishing and collection of forest products. It appears that households have chosen different strat-egies to cope with the changes according to their new circumstances.

Before resettlement, average annual household income reached 35.3 million Kip, or USD 4413. Inall 4 villages, agriculture was the most significant component of household income, contributing ap-proximately 38–43% of the total income. In Sopchat and Thambing, fisheries were the second most

7 For the purpose of this study, here total income includes not only cash income generated from selling products to marketsor from non/off-farm income, but also the market value of goods (such as fisheries and agricultural products) consumed athome – generally referred as ‘imputed income’. Our definition of total income also includes remittances which may have beenreceived by households. However, it does not include compensation in cash or in kind which may have been provided to re-settled households by the development project. The rationale for excluding such compensation is that these are meant to beof a temporary nature.

Table 10Reduction in fisheries income and distance to reservoir.

Average income from fishing (million Kip perhouseholds per year)

Walking distance fromreservoir

Beforeresettlement

Afterresettlement

% Reduction

Less than 15 minutes 8.6 6.7 22Between 15 and 34 minutes 8.8 3.9 55More than 34 minutes 7.6 3.3 57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Phonkeo Sensi Sopchat Tambing

Before After

Fig. 9. Percentage of fish catch sold to markets before and after resettlement.


important contributor to household income, while non-farm income was just as important as fish-eries in Phonkeo and Sensi (Table 11).

After resettlement, overall household income fell by approximately 72% on average, primarily dueto the significant reduction in agriculture production and associated income, which had not been fullyre-established 14–15 months after the resettlement. Agriculture’s contribution to total income fell from40% to 15% after resettlement. With the large reduction in income from agriculture, fisheries have becomemore predominant in the household income portfolio (Fig. 10).

The Nam Gnouang River contributed to approximately 38% of all income across all villages beforeresettlement (see Table 2 for the definition of “river-based income”). This percentage was lower inPhonkeo (27.5%) and higher in 3 other villages (approximately 44%). The absolute value of total reservoir-based income8 after resettlement is much lower than the total river-based income before resettlementin all villages, ranging from 25% reduction in Sopchat to 48.8% reduction in Phonkeo. However, theoverall dependency of household income on the reservoir-based activities was higher in all the sur-veyed villages than the level of dependency on the river-based activities before (Fig. 11), reflectingthe increase in share of income from fisheries as compared to other sources of income. The extreme-ly low income from all forms of agriculture production has resulted in the sudden dominance of fisheriesincome among all other possible income options available at the resettlement site.

8. Conclusions

Unlike previous analyses, this study designed a unique methodological approach in which samehouseholds were interviewed both before and after resettlement. This analysis of the THXP shows that

8 For estimating water benefit of the Nam Gnouang Reservoir, we disaggregated the income generated directly from eco-system goods and services derived from the reservoir (reservoir-based income), including fisheries, irrigated agriculture, andreservoir-related non-farm income if any.

Table 11Percentage share of household income from different sources.

Agriculture Fisheries Forests Non-farm Livestock Remittances

Phonkeo 38.4 17.9 20.1 19.6 4.1 0.0Sensi 42.8 22.3 13.2 18.1 3.5 0.0Sopchat 38.9 31.2 16.2 3.0 7.4 3.2Thambing 39.9 29.2 13.1 12.1 5.7 0.0

Agriculture40%

Fisheries24%

TFP/NTFP16%

Non/Off-farm14%

Livestock5%

Remittances1%

Before

Agriculture15%

Fisheries49%

TFP/NTFP8%

Non/Off-farm14%

Livestock13%

Remittances1%

After

Fig. 10. Share of income sources before and after resettlement.


the household livelihood portfolio considerably changed after the resettlement with less income fromlivestock, forest products, fisheries, and agriculture.

The overall results represent a transitional state of the economic activities by rural communitiesimmediately after a shock of resettlement, rather than a fully evolved livelihood portfolio in a newenvironment. The sources of income have become concentrated to much fewer options that can turnprofit with relatively short-term inputs.

Revenues from fisheries became more dominant, while the value extracted from the reservoir eco-system became less diverse than the value extracted from the river ecosystem, with no agricultureon river bank gardens, or less NTFP from wetlands, less revenue related to transportation services onthe river.

Fisheries are still important and did not change significantly after the resettlement in terms of totalquantity of fish catch. However, access to, and type and seasonality of fisheries changed, creating in-centives for more investments in fishing to some households while creating disincentives to othersfrom continuing fishing. Given the loss of agricultural land, it is important that the fisheries re-sources are sustained in both the short and long term so that their economic benefit can continue tosupport the recovery of the local livelihoods as a whole.

The reservoir ecosystem, as a whole, is much less important to the local communities than theriver ecosystem for several types of uses, such as spiritual use and domestic water use, butremained just as important, if not more, for fisheries. There is a potential for diversifying the use ofreservoir and its water through improved access as the communities become accustomed to the newenvironment.

Households resettled farther away from the reservoir have chosen to invest less in fishing and theirearning from fisheries was reduced more than that of those resettled closer to the reservoir. Thesehouseholds may face difficulties in the future to cope with the changes if their access to other typesof livelihood strategies, including NTFP collection, is not secured in the long-term. With the absenceof grazing land in the new resettlement area, large livestock have to be kept and guarded in their oldvillages, increasing operational cost especially for the villages located farther away, limiting the con-tinuity of some economic activities before and after resettlement.

The resettlement increased the accessibility to reliable water sources for all the households, withpublic and private wells, and domestic water consumption has significantly increased as a result. Thereis an opportunity to increase the economic benefit of the improved water access as well as the timesaved in collecting water.

Hydropower resettlement provided the affected households with homogenously designed com-pensation packages, including housing and farmland. However, in reality, various preconditions existand influence the way in which the households have adapted to the changes in access to land and

0

10

20

30

40

50


Mill

ion

Kip

River-based

Not river-based

Before

0

10

20

30

40

50


Mill

ion

Kip

Reservoir-based

Not reservoir-based

After

Fig. 11. Share of river-based income before resettlement and reservoir-based income after resettlement.


water resources; the physical access to the new reservoir and the cost of continuing the main eco-nomic activities, such as fisheries and livestock, seem to differ from village to village and from householdto household.

Further analysis is required to understand the association between particular adaptation strate-gies and the trajectories of evolving income portfolio over time and the socioeconomic characteristicsof each household, including wealth and educational background.

Based on this case study, the key lessons include the importance of understanding the way ruralcommunities access land and water resources in a variety of economic activities and the needs forconsidering the varied impacts of lost access to the benefit of river ecosystem and the water from theriver. Improved understanding of the determinants of adaptation is needed to better design appro-priate interventions for rebuilding local livelihoods.

The findings of the study provided insights to the future planning of resettlement process and live-lihood development programs for the resettled communities, in order to sustain the water benefit forthem.

During the transition period after resettlement, affected households rely more on natural re-sources for food and income. It is important to ensure that resettled communities have access to fisheriesresources and forests near their new village sites.

Livelihood development programs need to take into consideration the differences within the re-settlement sites in terms of access to water resources, the reservoir, and forests, as well as differencesin the distance to the original villages, farmlands, and grazing lands. This is important because con-tinued access to land and resources at the original villages may contribute to livelihoods and incomegeneration during the transition period after resettlement.

The study team however acknowledges that for a more comprehensive analysis of water benefittrade-offs before and after resettlement, additional follow-up surveys will be needed to monitor themedium- to long-term process of local adaptation to recover from the shock of hydropower resettle-ment. In particular, along with a number of researchers (see for example Bui et al. [8]), it is recognizedthat resettled households may require an amount of time considerably larger than approximately oneyear for adapting to a new environment. To this end, it would appear of great interest that the re-settled communities continued to be surveyed to provide a more comprehensive and detailed pictureof adaptation as it is taking place over time. We believe that a better understanding of this process ofadaptation will lead to the formulation of appropriate policy recommendations.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations in Lao PDR whohave facilitated this research: Social and Environmental Division staff of Theun-Hinboun Power CompanyLtd., members of the field survey team from the Department of Livestock and Fisheries and SavannakhetUniversity, and the survey respondents and the local authorities in Phonkeo, Sensi, Sopchat, andThambing. This research was carried out through the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food(CPWF), which is funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the EuropeanCommission (EC), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the Swiss Agencyfor Development and Cooperation (SDC). All errors and omissions which may remain in this paperare those of the authors and shall not be attributed to any of these individuals and organizations.

References

[1] C. Yermoli, Hydropower project database. User’s manual. Basin Development Programme – BDP2. Mekong River Commission,Vientiane, Lao PDR, 2009. 53 pp.

[2] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Wetlands and Water Synthesis, WorldResources Institute, Washington, DC, 2005.

[3] World Commission on Dams (WCD), Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making. Report of the WorldCommission on Dams, Earthscan Publications, London, UK, 2000.

[4] R.D. Agnes, M.S. Solle, A. Said, R. Fujikura, Effects of construction of the Bili-Bili Dam (Indonesia) on living conditions offormer residents and their patterns of resettlement and return, Int. J. Water Resour. D. 25 (2009) 467–477.

[5] B.A. Galipeau, M. Ingman, B. Tilt, Dam-induced displacement and agricultural livelihoods in China’s Mekong basin, Hum.Ecol. 41 (2013) 437–446.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-6082(14)00005-9/sr0010








[6] M.M. Cernea, For a new economics of resettlement: a sociological critique of the compensation principle, Int. Soc. Sci. J.55 (2003) 37–46.

[7] T.M.H. Bui, P. Schreinemachers, Resettling farm households in northwestern Vietnam: livelihood change and adaptation,Int. J. Water Resour. D. 27 (2011) 769–785.

[8] T.M.H. Bui, P. Schreinemachers, T. Berger, Hydropower development in Vietnam: involuntary resettlement and factors enablingrehabilitation, Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 536–544.

[9] B. Tilt, Y. Braun, D. He, Social impact assessment of large dams: a comparison of international case studies and implicationsfor best practice, J. Environ. Manage. 90 (2009) S249–S257.

[10] Norplan, Theun Hinboun Expansion Project: final Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Management andMonitoring Plan (EIA/EMMP), Norplan, 2008.

[11] Theun Hinboun Power Company (THPC), THPC Social and Environmental Division Monitoring Report 2012, 2013. THPCLtd. Vientiane, Lao PDR.

[12] Norplan, Theun Hinboun Expansion Project: final report Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), part 2 – reservoir and host villageareas. Norplan, 2008.

[13] Theun Hinboun Power Company (THPC), Theun Hinboun expansion project, social and environmental division: from inceptionto 2010, 2011. THPC Ltd. Vientiane, Lao PDR.

[14] S. Katus, Where local power meets hydropower: conceptualizing resettlement along the Nam Gnouang River in Lao PDR,2012. Master’s Thesis for University of Amsterdam. January 2012.










Documents

Redistribution of water use and benefits among hydropower affected communities in Lao PDR