View
378
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Olivier Joffre from WorldFish presents on hydropower development in Lao PDR (Mekong Basin) and how that is affecting local livelihoods and adaptation. Find out more about what WLE/CPWF is doing in the Mekong: http://bit.ly/SzaOGi
Citation preview
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