1 / 43

BDC Mekong Project 2 – Results of Case Study in Lao PDR

BDC Mekong Project 2 – Results of Case Study in Lao PDR. Stakeholder Validation Meeting, Vientiane, February 24, 2014 Department of Livestock and Fisheries Savannakhet University WorldFish. Outline. What is BDC Mekong Project 2 Study Site in Lao PDR

mina
Download Presentation

BDC Mekong Project 2 – Results of Case Study in Lao PDR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BDC Mekong Project 2 – Results of Case Study in Lao PDR Stakeholder Validation Meeting, Vientiane, February 24, 2014 Department of Livestock and Fisheries Savannakhet University WorldFish

  2. Outline • What is BDC Mekong Project 2 • Study Site in Lao PDR • Upstream Study: Approach and Findings • Downstream Study: Approach and Findings • Conclusions/ Further analysis

  3. The CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) • A global research initiative (2010 ̶ to complete in 2014) • Basin programs in Andes system, Mekong, Nile, Ganges, Volta, Limpopo • “Mekong Basin Development Challenge Program” aims to reduce poverty and foster development through management of water for multiple uses in large dams and reservoirs • A series of coordinated thematic research projects, working in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam

  4. Mekong Project 2: Water Valuation • Overall Project Objective: Assess the value of water in its various uses and estimate costs and benefits associated with different water management strategies • Case Studies: • Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower project, Cambodia (planned) • TheunHinboun Expansion Project, Lao PDR (under construction operational) • Yali Falls hydropower project, Vietnam (operational)

  5. Mekong Project 2: Organizing Framework • Human Response • Coping strategies and adaptation: over harvesting; change in land use etc.. Human Impact Hydropower development Dam Reservoir Flow diversion Emphasis of Assessment Water uses/values • Freshwater/Wetlands ecosystem goods and services • Flood recession agriculture • Regulating water • Nutrient cycling • Habitats for fish and aquatic plants and animals : • Availability: when; where • Quantity and diversity • Physical Characteristics of Surface Water • Changes in : • Where the water is • River • Reservoir • Seasonal wetlands • When water is available/accessible • - Flow regime • Seasonal flooding patterns • Water Quality • - Sediment load • Livelihood Systems • Who benefit from what water use/value gains? • Who bear the cost of what water use/value losses? • Relative importance of each water value to stakeholders - all year around, seasonal? • Level of dependency on livelihood derived from particular water value • What social/institutional structure affect the water access? • Use value • Direct use • Indirect use • Non use value • Option value Will determine the habitat Freshwater and wetland services contribute to local livelihoods, while influenced by the physical changes in surface water. Adapted from Springate-Baginski et al. 2009

  6. Case Study in Lao PDR • Geographic Scope: TheunHinboun Expansion Project Impact Zone • Objectives: • Assess how upstream and downstream households will be affected differently by the change in access to water resources • Analyze changes in water benefits before and after resettlement/relocation of villages • Approaches: • Household survey of upstream and downstream villages directly affected by the dam and reservoir • Assessing existing water use patterns and benefits derived from direct access to river and reservoir

  7. Case Study Sites in Lao PDR NG Reservoir and resettled villages T-H Extension Project Nam Hinboun river and relocated villages

  8. Data Collection Methods • Focus Group Discussions and stakeholder consultations (to ID key water uses and values at various levels) • Upstream household surveys (100 HH in 4 villages), before (April 2011) and 12 months after the resettlement* (Sep 2012) • Downstream household surveys (156 HH in 7 villages, in January 2012) • Follow-up surveys in both upstream and downstream villages (December 2013) * The actual resettlement of the 4 villages took place in May – July 2011

  9. Timeline of Field Surveys Upstream HH survey in 4 villages Before Resettlement 100 HH Downstream HH survey in 7 villages Before Relocation 156 HH Upstream HH survey in 4 villages After Resettlement 100 HH Follow -up surveys both Upstream and Downstream FGDs and Stakeholder Consultation Jan. 2012 Sept. 2012 Feb. 2011 April 2011 Dec.2013 Upstream Resettlement to Keosenkham

  10. Study Site in Lao PDR: Upstream Estimated reservoir extent in 2012, by TheunHimboun Power Company, Lao PDR Google Earth image in 2003

  11. The Change: conversion of Nam Gnouang river into a reservoir, • resettlement of local villages Keosenkham 180 HHs 2011 VG 1 VG 2 320 HHs 2010 VG 1 150 HHs 2009 VG 3a 160 HHs 2010-11 Source: TheunHimboun Power Company, Lao PDR

  12. Approach: Upstream Study ̶ Compare Before and After Resettle-ment • To understand how local communities use the river water and river ecosystems • To assess the economic importance of the river for local livelihood and income • To compare water use patterns and economic values before and after the resettlement based on two surveys

  13. Upstream - Findings • Domestic water access has dramatically improved after resettlement, with potential economic benefit • River bank gardens has been replaced with company-assisted agriculture programs for homestead garden • Number of cattle holding declined for some families because grazing land unavailable nearby • Fishing is the most important use of reservoir in general but some villages fish more than before, other villages less than before

  14. Upstream – Findings (continued) • Fisheries continue to generate a large share of income, while catch has become less diverse, no more harvest of other aquatic animals • Collection of forest products generally declined because wetlands and forests are submerged. But NTFP collection increased for some people in Tambing and Sopchat located farther away from the reservoir. • Natural resources such as fish and non-timber forest products continue to play important role for cash income during the transition

  15. Table 1: % Households Considering Nam Gnouang River/Reservoir as “Important” or “Very Important” • Use of Nam GnouangReservoir is still very limited compared to diverse use of river before resettlement

  16. Agriculture production was not fully recovered 14-15 months after resettlement (still in transition) • Average household income fell by approximately 72%, primarily due to the significant reduction in agriculture-related income which had not been fully re-established at the time of survey • Fisheries has become the biggest contributor to household income, due to reduction in income from agriculture Compensation from company - Food - Agriculture inputs - Cash • Figure 1: Changes in Income Portfolio • Before and After Resettlement • (including the value of items consumed at home) Figure 2: Share of income sources before and after resettlement

  17. Most significant change in agriculture is the loss of irrigated farming on river banks to reservoir impoundment

  18. Change from river fisheries to reservoir fisheries • Fishing is the most important use of reservoir to local communities • Fisheries generate a larger share of income and more cash than before, but are different: • More fish catch, but less diverse & lower market value • seasonality shifted – from peak fish catch in dry season to peak in rainy season • no more harvest of other aquatic animals, such as snails • requiring investment in different fishing technique and equipment

  19. Figure 4 : Average monthly fish catch per household by village, before and after resettlement Before After • Fish catch is distributed more evenly throughout the year, with peak in wet season • 71% of resettled households reported increase in fishing activities, while 11% reported reduction in fishing activity • Fishers in Phonkeo increased the share of fish catch sold to market/middlemen, while fishers in Sopchat and Tambing increased share of fish catch kept for home consumption

  20. Changes are not homogeneous ̶ Distance Matters • Before resettlement: 4-5 minutes walk to the river • After resettlement : up to 30 minutes walk to the reservoir

  21. Distance to the reservoir an important factor in new livelihood strategies • Close: < 15 mn walk • Medium: 15-33 mn • Far: >33 mn Reasons for fishing less: • Reservoir is too far from home • Investment on fishing boat is needed • Investment on different fishing tools is required to fish in reservoir Households located closer to the reservoir have invested more in boats, fishing gears and fishery licenses than those located far

  22. Distance to the original villages an important factor in livelihood strategies • 45% reduction in the total number of animals because of the lack of grazing land within or near the new resettlement site • Households/villages whose original grazing land is closer and more accessible were able to keep more animals Figure 6: Total number of livestock before and after resettlement by village

  23. Domestic Water use – from river water to private wells

  24. Complete changes in main sources of water Figure 7: Share of water supply from different sources before and after resettlement, in dry and rainy seasons Before Resettlement After Resettlement 24

  25. Access to Water is Easier..... Figure 8: Ease of Access to Sources of Water Before and After Relocation (1: Very easy; 5: Very difficult)

  26. and water consumption increases Figure 9: Water Consumption Before and After Resettlement (liters/household/day)

  27. ....and it saves time Figure 10: Water Collection Time Before and After Resettlement (hours per week)

  28. ...and saves money! • Assuming a $2 per day of economic productivity • The total annual economic benefit of the reduction in water collection time adds up to approximately $19,000 (for all 4 villages combined) Figure 11: Distribution of Economic Benefits of ReducedWater Collection Time across All Villages

  29. Study Site in Lao PDR: Down-stream Google Earth image in 2003

  30. The Change: erratic flow of Nam Himboun river, “relocation” (partial resettlement) • of local villages

  31. Approach: Downstream Study ̶ Status Assessment Before Relocation • To understand how local communities use the river water and river ecosystems • To assess the economic importance of the river for local livelihood and income • To understand which livelihood activities are likely to be affected by river flow changes

  32. Downstream - Findings • Already affected by the first T-H dam built in 1980s • River is an important source of water in dry season, and collecting water is generally difficult • Communities have access to irrigation scheme supported by THPC • Relatively diversified sources of cash income, high rate of wage labor and remittances • River-based agriculture and natural resources are still very important sources of cash income and subsistence

  33. Rivers and natural springs still very significant as sources of water Figure 12: Share of water supply from different sourcesin dry and rainy seasons • 55% of households report river as primary source of water in dry season, while rain becomes primary source of water in rainy season (51%) • No significant difference in water collection effort between households relying on river and households using other sources, but water collection from river is rated as more difficult than other sources of water • Approximately 47% of the households have access to public or private wells

  34. Importance of the Nam Himboun River • Table 2:% Households Considering Nam Himboun River as “Important” or “Very Important” • Very diverse uses of river and river water, despite influence of the first dam • More than 90% of households consider the river as important for domestic uses such as washing clothes and bathing • 24% rely on the river for drinking water, especially in dry season when other sources of water (rain or small water bodies) are not available

  35. Relatively diversified sources of income, non-farm income significant Total = 17 Million Kip

  36. Large difference in average household income from village to village

  37. But income from river-based activities still important in many villages Figure 15: Share of river-based income

  38. Importance of river for agriculture • Table 3: Status of land holding and irrigation • 32% of households that own lowland field have access to canal irrigation supplied with the river water • Less than 50% of the surveyed households own river bank garden • Agriculture does not generate a high income; most of the agriculture production is for household consumptions

  39. Fisheries is important for food and income • 96% of households are involved in fishing, and much of the catch is used for home consumption • Average monthly household income from fishing ranges from 200,000 to 300,000 Kips in rainy season but is reduced to less then 50,000 in dry season

  40. Limitation of our research • Time for survey was short (each survey 2 weeks) • “After resettlement” survey was to soon (12-14 months after the resettlement) • Geographic scope of the survey was small (4 villages upstream, 7 villages downstream) • Closed questionnaire did not allow for more detailed discussions with the villagers

  41. Conclusions/Lessons Learned • During the transition after resettlement, households rely more on natural resources • Need to take into consideration of the differences within the resettlement village in terms of access to reservoir, forests, original fields and grazing land • Need to ensure access of the resettled communities to fisheries resources and forests • Provide specific support to enable livestock-based activities to continue at the resettlement village

  42. Conclusions/Lessons Learned • Important to manage reservoir fisheries sustainably as it is the most important community use of reservoir • Cash–based activities, rather than subsistence activities, are becoming more important to the resettled communities • Domestic water access has dramatically improved and made more time available for income generation through other activities • More skills training needed to help communities re-establish a range of income generating activities • More research is needed to protect and enhance the fisheries resources in the reservoir

  43. Thank you for your attention!

More Related