The World Wide Fund for Nature, Australian Nation University, and the Luc Hoffman Institute gave this presentation on the water, food and energy projections for the lower Mekong Basin.

1. Water, food and energy
projections for the
lower Mekong Basin
2015 Greater Mekong Forum on Water, Food and Energy
21-23 Oct 2015
Phnom Penh

2. • "The Luc Hoffmann Institute aims to build relationships between people in public and private
sectors, researchers and conservation practitioners through collaborative research processes
that produce useful conservation science. We - ANU, LHI and all our partners - believe that
having an impact with research means co-creating science and knowledge with the input of
diverse groups of people -- not just communicating findings at the end of a project. In this
session, we're sharing two Mekong-themed projects "in progress" with you for your feedback
with some specific goals in mind:
• Navigating the nexus is an ambitious project of linked regional analysis and place-based case
studies along the Lower Mekong. We've taken 10 months to staff and launch three studies. We
have a solid research group and links with WWF and other conservation practitioners in the
region; but we'd appreciate advice while we're still developing the research on how can we
make a useful contribution to policy and private sector risk management on food security in the
region?
• Linked Indicators for Vital Ecosystem Services (LIVES) is a global project that seeks to develop
and test a method to generate stakeholder-led indicator frameworks that highlight the linkages
between food, energy and water - and can signal specific actions that can be taken to manage
risks and synergies arising from these connections - in river basins. We've been piloting this
method in Cambodia, in a process that's benefitted enormously from close partnerships with the
Ministry of Environment, local universities, WWF and the provincial governments of Kratie and
Stung Treng provinces. We're just over half way through the pilot and we'd like your feedback
on how, in the final 7 months of work, could we contribute to the regional WLE context? "
Introduction

3. ©ELIZABETHKEMF/WWF-CANON
PARTNERS
LINKED INDICATORS FOR VITAL
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (LIVES)
IMPACT GOAL
By 2017, decision-making at the food-water-energy nexus is supported through research and
capacity on connections between natural systems, economic systems and human well-being.
Dr. Andrea Bassi
Mr. Kimchhin Sok
Dr. Louise Gallagher (lgallagher@wwfint.org)

4. 1. Supporting Thought Leadership on the role data and indicators play in
managing food-energy-water interdependencies and risks. (Phase I,
Global component)
2. Developing actionable indicators for food-energy-water security in river
basins. (Phase I, Pilot component)
3. Exploring food-energy-water linkages in many locations to develop a
substantiated typology of interdependencies and risks, indicators and
options for action. (Phase II)
Main research output
A global database for food-energy-water indicators in
river basins
Research agenda

6. ©AdamOswell/WWF-GreaterMekong

7. Using a systemic approach:
informed by stakeholders, based on science

8. green gdp
gdp
natural capital additions
+
consumption
demand of natural
resources
natural capital
+
+
natural capital
growth
+natural capital
extraction
natural capital
depletion
natural capital
reductions
+
+
+
- +
ecosystem
services
productivity
(tfp)
+
+
+
physical capital
+investment depreciation
+
+
+
ecological
scarcity
-
-
human capital employed
population
job creation
+
retirement
public
expenditure
health
education
human capital
growth
training
+
+
+
+
+
<human capital
growth>
+
private
profits
+
+
+
wages
+
+
+
+
R
R
R
R
R
B
B
gdp of the poor
+
<gdp>
+
Using a systemic approach:
informed by stakeholders, based on science

9. Combining the best features of existing methodologies
and tools to support every step of decision making

10. • Trainings (5 sessions)
(national and provincial)
• Participatory action research sessions
• System analysis (CLD)
• Policy workshops (national and provincial)
• Publications (training materials, papers, etc.)
• Development of tools:
• Report card
• Model
• User Interface

11. LIVES food-energy-water nexus
upstream
sediment delivery
fine sediment
(suspension)
sand and graded
suspension
bedload (sand and
gravel)
land clearing
water
diversions
+
-
dam construction
(size/capacity)
-
precipitation
rainfall variability
temperature
groundwater
use
agriculture productivity
+
-
food
demand
food
production
agriculture
land
+
+
+
population
+ desired
agriculture land
-
+
fish catch
+
desired crop consumption
from local production
desired fish consumption
from local production
desired meat
consumption from local
production
+
+
+
+
gdp/income
fish price (import)
crop price (import)
meat price (import)
+
desired fish
catch
+
+
fish stock
+
settlement
land
grazing land
-
-
+
+
meat
production
crop
production
+
+
food self sufficiency <food demand>
-
+
fish migration-
-
fish breeding
fish mortality
+
+
+
-
+electricity supply+
+
employment
+
+
-
construction
materials extraction
-
+
sediment budget
(transboundary
impacts)
electricity
demand
+
+
energy self
sufficiency
-
+
+
+
delta economic productivity
(transboundary dimension)
+
<fish catch>
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
<precipitation>
-
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
R6
B6
food price
+++
R7
dolphin
population
+
sustainable fishing
practices
++
tourism
+
<population>
+-
-
<agriculture
productivity>
-
road infrastructure
investment
access to the ssk
+
+
<fine sediment
(suspension)>
+
population
displacement
+
+
fertilizer and
pesticide use+
<fertilizer and
pesticide use>
water qualityenvironmental
quality
<land clearing>
+
+
-
-
-
<environmental
quality>
human health
+
+
soil quality
-
+
<water
quality>
-
B7

12. LIVES food-energy-water nexus

13. What option is more likely
to help us achieve our
goal?
Option A
Option B
LIVES food-energy-water nexus

14. Our question to you:
Is a systemic approach
suited to inform decision making
on socio-economic development
at the landscape level?

15. Impacts of flood regulation and
intensive rice production in
An Giang province, Vietnam
• Kien Van Nguyen and Daniel Connell
• E: nv.kien@anu.edu.au

16. Background of flood regulation
 Dikes have been a key approach to control flooding and rice
intensification in the Mekong Delta over the last three decades.

17. Background of flood regulation
 More than 2/3 of An Giang province's total agricultural land area is
covered by dikes.
Inundation
map in 2000
Inundation
map in 2014
Source: Pham Duy Tien (2015)

18. Background: Rice production increased three times
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Production of paddy in An Giang from 1986 to 2013Tons
Source: GSO (1986 - 2013)
DYKES

19. Aims of this study
 To examine the costs of rice intensification
before and after dikes
 To examine fish consumption by households
before and after dikes

20. Study Sites: different flood management approaches
Site A:
Low dikes +
Flood
recession
2 crops / year
Site B:
High dikes +
regulation
3 crops / year
Site C:
High dikes +
No regulation
3 crops / year

21. Household Survey
 55 households were
randomly selected from
each site
 Two members (husband
and wife) were
interviewed in each
household
 Total number of
questionnaires was 165
 Conducted 6 Focus
Group Discussions

22. Costs: Increase in pesticides and fertilizer use
(Winter-spring crop)
Pair-test, (N=165)
Denote: ***<0.001; **<0.01; ns is not significant
Sites Indicators Before After n Sig.
A Yield (kg/1000 m2 780 862 44 **
Total fertilizer use (kg/1000 m2) 35 49 51 ***
Pesticides (number of application) 3.7 6.8 38 ***
B Yield (kg/1000 m2 768 939 50 ***
Total fertilizer use (kg/1000 m2) 44 62 50 ***
Pesticides (number of application) 3.6 6.7 45 ***
C Yield (kg/1000 m2 832 880 21 ns
Total fertilizer use (kg/1000 m2) 34 54 21 ***
Pesticides (number of application) 2.9 5.1 21 ***

23. Pair-test, (N=165)
Denote: ***<0.001; **<0.01
Before
(2000)
After
(2014) Sig.
Wild fish 301 127 ***
Aqua fish 58 104 ***
Total fish 359 231 **
85.04
49.60
12.54
47.97
Before After
Changes in fish
consumption before-after
dikes (%)
Wildfish Aquafish
Costs: Changes in fish consumption
Kilogram per household per year (kg/hh/y)

24. Pair-test, (N=55)
Denote: ***<0.001; **<0.01; ns is
not significant
Before
(2000)
After
(2014) Sig.
Wild fish 338 203 **
Aqua fish 45 113 ***
Total fish 384 316 ns
90.54
67.32
9.46
32.68
0
20
40
60
80
100
Before After
Fish consumption at site
A (%)
Wildfish Aquafish
Costs: Changes in fish consumption
Kilogram per household per year (kg/hh/y)

25. Pair-test, (N=55)
Denote: ***<0.001; **<0.01;
*<0.05; ns is not significant
Before After Sig.
Wild fish 304 76 ns
Aqua fish 63 106 *
Total fish 368 183 **
77.36
37.48
15.37
57.06
-
20
40
60
80
100
Before After
Fish consumption at site B
(%)
Wildfish Aquafish
Costs: Changes in fish consumption
Kilogram per household per year (kg/hh/y)

26. Costs: Changes in fish consumption
Kilogram per household per year (kg/hh/y)
Pair-test, (N=55)
Denote: ***<0.001; **<0.01;ns is
not significant
Before After Sig.
Wild fish 260.26 102.68 ***
Aqua fish 64.71 92.37 ns
Total fish 324.96 195.05 ***
87.21
44.00
12.79
54.18
-
20
40
60
80
100
Before After
Fish consumption at site C
(%)
Wildfish Aquafish

27. Conclusion
 Dikes can help farmers increase rice
production.
 However, there are costs:
 more fertilizer and pesticides are required
 inland fish consumption is significantly reduced
 aqua fish consumption is increased to partly
replace inland fish losses
 total fish consumption is significantly reduced.
27

28. What policies will be best to
achieve sustainable rice
intensification and adequate
protein supply?
28
Our question to you:

29. How could current national food policies
deal with threats to regional protein
supplies created by major water
infrastructure development including
hydrodam development?
David Dumaresq
Fenner School of Environment and Society
Australian National University
WLE
23 October 2015

30. Regional evidence of existing serious dietary
protein deficiencies

31. Future Threat to Regional Food Supply from Mekong
basin dams
 Strategic Environmental
Assessment data (ICEM 2010)
 88 basin dams by 2030
 Include 10% reservoir fisheries
gains
 Projected net loss in fish
protein of -23.4 to -37.8%

32. 1. Import protein
2. Divert aquaculture & marine fish exports
3. Expand livestock production (Orr et al. 2012)
4. Expand protein-rich crop production
Four options to replace lost fish protein

33. Previous research
Orr, S., Pittock, J., Chapagain, A., & Dumaresq, D. (2012). Dams on the
Mekong River: Lost fish protein and the implications for land and water
resources. Global Environmental Change, 22(4), 925-932. doi:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.06.002
Very conservative snapshot in time, no:
 Non-barrier impacts of dams on fish
 Resource requirements for
scavenging animals
 Population increases of people
 Dietary change with wealth
 Climate and other global change
impacts

34. Not all proteins are equal … lysine
Food stuff Protein g/100g Protein
index: fish
= 100
Lysine
mg/100g
Lysine
index: fish
= 100
Soy 38 202 2653 155
Ground nuts 25.6 136 1876 110
Fish 18.8 100 1713 100
Legumes/pulses 22.5 120 1683 98
Chicken 20 106 1590 93
Beef 17.7 94 1573 92
Pork 11.9 63 961 56
Offals 16 85 917 54
Eggs 12.4 66 863 50
Molluscs etc. 10 53 797 47
Seeds 18.1 96 585 34
Oil Crops 12.6 67 500 29
Wheat 12.2 65 374 22
Rice 7.5 40 299 17
Maize 9.5 51 254 15
Milk 3.5 19 248 14
Other veg 2.03 11 100 6
Fruit 0.98 5 52 3

35. Lysine sources in the Lower Mekong
Source: FAO
Lysine Supply Cambodia % Laos % Thailand % Vietnam %
Total
Vegetable 46 53 36 42
Animal 53 46 63 57
Vegetable Lysine
Rice 41 47 39 33
Maize 4 4 0 2
Oil Crops 9 13 8 7
Soy 29 27 27 24
Pulses & Beans 13 2 11 18
Other veg 1 9 1 1
Ground Nuts 0 0 5 15
Fruit 0 0 1 0
Wheat 0 0 8 0
Seeds 3 0 0 0
Total 100 98 98 100
Animal Lysine
Fish 56 38 31 24
Molluscs etc 2 0 1 6
Pork 15 22 14 37
Beef 12 19 6 5
Chicken 4 8 24 11
Offals 4 6 0 7
Eggs 2 4 14 3
Milk 3 1 8 4
Total 99 99 98 9835

36. 36
Power – lysine nexus summary:

37. 37

38. LMB Soybean Imports 2005-11
(tonnes)
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Thailand
Vietnam
Cambodia
Includes
imports of
soybeans for
food and
soybeans as
soybean cake
for stock feed.
Note
emergence of
Cambodia as
an importer of
soybean cake
for stock feed
in 2008.
Increased
2100% by
2011

39. Imports vs Lost Fish Protein Replacement
Requirements(LMB land areas ha)
Thailand Vietnam Cambodia Total
LMB land areas required to replace max lost fish protein
Animal
husbandry
99,000 47,000 2,826,000 2,973,000
Crop
production
1,099,000 358,000 1,339,000 2,796,000
Mixed
animal &
crop farming
794,000 257,000 1,556,000 2,607,000
LMB land areas required to replace current stock feed imports
ELA for
imported
feed
2,348,300 3,793,900 45,800 6,188,100
Thailand and Vietnam have already ‘outsourced’ much of the land needed for
animal production. Cambodia has options to convert more land to animal
production and/or ‘outsource’ that land through increased
animal feed imports

40. How best can lost protein be replaced?
What food security and national
agricultural development policies will
work best?
Our question to you:

41. Maximum land required for lysine
replacement (% change)
Lysine
source
Cambodia Laos Thailand Vietnam
Vegetable
sources
59 22 11 6
Animal
sources
155 47 10 7
Crop &
animal
sources
43 15 5 3
(km2) (24,090) (3,580) (10,840) (3,260)

42. How best can lost protein be replaced?
What food security and national agricultural
development policies will work best?
Our questions to you:
What policies will be best to achieve
sustainable rice intensification and adequate
protein supply?
Is a systemic approach suited to inform
decision making on socio-economic
development at the landscape level?