Water valuation, benefits and trade off after resettlement


Published on

3rd Mekong Forum on Water, Food & Energy 2013. Presentation from Session 7: Restoring livelihoods: opportunities for sharing the benefits of water for resettled communities.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This presentation summarizes some preliminary results from a research project supported by CPWF. A case study in central Lao PDR was implemented jointly by WorldFish in Cambodia, Department of Livestock and Fisheries and University of Savannakhet in Lao PDR, and International Center for Environmental Management in Vietnam.
  • The map shows the entire catchment of the Mekong sub-basins in Lao, where the case study was conducted.
  • More dependence on fisheriesNo more riverbank gardensOverall value of decreased by more than 50%Limitation: Not settled and new agriculture activities and irrigated homestead garden did not yet take off.
  • Mention that HH located far increase effort in NTFP collection and less effort in fishingMention that village located far increase operational cost of livelistockEmpahsize that it is not abut loss, but changes in livelihood strategies
  • Before relocation, the river and springs were the main source of water supply, in both dry and rainy season. After relocation, households were given access to private and public wells – albeit not free access. In the dry season, public and private wells provide almost all water supply – almost equally so . In Phonkeo, Sensi and Thambing, private and public wells are the unique sources of water.In the rain season, rain  and spring water constitute the bulk of the water supply. 
  • Given the changes in sources of water supply, access to water became considerably easier with water source located 10 to 50 meters from the households, and sometime even public are well connected to the directly to the households with pipes On the same scale of 1 to 5, the average degree of difficulty of collecting water was ranked as 1.5 in the dry season (down from 2.3) and 1.4 in the rain season (down from 2.8). The ease of access improved particularly in the rain season. Perhaps more importantly, while the ease of access to water was ranked differently across villages before relocation, the ease of access to water became ranked almost identically across all villages after the relocation in both the dry and rain seasons
  • water consumption increased significantly from 109 to 383 liters/household/day in the dry season, and from 128 to 347 in the rain season. Water consumption in the dry season is now 3.5 times higher than before relocation, and 2.7 times higher in the rain season.
  • Before relocation 533 and 491 mn per week in average per week.after relocation households spend on average 22.5 minutes (rain season) and 28.0 minutes (dry season) for the collection of water per week. The collection of domestic water alone represents approximately 16 minutes per week. Across all villages, this translated into a total water collection time of 83.9 hours in the dry season and 67.5 hours in the wet season for the collection of all water, of which the collection of domestic water represents 50.8 and 45.9 hours respectively. total time devoted to the collection of water decreased very significantly across all villages. Across all villages, time devoted to the collection of all water fell by approximately 95% and by approximately 86% for the collection of domestic water.
  • Sopchat appears to be captured the largest share (44% or $8,500) of the estimated annual economic benefit.
  • Water valuation, benefits and trade off after resettlement

    1. 1. Water Valuation, Benefits and Trade off after Resettlement – Case Study on Upstream of Nam Gnouang Hydropower Reservoir Mekong Forum on Water, Food and Energy in Ha Noi, Viet Nam, November 19 to 21, 2013 BDC Mekong Project 2 Lao Team 1
    2. 2. Outline • • • • • Introduction Study Site Approach Results Conclusions/ Further analysis 2
    3. 3. Case Study in Lao PDR – Upstream Site NG Reservoir and resettlement villages T-H Extension Project 3
    4. 4. The Change: conversion of Nam Gnouang river into a reservoir, resettlement of local villages Keo Saen Kham 180 HHs 2011 VG 1 VG 1 150 HHs 2009 VG 2 320 HHs 2010 VG 3a 160 HHs 2010-11 4
    5. 5. Study Site in Lao PDR: Upstream Google Earth image in 2003 Estimated reservoir extent in 2012, by Theun Himboun Power Company, Lao PDR 5
    6. 6. • 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 Objectives • To compare water use patterns and economic values before and after the resettlement 6
    7. 7. Longitudinal Survey FGDs and Stakeholder Consultation Upstream HH survey in 4 villages Before Resettlement 100 HH Upstream HH survey in 4 villages After Resettlement 100 HH Feb 2011 April 2011 Sept. 2012 Resettlement of 180 HH May 2013 Validation Workshop 7
    8. 8. 8
    9. 9. River Related Income Portfolio River Related Income portfolio of HH Non Farm Before Ressettlement 2% Total = 13 Mkip Irrigated Agriculture 33% Fisheries 63% Forestry 2% River Related Income portfolio of HH After Ressettlement Forestry 4% Irrigated Agriculture 0% Total = 5 Mkip Non Farm 0% Fisheries 96% 9
    10. 10. From river to reservoir fisheries Fishing is the most important use of reservoir Fisheries generate a large share of income and more cash than before, but fisheries changed: – Higher 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 – Different fishing technique requiring more equipment 10
    11. 11. Changes is not Homogeneous Distance matters • Before relocation: 4-5 minutes walk to the river • After relocation: up to 30 minutes walk to the reservoir 11
    12. 12. Distance to the Reservoir an Important factor in Livelihood strategies Change in River Related Income Portfolio - – Close: < 15 mn walk – Medium: 15-33 mn – Far: >33 mn Before & After Resettlement CLOSE MEDIUM FAR 16 Non Farm 14 Irrigated Agriculture Million Kip/HH/year 12 Forestry 10 The distance to reservoir is an important factor for access to fishery resource Fisheries 8 6 4 2 0 Before After Before After Before After Households located close to the reservoir have invested more in boats, fishing gears and fishery licenses than those located far 12
    13. 13. Domestic Water use – from river collection to Individual Well 13
    14. 14. Changes in Sources of Water Before Resettlement Dry Season Tap 2% Spring 44% After Resettlement Rain Season Rain and spring 7% River 54% Rain and river 5% Tap 2% River 36% Spring 50% 14
    15. 15. Access to Water is Easier..... More Difficult Ease of Access to Sources of Water Before and After Relocation (1: Very easy; 5: Very difficult) 15
    16. 16. and water consumption increases Water Consumption Before and After Resettlement (liters/household/day) 16
    17. 17. ....and it saves time Total Total Total Total Time Spent Collecting Water, Before and After Resettlement (total hours per week) 17
    18. 18. ...for making more money! • Assuming a $2 per day of potential economic productivity • The total annual economic benefit of the reduction in water collection time can be valued at approximately $19,000 (for all 4 villages combined) Share of Economic Benefits from Time Saving in Water Collection Among 4 Villages 18
    19. 19. Conclusion • During the transition period, households relies more on natural resources • Reservoir fisheries need to be sustained as it has become the most important local use of the reservoir and the main source of income • Need to consider the differences within the resettlement village in terms of access to reservoir, forest and grazing while designing resettlement villages • Domestic water access has dramatically improved and made more time available for income generation through other activities 19
    20. 20. Need for further analysis • The 2nd survey was too soon after the resettlement and agriculture activities had not yet started • Another survey is planned in December 2013 to assess the changes two and half years after the resettlement 20