Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Water valuation, benefits and trade off after resettlement

452 views

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

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

×