This document summarizes livelihood piloting experiences associated with hydropower development in Vietnam, Lao PDR, and Cambodia. Key outcomes include: 1) Introduction of a short term cassava variety in Vietnam that increased yields and farmer incomes; 2) Integrated rice-fish culture in Lao PDR that increased rice productivity and protein supply; and 3) Small scale aquaculture and vegetable production in Cambodia that diversified incomes and supported food security. Lessons learned indicate communities need more than one year to adopt new technologies, and partnerships with local authorities and companies can enable piloting of livelihood activities.

1. Assessing livelihood piloting
experiences associated with
hydropower development: key
outcomes and broad lessons learned
Presenter: Olivier Joffre
Contributors: Olivier Joffre, Sonali Senaratna Sellamuttu, Tran
Duc Toan, Nguyen Duy Phuong, Bounthanom Bouahom,
Anousith Keophoxay, Mith Samonn, Sovannara Khean, Mak
Soeun, Nireka Weeratunge Starkloff and Jharendu Pant
21 November 2013
Hanoi CPWF Forum

2. Take Home Messages


In case of newly introduced technology, communities will
require more than a one year trial to continue and adopt the
technology

2
Modified environment provide also new opportunities like :
drawdown area, irrigation, integration of aquaculture
A combination of having good relations with the private
sector or government authorities and credible research
results can lead to gaining support for the piloting of
livelihood-enhancement activities in relation to sustainable
hydropower development.

3. Outline of Presentation
Study Sites
 Key Finding of Broad scale survey
 Vietnam Pilot – use of drawdown area of Yali
reservoir
 Lao PDR Pilot – Integrated rice-fish culture in
resettled community
 Cambodia Pilot – Integrated Farming System
Approach
 Conclusion

3

4. Sites CPWF Mekong Project are focusing on

Theun
Hinboun
Expansion,
Lao PDR

Yali,
Vietnam

Lower Se
San 2,
Cambodia

5. Learning from the broad scale and
household level surveys




5
Site specific livelihood strategies with community (i) already
resettled, (ii) in the process and (iii) not yet resettled
Wide spectrum of situation with communities dependent on
natural resources in Lao PDR and Cambodia and more
market oriented livelihood in Vietnam
Objectives of pilots: diversified livelihood activities using the
new environmental condition created by the hydropower
development
Pilots implemented with local authorities in Cambodia and
Vietnam and Hydropower company in Lao PDR

6. Vietnam

Drawdown area of Yali
reservoir is used by
farmer to grow cassava,
but:


6
risk of flooding is high at
the end of the crop
duration on land
exposure is too short to
achieve maximum yield
with the commonly used
variety

7. Vietnam livelihood pilot – Key
outcomes


7
Introduction of a new short term
variety (KM98-7)
 2012: 3 farmers – 1.5 ha – 1
commune
 2013: 36 farmers – 20 ha – 2
communes
Increase yield and starch content
 32 tons/ha vs 21 tons/ha
 26% starch vs 21% starch
 Increased net benefit over $350
USD/ha to $850 USD/ha

8. Vietnam livelihood pilot – Lessons
learned

Driver of success


Involvement of local extension
services

8
Development of
communication channels with
the Company – Water level
calendar
Development of seedling
replication system

9. Lao PDR

Context



Pilots- Rice fish Culture


9
Development of Irrigation in
resettlement site, flooded in
rainy season
Depletion of fisheries
resources caused by
hydropower development
Use the access to water for
integrated rice-fish culture
Expend the productivity of
flooded rice fields during the
rainy season

10. Lao livelihood pilot – key outcomes

15 farmers tested the pilot





10
Increase productivity of rice
fields : fish yield : 317 kg/ha
Improve protein supply for
households
Reduce time spent fishing
Synergy with other livelihood
activity: Homestead aquaculture
pond
Adoption of the technology by
most of the farmers and
development of more
aquaculture

11. Lao livelihood pilot – Lessons
learned

Diversification of livelihood
options with Integrated ricefish

Support of THPC Company –
funding the pilots and
supported the feasibility study

11
Cooperation between NAFRI,
THPC and CPWF to develop pilots
for livelihood diversification

12. Cambodia



12
Population not yet resettled and
location of resettlement, type and
nature of compensation is unknown
Fisheries and NTFP are important to
local livelihood and will be affected by
hydropower development
DAE design Integrated Farming
System (IFS) that combined different
livelihood activities to diversify
income generation and food supply

13. Cambodia livelihood pilot – key
outcomes


13
Small scale aquaculture, use of hen house
for chicken and screening technology for
vegetable production was found successful
by local communities
 Reduce disease outbreak for chicken;
 Income diversification with vegetable
production dry season and fish
production
 Support food security with supply of fish
and vegetable
Adoption and modification of the
technology by local farmers

14. Cambodia livelihood pilot –
Lessons learned


14
Learning for the future – DAE and
Provincial Extension service will
be involved in future
resettlement activities
Technology transfer is limited
due to lack of investment
capacity and lack of adequate
land

15. Overall Conclusions


Capacity building of local staff took place as a result of the livelihood
pilots.

15
Modified environment provide also new opportunities (drawdown area,
irrigation...)
A combination of having good relations with the private sector or
government authorities and credible research results can lead to gaining
support for the piloting of livelihood-enhancement activities in relation to
sustainable hydropower development.

16. Overall Conclusions


While some technology may be easily transferable, others may require
more monitoring and training from extension services and other groups

16
In case of newly introduce technology, communities will require more
than a one year trial to continue and adopt the technology
Only certain options were trialed and tested under Mk1 (due to
budget/time constraints) – other options could also have been tested