Lower Sesan 2: Same Company, Two Dams, One River Report

Same Company, Two Dams, One River: Using Hydrolancangs China Domestic Practice to Mainstream Biodiversity, Fisheries and Livelihood Protection in the Lower Sesan 2 Dam ProjectIris Yaxin RenFeburary 2015

Lower Sesan 2 Dam

Table of Contents1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................4

Project Case Studies Introduction .........................................................................................................................................4Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................4Summary of Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................................5

2. Manwan and Nuozhadu Dams ...........................................................................................................................8

2.1 Environmental Impacts .....................................................................................................................................................8Habitats Inundation ....................................................................................................................................................8Hydrology, Water Temperature and Sedimentation................................................................................................8Fisheries ........................................................................................................................................................................8

2.2 Hydrolancangs Practices in Managing Impacts on Biodiversity and Fisheries ........................................................9Manwan.........................................................................................................................................................................9Nuozhadu ......................................................................................................................................................................9

2.3 Hydrolancangs Environmental Practices in Other Lancang Dams ..........................................................................10

2.4 Impacts on livelihoods from Manwan and Nuozhadu Dams .....................................................................................10Manwan.......................................................................................................................................................................10Nuozhadu ....................................................................................................................................................................10Impacts on Downstream Communities in the Lancang Basin ............................................................................10

2.5 Hydrolancangs Practices in Managing Impacts of Local Livelihoods .......................................................................11Manwan........................................................................................................................................................................11Nuozhadu .....................................................................................................................................................................11

2.6 What Prompted Changes in Hydrolancangs Practice? ...............................................................................................13Improvements in the Law .........................................................................................................................................13Increasing Environmental and Social Scrutiny from the NGOs, the Public and the Media ............................14Additional Factors .....................................................................................................................................................14

3 Lower Sesan 2 Dam Project .............................................................................................................................. 16

3.1 Mitigation Measures for Biodiversity and Fishery Impacts ........................................................................................16Biodiversity and Fishery Impacts ............................................................................................................................16Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................................................16

3.2 Livelihoods Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................16Impacts on Livelihoods .............................................................................................................................................16Compensations and Livelihoods Support ...............................................................................................................20

3.3 Comparison Summary .....................................................................................................................................................23

4 Key Findings .....................................................................................................................................................28

4.1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Between Projects in China and Cambodia ......... 28

4.2 Comparison of the Social Impact Mitigation Measures Between Projects in China and Cambodia ................... 28

4.3 Responsiveness to Civil Society and NGO Concerns: Hydrolancang....................................................................... 29

4.4 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................................................................. 30

4 SAME COMPANY, TWO DAMS, ONE RIVER

1. Executive SummaryChinas enthusiasm for dam building has in recent years spilled over into the Mekong region. Development plans and construction for a 28 dam cascade on the Upper Mekong (Lancang River) have been underway for over 20 years, which have fundamentally altered the entire Mekong River Basin. However, more recent has been the emergence of Chinese state-owned enterprises active in dam building in China taking a leading role in hydropower development of the Lower Mekong River Basin as project developers with the support of Chinas going-out policy. In line with this trend, Hydrolancang responsible for constructing no less than 7 dams on the Upper Mekong began construction in 2013 on its first overseas hydropower project, the Lower Sesan 2 Dam Project in Cambodia.

Dams in the Mekong Basin have been controversial for a number of reasons: impact on fisheries, fragmentation of the globally unique freshwater ecosystems, a poor track record on environmental and social impact mitigation, and downstream transboundary impacts. Many of these factors are of concern in the Lower Sesan 2 Dam Project and for these reasons the project has been amongst the most controversial and destructive projects to be developed in recent years.

In this report, three dams have been compared in the Mekong River Basin to contrast and compare efforts in environmental and social impact mitigation. The three projects examined are Manwan Dam (phase 1 completed in 1995 and phase 2 completed in 2007, Lancang River, China), Nuozhadu Dam (completed 2014, Lancang River, China), and Lower Sesan 2 (Under Construction, Sesan River, Cambodia). Through fieldwork and literature review (both Chinese and English), we have sought to better understand and analyze the standards adopted by Hydrolancang in its domestic work in China and in overseas contexts as a co-project developer in Cambodia.

Project Case Studies: IntroductionThe 400 megawatt Lower Sesan 2 Dam is located on the Sesan River in Sesan District, Stung Treng Province, 1.5 kilometers downstream from the confluence of the Srepok and Sesan Rivers in Cambodia. The project, valued at 816 million USD, was first approved by Cambodias Cabinet in November 2012. In February 2013, Cambodias National Assembly approved the projects overseas financing, effectively giving the project the green light. The Lower Sesan 2 Dam is a joint venture between Cambodias Royal Group (49 percent share) and Hydrolancang International Energy Co., Ltd (51 percent share). A number of studies have identified significant and far-reaching social and environmental impacts if the Lower Sesan 2 Dam goes ahead as proposed].

Hydrolancang, the Chinese state-owned enterprise developing the Lower Sesan 2 Project, is also the main hydropower developer on the Upper Mekong River, known as the Lancang River in China. The company is owned by one of the largest electricity generation companies in China, Huaneng Corporation.

The Manwan Dam (1550 MW) was the first dam built on the Lancang River and started operation in 1995.The Nuozhadu Dam structure

(5850MW) was completed in 2012, with the last of the nine turbines installed and starting operation in June 2014. Both dams are part of the Lancang Dam cascade being built by Hydrolancang. Over a period of almost twenty years, Hydrolancang has undertaken a range of social and environmental impact mitigation strategies for the Manwan and Nuozhadu Dams, largely in response to increased scrutiny of the impacts of large dams in China. When construction of Manwan Dam began in 1986, minimal mitigation strategies were undertaken, and limited environmental and social impact information was made available ahead of construction. In comparison, multiple and more effective mitigations measures were carried out at the Nuozhadu Dam. The company had became more experienced in managing social and environmental risks, but there was greater public pressure on the company as a result of NGO advocacy and media scrutiny.

Research MethodologySeveral methods were employed to collect information for this study. We conducted a literature review the on the impacts on biodiversity, fisheries and local communities by the Manwan Dam, the Nuozhadu Dam, and the Lower Sesan 2 Dam (as this project is not completed, our research scope was limited to expected impacts). For the Lancang Dams, to establish the companys practice in social and environmental impact mitigation, we collected primary information using field research on Hydrolancangs efforts to mitigate the impacts (biodiversity protection, fisheries, resettlement) from the two Upper Mekong dams, on the results of the measures, and evidence of its successes and failures.

As Lower Sesan 2 Dam is currently under construction and the resettlement process is still underway, we relied on fieldwork to assess the level of social impact and post-resettlement support and livelihood restoration needs. We conducted three field trips to the Lower Sesan 2 Dams project site to gather data using community interviews and conduct site investigations. In total, fourteen villages were visited, including three villages downstream from the dam (Ban Mai village, Kampun village and Phluk village), seven villages in the proposed reservoir area (Chrab, Kbal Romeas, Srae Sranok, Srae kor 1, Srae kor 2, Khsach Thmei, Krabei Chrum), and six villages upstream of the reservoir (Hat Pak village, Veun Hay, Phlueu Touch, Tumpuou Reung, Ke Kuong Leu, and Lumphat). In total forty-nine community interviews were conducted for the purposes of this report. The interviews were conducted in Khmer with assistance from local community facilitators to translate locally spoken languages into Khmer. A predetermined questionnaire (Annex 1) was used in each interview.

Finally, we compared and contrasted the Lower Sesan 2 Dams expected impacts on biodiversity, fisheries and local communities with the two Lancang dams. During the research period, we contacted the dam developer Hydrolancang twice to request meetings and additional project information for all three projects, but did not receive any response.

SAME COMPANY, TWO DAMS, ONE RIVER 5

Summary of Key Findings Comparison of Hydrolancang Projects Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures - Lower Sesan 2s environmental protection measures budget is less than 2% of what was included for

Nuozhadu Dam.- Hydrolancang adopted various measures to mitigate the biodiversity and fisheries impacts of

Nuozhadu, such as relocating endangered and important tree species to botanic gardens, establishing wildlife aid center, redesigning the water intake gate to address water temperature changes, and restocking fisheries in the reservoir. The effectiveness of these measures is very limited to the reservoir area, compared to the projects significant downstream and upstream impacts.

- Hydrolancang does not have a good track record in hydrological and sedimentation management in China.

- Hydrolancang has cancelled or redesigned dams for environmental protection purposes on the Upper Mekong.

- Lower Sesan 2 Dams Project Developers have yet to publicly adopt or commit to any concrete measures to mitigate the impacts of Lower Sesan 2 Dam on freshwater and terrestrial biodiversity.

Comparison of Hydrolancang Projects Social Impact Mitigation Measures - The 2006 Chinese resettlement regulations were critical in improving the amount of resettlement

compensation and the level of post-resettlement support for Nuozhadu Dam. In Cambodia, the lack of national resettlement laws means that the company and government have determined resettlement compensation and livelihood restoration in an ad-hoc way, and focused only on the reservoir and inundation area.

- The compensation package currently offered to affected people by Lower Sesan 2 is only 23% of Nuozhadus resettlement budget on a per person basis.

- Hydrolancang adopted the principle of maintaining the same living standards post resettlement in Nuozhadu Dam. No livelihood restoration objective has been adopted for the affected people of Lower Sesan 2.

- Post resettlement measures in the Nuozhadu Dam included long-term compensation payments for the duration of the operation of the hydropower project, livelihood development subsidies, and discounted loans to support the building of new dwellings. In addition, Hydrolancang has funded public works, purchases of agricultural animals and plantation trees, and training projects to develop aquaculture skills. Lower Sesan 2s Project Developers has not yet publicly committed to livelihood support for affected communities by Lower Sesan 2 Dam.

Companys Responsiveness to Civil Society and NGO concerns- Hydrolancangs project Manwan Dam in China has been the center of public scrutiny due to their

association with very poor resettlement practice. However, the company has only responded directly to the governments request for action, rather than concerns voiced by the affected communities and NGOs.

- Civil society in Cambodia had very little public reaction from Hydrolancang, despite sending invitations to meetings and letters to the company. This has resulted in much frustration from the environmental and social NGO community in Cambodia and has negatively impacted the international reputation of the company.


RecommendationsThe Lower Sesan 2 Project is the first overseas investment project undertaken by Hydrolancang. The company has tended to rely on judgment of the Cambodia government and its local project partner, Royal Group, particularly in the areas of resettlement and community relations management. Normally this tends to be the case when Chinese State-Owned Enterprises invest abroad. Hydrolancang does not have experience in managing the mitigation of significant environmental and social impacts, and has tended to trust its project partners to do a good job.

The project developers should halt the project construction and turn their attention to resolving key environmental and social issues. The project developers should develop and implement proper compensation measures for biodiversity protection before the projects impacts are irreversible. These measures must extend beyond the reservoir area, and attend to the projects significant upstream and downstream impacts. As shown in contrasting the Manwan and Nuozhadu cases studies, compensation measures for the loss of habitat, biodiversity or fishery have to be planned in advance and properly budgeted, because compensation measures need to be implemented before the loss or threatens have happened and usually require extra land and budget for implementation.

In the area of social impacts, the full scale of impacts must be properly acknowledged. People who have only farmlands (not dwellings) inundated should be also counted in the resettlement plan. This is the standard required by Chinese resettlement law and was the approach adopted in Nuozhadu. The Developers should also conduct a proper impacts assessment on the cultural sites and resources including the spiritual forests and ancestral burial lands, and develop compensation plan for the cultural losses. Such assessment and compensation plan should extend beyond the resettlement villages and cover all the villages living around the reservoir, downstream and upstream areas, whose cultural sites are subject to impacts from construction, inundation and operation. Further, communities whose food security will be negatively impacted must be supported. Livelihood restoration for all those impacted must also be addressed. The loss of livelihoods due to the dam include loss of fishery, loss of agricultural lands, decreased productivity of new farmland, loss of irrigation water, loss of income from tourism and boat transportation, loss of easy access to forests, and loss of natural resources for livestock all these losses should be evaluated and properly compensated before the project moves forward. Lower Sesan 2s Project Developers should develop a detailed plan about how to support on the new livelihoods. The support should at least include monetary compensation, technical training, and provision of resources for establishing new livelihoods, provided by the Project Developers and the Cambodian government.


2. Manwan and Nuozhadu DamsManwan Dam was the first dam built on the Lancang River. It started operation in 1995 and was only fully completed in 2007. Nuozhadu Dam was completed in 2012 and the last remaining turbine started operation in June 2014. The detail information of the two dams can be found in Table 1.

2.1 Environmental impactsThis section outlines the environmental impacts of the Lancang Dam case studies, Manwan and Nuozhadu.

Habitat InundationThe 23.6 square kilometer reservoir of Manwan Dam inundated 567 hectares of forest, 152 hectares of grassland and 415 hectares of farmland. As a result, some bird species who are adapted to low elevation and hot and dry valley climates have been observed to move their habitats to downstream of the dams, such as Coracias benghalensis, Picus chlorolophus, Garrulax pectoralis, and Garrulax chinensis. Animals including the Black-Crested Gibbon, Serow, Forest Musk Deer, Goral, and Sambar Deer were forced to move from lower elevation areas to higher elevation areas. The populations of Otter, Pangolin, Barking Deer, Forest Musk Deer, and Sambar Deer have largely decreased near the reservoir area due to ecosystem loss, while numbers of Yunnan hare and mice have been largely increased.1 Land loss was also not limited to inundation areas. Approximately 700 hectares of forest and grassland areas were cleared to build houses, provide new farmlands and construct water channels and roads for the Manwan resettlement project.2 Another few hundred hectares of forestland was cleared by the displaced people to offset the lower productivity of new farmlands received in the resettlement process.3,4

Habitat loss from Nuozhadu Dam was much bigger than Manwan Dam. As the Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) Report of Nuozhadu Dam estimated, due to the size of Nuozhadu dams reservoir area of 320 square kilometers, resulting in the loss of a 215 kilometer long aquatic habitat, 17,994 hectares of forest, 5,816 hectares of farmland, and 2,613 hectares of gardens.

Hydrology, Water Temperature and SedimentationThe Lancang Dams have impacted hydrological conditions, water temperatures and sedimentation downstream in the Mekong River as far as Cambodia and with sediment impacts as far as Vietnams Mekong Delta. Studies have confirmed that the wet season flow will decrease, while the dry season flow will increase because of the operation of the Lower Lancang Cascade. In the wet season, the flow at Chiang Saen decreases by up to 30 percent and is caused by the Lancang Dams holding back water flow to fill storage and regulation reservoirs. Chapman and He Daming reported that during the mean dry season the flow at the tri-border area (China, Laos and Myanmar) can increase by as much as 170 percent with Nuozhadu regulating the flow of water for hydropower production.5

The Lancang River has been transformed into a series of reservoirs, increasing the reservoir surface water temperature during every month. The average temperature in Manwan in the post-dam period was 4.8 degrees higher compared to the pre-dam period.6 After Manwan started operation, the water temperature at Jiuzhou and Yunjinghong stations showed an obvious positive corresponding relationship, which means the Manwan Dam caused water temperature changes as far as at Yunjinghong station, 401 kilometers downstream.7 The temperature of water discharged from the Nuozhadu dam will be 0.4 to 6.4 degrees lower than the natural water temperature from March to September and 0.6 to 5.3 degrees higher in October to February. The average annual water temperature will drop 0.6 degrees and the temperature of discharged water will reach to 16.3 degrees at its lowest. As most local fish in Lancang River spawn from April to August, the decreased water temperature and the enlarged water temperature fluctuation will change the behaviors of the fish species, impacting both their reproduction and migration activities.

The sedimentation capture rate by the Manwan Dam has been estimated in a range of 53 to 94 percent and the sedimentation impacts from Manwan extend as far as to Vientiane.8 In the first ten years of Manwan Dams operation, the annual mean sediment trapped by the Manwan Dam was estimated to be about 35 percent of total sedimentation transported from Lancang Basin to Lower Mekong. The theoretical trapping efficiency of Nuozhadu Dam is estimated at 92 percent.9 With both dams now operational, the cumulative impacts on sedimentation withholding by the Lancang Dams is very significant.

FisheriesWith limited baseline information collected prior to the hydropower development of the Lancang River, very limited research exists about the specific impacts of each dam project.

Table 1: Manwan and Nuozhadu Dams on the Lancang River, Yunnan, China. Dam Name Installed

Capacity (MW)Dam Height

(m)Total Storage

(km3)Regulation

storage (km3)Regulation

TypeStatus

Manwan 1550 126 0.92 0.26 Seasonal Completed

(phase 1 in1995 and phase 2 in 2007)

Nuozhadu 5850 261.5 22.7 11.3 Yearly Completed (2012)


This section concentrates on the cumulative impact of fisheries caused by the dam cascade on the Lower reaches of the Lancang River, which include Nuozhadu and Manwan Dam.

Recent fish surveys10, 11, 12, 13, 14 have observed a reduction in numbers of some fish species and great changes in fish species composition in the Lancang River in Yunnan, as the result of the formation of large reservoirs, and largely altered hydrological and sedimentation schemes. Fish surveys15 conducted in 2009 and 2010 found that the number of fish species along the Lancang River in Yunnan had reduced from 139 to 80, compared to historic data. Another fish survey conducted from 2008 to 201316 was only able to capture 71 fish species, compared to 165 fish species historically recorded in the middle and lower reaches of the Lancang River. Fish species from Siluridae, Sisoridae, Perciformes, Barbinae, Labeoninae, and Schizothoracinae groups have greatly decreased. Dam construction has caused the loss of habitats, reproduction areas and food sources for demersal fishes (e.g. Labeoninae and Cobitidae), which are more adapted to fast flow conditions, and the fish species which live in the middle and bottom layers of flowing water, such as Siluridae, Sisoridae and Barbinae. The number of big fishes such as Tor Gray, Bagarius, and Bangana in the main stem river has decreased, while small and medium sized fishes have become the dominant species.

The Lancang Dams have not only altered the number of fish species that can be found, but also changed their composition. Fifteen new native species and twelve kinds of alien fishes were found after Manwan Dam was built. The introduction of alien species (e.g. Neosalanx taihuensis, Carassius auratus auratus) has led to the disappearance of some local fish species.17 The introduced fish species, such as Oreochromis Mossambica, which is commonly grown in commercial aquaculture, has become the dominant species in the reservoir areas.18

Several fish species including Pangasius, Tor sinensis, Wallago attu, Hemibagrus wychioides, have been found to migrate from the Lower Mekong River to the upper Lancang River, and forage and spawn in the Buyuan River.19 However, Ding and Ji (2009) noted that after 1993, traces of four known long distance migratory fish species have not been found.20 The timing coincides with the construction of Manwan Dam.

2.2 Hydrolancangs Practices in Managing Impacts on Biodiversity and Fisheries ManwanIn 1984, the Kunming Survey, Design and Research Institute (now known as PowerChina Kunming Engineering Corporation Limited) designed the Manwan Dam, completed a report titled Field Survey and Assessment Report of Biological Resources near Manwan Dam Reservoir Area in Lancang River in Yunnan. In 1990, the same institute completed the Manwan Hydropower Project Environmental Monitoring Station Design Report. These are the only reports that can be found on the environmental impacts of Manwan Dam, reflecting that at the time no environmental impact assessments were required. In 1993, Manwan Dams environmental monitoring station was built and started monitoring water temperature, weather,

water quality, sediment deposit, aquatic species, terrestrial species, and seismic activity.21 However, there is no publicly available information to indicate that Hydrolancang has used the monitoring data to develop measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate or compensate for the adverse impacts on biodiversity and fisheries caused by Manwan Dam. Hydrolancangs total investment in environmental protection efforts was only 58 million RMB (9.28 million USD), the lowest among the six built dams on the Lancang River.

Nuozhadu Nuozhadu Dam has been treated as a showcase project by Hydrolancang to demonstrate its environmental protection efforts in hydropower development. Compared with Manwan, Hydrolancang made a big step forward in mitigating and compensating for adverse environmental effects of the Nuozhadu Dam project. Hydrolancangs budget for environmental protection in the Nuozhadu Dam was 790 million RMB22 (126 million USD), almost 14 times the budget of Manwan Dam. The main biodiversity and fisheries management measures adopted in the Nuozhadu project included:

Establishing a 6.6 hectare botanic garden for valuable and rare plants. Eleven important plant species with state protection classification were moved from the flooded reservoir area to the garden, including the Cycas pectinata and Cycas balansae species.23

Adopting a stratified water intake with a stoplog gate design, which was expected to increase water temperature by 2.8 degrees, compared to two-pipe design option.24 Hydrolancang spent an additional 38 million USD in adopting the redesign. However, a senior fish specialist from the Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Mr. Chen Daqing, said that while the stoplog gate may help to increase the water temperature, it is not very effective in managing the ecological impacts of lowered water temperatures. Stratified water intake is only able to increase the water temperature by 1 to 2 degrees, but a 5 to 6 degree increase is usually required in larger dams to mitigate downstream impacts.25 There are two water temperature monitoring stations in the Nuozhadu reservoir, but no public data from the monitoring stations has been released.26

Commencing a fish restocking program in June 2013. On 14 June 2013, Hydrolancang released 2.15 million juvenile fish into the Nuozhadu reservoir, including 50,000 of local fish wallago (Wallago attu), 100,000 of local fish silk tail catfish (Mystus wyckioides), 1 million alien fish silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), and another 1 million of alien fish bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis). Hydrolancang plans to invest 3.85 million RMB (625,000 USD) in 3 more fish releases between 2013 and 2015 - releasing 350,000 local fishes and 6 million of introduced fishes.27

In 2008, Hydrolancang started to selectively trap and transport fish over the dam, such as Tor (tor) sinensis, Barbodes huangchuchieni, and Platytropius sinensis.28

In order to protect fish habitats and rare and valuable fish species, Hydrolancang plans to establish a fish reserve downstream of Ganlan Dam and Nanla River, one of the tributaries of Lancang River.29

Notwithstanding the above measures, the compensation measures for terrestrial habitat rehabilitation are still too limited. Only a 6.6 hectare botanic garden was created to offset 487 hectares


of inundated primary and secondary forests. The planning of fish reserves is still under investigation, while six mega dams have been completed by Hydrolancang on the Lancang River. Mitigation measures, such as establishing fish reserves is recommended before dams are built, because it is very difficult to restock the local fish species once fisheries are negatively impacted. Although the fish restocking program may help to increase the overall amount of fish in the reservoir, it does so at the cost of local fish species and expedites the introduction of alien fish species. Both the fish release and the trap-and-transport programs can only benefit a select few local fish species.

2.3 Hydrolancangs Environmental Practices in Other Lancang DamsHydrolancang has made efforts in other dam projects on the Lancang River to avoid and minimize the adverse environmental impacts. Gushui Dams height was reduced due to concerns over flooding of a protected area in Tibet. Guonian Dam, originally planned between the Gushui and Wunonglong Dams, was cancelled because of its potential impacts on the Mingyong Glacier. The water level of Wunonglong Dam was reduced to avoid the impacts on the Three Parallel Rivers World Heritage Area, which reduced the dams installed capacity.30 Mengsong Dam, originally planned as the last dam on the Lancang River, was canceled due to concerns over its negative impact on fish migration.31

2.4 Impacts on livelihoods from Manwan and Nuozhadu Dams

ManwanThe original resettlement population for the Manwan Dam was underestimated at 3,513 people. By the end of Manwan Dam Phase I, 7,260 people were officially affected.32 Due to conservative estimations made in the planning process, the final resettled population was double original estimates. As a strategy to reduce the total resettlement population, only people whose houses were inundated qualified for resettlement compensation. Households who only had farmlands inundated were not included in the official affected or resettlement population. The resettled people not only lost their land, farmland, and easy access to water resources, but also had to face serious problems with new livelihood development and landslide risks.

Around the Manwan Dam reservoir area, the average farmland area per capita reduced by 386 square meters after the dam was

built. Table 2 summarizes the reduction of the farmlands by type after the construction of Manwan Dam. Resettled people were not the only ones who lost land; host communities also had their farmlands redistributed to accommodate the resettled people.33 The productivity of new farmlands given to the resettled people in mountainous areas had only one fourth of the productivity compared with the original farmlands. In the new farmlands on the mountain slopes, farmers were faced with landslide risks and suffered from a lack of access to irrigation water. The amount of economic forest (plantations) around the Manwan reservoir reduced by 28 percent after the dam was built.34 Affected people also had difficulties raising cattle and collecting wood fuel because a lot of lands were turned from forests into farmland. All of these factors resulted in a deterioration in the living standards of resettled people. According to the Yunnan Statistics Bureaus survey, the annual income per capita of the resettled people in 1996 was 64 percent lower than the provincial average. In previous surveys completed before the dam was built, the resettled peoples incomes were 64 percent higher than the provincial average.35

NuozhaduThe resettlement population of Nuozhadu Dam was 48,429 people, 14,364 of which lived in the reservoir area. Those resettled came from 81 villages in 9 counties, and 3 townships. The reservoir inundated 495,402 square meters of houses. Unlike Manwan Dam, the people whose houses are not inundated but farmlands were affected were also counted in the resettlement population. However, the resettlement plan seems to have been slowly implemented.37 As of September 2014, only 40 percent of the resettlement people in Puer City were resettled, while Nuozhadu Dam has been in full operation since June 2014.

Impacts on Downstream Communities in the Lancang BasinThe social impacts of Manwan and Nuozhadu Dams extended to communities living along downstream Mekong River. Changes in hydrology, fisheries and sedimentation caused by the dams have extensive and more significant impacts on millions of people downstream who rely directly on the river for their food and livelihoods. Despite observable transboundary impacts from Manwan Dam, no transboundary impact assessment was conducted during the planning and design stages of Nuozhadu Dam. No compensation has ever been given to downstream communities in the Lower Mekong countries for the transboundary impacts of these projects.

Table 2: Land Use Before and After the Construction of Manwan Dam36

Farmland Loss(ha)

Compensation(ha)

Change(ha)

Change (percent)

Paddy 241.92 153.52 -88.40 -36.5

Dry Land 173.04 206.49 +33.45 +19.3

Total 414.97 360.01 -54.96 -17.2


2.5 Hydrolancangs Practices in Managing Impacts of Local Livelihoods In China, resettlement is a shared responsibility between the government and project developer. In China, the dam company is only legally required to develop resettlement action plan, pay the compensation and resettlement costs, implementation of resettlement plan or post-resettlement support is carried out by the local government.

ManwanThe initial resettlement budget prepared by Hydrolancang was 55 million RMB38 (approximately 882,000 USD). Each displaced person only received about 3,000 RMB (481 USD) as compensation. Before 2007, the displaced rural people in Manwan project received 400 RMB (64 USD) per person per year as post-resettlement support. After 2007, the post-resettlement support increased to 600 RMB (96 USD) per capita per year in accordance with the new resettlement policy. In addition, the duration of post-resettlement support was extended from 10 to 20 years.

In 2002 and 2004 field trips conducted by a Chinese NGO and academic researchers found that half of the population of Tianba resettlement village lived on trash collection. Their resettlement compensation, which was equal to five years of pre-dam farming income, had been borrowed and lost in a business initiative by the resettlement office. As a result many people lived only in the temporary resettlement houses. Although Hydrolancang had promised to give 3 to 5 percent of generated electricity to local people, the local people could not afford to build the transmission lines to gain access to the electricity.39

In 2004 Yunnan Province proposed resettling some communities for a second time. Hydrolancang provided 87 million RMB support. This resettlement package involved the second time resettlement of 2,033 people and enhanced livelihood support for 5,357 people.40 There is evidence that the additional resettlement support was still occurring ongoing between 2008 and 2009, up to 5 years after the initial program was launched.41 In 2009, China Environment Newspaper reported for a second time on the sad story of Tianba village and another affected minority village, Jiangbian.42 In 2013, Chinese media reported on the affected village of Tiankouya, in which villagers crops had failed because they could not afford to pump the water to irrigate crops and couldnt catch enough fish to support livelihoods.43

With the support from the local government, some local people started to develop cage-based aquaculture as new income sources in 2006.44 In addition from 2002 to 2008, Hydrolancang provided over 1.3 million lac seedlings to local people near Manwan reservoir and supported the development of lac plantation for income generation.45 Since 2006, Hydrolancang invested over 10 million RMB (approximately 1.6 million USD) to build schools, clinics, and water supply projects, and improve transportation access in local villages. Another 1 million RMB was invested to help the people around the reservoir to plant economic trees and raise gooses to improve their livelihoods.46

After twenty years since the Manwan Dam was built and after twice being resettle, many displaced people are still struggling with the loss of livelihoods and living in poverty. During International Rivers visit to Tianba Village in 2013, it was found most of the families had only just completed relocation for the second time. In the new resettlement village, most male adults had moved to cities for paid work leaving only females at home. The lack of farmland and limited local job opportunities leaves many families without any other option. Although Tianba village has new homes, each household now has over tens of thousands of RMB in debt. People still dont have convenient access to schools and medical clinics.

NuozhaduLessons learned from the Manwan Dams resettlement program were reflected in the planning of Nuozhadu Dam. A basic principle to maintain the same living standards post resettlement was adopted for Nuozhadus Resettlement Program. The total resettlement investment budget was therefore substantially higher compared to Manwan, at 8,920 million RMB, (approximately 30,190 USD per person), almost ten times Manwan Dams resettlement budget.

Resettlement site options were given to the affected people. They could choose either to move up above the reservoir into concentrated residential areas, move out of the reservoir area into concentrated residential areas or move by themselves.47 Table 3 shows the standard compensation prices for small town relocation. In 2010, the Puer City Government released the Notice about Suggestions on Resettlement and Compensation for Nuozhadu Hydropower Project, requiring the provision of water supply, electricity supply, road access, education, clinics, and radio and television to all resettlement sites and that livelihoods and living standards be restored to pre-resettlement levels or the host communities level.


Table 3: Compensation Prices for Small Town Relocation for Nuozhadu Hydropower ProjectItem Unit Price

Housing Compensation Frame Structure RMB/m2 699Brick-concrete Structure RMB/m2 561Brick-wood Structure RMB/m2 453Earth-wood Structure RMB/m2 337Wood Structure RMB/m2 344

Ancillary Buildings Compensation 1. Retaining Brickwork RMB/m3 902. Enclosing Walls RMB/m3 100

3. Outdoor Terrace (for Sun-drying) RMB/m3 20

4. Drinking Water Tank RMB/m3 1505. Water Supply Pipes m/ 26. Toilets/Latrines RMB/item 607. Cooking Range RMB/item 1008. Biogas Digesters RMB/item 1500

Scattered Fruit Trees and Other Plantation Trees Compensation

1. Fruit Trees RMB/plant 372. Cash Trees RMB/plant 223. Timber Trees RMB/plant 124. Landscape Trees RMB/plant 500

Moving Cost RMB 656Land Acquisition Compensation (including land compensation, relocation compensation, compensation for any buildings on the land, and crops compensation)

Paddy Field RMB/mu 27344Dry Land RMB/mu 14176Rubber Plantation Land RMB/mu 33600Timber Land RMB/mu 3701Unused Land RMB/mu 7088

Resettlement site preparation Earth-rock Excavation RMB/m3 11Backfill Tamping RMB/m3 14M5 Masonry Stone Retaining Walls RMB/m3 182

Civil Engineering Costs for Resettlement SiteStreets and Drainage Concrete-paved Main Streets RMB/m

Concrete-paved Secondary Streets RMB/mConcrete-paved lanes RMB/mDrainage Cost RMB/m

Water Supply Facilities Cost Water Withdrawal Facilities 30000DN125PE Pipes RMB/km 126100DN100PE Pipes RMB/km 99124DN50PE Pipes RMB/km 40496DN25PE Pipes RMB/km 30000DN15PE Pipes RMB/km 18698Water Storage Tank RMB/m3 220

Power Supply Facilities Cost 400V Low-voltage Distribution Lines RMB/km 68000Other Costs Indoor Water Supply Facilities

SubsidyRMB/person 200

Indoor Lighting Facilities Subsidy RMB/person 200


Table 3: Compensation Prices for Small Town Relocation for Nuozhadu Hydropower ProjectItem Unit Price

Housing Compensation Frame Structure RMB/m2 699Brick-concrete Structure RMB/m2 561Brick-wood Structure RMB/m2 453Earth-wood Structure RMB/m2 337Wood Structure RMB/m2 344

Ancillary Buildings Compensation 1. Retaining Brickwork RMB/m3 902. Enclosing Walls RMB/m3 100

3. Outdoor Terrace (for Sun-drying) RMB/m3 20

4. Drinking Water Tank RMB/m3 1505. Water Supply Pipes m/ 26. Toilets/Latrines RMB/item 607. Cooking Range RMB/item 1008. Biogas Digesters RMB/item 1500

Scattered Fruit Trees and Other Plantation Trees Compensation

1. Fruit Trees RMB/plant 372. Cash Trees RMB/plant 223. Timber Trees RMB/plant 124. Landscape Trees RMB/plant 500

Moving Cost RMB 656Land Acquisition Compensation (including land compensation, relocation compensation, compensation for any buildings on the land, and crops compensation)

Paddy Field RMB/mu 27344Dry Land RMB/mu 14176Rubber Plantation Land RMB/mu 33600Timber Land RMB/mu 3701Unused Land RMB/mu 7088

Resettlement site preparation Earth-rock Excavation RMB/m3 11Backfill Tamping RMB/m3 14M5 Masonry Stone Retaining Walls RMB/m3 182

Civil Engineering Costs for Resettlement SiteStreets and Drainage Concrete-paved Main Streets RMB/m

Concrete-paved Secondary Streets RMB/mConcrete-paved lanes RMB/mDrainage Cost RMB/m

Water Supply Facilities Cost Water Withdrawal Facilities 30000DN125PE Pipes RMB/km 126100DN100PE Pipes RMB/km 99124DN50PE Pipes RMB/km 40496DN25PE Pipes RMB/km 30000DN15PE Pipes RMB/km 18698Water Storage Tank RMB/m3 220

Power Supply Facilities Cost 400V Low-voltage Distribution Lines RMB/km 68000Other Costs Indoor Water Supply Facilities

SubsidyRMB/person 200

Indoor Lighting Facilities Subsidy RMB/person 200

People who choose to move upland or move out of the local area were eligible for either land compensation or long-term compensation. Land compensation included compensation with land equivalent to that owned before resettlement. The long-term compensation package included a payment of 187 RMB per month per capita (30 USD) to compensate a loss of 806 square meters of farmland for duration of the operating period of Nuozhadu Dam and also a minimum of 200 square meters of farmland per person.48 These amounts were to be adjusted along with the rate inflation and economic development.

In Puer City, each resettled person from Nuozhadu Dam received a livelihood development subsidiary of 4,000 RMB (641 USD) and was offered a 50,000 RMB (8,016 USD) discount interest loan towards the building of homes.49 Resettled rural people also receive 600 RMB (96 USD) per person per year for twenty years as post-relocation support.

In 2013 the Chinese researcher Lyv X conducted a survey of 114 resettled households and found the income structure had significantly changed after resettlement (see Table 4). The sample households had lost 30 to 50 percent of farmland after resettlement and now relied much less on income generated from agriculture. Some households who had lost irrigated paddy fields but choose the long-term compensation option which provided some replacement farmland also earned less from agriculture because the replacement farmland was much smaller than before.50

During field trips to Lancang River conducted in 2013, it was found that the villagers resettled by Nuozhadu in 2011 received more compensation, better quality land and paddy fields, and in general were more satisfied with their current life than the resettled villagers of Xiaowan, Manwan, and Dachaoshan Dams. However, many resettled communities still faced problems due to the lack of abundant natural resources, had difficulty finding jobs, and suffered from unfair land compensations deals.

Larger compensation packages offer to the Nuozhadu communities has meant that they have been able to develop new livelihoods. At the Haitang Resettlement Area, families

have started roadside businesses, such as restaurant or hotels, to accommodate tourists that visit Nuozhadu dam. They do not rely on their land-based activities any more, but still have reserved opinions of the resettlement process. Overall they are optimistic about the future, although there is no prospect of jobs for the many young people. Some of the villagers have mentioned that many of the fishery species that used to live in the river are now difficult to find.

2.6 What Prompted Changes in Hydrolancangs Practice? Improvements in the LawImprovements to Chinas environmental laws in the late 1990s and early 2000s had significant impacts on Hydrolancangs practices in biodiversity and fishery management for Nuozhadu Dam. When the Manwan Dam began construction Chinese law did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). In 1998, the State Council approved the Ordinance of Environmental Management for Construction Projects (OECMP), which made construction projects of all sizes subject to EIA requirements but fell short of requiring detailed EIA reports for all projects, including provisions for public notification or participation. In 2003, China launched its EIA Law requiring EIAs for both government plans and construction projects. As a result, while Manwan Dam did not go through an EIA process, Nuozhadu was subject to the full EIA process.

Resettlement regulation reform in 2006 also made significant improvements in Chinas resettlement policies, which resulted in major improvements in Nuozhadu Dams resettlement practices compared with Manwan Dam. The Regulation for Land Acquisition and Resettlement for the Construction of Large and Medium-Sized Water Conservancy and Hydropower Project (2006)51 established a new standard in resettlement, requiring resettled peoples living standards be restored to or exceed the pre-resettlement level, set up resettlement management mechanism structures, clarified responsibilities, and mandated the participation of the dam developer in resettlement planning including consulting with affected people, public participating

Table 4: The Income Structure of Sample HouseholdsType Resettlement Paddy field

(ha per capita)Other land (dryland, orchard land and forestland) (ha per capita)

Agriculture (%) SeasonalLabor (%)

Compensation (%)

Business (%)

Moving-up

Before 0.065 0.587 82.0 16.6 0 3.4

After 0 (no paddy field compensation because the villagers all choose long-term compensation)

0.377 36.7 22.7 26.0 15.6

Moving-out

Before 0.052 1.39 92.0 6.2 0 1.8

After 0.035 0.68 42.3 37.3 22.4 1.7


in the planning stage and fiscal responsibility for resettlement and compensation costs. The regulation improved the farmland compensation standards for displaced people to equal 16 times average annual output value of the previous three years as the minimum, whilst broadening items qualified for compensation to included houses or trees above the inundation water level but owned by households to be resettled.

In 2006, the State Council also released Suggestions on Perfecting Post-Resettlement Support Policies of Large and Medium Sized Reservoirs.52 The policy sets the post-resettlement support standard at 600 RMB (92 USD) per capita per year for twenty years, which can be directly given to the person as subsidiary or be used for support programs. All rural people who were displaced or will be displaced by large and medium sized dams were eligible to receive the support. The new policy also required that reservoir operation companies share the responsibility of maintaining community support funds at the rate of 0.008 RMB per kilowatt hour of electricity sold.53

Increasing Environmental and Social Scrutiny from the NGOs, the Public and the MediaManwan has been in the center of NGO, the public and media scrutiny since 2002. NGOs have worked with local communities to raise their stories and complaints about Manwans resettlement practice. Dr. Yu Xiaogang from Green Watershed brought the story of dam affected people to higher levels of government. Complaints from resettled communities and local community protests has placed a lot of pressure on the government to improve the situation. On 17 August 2003, about 4,000 affected people sat in front of Manwan Hydroelectric Station for three days to express their complaints. After that event, the government decided to provide 25 kilograms of food support per person per year to the displaced people.54 With no formal responses from Hydrolancang, it is difficult to judge the impact of these activities on Hydrolancangs practice.

The transboundary impacts of the Lancang Dams cascade on fisheries and hydrology is a key concern of Lower Mekong communities, NGOs and governments. International NGOs and researchers have raised concerns that the construction of the mega dams on the Lancang River threatens the complex riverine ecosystem in the Lower Mekong River. While there has been plenty of criticism of the lack of transboundary impacts assessment in the development of the Lancang Dams, much of the information about the planning, design, construction and operation of the Lancang Dams is regarded as state secret in China.

Additional FactorsThere are several other important factors worth noting influencing the companys performance on biodiversity, fishery and livelihoods impact management. Planning of Manwan Dam was rushed because the local government wanted eagerly to develop this project as a way of promoting local economic development. The local government wanted to obtain approval from the central government and grossly understated the investment budget, which in turn negatively impacted the resettlement budget. The lack of transparency, proper information disclosure, and independent monitoring of resettlement and environmental protection spending money provided by the project developer creates opportunities for corruption in many hydropower projects in China. Money often gets lost as it is processed from one level of government to the next.

Limited information on the environmental impacts of the Lancang Dams can be attributed also to the lack of baseline knowledge about the biodiversity and fishery in Lancang Basin that existed prior to hydropower development. Transboundary impact assessments has been an area of no improvement between Manwan and Nuozhadu Dams, which can be attributed to the fact that Chinese law has never required this in project approvals.


3. Lower Sesan 2 Dam Project3.1 Mitigation Measures for Biodiversity and Fishery Impacts

Biodiversity and Fishery ImpactsLower Sesan 2 Dams reservoir will inundate up to 30,000 hectares of forestland, including more than 16,000 hectares of deciduous forest and more than 10,000 hectares of private economic forest and land concessions, and over 1200 hectares of agricultural land. The Rivers Coalition in Cambodia reported in April 2013 that tree clearance for the dam reservoir had already started. The company, ANG & Association Lawyer Co., Ltd., has been active in the project area (inside and outside the reservoir) cutting down luxurious wood and exporting the resources without notifying or seeking consent from the local authorities and communities.55

The project area is located within the Lower Mekong Dry Forest Eco-region (LMDFE), and is also part of several Important Bird Areas as identified by Birdlife International. The project site provides habitats for a number of rare and endangered species, including tigers, Asian elephants, gaur, Banteng, wild water buffalos, elds deer, golden cat, fishing cat, black bear and gibbons as well as bird species such as Sarus Cranes and vulture species. The reservoir will not only inundate their habitats but also threaten the food chain of these species.56

The EIA Report for the Lower Sesan 2 Project identified 106 fish species in both the Sesan and Srepok Rivers,57 but there is evidence that this may underestimate the number of fish species. The Cultural and Environmental Preservation Association (CEPA) (2006) has identified 130 species in the same area. There are 54 and 64 migratory fish species respectively in the Sesan and Srepok Rivers.58 Baran (2012) indicated that the Sesan River is characterized by 133 species and the Sekong River by 240 fish species. 112 fish species are common to the two basins.59 54 out of 133 fish species in Sesan and 81 out of 240 fish species in Srepok are migratory species. The total fish catch in the Sesan River Basin has been estimated ranging between 370 and 6,700 tonnes of fish per year, 60 percent of which are migratory species. Nine endangered fish species are found in the Sesan and Srepok Rivers, and 45 Mekong endemic species are found the in the Srepok River and 24 in the Sesan River.60 The Lower Sesan 2 Dam will not only block the fish passages, but also destroy the vegetated islands and wetlands downstream and upstream of the dam site from Kamphun to Sre Ko communes, the same area where fish spawning and breeding sites are protected by fish conservation zones.61

The impacts on fisheries will extend to further upstream of Sesan and Srepok Rivers, and downstream of Mekong River and the Tonle Sap Lake because the Lower Sesan Dam will block two of the four main Mekong migration highways from the fish production zones for long-distance migratory species and the major breeding zones which are the Sesan, Srepok and Sekong Rivers area. Studies have been done to document field data and analyze the basin-wide and transboundary impacts on fisheries.62, 63,64,65 A 2012 study published in the Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences found that the Lower Sesan 2 Dam would cause a 9.3 percent drop in fish biomass in the Mekong Basin, while threatening to push to extinction more than 50 fish species.66 A study prepared by the Mekong River Commission estimated that the total value of fishing occupation within the Mekong Basin was between 5.6 billion USD and 9.4 billion USD. Therefore, the Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower Dam would lead to a loss of 520 million USD to 874 million USD per year. If built, the Lower Sesan 2 Dam will also result in a 6 to 8 percent reduction of the Mekong Rivers sediment flows, as warned by experts from the International Center for Environmental Management (ICEM) in Vietnam. The sediment supply to the Mekong River is particularly essential to the sustainability of rice paddy agriculture and the Mekong delta area.

Mitigation MeasuresAccording to Cambodias Law on the Government Guarantee of Payments for the Lower Sesan 2 Dam, the environmental protection investment is about 2.23 million USD, which equates to less than 2 percent of the environment measures budget of the Nuozhadu project. There is limited detail publicly available on the mitigation measures Hydrolancang plans to adopt on biodiversity and fisheries loss. There are reports that the project developers have redesigned the Lower Sesan 2 Dam to mitigate the projects impacts on sediment. Such redesign may include a height reduction and introduction of redial gates. Meanwhile, substantive construction has been underway and it was publicly reported that the river had been closed in January 2015.67

3.2 Livelihoods Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresImpacts on LivelihoodsOver 5,000 people from six villages in four communes, many of whom are ethnic minorities, will be forcibly evicted and relocated to make way for the dam reservoir. Five villages will be completely relocated. They are Chrab, Srae Sranok, Srae Kor 1, Srae Kor 2, Kbal Romeas. Another 14 households from Phluk village will be relocated.

The Lower Sesan 2 Dam will also permanently alter the livelihoods and cultures of tens of thousands of people living along the Sesan and Srepok rivers, whose lives and traditions are closely linked to the river system and its rich natural resources. A 2009 study reported that at least 78,000 people, including 86 villages living along the Sesan and Srepok Rivers, and another 87 villages located along tributaries of these two rivers, would lose access to fish resources as a result of the dams impact on fish migration passages.68 The Project EIA estimated that villagers living upstream from the dam along the Sesan and Srepok Rivers would lose around 2.3 million USD per year due to fisheries loss,69 however the EIA failed to consider fish catch losses incurred by people downstream and people along the tributaries and thus, underestimated the overall loss. The dam will also result in a loss of over 1,200 hectares of agricultural land, which makes up about 24 percent of total agricultural land in the Sesan District. The loss of fisheries and farming land will impact food security and increase livelihood risks. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of people living further downstream on the Mekong River and in the Tonle Sap Lake area would be also negatively impacted by the reduction of fish stocks caused by the dam.70


With regards to downstream impacts, a 2009 report71 estimated that at least 22,277 people living downstream from the dam in Stung Treng Province would experience a deterioration in quality of water supplied from the river. Such impacts are likely to be felt starting from the construction stage and into the Lower Sesan 2 Dams operation. Downstream communities might experience construction pollution, decomposition of organic matter in the river during reservoir inundation, and during the dams operation - slower water flow will lead to public health threats, as many of the people who live along use river water for domestic purposes such as drinking, washing, and cooking.

As the Lower Sesan 2 Dams resettlement action plans are still being negotiated and clarified, we have also conducted our own fieldwork on the social impacts of Lower Sesan 2 dam. For the purposes of this study, we visited 14 villages during September to November 2014 to ascertain the compensation and livelihood restoration plans. We found that the resettlement impacts and risks arising from the Lower Sesan 2 Dam vary amongst villages. Table 5 summarizes the impacts on the livelihoods of the 14 villages from the Lower Sesan 2 project based on our field surveys.


Downstream of the Dam Site In the Reservoir Area Upstream of the Dam Site

Village Name Ban Mai Kampun Phluk Chrab Srae Sranok

Srae kor 1

Srae kor 2

Kbal Romeas

Khsach Thmei

Krabei Chrum

Hat Pak, Sesan River

Veun Hay, Sesan River Phlueu Touch, Sesan River

Tumpuou Reung, Sesan River

Ke Kuong Leu, Sesan River

Lumphat, Srepok River

Use river for what purposes

Fishing, transportation, riverbank farming, irrigation water, domestic water uses, feeding livestock, spiritual pray

Main Income Sources

Farming and selling agricultural products

- Farming and selling agricultural products- Fishing

- Farming and selling agricultural products- Fishing: The income from fishing varies from $2 to $10 normally and increases to $20 - $30 per day in fishing season. One village can even make $100 per day from selling fish in Nov-Dec.

- Farming and selling agricultural products - Farming and selling agricultural products- Fishing

Riverbank agriculture

- Grow teak tree and herbal plants along the riverbank. - Some villagers grow vegetables along the riverbank, especially in the dry season

People eat wild vegetables collected from along the riverbank.

People grow paddy and vegetables along the riverbank. People also eat wild vegetables collected along the riverbank.

- People grow vegetables along the riverbank in these upstream villages. - People also eat wild vegetables and wild leaves which grow along the riverbank.

- People grow vegetables along the riverbank in these upstream villages. - People also eat wild vegetables and wild leaves which grow along the riverbank. - People also grow bamboo, korki, srolao, teak for building houses and furniture, and traditional medicines along the riverbank.

Fish consumption

Eat fish as frequently as everyday Eat fish everyday Eat fish as frequently as everyday, but buy most fish from the marketEat fish as frequently as everyday

Frequency of fish consumption at home varies from 5-6 times per month to everyday. People all noted that there is fewer fish to catch in the river now.

Eat fish everyday

Ethnic identity Ethnic Lao Khmer Mainly Brao, some Khmer

Mainly Lao, some Khmer

Punong, some Khmer

Lao and Khmer mixed, Khek

Lao, some Khmer

Lao Brao Lao, Krueng, Lun, Khmer (Lao is the majority, followed by Krueng).

Common concerns about the Lower Sesan 2 Dam expressed by the interviewees

- Their homes and spiritual sites get flooded if the dam collapses

- Farmland grabbed by the company - No more fish to catch - Water pollution from the construction

- The dam will flood the village and crops.

- The dam will flood their villages and lands - The compensation will be not enough, compared to what they lose- The compensation is not reliable either

- The dam will flood their paddies, houses, plantation, pagoda and burial places.

- The dam will flood the village, but there is no compensa-tion

- The dam may flood spiritual houses and forests

- The dam may flood their homes, and spiritual places. - Loss of fishery

- The dam may flood their houses, paddy, and burial places

- The dam may flood the village and spiritual places- One interviewee said hes worried about the health problems and food insecurity as a result of the project

Major impacts or risks from the Lower Sesan 2 Dam

- Negative impacts on livelihood and risk of food security (reduction of fishing and loss of riverbank gardens) - Health risks due to deterioration of water quality- Loss of boat transportation to upstream

-Loss of home, land, and livelihood, and risk of food security (reduction of fishing and loss of agriculture land) -Loss of water access -Loss of boat transportation to upstream or downstream -Loss of culture

- Negative impacts on the livelihoods and risk of food security due to reduction of fishery, loss of riverbank gardens, and loss of wild vegetables and leaves which currently grown along the riverbanks- Health risks due to deterioration of water quality- Loss of boat transportation to downstream

- Negative impacts on the livelihoods and risk of food security due to reduction of fishery, loss of riverbank gardens, and loss of wild vegetables and leaves which currently grow along the riverbanks.- Loss of boat transportation to downstream

Table 5: A Summary of the Impacts on the Livelihoods of the 14 Villages Due to the Lower Sesan 2 Dam


Our field research confirmed other findings on the local communitys reliance on fish resources. Most of the interviewees ate fish everyday. They either caught fish by themselves, or purchased it from the market. In nine villages, including all six resettlement villages, fishing was listed as one of the main income sources.

During our fieldwork, we collected the names of fish species that local villagers identified as important to their communities for livelihood and cultural reasons. All the fish species identified by local villagers in the interviews are all migratory fishes (Table 6). Note the Khmer names include translation of names from local languages spoken by the communities.

In addition every villager expressed concern about the impacts of Lower Sesan 2 Dam on the local culture, including the destruction of their spiritual beliefs and cultural sites, which would anger their ancestors and bring bad luck.

Villagers from Phluk have witnessed the company clearing spiritual forests and digging up half of the ancestral burial lands in order to source materials for road construction. The dam company did not compensate the villagers for these impacts, nor would any monetary figure be able to compensate the damage caused. The villagers are concerned that these activities have angered their ancestors and brought bad luck to their village, kids and future livelihoods.

Compensations and Livelihoods SupportIn February 2013, the National Assembly of Cambodia approved the Law on the Government Guarantee of Payments for the Lower Sesan 2 Dam. The law stipulated that 41.94 million USD would be budgeted for resettlement and construction for important infrastructure. The law provides for the following benefits for local villagers or affected people72:

Table 6: List of Fish Species Local Villagers Identified as Important to them in 2014 Field Trips

Khmer Names/Other names Latin Names

Pasi Ee Fish Mekongina erythrospila

Pawa Fish Labeo erythropterus

Real Fish Henicorhychus lobatus and siamensis

Snake Fish Channa micropeltes

Cat Fish Many species

Cucumber Fish Probarbus labeaminor

Khcha Fish

Chhlang Fish Hemibagrus nemurus

Chhpen Fish Hypsibarbus suvattii/Hypsibarbus malcolmi

Case Fish Phalacronotus bleekeri/Phalacronotus micronemus

Trosek Fish Probarbus jullieni or labeomajor

Kaek Fish Labeo chrysophekadion

Chhkeang Fish

Khchar Fish

Damrey Rey Po Fish Oxyeleotris marmorata

Chhkauk Cyclocheilichthys enoplos

Sanday Fish Wallago attu

Achkok Fish Labiobarbus leptocheilus/Labiobarbus siamensis

Brake Fish

Pra Fish Pangasius hypophthalmus or krempfi

Romeas Fish Osphronemus exodon

Chhkhneng Fish

Tarek Fish Alburnus tarichi

Stoulh Fish

Kol Raeng Fish Catlocarpio siamensis

Khlang Hay Belodontichthys truncatus

Irrawaddy Dolphin Orcaella brevirostrisNote: This species in particular was identified as culturally important rather than regularly caught, and is no longer found in the Sesan River.

Takel Fish


Compensation based on the sizes of farm land, plantations, houses, various structures, and crops affected by the project.

Construction of 797 houses: one 80 square meter house for one household of eight people, built on a land area of 1,000 square meters of which 400 square meters is reserved for the house and 600 square meters for gardens.

Provision of 5 hectares of farm / plantation land per household (already cleared).

Construction of public works for each commune, including roads, one commune office, one police station, one pagoda, one health center, one kindergarten, one primary school, one lower secondary school, one water well per 5 households, public gardens, sports complex, and irrigation infrastructure.

Provision of allowance and rice for 12 months. Provision of some basic vocational training to enable

adaptation to new livelihoods. Construction of 24 kilometers of road (bitumen) from the

construction site to Stung Treng town. 38.7 million USD budgeted for compensation, building

new houses, and construction of basic infrastructure in resettlement villages

3.23 million USD for irrigation infrastructure in relocation sites.

2.23 million USD for environmental protection measures. 5.05 million USD for clearance of mines and unexploded

ordnances. 3.70 million USD for clearing farm/plantation land for affected

people.

Despite the law, many villagers are still unclear on compensation entitlements or even the impacts of Lower Sesan 2 Dam.

Based on existing NGO reports, our own fieldwork and media reporting, some villagers, at least in Phluk (where some compensation has already been provided), have had the option of either obtaining monetary compensation only or to seek resettlement and land-for-land compensation.

Under the land-for-land compensation option, villagers have received around 5 hectares of land, which has included new housing and plantations. A recent community based research report prepared by the River Coalition of Cambodia said that the compensation package on offer included one house on a 5000 square meter block, 5 hectares of rice paddy and 1 hectare of plantation forest.73 However, some villagers have said that the land area lost was much greater than that provided and have also expressed concerns that the resettled farmland will not be as productive as their existing land.. A Srae Kor commune representative described the resettlement site as in an unfertile area, 3 kilometers from the Sesan River where the land is very rocky.74 In addition to quality of compensation issues, land lost by host communities who previously owned land, farms and plantations is also of concern. As noted in the Manwan case study, host communities were forced to give up or sell land to the project developer and company for affected communities. This in turn negatively affected their livelihoods.

The location of the resettlement site appears to have influenced a decision by some villagers in Phluk village to accept a monetary compensation package to avoid living in a resettlement site. Based on our research, compensation values had so far ranged from 10,000 to 15,000 USD for around 5 hectares of land lost, though some farmers had only been promised 500 USD because their property had not been included in the original resettlement

census. All villagers reported lower than promised compensation figures.

The following section details findings based on field research conducted regarding compensation and resettlement.

Phluk Village: Construction Site Area

Of the 10 households impacted in Phluk village by construction, only five households in have received compensation, while another five households have not. In the studies conducted by the previous dam developer, EVN International, only five households were registered as impacted householders. Hydrolancang had promised to provide 20,000 USD to each of the registered household as compensation but each received different amount of compensation ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 USD despite the sizes of the plots being similar size at around 5 hectares. Villagers also reported that some of the money has been lost in processing by local authorities. The remaining five households who were overlooked in the first resettlement study have only been offered 500 USD as compensation, which they have yet to receive as of October 2014.

The company promised to provide compensation for main houses, toilet, moving costs, fruit trees, plantation trees and farmland, but the villagers are not clear about how much compensation they will receive for each item. They dont know where the new resettlement site is, whether the style of housing will reflect their traditional structures, and whether they will have road or electricity access. The villagers say that the company will provide rice for one year, and provide a one time payment of 100 USD to each household to remove their houses and cut down their trees, information they obtained from the local NGO, 3SPN

Chrab Village: Reservoir Area

Chrab village was formed in 1980s when people moved from lowland areas of Cambodia. Because of their short history and their expectations that they will receive better lands and houses after resettlement, they have agreed to be resettled.

The Chrab community has been informed of an approximate location of the resettlement site by the previous Vietnamese developer, but they are not clear whether the same site will be used by the current project developers. The whole village will be resettled, but there are discrepancies in the official numbers of families in the village. The village submitted a request of revising the number of affected households to the provincial governor, but at the time of fieldwork in October 2014 had not heard back about their request.

Kbal Romeas, Srae Sranok, Srae Kor 1, Srae Kor 2: Reservoir Area

All four villages will be inundated by Lower Sesan 2 Dams reservoir and completely resettled. In all four villagers, many households opposed the dam citing concerns about the loss of traditional livelihoods, new livelihoods will not be of the same quality as current ones, and loss of access to the river. Many villagers were critical that the dam company would benefit from the project, but that the loss would be borne by them. One villager noted that the Lower Sesan 2 Dam was only important because it made the company richer, but would make them poorer.


The lack of information of the resettlement plan has exacerbated worries about the impact of the dam. Many interviewees said they were not clear on the compensation plan or that the plan completely non-existent. Confusion or lack of clarity may be due to the fact that the main method of informing villagers is through meetings. Six of sixteen interviewed families had never attended any consultation meetings while six attended only once. Just four interviewees indicated that they had met the government and the dam company on more than one occasion. Villagers, who had attended the meetings, described the meeting experience as negative because they felt that the promises they received from the government officials and the dam company were unreliable. Overall, information about the compensation and resettlement plan was very limited, and villagers were told that the compensation scheme and resettlement plans were not negotiable. Every interviewed household felt the resettlement plan and compensation was not acceptable. Villagers felt their concerns had not been incorporated although some of them had a chance to express their frustrations in village meetings. Among the concerns shared by villagers was the location of the resettlement sites, the quality of houses, whether the land compensation would be enough to support their livelihoods, the productivity of new lands, and access to the river. Although how households would support their future livelihoods after resettlement was a primary concern, villagers had no information about whether future livelihood support would be provided.

Reservoir Area: Khsach Thmei and Krabei Chrum Villages

There is confusion within these two villages as to whether resettlement of households will be required. The 2009 EIA Report did not include these two villages in the resettlement plan as they would not be inundated by the reservoir. However the draft EMP (KCC 2008) indicated that Khsach Thmei and Krabei Chrum villages would have to relocate.75 More recently, a map shared by Statutory Working Group established under the Regulation and Legal Procedure for Solving the Compensation and Resettlement Policy of Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower Project, included households from these two villages in resettlement plans.76

Contrary to the uncertainty over the dams impacts, the government has informed the villagers that their villages will not be flooded and there will be no compensation from the dam developer. Confusion has exacerbated the worrying in the households in these villages. Many households said they were sure that they would be flooded and would not receive any compensation.

Downstream Villages: Ban Mai and Kampun Villages

These two villages are located downstream of the dam and while be impacted by the project, will not be inundated. Villagers are aware the Lower Sesan 2 Dam will alter hydrological flows. They understand that the dam will hold back the floodwaters in the wet season, and are concerned about flooding caused by the

Table 7: Collected Compensation Information for Kbal Romeas, Srae Sranok, Srae Kor 1, Srae Kor 2 Villages

Compensation Scheme ItemsMain houses Yes

Ancillary buildings (eg grain stores, toilets, kitchen buildings, etc) Yes

Moving cost Yes, 100 USD per family

Fruit trees and valuable plantation trees Yes

Farmland (eg. rice paddy, vegetable gardens, etc) Yes

Other valuable community land/resources (eg. spirit forest, religious sites, etc) No

Livelihoods support (eg cash compensation, aquaculture, grains, tourism support, etc) No

Regarding new resettlement area: Will the company build the following items and/or how much will they pay for them?Resettlement area site preparation Yes

Main houses Yes

Ancillary buildings (eg grain stores, toilets, kitchen buildings, etc) Yes

Farmland Yes

Provide individual household Water supply Yes

Provide individual Electricity supply Cheaper price or free electricity for one year

Provide individual household waste water drainage No

Other things (for public-clinic, school, wat, others) Yes

Rice support after resettlement Yes, 20 kg per month for one year


dam needing to release excess water or even breaking. Villagers were not aware of the detailed impacts of Lower Sesan 2, but knew of impacts of well-known projects such as Yali Falls. They described how the dam would affect their cultural practices by ruining scared sites or altering water flows such that traditional ceremonies could not take place.

Overall, these downstream villages do less fishing activity compared to communities in the reservoir area. However the frequency of fish consumption reported by the interviewees was still substantial, ranging from ten days per month to everyday. Villagers from Kampum village do garden along the riverbank in the dry season and both villages grow teak trees along the riverbank. Despite the serious impacts on their riverbank gardens due to irregular water releases from the dam, the villagers will not receive any compensation for the dams impacts.

Hat Pak, Veun Hay, Phlueu Touch, Tumpuou Reung, Ke Kuong Leu, Lumphat: Upstream Villagers

These six villages are located further upstream of the reservoir on the Srepok and Sesan Rivers. None of the villagers have ever received formal information about the impacts of Lower Sesan 2 Dam, and whether compensation will extend to their communities despite the obvious impacts on fisheries and riverbank agriculture. Without additional information, villagers have drawn their own conclusions about what the impacts of the dam will be. Of most concern is the impact on spiritual and burial sites, as well as loss of farmlands and houses. As discussed below, all villagers have noticed a reduction in fish availability, which constitutes a key part of their diet and food security.

The villagers in Veun Hay catch fish from the Sesan River for eating and at the time of fieldwork, had already observed the decrease of fish in the river since the dam construction started last year.

In the interviews we conducted in Hat Pak, we learned that they had observed a noticeable reduction in fish caught such that in all cases they had to supplement with bought fish from a local market. One family described it now very difficult or hard to catch fish. In Ta Veng village, we also found that the villagers interviewed were supplementing reduced fish catches through market purchases. One villager told us that his catch had reduced to only 5 to 6 times a month. Villagers in Veun Hay related the reduced fish availability to the start of dam construction. Reduced fish catches may also be impacting supplementary income sources not only from the sale of excess fish ranging from 2.50 to 10 USD per kilo, but also fish products such as pastes that are made from fermenting fish.

Under the current resettlement plan, upstream communities will not receive any compensation for any lost of fisheries, river gardens, wild fruits or vegetables, or economic trees along the riverbank. Villagers upstream of the project are also concerned that riverbank gardens ranging from fruits, vegetables and herbs will be affected by the dam. Along the riverbank, villagers grow rice, cashew, sugar cane, banana, and vegetables such as pumpkin, long bean, chili, mint, corn, morning glory, cabbage, eggplants, sweet potatoes, and taro. Most of these gardens are grown for personal consumption and are key to their food security.

Many villagers were concerned that wild forest products that were edible would be lost as a result of the flooding brought about by

the dam. These forest products included Kandaul leaves, Lvea leaves, Pronat Rey, Phtey Toek, Raeng, Andaeng flower, Bromat Rey, Spey Toeuk, bamboo shoots, Smack, Rock flower, riverweed, and many other tree leaves along the riverbank for food and medicinal qualities.

Generally, villagers are not clear about what benefits they will receive from the dam and many were not aware of status of the construction progress.

3.3 Comparison SummaryTable 8 compares the degree of impacts on biodiversity, fishery, and livelihoods from Manwan, Nuozhadu and Lower Sesan 2 Dams, as well as the practices undertaken by the dam developers in managing the projects environmental and social impacts.

It is important to note there are key differences in political, social and economic contexts for these projects, even between the two Chinese case studies Manwan and Nuozhadu. However, compared with Nuozhadu Dam, the investment in environmental protection and resettlement in the Lower Sesan 2 Dam is very low. For example, the environmental protection investment by Hydrolancang in Lower Sesan 2 Dam is less than 2 percent of the investment in Nuozhadu Dam. If we examine the projects in context, it is clear that Lower Sesan 2 Dam has more significant environmental impacts given that the project is the first in the area, comp

Documents

Lower Sesan 2: Same Company, Two Dams, One River Report