Water Resource Uses and Potential Impact of Hydropower Development Case Study from Northeast Cambodia

Water resource uses and potential impact of hydropower development Case Study from Northeast Cambodia

Wei Zhang1, Dawit Mekonnen1, Claudia Ringler1, Yumiko Kura2, Mith Samonn2, Tep Bunnarith3, Pelle Gatke2, and Prapti Bhandary1

1. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA 2. WorldFish – Greater Mekong Region, Phnom Penh, Cambodia 3. Culture and Environment Preservation Association (CEPA) , Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Report for the Challenge Program on Water & Food Mekong Project

MK2: “Assessing the Value of Water”

20 JULY, 2014

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations in Cambodia who have facilitated this research: provincial authorities of Stung Treng province, local authorities in the Sesan District, members of the field survey team from Culture and Environment Preservation Association (CEPA), and the survey respondents in the 18 villages along the Sesan and Srepok Rivers who participated in this study.

This research was carried out through the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF), which is funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the European Commission (EC), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).

CPWF is a partner of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). WLE combines the resources of 11 CGIAR Centers, The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and numerous international, regional and national partners to provide an integrated approach to natural resource management research. This program is led by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), a member of the CGIAR Consortium. wle.cgiar.org

All errors and omissions which may remain in this report are those of the authors and shall not be attributed to any of these individuals and organizations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 7

II. CASE STUDY BACKGROUND ...... 8 II.1. Description of the Study Site ...... 8 II.2. Description of the Lower Sesan 2 Project ...... 12 II.3. Characteristics of the Water Resources and the Seasonal River Flow Patterns ...... 14 II.4. Hydropower Potential in Cambodia...... 19

III. CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 20

IV. RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY ...... 23 IV.1. Characteristics of the Surveyed Villages and Households ...... 23 IV.2. Sources of Water ...... 25 IV.3. Agriculture and Farmland ...... 32 IV.4. Livestock ...... 36 IV.5. Fisheries ...... 37 IV.6. Forestry ...... 43

V. CONCLUSIONS: SENSITIVITY OF WATER USES AND USERS TO HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ...... 43

VI. REFERENCES ...... 46

List of Figures

Figure 1: Organizing framework of the MK2 Project on Water Valuation...... 7

Figure 2: Map of the study site ...... 9

Figure 3: The locations of the ten surveyed villages upstream of the dam ...... 11

Figure 4: The locations of the eight surveyed villages downstream of the dam ...... 11

Figure 5: Location of Sesan and Srepok Basins and existing and planned dams ...... 12

Figure 6: Predicted extent of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam Reservoir ...... 15

Figure 7: The natural flow regime at the site of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam...... 16

Figure 8: Comparison of the Sesan River flow regimes at Yali (Vietnam) and at the Lower Sesan 2 ... 17

Figure 9: Inflow and filling times for the Lower Sesan 2 ...... 18

Figure 10: Source of water by season ...... 26

Figure 11: Relative importance of the river as a water source by season ...... 27

Figure 12: Difficulty of water collection by season, location, and water source ...... 29

Figure 13: Distance to the water source by village location (in minutes) ...... 30

Figure 14: Average total amount of time (minutes) each family spends collecting water every week 30

Figure 15: Uses of water collected from rivers (percent) ...... 31

Figure 16: Average monthly fish catch (kg) and percentage of households involved in fishing by downstream and upstream villages ...... 39

Figure 17: Average monthly fish catch and percentage of households involved in fishing by villages along the Sesan River and Srepok River ...... 40

List of Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam, as conceived in the original plan ...... 13

Table 2 : Characteristics of the Lower Sesan 2 Reservoir ...... 18

Table 3: Number of households interviewed for the survey ...... 21

Table 4: Key quantitative livelihood variables ...... 22

Table 5: Ethnicity of surveyed households ...... 23

Table 6: Demographic characteristics of household members by village ...... 23

Table 7: Main types of lighting ...... 24

Table 8: Types of toilet facility used ...... 24

Table 9: Water source used by household in the dry season by location ...... 25

Table 10: Water source used by household in the wet season by location ...... 25

Table 11: Water collection in the dry season ...... 28

Table 12: Percentage of households considering the river important, by use ...... 31

Table 13: Size of land holdings and perceived risk of losing land ...... 32

Table 14: Farmland ownership by type of land ...... 33

Table 15: Types of irrigation used ...... 33

Table 16: Sources of water for agriculture in downstream villages by type of land ...... 34

Table 17: Sources of water for agriculture in upstream villages by type of land ...... 34

Table 18: Crop diversity ...... 35

Table 19: Main types of crops/trees cultivated ...... 35

Table 20: Imputed value of annual rice production per household in U.S. dollars ...... 36

Table 21: Average number and value of animals owned per household ...... 36

Table 22: Dominant fish species caught and price range by month ...... 41

Table 23: Seasonal pattern of fish catch and household income in Srepok villages ...... 42

Table 24. Collection of forest products ...... 43

List of Acronyms

CPWF Challenge Program on Water and Food CEPA Culture and Environment Preservation Association EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EVN Electricity of Vietnam FSL Full Supply Level GWh Gigawatt hours Ha Hectares HH Household ID Identification Km Kilometer LMDFE Lower Mekong Dry Forest Eco-region MASL Meters Above Sea Level MIME Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy MOL Minimum Operating Level MoU Memoranda of Understanding MRC Mekong River Commission MW Megawatt NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products SIA Social Impact Assessment USD United States Dollar WSI Water Storage Infrastructure

I. INTRODUCTION

The overall objectives of the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) Mekong Project 2, Assessing the Value of Water, are to assess the value of the various uses of water and to estimate costs and benefits associated with different water management strategies. We quantitatively assessed the value of water resources and water bodies for local livelihoods. We also analyzed the linkages between human impacts on the water resource itself (in this case, development of water storage infrastructure (WSI) for hydropower generation purposes) and the consequences of changes to water resources on the values of locals and on local livelihoods that are derived by water resources. Parallel studies have been conducted in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam.

The overall research framework of the project is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Organizing framework of the MK2 Project on Water Valuation

The objectives of the case study in Cambodia were to: • Assess the benefits of the Sesan and Srepok Rivers and the related resources derived by rural households upstream and downstream of the planned Lower Sesan 2 Dam Project • Assess how differently the upstream and downstream communities will likely be affected by the change in access to the rivers and their water resources

Through the case study, we try to inform optimal management practises of future hydropower reservoirs and associated EIA and SIA processes in Cambodia and the Mekong River Basin.

This case study does not intend to assess the impacts of hydropower development on the overall livelihoods of the affected communities. Instead, the study describes the current water use patterns and the dependency of local livelihoods on the two rivers. It provides insights on the needs of the

affected communities for compensation when the construction and when resettlement starts, as well as for rebuilding their livelihoods after the resettlement.

The research questions outlined below, along with the research framework above, guided the implementation of the case study in Cambodia.

1) What are the main livelihood sources of households in the villages along the Sesan and Srepok Rivers, both upstream and downstream of the dam site? 2) How do the rivers and water resources used in the survey area contribute to these livelihoods and are likely to be affected by the dam? 3) How can negative impacts on affected households from the new reservoir and changes in the water management regime be mitigated? To answer these questions, a survey of 300 households was conducted in 10 villages upstream and 8 villages downstream of the future site of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam. In the next section, we present background information pertaining to the status of the hydropower project and the status of the resettlement program. Details of the study’s methodology are presented in Section III. Survey results and key findings are presented and discussed in Section IV. Overall conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section V.

II. CASE STUDY BACKGROUND

II.1. Description of the Study Site The proposed Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower Dam and its reservoir are set to be constructed on the Sesan River in Sesan district, Stung Treng province. The planned site of the dam is located about one and a half kilometers downstream from the confluence of the Sesan and Srepok Rivers and 25 km east of Stung Treng town, the provincial capital.1 The study sites for this research include both upstream villages that will be inundated by the future reservoir and downstream villages that are expected to be affected by water released by the reservoir.

In order to assess the patterns of water resource use as well as the importance and economic benefits of the Sesan and Srepok River waters for the local communities’ livelihoods, villages in areas upstream and downstream of the future dam site were sampled based on their populations as established by the national census. The studied area has a total population of 13,196 people living in ten upstream villages (7,725 people; Figure 3) and eight downstream villages (5,471 people; Figure 4).

The downstream villages included in the study are all located between the planned dam and the confluence of the Sesan and Sekong Rivers. Downstream from this confluence, the river flow is moderated by the flow of the Sekong River and, thus, downstream villages will be less susceptible to the impacts from the dam than the villages upstream of the confluence.

1 The geographic coordinates of the site are 13°33'20.89"N, 106°15'11.65"E

Svay Rieng

Roum Poth & Talat

Khsach Sre Kor 2 Thmey

Sre Kor I Krabey Chrum Phluk Ban Bung

Lower Sesan 2 Dam Kabal Romeas/Chrab

Sre Sranock

Figure 2: Map of the study site

According to its EIA, it is a key objective of the Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower Project to ensure that the positive impacts in form of power generation are weighed carefully against the negative impacts that it will cause both upstream and downstream of the dam (Key Consultants 2008). It is therefore expected that the affected people living upstream as well as downstream will receive compensation accordingly. This research helps to establish some of the values at stake for the affected communities.

Physical and ecological environment The project area is situated in the path of the Sesan and Srepok Rivers and is characterized by gradually rising elevation towards a plateau in Ratanakiri province. At the proposed dam site, the riverbed has an average elevation of 40 masl, whereas this rises to about 60 masl in the upper part of the reservoir. The mean water flows of the rivers near the site are 633 m3/sec for the Sesan and 667 m3/sec for the Srepok. These flows are affected by existing dams located upstream in Vietnam. The water quality of the rivers is described in the EIA as reasonable. Groundwater levels stand at about 8 m in the dry season (Key Consultants 2008).

The Stung Treng water supply depends on water from the 3S river-system (Sekong, Sesan and Srepok). Therefore, any impacts on water quality deriving from the dam may have consequences for the provincial town, such as impacts from the decomposition of organic materials in the reservoir. Increased sediment levels from erosion and water contamination from waste are likely impacts during the construction phase. The Lower Sesan 2 Project will also add to the cumulative impacts of existing dams in the region in terms of water quality, fish biodiversity, wildlife and sediment transportation (Key Consultants 2008).

The project area is located in the Lower Mekong Dry Forest Eco-region (LMDFE), which includes important areas for bird species and numerous rare and endangered wildlife species. These include tigers, Asian elephants, gaurs, bantengs, wild water buffalos, eld's deer, golden cats, fishing cats, black bears and gibbons. The LMDFE region is of global importance for biodiversity conservation. A mixture of relatively intact forest (typically deciduous dipterocarp), riverine habitat and degraded areas characterises the area. NTFP collection and selective logging reportedly takes place in and around the project area (Key Consultants 2008).

The natural fisheries in the rivers are rich although the fish populations have decreased due to the negative impacts from upstream dams in Vietnam (especially on the Sesan River), as well as from population pressure and the use of destructive fishing gears (Key Consultants 2008). The EIA reports more than 100 present fish species in the Sesan and Srepok Rivers, with an estimated 66% being migratory. These fish are thus especially vulnerable to natural rivers being blocked off. Fish migration is known to involve movements between the Tonle Sap Lake, the Mekong River, the Mekong Delta and the Sesan and Srepok Rivers (Key Consultants 2008). Baran et al. (2014) reported considerably higher numbers of fish species, i.e. 133 fish species (54 of these migratory) in the Sesan River and 240 fish species (81 of these migratory) in the Srepok River. No fewer than 41 migratory species are regularly caught by fishers in the Sesan River, representing 60% of their catch (Baran et al. 2014).

Social resources and economic development An estimated 40,000 people live upstream of the project area along the two rivers and around 45,000 people live downstream in the area between the dam site to Stung Treng town. A range of ethnicities reside in the villages along the rivers. The major livelihood activities of villagers along the rivers are fishing and agriculture, with rice being the most important crop. The agricultural area in Sesan district amounts to approximately 5,220 ha. An estimated 25% of the existing agricultural land in Sesan district will be lost to the reservoir. Furthermore, the dam structure will effectively prevent people from using the river for transportation (Key Consultants 2008).

The infrastructure, including schools, roads and healthcare facilities, is limited and some people travel by boat up and down the rivers. Employment is scarce and subsistence fishing and farming are the most common livelihood patterns. The fish catch from the Sesan and Srepok Rivers amounts to about 355 tonnes per year with an estimated market value of 2.3 million USD per year. Forest and land concessions are common in the project area, with 31% of the proposed reservoir being covered by approved concessions (Key Consultants 2008).

The socio-economic impact from the loss of fisheries is expected to be the largest single impact from the project, as an estimated 66% of the fish species in the Sesan and Srepok Rivers are migratory. These species will expectedly disappear once the rivers are blocked by the dam. Although the value fish landing from the two rivers is estimated at 2.3 million USD by the final EIA of the Lower Sesan 2 project, it is focused on local and upstream impacts and does not cover downstream impacts (Key Consultants 2008). A more recent study estimates that, if the fish that migrate through these rivers during their life cycle and is caught elsewhere in the country, such as Tonle Sap Lake, is taken into account, the Lower Sesan 2 Dam would result in an annual loss of around 195,000 tonnes of fish basin-wide each year, valued at 500 million USD (Ziv et al. 2012).

Figure 3: The locations of the ten surveyed villages upstream of the dam

Figure 4: The locations of the eight surveyed villages downstream of the dam

Transboundary impacts of dams in Vietnam It is important to note that the proposed Lower Sesan 2 Dam site is located at the confluence of two catchment basins that crossover Cambodia and Vietnam: the Sesan and Srepok river basins. As shown in Figure 5, numerous dams already exist on the Sesan and Srepok Rivers in Vietnam, including the Yali Falls Hydropower Project that is the focus of a parallel case study conducted by MK2 in Vietnam.

Yali Falls Dam

Lower Sasan 2

Figure 5: Location of Sesan and Srepok Basins and existing and planned dams2

The impacts of these dams on the hydrology and fisheries of the Sesan and Srepok Rivers have been previously considered by researchers (for example, Cochrane et al. 2010; Räsänen and Kummu 2013; Baird and Meach 2005; Baran et al. 2014). This research needs to be carefully taken into consideration as the results of the households survey are interpreted.

II.2. Description of the Lower Sesan 2 Project The Cambodian Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy (MIME) and Electricity of Vietnam (EVN) signed a memorandum of understanding in 2007 and an environmental impact assessment and a feasibility study were conducted for the Lower Sesan 2 Project (Key Consultants 2008). By November 2012, however, it was confirmed that EVN is no longer involved with the Lower Sesan 2 Dam (The Cambodia Daily 28/11/2012). A deal was signed between the Cambodian Conglomerate Royal Group and China’s Hydrolancang International Energy Co. Ltd. to construct the Lower Sesan 2 Dam through the joint company Hydro Power Lower Sesan 2 Co. Ltd (The Cambodia Daily 27/11/2012).

During 2013, Hydrolancang International Energy was in the process of conducting preliminary studies in the project area to understand the general situation and to conduct soil analysis (Stung Treng Provincial Office 12/8/2013). The Council of Ministers signed off on the Lower Sesan 2 Project

2 Source: Cochrane, et al. 2010, modified for clarity.

on November 2, 2012 (The Cambodia Daily 05/11/2012 a) and its financing was approved by the National Assembly on February 15, 2013 (The Cambodia Daily 18/2/2013).

According to the most recent MoU with the Royal Government of Cambodia, the Chinese company Hydrolancang International Energy holds 51% of the shares, while the Cambodian Conglomerate Royal Group holds 49%. The Vietnamese company EVN completely pulled out of the project. While the project has been delayed, an agreement between the Hydrolancang International Energy and the Chinese government, which includes possible punishment of the company, is expected to ensure that construction will take place soon.

The construction of the dam itself is expected to commence in 2014 and to be completed in 2019. The approximately 800 million USD project, according to the original design and the plan by EVN, would have a maximum capacity of 480 MW and is expected to produce an average output of 2,312 GWh per year.

Table 1: Characteristics of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam, as conceived in the original plan3

Height 45 m Length 7,729 m Reservoir active storage 378.4 million cubic meters Altitude at full supply level 75 meters above sea level (masl) Mean flow 1,304 m3.s-1 Installed capacity 480 MW4 Mean annual energy 2,311.8 GWh

Over the course of the years since the first announcement of the plan, numerous NGOs, researchers, and international media have expressed concerns that the Lower Sesan 2 Dam was approved without prior consultation with the local communities in Sesan district in Stung Treng province. These communities are the most likely to be affected by the project (The Cambodia Daily 05/11/2012 b; Mekong Watch and 3S Rivers Protection Network 2013).

According to the EIA for the Lower Sesan 2 Dam, which was conducted for the original plan in 2008, seven villages would likely be flooded as a result of the dam construction. This would require at least 4,754 villagers from 1,052 families in 4 communes to be resettled (Key Consultants 2008).

Baird (2009) found that at least 38,675 people living in 86 villages along Sesan and Srepok Rivers will lose access to a large part of their fishery resources. Likewise, his study predicts that another 87 villages located on tributaries to these two rivers will lose access to migratory fish as a consequence of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam. In total, it is expected that 78,000 people living upstream of the dam would lose access to migratory fish (Baird 2009).

However, as of 2013, the project design has reportedly been changed due to the transfer of the investment agreement to the Cambodian/Chinese company. The reservoir height has been reduced from 75 masl to 70 masl, creating a reservoir with a smaller size than the original plan. Subsequently, fewer villages are to be resettled. The villages to be resettled are Srekor Muoy and Sre Kor Pi villages

3 Source: Cambodia National Mekong Committee 4 400MW is also more commonly cited in other sources

located along the Sesan River, and Kbal Romeas and Sre Sranok villages located along the Srepok River. Apart from the reduced number of people having to be resettled, other changes in the design and the operational plan of the dam are unclear. The anticipated impacts from the dam, such as blocked fish migration, changes in water flow and a significant reduction in sediment transported downstream are also unclear, as no new EIA has been conducted (Stung Treng Provincial Office 12/8/2013).

Starting from 2011, the provincial authorities in Stung Treng have been working with Electricity of Vietnam (EVN), and now with Hydropower Lower Sesan 2 Co., to set up compensation policies related to the resettlement process. These include identifying resettlement sites and designing the layout of new villages with a house model that can accommodate eight persons. A Provincial Committee, chaired by the Provincial Governor and under the command of the Prime Minister, has been formed. At the village level, they have registered assets subjected for compensation and have informed villagers about the compensation policy and the resettlement process (Stung Treng Provincial Office 12/8/2013).

In 2013, the Compensation Policy on the Impacts of the Lower Se San 2 Hydropower Dam Project was prepared by Hydropower Lower Sesan 2 Co., Ltd. It outlines the new terms of the resettlement compensation package offered to the 4 villages and has been used as a basis for further discussion between the company, local authorities, and the local communities (Hydropower Lower Sesan 2 Co., Ltd 2013).

According to the new compensation policy, each resettled household will essentially receive monetary compensation for immovable assets and various temporary allowances for food, fuel, and transportation. They will receive residential land of 1,000m2 per family (including 200 to 400m2 for the main house, bathroom, toilet, and water tanks, and 600 to 800m2 for yard/home gardens) and 5 hectares of farmland. Each village will also receive various communal facilities such as schools, a health center, and a monastery. The resettlement sites are proposed around the newly created reservoir but are still under negotiation among the stakeholders involved.

Some clearing for the reservoir has taken place since March 2013 but was halted in October of the same year due to allegations of illegal logging taking place outside the concession area (The Phnom Penh Post 25/10/2013). It is reported that the clearance has taken place without any authorization from the provincial authorities, who appear to be unaware of the size of the forested area to be cleared (Stung Treng Provincial Office 12/8/2013).

II.3. Characteristics of the Water Resources and the Seasonal River Flow Patterns In this section, the characteristics of the affected waterways and the proposed reservoir for the Lower Sesan 2 Dam are described.

Figure 6: Predicted extent of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam Reservoir5

River flow regimes The natural flow regime of the Sesan River at the planned site for the Lower Sesan 2 Dam is strongly influenced by the monsoon climate of the catchment. It is characterized with large seasonal fluctuations: daily dry season flows are on average 602 m3/s compared to 2,043 m3/s during the wet season. Variability between years is also large, with the dry and wet seasons varying between -24% to +16%, on average (Figure 7).

5 MK3 calculations

Figure 7: The natural flow regime at the site of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam6

The flow regime of the Sesan River has been affected by hydropower development in the upper reaches of the river in Vietnam. The impacts of the Yali Hydropower Project in Vietnam on the flow regimes of the Sesan River have been monitored in Voeun Sai, Cambodia, which is situated several hundred kilometers downstream of the Yali Dam. The flow measurements clearly show changes in the dry season flows. The daily variability of dry season flows have increased and, on some occasions, the flow levels have also increased based on the comparison of data from the pre- (1994 to 1997) and post- (2002 to 2005) Yali construction period. The number of hydropower projects later increased in the upper reaches of Sesan, with the completion of the Pleiklong, Sesan 3, Sesan 3a, Sesan 4, and Sesan 4a Dams in the same channel. However, their downstream hydrological impacts have not been documented in published literature (Räsänen and Kummu 2013).

6 MK3 calculations.

Figure 8: Comparison of the Sesan River flow regimes at Yali (Vietnam) and at the Lower Sesan 27

Inflow and filling times Based on simulations of the natural flow regime, the Lower Sesan 2 receives an annual total inflow of 8,526 m3 during the dry season and 32,471 m3 during the wet season. The monthly inflow peaks in September at 9,488 m3 (i.e. more than the entire dry season inflow), with a minimum monthly inflow of 660 m3 during April. Due to the variability of the inflow regime, the filling times for the reservoir varies from less than one day in September to 12 to 13 days in March and April (Figure 9).

7 MK3 calculations.

Figure 9: Inflow and filling times for the Lower Sesan 28

Table 2 below summarises the main characteristics of the Lower Sesan 2 Reservoir for when its construction is completed and it is filled.

Table 2 : Characteristics of the Lower Sesan 2 Reservoir9

Reservoir characteristics Unit Lower Sesan 2 Full Supply Level (FSL) masl 75 Minimum Operating Level (MOL) masl 74 Draw down (difference between FSL and MOL) meter 1 Area of reservoir at FSL Km2 389.5 Area of reservoir at MOL Km2 374.3 Perimeter of reservoir at FSL Km 377.9 Perimeter of reservoir at MOL Km 376.5 Total volume of reservoir at FSL Million m3 2667.8 Total volume of reservoir at MOL Million m3 2294.7 Active (live) storage - difference between volumes at FSL and MOL Million m3 373.1 Length of reservoir at FSL (dam to top of reservoir) Km 0.97 Length of reservoir at MOL (dam to top of reservoir) Km 1.01 Average depth of reservoir at FSL meter 44.32

8 MK3 calculations. 9 MK3 calculations.

Average depth of reservoir at MOL meter 43.00 Drawdown area exposed at MOL Km2 44.19 Average slope of land in drawdown % 44.45 Area exposed at drawdown which is between 0 – 5% slope Km2 6.8 Catchment area above dam Km2 6.1 Length of river from dam to confluence with the Mekong River Km n/a Area exposed at drawdown – sq km sq km 15.30 Average slope of land in drawdown % 2.12 Area exposed at drawdown which is between 0 – 5% slope sq km 12.28 Catchment area above dam – sq km sq km 3268.9 3 Mean annual flow at the dam site – m /sec m3/sec n/a Length of river from dam to confluence with the Mekong – km km 31.0 n/a: information is not available.

II.4. Hydropower Potential in Cambodia Cambodia has long been dependent on fuel-generated power as well as imports from neighbouring countries in order to meet the rising demand for electricity. With an identified hydropower development potential in Cambodia of an estimated 10,000 MW (MIME 2009), the government is targeting speedy development of the sector. In 2011, hydropower projects with a combined installed capacity of approximately 1,000 MW were under construction and Memorandums of Understanding were signed for another 2,200 MW (MIME 2012). Several of the planned dams may lead to substantial environmental and social costs and impacts due to their location in national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, as well as in areas where upstream and downstream communities are dependent on the rivers and natural resources that will be affected by the dams (Gätke and Un 2013).

As Cambodia has yet to obtain the necessary skills and experience required to construct large dams, the country relies on foreign companies to develop the sector. In line with this, the development and implementation of social and environmental safeguards for these large development projects is relatively new to the Cambodian government (Gätke and Un 2013). The limited experience with EIA and SIA processes, including compensation and resettlement issues, is one likely reason why several large hydropower projects, including the Lower Sesan 2, have been approved without comprehensive participatory processes being conducted (Middleton, C. 2008; International Rivers 2013).

Thus far dams and reservoirs have been developed primarily to maximize the value of water for single sector uses, such as hydropower or irrigation, and the development process has not always taken the full range of costs and benefits to various water users into consideration. This practice carries the risk of overlooking or underestimating the negative implications of water development projects to the livelihoods of riparian communities, fisheries, and the environment. The high biodiversity and productivity of Cambodia’s rivers and wetlands, including the rich fisheries, are

invaluable to rural populations. This should be thoroughly considered in relation to hydropower development in order not to put these vital resources at risk (Middleton 2008).

Although the 2008 EIA for the Lower Sesan 2 can be described as sufficiently detailed and of higher quality than many others found in the region, it does not adequately address the various values of water in the affected area, especially downstream of the construction site. Improved valuation of the various uses of water is important in order to provide decision-makers with a better understanding of the pros and cons of hydropower development projects. In addition to its role as a determining factor in the decision-making process, establishing the existing values of water in communities affected by dam constructions will be beneficial when determining the level of compensation that may be provided to resettled or otherwise impacted households. Consultative and participatory processes are needed to provide the most holistic overview of the value of various water uses and to thereby help identify the main trade-offs between different water users.

III. CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY

The key drivers of change in water resources in the context of this case study are:

• Creation of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam and Reservoir and resettlement of villages upstream of the dam • Changes in the flow pattern and the volume of the Sesan River downstream of the dam

This case study assessed the role of water, especially from the two rivers, for the diverse livelihoods of local communities in the immediate impact zone of the planned Lower Sesan 2 Project, before its construction starts. Based on a survey of 300 households, the vulnerability of local communities to changes in access to agricultural land, forests, and water resources (both physical access to water as well as livelihood dependence on water from the rivers) was assessed. The different sensitivities of households located upstream and downstream of the future dam and along the Sesan and Srepok Rivers, were also compared.

The household survey was conducted in Sesan district, Stung Treng province in April and May, 2011. The purpose of the survey was to assess the value of water resources and the related livelihoods of river-dependent communities living both upstream and downstream of the dam site. The market price of production outputs was used to quantify the benefit of rivers for some of the livelihood outcomes of local communities. The survey was designed to identify water-resource dependent livelihoods, as well to understand the heterogeneity of potential impacts across different households from the water management changes brought about by the Lower Sesan 2 Dam.

Assumptions As of July 2014, the Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower Project is still under development. The exact nature of the changes under the new investment agreement are unclear in terms of the design and operation of the dam, the management regime of the reservoir, and the conditions of the resettlement sites and compensation programs for affected communities. Therefore, we made some assumptions as we conducted the survey and the analysis.

At least four upstream villages, subject to resettlement to new areas that are yet to be confirmed, will lose current household assets that cannot be easily or affordably moved (e.g. housing, shops, local services, agricultural land, and trees). Other villages may lose some of these assets and relocate away from the river (the upper edge of the future reservoir) to avoid any danger and to avoid property loss, although no specific compensation or support has been offered to them as yet. In addition, several other villages will lose access to the two rivers (replaced by a reservoir), to communal forests in some cases, and to communal grazing areas upstream of the dam. They may also lose associated livelihood options such as fishing, livestock and NTFP collection. On the other hand, they may potentially retain access to the reservoir and to the water from it if the new residential sites are close enough and accessible to the reservoir.

Villages downstream, with no compensation offered so far, will likely lose some assets (e.g. river bank gardens, houses, or homestead land) if the area becomes prone to flash flooding. Additionally, they can be expected to lose some proportion of livelihood income from fisheries, farmland, and forest resources.

Sampling methodology A total of 18 villages were selected for the survey, out of which 10 were upstream and 8 were downstream. The total population of the surveyed villages is 13,196 and the average population of the villages is 733, with Kam Phun having the highest population of 1651 and Rompat the lowest of 197. A total of 300 households was determined as an adequate sample size for the survey’s purposes. These 300 households were stratified into two major groups, upstream and downstream, based on the significantly different impacts of relocation and on changes in the hydrological regime. Household information for each village was available from the local communes based on the most recent national census. Village-level population was divided by the total population upstream and the total population downstream in order to assign villages a proportionate representation from the 150 households to be sampled from each area. The households were randomly selected by the project team based on census listings (Table 3).

Table 3: Number of households interviewed for the survey

Total Number Number of Downstream Total Commune of Households Households Villages Population Surveyed Phluk Phluk 895 255 24 Banbung Phluk 391 60 11 Kam Phun Kamphun 1651 498 45 Banmai Kamphun 360 108 10 Se San Kamphun 360 77 10 Badoem Samkhuoy 678 152 19 Sam Koy Samkhuoy 526 124 14 Hangsavath Samkhuoy 610 144 17 Sub-Total 5471 1418 150 Total Total Number Households Upstream Villages Commune Population of Households Surveyed Rompat Talat 197 60 4 Svay Rieng Talat 1233 294 24

Khasach Thmey Talat 1297 295 25 Talat Talat 377 89 7 Sre Kor Mouy Srae Kor 753 178 15 Sre Kor Pi Srae Kor 722 172 14 Krabey Chrum Kbal Romeas 834 195 16 Srae Sranok Kbal Romeas 555 123 11 Chrab Kbal Romeas 1139 237 22 Kbal Romeas Kbal Romeas 618 121 12 Sub-Total 7725 1576 150

Development of the questionnaire The household survey questionnaire was drafted by the project team members and was further revised following a pilot-survey in one upstream and one downstream village in February 2011. It was designed to give a detailed account of all current income and livelihood activities and their relative link to water resources. Particular attention was given to those livelihoods that may be impacted by changes in land and water resources resulting from the Lower Sesan 2 Dam construction and operation.

Each questionnaire recorded information including demography, household assets, as well as crop production, cost and revenue from agriculture, fisheries, livestock and timber and non-timber forest products (NTFP) collection. Additionally, non-farm activities, remittances and expenses were recorded. Data of a qualitative nature pertaining to water sources and water use was also collected at the household level. Key variables used in the analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Key quantitative livelihood variables

Variables/Unit Definition Monthly Fish Catch Reported total monthly fish catch in a given month. (kg/household/month) Involvement in Fishing (%/month) Percentage of households who reported positive catches in a given month. Note that the percentages of households reporting positive fish catch quantity are lower than those responding to the screening question by reporting going fishing or taking fish from the river (55% and 52%, respectively). Value of Fisheries (USD/month) Monthly value of fisheries, based on the monthly catch quantity as reported by households, multiplied by an average landing price of fish for each month. The average value of fish was based on interviews of fishers and fish traders operating near the survey villages along the Sesan and Srepok Rivers, and not based on a comprehensive survey of fish prices at landing. Number of Livestock Owned (number Average number of animals owned by households for each given animal, based of animals/household) on reported livestock ownership by each household at the time of the survey. Value of Livestock Owned Total sales value of livestock owned today, as reported by households, was (USD/household) used to calculate the average values of different types of animals. Value of Forest Products (USD/ Value of each forest product as reported by those households who reported a household /year) collected amount. Value of Rice Production Imputed value of total annual rice production per household based on reported (USD/household/year) quantity of the production multiplied by the average price.

IV. RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY

IV.1. Characteristics of the Surveyed Villages and Households Khmer is the ethnic majority of the population in Cambodia. A great majority of the surveyed households identified themselves as ethnically Khmer and they are almost equally settled both upstream and downstream (Table 5). The second largest ethnic group is Lao and a majority of the population of Lao ethnicity are settled upstream. The upstream villages are generally more ethnically diverse than the downstream villages. There was no apparent village segregation based on ethnicity of the population.

Table 5: Ethnicity of surveyed households

Downstream Number of responses = 122

1 = Khmer 92% 2 = Khmer Loeu 3% 3 = Lao 5% Upstream Number of responses = 146

1 = Khmer 84% 2 = Khmer Loeu 2% 3 = Lao 10% 4 = Phnon 1% 5 = Kreung 1% 6 = Prov 3% 10 = Mixed 1%

The average family size is 6.19 members per household, with the highest being 8.18 in Badoem village (Table 6). 91% of household heads were male and 71% of household heads can read and write in the Khmer language. While male household heads are dominant in the majority of the villages, the Sesan village in the downstream region is an exception as almost half of its households are headed by females. The highest literacy rate is 79% in Kam Phun and in Sam Koy, both of which are located downstream. The lowest literacy rate of 18% is observed in Rompat which is an upstream village that is farthest away from the city. Sam Koy was the only surveyed village whose household were 100% multifamily.

Table 6: Demographic characteristics of household members by village

Household 10 11 Multi-family Gender Age Literacy rate size household12 Pluk 6.54 0.48 27.18 0.58 0.40

Banbong 5.29 0.41 28.80 0.41 0.61 m Kam Phun 6.14 0.48 27.32 0.79 0.47

Downstrea Ban Mai 4.70 0.57 21.57 0.50 0.22

10 Gender equals 1 if male and zero otherwise. 11 Literacy equals 1 if the household member can read in any language and 0 otherwise. 12 Multi-family equals 1 if a household is multifamily and 0 otherwise. Multi-family home is defined as household which may have in-laws and children still living at home after marriage.

Sesan 5.30 0.43 24.41 0.58 0.60 Badoem 8.18 0.60 26.43 0.56 0.49 Sam Koy 5.45 0.47 27.19 0.78 1.00 Hang Savat 6.70 0.49 26.77 0.46 0.22 Rompat 5.00 0.41 27.18 0.18 0.00 Svay Rieng 6.35 0.55 24.79 0.52 0.52 Kasach 6.75 0.49 26.27 0.57 0.36 Thmey

Talath 5.85 0.65 21.82 0.23 0.00 Srekor Mouy 6.05 0.48 29.18 0.56 0.65 Srekor Pi 6.32 0.55 28.09 0.39 0.51 Upstream Krabey 5.35 0.45 20.15 0.50 0.47 Chrom Srae Sranok 7.50 0.56 25.53 0.47 0.78 Chrab 6.33 0.57 25.60 0.65 0.58 Kbal Romeas 7.64 0.54 24.27 0.58 0.45

There is no stable access to electricity through a supply grid in these villages. The villagers make use of various types of lighting source to meet their needs, with the most common option being diesel lamps (54.55%). Other sources of lighting used include generators, batteries, and gasoline lamps. The downstream households make higher use of diesel lamps with 67.57% of households using them while only 41.61% of the upstream households use them. On the other hand, upstream households tend to use generators and batteries more often than in the downstream villages.

Table 7: Main types of lighting

Number of households Percent Type of lighting source Downstream Upstream Overall Downstream Upstream Overall Diesel Lamp 100 62 162 67.57 41.61 54.55 Generator 26 39 65 17.57 26.17 21.89 Battery 4 28 32 2.7 18.79 10.77 Gasoline Lamp 8 3 11 5.41 2.01 3.70 Torch 3 4 7 2.03 2.68 2.36 Other (specify) 7 12 19 4.73 8.05 6.40 Total 148 149 297 100 100 100

Table 8 shows that the majority of the surveyed population do not have access to proper toilet facilities. About 46% of the downstream communities use some form of toilet facility, either a flush toilet, an open latrine without a cover, or a latrine over a field or water. However, 54% of households do not have latrines. The condition is even worse in the upstream communities where 88% of people use open land/forest/bush.

Table 8: Types of toilet facility used

Number of households Percent Type of toilet facility Downstream Upstream Overall Downstream Upstream Overall

Flush toilet 10 4 14 6.71 2.67 4.68 Latrine without cover 53 12 65 35.57 8 21.74 Open land / forest / bush 81 132 213 54.36 88 71.24 Latrine over field or water 5 1 6 3.36 0.67 2.01 Other 0 1 1 0 0.67 0.33 Total 149 150 299 100 100 100

IV.2. Sources of Water Table 9, Table 10, and Figure 10 highlight the importance of different water sources in the dry and wet seasons. The villages access both surface and ground water but the reliance on surface water is much higher than on ground water. The largest source of water for upstream and downstream households in the dry season is river water at 86.33%.

Table 9: Water source used by household in the dry season by location

Source of water in Number of households Percent the dry season Downstream Upstream Overall Downstream Upstream Overall River 123 136 259 82 90.67 86.33 Stream / Creek 1 9 10 0.67 6 3.33 Lake / Pond 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rain Water Barrel 1 0 1 0.67 0 0.33 Tube well - Public 18 3 21 12 2 7 Tube well - Private 1 1 2 0.67 0.67 0.67 Borehole - Public 3 0 3 2 0 1 Borehole - Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 Open Well 2 1 3 1.33 0.67 1 Other 1 0 1 0.67 0 0.33 Total 150 150 300 100 100 100

However, the relative importance of the river as a source of water declines in the wet season because of the availability of other water sources such as rainfall, streams/creeks, and open wells. The use of river water declines to 31.6% in the rainy season but is still the most widely used source of water (Table 10). Other major sources include rain water barrels at 17%, whose usage is higher in upstream communities at 20.14%. The relative importance of tube wells remains the same across the two seasons.

Table 10: Water source used by household in the wet season by location

Source of water in Number of households Percent the wet season Downstream Upstream Overall Downstream Upstream Overall River 49 42 91 34.03 29.17 31.60 Stream / Creek 13 3 16 9.03 2.08 5.56 Lake / Pond 3 5 8 2.08 3.47 2.78 Rain Water Barrel 21 29 50 14.58 20.14 17.36 Tube well - Public 9 7 16 6.25 4.86 5.56 Tube well - Private 1 1 2 0.69 0.69 0.69

Borehole - Public 0 1 1 0 0.69 0.35 Borehole - Private 0 2 2 0 1.39 0.69 Open Well 10 20 30 6.94 13.89 10.42 Other 38 34 72 26.39 23.61 25 Total 144 144 288 100 100 100

Wet Season 14%

8% 42%

23%

4% 7%

River Stream/Creek Lake/Pond Rain Water Tubewell Borehole Open Well

1%1% 8% Dry Season 0% 3%

87%

River Stream/Creek Lake/Pond Rain Water Tubewell Borehole Open Well

Figure 10: Source of water by season

For villages along the Srepok and Sesan Rivers, Figure 11 shows the percentage of households who reported the river as a water source. The relative importance of the two rivers varies significantly between the two seasons. In both seasons, however, a slightly higher percentage of households reported the river as their main water source in villages along the Sesan River compared to those along the Srepok River.

Percent of households who reported the river as their water source 100 80 60 40 Percent of households of Percent 20 0 Dry season Wet season Dry season Wet season Srepok river Sesan river

Figure 11: Relative importance of the river as a water source by season

Table 11 describes water usage and collection in the dry season through the different water sources available in the surveyed villages.

The largest amount of water collected, as measured in number of big buckets in the survey, in downstream villages is through the use of public boreholes at 136.7 buckets, whereas the amount collected from the river is the smallest. This is quite a contrast since 82% of the downstream villages stated that they use the river as their main source of water in the dry season but only 2% responded that they used public boreholes. Furthermore, even though stream water is only used occasionally, the average collection amount (buckets) from this source is high, whereas the river is the most commonly used source but the average amount per collection is small. As for the upstream villages, water collected in big buckets is mostly through open wells and, as well as downstream, not much water is collected through rivers.

For water collection in small buckets, the amount collected each time is highest for public tube wells and the river, contrary to the amount collected in big buckets. The smallest amount of water is collected through rain water barrels and wells. In both upstream and downstream villages, households collect water the most number of times per week from public tube wells and from the river. The number of times is quite a bit higher for downstream villages.

Table 11: Water collection in the dry season

River Stream Rain Tube well Tube well Borehole - Open Other / Creek Water - Public - Private Public Well Barrel Downstream Amount collected 3.699 10 4 4.556 14 136.7 0 4 each time (in big (11.76) (.) (.) (6.391) (.) (228.1) (0) (.) buckets) Amount collected 11.15 0 0 14.22 0 0 7 0 each time (in small (27.57) (.) (.) (47.35) (.) (0) (9.899) (.) buckets) Number of times 77.24 7 7 1564.9 7 7 7 7 the hh collects (456.7) (.) (.) (6597.3) (.) (0) (0) (.) water per week Distance to the 88.03 10 70 68.33 100 68.33 45 150 source (meters) (74.19) (.) (.) (44.06) (.) (74.22) (49.50) (.) Distance to the 14.68 3 15 12.83 15 16.67 10 10 source (minutes) (12.53) (.) (.) (13.82) (.) (11.55) (7.071) (.) Upstream Amount collected 3.699 6.222 0 10 12 each time (in big (9.104) (7.596) (0) (.) (.) buckets) Amount collected 14.30 0 6 0 0 each time (in small (71.01) (0) (8.485) (.) (.) buckets) Number of times 67.08 8.222 25.67 7 0 the hh collects (343.9) (3.420) (14.57) (.) (.) water per week Distance to the 182.9 371.1 70 10 60 source (meters) (205.8) (289.7) (0) (.) (.) Distance to the 18.81 37.33 16.67 1 10 source (minutes) (12.97) (17.29) (2.887) (.) (.) Observations 150 Note: Standard errors are in brackets

Figure 12 reports on the difficulty of water collection in the dry and wet seasons. The degree of difficulty in collecting water from the river in the dry season in both upstream and downstream households ranges from medium to difficult. However, river water is still the greatest source of water for these communities. In the dry season, the difficulty in obtaining water from streams, rain water barrels, open wells and public tube wells is higher in downstream households than in upstream households. The time it takes to access water does not vary much between downstream and upstream villages for tube wells, boreholes, and open wells.

Wet Season

Downstream River Upstream Downstream Stream/Creek Upstream Downstream Lake/Pond Upstream Downstream Rain water Upstream Downstream Tubewell Upstream Downstream Borehole Upstream Downstream Open well Upstream Downstream Other Upstream

0 1 2 3 4 Level of difficulty of water collection: 1 (very easy) to 5 (very difficult)

Dry Season

Downstream River Upstream Downstream Stream/Creek Upstream Downstream Rain water Upstream Downstream Tubewell Upstream Downstream Borehole Upstream Downstream Open well Upstream Downstream Other Upstream

0 1 2 3 4 5 Level of difficulty of water collection: 1 (very easy) to 5 (very difficult)

Figure 12: Difficulty of water collection by season, location, and water source

Seasonal variability in access to water sources affects the amount of time households spend on collecting water and the relative difficulty of getting water from the source. For instance, the water collection time from streams and creeks almost doubles in the dry season as compared to the wet season (Figure 13). This is time taken away from possible productive uses of family labor in other economic activities and also from caring for other family members. In both the dry and wet seasons, the average distance to streams and creeks is longer in upstream villages than in downstream villages.

Downstream River Upstream Downstream Stream/Creek Upstream Downstream Lake/Pond Upstream Downstream Rain Water Upstream Downstream Tubewell Upstream Downstream Borehole Upstream Downstream Open Well Upstream Downstream Other Upstream

0 10 20 30 40 Distance to the water source (in minutes)

Dry season Wet season

Figure 13: Distance to the water source by village location (in minutes)

On average, a household in the upstream villages spends a total of 249 minutes per week collecting water during the dry season, while a household in the downstream villages spends 169 minutes per week. During the wet season, a household in the upstream villages spends 176 minutes per week collecting water, while a household in the downstream villages spends 139 minutes per week (Figure 14).

Downstream

Dry season

Upstream

Downstream

Wet season

Upstream

0 50 100 150 200 250 Number of minutes per week a household spends collecting water

Figure 14: Average total amount of time (minutes) each family spends collecting water every week

As shown in Figure 15, the different uses of water collected from the river are not highly affected by seasonality. However, the nature of the seasonal differences of water uses is different between villages in Srepok and Sesan Rivers. The share of the domestic use of the collected water is higher in

the wet season in Srepok River villages while it is higher during the dry season in villages along the Sesan River.

Dry season

Srepok river

Wet season

Dry season

Sesan river

Wet season

0 20 40 60 80

Drinking (%) Domestic use (%) Livestock (%)

Figure 15: Uses of water collected from rivers (percent)

Importance of Sesan and Srepok Rivers The surveyed households highly value the importance of the rivers for a wide variety of water uses. Water is used for drinking, washing, irrigation, fishing, and for ceremonies13 and rituals14, as shown in Table 12. 100% of the downstream households regard the river as an important source of water for washing clothes, bathing, and festivals, whereas the percentage is slightly lower for upstream communities. The rivers are considered important for drinking water by 99% of downstream households and 98% of upstream households.

Table 12: Percentage of households considering the river important, by use

Water use Downstream Upstream Drinking water 99% 98% Washing clothes 100% 97% Bathing 100% 96% Irrigation 99% 95% Fishing 91% 95% Livestock watering 96% 85% Transportation 87% 79% Tourism 73% 59% Trade 74% 60% Disposal of garbage 13% 8% Ceremonies 98% 97% Rituals 98% 98%

13 This refers to weddings and other formal events. 14 This refers to funeral rites and other religious customs.

Festivals 100% 86% Total 88% 82%

Given such a high usage rate of river water for several essential purposes, including drinking, changes brought about by the creation of a reservoir to the quantity and quality of river water and to river access would heavily affect surveyed communities.

IV.3. Agriculture and Farmland Land holdings and types of use In this section, we discuss the land holdings of the surveyed households and the risk of losing their land holdings to the dam. 90% of the downstream households responded that they owned farmland. A slightly higher number was reported by upstream households, accounting for 95% of households. The average plot size is slightly larger for upstream households at 3.52 hectares. However, cultivated areas seem to be slightly larger in downstream households at 1.88 hectares, which is greater than half the size of the total plot area.

When asked if they think their land would be lost due to the dam or reservoir construction, 90% of the upstream households answered that their land will be lost. Conversely, only 28% of the downstream households responded that their land would be lost. Therefore, the respondents in the upstream communities perceive that they have a greater chance of losing their land as a result of the dam/reservoir construction.

Table 13: Size of land holdings and perceived risk of losing land

Mean sd Number of households Downstream Do you farm land? (1 = Yes, 0 = No) .904 .295 136 The total size of all plots (ha) 3.137 2.400 136 Area of plot cultivated (ha) 1.882 1.781 135 Will this land be lost to the dam / .2794 .460 136 reservoir? (1 = Yes, 0 = No) Upstream Do you farm land? (1 = Yes, 0 = No) .949 .221 137 The total size of all plots (ha) 3.516 2.556 137 Area of plot cultivated (ha) 1.789 1.901 137 Will this land be lost to the dam / .898 .304 137 reservoir? (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

The average size of farming plots owned by each household is similar between upstream and downstream villages. However, the size of each plot by type held by upstream and downstream villages are significantly different. Table 14 summarizes the types of farmland owned by surveyed villages in both the downstream and upstream. There is a considerable difference between the average size of homestead gardens owned by upstream households and downstream households. 67% of the surveyed households reported ownership of homestead gardens. The average plot size per household for those who own this type of land in upstream villages is 1.2 hectares, while the average is 0.17 hectares for downstream villages. Similarly, households located upstream have larger upland fields per household.

On the other hand, downstream households that own lowland fields have 2.67 hectares of them on average, whereas upstream households own only 2.1 hectares on average. Only a small numbers of surveyed households reported ownership of river bank gardens and forests, both upstream and downstream.

Table 14: Farmland ownership by type of land

Homestead Upland Lowland Riverbank Slash and Forest garden field field garden burn Downstream (ha) 17.14 79 250.9 4.020 147.4 14 (99) (36) (94) (3) (69) (2) Upstream (ha) 116.3 120.2 175.6 3.074 151.1 12.50 (98) (43) (84) (5) (69) (8) Note: Frequencies are given in brackets in terms of number of plots.

Type of irrigation and source of water15 Of the total number of plots reportedly owned by the surveyed households (605), 50% of the plots use some form of irrigation in addition to rain water. As seen in Table 15, supplementary irrigation using buckets/watering cans is the most common type of irrigation regardless of the location of the households. This is followed by flood irrigation at 24%, which takes advantage of natural seasonal floodwater from the rivers and other water bodies during the rainy season. Fewer than 20% of the households report using a more structured form of irrigation through canals using pumps.

Table 15: Types of irrigation used

Number of plots Percent Downstream Flood irrigation + pump 10 6.45 Flood irrigation 38 24.52 Canal irrigation + pump 9 5.81 Canal irrigation 15 9.68 Bucket / watering can 83 53.55 Total 155 100 Upstream Flood irrigation + pump 22 14.77 Flood irrigation 36 24.16 Canal irrigation + pump 12 8.05 Canal irrigation 8 5.37 Bucket / watering can 71 47.65 Total 149 100

There are several sources of water available for irrigation (Table 16). 63% of the households reported using rain water as a major source for irrigation regardless of their location. A significant proportion of these households denoted rainfed farming as “irrigated with rainwater” so this does not necessarily mean storing rainwater during the rainy season for irrigation use during the dry season. The second most common water source for irrigation is river water, which is used on 28% of the plots upstream and on 26% of the plots downstream. The river is the main source of water for

15 The word “irrigation” in a Cambodian context refers to watering crops in general, and includes rainfed as well as seasonal flood recession agriculture.

home gardens. Other sources include lakes/ponds, streams and dug or drilled wells, all of which are used on fewer than 5% of plots. The households make very little use of well water for the purpose of irrigation, as less than 10% of the households have access to wells.

Table 16 and Table 17 provide an overview of the sources of water for agriculture in downstream and upstream villages on plots. The tables suggest that irrigation methods vary significantly across different types of land uses. For home gardens and river bank gardens, the most common type of irrigation method is the use of buckets or watering cans from the river. Using natural seasonal flooding for agriculture is more common in upland and lowland fields as well as in slash and burn lands.

Table 16: Sources of water for agriculture in downstream villages by type of land

Owned by Type of Land (% of HH)* Water Source (percentages) River Lake/Pond Stream Rain Dug well Drilled well Home Garden (n=95) 72.1 70.5 3.2 0 20 1.1 5.3 Upland Field (n=35) 26.5 2.9 0 2.9 91.4 0 2.9 Lowland Field (n=94) 64.7 3.2 3.2 6.4 84.1 3.2 0 River Bank Garden (n=3) 2.2 66.7 0 0 33.3 0 0 Slash and Burn (n=68) 50.7 4.4 7.4 7.4 77.9 2.9 0 Forest (n=2) 1.5 0 0 50 50 0 0

Table 17: Sources of water for agriculture in upstream villages by type of land

Owned by Type of Land (% of HH)* Water Source (percentages) River Lake/Pond Stream Rain dug well drilled well Home Garden (n=93) 70.8 64.5 0 2.2 28 1.1 4.3 Upland Field (n=43) 31.4 4.7 4.7 4.7 86.1 0 0 Lowland Field (n=82) 59.9 8.5 0 6.1 81.7 3.7 0 River Bank Garden (n=5) 3.6 20 0 0 80 0 0 Slash and Burn (n=66) 50.4 16.7 0 6.1 75.8 1.5 0 Forest (n=8) 5.8 25 0 0 62.5 0 12.5

Crops produced using home gardens or river bank gardens in downstream villages rely on river water and are thus the most likely to be affected by changes in river access and in river flow patterns caused by the dam. On the other hand, home gardens, river bank gardens, and lowland fields owned by the upstream villages will be most affected by the creation of the reservoir. It is possible that upland fields and forest lands accessed by the upstream communities will not be submerged under the reservoir and will continue to be available for local livelihood uses. However, it is unclear how many villages and their farmlands will be affected by the future reservoir based on the revised design of the dam under the new investment agreement.

Crop production and value

Most of the plots in production are a mixed system of multiple crops. About 1/3 of the plots are single cropped. Almost 20% of the plots are not in production, mostly likely being fallowed. Over 17% of the plots have more than 5 crops in them. On average, there is a higher degree of crop diversity in the upstream villages than in the downstream villages (Table 18).

Table 18: Crop diversity

Number of crops per plot that Number of plots Percent Average number of crops per are in production plot

Downstream 1 101 41.91 2 23 9.54 3 49 20.33 2.11 4 24 9.96 5 44 18.26 Total 241 100 Upstream 1 94 38.21 2 32 13.01 3 25 10.16 2.73 4 36 14.63 5 59 23.98 Total 246 100

Table 19 shows that the most commonly cultivated crops/trees cultivated in the surveyed area. Rice is cultivated in the highest number of farming plots (40% of the total number of plots), followed by mango, coconut and maize. There is no significant difference between the upstream and the downstream villages in the main types of crops/trees cultivated.

Table 19: Main types of crops/trees cultivated

Crop Number of Plots Downstream Upstream Overall Rice 120 124 244 Mango 71 63 134 Coconut 67 54 121 Maize 26 35 61

The dominant cropping system is single-cropped rice in both upstream and downstream villages. While the quality of the survey data on crop production quantities is too poor to allow for an examination of the total yield, we found that, for households who reported their main crop to be rice, the average yield is 2,519 kg/ha. However, there is a significant range in the production per hectare figures reported among the households. Because the majority of the plots are used for mixed crops, we are unable to calculate either the farming area or the yield for each crop.

We have imputed the value of rice production, including for households who did not sell any rice for the given year (Table 20). On average, households in the downstream villages earned more from rice production than households in the upstream area. Among the upstream villages, households along the Srepok River earned more from rice production than households along the Sesan River.

Table 20: Imputed value of annual rice production per household in U.S. dollars

Location Mean Number of households Upstream 572 110 Relative to the Downstream 682 115 dam Overall 628 225 Sesan River 548 72 River Srepok River 618 38 Overall 572 110

IV.4. Livestock Livestock is an integral part of rural community in Cambodia, including for the surveyed households. The majority of the upstream and downstream households reported that they had bought, sold or owned livestock in the past 12 months. In fact, 92% of downstream and 87% of upstream households reported that they had.

278 households (142 in the downstream and 136 in the upstream) reported they owned livestock. The surveyed households own a wide range of livestock: birds, buffalo, cattle, chickens, ducks, goats, geese, and pigs. Chicken was the most commonly owned livestock in both upstream and downstream households. Besides chicken, the downstream households also owned significant numbers of ducks, which was not the case for upstream households.

As compared to the past year, there has been a significant decline in the number of livestock owned by the households located both upstream and downstream. The number of chickens and ducks owned has almost halved in the past 12 months. A decline in the number of other livestock has also been observed but not as significantly as these.

We calculated the average value of the animals owned as reported by the households. Not all households that own animals reported their values for the given animals. The herds of cattle and buffalo had the highest total values among different types of livestock for both downstream and upstream villages.16

Table 21: Average number and value of animals owned per household

Number of animals Value of animals* Downstream Upstream Downstream Upstream percent of percentage of households households Mean Mean Mean (N=150) Mean (N=150) (Riel) Count (Riel) Count birds 3 1% 6.3 2% 70000 1 185000 2 buffalos 3.5 71% 3.8 61% 4213846 65 4699304 74 cattle 6.9 63% 5.9 58% 3423333 60 5514179 67 chickens 13.4 79% 14.2 83% 199968 94 184764 93

16 Cattle and buffalo are considered assets in this region and the sale of these animals is typically for special occasions, such as weddings, so they are not part of regular household income.

ducks 6.9 36% 4.1 30% 60059 34 69839 31 goats 1.4 3% 3 1% 31000 3 75000 1 geese 3 3% 2.5 1% 32500 2 600000 1 pigs 1.8 55% 1.5 56% 762559 49 520244 41 * Note: For values of animals, we report count only. Riel is the currency of Cambodia. At the time of the study, the exchange rate averaged 4,000 Riel per US dollar.

Among those who reported owning animals (278 households), 136 households (49%) reported that their livestock required water to be provided to them. This percentage is higher in downstream villages (61%) than in upstream villages (37%).

The downstream households reported that pigs, cattle and buffalos required regular watering. The results indicate that upstream villages have easier access to natural water bodies where animals can graze and get water from and are thus less dependent on collecting water from the river for livestock uses.

All surveyed villages will likely be affected by the dam and reservoir development one way or another but we are not able to assess and compare the magnitude of the impacts based on this survey data. Livestock grazing in downstream villages will be affected by the changes in river flow patterns, as direct access to the river by livestock may become unsafe. On the other hand, upstream households may lose their current grazing land to the reservoir if no alternative is available, either to where they are currently located or near the new resettlement sites.

IV.5. Fisheries This section reports on how important fisheries are to the local communities in different months and at different locations. We focus on fish catch, as the response rates for other aquatic animal collections were low.

Sesan and Srepok Rivers are known to be important sources of capture fisheries production. There are several sources on estimates of the total annual catch quantity from these rivers but it is difficult to compare and ascertain which estimate is the most accurate. For instance, the total fish catch estimates for the Sesan River Basin ranges from 370 to 6,700 tonnes per year. Similarly, the estimated total value of the fish production along the Sesan River ranges from 1 to 25 million US dollars, depending on the total catch quantity and price per kilogram used in each estimate (Baran et al. 2014).

Both the Sesan and the Srepok River systems have been altered due to the construction of numerous dams upstream in Vietnam and have been under the influence of the operation of hydropower and irrigation schemes. Fisheries impacts have been reported anecdotally but no scientific data exist to compare the conditions before and after the dams were constructed. Existing studies document signs of reduction in the population of some species that are more sensitive to environmental changes, as well as gradual declines in per household fish catch (Baird and Meach 2005; CNMC 2009). These changes in fisheries cannot be attributed solely to hydropower development. However, it is important to bear in mind that fisheries resources in the surveyed area are under the influence of upstream development and are no longer in pristine condition.

According to our household survey results, fishing is still a vital livelihood activity in the study sites. It was found that 52% of the downstream and 55% of the upstream households were involved in

fishing over the past 12 months. For those who reported positive catch numbers (46% and 35% of the upstream and downstream households, respectively), over 13 fishing trips with an average duration of 2.4 days per trip and 18 fishing trips with an average duration of 1.5 days per trip were made each month for the downstream and upstream villages, respectively.17 This indicates that upstream households tend to go fishing more frequently but with relatively shorter durations per trip, as compared to their downstream counterparts.

Focusing on the households who reported positive catches in a given month, Figure 16 reveals several patterns regarding catch quantity (kg) and participation of households in fishing from month to month for downstream and upstream villages. The average monthly fish catch quantity ranged from 36.9 kg to 87.7 kg over the past 12 months for downstream households. Catches were highest in August and September during peak rainy season, when about twice the average quantity of other months was caught. In upstream villages, catch quantity remained relatively low during January to July, with an average catch of 37.11 kg. Catches rose much higher from August to December, with the highest catches occurring in November (80.37 kg) and September (79.64 kg). Households in the downstream villages caught more fish on average than in the upstream villages in August and September, while upstream villages caught more fish from October and December than the downstream villages.

Overall, a higher percentage of households in the upstream villages engaged in fishing than in the downstream villages (Figure 16), when focusing on the households who reported positive catches in a given month. The proportion of households who engaged in fishing varied moderately from month to month for both locations. For downstream villages, the proportion of households who fished ranged from 31% to 39%, with the highest proportions occurring in August and September during the peak catch.18 Among upstream villages, the proportion of households involved in fishing ranged from 42% to 48%. The proportion of households engaged in fishing was highest in August and September and declined slightly from October to December, although the catch remained relatively high.

17 The percentages of households reporting positive fish catch quantity are smaller than those reporting going fishing or taking fish from the river (55% and 52%, respectively). Due to this missing data issue, analysis on catch based on the number of households reporting positive catch quantity may underestimate the actual extent of population involved in fishing activity, especially for the downstream villages. 18 It is generally considered more difficult to catch fish during the height of rainy season in August and September because of poor weather conditions, high water levels of the rivers, and faster and more dangerous current. However, the survey results as well as some anecdotal observations by the research team suggest that more people are fishing during this period because of one or more of the following: no other income generating activities available in these months; many families run out of rice before the next harvest season in October to November and need cash income from the sale of fish to buy more rice; there are a wider variety of fishing grounds available during wet season in small tributaries and seasonal wetlands.

Monthly catch and percentage of households involved in fishing by downstream and upstream villages 60%

80 50%

60 40% 30% 40 20%

Catch quantity (kg) quantity Catch 20 10% Percentage of of households Percentage 0 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Catch quantity: Downstream Catch quantity: Upstream % of HHs engaged in fishing: Downstream % of HHs engaged in fishing: Upstream

Figure 16: Average monthly fish catch (kg) and percentage of households involved in fishing by downstream and upstream villages

Since the conditions of fisheries are different between the Sesan River area and Srepok River area, we compared seasonality in fishing activity between the two areas based on the monthly catch quantity reported by the households living along these rivers. Our sample included six villages along the Sesan River: Srekor Muoy, Srekor Pi, Khasach Thmey, Svay Rieng, Talat, and Rompat; and four villages along the Srepok River: Srae Sranok, Kbal Romeas, Chrab, and Krabey Chrum.

Overall, monthly participation of households in fishing (i.e. households reporting positive fish catch) averaged 48% and 42% for villages along the Sesan River and Srepok River, respectively. A higher fraction of households were involved in fishing in the villages along the Sesan River compared to along the Srepok River for all months except October and December (Figure 17). While the proportion of households involved in fishing peaked in May and August for the villages along the Sesan River, participation in fishing appeared to be slightly lower for the households in the villages along the Srepok River from February to August.

The quantity of fish catch fluctuated substantially from month to month for both areas but peaked in very different periods (Figure 17). For the villages along the Sesan River, the period from August to December appears to be the most productive, with the months of August and September particularly standing out. Catch quantity in the peak period (August to September) averaged at 95.96 kg, which is substantially higher than for the rest of the year. This is especially higher than catches in the period of March to April when monthly catch averaged at only 26 kg. For the villages along the Srepok River, catch quantity peaked in November at 81.7 kg, almost three times the level for June (27.4 kg), when the catch was at the lowest level for the year. It appears that the period between October and December is the most productive time for fishing, with catch quantity averaging at 57.6 kg. Comparing the two areas, the Sesan River fisheries appear to have experienced a more polarized pattern in the distribution of catch across months, with large differences in the average household catch between the peak months of August to September and the bottom months of March to April. In contrast, catch fluctuation was milder in the Srepok River area, with smaller differences between the peak and the bottom months.

Monthly catch and percentage of households involved in fishing for villages along the Sesan River and Sre Pok River 100 60%

80 50% 40% 60 30% 40 20%

Catch quantity (kg) quantity Catch 20 10% Percentage of of households Percentage 0 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Sesan river Sre Pok river % of HHs engaged in fishing: Sesan river % of HHs engaged in fishing: Sre Pok river

Figure 17: Average monthly fish catch and percentage of households involved in fishing by villages along the Sesan River and Srepok River

Characteristics and seasonality of fisheries in the Sesan and Srepok Rivers are complex and it is difficult to assess the importance of fishing for local communities simply based on the catch quantity per household. We also estimated the value of fish catch by month, based on the monthly catch quantity as reported by households and multiplied by an average value for fish for each month.19 The team interviewed 5 key informants who fish or who trade fish in the study area, including 2 in the Sesan River area and 3 in the Srepok River area. In addition, the team also conducted key informant interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) in the 4 villages along then Srepok River20.

Based on the information collected from these follow-up interviews, we compiled a list of dominant fish species and a range of fish prices for each month for fisheries in and around the Sesan and Srepok Rivers (Table 22). The species known to be migratory are highlighted in blue. As can be seen, average fish prices are different between the two areas, with the Srepok River area generally catching more diverse and higher value fish species throughout the year.

It is also important to note that there is significant variety among the 4 villages along the Srepok River in regards to patterns of fishing activities and resources. Based on the FGDs in the villages along the Srepok River, Table 23 describes the general seasonal pattern of fish catch and household income for those who are engaged in fishing in a given month. Kbal Romeas village has reported the most robust and diverse fisheries production throughout the year. All villages reported declines in fisheries resources in the last 10 years. In Krabey Chrum village, which is located farthest away from the Lower Sesan 2 Dam site on the Srepok river, fishing activity appears to be limited to the period between January and June and almost no fishing occurs in the remaining months.

19 The dominant species and price range of fish was based on the interview of fish traders operating near the survey villages along the Sesan and Srepok Rivers and focus group discussions in 4 villages along Srepok River. It is not based on a comprehensive survey of fish prices at landing. 20 These additional interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in 2013.

Table 22: Dominant fish species caught and price range by month21

Month Sesan River area Srepok River area Dominant fish species in Price range Price range Dominant fish species in catch catch (Riel) (Riel) Hypsibarbus malcolmi Scaphognathops stejnegeri (carps), Hemibagrus sp. 5000- Jan (catfish), Phalacronotus micronemus 120000 (sheatfish), Channa striata (snakehead), Crossocheilus reticulates, Mekongina erythrospila (pa see i carp) Cirrhinus microlepis (mud 4000-6000 Labeo chrysophekadion (carps), carps) Cirrhinus molitorella (mud carp), Channa 7000- Feb striata (snakehead), Phalacronotus 120000 micronemus (sheatfish), Mekongina erythrospila (pa see i carp) Henicorhynchus spps, Gyrinocheilus pennocki (sucking loach), Yasuhikotakia Labeo sp (carps), Cirrhinus molitorella modesta (trey riel, small (mud carp), Hemibagrus sp. (catfish), 8000- March 4000-5000 low value fish) Channa striata (snakehead), 120000 Phalacronotus micronemus (sheatfish), Mekongina erythrospila (pa see i carp) Hypsibarbus, Labeo sp, Cyclocheilichthys enoplus Scaphognathops, Labeo sp. (carps), Osphronemus goramy (giant April (carps), 4000-12000 gourami), Hemibagrus sp. (catfish), 8000-12000 Hemibagrus sp. (catfish) Channa striata (snakehead), Phalacronotus micronemus (sheatfish) Hypsibarbus, Henicorhynchus lobatus, Hypsibarbus Scaphognathops (carps) lagleri (carps), Gyrinocheilus pennocki Hemibagrus sp. (catfish) (sucking loach), Hemibagrus sp. (catfish), May 8000-12000 Phalacronotus micronemus (sheatfish), Channa striata (snakehead), Cirrhinus microlepis (mud carp) Pangasius djambal, Mystus singaringan 5000-10000 10000- June (catfish), Mastacembelus armatus (spiny 12000 eel), Micronema hexapterus (sheatfish), Hemibagrus sp. Clarias batrachus, July Mystus mysticetus (catfish), Channa sp. 5000-10000 (snakehead) Hypsibarbus lagleri, Scaphognathops August stejnegeri (carps), Channa sp. 5000-10000 (snakehead), Clarias batrachus Sept - Dec Hypsibarbus sp, Labeo sp. Scaphognathops stejnegeri (carps), Mastacembelus armatus (spiny eel), Hemibagrus sp. (catfish), Channa striata (snakehead), Pangasius Phalacronotus 9000-10000 sp, Clarias batrachus, Hemibagrus 5,000- micronemus, wyckioides (catfish), Wallago attu 120,000 Belodontichthys truncatus (sheatfish) (sheatfishes) Chitala lopis (giant featherback), Bangana behri, Mekongina erythrospila (high value carps)

21 The species known to be migratory are highlighted in blue based on a list of migratory species in Baran et al. 2014. Riel is the currency of Cambodia. At the time of the study, the exchange rate averaged 4,000 Riel per US dollar.

The seasonal pattern is consistent with the household survey findings presented in Figure 17. Simply adding up these monthly income estimates, the annual income from selling fish ranges from 91 to 155 USD. If the value of fish consumed at home is added to this calculation, the imputed income will be considerably higher.

For the villages along the Sesan River, the estimated total value of fish catch per household in September was 936,000 Riels (234 USD), by multiplying the total monthly catch per fishing household by the average price of fish. This is not surprising, given the high average price of fish and high catch volume in September.

Table 23: Seasonal pattern of fish catch and household income in Srepok villages

Krabey Chrum village Kbal Romeas/Chrab Srae Sranock

Catch/Day Monthly Catch/Day Monthly Catch/Day Monthly (Kg) income from (Kg) income from (Kg) income from selling fish selling fish selling fish (Riel/USD) (Riel/USD) (Riel/USD) January 5 Not available. 5 50,000- 5-8 20,000- February 5 FGD participants 5 70,000 30,000 ($5- claim that the catch is almost ($12.5-17.5) 7.5) March 6-7 all for home 5 30,000- April 10 consumption 5 40,000 ($7.5- and no cash 10) income come May 10 from selling fish. 5 10,000- 15,000- 18,000 ($2.5- 20,000 4.5) ($3.75-5) June 3-4 2-3 Nearly 0 30,000 ($7.5) July <1 2-3 (mostly home 10,000 ($2.5) August <1 8 consumption)

September <1 8 60,000- 10 70,000- October Nearly 0 8 90,000 ($15- 80,000 22.5) ($17.5-20) November Nearly 0 8 80,000- December Nearly 0 5 100,000 5-8 20,000- ($20-25) 30,000 ($5- 7.5) Annual total $112.5-154.5 $91.25-112.5

Fishermen and traders interviewed by the project team reported that fisheries resources in the study area have changed over the past 10 years, following the changes in the hydrological pattern of the river. It has been observed that dry season flow in more recent years fluctuates from week to week, as opposed to before when the flow stayed at a very low level throughout the season until the next rainy season began. The peak periods for fishing have slightly shifted by a few months at the end of dry season and at the end of the rainy season. Declines in the catch have been observed.

The impact of the Lower Sesan 2 Dam on the fisheries production of the study area is difficult to estimate, as different types of fish species will be affected differently. However, many of the dominant fish species reported in the survey area are migratory species, as shown in Table 22, whose seasonal movements will be negatively affected by the dam, if not entirely blocked.

IV.6. Forestry Forestry is one of the important livelihood activities in the study area. However, the response rate for the forestry section of household survey was generally low: 46% of the upstream households and 18% of the downstream households reported collection of forest product. Overall, upstream households appeared to be more dependent on forest resources than their downstream counterparts (Table 24). The reported total value of items collected by households over the past 12 months was 693,238 Riels (or 173 USD) on average for upstream households and 341,840 Riels (or 85 USD) on average for downstream households. For upstream households, the most valuable forest service in terms of cash income was timber, estimated at 970,854 Riels (or 243 USD) per household for those who responded to the question. Resin, honey and wild animals also appeared to be important harvested forest services. For downstream households, based on the 27 households who responded to the questions, timber was relatively important but the average value of the harvest was less than half as that reported by the upstream respondents. Collection of mushrooms was important for some downstream households but the reported value of the collected items was low.

Table 24. Collection of forest products

% of HH involved22 Reported value of collected products (Riel/Household) 23 Downstream Upstream Downstream Upstream Firewood 1% 1% 6,010 9 Fruits - 3% - 230,008 Honey 4% 11% 80,000 249,003 Mushrooms 7% 6% 2,148 4,567 Resin 1% 11% 10,000 752,417 Timber 6% 18% 397,113 970,854

Wild Animals 1% 10% 30,000 54,200 Wild Birds - 5% - 231,429 Wood Oils 1% 7% 1,800,000 122,130 Bamboo 1% 1% 3,000,000 40,000 Charcoal Wood 1% 150,002

It is difficult to assess how much of the forestry activities will be affected by the hydropower project, however, a significant area of the forests in the study area is expected to be submerged by the reservoir. If the local communities do not have access to alternative forest areas elsewhere, either near their current location or near the new resettlement sites, this form of livelihood will be lost and will need to be replaced by other sources of income and food.

V. CONCLUSIONS: SENSITIVITY OF WATER USES AND USERS TO HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT

It appears that the surveyed households had already been affected by significant environmental changes taking place in the Sesan and Srepok Rivers, which is partially attributable to upstream water development projects in Vietnam. Declines in fisheries productivity of the rivers have been

22 Percentage of households in the sample reporting values of collection for given forest product in downstream and upstream (N=150 for each location). 23 Mean values computed for those households who reported positive values for given products.

widely observed by the local fishermen and the rate of ownership of riverbank gardens for farming is extremely low for this type of community in rural Cambodia.

The dependency of the surveyed households on access to the river and river water for domestic uses and main economic activities, such as farming, fishing and livestock, is still very high, despite having been under the influence of environmental changes. The imminent resettlement of some of the upstream villages to new locations and the relocation of residential homes away from the river for some of the villages will dramatically transform the communities’ overall livelihoods.

Additional changes will be brought on by the construction of Lower Sesan 2 Dam and the creation of a reservoir in place of the rivers. This will change the way these households access water resources from the rivers and surrounding wetlands and forests that will be inundated by the reservoir, as well as the way economic activities associated with water resources are derived. The operation of the dam will change the river flows downstream and will affect the way downstream villages access the Sesan River for various uses.

The resettlement and associated assistance from the hydropower company and the local government are expected to bring some positive improvements to the livelihoods of the upstream villages that will be resettled. Improvement can be expected in terms of access to alternative sources of domestic water through wells and through gaining market access through road infrastructure. Improved road access can create more opportunities for wage labor and cash income generation from the marketing of crops and other farm products.

On the other hand, some upstream villages will not be covered by the resettlement program and downstream villages will be left to their own devices to respond and adapt to the changes in the river environment.

There is still a wide uncertainty surrounding the magnitude of changes in river flow and flooding patterns downstream of the dam, as well as the specific terms of the resettlement for each village and household. It is therefore difficult to estimate the expected changes to overall income, livelihood portfolios, and water resource availability and access for the affected households. The survey results did not allow for more quantitative analysis on household livelihood dependency on the river and its water. However, from the analysis on the current level of household uses of river water and river-based economic activities, we can hypothesize that households who generate higher shares of revenue from fishing and lowland rice farming are more susceptible to changes in the river flow and flooding regime caused by the hydropower project.

Crop production systems using lowland fields in floodplains rely on the natural seasonal fluctuations of water levels and are thus the most sensitive form of farming to changes in river flow and river water access. All surveyed villages rely on these land plots for farming and are likely to be affected through the loss of agriculture production from these plots.

Currently, the access rate to a more structured form of dry season irrigation is less than 10% of villagers. There is a considerable potential for increasing the acquired benefits from the river as well as the new reservoir through the development of irrigation schemes that enable the local communities to produce rice and other crops in the dry season. This is especially relevant for downstream communities who will likely experience increased river flows in the dry season.

Further declines in capture fisheries are expected and will result in an overall reduced benefit of the river for local livelihoods, both in terms of cash income and of food. The degree of decline is very difficult to predict but will have significant impacts on the local communities. Kbal Romeas, for example, reported the highest level of fish catch and income from fishing among Srepok River villages. Therefore, it is likely to be heavily affected by resettlement if they are not given access to alternative fishing areas or other forms of income generation.

From this analysis, we conclude that all the surveyed villages will be affected one way or another, as nearly 100% of the surveyed households consider the river as important for domestic water, irrigation, fisheries, and religious and ceremonial uses. While there may be some positive impacts, changes in the river flow will mainly result in a negative effect. The severity of the impact will depend on household dependency on the river, availability of alternative sources of water and income, and the terms of the resettlement and compensation. It is important to provide villages and households with a variety of options to make up for losses in livelihoods and income, as the communities go through the transition period of environmental changes during the construction and though the operational phases of the hydropower project.

It is also possible to bring about positive changes in the study area. The provision of dry season irrigation schemes, for example, have a high potential for increasing the river benefits for the affected communities downstream of the dam and can compensate for the loss of other forms of livelihoods and of income generation. These schemes can take advantage of the increased flow during the dry season.

This analysis does not take into account the new locations and the conditions at the resettlement sites, nor the associated infrastructure and services to be provided at these sites. The hydropower company and the provincial authorities will conduct further negotiations with affected communities and will design appropriate compensation programs. It will be useful to conduct follow up studies after the construction of the dam in order to monitor the condition of the affected communities. This will help ensure that appropriate assistance is provided to the villagers for recovery from the shock of resettlement and for the establishment of new livelihoods that are adapted to the new environment and the changes in the river systems.

VI. REFERENCES

Baird, I.G. 2009. Best Practices in Compensation and Resettlement for Large Dams: The Case of the Planned Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower Project in Northeastern Cambodia. Rivers Coalition in Cambodia, Phnom Penh.

Baird I.G. and Meach Mean. 2005. Sesan River fisheries monitoring in Ratanakiri Province, Northeast Cambodia: before and after the construction of the Yali Falls Dam in the central highlands of Viet Nam. 3S Rivers Protection Network (3SPN) and the Global Association for People and the Environment (GAPE), Ban Lung, Cambodia.

Baran E., Saray Samadee, Teoh Shwu Jiau, Tran Thanh Cong. 2014. Fish and fisheries in the Sesan, Sekong, and Srepok River Basins (Mekong Watershed). Chapter 3 in ICEM, 2014. Optimizing the management of a cascade of reservoirs at the catchment level. ICEM, Hanoi, Vietnam.

CNMC (Cambodia National Mekong Committee) 2009. Profile Sub ‐area Se Kong‐Se San‐Srepok in Cambodia. First Draft for the MRC BDP Programme. CNMC, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Cochrane, T.A., Arias, M.E., Teasley, R.L., Killeen, T.J. 2010. Simulated changes in water flows of the Mekong River from potential dam development and operations on the Se San and Srepok tributaries. Montreal, Canada: IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition (IWA 2010), 19-24 Sep 2010.

Gätke, P. and Un, B. 2013. The Kamchay Hydropower Dam: An Assessment of the Dam’s Impacts on Local Communities and the Environment. The NGO Forum on Cambodia, Environment Program, October 2013, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Hydropower Lower Sesan 2 Co., Ltd. Undated. Summary of the Compensation Policy on the Impacts of the Lower Se San 2 Hydropower Dam Project, in Khmer, obtained in 2013. Unofficial English translation version.

International Rivers. 2013. http://www.internationalrivers.org/campaigns/lower-sesan-2-dam - accessed 11/11/2013.

Key Consultants Cambodia. 2008. Environmental Impact Assessment for Feasibility Study of Lower Se San 2 Hydropower Project, Stung Streng Province, Cambodia. Phnom Penh, July 2008.

Mekong Watch and 3S Rivers Protection Network. 2013. Fact Sheet Lower Sesan 2 Hydropower Project, Northeastern Cambodia. Aug. 05, 2013.

Middleton, C. 2008. Cambodia’s Hydropower Development and China’s Involvement. International Rivers and The Rivers Coalition in Cambodia.

MIME. 2009. National Power and Hydropower Development Plans in Cambodia. Presentation by CHEA Piseth, Hydro-Electricity Department, General Department of Energy, July 16-17, 2009, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

MIME. 2012. National Stakeholder Consultation Workshop. ADB TA7764-REG: Ensuring Sustainability of the GMS Regional Power Development. Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy, Sunway Hotel, October 2, 2012, Phnom Penh.

Räsänen, T.A. and Kummu, M. 2013. Catchment hydrology and its modeling in Nam Theun-Nam Kading (Lao PDR) and in Sesan (Cambodia and Vietnam) River Catchments. Report for the Challenge Program on Water & Food Mekong project MK3 “Optimizing the management of a cascade of reservoirs at the catchment level”. ICEM – International Centre for Environmental Management, Hanoi Vietnam, 2012.

Springate-Baginski, O., Allen D., and Darwall W., eds. 2009. An Integrated Wetland Assessment Toolkit - Strengthening Pro-Poor Wetland Conservation Using Integrated Biodiversity and Livelihood Assessment, IUCN Species Programme Fresh Water Biodiversity Unit, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Cambridge, UK.

Stung Treng Provincial Office 12/8/2013. Meeting with Mr. Duong Peuv, Director of Administration at the Stung Treng Provincial Office.

The Cambodia Daily 28/11/2012. http://www.cambodiadaily.com/archive/electricity-vietnam-no- longer-involved-in-lower-sesan-2-dam-6363/ - accessed 06/11/2013.

The Cambodia Daily 27/11/2012. http://www.cambodiadaily.com/archive/agreement-signed-for- construction-of-lower-sesan-2-dam-6335/ - accessed 19/10/2013.

The Cambodia Daily, 05/11/2012 a. http://www.cambodiadaily.com/archive/government-approves- dam-on-lower-sesan-5159/ - accessed 19/10/2013.

The Cambodia Daily, 18/2/2013. http://www.cambodiadaily.com/archive/lawmakers-approve- lower-sesan-2-dam-10567/ - accessed 19/10/2013.

The Cambodia Daily, 05/11/2012 b. http://www.cambodiadaily.com/archive/sesan-dam-approval- angers-villagers-rights-groups-5231/ - accessed on 06/11/2013.

The Phnom Penh Post 25/10/2013. http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/logging-dam-site- halted - accessed 08/11/2013.

Ziv G., Baran E., So Nam, Rodríguez-Iturbe I., Levin S. A. 2012 Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science; 109; 15; 5609-5614.