Water Resources and Rural Development最新文献

Mekong hydropower is developing rapidly. Laos is at the forefront of this development. While hydropower development supports the country's economic growth, many observers have highlighted the potential negative impacts for people's livelihoods. Taking the Nam Mang 3 hydropower project as a case study, we examine the impacts of hydropower development on farming households of differing livelihood assets and resources, and how they have responded to these impacts. Linking livelihood asset substitution with livelihood outcomes, we examine factors constraining livelihood adaptation and how these shape rural households' strategies to cope with socio-economic and environmental impacts from hydropower development. We conclude that while asset substitution generally can improve people's livelihoods, access to land continues to play an important role in the process of livelihood reconstruction and the shaping of livelihood outcomes.

We present empirical evidence of coping strategies practiced in response to water insecurity and emerging climate variability in a dry, sub-humid rural district in India. We find non-climatic factors to be largely responsible for the existing water insecure conditions and, as perceived, climatic variations are found to magnify the misery. The causes and impacts of water insecurity result in a complex vicious cycle, pushing rural livelihoods and domestic life to further deprivation and poverty. Counter responses, mostly coping strategies, are found to be spontaneous, reactive and are largely motivated by crisis, which often degrades the resource base, and are found to be detrimental to the health and well-being of the studied communities. We question the advisability of water supply provisions in rural areas that fail to acknowledge the water demands of rural communities. Localized initiatives, including location specific strategies, must be formulated with effective community participation and in conjunction with other developmental programs to ensure water security in rural areas.

We examine household access to water for domestic consumption and the water-treatment methods adopted in Bhutan, using data from the Bhutan Living Standard Survey (BLSS) 2012. The proportion of households having access to piped water in their home for domestic consumption has increased since 2003, while the use of wells and natural sources such as springs, lakes and rivers has declined over the years. The pattern of distribution of water sources and access to them across income groups shows that wealthier households in both rural and urban areas have access to safer water sources than their poorer counterparts. We find that education and household income are strong determinants of the choice of safe and secure access to water. Rural households tend to use more traditional water sources, such as springs, wells, rivers or ponds, compared to their urban counterparts.

In recent years, the Government of Nepal has increased the amount of revenue it collects from hydropower operations and then distributes among districts and regions of the country. Larger, wealthier districts, which receive larger amounts of general revenues from the central government, also receive larger allocations of hydropower revenues. The per capita shares of hydropower revenue are notably larger in the Central and Western Regions, which are home to most of Nepal's hydropower facilities. Thus, the revenue sharing program does not favor poorer districts and regions with little hydropower development. Further, the hydropower revenue allocations to all development regions are small portions of the general revenues they receive. Consequently, the program is unlikely to have a substantial impact on economic development in poorer districts and regions.

I examine sustainability and benefit-sharing mechanisms in the context of the Theun-Hinboun Expansion Project (THXP) in central Laos. THXP has been planned and implemented in accordance with international good practice, and is now at the stage of preparing for closure on a number of key issues, in particular on livelihood restoration. With most of the infrastructure and service improvements completed, the long-term challenge relates to institutional development, environmental management and sustainability of the new livelihood systems. A strategy is being developed to ensure that local government, the private sector and the Theun-Hinboun Power Company (THPC) contribute in terms of budget, staff and expertise to ensure sustainability is achieved by 2017, or until targets are met and local communities can manage resources on their own. This approach to mitigating project impacts is an example of a new paradigm in which hydropower can achieve sustainable development for project affected communities.

The purpose of this study was to explore the institutions underlying different forms of benefit sharing in hydropower projects in Cambodia, through detailed analysis of two case studies: Kamchay and the Lower Sesan 2 hydro-dams. Promises on paper were compared with how benefit sharing was implemented in practice. The study found that, first, compensation and resettlement were a common, if minimalist, form of benefit sharing in Cambodia. Other forms of benefit sharing, such as environmental impact management and allocation of community development funds, were mentioned in both the EIA report and investment agreements, but have never been implemented. Second, at the national and sub-national levels, there are no comprehensive guidelines for benefit sharing, nor is there a supporting legal framework. Benefit sharing and compensation policies have been developed on a project-by-project basis. Third, hydro-dam projects do not prioritize providing electricity services to affected communities: no preferential electricity rate was given. Fourth, inter-ministerial structures have been introduced, which could improve the integration of activities, but instead have just slowed down decision-making. This study advances our knowledge on how benefits from hydro-dam projects are shared (and not shared), in practice, with prior residents of hydropower watersheds and other affected stakeholders in Cambodia.

Forced resettlement due to hydropower dam construction in Vietnam continues to result in poor outcomes, in part due to the poor productivity of replacement agricultural land, poor local governance, and constrained access by displaced farmers to forest land and fisheries. This paper critically examines three recent initiatives in Vietnam that promise to promote more stable livelihoods for displaced populations and to strengthen participation in development for residents as well as civil society. The first is a payment for environmental services (PES) scheme for hydroelectric revenue sharing to fund forest maintenance and monitoring by displaced households, while the second focus is an international financial institution (IFI)-initiated project that prioritizes gender empowerment and participation. The PES scheme promises a sustainable income stream for displaced households and has institutionalized legal and government backing, but it entails high transaction costs and a lengthy planning phase. The IFI project offers residents generous compensation and the rights embodied in IFI involuntary safeguards, but a lack of effective livelihood support and poor communication provide cautionary notes. A third, rights-based approach by Vietnamese civil society organizations (CSOs) involves advocacy to achieve effective reallocation of state-managed forest land to displaced villagers. The authors examine the potential for benefit-sharing mechanisms, IFIs, and CSOs, backed by new legislation and expanding space for civil society in Vietnam, to address the problems posed by inadequate local governance. They conclude that these approaches show merit for nationwide replication, and there is a need for including these external stakeholders in local resettlement management bodies.

Hydropower dams typically produce benefits for their developers. At the same time, large dams have various negative environmental and social consequences, in particular, upon those who must be resettled or whose livelihoods are disrupted. The anticipated and actual revenue earned by hydropower plants from the production and sale of electricity could be shared with residents of hydropower watersheds, to help offset these adverse impacts of construction and operation. The purpose of this paper is to examine the different ways in which such benefits have been shared in the Sirikit Dam hydropower watershed in Northern Thailand. Four different models for benefit sharing, each with a history in the case study site, were identified: compensation for resettlement; corporate social responsibility; community development funds; and payments for ecosystem services. The earliest program on resettlement was of limited effectiveness, because short-term compensation was insufficient to improve livelihoods or alleviate poverty. The corporate social responsibility program has been ad hoc, with achievements not always geared toward priority needs. The recently launched Power Development Fund is a promising framework, as it involves long-term sharing of revenues from the sale of electricity for projects proposed by local communities and agencies. A pilot exploration of watershed fund, based on payments for ecosystem services concepts, looked likely to falter from lack of interests among potential buyers and other institutional barriers. The case study demonstrates that different benefit sharing models have their merits and limitations which vary as a project matures – a lesson important for the Mekong Region.

Notions of benefit sharing play an increasingly important role in shaping the debate around the merits of existing and future hydropower development in the Mekong region. In this paper we assess how the concept of benefit sharing is articulated and applied in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. We discuss the conceptual strengths and weaknesses of benefit sharing, within the broader context of land and water resources and environmental governance. We argue that while benefit sharing provides an entry point for placing the current debate on hydropower development within the perspective of social justice, better understanding of governance structures and processes is needed. Our primary message is that innovations in policies and programs should not be analyzed in isolation from the wider governance structure, processes, and outcomes. To this end, we are pleased also to introduce this Special Issue of Water Resources and Rural Development, in which several authors analyze current benefit sharing programs in the Mekong region, with a focus on governance, process, and policy implications.

I explore the potential for sharing the financial benefits of hydropower development in the Greater Mekong Subregion, which includes Cambodia, Lao PDR (Laos), Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, and a small portion of China. In particular, I describe the possibility of implementing a region-wide fee on the economic rents made possible by generating and selling electricity. Such a fee would establish a sizeable annual fund that could support investments in infrastructure and facilities that would enhance economic development and improve livelihoods, particularly in the poorer countries in the region. The fund could be managed by an oversight board or an advisory panel comprised of representatives from participating countries. I present an empirical, although hypothetical, example of a benefit sharing program that might be implemented in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, and I describe alternative methods of allocating or investing the revenue collected. The discussion is largely conceptual, as many challenges would arise in actually implementing a transborder rent sharing program. My goal is to describe the potential benefits such a program might generate in the Greater Mekong Subregion, rather than recommending the specific form such a program might take.