Recently there has been some interesting discussion starting on New Mandala about strategies for development in Laos. In discussing calls for “alternative options for meeting Laos’ development needs” by those campaigning against the Don Sahong dam, I asked what those development options may be. A useful response was provided by Keith Barney in his discussion of the impact of major projects on food security. Here is an extract:
To my mind some of the most compelling research conducted recently on food security and rural poverty in rural Laos, comes from Jutta Krahn’s research and the World Food Program’s 2007 study… The main conclusions from the WFP work are worth consideration.
The research suggests that the current model of promoting foreign direct investment into resource megaprojects in Laos, has not, to date, resulted in a broad-based improvement in food security or nutrition in the countryside.
It seems to me that instead of demanding more details on the options and alternatives to hydropower megaprojects (there are many good options and local initiatives), the onus should rather be upon the proponents of hydropower megaprojects, to provide legally enforceable guarantees, based on detailed, nationally and independently reviewed plans, studies, impact assessments, and baseline research, that their projects— which will inevitably undermine wild fishery stocks— will yet produce overall improvements in local nutrition, food security, incomes, and development options for immediately affected communities, while also providing solutions to the broader problems with child malnourishment and underdevelopment in rural and upland areas.
Given the track record in Laos and the Mekong region, with uncompensated and unmitigated socio-ecological externalities from large-scale hydropower development, including Nam Theun II, I would argue that the weight of existing evidence still favours the hydropower skeptics.
These are important points. Food security is, unquestionably, a high priority and threats to food security need to be taken very seriously in assessing the social and environmental impacts of projects. Here is a very short extract from the long and exceptionally detailed World Food Programme report that Keith refers to:
Although no single indicator can easily identify the food insecure, food insecure households can be described as farmers with low engagement in fishing and hunting or unskilled labourers. They practise upland farming on small plots of land in fragile areas with steep slopes. Often, they do not possess kitchen gardens. They are mostly asset poor, low-formally educated, illiterate and from non-Lao-Tai ethnic groups. They live in villages with little or no key infrastructure, and suffer from bad sanitary conditions. (page 94)
To me, this suggests that while food insecurity can certainly be compounded by inappropriate projects or programmes, its fundamental cause lies is unproductive agriculture in highly resource constrained environments (of course, resource constraints can be socially created as much as they are demographically driven).
This reminded me of a graph often referred to by one of my colleagues when I was involved in AusAID’s review of the Nam Theun 2 dam (click the graph for a larger version).
The graph plots GDP per-capita against the percentage of GDP derived from agriculture. The pattern is stark: the poorest countries (in terms of GDP per-capita) are those that derive higher proportions of their GDP from agricultural activity. Note the position of Laos. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if that pattern was repeated within Laos, with poverty and food insecurity most marked in provinces where the local economy is most dependent on agricultural production.
A standard development position would be that poverty and food insecurity is best addressed by facilitating the movement of people and resources out of low productivity agricultural pursuits and into other forms of economic activity. Laos is moving in this direction – according to the World Bank the percentage of GDP derived from agriculture was 61 percent in 1990 and 42 percent in 2007. Over a similar period the rate of poverty is reported to have declined from 45 percent to 33 percent.
So, for me, the key big picture question is this: does large-scale infrastructure investment facilitate this transition in a way that fairly balances positive and negative impacts? Is Keith right to argue that “the weight of existing evidence still favours the hydropower skeptics”?
11 responses so far ↓
1 MongerSEA // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:04 pm
The inclusion of the graph serves little purpose. Even in the poorest of countries, people need to eat and the creation and consumption of nutrition is the most basic of organized human activities. Were it otherwise the intercept would be at (0,0) because everyone would be dead of starvation and nothing of value could be produced.
2 Andrew Walker // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I think you’re missing the point of the graph, Monger. It is not about the absolute amount of food production but the amount of food production relative to other activities.
3 Asciimov // Sep 13, 2009 at 12:38 pm
To all ‘hydropower sceptics’ I’d like to ask, where should Laos get it electricity from if it wasn’t from hydropower? Spend more national product on importing (non-green) electricity from Thailand or Vietnam? The country will develop with or without dams, so there will be a rising demand for electricity, and dams are the most economical green way of creating electricity. Laos will need a foreign currency earner when the gold mines run out, following China’s example is definitely the way to go I think.
4 Jennifer // Sep 20, 2009 at 6:53 pm
You quote:
“A standard development position would be that poverty and food insecurity is best addressed by facilitating the movement of people and resources out of low productivity agricultural pursuits and into other forms of economic activity. Laos is moving in this direction – according to the World Bank the percentage of GDP derived from agriculture was 61 percent in 1990 and 42 percent in 2007. Over a similar period the rate of poverty is reported to have declined from 45 percent to 33 percent.”
Your statement does not support the WFP study findings you are citing. Indeed those at highest risk of food insecurity are unskilled labourers (especially those not engaged in agricultural labour) and also farmers with no access to forest products and wild fish. These were also the groups hardest hit by the 10% inflations of food prices during the recent food crisis as they are more susceptible to market shocks. Unskilled labourers because they rely on markets as their primary source of food consumption, and farmers with no access to forest products and wild fish because these products are often sold to obtain rice during seasonal rice shortages.
The study further states that large scale foreign investment schemes (and identifies hydropower specifically) need to be re-thought in light of the pressure they place on wild food sources. Access to these food sources are shown in the study to be directly correlated with food security. They are also the major source of micronutrients.
The WFP also states that (despite growth in GDP) levels of malnutrition have NOT improved over the past 10 years.
From the look of things there is good reason for the scientific experts who are contesting Don Sahong Dam specifically to do so. Where is the electricity going? What effect will it have on those downstream of the proposed site? What attempts are made to mitigate impacts on local people? are these sufficient? These are the questions I would be asking.
The WFP obviously does not address questions related to hydropower specifically but if anything it does suggest that hydropower projects need to be thought out in terms of the impact they have on food security. And if you will read the full WFP study I think you’ll see that it does give more weight to Keith’s argument.
5 Asciimov // Sep 21, 2009 at 12:34 am
Well I distill from above comment that every dam causes resettlement, the question is which resettlement ratio is acceptable? Is it okay if for every resettled family 10 thai households can access green water dam energy?
6 Jennifer // Sep 21, 2009 at 12:35 pm
from my comment Aschimovv?? I’m not arguing for or against hydropower in general. I just concur with the scientific experts that Don Sahong is particularly troublesome as it is proposed in a major artery of the Mekong and the relatively small amount of electricity it will produce does not warrant massive consequences it is likely to have on those living on the Mekong. This is not due to resettlement. In fact, for Don Sahong I believe the resettlement itself will be minimal.
My statements were in response to Andrew’s claim that raised GDP will lead Laos out of poverty and this somehow warrants non-agricultural industry such as hydropower over food supply?. My critisism of his position is based on a careful reading of the World Food Programs 2007 household survey study which discusses the extraordinarily high rates of undernutrition in Laos, and the household profiles of those at highest risk of food insecurity. Fact: those who have access to wild food products are less likely to be food insecure & therefore more likely to have increased dietary intake of micronutrients (and also rice). Threats to these resources are briefly touched on in the report and one of the suggestions is to increase managed access to non-timber forest products & wild fish.
Andrew picked one paragraph of the 180 page or so report and tried to suggest it supports the an argument to move the country away from the production of agriculture. And this is somehow linked to the construction of a dam? And Don Sahong specifically? This I found a very illogical broadsweeping statement.
7 Andrew Walker // Sep 21, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Thanks for your comments Jennifer. I wasn’t intending to use the one para from the report to support the argument that Laos should move away from agriculture (and note that my argument was about the relative size of the agricultural sector, not its absolute size). My aim was to use the short quote as a jumping off point to encourage some broader discussion about development directions for Laos. My broader point is that overcoming poverty (and food insecurity) will ultimately require the strong development of non-agricultural sectors of the economy. How can this be achieved? Do “mega projects” help move Laos in this direction?
8 Asciimov // Sep 22, 2009 at 12:23 am
Mega-projects will allow the government to continue the wage increases of the civil servants salaries, provides foreign currency and stabilizes the macro-economic environment, which in turn attracts foreign investment. Furthermore it will allow the government to keep on spending on infrastructure
‘Even though private investment has achieved a significant increase over the past three years, several constraints are still hindering private sector development. These constraints are related, in particular, to the lack of good road and power infrastructure at the provincial level’
Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2008
9 rhaponticum // Sep 23, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Whilst not directly relevant to the original point of debate, I would like to ask: what studies have been done that put some numbers against dependence on gathered (wild) produce in Laos? I am vaguely aware of one by Oxfam in southern Laos which, I think, suggested that if the items gathered were marketed they would generate a cash income of somewhere around $500 per household per year. I am much more familiar with a second (because I did it myself) – and also with its weaknesses, and therefore wish to find out if others have been conducted. This second study arose out of data collected in association with the Sepon mine where some families (a small number -weakness #1 : because of the small, if growing, number of buyers, the prices reported may be subject to significant change if the market grows) who had cash were now buying items they had previously collected (suggesting not only that gathered items were ‘wanted’ but also that these families had concluded that it was in their best interests to buy them with cash earned through wage employment). Interestingly whilst in the immediate mine area large numbers of households had likewise determined that were better off earning a wage and buying rice rather than growing rice and not having a wage, most households, providing they had the available labour, were continuing to collect wild products. But from those who were buying it was possible to calculate that collected items represented a cash value of over $US700 per household per year. Even with all the weaknesses in arriving at that figure, it is a substantial one relative to known cash incomes. In villages in the District at a distance from the Sepon mine where wage jobs are limited that $700 is close to being equal to (or in excess of) the household’s total cash income from wages; even in villages near the mine where the majority of adults have work with the mine it still represents as much as the equivalent of one-quarter or one-third of the average household’s cash income.
More directly in line with the Jennifer/Andrew debate: isn’t it possible to argue not that those who depend on gathered produce are better nourished, but rather that it is their lack of income that pushes them into such a dependence? I was under the strong impression that it was the poorest (i.e. those with least cash income) who depended most on gathered produce. And isn’t the consequence of this that when mega-projects (or even smaller ones) come along, a key factor is ensuring that if the project does indeed undermine people’s capacity to gather wild produce, then the project should have the responsibility for doing its utmost to ensure that it not only has benefits for local people but that these are as equally spread as possible?
10 Jennifer // Oct 2, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Firstly, Andrew. Sorry if I misquoted your post. I’ve read it and can see you were referring to the relative size of the agricultural sector. Your proposal that poverty reduction ultimately requires the development of non-agricultural sectors is fair enough and it is a fair point constrained resources (and I would add, constrained access) are major factors behind food insecurity.
I know pretty much nothing about hydropower, how many jobs it creates and for whom, or how it transforms environments so my opinion is completely unqualified. But my guess is that different projects are different and given some case studies suggesting adverse outcomes of “megaprojects” for local people in the long-term (I personally know of ones relating to logging) I think we would all agree environmental impact assessments are important and should be taken seriously. On one hand, there are large migrations to unskilled labouring positions in Thailand (Shoemaker et al. 2001 cited in Rigg 2005) which suggests to me a demand for jobs. So perhaps hydropower creates wage labour closer to home with less risks to labourers (such as HIV, etc.)? This would be interesting to explore in terms of Keith’s statement.
But resource constraints/restricted access are also major reasons for migration.
What concerns me is not so much transition but the creation/exacerbation in inequalities during transitions, particularly when the poor are so extremely poor.
Rhaponticum: In the WFP report unskilled labourers with little farm and little access to wild-food sources actually fared the worse in terms of food-security whereas those who had NTFPs did better. The study is focused on populations in rural Laos. I’d imagine you are correct that poorer people rely on NTFPs in many other locations/contexts. However, I think in Laos forest products provide a very large percentage of rural peoples income (40% of total rural family income is consumed in NTFPs according to World Bank 2001). They are often sold to buy rice as well.
Historically, forest products have been consumed and also provided a great amount of cash income. I wonder if it is the same Andrew Walker here who has written about the history of trade in Laos, Thailand, China & Burma? Anyhow, there are lots of products in the forests which have been rich for trade between highlands and lowlands. So historically perhaps NTFPs are associated with wealth rather than poverty?
Also Rhaponticum: would I be able to read your study?
11 Jennifer // Oct 2, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Sorry I forgot to reference:
Rigg, J (2005). Living with Transition in Laos: Market Integration in South East Asia. Routelage: London & New York
Shoemaker, Bruce, Baird, Ian G and Baird Monsire (2001) ‘The people & thier river: a survey of river-based livelihoods in the Xe Bang Fai River basin in central Lao PDR. Vientiane (November). Unpublished document, cited in Rigg 2005.
Walker, A (1999). The Legend of the Golden Boat: Regulation, Trade & Traders in the Borderlands of Laos, Thailand, China & Burma. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 1999
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.