A unique public discussion held in Laos on the mainstream dams

In October 18^th, 2012 a round table discussion on mainstream dams took place in Vientiane at the French Centre. The event was part of the 9th Asia EuropePeople’s Forum. The objective of the session was to discuss the institutional processes related to the decisions on the mainstream dams. The organisers of the event were HELVETAS Laos, Mekong Energy and Ecology Network (MEE Net), Siemenpuu Foundation and Asia-Pacific Network on Food Sovereignty (APNFS). Around 65 people attend the event.

The panellists around the table were:

• H.E. Mr. Touch Seang Tana, Chairman, Commission for Mekong River Dolphin Conservation & Eco-tourism, Cambodia
• H.E. Viraphone Viravong, Vice-Minister, Ministry of Energy and Mines, Lao P.D.R (Head of delegation in Xayaburi consultation)
• Mrs. Pakawan Chufamanee, Director of Mekong Management Bureau, Department of Water Resources, Thailand
• Dr. Dao Trong Tu, Head, Vietnam Union of Science and Technology (VUSTA)
• Mr. Hans Guttman, CEO, Mekong River Commission Secretariat
• Mr. Rick Switzer, Regional Environment, Science, Technology and Health (ESTH) Hub Chief for East and Southeast AsiaUS Embassy to Thailand
• Mr. Witoon Permpongsacharoen, Director, Mekong Energy and Ecology Network
• Ms. Lam Thi Thu Suu, Coordinator of Vietnam Rivers Network
• Samuel Martin from HELVETAS Laos acted as the moderator.

There haven’t been many open public discussions in Laos on the Xayaburi project and other possible mainstream dams so the session was very unique. The panelists represented well the spectrum of different stakeholders: government officials, civil society and development partners. The discussion was constructive and dialogue took place in good spirit. It became clear that there are still differing views among the member countries of Mekong River Commission (MRC) whether the consultation process (Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement, PNPCA) on the first mainstream dam, Xayaburi in Laos, has been completed or not. Vice Minister Viraphone considered that it has been completed whereas representatives from Vietnam and Cambodia viewed that consensus has not been reached yet. Several panelists and participants raised concerns on the knowledge gaps of the impacts of the dam and on the potential unequal distribution of costs and benefits. This would require further impact assessments and evaluation on alternatives. H.E. Viraphone pointed out that from official Lao perspective there is enough data and Laos should have the right to develop its water resources. H.E. Touch Sean Tana from Cambodia suggested that instead of further data there should be a security fund established by the project developer – so in case of negative impacts these could be compensated from the security fund. Thailand’s representative, Mrs. Pakawan Chufamanee, highlighted the question of whether 6 months for the PNPCA is enough and that more time would make the process better and allow also wider participation in the process. Development partners and MRC were asked to take a more active role in fostering the consensus building. USAID representative emphasized the sovereignty of the countries to make decisions and also the importance to do it based on the best scientific data available. He also suggested that from his personal view more important than the legal interpretation is the spirit of the Mekong Agreement on the importance of building consensus on decisions with major transboundary implications.  Hans Guttman, CEO of Mekong River Commission, highlighted that MRC does not have an arbitrary role in case there are disagreements in interpreting the results of processes like the PNPCA.

The key recommendations given by different stakeholders during the discussion included:

• More open dialogue and more participation was recommended for the PNPCA and processes of decision-making on mainstream dams
• The role of CSOs in the PNPCA process should be increased
• Some panelists emphasized the importance of precautionary principle and also recommended ‘time out’ for the first mainstream dam until there is more information available on its impacts
• Lao representatives asked for better cooperation spirit in the MRC consultation processes
• In possible future PNPCA processes the consultation should be started well before the construction of the dam – otherwise possibilities to openly assess the project are limited as developer has already invested considerable money for the project
• Most of the panelists agreed that 6 months for the PNPCA process is too short a time
• The 1995 Mekong Agreement and the procedures of PNPCA leave a lot of room for interpretation – suggestions were made to limit the chance of differing interpretations
• To consider whether there could be a security fund from the dam developer side to compensate for any negative impacts
• There is a need to consider how concerns and needs of affected communities could be better reflected in the decision making processes
• A joint visit of Lao government and civil society representative was suggested to the site of Xayaburi and to the resettled villages

Vientiane Times 18/09/2012

5th trainings in the INES project in Vientiane 17.-19.9.2012 at the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Open and transparent energy sector dialogue

On September 4 the Swiss organization Helvetas co-hosted together with the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) a seminar in Vientiane which purpose was to initiate an open and transparent dialogue between the Government of Laos (GoL), civil society organization (CSOs) and development partners on power sector development. Until now CSOs, and especially local non-profit associations (NPAs), have been largely excluded from the energy sector policy dialogue. Since CSOs work with communities affected by power sector development, they could play an important role as serving as a link between the local communities and policy makers and donors. Similar seminars have previously been successfully organized to discuss land issues between the government and CSOs. In power sector this was the first time. 

A large number of both national and international organizations based in Laos participated and discussed the issues related to power sector development. The aim of the seminar was not necessarily to oppose the hydropower development per se, but more so question HOW it is done in Laos. Many of the main concerns of the CSOs were related to Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA), the lack of information in the ESIA process, the project scope of the ESIAs (that is, spatial and temporal borders of the ESIAs), lack of public consultation, inefficient monitoring committees (to monitor project impacts), as well as resettlement and compensation issues. Concerns about the Xayabury dam were expressed too. After the losses, would the Lao people benefit from it at all or would the investors be the only winners in the end? 

Director General of the Department of Energy Planning and Policy, Dr. Daovong Phonekeo, represented the ministry at the seminar. In addition, also other central as well as provincial level government officials participated in the seminar. Dr. Daovong gave a presentation about GoL’s energy sector policy and plans. All the questions and concerns were also answered and he told for instance that the information sharing in the impact assessment process should and will improve. He also encouraged people to report inefficient monitoring committees to the central level MEM. The GoL emphasize the role of energy sector in the national development plan. Energy sector has, according to GoL, also other than monetary benefits such as reduced CO2 emissions, not only in Laos but in the Greater Mekong Subregion as a whole (hydropower from Laos saves 5 million TOE of fossil fuels in Laos and in the neighbouring countries where energy will be exported). In addition, the dams provide flood control, recreation and water for agriculture. 

A number of other issues were also discussed during the seminar. The seminar was a sign of some positive development were power sector issues, also sensitive ones, could be discussed more openly. Greater public participation is necessary in order to let the Lao people decide how they want to develop their country.

MODESPO training session in Finland

The third MODESPO training session took place in Finland between the 20th and 30th of August. A group of eight teachers and lecturers from the ITC (Institute of Technology of Cambodia) arrived to Helsinki-Vantaa airport on a cool +14C Sunday afternoon, very typical for the Finnish summer. 

The first week of the visit consisted mainly of lectures by different experts of TUT (Tampere University of Technology) on different kinds of renewable energy technologies, transmission grids and the kind. The ITC staff also got to see many of TUT’s fancy research equipment, among all the ‘regular’ testing and research equipment at the university. The first week also included a day visit to the summer seminar of the Doctoral Program of Electrical Energy Engineering (DPEEE), which is a Finnish national doctoral program organised in collaboration with a number of research institutes and educational units. The summer seminar was held in Murikka, which is located an hour north from Tampere right by a lake called Näsijärvi. 

After a week of very interesting lectures (really, most of them were interesting) the second week was reserved for various site visits. On Monday we drove to Lahti where we visited a Lahti Energy’s Kymijärvi II power plant. It is presumably the first gasification power plant in the world to “efficiently generate electricity and district heat from Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF)”. The raw material of the SRF is energy-containing waste. At the plant the SRF is gasified and then the gas is purified. The resulting clean ecogas is combusted in an ordinary natural gas boiler. After a presentation of the plant and a tour around its facilities we headed for Energon – a renewable energy research facility funded for the most part by Lahti Science and Business Park and the EU – where we had a close look at different biofuel testing equipment. 

Tuesday was spent in Tampere with visits to Demola – an open innovation platform for students and companies, Moreenia – centre for urban environment, and the Tampere power utility. On the final day of the site visits we went to western Finland to have a look at a wind power park and a biopower plant of Porin Prosessivoima Oy, both located in Pori.  On our way home we did a quick visit to the visitor centre of Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, not renewable energy, but an interesting site nonetheless. 

All in all the third training period turned out to be quite successful. The Cambodian delegation headed back home with many new experiences and knowledge acquired on the latest developments in renewable energies. The Finnish experts were also left with a number of insights and a broader viewpoint to their own field of expertise. 

Fairness and transparency in climate funding: workshop in Bangkok

I had the pleasure to take part in a workshop titled “Fairness and transparency in climate funding: taking into account the needs of the poorest populations” in Bangkok on May 11th, organized by Nexus – Carbon for Development. The event gathered some 50+ people to discuss the challenges and possibilities for pro-poor projects in the carbon markets. Specifically, we focused on two key themes:
1)    Could official development assistance (ODA) be used to leverage private investments into pro-poor carbon projects?
2)    How could carbon projects demonstrate their pro-poor benefits and should these be valued in the market? 
The aim of the event was not only to raise a discussion on the issue, but also consider producing a common statement on the two questions. The presentations and workshop material will shortly be available from Nexus.

ODA was strongly seen as one possible route for leveraging private investments into pro-poor carbon projects. This rested on several key notions. Firstly, pledged donor commitments for climate change investments will currently reach only half (c. USD 100 bn) of what is estimated to be required (c. USD 200 bn) by 2020. The private sector thus has a large gap to fill, but how can these investments be geared towards projects with pro-poor development impacts? Second, pro-poor projects often have difficulties in reaching carbon markets due to high upfront costs, transaction costs and knowledge gaps in e.g. the technologies employed. A majority of workshop participants saw that ODA has a strong role in facilitating private investment into carbon projects and would be crucial especially at their commencement. Nexus presented their regional project incubator approach, which through economies of scale could assist pro-poor projects in their initial stages. What Nexus is struggling with at the moment is achieving that necessary grant funding to support their activities and building a track record for such project incubators.

The other discussion centered on valuing the pro-poor benefits of carbon projects. While greenhouse gas emissions reductions are monetized on the market, there are no standardized indicators for measuring sustainable development benefits. In the case of the clean development mechanism (CDM) this has largely led to the situation where investments are geared towards those sectors (i.e. industrial gases) and regions (i.e. China, India, Brazil) where the most emissions reductions potential lies. The question we asked was: how could this be turned around to foster investment in pro-poor projects? Should there be a standard for pro-poor carbon projects and how would this be calculated? Several project developers (especially those working in projects with development impacts – such as cookstoves, biogas and water filters) wished for a pro-poor standard to differentiate themselves in the carbon market and thus be able to charge a premium for their higher value projects. However, several questions remained over how specifically to design and calculate such a standard and what implications this could carry. Would it result in a “greenwashing” of projects to claim pro-poor benefits? Does this area call for intervention, or could such issues be solved by the market?

For me the greatest contribution of the workshop was the various discussions I had with project developers working in the region. The amount of barriers pro-poor carbon projects face is huge and some actors had given up on the idea of carbon markets being able to deliver pro-poor projects. Thus organizations like Nexus have a large amount of work to do. At the same time there was enthusiasm in workshop participants for shaping carbon market approaches to becoming more transparent and equitable.

The growing middle class of Laos

Last Saturday I went to see Bodyslam, a famous Thai rock band, at a big stadium built quite far outside of the city centre (more like in the middle of nowhere at the end of a dark road) for the purpose of SEA games in 2009. The concert itself was good and well organized. What was very eye-opening however was to see the huge crowd of a growing middle class generation. There were thousands and thousands of young people, dressed up like young people in any western country would do. No signs of the traditional sin- skirts whatsoever. Of course you see these young people in central Vientiane, too, but seeing this mass of them made me realize what a huge impact they could and would have on the future development of this country.

Obviously this generation wants the same clothing, same gear and other equipment as any other teenager and twenty-something in Europe, Japan, Australia, North America etc. This generation of urban Lao people will not settle for anything less and they’ll grow up in such a different country than their parents grew up in. This group of urban young middle class is also growing due to urbanization. Many young people decide to move to Vientiane for a job to find their way to the middle class. In practical terms this growing middle class will demand electricity for the housing and electrical appliances and gasoline for vehicles (The number of vehicles in Vientiane has doubled in just one year!). They will demand modern housing, modern shopping possibilities, they will want to travel and they will demand any other entertainment and services we have in the west.

At the same time there is a huge number of people still living in poverty, both in rural and urban Laos. Outside of the stadium you could see the striking contrast of ‘the haves’ and ‘the have-nots’ as people were collecting bottles and paper for their living. It makes you think about the drivers of development in Laos and if there is any chance that in the future the wealth would be more evenly distributed among people. Laos is a country rich in natural resources which, in theory, could take this country and most of its people out of poverty. In reality, of course, things aren’t as straightforward.

Xayaburi dam discussed widely

FFRC organized a mini-seminar called "Large-scale Dams and Energy Development in the Mekong Region" on Monday April 2nd in Tampere. Dr. Jyrki Luukkanen gave an introduction to the event and FFRC's work in the Mekong Region. Following, Mr. Kirk Herbertson from the NGO International Rivers gave a talk on dam development focusing on the the anatomy of the mainstream Xayaburi dam. The event ended with an open discussion on the future of energy development in the region at large.

The topic of Xayaburi dam was also discussed at a seminar organized by Siemenpuu Foundation on April 3rd in Helsinki titled "Development Policy and the Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mekong: Finland, Pöyry Corporation and Xayaburi dam project". The seminar included presentations from Marko Keskinen, a water researcher at Aalto University; Mika Pohjonen, representative of Pöyry; Kirk Herberston from the NGO International Rivers; Pekka Puustinen from the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Mira Käkönen, chair of Siemenpuu Foundation and Otto Bruun from Friends of the Earth. The presentations can be downloaded from: http://www.siemenpuu.org/english/mekong_in_finland/

The event by Siemenpuu Foundation was covered by the Finnish national public broadcasting company, Yle. The event was covered in the evening news. The reportage (in Finnish) can be found from http://areena.yle.fi/video/1333477022501 at 09.42 minutes.

Thoughts on fieldwork in Laos 21.2–15.3.2012

The atmosphere was excited and somewhat anxious on February 21, when we first landed on hot and sunny Vientiane. Still the mission of our trip was clear in our heads. After spending a good part of the winter familiarising ourselves with the focus group discussions already collected in the FFRC's INES project, we had now come to Laos for a month to gather further data for our Master's theses. The theses are written as part of the INES project and, in line with its objectives, they address the interlinkages between energy and livelihoods. More specifically, one concentrates on the adaptation and resilience of livelihoods towards environmental changes, considering also whether access to electricity can enhance adaptation capacity. As for the other, it examines how electricity is adapted as part of people's energy and livelihood related knowledge system. To help us answer these questions, we interviewed experts from several organizations and conducted a week of fieldwork in the rural district of Fuang in Vientiane Province, a 3-hour ride from the nation's capital.

Fishing in the Nam Lik reservoire.

During the fieldwork we visited five villages within a 20 km radius of the district capital where we stayed. Two of them were located along the river Nam Lik and were affected by a nearby dam. In the third village lived people who were resettled there after Nam Ngum II dam project forced them to leave their previous homes. The last two villages were located in the mountains and were inhabited by Hmongs, one of the numerous ethnic minorities in Laos. On our field trip we were accompanied by Mr. Saithong Phommavong, who served not only as an interpreter but also as an invaluable guide to the region.

In each of the villages four interview sessions were arranged: one with the village head man, one with a focus group of 4–6 persons and two with individuals of different backgrounds. The themes of the interviews were livelihoods, environmental change, energy and future development. The interviewees were reached through the village head man and a district official, who chose suitable people according to our criteria. We were particularly interested in hearing the views of women and people who defined their livelihood as poor or sufficient. In addition to interviewing, data was gathered through ethnographic observation.

Though the data we collected in the villages is waiting to be analysed in detail, some observations can already be stated. Concerning environmental change, we noted that the Nam Lik dam had not affected people’s livelihoods as extensively as we expected. Still the quality of the water had deteriorated and it could not be used for bathing or household purposes anymore. The smell of the water was striking. The quality of fish was worse, too. Moreover, most of the villages had already experienced frequent unseasonal weather conditions in past years and were worried about storms. In the resettlement village we also saw some of the effects that environmental change in the form of a major dam project can have on people’s lives. Some people had adapted their occupations to the new conditions but others trying to go on with only rice cultivation were more unfortunate.

Regarding energy and livelihoods, all of the villages we visited were connected to a grid. Even the poorest in the villages had access to electricity. If they did not have their own meter, they shared one with their neighbour. From the livelihood point of view, electricity proved to be most widely utilised in activities located at home, such as in weaving and in cooking. We did, however, also come across some less popular but interesting uses of electricity, such as fish raising. The most common service provided by electricity was, by far, lighting.

Focus group in the Hmong village of Nong Por.

All in all, the fieldwork was an educating experience. We got to explore rural Laos, gain new insights on our research themes and learn research skills that can only be acquired through practice. We are truly grateful to FFRC and especially the Mekong team for providing us with this wonderful opportunity. Last but not least, we would like to thank all the people we met during our fieldwork for the kindness that they received us with.

Heidi Tuhkanen and Riikka Yliluoma

COOL dissemination workshop in Phnom Penh, 28 Feb 2012

A research project Adequacy of Climate Change Mitigation Initiatives in Laos and Cambodia: Comparing Options and Analysing Obstacles in Local Context (COOL) investigated the implementation of four climate initiatives in Cambodia and Laos. The initiatives were Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), Voluntary Carbon Markets, and Energy and Environment Partnership (EEP).

Dissemination of the research results were organized in Laos and Cambodia in February 2012. The second of the COOL workshops took place on the 28th of February at the Sunway Hotel in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Registration for the event started at 7.30am!! It was organized together by the Climate Change Office of the Ministry of Environment of Cambodia and Finland Futures Research Centre’s team. It gathered a large audience as a bit more than 150 people attended the seminar.

We were also honoured to have welcome remarks from H.E. Mark Gooding, Ambassador of the UK to Cambodia, on behalf of the European Union. Opening remarks were given by H.E. Dr. Mok Mareth, Senior Minister of Environment. There was a real big world feeling to the event with camera’s flashing and professional video-recorders and TV-cameras being moved around the room during the first remarks. We felt like this would probably be the first high-level event for the new logo of FFRC (check it out from the bottom of www.mekong.fi). However, as usual, our honoured guests had other commitments and had to leave after their remarks. Most of the reporters left with them. Luckily the other participants stayed, so I think they were honestly interested in what we had to say.

The first half of the day consisted of presentations on the CoP-17 in Durban: what had been agreed on, what was Cambodia’s position in the negotiations, how EU and Oxfam felt about the outcome, and what will happen next. However, after the lunch break our team finally got to work.

Hanna Kaisti started with an overview of the COOL project, introducing the team, scope of the research, and its objectives. Try Thuon and Otto Bruun started presenting the actual case studies with a look into REDD+ in Cambodia and Laos. The topic seemed to of interest to the audience and many questions followed after their presentation. After that Visa Tuominen (that’s me) was up with a presentation on the Energy and Environment Partnership, which was followed by the last coffee break of the day.

In the last session Hanna Kaisti gave her presentation on Voluntary Carbon Market’s. Even though the day had been long, interesting questions and comments were voiced. A comment from the audience pointed out that some NGOs find themselves in a difficult situation. On the other hand donors are not willing to provide official development assistance (ODA) for getting a certification which can bring in hundreds of thousands of euros for the organisations. But neither private investors are making the investments as they lack the tools to evaluate these kind of projects.

This is not a thoroughly thought idea, only from the top of my head: perhaps financing for these kind of risk-investments, that in the best case scenario mitigate climate change while bringing sustainable development and results for poverty reduction, could be provided by multilateral development finance institutions. They have the sufficient know-how on both climate change mitigation and development cooperation. They also have knowledge on suitable finance mechanisms and funds combined with the capability to make risk-assessments on these kind of projects. And, they have the mandate both for development finance and climate finance. Still, another really interesting question is: how well do climate change mitigation and pro-poor development go hand-in-hand?

But now I’m just getting carried away. Our successful event was given a good end by Mira Käkönen’s presentation on CDM and CDM projects in the region. Overall, I have to say we did quite well. The event also managed to gain visibility in the local press. On the right you can find the story published in The Cambodian Daily. Click on the image to enlarge.

The presentations are available on our website.