Deal #6529
Lao PDR
Created at
2014-12-31
Last update
2022-09-16
Last full update
2022-09-16
Names of communities / indigenous peoples affected
Name of community
Somboun,
Phabang,
Xot,
Ka an,
Chalet,
Boung,
Pon,
Sopkhom,
Phonkeo,
Sensi,
Thambing,
Sopchat
Name of indigenous people
Hmong, Mon-Khmer groups, Lao
Comment on communities / indigenous peoples affected
Company source mentioned 4,000 people needs to be resettled. However, BankTrank mentioned that over 7,500 people are displaced and another 48,000+ people are affected downstream
The construction of the Theun-Hinboun Hydropower Expansion or Nam Gnouang dam and flooding of 103 km2 affected 12 villages located along the Nam Gnouang valley.
[Source: Statkraft]
Consultation of local community
Community consultation
Other
Comment on consultation of local community
The company said that they implemented an extensive consultation program in keeping with national and international policy guidelines.
Source: Statkraft
Presence of land conflicts
Presence of land conflicts
Yes
Comment on presence of land conflicts
Some disputes about land arose between newcomers and host village (newcomers are affected people who were relocated to the new resettlement village or known as host village)
[Source: Statkraft]
Displacement of people
Displacement of people
Yes
Number of people actually displaced
7 500
Comment on displacement of people
Over 7,500 mostly ethnic minority people were displaced
There are five resettlement sites where affected people were relocated, they are: Nongxong, Phonthong, Sopphouan, Keosenkham and Phoumakneng relocation sites.
[Source: Statkraft]
Negative impacts for local communities
Negative impacts for local communities
Environmental degradation, Socio-economic, Displacement
Comment on negative impacts for local communities
Aside from the 7,500 people displaced, another 48,441 people living downstream are also negatively affected due to increased flooding
Families living downstream moving from old villages to new consolidated settlement sites faced several pressures and constraints that compel them to involuntarily resettle. Moreover, many families in downstream faced food and income insecurity
[Source: Field report of IR]
Promised or received compensation
Promised compensation (e.g. for damages or resettlements)
1,800 USD for resettler households and 1,450 USD for relocation sites (based on the company’s publication in 2010). It was also reported that resettled villagers got 0.5 ha plots in the relocation sites for growing crops, planting rice and fragrant bark trees.
[Source: Statkraft]
Received compensation (e.g. for damages or resettlements)
However, the field investigation report from IR stated that the grievance system for resettlement and compensation does not provide for independent channels of recourse
[Source: Field report of IR]
Promised benefits for local communities
Promised benefits for local communities
Health, Education, Other
Comment on promised benefits for local communities
Others: Livelihood, Social Management Action Plan (SMAP), Water Quality Monitoring, Fisheries monitoring, Construction Monitoring, Biomass Clearance, Environmental Conservation Programs
Materialized benefits for local communities
Materialized benefits for local communities
Health, Education, Productive infrastructure (e.g. irrigation, tractors, machinery...)
Comment on materialized benefits for local communities
The company failed to provide adequate livelihood support for displaced people (BankTrank, 2015)
Education, public health and community infrastructure in the area around the project
[Source: Prlog]
The Social and Environmental Division (SED) set up the budget for its work on social and environmental programs which represented about 10% of the total project cost of $650 million. The company also built village hall, water supply to all households, electricity connections, improving rural roads and constructing a temple.
[Source: Statkraft]
Based on the IR report, many of the livelihood mitigation and restoration programs largely failed.
[Source: Field report of IR]