Livelihood Challenges

Despite the fact that living standards are improving considerably, opening up new opportunities for the resettlers, and a number of other positive changes that have come about as a result of the project, respondents identified a number challenges that remain. Figure 5.14 below illustrates a list of livelihood challenges identified by households in

Page | 98 the five resettled villages when asked to express their concerns or describe any difficulties they have experienced in achieving livelihood reconstruction. These included restriction to agricultural land and grazing area for livestock, poor soil fertility, lack of working-age labour available within household family, and the increased cost of living. In addition, there were also other concerns over increasing population and competition over natural resources, as well as the lack of local capacity to manage those resources sustainably. Some family households, however, have experienced few difficulties, with 50% of respondents in Ban Phon Sa On and 40% of respondents in Ban Nong Bua conveying no particular concern with regards to livelihood challenges.

Figure 5.14: Challenges Identified by Resettlers in the Five Villages

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Access to Agricultural Land (0.66 ha) Soil Quality of Agricultural Land Access to River for Fish Lack of Labour Availability Availability of Grazing Land Area to Raise

Livestock

Concerns for Food Security in the Future Expensive Cost of Living People's Attitude towards Development

(Being Passive Beneficiaries) Concerns over the Increasing Population -

Competition over Resources Lack of Local Capacity (Management and Technical areas)

None/Almost None

Ban Nong Bua Kham Ban Sob Hia Ban Sob On Ban Don Ban Nong Bua

Page | 99 During the semi-structured interview households were asked to list up to four challenges that significantly affected their livelihoods and explained their choices. As shown in Figure 5.15, 45% of total interviewed households indicated their concerns over the inadequacy of available grazing land area to raise large livestock, with the majority of them expressing severe dissatisfaction. These respondents explained that in the past there was much greater grazing land available where they were able to raise herds of large animals (up to 70 buffaloes or cattle). In comparison, now there is much less suitable grass land currently available on the plateau to maintain a sustainable herd size. Many households had to cut down their large animal raising on the plateau significantly, and some families were even forced to stop raising large livestock completely as a consequence (Participant no. 20, personal communication on June 15, 2011).

Figure 5.15: Major Challenges after Resettlement

Moreover, interviewed households also considered challenges associated with the agricultural component of the resettlement, including access to agricultural land, soil quality and the availability of working-age labour within household to participate in agricultural related activities. Of the total interviewed households, approximately 44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Access to Agricultural Land (0.66 ha) Soil Quality of Agricultural Land Lack of Labour Availability Availability of Grazing Land Area to

Raise Livestock

Special Emphasis Mentioned

Source: The Author’s Fieldwork Survey, 2011 % of respondents mentioning or placing special emphasis on major challenges since resettlement

Page | 100 regarded the limited access to agricultural land, particularly the 0.66 hectare land, as one of their major challenges, with many of these emphasizing the significance of this issue. Only 26 % of interviewed households struggled with the poor soil quality, with less than a half of those who experienced considering it as a major constraint to maintain agricultural quality and productivity. Finally, 25% of households encountered labour shortage, with almost all of these underlining the severity of this issue.

While all households were provided with a 0.66 hectare agricultural land as part of their compensation package, the land available is considerably less than many used before as part of their rotating agricultural system. Only a small number of interviewed households indicated that they are able to produce sufficient food to support for their family from this land. This restriction, however, has become more challenging for many resettled households, particularly for those households with larger number of people. Almost all households with larger family size were in agreement that the 0.66 hectare agricultural land is incapable of supporting self-sufficiency in rice or other subsistence crops, even with the best quality of soil fertility.

5.4 Summary

This chapter has presented the results of the field research, which was carried out in the five resettlement villages on the Nakai Plateau using semi-structured interviews, field walks and observations, informal conversational interviews and other secondary data sources. The results of the study have identified a range of changes in resettled communities’ livelihoods in the selected villages from pre to post resettlement. With resettlement, the Nakai resettlers have improved access to better housing, roads, markets, communication infrastructures, community buildings and services, education and healthcare facilities. In addition, the resettlers have also increased access to a range of income-generating activities, livelihood training opportunities and other transitional support from the project. All of these changes are seen to be fundamental for reconstructing and improving livelihoods of the Nakai resettled communities.

Page | 101

C

HAPTER

S

IX

Page | 102

6.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter, the results which are based on the comparison of livelihoods before and after resettlement, have identified a range of major changes experienced by the five selected resettlement villages following the resettlement period. Moving on, this chapter seeks to provide an analysis of livelihood assets based on the results presented in the previous chapter and the adoption of the DFID SLF as described in Chapter Three, particularly the livelihood assets component. This chapter investigates how these livelihood changes have influenced the Nakai resettled communities’ access to livelihood capital assets, which is fundamental to help address the primary objective of this research. The chapter begins with a brief review of DFID’s livelihood resources which divides livelihood assets into five different categories (Section 6.2). Then each of the livelihood assets – natural, social, human, financial and physical capitals – will be analysed in detail in each sub-section respectively. Finally, Section 6.3 provides a summary.