Preparing the Ban Sok Pleiku Power Transmission Project in ... · ban sok – pleiku final...

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.

Project Number: 41450 February 2012

Preparing the Ban Sok–Pleiku Power Transmission Project in the Greater Mekong Subregion (Financed by the Japan Special Fund)

Annex 7: Due Diligence Report Annex 7.1: Summary of Statement Status of Environmental and Social Sector Work Annex 7.2: Environmental Due Diligence Report for

Five Hydropower Projects in Lao PDR Annex 7.3: Social and Resettlement Due Diligence for Five Hydropower Projects in Lao PDR Annex 7.4: Financial and Economic Calculation Tables

Prepared by Électricité de France Paris, France For Asian Development Bank

Ban-sok Pleiku Project CONTRACT DOCUMENTS – TRANSMISSION LINE Package – LaoPDR-VIETNAM

Annex 7.1 – Status of E & S Sector Works Page 1 /1

FINAL REPORT

500KV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PROJECT BANSOK-PLEIKU

ANNEX 7.1 - Summary Statement

Status of Environmental and Social Sector Work

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.

Project Number: 41450 February 2012

Preparing the Ban Sok–Pleiku Power Transmission Project in the Greater Mekong Subregion (Financed by the Japan Special Fund)

Annex 7: Due Diligence Report Annex 7.1: Summary of Statement Status of Environmental and Social Sector Work Annex 7.2: Environmental Due Diligence Report for

Five Hydropower Projects in Lao PDR Annex 7.3: Social and Resettlement Due Diligence for Five Hydropower Projects in Lao PDR Annex 7.4: Financial and Economic Calculation Tables

Prepared by Électricité de France Paris, France For Asian Development Bank

Ban-sok Pleiku Project CONTRACT DOCUMENTS – TRANSMISSION LINE Package – LaoPDR

Annex 7.2– DD Report for 5 Hydro Projects in Lao PDR

FINAL REPORT

500kV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PROJECT

ANNEX 7.2 – Environmental Due Diligence Report for

Five Hydropower Projects in Lao PDR

BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE

AADDBB TTAA 66448811--RREEGG BBAANN--SSOOKK ((HHAATTXXAANN)) PPLLEEIIKKUU PPOOWWEERR TTRRAANNSSMMIISSSSIIOONN PPRROOJJEECCTT

550000 kkVV TTRRAANNSSMMIISSSSIIOONN LLIINNEE AANNDD SSUUBBSSTTAATTIIOONN

DDUUEE DDIILLIIGGEENNCCEE RREEPPOORRTT FFOORR FFIIVVEE HHYYDDRROOPPOOWWEERR PPRROOJJEECCTT PPRROOVVIIDDIINNGG EELLEECCTTRRIICCIITTYY TTOO TTHHEE BBAANN SSOOKK ((HHAATTXXAANN)) TTOO PPLLEEIIKKUU

TTRRAANNSSMMIISSSSIIOONN LLIINNEE:: XXEEKKHHAAMMAANN 11

XXAANNXXAAYY XXEEKKHHAAMMAANN 44

SSEEKKOONNGG 33AA ((UUppppeerr)) SSEEKKOONNGG 33BB ((LLoowweerr))

DDrraafftt DDooccuummeenntt:: MMaarrcchh 1111,, 22001122

LAO PDR / VIETNAM Asian Development Bank CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR PREPARING THE BAN-SOK PLEIKU POWER TRANSMISSION PROJECT 500 kV OHL_TA 6481-REG

BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_ ENV. DUE DILIGENCE Page i

CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 2

1.2.1 Xekhaman 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.2 Xanxay ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.3 Xekhaman 4 ............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2.4 Sekong 3A (Upper) ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.5 Sekong 3B (Lower) ................................................................................................................................... 5

2 XEKHAMAN 1: DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS ...................................................................................................... 6

2.1 THE PROJECT, ITS EXTENT, DURATION AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE .................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Description of the Project and Work ........................................................................................................ 6 2.1.2 EA Classification ....................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Geographic Extent and Duration ............................................................................................................. 8 2.1.4 Implementation Timetable ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.5 EA Author(s) ............................................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Percent Completion By Stage: Preconstruction, Construction and OPERATION ...................................... 9 2.2.2 Funds Disbursed ....................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Mandatory Environmental Approvals ...................................................................................................... 9

2.3 CHANGES TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS SINCE COMPLETION OF EIA AND ARE THESE REFLECTED IN THE EIA DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

2.3.1 Location of the Transmission Line .......................................................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Dam Height ............................................................................................................................................ 10

2.4 COMPLIANCE OF EIA DOCUMENTS WITH ADB POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ................................................................ 10 2.4.1 Understanding Of Lao PDR Environmental Safeguard Requirements .................................................... 10 2.4.2 Overall Credibility Of Document: Does It Addressing The Issues Effectively .......................................... 10 2.4.3 Technical Completeness In Relation To Issues ....................................................................................... 12 2.4.4 Consultations With Affected People Complies With ADB's Requirements ............................................. 13 2.4.5 Missing Components, Impacts and Unsubstantiated/Incorrect Conclusions ......................................... 13 2.4.6 The Environmental Management Plan .................................................................................................. 14

2.5 HOW ARE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS IN THE EIA (ESP. FROM EMP) SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ........... 16 2.5.1 Commitments Made: ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.5.2 Mitigation And Monitoring Requirements in The Contract Documents ................................................ 17

2.6 STATUS OF COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND MONITORING REPORTS ......................................................................... 17 2.7 INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ................ 17

2.7.1 EDL ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.7.2 Department of Electricity (within the Ministry of Energy and Mines) ................................................... 17 2.7.3 WREA ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 18 2.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTIONS ....................................................................................................... 18 2.10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 19

3 XANXAY: DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS ............................................................................................................. 20

3.1 THE PROJECT, ITS EXTENT, DURATION AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE ................................................................. 20 3.1.1 Description of the Work ......................................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2 Geographic Extent and Duration ........................................................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Implementation Timetable .................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.4 EA Author ............................................................................................................................................... 21

3.2 CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Percent Completion By Stage: Preconstruction, Construction, Operation ............................................. 22 3.2.2 Funds Disbursed ..................................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Mandatory Environmental Approvals .................................................................................................... 22


BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_ ENV. DUE DILIGENCE Page ii

3.3 CHANGES TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS SINCE COMPLETION OF EIA AND ARE THESE REFLECTED IN THE EIA DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 3.4 COMPLIANCE OF EIA DOCUMENTS WITH ADB POLICIES AND GUIDELINES .................................................................. 23

3.4.1 Understanding of Lao PDR Environmental Safeguard Requirements .................................................... 23 3.4.2 Overall Credibility of Document: Does It Addressing the Issues Effectively ........................................... 26 3.4.3 Technical Completeness In Relation To Issues ....................................................................................... 26 3.4.4 Consultations with Affected People Complies with ADB's Requirements .............................................. 26 3.4.5 Missing Components and Impacts ......................................................................................................... 27 3.4.6 The Environmental Management Plan .................................................................................................. 28

3.5 HOW ARE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS IN THE EIA (ESP. FROM EMP) SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS .......... 28 3.5.1 Mitigation and Monitoring Commitments Made and Actions Taken .................................................... 28


3.7.1 Province ................................................................................................................................................. 29 3.7.2 DOE ........................................................................................................................................................ 30 3.7.3 Central WREA ......................................................................................................................................... 30

3.8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 30 3.9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 31

4 XEKHAMAN 4: DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS .................................................................................................... 32

4.1 THE PROJECT, ITS EXTENT, DURATION AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE .................................................................. 32 4.1.1 Description of the Work ......................................................................................................................... 32 4.1.2 Geographic Extent and Duration ........................................................................................................... 33 4.1.3 Implementation Timetable .................................................................................................................... 33 4.1.4 Project Proponent and EA Author(s) ...................................................................................................... 33


4.3 CHANGES TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS SINCE COMPLETION OF EIA AND ARE THESE REFLECTED IN THE EIA DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 4.4 COMPLIANCE OF EIA DOCUMENTS WITH ADB POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ................................................................ 34

4.4.1 Understanding Of Lao PDR Environmental Safeguard Requirements .................................................... 34 4.4.2 Overall Credibility OF DOCUMENT: Does It Addressing The Issues Effectively ....................................... 36 4.4.3 Technical Completeness In Relation To Issues ....................................................................................... 37 4.4.4 Consultations With Affected People COMPLIES WITH ADB's Requirements .......................................... 37 4.4.5 Missing Components And Impacts ......................................................................................................... 37 4.4.6 The Environmental Management Plan .................................................................................................. 38

4.5 HOW ARE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS IN THE EIA (ESP. FROM EMP) SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS .......... 38 4.6 STATUS OF COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND MONITORING REPORTS ......................................................................... 38

4.6.1 Other Provincial Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 38 4.7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 39 4.8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION .......................................................................................................... 39 4.9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 39

5 SEKONG 3A (UPPER): DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS ........................................................................................... 40

5.1 THE PROJECT, ITS EXTENT, DURATION AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE .................................................................. 41 5.1.1 Description of the Work ......................................................................................................................... 41 5.1.2 Geographic Extent and Duration ........................................................................................................... 41 5.1.3 Implementation Timetable .................................................................................................................... 42 5.1.4 EA Proponent and Author(s) .................................................................................................................. 42


5.3 CHANGES TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS SINCE COMPLETION OF EIA AND ARE THESE REFLECTED IN THE EIA DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 43


BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_ ENV. DUE DILIGENCE Page iii

5.4 COMPLIANCE OF EIA DOCUMENTS WITH ADB POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ................................................................ 43 5.4.1 Understanding Of Lao PDR Environmental Safeguard Requirements .................................................... 43 5.4.2 Overall Credibility Of Document: Does It Addressing The Issues Effectively .......................................... 44 5.4.3 Technical Completeness In Relation To Issues ....................................................................................... 45 5.4.4 Consultations With Affected People Complies With ADB's Requirements ............................................. 45 5.4.5 Missing Components And Impacts ......................................................................................................... 45 5.4.6 The Environmental Management Plan .................................................................................................. 46 5.4.7 Sediment settling and Losses Downstream ........................................................................................... 46

5.5 HOW ARE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS IN THE EIA (ESPECIALLY FROM EMP) SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

46 5.5.1 Mitigation and Monitoring Commitments Made and Actions Taken .................................................... 46


5.7.1 Other Provincial Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 48 5.8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 48 5.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION .......................................................................................................... 49 5.10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 50

6 SEKONG 3B (LOWER): DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS .......................................................................................... 51

6.1 THE PROJECT, ITS EXTENT, DURATION AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE .................................................................. 51 6.1.1 Description of the Work ......................................................................................................................... 51 6.1.2 Geographic Extent and Duration ........................................................................................................... 52 6.1.3 Implementation Timetable .................................................................................................................... 52 6.1.4 EA Author(s) ........................................................................................................................................... 52

6.2 STATUS OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................................................................. 52 6.2.1 Percent Completion By Stage: Preconstruction, Construction, Operation ............................................. 52 6.2.2 Funds Disbursed ..................................................................................................................................... 52 6.2.3 Mandatory Environmental Approvals .................................................................................................... 53

6.3 CHANGES TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS SINCE COMPLETION OF EIA AND ARE THESE REFLECTED IN THE EIA DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 53 6.4 COMPLIANCE OF EIA DOCUMENTS WITH ADB POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ................................................................ 53

6.4.1 Understanding Of Lao PDR Environmental Safeguard Requirements .................................................... 53 6.4.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigative Actions Identified ..................................................................... 53 6.4.3 Overall Credibility OF DOCUMENT: Does It Addressing The Issues Effectively ....................................... 54 6.4.4 Technical Completeness In Relation To Issues ....................................................................................... 54 6.4.5 Consultations With Affected People COMPLIES WITH ADB's Requirements .......................................... 54 6.4.6 Missing Components And Impacts ......................................................................................................... 55 6.4.7 The Environmental Management Plan .................................................................................................. 55

6.5 HOW ARE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS IN THE EIA (ESP. FROM EMP) SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS .......... 55 6.6 STATUS OF COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND MONITORING REPORTS ......................................................................... 55 6.7 INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ................ 56

6.7.1 Other Provincial Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 56 6.7.2 Actions for Strengthening ...................................................................................................................... 57

6.8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 57 6.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION .......................................................................................................... 59 6.10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 59


BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_ ENV. DUE DILIGENCE Page iv

ACROMYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Item Units Definition CH4 mg/m3 air Methane CO2 mg/cm3 Carbon dioxide COI na Corridor of Impact ( a width over the road centerline

considered the direct impact width) CP na Construction Period CSE na Construction Supervision Engineer or Chief Engineer,

usually heading the PMU CSU na Construction Supervision Consultant dBA dBA unit A measure of audible (the ear) noise EDL na Electricite du Lao EMF µT Electromagnetic Field. EMiT na The Environmental Mitigation Table of the EMP EMO na Environmental management office EMoT na The Environmental Monitoring Table of the EMP EMP na Environmental Management Plan EMU na Environmental Management Unit ESIA na Env. & Soc. Impact Assessment ( Lao EIA document) EVN na Electricite du Vietnam FS na Feasibility Study GHG na Greenhouse gas GIS na Geographic Information System HH na household kV/m na Kilovolt per meter Leq80 dBA dBA Sound level in the A frequency occurring for 80% of

the time. MEM na Ministry of Energy and Mines MRC na Mekong River Comission MW Megawatt- A unit for measuring electrical power. 1MW

= 1 million watts. NH na National Highway NO2 mg/cm3 Nitrate or Nitrogen Dioxide NPA na Nationally Protected Area NRL na Normal Retention Level ( of a reservoir) NTFP na Non-timber forest product OP na Operating Period PC na Project Concessionaire PMU na Program Management Unit, established to manage a

single large project PWREA na Provincial WREA RETA na ADB’s Regional Technical Assistance Project RoW na Right of Way; a 70m-wide corridor occupied by the

Transmission Line SP10 µg/m3 Suspended particulate matter, with particles ≥ 10

microns in size, and a danger to lungs. SPS na ADB’s 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement(SPS); or new

environmental and social safeguard standards TEPCO na Tokyo Power and Electric Company TL na Transmission Line VLPC na Vietnam-Lao Joint Stock Company WREA na Ministry of Water Resources and Environmental

Assessment


BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_ ENV. DUE DILIGENCE SUMMARY Page 1 of 59

1 SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The economy of Laos consists of agriculture, small industry, handicraft and small scale mining, so energy consumption is mainly in the form of self subsistence. Firewood accounts for 90% as the country’s energy source, the remaining 10% consist of oil and electricity (the latter accounts for about 5%).

At present only a half of provinces with 18% population of Laos have access to electricity, with a total electrical energy consumption of about 400 GWh. Thus, in general in the future, meeting the consumption requirements will not be very difficult, with the predicted growth of consumption requirements varying between 9 to 11%/year. The total required capacity and electrical energy production of Laos in 2010 is 324MW or 1213 GWh/yr, with average growth rate of consumption by 2010 being 9.2%.

The hydroelectric development planned for the provinces of Sekong and Attapeu total well over 2500MWe with over 82% targeted for export to Vietnam and Thailand for the next 25 years.

The hydro power projects on the Sekong and Xekhaman Rivers have been planned with only marginal thought to overall environmental costs and cumulative effects. There is repeated mention of the differences in GHG emissions between hydropower and fossil fuelled stations, but little actual data showing the GHG generated by large tropical reservoirs where all vegetation and most trees are inundated leading to high levels of anaerobic decomposition and generation of methane (CH4).

The only study beginning to address cumulative effects was a 2006 ADB Regional Technical Assistance Project1. The Mekong River Commission have just completed a comprehensive, excellent, but alarming Cumulative Impact Assessment of the proposed dams on the Mekong ( MRC, Oct. 2010 available on website), and list a number of very serious losses for the Mekong, that would have a ripple effect for the Sekong-Xekhaman basins, the focus of these power developments.

As part of this TA to provide an electrical substation and a 500KV transmission line to bring power from number proposed power stations along the Sekong and Xekhaman Rivers to Vietnam, due diligence studies are required. This work must establish if these hydropower facilities comply with ADB’s 2009 Safeguard Policy Statements and Guideline, and indeed Lao PDR standards. Non compliance would require upgrading the assessments. No action could put the future ADB loan in doubt. Only facilities that were to be connected to the new substation and which had some safeguard documentation were audited. These facilities (shown in the following map) were:

i. Xekhaman 1; EIA and EMP

ii. Xanxay (on Xekhaman River d/s of Xekhaman 1): included with Xekhaman 1

iii. Xekhaman 4: IEE only

iv. Sekong 3A (upper): EIA only

v. Sekong 3B (lower): EIA only

1 Sesan, Sre Pok, and Sekong River Basin Development Study, ADB Project 40082, completed Dec. 2006.



The planned Xekhaman 2a and 2b plus the Dak Emule power facilities are also scheduled to provide power to the project TL but as no work has started, no evaluation was possible.

1.2 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1.2.1 XEKHAMAN 1

1.2.1.1 Results

The EIA and its EMP for this large hydroelectric project was found to be significantly non-compliant. The EIA missed or downplayed key impacts such as long term water quality , impact on fisheries, loss >6000 ha of NPA land, health impacts associated with tropical reservoirs and provided a far from complete record of the consultations completed, most appearing to be with officials. On a project were 1000s of people will be impacted, both upstream and downstream of the dam, the consultation was deemed unacceptable, in view of international best practices, ADB safeguard requirements and Lao PDR statutory requirements.

The consultant defined a large number of mitigative actions but provided no further detail on how these were to be implemented, despite large amount of funds being earmarked for environmental mitigation and monitoring.

This project is now well underway, i.e., the river has been diverted and the base of the future dam has been prepared, and yet none of the environmental measures have been implemented. There are around 500 people on site now and waste and garbage is still disposed of by digging holes and burying waste as needed. The workforce is expected to grow to over 3,000.

1.2.1.2 Recommendations

The consultant is advised to prepare an EIA addendum considering the following 6 steps:

1. Xekhaman 1 project EIA must be separated from Xanxay, a second 35.25 MW power project to be located 8 km downstream of Xekhaman, and now part of the Xekhaman EIA.

2. The EIA document and the EMP need to be carefully reviewed to be sure that there is consistency with numbers, and findings from one section to another. There appear to be quite a number of these errors, adding confusion to the size of the work. Once this is done a consultation with WREA is needed to agree if the comprehensive EMP, supported by surveys in the missing pieces, and consultation, will be adequate.

3. Every mitigation and monitoring measure identified in the EIA and the EMP needs to be listed in an internationally acceptable EMP format (EDF can supply this) and gaps and missing elements identified and adequate follow-up surveys undertaken. The EMP must include location timing and responsibility information, both for the mitigation and monitoring activities.

4. The preparation of the EMP must be accompanied by a compliant public consultation program that is transparent and well documented with evidence the findings were integrated into the EMP.



5. The consultant, working closely with the provincial and central authorities must set in place a monitoring and reporting protocol as well as the monitoring units defined in the EIA documentation.

6. The construction work should not be permitted to proceed until this is done and certificate is provided by WREA.

1.2.2 XANXAY

1.2.2.1 Results

Under Lao PDR regulations, this 35.25 MW power project should have its own stand-along EIA. Under international standards it is considered a large project. The Xekhaman EIA says almost nothing about Xanxay.


Ideally, a separate EIA should be completed for the Xanxay dam, focusing on the cumulative impacts plus the loss and flooding of nearly 18,000 ha of riparian forest land. Again this is a costly and time consuming action and will delay the project by at least 1 year.

If acceptable to Lao PDR WREA, the consultant could prepare an EIA addendum or impact management document and:

i. provide a specific description of Xanxay’s engineering parameters and construction timetable then

ii. initiate a specific site survey identifying specific conditions and impacts for Xanxay,

iii. prepare a detailed EMP as suggested for Xekhaman 1, accompanied by village level consultation and information exchange sessions, which must be documented in detail.

iv. include in the EMP a monitoring and reporting protocol and plan as well as the structure and funding for the monitoring units and their necessary equipment needs and staff requirements.

No construction should begin until a WREA certificate is issued.

1.2.3 XEKHAMAN 4

1.2.3.1 Results

The Xekhaman project is at the pre-feasibility stage and as such only an IEE was submitted to WREA. The authors define the IEE’s objective as the preparation of the ToR for the EIA. This is incorrect and not the objective of ADB-style IEEs (however, is consistent with the 2001 GOL EIA policy).

As a result the IEE authors have focused on providing information on existing conditions. This would be useful were not so much of the information generic. Many important components of the environment are left un-identified in the IEE; for example, the loss of pristine broadleaf evergreen jungle containing endemic and potentially rare species. There are on biodiversity data and little discussion of the >30 km transmission line.



The IEE includes an EIA Terms of Reference, which is not compliant. It is not an EIA Table of Contents, but rather a partial checklist for a generic EIA.

This document is significantly non-complaint, but given the recommendation for a full EIA, makes little difference at this time.


A Lao PDR compliant EIA should be prepared, including the conduct of a comprehensive consultation program as well terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity surveys of the affected area, mapping of the areas of slope slippage and likely damage, and a comprehensive and costed EMP. This must also include details on monitoring, via a monitoring action plan. The “IEE” document prepared by the consultant should be used as a source of information, though a revised TOR for the EIA should be prepared and submitted to WREA for approval (as per PM Decree 112) prior to commencing the EIA process.

1.2.4 SEKONG 3A (UPPER)

1.2.4.1 Results

Sekong 3A is a large dam with a generation capacity over 100 MW; designed to block the flow of the entire Sekong River, which has an average flow around 275 m3/sec at Sekong Town in Sekong Province. The plan is to release only 7% of the average flow or only around 20 m3/sec. the authors justify this by suggesting it is an internationally acceptable standard. This is not the case according to the World Commission on Dams reports and more recent documents in the subject. Lao PDR’s informal rule states that for tributaries and the mainstream, minimum environmental flows need to remain equivalent to the long-term lowest average monthly flows which for the Sekong is around 70m3/sec.

The EIA is 235 pages and there is no EMP.

Major impacts are downplayed and dismissed through the use of unsubstantiated statements, for example indicating that the reduction in turbidity and suspended sediment due to the reservoir will be good for the downstream ecosystem and that water will be of better quality. This avoids discussion of large scale ecological losses and long term degradation of water quality as most vegetation will be left in the 20km2 reservoir to decompose an aerobically, etc.

There is also no mention of impacts of the propose diversion of >40m3 /sec of Sekong River water to two power plants in Vietnam, more than 75 km away. This is particularly alarming given that the dry season flow averages only around 70 m3/sec, resulting on the river being dry for a period of time (when you add the additional 40m3/sec removed by Sekong 3B.

There is no record of any consultations taking place. Also much of the EIA is a listing of conditions and taxonomic data, too generic to be useful on site.

The EIA is littered with many general mitigative measures and some notes re monitoring all difficult to understand and most lacking specifics.

This EIA is non compliant by failing to provide nearly all the most important components of a credible EIA and leaves out discussions of impacts of international significance, such as the diversion of water to another country.



1.2.4.2 Recommendation

This EIA needs to be updated and revised considerably.

This EIA requires a major revision and reworking to make it site specific and as such marginally compliant. The first step is to prepare an annotated EIA ToC, identifying for WREA where and what improvements will be made to the existing document and then proceed with this remedial work.

Once that is done and accepted, the additional information and what is in this EIA can be used to prepare an EMP to international best practice standards. Given the major issues with implementation, a costed and funded monitoring implementation program must be prepared with concessionaire approval and based on the revised EIA/EMP.

A comprehensive discussion of the proposed water diversion from the Sekong to the A Lin and A Luoi hydroelectric power facilities in central Vietnam needs to be included in the EIA.

The Revised EIA must present clear evidence of the village, district and provincial consultations, including meeting minutes and provision of materials distributed, etc.

The revised EIA must then be reviewed and approved by WREA. WE suggest that this is still shorter than starting the EIA over, since the existing EI contains a great deal of information, and it should be used.

1.2.5 SEKONG 3B (LOWER)

1.2.5.1 Results

Sekong 3B is another in the cascade of dams on the Sekong River, this one located some 35- 40 km downstream of Sekong 3A near the village of Nonghin located on the left bank of the Sekong river.

This EIA, another long report, lacking an EMP, is almost a replica of Sekong 3A, exhibiting the same problems, omissions and lack of specificity. Lack of discussion of the same issues as omitted or downplayed in the Sekong 3A report, exist for Sekong 3B. For example the issue of managing a work village of 3000 people is dismissed in less than a page of text. For Sekong 3A the consultant suggested a workforce of over 4000, this is equal to just below 50% of the population of Sekong Town, yet there is little other than generic information provided.

Yet there are pages and pages of taxonomic, geological and meteorological date provide for the entire region.

The diversion of water to Vietnam comes up again with transfer of around 40 m3/sec, out of the Sekong Basin.


All items listed in Section 1.2.4.2 apply fully to this EIA and need to be closely adhered to, if a compliant EIA document is to be prepared. This work must be accompanied by close and proactive consultation by the EIA consultant with both the central and provincial WREA offices.


BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_ ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE Page 6 of 59

2 XEKHAMAN 1: DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS

Executive Summary The Xekhaman 1 hydropower facility has a planned capacity of 496 MW and will inundate almost 150 km2 of river side land between elevations 200 and 230m in the lower Xekhaman basin. About 6,386 ha of the Dong Amphan NPA will be permanently lost. There will be 1000 of people affected.

Work on the project began in 2008 and The EIA and its EMP prepared by the Concessionaire’s consultant were officially approved by WREA in mid 2009, but with many conditions.

Well over nine essential working committees were to be established at the start of the construction period which began in late 2008. None of these have been formed, even though a budget seems to have been set aside.

A long EMP exists and defines 34-37 mitigative actions and surveys. None of these have been started, and yet the project is 1.5 years into the construction stage.

To date actions taken by the developer are not in compliance with any of Lao PDR’s regulations and standards. For example for waste management; during our field inspection in October 2010 we were informed that the solid waste was simply buried in a hole located at a convenient place and when that is full another hole is dug. This is the same situation for disposal of human wastes/sludge. There are around 500 people working at the site, expected to increase to more than 3,500.

The EMP does provide enough guidance to allow the concessionaire to implement safeguard measures and start the necessary surveys but there appears to be no oversight.

The concession agreement has not been signed and as such no safeguard actions are being taken, despite the fact that the construction work is progressing rapidly, e.g. the river has already been diverted and construction of the dam base has begun. Tasks to bring it into compliance are suggested below.

This EIA does not comply with basic ADB EIA requirements as defined in SPS 2009, but worse, there is no indication that the mitigative and monitoring measures defined in the document are being implemented. The construction phase is now in its 3rd year.

2.1 THE PROJECT, ITS EXTENT, DURATION AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE

2.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND WORK

1. The project was initiated in 2006 with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between Lao PDR and Vietnam. It is a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) project with a transfer to the government of Laos 25 years after the start of operations in 2013 (It is of note that hydropower schemes generally have a life expectancy of 25 years). Therefore in 2038 the facility will be transferred to Lao PRD. The EIA states that Vietnam is providing 100% of the investment, but does not underscore that Lao PDR is providing the land and the critical resource, water.



2.1.1.1 The Dam and Reservoir

2. The project is located on the Xekhaman River with catchment area of 3655 km2 and a mean annual flow at the location of the dam of 161 m3/s.

3. At normal retention level (NRL) of 230m the reservoir will have a total area of 149.8 km2 and a reservoir capacity of 4.8 billion m3 of water. There is no mention of the extent of clearing of the reservoir area. The dam will be a rock-filled, concrete faced dam (CFRD) with a height if 184m. It will have an installed capacity of 496MWe, via three Francis –type turbines

2.1.1.2 The Transmission Line

4. The facility will require a 220KV transmission line approximately 23 km long, connected to 500KV station at Ban Hatxan2. It is envisaged to build a double circuit 220 kV transmission line using 2 × ACSR-330 cables for each phase from the switchyard to the Hat Xan Substation. The corridor will require around 23,000m x 60m wide area be cleared, much if it across mountainous terrain and some dipterocarp forest area. The clearing will include vegetation removal and preparation of a road to be used for periodic maintenance.

2.1.1.3 The Roads

5. The project requires a new 7.5m wide x 35km-long access road from National Road 18B to the dam site, plus another 13 km of temporary roads and two 120m long bridges across the Xekhaman River.

2.1.1.4 Work Camp (temporary)

6. A work camp housing up to 4000 workers requiring 80,000m2 of land is needed. The waste management for this camp, which must operate for 5 years before its decommissioning once the project is operational, is not addressed.

2.1.1.5 Relocation Village (pg. 94 and pg 296-Sect. 8.5)

7. The project will require the relocation3 of 6 villages involving about 1100 people and the loss of almost 500ha of farmland. Downstream the project will significantly impact (negatively) 15 villages with 2,580 households and population of >13,679 people (2007 estimate)4. Downstream of the Xekhaman 1-Xanxay Dam

2 The EIA’s examination of the Transmission Line is incorrect in that it assumed the substation would be located 33km NW of XK-1, when in fact it is 23 km SW. This was due to a naming convention problem and error by the Lao side to rename and re-label all drawings and references to the substation, until this was clarified by the TA consultant. 3 No specific reason has been provided to explain why the project requires the movement of the villages out of the reservoir area entirely instead of simply providing new village locations at an elevation of say 250m, well above Normal Fill Level (MFL) of 230m for the reservoir, above the existing village sites? 4 The estimate of number of affected people is likely a late 2006-2007 estimate and out of date as of this audit.



complex, at least another two villages will have to be relocated, bringing the total to eight. The total area for the new village (actually three village clusters) is around 3000 ha and is located just downstream of the Xanxay dam on the east short of the Xakaman River at an elevation of around 120m, which is at least 10m above the river . Of this land around 500ha will be dedicated to agricultural production.

8. The EIA does not include discussion of liquid or solid waste management for this new village, other than an indication of the need for this?

9. Of greater concern is the sitting of the new village clusters at elevation 100-130, well below the water level elevation of the dam at 230m and Xanxay dam at elevation 127m. In other words well within the flood zone, if a catastrophic dam break were to occur.

2.1.2 EA CLASSIFICATION

10. Both Lao PDR and Vietnam’s environmental assessment decrees, identify this project as requiring a complete EIA. It is only Laos that defines its EIA as the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), requiring the combination of environmental and social assessment within an EIA and annexes.

2.1.3 GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT AND DURATION

11. A major part of the 143.6 km2 area to be flooded is covered by the primary forest of Xanxay - Dakchung plateau. Of this total, the reservoir will submerge 6,386 ha of the western edge of the Dong Amphon NPA, or roughly 3.75% of the total area. Don Amphon ranks as one of the 5 most important of Lao PDR’s 18 NPA’s. The losses within these 6,386 ha or submerged forest remains unknown.

12. Construction will continue from 5 years and the filling of the reservoir will require three years. The Xanxay dam, located 7 km downstream of the Xekhaman is being developed in parallel with this facility.

2.1.4 IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE

13. The key actions for the construction and early operating years are defined below:

1. 2008; clearing and access road construction 2. 2009; initial river diversion, road construction and provision of electrical

and water supplies and work camp clearing begins. 3. 2010; river diversion to elevation 135.0m and small dyke walls built--takes

place and site facilities construction continues .Reservoir flood area clearing starts

4. 2011; dam and related facilities constructed to the 160 m elevation level. 5. 2012; river diversion across diversion tribute to 157m level as well as

spillway up to 195m elevation, and spillway tunnel. Start TL construction 6. 2013; fill Reservoir, complete construct transmission line 7. Late 2013-2014; fill reservoir and begin generating electricity turbine No 1

in September, turbine No 2 in December



14. The EIA was not certified by WREA until the 1st quarter of 2010, yet the project is 25% complete. The conditions of the certification were not submitted to WREA until January 2011.

2.1.5 EA AUTHOR(S)

Name of the Agency: Institute of Materials Science under VAST

Address: Building B1, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet, Cau Giay district, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Tel: (0084) 47564129, (0084) 47561858. Fax: (0084) 48360705.

E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

2.1.5.1 The Investor/Concessionaire

Viet-Lao Power Joint Stock Company (VLCP)

2.2 CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT

2.2.1 PERCENT COMPLETION BY STAGE: PRECONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

15. The project has an approved Feasibility Study as well as approved Social and Environmental Assessment documentation, including the certificate to proceed from WREA, as of March 2010. The construction period began in 2008 and is now around 30% completed. This means that the construction period will continue through 2013. The project is therefore well into the construction period.

2.2.2 FUNDS DISBURSED

16. It is unknown how much money has been disbursed. What is known is that very little if any of the USD 8.4 million set aside for mitigative actions has not been disbursed. For example the agreed to environmental management unit to be established to manage the implementation of the EMP has not been formed. The required environmental management office of the Concessionaire has also not been established. It is to operate for 5 construction years and 25 operating years and has an existing budget of USD 350,000.

2.2.3 MANDATORY ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

17. In mid 2009 WREA issued the environmental compliance certificate for XK 1, but with a large number of conditions, including the requirement to prepare an Environmental Management Plan. That plan was not completed until the early 2010. Therefore, at the moment there is an EMP in place in writing and with the Vietnam-Lao Power Joint Stock Company, the project owner agreeing to implement its actions.



2.3 CHANGES TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS SINCE COMPLETION OF EIA AND ARE THESE REFLECTED IN THE EIA DOCUMENTATION

2.3.1 LOCATION OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE

18. The location of the transmission line coming from the XK1 and XX power stations was initially thought to go in a NW direction for 33km to Ban Sok, along the foot of the Bolivan Plateau some 40 km north of Attapeu Town. The actual location of the substation is at HatXan Village, 23km SW of the generating stations and around 25km E of Attapeu Town. Therefore, the assessment of this TL’s impact as defined in the EIA is not relevant for this project.

2.3.2 DAM HEIGHT

19. It is uncertain at this time what the actual dam height will be (i.e. 110m or 115m or ??) since various figures are presented in the EIA

2.4 COMPLIANCE OF EIA DOCUMENTS WITH ADB POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

2.4.1 UNDERSTANDING OF LAO PDR ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARD REQUIREMENTS

20. The EIA was prepared using Lao PDR’s 2000 environmental assessment specifications, involving outdated organizational structure and no longer operating agency. There have been two revisions since then, one 2003, 2008 and Decree 112/PM implemented in 2010. Therefore the EIA was prepared using an outdated EIA guideline.

2.4.2 OVERALL CREDIBILITY OF DOCUMENT: DOES IT ADDRESSING THE ISSUES EFFECTIVELY

21. A serious flaw with this EIA is its organization, which makes understanding of impacts, mitigative actions almost impossible. Impacts on a given biophysical system are disaggregated into several subcomponents and discussed in different sections of the 320pg EIA document and the 120 page EMP. This EIA generally addresses most of the important impacts generated by the project, but at the same time misses a number of important effects. It does not provide practical and specific mitigative actions. Quite a number of potential effects are dismissed, based on poorly supported arguments, the most striking being that simple aeration of the water discharged from the reservoir will resolve the very significant downstream water quality degradation for the first decade of its operation.

22. The other significant failing of this EIA is that it dwells on less significant issue and glosses over issues such as the loss of so much fish biomass, the radical change in the downstream flow regime and the long term water quality degradation—plus of course the impacts due the influx of 5000 workers for 5 years (no specific mention of sewage treatment, waste management, etc.). There is also little said about the removal of >6,400 ha of the Don Amphon NPA, other than that



the area represents only 3.7 % of the total area of the NPA. No specific survey was mounted or no permission given by the central government (which is a legislated requirement for any NPA)5.

23. There is no mention of health impacts as related to insect born diseases and human waste contamination of the future reservoir. This is significant since Lao PDR Decree on the Implementation of the National Policy on Health Impact Assessment (2006) requires such a specific assessment.

2.4.2.1 Identified Major Impact

24. This EIA contains discussion of both environmental and social safeguard issues

Environmental Impacts 25. The EIA authors state the following “The process of construction and operation of the XKM1 Hydropower Complex will exert the following main impacts on the physical environment of the Xekhaman River basin:

1. Submerging a considerable area of primary forest and biodiversity due to the large submergence extent of the reservoir corresponding with the NRL 230m ASL (about 149.8 km2) including 6,386 ha of the Dong Ampham NBCA, impacting and disturbing the habitat and the life of wild animal species.—additional comments pg.fro pg. 227-Local village residents along river have exploited almost of forestry resources through wildlife trade, subsistence hunting and fishing, NTFP collection. At present, The survey team of XKM1 HPP has been surveyed of wildlife and NTFPs in the reservoir area Interviews with local hunters suggested that wildlife is gone from this area as is NTFPs—found now only at elevations at or above 500m- only distribute on steep and dangerous mountains where human is difficult to approach (along Annamite montane range, Lao-Vietnam border) far away from submerged reservoir area

2. Using over 339 ha of forestland in the downstream area for construction of project facilities, establishing of camp areas, construction of operational roads, and transmission lines, etc

3. The logging, hunting of wild animals, operation of equipment on the construction sited, road construction and the living activities of thousands (up to 5000) of workers during the construction period, etc. will cause great pressure on the existing Dong Ampham nature reserve and the Phou Kasoong Nature Reserve6, which will be established in the project area.

26. These points seem to suggest that due to the degradation of the habitat by local residents, the inundation of such a large area is not of great importance. If the EIA authors had actual proof of this via biodiversity surveys and ecological analyses, these statements could be considered relevant. As is, they are merely a means of

5 We are aware that Attapeu Province has not objected to this, and in fact has given mineral exploration rights within the NPA to mining interests (searching for copper deposits 6 This does not exist according to Attapeu Prov. officials.



minimizing effects, based on stereotypical assumptions about indigenous communities.

Social Sector Impacts 27. The EIA authors grouped many environmental impacts as social effects since they impact the food resources health of the local residents. These were:

1. The filling of the reservoir [over a three year period] will make the flow in the downstream area decrease, with a great impact on the life of aquatic species and aquatic ecosystems. It will also hinder the migration of fish species to the upstream area.

2. The construction process will generate wastewater and solid wastes causing contamination of the water resources in the downstream. The process of reservoir operation will have impacts on the quality of the water in the downstream area and consequently it will decrease the fishery output and cause impacts on the life and production of population along the two sides of the Xekhaman River downstream.

3. Relocation and resettlement 220 households, 1,094 people of 5 villages: Dakbou, Souksavang, Tangkeu, Hindam, Donkhen will be made.

4. Besides 492 ha of agricultural land the villages of Dakxao, Kongna Nhay, Dakgie, Soumbun, Mixai, and Fudeng villages will be submerged.

5. The formation of the reservoir will take away a vast area around the reservoir from the elevation of + 123 m to 230 m, which is the hunting ground and forestland of villages in the upstream area adjacent to the reservoir.

6. The decrease of the flow in the downstream in the first period of filling the reservoir will cause many difficulties to the water supply for production and domestic uses such as bathing and washing and affect the fisheries in the upstream area of 15 villages with 2,579 households and 13,679 Population.

7. The release of wastes from the dam construction site, the decomposition of submerged plants and animals in the reservoir will contaminate the water, carrying pathogenic germs and making it unsafe for the people living on the riversides who use the river water for domestic water supply.

28. Very few of these impacts are thoroughly addressed in the EIA, and there are other impacts defined in other sections of the EIA, but not discussed. These are:

1. Water Qual: pg 158 very weak as this is a major long term impact

2. DO-problem due to decay of materials in reservoir for decades. Also H2S problem dismissed since “turbines will reoxygentate” the water

3. Newly filled reservoir nutrient release-and WQ degradation algal blooms due to rapid upward pulse [increases in] nutrients?

4. Contamination from blue green algae decay D/S danger for livestock and human consumption of water

5. Blockage to fish migrations and loss of logic conditions—fish species composition to change

6. Loss of >6,380ha of NPA lands.

2.4.3 TECHNICAL COMPLETENESS IN RELATION TO ISSUES

29. The EIA contains a lot of relevant information but these data are scattered throughout the 318 page main report. The discussion of issues I-VI defined above is



particularly weak yet these impacts represent major long term effects, and in the case of the NPA, a permanent loss.

2.4.4 CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED PEOPLE COMPLIES WITH ADB'S REQUIREMENTS

30. Quite a number of consultations were held but it would appear mostly with government officials. There are no meeting minutes or attendance lists attached. Key inputs from local people re impacts and satisfactory mitigation for example for loss of river fish resources is not provided.

2.4.4.1 Details of Process

31. “Early in 2006, after being notified about the project development plan, the Xanxay district established a Project Implementation Consulting Committee. The Project Implementation Consulting Committee of Xanxay district consists of The Chairman, Deputy Chairman; Chief Administrator; Chiefs of village clusters: Vangtat, Namngon, Nambou, Tatsheng, Nampa; Chiefs of villages: Dakbou, Souksavang, Tangkeu, Dakxao, Dakgie, Kongna Nhay.”

32. It would appear that these were the people consulted and referred to when information was needed. Consultations were conducted at least 4 times between August and October 2006, but at the provincial and central levels only. Topics seemed to focus on compensation of loss of land, assets and livelihoods (Chapter 7 of the EIA), instead of degradation of the environment.

2.4.4.2 Documentation Presented

33. All stakeholders (not all local community members affected) were consulted and provided with all information on environmental and social impacts during the implementation of the XKM1 HPP, but only on the day of the consultation session, including maps etc.

2.4.5 MISSING COMPONENTS, IMPACTS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED/INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS

34. The following list provides an indication of the impacts that were left unaddressed by the consultant:

7. for this project cumulative impacts are very significant since there are a number of generating stations planned for the Xekhaman River, a number of transmission lines and transfer stations, many work camps etc. all within the same major river basin ( Sekong River).

8. water quality changes due to no cutting of trees and clearing vegetation from reservoir;

9. discussion of anaerobic conditions, CH4, H2S generation ( statement that decomposition will take place only during “filling years”- left unsubstantiated

10. statement that “Water quality will change only slightly during the entire operation of reservoir except total N and phosphor is incorrect ( EIA Section 6.5) and remains unsubstantiated.



35. The authors indicate that since there is >20km of river flow between the Xanxay Turbines and the nearest existing town—the river actions will restore acceptable water quality conditions. The authors overlooked the fact that Hauoy Doum Resettlement town, for more than 2000 people is, being built within 1 km of Xanxay dam on the eastern short of the Xekhaman River. Also on pg 170 of the EIA, authors indicate that there are 15 villages (2,580 HH) along the river d/s of Xanxay dam and the discharge in the Sekong R. (about 700HH impacted).

36. The shoreline, floodplain gardening, as is common along large rivers, is defined by the EIA authors as not viable due to rise and fall of natural water through rain. The reservoir will control that..”. The rise and fall of the river is in fact what permits this farming and to the successful raising of crops.

37. There are unsubstantiated statements by consultant that 10% of annual average flow is adequate to sustain riverine life during the dry season (October to March). This is not according to WREA informal guidelines (based on the 1996 Mekong Agreement) which indicate that minimum environmental flow must not drop below average dry season flow, which for the Xekhaman is around 36% of the average annual flow at the Xanxay dam site (7.5 km downstream of Xekhaman 1)

38. “… With the above reasons, in the case the water in the Xekhaman River is turbid due to the construction of the XKM1 dam, it will be made clear before entering the Sekong River and will not affect the quality of the water in the Xekong River and will not affect the life of the people of the Xanamxay district on the sides of the Xekong River”- This quote from the EIA is not correct in that by permitting the suspended sediment to settle, therefore significantly reducing turbidity and increasing light penetration, the habitat critical to downstream fishes and aquatic communities will be lost and these communities will disappear7. Downstream impacts are far more complex than defined by the EIA consultants—the EIA authors are urged to review the MRC’s Mekong CIA study (October 2010). The changes in seasonal water level and flow changes will have a profound impact on everything downstream. Further, the problem of changing water quality and quantity is relatively minor during construction but far more significant during the filling and operation of the facility.

39. Calculations of greenhouse gas CO2 missed the critical point that the GHGs will be emitted in Laos yet most of the power produced will be used in Vietnam. Vietnam should be paying Lao.

2.4.6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

40. The EMP is a 114 page report that lists a number of impacts and the need to mitigate them but then does not define what mitigative actions need to be taken. The EMP carefully lists the different environmental Units for which there are funds set aside. Most of these are located within the Concessionaires (XKM1 PC) organization. The EMP indicates that USD 8.3 million has been set aside for

7 Seasonal changes in sediment load are also thought to provide spawning cues to some fish populations –therefore any changes in the sediment regime can affect the overall productivity of fish species that rely on sediment cues



environmental and social management plan implementation stretching in year 25 of the operating period, or around 277,000/year. Well over 5 million will likely be used for resettlement compensation.

41. XKM1PC will establish an Environment Management Office (EMO/XKM1 PC) to implement EMP of the Project, located in the Head Office of the XKM1 PC, in Attapeu province and a field office in Xanxay District. Staffs for EMO/XKM1 PC will be recruited by XKM1 PC either from within its pool of full-time managers and engineers or through a recruitment process opens to all qualified Lao and Vietnamese citizens (5 staffs). They are engineers and experts on many scientific fields such as environmental science, hydrology, water resource, ecology, creature resource, forestry, GIS, geology, chemistry, etc.) Working full-time at XKM1 PC’s head office located in work site and representative office in Vientiane.

42. The formation of several safeguards units and special actions are defined in the EIA yet none are implemented and the project is well into the construction period. These are:

A) XKM1 PC will be fully responsible for funding of establishment and operation EMO/XKM1 PC during 5 years of CP and 25 years of OP later. Total estimated budget is about US$ 350,000 (CP: US$ 200,000, OP: US$ 150,000).

Organizations to be established at the start of the project and no later than the construction period, directly under XKM1 Power Company (XKM1 PC) will be the: Environment Management Office (EMO/XKM1 PC) within XKM1-PC; responsible for preparing “periodic” monitoring reports and a number of their key programs. Resettlement Office (RO/XKM1 PC). Head Contractor (HC).

B) The GoL, has committed to establishing specialized units: Environment Management Unit (EMU/GoL) Watershed Management Unit (WMU). Resettlement Management Unit (RMU/GoL).

C) Government of Lao Environmental Management Unit (EMU/GoL) Lao PDR has committed to establishing the EMU/GoL. It will consist of 5 to 7 people, including representatives from Science, Technology and Environment Office of Attapeu Province (ASTEO) and representative of Xanxay District. The representative office of EMU/GoL will be placed next to WREA in Vientiane; the Head Office of EMU/GoL will be placed in Attapeu provincial town, a field office will be placed in Xanxay district. There will be a watershed management specialist working in the unit. The unit will be funded by GoL and equipped by XKM1 PC.

D) XKM1 PC will set aside a minimum of US$ 20,000 for publicity and community education on environment in the construction stage and the first years of the OP to be implemented by the Env.Management Unit (EMU) set up by the GoL.

E) XKM1 PC has budgeted USD 250,000 to undertake the following four surveys:

Component 1: Baseline Survey for Wild Animal Species and System Dynamics. Component 2: Monitoring of ecosystem and individual animals. Component 3: Checking the habitat and estimation of the number of wild animals, to be started in late 2009 Component 4: Analysis and Protection of Ecosystem –scheduled to start once the reservoir is filling.



F) EMO/XKM1 will use USD 50,000 to conduct wildlife management during the 3-years reservoir filling period

G) EMO/XKM1 PC. will disburse USD 154,000 for reforestation program in the reservoir and at cleared construction areas

H) Water Quality monitoring- to be completed by EMO/XKM1 will also complete a water quality and health monitoring survey for USD 1.5 million. There will be 10 stations 15 parameters, 2x/yr. (Fig 3.2 the sampling stations )

I) Independent monitoring agency—paid for by XK1: construct: 44,000, operating period 24,000 XKM1 PC will have the responsibility to prepare funding for IMA. However, this funding will be transferred to GoL for the GoL makes payment to IMA.

43. At the time of the DD audit none of these 9 committees had been implemented, thus the EMP is not being implemented.

2.5 HOW ARE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS IN THE EIA (ESP. FROM EMP) SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

2.5.1 COMMITMENTS MADE:

44. There were at least 40 major mitigation action committed to in the EIA and very few, possibly 10% have been implemented. The following eight are provided as an example.

1 Notifying on the media and to the villages along the sides of the Xekhaman River in the downstream area the construction schedule, and the process of filling the reservoir for the people to be careful in using the water in the area downstream of the dam

2 Notifying the schedule of suspension of water supply from the two water plants Fadeng and Vatthat during the construction of the reservoir

3 Arranging water wells for 15 villages downstream of the dam before commencing the construction and filling the reservoir with the rate of one well per 10 HHs.

4 Developing the program on forestation, forest care and protection with a view to further increasing forest fund, reducing pressure on Dong Ampham NBCA, reducing erosion and settlement. Most importantly, it increases plant coverage and heightens life span of the reservoir and ensures generating capacity of the plant.

5 Prohibit any nomadic farming and shifting cultivation activities with a view to avoiding/minimizing impacts of the extensive farming on the habitat diversity on high hills and sloping forests, reducing damage(s) caused by forest burning, erosion, depositing downstream.

6 Control depositing and chemical contamination running to the reservoir with a view to minimizing impacts on the quality of water in the reservoir, reducing depositing in the riverbed due to currents from the upstream.

7 Minimize impacts in the discharging channel area behind the plant with a view to preventing/minimizing disadvantageous impacts of the current in the process of plant



operation.

8 Minimize the impact of current at the discharging channel confluence with Xekhaman River, detect any erosion increase against the river bank and assess the erosion impact on the living conditions of local people living along the two riversides of Xekhaman River downstream.

45. A Major problem with the listing as shown in the EIA is that there is no indication of what the mitigative measures will be? No detail!

2.5.2 MITIGATION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

46. The Concession Agreement between Lao PDR and XKM1-PC is confidential the consultant has asked to review it. Vietnamese officials have indicated that since the concession agreement has not been signed disbursement of mitigation measure and monitoring funds have not been released.

2.6 STATUS OF COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND MONITORING REPORTS

47. WREA has reported that to date, with about 25% of the project completed, i.e., well into the construction period, no mandatory monitoring reports addressing environmental safeguards have been submitted.

2.7 INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

48. Attapeu province has marginal environmental capacity and no resources to implement a monitoring program. For that reason the government required the concessionaire to commit to (in the EIA) establishing an 5-7 person Environmental Management Unit (EMU) for this project with headquarters in Attapeu and a field office in Xanxay District. This has not been implemented.

2.7.1 EDL

49. EDL has limited resources to address mitigation and monitoring issues. For that reason, a project environmental management unit has been funded by the Concessionaire with a staff of technical specialist and monitors. This has not been established.

2.7.2 DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY (WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES)

50. DOE has an environmental Department called The Environment and Social Department (ESD), with a staff of about 5 people of which three are trained to implement and or monitor construction of hydropower facilities. ESD coordinates the project environmental matters once the concessionaire begins to implement the work. The State Enterprise Division of the MEM, has an International Power Producers Department that handles the day-to-day communication between the



concessionaire and the government. This department has no environmental capacity and uses EDL’s environment department for any safeguards work. This dilution of implementation and reporting responsibility significantly reduces ESD’s operating capacity.

2.7.3 WREA

51. WREA has all necessary technical capacity but its resources are stretched thin. They are responsible for reviewing EIA and for coordinating and enforcing the mitigative and monitoring actions on any project. There are units within WREA that deal with certain types of project e.g. with transmission line projects. It is unclear how much monitoring equipment they actually have and what budget is allocated toward compliance monitoring.

2.8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

52. While rich in information the EIA does not meet basic ADB requirements for a compliant EIA. To make this compliant the list of mitigative measures defined in this DD report, plus a careful addition of any others, the mitigation actions, an implementation schedule and reporting format and responsibility should be completed and appended to the EIA- The EMP Table 4.7 can be used as starting point and cross checked with the table included with this DD report. Table 4.7 is a good example of missing mitigative actions associated with each defined impact.

53. In other words a complete listing of the impacts, mitigative and monitoring measures organized by 3 project stages needs to be prepared.

54. The missing impacts as identified in Section 4.5 should be addressed and fully discussed, including the identification of mitigation and monitoring actions, then added to the EMP material described at the start of Sect.8.

55. To conclude, this EIA and its associated EMP in their present form do not meet minimum ADB environmental safeguard standards. The work required to provide the addendum is estimated to be 2 person months for one technical specialist and would involve at least one field trip.

56. As well the EIA and EMP documentation needs to be provided to the Concessionaire and the contractors, with instructions to read and implement all mitigative measures defined in the new addendum.

2.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTIONS

57. The concession agreement must be signed and the various monitoring units established.

58. The EMP must be revised to include all the mitigative measures defined in the EIA and then associated with actual actions, a timetable, monitoring and costs.

59. The concessionaire must commit to preparing regular safeguard monitoring reports according to a timetable and as defined in the EIA.



60. Training in design and implementation of EMPs and preparation of monitoring action plan as well as basic equipment to conduct monitoring needs to be provided to the Attapeu WREA office team as soon as possible.

2.10 REFERENCES

Vietnam Institute of Material Sciences (prof Tang). 2009. Xekhaman1 EIA and EMP document 318 and 118pgs (hard copy and pdf.) respectively. Available from WREA Hydropower Evaluation Unit

Certificate of Approval for the Xekhaman 1 Project EIA. WREA, 2010



3 XANXAY: DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS

Executive Summary 61. Xanxay is considered a large hydropower station and as such under both Lao PDR and international best practice, should have its own EIA. There is no stand along EIA for this 32 MWe power station planned for the Xekhaman River, just 8 km downstream of the Xekhaman 1 dam. All conclusions for this due diligence report had to be extracted from the meager discussion on Xanxay found in the Xekhaman EIA.

62. This is not acceptable under ADB Guidelines and therefore the project documentation in significantly non-compliant and a complete EIA and EMP is recommended.


3.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK

63. As there is no stand along Xanxay, the Xekhaman EIA is frequently referred to, as it is the only document discussing the Xanxay project. The Xanxay Hydropower Project (hereafter “the Project”) is part of the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex, located in Xanxay District, Attapue Province. The Project is also known to the local government as Xekhaman 0 Hydropower Project. The Project is being developed on Xekhaman River, approximately 10 km downstream of the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Dam Site. The Xekhaman River is a tributary of the Xekong River which in turn forms a tributary of the Mekong River.

64. It will have an installed capacity of 35.25 MW and an annual energy output of 123 million kWh. Once completed, the Project is expected to inundate approximately 1.58 km2 and hold 7.09 million m3 (unclear since in some sections it was reported the reservoir is reported to hold 7.09 billion m3 of water) of water at Normal Retention Level (NRL) of 123 m ASL. The Project has a designed discharge through the powerhouse of 397 m3/s.


65. The Project is located in Xanxay District, Attapeu Province. The Project dam site is located on the Xekhaman River, approximately 8 km downstream of the Xekahman 1 dam site and 45 km upstream of the Sekong and Xekhaman confluence. The Xekhaman River Basin is home to the Dong Amphan National Biodiversity Conservation Area (NBCA). Originated from the Annamite Mountain Range, the Xekhaman River flows in a south-westerly direction joining Xe Xou River in Xaysettha District before merging with Xekong River near Attapeu Town.



66. The government of Laos granted an investment license to the Viet-Lao Power Joint Stock Company (VLPC) of Vietnam to build the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex in Xanxay District. The terms of the license allow VLPC to also begin construction of the Xanxay Hydropower Project in 2009. It is anticipated that it would take about 4 years to build the Xanxay Hydropower Project. Under the agreement, VLPC is also given 25 years (2011 to 2036) to operate the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex which includes Xanxay Hydropower Project before handing the project over to the GOL.


67. Implementation timetable for the Xanxay Hydropower Project can be found in the EIA document of the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex. The implementation timetable for the Project can be broken down as follow:

• Preparation Year (2009): Construction of access road and work camps

• First Year (2010): Construction of river diversion dykes, discharge wall, diversion tunnel, spillway; commence the construction of powerhouse facilities, including headrace tunnel and powerhouse.

• Second Year (2011): complete the construction of spillway to the designed elevation; complete the construction of powerhouse facilities; diverting river through diversion tunnel.

• Third Year (2012): Close diversion tunnel; generate electricity using the first turbine by June 2010 and second turbine by September 2010.

68. A site visit in October 2010, with the Vietnamese concessionaire revealed that no work has been started at the Xanxay site, suggesting that the dates shown would all need to be advanced by at least one full year.

3.1.4 EA AUTHOR

69. Environmental impact assessment of the Project8 was completed in January 2009 as part of the environmental impact assessment of the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower complex. The EIA was carried out by the Institute of Material Science under Vietnamese Academy of Science and Technology. The author of the EIA can be reached at:

Institute of Materials Science under VAST Building B1, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet, Cau Giay district, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: (0084) 47564129, (0084) 47561858. Fax: (0084) 48360705. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

8 Although requiring a full EIA under Lao PDR regulations, and qualifying as a large dam under ICOLD, this project receives little attention in the Xekhaman EIA, with only a few sections devoted to it.




3.2.1 PERCENT COMPLETION BY STAGE: PRECONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION

70. No construction activity was observed at the Project dam site. However, a construction camp site has been established on the left side of the river. The Project developer is currently waiting for the Concession Agreement to be signed before commencing construction activities at the Dam site.


71. The Xakhaman EIA document does not provide separate cost estimates for Xanxay. The total investment for the Xekhaman 1/Xanxay Hydropower Project complex to be over 450 million USD. Based on estimates of other projects Xanxay may require as much as 120 million to complete. Of the overall total investment, 8.4 million USD was set aside for implementing management and mitigation measures associated with the project. Currently, it is unclear how this money has been used by the project, but in term of environmental management, it can be said that very little or no money has been spent. A discussion with the Provincial Department of Energy and Mine and the Provincial Water Resource and Environmental Office revealed that no environmental monitoring activity has been conducted by the government. Additionally, the project has not established the Environmental Management Office to implement the EMP, as promised in the EMP.


72. The EIA and EMP for the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex (which included Xanxay) were completed in October 2007. These documents were conditionally recognised by the Water Resources and Environmental Agency of the Prime Minister’s Office (WREA) on 14 January 2008. The conditions listed included instructions for many improvements to the EIA and EMP documents; an EMP, as well as the preparation and submission of monthly environmental report to WREA.

73. On 23 January 2009, a further review if the revised EIA and EMP was provided, but still with conditions that the Project Developer implement measures stated in the EMP and submit monthly environmental report to WREA.

74. Based on the review of the latest EIA and EMP, few of these requirements have been met.


75. The location of the transmission line coming from the Xanxay and Xekhaman 1 power stations was initially thought to go in the northwest direction for 33 km to Ban Sok, along the foothill of the Bolivan Plateau, approximately 65 km north of Attapeu Town. The actual location is now at Ban Hat Xan in Xaysettha District, approximately 23 km southwest of the Xanxay and Xekhaman 1 power



stations and 25 km west of Attapeu Town. Therefore, the assessment of this TL’s impact as defined in the EIA is unusable.



76. The EIA of the Xekhaman/Xanxay Hydropower Project complex lists numbers of relevant laws, regulation and policies in respect to the development of a hydropower project in Lao PDR, including:

• National Environmental Action Plan (2000)

• Environmental Protection Law (1999)

• Law on Water and Water Resources (1996)

• Forestry Law (1996)

• Land Law (1997)

• Electricity Law (1997)

77. Additionally, the EIA also highlights the following Lao PDR legal document as relevant to hydropower project development:

• Regulation on Environmental Assessment in Lao PDR (2000)

• Regulation on implementation of environmental assessment for electrical project (2001)

• Environmental policy of the power sector (2001)

• Decree on compensation and resettlement of development projects (2005)

78. However, the EIA fails to recognize the Lao PDR Environmental Management Standard for Electricity Project (2003). The standard provides screening criteria for environmental and social impact assessment required under the environmental protection law. The standard applies to all electricity projects in Lao PDR9.

79. Under the Lao PDR Environmental Management Standard for Electricity Project (2003), the Xanxay Hydropower Project, with installed capacity of 32 MW, is classified as type 3 project and falls under Section 4.4.4 which states that:

80. For all electricity projects with an installed capacity of more than two thousand (2,000) Kilowatts (2 MW)… …, the project screening team shall determine if the project has or potentially has one or more of the characteristics listed in Table 1.

9 In early 2010, Lao PDR issued a new environmental assessment decree No. 112/PM. It supersedes all previous decrees and procedures for EIA in Lao PDR



Table 1

No Characteristic 1 The project is located (either in part or as a whole) within an

environmental sensitive area 2 The project is likely to disturb an environmental sensitive area 3 The project is located upstream of sensitive area 4 The project is likely to interrupt or prevent wildlife movement 5 The project is likely to affect known endangered, venerable or rare etc

species and/or their habitat 6 The project will require the resettlement of people 7 The project will divert water from one watercourse to another 8 The project directly involves the Mekong River 9 The project will create reservoir 10 The project will involve the loss of grazing, agricultural and/or other

productive land 11 The project is expected to generated emission… 12 The project will involves the disposal of hazardous substances 13 The project may alter or disrupt fisheries and other income producing

activities 14 The project would disrupt or sever communication and transport routes 15 The project may have large influx of migrant workers 16 The project is expected to involve the loss or change in community

infrastructure, services and/or facilities 17 The project require quarrying, mining, or other resource extraction 18 The project require large amounts of land clearing and earthworks 19 The project is expected to involve the construction of roads,

maintenance tracks and high voltage transmission line 20 The project is expected to result in changes to the hydrology and

drainage of the area 21 The project is expected to involve the storage of large amount of fuels

and /or other chemicals

If the project has one or more of the characteristics listed in Table 1 a full EA is required.

81. Based on the Project’s installed capacity (35.25 MW) and characteristics (inundation of approximately 1.58 km2, resettlement of people, in-migration of workers, etc.), it is clear that this Project requires a full stand alone environmental impact assessment, along with a social impact assessment, in order to be in compliance with Lao PDR environmental safeguard requirements10. Combining the environmental impact assessment of Xanxay Hydropower Project with Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project is not compliance with Lao PDR environmental safeguard requirements, particularly when very little attention was given to the Xanxay Project in the combined EIA.

82. The EIA for the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower complex was prepared based on the Lao PDR 2000 Regulation on Environmental Assessment, which was out of dated when the EIA was conducted. Since 2000, this document has gone through several revisions including in 2003, 2008 and 2010.

10 A full EIA would also be required under the 2010 EIA Decree (PM 112)



3.4.1.1 Identified Environmental Impacts and Mitigative Actions

83. The Project proponents have prepared an EIA and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex; no separate mitigative or monitoring measures for Xanxay. A review of the EIA and EMP reveals that several studies were carried out to assist in environmental impact identification, but despite that the EIA and EMP documents do not provide adequate identification of environmental impact and mitigation measures. For example, the timing, extent and duration of the impacts identified were not included. Additionally, the documents provide unclear separation of construction and operation impacts. Some keys issues with impacts identification are presented below:

Water Quality 84. The author indicates that the water quality impact associated with the Xanxay Project will be minimal, and that one of the two roles the Xanxay project plays in the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex is to mitigate “downstream impacts of the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project”. The author believes that poor water quality released from the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project will be restored to its natural form in the Xanxay Reservoir. Given the size of the reservoir and current biomass cover, impact on water quality is likely to be much worse than predicted by the EIA.

85. Furthermore, limited construction impacts was identified which is an oversight since potential construction impacts on water quality can be significant and can potentially include elevated level of suspended sediment concentration, contamination of hydrocarbon, increase pathogen level due to wastewater discharge from construction camp sites where up to 3000 people will be housed. The EIA also does not mention a water quality monitoring program.

Water Resource Use 86. The proposed resettlement area for 2000 people (stemming from the XK-1 relocations is directly downstream of the Xanxay Dam, and impacts on water resource will likely be significant. There are no data that predict that water quality coming from the Xekhaman reservoir into the Xamxay will not be unuseable for human consumption. The EIA also states that the Xa Xou River, located downstream of the Xanxay Dam Site, will be able to further dilute water quality of the Xekhaman River. While this may very well be the case, the EIA does not provide any data (i.e. flow volume, baseline water quality of the Xe Xou River) to justify its dilution capacity.

Biodiversity 87. Fisheries – There is limited mention of impacts of the dam on fish and fisheries. The impact on the fishery is downplayed by the author when they say that the livelihood of over 2,700 downstream households is fishing and that most riverine fishes will disappear.

88. Terrestrial biodiversity – a lengthy baseline condition description was presented in the EIA, but a limited potential impacts were identified (mostly related to Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project not Xanxay). Discussion of Impacts on land use type and forest type to be inundated by the Xanxay Reservoir is missing. Majority of



the impacts are incorrectly presented as positive effects. For example, the author believes that building of reservoir will improve the regional climate and therefore, “groundwater level shall be rose with higher rate, humidity of water and the air will also be improved, those will be positive impacts on flora- diversity.” !

Physical Cultural Resources (PCR) 89. The EIA provides inadequate assessment of PCR. However, a recommendation that additional PCR baseline study should be carried out was stated in the EIA. To this day, the proposed PCR baseline study has not been carried out, and yet construction of the Project has been underway since 2008.

Construction Camp 90. The EIA is dismissive of impacts associated with the operation of construction camp. In the EIA, the author indicates that due to the location of the camp site (about 500 m from the Xekhaman River), the camp “will not affect the quality of the Xekhaman River in the downstream.” In reality, impacts on water quality will likely occur, particularly if there is no waste and wastewater management in place. The EIA mentions the HCCEMMP several times, but this plan has not been prepared. Yet, the construction camp has been established and operated for over a year now.


91. The overall quality and credibility of EIA and its EMP is poor. Environmental impacts, as well as, mitigation measures were poorly discussed with no clear differentiation of construction and operation impacts. Majority of the discussion were related to the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project. Only limited information on the Xanxay Hydropower Project is presented in the EIA and EMP. The EIA and EMP do not provide practical management and mitigation measures.


92. As discussed above, the EIA and EMP are poorly written with no clear differentiation of construction and operation impacts. Additionally, mitigation measures provided are not practical. Some important impacts and corresponding mitigation measures are missing from the documents. Few impacts related to the Xanxay Project are discussed.


93. Several consultations were carried out according to the EIA. These consultations focused exclusively in the Xekhaman project and did not include Xanxay. Therefore, consultations on Xanxay did not take place. The consultations conducted mostly involved government officials and not the project impacted people. No meeting minute of the consultation was provided.




94. According to the EIA, three levels of consultation were carried out. The first level was at the “Basic Level” which include consultation with district, villages and people who live in the XKM River Basin. At the “Basic Level”, four consultations were carried out. It appears that these consultations were carried out to collect baseline information of the impacted areas. Information collected and presented were mostly related to social impacts and resettlement. The second level was at the provincial level. At least 4 consultations were carried out at the provincial level. These consultations exclusively involved provincial government. The third level was the central level. At least 6 consultations were carried out. The first few consultations were conducted to collect legal information and baseline data. The last few consultations were conducted to present the findings of the EIA.

95. During these consultations, it appears that the project impacted people were not included in the consultation process. The project impacted people were represented by head and deputy head of the People’s Committee of Xanxay and Xaysettha Districts. Consultations on the findings of the EIA were only conducted at provincial and central level. However, at the provincial levels, representative of the impacted villages and districts were invited to participate in the consultation, including village chief and district governors. It’s unclear whether any women or minority groups participated in these consultations, or whether these sessions were only one-way briefings, not two-way consultations.


96. No consultation was conducted regarding Xanxay, only Xekhaman 1.

3.4.5 MISSING COMPONENTS AND IMPACTS

97. Xanxay Hydropower Project is marginalized in both the EIA and EMP. Nearly all the discussion is related to the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project. Many potential impact associated the Xanxay Project were not discussed. Any impacts discussed by author were considered as insignificant or positive impacts. For example, the author indicates that the Xanxay Reservoir will help improve the poor water quality released from the Xekhaman 1 Reservoir, giving a justification that there will be major aeration within the Xanxay Reservoir. Further, water quality will be restored downstream of the Xanxay Dam due to the distance between the dam and the nearest existing town, forgetting the fact that a planned resettlement is located just downstream of the dam site. The GOL laws and regulations require that the Xanxay Hydropower Project have a standalone EIA and EMP prepared.

98. Cumulative impacts are not discussed in the EIA. Other known development projects include several bauxite mining projects upstream of the Xe Nam Noy River which drain into the Xekong River.

99. The proposed environmental release of 10% of average annual flows was discussed in the EIA. However, this percentage was based a general number taken from the literature. The EIA does not discuss whether this will be adequate to sustain downstream environment life and water use, particularly during the driest



months. A minimum dry season flow (approximately 36% at the Xanxay Dam site) should be considered for this project to ensure sustainable downstream environmental life and water use.

100. Impacts associated with spoil disposal and borrow areas are missing from the EIA and EMP. Given that the Project located in steep terrain, impacts can be significant and can include sedimentation and erosion.


101. The Environmental Management Plan of the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex identifies many environmental impacts that need management and mitigation. The EMP also lists a number of new organizations that will be responsible for implementing the EMP, including Xekhaman 1 Power Company (XKM 1 PC) Environmental Management Office (EMO) and the GOL Environmental Management Unit (EMU). A budget of approximately 8.3 million USD has been set aside for the management of environmental and social impacts associated with the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex over the duration of 25 years.

102. In addition to the XKM1 PC EMO and the GOL EMU, the EMP also identifies the Head Contractor (HC) as being responsible for implementing measures for preventing environmental and social impacts during the construction period. The HC will be responsible for preparing and submitting environmental monitoring report to the EMO and EMU. Additionally, the HC will prepare and submit HCCEMMP to WREA for approval. The EMP identifies the GOL EMU as to have 5 to 7 staff consisting of representative from Department of Environment (WREA), Department of Electricity (MEM), Attapeu PSTEO, and Xanxay District. The main function of the EMU will be to examine and approve environmental component of the EMP.

103. The XKM1 PC EMO will be responsible for implementing/monitoring environmental objectives of the XKM1 PC, including implementing the EMP and preparing periodic monitoring report. A total budget of 350,000 USD has been proposed for the establishment and operation of the EMO during the construction and operation phases.

104. Chapter 3 of the EMP is titled “Mitigation measures and environmental protection.” This chapter lists 39 mitigation and environmental protection measures (MEPM). Each MEPM consists of objective of the MEPM, activities to be carried out, implementation period, responsible parties, and budget to implement the MEPM. None of this discussion mentions Xanxay.


3.5.1 MITIGATION AND MONITORING COMMITMENTS MADE AND ACTIONS TAKEN

105. There are a total of 39 Mitigation and Environmental Protection Measures (MEPM) listed in the EMP. These measures represent the concessionaire’s commitments to protect and improve environmental performance. In addition to the



39 MEPMs listed in the EMP, the Project developer also made commitments to conduct further studies relating to “bio-resources patterns and wild animals.” In all, a total of 10 additional studies were promised, including:

• Study of dumping sites;

• Impact assessment of stone, and gravel extraction;

• Studies on river bio-resources patterns;

• Basic survey (BS) and studies on wild animals, unique species;

• Basic survey on physical cultural resources;

• Basic survey on fish populations in the Xekhaman River Basin;

• Health/socio-economic survey;

• Water quality survey;

• Basic geomorphologic survey;

• Compilation of hydrological data;

106. It is unclear whether any of these additional studies have been conducted since no report relating to these studies has been found. Further there is no indication of how many of these measures are related to Xanxay and how many to both projects.


107. The project developer and the Attapeu PWREO reported that quarterly progress reports have been prepared and submitted to PWREO, WREA, and MEM. The quarterly progress reports contain small sections of environmental and social management activities. To date, auditors have not be provide copies of any monitoring reports


3.7.1 PROVINCE

108. The Attapeu PWREO are responsible for environmental and social compliance of a development project located in the province. There are approximately 20 people working in Attapue PWREO. Of these, 6 are employed in the environmental unit which is responsible for implementing environmental monitoring program. A visit to the Attapeu PWREO on 12 October 2010 revealed that the WREA environmental unit has very limited environmental capacity to effectively implement its duties and responsibilities. It has no monitoring equipment, vehicle and budget to carry out an environmental monitoring program. As a consequent, an environmental management unit was proposed in the Xekhaman 1 Project EMP. This unit was proposed to be funded as part of the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project budget. However, this unit has not been established. Consequently, environmental monitoring of the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project complex has not been carried out by the government.



109. Department of Environment within EDL handles environmental and social aspects of hydropower projects owned by EDL. In 2007, a capacity assessment of EDL DOE was carried out and found that EDL DOE lacked human resource, technical capabilities, equipments, and financial resources to effectively carry out its roles and responsibilities. Since the assessment, more personnel were added to the EDL DOE. However, these staff were either transferred from other non-environmental department within EDL or newly graduated with no environmental background and/or experience. Therefore, a project environmental management office was proposed. This unit was proposed to be funded by the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project. Currently, this unit has not been established.

3.7.2 DOE

110. The Department of Electricity has an Environment and Social Division that oversees environmental and social aspect of the hydropower projects. The Division employs approximately 5 persons. Of the total people employed, about three people has technical capability to review and monitor environmental and social aspect of the hydropower project. Additionally, the English skills of these staff are minimal for them to adequately review various documents of hydropower projects.

3.7.3 CENTRAL WREA

111. The Water Resource and Environmental Agency has two departments (one is referred to as unit) handling environmental and social aspect of a development project. The first is the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Unit. This unit is responsible for reviewing projects’ safeguard documents. The unit also provides recommendation to WREA on whether environmental certification should be given to a development project. The second unit is the Department of Environmental which is responsible for monitoring environmental and social compliance of a development project. There are numbers of people working for both units. However, majority of these people are newly graduated with no experience. With the number of large and complex projects growing, the capacity of WREA to review and monitor these projects is diminishing.


112. The limited environmental documentation provided on the Xanxay project, under the assumption that it is merely an extension of the Xekhaman 1 project is environmentally non-complaint. As such this project does not comply with ADB Guidelines.

113. While the EIA and EMP provide a great quantity of information, very little is relevant to the Xanxay Hydropower Project. To make the EIA and EMP compliant with the Lao PDR and ADB requirements, a standalone EIA and EMP must be prepared. Impact assessment and corresponding mitigation and management measures must be relevant to the Xanxay Project. Estimation of the area of each type of land use to be inundated by the project must be presented. Water quality impact assessment must be carried out in anticipation of potential impact associated with the construction and operation of the Project. Other missing impacts, including



cumulative impact assessment and impacts associated with spoil disposal and extraction, need to be discussed.

114. Using the existing EIA and EMP and applying international best practice, there is a need to construct a mitigation and monitoring matrix table, listing potential project impacts and corresponding mitigation and management measures, an implementation time schedule, as well as the identification of the parties responsible for implementing corrective actions.

3.9 REFERENCES

Vietnam Institute of Material Sciences. 2009. Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project Environmental Impact Assessment (318 pages). Available from WREA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Unit.

Vietnam Institute of Material Sciences. 2009. Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project Environmental Management Plan (118 pages). Available from WREA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Unit.

WREA. 2010. Certificate of Approval for the Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project EIA. Water Resource and Environmental Agency. Vientiane. Laos.



4 XEKHAMAN 4: DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS

Executive Summary Xekhaman 4 is a 74 MWe hydropower project proposed for the headwater area of the Xekhaman River in Dak Chung District of Sekong province. This project involves the construction of two dams headrace and pentstock over 5 km long, with a powerhouse located 600m below the reservoir. This work will require between 3000-4000 workers and a construction village for about 4 years. Given the terrain nearly all construction materials will need to be brought in –mostly from Vietnam.

The IEE authors warn that this project will impact virtually pristine tropical broadleaf evergreen jungle containing at least 28 endangered wildlife species etc. The authors go on to say that there is a strong likelihood that slope destabilization is likely and slope slippages into the reservoir will occur.

However, no specific details of any of this is presented in the report, e.g. no discussion of where in the future reservoir the slippages might occur or what species are likely to be impacted and how significant is this area in relation to areas all around it—addressing the concept of ecological redundancy.

There is no EMP and the ToR for the EIA is purely a generic document and does not comply with Lao PDR standards.

Overall the IEE does not comply with ADB guidelines and needs to be revised, with a credible consultation program and field survey (as there are no secondary data for this area) and an EMP. It would be simpler to prepare a good ToR as the EIA is clearly needed, given the environmental sensitivity of the site



115. The Xekhaman 4 project consists of a main 61m high dam 231 meters long concrete structure, and a second 48m high saddle dam forming a reservoir almost 3 km2 in size( 30,000 ha). The facility will operate through the use of a 7.44 km long headrace funneling water into a penstock that will drop the water almost 600m onto two turbines located at elevation 372m msl.

116. The area to be flooded will be mostly pristine/undisturbed sub-tropical low mountain close-canopy ever green broad-leaf forest; in other words undisturbed broadleaf evergreen tropical jungle in the headwaters of the Xekhaman River.

117. The IEE authors point out the following “advantages’ of sighting Xekhaman 4 in such a remote location:

• This is a remote and isolated area, with a low population density (8 - 9 inhabitants/km2.

• There are no households and inhabitants in the project area.

• Thus, at the design normal retention level no village will be submerged by the reservoir, no resettlement of the population will be required.



• In the reservoir area and surroundings, there are no industrial facilities, no rigid engineering structures, and no cultural object or historical relics.

• The submerged area will not be large, most of which are forest area and submerged agricultural area will be marginal.

• The project receives the support from the community and the local authorities, as it will bring about socio-economic benefits [this appears to be the consultant’s opinion].

118. This project will require a large workforce numbering between 3000-5000 workers from 4-5 years.


119. This project is located in Dakchung District of NE Sekong Province a 120km from Sekong and a seasonal road11. The reservoir, dam and powerhouse all are within a 5 km of the Vietnam border and about 10 km from the HCM national highway, but over rugged mountain terraine. The reservoir requiring two dams will cover a deep valley and over 30,000 ha or undisturbed tropical forest in the headwaters of the Xekhaman River. The project will take 4-5 years to complete, involve a large road building component as well as a 32 km transmission line linking Xekhaman 4 to Xekhaman 2 and 1 ( Xekhaman 3, another proposed plant, will provide power directly to Vietnam). The total length of the TL to the Hatxan substation will be around 140 km.


120. An EIA has yet to be completed, and no other documentation has been signed between the two governments. Given that construction will take 4-5 years and the completion of an EIA and approvals at least one year. No work is expected until sometime in 2012.

4.1.4 PROJECT PROPONENT AND EA AUTHOR(S)

Proponent/Concessionaire:

VIET - LAO POWER JOINT-STOCK COMPANY House No 10, Thanh Xuan District, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel/Fax: (00844) 8548627. General Director: Eng. Nguyen Thang Long. IEE Authors: INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE - VIETNAMES ACADEMY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY No 18 - Hoang Quoc Viet Street, Cau Giay District, Hanoi Capital, Vietnam. Tel: +84 437564129, (00844)37561858. Fax: (00844)38360705. E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected]

11 In October 2010, using a large 4x4 vehicle, the project DD team tried to reach the site but was turned back by a meter deep mud whole stretching across the road at around km 65. Only large construction vehicles and high clearance vehicles could pass this site.



Editor in Chief: Assoc, Prof, Dr. Nguyen Xuan Tang



121. No work other than a pre-feasibility study and IEE have been completed for this project


122. Unknown, but obviously some funds to complete the pre feasibility and IEE studies


123. None obtained to date (Nov. 2010)


124. The location and length of the TL brining power from this generating station to the substation has changed. This is not reflected in the EA documentation..



125. IEE was prepared using far outdated Lao PDR legislation, e.g., 2000 EIA guidelines (there have been at least 3 revisions and new decrees since then).

126. This IEE includes an EIA ToR as well as EMP ToR. Both sections were weak in that they did not highlight the impacts identified in the IEE document in a clear and sequential manner. It read like a shopping list, not an organized set of tasks/actions. Not a compliant EIA ToR.


127. The IEE contained only general information obtained from secondary sources. The authors reported that 34 mammal species usually distributed in the elevation belt from 500 m to >1.000 m and the 26 would be displaced by the reservoir. Which ones these are was not identified.

128. The authors went on to say that the forest ecosystem within the Xekhaman 4 hydropower project impacted zone is characterized by a rich and diverse vegetation cover, with high canopy coverage, small diurnal and seasonal variation of



temperature, high humidity, and marginal human impacts. Therefore, the diversity of mammal, bird, and reptilian and amphibian species is high. In this area there are also many rare, threatened and endangered species for Laos as well as the South East Asian region. Therefore, the conservation of the rare and precious species in particular and the foreign ecosystem in the Annamite Range in general must be given priority in consideration.

129. The potential losses of such irreplaceable ecology must be preceded by a full ecological and biodiversity survey, identifying what will be lost and if there is ample replication of the ecosystem lost in nearby watersheds, able to compensate for this loss.

130. The consultant listed the following project “disadvantages” or impacts:

• The supply of local construction materials such as stone, sand gravel, clay, etc. is very limited as due to the high, rugged and strongly dissected topography affecting the quarry development.

• The technical infrastructure is poor, the rugged high mountain terrain cause difficulties for the mobilizing workers and transporting construction materials from other areas.

• The number of people at the working age is few and the people [educational] level and technical skills related to modern dam construction are minimal. Therefore it is difficult to mobilize the local workers to participate in the construction and operation of the plant.

• The economy of the area is still at a low level, therefore the supply of foodstuffs and service for the workers and technical staff of the project will be difficult.

• The rainy season lasting over 9 months /year is a disadvantage in the construction of the project.

131. The IEE identified the following construction related impacts:

• Earth and rock wastes causing turbidity of the water.

• Oil and grease, wiping cloth, etc disposed of during the operation process of construction equipment and machinery.

• Uncontrolled domestic wastes discharged into the water, and flowing with the water down the river.

Domestic wastewater

• The number of workers working permanently at the site throughout the construction stage is estimated to be about 4,000 people. According to the norm, the rate of domestic wastewater is 100 l/capita/day. Thus, the total amount of domestic liquid wastewater is 400 m3/day. The amounts and concentration of pollutants in the domestic wastewater are about 2.0 tons/day. Solid domestic waste consists mainly of organic matter (Table 6.5) with the amounts calculated based on the average rate of 0.5 kg/capita/day as about 1.5 tons /day.

Access-via new roads--related Impacts

• Illegal exploitation, transportation and trade of timber and wild animals by the local people, drivers, workers accompanying and handling the materials and equipment;



• Increase of traffic accidents for people, domestic and wild animals;

Geological and hydrology related impacts during Operation

• Local increase of the static load, which may promote the weathering process, developing the role of the pre-existing tectonic faults in the area, creating the risk of leakage.

• The dynamic processes of the shoreline and the reworking of the reservoir banks for creating a new balance will cause the phenomenon of bank failure. For the shoreline sections with thick cover layer landslides may be triggered, causing the change of the topography of the area, increasing the water surface area, decreasing the water volume, increasing the possibility of reservoir sedimentation.

• There will appear secondary engineering geo-dynamic process due to the change of the tectonic regime, causing of induced earthquake due to the volume of water retained in one location above 900m msl. The wave action will increase the reservoir bank erosion and the mass movement from the unconsolidated weathered crust on the mountain slope around the reservoir, increasing the amount of sediments accumulated in the reservoir.

132. These impacts suggest that the natural environment will be significantly affected beyond the reservoir high water line, extending some distances up mountain slopes due to destabilization of toes of mountain slope leading to land slippages into the reservoir.


133. This document is not an IEE, rather a site description with indicators of potential problem areas. The authors describe existing conditions well for most components of the environment. It is difficult to establish what is actually relevant for the project area and what is more general for Mekong region and Sekong River Basin. The objective defined at the start of this IEE is “The IEE will determine the scope of the EIA. This will include the scope and plan for conducting studies to meet the requirements of an SIA.”

134. This is not the objective of the IEE using ADB standards. ADB’s guidelines indicate that the IEE is essentially an impact assessment conducted at a less comprehensive scale since the project under study is considered to have well understood and preventable or mitigatable effects. If during the IEE investigation unusual or other potential impacts are identified and may have broader future effects, a full EIA can be recommended. The Xekhaman 4 IEE is in a sense a scoping report or Terms of Reference for an EIA; unfortunately in the wrong format.

135. As with the EIAs, for Sekong 3A and 3B, this document is a repeat of much of the natural environmental information for the region, not the project areas and as such it is only of general interest and use. In fact the information as presented could lead to costly special technical studies such as the project area ecological and biodiversity survey.

136. The IEE refers to survey data but no specific project surveys were conducted. Rather, these data are taken from past regional and country-wide



surveys. For fisheries—the IEE focuses on the Sekong River and the Mekong. There is almost no mention of the Xekhaman River!


137. This is not an IEE but rather an elaborate EIA ToR, based on Lao PDR outdated 2000 regulations. This must be updated to meet 2010 Decree requirements


138. No consultation was undertaken as part of this IEE as is was being completed according to Vietnamese guidelines, which do not call for consultation at the IEE level.


139. No details provided and little required for IEE


140. The IEE has an extensive Geology and Mineral Resources Sections pgs. 25-36, page 36-38 on mineral resources etc. and 3-6 pages of taxonomy.


141. The following analyses were missing from the IEE and considered significant omissions:

1. cumulative effects analysis in relation to other projects;

2. Ecological and biodiversity survey of the area to be flooded and further affected by the reservoir.

142. The following activities with a large range of impacts are briefly mentioned but no addressed in the IEE, as would be the requirement:

1. the transmission line is a new 100km long 220KV line 2. Access roads and very rugged conditions—high risk of erosion and

possible landslides—slope destabilization issue? 3. Xekhaman River mining for aggregate materials to the tune of millions of

m3. ( there is mention of this need but not in terms of impact on the river)

143. Further, the data presented are clearly lists and repeats from elsewhere. For example there are many pages of taxonomic information provided for ecological zones from sea level 500m, when none of the reservoir area is below 900m (the powerhouse is at elevation 372m). These sorts of errors occur throughout the “IEE Report”, making it highly unreliable.




144. ToR for the EMP is also presented (pg109). It is vague and difficult to use document. Much of the information is a generic description. The authors indicate that the EMP is a ‘living document’. This is not correct in that the EMP is a costed set of actions based on the completed EIA/IEE, then integrated into the contract documents and cannot be changed without significant approvals and revisions.


145. This IEE is based on a pre-feasibility study and as such no contract documents or concession agreements have been prepared. Only an MOU has been signed.


146. Not applicable at this time

147. institutional capacity to address ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION and monitoring requirements

148. The province has informed us that a project committee will be formed and will be responsible for implementing all mitigative (and monitoring) actions12. Mitigative and monitoring actions are to be delivered by the Attapeu Provincial WREA, working with the MEM and local EDL staff. Coordination is to be set up with the District and Village representatives. Attapeu Province’s WREA has six technicians who have no monitoring equipment of any sort and no transportation means to get to the sites or on the river. Based on interviews, they seem to have little if any experience with designing and implementing a monitoring program. It will be difficult for them to use the EIA and its EMMP, once it is prepared. Attapeau WREA has not seen the Xekhaman 4 site.

4.6.1 OTHER PROVINCIAL AGENCIES

4.6.1.1 EDL

149. The Attapeu EDL has no environmental capability and seems to allocate all this responsibility to WREA.

4.6.1.2 DOE

150. The Attapeu Department of Electricity has no environmental capability.

12 The EIA contains no specific monitoring tasks



4.6.1.3 WREA

151. WREA has a dedicated staff, but lacking in all monitoring equipment and technical capacity to take an EIA and create a mitigation and monitoring action plan. The Director of the Department seems knowledgeable but likely does not delegate work to his team, and therefore is not able to lead the department effectively.

4.6.1.4 Central Government

152. Based on discussions with the provincial authorities it is clear that consultation and distribution of information between the central and provincial authorities is marginal at best. For example, they do not have a Lao language version of the IEE and no copies it at all for that matter (copies provided by our audit team).

153. Communication between the central government WREA and Attapeu seems to be intermittent.


154. The IEE contains less than a single page of conclusions; insufficient for a project impacting primary upland tropical jungle and likely eliminating >35,000 ha of it. Despite the fact that this IEE recommends that an EIA be conducted, this section falls far short of providing conclusions. Therefore, this IEE is not in compliance with ADB SPS 2009 Guidelines.

4.8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION

155. This IEE does not comply with ADB guidelines, Lao PDR specifications for IEE and Vietnam’s EIA/IEE guidelines. The ToR for the EIA is incomplete.

156. A revision to the IEE is recommended, adding more specific information and directly addressing the key impacts of habitat destruction in the headwater areas of the Xekhaman River, as well as water quality and other issues. A lot of the generic taxonomic data should be removed and details of the ecological baseline future reservoir impact area described. Details on any field surveys and the mandatory consultation must also be included in the IEE. This needs to be accompanied by a complete EMP as well as a ToR for the EIA.

4.9 REFERENCES

Vietnam Institute of Material Sciences 2009. Initial Environmental Examination for Xekhaman 4 Hydropower Project. MS Word Draft Copy. 119pg. Available from WREA or Songda Corporation.



5 SEKONG 3A (UPPER): DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS

Executive Summary Sekong 3A is a 150MWe hydroelectric power project for which a dam is to be built across the Sekong River more or less at Sekong Town. The project will involve construction of an earth/rock concrete dam stretching 340m across the river and built to a height of more the 20m or to the 158m elevation above msl. The reservoir will inundate more than 21km2 of mostly partially cut over forest and agricultural land as well as all traditional receeding water agricultural plots along the river bank. It will generate an average of 410 million KWh/yr.

The work will require up to 5000 workers, mostly Vietnamese, to live and work on site for from 3-4 years. This is equal to 45-55 % of the present population of the capital Sekong (8,700 people in 2008). According to the most recent estimates, the project construction may begin in late 2011 and plant commissioning will be sometime in 2014.

Associated with this project will be a major transmission line connecting Sekong 3A to 3B and then for another 70+ km to the Ban Hatxan substation where the power will be feed mostly to Vietnam (>80%).

As required by Lao PDR regulations an EIA was prepared by a Vietnamese consultant. This 234 page document, while providing a wealth of geological, soils, meteorological and taxonomic data on plants and animals of the region, it falls far short of a compliant EIA. There is no EMP; there is no record of any credible consultation having taken place. Given that this one of 5 projects for the Sekong River, a rigorous cumulative impact analysis is required, but was not undertaken. The EIA is not being reviewed by the Lao PDR WREA, therefore there is no Environmental Certificate, required to allow the work to proceed.

The organization of the document makes it extremely difficult to follow and extract mitigative and monitoring actions (few if any described beyond generic terms). To make this EIA marginally compliant a complete consultation process at the village and district level needs to be designed and fully implemented. Information obtained from these sessions needs to be recorded and attached to the EIA and integrated into an EMP.

Secondly a cumulative impact analysis needs to be undertaken, including discussion with Cambodian officials regarding the downstream effects of the placement of this dam in relation to the other proposed for the Sekong River.

Thirdly a thorough health impact analysis needs to be prepared, addressing water born diseases associated with pollution from human waste, as well as insect-born diseases associated with tropical reservoirs.

Finally, a comprehensive EMP, including working descriptions of mitigative measures, timing, locations and responsibility, must be prepared. This is best achieved by first searching through the EIA document and listing all mitigative and monitoring measures proposed, and then building the EMP using this information as a base.

In its present form, the EIA is significantly non-compliant with ADB guidelines.





157. Sekong 3A (or Upper) is one of at least 5 power dams being proposed for the Sekong River, starting upstream in Saravan Province, south into Champasak Province; in other words a system of cascade power dams. For the most part all basins are in dense jungle, in the upper watershed containing large tracts of primary tropical forest. These dams range size from 100 to 400 MWe, with large surface areas and designed with large dead storage areas. They are expected to be operational by 2020.

158. The Sekong 3A project also includes a 220KV transmission line running from Sekong 3A to 3B for 40 km and another 70km to the Hatxan substation east of Attapeu.

159. We are aware that Sekong 3A and B have partially completed environmental documentation, no known EMPs and no EIA certificate13 .

160. The Project MOU was signed in 2008, and construction was scheduled to start in 2009. The MOU expired in 2010 and there is a controversy over the extension and disagreement between the province and the central government.

161. Given that no work other than core drilling to determine rock conditions is ongoing (Vietnamese drilling team living at the dam site), the estimated construction start date will more likely be 2011 and will last for four years into 2015. The operating period will likely begin in 2016. All basic earthworks materials will be obtained from within the region.

162. The MOU between the two governments stated that the BOT period would be 30 years, namely that the facility would be returned to Lao PDR after 30 years14. The estimated cost of this project in 2007 USD was $ 130 million.


163. Sekong 3 is a 105MWe facility with a reservoir NRL at 158m above sea level. The reservoir is expected to cover a 21km2 area with a gross capacity of 187 million m3 of water, generating 410 million KWh/yr of electricity.

164. The project calls for the inundation of >20km2 of tropical forest which has been partially cut over. A construction work force of up to 5000 people (some with additional family members) will be on site for 3-4 years. This project also includes a >70 km transmission line, running between Sekong 3A to 3B and then on to the

13 The environmental certificate is a mandatory approval before construction can begin. 14 It is important to bear in mind that the operating life of such facilities is around 30 years, after which major repairs and retrofitting is needed. Therefore once returned to Lao PDR, the facility will be either at the end of its lifecycle or with vastly reduced capacity due to filling of the reservoir and powerhouse/turbine degradation.



Hatxan substation located around 35 km to the SE of Sekong 3B15. A 3-4km long 7m wide access road from Sekong Town to the work site will be built on the right side16 of the river. The left side already has a road connection to NH 16 now under major rehabilitation, and running 120 km to the border with Vietnam (past the Xekaman 4 power project).


165. The EIA indicted a construction start in 2009. Delays with all aspects of the work, including an expired MOU, and the FS not being fully completed means that work will likely not begin until late 2011. The EAI certificate is still pending, and there may likely be a large number of conditions imposed by WREA.

166. The construction period will be a minimum of three years and likely four.

5.1.4 EA PROPONENT AND AUTHOR(S)

Name of the Agency: Institute of Materials Science under VAST

Address: Building B1, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet, Cau Giay district, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Tel: (0084) 47564129, (0084) 47561858. Fax: (0084) 48360705.

E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

5.1.4.1 The Investor/Concessionaire

Viet-Loa Power Joint Stock Company (VLCP)



167. No work has started on this project, other than the ongoing geological surveys at the future dam site as well as the completion of a >230 page draft EIA (minus an EMP).


168. Total amount disbursed is unknown, but EIA and FS study are almost complete and geological work is ongoing at the site; so some funds have been disbursed (approx. 3%).

15 Unless both plants are commissioned at the same time-the logistics of constructing this major 220kv transmission line will be difficult. It alone will require a Lao PDR EIA 16 In power engineering right and left side designation are always made looking downstream.




169. The EIA is being reviewed by WREA. NO EMP was submitted with the EIA. No certificate has been issued and, technically, no work beyond that needed for the FS and EIA should be taking place.


170. The new location of the substation at Hatxan (actually due to a mapping error by Lao PDR , identified by the consultant), has resulted in an additional 70 km of new transmission line being required to link Sekong 3A and B to the substation. This correction has not been made in the EIA documentation.

171. Under Lao PDR standards and new 70km long TL, which is greater than 50 km and carries ≥ 230 KVa, a full EIA will be required.



172. The EIA was prepared using Lao PDR’s 2000 environmental assessment specifications, involving an outdated organizational structure and no longer operating agency. There have been two revisions since then, one in 2003 then 2008 and Decree 112/PM implemented in 2010. Therefore the EIA was prepared using an outdated EIA guideline. As well, the Min. of Energy and Mines assembled an EIA process for power projects in 2003. None of these more recent regulatory guidelines were used! The EIA authors failed to identify the latest specifications and guidelines to apply to this EIA and did not use Lao PDR norms and standards, but instead applied Vietnamese standards.


173. The EIA correctly identified water quality degradation during both the construction and operating period as one of the most serious impacts, but promptly indicated that the degradation would not only dissipate during the first few km downstream of the dam but would not last more than a short period and that re-aeration of the water as it rushed out of the spillway would eliminate nearly all of the water quality issues. No large tropical hydroelectric project has experienced this type of recovery, especially when the reservoir areas have not been cleared of vegetation.

174. The water quality will remain degraded and likely unfit for human and animal consumption for a decade or more. There are plants in this region of Laos and in the inundation zone which upon decay release toxins making the water unfit for human and animal consumption. Examples are euphurbiacea such Croton tiglim, some species of Entada, Derris (from which rotenone is derived) and Milletia, etc. will severely impact living organisms. The EIA authors indicate that these plants will



need to be cleared out of the reservoir area; but provide no steps for dealing with such a complex action.

175. Also, water quality impacts will be great, e.g. ammonia levels in water will be 0.1-0.5 mg/L of water. CH4 will also be released as the vegetation and humus layer on the forest floor flooded by the new reservoir decays. H2S gas will also be produced. There is also the danger of cyanobacteria or blue-green algae blooms.

176. Substandard construction camp and worksite good housekeeping was also listed as an important impact.

177. Loss of fish resources, elimination of fish migrations and the transformation of a lotic ecological system into a lake system, was insufficiently discussed and no mitigative actions identified. There are massive biodiversity effects that were hinted at but not examined nor mitigated. Also, 20% of the fish resources to be lost are endemic to the Sekong, followed by statements that --this was not a big deal, and that establishment of aquaculture operations will be much better!

178. Other impacts identified were construction period pollution from waste, erosion, dust, fuel spill and inadequate waste disposal. More detailed discussion of the impact of a temporary workforce of up to 3,000-5,000 people, living in the area for up to 4 years, was not completed.

179. Flooding of parts of Sekong Town was not addressed beyond an indication that some flooding would occur?

180. Land use practices on the basin to be dammed result in erosion of 5tons/ha/yr, or 200 tons/ha/yr or 13.4 million tons/yr for the entire reservoir area, much of it ending up in the reservoir. Need to take action was specified with some mitigative actions identified.

181. Another major impact will be the loss of shoreline gardens for all riverside residents.


182. This EIA is 234 pages long and of that text, the first 80-90 pages deal with engineering details and another 20 pages are taxonomic lists summarizing the entire Sekong and Southern Laos watershed‘s flora and fauna. There is a large volume of information in this EIA, ranging from very detailed geology and soils analyses, earthquake risk assessment, clearly valuable for engineers but much less so in an EIA. The most significant impact is the change of the aquatic habitat from a flowing river to a lake and dam configuration blocking all fish migrations, etc.

183. This EIA does not address the issue of blockages to fish movement issues effectively, and yet there is ample information ( including in Vietnamese, Thai and Lao language)—e.g. one issue is addressed in 3-4 sections each contributing to the understanding but the message is lost in the scatter or results throughout the document.




184. Many of the issues associated with a dam are identified. However, important ones are left as general discussion, instead of clear impact-mitigation write ups. There are others not identified at all.

185. The EIA authors stated that for the four “subprojects” identified environmental analyses would be completed later. These four subprojects are:

1. Construction camp for 4000 people 2. Access road(s) 3. Construction waste management 4. Transmission line ( 70 km +) from the facility to the substation

186. EIAs must include all subcomponents that comprise the total work. The key rule is that any subcomponents left out, should not affect the completion and operation of the project. Such subcomponents are frequently addressed outside the EIA proper.

187. Preparation of the reservoir prior to flooding was not addressed, yet needs special attention.


188. The EIA authors were conducting their first consultation just prior to the DD field visit in October 2010, many months after the EIA was submitted. There was no evidence that meaningful consultation had taken place. The consultation section, about 2-pages includes description of what a consultation session is comprised of, but nothing about the substance of the session(s).


5.4.5.1 Diseases Assoc, with tropical reservoirs;

189. Completely overlooked is the serious and likely rise in insect-born and human waste contamination related diseases. The insect-borm diseases that could increase dramatically are: malaria, yellow fever, schistosomiasis, and river blindness (from spillways). The human waste related diseases would be cholera and typhoid fever. A mitigation plan for these issues should be completed and the following reference is a good starting point:

1. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydro_jobin_english.pdf

2. Jobin, William. Prediction of health hazards in tropical reservoirs and evaluation of low-cost methods for disease prevention, [email protected] showed that:

“Dams, and the reservoirs they create, play three roles related to health. Firstly the reservoirs can serve as breeding habitats for the aquatic insects and snails which transmit tropical diseases. Secondly, the reservoirs attract large numbers of people because of the potential for fishing or other economic activity related to water, leading to water pollution. And thirdly dams often displace people from the flooded zone of the reservoir, requiring construction of large resettlement communities, most



of which are poorly constructed and with little thought to waste management and water supply. All three of these roles [effects] can seriously [increase] transmission of tropical diseases”.

5.4.5.2 Cumulative effects analysis, e.g. the other 3-4 plant dams on the

190. There is discussion of cumulative impacts in the EIA (pgs 226-234), but much of it is a “how to” guideline, instead of a report on the cumulative effects, e.g. fisheries, water quality and health effects and mitigative actions

5.4.5.3 Environmental Flow Requirements

191. During the filling of the reservoir the EIA authors state that only 7% of normal flow of the Sekong R. will be released downstream: i.e. 18.3-21 m3/sec., instead of 262-290m3/sec. The basic rule (indicated by Lao PDR) says that the flow should not be lower than the low flow which for the Sekong is around 70m3/sec?

192. In that regard, there is no mention or discussion of environmental flow requirements. There is mention of the diversion of up to 41 m3/sec of Sekong water to two hydropower facilities in Vietnam. There is no discussion of this beyond the statement in Table 3 of the EIA.


193. The EMP for Sekong 3A is a 4 pages section in the EIA. There is no EMP

5.4.7 SEDIMENT SETTLING AND LOSSES DOWNSTREAM

194. There is a long and detailed discussion re sedimentation but what is missing is a clear description of the rate the reservoir will fill due to the settling out of the sediment load and the impact of that downstream of the dam. For example, many of the fish species now living and migrating in the river rely on high turbidity levels as protection against predators and as preferred habitat. On pages 91-93 and Table 34, there is some discussion but parameters are not defined and not specifically addressed in terms of sedimentation in the reservoir. Parameter names such as W2, V2 and VdD are left unidentified.

5.5 HOW ARE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS IN THE EIA (ESPECIALLY FROM EMP) SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

195. In general the EIA presents a large number of mitigative actions but these are scattered around the report, making it nearly impossible to get a good picture of the entire set without going through a labour-intensive process of extracting each measure and preparing a Mitigation and Monitoring Matrix.

5.5.1 MITIGATION AND MONITORING COMMITMENTS MADE AND ACTIONS TAKEN

196. Quoting the EIA:



197. Erosion and deposit shall be controlled during the construction of the plant. In some areas which are not impacted by construction activities, the existing conditions shall be remained. Measures for controlling erosion and deposit of the project as follows:

1. Activities for controlling deposit and erosion shall be established for areas where are impacted by the construction activities of the project and next phases and remain unit permanent protection measures are established. Only area planned for next construction shall be cleaned from plants and soil surface.

2. Activities for dust control shall be implemented at the construction site. The dust control shall include the following activities and measures:

3. Stabilize the flora temporary 4. Watering the surface to reduce dust 5. Trucks for transportation of soil and stones during the construction

process must be covered. Material stocks must be constructed by flabby mud mixed with grass to prevent erosion. Canal routes created on the stock foundation shall remain the humidity and support to the slow down the flows. In water loss control areas, leakage and erosion from stocks shall be controlled. Erosion in the landfill shall be calculated in the plan for landfill. Erosion can be prevented if diverting the flow direction to prevent all flows from high areas.

198. Erosion in two banks of Se Kong river at the downstream area is not a big problem because along two banks of the river, there are bamboo and a kind of tree which are good for keeping soil. While the mitigative actions proposed are all good generic definitions, they are not specific enough e.g. clearing of plants that release toxins when decomposing, pg 132 of EIA, is not elaborated on. Section 8.6 addresses mitigation and impact during construction and provides budget estimates this is useful. However monitoring sections identify what is to be monitored but not how and specifically where and for how long.


199. None prepared, since project not started.


200. The province has informed the auditors that a project committee or Project Management Unit is to be formed and will be responsible for implementing all mitigative (and monitoring) actions17. Mitigative and monitoring actions are to be delivered by the Sekong Provincial WREA, working with, albeit very loosely, with the MEM, local EDL staff. Coordination is to be set up with the District and Village representatives.

201. Sekong Province WREA has four to six technicians who have no monitoring equipment of any sort and no transportation means to get to the sites or onto the




river. Based on interviews, they seem to have little if any experience with designing and implementing a monitoring program, even if equipment were available. For example, no attempt has been made to design mitigation and monitoring action plan using the EIA as a guide. Such action would be extremely useful for provision of needed equipment and training


5.7.1.1 EDL

202. Sekong EDL has no environmental capability and seems to allocate all this responsibility to WREA

5.7.1.2 DOE

203. Sekong Department of Electricity has no environmental capability

5.7.1.3 WREA

204. WREA has a dedicated staff, but has no monitoring equipment and technical capacity to create a mitigation and monitoring action plan from an EIA`s EMP. It is not useful that no EMMP exists and that mitigation is discussed intermittently throughout much of the EIA.


205. Based on discussions with the provincial authorities it is clear that consultation and distribution of information between the central and provincial authorities is marginal at best. For example, they do not have a Lao language version of the EIA and no copies it at all for that matter (copies provided by our audit team).


206. The EIA authors concluded the following at the end of the report; quote:

`To limit the above negative impacts, Project Management Unit will organize well the design work, work management, and implement well the forest management, life organization for regional inhabitants, especially inhabitants around the edge of reservoir and in new settlement areas. The environmental education will be deployed widely and deeply, the resources protection will be propagandized to inhabitant communities and companies participated in the plant construction.

The project will have technical solutions such as “environmental line” design to supply necessary water amount for maintaining the flow of correlative river section. Project management unit will implement agreements between Lao and Cambodia due to the dispute of benefit division in using the water source and dam safety between the two countries.



To project biological resources in the process of construction, Project management unit will control activities violating natural forest and waste dumping to avoid causing environmental pollution.

To ensure residence for animals and protect organism resources in general, the Project management unit will coordinate with local authority to restore and protect forest in the surrounding regions connecting closely with the function of protective forest with a view to overcome the shortening of biological resources’ residence place during executing hydroelectric projects.

Any floristic composition from shrub forests to evergreen forests on oasis needs to retain and preserve during the process of executing the work as well as after that. Because this is the most important flora for migrated animals when overflow.

207. Parallel with the process of executing the Se Kong 3A hydroelectricity construction and operation, the Project Management Board will implement monitoring programmes to follow up environmental changes of terrestrial and aquatic organism, reservoir formation and development, protecting effectively Sekong river water quality and river lower section.

208. Se Kong 3A hydroelectric project has high practicability on the technical economy. Therefore, it is necessary to rapidly promote investment preparation for starting work, completing and operating in time according to the progress of project to bring into play the economic effects and take full advantage for natural resources exploitation to serve for socio-economic development.

209. Being a project with the favourable investment and construction conditions, and high effects to Lao as well as investor. The investor needs to finish the procedures for assessment and approval of this investment project and basic design as a basis to carry out the following steps over the next 3.5 years.

210. This EIA which should be addressing the building of a large new dam across one of southern Laos’s major rivers, lacks detail and credibility. It serves as a baseline accounting of components of the environment and flags quite a number of environmental impacts and presents a taxonomic list of the plants and animals found in central and southern Laos; including flagging endangered species. There is no mention of whether these species are found in or have ever been seen in the project area. The transmission line from Sekong 3B (it is assumed that a line from Sekong 3A to 3B will be built as well) to the Hatxan substation will be around 70 km, which under Lao PDR classification requires a complete and separate EIA.

211. This EIA does not comply with ADB’s environmental guidelines on EIA.


212. No real action is possible until WREA has provided its comments on this draft EIA.

213. At the very least a concise EMP needs to be prepared. This is possible by carefully reviewing the EIA and extracting every mitigation commitment made and every monitoring task defined—then creating a mitigation and monitoring matrix, including provision of details, describing the actions to be taken, their locations, timing and responsibility for implementation, oversight and reporting.



214. Secondly a credible consultation program needs to be complete and inputs assembled, then integrated into the EIA and its EMP.

215. A comprehensive discussion of the proposed water diversion from the Sekong to the A Lin and A Luoi hydroelectric power facilities in central Vietnam, needs to be included in the EIA.

216. Thirdly, a number of critical elements of an EIA have been omitted, namely the examination of the possible outbreaks of sewage related and insect born diseases (malaria, yellow fever, schistosmiasis, and cholera) in the reservoir, as well as downstream fisheries losses.

217. The diversion of up to 41 m3/sec of water to Vietnam must receive detailed assessment.

218. Previous fisheries surveys have indicated that 20% of the Sekong River’s fish population is endemic, constituting an essential biodiversity treasure.

219. The effects of this dam in relation to the others on the Sekong River and its contribution to downstream effects and any potential mitigative actions was not addressed at all needs to by analysed and report. The ADB in 2006-2007 completed a preliminary study of this type and it should serve as a useful starting point (ADB TA 6367, Project No. 40083).

5.10 REFERENCES

Songda Corporation. 2009. Sekong 3 Hydroelectric Project. Sekong 3(A) or Upper Environmental Impact Assessment (Draft document). 234 pgs pdf document available from provincial WREA

ADB. 2007. Sesan, Sre Pok and Sekong River Basin Development Study. Technical Assistance project No. 40083. Found on ADB website



6 SEKONG 3B (LOWER): DUE DILIGENCE DETAILS

Executive Summary

Sekong 3B is another in the cascade of dams on the Sekong River, this one located some 35- 40 km downstream of Sekong 3A near the village of Nonghin located on the left bank of the Sekong river.

This EIA, another long report, lacking an EMP, is almost a replica of Sekong 3A, exhibiting the same problems, omissions and lack of specificity. Lack of discussion of the same issues as omitted or downplayed in the Sekong 3A report, exist for Sekong 3B. For example the issue of managing a work village of 3000 people is dismissed in less than a page of text. For Sekong 3A the consultant suggested a workforce of over 4000, this is equal to just below 50% of the population of Sekong Town, yet there is little other than generic information provided. There are tens of pages of taxanomic, geological and meteorological date provide for the entire region.

The diversion of water to Vietnam comes up again with transfer of around 40 m3/sec, out of the Sekong Basin.

As with Sekong 3A, this EIA is non compliant not only with ADB guidelines but also with Lao PDR and Vietnam’s environmental assessment standards.



220. Sekong 3B (Lower) will be located about 35 km downstream of Sekong 3A, in the vicinity of Ban Nonghin on the left side18 of the Sekong River. It will be a 100MWe plant generating an average of 391.7 million KWh/yr. The estimated cost in 2007 USD dollars was $ 120 million.

221. Reservoir water level will be 130m above msl, i.e. a depth of about 17m at the dam face and will inundate a 15.17 km2 area, and hold back an average of 87.64 million m3 of water and . Of this total the designed active storage will only be 10.44 million m3 of water. Approximately 88% of the reservoir will be dead storage, or reservoir capacity from which stored water cannot be evacuated by gravity19.

222. An existing 5 km long narrow (3 m-wide) laterite road exists and is used primary as access to the newly planted rubber tree plantation. This road now ends at the river shore about 1.5km d/s of the dam, it will need to be widened and extended upstream on the right bank of the river through mostly riparian forests and small individual farmsteads. All earth and rock materials for the dam will likely be sourced from within the region.

18 Power engineering identify left and right side of a river by looking downstream. 19 This is established based on the water level needed to provide enough hydraulic head to power the turbines efficiently.




223. The dam will inundate an area of 15.17 km and the high water line will be around 130m msl. The existing 5 km long access road will need to be widened, lengthened by about 2 km and converted to an all weather road. 3,000-4,000 workers will live in and around the dam area and work for an estimated three years, to build the facility. At any one time there may be as many as 3000 workers and their families living in the construction village.

224. The dam will be filled over a two year period with much of the filling taking place during the rainy season lasting from March to November, with > 2 m or rainfall in this part of Lao PRD. In this way the dry season low-flow minimum will be maintained at all times.


225. Sekong 3B is less at the same stage of development as Sekong 3A, since there is no concession agreement and the Feasibility Study remains incomplete. This facility, is very similar to Sekong 3A and will require about three years to build, with a revised schedule indicating with construction will start in late 2011 (assuming that the EIA certificate is issued by then and a concession agreement is in place) with the dam completed in three years later and a commissioning sometime in 2015.

6.1.4 EA AUTHOR(S)

Song Da Consulting Co.., Jsc-Song Da Corporation

Building G9-Thanh Xuan Nam Ward-Thanh Xuan Dist.,

Hanoi

Tel: +84 43854-2209, email: [email protected]

Institute of Biology and Ecological Resources-Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology; Dr. Tran Huay Thai, Project Leader in Charge.

6.2 STATUS OF THE PROJECT


226. To date the EIA has been completed and is under review by WREA. The FS study is nearly complete and additional core drilling is taking place at the dam site, principally on the left Bank. No site preparation or clearing has started.


227. Total amount disbursed is unknown, but EIA and FS study are almost complete and geological work is ongoing at the site; so some funds have been disbursed (approx. 3%).




228. The EIA is being reviewed by WREA. No certificate has been issued and technically no work beyond that needed for the FS and EIA should be taking place.

229. NOTE; THIS EIA IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE ONE PREPARED FOR 3A. ONLY NAMES AND PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN CHANGED. The geology and hydrological parameters are different. As such the time required for a review of this 211 page report was of little use as the difference between the two documents is minimal in terms of environmental impact identification and discussion.


230. The naming error and subsequent assumption that the substation was located at Ban Sok, only a short distance from both the Sekong3A and 3B sites, resulted in a failure to account for the more than 70 km long single circuit 220 KV transmission line linking the generating station with the substation at Ban Hatxan, located SE of Attapeu on NH 18.



231. The EIA was prepared using Lao PDR’s 2000 environmental assessment specifications, including reference to an outdated organizational structure and agencies no longer in operation. There have been three revisions since 2000; one in 2003 then 2008 and Decree 112/PM implemented in 2010. As well, the Min. of Energy and Mines assembled an EIA process for power projects in 2005. None of these more recent regulatory guidelines were used!

232. The EIA authors failed to identify the latest specifications and guidelines to apply to this EIA and did not use Lao PDR norms and standards, but instead applied Vietnamese standards.

6.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED

233. As with 3A, there is a significant problem with the translation, in that technical results are confused, e.g. pg 101 Table 39, is titled “Quality of Surface Water Downstream of the Dam”…., It would seem that the meaning here is existing water quality in the future area below the proposed dam location. But this is not clear? Also why provide these data when the water quality at the proposed dam site is only a few meters away. Further there is the confusing practice of using commas instead of decimal places to designate fractions of numbers. For example the diameter of the turbine water intakes are defined as being 48,3m wide, when in fact they should be 4.83 m in diameter ( at least that is the assumption certainly not 48.3 m).



234. Pg. 13 of EIA and states that: “adverse impacts of the project on natural and social environment in the project area can be totally overcome and mitigated”. This statement, particularly as it is found in the introduction to the EIA suggests a less than thorough analysis and investigation of the effects of this large dam.


235. Many important issues are addressed, including a preliminary discussion of environmental flow needs. However the estimated environmental flow is not calculated. Instead only optional methods are proposed. The impacts are not addressed effectively, despite the fact that many are identified generically.

236. In Table 3 of the EIA, the authors speak of diversion of >40m3/sec from the Sekong for use at the A Lin and A Luoi hydropower projects in T.T. Hue province if Vietnam, a distance of more 100km. There is no further mention if this very significant proposal to divert more than 5% of the Sekong’s flow (10% if we include Sekong3A) to another watershed/basin across international boundaries, Neither this nor the Sekong 3A documents discuss this beyond the reference in Table 3 of the EIA.

237. There is an urgent need for training in how to undertaken and write a focused EIA report. The document presented is reminiscent of the EIAs of the 1980s, consisting of massive marginally relevant datasets on physical conditions, and taxonomic lists of flora and fauna extending far beyond the project areas boundaries, etc.


238. The EIA does not address the most important issues of fish, post impoundment water quality and diseases in a comprehensive of technically credible manner—further as indicated above, there is no mention of a plan to divert Sekong River water into reservoirs feeding power stations in Vietnam.


239. There is no statement of any consultation having taken place—just pages on how consultation should take place!


240. Methods used to derive information and to make some basic predictions are not defined





241. Completely overlooked is the serious and likely rise in insect-born and human waste contamination-related diseases. The insect-born diseases that could increase dramatically are: malaria, yellow fever, schistosomiasis (Schistosoma Mekong), and river blindness (from spillways). The human waste-related diseases would be cholera and typhoid fever. A mitigation plan for these issues should be completed and the following reference is a good starting point:

Jobin, William. Prediction of health hazards in tropical reservoirs and evaluation of low-cost methods for disease prevention: website is http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydro_jobin_english.pdf 242. This article states that:

“Dams, and the reservoirs they create, play three roles related to health. Firstly the reservoirs can serve as breeding habitats for the aquatic insects and snails which transmit the tropical diseases. Secondly the reservoirs attract large numbers of people because of the potential for fishing or other economic activity related to water. And thirdly the dams often displace people from the flooded zone of the reservoir, requiring construction of large resettlement communities, most of which are poorly constructed. All three of these roles can affect transmission of tropical diseases”

243. Also left out of the assessment is:

1. cumulative impacts; 2. the more than 70 km km long 220KV transmission line; 3. management of the 3000-4000 person work camp/village wastes; and, 4. complete description and analysis of the proposed water diversion of

>40m3 /sec of Sekong River water to Vietnam power stations.


244. EAI authors suggest that EMP be prepared by contractor—(pg 79), there are many mitigative measures suggested, throughout the document and monitoring actions proposed, but as with 3A, no details are provided and monitoring actions are proposed approaches but no information on how these are to be implemented, when and where. The mitigation and monitoring actions are scattered throughout the EIa document. A well assembled EMP is urgently needed.


245. …not at this stage of development yet.


246. ….not undertaken at this stage




247. The province has informed the TA consultant that a project committee is to be formed and will be responsible for implementing all mitigative (and monitoring) actions20. Mitigative and monitoring actions are to be delivered by the Attapeu Provincial WREA, working with, albeit very loosely with the MEM, local EDL staff. Coordination is to be set up with the District and Village representatives.

248. Attapeu Province WREA has six technicians who have no monitoring equipment of any sort and not transportation means to get to the sites or on the river. Based on interviews, they seem to have little if any experience with designing and implementing a monitoring program, even if equipment were available. For example, no attempt has been made to design mitigation and monitoring action plan using the EIA as a guide. Such action would be extremely useful for provision of needed equipment and training. In contrast with Sekong, this WREA office is fully computerized with many high quality notebooks in the office, installed with mapping and office production software


6.7.1.1 EDL

249. The Attapeu EDL has no environmental capability and seems to allocate all this responsibility to WREA

6.7.1.2 DOE

250. The Attapeu Department of Electricity has no environmental capability

6.7.1.3 WREA

251. Attapeu WREA has a dedicated staff, but lacking in all monitoring equipment and technical capacity to take an EIA and create a mitigation and monitoring action plan. The Director of the Department seems knowledgeable but likely does not delegate work to his team, and therefore is not able to lead the department effectively.

252. No EMP exists and mitigation is discussed intermittently throughout much of the EIA. To date (October 15, 2010) only one Lao translation of the EIA seems to be available and it is being kept by the Env. Department Chief.


253. Based on discussions with the provincial authorities it is clear that consultation and distribution of information between the central and provincial authorities is marginal at best. For example, they do not have a Lao language




version of the EIA and no copies it at all for that matter (copies provided by our audit team). In contrast with Sekong Province the Attapeau WREA does have one copy of the Sekong 3B EIA in Lao. The consultant provided a soft copy of the EIA (but only in English).

6.7.2 ACTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING

254. In addition to providing monitoring equipment and training in its use a concentrated training workshop on designing and implementing a mitigation and monitoring program, collecting and analysing data and reporting must be provide. Without such training, the equipment will be wasted.

255. However, before such assistance can be delivered a well prepared EMP needs to be in place. This has not happened (at least not to our knowledge).


256. As presented, this EIA is significantly non-compliant with ADB guidelines, as well as with Vietnam’s EIA guidelines as defined in Decree No. 80 and Circular 08/2006, Vietnam’s equivalent to Lao PDR’s Decree 112/PM. In other words, the authors did not follow either country’s standards or ADB’s guidelines. The last 1.5 pages of the EIA are reproduced here as they provide a good window into the thinking process behind this EIA, namely the EIA being more of an inventory sheet than an impact prevention specification.

257. The EIA authors concluded with 16 points, eight if which summarize existing conditions, three underscore the investment characteristics of the project, while the remaining four suggest that the contractor working with the Project Management Unit (which is not discussed in the EIA) prepare the EMP and monitoring program.

258. These two pages (pg. 209-210 of the EIA) are quoted as follows:

1. `The project will have technical solutions such as “environmental line” design to supply necessary water amount for maintaining the flow of correlative river section. Project management unit will implement agreements between Lao and Cambodia due to the dispute of benefit division in using the water source and dam safety between the two countries.

2. To protect biological resources in the process of construction, Project management unit will control activities violating natural forest and waste dumping to avoid causing environmental pollution.

3. To ensure residence for animals and protect organism resources in general., the Project management unit will coordinate with local authority to restore and protect forest in the surrounding regions connecting closely with the faction of protective forest with a view to overcome the shortening of biological resources’ residence place during executing hydroelectric projects.

4. Any floristic composition from shrub forests to evergreen forests on oasis needs to retain and preserve during the process of executing the work as well as after that. Because this is the most important flora for migrated animals when overflow.



5. Parallel with the process of executing the Se Kong 3A hydroelectricity construction and operation, the Project Management Board will implement monitoring programmes to follow up environmental changes of terrestrial and aquatic organism, reservoir formation and development, protecting effectively Sekong river water quality and river lower section.

6. Se Kong 3B hydroelectric project has high practicability on the technical economy. Therefore, it is necessary to rapidly promote investment preparation for starting work, completing and operating in time according to the progress of project to bring into play the economic effects and take full advantage for natural resources exploitation to serve for socio-economic development.

7. Being a project with the favourable investment and construction conditions, and high effects to Lao as well as investor. The investor needs to finish the procedures for assessment and approval of investment project and basic design as a basis to carry out the following steps.

8. The progress rate of the project: Expected time for executing the project is 3, 5 years included preparation period.

9. Se Kong 3A hydroelectric project implements on Sekong river of Xaysetha district, Attapeu province. Through surveys of natural environment state and biodiversification on February – March in 2009, it can be assessed as follows:

10. The real quality of regional atmospheric environment is still good and has not polluted yet. Dust content is three-times lower than the required standard. The content of toxic gas (CO, NOx, SO2, H2S…) is also many time lower than the required standard. The highest content of dust and toxic gas is at the regional roads.

11. Through the surveyed parameter assessment, it shows that the regional surface water source including stream, river, pond, expected lake-bed and stream received water behind the plant has relatively good quality with main parameters met the required standard. The surface water source has not been polluted by organic and inorganic substances, nutrition and microorganism yet.

12. The underground water source in the surveyed area has not been polluted by the nutritive, organic and lubricant substances. However, the domestic water source has polluted by microorganism. It is necessary to pay attention to this situation and have methods to prevent epidemics.

13. Sampling points in the project area have no difference in content of heavy metals and lubricant in soil. The content of heavy metals is lower than required standard and has not been polluted by people’s daily activities and industry.

14. Plant resources of the project area include 650 species, 400 branches, belonging to 119 families of 5 plant phylum with 13 precious species. They show the biodiversity of botanical system.

15. In the fauna of the researching region, there are 145 birds, 75 animals and 70 amphibian reptile. Of which, 18 birds, 27 animals and 11 amphibian reptiles are precious animals named in Vietnam’s and the world’s Red Book. Almost the precious animals remaining in the evergreen forest that have not been affected or less are distributed over the dangerous mountains in the east, the north-eastern, the southeast bordering on the Laotian – Vietnamese border and Laotian – Cambodian border.

16. Researching and surveying result of aquatic species in the Sekong river area has specified that: there are 51 floating plants, 17 aquatic species, 36 floating animals, 36 demurral animals are crustaceans and lithe body,



78 taxon of aquatic larvas and insects and 183 natural fishes, 9 breeding ones. This figures has not reflected all kinds of regional floating aquatic species. Some of those fishes, there are some specious ones named in Vietnam’s Red Book.

17. Density of floating plants in the researching region fluctuates from 1,814.0 Tb/1 to 4,497.3 Tb/1. Density of floating animals is from 720 animals/m3 to 3,955.2 animals/m3. Density of demersal animals fluctuates 5 animals/m2 den 126 animals/m2. The such low density of floating and demersal organism are suitable with running-flow aquatic species in the region.


259. It may be useful to reorganize the EIA such that existing conditions are addressed in one section, impacts in mitigation and monitoring in another, and so on. That should help highlight the valuable information contained in the EIA document.

260. The EIA authors should:

1. address tropical insect-borne and human waste pollution -related disease stemming from the impoundment and preventative methods.

2. discuss the proposed water diversion from the Sekong to the A Lin and A Luoi hydroelectric power facilities in central Vietnam, needs to be included in the EIA.

3. prepare an EMP needs to be prepared. This can be done by searching through the EIA and preparing a list of all mitigative and monitoring actions identified. These data would then form the basis if an EMP, organized by development stages and impact receptors, e.g. noise, water quality, fish and aquatic resources, etc.

4. complete a comprehensive consultation program, properly recording in the EIA and evidence provided that consultation inputs were used in arriving at the EIA conclusions.

6.10 REFERENCES

Songda Corporation. 2009. Sekong 3 Hydroelectric Project. Sekong 3(B) or Lower Environmental Impact Assessment (Draft document). 211 pgs pdf document available from provincial WREA UNHYDRO. 2004. Prediction of health hazards in tropical reservoirs and evaluation of low- cost methods for disease prevention. Contact William Jobin, Director, Blue Nile Associates, [email protected]

ADB TA No. 6481‐REG: Summary Statement: Key Environmental and Social Aspects, November 2011 1

ADB TA No. 6481-REG: Ban Hatxan (BanSok) Lao PDR to Pleiku Vietnam, 500kVA Transmission Line and Substation Construction Feasibility Study

Summary Statement

Status of Environmental and Social Sector Work November 2011

Introduction 1. The purpose of this statement is to summarise the current status of key environmental and social

aspects relevant to the Ban Hatxan (Ban Sok) – Pleiku 500 kVA transmission line project. Only brief information is provided in this statement. More detailed information is available in the transmission line IEEs and LARAPs and in the Due Diligence Report. Gaps are summarised in a table attached to this statement.

Status of Safeguards Work: 500 kVATransmission Line 500 and Substation Environmental Safeguard Requirements 2. As per the TOR for the TA, two (2) Initial Environmental Examinations (IEE) have been prepared – one

for the section of the line in Vietnam and one for the sections of the line and sub‐station in Lao PDR. 3. The IEE for the Vietnam section of the line is complete, and has been approved by EVN. 4. The IEE for the section of the line in Lao PDR and the sub‐station is currently incomplete, as public

consultation and disclosure requirements have not yet been met. Electricite du Laos (EDL) and the Provincial Government refused to permit the consultant to undertake consultation since, with the passing of new EIA legislation in 2010, the transmission line and sub‐station were both classified as requiring a full EIA (i.e. two separate full EIA reports). WREA also provided comment on the IEE on the 9th November 2011, which indicated that a full EIA is required. This issue has been raised and discussed at all of the tripartite meetings, and it is the understanding of the consultant that, at the last tripartite meeting, the ADB agreed to fund a full EIA (as a separate project – not included in this TA).

Social / Resettlement Safeguard Requirements 5. Separate Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plans (LARAPs) have been prepared for the

sections of the line in Vietnam and the section of the line and sub‐station in Lao PDR. Both LARAPs are complete.

6. In the LARAP for the section of the line in Vietnam, affected household and land estimates are based

on a Right of Way (ROW) of 30.6 m, which is roughly half the internationally recommended ROW (which is also the ROW that will be used in the Lao PDR) of 70 m.

Due Diligence of Associated Projects 7. The project TOR included the requirement for the consultant to complete safeguard due diligence

audits on all projects which would use the SS and TL, and which had any safeguard documentation available. Of the six (6) projects listed in the TOR, five (5) were found to have at least some basic


documentation. Dak Emuel Project could not be examined as no safeguard documentation was available. Xekhaman 2, the seventh project that will eventually feed power to the SS‐TL complex, was also not reviewed, as no documentation was available.

8. All safeguard documents reviewed were found to be significantly non‐compliant. Issues common to all reviewed documents include:

a. Inadequate consultation with or information to the affected populations; b. Failure to consider / address cumulative impacts; c. Little or no consideration of the impact of the transmission lines connecting the plants

to the Ban Hatxan Sub‐station. d. Lack of coherent, implementable Environmental Management Plans (EMPs); e. Lack of any Indigenous Peoples Development Plan / Gender Development Plan; f. Lack of consideration of in‐migration (particularly of the largely Vietnamese workforce); g. Inadequate or no HIV/AIDS Awareness and Prevention Programme; h. Failure to conduct any adequate feasibility study for livelihoods and income restoration

measures; and i. Failure to make any provision for the inclusion of a requisite proportion of Lao

manpower in construction work forces.

Issues specific to each project are discussed briefly below.

9. The consultant has been informed that safeguard documents for Xekhaman 1, Xekhaman 4 and Xekong 3 Upper and Lower have been updated since the Due Diligence Review. These updated documents have not been reviewed by the consultant, but it is highly unlikely (given the short period of time between the submission of the Due Diligence Report and the availability of the updated documents) that these updated documents will have addressed the major issues and non‐compliances identified in the due diligence review.

Xekhaman 1 / Xanxay

10. The Due Diligence Review found the environmental and social safeguard documents (EIA and EMP) for the Xekhaman / Xanxay Projects to be significantly non‐compliant with ADB and Government of Lao PDR standards. Key issues include:

a. Under Lao PDR regulations and in accordance with international standards, the 32.5 MW Xanxay Project should have its own EIA. The Xekhaman EIA says very little about Xanxay.

b. The EIA missed or downplayed key impacts such as long term water quality , impact on fisheries, loss >6000 ha of NPA land, health impacts associated with tropical reservoirs.

c. The EIA provided only a limited record of the consultations completed, most appearing to be with officials. The level of public consultation and disclosure with affected persons was deemed unacceptable in view of international best practices, ADB safeguard requirements and Lao PDR statutory requirements.

d. Although the project has a >120 page Environmental Management Plan, as well as a large (several million dollars) mitigation and monitoring budget, the field visit indicated that not a single measure had been implemented thus far – even though construction was 30% complete.

Xekhaman 4

11. This project represents a potentially very high negative impact undertaking, permanently eliminating critically endangered species habitat. The only document received by the consultant was a single IEE,


describing Xekhaman 4, not 4A or 4B. XK4 consisted of two dams, creating a single large reservoir, then two long (8‐10km long) tunnels taking water to the XK4 power station (see map below). The second map provided, does show a Xekhaman 4 and 4A (but 4A is a totally separate project for which there is no documentation at all. If there is a 4B we are not aware of it. XK4 is in a highly sensitive environment (pristine broadleaf evergreen jungle), including Asian Tiger habitat, and only little (if any) field work has been done. The Vietnamese consultants preparing the IEE indicated that very significant impacts were likely and that an extensive and costly mitigation program would be needed. The consultant estimated that an EIA would take at least 12 months to complete (according to Vietnamese standards), and much longer using the LaoPDR decree. When the consultant reviewed the material provided in late 2010 no EIA terms of reference (as required under Lao law) had been prepared and the IEE had not been submitted to WREA. Therefore, the simple timeline between then and now makes it impossible that a compliant EIA, involving detailed fieldwork has been completed and submitted to WREA.

12. There has been no outside / independent review of the EIA documents (as these were not available during the due diligence review).

Xekong 3 Upper and Lower (or 3 A and B)

13. The two EIAs for these projects were virtually the same – with some name changes. Significant generic information is provided, though very little useful, site specific information.

14. In both EIAs, major impacts are downplayed and dismissed through the use of unsubstantiated statements.

15. No EMPs are provided and there is no record of any consultation being undertaken.

16. Both EIAs reference the transfer of water (~40 m3/s – approximately half of dry season flows) out of the Xekong Basin to power plants in Vietnam. There is no discussion of the impact of this diversion scheme.

Other Issues 17. There is only limited technical capacity within WREA at the provincial and district levels, which are

responsible for monitoring project compliance and for implementing any measures that are the responsibility of GOL. Attapeu WREA does not have adequate transportation to get to project sites, proper monitoring equipment and does not have adequate human resources to fulfill its responsibilities. Provincial WREA is also kept totally in the dark about activities of the Vietnamese consultants and surveyors working on dam issues; therefore they cannot do any real compliance monitoring or enforcement. In Vientiane, there is also a shortfall of staff, given the large number of hydro projects.


Xekhaman 4 map as included in IEE document


Xekhaman 4 showing a Xekhaman 4A downstream: From Sept 2009 IEE


GAP ANALYSIS OF STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS RELATED TO BAN SOK-PLEIKU TRANSMISSION LINE ADB RETA

No. Project Status Date Future Action Needed

ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS

1 Bansok-Pleiku TL Environmental Assessment

1.1 Vietnam side IEE Completed and accepted by MONRE and DONREs Sept. 2011

1.2 Lao IEE Not approved. Due to change in law, full EIA required. Nov. 2011 note indicated that full EIA was needed. Existing document is missing consultation and detailed studies required as part of revised Lao EIA process

Nov. 2011

ADB to provide funds to complete full EIA

Substation Lao’s new decree classifies a substation of the size to be built at Ban Sok as needing its own full EIA. This change in the law occurred after this TA was planned, therefore not budgeted.

n/a WREA needs to decide if this is in or out. If in, then funding should be provided by ADB to complete this additional assessment.

2 Due Diligence of Associated Projects

2.1 Xekhaman 1 Project 30% complete and no mitigation or monitoring measures applied. Pollution damage if increasing. No compliance monitoring undertaken by WREA.

No environmental assessment of the >30km long new road or for the transmission line linking the power station to Ban Sok substation.

Oct. 2011

Non-compliant in terms of EMP implementation, and very substandard consultation program—not documented. Contractor and owner needs to Prepare and EMP action plan from EMP found in the EIA document. Secondly, to begin to implement major mitigation and monitoring ,, measures and repair damage done, e.g. sewage and garbage disposal for >2000 people work camps, etc.

2.2 Xanxay This hydropower project downstream of Xekhaman 1 is considered a large project and under Lao law requires its own EIA. No such EIA has been undertaken, or to our knowledge even initiated. In fact only a few lines in the Xekhaman 1 EIA refer to Xanxay; therefore it is a large dam project without any safeguards.

Nov.2011 Either WREA needs to declare that Xanxay does not need an EIA or one should be completed (including social safeguard documents).

2.3 Xekhaman 4 An EIA according to Vietnamese regulations is now under preparation in Lao (has not been confirmed. This is fully non-compliant, since Lao requires a complex process starting with an

Sept. 2011

As of Nov. 25, this project remains fully non-compliant and has no environmental safeguards in place, and no approval by


EIA framework which must be approved before the EIA can go ahead, as well as a comprehensive set of consultations . Given the greenfield-nature of this project and the highly sensitive environmental setting, requiring comprehensive field work, there is a very strong likelihood that no such work is being done or nearing completion.

Xekhaman 4 is a complex project consisting of two dams , two long tunnels as well as >140 km if new access road and a long transmission line. None of these elements were mentioned in the IEE. Further there was no mention of a XK4A and 4B, other than on one of the maps which shows a XK4A downstream of XK4, and as a 97MW plant.

WREA to proceed to a full EIA. There has been no international examination of the progress, other than the original IEE completed in 2010. The IEE was judged top be non-compliant, as it lacked an EMP, consultation and any field survey.

It would appear that there is now a new project, XK4A added to the mix.

This project is in an environmental hotspot, with critically endangered species habitat planned to be inundated, etc. and no solid EIA seems to be underway.

2.4 Xekong 3A and Xekong 3B These are non compliant EIA that have not received WREA approval. These are two distinct >300MW dam projects located on the Xekong River in Xekong and Attapeu Provinces. The two EIAs evaluation, were considered non-compliant since their EMPs were incomplete and elements scattered throughout the EIA. The EIA for Xekong3B was consisted of exactly the same text as for Xekong 3A except for the reference to Xekong 3B instead of 3A. Neither of these EIAs are even marginally compliant with ADB.

Sept. 2011

WREA needs to review and comment on these EIAs. Secondly the Vietnamese consultant needs assistance to bring this work into compliance, and use it to implement mitigative and monitoring measures.

2.5 Dak Emeule No report of any kind is available Nov. 2011

EIA needs to be completed

SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS

3 Ban Sok-Pleiku LARAP

3.1 Vietnam side LARAP Completed and accepted by MONRE Sept. 2011

The LARAP estimates are based on a Right of Way (ROW) of 30.6 m, which is roughly half the internationally recommended ROW of 70 m a ROW.

3.2 Lao LARAP Completed and accepted by EDL and WREA Sept. 2011

4. Due Diligence-Social Sector

4.1 Xekhaman 1 No consideration of gender, indigenous peoples or HIV / AIDS.

Inadequate consultation with or information to the affected populations.

Lack of consideration of in-migration (particularly of the largely Vietnamese workforce);

Non-compliant in terms of RAP implementation;

Public consultation and disclosure needs to be undertaken and documented consistent with Lao Guidelines;


Failure to conduct any adequate feasibility study for livelihoods and income restoration measures; and

Failure to make any provision for the inclusion of a requisite proportion of Lao manpower in construction work forces

Prepare action plan to implement RAP and prepare feasible Livelihood Restoration Plans.

4.2 Xanxay No social safeguard documents have been prepared for this Project, and very little is mentioned in the Xekhaman 1 EIA.

As above (Either WREA needs to declare that Xanxay does not need an EIA or one should be completed (including social safeguard documents).)

4.3 Xekhaman 4 No consideration of gender, indigenous peoples or HIV / AIDS.

Inadequate consultation with or information to the affected populations;

Failure to conduct any adequate feasibility study for livelihoods and income restoration measures; and

Failure to make any provision for the inclusion of a requisite proportion of Lao manpower in construction work forces.

EIA measures (as above) should include preparation of social safeguard documents.

4.4 Xekong 3A and 3B RAPs non-compliant with Lao PDR and ADB guidelines.

No consideration of gender, indigenous peoples or HIV / AIDS.

Inadequate consultation with or information to the affected populations.

Lack of consideration of in-migration (particularly of the largely Vietnamese workforce).

WREA needs to review and comment on these RAPs.

It is likely that the Vietnamese consultant and / or EDL / Government of Lao will need assistance to bring RAPs into compliance, and then implement measures.

4.5 Dak Emeule No Documentation of any type provided Any EIA undertaken must include social safeguard documents – RAP, social development plan, Indigenous Peoples Develop Plan, etc.

Ban-sok Pleiku Project CONTRACT DOCUMENTS – TRANSMISSION LINE Package – LaoPDR

Annex 7.3– DD on Social Resettlement Report for 5 Hydro Projects in Lao PDR

FINAL REPORT


ANNEX 7.3 – Social & Resettlement Due Diligence Report

for Five Hydropower Projects in Lao PDR

BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_SOCIAL/RESETTLEMENT DUE DILIGENCE

AADDBB TTAA 66448811--RREEGG:: BBAANN--SSOOKK ((HHAATTXXAANN)) PPLLEEIIKKUU PPOOWWEERR TTRRAANNSSMMIISSSSIIOONN PPRROOJJEECCTT 550000 kkVV

TTRRAANNSSMMIISSSSIIOONN LLIINNEE AANNDD SSUUBBSSTTAATTIIOONN

SSOOCCIIAALL AANNDD RREESSEETTTTLLEEMMEENNTT DDUUEE DDIILLIIGGEENNCCEE RREEPPOORRTT FFOORR AASSSSOOCCIIAATTEEDD HHYYDDRROOPPOOWWEERR PPRROOJJEECCTTSS::

DDrraafftt DDooccuummeenntt:: FFeebbrruuaarryy 2255,, 22001111


BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_SOCIAL/RESETTLEMENT DUE DILIGENCE Page i

CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROVISO ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 PLANNING AND CONDUCT OF THE DUE DILIGENCE AUDIT .................................................................. 4

3 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................ 4

4 CONSTRAINTS ON THE CONDUCT OF THE DUE DILIGENCE AUDIT ..................................................... 5

5 GAPS IN PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY BETWEEN VIETNAMESE CONSULTANTS AND LAO AND ADB SAFEGUARD PROVISIONS ........................................................................................................................ 6

6 DIFFERENCES OF PRINCIPLE AND APPROACH TO RESETTLEMENT ................................................... 6

7 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF DUE DILIGENCE ASPECTS OF XEKHAMAN 1 SIA AND RAP ..................... 8

7.1 WREA CONDITIONS FOR RESETTLEMENT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION .............................. 9

8 HEALTH PLANNING AND HIV/AIDS AWARENESS AND PREVENTION ................................................. 10

9 DUE DILIGENCE AUDIT OF SEKONG 3 UPPER AND LOWER AND XEKHAMAN 4 ............................. 10

10 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS OF THE DUE DILIGENCE AUDIT .............................................................. 11

11 RETROFIT AND RELATED MEASURES FOR THE XEKHAMAN 1 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PROJECT RAP ................................................................................................................................................................ 13

12 PROPOSED RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 14

13 DETAILED MEASURES FOR ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 15

13.1 XEKHAMAN 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 15 13.2 XANXAY .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 13.3 XEKHAMAN 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 16 13.4 SEKONG 3A ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 13.5 SEKONG 3B ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

14 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON COMPLIANCE WITH ADB AND GOL SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS ..... 17

Appendix 1: Due Diligence Audit of Xekhaman 1 RAP


BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_SOCIAL/RESETTLEMENT DUE DILIGENCE Page ii

ACROMYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Item Units Definition AP Affected Persons EDL na Electricite du Lao EMP na Environmental Management Plan ESIA na Env. & Soc. Impact Assessment ( Lao EIA document) EVN GOL

na na

Electricite du Vietnam Government of Lao PDR

HH IEE IOE LARAP LAIR MCH

na na na na na na

Household Initial Environmental Examination Inventory of Losses Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan Land Acquisition and Income Restoration Mother Child Health care

MEM na Ministry of Energy and Mines MRC na Mekong River Comission MW Megawatt- A unit for measuring electrical power. 1MW = 1

million watts. NH na National Highway NPA na Nationally Protected Area NTFP na Non-timber forest product OP PAP

na Operating Period Project Affected Person

PC PRA

na na

Project Concessionaire Participation Rural Appraisal

PWREA RAG RAP RC

na Provincial WREA Resettlement Advisory Groups Resettlement Action Plan Resettlement Committee

RETA na ADB’s Regional Technical Assistance Project RoW RP RRA SES SIA

na

na na na na

Right of Way; a 70m-wide corridor occupied by the Transmission Line Resettlement Plan Rapid Rural Appraisal Social Economic Survey Social Impact Assessment

SPS na ADB’s 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement(SPS); or new environmental and social safeguard standards

TL TOR

na na

Transmission Line Terms of Reference

VLPC na Vietnam-Lao Joint Stock Company WREA WREO

na na

Ministry of Water Resources and Environmental Assessment Water Resources and Environmental Office


BAN SOK – PLEIKU FINAL REPORT_SOCIAL/RESETTLEMENT DUE DILIGENCE Page 1 of 46

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The consultant has conducted a Due Diligence Audit of the social aspects of the documentary consultancy reports and plans for four associated hydro-power projects for which feasibility studies have been provided:

• Xekhaman 1, Sekong 3 Upper and Sekong 3 Lower, for which Social Impact Assessment and a draft Resettlement Plan were available.

• Xekhaman 4, for which an IEE only was available.

Descriptions of these developments, including the planned power generation, infrastructure associated with each development, and status of the development (both in terms of construction and the environmental and social safeguard process) are provided in the Environmental Due Diligence Report, and are therefore not repeated in this report.

This audit is based on the ground studies at Xekhaman 1 and Sekong 3 Upper, and detailed study of the following available documents:

• SIA and RAP for Xekhaman 1;

• Schedule 2 of Concession Agreements, Integrated Environmental and Social Obligations of the Company, for Xekhaman 1;

• SIA and RAP for Sekong 3 Upperr;

• SIA and RAP for Sekong 3Lower

• Pre-feasibility IEE for Xekhaman 4, which includes Draft Terms of Reference for an SIA.

Available safeguard documents for Xekhaman 1, Sekong 3 Upper and Lower do not include details or social impact assessment or LARAPs for transmission line corridors. The IEE for Xekhaman 4 provides an outline statement and requirement for an SIA for a transmission line.

1.2 RESULTS

The approach adopted and the planning undertaken by the Vietnamese consultants responsible for these projects are non-compliant with ADB and the Lao Government guidelines and with Lao legislation for SIA and Involuntary Resettlement, most notably in respect of:

• Consultation with, information to and participation of affected populations;

• Adequate provision for the need of indigenous peoples;

• Feasibility of livelihood restoration;

• Measures for the mitigating and absorbing the massive impact of incoming work forces; and



• Lack of any comprehensive planning for HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention programs.

A substantial factor is that the documents provided suggest that the Vietnamese consultants undertaking the SIA and RAP studies were unfamiliar with WREA and ADB safeguard policies and procedures. One aspect of this is that they appear to be primarily directed to terms of reference and with objectives which concentrate on the technical feasibility and planning of relocation sites, services and, to a limited extent, agricultural production systems.

A further major factor in assessing the adequacy of social impact assessment and resettlement planning for individual hydropower and transmission line projects is considering whether cumulative impacts have been considered. These investments and their accompanying social impacts are taking place contemporaneously or in close and overlapping succession with one another, as well as with related major development of mining, plantation agriculture and infrastructure during the coming decade. From a social perspective, this will have at least one major impact – the impact of the in-migration of largely foreign construction-related populations into two of the poorest provinces of Laos with mainly indigenous and diverse ethnic groups – which is currently not addressed in any safeguard documentation of the associated hydropower projects. There will be a need to integrate the planning and resources provided to address this impact with existing structures, strategies and programs of the governments of the two impacted provinces.

1.3 PROVISO

It should be made clear that this audit is not a comment on the competency of the authors of IEE, SIA and RAP of the associated projects. The purposes of this due diligence audit, and the comments made below, are strictly concerned with whether the documentation for social and resettlement aspects of the associated projects is compliant with the ADB guidelines, and by the same measure with Lao Government guidelines and related Decrees and Regulations, and whether the assessments and planning they provide are effective. The non-compliance which is described in this Due Diligence Audit is related primarily to differences of approach and procedure, which in some important respects outlined below, give rise to significant deficits of substance and to non-compliance both with ADB and with Lao Government safeguard policies.

The ADB Guidelines allow for a measure of judgment and discretion in SIA and RAP in providing effective responses to the mitigation and avoidance of impacts, and may in some instances call for major actions and investments which are developmental and strategic in character. The auditor has taken this into account notably in respect of;

• meeting the impact of massive workforces and following populations coming into the affected provinces from Vietnam;

• researching, planning and achieving income restoration of impacted groups;

• retaining cultural and environmental management systems of indigenous groups;

• providing for HIV/AIDS and STD awareness and prevention within the workforce and in the population as a whole;



• of planning and implementing province-wide measures to meet the impact of hydropower projects in concert with other major investment, in plantation and mining operations, taking place contemporaneously and

• integrating these measures with existing programmes and strategies of provincial governments.

It is recommended that retroactive improvements to safeguard documentation and the planning and implementation of additional social safeguard studies and resulting social measures be facilitated through the preparation of a Resettlement Policy Framework. This Framework will be prepared by the ADB consultants as part of the Ban Sok-Pleiku Transmission Line Social Impact Assessment, resettlement and social development planning.

In addition to retroactive improvements in the social safeguard documentation, given the level of disparity between the resettlement and social impact documentation and the ADB and Lao Government Guidelines, as well as the complexity of social management of the multiple developments, a technical assistance programme is recommended both for capacity development and for the specific planning, implementation and monitoring of implementation of all associated projects. Technical Assistance should be sustained over the whole period of development of hydro-power and transmission line development associated with the Hatxan to Pleiku Transmission Line construction.

It is further recommended that the ADB support the conduct of a Technical Workshop in the immediate future with the participation of WREA and EDL:

• to achieve common ground with the Vietnamese consultants and developers in respect of the Lao Government and ADB Guidelines on Involuntary Resettlement and of the updated Lao legislation on SIA and resettlement planning, and

• to examine specific aspects of social impact and resettlement, notably: consultation with, information to and participation of affected people; indigenous peoples development planning; the impact of massive incoming Vietnamese work forces; gender development planning; and HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention programmes.



2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PLANNING AND CONDUCT OF THE DUE DILIGENCE AUDIT

The consultant has conducted a Due Diligence Audit of the documentary consultancy reports and plans for four associated hydro-power projects for which feasibility studies have been provided:

• Xekhaman 1, Sekong 3 Upper and Sekong 3 Lower, for which Social Impact Assessment and a draft Resettlement Plan were available.

• Xekhaman 4, for which an IEE only was available.

The methodology included two visits to the Xekhaman 1 site: first to the hydropower headquarters and camp site, involving discussions, jointly with the Environmental Specialist and MEM representative, with the Vietnamese site manager; secondly to the hydropower dam site and to the planned relocation site, with the site senior engineer and three engineers who have been nominated by the project management as members of a resettlement management unit.

He has visited Sekong 3 Upper site, with the local consultant and EDL specialists, and met affected households. Weather and road conditions prevented access to Sekong 3 Lower and Xekhaman 4 sites, the other projects for which feasibility study documentation was made available.

This audit is mainly based on the ground studies at Xekhaman 1, which permitted study and discussions at the planned relocation site with the developer, and at Sekong 3 Upper, and detailed study of the following available documents:

• SIA and RAP for Xekhaman 1;

• Schedule 2 of Concession Agreements, Integrated Environmental and Social Obligations of the Company, for Xekhaman 1;

• SIA and RAP for Sekong 3 Upper;

• SIA and RAP for Sekong 3Lower

• pre-feasibility IEE for Xekhaman 4, which includes Draft Terms of Reference for a Social Impact Assessment

There appear to have been no studies done for IEE, ESIA or LARAP for any transmission lines of associated projects, but outline terms of reference are provided for an SIA for the transmission line in the IEE for Xekhaman 4.

3 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE

The Terms of Reference called for the Social and Resettlement Consultant to conduct a due diligence audit of the social impact assessment and resettlement planning of hydropower projects and transmission lines associated with the Ban-Sok-Pleiku Sub-station and Transmission Line, in the following terms:

1. Conduct due diligence on the social impact assessment and resettlement and ethnic minority plan for the associated facilities, as well as their implementation;



identify inconsistencies with national and ADB social safeguard requirements; recommend solutions or action plans to address these irregularities; and summarize the results in the social impact assessment report.

2. Conduct due diligence on hydropower projects on the related generation and upstream transmission facilities.

3. For associated facilities, review and ensure that suitable and acceptable consultations have occurred and that the project resettlement plans and ethnic minority-specific action or development plans (if any) have been disclosed to affected people. For Project components, ensure that suitable and acceptable consultations have occurred and that the project resettlement plans and ethnic minority-specific action or development plans, if any, have been disclosed to affected people.

4 CONSTRAINTS ON THE CONDUCT OF THE DUE DILIGENCE AUDIT

Based on the TOR for the Due Diligence Audit, and the environmental and social safeguards of the ADB, audits are required of all associated facilities (i.e. all facilities that will supply power to the sub-station and transmission line), including ancillary infrastructure associated with all facilities (i.e. transmission lines, roads, etc.). As stated above, this report only includes those projects where safeguard documentation was available – and even for these projects, documentation was not available for:

• Xekhaman 1 TL to Ban Sok Substation; and

• Sekong 3 Upper and Lower TLs to Ban Sok Substation;

• The Xekhaman 4 IEE provides outline TOR for an SIA of the TL which would take its electricity output across the border to Vietnam. .

No documentation was available, and therefore no review was undertaken at this time, for the Dak Emeule Project and any other hydropower project that will be connected to the Ban Sok substation. At a meeting held by the consultant in Hanoi with the consultant for social impact and resettlement studies for Xekhaman 1, the Institute of Materials of the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, the consultant representatives indicated that no separate studies had been done of the impact of Xanxay, since it was regarded as a component of Xekhaman 1.

The SIA and RAP for Xekhaman 1 provide no specific data on any impact studies, resettlement planning or consultation for Xanxay. Therefore a separate due diligence review of this project was not possible

The due diligence audit conducted has been limited therefore by six main factors:

i. ESIA and the preparation of a Resettlement Action Plan have been completed, and these documents made available to the Consultant, only for Xekhaman 1 and Sekong 3 Upper and Lower. No documentation was available for TLs associated with these three projects, Dak Emeule Hydropower Project or Xanxay Hydropower Project;

ii. Only an IEE has been provided to the Consultant for Xekhaman 4;



iii. Site visits to associated projects have been possible only for Xekhaman 1 and Sekong 3 Upper;

iv. Meetings with affected people were only possible (to a limited extent) at Sekong 3 Upper; access to the affected villages in the Xakaman 1 project area was denied by the project site management on the grounds that a visit would require two days journey.

v. Lack of meetings with EIA / SIA / RAP consultants. Despite repeated efforts to schedule meetings with the consultants, only one meeting with consultants was possible, that with the consultant for the Xekhaman 1 Project.

vi. The approach and methodology adopted in the SIA and RAP which have been provided for this audit for Sekong Upper and Lower, are radically different from that required in the ADB and Lao Guidelines, in that they are basically aimed at and concerned with relocation rather than with the broader definition of resettlement in the ADB and Lao government approaches.

5 GAPS IN PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY BETWEEN VIETNAMESE CONSULTANTS AND LAO AND ADB SAFEGUARD PROVISIONS

The audit had to account for a radical difference of methodology and procedure between those adopted for the associated projects and Lao and ADB Guidelines and Safeguard Policies. Key methodology and procedure differences include: the conduct of public consultation, affected persons participation and information disclosure, in the approach to and planning of resettlement; and in the failure to provide specific planning for participative support to the various indigenous minority groups which will be severely impacted.

In general, the non-compliance in the SIAs and RAPs prepared by the Vietnamese consultants appears to be the result of unfamiliarity with Lao Government Decrees, Regulations and Guidelines and ADB Guidelines. The consultants also appear to be unaware of international best practice, principles and procedures for involuntary resettlement.

6 DIFFERENCES OF PRINCIPLE AND APPROACH TO RESETTLEMENT

Resettlement is equated in all these Vietnamese consultancy reports with, and largely confined to, relocation, housing, agricultural production, and the provision of services and infrastructure in consolidated villages. These are said in the Xekhaman 1 RAP to be “in accordance with national policy of the Lao Government". Relocation as a major strategy in assisting indigenous minority groups is, however, contrary to the policy findings of the Lao Ministry of Rural Development/ADB Participative Poverty Assessment (2008), which identified relocation and the consolidation of villages, as destructive to the social and livelihoods of indigenous minorities. The PPA found consolidation to be a current major cause of impoverishment in rural Lao PDR.



It is specifically non-compliant with the requirement for participatory indigenous peoples development planning, which in ADB and Lao Government guidelines should be based on consultation with leaders, assemblies and village groups at all stages of project planning and development.

The approach reflects a public sector planning philosophy which sees resettlement as demanding the integration of affected minorities into mainstream social and economic development. The policies and substantive steps towards this modernization process are largely assumed as known and manageable by project managers in the safeguard reports. There is little or no discussion of the retention or restoration of the social systems, livelihoods, and cultural assets which among these small indigenous groups provide a linkage between belief and ritual systems and their natural environment. Measures are primarily focused on modernized agricultural production systems, financial compensation to affected people, the construction of housing and infrastructure and utilities, provision of services and contributions to local authority projects.

The cumulative nature of impacts of hydropower development along with other development in the affected districts (mining and industrial crop plantations) is not considered. For example, the Xekhaman 1 relocation site is located immediately adjacent to a rubber plantation established during 2009 and 2010. There is in these documents no discussion of the potential impact of major industrial crop plantation development taking place in the area on livelihood and income restoration of existing and resettled populations, including that on the Brau people in the vicinity of the Hatxan sub-station and Xekaman 1 who have lost the entirety of their land to the rubber plantation during 2009 and been relocated in rubber plantation housing designated as a Hatxan resettlement site.

The RAPs for Sekong 3 Upper and Lower contain general proposals for AP village relocation. They provide detailed information on soil types, hydrology and meteorology for relocation site and agricultural development but lack any specific resettlement measures other than physical data, outline agricultural production planning, financial provisions and infrastructure for relocation settlements. There is no record or indication of any disclosure of information on specific resettlement planning to or consultation with APs for the purpose, and there is no provision in the RAP of any program or timetable for proposed future consultation.

Consultation for all associated projects appears to be primarily with District Government authorities, and subsequently with affected communities, but no record is provided of the consultation program or of specific meetings. The consultation is largely based on relocation planning conducted by the developer in cooperation with the consultant with no record of inputs from affected persons. In the case of Xekhaman 1 no alternatives to the relocation site (adjacent to a rubber plantation and to existing roads) are offered to affected persons (for example of relocation close to existing village locations within their traditionally managed forests).



7 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF DUE DILIGENCE ASPECTS OF XEKHAMAN 1 SIA AND RAP

Appendix 1 of this report provides a point by point audit of compliance with ADB Guidelines of Xekhaman 1, for which full SIA and RAP have been conducted and approved with a number of conditions by the Lao authorities.

Xekhaman 1 presents a different case and different audit criteria from the other associated projects, first in being in its third year of construction, and secondly in providing documentation which in itself broadly follows Lao and ADB Guidelines in respect of procedures.

The RAP needs to be considered in the light of the certification provided by WREA and of the conditions which were required for implementation of the project and of the RAP itself and related measures. However, among procedures not consistent with Lao and ADB Guidelines is the approach to information to, consultation with and participation of indigenous affected peoples. The Project further fails to provide any documented feasibility studies for the livelihoods restoration measures proposed for directly affected peoples.

In substance, the audit shows that, despite the conditional WREA certification, the SIA and RAP prepared for the project are not compliant with either ADB or Laotian Guidelines, including in specific aspects of the February 2010 GOL Decree but also in respect of previous GOL Decrees, Guidelines and Regulations.

Specific aspects of the Xekhaman 1 SIA and RAP which are non-compliant are:

• Lack of disclosure, consultation and participatory planning of resettlement options, resulting in:

o Inadequate proposals for relocation: the relocation of impacted indigenous villages, and proposals for their consolidation in larger villages “in accordance with national policy”, in pre-built housing, and locations close to commercial industrial land use, which will radically change their social structures and livelihoods;

o Inadequate participative studies or documentation on the feasibility of proposed livelihood restoration methods;

o the assumption in Xekhaman 1 RAP that the relocation site, which is on the RH river bank, would permit access to the forest of the NPA on the far bank of the river for hunting and swidden agriculture: this has not been studied in respect of the use of the forest for these purposes and the presence their of spirit forests of existing village groups, which need to treated as host communities;

o Inadequate consultation on the social and economic aspects of radical change in labour allocations and related social control.

• Lack of planning for HIV / AIDS awareness and prevention

• Only limited consideration of ethnic minorities.

• Limited consideration of the impact on the local population and services of massive in-migration of the construction workforce and related families and followers,



needing to be addressed in concert with that of other associated hydropower projects, plantation development and other investments, which are the subject of concession agreements.

Though accepted by WREA for purpose of the issue of a January 2009 conditional certificate, the SIA and RAP do not, therefore, meet ADB or GOL Guidelines, notably in respect of consultation with and disclosure to APs, the level of detailed and time-bound resettlement planning for indigenous minorities, the provision of an adequate HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention program, and lack of planning for the absorption of the incoming work forces and accompanying people.

The project poses a particular and massive impact in respect of the incoming work force, not only in respect of HIV/AIDS and STI, but more widely in respect of social impact at two levels: that directly on the host population; and that on local government services. There is virtually no planning or provision of resources to the Provincial Government or people to offset the impact of the planned Vietnamese work force, accompanying families and service provider workers and traders, acknowledged by the consultant to be massive – of the order of 3,000 to 5,000 workers per project, and up to four times that number of accompanying families and followers.

7.1 WREA CONDITIONS FOR RESETTLEMENT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

The Schedule 02 of Concession Agreements “Integrated Environmental and Social Obligations of the Company” in respect of Xekhaman 1 Hydropower Project, addressed to the Viet – Lao Power Joint Stock Company, spells out the elements in the Vietnamese consultant’s ESIA, EMP and RAP which are certified to be obligatory and provides conditions to be met prior to granting approval for project implementation.

The obligations and conditions in Schedule 02, however, do not demand or sufficiently identify changes or amendments to meet WREA regulations and guidelines for social and resettlement aspects of hydropower projects. Therefore, even if all conditions are met, the Project would still be non-compliant with Government of Lao PDR and ADB safeguard policies.

Despite the conditions in Schedule 02, and the changes required for further approval prior to commencing construction, the construction of the dam and hydropower plant is in its third year and well advanced. Further, despite the absence of consultation, a relocation site has been identified and planning for relocation of villages has commenced.

The developer has established a Resettlement Management Unit, and intends to conduct resettlement, compensation and relocation, including the construction of housing and utilities under this management in liaison with Provincial and District Resettlement Committees, not yet appointed. Representatives of the affected households and villages have been shown and are reported by the developer to have approved the site. There is no documented WREA approval of this management by the developer, which needs to be properly linked to and supervised by the concerned national and provincial agencies.

A more detailed point by point breakdown of compliance in respect of specific elements of the Xekhaman 1 RAP are given in the analysis set out below in Appendix 1.



8 HEALTH PLANNING AND HIV/AIDS AWARENESS AND PREVENTION

The draft Xekhaman 1 RP provides for a Project Personnel Health Programme (ESIA Report, Vol. 2, EMP, Mitigation and Environmental Protection Measure (MEPM) 27 – not reported in the RP) of $1,550,000 for disease control among the work force, locational planning, flies and mosquito control, mosquito nets and control of malaria and hemorragic fever, health station and first aid kits, which would also provide an emergency service to the surrounding population.

The EIA, SIA and RAP do not include a comprehensive review of potential health impacts on the host population, despite the fact that a stand-alone Health Impact Assessment is required by the Government of Lao PDR.

The RP provides for a total of $15,000 for support to Xanxai and Attapeu Hospitals, as a lump sum, for programmes aimed at the prevention of communicable diseases among the affected population. This amount, and the approach to HIV/AIDS and other communicable disease prevention, is clearly inadequate. The RP provides no analysis or basis for these lump sum amounts. There has been no consultation with the Provincial Department of Health on health care or on HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention, according to the Provincial Director of DoH.

9 DUE DILIGENCE AUDIT OF SEKONG 3 UPPER AND LOWER AND XEKHAMAN 4

Provisional assessment of the impact and planned provisions for resettlement and impact mitigation of the respective consultants of Sekong 3 Upper and Lower HP stations and their TLs planned for Attapeu Province is based on inadequate documentation and the limited site visits which have been possible. The assessment indicates that they are not compliant with either Laos Government or ADB Guidelines, notably in respect of:

• consultation with and disclosure of project information provided to the affected populations;

• the lack of any adequate socio-economic survey;

• the lack of any time-based planning of resettlement;

• inadequate studies or planning for the provision of changed livelihoods and income restoration;

• the absence of any indigenous minority development plan or gender development plans;

• the absence of any HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention programme;

• the lack of planning for measures to meet the impact of an incoming work force, and

• the lack of any proportion of the labour force for these constructions from the Lao population, required in Lao Labour Law.

As with the Xekhaman 1 Project, there is no consideration of cumulative impacts – particularly the cumulative impact of in-migration of the construction workforce, which is



planned to come from Vietnam.This includes an estimated 5,000 male workers for which camp sites are provided in each project, and up to three times that number of accompanying families, service providers and traders, in the consultant's estimation for the construction of Sekong 3 Upper and Lower.

In aggregate these incoming work forces and others are likely to have an overwhelming impact on the provincial population of 112,000 of Attapeu and some 97,000 people of Sekong Province. In both Provinces the majority population is made up of predominantly ethnic peoples living in separate language and physical groups. These ethnic minority groups are as yet only marginally involved in the market economy, primarily drawing their livelihoods from swidden agriculture, fishing, hunting and forest products.

The incoming total construction workforce will comprise up to 25% of the present total population of Attapeu and Sekong Province within the next five years, and could within a decade be 50% of their populations. Aside from the cultural impact which this will have, the impact on the health and wellbeing of the project area population and the stress on the government’s provision of social services will be severe, even with the comprehensive and planned measures which need to be taken on a province-wide basis.

The financing and planning of measures to provide health services and to counter the spread of communicable disease, with no specific planning for HIV/AIDS awareness or prevention in the RAP, is inadequate in relation to the need.

Lao Government officials are uniformly of the view that the present population of these Provinces will not participate in or benefit by any formal work opportunities offered by dam construction. This is a view borne out by the evidence of the existing work force at the Xekhaman 1 dam site: the Vietnamese management have organized the recruitment of the work force from Hanoi or other urban centres in Vietnam, and do not anticipate any local recruitment, except for housing construction and service trades; those Lao who are working in the ancillary facilities at the dam site are recruited from provinces and urban centres in Central Laos, rather than from local peoples. It is acknowledged by the Lao authorities that the local indigenous population have little interest or aptitude in providing labour for the hydropower construction; what also needs to be planned for, in compliance with Lao Labour Law, which requires 90% Lao employment in externally funded projects, is the provision of opportunity and skills development for Lao skilled and semi-skilled workers in the national labour force.

10 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS OF THE DUE DILIGENCE AUDIT

The hydropower projects planned for Attapeu and Xekong Provinces to supply power to the Ban Sok (Hatxan) Sub-station, are non-compliant with Lao PDR Guidelines and law, and with ADB Guidelines. The projects and the movements of population which will be involved, both as involuntary resettlement and as incoming work forces, will have a severe and lasting impact on the populations, social systems and livelihoods of affected groups, which are almost entirely made up of indigenous peoples. The mitigation of these impacts and the provision of planned restoration and development of resources and livelihoods needs to be the subject of detailed research and planning not provided in SIA or RAP, and to be disclosed to and discussed with the affected people.



The habitats, economies and livelihoods of the minority groups affected, will be totally changed or removed, to be partially replaced in planned relocation sites, and with likely employment opportunities provided in adjacent rubber plantations, but with tenuous links to traditional land and forest rights and resources which make up their traditional livelihood sources and life styles.

Downstream riparian fishing communities are estimated in the SIA to suffer severe losses of livelihoods. There is no feasibility study to indicate the likelihood of the adaptation of the affected people to alternative production systems, such pond aquaculture and irrigated gardens, proposed in outline by the consultant.

In both contexts, the evidence of feasibility studies leading to the proposed measures for the replacement of production and livelihoods systems is not sufficiently addressed in SIA or provided in RAPs, and there is inadequate or no record of information on these measures to, or consultation about them with the affected groups.

Major factors which appear to be inadequately provided for in SIAs and RAPs, and which are non-compliant with Lao Government and ADB Guidelines on Involuntary Resettlement in the present consultant documents1 include therefore the following factors:

• The consultants fail to follow Lao Government and ADB procedures and principles or specific provisions in Lao Government legislation in the conduct of SIA and the preparation of RAP and related resettlement planning;

• The level and character of consultations, participation and disclosure of RAPs and information about projects and their impact afforded to the affected populations, as at present conducted or proposed, is inadequate for any effective role on their part in decision making or management of resettlement or livelihoods restoration;

• There no specific development plans provided for indigenous minorities or gender development plans;

• The relocation of impacted indigenous villages, and proposals for their consolidation in larger villages, and related provisions of pre-built housing, cultural halls and arena and limited access to forests will radically impact on their social structures, livelihoods and way of life;

• There is inadequate assessment of and provision for the large number of the planned Vietnamese workforce and an accompanying incoming population of between 3 and 5,000 workers in each hydropower project plus families and associated traders etc, so an conjectured 40,000 to 50,000 in each Province (Attapeu population: 112,000, Sekong population: 97,000) within the currently planned hydropower development programme;

• There has been no assessment of the social and cultural impact of this in-migration, which, the present evidence suggests, will be significant in the short term, posing a potentially severe risk to health and to social stability of the indigenous populations, and leading in the long-term to a total social transformation and most probably to the disappearance of the diverse ethnic groups and languages which make up the traditional patch-work of Mon Khmer societies in these two southernmost provinces.

1 and in the conditions currently required by the Lao authorities in the case of Xekhaman 1, the only project for which a completed SIA and RAP are available.



• There is inadequate provision for the short-term and irreversible long-term effect which this in-migration will have on the social services, including health, education, security and water and sanitation services, of the two provinces2;

• The proposed restoration of livelihoods by specific measures, for example, by irrigated rice production and provision of 2 ha. forest “plots” within which to gather non-timber forest products, for villages relocated from the Xekhaman 1reservoir, and pumped irrigated gardens and pond aquaculture, for downstream villages facing loss of river flow and fisheries are either patently impracticable or are untested and should, until adequate studies are done, be regarded as technically non-feasible;

• There is negligible participation of Lao professional or construction workers in any of the audited projects, contrary to the Lao Labour Law, and

• There is a total absence of any specific or adequate HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention program, or of planned support for and integration with existing strategies and programs of the national health and specifically with HIV/AIDS (CHAS) authorities.

11 RETROFIT AND RELATED MEASURES FOR THE XEKHAMAN 1 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PROJECT RAP

The mission has needed to address four main issues:

• the need for, and scope and timing of, retrofit LARAP preparation which would provide detailed planning in areas such as relocation, ethnic peoples development, gender development, restoration of livelihoods, health care and HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention, and measures to mitigate the impact of the incoming work forces;

• the need for a planned programme of information towards and consultation with affected communities and stakeholder agencies, both on the expected impact on land, structures and livelihoods and on proposed compensation and resettlement;

• the need, expressed particularly by Provincial officials, for resettlement planning for associated hydropower projects and TLs, including the Ban Sok-Pleiku TL, to be undertaken as parts of a coherent and Province-wide programme, and to address the need to integrate such a programme into longer term social, economic and environmental development planning, ensuring its benefits to the population of the Province;

• the need for strengthened monitoring of resettlement planning and implementation, including consultation and information, to be conducted on a planned basis by WREA, EDL or other appointed Lao agency, and by an independent external monitor, and for detailed terms of reference to be provided for that purpose.

2 the nature of this impact may be judged by the fact that the Brau people living in the path of the TL between Hatxan village and the juncture with old National Road 18B have, since the first ADB mission of February 2009, been displaced by a Concession Agreement for a rubber plantation on 9,000 ha. of their former forest and swidden agricultural areas, and relocated in plantation housing; the mission was informed by the head of one of the displaced people that they had been offered permanent rights to live there on condition that they worked continuously for five years for the rubber plantation.



12 PROPOSED RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK

• It is proposed that a Framework Resettlement Policy based on the Ban Sok-Pleiju Transmission Line LARAP will provide guidelines and TOR, and provide for technical assistance, for purposes retrofit resettlement planning for associated projects on an iterative basis. A framework approach will be designed under the LARAP to address both the problem of non-compliance of associated projects and the need for integrated province-wide planning of measures to mitigate impact and to restore or improve the wellbeing and livelihoods of APs as planned development.

• A framework approach to resettlement planning and policy, following Lao and ADB Guidelines, will embrace related measures for social aspects of the hydro-power sector, and of the associated work force immigration and presence, initially in Attapeu Province in cooperation with the Provincial Government, but potentially in a wider sector programme. This would immediately be needed also in Sekong Province.

• The consultant has examined four elements of such an approach which are proposed to be examined and developed further in stage 2 of this consultancy:

• outline planning for the Ban Sok-Vn Border TL to be conducted as a core, Full RP, providing a Framework Resettlement Policy and an indicative programme for the sector at provincial level;

• terms of reference for retrofit RP preparation

1. to be prepared in the near future as summary or short RPs for all associated projects,

2. to be developed as full RPs as data for these projects become available;

• the provision of Indigenous Peoples and Gender Development Plans which would embrace principles of restoration and maintenance of existing social, cultural and economic systems with provision of additional sustainable livelihoods provided by the project;

• the preparation by the concerned Provincial Government agencies, agreed during the mission, of proposals for province-wide HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention, health care, MCH and literacy/numeracy and vocational training programmes.

The latter would be initially assisted under the TL RP financing. With agricultural and other livelihoods development, gender and indigenous peoples' development plans, this would be resourced on an iterative basis by the developers, as provincial operations, to meet the social impact and resettlement requirements of other hydropower and TL projects within a framework programme as they come on stream.

The consultant proposes that ADB provide technical assistance for the conduct of a Technical Workshop prior to the Coordination Meeting decided on at the 15 January 2011 Tripartite Meeting, with the participation of WREA and EDL, to familiarize the Vietnamese consultants and developers with Lao Government and ADB Guidelines on Involuntary Resettlement and with Lao legislation on SIA and resettlement planning, and to discuss the basis of a Framework Resettlement Policy.



13 DETAILED MEASURES FOR ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE

13.1 XEKHAMAN 1

The actions necessary to bring the SIA into minimum ADB compliance are:

• The SIA needs to be reorganized and consolidated, to include the results of socio-economic survey and reports on consultations;

• The Provincial Resettlement Committee and various monitoring and resettlement management units must be established;

• The SIA must be revised to include Xekhaman 1 to Hatxan SS TL corridor.

• The LARAP must be significantly revised to include summary reports on socio-economic analysis, consultation and all the mitigative measures defined in the SIA and then associated with actual actions, a timetable, monitoring and cost and LARAP implementation timetable must be prepared;

• At least 2 rounds of additional compliant consultation sessions need to be completed, which will include full information on the juxtaposition of the proposed relocation site with the Hatxan rubber plantation and provide the means and opportunity for the community to propose alternative sites and alternative housing provision and resourcing;

• Specific research needs to be done on land use, NTFP and hunting and the presence of spirit forests of existing host populations in forest adjoining and beyond the rive at the planned relocation site

• The concessionaire must commit to preparing regular safeguard monitoring reports according to a timetable and as defined in the SIA.

• Training in design and implementation of LARAPs and preparation of monitoring

• action plan as well as basic monitoring equipment to conduct monitoring needs

• to be provided to EDL, the Attapeu WREO office team and the concessionaire project management and consultants as soon as possible, beginning with a familiarization workshop.

To simplify the documentation, and aside from requirement 1, these revisions could be provided in an SIA and LARAP addendum. The work required to provide the addendum is estimated to be 4 man-months for one experienced international resettlement specialist and would involve at least two field trips, plus additional time for translation into Lao.

13.2 XANXAY

Given the limited if any impact which Xanxay is reported to have on any settlements or agricultural production areas and its closeness to the Xekaman 1 site, and the assumption in the Vietnamese consultant's technical reports of the combined management of the two projects, it may be acceptable to ADB to prepare an addendum to the Xekhaman 1 SIA and LARAP, specifically to examine the social impact, mitigation and resettlement needs of Xanxay.



This would be related to the estimation of the area of each type of land use to be inundated by the project called for in the EIA and EMP. The addendum should also address impact and mitigation measures in respect of downstream losses of or changes to fisheries livelihoods systems.

This should also include mitigation and monitoring matrix table, listing potential project impacts and corresponding mitigation and management measures, an implementation time schedule, as well as the identification of the parties responsible for implementing corrective actions.

The work needed to complete a Xanxay SIA and LARAP addendum will be approximately 2 man- months of time, plus expenses and at least one 3-week field investigation.

13.3 XEKHAMAN 4

The IEE rightly points out some quite significant potential impacts and the need for full SIA. A full SIA and LARAP will also be required. As pointed out in the environmental Due Diligence Audit, an examination of the NTFP use by area tribal people would also be needed.

To meet ADB environmental social safeguard requirements, would require at least 4 man-months of international specialist input as well as 8 man months for national counterparts.

13.4 SEKONG 3A

To become compliant with ADB standards, a concise SIA needs to be prepared based on a revised socio-economic survey. This is possible by carefully reviewing the existing SIA and be conducting a rapid survey and a consultation program, inputs assembled, then integrated into the SIA and a revised LARAP. This should be supplemented with a socio-economic survey to determine livelihoods and baseline data on fisheries and other livelihood sources, and attitudes to and expected responses to proposed alternative production and livelihood sources.

As indicated in the environmental due diligence audit, the effects of this dam in relation to the others on the Sekong River and its contribution to downstream effects and any potential mitigative actions was not addressed at all, and needs to by analysed and reported, for which a 2006-2007 ADB funded preliminary study of this type (ADB TA 6367, Project No. 40083), should serve as a useful starting point.

When filling these and other gaps, the SIA and LARAP need to be reorganized in accordance with ADB and Lao guidelines for it to be considered compliant.

The work required to bring this SIA and LARAP into compliance with ADB standards will be 3-4 man- months plus socio-economic and consultation program costs, with results integrated into the documentation.

13.5 SEKONG 3B

The SIA and RAP are virtually identical in wording to those of Sekong 3A, and are significantly non-compliant with ADB guidelines, as well as with Lao 2005 Technical



Guidelines on Compensation and Resettlement in Development Projects. As with the EIA discussed in the environmental due diligence audit, the SIA does not include an impact assessment, existing conditions are addressed in one section, impacts in mitigation and monitoring in another, and so on.

A clear and concise LARAP needs to be prepared which addresses resettlement issues above and beyond relocation. This can be assisted by searching through the EIA and SIA and preparing a list of all mitigative and monitoring actions identified; secondly by conducting further socio-economic survey and consultation to determine impacts on livelihoods, social and cultural systems and the attitudes and expectations of the community to impact mitigation and livelihoods restoration.

This data would then form the basis of a LARAP which should follow the terms of reference set out in a Framework Resettlement Policy to be prepared by the Ban Sok-Pleiku TL social and resettlement consultant.

Finally, a comprehensive consultation program needs to be designed delivered and properly recorded in the SIA and evidence provided that inputs were used in arriving at the SIA conclusions.

As with Sekong 3A, the work required bringing SIA and LARAP into compliance with ADB standards will be 3-4 man-months plus a complete consultation program, with results integrated into the documentation.

14 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON COMPLIANCE WITH ADB AND GOL SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS

In general, the social management and resettlement plans associated with hydropower projects planned for Attapeu and Xekong Provinces, if conducted in accordance with the existing plans and documentation, are not compliant with ADB, or with Government of Lao’s social safeguards guidelines. They could potentially be expected in the near future to have the concerted and adverse attention of the international community of organizations and interest groups with concerns for safeguard and human rights aspects of involuntary resettlement, and specifically for safeguarding the wellbeing of endangered indigenous minority groups still living largely undisturbed in the river and forest environment of the two southernmost provinces.

The hydropower projects and the related presence of the Vietnamese workforce and accompanying population will in any case have a significant impact on the populations and services of these two Provinces. There is, however, a significant difference in the approach and documentation of Xekhaman 1, which broadly follows GOL and ADB guidelines but is non-compliant in specific detail (refer to the section below), and all other hydropower projects for which documentation has been provided. These projects do not ab initio attempt to follow GOL or ADB procedures and guidelines, notably in respect of consultation, social impact assessment and resettlement.

There are five major factors which appear to be inadequately provided for in all SIAs and RAPs of the associated projects, and which are non-compliant with Lao Government and ADB Guidelines on Involuntary Resettlement in the present consultant documents:

• Consideration of workforce in-migration – the impact of the in-migration of the planned Vietnamese workforce and an accompanying incoming population



(estimated to be at least 20,000 to 40,000 in each Province) will be massive, both on the populations of these Provinces and on their administrative, health and educational services. This poses a potentially significant risk to health and social stability, and is likely to have an irreversible effect on the situation and status of the indigenous population;

• In a related aspect, the total exclusion of the Laos labour force from employment on these hydropower projects (which is not consistent with the Lao Labour Code – which states that 90% of the unskilled workforce and 80% of the skilled work force should be Lao) precludes major benefits to the local and national economy and human resource development;

• Consideration of impact on indigenous people (ethnic minority groups) and gender – the relocation of impacted indigenous (ethnic minority) villages, and proposals for their consolidation into larger villages (comprised of different ethnic minority groups), as planned will radically impact on their social structures and livelihoods. Gender issues are also not considered;

• Feasible livelihood restoration plans – the proposed restoration of livelihoods by specific measures, for example, by irrigated rice production and provision of forest “plots” within which to gather non-timber forest products, for villages relocated from the reservoir, and pumped irrigated gardens and pond aquaculture, for downstream villages facing loss of river flow and fisheries are untested (i.e. have not been demonstrated to be feasible) and may be impracticable;

• Public involvement and consultation – the level and character of consultations, participation and information afforded to the affected populations, as at present conducted or proposed, does not follow ADB or Lao Government Guidelines, and is inadequate for any effective role on their part in decision making or management of resettlement, relocation or livelihoods restoration; and

• Consideration of HIV / AIDS and other health risks (e.g. water-borne and vector-borne disease) – the absence of any specific or adequate HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention programme poses a significant risk to the local and the incoming population alike.

Further, there is no resettlement planning for any of the four associated projects in the sense in which ADB and the Lao Government Regulations require it (i.e. a time bound planning system in which all aspects of the impact of the project are recorded, information provided to and consultation conducted with the affected population, planning undertaken in the light of a census of all the affected people and a socioeconomic survey conducted of the wider impacted population, compensation rates and other entitlements stated an income restoration programme identified, and a grievance mechanism established).

This is, in short, a systemic difference between the approach adopted and the planning undertaken by the Vietnamese consultants and that of the ADB and the Lao Government.



Appendix 1. Detailed Due Diligence Audit of the Xekhaman 1 RAP

Resettlement Proposals in the RAP Compliant with ADB

guidelines?

Comments and Suggested Retrofit Actions

Participation Local community participation in planning, implementation and monitoring is a key element in hydropower projects. Involvement of stakeholders on the local level aims to ensure that benefits reach these populations and that construction and operation of the Project progress smoothly without delays or resettlement from the affected communities. For local participation to work, a “feedback loop” must be established to show that the opinions, concerns and expectations of people have been seriously considered and when feasible incorporated into the design of the Project. The most important steps are as follows:

- Information dissemination to affected communities – this has commenced in state 1 and will continue as more details and propose mitigation measures are developing in stage 2

- Interactive planning is when draft mitigation measures, proposed site selection, and livelihood restoration have been developed based on data collection, technical specification and initial feedback from discussions at the village and regional levels. This is primarily stage 2 of the consultation process that will continue throughout implementation.

No

The RP indicates that information to and consultation with the affected population has consisted of a limited number of focus group discussions and verbal information to community leaders and the District Government. Representatives of households have been taken to the planned relocation site, which borders the newly developed rubber plantation. This situation and access to forest are not adequately shown in the RAP or explained to APs. ADB Guidelines call, specifically in respect of indigenous or ethnic minority groups that at the stage of project preparation there should be at least one meeting of the whole affected people, and a series of community meetings with each affected group. This would need be undertaken at the start of a retrofit RP preparation. The approach to participation, consultation and information is that of a staged approach, which would (see below) avoid detailed information and consultation until after an RP had been prepared, in order not




guidelines?


to confuse APs, said not to be able to understand the impact of the project.. In practice the project construction and impact are far advanced, with the construction of access road, site office and workers accommodation largely completed. WREA’s provision of a conditional certificate basically approves this staged approach to participation and consultation.

- Participatory implementation and monitoring implies that the affect

communities themselves will have a central role in organizing and carrying out mitigation measures, including relocation and rehabilitation of livelihood systems. This is primarily stage 3 of the process.

For the writing or this RAP/SIA, small meetings and local discussion groups have held. This is to avoid creating unrealistic expectations ablaut the Project. It has agreed with GOL authorities that it is wise only to carry out large-scale consultations using PRA methods only after the Project has considered technically and economically feasible.

No

Retrofit action would follow ADB Guidelines in strengthening participation during the decision making and planning stage. Procedures adopted for Nam Theum 2 are regarded by EDL as a model and would be followed. It is suggested that a workshop be conducted involving EDL, Provincial and District and AP community leaders to lay the foundation for a fuller information and consultation process. The effect of this approach is to avoid both any specific information to the affected population and any negative responses which they may have. We understand that focus groups were conducted alongside a sample socio-economic survey, and covered villages being inundated but not necessarily those impacted by agricultural land loss or




guidelines?


downstream villages suffering loss of fishing. A full consultation programme involving formally organised meetings would be accompanied by a census based IOL and SES of all households.

For the resettlement plan of the XKM1 Project, the main aims will be as following:

- Offering fair and prompt compensation to all 1094 persons and 220 HHs of 5 Villages affected by the Project

- Making in-kind compensation (land for land, house), and only exceptionally replace this by a cash compensation.

- To at least restore their economic condition to pre-resettlement level or, whenever possible, to improve it; this can also include the development of alternative livelihood strategies for selected villages or HHs, as long as they are ready to accept such a development.

- Maintaining the social structure and networks of the affected communities.

Land use planning for Hauoy Doum resettlement site Predicted population for Hauoy Doum resettlement site In order to set land-use plan for the new site, we have to predict how much population will increase in specific time. Predicted population for Hauoy Doum was calculating with yearly birth rate at 2.1%. Number or HHs was calculating with size HH of the 4.97 persons/HH. Results are show in Table 4.1.

Yes

Land use planning as described in the RP involves a transformation of APs farming systems and of their present spatially separated villages, each with their own mainly swidden production areas and forest areas. The retrofit would examine the need for more more detailed research and consultation on land use with APs. We suggest that it should also include the possibility of separate village sites with some common resources.

To implement the policy of GoL that the small villages will be combined

While the RP refers to GoL policy of village




guidelines?


into a larger village. That is, in order, to have good conditions for establishing infrastructures improving quality of fresh water, medical and education service, and to meet the requirements of 220 HHs, who have to remove the houses, and the resettlement site of the 5 villages will be combined into a large village located at Hauoy Doum, on the left side of Xekaman River. The main principle of resettlement process is not disturbing coming villages. That mean, the HHs of former village will locate together at private area at new village with own school, cemetery, common house (Figure 4.1). Each house lot has size of 20 m x 40 m = 800 m2 In order to ensure the new place will provide all necessary facilities for resettles, following structures should construct for the new resettlement site of Hauoy Doum:

- Five Meeting Hall - Five School - Five Cemetery - One Health Station - One Market

consolidation, this policy is not supported in the recent NSC/ADB Participatory Poverty Assessment, and in this instance should in a retrofit RP be reexamined in the context of AP preferences. Previous resettlement projects in Laos and current studies of the Ban Sok-Pleiku TL have indicated that separate very small schools and health units are not viable, especially in being unable to recruit teachers and health workers. It is suggested that the feasibility of having common facilities within walking reach of all villages should be studied in a retrofit RP.

Each HH in the affected villages will receive a lump-sum payment to assist with miscellaneous costs associated with moving and to mitigate for general disturbance. The basic for determining the amount of this payment will agree and all HHs notified of their entitlements. These payments will made at the time that residence is take up in the new village. In addition to compensation for lost HH structures and assistance with reconstruction at the new villages, the Project will also provide transport to move personal effects to the new locations.

Yes




guidelines?


Crops and Trees Fruit trees and bushes will have to plant at the new sites for compensating losses. Vegetable seed will provide available at each HH for establishing a home garden. This assistance will be in addition to compensation for lost agricultural assets. Assistance during Relocation and Transition Period The Project will comply with the Decree on Resettlement and Compensation, 2005, which states: Project Affected Persons displaces and severely affected due to the loss of incomes and means of livelihood shall provided with

- Food allowance, in cash or in kind, during the transition period - Suitable development assistance after displacement during the

transition period until they are able to restore their incomes of livelihood standards, or reach the targeted level of HH incomes on a sustainable basis.

- Transport allowance or other appropriate assistance in kind to transfer to the resettlement site or their choice of relocation, as the case may be.

Yes Yes

A retrofit RP would include cash compensation for lost plant materials and production potential of economic trees.

Medicare Support Provision of medical services at an affordable cost may be a request raised by the communities. These are several options that the Project could investigate to provide support of medicate in the local communities. Communities with health clinics could assist through equipment improvements or through the provision of medicines to sell on at coast. Budgets and an action plan for implementation could be prepared for implementation prior to the physical relocation.

No

The provision of health care services appears in the RP to be derived primarily from health care provision for the workforce at the hydropower site and related compensatory measures lacking any detailed planning. Allocations to Xanxay and Attapeu hospitals are substantially inadequate. A retrofit RP would include separate detailed planning and financing for health




guidelines?


care of relocated households, and crucially for communicable disease prevention, which would be planned on a province-wide basis for all hydropower developments.

The Project will provide funding towards implementation of various economic development programs for the relocated villagers. The exact nature of these programs will depend upon the possibilities given in the areas, but also on input, suggestions and requests for the villagers themselves as it is recognized that such projects need to develop out of the communities” own initiatives in order to be successful and sustaining. The LAIR Plan will have three main phases of works:

- Investigations, surveys and community consultation to establish baseline information

- Construction of agro-economic and alternate economic models that will form the basis for development programs and other assistance aimed at restoring livelihoods.

- Implement of the livelihood restoration actions and monitoring. Monitoring will tied into the overall monitoring program for the resettlement itself.

No

Sufficient detail of planned and time-bound investments in livelihood restoration would be provided in a retrofit RP.

One of the more productive activities in the communities in terms of income generation is silk processing. Mostly women produce silk in medium quantities. However, with more focused organization higher quantities could produced, processed, and then marketed to generate more income for the women. Women could also weave during their spare time, as they construct the weaving looms they use themselves. Of importance is to find a buyer in one of the big towns, who could order in

A retrofit RP would need to examine a range of women’s off-farm economic activities, including silk and other handicrafts production and marketing




guidelines?


bulk form the women on specified dates. The buyer would be responsible for collection the silk form the women. Agricultural support will provided to assist with the establishment of new woodlots to replace those lost in the relocation. Seeds or seedlings will supply for tree species and vegetables. Tools will provided and a local consulting firm dealing with agriculture and rural development will use regarding the provision of support and training in agricultural production. There will also be the establishment of new paddies to replace those lost. There could also be a community development plan for the region and RO could examine a regional program to extend agricultural courses out to the farmers of the region. Such a regional program could also be adapted to benefit farmers in the affected villages, such as by conduction classes or training sessions in the villages or by selecting effected villagers to set up demonstration farms. Budgets and an action plan for implementation of the agricultural support program will be prepared as part of the LAIR Plan.

Yes

The proposal for a “regional” agricultural development programme is in line with a framework strategy for all hydropower project resettlement discussed with the Provincial Government and with the Provincial Department of Agriculture and EDL in the context of this due diligence audit.

Most women in the Project area have limited opportunity to earn income, generally involved only in weaving, embroidery and sewing. A micro-credit loan scheme will established to allow women to expand their income generation capacity. Five groups of women, with ten women per group, will initially target although the program may expanded with time. Women will train in simple bookkeeping and financial management as well as other skills. A local NGO/consulting firm will consult to oversee the program and provide the training. Budgets and an action plant for implementation will be prepared as part of the LAIR Plan.

Yes

However, we note that the NCS/ADB PPA cautions against the widespread introduction of credit schemes, which it indicates are distrusted by women of poor and isolated indigenous groups in a context of uncertain production and marketing systems.




guidelines?


Literacy levels are low in the affected villages as whole. Under the resettlement scheme, adult literacy classes will established at a school. Other educational support will include provision of learning materials, teaching materials, etc. Budgets and an action plan for implementation will be prepared as part of the LAIR Plan.

Yes This is also supported in a proposed province-wide educational programme discussed with the Provincial Government for all hydropower project resettlement.

Most ceremonies require rituals and offerings of some sort. The cost of a bull or any other livestock used in the ceremonies has suggested as a compensation amount sufficient for this. However, during the next phase, together with the village headmen and elders, an indicator of actual cost for customary rituals and ceremonies will be included, also taking into account other items.

?

While not contrary to ADB Guidelines, compensation is not thought to be an appropriate response to potential cultural disruption; a retrofit RP would need to examine protective or funding measures worked out in consultation with and requested by AP communities.

Every PAPs receiving compensation of any kind will have to sign an agreement acknowledging that compensation has received. Such an agreement will specify what has received as compensation and three parties should witness this:

- A government representative at village level. - The implementer’s representative, and - Legal counsel,

All PAPs acquiring new houses and land will also require registration certificates to ensure and verify that they own the house on that piece of new land and have that right to own, possess, use and right to transfer, as stipulated in the Constitution Article 15. The registration certificate will also indicate that in the case of couples both the husband and wife own the property. This makes it easy for property to inherited, which is also in accordance with the law.

Yes

Any regulation of land or other fixed asset inheritance should be based on customary practice in affected communities, rather than on national contract based law, and should be accompanied by measures to prevent land loss to speculative purchase by outsiders.




guidelines?


Both a Compensation Agreement and Land Registration Form will draft in the next phase. It was able to trained short-term occupations for young people in Kom Tum province with 47 people. Check and manage regularly foreign laborers. Currently, the Vietnamese laborers who registered are 1,651 people. Coordinated with the relevant organizations to implement the policy, social insurance for state cadres, army, polices and wounded cadres as well as the policy for the people who deserved well of the fatherland as follows:

- Implement the policy according to the Decree 194/CP for 80 people, total is 323,851 million kip.

- Implement the policy according to the Decree 71/CP for 8 people. - Implement the policy of retired cadres before 1975 for 33 people

with the total amount of 87.683 million kip. - Implement the policy with army heroes, voluntary youths for 5

people with the amount of 30 million kip. - Arrangement for the retired elderly cadres to go on holiday is 21

people, help to reduce poverty for the people meeting with natural calamity with 2,644 tons of rice, help 165 damaged families.

- Cooperate with the Committee to search for the revolutionary martyr tombs of Vietnam and searched 465 tombs.

- Be surveyed and collected bombs and bullets from the production area of the ethnic groups in 5 districts with 22,067 bombs on an area of 2,176.78 ha.

?

These appear to be measure primarily aimed at welfare support for Vietnamese people engaged in the work force or previously in warfare in the project area, and should be addressed in separate provision by the Vietnamese authorities or the project developer in liaison with GoL.

Resettlement schedule because of no cut-off date set by the Project developer; schedule presented here is principle guidelines only.

Yes

However, the assumption that “detailed planning needs to start immediate”




guidelines?


Time plan All the necessary arrangement in respect of facilities and compensation for displacement and relocation must been adequately taken care of before the actual construction of the dam can be implemented The resettlement schedule is determined mainly by the construction schedule for the dam and power plant and by the necessity, that relocation and all types of in-kind compensation (mainly replacement of land lost due to submersion) must accomplished before the reservoir is filled. Present plans anticipate a construction period (from the start of first preparatory works on the ground to commissioning of the power plant) of 5 year (2007-2011). Land preparation, construction of new house and facilities, and actual relocation (including all related activities) must accomplished by the time the reservoir is starting to fill.

- Construction activities; shows only the main activities, without going into any details. The important points in time for the resettlement are the start of the works and the filling of the reservoir.

- Detailed planning needs to start immediately. Given the overall schedule, there is enough time for doing it properly, provided no time is lost in the initial stages. The main part of the planning need to done before actual implementation can start, but it will go on until almost to the end of implementation (indicated by a lighter shade).

- The participatory process has started, but needs to intensify in the next phase. While the pre-implementation phase is the most important for this process, it nevertheless needs to go on throughout the whole time span of the resettlement.

- Land preparation, construction of new house and related activities:

- Since the resettlement presumably involves, at least in some cars,

presupposes a staged development planning process which is not compliant with ADB or WREA Guidelines, except where this is part of a progressive and iterative process for which there is sufficient outline planning in the RP, and for which a framework exists in agreement between GoL and ADB. This would be achieved by a Framework RP based on a full RP for the Ban Sok-Pleiku TL and early completion of detailed resettlement planning for Xekaman 1, Xekaman 1 TL, and other associated projects. It is proposed that retrofit RP planning should be on this basis.




guidelines?


a major shift in livelihood patterns (from slash and burn to terraced stabilized agriculture and to industrial tree crops), extension and training are very important. It is likely that this process will have to go beyond the time horizon shown in the schedule

- Monitoring will start as soon as work on the ground starts. This process as well needs to go beyond the time horizon shown above; until all stakeholders are satisfied that; the aims set have achieved. It understood that corrective measures would have to take if indicated by monitoring.

Overall, it can say that the construction schedule for the power plant provides sufficient time for the resettlement program to carry out under the best of terms. However, it is important that no time is lost in the beginning; even though the available time span might still seems very long by then. Consultation and participation as a structured process In order to ensure the participation of stakeholders at all levels, there are three important stages in XKM1’s public participation process:

- Initial Participation: during baseline surveys with some focus group discussions with village leadership at the villages, group of villages and district level.

- Participation during Detailed Planning: discussion, meetings, and participatory rural appraisals (PRA) with all stakeholders before the commencement of construction in order to incorporate concerns into project design and to initiate a feedback process that will continue during implementation

- Participation during implementation and monitoring: participatory implementation arrangements

No No

ADB Guidelines do not permit the selective process which has been followed during the consultant’s baseline surveys, unless this was conducted as an Initial SIA during pre-feasibility study. A retrofit RP will need to follow the schedule set out by the consultant, but as part of a framework approach based on a core RP and iterative resettlement planning for Xekaman 1 and other associated projects. Participation and consultation will need to adhere specifically to procedures required by ADB for resettlement of ethnic memories and indigenous groups, including whole-




guidelines?


The public participation process should involve all group, gender and language issues and it is, therefore, necessary to introduce additional measures to ensure that women and some ethnic minority groups participate in project planning and implementation Public Participation Methodologies Methodologies will require adjustment, modification and refinement as the Project move forward. The following methods could applied for the Project

- RRA and PRA methods: information dissemination, meetings, discussions with groups, leaders and individuals – establish a feedback loop, site visits, poster, etc.

- Meetings at district, provincial level: National, international workshops for all stakeholders

- Establish website for electronic document distribution and access Local Community Participation Local community participation in planning, implementation and monitoring is a key element in hydropower projects. Involvement stakeholders on the local level aims to ensure that benefits reach these populations and that construction and operation of the Project progress smoothly without delays or resettlement from the affected communities. For local participation to work, a “feedback loop” must be established to show that the opinions, concerns and expectations of people have been seriously considered and when feasible incorporated into the design of the Project. The most important steps are as follows: Information dissemination to affected communities – this has commenced in stage 1 and will continue as more details and propose mitigation measures are developing in stage 2

community meetings and separate village meetings.




guidelines?


Interactive planning is when draft mitigation measures, proposed site selection, and livelihood restoration have been developed based on data collection, technical specification and initial feedback from discussions at the village and regional levels. This is primarily stage 2 of the consultation process that will continue throughout implementation. Complaints and Grievance Procedure There will be three instances for sorting out complaints and grievances. Every affected person has the right to lodge a complaint when dissatisfied with compensation or resettlement process.

- First instance: The first instance will be at the village level, with the VRC listening to complaints from the PAPs and trying to resolve these. Should the first instance fail then the second instance, situated at the District level will be the next adjudicator. The District Resettlement Committee (DRC) and the RMU/GoL and RMO/GoL will listen to the complaints. Should the plaintiff still wish to lodge a grievance, having failed to be satisfied at the second instance, the legal Court at the provincial level will be the last and final instance. The PAP lodging the complaint should not make to pay for the case. The outcome ruling on the complaint will respected.

In most cases of disputes, it expected that the plaintiff would not reach the second instance, which in this case would be the RMU/GoL with an NGO or Consultant observers/witness to ensure that the PAP justly heard and the right decision given. Normally disputes solved at the village level, with moderators ensuring that disputes stay within the village. In such compensation and resettlement operations, many grievances

Yes




guidelines?


take root in misunderstandings, or result from conflicts between neighbors, which usually can solved through adequate mediation using customary rules. Most (90%) of grievances can be extinguished with additional explanation efforts and limited mediation. A first instance mechanism aimed at the amicable settlement of disputes. When an aggrieved person presents a grievance or dispute to the Legal Counsel, the legal advisor will seek settlement using first the customary mechanisms available in the community. These mechanisms use customary rules well known to all and considered binding by all. Community leaders typically and rightfully play an important role in achieving settlements acceptable to all parties, Normally disputes solved at the village level. With moderators ensuring that, disputes stay within the village.

- Second instance: When a settlement cannot reach at the First Instance level, the second instance mechanism triggered amicable settlement under the auspices of the Legal Counsel/Witness NGO and RMU. It will consist of the following members: Witness NGO/Consultant (chairperson); The RMU; Aggrieved PAPs and/or their representatives or counsels; and independent Legal Counsel.

Mediation meetings organized with the interested parties. Minutes of meetings recorded.

- Third instance: According to the Lao constitution, every individual has the right to access a court of law to lodge complaints, and petitions as expressed in Article 28:




guidelines?


“Lao citizens have the right to lodge complaints and petitions and to propose ideas to relevant state organizations in connections with issues pertaining to the rights and interests of collectives or of their individuals.; Complaints, petitions and ideals of citizens must be considered for solutions as prescribed by law”. Appel to the Court will therefore be though the normal jurisdiction. Given the mechanisms described above, it not expected that many disputes would reach this level.

- Participatory implementation and monitoring implies that the affected communities themselves will have a central role in organizing and carrying out mitigation measures, including relocation and rehabilitation of livelihood systems. This is primarily stage 3 of the process.

This approach aims to avoid the problem of “consultation fatigue” that can be a problem for large infrastructure projects that take considerable time in the planning stage. For the writing of this RAP/SIA, small meetings and focal discussion groups have held. This is to avoid creating unrealistic expectations ablaut the Project. It has agreed with GOL authorities that is wire only to carry out large-scale consultations using PRA methods only after the Project has considered technically and economically feasible. Consultations should be “informed” discussions when the facts and technical limitations are known, especially regarding resettlement, which involves a complex process of relocation and restoration and improvement of livelihood systems. It is very important to be consistent in presenting such impacts to affected communities since incorrect information will cause considerable confusion and worry.




guidelines?


In accordance with Lao government EIA regulations and WB safeguard policies, disclosure of information to project stakeholders and the public is necessary. This implies that reliable and up-to-date information on the Project as it develops should be available through various media. The main aspects include:

- Use of Lao TV and Radio to reach the general public – updates about progress on the Project and public meeting announcements

- Information bulletins to national and international newspapers and information to visiting journalists or international NGOs

- Summaries and explanations of the Project in all affected communities

- Information centre where reports are available - National workshops open to all interested parties and the general

public Livelihood Restoration Support to develop forestry: as part of land use planning, each HH will allocate 2.0 ha of forestland for the purpose of forestry protection and use of forest products. Unit price for forestation and protection of 15 US$/ha Since all relocated HHs lost their grassland, each house will provided 2.0 ha grass land and two heads of livestock (700 US$ per two livestock’s).

No

The retrofit RP would need to take into account access to and customary practice, ownership and spirit presence in forest resource use, which would not be achieved by any allocation of forest plots; this is essentially a common resource and fundamental to livelihood systems of APs.

Support to stabilize economic production and living Each resettle will be providing financial support equal to 30 kg rice/month over 2 years after resettlement. The rate price to assist for one as follow:

Yes




guidelines?


30 kg/person x 24 months x 0.4 US$/kg = 288 US$/person. Employment Support: To provide support for individuals adjusting to new employment conditions, each HH will be give a one off lump-sum of US$1,500.

Yes

Support for HHs with Invalid or Disables Family Members

HHs with disabled or invalid family members will receive an extra lump sum of US$ 100 to assist in the relocation process. It is estimated that 5% of total HH are in this situation = 11 HHs.

Support for the People, who are incapable to Help Themselves According to the results of survey on migration – resettlement carried out in November 2006 for 5 villages to be resettled (see appendix 1), in the villages to be resettled there are 4 lonely people who cannot take care of themselves as follow:

- In the village Souksavang have three people, who birth in the year 1944, 1936 and 1945

- In the village Hindam have one people who Birth in the year 1951. The Project is expected to support these people as follows:

- In the three initial years: 30kg rice/month x 36 months x 0.4 US$/kg x 4 persons = US$1,728,

- In the 10 subsequent years: 20kg rice/month x 12 months x 0.4 US$/kg x 4 persons = US$3,840,

- Total funding support for the people, who are incapable to help themselves: US$5,560

Yes




guidelines?


Some notable customs should help to maintain including: - Burial ceremony - Wedding ceremony - New harvest festival

After the villages have been moved to the new locations, the Project will provide the following assistance budget for maintaining these customs: 3 years x (5 villages x 1,500US$/1 village) = US$22,500.

No It is suggested that support for customary and religious practices should be protective rather than compensatory.

Resettlement incentives; To provide incentive for villagers to conform to the resettlement timeline, a one off lump sum of 200 US$ will allocate to those HHs is which relocate within the correct timeframe. Assuming 100% of all HH’s will relocate within the allocated time. Other settlement support including medical services, pest control, school stationary supplies etc. Proposed figure for each HH is 200 US$. Total budget supporting for development RA showed on the Table 5.13.

Yes No

These are components which need to be planned and time-bound activities and investments.

Support program for people in the Project area The assistant program for people in project area including:

- Villages rounding XKM1 reservoir - TwoPhiengxe and Fudeng villages left XKM1 reservoir in 1998 - The affected villages located in the downstream along Xekaman

River - Departments of Xanxay district - Hospitals of Attapeu province and Xanxay district

Estimated budget for assistant above objects as follows:

No

These are inadequately researched and should be studied and detail and planned on the basis of sustained consultation with the concerned APs, and should be monitored and revised over sufficient time and a budget provided for that purpose.




guidelines?


Support to population rounding XKM1 reservoir There are 14 villages comprising 471 HHs that belong to this category. The proposed support fund for each HH will be US$1,500. Thus, the total cost is 471HH x 1,500US$/HH = US$706,500. In the downstream area, there are 15 villages, those being Mai (Xanxay district), Xaixi, Khammakong, Phangdeng, Phoxai, Xay, Udomxai, Touay, Keng-Nhay, Vat Nua, Vatthat, Vatlouang, Somkhot (Xaisettha district), Hauoy Keo and Xamakhi (Xamakhixay district) with 2,579 HHs. The Project developer will support to establish a system of fresh water provision and to assist in economic development from fisheries to other occupations. Out of 2,579 HHs living by the Xekaman River, only 693 HHs uses the River for commercial fishing. The Project developer will support budget to change fishery into other occupation (depending on every fisher’s actual situation to choose spare occupation) of US$1,226. Total cost for this work is 693 HHs x 1,226 US$/HH = US$849,618.

As above, notably in respect of measures to replace or improve fisheries.

Support to establish system providing fresh water In this area, HH’s are accessing fresh water from wells and from the Xekaman River. At present there are 95 wells providing fresh water to 950 HHs (roughly 10 HHs/well). The project developer will drill for new wells. We calculated the number of additional wells to be (2,579 HHs – 950 HHs)/10 HHs = 163 wells. Since XKM1 HPP is located on the Xanxay territory, Xanxay District’s

Yes




guidelines?


people committee requires the Project developer to provide the items listed on the table 5.15. Table 5.15: Budget to support for Xanxay District Support items Cost (US$)

POP OP Total Building schools for 2 villages Hindam and Vangsai

0 60,000 60,000

Building the self-run system to providing water for District’s Office

0 150,000 150,000

Providing fund to reduce poverty for Dakhiet village

0 25,000 25,000

Building the memory house of Mr. K. Phomvihan at District’s town

0 80,000 80,000

Capacity building to manage technical aspects of the electrical power supply of Xanxay district

0 35,000 35,000

Training Vietnamese language (3 persons/year x 5 years)

36,000 0 36,000

Building forestry, agriculture, fishery promotion station

19,800 0 19,800

Total 55,800 350,000 405,800

The time schedule of the support to Xanxay district is as follows: Building two schools for villages Hindam and Vangsai: 2 years after the XKM1 HPP has put into operation, prepare in year 2013; Providing fund to reduce poverty for Dakhiet village: 2 years after the XKM1 HPP has been put into operation, prepare in year 2013;

Yes

However these supports are essentially for a “host community” and should be planned and agreed with EDL.




guidelines?


Assistance of hospitals of Attapeu province and Xanxay district The VLPC will extract US$15,000 from the Reserve Fund for the implementation of ESMP to assist the hospital of Xanxay district 5,000 US$ and the hospital of Attapeu province 10,000 US$ in the curbing the spread of diseases when the many workers are concentrated on the construction site.

Monitoring requirements and indicators The planning and implementation activities for resettlement will monitor to ensure that the process carried out fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the plan. Two separate kinds of monitoring are as follows:

- Monitoring of physical progress including reaching key benchmarks (acquisition of land, payment of compensation, construction, preparation of land at new site); and

- Monitoring of non-physical performance-goal/outcome attainment on incomes, health, education, social issues and capacity building

Monitoring of physical progress will carried out by the Project’s staff under the direction of the Community Development Facilitator, as well as by the VRC, Regular feedback on the resettlement process and progress will provided to the affected residents through formal or informal meeting and discussions. The reporting schedule will be monthly; however, more or less frequent progress updates may warranted depending on the level of activity and as the relocation, date nears. An independent third party of consultants, to appoint by the Project, will

Yes

However, external monitoring will in a retrofit RP need to include monitoring of all resettlement activities, including information and consultation programmes, and the structure and budget, including contracting with an independent monitoring agency, determined and included ab initio.




guidelines?


monitor non-physical performance. The consultants will perform periodic reviews of the socio-economic status of the affected HHs, and will solicit feedback and comments from these HHs regarding the resettlement process. A matrix of socio-economic indicators, mainly based on village wide statistics, will collected as part of the monitoring; however, monitoring of individual HHs and comparison of their conditions to pre-relocation status will also carried out. The consultants will provide a report to the Project management presenting their findings including any identified problems, community views and any recommended measures or improvements that could made. The monitoring schedule will initially be set twice a year and will continue for a minimum three years following physical relocation to the new villages. The monitoring period will extend if necessary until equivalency to pre-relocation conditions can demonstrated. Specific measurement tools for determining equivalency will be set as part of the monitoring indicators. The methodology used to evaluate equivalency must incorporate a degree of flexibility or be able to adapt to unforeseen or unanticipated events, which are beyond the control of the Developer and which have negative impacts on the populations affected by resettlement. Such events could include drought, floods (or other acts of nature), or sickness. The monitoring agency must be able to recognize such circumstances, evaluate their effect on resettlement recovery process and develop alternative indicators for determining equivalency if necessary. Indicators based on the plot sizes, production levels, Gross Domestic Product, HH and the monitoring consultants should consider personal incomes, purchasing power. Monitoring indicators In preparation of this report, the consultant has set up a database of all




guidelines?


interviews PAPs covered by the socio-economic survey. The database will expanded once the detailed socio-economic survey carried out at the next stage. The sample survey addressed aspects of living standards of the PAPS through questions momentary incomes. This makes up a set of indicator that should defined in agricultural and non-agricultural sources. Additionally, question on HH assets e.g. radio, tractors and other equipment, plus food security and HH expenditures covered during the survey. The quantitative indicators emanating from questions on monetary incomes and welfare indicators should allow for crosschecking of data about living standards. It is envisaged that a monitoring unit be set up, which will have a panel of experts, consisting of the NGO representative/Consultant (and possibly international external consultants). Monitoring of LAIR will carried out twice a year by an external consultant if necessary; and the second crucial monitoring will be on whether RAP is achieving its objectives and going the right way. This will carry out and evaluated by (international, if necessary; and the second crucial monitoring will be on whether RAP is achieving its objectives and going the right way. This will carry out and evaluated by (international, if required) external consultants. On completion of implementation, monitoring and evaluation will go on for a period of least three (3) years or until such a time that all stakeholders will satisfied the resettlement goals have been achieved. Monitoring will be the responsibility of experts with consultations or other stakeholders to solicit information on the Project’s progress and impact. Consultation will sought from technical staff, NGO representative/Consultant, local administration and legal counsel. The monitoring of LAIR will be regular, done by the technical staff that will also produce quarterly reports. Adjustments will make to ensure that LAIR objectives achieved. Within the first year of relocation, an external




guidelines?


consultant will engaged if necessary to follow-up on socio-economic data access project impacts o affected population. The Village Resettlement Committee will also continuously monitor to update the affected persons on the progress of the Project. Monitoring by the internal monitoring structure (i.e. by RO itself and by the witness NGO/Consultant) will be a continuing process. Quarterly reports may be coincidental with visitations from external support agencies that are free to make short visits, verify quarterly reports and jointly decide on engaging appropriate consultant capable of dealing with specific project sectors where serious deviations detected. The first evaluation through the Panel of Experts will be at the start of the actual implementation process, and thereafter in a 6-month interval for a period of at least two years after completion of implementation, or until the panel will be satisfied that resettlement has implemented properly. Institutional Structure & Organisation The Resettlement Advisory Group (RAG) The RAG sits at the national level, and is also the Steering Committee and should make up of various government ministries and donor representatives involved in the resettlement activities. A representative of the Prime Minister should chair the RAG. Relevant government ministries include the MEM, WREA, Ministry of Communication, Transport, Post and Construction, and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The roles of the RAG include Review of strategies and results, advice and inform movement of possible regulatory or legal.

Yes




guidelines?


The RAG will convene at regular intervals, at least once a month during the design and implementation phases of the RAP to ensure the regular exchange of information amoung of parties and the coordination of all resettlement activities. It is mandatory that the government or ministry representatives be of high authority so that timely implementation of activities is inbuilt in the Project, where grievances can settle quickly when they occur. The Resettlement Committee (RC) will base at the provincial level, in this case, is in Attapeu Provinces. The Government normally appoints this committee which then reports back to the government and coordinates with the Resettlement Management Unit (RMU), Resettlement Offices of GoL (RMO/GoL) and the District Resettlement Committees (DSC’s). The RC will also liaise with the Government at all levels, central, provincial and district and with external organizations on issues relating to resettlement. The RC should have representatives from both affected provinces. Its role is to ensure that RAG is implementing according to the proposed budget and compensation kept within the stipulated budget and activities carried out so far. It will also review the work plan and budget for the next following six months. The RC will also facilitate in the transparency and accountability of the RMU and the activities carried out under its supervision. The Resettlement Management Unit under GoL (RMU/GoL) This may also known as the Project Implementation Unit as it will have overall responsibility for managing, coordinating and supervising the whole resettlement implementation. This will be a government unit and will be at the district level and reporting to the RC. The RC has the role of ensuring that activities as spelt out in the RAG are carry out. The RMU/GoL’s main office should ideally be set in each office with a smaller

Yes Yes




guidelines?


office in Vientiane for easy access and exchange of information with the RAG. The RMU/GoL will have personnel of various skills to build capacity of counterparts. The RMU/GoL will have a Director, Coordinator, Administrator, and Financial Office and Communications office, whose role would be to negotiate and consult with village groups affected by the Project; to facilitate at public meetings; and to liaise with Resettlement Advisory Group (RAG). RMU established by GoL will first have the responsibility to implement fully the resettlement policy of the Lao Government. RMU/GoL will also have the responsibility to assit the Xanxay district and villages that must be relocated to realize the resettlement action plan (RAP) set forth by the XKM1 PC. RMU will be place directly under the management of the Resettlement Committee (RC) of GoL and will be closely related with the leaders of Attapeu province. The staff of RMU/GoL will be selected from agencies of Xanxay district and Attapeu province. RMU/GoL will have the responsibility to work out resettlement plans, participate in and, more importantly, implement of the social development plan (SDP). Under the leadership of RMU/GoL, the Xanxay district’s resettlement working group (XRWG); village resettlement working group (VRWG) will collect the requirements for relocation and resettlement of the district and villages. The Resettlement Office under XKM1 PC (RO/XKM1 PC) XKM1 PC will be responsible for establishing a Project Resettlement

Yes




guidelines?


Office (RO) that will be responsible for implementation and/or monitoring of all social impact and resettlement MEPMs directly under the control of XKM1 PC and it gents. The RO/XKM1 PC will work with the RMU and other GoL agencies as appropriate for all resettlement activities of the Project. Resettlement officers should cover both of the social and environmental aspects as the analysis, environmental officers, agriculture (Forester, fishery officer, health, education, water and sanitation). The offices will be dividing into units dealing with:

- Monitoring - Livelihood Augmentation and Income Regeneration - Finance and Administration - Consulting and Communications - Compensation and Legal Counsel

The RO/XKM1 will have units based on technical expertise. The RO/XKM1 is to provide expertise to the supervision of contractors or other actors who would be providing services in, for example, agricultural extension, social infrastructure (water and sanitation, health, education) and civil work to affected villages. The RO/XKM1 will have a Manager who will be conversant with environmental and social aspects, and have strong project management skills and ability to liaise with NGOs, consultants and local/traditional authorities. The manager will be a Lao either national or experienced person within the region.

District Resettlement Council A District Resettlement Council (DRC) will be former made up of at least one member from each of the affected villages within the district. The size

Yes




guidelines?


of the council will therefore be small but three positions must be preserved for women with at least 2 of those being senior posts. The Village Resettlement Communities (VRCs – discussed below) will be represented in the Resettlement Councils. This body will deal with issues common to all affected villages, will see to it that a consistent standard is being applied and followed throughout, and will form the communication like between the individual villages and RMU. Village Resettlement Communities The effected villages themselves from the Village Resettlement Communities (VRC) and they will be the link between the DRC and the village. The VRC should have representatives from all levels of the village with a third of the seats reserved for women, who can also represent women’s and the interests of vulnerable groups. It is crucial that the villages elect the VRC members.

Yes

Ban-sok Pleiku Project Particular Studies – LaoPDR-VIETNAM

Annex 7.4 – Financial and Economic calculation tables

FINAL REPORT


ANNEX 7.4 - FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CALCULATION TABLES

ITEMS FOR HATXAN SUBSTATION DOUBLE BUS BAR CONFIGURATION, 230

& 115kV

Unit Quantity Unit price $ total Price 2013 2014 2015

230kV Switchyard

Bays TR pcs 1 900,000 900,000 50,000 250,000 600,000

115kV Switchyard

Bays TR or Coupling pcs 3 776,000 2,328,000 200,000 900,000 1,228,000

Power Transformer 56/70 MVA,230/√3/115/√3-22 kV, 3-ph pcs 1 1,543,000 1,543,000 100,000 400,000 1,043,000

Power Transformer 16/20 MVA,115/√3/22/√3KV, 3-ph pcs 1 821,000 821,000 100,000 200,000 521,000

Civil Works common (camp, warehouse) lot 1 550,000 550,000 50,000 500,000

-

Telecommunication lot 1 87,000 87,000 10,000 30,000 47,000

Subtotal SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION (of which 10% local currency) 6,229,000 510,000 2,280,000 3,439,000

Ban Sok - Pleiku ESTIMATE updated with economic analysis by CC Jan 2012 Page 1

ITEMS FOR HATXAN SUBSTATION DOUBLE BUS BAR

CONFIGURATION, 230 & 500kV only with 3 xAT

500/230 kV of 600 MVA - FULL IPP Projects


Xek 1 & Xek 4

2016

Xek 4A, Dak E,

1 & Xekg 3

2017

Xek 2 & Xek 2A

230kV Switchyard

Bays TL or Coupling pcs 8 1,100,000 8,800,000 200,000 3,000,000 4,500,000 1,100,000

Bays TR pcs 3 900,000 2,700,000 100,000 700,000 1,000,000 900,000

500kV Switchyard

Bays TL or Coupling pcs 3 2,250,000 6,750,000 200,000 2,550,000 4,000,000

Bays TR pcs 3 1,900,000 5,700,000 100,000 1,700,000 2,000,000 1,900,000

Power Transformer 600 MVA mono phased pcs 3 5,000,000 15,000,000 300,000 1,700,000 8,000,000 5,000,000

Reactor 60 MVAR pcs 2 1,200,000 2,400,000 50,000 550,000 1,800,000

Neutral Reactor pcs 2 470,000 940,000 100,000 840,000

Civil Works common (camp, warehouse) lot 1 900,000 900,000 600,000 200,000 100,000

Levelling, compacting, sustaining works lot 1 1,500,000 1,500,000 500,000 1,000,000

Telecommunication lot 1 1,100,000 1,100,000 500,000 600,000

Subtotal SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION (of which 10%

local currency) 45,790,000 2,050,000 12,000,000 22,840,000 8,900,000

ADDITIONAL ITEMS Unit Quantity Unit price $ total Price 2013 2014 2015

Xek 1 & Xek 4

2016

Xek 4A, Dak E,

1 & Xekg 3

2017

Xek 2 & Xek 2A

Spare parts & training lot 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Spare Single phase Reactor + TR lot 3,000,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000

Supervision lot 1,900,000 1,900,000 70,000 260,000 1,060,000 510,000

UXO clearance lot 120,000 120,000 120,000

Environmental and Social lot 80,000 80,000 80,000

Contingencies 5% lot 2,644,500 2,644,500 105,000 371,000 1,406,500 762,000

SUBTOTAL 2 SUBSTATION 0 9,744,500 0 375,000 631,000 4,466,500 4,272,000

TOTAL SUBSTATION 0 55,534,500 0 2,425,000 12,631,000 27,306,500 13,172,000

500 kV transmission line Hatxan to Vietnam Border km 59 600,000 35,400,000 9,100,000 14,200,000 12,100,000

Additional difficulties for mountainous areas km 10 200,000 2,000,000 600,000 700,000 700,000

Spare parts lot 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Supervision lot 1,350,000 1,350,000 450,000 450,000 450,000

UXO clearance lot 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,170,000 180,000

Environmental and Social lot 200,000 200,000 170,000 30,000

Contingencies 5% lot 0 2,065,000 2,065,000 150,000 515,000 1,400,000

TOTAL TRANSMISSION LINE 43,365,000 11,640,000 16,075,000 15,650,000 0 0

TOTAL TRANSMISSION LINE + SUBSTATION 98,899,500 11,640,000 18,500,000 28,281,000 27,306,500 13,172,000

TEMPORARY SITUATION TO EVACUATE XEKAMAN 1

IN 230kV

Unit Quantity Unit price $ total Price 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

220kV Switchyard Vietnam

Cable Bays pcs 2 1,100,000 2,200,000 50,000 800,000 1,350,000

Terminations pcs 4 140,000 560,000 10,000 200,000 350,000

220kV Cables m 4,200 165 693,000 10,000 100,000 583,000

Cables Installation lot 1 500,000 500,000 20,000 100,000 380,000

Dismantle installation lot 1 300,000 300,000 300,000

Contingency & supervision lot 1 150,000 150,000 4,000 40,000 100,000 6,000

Bypass Hatxan (Lao PDR) Substation with double circuit

2 bundles 795MCM ACSR

3 towers, 7500m conductor, 2 adaptation towers, 600m OPGW lot 1 700,000 700,000 40,000 250,000 410,000



Subtotal SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION (of which 10%

local currency) 5,253,000 135,000 1,506,000 3,203,000 0 409,000


ITEMS FOR HATXAN SUBSTATION DOUBLE BUS

BAR CONFIGURATION, 230 & 500kV only with 3

xAT 500/230 kV of 450 MVA - without Xekaman

2,2A,_ 835 MW


230kV Switchyard

Bays TL or Coupling pcs 8 1,100,000 8,800,000 200,000 3,000,000 4,500,000 1,100,000

Bays TR pcs 3 900,000 2,700,000 100,000 700,000 1,000,000 900,000

500kV Switchyard


Bays TR pcs 3 1,900,000 5,700,000 100,000 1,700,000 2,000,000 1,900,000


Reactor 60 MVAR pcs 2 1,200,000 2,400,000 50,000 550,000 1,800,000




Telecommunication lot 1 1,100,000 1,100,000 500,000 600,000

Subtotal SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION (of which

10% local currency) 43,090,000 - 2,050,000 11,300,000 21,840,000 7,900,000

ADDITIONAL ITEMS Unit Quantity Unit price $ total Price 2013 2014 2015

Xek 1 & Xek 4

2016

Xek 4A, Dak E, 1

& Xekg 3

2017

Xek 2 & Xek 2A

Spare parts & training lot 1,800,000 1,800,000 800,000 1,000,000

Spare Single phase Reactor + TR lot 2,400,000 2,400,000 800,000 1,600,000

Supervision lot 1,900,000 1,900,000 70,000 260,000 1,060,000 510,000




SUBTOTAL 2 SUBSTATION - 8,770,000 - 360,000 560,000 4,060,000 3,790,000

TOTAL SUBSTATION - 51,860,000 - 2,410,000 11,860,000 25,900,000 11,690,000



Spare parts lot 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Supervision lot 1,350,000 1,350,000 450,000 450,000 450,000



Contingencies 5% lot - 2,065,000 2,065,000 150,000 515,000 1,400,000

TOTAL TRANSMISSION LINE 43,365,000 11,640,000 16,075,000 15,650,000 - -


TEMPORARY SITUATION TO EVACUATE

XEKAMAN 1 IN 230kV



Cable Bays pcs 2 1,100,000 2,200,000 50,000 800,000 1,350,000


220kV Cables m 4,200 165 693,000 10,000 100,000 583,000




Bypass Hatxan (Lao PDR) Substation with double

circuit 2 bundles 795MCM ACSR

3 towers, 7500m conductor, 2 adaptation towers, 600m

OPGW lot 1 700,000 700,000 40,000 250,000 410,000




10% local currency) 5,253,000 135,000 1,506,000 3,203,000 0 409,000


ITEMS FOR HATXAN SUBSTATION DOUBLE

BUS BAR CONFIGURATION, 230 & 500kV only

with 2 xAT 500/230 kV of 600 MVA - without

Xekaman 2,2A,4 & 4A _ 639 MW


Xek 1 & Xek 4

2016

Xek 4A, Dak E, 1

& Xekg 3

2017

Xek 2 & Xek 2A

230kV Switchyard

Bays TL or Coupling pcs 6 1,100,000 6,600,000 100,000 2,500,000 3,200,000 800,000

Bays TR pcs 2 900,000 1,800,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 450,000

500kV Switchyard


Bays TR pcs 2 1,900,000 3,800,000 100,000 1,200,000 1,500,000 1,000,000


Reactor 60 MVAR pcs 2 1,200,000 2,400,000 50,000 550,000 1,800,000




Telecommunication lot 1 900,000 900,000 400,000 500,000


10% local currency) 35,290,000 - 1,850,000 10,000,000 17,990,000 5,450,000

ADDITIONAL ITEMS Unit Quantity Unit price $ total Price 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Spare parts & training lot 1,700,000 1,700,000 800,000 900,000

Spare Single phase Reactor + TR lot 3,000,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000

Supervision lot 1,400,000 1,400,000 70,000 260,000 1,060,000 510,000




SUBTOTAL 2 SUBSTATION 8,360,000 - 360,000 570,000 3,960,000 4,050,000

TOTAL SUBSTATION 43,650,000 - 1,710,000 9,570,000 21,950,000 9,500,000



Spare parts lot 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Supervision lot 1,350,000 1,350,000 450,000 450,000 450,000



Contingencies 5% lot 2,065,000 2,065,000 150,000 515,000 1,400,000

TOTAL TRANSMISSION LINE 43,365,000 11,640,000 16,075,000 15,650,000 - -


TEMPORARY SITUATION TO EVACUATE

XEKAMAN 1 IN 230kV



Cable Bays pcs 2 1,100,000 2,200,000 50,000 800,000 1,350,000


220kV Cables m 4,200 165 693,000 10,000 100,000 583,000




Bypass Hatxan (Lao PDR) Substation with double

circuit 2 bundles 795MCM ACSR

3 towers, 7500m conductor, 2 adaptation towers, 600m

OPGW lot 1 700,000 700,000 40,000 250,000 410,000




10% local currency) 5,253,000 135,000 1,506,000 3,203,000 - 409,000


Lao PDR side:

Foreign Cost Local Cost Total Cost

% of Total

Base Cost

A. Base Cost*

1. Substation

230kV Switchyard 10.35 1.15 11.50 12.21

500kV Switchyard 11.21 1.25 12.45 13.22

Power Transformer 600 MVA mono phased 13.50 1.50 15.00 15.93

Reactor 60 MVAR + Neutral Reactor 3.01 0.33 3.34 3.55

Civil works (camp, warehouse) 0.81 0.09 0.90 0.96

Levelling, compacting, sustaining works 1.35 0.15 1.50 1.59

Telecommunications 0.99 0.11 1.10 1.17

Spare parts & training 1.80 0.20 2.00 2.12

Spare Single phase Reactor + TR 2.70 0.30 3.00 3.19

UXO clearance - 0.12 0.12 0.13

Subtotal 45.71 5.20 50.91 54.05

2. Transmission Line

500 kV transmission line Hatxan to Vietnam Border 31.86 3.54 35.40 37.58

Additional difficulties for mountainous areas 1.80 0.20 2.00 2.12

Spare parts 0.90 0.10 1.00 1.06

UXO clearance - 1.35 1.35 1.43

Subtotal 34.56 5.19 39.75 42.20

3. Consulting Services

Design & Supervision (substation) 1.90 - 1.90 2.02

Design & Supervision (transmission line) 1.35 - 1.35 1.43

Environmental and Social 0.28 - 0.28 0.30

Subtotal 3.53 - 3.53 3.75

Subtotal A (Total Base Cost) 83.80 10.39 94.19 100.00

B. Contingencies

1. Physical 4.71 - 4.71 5.00

2. Price 1.21 1.78 3.00 3.18

Subtotal B 5.92 1.78 7.71 8.18

C. Financing Charges During Development

1. Interest During Implementation 6.55 - 6.55 6.95

2. Commitment Charges 0.86 - 0.86 0.91

Subtotal C 7.41 - 7.41 7.86

Total Project Cost (A+B+C) 97.13 12.17 109.30 116.05

*Inclusive of taxes and duties of US$9.1 million calculated as 10% of works and materials

The physical contingency is calculated at 5% of Base Cost.

The price contingency for the foreign cost component assumes international inflation of 0.5% per annum;

for the local cost component, local inflation is assumed to be 7.5% in 2013 and 5% thereafter.

Calculation of the Price Contingency

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

Percent Construction Completed per Year 11.15% 17.80% 27.67% 29.32% 14.07% 100.00%

Local Costs

Base cost + physical contingencies 1.16$ 1.85$ 2.87$ 3.05$ 1.46$ 10.39$

Rate of local inflation 7.50% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%

Inflation-adjusted base cost + physical contingencies 1.24$ 2.04$ 3.33$ 3.70$ 1.86$ 12.17$

Increase due to local inflation 1.78$

Foreign Costs


Rate of foreign inflation 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%


Increase due to foreign inflation 1.21$

Total increase due to inflation 3.00$

Calculation of Financial Charges During Development (FCDD)

OCR loan terms: 5-year grace period, 25-year loan period including grace period and 2.28% interest throughout

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Base costs, before inflation 11.02$ 17.60$ 27.37$ 28.99$ 13.91$ -$ 98.90$

OCR Financing 11.02$ 17.60$ 27.37$ 28.99$ 13.91$ -$ 98.90$

Interest During Implementation (IDC) 6.55$

Commitment charge 0.86$

Total FCDD 7.41$

HATXAN SUBSTATION & TRANSMISSION LINE

230 & 500kV only with 3 xAT 500/230 kV of 600 MVA

FULL IPP Projects (Scenario 1)

US$m


Vietnam side [TO BE COMPLETED]:

Foreign Cost Local Cost Total Cost

% of Total

Base Cost

A. Base Cost*

1. Substation

230kV Switchyard 10.35 1.15 11.50 12.21 12.94

500kV Switchyard 11.21 1.25 12.45 13.22 14.01

Power Transformer 600 MVA mono phased 13.50 1.50 15.00 15.93 16.87

Reactor 60 MVAR + Neutral Reactor 3.01 0.33 3.34 3.55 3.76

Civil works (camp, warehouse) 0.81 0.09 0.90 0.96 1.01

Telecommunications 0.99 0.11 1.10 1.17 1.24

Spare parts & training 1.80 0.20 2.00 2.12 2.25

Spare Single phase Reactor + TR 2.70 0.30 3.00 3.19 3.37

UXO clearance - 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13

Subtotal 44.36 5.05 49.41 52.46 55.59

2. Transmission Line

500 kV transmission line Hatxan to Vietnam Border 30.24 3.36 33.60 35.67 37.80

Spare parts 0.90 0.10 1.00 1.06 1.12

UXO clearance - 1.35 1.35 1.43 1.52

Subtotal 31.14 4.81 35.95 38.17 40.44

3. Consulting Services

Design & Supervision (substation) 1.90 - 1.90 2.02 2.14

Design & Supervision (transmission line) 1.35 - 1.35 1.43 1.52

Environmental and Social 0.28 - 0.28 0.30 0.31

Subtotal 3.53 - 3.53 3.75 3.97

Subtotal A (Total Base Cost) 79.03 9.86 88.89 94.37 100.00

B. Contingencies

1. Physical 4.44 - 4.44 4.72 5.00

2. Price 1.15 1.78 2.93 3.11 3.12

Subtotal B 5.59 1.78 7.38 7.83 8.12

C. Financing Charges During Development

1. Interest During Implementation 6.23 - 6.23 6.62 6.62

2. Commitment Charges 0.82 - 0.82 0.87 0.87

Subtotal C 7.05 - 7.05 7.49 7.49

Total Project Cost (A+B+C) 91.68 11.64 103.32 109.69 115.61

*Inclusive of taxes and duties of US$8.9 million calculated as 10% of works and materials

The physical contingency is calculated at 5% of Base Cost.

The price contingency for the foreign cost component assumes international inflation of 0.5% per annum;

for the local cost component, local inflation is assumed to be 7.5% in 2013 and 5% thereafter.

Calculation of the Price Contingency

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

Percent Construction Completed per Year 11.15% 17.80% 27.67% 29.32% 14.07% 100.00%

Local Costs


Rate of local inflation 7.50% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%


Increase due to local inflation 1.78$

Foreign Costs


Rate of foreign inflation 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%


Increase due to foreign inflation 1.15$

Total increase due to inflation 2.93$

Calculation of Financial Charges During Development (FCDD)

OCR loan terms: 5-year grace period, 25-year loan period including grace period and 2.28% interest throughout

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Base costs, before inflation 10.50$ 16.77$ 26.07$ 27.61$ 13.25$ -$ 94.19$

OCR Financing 10.50$ 16.77$ 26.07$ 27.61$ 13.25$ -$ 94.19$

Interest During Implementation (IDC) 6.23$

Commitment charge 0.82$

Total FCDD 7.05$

PLEIKU SUBSTATION EXTENSION & TRANSMISSION LINE

US$m



1. Demand Forecast, Laos Southern Region (GWh), Lao Power Development Plan March 2011

(Draft Final Report, p 116)

Actual Forecast

Energy Generation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Residential 609 665 740 813 893 979 1,074 1,181 1,317 1,469 1,640 1,832

Industrial 439 554 821 1,676 3,004 10,792 12,172 12,061 12,301 12,059 11,922 11,833

Total 1,048 1,219 1,561 2,489 3,897 11,771 13,246 13,241 13,618 13,529 13,562 13,665

Energy Demand

Residential 517.7 567.0 632.8 698.0 768.6 845.9 930.8 1,026.6 1,148.6 1,285.3 1,439.0 1,612.1

Industrial 369.6 467.2 699.8 1,434.1 2,613.5 9,576.5 10,799.7 10,719.9 10,940.7 10,743.5 10,642.5 10,579.5

Total 887.3 1,034.2 1,332.6 2,132.1 3,382.1 10,422.4 11,730.5 11,746.5 12,089.3 12,028.8 12,081.5 12,191.6

Losses (GWh) 160.7 185.1 227.9 356.9 514.6 1,348.4 1,515.2 1,494.9 1,528.3 1,499.8 1,480.2 1,472.9

% Generation 15.3% 15.2% 14.6% 14.3% 13.2% 11.5% 11.4% 11.3% 11.2% 11.1% 10.9% 10.8%

Growth Rates AAGR AGRs (% p a)

Generation

Residential 10.5% 9.2% 11.2% 9.9% 9.8% 9.7% 9.7% 10.0% 11.5% 11.6% 11.6% 11.7%

Industrial 34.9% 26.3% 48.1% 104.1% 79.2% 259.2% 12.8% -0.9% 2.0% -2.0% -1.1% -0.7%

Total 26.3% 16.3% 28.0% 59.5% 56.6% 202.1% 12.5% 0.0% 2.8% -0.7% 0.2% 0.8%

Demand

Residential 10.9% 9.5% 11.6% 10.3% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 10.3% 11.9% 11.9% 12.0% 12.0%

Industrial 35.7% 26.4% 49.8% 104.9% 82.2% 266.4% 12.8% -0.7% 2.1% -1.8% -0.9% -0.6%

Total 26.9% 16.6% 28.9% 60.0% 58.6% 208.2% 12.6% 0.1% 2.9% -0.5% 0.4% 0.9%

Load Factor = 0.80

Reserve Requirement = 0.25

Peak Load (MW) 149.5 174.0 222.7 355.2 556.0 1,679.6 1,890.1 1,889.5 1,943.2 1,930.5 1,935.2 1,949.8

Capacity Required (MW) 186.9 217.5 278.3 444.0 695.0 2,099.5 2,362.6 2,361.8 2,428.9 2,413.1 2,419.0 2,437.3

2. Demand Forecast Vietnam

(EU Green Book 2011 and Draft Final Report)

Actual Forecast

2010 2015 2020 2025

Peak Load (MW) 13,841 30,974 52,617 77,333 (Draft Final Report)

Installed Capacity (MW) 20,900 75,900 75,900 96,666

Generation (GWh) 97,000 217,066 368,740 541,950

Growth Rates, Generation 17.5% 11.2% 8.0%


3. Cases

A. Lao PDR decrees that all available capacity in Laos southern region will be dedicated to meeting Lao demand, with no export permitted

There is no need for the SS/TL project to Vietnam

B. Lao PDR allows exports to Vietnam of energy generated by IPPs in the southern region

implying that Lao demand in the southern region is provided by energy from the north

in turn implying that a new 500 kV 'backbone' north-south T/L is built

It is assumed that IPP hydros in southern Laos are built by Vietnam investors only if the SS/TL project goes ahead.

At the PPA prices, the IPP investments are financially viable (as per Draft Final Report).

Wheeling Charges (USc/kWh), calculated to produce a commercial return for the TPO

Electricity benefits normally measured by Willingness to Pay (WTP)

No WTP study has been, or can be, undertaken by this TA in either Lao PDR or Vietnam

Therefore, WTP is assumed equal to the average tariff in each country

Lao PDR Vietnam Combined Lao PDR Vietnam Combined Sold to

Vietnam

Sold to EDL Paid to

GOL*

3.1 0.43 0.22 0.65 98.90 99.42 198.32 3,157 285 504

3.2 0.46 0.24 0.69 95.23 99.42 194.65 2,646 239 422

Dong/kWh USD/kWh Exchange Rate (Local Currency/USD) 3.3 0.53 0.29 0.82 86.10 99.42 185.52 2,030 183 324

Vietnam $1,242 $0.060 $20,820 3.4 0.65 0.54 1.18 48.62 99.42 148.04 982 89 157

Kip/kWh USD/kWh *Paid (as electricity) in lieu of royalties and taxes due to GOL

Lao PDR $600 $0.071 $8,450

Benefits of the SS/TL project

To Lao PDR:

Benefit of electricity supply to the southern region (20% of IPP output, less costs to EdL (including WC))

Value of Electricity in Lieu of Taxes and Royalties

To Vietnam:

Difference in (cross-border price plus WC) and cost of alternative generation (assumed to be from clean coal technology)

No emissions benefit, as alternative to Lao PDR energy is Vietnam clean coal

SS/TL Capital Costs (US$ m)Wheeling charges (USc/kWh) Energy Throughput (GWh/yr)Scenario


4. Parameters for the Economic Analysis Four Scenarios (as per Draft Final Report) 0% 0%

Lao PDR Vietnam Combined

Tariffs and Revenues:

Minimum

Criterion

(USc/kWh)

10% RoR

Criterion

(USc/kWh)

Minimum

Criterion

(USc/kWh)

1.9% RoR

Criterion

(USc/kWh)

Minimum

Criterion

(USc/kWh)

10% RoR

Criterion

(USc/kWh)

SS/TL

(USDm)

SS/TL

(USDm)

SS/TL

(USDm)

Throughput

to Vietnam

(GWh/year)

Purchased

by EdL

(GWh/year)

Retained in

Lao PDR

as Royalty

(GWh/year)

Sales to Viet Nam (USD/kWh) 3.1 0.22 0.43 0.22 0.22 0.43 0.65 98.90 99.42 198.32 3,157 285 504

Base Rate for Primary Sales (90%) 0.045$ 3.2 0.23 0.46 0.24 0.24 0.47 0.69 95.23 99.42 194.65 2,646 239 422

Annual Primary Escalation Rate (%, real) 2.25% 3.3 0.26 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.55 0.82 86.10 99.42 185.52 2,030 183 324

Base Rate for Secondary Sales (10%) 0.023$ 3.4 0.29 0.65 0.54 0.54 0.83 1.18 48.62 99.42 148.04 982 89 157

Annual Secondary Escalation Rate (%, real) 2.25%

Standard Conversion Factor, Lao PDR 0.98

Sales to EDL (USD/kWh) Standard Conversion Factor, Vietnam 0.98

Base Rate 0.044$ Shadow Exchange Rate Factor, Lao PDR 1.00

Annual Escalation Rate (real) 1.00% Shadow Exchange Rate Factor, Vietnam 1.00

Shadow Wage Rate Factor Lao PDR (local, unskilled) 0.80

Value of Royalties (Electricity) to GOL (USD/kWh) Shadow Wage Rate Factor Vietnam (local, unskilled) 0.95

Base Rate 0.071$ Foreign Costs (total project, %) 60%

Annual Escalation Rate (real) 1.00% Local Costs (total project, %) 40%

Unskilled Labour (local Costs, %) 40%

% Annual Output Sold to Vietnam 80.00% Note: There are no taxes in the financial costs, as per the PPA

% Annual Output Sold to EDL 7.23%

% Annual Output Taken as Royalties by GOL 12.77%

$0.10

853.6 Include? (1=yes, 0=no) 1

Economic Opportunity Cost of Capital (EOCC) 12.00%

Levelised Cost of Energy Generation in Vietnam by

Clean Coal Technology (USD/kWh)

Economic Cost of 800 MW of Required Thermal

Generation in Southern Lao (US$ m)

Wheeling Charges

Lao PDR Side Vietnam Side Combined

Scenarios Capital Costs (Financial) Energy Flows


5. Calculation of EIRR and ENPV of the SS/TL Project

Minimum RoR Criterion Wheeling Charge

Scenario 3.1

S/S T/L S/S T/L Incremental

Electricity

Supply

Value of

Electricity Paid

as Taxes and

Royalties

Generation

Cost Savings

Value of

Emissions

Reductions

2013 - 33.50 - - - 33.50 - - - - - (33.50)

2014 2.30 46.27 - - - 48.57 - - - - - (48.57)

2015 24.90 45.05 - - - 69.95 - - - - - (69.95)

2016 25.89 853.60 - 7.86 2.70 890.05 6.89 35.04 170.91 - 212.84 (677.21)

2017 12.49 - - 7.86 2.76 23.12 6.77 35.39 167.80 - 209.96 186.84

2018 - - 0.83 7.86 2.83 11.52 6.64 35.74 164.63 - 207.01 195.49

2019 - - 0.83 7.86 2.89 11.58 6.51 36.10 161.38 - 203.99 192.41

2020 - - 0.83 7.86 2.95 11.64 6.38 36.46 158.06 - 200.90 189.25

2021 - - 0.83 7.86 3.02 11.71 6.24 36.83 154.67 - 197.74 186.02

2022 - - 0.83 7.86 3.09 11.78 6.11 37.19 151.20 - 194.50 182.72

2023 - - 0.83 7.86 3.16 11.85 5.97 37.57 147.65 - 191.19 179.34

2024 - - 0.83 7.86 3.23 11.92 5.84 37.94 144.02 - 187.80 175.88

2025 - - 0.83 7.86 3.30 11.99 5.70 38.32 140.31 - 184.33 172.34

2026 - - 0.83 7.86 3.38 12.07 5.56 38.70 136.52 - 180.78 168.71

2027 - - 0.83 7.86 3.45 12.14 5.42 39.09 132.64 - 177.15 165.00

2028 - - 0.83 7.86 3.53 12.22 5.28 39.48 128.67 - 173.43 161.21

2029 - - 0.83 7.86 3.61 12.30 5.13 39.88 124.62 - 169.63 157.33

2030 - - 0.83 7.86 3.69 12.38 4.99 40.28 120.47 - 165.73 153.35

2031 - - 0.83 7.86 3.77 12.46 4.84 40.68 116.23 - 161.75 149.28

2032 - - 0.83 7.86 3.86 12.55 4.69 41.09 111.89 - 157.67 145.12

2033 - - 0.83 7.86 3.95 12.64 4.54 41.50 107.46 - 153.50 140.86

2034 - - 0.83 7.86 4.03 12.72 4.39 41.91 102.93 - 149.23 136.51

2035 - - 0.83 7.86 4.12 12.82 4.24 42.33 98.29 - 144.86 132.05

2036 - - 0.83 7.86 4.22 12.91 4.09 42.75 93.55 - 140.39 127.49

2037 - - 0.83 7.86 4.31 13.00 3.93 43.18 88.71 - 135.82 122.82

2038 - - 0.83 7.86 4.41 13.10 3.77 43.61 83.75 - 131.14 118.04

2039 - - 0.83 7.86 4.51 13.20 3.61 44.05 78.69 - 126.35 113.15

2040 - - 0.83 7.86 4.61 13.30 3.45 44.49 73.51 - 121.45 108.15

2041 - - 0.83 7.86 4.71 13.40 3.29 44.93 68.21 - 116.44 103.03

2042 - - 0.83 7.86 4.82 13.51 3.13 45.38 62.80 - 111.31 97.80

2043 - - 0.83 7.86 4.93 13.62 2.96 45.84 57.26 - 106.06 92.44

2044 - - 0.83 7.86 5.04 13.73 2.80 46.30 51.60 - 100.69 86.96

2045 - - 0.83 7.86 5.15 13.84 2.63 46.76 45.81 - 95.19 81.35

2046 - - 0.83 7.86 5.27 13.96 2.46 47.23 39.89 - 89.57 75.61

2047 - - 0.83 7.86 5.39 14.08 2.29 47.70 33.83 - 83.82 69.74

2048 - - 0.83 7.86 5.51 14.20 2.11 48.18 27.64 - 77.93 63.73

2049 - - 0.83 7.86 5.63 14.32 1.94 48.66 21.31 - 71.91 57.59

2050 - - 0.83 7.86 5.76 14.45 1.76 49.14 14.84 - 65.75 51.30

2051 - - 0.83 7.86 5.89 14.58 1.58 49.64 8.23 - 59.44 44.87

2052 - - 0.83 7.86 6.02 14.71 1.40 50.13 1.46 - 52.99 38.28

EIRR 20.2%

NPVs 48.27 718.30 4.29 51.46 21.34 843.65 38.14 248.39 931.64 - 1,218.17 374.52

3.1% 20.4% 76.5% 0.0%

Year Capital Costs O&M Costs Benefits to Lao PDR Benefits to VietnamInsurance

Costs

Total Costs Net

Economic

Benefits

Total

Economic

Benefits


10% RoR Criterion Wheeling Charge

Scenario 3.1


Electricity

Supply

Value of

Electricity

Paid as

Taxes and

Royalties

Generation

Cost

Savings

Value of

Emissions

Reductions

2013 - 33.50 - - - 33.50 - - - - - (33.50)

2014 2.30 46.27 - - - 48.57 - - - - - (48.57)

2015 24.90 45.05 - - - 69.95 - - - - - (69.95)

2016 25.89 853.60 - 7.86 2.70 890.05 6.28 33.95 170.91 - 211.15 (678.91)

2017 12.49 - - 7.86 2.76 23.12 6.16 34.29 167.80 - 208.25 185.14

2018 - - 0.83 7.86 2.83 11.52 6.03 34.64 164.63 - 205.29 193.78

2019 - - 0.83 7.86 2.89 11.58 5.90 34.98 161.38 - 202.26 190.68

2020 - - 0.83 7.86 2.95 11.64 5.77 35.33 158.06 - 199.16 187.52

2021 - - 0.83 7.86 3.02 11.71 5.63 35.69 154.67 - 195.99 184.28

2022 - - 0.83 7.86 3.09 11.78 5.50 36.04 151.20 - 192.74 180.96

2023 - - 0.83 7.86 3.16 11.85 5.37 36.40 147.65 - 189.42 177.57

2024 - - 0.83 7.86 3.23 11.92 5.23 36.77 144.02 - 186.01 174.10

2025 - - 0.83 7.86 3.30 11.99 5.09 37.13 140.31 - 182.53 170.54

2026 - - 0.83 7.86 3.38 12.07 4.95 37.51 136.52 - 178.97 166.91

2027 - - 0.83 7.86 3.45 12.14 4.81 37.88 132.64 - 175.33 163.19

2028 - - 0.83 7.86 3.53 12.22 4.67 38.26 128.67 - 171.60 159.38

2029 - - 0.83 7.86 3.61 12.30 4.52 38.64 124.62 - 167.78 155.48

2030 - - 0.83 7.86 3.69 12.38 4.38 39.03 120.47 - 163.88 151.50

2031 - - 0.83 7.86 3.77 12.46 4.23 39.42 116.23 - 159.88 147.42

2032 - - 0.83 7.86 3.86 12.55 4.08 39.81 111.89 - 155.79 143.24

2033 - - 0.83 7.86 3.95 12.64 3.94 40.21 107.46 - 151.61 138.97

2034 - - 0.83 7.86 4.03 12.72 3.78 40.61 102.93 - 147.33 134.60

2035 - - 0.83 7.86 4.12 12.82 3.63 41.02 98.29 - 142.94 130.13

2036 - - 0.83 7.86 4.22 12.91 3.48 41.43 93.55 - 138.46 125.55

2037 - - 0.83 7.86 4.31 13.00 3.32 41.84 88.71 - 133.87 120.87

2038 - - 0.83 7.86 4.41 13.10 3.17 42.26 83.75 - 129.18 116.08

2039 - - 0.83 7.86 4.51 13.20 3.01 42.68 78.69 - 124.38 111.18

2040 - - 0.83 7.86 4.61 13.30 2.85 43.11 73.51 - 119.47 106.16

2041 - - 0.83 7.86 4.71 13.40 2.68 43.54 68.21 - 114.44 101.03

2042 - - 0.83 7.86 4.82 13.51 2.52 43.98 62.80 - 109.29 95.78

2043 - - 0.83 7.86 4.93 13.62 2.36 44.42 57.26 - 104.03 90.41

2044 - - 0.83 7.86 5.04 13.73 2.19 44.86 51.60 - 98.65 84.92

2045 - - 0.83 7.86 5.15 13.84 2.02 45.31 45.81 - 93.14 79.29

2046 - - 0.83 7.86 5.27 13.96 1.85 45.76 39.89 - 87.50 73.54

2047 - - 0.83 7.86 5.39 14.08 1.68 46.22 33.83 - 81.73 67.65

2048 - - 0.83 7.86 5.51 14.20 1.51 46.68 27.64 - 75.83 61.63

2049 - - 0.83 7.86 5.63 14.32 1.33 47.15 21.31 - 69.79 55.47

2050 - - 0.83 7.86 5.76 14.45 1.15 47.62 14.84 - 63.62 49.17

2051 - - 0.83 7.86 5.89 14.58 0.97 48.10 8.23 - 57.30 42.72

2052 - - 0.83 7.86 6.02 14.71 0.79 48.58 1.46 - 50.83 36.12

EIRR 20.0%

NPVs 48.27 718.30 4.29 51.46 21.34 843.65 34.16 240.70 931.64 - 1,206.50 362.84

2.8% 20.0% 77.2% 0.0%

Total

Economic

Benefits

Net

Economic

Benefits

O&M Costs Insurance

Costs

Total Costs Benefits to VietnamYear Capital Costs Benefits to Lao PDR


Scenario 3.2


Electricity

Supply

Value of

Electricity Paid

as Taxes and

Royalties

Generation

Cost Savings

Value of

Emissions

Reductions

2013 - 33.50 - - - 33.50 - - - - - (33.50)

2014 2.28 46.27 - - - 48.55 - - - - - (48.55)

2015 24.17 45.05 - - - 69.22 - - - - - (69.22)

2016 24.55 853.60 - 7.86 2.26 888.28 5.74 29.29 142.61 - 177.64 (710.64)

2017 11.08 - - 7.86 2.32 21.26 5.63 29.59 140.01 - 175.23 153.96

2018 - - 0.78 7.86 2.37 11.01 5.52 29.88 137.35 - 172.75 161.74

2019 - - 0.78 7.86 2.42 11.07 5.41 30.18 134.63 - 170.22 159.16

2020 - - 0.78 7.86 2.48 11.12 5.30 30.48 131.85 - 167.63 156.51

2021 - - 0.78 7.86 2.53 11.18 5.19 30.79 129.00 - 164.98 153.80

2022 - - 0.78 7.86 2.59 11.24 5.08 31.09 126.10 - 162.27 151.03

2023 - - 0.78 7.86 2.65 11.29 4.97 31.41 123.12 - 159.49 148.20

2024 - - 0.78 7.86 2.71 11.35 4.85 31.72 120.08 - 156.65 145.30

2025 - - 0.78 7.86 2.77 11.41 4.74 32.04 116.97 - 153.74 142.33

2026 - - 0.78 7.86 2.83 11.48 4.62 32.36 113.79 - 150.77 139.29

2027 - - 0.78 7.86 2.89 11.54 4.50 32.68 110.54 - 147.72 136.18

2028 - - 0.78 7.86 2.96 11.60 4.38 33.01 107.22 - 144.61 133.00

2029 - - 0.78 7.86 3.02 11.67 4.26 33.34 103.82 - 141.42 129.74

2030 - - 0.78 7.86 3.09 11.74 4.14 33.67 100.34 - 138.15 126.41

2031 - - 0.78 7.86 3.16 11.81 4.02 34.01 96.79 - 134.81 123.00

2032 - - 0.78 7.86 3.23 11.88 3.89 34.35 93.16 - 131.40 119.52

2033 - - 0.78 7.86 3.31 11.95 3.77 34.69 89.44 - 127.90 115.95

2034 - - 0.78 7.86 3.38 12.03 3.64 35.04 85.64 - 124.32 112.29

2035 - - 0.78 7.86 3.46 12.10 3.51 35.39 81.76 - 120.66 108.56

2036 - - 0.78 7.86 3.53 12.18 3.38 35.74 77.79 - 116.91 104.73

2037 - - 0.78 7.86 3.61 12.26 3.25 36.10 73.72 - 113.08 100.82

2038 - - 0.78 7.86 3.70 12.34 3.12 36.46 69.57 - 109.15 96.81

2039 - - 0.78 7.86 3.78 12.43 2.99 36.83 65.33 - 105.14 92.72

2040 - - 0.78 7.86 3.86 12.51 2.85 37.19 60.99 - 101.03 88.52

2041 - - 0.78 7.86 3.95 12.60 2.72 37.57 56.55 - 96.83 84.23

2042 - - 0.78 7.86 4.04 12.69 2.58 37.94 52.01 - 92.53 79.84

2043 - - 0.78 7.86 4.13 12.78 2.44 38.32 47.37 - 88.13 75.35

2044 - - 0.78 7.86 4.22 12.87 2.30 38.70 42.62 - 83.63 70.76

2045 - - 0.78 7.86 4.32 12.96 2.16 39.09 37.77 - 79.02 66.06

2046 - - 0.78 7.86 4.42 13.06 2.02 39.48 32.81 - 74.31 61.25

2047 - - 0.78 7.86 4.51 13.16 1.88 39.88 27.73 - 69.49 56.33

2048 - - 0.78 7.86 4.62 13.26 1.73 40.28 22.55 - 64.55 51.29

2049 - - 0.78 7.86 4.72 13.37 1.58 40.68 17.24 - 59.50 46.14

2050 - - 0.78 7.86 4.83 13.47 1.44 41.08 11.82 - 54.34 40.87

2051 - - 0.78 7.86 4.93 13.58 1.29 41.50 6.27 - 49.06 35.47

2052 - - 0.78 7.86 5.05 13.69 1.13 41.91 0.60 - 43.65 29.96

EIRR 15.9%

NPVs 45.83 718.30 4.06 51.46 17.88 837.53 31.70 207.66 776.73 - 1,016.09 178.55

3.1% 20.4% 76.4% 0.0%

Year Capital Costs Total Costs Benefits to Lao PDR Benefits to VietnamO&M Costs Insurance

Costs

Total

Economic

Benefits

Net

Economic

Benefits


Scenario 3.2


Electricity

Supply

Value of

Electricity

Paid as

Taxes and

Royalties

Generation

Cost

Savings

Value of

Emissions

Reductions

2013 - 33.50 - - - 33.50 - - - - - (33.50)

2014 2.28 46.27 - - - 48.55 - - - - - (48.55)

2015 24.17 45.05 - - - 69.22 - - - - - (69.22)

2016 24.55 853.60 - 7.86 2.26 888.28 5.21 28.35 142.61 - 176.17 (712.11)

2017 11.08 - - 7.86 2.32 21.26 5.10 28.63 140.01 - 173.74 152.48

2018 - - 0.78 7.86 2.37 11.01 4.99 28.92 137.35 - 171.26 160.25

2019 - - 0.78 7.86 2.42 11.07 4.88 29.21 134.63 - 168.72 157.65

2020 - - 0.78 7.86 2.48 11.12 4.77 29.50 131.85 - 166.12 155.00

2021 - - 0.78 7.86 2.53 11.18 4.66 29.79 129.00 - 163.46 152.28

2022 - - 0.78 7.86 2.59 11.24 4.55 30.09 126.10 - 160.74 149.50

2023 - - 0.78 7.86 2.65 11.29 4.44 30.39 123.12 - 157.95 146.66

2024 - - 0.78 7.86 2.71 11.35 4.32 30.70 120.08 - 155.10 143.75

2025 - - 0.78 7.86 2.77 11.41 4.21 31.00 116.97 - 152.18 140.77

2026 - - 0.78 7.86 2.83 11.48 4.09 31.31 113.79 - 149.20 137.72

2027 - - 0.78 7.86 2.89 11.54 3.97 31.63 110.54 - 146.14 134.60

2028 - - 0.78 7.86 2.96 11.60 3.85 31.94 107.22 - 143.01 131.41

2029 - - 0.78 7.86 3.02 11.67 3.73 32.26 103.82 - 139.81 128.14

2030 - - 0.78 7.86 3.09 11.74 3.61 32.59 100.34 - 136.54 124.80

2031 - - 0.78 7.86 3.16 11.81 3.49 32.91 96.79 - 133.19 121.38

2032 - - 0.78 7.86 3.23 11.88 3.36 33.24 93.16 - 129.76 117.88

2033 - - 0.78 7.86 3.31 11.95 3.24 33.57 89.44 - 126.25 114.30

2034 - - 0.78 7.86 3.38 12.03 3.11 33.91 85.64 - 122.66 110.64

2035 - - 0.78 7.86 3.46 12.10 2.98 34.25 81.76 - 118.99 106.89

2036 - - 0.78 7.86 3.53 12.18 2.85 34.59 77.79 - 115.23 103.05

2037 - - 0.78 7.86 3.61 12.26 2.72 34.94 73.72 - 111.39 99.13

2038 - - 0.78 7.86 3.70 12.34 2.59 35.29 69.57 - 107.45 95.11

2039 - - 0.78 7.86 3.78 12.43 2.46 35.64 65.33 - 103.43 91.00

2040 - - 0.78 7.86 3.86 12.51 2.33 36.00 60.99 - 99.31 86.80

2041 - - 0.78 7.86 3.95 12.60 2.19 36.36 56.55 - 95.09 82.49

2042 - - 0.78 7.86 4.04 12.69 2.05 36.72 52.01 - 90.78 78.09

2043 - - 0.78 7.86 4.13 12.78 1.91 37.09 47.37 - 86.37 73.59

2044 - - 0.78 7.86 4.22 12.87 1.77 37.46 42.62 - 81.85 68.98

2045 - - 0.78 7.86 4.32 12.96 1.63 37.83 37.77 - 77.23 64.27

2046 - - 0.78 7.86 4.42 13.06 1.49 38.21 32.81 - 72.51 59.45

2047 - - 0.78 7.86 4.51 13.16 1.35 38.59 27.73 - 67.67 54.51

2048 - - 0.78 7.86 4.62 13.26 1.20 38.98 22.55 - 62.73 49.46

2049 - - 0.78 7.86 4.72 13.37 1.05 39.37 17.24 - 57.66 44.30

2050 - - 0.78 7.86 4.83 13.47 0.91 39.76 11.82 - 52.49 39.01

2051 - - 0.78 7.86 4.93 13.58 0.76 40.16 6.27 - 47.19 33.61

2052 - - 0.78 7.86 5.05 13.69 0.60 40.56 0.60 - 41.77 28.08

EIRR 15.7%

NPVs 45.83 718.30 4.06 51.46 17.88 837.53 28.24 200.97 776.73 - 1,005.94 168.40

2.8% 20.0% 77.2% 0.0%

Total

Economic

Benefits

Net

Economic

Benefits

Benefits to Lao PDRYear Capital Costs O&M Costs Insurance

Costs

Total Costs Benefits to Vietnam


Scenario 3.3


Electricity

Supply

Value of

Electricity Paid

as Taxes and

Royalties

Generation

Cost Savings

Value of

Emissions

Reductions

2013 - 33.50 - - - 33.50 - - - - - (33.50)

2014 1.62 46.27 - - - 47.89 - - - - - (47.89)

2015 22.00 45.05 - - - 67.05 - - - - - (67.05)

2016 20.81 853.60 - 7.86 1.74 884.01 4.35 22.38 108.39 - 135.11 (748.90)

2017 9.01 - - 7.86 1.78 18.65 4.26 22.60 106.39 - 133.26 114.61

2018 - - 0.67 7.86 1.82 10.35 4.18 22.83 104.35 - 131.36 121.01

2019 - - 0.67 7.86 1.86 10.39 4.10 23.06 102.26 - 129.42 119.02

2020 - - 0.67 7.86 1.90 10.44 4.01 23.29 100.13 - 127.43 116.99

2021 - - 0.67 7.86 1.94 10.48 3.93 23.52 97.95 - 125.39 114.91

2022 - - 0.67 7.86 1.99 10.52 3.84 23.75 95.71 - 123.31 112.79

2023 - - 0.67 7.86 2.03 10.57 3.76 23.99 93.43 - 121.18 110.61

2024 - - 0.67 7.86 2.08 10.61 3.67 24.23 91.10 - 119.00 108.38

2025 - - 0.67 7.86 2.12 10.66 3.58 24.47 88.71 - 116.77 106.11

2026 - - 0.67 7.86 2.17 10.71 3.49 24.72 86.27 - 114.48 103.77

2027 - - 0.67 7.86 2.22 10.76 3.40 24.97 83.78 - 112.14 101.39

2028 - - 0.67 7.86 2.27 10.81 3.31 25.22 81.23 - 109.75 98.94

2029 - - 0.67 7.86 2.32 10.86 3.21 25.47 78.62 - 107.30 96.45

2030 - - 0.67 7.86 2.37 10.91 3.12 25.72 75.95 - 104.80 93.89

2031 - - 0.67 7.86 2.43 10.96 3.03 25.98 73.23 - 102.23 91.27

2032 - - 0.67 7.86 2.48 11.02 2.93 26.24 70.44 - 99.61 88.59

2033 - - 0.67 7.86 2.54 11.07 2.84 26.50 67.59 - 96.93 85.85

2034 - - 0.67 7.86 2.59 11.13 2.74 26.77 64.68 - 94.18 83.05

2035 - - 0.67 7.86 2.65 11.19 2.64 27.03 61.69 - 91.37 80.18

2036 - - 0.67 7.86 2.71 11.25 2.54 27.30 58.65 - 88.49 77.24

2037 - - 0.67 7.86 2.77 11.31 2.44 27.58 55.53 - 85.55 74.24

2038 - - 0.67 7.86 2.84 11.37 2.34 27.85 52.35 - 82.54 71.17

2039 - - 0.67 7.86 2.90 11.44 2.24 28.13 49.09 - 79.46 68.02

2040 - - 0.67 7.86 2.96 11.50 2.14 28.41 45.76 - 76.31 64.80

2041 - - 0.67 7.86 3.03 11.57 2.03 28.70 42.35 - 73.08 61.51

2042 - - 0.67 7.86 3.10 11.64 1.93 28.98 38.87 - 69.78 58.14

2043 - - 0.67 7.86 3.17 11.71 1.82 29.27 35.31 - 66.40 54.69

2044 - - 0.67 7.86 3.24 11.78 1.71 29.57 31.67 - 62.95 51.17

2045 - - 0.67 7.86 3.31 11.85 1.60 29.86 27.94 - 59.41 47.56

2046 - - 0.67 7.86 3.39 11.92 1.49 30.16 24.14 - 55.79 43.87

2047 - - 0.67 7.86 3.46 12.00 1.38 30.46 20.24 - 52.09 40.09

2048 - - 0.67 7.86 3.54 12.08 1.27 30.77 16.26 - 48.30 36.22

2049 - - 0.67 7.86 3.62 12.16 1.16 31.08 12.19 - 44.43 32.27

2050 - - 0.67 7.86 3.70 12.24 1.05 31.39 8.03 - 40.46 28.22

2051 - - 0.67 7.86 3.79 12.32 0.93 31.70 3.78 - 36.41 24.09

2052 - - 0.67 7.86 3.87 12.41 0.82 32.02 0.57 - - 32.26 19.85

EIRR 10.8%

NPVs 39.52 718.30 3.49 51.46 13.72 826.49 23.96 158.64 589.20 - 771.79 (54.70)

3.1% 20.6% 76.3% 0.0%

Benefits to VietnamYear Capital Costs O&M Costs Insurance

Costs

Total Costs Benefits to Lao PDR Total

Economic

Benefits

Net

Economic

Benefits


Scenario 3.3


Electricity

Supply

Value of

Electricity

Paid as

Taxes and

Royalties

Generation

Cost

Savings

Value of

Emissions

Reductions

2013 - 33.50 - - - 33.50 - - - - - (33.50)

2014 1.62 46.27 - - - 47.89 - - - - - (47.89)

2015 22.00 45.05 - - - 67.05 - - - - - (67.05)

2016 20.81 853.60 - 7.86 1.74 884.01 3.86 21.51 108.39 - 133.75 (750.26)

2017 9.01 - - 7.86 1.78 18.65 3.78 21.72 106.39 - 131.89 113.24

2018 - - 0.67 7.86 1.82 10.35 3.69 21.94 104.35 - 129.98 119.63

2019 - - 0.67 7.86 1.86 10.39 3.61 22.16 102.26 - 128.03 117.64

2020 - - 0.67 7.86 1.90 10.44 3.53 22.38 100.13 - 126.03 115.60

2021 - - 0.67 7.86 1.94 10.48 3.44 22.60 97.95 - 123.99 113.51

2022 - - 0.67 7.86 1.99 10.52 3.35 22.83 95.71 - 121.90 111.38

2023 - - 0.67 7.86 2.03 10.57 3.27 23.06 93.43 - 119.76 109.19

2024 - - 0.67 7.86 2.08 10.61 3.18 23.29 91.10 - 117.57 106.95

2025 - - 0.67 7.86 2.12 10.66 3.09 23.52 88.71 - 115.33 104.66

2026 - - 0.67 7.86 2.17 10.71 3.00 23.76 86.27 - 113.03 102.32

2027 - - 0.67 7.86 2.22 10.76 2.91 23.99 83.78 - 110.68 99.93

2028 - - 0.67 7.86 2.27 10.81 2.82 24.23 81.23 - 108.28 97.48

2029 - - 0.67 7.86 2.32 10.86 2.73 24.48 78.62 - 105.82 94.97

2030 - - 0.67 7.86 2.37 10.91 2.63 24.72 75.95 - 103.31 92.40

2031 - - 0.67 7.86 2.43 10.96 2.54 24.97 73.23 - 100.74 89.77

2032 - - 0.67 7.86 2.48 11.02 2.44 25.22 70.44 - 98.10 87.08

2033 - - 0.67 7.86 2.54 11.07 2.35 25.47 67.59 - 95.41 84.33

2034 - - 0.67 7.86 2.59 11.13 2.25 25.72 64.68 - 92.65 81.52

2035 - - 0.67 7.86 2.65 11.19 2.15 25.98 61.69 - 89.83 78.64

2036 - - 0.67 7.86 2.71 11.25 2.05 26.24 58.65 - 86.94 75.69

2037 - - 0.67 7.86 2.77 11.31 1.95 26.50 55.53 - 83.99 72.68

2038 - - 0.67 7.86 2.84 11.37 1.85 26.77 52.35 - 80.97 69.59

2039 - - 0.67 7.86 2.90 11.44 1.75 27.04 49.09 - 77.87 66.44

2040 - - 0.67 7.86 2.96 11.50 1.65 27.31 45.76 - 74.71 63.21

2041 - - 0.67 7.86 3.03 11.57 1.54 27.58 42.35 - 71.47 59.91

2042 - - 0.67 7.86 3.10 11.64 1.44 27.86 38.87 - 68.16 56.53

2043 - - 0.67 7.86 3.17 11.71 1.33 28.13 35.31 - 64.77 53.07

2044 - - 0.67 7.86 3.24 11.78 1.22 28.42 31.67 - 61.31 49.53

2045 - - 0.67 7.86 3.31 11.85 1.12 28.70 27.94 - 57.76 45.91

2046 - - 0.67 7.86 3.39 11.92 1.01 28.99 24.14 - 54.13 42.20

2047 - - 0.67 7.86 3.46 12.00 0.90 29.28 20.24 - 50.42 38.42

2048 - - 0.67 7.86 3.54 12.08 0.78 29.57 16.26 - 46.62 34.54

2049 - - 0.67 7.86 3.62 12.16 0.67 29.87 12.19 - 42.73 30.57

2050 - - 0.67 7.86 3.70 12.24 0.56 30.16 8.03 - 38.75 26.51

2051 - - 0.67 7.86 3.79 12.32 0.44 30.47 3.78 - 34.69 22.36

2052 - - 0.67 7.86 3.87 12.41 0.33 30.77 0.57 - - 30.52 18.12

EIRR 10.6%

NPVs 39.52 718.30 3.49 51.46 13.72 826.49 20.77 152.46 589.20 - 762.42 (64.07)

2.7% 20.0% 77.3% 0.0%

Total

Economic

Benefits

Net

Economic

Benefits

Total CostsYear Capital Costs Benefits to VietnamO&M Costs Insurance

Costs

Benefits to Lao PDR


Scenario 3.4


Electricity

Supply

Value of

Electricity Paid

as Taxes and

Royalties

Generation

Cost Savings

Value of

Emissions

Reductions

2013 0.13 33.50 - - - 33.63 - - - - - (33.63)

2014 1.43 46.27 - - - 47.70 - - - - - (47.70)

2015 15.96 45.05 - - - 61.01 - - - - - (61.01)

2016 - 853.60 0.22 7.86 0.84 862.53 2.08 10.78 50.03 - 62.89 (799.64)

2017 0.39 - 0.22 7.86 0.86 9.33 2.04 10.89 49.06 - 61.99 52.65

2018 - - 0.22 7.86 0.88 8.97 2.00 11.00 48.07 - 61.07 52.10

2019 - - 0.22 7.86 0.90 8.99 1.96 11.11 47.06 - 60.13 51.14

2020 - - 0.22 7.86 0.92 9.01 1.92 11.22 46.03 - 59.17 50.16

2021 - - 0.22 7.86 0.94 9.03 1.87 11.33 44.97 - 58.18 49.15

2022 - - 0.22 7.86 0.96 9.05 1.83 11.44 43.89 - 57.17 48.12

2023 - - 0.22 7.86 0.98 9.07 1.79 11.56 42.79 - 56.14 47.07

2024 - - 0.22 7.86 1.00 9.09 1.75 11.67 41.66 - 55.08 45.99

2025 - - 0.22 7.86 1.03 9.11 1.71 11.79 40.51 - 54.00 44.89

2026 - - 0.22 7.86 1.05 9.14 1.66 11.91 39.33 - 52.90 43.76

2027 - - 0.22 7.86 1.07 9.16 1.62 12.03 38.12 - 51.77 42.61

2028 - - 0.22 7.86 1.10 9.19 1.57 12.15 36.89 - 50.61 41.42

2029 - - 0.22 7.86 1.12 9.21 1.53 12.27 35.63 - 49.42 40.21

2030 - - 0.22 7.86 1.15 9.24 1.48 12.39 34.33 - 48.21 38.98

2031 - - 0.22 7.86 1.17 9.26 1.44 12.52 33.02 - 46.97 37.71

2032 - - 0.22 7.86 1.20 9.29 1.39 12.64 31.67 - 45.70 36.41

2033 - - 0.22 7.86 1.23 9.31 1.35 12.77 30.29 - 44.40 35.09

2034 - - 0.22 7.86 1.25 9.34 1.30 12.90 28.88 - 43.07 33.73

2035 - - 0.22 7.86 1.28 9.37 1.25 13.02 27.44 - 41.71 32.34

2036 - - 0.22 7.86 1.31 9.40 1.20 13.15 25.96 - 40.32 30.92

2037 - - 0.22 7.86 1.34 9.43 1.16 13.29 24.45 - 38.90 29.47

2038 - - 0.22 7.86 1.37 9.46 1.11 13.42 22.91 - 37.44 27.98

2039 - - 0.22 7.86 1.40 9.49 1.06 13.55 21.34 - 35.95 26.46

2040 - - 0.22 7.86 1.43 9.52 1.01 13.69 19.72 - 34.42 24.90

2041 - - 0.22 7.86 1.47 9.55 0.96 13.83 18.08 - 32.86 23.31

2042 - - 0.22 7.86 1.50 9.59 0.91 13.96 16.39 - 31.26 21.68

2043 - - 0.22 7.86 1.53 9.62 0.85 14.10 14.67 - 29.63 20.01

2044 - - 0.22 7.86 1.57 9.66 0.80 14.24 12.91 - 27.95 18.30

2045 - - 0.22 7.86 1.60 9.69 0.75 14.39 11.11 - 26.24 16.55

2046 - - 0.22 7.86 1.64 9.73 0.70 14.53 9.26 - 24.49 14.77

2047 - - 0.22 7.86 1.68 9.76 0.64 14.68 7.38 - 22.70 12.94

2048 - - 0.22 7.86 1.71 9.80 0.59 14.82 5.46 - 20.87 11.07

2049 - - 0.22 7.86 1.75 9.84 0.54 14.97 3.49 - 18.99 9.15

2050 - - 0.22 7.86 1.79 9.88 0.48 15.12 1.47 - 17.07 7.20

2051 - - 0.22 7.86 1.83 9.92 0.42 15.27 0.58 - - 15.11 5.19

2052 - - 0.22 7.86 1.87 9.96 0.37 15.42 2.69 - - 13.10 3.14

EIRR 1.3%

NPVs 14.38 718.30 1.46 51.46 6.64 792.23 11.43 76.43 269.27 - 357.12 (435.11)

3.2% 21.4% 75.4% 0.0%

Total

Economic

Benefits

Net

Economic

Benefits

O&M Costs Insurance

Costs

Total Costs Benefits to Lao PDR Benefits to VietnamYear Capital Costs


Scenario 3.4


Electricity

Supply

Value of

Electricity

Paid as

Taxes and

Royalties

Generation

Cost

Savings

Value of

Emissions

Reductions

2013 0.13 33.50 - - - 33.63 - - - - - (33.63)

2014 1.43 46.27 - - - 47.70 - - - - - (47.70)

2015 15.96 45.05 - - - 61.01 - - - - - (61.01)

2016 - 853.60 0.22 7.86 0.84 862.53 1.76 10.22 50.03 - 62.01 (800.52)

2017 0.39 - 0.22 7.86 0.86 9.33 1.72 10.32 49.06 - 61.10 51.77

2018 - - 0.22 7.86 0.88 8.97 1.68 10.42 48.07 - 60.18 51.21

2019 - - 0.22 7.86 0.90 8.99 1.64 10.53 47.06 - 59.23 50.25

2020 - - 0.22 7.86 0.92 9.01 1.60 10.63 46.03 - 58.27 49.26

2021 - - 0.22 7.86 0.94 9.03 1.56 10.74 44.97 - 57.27 48.25

2022 - - 0.22 7.86 0.96 9.05 1.52 10.85 43.89 - 56.26 47.21

2023 - - 0.22 7.86 0.98 9.07 1.48 10.96 42.79 - 55.22 46.15

2024 - - 0.22 7.86 1.00 9.09 1.43 11.07 41.66 - 54.16 45.07

2025 - - 0.22 7.86 1.03 9.11 1.39 11.18 40.51 - 53.07 43.96

2026 - - 0.22 7.86 1.05 9.14 1.35 11.29 39.33 - 51.96 42.82

2027 - - 0.22 7.86 1.07 9.16 1.30 11.40 38.12 - 50.82 41.66

2028 - - 0.22 7.86 1.10 9.19 1.26 11.51 36.89 - 49.66 40.48

2029 - - 0.22 7.86 1.12 9.21 1.21 11.63 35.63 - 48.47 39.26

2030 - - 0.22 7.86 1.15 9.24 1.17 11.75 34.33 - 47.25 38.01

2031 - - 0.22 7.86 1.17 9.26 1.12 11.86 33.02 - 46.00 36.74

2032 - - 0.22 7.86 1.20 9.29 1.08 11.98 31.67 - 44.73 35.44

2033 - - 0.22 7.86 1.23 9.31 1.03 12.10 30.29 - 43.42 34.11

2034 - - 0.22 7.86 1.25 9.34 0.98 12.22 28.88 - 42.08 32.74

2035 - - 0.22 7.86 1.28 9.37 0.94 12.35 27.44 - 40.72 31.35

2036 - - 0.22 7.86 1.31 9.40 0.89 12.47 25.96 - 39.32 29.92

2037 - - 0.22 7.86 1.34 9.43 0.84 12.59 24.45 - 37.89 28.46

2038 - - 0.22 7.86 1.37 9.46 0.79 12.72 22.91 - 36.42 26.96

2039 - - 0.22 7.86 1.40 9.49 0.74 12.85 21.34 - 34.93 25.44

2040 - - 0.22 7.86 1.43 9.52 0.69 12.98 19.72 - 33.39 23.87

2041 - - 0.22 7.86 1.47 9.55 0.64 13.10 18.08 - 31.82 22.27

2042 - - 0.22 7.86 1.50 9.59 0.59 13.24 16.39 - 30.22 20.63

2043 - - 0.22 7.86 1.53 9.62 0.54 13.37 14.67 - 28.58 18.96

2044 - - 0.22 7.86 1.57 9.66 0.49 13.50 12.91 - 26.90 17.24

2045 - - 0.22 7.86 1.60 9.69 0.44 13.64 11.11 - 25.18 15.49

2046 - - 0.22 7.86 1.64 9.73 0.38 13.77 9.26 - 23.42 13.69

2047 - - 0.22 7.86 1.68 9.76 0.33 13.91 7.38 - 21.62 11.86

2048 - - 0.22 7.86 1.71 9.80 0.28 14.05 5.46 - 19.78 9.98

2049 - - 0.22 7.86 1.75 9.84 0.22 14.19 3.49 - 17.90 8.06

2050 - - 0.22 7.86 1.79 9.88 0.17 14.33 1.47 - 15.97 6.09

2051 - - 0.22 7.86 1.83 9.92 0.11 14.48 0.58 - - 14.00 4.08

2052 - - 0.22 7.86 1.87 9.96 0.05 14.62 2.69 - - 11.98 2.02

EIRR 1.1%

NPVs 14.38 718.30 1.46 51.46 6.64 792.23 9.36 72.44 269.27 - 351.08 (441.15)

2.7% 20.6% 76.7% 0.0%

Total

Economic

Benefits

Net

Economic

Benefits

Year Capital Costs O&M Costs Insurance

Costs

Total Costs Benefits to Lao PDR Benefits to Vietnam


Sensitivity Analysis (Scenario 3.1, 10% RoR Criterion Wheeling Charge)

Increased Reduced Scenario Total Electricity

Throughput

(GWh)

NPV EIRR % Reduction

in Throughput

(vs Scn 3.1)

Basecase Values 362.84 20.0% 3.1 3,946 362.84 20.0%

Sensitivity Tests: 3.2 3,307 168.40 15.7% 16.2%

Capital Costs 20% 346.81 19.4% 0.22 406% 3.3 2,538 (64.07) 10.6% 35.7%

O&M 20% 352.76 19.7% 0.14 646% 3.4 1,228 (441.15) 1.1% 68.9%

Benefits to Lao PDR 20% 307.87 18.8% 0.76 -100%

Benefits to Vietnam 20% 176.52 15.8% 2.57 -35%

All Adverse Effects Combined 95.20 14.0%

Capital Costs 0%

O&M 0%

Benefits to Lao PDR 0%

Benefits to Vietnam 0%

EIRR Sensitivity

Indicator

Switching

Value

Test Parameters

Sensitivity Parameters NPV

(USD m)

Summary of Results (10% RoR Wheeling Charge)


Substation and Transmission Line: Analysis of the Wheeling Charge (WC) in Lao PDR All monetary values in US$m

WC (t) = Total Wheeling Charge

WC (c) = Capital Component of Wheeling Charge

WC (om) = O&M Component of Wheeling Charge

WC (i) = Insurance Component of Wheeling Charge

S/S = Substation

T/L = Transmission Line

Weighted Average Cost of Capital 1.90%

Start Year for Transmission Line/Switchyard 2016

Start Year for Substation 2018

Annual O&M Expenditure (% Capital Cost)

Substation 1.20%

Transmission Line 0.80%

Annual Output Sold to Vietnam (T/L throughput)

All IPPs

Power Stations GWh Sold/year Year Commissioned

Xekaman 1 982 2015

Xekaman 4 253 2016 2015 982 982

Xekaman 4 A 363 2017 2016 253 1,235

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2017 1,922 3,157

Xekaman 2 & 2A 511 2017

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017

Total 3,157

IPPs for Scenario 3.1

Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 253 1,235

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,922 3,157

Xekaman 4 253 2016

Xekaman 4 A 363 2017

Xekaman 2 & 2A 511 2017

Total 3,157


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 253 1,235

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,411 2,646

Xekaman 4 253 2016


Total 2,646


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 - 982

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,048 2,030

Total 2,030

IPPs for Scenario 3.4 (temp config)

Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Total 982

1 Capital Costs (US$m) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

2

3 Substation or Switchyard

4 Option 3.1 3x600 MVA - 2.43 12.63 27.31 13.17 55.53

5 Option 3.2 3x600 MVA - 2.41 11.86 25.90 11.69 51.86

6 Option 3.3 2x600 MVA - 1.71 9.57 21.95 9.50 42.73

7 Option 3.4 Temporary 0.14 1.51 3.20 - 0.41 5.25

8

9 Transmission Line

10 Option 3.1 3x600 MVA 11.64 16.08 15.65 - - 43.37

11 Option 3.2 3x600 MVA 11.64 16.08 15.65 - - 43.37

12 Option 3.3 2x600 MVA 11.64 16.08 15.65 - - 43.37

13 Option 3.4 Temporary 11.64 16.08 15.65 - - 43.37

14

15 Total Substation + Transmission Line

16 Option 3.1 3x600 MVA 11.64 18.50 28.28 27.31 13.17 98.90

17 Option 3.2 3x600 MVA 11.64 18.49 27.51 25.90 11.69 95.23

18 Option 3.3 2x600 MVA 11.64 17.79 25.22 21.95 9.50 86.10

19 Option 3.4 Temporary 11.78 17.58 18.85 - 0.41 48.62

GWh

Additions

Cumulative Sales

(GWh/year)


Scenario 3.1 3x600 MVAConnected IPPs: MW GWh/year

Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Xekaman 4 80 253

Xekaman 4 A 116 363

Xekaman 2 & 2A 160 511

Total 1,013 3,157

Capcost: S/S T/L Total

(US$m) 55.53 43.37 98.90 Wheeling Charge (USc per kWh): 0.22

S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 11.64 - - - 11.64 - (11.64)

2014 2.43 16.08 - - - 18.50 - (18.50)

2015 12.63 15.65 - - - 28.28 - (28.28)

2016 27.31 - - 0.35 1.35 29.00 2.68 (26.33)

2017 13.17 - - 0.35 1.38 14.90 6.85 (8.05)

2018 - - 0.67 0.35 1.41 2.43 6.85 4.42

2019 - - 0.67 0.35 1.44 2.46 6.85 4.39

2020 - - 0.67 0.35 1.48 2.49 6.85 4.36

2021 - - 0.67 0.35 1.51 2.52 6.85 4.32

2022 - - 0.67 0.35 1.54 2.56 6.85 4.29

2023 - - 0.67 0.35 1.58 2.59 6.85 4.26

2024 - - 0.67 0.35 1.61 2.63 6.85 4.22

2025 - - 0.67 0.35 1.65 2.66 6.85 4.18

2026 - - 0.67 0.35 1.69 2.70 6.85 4.15

2027 - - 0.67 0.35 1.73 2.74 6.85 4.11

2028 - - 0.67 0.35 1.76 2.78 6.85 4.07

2029 - - 0.67 0.35 1.80 2.82 6.85 4.03

2030 - - 0.67 0.35 1.85 2.86 6.85 3.99

2031 - - 0.67 0.35 1.89 2.90 6.85 3.95

2032 - - 0.67 0.35 1.93 2.94 6.85 3.91

2033 - - 0.67 0.35 1.97 2.99 6.85 3.86

2034 - - 0.67 0.35 2.02 3.03 6.85 3.82

2035 - - 0.67 0.35 2.06 3.08 6.85 3.77

2036 - - 0.67 0.35 2.11 3.12 6.85 3.73

2037 - - 0.67 0.35 2.16 3.17 6.85 3.68

2038 - - 0.67 0.35 2.20 3.22 6.85 3.63

2039 - - 0.67 0.35 2.25 3.27 6.85 3.58

2040 - - 0.67 0.35 2.30 3.32 6.85 3.53

2041 - - 0.67 0.35 2.36 3.37 6.85 3.48

2042 - - 0.67 0.35 2.41 3.42 6.85 3.42

2043 - - 0.67 0.35 2.46 3.48 6.85 3.37

2044 - - 0.67 0.35 2.52 3.53 6.85 3.31

2045 - - 0.67 0.35 2.58 3.59 6.85 3.26

2046 - - 0.67 0.35 2.63 3.65 6.85 3.20

2047 - - 0.67 0.35 2.69 3.71 6.85 3.14

2048 - - 0.67 0.35 2.75 3.77 6.85 3.08

2049 - - 0.67 0.35 2.82 3.83 6.85 3.02

2050 - - 0.67 0.35 2.88 3.89 6.85 2.95

2051 - - 0.67 0.35 2.94 3.96 6.85 2.89

2052 - - 0.67 0.35 3.01 4.02 6.85 2.82

IRR = 1.92%

NPVs 52.54 42.48 15.63 8.79 50.08 169.52 169.52 (0.00)

Summary of the Wheeling Charge (USc/kWh), Option 3.1

WC (t) = 0.22

WC (c) = 0.12

WC (om) = 0.03

WC (i) = 0.06

Year

Capital Costs

Total Costs

Total

Revenues

Net

Revenues

O&M Costs Insurance

Costs



Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Xekaman 4 80 253

Xekaman 4 A 116 363

Total 853 2,646



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 11.64 - - - 11.64 - (11.64)

2014 2.41 16.08 - - - 18.49 - (18.49)

2015 11.86 15.65 - - - 27.51 - (27.51)

2016 25.90 - - 0.35 1.13 27.38 6.19 (21.19)

2017 11.69 - - 0.35 1.16 13.19 6.19 (7.01)

2018 - - 0.62 0.35 1.18 2.15 6.19 4.04

2019 - - 0.62 0.35 1.21 2.18 6.19 4.01

2020 - - 0.62 0.35 1.24 2.21 6.19 3.98

2021 - - 0.62 0.35 1.27 2.23 6.19 3.95

2022 - - 0.62 0.35 1.29 2.26 6.19 3.93

2023 - - 0.62 0.35 1.32 2.29 6.19 3.90

2024 - - 0.62 0.35 1.35 2.32 6.19 3.87

2025 - - 0.62 0.35 1.38 2.35 6.19 3.84

2026 - - 0.62 0.35 1.41 2.38 6.19 3.81

2027 - - 0.62 0.35 1.45 2.42 6.19 3.77

2028 - - 0.62 0.35 1.48 2.45 6.19 3.74

2029 - - 0.62 0.35 1.51 2.48 6.19 3.71

2030 - - 0.62 0.35 1.55 2.52 6.19 3.67

2031 - - 0.62 0.35 1.58 2.55 6.19 3.64

2032 - - 0.62 0.35 1.62 2.59 6.19 3.60

2033 - - 0.62 0.35 1.65 2.62 6.19 3.57

2034 - - 0.62 0.35 1.69 2.66 6.19 3.53

2035 - - 0.62 0.35 1.73 2.70 6.19 3.49

2036 - - 0.62 0.35 1.77 2.74 6.19 3.45

2037 - - 0.62 0.35 1.81 2.78 6.19 3.41

2038 - - 0.62 0.35 1.85 2.82 6.19 3.37

2039 - - 0.62 0.35 1.89 2.86 6.19 3.33

2040 - - 0.62 0.35 1.93 2.90 6.19 3.29

2041 - - 0.62 0.35 1.98 2.94 6.19 3.25

2042 - - 0.62 0.35 2.02 2.99 6.19 3.20

2043 - - 0.62 0.35 2.07 3.03 6.19 3.16

2044 - - 0.62 0.35 2.11 3.08 6.19 3.11

2045 - - 0.62 0.35 2.16 3.13 6.19 3.06

2046 - - 0.62 0.35 2.21 3.18 6.19 3.01

2047 - - 0.62 0.35 2.26 3.23 6.19 2.96

2048 - - 0.62 0.35 2.31 3.28 6.19 2.91

2049 - - 0.62 0.35 2.36 3.33 6.19 2.86

2050 - - 0.62 0.35 2.41 3.38 6.19 2.81

2051 - - 0.62 0.35 2.47 3.44 6.19 2.75

2052 - - 0.62 0.35 2.52 3.49 6.19 2.70

IRR = 1.91%

NPVs 49.08 42.48 14.60 8.79 41.97 156.92 156.79 (0.13)

Summary of the Wheeling Charge (USc/kWh), Scenario 3.2

WC (t) = 0.23

WC (c) = 0.14

WC (om) = 0.03

WC (i) = 0.06

Capital Costs O&M Costs Insurance

Costs Total CostsYear

Total

Revenues

Net

Revenues



Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Total 657 2,030



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 11.64 - - - 11.64 - (11.64)

2014 1.71 16.08 - - - 17.79 - (17.79)

2015 9.57 15.65 - - - 25.22 - (25.22)

2016 21.95 - - 0.35 0.87 23.17 5.36 (17.81)

2017 9.50 - - 0.35 0.89 10.74 5.36 (5.38)

2018 - - 0.51 0.35 0.91 1.77 5.36 3.59

2019 - - 0.51 0.35 0.93 1.79 5.36 3.57

2020 - - 0.51 0.35 0.95 1.81 5.36 3.55

2021 - - 0.51 0.35 0.97 1.83 5.36 3.53

2022 - - 0.51 0.35 0.99 1.85 5.36 3.51

2023 - - 0.51 0.35 1.02 1.88 5.36 3.48

2024 - - 0.51 0.35 1.04 1.90 5.36 3.46

2025 - - 0.51 0.35 1.06 1.92 5.36 3.44

2026 - - 0.51 0.35 1.09 1.95 5.36 3.41

2027 - - 0.51 0.35 1.11 1.97 5.36 3.39

2028 - - 0.51 0.35 1.13 1.99 5.36 3.36

2029 - - 0.51 0.35 1.16 2.02 5.36 3.34

2030 - - 0.51 0.35 1.19 2.05 5.36 3.31

2031 - - 0.51 0.35 1.21 2.07 5.36 3.29

2032 - - 0.51 0.35 1.24 2.10 5.36 3.26

2033 - - 0.51 0.35 1.27 2.13 5.36 3.23

2034 - - 0.51 0.35 1.30 2.16 5.36 3.20

2035 - - 0.51 0.35 1.33 2.19 5.36 3.17

2036 - - 0.51 0.35 1.36 2.22 5.36 3.14

2037 - - 0.51 0.35 1.39 2.25 5.36 3.11

2038 - - 0.51 0.35 1.42 2.28 5.36 3.08

2039 - - 0.51 0.35 1.45 2.31 5.36 3.05

2040 - - 0.51 0.35 1.48 2.34 5.36 3.02

2041 - - 0.51 0.35 1.52 2.38 5.36 2.98

2042 - - 0.51 0.35 1.55 2.41 5.36 2.95

2043 - - 0.51 0.35 1.58 2.44 5.36 2.91

2044 - - 0.51 0.35 1.62 2.48 5.36 2.88

2045 - - 0.51 0.35 1.66 2.52 5.36 2.84

2046 - - 0.51 0.35 1.69 2.55 5.36 2.80

2047 - - 0.51 0.35 1.73 2.59 5.36 2.77

2048 - - 0.51 0.35 1.77 2.63 5.36 2.73

2049 - - 0.51 0.35 1.81 2.67 5.36 2.69

2050 - - 0.51 0.35 1.85 2.71 5.36 2.65

2051 - - 0.51 0.35 1.89 2.75 5.36 2.61

2052 - - 0.51 0.35 1.94 2.80 5.36 2.56

IRR = 1.91%

NPVs 40.43 42.48 12.03 8.79 32.20 135.93 135.74 (0.19)


WC (t) = 0.26

WC (c) = 0.16

WC (om) = 0.04

WC (i) = 0.06


Costs Total CostsYear

Total

Revenues

Net

Revenues


Scenario 3.4 TemporaryConnected IPPs: MW GWh/year

Xekaman 1 322 982

Total 322 982

Capcost: Switchyard T/L Total


Switchyard T/L S/S T/L

2013 0.14 11.64 - - - 11.78 - (11.78)

2014 1.51 16.08 - - - 17.58 - (17.58)

2015 3.20 15.65 - - - 18.85 - (18.85)

2016 - - 0.06 0.35 0.42 0.83 2.88 2.05

2017 0.41 - 0.06 0.35 0.43 1.25 2.88 1.63

2018 - - 0.06 0.35 0.44 0.85 2.88 2.03

2019 - - 0.06 0.35 0.45 0.86 2.88 2.02

2020 - - 0.06 0.35 0.46 0.87 2.88 2.01

2021 - - 0.06 0.35 0.47 0.88 2.88 2.00

2022 - - 0.06 0.35 0.48 0.89 2.88 1.99

2023 - - 0.06 0.35 0.49 0.90 2.88 1.97

2024 - - 0.06 0.35 0.50 0.91 2.88 1.96

2025 - - 0.06 0.35 0.51 0.92 2.88 1.95

2026 - - 0.06 0.35 0.53 0.94 2.88 1.94

2027 - - 0.06 0.35 0.54 0.95 2.88 1.93

2028 - - 0.06 0.35 0.55 0.96 2.88 1.92

2029 - - 0.06 0.35 0.56 0.97 2.88 1.90

2030 - - 0.06 0.35 0.57 0.98 2.88 1.89

2031 - - 0.06 0.35 0.59 1.00 2.88 1.88

2032 - - 0.06 0.35 0.60 1.01 2.88 1.87

2033 - - 0.06 0.35 0.61 1.02 2.88 1.85

2034 - - 0.06 0.35 0.63 1.04 2.88 1.84

2035 - - 0.06 0.35 0.64 1.05 2.88 1.82

2036 - - 0.06 0.35 0.66 1.07 2.88 1.81

2037 - - 0.06 0.35 0.67 1.08 2.88 1.80

2038 - - 0.06 0.35 0.69 1.10 2.88 1.78

2039 - - 0.06 0.35 0.70 1.11 2.88 1.76

2040 - - 0.06 0.35 0.72 1.13 2.88 1.75

2041 - - 0.06 0.35 0.73 1.14 2.88 1.73

2042 - - 0.06 0.35 0.75 1.16 2.88 1.72

2043 - - 0.06 0.35 0.77 1.18 2.88 1.70

2044 - - 0.06 0.35 0.78 1.19 2.88 1.68

2045 - - 0.06 0.35 0.80 1.21 2.88 1.66

2046 - - 0.06 0.35 0.82 1.23 2.88 1.65

2047 - - 0.06 0.35 0.84 1.25 2.88 1.63

2048 - - 0.06 0.35 0.86 1.27 2.88 1.61

2049 - - 0.06 0.35 0.88 1.29 2.88 1.59

2050 - - 0.06 0.35 0.90 1.31 2.88 1.57

2051 - - 0.06 0.35 0.92 1.33 2.88 1.55

2052 - - 0.06 0.35 0.94 1.35 2.88 1.53

IRR = 1.83%

NPVs 5.08 42.52 1.62 8.93 15.86 74.01 74.01 (0.00)


WC (t) = 0.29

WC (c) = 0.19

WC (om) = 0.04

WC (i) = 0.06

Insurance

Costs

Total

Revenues

Net

RevenuesYear

Capital Costs O&M Costs

Total Costs


GWh Throughput 982 2,030 2,646 3,157

Wheeling Charge (Usc/kWh) 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.22

0.20

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

WC

(U

Sc/k

Wh

)

Annual Throughput to Vietnam (GWh)

Wheeling Charge (WC) in LPDR

Minimum RoR Criteri


Substation and Transmission Line: Analysis of the Wheeling Charge (WC) in Vietnam

All monetary values in US$m





S/S = Substation


Weighted Average Cost of Capital 1.90%




Substation 1.20%



All IPPs


Xekaman 1 982 2015

Xekaman 4 253 2016 2015 982 982

Xekaman 4 A 363 2017 2016 253 1,235

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2017 1,922 3,157

Xekaman 2 & 2A 511 2017


Total 3,157


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 253 1,235

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,922 3,157

Xekaman 4 253 2016


Xekaman 2 & 2A 511 2017

Total 3,157


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 253 1,235

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,411 2,646

Xekaman 4 253 2016


Total 2,646


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 - 982

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,048 2,030

Total 2,030


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Total 982


2

3 Substation or Switchyard in Vietnam

4 Option 3.1 - - 13.30 - - 13.30

5 Option 3.2 - - 13.30 - - 13.30

6 Option 3.3 - - 13.30 - - 13.30

7 Option 3.4 - - 13.30 - - 13.30

8

9 Transmission Line in Vietnam

10 Option 3.1 23.12 31.92 31.08 - - 86.12

11 Option 3.2 23.12 31.92 31.08 - - 86.12

12 Option 3.3 23.12 31.92 31.08 - - 86.12

13 Option 3.4 23.12 31.92 31.08 - - 86.12

14

15 Total Substation + Transmission Line in Vietnam

16 Option 3.1 23.12 31.92 44.38 - - 99.42

17 Option 3.2 23.12 31.92 44.38 - - 99.42

18 Option 3.3 23.12 31.92 44.38 - - 99.42

19 Option 3.4 23.12 31.92 44.38 - - 99.42

GWh

Additions

Cumulative Sales

(GWh/year)


Scenario 3.1Connected IPPs: MW GWh/year

Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Xekaman 4 80 253

Xekaman 4 A 116 363

Xekaman 2 & 2A 160 511

Total 1,013 3,157



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 23.12 - - - 23.12 - 23.12 -

2014 - 31.92 - - - 31.92 - 31.92 -

2015 13.30 31.08 - - - 44.38 - 44.38 -

2016 - - - 0.69 1.35 2.04 2.66 0.62

2017 - - - 0.69 1.38 2.07 6.80 4.73

2018 - - 0.16 0.69 1.41 2.26 6.80 4.54

2019 - - 0.16 0.69 1.44 2.29 6.80 4.51

2020 - - 0.16 0.69 1.48 2.33 6.80 4.48

2021 - - 0.16 0.69 1.51 2.36 6.80 4.45

2022 - - 0.16 0.69 1.54 2.39 6.80 4.41

2023 - - 0.16 0.69 1.58 2.43 6.80 4.38

2024 - - 0.16 0.69 1.61 2.46 6.80 4.34

2025 - - 0.16 0.69 1.65 2.50 6.80 4.30

2026 - - 0.16 0.69 1.69 2.54 6.80 4.27

2027 - - 0.16 0.69 1.73 2.57 6.80 4.23

2028 - - 0.16 0.69 1.76 2.61 6.80 4.19

2029 - - 0.16 0.69 1.80 2.65 6.80 4.15

2030 - - 0.16 0.69 1.85 2.69 6.80 4.11

2031 - - 0.16 0.69 1.89 2.74 6.80 4.07

2032 - - 0.16 0.69 1.93 2.78 6.80 4.03

2033 - - 0.16 0.69 1.97 2.82 6.80 3.98

2034 - - 0.16 0.69 2.02 2.87 6.80 3.94

2035 - - 0.16 0.69 2.06 2.91 6.80 3.89

2036 - - 0.16 0.69 2.11 2.96 6.80 3.85

2037 - - 0.16 0.69 2.16 3.00 6.80 3.80

2038 - - 0.16 0.69 2.20 3.05 6.80 3.75

2039 - - 0.16 0.69 2.25 3.10 6.80 3.70

2040 - - 0.16 0.69 2.30 3.15 6.80 3.65

2041 - - 0.16 0.69 2.36 3.21 6.80 3.60

2042 - - 0.16 0.69 2.41 3.26 6.80 3.55

2043 - - 0.16 0.69 2.46 3.31 6.80 3.49

2044 - - 0.16 0.69 2.52 3.37 6.80 3.44

2045 - - 0.16 0.69 2.58 3.42 6.80 3.38

2046 - - 0.16 0.69 2.63 3.48 6.80 3.32

2047 - - 0.16 0.69 2.69 3.54 6.80 3.26

2048 - - 0.16 0.69 2.75 3.60 6.80 3.20

2049 - - 0.16 0.69 2.82 3.66 6.80 3.14

2050 - - 0.16 0.69 2.88 3.73 6.80 3.08

2051 - - 0.16 0.69 2.94 3.79 6.80 3.01

2052 - - 0.16 0.69 3.01 3.86 6.80 2.94

IRR = 1.92%

NPVs 12.81 84.38 3.76 17.52 50.29 168.76 169.08 0.32


WC (t) = 0.22

WC (c) = 0.12

WC (om) = 0.03

WC (i) = 0.06

Net

Revenues

Total

Revenues Year


Costs Total Costs



Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Xekaman 4 80 253

Xekaman 4 A 116 363

Total 853 2,646



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 23.12 - - - 23.12 - 23.12 -

2014 - 31.92 - - - 31.92 - 31.92 -

2015 13.30 31.08 - - - 44.38 - 44.38 -

2016 - - - 0.69 1.13 1.82 6.32 4.50

2017 - - - 0.69 1.16 1.85 6.32 4.48

2018 - - 0.16 0.69 1.18 2.03 6.32 4.29

2019 - - 0.16 0.69 1.21 2.06 6.32 4.26

2020 - - 0.16 0.69 1.24 2.09 6.32 4.24

2021 - - 0.16 0.69 1.27 2.11 6.32 4.21

2022 - - 0.16 0.69 1.29 2.14 6.32 4.18

2023 - - 0.16 0.69 1.32 2.17 6.32 4.15

2024 - - 0.16 0.69 1.35 2.20 6.32 4.12

2025 - - 0.16 0.69 1.38 2.23 6.32 4.09

2026 - - 0.16 0.69 1.41 2.26 6.32 4.06

2027 - - 0.16 0.69 1.45 2.30 6.32 4.03

2028 - - 0.16 0.69 1.48 2.33 6.32 4.00

2029 - - 0.16 0.69 1.51 2.36 6.32 3.96

2030 - - 0.16 0.69 1.55 2.39 6.32 3.93

2031 - - 0.16 0.69 1.58 2.43 6.32 3.89

2032 - - 0.16 0.69 1.62 2.47 6.32 3.86

2033 - - 0.16 0.69 1.65 2.50 6.32 3.82

2034 - - 0.16 0.69 1.69 2.54 6.32 3.78

2035 - - 0.16 0.69 1.73 2.58 6.32 3.75

2036 - - 0.16 0.69 1.77 2.62 6.32 3.71

2037 - - 0.16 0.69 1.81 2.66 6.32 3.67

2038 - - 0.16 0.69 1.85 2.70 6.32 3.63

2039 - - 0.16 0.69 1.89 2.74 6.32 3.58

2040 - - 0.16 0.69 1.93 2.78 6.32 3.54

2041 - - 0.16 0.69 1.98 2.82 6.32 3.50

2042 - - 0.16 0.69 2.02 2.87 6.32 3.45

2043 - - 0.16 0.69 2.07 2.91 6.32 3.41

2044 - - 0.16 0.69 2.11 2.96 6.32 3.36

2045 - - 0.16 0.69 2.16 3.01 6.32 3.32

2046 - - 0.16 0.69 2.21 3.06 6.32 3.27

2047 - - 0.16 0.69 2.26 3.11 6.32 3.22

2048 - - 0.16 0.69 2.31 3.16 6.32 3.17

2049 - - 0.16 0.69 2.36 3.21 6.32 3.11

2050 - - 0.16 0.69 2.41 3.26 6.32 3.06

2051 - - 0.16 0.69 2.47 3.32 6.32 3.01

2052 - - 0.16 0.69 2.52 3.37 6.32 2.95

IRR = 1.91%

NPVs 12.81 84.38 3.76 17.52 42.15 160.61 160.76 0.15


WC (t) = 0.24

WC (c) = 0.14

WC (om) = 0.03

WC (i) = 0.06

Net

RevenuesYear


Costs Total Costs

Total

Revenues



Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Total 657 2,030



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 23.12 - - - 23.12 - 23.12 -

2014 - 31.92 - - - 31.92 - 31.92 -

2015 13.30 31.08 - - - 44.38 - 44.38 -

2016 - - - 0.69 0.87 1.56 5.89 4.33

2017 - - - 0.69 0.89 1.58 5.89 4.31

2018 - - 0.16 0.69 0.91 1.76 5.89 4.13

2019 - - 0.16 0.69 0.93 1.78 5.89 4.11

2020 - - 0.16 0.69 0.95 1.80 5.89 4.09

2021 - - 0.16 0.69 0.97 1.82 5.89 4.07

2022 - - 0.16 0.69 0.99 1.84 5.89 4.05

2023 - - 0.16 0.69 1.02 1.86 5.89 4.02

2024 - - 0.16 0.69 1.04 1.89 5.89 4.00

2025 - - 0.16 0.69 1.06 1.91 5.89 3.98

2026 - - 0.16 0.69 1.09 1.93 5.89 3.95

2027 - - 0.16 0.69 1.11 1.96 5.89 3.93

2028 - - 0.16 0.69 1.13 1.98 5.89 3.90

2029 - - 0.16 0.69 1.16 2.01 5.89 3.88

2030 - - 0.16 0.69 1.19 2.04 5.89 3.85

2031 - - 0.16 0.69 1.21 2.06 5.89 3.83

2032 - - 0.16 0.69 1.24 2.09 5.89 3.80

2033 - - 0.16 0.69 1.27 2.12 5.89 3.77

2034 - - 0.16 0.69 1.30 2.15 5.89 3.74

2035 - - 0.16 0.69 1.33 2.17 5.89 3.71

2036 - - 0.16 0.69 1.36 2.20 5.89 3.68

2037 - - 0.16 0.69 1.39 2.24 5.89 3.65

2038 - - 0.16 0.69 1.42 2.27 5.89 3.62

2039 - - 0.16 0.69 1.45 2.30 5.89 3.59

2040 - - 0.16 0.69 1.48 2.33 5.89 3.56

2041 - - 0.16 0.69 1.52 2.36 5.89 3.52

2042 - - 0.16 0.69 1.55 2.40 5.89 3.49

2043 - - 0.16 0.69 1.58 2.43 5.89 3.46

2044 - - 0.16 0.69 1.62 2.47 5.89 3.42

2045 - - 0.16 0.69 1.66 2.51 5.89 3.38

2046 - - 0.16 0.69 1.69 2.54 5.89 3.35

2047 - - 0.16 0.69 1.73 2.58 5.89 3.31

2048 - - 0.16 0.69 1.77 2.62 5.89 3.27

2049 - - 0.16 0.69 1.81 2.66 5.89 3.23

2050 - - 0.16 0.69 1.85 2.70 5.89 3.19

2051 - - 0.16 0.69 1.89 2.74 5.89 3.15

2052 - - 0.16 0.69 1.94 2.78 5.89 3.10

IRR = 1.83%

NPVs 12.81 84.38 3.76 17.52 32.34 150.80 149.72 (1.09)


WC (t) = 0.29

WC (c) = 0.19

WC (om) = 0.04

WC (i) = 0.06

Year


Costs Total Costs

Total

Revenues

Net

Revenues



Xekaman 1 322 982

Total 322 982




2013 - 23.12 - - - 23.12 - 23.12 -

2014 - 31.92 - - - 31.92 - 31.92 -

2015 13.30 31.08 - - - 44.38 - 44.38 -

2016 - - 0.16 0.69 0.42 1.27 5.26 3.99

2017 - - 0.16 0.69 0.43 1.28 5.26 3.98

2018 - - 0.16 0.69 0.44 1.29 5.26 3.97

2019 - - 0.16 0.69 0.45 1.30 5.26 3.96

2020 - - 0.16 0.69 0.46 1.31 5.26 3.95

2021 - - 0.16 0.69 0.47 1.32 5.26 3.94

2022 - - 0.16 0.69 0.48 1.33 5.26 3.93

2023 - - 0.16 0.69 0.49 1.34 5.26 3.92

2024 - - 0.16 0.69 0.50 1.35 5.26 3.91

2025 - - 0.16 0.69 0.51 1.36 5.26 3.90

2026 - - 0.16 0.69 0.53 1.37 5.26 3.89

2027 - - 0.16 0.69 0.54 1.39 5.26 3.88

2028 - - 0.16 0.69 0.55 1.40 5.26 3.86

2029 - - 0.16 0.69 0.56 1.41 5.26 3.85

2030 - - 0.16 0.69 0.57 1.42 5.26 3.84

2031 - - 0.16 0.69 0.59 1.44 5.26 3.83

2032 - - 0.16 0.69 0.60 1.45 5.26 3.81

2033 - - 0.16 0.69 0.61 1.46 5.26 3.80

2034 - - 0.16 0.69 0.63 1.48 5.26 3.79

2035 - - 0.16 0.69 0.64 1.49 5.26 3.77

2036 - - 0.16 0.69 0.66 1.50 5.26 3.76

2037 - - 0.16 0.69 0.67 1.52 5.26 3.74

2038 - - 0.16 0.69 0.69 1.53 5.26 3.73

2039 - - 0.16 0.69 0.70 1.55 5.26 3.71

2040 - - 0.16 0.69 0.72 1.57 5.26 3.70

2041 - - 0.16 0.69 0.73 1.58 5.26 3.68

2042 - - 0.16 0.69 0.75 1.60 5.26 3.66

2043 - - 0.16 0.69 0.77 1.62 5.26 3.65

2044 - - 0.16 0.69 0.78 1.63 5.26 3.63

2045 - - 0.16 0.69 0.80 1.65 5.26 3.61

2046 - - 0.16 0.69 0.82 1.67 5.26 3.59

2047 - - 0.16 0.69 0.84 1.69 5.26 3.57

2048 - - 0.16 0.69 0.86 1.71 5.26 3.56

2049 - - 0.16 0.69 0.88 1.72 5.26 3.54

2050 - - 0.16 0.69 0.90 1.74 5.26 3.52

2051 - - 0.16 0.69 0.92 1.76 5.26 3.50

2052 - - 0.16 0.69 0.94 1.79 5.26 3.48

IRR = 1.86%

NPVs 12.81 84.38 4.06 17.52 15.65 134.41 133.77 (0.64)


WC (t) = 0.54

WC (c) = 0.39

WC (om) = 0.09

WC (i) = 0.06

Total

Revenues

Net

RevenuesYear


Costs Total Costs


GWh Throughput 982 2,030 2,646 3,157

Wheeling Charge (Usc/kWh) 0.54 0.29 0.24 0.22

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

WC

(U

Sc/k

Wh

)

Annual Throughput to Vietnam (GWh)

Wheeling Charge (WC) in Vietnam

Minimum RoR Criteri


Substation and Transmission Line: Analysis of the Wheeling Charge (WC) in Lao PDR






S/S = Substation


Profitability Target 10.00%




Substation 1.20%



All IPPs

Power Stations GWh Sold/yearYear Commissioned

Xekaman 1 982 2015

Xekaman 4 253 2016 2015 982 982

Xekaman 4 A 363 2017 2016 253 1,235

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2017 1,922 3,157

Xekaman 2 & 2A 511 2017


Total 3,157


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 253 1,235

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,922 3,157

Xekaman 4 253 2016


Xekaman 2 & 2A 511 2017

Total 3,157


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 253 1,235

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,411 2,646

Xekaman 4 253 2016


Total 2,646


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 - 982

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,048 2,030

Total 2,030


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2016 982 982

Total 982


2

3 Substation or Switchyard

4 Scenario 3.1 3x600 MVA - 2.43 12.63 27.31 13.17 55.53

5 Scenario 3.2 3x600 MVA - 2.41 11.86 25.90 11.69 51.86

6 Scenario 3.3 2x600 MVA - 1.71 9.57 21.95 9.50 42.73

7 Scenario 3.4 Temporary 0.14 1.51 3.20 - 0.41 5.25

8

9 Transmission Line

10 Scenario 3.1 3x600 MVA 11.64 16.08 15.65 - - 43.37

11 Scenario 3.2 3x600 MVA 11.64 16.08 15.65 - - 43.37

12 Scenario 3.3 2x600 MVA 11.64 16.08 15.65 - - 43.37

13 Scenario 3.4 Temporary 11.64 16.08 15.65 - - 43.37

14

15 Total Substation + Transmission Line

16 Scenario 3.1 3x600 MVA 11.64 18.50 28.28 27.31 13.17 98.90

17 Scenario 3.2 3x600 MVA 11.64 18.49 27.51 25.90 11.69 95.23

18 Scenario 3.3 2x600 MVA 11.64 17.79 25.22 21.95 9.50 86.10

19 Scenario 3.4 Temporary 11.78 17.58 18.85 - 0.41 48.62

GWh

Additions

Cumulative Sales

(GWh/year)


Insurance Cost Analysis

Annual Duration of Loss (% of year) 8.3% equivalent to 1.00 months per event

Average Annual Probability of Incurring Loss 10.00%

Insurance Profitability Target 20.00%

Output Sold to Vietnam

GWh Initial Year Revenues (US$m) Annual Growth Rate in Revenues (real)

Scenario 3.1 3,157 135.13 2.25%

Scenario 3.2 2,646 113.25

Scenario 3.3 2,030 86.89

Scenario 3.4 982 42.04

Value at Risk Calculation (US$m)

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

2016 135.13 113.25 86.89 42.04 1.35 1.13 0.87 0.42

2017 138.17 115.80 88.85 42.99 1.38 1.16 0.89 0.43

2018 141.28 118.40 90.85 43.95 1.41 1.18 0.91 0.44

2019 144.46 121.07 92.89 44.94 1.44 1.21 0.93 0.45

2020 147.71 123.79 94.98 45.95 1.48 1.24 0.95 0.46

2021 151.03 126.57 97.12 46.99 1.51 1.27 0.97 0.47

2022 154.43 129.42 99.30 48.04 1.54 1.29 0.99 0.48

2023 157.90 132.33 101.54 49.13 1.58 1.32 1.02 0.49

2024 161.45 135.31 103.82 50.23 1.61 1.35 1.04 0.50

2025 165.09 138.36 106.16 51.36 1.65 1.38 1.06 0.51

2026 168.80 141.47 108.55 52.52 1.69 1.41 1.09 0.53

2027 172.60 144.65 110.99 53.70 1.73 1.45 1.11 0.54

2028 176.48 147.91 113.49 54.91 1.76 1.48 1.13 0.55

2029 180.45 151.24 116.04 56.14 1.80 1.51 1.16 0.56

2030 184.51 154.64 118.65 57.40 1.85 1.55 1.19 0.57

2031 188.67 158.12 121.32 58.70 1.89 1.58 1.21 0.59

2032 192.91 161.68 124.05 60.02 1.93 1.62 1.24 0.60

2033 197.25 165.31 126.84 61.37 1.97 1.65 1.27 0.61

2034 201.69 169.03 129.70 62.75 2.02 1.69 1.30 0.63

2035 206.23 172.84 132.62 64.16 2.06 1.73 1.33 0.64

2036 210.87 176.72 135.60 65.60 2.11 1.77 1.36 0.66

2037 215.61 180.70 138.65 67.08 2.16 1.81 1.39 0.67

2038 220.46 184.77 141.77 68.59 2.20 1.85 1.42 0.69

2039 225.42 188.92 144.96 70.13 2.25 1.89 1.45 0.70

2040 230.50 193.17 148.22 71.71 2.30 1.93 1.48 0.72

2041 235.68 197.52 151.56 73.32 2.36 1.98 1.52 0.73

2042 240.98 201.97 154.97 74.97 2.41 2.02 1.55 0.75

2043 246.41 206.51 158.45 76.66 2.46 2.07 1.58 0.77

2044 251.95 211.16 162.02 78.39 2.52 2.11 1.62 0.78

2045 257.62 215.91 165.66 80.15 2.58 2.16 1.66 0.80

2046 263.42 220.76 169.39 81.95 2.63 2.21 1.69 0.82

2047 269.34 225.73 173.20 83.80 2.69 2.26 1.73 0.84

2048 275.40 230.81 177.10 85.68 2.75 2.31 1.77 0.86

2049 281.60 236.00 181.08 87.61 2.82 2.36 1.81 0.88

2050 287.94 241.31 185.16 89.58 2.88 2.41 1.85 0.90

2051 294.41 246.74 189.32 91.60 2.94 2.47 1.89 0.92

2052 301.04 252.30 193.58 93.66 3.01 2.52 1.94 0.94

Premium Required to Cover Expected Annual

Losses + Insurance ProfitTotal Annual Revenues

Year

Scenarios Scenarios


Scenario 3.1 3x600 MVAConnected HPPs: MW GWh/year

Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Xekaman 4 80 253

Xekaman 4 A 116 363

Xekaman 2 & 2A 160 511

Total 1,013 3,157



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 11.64 - - - 11.64 - (11.64)

2014 2.43 16.08 - - - 18.50 - (18.50)

2015 12.63 15.65 - - - 28.28 - (28.28)

2016 27.31 - - 0.35 1.35 29.00 5.31 (23.69)

2017 13.17 - - 0.35 1.38 14.90 13.58 (1.32)

2018 - - 0.67 0.35 1.41 2.43 13.58 11.15

2019 - - 0.67 0.35 1.44 2.46 13.58 11.12

2020 - - 0.67 0.35 1.48 2.49 13.58 11.09

2021 - - 0.67 0.35 1.51 2.52 13.58 11.06

2022 - - 0.67 0.35 1.54 2.56 13.58 11.02

2023 - - 0.67 0.35 1.58 2.59 13.58 10.99

2024 - - 0.67 0.35 1.61 2.63 13.58 10.95

2025 - - 0.67 0.35 1.65 2.66 13.58 10.91

2026 - - 0.67 0.35 1.69 2.70 13.58 10.88

2027 - - 0.67 0.35 1.73 2.74 13.58 10.84

2028 - - 0.67 0.35 1.76 2.78 13.58 10.80

2029 - - 0.67 0.35 1.80 2.82 13.58 10.76

2030 - - 0.67 0.35 1.85 2.86 13.58 10.72

2031 - - 0.67 0.35 1.89 2.90 13.58 10.68

2032 - - 0.67 0.35 1.93 2.94 13.58 10.64

2033 - - 0.67 0.35 1.97 2.99 13.58 10.59

2034 - - 0.67 0.35 2.02 3.03 13.58 10.55

2035 - - 0.67 0.35 2.06 3.08 13.58 10.50

2036 - - 0.67 0.35 2.11 3.12 13.58 10.46

2037 - - 0.67 0.35 2.16 3.17 13.58 10.41

2038 - - 0.67 0.35 2.20 3.22 13.58 10.36

2039 - - 0.67 0.35 2.25 3.27 13.58 10.31

2040 - - 0.67 0.35 2.30 3.32 13.58 10.26

2041 - - 0.67 0.35 2.36 3.37 13.58 10.21

2042 - - 0.67 0.35 2.41 3.42 13.58 10.16

2043 - - 0.67 0.35 2.46 3.48 13.58 10.10

2044 - - 0.67 0.35 2.52 3.53 13.58 10.05

2045 - - 0.67 0.35 2.58 3.59 13.58 9.99

2046 - - 0.67 0.35 2.63 3.65 13.58 9.93

2047 - - 0.67 0.35 2.69 3.71 13.58 9.87

2048 - - 0.67 0.35 2.75 3.77 13.58 9.81

2049 - - 0.67 0.35 2.82 3.83 13.58 9.75

2050 - - 0.67 0.35 2.88 3.89 13.58 9.69

2051 - - 0.67 0.35 2.94 3.96 13.58 9.62

2052 - - 0.67 0.35 3.01 4.02 13.58 9.56

IRR = 10.10%

NPVs 52.56 42.49 15.69 8.82 50.27 169.82 337.28 167.46


WC (t) = 0.43

WC (c) = 0.24

WC (om) = 0.06

WC (i) = 0.13

O&M Costs Insurance

Costs Total Costs

Total

Revenues

Net

RevenuesYear

Capital Costs



Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Xekaman 4 80 253

Xekaman 4 A 116 363

Total 853 2,646



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 11.64 - - - 11.64 - (11.64)

2014 2.41 16.08 - - - 18.49 - (18.49)

2015 11.86 15.65 - - - 27.51 - (27.51)

2016 25.90 - - 0.35 1.13 27.38 12.04 (15.34)

2017 11.69 - - 0.35 1.16 13.19 12.04 (1.15)

2018 - - 0.62 0.35 1.18 2.15 12.04 9.89

2019 - - 0.62 0.35 1.21 2.18 12.04 9.86

2020 - - 0.62 0.35 1.24 2.21 12.04 9.84

2021 - - 0.62 0.35 1.27 2.23 12.04 9.81

2022 - - 0.62 0.35 1.29 2.26 12.04 9.78

2023 - - 0.62 0.35 1.32 2.29 12.04 9.75

2024 - - 0.62 0.35 1.35 2.32 12.04 9.72

2025 - - 0.62 0.35 1.38 2.35 12.04 9.69

2026 - - 0.62 0.35 1.41 2.38 12.04 9.66

2027 - - 0.62 0.35 1.45 2.42 12.04 9.63

2028 - - 0.62 0.35 1.48 2.45 12.04 9.60

2029 - - 0.62 0.35 1.51 2.48 12.04 9.56

2030 - - 0.62 0.35 1.55 2.52 12.04 9.53

2031 - - 0.62 0.35 1.58 2.55 12.04 9.49

2032 - - 0.62 0.35 1.62 2.59 12.04 9.46

2033 - - 0.62 0.35 1.65 2.62 12.04 9.42

2034 - - 0.62 0.35 1.69 2.66 12.04 9.38

2035 - - 0.62 0.35 1.73 2.70 12.04 9.35

2036 - - 0.62 0.35 1.77 2.74 12.04 9.31

2037 - - 0.62 0.35 1.81 2.78 12.04 9.27

2038 - - 0.62 0.35 1.85 2.82 12.04 9.23

2039 - - 0.62 0.35 1.89 2.86 12.04 9.18

2040 - - 0.62 0.35 1.93 2.90 12.04 9.14

2041 - - 0.62 0.35 1.98 2.94 12.04 9.10

2042 - - 0.62 0.35 2.02 2.99 12.04 9.05

2043 - - 0.62 0.35 2.07 3.03 12.04 9.01

2044 - - 0.62 0.35 2.11 3.08 12.04 8.96

2045 - - 0.62 0.35 2.16 3.13 12.04 8.92

2046 - - 0.62 0.35 2.21 3.18 12.04 8.87

2047 - - 0.62 0.35 2.26 3.23 12.04 8.82

2048 - - 0.62 0.35 2.31 3.28 12.04 8.77

2049 - - 0.62 0.35 2.36 3.33 12.04 8.71

2050 - - 0.62 0.35 2.41 3.38 12.04 8.66

2051 - - 0.62 0.35 2.47 3.44 12.04 8.61

2052 - - 0.62 0.35 2.52 3.49 12.04 8.55

IRR = 9.98%

NPVs 49.10 42.49 14.65 8.82 42.13 157.19 306.07 148.89


WC (t) = 0.46

WC (c) = 0.27

WC (om) = 0.07

WC (i) = 0.12

Insurance

Costs Total Costs

Total

Revenues Year

Capital Costs O&M Costs Net

Revenues



Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Total 657 2,030



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 11.64 - - - 11.64 - (11.64)

2014 1.71 16.08 - - - 17.79 - (17.79)

2015 9.57 15.65 - - - 25.22 - (25.22)

2016 21.95 - - 0.35 0.87 23.17 10.76 (12.40)

2017 9.50 - - 0.35 0.89 10.74 10.76 0.03

2018 - - 0.51 0.35 0.91 1.77 10.76 8.99

2019 - - 0.51 0.35 0.93 1.79 10.76 8.97

2020 - - 0.51 0.35 0.95 1.81 10.76 8.95

2021 - - 0.51 0.35 0.97 1.83 10.76 8.93

2022 - - 0.51 0.35 0.99 1.85 10.76 8.91

2023 - - 0.51 0.35 1.02 1.88 10.76 8.89

2024 - - 0.51 0.35 1.04 1.90 10.76 8.86

2025 - - 0.51 0.35 1.06 1.92 10.76 8.84

2026 - - 0.51 0.35 1.09 1.95 10.76 8.82

2027 - - 0.51 0.35 1.11 1.97 10.76 8.79

2028 - - 0.51 0.35 1.13 1.99 10.76 8.77

2029 - - 0.51 0.35 1.16 2.02 10.76 8.74

2030 - - 0.51 0.35 1.19 2.05 10.76 8.72

2031 - - 0.51 0.35 1.21 2.07 10.76 8.69

2032 - - 0.51 0.35 1.24 2.10 10.76 8.66

2033 - - 0.51 0.35 1.27 2.13 10.76 8.63

2034 - - 0.51 0.35 1.30 2.16 10.76 8.61

2035 - - 0.51 0.35 1.33 2.19 10.76 8.58

2036 - - 0.51 0.35 1.36 2.22 10.76 8.55

2037 - - 0.51 0.35 1.39 2.25 10.76 8.52

2038 - - 0.51 0.35 1.42 2.28 10.76 8.48

2039 - - 0.51 0.35 1.45 2.31 10.76 8.45

2040 - - 0.51 0.35 1.48 2.34 10.76 8.42

2041 - - 0.51 0.35 1.52 2.38 10.76 8.39

2042 - - 0.51 0.35 1.55 2.41 10.76 8.35

2043 - - 0.51 0.35 1.58 2.44 10.76 8.32

2044 - - 0.51 0.35 1.62 2.48 10.76 8.28

2045 - - 0.51 0.35 1.66 2.52 10.76 8.25

2046 - - 0.51 0.35 1.69 2.55 10.76 8.21

2047 - - 0.51 0.35 1.73 2.59 10.76 8.17

2048 - - 0.51 0.35 1.77 2.63 10.76 8.13

2049 - - 0.51 0.35 1.81 2.67 10.76 8.09

2050 - - 0.51 0.35 1.85 2.71 10.76 8.05

2051 - - 0.51 0.35 1.89 2.75 10.76 8.01

2052 - - 0.51 0.35 1.94 2.80 10.76 7.97

IRR = 9.98%

NPVs 40.45 42.49 12.07 8.82 32.33 136.15 273.50 137.35


WC (t) = 0.53

WC (c) = 0.32

WC (om) = 0.08

WC (i) = 0.13

Insurance

Costs Total Costs

Total

Revenues

Net

RevenuesYear

Capital Costs O&M Costs


Scenario 3.4 TemporaryConnected IPPs: MW GWh/year

Xekaman 1 322 982

Total 322 982




2013 0.14 11.64 - - - 11.78 - (11.78)

2014 1.51 16.08 - - - 17.58 - (17.58)

2015 3.20 15.65 - - - 18.85 - (18.85)

2016 - - 0.06 0.35 0.42 0.83 6.36 5.53

2017 0.41 - 0.06 0.35 0.43 1.25 6.36 5.11

2018 - - 0.06 0.35 0.44 0.85 6.36 5.51

2019 - - 0.06 0.35 0.45 0.86 6.36 5.50

2020 - - 0.06 0.35 0.46 0.87 6.36 5.49

2021 - - 0.06 0.35 0.47 0.88 6.36 5.48

2022 - - 0.06 0.35 0.48 0.89 6.36 5.47

2023 - - 0.06 0.35 0.49 0.90 6.36 5.46

2024 - - 0.06 0.35 0.50 0.91 6.36 5.45

2025 - - 0.06 0.35 0.51 0.92 6.36 5.44

2026 - - 0.06 0.35 0.53 0.94 6.36 5.43

2027 - - 0.06 0.35 0.54 0.95 6.36 5.42

2028 - - 0.06 0.35 0.55 0.96 6.36 5.40

2029 - - 0.06 0.35 0.56 0.97 6.36 5.39

2030 - - 0.06 0.35 0.57 0.98 6.36 5.38

2031 - - 0.06 0.35 0.59 1.00 6.36 5.37

2032 - - 0.06 0.35 0.60 1.01 6.36 5.35

2033 - - 0.06 0.35 0.61 1.02 6.36 5.34

2034 - - 0.06 0.35 0.63 1.04 6.36 5.32

2035 - - 0.06 0.35 0.64 1.05 6.36 5.31

2036 - - 0.06 0.35 0.66 1.07 6.36 5.30

2037 - - 0.06 0.35 0.67 1.08 6.36 5.28

2038 - - 0.06 0.35 0.69 1.10 6.36 5.27

2039 - - 0.06 0.35 0.70 1.11 6.36 5.25

2040 - - 0.06 0.35 0.72 1.13 6.36 5.23

2041 - - 0.06 0.35 0.73 1.14 6.36 5.22

2042 - - 0.06 0.35 0.75 1.16 6.36 5.20

2043 - - 0.06 0.35 0.77 1.18 6.36 5.19

2044 - - 0.06 0.35 0.78 1.19 6.36 5.17

2045 - - 0.06 0.35 0.80 1.21 6.36 5.15

2046 - - 0.06 0.35 0.82 1.23 6.36 5.13

2047 - - 0.06 0.35 0.84 1.25 6.36 5.11

2048 - - 0.06 0.35 0.86 1.27 6.36 5.10

2049 - - 0.06 0.35 0.88 1.29 6.36 5.08

2050 - - 0.06 0.35 0.90 1.31 6.36 5.06

2051 - - 0.06 0.35 0.92 1.33 6.36 5.04

2052 - - 0.06 0.35 0.94 1.35 6.36 5.02

IRR = 9.99%

NPVs 5.08 42.49 1.60 8.82 15.64 73.62 161.68 88.06


WC (t) = 0.65

WC (c) = 0.42

WC (om) = 0.09

WC (i) = 0.14

Total

Revenues

Net

RevenuesYear


Costs Total Costs


Substation and Transmission Line: Analysis of the Wheeling Charge (WC) in Vietnam






S/S = Substation


Minimum Profitability Target 1.90%




Substation 1.20%



All IPPs


Xekaman 1 982 2015

Xekaman 4 253 2016 2015 982 982

Xekaman 4 A 363 2017 2016 253 1,235

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2017 1,922 3,157

Xekaman 2 & 2A 511 2017


Total 3,157


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 253 1,235

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,922 3,157

Xekaman 4 253 2016


Xekaman 2 & 2A 511 2017

Total 3,157


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 253 1,235

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,411 2,646

Xekaman 4 253 2016


Total 2,646


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Dak Emeule 408 2017 2016 - 982

Xekong 3 Up & Down 640 2017 2017 1,048 2,030

Total 2,030


Xekaman 1 982 2015 2015 982 982

Total 982


2

3 Substation or Switchyard in Vietnam

4 Option 3.1 - - 13.30 - - 13.30

5 Option 3.2 - - 13.30 - - 13.30

6 Option 3.3 - - 13.30 - - 13.30

7 Option 3.4 - - 13.30 - - 13.30

8

9 Transmission Line in Vietnam

10 Option 3.1 23.12 31.92 31.08 - - 86.12

11 Option 3.2 23.12 31.92 31.08 - - 86.12

12 Option 3.3 23.12 31.92 31.08 - - 86.12

13 Option 3.4 23.12 31.92 31.08 - - 86.12

14

15 Total Substation + Transmission Line in Vietnam

16 Option 3.1 23.12 31.92 44.38 - - 99.42

17 Option 3.2 23.12 31.92 44.38 - - 99.42

18 Option 3.3 23.12 31.92 44.38 - - 99.42

19 Option 3.4 23.12 31.92 44.38 - - 99.42

GWh

Additions

Cumulative Sales

(GWh/year)


Scenario 3.1Connected HPPs: MW GWh/year

Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Xekaman 4 80 253

Xekaman 4 A 116 363

Xekaman 2 & 2A 160 511

Total 1,013 3,157



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 23.12 - - - 23.12 - (23.12)

2014 - 31.92 - - - 31.92 - (31.92)

2015 13.30 31.08 - - - 44.38 - (44.38)

2016 - - - 0.69 1.35 2.04 2.66 0.62

2017 - - - 0.69 1.38 2.07 6.80 4.73

2018 - - 0.16 0.69 1.41 2.26 6.80 4.54

2019 - - 0.16 0.69 1.44 2.29 6.80 4.51

2020 - - 0.16 0.69 1.48 2.33 6.80 4.48

2021 - - 0.16 0.69 1.51 2.36 6.80 4.45

2022 - - 0.16 0.69 1.54 2.39 6.80 4.41

2023 - - 0.16 0.69 1.58 2.43 6.80 4.38

2024 - - 0.16 0.69 1.61 2.46 6.80 4.34

2025 - - 0.16 0.69 1.65 2.50 6.80 4.30

2026 - - 0.16 0.69 1.69 2.54 6.80 4.27

2027 - - 0.16 0.69 1.73 2.57 6.80 4.23

2028 - - 0.16 0.69 1.76 2.61 6.80 4.19

2029 - - 0.16 0.69 1.80 2.65 6.80 4.15

2030 - - 0.16 0.69 1.85 2.69 6.80 4.11

2031 - - 0.16 0.69 1.89 2.74 6.80 4.07

2032 - - 0.16 0.69 1.93 2.78 6.80 4.03

2033 - - 0.16 0.69 1.97 2.82 6.80 3.98

2034 - - 0.16 0.69 2.02 2.87 6.80 3.94

2035 - - 0.16 0.69 2.06 2.91 6.80 3.89

2036 - - 0.16 0.69 2.11 2.96 6.80 3.85

2037 - - 0.16 0.69 2.16 3.00 6.80 3.80

2038 - - 0.16 0.69 2.20 3.05 6.80 3.75

2039 - - 0.16 0.69 2.25 3.10 6.80 3.70

2040 - - 0.16 0.69 2.30 3.15 6.80 3.65

2041 - - 0.16 0.69 2.36 3.21 6.80 3.60

2042 - - 0.16 0.69 2.41 3.26 6.80 3.55

2043 - - 0.16 0.69 2.46 3.31 6.80 3.49

2044 - - 0.16 0.69 2.52 3.37 6.80 3.44

2045 - - 0.16 0.69 2.58 3.42 6.80 3.38

2046 - - 0.16 0.69 2.63 3.48 6.80 3.32

2047 - - 0.16 0.69 2.69 3.54 6.80 3.26

2048 - - 0.16 0.69 2.75 3.60 6.80 3.20

2049 - - 0.16 0.69 2.82 3.66 6.80 3.14

2050 - - 0.16 0.69 2.88 3.73 6.80 3.08

2051 - - 0.16 0.69 2.94 3.79 6.80 3.01

2052 - - 0.16 0.69 3.01 3.86 6.80 2.94

IRR = 1.92%

NPVs 12.81 84.38 3.76 17.52 50.29 168.76 169.08 0.32


WC (t) = 0.22

WC (c) = 0.12

WC (om) = 0.03

WC (i) = 0.06

Net

Revenues

Total

Revenues Year


Costs Total Costs



Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Xekaman 4 80 253

Xekaman 4 A 116 363

Total 853 2,646



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 23.12 - - - 23.12 - (23.12)

2014 - 31.92 - - - 31.92 - (31.92)

2015 13.30 31.08 - - - 44.38 - (44.38)

2016 - - - 0.69 1.13 1.82 6.32 4.50

2017 - - - 0.69 1.16 1.85 6.32 4.48

2018 - - 0.16 0.69 1.18 2.03 6.32 4.29

2019 - - 0.16 0.69 1.21 2.06 6.32 4.26

2020 - - 0.16 0.69 1.24 2.09 6.32 4.24

2021 - - 0.16 0.69 1.27 2.11 6.32 4.21

2022 - - 0.16 0.69 1.29 2.14 6.32 4.18

2023 - - 0.16 0.69 1.32 2.17 6.32 4.15

2024 - - 0.16 0.69 1.35 2.20 6.32 4.12

2025 - - 0.16 0.69 1.38 2.23 6.32 4.09

2026 - - 0.16 0.69 1.41 2.26 6.32 4.06

2027 - - 0.16 0.69 1.45 2.30 6.32 4.03

2028 - - 0.16 0.69 1.48 2.33 6.32 4.00

2029 - - 0.16 0.69 1.51 2.36 6.32 3.96

2030 - - 0.16 0.69 1.55 2.39 6.32 3.93

2031 - - 0.16 0.69 1.58 2.43 6.32 3.89

2032 - - 0.16 0.69 1.62 2.47 6.32 3.86

2033 - - 0.16 0.69 1.65 2.50 6.32 3.82

2034 - - 0.16 0.69 1.69 2.54 6.32 3.78

2035 - - 0.16 0.69 1.73 2.58 6.32 3.75

2036 - - 0.16 0.69 1.77 2.62 6.32 3.71

2037 - - 0.16 0.69 1.81 2.66 6.32 3.67

2038 - - 0.16 0.69 1.85 2.70 6.32 3.63

2039 - - 0.16 0.69 1.89 2.74 6.32 3.58

2040 - - 0.16 0.69 1.93 2.78 6.32 3.54

2041 - - 0.16 0.69 1.98 2.82 6.32 3.50

2042 - - 0.16 0.69 2.02 2.87 6.32 3.45

2043 - - 0.16 0.69 2.07 2.91 6.32 3.41

2044 - - 0.16 0.69 2.11 2.96 6.32 3.36

2045 - - 0.16 0.69 2.16 3.01 6.32 3.32

2046 - - 0.16 0.69 2.21 3.06 6.32 3.27

2047 - - 0.16 0.69 2.26 3.11 6.32 3.22

2048 - - 0.16 0.69 2.31 3.16 6.32 3.17

2049 - - 0.16 0.69 2.36 3.21 6.32 3.11

2050 - - 0.16 0.69 2.41 3.26 6.32 3.06

2051 - - 0.16 0.69 2.47 3.32 6.32 3.01

2052 - - 0.16 0.69 2.52 3.37 6.32 2.95

IRR = 1.91%

NPVs 12.81 84.38 3.76 17.52 42.15 160.61 160.76 0.15


WC (t) = 0.24

WC (c) = 0.14

WC (om) = 0.03

WC (i) = 0.06

Net

RevenuesYear


Costs Total Costs

Total

Revenues



Xekaman 1 322 982

Dak Emeule 130 408


Total 657 2,030



S/S T/L S/S T/L

2013 - 23.12 - - - 23.12 - (23.12)

2014 - 31.92 - - - 31.92 - (31.92)

2015 13.30 31.08 - - - 44.38 - (44.38)

2016 - - - 0.69 0.87 1.56 5.89 4.33

2017 - - - 0.69 0.89 1.58 5.89 4.31

2018 - - 0.16 0.69 0.91 1.76 5.89 4.13

2019 - - 0.16 0.69 0.93 1.78 5.89 4.11

2020 - - 0.16 0.69 0.95 1.80 5.89 4.09

2021 - - 0.16 0.69 0.97 1.82 5.89 4.07

2022 - - 0.16 0.69 0.99 1.84 5.89 4.05

2023 - - 0.16 0.69 1.02 1.86 5.89 4.02

2024 - - 0.16 0.69 1.04 1.89 5.89 4.00

2025 - - 0.16 0.69 1.06 1.91 5.89 3.98

2026 - - 0.16 0.69 1.09 1.93 5.89 3.95

2027 - - 0.16 0.69 1.11 1.96 5.89 3.93

2028 - - 0.16 0.69 1.13 1.98 5.89 3.90

2029 - - 0.16 0.69 1.16 2.01 5.89 3.88

2030 - - 0.16 0.69 1.19 2.04 5.89 3.85

2031 - - 0.16 0.69 1.21 2.06 5.89 3.83

2032 - - 0.16 0.69 1.24 2.09 5.89 3.80

2033 - - 0.16 0.69 1.27 2.12 5.89 3.77

2034 - - 0.16 0.69 1.30 2.15 5.89 3.74

2035 - - 0.16 0.69 1.33 2.17 5.89 3.71

2036 - - 0.16 0.69 1.36 2.20 5.89 3.68

2037 - - 0.16 0.69 1.39 2.24 5.89 3.65

2038 - - 0.16 0.69 1.42 2.27 5.89 3.62

2039 - - 0.16 0.69 1.45 2.30 5.89 3.59

2040 - - 0.16 0.69 1.48 2.33 5.89 3.56

2041 - - 0.16 0.69 1.52 2.36 5.89 3.52

2042 - - 0.16 0.69 1.55 2.40 5.89 3.49

2043 - - 0.16 0.69 1.58 2.43 5.89 3.46

2044 - - 0.16 0.69 1.62 2.47 5.89 3.42

2045 - - 0.16 0.69 1.66 2.51 5.89 3.38

2046 - - 0.16 0.69 1.69 2.54 5.89 3.35

2047 - - 0.16 0.69 1.73 2.58 5.89 3.31

2048 - - 0.16 0.69 1.77 2.62 5.89 3.27

2049 - - 0.16 0.69 1.81 2.66 5.89 3.23

2050 - - 0.16 0.69 1.85 2.70 5.89 3.19

2051 - - 0.16 0.69 1.89 2.74 5.89 3.15

2052 - - 0.16 0.69 1.94 2.78 5.89 3.10

IRR = 1.83%

NPVs 12.81 84.38 3.76 17.52 32.34 150.80 149.72 (1.09)


WC (t) = 0.29

WC (c) = 0.19

WC (om) = 0.04

WC (i) = 0.06

Year


Costs Total Costs

Total

Revenues

Net

Revenues



Xekaman 1 322 982

Total 322 982




2013 - 23.12 - - - 23.12 - (23.12)

2014 - 31.92 - - - 31.92 - (31.92)

2015 13.30 31.08 - - - 44.38 - (44.38)

2016 - - 0.16 0.69 0.42 1.27 5.26 3.99

2017 - - 0.16 0.69 0.43 1.28 5.26 3.98

2018 - - 0.16 0.69 0.44 1.29 5.26 3.97

2019 - - 0.16 0.69 0.45 1.30 5.26 3.96

2020 - - 0.16 0.69 0.46 1.31 5.26 3.95

2021 - - 0.16 0.69 0.47 1.32 5.26 3.94

2022 - - 0.16 0.69 0.48 1.33 5.26 3.93

2023 - - 0.16 0.69 0.49 1.34 5.26 3.92

2024 - - 0.16 0.69 0.50 1.35 5.26 3.91

2025 - - 0.16 0.69 0.51 1.36 5.26 3.90

2026 - - 0.16 0.69 0.53 1.37 5.26 3.89

2027 - - 0.16 0.69 0.54 1.39 5.26 3.88

2028 - - 0.16 0.69 0.55 1.40 5.26 3.86

2029 - - 0.16 0.69 0.56 1.41 5.26 3.85

2030 - - 0.16 0.69 0.57 1.42 5.26 3.84

2031 - - 0.16 0.69 0.59 1.44 5.26 3.83

2032 - - 0.16 0.69 0.60 1.45 5.26 3.81

2033 - - 0.16 0.69 0.61 1.46 5.26 3.80

2034 - - 0.16 0.69 0.63 1.48 5.26 3.79

2035 - - 0.16 0.69 0.64 1.49 5.26 3.77

2036 - - 0.16 0.69 0.66 1.50 5.26 3.76

2037 - - 0.16 0.69 0.67 1.52 5.26 3.74

2038 - - 0.16 0.69 0.69 1.53 5.26 3.73

2039 - - 0.16 0.69 0.70 1.55 5.26 3.71

2040 - - 0.16 0.69 0.72 1.57 5.26 3.70

2041 - - 0.16 0.69 0.73 1.58 5.26 3.68

2042 - - 0.16 0.69 0.75 1.60 5.26 3.66

2043 - - 0.16 0.69 0.77 1.62 5.26 3.65

2044 - - 0.16 0.69 0.78 1.63 5.26 3.63

2045 - - 0.16 0.69 0.80 1.65 5.26 3.61

2046 - - 0.16 0.69 0.82 1.67 5.26 3.59

2047 - - 0.16 0.69 0.84 1.69 5.26 3.57

2048 - - 0.16 0.69 0.86 1.71 5.26 3.56

2049 - - 0.16 0.69 0.88 1.72 5.26 3.54

2050 - - 0.16 0.69 0.90 1.74 5.26 3.52

2051 - - 0.16 0.69 0.92 1.76 5.26 3.50

2052 - - 0.16 0.69 0.94 1.79 5.26 3.48

IRR = 1.86%

NPVs 12.81 84.38 4.06 17.52 15.65 134.41 133.77 (0.64)


WC (t) = 0.54

WC (c) = 0.39

WC (om) = 0.09

WC (i) = 0.06

Total

Revenues

Net

RevenuesYear


Costs Total Costs


Hydro IPPs

Percent total output sold to Vietnam 80%

HPPs Capacity (kW)

Total output

(kWh/year)

Construction

Cost US$ m

Output sold to

Vietnam

(kWh/year)

Year of

Commissioning US$m/MW

Xekaman 1 322,000 1,227,800,000 441 982,240,000 2015 1.37

Xekaman 4 80,000 315,875,000 118 252,700,000 2016 1.48

Xekaman 4 A 116,000 453,800,000 190 363,040,000 2016 1.64

Dak Emeule 130,000 510,000,000 155 408,000,000 2016 1.19

Xekaman 2 & 2A 160,000 639,000,000 197 511,200,000 2017 1.23

Xekong 3 Up & Down 205,000 800,000,000 275 640,000,000 2017 1.34

Totals 1,013,000 3,946,475,000 1,376 3,157,180,000

Scenario 3.1

Xekaman 1 322,000 1,227,800,000 441 982,240,000 2015 1.37

Dak Emeule 130,000 510,000,000 155 408,000,000 2016 1.19

Xekong 3 Up & Down 205,000 800,000,000 275 640,000,000 2017 1.34

Xekaman 4 80,000 315,875,000 118 252,700,000 2016 1.48

Xekaman 4 A 116,000 453,800,000 190 363,040,000 2016 1.64

Xekaman 2 & 2A 160,000 639,000,000 197 511,200,000 2017 1.23

1,013,000 3,946,475,000 1,376 3,157,180,000

Scenario 3.2

Xekaman 1 322,000 1,227,800,000 441 982,240,000 2015 1.37

Dak Emeule 130,000 510,000,000 155 408,000,000 2016 1.19

Xekong 3 Up & Down 205,000 800,000,000 275 640,000,000 2017 1.34

Xekaman 4 80,000 315,875,000 118 252,700,000 2016 1.48

Xekaman 4 A 116,000 453,800,000 190 363,040,000 2016 1.64

853,000 3,307,475,000 1,179 2,645,980,000

Scenario 3.3

Xekaman 1 322,000 1,227,800,000 441 982,240,000 2015 1.37

Dak Emeule 130,000 510,000,000 155 408,000,000 2016 1.19

Xekong 3 Up & Down 205,000 800,000,000 275 640,000,000 2017 1.34

657,000 2,537,800,000 871 2,030,240,000

Scenario 3.4

Xekaman 1 322,000 1,227,800,000 441 982,240,000 2015 1.37


Sensitivity of financial viability of IPPs to changes in capital cost and annual output (DFR)

Annual

Output Capital Cost

FNPV 166.35 36.30 69.57 (60.48)

FIRR 6.4% 4.5% 4.8% 3.0%

FNPV 60.86 (16.18) (4.01) (81.05)

FIRR 5.4% 3.4% 3.8% 1.9%

FNPV 92.01 40.97 59.37 8.32

FIRR 7.9% 5.8% 6.2% 4.2%

FNPV 97.78 38.42 57.97 (1.40)

FIRR 7.6% 5.5% 5.8% 3.8%

FNPV 110.78 30.71 52.87 (27.21)

FIRR 6.8% 4.7% 5.1% 3.2%

For financial viability, FIRR must equal or exceed WACC (=3.88%)

Switching Values*

Decreased

Output (%)

From

(GWh)

To

(GWh)

Increased

Capital

Cost (%)

From

(US$m)

To

(US$m)

*degree of change needed to render project non-viable

Summary of the Results of the Economic Analysis (Final Report)

Proposed HPP

Capacity

(MW)

Financial

Capital

Cost

(US$ m)

Output

(GWh/year)

Output

Sold to

Vietnam

(GWh/year)

ENPV

(US$ m) EIRR

Xekaman 1 322 441 1,228 982 174.6 16.7%

Xekaman 4 & 4A 196 308 770 616 77.4 15.7%

Dak Emeule 130 155 510 408 102.5 19.8%

Xekaman 2 & 2A 160 197 639 511 110.5 19.5%

Xekong 3 Up & Down 205 275 800 640 115.8 17.9%

Xekaman 1

Xekaman 4 & 4A

2.91

6.33

Sensitivity Indicators

Plant Basecase

Annual

Output

- 20%

Capital

Cost

+ 20%

Both

Effects

Combined

5.33

2.77 1.77

3.04 2.04

Xekaman 1 914

2.61

Dak Emeule

Xekaman 2 & 2A

Xekong 3 Up & Down

275

592

366

243

295

381

Xekaman 4 & 4A

Dak Emeule

Xekaman 2 & 2A

Xekong 3 Up & Down

3.91

3.61

441

308

155

197

-26%

648

325

427

577

+34%

+19%

+57%

+50%

+39%

For Xekaman 1, the sensitivity

indicator (SI) for the annual

output parameter is 3.3,

indicating that a 10% decrease

in annual output will reduce the

NPV of the net benefits of the

project by about 33%.

-28%

1,228

770

510

639

800

-16%

-36%

-33%


Xekaman Hydropower Station

(All SSTL Options: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 apply)

Power Capacity (MW) 322

Annual Output (kWh/year) 1,227,800,000

% Annual Output Sold to Vietnam 80.00%



Useful Life of IPP Plants (years) 25


Sales to Viet Nam (USD/kWh)

Base Rate for Primary Sales (90%) 0.045$

Annual Primary Escalation Rate (%, real) 2.25%

Base Rate for Secondary Sales (10%) 0.023$


Sales to EDL (USD/kWh)

Base Rate 0.044$

Annual Escalation Rate (real) 1.00%

Value of Royalties (Electricity) to GOL (USD/kWh)

Base Rate 0.044$


Capital Cost (USD million) 441

Commissioniong Date 2015

Construction Period (years) 3

% complete, end 2012 33%

% complete, during 2013 33%



Annual Plant O&M Cost (% Capital Cost/year) 1.00%

Annual Insurance Costs (% Annual Revenues) 1.00%

Annual Environmental and Social Expenses (% Annual Revenues) 1.50%

Wheeling Charges (USD/kWh)

Scenario 3.1 0.0043$




Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) 3.88%


Financial Analysis Assumes energy throughput to Vietnam is sold at the Lao Border

All values in constant 2011 USD millions

Scenario 3.1 Includes only the wheeling cost to the Lao border

Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2013 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2014 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2015 - 4.41 0.46 0.69 6.94 5.28 17.77 39.78 2.21 3.93 45.92 28.14

2016 - 4.41 0.47 0.70 6.94 5.28 17.80 40.68 2.26 3.97 46.90 29.10

2017 - 4.41 0.48 0.72 7.01 5.28 17.89 41.59 2.31 4.01 47.91 30.01

2018 - 4.41 0.49 0.73 7.08 5.28 17.99 42.53 2.36 4.05 48.94 30.95

2019 - 4.41 0.50 0.75 7.15 5.28 18.09 43.48 2.42 4.09 49.99 31.90

2020 - 4.41 0.51 0.77 7.22 5.28 18.18 44.46 2.47 4.13 51.06 32.87

2021 - 4.41 0.52 0.78 7.29 5.28 18.28 45.46 2.53 4.17 52.16 33.87

2022 - 4.41 0.53 0.80 7.36 5.28 18.39 46.49 2.58 4.21 53.28 34.89

2023 - 4.41 0.54 0.82 7.44 5.28 18.49 47.53 2.64 4.25 54.42 35.94

2024 - 4.41 0.56 0.83 7.51 5.28 18.59 48.60 2.70 4.29 55.60 37.00

2025 - 4.41 0.57 0.85 7.59 5.28 18.70 49.69 2.76 4.34 56.79 38.10

2026 - 4.41 0.58 0.87 7.66 5.28 18.80 50.81 2.82 4.38 58.02 39.21

2027 - 4.41 0.59 0.89 7.74 5.28 18.91 51.96 2.89 4.42 59.27 40.36

2028 - 4.41 0.61 0.91 7.82 5.28 19.02 53.12 2.95 4.47 60.55 41.53

2029 - 4.41 0.62 0.93 7.89 5.28 19.13 54.32 3.02 4.51 61.85 42.72

2030 - 4.41 0.63 0.95 7.97 5.28 19.24 55.54 3.09 4.56 63.19 43.94

2031 - 4.41 0.65 0.97 8.05 5.28 19.36 56.79 3.16 4.60 64.55 45.19

2032 - 4.41 0.66 0.99 8.13 5.28 19.47 58.07 3.23 4.65 65.95 46.47

2033 - 4.41 0.67 1.01 8.21 5.28 19.59 59.38 3.30 4.70 67.37 47.78

2034 - 4.41 0.69 1.03 8.30 5.28 19.71 60.71 3.37 4.74 68.83 49.12

2035 - 4.41 0.70 1.05 8.38 5.28 19.83 62.08 3.45 4.79 70.32 50.49

2036 - 4.41 0.72 1.08 8.46 5.28 19.95 63.47 3.53 4.84 71.84 51.89

2037 - 4.41 0.73 1.10 8.55 5.28 20.07 64.90 3.61 4.89 73.40 53.32

2038 - 4.41 0.75 1.12 8.63 5.28 20.20 66.36 3.69 4.94 74.99 54.79

2039 - 4.41 0.77 1.15 8.72 5.28 20.33 67.86 3.77 4.99 76.61 56.29

2040 - 4.41 0.78 1.17 8.81 5.28 20.45 69.38 3.85 5.04 78.27 57.82

NPVs 424.75 66.22 8.71 13.06 114.71 79.29 706.75 762.98 42.39 65.56 870.93 164.18

FIRR 6.5%

Scenario 3.2

Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2011 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2012 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2013 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2014 - 4.41 0.46 0.69 6.94 5.59 18.08 39.78 2.21 3.93 45.92 27.84

2015 - 4.41 0.47 0.70 6.94 5.59 18.11 40.68 2.26 3.97 46.90 28.79

2016 - 4.41 0.48 0.72 7.01 5.59 18.20 41.59 2.31 4.01 47.91 29.71

2017 - 4.41 0.49 0.73 7.08 5.59 18.30 42.53 2.36 4.05 48.94 30.64

2018 - 4.41 0.50 0.75 7.15 5.59 18.39 43.48 2.42 4.09 49.99 31.59

2019 - 4.41 0.51 0.77 7.22 5.59 18.49 44.46 2.47 4.13 51.06 32.57

2020 - 4.41 0.52 0.78 7.29 5.59 18.59 45.46 2.53 4.17 52.16 33.56

2021 - 4.41 0.53 0.80 7.36 5.59 18.69 46.49 2.58 4.21 53.28 34.59

2022 - 4.41 0.54 0.82 7.44 5.59 18.80 47.53 2.64 4.25 54.42 35.63

2023 - 4.41 0.56 0.83 7.51 5.59 18.90 48.60 2.70 4.29 55.60 36.70

2024 - 4.41 0.57 0.85 7.59 5.59 19.00 49.69 2.76 4.34 56.79 37.79

2025 - 4.41 0.58 0.87 7.66 5.59 19.11 50.81 2.82 4.38 58.02 38.91

2026 - 4.41 0.59 0.89 7.74 5.59 19.22 51.96 2.89 4.42 59.27 40.05

2027 - 4.41 0.61 0.91 7.82 5.59 19.33 53.12 2.95 4.47 60.55 41.22

2028 - 4.41 0.62 0.93 7.89 5.59 19.44 54.32 3.02 4.51 61.85 42.41

2029 - 4.41 0.63 0.95 7.97 5.59 19.55 55.54 3.09 4.56 63.19 43.64

2030 - 4.41 0.65 0.97 8.05 5.59 19.66 56.79 3.16 4.60 64.55 44.89

2031 - 4.41 0.66 0.99 8.13 5.59 19.78 58.07 3.23 4.65 65.95 46.17

2032 - 4.41 0.67 1.01 8.21 5.59 19.90 59.38 3.30 4.70 67.37 47.48

2033 - 4.41 0.69 1.03 8.30 5.59 20.02 60.71 3.37 4.74 68.83 48.81

2034 - 4.41 0.70 1.05 8.38 5.59 20.14 62.08 3.45 4.79 70.32 50.18

2035 - 4.41 0.72 1.08 8.46 5.59 20.26 63.47 3.53 4.84 71.84 51.58

2036 - 4.41 0.73 1.10 8.55 5.59 20.38 64.90 3.61 4.89 73.40 53.02

2037 - 4.41 0.75 1.12 8.63 5.59 20.51 66.36 3.69 4.94 74.99 54.48

2038 - 4.41 0.77 1.15 8.72 5.59 20.63 67.86 3.77 4.99 76.61 55.98

2039 - 4.41 0.78 1.17 8.81 5.59 20.76 69.38 3.85 5.04 78.27 57.51

NPVs 424.75 66.22 8.71 13.06 114.71 83.91 711.37 762.98 42.39 65.56 870.93 159.56

FIRR 6.4%

Sales to Viet Nam

Financial Revenues

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social

Sales to

EDL

Total

Financial

Revenues

Sales to Viet Nam

Sales to

EDL

Net

Financial

BenefitYear

Capital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Financial Costs

Year

Financial Costs Financial Revenues

Total

Financial

Revenues

Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Net

Financial

BenefitCapital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social

Value of

Royalties

to GOL


Scenario 3.3

Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2011 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2012 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2013 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2014 - 4.41 0.46 0.69 6.94 6.51 19.00 39.78 2.21 3.93 45.92 26.92

2015 - 4.41 0.47 0.70 6.94 6.51 19.03 40.68 2.26 3.97 46.90 27.88

2016 - 4.41 0.48 0.72 7.01 6.51 19.12 41.59 2.31 4.01 47.91 28.79

2017 - 4.41 0.49 0.73 7.08 6.51 19.22 42.53 2.36 4.05 48.94 29.72

2018 - 4.41 0.50 0.75 7.15 6.51 19.31 43.48 2.42 4.09 49.99 30.67

2019 - 4.41 0.51 0.77 7.22 6.51 19.41 44.46 2.47 4.13 51.06 31.65

2020 - 4.41 0.52 0.78 7.29 6.51 19.51 45.46 2.53 4.17 52.16 32.64

2021 - 4.41 0.53 0.80 7.36 6.51 19.61 46.49 2.58 4.21 53.28 33.67

2022 - 4.41 0.54 0.82 7.44 6.51 19.71 47.53 2.64 4.25 54.42 34.71

2023 - 4.41 0.56 0.83 7.51 6.51 19.82 48.60 2.70 4.29 55.60 35.78

2024 - 4.41 0.57 0.85 7.59 6.51 19.92 49.69 2.76 4.34 56.79 36.87

2025 - 4.41 0.58 0.87 7.66 6.51 20.03 50.81 2.82 4.38 58.02 37.99

2026 - 4.41 0.59 0.89 7.74 6.51 20.14 51.96 2.89 4.42 59.27 39.13

2027 - 4.41 0.61 0.91 7.82 6.51 20.25 53.12 2.95 4.47 60.55 40.30

2028 - 4.41 0.62 0.93 7.89 6.51 20.36 54.32 3.02 4.51 61.85 41.49

2029 - 4.41 0.63 0.95 7.97 6.51 20.47 55.54 3.09 4.56 63.19 42.72

2030 - 4.41 0.65 0.97 8.05 6.51 20.58 56.79 3.16 4.60 64.55 43.97

2031 - 4.41 0.66 0.99 8.13 6.51 20.70 58.07 3.23 4.65 65.95 45.25

2032 - 4.41 0.67 1.01 8.21 6.51 20.82 59.38 3.30 4.70 67.37 46.56

2033 - 4.41 0.69 1.03 8.30 6.51 20.94 60.71 3.37 4.74 68.83 47.89

2034 - 4.41 0.70 1.05 8.38 6.51 21.06 62.08 3.45 4.79 70.32 49.26

2035 - 4.41 0.72 1.08 8.46 6.51 21.18 63.47 3.53 4.84 71.84 50.66

2036 - 4.41 0.73 1.10 8.55 6.51 21.30 64.90 3.61 4.89 73.40 52.10

2037 - 4.41 0.75 1.12 8.63 6.51 21.43 66.36 3.69 4.94 74.99 53.56

2038 - 4.41 0.77 1.15 8.72 6.51 21.55 67.86 3.77 4.99 76.61 55.06

2039 - 4.41 0.78 1.17 8.81 6.51 21.68 69.38 3.85 5.04 78.27 56.59

NPVs 424.75 66.22 8.71 13.06 114.71 97.72 725.18 762.98 42.39 65.56 870.93 145.75

FIRR 6.2%

Scenario 3.4

Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2011 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2012 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2013 147.00 - - - - - 147.00 - - - - (147.00)

2014 - 4.41 0.46 0.69 6.94 7.95 20.45 39.78 2.21 3.93 45.92 25.47

2015 - 4.41 0.47 0.70 6.94 7.95 20.47 40.68 2.26 3.97 46.90 26.43

2016 - 4.41 0.48 0.72 7.01 7.95 20.57 41.59 2.31 4.01 47.91 27.34

2017 - 4.41 0.49 0.73 7.08 7.95 20.66 42.53 2.36 4.05 48.94 28.27

2018 - 4.41 0.50 0.75 7.15 7.95 20.76 43.48 2.42 4.09 49.99 29.23

2019 - 4.41 0.51 0.77 7.22 7.95 20.86 44.46 2.47 4.13 51.06 30.20

2020 - 4.41 0.52 0.78 7.29 7.95 20.96 45.46 2.53 4.17 52.16 31.20

2021 - 4.41 0.53 0.80 7.36 7.95 21.06 46.49 2.58 4.21 53.28 32.22

2022 - 4.41 0.54 0.82 7.44 7.95 21.16 47.53 2.64 4.25 54.42 33.26

2023 - 4.41 0.56 0.83 7.51 7.95 21.26 48.60 2.70 4.29 55.60 34.33

2024 - 4.41 0.57 0.85 7.59 7.95 21.37 49.69 2.76 4.34 56.79 35.42

2025 - 4.41 0.58 0.87 7.66 7.95 21.47 50.81 2.82 4.38 58.02 36.54

2026 - 4.41 0.59 0.89 7.74 7.95 21.58 51.96 2.89 4.42 59.27 37.68

2027 - 4.41 0.61 0.91 7.82 7.95 21.69 53.12 2.95 4.47 60.55 38.85

2028 - 4.41 0.62 0.93 7.89 7.95 21.80 54.32 3.02 4.51 61.85 40.05

2029 - 4.41 0.63 0.95 7.97 7.95 21.91 55.54 3.09 4.56 63.19 41.27

2030 - 4.41 0.65 0.97 8.05 7.95 22.03 56.79 3.16 4.60 64.55 42.52

2031 - 4.41 0.66 0.99 8.13 7.95 22.14 58.07 3.23 4.65 65.95 43.80

2032 - 4.41 0.67 1.01 8.21 7.95 22.26 59.38 3.30 4.70 67.37 45.11

2033 - 4.41 0.69 1.03 8.30 7.95 22.38 60.71 3.37 4.74 68.83 46.45

2034 - 4.41 0.70 1.05 8.38 7.95 22.50 62.08 3.45 4.79 70.32 47.82

2035 - 4.41 0.72 1.08 8.46 7.95 22.62 63.47 3.53 4.84 71.84 49.22

2036 - 4.41 0.73 1.10 8.55 7.95 22.74 64.90 3.61 4.89 73.40 50.65

2037 - 4.41 0.75 1.12 8.63 7.95 22.87 66.36 3.69 4.94 74.99 52.12

2038 - 4.41 0.77 1.15 8.72 7.95 23.00 67.86 3.77 4.99 76.61 53.62

2039 - 4.41 0.78 1.17 8.81 7.95 23.13 69.38 3.85 5.04 78.27 55.15

NPVs 424.75 66.22 8.71 13.06 114.71 119.41 746.86 762.98 42.39 65.56 870.93 124.06

FIRR 5.9%

Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam

Sales to

EDLYear


Total

Financial

RevenuesYear


Capital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Net

Financial

Benefit

Total

Financial

Revenues

Annual

Envt &

Social

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Net

Financial

Benefit

Capital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam

Sales to

EDL


Economic Analysis Scenario 3.1 Includes the total economic cost of wheeling power to consumers in Vietnam

2012 139.36 - - - 139.36 - - - (139.36)

2013 139.36 - - - 139.36 - - - (139.36)

2014 139.36 - - - 139.36 - - - (139.36)

2015 - 4.87 0.69 - 5.56 - - - (5.56)

2016 - 4.88 0.70 7.93 13.51 98.22 13.64 111.87 98.36

2017 - 4.89 0.72 7.93 13.53 98.22 13.78 112.00 98.47

2018 - 4.90 0.73 7.93 13.56 98.22 13.92 112.14 98.58

2019 - 4.91 0.75 7.93 13.59 98.22 14.06 112.28 98.70

2020 - 4.92 0.77 7.93 13.61 98.22 14.20 112.42 98.81

2021 - 4.93 0.78 7.93 13.64 98.22 14.34 112.56 98.92

2022 - 4.94 0.80 7.93 13.67 98.22 14.48 112.71 99.04

2023 - 4.95 0.82 7.93 13.70 98.22 14.63 112.85 99.16

2024 - 4.97 0.83 7.93 13.73 98.22 14.78 113.00 99.27

2025 - 4.98 0.85 7.93 13.76 98.22 14.92 113.15 99.39

2026 - 4.99 0.87 7.93 13.79 98.22 15.07 113.30 99.51

2027 - 5.00 0.89 7.93 13.82 98.22 15.22 113.45 99.63

2028 - 5.02 0.91 7.93 13.85 98.22 15.37 113.60 99.75

2029 - 5.03 0.93 7.93 13.88 98.22 15.53 113.75 99.87

2030 - 5.04 0.95 7.93 13.92 98.22 15.68 113.91 99.99

2031 - 5.06 0.97 7.93 13.95 98.22 15.84 114.06 100.11

2032 - 5.07 0.99 7.93 13.99 98.22 16.00 114.22 100.24

2033 - 5.08 1.01 7.93 14.02 98.22 16.16 114.38 100.36

2034 - 5.10 1.03 7.93 14.06 98.22 16.32 114.54 100.49

2035 - 5.11 1.05 7.93 14.09 98.22 16.48 114.71 100.61

2036 - 5.13 1.08 7.93 14.13 98.22 16.65 114.87 100.74

2037 - 5.14 1.10 7.93 14.17 98.22 16.82 115.04 100.87

2038 - 5.16 1.12 7.93 14.21 98.22 16.98 115.21 101.00

2039 - 5.18 1.15 7.93 14.25 98.22 17.15 115.38 101.13

2040 - 5.19 1.17 7.93 14.29 98.22 17.32 115.55 101.26

NPVs 374.87 31.14 5.07 44.25 455.33 548.34 81.63 629.97 174.65

EIRR 16.7%

82.3% 6.8% 1.1% 9.7% 100.0% 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%


Increased Reduced

NPV

(USD m) EIRR

Sensitivity

Indicator

Switching

Value

174.65 16.7%

20% 86.11 14.1% 2.53 41%

20% 159.40 16.3% 0.44 460%

20% 156.19 16.3% 0.53 319%

20% 150.31 16.1% 0.70 -100%

20% 56.97 13.6% 3.37 -30%

(58.69) 10.5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Year

Economic Costs Economic Benefits

Net

Economic

BenefitsCapital Cost

O&M,

Insurance

Costs

Envt &

Social Costs

Wheeling

Costs

Total

Economic

Costs

Total

Economic

Benefits

Fuel

Substitution

(Vietnam)

Incremental

Supply

(Lao PDR)

Benefits to Vietnam

Sensitivity Tests:

Capital Costs

O&M, Insurance,

Envt&Soc Costs

Wheeling Costs

Benefits to Lao PDR

Benefits to Vietnam

Test Parameters

Capital Costs

O&M, Insurance, Envt&Soc Costs

Basecase Values

All Adverse Effects Combined

Wheeling Costs

Benefits to Lao PDR

Sensitivity Parameters


Xekaman 4 and 4A Hydropower Station

(Only SSTL Options 3.1 and 3.2 apply)

Power Capacity (MW)

Xekaman 4 80

Xekaman 4A 116

Annual Ouput (kWh/year)

Xekaman 4 315,875,000

Xekaman 4A 453,800,000




Useful Life of Plants (years) 25








Base Rate 0.044$



Base Rate 0.044$


Capital Cost (USD million)

Xekaman 4 118

Xekaman 4A 190

Commissioniong Date

Xekaman 4 2016

Xekaman 4A 2016


% complete, end first year 30%

% complete, during second year 30%

% complete, during third year 30%

% complete, during fourth year 10%








Weighted Average Cost of Capital of IPPs (WACC) 3.88%





Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2013 92.40 - - - - - 92.40 - - - - (92.40)

2014 92.40 - - - - - 92.40 - - - - (92.40)

2015 92.40 - - - - - 92.40 - - - - (92.40)

2016 30.80 - - - - - 30.80 - - - - (30.80)

2017 - 3.08 0.29 0.43 4.35 2.65 10.80 24.94 1.39 2.46 28.78 17.99

2018 - 3.08 0.29 0.44 4.35 2.65 10.81 25.50 1.42 2.49 29.40 18.59

2019 - 3.08 0.30 0.45 4.35 2.65 10.83 26.07 1.45 2.51 30.03 19.20

2020 - 3.08 0.31 0.46 4.35 2.65 10.84 26.66 1.48 2.54 30.68 19.83

2021 - 3.08 0.31 0.47 4.35 2.65 10.86 27.26 1.51 2.56 31.33 20.48

2022 - 3.08 0.32 0.48 4.35 2.65 10.88 27.87 1.55 2.59 32.01 21.13

2023 - 3.08 0.33 0.49 4.35 2.65 10.89 28.50 1.58 2.61 32.70 21.80

2024 - 3.08 0.33 0.50 4.35 2.65 10.91 29.14 1.62 2.64 33.40 22.49

2025 - 3.08 0.34 0.51 4.35 2.65 10.93 29.80 1.66 2.67 34.12 23.19

2026 - 3.08 0.35 0.52 4.35 2.65 10.95 30.47 1.69 2.69 34.85 23.90

2027 - 3.08 0.36 0.53 4.35 2.65 10.97 31.15 1.73 2.72 35.60 24.64

2028 - 3.08 0.36 0.55 4.35 2.65 10.99 31.85 1.77 2.75 36.37 25.38

2029 - 3.08 0.37 0.56 4.35 2.65 11.00 32.57 1.81 2.77 37.15 26.15

2030 - 3.08 0.38 0.57 4.35 2.65 11.02 33.30 1.85 2.80 37.95 26.93

2031 - 3.08 0.39 0.58 4.35 2.65 11.05 34.05 1.89 2.83 38.77 27.73

2032 - 3.08 0.40 0.59 4.35 2.65 11.07 34.82 1.93 2.86 39.61 28.54

2033 - 3.08 0.40 0.61 4.35 2.65 11.09 35.60 1.98 2.89 40.47 29.38

2034 - 3.08 0.41 0.62 4.35 2.65 11.11 36.40 2.02 2.92 41.34 30.23

2035 - 3.08 0.42 0.63 4.35 2.65 11.13 37.22 2.07 2.94 42.23 31.10

2036 - 3.08 0.43 0.65 4.35 2.65 11.15 38.06 2.11 2.97 43.15 31.99

2037 - 3.08 0.44 0.66 4.35 2.65 11.18 38.92 2.16 3.00 44.08 32.90

2038 - 3.08 0.45 0.68 4.35 2.65 11.20 39.79 2.21 3.03 45.04 33.83

2039 - 3.08 0.46 0.69 4.35 2.65 11.23 40.69 2.26 3.06 46.01 34.78

2040 - 3.08 0.47 0.71 4.35 2.65 11.25 41.60 2.31 3.09 47.01 35.76

NPVs 283.48 40.85 4.74 7.12 57.67 35.13 428.99 415.24 23.07 36.04 474.36 45.37

FIRR 5.0%

Scenario 3.2

Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2013 92.40 - - - - - 92.40 - - - - (92.40)

2014 92.40 - - - - - 92.40 - - - - (92.40)

2015 92.40 - - - - - 92.40 - - - - (92.40)

2016 30.80 - - - - - 30.80 - - - - (30.80)

2017 - 3.08 0.29 0.43 4.35 2.80 10.95 24.94 1.39 2.46 28.78 17.83

2018 - 3.08 0.29 0.44 4.35 2.80 10.97 25.50 1.42 2.49 29.40 18.44

2019 - 3.08 0.30 0.45 4.35 2.80 10.98 26.07 1.45 2.51 30.03 19.05

2020 - 3.08 0.31 0.46 4.35 2.80 11.00 26.66 1.48 2.54 30.68 19.68

2021 - 3.08 0.31 0.47 4.35 2.80 11.01 27.26 1.51 2.56 31.33 20.32

2022 - 3.08 0.32 0.48 4.35 2.80 11.03 27.87 1.55 2.59 32.01 20.98

2023 - 3.08 0.33 0.49 4.35 2.80 11.05 28.50 1.58 2.61 32.70 21.65

2024 - 3.08 0.33 0.50 4.35 2.80 11.07 29.14 1.62 2.64 33.40 22.33

2025 - 3.08 0.34 0.51 4.35 2.80 11.08 29.80 1.66 2.67 34.12 23.03

2026 - 3.08 0.35 0.52 4.35 2.80 11.10 30.47 1.69 2.69 34.85 23.75

2027 - 3.08 0.36 0.53 4.35 2.80 11.12 31.15 1.73 2.72 35.60 24.48

2028 - 3.08 0.36 0.55 4.35 2.80 11.14 31.85 1.77 2.75 36.37 25.23

2029 - 3.08 0.37 0.56 4.35 2.80 11.16 32.57 1.81 2.77 37.15 25.99

2030 - 3.08 0.38 0.57 4.35 2.80 11.18 33.30 1.85 2.80 37.95 26.77

2031 - 3.08 0.39 0.58 4.35 2.80 11.20 34.05 1.89 2.83 38.77 27.57

2032 - 3.08 0.40 0.59 4.35 2.80 11.22 34.82 1.93 2.86 39.61 28.39

2033 - 3.08 0.40 0.61 4.35 2.80 11.24 35.60 1.98 2.89 40.47 29.22

2034 - 3.08 0.41 0.62 4.35 2.80 11.26 36.40 2.02 2.92 41.34 30.08

2035 - 3.08 0.42 0.63 4.35 2.80 11.29 37.22 2.07 2.94 42.23 30.95

2036 - 3.08 0.43 0.65 4.35 2.80 11.31 38.06 2.11 2.97 43.15 31.84

2037 - 3.08 0.44 0.66 4.35 2.80 11.33 38.92 2.16 3.00 44.08 32.75

2038 - 3.08 0.45 0.68 4.35 2.80 11.36 39.79 2.21 3.03 45.04 33.68

2039 - 3.08 0.46 0.69 4.35 2.80 11.38 40.69 2.26 3.06 46.01 34.63

2040 - 3.08 0.47 0.71 4.35 2.80 11.41 41.60 2.31 3.09 47.01 35.60

NPVs 283.48 40.85 4.74 7.12 57.67 37.17 431.04 415.24 23.07 36.04 474.36 43.32

FIRR 5.0%

Capital

Cost

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Wheeling

Charges

Net

Financial

Benefit

Sales to

EDL

Total

Financial

Revenues

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam

Total

Financial

Revenues

Year


Wheeling

Charges

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam

Sales to

EDL

Capital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social

Value of

Royalties

to GOLYear

Financial Costs

Annual

Envt &

Social

Net

Financial

Benefit

Financial Revenues



2012 - - - - - - - - -

2013 87.60 - - - 87.60 - - - (87.60)

2014 87.60 - - - 87.60 - - - (87.60)

2015 87.60 - - - 87.60 - - - (87.60)

2016 29.20 - - - 29.20 - - - (29.20)

2017 - 3.37 0.43 4.97 8.77 61.57 8.64 70.21 61.44

2018 - 3.37 0.44 4.97 8.78 61.57 8.73 70.30 61.52

2019 - 3.38 0.45 4.97 8.80 61.57 8.81 70.39 61.59

2020 - 3.39 0.46 4.97 8.82 61.57 8.90 70.47 61.66

2021 - 3.39 0.47 4.97 8.83 61.57 8.99 70.56 61.73

2022 - 3.40 0.48 4.97 8.85 61.57 9.08 70.65 61.80

2023 - 3.41 0.49 4.97 8.87 61.57 9.17 70.74 61.88

2024 - 3.41 0.50 4.97 8.88 61.57 9.26 70.84 61.95

2025 - 3.42 0.51 4.97 8.90 61.57 9.35 70.93 62.03

2026 - 3.43 0.52 4.97 8.92 61.57 9.45 71.02 62.10

2027 - 3.44 0.53 4.97 8.94 61.57 9.54 71.12 62.18

2028 - 3.44 0.55 4.97 8.96 61.57 9.64 71.21 62.25

2029 - 3.45 0.56 4.97 8.98 61.57 9.73 71.31 62.33

2030 - 3.46 0.57 4.97 9.00 61.57 9.83 71.41 62.41

2031 - 3.47 0.58 4.97 9.02 61.57 9.93 71.50 62.49

2032 - 3.48 0.59 4.97 9.04 61.57 10.03 71.60 62.56

2033 - 3.48 0.61 4.97 9.06 61.57 10.13 71.70 62.64

2034 - 3.49 0.62 4.97 9.08 61.57 10.23 71.81 62.72

2035 - 3.50 0.63 4.97 9.10 61.57 10.33 71.91 62.80

2036 - 3.51 0.65 4.97 9.13 61.57 10.44 72.01 62.88

2037 - 3.52 0.66 4.97 9.15 61.57 10.54 72.12 62.96

2038 - 3.53 0.68 4.97 9.17 61.57 10.65 72.22 63.05

2039 - 3.54 0.69 4.97 9.20 61.57 10.75 72.33 63.13

2040 - 3.55 0.71 4.97 9.22 61.57 10.86 72.43 63.21

NPVs 228.95 16.89 2.48 24.58 272.90 304.61 45.74 350.35 77.45

EIRR 15.7%

83.9% 6.2% 0.9% 9.0% 100.0% 86.9% 13.1% 100.0%


Increased Reduced

NPV

(USD m) EIRR

Sensitivity

Indicator

Switching

Value

77.45 15.7%

20% 24.16 13.0% 3.44 30%

20% 69.13 15.3% 0.54 377%

20% 67.19 15.2% 0.66 251%

20% 63.85 15.1% 0.88 -100%

20% 12.08 12.6% 4.22 -24%

(56.20) 9.5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Fuel

Substitution

(Vietnam)

Incremental

Supply

(Lao PDR)

Total

Economic

BenefitsYear


Net

Economic


O&M,

Insurance

Costs

Envt &

Social Costs

Wheeling

Costs

Total

Economic

Costs


Sensitivity Tests:

Capital Costs

O&M, Insurance,

Envt&Soc Costs

Wheeling Costs

Basecase Values

Wheeling Costs

Benefits to Lao PDR

Benefits to Vietnam

Benefits to Lao PDR

Benefits to Vietnam

Test Parameters

Capital Costs




Dak Emeule Hydropower Station

(SSTL Options: 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 apply)


Annual Ouput (kWh/year) 510,000,000




Useful Life of Plant (years) 25








Base Rate 0.044$



Base Rate 0.044$





















Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 46.50 - - - - - 46.50 - - - - (46.50)

2013 46.50 - - - - - 46.50 - - - - (46.50)

2014 46.50 - - - - - 46.50 - - - - (46.50)

2015 15.50 - - - - - 15.50 - - - - (15.50)

2016 - 1.55 0.19 0.29 2.88 1.75 6.66 16.52 0.92 1.63 19.07 12.41

2017 - 1.55 0.19 0.29 2.88 1.75 6.67 16.90 0.94 1.65 19.48 12.81

2018 - 1.55 0.20 0.30 2.88 1.75 6.68 17.28 0.96 1.66 19.90 13.22

2019 - 1.55 0.20 0.30 2.88 1.75 6.69 17.66 0.98 1.68 20.33 13.63

2020 - 1.55 0.21 0.31 2.88 1.75 6.70 18.06 1.00 1.70 20.76 14.06

2021 - 1.55 0.21 0.32 2.88 1.75 6.72 18.47 1.03 1.71 21.21 14.49

2022 - 1.55 0.22 0.32 2.88 1.75 6.73 18.88 1.05 1.73 21.66 14.94

2023 - 1.55 0.22 0.33 2.88 1.75 6.74 19.31 1.07 1.75 22.13 15.39

2024 - 1.55 0.23 0.34 2.88 1.75 6.75 19.74 1.10 1.77 22.61 15.86

2025 - 1.55 0.23 0.35 2.88 1.75 6.76 20.19 1.12 1.78 23.09 16.33

2026 - 1.55 0.24 0.35 2.88 1.75 6.78 20.64 1.15 1.80 23.59 16.81

2027 - 1.55 0.24 0.36 2.88 1.75 6.79 21.11 1.17 1.82 24.10 17.31

2028 - 1.55 0.25 0.37 2.88 1.75 6.80 21.58 1.20 1.84 24.62 17.82

2029 - 1.55 0.25 0.38 2.88 1.75 6.81 22.07 1.23 1.86 25.15 18.33

2030 - 1.55 0.26 0.39 2.88 1.75 6.83 22.56 1.25 1.87 25.69 18.86

2031 - 1.55 0.26 0.39 2.88 1.75 6.84 23.07 1.28 1.89 26.25 19.40

2032 - 1.55 0.27 0.40 2.88 1.75 6.86 23.59 1.31 1.91 26.81 19.96

2033 - 1.55 0.27 0.41 2.88 1.75 6.87 24.12 1.34 1.93 27.39 20.52

2034 - 1.55 0.28 0.42 2.88 1.75 6.89 24.66 1.37 1.95 27.98 21.10

2035 - 1.55 0.29 0.43 2.88 1.75 6.90 25.22 1.40 1.97 28.59 21.69

2036 - 1.55 0.29 0.44 2.88 1.75 6.92 25.79 1.43 1.99 29.21 22.29

2037 - 1.55 0.30 0.45 2.88 1.75 6.93 26.37 1.46 2.01 29.84 22.91

2038 - 1.55 0.30 0.46 2.88 1.75 6.95 26.96 1.50 2.03 30.49 23.54

2039 - 1.55 0.31 0.47 2.88 1.75 6.96 27.57 1.53 2.05 31.15 24.18

2040 - 1.55 0.32 0.48 2.88 1.75 6.98 28.19 1.57 2.07 31.82 24.84

NPVs 105.63 21.89 3.37 5.06 40.69 24.78 243.99 295.53 16.42 25.52 337.47 93.48

FIRR 7.7%

Scenario 3.2

Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 46.50 - - - - - 46.50 - - - - (46.50)

2013 46.50 - - - - - 46.50 - - - - (46.50)

2014 46.50 - - - - - 46.50 - - - - (46.50)

2015 15.50 - - - - - 15.50 - - - - (15.50)

2016 - 1.55 0.19 0.29 2.88 1.86 6.76 16.52 0.92 1.63 19.07 12.31

2017 - 1.55 0.19 0.29 2.88 1.86 6.78 16.90 0.94 1.65 19.48 12.71

2018 - 1.55 0.20 0.30 2.88 1.86 6.79 17.28 0.96 1.66 19.90 13.11

2019 - 1.55 0.20 0.30 2.88 1.86 6.80 17.66 0.98 1.68 20.33 13.53

2020 - 1.55 0.21 0.31 2.88 1.86 6.81 18.06 1.00 1.70 20.76 13.96

2021 - 1.55 0.21 0.32 2.88 1.86 6.82 18.47 1.03 1.71 21.21 14.39

2022 - 1.55 0.22 0.32 2.88 1.86 6.83 18.88 1.05 1.73 21.66 14.84

2023 - 1.55 0.22 0.33 2.88 1.86 6.84 19.31 1.07 1.75 22.13 15.29

2024 - 1.55 0.23 0.34 2.88 1.86 6.85 19.74 1.10 1.77 22.61 15.75

2025 - 1.55 0.23 0.35 2.88 1.86 6.87 20.19 1.12 1.78 23.09 16.23

2026 - 1.55 0.24 0.35 2.88 1.86 6.88 20.64 1.15 1.80 23.59 16.71

2027 - 1.55 0.24 0.36 2.88 1.86 6.89 21.11 1.17 1.82 24.10 17.21

2028 - 1.55 0.25 0.37 2.88 1.86 6.90 21.58 1.20 1.84 24.62 17.71

2029 - 1.55 0.25 0.38 2.88 1.86 6.92 22.07 1.23 1.86 25.15 18.23

2030 - 1.55 0.26 0.39 2.88 1.86 6.93 22.56 1.25 1.87 25.69 18.76

2031 - 1.55 0.26 0.39 2.88 1.86 6.94 23.07 1.28 1.89 26.25 19.30

2032 - 1.55 0.27 0.40 2.88 1.86 6.96 23.59 1.31 1.91 26.81 19.85

2033 - 1.55 0.27 0.41 2.88 1.86 6.97 24.12 1.34 1.93 27.39 20.42

2034 - 1.55 0.28 0.42 2.88 1.86 6.99 24.66 1.37 1.95 27.98 21.00

2035 - 1.55 0.29 0.43 2.88 1.86 7.00 25.22 1.40 1.97 28.59 21.59

2036 - 1.55 0.29 0.44 2.88 1.86 7.02 25.79 1.43 1.99 29.21 22.19

2037 - 1.55 0.30 0.45 2.88 1.86 7.03 26.37 1.46 2.01 29.84 22.81

2038 - 1.55 0.30 0.46 2.88 1.86 7.05 26.96 1.50 2.03 30.49 23.44

2039 - 1.55 0.31 0.47 2.88 1.86 7.07 27.57 1.53 2.05 31.15 24.08

2040 - 1.55 0.32 0.48 2.88 1.86 7.08 28.19 1.57 2.07 31.82 24.74

NPVs 148.19 21.89 3.37 5.06 40.69 26.23 245.43 295.53 16.42 25.52 337.47 92.04

FIRR 7.7%

Sales to

EDL

Total

Financial

Revenues

Net

Financial

Benefit

Capital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam

Year


Total

Financial

Revenues

Year


Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam Net

Financial

BenefitCapital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Sales to

EDL


Scenario 3.3

Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 46.50 - - - - - 46.50 - - - - (46.50)

2013 46.50 - - - - - 46.50 - - - - (46.50)

2014 46.50 - - - - - 46.50 - - - - (46.50)

2015 15.50 - - - - - 15.50 - - - - (15.50)

2016 - 1.55 0.19 0.29 2.88 2.16 7.07 16.52 0.92 1.63 19.07 12.00

2017 - 1.55 0.19 0.29 2.88 2.16 7.08 16.90 0.94 1.65 19.48 12.40

2018 - 1.55 0.20 0.30 2.88 2.16 7.09 17.28 0.96 1.66 19.90 12.81

2019 - 1.55 0.20 0.30 2.88 2.16 7.10 17.66 0.98 1.68 20.33 13.22

2020 - 1.55 0.21 0.31 2.88 2.16 7.11 18.06 1.00 1.70 20.76 13.65

2021 - 1.55 0.21 0.32 2.88 2.16 7.12 18.47 1.03 1.71 21.21 14.08

2022 - 1.55 0.22 0.32 2.88 2.16 7.14 18.88 1.05 1.73 21.66 14.53

2023 - 1.55 0.22 0.33 2.88 2.16 7.15 19.31 1.07 1.75 22.13 14.98

2024 - 1.55 0.23 0.34 2.88 2.16 7.16 19.74 1.10 1.77 22.61 15.45

2025 - 1.55 0.23 0.35 2.88 2.16 7.17 20.19 1.12 1.78 23.09 15.92

2026 - 1.55 0.24 0.35 2.88 2.16 7.18 20.64 1.15 1.80 23.59 16.41

2027 - 1.55 0.24 0.36 2.88 2.16 7.20 21.11 1.17 1.82 24.10 16.90

2028 - 1.55 0.25 0.37 2.88 2.16 7.21 21.58 1.20 1.84 24.62 17.41

2029 - 1.55 0.25 0.38 2.88 2.16 7.22 22.07 1.23 1.86 25.15 17.93

2030 - 1.55 0.26 0.39 2.88 2.16 7.24 22.56 1.25 1.87 25.69 18.46

2031 - 1.55 0.26 0.39 2.88 2.16 7.25 23.07 1.28 1.89 26.25 19.00

2032 - 1.55 0.27 0.40 2.88 2.16 7.26 23.59 1.31 1.91 26.81 19.55

2033 - 1.55 0.27 0.41 2.88 2.16 7.28 24.12 1.34 1.93 27.39 20.11

2034 - 1.55 0.28 0.42 2.88 2.16 7.29 24.66 1.37 1.95 27.98 20.69

2035 - 1.55 0.29 0.43 2.88 2.16 7.31 25.22 1.40 1.97 28.59 21.28

2036 - 1.55 0.29 0.44 2.88 2.16 7.32 25.79 1.43 1.99 29.21 21.88

2037 - 1.55 0.30 0.45 2.88 2.16 7.34 26.37 1.46 2.01 29.84 22.50

2038 - 1.55 0.30 0.46 2.88 2.16 7.36 26.96 1.50 2.03 30.49 23.13

2039 - 1.55 0.31 0.47 2.88 2.16 7.37 27.57 1.53 2.05 31.15 23.78

2040 - 1.55 0.32 0.48 2.88 2.16 7.39 28.19 1.57 2.07 31.82 24.43

NPVs 148.19 21.89 3.37 5.06 40.69 30.54 249.75 295.53 16.42 25.52 337.47 87.72

FIRR 7.5%

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam

Sales to

EDL

Total

Financial

RevenuesYear


Net

Financial

Benefit

Capital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social



2012 44.08 - - - 44.08 - - - (44.08)

2013 44.08 - - - 44.08 - - - (44.08)

2014 44.08 - - - 44.08 - - - (44.08)

2015 14.69 - - - 14.69 - - - (14.69)

2016 - 1.74 0.29 3.29 5.32 40.80 5.67 46.47 41.15

2017 - 1.74 0.29 3.29 5.33 40.80 5.72 46.52 41.19

2018 - 1.75 0.30 3.29 5.34 40.80 5.78 46.58 41.24

2019 - 1.75 0.30 3.29 5.35 40.80 5.84 46.64 41.29

2020 - 1.76 0.31 3.29 5.36 40.80 5.90 46.70 41.34

2021 - 1.76 0.32 3.29 5.37 40.80 5.96 46.76 41.38

2022 - 1.77 0.32 3.29 5.38 40.80 6.02 46.82 41.43

2023 - 1.77 0.33 3.29 5.40 40.80 6.08 46.88 41.48

2024 - 1.78 0.34 3.29 5.41 40.80 6.14 46.94 41.53

2025 - 1.78 0.35 3.29 5.42 40.80 6.20 47.00 41.58

2026 - 1.79 0.35 3.29 5.43 40.80 6.26 47.06 41.63

2027 - 1.79 0.36 3.29 5.45 40.80 6.32 47.12 41.68

2028 - 1.80 0.37 3.29 5.46 40.80 6.39 47.19 41.73

2029 - 1.80 0.38 3.29 5.47 40.80 6.45 47.25 41.78

2030 - 1.81 0.39 3.29 5.48 40.80 6.51 47.31 41.83

2031 - 1.81 0.39 3.29 5.50 40.80 6.58 47.38 41.88

2032 - 1.82 0.40 3.29 5.51 40.80 6.65 47.45 41.93

2033 - 1.82 0.41 3.29 5.53 40.80 6.71 47.51 41.98

2034 - 1.83 0.42 3.29 5.54 40.80 6.78 47.58 42.04

2035 - 1.84 0.43 3.29 5.56 40.80 6.85 47.65 42.09

2036 - 1.84 0.44 3.29 5.57 40.80 6.92 47.72 42.14

2037 - 1.85 0.45 3.29 5.59 40.80 6.98 47.78 42.20

2038 - 1.85 0.46 3.29 5.60 40.80 7.05 47.85 42.25

2039 - 1.86 0.47 3.29 5.62 40.80 7.13 47.93 42.30

2040 - 1.87 0.48 3.29 5.64 40.80 7.20 48.00 42.36

NPVs 129.04 9.89 1.86 18.38 159.18 227.77 33.91 261.68 102.50

EIRR 19.8%

81.1% 6.2% 1.2% 11.5% 100.0% 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%


Increased Reduced

NPV

(USD m) EIRR

Sensitivity

Indicator

Switching

Value

102.50 19.8%

20% 71.63 16.8% 1.51 72%

20% 96.82 19.4% 0.28 844%

20% 94.83 19.3% 0.37 457%

20% 92.39 19.1% 0.49 -100%

20% 53.62 16.4% 2.38 -44%

12.26 12.9%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Incremental

Supply

(Lao PDR)

Total

Economic

BenefitsYear


Net

Economic


O&M,

Insurance

Costs

Envt &

Social Costs

Wheeling

Costs

Total

Economic

Costs

Fuel

Substitution

(Vietnam)


Sensitivity Tests:

Capital Costs

O&M, Insurance,

Envt&Soc Costs

Wheeling Costs

Basecase Values

Wheeling Costs

Benefits to Lao PDR

Benefits to Vietnam

Benefits to Lao PDR

Benefits to Vietnam

Test Parameters

Capital Costs




Xekaman 2 and 2A Hydropower Stations

(Only SSTL Option 3.1 applies)














Base Rate 0.044$



Base Rate 0.044$





















Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2013 59.10 - - - - - 59.10 - - - - (59.10)

2014 59.10 - - - - - 59.10 - - - - (59.10)

2015 59.10 - - - - - 59.10 - - - - (59.10)

2016 19.70 - - - - - 19.70 - - - - (19.70)

2017 - 1.97 0.24 0.36 3.61 2.20 8.38 20.70 1.15 2.04 23.90 15.52

2018 - 1.97 0.24 0.37 3.61 2.20 8.39 21.17 1.18 2.06 24.41 16.02

2019 - 1.97 0.25 0.37 3.61 2.20 8.40 21.65 1.20 2.08 24.93 16.53

2020 - 1.97 0.25 0.38 3.61 2.20 8.42 22.13 1.23 2.11 25.47 17.05

2021 - 1.97 0.26 0.39 3.61 2.20 8.43 22.63 1.26 2.13 26.01 17.59

2022 - 1.97 0.27 0.40 3.61 2.20 8.44 23.14 1.29 2.15 26.57 18.13

2023 - 1.97 0.27 0.41 3.61 2.20 8.46 23.66 1.31 2.17 27.14 18.69

2024 - 1.97 0.28 0.42 3.61 2.20 8.47 24.19 1.34 2.19 27.73 19.26

2025 - 1.97 0.28 0.42 3.61 2.20 8.49 24.74 1.37 2.21 28.32 19.84

2026 - 1.97 0.29 0.43 3.61 2.20 8.50 25.29 1.41 2.24 28.93 20.43

2027 - 1.97 0.30 0.44 3.61 2.20 8.52 25.86 1.44 2.26 29.56 21.04

2028 - 1.97 0.30 0.45 3.61 2.20 8.53 26.44 1.47 2.28 30.19 21.66

2029 - 1.97 0.31 0.46 3.61 2.20 8.55 27.04 1.50 2.30 30.85 22.30

2030 - 1.97 0.32 0.47 3.61 2.20 8.57 27.65 1.54 2.33 31.51 22.94

2031 - 1.97 0.32 0.48 3.61 2.20 8.58 28.27 1.57 2.35 32.19 23.61

2032 - 1.97 0.33 0.49 3.61 2.20 8.60 28.91 1.61 2.37 32.89 24.28

2033 - 1.97 0.34 0.50 3.61 2.20 8.62 29.56 1.64 2.40 33.60 24.98

2034 - 1.97 0.34 0.51 3.61 2.20 8.64 30.22 1.68 2.42 34.32 25.68

2035 - 1.97 0.35 0.53 3.61 2.20 8.65 30.90 1.72 2.44 35.06 26.41

2036 - 1.97 0.36 0.54 3.61 2.20 8.67 31.60 1.76 2.47 35.82 27.15

2037 - 1.97 0.37 0.55 3.61 2.20 8.69 32.31 1.79 2.49 36.60 27.90

2038 - 1.97 0.37 0.56 3.61 2.20 8.71 33.04 1.84 2.52 37.39 28.68

2039 - 1.97 0.38 0.57 3.61 2.20 8.73 33.78 1.88 2.54 38.20 29.47

2040 - 1.97 0.39 0.59 3.61 2.20 8.75 34.54 1.92 2.57 39.03 30.27

NPVs 134.25 26.13 3.94 5.91 47.88 29.16 294.33 344.74 19.15 29.92 393.82 99.49

FIRR 7.4%

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam

Year


Sales to

EDL

Total

Financial

Revenues

Net

Financial

Benefit

Capital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost



2012 - - - - - - - - -

2013 56.03 - - - 56.03 - - - (56.03)

2014 56.03 - - - 56.03 - - - (56.03)

2015 56.03 - - - 56.03 - - - (56.03)

2016 18.68 - - - 18.68 - - - (18.68)

2017 - 2.21 0.36 4.13 6.69 51.12 7.10 58.22 51.53

2018 - 2.21 0.37 4.13 6.71 51.12 7.17 58.29 51.59

2019 - 2.22 0.37 4.13 6.72 51.12 7.24 58.36 51.65

2020 - 2.22 0.38 4.13 6.73 51.12 7.32 58.44 51.70

2021 - 2.23 0.39 4.13 6.75 51.12 7.39 58.51 51.76

2022 - 2.24 0.40 4.13 6.76 51.12 7.46 58.58 51.82

2023 - 2.24 0.41 4.13 6.77 51.12 7.54 58.66 51.88

2024 - 2.25 0.42 4.13 6.79 51.12 7.61 58.73 51.94

2025 - 2.25 0.42 4.13 6.80 51.12 7.69 58.81 52.01

2026 - 2.26 0.43 4.13 6.82 51.12 7.77 58.89 52.07

2027 - 2.27 0.44 4.13 6.83 51.12 7.84 58.96 52.13

2028 - 2.27 0.45 4.13 6.85 51.12 7.92 59.04 52.19

2029 - 2.28 0.46 4.13 6.87 51.12 8.00 59.12 52.26

2030 - 2.29 0.47 4.13 6.88 51.12 8.08 59.20 52.32

2031 - 2.29 0.48 4.13 6.90 51.12 8.16 59.28 52.38

2032 - 2.30 0.49 4.13 6.92 51.12 8.24 59.36 52.45

2033 - 2.31 0.50 4.13 6.94 51.12 8.33 59.45 52.51

2034 - 2.31 0.51 4.13 6.95 51.12 8.41 59.53 52.58

2035 - 2.32 0.53 4.13 6.97 51.12 8.49 59.61 52.64

2036 - 2.33 0.54 4.13 6.99 51.12 8.58 59.70 52.71

2037 - 2.34 0.55 4.13 7.01 51.12 8.66 59.78 52.77

2038 - 2.34 0.56 4.13 7.03 51.12 8.75 59.87 52.84

2039 - 2.35 0.57 4.13 7.05 51.12 8.84 59.96 52.91

2040 - 2.36 0.59 4.13 7.07 51.12 8.93 60.05 52.98

NPVs 146.44 11.12 2.06 20.41 180.02 252.89 37.59 290.49 110.47

EIRR 19.5%

81.3% 6.2% 1.1% 11.3% 100.0% 87.1% 12.9% 100.0%


Increased Reduced

NPV

(USD m) EIRR

Sensitivity

Indicator

Switching

Value

110.47 19.5%

20% 75.54 16.6% 1.58 68%

20% 104.14 19.2% 0.29 810%

20% 101.95 19.0% 0.39 443%

20% 99.25 18.9% 0.51 -100%

20% 56.19 16.1% 2.46 -42%

9.59 12.6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Incremental

Supply

(Lao PDR)

Total

Economic

BenefitsYear


Net

Economic


O&M,

Insurance

Costs

Envt &

Social Costs

Wheeling

Costs

Total

Economic

Costs

Fuel

Substitution

(Vietnam)


Sensitivity Tests:

Capital Costs

O&M, Insurance,

Envt&Soc Costs

Wheeling Costs

Basecase Values

Wheeling Costs

Benefits to Lao PDR

Benefits to Vietnam

Benefits to Lao PDR

Benefits to Vietnam

Test Parameters

Capital Costs




Xekong 3 Up & Down Hydropower Stations

(SSTL Options: 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 apply)














Base Rate 0.044$



Base Rate 0.044$





















Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2013 82.50 - - - - - 82.50 - - - - (82.50)

2014 82.50 - - - - - 82.50 - - - - (82.50)

2015 82.50 - - - - - 82.50 - - - - (82.50)

2016 27.50 - - - - - 27.50 - - - - (27.50)

2017 - 2.75 0.30 0.45 4.52 2.75 10.77 25.92 1.44 2.56 29.92 19.15

2018 - 2.75 0.31 0.46 4.52 2.75 10.79 26.50 1.47 2.58 30.56 19.77

2019 - 2.75 0.31 0.47 4.52 2.75 10.80 27.10 1.51 2.61 31.22 20.41

2020 - 2.75 0.32 0.48 4.52 2.75 10.82 27.71 1.54 2.64 31.88 21.07

2021 - 2.75 0.33 0.49 4.52 2.75 10.84 28.33 1.57 2.66 32.57 21.73

2022 - 2.75 0.33 0.50 4.52 2.75 10.85 28.97 1.61 2.69 33.27 22.42

2023 - 2.75 0.34 0.51 4.52 2.75 10.87 29.62 1.65 2.72 33.98 23.11

2024 - 2.75 0.35 0.52 4.52 2.75 10.89 30.29 1.68 2.74 34.71 23.82

2025 - 2.75 0.35 0.53 4.52 2.75 10.91 30.97 1.72 2.77 35.46 24.55

2026 - 2.75 0.36 0.54 4.52 2.75 10.93 31.67 1.76 2.80 36.22 25.30

2027 - 2.75 0.37 0.56 4.52 2.75 10.95 32.38 1.80 2.83 37.00 26.06

2028 - 2.75 0.38 0.57 4.52 2.75 10.97 33.11 1.84 2.85 37.80 26.83

2029 - 2.75 0.39 0.58 4.52 2.75 10.99 33.85 1.88 2.88 38.62 27.63

2030 - 2.75 0.39 0.59 4.52 2.75 11.01 34.61 1.92 2.91 39.45 28.44

2031 - 2.75 0.40 0.60 4.52 2.75 11.03 35.39 1.97 2.94 40.30 29.27

2032 - 2.75 0.41 0.62 4.52 2.75 11.05 36.19 2.01 2.97 41.17 30.12

2033 - 2.75 0.42 0.63 4.52 2.75 11.07 37.00 2.06 3.00 42.06 30.99

2034 - 2.75 0.43 0.64 4.52 2.75 11.10 37.84 2.10 3.03 42.97 31.87

2035 - 2.75 0.44 0.66 4.52 2.75 11.12 38.69 2.15 3.06 43.90 32.78

2036 - 2.75 0.45 0.67 4.52 2.75 11.14 39.56 2.20 3.09 44.85 33.70

2037 - 2.75 0.46 0.69 4.52 2.75 11.17 40.45 2.25 3.12 45.82 34.65

2038 - 2.75 0.47 0.70 4.52 2.75 11.19 41.36 2.30 3.15 46.81 35.62

2039 - 2.75 0.48 0.72 4.52 2.75 11.22 42.29 2.35 3.18 47.82 36.61

2040 - 2.75 0.49 0.73 4.52 2.75 11.24 43.24 2.40 3.22 48.86 37.62

NPVs 262.92 36.48 4.93 7.40 59.94 36.51 398.36 431.60 23.98 37.46 493.04 94.68

FIRR 6.4%

Scenario 3.2

Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2013 82.50 - - - - - 82.50 - - - - (82.50)

2014 82.50 - - - - - 82.50 - - - - (82.50)

2015 82.50 - - - - - 82.50 - - - - (82.50)

2016 27.50 - - - - - 27.50 - - - - (27.50)

2017 - 2.75 0.30 0.45 4.52 2.91 10.93 25.92 1.44 2.56 29.92 18.99

2018 - 2.75 0.31 0.46 4.52 2.91 10.95 26.50 1.47 2.58 30.56 19.61

2019 - 2.75 0.31 0.47 4.52 2.91 10.96 27.10 1.51 2.61 31.22 20.25

2020 - 2.75 0.32 0.48 4.52 2.91 10.98 27.71 1.54 2.64 31.88 20.91

2021 - 2.75 0.33 0.49 4.52 2.91 11.00 28.33 1.57 2.66 32.57 21.57

2022 - 2.75 0.33 0.50 4.52 2.91 11.01 28.97 1.61 2.69 33.27 22.25

2023 - 2.75 0.34 0.51 4.52 2.91 11.03 29.62 1.65 2.72 33.98 22.95

2024 - 2.75 0.35 0.52 4.52 2.91 11.05 30.29 1.68 2.74 34.71 23.66

2025 - 2.75 0.35 0.53 4.52 2.91 11.07 30.97 1.72 2.77 35.46 24.39

2026 - 2.75 0.36 0.54 4.52 2.91 11.09 31.67 1.76 2.80 36.22 25.14

2027 - 2.75 0.37 0.56 4.52 2.91 11.11 32.38 1.80 2.83 37.00 25.90

2028 - 2.75 0.38 0.57 4.52 2.91 11.13 33.11 1.84 2.85 37.80 26.67

2029 - 2.75 0.39 0.58 4.52 2.91 11.15 33.85 1.88 2.88 38.62 27.47

2030 - 2.75 0.39 0.59 4.52 2.91 11.17 34.61 1.92 2.91 39.45 28.28

2031 - 2.75 0.40 0.60 4.52 2.91 11.19 35.39 1.97 2.94 40.30 29.11

2032 - 2.75 0.41 0.62 4.52 2.91 11.21 36.19 2.01 2.97 41.17 29.96

2033 - 2.75 0.42 0.63 4.52 2.91 11.23 37.00 2.06 3.00 42.06 30.83

2034 - 2.75 0.43 0.64 4.52 2.91 11.26 37.84 2.10 3.03 42.97 31.71

2035 - 2.75 0.44 0.66 4.52 2.91 11.28 38.69 2.15 3.06 43.90 32.62

2036 - 2.75 0.45 0.67 4.52 2.91 11.30 39.56 2.20 3.09 44.85 33.54

2037 - 2.75 0.46 0.69 4.52 2.91 11.33 40.45 2.25 3.12 45.82 34.49

2038 - 2.75 0.47 0.70 4.52 2.91 11.35 41.36 2.30 3.15 46.81 35.46

2039 - 2.75 0.48 0.72 4.52 2.91 11.38 42.29 2.35 3.18 47.82 36.45

2040 - 2.75 0.49 0.73 4.52 2.91 11.40 43.24 2.40 3.22 48.86 37.46

NPVs 262.92 36.48 4.93 7.40 59.94 38.64 400.49 431.60 23.98 37.46 493.04 92.56

FIRR 6.3%

Sales to

EDL

Total

Financial

Revenues

Net

Financial

Benefit

Capital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam

Year


Total

Financial

Revenues

Year


Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam Net

Financial

BenefitCapital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Sales to

EDL


Scenario 3.3

Primary

(90%)

Secondary

(10%)

2012 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2013 82.50 - - - - - 82.50 - - - - (82.50)

2014 82.50 - - - - - 82.50 - - - - (82.50)

2015 82.50 - - - - - 82.50 - - - - (82.50)

2016 27.50 - - - - - 27.50 - - - - (27.50)

2017 - 2.75 0.30 0.45 4.52 3.39 11.41 25.92 1.44 2.56 29.92 18.51

2018 - 2.75 0.31 0.46 4.52 3.39 11.43 26.50 1.47 2.58 30.56 19.13

2019 - 2.75 0.31 0.47 4.52 3.39 11.44 27.10 1.51 2.61 31.22 19.77

2020 - 2.75 0.32 0.48 4.52 3.39 11.46 27.71 1.54 2.64 31.88 20.43

2021 - 2.75 0.33 0.49 4.52 3.39 11.48 28.33 1.57 2.66 32.57 21.09

2022 - 2.75 0.33 0.50 4.52 3.39 11.49 28.97 1.61 2.69 33.27 21.78

2023 - 2.75 0.34 0.51 4.52 3.39 11.51 29.62 1.65 2.72 33.98 22.47

2024 - 2.75 0.35 0.52 4.52 3.39 11.53 30.29 1.68 2.74 34.71 23.18

2025 - 2.75 0.35 0.53 4.52 3.39 11.55 30.97 1.72 2.77 35.46 23.91

2026 - 2.75 0.36 0.54 4.52 3.39 11.57 31.67 1.76 2.80 36.22 24.66

2027 - 2.75 0.37 0.56 4.52 3.39 11.59 32.38 1.80 2.83 37.00 25.42

2028 - 2.75 0.38 0.57 4.52 3.39 11.61 33.11 1.84 2.85 37.80 26.20

2029 - 2.75 0.39 0.58 4.52 3.39 11.63 33.85 1.88 2.88 38.62 26.99

2030 - 2.75 0.39 0.59 4.52 3.39 11.65 34.61 1.92 2.91 39.45 27.80

2031 - 2.75 0.40 0.60 4.52 3.39 11.67 35.39 1.97 2.94 40.30 28.63

2032 - 2.75 0.41 0.62 4.52 3.39 11.69 36.19 2.01 2.97 41.17 29.48

2033 - 2.75 0.42 0.63 4.52 3.39 11.71 37.00 2.06 3.00 42.06 30.35

2034 - 2.75 0.43 0.64 4.52 3.39 11.74 37.84 2.10 3.03 42.97 31.23

2035 - 2.75 0.44 0.66 4.52 3.39 11.76 38.69 2.15 3.06 43.90 32.14

2036 - 2.75 0.45 0.67 4.52 3.39 11.78 39.56 2.20 3.09 44.85 33.06

2037 - 2.75 0.46 0.69 4.52 3.39 11.81 40.45 2.25 3.12 45.82 34.01

2038 - 2.75 0.47 0.70 4.52 3.39 11.83 41.36 2.30 3.15 46.81 34.98

2039 - 2.75 0.48 0.72 4.52 3.39 11.86 42.29 2.35 3.18 47.82 35.97

2040 - 2.75 0.49 0.73 4.52 3.39 11.88 43.24 2.40 3.22 48.86 36.98

NPVs 262.92 36.48 4.93 7.40 59.94 45.00 406.85 431.60 23.98 37.46 493.04 86.20

FIRR 6.2%

Value of

Royalties

to GOL

Wheeling

Charges

Total

Financial

Costs

Sales to Viet Nam

Sales to

EDL

Total

Financial

RevenuesYear


Net

Financial

Benefit

Capital

Cost

Annual

O&M Cost

Annual

Insurance

Annual

Envt &

Social



2012 - - - - - - - - -

2013 78.21 - - - 78.21 - - - (78.21)

2014 78.21 - - - 78.21 - - - (78.21)

2015 78.21 - - - 78.21 - - - (78.21)

2016 26.07 - - - 26.07 - - - (26.07)

2017 - 3.05 0.45 5.16 8.66 64.00 8.89 72.89 64.23

2018 - 3.06 0.46 5.16 8.68 64.00 8.98 72.98 64.30

2019 - 3.06 0.47 5.16 8.70 64.00 9.07 73.07 64.37

2020 - 3.07 0.48 5.16 8.71 64.00 9.16 73.16 64.45

2021 - 3.08 0.49 5.16 8.73 64.00 9.25 73.25 64.52

2022 - 3.08 0.50 5.16 8.75 64.00 9.34 73.34 64.60

2023 - 3.09 0.51 5.16 8.76 64.00 9.44 73.44 64.67

2024 - 3.10 0.52 5.16 8.78 64.00 9.53 73.53 64.75

2025 - 3.10 0.53 5.16 8.80 64.00 9.63 73.63 64.83

2026 - 3.11 0.54 5.16 8.82 64.00 9.72 73.72 64.90

2027 - 3.12 0.56 5.16 8.84 64.00 9.82 73.82 64.98

2028 - 3.13 0.57 5.16 8.86 64.00 9.92 73.92 65.06

2029 - 3.14 0.58 5.16 8.88 64.00 10.02 74.02 65.14

2030 - 3.14 0.59 5.16 8.90 64.00 10.12 74.12 65.22

2031 - 3.15 0.60 5.16 8.92 64.00 10.22 74.22 65.30

2032 - 3.16 0.62 5.16 8.94 64.00 10.32 74.32 65.38

2033 - 3.17 0.63 5.16 8.97 64.00 10.42 74.42 65.46

2034 - 3.18 0.64 5.16 8.99 64.00 10.53 74.53 65.54

2035 - 3.19 0.66 5.16 9.01 64.00 10.63 74.63 65.62

2036 - 3.20 0.67 5.16 9.04 64.00 10.74 74.74 65.70

2037 - 3.21 0.69 5.16 9.06 64.00 10.85 74.85 65.79

2038 - 3.22 0.70 5.16 9.09 64.00 10.96 74.96 65.87

2039 - 3.23 0.72 5.16 9.11 64.00 11.07 75.07 65.96

2040 - 3.24 0.73 5.16 9.14 64.00 11.18 75.18 66.04

NPVs 204.42 15.32 2.58 25.55 247.87 316.61 47.07 363.68 115.81

EIRR 17.9%

82.5% 6.2% 1.0% 10.3% 100.0% 87.1% 12.9% 100.0%


Increased Reduced

NPV

(USD m) EIRR

Sensitivity

Indicator

Switching

Value

115.81 17.9%

20% 67.58 15.0% 2.08 51%

20% 107.61 17.5% 0.35 621%

20% 105.15 17.4% 0.46 368%

20% 101.78 17.2% 0.61 -100%

20% 47.87 14.6% 2.93 -35%

(15.31) 11.3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Incremental

Supply

(Lao PDR)

Total

Economic

BenefitsYear


Net

Economic


O&M,

Insurance

Costs

Envt &

Social Costs

Wheeling

Costs

Total

Economic

Costs

Fuel

Substitution

(Vietnam)


Sensitivity Tests:

Capital Costs

O&M, Insurance,

Envt&Soc Costs

Wheeling Costs

Basecase Values

Wheeling Costs

Benefits to Lao PDR

Benefits to Vietnam

Benefits to Lao PDR

Benefits to Vietnam

Test Parameters

Capital Costs




Calculation of the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) for the Substation/Transmission Line

ADB

Loan

Exim Bank

(China)

NORAD

Loan

NORAD

Grant

Government

Funds Total

A Amounts contributed (USD m) 229.30 - - - - 229.30

B Weighting 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

C Nominal cost 2.68% 2.00% 4.00% 10.00% 10.00%

D Tax rate 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00%

E Tax-adjusted nominal cost 2.41% 1.80% 3.60% 10.00% 10.00%

F Inflation rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 5.00%

G Real cost 1.90% 1.29% 3.08% 9.45% 4.76%

H Weighted component of WACC 1.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90%

WACC (Real) 1.90%

Row F: Domestic Cost Escalation Factors, 2009-2014

Country 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average

Cambodia 0.70 - 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.88

Indonesia 4.90 5.20 5.70 5.20 4.50 4.20 4.95

Lao PDR 0.10 8.20 9.00 12.00 7.50 5.00 6.97

Philippines 3.20 4.50 4.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.02

Thailand 0.90 - 3.20 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 2.63

Viet Nam 6.90 8.50 7.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.82

International Cost Escalation Factors, 2010-2020

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average

MUV Index 0.70 2.90 - 3.00 - - 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.15 -

MUV = Manufacturer's Unit Value (WB Index)

(http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,contentMDK:20587651~menuPK:3279864~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:476883,00.html)

ADB Loan

Weighting 100.0%

Nominal cost* 2.68%

Tax rate 10.00%

Tax-adjusted nominal cost 2.41%

Inflation rate 0.50%

Real cost 1.90%

Weighted component of WACC 1.90%

WACC (Real) 1.90%

* five-year fixed swap rate (March 2011)

Financing Component

Preparing the Ban Sok Pleiku Power Transmission Project in ... · ban sok – pleiku final...

Documents

Transcript of Preparing the Ban Sok Pleiku Power Transmission Project in ... · ban sok – pleiku final...