Radical incrementalism: hydropolitics and environmental discourses in Laos

ABSTRACT

The Nam Theun 2 dam is an influential case of applying safeguards to mitigate social and environmental impacts from hydropower, being used as a model for large dams globally. However, these safeguards have produced mixed results. We examine the role of safeguards in hydropower, and how stakeholders have discussed its use. Based on a literature review and stakeholder interviews, we conduct a discourse analysis of narratives used to frame hydropower. We find four discourses being used for different purposes: Green Neoliberalism to legitimize, Ecological Modernization to operationalize, Green Radicalism to criticize, and Radical Incrementalism to repurpose hydropower. Whereas green radicalism in high-income countries challenges over-consumption, we find that green radicalism in low-income countries highlights environmental justice and shortcomings of conventional development models. We argue for a broader understanding of discourses to include Radical Incrementalism as one strategy for change of careful and considered actions over time.

KEYWORDS:

• Governance
• discourse analysis
• dams
• compensation
• mitigation
• safeguards

1. Introduction

Hydropower has historically been the largest source of renewable energy (Renné 2022). In the 1960s, the World Bank (WB) funded and promoted hydropower as part of a development narrative of improving service provision to lower-income countries (Goldman 2005). However, hydropower comes with significant environmental and social costs, including poor water quality, reduced fish populations, and forced displacement of people. In response to global criticism of dams, the WB developed environmental and social safeguards (Baird et al. 2015). An example of environmental safeguard is a biodiversity offset, which is measurable action to compensate for adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project developments (Koh et al. 2019). A social safeguard is meant to avoid involuntary resettlement and mitigate social and economic impacts (World Bank 2017).

The Nam Theun 2 dam (NT2 dam) in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (hereafter Laos) was a pilot project for applying safeguards. The WB and Asian Development Bank (ADB) funded and promoted the NT2 dam as a successful model of poverty alleviation. The NT2’s perceived success made hydropower attractive to investors, with hundreds of dams planned throughout the Mekong region. Nonetheless, NT2 dam faced considerable criticism regarding the oversight of downstream impacts and inadequate compensation for displaced communities (Manorom et al. 2017, Shoemaker and Robichaud 2018).

There is considerable interest in studying discourses around hydropower, as renewable energies are a key component of efforts to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change. Frolova (2018) demonstrated how the discourses and attitudes of stakeholders shaped hydropower as part of the landscape in Sierra Nevada by integrating energy projects into local, territorial planning. Tur et al. (2018) examined conflicts around dam-building in Brazil and found the government and large corporations shared narratives grounded in techno-economic rationales, while the people directly affected by dams were discursively isolated in the debate. Similarly, in the Mekong region, hydropower narratives conflate the regulation of hydrological systems with political and economic ambitions, whereby hydrological flows are shaped by the interests of the powerful (Geheb and Suhardiman 2019).

However, few studies have examined the role of safeguards and how stakeholders have discussed using safeguards within hydropower to further their interests. For instance, Olson and Gareau (2018) argue that more attention is needed to understand how the Lao state operates in hydropower development and its practices as an authoritarian state. García et al. (2021) emphasize that the actors involved in hydropower should consider the political context and economic drivers to achieve more equitable and participatory resettlement processes. In this paper, we contribute to the scholarly debate on the disjuncture in hydropower promotion, decision-making, and accountability by exploring the use and reproduction of powerful yet conflicting narratives and the limited ability of society to voice their concerns.

We address the following research questions: What discourses frame hydropower development and their social-environmental impacts? How do different stakeholders perceive the role of safeguards in mitigating social and environmental impacts from development projects? We explore interactions between discourses, discuss how critical discourses are navigated in a context where civil society spaces are restricted, and consider how discourses shape societal perspectives. We conclude by revealing how discourses can be used for different purposes and how to question certain narratives of success fueling the expansion of infrastructure with dramatic social and ecological disruptions.

2. Discourses of environmental governance

We understand discourses as ‘specific ensembles of ideas, concepts and categorization that are produced, reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices’ (Hajer 1995, p. 45). A narrative is an account of experiences occurring over time (Bischoping and Gazso 2015). Thus, a discourse is an expression of how a certain issue is discussed; a narrative then uses one or several discourses to communicate a storyline. Examining discourses enables an investigation of power relationships and conflicting knowledge claims underlying dominant narratives on environmental governance (Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2006). Discourse analysis is also relevant for interpretative environmental policy research, as policies are the result of discursive struggles. Discourse analysis reveals the role of language in politics and practice and shows that how society makes sense of a particular environmental phenomenon is as important as the phenomenon (Hajer and Versteeg 2005).

Several discourses are used in environmental governance, with an ongoing debate between reformist and radical approaches to social-political change (Dryzek 1997, Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2006, Damiens et al. 2020). Based on a literature review, we present a discourse framework that identifies four discourses relevant to this study (Table 1). Reformist discourses emphasize technocratic and economic approaches to environmental governance. Green Neoliberalism features market solutions to address environmental challenges. Ecological Modernization claims that technological advancements and market mechanisms would create economic competitiveness and environmentally benign outcomes (Orsato and Clegg 2005). Radical discourses indicate change from perspectives of incremental interventions to fundamental systems-wide change. Green Radicalism highlights the need for a system-wide reorganization of dominant political-economic systems, whereby environmental and social justice movements are a key element (Stevenson and Dryzek 2012, Damiens et al. 2020, McPhearson et al. 2021). Radical Incrementalism is an incremental approach to change with a radically new purpose: leveraging the current system with a new intention and using multiple diversified interventions (Göpel 2016).

Table 1. Main discourses used in environmental governance.

Discourse		Basic entities recognized	Agents	References
Reformist	Green Neoliberalism	Based on market, prices, competition, and economic theory.	Homo economicus	Dryzek (1997)
	Ecological Modernization	Technocratic and market solutions to environmental problems. Benefits between environmental protection and economic growth.	Partnership between government, business, environmentalists, scientists	Dryzek (1997), Bäckstrand and Lövbrand (2006)
Radical	Green Radicalism	Coupled social-ecological impacts. Transformative change of dominant political-economic system.	Individual and collective actors	Dryzek (1997), Damiens et al. (2020), McPhearson et al. (2021)
	Radical incrementalism	Radically new purpose informs multiple and diverse incremental interventions to unlock path dependencies that keep system in old dynamic.	Individual and collective actors	Göpel (2016)

These discourses are not mutually exclusive. For instance, one common discourse is Green Governmentality, which privileges particular forms of knowledge, such as the administrative state and experts (Dryzek 1997). Significant overlaps exist between governmentality and neoliberalism, whereby administrative power strategically produces social conditions conducive to market-based values (Foucault 2008, Hamann 2009). Nonetheless, we focus on Green Neoliberalism as scholars have observed the Lao government’s top-down decision-making processes emphasize market policies (Goldman 2005, Barney 2012, Singh 2014, Olson and Gareau 2018).

Different discourses may also conflict with one another. Reformist discourses locate their environmental governance strategies in reforming existing production and consumption systems, while radical discourses argue for transformative political and institutional change (Orsato and Clegg 2005). A common critique of Ecological Modernization notes its focus on environmental reforms that overlook structural drivers behind environmental degradation (Mol et al. 2013), whereas Green Radicalism emphasizes the need for addressing coupled social-ecological impacts and structural inequalities. Perceptions of structural inequalities can be variously interpreted depending on the social-ecological contexts and the analytical lens. For example, critical studies of forest and land governance in the Global South have highlighted the roots of structural inequalities in colonial discourse and legal frameworks that have perpetuated path dependencies and continued dispossession of customary land users and indigenous peoples (Doolittle 2003, Brockhaus et al. 2021). Radical Incrementalism acknowledges the need for transformative change articulated in more radical positions without foreclosing engagement with the dominant discourse, thereby emerging as the voice of compromise and reason (Fletcher 2023).

While stakeholders can use several discourses simultaneously, identifying the main discourse can help uncover their intentions. Stakeholders can use discourses in their framing of a problem as a tool to legitimise and justify their own position in the debate, as well as to construct a reality in line with their interests (Dryzek 1997, Bacchi 2012). Problem frames are appealing narratives that link together what is assumed about the problem characteristics, their causes, and consequently, the selection of policy solutions (Hajer and Versteeg 2005, Bacchi 2009). Problem frames can be powerful and difficult to change because as ‘solutions’ become embedded in practice, they attract investments and benefit certain actors over others. Thus, we use a multi-stakeholder approach towards understanding how stakeholders frame hydropower, each with their own perspectives and interests, and how discursive power or dominance is achieved.

In the case of Laos, hydropower promises to address the presumed problem of under-utilized natural resources, which affects economic growth. External actors, such as the WB, also readily support (finance) this problem framing. Actors sharing the same understanding or representation of an issue or problem can form a discourse coalition, which adopts and repeats specific narratives and promotes particular ideas and solutions over others, to secure social legitimacy or political and economic support (Damiens et al. 2020). The unpacking of discourses around hydropower, energy, and development in Laos is necessary to understand how certain policy choices are constructed as solutions and justified as necessary for a country’s development decisions. Given Laos’s relative political and institutional stability, the study of discourses also reveals how this problematization persists over time, who perpetuates hydropower, and who benefits from it.

3. Methodology and an overview of the case study

3.1. Methods

We conducted a literature review of publicly available documentation of government policies, project reports, grey literature, and scientific papers (Table 2). We conducted a Google Scholar search of the following keywords: hydropower, dams, ‘World Bank’, safeguards, compensation, social impact, livelihoods, resettlement, biodiversity, mitigation, Laos, Mekong, and ‘NT2’. The initial search was complemented with snowball sampling (Wohlin et al. 2022), which resulted in a sample size of 49 peer-reviewed scientific papers and book chapters. We then mapped key actors by stakeholder types of project developer, government, international funding agencies, local communities, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO), and civil society organizations (CSO) in Figure 2. We distinguish ENGOs as organizations that focus on environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, and CSOs as organizations that advocate for people’s rights.

Table 2. Actors and key documents reviewed.

Stakeholder type	Actors	Key documents
Government	Government of Laos	1. 8^th Five-year National Socio-economic Development Plan 2016–2020 (2016) 2. National Green Growth Strategy of Laos to 2030 (2018) 3. National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (2000)
Civil society organizations	International Rivers	4. Submission to UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights (2019)
Environmental non-governmental organizations	WWF	5. Ten Rivers at Risk (2021)
International funding agencies	World Bank, Asian Development Bank	6. NT2 Hydroelectric Social and Environment Projects (2021a) 7. Doing a Dam Better (2010) 8. NT2 Completion Report (2019)
Project developer	NT2 Power Company	9. Project Documents (2004)

Next, we interviewed key informants with a semi-structured guide to understand individual stakeholder’s perspectives of hydropower and the role of safeguards in mitigating impacts (See Appendix for interview guide). We used snowball sampling to identify 15 interviewees, including at least one member from each stakeholder type (Table 3). A third of these interviews were expert interviews with researchers knowledgeable about a particular social context (Bogner et al. 2018). Expert interviews with those outside the process enable insights into difficult-to-access topics (Von Soest 2023). This is especially relevant given the risks of discussing sensitive issues in Laos, which the V-Dem Institute classifies as a closed autocracy (Varieties of Democracy Institute 2023). All interviewees provided informed consent before being interviewed, with data handled and stored securely to maintain anonymity. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted online, recorded, and transcribed. Each interview lasted approximately 30–60 mins. We then conducted a discourse analysis of key documents and interviews to identify narratives using the frames listed in Table 1 (Wetherell et al. 2001). The results were coded in Atlas.ti. We used a deductive approach to identify common themes in interview transcripts in relation to discourses listed in Table 1 (Saldaña 2013).

Table 3. Stakeholder types and interviewees.

Stakeholder type	Number of interviewees
Government of Laos	1
Civil society organizations	2
Local communities	1
Environmental NGOs	3
International funding agencies	1
Project developer	2
Researchers	5
Total	15

3.2. Nam Theun 2 dam

Laos is a one-party state, with a fast-growing economy from natural resource extraction and capital-intensive infrastructure development projects. Electricity generation is a key export sector, with hydropower as the primary energy source (World Bank 2021a). Foreign bilateral donors and foreign investors exercise significant influence in these sectors. The NT2 dam (Figure 1) is the largest operating hydropower project on the Mekong tributaries (World Bank 2021b). Its purpose is to generate electricity for sale to Thailand, exporting 95% of the energy produced (Baird and Quastel 2015). The Lao government used a build-operate-transfer model, where project developers and financiers handle financing, design, construction, and operations for a concessionary period of 25 years, after which the government takes over ownership of the dam (Middleton et al. 2014). We mapped the key stakeholders in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Nam Theun 2 dam site with Nakai Plateau reservoir, where project-affected people were resettled.

Source: International Rivers

Figure 2. Stakeholders of the Nam Theun 2 dam.

The NT2 dam represents an influential case of applying environmental and social safeguards required by international funding agencies (Baird and Quastel 2015, Shoemaker and Robichaud 2018). The WB assembled an independent panel of experts in dam resettlement, tropical forests, and conservation to monitor the social and environmental programs. While the panel’s interventions have helped, scholars point to limits on the effectiveness of external panels as it cannot substitute meaningful participation from civil society (Shoemaker and Robichaud 2018). In 2015, the panel refused to sign off on the scheduled closure of NT2’s resettlement program, due to concerns about its insufficient achievement. Nonetheless, the WB concluded the project met its objectives, demonstrating benefits both at local and national levels (World Bank 2019). The ADB’s (2019) assessment noted that the project achieved its intended outcomes, notably resettlement, land compensation, and livelihood programs. Table 4 describes the main environmental, social, and economic impacts along with compensation measures.

Table 4. Main impacts and compensation measures of the NT2 dam.

	Impact	Compensation
Environmental	Impacts span 3 areas: Nakai Plateau where resettlement occurred, NT2 watershed, and downstream. Losses of flora and fauna, poor water quality.	Established Nakai-Nam Theun protected area spanning 400,000 ha. Established a government agency for conservation and socio-economic development in protected areas.
Social	Direct: Loss of land, fisheries, and livelihoods for 6,300 people Indirect: Downstream impacts of 150,000 people, livelihoods, agriculture, water quality, and food security.	Direct: Resettled 6,300 people Indirect: Downstream compensation program, developers allocated $16 million USD.
Economic	Annual net revenue of $25 million USD accrued to government budget.	Developer funded $1 million USD annually for protected area management throughout the dam’s lifetime, 2010–2035, which is 4% of projected gross revenue.

4. Results

We analysed the literature and interviews to show how the discourses outlined in Table 1 are used to frame hydropower and safeguards. Figure 3 presents hydropower discourses and narratives in chronological order, from 1992 to 2020. We then explore the discursive framing of hydropower in Laos, including the NT2 dam according to its legitimizing, operational, critical, and repurposing functions (Table 5).

Figure 3. Key events noting discourses and narratives around the Nam Theun 2 (NT2) dam within the global expansion of hydropower.

Table 5. Discursive framing of hydropower in Laos.

Discourses	Function	Framing of hydropower	Narratives	Main stakeholders
Green Neoliberalism	Legitimizing	Hydropower as a source of economic growth	Battery of Southeast Asia	Government, Project developer, Funding agencies
Ecological Modernization	Operational	Hydropower with safeguards as a source of funding for biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation	Doing a Dam Better	Funding agencies, Project developer, Local communities (urban middle-class), Researchers, ENGO
Green Radicalism	Critical	Hydropower creates long-term environmental and social-cultural losses	Dead in the Water	ENGO, CSO, Researchers, Local communities
Radical incrementalism	Repurposing	Hydropower with systems-level planning to prioritize ecological flows	How much hydropower and where?	ENGO, Researchers, Government, Project developer, CSO

4.1. Legitimizing discourse: the battery of Southeast Asia

The Lao government used a key narrative of economic growth and graduating from Least Developed Country status to legitimize hydropower. This was noted in the National Growth and Poverty Eradication strategy, which stated: ‘Targeted economic growth of 7% per annum is necessary to achieve the 2020 goal of exiting least developed country status (…) This will be achieved through large-scale projects such as the NT2 hydropower project’ (Goverment of Laos 2000, p. 45). The government has ambitions to become the Battery of Southeast Asia by leveraging its hydropower potential to export energy to neighbouring countries.

The government portrayed dams as a symbol of modernity and to use its natural resources for socio-economic development. The five-year National Development Plan stated: ‘Our country’s (…) market-oriented economic reforms have brought social development and growth. Our country has abundant natural resources, (…) to be exploited for socio-economic development, for instance, hydropower’ (Government of Laos 2016, p. 82).

Thus, the government used a Green Neoliberalism discourse by promoting a persistent narrative that the nation’s natural resources were under-utilized. As a remedy, since the 1990s it adopted market-oriented economic reforms to facilitate dam building by the private sector and privatization of water resources. This neoliberal discourse to legitimize hydropower is not unique to the Lao government, but rather an overarching trend in the Mekong region, as one researcher pointed out:

One thing to be aware of in the Mekong region is that GDP is a magic number. At inter-ministerial meetings, they sit there glowering at Laos and Cambodia because these countries have 8–9% GDP growth. Thailand is slower, so it feels like it’s losing face. For Laos and other Mekong countries, maintaining that GDP level is important. It conveys status, symbolism within the region.

(Researcher 1)

However, the flow and distribution of economic benefits within the host country need to be scrutinized. Under a build-operate-transfer contract, project developers have full decision-making power on profit structures during the initial period while long-term social-environmental implications, maintenance, and decommissioning costs are deferred to the government (Olson and Gareau 2018). This has emerged as a principal model for hydropower in Laos, which has left the government and local stakeholders with a disproportionate share of risks compared to benefits for developers and financiers (Middleton et al. 2014). Moreover, the distribution of benefits is unclear. One United Nations expert stressed the failure to connect economic growth to poverty reduction: ‘In 2017, the hydropower sector generated less than 1% of GDP as government revenue. The Lao Government failed to sufficiently invest in basic services to support people in escaping poverty’ (Alston 2019, p. 7). While national economic development is one narrative used to legitimize hydropower, as these studies note, it has not translated into significant economic benefits for the society at large.

4.2. Operational discourse: doing a dam better

Project developers and funding agencies promoted hydropower through a common narrative of innovations, such as safeguards, which would help address adverse impacts. The WB supported the government and project developer’s efforts to build a dam more sustainably through mitigation programs. The WB published its ‘Doing a Dam Better’ report to ‘demonstrate hydropower can be designed and implemented to deliver sustainable outcomes through state-of-the-art environmental and social practices (…), but this takes a long time” (Porter and Shivakumar 2011, p. 22).

With social safeguards, the government, project developer, and funding agency framed hydropower as a means of reducing poverty and providing better services to rural communities. The government’s National Development Plan (2016–2020) stated their ‘focus on hydropower (…) as a sustainable income-generating sector to support production and solve poverty’ (2016, p. 96). The WB emphasized the compensation programs and resettlement villages for project-affected people (Porter and Shivakumar 2011). In addition, scholars found that the WB’s requirements for public participation created possibilities for engagement not provided by any other project (Singh 2009). The NT2 dam had one of the most thorough safeguards applications due to transparent documentation and intense public scrutiny (Middleton et al. 2014). Its extensive planning and design processes prompted national legal provisions for safeguards and a decree on compensation in development projects for free, prior, and informed consultations in Laos.

The addition of environmental safeguards enabled the project developer and funding agency to frame hydropower as a means of financing biodiversity conservation, with $1.3 million USD allocated annually to the protected area. The Lao government created a new agency to manage conservation and socio-economic development in the protected area. Additionally, if the mitigation program failed to reach its goals, the program timeline was extended, and the project developer was required to provide supplementary funds. This feature is unique to WB safeguards and is not (yet) a requirement from other funders. Several interviewees discussed this with varying perspectives. Researchers, ENGOs, and CSOs were in favor of an outcomes-based approach to safeguards, while project developers and funding agencies expressed difficulties in moving the goalposts. The narratives of safeguards focused on technological advancement and co-benefits of poverty alleviation, environmental protection, and economic growth, which reiterates an Ecological Modernization discourse.

4.3. Critical discourse: dead in the water

In contrast to legitimizing and operational discourses, a critical discourse emerged from several stakeholders that questioned the safeguards’ ecological and social effectiveness. Despite considerable attention to environmental mitigation, the project’s inability to effectively protect the watershed is a significant shortcoming (World Bank 2021b, p. viii). While conservation funding is beneficial, several interviewees questioned the ecological equivalence of offsetting the dam’s aquatic impacts with a terrestrial protected area:

It is good to conserve Nakai Plateau with elephants, tigers, and large terrestrial mammals. But this is not mitigating biodiversity impacts of a river, it diverts attention from addressing fisheries and aquatic impacts.

(ENGO 1)

Another interviewee remarked on the offset being located upstream, which is beneficial for the developer:

A dam operator is concerned about the upstream where a rainforest is the best thing to have, so sand doesn’t wash into the reservoir. The dam operator becomes your best ally for creating a national park.

(ENGO 2)

Studies also suggest major difficulties in properly compensating long-term losses of livelihood and people’s way of life (e.g. Shoemaker and Robichaud 2018, Scudder 2020). One CSO explained:

Compensation in cash is insufficient to replace lost income and food sources. Replacement land, where provided, is of lower quality or unsuitable for agriculture. Villagers have complained of poor-quality housing that does not meet cultural or social requirement.

(International Rivers 2019, p. 2)

Cultural heritage and sense of place are embedded in ancestral lands, which cannot be easily commensurated with lands in the resettlement village. A project developer who empathised with project-affected people described:

In 2018, I visited their (project-affected people’s) rice fields and it was flooded. We compensated them but they laboured and cared for their garden with their hearts. This grandma and grandpa, when I took them to visit their flooded garden, they were very sad.

(Project Developer 2)

A Green Radicalism discourse is used to criticize hydropower. Green Radicalism is often associated with challenging over-consumption and fundamentally restructuring the state and market in response to the environmental crisis (Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2006). However, we suggest that Green Radicalism in lower-income countries leads to the marginalisation of local communities and the inadequacies of conventional development models. Green Radicalism in relation to NT2 does not focus on hydropower itself but on its implementation and distributional effects (Suhardiman et al. 2019). In terms of implementing social safeguards, six interviewees emphasized the difficulty of meaningful participation from local communities.¹ The lack of grievance mechanisms makes it complicated to hold developers accountable, as one CSO member explained:

When developers consulted a village, they just told villagers the dam will be there. Communities didn’t get enough information and were not involved in decision-making. We tried to use legal mechanisms, but no one could represent ethnic people because in Laos it’s dangerous if someone raises their concerns.

(CSO 1)

Two interviewees brought up the risk of disappearances, with one emphasizing their advocacy role:

In Laos, there is no space for meaningful consultation with civil society. Civil society does not exist since Sombath Somphone’s kidnapping in 2012. That sent a chilling effect across the country and its effects are still felt today (Researcher 4).²

My involvement included supporting, advising, and speaking up for local people. In the Mekong countries, not everybody can speak up freely.

(CSO 2)

One interviewee emphasized the role of public pressure:

Safeguards cannot be considered outside of the political context; they only work with political support. Unfortunately, any significant changes made to any dam had little to do with safeguards and instead with how much public pressure was put on them by NGOs and media.

(Researcher 2)

Laos presents a challenging context to promote public participation due to limits on civil society and an absence of domestic non-government organizations (Singh 2009). Public space for dissent is highly restricted without freedom of expression, which has prevented people from raising grievances (Alston 2019). In countries with such constraints on civil society, CSOs, and ENGOs play an important part in raising awareness and applying public pressure.

4.4. Repurposing discourse: how much hydropower and where?

The current dam portfolio in the Mekong Basin is based on project-by-project planning (Schmitt et al. 2018). Several interviewees advocated instead for a systemic approach of hydropower planning at the basin scale to prioritize ecological flows.³ One interviewee stated:

System-scale planning is needed to identify pathways that meet national/regional electricity needs, while conserving core ecological flows.

(Researcher 5)

Interviewees proposed various interventions within a systems-scale planning approach, where the selection of dam location was highlighted as a key stage for intervention⁴:

The question is how much hydropower and where, not how safeguards are implemented. Project design and operation are 10% of the question, 90% is the where.

(ENGO 3)

The project becomes too big to fail. A project’s fate is decided once the location is chosen. The siting determines how much can be avoided, minimised, or mitigated.

(ENGO 2)

Some dam locations are not good. It should depend on surveys, analyses, and consultations with all stakeholders. We should ask who will benefit - Project owner? Government? Community? If they all agree with the same vision, then it’s fine to build.

(Project Developer 1)

Although surveying the suitability of project location is the first step of an environmental impact assessment, with large-scale hydropower development, projects are highly likely to be carried out despite adverse findings from environmental impact studies.

Some interviewees also proposed a cumulative impact assessment.⁵ This considers aggregate impacts of multiple planned and existing dams, which is relevant given the Mekong river has approximately a dozen large dams on the mainstem that is the principal watercourse in a riverine drainage system (Soukhaphon et al. 2021). One interviewee noted:

Individual dams may have a minimal impact on the river’s biodiversity, but all together? They pose the biggest threat.

(ENGO1)

Other interventions include transboundary coordination.⁶ Regional planning agencies could use basin-level information to identify trade-offs and optimize for multiple environmental, social, and economic values, as one interviewee explained:

The Mekong River is transboundary; managing its river flows requires coordination with neighbouring governments on socio-economic costs and benefits.

(Researcher 5)

These suggested actions point to a Radical Incrementalism discourse to repurpose hydropower away from an ad hoc approach towards systems-level planning. Multiple interventions such as better dam siting, cumulative impact assessments, and transboundary coordination were suggested. This can enable a new purpose where the emphasis is on optimizing dam location and hydropower is strategically planned to prioritize free-flowing rivers, where ecosystem functions and services are largely unaffected by changes to connectivity (Thieme et al. 2021). As Researcher 4 articulated:

Instead of harping on improved safeguards, we’ve said [to the Lao Government] the project-by-project approach has caused many problems. How can we have better control and management of electricity? How can we optimize environmental and social outcomes? We push for smarter planning and scenario analysis when developing future dams. There’s no anti-dam message; it’s just to find better places. [for dams]

(Researcher 4)

Based on these results, Table 5 summarizes each discourse according to its key functions, framing of hydropower, narratives, and main stakeholders.

5. Discussion

5.1. Exploring interactions between discourses

Stakeholders strategically use discourses to advocate for their interests. The government, project developers, and funding agencies commonly used Green Neoliberalism and Ecological Modernization discourses. The government adopted Green Neoliberal reforms selectively when they conveniently align with state political-economic interests, such as a priority for economic growth under a ‘market-oriented economy with a socialist orientation’ (Government of Laos 2006, p. 42). The government and project developers have also used Green Neoliberalism in their choice of dam locations, historically determined from a cost-efficiency standpoint. Despite limited evidence on whether hydropower delivers economic benefits to the Lao society, over a hundred dams are planned for along Mekong tributaries. Economic growth is prioritized through reforms focused on foreign investment in natural resource extraction, with little consideration of social-ecological impacts. Water resources have been privatized for electricity generation at the expense of local communities who are relocated into resettlement villages and charged fees for water access. Stakeholders who profit from infrastructure development have reinforced these policy choices.

The emphasis on safeguards uses an Ecological Modernization discourse, where a technocratic and market approach is pitched as a solution to environmental problems. A coalition of stakeholders stressed that dams can be built better as safeguards will address social and environmental challenges. The WB focused on technical aspects of safeguards such as impact analysis, mitigation planning, resettlement, and monitoring. The government highlighted how safeguards create certain socio-economic benefits such as the provision of infrastructure and health services to rural communities.

Furthermore, we noted a key distinction in how safeguards are framed and the extent of change they may create. Within an Ecological Modernization discourse, safeguards are used as a strategy to improve business-as-usual approaches to dam building. With a Radical Incrementalism discourse, safeguards would also be used but only after reconsidering the purpose of the dam. The focus of Radical Incrementalism is on the dam location and how it can increase the wellbeing and life quality of the people of Laos, as well as enhancing the resilience of ecosystems.

5.2. Radical and reformist: navigating critical discourses

Several interviewees were critical, with responses ranging from strong opposition to all new dams to reformist approaches of strategic planning. ENGOs, CSOs, and researchers who strongly opposed hydropower development used Green Radicalism discourses that call for transformative change of current development to reduce threats to nature and people among (Manorom et al. 2017, Shoemaker and Robichaud 2018). Whereas Green Radicalism has historically focused on ecological costs, Green Radicalism in this study is tied to social-environmental justice concerns around displacements of local communities and deprivation of their livelihoods (Martin et al. 2020). Social-environmental injustice is often tied to existing and historical social inequalities, and distributional conflicts. This was observed as CSOs and researchers highlighted highly unequal benefit distribution from hydropower. Hydropower in Laos has made vulnerable people worse off with inadequate land and unsuitable alternative livelihoods while sidelining their participation in decisions concerning resettlement.

Some interviewees expressed resignation not only to poor safeguard implementation but also to the current development model where the total costs of dams often exceed the total benefits. An environmental justice framework with distributive, procedural, and recognition dimensions can guide efforts toward more equitable development (Martin et al. 2020). For instance, a justice framework would highlight how sections of society impacted by dams do not have access to grievance mechanisms and transparent information (procedural justice), where customary land rights and traditional agriculture systems are not recognized (recognition justice), and redistribution of benefits through fair compensation and access to adequate land with affordable energy for liveable futures (Siciliano and Urban 2017).

Some interviewees used Radical Incrementalism to advocate for systems-level planning with various interventions such as cumulative impact assessments and transboundary coordination. Unless powerful actors indicate a clear willingness to change, initiatives that propose too large a change too quickly (such as halting all future hydropower projects) will likely get rejected. We highlight that the political context shapes how radical or reformist approaches are interpreted. Reformist strategies can be perceived as radical in certain contexts, particularly under authoritarian regimes. In neighbouring Myanmar that has faced decades of military rule, resistance movements to hydropower encompass careful and considered actions over time, even over generations (Middleton et al. 2019). These strategic acts of slow resistance can generate incremental shifts in policy and power structures, which reflects the situation in a closed autocracy (Fung and Lamb 2023). Radical Incrementalism represents one pragmatic strategy for ensuring continued efforts towards a new purpose of prioritizing ecologically valuable basins.

5.3. Shaping civil society perspectives

We noticed limited Green Radicalism from those impacted the most: local communities. Several reasons could influence this finding. First, the COVID-19 pandemic restricted fieldwork and we conducted online interviews, which skewed the representation to international actors. Furthermore, it could be due to constraints on civil society. ENGOs, CSOs, and researchers highlighted that the political context in Laos leaves little space for alternative voices that oppose development. Several interviewees emphasized the dangers of speaking out as civil society actors have disappeared (UNHCR 2022). Dominant narratives also sustain status quo interests; scholars suggest the Lao government controls public participation as a tool to support and justify their development interests (Suhardiman and Geheb 2021).

We noted that part of the Lao society, particularly the growing middle class, may agree with the dominant discourses of Ecological Modernization and Green Neoliberalism. This could be due to the well-connected urban middle class that has benefited most from hydropower and economic growth, in contrast to project-affected people. These dominant sections of the Lao society could also be influenced by the dominant discourse of economic development and growth that the government has consistently trumpeted over the past decades. In addition, a coalition of powerful external actors such as the WB and ADB have contributed sizeable finance flows to fund infrastructure development in Laos (Singh 2009). This demonstrates the power of discourses and capital investments in shaping societal perspectives, coupled with a lack of alternative public space to challenge dominant discourses.

6. Conclusion

We analysed and discussed how stakeholders perceive a certain policy solution such as hydropower and its safeguards. We revealed how discourses can be used for different purposes: Green Neoliberalism to legitimize, Ecological Modernization to operationalize, Green Radicalism to criticize and Radical Incrementalism to repurpose hydropower. Stakeholders employed various discourses depending on their interests. The government emphasized modernity and socio-economic benefits of hydropower. Funding agencies and project developers highlighted how safeguards can provide a model to address social and environmental issues. In contrast, researchers, ENGOs, and CSOs were critical, with responses ranging from strong opposition of all future dams to repurposing hydropower for systems-level planning with diverse interventions. Critical stakeholders drew attention to the mixed social-ecological outcomes of hydropower.

Whereas Green Radicalism in high-income countries is often associated with challenging over-consumption, Green Radicalism in low-income countries highlights environmental justice and shortcomings of conventional development models focused on economic growth that results in significan environmental and social costs for local communities. We argue for a broader understanding of critical environmental discourses to include Radical Incrementalism as one strategy for change of purposeful actions over time. We also demonstrated the powerful influence of dominant discourses such as Green Neoliberalism and Ecological Modernization on shaping societal perspectives on hydropower in Laos, and particularly where restrictions on public opinions may limit agency to create narratives of alternative development pathways. Further research could explore different socio-economic groups of Laotian citizens, from rural project-affected people to urban middle-class groups, and their perspectives on discourses such as Green Radicalism.

Lastly, while hydropower is considered a clean energy source, the overall benefits are questionable as long-term costs are often not considered, with the highest costs falling onto the most vulnerable. For hydropower development to be an engine for growth and to generate social-economic benefits for all as envisioned by the Lao government, a justice framework with inclusive and meaningful public participation, recognition of customary rights, and fair compensation is critical if hydropower is to contribute to a more sustainable and equitable future.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our interviewees for being generous with their time and expertise, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This paper had its research ethics approved by the research ethics committee of the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) at Stockholm University under the ID: ‘2020-011_Koh_Safeguards of a dam’.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (Formas) [Project No. 2016-01556 and No. 2019-01078] and RIHN, Japan [FairFrontiers, Project No. 14200149].

Notes

1. 2 Researchers, 2 ENGOs, 1 CSO, 1 Project developer.

2. Sombath Somphone, a prominent civil society member, disappeared at a police checkpoint in Vientiane, Laos on 15 December 2012 (UNHCR 2022).

3. 2 Researchers, 3 ENGOs, 1 Government.

4. 3 ENGOs, 2 Researchers, 1 Project developer.

5. 2 Researchers, 1 ENGO, 1 CSO.

6. 2 ENGO, 1 Researcher.

Appendix

1. Interview guide

Table

What is your experience with the NT2 dam? What are the benefits? Were these achieved, at local or national levels? What were the environmental and social impacts? Since the dam has been operational, were these impacts properly addressed? What worked well with the environmental and social programs? What were the challenges in implementing these environmental and social programs? What could be improved for future hydropower projects? What role will hydropower play in Laos’ national development strategy?