Càlcul de producció

An often neglected factor in the perception of risk is the perceived susceptibility, i.e. the individuals’ judgement of the factors which determine the “degree to which a system is modified or affected by flooding and salinity” (see definition of susceptibility in section 2.4; based on Gallopin 2006: 295; Birkmann 2013: 25). It is the second of two components in the individual threat appraisal which influence an agent’s decision to cope with or adapt to given hazards. The following section is based upon an analysis of the individuals’ perception of the susceptibility indicators presented in section 5.2.3.

Generally, households were well aware of their susceptibility with regard to tangible factors, i.e. households knew how many plots they possessed, were aware of the number of different commodities produced, and knew how many sources of income the family had. Accordingly, they were also well aware of the fact that they did not have any or had few other farm-based sources of income in the event of crop failure due to salinity/flooding. In these cases most of the households

also did not seem to bank on the government. In the group discussions and in the interviews, households reported that compensation for crop failure was only paid in the rice-producing hamlets and in this case it was the first time that such support was received. Moreover, the majority of households knew that the government would not provide compensation again if the rice farmers decided to produce winter-spring rice in the following dry seasons. The households furthermore found that the amount of support was, in any case, too low to compensate for the large losses. In the group discussions and in the interviews, the participants agreed to the fact that there were no other short-term support measures in the event of losses.

In contrast, there was less knowledge of the sensitivity of the produced commodity in the season of highest flooding/salinity exposure – a central determinant of susceptibility (see section 5.2.3). The interviews pointed out that this was most notable in the salinity affected rice-producing areas before 2011. In 2011, when most people lost all their rice production, this awareness changed (see section 5.2.1). The group discussions with households and government authorities (conducted in early 2012) revealed that most participants were aware of the effects of salinity on crop productivity, soil quality and related diseases (GD-A-DX-0114, GD-A-NB-0113, GD-H-SV-1229). Based on these assumptions, most of the participants judged that winter-spring rice is highly sensitive to saline intrusion. Moreover, there was only little knowledge about the salinity resistance of different rice varieties, according to the production-centred interviews. Governmental officials, especially the agricultural staff, showed more awareness and knowledge of the sensitivity of different rice varieties103.

Among the flood affected households the awareness and know-how of the sensitivity of crops and aquaculture species seemed to be higher than in the rice-producing hamlets. Generally, the degree of production loss in the most recent case of adverse tidal flooding (most commonly the households referred to 2011) was felt to be higher by aquaculture producers than by sugarcane producers, according to the household survey and the CBAs. The know-how about the sensitivity of different varieties was higher in the flood-affected areas than in the rice-producing areas, most notably among sugarcane farmers104.

For sugarcane and aquaculture production, the quality and height of the individual embankment or earth wall around the field/pond was a central driver of susceptibility to tidal flooding (see section 5.2.3). In the sugarcane-producing hamlets, most households judged their susceptibility as low due to the low quality of the embankment. Only six households in the survey thought that they were affected because the quality of the construction material was too low so that the earth wall became more prone to gradual erosion and sudden breakages. The other 48 households where the levee was breached anticipated that it was only a result of the high water level and pressure irrespective of the quality of the embankment. The government officials on hamlet and commune levels opined that the main reason for the high number of damaged embankments was the low quality of the embankments (GD-A-KS-0112, AI-C-KS-1103, AI-H-BXD-0419). The households which did not report having had a levee breach thought that the embankment was too low so that water could overtop the crest of the embankment, i.e. the height of the embankment was judged to be of higher relevance to the perceived susceptibility than the quality. In the aquaculture hamlets, more households seemed to think that the quality of their embankment made them more susceptible to tidal flooding. Around one third of all households who reported an embankment breach believed that the reason was its low quality. This awareness was shared by the local authorities who often argued for better preparation of the embankments (GD-A-DX-0114, AI-H-LS-0331). Like the sugarcane producers, the majority of aquaculturalists who did not report a breached dike thought that the height of the dike was the main reason for their losses.

103

This know-how of variety related sensitivity of households and authorities was not further validated with more in-depth interviews, though.

104