The Indian water grab

(1)

1

The Indian water grab

A case study on the perceived socioeconomic impacts of small-scale

brackish aquaculture farms in Cuddalore District, India.

Figure 1: Aquafarmer checking the size of the prawns

(van der Kust, 2017)

(2)

2

Bachelor Thesis Human Geography

Future Planet Studies

University of Amsterdam

Author: Chanti van der Kust

Student ID: 10766146

Email: chantivdkust@hotmail.com

Supervisor: dhr. J.V. Rothuizen MSc

Second assessor: dhr. M.A. Verzijl MSc

Date: June, 2017

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

In the process of writing this thesis, there are some people that deserve my gratitude. First and foremost, I would like to say special thanks to my supervisor: Jaap Rothuizen. The continuous support, knowledge and especially motivating words have been inspiring and helpful. Second, my translator Buna has been the bridge between two languages and cultures, she deserves my gratitude for being able to help me understand the Indian culture and habits. Ultimately, I would like to show my appreciation to the friend who was willing to read my entire thesis and give her honest opinion and feedback: Corine Fontijn. Her enthusiasm and comments have truly been helpful in finishing this thesis.

(4)

4

Abstract

In Cuddalore, the aquaculture industry has been thriving since 1991. Aquaculture is often considered a pragmatic step in the development of developing countries. Nonetheless, the operations of the upcoming aquaculture industry in Cuddalore provoke a rejuvenation of water allocation rights and result in changes in the distribution of the benefits and challenges of accessing water. In this paper is argued that these changes in water use and tenure can be understood as a form of water grabbing. Hence, it results in a relocation of water control from the government to the aquaculture industry, in which the previous users of the water are marginalised. This may drive social, economic and political disparities and thus increase the potential for conflict. The export-oriented character of the aquaculture industry primarily benefits the economic elite and the government. This increases the political influence of the farmers and legitimises the permission for aquafarmers to use natural resources. Agriculture farmers, fishermen and the local people, on the contrary, face growing threats to their livelihoods: the exploitation of water resources causes deterioration of water and agricultural land. With the use of a case study, the research is aimed to show the dynamics of marginalisation linked to the aquaculture industry and uses emerging conflicts to analyse the allocation of natural resources and the underlying political, economic and social relationships.

(5)

5

1. Introduction

Over the last decade, aquaculture has grown into one of the fastest growing primary industry sectors in the world. This growth has been stimulated by the awareness of intrinsic limitations to the productivity of aquatic ecosystems that have been exploited by humans (Finegold, 2009). The overexploitation of the world's major capture fisheries and the projected increase in demand for aquatic foods has been well documented. The harvesting of fish, or aquaculture, has the potential to meet this growing fish demand (FAO, 2011). It now accounts for nearly 50 percent of the global food-fish consumption and is the fastest growing primary production sector, with an annual growth rate of approximately 7 percent (FAO, 2011).

Additionally, aquaculture is often considered a pragmatic step in the development and modernization strategies of developing countries (FAO, 2005). This is further emphasized by the increasing importance that the Food and Agriculture Organization has put on ‘blue growth’, the need for marine and maritime sectors to sustainably grow in order to meet food demand, including aquaculture (Ababouch, 2015). Aquaculture not only provides employment (Lucas, 2015), it is also recognised as an important contributor to economic revenue (Finegold, 2009) by making use of the international market. India has evolved to the second largest aquaculture production country in the world, producing 4.65 million tonnes in 2010 compared to 0.37 million tonnes in 1980 (FAO, 2011). The Indian fisheries sector, including aquaculture, meets the Indian food and nutritional needs, provides employment for 14.5 million people and contributes in foreign exchange earnings of US$ 2.5 billion in 2011 (Kutty, 2013).

Although brackish water aquaculture has the potential to boost the economy of India, it can be questioned whether it benefits local inhabitants in terms of sustained socio-economic benefits (Kagoo & Rajalakshmi, 2002). The concerns enclose the relationship between the growth of the aquaculture sector and its pressure on the environment due to an unfair distribution of natural resources over different actors, which is being stimulated by the institutional framework (TNI, 2014). This process can be referred to as water grabbing and has in many cases developed into conflicts between different stakeholders (Kiessling, 2006; Kagoo & Rajalakshmi, 2002; Cabot, 2017).

This study attempts to give ethnographic accounts on how the attitudes and responses to aquaculture are formed and represented, both from outside and within the sector. Much emphasis has been given to benefits of aquaculture for economic purposes, however an analysis of the situation from different perspectives, as well as recognizing the potential of negative aspects, seems of crucial importance. Since the conveying of power and access to water for one group of actors, may marginalise another group of actors, it is interesting to assess the structures of the relationships between them. On the basis of an in-depth case study in Cuddalore, this study tries to investigate the attitudes and perceptions of different stakeholders concerning the upcoming aquaculture sector in relation to its benefits, possibilities and challenges and its effects on the people involved. Thus, an assessment of how different actors may navigate the existing institutional structures to their own benefits,

(7)

7 in which other actors are eradicated, may also generate interesting conclusions. The following research question has been formulated to investigate this:

What are the perceived socioeconomic impacts of small-scale brackish aquaculture farms with respect to ecosystem services in Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu?

The first chapter of this thesis provides the theoretical framework exhibiting relevant concepts and theories from academic literature. Additionally, the methodology regarding the fieldwork will be explained. This part includes a justification for the choices made in preparing and executing the fieldwork. The results will be discussed in the following chapters. In this section, the rules and regulations on aquaculture will be given. Subsequently, the focus will scale down to explore the organization, practices and dynamics of the researched farms. Then, the different perspectives on aquaculture will be elaborated on. Following, the results of the fieldwork will be elaborated and analysed with the use of the theories discussed in the theoretical framework. Ultimately, the results and theoretical concepts will be used to give an answer to the research question and a discussion will be presented.

(8)

8

2. Theoretical framework

Before the primary research can be conducted, it is important to highlight several concepts and relations key to the research and problem. These concepts will elaborate on the research question to provide a better understanding of the topic. This theoretical framework will include the context of aquaculture in relation to its benefits and challenges.

2.1 Aquaculture

2.1.1 Benefits and promises of aquaculture

As the food demand, and especially the demand for seafood has been an increasing trend worldwide, fish stocks have not been able to regenerate fast enough to keep pace. This has increased the importance of aquaculture in the global food supply (FAO, 2011). Aquaculture is defined by the NOAA as the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of plants and animals in all types of water environments mainly for food production (NOAA, 2016). It differs from traditional fisheries in two fundamental ways: there is ownership of stock and manipulation of parameters to enhance its production (Lucas, 2015).

There are however some similarities to traditional capture fisheries, including that aquaculture is normally promoted to achieve central goals, such as (i) increased income, (ii) employment generation and (iii) increased availability of fish for local/regional/national consumption (Lucas, 2015).

Box 1.1

2.1.2 Aquaculture given central goals

Income

Overall, aquaculture has shown exponential growth as industrial system. With a production of 5.29 million tonnes of fish through aquaculture in 2012, India has evolved as second among countries being active in aquaculture (FAO, 2016). Fish continues to be one of the most-traded food commodities worldwide. It is especially important for developing countries, sometimes worth half the total value of their traded commodities (FAO, 2014).

Employment

Around the world, 58.3 million people were engaged in the primary sector of capture fisheries and aquaculture in 2012. Of these people, 84% was employed in Asia (FAO, 2014). While the number of traditional catch fishermen has decreased over the last few years, the number of aquaculture farmers has increased by 5.5 percent every year (FAO, 2016).

Food availability

Aquaculture has increased the availability of fish and contributed to the consumption of fish production worldwide. It enabled to satisfy the growth in fish demand, which decreases the pressure on wild fish stocks, allowing these to regenerate at their normal pace (HLPE, 2014).

(9)

9 Given these central goals, several studies have shown that aquaculture brings multiple benefits to local communities. For instance, in Bangladesh, the perceptions among respondents of the benefits of fish farming were optimistic. In comparison to 5 years ago, their food and fish consumption had increased and they had benefited from employment and cash incomes. Besides, the conditions of natural resources had not declined (Asian Development Bank, 2005). Another research (Aganyira, 2005) conducted in Uganda about the socioeconomic roles of fish farming in people’s livelihoods, finds that fish farming improves most of the livelihoods of those engaged in the industry. These benefits constitute an improved food supply and/or employment and increased incomes.

2.2 The use of natural resources

As can be concluded from the above sections, aquaculture brings benefits in terms of income, food availability and employment. However, as can be seen in many industries depending on natural resources, some people benefit while others may be deprived (Kleinen, 2003; Homer-Dixon, 1991). The benefits of the aquaculture industry are also unequally distributed. Hardin’s ‘common property theory’ claims that individuals tend to exploit a common resource on such a scale that over-exploitation affects all the other users (Hardin, 1968). This theory also applies to the aquaculture sector. Since coastal communities rely on natural resources for their professions and livelihoods (Kagoo & Rajalakshmi, 2002), the arrival of a new industry that also uses these resources will undoubtedly result in competition for these resources (Kleinen, 2003).

2.2.1 Land availability and quality

Since the 1950s, Common Property Resources, like wastelands and community ponds, in India declined in area and quality. Strong political lobbying for land reforms in India converted Common Property Resources into land for elites (Vija & Narain, 2016). In India, government-owned wastelands are referred to as ‘poramboke’ lands (Baka, 2013). These poramboke lands are important for supporting livelihoods especially of small, landless households that have little alternative means of private assets (Vija & Narain, 2016). Presently, the manner in which aquaculture is practiced, using modern farming techniques, poses political, social and environmental challenges. These challenges provoke conflicts between stakeholders who are competing over valuable land (Vija & Narain, 2016). The acquisition of land for aquaculture activities depends on the general system of land ownership and land holding in each national jurisdiction (FAO, 2011). A contrast in aquaculture activity is recognized between states that allow private ownership of land and those that subject the land ownership to state control. Several landlords in Tamil Nadu, a state that allows private ownership of land, sold their land to aqua enterprises for a high price. This practice worsened the landlessness amongst farmers, as the conversion of fertile agricultural lands into aqua farms led to many conflicts; the most pressing being that the employees cultivating under tenancy farming lost their livelihood (Kagoo & Rajalakshmi, 2002).

(10)

10 Moreover, Kagoo and Rajalakshmi (2002) acknowledge the dilemma of commonalities in their research. This research observed a conflict between traditional fishermen and aquaculture farmers. Coastal communities are well-known for their dependence on obtained food, work and income for a decent livelihood from the stock of living resources of the oceans and seas. Especially the rural poor benefit from the free access to oceans and seas. This open access system allowed the fishermen to use the seafront for their livelihoods. Coastlines in general, are common property resources (Hardin, 1968). In Nagapattinam in Tamil Nadu and in Kandlera creek in Andhra Pradesh, the coastlines have been used to set up shrimp farms, without proper systems for their supervision and monitoring. These aquaculture farms fenced off the used area, without paying regard to the hardships of local fishermen who traditionally benefited from open access to the seashore. This resulted in conflicts between the aquafarmers and the local fishermen, due to limited access to fish for the local fishermen (Kagoo & Rajalakshmi, 2002).

The perceptions of the benefits of fish farming in Bangladesh, in the research of the Asian Development Bank (2005) were positive. Nevertheless, the direct beneficiaries of aquaculture development are primarily fishpond owners or those who have secured access and tenure rights over appointed areas of land and water. Without binding and long-term agreements on access rights, traditional fish farmers are vulnerable and do not benefit from the new fish farming methods (Asian Development Bank, 2005).

2.3 Water grabbing 2.3.1 Water grabbing defined

In consideration of the access and tenure rights of areas of land and water, discussed in the section above, aquaculture is nowadays associated with the concept of water grabbing. The use, right to use and access to water is pivotal for the many purposes the resource serves. Conflicts are not simply about scarcity of the resource, but more specifically about competitive access by different societal groups who intend to use these resources differently (Cabot, 2017: 35). Water grabbing involves the capturing of decision-making power and control of the water resource by powerful actors for their own benefits, at the expense of previous local users and the ecosystems on which the livelihoods of those users are based (TNI, 2014). This means that water grabbing does not encompass the control of the water itself, but also the power to determine how the water will be used and by whom (Franco et al., 2013). Aquaculture is a dynamic industry whereby control over aquatic resources is captured by the regime, at the expense of the people depending on these resources and the resilience of marine ecosystems (TNI, 2014). By grabbing water upon which communities rely, aquaculture further increases fishing communities’ vulnerability (Rulli et al., 2013).

2.3.2 How does water grabbing take place?

Grabbing takes place in both legal and illegal ways. The means by which powerful actors gain and maintain access to benefit from water resources often involves a legal but illegitimate framework. In general, water grabbing is facilitated by the state in which the grabbing takes place. Governments may have special interests in large investments for a variety of reasons, such as a generation of economic benefits by the water grabbers. Therefore, state organisations can reform, bend or interpret the existing balance of power by rules and regulations that should prevent water grabbing from taking place. The powerful actors or grabbers make use of the legal complexity with regard to water rights to achieve their goals (TNI, 2014). Sosa and Zwarteveen describe a mining case in Peru where the

(11)

11 regional water authorities left all responsibility for water management to the mining company. This company became the de facto water management authority (Mehta et al., 2012), which means that they control water management in practice, even if not legally authorised.

Resource grabbing in general refers to allocation of natural resources, including land and water, and the control of their associated uses and benefits, usually with the transfer of ownership from the poor and marginalised to the powerful actors (Mehta et al., 2012). When the grabbed land is inundated, the availability and quality of irrigation water in the surrounding and/or downstream areas can be reduced (TNI, 2014). In Mehta et al. (2012) a case is described in which upstream land use pollutes drinking water sources of downstream communities. As a consequence of the grabbed water, water stress may occur, the available amount of water is exceeded by the demand, which can cause deterioration of fresh water resources in terms of quantity and quality (Holden, 2014) Water stress can initiate social unrest (TNI, 2014).

Water grabbing is inducing water tenure relations in favour of the powerful actors. The poor communities, especially from rural areas, experience a change in water distribution in which they either lose direct access to water, or the ability to use the water resources is declined (TNI, 2014). Water, for local communities, is both a basis of livelihoods and a factor of production. As water grabbing can be seen as a confiscation of control, it is marked by conflict, negotiation and friction that can disorganize the existing balance of power within the community. Water grabbing can potentially have serious consequences on humans and nature, especially for small-scale rural or fishing communities (Bavinck et al., 2016). In general, the legal pluralism of water grabbing makes it difficult for local users to defend their claims on the ecosystem services (TNI, 2014).

2.4 Stakeholder perspectives

One aspect that has been mentioned in abundance in literature, is the abundance of people involved and affected in the aquaculture industry. An individual or a group of individuals that has an effect on the company, either directly or indirectly, or who can be affected by it, either positively or negatively, is generally referred to as a stakeholder (Freeman, 1984). An important division is made between stakeholders that are active or potentially active and those who are affected by the company and those who affect it. Furthermore, in analysing stakeholders, it is necessary to know (i) who the stakeholders are, (ii) what their interests are, (iii) how they try to obtain their interests (Ferrary, 2009).

The confiscation of control that characterizes water grabbing is often marked by conflict between different groups of people (TNI, 2014). Conflicting interests exist if the desire or goal of one stakeholder becomes incompatible with the objective of serving the common good. If these goals are executed, it may create disparity between the stakeholder groups (Hazra et al, 2017). However, stakeholder groups are not necessarily homogeneous. Complexity results in individuals belonging to different stakeholder groups. This makes it possible for individuals to make judgements that are sometimes contradictory (Ferrary, 2009).

To determine which different stakeholders are present within an industry, three facets can be used to determine what causes actors to become stakeholders and make some groups

(12)

12 more influential than others. These facets are urgency, power and legitimacy. Urgency is the degree to which stakeholder interests are compelling. This compelling aspect means that their interests are of immediate attention and must be addressed in the short term (Buanes et al., 2004). Power is a central concept when various stakeholders confront unequal power relations resulting in conflicts. The degree of power is therefore determined by the relationship of the dependence (Ferrary, 2009). Legitimacy may refer to the perception that stakeholder interests and concerns are justifiable and valuable and should therefore be considered important (Buanes et al., 2004). These three facets generated in interrelations between industries and the stakeholders are variable, socially constructed and may be consciously present in relations between stakeholders and industries (Alves et al., 2014).

(13)

13

3. Methodology

This chapter presents the decisions that have been made for the methodological approach. Primary and secondary data collection methods, sampling strategies, data analysis, validity and reliability of data and limitations to the study are discussed in this chapter.

3.1 Objectives of the study

The aim of this study is to assess the socioeconomic impacts of water grabbing in the aquaculture industry on the local community in Cuddalore, India as perceived by the local community themselves. During the fieldwork and throughout the research, the following sub-questions have been formulated to answer the research question.

- What are the incentives concerning the aquaculture industry in the national and local context?

- How is the aquaculture industry organized in Cuddalore?

- What are the interests of the different stakeholders in the aquaculture industry and how do these interests conflict?

3.2 Research strategy

This research is based on ethnographic data collection in Cuddalore District, a district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The research is part of the Bachelor thesis program that is organised by the department of Human Geography at the University of Amsterdam. It includes a monthly fieldwork trip from April-May, 2017 to the place of research for data collection. Prior to the fieldwork in India, literary research was used to define the research topic and shape the context of the research.

The research aim is to understand the attitudes and perceptions of different stakeholder about water grabbing activities in the aquaculture industry in relation to the benefits and challenges, many of which cannot be quantified. Therefore, a qualitative approach has been chosen. Through case study methods, it is possible to go beyond quantitative results and understand the behavioural conditions through the perspectives of different actors. The case study method has therefore been chosen as the research design within this research. It enables the data to be closely examined within a specific context to investigate real life through contextual analysis of a number of factors, and their relationships (Zainal, 2007). The case study is both descriptive as explanatory. It begins with describing the institutional framework and the organisation of the aquaculture industry and continues to explain how this can determine the perceptions and opinions of different stakeholders towards the industry. Furthermore, the power and access asymmetry, induced by water grabbing, is an important element in the structure of a relationship between actors (Cabot, 2017) and should be taken into consideration.

The focus of the research design has been on the variety of opinions and experiences of the local community. Qualitative approaches explore the feelings, understanding and knowledge of participants through interviews and participant observation (Bryman, 2008). Qualitative interviewing is one of the main research methods used in qualitative research (Bryman, 2008). Both semi-structured interviews, focus group interviews and informal interviews are used to acquire information about the experiences of different stakeholders towards aquaculture. This should give more insight in the possibilities and challenges that

(14)

14 the aquaculture industry development poses. The methods of data collection will be described more thoroughly later in this section.

3.3 Area of research

Chidambaram is a town in Cuddalore district in the state of Tamil Nadu. The town is known for the Tillai trees that are held in the mangrove forests, which is the second largest forest in the world and located in the Pichavaram wetlands.

The initial reason to choose the area of Chidambaram as a research area was the assumption (based on literature) that aquaculture is very upcoming in Cuddalore District (Muthusamy, 2010). This assumption was strengthened by a thematic map (DHI, 2005) of the land use in Chidambaram. This map showed the coastal land use and land cover in different parts in Cuddalore District, with a clear image of the potential location of aquaculture farms. The research area focused on the aquafarms surrounding the Uppanar River. The Uppanar river is a relatively small river that is component of the Vellar-Coleroon estuarine complex. It merges into the Pichavaram Mangrove Forest on the east side. The study area surrounding the Uppanar river consists of 13 farms as shown in figure 2. These 13 farms are predominantly located around the Uppanar river, with some outliers in the north and in the southeast. The thematic map of the land use has been used to select multiple farms. However, some farms proved to be closed. Three of the farms have been chosen with the help of snowball sampling: some farmers suggested other farms that would be willing to help with the research. The sampling strategy will be further elaborated in the next part. The selected farms were the basis for selecting different villages to investigate the socioeconomic impacts on the local community. The chosen villages were the largest villages in size and number of people that were nearby one of the 13 aquafarms. Interviews were conducted in Killai, Vadakku Pichavaram, Pichavaram and Radha Vilaagam. These villages are primarily fishing and farming villages and lie close to the Pichavaram mangrove forest.

The information on the locations of the researched aquaculture farms in Chidambaram have been processed in a geographic information system, called GIS. This is a programme that allows data to be visualised, analysed and interpreted using maps (ESRI, 2017). This has been done with the use of a device that records the geographic coordination’s of the farms. The information has been used to make geographic maps for in the thesis, with the use of Arcmap 10.4.1.

(15)

15

(16)

16

3.5 Sampling strategy

To address the social impact of small scale brackish aquaculture, information from the coastal community of Cuddalore was gathered through fieldwork. However, before the fieldwork, the population was unknown. Hence, the researched population was chosen during the first week of fieldwork.

First of all, it was important to obtain knowledge about the institutional framework on aquaculture. Additional to the information obtained from literature about rules and regulation and the historical institutional framework of India, interviews with the government were considered useful to confirm, and possibly amplify, the information found in the literature.

Furthermore, the research sets out to explore the organisation of the industry in Chidambaram. Therefore, it was necessary to interview the farm owners and the farmers for the farming practices and additional information on the organisation of the industry. The information of the organisation of the industry were supplemented with interviews of the exporting companies when it became clear that all farms exported their products.

Since the impacts of a change are felt by individuals, groups and firms directly engaged in the activity, the focus was on recruiting these people for participation in the research. The stakeholders for the research have been chosen on the grounds of different interviews with a diversity of people: state government officials and a great variety of the local population. Furthermore, we had received help from assistant professor A. Gopalakrishnan of the Annamalai University in Parangipettai. His knowledge of marine biology and contacts with different aquaculture farmers, agriculture farmers and some locals has helped with the collecting of the researched population. Additionally, the observations made in the research area contributed for a great deal in the decision of the different stakeholders in the industry. The identified stakeholders have been put in the table below.

Stakeholder

1. The (State/Central) Government 2. Aqua farm owners and farmers 3. Local population

4. Agriculture farmers 5. Fishermen

Table 1. Identified stakeholders in the aquaculture industry in Chidambaram.

One of the limitations of identifying stakeholders has to be taken into consideration: stakeholders are not necessarily homogeneous groups. As had been mentioned in the theoretical framework, complexity is created when individuals may belong to a variety of stakeholder groups, and this can initiate contradictory interests. This has also been noticed in the research and will be discussed in the results.

3.4 Research methods and data collection

The first week on location was characterised by observations and identifying stakeholders. This was done by orientating in the area by walking and driving around different places to gain understanding of the dynamics in the villages, and to locate the farms. Eventually, the

(17)

17 goal was to determine the boundaries of the research area. However, these boundaries were only secured in a later stadium. In the first week, 6 out of 13 aquaculture farms were already located, and different structured interviews had been carried out. This was done with the use of a topic list which was presented to every farm owner. Whenever the farm owners were not able to make it to the farm, an appointment was made, or one of the managing farmers would be asked to give the answers instead. For a clear structure of the research methods in combination with the respondents and the sample size, see table 2.

In addition to the structured interviews, a focus group interview with agriculture farmers was conducted in the first week. These farmers were selected by Assistant Professor A. Gopalakrishnan of the Annamalai University, because they were known to the topic since they had a lot of own experiences in the topic of aquaculture. Due to various conflicts, the agriculture farmers had had with the aquaculture farmers, they had gained experience. The following weeks were mainly used to perform interviews with different stakeholders in different villages. The majority of the time was spent on semi-structured interviews with local residents, agriculture farmers and fisherman that were housed in the 5 researched villages. A topic list was used with an open-ended questioning style, which means that the order of the questions could deviate.

Furthermore, in-depth interviews were executed with multiple governmental units. Before reaching the fieldwork destination, an interview was held with the President of the Aquaculture Foundation, M. Sakthivel. This happened in Chennai, two weeks prior to reaching the fieldwork destination. The other in depth interviews were conducted after reaching the fieldwork destination and happened in different weeks, depending on the availability of the interviewee. All the interviews were with experts who could both give objective and subjective information.

In addition to the interviews and observations of the respondents, events and features of the environment and living conditions were used to construct the setting and atmosphere of the research.

During interviews, especially involving the local community, group discussions were an inevitable side effect. The curiosity of locals attracted them towards the place of interview, which sometimes caused discussions.

All respondents were asked to reflect on their perception on aquaculture and how it has affected them either positively or negatively. For the institutionalized respondents in this research, both the opinions and the details about the industry were asked about. In general, the structured interviews lasted for approximately 30 minutes, the semi-structured interviews 15 to 30 minutes and the in-depth interviews and focus group interviews lasted on average up to 45 minutes to 1 hour. During the interview, the answers of the respondents were written down in field notes. Excessive features that had to be remembered about the particular setting, an event or a person, were also written down.

(18)

18

Research method Respondents Sample size

Structured interviews Farm owners and farmers 13

Focus groups Agriculture farmers (one

group of 6 and one of 3)

2

Semi-structured interviews

Local residents, agriculture

farmers and

fishermen/women

36

In-depth interviews Fisheries Department of

Tamil Nadu, Diamond Seafood Export, President of Aquaculture Foundation, Boat house association Pichavaram Mangrove Forest

3

Observations

Total 81

Table 2. Research methods in respect to the respondents and sample size of the research.

3.6 Validity and reliability 3.6.1 Validity

The goal of the research is not to come with generalizable findings. Rather, the aim is to create a substantive theory that can be applicable for the context-specificity of the case study to aquaculture farms in India. In social research, validity refers to how representative the data collection is for the research questions. The correspondence between research and the real world is an important aspect (Bryman, 2008). Like other case studies, the generalizability of the findings and analysis is restricted (Bryman, 2008). The findings in this research do therefore not necessarily apply to other communities of aquaculture development. Nevertheless, resemblance to other research on the socioeconomic impacts of aquaculture account for the applicability of the findings to other areas, particularly in India. In this research, there is another factor of validity that may affect the results. The official language of Tamil Nadu is Tamil, and it is the primary language of the majority of the population. Therefore, a translator that can make herself comprehensible in both English and Tamil has assisted with the conducting of the interviews. The translator, like the researcher, introduces certain biases to the projects which affects the outcome (Aganyira, 2005). The translator is called Bhunesweri. She is a native to the city Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu and has been assisting throughout the research process. Translation between two languages also involves interpretation. The message in the source language has to be interpreted by the translator first and transferred into the target language in a way that the receiver understands what is meant. The interpretation of a meaning might be experienced in any form of communication, but is stressed when cultural context differs. Since interpretation and understanding are central aspects in this research, and in qualitative research in general, language differences might impede the transfer of meaning (Van Nes et al., 2010). This may eventually result in loss of meaning and therefore a loss of validity of the research.

(19)

19

3.6.2 Reliability

Reliability refers to the extent to which the findings of the research are independent of accidental circumstances of the research (Bryman, 2008). Perfect reliability would exist when a research method produces the same results each time the same method is applied. This is a difficult criterion to meet in qualitative research, since the outcome rests on social settings (Bryman, 2008). The mood of the respondent and researcher, the nature of interaction, wording of questions and the physical setting affect reliability of data (Aganyira, 2005) Furthermore, the results depend on the interpretations of the researcher. Therefore, in qualitative research, and hence also in this research, the results may not be fully independent of accidental circumstances.

(20)

20

4. Institutional framework

4.1 Historical institutional framework

The importance of fish farming for the Indian economy has been recognized in the 1970’s. Large-scale development of aquaculture initiated only after the 1990s with the development of commercial hatcheries (FAO, 2005).

An interview with the Fisheries Department clarified that fish farming in Cuddalore District is limited to merely shrimp farming. Shrimp farming in Cuddalore District developed in 1991. Due to the salinization of the soil, the land had become uncultivable and the area was coping with a lot of wasteland. The state government decided to promote shrimp culture because of its potential to utilise saline and uncultivable land. Since then, a lot of shrimp farms were founded in the area. On the map can be seen that six out of 13 farms aquafarms initiated in a short period of time. The range of 1991 to 1995 is characterised by the establishment of 6 farms in the area. Furthermore, the industry would offer employment opportunities for the coastal rural population and contribute to the foreign exchange. From 1993 onwards, shrimp culture intensified in the area. This was aroused by credit facilities from commercial banks and subsidies from the Marine Products Export Development Authority. Multiple agencies were set up by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Indian Government in the maritime states to develop shrimp farming, including the Brackishwater Fish Farmers Development Agencies (FAO, 2005).

4.2 Rules and regulation

In an interview with the Fisheries Department of Tamil Nadu it became clear that the regulation of aquaculture is both regulated at the central level and at the state level. The Fisheries Department of the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for planning, monitoring and funding fisheries at central level in all Indian States. In addition to the central regulation, Tamil Nadu possesses a separate Fisheries Department that monitors all fisheries in the state. At the central level, there are several laws and regulations considering aquaculture. One of the most important central regulations was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest of the Indian Government in 1991 as a part of the Environmental Protection Act (1986). The act consisted of rules aiming to protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas and to retain its natural resources (Ramachrandan et al, 2005). These ecologically fragile coastal areas are marked as the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). The CRZ is comprised of the coastal land up to 500m from the High Tide Line and a platform of 100m along creeks, estuaries, backwaters and rivers which are subject to tidal fluctuations (Ministry of Environment & Forests, 1991). During an interview conducted on 7 April 2017, M. Sakthival, the President of the Aquaculture Foundation of India, emphasized the importance of the implementation of a proper legal framework, taking the provisions made in the CRZ to protect the coast from pollution.

(21)

21

(22)

22 The initial Environmental Protection Act of 1986 did not take the variability and diversity of various coastal states into account. Furthermore, the impact on socioeconomic life on the coastal population had not been taken into consideration. By 1994, coastal aquaculture had been established as an economically successful industry in many South Indian States. The law prohibited the construction of shrimp ponds within the CRZ. The real impact of the CRZ rules on the property rights had only later been recognized by various stakeholders on the coast (Ramachrandan et al., 2005).

To overcome the initial flaws in the regulation, the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act was drafted in 2005. This act took into consideration the possible damage to the coastal environment and the effect on people living in coastal areas. One of the major tasks is the registration of shrimp farms. The acquisition of a license to register is determined by 7 different departments: the Agriculture Department, the Revenue (land) Department, the Forest Department, the Fisheries Department, the Marine Department, the Environment Department and the Rural Department (Coastal Aquaculture Authority, 2005). The given departments separately visit the farms to assess and review them. The Departments then sign a ‘Certificate of No Objection’ and give it to the Central Government. Eventually the Coastal Aquaculture Authority gives the license to the farms. In an interview with the Fisheries Department of Tamil Nadu, the leader of the association admitted that this could be a long process, which may result in a long waiting time for the farms (Fisheries Department 2017, personal communication, 28 April). The registration of a farm is valid for a duration of 5 years and must be renewed after 2 years. The renewal of a license also requires a new assessment by all the five departments, again adding to the lengthiness of the process.

Of the researched farms, there was one farmer that was still waiting for a license for his farm. This is the farm that established in 2017, which is a relatively new farm. All the other researched farms claim that they have received a license from the Central Government. According to the Fisheries Department, there are approximately 38 farms without a license, even though a license is mandatory. Of the farms without a license, there are about 10 farms that are operating nonetheless. There is a 3 lakh (approximately 4000, - EUR) fine on operating without a license, but it is not checked regularly. The Fisheries Department says that it is difficult to keep monitoring all farms, but their aim is to register all farms (Fisheries Department 2017, personal communication, 28 April).

An important and interesting aspect in aquaculture is site selection. For a large part, it decides the environmental and socioeconomic impact of shrimp farming, but it can also decide the success or failure of a farm (CAA, 2005). In the Guidelines for Regulating Coastal Aquaculture (2005) by the CAA, some rules on site selection have been made to avoid negative social and environment impacts. A few of these guidelines that have been considered most important in this context have been analysed:

- Mangroves, agricultural lands, saltpan lands and ecologically sensitive areas like sanctuaries should not be used for shrimp farming.

- Shrimp farms should be located at least 100 m away from any human settlement in a village of less than 500 people and at least 300 m from any village of over 500 people. For major towns and heritage areas it should be around 2 km.

(23)

23 - All shrimp farms should maintain 100 m distance from the nearest drinking water

sources.

- While using common property resources like creeks, canals, sea, etc, care should be taken that the farming activity does not interfere with any other traditional activity such as fishing, etc.

- A minimum distance of 50 – 100 metres has to be maintained between the nearest agricultural land (depending upon the soil condition), canal or any other water discharge/ drainage source and the shrimp farm.

4.2.1 Government’s support to shrimp farming

The state government of Tamil Nadu is relatively discouraging regarding shrimp culture in comparison to for instance Andhra Pradesh. In different interviews with multiple farm owners, the Fisheries Department of Tamil Nadu and Diamond Seafood Exports, it is claimed that the shrimp farm owners in Andhra Pradesh get more support from the state government. These interviewees mention that the farmers in Andhra Pradesh get free electricity and loans from the Government. In Tamil Nadu this is not the case. The reason behind this is that Tamil Nadu is an agriculture state, especially Cuddalore District. In Tamil Nadu a conflict between aquaculture and agriculture is present, which is why the government does not want to choose a side through giving one sector more benefits than the other. In an interview conducted on 24 April 2017, Diamond Seafood Exports stated that no new licences have been given to farms to cultivate shrimps for over the past five years. However, in the results can be seen that farm 6 has established in 2017, which means that the Government has given new licenses to aquaculture farms.

(24)

24

5. Organisation on the aquaculture farms

5.1 Farming practices

Brackish aquaculture is the most frequent used form of aquaculture in Cuddalore District (FAO, 2005). Brackish water aquaculture commonly uses ponds to facilitate the cultivation of shrimps, as was the case in all researched farms. The ponds are made on considerably flat land. Earth is removed and used to construct the levees that impound the water. The water level in a levee pond is higher compared to the original ground level and is regulated by outlet pipes. The common construction of the ponds is as shown on figure 4a. In between ponds it is often possible to walk, which makes it easier for the farmers to reach the ponds.

Figure 4a. Levee pond where you can see that the outsides have been made higher to impound the water.

In the water on the right side, there is an outlet pipe for the water drainage (van der Kust, 2017).

Figure 4b. In between the ponds on a farm it has been made possible to walk so that the farmers can

reach the ponds easily (van der Kust, 2017).

Common practice in all the researched farms is to prepare the ponds by drying and ploughing the land, before the cultivation starts. This removes the pests and predators that were left behind from the previous culture. After this process, the ground is limed to correct the pH and to keep the bottom free from microorganisms. The farmers are instructed that the acidity of the soil must be kept beneath 8 pH. In general, organisms like plankton, benthos and inorganic fertilizers are applied to the ground to stimulate the natural food for the shrimps (Srinivas et al., 2016). After this infusion process is finished, the ponds are filled with water.

During the growth period, the shrimps are carefully monitored by the employees. The primary objective during the culture is to provide a good quality environment in the ponds to minimize the risk of diseases and enhance the production yield. The species most cultured in the researched farms is the Litopenaeus vannamei, which is a white shrimp. All the farmers favoured this species above any other because it is high in demand in foreign countries. Since the foreign export of shrimps is more profitable than selling on the local market, farmers prefer this species. For optimal growth and good health, the white shrimp requires good water quality. The species is a bottom dweller, which means that it predominantly settles at the bottom of the pond. When exposed to poor pond conditions, it is more easily stressed than other species. There are frequent outbreaks of diseases such as White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV)and White Muscle Disease (WMD). Farmers may lose

(25)

25 a lot of their investment due to these diseases. The prevention, control and awareness of disease are therefore crucial for successful shrimp farming (Srinivas et al., 2016).

There are strict time schedules concerning the shrimp feeding. The shrimps must be fed four times a day, and the timing of the feeding is important since it will decide the growth of the shrimps. During the interview, multiple farmers had to be excused to feed the prawns, because feeding time could not be postponed. Furthermore, the application of minerals and vitamins is important to the shrimp for optimal growth. It generally takes four-five months to harvest the shrimps. At this point the shrimps have grown to a marketable weight, which is approximately 30-35 g. When the shrimps are smaller than 30 g, they are unsuitable for export and are sold on the local market.

Figure 5a. Aeration of the prawns with the use of electrical aerators (van der Kust, 2017). Figure 5b. One of the shrimp farmers feeding the prawns (van der Kust, 2017).

Every researched farm has more than one employee. In total, 64 people were employed on the 13 farms. This number is comprised of both permanent and temporary workers. This means there are on average four workers employed per farm. Table 3 gives an indication of the pond/employee ratio and shows that the number of employees and ponds varies a lot per farm. On some farms (farm 1,7 and 10) the number of employees is equal to the number of ponds. From the interviews with the farm owners became clear that in these cases, the employees were appointed to one specific pond. The employees on the other farms either had to monitor more than one pond, or were not appointed to a specific point at all. In overall, there is an average of one employee per pond on a farm.

(26)

26 Farm Number of employees Number of ponds Farm 1 6 6 Farm 2 3 8 Farm 3 4 4 Farm 4 12 9 Farm 5 13 9 Farm 6 2 3 Farm 7 2 2 Farm 8 2 4 Farm 9 2 1 Farm 10 2 2 Farm 11 6 11 Farm 12 5 4 Farm 13 5 2 Total 64 65

Table 3. Number of employees on the researched farms

5.2 Product export

One of the companies that export the shrimps from the researched farms to foreign countries is Diamond Seafood Export (DSF). In an interview conducted on 24 April 2017, DSF mentioned that there are 4 major companies in the area that buy the shrimps from the aquaculture farms with approximately 2500 active workers. These companies are Nila Seafood Export, Liberty Seafood Export and Avanti Feeds Limited, and DSF. In that interview, DSF also stated that they employ approximately four workers, and when the culture season starts, four more seasonal workers are hired to collect the fish from the farms. The company buys the fish for 300 to 400 rupees (4,- to 5 ,-EUR) per kg. They collect the fish using trucks and transport it to the harbour in Tuticorin. Tuticorin is a commercial seaport that exports fish to foreign countries (Joseph, 2015). Before shipping the fish to foreign countries, the workers check the quality of the fish: the weight of the prawns being an important facet. When the quality of the fish is approved, the fish is packed in boxes of 25kg and stored in ice so secure freshness. The fish is kept in storage in Tuticorin until the demand (and thus the price) rises, only then the products are sold. The products are sold to foreign countries for about 1000 rupees (13,- EUR) per kg. In the interview with Diamond Seafood Export, it became clear that the harbour in Tuticorin is an important hub in the distribution of fish to countries around the world. The top countries of export are Singapore, the United States of America and Japan. The first country mainly imports crabs and fish and the latter two import shrimps.

(27)

27

Figure 6. Export of shrimps from researched farms (van der Kust, 2017).

According to Diamond Seafood Export, The companies that collect the fish from the aquafarms and export it subsequently, have a wide range of market outlet. The company itself collects products from a maximum of 150 farmers in the area: both fishers and aquaculture farmers. The fish from the traditional fishermen his preferred by the company due to its good taste. Due to this good taste, this traditionally caught fish has a higher demand. The problem is the lower quantity of fish that can be produced using traditional fishing methods. In contrast to traditional fishing methods, aquaculture has the ability to produce a large amount of fish and has more stable yields.

(28)

28

6. The role and perception of stakeholders

6.1 Shrimp owners and farmers

The shrimp farmers have an important role in keeping the shrimp farms running. The reason for this is that in 10 out of 13 farms, the owners have usually outsourced the responsibility for the daily operations of the farm. The farms are privately owned businesses with landowners that usually are not native to the place of the farm, and do not visit the farm often. According to the locals, the owners are not socially involved with the place and do not bond with the people and surroundings. The employees admit that the owners are never actually present on the farm, and do not live near the location of the farm. This makes the work of the employees more important, since they often also manage the farm.

Farm Origin of employee

1 Native 2 Not native 3 Not native 4 Native 5 Both 6 Native 7 Both 8 Native 9 Not native 10 Not native 11 Native 12 Both 13 Not native

Table 4. Origins of the farmers in the researched farms.

The workers on the farm can be divided into two groups. The first group consist of the employees who have chosen this job, usually as an improvement in wage comparison to their previous job. Hence, these workers are very loyal to their employers and their main interest in this industry is to make profit. Profit is the most important motivation for both the owners of the farm and this first group of workers. It is noticeable in every aspect that the industry is very profit driven: every decision that is made, is to improve the profit. Hence, every farm owner admitted that their choice to culture prawns is merely because they can be sold for a high price on the export market. One of the questions asked in the interviews with all farmers and farm owners was ‘What would you like to achieve in your life?’ Of the 13 farmers, 8 answered they would like to receive more profit. Others answered that they would want all cultures to be successful (2 farms), get better quality ponds that would make the possibility for a good harvest possible (1 farm) and to increase the number of ponds, without increasing the number of workers (2 farms). The knowledge that the aquafarms may affect the other stakeholders is present with the farmers. Nonetheless, the belief exists that the effects of culturing could not be destructive, since they have a license. And for them a license means you are producing within the boundaries that the government has set. One of the farm owners in an interview, conducted on April 25, said: ‘The common people are threatening us. They want us to close the farms, but we have a proper license, so we cannot be harmed.’

(29)

29 The second group of workers was forced to move into the aquaculture job, because their previous jobs have become unpracticable. This group is significantly smaller (3 farmers) than the first group (6 farmers) and is therefore the exception rather than the rule. The previous professions of these workers are often linked to fishing or farming on agricultural land. This causes these group of workers to have interests in more than one stakeholder group. They have only made the transition to aquaculture, because it was necessary to sustain their livelihoods, they do not always agree with the farming practices on the aquaculture farms. ‘The effluents in the river damage the fish and the mangroves. We hear the local people [their complaints], but there is no [other] work available.’ This is a quote of one of the aquafarmers, from an interview conducted on April 21. These workers belong to the shrimp farmer’s category merely because they work on the aquafarms. These workers are less focused on profit, and pays more regard to the environment and social circumstances.

6.2 Local population

6.2.1 Main problem: drinking water quality and ecological destruction.

In the interviews, the local village people have often been mentioned as the ones most negatively affected by the aquaculture industries. The main problem mentioned is the drinking water. Potable water is a basic human need in every persons’ everyday life and diminution of it will be the direct problem of the village people. The water in the five researched villages is provided by the government through pumps in the ground. However, the water that comes out of the pumps is salt water of yellowish colour that has been affected by the groundwater. The water has been affected by high contents of iron and manganese, hence the colour. Both chemical elements are known to give a metallic taste that can make the water unpleasant to drink, but are not causing any health risks (Holden, 2014). The village people need the water for multiple household purposes like cooking, cleaning and bathing, but most importantly as drinking water. All village people claim they do not use the water supply for drinking. In an interview conducted in Radha Vilaagam on April 26, a woman expressed her concerns about the drinking water. ‘We do not drink the water, because it has a bad taste. We use it to wash the clothes and give it to the cattle. For drinking and cooking we have to buy canned water, but it is too expensive.’

Figure 7. Water coming from the pumps in the villages (left bottle) compared to canned water (right

(30)

30 Due to the bad water quality, the people are forced to buy canned water for drinking purposes. However, canned water is too expensive to purchase daily, especially for the less advantaged villagers. Therefore, most people get their water from pumps of nearby villages, for example Killai. The drinking water in Killai is better, but not optimal either, according to the villagers. It is not as salty as the water available in their native village. To get water from a different village takes a lot of effort, because the villages are far away from each other. The transportation of the water is done by individuals on a bicycle to provide themselves and their families of better quality water, thus it is an time-intensive initiative. The local people say they have been facing these problems of decreasing water quality since the start of the aquaculture farms, but the last year it has gotten worse because of the drought. An interview with a woman from Radha Vilaagam on April 26 makes clear that the problems now are a lot more acute than when the farms started. ‘The last year, it [the effects] has gotten a lot worse, because of the drought this year, it has become an acute problem.’ Due to the accumulation of problems the last year, a protest has been organised by the inhabitants of different villages. The protest took place on the 26th_{of April at 17:00}

in Killai. It attracted locals from different villages surrounding Killai. Figure 8a shows a protest pamphlet that was hanging on the wall of a house in Radha Vilaagam. It was a call of the Coastal People’s Livelihood Rights Movement to the village people to stand up against the legal and illegal aquafarms in and around the Pichavaram Forest. The pamphlet translates in:

- The farms destroy the mangrove forest

- The fish and birds decreased because of the farms

- 20 villages are suffering due to bad quality drinking water - Groundwater has become salty

- Agricultural land has become desert land.

The second part of the picture shows the actual protest in Killai on the 26th_{of April. It had}

attracted a lot of people from different villages, both men and women. The people had come by buses that were specially arranged for the protest. The protest itself started with a film that focused on the ecological effects on the mangrove forests.

Figure 8a. Protest pamphlet against the aquafarms in Radha Vilaagam (van der Kust, 2017). Figure 8b. Organised protest by Coastal People’s Rights Movement in Killai (van der Kust, 2017).

In an interview conducted on May 1, the leader of the Boathouse Association of the Pichavaram mangrove forest told that the effects of the protest remained marginal: the goal of closing the aquafarms was not achieved. After the petition, the government has visited

(31)

31 the mangroves to see if they were affected by the farms. However, this visit has not given any results and was a mere one visit, no structural visiting arrangements were made. ‘The government is not taking any steps to close the aquafarms. The owners of the farms are rich and can bribe the collector, therefore no steps are taken. It is the fault of the Forest Department; they give too much permission to the aquafarms. If the farms are not allowed to use the water from the river, all the farms will close and there is no problem. But the rules are too mild. On the other hand, the rules for others are strict; if the tourists touch the mangroves with their hands, there is a big fine. But the farms get permission to destroy the mangroves.’ In the interview, the leader of the Boathouse Association expressed his feelings about the government. He thinks that the visit to the mangroves had been planned to quieten the protests for a while. The government has not shown any intent to impose measures that might negatively affect the farms.

6.2.2 Job opportunities for the local people

The second problem is that the local community is often not employed in aquaculture, and aquaculture does not benefit the local community. Local people are often also employed in the agriculture and fishery sector. This shows that the stakeholder groups are not homogeneous. In all the villages, the majority of the inhabitants had either a background in agriculture or fishery or were still partly employed in the sector. The effects of aquaculture therefore both have impact on people their private lives as on their working life.

One of the initial reasons of the government subsidize and support the development of aquaculture was to employ the local community. However, aquaculture has shown not to contribute for a great deal to the local employment: people from outside of the village get to work on the aquafarms as well. Farmers from outside the village normally stay on the farms for a period of three to four months. They are allowed to go home only once every month. This is due to the fact that farm owners do not want employees to catch diseases in their hometown and affect the shrimp production. Furthermore, the owners want to have the shrimp monitored and protected at all time, so also during the night. Employees that live close by are more likely to go home after a working day. Therefore, hiring employees from outside the village is more beneficial for the aquaculture farm owners.

6.3 Agriculture farmers

6.3.1 Agriculture land to aquaculture land

One of the biggest conflicting issues concerning aquaculture became clear in the focus group interviews with the agriculture farmers, conducted on April 18 and 19. The conversion of agricultural land into land that is used for aquaculture is a sensitive topic, because it has influenced a lot of agriculture farmers in the nearby villages. A big driver is the cheap land, which causes big companies to buy the land for non-agricultural purposes, like aquaculture. The agriculture farmers in the group interview declare that it happens often that with the purchase of 1 acre of land, other pieces of common land are also converted or spoiled. Furthermore, the problem of unusable land due to aquaculture practices raises big issues for the agriculture farmers. Being a new industry, most aquaculture land used to be agricultural land. One of the farmers explains about his regrets for selling his agriculture land to an aquaculture farmer. ‘I sold my land to an aquaculture farmer, because he promised to employ the local people. When the farm just started, he employed 50 people to dig the pond [in which the aquaculture had to be taken place]. After the ponds were dug, they fired everyone except for one person per pond. So, there are some local people working

(32)

32 in the farms, but it generates too little employment. If I had known that, I would have never sold my land.’

6.3.2 Main problem: land quality

The opposition of the agriculture farmers to fish farming has stemmed from the fact that relatively good, fertile land is being given to the aquaculture farmers and is converted to salty, unusable land. The fish farmers generally cultivate on relatively salty soil. They keep the salty water on the land for the growth of the prawns. Subsequently, the salt drains into the ground water and affects the surrounding lands. There are a lot of rules and regulations for aquaculture farms on the effect on ecological conditions of the land and the water. Aquafarms have to be more than 50-100 metres away from agricultural land. In several cases this may be applied, however the extraction of water and the salt on the farms affects the agricultural lands nonetheless. Moreover, according to the agricultural farmers, fish farmers do not follow the rules and regulations adequately. One of the rules is that around every pond there should be a canal that is filled with good quality water, so that the ground water does not get affected, but this is not the case in every farm. This makes the ground water very salty. Because of the effects of salt on the quality of the soils, the surrounding land becomes uncultivable. Subsequently, the land next to aquaculture lands is often wasteland.

A good example is farm 2, shown on the pictures below, which used to be an agricultural land for growing mango trees. A farmer in the group interview described the scenery, before taking us to the agriculture land. ‘It is ironic, because the name of village means cultivable land, but it is unusable now.’ The aquaculture farm had a canal dug next to it, which was filled with green water of bad quality (left picture). Seepage of salty water could be seen. The area next to the aquaculture farm was converted into a large piece of wasteland on which the salt was deposited. Therefore, a white layer of deposited salt could be seen on the soil (right picture). This land could not be used any more for other purposes such as agriculture.

Figure 9a. Canal next to an aquaculture farm where seepage of nutrients can be seen (van der Kust,

2017).

Figure 9b. Wasteland next to an aquafarm that has become salty (white parts) (van der Kust, 2017).

Subsequently, the interests of the farmers are firmly damaged. For them, it is not possible to proceed their profession in agriculture, due to the damage of fertile land because of salinization. The farmers are replaced from their agricultural land and are now employed in different non-agricultural sectors like electrician, drivers or mechanical workers, and sometimes in aquaculture. The latter is due to the profit possibilities in aquaculture.

The Indian water grab