The narrow division between
livelihood security and long-term
sustainability
Priorities and opportunities of aquaculture labourers in
Cuddalore District, India
Aquaculture labourers Cuddalore District. (Source: Author, 2017).
Bachelor Thesis Future Planet Studies
Major Human Geography
Julia Vita Beutler
Student number: 10802789
Email:
juliavbeutler@gmail.com
Supervisor: Dhr. J.V. Rothuizen
Second assessor: Dhr. M.A. Verzijl
University of Amsterdam (UvA)
Amsterdam, June 2017
Abstract
The aim of this research is to examine the priorities and opportunities of aquaculture workers bordering the Vellar River in securing their livelihood. This is of particular relevance since their livelihood is highly embedded in the ecosystem, resulting in potential implications for long-term sustainability. It is therefore important to incorporate the different dimensions of the ecosystem to understand the interlinked societal system and their natural surroundings. The livelihood approach is used to understand the actions of involved social groups. The complexity of the local context of the Vellar River is highlighted by using a qualitative case study design. The results suggest that transforming structures and processes provide a context wherein aquaculture can operate highly individualistic. However, this has implications for their natural surroundings and involved social groups. In turn, the livelihood security outcomes are affected. This thesis concludes that due to the aquaculture workers their embedding in structures and processes, they have limited opportunities in securing their livelihood in the long-term.
Content
1. Introduction 4
2. Theoretical Framework 6
2.1 Ecosystem Approach of Aquaculture 7
2.2. Carrying Capacity 7 2.3. Livelihood approach 8 2.5. Sustainable livelihood 11 2. Research approach 12 3.1. Sub questions 12 3.2. Research design 13 3.3. Study area 13
3.4. Units of analysis and units of observation 14
3.5. Methods 15
3.6. Limitations 16
3.7. Ethical considerations 18
4. Geographical context 19
4. Results 20
5.1. Aquaculture in Cuddalore district 20
5.2. Livelihood of the aquaculture worker 22
5.3. Environment influencing aquaculture and vice versa 26
5.4. Uncertainties to livelihood 29
6. Analysis 34
6.1 Transforming structures and processes 34
6.2. Priorities 35
6.3. Carrying capacity 35
6.4. Livelihood security
6.5. The vulnerability context 36
7. Conclusion 39
7.1. Recommendation for further research 40
9. Appendix 44
9.1. Appendix A Survey questionnaires 44
9.2. Appendix B In-depth interview questionnaires 45
9.3. Appendix C Protest letter 47
1.
Introduction
Complex challenges arise when deliberating the strategy to provide nutrition for the expanding global population, which will reach nine billion people by 2050 (FAO, 2013). However, aquaculture is a promising sector in contributing to the challenge of satisfying this global demand for food. During the period of 1984 – 1993 an increase in fish availability for human consumption from global aquaculture production was visible from 12 to 22 per cent (Stonich & Bailey, 2000).
Accordingly, aquaculture is frequently rewarded as the major contributor to the ‘Blue Revolution’. As the Green Revolution (1967 -1977) established a global agro-food system with higher agricultural yields, improved technology and use of pesticides, the Blue Revolution provided the integration of aquatic species and coastal ecosystems into this same global food system (Stonich & Bailey, 2000). The initial aim of the Blue Revolution was to improve the nutrition and incomes of the poor with this increased production; but national governments and private businesses are increasingly promoting an export-oriented aquaculture development (Stonich & Bailey, 2000). The expansion of fish production, together with the globalisation trend in which countries across the world increased their connectivity and integration in terms of trade, communication and enterprises, can fulfil the demand of people in global regions such as Northern-America, Europe and Japan (Deutch et al, 2007; OECD, 2010). As a result, 99 per cent of the prawns, which are produced in ‘third world countries’, are exported to these global regions (Stonich & Bailey, 2000). This type of development is noticeable in India. Today, India is the second largest country in aquaculture production and has already experienced an increase in the period of 1980-2010 from 0.37 million tonnes to 4.65 million tonnes (FAO, 2011). Subsequently, the development of aquaculture had its repercussions on Cuddalore District, a coastal area
within Tamil Nadu India. It is claimed by scientist and activists that due to the highly profitable conditions of export- oriented aquaculture in Asia, social and environmental consequences are largely neglected (de Jong, 2017; Stonich & Bailey, 2000; Greenpeace, n.d.; APFIC, 2010).
The multiple activities involved within the developing sector of aquaculture in Cuddalore District enables promising opportunities for poorly educated men and their households. However, as argued by Kripa (2015) and Soto & Aguilar-Manjarrez (2007), the aquaculture farms are embedded in an ecosystem wherein their own activities impact the social and environmental surroundings, and these surroundings impact their own activities. It is therefore relevant for the people involved in the aquaculture business to act in a manner which is sustainable in the long term. In this way, their own livelihood and the livelihood of surrounding people would be secured. The position and activities of aquaculture workers are of a particular interest, since they are in practice providing the global fish demand. Nevertheless – they might be the most dependant on ecosystem vitality considering the importance of fisheries and aquaculture to the livelihoods of people in the context of coastal areas (Bene et al., 2007; Ahmed et al., 2013).
These developments lead to the following research question:
What are the priorities and opportunities of aquaculture workers bordering the Vellar River, Cuddalore District, in order to improve their livelihood security?
The research has been conducted in the area bordering the Vellar River. This area is particularly interesting seeing as there are no other industries that might overshadow the impact of aquaculture.
By answering this research question, this thesis is able to provide a clear example of the interrelations of the livelihoods of aquaculture workers with the environment. Consequently, the aim of this investigation is twofold. Firstly, this thesis will provide social and environmental knowledge regarding aquaculture within the local context of the Vellar River, Cuddalore District. Secondly, the research contributes to the theoretical discussion concerning the relevance of incorporating ecosystem approaches within the management of fisheries and aquaculture (Ahmed et al., 2013; FAO; 2009, 2010; Zerbi et al., 2003). In addition, this research will be the first in linking the livelihoods security of aquaculture workers in Cuddalore District with long-term sustainability.
The first section of this thesis will provide a theoretical framework in order to give a sufficient scientific background concerning the ecosystem approach to aquaculture, carrying capacity, livelihood approach and sustainable livelihoods. Secondly, the methodology will be explained, where the relevant findings will be presented. In the following chapter the results will be discussed through the lens of the scientific theories. Subsequently, the main research question will be reflected in the conclusion.
2. Theoretical Framework
There is a variety of literature concerning ecosystem approaches and the carrying capacities of ecosystems (e.g. Soto & Aguilar-Manjarrez, 2007; Duarte et al., 2003). However, literature regarding the livelihood of aquaculture workers in the context of the ecosystem is limited.
This theoretical framework emphasizes the importance of the ecosystem approach in examining the livelihood security of aquaculture workers. Firstly, the ecosystem approach to aquaculture will be elaborated. Secondly, the discussion will be downscaled towards the livelihood approach. In a final stage, an argumentation will be provided, illustrating the importance of incorporating the concept of sustainable livelihood when combining the livelihood approach and the ecosystem approach.
2.1 Ecosystem Approach of Aquaculture
In this section the definitions of the ecosystem approach to aquaculture are introduced. Central to the ecosystem approach is the recognition of the complexity of ecosystems and the interconnections among its component parts (Zerbi et al., 2003). An ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture refers to “a strategy for the integration of the activity within the wider ecosystem in such a way that it promotes sustainable development, equity, and resilience of interlinked social and ecological systems” (Soto & Aguilar-Manjarrez, 2007, p. 74; FAO, 2010, p. 2). It thereby encompasses three different principles. Firstly, aquaculture should be developed in the context of ecosystem functions and services with no degradation of these beyond their resilience capacity. Secondly, aquaculture should improve human well-being and equity for all relevant stakeholders (Soto & Aguilar-Manjarrez, 2007). Thirdly, aquaculture should be developed in the context of other relevant sectors, policies and goals (Soto & Aguillar-Manjarrez, 2007). Multiple influences are thus applicable on aquaculture practises.
In general, natural ecosystems are characterised as highly resilient and stable: the resources are able to grow, reproduce and maintain biodiversity, even after rare shocks such as flooding (Kripa, 2015). However, as a consequence to resource dependant, uncontrolled activities, the ecosystem can be affected negatively and as a result affect the biodiversity and sustenance in the long-term (Kripa, 2015). This entails that the three pillars of the ecosystem approach to aquaculture cannot be met in the long term. It is important to consider the social actions and attitudes composing the causes of this failure, which could lead to exceeding the carrying capacity of the ecosystem.
2.2. Carrying Capacity
There is a general understanding in which “using any resource more intensely guarantees an increase in output” (Kirchner et al., 1985, from Rees, 1996, p. 196). However, this entails that the carrying capacity of a system can expand infinitely. Therefore, according to Rees (1996), this ‘no limit’ logic needs to be revised.
In order to assess the impacts of communities on resources, scientist proposed the concept of carrying capacity. To define it in a comprehensive manner, the concept describes the relationship between population size and their extent of resource use (Inglis, Hayden & Ross,
2000). Carver & Mallet (1990) introduced the concept as “the maximum standing stock that may be kept within a particular ecosystem to maximise production without negatively affecting growth rate” (p. 39). The exact definition of carrying capacity is not fully clear amongst scientist, as the concept is interpreted differently in physical, biological and social science (McKindsey et al., 2006).
In this research the definition of Duarte et al. (2003) is used. They define the carrying capacity as “the amount of change that a process or variable may suffer within a particular ecosystem, without driving the structure and function of the ecosystem beyond certain acceptable limits” (Duarte et al., 2003, p. 110). The concept could be further subdivided into four categories, which encompasses the various disciplines: physical, production, ecological, and social carrying capacity (Inglis, Hayden & Ross, 2000).
Physical carrying capacity The total area of marine farms that can be accommodated in the available physical space
Production carrying capacity The stocking density of bivalves (fish) at which harvests are maximized
Ecological carrying capacity The stocking or farms density which causes unacceptable ecological impacts
Social carrying capacity The level of farm development that causes unacceptable social impacts
Table 1: Categories of carrying capacities, adopted from Inglis, Hayden & Ross (2000).
The social carrying capacity comprises the physical, production and ecological carrying capacity (McKindsey et al., 2006). Trade-offs between these carrying capacities are being considered between stakeholders in order to meet the demands of both the population (socio-economic) and the environment (McKindsey et al., 2006). This demonstrates that the different categories are interlinked with each other: if one category exceeds the carrying capacity, this will have impact on the other categories.
2.3. Livelihood approach
Chambers and Conway (1991) used the term ‘livelihood’ to refer to “the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living” (p. 6). From 1997, the British Department for International Development (DFID) incorporated the livelihood approach in their program for development cooperation (Kollmair & Gamper, 2002). The aim of the DFID was to provide an understanding of poverty. This was managed by emphasizing the
perception of poor people with the livelihood approach as framework. The application of the livelihood approach is adaptable to specific and different local areas (GLOPP, 2008). Nevertheless, general core principles are people-centred, holistic, dynamic, building on strengths, macro-micro links and sustainability (Kollmair & Gamper, 2002). The principle of dynamic is applicable to people their livelihood in order to incorporate changes and emphasize the mitigation of negative impacts and supporting the positive impacts (Kollmair & Gamper, 2002). With building on strengths the potential of the stakeholders to achieve their personal objectives and diminish their barriers is recognized. Lastly, with macro-micro links the influences of both levels on the livelihood are incorporated (Kollmair & Gamper, 2002).
Livelihood outcomes
Within the livelihood approach, people have certain strategies in securing their livelihood. Livelihood security entails positive livelihood outcomes. More specifically, the outcomes are important to understand the interests, behaviour and priorities of people in pursuing their strategies (Alinovi, D’errico, Mane, Romano, 2010). Livelihood outcomes can be defined as ‘the goals to which people aspire and the results of pursuing their livelihood strategies’ (Alinovi, D’Errico, Mane, Romano, 2010, p. 7). These outcomes could be perceived differently in different contexts.
DFID (1999) specifies the outcomes as increased income, increased well-being, reduced vulnerability, improved food security and more sustainable use of natural resources. These different outcomes may be in conflict with each other, resulting in trade-offs between the different livelihood outcomes (DFID, 1999). In this manner, sustainable action is not necessarily incorporated in their strategies.
Figure 1: Livelihood framework (DFID, 1999). Vulnerability context According to the DFID (1999) and Ashley & Carney (1999) the availability and effectiveness of a livelihood asset is
depending on ‘transforming structures and processes’. Structures include government levels, both private and public. (DFID, 1999). Processes include the way structures operate and interact and are divided in laws, policies, culture and institutions. It is common that the structures and processes are not beneficial for the poor (DFID, 1999). They have influences on the vulnerability context: “the external environment in which people exist and gain importance through direct impacts upon people’s asset status” (Gamper and Kollmair, 2002, p. 5). The livelihoods are subject to trends (gradual change), shocks (sudden change) and seasonality: factors on which households have limited control (DFID, 1999). It is important to incorporate the vulnerability context, since it has a ‘direct impact on people’s asset status and the options that are open to them in pursuit of beneficial livelihood outcomes’ (DFID, 1999, section 2.2.). Shocks, such as natural events or conflicts, have a direct impact on the livelihoods assets. Trends are more gradual and predictable but have great importance in composing livelihood strategies; examples are in regards to population, resource, international/national economic, technological and governance developments. Seasonality encompasses differentiations during a certain time period in aspects such as prices, production, health, or employment opportunities (DFID, 1999). These influences are not inherently negative however, since poor people are vulnerable due to a lack of strong institutional support and assets, this complex of influences could be held responsible for the difficulties poor people endure.
The asset pentagon
A household has available assets, which are necessary in composing their strategies in achieving their desired livelihood outcomes. The desire is to increase the range of or access to assets (Cefirms, n.d.).
Assets are divided into natural, physical, human, financial and social capital - upon which livelihoods are built. Assets could be seen as additional means to reach their desired livelihood (DFID, 1999). Subsequently, relying on a single asset is not sufficient fo composing their livelihood security, especially for poorer people with limited accessibility. A range of assets is therefore required for their security and self-defined goals (Gamper and Kollmair, 2002).
In figure 4 the asset pentagon is visualised, showing the variation of individual’s access to assets (DFID, 1999). The centre point of the pentagon represents zero access to assets, whereas the outer perimeters represent maximum access to assets. In this manner various pentagons could be designed in different contexts (DFID, 1999).
Human capital includes the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health that a person can deploy in achieving their livelihood outcomes (DFID, 1999). Besides being intrinsically valuable, human capital appears to be a decisive factor in the use other capitals (Gamper and Kollmair, 2002). Consequently, human capital should be seen as supportive factor for other assets.
The DFID (1999) describes social capital as the social resources on which people can rely in pursuing their livelihood outcomes. These include networks and connectedness, which could increase people’s trust and ability to work together to expand their access to wider institutions, membership of formalised groups, and relationships of trust. In general, the access and amount of social capital is determined through birth, age, gender or caste and may differ within a household (Gamper and Kollmair, 2002). Although this form of capital entails positive impacts, negative impacts still need to be considered, such as exclusion of groups.
The natural capital contains the natural resource stocks from which resource flows and services are derived, which are useful for livelihoods (DFID, 1999). Factors such as the atmosphere and biodiversity, but also trees and land may be labelled as natural capital. This form of capital might be especially important for poorer groups, as their livelihood strategies are largely derived from natural resource-based activities (Gamper and Kollmair, 2002).
Physical capital is the basic infrastructure and producer goods (water, access to information, affordable energy etc) needed to support a livelihood (DFID, 1999). They are the certain boundary conditions for being able to invest in other capitals. For instance, poor infrastructure can lead to limited accessibility to other capitals.
Financial capitals entail the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives (DFID, 1999). Two sources of financial capital can be measured: available stocks and regular inflows of money. It can potentially be transformed to political influence (DFID, 1999).
The different capitals in the pentagon could possibly be related and influence each other (DFID, 1999). A single asset could generate benefits for the accessibility to other assets. The pentagon also presents the needs of social groups and the trade-offs between different assets.
According to Moser (1998), the ownership of assets is linked to the vulnerability of livelihoods, ‘as the more assets people have, the less
vulnerable they are and the greater the erosion of people’s assets, the greater their insecurity’.
2.5. Sustainable livelihood
The emphasis of this chapter is to elaborate on the importance of incorporating different disciplines to understand their importance and dynamics within a system. The ecosystem approach describes the interlinked societal system and their natural surroundings. The livelihood approach can be used to understand the actions of involved social groups. Actions performed by these groups may negatively or positively influence the ecosystem; whether or not they exceed the physical, ecological, production and/or social carrying capacity of the ecosystem. According to Ahmed et al. (2013), a significant disadvantage of the ecosystem approach is its ineffectiveness to establish a sustainable, management strategy in the local context. However, on the contrary, the sustainable livelihood approach does emphasize the link between the ecosystem and the livelihoods of (fishermen) people (Ahmed et al., 2013).
Therefore, it is important to consider the concept of sustainability when discussing the security of livelihoods in the context of the ecosystem. The strategies of humans might be different when individuals prioritize short-term livelihood security, over long-short-term security. Kollmair & Gamper (2002) perceive sustainability as a core principle of the livelihood approach. As a result, a long-term strategy is implicitly incorporated. While in the short-term strategy other outcomes are prioritized.
The argument of Chambers & Conway (1991) is comparable to this. Chambers & Conway (1991) elaborate on the concept of livelihoods by stating that “a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base” (p, 6). Furthermore, the sustainable livelihood needs to contribute ‘net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels in the short and long term’ (Chambers & Conway, 1991, p 6).
In line with Kollmair & Gamper (2002), a livelihood is sustainable “when it is resilient in the face of external shocks and stresses, when it is not dependent upon external support, when it is able to maintain the long-term productivity of natural resources and when it does not undermine the livelihood options of others” (p 4). In conclusion, to secure livelihoods in the long term it is important to incorporate the strategies of sustainable livelihood.
2.
Research approach
In this chapter the considerations, practises and limitation regarding the used methodology for this research will be discussed.
3.1. Sub questions
Aquaculture workers bordering the Vellar River create strategies in achieving their livelihood security outcomes, and as elaborated in the theoretical framework, sustainability is interrelated with these security outcomes. It is therefore relevant to determine what the livelihood security outcomes of the workers are, what their strategy is to achieve this and how this is determined by transforming structures and processes which also impacts the environment and vice versa. As this embedded strategy is composed by both the households’ priorities and provided opportunities, the formulated research question of this thesis is:
What are the priorities and opportunities of aquaculture workers bordering the Vellar River in order to improve their livelihood security? The concept of priorities includes what is regarded as the most important aspects of their livelihood and whether there are trade-offs recognizable. The concept of opportunities includes the ability or disability of the workers to achieve these outcomes. In order to provide a proper analysis, the research question is further sub divided into four questions. Consequently these findings will be linked with the academic theories in answering the research question.
• In what manner is aquaculture operating near the Vellar River (and what is the role of aquaculture workers)?
• What do aquaculture workers regard as livelihood security and what is their strategy in achieving this?
• To what extend is this interrelated with environmental sustainability?
• To what extend does transforming structures and processes influence the vulnerability context of aquaculture workers and how do they cope with that?
3.2. Research design
It is decided that the research design will be predominantly a case study, of the borders of the Vellar River, Cuddalore District. The case study design highlights the complexity of the local context, which is useful since the elaborated academic theories consist of multiple concepts and links. With the use of this design, an intensive examination of the local context can be conducted (Bryman, 2012). The case study does not have to be directly associated with qualitative research. However, it is a favourable choice since it provides an in-depth understanding of human behaviour and their surrounding (Bryman, 2012). A criticism on case study designs
is that the findings cannot be generalized since the focus is not on quantity, but on rich, in depth information. The external validity in this thesis will thus be low.
Nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this research to generalize the outcomes. There is the ability to examine the complex livelihood of the aquaculture workers in association with the beforehand research scientific theories (Bryman, 2012). The purpose therefore is to deeply engage the data outcomes with the analysed theories and concepts. In this manner there might be the ability to generate ‘analytic or theoretical generalization’ (Yin, 2009; Mitchel, 1983, from Bryman, 2012).
3.3. Study area
During the first days of research, the exact study area was considered. Consequently, the research for this thesis is conducted adjacent to the Vellar River, which outflow towards the sea is located in Cuddalore district, India, near the small town Parangipattai. This area is of interest since the aquaculture farms bordering the Vellar River are situated closely to each other, making it easier to reach a larger amount of farms in the short time period of research. More importantly, these farms depend on the same resources and undergo the same environmental conditions. In this way, the research attempts to limit intervening variables.
In figure 3 nine investigated aqua farms, which border the Vellar River, are numbered. The small town of Parangipattai is located in the north east of the river; where the Vellar River flows into the sea. The black dots resemble small villages situated very nearby the farm.
Figure 3: Cluster of Aquaculture farms surrounding the Vellar River. Black dots resemble nearby villages. Adopted from Google Earth, 2017.
3.4. Units of analysis and units of observation
Within the first period of the research time was partly dedicated to identify the aquaculture workers in the area to generate a clear focus on the exact research group. It appeared that on the aquaculture farms more activities and functions could be identified. It was therefore necessary to clearly recognize the roles of the different people on the farm to avoid lack of clarity in the data collected.
The people the research focused on were the aquaculture workers at the aquaculture farms bordering the Vellar River. In these farms, the aquaculture workers were the majority of the people there. Since the livelihood approach is on the level of households, their households are incorporated in the research too on the base of questions asked to the workers with regards to their households.
Furthermore, the aquaculture farms where the workers operate are of interest, since it is important for considering the different working environments. The farms will form the units of observation.
The method of providing a holistic image of the local context was twofold. Firstly, other people which were considered as important were interviewed too when possible. This encompasses people from local villages, other functional people concerning aquaculture and key informants. Key informants are people whom are regarded as important respondents for the research, as they willingly provided relevant information and appointed and introduced me to other interesting areas
and respondents. In table 2 the total of 47 respondents are categorized according to different groups. Secondly, units of observation were incorporated. This includes the various aquaculture farms itself for the different, specific working environments. Also the surrounding villages and agricultural land were observed to provide an illustration of the local context.
Workers 14 survey & in depth interviews +
18 surveys
Supervisor 3
Consultant 2
Owner 4
Village people/fisherman 5
Pres. Aqua. Found. India 1
Professors Annamalai
University
2
Activist 1
Farmer association focus group (10 men)
1
Workers focus group (4 workers)
1
Total respondents 48
Table 2: Respondents during fieldwork in Cuddalore District.
The interviews with workers were all conducted at the aquaculture farms. Interviews with others were conducted at the Marine department of the Annamalai University in Parangipattai, at home, on the street at small villages or at community meet up places in the surrounding of the Vellar River.
3.5. Methods
Before the field work in India, an extensive literature study was conducted in order to provide insights into the relevant aspects of the discussed academic theories, but also on basic knowledge of the local context of Cuddalore District. In this manner the research question was established and provided the background for the topic list as thread for the semi-structured interviews and surveys. The data collection during the fieldwork was based on observations, semi structured interviews and a small survey. When conducting the interviews a translator translated the questions and answers in order to communicate with Tamil speaking people. During the conversations, I was able to write down important notes about relevant elements, which came up in the interview. After the interviews the field and interview notes from the observations and interviews, written down in a small notebook, were reported in Word
documents. The reason the fieldwork was conducted in the morning, between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m., was because of the heat during the middle of the day and because the workers would gather during these hours for lunch and to avoid the hot weather.
In depth knowledge
The collection of the in-depth data was on the basis of small and large, semi-structured qualitative interviews. These include a prearranged structured interview wherein the important aspect of answering the questions comes forward (Bryman, 2012). Hereby the perspective of the interviewee is central, which is very useful in order to retrieve in-depth knowledge relevant for the case study. The interviewees were sampled based on purposive sampling. In this manner the participants were sampled in a purposive way, according to their relevance for the research (Bryman, 2012). In this manner the objective was to conduct interviews with the workers on the aqua farm, but also with key informants in Cuddalore district. The method of snowball sampling is used to get in contact with these key informants in the region. In this sampling technique participants come up with other people, which might be interested and willing to investigate too (Bryman, 2012). As the first priority was to retrieve access to the aquaculture farms, it was not possible to be very selective on considering interviewing an aquaculture worker. Therefore, convenience sampling was used. However, as the farms were operating individually, the contexts and backgrounds of the people involved were also largely different, leading to a divers research population.
As the workers provided useful information on the main themes of this research, the key informants provided a wide understanding of the different perspectives and present-day developments of the area. As the focus was on the workers, key informants largely provided information of the perceptions and actions of other stakeholders in the area.
Observation
During the interviews non-participating observation was conducted to observe and interpret the conditions and atmosphere on the surroundings and the aquaculture farms. In this manner a more holistic image of the issue could be gathered (Bryman, 2012) and, for instance, the trustworthiness of an interview could be partly estimated. Besides, by observation the multiple activities on the farm could be observed and the environmental conditions in the surroundings could be noticed.
Within the semi-structured interviews with the workers a small survey was incorporated wherein demographical information was gathered, such as age, household size and educational level (Appendix B).
Throughout the last week of research, it was decided to conduct extra surveys in order to increase the sample and information. Questions added to this survey were in relation to the perception of aquaculture development, motivations of working in aquaculture and impacts on the surroundings and vice versa (Appendix A). With this survey convenience sampling was used: a sample where the researcher has access (Bryman, 2012). The representativeness will be low, however, the objective was to support the in depth information and provide some extra general information.
3.6. Limitations
Considering the foreign, local environment, limited time-period and unpredictable events it is impossible to avoid research limitations. Besides the low representatives and validity already explained, some other details, necessary to mention, will be presented.
Firstly, a great limitation of this research is that the interviews and surveys with workers were all conducted at the working environment of the aquaculture farm. Some unintended side effects of this situation were that other workers were sometimes gathering around the interview, which might have influenced the openness and reliability of the interviewee. Furthermore, other workers were sometimes interrupting and wanted to have their share in the interview, which sometimes was resourceful, but also harmful for the structure and quality of the primer interview. Additionally, as sometimes supervisors, managers or owners were in the surrounding, the worker might have responded to what was socially desirable. The translator was a great contribution in examining the atmosphere within the interview, and tried to figure out whether the respondent was fully transparent or whether the answers were contesting. Moreover, the workers were sometimes mandated to continue their activities and therefore it was sometimes not possible to finish the interview fully satisfied.
Secondly, as the working times are very long, and/or multiple workers live outside the district it was not possible to attend their homes and conduct the interviews in a quiet setting. Likewise, since the workers household is a main research topic, the information could only be gathered by questioning the workers.
Thirdly, a great obstacle was that due to the language barrier it was not possible to communicate with the interviewees directly. Even though the translator was a great help, some misunderstandings arose about the questions and answers. In this manner a problem (Bryman, 2012) of meaning between the translator and me and between the translator and the respondents occurred.
Fourthly, it is not guaranteed that the last week’s surveys were conducted properly at all the farms. As the access was fully denied on two farms, the surveys were handed over to a supervisor on one farm, and worker on another farm, where after the following morning the surveys were collected. However, I was not able to observe or explain the survey personally, so it is not certain that the findings were gathered correctly. For instance, on one particular farm the translator had the feeling on the basis of the sentiment of given answers that the answers were filled in by the same person. Furthermore, when visiting the farm in an earlier stage, a clear hierarchy was visible. Therefore no conclusions should be drawn from the written answers of the more in-depth questions within the survey.
Figure 3: Translator trying to get access to large aquaculture farm (Source: Author 2017).
3.7. Ethical considerations
According to Bryman (2012), within social research there are four ethical areas that need to be considered: harm to participants, lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy and deception. It was attempted to minimize these aspects, however, some aspects might be discussable. Sometimes, in order to attain access to aquaculture farms I was not fully transparent about my background. As there was close contact with Mr. Gopalakrishnan from the Marine Biology Institute, which is a reputable institute in Cuddalore in corporation with Annamalai University, the
translator and I presented ourselves sometimes as students of this institute and that we were only conducting a small investigation about ‘how aquaculture works’ in Cuddalore. In this manner the exact purpose of the research, which incorporates the social circumstances on the farm, was not explained. Even though it was explained that the answers would be processed in confidentiality, some workers, supervisors and owners might have had that interpretation that I was going to publish my findings. In this manner some workers shared that they were feared of being fully transparent as the owner might cause harm after discovering they agreed with doing interviews. Also a worker pointed out that there was some jealousy between the different workers, resulting in the possibility that others would pass through the information, which was shared with us.
4. Geographical context
Cuddalore District is covering a sixty-kilometre coastline of a total of 1080 km of the province of Tamil Nadu. ‘Cuddalore’ means ‘confluence of rivers into the sea’, which is an applicable name since it transports the drain of seven districts through the Gadilam, Kollidam and Vellar River into the Gulf of Bengal (Personal communication, leader agriculture foundation Cuddalore, 2017). Due to its downstream location, the district experiences frequently affected plains by the overflow of the rivers during heavy rainfall. According to the leader of the agriculture foundation in Cuddalore
Figure 4: Zoomed in to rivers Coromandel Coast, covering Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu (Source: Thirumaraiselvi et al.,
(Personal communication, 2017), an increase in these types of natural calamities can be observed since 2000. Every year the area faces flooding’s during an excess of rainfall in a short time, droughts during insufficient rainfall, and sometimes cyclones originating from the Bay of Bengal. At the moment of conducting the research there were serious drought issues. These calamities together resulted in Cuddalore as a by the government labelled ‘disaster prone district’ (Personal communication: leader agriculture foundation Cuddalore, 2017).
Furthermore, partly as a consequence of these natural calamities, a considerable amount of, cheap, marshland (non-used land) and agricultural land, is increasingly converted into better cultivatable agricultural and new non-agricultural industries (Personal communication: professor Agricultural extension, 2017; Professor marine biology Annamalai University, 2017). Examples are poultry farming and vetiver (van Gent, 2017; van Beurden, 2017), SIPCOT (Oudshoorn, 2017), but also aquaculture (van der Kust, 2017). Due to the expansion of these industries, together with urbanization, there is an increase observable in competition of coastal resources, such as land and water (Bavinck & Karunaharan, 2006).
4. Results
In this chapter the results of the fieldwork will be discussed. Firstly an introduction will be given concerning aquaculture near the Vellar River, Cuddalore district. Secondly the difference between the researched farms will be discussed.
5.1. Aquaculture in Cuddalore district
The Vellar River in Cuddalore district creates the opportunity for aquaculture farms to easily retrieve brackish water for cultivating ‘White Leg Shrimp’, Litopenaeus Vannamei. The aquaculture farms are situated near the shore since the more inland river water is too fresh instead of brackish, which is required. Six out of nine farms are situated near to a small village, and all the farms are situated next to former or current agricultural land. Their sizes in area depend on the amount of ponds: one single pond covers two acres (8094
square meter) (Personal observation and communication; workers, 2017). Before the cultivation of Vannamei five years ago, the farms in Cuddalore cultivated mostly tiger prawns. These prawns were produced since the start of the farms, in the period of 1987 – 1997, but have a lower growth rate and are more vulnerable for diseases (Personal communication; consultant, 2017). Besides, the government largely promoted the change of seed towards cultivation of Vannamei, as the production capacity would increase and more Vannamei could be exported (Ayyappan, 2014). It is important to mention that the researched aquaculture farms near the Vellar River cannot be regarded as identical. The different conditions on the farms should be considered as they might have implications for the livelihood security of the aquaculture worker. In this section the relevant differences will be elaborated, which will be further reflected in section 5.4 concerning uncertainties to livelihood. The aquaculture farms differ in size in area, operational size, the amount of employees, responsibilities of the workers and working schedule.
Operational size
As the size in area is dependant on the amount of ponds (section 5.1), the operational size is more difficult to measure. During culture season more ponds are in use than during dry season. This routine of culture and dry season varies between the farms. At the moment of doing research, only three out of nine farms were using all the ponds. This encompasses culturing the prawns in all the ponds, or starting the culture season in some
Figure 5: Packed Vannamei prawns (Google images, x).
ponds (filling with water) and already culturing in other ponds. The culture season covers four to five months, where after within two weeks the prawns are harvested and, subsequently, dried in order to regulate the soil conditions (Personal observation, 2017; Personal communication; workers, 2017). On two farms all the ponds were dried, where else on the remaining five farms some ponds were dried and some ponds were cultured. The employment of one worker is considered as sufficient per cultured pond. In this manner, concerning the operational size, farm 1, 2 and 6 are acknowledged as small. Farm 6 stopped the usage of three ponds for an unknown period (section 5.3). The remaining farms are all considered as large.
Employees and their responsibilities
The amount of employees employed on the aquaculture farm depends on the size of the area and operational size. During culture season the owner employs more people since in this period there are more responsibilities. These responsibilities are sub-divided between different types of employees. However, a nuance has to be considered between smaller and larger farms. Smaller farm owners, with fewer ponds and thus less employees (farm 1, 2 and 6) have delegated multiple tasks to the same employee. On smaller farms one of the workers often has a technical background and the owner has a larger contribution in supervising and managing the farm. At farm 2 the owner lives in the nearby village of Parangipattai and checks multiple times on a daily base, on farm 6 the owner stays 24/7 on the farm during culture season and checks weekly during dry season, and on farm 1 the owner checks on a weekly basis. Large farm owners are only at the farm occasionally, investing at the beginning and subsequently delegated the tasks. In sum, a categorization can be made according to the different employees and responsibilities (figure 6).
Consultant
|
Large farm: Owner – manager – supervisor – technician – workers
Consultant |
Small farm: Owner (manager, supervisor) – worker (technician)
Figure 6: Employee’s at farm level (Source: Author, 2017).
The consultants who came forward during fieldwork all have a marine pharmaceutical background. They offer consultancies on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. These consultants operate from a university or consultancy company (Personal communication; consultant, 2017). Managers have a financial responsibility and do not necessarily operate at farm level. Supervisors check the work of the technicians and workers and ensure that they ‘work hard’ (Personal communication; supervisor, 2017). Technicians mostly have a technical background in an electronic store or, on smaller farms, learned it from others. Workers have a strict schedule in feeding the Vannamei (five times per day), checking the ph level and temperature and conducting aeration practices (two times per day) (Personal observation and communication, 2017). Moreover, multiple times per year the river water is prepared for cultivation, and the effluent water treated. Neglecting the schedule entails a larger risk for prawn diseases (5.3).
Working times - home
According to Mr. Gopalakrishnan (marine biology professor), within Cuddalore district 40 per cent of the aquaculture workers are local and 60 per cent outside district workers (Personal communication, 2017). Sometimes migration of tribes is visible from these outside district workers. From the fieldwork it appeared that eighteen workers (56 per cent) are from outside the Cuddalore District and fourteen (44 per cent) from inside the district. More specifically: on three farms there are solely local people working, three farms solely outside district people and on three farms a mix between outside and inside district workers.
The farms with outside district employees are all considered as large farms and two of the three farms with solely local people working small. It is stated by Mr. Gopalakrishnan that small farms more often hire local people, because hiring people from outside the district often goes hand in hand with the migration of a whole group (Personal communication, 2017).
However, an owner and consultant have given multiple reasons for employing only outside district people. Firstly, a consultant on a large farm pointed out that “local labourers want to go home more frequently and attend temple festivals, but how will the fish get their food then?” & “They get in touch with family and demands to see them more often”.
Another reason given is the following: “outside district labourers are more efficient with time, they come here to do the work and want to work hard to go home afterwards, local people want to hangout with family”. Furthermore, “Local employees demands also more money, why? Because it is in their mind-set!” and “Local people want more rules and regulations as they think their surroundings are damaged” (Personal communication, 2017). Consequently, the workers on the large farms with solely outside district workers are only allowed to return to their family during dry season. However, also on two out of three smaller farms workers are not allowed to go home during culture season. Five out of the nine farms in total are operating under this rule. Workers declared that the owner operates this rule as that there is a risk involved of spreading diseases whenever leaving the farm quote (Personal communication, 2017). However, another worker on a small farm who is allowed to go to home on a daily basis during culture season, opposed this by stating that there is only a disease risk involved when entering other aquaculture farms (Personal communication, 2017). Besides, taking a shower before entering a farm is by that aquaculture farms’ owner regarded as sufficient enough.
Hierarchy
On all the researched farms a clear hierarchy was visible between the different positions. However, while on the three small farms there was only an owner – worker relation, the hierarchy was more visible on larger farms with more employees. Firstly, it was observed that the workers did not speak freely whenever a manager, son of owner, supervisor or consultant was around (Personal observation, 2017). For instance, in these situations questions about working conditions were always answered with satisfaction, while the answers in one to one interviews were more nuanced. This sentiment was confirmed in particular interviews. According to a worker: “the owner only want to protect the workers who are supporting him” and another worker on another farm: “the owner only support the ones who do not raise their voice”. Furthermore, it was visible during fieldwork that on the large farms the opportunity to have conversation with workers was more limited due to accessibility reasons. On these farms gates were locked or, when entering the farm, we were at first pushed away. When access was possible the first person of contact was someone higher in the hierarchy, such as the technician, supervisor, manager or, when at present, the consultant. When they were not around (two times) they immediately called by phone or, on one occurrence, small disagreement under the workers appeared with the topic of debate whether they should corporate with the interview or not.
It is assumed that the reason of this limited accessibility was fear of getting deployed or getting a lower income or no bonus, which some workers confirmed during a one-on-one interview. Besides, on two large farms it appeared that people who had been employed for longer had established a good relationship with the owner, which lead to more privileges, higher wages and less fear of getting fired. According to the worker: “I am no not afraid of getting deployed because I am a senior around here” (Personal communication, 2017).
As a result, the farm operational size, the function on the farm and years of employment are aspects which determine the position on the hierarchy. In this manner, a clearer hierarchy is visible on the larger farms and workers who are on the lowest end of the hierarchy have more risks of getting deployed. Figure 6 therefore also corresponds with the described hierarchy. For some extra context:
Consultant: “If I do not stop by everyday the workers are having breakfast all day long” &
Supervisor: “My job is to keep everyone to work and that they listen to me” (Personal communication, 2017).
5.2. Livelihood of the aquaculture worker
The working conditions on the aquaculture farm are very strenuous, undermining the well-being of the worker. And yet, workers still choose aquaculture as their profession for various reasons.
Image 7 & 8: Consultant informing labourers on a large farm with outside district worker (Source: Author, 2017).
Accordingly, a background of their household and history of the aquaculture worker will be provided. In this manner the outcomes of the aquaculture within the livelihood framework can be better understood. Background aquaculture workers near the Vellar River
The average age of the workers is 39,3, ranging from 20 years old to 65 years old. Their educational level is low, with 43 per cent of highest education primary school, 36 per cent secondary school. From the 32 workers, 25 have children, with an average of three children and an average household size of five persons. It is a usual phenomenon in India for a male to take care of his parents, and as a woman to get married and move in with the husbands family. Therefore the household of all the workers encompasses their parents. From the 32 workers, 24 claim to be the main provider of this household. Eight persons responded that another household member functions as the main source of income. In these particular families a father, brother or son had a higher income and/or more stable job. Besides, in eleven households there was another, lower, income, which encompasses governmental 100 days employment for their wife’s or mother and a son or father, which still maintains some agricultural land. The years of aquaculture experience is very divers, ranging from only a few months (first culture season) to 22 years (Personal communication and information from survey, 2017).
There are multiple expenditures of the workers’ household. Firstly, since the households are generally poor, they have to provide their families with basic needs such as housing and nutrition (Personal communication; workers, farmer association, 2017). Secondly, the main motivation of the workers to generate the highest income as possible is to ‘safeguard children’s welfare’ (Personal communication and information from survey, workers, 2017). This mainly includes ‘good schooling’ for their children. Good schooling is considered as education in which they are able to develop themselves towards other jobs than agriculture or aquaculture. More specifically, governmental jobs; doctor and police functions are desired for their children (Personal communication, 2017). Furthermore, another desire for the workers is for their daughters to get married. This costs extra money, which leads to the workers having to work even harder. However, the ability for the workers to safeguard these expenditures is not guaranteed. For instance, one worker declared that he is only able send on of his three children to school.
In this manner, the average income of the workers, 9500 rupee a month, is not considered sufficient (Personal communication and survey; workers, 2017). Only a few confirmed that they were satisfied with their
salary and have no worries about providing their families. However, the majority indicated that their income is not sufficient enough since they have children to send to school, parents to take care of, their daughters’ wedding to finance and other fixed costs such as nutrition (Personal communication, 2017). According to a worker: “My expenditures overweigh my income” and another worker: “My income equals my most important expenditures, so my children can not have better education” (Personal communication, 2017). Three workers declared that they are borrowing money from relatives or neighbours in order to provide their households with a sufficient income. Furthermore, the income of these workers is not necessarily stable. Out of the 22 persons by which the information was obtained, 17 persons regarded their income as not stable throughout the year (Personal communication, survey; workers, 2017). An explanation is that they are not working in aquaculture the whole year, but are seasonal workers. This includes that they are only working in aquaculture during the culture seasons of four to five months. This period provides them with a fast income, but only during a short period. Five interviewed workers declared that they work on the aquaculture farms also during dry season, by ploughing the ponds and collecting weeds. These are all local people, and thus employed the whole year. On the larger farms the technician, supervisor and a limited amount of workers are employed during dry season and take care of the ponds.
Even if there is no division visible among workers who are more satisfied with their income and workers whom are not, it appeared that workers who are employed for longer on the same farm have a higher income than workers who have only worked for one season. More specifically, one worker who has worked in aquaculture for 22 years indicated that his starting salary was 1400 rupee. Currently, he earns 10000 rupee a month. Four others, who have been employed between five and eight years, had a starting salary of 6000 rupee a month. Therefore it is assumed that the starting salary increased throughout the years and that the longer employed the higher the salary gets (Survey; workers, 2017).
Agriculture – aquaculture
Considering the workers have a poor educational background, but have the age that they are mainly the provider of the family, their main reason of working in aquaculture is to provide their households with a sufficient income. However, the satisfaction gathered from aquaculture is quite limited, with regard to working conditions and income, it is questioned with what reason the workers got involved with aquaculture. Therefore it is important to consider their previous conducted work. It appeared that out of the 29 persons from whom information was gathered, 22 worked
before in agriculture, four persons were still in school, one worked in a printing lab, one did electrical work and one was a rickshaw driver (Personal communication, survey; workers, 2017). Furthermore, the greatest majority of the workers had fathers who had worked in agriculture or had had their own agricultural land. In addition, as most workers only seasonally work in aquaculture, their other job ‘to compensate’ is agriculture.
However, despite their history in agriculture they switched towards working in aquaculture. The main given reason for this change is that the climatic conditions changed towards a situation in which the agricultural land is no longer fertile for profitable cultivation: due to seawater intrusion the groundwater and ground increased in saltiness, which in turn negatively influences the drinking water of livestock and the ground of cultivating crops (Personal communication, workers; 2017) quote. At the same time the seasonal fluctuations in lack of rain and excess of rain results in droughts and saltiness elevations on the one hand, and flooding’s on the other hand. Moreover, crop diversification is rarely conducted since it requires more effort due to bad soil conditions and limited knowledge of cultivating other crops. Consequently, due to these variables, working in agriculture is a very unstable business and the people working in the agriculture sector are therefore searching for alternatives. According to the leader of the farmers association in Cuddalore, farmers are able to sell their land three or four times the rate of the agricultural land for non-agricultural businesses. Simultaneously, the farmers are in search of more stable jobs and employment that is less climate-dependent. However, with their low education and family history in agriculture they do not have many job opportunities quote. There are opportunities to in construction. However, the business of aquaculture has the appearance of success and profit quote. It is a business in which money flows, which attracts the agriculture worker. Besides, at first sight the business appears not to be dependent on the climate or seasons, therefore obtaining the status of a highly profitable and stable business quote (Personal communication; workers, 2017).
5.3. Environment influencing aquaculture and vice versa
Throughout the fieldwork, it appeared that the aquaculture farms are highly depended on their surroundings. In this section, this embedding will be described, where after in section 5.4 the interrelated uncertainties to the aquaculture livelihoods will be elaborated.
As the objective of the owner is to generate as much profit as possible, they try to minimize the production costs and maximize the quantity of
Vannamei production within each pond (Personal communication; owner, 2017). According to a manager of a large farm: “Aquaculture is a business, therefore the most as possible seeds should be put in same size of ponds” (Personal communication, 2017). This, in combination with climate change, puts extra pressure on river water and social groups. Riverwater
The cultivation of the Vannamei starts with pumping water from the Vellar River into a pond, where firstly the water is bleached and treated to reduce the chemicals, viruses
and, if needed, the saltiness. After this stage, the water is used for culturing the prawns. During a proper culture season the prawns are sold between four to five months, after which the water is stored for a month, in order to reduce the chemicals (Personal
communication; workers,
consultant, owner, 2017). These chemicals will settle down on the ground where, after releasing the effluent water in the river, they
are dried. According to one small farm, this is conducted before rainy season, because otherwise the rainwater with chemicals would leak into the ground. However, three workers on two different farms declared that they store the effluents for some days so that the water with chemicals leaks into the surrounding grounds (Personal communication; workers, 2017). After this, the ground is ploughed and, if needed, deposited ‘somewhere else’ (Personal communication; worker, 2017). Moreover, another worker on a large farm declared that there is no treatment of the used, polluted water, thus flushed directly into the sea after cultivation.
Climate change
During conversations with workers, supervisors and others it came forward that certain calamities initiated by climate change had a certain impact on aquaculture (Personal communication, 2017). According to the leader of the agriculture association in Cuddalore District an increase in calamities is observable since 2000. Every year the district suffers from flooding and/or drought. Besides, the temperature fluctuations are negatively affecting the Vannamei culture.
Figure 9: Large aquaculture farm retrieving river water from
According to multiple respondents (Personal communications; workers, owners, supervisors, professors, 2017), the impact of droughts on aquaculture is due to the increase of the saltiness of the river water. This is a consequence of evaporating river water and zero inflow of freshwater. Currently the river water has a salt ratio of 44 ppm, whereas 30 ppm is good for Vannamei cultivation. Hence the growth of the prawns is affected. Seven farms stated that this increase in salty water costs more effort in terms of feeding and chemical use. A worker on a small farm mentioned: “The lack of rain resulted in a bigger chance for viruses” and another worker on same farm: “We use more chemicals than past years because they are telling me to do so” (Personal communication, 2017). However, during the rainy season in the past years the amount of rain increased within a shorter time period. Previously, the rainy season lasted from October to January. However, currently the same amount of rain falls within one month, according to the leader of farmer association Cuddalore. In this manner the level of saltiness is suddenly very low, where after the chance of disease is increased again.
Additionally, as a result of the lack of rain during droughts and water that is stagnated upstream by a dam construction, there are limited river water flows. There is thus an accumulation of pollution within the river water: “More biotics stay in the area due to climate change” (Personal communication; Professor marine biology, 2017). It is already considered as a big issue according to seven farms.
Nevertheless, an owner of a small farm stated that within five years the river water gets so polluted that it is not possible to use anymore for aquaculture purposes (Personal communication, 2017). Furthermore, even though some owners, supervisors and workers are claiming that their effluents are not polluting the river water in any way, all the farms are connected to a communication system wherein they contact each other on the moment the farms are releasing their effluents to the river (Personal communication; workers, consultant, owner, 2017). Consequently, they are not using the river water for a period of one month, waiting for sufficient river flows ‘cleaning’ that certain part of the river from chemicals.
Figure 10: Dry and salty ground next to aquaculture farm
Under the guise of adaptation, on one farm the use of a bore well was discovered and on two other farms they declared planning to use bore wells in future. The workers stated that the river water was getting too salty. This increased the risks for diseases. According to a consultant on this particular small farm however, the groundwater was full of ammonia originating from the ponds itself (Personal communication; worker, 2017). In this manner the groundwater had a very bad smell and condition not proper for the prawn cultivation. Subsequently the salty river water was used again.
In addition, due to an increase in temperature of the water the prawns have a tendency to flow and dwell underneath the water surface, where after they are affected by the sun, which can lead to their death. Four workers declared that the temperature has increased in the past years (not asked to all workers) (Personal communication, 2017).
The effect of flooding differs amongst the aquaculture farms. Due to adaptation they constructed stronger boundaries of the ponds, resulting in better resistance to counter strong water flows (Personal observation and communication; supervisor, 2017). However, some aquaculture farms are situated lower or in an adverse river stream than other farms, making them more vulnerable. The effects of flooding on the farms are in numerous ways, however, it should be mentioned that it is not considered as the biggest obstacle. In ‘worst case scenario’ the water flows into the ponds in which or diseases are transferred into the ponds, or due to excessive water power the prawns can not resist, or the prawns flows out of the ponds (Personal communication, 2017). Besides, the equipment and huts and/or housing on the farm are damaged in some manner.
Social influences
According to a professor in marine biology and consultant, there are three social problems with aquaculture and its surroundings (Personal communication, 2017). They encompasses a problem with farmers, village people and fishermen. Five aquaculture farms are bordering a small village. This entails that immediately after leaving the farm, houses and people living were observable within small distance (Figure 11, 12, 13). Besides, all the farms are surrounded by agricultural land, whether desolated or in use (mostly livestock) (Personal observation, 2017). Furthermore, fishers are using the Vellar River for their catching practises. Fisherman are claiming that the river water got more polluted into ‘a brownish color’, which affected the biodiversity (Personal communication, 2017). They experienced a decrease in fishing revenues.
