channels. A field study conducted by Schmitter et al. (2010) indicated that during
the summer crop season the rice yields obtained from the flooded paddies were
down by 5 % when compared to those during the earlier spring season. For a more
detailed summary of the impacts of the flood on rice cultivation, soil fertility
parameters and sedimentation processes, among others, please refer to Sect. 3.4.
Farmers’ responses during the interviews indicated that, at least at the household
level, the flooding only had a limited impact economically in terms of income and
consumption. If at all, most of the damage occurred to agricultural production
activities; fisheries in particular. Those farmers directly affected by the flood
spoke of an average loss of 5 % of their annual cash income. Given the strength
of the flood, the economic consequences appear to have been surprisingly low at
first glance. One explanation for this is that the typhoon occurred shortly after most
farmers had already harvested their maize fields, for, since maize is by far the most
important source of cash income in Chieng Khoi, it would have caused much more
significant losses if it had occurred a few weeks earlier (Schad et al. 2012). In
contrast to these findings at the household level, the official damage report
published by the commune and district departments stated that significant damage
had been caused to public infrastructure also (Yen Chau People’s Committee 2007).
So, what triggered the flood from the local people’s point of view? Most of the
interviewed residents attributed the flood to both environmental conditions and
mismanagement. According to the farmers, the absorption capacity of the soil has
significantly decreased over recent decades, due to intensive deforestation. As a
result, enhanced surface run-off is triggered during intensive rain events, leading to
a more rapid filling of the reservoir and diminishing the reservoir’s buffer capacity.
Furthermore, most farmers in Chieng Khoi attributed in part responsibility for the
flooding to mismanagement on behalf of the Lake Manager. The farmers charged the
Lake Manager with not having followed the weather forecast strictly and hence, of
not increasing the buffer capacity of the lake prior to the typhoon. The Lake Manager,
in contrast, attributed the flooding to the construction of fish ponds close to the river,
saying that this had led to an artificial river channel limiting the rivers’ capability to
discharge large amounts of water. Another important factor addressed by both the
Lake Manager and the commune officials was the increasing sediment accumulation
in the lake, leading to a reduction in the lake’s buffer capacity (Schad et al. 2012).
However, during an interview, the Lake Manager gave a more fatalistic view of the
flood mitigation measures taken, saying “Every year, the commune announces a plan
to prevent flooding, but when heavy rain arrives you can forget about the plan; we
cannot do anything” (the Lake Manager, as cited in Schad et al. 2012).
Summing up, flood prevention and mitigation measures are perceived by people
in the study area mainly as a public concern, rather than as an issue that individuals
should and can address. The shift of local power to higher levels in particular has
reduced the accountability of local people in terms of water governance, and
induced a withdrawal of local residents from community action. Neef and Thomas
(2009) pointed out that payment for environmental service schemes, whereby
downstream residents compensate upstream land managers for their flood mitigation efforts, may be a promising tool and a step forward with respect to raising the
3 Water and Matter Flows in Mountainous Watersheds of Southeast Asia:. . .
125
the summer crop season the rice yields obtained from the flooded paddies were
down by 5 % when compared to those during the earlier spring season. For a more
detailed summary of the impacts of the flood on rice cultivation, soil fertility
parameters and sedimentation processes, among others, please refer to Sect. 3.4.
Farmers’ responses during the interviews indicated that, at least at the household
level, the flooding only had a limited impact economically in terms of income and
consumption. If at all, most of the damage occurred to agricultural production
activities; fisheries in particular. Those farmers directly affected by the flood
spoke of an average loss of 5 % of their annual cash income. Given the strength
of the flood, the economic consequences appear to have been surprisingly low at
first glance. One explanation for this is that the typhoon occurred shortly after most
farmers had already harvested their maize fields, for, since maize is by far the most
important source of cash income in Chieng Khoi, it would have caused much more
significant losses if it had occurred a few weeks earlier (Schad et al. 2012). In
contrast to these findings at the household level, the official damage report
published by the commune and district departments stated that significant damage
had been caused to public infrastructure also (Yen Chau People’s Committee 2007).
So, what triggered the flood from the local people’s point of view? Most of the
interviewed residents attributed the flood to both environmental conditions and
mismanagement. According to the farmers, the absorption capacity of the soil has
significantly decreased over recent decades, due to intensive deforestation. As a
result, enhanced surface run-off is triggered during intensive rain events, leading to
a more rapid filling of the reservoir and diminishing the reservoir’s buffer capacity.
Furthermore, most farmers in Chieng Khoi attributed in part responsibility for the
flooding to mismanagement on behalf of the Lake Manager. The farmers charged the
Lake Manager with not having followed the weather forecast strictly and hence, of
not increasing the buffer capacity of the lake prior to the typhoon. The Lake Manager,
in contrast, attributed the flooding to the construction of fish ponds close to the river,
saying that this had led to an artificial river channel limiting the rivers’ capability to
discharge large amounts of water. Another important factor addressed by both the
Lake Manager and the commune officials was the increasing sediment accumulation
in the lake, leading to a reduction in the lake’s buffer capacity (Schad et al. 2012).
However, during an interview, the Lake Manager gave a more fatalistic view of the
flood mitigation measures taken, saying “Every year, the commune announces a plan
to prevent flooding, but when heavy rain arrives you can forget about the plan; we
cannot do anything” (the Lake Manager, as cited in Schad et al. 2012).
Summing up, flood prevention and mitigation measures are perceived by people
in the study area mainly as a public concern, rather than as an issue that individuals
should and can address. The shift of local power to higher levels in particular has
reduced the accountability of local people in terms of water governance, and
induced a withdrawal of local residents from community action. Neef and Thomas
(2009) pointed out that payment for environmental service schemes, whereby
downstream residents compensate upstream land managers for their flood mitigation efforts, may be a promising tool and a step forward with respect to raising the
3 Water and Matter Flows in Mountainous Watersheds of Southeast Asia:. . .
125