IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

Research article
erdThe  Study  on  Flood’s Impact on Rice Production in Sandek
Commune Bathay District Kampong Cham
SOEUNG LYLY*
Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Royal University of Agriculture,
Cambodia
Email: lylysoeung@gmail.com
Received 16 December 2012

Accepted 30 January 2013(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Flood is regarded as the most serious natural disaster that affected the economyof Cambodia. As the consequence, flooding has caused the loss of many lives, and has
addressed impacts on social welfare and damaged the public and household properties.
Livestock and crops were also destroyed. It has caused not only on the economic impact,
but also on social and environmental problems of the nation. Seeing this serious problem
which is an obstacle for the development of Cambodia, this study have been conductedwith  three  main  objectives  are  (1)  to  identify  the  extent  of  flood’s  impact  on  rice  yields  of  farmers, (2) to assess the economic impact of rice production, and (3) to explore thefarmer’s   adaptation   capacity   on   rice   pattern   to   the   flood.   To   achieve   those   objectives,  structured questionnaires were used with 96 who participated in the interview. The Study
showed that the major flooding event in the last twenty years, worst flood in history instudy site was the flood in 2011. Indeed, all respondents have evaluated there 2000, 2001,
2002 and 2011. Flood causes the most negative impact to their rice and mixed crops
productions. The flood of 2011 has badly affected to   economic   value   of   farmer’s   rice  production, which total average yield 3.862 tones/ha were lost. Rice crop is the main
source  of  farmer’s  living,  so  this  is  the  serious  problem  to  their  livelihoods.  Low  education  of farmers was seen as the cause of low adaptation to flood. Most illiterate people (98%)
were worst affected among the others in the study site. Recently, around a half ofrespondents grow dry season rice instead. Migration after that the flood in 2011 has
become the popular way to generate more income. Conclusion, flood in 2011 is the worstimpact on rice production in the study area. Further adaptation strategy is strongly needed
for local people.
Keywords impact, flood, rice production, adaptation

INTRODUCTION
Natural disasters are key factor in rural people becoming poor and destitute in Cambodia and in thepersistence of poverty (MoE and UNDP, 2011). The main natural disaster in Cambodia is flood(CRC, 2003a, 2003b). As the consequences, flooding had caused the loss of many lives, impact ofsocial welfare and damaged the public and household's properties. Livestock and crops were also
destroyed. Moreover, flooding not only caused of economic impact, but also to social andenvironmental problems of the nation. Flooding have caused loss of lives, affected social welfare
and damaged public and household's properties, livestock and crop. Moreover, flooding makepeople suffer, afraid and migration. According to (NCDM and MoP, 2008) showed that from 1997
flooding increase and happen almost every years. (NCDM and MoP, 2008) also add that major
flooding events affecting a significant population occur in 1961, 1966, 1978, 1984, 1991, 1996,2000, 2001, and 2002. Although the flood in 2011 damaged rice paddy 267,184 hectares, othercrops 17, 264 hectars and 250 people were killed (NCDM, 2012). Agriculture is the source for rural
livelihoods, and for Cambodia are relying in rice production (RGC, 2010 and MoE, 2002). But,Cambodia   agriculture   is   extremely   affected   by   climate   change.   The   flood’s   impact   on   riceproduction was cause of food security problems and around 18% of total Cambodia people hadⒸ ISERD142

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1food   insecurity   almost   every   year   (NGO   ESCRMC,   2002).   By   the   ways,   flood’s   impact   on   rice  production is the obstacles and difficulty to achieved the government strategy in order to increaserice yield and rice export 1 million tones in 2015 (ACIAR, 2009). Moreover, it is the obstacle inpoverty alleviation program and in achieving the millennium development goals.
METHODOLOGY
Bathay District

Fig. 1 Bathay district
Household level study was conducted in tree villages: Savay Prey village, Po Stiang village, andTang Grey village, Sandek Commune, Bathay District, Kampong Cham Province. Major
occupations for the people live in the commune who the rice growers. Mapping, seasonal calendar,
time line and semi structure interviewer were used in qualitative methodology. There were 96
farmers who participated in the interview for quantitative approach. All data from quantitative wereentry into SPSS program for this analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Households’  survey  and  group  discussion  showed  the  events  flood  at  the  study  area  in  2000,  2001,  2002   and   2011.  The   worst   floods   in   the   study   area’s   history   occurred   in   2011.  This   result   is   not  different from data of (NCDM, 2012) which reveals that in some areas, the flood in 2011 was lesssevere than the flood in 2000. However, the other areas were worse than the flood in 2000. Table 1
shows 77% of the total respondents (n=96) caused impact and another 21% caused the medium
impact. The rest, around 2% got less impact. For the flood in 2000 in the study area 69% got theworst impact. 23% got medium impact and another 6% got less impact. Only 2% of the total of therespondents is normal. Remarkably, the event flood in 2002, only 1% of the total respondents got
the worst and medium impact. 11% was less impact and another around 13% normal. Meanwhile,around 17% of the household survey was less impact and around 24% was less potential. The rest,around 33% was the best potential from flood in 2002. Therefore, the event flood in 2001 around of
the total of the respondents (n=96) at the study area around 8% got the worst impact by flood. Thehousehold’s   survey   shows   24% was less impact and another around 17% normal. Meanwhile,around 7% of the total respondents is less potential and another around 11% mediums potential.
The rest, around 33% is the best in the flood in 2001. Flood in 2011 had caused the loss of many
lives, impact of social welfare and damaged the public and household's properties. Livestock andcrops were also destroyed.
Agriculture  is  the  foundation  of  farmers’  livelihoods  in  study  site,  and  rice  paddy  is  the  core  cropping of respondents. It is the most important occupation for their living standard. But flood in2011 damaged the public and household's properties and damaged on the livestock especially riceproduction. The survey result showed the rice paddy around 95% of the total respondents (n=96)
got the worst impact by flood in 2011. They got nothing of rainy season rice yield because theⒸ ISERD

143

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

farmers growed raining rice at the same time during the flood period and flood in 2011 submerged
before harvest 3.1% got medium impact. Most of the respondents got a little of raining rice yield
and another 1% got less impact, they lost a little of their rainy season rice yield. The rest, no one inthe  respondents  did  not  have  an  impact  by  flood  in  2011  (Table  2).  And  Flood’s  Impact  on  plant  around houses was 83.3% of the respondents got the worst impact. 9.4 % got medium impact and7.3% of them got less impact by flood in 2011. Livestock rearing is a key part of rural livelihood,providing  a  mean  for  saving,  source  of  income  and  food.  But,  Looking  into  the  flood’s  impact  on  livestock of the respondents around 35.4% got the worst impacted by flood in 2011. Moreover,around 43.8% got medium impact and another 7.3% got less impact. Only 3.1% of the total
households did not get impact. So, flood in 2011 really affected to their livelihood and saving.
Remarkably, only 7.3% of houses of respondents the worst and medium impact. 58.3% got less
impacted. The rest, approximately 27.1% was not affected by flood in 2011. During and after flood,the diseases always happen on human and animal. Most of local people have recognized theincreasing  cases  of  family’s  health  problems and insect.
Table 1 Flood situation in the last 20 years in the study area
Worst impact (%)
Medium impact (%)
Less impact (%)
Normal (%)
Less potential (%)
Medium potential (%)
The best potential (%)
Source:  Households’  survey,  2012

2011
77
212-

2000
69
23
62-

2002
1
11113
172433

2001
8241771133

Table  2  Flood’s  impact  on  livelihood
Level of Impact
Worst (%)
Rice
95.8
Plant near house
83.3
Livestock
35.4
Houses
7.3
Source:  Households’  survey,  2012

Medium (%)
3.1
9.4
43.8
7.3

Less (%)
1.0
7.3
17.7
58.3

No Impact (%)
3.1
27.1

The economic impact of rice production
The survey showed that the people in the study site were farmers who grow rice paddy. this result
is similar to the commune data book 2011 shows majority occupation of all of people lives in thecommune are farmers which growing rice paddy. But, flood in 2011 almost damaged their riceproduction in the study site. And the total average yield only 0.119 tone/ hector .It was not enougheven  to  home  consumption.  So,  this  was  the  serious  problem  to  their  livelihoods.  Flood’s  impact  on  rice production was the obstacles and difficulty to achieved government strategy (ACIAR, 2009).
Therefore, the survey result showed the economic value of rice production 3.682 tones/hectare wasloss by flood in 2011. So, it really the obstacles to Achieved government strategy in order toincrease rice yield and rice import 1 million ton in 2015.
Local knowledge to flood information
The   Information   of   the   water’s   level   is   vital   for   people   especially   farmers   who   live   in   the  vulnerable area.  Household’s  survey  showed  98% of the total respondents (n=96) do not know thewater’s  level  beneficial for cropping matures at Chorlar Sas station. Remarkably, only 2% of thetotal respondents know the water level matures at Chorlar Sas station that beneficial for cropping.
According  to  households’  survey  and  household’s  group  discussion  shows  the  study  area’s  history  events flood in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2011. Therefore, farmer used to get negative impact by flood.
Ⓒ ISERD

144

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

In contrast, almost respondents in the study area did not make attention to water’s  level  or  flood  information. It is the serious problems for people who lived in the vulnerable area. We also can say
that,   do   not   make   attention   on   water’s   level   or   flood   information   is   also   another   cause   of   badly  impact by flood. In contrast, if they make attention on flood information they can reduce the levelof worst impact by flood and they can prepare before flood. So, they have capacity to recover theirfarm after flood. Flood it is the serious problems and serious concern.
Level impacts of literacy respondents
Survey result showed that 98% of the total literacy respondents in the study place (n=96) was worst
impacted by flood in 2011. Looking to the medium impact of the literacy respondents is only 2%.
Due to the result shows among literacy respondents all of them were impacted by flood in 2011.
The education has play main role in adaptation capacity to flood. Low education may the cause oflow adaptation. By the ways, low adaptation is another cause of got worst impacted by flood.
The  farmer’s  adaptation  capacity  on  rice  pattern  to  the  flood
Generally, rice farming in the study site takes 7 months which started from June to December. By
the ways, flood in 2011 submerged rice paddies about 3 months which started from middle
September to middle December (Table 3). Group discussion and the result of interview 96
households showed farmers growing raining rice paddy at the same time during the flood period
and flood in 2011 submerged before harvest. Therefore, almost the raining rice paddy of thefarmers at the study area was damaged by flood in 2011. The average raining rice yield of the total
respondents (n=96) in the year 2011 is only 0.118 tones/hectares. The green color showed the cycleof rice production and yellow color was the period of flooding and the red color was the worstflood. According to the timetable of crop calendar of rice production and flood duration, we canconclude  that,  the  farmer’s  adaptation  capacity  on  rice  pattern  to  the  flood  before  2011  is  low.  
Table 3 Flood duration and rice production cycle

Percent

MonthJanFebMar
RiceFlood
Source:  Households’  survey,  2012

AprMayJunJulAug

Set

Oct

Nov

Dec

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
100
ChangeCropestablish
small
irrigation

establish
irrigation

Croping
fromfind job Rent land Imigration
to Raise rianing to non-farmanimal dry paddy
ChangeNot Change

Fig. 2 Farmers’  adaptation  to  flood
Survey result showed that 90% of total interview households has change crop. They changed
many kind of rice while only 10% has not. 12% of the total respondents (n=96) was establishedsmall irrigations. They build ponds and wells near their farm. According to  household’s  interviews  only 3% is establish irrigation. It does not mean that local farmers build new irrigations they all
together just rebuilds and clean some irrigation that too old and can not content the water.
Ⓒ ISERD145

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

Therefore, around 3% has changed rent their land to another. Most of the people do not like thisway. However, they still grow rice event they do not know does the flood can damage their rice
yield or not. They are farmers so they have no choice and they really want to grow rice two or threetimes per year, but lack of irrigation. Moreover, around 30% is change from raining to dry paddy
and another round 60 % has migrated. Remarkably, there is no respondent change cropping to raiseanimal (Fig. 2). Agriculture is the foundation of rural livelihoods and rice production is themajority crop for rural people. Flood in 2011 is the worst impact on rice production in the place
study is also another cause of blocked the development of Cambodia. Further adaptation strategy isstrongly needed for local people.
CONCLUSION
Flooding had caused the loss of many lives, impact of social welfare and damaged the public andhousehold's properties. Livestock and crops were also destroyed. Moreover, flooding not only
caused of economic impact, but also to social and environmental problems of the nation. The major
flooding event at the last twenty years worst flood in history in particularly study site was the flood
2011. Indeed, all respondents had evaluated there 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2011. The flood was themost negative impact on the rice and mixed crops productions. Particularly, the flood of 2011 had
bad impact to economic value of  farmer’s  rice  production,  which  consisted  of  total  average  yield  3.862   tones/ha   were  lost.  Rice   crop   was   the   main   source   of   farmer’s  consumption,   so  this   was  a  serious problem on their livelihoods. Around a half of respondents grow dry rice season instead.
Migration to another place becomes the popular way to generate more income. Low adaptation of
the farmers is another cause of worst impact especially on rice production. Therefore, the extent offlood’s  impact  on  rice  yields  of  farmers  is  the  main  consequence. In conclusion, flood in 2011 is
the worst impact on rice production in the place study. Moreover, it is the obstacles in poverty
alleviation program and in achieving the millennium development goals. Further adaptation
strategy is strongly needed for local people.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my sincere thanks to Center for Agricultural and Environmental Studies for its
financial support and Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development of Royal
University of Agriculture for their generous provision of facilities to enable this research to be
carried out. Many thanks go to the farmers at the study sites. Special thanks go to the Lecture Chou
Phanith is appreciated while preparing this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Australian Center for International Agriculture Research (ACIAR). 2009. Developing option to mainstream
climate adaptation in to framing systems in Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh and India. ACIAR, Camberra.
Cambodian Red Cross. 2003a. Summary of flood situation report. CRC, Phnom Penh.
Cambodian Red Cross. 2003b. Summary of flood situation report. CRC, Phnom Penh.
MoE and UNDP. 2011. The future of rural livelihoods in the face of climate change. The Cambodia Climate
Change Alliance. Phnome Penh.
MoE. 2002. Cambodia's initial national communication. MoE. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
NCDM. 2012. Flood situation in 2011. NCDM, Phnom Penh.
NGO ESCRMC. 2002. Parallel report under international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
Food Security.
NCDM and MoP. 2008. Stratigic national action plan for disaster risk reduction. NCDM and MoP. PhnomPenh.
Royal Gonvernment of Cambodia (RGC). 2010. Policy document on promotion of paddy rice prodution andexport of milled rice. Office of Council of Minister, Phnom Penh.

Ⓒ ISERD

146