Tsunami- Relief and Restoring Livelihoods & Habitats

DHAN Foundation Initiatives - Update 14

 

DHAN Foundation has developed two policy papers for Enabling Livelihood Restoration in the Tsunami affected areas.  The first paper is titled ‘Enabling Convergence at the Grassroots’ and the second paper is ‘Restoring Livelihoods: Sectoral and Conservation Perspective’.  These policy papers are available in our website www.dhan.org for further reading.

Two policy dialogues were convened in Chennai for shaping the perspectives on Enabling Livelihood Restoration.  The policy level issues and possible interventions were discussed in detail.  This update features about the proceedings of the two Round Table Policy Dialogues held at DHAN Foundation’s Policy Cell, Chennai.

__________

The 1st Round Table Policy Dialogue on Enabling Livelihood Restoration in the Tsunami affected areas

Place: DHAN Foundation Policy Cell, Chennai

Date: 8th February 2005

Participants

  1. Neeraj Mittal I.A.S., Joint commissioner, Relief,

  2. A.M. Swaminathan I.A.S. (retd)

  3. T.V. Murugan, Addl. Director, Directorate of Rural Development

  4. M.P. Vasimalai, Executive Director, DHAN Foundation

  5. Senthil Kumar, MSSRF

  6. Guyclarke, Oxfam Australia

  7. Kenneth Rae, Oxfam America

  8. Sanjay Awasthi, CARE

  9. S.S Jaideep, Action Aid,

  10. Vivekanandan, SIFFS,

  11. A.S.A. Sayeed Tata Relief Committee

  12. Siba Sankar Das & Pradeep Kumar Rath – East Coast Fisherman’s Forum

Mr. Vasimalai, Executive Director welcomed the participants and explained the purpose of the round table conference. He stressed that the initial dialogue is more of a brainstorming session to gather views of the participants to focus on the rehabilitation measures which includes both medium and long term since the short term relief activities were almost over.

Mr. Vasimalai initiating the dialogue process flagged the following issues for discussion.

  1. What should be our approach towards rehabilitation works?

  2. What should be the duration for such works?

  3. How do we go about once the approaches are well defined?

  4. How the organisations that at present involved in rehabilitation can collaborate?

Following were the points raised by the participants during the discussion:

  • It is felt that there is an overlapping of livelihood restoration operation carried out by different well-meaning operators but ending in confusion.

  • Habitat reconstruction phase should be given serious thought as this was a long-term measure involving sizable expenditure.

  • The activities involved in rehabilitation should be listed with desired outcomes.

  • Establishing partnerships with stakeholders would lead to success as the community participation has been accepted as a welcome tool for development activities.

  • The three distinct groups ie., (i) Govt. ii) NGO’s and iii) Affected families to interact with each other so that there will be clear cut goals and roles for each group when relief activities are executed.

  • The role and intervention of the Government in temporary shelters is critical and any deficiency in this sector will lead to further discontent and wastage of resources. Relief materials supplied to be properly recorded at the village level, which would help in avoiding duplication.

  • The community in the tsunami-affected zones is highly politicized. Involvement of local leaders and community representatives becomes essentials.

  • All the interested NGO’s can form a sort of consortium so that the rehabilitation process can be done in an effective manner. The focus should be on the community.

  • NGOs have flexibility and hence innovative designs desired in implementation can be evolved. There is an immediate need for land identification for habitat location. NGOs should interact with the collectors so that local priorities can be addressed and action taken.

  • There are too many people involved in rehabilitation. Government should get this act together. Also there is a need for fishing policy; lot more clarity on the implementation of coastal zone regulation elements is required.

  • Integrated development of coastal zones without ecological deterioration is a major task and dedicated efforts are needed. The devastation of tsunami is very minimal in areas with mangroves and hence such kind of bio shields should be part of rehabilitation and restoration. Also there is need for developing salt resistant crops  that can be taken up in the salt affected pockets. MSSRF is already in the process and has identified two salt resistant rice varieties that can be taken up in the saline ingressed areas. The changes in sand and sea currents should be taken into account while planning rehabilitation.

  • Ngo’s to have a specific approach to villages and should come forward and update the data base in the government web site (which includes area of operation, relief measures taken and the kind of intervention planned). The fringe community have been left out in rehabilitation hence the focus should also be on other economy abutting the coast which is also disturbed. In case of excess funds available a common trust can be created which can be used in future. Enabling the communities through ICT can be an alternate option.

  • The issue of identifying the target people lies with the fisheries department. The format in which this information available in the department will be let known to the participants – Neeraj Mittal.

  • The process of housing should start only after finalising the settlement pattern with the community.

Mr. Vasimalai while converging the points rose by the participants mentioned that the whole process of rehabilitation should be anchored by the community with more autonomy. The core is basically organising the community for which a code of rehabilitation is required.

  • The government should come out with a conservation based pro-active fishing policy.

  • The government should also interact with those organisations that has planned to stay for a longer duration and should come out with a partnership model with such organisations for rehabilitation. It should identify the anchor institutions who can converge at grassroots.   

  • The way forward is to converge at grassroots level, bringing in organisations together and putting things together. Hence the next 2-3 months is very critical for this to happen. The community has to be in fore front. Individual policy papers on fishing and agriculture rehabilitation should be brought out.

It was decided to have fortnightly roundtable policy dialogue for the next 2-3 months. It was also agreed to plan the next meeting by the last week of February 2005.

_______

The 2nd Round Table Policy Dialogue on Enabling Livelihood Restoration in the Tsunami affected areas

Place: DHAN Foundation Policy Cell, Chennai

Date: 5th March 2005

Participants

  1. CV Sankar I.A.S. Officer on Special Duty – Relief and Rehabilitation, Govt. of Tamilnadu

  2. A.M. Swaminathan I.A.S (retd)

  3. M. Kingsley Laine - Deputy Director of Fisheries (Marine) Directorate of Fisheries, Chennai

  4. T. Mani – Ex. Officio, Fisheries Department.

  5. Dr. R. Ramesh, Professor - Institute of Ocean Management, Anna University

  6. Dr. M. Vijayakumaran, Co-Ordinator, OSTI Programme, NIOT, Chennai.

  7. Guyclarke, Oxfam Australia

  8. Zahid Hussain - Save the Children

  9. Manju Muraleedharan,  Mercy Corps, Portland, USA

  10. Louis Joseph – Plan International

  11. S. Umashankar - Action Aid, Chennai

  12. Pradeepkumar Rath, ECDF, Chennai 

  13. Vasimalai, Executive Director, DHAN Foundation

  14. Dr.T.Natarajan – DHAN Foundation

  15. V.Dayalan – DHAN Foundation

  16. J.Saravanan-DHAN Foundation

J.Saravanan (JS) welcomed the participants and made a recap of the first meeting covering the points discussed and converged during the first round table policy dialogue on tsunami rehabilitation.

The agenda (points for discussion) taken up for the meeting are:

  1. Developing a Partnership Model involving all the stake holders in tsunami rehabilitation

  2. Rejuvenation of water bodies along the coast

  3. Coastal Agriculture

  4. Effect of Tsunami in coastal ecology

  5. Livelihood restoration

  6. Inputs for settlement and housing plan

Mr. Vasimalai made a brief presentation on the need and concept of evolving Partnership Model.

  • The partnership model termed  People – Public – Private Partnership involves three streams such as People Stream (involving Fisherfolk, farmers, fringe communities and others), Supply Stream ( involving Government, Panchayat, line departments, Banks, INGO’s, Corporates) and Enabling Stream (involving  facilitating NGO’s, and Resource Institutions). The task is to identify the anchor institutions that will organise the people stream as Self Help Groups for self reliance. The process involves interaction by the anchor institution between the Community and Government / other grant making organisations for community development. The idea is to make the process of rehabilitation simple and effective at district level. (note on Partnership Model with other sub sectors are enclosed as annexure)

  • The working mechanism for such a model is to enter into a tripartite agreement for two phases (livelihood restoration phase and coastal management phase). The flow of funds can be made directly to the community and need not go through the anchor institution (NGO), but the fund flow is important. Bankers and Panchayats can come into play in this phase to monitor and facilitate the process. The second phase of tsunami rehabilitation after livelihood restoration will be coastal zone management which will run for the next 2-3 years

  • DHAN has the experience of working in about 250 self help groups in gulf of mannar region on the lines mentioned above.

  • About 10 sub sectors including Coastal agriculture, Coastal water bodies, Fishery, Natural resources, Information and Communication Technology, Psycho Social councilling, Skill building and housing needs allocation.

  • A major sub sector that needs more attention is estuaries and back waters  as people depend on these for their livelihoods. The damages near the estuary and back waters is more and the government should straight away take up the studies to assess the damage and plan reconstruction activities. Like for instance in Perunguthagai village of Nagapattinam District about 50 acres were washed off in the back waters. Since the scale of devastation in such case is very high and also the technology is complex and cost intensive, government intervention is needed in these areas. 

  • With regards to farm ponds, shallow and filter point wells their rejuvination can be done by the community facilitated by the local NGO. Medium sized water bodies such as village tanks, ponds and feeder canals can be rejuvenated by the NGO’s.

  • Livestock and dairy development will directly benefit and help the coastal community. Backyard poultry and bullock replacement can be done through  SHG’s in the area.

  • Agriculture extension programmes such as KVK’s (minimum of 2 in tsunami affected pockets ) can be planned. Similarly Fishing Vigyan Kendras (FVK’s ) can also be planned for fisheries.

  • Community colleges should be planned as part of skill building in the tsunami affected areas. DHAN has already started 2 in which about 40 members of the local community were attending daily. Minimum of 10 community colleges should be planned in the affected areas.

Dr. Ramesh IOM, Anna University made a presentation on the study planned by IOM under Department of Science and Technology (DST)  in the tsunami affected pockets. The study with the application of remote sensing will focus on the Eco system, mapping inundated areas, estimating wave heights, recording shore line and coastal geomorphic changes. The study will also cover the impact of tsunami on surface and groundwater bodies. The existing 40-45 creeks in Tamilnadu are to be mapped and the feasibility of developing mangroves in such creeks will be explored. The study is also to focus on nutrient status of surface sediments, charactersation of the recent tsunami sediments and their correlation with paleo - environment. The study is intended to cover Andaman and Nicobar islands and Kerala also. The out come of the study is expected in 6 months. The participants stressed the need for such physical data available to be fed back into rehabilitation  and also to make it available to the user groups.

Dr. Vijayakumaran covered the initiative taken by NIOT to curb exporting  Juvenile Lobster fish. As there is tremendous potential on this for SHG’s and sited the case study of Erwadi. The participants agreed on the fact that though there were regulations on fishing already existing they were not being either strictly implemented or followed. In Tamilnadu as such there is no rule on sea farming and hence this is the right time to introduce and strengthen the regulations with proper monitoring mechanisms. The scope for development is more in east coast than in west coast. A working group on fishing is to be set up by involving 3-4 institutions.

While clarifying the comments made on community contribution it is stated that the basic idea of community contribution is to create a space for contribution if not in terms of percentage. There is common fund available with the fishing Panchayats. The issue is to combine the whole process. Pool of funds depends upon the context and frankness. The whole process of rehabilitation should be a kind of enabling and empowerment than helping, with some demonstration as pilot projects, which should get into a policy guideline.

Commenting on the partnership model and other sub sectoral approach CV Sankar felt that small working groups needed for each sub sector. Atleast 4 groups to start with involving 3-4 institutions to assess the extent of damage and rehabilitation measures needed in each sector.

  • The institutions that are available in each sector with their capability should be listed out and made available. Sector wise meetings should be planned to arrive strategies. The strategy should cover immediate medium and long term measures. The process should ensure community contribution at every stage. Different issues to address in separate groups and to come out with a lead paper.

  • The settlement policy for fishing community needs more information. A regulatory framework on landside, seaside– strategy to be worked out. The restrictions in terms of investment are to bring out the strength of the institution involved in rehabilitation. Also these are guidelines and can be developed with more additions and innovations.

  • Need to work with existing informal but strong fishing panchaysts. In the process the political system should be taken into confidence.

  • The are about 125 existing cyclone shelters. More needed. But these should be to put in-use on daily basis by the local community for purposes such as organising meetings of the FVK’s, SHG’s, Vocational training etc., Local organisations to be identified and should kick start with pilot study. Partnership model need to be worked out. An e group can be planned as part of sharing the experiences. The media, which plays a positive role, should be involved in the process.

The participants also felt that basic level issues should be addressed and met, then to work on technology.  Opportunity for improvement, skill development and training comes later. Should create a more profitable livelihood also taking their immediate need. Shelter construction should be quick, livelihood restoration in 2-3 weeks. Concept is towards concrete solution. Expertise from different sector can be pooled in for disaster management. The cyclone shelter can be also used for school storage etc.,

The present package offered by the Fisheries department is of two types - cash and asset. A Joint account with the beneficiary is created and the payment is made only after creating the asset. But no monitoring system is in place. The unregistered fishermen can approach the Joint Director fisheries of that district directly for relief and rehabilitation package.

While converging it was decided to

  • Have working groups to start with in 2-3 areas in collaboration with the government and to come out with a lead paper on each sector.

  • The pilot projects can be taken up in areas where the community comes forward.

  • JS to contact the participants to establish the working groups and facilitate interaction.

Annexures

DELIVERY  (RELIEF) TO ENABLE (DEVELOPMENT) PHASE OF TSUNAMI REHABILITATION IN COASAL AREAS: EVOLVING PARTNERSHIP

I     PEOPLE - PUBLIC – PRIVATE – PARTNERSHIP

II. PARTNERSHIP FOR LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT

III. WORKING MECHANISM

  • Tripartite agreement for two phases (livelihood restoration phase and coastal management phase)

  • Fund flow and periodical sharing for ‘effective’ and efficient implementation

  • Bankers and panchayats role for reconstruction.