June 2005
Prepared by
Paula Banerjee
& Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury
Symposium held on 23 April 2005, Kolkata
Organized by Calcutta Research Group
Note: An abstract of this report has been published in the
“Forced Migration Review special issue: Learning from the Tsunami”. For details
visit http://www.fmreview.org/
Human rights groups consider the question of
rights as crucial for humanitarian relief in all forms of displacements. Rights
based groups all over the world believe that humanitarian relief should be
recognized as human rights of all affected individuals. They regard the right to environment and
right to humanitarian relief as inter-related. The right to get assistance from
the state and other institutions without any discrimination based on caste,
religion, gender, is also an important demand made by these groups.
The Calcutta Research Group organized a
symposium that was meant to discuss these questions in the context of Tsunami
and its effects on Tamil Nadu and the Andaman Islands
in India. Academics and activists
including human rights and gender rights activists participated in this
symposium. The speakers in the symposium were –
All the speakers were involved in relief and
rehabilitation work for the victims or in efforts to investigate the state of relief
for the victims of the Tsunami.
In the inaugural session of the symposium,
Paula Banerjee, Research Coordinator of the MCRG,
welcomed all the participants. She indicated that rehabilitation and management
of relief is of utmost concern at a time of natural disaster like tsunami and,
therefore, human security and the security of the people should be given
primacy to the so-called issues of national security. Ranabir
Samaddar, Director of the MCRG, made a few
introductory remarks about the MCRG and the symposium. In this connection, he
referred to the flood disaster in 1921 in North Bengal. He also discussed the
role of the colonial administration in the context of natural disasters. In his
opinion, disasters, both man-made and other natural calamities probably
reinforce the need for recognition of the right to relief as a human right. In
the inaugural session the speakers pointed out that the response from the
Government of India to massive destructions due to the Tsunami was initially
hesitant. The larger civil society institutions took up rescue and relief
efforts such as the civil liberty groups, academic institutions and other
smaller rights based organizations. They
argued that even today the response of the government agencies is largely in
the gratis mode. Human Rights
groups on the other hand have emphasized more the question of right to relief
and rehabilitation rather than on actual relief efforts. There is hardly any recognition that the
situation of some groups is worse than the others. There are families that lost almost everything
and others suffered partial losses.
Relief efforts should be made on the basis of the needs of the victim
communities and not on any preconceived notions of relief and rehabilitation.
The symposium on the experiences of the
Tamil Nadu and the Andaman Islands brought out the
specific and particular nature of these experiences, the distance between
governmental relief efforts and the reality of the situation on the ground, the
misdirected efforts of various relief agencies, the steadfastness of many
sections of the local communities, the social and economic inequalities made
acute in acute distress and disaster situations, and the over all political
configurations that surround such disaster and post-disaster relief efforts,
and the human rights dimensions of humanitarian assistance and work. The
symposium also brought out with clarity the issue of gender justice that cuts
across all themes of human rights and humanitarian work, indeed all situations
of tragedy that include calamities, killings, developmental displacements, and
massive natural disasters.
This report is divided in two sections. The first section
presents the summary of the discussions; the second section presents the
written submissions to the symposium on the basis of which discussions took
place.
Bimla Chandrasekhar made
a serious critique of the narrow definition of the affected communities. She
admitted that there was discrimination in terms of relief. Bimla
questioned the sensitivity of the District Collectors in this context and felt
the need for sensitising the district-level
authorities to some extent. She argued that the tsunami relief operations were
totally gender-insensitive. Women employees were not deputed in the affected
areas and male officials were sent to look after the women and children. As a
result, while five kerosene stoves were provided for one family, the women
received only sarees and no undergarments or churidars.
Similarly, in some areas igloo-like structures were built to provide
shelter to the displaced persons. Bimla argued that
the need of the victims should be assessed. For instance, all the relief money
went to the men, as the women were not considered heads of their families.
Consequently, in some cases money was spent on liquor. Media coverage also at
times became a menace in the relief operations. Many photographers were eager
to have a snap of a helpless woman crying, as this was considered a ‘good
copy’. There was also a total mismatch in terms of food supplies. For example, chapattis
were being provided to the predominantly rice-eating people in Tamil Nadu. Similarly, although the coastal people prefer dry
fish and do not take curd rice, they received curd rice that they could not
eat. Bimla clearly indicated that, while the women
were the most vulnerable, a few men became rich for the deaths in their family
as every death in the family was being monetarily compensated.
There were problems on the part of the women
as well. Many women preferred to die instead of remaining naked. They could
easily be saved had our societal attitudes been different. Bimla
pointed out that this disaster indicates our insensitivity to the affected
people. The traditional panchayats working are
against the women’s rights. Therefore, there was no need assessment of the
women and there was total marginalisation of women
even in the relief operations. There was a lack of proper data. It was decided
that the relocation of the displaced people has to be beyond 200 metres from the coastline. There remains a debate as to
whether this is acceptable since land can be considered as part of the
communitarian right or it as a public place over which the government
jurisdiction is supreme. This debate also leaves the door open for handing over
of these areas to the MNCs in future.
The homogenisation
of families was another major problem, according to Bimla.
The women were in great difficulty in one-bedroom houses. Bimla
pointed out that different actors might have worked but the people’s voices
were largely ignored. She said that there was no comprehensive rehabilitation
policy, and as a result, the relief operations largely remained supply-driven
and not demand-driven. There was also no coordination among the government
departments. There was a lack of transparency about the coastal regulations.
So, Bimla argued that future planning would require a
proper understanding of the situation. Although the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu promised shelter for all the affected people before Pongal, this target could not be achieved. Rather this created all kinds of problems.
There was a lack of coordination among the NGOs. Moreover, the burden of proof
is now on the victims. The government is listening to the civil society
institutions but not always accepting their recommendations. Rather the
government is more sensitive to the media reporting to maintain its image.
There is also a reluctance to induct the NGOs in the committee looking after
the relief operations. Bimla felt that there is a
need for developing a relief core. Monitoring of relief operations is also
necessary. There is a need for facilitating the articulation of the victims’
views through increasing the role of the panchayats.
During discussion on her presentation, Bimla indicated that both the political parties and women’s
organisations often neglected the issue of
discrimination against women in tsunami relief operations.
Dr. Louis in his presentation, said that, the
initial response from the Government of Tamil Nadu in
the context of rescue and relief operations of the tsunami victims were
inadequate. In his opinion, the civil society institutions, like the NGOs,
academic institutions and other smaller organisations
did much more in those days. He argued that while the human rights organisations emphasised more on
the people’s right to relief and rehabilitation, even today the response of the
government agencies appears to be in a gratis mode.
Louis pointed out that, as a consequence of the tsunami, while
some families lost almost everything, the others had a partial loss. He
indicated that the fishing communities got more attention compared to other
victim communities in terms of relief. Therefore, there was a need to give more
emphasis so far as the relief operations are concerned. There was a necessity
to give more importance to the discriminated communities so that they do not
die of starvation yet most aid agencies were left grappling with the confusion
created by government policies on relief and rehabilitation. Even today, many INGOs and local NGOs with a lot of money are finding it
difficult to spend their funds as the government is focussing
more on coastal navigation rules, thereby preventing the construction of houses
for the tsunami victims or providing them livelihood-related materials, like
boats and other implements. Some NGOs have given as many as five boats to
bigger fishing families yet hardly any aid to lesser-known groups. About 70% to
80% of aid has come to the communities as a loan package and the remaining in
the form of subsidies. Consequently the fishing communities feel that they will
not be able to repay these loans as they have lost most of their belongings.
Therefore, only 20 to 30% of the fishing communities have been able to go back
to their jobs. The rest are remaining idle still now. Dr. Louis also referred
to the GO 172 on the Coastal Regulation Rules in this connection. He indicated
that, now there are other political agenda in view of the coming Assembly
elections. But, there still remain many unattended victim groups, like women,
children and aged people who need more attention. Even the issue of
rehabilitation of the fishing communities is being considered from a short-term
perspective and not from long-term perspectives. Dr. Louis pointed out with
deep concern that some mining companies are involved in sand-making as if no
displacement has taken place in the region and the government is interestingly
silent about them. For instance, in Tuticorin
district, many families could be saved had they not been taking out sand. The
mangrove forest has also been destroyed leading to soil erosion.
Louis further said that, when the human
rights organisations and NGOs started providing
relief to the discriminated and dalit
communities, the fishing communities prevented them in doing so. In other
words, the discrimination was not only based on caste identity but also on the
basis of the livelihood pattern. For example, wherever there is salt water, the
fishing communities claim a right to fish. But, there is a need to reduce this
discrimination. After all, more than 20000 acres of agricultural land has been salienated. This clearly indicates that, the agricultural
communities have also been adversely affected from a long-term perspective.
But, Dr. Louis hastened to add that there was no paucity of funds. The Asian
Development Bank (ADB) sanctioned a huge amount of money for the Government of
Tamil Nadu. Then there was the Prime Minister’s
Relief Fund and Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. But, now there is a demand for
more transparency about the use of available funds by the government agencies
and the NGOs. The question of accountability to the people has also come up for
discussion. But, Dr. Louis concluded that, for this there is a need for
national-level effort and the state-level initiatives would not be enough to
ensure this accountability.
During discussion on his presentation, Dr.
Louis pointed out the insensitivity shown in relief operations. For instance,
innumerable wagons of quilt came from northern India for the victims in a hot
and humid Tamil Nadu that definitely were of no use.
Similarly, when a lot of used clothes came, the fishing communities with a lot
of self-esteem refused to accept them. Finally, a few officials had to be
employed to remove these. These, in fact, show how the awareness of the local
realities was absent among the relief-suppliers.
K.M Parivelan
adopted a macro-approach to assess the tsunami relief operations in Tamil Nadu. He emphasised the role of
the UN and the response of the government to that. He pointed out that the UN
and the Government of India set up a disaster management team and on 27
December, the first meeting of this team was held. The team also got active
support from the international agencies, like WHO, UNDP, and UNICEF. The UN
agencies started providing certain essential items, such as, water tanks and
ORH tablets.
He said that, in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands alone, there were 2,88,437 people affected
by the tsunami disaster. Therefore, these islands needed infrastructural
facilities as well as critical areas of support. There was a need for providing
health and nutrition requirements of the victims. There was also a necessity of
ensuring care for these victims. Education was another major area of concern so
far as these victims were concerned.
Therefore, there were dialogues between the
government and the UN. However, the Andaman and Nicobar
Islands were not part of the assessment – a comprehensive assessment of loss
and damage that was initiated. These dialogues provided a lot of data on the
estimation of damage. The largest amount of damage was found to be in fishing,
housing and infrastructure. Therefore, it was felt that, a participatory and equitable
approach was necessary. Similarly, the psycho-social support and care needed to
be strengthened. Rebuilding of livelihood was also necessary as was the need
for shelter and habitat development. Parivelan felt
that the need for an integrated and culture-sensitive approach to relief
operations is of paramount importance.
Parivelan pointed out, that
some kind of an overlap of relief was a major problem. There were a lot of NGOs
involved in the tsunami relief operations in Tamil Nadu.
But a section of them were more interested in media publicity, in taking snaps.
To them, the tsunami victims appeared as museum pieces.
Partha Guha’s
presentation followed Parivelan’s presentation. In
his presentation, Partha Guha
referred to a cartoon that appeared in the Hindu in January 2005
indicating the situation of the tsunami victims and the NGOs rushing after
them. Guha felt that with so many television
channels, dailies and periodicals around, a section of the relief workers
became more interested in getting publicity. He argued that three kinds of
people became very rich on the basis of one of the largest natural disasters in
recent times. These were hotels where no rooms were available, the car rental
companies and some of the unscrupulous local agencies, which acted as tour
guides. In his opinion, people with less amount of money to donate or fund were
kept in waiting. However, he admitted, that the government was more proactive
this time than it was during the Bhuj earthquake or
the Orissa super-cyclone.
During the discussions that followed, Ranabir Samaddar pointed out,
that earlier China had a policy of not accepting foreign aid in relief
operations. Indian government seems to have followed that policy now in making
clear this time that there was no need of foreign government help. India only
accepted the assistance coming from the UN and other INGOs.
Samaddar observed that the critical point in this
case was not whether foreign aid was acceptable or not, but what was to be the
relief, rehabilitation, and resettlement pattern, whether the humanitarian
assistance structure was democratic and dialogic or not, and whether aid meant
imposition of non-conducive and non-relevant and inappropriate designs of
relief. This symposium he emphasized was meant to find out these crucial
points, and not simply to swim in the current trend of collapsing the entire
issue of human rights and humanitarian work into the right of access of foreign
agencies to affected areas. He further explained that all the four actors – the
State, the international humanitarian relief agencies, the donor countries, and
the UN system – suffered from legitimacy crisis in the wake of such disaster,
and hence their own distinct particular responses. What were required were a
dialogic structure, and placing the voices of the affected at the center of the
question of rights and humanitarianism. Natural disasters like other disasters
made the contentious situation more acutely conflict centred.
Dwaipayan Bhattacharya said
that, without such a large number of deaths,
the tsunami perhaps would not have attracted so much attention.
Therefore, the attention to the victims this time was not simply due to the
proliferation of television channels, newspapers and periodicals. In his
opinion, some kind of ethnic bonding was involved in it. As so many Europeans
died, it appeared to the Western world as a situation of heightened conflict.
Therefore, the question of generosity attained an altogether different
dimension. Hence there was so much focus on the NGOs, government, coordination
of global money, national interest, neighbourhood
networks etc. In India, the primal position of the state was also clear in the
relief operations. Bhattacharya, however, felt that there was no reference to
the political process as such. The role of the political parties was also not
discussed in his opinion. In this connection, he was primarily referring to the
political interest and not simply partisan interest. He also argued that, there
was a serious need for rethinking the role of the state vis-à-vis civil society
and community in the context of relief operations in the times of natural
disasters.
Samir Kumar Das argued that the way Bhumika,
an NGO of the NRIs, did not simply dole out money and
other relief items but rather encouraged community kitchens could be another
kind of experiment. Bimla, in this connection,
pointed out that Bhumika generated conflict
between the coastal fishing communities and the inland fishing communities as
they raised the question of land entitlement. Bhumika,
in her opinion was more objective, and was in a better position to negotiate
with the government. But, it also failed to replicate the NGOs to take on from
there and remained simply as a model. Dr. Louis once again referred to the
problem of coordination in relief operations. He blamed factionalism in the
political parties and the lack of acknowledgement of the role of the Muslim
minorities in the relief operations. Parivelan emphasised that the state still determined who will provide
aid and who will not. The role of the civil society institutions may be
enlarging but the State still scrutinises the civil
society and it is not the other way round.
Samir Acharya
in his presentation on the relief operations in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands began by referring to the continental
mindset of the mainlanders. He indicated that even as late as the 1950s,
government schemes for the islands were referred to as the colonisation
scheme. He reminded that a continental system, however, could not function in
an island. He pointed out how the forest was cleared after the independence to
make way for rice cultivation. He pointed out further that concrete
constructions had come up in large numbers in these islands from the 1970s. He
recalled how all the old drains in Port Blair were V-shaped and so there was
less sedimentation. Now it has been made U-shaped leading to silting. He
indicated how the continental mindset has changed the ground realities in the
islands.
As a result of the tsunami, the tectonic
plates have gone up in the west and south and gone down in the east and north.
Little Andaman had a different kind of impact of tsunami. The difference was of
horizontal and vertical displacements. In Acharya’s
opinion, contrary to popular perceptions the tsunami has affected the
indigenous people more. Yet, the society of the indigenous communities
withstood the shock better because to the tsunami-affected Nicobarese
community, nobody was an orphan although the children might have lost their
parents in the disaster. He described how in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the administration behaved like a dinosaur
– a giant outdated machinery. The news of the burning of its tail reached its
brain much later. As we know, no foreign fund was allowed directly for the
relief operations in the islands. But the NGOs were allowed to transfer money
to the administration.
Acharya pointed out, that
the Nicobarese refused to accept the fishing gears
provided to them in the post-tsunami period, as they were ill suited to local
needs, being manufactured in the Indian mainland. In fact, they used to get
their gear from Thailand or from the Chinatown in Kolkata. So, he argued that
the views of the local people required to be considered and the traditional
wisdom had to be given importance. He cautioned that as a result of this
disaster, the fishing communities in the islands were likely to be affected,
mangrove forests were likely to be denuded and the corals were likely to be
damaged, thus affecting the flora and fauna of these islands.
In his presentation Subir
Bhaumik referred to the disaster mitigation plan of
the SANE (Save Andaman Nicobar Ecology). He also
referred to the coastline regulations and pointed out how members of the local
elite had violated the ‘no-built zone’. Even the Air Force in Car Nicobar used to violate these established coastal
regulations. There was no coordinated disaster mitigation plan. Therefore, the
relief operations depended much upon the integrated relief command of the army
and not on any kind of committee. The tri-services command was in control of
the overall relief and rehabilitation measures. In these islands, the people
simply did not have the wherewithal of transportation. As the jetties were washed
out, the victims depended on the airlift in order to be rescued. There was no
consultation with the community leaders and the task of civilian administration
was practically handed over to the military administration including relief and
rehabilitation of the victims. The disaster also brought into open the problem
of settlers in the Andaman and
Bhaumik also pointed out
that while the particular features of the affected islands made the role of the
Air Force and the United Command of the three services essential for the
initial phase of relief activities, the entire experience could become useful
for making the islands the strategic base of operations in warm waters. And
this possibly explained the reluctance to involve foreign agencies in admission
in the
Both Acharya and Bhaumik noted the fact that the islands did not have local
democratic governance and legislative structures. There was no other provision
of having people’s representatives except for electing one member of the
parliament The absence of political organizations like political parties,
elections, local assemblies, etc, had made the islands completely
administration-dependant. Relief operations thus became even more bureaucratic.
The speakers and the participants ended
their discussions by making eleven (11) policy recommendations.
The tsunami that struck
the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu (T.N.) on the
Rescue
and Relief:
·
Immediately after the disaster the relief
operations were in full swing. There was overwhelming response from people
within and outside the State. There was unprecedented NGO, Corporate,
Government and Donor Coordination in providing Relief.
·
The tough task was to remove dead bodies,
transfer survivors to the temporary camps, and provide first aid, food and
clothing. The T.N. Government moved fast by deputing its Senior IAS officers to
the areas to take charge of the rescue and relief operation.
·
Some lessons learnt from the past disasters
were applied to address this great human tragedy, particularly with reference
to NGO collectives called Coordination Committees.
Magnitude of the
Disaster
It is unbelievable and scary to listen to
those who witnessed the swelling of the sea that swallowed the fishing
community who were on the sea shore in search of livelihoods, throwing their
fishing boats over their settlement, killing the children who were playing on the beach, and swallowing the senior
citizens who went on a morning walk. Many of those affected report that their
past has been washed away and the future look very uncertain.
Whatever assessments are given with regard
to damage or the death toll, they are only estimates and the actual loss is
immeasurable as the information regarding causalities keep changing.
Information on the extent of physical damage is still unreliable, and the
amounts of funds committed by the NGOs and donor agencies for relief and
reconstruction have not been clearly established yet.
Disaster Management Operations in Tamil Nadu
Although the shock has begun to fade, the
horror still remains. Not many children are to be noticed in these fishermen
settlements. Many are still in the
relief camps expecting the government to come out with a rehabilitation
package. The NGOs, donor organizations and some corporate houses are busy
planning the rehabilitation and reconstruction phases. By January 2, most
families in Tamil Nadu had got the government package
of a dhoti, saree, two bed sheets, 60 kgs of rice, 3 litres kerosene,
Rs.2000 for purchase of provisions and utensils; and Rs.2000 for putting up a
hut as a temporary measure. Orphanages
have been opened.
Coordination Action
Hundreds of NGOs have landed in the affected
districts collecting data and many of them are providing relief materials as
well. The challenge does not seem to be in mobilising
resources to carry out the relief and rehabilitation work, rather it is only
the coordination that is necessary An NGO Coordination Unit is functioning at
the district level in the Collectorate campus at Nagapattinam. It
mainly serves as a place for information exchange on matters pertaining to
works undertaken by different NGOs. It
was indicated that there are about 467 NGOs working in the area alone. The
relief aid pledged and poured in look more than sufficient. But one thing that
is definitely wanting is proper coordination and non-duplication of efforts.
Rehabilitation
Process
The construction of
temporary shelters, providing ration and livelihood support were the
challenges. Logically this phase should be taken over by the permanent housing
and other sustainable support, however even after nearly four months many of
the affected families are stuck in the camps.
The livelihood support
has been extended to fishermen who have lost boats and nets, and the need
assessment for other sectors is going on. However a lot of thinking needs to
done in this regard.
There has been attempt to
address the issue of education mostly by the NGOs through the education
centers, play school, amusement centres and Balwadis. Uniforms and books have also been given to these
children.
The women seemed to be
very much out of the ambit of this rehabilitation process. They are not
recognized as workers who need compensation for the loss of livelihood. The
needs of lactating and pregnant women remain unattended. Overall the health
needs of women and children remain a neglected issue.
Future
Needs
·
Developing a relief code
·
Monitoring the finance of Tsunami relief and
rehabilitation.
·
Facilitating affected people to articulate
and represent their needs.
·
Campaign for devolution of power and
allocation of resources for the Panchayats.
·
Form strategic alliances of NGOs and other
civil society organizations to demand policies and programmes
sensitive.
·
Developing decentralized warning sytems.
Gender Specific Issues
Dr. Louis
Dr. Louis from the People’s Watch Tamil Nadu presented the report of the recently formed Tsunami
Relief and Rehabilitation Coordination Committee. This committee was set up on
Purpose of TRRC
TRRC is neither an implementing organization
nor a nodal agency for any funding organizations. It is only a coordination
committee that remains to be informal in its form and structure. The core
business of TRRC falls on the following lines:
Approach
TRRC believes in ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘Rights
principles’ and is open for NGOs, Movements, Organizations and Expert groups
who fall in agreement with its codes and principles. TRRC does not have any
other criteria whatsoever to become a member except for the codes and
principles. Since its inception, the membership has grown from 90 to 300.
Except for matters of emergency, all decisions of TRRC are taken through a
consultative process.
Guiding Principles
All of TRRC’s
activities are based on the principles that are stated below:
i. Commitment to the
Rights and Equity principles in relief & rehabilitation
ii. Recognition of the coastal communities
‘Right to the Coast’ under customary international laws
iii. Positive discrimination based on gender,
caste, religion, livelihood, disability, persons living with HIV / AIDS (PLHA),
children.
iv. Ensure protection of coastal ecosystems
and natural landscapes
v. Community participation to be ensured at
all levels of relief & rehabilitation
vi. Committed to the principle of
inclusiveness and social cohesiveness in relief & rehabilitation
vii. Commitment to minimum habitation standards
– 5 cents of land; 500 square feet built area for a family of 4-5 with running
water, sanitation and other livelihood oriented facilities.
viii. To prevent and resist forced eviction of
coastal communities
ix. To support all community based
sustainable livelihood initiatives
x. Adherence to the principles of
transparency and accountability in relief and rehabilitation
Activities
The TRCC met in
On
On
The zonal consultations, held at Cuddalore, Thoothukudi, Kanyakumari, and Nagapattinam in
the first week of February, were essentially aimed at making the affected
communities aware of the policy pronouncements and government orders relating
to relief and rehabilitation and at assessing the extent of implementation by
the State administration. These consultations were designed in a format where
policies were spelt out to an audience of representatives from the various
strata of the affected communities and then comment invited. Finally, this
input and related demands were formulated into resolutions addressed to the
government. These consultations have resulted in a number of issues being
thrown up including discrimination based on caste, livelihood, gender and
disability. Further several gaps and exclusions in the relief and
rehabilitation process have come to the fore. These meetings concluded with an
overwhelming demand from the communities for a grievance redress mechanism, as
most of the government orders and their lofty intentions relating to tsunami
have been violated on the field. They resolved also for the formation of a
Tsunami Relief and Rehabilitation Committee in every village, consisting of
representatives of elected Panchayat leaders, women,
children, co-operatives, and NGOs to plan, implement and monitor relief
activities. Finally, the coastal communities asserted their inalienable rights
to the coast and its resources under the customary law.
As an effort towards facilitating community
participation in relief & rehabilitation and for facilitating the affected
communities to recognize their right; not only for relief & rehabilitation,
but also for their ‘right to the coast’, it has been planned to promote
people’s committees in all the 13 coastal districts. People’ committees will be
promoted by the local NGOs who have joined TRRC during the district level
consultations just held. TRRC will invest much of its resources in strengthening
these people committees, so as to enable them in dealing issues that affect
them and limit its operations with only a supportive role over a period.
Clearly two tasks have to be managed in coordination – the coastal communities’
“Right to the Coast” and protecting “Coastal Environment”, lest the new
situation does not open the gates of beach entertainment industry.
Problems and challenges
Even after 3 months of the Tsunami, except
for a few, none of the affected communities have got their houses built.
Despite, having a large number of INGOs / NGOs who
have adequate money and willingness to construct houses, the state finds it
difficult in allocating lands / villages for them to begin their work. In
addition, the state has not yet declared its policy / intentions on ensuring
disaster resistant technology in rebuilding of houses. TRRC feels that it has a
major role to play in this regard. Similarly securing the livelihoods of the
coastal agricultural communities, marginalized & vulnerable communities is
another task. It is evident that many groups and communities, including the
inland / backwater fishing & para fishing
communities, non fishing & coastal agricultural communities have been
either excluded or discriminated in the relief and rehabilitation processes of
the state. For reasons of not having visible / physical damages these
communities have not been listed as eligible for relief. Where as they have
lost their livelihoods sources and in many cases these losses are irrevocable,
there is a pressing need for them to be provided with one or the other
alternate source of livelihood that only could make them manage their living.
Another major challenge that we foresee is
the ‘dilemma’ of the affected communities with regard to maintaining their
stand to residing within 500 meters. The recent earthquake near
Caste based discrimination has been part of
the system for long. Coastal communities are also marked by the discrimination.
The relief & rehabilitation activities of the state have started
reinforcing these differences, knowingly or unknowingly, to the extent that
many of the dalit communities can no longer work and
live with the fishing communities. The tragedy of the tsunami has been a rich
experience and learning also in terms of getting to know about varying issues
and dimensions relating livelihoods of different communities. In times of great
crisis as this, they ran parallel administration, began community parenting and
had widow caring systems that exist as an integral part of their culture. Once
again here also, the notion of orphan was rarely found in these communities.
Dr.
K.M. Parivelan
K.M. Parivelan, a
member of the UNHCR staff participated in the rehabilitation process
individually and not through his organisation. According to him the all
In Kerala
171 deaths were reported. The Kollam district
reported 131 deaths followed by Alappuzha with 35 and
Ernakulam with 5 deaths. In Andhra Pradesh 105 deaths
were reported and 11 people were reported missing in the affected districts.[2] . Of
the affected districts,
In Andaman and
Tamil Nadu was the worst affected State with over 7983 people
killed as per Government reports. All the 13 coastal districts were affected. Nagapattinam is the worst affected district where 6051
people have died, while over 824 in Kanyakumari and
612 are reported dead in Cuddalore. The tidal waves
on the mainland were of 7-10 metres in height; penetrated into the mainland
from 300 metres to 1-1.5 kms. The Central Team
deputed and the State Government has projected the damage/ reconstruction cost
at Rs.479.954 billion. The detailed version of number of villages affected,
population affected and human lives lost can be seen in Table 2 below.
Table: 1
|
S.no. |
Districts |
No. of villages Affected |
Population Affected |
Human lives Lost |
|
1 |
Chennai |
24 |
65322 |
206 |
|
2 |
Cuddalore |
682 |
99704 |
612 |
|
3 |
Kancheepuram |
648 |
100000 |
128 |
|
4 |
Kanniyakumari |
99 |
187650 |
824 |
|
5 |
Nagapattinam |
434 |
196184 |
6051 |
|
6 |
Pudukottai |
4028 |
66350 |
15 |
|
7 |
Ramanathpuram |
2362 |
6815 |
6 |
|
8 |
Thanjavur |
598 |
2400 |
24 |
|
9 |
Thoothukudi |
1642 |
13072 |
3 |
|
10 |
Tirunelveli |
425 |
27948 |
4 |
|
11 |
Tiruvallur |
574 |
25600 |
29 |
|
12 |
Tiruvarur |
574 |
0 |
16 |
|
13 |
Villupuram |
1104 |
78240 |
47 |
Source: Govt. of
Tamil Nadu Report & UNDMT Situation Report-2005
The United Nations in
The Government did not
appeal for external assistance for the relief phase; however in keeping with
established practices in past disasters, the UN system expanded its existing programmes to provide immediate support. UNICEF led the
humanitarian efforts with active support from other UN bodies. UNDP supported
Government's co-ordination efforts particularly through information gathering
and organisation carried out by expert resources from
the ongoing GoI-UNDP Disaster Risk Management (DRM)
Programme. Programme personnel also travelled to
Although the Government of India and the
Government of Tamil Nadu like other States affected
were caught unaware by the tsunami, they responded quickly to the situation. At
the national level, a number of steps were taken. The Ministry of Home Affairs
was designated as the nodal agency for co-ordinating
relief in the affected states and union territories and formed a control room
with a help line for the public. In addition, a National Crisis Management
Committee was established under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary. An
amount equivalent to US$112 million was allocated to the affected states and
union territories from the National Calamity Contingency Fund (NCCF). Other
funds have also been announced. At the national level, the Planning Commission
has the central responsibility for the recovery and rehabilitation phases.
State Governments are responsible for implementation of recovery programmes.
The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister directed the officials of the Revenue
Department under the Relief Commissioner to co-ordinate search, rescue and
relief efforts through the District Collectors with assistance from the police,
fire and rescue services, medical and health services and other associated
departments. The state Relief Commissioners opened control rooms to disseminate
information to the public and state government web sites relating to tsunami
rescue and relief operations were opened. Supported by the army, navy, air force
and coast guard and senior civil servants deputed to affected areas, the
district administrations identified and disposed off the dead, removed debris,
rescued and moved people to safer locations, worked to prevent an outbreak of
epidemics and restore basic services such as power and water. In addition,
relief camps were opened. Initially 44,207 people were placed in 58 relief
camps. Now the relief camps are moreover closed and their inhabitants have
returned home.
Initially the Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu sought Rs.
4,800 as relief and rehabilitation fund from Centre under the following heads:[4]
a. Rs. 204.95 crores for search, rescue and relief;
b. Rs. 90 crores for a temporary relief package;
c. Rs.71.45 crores
for public health-prevention of epidemics and treatment of the injured;
d. Rs.261.36 crores for a sustenance package to compensate good
livelihood loss;
e. Rs. 250 crores for temporary housing;
f. Rs.750 crores for permanent housing;
g. Rs.709.22 crores for restoration of community assets in the coastal
areas; and
h. Rs.1,054 crores for rehabilitation and restoration of fishermen
livelihood.
It also announced the
following relief measures to the tsunami affected: [5]
(i)
The State government to adopt
orphaned children and admit them to state-run childcare centres.
The orphaned children would be provided with Rs.5lakhs comprehensively.
(ii)
The State administration to provide similar financial package of
Rs.5 lakhs for each orphaned adolescent girl in the age group 14-18. They are likely to
be admitted to the care service homes run by the State Government, to enable
these girls to become self-reliant through vocational and technical training.
(iii)
Each person who suffered grievous injuries in the tsunami
disaster given an ex gratia of Rs.25, 000 and free
health services.
(iv) The State government
has announced a new pension scheme of Rs.200 and free rice to the
tsunami-affected women and the aged.
However, resettlement
issues are still under active discussion, particularly in the context of the interpretation
of the provisions of the Coastal Zone Regulation with regard to settlements
along the coastal line. A Needs Assessment Report
was prepared in response to a request from the Government of India (GoI) by a joint mission comprising the Asian Development
Bank (ADB), United Nations (UN) and the World Bank (WB) between February 1 and
2, 2005. The three put together a team and organised
a joint assessment mission (JAM) to the tsunami-affected areas on the Indian
mainland. It was organised under the co-ordination of
the UN Country Team (UNCT) with the participation of several agencies such as
ILO, UNDP/BCPR, UNDP/GEF, UNAIDS, WHO and UNICEF. As agreed with GoI, the Andaman and
The ADB, UN and World
Bank Joint Assessment Mission, which comprised a group of specialists and
qualified experts, analysed the damage and losses as
well as the needs expressed by the relevant local, territory and State
authorities. It also made field visits to the most affected districts, and
undertook – on a sample basis - consultations with local experts, members of
civil society and NGOs. The damage and losses presented here reflect the
available official information provided by the states and union territory officials,
compiled between 1 and
Permanent solutions to
housing and restoration of infrastructure are an immediate priority and require
commitment of resources that may not be delayed. Investments in these and the
location of the new infrastructure (in terms of relocation of housing,
restoration or construction of urban and rural infrastructure and
resilience-increasing measures such as locally-adapted and environmentally sound
coastal protection) are tied to overarching policy decisions. These decisions
deal with appropriate coastal regulation and risk management, some of which
have significant costs and financial implications in the districts and states
affected.
The tsunami brings to
the surface underlying vulnerabilities to well-known and recurrent hazards and
has major negative social consequences on the livelihoods of people at the
fringes of the development process. Its consequences for the most-affected
productive sectors (fisheries and to a lesser extent, agriculture) affect the
livelihood of the entire community beyond the directly affected areas. It also
highlights systemic gender inequalities that disadvantage women in such
processes. The systemic analysis highlights the crosscutting nature of the
disaster’s impacts, and thus, the necessary multi-sectoral,
inter-institutional, and multi-disciplinary approach needed for the
reconstruction process. The disaster points to the need for interventions, with
a participatory, equitable, flexible, decentralised
and transparent approach beyond the livelihood restoration, ensuring that women
play a central role in re-building communities. Better management of the
coastal environment and reinforced risk reduction must be a part of the overall
social and economic strategy, adopting realistic, attainable goals in the short
and medium term, and are at the core of this Recovery Framework.
·
Efforts to be made in future to avoid duplication
of relief and rehabilitation works- so as to avoid wastage of time/ resources
through State- Civil Society co-ordination.
·
To provide organised
socio-legal counselling- since majority of the people
living in coastal areas are not much educated/ literate.
·
To create a comprehensive database in the Taluk level with
details comprising population, occupational profile, property details,
etc.
·
Civil society needs more space in terms of
bringing transparency and accountability for State actions- it has been
reported that few cases of malpractice, corruption and nepotism did take place
during the relief distribution.
·
To promote community based policy-making
and implementation with gender sensitization.
·
It is pertinent to sustain the enthusiasm
and coordinated rehabilitation efforts till the actual needs cease to exist- It
has been reported that initial energetic responses and action by both State and
civil society gets dampened in due course of time.
·
To have expanded role for UN agencies in
the future disaster mitigation- UN agencies having wider experiences in other
parts of world could be effectively put to use.
Participants at the Symposium
[1]
The
affected districts in Tamil Nadu consist of Thiruvallur, Chennai, Kancheepuram,
Villupuram, Cuddalore, Thanjavur, Nagapattinam, Pudukkotai, Ramanathapuram, Toothukudi, Tirunelveli and Kannyakumari.
[2]
The Affected districts in Andra Pradesh include:
[3]
Consisting of UNDP, UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR,
ILO, WHO, UNODC, and UNFPA.
[4]
The Hindu, Chennai,
[5]
The Hindu, Chennai ,