Kerala State Report

KERALA STATE REPORT

Janakeeya Pankalithavum Punarnirmanavum Community Participation in Rebuilding Kerala Accountability to Affected Population Initiative

KERALA STATE REPORT

Janakeeya Pankalithavum Punarnirmanavum Community Participation in Rebuilding Kerala Accountability to Affected Population Initiative

CONTENTS

3 4 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 6

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 9

CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS 18

ANNEXURE 1: LSGIs selected per District 55

ANNEXURE 2: Household Survey Questionnaire 56

ANNEXURE 3: Key Information Interviews conducted per district 74

ANNEXURE 4: Focus Group Discussion guide 75

ANNEXURE 5: General Questions 81

5 3 INTRODUCTION

3 CHAPTER-1 Janakeeya Pankalithavum Punarnirmanavum – Initiative (JPP-I)

Kerala experienced the worst ever floods and landslides in 2018 since 1924. Consequently, there was a need to recover and prepare better for the future beyond traditional approaches, ensuring transparency and people’s participation.

The Accountability to Affected Populations, referred to as Janakeeya Pankalithavum Punarnirmanavum - Initiative is an effort of the State Government to build Kerala Back Better, with the participation and feedback from the people affected by the flood.

Vision

»» Strengthen feedback mechanisms and community voices. »» Include feedback from communities affected by floods and landslides. »» Establish a system to collect information on post-disaster needs.

Objectives

»» Improve communities’ access to information on recovery and reconstruction assistance. »» Ensure communities’ inclusion in providing feedback on post-disaster needs via Government authorities and development actors. »» Integrate feedback of affected communities into institutional planning processes for recovery and reconstruction. »» Develop risk-informed planning in the future and inform communities about inclusion of their feedback in planning.

6 JPP-I is institutionalized within Kudumbashree, the Self-Help Group (SHG) network of the Local Self Government Department (LSGD) of Kerala, enabling a connection between ongoing development planning processes and humanitarian response and recovery.

Round 1 of JPP-I

The first round of the JPP-I was designed as a deep dive analysis of nine primary sectors: health, WASH, nutrition, education, child protection, shelter, food security and livelihoods. The feedback collection aimed at gathering information around affected populations’ perceptions of services received, the role played by governments and humanitarian organisations, the outcomes of relief assistance, and the relationship between providers and affected populations.

Objectives

To assess the To understand To evaluate the To understand effectiveness of the impact of efficiency of the impact of Immediate Relief the disaster on available health & the disaster on Assistance. basic facilities and WASH services. livelihoods, children’s housing, as well wellbeing and as the immediate education. rehabilitation needs of the community.

7 Consultations for feedback collection were conducted among 19,765 respondents belonging to the seven districts most affected by floods (Wayanad, Thrissur, Ernakulam, Kottayam, Idukki, Alappuzha and Pathanamthitta). Respondents belonged to 489 LSGIs, and a representative sample was ensured, accounting for the inclusion of nine most vulnerable population groups in consultations.

Data collection for the first round took place between November, 2018 and April, 2019, and data were uploaded in real time to a monitoring system hosted at http://www.kudumbashreejpp.org.

The findings were reviewed in coordination with the LSG Department and Advisory Council to identify emerging needs. They were communicated to concerned departments established at the State, District and GP levels. Findings were integrated into DM Sectoral Recovery Plans, and institutionalized in close coordination with local planning members. Affected and at-risk communities were kept informed of action taken based on their feedback, through the Kudumbashree network of Neighbourhood groups.

This report documents the methodology, findings and recommendations emerging from the second round of the JPP-I (JPP-I 2). While JPP-I 1 focused on post disaster relief and response, as well as immediate needs of households, JPP-I 2 was designed to assess the effectiveness of the response and relief processes, and identify opportunities to inform policy and program design around these.

8 3 METHODOLOGY

3 CHAPTER-2 The second round of JPP-I was designed as a mixed methods study to gain a deeper understanding of the disaster affected communities, by including detailed accounts of the cultural context, social environment, and individual cognitions influencing people’s decisions and actions during and in the post disaster recovery phase. The overall objective was to understand in-depth the response and relief processes to better inform policy and program as Kerala continues to rebuild itself after the disaster, and implement mitigation measures for future disaster events.

Several consultations were conducted with the Advisory Committee, Local Self Government Department (LSGD), Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) and Kudumbashree to develop the key objectives and methodology for the second round. Based on lessons learned from round 1, a qualitative component was added to help understand what is important to the individual, especially when the immediacy of the trauma has subsided and the effects stemming from the event are revealed.

Objectives

»» To understand the extent of community consultation and engagement in rebuilding efforts »» To assess the efficiency of the grievance redressal system »» To understand the level of disaster preparedness among communities

Data collection took place among the seven most affected districts of Kerala: Wayanad, Alappuzha, Thrissur, Ernakulam, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Idukki during May-December 2019.

9 Methodology at a glance Mixed methods study

Quantitative: Structured household questionnaire

LSGI selection Ward selection Households selection

High receipt of IRA 20% LSGIs Sample Receipt of IRA 5 households from Stratum 1 2 wards from each High house damage from each House damage each Sample Group LSGI selected Group A Stratum Selected Stratum 2 High receipt of IRA selected Sample Receipt of IRA 439 Low house damage Group B No house damage 7 districts LSGIs clustered 20 households x identified Low receipt of IRA into 4 Stratum 3 99 LSGIs 198 wards selected Sample No receipt of IRA 198 wards=3960 High house damage strata selected Group C House damage households *Including 8 Municipalities Low receipt of IRA Stratum 4 and 1 Municipal Sample No receipt of IRA Low house damage Corporation Group D No house damage

District identification LSGI clustering criteria: LSGI selection Ward selection criteria: Household clustering Household criteria: Average receipt of IRA (Immediate criteria: Selected using a Probability criteria: selection criteria: Districts most affected by Relief Assistance) (Rs. 10,000) Average Random Sampling Proportional to Size method and Receipt of IRA (Y/N) Random Sampling floods number of damaged houses Random Number Tables Damage to house sustained (Y/N)

Qualitative: Semi structured FGD Qualitative: Semi structured KII Multi stage sampling design 99 LSGIs selected *Including 8 Municipalities FGD respondents: LSGI clustering and 1 Municipal Corporation KII respondents: 7 KIIs conducted criteria: Scheduled Castes/Tribes LSG functionaries x 7 districts By geographical terrain Fisherfolk/Daily wage labourers Department officials Women headed households District Authorities LSGI selection Migrant workers criteria: Highlands Midlands Lowlands Tehsildar 49 KIIs Agricultural labourers Village Officer To ensure variation in conducted in total Elderly livelihood patterns and 15 FGDs 26 FGDs 15 FGDs Livelihood Officers Adolescents nature of disaster Civil Society Functionaries Differently abled and their Frontline Functionaries caregivers KI selection criteria: 56 FGDs Based on data required and availability of 10-12 participants per FGD informants

Participant selection criteria: 10 7-8 per FGD of affected HHs, remaining of unaffected HHs Research design

A mixed methodology research design was developed to conduct Round 2 of data collection. The mixed methods inquiry employed a structured household questionnaire for quantitative analysis; a semi structured guide to conduct Focus Group Discussions among community members, and a semi structured interview guide to conduct Key Informant Interviews. Quantitative and qualitative data collection took place in parallel, and the findings were triangulated.

Household Survey Sampling

A multi-stage sampling design was employed in this round of the JPP-I to identify household for survey across the 7 study districts (Pathanamthitta, Alappuzha, Kottayam, Idukki, Ernakulam, Thrissur and Wayanad). The design was developed to capture maximum variance in the population and at the same time, capture vulnerabilities within the population, ensuring as far as possible representativeness of the sample to achieve the key objectives of the second round.

Identification of LSGIs

LSGIs in the 7 study districts were clustered into 4 strata on the basis of 2 variables, ‘K’ and ‘M’: »» LSGs with less than ‘K’1 number of people receiving compensation (Rs. 10,000) and »» LSGs with more than ‘K’; number of people receiving compensation (Rs. 10,000). »» Those with less than ‘M’2 damaged houses »» Those with more than ‘M’ damaged houses

Using these variables, all 439 LSGIs of the 7 districts were clustered into Stratum 1-4. 20% of each stratum was identified to select 99 LSGIs for the sample. Please refer to Annexure 1 for the list of finalized LSGIs.

1 K = average of number of people that received compensation in a district 2 M= average of number of houses damaged in the district; example m=429 for Alappuzha district

11 Identification of wards

Two wards from each selected LSGI were identified using a Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) method. Wards of each LSGI were listed in descending order, based on population. A sampling interval (k) for the survey was obtained by dividing the total population size by the number of clusters to be surveyed (2 in this case). A random number (x) between 1 and the sampling interval (k) was chosen as the starting point using random number tables, and the sampling interval was added cumulatively, such that the wards selected to be surveyed were x and x+k.

Identification of households

In each of the 198 wards, the following list of household Sample Groups was prepared with information gathered from the LSG or Revenue Village Officer. The same critical vulnerabilities (used to stratify/categorize households for LSGI identification) were used here:

Sample Group A Sample Group B Sample Group C Sample Group D

(House damaged (House not (House damaged & (House not & Received Relief): damaged & No relief received): damaged & No Households Received Relief): Households who relief received): who sustained Households who did sustained house Household who house damage, not sustain house damage, and did not sustain and received damage, and did not receive house damage, Immediate Relief received Immediate Immediate Relief and did not receive Assistance Relief Assistance Assistance Immediate Relief (Rs. 10,000/-) (Rs. 10,000/-) (Rs. 10,000/-) Assistance (Rs. 10,000/-)

12 Five households from each of the above Sample Groups were selected randomly resulting in a final selection of 20 Households from each of the 198 wards, with a final sample of 3960 Households. (If adequate number of households was not found in any category, households from the next higher vulnerable category in the same ward or nearby ward were selected).

Research Tool

A structured questionnaire, with close-ended questions associated to the determined research objectives was developed by the research team, under the guidance of the Advisory Committee, Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA), Local Self Government Department (LSGD), Kudumbashree, UNICEF and sector experts.

The themes and variables covered in the questionnaire reflected key principles of the AAP approach, as the tool prioritized gathering information around the communities’ views and concerns; their feedback on community participation and engagement during recovery; current status of affected populations’ housing and livelihoods; reach of flood related social and financial assistance; status of children; grievance redressal systems; disaster preparedness measures of the community.

The household survey questionnaire- Annexure 2.

Data collection and Monitoring The household survey (perception assessment tool) was administered to 3960 households in 90 Gram Panchayats, 8 Municipalities and 1 Municipal corporations in the 7 study districts. Each household was geotagged through the data collection mobile app, and data was displayed on the JPP-I portal in real time.

Data quality was monitored and cross verified by the District Missions of Kudumbashree. The District Coordinators and District Master Trainers provided continued support to the field investigators. Enumerator Work Sheets (to be filled and submitted by investigators on each day) were verified by the Kudumbashree District Coordinators. District Master Trainers conducted surprise visits to the field to monitor the Community Facilitators. District Coordinators cross checked and verified the feedback of 4 Households in each LSGI either through direct visits or over the phone, thus monitoring 20% of data collection in every LSGI.

The Program Management Unit cross checked and verified the real time data as displayed on the portal, checking for mismatches or inconsistencies between the responses of households, time taken for completing the household survey, mismatches with the Enumerator Work Sheet and other data entry errors.

13 Qualitative inquiry Scheduled Castes/Tribes: Persons belonging to scheduled caste or tribes, including tribal head. The qualitative data collection took place between October and December, 2019 by the resource persons of KILA. 56 FGDs (eight per district) and 49 KIIs (seven per district) Fisher-folk or daily wage labourers: Persons relying were conducted across the study districts. on fishing and fishing related livelihoods (from coastal districts) and those reliant on daily wage work (from Focus Group Discussions non-coastal districts). Women headed households/ Women micro-entrepreneurs:

(FGDs) Women primarily responsible for households (widows, The qualitative inquiry aimed to gather more in-depth single women) and women engaged in micro-production/ and granular information regarding the community’s service enterprises. experience during and after the floods, and the impact of this disaster on their lives, livelihoods and wellbeing. Migrant workers: Labourers from other states who were present during the flood. Sampling

A purposive sampling methodology was employed to Agricultural labourers and cultivators: Marginal farmers select participants for FGDs. The 99 LSGIs selected in engaged crop growing or labourers whose major source of the quantitative sample were clustered based on their income is from agriculture related daily work. geographical terrain into high, mid and low lands. From each region, LSGIs were selected guided by ensuring variation in terms of nature of disaster (land slide areas, Elderly: Persons above the age of 60 years flood only); region (coastal areas, hilly) and agrarian (male and female). patterns. Resource Persons conducted Transect Walks in designated LSGIs to better understand the extent of damage and impact. A total of 56 FGDs, and the LSGIs Adolescents: Persons between the ages of 10 and 18 selected for FGDs can be found in Annexure 3. (male and female).

The following vulnerable groups were identified and prioritized for FGD participation, as they were particularly impacted by the floods: Differently-abled and their caregivers:The persons with disability (physical/developmental) and their care-givers.

14 Each FGD engaged ten to twelve people (7-8 from affected HHs and the remaining from unaffected HHs) from each vulnerable group, (members with shared characteristics, as defined by the 8 vulnerabilities identified). An effort was made to select FGD members to reflect a range of vulnerabilities like loss of house, livestock, crops, family members etc. Participants were identified and mobilized with the help of LSGI officials and the logistical support were also provided by LSGIs.

Development and administration of research tool

A semi-structured, inductive qualitative tool was developed to capture the community’s experience with disaster, relief and recovery. Each discussion was led by a trained facilitator, using a semi-structured interview guide, containing open ended questions and probes to encourage active participation and in-depth discussion by all participants.

The interview guide included questions on awareness around the disaster; relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities of the government, perceptions about voluntary action, how LSGIs are integrating disaster preparedness in local planning, awareness of the ecological impacts of disasters and willingness to adopt behavioral changes for reducing risks. Informed consent was taken among all respondents, and each FGD was audio recorded for transcription purposes. The brief transect walk report and FGD transcripts were analyzed and consolidated by KILA to develop each FGD report.

The FGD protocol guide - Annexure 4.

Key Informant Interviews (KII) The key informant interviews aimed to collect insights from community experts and leaders, who would provide first hand and in depth information about the community, their experience with the disaster, recommendations around best practices and mitigation measures for future disaster events.

Sampling

Key Informants in each LSGI were identified based on the nature of information that the study aimed to gather and gain more clarity on. A list of potential key informants was prepared, and based on relevance to data required and availability, individuals were approached for in-depth interviews. In each district, 7 KIIs were conducted, amounting to a total of 49 KIIs in this study.

3 The description of shortlisted individuals who were contacted for KIIs.

01 02 03 04

LSG Department District functionaries official authorities Tehsildar

Elected At the senior, Including District Revenue officer representatives and middle and Collector, sub- officials, including field level. collector, deputy the panchayat collector (concerned president or with Disaster secretary. Management)

05 06 07 08

Village Livelihood Civil Society Frontline officer officers or functionaries functionaries experts Members of NGOs/ Kudumbashree or Village Professionals CSOs engaged government field administrator in the fields in disaster workers, volunteers of agriculture, management supporting the animal husbandry, community on the fisheries etc. ground during the crisis.

3 Development and administration of research tool

A semi-structured interview guide was prepared to facilitate the face to face interviews. The guide contained an outline of open-ended questions, with necessary probes. The in-depth interviews were administered by District Resource Persons belonging to the KILA network and trained in conducting qualitative research techniques.

The interview guide included questions on measures taken prior to the floods; relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities of the government; steps taken for disaster preparedness and mitigation; effect of floods on specific livelihoods; recommendations for communications with community and disaster risk reduction in future. Informed consent was taken among all respondents, and each KII was audio recorded for transcription purposes.

The KII interview guide- Annexure 5.

Capacity building for feedback collection

Separate specialized trainings were provided by KILA to investigators conducting qualitative and quantitative inquiries, as different skill sets needed to be developed in accordance with each type of inquiry.

Two day training was provided to field investigators on the quantitative survey instrument, usage of mobile based data collection app, uploading of data, and data quality checks. As part of this process, the survey tool was field tested to ensure appropriate logic and flow.

Two day training on the FGD and KII tools, community facilitation, moderating discussions, and other qualitative inquiry skills were also facilitated by KILA. These tools were also pre-tested and further refined.

17 FINDINGS

3 CHAPTER-3 The mixed methods data collection was conducted among 3960 households and yielded rich insights into communities’ experiences with the rebuilding and recovery processes, a year after the floods. Data was analysed in real time as feedback collection continued on the ground and data was uploaded to the JPP-I portal. The qualitative inquiry complemented and added depth to the quantitative household survey questions, and both sets of findings were corroborated and triangulated to arrive at the study’s insights.

The quantitative and qualitative study components aimed to understand the extent to which the affected populations were engaged and consulted during rebuilding their views on the recovery process, their access to social protection and grievance redressal mechanisms, as well as the impact of the disaster on their housing, livelihoods and disaster risk reduction efforts being taken at the household level. 3.1 Community awareness of government interventions

Several government assistance interventions were made available to communities following the floods, to facilitate post disaster recovery. Surveyed households and FGD respondents were asked about their awareness of such schemes, and the extent to which they were able to avail of these interventiosn for rebuilding houses and recovering assets after the floods. They were asked where they received information about these interventions. The feedback collection also sought to identify how many households were consulted by the government, as well as the personnel that conducted the consultations, and the nature of these discussions.

18 Awareness about Government Schemes & Interventions: Awareness about various schemes of By population group

Rebuilding the state and local governments for 100 rebuilding Kerala after floods in 2018 17 13 10 14 17 19 15 15 80 34

Awareness about Government Schemes & Interventions: State level 60 % 83 83 83 86 82 80 77 87 2% 40 15% 63

20 HHs aware of at least one 83% 0 intervention Others and Tribes disabilities households Persons with Persons Women headed Women Wage Labourers Wage Migrant Workers Migrant & Small Farmers Small & Fisherfolk & Daily Daily & Fisherfolk Scheduled Castes Elderly (aged >60) Elderly (aged

Awareness about Government Schemes & Interventions: Micro-entrepreneurs By district Labourers Agricultural Most of the vulnerable group populations had high levels of awareness (over 80%) about government schemes. Lower levels of awareness were 79 Alappuzha seen among households headed by women and persons with disabilities. 19 81 Ernakulam Qualitative findings revealed that information dissemination about the 17 High awareness government’s relief schemes and rehabilitation schemes was instrumental to 81 (over 80%) the rehabilitation and recovery of flood affected populations. Media, panchayat Idukki 18 on government schemes members, department officials, teachers, voluntary workers and community 81 was seen among 6 leaders played a proactive role in the dissemination of information which led to Kottayam 18 out of 7 districts. communities being informed about government schemes for the flood affected. 88 Pathanamthitta and Pathanamthitta 9 Thrissur districts We got necessary We were told about the exhibited the highest 86 information about the schemes schemes at the relief camp. Thrissur 12 awareness on such and services of the Government We were told to submit our schemes. for the flood affected from applications to the Panchayat, Wayanad 81 8 SC/ST promoters, Anganwadi Village Office and SC Department

0 20 40 60 80 100 teachers and our friends Scheduled Caste and % Adolescent FGD, Idukki Tribe FGD, Thrissur

Yes No 19 Don’t know/remember te Gov ta t S Various schemes and interventions Information sources from which of the Government that community community received information is aware of about Government programmes

Most commonly known schemes of the government: State level Sources of Information on Government programs: State level

Sources of Information on Government programs 87 Newspapers/TV/ 83 88 Financial assistance of Rs. 10000 for families Radio/Social Media 42 affected/displaced by floods Local leaders/LSGI/ Assistance for house repair/reconstruction 63 40 Kudumbashree members Interest-free loan through Kudumbashree 38 Increased/free ration in ration shops during August - October 2018 Neighbourhood 43 29 Repair/reconstruction of roads & bridges State 29 Compensation for crop less Government officials 32 Repair/reconstruction of anganwadi/ 20 schools/hospital/other public utilities 0 20 40 60 80 100 14 Provision of additional working days under % MGNREG Scheme 8 Compensation for animal husbandry loss The majority of respondents (88%) reported relying on news and media for their Compensation for fisheries loss 1 information on government schemes and programs. Approximately a third of the Any other scheme 0 20 40 60 80 100 respondents reported receiving this information from government officials. % In discussions with population groups, it was revealed that information was primarily communicated through mass media platforms. Local community radio stations and government functionaries proved to be particularly successful in The most commonly known schemes among respondents were the Immediate reaching vulnerable groups with necessary information. Relief Assistance of Rs. 10,000/- (87%), and financial assistance for house repair/reconstruction (83%). More than 40% were aware about free ration shops and interest free loans through Kudumbashree. Lowest awareness Information was obtained We received information about flood was on compensation for losses incurred in animal husbandry (14%), and from mainly Panchayat relief from ST promoter, ward member fisheries (8%). officials and through media and village officer, who helped us in obtaining our entitlements Discussions on information received on different kinds of schemes on relief Agricultural labourer FGD, and rehabilitation, revealed variations among the population groups. While Thrissur SC/ST FGD, Wayanad most respondents were of the opinion that information around government schemes was accessible and clear, some respondents felt that the information In discussions with key informants, it was found that information about relief and they had received was at times inadequate or unclear. rebuilding information was also circulated by panchayat members, neighbourhood groups (Ayal Sabha, Ward Development), and in the newspapers.

20 The highest rates of consultation (over 60%) were reported in three Community consultation by the districts – Idukki (66%), Wayanad (65%) and Alappuzha (62%). Government regarding the needs of the community Community consultation by Government regarding the needs of the community: By population group

Community consultation by Government regarding the needs 100 of the community: State level 80 71 66 68 % 2 57 59 59 59 60 54 55 HHs consulted by People’s

% 46 Representatives & Govt. Officials 43 45 39% 59% 41 41 41 40 34 32 29

0 Community consultation by Government regarding the needs of the community: By district level Others and Tribes disabilities 100 households Persons with Persons Women headed Women Wage Labourers Wage Migrant Workers Migrant & Small Farmers & Fisherfolk & Daily Daily & Fisherfolk 80 Scheduled Castes Elderly (aged >60) Elderly (aged 66 65 Micro-entrepreneurs 62 Labourers Agricultural 60 57 59 58 53

% Among 7 out of 8 surveyed vulnerable population groups, over 50% reported 42 44 40 38 38 40 34 32 having been engaged in community consultation. The highest incidence of community consultation was reported among persons with disabilities (71%) 20 and the lowest among migrant workers (43%). 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 Qualitative findings revealed that though consultations were conducted, authorities were not always able to respond to the needs specified by households and marginalised populations. In some cases, officials were limited Idukki Thrissur

Wayanad by the relief and rehabilitation resources that they had access to. Kottayam Alappuzha Ernakulam

Pathanamthitta Even though each family had different needs, officials could only give what households reported that they were consulted on their post flood needs they had with them and their perspectives on returning to normalcy. Adolescents FGD, Thrissur Yes No Don’t know/remember 21 Personnel conducting community consultations: By population group Who consulted the community on recovery related issues? 100 100 93 93 93 93 90 92 86 88 Personnel conducting community consultations: State level 80

60 92 49 50 % 42 43 45 44 31 38 38 40 40 36 35 32 34 31 30 42 28 27 State 20 23 21 20 17 19 16 17 17 18 18 15

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 % - Others Elderly Personnel conducting community consultations: By district and Tribes disabilities households (aged >60) (aged Persons with Persons Women headed Women Wage Labourers Wage

88 Workers Migrant Fisherfolk & Daily Daily & Fisherfolk Alappuzha 22 Scheduled Castes

53 Labour Agricultural ers & Small Farmers ers & 9 Micro-entrepreneurs 90 30 Ernakulam 33 In 5 of the 7 districts, 17 over 90% respondents Across population groups, over 90% reported having been consulted by the 97 government, with the only exception being persons with disabilities (86%). Idukki 55 reported being 42 Consultation by non LSGI government officials was highest (40%) among 20 consulted by LSG agriculture labourers/small farmers. Similarly, consultations by Kudumbashree 93 members. Proportions 9 of households consulted and other government agencies was highest among SC/ST (50%), women Kottayam 26 7 by Government officials headed households (50%) and persons with disabilities (45%). 88 and Kudumbashree In discussions with vulnerable groups, several acknowledged the proactive Pathanamthitta 26 varied between districts, 15 role that local functionaries (LSGI and panchayat officials, village officers, 18 ranging from 9-55% for 93 the former and 26-60% school teachers) and Kudumbashree played in consulting with populations, and 39 supporting households in availing of entitlements and services. Thrissur 51 for the latter. 22 93 36 Wayanad 60 38

0 20 40 60 80 100 Panchayat/Muncipality/Corporation officials and members % Kudumbashree and other government agencies Government officials 22 NGOs/others 3.2 Views and Perceptions of Flood Affected People on Recovery process

Understanding affected communities’ experiences with the rebuilding and recovery process was central to the objectives of the JPP-I. Through the mixed methods inquiry, households affected by the floods were asked about their views on the post disaster recovery process. This included asking them about their priorities during the recovery process, their perceptions on repair and reconstruction of public infrastructure, their local government’s initiatives toward mitigating the impacts of future disaster events, and their overall satisfaction with the government’s interventions to rebuild infrastructure after the floods.

Priorities of flood affected population

Priorities of flood affected communities: State level

41 Repair/reconstruction of house 29 Disaster related early warning system and At the time of the survey, though a year had passed since the floods, 55% of other mitigation and preparedness measures households reported that ‘repair and reconstruction of houses’ remained their 27 Health facilities highest priority. This was followed by 41% households stating the need for Livelihood restoration ‘Disaster related early warning system and other mitigation and preparedness 27 Drainage of inundated water measures’. State Rebuilding of damaged public infrastructure 27 like roads, bridges, schools etc Conversations with vulnerable populations revealed that the compound effect Safe drinking water of livelihood loss and losses on other fronts (lives, livestock, housing, assets/ 22 Education of children equipment), as well as pre-existing debts cumulatively pushed vulnerable social groups into debt related crises. Respondents belonging to various marginalized 19 Water for domestic and irrigation purposes groups revealed that government financial assistance was crucial for people 6 rebuilding their houses. According to them, most completely damaged houses had been rebuilt and repaired. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Going forward, they emphasized that the government should prioritize addressing livelihood loss and restoration, household and asset restoration/ repair, and reinstating community infrastructure. 23 Perception of community on repair/reconstruction of Public Infrastructure

Perception of community on repair/reconstruction of Public Infrastructure: State level

44 24 18 14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Perception of community on repair/reconstruction of Public Of the 36% households who reported that public infrastructure Infrastructure: By district (public buildings, roads, bunds, water sources, anganwadi centers, schools, hospitals, parks) was damaged during the flood, 18% state that it has 100 been fully repaired, and 44% report that infrastructure has been partially repaired.

66 61 57 60 49 44 %

40 34 32 34 29 30 25 24 23 19 17 18 17 18 20 15 15 15 17 11 8 6 7 7 3 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad

Fully repaired Not repaired Partially repaired Don’t know/remember 24 At the district level, among the subgroups that reported public infrastructure damage, over 20% households in three districts (Idukki, Pathanamthitta and Wayanad) reported that these have been fully repaired. The highest reporting of partial repair was in Ernakulam District (66%) and Pathanamthitta (49%).

Conversations with vulnerable groups on loss of or damage to community assets shed light on the range of damage that was experienced across the districts, and how these differed from region to region. ulnerableV groups such as women, the elderly and differently abled were disproportionately affected by such damage. The process of repair and reconstruction was still underway, at the time of feedback collection, with damage to roads and drinking water facilities affecting daily lives.

Many wells and ponds were contaminated with soil and silt in Idukki, resulting in water shortages. We were totally isolated as we could not connect with our dear ones staying away

Elderly FGD, Idukki

Not only was the school building damaged, but all the computers in the school and all the books in school library were also lost. The damage of roads led to lot of transportation problems including affecting children’s ability to go to school

Adolescents FGD, Pathanamthitta

Damage to bunds and canals was a major cause of inundation, disproportionately affecting particular geographies and communities, as seen from the grave flooding in the low-lying areas of Kuttanad (spanning Alappuzha, Kottayam and Pathanamthitta districts). Several hundreds of families from Kuttanad had to remain in relief camps due to delays in repair of bunds in Alappuzha district. Bunds and canals were reportedly not properly maintained and managed prior to the floods, potentially resulting from a lack of clarity around which government department is responsible for upkeep and management of bunds and canals.

3 Perception of community on Government interventions in mitigating future disasters

Community’s overall satisfaction with Government interventions towards rebuilding: State level

5% households reported that 2% they were highly satisfied 14% 5% with the government’s rebuilding interventions, and Highly satisfied 53% households reported

26% 53% Satisfied being satisfied. Only 14% of households reported Neutral being unsatisfied with the Unsatisfied measures the government Not answered had taken towards rebuilding and repair after the floods.

Community’s overall satisfaction with Government interventions towards rebuilding: By district

100

80 66

60 56 57 55 52

% 44 41 40 36 32 29 26 24 20 16 19 16 14 16 15 15 10 11 6 7 6 7 5 4 3 0 In 6 out of 7 districts, over 50% of the households reported being either Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad satisfied or very satisfied with the government’s rebuilding interventions Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied and efforts. Satisfaction with such efforts was seen to be highest in Thrissur (66%) and Pathanamthitta (57%) districts.

26 Everyone was treated alike and respected, everybody got new Vulnerable groups, during discussions, mentioned that clothes, people shared a camaraderie that extended well after the the schemes and services launched by the Government to camps closed, having built new bonds of friendship rebuild the state, formed the core support structure for the Fisher community FGD, Thrissur rehabilitation of affected people. However, some felt that the compensations provided by the Government were inadequate Providing care and services to the differently abled and the for them to recover their losses, and that compensations elderly during this time proved to be challenging, as their special were not always commensurate with actual losses. They also circumstances made it difficult to evacuate them and respond to their highlighted the need to recognize that different livelihoods have distinct criticalities that need to be revived in order to restore needs in an emergency context. Differently abled children and their livelihood security. Instances were mentioned of individuals and caregivers reported feeling isolated and distressed during the floods, households who were not eligible for compensation, receiving as they were not able to move to relief camps. such packages, and therefore the selection and identification methodology was called into question by some marginalized My son is autistic. I tried to bring him to the camp, but it was community members. They recommended instituting instead, a difficult as he has epilepsy. This is particularly triggered when he is decentralized system which enables local communiteis to have a scared and we can’t predict it greater voice and join in the development of a more discerning system for the estimation of losses. Differently abled and caregivers FGD, Thrissur

Across districts, vulnerable groups noted that relief camps During discussions with key informants, it was mentioned that local were exceptionally well organized and functioned smoothly, authorities closely monitored the functioning of each camp to the while upholding the tenets of dignity and respect, and ran best of their ability. LSGs nominated nodal officers for each camp without biases and differential treatment. Rescue operations were carried out successfully and relief camps made available (teachers, medical officers, tribal promoters, etc.) to ensure timely through swift response from the State Government that rapidly services, and perform supervisory functions. ASHAs and Anganwadi mobilized LSGIs, police and voluntary forces (fisher community, workers were present at several camps, providing counseling and civil society volunteers). Most groups acknowledged the nutrition services (take home rations for children), and helping exemplary role played by local officials. LSGIs took initiative households apply to relief schemes. Some challenges were also faced to ensure inter-departmental coordination and facilitate public by local authorities and government functionaries in providing relief. participation in rescue and relief efforts. Respondents reflected LSGs mentioned that they did not have enough boats/equipment to on the peace and harmony that was maintained by people in reach every camp, thus impacting relief activities. Frontline workers relief and rescue operations, and that this set a good example mentioned that relief camps could have been more effectively for adolescents to emulate. organized if officials had received more training about how to mobilize in disaster settings.

27 3.3 Social Protection issues and Grievance Redress System

Several schemes and assistance interventions were made available by the government to aid houses in recovery and rebuilding after the floods. Households were asked about the flood related assistance and entitlements that they received from the government, loans taken to cover recovery and rebuilding costs, and the timeliness and adequacy of these measures. In addition to this, the inquiry covered grievance redressal mechanisms and processes undertaken in situations where entitlements were not available, the extent to which grievances had been resolved, and the timeframe for such resolution. Finally, children’s experience with post disaster trauma, their recovery process, and the impact this had on their school and college attendance were explored.

Flood related assistance/entitlements received by the community

Flood related assistance and entitlements received by the community: State level

62 Financial assistance of Rs. 10,000 for affected/ 31 displaced by floods Increased/free ration from ration shops during 24 August - October Interest free loan through Kudumbashree 18 Financial assistance for repair/reconstruction of houses 7 Additional working days under MGNREGA Scheme 4 Compensation for crop less

State Loan from Kerala Financial Corporation/Ujjeeva- 3 na loan from Banks or any other floods-related loans from Banks 1 Compensation for animal husbandry loss 1 Compensation for fishery related loss A majority of households reported having received assistance from the ‘Cash for Work’ assistance from Kudumbashree Government in one form or another, with 62% stating that they were 1 or NGOs recipients of the Immediate Relief Assistance of Rs. 10,000/-, and 31% of Moratorium on payment of loans/Waiver of 0 the households having received increased or free ration between August and interest of loans September, 2018. 24% of households reported having availed of interest free 0 20 40 60 80 100 loans through Kudumbashree. %

28 Flood related assistance and entitlements received by compensations for crop loss, and animal husbandry loss were made the community: By district available to some households, those engaged in fisheries, trade and micro-entrepreneurship expressed their difficulty in securing In 5 out of 7 districts, over 60% housesholds reported the receipt of the compensation for the losses they incurred. Immediate Relief Assistance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Over 30% households of four districts, reported receiving free or additional ration, highest Small traders’ loss was not compensated as the intensity of loss was proportion of households reporting such assistance, in Wayanad (63%). not fully recorded by the authorities Discussions with livelihood based vulnerable groups found that Micro-entrepreneurs FGD, Pathanamthitta compensation availability varied between livelihoods. While monetary

68 67 67 66 60 63 63

% 40 38 36 33 33 31 30 31 28 27 28 27 26 25 25 26 25 22 20 21 20 18 19 16 17 16 13 12 11 10 11 8 9 9 8 7 6 5 4 5 2 2 2 2 2 3 23 2 3 2 3 3 101 111 100 1 00 100 0 10001 000 100 0 0 1000 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad

Financial assistance of Rs. 10,000 for affected/displaced Compensation for fishery related loss Interest free loan through Kudumbashree by floods Compensation for trade/production/service/ ‘Cash for Work’ assistance from Kudumbashree or NGOs Financial assistance for repair/reconstruction of houses tourism related loss Loan from Kerala Financial Corporation / Ujjeevana loan Compensation for crop loss Additional working days under MGNREGA Scheme from Banks or any other floods-related loans from Banks Compensation for animal husbandry loss Increased/free ration from ration shops during August Moratorium on payment of loans / Waiver of interest of - October loans Any other scheme (Specify)

29 Apart from government aid, several NGOs and CSOs also provided Awareness about Grievance Redressal Systems: By district financial assistance and loans to help people purchase household appliances, livelihood related equipment, and to help pay for repair of 100 houses. Interest free loans made available through the Kudumbashree 80 74 network were valued by many vulnerable groups and perceived to be a 69 71 High awareness 65 68 68 crucial resource that helped families setup their homes and restart their 64 around grievance 60 lives. Kudumbasree’s support through Self Help Groups for female micro- redressal systems % was noted across entrepreneurs in the rebuilding process was widely acknowledged. In-kind 40 33 33 districts, with 28 29 donations also compensated for material losses incurred by many families. 24 25 24 the highest in 20 Ernakulam (74%) and Thrissur Several agencies, sponsors and individual community members 0 (71%). helped. They donated household appliances, study materials for children

(books and bags), furniture and clothes. Drinking water sources were Idukki Thrissur Wayanad Kottayam Alappuzha restored, one man from the community (Dominic, Mananthavady) Ernakulam Yes brought his motor and cleaned all the wells in the area. No Pathanamthitta

Women’s FGD, Wayanad

Awareness about Grievance Awareness and Engagement Redressal Systems Grievance Redressal

Awareness about Grievance Redressal Systems: State level Registration of grievances by households: State level

The majority of surveyed HHs aware of households were aware of the Respondents reported that they mechanisms various mechanisms available approached the authorities for registering 69% for registering grievances with with grievances or registered grievances the government on flood related 35% grievances through a formal schemes and entitlements. grievance redressal mechanism.

30 Registration of grievances by households: By population group

Who approached authorities with 100 grievances on flood related Schemes? 80 56 62 67 58 62 60 65 70 60 75 Registration of grievances by households: By district % 40 100 In 5 out of 7 80 74 districts, over 40 42 73 20 36 37 34 44 65 66 30% households 33 24 29 60 57 58 56 reported having approached 0 % 42 42 44 - authorities with 40 34 33 uners

grievances. The SC/ST Others 25 26 Elderly widows Migrant Migrant farmers workers 20 highest grievance disability Fisherfolk/ dailywages Agricultural Agricultural registration was with Person

0 seen in Wayanad micro entrepre Women headed/ Women Men and women (44%) and in labour and small Alappuzha and Idukki

Thrissur Ernakulam Disaggregated by population groups, highest rates of grievance Wayanad Kottayam Alappuzha Ernakulam (42%). registration was reported by persons with disabilities (44%) and

Pathanamthitta agricultural labourers (42%).

In discussions, vulnerable groups revealed that complaints and grievances were filed largely around financial assistance needs for Registration of grievances by households: By sample groups house repair and livelihood loss, and response to non-receipt of benefits and entitlements. Respondents reported registering such 100 complaints with their village offices, or their District Collectorates. 89

80 Households who sustained LSGs across districts reported having received complaints of ineligible 67 house damage, and either households getting IRA of Rs. 10,000/-, as well as from households 60 51 52 had (A) or had not (C) stating that the IRA amount was insufficient for rebuilding houses. 47 48 % received Immediate Relief LSGs said that these complaints were being considered by the review 40 31 Assistance (IRA), reported committee, and that better mechanisms need to be devised in future the highest grievance to identify genuine beneficiaries for disaster related assistance. One 20 10 registration with 47% factor that caused eligible households to not receive compensation, registering grievances. 0 was due to the loss of proper land records, which LSGs said must be A B C D accounted for in future disaster settings.

Yes No 31 How far Grievances have been addressed by authorities

How far Grievances have been addressed by authorities: How far Grievances have been addressed by authorities: State level By population groups

Of households who 100 2% registered grievances, Of HHs who 10% reported that registered grievances 10% 80 their complaints have 25% 63 60 56 57 been addressed fully, 64 64 Fully addressed 60 68 67 63% and 25% that their Partially addressed issues have been % 70 Not addressed addressed partially by 40 Don’t know/remember the Government or 29 27 30 26 23 appropriate authorities. 20 22 17 25 20 16 10 9 11 12 11 11 8 How far Grievances have been addressed by authorities: 0 0 By district SC/ST Others Elderly widows Migrant Migrant farmers workers Men and disability

100 Fisherfolk/ dailywages Agricultural Agricultural The rates of with Person women micro 83 grievances being entrepreuners Women headed/ Women 80 labour and small 70 addressed varied 63 60 60 greatly between 60 57 districts, with 16% % 45 households in 40 40 33 33 Kottayam saying Across the vulnerable population groups surveyed, over 10% of 21 grievances had been fully resolved among 5 of the 8 groups, and 19 18 their issues have 20 17 16 14 9 9 11 been partially or over 20% partially resolved among 7 of the 8 groups. 5 6 fully addressed, to 0 54% grievances Qualitative findings revealed that based on some complaints, officials being partially or conducted reassessments of house damage, and enhanced financial Idukki

Thrissur fully addressed in

Wayanad assistance. However, this was only possible in some instances, and Kottayam Alappuzha Ernakulam Wayanad district. several complaints were still pending with the District Collectorates. Pathanamthitta

32 Time taken to resolve grievances

Time taken to resolve grievances: State level

28 Among those grievances that were resolved, 27% 27 household reported that issues 23 were addressed within one State month. However, for an equal 18 proportion (23%), this process took over 6 months. 0 20 40 60 80 100 %

0-1 month

Time taken to resolve grievances: By district 3-6 months 1-3 months

100 More than 6 months

60 50 50 % 43 40 35 38 35 33 31 31 27 27 27 27 27 20 20 20 23 20 19 18 13 13 15 9 9 8 4 0 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad

Over 20% grievances were resolved within one month in 5 of the 7 districts, and resolved within 3 months in 6 of the 7 districts. However, 43% grievances in Alappuzha and 35% in Pathanamthitta took over 6 months to resolve.

33 Loans availed by community after the floods

Loans availed by community after the floods: State level Loan availed by community after the floods: By district

100 93 87 94 90 91 89 92 91 80 9 9%

State 60 0 % 0 20 40 60 80 100 of the total respondents 40 % reported having taken a bank loan other than the 20 13 9 9 10 No RKLS (Resurgent Kerala Loan 7 8 6 1 Yes Scheme) in order to recover 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Don’t know/remember from the impacts of the disaster. Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad

Ernakulam district had the highest portion of households availing of bank loans at 13%, with the lowest in Wayanad, at 6%.

Marginalized groups spoke of livelihood and income related losses that they incurred, which when combined with pre-existing loans and debts put them in precarious financial situations. They reported a dire need for monetary support in rebuilding homes and reviving livelihoods. Many vulnerable communities emphasized the role that government compensations played in restoring financial and livelihood security. However, compared to the extent of devastation, many felt that the compensation was not adequate, resulting in several households having to arrange funds from different sources. Kudumbashree’s interest free loan was reportedly highly beneficial in this situation, and respondents recommended that similar community loaning mechanisms be made available in future disaster situations.

34 Loan utilization

Loan utilization: State level Loan utilization: By district

58 100

36 Construction/repair of house 82 80 Livelihood related purposes 35 69 Purchase of household appliances 61 60 56

State 21 Food, Cloths and other personal and family needs 51 53 53 46 47 % 13 Health 39 40 40 37 36 35 Education 33 29 5 27 25 25 25 23 21 24 21 18 20 20 20 17 15 15 12 12 14 14 0 20 40 60 80 100 10 8 8 7 5 1 3 2 % 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Prathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad Households who availed of loans primarily used the additional finances for house construction and repair (58%), for purchase of household appliances Livelihood related purposes Construction/repair of house

(36%), and for livelihood revival (35%). Food, Cloths and other personal and family needs Purchase of household appliances

Education Health

The same trend was seen at the district level in terms of how financial spending was prioritized, except for Wayanad District, where more households utilized the loan for livelihood related purposes (35%) followed by purchase of household appliances (25%) and health related needs (25%).

Discussions with marginalized groups revealed that loans were not always used for their designated purpose, and that people sometimes used the funds across multiple purposes. Several groups reported they used funds to meet health and educational needs of their children, even though this priority was not reflected to a high extent in the findings from the household survey.

35 Timeliness and adequacy of loans Impact on education

Timeliness and adequacy of loans: State level Impact on attendance: State level

Of households who received loans, 53% of total HHs have school/college going children 57 57% reported that the amount was adequate and received on Of these 31 time. However, 31% of households State 12 felt that though the loan Of these, in 45% processing was timely, the amount 53% 45% households, attendance 0 20 40 60 80 100 was inadequate. was temporarily impacted Schooling Could not by the floods, and among % not attend affected school 2% attending school/ by floods temporarily college was permanently Adequate and received in time discontinued. Adequate and but not received in time Not adequate but received in time 2% Stopped going to school after floods Timeliness and adequacy of loans: By district Temporarily affected after floods Permanently affected after floods No effect 100

82 80 80 Impact on attendance: By district Immediate impact on school and college 61 64 63 60 57 attendance was 100 reported by over 50% % 44 40 36 38 households in 4 out of 80 77 27 26 7 districits. The least 18 20 68 impact on attendance 20 15 18 61 12 12 60 56 7 9 55 was seen in Kottayam 6 50 52 47 and Wayanad. The

0 % 0 44 44 43 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad 40 37 study sample in Idukki 31 had the highest portion The perception that the loan amount was adequate and process in a 20 19 of students permanently timely manner was over 50% in 5 out of 7 districts. 57% of surveyed discontinuing school and 4 2 1 0 1 2 2 college going, resulting households in Ernakulam, and 38% in Idukki reported that the loan amount 0 was inadequate, though received on time. 27% households in Alappuzha Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad from the flood (4%) (9 mthitta experienced delay in receiving the loan amount. households).

36 Disaster related psychological impacts on children

Post disaster trauma among children: State level

Of the 53% of the total sample of 79 households who had children of 15 school and college going age, 4% reported that their children had 4

State undergone post disaster traumatic stress such as sleep disturbance, 2 nightmares, and depression 0 20 40 60 80 100 repeatedly and frequently after % the floods. 15% of households with children stated that children Never Repeatedly had occasionally exhibited signs Sometimes Don’t know/remember of Post-disaster traumatic stress.

Post disaster trauma among children: By district

100 91 87 80 80 77 79 79

60 55 %

40 34

20 17 15 16 15 11 7 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 Over 15% occasional symptoms of post disaster stress were reported in 5 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad out of 7 districts. Surveyed households in Idukki district reported the highest proportion of children exhibiting repeated (11%) and occasional (34%) Repeatedly Sometimes Never Don’t know/remember symptoms of post disaster stress.

37 Post disaster trauma recovery: State level I was not at home during flood because I went for National Service Scheme (NSS) program. From the camp, I went straight 60 to the relief camp. Our entire house was damaged in the flood 3% households stated that at 37 the time of survey, children Adolescent FGD, Wayanad State affected by disaster related 3 stress had not yet recovered Livelihood Loss: Adolescents recounted that the livelihood 0 20 40 60 80 100 from these symptoms. loss and financial insecurity felt by the family had contributed % significantly to the trauma they experienced after the floods. This Recovered fully Recovered somewhat Not Recovered was particularly expressed by adolescents whose families rely on agriculture, fishing and daily wages. The financial insecurity In discussion with adolescents on the impact that the floods had on their resulted in worries regarding future study prospects and lives, it was revealed that children had been deeply impacted by the resources. Moreover, their families’ abilities to recognize this stress natural disaster. The experience had exposed them to psychological stress among children was limited, as a result of livelihood uncertainty. and trauma, and youth were found to have an increased fear of water and rain, anxiety regarding vulnerability to future disasters, stress around the uncertainty and fragility of life, and increasing pessimism about their future b) School environment prospects. Participants in the discussion mentioned the positive impact Academic challenges: Students experienced loss of books and brought about by the sensitive attitudes of teachers and school staff study materials, as well as loss of school days due to damage to toward the students who had experienced such stress. The governments schools, and conversion of schools to relief camps. The proactive health departments were also credited with helping households cope and positive role that schools and school authorities played in with post-traumatic stress, and with enabling parents to better help their reducing the impact of these losses, and helping their students children’s experiences with symptoms of the disaster related trauma. cope with these stresses, were highlighted by several respondents. The adolescents emphasized the need for awareness building The health departments placed counsellors in relief camps to help around risk preparedness among school and college children. people cope with the trauma, and children have been provided with counselling in schools. We were able to compensate for the classes we missed with the help of our teachers and classmates. The school gave us text FGD, Kottayam books and note books and our classmates helped us to rewrite the The discussions also brought to light two separate contexts within which lost notes children experienced disaster related stress. Adolescent FGD, Ernakulam These included their home environment (house damage, household asset loss) and their school environment. Documentation Loss: Loss of essential records such as mark sheets, family identification documents (adhar card, ration card) a) Home Environment: posed an urgent challenge to students who were actively applying Physical Loss: Experience of loss of or damage to their physical home had to and seeking admissions at colleges. In several such instances a deep impact on children of all ages, particularly in locations where the the school authorities and the revenue department were credited floods escalated quickly. for facilitating the timely reissuance of necessary documents.

38 3.4 Housing and Livelihoods

Housing and livelihoods in the seven study districts were deeply impacted by the floods and landslides of 2018, and respondents were still in the process of restoring these at the time of the survey. Respondents were asked about whether they had sustained damage to housing, the extent to which their houses had been damaged, and the financial and technical assistance they had received from the government or external agencies in rebuilding their houses. Impact of livelihoods was also explored in detail, especially among vulnerable population groups, looking at the nature of the impact, extent to which communities had been able to recover from setbacks to their livelihoods, and comparing their income at the time of survey, to income levels prior to the floods.

Impact on Housing

Damage to housing: State level Damage to housing: By district

100

80 1% 66 62 60 58 54 51 52 52 46 49 47 47 % 38 41 Housing HHs reported 40 34 % Was house damaged? 44 partial or complete 55% 20 damage of houses 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad

Over 50% households in 6 out of 7 districts reported experiencing house damage, with Idukki (66%) and Alappuzha (62%) reporting the greatest proportion of damage.

Yes No Not answered

39 Damage to housing: By population group Extent of damage to housing: By population group

100 100 3 7 Water level upto knee level, 8 14 8 8 6 29 12 7 18 3 6 minor damages or roof tiles 80 38 38 36 37 8 15 6 marginally damaged. 45 80 5 77 57 56 27 28 21 Floor damaged due to water 61 28 21 60 27 25 31 inundation and electrical/ 60 31 plumbing related damages or roof tiles were damaged and electrical/ % 18 32 plumbing related damages. 40 71 % 22 35 40 22 28 41 62 61 63 62 29 Water level rose upto windows 54 43 24 and doors (Lintel level) and the 20 44 walls were affected or 50% or 38 20 46 Yes 33 34 less roof tiles were damaged, but 30 25 28 26 21 the roof structure not damaged. 0 No 18 0 One or more wall damaged, but the roof structure not damaged. SC/ST Others Elderly widows Migrant Migrant farmers workers Roof entirely collapsed SC/ST Men and disability Others Elderly widows Migrant Migrant farmers

workers (structural damage) Fisherfolk/ dailywages disability Agricultural Agricultural Person with Person Fisherfolk/ dailywages women micro Agricultural Agricultural Person with Person entrepreuners Women headed/ Women entrepreuners labour and small Women headed/ Women labour and small

Among vulnerable population groups, the highest proportion of house damage reported was among persons with disabilities (71%), followed by women micro women and Men led households and agricultural labourers (63%), SC/ST communities and The greatest proportion of complete/structural damage to housing was fisherfolk/daily wage earners (62%). reported by agricultural labourers (18%), and women headed households (14%). Over 20% respondents in 6 out of 8 vulnerable groups, reported having experienced severe damages to housing.

According to discussions with vulnerable groups, along with housing damage, Extent of damage to housing: State level the flood also led to water and sanitation issues. They experienced drinking water shortages due to damaged wells and contaminated water sources, and Of those damaged many toilets were damaged and rendered unusable. Female respondents emphasized the disproportionate impact of such sanitation issues on women, as many remained primarily responsible for house cleaning, inspite of the loss of household appliances and the disaster context.

29% 27% 26% 8% 10% Respondents recognized the invaluable support provided by organizations Minor damages Floor, roof tiles, Partial wall and roof Wall and roof tile Structural damage (NSS, NCC, Kudumbashree etc.) and community members, in the process of (knee level electrical and/or tile damage (lintel/ damage and roof collapse flooding) plumbing damage doorframe level restoring homes to living condition and rebuilding the lives of those affected. (moderate flooding) flooding) Assistance was provided in the form of helping clear debris from houses, conducting minor repairs, desilting wells and water bodies, cleaning roads and Among household who reported damage to housing, 29% experienced minor lanes. Contributing not only their labour, volunteers used personal and official damages, 27% had moderate damages, 34% had severe damages and 10% resources and networks to provide assistance to people and resolve problems experienced complete structural damage to housing. as best as they could. In kind donations were also key to compensating for some material losses incurred and restarting lives.

40 Over 40% households in 3 out of 7 districts reported having received financial assistance for house repair and reconstruction. Wayanad (85%) and Financial assistance for repairing Kottayam (75%) districts had the highest proportion of respondents reporting and reconstructing houses that they have not yet received government financial assistance to repair and reconstruct homes.

Financial assistance for repairing/reconstructing houses: By population group Financial assistance for repairing and reconstructing houses:

State level 100

80 54 58 68 64 61 65 64 60 72 69 % 40 36% 63% 45 receive 20 35 42 did not receive 31 38 35 36 financial 23 28 financial assistance assistance 0 SC/ST Others Elderly widows Migrant Migrant farmers workers disability Fisherfolk/ dailywages Agricultural Agricultural Person with Person entrepreuners Women headed/ Women labour and small Men and women micro women and Men

Financial assistance for repairing/reconstructing houses: Over 30% of 6 of 8 vulnerable population groups reported receipt of financial By district assistance towards house repair and reconstruction. Micro entrepreneurs (45%) and women led households (38%) reported the highest receipt of financial assistance for house reconstruction and repair. 100 85 In discussions with vulnerable groups, repair and reconstruction of damaged 80 75 houses were highlighted as critical priorities in the post flood period. 70 Yes Respondents revealed that across districts, most houses that were completely 60 No damaged had been rebuilt and partially damaged houses repaired, and 60 58 52 51 that government financial aid was crucial to several people in rebuilding 48 48

% their houses. Financial aid was also supplemented by funds from NGOs and 39 41 40 corporates in many cases. However, there have been some instances where 29 24 this process has not gone as envisioned, as some families who received financial aid had not yet begun reconstruction and repair due to issues with 20 15 their property; and some houses upon which revenue officials had conducted formal damage assessments had not yet received financial aid. 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad mthitta LSG members also revealed that several Gram Panchayats across the districts had worked with agencies to help repair and reconstruct damaged houses. Village officers in select areas had coordinated volunteer efforts to clean and repair houses, and contacted NRIs to assist with rebuilding of houses. 41 Highest provision of technical support on disaster resilience based rebuilding was most reported by respondents in Idukki (26%), Pathanamthitta (10%) Technical support in repair and and Wayanad (10%) districts. This technical assistance was least reported in rebuilding of houses Kottayam district. Conversations with vulnerable groups found that the destruction caused by the flood had increased awareness among communities around the need for Technical support in repair and rebuilding of houses: disaster resilient construction norms, as so far some construction bylaws and regulations had not been strictly adhered to. In the absence of receiving State level technical support on disaster resilient construction, several groups were skeptical about the safety of the houses they had reconstructed, and their ability to withstand future natural calamities. It was emphasized that disaster resilient construction norms should be widely communicated and strictly 90% enforced.

We need to know how to build safe homes and safe schools. We should do disaster proof construction as the causalities due to structures HHs that experienced collapsing is very high house damage did not receive disaster resilient Adolescent FGD, Thrissur technical assistance for house reconstruction

Technical support in repair and rebuilding of houses: By district

97 100 94 93 92 89 88

80 74 Yes 60 No % 40 26 20 10 10 5 6 7 2 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad mthitta

42 The floods’ impact on livelihoods ranged from complete devastation of livelihoods to temporary disruption of income generation, directly or indirectly affecting most people across districts. As seen from the survey Impact on Livelihoods findings, FGDs corroborated that maximum damage was caused to households dependent on the agriculture sector. Agricultural fields were completely destroyed (including rubber, coffee, tea, areca nut plantations in several locations of Kottayam, Idukki and Wayanad) due to floods and landslides. Several farmers stated that agricultural land had become unfit Impact on Livelihoods: State level for cultivation due to mud silting, and collection of debris, changes in soil structure and resulting losses in fertility. Therefore, several farmers were unable to revive their agricultural yield. Floods had also caused destruction of expensive agricultural machinery and equipment (irrigation systems, HHs reported that pump sets etc.) livelihoods were % impacted by floods 73

We had taken 20 acres of land for farming on lease signing an agreement with the landlord and had begun cultivation. The flood destroyed all our paddy fields and vegetable cultivation, and even the pepper and coffee. Most of the coconut and areca nut trees also fell down during the flood Impact on Livelihoods: By district Agricultural worker FGD, Wayanad

100 90 83 80 75 Our Paddy fields are filled with mud, the presence of non-fertile soil in 72 70 68 63 the paddy fields badly affects the productivity of our land. As flood threats 60 remain for the next season, almost all of us have stopped farming

% Agricultural worker FGD, Kottayam 40 37 30 32 27 24 20 17 9 Those reliant on animal husbandry faced losses in the form of livestock death, as well as lowered yields from livestock as a result of improper feed, 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad injury, diseases and stress they had experienced during the floods. Heavy mthitta losses of animals like poultry, duck and cattle population were incurred during the floods. For many households, animal husbandry was a primary Yes source of income while for others it served as a crucial buffer supplementing No their incomes. Farmers spoke of the efforts they made to save their animals (helping cattle wade through water to safe places, shifting them to higher Over 70% households in 5 out of 7 districts reported that the floods had places), however, many of them still perished. impacted their livelihoods, with the highest reporting of livelihood impact in Wayanad (90%).

43 I had 16 cows and when the flood came, it was impossible to move all of them to safer places. Some of them had fallen into the running water and drowned Restoration of Livelihood activities Farmer FGD, Thrissur

The fishing community was also affected by the floods in multiple ways. Rough seas before and after the floods made it unsafe to go fishing, Restoration of Livelihood activities: State level and resulted in loss of fishing days. Among those practicising inland fish farming, destruction of fish farms, and silting of ponds resulted in livelihood loss. Several fisherfolk lost their boats, nets and other fishing equipment. 46% 54% Unable to resume Able to resume livelihoods/start livelihood/start Our boats and nets were damaged in floods and we could not go to alternate livelihood alternate livelihood work for months

Inland fisherfolk, fisherfolk FGD, Kottayam

The fragile livelihoods of micro entrepreneurs, cottage industries, and those working in the hospitality sector were significantly disrupted by the floods. Restoration of Livelihood activities: By district While in some regions, shops and kiosks were totally destroyed, in others, damage to goods and wares due to inundation led to losses. This was compounded by an overall reduction in sales and purchasing power across 100 the community following the floods. Kudumbashree supported petty traders, tailoring and bakery units, cottage industries and several other livelihood 80 activities were deeply impacted. 68 60 60 58 55 58 53 49 50 47 % 42 45 41 39 40 The Handlooms units were completely destroyed and those who work in 31 the handloom sector could not work or earn for a long time 20 Trader, Microentrpreneurs FGD, Enrakulum 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad LSG functionaries mentioned that several farmers and agricultural labourers mthitta are yet to recover from the impact that the floods had on their livelihoods, as the land has remained unfit for cultivation, soil structure has been In 4 out of 7 districts, over half the surveyed households reported being changed and soil has accumulated in paddy fields. Households dependent able to restart their livelihood activities, and resume income generations. on animal husbandry were also very affected as surviving cattles’ yield was Alappuzha (57%) and Pathanmthitta (50%) had the highest proportions of reduced due to improper feed, disease and stress, and it was reported that households unable to livelihoods and income generation. many have left the animal husbandry sector since the floods.

Yes No Don’t know/remember 44 Government schemes for livelihood revival were crucial to several sectors returning to income generation. In order to help people in the recovery process, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS) was revised to provide more number of working days to those who Income level before and after floods affected by the floods, with the aim of serving as a buffer until livelihoods were reinstated. This revision made paid labour available toward the effort of clearing roads and removing sand from agricultural fields. However, many groups reported that MGNREGS could have been more efficiently used in Level of income before and after Floods 2018: State level rebuilding activities.

Through MGNREGS, sand filled in many paddy land was removed. It also helped us to generate some income till our livelihoods could be revived

Agricultaral worker FGD, Wayanad Post flood change in HHs income level Farmers reported receiving financial and in kind support from the government in reviving their fields, and show signs of overcoming the disaster and 1% 1% become more disaster resilient.

I am trying to forget what has happened in the floods, and want to overcome the situation now. I got Rs. 17,000 from Krishibhavan as well as 43% some saplings. I have planted nutmeg and cardamom on my land and they 55% No change Decreased are growing. Increased Not answered Agricultural worker FGD, Idukki

In Wayanad and other districts, LSG members stated that dairy and agriculture subsidies were given to farmers. Gram Panchayats and NGOs collaborated to give cattle to those whose cattle had perished during the foods, as well as vaccinations to surviving cattle. To farmers, seedlings, 43% reported that they were able to generate income to match the levels seeds, 75% subsidy on pump sets, free repair of pumps and clearning of they were used to prior to the floods. 55% households surveyed said they lands were provided by civil society and government functionaries. The experienced a decrease in income level, as compared to before the floods, Choornikkara panchayat of Ernakulam District reportedly invested 32 lakh while 1% said their income had seen an increase. rupees in the distribution of seeds, repair of pumps and implementing measures to improve crop yield.

45 Level of income before and after Floods 2018: By district

100

80 73 66 60 60 56 53 55 49 49 46 % 43 43 40 38 30 27 20

1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad mthitta

No change Increased Descreased

Over 50% households in 4 out of 7 districts reported experiencing a decrease in income level after the floods, with the highest such reporting in Idukki district (73%). The highest return to regular income levels was seen in the districts of Pathanamthitta (55%) and Kottayam (53%). Minimal increases in income levels were seen in Alappuzha, Wayanad, Thrissur and Pathanamthitta.

FGDs shed light on the fact that a large number of families were dependent on animal husbandry, vegetable farming and fish farming as secondary or supplementary sources of income. These incomes acted as an important buffer, especially for those with irregular income levels. The floods therefore destroyed these additional income generating opportunities along with the primary livelihoods, exacerbating the livelihood challenges and debts.

I have 7 cows. During the flood cows were taken to a safer location. But as they did not get proper feeding, milk production has been reduced to 10-12 liters a day from 40- 42 liters

Dairy farmer, Agricultural worker FGD, Kottayam

46 3.5 Disaster Risk Reduction

An important aspect of the AAP approach and the JPP-Initiative is to help protect communities from future disaster events, and to mitigate the negative impacts of these on communities’ housing, livelihoods, health and wellbeing. Therefore, households were asked about individual and community level preparatory actions being taken to prepare for and safeguard against disasters, as well as measures being taken by local authorities and governments. Community awareness around disaster proneness and risks, as well as respondents’ perceptions on additional knowledge required in the community to safeguard against disasters was investigated. Finally, households’ perception of the need for insurance against calamities, and their actual uptake of housing insurance were recorded.

Household level disaster preparedness

Household level disaster preparedness: State level Household level disaster preparedness: By district

100

1% 80 75 70 of households 65 surveyed 60 55 54 55 Preparedness reported that 51 % 45 45 45 45 % they had taken measures 39 40 34 60% measures to 30 taken by HHs 24 to mitigate prepare for 20 disasters disasters, especially during 4 0 1 1 0 1 0 the monsoons. 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad

At the district level, over 40% households from 4 out of 7 districts, reported that they were taking household level preparedness measures. Idukki (75%) and Kottayam (70%) districts had the highest proportion of households not taking such precautions.

Yes No Don’t know 47 Disaster preparedness measures taken by households

Disaster preparedness measures taken by households: State level

Preparatory actions taken by families for safety against disasters:

Safe keeping of valuables and documents 87

Warning response and evacuation preparedness 67

Storage of emergency supplies 60

Awareness of evacuation routes and shelters 41

Knowledge of emergency phone numbers 28

Safe storage of livelihood related assets 11

Insurance for self and family 6

Personal assets insurance 2

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Safekeeping of important documents and valuables was the highest reported measure being taken by 87% households. This was followed by 67% households staying attentive of media warnings and being evacuation ready in the event of a disaster, and 60% stocking up on emergency supplies. Measures such as insurance of important assets, family insurance, and safe storage of livelihood assets were the least prioritized.

48 Disaster preparedness measures taken by households: By district

100 94 95 92 89 87

79 79 80 75 77 70 68 65 65 65 64 61 64 59 60 56 52 50

% 47 43 43 42 40 39 33 33 30 29 28 25 21 20 18 14 14 13 13 12 13 9 9 10 6 6 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad

Ensured availability of emergency supplies at home Aware of routes to evacuate on a disaster and nearby shelters. All the family members including children know important like dry food, drinking water, torch, first aid kit, radio, phone numbers to seek information and help during disasters. batteries/power banks, medicines etc Important documents and valuable articles are kept safe. Insured self and family members. Ensure safe storage of harvest, fodder and livelihood assets. Always listen to warnings in media and willing to Insured important assets. evacuate upon receiving directions from authorities.

Over 80% of households in 5 of 7 districts reported that safekeeping clarity about the gravity of the situation. Respondents mentioned that early of important documents was their primary measure for future disaster warning systems with efficient dissemination mechanisms should be set up preparedness. This was followed by staying attentive to media disaster in communities, and improved response to warnings should be facilitated by warnings and stocking up on emergency supplies. In Wayanad and educating communities on appropriate actions following warnings from media Pathanamthitta, over 50% households said that they were staying aware of or government. They mentioned that information on thumb rules to follow, evacuation routes and shelters. as well as evacuation strategies and protocols in future disaster events must be taught across the community. Though several groups highlighted the need The loss of important documents was corroborated in discussions with for insuring their homes, health and livelihood assets, few had opted for any vulnerable groups, who mentioned that this was a challenge that several insurance scheme and felt they needed to get more knowledge about the households faced. Getting these reissued was a long process and caused policies before they did so. delays in receipt of compensations. Several families had therefore prepared document kits, storing them in plastic bags in the hope they would not get damaged in the future. All families need to prepare a kit during rainy season including medicine, important documents, transistor radio, torch, phone numbers of police Many also recognized that their vulnerabilities were enhanced due to their stations, neighbours, panchayat authorities….just in case delays in evacuation and taking timely action, because there wasn’t sufficient Fisherfolk FGD, Kottayam

49 Over 70% households in 6 out of 7 districts reported being unaware of any local disaster mitigation measures that had been undertaken by their Local mitigation and preparedness local authorities. In Kottayam, Ernakulam and Wayanad, over 15% of the activities undertaken by authorities population was unaware of the situation. The need to prioritize developing local mitigation measures for future disaster events and the actions to be taken at the local or community level was Local mitigation and preparedness activities: State level mentioned by several respondents during discussions. The sudden floods caused multiple challenges to the community that the local government had to respond to quickly. Several respondents acknowledged the crucial role played Local mitigation and preparedness by local officials, ensuring minimal response time, coordinating with other activities taken up by the Government departments, working with empathy and beyond the call of duty, facilitating the relief camps and post flood rehabilitation. Households emphasized the need to strengthen the role of Local Self Government Institutions (LSGIs) According to 10% of in disaster mitigation and response, as well as the establishment of easily 10% accessible forums for seeking redress and accountability. 14% surveyed households, their local governments has The availability of trained volunteers from within the community who could 76% taken measures to prevent provide immediate assistance was mentioned as a measure to instil a sense of and mitigate future security among affected populations and reduce vulnerabilities. Such persons disasters in their area, with basic knowledge on disaster management, can better coordinate with however, 76% believe that rescue and relief agencies and make crucial differences in providing timely no such measures have rescue and relief services. been taken. Yes No Don’t know Timely rescue and moving of affected communities to relief camps was one of the most widely mentioned strategies by all groups. Establishing safe places within each community, as well as permanent disaster shelters for use during the process of evacuation, was highlighted as a way to ensure the safety of Local mitigation and preparedness activities: By district vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and persons with disabilities. These discussions also reflected upon deeper issues of ecological imbalance 100 and underlying factors influencing occurrences of disasters. Development 82 projects like roads, bridges and other construction works may cause 80 79 79 77 73 73 ecological disruption as a results of insufficient planning. Involvement of local 67 communities in development planning, road and bund construction, deepening 60 of canals was mentioned as an important first step. Groups also expressed the need for greater accountability from local corporates (especially those % 40 extracting natural resources) to local communities.

20 22 19 20 13 15 13 14 Deepening of canals and removal of blockades in the canals have been 8 7 11 10 6 7 5 undertaken to mitigate the extent of flooding in the future. The panchayat 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad committee decided to stop giving license for deepening of streams for fish mthitta culture

Agricultrual labourer FGD, Kottayam

50 Awareness about disaster prone areas and disaster risks

Awareness of disaster risks: State level

HHs that think their area is prone to disasters other than floods

3% 24%

73%

Yes No Don’t know

Awareness about disaster proneness and disaster risks: By district

100 91 91 83 83 80 75 72

60 50 49 % 40 26 25 17 20 9 9 5 8 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad mthitta Awareness on disaster risks ranged widely between districts, from 75% households in Idukki to 50% in Wayanad reporting awareness on such risks, compared with 5% households reporting awareness in Pathanamthitta.

51 Need for education among community on disaster risks

Need for education among community on disaster risks: Need for education among community on disaster risks: State level By district

HHs that think there is a need to educate people on disaster risk 100 Yes No 78 80 75 8% 69 64 66 64% of households 60 55 % 28 64% reported that there is a 49

need to educate people % 38 about the disaster risks of 40 35 28 24 their local regions. 22 21 20 15

Yes No Don’t know 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad mthitta

Over 50% households in 6 out of 7 districts expressed the need for disaster education among the community, with the highest proportions in Ernakulam (78%) and Idukki (75%). Only 35% households in Pathanamthitta expressed the need for such training.

Households mentioned during discussions that certain regions, because of their topography, are and will always be more vulnerable to the effects of disasters. households mentioned during discussions. Several recognized this and felt that vulnerable areas needed to be earmarked and listed, and their residents given frequent disaster preparedness trainings, so that people can continue to feel safe. They also reiterated that no construction should be allowed in such high risk premises.

52 Community’s priorities on key disaster management information

Community’s priorities on key disaster management Most households were interested in receiving information on weather information: State level forecast and warnings on floods (50%), followed by preparation of family disaster preparedness kit (48%).

Households were asked to comment on community level preparedness for HHs are interested to learn or receive information on: future disaster events, and the actions they felt necessary to undertake. Communities stressed the need for improved disaster preparedness through a socio ecological perspective, calling for changes at multiple levels.

Weather forecast and warnings 50 Communities recognized the inadequacy of disaster warning communications immediately preceding the 2018 disaster. This consequently Preparation of family disaster preparedness kit 48 delayed their response and evacuation efforts, thereby compounding their risks. Respondents felt that every individual in the community should Caring for elders/people with 47 be educated about warnings, as well as the corresponding actions that special needs need to be undertaken by people in case a warning is issued. Analysis of various group responses revealed three inter linked aspects about Protecting houses and livelihoods 36 the communications: timeliness, credibility and comprehensibility of communications. Insurance 22

Safe shelters 21 There were warning announcements, but most people did not take them seriously…. People were afraid of fake warnings circulated in Healthcare at home 20 social media

Contact details of relevant Adolescent FGD, Ernakulam Government offices 20

Community Emergency Plan 19 Several respondents articulated having felt helpless as they did not know what to do and how to look after themselves, their families and assets 0 20 40 60 80 100 at the time of the disaster. Building community level knowledge on some % thumb rules to follow in the event of an emergency, as well as evacuation strategies and protocols were emphasized as key components of disaster preparedness.

53 Insurance Need for insurance against natural calamities

Insurance Coverage: State level Need for insurance against natural calamities: State level

2% 6% 5% Of those that did not 20% have insurance at the HHs that have time of survey, HHs that taken house feel their houses should 75% insurance be insured against 92% natural calamities

Yes No Don’t know Yes No Don’t know

Insurance Coverage: By district Need for insurance against natural calamities: By district

100 100 97 94 91 92 90 92 93 81 Yes Yes 80 76 76 78 73 80 71 No No 67

60 60 %

% 40 40 28 21 20 19 19 21 20 13 20 7 7 6 6 3 4 3 0 0 Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Kottayam Pathana- Thrissur Wayanad mthitta mthitta Among those not covered by insurance, over 70% households in 6 out of 7 A small proportion of households reported having taken insurance coverage, districts, expressed interested in taking insurance. with 7% in Alappuzha and Ernakulam, compared with 3% in Idukki. Qualitative findings too corroborated the high level of interest that households expressed in purchasing insurance for their homes, health, livelihood assets.

54 LSGIs selected per District 1 District Pathanamthitta* Kottayam* Thrissur* Ernakulam* Alappuzha* Idukki* Wayanad*

1 Peringara Udayanapuram Annamanada Chendamangalam Kavalam Vandiperiyar Kottathara 2 Kadapra Kumarakam Kuzhur Chittattukara Pallippad Vellathooval Edavaka 3 Niranam Thiruvarppu Chazhur Kunnukara Karuvatta Vazhathope Vellamunda 4 Nedumpuram Aymanam Parappukkara Karumallur Mannar Konnathady Pozhuthana 5 Kuttoor Vechoor Kadukutty Chengamanad Thalavady Vannappuram Thavinhal 6 Koipuram Maravanthuruthu Eriyad Cheranalloor Edathua Kumily Thirunelly ANNEXURE 7 Kulanada TV Puram Edathiruthy Kottuvally Kainakary Kamakshy Thariode

8 Aranmula Thalayazham Orumanayur Okkal Venmoney Udumbanchola Panamaram 9 Ranni Perunadu Vijayapuram Kadappuram Kadungalloor Cheppad Upputhara Mananthavady** 10 Vadaserikara Arpookara Pariyaram Vadakkekkara Puliyoor Devikulam 11 Kaviyoor Ayarkunnam Pudukad Kanjoor Punnapra South Kattappana** 12 Thiruvalla** Kallara Manalur Vazhakulam Thakazhy 13 Kaduthuruthy Sreenarayanapuram Ramamangalam Ambalappuzha(N) 14 Manarcad Karalam Paipra Ala 15 Kottayam** Vadakkekkad Valakom Alappuzha** 16 Muriyad Pallippuram 17 Arimpur Kalamassery** 18 Chalakudy** Eloor** Cochin 19 Corporation*** Total 12 15 18 19 15 11 9 ** Municipalities *** Municipality Corporation All other LSGIs are Gram Panchayats

55 2 Household Survey Questionnaire

Q1 Are you aware of various schemes and interventions of the state government, local government and other government agencies for recovery and rebuilding Kerala after floods? പ㔰ളയാനന്തര പുനരധിവാസ配തനും പുനർ നിർ륍മണ配തനുമായി വിവിധ സർ啍കർ ഥാനങ്ങൾ നടꥍപലാ啍കന്ന പദ്ധതികളെയും സർ啍കർ സഹായങ്ങളെയും കുറി楍楍 താങ്കൾ啍ക അറിയാമ�ോ? A1 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 3

ANNEXURE 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല് If Yes, Q 1A, otherwise skip to Q 2 ഉതരം അറിയാം എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 1 എ, ഇലല് എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 2

Q1a What are the various schemes and interventions of the state government, local government and other government agencies for recovery and rebuilding Kerala after floods that you are aware of? പ㔰ളയശേഷം സംഥന/ജിലലാ/ത് ദ饇ശഭരണകൂടങ്ങൾ നടꥍപലാ啍കന്ന പദ്ധതികളിൽ താങ്കൾ啍ക ഏതെലലാം് പദ്ധതികളെ啍കറിച്ച സഹായങ്ങളെ啍കറിച്ച അറിവു赍ട ? A1a Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Assistance for house repair/reconstruction വീട് നന്നാ啍കന്നതിനും പുതു啍കിണിയുന്നതിനുമുള്ള സഹായം

2. Repair/ reconstruction of roads & bridges റ�ോഡുകളുടേയും പാലങ്ങളുടേയും അറ്റകുറ്റപണി/പുനർ നിർ륍മണം

3. Repair/reconstruction of anganwadi/schools/ hospital/ other public utilities അംഗൻവാടി/സകൂൾ/ആ്‌ ശുപത്ര/മറ്റ് പ�ൊതുഥാനങ്ങളുടെ അറ്റകുറ്റപണി/പുനർനിർ륍മണം

4. Financial assistance of Rs.10000 for families affected/displaced by floods വെള്ളപ്പ啍ക ബാധിച കുടുംബങ്ങൾ啍കള്ള 10,000 രൂപയുടെ സഹായം

56 5. Compensation for crop loss കൃഷിനശിചവർ啍കള്ള പനഷ്ട രിഹാരം

6. Compensation for animal husbandry loss കന്നുകാലികൾ നഷ്ടപ്ട്ടവർ啍കള്ള പനഷ്ട രിഹാരം

7. Compensation for fisheries loss മൽസ്ബന്ധന ഉപകരണങ്ങളും ഫാമുകളും പ്നഷ്ട ട്ടവർ啍കള്ള ധനസഹായം

8. Provision of additional working days under MGNREG Scheme ത�ൊഴിലുറꥍപ പദ്ധതിയിൽ കൂടുതൽ ജ�ോലി ദിവസങ്ങൾ

9. Increased/free ration in ration shops during August - October 2018 വെള്ളപ്പൊ配തന് ശേഷം സൗജന്/അധിക റേഷൻ

10.Interest-free loan through Kudumbashree കുടുംബശ്ര അയൽ啍കട്ട配തലൂടെയുള്ള പലിശരഹിത വായ്പ

88.Any other scheme (Specify) മറ്റ് ഏതെങ്കിലും സഹായങ്ങൾ (എന്തു സഹായമാണെന്ന് വ്ക്തമാ啍കക)

Q1b What are the information sources from which you received information about such schemes and programmes? ഈ പദ്ധതികളെ啍കറിച്ച സഹായങ്ങളെ啍കറിച്ച എങ്ങനെ അറി祍ഞ? A1b Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Newspapers/TV/Social media/Radio 1. Assistance for house repair/reconstruction വീട് നന്നാ啍കന്നതിനും പുതു啍കിണിയുന്നതിനുമുള്ള സഹായം പത്ര/ടെലിവിഷൻ/ സമൂഹ മാധ്മം/റേഡിയ�ോ 2. Government offices / officials 2. Repair/ reconstruction of roads & bridges സർ啍കർ ഓഫീസുകൾ/ഉദ്യാഗസർ റ�ോഡുകളുടേയും പാലങ്ങളുടേയും അറ്റകുറ്റപണി/പുനർ നിർ륍മണം 3. Local leaders/LSG members/ Kudumbashree പ്രാദേിക നേതാകൾ/ജനപ㔰തിനിധികൾ/ കുടുംബശ്ര 3. Repair/reconstruction of anganwadi/schools/ hospital/ other public utilities അംഗൻവാടി/സകൂൾ/ആ്‌ ശുപത്ര/മറ്റ് പ�ൊതുഥാനങ്ങളുടെ അറ്റകുറ്റപണി/പുനർനിർ륍മണം 4. Neighbours അയൽ啍കർ 4. Financial assistance of Rs.10000 for families affected/displaced by floods 88. Any others, please specify വെള്ളപ്പ啍ക ബാധിച കുടുംബങ്ങൾ啍കള്ള 10,000 രൂപയുടെ സഹായം മറ്റ് ഏതെങ്കിലും വിധ配തൽ (വ്ക്തമാ啍കക)

57 Consultation with affected community about their needs :

Q2 Has any government or local government agencies consulted you or sought information about your needs and what needs to be done for your recovery after floods? പ㔰ളയാനന്തരം സാധാരണ നില കൈവരി啍കന്നതുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട് ഏതെങ്കിലും സർ啍കർ ഉദ്യാഗസ്ഥര തദ饇ശ ഥാനങ്ങളിലെ ജനപ㔰തിനിധികള�ോ താങ്കളെ അഭിപ്രയങ്ങളും ശ്ആവ ങ്ങളും അറിയുന്നതിലേയ്ക്യി സമീപി楍ചരുമന്നാ? A2 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know /remember ഉ赍ട ഇലല് അറിയിലല് / ഓർമയിലല് If Yes, then Q 2A, Otherwise SKIP to Q 3 ഉതരം അതേ എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 2 എ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 3

Q2a Please specify, who consulted you on recovery related issues? ആരാണ് നിങ്ങളിൽ ന്ന്നി വിവരങ്ങൾ തിര啍കയതെന്ന് വ്ക്തമാ啍കമ�ോ? A2a Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Panchayat/Muncipality/Corporation officials and members പ祍ചയ配/മുനിസിꥍത പലിറ്റി/ക�ോർപ്പഷൻ ഉദ്യാഗസർ, ജനപ㔰തിനിധികൾ 2. Government officials മറ്റ് സംഥന സർ啍കർ ഉദ്യാഗസർ 3. Kudumbashree and other government agencies കുടുംബശ്ര/മറ്റ് സർ啍കർ ഥാനങ്ങൾ 4. NGOs/others സന്നദ്ധ സംഘടനകൾ/റ്റാരെങ്കി മ ലും

Q3 Have you received any assistance under any of the schemes announced by the Government for flood-affected people? പ㔰ളയം ബാധിചവർ啍ക ഗവൺമെന്റ് പ㔰ഖ്യാിച ഏതെങ്കിലും സഹായം നിങ്ങൾ啍ക കിട്ടിയിട്ടുണ്ട? A3 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല്

58 Q4 Are you aware of various mechanisms for registering grievances on schemes and entitlements related to floods? പ㔰ളയ ദുരിതാശ്വസവുമായി ബന്ധപ്ട്ടകീമുകള സ്‌ െ啍കറിച്ച ധനസഹായങ്ങളെ啍കറി楍ചമുള്ള പരാതികൾ സമർꥍപ啍കന്നതിനും പരിഹാരം നേടുന്നതിനുമുള്ള സംവിധാനങ്ങളെ啍കറി楍楍 താങ്കൾ啍ക അറിവുണ്ട ? A4 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല്

Q5 Have you ever approached any authorities with grievances or have you registered greivances on schemes and entitlements related to floods? പ㔰ളയ ദുരിതാശ്വസവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട് ഏതെങ്കിലും സകീമി്‌ നെ啍കറിച്ച ധനസഹായത്啍കറിച്ച പരാതിയുമായി താങ്കൾ ഏതെങ്കിലും അധികാരികളെ സമീപി楍ചരുന്നുവ�ോ ? A5 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല് If Yes, then Q 5A otherwise SKIP to Q 6 ഉതരം അതേ എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 5 എ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 6

Q5a Were your grievances addressed? താങ്കളുടെ പരാതി പരിഹരിക്കപ്പെട? A5a Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Fully പൂർണ്ണമായും പരിഹരി楍ച 2. Partially ഭാഗികമായി പരിഹരി楍ച 3. Not addressed പരിഹരിക്കപ്പെലല് If Fully, then Q 5B, otherwise SKIP to Q 6 ഉതരം പൂർണ്ണമായും പരിഹരി楍ച എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 5 ബി, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 6

59 Q5b How much time did it take to resolve the grievances? താങ്കളുടെ പരാതി പരിഹരി啍കൻ എത് സമയം വേ赍ട വന്നു ? A5b Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. 0-1 month 0-1 മാസം楍ച 2. 1-3 months 1-3 മാസം 3. 3-6 months 3-6 മാസം

GENERAL പ�ൊതു ച�ോദ㔯ങ്ങൾ Q6 At this point of time, what are the 3 most important priority areas/needs for you and your family? (select any three) പ㔰ളയം കഴി祍ഞ ഒരു വർഷം പിന്നിടുമ്പൾ താങ്കളുടെ കുടുംബ配തന്റെ ഇപ്പഴുള്ള ഏറ്റവും പ㔰ധാനപ്ട്ട ന്ന്മൂ ആവശ്ങ്ങൾ ഏതെലലാമാണ് ?് A6 Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Education of children കുട്ടികളുടെ വിദ്യഭ്യസം 2. Repair and reconstruction of house വീടിന്റെ അറ്റകുറ്റപണി/പുനർ നിർ륍മണം 3. Safe drinking water കുടിവെള്ളം 4. Water for domestic and irrigation purposes കൃഷിക്ക വീട്ടാവശ്ങ്ങൾക്ക ആവശ്ങ്ങൾ啍കമുള്ള വെള്ളം 5. Health facilities ആശുപത്ര അടകമുള്ള ആര�ോഗ്യരിപാലന സംവിധാനങ്ങളുടെ ലഭ്ത 6. Livelihood restoration ഉപജീവന മാർഗങ്ങൾത�ൊ ( ഴിൽ) പു:നഥാി啍കക

60 7. Drainage of inundated water മഴവെള്ളവും ആറുകളിലുംറ്റും മ നിറഞ്ഞഴുകുന്ന വെള്ളവും ഒഴുകി പ�ോകാനുള്ള സംവിധാനം 8. Disaster related early warning system and other mitigation and preparedness measures ദുരന്തങ്ങളെ啍കറി楍ചള്ള മുന്നറിയിപ്പ ദുരന്തം ലഘൂകരി啍കവാനുള്ള നടപടികളും 9. Rebuilding of damaged public infrastructure like roads, bridges, schools etc പ㔰ളയ配തൽ തകർന്ന റ�ോഡ് മുതലായ അടിഥന സൗകര്ങ്ങളുടെ പുനർ നിർ륍മണം 10. Others (Specify) മറ്റുള്ളവ (വ്ക്തമാ啍കക)

Q7 Can you tell me whether schools/ anganwadis/hospitals/ration shops etc (any one or more) in your Panchayath / Municiplality / Corporation) were destroyed during the flood? താങ്കളുടെ പ㔰ദേശ配ത സ്‌കൂൾ/അംഗൻവാടി/ആശുപത്ര/റേഷൻകട തുടങ്ങിയവയ്ക് പ㔰ളയ配തൽ നാശനഷ്ടം സംഭവി楍ചിട്ടുണ്? A7 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല് If Yes, Q 7A otherwise SKIP to 8 ഉതരം ഉ赍ട എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 7 എ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 8

Q7a Have those been repaired? /reconstructed? ഇവ നന്നാ啍കന്നതിന് സർ啍കർ നടപടി സ്വകരി楍ചിട്ടുണ്? A7a Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Fully repaired പൂർണ്ണമായി പുതു啍ക പണിതു 2. Partially repaired ഭാഗികമായി അറ്റകുറ്റപണികൾ നട配ത 3. Not repaired അറ്റകുറ്റപണികൾ ഒന്നൂം ചെയ്തിട്ടിലല് 4. Don’t know അറിയിലല്

61 Q8 Do you have school/college-going children? താങ്കൾ啍ക സകൂളി്‌ ല�ോ ക�ോളേജില�ോ പഠി啍കന്ന ട്ടികു കൾ ഉണ്ട? A8 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല് If Yes, then Q 8A, otherwise SKIP to Q 9 ഉതരം ഉ赍ട എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 8 എ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 9

Q8a Did they stop going to schools/colleges due to floods or flood related issues? പ㔰ളയം നിമിതമ�ോ അതുമായി ബന്ധപ്ട്ടറ്റ് മ ഏതെങ്കിലും കാരണ配താല� താങ്കളുടെ കുട്ടികൾ പഠനം നിർ配തിയ� ? A8a Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes, Temporarily during and immediately after floods അതെ, താൽ啍കലികമായി പ㔰ളയ സമയത്ത, പ㔰ളയം കഴിഞ ഉടനെയും 2. Yes, Permanently അതെ, ഥരമായി 3. No ഇലല്

Q8b Did the children undergo post disaster traumatic stress like sleep disturbances, nightmares, and depression, after the floods? പ㔰ളയദുരന്ത配തന്റെ ഓർമയിൽ താങ്കളുടെ കുട്ടികൾ പേടി啍കകയ�ോ ദു:സ്വപനങ്ങൾ കാണുകയ�ോ ഉറക啍കറവ്, വിഷാദം, പിരിമുറു啍ക തുടങ്ങിയവ അനുഭവി楍ചരുന്നതായ�ോ ത�ോന്നിയിട്ടുണ്ട? A8b Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Repeatedly അതെ, തുടർചയായി 2. Sometimes ചിലപ്പോഴ�ൊക 3. Never ഇലല്

62 4. Don’t know അറിയിലല് If the answer is ‘Repeatedly’ or ‘Sometimes’, then Q 8C, otherwise SKIP to Q 9 ഉതരം തുടർചയായി/ചിലപ്പോഴ�ൊക എങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 8 സി, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 9

Q8c Have they been able to recover from the traumatic stress? പ㔰ളയംമൂലം കുട്ടികൾ啍ക赍ടയ ഇതരം മാനസിക പ㔰യാസങ്ങൾ മാറിയ�ോ? A8c Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Recovered fully പൂർണ്ണമായും മാറി 2. Recovered somewhat കുറച്ചൊക മാറി 3. Not recovered മാറിയിട്ടിലല് 4. Do not know അറിയിലല്

Q9 Overall, are you satisfied with various interventions of government, local government and other govt. agencies for rebuilding Kerala after floods? പ�ൊതുവെ, സംഥന സർ啍കരും തദ饇ശസർ啍കരുകളും മറ്റ് സർ啍കർ ഥാനങ്ങളും നട配തന്ന പുനരധിവാസ പ㔰വർതനങ്ങളിൽ താങ്കൾത് എ മാത്ര തൃപ്തരാണ?് A9 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Very satisfied വളരെ തൃപ്തിയു赍ട 2. Satisfied തൃപ്തിയു赍ട 3. Neutral അഭിപ്രയമിലല് 4. Unsatisfied തൃപ്തിയിലല്

63 SOCIAL PROTECTION സാമൂഹിക സുരക്ഷ

Q10 Have you received any assistance/entitlements after the floods under the following schemes ? പ㔰ളയവുമായി ബന്ധപ്ട്ട താഴെ പറയുന്നതെങ്കി ഏ ലും നഷ്ടപരിഹാരമ�ോ സഹായമ�ോ താങ്കൾ啍 ക ലഭി楍ചിട്ടുണ് ? A10 Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Financial assistance of Rs. 10,000 for affected/displaced by floods ദുരിതാശ്വസ സഹായമായി പതിനായിരം രൂപ 2. Financial assistance for repair/reconstruction of houses വീടിന്റെ അറ്റകുറ്റപണികൾക്ക പുനർ നിർ륍മണ配തിന� ഉള്ള സാമ配തക സഹായം 3. Compensation for crop loss കൃഷി നാശ配തനുള്ള പനഷ്ട രിഹാരം 4. Compensation for animal husbandry loss കന്നുകാലികൾ നഷ്ടപ്ട്ടതിനുള്ളപ നഷ്ട രിഹാരം 5. Compensation for fishery related loss മ配സബന്ധന മേഖലയിലെ നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം 6. Compensation for trade/production/service/tourism related loss സ്യം ത�ൊഴിൽ, കചവടം തുടങ്ങിയ മേഖലകളുമായി ബന്ധപ്ട്ട പനഷ്ട രിഹാരം 7. Additional working days under MGNREG Scheme ത�ൊഴിലുറꥍപ പദ്ധതിയിൽ കൂടുതൽ ത�ൊഴിൽ ദിവസങ്ങൾ 8. Increased/free ration from ration shops during August – October പ㔰ളയശേഷം അധിക/സൗജന് റേഷൻ 9. Interest free loan through Kudumbashree കുടുംബശ്ര വഴിയുള്ള പലിശരഹിത വായ്പ 10. ‘Cash for Work’ assistance from Kudumbashree or NGOs കുടുംബശ്രയിൽ നിമന്നാ മറ്റ് സന്നദ്ധ സംഘടനകളിൽമന്നാ നി ഉള്ളജ�ോ ‘ ലിയ്ക് കൂലി’ സഹായം 11. Loan from Kerala Financial Corporation / Ujjeevana loan from Banks or any other floods-related loans from Banks സർ啍കർ ഥാനങ്ങളിൽ മന്നാനി ബാങ്കുകളിൽ നിമന്നാ ലഭിച വായ്പ 12. Moratorium on payment of loans / Waiver of interest of loans കൃഷി/ഭവന വായ്പയ്ക് ലഭിച മ�ൊറമട്ടാറിയം അല്ലെങ്കിൽ പലിശയിളവ് 88. Any other scheme (Specify) മറ്റേതെങ്കിലും (വ്ക്തമാ啍കക)

64 Q11 Have you taken any loans after the floods or received any monetary assistance other than compensation for house damage/loss? പ㔰ളയ配തനു ശേഷം താങ്കൾ വായ്പയ�ോ വീട് നശിചവർ啍കള്ള പനഷ്ട രിഹാര配തകയലലാ് തെ മറ്റേതെങ്കിലും ധനസഹായം വാങ്ങുകയ�ോ ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട? A11 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല് If Yes, then Q 11A, otherwise SKIP to Q 12 ഉതരം ഉ赍ട എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 11 എ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 12

Q11a For what purpose was the loan primarily utilized for? എത് ആവശ配ിനാണത ് പ㔰ധാനമായും തുക വിനിേയാഗിചത് ? A11a Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Livelihood related purposes ഉപജീവന മാർഗ്ഗങ്ങൾ啍ക 2. Food, Cloths and other personal and family needs ആഹാരം, വസ്ത്ര തുടങ്ങിയ ആവശ്ങ്ങൾ啍ക 3. Education വിദ്യഭ്യസം 4. Construction/repair of house അറ്റകുറ്റപണി/നിർ륍മണം 5. Purchase of household appliances വീട്ടുപകരണങ്ങൾ啍ക 6. Health ചികിത啍ക 7. Others (specify) മറ്റ് കാര്ങ്ങൾ啍ക ഉപയ�ോഗി楍ച (വ്ക്തമാ啍കക)

65 Q11b Was the assistance or loan adequate and was it received timely? എടുത വായ്പ അല്ലെങ്കിൽ സഹായധനം പര്യാപതമായിരുമന്നാ, അത് തക സമയ配ത ലഭി楍ചരുന്നുവ�ോ? A11b Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Adequate and received in time പര്യാപതമായിരുന്നു, സമയ配ത ലഭി楍ച 2. Adequate and but not received in time പര്യാപതമായിരുന്നു, എന്നാൽ സമയ配ത ലഭി楍ചലല് 3. Not adequate but Received in time സമയ配ത ലഭി楍ച, എന്നാൽ പര്യാപതമായിരുന്നിലല്

HOUSING പാർꥍപടം

Q12 Was your house damaged or destroyed in the floods? പ㔰ളയ配തൽ താങ്കളുടെ വീടിന് ഭാഗികമായ�ോ പൂർണ്ണമായ�ോ നാശനഷ്ടം സംഭവി楍ചരുമന്നാ? A12 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല് If Yes 12A, Otherwise SKIP to 13 ഉതരം അതെ എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 12 എ, ഇലല് എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 13

Q12a What was the extent of the damage of your house? ഏത് വിഭാഗ配തലുളള നാശ നഷ്ടമാണ് താങ്കളുടെ വീടിന് സംഭവിചതായി കണ啍ക啍കയിട്ടുളളത.് A12a Single Response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Water level upto knee level, minor damages or roof tiles marginally damaged. മുമട്ടാളം വെളളം പ�ൊങ്ങി, വെളളം കയറി ചെറിയ ത�ോതിൽ നാശമു赍ടയി അല്ലെങ്കിൽ മേൽ啍കരയിലേ ഓടുകൾ啍ക ചെറിയ ത�ോതിൽ നാശമു赍ടയി

66 2. Floor damaged due to water inundation and electrical/plumbing related damages or roof tiles were damaged and electrical/plumbing related damages. വെളളം കയറിയതു നിമി配ത തറയ啍് കു ഇലക്ട്രിൽ / പ്ലംബിംഗിനും നാശമു赍ടയി അല്ലെങ്കിൽ മേൽ啍കരയിലെ ഓടുകൾക്ക ഇലക്ട്രിൽ, പ്ലംബിംഗിനും നാശമു赍ടയി 3. Water level rose upto windows and doors (Lintel level) and the walls were affected or 50% or less roof tiles were damaged, but the roof structure not damaged. വെളളം മേൽവാതിൽപടി / ജന്നൽപടി പ�ൊക്കതളം ഉയരുകയും മതിലിന് നാശമു赍ടകുകയും ചെയ്തു അല്ലെങ്കിൽ 50 ശതമാനമ�ോ താഴെയ�ോ മേൽ啍കരയിലെ ഓടുകൾ啍ക നാശമു赍ടയി. 4. One or more wall damaged, but the roof structure not damaged. ഒമന്നാ അതിലധികമ�ോ മതിലുകൾ തകർന്നു എന്നാൽ മേൽ啍കരയുടെ ചട്ട啍കടിന് നാശമു赍ടയിലല.് 5. Roof entirely collapsed (structural damage) കെട്ടിട配തന്റെ ചട്ട啍കട് ഉൾപ്പെ മേൽ啍കര പൂർണ്ണമായും തകർന്നു.

Q12b Did you receive any financial assistance for repairing / reconstructing your house? വീട് നന്നാ啍കന്നതിന�ോ പുതു啍ക പണിയുന്നതിന�ോ എന്തെങ്കിലും ധനസഹായം താങ്കൾ啍ക ലഭി楍ചിട്ടുണ്? A12b Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല്

Q12c Did you receive any technical support in repairing or rebuilding your house? താങ്കളുടെ വീട് ദുരന്തങ്ങൾക്തിരെ കൂടുതൽ സുര啍ഷതമായി പണിയുന്നതിന് എന്തെങ്കിലും സാങ്കേതിക സഹായം താങ്കൾ啍ക ലഭി楍ചിട്ടുണ് A12c Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല്

67 LIVELIHOOD ഉപജീവനമാർ嵍ഗ

Q13 What was your and your family’s major source of livelihood before floods? പ㔰ളയ配തനു മുൻപ് താങ്കളുടെ കുടുംബ配തന്റെ പ㔰ധാന വരുമാന മാർഗ്ഗം എന്തായിരുന്നു. A13 Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Agriculture/livestock/fishing കൃഷി/ കന്നുകാലി പരിപാലനം/ മ配സ ബന്ധനം 2. Daily wage labour കൂലിപണി 3. Small business /self employed/micro enterprises/artisan ചെറുകിട വ്യാാരം / സ്യം ത�ൊഴിൽ / ലഘു സംരംഭം / കൈത്തഴിൽ 4. Widow pension/ oldage pensions/ Government pension/ other pensions വിധവാപെൻഷൻ / വാർദ്ധക്കാലപെൻഷൻ / മറ്റ് സർ啍കർ പെൻഷനുകൾ 5. Remittances from spouse/children/others കേരള配തനു പുറ配തനിന്ന് ജീവിതപങ്കാളിയ�ോ മക്കള മറ്റുളളവര�ോ അയ啍കന്ന പണം 6. Salary മാസശമളം 88. Others, Specify മറ്റുളളവ (വ്ക്തമാ啍കക)

Q14 Was your livelihood affected in the floods? പ㔰ളയം താങ്കളുടെ ഉപജീവന മാർഗ്ഗത് ബാധിച്ച? A14 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല് If Yes, Then 14A Otherwise SKIP to 15 ഉതരം അതെ എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 14 എ, ഇലല് എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 15

68 Q14a Could you re-start your livelihood activity or did you find an alternative livelihood after floods? താങ്കളുടെ ത�ൊഴിൽ / ഉപജീവനമാർഗ്ഗം പുനരാരംഭി楍ചുവ� അല്ലെങ്കിൽ പകരം മറ്റേതെങ്കിലും ഉപജീവനമാഗ്ഗം കണ്配തിയ� A14a Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല്

Q15 Do you have the same level of income from livelihoods, as it was before the floods? പ㔰ളയ配തനു മുൻപ് ലഭി楍ചരുന്നതിനു തുല്മായ വരുമാനം താങ്കൾ啍ക ഇപ്പൾ ലഭി啍കുന്നുണ്? A15 Single Response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. No change വരുമാന配തൽ മാറ്റമിലല് 2. Increased വരുമാനം വർദ്ധി楍ച 3. Decreased വരുമാനം കുറ祍ഞ

PREPAREDNESS ദുരന്തങ്ങൾക商തിരെയുളള ത뵍യാെടുꥍꥍ

Q16 Based on the experience of floods in 2018, have you taken any measures to prepare for disasters in your house especially during monsoons? 2018-ലെ പ㔰ളയ配തന്റെ പ�ചാല配തൽ മഴ啍കല配തില啍കയി എന്തെങ്കിലും ത뵍യാറടുꥍപകൾ താങ്കളുടെ കുടുംബം നട配തയിട്ടുണ്ട? A16 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല് If Yes Q 16A, otherwise skip to Q 17 ഉതരം ഉ赍ട എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 16 എ, ഇലല് എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 17

69 Q16a What preparatory action have you taken for safety and security of your family and assets? താങ്കളുടെ കുടുംബ配തന്റെയും വസ്തുവകകളുടെയും സുരകയ്ക്യി എന്തെലലാം് ത뵍യാറടുꥍപകൾ താങ്കൾ നട配തയിട്ടു赍.ട A16a Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Ensured availability of emergency supplies at home like dry food, drinking water, torch, first aid kit, radio, batteries/power banks, medicines etc വെളളം, ഭകണം, മരുന്ന് തുടങ്ങിയ അവശ്വസ്തുകൾ ഭവന配തൽ കരുതിയിട്ടു赍ട 2. Always listen to warnings in media and willing to evacuate upon receiving directions from authorities. മാധ്മങ്ങളിലൂടെയുളള മുന്നറിയിꥍപകൾ സദാ ശ്രദ്ധ啍കുന്ന. അധികൃതരുടെ നിർദ饇ശാനുസരണം ക്യാമകളിലേ啍ക മാറാൻ ത뵍യറാണ.് 3. Important documents and valuable articles are kept safe. പ㔰ധാന രേഖകളും വിലപിടിꥍപളള വസ്തുകളും സുര啍ഷതമായി സൂ啍ഷ楍ചിട്ട赍ട 4. Aware of routes to evacuate on a disaster and nearby shelters. ദുരന്തമു赍ടയാൽ രക്ഷടാനുളള വഴികളും അടു配തളള സുര啍ഷത കേനദ്രവും മനസലാ啍ക വ楍ചിട്ട赍.ട 5. Ensure safe storage of harvest, fodder and livelihood assets. ഉപജീവനവുമായി ബന്ധപ്ട്ട വസ്തുവകകൾ, ഉൽപന്നങ്ങൾ, വിളവ് , കാലി配തറ്റ തുടങ്ങിയവ സുര啍ഷതമായി സൂ啍ഷ楍ചിട്ട赍.ട 6. All the family members including children know important phone numbers to seek information and help during disasters. കുട്ടികൾ ഉൾപ്പെ വീട്ടിൽ എലലാവർ് ക്ക അപകടസമയ配ത ആരെ ബന്ധപ്ടണമെന്നും ബന്ധപ്പെട പ㔰ധാന ഫ�ോൺ നമറുകൾ ഏത�ൊക്യാണെന്നും അറിവു赍.ട 7. Insured self and family members. തനിക്ക കുടുബാംഗങ്ങൾക്ക ഇൻഷുറൻസ് എടു配തിട്ട赍.ട 8. Insured important assets. ഉപജീവനവുമായി ബന്ധപ്ട്ട നഷ്ടങ്ങൾക്തിരെ ഇൻഷുറൻസ് എടു配തിട്ട赍.ട 88. Others, please specify മറ്റുളളവ (വ്ക്തമാ啍കക)

Q17 Has the government or local government taken any measures in your area to prevent or mitigate disasters? ഭാവിയിൽ ദുരന്തങ്ങളെ പ㔰തിര�ോധി啍കന്നതിനും അവയുടെ ആഘാതം കുറയ്ക്ന്നതിനുമായി എന്തെങ്കിലും നടപടികൾ സർ啍കർ താങ്കളുടെ പ㔰ദേശ配ത എടു配തിട്ടുണ്? A17 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know ഉ赍ട ഇലല് അറിയിലല്

70 Q18 Do you think your place of residence is prone to any disaster other than floods? നിങ്ങളുടെ പ㔰ദേശം വെളളപ്പ啍ക കൂടാതെ മറ്റ് ഏതെങ്കിലും ദുരന്ത配തനു സാധ്തയുളള സലമാണ�ോ? A18 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know ഉ赍ട ഇലല് അറിയിലല് If Yes Q 18A, Otherwise skip to 19 ഉതരം അതെ എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 18 എ, ഇലല് എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 19

Q18a What are the hazards your place of residence is prone to other than floods? താങ്കളുടെ പ㔰ദേശ配ത ഉ赍ടകാൻ സാധ്തയുളള ദുരന്തങ്ങൾത�ൊക് ഏ യാണ.് A18a Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Cyclones/Coastal erosion/Tsunami ചുഴലി啍കാറ്റ/തീരം ഇടിയൽ/സുനാമി 2. Landslides മണ്ണിടി楍ചൽ 3. Earthquakes ഭൂകമ് 4. Fire, road accidents, industrial accidents തീ, റ�ോഡ് അപകടം ഉൾപ്പെയുളള മനുഷ് നിർ륍മത ദുരന്തങ്ങൾ, വ്വസായ ദുരന്തങ്ങൾ 5. Drought വരൾച 6. Don’t know അറിയില് 88. Specify others മറ്റുളളവ ( വ്ക്തമാ啍കക)

71 Q19 Do you think there is a need to educate people by displaying information about the disaster risks of your area? നിങ്ങളുടെ പ㔰ദേശത് ദുരന്ത സാധ്തകളെപറ്റി ജനത് ബ�ോധവൽകരി啍കകയ�ോ ദുരന്തങ്ങളെ കുറി楍ചളള വിവരങ്ങൾ പ㔰ദർ�ശꥍപ啍കകയ�ോ ചെയണമെന്ന് ത�ോന്നുന്നുണ്ട? A19 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല്

Q20 What are the three key information you would like to know more about disaster preparedness and disaster management? (select any three) ദുരന്ത നിവാരണത്啍കറിച്ച പ㔰തിര�ോധ മാർഗ്ഗങ്ങളെ啍കറിച്ച നിങ്ങൾ啍ക കൂടുതലായി അറിയേണ ഏറ്റവും പ㔰ധാനപ്ട്ട ന്ന്മൂ കാര്ങ്ങൾതെ ഏ ലലാമാണ് ?് A20 Multiple response ഒന്നിലധികം ഉതരം 1. Preparation of Family Disaster Kit ദുരന്ത സമയ配ത ഉപയ�ോഗി啍കൻ സാധി啍കന്ന ഫാമിലി റ്റ്കി ത뵍യറാ啍കക 2. Emergency information concerning elders/people with special needs പ്രയമായവർ , അംഗപരിമിതർ എന്നിവരുടെ സുരകയ啍് കു സഹായ配തനുമുളള അടിയന്തിര വിവരങ്ങൾ 3. Insurance of life, properties and livestock വീടിനും കന്നുകാലികൾക്ക മറ്റുമുളള ഇൻഷുറൻസ് പരിരക 4. Development of family or community emergency plan അടിയന്തിര പ㔰തികരണ配തനായി കുടുംബ/സമൂഹ തലങ്ങളിൽ ദുരന്ത നിവാരണ പദ്ധതികൾ ത뵍യറാകൽ 5. Weather forecast and warning on floods കാലാവസയിലെ മാറ്റങ്ങൾ, ദുരന്തസാധ്തകൾ സംബന്ധിച മുന്നറിയിꥍപകൾ 6. Tips on protecting house and livelihoods ദുരന്ത സമയ配ത വീടും ഉപജീവനമാർഗ്ഗങ്ങളും ഷസംര啍啍കന്നതിനുളള മാർഗ്ഗങ്ങൾ 7. Home health care അടിയന്തിര ഘട്ടങ്ങളിൽ കുടുംബാംഗങ്ങളുടെ ആര�ോഗ് പരിപാലനം 8. Contact details and numbers of relevant govt. bodies പ㔰ധാനപ്ട്ട സർ啍കർ സംവിധാനങ്ങളെ സഹായ配തനായി സമീപി啍കനുളള ഫ�ോൺനമർ ഉൾപ്പെയുളള വിവരങ്ങൾ 9. Information about safe shelters അഭയം തേടാവുന്ന സുര啍ഷത ഥനങ്ങളെ啍കറി楍ചളള വിവരങ്ങൾ 88. Others, please specify മറ്റുളളവ ( വ്ക്തമാ啍കക)

72 Q21 Do you have insurance for your house? പ㔰കൃതി ക്ഷഭങ്ങൾ മൂലം ഉ赍ടായ啍കവുന്ന നാശനഷ്ടങ്ങൾക്തിരെ നിങ്ങളുടെ വീടിനും മറ്റു വസ്തുവകകൾക്ക ഇൻഷുറൻസ് പരിരക എടു配തിട്ടുണ്? A21 Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല് If No, then Q. 21A ഉതരം ഇലല് എന്നാണെങ്കിൽ ച�ോദ്യ 21 എ

Q21a Based on the experience of floods in 2018, do you think there is a need to insure your house against natural calamities? 2018 ലെ പ㔰ളയ配തന്റെ അടിഥന配തൽ പ㔰കൃതിക്ഷഭങ്ങൾ മൂലമു赍ടായ啍കവുന്ന നഷ്ടങ്ങൾ啍ക പരിഹാരമായി താങ്കളുടെ വീടിനും മറ്റ് വസ്തുവകകൾക്ക ഇൻഷുറൻസ് പരിരക വേണമെന്ന് കരുതുന്നുണ്ട? A21a Single response ഒരു ഉതരം 1. Yes 2. No ഉ赍ട ഇലല്

73 3 Key Information Interviews conducted per district

Districts/ Alappuzha Ernakulam Idukki Pathanamthitta Thrissur Wayanad Kottayam Groups

Fisherfolk Kadapra Punnapra Pallipuram Upputhara Sreenarayanapuram Kottathara Kumarakom Daily wagers

3 Adolescent Thakazhi Valakom Vellathooval Nedumpram Chalakudi (M)* Vellamunda Maravanthuruthu ANNEXURE

Farmers/ Agri Kainakary Ramamangalam Konnathadi Peringara Arimpur Panamaram Aymanam Labourers

Migrant Mannar Vazhakulam Kattapana Thiruvalla (M) Kadukkutti workers

Differently Edathua Kunnukara Kumily Vadasserikara Parapookara Pozhuthana Athirampuzha abled

SC/ST Nedumudi Kanjoor Vannapuram Ranni-Perunad Pudukkad (SC) Thirunelly Kaduthuruthy

Elderly Kavalam Kadungalloor Vazhathope Aranmula Manalur Thariode Thalayolaparambu

Women/ Alappuzha(M) Chendamangalam Vandiperiyar Niranam Chazhur Edavaka Thiruvarppu widows

74 4 Focus Group Discussion guide

1. Awareness about disaster:

Key question:

3 Why do you think the natural processes like (heavy rains/ ANNEXURE landslide, mudslip) become a disaster? (probe the facilitator)

Probe:

ŹŹ Why did ŹŹ Could ŹŹ Whom ŹŹ How did ŹŹ Was any ŹŹ How ŹŹ When the flood the did the people get flood appropriately and what happen disaster disaster to know warning were people measures in Kerala have impact about the system forewarned? did people last year? been the most impending providing take to (Cause of averted? apart disaster information avert the disaster)? How? from and its regularly? risks the humans? threats? What was impending How and it and was disaster Why? it timely, posed? appropriate and available to everyone?

75 2. Social protection

Key question:

What was the impact of the floods on different groups/category of people and why?

Probe:

ŹŹ Was there a ŹŹ Who was ŹŹ What ŹŹ Who in the ŹŹ Have some ŹŹ Did women ŹŹ How differential least and aspects community members face any adequately in the most about an is most at of a family specific were the effect of affected individual risk should been more challenges elderly the disaster by the make them a disaster affected than during the able to on people? disaster? more prone occur in others due to disaster? negotiate the How, on to the risks the future? the disaster? Were these challenges whom? of disasters? Why? Who and uniformly the disaster Why? experienced? presented? Why? Why?

ŹŹ How have ŹŹ After floods ŹŹ Did individuals children have children in the family been dropping out of face any impacted school and or trauma post by the taking up work/ disaster? Who disaster? employment / and for how Who and getting married long? how? been influenced in any way?

76 3. Relief Services

Key question:

Relief mechanisms at the time of the floods How these could have been more effective Grievance redressal system- effectiveness and how it could have been more effective?

Probe:

ŹŹ How did people ŹŹ At the time ŹŹ Were there ŹŹ Who was ŹŹ Were the ŹŹ What aspects ŹŹ Who was get information of disaster differences most active services were critical able to about the what in support in providing appropriate to to people benefit/ services and services received effective the needs of being able to not interventions were most by people services to the people?( access the benefit initiated by the crucial with similar the people at Timely/ services? from the government for the needs? the time of relevant / services? and its various people? For which the disaster? adequate Why? agencies? Service for services and Who and why to people’s whom? why? were they needs) able to do so?

Ź Ź Were special measures ŹŹ Have any efforts been ŹŹ Post disaster of the various schemes, which schemes taken to assist vulnerable made to include the have been the most beneficial in helping people return to sections of the community needs and views of normalcy? Why? (Additional working days under MGNREG the community people āā During the disaster-What Scheme;Increased/free ration from ration shops;Interest were they and their in making plans for free loan through Kudumbashree for purchasing household relevance? mitigating the effects appliances ; ‘Cash for Work’ assistance from Kudumbashree of the disaster? How or NGOs;‘Rebuild’ loan from Kerala Financial Corporation / āā Post disaster- What (media methods used), Ujjeevana loan from Banks;Moratorium on agricultural or were they and their by whom ( agency) and home loans / Waiver of interest of agricultural loans from relevance? how regularly ? CMDRF;Vocational skill development through ARISE programme of Kudumbashree;Insurance scheme of any Government agency)

77 Ź ŹŹ Could the ŹŹ Did people Ź How effective services have complain was the made more when they did grievance effective for not get their redressal the intended entitlements? system in people? how? How did they enabling people complain and to get their Why? entitlements? Were there any loopholes?

4. Rehabilitation & Reconstruction

Key question:

What was the response mechanism during and after the disaster? What were the different type of losses people incurred because of the floods?

ŹŹ Natural ŹŹ Physical ŹŹ Social

āā Land area and land cost- āā Housing, āā Relationships/networks residential preferences, Livelihoods, āā Tourism related water quality Infrastructure

āā Vegetation, biodiversity

āā Ecological

How did they affect them?

78 Probe: Physical:

Livelihoods

Have people Have people taken How did the Whose What was crucial How did livelihood Has last year’s been able to loans to re-establish the losses you livelihoods to helping people related services and flood experience recover from losses incurred due to incurred were most and rebuild their schemes assist in influenced current the effects of the floods? Who and for affect your least affected livelihoods? How? the re-establishing livelihood choices the floods last what purpose (Repair livelihood? by the floods? their livelihoods and functioning’s year? Why? and reconstruction of Why? in any way? houses, buying livestock/ Whose and how? poultry, for livelihood purposes, buying damaged household items etc.)? Housing

What were Who benefitted How beneficial Have people’s significant aspects most and least were the house homes that helped people from schemes and rebuilding changed in rebuild their homes services related schemes of the anyway post (physical+ goods to rebuilding of government? disaster? and belongings). homes? why? Why? How?

Infrastructure

Who/ which What was the role Has the List three areas List three areas agency was critical played by local infrastructure where the govt. where they need to the revival governments and and services agencies have done improvement? of community other community post floods well in their recovery, infrastructure and leaders in helping changed in any reconstruction services? people cope with way? How? efforts? the disaster and the revival process?

79 Social: Natural: Has there been any change Was there any change in the in the social relationships/ tourism related patterns ? systems? –change of residence

5. Disaster Risk Reduction:

Key question:

How did you cope with the change scenario post flood(change in practice) How prepared are you to face a disaster in the future What are the support mechanisms you require?

Probe:

ŹŹ Are people in the ŹŹ Have people’s ŹŹ Is any agency/ individual ŹŹ Has the LSG taken ŹŹ Are individuals/ community more houses and the new providing support for any decisions/ families in the knowledgeable infrastructure been better preparedness of initiated activities community and aware about rebuilt according people/ communities at that will protect/ adopting any what to do to disaster resilient the time of disasters? If help people cope special measures should a disaster construction yes who and what are better in case of as safeguards strike? How? norms? Why? they doing with whom? future disasters? against future What and why? disasters especially in monsoons? If ŹŹ How willing are ŹŹ What more should ŹŹ What are the pros yes elaborate. people today to be done to avert and cons of a adopt behaviours and the effects of such comprehensive social practices for averting/ disasters in the future? protection scheme reducing risks at the Community Level & exclusively for people time of disasters? Why? Individual level. affected by disasters?

80 5 I. General Questions : (To all Key Informants) 1. Warning System ŹŹ How appropriately ŹŹ Did people take ŹŹ Was any flood warning system provided information were people appropriate measures regularly? forewarned about the to avert the impacts »» If yes, which agency runs it; since when? impending disaster the impending disaster and its risks? posed? Why? »» Was it providing information timely, appropriate and information available to everyone?

3 2. Effect of Flood ANNEXURE ŹŹ What was the post flood scenario and the challenges faced by the community?

3. Relief Services

ŹŹ Who was able ŹŹ How did people get information ŹŹ Do you think you could ŹŹ Did people complain when to benefit/ not about the services and have played a different they did not get their benefit from interventions initiated by the role in helping people entitlements? How did they the services? government and about various post food? How? complain and What? Why? agencies responsible?

4. Rehabilitation

ŹŹ Have ŹŹ What ŹŹ What has ŹŹ Have people ŹŹ Did your ŹŹ How did ŹŹ List three ŹŹ List three people has been been your taken loans to agency livelihood areas areas been crucial to agency’s re-establish play a related where where able to helping most the losses role in services and the govt. they need recover people significant incurred due facilitating schemes agencies improve- from the recover? role in to the floods? people to assist in re- have ment effects helping Who in the get loans? establishing done well of the people and community livelihoods? in the floods? communities took loans recovery Why? to return to and for what efforts? normalcy. purposes exactly?

81 5. Disaster Preparedness

ŹŹ Are members ŹŹ Has LSG ŹŹ How willing ŹŹ What are the ŹŹ Have you received ŹŹ What more of the taken on any are people pros and cons any training related to should be community activities/ today to adopt of a compre- disaster preparedness done to avert knowledgeable campaigns behaviours hensive social planning? the effects of and aware for raising and practices protection such disasters »» If yes, on what aspects about what awareness for averting/ scheme exclu- in the future? and how it was useful? should they level of reducing risks sively for peo- (Community do when people? at the time ple affected by »» If no, is it required and Level & a disaster Explain? of disasters? disasters? what should be the Individual level) strike? How? Why? focus of trainings?

II. Additional Special Questions : (to specific groups only) II. A. Animal husbandry 1. Effect of Flood

ŹŹ Has there been ŹŹ Have you noticed any ŹŹ Has any new ŹŹ Has there been ŹŹ What were the post flood any change in disease outbreaks after disease been any dramatic challenges faced by animal the productivity the Flood? diagnosed change in diet farming sector and by of animals after after the of animals after the animal husbandry »» If yes, what disease? What the flood? Flood? the Flood? department and why? are the ways to prevent it?

82 2. Relief Services

ŹŹ What role did the LSGs play in delivery of ŹŹ Did animal farmers complain when they did not get relief services to animals/animal farmers? their entitlements? How did they complain and why?

3. Rehabilation & Reconstruction

ŹŹ Has last year’s flood ŹŹ Have farmers taken ŹŹ Are you ŹŹ What was the role played experience influenced animal loans to recover specifically by local Government current livelihood the losses incurred due assisting people authorities and other choices and functioning to the floods? Who in in reviving their community leaders in in anyway? Whose and the community took livelihoods? How? helping animal farmers how? loans and for what cope with the disaster purpose? and the revival process? Specify

4. Disaster preparedness

ŹŹ Has the LSG taken any decisions/ initiated ŹŹ Have workers in your agency received any training activities that will protect/ help animal related to disaster preparedness and planning in the farmers cope better in case of future animal husbandry sector? If not, is it required? What disasters? What and why? should its focus be?

83 II. B. Agriculture 1. Warning System

ŹŹ Did you get any proper information regarding changes in weather pattern?

2. Effect of Flood

ŹŹ Has there been any change in ŹŹ Did any of the plants ŹŹ Have any type of pest soil structure after the flood? become extinct after attack been detected post How much did this affect the the flood? Have you floods different from the production of crops after floods? noticed any new plants? pre floods scenario?

3. Rehabilitation

ŹŹ Are there any ŹŹ Has last year’s flood ŹŹ Have farmers taken ŹŹ Are you ŹŹ What was the role played kind of benefits experience influenced loans to re-establish specifically by local governments and available to current livelihood the losses incurred assisting farmers other community leaders farmers? If yes, choices and functioning due to the floods? in reviving their in helping farmers cope what are they? in anyway? Whose and Who and for what livelihoods? with the disaster and the how? purpose? How? revival process? Specify.

84 II. C. Fisheries 1. Warning System

ŹŹ How appropriately were people in the ŹŹ Did people in the fisheries sector take

fisheries sector forewarned about the appropriate measures to avert the risks impending disaster and its threats? the impending disaster posed? Why?

2. Effect of Flood

ŹŹ Did any of the species ŹŹ What were the ŹŹ Did the Flood ŹŹ Has there been ŹŹ What were the major become extinct after major problems affect fishing in any change in problems faced by the flood? Have you faced by any way? the breeding fishermen including noticed any new fishermen during pattern of fish inland fishermen and fish species? the Flood? after the flood? farmers during the Flood?

3. Relief Services ŹŹ Did Government take any steps to resettle the vulnerable fishermen?

4. Rehabilitation

ŹŹ Have fishermen ŹŹ Has last year’s flood ŹŹ Are you ŹŹ What was the role played taken loans to re- experience influenced specifically by local governments and establish the losses current livelihood assisting other community leaders incurred due to the choices and functioning fishermen in in helping fishermen cope floods? Who and for in anyway? Whose and reviving their with the disaster and the what purpose? how? livelihoods? How? revival process? Specify.