Building Local Capacities for Disaster Response and Risk Reduction An Oxfam-BEDROC Study incubating innovative interventions . Building Local Capacities for Disaster Response and Risk Reduction An Oxfam-BEDROC Study Building and Enabling Disaster Resilience of Coastal Communities (BEDROC) Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu, India http://www.bedroc.in Building Local Capacities for Disaster Response and Risk Reduction An Oxfam-BEDROC Study Published by Annie George BEDROC, No. 5 Mettu Bungalow New Beach Road, Kadambadi Nagapattinam 611001 Tamil Nadu, India for DFYWA, Visakhapatnam Study Team Leaders Satish Babu, Annie George, Ahana Lakshmi, Rebecca Katticaren and Sajith Sukumaran Edited by Dr. Ahana Lakshmi Document Layout in LATEX by Satish Babu Cover Design by Ajay Kumar Printed at Orange Printers, Trivandrum Acknowledgements The Study Team would like to place on record its appreciation and gratitude to all the different well-wishers who helped make this Study a reality: Oxfam America for trusting our experience and skills • DFYWA, and Mr. Arjilli Dasu in particular, for so willingly agreeing to co-host the • Study and being an active participant from the beginning to the end Russell J. Miles, Tsunami Program Manager, Humanitarian Response Depart- • ment, Oxfam America, for his timely interventions, especially in the beginning stages of the Study, and for his guidance Hari Krishna, Indian Humanitarian Representative, Oxfam America, for his unswerv- • ing support, quiet advice, and enabling presence Sri Vinod Chandra Menon, H’ble Member, NDMA for his insights that enabled us • to understand national level perspectives on DRR Sri C V Sankar IAS, formerly OSD (R & R), Govt. of Tamil Nadu, who willingly • spent valuable time with the team, helping us understand the state-level perspec- tives on DRR Dr J Radhakrishnan IAS, former Collector of Nagapattinam, for his extremely pro- • active support and keen interest in our activities Sri G Padmanabhan, Emergency Analyst, UNDP who came all the way from Delhi • to hear us, support us and contribute to the proceedings in his inimitable style TRINet, for partnering the Study and taking on all organizing and editing work, • quietly and efficiently InApp Information Technologies, Trivandrum, in general, and Ajay in particular, • for cheerfully designing and laying out the report, fliers and the invitations at short notice Gabrielle Kruks-Wisner and Megan J. Hardy from Tufts University for their sup- • port in framing the Research Design John Twigg and his team for the remarkable work done on evolving the Frame- • work on a “Disaster Resilient Community” which set us on the right track and for graciously permitting us to use this for field testing The people of Cuddalore and Nagapattinam, who gave up a lot of their precious • time responding to our queries enthusiastically and pro-actively CCD, SNEHA, Dhan Foundation, PMSSS, ADRA and other NGOs who frankly shared • with us their experiences, learnings and even frustrations, with the only aim of making the Study more meaningful SPACE, Trivandrum, with their warm hospitality, innate cheerfulness and helpful • assistance, for hosting all our Trivandrum meetings And everyone else who cheered us on from the sidelines, giving us the zest and • energy to give this Study our very best We have the honour and privilege of dedicating this Study to all those people who have faced disasters in their lives and have risen beyond them to face yet another day, cheerfully and proudly. The Study Team iv Contents Message ix Foreword xi Introduction xiv Preface xvi List of Acronyms xx List of Tables xxi List of Figures xxii Executive Summary 1 1 The Context of the Study 7 1.1 Introduction . .7 1.2 Disasters and Vulnerability . .7 1.3 The Indian Ocean Tsunami and Humanitarian Aid . .8 1.4 Disaster Preparedness . .9 1.5 Changing Paradigm . 10 1.6 DRR and Development . 11 1.7 Backdrop of the study . 11 2 Objectives and the Study Area 13 2.1 The 2004 Tsunami Damages in Tamil Nadu . 13 2.2 The Response to the disaster . 14 2.3 NCRC and BEDROC .................................. 16 2.4 Need for the study . 17 2.5 Specific Objectives of the Study . 18 2.6 Constituencies and Stakeholders . 18 v 2.6.1 A note on Traditional panchayats and Panchayati Raj Institutions 18 2.7 Study Area . 20 3 Methodology and Research Design 23 3.1 Overview . 23 3.2 Area of coverage . 23 3.3 Overall Methodology and Data Collection Instruments Used . 24 3.4 Sample Frame Selection . 24 3.5 Village-level Sample Size Selection . 25 3.5.1 Village Profiling . 25 3.5.2 Sample selection . 25 3.6 Research Instrument Design . 26 3.6.1 Village Profiling . 26 3.6.2 Quantitative Survey . 27 3.6.3 Focus Group Discussions . 28 3.6.4 Key Informant Interviews . 28 3.6.5 Case Studies . 29 3.7 Team Selection and Training . 29 3.8 Piloting and Finalization of Instruments . 29 4 The Study Administration and Execution 30 4.1 Study Administration . 30 4.2 Challenges faced in the Data Collection . 31 5 Findings and Analysis 32 5.1 Introduction . 32 5.1.1 Riders to the Assessment: . 34 5.2 Thematic Area 1: Governance . 35 5.2.1 DRR Policy Planning, prioritization and ensuring political com- mitment . 35 5.2.2 Legal and Regulatory Mechanisms . 38 5.2.3 Integration with Development Policies and Planning . 40 5.2.4 Institutional Mechanisms, Capacities and Structures . 42 5.2.5 Accountability and Community Participation . 45 5.3 Thematic Area 2: Risk Assessment . 46 5.3.1 Hazard Risk data and Assessment . 46 5.3.2 Vulnerability and Impact Data Assessment . 47 5.3.3 Scientific Capacities and Innovation . 48 5.4 Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and Education . 50 5.4.1 Public awareness, knowledge and skills . 51 5.4.2 Information Management and Sharing . 52 5.4.3 Education and Training . 55 5.4.4 Cultures, attitude and motivation . 57 vi 5.4.5 Learning and Research . 58 5.5 Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction . 58 5.5.1 Environmental and natural resource management . 59 5.5.2 Health and Well-Being . 59 5.5.3 Sustainable Livelihoods . 61 5.5.4 Social Protection . 69 5.5.5 Physical Protection . 73 5.5.6 Financial Instruments . 77 5.6 Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness and Response . 85 5.6.1 Disaster Preparedness . 85 5.6.2 Disaster Response . 87 5.6.3 Crisis management during disasters . 89 5.6.4 Decision Making at Critical Junctures . 91 5.6.5 Ideal Responder . 93 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 96 6.1 Governance . 97 6.2 Risk Assessment . 98 6.3 Knowledge and Education . 98 6.4 Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction . 99 6.5 Disaster Preparedness and Response . 100 6.6 Recommendations . 101 7 Case Studies 103 7.1 Community Disaster Resilience in Kambilimedu . 103 7.1.1 The Annual Flood Cycle . 103 7.1.2 Food Habits . 104 7.1.3 Predicting Floods . 104 7.1.4 Volunteering . 104 7.1.5 Coping Mechanisms . 105 7.1.6 Poverty and Need for External Aid . 105 7.1.7 Some Observations . 106 7.2 Nomads no more . 106 7.2.1 Their ‘Existence’ is Accepted . 106 7.2.2 Tsunami Bounty: Quality houses . 107 7.2.3 Reducing Vulnerability . 107 7.2.4 Some Observations . 108 7.3 Coordination in Kandakkad . 108 7.3.1 The Importance of Leadership . 108 7.3.2 The Problem of Salinity . 109 7.3.3 Community Ownership Bears Results . 109 7.3.4 Replicating Success in Other Places . 109 7.3.5 Some Observations . 110 vii 7.4 Building Community Cohesiveness in Sellur . 110 7.4.1 Reconstruction and Relocation . 110 7.4.2 A New ‘Mixed’ Village . 111 7.4.3 Variations in Amenities . 111 7.4.4 New Neighbours but Old friends Still Preferred . 111 7.4.5 Conflicts and Conflict-Resolution . 111 7.4.6 Glitches . 112 7.4.7 Some Observations . 113 A Report of the Chennai Workshop 117 A.1 Background . 117 A.2 Inaugural Session . 118 A.2.1 The context of the study: Mr N. Hari Krishna . 118 A.2.2 Need to train the community: Mr.