Disaster Reduction

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to all helping hands, without which my
Development Practice Segment II wouldn’t have been a successful one.
I greatly indebted to God for his blessing and guidance at all stages of completion of my DPS II.
It is my humble responsibility to thank my parents who enlightened me full at ambition and
aspiration.
I express my unfathomable gratitude and sincere thanks to the Chairperson Mr. H. S. Ganesha
and the Director Mrs. A. Umarani who has given me a golden opportunity to work on policy
advocacy which was an enriching project and complete this DPS successfully.
I express my deep sense of gratitude and heartfelt thanks to the DPS Coordinator, Mrs. Shanthi
Maduresan who has been a source of encouragement for me throughout my project. I express
my profound Thanks to Ms. R. Sangeetha and Mrs. Nirmala , my faculty guides and
Mr.J.Saravanan, the Coordinator of Policy cell of DHAN foundation, Chennai for their help and
constant guidance in completing this DPS successfully.
It would be incomplete if I miss to express my sincere thanks to all Faculties of Tata-Dhan

Academy for their cooperation and commitment.
I am highly indebted to all the community who were the sole reason to add value and success to
my project work done in the coastal villages of three districts: Nagapattinam, Tuticorin and
Ramanathapuram. I would here like to express my gratitude to all the field associates who
assisted me in every village for community mobilization and discussion with them.
Also I take this opportunity to all strangers who lend a hand for me in reaching the correct
location/village in all the three districts.
Last but not least I express my gratitude to all my beloved friends for their encouragement and
support throughout my DPS.
Malarvizhy K
PDM-VIII
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement.............................................................................................................. i
Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1............................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1
About the project ............................................................................................................................. 2
Literature review................................................................................................................................ 3
Structure of the report ...................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2............................................................................................................................. 9
Objectives and Methodology ........................................................................................... 9
Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Application of CCRA tool .............................................................................................................. 10

Description ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Contextualization of CCRA ............................................................................................................ 14
Assessment of Community Resilience .......................................................................................... 15
Multi-stakeholders consultation workshop at district level ......................................................... 16
Policy advocacy at State level ..................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3........................................................................................................................... 17
Consolidated Status Of CCRA At Tuticorin District.......................................................... 17
District Profile.................................................................................................................................... 17
Potential Hazards ............................................................................................................................ 18
Components of Resilience ............................................................................................................. 19
Governance .................................................................................................................................... 19
Society and Economy .................................................................................................................... 19
Coastal Resource Management .................................................................................................. 19
ii
Land Use and Structure Design ..................................................................................................... 20
Risk Knowledge ............................................................................................................................... 21
Warning and Evacuation ............................................................................................................... 22
Emergency Response ..................................................................................................................... 22
Disaster recovery ............................................................................................................................. 23
Chapter 4........................................................................................................................... 24
Consolidated Status Of CCRA At Nagapattinam District ............................................... 24
District profile ................................................................................................................................... 24
Governance .................................................................................................................................... 26
Society and economy .................................................................................................................... 27
Coastal resource management ................................................................................................... 29
Land use and structural design ..................................................................................................... 29
Risk knowledge ................................................................................................................................ 30
Warning and evacuation .............................................................................................................. 31
Emergency response ...................................................................................................................... 32
Disaster recovery ............................................................................................................................. 33
Chapter 5........................................................................................................................... 34
Consolidated Status Of CCRA At Ramanathapuram District......................................... 34
District profile ................................................................................................................................... 34
Governance .................................................................................................................................... 36
Society and Economy .................................................................................................................... 37
Coastal Resource Management .................................................................................................. 38
Land Use and Structure Design ..................................................................................................... 39
iii
Risk Knowledge ............................................................................................................................... 39
Warning and Evacuation ............................................................................................................... 40
Emergency Response ..................................................................................................................... 40
Disaster Recovery............................................................................................................................ 41
Chapter 6........................................................................................................................... 42
Disaster Management Policy – A Review ....................................................................... 42
District Disaster Risk management Committee ........................................................................... 43
Necessary Changes in Policy ........................................................................................................ 45
Chapter 7........................................................................................................................... 47
Consultation Workshop .................................................................................................... 47
Preparation for Consultation workshop........................................................................................ 47
Consultation workshop ................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 8........................................................................................................................... 52
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 52
Importance of local Governance ................................................................................................ 52
Financial support ............................................................................................................................. 52
Capacity building and Networking of NGOs .............................................................................. 53
Chapter 9........................................................................................................................... 55
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 55
Annexure ........................................................................................................................... 57
References ........................................................................................................................ 76
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Village-wise score of resilience elements in Tuticorin district .............................................. 20
Table 2: Time-line of natural disasters in Nagapattinam district ....................................................... 26
Table 3: Village-wise score of resilience in Nagapattinam district ..................................................... 28
Table 4: Village-wise score of resilience elements in Ramnad district ............................................... 37
List of Figures
Figure 1:Resilience as an Integrating Framework for Community development, Coastal management

and disaster management domains .................................................................................. 12
Figure 2:Elements of community resilience ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 3:Spider diagram showing the resilience status of Tuticorin district ....................................... 21
Figure 4:Spider diagram depicting the status of resilience in Nagapattinam district ........................... 30
Figure 5:Flowchart showing the steps in policy advocacy ................................................................ 47
Figure 6:Flowchart showing the steps followed in conducting multi-staleholders consultation workshop
...................................................................................................................................... 49
List of Illustrations
Illustration 1: Tuticorin district map ............................................................................................... 17
Illustration 2: Pictures showing the participation of community in the assessment of resilience in

villages Kameshwaram and Vilundamavadi ................................................................ 23
Illustration 3: District map of Nagapattinam ................................................................................... 24
Illustration 4: District map of Ramanathapuram ............................................................................. 34
Illustration 5: Picture showing presentation during consultation workshop ....................................... 50
List of Text boxes

Text box 1: A model village for effective traditional early warning system working actively more than
30 years .................................................................................................................... 22
Text box 1: Pudhupalli, a village known for community effective response during an emergency ....... 32
Text box 1: Exploitation of coastal resource management and fishing community by Government ..... 38
Text box 1: Community-based evacuation plan functioning properly in Morepannai located at sea shore
................................................................................................................................. 40
v
ABBREVIATIONS
ACEDRR Advanced Centre for Enabling Disaster Risk Reduction
CBDRM Community-based disaster risk management
CBDRR Community-based disaster risk reduction
CCRA Coastal Community Resilience Assessment
CCR Coastal Community Resilience
DDMA District Disaster Management Authority
DHAN Development of Humane Action
DM Disaster management
DPS II Development Practice Segment II
DRM Disaster risk management
DRR Disaster risk reduction
EWS Early warning system
GoI Government of India
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
NDMA National Disaster Management Authority
PODRM Project Officer Disaster Risk Management
SDMA State Disaster Management Authority
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
US IOTWS US Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System
VAO Village Administrative Officer
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Disaster management becomes the global concern due to its increasing impact on the World.
Millions of lives and billions of economic losses turned the focus of the universe towards
mitigating the risks of any potential hazards. Earlier the disasters are approached in a mode of
relief but now there is a shift in the paradigm to enabling approach. Community based disaster
risk management becomes the centre of attention of all the countries in the world.
Building resilience of coastal community through influencing the policy of Disaster Management
is the prime focus of the project. It is not a direct way of enabling the community to develop
flexibility to adopt shock from disasters. Policy planning and implementation is one of the critical
factors of governance who are highly responsible to build a resilient community by increasing the
accessibility to development. There are several policies, plans, acts and schemes introduced into
the system of the society but the success lies in implementing the scheduled activities.
Local governance plays a great role in enabling the community to reduce the impact of disasters
through proper governance and execution. They are the one who lies very closer to the people
and knows what the reality of life is in that particular panchayat/village. But no power was given
to them in executing emergency responses. There is no fund allocation for emergency
management at the time of disasters. Hence local governance should be provided with certain
authorities so that they can deliver the services to people without delay in operation. The other
stakeholders who are in close proximity with community are non-government organizations.
They are giving required training for capacity building of the vulnerable community to build their
self reliance in the emergency situation. But those NGOs are not given much importance by the
government. Local NGOs should be given priority to implement strategies for disaster risk
management. But adequate training should be given to the NGO personnel for effective
execution of allotted project. Different NGOs are working in different locations for DRM and there
are chances of overlapping of activities of these organizations. The best possible way to solve
the issue is networking the NGOs under the nodal control of District disaster authority and the
activities should be divided based on the expertise of the organizations.
These changes have been evolved in the multi-stakeholder consultation workshop conducted on
community based disaster risk management in Ramnad district. The workshop included
government authorities, NGO workers, community leaders, and community and panchayat
vii
president. They were invited to discuss on the issues and flaws involved in the system directly
with concerned persons. The issues to be addressed were identified from the coastal villages of
Ramnad, Tuticorin and Nagapattinam for the respective places by using Costal community
resilience assessment and policy review on disaster management policies and acts.
The methodology followed in the project study was focused group discussions and some
interviews. The focused group discussions were conducted with 10-15 members who may be a
mixture of men, women, youths and adults. Case study was also conducted in case of good
practices or threat o community during the discussion. The total number of districts was three
namely Ramanathapuram, Tuticorin and Nagapattinam where sample villages were selected
based on certain criteria like proximity from sea, at-risk areas and coastal based livelihood. 44
villages in total were selected as 22 from Nagapattinam, 14 from Ramnad and 8 from Tuticorin.
The study used CCRA questionnaire which was designed to assess the resilience of the
community.
The CCRA questionnaire was developed based on the guidelines given by USAID/ASIA. Eight
components of resilience was analyzed to find out how much resilient the coastal community
was. Questions were developed under each component based on the context and benchmarks
have been set for each question for scoring. The scores were then transferred to diagrams for
interpretation.
The project mainly focused on the assessment of coastal community resilience in the coastal
districts of Tamil Nadu and thereby addressing the issues affecting the resilience. These issues
were discussed in the forum of multi-stakeholders to come out with recommendations for policy
advocacy at the state level.
viii
Malarvizhy K PDM VIII
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
A disaster is defined as a severe interruption of the functioning of a community or a society
causing excessive human, material, economic or environmental losses which go beyond the
ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources (ISDR secretariat,
2000). It can be defined simply through the equation:
Disaster = Hazard + (Risk * vulnerability) – coping capacity
In simple words, a hazard is an event causing disturbances to existing systems. When the hazard
is associated with coupling of risk and vulnerabilities beyond the capacity of community to cope
with the occurring event, it creates disaster. It is necessary to define risk and vulnerability to
understand the conversion of hazard into a disaster. Risk is defined as the probability of harmful
consequences due to the interaction of natural and human-induced hazards and conditions.
Vulnerability is understood as the conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and
environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the
impact of hazards.
In the present period, the world is facing a series of disasters with relatively heavy losses in each
occurrence. In 2004, the Indian Ocean Tsunami of December raised the awareness worldwide of
the potentially devastating impacts of tsunami. Coastal communities are highly at risk from
tsunami and other hazards like storm, cyclone, and flood. It also has become evident that even
without a major catastrophe such as a large tsunami; most coastal communities are showing less
resilience to normally recurring hazards (USAID/ASIA, 2007). This fact has raised the question of
how to increase community resilience. The wide range of hazards taking their toll on coastal
communities requires that the response to these various issues must be holistic, integrated, and
long lasting.
“Resilience is defined as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and re-organize while
undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and
feedback” (Walker et al.2004)
Multi-stakeholder consultation on CBDRM based on CCRA 1

Community resilience is the capacity of a community to adapt to and recover from a disaster or
illness as early as possible. “Resiliency is defined as pliability, flexibility, or elasticity to absorb the
event. Resiliency is offered by types of construction, barriers, composition of the land,
(geological base), geography, bomb shelters, location of dwelling, etc. As resiliency increases, so
does the absorbing capacity of the society and/or the environment. Resilience is the inverse of
vulnerability.” (http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/vocab.htm#resilience). It is important that we
increase individual and community resilience so that we may better function when they become
a reality (whether gradual or sudden). Resilient community can take deliberate action to reduce
risk from coastal hazards. In a resilient system, vulnerability is reducing thereby increasing the
coping capacity of the people. The main purpose of developing resilience is to enable people to
recover from disaster with little loss and thereby avoid the unbearable effects of disasters. The
resilient community can adapt to changes through experience and influence them for
development and innovation. In the present situation, coastal communities are less resilient due
to gaps in their enabling system like governance, infrastructure, policy implementation, resource
utilization and management and other elements. The gaps should be filled at the policy level and
development planning should be done effectively for better implementation at all levels. Hence
the project focuses on addressing the gaps in community resilience along the east coast and
carrying forward the recommendations of community to evolve better strategies for disaster
management at state level and thereby at the district and village level.
About the project

Advanced centre for enabling disaster risk reduction (ACEDRR) is an exclusive centre established
to integrate disaster risk reduction in DHAN foundation’s regular development programmes and
also to take up capacity building initiatives for the development sector on mainstreaming disaster
risk reduction (DRR). ACEDRR has been established as part of Tata-Dhan Academy at Madurai.
The centre focuses on natural disasters such as cyclone, floods, and drought that have been
frequenting the southern peninsula. At present, the centre is piloting context specific DRR
models in the context of flood and drought. The centre is also involved in four major research
studies on disaster risk reduction.
The project on policy workshop on community based disaster risk reduction in Tamil Nadu was a
short term project taken up by ACEDRR to collate and analyze the initiatives taken so far in the
state and to arrive at the gaps in evolving community based disaster risk reduction system at the
community level. The project was designed to assess the coastal community resilience using the

coastal community resilience assessment tool (CCRA) and conduct district level consultations and
a state level workshop on community based disaster risk reduction thereby making necessary
changes in the policy.
A part of the project was allocated for the development practice segment (DPS II) of programme
in development management (PDM). Three districts namely Tuticorin, Ramanathapuram and
Nagapattinam were taken up for the assessment of coastal community resilience and one district
level consultation was conducted in Ramnad district by me.
In the initial phase, the resilience of sampled villages in three districts was assessed using CCRA
tool. In the mean time, a review on various acts and policies declared and implemented by the
Government of Tamil Nadu and India was done to appraise and identify the gaps in it with the
support of available literatures. After the collection of data, analysis was done with the help of
spider diagram used in CCRA tool. The interpretations are documented. An interview of the
project officer disaster risk management in Ramnad district was taken to identify the legal
mechanism of addressing risk reduction. This helped in comprehending the status of disaster
management in each district. One district level consultations was conducted with the support of
the research team. The process and approach of advocating government policy at the state level
was documented for further reference.
Literature review
Disasters are the consequences of potential hazards which occurs at the intersection of
vulnerability and risk at a particular region. Disasters can be natural or man-made. in general, it
is called as a misfortune or calamity which affects the human beings by accident or negligence
resulting in heavy loss of life, destruction of assets and degradation of environment. Also it may
be a nature of effect which is beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area.
The U.N. has defined a disaster as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a society, causing
widespread human, material or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected
society to cope using its own resources”. This definition says that all risks which causes loss is
not called disaster, only those where the losses exceed a society’s ability to cope and which need
external support is called disaster.
There has been increasing concern over natural disasters at the global level. The United Nations
General Assembly, in 1989, declared the decade 1990-2000 as the International Decade for
Natural Disaster Reduction to reduce loss of lives and property and prevent the socio-economic

damages by making action plans which serve globally (United Nations website). Because 94 % of
world’s major disasters in 1990-1998 were in developing countries (World Bank’s world
development report 2000-01). However these countries have made fewer efforts than developed
countries to adapt their physical environments to mitigate the impact of natural disasters or to
insure themselves against disaster risk.
It was estimated that 83 percent of Asian population in the world was affected by disasters
during the period of 1991-2000. While the numbers of people affected in the rest of the world
were 1, 11,159, and in Asia the number was 5, 54,439. Within Asia, 24 per cent of deaths due
to disasters occur in India, on account of its size, population and vulnerability (National disaster
management division, 2002-2007).
India is vulnerable to various natural as well as man-made disasters but the intensity of affecting
varies with the hazard. It was calculated that 58.6% of the total land is prone to earthquakes
striking with moderate to very high intensity and more than 12% of land is prone to floods and
river erosion. In addition, 5,700 Km out of 7,516 Km long coastline is prone to cyclones and
tsunamis; drought affects around 68% of cultivable area and it is the major disaster in India and
also landslides are common in hilly areas (National disaster management authority GoI, 2007).
There are no clear evidences that the frequency of disasters has been increased then. But there
was an obvious increase in the vulnerability of population due to various factors. Hence it brings
an urgent need to focus on decreasing the vulnerability by building their capacity.
Before a few decades, disasters are viewed as unusual events and government has responded in
the mode of relief and response without considering other implications like social and economic
factors. Frequent drastic disasters have provoked government and other agencies to understand
the need of paradigm shift from relief to disaster risk management approach. The term tells that
it comprised the systematic process of using administrative decisions, organization, operational
skills and capacities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of the society and
communities to lessen the impacts of natural hazards and related environmental and
technological disasters comprises in various forms of activities, including both structural and non-
structural measures. (ISDR, 2007)
The Secretariat of ISDR, 2007 has defined that disaster risk reduction was normally considered
to be a conceptual framework of elements considered with the possibilities to minimize
vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit
(reduction, or previously, mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within

the broad context of sustainable development. It focuses on enhancing the ability of community
to reduce the disaster risks. The focus of disaster risk reduction implies that the responses to
disasters are considering the implications beyond the provision of immediate needs. According to
Red Cross society, a disaster risk reduction focus meant that looking proactively for opportunities
to address future risks even though those actions are not immediately related to specific disaster
impacts.
Community is the first respondents to disasters whose impact varies with the physical, social,
economic and environmental vulnerabilities of that particular community. It becomes a global
concern to focus on community based disaster risk reduction. The Yokohama Strategy for a Safer
World: Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation and its Plan of
Action adopted in 1994, provides landmark guidance on reducing disaster risk and the impacts of
disasters. It identifies major challenges in ensuring more systematic action to address disaster
risks in the context of sustainable development. Through the review made in designing
Yokohama strategy, specific gaps and challenges have been identified in five main areas such as
governance, risk knowledge, knowledge management and education, reducing underlying risk
factors and disaster preparedness.
In more precise, community based disaster risk management (CBDRM) is the major center of
attention in reducing the disaster risks by enabling people through major areas of concern
mentioned in Yokohama strategy. These areas have created a scope for developing a framework
for action for the decade 2005 – 2015. The framework is termed as Hyogo Framework for Action
developed during World Conference on Disaster Reduction. This framework emphasizes that
disaster risk reduction is the central issue for development policies. Disasters threaten
development achievements weakening people and nations. Disasters are serious obstacles for
the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. HFA has identified five Priorities for
Action: “(1) Making disaster risk reduction, a priority (2) Improving risk information and early
warning (3) Building a culture of society and resilience (4) Reducing the risks in key factors and
(5) Strengthening preparedness for response” (ISDR, 2007).
Over period of years, disaster risk reduction has undergone a set of agendas with visible
progress and improvement in them. In 1989, IDNDR has laid the promotion of disaster reduction
through technical and scientific buy-in. in 1994, Yokohama strategy and Plan of Action delivered
the first blueprint for disaster reduction policy guidance with social and community orientation.
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), in 2000, increased the public commitment

and linkage to sustainable development by enlarging networking and partnerships. Another

agenda is Johannesburg Plan of Implementation evolved in 2002 in which WSSD Includes a new
section on “An integrated, multi-hazard, inclusive approach to address vulnerability, risk
assessment and disaster management…” In 2005, World Conference Disaster Reduction has
designed Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 which focus on Building the Resilience of
Nations and Communities to Disasters.
HFA is a globally accepted framework for disaster risk reduction which focuses mainly on the
inclusion of community in disaster management. As it is clearly mentioned, one of the key areas
for enhancing a community based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) is building a culture of society
and resilience. According to UN/ISDR (2002), resilience is defined as “the capacity of a system,
community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adopt, by resisting or changing in order
to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure.”
Resilience is defined in different way in different context according to the subject involved. The
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary affords a definition of resilience as "an ability to recover from or
adjust easily to misfortune or change." Timmerman (1981) defined resilience in the context of
climate change adaptation as the ability of systems to resist and recover from potential hazards
induced by climate change. These definitions delivers a common point that resilience means
“bend without breaking” which refers to the capability of a system or a object to adjust itself to
the changes caused by its surrounding.
By combining all the concepts, resilience is identified as the capacity of community in three
specific functions by Twigg in 2007 as: “capacity to absorb stress or destructive forces through
resistance or adaptation, capacity to manage, or maintain certain basic functions and structures,
during disastrous events and capacity to recover or ‘bounce back’ after an event”.
But it is mandatory to understand that the concept of ‘resilience’ was broader than that of
‘capacity’ as it was beyond a specific behavior, strategies and measures that the community
possessed as capacities for disaster risk reduction. Yet they have differences, they are
inseparable as their impact remains similar with a thin line of separation which is normally
beyond the understanding of the society (Twigg, 2007). The focus on resilience shows that
greater emphasis are laid on what communities can do for themselves and how to strengthen
their capacities, rather than concerning on their vulnerability to disaster or their emergency
needs.

The ‘disaster-resilient community’ is an ideal population which is tough to achieve as no

community can ever be completely safe from natural and man-made hazards. It can be
considered that disaster resilient community is the safest possible community who can be
enabled by minimizing their vulnerability by applying various DRR measures like building the
knowledge of people about hazards and its risks. DRR is therefore the collection of actions, or
process, undertaken towards achieving resilience.
To bring the resilience, building unity among community is essential though it is a complex task.
There will be social, physical and economical differences among community like in wealth, social
status and labor activity between people living in the same area, and in some cases, the
divisions are high which make people arrogant too. Individuals from different communities can
be linked by various dimensions but linking communities to achieve sustainable development is
little difficult. In the context of hazard, the spatial dimension is an essential element in
identifying communities at risk through understanding their socio-economic differences, linkages
and dynamics of risky area to identify vulnerable population and to understand the factors
causing vulnerability. The level of a community’s resilience is also influenced by capacities
external to the community, in particular by emergency management services but also by other
social and administrative services, public infrastructure and socio-economic and political linkages
with the wider world.
The ISDR aims at building disaster resilient communities by promoting increased awareness of
the importance of disaster reduction as an integral component of sustainable development, with
the goal of reducing human, social, economic and environmental losses due to natural hazards
and related technological and environmental disasters. The HFA focuses in particular on National
Implementation with the support through bi-lateral, regional and international cooperation.
The CCR guide developed by USAID/ASIA states, “Building coastal community resilience in these
sub-systems requires integrating and maintaining an optimal balance of three community based
frameworks typically viewed as independent and separate sectors: community development,
coastal management, and disaster management.”
Eight generic elements of coastal community resilience are considered fundamental to reduce
risk from coastal hazards, accelerate recovery, and adapt to change. Building coastal community
resilience in each of these elements to maintain an optimal balance is essential and it must be a
continuous process. The CCRA tool developed by USAID/ASIA takes these eight components in
account for assessing the resilience. It has certain benchmarks to rate the resilience based on a

0 to 4 scale representing very poor to very good. These scores are then represented in a
radar/spider diagram to depict the position at which the particular area falls in. The benchmarks
are helpful in identifying the gaps in existing system so that it can be addressed to enhance the
resilience of the community. By enhancing the resilience, it automatically encourage the
community based disaster risk management.
Structure of the report

The chapter one has given a brief introduction about the project and an overview of the need of
resilience with the support of literature. The consecutive seven chapters are primarily classified
as methodology, findings and implementation. The chapter two covers the objectives of the
study and the methodology of fulfilling those objectives in a systematic manner. The next three
chapters provide a consolidated report on the status of three districts Tuticorin, Nagapattinam,
and Ramanathapuram in community based disaster risk management by assessing the resilience
of coastal community. The chapter six reviews the policy of State and National government on
disaster management and identifies the gaps in the policies to address it. The next chapter
seven describes the process and results of district consultation workshop conducted at Ramnad.
The chapter eight brings out the final recommendations to be carried over to State workshop of
policy advocacy. The report ends with overall summary and conclusion.

CHAPTER 2
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
Objectives
The objectives of the study were set up into four components in which the first two objectives
acts as an input for the next two. The objectives were:
• To assess the resilience of coastal community using coastal community resilience

assessment (CCRA) tool
• To review the acts and policies regarding disaster management at national and state
level.
• To enhance analytical and managerial skills by conducting community based district level
consultations to evolve effective strategy for disaster risk reductions
• To understand the systematic approach of advocating policy at state level by involving

multi stakeholders
Methodology
In general, any policy advocacy will be carried out at three levels such as village, district and
state level, by processing through six different steps namely analysis, strategy, mobilization,
action, evaluation and continuity. Similarly the project has three phases namely assessing the
resilience of coastal community using CCRA tool, collecting the views of multi stakeholders on
Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) at district level and advocating policy at
state level. There are thirteen coastal districts in Tamil Nadu listed as Thiruvallur, Chennai,
Kanchipuram, Villupuram, Cuddalore, Nagapattinam, Thiruvarur, Thanjavur, Pudukkottai,
Ramanathapuram, Tuticorin, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari. The entire project covers the east
coast with different teams at each district. Six district level consultation workshops have been
planned to conduct to advocate the state policy on disaster risk reduction.
As a part of the team, my study focused on the three coastal districts of Tamil Nadu namely
Nagapattinam, Tuticorin and Ramanathapuram. This includes three different phases namely
assessment of resilience at coastal villages, reviewing the policies existing at state and district
level and conducting workshop on CBDRM involving different stakeholders of disaster risk

management. The recommendations evolved in consultations are carried out to the state level
policy advocacy which was conducted by the Policy cell of ACEDRR.
In this project, CCRA was conducted at 44 villages in three districts based on certain criteria. At
the same time, secondary data regarding DRM at village and district level were collected and
analyzed. Literature review also helped to identify the issues in the present DRM initiatives. The
review of policies exhibited the challenges and gaps in the existing policies on disaster
management. These three components of the study helped me to address the issues related to
DRM existing in the three districts. It also provoked key areas to be addressed through
advocating the policy. It served as input to set agenda for the consultation workshop which
further added value to the issues and recommendations from NGOs, community leaders and
other stakeholders.
The CCRA started with sampling of four villages from each block of each district coming under
the project area. The sampling was done based on certain criteria like the proximity of the village
to sea, proneness of at-risk communities to disaster and coastal based livelihood. The sampled
villages were assessed for the resilience using the CCRA tool. The data and information
generated were analyzed and interpreted. It has given a status documentation of disaster
management at the village level. A matrix has been prepared and annexed with this report based
on the analysis. An interview with the project officer Disaster Risk Management of Ramnad was
conducted regarding his roles and responsibilities in disaster management. This has added value
to the assessment of resilience. This outcome was produced in the community based district
level consultations which involves community leaders, disaster related government officials and
other organizations working on disaster risk reduction. This gave a broad understanding about
the status of disaster management at the district level. The specific recommendations made in
the consultations are carried over to the state level policy workshop which would advocate the
necessary changes in the available policy by the organization.
Application of CCRA tool

Description
Coastal community resilience assessment (CCRA) is a rapid assessment method conducted as a
collaborative and participatory approach by involving coastal communities, national and local
government agencies, NGOs, the private sector, and other key stakeholders to identify strengths,
weaknesses, and opportunities to enhance resilience at local and national levels. The U.S.

Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System (US IOTWS) Program developed the CCR assessment
tool kit through a participatory process by conducting a series of national and international
workshops on the theme of “coastal community resilience” by inviting key stakeholders like
government agencies, non-governmental organizations and volunteers. Their effort has resulted
in addressing the threats to coastal communities in India, Indonesia, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and
Thailand and developing a framework for it. This would help the developing countries to
integrate DRR in policy framework.
The main theme in the development of tool was that it was a prerequisite to build community
resilience to integrate the efforts across sectors and with various organizations. After the attack
of Tsunami in 2004, and other coastal hazards stemming from poorly planned development, it
has been understood that single-sector development planning could neither unravel the
complexity of problems posed by natural hazards nor build resilience to the community. Hence
resilience demands the spreading of risk and the development of integrated and holistic
prevention and management programs. By doing this, unexpected changes or shock can be
absorbed easily and the system can retain its function and structure avoiding the disaster
scenarios whenever required.
The CCR approach provides a well-defined framework to integrate the ultimate goals of
community development, coastal management, and disaster management. It facilitates a
proactive approach to any hazards instead of a reactive focus on response to disaster events. It
helps in assessing community capacity and vulnerability to coastal hazards in a broad manner
and merges goals of environmental sustainability and humanitarian assistance as major
components. The resilience of the community can be increased by focusing on environment,
internal and external factors. There is a direct relation with costal management and disaster
management which in turn brings community development. The intersection of all these three
components favors the resilience.

Figure 1:Resilience as an Integrating Framework for Community development, Coastal management and
disaster management domains
Source: USAID guide for CCRA, 2007.
Through this participatory process, the forum have identified eight elements of resilience were
for CCR. The focuses of these elements are long-term planning and implementation, hazard
event-oriented resilience, enabling governance and risk knowledge. The eight elements are
categorized under each focus. Enhancing resilience in all of these elements is considered
essential to reduce risk from coastal hazards, accelerate recovery from disaster events, and
adapt to changing conditions in manner that is consistent with community goals. The desired
outcome for each element of CCR is described by USAID/ASIA (2002) as follows:
A. Governance: Leadership, legal framework, and institutions provide enabling

conditions for resilience through community involvement with government.
B. Society and Economy: Communities are engaged in diverse and environmentally

sustainable livelihoods resistant to hazards.
C. Coastal Resource Management: Active management of coastal resources sustains

environmental services and livelihoods and reduces risks from coastal hazards.
D. Land Use and Structural Design: Effective land use and structural design that
complement environmental, economic, and community goals and reduce risks from
hazards.

E. Risk Knowledge: Leadership and community members are aware of hazards and risk
information is utilized when making decisions.
F. Warning and Evacuation: Community is capable of receiving notifications and alerts

of coastal hazards, warning at-risk populations, and individuals acting on the alert.
G. Emergency Response: Mechanisms and networks are established and maintained to

respond quickly to coastal disasters and address emergency needs at the community
level.
H. Disaster Recovery: Plans are in place prior to hazard events that accelerate disaster
recovery, engage communities in the recovery process, and minimize negative
environmental, social, and economic impacts.
In order to evaluate the resilience status of a community, standards for each resilience element
were identified. Each benchmark represents preferred conditions which depict the resilience
condition of the community by its degree of variance. The benchmarks as set for each resilience
element describe desired conditions in four core capacities: policy and planning, physical and
natural resources, social and cultural, and technical and financial. These core capacities were
modified various works done by sociologists on community resilience and vulnerability.
Benchmarks on policies and plans describe enabling conditions for community resilience. Physical
and natural resource benchmarks describe infrastructure or coastal resource capacity to support
resilience. Benchmarks on social and cultural capacity highlight self reliance of the community
achieved through networks, cultural norms, and education and outreach. Finally, the technical
and financial resource benchmarks characterize the support needed to sustain resilience efforts.
The benchmarks provided are the foundation of the CCR assessment tool, which will help identify
the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in community resilience.

Figure 2:Elements of community resilience
Source: USAID guide for CCRA, 2007
Contextualization of CCRA
CCR assessment was the base for the project to assess the resilience at village level. The CCRA
tool carries a set of questions under each resilience element. The questions were designed
according to the coastal context of Tamil Nadu where coastal communities possess a unique
culture, system and structure. The questions defined the benchmarks for the assessment of
resilience elements in percentage rating as it has multiple choices. To arrive at the percentage,
each answer was clearly set with criteria to allocate percentage based on the degree of
fulfillment of criteria. The questionnaire along with criteria was annexed with the report.
Each questions in the questionnaire were given weightage ranging from 0 to 100 percent based
on the criteria set. The scores were allocated by matching the criteria with the existing system.
The resilience is defined based on the percentages as 0-25 as low resilience , 26-50 as moderate
resilience, 51-75 as high resilience and 75-100 as very high resilient community. The eight
components were scored for each questions and the average of it was taken to assess each
components. For example, the gaps, threats and good practices which were identified through
CCRA tool in a village disaster management was tabulated for 14 villages which was annexed
with the report.

Assessment of Community Resilience
The questionnaire prepared was used as a checklist for focused group discussion on community
based disaster risk reduction. Focused group discussion was conducted by involving all
categories of people irrespective of age and gender like men, women, aged and children. It has
been pre-informed to the people about the gathering to make the working people to stay for
sometime for discussion. The people associate was the key person to locate the places and
persons and they guided me to reach the villages selected. Once I reached the village, at first, I
built a good rapport with the community and went door-by-door if the situation demanded me to
mobilize in this way. It was quite nice experience to establish good relation with a mass of
people within a short period. After mobilizing 10-20 people, I introduced the concept of Disaster
Management by asking them about their knowledge in this sector.
Then I started using the checklist to provoke them to discuss more about it. The broader areas
of discussion were the eight components of CCR namely governance, society and economy,
coastal resource management, land use and structural design, risk knowledge, warning and
evacuation, emergency response and disaster recovery. But these concepts were simplified and
thrown lights among the focused group such as role of traditional system and elected system of
governance during emergency, livelihood status, condition of natural resources, knowledge to
predict disaster incidence, habitation and its safety, safer routes and places at emergency, role
of NGOs in DM, relief measures and recovery. As the questionnaire was designed focusing on
these concepts, it was useful to keep track on the discussion more specific. During discussion,
interesting cases and good practices during disaster came up and they were studied in-depth
and recorded as a case study.
After the completion of discussion, I filled the questionnaire based on the outcomes of discussion
and rating was done based on the criteria set. Then the percentage for each component were
calculated and plotted on the spider diagram in MS excel. The diagram gave the clear picture of
the level of resilience provided by each component to the particular coastal community. This
helped in identifying the gaps in the existing system of governanace to protect people from
disaster damages as well as the existing practices among community who become susceptible to
disasters due to their practices. The issues were taken as agenda for conducting district
consultation workshop by involving community, government authorities responsible for DM at
district level, non-governmental organisations who support coastal community in DRR and local
government authorities.

Multi-stakeholders consultation workshop at district level

The focus of the workshop as already mentioned was Community Based DRM which was the
centre of attention at global scenario. But there were gaps in the existing policy structure though
there was wide space provided for the promotion of CBDRR at panchayat level. The workshop
was conducted at the regional office of DHAN foundation in Ramnad by inviting various
stakeholders such as community leaders/village head, panchayat Presidents, community, NGO
coordinators and fieldworkers and community. The agenda for discussion were put forth in the
forum in the mode of delivery. The issues were then discussed in sub-groups of NGO and
community. Finally the groups have come up with concrete recommendations that can be carried
on to the state level policy advocacy workshop which would involve state authorities and various
other stakeholders who were directly related with DRR.
Policy advocacy at State level

As a part of project implementation phase, consultation workshop was conducted at
Ramanathapuram by me. Different recommendations were evolved during the discussion with
various stakeholders in the workshop. Similarly a number of workshops would be conducted by
the project team of ACEDRR policy cell in other coastal districts. The suggestions from these
workshops will be consolidated and presented at the state level by the organization. The
suggestions would make strong influence on the existing policy of disaster management
designed and implemented by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Hence the recommendations
emerged during Ramnad consultation workshop was carried over to the State level policy
advocacy.

CHAPTER 3
CONSOLIDATED STATUS OF CCRA AT TUTICORIN DISTRICT
District Profile
Tuticorin district is situated in the extreme south-eastern corner of Tamil Nadu. It is surrounded
by the districts of Tirunelveli, Virudhunagar and Ramanathapuram on north, on the east and
south-east by Gulf of Mannar and on the west and south-west by the district of Tirunelveli. The
total area of the district is 4621 sq km. The district has a coastal line of 135 km. The climate is
hot and dry which may be due to presence of high number of saltpans in the district. In addition
to that, heavy industries like Sterlite, SPIC, TAC, HWP and Thermal Power Plant keep on
increasing the temperature.
The district has three revenue divisions, eight taluks, twelve blocks, two municipalities, twenty
town panchayats and 468 revenue villages. Seven assembly constituencies are in this district.
The total number of village panchayats in the district is 408. The District has a population of 15,
65,743 in which males account for 7, 64,087 and female 8, 01,656.
Illustration 1: Tuticorin district map
Source: www.mapsofindia.com
The district is the major salt producer in the state contributing 30% of the total salt production
of Tamil Nadu. 70% of district population depends on agriculture. But the industrial sector is
booming with the emergence of several heavy industries. The fast growing Tuticorin Port in the

changing economic scenario has added value to the development of the district. The District has
one major port namely Tuticorin Port Trust, which was started on 1st April 1980.
River Tamirabarni is flowing in the district from west to eastern direction. The District depends
upon both monsoons for its rain. In the coastal region rainfall during the North East Monsoon is
heavy and in the interior region it is lighter. In 2006, the normal rainfall of the district is
662.20mm and average rainfall is 762.65. The district which situates on the east coast has the
typical climate with high humidity and relatively lowers to moderate temperatures throughout
the year. The rainfall occurs mostly in the months of October, November and December. During
the period from October to January the climate remains relatively cooler. From February, the
early summer sets in and the months of April, May, June, July and August are hot.
The total geographical area is 459054 hectares, which constitutes of forest 11002 hectares,
barren uncultivable land 19.944 hectares, non-agricultural land 68.573 hectares, cultivable land
20.15 hectares , grazing land 5.052 and net area sown 188296 hectares. The net area sown is
42.0 percent which indicates the predominance of agriculture in the district. The area under
cultivable waste is only 4.4% which can be reclaimed for cultivation. The Chief Agricultural crops
of the District are paddy, cumbu, Chillies and Banana. The chief non-agricultural crops are
chenna and cotton.
Potential Hazards
Since it is a coastal district, it was prone to coastal hazards. The damages caused by these
hazards are highly depended upon the frequency and intensity of the hazards. The potential
hazards affecting the district are cyclone and flood.
Cyclone
Tuticorin district is a coastal district having coastal line of about 40 Km. Thus the district is
highly prone to cyclone. Cyclones are part of North East Monsoon Season. Therefore, whenever
there is depression, there are cyclonic formation in Bay of Bengal and it effects on Tuticorin
district which may range from light rain in the coastal areas to wide spread heavy rain
throughout the district and devastating effect of major cyclonic storm. Tuticorin district falls
under the very High Damage Risk Zone. A severe Cyclone attacked Tuticorin as well as the
coastal areas of Tamil Nadu before 30 years and resulted in very heavy rain and many areas
were damaged.

Flood
During rainy season, usually when there is heavy rainfall in drainage basins of a river, the
quantity of water exceeds its storage capacity. This results in water overtopping the river and
flooding adjacent areas. Generally, the major rivers viz, Vellar, Agniyaru, Ambuliyaru,
Narasingakavery, Pambaru, Koluvanaru, koriyaru, and Maharajasamudram are flooded almost
every year. Thus flooding is a regular feature in this district during the heavy monsoon season.
Components of Resilience
Governance
Governance system in Tuticorin was quite good as in some of the villages like
Veerapandianpattinam, Punnakayal and Tharavaikulam; there was a good coordination
mechanism between elected panchayat and traditional panchayat system. The coordination
mechanism was defined as the participation and involvement of both governance in decision
making and collective efforts to implement action plan for the village development. The resilience
was able to reach 60% due to effective governance in helping the community at emergency
periods. Good governance has reflected in increasing the resilience in the components of
disaster recovery, land use, warning and evacuation. Hence governance plays a major role in
enhancing the community to regain its original structure once it was collapsed by disasters.
Society and Economy

Among the eight coastal villages, five villages constituted only fishing population and the other
three contained a mixture of farmers, fishermen and salt pan workers. The livelihood was
diversified which was a significant factor in reducing the vulnerability of the community. The
score lies in low resilience zone accounting to 35.6%. The cause was that most of the fishermen
were large scale fishermen. Exploitative fishing and change in marine environment led to
decrease in the catch of fish and thus reducing the income of fisher folk. The economy of
Kulasekarapattinam was better than other villages as most of fisher folk has diversified their
occupation into driving and migrated to other states also. The diversification of livelihood would
facilitate a favorable environment that degradation of resources would be slower.
Coastal Resource Management

It was one of the major components in enhancing the resilience of the community. If a
community was able to achieve a complete coastal resource management, then they could
improve their society and economy thereby maintain proper land utility and structure design that

ultimately lead to quick recovery from coastal disasters. A perfect system of management would
take care of the prevention of disasters to affect he community drastically.
The villagers were very poor at managing their coastal resources. There was a decrease in fish
catch or fish population in the sea day by day. There are significant reasons for the decline in
fish population. Large scale fishing is prominent in Tuticorin since it has port to export fish. The
use of mechanized and motorized boats was prominent in the district. 74% of crafts used by
active fisher folk population were mechanized or motorized. This was a threat for marine flora
and fauna. Though these boats were prohibited for fishing for 45 days to preserve juvenile
fishes, the use of banned nets seized the generation of fishes. This is well-known factor for the
ruin of coastal resource. Hence it has decreased the capacity of coastal resource to prevent the
hazard. The maximum percent of resilience provided by coastal resource management is very
poor resulting in 20%. Compared to Nagapattinam and Ramnad, Tuticorin was highly
exploitative as it was port city.
Table 1: Village-wise score of resilience elements in Tuticorin district

Land use and
Management
Warning and
Governance
Society and
Emergency
Evacuation
knowledge
Resource
Recovery
structure
response
economy
Disaster
Coastal
design
Risk
Village Name
Punnakayal 65 35 56.25 62.5 20 43.75 30 68.75
Taravaikulam 80 35 37.5 75 15 37.5 25 37.5
Pattinamarudur 45 30 18.75 62.5 15 12.5 20 18.75
Jeevanagar 62.5 35 18.75 37.5 25 18.75 20 56.25
Veerapandianpatinam 80 40 12.5 50 25 43.25 60 81.25
Keezhaalangarthathu 20 25 0 25 10 18.75 15 25
Kulasekarapattinam 62.5 55 12.5 75 5 25 20 62.5
Vembar 57.5 30 6.25 25 5 25 20 12.5
Source: Primary data
Land Use and Structure Design

Both land use management and structural design are critical elements of CCR because when
implemented effectively, they enable communities to absorb the shock of a tsunami and other
coastal hazards. For example, by elevating coastal buildings and using appropriate construction
techniques and building materials, a community can greatly reduce the potential impacts from
tsunami and other causes of coastal flooding. The land use and structural design in coastal
villages of the district was quite good scoring 60% of resilience. The houses were almost

modified into concrete houses and rarely thatched houses were available. They have some safe
shelters which were mostly constructed by Christian missionaries as Christianity was prominent
in the district. The buildings were strong and safe and located mostly in elevated areas so that it
can protect people at emergency.
Figure 3:Spider diagram showing the resilience status of Tuticorin district
Resilience of Coastal Community of

Tuticorin District
Governance
59.06
Disaster Revocery Society and economy
45.31
35.63
Coastal Resource
Emergency response 26.25 20.31
Management
28.06 15
51.56
Warning and Land use and strucutre
Evacuation design
Risk knowledge
Risk Knowledge
Risk knowledge is the basis for building a resilient community. A community cannot map out its
path toward resilience if it does not first know what is at risk. Knowledge about what were the
risks to various hazards, which the community exposed to, would enable the community to get
prepared to lessen the impacts of the hazards. It also allows a community to more easily absorb
the shocks associated with the hazards and bounce back more quickly after a hazard event. Risk
knowledge of villagers of Tuticorin district was much less resulting 15% resilience to coastal
hazards. Tuticorin district was not affected with Tsunami and hence it was not exposed to
mushrooming of NGOs as like it happened in Nagapattinam after the strike of Tsunami. As there
were no major damages, the Government has not focused on the coastal villages of the district
to disseminate knowledge about risk, hazards and vulnerability to the community. The score of
resilience showed that there was an urgent need to aware people by providing sufficient

education on disaster, its risks and vulnerability involved. Villagers possessed traditional
knowledge about the occurrence of disaster and prediction by assessing the natural symptoms.
But due to climate change, the community felt that they were unable to predict the changes in
the sea and environment. Risk knowledge was the critical component which would favor the
process of warning and evacuation of villagers at the time of emergency. As this component was
the basis for building resilience in the community, it should be focused much to enhance the
community resilience.
Warning and Evacuation

Warning and evacuation consists of three indispensable elements: an early warning system,
evacuation plans, and a well informed public. Resilient coastal communities possess early
warning systems that inform the community on potential hazards in a timely manner, implement
effective evacuation plans designed before the occurrence of hazards, and have a population
that responds appropriately to the information
they are given.
Text box 1: A model village for effective

traditional early warning system working
In case of Tuticorin district, the resilience of actively more than 30 years
community was very low equals to 28% which
showed that three elements of warning and Christian missionaries play a key role in
evacuation were not appropriately functioning. . the life of fishermen community. They
are highly responsible for their village
Government has not made any arrangement for
development. Punnakayal is one of the
any early warning system in any of the village. If developed fishing villages in the district.
any hazards were about to come, it was Christianity is the only religion in the
village. They have a good infrastructure.
announced by ringing the bell of church as it was At the time of emergency, the
existing in all the villages. Community of information about any hazard would
Alangarthattu village was laborers in mechanized reach the village committee who will go
and ring the bell of the church
boats. During emergency, though they were rigorously and hence people will
given warning, they were supposed to go for understand and move to safer places.
fishing due to pressure from their owner. They

have to keep their life at risk and go for fishing. This was also a serious issue (see case 1) to be
considered in building resilience of the community.
Emergency Response
The emergency response function incorporates a wide range of measures to manage risks to
communities and the environment. Emergency response addresses the potential occurrence of
major emergency situations requiring a complete government approach to hazards. The role of

government was critical in providing emergency responses to any potential hazards. The
resilience of coastal community in Tuticorin district lies in the low zone of about 26% which
showed that they were not prepared to absorb the shock during disasters. Effective emergency
response enables a resilient coastal community to better absorb the shock associated with
disaster events. Emergency response plans and mechanisms also provide the basis for the
community to bounce back quickly from the impacts of disasters. In the villages of Tuticorin, no
emergency response plan was designed to reduce the impact of disasters on the people. In the
event of a disaster, effective emergency response procedures can reduce the loss of life and help
to lessen the time and investment needed for a community to recover. So it becomes very
essential to prepare and implement a response plan at emergency periods.
Illustration 2: Pictures showing the participation of community in the assessment of resilience in villages
Kameshwaram and Vilundamavadi
Disaster recovery
Disaster recovery is an essential element of CCR because it provides valuable opportunity for
communities to learn from the disaster experience and take actions to reduce risk. The period
immediately following a disaster provides many opportunities for implementing strategies to
mitigate the impacts of potential future disasters. Disaster recovery will be effective if it was
enhanced by the other elements of CCR which would provide the holistic approach of building
resilience integrating community development, disaster management and coastal resource
management. The percentage of resilience enhanced by disaster recovery in Tuticorin district
was 45.31% which was due to good governance system existing in the villages of the district.
The reason for the score was due to community volunteers who actively participated in disaster
management to save their community. Two cases namely Veerapandipatinam and Punnakayal
were effectively managing the disaster risks since their early times. This type of community
based disaster risk management should be encouraged to lessen the impacts of potential
hazards.

CHAPTER 4
CONSOLIDATED STATUS OF CCRA AT NAGAPATTINAM
DISTRICT
District profile
The Nagapattinam district lies on the east coast to the south of Cuddalore district and Karaikal.
Thanjavur district and Tiruvarur district border it on the west and on the south. In the east it is
bordered by the Bay of Bengal. The district lies between 10.25o and 11.40o North Longitude and
76o and 80.01o East longitude. The general geological formation of the district is plain and
coastal. The Cauvery and its branches are the principal rivers.
There are few sand dunes in Nagapattinam but most of the coastal areas are plain. The district
consists of salt swamp at Vederanyam which is the largest swamp in Tamilnadu, runs along the
coast from Point Calimere westwards to Muthupet. In addition, lagoons have also been formed
in these areas. Nagapattinam is rich in coastal resources like lagoons, sand dunes which protect
the villages from potential hazards like storm surge and Tsunami.
Illustration 3: District map of Nagapattinam

There are around eleven ports on the coast Nagapattinam district, of which eight are open to
foreign trades. The coastline has a number of harbors of which mention may be made of
Nagore, Point Calimere, and Nagapattinam. The significant small ports are Kilvellore,
Thirumulaivasal, Nagapattinam, Velankanni, Topputturai, Muttupet and Adiramapatnam.
The Nagapattinam district is made up the 6 Taluks of Nagapattinam, Kilvellore, Vedaranniyam,

Mayiladuthurai, Sirkali and Thrangampadi. The total geographical area of the district is about
3536.38 Sq. Km. Sandy coastal alluvium and black soil types cover 88.71% and 6.58%
respectively in this district whereas the other soils in the district comprise 4.71%.
The chief sources of irrigation in the district are the rivers, a few rainfed tanks and wells. These
tanks and wells occur mostly in the upland regions. Water logging and marshy land affect about
7.09% of the lands and 56.21% are prone to floods. About 3.49% of the lands available for
cultivation suffer from salinity/alkalinity and 17.69% of the lands are coastal sand. Thus, the
lands affected by soil problems constitute about 84.48% of the total geographical area excluding
forest area and area not available for cultivation. The average maximum temperature for the
district (from 1991 to 1996) as a whole is about 32.460 C and the average minimum
temperature is 24.750C.
Potential Hazards
As it is mentioned in district profile, the district receives rainfall during northeast monsoon which
starts during the month of October to January. From historical data, it was found that cyclonic
storms strike the district once in 3 or 4 years during the month of November-December. These
storms majorly affect the crops and cause severe damage. But it wont disturb the district during
southwest monsoon.
The monthly average rainfall in the district was 108.87 mm in 1991-96. Generally Nagapattinam
district is more vulnerable to disasters like flood, drought and cyclone frequently. As mentioned
any one of the district will hit the district at very third or fourth year. The most affected blocks
are the one which was situated on the eastern side of the districts such as Vedaranyam, Sirkazhi
and Nagapattinam which are nearer to the Bay of Bengal. The potential hazards cause severe
damages to livestock and assets and heavy loss of crops. The table shows the frequency and
intensity of damages of disasters since 1952 to 2004.

Table 2: Time-line of natural disasters in Nagapattinam district
Sl. Date Disasters Damages caused

No.
1 30-11-1952 Storm wage in land Loss of 400 lives.
up to 5 miles
2 08-12-1967 Cyclone 7 lives and 15000 rendered homeless.
3 12-11-1977 Cyclone 560 lives and 196 missing and damages to Port,
Irrigation systems, road, Power supply and
communication including large no. of houses.
4 01-12-1984 Floods due to heavy Crops damaged in large scale and affected normal life
rain. due to heavy floods.
5 15-11-1991 Heavy rainfall Crops damaged.
6 04-12-1993 Cyclone speed 188 1100 people lost their lives Heavy damage to crops.
Kmph.
7 26-12-2004 Tsunami waves 6065 life loss. 12821 cattle loss. 791 missing, 1922
injured. Houses loss and damages to shops and
building, business people.
Source: District Collector office, Nagapattinam
Governance
Governance plays a prime role in the regulation of society. Local Governance includes the formal
elected panchayat raj institutions and traditional governance established by community
themselves since ancient period, Nagapattinam, the coastal district comprises of 91,451
fishermen population, Traditional governance is the significant component in the fishermen
society.
Fishermen villages of Nagai district have a distinct governance system among them. The villages
select committee headed by one eminent personality as President. They are called as nataar or
kariyathar. The role of traditional villages head system is to establish a strong control upon the
villages to follow the societal norms and to create a sense of unity and cooperation. Villages are
faithful and the respect and obey the decisions of village head whatever it may be.
It was noted that traditional governance plays very active role in the context of disaster. In some
villages like Pudhupalli and Kameshwaram, there is a strong co-ordination mechanism between

traditional and elected governance which help them to respond proactively at the time of
emergency. Their work starts from early warning and they assist the people till they get
recovered from any disaster. Whenever there is coordination between these stakeholders, the
resilience of the community is pretty higher than the village that does not have coordination
mechanism.
Nagapattinam is sufficient with all basic facilities since the vegetation of the village is maintained
by the community. Apart from fishing, some of the fisherman community is engaged in salt pan
as workers and agriculture as laborers. The coastal villages such as Kodiakarai, Agasthiampallai,
and Pushpavanam comprised of agricultural community also because these villages are around 3
km away from sea. The agricultural community possessed the system of village head before 10
years but due to the law imposed by state government, the system has been declined. Yet there
is unity among the people at emergency period.
The governance system in Nagapattinam is effective in alerting the people during the disaster
and ensuring basic needs of food, shelter, water in upland areas. They were the providing
financial assistance to the community once risk mitigation schemes are announced by the
government. But the governance fails to ensure the coverage of target population. But compared
to other components, governance plays a significant role in increasing the resilience of coastal
community of Nagapattinam.
Society and economy

The major livelihoods found in Nagapattinam district are fishing, Agriculture and artisans. The
coastal village economy built up by fishing and agriculture. The fishermen community also
involved in various allied activities of fishing like making/repairing net, curing/processing, peeling
and laborers. Fishing is a seasonal occupation yielding good income for six months of which
three months of rainy season give good fish-catch. But coastal disasters such as cyclone, tidal
waves, heavy rainfall are frequent in that season. So the maximum number of days that the
fishing community got catches were 180 days. The remaining days they were managing with
loans from moneylenders. There was an increasing trend in migration of youths to foreign
countries to work as laborers. This has increased their loan burden. Though the people have
engaged in microfinance activities, they still depended on usurious moneylenders who invade
around 60% of the community income. Fisherwomen were mostly remaining fish or dry fish
vending and add to the household economy. The participation of woman in decision making is
relatively high. Nagapattinam is highly affected by disaster, indefinite number of NGOs have
intervened and left once the project got completed. Only two NGOs namely Sarvodaya and

DHAN foundation have formed village disaster management committee through the concept of
Microfinance. The participation of women in this committee is highly significant.
Table 3: Village-wise score of resilience in Nagapattinam district
Management
Land use and
Warning and
Society and
Evacuation
Emergency
knowledge
Governance
Resource
economy
Recovery
structure
response
Disaster
Coastal
design
Risk
Village Name
Thirumullaivasal 80 40 37.5 50 30 50 25 37.5
Koolaiyar 65 45 37.5 62.5 30 25 25 31.25
Mullainagar 77.5 60 37.5 62.5 25 56.25 25 25
Kollidam 74.16 48.33 37.5 58.33 28.33 43.75 25 31.25
Nayakarkuppam 65 35 43.25 62.5 35 50 40 31.25
Madathukuppam 47.5 35 37.5 50 35 68.75 40 56.25
Poombukar 65 45 25 50 30 56.25 20 31.25
Vanagiri 77.5 45 18.75 50 20 43.75 30 56.25
Sirkazhi 63.75 40 31.25 53.12 30 54.68 32.5 43.75
Therkupoigainallur 40 30 18.75 50 20 6.25 25 25
Vadakupoigainallur 52.5 40 31.25 62.5 25 25 30 25
Kurichi 40 60 12.5 62.5 10 6.25 10 25
Nagaipattinam 44.16 43.33 20.83 58.33 18.33 12.5 21.66 25
Vettaikaranirupu 50 35 12.5 62.5 20 18.75 20 25
Kameshwaram 72.5 45 37.5 62.5 30 25 20 25
Vilundamavadi 62.5 45 43.75 62.5 30 18.75 25 25
Pudupalli 62.5 55 43.75 62.5 45 43.75 30 50
Keezhaiyur 61.87 45 34.37 62.5 31.32 26.56 23.75 31.25
Naluvedapathy 67.5 65 18.75 62.5 25 43.75 25 31.25
Vellapallam 67.5 45 37.5 62.5 30 37.5 20 25
Kovilpathu 52.5 45 12.5 62.5 20 37.5 30 25
Vanavanamahadevi 80 50 50 50 15 62.5 35 50
Thalainayuru 66.87 51.25 29.68 59.37 22.5 45.31 27.5 32.81
Periyakuthahai 40 40 0 50 15 62.5 10 31.25
Kodiakadu 62.5 65 31.25 37.5 20 43.75 35 31.25
Agasthianpalli 60 50 37.5 62.5 20 37.5 35 31.25
Pushpavanam 75 55 25 62.5 25 37.5 50 56.25
Vedaranyam 59.37 52.5 23.43 53.12 20 45.31 32.5 37.5
The economy of fishermen community is not supportive to stabilize them during disaster.
Farming community was comparatively sufficient in their income as they could cultivate crops for
around 10 months. The major crops cultivated in Nagapattinam are groundnut, tubers,

vegetables and paddy. The farmers were able to save a portion of their income to use at
emergency. Disasters cause heavy loss to formers by damaging crops and livestock. Risk
mitigation fund allocated by state government to farmers for damages caused by disaster was
very useful to reduce the effect of loss. This increased the resilience of community to disaster
risk. The rating of society and economy for Nagapattinam district differed with fishing and
farming community. For example, the percentage of resilience of coastal community in
Thirumullaivasal was 40% whereas the farming community in Kuruchi was 60%.
Coastal resource management

Nagapattinam district comprised of mangroves and dense forest as its coastal and terrestrial
ecosystem respectively. Mangroves and dense forest are found in Vedaranyam block. After
tsunami, the coastal resource has been found to decrease in the coast of Nagapattinam. But
there are significant reasons for the decline in fish population. Large scale fishing is prominent in
Nagapattinam since it became an export center. The use of mechanized and motorized boats
was prominent in the district. 62% of crafts used by active fisher folk population were
mechanized or motorized. This was a threat for marine flora and fauna. Though these boats
were prohibited for fishing for 45 days to preserve juvenile fishes, the use of banned nets seized
the generation of fishes. This is well-known factor for the ruin of coastal resource. But
community was not ready to stop this mechanized system and to bounce back to the traditional
method of fishing. Hence it has decreased the capacity of coastal resource to prevent the
hazard. The maximum percent of resilience provided by coastal resource management is less
than 50%.
Though agricultural community does not take part in managing coastal resource, they do have a
part in declining the resources. They disturbed the river drainages or estuaries by means of
inland fishing during off-season. The government is more responsible for poor coastal resources
management. They were not monitoring or enforcing the law implemented. It is embarrassing
that even the local traditional governance did not take over any initiative to preserve coastal
resources.
Land use and structural design

Disaster induces development. This hypothesis is proved in case of Nagapattinam district. The
severe cyclone in 1987 has provoked the government to think about safe shelter for people.
Cyclone safety centre was constructed in some of the villages but the strike of Tsunami in 2004
further pushed government as well as non-government organizations to look upon the issue of
habitation because tsunami has devastatingly cleaned the houses of hundreds of people. In
order to evict the people from seashore as well as to provide a safe shelter, the GOs and NGOs

jointly implemented Tsunami Rehabilitation programme. The houses were constructed with
minimum building codes to mitigate flood risks. But the quality of constructing material was not
up to the standards. As per the aim of the project, around 50% of coastal community has been
moved around 2-3 km away from the seashore. The houses were connected with good roads but
most of the villages do not have bus transport facilities. All the villages provided with additional
infrastructures such as child care centre and community halls by different NGOs who worked
during post-tsunami period for three years. During emergency, people can shelter in these
buildings. Among the sampled villages, the percentages of resilience ranges between 50 to 75%
which shows that the components develop high level of resilience against coastal hazards and
thereby reduce the risk involved in it. Among the eight components, in all 22 sampled villages,
land use and structural design scored the highest percentage of resilience.
Figure 4:Spider diagram depicting the status of resilience in Nagapattinam district
Resilience of Coastal Community of

Nagapattinam District
Governance
61.93
Disaster Recovery Society and economy
46.82
34.09
Coastal Resource
Emergency response 27.50 29.52
Management
38.92 25.23
57.39
Land use and strucutre
design
Risk knowledge
Risk knowledge
Risk knowledge is the key factors of resilience which provokes the community to escape from the
coming disasters. Coastal community normally possesses knowledge about how to assess the
forth-coming disasters. They could predict the symptoms shown by soil, wind, waves and birds
and announce the probability of hazard occurrence. Ancestors were highly using their risk

knowledge. But in these days, though the people do have traditional knowledge, the sudden
climate changes were beyond their knowledge to predict. This pushes the community towards
vulnerability context. Sudden hazards posed threat to the safety and security of life of the
people.
Tsunami a major catastrophe has turned the focus of GOs and NGOs on the concept of disaster
management. In particular, preparedness became the primary focus. By this concept,
vulnerability mapping has done in a blanket approach. The PRA was done involving a portion of
population who also did not aware about the purpose and use of this mapping analysis. This
arose the doubt whether NGOs, who have facilitated mapping exercise, knew the purpose of it.
The maps are still remaining as picture on the wall. No one knows why the map has been drawn
and what the purpose the map could serve. Hence the risk knowledge lies only in the part of low
resilience in the radar diagram. To facilitate disaster management, this component should be the
primary focus of it.
Warning and evacuation

The coastal villages of Nagapattinam around 75% were provided with early warning system
which has to be maintained by the panchayat level committee formed. But the EWS was not
functioning due to under maintenance. Normally any information on disaster comes from
Chennai to District collectorate from where it is disseminated to each panchayats. The panchayat
is responsible to aware the local community and evacuate them. Public address system was
mainly used in early warning. It cautioned people to evacuate from areas to safe areas. The
community once warned would rush towards the safety shelter or nearby uplands to save their
life and property. Not only the local panchayat do so but also the traditional system will present
the community from fishing once there were certain symptoms DM committees have a prime role
to play in the component but they are inactive as there was no process or system to carry on
their functions.
When we looked at the existing mechanism for early warning, it was planned and structured
perfectly but the implementation part is always under query. The Cyclone Warning Centre at the
Meteorological Department in Chennai usually communicates the cyclone warnings through the
‘Disaster Warning Systems’ installed at the District Collectorate, Mayiladuthurai RDO’s Office,
Sirkali Taluk Office, Tarangambadi, Taluk Office, and Vedaranyam Taluk Office. The Head of
Office concerned has to ensure the full time functioning and monitoring of these systems.
Warnings may also come from field officers and other sources. All such warnings should be
immediately disseminated to all the Control Rooms, the Collector or DRO or Sub Collector or
RDO or Taluk Offices, all departments involved in the relief operations, and field level officers -

for further dissemination of the information or warnings. In case all communications with the
Meteorological Centre at Chennai breaks down and the warning systems provided non functional,
the latest cyclone warning may be obtained from any of the cyclone detection radar stations
situated in Nagapattinam district.
Text box 2: Pudhupalli, a village known for

Emergency response community effective response during an
emergency
Community is the first respondent to disasters. In
Nagapattinam, among 22 sampled villages, 82% Pudhupalli, a village of cooperation and
of villages were depended on any external agents coordination has formed DM committee
in 2008 under DHAN foundation by
to provide emergency responses. Only four
involving the primary group members of
villages constituted of community volunteers who farmers group. The villagers have taken
got involved from warning till recovery. But there many collective initiatives for village
development.
was lack in preparedness phase. Community
always remains unprepared even after they have In 2009, NISHA cyclone has devastated
the entire district of Nagai with its
met with drastic effect of Tsunami and was
severe flooding. Millions of crops have
obvious from the effect of NISHA on the people been destroyed. Many houses were
as they were not prepared for it. They did not damaged. During the cyclone,
Pudhupalli was in the critical stage of
have emergency response plan prepared by any drowning. But DM committee members
government or non-government organizations. took initiative to organize adults and
youths to save their village. Each one
Even the community did not have any response
has responded to the situation by
plan so that the CCRA rating ranged from 10-30 channeling the flood to sea, removing
percent which showed that the community was broken branches of trees and cutting
trees that have fallen on electric wires.
very low resilient to coastal hazards.
Women were active in evacuating
people from lowlands to elevated safe
Emergency response was dependent on the risk
place. All the women, children and aged
knowledge which the community possessed in persons were made to stay in school
them. The people in Nagapattinam were exposed building and community hall. It is a
typical example for the impact that the
to high risks yet they were not provided with community involvement could make in
adequate knowledge which in turn pushed them disaster management.
to be inactive during emergency. But there were
exceptional cases where the community took the stake of evacuating, recovering, and
safeguarding the entire population during disasters. Pudhupalli and Vilundamavadi were the two
villages where they realized that community were prime responsible to take initiative during
emergency to reduce the incurring losses. The case was discussed in the box (Case 2).

Disaster recovery
Disaster recovery was partially done by government and partially by community themselves. The
post disaster damage assessments were done in 90 percent of villages by Village Administrative
Officer and in few villages the DM committee was taking responsibility to assess the damages
after cyclone or flood. The concept of community participation seemed to be weak in the district
because the assessments were still done by VAO though there were respective committees from
community to do so. The recovery and rehabilitation activities will be feasible only when the
community shows high participation in it. Nagapattinam district, though a highly cyclone/disaster
prone area, has not been much focused in building the resilience of the community.

CHAPTER 5
CONSOLIDATED STATUS OF CCRA AT RAMANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT
District profile
Ramanathapuram lies between 9o 5” N and 9o 50”N latitude and between 78 o10”E and 79 o27”E
longitude. It is bounded by Madurai and Virudunagar district in the west, Tuticorin district in the
south, Pudukottai and Sivagangai district in the north and Rameshwaram in the east. The total
area of the district is 6330 sq.Km. The total population of the district as per the census 2000 is
11, 87,600. The coastal length of the district is 271 Km of which 130 Km comprises Palk bay and
141 Km forms Gulf of Mannar. The temperature of the district ranges from 22.3 C to 37.8 C. The
relative humidity is high as it is coastal area. The average rainfall of Ramnad district in North
east monsoon is 382.5 mm. The district receives maximum rainfall in the month of October to
November.
Illustration 4: District map of Ramanathapuram
The major occupation in Ramnad district is Agriculture and fishing. The tank based agriculture is
prominent in Ramnad as it is a dry land. The total geographical area of the district is 408957
among which forest constitutes 4488 hectares, barren land 4591 hectares, land put to Non-
Agricultural uses 84483 hectares, Cultivable Waste 4245 hectares, grazing land 154 hectares and

net area sown 185563 hectares. Around 45% of land is under cultivation showing that the
district is an agricultural area.
The major crops cultivated in Ramnad district are paddy, sorghum, millets, cumbu and Ragi. In
Ramanathapuram District, paddy is main food crop cultivated in more than 63% of the net area
sown. It is cultivated both as irrigated and rainfed. Red gram is sown as inter-crop with millets
and groundnut but blackgram and greengram are sown separately as rainfed crops.
Cotton was cultivated as rainfed crop in the month of September to October which is the month
of rainfall. Redgram is sown in the month of June to August. Blackgram, Greengram and
Cowpea are sown as rainfed crop as like cotton.
Ramanathapuram district has the maximum number of fishing villages of 180 in the state. The
total fishing population is 175421 with active fishermen of 23541. 69% of crafts used by them
are non-motorized which means small-scale fishing. The Central Marine fisheries Research
Institute was established at Mandapam in 1947. Research is conducted on various disciplines of
fisheries such as seaweeds culture, chanks, pearl culture, sea cucumber and new technologies
are transferred to fishermen by the institute. The Regional center of the Central Marine Fisheries
Research Institute in Mandapam has developed feasible technologies for the culture of Pearls,
edible oyster, mussel and seaweed.
The district is also distinct in prawn culture with 160 farms of prawn. They are exported to
Japan, USA and European countries, and it adds valuable foreign income to the country. In
Ramanathapuram district, there are seven fish processing factories, functioning in Tondi and
Mandapam. Prawn, squids, cuttle fish, Crabs and fish are processed by fishing and exported to
foreign countries. It is popular for the livelihood of marketing dry fish which acts as the base
for income for small entrepreneurs.
Potential Hazards
The Calamities such as Cyclone, Floods and Tidal waves do not always hit the district as a whole
as the geological location of district matters. It has taught that the entire district, lying in the
coastal area which has a high connectivity with network of irrigation and drainage channels, has
to be kept ready to face any situation. The occurrence and intensity of hazards varies according
to the location and position. The entire district was vulnerable to the following hazards:
1. Cyclone
2. Flood
3. Flood in Tanks

Governance
Governance in Ramanathapuram can also be divided into formal and informal system. The
uniqueness of fishermen community was that they always follow the traditional village head
system even though the elected panchayat system also existed. In case of agricultural
community nearby the coastal area, the village did not have the traditional system of governance
that has been disappeared due to government ban on the system. The village had a good self-
control, mutual cohesion and mutual concern for each other since the existence of that system.
It is appreciable that fishing community has not changed from their system. In Ramnad district,
the authority or influence of traditional head has been lowered due to changing environment. In
earlier times, the people never allow outsiders to be involved in conflict resolution, benefits
distribution and other activities. As of now, the community was giving less importance for
traditional control in the coastal villages of Ramnad.
The resilience percent of Ramnad in governance was 48.54% which showed the weakness of
governing system in these villages. The reason for the score was the problem of coordination of
formal and informal system of governance. Except Mullimunai, all the villages showed moderate
resilience because they lost the system and importance of village head due to attitude change of
community. People became more self-centered in these days. It was obvious in case of getting
relief benefits. The traditional head system also was not able to establish its control over it. In
Mullimunai, the panchayat President was selected by the consensus of villagers with the approval
of fishermen head. Hence the governance system was working effectively with perfect
coordination mechanism.

Table 4: Village-wise score of resilience elements in Ramnad district
Management
Land use and
Warning and
Society and
Evacuation
Emergency
knowledge
Governance
Resource
economy
Recovery
structure
response
Disaster
Coastal
design
Risk
Village Name
Morepannai 45 30 25 57.5 5 37.5 50 25
Sivakamipuram 40 30 31.25 62.5 5 6.25 15 18.75
Sambai 42.5 60 31.25 25 5 12.5 35 37.5
Velayudapuram 55 39 25 62.5 10 25 15 37.5
kalimangundu 45 35 25 75 10 18.75 20 25
Muthraya Nagar 50 25 31.25 62.5 5 18.75 20 31.25
Chinnaervadi 57.5 30 25 62.5 10 18.75 25 12.5
Devipattinam 37.5 30 25 50 5 18.75 15 6.25
Mullimunai 65 55 31.25 70 5 18.75 20 31.25
Savariyar Nagar 50 30 25 70 5 25 35 31.25
Chinnapalam 40 30 56.25 50 5 25 35 37.25
Mandapam
Thenkadal 55 30 31.25 62.5 5 18.75 20 18.75
Average 48.54 35.33 30.21 59.17 6.25 20.31 25.42 26.02
All eligible people got housing through Tsunami Rehabilitation project only through the combined
effort of village head and panchayat head. It showed the role of governance in increasing the
resilience of the community. The resilience was very low in case of Devipattinam where
fishermen community occupied the minority population. Though they have a good system of
traditional governance, the elected panchayat was not concerned about this minority section.
They were highly vulnerable to flood and they never received any relief measures or any
preparedness from the government. Governance has to be focused in Ramnad district as it was
lower than the other two districts.
Society and Economy

The major livelihoods in Ramnad were fishing and agriculture. Among the 14 sample villages,
twelve constituted fishing and two were coastal based agricultural village. The total fishermen
population of Ramanathapuram district was 175,421. Marketing of Dry fish was one of the
famous livelihoods of people in coastal villages of the district. Ramnad coast would come under
Gulf of Mannar which was rich in marine flora and fauna like Mangroves, coral reefs, sea urchins,
and sea horse. They were highly protected areas under the control of Central government.

The resilience score for society and economy was 35.33% which lies in low resilience zone in the
diagram. Though the location of the district varied, the nature of sea was similar in all the places
as there was exploitation of natural resources for the well-being of human resources. This has
ultimately affected the livelihood of the fishing community who were responsible for it. There
was a decrease in fish catch day by day mainly for the small scale fishermen. Several factors
contributed to this effect such as increased mechanization, catching of juvenile fish and decrease
in fish population due to changing marine environment. This showed its effect on the life and
economy of fisher folks. Ramnad district constituted majority of small fishermen who often faces
the above mentioned problems and hence they were less resilient in this component.
Coastal Resource Management
It was one of the major components in enhancing the resilience of the community. If a
community was able to achieve a full-fledged coastal resource management, then they could
improve their society and economy thereby maintain proper land utility and structure design that
ultimately lead to quick recovery from coastal
disasters. A perfect system of management would Text box 3: Exploitation of coastal resource
management and fishing community by
take care of the prevention of disasters to affect Government
the community drastically. Ramnad district
showed poor management of coastal resources. Chinnappalam, a village at the coast of
It has scored only 30% resilience which was very Bay of Bengal consists of 239
households. Seven islands under the
meager.
control of forest department are
situated around 12 Km radius from the
The major reason was that since the coastal area village. Forest guards usually patrol
was rich in valuable marine flora and fauna like over the sea. The villagers never
engaged in poaching, illegal hunting of
sea grass, sea urchins, and sea horse, portion of
sea animals but in order to get money,
population was engaged in illegal catching of the foresters physically attack the
these prohibited or protected marine resources. villagers for the accuse of illegal entry in
to forest. Sometimes they use more
But it was appreciable that only 29% of fishing
abusive words on them and they kick
crafts were mechanized and majority was small and throw the food taken by fishermen
scale fishermen using non-motorized crafts. But in water. These tortures have made the
people to develop frustration against all
illegal catching of endangered marine fauna
government authority since no one has
degraded the health of marine environment. This responded for this issuemake in disaster
was prominent in the block of Thiruvadanai and management.
R.S Mangalam as they were rich in mangrove

forest where marine ecosystem was highly populated. Coastal resource management was good
in the region of Pamban block because of strict regulation by forest guards who were responsible

for safeguarding the island forests situated around 12 Km radius of Chinnapalam village. The
worst part of this was that the guards were torturing the fishermen who did not engage in any
violations for money. Physical and mental tortures made villagers highly frustrated and fearful.
The case was detailed in the box (Case 3). The villagers expressed that the forests were highly
preserved, when there was no intervention of government in conservation which was done by
community. But then the government were engaged in cutting timbers and clearing pathway by
destroying ecosystems. The community was highly aware and active in protecting coastal
resources and hence they showed a resilience of 56%.
Land Use and Structure Design

It was similar like the other two districts since mostly external organization was responsible for
infrastructure development. The severe cyclone in 1984 has facilitated the process of
infrastructure development for safe sheltering during coastal disasters. Introduction of various
development schemes in village mostly resulted in infrastructure development such as schools,
community halls but maintenance of these buildings mattered a lot in protecting people. The
government has established these infrastructures in the coastal villages of Ramnad mostly after
the severe cyclone stroked at Tamil Nadu coast. But still now these buildings have not been
renewed. The condition of cyclone shelter building was poor wherever it was constructed. Hence
the resilience added to 60% which was good for enhancing disaster management.
Risk Knowledge
Ramnad district was not affected with Tsunami and hence it was not exposed to mushrooming of
NGOs as like it happened in Nagapattinam after the strike of Tsunami. As there were no major
damages, the Government has not focused on the coastal villages of Ramnad to disseminate
knowledge about risk, hazards and vulnerability to the community. No action plans were made to
mitigate risk, enhance preparedness and in turn promote community based disaster risk
management. No village among fourteen sample villages has been exposed to vulnerability and
risk mapping due to non-entry of NGOs focusing on disaster management. There were NGOs
working in the villages on the concept of microfinance. But they did not give any knowledge
about mapping out vulnerabilities and risks involved in coastal disasters.
The score of resilience under the component of risk knowledge was only 6.25% which showed
that there was an urgent need to aware people by providing sufficient education on disaster, its
risks and vulnerability involved. Villagers of Ramnad possessed traditional knowledge about the
occurrence of disaster and prediction by assessing the natural symptoms. But due to climate
change, the community felt that they were unable to predict the changes in the sea and
environment. Risk knowledge was the critical component which would favor the process of

warning and evacuation of villagers at the time of emergency. Hence it was the weakest area
which needed to be given much focus to enhance resilience.
Warning and evacuation was not effective as the exposure of community to risk was also low.
The scoring was 20.31% which occupied the very low resilience zone. This was because of the
frequency of disaster incidence in Ramnad district. Government has not made any arrangement
for any early warning system in any of the village.
If any hazards were about to come, it was Text box 4: Community-based evacuation plan
functioning properly in Morepannai located at
announced through public address system sea shore
(loudspeakers) to the community. In some of the
villages, warning has not been given to villagers. Morepannai is a fishing village with
As people did not receive any warning, the 1255 households situated 300m away
from the sea. They are highly prone to
evacuation was also a problem. They did not
cyclone and flood. During rough
know the coming hazard and could not evacuate season, even without cyclone, coastal
before the incidence of hazard. They have to run floods enter the village and damage
houses also. Most of the houses nearby
fast as soon as they got the symptoms of flood or sea are thatched houses. The village
tidal waves. They were at high risk as they did situated 2 Km interior from the main
area. It constitutes estuary in the
not have much knowledge on risk involved in the
village which is covering the pathway of
recurring hazards. the village. The community has perfect
evacuation plan and they are always
Emergency Response prepared to escape from any hazards.
During that rough season, male
There was no plan for emergency response at the members will be under patrol to inform
community or at government level. There was no community when there is a disaster.
The women and children is always ready
DM committee formed in any of the villages of
by packing important things to run from
Ramnad district. But the GoI-UNDP project has disasters. No external organizations
just introduced the concept of disaster would help them in evacuating.
Community themselves are very active
management among the community. The
in warning and evacuation.
implementation of the project was also happened
with high speed as the project period has been
completed. The concept was not clear for NGOs who implemented it and for the community for
whom the project was implemented. This has given the low score of resilience 25.42%. The
resilience reached 50 percent in case of Morepannai which was exceptional because community
has taken the responsibility of disaster management for their village. They did not wait for the
arrival of any external aids as no one would come for their rescue also. It was a typical case
(Case 4) where people have their own emergency response plan which was unwritten.

Disaster Recovery
Disaster recovery was the process of restoring and improving basic services, natural resources
and livelihoods in an affected community after a disaster. In Ramnad district, there was neither
proper prevention nor preparedness for disaster and then how one can expect a proper recovery
plan. The recovery was done only by the community with minimum available resources. The
distribution of benefits for recovery was also insufficient for all. Sometimes people did not avail
the benefits due to the political bias. The resilience added up to 26% which could be increased
by coordination of all stakeholders and allocating roles and responsibilities for each of them in
managing disaster recovery. The community has no clear knowledge about how to get rid of
disaster and hence spent a larger period in restoring their life.

CHAPTER 6
DISASTER MANAGEMENT POLICY – A REVIEW
India is one of the highly vulnerable countries for disasters like flood, cyclone, drought,
earthquake and landslides. These have a devastating effect on the population due to high risks
and vulnerability of the area. As it is mentioned earlier, it is essential to build the capacity of
external linkages to enhance the resilience of the community. One of the external linkages is
formulation and implementation of policy. This chapter tends to review the policy laid for disaster
risk reduction at the national level.
There has been appreciable concern over natural disasters at the global level. The United
Nations General Assembly, in 1989, declared the decade 1990-2000 as the International Decade
for Natural Disaster Reduction. The objective of the declaration is to reduce loss of lives and
property and prevent socio-economic damage by taking international action especially in
developing countries (GoI, 2004).
There arose a need for paradigm shift from response centered approach to disaster
preparedness and mitigation a international and national levels. In particular the Hyogo
Framework for Action is very relevant one. In this DM conference, nearly 168 countries
participated, and made commitments to promote disaster preparedness, which includes India.
This induced the need for institutionalizing the disaster preparedness and mitigation in order to
make it sustainable over a period of time. As it is essential to get prepared to face events like
tsunami which may have medium or low impact hazards (TNTRC, 2007).
National disaster management plans have been prepared by the government of India to promote
disaster preparedness and mitigation. Disaster management should occupy a prime focus in the
policy framework as the victims are poor and disadvantaged who are the worst affected when a
disaster strikes at. “The changed approach is being put into effect through institutional changes,
enunciation of policy, legal and techno-legal framework, mainstreaming Mitigation into
Development process, funding mechanism, specific schemes addressing mitigation, preparedness
measures, capacity building, Human Resource Development, and community participation”
(TNTRC, 2007)
The State government was informed to form a Disaster Management Authorities under the head
of Chief Minister with Ministers of relevant Departments such as water resources, agriculture,
drinking water supply, environment & forests, urban development, and rural development. Tamil
Nadu, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Orissa, Gujarat, Kerala, Nagaland, Delhi, Andaman &

Nicobar administration and Chandigarh Administration totally ten states and union territories
have been sent notification to the authority.
The Government of Tamil Nadu has not prepared any Disaster Management Plan for the state
which is under process. A review of the National plan was done by analyzing the roles and
responsibilities of each stakeholder. The gap in implementation was addressed by analyzing the
practical field and recommendations were made accordingly. The Government of Tamil Nadu has
implemented GoI-UNDP disaster management programme in coastal districts of Tamil Nadu. The
structure of the project was as follows:
District Disaster Risk management Committee DISTRICT LEVEL
ULB Disaster Risk Management Committee ULB LEVEL
BLOCK LEVEL
Block Disaster Risk Management Committee
PANCHAYAT LEVEL
Panchayat Disaster Risk Management Committee
VILLAGE LEVEL
Village Disaster Risk Management Committee
The project has been planned to complete by the year of 2008 but till the end of the year, no
plans were prepared at any level. After the completion of project period, committees at
panchayat/village level has been formed and plans were prepared in a hastily manner. The
reason is that there was no project officer in position to execute the project. Frequent changes
were made regarding the appointment of project officer. Through the interaction with project
officers of three districts, an embarrassing fact has been emerged. In case of Ramnad and
Tuticorin, the project officers were transferred often within a period of four to six months which
were not sufficient for them to manage a project. In case of Nagapattinam, there was no
separate project officer for disaster risk management and the person in-charge did not have any
knowledge about DRM. It has to be noted that Nagapattinam is the most affected district by
disasters but there was no proper planning or execution of disaster management by the district
authorities. The policy review reveals the gaps in disaster management at national level as
follows:

Existing Policy Issues
National Disaster Management Authority
Coordinate the enforcement and implementation of Just formed committee, no rigorous

the policy, recommended provision of funds, capacity planning, involvement, and implementation,
building for dealing with disaster, advisory committee no monitoring and no role clarity to
for practical work, sub-committee, monitor, relief members
camp for shelter food, drinking water, medical cover
and relief in loan repayment
State Disaster Management Authority
Advisory committee state level for laying down No committee formed, action plan is not
policies, detailed guidelines for providing standard of designed, no policy followed up, no
relief, evaluate preparedness, provide direction, attempts to prepare vulnerability
advise, assist and coordinate the activities of assessment and risk analysis of state, TN
department, preventing or combating disruption of or did not made sufficient attempts to
dealing with the effects of any threatening disaster develop SDMA
situation, ensure NGO carry out their activities
District Disaster Management Authority
Collector or DM is ex-officio, coordinate and monitor, No committee, UNDP project is not

implement of the policy at national and state, national implement on time, no proper procedure
and state plan, district prevention of disaster and define, no mitigation and response plan
provide necessary technical assistance (specialized prepared which lead to serve damage
training program at different level) give advice to during NISHA cyclone in Nagapattinam
local authorities, identify building and places which
could in the event of any threatening disaster,
establish emergency communication system
Local Governance
Ensure that officers and employees are trained, No participatory approach in selecting
resources are maintained, construction projects is committee members
under conform to standards, carryout relief,
rehabilitation and reconstruction activities
Community
Active participation in the formation of committee After strike of tsunami and NISHA still
and regularity in attending trainings no assessment, no roles of community
leaders to uneven distribution of benefits
Need to perform roles and responsibilities of to the committee, Disaster management
respective committee of disaster management committee, each one has role and
responsibility, post disaster assessment
should be done by them with assistance of
community

Existing Policy Issues
Non-government organizations
Preparation of risk and vulnerability assessment for Implementation of projects after the
panchayat and urban local bodies under GoI-UNDP completion of project period
project
Conduction of mock drills for the task
Mock drills for the community with the help of fire completion
service department
Necessary Changes in Policy

The national policy as well as the project designed has provided wide space for promoting
community based disaster risk management in the state if there was no flaws in implementing it.
But any policy designed by the government though found good at paper would fail in practical
field due to several issues created by the stakeholders involved. The suggestions given in this
report are mostly focused on implementing the project.
National disaster management committee should evolve strategic plans to allocate

resources during emergency and this should be done before the period of occurrence of
potential hazards so that there will not be any delay in channelizing relief or emergency
measures.
State disaster management committee plays a key role in formulating strategies to

manage DM cycle of operations. But it has not yet formed in Tamil Nadu which questions
the preparedness of government to mitigate risks. Hence the committee should be
formed at first to perform its role effectively.
District disaster management committee especially at Ramnad is good at conducting

meetings, trainings and evolving plans. But they have not taken care of the project
period of disaster management programme. The project of UNDP has to be completed
within the month of December 2008 but still it has not been ended. It is very essential to
plan out time management which is required to give better comprehension to the
targets.
National disaster mitigation fund is available with the state but at the time of emergency,
it would be channelized. Instead they could allocate certain amount in the budget for
disaster management at state level.

Local governance should be given much importance in planning and implementing any
project as they are very nearer to the community. Separate fund should be allocated to
local governance to meet out the emergency.
Local panchayat should be monitored for enhancing participatory approach in selecting

DM committee members as of then they were selecting based on their personal interest.
The government should encourage CBDRM and proactive in it to face the coming
disasters using past experiences of relief, recovery and rehabilitation done in post-
tsunami.
NGOs are to be monitored to ensure the proper utilization of fund in implementing

project, preparing disaster plans and conducting mock drills.
Community should be made aware about the necessity of DRM and their role in it. They
should be given training in a participatory way which would be more feasible to enhance
their capability.
These suggestions are made by linking the issues at the field and the existing norms in the policy
document. These issues would be compared with the outcome of CCRA conducted in villages and
based on that recommendations were made.

CHAPTER 7
CONSULTATION WORKSHOP
The focus of the workshop was to consolidate the outcomes of the CCRA exercise done in the
villages of Ramnad
d district. The theme of the workshop was community based disaster risk
management (CBRDM) which is needed to be incorporated or insisted in the policy of disaster
management at state level. It was designed as an event to bring together the different
stakeholders
holders responsible for disaster management to repair the cracks in policies of Tamil Nadu
regarding disaster risk management. It was identified and supported by real facts that unless the
communities are enabled and enhanced to take stake over the disaster
disaster cycle, the risk associated
with hazards can not be reduced. The stakeholders involved in the workshop were local NGOs
working, disaster management, local government authorities, district disaster department
officials, community leaders and coastal communities.
commun To address disasterr risk, coordination
mechanisms of these stakeholders become essential. It was an effort of policy advocacy which
has certain steps which were followed systematically in this project.
Figure 5:Flowchart showing

wing the steps in policy advocacy
Preparation for Consultation workshop

The preparatory phase included the preparation of list of participants to be invited, arrangement
of logistics and consolidating the outcomes of CCRA and policy review to raise the issues/agenda
to be discussed. Agenda setting was the critical component in the preparatory phase. But we
would discuss the phase I in a chronological order.
In the first step, the list of participants should be selected and invited. The selection plays a
prime role in keeping the focus purpose-centered.
purpose The participants should be
e the persons who
have a direct relationship with disaster in terms of victims or internal and external agents who
Multi-stakeholder
stakeholder consultation on CBDRM based on CCRA 47
safeguard the victims. Since ACEDRR is a wing of DHAN Foundation, the workshop was worked
out to conduct along with the help of regional location of DHAN Foundation at Ramanathapuram.
They helped in identifying the required stakeholders from the grassroots level such as panchayat
presidents, community leaders and community. The other stakeholders Like NGOs and GOs were
identified and approached through district collector rate. The project officer of disaster risk
management (PODRM) has helped to locate the stakeholders. A list of around 100 participants
was prepared including 3 government officials, 15 professionals, and 12 field workers from NGOs
working on UNDP disaster risk management programme, 10 local panchayat leader, 10 village
heads and 50 people from coastal community. Apart from these, few professionals from DHAN
Foundation were also included. They were sent with an invitation by post or in person. Their
contact numbers were got from them to get assurance of arrival.
Consultation workshop
The workshop was conducted on April 9, 2009 in the regional office of DHAN foundation in
Ramanathapuram district. In the preparatory phase, the participants were invited a week before.
Continuous contact and reference was very essential to ensure the participation of all
stakeholders so that it can be a balanced mixture. Though there was a delay in initiating the
programme, it went with 100 percent participation and involvement of all the people who came
over there.
The workshop was divided into three parts as presentation by the organizing team, sub-group
discussion and final recommendations. In the first part, the team has presented on the status of
disaster management at Ramnad district and the outcome of CCRA done in 14 coastal villages of
Ramnad district. The issues outlined in the presentation are taken as the topic for sub-group
discussion among the NGOs who have participated in the workshop. Separate discussion went on
among the community. The community was guided to fill up the CCRA questionnaire so that they
were able to assess their own status of resilience by going through the exercise. This discussion
was to provoke community to realize what has to be done in their village to improve them
towards CBDRM. Finally, the recommendations came out of discussions were shared by the
respective representative from NGO and community. The lists of people from coastal villages
were annexed with this report. There were totally 39 registered participants in the workshop.

Figure 6:Flowchart
Flowchart showing the steps followed in conducting multi-staleholders
multi staleholders consultation workshop
Preparation for Multistakeholder consultation

Invitation to Participants Logistics
Multistakeholder Consultation Workshop

Presentation by Organisers Sub-group
group discussion
Recommendations
By NGOs By Community
The NGOs who have come for the workshop were listed below:
1. Sethakadhi NGO, Kilakarai
2. Health Education and Economic development (HEED) trust, Rameswaram
3. Tamil Nadu Rural Reconstruction Movement (TRRM), Ramanathapuram
4. People Movement for Development, Ramanathapuram
5. Organization of Development Action on Maintenance , Ramanathapuram
6. Raise India Trust, Paramakudi
7. Society for people education and economic development, Ramanathapuram
8. The Karhill trust, Ramanathapuram
9. Scope India, Cuddalore
10. Association of Rural Development, Ramanathapuram

Ram
11. Chevaliar J L P Roche Victoria Memorial

M Trust, Tuticorin
12. People action for development, Rameswaram
In the presentation, the concept of disaster, risk, vulnerability and resilience were introduced in a
simple and understandable way. But it did not look like a mode of delivery instead it was like an
Multi-stakeholder
stakeholder consultation on CBDRM based on CCRA 49
interaction with the involvement of community, leaders and NGO representatives. Then it was
slowly carried over to the importance of CBDRM in coastal areas especially Ramnad. A lot of
examples were quoted from different situation and areas to develop better comprehension. The
second presentation talked about the level of resilience existing among the coastal community in
sample villages from different blocks of the district. The lists of villages were mentioned in
chapter 5 of this report.
The presentation delivered that the risk knowledge of the people was least which caused decline
of resilience developed by other components like warning, evacuation and response and
recovery. It has also stated that there was a poor management of coastal resources which
affected the society and economy of the people. It would have future implications on their
livelihood. These facts were shared to the forum for discussion so that strong recommendations
can be made by the involvement of community and other stakeholders so that commitment and
conviction would develop.
Illustration 5: Picture showing presentation during consultation workshop
Two sub-group discussions were conducted separately with NGO representatives and
community. The NGO persons were discussed about how to increase the resilience of
community, what were the components should be focused, role of NGOs in DM and government
authorities’ response to NGOs. In case of community, CCRA questionnaire has been given to
them to fill for their villages. Each of the eight components were explained question-wise to
make the community understand and internalize the issues. The people started to think about
their village status and how could it be developed.
After discussion, one of the NGO coordinators presented the recommendations came out of their
discussion and recommendation were incorporated in chapter 8 of this report. From the sharing
of community, it was obvious that the most severe disaster according to them was the day-to-

day experience regarding availability of resources. Their priority was on the social dimension of
life and it was true that these basic infrastructures and resources formed the components of
resilience among the community. Hence the workshop has given critical insights of the existing
status of village at the view of the community. It has made an impact on community that they
understood the importance of risk knowledge for reducing the disaster risk. It has influenced the
NGOs that they would develop a coordination mechanism among themselves to work on
establishing community based disaster risk management.

CHAPTER 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
The consultation workshop on CBDRR has brought out good insights in the flaws of policy
designed by the government for disaster management. The explicit purpose proposed by the
government in the policies was to promote people driven approach in DRM. But it was not so in
reality. The workshop and the survey have proved it. Three strong recommendations evolved in
the workshop from the community and non-governmental organizations who are working
vigorously in DM programme of GoI-UNDP. They were explained below in detail.
Importance of local Governance

Local governance plays a prime role in governing the villages. As seen in earlier chapters, fishing
village contains traditional head and panchayat head as local government. They are highly
responsible for serving and safe-guarding people as they know the local issues and practices.
They are the one who can guide the people in managing available resources. They are familiar
with the vulnerable and safe areas in a village and also the vulnerable population of the village.
They can protect, recover and rehabilitate by involving community more effectively than other
external agents/stakeholders. Hence the government should focus more on the local governance
to increase the resilience of community at risk. They should provide necessary financial and
technical assistance to local governance to mitigate disaster risks. Local governance should be
given priority in planning and decision making regarding allocation and distribution of available
resources at the time of emergency. Contingency plan should be available with the panchayat
President with proper instruction of using it. The roles and responsibilities of each member in DM
committee should be insisted and monitored by the governance that should be given complete
authority in village level disaster management.
Financial support
Economics is an important factor in all sectors. A defined amount of fund should be made
available with the local Panchayat to utilize it immediately at the time of emergency. There are
funds named National disaster response fund and National disaster mitigation fund allocated by
the Central government. But the funds are released to National executive committee and
decisions will be taken by them in allocation of funds. There is no role for local authority in
planning relief and response measures. There is no separate fund offered to local panchayat
especially for disaster measures. In the existing policy, the infrastructure development and other
development works related funds could be used by the local village panchayat at the time of
crisis. But it is mandatory to allocate a sum of money for disastrous situation under the

maintenance of village panchayat along with the community leaders associated with the DM
committees in the village. Even this amount could be used as revolving fund among members of
committee which in turn could be used to increase the fund availability in future.
Capacity building and Networking of NGOs

Ramanathapuram district consisted of 12 NGOs working on Disaster management apart from
their programme and activities. These 12 NGOs have been selected for the UNDP disaster
management programme based on their experience and expertise. The list of these NGOs was
annexed with the report. The primary reason for involving non-government organizations was
that they were highly capable in mobilizing and organizing community. As a part of GoI-UNDP
disaster management programme, community mobilization to form DM committees plays a key
role as the policy to be focused on increasing resilience of vulnerable communities.
These NGOs were working on different locations/blocks of Ramanathapuram district on different

themes and they were engaged in implementing community based disaster risk management in
their respective working areas. NGOs’ roles in the field of DRR is crucial in particular activities
such as mainstreaming community into development, rehabilitation and recovery programmes
especially at community levels, capacity building, knowledge transfer, public awareness in
communities at risks, and accumulating and sharing good DRR practices. Under UNDP Disaster
management programme in Ramnad District, the NGOs were provided fund to prepare
panchayat level contingency plan, build people’s capacity through mock drills, to train or transfer
knowledge about disaster management to school children in the district and also prepare
contingency plans for around 500 schools in Ramnad.
The important factor to be considered in the programme was the capacity and exposure of NGOs
in the field of DRM. But no attempts/provisions were made to assess or build the competence of
NGOs in disaster management. Hence they were unable to implement the programme with
complete involvement and commitment and in turn reduced the ability of community to
apprehend that they were the key role players in managing or reducing the impacts of disasters.
It is essential to build the capacity of NGOs through trainings and workshops on the various
concepts of DM. This would help them to increase their level of expertise in various areas like
capacity building of community, assessment of disaster risks and vulnerabilities, and enhancing
resilience of community towards disasters.
It is not that the NGOs were less expertise to succeed in new venture. They are highly skilled in
mobilizing and organizing people under any theme easily as they were working closely with the
community. Each NGO is an expert in different areas. Their interest and expertise areas should

be identified and those areas should be given to respective NGOs who must be linked together
by developing a network of NGOs for disaster management. The respective District authority or a
highly experienced NGO in disaster management should be the nodal body for this network. This
network could be formed only when local NGOs are given much priority. This network should be
gathered once in one or two months to keep it active and effective. There should be provision
for forming and managing this network in the policy.

CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION
Disaster management in simple words is nothing but sum total of efforts taken before, during
and immediately after disaster to reduce the damages. Damages due to disaster could be far
more severe if it occurs suddenly. But if one is prepared to face that disaster, he can manage the
disaster much more professionally. Though disaster cannot be blocked, the effect of disasters
can be reduced by prior planning. Planning should be done in a collective and participatory
manner.
Community is the primary respondents for disasters and its impacts. Hence, it is very essential to
empower them to mitigate the disaster risk. In other words, increasing the resilience of the
community in a collaborative way would fulfill the purpose of disaster management. The
resilience of the community does not depend only on their internal capacity, but it demands
external aid. A full-fledged resilience could be developed in the community only when the
internal and external factors are linked. The coastal community resilience assessment developed
by USAID/ASIA in consultation with national and international agencies clearly talks about
establishing linkage between eight components of resilience which covers both external and
internal factors.
The CCRA done in three districts have clearly exhibited the low resilience capacity of coastal
communities though there is a difference among the communities in three different districts. An
interesting fact was that the components responsible for low resilience are more or less similar in
all the three districts. The components responsible for low resilience would come under external
support mainly the responsibility of government and non government organizations. But it does
not mean that the community is highly resilient in their own capability. It is obvious that
provision of external support with even distribution can increase the community’s ability to cope
with disaster.
Policies and practices play a major role in building resilience of community. Though there is a
space given for community based disaster risk reduction in the government policy, it is not
visible in the grass root level. Improper implementation of schemes and uneven distribution of
benefits was questioning the credibility of government among the community. There is no
coordination mechanism among various stakeholders in implementing plans and programmes of
disaster management. In some places, though there is a coordination mechanism there is lack of
resources. Community felt that, the government authorities were working with personal motive
and bias. The non government organizations felt that NGOs were not given importance by the

government though they play a major role in community mobilization and organization. Some of
the government authorities expressed that, there was a lack of awareness among the people
regarding the issues involved in disaster management.
In order to bring multi-stakeholders into a common platform, it is very necessary to share the
vision, mission and goals of community based disaster management. Multi-stakeholder
consultation is one of the ways to bring together all the stakeholders involved in DRR, so that
commitment and conviction could be developed. This will lead to influencing the existing policy
to change according to the expectation of multi-stakeholders influencing the government to
change the policy on document is an easy task. But it is difficult to make the system to
implement the policy in an effective way which would benefit the community in need. A planned
strategy with systematic action plan is mandatory to bring the change in the system. Multi-
stakeholder consultation workshop was an attempt to change the system by influencing the
value of each stakeholder.
The necessary changes to bring a community based disaster risk management are giving
importance to local governance who are in close proximity with the people, resource allocation at
the community level and networking the NGOs who are interested in DRM. Empowering the local
governance would play a major role in enhancing the resilience of the community as the
governance has the responsibility of increasing the risk knowledge, evolving plans for evacuation
and response to disaster and facilitating a self-sustained society. These are the components
which need to be enhanced in the community living in coastal villages of Ramanathapuram,
Nagapattinam and Tuticorin districts.

ANNEXURE
Annexure 1
CCRA Questionnaire
(Coastal Community Resilience Assessment)
Name of : Village/ Block/ District
Population Size-Total
Demography Women-
Men-
Children-
Differently abled-
Old age-
Chronically ill-
Social composition
Eco-Systems Mangroves, coral reef, estuaries, lagoons,
backwater, etc.
Livelihood activities Fishing-Marine/ Non-Marine, Agriculture,
Salt pan, any other-
Prone to type of Hazards
Floods, storm surge, cyclone, tsunamis,
earthquake, Fire
I Governance:
1. What kind of local governance (village panchayat/ Grama Sabai) you have:
(a) Village Head -10% (b) Traditional Panchayat-25% (c) Elected Panchayat -
50% (d) Both b & c-75% (e) None-0%
1. a) If D is the answer, which one is more functional (relevant and active) in your
village:
(a) Traditional Panchayat-50% (b) Elected Panchayat-75% (c) both are functional
100% (d) both are inactive 0%
2. How is the interface between traditional and elected panchayat in the decision making
process:
(a) Very effective-100% (b) effective-75% (c) needs improvement-50% (d) not
effective-25%, (e) Absent-0%
Criteria: 1. Collective decision making 2. Implementation of decisions
(a). Very effective Both are involved in Collective decision making 100%
and implementation
(b). effective Traditional governance is involved in decision 75%
making but not in implementation
(c). needs Decisions are taken by local governance and 50%
improvement then shared to traditional governance
(d). not effective No deliberate sharing of decisions 25%
(e). Absent No system at all 0%
3. During emergencies how does your local governance system work?
(a) Very effective-100%, (b) effective-75%, (c) needs improvement-50% (d) not
effective-25, (e) Absent-0%
Criteria: Involvement of local governance from pre-disaster to post-disaster
(a). Very effective Active in operations before disaster and fully 100%
involved upto post disaster (from prevention
upto reconstruction)
(b). effective Not active in pre-disaster period but active 75%
responses after disaster
(c). needs improvement Post-disaster responses are moderate 50%
(d). not effective Responses are made for the name-sake 25%
(e). Absent No responses at all 0%
4. Do you have adequate basic amenities (like, water, electricity, sanitation, roads, transport,
etc?)
(a) Highly adequate-100%, (b) Adequate-75%, (c) needs improvement-50%, (d)

Inadequate25%, (e) absent-0%
(a). Highly adequate All the facilities are surplus 100%
(b). Adequate All the facilities are fulfilling the need of 75%
community/ scarce for any one facilities but it
does not affect the people’s normal life
(c). needs improvement Only two or three amenities are properly 50%
channelled
(d). Inadequate Lack/scarce of almost all facilities affecting 25%
the normal life severely
(e). Absent Totally absent 0%
5. Do you get adequate technical and financial support from Panchayat/Block/ district during
emergencies?
(a) Highly adequate-100%, (b) Adequate-75%, (c) needs improvement-50%, (d)

Inadequate-25%, (e) absent-0%
Criteria: 1. Adequacy of technical and financial support 2. Population covered

(a). Highly adequate Adequate technical and financial support 100%
Entire population covered
(b). Adequate Adequate financial support but no technical 75%
support
Entire population is covered
(c). needs improvement Even financial support is partial reaching a 50%
portion of population
(d). Inadequate Inadequate financial support reaching less 25%
population (less than 25%)
(e). Absent No technical and financial support 0%
5. a. Who facilitates access to government programmes?

(a) Through local governance-75%, (b) SHG/ CBO-50%, (c) Individual/village
head-25%, (d) absent-0%
II Society and Economy
1. How many months in a year you get employed

(a) 10-12 months-100%, (b) 8-10 months-75%, (c) 6-8 months-50%, (d) 4-6
months-25%, (e) less than 4 months-0%
2. What are your coping mechanisms during lean period?
(a) Alternative livelihood 100% (b) Own savings-75%, (c) Collective action-50%, (d)
migrate-20% (e) take loans-25%
3. Whom do you depend largely for financial support
(a) Own savings-100%, (b) Friends and relatives-75%, (c) SHGs-50% (d) Bank-
50%, (e) money lenders-25%
4. How effective is your social cohesion
Criteria: 1. Relationship within the village 2. Relation with nearby villages
3.Common fund
(a). Very effective Good relation within the village and with 100%
nearby villages
(b). effective Good relation within the village and 75%
collective common fund during emergency is
available
Neither conflict nor unity with nearby
villages
(c). needs improvement Cooperative but no collective fund 50%
mobilization
Conflict with nearby villages
(d). not effective People live in different groups 25%
(e). Absent No unity at all 0%
5. Women’s participation in DM teams:

(a) 50%-(100%), (b) 40%-(75%), (c) 30%- (50%), (d) 20-(25%), (e) less than 20%-(0%)
Level of participation of women in DM teams
(a) Very active 100% (b) active 50% (c) not active 0%
III Coastal Resource Management
1. Are the eco systems well managed and preserved

effective-25%, (e) Nil-0%
Criteria: 1. Mapping of systems 2. Local institutions available for resource
management 3. Systems in place 4. Strict monitoring
(a). Very effective All the criteria are satisfied 100%
(b). effective If the first three criteria is satisfied and 75%
monitoring is partially done
(c). needs improvement All the three are satisfied but there is no 50%
monitoring at all
(d). not effective Only first two criteria is satisfied 25%
(e). Absent No criteria is met out 0%
2. What are the mechanisms for conservation?

(a) Jointly managed-100% (b) Traditional-75% (c) NGO/ CBO-50%, (d)
government-25% (e) no mechanism- (0%)
3. Role of local governance in managing the coastal eco systems
(a) Very effective-100% (b) effective-75%, (c) needs improvement-50% or
less (d) not effective-25%, (e) Absent-0%
Criteria: 1. System in place 2. Strict monitoring
(a). Very effective All the systems are in right place and strict 100%
monitoring is done by local institutions
(b). effective Systems are at place but monitoring is not 75%
very strict
(c). needs improvement Even systems has some technical problems 50%
and irregular monitoring
(d). not effective No proper functioning of the institutions 25%
(e). Absent No system 0%
4. Are you able to practice the existing policies on coastal resource

conservation?
(a) Practising regularly-75%, (b) Not regular-25%, (c) Never-0%
IV Land use and structural design
1. Is your habitation vulnerable to flooding and coastal erosion

(a) Safe-75% or more, (b) vulnerable but protected-50%, (c) Vulnerable-25%,
(d) Highly vulnerable-0%
Criteria: 1. Location and distance from water bodies 2. Protection 3.
Condition of habitation
(a). Safe Located in uplands around 3 km away from 100%
the water bodies
Natural or man-made protective barriers like
plantations, walls, sand dunes
Good infrastructures to protect from rain
Proper channels for drainage
Located in uplands 90%
2-3 km away from water bodies
(b). Vulnerable but Located nearby water bodies 50%
protected Flooding surrounds their habitation but do
not affect their basic needs
(c). Vulnerable Flooding cause disruption in their normal life 25%
by affecting basic amenities
(d). Highly vulnerable Severe flooding with no way to protect 0%
2. Is your housing, schools, hospital and other public amenities protected /safe
from earthquake, flooding, cyclone, etc?
(a) Safe-75% or more, (b) vulnerable but protected-50%, (c) Vulnerable-25%,
(d) Highly vulnerable-0%
Criteria: 1. Location and distance 2. Type of construction 3. Condition
(a). Safe Located in uplands around 3 km away from 100%
the water bodies
Natural or man-made protective barriers like
plantations, walls, sand dunes
Good infrastructures made of pucca materials
to protect from damage
2-3 km away from water bodies
Infrastructures are in good condition
Located in uplands, Safer place 75%
(b). Vulnerable but Located nearby water bodies 50%
protected Flooding surrounds the structures but can be
drained when proper measures are taken
(c). Vulnerable Buildings not in good condition 25%
Located at risk areas
(d). Highly vulnerable Highly prone to disaster, no protection at all 0%
V Risk Knowledge
1. Did you have disaster management training in your village and by whom?
(a) Local NGO-50%, (b) NGO and Govt-75% (c) Government-50% or more, (d)
external NGO-25% or more (e) None-0%
2. Is risk and vulnerability mapping done in your area with community
participation?
(a) Full participation-100%, (b) Partial-50%, (c) No participation-25%, (b)
Mapping not done-0%
(a). Full participation More than 50% of population participated and 100%
aware about the purpose of the mapping
exercise
(b). Partial Less than 50% population participated 50%
without knowing the purpose
(c). No participation Involved one or two persons in mapping 25%
(d). Mapping not done No mapping 0%
3. Is it regularly updated with participation of community members

(a) Quarterly-75% (b) Half yearly-50% (c) Annual-25%, (d) not updated-0%
4. How hazards impact your livelihoods/ infrastructure
(a) High-0% (b) medium-25%, (c) low-50%, (d) none-75%
Criteria: 1. Livelihood resources 2. Livelihood infrastructures
(a). High Both livelihood resources and infrastructures 100%
are damaged
(b). Medium Infrastructures and resources are partially 50%
affected/ Infrastructures are affected but
resources are partially affected
(c). Low Infrastructures are protected but resources are 25%
partially damaged
(d). None Both are safe 0%
5. Is your village Disaster Management teams functioning effectively

effective-25, (e) Absent-0%
Criteria: 1. All teams in place 2. All teams in action
(a). Very effective All teams are active 100%
(b). effective All the teams are in place but some teams are 75%
active
(c). needs improvement Only two or three teams are in place and in 50%
action
(d). not effective No teams in place and action 25%
(e). Absent Absence of DM committee 0%
VI Warning and Evacuation
1. Do you have effective village level EWS

Criteria: 1. Presence of EWS 2. Proper functioning of EWS 3. Accessible
(a). Very effective Available, proper functioning and fully 100%
accessible
(b). effective Available, proper functioning but partially 75%
accessible
(c). needs improvement Available, partially functioning and partially 50%
accessible
(d). not effective Available but not in use 25%
(e). Absent Unavailable 0%
2. Is your DM team have proper access to EWS Systems

(a) Fully accessible-100%, (b) Partially accessible-10%, (c) Not accessible-0%
3. Do you have any traditional practice in early warning
(a) Yes and in practice-75%, (b) Yes but not in practice-25%, (C) Nil-0%
4. Do you have evacuation plan during emergencies?
(a) Available with regular updation-75%, (b) Not updated regularly-25%, (c)
Not available-0%
VII Emergency Response
1. Do you have emergency response plan

Criteria: 1. Plans available 2. Regularly updated 3. Accessible to
community
(a). Very effective Plans available, regularly updated and 100%
accessible to community
(b). effective Plans available at community level 75%
(c). needs improvement Plans are drawn and partially accessible to 50%
community without regular updating
(d). not effective Plans are available but not accessible 25%
(e). Absent No plans drawn 0%
2. Who facilitates emergency responses?

(a) Local governance-100%, (b) Community volunteers-75% (c) NGO-50% (d)
Govt-50%, (e) None-0%
3. Are children involved in the emergency response plan?
Fully involved-75%, (b) partially involved-40%, (c) Not involved0%
4. Are relief services effectively available to you during emergencies?
Criteria: Availability of vector control, food, water, shelter, first aid, health care
(a). Very effective Satisfies both 1 and 2 100%
(b). effective Basic needs such as food , water, 75%
shelter and vector control
provided to all people
(c). needs improvement Only food, water, and shelter is 50%
provided to all people in
unhygienic condition
(d). not effective Even basic needs are inadequate 25%
(e). Absent No relief services provided 0%
5. Do you have regular simulations and mock drills conducted

(b) Yes-75%, (b) no-0%
VIII Disaster Recovery
1. Do you have community participatory damage assessment done in post

disasters
(a) Local governance-100%, (b) Community members-75% (c) Govt-50%, (d)
NGO-25% (e) None 0%
2. Whom do you depend during post disasters?
(b) Community themselves-100%, (b) Local governance-75%, (c) Govt-50%, (d)
NGO-25% (e) None-0%
3. Do you have coordination mechanisms among different stakeholders
(b) Very effective-100%, (b) effective-75%, (c) needs improvement-50% (d)
not effective-25%, (e) Absent -0%
Criteria: 1. Involvement of all stakeholders 2. Collective decision making 3.
Implementation
(a). Very effective All the three criteria are satisfied 100%
(b). effective Involvement of all stakeholders in 75%
decision making but partially in
implementation
(c). needs improvement Decisions are taken and shared t 50%
others
(d). not effective No sharing of decisions, working 25%
individually, overlapping
implementation
(e). Absent No mechanism at all 0%
4. Does your recovery plan cover senior citizens, differently abled and Chronically
ill
Fully covered-75%, (b) partially covered-50%, (c) Not covered-0%
IX Community Suggestions/ recommendations
Annexure 2:
List of the participants in the CCRA
Chinna Aravadi Karankadu Mullimunai
Pakkeer Fernando Sengolmary Samayarani Muniyayya

Raja Arulanand Arputhaselvi Sibanda Kannaji
Krishna Flomi Rajitha Meetatchi Vijayarani
Saranya Malar Veotchaimary Amaravathy Maniswani
Gnanaraj Gunam Selvarani M. Ilanjiam Illaveni
Panjavarnam Anand Amarvathy Slochana
Lalitha Asokayades N.seetha
Sambai R.C.Colony Sivakamipuram
Selvi Selvi Algumalai Pappa Chandra

Thavamani Stella Muniswari Mallika S.Ilanjiam
Chellammal Stebena Raja Selvi Pachaikoli
Jothy Thangam Kamala Lakshmi
Rathnambal Asokiasamy Lakshami Prema
Murugammal Susai Latharani Soundarvan
Salambayee Jansi Gomathi Seethadevi
Kaliyammal Rani Sudha Pakkyam
Kaliyammal Roslin Amutha Amutha
Sundari Selvarani Rajeshwari Panjavarnam
Balamani Jansi Muniswari Munishwari
Salambayee Anubumalar Latha Muniyammal
Chinnapillai Rani Shanthi Muniyamal
Valliyammai Euphesy Sivasakthi Nariammal
S.kaliyammal Pushpam Balamani Indhra
Shanthi Sahaya rejinald Amalpushpam Munshiwari
Rani Poornavalli P.Kaliyammal
Arumugam Vasantha
Velayudapuram Chinnapalam Mandapam Therkukadakarai
Pushpavalli Arayee Ladasamy Moorthy Kannan Karupasamy

Velarnic Sumitha Marivel Pitchai Ibramsha Kasim Mohd
Lakshmi Pushpam Muniyasam Pappa Rajendran Seyathu
Lakshmi Muniswari Muniasamy Nambu Vanimutha Moinuddin
Valli Velammal Muniappan Pushparani Navasa Meerasa
Rajeswari Murugalakshmi Muthumani Maraudapandi Ahmed Ali ibramsha
Sellamuthu Shanmugam Velankani Morivel Abdulkhadhar Naina Mohd
Meenatchi Muruguvall Lakshmanan Sakubar Ameer
Selvarani Alagurani Mariappan Khalilur
Selvi Satyaraj Sultan
Morepannai Gandhinagar Vettaikaraniruppu
Kanjaram Vellaimmal Eleevakka Selvam

Ariyalakshmi Kalipottu Malarvizhi Nagarajan
Banumathy Muthummal Chandramathy Annalakshmi
Kamalakanna Petchiammal Kalyani Rajeshwari
Nagoorama Gangadevi Meenatchi Vasantha
Sridevi Sumathy Sarvanambal Ponnamma
Satya Kamla Pattanichi Neela
Rani Maniswari Baskar Dhanasunadari
Durgaveni Aaravali Ramanathan Sumathi
Kamatchi Priyadarshini Illaningam Porkodi
Vanaroja Selvi Narayanan R.sivabalan
Sumathi Vairalogi Jeyaraman Pakkrisamy
Deepa Chithradevi Alagusingam K.Natarajan
Vaduvalaji Poongitheii Balaselvam V.Subramaniam
Balkuyan Kamtchi Samayavalli Subrraminam
Sundarvalt Kalingaiai Panjarani
Manimegalai
Vilandamavadi Kameshwaram Poombuhar
Nagarani Kalimuthu m.Alaguraju

Saroja Sathanantham T.chandran
s.Sanmugam Kalyansundaram Sundarajan
Sarvanan Kunasekaran N.Kaliyaperumal
Sanmugrarajai Gnansekaran Arumairaj
k.Natarjan Ilango Soundarnayagi
Ramsamy Babyrani Rubenraj
P.Murugesan Padma Saranya
P.Ramachandrn Kuppammal Muthumani
S.Sanmugarajan Pakkrisamy Chandrakumar
Ravichandran R.Rajendran
Madathukuppam Vanagiri Thirumullaivasal
Mukilan Anitha Jyeyanthi

Poovalli Kaliammal Padmavathy
Manimaran Chellammal Sivasakthi
k.Thatchnamoorthy Jeyalakshmi Gandhimathi
Bhaskar Angalmman Gowsalya
Sabarinathan Ilveni k.anandhi
Shanthi Chellatchi Jeyalakshmi
Kavitha Ganga A.Anandhi
Koolaiyaar Nayakarkuppam Periyakuthahai
Nanambal Manivel s.Muthulakshmi

Nandhakumari Kannan V.Velvishi
Vijyaalkshmi Kavitha S.Aravalli
Rajendran Lakshmi T.Rajeshwar
Ramasamy Parameshwari Thangamani
Ravichandran Sunderammal V.Pakkiriyammal
Pakkisamy Kaliammamal Rajapandi
Selvaraj Mundiyandi P.Tamilarai
Shltharinath Sundaram Selvamani
Muthukannan
Agasthiyampalli Pushpavanam Kodiakadu
E.latha C.Anitha Natraj

Kannan V.Latha Dhanpal
Shenbagraj M.Chithamram Saraswathi
T.Lalitha V.N.Kuppusamy D.Komalvalli
T.Tamilarasi s.senthilkumar Vasntha
R.Malar M.Kanagvalli Vanitha
K.Vasanthi Karuppaliya Murugesan
Poomathy Rathnavel
Naluvedapathy Vellapallm Kovilpathu
K.Vaithiyantha Senthilkema Veerasamy

Perumal S.Kunasekaran R.Chandrasekaran
M.Singarvelu N.Sengutvan Radhakrisnanan
N.Subramaniam Saroja Rajalingam
M.K.Naryanaswamy Vanitha Veeralakshmi
S.Rajeshwari Saroja Saroja
Kalaiselvi Muthumani Shenbagam
Sangeetha Karthikeyan Kalaiarasi
Marimuthu
Vanavanamahadevi Pudhupalli Vadukupoigainallur
Vetrivel Nagarajan Revathi V.Bala Anitha alpathi Kala

Selvam Natraj S.Nagarajan S.Ganesekran Sumathi Panjavarnam
Vasuthevan Vadivel T.Rajakumar Chithra Sheppachi
Anjammal Nagalakshmi Chandrasekar Kanniammal Neela
Muthulakshmi Vetriselvam Veeramani Amutha Vijaya
Dheivakanni R.Shanthi Kathikesan Umayalpathi Kamala
Mangai Pethaiya Ilavarasi Kalyani Manjula
Malakodi Anjammal Narmada
Kurichi Therkupoigainallur Punnakayal
Banumathi Shanthi M.Saraswathi V.Kannan

S.Lalitha Bharthi Jeyakannu N.Anthony
R.sundarai Thayathatchhi Selvarani Anthonayappa
R.Ramya Vembu Latha S.Erivin
Shenbagam Thailammai Jeyasudha Duckulus
Anbruselvi Marimuthu k.Kayalvizhi I.Selvi
J.Thilagam Veeralakshmi Dhanalakshmi Amali
Tamilmozhi N.Geetha M.Deivanai G.panamayam
M.Mithya Aravindnayaki Amitha S.jenitha
Jeyalakshmi R.Rajathi Vijyaya
Baby Vasantha Anandavalli
Puspavalli K.Sakunthala Nagarathanan
Sakuntha Vijyalakshmi Rani
Chandra Kalavathi Yesodhai
Jeyanthi Dhamayandhi Rajathjilagam
Uma Mahalakshmi Senthilnthan
Rukmani
Tuticorin Urban Jeeva nagar Kuluasai
E.Jeyaseldi M.Rani T.prakasiam M.Sekar Ribaona

R.Edison A.Raja R.Louis Micheal Rani
R.Robertson A.Nichealraj A.Sandhaiya Senthirajan Gimrose
F.Susaiya Karupasamy T.Sesiaya Deasahayam Leo
E.Reganraj J.Amali A.Petchimuthu Rajesh Vijyayan
P.Jeshmen Antonypitchai L.Raja Rani Gowri
R.Jeya S.seviyar T.Arulanandhan Banumathi Chitra
F.Sesunashren Silverstar
Vembar Patinamaruthur Tharuvaikulam
Selvaraj Akbarvali Vargismary

Bakkuparaj Allauddin Sahayarrani
Rani Samsuddin Vasantha
Rajeswari Mohauddin Arputhumani
Selvamani Mohammad Ali Vijaya
Maheswari Sailaja Kalamerey
Bakkyalakshmi Sainisha Jesitha
Kakkatchiyammal Seethali Arputhamani
Pandiappan
Rajadurai
Veerapandipatinam
Praveena
Frexcy
Ruben
Marina
Annexure 3:
Village-wise details of resilience elements
Name of village Governance Society & Coastal Land use & Risk Warning and Emergency Disaster
economy resource structural Knowledge evacuation response recovery
and design
structural
design
Puspavanam G: Personal S: Agricultural G: CRM is S:Heavy rain G:NGOs have GP: S: Community S: damage
bias in labor is the very poor for 1 week mapped out community depends on assessment is
providing major though only a many flood the depends on local done by VAO in
benefits of livelihood since few number the vulnerability local governance the particular
government they are of families habitation area but it was governance for for area
schemes residing more depend on not shared to emergency emergency
that 2 Km far fishing the people response response
away from the
sea. Heavy G: though G: though
rain causes they have DM they have DM
flooding as it is committee it is committee it
low lying area not effective in is not
and covered action effective in
by rivers on its action
two sides
Agasthiyanpalli S: The role of S: Salt pan S: The S: They are Gap: Several S: Local G:The role of G: There is no
local workers are community living in NGOs entered governance is local even
governance is high in this has shifted uplands with the village effective in governance distribution
prominent village their good after tsunami warning and stagnated facilitating
from pre- adequate occupation infrastructure and drawn evacuate them with warning disaster
disaster for income is not from fishing maps but safe shelter and recovery
available to to agriculture people are
post-disaster meet out the due to several unaware about evacuation
health hazards factors. the purpose of
Hence they those mapping
did not are exercise
much about
CRM
Kodiakadu S: The S: People are S: People are S: The GP: GP: Local G: There is no G: The most
governance is engaged in using roller habitation is Community has governance plan available affected
operating up tobacco nets which located in a good are warning for evacuation components of
to some cultivation are banned to vulnerable traditional community during this community
extent that which is not conserve area. Schools knowledge affectively with disaster. is tobacco
people are supported by juvenile fishes and other about the the use of People are cultivation
getting government in infrastructure disaster risk public address highly which does not
financial time of loss GP: are at safer system vulnerable to have risk relief
support due to disaster Mangroves place G: NGOs and flooding fund from the
offered by are GOs have done G: Since, the government
government G: proximity of safeguarded vulnerability village is under
water bodies due to mapping kadiakarai
at three sides government involving a panchayat, all
is not given policy proposition of the safe
much attention population but shelter are
of no use built far away
from this
village
Periyakuthahai G: S: majority are S: Coastal S: Fisherman G: Less G: No warning G: Uneven

Government agri-labor who resources has population knowledge is given to Community is distribution of
focuses more depend on the been has got good about disaster agri- responsible relief services
on fishermen seasonality yet decreased infrastructure risk due to community by for due to the
community they have due to the after the improper local emergency mismanagement
whereas the around 8 large scale tsunami implementation governance response but and biasness of
agriculture months fishing by whereas of disaster risk television is it is not a local
communities employment mechanized agri- reduction the major collective governance
are not given as there is boats community programme source of effort authorities
sufficient continuous prone to warning
financial as trend of river flood
well as cultivation of does not
technical crops like have safe
support. No groundnut, infrastructure
traditional paddy and
governance vegetable
system
Naluvedapathy S: S: Agriculture S: Fishermen S: The G: No mapping S: Public G: Committee S: Financially

improvement gives a good community village is has done by address has been the population
in local income to the living in the separated by government systems are formed still is supported to
governance community. In village are a river at the and non- used for early people recover from
due to the addition, small scale centre. Safe government warning of depend on disaster impacts
impact of inland fishing fishermen shelters are organisation disaster government
DHAN helps the and hence built at one for
Panchayat community to they did not side of emergency
programme is increase their cause much village. responses
seen in terms economic damage to
of financial condition coastal
support. resources
G: No
traditional
governance
Vanavanamaha GP: The S: there is a GP: S: Tsunami GP: The GP: Village GP: GP: damage
devi village has a decrease in Traditional houses community level warning community assessment is
good fish population governance provide predicts the system namely volunteers done by
traditional in the sea has restricted security to risk using their ‘koopattupillai’ respond community and
governance compared to the use of their lives. In traditional informs the immediately handed over to
which enable earlier times banned nets addition, knowledge community during government for
them to for fishing they village risk emergency relief measures
G: mapping
influence local possess good vulnerable
panchayat infrastructure areas done by
governance built with NGOs went on
building no use due to
codes no updation
Kovilpathu G: Local S: The entire S: Coastal S: The G: Community S: Public G: even after G: Personal
governance community resources are habitation is does not address the strike of biasedness in
fails to depends on neither safe as it is posses any system at the Tsunami, distributing
implement the agriculture and preserved nor lying in traditional time of there is no financial
government their livelihood disturbed uplands knowledge and emergency is plan to deliver assistance to
schemes is prone to the mapping used to alert emergency the victims
benefiting the coastal flood done by NGOs the community responses
entire has not added before disaster
population any knowledge
to the
community
Vellapallam G: Functioning S: Majority of S: Use of S: Good S: Community S: Public G: due to lack G: There is no
of local population are roller nets is infrastructure has traditional address of emergency community
governance is engaged in prevalent located at knowledge to systems is the response involved
not satisfying cultivation of uplands 3 predict the means of early plan, the disaster damage
the groundnut, Km away symptoms of warning at the recent assessment and
communities tubers and from sea hazards but time of cyclone still the
expectation vegetables. climate change emergency ‘NISHA’ has government is
Fisherman is challenging cause severe dependent on
community are their traditional damages to VAO for
highly knowledge houses, assessment
dependent on livestock and
moneylenders gaps, nets
to meet their and boats
survival needs
in unfavorable
seasons
Vettaikaranirupu G: Panchayat S: Agriculture S: Coastal S: People S: Media and The cyclone G: Even DM G: Recovery is
institution are and inland ecosystem is residing in public address shelter is committees done by
not effective fishing support not lowland are system are the insufficient for are not government
in distributing their live sufficiently at high risk of early the entire nun trained to with the help of
the benefits to livelihood but maintained to as most of warning for for the respond VAO
the people there is reduce risk the houses people population at actively
ragging of from hazards are mud and emergency during
social cohesion thatched G: Mapping is disaster
housed done without
purpose clarity
DM teams to
know what is
their role in
DRM
Pudhupalli S: local S: Agricultural S: People are S:The village S: Villagers are GP: DM teams GP: GP: Dm teams
governance community are very much is rich in able to predict are proactive Community are helped, an
has good able to stabiles conscious vegetation as the symptoms which was v volunteers assessing. The
coordination their economy. about the of hazards. every well especially Dm damages
mechanism But fisherman conservation community Though exhibited in team caused to each
with community of terrestrial has great vulnerability their effort to members are person and
traditional has sufficient economist concern mapping has inform and responding facilitating the
governance income 6 and there is towards not helped evacuate effectively to reach of relief
monthly 6 no large-scale environment them, the DM people from recover measure
months and fishing using conservation team have lowlands people from
they mechanized good during ‘NISHA’ disaster
contribute boalsts knowledge cyclone
small about risk
proportion to
village
economy
Vilundamavadi G:Local S: Agri- THREAT: S: The Threat; G; EWS is kept GP: G: VAO is
governance community are Government houses are Community are in panchayat Community responsible for
elected satisfied with has planned almost pucca unable to office but volunteers in post disaster
panchayat their income to start s houses due predict the maintained DM teams are damage
shows from thermal plant to Tsunami climate change active in assessment
biasedness in groundnut, coithin the rehabilitation and hence emergency
identifying vegetables and radius of the programme poses threat to responses
right orchards. village area. and they are their life
beneficiaries Fisherman This is a residing in
for the hafe to threat to uplands
schemes depend on coastal
moneylenders environment
in rough
seasons
Kameshwaram GP: a strong S: Satisfactory G: Poor S: Good Threat: S; PAS is the Though DM People are
coordination income for maintenance infrastructure Traditional main source of committees dependent on
mechanism agri- of canal with sag knowledge early warning are available, government for
exists between community poses flood cyclone safe does not they did not relief and
elected whereas high risk shelter at compete with provoked recovery
panchayat dependency of uplands climate change emergency
leaders and fisherman on no productive response at
community money lenders use from any cost
leaders. This vulnerability
favours the mapping done
development by other
of village organisation
GP: Good practices
S: Status
T: Threats
REFERENCES
Adger. N. W. (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? . Retrieved on January 5,
2009, from http://ncsp.va-
network.org/UserFiles/File/PDFs/Resource%20Center/General/Soc_ecol_resilience.pdf
GoI, (2004). Government of India Disaster Management in India - A Status Report [Report]. -
India : Ministry of Home affairs, 2004.
GoI, n.d. Disaster management – A development perspective. Ministry of Home affairs, National
disaster management division. 2002-2007.
ISDR, (2007). ISDR Secretariat Words into Action: A guide for implementing the Hyogo
framework [Report]. - Geneva . United Nations secretariat of the International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction, 2007.
Klein, Richard J.T., Robert J. Nicholls and Frank Thomalla. (2002). The Resilience of Coastal
Megacities to Weather-Related Hazards: A Review. Presented at conference "The Future
of Disaster Risk: Building Safer Cities", World Bank Disaster Management Facility,
December 2002.
Maps of India, n.d. Tuticorin district map. Retrieved on January 9, 2009 from
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/tamilnadu/districts/tuticorin.htm
Maps of India, n.d. Nagapattinam district map. Retrieved on January 9, 2009 from
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/tamilnadu/districts/nagapattinam.htm
Maps of India, n.d. Ramanathapuram district map. Retrieved on January 9, 2009 from
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/tamilnadu/districts/ramanathapuram.htm
NDMA, (2007). National Disaster Management Guidelines: Preparation of State disaster

management plans. Government of India. May 2007.
Timmerman, Peter. (1981). Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society: A Review of
Models and Possible Climatic Applications. Toronto: Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of Toronto.
Twigg John, (2007). Characteristics of a disaster Resilient Community: A guidance note

[Report]. - [s.l.]. DFID , 2007.
TNTRC, (2007). Tamil Nadu Tsunami Resource Centre Cuddalore workshop report on CBDRM
[Report]. - Cuddalore Government of India, 2007.
USAID/ASIA, (2006). Concepts and practices of “resilience”: A compilation from various

secondary sources. May, 2006. Retrieved on January 5, 2009, from
http://www.iotws.org/file_download.php/Concept+of+Resilience_29June06.pdf?URL_ID
=2142&filename=11515665321Concept_of_Resilience_29June06.pdf&filetype=applicatio
n%2Fpdf&filesize=1036283&name=Concept+of+Resilience_29June06.pdf&location=user
-S/
USAID/ASIA,(2007). How Resilient is Your Coastal Community?: A Guide for Evaluating Coastal
Community Resilience to Tsunamis and Other Hazards – A draft. July 16,2007. Retrieved
on January 5, 2009, from
http://nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/education/science/docs/Reports/CCR_Guide_20070716_Draft.
pdf
USAID/ASIA, (2007). How Resilient is Your Coastal Community?: A Guide for Evaluating Coastal
Community Resilience to Tsunamis and Other Hazards. October, 2007. Retrieved on
January 5, 2009, from
http://www.adpc.net/v2007/Programs/EWS/CCR/downloads/CCRGuide_lowres-atiq.pdf

Disaster Reduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disaster Reduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It would be incomplete if I miss to express my sincere thanks to all Faculties of Tata-Dhan

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... vii

About the project ............................................................................................................................. 2

Structure of the report ...................................................................................................................... 8

Objectives and Methodology ........................................................................................... 9

Application of CCRA tool .............................................................................................................. 10

Policy advocacy at State level ..................................................................................................... 16

Consolidated Status Of CCRA At Tuticorin District.......................................................... 17

Potential Hazards ............................................................................................................................ 18

Components of Resilience ............................................................................................................. 19

Society and Economy .................................................................................................................... 19

Coastal Resource Management .................................................................................................. 19

Risk Knowledge ............................................................................................................................... 21

Warning and Evacuation ............................................................................................................... 22

Emergency Response ..................................................................................................................... 22

Disaster recovery ............................................................................................................................. 23

Consolidated Status Of CCRA At Nagapattinam District ............................................... 24

District profile ................................................................................................................................... 24

Potential Hazards ............................................................................................................................ 25

Components of Resilience ............................................................................................................. 26

Society and economy .................................................................................................................... 27

Coastal resource management ................................................................................................... 29

Land use and structural design ..................................................................................................... 29

Risk knowledge ................................................................................................................................ 30

Warning and evacuation .............................................................................................................. 31

Emergency response ...................................................................................................................... 32

Disaster recovery ............................................................................................................................. 33

Consolidated Status Of CCRA At Ramanathapuram District......................................... 34

District profile ................................................................................................................................... 34

Potential Hazards ............................................................................................................................ 35

Components of Resilience ............................................................................................................. 36

Society and Economy .................................................................................................................... 37

Coastal Resource Management .................................................................................................. 38

Land Use and Structure Design ..................................................................................................... 39

Warning and Evacuation ............................................................................................................... 40

Emergency Response ..................................................................................................................... 40

Disaster Management Policy – A Review ....................................................................... 42

District Disaster Risk management Committee ........................................................................... 43

Necessary Changes in Policy ........................................................................................................ 45

Consultation Workshop .................................................................................................... 47

Preparation for Consultation workshop........................................................................................ 47

Consultation workshop ................................................................................................................... 48

Importance of local Governance ................................................................................................ 52

Financial support ............................................................................................................................. 52

Capacity building and Networking of NGOs .............................................................................. 53

Table 2: Time-line of natural disasters in Nagapattinam district ....................................................... 26

Table 3: Village-wise score of resilience in Nagapattinam district ..................................................... 28

Table 4: Village-wise score of resilience elements in Ramnad district ............................................... 37

Figure 1:Resilience as an Integrating Framework for Community development, Coastal management

Figure 2:Elements of community resilience ..................................................................................... 14

Figure 5:Flowchart showing the steps in policy advocacy ................................................................ 47

Illustration 1: Tuticorin district map ............................................................................................... 17

Illustration 2: Pictures showing the participation of community in the assessment of resilience in

Illustration 3: District map of Nagapattinam ................................................................................... 24

Illustration 4: District map of Ramanathapuram ............................................................................. 34

Illustration 5: Picture showing presentation during consultation workshop ....................................... 50

List of Text boxes

CBDRM Community-based disaster risk management

CBDRR Community-based disaster risk reduction

CCRA Coastal Community Resilience Assessment

CCR Coastal Community Resilience