1

SSFRDT INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANCY &SPONSORED RESEARCH,

IIT (MADRAS),

HAND –in- HAND TAMILNADU,

WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL,

& SOCIETY for SOCIAL FORESTRY RESEARCH

& DEVELOPMENT TAMILNADU (SSFRDT)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP on

POST-TSUNAMI LIVELIHOOD RESTITUTION IN TAMILNADU

on

22nd APRIL 2006

Venue: HALL No.2, IC&SR Bldg., IIT MADRAS

2

SESSION ONE INAGURAL Introduction by Prof.B.Subramanian German studies, Social Sciences Department. IIT (Madras) Prof. Subramanian welcomed the participants. He traced the genesis of the workshop, from the tsunami on 26th DFec.06. He pointed out to the three phases in the post tsunami activities – rescue, relief and rehabilitation. The work had entered the enormously challenging area of livelihood restitution, especially of non marine fishing families, which ran into thousands. The NGO Hand inhand Tamilnadu had been asked to study the livelihood issues by Wetlands International. A report had been generated which had been circulated prior to the workshop.. The Industrial Consultancy and Sponsored Research (IC&SR) wing of the Indian Institute of Technology (Madras) had agreed to host this discussion on the report. He introduced the other resource people for the workshop, the Dean of IC&SR, Prof.T.T.Narendran, Prof. Sankararaman, Prof. Shankar Narasimhan of the Rural Technologies Group, Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy, from the SSFRDT, Prof.Ranjit Gupta, founder Dean of the Tata Dhan Academy, Madurai, Mr.Vivekanandan, CEO of the SIFFs and Mr.Nammalvar of Tamilnadu Organic Farmers Federation. Prof. Subramanian, the formal chair for the morning session, requested the IIT (Madras) Dean to give the inaugural address. Inaugural address by Prof.T.T.Narendran, Dean of IC&SR Prof.Narendran welcomed the participants to the IIT (M) campus and the IC& SR conference hall. In his view, the performance of rural development programs left much to be desired. He had been forced to change his opinion in the last few years. A transformation had happened. He had never come across the word “tsunami”. The problem now was to sustain the rehabilitation process. Prof.Narendran quoted a few initiatives from his association with the centre for rural development for the last twenty years. The socially relevant project, Rural Technologies Group (RUTAG), and the Rural Innovations were some examples of work in IIT (M). Prof.Narendran stated that technology had to reach all. There had been plenty of science with high cost technology. IIT (M) was interested in collaborating with NGOs, interested bodies, in the rehabilitation and sustainable development of the rural poor. Prof.Narendran wished the workshop a great success, and stated that the take away could be – What could be done in the future? Prof.Narendran concluded by expressing a desire to know more about what others were doing in post tsunami livelihood restitution. . Activities of socially relevant projects by Prof. Sankararaman Prof.Sankararaman introduced himself as a professor from the Chemistry department. Socially relevant projects gave technical help to researchers. From a humble beginning in discussions in the Director’s office, it had grown to having a large image in engineering and science. The activity was financed from within the IIT (M). Some of the projects undertaken were –

• Dr. R. Ravichandran, a nephrologist, expressed strong interest in the development of a drug that removes excess phosphate in the human body. As this drug was not available in the Indian market, a process was developed at IIT Madras and transferred to an industry which makes it available in India now

3

The Byrraju Foundation, Hyderabad was given a methodology developed at IIT Madras to treat waste water from kitchen and bathroom. This is implemented in a village near Bhimavaram (Andhra Pradesh)

• . A methodology had been developed for sanitation workers, so that they need not go into a manhole for detecting and cleaning blockages. A sensor had been developed for detecting blockages and a mechanical devise had been created to clean the blockage.

• The Gandhigram Trust had soap and ayurvedic preparation units, which had problems of ventilation. Prof.Mani had designed a ventilation system.

• A document for future use had been prepared for rehabilitation of tsunami victims. • A self-powered palmyrah tree climber is under development

Activities of Rural Technology Action Group by Prof. Sankar Narasimhan Prof.Sankar Narasimhan introduced RUTAG as working on improvement of existing technologies in Tamilnadu. It tried to improve existing products and devices. Workshops were held to disseminate known technologies. 8 projects had been undertaken since the last year. The group worked through NGOs. Some of the projects were –

• Gandhigram Trust made natural dyes.. This came in a liquid form which form was difficult to market in export markets.. A project had been made for spray drying to convert it to a powder form..

• Artificial foot for the disabled had been adapted from the Jaipur foot. It weighed only 280 grams. The CLRI had replaced some parts with light weight ones. PVC (Poly vinyl chloride ) had been used for side support. Cold moulding technology had been used. Implants had been used in the sole.

• The Pudu Vyavasaya Sangamam in Karur had problems of stopping (brakes) the tractor trailer load of sugarcane . A mechanical engineering solution had been found of a low bed tractor design with braking. A prototype had been made in Karur.

• A small scale industry had problems with coir spinning. This was due to the thinness of the fibre. A mechanical engineering solution had been found in controlling the speed of the spinning.

• Prototypes for LED l(light emitting diode) lighting devices for lamps had been developed.

Training programs had been held to introduce mud block technology for housing. The Auroville document in English had been made into Tamil for mason training. RUTAG did not work on specific themes. The projects could be a part of a BTech or an MTech project or part of a course. RUTAG had two more years of funding and could fund projects upto Rs.50,000 to Rs.60,000. Usually a solution was found in 6 months. Activities of the National Social Service by Prof.Subramanian Prof. Subramanian stated that the NSS worked in a dynamic equilibrium with society. NSS organised students to work on problems of rural living. The NSS unit had constructed check dams, installed rainwater harvesting devices, promoted organic bio pesticides, tested soil and had organised workshops on social initiatives and social management.

4

SESSION TWO PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY Introduction to the study on Post tsunami livelihood restitution by Mr.S.Ananthanarayana Sharma Mr. Sharma introduced himself and the study team which had evolved the study. An eight member multi disciplinary team, had undertaken the study. The team consisted of a social forester, a gender expert, a rural development/livelihood management professional, three agricultural scientists and two development administrators, The study had been administered by the NGO Handihand Tamilnadu, located at Kanchipuram and by the SSFRDT at Chennai. The study had been funded by the South Asia office of Wetlands International located at Delhi. Mr. Sharma attempted a contextual overview of the activities post tsunami till date. He traced the initial rescue efforts, to the later relief activities, followed by rehabilitation projects. He hypothesised that livelihood restitution would be the next phase. Each of the phases had its own over riding objectives, time frames, main players, a pattern or relationships between the affected people and the external agencies, - all of which created different managerial skill set requirements Mr.Sharma pointed to the lopsided priority given to marine fishing in the post tsunami rehabilitation. He gave a simple analysis of the funds of the Central Government funded Rajiv Gandhi rehabilitation package (Rs. 25 billion or US$ 569 million) and the World Bank funded Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project. (Rs.30 billion or US$.682 million).. The earlier damage assessment by IFAD, ADB and the World Bank had estimated Rs. 9,540 million as costs of replacement and repair of fishing equipment and gear. These two programs had allocated Rs. 10,707 million, which was more than the estimated damage. Amounts projected for marine fishing infrastructure were not tsunami related damages, but a part of the tenth five year plan. However non marine fishing livelihoods had received a meagre allocation of around 1.5% of funds. There appeared to be sufficient evidence to show that tens of thousands of families depending on land, inland water and livestock had been equally affected by the tsunami, but had received very inadequate or no attention. Mr. Sharma narrated how the objectives for the study had been arrived at. The formal terms of reference given by Wetlands International for the non marine fishing livelihoods reconstruction part has six issues for the assessment. These were reordered as under –

i. Gender analysis of impacts of tsunami ii. Assessment of social and economic impacts of tsunami iii. Views, rights, and capacities of local communities and community based

organizations/ institutions with regard to rehabilitation efforts. iv. Review of relief and rehabilitation strategies and action plans for livelihood

reconstruction. v. Review of existing and ongoing assessments on livelihood reconstruction in the

tsunami affected regions. vi. Priority actions for livelihood reconstruction.

Since it was impossible to do justice to all these issues in such a short span of time, (the study period lasting just under three weeks) the team has biased itself towards an ‘action perspective”. Hence the last term of reference, of priority actions for livelihood reconstruction has been the main focus of data collection and of the study analysis. The

5

reviews and assessments of the other objectives has been subsumed under this objective in terms of data collection priority. Mr. Sharma detailed the methodology followed. • The universe of the study had been defined in terms of the earlier assessment definitions

of the affected areas. The districts of Villupuram, Cuddalore, the Union Territory of Pondicherry and Kariakal, Nagapattinam and Kanyakumari were included. Some efforts were made to confirm the assessment hypothesis that districts facing the Palk bay (Ramnad,Pudukottai and Thanjavur) and Gulf of Mannar (Tirunelveli and Tuticodi) were relatively unaffected.

• The design of the study worked on the following parameters.

o Time frame - The short time frame determined the methodology. As per the Wetlands International contract signed on 27th December 05, the report had to be in by 20th January 06. This meant a quick reconnaissance – a broad sweep across rather than deeper diagnostic studies.

o Stratification – The study area seemed to comprise the following distinct agro climatic

regions – (i) Unirrigated dryland – Villupuram district, Pondicherry region and parts of Cuddalore district. (ii) Irrigated Wetlandss – Parts of Cuddalore district, Karaikal region and Nagapattinam district (also the worst affected in terms of lives and property) (iii) Tropical (round the year rainfall) – Kanyakumari

o Secondary data collection –Three study teams were constituted for each of the three

strata. These three teams went to the district headquarters, met various NGOs and Government officers and surfed the web to collect secondary data. The following were the main sources – (i) District Tsunami Resource centres – Especially the Nagapattinam and

Kanyakumari ones,. This data covered a wide gamut, from village census after the tsunami on population, land and groundwater status, crops affected, relief given, NGOs involved, etc.

(ii) District collectorates and their associated offices – Data on Agriculture, district statistics, relief and rehabilitation efforts of the Government and NGOs.

(iii) NGOs working in the affected areas. The quality of data and the level of cooperation varied. In some cases, a lot of quality data was shared without any expectation of reward or favour. In some cases the NGOs denied access to the data they had collected on the affected area.

(iv) World Bank reports and maps, downloaded from the website of the World Bank..

(v) Other reports on the tsunami affected areas downloaded from the web

o Primary data collection.- Primary data village studies were made by the three study teams. The studies used the techniques of Key Informant, Focus Group Discussion, natural resource and social mapping; transect maps and seasonality mapping from a livelihood perspective. 8 villages were studied. A quick transect was made across 7 villages facing Palk Straits.

Mr. Sharma presented the study team’s estimate of the affected population in the six districts, which needed structured inputs for livelihood restitution. Around 498,000 people would have been affected, which included around 163,000 children. These were spread across 250 odd hamlets in 110 revenue villages. Thus an average tsunami affected revenue village would consist of around 2 hamlets, with a population of around ,4,500.

6

One third of the population would be children, and removing adolescents and aged, around half the village would require livelihood restitution. This worked out to a total about 250,000 people requiring livelihood restitution.

He presented the study estimate of land affected. Around 20,000 hectares of irrigated land, mainly in the Cauvery delta had been damaged.. Around 10,500 acres of un irrigated land had been affected mainly in the Coramandel coast.. He presented the following pie charts to illustrate district wise distribution..

TSUNAMI AFFECTED IRRIGATED LAND - 19,870 Hectares

Pondicherry5%

Cuddalore8%

Karaikal28%

Nagapattinam48%

Kanyakumari2%

Villupuram9%

TSUNAMI AFFECTED UNIRRIGATED LAND - 10,607 ha.

Villupuram37%

Pondicherry1%

Cuddalore55%

Karaikal0%

Nagapattinam0%

Kanyakumari7%

7

Tea break Presentation of assessment in districts with assured irrigation by Mr.Gnanavel. Mr.Gnanavel introduced himself as an agricultural scientist with a few years experience as a professional in DHAN foundation, Madurai and recently with HiHTN. He described HiHTN as an NGO which had started work on the social issues relating to child labour and was now promoting nested institutions of women Self Help Groups. He gave a presentation of the assessment of Karikal/ Nagapattinam district and that of Kanyakumari, Mr. Gnanvel introduced the Nagapattinam coastal belt as having suffered the highest damage from the tsunami in India. 80% of the total deaths in India, occurred in this belt. The available data seemed to indicate that that around 10,000 families had been dependent on marine fishing for their livelihood.. Even prior to the tsunami there had been reports of declining marine fish catch due to over harvesting. The post tsunami rehabilitation through the provision of a large number of boats and gears has added to this biological l problem. There appeared to be a significant number of families dependent on inland fishing prior to the tsunami. The district data seemed to reveal a minimum of 1,500 families dependent on esturine fishing, with around 3,300 MT of inland fish being harvested. There appeared to have been a decline in inland fish harvest- due to decline and changes in seasonal water flows, as well as over harvesting. There appeared to exist a high density aquaculture industry of around 1,000 to 2,000 hectares in these affected districts., This appeared to have created problems of salinization of ground water for the neighbouring paddy farms. The secondary data appeared to reveal that a total of around 37,500 hectares fell within the 3 kilometre ingress area, affecting 72 hamlets in 42 gram panchayats. A minimum of 10,000 hectares of agriculture land, in these two districts appeared to have been affected by the tsunami. The most affected crop appeared to be paddy, followed by groundnut. Around 8,000 farmers appeared to have been directly affected – 90% of them being small and marginal farmers. Mr. Gnanvel concluded his analysis with the following observations – • Saline water prawn aquaculture prawn farms along the coast (atleast 1000 ha) had

created conflicts with paddy farmers. • The wide distribution of boats and nets without taking into account conservation

concerns had led to over fishing. • Farm ponds which provided supplementary irrigation had become contaminated by sea

water. • There had been no scientific study for assessing soil salinity and restitution of coastal

agriculture. This had sometimes resulted in wrong technical programs - like blanket gypsum application, without proper field analysis.

Mr. Gnanvel suggested the following as priorities for action.

• Marine fish vending women could be organised into credit and marketing self help groups. (SHGs).

8

• Sweet water pisciculture could be initiated both for restoring ground water table and for providing employment to inland fishing communities.

• Prawn culture which was creating problems could be shifted to uncultivable lands in Tamilnadu.

• A large scale scientific study was needed for soil salinity. Measures such as gypsum application without scientific soil sampling and testing, had to be discouraged.

• As suggested by Annamalai University, green manure cultivation could be encouraged for restoring soil fertility Application of various forms of green manure could be encouraged.

• There appeared to exist cultivable fallows, which needed to be identified for cultivation • Casuarina plantations had be encouraged as natural shields against sea borne

disasters. • A scientific hydrological study on ground water was required as there appeared to be a

lot of evidence on contamination of fresh water bodies.. • Producer cooperatives around paddy, oilseeds and handicrafts (in Poompuhar) could be

experimented with for increasing non marine livelihoods. • A feasibility study would be needed for understanding the potential of animal rearing for

increasing livelihoods. • Religious and ecological -tourism were other options for livelihood creation. • The long term solution for sustaining marine fishing livelihoods appeared to lie in deep

sea fishing. . Mr. Gnanavel then gave a presentation on Kanyakumari district. He described the district as lying at the extreme tip of the Indian subcontinent at the confluence of three seas. It had round the year rainfall and had close cultural links with Kerala. Marine fishing appeared to be a very important activity with 3 major ports and 42 minor landing spots. The available data seemed to indicate that the total coastal area was 72 kilometres with 46 hamlets on the coast. Of these 33 had been affected. The affected hamlets were in the blocks of Agastheeswaram, Rajakkamangalam, Kurnuthancode, Killyoore and Muncerai. The district had experienced a lot of death and destruction in marine fishing hamlets. Agriculture seemed to have been relatively unaffected. The land utilisation data showed that around

• 7,300 hectares of land (34%) appeared to follow unirrigated agriculture • 4,900 hectares (23%) irrigated agriculture, • 5,800 hectares (27%) was unavailable for cultivation, and • . 3,200 (15%) hectares was cultivable waste.

The affected population in the 33 hamlets consisted of mainly the fishing community. The population break up seemed to reveal –

• Adult Males---- 52,047 • Adult Females—48,606 • Children-86,997

Mr. Gnanvel concluded with the following observations • There had been reports of over fishing before the tsunami. Provision of boats and gears

without considering harvesting potential could have created more problems. • Inland fishing did not appear to exist as a livelihood option in the coastal affected areas.

Visual evidence seemed to indicate that there was little Aquaculture • The main damage to agriculture appeared to be restricted to coconut plantations along

the coast..

9

He recommended the following as priorities for action for livelihood restitution.

1. Alternate livelihoods could be developed around industries based on local resources like

• seashells, coir, • goat and sheep rearing for Kerala meat market • handicrafts especially around religious artefacts • Inland fishing could be explored as there was sufficient sweet water available • The high amount of cultivable wasteland could be used for horticultural

plantations especially targeting the existing industrial centres in neighbouring Kerala.

2. The other non-farm livelihoods could be around

• Religious tourism • Artisan skills in cottage industries targeting tourists.

3. Finally, deep sea fishing could be developed for marine fishing livelihoods which required a substantial restructuring of technology, skills and marketing infrastructure.. Discussions on Nagapattinam and Kanyakumari presentations Prof. Subramanian, as chairperson moderated the discussion. Mr. Gnanavel pointed out to the lack of attention given to the agriculture sector in Karaikal. A discussion started on the need for soil sampling. Dr.Nammalwar and Dr.Elangovan did not agree with the recommendation for site specific scientific soil sampling studies. Mr.Vishwanathan and Prof. Ramesh (Annamalai University) stated that soil sampling studies were the need of the hour. Mr.Vishwanathan quoted from DHAN’s experience in collaborating with the Kariakal agriculture college, and stated that more of such initiatives were required. Mr.Krishnakumar asked whether the data had been placed before the district administration. He wanted to know about the feedback from the farmers. He enquired into the existence of a Tamilnadu state fisheries policy. He requested for details on uncultivable land. He shared the state Government’s mandate of increasing the forest and tree coverage from the existing 20% to 33%. He enquired about land available for afforestation. Mr. Gnanavel replied that another round of field visits would be required for collection of such data.. A collaborative action would be needed between the Forest Department , and other stakeholders.. Mr.Raja observed that the over fishing indicated labour saturation. A study was required on marine resources to estimate harvest potential.. He enquired whether there were specific issues concerning women marketing marine fish. He drew attention to the mindset issue of marine fisher people refusing to migrate to other livelihoods. Deep sea fishing faced the problem of boat technology and relatively high capital costs. Prof.Subramanian requested Mr.Vivekanandan to respond to these issues.. Mr.Vivekanandan stated that marine fishing was a very complex sector. . There were seasonal variations in catch. Now, there were a lot of boats back in the sea. A longer term was required before something could be stated about fish yields.. There had been sea bed changes, after the tsunami. . Increasing the range of fishing operations had to be considered. However catch reduction had been observed more in non tsunami Kerala than in Tamilnadu. Regarding the issue of capital, SIFFS had been able to mobilise Rs. 6 crores

10

(60 million rupees) from 5,000 fishermen in a cooperative framework for livelihood enterprises.. Mr.Karthovyan opined that the scope of the study was too broad. The impact on livelihoods in terms of income , area affected and income from fishing had to be estimated. He questioned the data on over fishing. Mr.Sharma responded that the study had been as per the terms of reference set by the funding agency Wetlands International. This had been a “given” - with the very limited time and human resources, what was possible, had been attempted. This limited exercise itself had thrown up a lot of data on implementation issues for livelihoods. For data on over fishing in marine fishing, the Tamilnadu Government statistics could be a source. There also existed data with the fisheries science educational institutions in Chennai and Toothukudi.. . Ms. Revathi of TOFARM stated that there been floods also post tsunami. The backwater from the tsunami had created salinization. There was poor maintenance of drainage channels. The landless had been left out in livelihood restitution programs, with only a few days of work given. These landless were bonded with even children being forced to work. She also talked about non farm employment, plantation of casuarinas under Joint Forest Management. She supplemented with some data on livestock. She briefly shared the TOFARM experience in reducing salinity in soil and ponds. Presentation on districts with dryland farming by Mr.Kannan Mr. Kannan started his presentation with Cuddalore district. He profiled the district in terms of the coastal length of 58 kilometres. There were 51 affected hamlets spread across three blocks.3,500 hectares of land (55%) were un irrigated agriculture. 11% of the land was cultivable waste. The population in the affected area was 282,000 with 61,000 belonging to rural areas. He assessed the economic, social and physical infrastructure to be average, with banking infrastructure being poor. He analysed the effects of the tsunami on livelihoods as under – • Marine fishing – 8,700 households had been affected. Both Government and NGOs had

provided fishing equipment. • Inland fishing – 3,000 families had been affected. These families fished from the

estuaries emptying into the Bay of Bengal. • Agriculture – 90% of the farmers affected were small and marginal.. The main problem

was deposition of slushy greyish brown clay deposit. The pH ( a measure of acidity/ alkalinity ) of the soil was 8.6; (alkaline) and Electrical Conductivity was 12.7.( deciSiemens per metre -dS/m – which classified it as highly saline). The EC data showed high amounts of soluble salts present in the soil, which had been caused by sea water intrusion. The ground water had been contaminated by sea water. There were a few farm ponds & small percolation ponds. The irrigated crops taken were paddy and sugar cane, while dryland crops were groundnut, pulses and casuarina.

11

Mr. Kannan recommended the following remedial actions for Cuddalore district –

• Testing soil before suggesting interventions like gypsum, improving soil quality through green manuring, and promoting saline resistant paddy & vegetable varieties

• Promoting casuarina & cashew plantations as bio shields. • A systematic hydrological study to understand salinity in groundwater and then

restoration of existing small irrigation tanks & percolation ponds Mr.Kannan then made a presentation on Villupuram district. He profiled the district in terms of a coastal length of 41 kilometres, with 25 hamlets in the affected 3 kilometre zone. . Much of the land- 4,384 hectares (42%) - was not available for cultivation. Un irrigated land accounted for 3,807 hectares (or 37%) of total land. The number of people in the affected area came to 78,000 with 56,000 in rural areas. In terms of infrastructure facilities, he assessed the physical infrastructure of roads and communication and the social health and education infrastructure to be average and the market related infrastructure of banks, shandies and industries to be poor. He analysed the effects of the tsunami on various sectors. • For marine fishing, the fish catch/yield had reduced, and there had been no fishing for

eight months. Around 8,000 women were dependent on fish vending, whose livelihood issue was at stake.

• There were 20 saline water aquaculture ponds all along the coast – for which he raised the question – could it be shifted to uncultivable tracts?

• Around 1,500 hectares of land and 2,300 farmers had been affected. The cash compensation paid by the Government came to Rs. 2500/ hectare. The major crops grown were cereals (rice, jowar and bajra), oilseeds (groundnut and gingelly) and casuarina plantations.

• Mr. Kannan recommended the following for the district. • Creating a bio shield along the coast with casuarina and Cashew plantations. • Introducing saline resistant varieties of paddy and vegetables. • A separate focus for inland fishing. • Allied agriculture activities, like rearing of milch animals, sheep and goats, had to be

encouraged. • Soil tests to be carried before introducing interventions like Gypsum application. • Promoting agricultural value addition units through processing. Concluding session The study presented the gender livelihood perspective of paddy cultivation. This was done through an estimate of women employment generated from an acre of irrigated land growing paddy. The duration of the cropping cycle of paddy was 110 to 120 days.. In this span of three to four months a total of 127 women days of labour could be generated. The break up by tasks was presented as under –

• Preparation of nursery- 5 women for one day • Application FYM - 2 women for one day • Transplantation - 25 women for one day • Weeding (three times) - 15 women for three days • Application of fertilizer- 5 women for one day • Harvesting - 25 women for one day • Threshing and packing- 20 women for one day

12

Prof. Subramanian moderated the concluding session by inviting questions. Mr. Karthoviyan (CEDAR) quoted from a study which indicated marine fish resource availability . He also raised the issue of the andless and dryland casuarina farming. Mr.Sharma replied by displaying the following table which summarised the non marine fish livelihood status post tsunami. SECTOR Villupur

am Pondicherry

Cuddalore

Kariakal Nagapattinam

Kanya kumari

TOTAL

Un irrigated 3,800 ? 5,900 ? ? 700 10,400 Irrigated 1,700 1,000

tubewell)

1,500 5,500 9,500 500 19,700

TOTAL FOR AGRICULTURE

5,500 1,000 7,400 5,500 9,500 1,200 30,100

FISHERIES Marine fish women

8,000 5,000 8,700 3,000 10,000 10,000 42,700

Inland fish 1,000 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,500 ? 7,500 TOTAL FOR FISHERIES

9,000 6,000 11,700 4,000 11,500 10,000 52,200

TOTAL 14,500 7,000 19,100 9,500 21,000 11,200 82,300 Mr.Sharma stated this figure of 82,000 was very very conservative. Irrigated agriculture absorbed much more labour. As the previous presentation on women employment in paddy showed, the number of livelihoods could be increased by a factor of atleast three. He pointed to the vulnerable situation of women, both for marine fish and for inland fish. Traditionally the men harvested produce and women sold the catch and used the proceeds for household consumption. With declining yields, due to over fishing and increased boats, and commercialisation, with fishermen directly selling to the market, the women were left out. He shared a study done by an IRMA intern in Cuddalore which interviewed many inland fishing women. This study seemed to indicate that these women were purchasing marine fish from auction yards at usurious rates of credit and hawking it. Definitely there had been a decline over time, across the years, in harvest of inland fish. This had forced these women to shift to cash procurement of marine fish for hawking. . He stated that marine fish women vendors would probably have a similar problem of usurious credit and increasing market competition. Mr. Sharma also raised the issues relating to technology for the particular sub sectors where post tsunami livelihood was a problem, through the following table. . MAIN SECTOR

SUB SECTORS Remarks on technology

Agriculture irrigated by canals and irrigation tanks

• Paddy • Sugar cane • Banana • Coconuts • Promoting Vegetable cultivation • Pulses • Interface issue of existing

Saline resistant varieties. Special issues for cleaning land affected by clay / sand / salt deposits form the tsunami. Special issues for groundwater and inland ponds affected by sea water. Conversion of productive fallow or waste lands to agriculture

13

aquaculture • Sweet water fish cultivation in paddy

fields (if food security continues to be an issue)

/horticulture Promotion of organic farming Assessing technical suitability of existing agricultural packages like the blanket use of gypsum Post harvest technology for storage Post harvest technology for value addition

Agriculture mainly dependent on rains and groundwater

• Plantation crops such as casuarina, cashew, jackfruit, pomegranate, Tamarind and Amla

. • Gingelly and other oilseeds • Coarse cereals • Pulses

Technical package for converting tsunami hit drylands back to agriculture Packages for saline resistant crops. Dry land agriculture issues Assessing technical suitability of existing agriculture packages like blanket use of gypsum Post harvest technology for storage and value addition

Forestry • Promotion of bio shields on private and community land

• Revival of mangrove forests

Species choice and propagation of coastal belt plantations in private and community land State Forest Department interface and technology to revive mangroves.

Animal husbandry

• Milch animal • Sheep • Goat

Artificial insemination and sperm banks for introducing high yielding breeds Assessment of natural resource availability for feed or increasing external feed Cattle feed technology Milk processing, storage and transport. Mutton processing, storage and transport. (Kanyakumari)

Fisheries • Estuarine fishing • Sweet water fish culture on leased

private land ( Pisci culture)

Fishing technology including boats and gears for esturine Pisci culture technology Cold storage facilities for marketing

Tiny industry

• Artisanal • Religious tourism related • Value addition of existing agriculture

produce

Technology related to working on wood and metal. Technology for existing industries living off agriculture by produce such as coir, thatch, rice bran, straw .

Services • Petty vending of fish, vegetables etc. • Petty retail shops • Petty religious tourism retail shops

Technology related to supply chain problems. Creating more efficiency in

14

• Transportation (rickshaws, manual and automated) for people and commodities.

• Micro finance for livelihood enterprises

existing transportation. Technology Information and, communication Technology ( ICT )

Prof. Subramanian concluded the morning presentation. He stated the problem to be one of restoring the economic cycle. He stated that better planning was required. Measures to increase economic efficiency had to be introduced. Village self sufficiency had to be increased. Gender related seasonal labour issues had arisen, which were different from the earlier situation. He recommended a more intensive utilisation of resources which were already existing. He concluded that Livelihoods had to be ensured so that human beings lived in dignity. Lunch break

15

SESSION THREE LIVELIHOODS IN IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE Introduction to the post lunch session by Prof.Ranjit Gupta Prof. Gupta introduced himself as a retired professor from the Centre for Management in Agriculture (CMA) in IIM (Ahmedabad) and founder of the TATA DHAN ACADEMY (for development management) in Madurai. He stated that there were two ways of creating knowledge – from the particular to the general and from the general to the particular. Here the workshop was moving from a general assessment of tsunami issues to specific sectoral livelihood issues. The workshop had the objective of discussing livelihoods. Prof. Gupta scheduled the afternoon time as under – Each presentation would last for twenty minutes followed by a twenty minute discussion. The order of presentation would be the saline rice technology first followed by TOFARM experiments with organic farming followed by the IFAD government program. Then the tea break,, followed by the presentations and discussions on the agriculture systems perspective and the casuarina presentation. This would be followed by the producers cooperative presentation and discussion. Presentation and discussion on saline rice technology by Prof.Ramesh, Prof. Ramesh stated that the research problem had been framed as to whether rice cultivation was possible in saline agriculture lands. . A team consisting of Ganapathy, Ramesh, Manimaran, and G.Bardhan had undertaken the study. IRRI gave the germ plasm and funded the study.. The problems related to salinity, acidity and alkalinity. Site specific experiments were required, and hence 4 sites were selected in South Cuddalore. The experimental method used was randomised block design with three replications. The performance parameters observed were – plant height, leaf area, harvest index, productive tillers, grain panicles, grain yield, straw yield, sodium potassium ratio. etc. A path analysis was done for productive tillers, filled grain per panicle, etc. The results of the strains were then mapped on a matrix, with high and low susceptibility .on one side and low and high yields on the other. Strains 8,10 and 12 showed to be more saline tolerant. Prof. Ramesh stated the following to be the way ahead in dissemination of saline resistant varieties of paddy.

• Raising the genetic yield ceiling and sustaining the yield potential of currently available technology for irrigated production system.

• Arresting the declining trend in total factor production, input use efficiency and deteriorating soil health problems in irrigated rice production system.

• Development of agro climatic specific varieties and management of technologies for rainfed agro climatic zones, for direct sown and transplanted conditions.

• Increasing the profitability of rice cultivation by adding a new dimension of cost-effectiveness to crop management and by developing remunerative rice based cropping systems.

• Generation of technologies for organized frontline demonstrations and rapid dissemination of new varieties and package of technologies.

Prof. Gupta clarified that what had been presented were 3 potential varieties, which could be tested in the farmer fields. Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy asked whether lack of seed material was a problem. Prof. Ramesh stated seeds from IRRI were used. There could be complications if the IRRI name was used. Mr. Ganeshan asked if there were plans for field testing.

16

Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated that Prof. Ganeshan of Annamalai University had already shown that it worked in 8 sites in the Coramandel coast. Mr.Krishnakumar asked why IRRI varieties and not Indian varieties were chosen. Prof. Ramesh replied that it was an international study to test some varieties. Funding constraints had come in the way of implementation. Presentation and Discussions on the land desalination project executed by the Tamil Nadu Organic Farmers Association (TOFARM) in Nagapattinam by Ms.M.Revathi Ms.M.Revathi informed that TOFARM had collaborated for the last one year with IIT (M) for tsunami related rehabilitation. The backwater of the tsunami had gone upto 5 kilometres inside. Crops such as paddy, groundnut and vegetables were destroyed. Nagapattinam coast had small farm ponds for irrigation. They were sometimes below sea level, and this had now filled with saline water. There had been alternate floods and droughts for the last 4 years. There had been no seed for the next year crop or straw for the cattle. She stated that the tsunami ingress had left a 2 feet silt and clay deposit. The saline salt had come up due to capillary action. After two months of pickling, the land had no organic matter and no microbiological activity. It had been lost to cultivation. The consequence was that standing crops were lost, people were affected. TOFARM undertook a problem assessment with the people. Deep ploughing was done going to depths below 30 centimetres. Location specific solutions were found, and financial estimates made for land reclamation.. Some of the solutions implemented included –

• Removal of sea mud. The mud had accumulated upto 3 feet, and did not allow air to percolate. Leaching was not possible. This had been removed. . One such site was 2.5 kilometres from the coast of Vedaranyam.

• 2,756 acres of land was deep ploughed. • In 837 private farm ponds, saline water was pumped out, and the pond desilted. • 200 to 300 common ponds were maintained. • 3,500 farmers were given direct assistance for farming. • 275 vermi - compost units were started. • Land restitution work was continued even after the floods. (November 2005).

Mr.Nammalwar supplemented the presentation. He said that reclamation of saline land for paddy required more water. The cost per acre for reclamation came to Rs.2,200 per acre.

17

SESSION FOUR STATE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS FOR LIVELIHOOD PROMOTION Presentation on the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) program for livelihoods, by Mr.Raja. Mr.Raja, a Joint Director of the project implementation unit with the tsunami relief agency of the Tamilnadu Government gave a short presentation on the planned livelihood program with IFAD funds. He stated that he had come to the workshop to represent the Government departments. He unveiled various government plans including ,

• Model village plans for 320 villages • Escape routes from sea based disasters at the cost of Rs.77 crores (770 million

Rupees) • Construction of houses • Safe drinking water and sanitation • Community amenities • Solid waste management, with a zero waste objective. • Disaster prevention measures.

The Government had created mechanisms to ensure convergence of Government funds. There was a separate fund for restoration of livelihood with a mandate to utilise Rs.300 crores (3 billion rupees) to 238 villages in 8 years time. The objectives would be to organise the beneficiaries into groups, build up capabilities, give enterprise training and upgrade skills. He added that there was absolutely no funding constraint for this program. The activities planned included benchmark survey, counselling, orientation, skill upgradation, restoration of livelihoods, income generation schemes and employment generation programs. Tea break

18

SESSION FIVE LIVELIHOODS IN DRYLAND AGRICULTURE Presentation on the relevance of casuarina species in livelihood restitution in post tsunami agriculture in Tamilnadu. by Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy, Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy described the tree, its distribution and cultivation in coastal Tamilnadu. He stated Casuarina equisetifolia to be an evergreen tree(called Horse tail, savukku),which was introduced in India as an ornamental species. It was then propagated mainly for fuel wood purposes to run the steam engines in the second half of 19th century. The tree had been used as wind breaks in and around farm boundaries, as shelterbelts in coastal areas, and to stabilise sandunes It produced excellent sturdy poles, which were suited for scaffolding, and as rafters in farm house constructions. It was also good as props in banana cultivation while side branches found use as stakes in tomato cultivation. The wood was excellent as fuel wood with high calorific value (4950 kcal/kg).The pulp was valued in paper and rayon industries. Casuarina equisetifolia was found naturally along the sea coasts from Malaysia to subtropical S. Australia, , Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia, the Philippines,Southern Myanmar, South Thailand and Andaman and Nicobar. . In India it was found on the coastlines of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Pondicherry, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal, and Kerala. Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated that a very conservative estimate of the cultivation in Tamilnadu was about 35,000 hectares . with Villupuram and Cuddalore districts accounting for nearly 75 % of the total. Casuarina was mainly cultivated by individual farmers, who had small land holdings. He stated that Casuarina was cultivated in both rainfed and irrigated modes; The rainfwed crop was harvested in 5 to 7 years. The irrigated crop was harvested in 3-4 years. Casuarina was grown in espacements varying from 0.5 m X 0.5 m to 4m X 4m. Yield varied considerably, depending on availability of water for irrigation. The yield ranged from 10 metric tonnes (MT) per hectare to 60 MT per hectare per rotation. The current price was Rs.3000/- per MT for industrial use. . Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy said that Casurina could be grown as an agroforestry crop with edible oilseed crops like gingelly, and groundnut as an intercrop. It could also be planted along the bunds, to supplement the farm income. He drew attention to the considerable amount of research work that had been undertaken by Tamilnadu Forest Department (at its Research Centres at Marakkanam and Neyveli),the Institute of Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding -Coimbatore , Andhra Pradesh Forest Department , ITC Bhadrachalam and Andhra Pradesh Paper mills. Research had been carried out on tree improvement aspects like -

• establishment of seed orchards, • clonal banks for genetic stock improvement, • nursery practices, • silvicultural practices , • improvement in quality of wood

Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy opined that much of these works however, needed to be translated to performance in the field. He cited Casuarina junghuhniana , which was a fairly drought and salinity tolerant species, as one such example. He presented the following table to analyse the technical properties (in terms of dissolving pulp properties) of Casuarina equisetifolia

19

Parameter Desirable

range C.equi Setifolia

Remarks

Basic Density (kg/m3) 0.5 to 0.6 0.73 High wood density increases the requirement of chemicals for proper cooking , increasing pollution & costs (sulphite process)

Fibre length (µm) 800- 1200 1080 Optimum range but fibres very thin and stiff.

Benzene extract(%) 0.2 -0.4 0.3 Alcohol extract (%) 0.9-1.4 2.48 Special process needed to avoid high

levels. Digestion with water (%)

0.1-0.3 0.86

Digestion with 5 % NaOH (%)

5.0 -6.0 5.3

Pentosans (%) 15-21 21.92 Desirable for paper manufacturing but not preferred for dissolving grade pulp manufacturing.

Lignin < 20 28.38 High levels increase pollution load . Cross & Baven Cellulose

41-44 39.96 Selection for higher cross and Baven cellulose to be carried out.

Ash % < 0.4 0.47 creates problem during rayon polymerisation

Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated this table revealed a range of options for research. He opined that there existed a ready market for Casuarina from paper and pulp mills like TNPL, Karur, ITC Bhadrachalam (Andhra Pradesh), Harihar Polyfibres (Karnataka) for rayon. Cities like Chennai & Bangalore had a huge potential for absorbing Casuarina for construction purposes. Agricultural crops like Banana and Tomato required Casuarina props for its growth. The high calorific value made Casuarina suitable for biomass based energy production through gasification.. Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy listed the following issues for research before a post tsunami livelihoods creation program could be initiated through casuarina.

• Could Casuarina be a source of livelihood to farmers ? • What were the other livelihood options for the existing Casuarina farming community,

in the Tsunami belt, especially in the districts of Kanchipuram, Villupuram and Cuddalore ?

• What were the technological aspects that need to be considered for increasing the productivity and quality of Casuarina species, ?- Specifically was it possible to decrease the lignin content for the paper and pulp industry.

• What were the value chains for the Casuarina crop before it reached industrial end users?, What were the trade intermediation margins?.

• What was the supply chain for transforming harvested wood to desired forms? (pulp, construction poles etc.?)

• How did the price change at each stage of the supply chain?. • What was the availability, quality and price of competing products for Casuarina both

locally and globally? For example Eucalyptus species. . • What was the unexplored potential for increasing the usage and value of the wood?

20

Mr.T.S. Srinivasa murthy finally stated that -from a livelihood perspective most of the farmers had tiny land holdings. He recommended that unless they aggregated the produce , they did not stand much chance in an increasingly competitive market space. Hence he suggested that these farmers’ be organised as tree producer cooperatives. Their produce could be pooled and marketed to the end users for increasing the value of the farm gate price.

21

SESSION SIX FRAMEWORKS FOR ANALYSIS Presentation on the relevance of understanding agriculture commodities and livelihoods from a systems perspective by Mr.S.Ananthanarayana Sharma Mr.Sharma on behalf of the Centre for Action Research and Training, Madurai, gave the following conceptual overview of the agricultural commodities systems model. He noted that the Institute of Rural Management, Anand (IRMA) pioneered the use of a “systems perspective” for analysis of agricultural commodities from a livelihood perspective. The white revolution, which had made India the largest producer of milk in the world, as well providing livelihoods to tens of millions of poor women, was an example of the utility of such analysis. The framework was useful for understanding agro businesses, whose supply and value chains could stretch across the globe, and which could encompass months and even years of time. In these days of globalization and liberalization, the marginal and small farmers literally faced competition at their doorstep. Such an analysis was an essential pre requisite before any structured initiative could be even contemplated.” Mr. Sharma stated that systems analysis was thought to have originated from cybernetics. In its simplest form, a system would consist of the following components.–

(i) Inputs (ii) Processes (iii) Outputs (iv) A feedback loop connecting outputs back to inputs.

The system was embedded in an “universe” – which was usually a larger system. Conventionally a systems analysis, would conceptualise a series of subsystems each inter linked, and together forming a larger system. Usually the outputs of a subsystem becomes the input of another subsystem. Applying this systems perspective in an agricultural context, Mr. Sharma stated that the UNIVERSE of a commodity system, would be the political economy – defined across particular points in time, and usually at a geographically defined space. The movements and transformation of the commodity would be embedded within this political economy. The political economic context would encompass sociological variables, of the people whose livelihoods were dependent on the commodity – as also the technology in use for movement and transformation of the commodities and their markets. Economic variables would be understood in terms of their price movements. Mr.Sharma stated that the INPUTS of a commodity system would be the physical production system. This would include the technology – including, seeds, other technical inputs, agronomy, and harvesting. The farmstead would usually be the physical boundary of the subsystem. If the commodity was harvested from a common property (fish, forest produce), the resource base – the estuary, or ocean spot, or forest would be the defined physical boundary. The physical production subsystem could also be analysed from a systems perspective. The seed material and inputs like fertiliser and pesticide, along with land and water, would be the inputs. The process of actual growth of the plant/tree/fish/etc would be the process. The harvest would be the output. He stated that the PROCESS of a commodity system would be the exchange and market mechanisms. Usually the farmstead gate was taken as the physical boundary. The exchange of the harvested produce, usually against cash, and sometimes in barter was

22

traced. The actual space was usually a market (a mandi or haat or shandy). Sometimes this could occur at the site of production itself – where a trade intermediary procured the agricultural commodity from the farm gate. . In some cases it could also occur at the site of final consumption – say the farmers taking their produce to a factory gate. Mr.Sharma stated that the exchange and market subsystem itself could be analysed as a system. The input would be harvested produce, the buyers, the sellers, and the market space. The actual process of negotiation and exchange against cash or kind would be the process. The output would be the price at which the commodity was exchanged along with other terms and conditions. He stated that the OUTPUT of a commodity system would be the manufacturing and marketing mechanisms. The harvested output would be transferred through the market exchange mechanism to the gates of say, a processing factory. The commodity would get transformed through various technological processes, into a form desired by the final end user or consumer. The consumption of the transformed product would mark the physical boundary of the subsystem. Conventionally, management analysis in the corporate sector, exclusively concentrated on this subsystem. Mr.Sharma stated that it was easy to conceive the manufacturing and marketing subsystem as a system in itself. The procurement of a particular commodity from the market and its arrival say at a factory warehouse would be the input. The physical transformations by technology would be the process – usually within a factory setting. The output was usually a packaged product, with its distribution chain, which reached the final end user. The FEEDBACK LOOP would be in terms of consumer behaviour and preferences, exhibited mainly in terms of price, and sometimes in terms of behaviour. The consumer market behaviour of complementary and competing products, would also form a part of the feedback loop. A deeper analysis would look at the changes in ecology – land, water and air, created by the entire agro business system. Mr. Sharma gave the following pictorial depiction of the agriculture commodities systems model.

UNIVERSE OF THE POLITICAL ECONOMY AND THE PHYSICAL ECOLOGY

Consumer behaviour, price movements , of complementary and competing products, changes in natural resources, changes in technology.

PHYSICAL PRODUCTION SUBSYSTEM

EXCHANGE AND MARKET SUB SYSTEM

MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING SUBSYSTEM

23

Mr. Sharma took the example of milk in Tamilnadu to ground the model. He described the political economy of Tamilnadu as the universe of milk as a commodity system. The nature of Governmental regulation, the existence of government controlled cooperatives, the increasing market share of private sector corporate players, and the informal milk economy in the urban and semi urban markets would form the universe. A deeper analysis would incorporate the behavioural dimension – the religious reverence given to cow’s milk, the conventional societal rejection of beef as a by product of the milch animal economy, etc. The milk production subsystem would usually be located in rural farms. The cow would be fed straw, green fodder, feed like rice bran, deoiled cake, purchased from the local grocery store, and sometimes packaged feed. It would be usually artificially inseminated, and the lactation cycle closely monitored to ensure regular pregnancy and calving. Cow dung (which usually had its own use and sometimes its own market) and calves (both, the male calves which were sold to the illegal meat market and the female calves which were raised as heifers) were the by products of this physical production sub system. The milk was the output of this sub system. The exchange and market subsystem would contain a variety of players. There would be private milk vendors, who would give credit and extract milk as repayment of the loan. There would other private vendors who would arrive at some sort of bulk purchase arrangements with the village through an agent, and send a truck to take away the cans. Larger players like the Government controlled cooperatives and the private corporate sector would have formal procurement systems, with some sort of regularity of procurement, and some sort of science in valuing the milk in terms of fat and Solid Non Fat. (SNF). Price movements would be determined by seasonality of production, seasonality of demand, and movement of milk to and from other markets. (Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh). The manufacturing and marketing subsystem would begin with the receipt of the raw milk into say a milk processing factory. The milk would be pasteurised and packaged for sale through a distribution system. Excess milk would be converted into butter, which again could be packaged and sold. Some factories would even convert the excess milk into milk sweets, cheese, etc. The marketing of milk and it products would involve modern market distribution chains, advertising campaigns, and vary according to changing consumer preferences and demographics. The feedback loop would be the price paid by the final consumer, which translated back to the primary producer as price paid for the milk. If say cow milk was still preferred, there would be a shift towards cows over buffaloes, where such a choice was feasible. If the price of feed increased, and the output price remained the same, there would be a drop in production. A failure of the paddy crop say, would decrease the availability of fodder, which again could result in lower production. Discussions on agricultural systems approach and plantations moderated by Prof.Gupta. Mr.Rajendra Ratnoo, IAS heading the IFAD livelihood program spoke of his experience with community plantations in coastal Cuddalore. He wanted specific managerial issues to be worked out for the coastal areas. For instance in the case of milch animals, he wanted to know the breeds recommended, and the existing available breeds. He stated that a partnership of the Government and the NGOs was required for implementing such a program. . Mr.Krishnakumar, stated that in Tamilnadu 1.9 million hectares of land was to be brought under tree cover. This was one opportunity for increasing livelihoods in tsunami hit areas.

24

Ms.Revathi stated that in the olden days, forest cover was maintained. In present day forestry the species grown did not provide food. Some of the species were ecologically bad. Ecological and food security had to go together. Mangrove forests earlier were an example of this approach. Prof. Subramanian commented whether this was a romantic wish to go back to the past. Mr.Ganeshan enquired about the other crops that could be grown –and cited the example of oil seeds. Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated that crop demonstrations had to be done in the field before they could be recommended for large scale programs. . Prof.Gupta asked whether there was any paper available on such issues. . Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated that he had had only informal interactions. But unless a comprehensive systems analysis was done, a new crop should not be introduced. Prof. Gupta suggested that it would be useful to write up experiences in this regard. Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy narrated his experience with community agro forestry. He said for this to be viable what was the minimum size? What was the commercial price which was viable financially? Was this environmentally viable? Mr. Ratnoo narrated his experiences with traditional community plantations grown in coastal Tamilnadu, used by traditional panchayats for village temple festivals. He raised the issue as to whether it would be proper to ban the felling of such trees, which served as a bio shied. Prof. Gupta stated that this was a policy issue, and felt that it was best left to be addressed at the state level. Ratnoo said that the systems approach to milk raised many questions. The best way was to give such a study to a research organisation. He felt that this study would not be expensive and quite a few such studies could be undertaken.

25

SESSION SEVEN ORGANISATIONAL FORMS FOR LIVELIHOODS PROMOTION Presentation on “Cooperatives for rural producers” by Mr.Vivekandan Mr.Vivekanandan introduced himself as the Chief Executive Officer, of the South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies. a marine fishing cooperative with its Headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram. He started by raising the question “Why cooperatives?” His answer was in two parts. In the first part, the present context was stated. . Cooperatives as an organisational form went out of fashion in the 80s. The current trend of Self Help Groups, were for financial services. There was a limit to the growth of such SHGs, and it targeted only women. . The SHG form had its limitation for handling primary produce, achieve meaningful scale, and run a large cooperative business. Hence the need for a cooperative for primary producers. In the second part, the need for a cooperative was stated to exist for small producers, as they were loosing out in the current context of globalisation where scale matters. Cooperatives could help small producers by providing technical inputs of superior quality at a lower cost, technology and scale for value addition, creating access to global markets. This would prevent small producers from getting wiped out. Mr. Vivekanandan then raised the question, “what is a cooperative?” He stated the answer to be in two dimensions. It had to be a business, and it had to be owned and controlled by the members. Unfortunately most of the Indian cooperatives failed on both counts. They were usually quasi Government organisations, with very little business. He gave the example of fishermen cooperatives in Tamilnadu, where not a single cooperative had any business. It existed only to pump in Government subsidies and loans. Mr. Vivekanandan then asked the question “what are the factors which create success in cooperatives?” His answer was that there were two sets of factors –

(i) Design issues such as homogeneity of membership, scale, technology, markets, structure, role of members, quality of staff, etc.

(ii) Management issues such as governance, efficiency, accountability, and transparency, and its ability to respond to changes.

Mr. Vivekanandan then followed with the question “who will organise a cooperative?” He made a distinction between “self organised” or swayamboo cooperatives, and cooperatives created through external intervention. In either case, issues of leadership, sustainability, replicability had to be thought through. There was a paucity of promotional organisations. There were both pros and cons for Government and Non Government Organisations as promotional organisations. He gave the example of the efforts of the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) in milk. The success was with the sector of milk as a commodity but not with the concept of cooperatives. Another example was the Cooperative Development Federation, Hyderabad which was attempting to organise cooperatives. Mr. Vivekanandan stated that the design issues to be looked at would include,

• capital investments, • risks, • bottom up incremental approach versus the big bang top down approach, and • would it be community or commodity driven.

26

Mr. Vivekanandan then grounded the theoretical statements with an example from SIFFS. SIFFS was a 25 year federation organised in three tiers. It had 120 primary cooperatives with 6,000 boats. SIFFS annual sales through the first point of marketing worked to around 450 million rupees (Rs.45 crores) SIFFS integrated over credit, savings and marketing. It exercised control over the inputs through supply and maintenance of boats, motors, ice plants, research and development, etc. SIFFS emphasised “collective bargaining” at the wholesale markets, rather than getting into retail markets directly. It evolved through a bottom up incremental process. It was an empowerment model, with local cooperatives managing businesses, with federations as support systems controlling inputs. Mr. Vivekanandan then raised the issue of “organisational form” in cooperatives He stated that there were many problems with the state cooperative laws, which were regressive and meant only for Government control through registrars. The mutually aided cooperative act helped genuine cooperatives which did not use Government funds. In 2002, the multi state cooperative act was passed. SIFFS was planning to organise a federation using Karikal which had 80 members Karikal is technically a part of another state as per Indian law and cooperatives across Nagapattinam and Karikal could qualify for multi state coop status. The recent producer company act, allowed a cooperative to be registered as a company. The use of the Societies Act and the Trust Act was that it had the danger of being taken over by the Government. Section 25, the not for profit company act could had also been used as an organisational form. Mr. Vivekandan also raised the organisational form issue to whether it should be a unitary structure – where individual members are the units, - or a federal structure, where local units federate – or a nested structure, where local groups become building blocks of larger structures. He recommended that non hierarchical structures be created. Cooperatives could be built on top of SHGs. Vivekandan then answered the question “what needs to be done?” • Cooperatives had to be understood as a powerful instrument for organising small

producers. • However work had to be done to create models for each sector commodity. • The promotional organisation had to understand the sector, understand cooperatives,

and have a long term vision, say 10 to 15 years, Presentation on producer company format by Mr. S.Ananthanarayana Sharma. With the permission of the chair , Prof. Ranjit Gupta, Mr. Sharma gave a small presentation on the producer company act. He drew the attention of the participants to a photocopied article in the workshop papers from the periodical “INDIA TODAY”.. This article described the functioning of a technical input farmer cooperative set up by the NGO PRADAN (Professionals for Rural Development and Action) in Vidisha district of Madhya Pradesh – one of the most economically backward districts in the subcontinent. This used the producer company form. Mr. Sharma briefly narrated the history and context of cooperative acts in India. The cooperative movement would be atleast a century old, with Tamilnadu perhaps being the home of the cooperative movement of India and perhaps of Asia. The five year plans since independence had specifically mandated cooperatives as instruments of rural development.

27

The quantitative achievements of the cooperative movement in terms of membership and share capital mobilised was very impressive. However, as noted by Mr. Vivekanandan, the cooperative movement has been emasculated by the bureaucracy and the formal political system. The heart of the cooperative movement was the ownership of the business by the members who are also the primary producers (sugarcane, milk, fish, etc) or the users of the services (technical inputs, retail, credit, etc). The members interest was represented by election of their nominees to the Board of the cooperative. In practice, by cancellation of elections, and deputing Government special officers to run the cooperatives, this cardinal principle of member control had been completely eroded. Tamilnadu particularly had been one of the most delinquent states in this regard. The Institute of Rural Management, Anand (IRMA) was a management school, set up by the milk cooperative movement, with a mandate for research, training and consultancy for the cooperative sector. IRMA held a landmark international seminar on cooperatives in December 1992, preceded by a year long international collaborative research on cooperative action. One of the recommendations of the seminar was to set up a Cooperative Initiatives Panel to amend the cooperative acts in India to make them truer to the principles of cooperation. The panel had come out with model acts. One of this, the Mutually Aided Cooperatives Act, had been enacted by many states, including Andhra Pradesh. However, Tamilnadu had so far, yet to amend its acts according to mutually aided principles. Mr. Sharma stated that one of the solutions suggested to overcome state Government hostility, had been to strengthen central Government acts. The first initiative was to make the Multi State Cooperative Act, more user friendly. It was amended in 2002. The cooperative Registrar being sited in the Union Ministry of Agriculture, made interference in governance or administration a central government issue.. To interfere would require the concurrence of the state governments, in which the cooperative was registered, and the Central Government. In the scenario of coalition Governments such an eventuality would be rare. Also the act provided for stringent audit by the Central Government Registrar – as a check and balance against the usual problems of fraud. Mr. Sharma stated IRMA and other cooperative resource providers had complaints of the unequal playing field between producer owned cooperatives and the multinational and Indian corporate sector in the markets. Cooperatives passed on the benefit of the business back to the primary producers. In the corporate sector, the providers of capital (usually in the .form of easily tradable shares and bonds) were the main beneficiary of the business. The current paradigm of globalization and liberalization of markets and technology was biased towards private capital formation and its global movement. Cooperatives owned by producers or users, had been left to their benign fate, governed by the diktats of the State Cooperative Registrars.. He mentioned one of the recommendations of the IRMA workshop which was to provide the same legal protection to cooperatives as was available to the private corporate sector. In 2003, the Company’s Act had been amended to incorporate producer cooperatives as a company. Mr. Sharma drew the attention to some of the extracts of the bare act which had been enclosed in the workshop papers. Some of the features of the act were – (i) Incorporating the concept of mutual assistance principles, and patronage of the

cooperative business by the members, in the act. (ii) Defining “primary produce”, across a variety of agriculture and service sectors (iii) Enlarging the scope of the objects to include processing of agriculture produce,

manufacture and supply of agriculture machinery, provision of cooperative education, provision of technical consultancy, generation of power, revitalization of land and

28

water resources, insurance of produce, promoting mutuality, welfare activities for members, , and financing including provision of credit.

(iv) Simple registration processes – minimum eligibility is ten producers or two producer institutions, a time bar of thirty days for issuing certificate of incorporation,

(v) Liability limited to the amount of share capital, and legal rights as that available to a private limited company.

(vi) Option provided for either the one person one vote principle, or voting rights weighed by the participation in the cooperative business. Specific provision to remove members whose business conflicts with that of the cooperative business.

(vii) Replacement the concept of dividend with that of patronage bonus, with share holders getting a bonus in proportion to their participation. The option given of distributing this bonus either as shares or as cash.

(viii) Recognizing that shares should be proportional to participation and patronage of the business.

(ix) Transfer of shares only within the active members of the company. (x) Provision to enable the Board to direct surrender of shares of members who have

ceased to be primary producers. (xi) Formal conferment of status on par with a private company for miscellaneous

provisions. Summarising the discussion on cooperatives by Prof. Ranjit Gupta Prof. Ranjit Gupta concluded the deliberations as under –

• Robust design was important for any organisation. This had been brought out also by Prof. Tushar Shah.

• Design had to also influence the vision. The time frame of the vision could be 2 years, 5 years or 50 years. Organisations had to avoid the danger of becoming fossilised. If organisations failed to change, they were destined to be left by the wayside. This of true both of cooperatives and of educational institutions. Mechanisms had to be built in for this periodic revitalisation.

29

SESSION EIGHT – CONCLUSIONS Summarising the afternoon discussions by Mr.Rajendra Ratnoo, IAS. Mr.Ratnoo expressed the feeling of being moved by the deliberations. The question was how to “hand hold” this sort of initiative. AMUL had become a role model due to professionalism and being a democracy. The same spirit had to prevail for livelihood cooperatives to succeed in Tamilnadu tsunami hit areas. He wished to further the dialogue on this issue. He recollected how the dialogue started with Mr.Sharma coming to his office to discuss the study. The need for an agricultural expert had been brought out clearly. He concurred with the draft report findings and the discussions in totality . Long term strategies had to be worked out for creating equity. The funders, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development, had all operationalised their funding plans. IFAD was to become operational in June 2006. For livelihoods ADB was giving 1.9 billion rupees. The SHG framework had created successful examples. Velugu of Andhra Pradesh was one such example. . Mr.Ratnoo raised the Issues of legality and frameworks. . The Mutually Aided Cooperatives Act did not exist in Tamilnadu. Some form had to evolve for livelihood cooperatives. He wondered whether SHGs could brought under the cooperative fold. Another option would be producer cooperatives in a SHG framework. So too was neighbourhood groups. He asked how entrepreneurship could be shared, when there was diverse interests. He asked whether SHGs could become a unit for action. Problems like sleeping members and non functional groups had to be addressed. Mr.Ratnoo satid that all the three afternoon sessions he attended, systems approach for livelihood, casuarinas plantation and the concluding session on cooperatives had been very fruitful. He suggested a strategic advisory group be formed to permit people to be regularly in touch. Disaster mitigation also had to be looked as an issue by such a group. Conclusions of the workshop by Prof.Ranjit Gupta Prof. Ranjt Gupta started with the question “what were the study highlights?” His understanding was – • The tsunami had affected marine communities directly and therefore there had been an

immediate response. • The question now was not marine based interventions, but land, water and livestock

based livelihoods, which had received much less attention. It had been only allocated 1.5% of the total funds available.

• For land based agriculturists and inland fishing, “what had been done” was the million dollar question.

• Technology issues had to be sorted through organisational forms which would be decided by economic value addition created. The last discussion on cooperatives had brought out this point.

• The time had been less, and the area large, which made an indepth study not possible. Prof. Ranjit Gupta read out an extract from the draft study report circulated (page 17) as under – “A more indepth analysis of these sectors in terms of employment, technology, markets, regulatory issues, competition and the political economy (as also the gender aspects, which can cut across each category) could be done before planning investments. These sort of studies could be from an action perspective of enhancing livelihoods by creating entities cooperatively owned by the primary producers”.

30

In order to do this, Prof. Ranjit Gupta stated that the following needed to be considered. (i) Prepare area specific programs and projects, which were time bound, to restore and

upgrade land and water based livelihoods. This planning had to be by village, block and district

(ii) Focus interventions which were time bound – 3,5, 10 years. The funds, time and

resources all had to be planned. What was going to be delivered was to be a “PROJECT”.

(iii) In particular, scope had to be created for technology, skill building (HRD etc),

capacity building of affected landless, and then self regulating member owned and member governed organisations. Who was to do this and where was the the support were decisions that had to be taken. Here Prof. Gupta specifically asked Mr.Ratnoo if this was the mandate he was suggesting in his previous comments.

Prof. Gupta finally gave his warm regards to Prof. Subramanian and other staff of IIT (Madras), the HandinHand team of Mr.Gnanavel, Mr.Kannan and others and Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy of SSFRDT He said he was deeply honoured to have been invited to the workshop and share the chairpersonship.

31

GLOSSARY

ADB – Asian Development Bank BTech – Bachelor of Technology CEO – Chief Executive Officer CLRI – Central Leather Research Institute Ha – Hectares HiHTN – Hand in Hand Tamilnadu IAS – Indian Administrative Service IC & SR - Industrial Consultancy and Sponsored Research IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development. IFAD – International Fund for Agriculture Development IFS – Indian Forestry Service IIT (M) - Indian Institute of Technology (Madras) IRRI – International Rice Research Institute LED – Light Emitting Diode MT – Metric Tonnes MTech – Master in Technology NGO – Non Governmental Organisation OHP – Overhead Projector PVC – Poly vinyl chloride RUTAG – Rural Technologies Action Group SHG – Self Help Group SIFFS - South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies SSFRDT – Society for Social Forestry Research and Development Tamilnadu TOFARM – Tamilnadu Organic Farmers Association WB – World Bank

32

WORKSHOP ON POST- TSUNAMI LIVELIHOOD RESTITUTION IN TAMILNADU Schedule followed at the IIT (M) workshop on 22nd April 2006

Session Time Theme Speaker

MORNING SESSIONS CHAIRED BY PROF.B.SUBRAMANIAN of IIT (MADRAS)

(I) INAGURAL SESSION 10.25 -10.30 Welcome Prof.B.Subramanian

10.30-10.40 Inaugural address Prof.T.T.Narendran

10.42 to10.50

Socially relevant projects of IIT (M) Prof. Sankar Raman

10.50 - 11.00

Rural Technology Action Group of IIT (M) Prof.Sankar Narasimhan

11.00- 11.05

National Social Service of IIT (M) Prof.B.Subramanian

(II) STUDY PRESENTATION 11.05 -11.25

Introduction and methodology

Mr.S.Ananthanarayana Sharma

TEA BREAK 11.25 - 11.30

STUDY PRESENTATION 11.55-12.30

Assessment of Nagapattinam, Karaikal and Kanyakumari districts Mr.Gnanavel

12.30 - 13.00

Discussions on the assessment

13.00 - 13.30

Assessment of Cuddalore, Villupuram and Pondicherry districts Mr. Kannan

13.30 - 13.50 Conclusions of the study

Mr. S.Ananthanarayana Sharma

13.50 -13.55

Wrap up of the morning presentations Prof. B.Subramanian

LUNCH 13.55 - 14.45

POST LUNCH SESSIONS CHAIRED BY PROF.RANJIT GUPTA, founder and ex Dean of TATA DHAN Academy (Madurai).

14.45 - 14.50

Introduction to the afternoon presentations Prof.Ranjit Gupta

(III) LIVELIHOODS IN IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE

14.50 - 15.15 Saline rice technology Prof.N.Ramesh

15.15 - 15.50

Land desalination project by the Tamil Nadu Organic Farmers Association (TOFARM) Ms.M.Revathi

33

(IV) STATE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS FOR LIVELIHOOD PROMOTION

15.50 -16.05

IFAD program for livelihood restitution post tsunami Mr.L.Raja

TEA BREAK 16.05 -16.15

(V) LIVELIHOODS IN DRYLAND AGRICULTURE

16.15-16.45

The relevance of casurance species in livelihood restitution. Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy

(VI) FRAMEWORKS FOR ANALYSIS

16.45 -17.15

Understanding agriculture commodities and livelihoods from a systems perspective

Mr.S.Ananthanarayana Sharma

17.15 - 17.35

Discussions on land based livelihoods

(VII) ORGANISATIONAL FORMS FOR LIVELIHOODS PROMOTION

17.35 - 18.10

Cooperatives for rural producers Mr.V.Vivekandan

18.10 -18.15

Producer company as a format

Mr.S.Ananthanarayana Sharma

18.15 - 18.25

Summarising the discussions on organisational forms Prof.Ranjit Gupta

(VIII) CONCLUDING SESSION 18.25 - 18.35

Summary of the afternoon discussions

Mr.Rajendra Ratnoo, IAS

18.35 -18.40

Conclusions emerging from the workshop Prof.Ranjit Gupta

34

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FOR THE WORKSHOP ON LIVELIHOOD RESTITUTION POST TSUNAMI IN TAMILNADU HELD ON 22ND APRIL 06 AT IC&SR HALL, IIT (m) LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM ACADEMIC ORGANISATIONS

Sr.No.

Name Designation & Address

Ph.No. Email

1

S.SANKARARAMAN Prof.Of Chemistry, IIT ( Madras)

22574210 sanka@iitm.ac.in

2

UMAKANT DASH Asst.Prof, Dept of H&SS, IIT (Madras)

22574516 dash@iit.ac.in

3

S.NARASIMHAN Prof.Chemical Engineering Dept, IIT (Madras) Coordinator - RUTAG.

4

T.T.NARENDRAN Dean (IC&SR), IIT (Madras)

5 S.MANIMARAN Lecturer in Agronomy, Dept of Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture Annamalai University

9994294094

6 N.RAMESH Lecturer in

Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University

9994325077

Sairamesh2000@yahoo.com

7 AYSHA VISWAMOHAN

Asst.Prof, 26, Elegant Apartments Gandhi Road, Velachery, Chennai

essaaro@yahoo.com

8 P.V. SUJUNU IIT-MADRAS suju@iitm.acin

35

9 K.P.PRABHEESID Ph.D. Scholar, Dept of HSS, IIT-MADRAS

9444258002

prabheeth@iitm.ac.in

10 C.NALINKUMAR Research Scholar, Dept of HSS, IIT-MADRAS

9444192142

nalin@iitm.ac.in

11 M.ASIF 4TH YEAR DD, IITM

9840258408

arramanathan@gmial.com

12 JOHN B LOURDUSAMY

ASSISTANT PROFESER / HSS IIT MADRAS

2257 4511(o) 22576511®

Jbl.hss@gmail.com sblsamy@iitm.ac.in

13 M.ARIVANANDAN Research scholar, HSS Department, IIT-Madras

arivanandhan@yahoo.com

14 A.P.ARUN PRASAD RAJA

TRA/ANNA UNIVERSITY, CH-25

arunprasadraja@yahoo.com

15 DR.S.MANIKANDAN Project Officer, NSS, IIT-Madras

9841532227

s_mani75@yahoo.com 16 S.BRINTHA

LAKSHMI Ph.D. Scholar, Dept of HSS, IIT-Madras

brinthalakshmi@iitm.ac.in

17 L.N.SABAPATHI Project Asst, HSS, IIT-Madras

Ratna_sabapathy80@yahoo.com

18 PREMA RAJAGOPAL

Asst.Prof.HSS, IIT-Madras

22574513 prema@iitm.ac.in

19 RANJIT GUPTA Former Prof. of IIM (Ahmedabad) and founder TATADHAN Academy

9342941701

22574507

20 B.SUBRAMANIAN PROF.DEPT OF HSS, IIT-MADRAS 944400876

2

bsubbu@iitm.ac.in

36

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT 1 T.S.SRINIVASA

MURTHY, IFS ED, SSFRDT, CHENNAI - 40

26186804 ssfrdt@vsnl.com

2 RAJENDRA RATNOO,IAS

DIO, TPIU, RD-Department

9443211078 trpiu-rd@tn.nic.in

3 R.SIVASUBRAMANI Joint Director, Tsunami Impl. Unit

9444074412

4 K. RAMASAMY DEO, Govt. of Tamilnadu, 7, 1st street, Iyyappa Nagar, Chennai - 75

5513032

5 DR.N.KRISHNAKUMAR,

IFS Conservator of Forests (Planning and budgeting) Tamilnadu Forest Department, Chennai

20426829 krishforbio@hotmail.com

6 L.RAJA Joint Director, Tsunami, Project Imp.Unit Rural Development Govt of Tamilnadu

7 DR.KA.ILANGO AGRICULTURE SPECILIAST Tsunami Imp.Unit, RD Dept, Govt of TN

94430-74865

kailango@yahoo.com

37

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM COOPERATIVES, RESOURCE ORGANISATIONS, NGOs AND NETWORKS

S.No

Name Designation & Address

Ph.No. Email

1 P.A.VISWANATHAN Liasion Officer, Dhan Foundation, Chennai

98401 -22425

paviswanathan@eth.net

2 SHANTHI DURAISAMY Coordinator, Tsunami (Trinet) Tsunami Rehab, Information Network, Chennai

98402-61240

infotrinet@gmail.com

3 V.VEKANANDAN Siffs, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 002. Kerala

98470-84840

vivek@siffs.org

4 A.V.KARUTHOVIYAN Director, Cedar, 5/336 A, Salem Main Road, Nallampalli, Dharmapuri District., Tamilnadu

04342-571617

cedarindia@gmail.com

5 KRISHNAKUMAR Livelihood Coordinator, AID INDIA - Tsunami Relief & Rehabilitation Work, Tamilnadu

98402- 77259 and 94441-247101

6 R.GANESAN Coordinator, , Tamilnadu Science Forum Nagapatinam

04365-247101

Ganesh-gms@yahoo.com

7 G.NAMMALVAR Tofarm 9443124589 8 S.SRINIVASAN 9444269583 Ssvasan3d@yahoo.com

9 M.REVATHI Executive Director, Tamilnadu Organic Farmers Movement, Nagapattinam

revathi7359@yahoo.com

10 S.T.BALAKRISHNAN Tnsf-Secretary, 245, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Gopalapuram, Chennai - 86

044-28113630

sasibalatnsf@yahoo.com

11 K.KALAISELVAN Tamilnadu Science Forum, Chennai 984073600

12 A.KANNAN Project Coordinator HiH Tn, Kanchipuram

9842030662 Kanna-edp@inbox.com

13 M.GNANAVEL Project Coordinator HiH, Tn, Kanchipuram

9842790557 grkumar1977@yahoo.com

14 S.ANANTHANARAYANA SHARMA

Cart, Madurai Fax – 0452-2600890

center4art@sify.com

38

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM PRESS AND MEDIA

Sr.No.

Name Designation & Address

Ph.No. Email

1

N.ARUNKUMAR Staff Correspondent, DECCAN CHRONICLE, Chennai

22318941 trnarunkumar@gmail.com

2

MEERA SRINIVASAN

Reporter, The Hindu, Chennai

93821-42265

Meera.srinivasan@gmail.com

3

C.P. SAJIT NEWS TODAY, Cameraman/Reporter, Chennai

98846-02767

4 TMS.MANOHARAN Doordharsan Kendra,

Chennai 94444-84134

5

K.B.SARAVANAN EA, Door Darshan Kendra, Chennai

6

K.RAVI Doordarshan Kendra Chennai, News