The exposure visit to Nagercoil was the continuation of the Sirkali exposure visit. The Nagercoil exposure visit began on the 3rd of October and ended in the 5th October.

The same team that attended the previous exposure visit was present along with some new faces.

CED – the center for education and documentation was present here, it was the first exposure meeting that they were attending.

In view with the suggestion regarding the previous exposure visit, praxis decided to have more direct interaction with the people.

The approach they adopted for this exposure visit was interaction

The participants were dropped in the village and left to interact with the community and explore the presence and activities of praxis

Participants

The participants were the same from the last exposure visit in Sirkali except for CED:

  • Orissa Development Technocrats’ Forum
  • Tamil Nadu Development Technocrats’ Forum
  • Architecture & Development
  • Praxis
  • Institute for Social Education Development
  • Center for Education Development

The exposure visit started with Sudha (Praxis) presented the programme outline and activities for the next 3 days

In this exposure visit the Dynamics of reconstruction was to be explored. The reconstruction was to be studied from various perspectives like:

  • Issues of reconstruction
  • Issues of the people
  • Issues of the donor
  • Issues of the government
  • Problems and constraints of reconstruction
  • Success and failure of the reconstruction

After lunch a present was done by Sudharsan Rodriguez from ATREE. The presentation was regarding CRZ and MSSRF report. Describing in detail the various aspects of CRZ and CMZ, the amendments suggested by MSSRF.

Visit to Periyakadu

We visited Periyakadu a village situated on the sea coast.

This was the first village we visited during the exposure visit. Praxis has been active in this village from 2005.

TNDTF, ODTF and ISED where taken to this village to find out or explore about the activities of praxis through community interaction. To facilitate this interaction process the field activist from Praxis were also present.

Periyakadu at a glance:

  • Fishing hamlet with 1000 persons (appox)
  • Male: 450
  • Female: 550
  • 20-30 graduates
  • A beautiful church

This meeting was scheduled at 2pm, due to the presentation we were not able reach the village in time as a result some of the community members had already left.

The interaction session began with organizing the sangha and our team into 4 groups. This session was held in the community hall opposite to the hall. After the visit we were taken around the village.

Interaction

The interaction with women’s sangha started with a brief introduction about ISED, TNDTF and our activities.

Presence of praxis and others

Praxis has been present in the village from 2005.

The activities:

  • School uniform – 1to 8th class
  • Porridge (Sathumavu) for tsunami affected children – 3 to 5 years
  • Loan of Rs.60000 – 2 groups

Another NGO is also operating in this area and it has formed about 9 groups in this villages.

Government had given about Rs.4000 for 75 families.

Government had also given Rs.300 per student for 3 months; this scheme was implemented for students below 5th standard.

Back ground of the sangha

As this is a fishermen settlement the primary occupation of the women has been selling the fish caught by the men. After tsunami the fishing in these areas has taken a beating as the catch is not what it used to be.

Now the women have come supplement the earning of the household by involving themselves in various income generation activities by forming into a sangha.

Sea side working women sangha - This sangha was formed by praxis 1 month after tsunami. The sangha had 2 groups, with 19 members and 18 members in the Group A and Group B respectively.

The income generation activities taken up are as follows:

  • Selling Grocery items

The grocery items are bought on wholesale and then sold among the group member and also in the village.

  • Selling Cloths
  • Fishing accessories

Like baits and other accessories for fishing.

Operation of the sangha

The loan of Rs.60000 was given to the sangha to begin their income generation activities. The entire amount has been paid back along with the 10% service tax in 11 months.

Now the group has browed money from their saving to start their new activity. They have borrowed Rs.7000 from their saving to start the cloths business.

The profit person so far from the sangha is about Rs.1350.

Expectation regarding the sangha

  • The group member wants Praxis to create more opportunities and training in various activities
  • They expressed their interest in tailoring and food processing.
  • Among the 38 member strong sangha at least 30 members are said to be ready for training if conducted.

Other issues

The land in this village is owned by the church and to obtain patta for the land in which they are staying, they have to buy it from the church.

They have to pay about Rs.5000 per cent.

Spending a little over 1hr in the village is not enough to raise an issue as huge as land ownership but none the less this issue deserves to be addressed.

After the interaction session, we moved around to get the feel of the village.

Visit to K.P.Thurai

The last village we visited for the day was K.P.Thurai. By the time was we arrived there it was getting dark.

The K.P.Thurai is basically a fishermen hamlet.

Praxis has implemented income generation activities in this village through Sea side working women sangha

Interaction

The interaction with women’s sangha started with a brief introduction about ISED, TNDTF and our activities.

Presence of praxis and others

  • Praxis has been present in this village after tsunami. Their activities in this village are primary income generation oriented.
  • Government had given rs.4000 and rs.1000 for 3 months.
  • Grants from the government was also received for the repairing of the catamaran and vallam (thoni)
  • Another NGO had taken up retro fitting of houses in this villages

Operation of the sangha

The group here is about 20 members strong and is involved in the production of the Sathumavu. The group had received a loan of about Rs.15000.

The amount has been paid back along with the 10% service tax.

Vessels and equipment was provided by the praxis but they have to go out for grinding.

Sathumavu:

  • Rs 25 per packet (500 gm)
  • Ingredients: 21 types of grains
  • For 43 kilos of raw materials they produce 86 packets
  • They 86 packets are sold within the span of 20 days.
  • For every turn of production they have to invest around about Rs.1500 for which they get a profit of about Rs.500.

Issues regarding the sangha

The group is confidant about their sustainability but they need more inputs or exposure on:

  • Marketing strategy and procedures
  • Packaging and improving the product

Day 2

Recapturing the previous days events

  • This was done to avoid the difficulties the occurred the previous day.
  • A brief about the previous day’s activities.
  • The reasons for adopting the interaction approach for this exposure visit.

Reconstruction

After a brief about the previous day’s activities, we had the discussion about reconstruction. Since we were going to visit the housing projects on the second day this discussion was held. The discussion happened on the following lines:

  • How reconstruction has affected the people’s lives
  • How reconstruction has affected the Livelihood
  • The quality of Houses

The discussion then moved on to the issues that actually influence the reconstruction:

  • Materials available etc
  • Budget
  • Building – quality and quantity
  • Government schemes regarding reconstruction
  • Community interaction or reaction
  • Financial constraints
  • From the Donors perspective
  • From the NGO perspective
  • Issues and problems regarding budgets

The most important aspect of the reconstruction is the approach taken whether it is a wholesome approach or building just houses.

This aspect can give an idea about how best reconstruction should happen.

One of the most critical concerns regarding the reconstruction is that the choices regarding the reconstruction are made by a select few and not the people themselves.

The reconstruction has been different from the rest as it does not come in the government contracts. The advantages of working outside the government contracts are:

  • The freedom to express (about appropriate technology etc..)
  • Selection of beneficiaries
  • Choosing the type of community to work with
  • By far the main reason to work outside the frame work would to cater the needs of the neglected people.

The session ended with john giving an explanation on ‘what is habitat’- the tiger context.

Visit to veerapahupati

This was the first housing project that we visited. Before going in the details of the project it is better to understand a few terms regarding housing:

Reconstruction: this is re-building in general it can be in-situ or the development can be in another area away from the previous settlement.

Redevelopment: this indicates that the development will happen in the same settlement and the development will probably be on the lines on of infrastructure development

Resettlement: the settlement is being relocated to another area, away their previous settlement.

In-situ: The houses are constructed in the same settlement.

Veerapahupati housing project is resettlement type development. It is about 500m from the sea. Though they have been living near the shore this is not a fishermen community. They are basically artisans.

This project was the pilot project for the RDC programme. The project was handled by the Architecture and Development and the Habitat technology group. The entire reconstruction has been done with alternative building technology. Both the organization were with a technical background hence could entirely devote themselves to the social aspects

People’s initiatives

The people’s initiative is the most notable feature in this reconstruction. After the Tsunami, the people pooled in the money from their resources and bought the land on which they wanted the new settlement to be built.

The land consists of 7 pieces and they themselves divided that into 82 plots for the 82 families in the village. The area of this layout is about 3 acres. The people’s contribution in acquiring the land was not uniform. They adopted gross subsidization principle by fixing various slabs (amount) for different persons. The slabs were based on the damage and other factors, for the same 3 cents of land different rates were fixed, from 13000 to those who could not afford, 17000 and 20000 for those who were not badly affected and 25000 for the affluent people. In the land that they had acquired they had allocated 18 cents for community space.

The people insisted that:

  • Every body should get an equal share
  • The layout was done in grid-iron pattern
  • Houses should be identical

Previously A&D had decided to build 76 houses; they had excluded the 6 persons whose house was not affected. Later due to the intervention of another NGO which built 18 houses in the same village, the number of houses to be constructed was reduced to 54. The money from the 18 houses was then routed to provide water supply and toilets.

A&D approach to this project is not only reconstruction but in entire development as well i.e. why even though there where only 51 houses in the older settlement, about 76 houses have been constructed in the new one. As mentioned earlier out the 76 houses, A&D has constructed about 54 houses.

  • The houses were constructed on cost effective technology as the houses had an individual budget of Rs.80000.
  • The houses are not uniform in area; they vary from 340 sqft to 310 sqft.
  • The foundation was strip foundation and simple in nature.
  • The plinth beam and in some case extra depth to foundation was done by the beneficiaries at their own expense.
  • The walls were constructed from rat-trap bond.
  • Filler slab was used for the roof construction.
  • The toilets and kitchen are detached from the core house.
  • The solar light installation was a part of the layout plan.

Issues regarding reconstruction

  • Though there was initial problem in the acceptance of the cost effective technologies later these problems were sorted out.
  • No disaster resistant measure have been taken
  • There is lack of storage spaces.
  • The kitchen is bare with storage space or a slab.

Visit to Rajakamangalamthurai

The housing project in Rajakamangalam thurai is also in the lines veerapahupati housing project. The housing project is a reconstruction project.

The French Red Cross is the donor, Praxis is taking up the social aspect of the project and technical support is provided by A&D Nagercoil.

The resettlement is done on a land which is a little more than 2 acres. The land was bought by Praxis and then handed over to the village. The layout is designed in such a way that the beneficiaries get 3 cents each.

The reconstruction in Rajakamangalam is not strictly resettlement. About 56 houses are built as a part of resettlement in the land acquired by Praxis and 14 houses are built insitu. A&D is constructing a total of 70 houses in Rajakamangalam.

Twin houses

The twin houses are the notable feature of this housing project. In the beginning none of the beneficiaries were ready to accept the twin houses. After the interaction with the community, explaining to them the concept and advantages of the twin houses they have now accepted it. Now every house being built is a twin houses.

The concept of the twin houses is to reduce the cost and to increase the free space around the house. The sharing of walls reduces the cost and increase in space around the house there by providing space for future expansion. The house here are not identical, few minor changes have been incorporated at the beneficiaries request or to avoid cutting down of trees. The community had their say in design but the concept and size of the house was fixed.

The entire layout has been adapted in such a way that no trees have been cut.

The sanitation by far is going to be the highlight of this housing project. They have planned to construct the decentralized waste water treatment system for sewerage treatment.

The housing project at a glance

  • The construction of houses is based on appropriate technology. The cost per house is about 1.3 lakhs.
  • The foundation was strip foundation
  • The disaster resistant feature like plinth beam, sill band, lintel band and vertical anchorages have been provided.
  • The walls were constructed from rat-trap bond.
  • Filler slab was used for the roof construction.
  • The toilets and kitchen are incorporated into the core house.

Issues and problems

Though cutting of trees is not desirable having the so close is not good either.

In access (road, pathway) aspects could have been given priority.

The concept of twin house is not just sharing a wall but sharing the walls of non habitable room (store, toilets and kitchen), there by the habitable rooms are still separate.

Visit to Aaruthenganvillai

Aaruthenganvillai was the last village we visited before breaking for lunch. Unlike the previous two housing projects the housing in Aaruthenganvillai is an insitu construction.

The soil condition, water table, topography are totally different from the previous sites. The conditions in this site are by far more challenging than the rest. The foundation for example is about 5’ which is more than twice the depth of the ones in Veerapahupati. The water level is so high that providing a sanitary system without affecting the water table is nearly impossible except for the dry toilets which are socially unacceptable.

This village is where we conducted the mason’s training programme.

The most notable feature in this housing project is the designing process. Here every house is different from the other, the houses have design or rather tailor made to suit the needs and aspiration of the beneficiaries.

The designs were dictated by the choices made by the beneficiaries. A&D would make a preliminary design and hold discussion with the beneficiary. Based on the choices and modification suggested by the beneficiary the final draft would be prepared and taken for discussion with the beneficiary to finalize the design. If no alteration or modification is suggested then the plan is finalized and the design is ready to be executed.