publications

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

VIII. Inadequate shelter and protection from forced relocation

Shelter

Over 200,000 homes were fully or partially destroyed in India’s mainland as a result of the tsunami, and countless lives uprooted and shattered.134 Loss and damage to housing is an estimated U.S. $228 million.135 At least 647,556 persons were displaced and moved into emergency shelters.136 If their homes were only partially damaged, once the water had receded and emergency relief camps were shut down, people returned to their homes. But tens of thousands whose homes were permanently destroyed have become internally displaced persons; many of them continue to reside in temporary shelters that in some cases are as basic as sheets of galvanized iron and tarpaulin provided by the government or NGOs.137

The government had ordered district administrations in the affected areas to build temporary accommodation and finish construction before the monsoon season. This process is now more or less complete in all the affected states and union territories.

The government had sought partnerships with NGOs to build the temporary shelters. The Tamil Nadu administration, for instance, built shelters for 50,000 families and asked NGOs to provide another 50,000. The unit cost was determined to be 8,000 rupees (U.S.$170). District authorities were instructed to create models suitable to local needs.138

A joint damage assessment team of the United Nations, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank found that the facilities provided in the temporary shelters are inadequate, with limited sanitary conditions, particularly for women and young girls. The team pointed out that, in the absence of kitchens, kerosene stoves were being used inside sleeping quarters and that these could prove to be a fire and health hazard.139

Human Rights Watch’s research also raised concerns about the design and management of the temporary settlements and the shelters in them. These shelters have no flooring, and local journalists have described them variously as shoeboxes, ovens or tin sheds.140 There is a terrible lack of hygiene with utensils being washed outside each shelter, leaving dirty puddles that have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes and flies. In April and May the sheds are extremely hot and the thin walls offer little privacy.141

Many displaced persons interviewed by Human Rights Watch complained that the settlements, whether built by the government or NGOs, were uncomfortable, overcrowded and without adequate privacy. Some complained that there are not enough toilet facilities. 

In light of these problems, it is not surprising that many people left homeless by the tsunami chose to forego the offer of government shelter. For instance, one fisherman, Kaliamurthy, who lives in a tent in his old village, told Human Rights Watch he has refused to accept the temporary shelters.

I am a fisherman and I want to go back to my fishing business. I have to live near the sea. They are giving us temporary houses far away from the water. It is made of tin and asbestos, which is very hot. I will not go there.142

In the long term, the government of India plans to provide two-room dwelling units as permanent shelter to each family that lost a house in the tsunami. Designs are still being finalized to make sure the homes will be “multi-hazard”proof.143

The government should ensure that there is full participation of those displaced by the tsunami in planning and management of the resettlement process, particularly in the design and location of the shelters, to prevent the mistakes that occurred in the construction of temporary shelters. Authorities should also take into account the special needs of vulnerable and marginalized groups such as women, children, the elderly, the disabled and households headed by single parents.

Relocation and reconstruction

In order to protect coastal populations from future disasters, a number of households either affected by the tsunami or unaffected but living in unsafe locations may have to be relocated.144 In addition, the government is now suggesting that it will strictly implement the Coastal Zone Regulations, the principal legislation governing land use along India’s coasts.145 The regulations have long dictated that there is to be no new human habitation within 500 meters of the coast, the idea being to create a buffer zone along the coast to protect the environment and prevent casualties in the event of disasters like the December 2004 tsunami.146 Enforcement of the regulations has been lax to date, however, and the strict implementation some are now suggesting would dramatically increase the need to resettle individuals and communities.

Thousands of families are in danger of eviction and of inadequate compensation, as they do not possess titles to their damaged properties. Because they cannot prove that their houses were authorized under the terms of the Coastal Resource Zone Notification of 1991 (India’s principal coastal legislation), they may be coerced to leave their properties or may not be provided with financial support for reconstruction. 

Discussions with affected households, community leaders and district officials indicate that impacts on livelihood as well as disaster prevention should be taken into account in interpreting the relevant legislation. Most clearly, fishing communities need to be close enough to the sea to be able to pursue their livelihood.

The U.N. Guiding Principles set forth the principle that displaced persons must be able to make free and informed individual decisions about where they settle permanently.147 This suggests that affected populations receive accurate, timely information. Authorities have not yet undertaken the kind of public media campaigns and community consultations necessary to provide such information.

Human Rights Watch interviews with members of the fishing communities suggested that opinion is divided on the question of relocation. For instance, M. Pandian, a daily wage laborer said he no longer wanted to be near the sea: “The fisher folk may not want to move from their homes near the sea. But we want to go where we will be safe.”148

However, many members of the fishing communities said that they were unwilling to leave their coastal homes. Many of them are wondering if the government can provide permanent homes further inland, but also temporary shelters near the water. As Kesavan said:

We are willing to move, but our work is near the water. How will we work then? Where will we keep our boats and nets? How will we clean the fish? If we are spending all day near the sea, then we are going to die any way, if another tsunami comes. We may as well stay here.149

Others, who did not lose their homes in the tsunami, are reluctant to leave because the fishing industry primarily cash based, and profits that are not used to acquire better boats or nets are used to buy gold and build homes. There is no clear policy on compensation if people are relocated. Explained V. Muthappan, a fisherman in Chandirapadi village: “Homeless people want to go. But we have concrete houses here and we don’t want to leave. These houses cost a lot of money. Will the government give us the same kind of house?”150

Compounding the issue of informed choice is the widespread suspicion that the tsunami will be used to shift the fishing communities away from the beach only to make way for more lucrative tourism property deals. For instance, between Chennai, the capital of Tamil Nadu state, and Pondicherry, there are already beach resorts and entertainment parks. While there have been attempts to relocate the original inhabitants of the area, whose culture and lives revolve around the sea, the Tamil Nadu government has not yet asked existing hotels, resorts or industrial facilities that have encroached on coastal lands to comply with the regulations.151

Activists fear that governments of the affected states and union territories might be tempted to develop the entire coastline so that the region can benefit from a tourism boom.

The Tamil Nadu government has announced that there will not be any forced relocations. However, the policy to provide alternate housing is being viewed as indirect coercion. To implement coastal regulations, owners of fully or partially damaged houses will be given free housing away from the coast. But those that choose not to move “will not be eligible for any assistance from the government.”152 The U.N. Guiding Principles call on governments to “establish conditions, as well as provide the means” to allow displaced persons to return to their homes or home areas if they wish to do so.153

However, the Tsunami –Relief, Rehabilitation, Coordination (TRRC) of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry reported that there have already been some attempts at forced eviction. In one area called Anna Nagar Kuppam in Tamil Nadu, the TRRC said that the authorities had barred coastal communities from replacing huts washed away by the waves, shut off electricity and water utilities to remaining houses, and removed their children from local schools.154 The forcible relocation was stayed by the Madras High Court in an interim injunction after the TRRC filed a writ petition.155

In India, the fishermen’s livelihood is based on their proximity to the sea. To forcibly relocate them, regardless of whether one is citing humanitarian concerns as the justification, can destroy the community.156 The immediate economic prospects of fishing communities that are moved away from the sea will decrease dramatically unless remedial measures are put in place.157 It will also be crucial to offer job training and social welfare benefits to individuals who do not want to or cannot continue as fishermen after being relocated. For those who move, the government should provide adequate compensation, which may include comparable land and infrastructure.158 This means the building of necessary schools, health clinics, roads, and other infrastructure.

While requiring people to relocate for public safety reasons is permissible under international law, proper compensation must be offered and the process must not be arbitrary or discriminatory.159 This is absolutely critical for public confidence in the creation of a buffer zone. There must be no discrimination on the basis of caste or other kinds of prejudice. If a buffer zone is created for public safety reasons, it must be implemented in a uniform and permanent manner, avoiding, for instance, preferential treatment for construction of hotels and private villas, as many people now fear. Implementing coastal regulations, or using forced relocations for subsequent tourism-based redevelopment of the beachfront, may deny the option of return to displaced persons. If the policy changes at any time, former residents must be given the first right of refusal to move back to their former land. 

The government of India has approached the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank for financial assistance in rebuilding infrastructure and restoring livelihoods. Local groups fear that multilateral agencies will propose infrastructure development that will lead to the displacement of people. Said Ossie Fernandes of the Chennai based Human Rights Advocacy and Research Foundation: “There is a very real fear that people are trying to take over land. They fear that the Tamil Nadu government, in collaboration with multilateral agencies, is using the disaster to plan a big reconstruction project with tourism and new harbors for big boats.”160 However, the report of a joint team from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations agreed that there is legitimate concern about implementing coastal protection laws, which will adversely affect livelihood:

On the one hand it can be argued that the resettlement of local communities beyond the 500 meter limit in CRZ-I [Coastal Reconstruction Zone] areas would reduce the environmentally damaging effects of settlements and infrastructure close to the beach and also protect them from future hazards. On the other hand, this would have impact in terms of the sheer cost of the reconstruction effort if all housing within 500 meter of the sea were to be resettled, and would also have considerable impacts on community cohesion, access to livelihood assets and resources for fishing communities who will, in any case, still require access and storage for their fishing equipment.161

A related issue is determining the rights of landless laborers and tenant farmers. Once the government begins to acquire land to relocate those living near the coast, it will be the owners that will be compensated. Having already been left without a livelihood, those earning wages from the land will receive no such compensation. This issue is of particular concern to Dalit communities.  As described earlier, many of the wage laborers are Dalits, who live in settlements a little further inland. Landless laborers and tenant farmers have already been victims of past discrimination that the government has done little to address. Those involved in reconstruction plans for the tsunami-affected areas should consult these groups and take into consideration their requirements for earning a livelihood. 



[134] Home Minister Shivraj Patil’s Statement in Parliament, March 10, 2005.

[135] Recovery Framework in Support of Government of India for a Post-Tsunami Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program, March 2005, United Nations Country Team, India.

[136] Tsunami: India Situation Update, March 3, 2004, World Health Organization.

[137] Report of YUVA teams visit to the affected areas in South India hit by tsunami, January 12-18, 2005. Also witnessed by Human Rights Watch during visit to affected areas in January 2005.

[138] Government of Tamil Nadu, Government Order No: 10, January 6, 2005 [online], http://www.tn.gov.in/tsunami/gorders/rev-e-10-2005.htm (retrieved February 1, 2005).

[139] Recovery Framework in Support of Government of India for a Post-Tsunami Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program, March 2005, United Nations Country Team, India.

[140] Aloysius James, “Think of the Future, Please,” Challenges, Tsunami Response Watch [online], http://www.indiadisasters.org/tsunami/challenges/2005/01/think-of-future-please.html (retrieved February 3, 2005); “Nagapattinam Survivors Irked by Hastily Constructed Shelters,” The Indian Express, January 11, 2005 [online], http://www.managedisasters.org/news.asp (retrieved March 12, 2005).

[141] Litta Jacob, “Woe-men of tsunami,” The Week, April 3, 2005, p. 44; “Indian Summer Wears Down Tsunami Survivors,” Reuters, April 6, 2005 [online], http://www.disasterwatch.net/summer.htm (retrieved April 11, 2005).

[142] Human Rights Watch interview with Kaliamurthy, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu, January 29, 2005.

[143] Home Minister’s Statement in Parliament regarding relief and rehabilitation of tsunami affected people, March 10, 2005. By multi-hazard proof housing, the government means housing that is safe from calamities such as fire, earthquakes, cyclones etc.

[144] “Tsunami Disaster is Far From Over in India,” Oxfam, February 11, 2005 [online], www.oxfam.org.nz/southasiaemergency/ documents/05_feb_11_india.pdf (retrieved May 9, 2005).

[145] Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Regulations, 1991 (amended up to 2002): Issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, coastal stretches have been defined as Coastal Regulation Zone and restrictions have been imposed on industries, operations and processes within the CRZ. For regulating development activities, the coastal stretches within 500 meters of High Tide Line on the landward side are classified into four categories, namely:

CRZ-I: (i) Areas that are ecologically sensitive and important, such as national parks/marine parks, sanctuaries, reserve forests, wildlife habitats, mangroves, corals/coral reefs, areas close to breeding and spawning grounds of fish and other marine life, areas of outstanding natural beauty/historically/heritage areas, areas rich in genetic diversity, areas likely to be inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming and such other areas, and (ii) Area between Low Tide Line and the high Tide Line.

CRZ-II: The areas that have already been developed up to or close to the shoreline. For this purpose, "developed area" is referred to as that area within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are already substantially built up and which have been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as water supply and sewerage mains.

CRZ-III: Areas that are relatively undisturbed and those which do not belong to either CRZ-I or CRZ-II. These will include coastal zone in the rural areas (developed and undeveloped) and also areas within Municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are not substantially built up.

CRZ-IV: Coastal stretches in the Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep and small islands, except those designated as CRZ-I, CRZ-II or CRZ-III.

The development or construction activities in different categories of CRZ area shall be regulated by the concerned authorities at the State/Union Territory level, in accordance with norms stipulated in the CRZ regulation and in the state / UT coastal zone management plan.

[146] L. A. Samy, Director, Association of Rural Education and Development Service, “Cynical Exploitation of Tsunami Victims,” Motion Magazine, March 22, 2005 [online], http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/lasamy_cetv.html#Anchor-The-35326 (retrieved May 9, 2005).

[147] See UN Guiding Principles, principle 28(2) (“Special efforts should be made to ensure the full participation of internally displaced persons in the planning and management of their return or resettlement and reintegration”); see also Roberta Cohen, The Brookings Institution, Statement on Post Tsunami Human Rights, March 21, 2005 [online], http://www.brookings.edu/fp/projects/idp/20050321_rcohen.htm (retrieved May 9, 2005).

[148] Human Rights Watch interview with M.Pandian, Nagapattinam, January 29, 2005.

[149] Human Rights Watch interview with Kesavan, Nagapattinam, January 28, 2005.

[150] Human Rights Watch interview with V. Muthappan, Nagapattinam, January 28, 2005.

[151] “Forced Eviction of Coastal Communities, Prejudiced Enforcement of CRZ,” Tsunami Relief and Rehabilitation Coordination-Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, February 18, 2005.

[152] Tamil Nadu government order on Housing Reconstruction Policy, March 30, 2005 [online], http://www.tn.gov.in/tsunami/gorders/rev-e-172-2005.htm.

[153] See UN Guiding Principles, principle 28(1).

[154] “Forced Eviction of Coastal Communities, Prejudiced Enforcement of CRZ,” Tsunami Relief and Rehabilitation Committee, February 18, 2005.

[155] “High Court Order to Collector On Demolition of Huts,” The Hindu, March 10, 2005 [online], http://www.hindu.com/2005/03/10/stories/2005031013210300.htm (retrieved April 11, 2005); “Eviction of Tsunami Affected Residents Stayed,” The Hindu, February 24, 2005 [online], http://www.hindu.com/2005/02/25/stories/2005022514020600.htm (retrieved April 11, 2005).

[156] There may be less disruptive alternatives than relocation that could ensure the safety of residents of coastal areas. For instance, the government could create a more effective warning system, similar to the successful system established for fishermen on India’s storm-prone Bay of Bengal, who had earlier suffered numerous casualties due to storms and cyclones. After the tsunami, the government of India has announced plans for a tsunami detection and warning system to prevent heavy casualties in the event of a future tsunami. See “Plan For Tsunami Warning System Ready: Sibal,” January 21, 2005 [online] http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/01/21/2101quakeplan.html (retrieved May 2, 2005).

[157] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 6 (1): The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

[158] As stated in the report, many fishermen in Tamil Nadu state, for instance, had big houses and were unwilling to move unless they were given equivalent homes in compensation. The Tamil Nadu government, however, is only providing a 300-325 square feet house to each family that agrees to shift away from the coast.

[159] UN Guiding Principles, principle 6(1); see generally Section II, “Principles Relating to Protection from Displacement,” principle 5-9.

[160] Human Rights Watch interview with Ossie Fernandes, Chennai, February 7, 2005.

[161] Recovery Framework in Support of Government of India for a Post-Tsunami Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program, March 2005, United Nations Country Team, India.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>May 2005