Implementing the Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) Approach Post-earthquake Rehabilitation project in Gujarat SEWA/SRC

Table of Contents: 1. LRRD Introduction and Overview 2. Post earthquake context and areas of collaboration between SEWA and SRC 3. The vulnerability context of Gujarat 4. SEWA: Its core business/mission and its links with disaster response 5. Moorings of SEWAs LRRD approach 6. Elements of LRRD as typified in the collaboration 7. Lessons Learnt 8. Conclusion References 2 5 5 6 8 9 14 16 17

1. LRRD Introduction and Overview Disasters, till a few decades ago, were looked upon as one off events to which relief agencies and government responded without taking into account the social and economic implications and causes of these events. A progressive advancement in the understanding of the natural processes that underlie the hazardous events led to a more technocratic paradigm which believed that the only way to deal with disasters was by public policy application of geophysical and engineering knowledge. These approaches looked at disasters as exceptional events, not related to the ongoing social and developmental processes. Gradually this attitude changed to an emphasis on preparedness measures, such as stockpiling of relief goods, preparedness plans and a growing role for relief agencies. This contingency planning approach certainly improved the efficiency of relief agencies but left a lot to be desired in terms of appropriateness and effectiveness of relief. The four decades from the sixties till the nineties saw an exponential increase in human and material losses from disaster events, though there was no clear evidence that the frequency of extreme hazard events had increased. This indicated that the rise in disasters and their consequences was related to the rise in the vulnerability of people all over the world that was induced by the human determined path of development and a growing understanding that this vulnerability was generated by social, economic and political processes that influenced how hazards affected people in varying ways and with differing intensities. How vulnerable someone was, was determined by how strong or weak their livelihoods were, how good their access was to a range of assets that provided the basis for their livelihood strategy and how useful different institutions were in providing social protection. All these aspects were found to be determined by the social, economic and political systems that reflected the power relations in a given society and could be traced back to the institutions and processes that determined the distribution of safety and vulnerability in society. Thus disaster risk came to be viewed as part of the dynamic forces at play in the process of development and prompted the need to look at disasters in the context where they take place, within complex and dynamic physical, socio-economic, institutional and political forces. This led to a growing consensus that no development plan is complete unless contributory factors to disaster risk element are grasped and addressed. This in effect implied that ultimately the objective of development and disaster management were the same, which is, reducing socio economic vulnerability. It is this paradigmatic shift in the understanding of disasters to which the origin of the Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) approach can be traced. And ever since the EU Commission submitted a report to the European Parliament titled Linking relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) in 1996, the debate has mainly been held under the catchword LRRD. The basic justification for LRRD as stated in the Commission Communication is simple, sensible and still valid: disasters are costly in both human life and resources, they disrupt economic and social development and lead to separate bureaucratic structures and procedures which do not systematically take into account long term development issues. Development policy, at the same time, is not enough prepared to cope with drought, conflicts and the need to protect vulnerable households by helping them to develop coping strategies. The Communication expresses the view that if relief and development can be appropriately linked, these deficiencies can be reduced. Better development can reduce the need for emergency relief, better relief can contribute to development, and better rehabilitation can ease the transition

between the two. LRRD thus entails the idea that both humanitarian relief and development assistance should be structured in ways that reduce the need for humanitarian aid and promote developmental objectives before, during and after emergencies. The discourse on the successful implementation of the LRRD approach has led to the development of two approaches; firstly, the continuum approach which views LRRD as a chronological succession of the three phases of relief, rehabilitation and development, and secondly, the contiguum approach which represents the reality that different needs and phases of response might co-exist simultaneously. The essence of the contiguum approach is that it sees acute needs as part of the whole life situation of those affected, that it looks for long term solutions as well as responding to immediate and acute needs, that it builds on survivors capacities and on local institutions, setting sustainable standards for services and encouraging participation and accountability. The concept of a continuum or linear sequence from relief to rehabilitation to development was discredited early on in the debate of the 1990s. Yet translating the concept of the contiguum into planning and funding processes that tended towards the linear and bureaucratic has proved elusive. In practice, continuum thinking has continued to implicitly underpin much aid programming.1 Understanding how humanitarian emergencies relate to underdevelopment and development processes is central to the LRRD debate. More than half of disaster deaths occur in low human development countries even though only 11% of people exposed to hazards live there, and these countries suffer far greater economic losses relative to their GDP than richer countries. Capacity to reduce risk is also much weaker in poorer countries. The link to underdevelopment is clear. The point is rather succinctly highlighted by Randolph Kent in his treatise on Humanitarian Futures In the future, we will need a humanitarian paradigm shift that understands disasters and emergencies not as unfortunate occurrences that take place at the margins of human existence, but as reflections of the ways that human beings live their normal lives, and hence the ways that they structure their societies and allocate their resources.2 Programmes and projects seeking to meet the LRRD objectives need to fulfill number of the following criteria:3 the measures contribute to disaster prevention / risk reduction rehabilitation not only focuses on restoring the status quo ante and promoting the existing potentials but also aims to achieve qualitative and sustainable improvements in the living conditions of those affected running and supporting the various project phases is not divided among different actors but is all in one; if it is not possible for a single organisation to implement the different phases of a project, co-ordination and co-operation with other organisations working on a complementary basis is sought
1

Buchanan-Smith,M., and Fabbri, P., (November 2005) `Links between relief, rehabilitation and development in the tsunami response A review of the debate, Tsunami Evaluation Coalition 2 Kent, R., (2004b) Humanitarian Futures. Practical policy perspectives, HPN Network Paper No. 46, April, London: ODI 3 VENRO, (2006) `Linking relief, rehabilitation and development Approaches and financing instruments to improve the transition between relief, rehabilitation and development co-operation, Venro-Working Paper No. 17, Bonn: Venro

 participation of affected communities/groups is secured right from the beginning of planning the project measures self-help structures and capabilities are integrated, strengthened and developed in relief measures which enable local entrepreneurship to serve local recovery if possible, aid is provided via local partner organisations to the networking of which the projects contribute support is not offered to isolated individual measures (e.g. reconstruction of housing) but to integrated projects aimed at comprehensive improvements in living conditions A necessary condition for designing and operationalising programmes and projects meeting the LRRD objectives is a comprehensive analysis of the context related risks and the vulnerabilities and capacities of the affected population. Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment entails collecting, analysing and systematising information on a given communitys vulnerability to hazards in a structured and meaningful way. This information is then used to diagnose the key risks and existing capacities of the community, ultimately leading to activities aimed at reducing peoples vulnerability to potential disasters and increasing their capacity to survive them and resume their lives. Vulnerabilities refer to long term factors and conditions adversely affecting the ability of the community or society to respond, to cope with or recover easily from the damaging effects of the occurrence of hazards or disaster events. These factors precede the disaster event, contribute to its severity and may continue to exist even after. A widely accepted definition of vulnerability is: the characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard. The value of a vulnerability framework is that it encourages a longer term perspective than is usually associated with humanitarian assistance. It goes beyond the snapshot of a needs assessment that estimates numbers in need of assistance and the amount of relief required, to understand how people have become vulnerable through processes and institutions of long-term political social and economic marginalisation and discrimination (locally, nationally and globally) and which eventually determine the distribution of safety and vulnerability in society. Vulnerability analysis, because it demands an understanding of trends, has the predictive ability to anticipate a disaster or to identify particular groups that will be most vulnerable to particular threats. An approach that emphasises vulnerability also has direct implications for development work. Reducing vulnerability to hazards, shocks and to the impact of violent conflict is usually long-term work to do with building assets, social inclusion, and asserting rights. It is intimately linked to poverty reduction as poor people are usually the most vulnerable to both natural hazards and to the impact of violent conflict. Capacities refer to the strengths and resources that exist within the people and their community which are used to mitigate, prepare for, cope with damaging effects of hazards or recover from a disaster. Despite people's vulnerability, experience proves that people still have capacities and are not helpless in times of disaster. During disasters, it is the people themselves who initiate the necessary steps to survive even before aid givers arrive at the disaster scene. They have adapted coping strategies after previous experiences in dealing with disasters. Although disasters may result in the peoples physical de-privation such as the loss of food, shelter, crops, tools, they always have some resources left. These may be some recoverable

goods or, as is often the case, the skills and attitudes they carry with them. It can also be the presence of a strong community organization or an elaborate family support system which allows them ample leeway to cope with the disaster event. It is important to build on these capacities and cumulatively increase them as they are the point of departure for developmental disaster response. Premised on the relative merit of the LRRD approach, this case study tries to locate the response of SEWA in the aftermath of Gujarat Earthquake with SRC/SwS support in a LRRD framework. 2. Post earthquake context and areas of collaboration between SEWA and SRC The Gujarat earthquake which occurred on January 26 th 2001 measuring 7.9 on the Richter scale with its epicentre 20 kilometres north-east of Bhuj, was one of the worst to have occurred in the country during the last 180 years, killing 17700 people, injuring 300000 and badly damaging or destroying over a million homes. Out of the 21 affected districts, those most affected were Kutch, Patan, Surendranagar, Jamnagar and Rajkot. The response to the tragedy was overwhelming with the government, the international aid community, charitable foundations, corporates and individuals coming forward with their support in terms of financial, material and human resources to cope with the crisis. Guided by the aim to empower women and their families to become more resilient towards crisis in their existing socio-economic and ecological environment, sharing the core principles of the Red Cross approach to humanitarian and development cooperation and informed by a LRRD approach (a shared premise of the primary collaborating partners SEWA and SRC) , the collaboration lasted over four phases (excluding the relief phase) and entailed a multi-sectoral intervention incorporating the following elements: Physical reconstruction of 1139 houses (Re)construction of water supply and sanitation infrastructure Establishment of Community Learning Centres (CLCs) each with sanitation facilities, community hall, rooms for education, administration and IT services Development of livelihood opportunities for the affected population Promotional activities in the field of hygiene, disease prevention and mother and child health Increase in disaster preparedness and reduction of disaster risk.

3. The vulnerability context of Gujarat Gujarat a prosperous, industrialized state with a population of 50 million is no stranger to natural disasters. With the longest coastline in India - 1,600 km and a diversity of agro-ecological zones and hydro-geological patterns, Gujarat is prone to many disasters. Some of the most devastating disasters that have struck the state in the last few decades, include: the Morbi floods of 1978; the Surat plague of 1996; the Kandla (port) cyclone of 1998; the floods which swept across Ahmedabad, Baroda, Surat and Mehsana in 2000; the protracted drought from 1999 to 2002, the killer earthquake in Kutch, January 26th 2001; and the flash floods in south Gujarat in 2005 and in Surat in 2006. The intensity and frequency of hazards in Gujarat shows that the state faces four major types of extreme events (hazards) which can be seen as disasters. These include physical or natural disasters such as earthquakes and those increasingly linked to climate variability such as drought, floods, cyclones and severe coastal storms. In addition, sea level rise, caused by both climate change

(global warming) and local factors has significant, but little researched, implications for coastal livelihoods and the marine environment. Kutch, Patan and Surendranagar districts of Gujarat (the intervention districts for this study) occupy a high vulnerability status in terms of the multi-hazard mapping carried out for the entire state by Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority. Earthquakes, winds and cyclones, droughts and floods are all common problems in these districts. In recent years, the frequency and intensity of disasters has increased affecting more and more people and continually putting their personal and economic security at risk. Battling against the elements the rural population struggles for a precarious existence though agricultural and livestock rearing activities. Agriculture is mainly rain fed and only the monsoon crop (kharif) is harvested by small and marginal farmers. Since drought in Gujarat is a perennial hazard, agriculture alone is not sufficient to support livelihoods. Livestock rearing is therefore another significant activity undertaken across the three districts. With droughts occurring every 2-3 years, in five year cycles and desertification, salinization, and receding ground water levels accentuating the ecological problems, the consequences for the lives of the rural communities get to be quite grave causing a fall in employment and consequent income earning opportunities, acute shortage of drinking water for human and cattle populations, shortages of food at the household level and fodder for the livestock population precipitating large scale migration of human and livestock population. The overall economies of the population depending on off-farm sectors also suffer to a great extent due to the "rub-off" effects of the drought conditions. 4. SEWA: Its core business/mission and its links with disaster response SEWA (the Self-Employed Womens Association) is a member-based organization of more than one million poor women workers in the informal economy. These are women who earn a living through their own labour or small businesses. They do not obtain regular salaried employment with welfare benefits like workers in the organised sector. They are the unprotected labour force of India. Constituting 93% of the labour force, these are workers of the unorganised sector who remain invisible. SEWA groups its membership into four broad occupational categories of hawkers, home based producers, manual labourers and rural producers. Within these four broad occupational groups, some women are self-employed, others work as casual day labourers, some provide services, and still others work for a piece-rate under a subcontract. Most members of SEWA face structural barriers in the wider environment that make earning a decent living quite difficult: that is, inequalities and biases embedded in the underlying structures of production and distribution and in the wider policy and regulatory environment. As a result, they and their families have a hard time meeting their basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, and health. Compounding the structural barriers that make earning a decent livelihood and maintaining a minimum standard

of living so difficult is the fact that SEWA members face high levels of risk and insecurity. These include: 1. Common risks like illness, disability, old age property loss, and (premature) death of breadwinner. 2. Social risks emanating from expenses on life cycle events like childrens education, religious celebrations, wedding of children and performance of death ceremonies which often turn into financial crises: as they earn too little to be able to save for them, they receive little (if any) help, and they live and work in vulnerable conditions. 3. Work-related risks like shifts in supply, demand, prices, transaction relationships and the ''hidden costs of working informally which include high cost of doing business, great insecurity of work and incomes, few (if any) worker rights and benefits, little (if any) employment-based social protection, uncertain legal status and lack of organisation 4. Risks associated with other more widespread crises including natural hazards of various kinds plus major changes in the economic and political environment SEWA strives to address the vulnerabilities of its members through the joint action of union and cooperatives which strategically represent a mix of the twin approaches of struggle and development. As a union, SEWA organizes workers in the informal economy, draws attention to their issues, for example labour, banking, agriculture, health, housing, and insurance, and raises them at policy level. The cooperatives aim to increase their collective strength and bargaining power. SEWA organizes women workers into producer collectives, and develops alternative work and employment opportunities. They build economic institutions of their own and access markets. The workers also become owners and managers of their own economic organizations. In other words, SEWA is both a movement and a family of organizations: the movement mobilizes the workers and the organizations consolidate the gains of mobilization. Thus they feed into each other and grow in number and impact. Experientially emanating from its operational context, SEWA understands disasters not as an event separated from normal life (and resolved by relief and recovery) but simply an exacerbation one of many - of an underlying vulnerability, the poverty of people precipitated by precarious livelihoods and a lack of assets and capacities. Vulnerability to loud emergencies inhere in the silent emergencies that its members and other poor are subject to in `normal times and which is attributable to their political, social, economic, ecological and cultural environment and which compounds their vulnerability to the impacts of natural disasters. Hence, in SEWAs understanding silent emergencies need to be tackled if loud emergencies are to be avoided. Thus contrary to typical disaster responses, SEWA aims to rebuild livelihoods rather than provide just relief. SEWA conceptualises its livelihood centred interventions in an adapted form of DFIDs sustainable livelihoods approach framework. As per this approach, SEWA assesses the needs, capabilities and assets (the various capitals featuring in the figure) of its target group against the extreme vulnerability of the social, political, economic and ecological context (characterised by recurrent natural disasters). Its interventions encompass three main types of approaches along the LRRD spectrum (which are not exclusive): Livelihoods provisioning: Radical changes to the context in which households operate (i.e. through natural disasters or complex emergencies) may completely undermine any existing livelihood strategy resulting in serious threats to the households ability to survive. In times of such extreme stress,

the most appropriate action is to concentrate on providing food, water, shelter and other essential services such as health thus saving lives. Such a response takes place usually in emergencies. Livelihoods protection: In cases where the shock has been less severe, it may be possible to assist a household to protect its livelihood strategy by preventing any further erosion of its productive assets or coping strategies. Alternatively, it may be necessary to help households which are seeking to reestablish their livelihoods, but under altered circumstances and with a lack of immediate productive assets such as seeds, animals, cash or health care. Appropriate short-term interventions in such cases might involve food- or cash-for-work, the provision of seeds and tool kits, extension of social security etc. Such a response is typical of the rehabilitation phase. Livelihoods promotion: Longer-term, development projects fall under this category. They are designed to help increase the range of options available to households by assisting in building up their asset base and improving production, consumption and exchange activities. Promotional strategies are concerned with widening the horizons of household members and helping them develop different perspectives and the means for the longer term continuity of the household, including the futures of children. Activities have to do with improving household resilience (e.g., through savings and credit programmes, livelihood diversification, marketing, improved health care). Building on the potential of local livelihood assets and using the transformative strength of supporting organisational structures, the intervention envisages enabling local communities to optimize on their assets and capabilities for addressing their needs through a mix of livelihood strategies. 5. Moorings of SEWAs LRRD approach By giving prominence to vulnerability and external shocks, Sustainable Livelihood approach provides sound opportunities for including hazard and disaster awareness in project planning. Sustainable Livelihoods thinking considers vulnerabilities of all kinds as central to the ways in which livelihoods are shaped. With vulnerability as a key component of both the sustainable livelihoods approach to poverty reduction and disaster risk reduction, by implication, all activities which seek to strengthen livelihoods, increase resilience and reduce the vulnerability of poor people are consequently risk reduction measures. However, SEWA recognizes the fact that this requires an in-built, proactive focus on addressing such risk rather than seeing it as just another constraint to work within. Thus, in SEWAs scheme of things, disaster risk reduction (DRR) gets to be regarded as part of long-term sustainable development work and a core element of development programme planning. It is within this framework of sustainable livelihoods approach which brings out the interconnectedness between poverty, vulnerability, and natural hazards, that SEWAs LRRD approach is rooted. By rooting risk reduction in a developmental context, livelihoods strategies enable SEWA to take better account of the complex interactions of life that people themselves employ to mitigate, respond to and recover from disaster. The key priorities that have emerged from its experience inhere listening to local priorities; building non-tangible assets (skills, self-help and solidarity) of households; and strengthening everyday lives and incorporating disaster risk management in its developmental interventions.

SEWA, using sustainable livelihoods analysis, considers the following three main aspects of livelihood vulnerability to shocks and stresses in project design to help match project activities to poor peoples priorities: The impact of hazards on all the different kinds of livelihood asset/capital Hazards affect natural capital (e.g., floods that ruin agricultural land), physical capital (e.g., loss of housing, tools), financial capital (e.g., loss of savings), human capital (e.g., loss of life, injury, unemployment) and social capital (e.g., damage to social networks). The livelihood strategies adopted by households and communities to reduce their vulnerability to hazards and recover from hazard events. These can be diverse, ranging from physical measures (e.g., watershed development, strengthening houses) to social/organisational actions (e.g., reinforcing social support networks, establishing local disaster preparedness committees) and livelihood diversification. Institutions, policies and processes may help protect people against the impact of shocks (not only conventional disaster mitigation measures, such as public education about risk avoidance, evacuation plans and relief provision, but all kinds of development interventions that build up livelihood assets, for example, micro-credit, insurance, health, agricultural extension and organisational development projects). 6. Elements of LRRD as typified in the collaboration Already during the relief operation SEWAs field teams carried out a damage and needs assessment in its operational area (subsequently corroborated by a thorough joint needs assessment, undertaken by SEWA and SRC which factored in the existing risks, vulnerabilities and capacities of the local population) in the three districts of Kutch, Surendranagar and Patan. This constituted the basis for jointly designing a holistic development strategy, informed by a multi-hazard perspective, which contrary to typical disaster responses, aimed to rebuild livelihoods rather than provide relief and thus had a developmental framework (the sustainable livelihoods framework) which focused on enhancement in the resilience of vulnerable communities to future disasters and their ability to sustainably develop themselves. This constituted the crux of the LRRD approach adopted by the project across all phases and served as a lodestar for all the interventions that followed. The following narrative seeks to bring out the same: Reconstruction of 1139 houses incorporating one room, a veranda and a kitchen, an underground roof rainwater harvesting tank and a sanitary latrine: The reconstruction initiative seized on the opportunity offered by the disaster to build back better by not only providing for seismic and cyclone resistant features, with due consideration for a drought prone climate in design of the shelter but also incorporating additions like sanitary latrine and underground roof rainwater harvesting structure aimed at achieving qualitative and sustainable improvements in the living conditions of those affected. The houses that were provided were designed as a core unit with provision for individual modifications and extensions according to beneficiaries preferences and capacities. The construction of houses was undertaken in a way that the beneficiaries stood involved at all stages of the construction ranging from active community consultation in design of houses, choice of building materials to construction techniques. The decentralised and owner-driven implementation strategy adopted by SEWA proved quite successful in not only attaining the targets but also in creation of institutional,

managerial and technical capacities at the community level to effectively carry out the construction activities. A significant outcome of the programme was gender empowerment through involving women at all stages in the programme, which is normally unheard of in construction-oriented projects. The household centred approach adopted to ensure beneficiary access to safe drinking water in conjunction with the rehabilitation of community ponds could comprehensively address the water needs of the communities in an acutely water deficit geo-ecological zone. Attainment of water security even during dry months and in face of low rainfall has gone a long way in improving the morbidity profile of the region as well as augmenting the productive capacity of women who have been spared the long hours they normally invest to collect water. Inspite of low demand on part of the beneficiaries, the rehabilitation programme provided an opportunity to address the sanitation issue as SEWA saw in it a great potential for improving individual and public health through sanitation and hygiene promotion amidst the the targeted population. The installation of sanitary latrines coupled with the health education campaign of SEWA focussing on hygiene and sanitation and preventive health care significantly enhanced the usage of these latrines to almost 80% which in itself speaks of the relevance of the intervention. Livelihood Protection and Promotion In SEWAs approach to risk reduction, strengthening of livelihood constitutes a key strategic choice to reduce peoples vulnerability to hazards and enable them to cope better with disaster situations. It rates it as essential to make the link between crisis and employment. The focus on work enables people to start building for longer term security. The strong demand of women for work instead of charity informed right from the beginning SEWAs approach which focused not just on reconstruction but more on an integrated and sustainable revival of livelihoods in order to turn the tragedy into a livelihood opportunity. Reflective of this integrated approach to livelihoods were the initiatives already carried out by SEWA in the earlier phases of rehabilitation. However, the breadth and scale of an integrated and sustainable livelihood approach was limited, as the main focus was directed towards reconstruction related activities. Nonetheless recovery and restoration of livelihoods in deference to the local potential ( crafts, gum collection, construction centred employment generation and savings and credits) with a minimal subsidy component and adequate capacity building inputs (promoting self reliance) was built into the rehabilitative phase right from the onset. The most distinguishing feature of these early interventions was the attempt to diversify livelihood base through skill and production related training in construction work to create an alternative livelihood opportunity for the women and that too in an area which, hitherto, had been the exclusive preserve of men. The women thus trained found a market for their skills and products in the ongoing reconstruction work, were also deployed on physical works of other SEWA projects and over time were integrated into SEWA Nirman, a construction company whose main objectives are to organize the construction workers, provide them with recognition, as well as to foster legally secure and safe working conditions. Sustainable Livelihoods Approach With the process of rural development thus initiated and with the establishment of 11 CLCs (9 built with SwS/SRC support) along with as pivotal instruments for extending the outreach of SEWAs developmental approach in the districts of Patan, Surendranagar and Kutch, SEWA, in the final phase of collaboration found itself in a position to reach out with an integrated and holistic understanding of sustainable

10

livelihoods (conceptualised in an adapted form of DFIDs sustainable livelihoods approach) to 150 villages spread over these districts. The key outcomes were in terms of: Improved income security: from livelihood diversification through promotion of non-farm employment opportunities (construction, promotion of renewable energy alternatives and vending related activities); income enhancement through up gradation of existing skills, provision of revolving fund support, creation of revenue generating assets and promotion of secure market linkages; and improved agriculture practices Enhanced well being: through building capacities of local women as barefoot doctors to plug gaps in the existing health care delivery system (public and private) as well as build bridges with the same to avoid unnecessary duplication of services; building an informed constituency of its members who subsequently could use their strength as organised collectives to lay claim to and access their developmental and welfare entitlements from the government; and creation of a pool of community based para-vets given the centrality of animal husbandry as an economic activity of the region. Reduced vulnerability to disasters and stresses: through creating a cadre of trainers in disaster preparedness and mitigation whose responsibility subsequently has been to build similar capacities in their respective communities and through provision of disaster related tools and equipments Improved food security: through establishment of grain banks, fodder banks and seed and fertiliser banks; through capacity building in improved cropping and irrigation practices; through enhancing the access of its members the food and employment security oriented programmes of the government and through nutrition counselling improving the dietary intake of its members More sustainable use of natural resource base: through promotion of alternative sources of energy (solar lanterns for lighting and bio-gas units for cooking and lighting) which are not only renewable but also clean and cost effective and contribute to maintaining the environmental balance in a precarious geoecological region.

Establishment of Community Learning Centres (CLCs) One of the key strategic initiatives of SEWA in the aftermath of the earthquake, was the conceptualisation, construction and operationalisation of the CLCs. SEWAs community based disaster preparedness strategy involves multi pronged disaster risk mitigation initiatives entailing a host of activities geared towards mitigating the impact of natural disasters on the population by reducing their vulnerability and strengthening their ability to endure natural disasters while maintaining their economic security. Herein lies the rationale for CLCs conceptualised as decentralized and integrated hubs for promotion of community based disaster management strategies and livelihood activities with each CLC catering to a cluster of 10 to 15 villages falling in its catchment. Through CLCs SEWA seeks to render a range of development services - formulated within a development framework which takes cognisance of the strong linkages between poverty alleviation, sustainable livelihoods and disaster risk reduction- sustainably accessible to its client groups by facilitating their ownership, control, financing and management of the same. Thus the CLCs, in a sense become a mechanism for the institutional anchoring of the LRRD approach and herein lies their strategic significance underscored by the fact that, though significantly supported by SwS and SRC and accounting for almost 25% of the total number of CLCs promoted by SEWA, they spread still further across 6

11

other intervention districts of SEWA namely Ahmedabad, Anand, Mehsana, Gandhinagar, Sabarkantha and Vadodara. Within the operational framework as delineated above, each CLC is planned to be a site for conducting the following broad range of activities: Clearinghouse for communication and information dissemination on development and disaster related issues and incorporating a cell for familiarising the villagers in the usage of information technology Coordination of disaster preparedness and mitigation activities Hub for capacity building and livelihood activities Supportive services ranging from health, education, child care, marketing support to provisioning of financial services (savings and credit and insurance) Storage space for grain bank, fodder bank and emergency relief related equipments and provisions Highlights of the LRRD approach: SEWA primarily looked upon the earthquake as an opportunity to build on the capacities and reduce the vulnerabilities of its client groups so that there was an enhancement in their resilience to future disasters and their ability to sustainably develop themselves. This brought its response in tandem with the LRRD approach and the convergence of this approach with the Red Cross Code of increasing local capacities and reducing future vulnerabilities could lay the foundations of a long term partnership with SRC/SwS which lasted over a period of nine years and was structured over four phases excluding the relief phase. The highlights of this approach were as follows: 1. A development perspective informing the intervention right from the onset as reflected in having a rehabilitation plan in place while the relief operations were still underway 2. Relating to the wider vulnerability context as reflected in the multi-hazard perspective taken in designing the interventions 3. Community involvement and participation from the very early stage of damage assessment, to planning, implementation and monitoring of the interventions as reflected in owner driven reconstruction and other livelihood interventions and the steering of the entire process by the village development committees resulting in greater community ownership of the process with better chances of sustainability 4. Keeping relief support to the necessary minimum to avoid dependency on external aid 5. Substituting relief as dole with innovative cash for work programmes to restore the self esteem and self reliance of the affected communities as reflected in creation of wage employment opportunities in restoration of community water harvesting structures and construction of houses 6. Building on local resources and capacities for sustainable livelihood options that account for not just income poverty but a wider concept of human poverty as reflected in the various livelihood related interventions for the desired outcome. Such interventions were guided by factoring in the importance of building up the resilience of the communities to the vulnerabilities of the context inhabited by them. 7. Disaster event seized upon as an opportunity for building back better as reflected in the incorporation of cyclone and earthquake resistant features in the reconstructed houses, provision of water security at the household level

12

through integration of roof rainwater harvesting tanks, addressing the sanitation issue through introduction of toilets at the household, further diversification of livelihoods through creation of employment opportunities in the construction sector. 8. Creation of community infrastructure for sustainable delivery of services the CLCs for enhancing the outreach of SEWAs approach and the attendant services sustainably to the client groups. 9. The setting up of disaster related tools and equipments library at the CLCs in each of the three intervention districts has added to the capacities of local communities to act as first responders in the event of a crisis. Built with disaster resilient features, the CLCs have the potential of being used as emergency shelters 10. Seizing the disaster as an opportunity, for introducing a sustainable ICT based model for addressing economic and social problems of its client groups, resulting from a lack of access to needed information as reflected in making Information Technology Cells, an integral component of the CLCs. 11. Emergence of CLCs as the most important forum for on-going community education about the dynamics of disasters and their repercussions. With their development as data storage banks with a fundamental emphasis on disaster risk management, they have come to be the hubs for devising strategies to prepare for and cope with natural disasters and other livelihood risks. 12. The CLCs have also enabled a decentralized location of support services being provided by the sister organisations of SEWA like STFC and RUDI 4. The decentralized location of these services has made them cognizant of the needs, potential and constraints of the members they respond to at a more micro cosmic level rendering them more responsive in terms of customization of services they have to offer. The members stand to gain in terms of appropriateness and access of services with better and more stable returns. 13. The CLCs also serve as demonstration and extension units for propagation of alternative and environment friendly technologies that help contribute to the sustainable use of the natural resource base. 14. Engaging with a range of stakeholders from the government (including local self government) to private players to its battery of sister institutions to make the livelihood strategies adopted by its client groups work desirably and sustainably in favour of them. The CLCs here serve as points of convergence, coordination and advocacy for leveraging relevant services from the public and private providers. 15. Integration of disaster risk management in its developmental approach and reflected in the initiative to build up local capacities in community based disaster preparedness and geared towards promoting multi pronged disaster risk mitigation initiatives at the community level 16. Even from a financial point of view, the distribution of investment regarding following three intervention areas: relief, rehabilitation and livelihood security appears to be a balanced effort to meet the immediate, mid-term and long-term needs of the affected population.

Rural Marketing Distribution Network (Rudi Bazaar), a market of rural women and by rural women, set up by SEWA with goal of providing a definite market to rural workers and producers and sell their products at reasonable rates to rural consumers.

13

Pattern of Post Earthquake Investment in Gujarat

Relief 9%

Livelihood Security 22%

Reconstruction 69%

7. Lessons Learnt While development co-operation, on its part, should contribute to reducing vulnerability to disasters, mitigating the impact of disasters and enabling people to engage in self-help in disaster situations, relief efforts should reinforce development, or at least not undermine it. The key to achieving this lies in vulnerability analysis being incorporated into all aspects of development planning and becoming an integral part of humanitarian work as well. This constituted the defining basis of the collaboration between SRC and SEWA be it with regard to the reconstruction initiatives or the livelihoods centred interventions. Risk management should be an integral part of the way organisations do their work, not an add-on or a one-off action. Disasters are not unfortunate one off events to be responded to, but deep-rooted and longer-term problems that must be planned for. Thus risk reduction, linked to development planning as well as to post disaster recovery, needs to be viewed as a process that requires to be institutionally embedded in local communities, the CLCs of SEWA being a case in point. Otherwise such an initiative gets to be typified by a series of individual, non-coordinated, noncontinuous projects and programmes which adversely impacts its sustainability with one off investments, more often than not, turning into failed or forgotten schemes. For this institutionalisation to sustainably deliver, an inclusive, participatory and bottom-up approach is central. This helps build consensus, promotes the participation of the local people, is vital in prioritization of the needs of the target groups and in choosing activities that best serve their interests and strengthens the sense of community ownership. Equally important is transference of power, functions and resources to such an institution which motivates as well as pressurizes it to build its own capacities towards sustainability. People are not passive pawns in the development model, but are resourceful even at the time of the emergency and that their resources should form the basis of the recovery. A significant achievement of SRC/SEWA collaboration in LRRD framework has been in organizing and implementing humanitarian aid in a manner that the people affected by the crisis could emerge as actors in help towards self-help be it with regard to the craftswomen reverting to their vocation or adoption of new off farm skills in the context of a degraded natural resource base. Post-disaster recovery phase, if informed by the LRRD approach, provides a window of opportunity for disaster risk reduction (DRR). As part of SRC/SEWA intervention,

14

a high level of awareness can be seen among the members towards risks which is evident in rigorous adherence to earthquake and cyclone resistant building norms and standards and particularly reflected in extensions to the core unit wherever undertaken. The interventions have also been successful in generating informed participation of members in planning and implementing development policies through appropriate decentralised platforms that contribute to risk reduction instead of exacerbating risks and vulnerabilities (an aspect more often than not overlooked in governmental initiatives) and manifested in the wide scale adoption of the sustainable livelihoods framework. The disaster created opportunities due to the enhanced political will, a general fall out of any disaster when the fear of the consequences of failing to act to reduce the risks of future disasters is so strongly implanted in the minds of all stakeholders that it prompts a more proactive political leadership. However, if not acted upon such opportunities tend to fizzle out. Through consistent stakeholder dialogue SRC/SEWA intervention not only seize the opportunity thus created but also institutionalize it at the community level through the mechanism of the CLCs. Needless to add, the post disaster flush of resources (technical and financial) could provide the wherewithal for the successful execution of SRC/SEWA collaboration. The intervention could not only successfully dig into the financial resources generated by International NGOs (SRC/SwS) but also avail of high quality technical assistance from reputed agencies like Skat and Indian Space Research Organisation and also established effective links with various levels of governmental and private institutions. The LRRD approach should necessarily be incorporating the following principles which were followed by SRC/SEWA: relief and rehabilitation contributing to long-term development and the reduction of vulnerability intervening at the earliest possible stage in the disaster cycle to protect livelihoods and reduce vulnerability incorporating development principles into disaster relief operations (e.g. building up local capacities, adopting participatory approaches) using disaster relief not just to meet immediate needs but also to restore livelihood assets and rebuild livelihoods using post disaster intervention to develop infrastructure that will be of value after the emergency is over taking the opportunity to induce positive socio-economic change and not merely a return to the status quo ante. 8. Conclusion The main conclusion of this report is that relief and development are not separate entities; they are interdependent and should be considered as such when planning and implementing projects. Recognition of the need to link relief and development stemmed from the 1990s and led to the LRRD phrase being coined. The main strand of this idea concerns identifying complementary strategies in both relief and development programmes. Development work should aim to protect and reinforce livelihoods in such a way that people are able to become more resilient to hazards, and be better protected from them. This protection must come through: the strengthening of peoples base-line conditions (nutrition, health, morale and other aspects of well-being), reinforcement of their livelihood and its resilience to possible hazard impacts;

15

peoples own efforts (self protection) to reinforce their home and workplace against particular hazards, access to proper support (social protection) by institutions of government or civil society.

In turn, relief should form the basis for future development work. Such an approach to relief, also referred to as developmental relief, sees acute needs as part of the whole life situation of those affected, looks for long term solutions as well as responding to immediate and acute needs, builds on survivors capacities and on local institutions, setting sustainable standards for services and encouraging participation and accountability. Guided by this understanding of relief and development, SEWA could perform particularly well in terms of building its response to the earthquake on local capacities, involving beneficiaries in program management, reducing future vulnerability, avoiding aid-dependence, promoting accountability, and supporting the crucial role played by women in disaster prone communities, considering all of these as non-negotiables. It in fact went a step further by institutionally embedding the LRRD approach in local communities through the mechanism of CLCs.

16

References:
1. Ahmed, S., Lodhia, S. and Saroch, E. (2007) `Mapping Disasters in Gujarat: State, Society and Disaster Management, Ahmedabad, available at: www.climatetransitions.org/climate/node/768 2. Ariyabandu, M. M. (2001) `Bringing together Disaster and Development - Concepts and Practice, Some Experience from South Asia, Paper presented at the 5th European Sociological Association Conference, Visions and Divisions: Challenges to European Sociology, Helsinki, available at: http://dscrn.crc.ensmp.fr/helsinkipapers/session6/Helsinki_madhavi%20session%206.doc 3. Asia Pacific Programme of Education for All (APPEAL), `CLC Management Handbook, Bangkok: UNESCO, available at: http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/clcmodule/CLC_Management_Handboo k.pdf 4. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., and Wisner, B. (2004 ) `At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters, London: Routledge, available at: www.unisdr.org/eng/library/Literature/7235.pdf 5. Blaxall, J. (2004) `Indias Self-Employed Womens Association (SEWA) Empowerment through Mobilization of Poor Women on a Large Scale, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 6. Buchanan-Smith,M., and Fabbri, P., (November 2005) `Links between relief, rehabilitation and development in the tsunami response A review of the debate, Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, available at: www.alnap.org/pool/files/lrrd-reviewdebate.pdf 7. Buchanan-Smith, M. and Maxwell, S. ` Linking Relief and Development : An Introduction and Overview, available at: www.eldis.org/fulltext/LinkingReliefandDevelopment.pdf 8. Cannon, T., Twigg, J. and Rowell, J. (2003) ` Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and Disasters: Report to DFID Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department and Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office, London: University of Greenwich, Natural Resources Institute, available at: www.abuhrc.org/Documents/Social_vulnerability_sust_live.pdf 9. Chen, M.A., Khurana, R. and Mirani, N. (2005), `Towards Economic Freedom The Impact of SEWA, Ahmedabad: Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA), available at: www.sewaresearch.org/eng-researchesdownload.htm 10. Concern Universal, (2006) `A Developmental Approach to Working in Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response, available at: http://www.sphereproject.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gi d,145/Itemid,203/lang,spanishf/ 11. DFID, (2004) `Disaster risk reduction: a development concern A scoping study on links between disaster risk reduction, poverty and development , available at: www.unisdr.org/eng/mdgs-drr/dfid.htm 12. Duryog Nivaran, (2009) `Disaster Risk and Poverty in South Asia- A Contribution to the 2009 ISDR Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, available at: www.preventionweb.net/.../Asia-livelihoods-practice-review.doc 13. Duryog Nivaran and Practical Action, (2008) `South Asia Disaster Report 2008 Disaster and Development in South Asia: Connects and Disconnects, available at: www.duryognivaran.org/documents/SADR2008.pdf 14. Enarson , E. (2001) ` We Want Work: Rural Women in the Gujarat Drought andEarthquake, available at: www.radixonline.org/resources/surendranagar.doc 15. GTZ, (2005) `Linking Poverty Reduction and Disaster Risk Management, available at: www.dkkv.org/de/publications/ressource.asp?ID=154 16. Global Humanitarian Assistance, (2009) ` GHA Report 2009, available at: www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/.../gha-report-2009-2nd.pdf 17. Haidar, M. (2009) `Sustainable Livelihood Approaches The Framework, Lessons Learnt From Practice And Policy Recommendations, available at: http://css.escwa.org.lb/SDPD/1125/1.pdf

17

18. Heijmans, A. and Victoria, Lorna P. `Citizenry-Based & Development-Oriented Disaster Response Experiences and Practices in Disaster Management of the Citizens Disaster Response Network in the Philippines, Phillipines: Centre for Disaster Preparedness, available at: http://www.cdp.org.ph/publications/cbdodr/ 19. Heijmans, Annelies. (2001) Vulnerability: A Matter of Perception, London: Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, available at: www.abuhrc.org/Publications/Working %20Paper%204.pdf 20. HPC, High Powered Committee on Disaster Management Report: Creating a Culture of Prevention. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India, 2001 21. Kollmair, M. and Gamper, S. (Juli 2002): ` The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, Development Study Group, University of Zurich, available at: http://www.nccr-northsouth.unibe.ch/document/document.asp? ID=340&contextID=&refTitle=Education&Context=EDUCATION 22. Initiatives in Development Support, (2001 -2010) `Project Proposals and Final Operational Reports submitted to Swiss Red Cross pertaining to the various phase of collaboration between SEWA and Swiss Red Cross in the aftermath of Gujarat Earthquake, Berne: Swiss Red Cross 23. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, (2006) `What is VCA? An introduction to vulnerability and capacity assessment, Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=1755 24. Kent, R., (2004) Humanitarian Futures. Practical policy perspectives, HPN Network Paper No. 46, April, London: ODI, available at: www.odihpn.org/report.asp?id=2628 25. Nanavaty, R. (2005) `From Local to Global and Informal to Formal Entering Mainstream Markets, Helsinki: EGDI and UNU-WIDER, available at: www.wider.unu.edu/.../dp2005-02/_.../dp2005%2002%20nanavaty.pdf 26. Nanavaty, Reema. (2009) `Supporting poor rural women to improve livelihoods: the SEWA experience, Paper presented at the FAO-IFAD-ILO Workshop on Gaps, trends and current research in gender dimensions of agricultural and rural employment: differentiated pathways out of poverty, Rome: FAO-IFADS-ILO, available at: www.fao-ilo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/.../Nanavaty_-_final.pdf 27. Peppiatt, D., Haghebaert, B. and Davis, I. (2004) `Social Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Workshop - Discussion paper and workshop report, Geneva: Provention Consortium, available at: www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/ VCA_ws04.pdf 28. Prez de Armio, K. (2002) `Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development in the Framework of New Humanitarianism, available at: 60gp.ovh.net/~ngovoice/.../Karlos_Perez_de_Armino_SUMMARY.pdf 29. Rusinow, T. and Drinkwater, M. `Presentation on CAREs Livelihoods Approach for NRAC 99, available at: www.careinternational.org.uk/download.php?id=160 30. Shah, A. `Relief, Rehabilitation and Development: The Case of Gujarat, available at: www.jha.ac/articles/a097.pdf 31. Swiss Red Cross, (2009) `Earthquake Rehabilitation Project Gujarat, India 2001 2009 A Case study, available at: www.redcross.ch/data/info/pubs/pdf/redcross_457_en.pdf 32. Swiss Red Cross, (2010) `Concept on LRRD Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development. 33. Twigg, J., (2003) Disaster risk reduction. Mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency programming, Good Practice Review No. 9, HPN, London: ODI, available at: http://www.odihpn.org/report.asp?ID=2618 34. Twigg, J. (2001) `Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters, Disaster Studies Working Paper 2, London: Benfield Hazard Research Centre, available at: www.abuhrc.org/rp/publications/Pages/wpdsm.aspx 35. Twigg, J. and Benson, C. (2007) `Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: 36. Guidance Notes for Development Organisations, Geneva: Provention Consortium, available at: www.preventionweb.net/files/1066_toolsformainstreamingDRR.pdf 37. UNDP, (2004) From Relief to Recovery. The Gujarat experience , available at: www.sheltercentre.org/library/Relief+Recovery+Gujarat+Experience

18

38. UNDP, (2004) Reducing Disaster Risk. A Challenge for development, available at: http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/documents/publications/rdr/english/rdr_english.pdf 39. UNESCO, (2007) `Strengthening Community Learning Centres through Linkages
and Networks: A Synthesis of Six Country Reports, Bangkok: UNESCO, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001521/152157e.pdf

40. UNESCO, (2008) `Community Learning Centres: Country report from Asia, Bangkok: UNESCO, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001604/160492e.pdf 41. UNISDR, (2003) Disasters Reduction and Sustainable Development, available at:http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/wssd/DR-and-SD-English.pdf 42. UNISDR, (2008) `Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Poverty Reduction Good Practices and Lessons Learned A Publication of the Global Network of NGOs for Disaster Risk Reduction, available at: www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/isdrpublications/14_Linking_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_Poverty_Reduction/Linking_Disas ter_Risk_Reduction_Poverty_Reduction.pdf 43. Vaux, T., Bhatt, M., Jacobs, A., Goyder, H. and Routley, S. (2001) Independent Evaluation: The DEC Response to the Earthquake in India (three volumes), Disaster Mitigation Institute, Humanitarian Initiatives/Mango for DEC, London, available at: www.alnap.org/resource/3432.aspx (vol I), http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=2628 (Vol II), http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=2629 (Vol III) 44. VENRO, (2006) `Linking relief, rehabilitation and development Approaches and financing instruments to improve the transition between relief, rehabilitation and development co-operation, Venro-Working Paper No. 17, Bonn: Venro available at: http://www.venro.org/humanhilfe.html 45. Vaux, T. and Lund, F. (July 2003) `Working Women And Security: Self Employed Womens Associations response to crisis, Journal of Human Development Vol. 4, No. 2, Carfax Publishing. 46. Verhagen, J.and Bhatt, M. `Community Based Disaster Risk Mitigation: A Case Study in the Semi-Arid Areas of Gujarat, available at: www.genderandwater.org/.../Community_based_disaster_dhaka11.doc 47. Wisner, B. (2003) `Sustainable Suffering? Reflections on Development and Disaster Vulnerability in the Post-Johannesburg World, available at: www.radixonline.org/resources/wisner-sustainablesuffering.doc 48. Yodmani, S. `Disaster Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction: Protecting the Poor, Paper Presented at The Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty Organized by the Asian Development Bank, available at: www.adpc.net/infores/adpcdocuments/PovertyPaper.pdf

19