Centre for Youth and Social Developmentguidelines for pre and post disaster recovery planning, while the final policy framework is expected to have clearly articulated the core recovery

Enable-Empower-Include...

Centre for Youth and Social DevelopmentE N A B L E E M P O W E R I N C L U D E| |

Building Disaster Resilent Odisha, CYSD

While the need and articulation of a policy framework for recovery planning and implementation has emerged from the response to Cyclone Phailin , the recommendations for a policy framework are not limited to the recovery planning for Cyclone Phailin and are intended to provide development and disaster recovery managers with the guidance, structure and support to operate in a unified and collaborative manner and how best to restore, redevelop and revitalize the health, social, economic, natural and environmental systems of a community and building a resilient state and nation. The current framework focuses on providing guidelines for pre and post disaster recovery planning, while the final policy framework is expected to have clearly articulated the core recovery principles, the roles and responsibilities of the recovery coordinators and the stakeholders as well as the coordination structure required to facilitate communication and collaboration among all stakeholders. The ODRBF will recommend the process by which communities can take the opportunity to build back better. The elements in the framework will improve recovery support and expedite recovery of disaster-impacted individuals, families and communities. The framework while involving those who are impacted or otherwise involved in disaster recovery focuses on support to individuals, families and communities.

Fundamentally, the ODRBF will be a construct to optimally engage existing government resources and authorities and to incorporate the full capacities of all sectors in support of community recovery. The effective implementation of the ODRBF will require strong coordination across all levels of Government, NGOs and the private sector. The implementation will also require an effective and accessible public information system that will allow all stakeholders to understand the scope and the realities of recovery.

ven as substantial scientific and material progress is made, the loss of lives and Eproperty due to disasters has not decreased.

In fact, the human toll and economic losses have mounted. It was in this background that the United Nations General Assembly, in 1989, declared the decade 1990-2000 as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction with the objective to reduce loss of lives and property and restrict socio-economic damage through concerted international action, especially in developing countries This need is best articulated for states such as Odisha in India, a state confronted with recurring and intensifying natural events that severely erode development gains made in the interim. Following the devastation caused by the recent series of cyclones that hit the coast of Odisha during October and November of 2013, the need to think comprehensively for recovery planning was initiated by the Odisha Phailin Response Forum (OPRF)

stand this report is a summary of the 1 set of multi-stakeholders consultation on developing a policy framework for recovery planning and implementation, that focuses on building the resilience of affected communities. Policy recommendations have been made in four key thematic areas of recovery planning, namely

?Social Housing and Infrastructure Building.

?Water and Sanitation. ?Livelihoods Regeneration and ?Entitlement Monitoring and Social

Accountability.

Further consultations are scheduled to consolidate the recommendations for the policy framework on these thematic areas. The outcome of the series of consultations engaging stakeholders from the state and national Government, civil society, business and corporate, academia and community, will be the draft “Odisha Disaster Resilience Building Framework”(ODRBF).

01

tropical cyclones, storm surges and tsunamis. Its densely populated coastal plains are the alluvial deposits of its river systems. The rivers in these areas with heavy load of silt have very little carrying capacity, resulting in frequent floods, only to be compounded by breached embankments. Though a large part of the state comes under Earthquake Risk Zone-II (Low Damage Risk Zone), the Brahmani Mahanadi graben and their deltaic areas come under Earthquake Risk Zone-III (Moderate Damage Risk Zone) covering 43 out of the 103 urban local bodies of the state. Besides these natural hazards, human-induced disasters such asaccidents, stampede, fire, etc, vector borne disasters such as epidemics, animal diseases andpest attacks and industrial/ chemical disasters add to human suffering.

The climatic hazards risks are considered to further increase under global climate change due to changes in seasonal weather pattern and increased occurrence of extreme weather events. The hazard burdens are compounded by high incidence of poverty and dependence on climate-sensitive natural resources and livelihood patterns. This situation therefore warrants a long term disaster-resilient development planning in the state accompanied by smart and strategic instruments to enable effective implementation.

It is thus imperative that efforts be initiated to adopt a comprehensive framework on disaster resilient habitat planning in the State. Such an approach would require the engagement of technology, physical and social infrastructure, local knowledge and social capital to complement the available resources to promote resilience through better living. The salient features of such an approach would include structural safety (cyclone- resilient/ saline-immune/ earth-quake resistant structural designs); adaptive interventions like renewable energy, rain water harvesting, disaster-resilient plantation and sustainable land and water management in a natural eco-system approach, collective marketing infrastructure etc. This would go a long way towards averting mass displacement, destruction of assets, and the expensive rehabilitation or reconstruction efforts afterwards.

isasters disrupt progress and destroy the hard-earned fruits of painstaking Ddevelopmental efforts, often pushing

nations, in quest for progress, back by several decades.

One way to reduce the impacts of disasters on the nation and its communities is to invest in enhancing resilience.

Enhanced resilience allows better anticipation of disasters and better planning to reduce disaster losses—rather than waiting for an event to occur and paying for it afterward.

However, building the culture and practice of disaster resilience is not simple or inexpensive. Decisions about how and when to invest in increasing resilience involve short- and long-term planning and investments of time and resources prior to an event. Although the resilience of individuals and communities may be readily recognized after a disaster, resilience is currently rarely acknowledged before a disaster takes place, making the “payoff” for resilience investments challenging for individuals, communities, the private sector, and all levels of government to demonstrate.

Odisha is vulnerable to multiple hazards. Due to its sub-tropical littoral location, the state is prone to


02

Resilience is the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events.

Govt. Invities?Shri Jugal K. Mohapatra

IAS Chief, Secretary to Govt. Government of OdishaState Secretariat Bhubaneswar

?Shri Upendra Nath BeheraIAS Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt.Dept. of Finance,Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar

?C J Venugopal Principal Secretary to Govt. Rural Development Dept., Bhubaneswar

?Bhagaban Sahoo Chief Engineer,RWSS-I, Jal O Parimal Bhavan, Bhubaneswar

?Shri Kamal Lochan MishraOAS, General Manager, OSDMARajiv Bhavan, Bhubaneswar

?Shri Debaraj Behera Mission ManagerNational Rural Livelihood Mission

?K K Jha Dy. CEO OLM & ORMASSIRD Campus, Bhubaneswar

?Mr. Vivekananda HembramNational Housing Bank

?Ms. Tuhina RoyOSWSM


03

CSO Invitees?Shri Nilamadhab Prusty

Chief Mentor & Director, CDDMASS New Delhi 110 049

?Sujoy Chaudhury, CDDMASS Flat 102, 10 Mandi Ville Gardens, Kolkatta 500 019

?Kumar GauravProgramme Associate LG Floor, 12/27, Sarvapriya Vihar, Near Hauz Khas, Metro Station, New Delhi, 110 016

?J. K. Nayar CDDMASS

?Ms. Chitralekha ChaudhuryGram Vikas Vill: Mohuda, Berhampur, Ganjam

?Mrs. Sneha Mishra Secretary aaina, Plot No-70/3530, Ground floor, Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar – 751013

?Shri Anjan JenaMember-Secretary, ASHRAYA

?Shri Aditya PattnaikSecretary, Antyodaya Chetana MandalRangamatia, Rashgovindpur, Mayurbhanj

?Md. N. AminDirector, Adhikar, Bhubaneswar 751 019

?Ratikanta BeheraAdhikar, Bhubaneswar 751 019

?Mansoon Mohanty Adhikar, Bhubaneswar

?Amarendra RoutAntyodaya Chetna Mandal, Mayurbhanj

?Geetanjali Pattnaik Antyodaya Chetna Mandal,1174/16, Mahabir Vihar, Khandagiri,Bhubaneswar

?Shri Pradip Mohapatra UDYAM Kalinga Vihar Bhubaneswar 751 019

?Rasananda Mohanty SOLAR Konark, Puri

?Shri Sudarshan Dash HDF Bhubaneswar

?Pramila SwainNAWO,Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar

?Shri Jagadish PradhanSVA, 1193, Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar 751 003

?Ms. Kriti Nagrath Development Alternative, New Delhi

?Ms. Kavneet KaurDevelopment Alternative, New Delhi

?Srimanta Ku. SahooAntyodaya Chentna MandalRangamatia, Mayurbhanj

?Ranjan Kumar Dhal PC, MYC, At/PO: Kukulisi, Basta,Balasore

?Dilip K. PradhanAaina, Bhubaneswar

?Sri Som, NYP,IVC-6/3 Unit-III, Kharvella Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751 001

?Bhanu Prasad PanigrahiHDF, M/4 Samanta Vihar, Bhubaneswar

?Rabindra Ku. SahooConvenor, OTF, Bhubaneswar

?Bijaya PradhanBoudh, HRF, District Coordination

?C. BiswalGram Uthan

?Shri Suresh Ch. BisoyiRCDC, Bhubaneswar

?Dr. Piyus Ranjan Rout,Co-Founder,Local Governance Network, Bhubaeswar-2

?Nimain SatapathyLIAC, Bhubaneswar

?Anil Ku. PradhanSAMPARC, Balasore

?S K BeheraSa-Dhan

?Madhu S. DasNYP-Odisha, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar

?Sangram Keshari GoudISRD – Indian Soceity for Rural Development, 153, Swarnamayee Nagar Berhampur, Ganjam – 76001

Purpose

The Odisha Disaster Resilience Building Framework (ODRBF) will define how government agencies will organize and operate to utilise existing resources to promote effective recovery and support communities impacted by disasters. The ODRBF is also for the larger audience of non- government leaders, private sector leaders, emergency managers, community development and disaster recovery professionals.

The ODRBF will advance the concept that recovery is more than the restoration of a community's physical structures to its pre-disaster conditions. It stresses in providing a continuum of care to meet the needs of the affected members who have experienced negative financial, emotional and physical impacts as well as positioning the community to meet the needs of the future. The ODRBF will strongly advocate the importance of disaster recovery activities that promote

sustainable practices as it would be these practices that ultimately could reduce the community's vulnerability to recurrent disasters. The ODRBF will also recognise that recovery is a continuum and that there is an opportunity within recovery as well as the fact that some people experience disasters more severely than others.

The ODRBF will recognize that recovery begins with pre-disaster preparedness and thus recommends a range of planning activities. It will also recognizes that the ability of a community to accelerate the recovery process begins with its efforts in pre-disaster preparedness, mitigation and recovery capacity building, and that these efforts result in a resilient community with an improved ability to withstand, respond and recover from disasters. Using the resilience building approach in response to disaster impacts can significantly reduce recovery costs and time.


04

The ODRBF will describe the key principles and steps for community recovery planning and implementation. It will promote a process in which affected communities fully engage and consider the needs of all its members, central to this process is that, impacted communities assume leadership in developing recovery priorities and activities that are realistic, well planned and clearly communicated. The Odisha Disaster Resilience Building Framework (ODRBF) will essentially be a guide to promote effective recovery and is a concept of operations and not intended to introduce or impose any new, additional or unfunded net resource requirement on the State Government. Instead the ODRBF will aim to leverage and concentrate the effects of existing state resources, programs, projects and activities through an organization of Recovery Support Functions (RSFs) to promote effective recovery for affected communities before and after a disaster.

Disaster Resilience Building Framework (ODRBF) will essentially be a guide to promote effective recovery and is a concept of operations and not intended to introduce or impose any new, additional or unfunded net resource requirement on the State Government. Instead the ODRBF will aim to leverage and concentrate the effects of existing state resources, programs, projects and activities through an organization of Recovery Support Functions (RSFs) to promote effective recovery for affected communities before and after a disaster.

Resource

Applicability

Core Principles that Guide Recovery For Restlience Building

The Odisha Disaster Resilience building Framework (ODRBF) will apply to all state declared major disasters though not all elements will be activated for every declared incident. Many of its concepts and principles are equally valid for non-declared incidents that have recovery consequences.

The Odisha Disaster resilience Building framework is guided by seven core principles that, when put into practice, maximize the opportunity for achieving recovery success and resilient communities. These are:?People Centric

Environmental Sustainability.?Coordination and Collaboration

Programme Quality ManagementAccountability.

?Connectivity and influence on mainstream development programme.

?Social watch and documentation of lessons learnt.

People particularly those affected should be at the centre of all recovery planning and implementation. All community members must have equal opportunity to participate in community recovery

People Centric


05

efforts in a meaningful way. Care must be taken to assure that actions, both intentional and unintentional, do not exclude groups of people based on race, religion, sex or disability. Care must be taken to identify and eradicate social and institutional barriers that hinder or preclude individuals with disabilities or those living with AIDS and others in the community historically subjected to unequal treatment from full and equal enjoyment of the programs, goods, services, activities, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations provided. A successful recovery is about the ability of individuals and families to rebound from their losses in a manner that sustains their physical, emotional, social and economic well-being. The restoration of infrastructure systems and services is critical during recovery. It is vital that all individuals who make up the community are provided with the tools to access and use a continuum of care that addresses both the physical losses sustained and the psychological and emotional trauma experienced.Inclusiveness in the recovery process includes individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs, advocates of children, seniors and members of underserved populations. Sensitivity and respect for social and cultural diversity must be maintained at all times. Compliance with equal opportunity and civil rights laws must also be upheld.

A successful recovery process promotes practices that minimize the community's risk to all hazards and strengthens its ability to withstand and recover from future disasters, which constitutes a community's resiliency. A successful recovery

Environmental Sustainability

process engages in a rigorous assessment and understanding of risks and vulnerabilities that might endanger the community or pose additional recovery challenges. The process promotes implementation of the risk management framework to enhance the resilience and protection of critical infrastructure against the effects of future disasters. Resilience incorporates hazard mitigation and land use planning strategies; critical infrastructure, environmental and cultural resource protection; and sustainability practices to reconstruct the built environment, and revitalize the economic, social and natural environments.

A successful recovery process requires unity of effort, which respects the authority and expertise of each participating organization while coordinating support of common recovery objectives. Common objectives are built upon consensus and a transparent and inclusive planning process with clear metrics to measure progress. Partnerships and collaboration across groups, sectors and governments promote a successful recovery process. Partnerships and inclusiveness are vital for ensuring that all voices are heard from all parties involved in disaster recovery and that all available resources are brought to the table. This is especially critical at the community level where nongovernmental partners in the private and non-profit sectors play a critical role in meeting local needs.

The speed and success of recovery can be greatly enhanced by establishment of the process and protocols prior to a disaster for coordinated post-

Coordination and Collaboration

Programme Quality Management


06

disaster recovery planning and implementation. All stakeholders should be involved to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive planning process, and develop relationships that increase post-disaster collaboration and unified decision making. Another important objective of pre-disaster recovery planning is to take actions that will significantly reduce disaster impacts through disaster-resilient building practices. A successful recovery process upholds the value of timeliness and flexibility in coordinating and efficiently conducting recovery activities and delivering assistance. It also minimizes delays and loss of opportunities. The process strategically sequences recovery decisions and promotes coordination; addresses potential conflicts; builds confidence and ownership of the recovery process among all stakeholders; and ensures recovery plans, programs, policies and practices are adaptable to meet unforeseen, unmet and evolving recovery needs.

Successful recovery requires informed and coordinated leadership throughout all levels of government, sectors of society and phases of the recovery process. It recognizes that local, State and Tribal governments have primary responsibility for the recovery of their communities and play the lead role in planning for and managing all aspects of community recovery. This is a basic, underlying principle that should not be overlooked. States act in support of their communities, evaluate their capabilities and provide a means of support for overwhelmed local governments. Clear accountability should be associated with responsibilities and a clear, consistent and culturally appropriate public information system should be an integral component of the recovery programme. This information system should be inclusive and ensure accessibility to all including those with disabilities, those living with AIDS or those with hearing or visual impairments.

Disaster recovery activities either in the pre-disaster or post-disaster stages are not isolated or new activities, but are rather regular development activities carried out by both state and non-state actors, implemented with a resilience building perspective. Activities not connected to mainstream development and without the capacity to influence

Accountability

Connectivity and influence on mainstream development programme

mainstream development programme are most likely to negate the achievement of sustainable recovery outcomes.

The core principles of the proposed disaster resilience building framework, contributing to the achievement of positive recovery impacts will in the absence of a social accountability mechanism most likely fail to contribute to the expected outcomes as failures and shortcomings in implementation including corruption would not be revealed or understood. By involving the element of social watch, recovery programmes can, based on feedback from participating communities, redesign recovery plans to achieve desired or better results. Recovery planning for resilience development is an emerging area and managers and practitioners are constantly learning from the experiences of recovery managers and practitioners elsewhere, and thus a framework that emphasises documentation of lessons learnt will not only be contribute to local learning for programme improvement , it will contribute to global learning for recovery planning and implementation.

Successful recovery outcomes are defined differently by each community, based on their circumstances, challenges, recovery vision and priorities. One community may characterize success as the return of its economy to pre-disaster conditions while another may see success as the opening of new economic opportunities. Thus a single definition does not fit all situations, although successful recoveries do share conditions in which:

?The community successfully overcomes the physical, emotional and environmental impacts of the disaster.

?It re-establishes an economic and social base that instils confidence in the community members and businesses regarding community viability.

?It rebuilds by integrating the functional needs of all residents and reducing its vulnerability to all hazards facing it.

?The entire community demonstrates a capability

Social watch and Documentation of lessons learnt

Archieving Disaster Recovery & Disaster Resillence


07

to be prepared, responsive, and resilient in dealing with the consequences of disasters.

Recovery should be more than the community's return to pre-disaster circumstances, especially when the community determines that these circumstances are no longer sustainable, competitive or functional as shown by the community's post-disaster condition. A successful recovery in this case may include a decision to relocate all or some portion of the community assets and restoration of the affected area to a more natural environment. In these circumstances, the community recovery decision making is informed by evaluating all alternatives and options and avoiding simple rebuilding or reconstructing of an area that continues to be vulnerable. The ODRBF proposes to specifically highlight the key components of a post disaster recovery plan and establish the conditions under which these thematic areas be adopted by disaster recovery managers and recovery practitioners both in the state and non-state sector:

?Social Housing and Infrastructure Building?Water and Sanitation?Livelihood Regeneration and in the

cross cutting issue ?Entitlement Monitoring and Social Accountability.

Earlier recovery/reconstruction programmes have always tended to look as Housing as a very separate and distinct activity, involving the

Social Housing &Infrastructure Building

construction/reconstruction of houses with disaster resistance features. However while the hazard risks are most specific to houses, it is the quality of the habitat that influences the disaster risks. A shift therefore from housing to habitat planning and development is recommended. Recovery programmes will have to focus on making the habitats of affected communities stronger, safer and secure. This paradigm shift will require the coordination and collaboration of a range of habitat planning and development practitioners, engaged along with disaster recovery managers to develop and implement habitat reconstruction activities. All infrastructures within a habitat shall be specially examined for its risk status and the overall habitat plan shall take into account that resilience will be highest when all infrastructures within a habitat are secure. There are several factors that contribute to the effective planning and development of resilient habitats:

The quality of design and planning for a habitat reconstruction is key to building disaster resilience in the affected community. Design & Planning should examine house & settlements layouts, infrastructure sites in the context of local climatic and socio-economic concerns and make recommendations, where required to relevant building codes. Habitat plans should be culturally appropriate and draw from vernacular wisdom.

Choice of construction technologies and construction materials have a significant impact not

Design & Planning

Choice of technology


08

only on the recovery outcomes of time and costs, they also influence other aspects of recovery such as livelihoods and long term sustainability. Conventional construction technologies and materials are often at a disadvantage in certain locations as also construction needs will be different. It is imperative therefore that access to a range of construction technologies and construction materials are made available. These technologies and materials should have built-in characteristics for offering disaster resilience, have low embedded carbon and have environment protection qualities. Constructions with these technologies and materials should also be cost effective which would mean that they would have to be available locally at affordable prices and be durable. Odisha is fortunate that it can choose from several technological breakthroughs that have already been demonstrated at scale. The CARE-DA housing reconstruction model, the Gram Vikas Model and the ASHRAYA BMSB Model are some of the models that have incorporated the community, technology and financing in their delivery designs and can be examined for replication.

Current financial products are often not designed for or adequate for the rural affected. Credit for rural housing is almost nonexistent and where available is inadequate or is associated with unviable conditions. New and appropriate financial products such as subsidy cum loan packages, insurance will have to be designed and implemented. The design of new financial products will be accompanied by capacity development of bankers and borrowers alike on the use of the financial products and their operations.

New sets of mechanisms that bring the community and the recovery managers together at a functional level. It is essential that the people centric principle be adhered to and mechanisms that involve and include community participants are encouraged. Recovery being a continuum, it is essential that partnerships at all levels be forged to create ownership and participation such that the various aspects of the recovery planning and implementation are effectively managed by multi-stakeholding groups.

Finance & Credit

Institutional Mechanisms

Livelihoods

Convergence

Habitat reconstruction not only results in new houses, it has the capacity to improve the economic status of the community substantially. Properly designed recovery plans when based on the use of local human and material resources, contributes to putting money in local hands which revitalizes the local economy. An effective recovery plan should therefore have carefully considered and provided for how reconstruction activities can not only benefit individuals or families but provide economic stimulus to the local economy.

Housing reconstruction are usually achieved through ongoing government schemes such as the IAY with special allocations on account of a declared disaster and through specially funded projects from national or international sources. It is important therefore that the mainstream schemes and programs are adapted to include disaster resilience as an outcome. Schemes such as the IAY, RAY and other schemes for tribal populations etc. should be reviewed and amended to make these schemes more accessible to affected populations and special incentives could be offered to those who complete their houses using low carbon and appropriate technology. It could be explored whether the MGNREGS can be used to assist people in housing reconstruction /repair. Policy guidelines to implement the national housing schemes in the context of the state should be developed and widely disseminated.

Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a fundamental right of all citizens, and while significant progress has been made by the state to provide access to safe drinking water, the status of sanitation is correspondingly dismal. Compounding the low coverage is the fact that gains made in providing access during peace times are eroded with the next disaster. Damaged water supply systems can be repaired and restored while damaged sanitation assets are most unlikely to be repaired and rejuvenated and often do not feature in the priorities for a recovery programme. This situation is to be reversed and water and sanitation should feature prominently as an integral component of the recovery plan. Housing plans for

Water & Sanitation


09

example should include the provision of water and sanitation facilities within the household or at pre-identified location.

The provision of improved and sustainable access to water and sanitation necessitates the consideration of the following; Technology: Current latrine designs are mostly typical designs and are not suitable to all contexts, context based designs such as for flood prone and high water table areas, areas with hard and rock soils, water stressed areas etc. these designs will have to be developed, piloted and demonstrated to increase uptake. A successful recovery in sanitation cannot be possible without the promotion and dissemination of the technical requirements for safety and the technological options available to match the technical requirements. Practitioners have long complained about the lack of a technical regime in construction of latrines across the country. The technical and technology promotion will enable people to adopt better options then that currently known to them, thereby doing away with some or all of the current wrong practices in latrine construction. Sanitation demonstration centres and academy's to inform people and train masons will complement the public information component of the recovery plan. Latrine designs should encourage spatial additions and provide accessibility solutions to those with disabilities or those who are old or chronically ill.

Water supply technologies have improved along with other technologies, green energy especially solar is increasingly being used to power water supply systems for out of grid communities. The opportunities offered by these new technologies should be exploited and special incentives offered to entities promoting green energy use in water supply schemes. In addition to promoting new water supply systems, it is also essential to ensure that existing systems and traditional water supply systems are maintained.Contaminated water sources once identified are discarded and traditional sources often become contaminated when neglected. It is essential therefore that an inventory of all water sources including traditional water sources be carried out and their status established. Investing in reviving or rejuvenating existing sources is cost effective and along with strong community based operation & maintenance norms, provide better community outcomes. All water sources to be periodically tested and for this the testing and reporting facilities at the community level will have to be made operational.

The key to adoption of sustainable sanitation is behaviour change and appropriately designed behaviour change communication is essential to enable communities and particularly affected communities to adopt sanitation. Traditional IEC

Behaviour Change Communication


10

strategies are not working as up-take is still very low and innovative ways to induce sanitation behaviour change should be encouraged. Coupled with the promotion of behaviour change communication strategies, measures to ensure that all drinking water and sanitation facilities shall be adequately maintained particularly those facilities that are used by the public. The recovery plan should therefore take into account all such repairs and retrofits necessary to make public utilities functional and usable. Suitable penalties may be imposed to erring institutions, offices, establishments and individuals.

While there is the problem of low demand for sanitation as reflected in the slow up-take, the supply side consisting mostly of government agencies, contractors, masons and a few NGOs is inadequate both in capacity and in skills to address current and future demands. At scale, these systems will thus be insufficient. There is growing interests amongst social entrepreneurs and business alike on the high volume sanitation market and while these are yet to be demonstrated to be effective to address scale, they offer opportunities for broadening of the supply side and providing choice to families. Entrepreneurs with technology and financing options could service families who are ineligible to receive latrines under the Nirmal Odisha Abhiyan.

Sanitation until now has remained in the domain of the engineers of the water supply and sanitation department and a few NGOs in the state. This engagement is insufficient to address sustainable sanitation in the state, the formation of the Odisha Toilet Forum and other local networks bring forward the potential for the engagement of more actors as stakeholders in delivering universal sanitation. Such collaborations and networks offering more information to the public should e encouraged.

Livelihoods regeneration is central to a successful recovery plan. The post disaster situation of a community reflects the vulnerability of its livelihoods and assessments to plan for re-generation of livelihoods should ensure that the intent is not on simply restoring livelihoods to its earlier status but

Supply Side

Collaborations and Public Communications

Livelihoods Re-generation

to make it strong enough to be able to withstand, response and recover disasters. Traditional instruments of assessment are inadequate to clearly assess the extent of loss and damage to livelihoods for example artisan groups and work on the principle of compensation alone. Livelihoods regeneration will require a completely new way of thinking, individual, family and community based livelihoods recovery plans will have to be developed in participation with the affected individuals, families and communities while taking into capacity development, institution building and markets. It is crucial to remember that hazards are a constant and all plans should factor how current and future hazards have been considered while developing livelihoods recovery plans.

Hazards exacerbate the risks created out of anthropogenic modifications to the built environment. Rivers have become silted, drainage channels have been blocked or diverted, ecologies destroyed due to unregulated land use and a host of anthropogenic activities have made the built environment unsafe and these unsafe environments are in turn most impacted by hazards. To achieve resilient livelihoods, it will be essential that the built environment is first examined and analyzed for the risks it poses. Solutions will require political leadership and the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts to assist the affected communities to analyze their risks and options. Long term plans should be supported with short and medium term plans for the affected populations to allow them to enhance their coping strategies while changes are made to their built environment. Bringing in structural changes to the built environment will require administrative and political buy-in and the Government of Odisha could set up a team within the OSDMA to prepare a comprehensive settlement plan in which the risks to livelihoods can be reduced by improving the built environment through activities such as dredging of river mouths and drainage channels, de-silting operations, land use re-planning, etc. Such projects could seek financing support from Development Banks or from the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund or a new fund could be set up through legal instruments. Disaster proofing social infrastructure will not only improve the built environment it will create significant local employment thus contributing to the local economy.

Livelihoods Infrastructure


11

Even though two people might pursue the same livelihood, their livelihood needs will not be the same. This is the principle for all livelihoods assessments and individual/family based support plans should ensure that the support is appropriate and is not limited to financial support but includes technical and skill development support and shall be designed to cover at least one life cycle of the product or crop. Material and financial supports provided only at the beginning of a life cycle are often not adequate and desired results are not achieved.

Technical Support: Recovering already vulnerable livelihoods requires significant technical & technological inputs at all levels of the livelihoods chain. The technical capacity to provide the range of technical inputs is currently lacking and investments will have to be made to identify and train human resources to deliver livelihoods recovery programs. Technical colleges with well designed courses could be an excellent source of qualified personnel to assist recovery managers; NGOs also offer opportunity for sourcing qualified and trained human resources to complete the link at the family/community level.

A workforce of qualified and trained personnel to implement livelihoods recovery is the key ingredient of success. The Government of Odisha should support innovations in the livelihoods sector and institute a culture of research & innovation. Bottlenecks in taking innovations from the lab to the field should be eased and special

Livelihoods Supportincentives such as grants, tax- breaks etc. be given to deserving agencies, institutions etc. engaged in successful livelihoods recovery.

Traditional credit sources extend only single loans, whereas the need could be for more than one. It needs to be explored how multi-loan packages can be designed and operated for those affected by disasters. Rural communities have to in most cases depend within their communities for loans and it should be explored how Self Help groups could be funded/re-financed. A corpus fund at the state level could be created with the support of HDFC, NHB and NABARD etc. to refinance livelihoods recovery activities.

In order to completely address the vulnerability of populations to natural hazards, special incentives for groups such as fishermen to receive cash in lieu of wages lost due to fishing holidays on account of natural hazards may be considered.

It is imperative that livelihoods recovery activities converge with the mainstream development schemes of the Government of Odisha. The National Rural Livelihoods Mission, the flagship livelihoods programme of the Government of Odisha to be adapted to include livelihoods recovery along with livelihoods promotion. Livelihood promotion should include making livelihoods resilient to disasters. Along with providing the institutions, the

Credit Support

Special incentives

Convergence


12


mechanisms and the wherewithal to deliver entitlements to people, it is essential that the delivery of entitlements is monitored particularly to ensure that the entitlements reach in the quality and quantity that is specified to the intended recipient. Recovery plans often do not achieve their intended outcomes as systemic inefficiencies prevent the complete delivery and receipt of entitlements. While corruption in the system is responsible for the non receipt of the complete set of entitlements, it is also the individuals lack of knowledge of his/her entitlements, It is strongly recommended therefore that participants in a recovery project are informed and educated about their entitlements. Entitlement education should therefore form an important component of all recovery plans. Entitlement education strategies could include “entitlement cards”, entitlement kiosks etc. All recovery plans should emphasize accountability and all aspects of planning and implementation should be available for external evaluation. Social audits are a useful tool to ensure monitoring and accountability of large programs.

thThe multi-stakeholder consultations on the 10 and

th11 of December, 2013 was successful in that it brought the stakeholders together at a common

Conclusion

platform to discuss and explore the contours of a recovery framework that would make the state, disaster resilient. Policy recommendations have been made in four key thematic areas of recovery planning, namely ?Social Housing and Infrastructure

Building Water and Sanitation

?Livelihoods Regeneration and

?Entitlement Monitoring and Social

?Accountability

Further consultations are scheduled to consolidate the recommendations for the policy framework on these thematic areas. The outcome of the series of consultations engaging stakeholders from the state and national Government, civil society, business and corporate, academia and community, will be the draft “Odisha Disaster Resilience Building Framework”. (ODRBF). The broad contours have been highlighted in this document, further detailing and articulation of key recommendations for a framework will emerge from further consultations planned for the coming months. The attempt to develop a framework to make a state disaster resilient is novel for Odisha and the commitment of disaster managers and development practitioners, is bound to reflect in the quality of the Odisha Disaster Resilience Building Framework (ODRBF).

13

Entitlement Monitoring & Social Accountability

Centre for Youth and Social DevelopmentDRTC , E-1, Institutional Area, Po. Gangadhar Meher Marg,

Bhubaneswar - 751 013 Odisha, IndiaTel: 91 674 2300983 www.cysd.org

Enable-Empower-Include...

Documents

Centre for Youth and Social Developmentguidelines for pre and post disaster recovery planning, while the final policy framework is expected to have clearly articulated the core recovery