The lessons from a spectrum of areas

‘The tsunami revealed that outside agencies often imposed their own notions of democracy, which undermined local capacities and resilience by fostering individualism and dependence’
| Photo Credit: Getty Images

The 2004 tsunami affected a number of countries, making it a truly global disaster. There are six critical lessons we must consider.

First, the importance of mangroves in providing natural protection to coastal areas — they serve as vital buffers against waves. Unfortunately, the significant destruction of mangroves in India and other countries — to promote shrimp farming, meet basic wood and fuel needs, and for tourism — has disrupted the natural ecosystem. In many cases, the construction of artificial barriers (brick and mortar walls), may actually increase people’s susceptibility to the damaging effects of waves.

Social changes

Second, keeping common resources such as beaches in the public domain is crucial. In Thailand, the privatisation of coastlines during the 1980s and 1990s allowed private interests to develop hotels and leisure activities, displacing local communities. This led to significant changes in labour, including the rise of the sex industry. Additionally, a large section of the population transitioned to informal sector jobs. Thailand’s economy became highly vulnerable to global fluctuations, and is a lesson for India.

Third, the tsunami created winners and losers in the market. Rents, the price of land, goods, and services all rose, benefiting only asset owners and service providers. The disruption of local markets led to the replacement of local products with externally sourced goods, disrupting interdependent local economies. A number of people transitioned from traditional livelihoods to casual, low-paid labour. The push for mechanised fishing became particularly noticeable, displacing traditional artisanal fishing practices using catamarans. The degradation of natural resources intensified, leading to over-fishing, waste accumulation, loss of fish breeding areas, and further erosion of beaches and soil. Addressing these economic processes of production, consumption, and exchange — aggravated by privatisation and liberalisation — is a challenge. Unfortunately, no studies exist to measure these patterns.

A worsening of inequalities

Fourth, there are lessons to be learned about relief efforts and long-term rehabilitation. It is not surprising that the social structures that create and sustain discrimination, injustice, and exclusion in society continue doing so during and after disasters. In a highly stratified society such as India, relief and rehabilitation efforts can often reinforce and even exacerbate pre-existing inequalities, discrimination, and marginalisation.

Evidence from tsunami-affected countries suggests that social divisions significantly affected access to relief and rehabilitation services. There was a notable tendency to overlook the needs of vulnerable groups, including labourers, Dalits, tribes, immigrants, ethnic minorities, widows, and single women, in the distribution of relief and rehabilitation unless some vocal groups advocated their cause. In Thailand, undocumented Burmese or Lao migrants, many of whom suffered serious injuries and required urgent medical attention, had to go into hiding to avoid arrest. In Sri Lanka, Tamil minorities in the east and northern regions received significantly less assistance despite suffering much greater devastation.

Furthermore, asset-based damage assessment tended to favour better-off segments of the affected. Within India’s fishing community, labourers engaged in fishing, retail businesses, and ancillary activities continued to suffer until fishing activity resumed but received little compensation. In some communities, the relief provided barely met basic subsistence needs, while others experienced excessive aid.

Fifth, gender-insensitive relief and rehabilitation policies often accentuated the vulnerability of women. In Indian fishing communities, women are typically involved in activities related to the processing and marketing of fish or in non-fishing jobs such as collecting shells or running food stalls. They rarely own property or assets in their name. During the relief and rehabilitation, in many cases, their livelihood needs were overlooked. Relief and rehabilitation packages were distributed based on lists of affected persons prepared by the fish worker panchayats, leading to women lacking access to relief measures. Widows from fish worker communities faced difficulties in receiving assistance, as they did not possess identity cards issued by the Fisheries Department. The important takeaway is that social divisions must be carefully addressed at every stage of relief and rehabilitation.

Engagement with local structures

Sixth, it is crucial for relief agencies to respect community-based local institutions, especially in coastal communities where organisation revolves around the concept of commons. Unlike agrarian or urban areas, democratic practices in fishing communities, such as kuppams, rely on active debate rather than elections. The tsunami revealed that outside agencies often imposed their own notions of democracy, which undermined local capacities and resilience by fostering individualism and dependence. While issues such as gender insensitivity exist within these communities, a critical and long-term engagement with local structures would be more effective in addressing these concerns rather than demonising them.

Pushpendra Kumar is a former professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. He worked in tsunami relief and rehabilitation in affected countries