1. 1
SSFRDT
INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANCY &SPONSORED RESEARCH,
IIT (MADRAS),
HAND –in- HAND TAMILNADU,
WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL,
&
SOCIETY for SOCIAL FORESTRY RESEARCH
& DEVELOPMENT TAMILNADU (SSFRDT)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP on
POST-TSUNAMI LIVELIHOOD RESTITUTION IN TAMILNADU
on
22nd
APRIL 2006
Venue: HALL No.2,
IC&SR Bldg., IIT MADRAS

2. 2
SESSION ONE
INAGURAL
Introduction by Prof.B.Subramanian German studies, Social Sciences Department. IIT
(Madras)
Prof. Subramanian welcomed the participants. He traced the genesis of the workshop, from
the tsunami on 26th
DFec.06. He pointed out to the three phases in the post tsunami
activities – rescue, relief and rehabilitation. The work had entered the enormously
challenging area of livelihood restitution, especially of non marine fishing families, which ran
into thousands. The NGO Hand inhand Tamilnadu had been asked to study the livelihood
issues by Wetlands International. A report had been generated which had been circulated
prior to the workshop.. The Industrial Consultancy and Sponsored Research (IC&SR) wing
of the Indian Institute of Technology (Madras) had agreed to host this discussion on the
report. He introduced the other resource people for the workshop, the Dean of IC&SR,
Prof.T.T.Narendran, Prof. Sankararaman, Prof. Shankar Narasimhan of the Rural
Technologies Group, Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy, from the SSFRDT, Prof.Ranjit Gupta,
founder Dean of the Tata Dhan Academy, Madurai, Mr.Vivekanandan, CEO of the SIFFs
and Mr.Nammalvar of Tamilnadu Organic Farmers Federation.
Prof. Subramanian, the formal chair for the morning session, requested the IIT (Madras)
Dean to give the inaugural address.
Inaugural address by Prof.T.T.Narendran, Dean of IC&SR
Prof.Narendran welcomed the participants to the IIT (M) campus and the IC& SR conference
hall. In his view, the performance of rural development programs left much to be desired. He
had been forced to change his opinion in the last few years. A transformation had happened.
He had never come across the word “tsunami”. The problem now was to sustain the
rehabilitation process. Prof.Narendran quoted a few initiatives from his association with the
centre for rural development for the last twenty years. The socially relevant project, Rural
Technologies Group (RUTAG), and the Rural Innovations were some examples of work in
IIT (M).
Prof.Narendran stated that technology had to reach all. There had been plenty of science
with high cost technology. IIT (M) was interested in collaborating with NGOs, interested
bodies, in the rehabilitation and sustainable development of the rural poor. Prof.Narendran
wished the workshop a great success, and stated that the take away could be – What could
be done in the future?
Prof.Narendran concluded by expressing a desire to know more about what others were
doing in post tsunami livelihood restitution. .
Activities of socially relevant projects by Prof. Sankararaman
Prof.Sankararaman introduced himself as a professor from the Chemistry department.
Socially relevant projects gave technical help to researchers. From a humble beginning in
discussions in the Director’s office, it had grown to having a large image in engineering and
science. The activity was financed from within the IIT (M). Some of the projects undertaken
were –
• Dr. R. Ravichandran, a nephrologist, expressed strong interest in the development of
a drug that removes excess phosphate in the human body. As this drug was not
available in the Indian market, a process was developed at IIT Madras and
transferred to an industry which makes it available in India now

3. 3
The Byrraju Foundation, Hyderabad was given a methodology developed at IIT
Madras to treat waste water from kitchen and bathroom. This is implemented in a
village near Bhimavaram (Andhra Pradesh)
• . A methodology had been developed for sanitation workers, so that they need not
go into a manhole for detecting and cleaning blockages. A sensor had been
developed for detecting blockages and a mechanical devise had been created to
clean the blockage.
• The Gandhigram Trust had soap and ayurvedic preparation units, which had
problems of ventilation. Prof.Mani had designed a ventilation system.
• A document for future use had been prepared for rehabilitation of tsunami victims.
• A self-powered palmyrah tree climber is under development
Activities of Rural Technology Action Group by Prof. Sankar Narasimhan
Prof.Sankar Narasimhan introduced RUTAG as working on improvement of existing
technologies in Tamilnadu. It tried to improve existing products and devices. Workshops
were held to disseminate known technologies. 8 projects had been undertaken since the last
year. The group worked through NGOs. Some of the projects were –
• Gandhigram Trust made natural dyes.. This came in a liquid form which form was
difficult to market in export markets.. A project had been made for spray drying to
convert it to a powder form..
• Artificial foot for the disabled had been adapted from the Jaipur foot. It weighed only
280 grams. The CLRI had replaced some parts with light weight ones. PVC (Poly
vinyl chloride ) had been used for side support. Cold moulding technology had been
used. Implants had been used in the sole.
• The Pudu Vyavasaya Sangamam in Karur had problems of stopping (brakes) the
tractor trailer load of sugarcane . A mechanical engineering solution had been found
of a low bed tractor design with braking. A prototype had been made in Karur.
• A small scale industry had problems with coir spinning. This was due to the thinness
of the fibre. A mechanical engineering solution had been found in controlling the
speed of the spinning.
• Prototypes for LED l(light emitting diode) lighting devices for lamps had been
developed.
Training programs had been held to introduce mud block technology for housing. The
Auroville document in English had been made into Tamil for mason training.
RUTAG did not work on specific themes. The projects could be a part of a BTech or an
MTech project or part of a course. RUTAG had two more years of funding and could fund
projects upto Rs.50,000 to Rs.60,000. Usually a solution was found in 6 months.
Activities of the National Social Service by Prof.Subramanian
Prof. Subramanian stated that the NSS worked in a dynamic equilibrium with society. NSS
organised students to work on problems of rural living. The NSS unit had constructed
check dams, installed rainwater harvesting devices, promoted organic bio pesticides, tested
soil and had organised workshops on social initiatives and social management.

4. 4
SESSION TWO
PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY
Introduction to the study on Post tsunami livelihood restitution by
Mr.S.Ananthanarayana Sharma
Mr. Sharma introduced himself and the study team which had evolved the study. An eight
member multi disciplinary team, had undertaken the study. The team consisted of a social
forester, a gender expert, a rural development/livelihood management professional, three
agricultural scientists and two development administrators,
The study had been administered by the NGO Handihand Tamilnadu, located at
Kanchipuram and by the SSFRDT at Chennai. The study had been funded by the South
Asia office of Wetlands International located at Delhi.
Mr. Sharma attempted a contextual overview of the activities post tsunami till date. He traced
the initial rescue efforts, to the later relief activities, followed by rehabilitation projects. He
hypothesised that livelihood restitution would be the next phase. Each of the phases had its
own over riding objectives, time frames, main players, a pattern or relationships between the
affected people and the external agencies, - all of which created different managerial skill set
requirements
Mr.Sharma pointed to the lopsided priority given to marine fishing in the post tsunami
rehabilitation. He gave a simple analysis of the funds of the Central Government funded
Rajiv Gandhi rehabilitation package (Rs. 25 billion or US$ 569 million) and the World Bank
funded Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project. (Rs.30 billion or US$.682 million).. The
earlier damage assessment by IFAD, ADB and the World Bank had estimated Rs. 9,540
million as costs of replacement and repair of fishing equipment and gear. These two
programs had allocated Rs. 10,707 million, which was more than the estimated damage.
Amounts projected for marine fishing infrastructure were not tsunami related damages, but a
part of the tenth five year plan. However non marine fishing livelihoods had received a
meagre allocation of around 1.5% of funds. There appeared to be sufficient evidence to
show that tens of thousands of families depending on land, inland water and livestock had
been equally affected by the tsunami, but had received very inadequate or no attention.
Mr. Sharma narrated how the objectives for the study had been arrived at. The formal terms
of reference given by Wetlands International for the non marine fishing livelihoods
reconstruction part has six issues for the assessment. These were reordered as under –
i. Gender analysis of impacts of tsunami
ii. Assessment of social and economic impacts of tsunami
iii. Views, rights, and capacities of local communities and community based
organizations/ institutions with regard to rehabilitation efforts.
iv. Review of relief and rehabilitation strategies and action plans for livelihood
reconstruction.
v. Review of existing and ongoing assessments on livelihood reconstruction in the
tsunami affected regions.
vi. Priority actions for livelihood reconstruction.
Since it was impossible to do justice to all these issues in such a short span of time, (the
study period lasting just under three weeks) the team has biased itself towards an ‘action
perspective”. Hence the last term of reference, of priority actions for livelihood
reconstruction has been the main focus of data collection and of the study analysis. The

5. 5
reviews and assessments of the other objectives has been subsumed under this objective in
terms of data collection priority.
Mr. Sharma detailed the methodology followed.
• The universe of the study had been defined in terms of the earlier assessment definitions
of the affected areas. The districts of Villupuram, Cuddalore, the Union Territory of
Pondicherry and Kariakal, Nagapattinam and Kanyakumari were included. Some efforts
were made to confirm the assessment hypothesis that districts facing the Palk bay
(Ramnad,Pudukottai and Thanjavur) and Gulf of Mannar (Tirunelveli and Tuticodi) were
relatively unaffected.
• The design of the study worked on the following parameters.
o Time frame - The short time frame determined the methodology. As per the
Wetlands International contract signed on 27th December 05, the report had to be in
by 20th January 06. This meant a quick reconnaissance – a broad sweep across
rather than deeper diagnostic studies.
o Stratification – The study area seemed to comprise the following distinct agro climatic
regions –
(i) Unirrigated dryland – Villupuram district, Pondicherry region and parts of
Cuddalore district.
(ii) Irrigated Wetlandss – Parts of Cuddalore district, Karaikal region and
Nagapattinam district (also the worst affected in terms of lives and property)
(iii) Tropical (round the year rainfall) – Kanyakumari
o Secondary data collection –Three study teams were constituted for each of the three
strata. These three teams went to the district headquarters, met various NGOs and
Government officers and surfed the web to collect secondary data. The following
were the main sources –
(i) District Tsunami Resource centres – Especially the Nagapattinam and
Kanyakumari ones,. This data covered a wide gamut, from village census
after the tsunami on population, land and groundwater status, crops affected,
relief given, NGOs involved, etc.
(ii) District collectorates and their associated offices – Data on Agriculture, district
statistics, relief and rehabilitation efforts of the Government and NGOs.
(iii) NGOs working in the affected areas. The quality of data and the level of
cooperation varied. In some cases, a lot of quality data was shared without
any expectation of reward or favour. In some cases the NGOs denied access
to the data they had collected on the affected area.
(iv) World Bank reports and maps, downloaded from the website of the World
Bank..
(v) Other reports on the tsunami affected areas downloaded from the web
o Primary data collection.- Primary data village studies were made by the three study
teams. The studies used the techniques of Key Informant, Focus Group Discussion,
natural resource and social mapping; transect maps and seasonality mapping from a
livelihood perspective. 8 villages were studied. A quick transect was made across 7
villages facing Palk Straits.
Mr. Sharma presented the study team’s estimate of the affected population in the six
districts, which needed structured inputs for livelihood restitution. Around 498,000 people
would have been affected, which included around 163,000 children. These were spread
across 250 odd hamlets in 110 revenue villages. Thus an average tsunami affected
revenue village would consist of around 2 hamlets, with a population of around ,4,500.

6. 6
One third of the population would be children, and removing adolescents and aged,
around half the village would require livelihood restitution. This worked out to a total
about 250,000 people requiring livelihood restitution.
He presented the study estimate of land affected. Around 20,000 hectares of irrigated land,
mainly in the Cauvery delta had been damaged.. Around 10,500 acres of un irrigated land
had been affected mainly in the Coramandel coast.. He presented the following pie charts to
illustrate district wise distribution..
TSUNAMI AFFECTED IRRIGATED LAND -
19,870 Hectares
Pondicherry
5%
Cuddalore
8%
Karaikal
28%
Nagapattinam
48%
Kanyakumari
2%
Villupuram
9%
TSUNAMI AFFECTED UNIRRIGATED LAND - 10,607 ha.
Villupuram
37%
Pondicherry
1%
Cuddalore
55%
Karaikal
0%
Nagapattinam
0%
Kanyakumari
7%

7. 7
Tea break
Presentation of assessment in districts with assured irrigation by Mr.Gnanavel.
Mr.Gnanavel introduced himself as an agricultural scientist with a few years experience as a
professional in DHAN foundation, Madurai and recently with HiHTN. He described HiHTN as
an NGO which had started work on the social issues relating to child labour and was now
promoting nested institutions of women Self Help Groups.
He gave a presentation of the assessment of Karikal/ Nagapattinam district and that of
Kanyakumari,
Mr. Gnanvel introduced the Nagapattinam coastal belt as having suffered the highest
damage from the tsunami in India. 80% of the total deaths in India, occurred in this belt. The
available data seemed to indicate that that around 10,000 families had been dependent on
marine fishing for their livelihood.. Even prior to the tsunami there had been reports of
declining marine fish catch due to over harvesting. The post tsunami rehabilitation through
the provision of a large number of boats and gears has added to this biological l problem.
There appeared to be a significant number of families dependent on inland fishing prior to
the tsunami. The district data seemed to reveal a minimum of 1,500 families dependent on
esturine fishing, with around 3,300 MT of inland fish being harvested. There appeared to
have been a decline in inland fish harvest- due to decline and changes in seasonal water
flows, as well as over harvesting.
There appeared to exist a high density aquaculture industry of around 1,000 to 2,000
hectares in these affected districts., This appeared to have created problems of salinization
of ground water for the neighbouring paddy farms.
The secondary data appeared to reveal that a total of around 37,500 hectares fell within the
3 kilometre ingress area, affecting 72 hamlets in 42 gram panchayats.
A minimum of 10,000 hectares of agriculture land, in these two districts appeared to have
been affected by the tsunami. The most affected crop appeared to be paddy, followed by
groundnut. Around 8,000 farmers appeared to have been directly affected – 90% of them
being small and marginal farmers.
Mr. Gnanvel concluded his analysis with the following observations –
• Saline water prawn aquaculture prawn farms along the coast (atleast 1000 ha) had
created conflicts with paddy farmers.
• The wide distribution of boats and nets without taking into account conservation
concerns had led to over fishing.
• Farm ponds which provided supplementary irrigation had become contaminated by sea
water.
• There had been no scientific study for assessing soil salinity and restitution of coastal
agriculture. This had sometimes resulted in wrong technical programs - like blanket
gypsum application, without proper field analysis.
Mr. Gnanvel suggested the following as priorities for action.
• Marine fish vending women could be organised into credit and marketing self help
groups. (SHGs).

8. 8
• Sweet water pisciculture could be initiated both for restoring ground water table and for
providing employment to inland fishing communities.
• Prawn culture which was creating problems could be shifted to uncultivable lands in
Tamilnadu.
• A large scale scientific study was needed for soil salinity. Measures such as gypsum
application without scientific soil sampling and testing, had to be discouraged.
• As suggested by Annamalai University, green manure cultivation could be encouraged
for restoring soil fertility Application of various forms of green manure could be
encouraged.
• There appeared to exist cultivable fallows, which needed to be identified for cultivation
• Casuarina plantations had be encouraged as natural shields against sea borne
disasters.
• A scientific hydrological study on ground water was required as there appeared to be a
lot of evidence on contamination of fresh water bodies..
• Producer cooperatives around paddy, oilseeds and handicrafts (in Poompuhar) could be
experimented with for increasing non marine livelihoods.
• A feasibility study would be needed for understanding the potential of animal rearing for
increasing livelihoods.
• Religious and ecological -tourism were other options for livelihood creation.
• The long term solution for sustaining marine fishing livelihoods appeared to lie in deep
sea fishing. .
Mr. Gnanavel then gave a presentation on Kanyakumari district. He described the district as
lying at the extreme tip of the Indian subcontinent at the confluence of three seas. It had
round the year rainfall and had close cultural links with Kerala. Marine fishing appeared to be
a very important activity with 3 major ports and 42 minor landing spots.
The available data seemed to indicate that the total coastal area was 72 kilometres with 46
hamlets on the coast. Of these 33 had been affected. The affected hamlets were in the
blocks of Agastheeswaram, Rajakkamangalam, Kurnuthancode, Killyoore and Muncerai.
The district had experienced a lot of death and destruction in marine fishing hamlets.
Agriculture seemed to have been relatively unaffected.
The land utilisation data showed that around
• 7,300 hectares of land (34%) appeared to follow unirrigated agriculture
• 4,900 hectares (23%) irrigated agriculture,
• 5,800 hectares (27%) was unavailable for cultivation, and
• . 3,200 (15%) hectares was cultivable waste.
The affected population in the 33 hamlets consisted of mainly the fishing community. The
population break up seemed to reveal –
• Adult Males---- 52,047
• Adult Females—48,606
• Children-86,997
Mr. Gnanvel concluded with the following observations
• There had been reports of over fishing before the tsunami. Provision of boats and gears
without considering harvesting potential could have created more problems.
• Inland fishing did not appear to exist as a livelihood option in the coastal affected areas.
Visual evidence seemed to indicate that there was little Aquaculture
• The main damage to agriculture appeared to be restricted to coconut plantations along
the coast..

9. 9
He recommended the following as priorities for action for livelihood restitution.
1. Alternate livelihoods could be developed around industries based on local resources
like
• seashells, coir,
• goat and sheep rearing for Kerala meat market
• handicrafts especially around religious artefacts
• Inland fishing could be explored as there was sufficient sweet water available
• The high amount of cultivable wasteland could be used for horticultural
plantations especially targeting the existing industrial centres in neighbouring
Kerala.
2. The other non-farm livelihoods could be around
• Religious tourism
• Artisan skills in cottage industries targeting tourists.
3. Finally, deep sea fishing could be developed for marine fishing livelihoods which
required a substantial restructuring of technology, skills and marketing infrastructure..
Discussions on Nagapattinam and Kanyakumari presentations
Prof. Subramanian, as chairperson moderated the discussion. Mr. Gnanavel pointed out to
the lack of attention given to the agriculture sector in Karaikal. A discussion started on the
need for soil sampling.
Dr.Nammalwar and Dr.Elangovan did not agree with the recommendation for site specific
scientific soil sampling studies. Mr.Vishwanathan and Prof. Ramesh (Annamalai University)
stated that soil sampling studies were the need of the hour. Mr.Vishwanathan quoted from
DHAN’s experience in collaborating with the Kariakal agriculture college, and stated that
more of such initiatives were required.
Mr.Krishnakumar asked whether the data had been placed before the district administration.
He wanted to know about the feedback from the farmers. He enquired into the existence of a
Tamilnadu state fisheries policy. He requested for details on uncultivable land. He shared
the state Government’s mandate of increasing the forest and tree coverage from the
existing 20% to 33%. He enquired about land available for afforestation.
Mr. Gnanavel replied that another round of field visits would be required for collection of
such data.. A collaborative action would be needed between the Forest Department , and
other stakeholders..
Mr.Raja observed that the over fishing indicated labour saturation. A study was required on
marine resources to estimate harvest potential.. He enquired whether there were specific
issues concerning women marketing marine fish. He drew attention to the mindset issue of
marine fisher people refusing to migrate to other livelihoods. Deep sea fishing faced the
problem of boat technology and relatively high capital costs.
Prof.Subramanian requested Mr.Vivekanandan to respond to these issues..
Mr.Vivekanandan stated that marine fishing was a very complex sector. . There were
seasonal variations in catch. Now, there were a lot of boats back in the sea. A longer term
was required before something could be stated about fish yields.. There had been sea bed
changes, after the tsunami. . Increasing the range of fishing operations had to be
considered. However catch reduction had been observed more in non tsunami Kerala than
in Tamilnadu. Regarding the issue of capital, SIFFS had been able to mobilise Rs. 6 crores

10. 10
(60 million rupees) from 5,000 fishermen in a cooperative framework for livelihood
enterprises..
Mr.Karthovyan opined that the scope of the study was too broad. The impact on livelihoods
in terms of income , area affected and income from fishing had to be estimated. He
questioned the data on over fishing.
Mr.Sharma responded that the study had been as per the terms of reference set by the
funding agency Wetlands International. This had been a “given” - with the very limited time
and human resources, what was possible, had been attempted. This limited exercise itself
had thrown up a lot of data on implementation issues for livelihoods. For data on over
fishing in marine fishing, the Tamilnadu Government statistics could be a source. There also
existed data with the fisheries science educational institutions in Chennai and Toothukudi..
.
Ms. Revathi of TOFARM stated that there been floods also post tsunami. The backwater
from the tsunami had created salinization. There was poor maintenance of drainage
channels. The landless had been left out in livelihood restitution programs, with only a few
days of work given. These landless were bonded with even children being forced to work.
She also talked about non farm employment, plantation of casuarinas under Joint Forest
Management. She supplemented with some data on livestock. She briefly shared the
TOFARM experience in reducing salinity in soil and ponds.
Presentation on districts with dryland farming by Mr.Kannan
Mr. Kannan started his presentation with Cuddalore district. He profiled the district in terms
of the coastal length of 58 kilometres. There were 51 affected hamlets spread across three
blocks.3,500 hectares of land (55%) were un irrigated agriculture. 11% of the land was
cultivable waste.
The population in the affected area was 282,000 with 61,000 belonging to rural areas. He
assessed the economic, social and physical infrastructure to be average, with banking
infrastructure being poor.
He analysed the effects of the tsunami on livelihoods as under –
• Marine fishing – 8,700 households had been affected. Both Government and NGOs had
provided fishing equipment.
• Inland fishing – 3,000 families had been affected. These families fished from the
estuaries emptying into the Bay of Bengal.
• Agriculture – 90% of the farmers affected were small and marginal.. The main problem
was deposition of slushy greyish brown clay deposit. The pH ( a measure of acidity/
alkalinity ) of the soil was 8.6; (alkaline) and Electrical Conductivity was 12.7.(
deciSiemens per metre -dS/m – which classified it as highly saline). The EC data
showed high amounts of soluble salts present in the soil, which had been caused by sea
water intrusion. The ground water had been contaminated by sea water. There were a
few farm ponds & small percolation ponds. The irrigated crops taken were paddy and
sugar cane, while dryland crops were groundnut, pulses and casuarina.

11. 11
Mr. Kannan recommended the following remedial actions for Cuddalore district –
• Testing soil before suggesting interventions like gypsum, improving soil quality
through green manuring, and promoting saline resistant paddy & vegetable varieties
• Promoting casuarina & cashew plantations as bio shields.
• A systematic hydrological study to understand salinity in groundwater and then
restoration of existing small irrigation tanks & percolation ponds
Mr.Kannan then made a presentation on Villupuram district. He profiled the district in terms
of a coastal length of 41 kilometres, with 25 hamlets in the affected 3 kilometre zone. . Much
of the land- 4,384 hectares (42%) - was not available for cultivation. Un irrigated land
accounted for 3,807 hectares (or 37%) of total land.
The number of people in the affected area came to 78,000 with 56,000 in rural areas. In
terms of infrastructure facilities, he assessed the physical infrastructure of roads and
communication and the social health and education infrastructure to be average and the
market related infrastructure of banks, shandies and industries to be poor.
He analysed the effects of the tsunami on various sectors.
• For marine fishing, the fish catch/yield had reduced, and there had been no fishing for
eight months. Around 8,000 women were dependent on fish vending, whose livelihood
issue was at stake.
• There were 20 saline water aquaculture ponds all along the coast – for which he raised
the question – could it be shifted to uncultivable tracts?
• Around 1,500 hectares of land and 2,300 farmers had been affected. The cash
compensation paid by the Government came to Rs. 2500/ hectare. The major crops
grown were cereals (rice, jowar and bajra), oilseeds (groundnut and gingelly) and
casuarina plantations.
•
Mr. Kannan recommended the following for the district.
• Creating a bio shield along the coast with casuarina and Cashew plantations.
• Introducing saline resistant varieties of paddy and vegetables.
• A separate focus for inland fishing.
• Allied agriculture activities, like rearing of milch animals, sheep and goats, had to be
encouraged.
• Soil tests to be carried before introducing interventions like Gypsum application.
• Promoting agricultural value addition units through processing.
Concluding session
The study presented the gender livelihood perspective of paddy cultivation. This was done
through an estimate of women employment generated from an acre of irrigated land
growing paddy.
The duration of the cropping cycle of paddy was 110 to 120 days.. In this span of three to
four months a total of 127 women days of labour could be generated. The break up by
tasks was presented as under –
• Preparation of nursery- 5 women for one day
• Application FYM - 2 women for one day
• Transplantation - 25 women for one day
• Weeding (three times) - 15 women for three days
• Application of fertilizer- 5 women for one day
• Harvesting - 25 women for one day
• Threshing and packing- 20 women for one day

12. 12
Prof. Subramanian moderated the concluding session by inviting questions. Mr. Karthoviyan
(CEDAR) quoted from a study which indicated marine fish resource availability . He also
raised the issue of the andless and dryland casuarina farming.
Mr.Sharma replied by displaying the following table which summarised the non marine fish
livelihood status post tsunami.
SECTOR Villupur
am
Pondic
herry
Cuddal
ore
Kariakal Nagapa
ttinam
Kanya
kumari
TOTAL
Un irrigated 3,800 ? 5,900 ? ? 700 10,400
Irrigated 1,700 1,000
tubewell
)
1,500 5,500 9,500 500 19,700
TOTAL FOR
AGRICULTUR
E
5,500 1,000 7,400 5,500 9,500 1,200 30,100
FISHERIES
Marine fish
women
8,000 5,000 8,700 3,000 10,000 10,000 42,700
Inland fish 1,000 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,500 ? 7,500
TOTAL FOR
FISHERIES
9,000 6,000 11,700 4,000 11,500 10,000 52,200
TOTAL 14,500 7,000 19,100 9,500 21,000 11,200 82,300
Mr.Sharma stated this figure of 82,000 was very very conservative. Irrigated agriculture
absorbed much more labour. As the previous presentation on women employment in paddy
showed, the number of livelihoods could be increased by a factor of atleast three.
He pointed to the vulnerable situation of women, both for marine fish and for inland fish.
Traditionally the men harvested produce and women sold the catch and used the proceeds
for household consumption. With declining yields, due to over fishing and increased boats,
and commercialisation, with fishermen directly selling to the market, the women were left
out. He shared a study done by an IRMA intern in Cuddalore which interviewed many inland
fishing women. This study seemed to indicate that these women were purchasing marine
fish from auction yards at usurious rates of credit and hawking it. Definitely there had been a
decline over time, across the years, in harvest of inland fish. This had forced these women
to shift to cash procurement of marine fish for hawking. . He stated that marine fish women
vendors would probably have a similar problem of usurious credit and increasing market
competition.
Mr. Sharma also raised the issues relating to technology for the particular sub sectors
where post tsunami livelihood was a problem, through the following table. .
MAIN
SECTOR
SUB SECTORS Remarks on technology
Agriculture
irrigated by
canals and
irrigation
tanks
• Paddy
• Sugar cane
• Banana
• Coconuts
• Promoting Vegetable cultivation
• Pulses
• Interface issue of existing
Saline resistant varieties.
Special issues for cleaning land
affected by clay / sand / salt
deposits form the tsunami.
Special issues for groundwater
and inland ponds affected by sea
water.
Conversion of productive fallow or
waste lands to agriculture

13. 13
aquaculture
• Sweet water fish cultivation in paddy
fields (if food security continues to
be an issue)
/horticulture
Promotion of organic farming
Assessing technical suitability of
existing agricultural packages like
the blanket use of gypsum
Post harvest technology for
storage
Post harvest technology for value
addition
Agriculture
mainly
dependent
on rains and
groundwater
• Plantation crops such as casuarina,
cashew, jackfruit, pomegranate,
Tamarind and Amla
.
• Gingelly and other oilseeds
• Coarse cereals
• Pulses
Technical package for converting
tsunami hit drylands back to
agriculture
Packages for saline resistant
crops.
Dry land agriculture issues
Assessing technical suitability of
existing agriculture packages like
blanket use of gypsum
Post harvest technology for
storage and value addition
Forestry • Promotion of bio shields on private
and community land
• Revival of mangrove forests
Species choice and propagation
of coastal belt plantations in
private and community land
State Forest Department interface
and technology to revive
mangroves.
Animal
husbandry
• Milch animal
• Sheep
• Goat
Artificial insemination and sperm
banks for introducing high yielding
breeds
Assessment of natural resource
availability for feed or increasing
external feed
Cattle feed technology
Milk processing, storage and
transport.
Mutton processing, storage and
transport. (Kanyakumari)
Fisheries • Estuarine fishing
• Sweet water fish culture on leased
private land
( Pisci culture)
Fishing technology including
boats and gears for esturine
Pisci culture technology
Cold storage facilities for
marketing
Tiny
industry
• Artisanal
• Religious tourism related
• Value addition of existing agriculture
produce
Technology related to working
on wood and metal.
Technology for existing
industries living off agriculture
by produce such as coir,
thatch, rice bran, straw .
Services • Petty vending of fish, vegetables etc.
• Petty retail shops
• Petty religious tourism retail shops
Technology related to supply
chain problems.
Creating more efficiency in

14. 14
• Transportation (rickshaws, manual
and automated) for people and
commodities.
• Micro finance for livelihood
enterprises
existing transportation.
Technology
Information and,
communication Technology (
ICT )
Prof. Subramanian concluded the morning presentation. He stated the problem to be one of
restoring the economic cycle. He stated that better planning was required. Measures to
increase economic efficiency had to be introduced. Village self sufficiency had to be
increased. Gender related seasonal labour issues had arisen, which were different from the
earlier situation.
He recommended a more intensive utilisation of resources which were already existing.
He concluded that Livelihoods had to be ensured so that human beings lived in dignity.
Lunch break

15. 15
SESSION THREE
LIVELIHOODS IN IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
Introduction to the post lunch session by Prof.Ranjit Gupta
Prof. Gupta introduced himself as a retired professor from the Centre for Management in
Agriculture (CMA) in IIM (Ahmedabad) and founder of the TATA DHAN ACADEMY (for
development management) in Madurai. He stated that there were two ways of creating
knowledge – from the particular to the general and from the general to the particular. Here
the workshop was moving from a general assessment of tsunami issues to specific sectoral
livelihood issues. The workshop had the objective of discussing livelihoods. Prof. Gupta
scheduled the afternoon time as under –
Each presentation would last for twenty minutes followed by a twenty minute discussion. The
order of presentation would be the saline rice technology first followed by TOFARM
experiments with organic farming followed by the IFAD government program. Then the tea
break,, followed by the presentations and discussions on the agriculture systems
perspective and the casuarina presentation. This would be followed by the producers
cooperative presentation and discussion.
Presentation and discussion on saline rice technology by Prof.Ramesh,
Prof. Ramesh stated that the research problem had been framed as to whether rice
cultivation was possible in saline agriculture lands. . A team consisting of Ganapathy,
Ramesh, Manimaran, and G.Bardhan had undertaken the study. IRRI gave the germ plasm
and funded the study.. The problems related to salinity, acidity and alkalinity. Site specific
experiments were required, and hence 4 sites were selected in South Cuddalore. The
experimental method used was randomised block design with three replications. The
performance parameters observed were – plant height, leaf area, harvest index, productive
tillers, grain panicles, grain yield, straw yield, sodium potassium ratio. etc. A path analysis
was done for productive tillers, filled grain per panicle, etc. The results of the strains were
then mapped on a matrix, with high and low susceptibility .on one side and low and high
yields on the other. Strains 8,10 and 12 showed to be more saline tolerant.
Prof. Ramesh stated the following to be the way ahead in dissemination of saline resistant
varieties of paddy.
• Raising the genetic yield ceiling and sustaining the yield potential of currently
available technology for irrigated production system.
• Arresting the declining trend in total factor production, input use efficiency and
deteriorating soil health problems in irrigated rice production system.
• Development of agro climatic specific varieties and management of technologies
for rainfed agro climatic zones, for direct sown and transplanted conditions.
• Increasing the profitability of rice cultivation by adding a new dimension of cost-
effectiveness to crop management and by developing remunerative rice based
cropping systems.
• Generation of technologies for organized frontline demonstrations and rapid
dissemination of new varieties and package of technologies.
Prof. Gupta clarified that what had been presented were 3 potential varieties, which could be
tested in the farmer fields.
Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy asked whether lack of seed material was a problem.
Prof. Ramesh stated seeds from IRRI were used. There could be complications if the IRRI
name was used.
Mr. Ganeshan asked if there were plans for field testing.

16. 16
Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated that Prof. Ganeshan of Annamalai University had already
shown that it worked in 8 sites in the Coramandel coast.
Mr.Krishnakumar asked why IRRI varieties and not Indian varieties were chosen.
Prof. Ramesh replied that it was an international study to test some varieties. Funding
constraints had come in the way of implementation.
Presentation and Discussions on the land desalination project executed by the Tamil
Nadu Organic Farmers Association (TOFARM) in Nagapattinam by Ms.M.Revathi
Ms.M.Revathi informed that TOFARM had collaborated for the last one year with IIT (M) for
tsunami related rehabilitation. The backwater of the tsunami had gone upto 5 kilometres
inside. Crops such as paddy, groundnut and vegetables were destroyed. Nagapattinam
coast had small farm ponds for irrigation. They were sometimes below sea level, and this
had now filled with saline water. There had been alternate floods and droughts for the last 4
years. There had been no seed for the next year crop or straw for the cattle.
She stated that the tsunami ingress had left a 2 feet silt and clay deposit. The saline salt had
come up due to capillary action. After two months of pickling, the land had no organic matter
and no microbiological activity. It had been lost to cultivation. The consequence was that
standing crops were lost, people were affected.
TOFARM undertook a problem assessment with the people. Deep ploughing was done
going to depths below 30 centimetres. Location specific solutions were found, and financial
estimates made for land reclamation.. Some of the solutions implemented included –
• Removal of sea mud. The mud had accumulated upto 3 feet, and did not allow air to
percolate. Leaching was not possible. This had been removed. . One such site was
2.5 kilometres from the coast of Vedaranyam.
• 2,756 acres of land was deep ploughed.
• In 837 private farm ponds, saline water was pumped out, and the pond desilted.
• 200 to 300 common ponds were maintained.
• 3,500 farmers were given direct assistance for farming.
• 275 vermi - compost units were started.
• Land restitution work was continued even after the floods. (November 2005).
Mr.Nammalwar supplemented the presentation. He said that reclamation of saline land for
paddy required more water. The cost per acre for reclamation came to Rs.2,200 per acre.

17. 17
SESSION FOUR
STATE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS FOR LIVELIHOOD
PROMOTION
Presentation on the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) program
for livelihoods, by Mr.Raja.
Mr.Raja, a Joint Director of the project implementation unit with the tsunami relief agency of
the Tamilnadu Government gave a short presentation on the planned livelihood program
with IFAD funds. He stated that he had come to the workshop to represent the Government
departments. He unveiled various government plans including ,
• Model village plans for 320 villages
• Escape routes from sea based disasters at the cost of Rs.77 crores (770 million
Rupees)
• Construction of houses
• Safe drinking water and sanitation
• Community amenities
• Solid waste management, with a zero waste objective.
• Disaster prevention measures.
The Government had created mechanisms to ensure convergence of Government funds.
There was a separate fund for restoration of livelihood with a mandate to utilise Rs.300
crores (3 billion rupees) to 238 villages in 8 years time. The objectives would be to organise
the beneficiaries into groups, build up capabilities, give enterprise training and upgrade
skills. He added that there was absolutely no funding constraint for this program.
The activities planned included benchmark survey, counselling, orientation, skill upgradation,
restoration of livelihoods, income generation schemes and employment generation
programs.
Tea break

18. 18
SESSION FIVE
LIVELIHOODS IN DRYLAND AGRICULTURE
Presentation on the relevance of casuarina species in livelihood restitution in post
tsunami agriculture in Tamilnadu. by Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy,
Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy described the tree, its distribution and cultivation in coastal
Tamilnadu. He stated Casuarina equisetifolia to be an evergreen tree(called Horse tail,
savukku),which was introduced in India as an ornamental species. It was then propagated
mainly for fuel wood purposes to run the steam engines in the second half of 19th century.
The tree had been used as wind breaks in and around farm boundaries, as shelterbelts in
coastal areas, and to stabilise sandunes It produced excellent sturdy poles, which were
suited for scaffolding, and as rafters in farm house constructions. It was also good as props
in banana cultivation while side branches found use as stakes in tomato cultivation. The
wood was excellent as fuel wood with high calorific value (4950 kcal/kg).The pulp was
valued in paper and rayon industries.
Casuarina equisetifolia was found naturally along the sea coasts from Malaysia to
subtropical S. Australia, , Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia, the Philippines,Southern
Myanmar, South Thailand and Andaman and Nicobar. .
In India it was found on the coastlines of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Pondicherry,
Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal, and Kerala.
Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated that a very conservative estimate of the cultivation in
Tamilnadu was about 35,000 hectares . with Villupuram and Cuddalore districts accounting
for nearly 75 % of the total. Casuarina was mainly cultivated by individual farmers, who had
small land holdings.
He stated that Casuarina was cultivated in both rainfed and irrigated modes; The rainfwed
crop was harvested in 5 to 7 years. The irrigated crop was harvested in 3-4 years.
Casuarina was grown in espacements varying from 0.5 m X 0.5 m to 4m X 4m. Yield varied
considerably, depending on availability of water for irrigation. The yield ranged from 10
metric tonnes (MT) per hectare to 60 MT per hectare per rotation. The current price was
Rs.3000/- per MT for industrial use. .
Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy said that Casurina could be grown as an agroforestry crop with
edible oilseed crops like gingelly, and groundnut as an intercrop. It could also be planted
along the bunds, to supplement the farm income.
He drew attention to the considerable amount of research work that had been undertaken
by Tamilnadu Forest Department (at its Research Centres at Marakkanam and Neyveli),the
Institute of Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding -Coimbatore , Andhra Pradesh Forest
Department , ITC Bhadrachalam and Andhra Pradesh Paper mills. Research had been
carried out on tree improvement aspects like -
• establishment of seed orchards,
• clonal banks for genetic stock improvement,
• nursery practices,
• silvicultural practices ,
• improvement in quality of wood
Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy opined that much of these works however, needed to be
translated to performance in the field. He cited Casuarina junghuhniana , which was a fairly
drought and salinity tolerant species, as one such example.
He presented the following table to analyse the technical properties (in terms of dissolving
pulp properties) of Casuarina equisetifolia

19. 19
Parameter Desirable
range
C.equi
Setifolia
Remarks
Basic Density (kg/m3) 0.5 to 0.6 0.73 High wood density increases the
requirement of chemicals for proper
cooking , increasing pollution & costs
(sulphite process)
Fibre length (µm) 800- 1200 1080 Optimum range but fibres very thin and
stiff.
Benzene extract(%) 0.2 -0.4 0.3
Alcohol extract (%) 0.9-1.4 2.48 Special process needed to avoid high
levels.
Digestion with water
(%)
0.1-0.3 0.86
Digestion with 5 %
NaOH (%)
5.0 -6.0 5.3
Pentosans (%) 15-21 21.92 Desirable for paper manufacturing but
not preferred for dissolving grade pulp
manufacturing.
Lignin < 20 28.38 High levels increase pollution load .
Cross & Baven
Cellulose
41-44 39.96 Selection for higher cross and Baven
cellulose to be carried out.
Ash % < 0.4 0.47 creates problem during rayon
polymerisation
Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated this table revealed a range of options for research.
He opined that there existed a ready market for Casuarina from paper and pulp mills like
TNPL, Karur, ITC Bhadrachalam (Andhra Pradesh), Harihar Polyfibres (Karnataka) for
rayon.
Cities like Chennai & Bangalore had a huge potential for absorbing Casuarina for
construction purposes. Agricultural crops like Banana and Tomato required Casuarina props
for its growth.
The high calorific value made Casuarina suitable for biomass based energy production
through gasification..
Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy listed the following issues for research before a post tsunami
livelihoods creation program could be initiated through casuarina.
• Could Casuarina be a source of livelihood to farmers ?
• What were the other livelihood options for the existing Casuarina farming community,
in the Tsunami belt, especially in the districts of Kanchipuram, Villupuram and
Cuddalore ?
• What were the technological aspects that need to be considered for increasing the
productivity and quality of Casuarina species, ?- Specifically was it possible to
decrease the lignin content for the paper and pulp industry.
• What were the value chains for the Casuarina crop before it reached industrial end
users?, What were the trade intermediation margins?.
• What was the supply chain for transforming harvested wood to desired forms?
(pulp, construction poles etc.?)
• How did the price change at each stage of the supply chain?.
• What was the availability, quality and price of competing products for Casuarina both
locally and globally? For example Eucalyptus species. .
• What was the unexplored potential for increasing the usage and value of the wood?

20. 20
Mr.T.S. Srinivasa murthy finally stated that -from a livelihood perspective most of the
farmers had tiny land holdings. He recommended that unless they aggregated the produce ,
they did not stand much chance in an increasingly competitive market space.
Hence he suggested that these farmers’ be organised as tree producer cooperatives. Their
produce could be pooled and marketed to the end users for increasing the value of the
farm gate price.

21. 21
SESSION SIX
FRAMEWORKS FOR ANALYSIS
Presentation on the relevance of understanding agriculture commodities and
livelihoods from a systems perspective by Mr.S.Ananthanarayana Sharma
Mr.Sharma on behalf of the Centre for Action Research and Training, Madurai, gave the
following conceptual overview of the agricultural commodities systems model.
He noted that the Institute of Rural Management, Anand (IRMA) pioneered the use of a
“systems perspective” for analysis of agricultural commodities from a livelihood perspective.
The white revolution, which had made India the largest producer of milk in the world, as well
providing livelihoods to tens of millions of poor women, was an example of the utility of such
analysis. The framework was useful for understanding agro businesses, whose supply and
value chains could stretch across the globe, and which could encompass months and even
years of time. In these days of globalization and liberalization, the marginal and small
farmers literally faced competition at their doorstep. Such an analysis was an essential pre
requisite before any structured initiative could be even contemplated.”
Mr. Sharma stated that systems analysis was thought to have originated from cybernetics.
In its simplest form, a system would consist of the following components.–
(i) Inputs
(ii) Processes
(iii) Outputs
(iv) A feedback loop connecting outputs back to inputs.
The system was embedded in an “universe” – which was usually a larger system.
Conventionally a systems analysis, would conceptualise a series of subsystems each inter
linked, and together forming a larger system. Usually the outputs of a subsystem becomes
the input of another subsystem.
Applying this systems perspective in an agricultural context, Mr. Sharma stated that the
UNIVERSE of a commodity system, would be the political economy – defined across
particular points in time, and usually at a geographically defined space. The movements and
transformation of the commodity would be embedded within this political economy. The
political economic context would encompass sociological variables, of the people whose
livelihoods were dependent on the commodity – as also the technology in use for movement
and transformation of the commodities and their markets. Economic variables would be
understood in terms of their price movements.
Mr.Sharma stated that the INPUTS of a commodity system would be the physical
production system. This would include the technology – including, seeds, other technical
inputs, agronomy, and harvesting. The farmstead would usually be the physical boundary of
the subsystem. If the commodity was harvested from a common property (fish, forest
produce), the resource base – the estuary, or ocean spot, or forest would be the defined
physical boundary.
The physical production subsystem could also be analysed from a systems perspective.
The seed material and inputs like fertiliser and pesticide, along with land and water, would
be the inputs. The process of actual growth of the plant/tree/fish/etc would be the process.
The harvest would be the output.
He stated that the PROCESS of a commodity system would be the exchange and market
mechanisms. Usually the farmstead gate was taken as the physical boundary. The
exchange of the harvested produce, usually against cash, and sometimes in barter was

22. 22
traced. The actual space was usually a market (a mandi or haat or shandy). Sometimes this
could occur at the site of production itself – where a trade intermediary procured the
agricultural commodity from the farm gate. . In some cases it could also occur at the site of
final consumption – say the farmers taking their produce to a factory gate.
Mr.Sharma stated that the exchange and market subsystem itself could be analysed as a
system. The input would be harvested produce, the buyers, the sellers, and the market
space. The actual process of negotiation and exchange against cash or kind would be the
process. The output would be the price at which the commodity was exchanged along with
other terms and conditions.
He stated that the OUTPUT of a commodity system would be the manufacturing and
marketing mechanisms. The harvested output would be transferred through the market
exchange mechanism to the gates of say, a processing factory. The commodity would get
transformed through various technological processes, into a form desired by the final end
user or consumer. The consumption of the transformed product would mark the physical
boundary of the subsystem. Conventionally, management analysis in the corporate sector,
exclusively concentrated on this subsystem.
Mr.Sharma stated that it was easy to conceive the manufacturing and marketing subsystem
as a system in itself. The procurement of a particular commodity from the market and its
arrival say at a factory warehouse would be the input. The physical transformations by
technology would be the process – usually within a factory setting. The output was usually
a packaged product, with its distribution chain, which reached the final end user.
The FEEDBACK LOOP would be in terms of consumer behaviour and preferences,
exhibited mainly in terms of price, and sometimes in terms of behaviour. The consumer
market behaviour of complementary and competing products, would also form a part of the
feedback loop. A deeper analysis would look at the changes in ecology – land, water and air,
created by the entire agro business system.
Mr. Sharma gave the following pictorial depiction of the agriculture commodities systems
model.
UNIVERSE OF THE POLITICAL ECONOMY AND THE PHYSICAL
ECOLOGY
Consumer behaviour, price movements , of complementary and
competing products, changes in natural resources, changes in technology.
PHYSICAL
PRODUCTION
SUBSYSTEM
EXCHANGE
AND
MARKET
SUB SYSTEM
MANUFACTU
RING AND
MARKETING
SUBSYSTEM

23. 23
Mr. Sharma took the example of milk in Tamilnadu to ground the model. He described the
political economy of Tamilnadu as the universe of milk as a commodity system. The nature
of Governmental regulation, the existence of government controlled cooperatives, the
increasing market share of private sector corporate players, and the informal milk economy
in the urban and semi urban markets would form the universe. A deeper analysis would
incorporate the behavioural dimension – the religious reverence given to cow’s milk, the
conventional societal rejection of beef as a by product of the milch animal economy, etc.
The milk production subsystem would usually be located in rural farms. The cow would be
fed straw, green fodder, feed like rice bran, deoiled cake, purchased from the local grocery
store, and sometimes packaged feed. It would be usually artificially inseminated, and the
lactation cycle closely monitored to ensure regular pregnancy and calving. Cow dung (which
usually had its own use and sometimes its own market) and calves (both, the male calves
which were sold to the illegal meat market and the female calves which were raised as
heifers) were the by products of this physical production sub system. The milk was the
output of this sub system.
The exchange and market subsystem would contain a variety of players. There would be
private milk vendors, who would give credit and extract milk as repayment of the loan. There
would other private vendors who would arrive at some sort of bulk purchase arrangements
with the village through an agent, and send a truck to take away the cans. Larger players like
the Government controlled cooperatives and the private corporate sector would have formal
procurement systems, with some sort of regularity of procurement, and some sort of science
in valuing the milk in terms of fat and Solid Non Fat. (SNF). Price movements would be
determined by seasonality of production, seasonality of demand, and movement of milk to
and from other markets. (Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh).
The manufacturing and marketing subsystem would begin with the receipt of the raw milk
into say a milk processing factory. The milk would be pasteurised and packaged for sale
through a distribution system. Excess milk would be converted into butter, which again could
be packaged and sold. Some factories would even convert the excess milk into milk sweets,
cheese, etc. The marketing of milk and it products would involve modern market distribution
chains, advertising campaigns, and vary according to changing consumer preferences and
demographics.
The feedback loop would be the price paid by the final consumer, which translated back to
the primary producer as price paid for the milk. If say cow milk was still preferred, there
would be a shift towards cows over buffaloes, where such a choice was feasible. If the price
of feed increased, and the output price remained the same, there would be a drop in
production. A failure of the paddy crop say, would decrease the availability of fodder, which
again could result in lower production.
Discussions on agricultural systems approach and plantations moderated by
Prof.Gupta.
Mr.Rajendra Ratnoo, IAS heading the IFAD livelihood program spoke of his experience with
community plantations in coastal Cuddalore. He wanted specific managerial issues to be
worked out for the coastal areas. For instance in the case of milch animals, he wanted to
know the breeds recommended, and the existing available breeds. He stated that a
partnership of the Government and the NGOs was required for implementing such a
program. .
Mr.Krishnakumar, stated that in Tamilnadu 1.9 million hectares of land was to be brought
under tree cover. This was one opportunity for increasing livelihoods in tsunami hit areas.

24. 24
Ms.Revathi stated that in the olden days, forest cover was maintained. In present day
forestry the species grown did not provide food. Some of the species were ecologically bad.
Ecological and food security had to go together. Mangrove forests earlier were an example
of this approach.
Prof. Subramanian commented whether this was a romantic wish to go back to the past.
Mr.Ganeshan enquired about the other crops that could be grown –and cited the example of
oil seeds.
Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated that crop demonstrations had to be done in the field before
they could be recommended for large scale programs. .
Prof.Gupta asked whether there was any paper available on such issues. .
Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy stated that he had had only informal interactions. But unless a
comprehensive systems analysis was done, a new crop should not be introduced.
Prof. Gupta suggested that it would be useful to write up experiences in this regard.
Mr. T.S.Srinivasa murthy narrated his experience with community agro forestry. He said for
this to be viable what was the minimum size? What was the commercial price which was
viable financially? Was this environmentally viable?
Mr. Ratnoo narrated his experiences with traditional community plantations grown in coastal
Tamilnadu, used by traditional panchayats for village temple festivals. He raised the issue as
to whether it would be proper to ban the felling of such trees, which served as a bio shied.
Prof. Gupta stated that this was a policy issue, and felt that it was best left to be addressed
at the state level.
Ratnoo said that the systems approach to milk raised many questions. The best way was to
give such a study to a research organisation. He felt that this study would not be expensive
and quite a few such studies could be undertaken.

25. 25
SESSION SEVEN
ORGANISATIONAL FORMS FOR LIVELIHOODS
PROMOTION
Presentation on “Cooperatives for rural producers” by Mr.Vivekandan
Mr.Vivekanandan introduced himself as the Chief Executive Officer, of the South Indian
Federation of Fishermen Societies. a marine fishing cooperative with its Headquarters in
Thiruvananthapuram. He started by raising the question “Why cooperatives?” His answer
was in two parts.
In the first part, the present context was stated. . Cooperatives as an organisational form
went out of fashion in the 80s. The current trend of Self Help Groups, were for financial
services. There was a limit to the growth of such SHGs, and it targeted only women. . The
SHG form had its limitation for handling primary produce, achieve meaningful scale, and run
a large cooperative business. Hence the need for a cooperative for primary producers.
In the second part, the need for a cooperative was stated to exist for small producers, as
they were loosing out in the current context of globalisation where scale matters.
Cooperatives could help small producers by providing technical inputs of superior quality at a
lower cost, technology and scale for value addition, creating access to global markets. This
would prevent small producers from getting wiped out.
Mr. Vivekanandan then raised the question, “what is a cooperative?”
He stated the answer to be in two dimensions. It had to be a business, and it had to be
owned and controlled by the members. Unfortunately most of the Indian cooperatives failed
on both counts. They were usually quasi Government organisations, with very little business.
He gave the example of fishermen cooperatives in Tamilnadu, where not a single
cooperative had any business. It existed only to pump in Government subsidies and loans.
Mr. Vivekanandan then asked the question “what are the factors which create success in
cooperatives?”
His answer was that there were two sets of factors –
(i) Design issues such as homogeneity of membership, scale, technology,
markets, structure, role of members, quality of staff, etc.
(ii) Management issues such as governance, efficiency, accountability, and
transparency, and its ability to respond to changes.
Mr. Vivekanandan then followed with the question “who will organise a cooperative?”
He made a distinction between “self organised” or swayamboo cooperatives, and
cooperatives created through external intervention. In either case, issues of leadership,
sustainability, replicability had to be thought through. There was a paucity of promotional
organisations. There were both pros and cons for Government and Non Government
Organisations as promotional organisations.
He gave the example of the efforts of the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) in
milk. The success was with the sector of milk as a commodity but not with the concept of
cooperatives. Another example was the Cooperative Development Federation, Hyderabad
which was attempting to organise cooperatives.
Mr. Vivekanandan stated that the design issues to be looked at would include,
• capital investments,
• risks,
• bottom up incremental approach versus the big bang top down approach, and
• would it be community or commodity driven.

26. 26
Mr. Vivekanandan then grounded the theoretical statements with an example from SIFFS.
SIFFS was a 25 year federation organised in three tiers. It had 120 primary cooperatives
with 6,000 boats. SIFFS annual sales through the first point of marketing worked to around
450 million rupees (Rs.45 crores) SIFFS integrated over credit, savings and marketing. It
exercised control over the inputs through supply and maintenance of boats, motors, ice
plants, research and development, etc.
SIFFS emphasised “collective bargaining” at the wholesale markets, rather than getting into
retail markets directly. It evolved through a bottom up incremental process. It was an
empowerment model, with local cooperatives managing businesses, with federations as
support systems controlling inputs.
Mr. Vivekanandan then raised the issue of “organisational form” in cooperatives He stated
that there were many problems with the state cooperative laws, which were regressive and
meant only for Government control through registrars.
The mutually aided cooperative act helped genuine cooperatives which did not use
Government funds.
In 2002, the multi state cooperative act was passed. SIFFS was planning to organise a
federation using Karikal which had 80 members Karikal is technically a part of another state
as per Indian law and cooperatives across Nagapattinam and Karikal could qualify for multi
state coop status.
The recent producer company act, allowed a cooperative to be registered as a company.
The use of the Societies Act and the Trust Act was that it had the danger of being taken over
by the Government.
Section 25, the not for profit company act could had also been used as an organisational
form.
Mr. Vivekandan also raised the organisational form issue to whether it should be a unitary
structure – where individual members are the units, - or a federal structure, where local units
federate – or a nested structure, where local groups become building blocks of larger
structures. He recommended that non hierarchical structures be created. Cooperatives could
be built on top of SHGs.
Vivekandan then answered the question “what needs to be done?”
• Cooperatives had to be understood as a powerful instrument for organising small
producers.
• However work had to be done to create models for each sector commodity.
• The promotional organisation had to understand the sector, understand cooperatives,
and have a long term vision, say 10 to 15 years,
Presentation on producer company format by Mr. S.Ananthanarayana Sharma.
With the permission of the chair , Prof. Ranjit Gupta, Mr. Sharma gave a small presentation
on the producer company act. He drew the attention of the participants to a photocopied
article in the workshop papers from the periodical “INDIA TODAY”.. This article described
the functioning of a technical input farmer cooperative set up by the NGO PRADAN
(Professionals for Rural Development and Action) in Vidisha district of Madhya Pradesh –
one of the most economically backward districts in the subcontinent. This used the producer
company form.
Mr. Sharma briefly narrated the history and context of cooperative acts in India. The
cooperative movement would be atleast a century old, with Tamilnadu perhaps being the
home of the cooperative movement of India and perhaps of Asia. The five year plans since
independence had specifically mandated cooperatives as instruments of rural development.

27. 27
The quantitative achievements of the cooperative movement in terms of membership and
share capital mobilised was very impressive.
However, as noted by Mr. Vivekanandan, the cooperative movement has been emasculated
by the bureaucracy and the formal political system. The heart of the cooperative movement
was the ownership of the business by the members who are also the primary producers
(sugarcane, milk, fish, etc) or the users of the services (technical inputs, retail, credit, etc).
The members interest was represented by election of their nominees to the Board of the
cooperative. In practice, by cancellation of elections, and deputing Government special
officers to run the cooperatives, this cardinal principle of member control had been
completely eroded. Tamilnadu particularly had been one of the most delinquent states in this
regard.
The Institute of Rural Management, Anand (IRMA) was a management school, set up by the
milk cooperative movement, with a mandate for research, training and consultancy for the
cooperative sector. IRMA held a landmark international seminar on cooperatives in
December 1992, preceded by a year long international collaborative research on
cooperative action. One of the recommendations of the seminar was to set up a Cooperative
Initiatives Panel to amend the cooperative acts in India to make them truer to the principles
of cooperation. The panel had come out with model acts. One of this, the Mutually Aided
Cooperatives Act, had been enacted by many states, including Andhra Pradesh. However,
Tamilnadu had so far, yet to amend its acts according to mutually aided principles.
Mr. Sharma stated that one of the solutions suggested to overcome state Government
hostility, had been to strengthen central Government acts. The first initiative was to make the
Multi State Cooperative Act, more user friendly. It was amended in 2002. The cooperative
Registrar being sited in the Union Ministry of Agriculture, made interference in governance
or administration a central government issue.. To interfere would require the concurrence of
the state governments, in which the cooperative was registered, and the Central
Government. In the scenario of coalition Governments such an eventuality would be rare.
Also the act provided for stringent audit by the Central Government Registrar – as a check
and balance against the usual problems of fraud.
Mr. Sharma stated IRMA and other cooperative resource providers had complaints of the
unequal playing field between producer owned cooperatives and the multinational and Indian
corporate sector in the markets. Cooperatives passed on the benefit of the business back to
the primary producers. In the corporate sector, the providers of capital (usually in the .form of
easily tradable shares and bonds) were the main beneficiary of the business. The current
paradigm of globalization and liberalization of markets and technology was biased towards
private capital formation and its global movement. Cooperatives owned by producers or
users, had been left to their benign fate, governed by the diktats of the State Cooperative
Registrars..
He mentioned one of the recommendations of the IRMA workshop which was to provide the
same legal protection to cooperatives as was available to the private corporate sector. In
2003, the Company’s Act had been amended to incorporate producer cooperatives as a
company. Mr. Sharma drew the attention to some of the extracts of the bare act which had
been enclosed in the workshop papers. Some of the features of the act were –
(i) Incorporating the concept of mutual assistance principles, and patronage of the
cooperative business by the members, in the act.
(ii) Defining “primary produce”, across a variety of agriculture and service sectors
(iii) Enlarging the scope of the objects to include processing of agriculture produce,
manufacture and supply of agriculture machinery, provision of cooperative education,
provision of technical consultancy, generation of power, revitalization of land and

28. 28
water resources, insurance of produce, promoting mutuality, welfare activities for
members, , and financing including provision of credit.
(iv) Simple registration processes – minimum eligibility is ten producers or two producer
institutions, a time bar of thirty days for issuing certificate of incorporation,
(v) Liability limited to the amount of share capital, and legal rights as that available to a
private limited company.
(vi) Option provided for either the one person one vote principle, or voting rights weighed
by the participation in the cooperative business. Specific provision to remove
members whose business conflicts with that of the cooperative business.
(vii) Replacement the concept of dividend with that of patronage bonus, with share
holders getting a bonus in proportion to their participation. The option given of
distributing this bonus either as shares or as cash.
(viii) Recognizing that shares should be proportional to participation and patronage of the
business.
(ix) Transfer of shares only within the active members of the company.
(x) Provision to enable the Board to direct surrender of shares of members who have
ceased to be primary producers.
(xi) Formal conferment of status on par with a private company for miscellaneous
provisions.
Summarising the discussion on cooperatives by Prof. Ranjit Gupta
Prof. Ranjit Gupta concluded the deliberations as under –
• Robust design was important for any organisation. This had been brought out also by
Prof. Tushar Shah.
• Design had to also influence the vision. The time frame of the vision could be 2
years, 5 years or 50 years. Organisations had to avoid the danger of becoming
fossilised. If organisations failed to change, they were destined to be left by the
wayside. This of true both of cooperatives and of educational institutions.
Mechanisms had to be built in for this periodic revitalisation.

29. 29
SESSION EIGHT –
CONCLUSIONS
Summarising the afternoon discussions by Mr.Rajendra Ratnoo, IAS.
Mr.Ratnoo expressed the feeling of being moved by the deliberations. The question was how
to “hand hold” this sort of initiative. AMUL had become a role model due to professionalism
and being a democracy. The same spirit had to prevail for livelihood cooperatives to succeed
in Tamilnadu tsunami hit areas.
He wished to further the dialogue on this issue. He recollected how the dialogue started with
Mr.Sharma coming to his office to discuss the study. The need for an agricultural expert had
been brought out clearly. He concurred with the draft report findings and the discussions in
totality . Long term strategies had to be worked out for creating equity. The funders, World
Bank, Asian Development Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development, had all
operationalised their funding plans. IFAD was to become operational in June 2006. For
livelihoods ADB was giving 1.9 billion rupees. The SHG framework had created successful
examples. Velugu of Andhra Pradesh was one such example. .
Mr.Ratnoo raised the Issues of legality and frameworks. . The Mutually Aided Cooperatives
Act did not exist in Tamilnadu. Some form had to evolve for livelihood cooperatives. He
wondered whether SHGs could brought under the cooperative fold. Another option would be
producer cooperatives in a SHG framework. So too was neighbourhood groups. He asked
how entrepreneurship could be shared, when there was diverse interests. He asked
whether SHGs could become a unit for action. Problems like sleeping members and non
functional groups had to be addressed.
Mr.Ratnoo satid that all the three afternoon sessions he attended, systems approach for
livelihood, casuarinas plantation and the concluding session on cooperatives had been very
fruitful. He suggested a strategic advisory group be formed to permit people to be regularly
in touch. Disaster mitigation also had to be looked as an issue by such a group.
Conclusions of the workshop by Prof.Ranjit Gupta
Prof. Ranjt Gupta started with the question “what were the study highlights?”
His understanding was –
• The tsunami had affected marine communities directly and therefore there had been an
immediate response.
• The question now was not marine based interventions, but land, water and livestock
based livelihoods, which had received much less attention. It had been only allocated
1.5% of the total funds available.
• For land based agriculturists and inland fishing, “what had been done” was the million
dollar question.
• Technology issues had to be sorted through organisational forms which would be
decided by economic value addition created. The last discussion on cooperatives had
brought out this point.
• The time had been less, and the area large, which made an indepth study not possible.
Prof. Ranjit Gupta read out an extract from the draft study report circulated (page 17) as
under –
“A more indepth analysis of these sectors in terms of employment, technology,
markets, regulatory issues, competition and the political economy (as also the gender
aspects, which can cut across each category) could be done before planning investments.
These sort of studies could be from an action perspective of enhancing livelihoods by
creating entities cooperatively owned by the primary producers”.

30. 30
In order to do this, Prof. Ranjit Gupta stated that the following needed to be considered.
(i) Prepare area specific programs and projects, which were time bound, to restore and
upgrade land and water based livelihoods. This planning had to be by village, block
and district
(ii) Focus interventions which were time bound – 3,5, 10 years. The funds, time and
resources all had to be planned. What was going to be delivered was to be a
“PROJECT”.
(iii) In particular, scope had to be created for technology, skill building (HRD etc),
capacity building of affected landless, and then self regulating member owned and
member governed organisations. Who was to do this and where was the the support
were decisions that had to be taken. Here Prof. Gupta specifically asked Mr.Ratnoo if
this was the mandate he was suggesting in his previous comments.
Prof. Gupta finally gave his warm regards to Prof. Subramanian and other staff of IIT
(Madras), the HandinHand team of Mr.Gnanavel, Mr.Kannan and others and
Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy of SSFRDT He said he was deeply honoured to have been invited
to the workshop and share the chairpersonship.

31. 31
GLOSSARY
ADB – Asian Development Bank
BTech – Bachelor of Technology
CEO – Chief Executive Officer
CLRI – Central Leather Research Institute
Ha – Hectares
HiHTN – Hand in Hand Tamilnadu
IAS – Indian Administrative Service
IC & SR - Industrial Consultancy and Sponsored Research
IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development.
IFAD – International Fund for Agriculture Development
IFS – Indian Forestry Service
IIT (M) - Indian Institute of Technology (Madras)
IRRI – International Rice Research Institute
LED – Light Emitting Diode
MT – Metric Tonnes
MTech – Master in Technology
NGO – Non Governmental Organisation
OHP – Overhead Projector
PVC – Poly vinyl chloride
RUTAG – Rural Technologies Action Group
SHG – Self Help Group
SIFFS - South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies
SSFRDT – Society for Social Forestry Research and Development Tamilnadu
TOFARM – Tamilnadu Organic Farmers Association
WB – World Bank

32. 32
WORKSHOP ON POST- TSUNAMI LIVELIHOOD RESTITUTION IN TAMILNADU
Schedule followed at the IIT (M) workshop on 22nd April 2006
Session Time Theme Speaker
MORNING SESSIONS CHAIRED BY PROF.B.SUBRAMANIAN of IIT (MADRAS)
(I) INAGURAL SESSION
10.25 -
10.30 Welcome Prof.B.Subramanian
10.30-
10.40 Inaugural address Prof.T.T.Narendran
10.42
to10.50
Socially relevant projects of
IIT (M) Prof. Sankar Raman
10.50 -
11.00
Rural Technology Action
Group of IIT (M) Prof.Sankar Narasimhan
11.00-
11.05
National Social Service of IIT
(M) Prof.B.Subramanian
(II) STUDY PRESENTATION
11.05 -
11.25
Introduction and
methodology
Mr.S.Ananthanarayana
Sharma
TEA BREAK
11.25 -
11.30
STUDY PRESENTATION
11.55-
12.30
Assessment of
Nagapattinam, Karaikal and
Kanyakumari districts Mr.Gnanavel
12.30 -
13.00
Discussions on the
assessment
13.00 -
13.30
Assessment of Cuddalore,
Villupuram and Pondicherry
districts Mr. Kannan
13.30 -
13.50 Conclusions of the study
Mr. S.Ananthanarayana
Sharma
13.50 -
13.55
Wrap up of the morning
presentations Prof. B.Subramanian
LUNCH
13.55 -
14.45
POST LUNCH SESSIONS CHAIRED BY PROF.RANJIT GUPTA, founder and ex Dean of TATA
DHAN Academy (Madurai).
14.45 -
14.50
Introduction to the afternoon
presentations Prof.Ranjit Gupta
(III) LIVELIHOODS IN
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
14.50 -
15.15 Saline rice technology Prof.N.Ramesh
15.15 -
15.50
Land desalination project by
the Tamil Nadu Organic
Farmers Association
(TOFARM) Ms.M.Revathi

33. 33
(IV) STATE GOVERNMENT
PROGRAMS FOR
LIVELIHOOD PROMOTION
15.50 -
16.05
IFAD program for livelihood
restitution post tsunami Mr.L.Raja
TEA BREAK
16.05 -
16.15
(V) LIVELIHOODS IN
DRYLAND AGRICULTURE
16.15-
16.45
The relevance of casurance
species in livelihood
restitution. Mr.T.S.Srinivasa murthy
(VI) FRAMEWORKS FOR
ANALYSIS
16.45 -
17.15
Understanding agriculture
commodities and livelihoods
from a systems perspective
Mr.S.Ananthanarayana
Sharma
17.15 -
17.35
Discussions on land based
livelihoods
(VII) ORGANISATIONAL
FORMS FOR LIVELIHOODS
PROMOTION
17.35 -
18.10
Cooperatives for rural
producers Mr.V.Vivekandan
18.10 -
18.15
Producer company as a
format
Mr.S.Ananthanarayana
Sharma
18.15 -
18.25
Summarising the
discussions on
organisational forms Prof.Ranjit Gupta
(VIII) CONCLUDING SESSION
18.25 -
18.35
Summary of the afternoon
discussions
Mr.Rajendra Ratnoo,
IAS
18.35 -
18.40
Conclusions emerging from
the workshop Prof.Ranjit Gupta

34. 34
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FOR THE WORKSHOP ON LIVELIHOOD RESTITUTION
POST TSUNAMI IN TAMILNADU HELD ON 22ND
APRIL 06 AT IC&SR HALL, IIT (m)
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM ACADEMIC ORGANISATIONS
Sr.No.
Name Designation
& Address
Ph.No. Email
1
S.SANKARARAMAN Prof.Of
Chemistry,
IIT ( Madras)
22574210 sanka@iitm.ac.in
2
UMAKANT DASH Asst.Prof,
Dept of
H&SS, IIT
(Madras)
22574516 dash@iit.ac.in
3
S.NARASIMHAN Prof.Chemica
l Engineering
Dept, IIT
(Madras)
Coordinator -
RUTAG.
4
T.T.NARENDRAN Dean
(IC&SR), IIT
(Madras)
5 S.MANIMARAN Lecturer in
Agronomy,
Dept of
Agronomy
Faculty of
Agriculture
Annamalai
University
999429409
4
6 N.RAMESH Lecturer in
Agronomy
Faculty of
Agriculture,
Annamalai
University
999432507
7
Sairamesh2000@yahoo.
com
7 AYSHA
VISWAMOHAN
Asst.Prof, 26,
Elegant
Apartments
Gandhi Road,
Velachery,
Chennai
essaaro@yahoo.com
8 P.V. SUJUNU IIT-MADRAS suju@iitm.acin

35. 35
9 K.P.PRABHEESID Ph.D.
Scholar, Dept
of HSS, IIT-
MADRAS
944425800
2
prabheeth@iitm.ac.in
10 C.NALINKUMAR Research
Scholar, Dept
of HSS, IIT-
MADRAS
944419214
2
nalin@iitm.ac.in
11 M.ASIF 4TH
YEAR
DD, IITM
984025840
8
arramanathan@gmial.co
m
12 JOHN B
LOURDUSAMY
ASSISTANT
PROFESER /
HSS IIT
MADRAS
2257
4511(o)
22576511®
Jbl.hss@gmail.com
sblsamy@iitm.ac.in
13 M.ARIVANANDAN Research
scholar, HSS
Department,
IIT-Madras
arivanandhan@yahoo.co
m
14 A.P.ARUN PRASAD
RAJA
TRA/ANNA
UNIVERSITY
, CH-25
arunprasadraja@yahoo.
com
15 DR.S.MANIKANDAN Project
Officer, NSS,
IIT-Madras
984153222
7
s_mani75@yahoo.com
16 S.BRINTHA
LAKSHMI
Ph.D.
Scholar, Dept
of HSS, IIT-
Madras
brinthalakshmi@iitm.ac.i
n
17 L.N.SABAPATHI Project Asst,
HSS, IIT-
Madras
Ratna_sabapathy80@ya
hoo.com
18 PREMA
RAJAGOPAL
Asst.Prof.HS
S, IIT-Madras
22574513 prema@iitm.ac.in
19 RANJIT GUPTA Former Prof.
of IIM
(Ahmedabad)
and founder
TATADHAN
Academy
934294170
1
2257450720 B.SUBRAMANIAN PROF.DEPT
OF HSS, IIT-
MADRAS 944400876
2
bsubbu@iitm.ac.in

36. 36
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT
1 T.S.SRINIVASA
MURTHY, IFS
ED, SSFRDT,
CHENNAI - 40
26186804 ssfrdt@vsnl.com
2 RAJENDRA
RATNOO,IAS
DIO, TPIU, RD-
Department
9443211078 trpiu-rd@tn.nic.in
3 R.SIVASUBRAMANI Joint Director,
Tsunami Impl.
Unit
9444074412
4 K. RAMASAMY DEO, Govt. of
Tamilnadu, 7,
1st
street,
Iyyappa Nagar,
Chennai - 75
5513032
5 DR.N.KRISHNAKUMAR,
IFS
Conservator of
Forests
(Planning and
budgeting)
Tamilnadu
Forest
Department,
Chennai
20426829 krishforbio@hotmail.com
6 L.RAJA Joint Director,
Tsunami,
Project Imp.Unit
Rural
Development
Govt of
Tamilnadu
7 DR.KA.ILANGO AGRICULTURE
SPECILIAST
Tsunami
Imp.Unit, RD
Dept, Govt of
TN
94430-
74865
kailango@yahoo.com

37. 37
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM COOPERATIVES, RESOURCE
ORGANISATIONS, NGOs AND NETWORKS
S.
No
Name Designation &
Address
Ph.No. Email
1 P.A.VISWANATHAN Liasion Officer, Dhan
Foundation, Chennai
98401 -
22425
paviswanathan@eth.net
2 SHANTHI DURAISAMY Coordinator, Tsunami
(Trinet) Tsunami
Rehab, Information
Network, Chennai
98402-
61240
infotrinet@gmail.com
3 V.VEKANANDAN Siffs, Karamana,
Thiruvananthapuram
– 695 002. Kerala
98470-
84840
vivek@siffs.org
4 A.V.KARUTHOVIYAN Director, Cedar,
5/336 A, Salem Main
Road, Nallampalli,
Dharmapuri District.,
Tamilnadu
04342-
571617
cedarindia@gmail.com
5 KRISHNAKUMAR Livelihood
Coordinator, AID
INDIA - Tsunami
Relief &
Rehabilitation Work,
Tamilnadu
98402-
77259 and
94441-
247101
6 R.GANESAN Coordinator, ,
Tamilnadu Science
Forum Nagapatinam
04365-
247101
Ganesh-gms@yahoo.com
7 G.NAMMALVAR Tofarm 9443124589
8 S.SRINIVASAN 9444269583 Ssvasan3d@yahoo.com
9 M.REVATHI Executive Director,
Tamilnadu Organic
Farmers Movement,
Nagapattinam
revathi7359@yahoo.com
10 S.T.BALAKRISHNAN Tnsf-Secretary, 245,
Avvai Shanmugam
Salai, Gopalapuram,
Chennai - 86
044-
28113630
sasibalatnsf@yahoo.com
11 K.KALAISELVAN Tamilnadu Science
Forum, Chennai 984073600
12 A.KANNAN Project Coordinator
HiH Tn, Kanchipuram
9842030662 Kanna-edp@inbox.com
13 M.GNANAVEL Project Coordinator
HiH, Tn,
Kanchipuram
9842790557 grkumar1977@yahoo.com
14 S.ANANTHANARAYANA
SHARMA
Cart, Madurai Fax – 0452-
2600890
center4art@sify.com

38. 38
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM PRESS AND MEDIA
Sr.No.
Name Designation &
Address
Ph.No. Email
1
N.ARUNKUMAR Staff Correspondent,
DECCAN
CHRONICLE,
Chennai
22318941 trnarunkumar@gmail.com
2
MEERA
SRINIVASAN
Reporter, The Hindu,
Chennai
93821-
42265
Meera.srinivasan@gmail.com
3
C.P. SAJIT NEWS TODAY,
Cameraman/Reporter,
Chennai
98846-
02767
4
TMS.MANOHARAN Doordharsan Kendra,
Chennai
94444-
84134
5
K.B.SARAVANAN EA, Door Darshan
Kendra, Chennai
6
K.RAVI Doordarshan Kendra
Chennai, News