As climate change impact ravages the world over, the state of Kerala stands no exception. Kerala has been battling climate change for decades now, and with a lengthy coastline, the consequences of climate change will be drastic, especially for the fishing community of the state. This essay intends to analyze the relocation project, Punargeham, adopted by the Kerala government for addressing climate change-induced displacement of fishing communities in the coastal areas.
Kerala’s Climate Change
Post-1995, the rise in surface sea temperature in the Arabian Sea has recorded unprecedented changes in the temperature levels. The Ministry of Environment and Forest’s report presented to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reveals that the substantial threat Kerala faces is from rise in the sea level. According to Kerala State Action Plan on Climate Change (SAPCC), “The projected Sea Level Rise (SLR) along Kerala coast on a conservative estimation is about 100 to 200 mm over the next 100 years. If the sea level rises by one metre, 169 sq. km of the coastal region surrounding Kochi will be inundated”. This could mean a shortage of fresh potable water in the coastal areas, as the groundwater will be contaminated by the intrusion of saline water, also the deterioration of marshland. National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management’s (NCSM) report on Shoreline Change Assessment for Kerala states that only 37% of Kerala’s coast is natural coast without any erosion, while 63% of the coastal line is experiencing erosion in various degrees (Ramesh et al., 2010).
Repercussions of these changes are felt in various aspects of coastal life. In general, it has both affected the communities’ life security as well as livelihood security. The temperature rise has led to unpredictability in both fish quantity and variety available. Oil sardines and mackerels, the most common types found on the Kerala coast, are either moving to other areas or going deeper into the sea due to the temperature rise. The increased salinity seeping into the fresh waters also affects freshwater fish stocks and agriculture in those areas.
Far beyond these factors, climate change also contributes towards displacement. While extreme weather conditions such as flooding, cyclones, etc., lead to the more apparent dislocation, multitudes are dislodged gradually through slow-onset disasters, receiving far little attention and assistance to cope and adapt compared to that garnered by the former from policymakers (Boano et al., 2008). In Kerala, coastal erosion poses a greater threat to the life of communities living on the coasts. Their susceptibility to even a slight increase in sea level is evident in Kerala’s 590 km long coastline and high population density along with the coastal villages. Due to coastline erosion over the past five years, hundreds of families in Kerala have lost their houses (John, 2018).
Punargeham Project
The government should be heedful of the plight of such internally displaced people. Suppose such mobility is not adequately planned and assisted, leaving the affected to cope on their own, it can affect citizens’ standard of living and thrust more demands on urban domains, administration, and adapting mechanisms that are already strained (Ahsan, 2019). In this light, the Kerala government’s relocation project Punargeham is definitely a step in the right direction. The project proposes to relocate families living within 50 meters of the shoreline to protect them from coastline erosion. Each family would be given ten lakhs maximum to buy land and construct housing on the condition that they agree to relinquish their rights to their existing plots. The onus falls on the families to find and buy the plot. The order also stipulates that the government shall bear no responsibility and shall not compensate for any loss incurred in the future due to erosion for those who refuse to relocate under the given project. According to the government, as of July 2021, 3000 houses have already been constructed under the project (“3,000 Houses Built under Punargeham Project,” 2021).
Where the Policy Falls Short
As much as the timely intervention of the Kerala government needs to be appreciated, the policy falls short in consideration of the social and livelihood implications this relocation poses for the fishing community, and as a result, remedial measures are not put forward to alleviate them. Requisite exploration of the existing research should have been carried out to draw lessons from the past planned relocations and their livelihood consequences.
The distinctiveness of Kerala’s fishing community, their community-bound socio-economic relations, and shared way of living (Kelkar-Khambete, 2012) seem not to have been taken into consideration. The potential social consequences of this relocation involve the disruption of the community’s social fabric as the relocation will scatter the families. Lack of access to traditional social networks can render them vulnerable. In the face of exploitation and dispossession, the fishing community’s resistance is conjured through the invocation of the ‘community’ (Devika,2014). Such relocations can pose a dent in the communitarian system of sharing and caring practiced by the fishing community (Kurien& A. J. Vijayan, 1995). The beaches are where the communities usually conducted social activities and ceremonies such as weddings. With just 3-4 cents of land available for housing, these economically and socially vulnerable families will struggle for space to carry out such activities. Also, the new areas where the fishers are moving into will be primarily inhabited by non-fishing extraction people, which might lead to confrontations and ghettoisation of the fishers.
Under the current project, the families themselves should find land for relocation, and it must be noted that lands just beyond the beaches are usually economic centres; thus, they will be costlier, and the fishing communities will have to go further beyond the beaches if they need to purchase affordable land. Therefore, as pointed out by Salagrama (2005) in the case of tsunami relocation, the issue of relocation boils down to a fundamental dilemma that fishing communities everywhere face: life security vs livelihood security. For the small fishermen being on the beaches at all times is crucial as they need to watch the sea’s movements and be ready to launch their boats at a moment’s notice after a passing school of fish. Launching and hauling the boats requires several hands, and this requires a fair amount of people to be there on the beaches at all times. Keeping watch on the boats, nets, and engines while they live elsewhere will be another concern. For those going for deep sea fishing, coming to the beaches at odd hours from distant places, mostly without transportation facilities, is arduous. Additionally, when they return from the sea, again travelling to their homes in their tired and soiled state, particularly in public transportation, is yet another problem.
The policy also lacks gender sensitivity. Livelihood means the women from the fishing community are often aligned to the original social and physical environment of the community (Chandrasekar, 2006). The economic activities, needs, and losses of the community’s women need to be taken into account in the case of relocation (Joseph, 2005).
Conclusion
The analysis of the Punargeham project makes it evident that beyond immediate survival from the loss of housing, the project does not do any good for the community. The state should be more considerate in understanding the refusal of some to relocate even in the face of a threat to their life and attempt to address and alleviate these factors rather than repudiating that responsibility. It remains incomplete in safeguarding the life quality of the fishing community and leads to an undisputable opinion that what is required is not a relocation but rather community-centric resettlement. Resettlement is a process encompassing not just reconstructing homes but also “re-establishing livelihoods, and ensuring access to services” (Ferris, 2015). The relocation should not result in a decrease in living standards and alienation from the livelihood sources of the community. The government must take a more understanding position in policy creation of these matters and must ensure the participation of the affected community in the resettlement process.
Anusree P is a sociology postgraduate from Pondicherry University. Her areas of interest include internal displacement, forced migration, refugees, and their governance. Twitter: https://twitter.com/anusreepp2