Socioeconomic Study of 31 Villages in Gummidipoondi & Uthukottai Thaluks, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu

Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development New Delhi 2010-11

About Forrad The Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development (FORRAD) was established in January 1980. The Foundations objective is to promote, support, guide and coordinate projects, programmes and schemes relating to development of human and natural resources. Over the last 31 years, FORRAD has created a network of more than 450 grassroots organizations in rural areas spread over Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The emphasis has been on encouraging projects that contribute significantly to the enhancement of individual and community potential in their respective areas. Conservation of environment including land and water and relevant development activities, promotion of technical skill leading to self- employment, management of renewable natural resources and innovations in developing community micro-hydel generation systems. FORRAD endeavours to emphasize womens involvement in planning process, development and management of schemes and promoting womens leadership in all activity fields. The Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development is registered as a Public Charitable Trust. 124-A/6 Second Floor Katwaria Sarai New Delhi 110016 Ph# +91 11 2685 2476 mail@forrad.org www.forrad.org

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 3 Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................................... 4 Contributors ............................................................................................................................... 5 Note on the Authors ........................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary and Key Findings...................................................................................... 7 Background ........................................................................................................................ 7 Structure of the Survey Report .......................................................................................... 7 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 8 Section I ................................................................................................................................... 10 Survey Sample ..................................................................................................................... 10 Survey Methodology............................................................................................................ 10 Selection of Villages ........................................................................................................ 11 Selection and Training of Enumerators ........................................................................... 11 Preparation of Survey Instrument .................................................................................... 11 Commencement of the Survey ......................................................................................... 12 Verification ...................................................................................................................... 12 Report Writing ................................................................................................................. 12 Limitations of the Survey..................................................................................................... 12 Emphasis on quantitative data ......................................................................................... 12 Control Group .................................................................................................................. 13 Quality Control ................................................................................................................ 13 Section II .................................................................................................................................. 14 Contextual Analysis ............................................................................................................. 14 Human Development Indicators in India ......................................................................... 14 Economic Overview......................................................................................................... 17 Private Sector in India with Relation to Poverty Reduction ............................................ 19 Corporate Social Responsibility in India ......................................................................... 19 Survey Location - Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, India................. 23 Section III................................................................................................................................. 25 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 25 Social Composition of the Villages ................................................................................. 25 Demographics .................................................................................................................. 26 Income, Poverty and Indebtedness .................................................................................. 28 Economic Well-being ...................................................................................................... 32 Education ......................................................................................................................... 34 Employment & Occupations ............................................................................................ 35 Land Ownership and Usage ............................................................................................. 37 Animal Husbandry ........................................................................................................... 39 Water ................................................................................................................................ 40 Health & Disability .......................................................................................................... 41 Government Schemes and Ownership of Documents ..................................................... 41 Annexure I: Survey Questionnaire (English) ........................................................................... 44 Annexure II: Survey Questionnaire (Tamil) ............................................................................ 52 Annexure III: Survey Data ....................................................................................................... 58

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Villages and Hamlets Surveyed ................................................................................. 10 Table 2: Per Capita Income Per Day By Community .............................................................. 29 Table 3: Extreme Poverty by Community ............................................................................... 29 Table 4: Material Used in Wall Construction by Community ................................................. 33 Table 5: Material Used in Roof Construction by Community................................................. 33 Table 6: Education Level by Community ................................................................................ 34 Table 7: Education Level by Gender ....................................................................................... 34 Table 8: Current Education Status by Age .............................................................................. 35 Table 9: Grazing Land by Village ........................................................................................... 38 Table 10: Water Uses by Source .............................................................................................. 40 Table 11: Physical Impairments............................................................................................... 41 Table 12: Government Schemes Used by Community ............................................................ 43 Figure 1: Distribution of Households by Community ............................................................. 25 Figure 2: Household Size by Community................................................................................ 27 Figure 3: Age Distribution by Community .............................................................................. 28 Figure 4: Gender by Age Group .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 5: Average Annual Per Capita Income by Community ................................................ 29 Figure 6: Loan Amount by Community................................................................................... 30 Figure 7: Purpose of Loan by Community .............................................................................. 31 Figure 8: Source of Loan by Community ................................................................................ 32 Figure 9: Source of Cooking Fuel by Community................................................................... 33 Figure 10: Primary Occupation by Community....................................................................... 36 Figure 11: Secondary Occupation by Community................................................................... 36 Figure 12: Land Ownership by Community ............................................................................ 37 Figure 13: Total Livestock Distribution .................................................................................. 39 Figure 14: Livestock Distribution by Community ................................................................... 39

Contributors
Authors: Julian Parr, Kanika Satyanand, Susan Abraham Editor: Amit Mahanti Data Analyst: Rakesh Khowal Research Coordinator (Tamil Nadu): Simon Joseph Field Coordinator: T Annadurai Enumerators: Anasuya S, Arul N, Arulselvi N, Asha D, Ashok R, Bhaskar S, Bhuwaneswari R, Charles S, Dhanalakshmi A, Dillikumar K, Gokulan K, Gopi T, Goutham C, Gunasundar A, Jayalakshmi K, Justin V, Justin D, Kalpana K, Kripa N, Kumar S, Kannan, Kuppan N, Lingasamy A, Madhan V, Mahesh K, Manjupriya J, Mohan G, Mohanbabu K, Muniratnam S, Parimala M, Partheban I, Paulraja R, Poomkothai, Poongodi L, Sangeetha S, Saravanan M, Sathish N, Silambarasan G, Tamilselvi R, Thirupathy T.K, Thiruvarasu P, Thyagu J, Usha M Desk Verification Team: M Sangeetha, J Kavitha Field Verification Team: J Deepika, D Durgadevi, S Ambedkar, U Vignesh Kumar Data Entry: Equus Technology Solutions (P) Ltd Design and Layout: Neelima Rao Resource Persons for the Training of Enumerators: D Nirmal Kennedy, T.C.A Srinivasaramanujan, R Ravanan, Balamuthumurugan

FORRAD expresses its gratitude to all the households who participated in the survey.

Note on the Authors Julian Parr is an international expert on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and private sector partnerships. He holds a post-graduate degree in Economic Development from the School of Oriental and African Studies. His specialisations include international labour law and supply chain analysis in the informal sector, and the macro-economic impacts of epidemics on transition economies. He has written a number of papers on the topic of CSR and has previously advised companies such as BP, Rio Tinto, Coca Cola, Microsoft, McKinsey and Accenture on inward social investment strategies in transition economies. He is former Director, Asia and the Middle East for the International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), Chief Technical Advisor to the ILO and Regional Director for Oxfam GB South Asia. He lives in New Delhi. Kanika Satyanand is Programme Advisor and a member of the board of trustees of the Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development (FORRAD). She holds a post-graduate degree in Sociology from Delhi University. She has spent most of her working life, spanning 31 years, in the not-for-profit sector. During a stint with the Foundation for Organisational Research (FORE) she managed and authored action research studies for public sector undertakings including BHEL, ONGC, SAIL and IPCL in the area of Human Resource Development and Organisational Design. She is former Executive Director of SRUTI, where for 15 years she shaped and directed the organisations programmes in support of grass root struggles and peoples movements throughout India. Apart from her engagement with FORRAD, she currently holds positions on the board of The Hunger Project, India as its chairperson, and SRUTI. She has been co-editor and contributing author for two all-India studies: Indias Artisans a Status report and Seen but not Heard Indias marginalised, neglected & vulnerable children. Susan Abraham is the director of FORRAD. She holds a post-graduate degree in International Studies and Diplomacy from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Her courses included International Law, Economics and Boundary Dispute Resolution. Her work, over the past 20 years, has largely focussed itself around facilitating community based rural development initiatives around the country. Her previous engagements have included work with the Barefoot College, Tilonia, Rajasthan, Oxfams Violence Mitigation and Amelioration Project, the Aman Trust, New Delhi and various independent assignments.

Executive Summary and Key Findings

Background A socio-economic survey of 5724 households in 31 villages of Gummidipoondi and Uthukottai thaluks (Sriperumbudur parliamentary constituency in Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu) was conducted by Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development (FORRAD), New Delhi. The survey locations included villages that were on the periphery of an industrial park proposed by SIPCOT (State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu) in the area. The survey gathered empirical data on demographics, natural resource ownership and usage, education, health and employment status, poverty and indebtedness and other indicators of social well-being. The objective behind the survey was to use the data to inform Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes that could address pressing local concerns and improve the living standards of the local population. The principal survey instrument was a questionnaire developed by FORRAD in consultation with the survey team and statisticians based in Chennai. The survey was conducted over a period of two months between August and October 2010. The survey team consisted of 43 enumerators from the area. They were supervised by a field coordinator. External resource persons were brought in to train the enumerators in data collection. Teams, external to the area, conducted desk and field verification of the data. The task of data entry was given to a firm in Chennai, The research coordinator liaised between the enumerators, the verification teams, the data entry agency and FORRAD. The final data analysis was done in Delhi by a statistician and the authors of this report. Structure of the Survey Report This report has been divided into four sections. The first section lists the villages and households that form the survey sample. It also outlines the rationale behind the villages chosen for the survey as well as the selection and training of enumerators. The nature of survey tools employed and methods of data collection, verification and analysis have also been stated here. In addition, details of the kind of training given to the enumerators as well as training personnel and logistics have been outlined. The second section locates the proposed project site and impact area in Gummidipoondi and Uthukottai thaluks, against the larger framework of development needs in India, and the corresponding need for responsible corporate intervention. This section analyzes the structural reasons for chronic poverty and inequality in India seen in the light of economic growth in the country post-liberalization in the early 1990s. It tries to analyze the particular impact that such growth has had on the agricultural sector, while also examining the relationship between the growth of the private sector and sustainable development. The section also provides an historical overview of Corporate Social Responsibility models and practices in the country and looks at factors that have contributed to the growth of CSR since the 1990s. It outlines the various issues and challenges that private companies have been faced with when trying to enforce meaningful CSR interventions and practices in the areas where they are located. The section also provides an overview of institutional and policy frameworks around CSR in India. The third section collates and analyses the household survey findings based on various parameters. It provides an analysis of social composition and demographic patterns in the 7

area; income, expenditure and indebtedness trends; and the status of education and employment among the local population. Land ownership and usage patterns, access to health services and government schemes, availability of drinking and agricultural water, and the status of available livestock in the villages have also been discussed here. This section tries to isolate larger trends in order to identify possible areas of intervention that are of critical importance in the area. Based on the survey findings and analysis, the fourth section of the report outlines considerations to be kept in mind for any development interventions in the area. This becomes especially important given the number of industries that are proposed here. The baseline data collected through this survey could also be used to gauge the impact of development interventions made by industrial units in the area. While making recommendations for investment in local infrastructure development and strengthening access to primary services, the report also lays stress on the need for all stakeholders local communities, civil society organizations, government agencies and industry to work in tandem with each other, so as to ensure need-based and equitable growth in the area. The report also recognizes the need for imaginative interventions in various sectors agriculture, health, livelihood, and natural resource management among others in ways that do not undermine existing government and non-government systems. Rather, efforts should be directed towards augmenting these systems to ensure better service delivery and a higher standard of living for the local population. The survey instrument in Tamil and its English translation have been provided in the annexures at the end of the report. The disaggregated data that was collected in the course of the survey have also been given. Key Findings Chronic Poverty: Using World Bank benchmarks, 98 % of the households are poor; and 82% extremely poor, subsisting on per capita daily incomes of under Rs. 45.50 or $1 a day. The survey did not reveal any marked income disparities between the various communities surveyed. Indebtedness: With expenditure often exceeding income, 60% of families in the area have a debt burden. The grip of the moneylender continues to be strong. Among landholding families, a majority of loans were taken for agriculture, while the majority of loans among non-landholding families were for marriages. 16% of the loans taken in the area were for medical reasons. Land ownership: Only 32% of the households own agricultural land. Most of the land is held by the BC and MBC households. Dependence on Land: One of the key findings is that the bulk of the population is totally dependent on the land for livelihood, energy and water. Energy: Despite the villages being electrified and having gas connections, 83% of the households depend on fuel wood for cooking. Water: The villages are predominantly dependent on river and rain-fed lakes/eris and ponds for irrigation and livestock. 67% of the households depend on these eris for agriculture while 53% depend on these for their livestock requirements. The eris also 8

contribute significantly to the recharging of ground water. Water, though abundant at present, could come under threat on account of over-use and pollution from industries in the area. This could be compounded by the already intensive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides for agriculture, Furthermore, the storage capacity of the lakes in the area is vastly reduced due to siltation and growth of weeds. Poor maintenance of irrigation channels has also considerably reduced their efficiency, thereby affecting agricultural output. Traditional irrigation channels are now being replaced by tubewells. Livelihood and unemployment: Outside of agriculture and casual agricultural labour, livelihood options are virtually non-existent. Unemployment is high at 13% and there is a high level of underemployment as most of the casual labour is linked to agricultural cycles and seasonal jobs.

Vulnerable segments: There are a total of 1045 individuals in the area who are above the age of 60. There are 1069 widows in these villages, compared to only 14 widowers. Of all the communities in the area, the tribal Irulars are the most disadvantaged group. Literacy, enrollment and educational attainment: Literacy is at 92% and school enrollment is high at 96%. 931 graduates and 201 post-graduates were found within the sample. Connectivity: Despite a network of tarred roads, interconnectivity is poor due to low ownership of private vehicles (only about 25% of the households own some form of transport) and an inadequate public transport system. Government schemes: Apart from MNREGA and housing assistance, government welfare schemes were grossly under-utilized. 64% households use MNREGA while only 1% uses education and agriculture schemes. Overall economic indicators: The overall economic indicators seem satisfactory although this is not indicative of their actual economic status. For example, while 90% of the households own televisions, most of these are post-election handouts. 94% have electricity connections but the electricity supply is generally erratic. Because of this irregularity, 97% of the households still depend on kerosene for lighting. Sanitation: 90% of the households who were surveyed do not use toilets.

Section I
Survey Sample
A total of 30 villages and hamlets were surveyed (Table 1).1 The villages are located in Gummidipoondi and Uthukottai thaluks, which fall within the Sriperumbudur parliamentary constituency of the Thiruvallur District in Tamil Nadu.
Table 1: Villages and Hamlets Surveyed Thaluk Village/Hamlet Anna Nagar Kannankottai G.R.Kandigai Karadiputhur Aaramani Kollanoor Gummidipoondi Anjamedu Annavaram Colony Chandirapuram Mambedu Mukkarampakkam Pudhukuppam Villiyar Colony Thervoy Kakkavakkam Lachivakkam Perambur Eri Colony JJ Nagar Palavakkam Uthukottai Sathya Nagar Seenikuppam Sengarai Kizhkarmanur Panjali Nagar Soolameni Kazadai Thandalam DR Kuppam Vannag Kuppam Revenue Village Kannankottai Kannankottai Karadiputhur Karadiputhur Kollanoor Kollanoor Mukkarampakkam Mukkarampakkam Mukkarampakkam Mukkarampakkam Mukkarampakkam Mukkarampakkam Mukkarampakkam Thervoy Kakkavakkam Lachivakkam Lachivakkam Palavakkam Palavakkam Palavakkam Palavakkam Seenikuppam Sengarai2 Soolameni Soolameni Soolameni Sulaimani Thandalam Thunpakkam Vannagkuppam Total No of Families 59 474 87 245 38 119 66 223 53 34 450 28 43 799 293 370 104 45 183 289 158 55 298 130 68 276 30 394 84 229 5724

Survey Methodology
A door-to-door survey of 5,724 households was conducted from August to October 2011 in 31 villages and hamlets in the Uthukottai and Gummidipoondi blocks of the Thiruvallur
1

A village is a clustered human settlement, usually defined as being larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town. A village in India contains anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand people. A hamlet is a section of a village, usually a cluster removed from the main village. The population of a hamlet usually belongs to a single community. 2 The hamlet of Thambunaidu Palayam has been merged with Sengarai for purposes of the analysis.

10

District in Tamil Nadu. The primary aim of this survey was to gather quantitative data around demographics, natural resource ownership and usage, education, health and employment, poverty and indebtedness and other indicators of economic well-being in the area. There were no focused group discussions, and except where specifically mentioned, no anecdotal evidence was used in the gathering of data or for analysis. Selection of Villages The scope of the survey included all the villages that were located in and around the proposed industrial site and along the access roads to the site. The objective was to understand the socio-economic status of the area as a whole, so that an integrated approach to development of the area could be envisioned. It was, therefore, a conscious choice to include villages that would be directly affected by proposed industrialization. Selection and Training of Enumerators The enumerators were young people from the survey villages. The reason behind choosing them was to ensure authenticity as well as ownership over the information gathered. The first training of enumerators was conducted on 9 and 10 February 2010 in Chennai. A total of 27 out of 29 originally identified enumerators participated in the training. The training was designed to address: The purpose of the survey Survey methodology Anticipated outcomes The importance of information as a tool for change Practical training through a mock survey The mock survey was to enable practical application of the learning by the trainees as well as to refine the survey instrument. A core group from amongst the trainees was identified to conduct the pilot using the refined instrument. The resource persons for the training included representatives from local NGOs, academics, retired IAS officers, statisticians, and grassroots activists from other parts of Tamil Nadu. The resource people emphasised the importance of accuracy in the data collection. The second training of enumerators was conducted in Palavakkam on 27 February 2010. The date, venue and list of the 18 trainees were drawn up in consultation with representatives from Thervoy Gramam Munnetra Nala Sangam (TGMNS). FORRAD and TGMNS also decided to: a) extend the survey to include the other surrounding villages, and b) to include enumerators from the other villages Preparation of Survey Instrument The survey questionnaire contained questions that are standard to a socio-economic survey. It included additional questions on the use of natural resources and on education, skills and training. The first draft prepared by the FORRAD staff in Delhi was further refined by the enumerators, the FORRAD project staff and Chennai-based statisticians. 11

Commencement of the Survey The survey began on 29 July 2010. FORRAD set up a field office in Thandalam (one of the survey villages) to facilitate the easy collection and delivery of the forms. The enumerators worked in teams of two one person conducted interviews while the other recorded the information. Verification Desk Verification: Two persons scrutinised each of the field questionnaires for completion and consistency. Any gaps detected in the data were returned to the survey team. Field Verification: 10% of the total sample was cross-checked across households by an external team of four persons. The field verification was done across villages and across community groups. Verification at the Level of Data Entry: The completed forms were delivered to a firm in Chennai for data entry. The forms were once again checked for completion and consistency. Forms that were incomplete or incorrect were returned to the enumerators for correction. Verification at the Level of Data Analysis: The final round of data verification was at the level of data analysis done in Delhi. Errors in consistency were pointed out and rectified by the enumerators. Report Writing The report was written by three persons a development economist, a social science researcher and a community-based rural development worker. The contents of the report were first ratified by the FORRAD project staff in Tamil Nadu and then by eight persons of the original survey team.

Limitations of the Survey

Emphasis on quantitative data Knowledge, Attitude and Behavioural Change: The baseline survey was designed to capture existing social and economic indicators. What it did not aim to do was to determine existing knowledge, attitudes and practices amongst the target population. Therefore, although it can be used to measure economic wellbeing and inclusion, it is less useful as a tool to measure attitudinal and behavioural change, for example, in relation to caste and gender discrimination. Quality of Services: The primarily quantitative survey was able to measure access to services of the targeted population but not the quality of services. So for example, we know the number of children attending school and how many schools there are in the project area. However, we dont know what the quality of the education being received is.

12

Control Group For purposes of academic research, the presence of a control group could help in meeting two important criteria. Firstly, it could reveal if there are any anomalies within the project area which are specific to that geographical area but not atypical to the District as a whole. Secondly, when conducting a mid-term review of the baseline, there is nothing to compare the data to. That is, a similar sample size and geographic area would reveal whether any social interventions planned by industrial companies were having an impact on social and economic inclusion. Other agencies, government, private sector and NGOs could be operating within the area, and this could make it difficult for companies doing CSR to disaggregate the data in order to legitimately claim to be a change agent for good. However, for a development agency whose mandate is to implement needs-based development work in the area, the use of a control group as a means of measuring project effectiveness is unethical. Quality Control Quality control was an issue, given that the surveyors were new to the task. There was a high spoil or incompletion rate amongst the initial forms returned. However, this was identified by both the Desk Officers and triangulated by the Field Workers who were carrying out quality and accuracy tests on 10% of the sample size. This meant that FORRAD was able to make corrective action, although it meant that over 4,000 of the questionnaires had to be revisited to either clarify or complete the questionnaires correctly. Data collection was slowed down considerably, and this meant an extension in the survey time-line.

13

Section II
Contextual Analysis
Human Development Indicators in India Today, India is the seventh largest economy in the world, primarily due to economic liberalisation in 1991. Despite making considerable progress in various sectors, poverty still remains one of the biggest challenges that the country faces. An estimated one-third of the population (37.2%) lives below the poverty line (people who earn less than $2 a day).3 With a population of over 1.15 billion, India is the worlds largest democracy and currently the second most populous country in the world after China. Projections suggest that by 2030, the population of India will be the largest in the world, pegged at around 1.53 billion. Other human development indicators such as health, nutrition, and education indicate medium but inequitable growth, ranking India at 119 on the Human Development Index.4 48% of children under the age of five are underweight (almost double the figure for subSaharan Africa), an indicator that reflects the poor access to nutrition and health-care. Low literacy levels for women push the human development rating for India even lower. This is reflected in the Gender Inequality Index that ranks India at 122 globally. Despite an increase in literacy rates over the last decade, the 66% figure for India is well below the world average of 84%, making India the country with the largest illiterate population in the world.5 Food insecurity is still a concern for large parts of the population and this will be further exacerbated by inflation in the price of food staples. Poverty has a strong ethnic dimension in India, with minority groups and indigenous peoples accounting for a disproportionate number of the poor. In India, poverty is also deeply rooted in the caste system where vulnerable castes are socially and/or economically excluded. The incidence of poverty amongst Dalits is 1.5 times higher than the national average.6 The main factors for adverse human development indicators in India can be summarised thus: a) Social Exclusion and Poor Governance: Fundamental laws and acts in India notwithstanding, exclusion from all spheres of decision-making is core to the continuing poverty of the most marginalised. A robust civil society and relative freedom of the press have lent a certain momentum to social and political mobilisation, but progress remains slow. Making services and pro-poor government schemes work for the most vulnerable remains one of the key challenges for poverty eradication in India. To this end, India has actively pushed a decentralisation agenda over the last two decades through devolution of power to regional and local entities such as the Panchayati Raj Institutions. Yet, corruption remains rampant, with India still ranking a poor 87th on the Corruption Perception Index.7 According to a Global Compact report, the governments capacity for law enforcement and implementation of anti-corruption plans is low, which is one of the factors contributing to relatively

3 4

World Bank Poverty Database 2010 Human Development Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. UNDP 2010. 5 Human Development Report 2010 ibid 6 Oxfam GB Strategic Plan 2010. 7 Transparency International 2010

14

high levels of corruption.8 A lack of transparency in the electoral process, including the funding of political parties, has clouded the democratic process. b) Public Services: Health and education indicators clearly reflect that increased funding does not necessarily benefit the majority of the poor. Although the enrollment rate in primary education is now just below 90%,9 the figure hides significant rural and urban disparities poor children in rural areas have less access to education, and perhaps more significantly, less access to quality education than their urban counterparts. A survey of rural districts in North India in 200610 revealed that on average there is no teaching activity in half of the government primary schools. Both infant and maternal mortality remain high with India significantly failing to achieve its own targets set as part of the fourth Millennium Development Goals for 2015. Every year, 2.1 million Indian children die before the age of five.11 Before the 2009 elections, the previous Government of India (which also returned to power post-elections), made an election promise to allocate 9% of GDP to public health and education. It has yet to honour this promise and is under pressure from civil society in campaigns such as Nine is Mine.12 Equally, budgetary allocation on health is still only 1% of GDP instead of the election commitment of 3%. One of the stated goals of Indias National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) programme, launched in 2005, is to increase total government health spending from 1% of GDP to 2-3% of GDP by 2012, the end of the current Eleventh Five-Year Plan period. It must be mentioned, though, that there was a significant increase in the expenditure from 200405 (Rs. 27704 crore) to 2006-07 (Rs 39046 crore) a 41% increase. c) Gender Inequality: The 2011 Census (provisional) reveals that the child sex ratio for children between 0-6 years in India stands at 914.23 girls for every 1000 boys. This is a sharp decrease when compared to the 2001 Census, where the figure stood at 927.31 girls for every 1000 boys.13 This is possibly indicative of high female foeticide figures. Women continue to face discrimination in many spheres in employment and in public and personal life. India scores badly on the Global Gender Gap Report, ranked at 112 globally against 134 countries surveyed.14 This report assesses countries on the basis of how well they divide available resources and opportunities between men and women. The assessment was done on the basis of economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment and health and survival. On an average, women earn far less than men and are found more in the informal sector in low-paid and exploitative jobs.15
8 9

www.indiaagainstcorruption.org UNDP Education Index 2010. 10 This was a 2006 follow up study to the Public Report on Basic Education in India(PROBE), Anuradha De and Jean Drze, 1999. 11 UNICEF Annual Report 2008 12 Launched by more than 4,500 children in Delhi, India on October 16 2006, the Nine is Mine campaign is a participatory children's advocacy initiative to call for 9% of the gross domestic product (GDP) to be committed to health and education. This initiative of children, schools, communities and organisations across 15 states of India is being led by Wada Na Todo Abhiyan (WNTA Hindi phrase meaning Do not break your promise), a national campaign to hold the government accountable to its promise to end poverty, social exclusion, and discrimination - toward meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). 13 Provisional Census Office data, 2011 14 Global Gender Gap Report, World Economic Forum. 2010. 15 Gender Equality as Smart Economics, A World Bank Action Plan September 2006

15

d) Employment: India saw a slight (0.3%) rise in unemployment from 10.4% (in 2008) to 10.7% (in 2009)16. This was due partially to the global recession as well as the new work force entering the job market. India, as the second largest population globally, has a startling age demographic where over 50% of its population is under 25 17. It is expected that in 2020, the average age of an Indian will be 29 years, compared to 37 for China and 48 for Japan. India's labour force is growing at a rate of 2.5% annually, but employment is growing at only 2.3%. Thus, the country is faced with the challenge of not only absorbing new entrants to the job market (estimated at seven million people every year), but also clearing the backlog. Unemployment statistics in India can often be misleading, as the unorganised sector accounts for over 90% of the total employment and is characterised by large-scale underemployment, poor working conditions and poor wages. This is not necessarily reflected in employment statistics. e) Development-induced displacement: Between 1950 and 2011, there have been a slew of development projects in India, which have resulted in large-scale displacement especially among people who belong to marginalized and tribal communities. The weakness or absence of adequate legislative mechanisms to ensure comprehensive resettlement and rehabilitation has also exacerbated this phenomenon. Projects around water, urban infrastructure, transportation, energy, agriculture, industry and forests have cumulatively had an impact on several indigenous communities. While adivasis and tribal groups form only 8% of the population, it is believed that between 40-50% of the forcibly displaced belong to these communities.18 According to an Indian Social Institute study in 2001, there were an estimated 21.3 million developmentinduced displaced persons in the country.19 A more liberal estimate places the number of people displaced by dams alone at between 21-40 million. As a consequence, the incidence of landlessness, migration, food insecurity, unemployment and social disintegration has significantly increased over the years. f) Exposure to conflict and violence: India faces low-intensity conflict in several areas. The Naxalite conflict in central and eastern parts of the country and the conflicts in some states of the Northeast and the Kashmir valley have turned these into areas of development neglect. Conservative estimates place the number of people who have been displaced by armed conflict and ethnic and communal violence at 650,000 in 2010.20 This only includes people living in displacement camps. The government has no comprehensive data of the actual number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), nor do they have any strong legislation that can ensure the provision of basic services and entitlements. 6746 people (including civilians, security personnel and armed groups) have lost their lives in armed conflict situations over the last three years.21 g) High exposure to disasters: South Asia is prone to natural22 disasters. The cost to human life is often high due to inadequate shelter and high population density. Between 1990-2008, an estimated 885,224,000 people were affected by disasters,
16 17

GoI Ministry of Labour, Labour Report (2009) P.N. Mari Bhat, "Indian Demographic Scenario 2025", Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi, Discussion Paper No. 27/2001. 18 www.internal-displacement.org 19 Global IDP Database of Norwegian Refugee Council, July 2001 20 www.internal-displacement.org 21 http://www.satp.org 22 Recently the notion of natural disasters has been increasingly debated, as disasters are often the result of man-made vulnerability. Disasters are therefore particularly significant to private sector manufacturing and extractive companies.

16

resulting in 534,000 deaths, an average of 30,000 deaths a year.23 With climate change and rising population densities, damage and exposure to disasters is set to increase. In India, direct losses incurred on account of natural disasters amount to 2% of Indias GDP and up to 12% of central government revenues. h) Climate change: Climate change has the potential to compound existing development problems and increase pressure on key resources needed to sustain growth. Analysts predict that altered rainfall patterns will have a severe impact on the agriculture sector in India, as around three-fifths of cultivated land is rain-fed. Statistics reveal that rainfall in India has decreased by approximately 5-8% since the 1950s. In India, the area affected by floods has more than doubled between 1953 and 2003. A rise in sea levels rise will also have significant impacts on coastal areas in the shape of inundation, salinity of ground water sources and consequent migration. The poor will bear the brunt of these disasters, which will only lead to their further marginalization. It is predicted that India will also host a rising influx of climate refugees. The 2007 floods displaced more than 20 million people in Bangladesh, India and Nepal. It is predicted that by 2050, 13% of the land mass of southern Bangladesh will be submerged, displacing between 15-20 million people.24 The subsequent migration could put pressure on land and other resources in the sub-continent, including India. i) Water: The availability of water in India is already under threat on two accounts firstly, variability in supply and growing demand due to population growth, industrialisation and urbanization,25 and secondly, overexploitation of water resources. The shortage of potable water is a reality in rural and increasingly in urban areas of India. Per capita water availability has been decreasing steadily relative to demand since the 1940s.26 Water scarcity will have a major impact on food security in the country. Increasing the acreage of intensive agriculture requires irrigation and fresh water usage from river basins that have already been stretched to the limits, with over 500 million people heavily dependent on them across the country. Glacial melt will increase the risks of flooding and result in water shortage in the long term. The geopolitics of access to water both across the region and interstate will be an additional source of conflict. j) Poor Regional Integration: Lack of infrastructure, poor connectivity and access to markets means that there is less than 7% interregional trade across the SAARC region, impeding economic growth. Economic Overview During the 1990s, Indias economy grew rapidly at about 7% annually. Sustained economic growth has translated into a reduction of poverty from 58% in 1974 to 37% in 2010.27 However, unlike South East Asia, economic growth in India has not translated into a reduction of the number of people living in absolute poverty, due to the inequitable distribution of newly acquired wealth. Indias development challenges have been heightened by the global economic crisis of 2007-09. Although Indias economy grew at 6.1% in the last
23 24

Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) and United Nations World Population Prospectus. Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change study. 25 By 2020 it is estimated that 200 million new water connections will be required to cope with urban demand. India in 2020 Booz & Co. (2010) and 40% of Indias population will be urbanised by 2030 [Mckinsey Global Institute 2010]. 26 World Bank 2009. 27 World Bank Poverty Database 2010

17

quarter of 2010 (which was among the highest growth rates in the world), this still represents a significant dip from the peak of 9.7% growth attained in the fiscal year 2006-07.28 Retail inflation is running at about 10% per annum,29 food prices are rising at around 18%, and the external trade deficit is more than 5% of GDP. Interest rates were lowered to stimulate the economy after global recession. However, it is well-established that a sustained run of low interest rates accompanied by high consumer prices leads to overinvestment in real estate, creating a bubble that is inherently unstable. An added concern is the widening gap between the rich/middle classes and the poor, with the 100 wealthiest Indians having a net worth equal to 25% of India's GDP.30 The divide between the richer and poorer Indian states adds to the economic disparities and contradictions. It is projected that Indias population will overtake China by 2020.31 Therefore Indias capacity to generate and sustain economic growth will become even more critical in the face of such a sharp increase in population. Approximately 70% of Indias poor live in rural areas. Agriculture remains Indias principal occupation, employing over 60% of the labour force. However, growth and investment in the agricultural sector has significantly slowed down over the last two decades. Per capita growth in agricultural productivity is less than 2%, thus contributing only around 22% of GDP despite employing over 60% of the labour force. Increasing marginalisation of small farmers, the pressures of population on land, and land acquisition have resulted in an expansion of the number of landless agricultural wage labourers and seasonal economic migrants. Internal economic migration from poor to less poor states for seasonal work is massive, with an estimated 38 million workers migrating across India annually.32 These labourers are highly vulnerable to exploitation, and estimates suggest that 5 million of them are bonded through indebtedness to unscrupulous employers.33 In the last decade, there has been a marked leaning within the government towards pro-poor policies to ensure better access to health, education and livelihoods, and provide social security benefits for the very poor. Recent acts designed to widen the social security net have included the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA), (2005) that aims at guaranteeing hundred days of wage-employment in a financial year to at least one adult member of a rural household who volunteers to do unskilled manual work. The Right to Information Act (2005) has also provided a powerful tool to citizens, ensuring them access to government records. However, the effective implementation of these acts, especially MNREGA, remains a major challenge, on account of inadequate resource allocation, inefficiencies, and corruption amongst the bureaucracy and political classes. Prosecution under various acts designed to protect the poor, such as the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act 1976 and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), is rare. Furthermore, unless backed by civil society support, these acts are rarely utilised by the most marginalised.

28 29

World Bank. India Country Overview, December 2010 Economic Crisises Are Boring, Here Today And Here Tomorrow As Well. Roger Nightingale Associates Economic Analysis December 2010 30 AFP wire 11th January 2011. 31 Population Foundation of India/Population Reference Bureau: The Future Population of India: A Long Range Demographic View August 2007 32 International Labour Organisation (ILO) Labour Report 2009. 33 ILO ibid.

18

Private Sector in India with Relation to Poverty Reduction The private sector in India has been growing rapidly since economic liberalisation in 1991. India has seen the emergence of strong indigenous private firms, predominantly in the area of information technology, steel, construction and manufacturing and service sectors such as the tourism and hotel industry and Business Process Outsourcing. The private sector has contributed significantly to Indias economic growth and employment creation across the country. However, one of the major challenges for this sector is sustaining this growth. Urbanisation, industrialisation and a massive deficit in energy have already resulted in immense pressure on resources and the environment. New towns have mushroomed and slums have proliferated in urban metropolises due to the scarcity of low-cost housing and lack of urban planning. Some leading companies have begun evincing interest in issues of sustainable development and could spearhead significant changes in India. However, there are several hurdles. Only 46% of the economy is in the formal sector. A bulk of industry consists of small enterprises, which remain largely unregulated. This fragmentation makes them almost impossible to audit. Therefore, enforcing compliance with international and national standards across the industrial spectrum will be an uphill task. Forcible acquisition of land to build factories and industrial units is increasingly creating tension between industrialists and farmers. Many industries, particularly in the mining and extractive sectors, have appalling reputations with regard to pollution. This is further exacerbated by the surging demand for energy, most likely to be met by low-grade brown coal, the most polluting source of energy. The private sectors collusion with government has played a significant role in perpetuating corruption with a number of high-level corporate corruption cases dominating the business press since the late 1990s.34 Corporate Social Responsibility in India Responsible business practice has existed since the rise of industrialisation. However, it tended to follow a business philanthropic model developed in the 18th century by companies such as Cadbury-Fry and Ford. In India, it was spearheaded by companies such as Tata, Modi and Birla. It was during the early 1990s that pressure was put on companies to be more transparent and accountable for financial and environmental auditing, as well as to implement social auditing. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) can be defined for the purposes of this report as: The continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large. [World Business Council for Sustainable Development: 1996] The approach to corporate responsibility in the mid-1990s was shaped by the following factors:

34

Commencing with the Bofors scandal in the late 1980s, the collapse of Enron in the 1990s, and a recent spate of cases in the IT and telecom sectors, notably, the Satyam case and irregularities in 2G Spectrum allocation.

19

An altered global economic landscape that included the rise of emerging transition economies such as India and China and the emergence of a new Europe after the expansion of the European Union. An increase in global conflicts that threatened business in developing markets and the collapse of old regimes that destabilised existing ones. The contradiction between increased wealth alongside poverty and exclusion that contributed to political tensions at a national level in a number of low-income economies. Increased economic migration that led to the violation of international labour law and exploitation of cheap labour coupled with government corruption, an unskilled workforce and local legislation (or lack thereof). Escalating human rights violations in developing economies, due to outsourcing and subcontracting labour into the unregulated economy to reduce the costs. Environmental damage coupled with shrinking natural resources. Increasingly pervasive corruption. A rise in stakeholders expectations and consumer pressure as awareness of fair trade, ethical sourcing and corporate environmental damage were highlighted by the media. This was coupled with an expansion in the definition of stakeholders from simply shareholders to employees, customers, investors and local communities. The advent of new media such as the internet and mobile phones, leading to greater transparency and accountability. An expansion of civil society and a proliferation of NGOs, creating a new dynamic of corporate social responsibility in the public consciousness.

In the global context, more institutions and people were expected to have a legitimate role in contributing to sustainable development. Many of these institutions also became aware of their responsibilities in this enterprise. The rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships reflected the growing appreciation of the need for and the opportunities of collaborative action. It reflected an understanding of the benefits of involving a broad range of different stakeholder groups in development projects and the risks of not doing so. However, CSR as a fledgling social science was not without a whole range of issues and challenges, which can be summarised thus: The boundaries of responsibility: How far down a company supply chain should a parent company be accountable and how far beyond statutory compliance should a company be obliged to go? This would include labour conditions in supply chains, technical disaster and relocation due to market collapse. Setting and meeting standards: There has been a proliferation of auditing tools and voluntary codes of conduct that companies are being asked to subscribe to. Building trust and confidence: The widely held perception of the private sector being unethical, as brought out in opinion polls.35 Governance and corruption: (see above on the range of high level corporate corruption scandals in the 1990s). Local economic development: Investing locally in terms of employment and infrastructure.

35

In 2002, Americans (34%) regarded CEOs as more ethical than they did in 2009. In fact, the percentage of Americans who regarded CEOs as ethical dropped to 22%. The figures revealed that 66% American regard CEOs as corrupt. (American Enterprise Institute Report, March 2010)

20

Social inclusion: A growing understanding that one could not have islands of economic success in a sea of poverty. In chronically poor countries, ring fencing business operations with high security were leading to an abuse of human rights. Environmental protection: A range of high profile environmental disasters, brought this into sharp relief. Emerging population issues: Quest for new markets with a population dividend in transition economies and an aging population in traditional markets such as Europe and America. Making partnerships work: Civil society and the public and private sectors spoke very different languages and a great deal of distrust existed between the sectors.

The business case for social investment includes Improved operational efficiency. Increased standards/reliability in the supply chain. Employee motivation / loyalty / productivity. Strengthening the license to operate. Strengthening corporate brand and reputation. Market development and attracting investment. CSR is still relatively nascent in India. Although there is a long history of corporate philanthropy, this has usually taken the form of foundations (eligible for tax breaks) or hospitals and schools set up in the memory of company founders. In India, companies account for just 10% of charity funding, compared with 75% percent in the United States. The CSR agenda in India had initially been driven by multinational corporations (MNCs) sourcing out of India in the manufacturing sectors. Child and bonded labour in supply chains, in addition to other violations of labour standards (including health and safety in the work place, enforced overtime, and freedom of association), were increasingly becoming concerns for consumers and the press, predominantly in Europe and America, the two main export markets for India. This, coupled with a number of corporate corruption scandals, and Indias desire to be a player on the global stage has driven corporations to compliance. CSR is still viewed as a very Western concept and a tool to create barriers to exclude India from the global trade market. The other grouse is that compliance comes at a cost in terms of social, environmental, and infrastructural investment and meeting labour standards. Since the late 1990s, India has tried to indigenise a range of voluntary codes of conduct and make them culturally specific. This has been led mainly by industry associations such as the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), Indias largest industry and business association; the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM). Although they have now reinvented themselves as CSR advisory agents, they still remain deeply conservative. Their primary raison dtre is to promote Indian business. However, CII did develop the first voluntary code of corporate governance, Desirable Corporate Governance: A Code, established in April 1998. A National Foundation for Corporate Governance (NFCG) has been established by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This is a partnership with the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). The purpose of the National Foundation for Corporate Governance is to promote better corporate governance practices in India towards achieving stability and growth. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) has also established the Business Council for Sustainable Development. 21

In 1997, the International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) established the Business Community Foundation (BCF),36 a business coalition comprising large Indian companies and MNCs investing in India. The intention behind this foundation was to work both in partnership and share good practices, as well as document private sector/NGO partnerships through case studies. IBLF also supported an Action Aid initiative, Partners in Change,37 to develop case study material and conduct impact evaluations. There is now a proliferation of CSR consultants, not-for-profit agencies and large consulting agencies such as Accenture, Development Partners, and Pricewaterhouse Cooper that view India as a lucrative market to guide large companies through the complexity of CSR. Large international bilateral aid agencies have also been examining the role of the private sector as a key agency in poverty eradication in India and CSR as a means of achieving this. Both the UK Department for International Development (DIFD) and the German Technical Aid agency GTZ have been spearheading CSR initiatives with Indian companies and inward investors. India is a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and has ratified 40 of the ILO conventions. However, India has not ratified four of the ILO core conventions which have implications for CSR in India: 087 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (1948) 098 Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (1949) 138 Minimum Age Convention (1973) 182 Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (1999) India has the worlds highest number of child labourers under 14 years and according to UNICEF, insufficient attention has been given in India to eliminate the worst forms of child labour. The 1986 child labour law does not cover children in all sectors. Although CSR in India has been spearheaded by MNCs and large Indian companies, the biggest single failing is, arguably, the inability to spread CSR beyond the largest businesses. Even though efforts have been made over the last ten years to engage smaller firms in CSR, it still remains a big company concern, with the growth spreading internationally rather than locally. This may be partially addressed by new legislation designed to effectively create a CSR levy on India companies. Several Indian companies might have to set aside 2% of their average net profits during the preceding three years to meet corporate social responsibility (CSR) spending requirements.38 A parliamentary standing committee on finance, which vetted the Companies Bill (2009) said in its report that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has agreed to the suggestion. The committee has suggested that companies with a net worth of Rs 500 crore or more, or those that have an annual turnover of at least Rs 1000 crore, or companies with a net profit of Rs 5 crore or more, be covered by the proposed statutory norms. A White Paper addressing the Bills amendment was tabled in the 2010 parliamentary session and has a strong possibility of being passed in the 2011 session. Welcoming the ministrys acceptance of the suggestion to bring CSR in the statute, the parliamentary committee said that a statement indicating the companys CSR policy, as well as the specific steps taken, should be part of the companys annual report. It has, however, not listed activities that would be qualified to meet CSR
36 37

www.bcfindia.org www.picindia.org 38 Mandatory compliance will set firms back by over an estimated Rs 4,300 crore. (Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance recommendation, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, India 2010)

22

spending. If the bill materialises, it will impact all private sector companies operational on the Tamil Nadu SIPCOT site, leading to additional resources for potential collaborative programming and social investment. To conclude, the factors that influence CSR agendas can be summarised thus: Market forces the business case Community Stakeholder pressure Government pressure Companies self regulation (for business & ethical reasons) Peer group leadership/ Business-led associations Voluntary codes, principles & compacts Regulation & the law national and international Litigation across national boundaries Survey Location - Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, India Gummidipoondi thaluk is located in the Thiruvallur district of Tamil Nadu.39 Thiruvallur district is situated in the North East part of Tamil Nadu; the district is bordered by Kancheepuram district in the South, Vellore district in the West, Bay of Bengal in the East, and the state of Andhra Pradesh in the North. The district spreads over an area of about 3422 sq km and has a total population of 22,11,413 as per the 2001 Census. About half of the population resides in rural areas. The district has been subdivided into eight thaluks and 14 blocks for administrative convenience. Agriculture is the main occupation of the rural population in the district and the net sown area accounts for about 40% of the total geographical area of the district. Paddy, groundnut, sugarcane, pulses and banana are the important crops grown in the district. A new state of the art rail terminus and link is set to connect Gummidipoondi and Thiruvallur, the district headquarters. Thiruvallur District falls within the AraniyarKorattalaiyar and Cooum river basins. All the rivers are seasonal and carry substantial flows during the monsoon. The prominent geomorphic units identified in the district from satellite imagery include alluvial plains, old river courses, coastal plains and hills. The district has considerable surface water in the form of reservoirs and eris (lakes). The district receives an average annual rainfall in the range of 950 to 1150 mm. Rains falls during both the southwest (June to September) and northeast (October to December) monsoon seasons. There is considerable spatial variability in the distribution of rainfall, which shows a gradual decrease from east to west. Gummudipoondi thaluk has an existing SIPCOT site at the thaluk headquarters itself that was set up a decade ago. A new site is coming up at the village of Thervoy, about 15.4 km from Gummudipoondi. The older industrial park that came up here was one of the first in the region. The major units located at the site are Hi-tech Carbon, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum. The site was developed with very little regulatory compliance and has consequently become an environmental disaster with heavy atmospheric pollution and contamination of water. This has hugely influenced local opinion, which now equates industrial development with pollution and may account for some of the opposition to SIPCOTs current acquisition of village pastureland for industrial development in other parts of the district. The new SIPCOT site is located at what was formerly meikkal poromboke (pastureland) belonging to the Panchayat of Thervoy-Kandigai village.
39

A thaluk is a sub-division of a district

23

Thervoy is 44 km from Indias fourth largest city and the state capital, Chennai, and is therefore well connected by air, rail and road links. With an estimated population of 7.5 million and a growth rate of 6.4%, Chennai has several automobile technology and small parts, hardware manufacturing and healthcare industries. The city is India's second-largest exporter of information technology and information-technology-enabled services, second to Bangalore. According to a recent report in the national newspaper The Hindu, economists have predicted that Chennai's per capita income will increase to $1149 in 2015 and $17,366 in 2050 from a base of $468 in 2000. Tamil Nadu is rated fifth amongst Indian states in terms of Foreign Direct Investment Flows (FDI) over the last decade. It has also received 5% of the FDI inflow, estimated at $6 billion or Rs 27,782 crores.40 From a development perspective, Tamil Nadu ranks in the top ten States on human development indicators such as health and literacy. During the 1990s and early 2000s, Tamil Nadu had the second highest rate of HIV/AIDS prevalence after Manipur, although some attribute this to the fact that Tamil Nadu public health system was more efficient at gathering the data than less well-off states. However, the latest National Aids Control Organisation (NACO) figures41 show that this has been brought under control, a reflection of the fact that HIV/AIDS interventions are beginning to work in Tamil Nadu. One development issue that must be borne in mind is the vast impact that the tsunami of 2004 had on Tamil Nadu. Not only was its physical impact severe in parts of the state, destroying infrastructure and livelihoods, it also led to a huge influx of funding by development agencies.42 This influx was badly coordinated, with many areas receiving triple funding from different agencies, while others received none at all. The initial tranches of funding were provided to rebuild houses and restore livelihoods in the form of new boats and fishing nets. They were perceived as gifts by the recipient communities and bred a culture of dependency and patronage that was ultimately unsustainable. Nearly all poor coastal communities are aware of the largesse of the tsunami funds, and this phenomenon has raised expectations when it comes to charitable giving. Instead of taking out loans to generate ownership and sustainability, many communities now simply expect to be given benefits. Another impact of the tsunami funding was that it resulted in a shortage of social workers and technical advisors to implement measures for rehabilitating the affected communities. This prompted agencies such as the UN and INGOs to effectively poach staff from local NGOs. The resulting competition distorted salaries in the NGO sector making it hard for small agencies to attract quality staff. Another important point from a development perspective is the fact that the Coromandel Coast is severely affected by coastal erosion. Most of the coastal communities live on the narrow strip of land between the sea and privately-owned agricultural land, eking out a living mainly through fishing and related occupations like boat building and drying and preserving fish. The severe pressure put on them by the erosion of their habitat has now forced many fisher folk to relocate into forest areas inland and give up their livelihoods for casual and exploitative day labour. This has the potential to depress the labour market for unskilled labour in the project area.
40 41

Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, www.dipp.nic.in NACO (2009) 42 India has received $465 million as IDA credit from the World Bank for reconstruction and recovery efforts in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. According to the joint needs assessment of the ADB-UNDP-World Bank, the reconstruction-financing needs caused by the tsunami amounted to at least $868 million in Tamil Nadu (2005).

24

Section III
Data Analysis
Social Composition of the Villages The majority of the households surveyed comprise a mixture of communities (Figure 1) from the Scheduled Castes (SC), Backward Classes (BC) and Most Backward Classes (MBC), with the SC households forming the largest segment nearly 52% of the 5724 households surveyed. The Irulars, an indigenous tribal community, make up 7% of the total households.

BC

MBC

SC

ST

409, 7.1%

1109, 19.4%

1237, 21.6% 2969, 51.9%

Figure 1: Distribution of Households by Community

Scheduled Castes (SC): At 51.87 %, the Scheduled Caste households form the single largest social block. All the SC households belong to the Parayan43 community.44 Most Backward Classes (MBC): MBC households, 1237 in number, form the next largest segment of the survey sample. They make up 21.61% of the sample size and belong to the following communities: Vanniyar, Yadaval / Eadiyar, Nadar, Navithar and Reddiar. Backward Classes (BC): 19.37% or 1109 households belong to the Backward Classes. 40 (3.7%) of these families belong to the Kannadiya Naidu, Chettiar and Mudaliar communities. Scheduled Tribes (ST): All of the Scheduled Tribes in the area 7% of the households belong to the Irular community. These comprise a total of 409 households. The Irualars were traditionally a non-agrarian nomadic community. Most survey indicators reflect their weak socio-economic status vis--vis other community groups in the area.

43

All caste classifications are taken from the Gazette Notification, released by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in 2009. 44 In Tamil Nadu, the term dalit is used exclusively to refer to this grouping.

25

A far higher proportion of ST families (18%) have homes that are situated on wasteland (as opposed to patta land) than the sample average of 7%. These figures assume significance when one looks at the corresponding figures for MBC families nearly 99% of the MBC households own houses on patta (legally-owned) land. In terms of quality of house construction, the figures for Irular families deviate significantly from the sample average. 63% of their homes have mud walls as compared to 36% for the entire sample while 66% have thatched roofs as against a sample average of 36%. A higher proportion of ST families (11%) had availed government housing schemes, against a mean of 6% for all the households. Only 77% of the Irular community have electricity connections, as compared to the sample average of 94%. Families that have three phase connections account for 13% of the sample. It is lowest in the case of ST families (5%) and highest in the case of BC and MBC households (17% each). A larger proportion of ST families (66%) mentioned that they use kerosene for cooking, the sample average being 33%. Firewood is used extensively for cooking, but the ST families appear to be most dependent on this as a source of fuel. Access to sanitation, whether individual or community, is poor across the sample (8% and 2% respectively). Here again, ST families have the lowest figures 1% for both. When these figures are seen in conjunction with those for BC communities, 18% and 6% respectively, the difference in access becomes more apparent. The four most widely owned gadgets/appliances across the survey sample are televisions, fans, mobile phones and gas stoves. The number of televisions is very high 90% of the families own one but here again, the ST families fall behind the rest of the sample (87%). The trend is more pronounced when it comes to ownership of fans; while the sample average is 83%, for ST families it is a mere 40%. Only a small share (6%) of ST families owns a mobile phone in contrast to the sample average of 40%. None of the ST families own a gas stove, against a mean of 14%. Interestingly, a higher proportion of ST families relied on newspapers for information than other groups. Religious denomination: The majority of households in the area (93%) identified themselves as Hindus, with Christians and Muslims making up the rest (6% and 1% respectively). There are, in fact, a larger number of recent converts to Christianity (estimated at over 50% in some villages) but most declare themselves Hindu in order to retain their caste identity. Vulnerable Sections: All communities have a section of population that inhabit the margins vis--vis their socio-economic position and entitlements in society. Often, the elderly and women, particularly widows, have to negotiate many social and institutional barriers. There were a total of 1045 persons above 60 years of age in the villages surveyed. At the time of the survey, there were 14 widowers and a sizeable number of widows, 1069 in all. Although there is a widow pension scheme in place, only 12 of the widows in the sample were availing its benefits. Demographics Size of Households: 51% of the households have a family size between 3-5 persons (Figure 2). This is below the national average of 6 persons to each family. Tamil Nadu has the lowest

26

family size of any state45 due to strong interventions in the field of reproductive and sexual health in the 1980s and 90s. The fact that the villages surveyed had a higher than state average could be an indicator of poor access to resources, including education and public health.
less than 3 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BC MBC SC ST Total between 3 and 5 greater than 5

Percentage of households

Communities
Figure 2: Household Size by Community

Age Profile: The population in the villages is distributed fairly evenly over 3 broad age bands, viz., below 18 years, 18-35 years and above 35 years (Figure 3). This distribution roughly matches the national average of 50% of the population being below the age of 25. 36% individuals are between the ages of 18 and 35. Interestingly, there is a higher proportion of children in the 6-12 age bracket from the ST category (16%) than in other groupings. Similarly, the proportion of persons in the 18-35 age bracket is slightly higher among the BC and SC households than the rest of the sample.

45

NFHS-3. National Family health survey (NFHS) International Institute of Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai designated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW), Government of India. (Oct 2007)

27

less than/equal to 6 between 18 and 35 40% 35%

between 6 and 12 between 35 and 60

between 12 and 18 over 60

Percentage of Individuals

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% BC MBC

Communities

SC

ST

Total

Figure 3: Age Distribution by Community

Sex Ratio46: Worldwide, the normal sex ratio at birth (SRB) is about 105 male babies per 100 female babies. The data gathered in this survey points to a slightly higher proportion of females than males (10691 females to 10531 males), giving no indication of female infanticide or sex-selective abortion in the survey area. There appears to be a marginally higher concentration of females (37%) in the 18-35 age range than males (Figure 4).
Male 120% Female Total

Percentage of Indivuals

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Age Range

Figure 4: Gender by Age Group

Income, Poverty and Indebtedness

46

Sex Ratio is defined as the number of females per 1000 males. Sex Ratio is an important social indicator to measure the extent of equity prevailing between males and females at a given point of time.

28

Per capita income: The average annual per capita income47 was found to be between Rs. 10,000 to 20,000. As is evident from Figure 5, the disaggregated data shows surprisingly little variation in incomes across communities.
BC MBC SC ST Total

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Percentage of Households

less between than/equal 20K and to 20K 40K

between between between 40K and 60K and 80K and 60K Income Groups 100K 80K

between over 120K 100K and 120K

Figure 5: Average Annual Per Capita Income by Community

Poverty: What stands out from the income data is that about 98% of the households subsist on an annual per capita income of Rs. 20,000 and below. Based on World Bank poverty indicators, this places them below the poverty line, pegged at a per capita income of less than $2 a day or Rs. 91 (Table 2).48 Equally significant is the fact that 81% of the households 4620 out of the 5724 households can be categorised as extremely poor, subsisting on less than $1 a day, or Rs. 45.50 (Table 3). 17% of the households earn between $1-$2 a day.

Table 2: Per Capita Income Per Day By Community BC Less than Rs 45.5/$1 Between Rs. 45.5/$1 & Rs.91/$2 Between Rs.91/$1 & Rs.227.5/$5 More than Rs.227.5/$5 Total 79% 18% 2% 0% 100% MBC 82% 16% 2% 0% 100% SC 81% 17% 2% 0% 100% ST 81% 18% 1% 0% 100% Total 81% 17% 2% 0% 100%

Table 3: Extreme Poverty by Community BC Greater than Rs 45.50/$1 Less than or equal to Rs 45.50/$1 Total 21% 79% 100% MBC 18% 82% 100% SC 19% 81% 100% ST 19% 81% 100% Total 19% 81% 100%

The general experience while conducting household surveys on low-income groups in India is that respondents tend to underestimate their annual income. This is often due to the assumption that lower income will attract greater access to services, as most government
47

Per capita income estimates were derived by dividing household income by the number of members in each of the households.
48

$1 = Rs.45.5

29

schemes are means tested. (The opposite is true in the West where the tendency is to exaggerate incomes upwards to improve credit rating and societal standing). This fact must be kept in mind while interpreting the tables on incomes. Indebtedness: The gap between income and expenditure is a major issue for the poor in India, and is one of the major reasons for poverty. Tamil Nadu is no exception. Very poor families have expenditures in excess of incomes and are, therefore, forced to borrow at crippling interest rates from commercial moneylenders. One of the main reasons for indebtedness is the inability of poor families to withstand external economic shocks because of crop failure, natural disasters, accidents etc. Events such as marriage, birth and death also bring with them financial strain. Many of the households that were surveyed were found to have a debt burden, with about 60% having taken loans for one reason or another. Although this trend is visible among all communities, the incidence of indebtedness appeared to be highest among the MBC families (67%) and BC families (64%) and lowest among the ST households (32%). The loan amounts were found to vary from below Rs 20,000 to above Rs 120,000, but most of them were below Rs 60,000 (Figure 6). One possible explanation for the lower rate of borrowing amongst the poorest social group, the Scheduled Tribes, is their inability to provide collateral in terms of possessions and income to secure a higher loan. 71% of the indebted ST families had incurred loans of under Rs 20,000 as opposed to a sample average of 25%. The proportion of high-end borrowers (greater than Rs 120,000) was highest among the BC families (23%) followed by MBC households (22%). 87% of the ST families that had been surveyed had taken loans below Rs 40,000.
BC MBC SC ST Total

Percentage of Indebted Households with a Certain Amount of Debt

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% between 40K and 60K between 80K and 100K more than 120K

0% less than/equal to 20K

Loan Amount

Figure 6: Loan Amount by Community

For about 31% of the households, borrowing was linked to marriage; other major causes of indebtedness were agriculture (20%), education (17%), health (16%) and purchase or improvement of property (12%). Disaggregated data reveals that a higher percentage of loans among the SC families were taken for marriages than among the remaining groups (Figure 7). In the case of the Backward Classes, the percentage was 21%, below the sample average of 31%. The incidence of health30

related borrowing was highest among the ST households (35%), and lowest among the MBC households (11%). The frequency of loans incurred for agriculture was highest among the BC families (32%), followed by Most Backward Classes (27%). For the ST group, the percentage was a mere 2%. This trend is in keeping with the pattern of land ownership around 46% and 44% of the MBC and BC families respectively own land, while only 1% of the ST households have landholdings.
Marriage 40% 35% Medical Education

Percentage of households

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% BC MBC SC ST Total

Communities

Figure 7: Purpose of Loan by Community

The dependence on moneylenders in the survey area is evident from the fact that almost three-fourths of the loans were ascribed to them (Figure 8). 14% of the loans came from banks and 9% from SHGs. Inter- and intra-family borrowing was low, with only 3% of the loans having been provided by a family member and 2% by friends or relatives. When it comes to source of loans, there are some interesting inter-community variations. While more than 38% of the ST borrowers had availed of loans from SHGs, virtually none of them had availed of bank loans. A far higher proportion of MBC (34%) and BC (29%) households reported having taken bank loans as compared to other segments in the sample. The average rate of interest on loans taken from commercial moneylenders is usually above 100%.49 There appears to be a lack of access to credit through self help groups and microcredit in the area surveyed, with a small percentage (9%) accessing credit through this method. It is interesting to note that there was little inter-family borrowing. What this could imply is that poverty levels are so high that they simply do not have the assets to loan.

49

Average interest rates in Tamil Nadu on a loan of between Rs.20K to Rs30K from a commercial moneylender are 104%. World Development Report (2006).

31

Money Lender 90% 80%

Bank

Family Member

Percentage of households

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BC MBC SC ST Total

Communities

Figure 8: Source of Loan by Community

Economic Well-being A range of questions were designed to establish the economic well being of the community as a whole, to look at spending patterns on commodities and life-style choices. Consumer durables: In terms of consumer durables, the highest ownership is of televisions (90%), followed by pedestal fans (83%) and mobile phones (47%). There is a very low level of ownership of radios (2%) and landline phones (2%). The high degree of ownership of televisions may seem to suggest that these are being prioritised over more essential household items such as gas stoves (14%) and sewing machines (2%). However, this anomaly can be explained by the fact that free televisions were one of promises made by the Tamil Nadu State Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, the party in power then, to voters prior to the May 2006 elections. Other statistics reveal the comparatively low ownership of vehicles and household goods. Whereas 24% of households own a bicycle, 10% own motorcycles. Only 23 families own mopeds, 18 own cars, 3 own jeeps and 35 own tractors. 4% of the households own a fridge, and 0.2% of the households own a computer. Information is largely received via television, newspaper and word of mouth. Sanitation: One of the most significant facts emerging from the survey is that 90% of households do not use toilets. It is not entirely a case of access, as a few villages do have community toilets constructed, but these lie abandoned and unused. Housing: The data suggests a high level of house ownership. About 98% of the respondents have their own dwellings, with 92% of homes being built on Patta (legally owned) land. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that in this area, housing schemes such as the Kalaignar Veedu Vazhangum Thittam (Kalaignar Housing Scheme the Indira Awas Yojana scheme in Tamil Nadu) have been widely accessed. A variety of materials are used in house construction. More than half the households (56%) have homes with cement walls, 36% have mud walls, and the remaining (8%), walls of stone (Table 4). For roofing purposes, cement, thatch and tiles are the most commonly-used 32

material (Table 5). This was found in 40%, 36 % and 23% of the sample respectively. Corrugated iron sheets are used very rarely (1%).
Table 4: Material Used in Wall Construction by Community BC Cement Mud Stone Total 727 263 119 1109 MBC 776 364 97 1237 SC 1571 1186 212 2969 ST 120 258 31 409 Total 3194 2071 459 5724

Table 5: Material Used in Roof Construction by Community BC Thatched Tiled Sheets Cement Total 263 275 15 556 1109 MBC 375 332 7 523 1237 SC 1169 695 26 1079 2969 ST 268 26 3 112 409 Total 2075 1328 51 2270 5724

Energy: Virtually all the households (94%) were found to have electricity connections. 77% ST households have electricity connections against the sample average of 94%. Of these, 87% have two-phase connections. Despite this, almost 97% of the households also depend on kerosene for lighting. Anecdotal evidence suggests that electricity supply is very erratic and unreliable. Firewood, kerosene, LPG and cow dung are the most commonly used fuels for cooking (Figure 9). 89% of the households rely on firewood for cooking, 33% use kerosene, 21% LPG, while only 3% use cow dung. Some houses use both kerosene and cow dung fuel for cooking purposes. 66% of the ST households use kerosene against a sample average of 21%. Only 2% of these households use LPG as compared to an average of 21% for all the community groups. 83% of the respondents mentioned that firewood and cow dung is collected, not bought.
BC 110% 100% MBC

Percentage of Households

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Firewood Cowdung Cake LPG Kerosene

Fuel type

Figure 9: Source of Cooking Fuel by Community

33

Connectivity: All the villages have metalled roads and street lighting. However, only four

villages are serviced by public transport. Those that do have public transportation consider the services to be inadequate. Education Literacy and Educational Levels: The survey sought to capture data on the level of educational attainment in different segments of the sample above the age of 6 (Table 6). Overall illiteracy is at 8%. A third of those in the age group above 60 are unable to read or write. An additional 2% of the population is unable to sign their names. Around 40% of the sample has studied up to the 5th standard. 1461 persons (7%) have completed higher secondary education. There are a fairly large number of graduates (931), post-graduates (201), and those who have completed ITI/certificate/diploma courses (172).
Table 6: Education Level by Community BC Not started going to school Illiterate Can Sign Name U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School Upto 5th Std. 6th Std to 10 Std. 11th/12th Std. Graduate Post graduate ITI/Certificate/Diploma Other Total 5% 8% 3% 1% 34% 33% 8% 6% 1% 1% 0% 100% MBC 5% 8% 2% 1% 41% 32% 6% 4% 1% 1% 0% 100% SC 5% 8% 2% 1% 39% 32% 7% 5% 1% 1% 0% 100% ST 6% 14% 1% 0% 64% 15% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Total 5% 8% 2% 1% 40% 31% 7% 4% 1% 1% 0% 100%

Disaggregated data suggests that compared to other groupings, the illiteracy level is higher among the ST population (14%). This disparity becomes more pronounced along the educational ladder, with only 15% of the STs having studied between 6 th-10th standard as opposed to the sample average of 31%. Data disaggregated according to gender throws up yet another disparity: the illiteracy rate for females is almost twice that in the case of males (11% and 6%). Interestingly, while a sizeable proportion of females (43%) have studied up to the 5th standard, only 29% have gone beyond that stage, pointing perhaps to a far higher attrition rate among girls than boys. Proportionally speaking, the percentage of female graduates is lower than that of their male counterparts (2% and 6% respectively).
Table 7: Education Level by Gender Male Not started going to school Illiterate Can Sign Name U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 518 640 164 84 Female 494 1158 213 66 Total 1012 1798 377 150

34

Upto 5th Std. 6th Std to 10 Std. 11th/12th Std. Graduate Post graduate ITI/Certificate/Diploma Other Total

3898 3483 823 666 135 109 11 10531

4638 3079 638 265 66 63 11 10691

8536 6562 1461 931 201 172 22 21222

School Enrollment: The survey tracked the enrollment of children of school going age (6-18 years). Enrollment (at 96%) is high and matches the national average for compulsory education below the age of 12. It remains fairly high at 78% up until the age of 18.
Table 8: Current Education Status by Age Less than 6 years Studying Not Studying Total 2% 98% 100% Between 6 and 12 years 96% 4% 100% Between 12 and 18 years 78% 22% 100% Total 77% 23% 100%

School infrastructure: 16 of the villages in the survey area have a primary/upper primary school within their premises. These are accessed by neighboring villages, generally within a radius of around 2 km. There are only 3 government high schools in the area. These are situated in Palavakkam, Kannankottai and Thervoy. Children in most villages have to commute between 1-6 kms to reach these schools. The 3 higher secondary schools in the survey area are located at Uthukottai, Madarpakkam and Periapalayam. To get to these schools, children from some of the villages have to commute between 3-14 kms. Employment & Occupations Primary occupations: For the purpose of this survey, the employment and occupation patterns of individuals between the age of 18 and 60 were considered. This was based on the assumption that people in this age group constitute the active working population of the area. A total of 10353 individuals were surveyed in this category. At an aggregate level, casual day labour is the primary occupation for 69% of the working population (Figure 10). Next in importance is agriculture at 15%. Less than a tenth of the working population (9%) have jobs with a private company, 5% are self-employed, and only 3% are government employees. At a disaggregated level, the highest percentage of those who reported casual labour to be their primary occupation was found among the ST families (92%), followed by the SC groups (72%). It was lowest among the MBC category (49%). Virtually none of the workers from the ST categories reported agriculture as a primary occupation, in contrast to 30% and 34% in the case of MBC and BC groups respectively.

35

Labourer 100% 90%

Agriculture

Private Company Job

Percentage of Individuals

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BC MBC SC ST Total

Communities

Figure 10: Primary Occupation by Community

Secondary Occupations: Casual labour seems to be the most important secondary occupation, with 62% of the working population reporting it to be so (Figure 11). This is followed by agriculture (21%), self-employment (11%) and animal husbandry to a very small extent. A closer look at the data reveals some inter-community variations. Firstly, only 4 workers from the BC category reported a secondary occupation, i.e. labour. Secondly, a far higher proportion of workers from the ST category have some form of self-employment as a fallback occupation (68% as opposed to a sample average of 11%). This is also true of agriculture (26% ST against a mean of 20%). A very low percentage of the working population view agriculture as a primary and secondary occupation. This could be on account of the fact that many of the individuals who classified themselves as casual wage labourers actually do work on the land (other peoples landholdings) but do not identify themselves as farmers.
Labourer 80% 70% Agriculture Self Employed

Percentage of Individuals

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BC MBC SC ST Total

Communities

Figure 11: Secondary Occupation by Community

36

Other occupations: The survey brings into sharp relief the fact that livelihood options outside of casual labour and agriculture (with possible overlaps between the two) are extremely limited, more so in the case of the Scheduled Tribe families. Unemployment: Unemployment was assessed at 13%,50 slightly above the national average of 8%. Land Ownership and Usage Ownership of agricultural land: Of the 5724 households surveyed in the 30 villages, 68% or 3917 households do not own any agricultural land (Figure 12). The percentage of landlessness is highest among the ST households. Only 4 of the 409 ST families own agricultural land almost 100% of these families are landless. Landlessness is also fairly high among the SC households 754 households or 75% of the SC households do not own agricultural land. The figures for BC and MBC households are 56% and 54% respectively. Most households though, 93% or 5322 families have ownership over their homestead land.
Owns Land 120% Landless

Percentage of Households

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% BC MBC SC ST Total

Communities

Figure 12: Land Ownership by Community

The total agricultural land owned in all the 30 villages that were surveyed is 3299 acres. Of this, 1658 acres (50% of total agricultural land) are owned by SC families, 910 acres (27.5%) by BC families and 727 acres (22%) by MBC households. The 799 households that were surveyed in Thervoy own the highest percentage of land, followed by Kannankottai (474 households). Thervoy owns 713.381 acres while the figure for Kannankottai is 574.415 acres. There is only one village JJ Nagar, where the agricultural land ownership is nil, despite the fact that the village is inhabited by 183 households. Significantly, 178 of these households belong to the ST community. The incidence of land ownership among the ST households is very low- the 409 ST households in the area own barely 3.7 acres of land (0.1% of total land). Among the land-owning households, the average landholding is highest among the 754 SC families, who have about 2.19 acres on an average. This is followed by the 486 BC households who have 1.87 acres on average. For the 563 MBC families, the average landholding size is 1.29 acres, while the figure is 0.92 acres for the 4 ST families.
50

The unemployment rate in India was last reported at 8% in December 2007. Ministry of Labour, India.

37

Of the 3299 acres of total agricultural land, 83% or 2742.8 acres are under irrigation. 84.3% of the land owned by SC households is irrigated. For MBC and BC families, 82.7% and 81.1% of agricultural land is irrigated. The figure is the lowest for ST families. Even though, they collectively own only 3.7 acres, only 1.3 acres or 35% is irrigated. In Thervoy and Kannankottai, the two villages with the highest quantum of agricultural land, 79% and 96% of the agricultural land is under irrigation. Homestead land: The total area under homestead ownership in the 30 villages is 1045.973 acres. Of this, 798.2 acres or 76.3% is owned by SC families, followed by BC households who own 14.2% of the total residential land. Mukkarampakkam village with 450 households has the highest average residential landholding size of 1.13 acres. This is followed by Senkarai where the average landholding size is 0.31 acres. Irrigation: Of the 1807 families who owned land, 410 (23%) had land that was purely rainfed. 84% of the families who have agricultural land depend on eris (lakes) for irrigation. Agriculture: The bulk of land is allocated for agricultural purposes, mainly rice paddy, with 98% of families involved in rice cultivation. Ragi51 seems to be the only cash crop cultivated in this area. There is some large-scale cultivation of peanuts (36%), black gram (3%) and peas (3%). 16% of the households are engaged in commercial cultivation of chillies. Vegetables and flowers are also commercially grown by around a tenth of the households. Most families rent tractors and equipment for ploughing and harvesting. Sowing, transplanting and weeding are done manually. The use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers is widespread 41% of the land-owning families reported using only chemical pesticides, while only 2% reported exclusive use of natural pesticides. The majority (57%), however, seem to use a combination of these two. Chemical fertilisers are almost universally used, reported by 95% of the families. Over threefourths of the families also use manure, while around half of them also use natural fertilizers. Around 50% households reported using a mix of all three fertilisers. Grazing land: The survey specifically sought to examine the use of common land both for grazing and gathering of fodder/firewood, given that this will directly impact the villages with regard to the SIPCOT site. Significantly, only 8 of the villages surveyed have grazing lands (Table 9).
Table 9: Grazing Land by Village Village Palavakkam Sengarai Kannankottai Thervoy Mukarampakkam JJ Nagar Aaramani Kollanoor Grazing land in acres 500 500 400 300 500 500 300 300

51

Ragi also known as millet, nachni, sollu, or sattemavu. It grows well without irrigation, pesticides or fertilisers and is rich in calcium iron, protein and some rare nutrients such as methionine so is an ideal crop to grow in arid periods.

38

One of the key findings is that 89% of the villages are dependent on firewood as a source of fuel for cooking. Being denied access to common land or having the land denuded of trees for industrial development might impact the villages. This might be felt most acutely by women who may have to travel long distances in search of fuel or pay more for it in the market place. Animal Husbandry Animal husbandry did not feature in the list of primary occupations. 28% of the households surveyed or 1626 families reported owning poultry or livestock in some form or the other. The total animal population in all the 30 villages is 7140. Poultry seems to be the most preferred form of animal husbandry, accounting for 28% of all animals owned (Figure 13). Goat ownership is a close second, making up 27% of the animal population. This is followed by cows (22%), buffalos (9%), ox (8%), sheep (6%) and a tiny proportion of pigs (0.2%).
Buffalo Cow Goat

397, 5.6%

614, 8.6%

2029, 28.4%

1603, 22.5%

16, 0.2% 551, 7.7% 1930, 27.0%

Figure 13: Total Livestock Distribution

The percentage of ST families who own livestock is very low (13%) compared to a mean of 28% (Figure 14). Only 3% of the total livestock population in the area is owned by these families. The SC families own the highest percentage of livestock 53% or 3795 animals. 56% of the poultry in the area and 62% of the large ruminants (cows and oxen) are owned by these families. The MBC families own about 25% of the livestock followed by BC families who own about 18%. Other than in Perandur, there are no veterinary services in the area.
Buffalo 40% 35% Cow Goat

Percentage of households

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% BC MBC SC ST Total

Communities

Figure 14: Livestock Distribution by Community

39

Water Water availability: All the respondents reported an adequate supply of potable water and water for other domestic needs. Water for animals and irrigation: The topography of the region is characterised by eris (lakes). There are a total of 27 eris in the survey villages. Their surface area ranges from 60 acres to 1650 acres. The villages without eris are DR Kuppam, Thampunaidupalayam, Thandalam, Kazadai, Vannagkuppam and Kizh Karamanur. The eris in Kannakottai(Esarayaneri) and Karadiputhoor are totally dependent on rainfall and the surrounding watershed area (Siruveda range) for their water. Other eris in the Uthukotai stretch such as Palavakkam, Lachivakkam, Sengarai, Mukkarambakkam, Kakkavakkam and Soolaimeni canal, besides being dependent on rainfall, also receive overflow water from the Pichattoor dam situated in Suruttupally in Andhra Pradesh. Water from the eris are used for irrigation and livestock. The eris also feed the ground water table which lies at an enviable 20 feet. There are also a large number of smaller ponds which are a valuable source of ground water recharge. Upkeep of Eris and Irrigation Channels: The preliminary natural resource survey revealed that most of the eris are silted up and clogged with weeds, diminishing their storage capacity to under half their potential. The irrigation channels likewise, are silted up and damaged in places. As a consequence, farmers with land at the far end of the eris do not receive adequate water for their crops. Water for household use: Most villages have overhead tanks that are filled from a bore well within the village. Pipes run from these tanks to public distribution outlets or private homes. This water is used for drinking and household use. 85% of the households use public taps (Table 10). 4% of the families still use open wells for drinking water and household use.
Table 10: Water Uses by Source Water Source Handpump Individual Tap Individual Well Lake Public Tap Public Well Drinking Water 1% 14% 1% 2% 85% 4% Household use 3% 13% 1% 20% 85% 4% Animals (of the % who have livestock) 0% 0% 8% 53% 9% 0% Irrigation (of the % who own agricultural land) 1% 0% 11% 67% 0% 0%

Water pollution: Most of the traditional open wells have now fallen into disuse and are slowly turning into garbage dumps, reducing their capacity to recharge the ground water and increasing the risk of pollution. 90% of the population do not have toilets and use the common lands to relieve themselves. The risk of e-coli contamination of water sources in the absence of any waste management system is therefore high.

40

The widespread use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers is another factor that contributes to water pollution. The impact of any form of pollution (earth, water or air) from industry will be widespread as the surface water bodies will become easy repositories of effluent discharge from manufacturing units. This in turn could lead to pollution of ground water, impact the soil, animal health, crops, and finally, human health. Health & Disability Illness and hospitalisation: The data shows instances of chronic illness to be low, at fewer than 4% of the population surveyed. This may have to do with how respondents classified chronic illness, possibly dismissing long term symptoms as being a normal part of their daily existence. Equally, seasonal illnesses usually associated with tropical monsoon climates were surprisingly low for the population surveyed (5%). One would assume that seasonal illnesses associated with paddy planting and a monsoon climate would show up in a survey of this kind. This may be an anomaly that needs to be checked. As participants were not given a list of diseases that they were questioned against (which would have been leading), they possibly did not identify illnesses such as viral fever, cough, cold, malaria and dysentery as seasonal. Data suggests that at fewer than 5%, the incidence of hospitalisation is low, as is the incidence of accidents. Hospitals are accessed mostly when surgeries are required. Health infrastructure: The area is serviced by one District hospital, located at Thiruvallur, three thaluk hospitals located at Uthukottai, Gummudipoondi and Periyapalayam, and 5 PHCs/Subcentres in Lachavakkam, Kannankottai, Periyapalayam, Perambur and Uthukottai. In addition, every village has an ICDS centre. Most of the sub-centres/PHCs lie within 5 km of the villages. Some are as distant as 18 km. The thaluk hospitals are generally found within a reach of 18 kms. The district hospital is less accessible, being situated 25 km from the nearest village and 45 km from the most distant one. These distances can act as a deterrent for patients and may partially account for the low rate of hospitalization. Disability: In the villages surveyed, 270 individuals were identified as being physically disabled. Given that this was one of the two questions that required sensitive handling (the other being income), the results probably need further enquiry. The distribution of people with impairments is given in Table 11.
Table 11: Physical Impairments Impairment Sight Hearing Speech Legs Arms Total Total Individuals 35 54 35 117 29 270

Government Schemes and Ownership of Documents

41

64% of the sample families (but only 40% of ST families) reported that one of their members had received employment under the MNREGA. Apart from MNREGA and housing schemes, virtually none of the other government benefits have been claimed. Voter cards and ration cards are almost universally owned. Cooperative Society cards and bank account cards are also widely owned. However, the ownership of these documents is very low among ST families when compared to other groups that were surveyed. The gap is particularly stark in the case of bank account cards with only 18% of ST families owning these compared to the sample average of 64%. In the case of Cooperative Society cards, the difference is somewhat less pronounced, with 74% of ST families owning these as against a sample average of 64%.

42

Table 12: Government Schemes Used by Community Government Schemes Used Housing Education Insurance Agriculture MNREGA BC 1% 1% 3% 2% 56% MBC 3% 1% 2% 1% 64% SC 8% 1% 1% 0% 71% ST 11% 0% 0% 0% 40% Total 6% 1% 2% 1% 64%

43

Annexure I: Survey Questionnaire (English)

Form No: Code of the survey team: 1. Full name of the Head: 2. Full address: 3. Village: Ward No: Panchayat: 4. Community: 1. Scheduled Caste 2. Scheduled Tribe 3. Other backward community 4. Others 5. Religion: 1. Hindu 2. Muslim 3. Christian 6. Ration Card No: 7. Family Constellation: Present status of the children (Below 18 yrs) G Marital Status Educational Qualification F Relationship E Residence

Age B

Sl. No

Name

A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A. 1. Residential area 2. Non - Residential area 3. Seasonal migration B. Age as on 01.01.2010 C. 1. Male 2. Female

Sex

44

D. 1. Unmarried 2. Married 3. Widow / Widower 4. Separated / Divorced E. 1. Husband 2. Wife 3. Mother 4. Father 5. Guardian 6. Son 7. Daughter 8. Brother 9. Sister F. 1. Illiterate 2. Can sign only 3. Primary school 4. Middle school 5. High school 6. Higher secondary 7. Graduation 8. Post Graduation G. 1. School/ college 2. School dropout 3. Employee 4. Involved in household work

10. Son-in-law 11. Daughter-in-law 12. Brother-in-law 13. Sister-in-law 14. Grandson 15. Granddaughter 16. Grandfather 17. Grandmother 9. Diploma 10. Certificate course 11. Engineering 12. Medical 13. Law 14. ITI 15. Others

Mandays of Employment in a year

Secondary occupation

Annual Expenditure

Primary occupation (above 18 years)

H&I 1. Agriculture 2. Animal husbandry 3. Self Employed 4. Government Servant 5. Private company job 45

Annual Income L

6. Daily wage 7. Home maker/head 8. Unemployed If self-employed 1. Mason 2. Carpenter 3. Plumber 4. Electrician 5. Tailor 6. Barber 7. Potter 8. Weaver 9. Blacksmith 10. Leather industry 11. Tea shop owner If government servant 1. Education Dept 2. Local administration 3. Health Dept 4. Forest Dept 5. Public Works Dept 6. Finance Dept 8. Land Ownership: Sl. No 1 2 Land A Residence Agriculture F 1. Temple land 2. Panchami land 3. Community land 4. Waste land 5. Patta land G 1. Wet Land 2. Dry Land 9. Agriculture: A: Water source a. Rain dependent b. Irrigation 1. Well 2. Canal 3. Lake 4. Dam 46 Own B Lease / Rent C Area ( in Acre) D Season E Nature F Type G

12. Mess/dhaba owner 13. Provisional store 14. STD booth/net centre/others 15. Vegetable vendor 16. Cobbler 17. Fish seller 18. Rat catcher 19. Rice mill employee 20. Driver (private) 21. Washerman

7. State-level 8. District-level 9. Central-level 10. EB Debt 11. Police 12. Law Dept

c. Both B: Method a. Traditional method b. Machinery c. Both C: Important crops 1. Grains a. Paddy b. Ragi c. Others 2. Pulses a. Ground nut b. Black gram c. Pea variety d. Others 3. Cash crop a. Sugarcane b. Cotton c. Flowers d. Chilies e. Sesame f. Water melon 4. Garden crops a. Lettuce b. Fruit variety D: Pesticides 1. Natural 2. Chemical 3. Both E: Fertilizers 1. Manure 2. Natural 3. Chemical 4. All 10. Animals: Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Animal A Cows Sheep Goats Buffalos Pigs Poultry / Birds Ox Others Numbers B Source of feed C Distance from home D Sipcot land E

47

C 1. 2. Open grazing Stall fed

11. Water Source: Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Source Lake - 1 Lake 2 Lake 3 Lake 4 Hand Pump / Deep well Individual tap Common tap Individual Well Common Well Private Deep well Others Drinking / Cooking House purpose Animals Agriculture

12. Nature of house: A: Wall 1. Cement 2. Mud 3. Stone B: Terrace 1. Thatched 2. Tiled 3. Sheets 4. Cement 13. Electricity for house: A. Connection 1. Yes 2. No B. If yes, type 1. Two-phase 2. Three-phase C. Other source 1. Kerosene 2. Candles 3. Generator/Inverter 4. Batteries 5. Sunlight 6. Other specify 14. Sanitation facilities: 1. Individual 48

2. Common 3. Nil 15. Fuel for cooking: 1. Fire wood a. bought b. collected 2. If collected a. from open land b. others 3. Cowdung a. bought b. collected 4. LPG Gas 5. Kerosene 6. Electricity 7. Others, specify 16. Source of information / News: (Mention any important Two) 1. Radio 2. TV 3. Newspaper 4. Magazines 5. Others 17. Ownership of Vehicles 1. Cycle 2. Moped 3. Motorcycle 4. Scooter 18. Household applicances 1. Sewing machine 2. Gas stove 3. Refrigerator 4. Fan 5. Generator 19. Indebtedness: A. 1. Yes 2. 2. No B: If yes, how much: C: Reasons 1. Marriage 2. Health care 3. Education 4. Agriculture needs 5. To buy/develop property D: Source 49

5. 6. 7. 8.

Car Jeep Tractor Other

6. Telephone 7. Mobile 8. Computer 9. TV 10. Radio

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Money lender Bank Family members Friends/relatives Self-help group

20. Health: A: Any chronic illness in the past two years 1. Yes 2. No If Yes, Mention _____________ B: Any Seasonal Illness 1. Yes 2. No If Yes, Mention _____________ C: Have you been admitted in Hospital? 1. Yes 2. No If Yes, Mention the reason a. Accident b. Operation c. Other 21. Disabled persons in your family: 1. Yes 2. No If yes, their Sl No as on Question no 7: Type of disability: 1. Physical a. Degree i. Mild ii. Moderate iii. Severe b. Faculty/limbs affected i. Sight ii. Hearing iii. Speech iv. Use of legs v. Use of hands vi. Others, mention 2. Mental: a. Degree i. Mild ii. Moderate iii. Severe 22. Membership: 1. Youth group 2. Women group 3. Religious group 4. Political group 5. SHF 6. Cooperative society 50

7. Panchayat raj 23. Government support and subsidy: 1. Housing 2. Education 3. Insurance 4. Agriculture 5. NREGA 6. Pension 7. Handicapped pension 8. Other, specify 24. Document ownership: 1. Yes 2. No If yes: 1. Ration card: 2. Voter ID: 3. Community certificate: 4. Bank Account: 5. Driving License (Commercial): 6. Driving License (Private): 7. Passport: 8. PAN card: 9. Employment license: 10. Others, specify: Signatures: Names of the Survey team: Name of the Respondent Date:

51

Annexure II: Survey Questionnaire (Tamil)

52

53

54

55

56

57

Annexure III: Survey Data

Caste BC MBC SC ST Total Gender Male Female Total Age <=6 >6 & <=12 >12 & <=18 >18 & <=35 >35 & <=60 >60 Total Household Size <=3 >3 & <=5 >5 Total Extreme Poverty Above Less Than Equal Rs 45.5 Total Per capita income (per day) <$1 >1$ & <=2$ >2$ & <=5$ >5$ Total BC 2001 2080 4081 BC 299 389 443 1455 1215 280 4081 BC 452 577 80 1109 BC 235 874 1109 BC 874 204 26 5 1109 Households 1109 1237 2969 409 5724 MBC 2172 2182 4354 MBC 322 391 543 1499 1327 272 4354 MBC 569 602 66 1237 MBC 222 1015 1237 MBC 1015 198 19 5 1237 SC 5588 5689 11277 SC 900 1255 1473 4086 3117 446 11277 SC 1152 1551 266 2969 SC 569 2400 2969 SC 2400 508 58 3 2969 ST 770 740 1510 ST 137 247 185 504 390 47 1510 ST 193 179 37 409 ST 78 331 409 ST 331 75 3 0 409 Total 10531 10691 21222 Total 1658 2282 2644 7544 6049 1045 21222 Total 2366 2909 449 5724 Total 1104 4620 5724 Total 4620 985 106 13 5724

58

Household Income <=20K >20K & <=40K >40K & <=60K >60K & <=80K >80K & <=100K >100K & <=120K >120K Total Loan taken 1. Yes 2. No Total Loan Amount <=20K >20K & <=40K >40K & <=60K >60K & <=80K >80K & <=100K >100K & <=120 K >120 K Total Loan Purpose Marriage Medical Education Agriculture Buy Property Other Total Loan Source Money Lender Bank Family Member Friend/Relatives Self Help Group Other Total

BC 159 527 248 98 41 11 25 1109 BC 705 404 1109 BC 119 103 163 31 122 4 163 705 BC 151 95 125 229 107 26 705 BC 457 172 20 37 28 0 705

MBC 266 607 220 87 30 8 19 1237 MBC 829 408 1237 MBC 136 110 206 39 156 3 179 829 MBC 247 93 106 220 110 85 829 MBC 661 109 10 22 39 3 829

SC 488 1466 614 226 93 23 59 2969 SC 1786 1183 2969 SC 510 368 424 81 234 5 164 1786 SC 624 312 334 229 182 159 1786 SC 1379 197 65 21 182 8 1786

ST 111 125 109 40 17 3 4 409 ST 131 278 409 ST 93 21 11 2 4

Total 1024 2725 1191 451 181 45 107 5724 Total 3451 2273 5724 Total 858 602 804 153 516 12 506

131 ST 38 46 17 2 18 12 131 ST 73 3 2

3451 Total 1060 546 582 680 417 282 3451 Total 2570 481 97 80

52 1 131

301 12 3451

59

House ownership 1. Owned 2. Leased/Rented Total Transportation Cycle Moped Motor Bike Scooter Car Jeep Tractor Other Total Toilets Individual Common None Total Consumer durables Sewing Machine Gas Stove Refrigerator Fan Generator Telephone Mobile Computer TV Radio Total Roofing Thatched Tiled Sheets Cement Total BC 200 61 848

BC 1071 38 1109 BC 322 6 119 70 6 1 9 11 1109

MBC 1220 17 1237 MBC 336 9 190 61 6

SC 2932 37 2969 SC 628 5 259 267 5 2

ST 408 1 409 ST 64 3 3 1 1

Total 5631 93 5724 Total 1350 23 571 399 18 3 35 1 409 128 5724 Total 439 143 5142 5724

12 4 1237 MBC 133 24 1080 1237 MBC 33 202 64 1093 1 SC 102 55 2812 2969 SC 38 403 90

14 112 2969 ST 4 3 402 409 ST 4 2 1 162

1109 BC 36 197 93 995

Total 111 804 248 4741 1

2491

26 517 9 1028 43 1109 BC 263 275 15 556 1109

19 591 1 1128 22 1237 MBC 375 332 7 523 1237

52 1585 1 2669 64 2969 SC 1169 695 26 1079 2969

2 25

99 2718 11

355 2 409 ST 268 26 3 112 409

5180 131 5724 Total 2075 1328 51 2270 5724

60

Wall 1. Cement 2. Mud 3. Stone Total Electrification 1. Yes 2. No Total Electrification - Connection type 1. Two Phase 2. Three phase Total Other Source of Lighting Kerosense Candles Generator Batteries Sunlight Other Total Firewood 1. Yes 2. No Total Cowdung Cake 1. Yes 2. No Total Source of Fuel for Cooking Firewood Cowdung Cake LPG Kerosene Total

BC 727 263 119 1109 BC 1077 32 1109 BC

MBC 776 364 97 1237 MBC 1210 27 1237 MBC

SC 1571 1186 212 2969 SC 2789 180 2969 SC ST

ST 120 258 31 409

Total 3194 2071 459 5724 Total 5389 335 5724 Total

313 96 409 ST

897 180 1077 BC 1062 13 1 2 0 4 1109 BC 945 164 1109 BC 39 1070 1109 BC 945 39 381 394 1109

999 211 1210 MBC 1206 7 6 2 4 0 1237 MBC 1032 205 1237 MBC 33 1204 1237 MBC 1032 33 386 392 1237

2512 277 2789 SC 2883 77 4 12 0 3 2969 SC 2730 239 2969 SC 96 2873 2969 SC 2730 96 411 856 2969

298 15 313 ST 399 1 0 1 0 0 409 ST 403 6 409 ST 8 401 409 ST 403 8 9 269 409

4706 683 5389 Total 5550 98 11 17 4 7 5724 Total 5110 614 5724 Total 176 5548 5724 Total 5110 176 1187 1911 5724

61

Level of educational attainment Illiterate Can Sign Name U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5 Standard 6 Standard 7 Standard 8 Standard 9 Standard 10 Standard 11 Standard 12 Standard ITI/Certificate/Diploma Graduate Post graduate Other NA - Not started going school Total Education

<=6 0 0 140 288 82 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1012 1658

>6 & <=12 56 0 10 56 116 450 405 333 322 234 189 57 38 7 5 0 3 0 1 0 2282 BC 194 338 105 29 1405 1346 322 241 56 42 3 4081

>12 & <=18 42 1 0 50 40 25 58 147 117 108 278 374 649 202 359 32 151 6 5 0 2644 MBC 198 348 71 40 1770 1387 283 169 33 44 11 4354

>18 & <=35 481 115 0 581 758 128 175 553 228 230 695 304 1604 25 725 126 658 144 14 0 7544 SC 536 904 186 80 4399 3606 843 517 112 86 8 11277 1510 ST 84 208 15 1 962 223 13 4

>35 & <=60 906 220 0 1553 1316 154 110 415 97 101 311 81 478 15 117 11 116 47 1 0 6049 Total 1012 1798 377 150 8536 6562 1461 931 201 172 22 21222

>60 313 41 0 397 150 12 8 40 4 6 20 2 35 2 4 3 3 4 1 0 1045

Total 1798 377 150 2925 2462 905 756 1488 768 679 1493 818 2804 251 1210 172 931 201 22 1012 21222

Not started going school Illiterate Can Sign Name U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School Upto 5th Std. 6th Std to 10 Std. 11th/12th Std. Graduate Post graduate ITI/Certificate/Diploma Other Total

62

Education Profile by Gender Not started going to school Illiterate Can Sign Name U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School Upto 5th Std. 6th Std to 10 Std. 11th/12th Std. Graduate Post graduate ITI/Certificate/Diploma Other Total

Male 518 640 164 84 3898 3483 823 666 135 109 11 10531

Female 494 1158 213 66 4638 3079 638 265 66 63 11 10691

Total 1012 1798 377 150 8536 6562 1461 931 201 172 22 21222

Age >= 18 & <=60 Primary Occupation - Top 5 BC MBC Labourer Agriculture Private Company Job Self Employed Govt. Servant Total 961 430 185 184 58 1818 1381 407 129 171 52 2140

SC 4040 663 580 162 159 5604

ST 743 10 7 28 3 791

Total 7125 1510 901 545 272 10353

Age >= 18 & <=60 Primary Occupation - Top 5 Male Labourer Agriculture Private Company Job Self Employed Govt. Servant Total 3340 1053 731 493 192 6923

Female 3785 457 170 52 80 7191

Total 7125 1510 901 545 272 14114

Age >= 18 & <=60 Secondary Occupation Top 5 BC MBC Labourer Agriculture Self Employed Animal Husbandry Private Company Job Total 269 33 34 18 12 366 228 93 10 19 2 352

SC 446 155 36 14 23 674

ST 7 34 92 10 1 144

Total 950 315 172 61 38 1536

63

Age >= 18 & <=60 Secondary Occupation - Top 5 Male Labourer Agriculture Self Employed Animal Husbandry Private Company Job Total 678 179 134 42 33 6923

Female 272 136 38 19 5 7191

Total 950 315 172 61 38 14114

Primary Occupation Agriculture Brick Kiln Owner Student Unemployed Animal Husbandry Self Employed Govt. Servant Private Company Job Labourer Home Maker/Head Total

Age >= 18 & <=60 BC MBC SC 430 407 2 53 608 11 184 58 185 961 257 2747 45 502 7 171 52 129 1381 239 2935 663 1 137 1291 19 162 159 580 4040 454 7506

ST 10

Total 1510 3

6 62 2 28 3 7 743 65 926

241 2463 39 545 272 901 7125 1015 14114

Age >= 18 & <=60 Primary Occupation Male Female Agriculture Brick Kiln Owner Student Unemployed Animal Husbandry Self Employed Govt. Servant Private Company Job Labourer Home Maker/Head Total 1053 1 135 938 29 493 192 731 3340 11 6923 457 2 106 1525 10 52 80 170 3785 1004 7191

Total 1510 3 241 2463 39 545 272 901 7125 1015 14114

64

Secondary Occupation Agriculture Brick Kiln Owner Animal Husbandry Self Employed Private Company Job Labourer Home Maker/Head Provision Store Total

Age >= 18 & <=60 BC MBC SC 33 93 155 1 18 34 12 269 19 10 2 228 14 36 23 446 1 2 368 352 676

ST 34

Total 315 1

10 92 1 7

61 172 38 950 1 2

144

1540

Age >= 18 & <=60 Secondary Occupation Male Female Agriculture Brick Kiln Owner Animal Husbandry Self Employed Private Company Job Labourer Home Maker/Head Provision Store Total Total Land Owned Owns Land Landless Total Irrigated Land Owned Owns Land Landless Total Non-Irrigated Land Owned Owns Land Landless Total Fertilizers Manure Natural Chemical All Total BC 486 623 1109 BC 395 714 1109 BC 101 1008 1109 BC 399 241 465 226 486 179 1 42 134 33 678 1 1 1069 MBC 563 674 1237 MBC 434 803 1237 MBC 130 1107 1237 MBC 464 380 532 369 563 1 471 SC 754 2215 2969 SC 612 2357 2969 SC 169 2800 2969 SC 534 313 711 291 754 19 38 5 272 136

Total 315 1 61 172 38 950 1 2 1540 ST 4 405 409 ST 2 407 409 ST 2 407 409 ST 3 2 4 2 4 Total 1807 3917 5724 Total 1443 4281 5724 Total 402 5322 5724 Total 1400 936 1712 888 1807

65

Residence Area in Acre (Sum) Caste Wise Aaramani Anjamedu Anna Nagar Annavaram Colony Chandirapuram Dr Kuppam Eri Colony G.R.Kandigai JJ Nagar Kakkavakkam Kannankottai Karadiputhur Kazadai Kilakarmanur Kollanoor Lachivakkam Mambedu Mukkarampakkam Palavakkam Panjali Nagar Perambur Pudhukuppam Sathya Nagar Seenikuppam Senkarai Soolameni Thandalam Thervoy Vannag Kuppam Villiyar Colony

BC 148.7

MBC 80.7 6.8 2.5 1.8

SC 798.2

ST 18.3

Total 1046.0 6.8 2.5

2.3 7.4

0.3

4.4 8.0 1.8 3.7

0.6 1.8 2.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.5 14.4 6.1 3.1 5.6 5.0 0.0 1.9 7.0 9.6 0.8 1.4 11.6 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.6 0.2 2.6 5.4 20.5 0.1 0.8 43.4 0.7 21.6 5.5 0.1 4.2 11.0 6.3 5.0 4.2

0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.1 13.1 53.0 16.1 1.0 16.0 0.0 7.3 0.7 2.1 0.2 0.5 5.4

1.1 10.2 5.5 16.7 75.1 27.2 1.0 17.9 7.7 18.3 2.4

504.2 42.5 0.2

2.2

509.3 54.3 2.8 5.4

0.0 5.0 0.8 44.4 6.2 4.2 70.2 3.0 0.5 5.6 0.3 0.1 0.3

20.6 5.1 1.6 92.3 18.0 32.4 80.7 7.1 6.1

66

Irrigated Owned Land Area in Acre (Sum) Caste wise Aaramani Anjamedu Anna Nagar Annavaram Colony Chandirapuram Dr Kuppam Eri Colony G.R.Kandigai JJ Nagar Kakkavakkam Kannankottai Karadiputhur Kazadai Kilakarmanur Kollanoor Lachivakkam Mambedu Mukkarampakkam Palavakkam Panjali Nagar Perambur Pudhukuppam Sathya Nagar Seenikuppam Senkarai Soolameni Thandalam Thervoy Vannag Kuppam Villiyar Colony

BC

MBC

SC

ST

Total

740.7

601.9 11.6 23.0 12.0

1398.9

1.3

2742.8 11.6 23.0

12.9 30.3

24.9 39.8 16.3 77.8

9.5 15.8 72.3 5.5 2.5 107.2

0.5

4.3 1.3

6.8 108.5

5.0 128.9 4.4

14.9 10.8 5.4

6.3 413.7 12.3 0.5

26.2 553.4 22.1 0.5 43.7 99.9 102.3 48.0

4.5 98.4 100.0 48.0 27.0 80.1 121.0 0.5 8.8 36.8 27.1 0.0 1.0 48.0 5.1 63.7 65.8 10.1 29.9 72.1 23.8 40.8 1.5

39.2 0.1 2.3

13.7 34.0 1.5

161.7 114.6 10.3 36.8

1.5 202.5

28.6 202.5 1.0

64.9 66.3 6.4 471.0 10.0 5.0

122.9 101.3 142.1 560.5 50.8 5.0

67

Non Irrigated Owned Land Area in Acre (Sum) Caste Wise Aaramani Anjamedu Anna Nagar Annavaram Colony Chandirapuram Dr Kuppam Eri Colony G.R.Kandigai JJ Nagar Kakkavakkam Kannankottai Karadiputhur Kazadai Kilakarmanur Kollanoor Lachivakkam Mambedu Mukkarampakkam Palavakkam Panjali Nagar Perambur Pudhukuppam Sathya Nagar Seenikuppam Senkarai Soolameni Thandalam Thervoy Vannag Kuppam Villiyar Colony Livestock No Yes Total

BC

MBC

SC

ST

Total

169.2

125.4 25.5

259.2

2.4

556.2 25.5

6.0 4.3 13.1

6.0 17.4

1.0 1.0 17.2 2.4

1.0 1.0 19.6

0.5 9.0 9.3 2.0 13.8 10.0 13.2

0.5 21.0 36.3

0.1 29.2 11.0 1.0 6.0 8.0 9.8 24.3 14.0 0.3 5.0 3.4

2.9

3.0 32.6

3.2

14.2 1.3

2.7 50.0

13.7 58.0 9.8 24.3 14.0

31.1 39.5 0.8 12.7 6.8 1.5 5.0 2.6 0.5 145.3 3.7 7.6

31.1 55.8 15.2 1.5 152.8 0.5

BC 770 339 1109

MBC 851 386 1237

SC 2120 849 2969

ST 357 52 409

Total 4098 1626 5724

68

Number Buffalo Cow Goat Ox Pig Poultry Bird Sheep Total

BC 192 247 301 105 9 367 81 1302 Impairment Sight Hearing Speech Use of Legs Use of Arms Total

MBC 155 324 605 105 2 436 189 1816

SC 264 1010 942 339 5 1141 94 3795 Total 35 54 35 117 29 270

ST 3 22 82 2

Total 614 1603 1930 551 16

85 33 227

2029 397 7140

Govt Schemes Availed of Housing Education Insurance Agriculture MNREGA Total

BC 16 8 30 17 617 1109

MBC 31 7 23 7 794 1237

SC 240 16 43 8 2098 2969

ST 45 1 2

Total 332 32 98 32

164 409

3673 5724

69