01 NREGA cover & contents.qxd

CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTNEW DELHI

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)

Opportunities and Challenges

(DRAFT)

Prepared and edited by:

Natural Resource Management and Livelihood Unitand

Media Resource Centre, CSE

CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTNEW DELHI

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)

Opportunities and Challenges

(DRAFT)

Prepared and edited by:

Natural Resource Management and Livelihood Unit

and

Media Resource Centre, CSE

Every person who digs a pond, renovates an irrigation canal and plants a tree contributes a bit to poverty alleviation in India.

Under NREGA more than one percent of India’s population should have done that in the last ten months.

That is the scheme’s development potential.

Has it happened for sure?

iiii

iiiiii

Preface : An ecological act i

Chapter 1: India’s crisis of employment 1

Chapter 2: A history of Programmes 6

Chapter 3: NREGA: Old spirit, new letters 11

Chapter 4: Bend it backward 14

Chapter 5: Birth pangs 19

Chapter 6: The way ahead 30

Annexure I: 200 districts under NREGA 33

Annexure II: Statistical profile of states under NREGA based on primary census abstract 34

Annexure III: Select state performance of NREGA 35

(Orissa Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh)

Annexure IV: State of Natural Resources in backward districts 41

Annexure V: FAQs on NREGA 43

Annexure VI: Resources 47

References 49

c o n t e n t s

iivv

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005, or NREGA, was brought into force by the Union government inFebruary 2006. The Act is far-reaching in its intent and scope. It is the first nation-wide employment scheme thatguarantees employment legally to India’s rural population. Naturally, it has generated intense speculation and interest.

The NREGA is being implemented in 200 most backward districts of 27 states in the country -- socio-economically, the mostchallenging areas in India (see Annexure I). It guarantees 100 days of unskilled jobs per rural household. More importantly,the Act aims at eradication of extreme poverty and at making villages self-sustaining through productive assets creation(such as water tanks and soil conservation works). This is meant to regenerate the rural natural resource base, which inturn will result in sustainable livelihoods for residents. The Act puts Panchayati Raj Institutions (the third tier of governmentin India i.e the village level) at the helm of affairs -- beginning with identifying the eligible households to planning the worksto be undertaken. The government has referred to it as an “Act of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

But is the Act living up to its scope and potential? Inthe last 10 months, 410,742 works have reportedlybeen implemented under the Act. According to theUnion rural development ministry’s figures, morethan 1.36 crore people -- above one percent ofIndia’s total population -- have been given jobsunder the Act. Encouraged by this initial response tothe Act from rural areas, the Union government hasinitiated the process to expand its scope to otherdistricts in the coming months.

The NREGA has certainly come at a crucial time,when rural economy in the country is facing complete collapse due to myopic policies. Many studies on rural economypoint to the erosion of livelihoods in Indian villages as the main driver behind rural unemployment. Efforts to salvage thesituation through numerous poverty alleviation schemes have not helped. Thus, the NREGA faces a two-prongedchallenge: the immediate one of addressing the skyrocketing unemployment crisis in rural areas, and a longer-term oneof contributing to village economy in a sustained manner.

Effective implementation of the Act would require planning labour-intensive works for the needy poor on a continuous andsustained basis. These works must build the right kind of assets to promote development of local/regional economy. Toensure that the impact of the Act is sustainable and lasts over the longer term, these assets must be managed well and in anequitable way to generate benefits for the poor, as well as to promote pro-poor economic growth.

In this context, the NREGA should be seen more as a livelihood-generating programme than a wage-earning scheme. Italso offers a unique opportunity to turn around rural development. CSE has been monitoring the Act at policy and practicelevels on its contributions to sustainable livelihood creation through ecological regeneration. This Media BriefingWorkshop is part of our wider activity to disseminate information and monitor the Act’s impacts on rural development.

P r e f a c e

An ecological ActNREGA means more than a few dai ly wage jobs

In the context of rural poverty, the NREGA

should be seen more as a livelihood-generating

programme than a wage-earning scheme. It

offers a unique opportunity to turn around

rural development

Chapter 1

India’s crisis of employmentGovernment figures estimate India needs 1,000 lakh jobs by 2012,mostly in rural

areas. But the latest National Sample Survey indicates a reduced unemployment

rate in rural India. Between these two figures lies hidden a precipitative crisis. The

increasing number of self-employed is pulling down the overall unemployment rate

in the last five years,which is rather a pointer to the crisis: employment scarcity is

pushing rural people to petty self-employment with low and uncertain income

Mangaru’s makeover, a crisis for rural IndiaMangaru Munda, a resident of Gari village in the outskirt of Ranchi, conceded defeat in his 33 years ofstruggle for a regular employment. Since 1971, when the Crash Scheme for Regular Employment1 wasimplemented in his village, he had been intermittently working in wage employment programmes forsurvival. He remembers working in all wage employment programmes India has been implementing. Threeof his four-hectare lands became unproductive due to soil erosion. “One Ha could hardly take care of twoto three months of survival,” he says. “Job programmes could get me hardly a month or two of livelihoods.There was no way I could find a regular job in this life.” Finally in 2004 he sold his one-hectare of land andopened a tea stall in the village. “On a good day I sale 10 cups of tea (Rs 20),” he said, “Much less thanany other earlier source of livelihood but at least some regular trickle of money.”

He is now self-employed though landless and more poor.

Government is celebrating Mangaru’s not-so-profitable transition as a successful fight againstunemployment, which has reached to epidemic proportion in the last few years.

According to the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO)’s 61st round of nation-wide survey,unemployment rate has come down as more and more people are becoming self-employed like Mangaru inrural areas. For an economy this should have been usually good news. But for India the news is not thatheartening. Analysis of the data suggests that the rise in number of self-employed people in rural areas ismore to do with lack of regular job availability than of economic well-being. Regular employment scarcity isforcing people to take up low productive and uncertain self-employment options. Mangaru is an example.

According to the survey done between 1999-2000 and 2004-05, partially released in November 2006,there is growth in employment in rural areas. This survey was spread over 7999 villages and 4602 urbanblocks covering 79,306 households in the rural areas and 45,374 households in the urban areas. Whileaggregate employment growth in both rural and urban India was still slightly below the rates recorded in theperiod 1987-88 to 1993-94 (2 percent), it has recovered from the deceleration during 1993-94 to 1999-2000. Employment growth is sharp in rural areas: from around 0.6 percent during 1994-2000 to around1.9 percent during 2000-2005 (See graph 1: Annual rates of employment for usual status workers).

In terms of absolute number, the data does point out a worse scenario than 1972-73. For every 1,000people, only 399 persons were employed in 2004-05 compared to 403.5 in 1972-73 (based on currentweekly status or CWS)2. In 1999-2000, 381.5 per 1000 persons were employed in rural areas. So the riseis marginal.

Overall employment growth accelerated to 2.8 percent during 1999-2005. But the average daily statusunemployment rate, which had increased from 6.1 percent in 1993-94 to 7.3 percent in 1990-00,

11

NREGA: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

increased further to 8.3 percent in 2004-053. Currently this rate is around 9 percent. It indicates thatmany people are not getting regular employment. It is clear that India has not been able to meet theemployment demand. Thus despite the overall employment growth there is a huge number ofunemployed. Add to this imbalanced demand-supply scenario the increasing number of people seekingjobs due to fast increase in the working age population.

The situation is worse for rural areas, which accounts for 74 percent of India’s unemployed population.Close to 80 percent of employment in rural areas come from agriculture sector. According to PlanningCommission estimate based on the 61st NSSO data, the Economic Census of 2005 and the annualaccount of industry, agriculture employment has increased at less than 1 percent per annum during 2000-05. It also points at unprecedented rise in unemployment among agricultural labour households thataccount for major chunk of India’s chronic poor scattered in the 200 backward districts: it has increasedfrom 9.5 percent in 1993-94 to 15.3 percent in 2004-05.

In 27 states and union territories out of 35 under the NSSO survey employment in agriculture has comedown. At national level, the number of rural people employed in agriculture per 1000 persons has comedown from 763 in 1999-2000 to 586 in 2004-05. Agriculture’s employment share has come down to 74.9percent from 78.4 percent in 1999-2000. Though there has been a slight recovery in the annual rate ofgrowth of agricultural employment during 2000-2005 from 0.03 to 0.83 percent, this is not enough tosustain this demand.

The problem is that this decline in employment has not been supported by proportionate increase innon-agricultural employment. The share of manufacturing employment has not gone up commensuratelyfor rural male workers. Instead the more noteworthy shift for rural males has been to construction, withsome increase in the share of trade, hotels and restaurants. Add to it the puzzling data about significantdecline in wage employment in general: from 45 percent during 1999-2000 to around 42 percent during2004-05 (See graph 2: Work participation rates by current daily status). This means a large section ofpeople are displaced from agriculture as well as many people are not even seeking daily wage jobs.Where are they? How are they employed? Or they remain unemployed?

Self-employment is not always productive employmentAccording to the latest NSSO survey these people are now self-employed. One of the more interestingfeatures that emerge from the data of 61st round is the significant increase in self-employment (seegraph 4: Share of self employment in usual status employment). The increase has been sharpest amongrural women, where self-employment now accounts for nearly two-thirds of all jobs. Overall, around halfof the workforce in India currently doesn’t work for a direct employer both in agriculture and non-agriculture sectors4.

On face people moving from paid-jobs to independent jobs is a welcome trend. But if it is due to people aremoving because of not getting regular paid jobs, it is a distress signal in employment scenario. Accordingto analysis by economists C P Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghose, this is essentially because of a significant

22


3.53.02.52.01.51.00.50.0

Rural Urban

1983 to 1987-88 1987-88 to 1993-941993-94 to 1999-2000 1999-2000 to 2004-05

in p

er

cen

t

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Ruralmales

Ruralfemales

Urbanmales

Urbanfemales

in p

er

cen

t

1993-94 1999-2000 2004-06

Graph 1: Annual rates of employment for usual statusworkers Graph 2: Work participation rates by current daily status

Source: National Sample Survey Organisation, 61st Round Source: National Sample Survey Organisation, 61st Round

increase in self-employment on farms (dominantly by women workers) as wage employment in agriculturehas actually fallen quite sharp5. “This is especially the case for less educated workers without access tocapital or bank credit. Self-employment for such workers often means that they are forced to petty lowproductivity activities with low and uncertain income,” analyses CP Chandrasekhar, an eminent. PlanningCommission also assesses that the 4.7 percent growth in non-agricultural employment during 1999-2005was ‘entirely’ in unorganised sector and ‘mainly’ in low productive self-employment.

Given the characteristic of the workforce in union India, it indicates that this change is distress-driven. Outof the total population of 10,960 lakhs, according to the ministry of labour and employment, 4,690 lakhsconstitute its workforce. Ninety percent of the workforce is in the unorganised sector. Over 70 percent ofthe labour force is illiterate and or educated below the primary level. Around 1,400 lakh casual workersconstituting about 30 percent of the work force have no regular source of work or income. These are peoplewho are now turning into self-employed.

This suggests that a large part of the increase in self-employment is a distress-driven phenomenon, ledby the inability to find adequately gainful paidemployment. So the apparent increase in aggregateemployment growth may be more an outcome of thesearch for survival strategies than a demand-ledexpansion of productive income opportunities.

Another fact that supports the argument that thetrend of self-employment is distress-driven is thegrowing number of landless rural household. The 59th

round of NSSO survey on landholdings indicates asignificant increase in landlessness among the ruralhouseholds. According to these data, the proportion of landless rural households had been broadly stable for three decades from the early 1970s at around 28 percent, and had come down to 22 percent in1991-92. But the data relating to 2002-03 indicate a very sharp increase to nearly 33 percent of ruralhouseholds.

Growing landlessness is the result of reduced economic viability of cultivation that has particularlysqueezed small farmers. The moot point in this context is that financial stress, including the inability torepay loans taken for cultivation and for other purposes, has forced many farmers to sell their lands andjoin the landless population. These landless people, arguably, are the new breed of self-employed.Mangaru is a typical example of this process.

The alternative source is definitely not remunerative contrary to what government thinks. The same surveydid an evaluation of job satisfaction among rural and urban workers. It turns out that just under half of allself-employed workers do not find their work to be remunerative. This is despite very low expectation of

33


3.53.02.52.01.51.00.50.0

in p

er

cen

t

1983 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-05

Rural males Rural femalesUrban males Urban females

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

in p

er

cen

t

1983 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-05

Rural malesUrban males Urban females

Rural females

Graph 3: Share of casual labour in total usual statusemployment

Graph 4: Share of self employment in usual statusemployment

Another fact that supports the argument that

the trend of self-employment is distress-driven

is the growing number of landless rural

household. The 59th round of NSSO survey on

landholdings indicates a significant increase in

landlessness among the rural households

Source: National Sample Survey Organisation, 61st Round Source: National Sample Survey Organisation, 61st Round

reasonable returns – more than 40 percent of rural workers declared they would have been satisfied withearning less than Rs 1500 per month (See Table 1: Are people finding self-employment remunerative?).

Jobless growthOverall employment growth has been declining for a decade despite the impressive gross domesticproduce (GDP) growth. It grew by less than 1 per cent per annum during the 1990s. Between 1993-94 and1999-2000, the employment growth fell to 1.07 per cent per annum from 2.7 per cent during 1983, whileGDP growth went up from 5.2 per cent during 1983-1993 to 6.7 per cent during 1993-2000. The capacityof job creation per unit of GDP output went down by about three times compared to that in the 1980s andearly 1990s6. On the other hand, rural unemployment increased from 4.6 per cent to 7.2 per cent duringthe 1990s; in 2004-05, it stood at 9.1 per cent (based on daily status).

The problem is that modern industry creates a chimera of jobs on which the government focuses foremployment generation. For all the fuss made of the economic might of industry, it provides a mere 8.35 percent of the total employment in the country. Worse still, the glamorous and much touted private sectorprovides only 2.58 per cent and the much-abused public sector, 5.77 per cent of this formal employment.Mining, water and electricity and community and social services are the largest employers in the public sector(See graph 5: Percentage contribution of various sectors to total rural employment). Over the last decadethese sectors are becoming more capital intensive thus reducing their job absorption capacity. Labourproductivity in the organised sectors was already four times that in unorganised non-agriculture in 1993

44


80.1

5

7

2.5 3.8

1.15 5.

2

78.4

7.5

2.85 4.4

1.8 57.

9

4.15 5.4

3

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Trade, hoteland restaurant

Transport,storage and

communication

Otherservices

1993-94

1999-2000

2004-05

74.9

In p

erce

nta

ge

Sectors

Graph 5: PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION OF VARIOUS SECTORS TO TOTAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT

Source: Compiled from NSSO 61st data

Table 1: ARE PEOPLE FINDING SELF-EMPLOYMENT REMUNERATIVE?

Areas % Finding their Per cent finding this amount of rupees per month remunerativeself-employment activity remunerative 0-1000 1001-1500 1501-2000 2001-2500 2501-3000 Above 3000

Rural 51.2 21.2 19.7 16 10.5 10.7 20.5

Urban 58.6 10.4 10.6 10.4 7.4 11.5 48.9

and this ratio has increased to seven times by 2004, according to Union Ministry of Labour andEmployment report on unorganised labour. During the same period, the share of the organised sector intotal non-agricultural employment declined from 20 percent to 13 percent.

Part of this was due to downsizing of the public sector that has reduced employment by 13 lakhs. On theother hand employment growth has been negligible after 1998 in organised private sector despiteimpressive GDP growth of around annual 10 percent after 1993. On the other hand unorganised non-agriculture sector has absorbed 600 lakhs jobs in the last 10 years with workforce 60 percent higher thanin 1993. This means those employed in the unorganised non-agriculture sectors termed as ‘self-employed’are unproductively employed.

More jobsAfter the first five-year plan in 1951, this is for the 10th time that India has reset its target to eradicateunemployment and poverty. Going by the latest target setting by the last as well as the current government,it is 2011 or the end of the 11th Plan. In 1996, the then United Front government announced a definitepoverty goal for the country: poverty eradication by the year 2005. One of the major factor on which thiswas premised is the eradication of unemployment leading to virtual nil income poverty. After a year of thedeadline, we are facing a much bigger unemployment crisis.

In the coming five years (the 11th Five-year Plan period) employment scenario will be furtherdeteriorating. The labour force will increase by 520 lakhs during the 11th Plan period based on thegrowth of working age population. If the current trend of more women seeking jobs continues, mostly inrural areas, the labour force will be around 650 lakhs. This increase will be in addition to the current 350lakhs unemployed. So India has to provide employment to around 1000 lakhs people, most of them inrural areas.

According to the Planning Commission assessment India cannot provide full employment but may approachto generate 650 lakh employments to bring down the unemployment rate. “However, even this modest goalimplies that the rate of growth of non-agricultural employment would need to accelerate to annual 5.8percent from 4.7 percent in 1999-2005. In other words, a massive reversal is required from the negativeemployment growth during the last decade,” says the Approach paper to the 11th Five-year Plan. So theslight reversal of the unemployment trend as in 1980s and 1990s is not news worth celebration rather awake up call for a bigger crisis.

55


POVERTY ALLEVIATION: A DREAM TURNED SOUR

According to the draft 11th Five Year Plan, poverty in India might have increased; the draft plan also indicates that the official

rate of poverty reduction has been overestimated. Preliminary estimates of the latest National Sample Survey Organisation

(NSSO) study point out that almost 28 per cent of India’s population was below the poverty line in 2004-05 — which is higher

than the official figures for 1999-2000: 26 per cent.

The survey finds that during 1999-2000 and 2004-05 poverty has declined at the rate of 0.79 percent. NSSO findings show the

number of people living below poverty line (BPL) at 22.15 percent in 2004-05, compared with 26.09 percent in 1999-2000.

During the same period, the country’s GDP grew at around 6 percent.

Reduction of poverty has been faster in rural areas than in urban areas, according to the survey findings. BPL population in

rural areas decreased 4.68 percent between 1999-2000 and 2004-05, which was over twice the pace of the decrease in urban

centers, estimated at 2.12 percent. Initial explanation for this is that migration to urban areas from rural areas has pulled

down the poverty reduction rate in urban areas. But if this were the case, the rural poverty reduction would be lower than

what the survey finds.

High-growth states like Haryana, Maharashtra, Delhi, Rajasthan and Goa have reported increase in BPL population. NSSO

officials point at this fact to substantiate that rural-urban migration is distorting the poverty figure.

66


Chapter 2

A history of programmesIndia has three decades of experience in implementing employment generation

programmes. The concept of creating employment in public works is not new: the

Maharashtra model of rural employment has existed since the 1970s. The most critical

difference now is that people’s entitlement, by law, to employment, is mandated through

NREGA for the entire country. Not much has changed in the form and substance of the

public work programmes in the past 30-odd years, however. In many ways the NREGA is a

replication of earlier schemes in letter and spirit, of course, with a legal guarantee. So past

failures do haunt the NREGA

The first set of programmes, the National Rural Employment Programme and the Rural LandlessEmployment Programme, began in the 1970s as clones of the Maharashtra EGS. In 1989, the Rajiv Gandhigovernment integrated the two schemes into one, revamped the schemes and decided delivery would occurthrough the panchayati raj institutions (village-level elected institutions).

Thus born the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY); but it was radically different. The bureaucratic machinery wasbypassed; funds would be deposited in the accounts of each village institution responsible for planningdevelopment activities used to create employment creation, and overseeing implementation. The schemebegan but it was never given a chance to succeed. In retrospect, JRY was perhaps an idea before its time(See Box: Rural wage employment programmes in India).

In 1990, when prime minister V P Singh ambushed the Rajiv Gandhi government over the Bofors gunscandal, the election call was a promise to ‘guarantee’ Maharashtra-type employment for all. Instead thesubsequent, Narasimha Rao-led, government diluted what existed. By 1993, JRY received little politicalleadership or attention. It was agreed (from largely anecdotal and some official reports) that the scheme,controlled by people’s representatives, was leading to increased corruption and even greater inefficiency indelivery. Therefore, it needed to be re-vamped.

In 1993, the Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) was launched. Now, half the allocated funds for ruralemployment would be channelised through the bureaucracy, not the panchayati raj institutions. The bigbrother was back in business, to the tune of roughly Rs 2,000 crore each year.

RURAL WAGE EMPLOYMENTPROGRAMMES IN INDIA

1980National Rural Employment

Programme (NREP) launched to use

unemployed and underemployed

workers to build community assets

ALLOCATION

6th plan1980-1985: Rs 980 crore

7th plan1985-1990: Rs 1,682 crore

1983Rural Landless Employment

Guarantee (RLEG) launched to

provide 100 days of guaranteed

employment to one member from

each rural, landless household

ALLOCATION

6th plan: 1983-1985: Rs 500 crore

7th plan1985-1989: Rs 2412 crore

1989Jawahar Rozgar Yojana

launched, combining NREP

and RLEG

ALLOCATION

7th plan1985-1990: Rs 2,100 crore

8th Plan1992-1993: Rs 2,546 crore

1993-1994: Rs 3,306 crore

1994-1995: Rs 3,855 crore

1995-1996: Rs 3,862 crore

1996-1997: Rs 1,865 crore

1993Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS)

launched to provide employment

during the lean agricultural season

ALLOCATION

8th Plan1993-1994: Rs 600 crore

1994-1995: Rs 1,200 crore

1995-1996: Rs 1,570 crore

1996-1997: Rs 1,970 crore

9th plan1997-1998: Rs 1,970 crore

1998-1999: Rs 1,990 crore

1999-2000: Rs 1,700 crore

In April 2002 another re-naming took place. This time the two schemes — JRY and EAS — were merged tocreate the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yogana (SGRY). Its spending, too, was divided between thepanchayati raj institutions and the administration. Incidentally, in the National Democratic Alliance periodthe name of JRY had been changed into the Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yogana (JGSY). A component of SGRY

provided foodgrain to calamity-stricken states for relief work. Now the cost increased to about Rs 4,000crore per year.

Then came the semi-final reincarnation. In late 2004, the National Food for Work Programme (NFWP) WAS

launched, targeting 150 backward districts. These districts were identified through a task force set up bythe ministry of rural development, which used threevariables to compute ‘backwardness’ — agriculturalproductivity per worker, agricultural wage rate and thescheduled caste and schedule tribe population in thedistrict. This programme was to be implemented throughthe district administration and a menu of “labour-intensive projects” would be prepared, to be undertakenover a five-year period. In the 2005-06 budget, theallocation was enhanced. NFWP got Rs 6,000 crore inaddition to the SGRY’s Rs 4,000 crore. The NFWP remainsthe programme design for the NREGA.

The final change came in December 2004, when theNational Rural Employment Guarantee Bill was tabled inParliament. The bill provided a guarantee of 100 days ofunskilled manual work in a financial year to every poorhousehold, in rural areas, whose adult membersvolunteered for work.

The first phase would cover 200 districts. But many believed the bill ‘diluted’ what the common minimumprogramme of the government had promised. The bill was referred to a parliamentary standing committee,which gave its report after two and a half sessions, called the legislation as “path-breaking” but observedthat organisations and individuals who deposed before it were “almost unanimous” in objecting to severalprovisions.

Past imperfectBut though these schemes have provided some relief to the rural areas, their reach has been inadequatein view of the magnitude of the unemployment problem. Moreover, they have not provided a guarantee thatemployment will be available to rural households on demand, as all of them were allocation-basedprogrammes.

77


1999Jawahar Gram Samridhi

Yojana (JGSY) launched;

dedicated to development

of demand driven rural

infrastructure

ALLOCATION

9th plan1997-1998: Rs 2,077 crore

1998-1999: Rs 2,095 crore

1999-2000: Rs 2,095 crore

2001Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar

Yojana (SGRY)launched,

merging EAS and JGSY

ALLOCATION

9th plan2000-2001: Rs 2,950 crore

2001-2002: Rs 3,250 crore

10th plan2002-2003: Rs 4,440 crore

2003-2004: Rs 4,900 crore

2004-2005: Rs 5,100 crore

2005-2006: Rs 4,000 crore

2006-2007: Rs 3,000 crore

2004Food for Work

Programme (NFFWP)

launched to

generate additional

supplementary wage

employment and

create assets

ALLOCATION

10th plan2005-2006:

Rs 6,000 crore

2006National Rural

Employment Guarantee

Scheme (NREGS) launched

to provide 100 days of

guaranteed employment

to one member from each

rural household and create

community assets

ALLOCATION

10th plan2006-2007:

Rs 11,300 crore

JRY received little political leadership or

attention. It was agreed (from largely

anecdotal and some official reports)

that the scheme, controlled by people’s

representatives, was leading to increased

corruption and even greater inefficiency

in delivery. Therefore, it needed to

be re-vamped

These programmes created just 44 lakh jobs a year (before the NREGA was implemented) — a smallnumber compared to the gigantic employment demand in rural areas. Moreover, the jobs they created werecasual jobs — temporary in nature — and worked more as supplementary sources of employment in timesof crisis.

Despite a stated focus on creation of durable assets at villages for livelihood generation, theseprogrammes failed miserably on this count. Going by various evaluations done by government andindependent agencies, a large part of the funds spent under these schemes was used in more capital-intensive activities such as building roads and government houses, rather than in labour-intensiveactivities. Productive assets were never a priority.

Employment programmes usually create casual jobs and work more as supplementary source ofemployment in time of crisis. A study conducted by the government of India in 2000-2001 on the impactof the EAS, it found that the programme covered just 36 percent villages of 13 states. Under theprogramme only 36 percent of eligible job seekers could benefit leaving others to migrate out of villages

or to take up other crisis-driven jobs. The surveyfound that at an average 31 days of employmentwas generated in a year under the programme asagainst the official estimate of 62 man-days perperson a year.

An evaluation of the SGRY done by the Union ruraldevelopment ministry in 2004 finds that 14.3percent of officials, across the states in India,reported the use of contractors in theimplementation of the scheme thus reducingemployment and increasing corruption. Under SGRYcontractors are not allowed as in NREGA. In Orissa,according to the evaluation, 92.4 percent of workswas implemented through contractors. The figure is30 for Jharkhand. On the other hand as contractors

played a major role the works are also eventually selected by them under the scheme to maximize theirprofits. This resulted in creation of non-productive assets thus not contributing to village development.

It is clear from past experiences that most of the schemes have failed due to lack of right planning, focuson local needs and also dominantly bureaucratic roles. Maharashtra’s EGS is an example of typicalproblems marring our wage employment programmes.

The Maharashtra storyThe EGS of Maharashtra being the only precedent to NREGA with guarantee clause, its performanceremaince benchmark for both success and failure. Maharashtra has spent over Rs 10,824 crore on its EGS

programme from 1975 to 2005, covering 27,831-gram panchayats in its 33 districts. This means on anaverage, Rs 39 lakh (Rs 3,888,786) has been spent on each gram panchayat. Starting at Rs 34.61 crorein 1975-76, the EGS expenditure has increased to a whopping Rs 1,256.93 crore. And so have the mandays— from 10.95 crore to 22.18 crore — showing the large number of people this unique pubic worksprogramme has been employing.

Between 1975 and 2005 a total of 580,244 EGS works were undertaken, ranging from minor irrigation toafforestation, the maximum being of soil conservation and land development (367,065). Incidentally mostof the works undertaken have also been completed. The maximum amount has been spent on roadprojects (Rs 2291.14 crore), followed by agriculture (1,905.14 crore), water conservation (Rs 1,809.08crore) and afforestation (Rs 916.04 crore).

S Mahendra Dev, Director, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad in his paper, India’s(Maharashtra) Employment Guarantee Scheme: Lessons from Long Experience, notes a change in

88


It is clear from past experiences that most of the

schemes have failed due to lack of right

planning, focus on local needs and also

dominantly bureaucratic roles. Maharashtra’s

EGS is an example of typical problems marring

our wage employment programmes

emphasis, notes a change in emphasis on assetscreated. “In 1974-75, around 78 per cent ofexpenditure was apportioned to irrigation, 12 percentto soil conservation and land development, aboutthree percent to afforestation. Thus nearly 93 percentof total expenditure was directly related to droughtproofing. Over the years, however, the composition ofexpenditure has undergone considerable change. Theexpenditure on roads has risen from about 6 percentof the total in 1974 to about 40 percent in 1985-86.Since 1987-88, however, the percentage ofexpenditure on roads was less than 25 percentbecause of a government order.”

EGS also changed its face by adopting some sub-schemes. Three such sub-schemes are Jawaharwells, horticulture programmes, and social forestryand sericulture. Horticulture programme is termed ashighly successful programme under the EGS. Butthese sub-schemes also face major criticism. Firstly,they have gradually shifted the focus of EGS fromcreating public assets to privately owned assets,such as horticultural crops and persona; wells. It isargued that though creating private assets goesagainst the objective of a public works programme,the poor quality of public assets, absence ofcommunity benefits, and lack of maintenance fundsis bringing about a change in the profile andownership of these assets. While it may prove thedurability and benefits of assets created under theEGS, it has also raised concerns about the equitabledistribution of EGS benefits. For instance, farm pondsare in great demand under EGS in Maharashtra, butthese are privately owned assets and cost Rs 40,000require more than one acre of land and hence benefitonly the large farmers.

Clearly the aim of EGS apart from providing employment was useful asset creation, drought proofing, villagedevelopment and amelioration of poverty. The state has spent a total of over Rs 3,714.22 crore on waterconservation and agriculture related activities under EGS, which has lead to raised water table and manyvillages declaring themselves drought proof. There are other studies that show the impact EGS has madeon rural poverty. For instance, a comparison of the incidence of poverty in Maharashtra and in all Indiashows that from 1972-73 to 1983, the decline of poverty was greater in Maharashtra than all India level.Between 1983 and 1987-88, the decline in the state was slightly lower than for all India (see tableIncidence of person-day unemployment in rural Maharashtra and rural India). It is also estimated that theincidence of poverty among agricultural labour households showed a decline from 64.1 per cent in 1977-78 to 44.6 per cent in 1983 for Maharashtra, while for all India, the corresponding figures were 55.9 percent and 40.7 per cent, respectively.

The flaws in the programmesThe programme planners of employment programmes — call it Sampoorna or Guarantee — measure theirsuccess only by the number of days of employment created. Their objective is to distribute wages for work,to avert famine: commendable, but limited. Each year, the same district spends on drought mitigation,building assets that are not maintained. EGS is relegated to drought relief, not relief against drought. Itdoes little for development. It does little for poverty reduction.

99


“In 1974-75, around 78 per cent of

expenditure was apportioned to irrigation,

12 per cent to soil conservation and

land development, about 3 percent to

afforestation. Thus, nearly 93 per cent of

total expenditure was directly related to

drought proofing. Over the years,

however, the composition of expenditure

has undergone considerable change. The

expenditure on roads has risen from

about 6 per cent of the total in 1974 to about

40 per cent in 1985-86. Since 1987-88,

however, the percentage of expenditure

on roads was less than 25 per cent because

of a government order”

— S Mahendra Dev, DirectorCentre for Economic and Social Studies

1100


This, when its potential is enormous: using the labour of the poor to regenerate the rural ecosystem. Theproblem is that because planners are obsessed by employment creation, they are obsessed by corruption inthe creation of employment. Most research on employment programmes has focused on the lack oftransparency and accountability in schemes. According to researchers Dev and Robert E Evenson, the costof transferring one rupee under the erstwhile JRY was Rs 2.28 in the mid-1990s. They compared it to Rs 1.85, the cost of transferring Re 1 under the Maharashtra EGS. These researchers found that in thedifferent employment schemes, the routine use of contractors, fudging of employment rolls and violation ofnorms lead to huge costs in delivery and extreme inefficiency. They estimated that in the three states ofWest Bengal, Haryana and Gujarat, the cost of generating one day’s employment was Rs 200 to Rs 300, farin excess of the wage rates given to the poor households. In addition, government’s own evaluation shows

that only Rs 15 of every Rs 100 reached the beneficiaries.Leakages were enormous and crippling.

This has meant an obsession — perhaps rightly so — onreducing leakages by increasing the power of people tocheck muster rolls and scrutinise the wage records.“Corruption is not unexpected when money is involvedand the transaction is between officials, who have thepower and control over the money, and the poorunemployed labourers who have little choice,” saysAtanu Dey, a developmental economist. In the currentNational Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme the effortis to improve decision making through the use of theRight to Information Act, which gives local communitiesrights to check wage records. There are also plans forsocial audits and financial checks to plug the holes.

The problem is that even with all this done, waterstructures remain holes in the ground because thecatchment has not been treated. A tree remains a hole inthe ground because the saplings have not beenprotected. A road remains what it was — a collection of

holes in the ground — because it has not been built to last. It has been built to be washed away. Eachseason, so that employment can be guaranteed.

The fact is that the history of employment creation programmes in India is not new. But researchers andplanners have never bothered to evaluate what has worked, why and how. The last institutional innovationwas made in the early 1990s, when funds and responsibility were transferred to locally elected bodies.Since then the programme has spent Rs 2,000 crore annually in the early 1990s, to Rs 4,000 croreannually in the early 2000 and now Rs 11,300 crore under the National Rural Guarantee Scheme. The factis that nobody knows where this money has been spent; on what programmes, in which village and if theassets created have been maintained or not.

The current programme is built on the developmental imperatives of the different districts. But it does littleto address the key institutional and management gaps that exist in programmes of soil, water and forestconservation. These are fragile assets. These assets require management and maintenance. dte reportershave found that even with some basic investment, the returns can be enormous. One good waterharvesting structure built pre-monsoon can lead to enough soil moisture to grow a supplementary crop.Many soil and water conservation programmes can transform village economies.

There are instances where this has happened. But these instances are too far and too few between. Theproblem is that we have not learnt to create institutions by people, that can deliver for people. In the entirework on rural employment, while governments glibly talk of the role of the panchayats, little has been doneto build institutional capacities so that these agencies can function. There is little expertise and little useof perspective plans so that developmental imperatives can become employment objectives.

The problem is that we have not learnt to

create institutions by people, that can deliver

for people. In the entire work on rural

employment, while governments glibly talk

of the role of the panchayats, little has been

done to build institutional capacities so that

these agencies can function. There is little

expertise and little use of perspective plans

so that developmental imperatives can

become employment objectives

Chapter 3

NREGA: Old spirit, new lettersThe NREGA is significant both in letter and spirit. It focuses on the country’s poorest

regions. It has been designed keeping in mind the problems of the rain-fed areas of the

country, which sustain 40 per cent of India’s population

NREGA is significant both in letter and spiritThe NREGA is the flagship scheme of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. During the2004 general elections, the Congress party had promised to bring in such a legislation keeping in mindIndia’s widespread rural unemployment and poverty. Immediately after coming to power, the UPAgovernment gave it a preferential status under its common minimum programme. In August 2005, theIndian Parliament unanimously passed the Act. It came into force in 200 districts on February 2, 2006 andaims to cover the whole of rural India by 2010.

The Act is a significant legislation in many ways. Unlike earlier employment schemes, it is demand-driven.People who need jobs will demand them, which the government is legally bound to provide. In case offailure to do so, the government has to dole out unemployment allowance. For the first time, ruralcommunities have been given not just a development programme, but also a regime of rights. The Act waspreceded by three decades of attempts to bring in such legislation. The EGS of Maharashtra is the onlyprecedent to the NREGA.

Given the rising demand for foodgrains in future and irrigated areas having reached their plateau ofproductivity, development of rain-fed areas holds the key to future food security. But India’s rain-fed areashave been in the throes of an agrarian and unemployment crisis. That is the reason why the Act givesimportance to agriculture and irrigation. Additionally, to meet this huge employment demand, it advocatesproductive use of the forestry sector for livelihood generation.

The Act attempts to unlock the potential of the rural poor to contribute tothe reconstruction of their environment. To achieve this, it has laidemphasis on creation of productive assets in villages. Out of ninepreferred areas of works under the NREGA, seven focuses on water andsoil conservation. The attention of the scheme is on the following works intheir order of priority:● Water conservation and water harvesting● Drought proofing (including afforestation and tree plantation)● Irrigation canals (including micro and minor irrigation works)● Provision of irrigation facility to land owned by households belonging to

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or to land of beneficiaries ofland reforms or that of the beneficiaries under the Indira Awas Yojanaof the government of India

● Renovation of traditional water bodies (including desilting of tanks)● Land development ● Flood control and protection works (including drainage in water-logged areas) ● Rural connectivity to provide all-weather access● Any other work, which may be notified by the Central government in consultation with the state

government

Under the Act each state is required to formulate a Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme within six monthsof its enactment. As mentioned above the broad features like preferred works are non-negotiable thus no

1111


Key elements of NREGA

● Panchayats are key players

● Productive assets legally not-negotiable

● Local level planning base of

implementation

● Gram Sabha to monitor all works and

applications

● Contractors are not allowed in any

manner

state can change it under its state scheme. Till the time the state has not formulated the scheme and itsguidelines, the annual or perspective plan under the SGRY or the NFFWP, whichever is in force in the state,will work as action plan for NREGA implementation.

Broadly, the village and intermediary Panchayats manage the implementation activities while coordinationactivities are done at the district Panchayat level. Planning, supervision and monitoring take place at alllevels. However, at every level the agencies concerned are accountable to the communities.

Village Panchayats are the nodal implementing bodies for the NREGA. Local bodies (See chart: Who doeswhat?) will plan, design and execute the works to be taken up. This is a step towards making this Act aparticipatory process and empowering people at the grassroots level. At least 50 percent of the worksunder the scheme will be implemented through village panchayats. Currently, according to the Unionministry of rural development, village panchayats are implementing close to 85 percent of all works underthe Act. The Act mandates the Panchayats to prepare village-level plans based on local resources andneeds. These plans are then implemented using the NREGA, which effectively insulates them from politicalwhims and pressures.

The Gram Sabha (village council) is the statutorily mandated institutional mechanism for communityparticipation. In addition, other methods of community participation could be instituted: local vigilance andmonitoring committees, workers associations, local beneficiary committees, self-help groups, users groupsand other grassroots structures. The village council takes the decision to formulate such users groups.

Implementation of the NREGA starts from the Gram Sabha, which first declares the implementation of thescheme. The Gram Sabha also takes charge of popularizing the scheme for registration of people and alsothe procedures to demand works. The Act authorises the Gram Sabha to recommend works to be taken upunder the scheme, to monitor and supervise these works, and to conduct social audits of the implementation.

1122


Who does what?

Village Panchayat

■ Prepare village plan

■ Identify, design and implement 50% works

■ Set up local institutions to facilitate implementation

■ Evaluate and monitor implementation

Block Panchayat

■ Coordinate block level plans

■ Identify possible works based on village plan

■ Design and implement works (not mandatory)

■ Monitoring

District Panchayat

■ Prepare district annual plan

■ Prepare five-year perspective plan based on village plans

■ Implement works (not mandatory)

■ District level coordination of activities

State government

■ Evolve regulations

■ Set up Employment Guarantee Council

■ Facilitating resource flow

Central government

■ Rural development ministry nodal ministry

■ Ensure fund flow

■ Set up employment guarantee council for advisory

■ Independent monitoring and evaluation

The village Panchayat is responsible for planning ofworks, registering households, issuing job cards andmonitoring implementation of the scheme at village level.The Act advises appointment of employment guaranteeassistant in each panchayat for this purpose. Theintermediary Panchayat is responsible for planning at theblock level, and for monitoring and supervision. This tierof Panchayat is also given works for implementation fromthe 50 percent not implemented under the villagePanchayat. District Panchayat is responsible for finalisingthe district plans for NREGA which is a comprehensiveplan of action for the scheme for the district. District Panchayat can also implement works from the 50percent non-village Panchayat pool.

The state government formulates regulations to facilitate the overall implementation. It sets up the StateEmployment Guarantee Council to advise the government on implementation of the scheme, and toevaluate and monitor it. The council also takes decisions on the preferred works to be undertaken in thestate. The central government’s rural development ministry is the nodal ministry for implementation andfund disbursal. It also monitors and evaluates the scheme. Besides it sets up the Central EmploymentGuarantee Council for advising it on various issues related to NREGA.

NREGA is primarily implemented through two planning documents at district level called districtperspective plan and annual plan. Though the district Panchayat coordinates these planning the othertwo tiers of Panchayat participate play crucial roles in the exercise. These two documents are designedas local five-year plans that take care of local needs. Based on these plans the Panchayats identifyworks. The annual plan is basically a shelf of works to be taken up under the schemes and must becompleted by December for the next year plan. The works are selected keeping in mind its impact onlocal development. The district perspective plan is intended to facilitate advance planning and to providea development perspective for the district. This plan is prepared based on the linkages of assets to becreated that will help in local development. This plan is usually for five years and based village levelinputs from Panchayat.

For complete details on the NREGA, visit: www.nrega.nic.in ● Act guidelines● Officials In charge● Status of Works● States involved

1133


Key components of a district perspective plan

■ Planning with village as a unit■ Cover socio-economic aspects of development■ Analysis of local poverty to sense inputs needed

through NREGA■ Baseline data collection■ To plan outcome based strategies■ Suggestion of methods to measure outcomes

Chapter 4

Bend it backwardThe 200 Backward districts make NREGA desirable and difficult. It is desirable as this may

result in uplifting close to 60 per cent of their population above the poverty line. It is

difficult: the challenge is to implement the Act as a development agenda instead of a

wage-earning scheme

The 200 Backward districts make NREGA desirable and difficult.What are commons among Orissa’s Kalahandi-Balangir-Koraput (KBK), Chhattisgarh’s undivided Bastarand Jharkhand’s Dumka and Hazaribagh districts? They are the targets of India’s all poverty eradicationschemes since 1951. After 55 years of such targeted poverty eradication schemes, they still remain thepoorest districts of India, and arguably not the best governed also. They have more poor now than 1980.These states are the poorest states of India, and these districts are the poorest areas inside the states.Ironically these districts are very rich in natural resources like forests, land and minerals. Though statesGDP are growing at high rate, these areas remain untouched by economic development.

The long-term trends in the incidence of poverty in Orissa point at a steady decline on the poverty ratio inthe state till mid-1990s. In the second half of 1990s it has remained stagnated, and the trend continues.However, in the KBK region poverty has increased between 1993-94 and 1999-2000. And this region hasthe state’s 75 percent poor. Out of this 40% are very poor, i.e. their income is 3/4th below the poverty line.Because in these districts close to 85 percent people depend on agriculture and forests for survival. Whileagriculture is fast becoming unproductive due to soil degradation and frequent drought, forest laws restrictforests access. The conventional economic growth, as pointed out earlier chapter, has not provedbeneficial. The 200-odd poverty eradication programmes in implementation have hardly contributed to localdevelopment as they remain out of focus or being not implemented affectively.

The 200 backward districts where the NREGA is being implemented share the same developmenttrends. All the districts are resource rich but extremely poor (See map). India’s tribal areas, forestedregion and minerals resources are the same region as the NREGA areas. This makes the NREGA moredesirable, but at the same time, more difficult to implement. Thus, the Act is both an opportunity as wellas a challenge7.

A difficult constituencyThe 200 backward districts, identified by the Planning Commission (see Box: Measuring backwardness),can pose major challenges to the implementation of the NREGA because of their special problems. Thesedistricts are, arguably, India’s richest in terms of natural resources. In 38 percent of India’s areas, the totalgeographical coverage of 200 NREGA districts, the districts host close to 44.8 per cent of forests and 85per cent of mineral resources in the country8. These districts account for 35 percent of India’s cultivableareas. Agriculture and forest sustain close to 87 percent of population in these districts9.

They are also the least developed areas of the country, inhabited mostly by marginal farmers and forestdwellers. They hold 70 per cent of India’s poor. A survey of human development reports of 12 states pointthat all the NREGA districts feature in the bottom 10 positions in the per capita income list. A large numberof these districts are located in the arid and semi–arid regions: 94 of these are covered under the DroughtProne Areas Programme (DPAP) and eight under the Desert Development Programme (DDP). Close to 80per cent of India’s rain-fed areas are in these districts.

1144


1155


RESOURCE-RICH … BUT POOR

Forest area

Schedule V area

200 poorest districts

■ NREGA districts cover 38% of India’s geographical area■ They account for 44.8% of total India’s forest cover■ They bost of 85% of total mineral wealth■ They account for 35% of India’s cultivable area

Source: Project Tiger directorate

These districts are primarily agricultural with 70 percent population depending on it for survival. Most of thefarmers are marginal with landholding less than one hector. These districts account for 39 per cent ofIndia’s total rural workforce (see annexure II: Statistical profile of states under NREGA). In 115 of them,the percentage of agricultural labourers in the total rural working population is higher than the nationalaverage of 33 per cent, indicating the large-scale landlessness in these districts combined with the lack ofeffective employment opportunities in the non-agricultural sector. Based on ministry of agriculture’s sowingdata, around 135 districts takes up only one crop. The result: lower incomes for a large section of the ruralpopulation contributing towards the backwardness of these districts apart from agro-climatic andphysiographic conditions.

Situation Assessment of Farmers, done by the NSSO, points at rampant indebtedness of farmers in NREGAstates in general and in NREGA district particularly. In 19 out of the 27 NREGA states close to half (48.6)of the farmers are indebted (See table 2: Farmer indebtedness in select NREGA states). In 1991assessment the percentage was 26 percent. It is significant that the dominant cause of taking loans wasfound to be for productive purposes. Two most important purposes of taking loans were stated to be capitalexpenditure in farm business and current expenditure in farm business. Out of every Rs. 1000 taken asloan, Rs. 584 had been borrowed for these two purposes.

Given that the NREGA cover most of India’s forested areas, the contribution of this sector to the localeconomy is substantial. The NREGA districts cover close to 40 percent of India’s very dense forests and47 percent of moderately dense forests. Dependence of local people on forests for survival in thesedistricts is very high. Studies in Orissa, MP, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand indicate that over 80 percent offorest dwellers depend entirely on minor forest produces; 17 percent of landless people depend on thedaily wage labour of collecting forest produce; and 39 percent of people are involved in minor forestproduce collection as subsidiary occupation10. However, forest degradation and restrictive forest laws are

1166


MEASURING BACKWARDNESS

Attempts to identify the poorest or most backward districts in the country have been made since 1960. A committee of theUnion ministry of rural areas and employment (the previous name for the ministry of rural development) conducted one ofthe most elaborate exercises for the identification of backward districts in 1997. Headed by E A S Sarma, the then principaladvisor to the Planning Commission, the committee used a composite method with differing weights for parameters such asincidence of poverty, education, health, water supply, transport and communications and degree of industrialisation. TheSarma Committee's list of 100 most backward districts included:● 38 districts from undivided Bihar● 19 from undivided Madhya Pradesh● 17 from undivided Uttar Pradesh● 10 from Maharashtra, and● A smaller number of districts from other states

All these districts are under the NREGA cover now. There were no districts from Gujarat, Goa, Kerala, Punjab, Andhra Pradeshand Tamil Nadu. The committee did not consider the north-eastern states and Jammu and Kashmir as it felt "they hadproblems which were specific and peculiar to them".

In 2002, the Planning Commission drew up another list of 100 backward districts. This list is specific to the Rashtriya SamaVikas Yojana (RSVY) programme drawn up under the 10th Five Year Plan. It covers one or more backward districts in all statesof the country except in Delhi, Goa, Bihar and Orissa. The first two have been excluded because they have no backwarddistricts; the other two, because the RSVY programme has special components for Bihar and the Kalahandi-Balangir-Koraput(KBK) region of Orissa. The recently declared Backward Regions Grant Fund classification is based on the RSVY classificationof districts. In addition, it also uses the NREGA list of districts.

Various non-government organisations have also attempted to draw up lists of backward districts. The Delhi-based RajivGandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies made a comprehensive estimation of district-level deprivation in 2003. In itsreport, the Institute used six indicators derived from the UN Millennium Development Goals: poverty, hunger, infantmortality, immunisation and literacy and elementary school enrolment. It considered districts which figured in the bottomquarter under four of these six criteria as the 'most backward' districts in the country. This list has 69 districts. Most of themare located in the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and Jharkhand. Other than these states, the 'most backward'districts have been found only in Arunachal Pradesh (three districts), Karnataka (one) and Madhya Pradesh (five).

stripping this vital source of livelihood. Out of 27states under NREGA, 13 states have reported forestloss. It means 138 districts out of the 200 arereporting deforestation11.

The alienation of forest dwellers from forest is widelybelieved to be triggering conflicts leading to collapse of governance. Out of the 200 districts, 64districts are under firm grip of extreme Left insurgency known as Naxalism. In these districts, themobility of local government officials and members of panchayats becomes limited. The firstchallenge, therefore, is to bring back governance tothese districts.

The NREGA can target development in these districtsusing the huge demand for casual jobs. For effectiveimplementation of the NREGA, it is imperative to understand the complex socio-economic and governancechallenges of these backward districts. It can be said that these districts hold the key to the overallsuccess of the NREGA.

Less governedThe Panchayati Raj institutions are the principal players for the NREGA implementation. According to theUnion ministry of rural development, there are61,763 village panchayats and 1,894 blockpanchayats in these 200 districts. The number ofimplementing agencies, thus, is very high. They arealso extremely diverse in their political and socio-economic structures. While village panchayats arereportedly implementing close to 83 per cent of totalNREGA works, others including independentimplementing agencies and block panchayats areimplementing around 17 per cent of the works.

The size and area of gram panchayats also varyconsiderably; these variations have a direct impacton the norms for administrative staffing, therebymaking the delivery mechanism for all the 200districts untenable, says the Second AdministrativeReform Commission Report. There is ampleevidence that the delivery of basic public services,particularly those intended to benefit the poor andweaker sections, has functioned relativelyineffectively in the backward districts even whenfunds have not been a constraint. This delivery hassuffered due to, on one hand, weak administration,understaffing and lack of motivation and on theother, large-scale leakages.

The state of Panchayats in these districts is acause of concern. Only six out of the 27 stateshave devolved the 29 functions to the local bodiesas listed in the constitution. Secondly, only Keralaand Karnataka have devolved functions,functionaries and funds to the Panchayats, which

1177


Table 2: Farmer indebtedness in select NREGA states

State Percentage of farmers indebted

West Bengal 50.1

Uttar Pradesh 40.3

Tamil Nadu 74.5

Rajasthan 52.4

Punjab 65.4

Orissa 47.8

Maharashtra 54.8

Madhya Pradesh 50.8

Kerala 64.4

Karnataka 61.6

Jharkhand 20.9

Jammu and Kashmir 31.8

Himachal Pradesh 33.4

Haryana 53.1

Gujarat 51.9

Bihar 33

Assam 18.1

Andhra Pradesh 82

India 48.6

Source: National Sample Survey Organisation, 59th Round

The alienation of forest dwellers from forests is

widely believed to be triggering conflicts

leading to collapse of governance. Out of the

200 districts, 64 districts are in firm grip of

extreme Left insurgency known as Naxalism. In

these districts, the mobility of local

government officials and members of

panchayats becomes limited

are necessary to make them effective. So the implementation of NREGA with such local governancestates is difficult and is prone to bureaucratic interferences. The Second Administrative ReformCommission found that Panchayats in NREGA districts had no regular and dedicated functionaries; theGram Pabhas that are required to choose the projects, were dormant as well.

The nature of local bodies varies considerably in these 200 districts as many of them belong to differentconstitutional categories. The constitution of local bodies in the Fifth Schedule areas is considerablydifferent from those falling under the Sixth Schedule areas (such as Mizoram and Meghalaya where PartIX of the constitution is not applicable). In the areas under the Fifth Schedule, where as many as 63 ofthese backward districts are located, the quality of local bodies was expected to improve after theenactment of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), 1996. But going by therecently released State of Panchayati Raj report of the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj, progress in thisaspect is discouraging. The ministry has cautioned non-implementation of the PESA may further triggertribal unrest (read Naxalism). It is thus the success in the implementation of the PESA, which might havea bearing on the implementation of the NREGA. Though most states in the Fifth Schedule areas haveenacted requisite compliance legislations by amending the respective Panchayati Raj acts, some statesare yet to amend the subject laws and rules, which are inconsistent with those in PESA.

Added to these problems are the governance pressures that the NREGA itself puts on panchayats. BesidesNREGA, panchayats in backward areas are implementing the Background Region Grant Fund and areplaying key roles in the Bharat Nirman programmes (see Box: Overworked). Under the NREGA, eachpanchayat has to make a perspective plan and annual plans for implementing the scheme. The perspectiveplan is an extensive exercise that includes charting of the village’s resources, its poverty, its demands,work situations and then — based on these facts — prescribing a template for future developmentrequirements. The annual plan involves identifying the needy people, scoping works for them in advance,and also preparing the accounts.

There is a need to recognise the fact that conditions prevailing in these backward districts may impede thesmooth flow of funds for the implementation of the NREGA. The usual channels for transfer of funds in themore progressive states may not work in many of these districts. Also, backward districts poseimplementation challenges that are as varied as the terrain is inhospitable. Therefore, the ‘one-size-fits-all’approach is not feasible — the final approach should be one that takes into account the heterogeneity,specific problems and constraints peculiar to each district.

1188


OVERWORKED!

Panchayats of backward districts are being increasingly put in charge of rural developments programmes. The BackwardRegion Grant Fund (BRGF) is the latest one.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the BRGF to be implemented in 250 backward districts (including the 200 NREGAdistricts) in September 2006. An allocation to the tune of Rs 3,700 crore has been made. It will be implemented through theUnion ministry of panchayati raj. In August 2006, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) had approved thecreation of BRGF. The project will be implemented during the 11th five year plan period (2007-2012). It aims at catalysingdevelopment in the backward regions of the country.

A sum of Rs 250 crore per annum at the rate of Rs 1 crore per district from the BRGF has been earmarked for capacity buildingand the balance is an un-tied development fund. The BRGF includes all districts where the National Rural EmploymentGuarantee Programme is implemented and all the districts mentioned in the Inter Ministerial Task Group Report onBackwardness. The thrust areas of the fund include physical infrastructure, governance and agrarian reforms.

The backward districts will get Rs 2,500 crore at the rate of Rs 10 crore per district un-tied funds to the Panchayati RajInstitutions (PRIs). The remaining Rs 1,000 crore will be distributed among districts on the basis of their population and area.

However, it may not be up for implementation in November as declared by the Union ministry of panchayati raj. The hitch:most of the states have failed to set up district planning committees (DPCs), a mandatory requirement to avail funds under thescheme. Funds will be transferred to the district directly from the Panchayati Raj ministry based on district development plansdrawn by panchayats and the DPCs and approved by the state governments. BRGF is being seen as an experiment in fiscaldecentralisation.

Chapter 5

Birth pangsThere are roadblocks and bottlenecks on the way of effective NREGA implementation. It

needs to be treated as a development tool

Anjama, a 45-year-old farmer of Rangapur village in AP’s Rangareddy district, is jubilant. As she digs up apercolation tank in her village under the NREGA, she hopes to ensure one crop in her farm next year. It isfor the first time in five years she has not migrated for jobs. But her way out of poverty has few challenges.The percolation tank is on private land and nobody is sure whether the residents can own or manage it infuture.

Far away in UP, dreams of Gokul Punia, a 34-year-old farmer of Padri village in Hardoi district, crashed withimplementation of NREGA. A marginal farmer without adequate irrigation could have benefited from a waterstructure. Instead the Panchayat built a road right in the middle of his land taking away a chunk of hislivelihood. For the district with large number of farmers and less irrigation could have benefited much fromassets like water tanks and irrigation canals.

These two villages summerise the opportunities and challenges of NREGA. On one hand the Act can beused productively for taking care of local needs. On the other hand if proper planning in the process ofNREGA implementation is not done, the results could be devastating. Labour is a productive asset of ruralpopulation. The NREGA is based on the logic of using this asset to build and nurture the local ecology. Thisalleviates the problems of chronic unemployment and poverty simultaneously.

Currently, 410,742 odd works are being implemented under the NREGA in 200 districts of 27 states. Outof these, 188,035 are in water conservation, 105,558 in rural connectivity, 30,631 in drought proofing andplantation and 8248 in flood control sectors. During October-November, more than 100,000 new workshave been taken up under the Act. The government has allocated Rs 11,300 crore for this fiscal year, outof which 50 per cent has been already spent. Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan are the only states to have

1199


Table 3: The NREGA -- implementation status

● The NREGA states cover 38.53 per cent of India‘s total geographical area.● More than 1 per cent of India’s population have received employment under the Act.● It covers effectively 38.34 per cent of country’s rural workers.● 31,098 village panchayats are implementing 83 per cent of the works under it.

Indicators Status (as of November 10, 2006)

Number of rural households covered 54,008,069

Households under poverty line 16,570,504

Applications for registration 35,167,503

Job cards issued 29,958,283

Number of people demanding work 14,079,963

Number of people provided with jobs 13,630,256

Source: Union ministry of rural development, November, 2006

asked for a second installment of funds, which points to the slow pace of implementation. Uttar Pradesh,Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam and West Bengal, which constitute 41 per cent of total districts implementing theNREGA, have been able to spend hardly 15 per cent of the initial installment allotted.

Slow at startEffectively, only in May-June that all the 27 states could implement the NREGA. These were due toelections in various states and also delay in enacting conformity legislations at state level. In case of UttarPradesh the state government delayed its decision to implement the scheme till May. Only after the Uniongovernment threatened to withhold rural development funding that the state government implemented it.Union Rural Development Minister Raghuvansh Prasad Singh says that the delay is also due to the onsetof monsoons that delayed the pace of works throughout the country.

Since, August 2006, when the first figures on employment generation were released, the success ofNREGA has been measured in terms of jobs provided. Till October 2006, the programme had provided jobsto around 1.36 crore people, against a demand of around 1.40 crore. Based on these figures, thegovernment claims a success rate of above 90 per cent in NREGA implementation. During a meeting with85 membrs of Parliament from the backward districts, the minister said that in 120 districts only benefitsunder the Act are reaching the people. “In the other 80 districts, there is room for improvement”, says theminister. This implies that around 40 per cent of the districts under this scheme are failing to perform.

However, for independent experts and various civil society organisations, the Act’s implementation isseverely flawed. They term the government claims as clinical. In the last six months, at least 10 state-specific surveys of the NREGA have been carried out by various civil society organisations. The PoorestAreas Civil Society Programme (PACS), a confederation of NGOs working in 100 poorest districts of India,monitored the implementation in 10 states . This survey brought outwidespread irregularities andbypassing of local communities in the implemetation. Similarly in a study of 16 states by the Society forParticipatory Research in Asia (PRIA), it came to light that the local bodies are yet to be empowered toimplement this scheme. The surveys indicate that Panchayats, the nodal bodies under the Act, have notyet been empowered to implement the Act. Going by the assessments, political intervention at the locallevel is taking a toll on the authority of the local bodies. Besides, the objective of creating productiveassets under the Act is not being adhered to, thus limiting its impact on local development.

To spread furtherMeanwhile the Rural Development Ministry has already started the process to expand the Act in the nextfinancial year i.e 2007-08. But the union rural development ministry has put few conditions to the states:social audits and 100 percent muster roll verifications are a must. This is based on the feedbacks that theministry got from various sources in the last nine months on implementation of the NREGA. In a specific

directive, the ministry has asked Bihar, Uttar Pradesh,Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Orissa to take upspecial social audits and verifications of muster roll.

These states have been reporting large-scale use ofcontractors in works implementation and muster rollfudging. There are also reports on diverting NREGAworks to non-productive sectors. For example in Biharroad construction projects account for a vast majority ofthe works selected under the NREGA and that thecontracts have been allocated at a high rate. In UP, asa recent social audit conducted by NGOs Asha Parivarand the National Alliance of People’s Movements(NAPM) points out, contractors and local officials arevirtually implementing the scheme instead of thePanchayats. So it is no wonder that the state has morethan 50 percent works under the NREGA in roadconstruction. Similarly in Orissa local officials are

2200


Panchayats, the nodal bodies under the Act,

have not yet been empowered to implement

the Act. Going by the assessments, political

intervention at the local level is taking a toll on

the authority of the local bodies. Besides, the

objective of creating productive assets under

the Act is not being adhered to, thus limiting

its impact on local development

2211


pressurizing the Panchayats to hire contractors to take up works. Another concern is the rising administrative costs. The ministry has already agreed to increase it from 2percent to 5 percent (Rs 753 crore annually from overall budget). Recently it circulated an advisory to allprincipal secretaries of states saying “due economy should be exercised and expenses on luxury items,purchase of vehicles, expensive furniture and furnishings should be avoided.’’

As expected by many experts, the Planning Commission is already at loggerheads with the Finance ministryover the expansion. The Planning body and the Finance Ministry are giving hints of increased budgetryburden in case of expansion. The fight has come to such an extent that the Rural Ministry is working on acompromise under which minimum number of districts get included in the next year.

The basics: yet to be fixedThe Act has made it mandatory for all states to formulate state-specific rural employment guaranteeschemes and operational guidelines within six months of its coming into force, while conforming toSchedule I of the NREGA. Also, under the Act, all states are supposed to create a nodal advisory body

FOREST VILLAGES AND NREGA

The Union ministry of environment and forestry has been demanding for at least 25 percent of NREGA works to be devotedto forestry activities. One of the permissible works under the Act is tree plantation. But at village level the forest departmentsare trying their best to stop implementation of NREGA in forest villages. The experience of Imlidhoh forest village in MP’sBetul district is an example. Primitive Koruku tribes inhabit the village and usually migrate for nine months a year in searchfor livelihoods as access to the forest around is restricted.

Under the NREGA the district authorities in consultation with the village Panchayat disbursed Rs 3 lakh for construction of aroad. But the forest department didn’t give permission for the work. After two months of running to local forest ranger’soffice, the Gram Sabha sat in September and asked the forest department to give sanction as the Panchayat has taken adecision under the NREGA. Along with the fresh request the village sent demands from 94 residents for work. It also put acondition: if the forest department was not giving permission it must give unemployment allowances to the 94 people. Finallythe forest department gave the permission. But the residents remained jobless for close to three months.

Under EGS in Maharashtra also forest villages are facing same problems. In early February this year, a large group of tribalsfrom Melghat organised a padayatra and walked from Paratwada to Amravati to meet the district collector, Ravindra Jhadav,and demand work under EGS. All had a common complaint — their agricultural land is disputed and they rarely get workunder EGS. Says Bhai Ranu Jamunka, a 75-year-old farmer from Keli village in Chikaldara taluka, “Out of 600 people in myvillage, only 18 own land and the rest work as labourers. Even the land of these 18 is under dispute… I am tilling my land forthe last many decades but now the forest department says it is their land. What am I to do? In any case, in forests there is nosource of income, no irrigation facility, nothing.”

It is the same story for Sabulal from Biba village in Chikaldara taluka, “Forest department has recently cut a plot in my landand says it belongs to them. I do not have 7/12 (record of rights) to prove my ownership over the land.” On being questionedabout availability of EGS work, Sabulal said it takes one to two years to get that work. Since there are no irrigation facilitiesinside the forests, every year villagers make a temporary dam on a rivulet and divert some water to our fields. But the forestdepartment says this is illegal. Every year residents have to fight with the forest department.

Table 4: PROGRESS TREND DURING AUGUST-OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2006 NREGA

Overall the NREGA has registered around 45.92 % in the last 3 months. The rise in the completed workshows a positive rise of 107%

Status of Works under NREGA August 2006 October 2006 November, 2006 Progress DuringAugust-November

in % (approx)

Total number of works in progress 211,623 225,422 267,897 26.59 (approx)

Total number of completed Works 71,272 86,002 148,013 107 (approx)

Total number of works 282,895 311,424 410,742 45.92 (approx)

Source: Union ministry of rural development, November 2006, Delhi

2222


SCHEME WITHIN SCHEME

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) promised to provide livelihoods in villages by providing a minimum of

100 days of employment to every household. It was envisaged that this would be done by initiating projects that would ensure

long-term security by creating productive assets. That’s not exactly how things panned out on the ground as this correspondent

discovered while accompanying Asha Parivar and the National Alliance of People’s Movements, two civil society groups that

were conducting a social audit of NREGA schemes in Uttar Pradesh’s Hardoi district between November 27, 2006, and December

1, 2006. The NGOs brought out a factsheet after conducting the social audit. It listed a number of gross irregularities in the

implementation of the scheme. Further explorations by Down To Earth confirmed the findings of the audit.

Section 5.1 of NREGA stipulates what kinds of works can be carried out. It says clearly that water conservation and harvesting,

afforestation and tree plantation, construction of irrigation canals, desilting of tanks, renovation of traditional water bodies

and rural connectivity should be the focus areas.

Hardoi was one the 22 districts in Uttar Pradesh identified for the implementation of NREGA. About 39 per cent of the

cultivable land (297,394 hectares) in the district didn’t have irrigation coverage. People mostly grew rice and wheat. Those

with access to irrigation facilities grew sugarcane. The majority of cultivators were marginal farmers dependent on rain.

Output was low and agriculture a scarcely viable source of livelihood. A high soil degradation rate didn’t help. Marginal

farmers migrated to cities for close to six months a year to supplement their earnings from agriculture. The district was

brought under NREGA to help regenerate the district’s agriculture through water conservation.

But that didn’t happen. Most NREGA resources actually went into building roads. Official NREGA figures show that in Sandila

block, out of 85 works taken up in 52 gram panchayats, three were for tree plantation and the rest for building roads. This

frenetic road construction activity forced Ved Prakash, block development officer of Sandila to ask panchayats not to take up

any more road construction schemes and focus on water conservation and tree plantation.

It was not just this one block. According to Union ministry of rural development data, in Hardoi district, 85 per cent of works

undertaken under NREGA related to rural connectivity, while only 12 per cent related to water conservation. Official data also

indicates that across Uttar Pradesh more than 55 per cent of works were linked to construction of roads while only about 16

per cent related to water conservation. Read on.

Section 5.15 made it abundantly clear that land acquisition was not permitted under NREGA. Specifically, the act said that land

“belonging to small and marginal farmers and SC/ST landowners cannot be acquired or donated for works under the programme”.

This provision was violated as well. Gokul Punia, a marginal farmer with about a hectare of cultivable land in Padri village,

was excited about NREGA when he learnt that he would get employment for 100 days and water harvesting works to ensure

irrigation would be undertaken. He was looking forward to freedom from annual migration to unknown places. After six

months, he was completely disillusioned.

Not only did the promise of water harvesting works prove to be chimerical, he lost some of his land for the building of a road

in the bargain. “We heard so much about the scheme, instead of bringing benefits, the scheme has taken away our land,”

said Gokul. Though he got 25 days of daily wage jobs, the loss of land has made him poorer. The 900-metre-long road

constructed in the village ate into some of the land of 11 other farmers. Six farmers lost topsoil from their lands for the

construction of the road, which rendered part of their land unfit for cultivation.

“The gram pradhan told us the gram sabha did not have enough land, so we had to give a bit of our land,” said Natha Kuru,

a farmer with about half a hectare of land. “The scheme came like a curse to us. Instead of providing benefits, it adversely

affected whatever little livelihood options we had,” added Sardar Kunti, another affected marginal farmer.

The head of Padri’s panchayat, Srirar Hussain, admitted that private land was acquired. “There isn’t enough public land in the

village, we used some portion of private land,” he said.

The story was the same in all the 107 villages in Sandila and Bharawan blocks of Hardoi village. Cont…

2233


called the State Employment Guarantee Council (SEGC). But many states have not yet set up themandatory guidelines and advisory bodies. Orissa, Uttaranchal and most north-eastern states exceptAssam and Meghalaya have not finished drafting their state-specific guidelines. Jharkhand, Rajasthanand Uttaranchal have not issued state REG schemes till now. In the states, which have drafted theirown guidelines, some of their aspects show a major drift from the national Act and might havenegative implications on the implementation. States such as Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Haryana, HimachalPradesh, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal have not established the mandatory SEGC. Thishas led the Union rural development minister Raghuvans Prasad Singh to admit, “The initial problemhas been in states not implementing the NREGA.” In fact Raghuvansh Singh met the members ofParliament from backward districts to influence the state governments to take the schemeimplementation seriously.

The effectiveness of the NREGA crucially depends on what types of works it gives priority to. As mentionedin earlier chapter, lack of focus on creation of productive assets has been a major reason for failure ofwage employment programmes. Thus the NREGA has mandatory provisions on this. The NREGA hasguidelines on preferred works to be taken up. And the Act says these are ‘non-negotiable’. The states arefree to evolve their own specific preferred works within these broad guidelines. This is to ensure that thelocal development needs are reflected in the scheme. Out of the nine types of works prescribed by the Act,seven deal with water conservation and management. Equally its success depends on how effectively thePanchayats plan its development to use the NREGA.

The NREGA’s success can be measured on two counts: 1. How is it creating productive assets? 2. Are the panchayats empowered enough to plan, own and manage these assets for sustainable wealth

creation at the village level?

… Contd from pg 22

Section 2.2.1(b) gave gram panchayats a pivotal role in the implementation in planning works, executing 50 per cent of the

works and monitoring the implementation of schemes. Section 2.3.1 said gram panchayats and other panchayati raj

institutions would have to be trained to carry out these responsibilities.

This was a bit of a joke as well. Sohan Lal, pradhan of Tiloya Khurd panchayat, was asked why the panchayat plumped for

road construction. “We were not aware of any provision of the scheme and there was no direction from officials against

taking up road construction,” he said, admitting he was not aware of all the provisions of the scheme. Training,

what training?

Sections 4.3.4 and 4.8.1 made it clear that copies of job cards would have to be maintained by panchayats and every agency

paying wages must record on the card the number of days worked and the amount of payment made.

Arman Khan, a resident of Tiloya Khurd village, had a job card, but it was blank. No entries for number of days employed, no

entries for money paid. The same went for Muna, another resident of the village. However, both claimed they had been paid

for 22 days of work at Rs 58 per day, the minimum wage fixed by the Uttar Pradesh government.

When asked about the conspicuous lack of entries in the job card, Sohan Lal said: “People trust me and many villagers

have kept their job cards with me.” He promised, however, to make entries in all the 39 job cards issued by the

gram panchayat.

“A close scrutiny of the muster roll in the village showed discrepancies in the number of days’ work provided and

correspondingly the amount paid,” said Sandeep Pandey, founder-director of Asha Parivar.

“Of 107 gram panchayats, there was no information about the muster rolls from 26,” said Mahesh, a volunteer with Asha

Parivar. There were several instances of fake signatures and Asha Parivar volunteers had detected discrepancies in payment

and entries.

Creation of productive assetsCSE ‘s analysis of the trends under NREGA demonstrates, a substantial increase in the progress made inthe last 3 months from August to November 2006. However, this progress raises considerable questionsregarding the priority given to the nature of works under NREGA. On closer observation works, which arecrucial in supporting the idea of sustainable ecological assets, do not get priority.

Water conservation works are losing priority over the nine months of NREGA implementation. It does notfigure in the list of preferred works uniformly among the 27 states. The data of the Union Ministry of RuralDevelopment illustrates water conservation and drought proofing accounting for 52.46 % approximately ofthe total works till November (See table 5: Preferred works: progress trend during August-October-November 2006).

2244


200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40.000

20,000

0

August, 2006 October 2006 November 2006

Water conservation Rural connectivity Other works

Drought proofing and plantations Flood control

Tota

l num

ber

of w

orks

Graph 6: PREFERRED WORKS: PROGRESS TREND DURING AUGUST-OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2006

The trends remain same in October and November where water conservation does register a high numberof total works but the progress is less compared to other works.

Trends in Physical Works

The total number of works stands at 410,742 in the month of November which is a 46% rise from themonth of August. Water Conservation and drought proofing which are crucial components of NREGAworks register 218,666 works. That accounts for 53.23% of the total number of works. Followed by ruralconnectivity which is 25 %.

Table 5: PREFERRED WORKS: PROGRESS TREND DURING AUGUST-OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2006

Types of works Total No. of Total No. of Total No. of Progress During Progress DuringWorks in Works in Works in Works in October-November

August, 2006 Oct, 2006 Nov, 2006 in % (approx) in % (approx)

Water Conservation 152,690 158,129 188,035 4 18

Rural Connectivity 66,328 78,430 105,558 18 35

Other Works 40,580 46,485 78,270 14 68

Drought Proofing 17,743 23,453 30,631 32 30and Plantations

Flood Control 3,881 4,927 8,248 27 67

Total 2,81,222 311,424 410,742 14 32


2255


Other works demonstrate a 92 % increase in the total number of works under this category as pitchedagainst water conservation works which show a raise of only 23% in the last three months.

The trends remain same in October and November where water conservation does register a high numberof total works but the progress is less compared to other works. Overall the NREGA has registered around45.92 % in the last 3 month. The rise in the completed work shows a positive rise of 107%.

All states are not able to give equal priority to water conservation. Madhya Pradesh tops the ranks in allthe works. Rural connectivity does play an important role in NREGA works which basically includesconstructing roads. The trends have been similar from August. Flood control still needs to be propped interms of the number of works completed. It only comprises 1.2 % of the total number of works in the monthof November. The situation was similar in the month of October as well where the percentage compositionto total number of works was 1.60 %. (See table 6.)

Panchayats: Empowerment problemsAccording to the Act, panchayats should implement 50 per cent of the total works. Currently, panchayatsare implementing 83 per cent of the total works. Assessments show that steps have not been taken toenable them to handle such work. Central guidelines mandate an employment guarantee assistant foreach village panchayat to be recruited to assist in the scheme’s implementation. But this has not beendone in most of the states. In a survey of 13 states by the Central government, only four states have doneso. Similarly, one technical assistant has to be recruited for every 10 panchayats. Till now, only threestates have done it. As a result, panchayats have not completed selection and registration of employmentseekers, thus leaving large gaps between registrations and providing jobs.

ANJAMA’S DILEMMA

Farmers of Rangapur village in AP’s Rangareddy district had many trysts with destiny. It is more than a decade that a check dam

built by the state irrigation department silted up. It could help irrigate 20 Ha of lands downstream ensuring five months of food

grains for the residents. “Since than it is uncertainty that trails us besides poverty,” says Anjama, a 45-year-old resident.

According to local block development officials, agricultural output has come down by more than 60 percent in the last five

years in the region. Earlier farmers used to take up jowar, chilly and a bit of cotton crops. Gradually with reducing water

availability, it is now only chilly crop for marginal farmers. “When we migrate to Hyderabad for works, we take along that

chilly crop to sale in the market,” says Anjama. Seven tube wells in and around the village dried by September. Out of its 500

residents, 350 are marginal farmers with less than a hector of land. Like Anjama, most of them migrate for close to six months

a year. Off late few big farmers who took up cotton crops also started migrating aftercrop failures.

In January this year, a month before the NREGA being implemented, the state government selected the village to be taken as

an experiment for implementing the NREGA. In three Gram Sabhas that the Panchayat convened to discuss the NREGA, the

demand was specific and expected: a water conservation structure near the earlier silted check dam. Local officials suggested

a percolation tank to recharge the groundwater as well as the dried tube wells. The Gram Sabha agreed.

As Anjama works under the NREGA for the percolation tank, she is sure this time the destiny will take her to a greener zone.

It is for the first time in last five years she has stayed back in village as the NREGA gives her more wage than works in

Hyderabad. “In winter we will get rain and can see its impacts in our fields,” she hopes.

The future may not work out the way she is expecting. Since the last Gram Sabha in February, the Panchayat members are

hardly enthusiastic. While selecting the site of the structure on a private land, nobody debated its ownership or management.

The village doesn’t have a plan ready as required by the NREGA. It is the technical staffs of state government who have

compiled all ongoing and proposed projects as the village’s mandatory plan. What if the owner of the land doesn’t allow

maintenance works in future? The percolation tank will have surplus water also during peak of monsoon. Who will use it? The

owner has six acres of land, three times more than the average village landholding. If he decides to use all the water citing his

ownership over the land, the Panchayat doesn’t have a plan ready to face such situation. Anjama’s, and for that matter

NREGA’s, future has many doubts.

2266


Tabl

e 6:

STA

TES

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E U

ND

ER

NR

EG

A: O

CTO

BER

- N

OV

EM

BER

2006 (

Tota

l nu

mbe

r of

work

s)

FFlloooo

dd CCoo

nnttrroo

llRRuu

rraall CC

oonnnnee

ccttiivv

iittyy

WWaatt

eerr CC

oonnssee

rrvvaatt

iioonn

DDrroo

uugghhtt

PPrroo

ooffiinn

gg aann

dd PPll

aannttaa

ttiioonn

OOtthh

eerr WW

oorrkkss

NNoo..

SSttaatt

eeOO

CCTTSStt

aattee

NNOO

VVSStt

aattee

OOCCTT

SSttaatt

eeNN

OOVV

SSttaatt

eeOO

CCTTSStt

aattee

NNOO

VVSStt

aattee

OOCCTT

SSttaatt

eeNN

OOVV

SSttaatt

eeOO

CCTTSStt

aattee

NNOO

VV

1.M

P91

8U

P21

68M

P19

387

UP

2759

7M

P63

920

MP

6581

9M

P11

790

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

1030

9A

ndhr

a Pr

ades

h98

23M

adhy

a Pr

ades

h29

773

2.U

ttra

ncha

l71

5W

B14

45U

ttra

ncha

l16

096

MP

2175

4A

P37

104

AP

5265

5U

ttra

ncha

l41

69U

ttar

Pra

desh

6894

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

6052

And

hra

Prad

esh

1144

2

3.U

P62

5M

P13

10O

riss

a12

714

Ori

ssa

1410

1Jh

arkh

and

1563

6Jh

arkh

and

2000

3Ch

hatt

isga

rh20

05W

est

Beng

al46

13Bi

har

5646

Biha

r71

50

4.K

arna

taka

441

Utt

aran

chal

693

Biha

r10

119

Biha

r13

364

Raja

stha

n94

93Ra

jast

han

9506

Ori

ssa

1815

Chha

ttis

garh

3575

Ori

ssa

5041

Ori

ssa

5384

5.A

ssam

400

Kar

nata

ka56

5Jh

arkh

and

4841

Jhar

khan

d83

70O

riss

a79

11O

riss

a83

47W

B12

55O

riss

a17

39U

ttra

ncha

l42

81U

ttar

Pra

desh

5327

6.W

B36

6A

ssam

434

Chha

ttis

garh

3716

Wes

t Be

ngal

5124

Utt

ranc

hal

6536

UP

7991

Kar

nata

ka55

3K

arna

taka

725

Chha

ttis

garh

2995

Jhar

khan

d37

30

7.O

riss

a34

5H

P37

7Ra

jast

han

3524

Chha

ttis

garh

4408

WB

3214

WB

5381

Raja

stha

n50

8Ra

jast

han

511

Jhar

khan

d25

80K

arna

taka

2675

8.H

P33

3O

riss

a35

1W

B19

87Ra

jast

han

3525

Kar

nata

ka30

42Bi

har

3697

UP

270

And

hra

Prad

esh

507

Kar

nata

ka22

62W

est

Beng

al25

97

9.Bi

har

269

Biha

r35

1A

ssam

1513

Ass

am15

27Bi

har

2802

Kar

nata

ka36

07A

P22

7Jh

arkh

and

477

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

1548

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

1949

10.

J &

K24

1J

& K

241

HP

1239

HP

1521

Chha

ttis

garh

2403

Tam

il N

adu

3026

Jhar

khan

d19

6U

ttar

anch

al38

7Tr

ipur

a13

99Ch

hatt

isga

rh18

59

11.

Raja

stha

n12

4Ra

jast

han

115

Kar

nata

ka10

23K

arna

taka

1505

Guj

arat

2085

Chha

ttis

garh

2396

Biha

r17

9A

ssam

294

Ass

am13

61Ta

mil

Nad

u16

13

12.

Chha

ttis

garh

58Ch

hatt

isga

rh59

Punj

ab73

4Pu

njab

734

UP

1460

Guj

arat

2085

Ass

am17

6Bi

har

240

Wes

t Be

ngal

852

Trip

ura

1399

13.

Tam

il N

adu

34Ta

mil

Nad

u41

Guj

arat

620

Guj

arat

620

Tam

il N

adu

873

Utt

aran

chal

1642

HP

159

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

199

Raja

stha

n81

8A

ssam

1110

14.

Punj

ab30

Jhar

khan

d34

J &

K35

3Ta

mil

Nad

u37

5A

ssam

684

Ass

am70

0G

ujar

at83

Guj

arat

83Ja

mm

u &

Kas

hmir

484

Raja

stha

n81

8

15.

Har

yana

10Pu

njab

30Ta

mil

Nad

u21

8J

& K

353

Him

acha

l 46

5H

P57

2M

anip

ur42

Man

ipur

42Ta

mil

Nad

u39

8Ja

mm

u &

Kas

hmir

484

Prad

esh

16.

Guj

arat

9H

arya

na17

Man

ipur

151

Miz

oram

209

Punj

ab26

0H

arya

na26

6N

agal

and

12N

agal

and

17U

ttar

Pra

desh

240

Utt

aran

chal

353

17.

Jhar

khan

d8

Guj

arat

9H

arya

na93

Har

yana

158

Har

yana

192

Punj

ab26

0Pu

njab

10Pu

njab

10Si

kkim

217

Guj

arat

173

18.

Nag

alan

d1

Nag

alan

d5

UP

90M

anip

ur15

1J

& K

22N

agal

and

26H

arya

na2

Har

yana

6G

ujar

at17

3Pu

njab

119

19.

AP

0Si

kkim

3N

agal

and

10U

ttar

anch

al94

Nag

alan

d18

J &

K22

J &

K2

Jam

mu

& K

ashm

ir2

Punj

ab11

9H

arya

na11

1

20.

Aru

nach

al

0A

P0

AP

20N

agal

and

55M

anip

ur9

Miz

oram

16A

runa

chal

0

Sikk

im1

Har

yana

95Si

kkim

80Pr

ades

hPr

ades

h

21.

Ker

ala

0M

anip

ur0

Aru

nach

al

0Si

kkim

11A

runa

chal

0

Man

ipur

9K

eral

a0

Tam

il N

adu

0A

runa

chal

Pra

desh

57A

runa

chal

Pra

desh

57Pr

ades

hPr

ades

h

22.

Mah

aras

htra

0M

izor

am0

Ker

ala

0A

ndhr

a 2

Ker

ala

0Si

kkim

9M

ahar

asht

ra0

Miz

oram

0M

anip

ur32

Man

ipur

32Pr

ades

h

23.

Man

ipur

0A

runa

chal

0

Mah

aras

htra

0A

runa

chal

0

Mah

aras

htra

0A

runa

chal

0

Meg

hala

ya0

Aru

nach

al P

rade

sh0

Nag

alan

d12

Miz

oram

20Pr

ades

hPr

ades

hPr

ades

h

24.

Meg

hala

ya0

Ker

ala

0M

egha

laya

0K

eral

a0

Meg

hala

ya0

Ker

ala

0M

izor

am0

Ker

ala

0K

eral

a0

Nag

alan

d15

25.

Miz

oram

0M

ahar

asht

ra0

Miz

oram

0M

ahar

asht

ra0

Miz

oram

0M

ahar

asht

ra0

Sikk

im0

Mah

aras

htra

0M

ahar

asht

ra0

Ker

ala

0

26Si

kkim

0M

egha

laya

0Si

kkim

0M

egha

laya

0Si

kkim

0M

egha

laya

0Ta

mil

Nad

u0

Meg

hala

ya0

Meg

hala

ya0

Mah

aras

htra

0

27.

Trip

ura

0Tr

ipur

a0

Trip

ura

0Tr

ipur

a0

Trip

ura

0Tr

ipur

a0

Trip

ura

0Tr

ipur

a0

Miz

oram

0M

egha

laya

0

TOP

TEN

STA

TES

PER

FOR

MIN

G U

ND

ER

NR

EG

A I

N V

AR

IOU

S P

HY

SIC

AL

AS

SETS

CR

EA

TIO

N

No

te:

1.Th

is c

har

t sh

ow

s th

e st

ates

per

form

ance

in p

hys

ical

ass

ets

crea

tio

n u

nd

er N

REG

A, w

ith

th

e to

p 1

0 st

ates

ab

ove

th

e b

ar in

dic

atin

g t

hei

r p

erfo

rman

ce.

2.

The

tota

l nu

mb

er o

f w

ork

s st

and

s at

410

, 742

3.

Mad

hya

Pra

des

h h

as g

iven

pri

ori

ty t

o a

ll w

ork

s an

d h

as b

een

co

nsi

sten

tly

per

form

ing

.4.

10

sta

tes

are

imp

lem

enti

ng

up

to 9

6.17

% o

f al

l wat

er c

on

serv

atio

n w

ork

s u

nd

erta

ken

ud

ner

th

e sc

hem

e.

5.

An

dh

ra P

rad

esh

, Jh

arkh

and

an

d M

adh

ya P

rad

esh

alo

ne

con

trib

ute

73.

74 %

of

the

tota

l wat

er c

on

serv

atio

n w

ork

s, t

ho

ug

h t

hey

ho

ld ju

st o

ne-

fo

urt

h o

f th

e 20

0 d

istr

icts

.6.

D

rou

gh

t Pr

oo

fin

g a

nd

pla

nta

tio

n s

ecto

r se

ems

to b

e la

gg

ing

beh

ind

, d

esp

ite

the

fact

th

at 9

4 o

f 20

0 d

istr

icts

are

off

icia

lly d

ecla

red

dro

ug

ht

pro

ne

and

an

oth

er e

igh

t o

f th

em a

reu

nd

er t

he

des

ert

dev

elo

pm

ent

sch

emes

.

Sou

rce:

Un

ion

Min

istr

y o

f R

ura

l Dev

elo

pm

ent,

Del

hi

2277


TRAGEDY OF TIKAMGARH

Ramesh Singh Yadav, 35, a young & enterprising sarpanch from Shivpur gram Panchayat in Tikamgarh district is worriedabout the local money lenders and suppliers of raw materials these days. Under the National Rural EmploymentGuarantee Scheme (NREGS), he has initiated several works such as building of a stop dam, planting of about 331samplings along the sides of a 2 km road and building 750 meters concrete road in the gram Panchayat.

He under took these works during April & August in the anticipation that the proposed sanction of Rs 20 lakh would bepaid on time. Madhya Pradesh government has paid about Rs 10 lakh for the work carried out, the rest is yet to besanctioned. “I visit the block office regularly for the remaining amount, we are yet to be paid since August,” RameshSingh Yadav said.

He has paid the wages of the labouers who participated in these work, but a major portion of the materials costs he isyet to settle with the suppliers. Thus the sarpanch has taken loans and invested his savings for partial settlement ofraw material cost. The district officials say that due to some technical reasons, the utilisation report sent by the districtprogramme coordinator has been rejected and a fresh report has been sent to state government for immediate releaseof the fund under the NREGS. “We are expecting to get the pending allocations from the state government with fewweeks,” a district official said.

Similar is the story of Hira Nagar gram Panchayat sarpanch Mint Ram Yadav. Under the NREGA, he has initiated workssuch as a construction of kucha road of (1.5 km length), a concrete road (418 metres) and dug two borewells in thevillage costing about Rs 9 lakh. Mint Ram Yadav has received the first instalment of Rs 5 lakh and the rest, he is yetto receive. All these works were carried out during April – August. “Due to lack of availability of funds, the works underthe NREGS has been stopped since September,” Mint Ram Yadav said. Yadav has borrowed money to complete thework under the NREGS.

In the Alampura gram Panchayat, Sarpanch Prem Lal Yadav had initiated plantation work in 5 hectares of governmentland. For the work, Rs 4 lakh had been sanctioned and as many as 2000 samplings were planted during April-August.Till date, Prem Lal Yadav has received only Rs 2 lakh.

The district officials admits to the fact that out of Rs 16 crore sanctioned under the NREGS to Tikamgarh block, only Rsseven crore has been allotted and the rest is yet to be settled. Thus in the absence of payment, gram panchayats havenot decided on the other works to be completed during the current fiscal. According the official records, as many as 313works have been under taken under NREGS in 79 gram Panchayat (155 villages) of Tikamgarh block. As many as 138works relating to road construction, 102 works relating to road side tree plantation, construction of 20 stop dams andfive hectares of tree plantations have been completed under the NREGS.

For the three successive years, the monsoon has not kept its date with Tikamgarh, resulting in severe scarcity of waterboth for irrigation and human consumption in the region. Although the check dam has been constructed, lack of rainfallduring the last monsoon has not helped the farmers. The samplings have been planted, due to severe scarcity of water,the maintenance these plants have become quite problematic.

Tikamgarh does not have proper irrigation facility and in the absence of rain over the last few years, situation hasworsen further. Due to indiscriminate pumping out of the ground water, the water level has fallen to as low as 55 feetsin various locations in the Tikamgarh district.

The works under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which was initiated in April last year has stoppedsince September for non-allocation of funds to gram Panchayats. “Even the fund is released within a day or two, it willextremely difficult to panchayats to take up new works in the absence proper planning,” Manoj Babu Choubey,Secretary, Sarthak, a NGO working towards better implementation of NREGS said.

Add to it attempts by state governments to dilute the power of the panchayats under the scheme. Forexample, in Madhya Pradesh, the tehsildar (designated as employment guarantee scheme circle officer)has the power to decide the validity of applicants for jobs, in case a complaint is lodged against the headof the panchayat. In many states, district collectors have been made the district programme coordinators,thus diluting the principle of making the panchayat institutions the ‘principal authority’ under the Act. Anevaluation of the NREGA in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh points out that the panchayats are not beingencouraged to be in charge of the scheme. Selection of works is totally in the hands of either the localelites or the bureaucracy with no real role for Gram Sabhas.

In Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthanexecutive councils of the SEGCs have been formedwith all government members. Chhattisgarh and MPhave also transferred all powers of the state councilsto an empowered committee. “All decisions of thisempowered committee will be final. Provision of sucha committee may severely undermine the status ofnon-official members of the state council, as thecouncil may be used as a mere rubber stamp,” says areport by Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), whichdid an evaluation of NREGA implementation in 16states.

In the recent half-yearly assessment of NREGA byPACS, it comes out clearly that till now it is the localgovernment officials and contractors who call theshots in NREGA implementation. Its report says, “APanchayat can initiate work in its Gram Panchayats

only when funds are made available to the Gram Panchayats account. However, in the last nine months ofthe implementation, many Panchayats did not receive the required grant in time (See box: Tragedy ofTikamgarh). Similarly there was a different of response of the states as well as districts to theimplementation of NREGA.”

Perception problemPanchayats are supposed to make a perspective plan of a larger time frame and prepare a shelf ofprojects to be executed under the NREGA. However, in practice Panchayats autonomy to plan accordingto their need was curtailed by state led top down campaign. Due to many guidelines and instructionseither from the national level or at the state, from the top, Panchayats remain the notional decision makerin the whole process. Tacit advice is given by the chief executive/project officer of the block to Panchayatheads to prepare project proposals in line with the state priorities. For instance, NREGS in MadhyaPradesh was merged with state wide water conservation campaign and plantation drive. The stategovernment’s Jala Abhishek campaign during the summer for water conservation was followed withHariyali drive for plantation during monsoon took away any opportunities of Panchayat centered planning.A little later Panchayats were asked to make a six-month plan under the Kapil Dhara programme forundertaking work on roads, wells and ponds.

Similarly in Chhattisgarh, many of the state programmes with specific objectives are merged with the stateemployment guarantee scheme. Though well intended in content, these campaigns have jeopardised thePanchayat autonomy in planning, finds the PACS survey. The state has issued uniform directives for thesecampaigns thus taking away Panchayat right to plan. “Thus the immediate and essential needs of thepeople were compromised. Small things like repair of drains couldn’t be undertaken as Panchayats inNREGA districts do not have any flexible funds,” found the month-long survey.

Before initiating a job, village Panchayat is supposed to take technical approval from the rural engineeringservices or other local departments. Most of the Panchayats were not prepared to efficiently handle thismanifold increase in works under the NREGA. As the number of works increased, there was no

2288


Due to many guidelines and instructions

either at the national level or the state level, at

the top, Panchayats remain the notional

decision makers in the whole process. Tacit

advice is given by the chief executive/project

officer of the block to Panchayat heads to

prepare project proposals in line with

the state priorities

proportionate number of technical staff. This led to delay in works. For example, in Samashpur Panchayatof Pratapgarh district in UP. The Gram Sabha passed a proposal for de-silting a pond. The Panchayat wasallotted the fund for the activity. But it could not take it up for six months, as there was no technical staffto evaluate the work.

2299


IS NREGA KEY TO INDIA’S FOOD SECURITY?

Eastern India holds the key to ensure food security in India, says a report of the Union Ministry of RuralDevelopment. And effective implementation of the NREGA is crucial for this.

Available data shows that 1990-2000 was not a happy decade for Indian agriculture. The overall growth rate of crop

production declined from 3.72 percent per annum in the previous decade to 2.29 percent per annum in the 1990s. Similarly

crop productivity fell from 2.99 percent per annum to 1.21 percent during the same period. Average yield levels of rice and

wheat have more than halved between 1986 and 2002 indicating a plateauing of productivity in the two major foodgrains.

The output of crops grown and eaten by the poor like coarse grains, pulses and oilseeds are grown largely in the drylands,

actually declined during this decade and the rate of growth of their yield decelerated considerably.

The rate of growth of foodgrain production also fell steeply from 2.92 percent recorded between 1980-83 and 1990-93 to 1.08

percent during 1990-93 to 2000-03. For the first time since the mid-1960s, the 1990s witnessed a rate of growth in foodgrain

production, which was lower than the rate of growth of population. As a result, both per capita foodgrain production and

availability were lower in 2000-03 than their pre-Green Revolution (1960-63) levels.

Raising the productivity of the rainfed areas of which the backward districts constitute 60 percent is an imperative if we were

to meet the goal of national food security in the coming years. Estimate shows that even in the most optimistic scenario of

further irrigation development in India, nearly 40 percent of national demand for food in 2020 will have to be met through

increasing the production of rainfed drylands agriculture.

Using the high level committee on Long-Term Grain Policy’s middle projections we get a total foodgrain demand of

307 million tones. The foodgrain output during the trinnium ending 2000 was 205 million tones. To maintain food

security even at current nutritional levels, 102 million tones of foodgrain have to be produced additionally by 2020. Cropped

areas in India has plateaued since 1970. It has remained static at around 140 million Ha mark for the last three decades. So this

is not a source of increased output in Indian agriculture. It has to come from areas with least irrigation potential where it can

be raised.

Nearly 65 percent of the national unutilized irrigation potential is in the eastern parts of the country, comprising the medium

to high rainfall regions of West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, eastern Uttar Pradesh and northern AP, all

NREGA areas.

These areas also form the chunk of India’s degraded lands. India needs to treat 125 million Ha of lands under soil and water

conservation to get this potential into reality. At the current level of outlay this will take 75 years to do so under the

watershed development programmes. For the government to complete this by 2020 i.e. the next 15 years, it has to allocate Rs

10,000 crore every year for the next 15 years. The NREGA being a scheme with focus on rejuvenation of ecology can bear 50

percent of the cost to make the attempt feasible.

(Excerpted from ‘From Hariyali to Neeranchal, Report of the Technical Committee on Watershed Programmes in India,

Department of Land Resource, Ministry of Rural Development, January 2006).

3300


Chapter 6

The way aheadThe NREGA is the instrument to bring in these changes; it has the potential to meet

these challenges. It can be used to regenerate local ecology, and help trigger real

economic growth. Its focus on irrigation, land and plantation gives it the necessary

capacity to rescue rural India from its crisis

India is facing an adverse BoP (Balance of Poverty) crisis as it generates more poverty than it eradicates.This explains the phenomenon of stagnating poverty. Excessive focus on conventional economic growth asthe instrument of poverty alleviation has not worked. Economic growth has not generated employment; norhas it percolated wealth down to rural areas. The challenge, then, is to make the economy work for the poor— and push the country’s 30 crore poor above the poverty line permanently.

To do that, one must understand that India’s poverty is ecological poverty, unlike what conventionaleconomists see as income poverty. India being a dominantly biomass-based society, ecologicaldegradation triggers poverty here. The solution lies in regenerating the ecology with the people at the helmof the affairs. Healthy lands and ecosystems, when used in sustainable ways, can provide all the wealththat is needed for economically viable, healthy and dignified lives. For India to prosper, it needs to ensuresustainable livelihoods for its poor and mainstream the poors’ experiences into national policies. The

challenge today lies in empowering and mobilisingpeople to enable them to escape from their ‘ecologicalpoverty’, in order to create natural wealth, and developa robust local economy.

What is clear is that providing jobs in India demands achange in the way we do business. The formalindustrial sector has never provided employment in thiscountry. With greater mechanisation in the years tocome, its contribution towards generating employmentis bound to decline further. The service economics-outsourcing included- will grow but cannot really absorbjob seekers in a country, the size of India. The key togenerating emploument lies in the building productiveand sustainable livelihoods based on natural

resources. The potential is enormous- from planting trees for pulp to rearing animals for dairy farming; torearing worms for silk and growing medicinal plants for pharmaceutical industries. It is critical thatemployment and enterprise go beyond the conventional economic opportunities.

It is here that the challenge of sustainable resource utilisation becomes imperative. A study by the Centrefor Science and Environment shows trees planted for pulp and paper sector in India can provide fascinatingmodel of growth with jobs. Roughly 1.1 million hectare are required to supply the organised 5 million tonnesof raw material to this industry currently. This in turn could provide employment to over 0.55 million farmingfamilies in growing wood and harvesting wood in a sustainable manner.

India’s long history of employment generation programmes has been marred by a singular lack of effort onthe part of government, researchers and planners to evaluate what has worked, why and how in the above

There has also been a failure in understanding

the real nature of employment in the country.

Ecological assets like land and forests are the

key employment sources for rural people in

India. Any attempt to create employment

must focus on these sectors

3311


context. At the same time, budgetary support has been increasing for public works programmes. But thereis no estimation or analysis of how this money has been spent: on which programmes, in which villages.Neither has there been an appraisal of the assets created, or of their maintenance.

There has also been a failure in understanding the real nature of employment in the country. Ecologicalassets like land and forests are the key employment sources for rural people in India. Any attempt to createemployment must focus on these sectors. But our policies for employment generation have restrictedthemselves to employment per se, and completely ignored the fact that the generated employmentopportunities need to be sustainable and allow the employed to move above the poverty line. Exclusivefocus on the purely quantitative approach toemployment generation has resulted in low quality ofemployment. The result: we do generate employment,but they become unproductive very soon, leavingpeople either unemployed once again or grosslyunderemployed.

The NREGA, with a focus on assets creation, attemptsto be relevant to local needs. But it does not do enoughto address the institutional and management gags thatexist in the programmes of soil, water and forestconservation. These are fragile assets. They requiremanagement and maintenance. This is where theNREGA must be worked on. The challenge is to use theAct to solve the problem of creating sustainablelivelihoods through asset creation — facilitate the useof ecology for economy. The policy measures involvecrucial changes in institutional, legal and financialframeworks, aimed at fashioning the programme intoan opportunity for rural development.

The first aspect of the Act that could be relooked at is its evaluation and monitoring. Instead of the simplecalculation on jobs demanded and provided, the NREGA needs to be evaluated and monitored on its impacton livelihood security. Currently, the Union ministry of rural development’s national level monitorsevaluates the Act on jobs creation and number of assets created under preferred works category. The realeffectiveness of the scheme can be measured by using three parameters: 1. Increase in average annual income of households 2. Increase in the productivity of small and marginal land holdings 3. Quality and contribution of assets like water tanks

By changing the evaluation parameters as suggested above, the scheme will assume the character of arural development scheme, instead of a run-of-the-mill wage-earning programme. This will also help thegovernment to ensure that most of the works taken up remain within the preferred works category, that is,productive assets.

Secondly, under the NREGA, as experiences in various states show, water conservation works are beingtaken up as stand-alone activities. A village ecology is a fragile combination of soil, water and forests. Awater harvesting structure, for instance, is rendered useless if its catchment areas are left unprotected.Works under the scheme need to be planned in totality — to succeed, water conservation needs to takeinto account plantation works and drought proofing. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission hasrecommended that all works under the Act must be undertaken keeping in mind the overall improvementin total ecology.

Thirdly, the government must facilitate village-level resource planning and designing. Under the NREGA, thepanchayats are required to prepare perspective plans that involve extensive mapping of village resourcesand identifying their uses and improvement. Every year, the panchayats are supposed to make an annual

We strongly believe that to turn around the

NREGA and build it into a development tool,

planning at village levels is crucial. This

process will enable local residents to connect

with the programme. Being a village-specific

planning, it will reflect local needs. Thus the

NREGA, which will provide the money in

terms of employment guarantee, will turn into

a participatory development programme

plan also to identify works that can be taken up for local resource improvement. Though nine months haveelapsed since the Act came into existence, this exercise has not been given enough importance. Withoutsuch a plan, the development impact of the NREGA will not be as expected, because villages will not beable to channelise the available resources to activities relevant to local needs.

We strongly believe that to turn around the NREGA and build it into a development tool, such planning atvillage levels is crucial. This process will enable local residents to connect with the programme. Being avillage-specific planning, it will reflect local needs. Thus the NREGA, which will provide the money in termsof employment guarantee, will turn into a participatory development programme.

Fourthly, setting up of strong institutional mechanisms to manage and distribute the resources generatedmust follow the creation of assets. Poor maintenance and weak institutions can render productive assetsuseless. Panchayats, therefore, must be accorded the utmost importance under the NREGA. This isbecause strong institutions that manage and distribute resources in an equitable way must follow creationof productive assets. Without such institutions, the assets are useless. Under the NREGA, panchayats aresupposed to play pivotal roles in designing, planning and executing works. But as mentioned earlier, thereis hardly any attempt to make them effective as local government. Initial reports show that localbureaucracy still dominates implementation of the Act, with panchayat leaders playing nominal roles.To start with, panchayats must be given the required functionaries and funds for effective implementation.A panchayat assistant is supposed to be appointed along with technical staff for NREGA implementation;but such appointments have been made only in three states. The devolution of finance and making localgovernment officials accountable to panchayats with respect to NREGA implementation, therefore, are thetwo immediate necessities. The Union ministry of Panchayati Raj has been signing agreements with statesto fast track such devolution. This is being done keeping in mind the decision of the Union government tochannelise all rural development programmes through panchayats. This process must be speeded up andlinked to the NREGA now.

Right capacity building of the elected panchayat members must follow devolution. Training of governmentofficials on the NREGA should be accorded priority. At the same time, panchayat members must beincluded in the process so that they know the scheme well and can exercise rights effectively. Localexperiences point at government officials dictating panchayat members on the nature of works, citingvague government orders. This takes away the panchayats’ powers under the Act, and has to be rectifiedimmediately.

3322


RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission report that dealt with the development potential of the

NREGA has made strong recommendations to change its character. Some of its key recommendations are:

● The NREGA must be evaluated on the basis of its impacts on livelihood security.

● The impacts must be done as part of the expanded task of the NSSO to develop district and sub-district

level data.

● Other development programmes like the Bharat Nirmaan should be dove-tailed with NREGA.

● Panchayats should be put in charge of all rural development programmes to bring in synergy with the

NREGA.

● Implementing staff at the local level must be transferred to the panchayats.

● The NREGA must be implemented with a watershed approach to turn it into a rural development

programme.

● Land development activities may be permitted in the lands of small and marginal farmers.

3333


Annexure I

200 districts under NREGA

Andhra Pradesh (13) Adilabad Anantapur Chittoor Cuddapah Karimnagar Khammam Mahbubnagar Medak Nalgonda Nizamabad Rangareddi Vizianagaram Warangal

Arunachal Pradesh (1) Upper Subansiri Assam (7) Bongaigaon

Dhemaji Goalpara Karbi Anglong Kokrajhar Lakhimpur North Cachar Hills

Bihar (23) Araria Aurangabad Bhojpur Darbhanga Gaya Jamui Jehanabad Kaimur (Bhabua) Katihar Kishanganj Lakhisarai Madhubani Munger Muzaffarpur Nalanda Nawada Patna Purnia Rohtas Samastipur Sheohar Supaul Vaishali

Chattisgarh (11) Bastar Bilaspur Dantewada Dhamtari Jashpur Kanker Kawardha Korea Raigarh Rajnandagon Surguja

Gujarat (6) Banas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar Kantha

Haryana (2) Mahendragarh Sirsa

Himachal Pradesh (2) Chamba Sirmaur

Jammu and Kashmir (3) Doda Kupwara

Poonch Jharkhand (20) Bokaro

Chatra Dhanbad Dumka Garhwa Giridih Godda Gumla Hazaribagh Jamtara Koderma Latehar Lohardaga Pakur Palamu Ranchi Sahebganj Saraikela Kharsawan Simdega West Singhbhum

Karnataka (5) Bidar Chitradurga Davangere Gulbarga Raichur

Kerala (2) Palakkad Wayanad

Madhya Pradesh (18) Balaghat Barwani Betul Chhatarpur Dhar Dindori East Nimar Jhabua Khargone MandlaSatnaSeoniShahdolSheopurShivpuriSidhiTikamgarhUmaria

Maharashtra (12) AhmednagarAmravatiAurangabadBhandaraChandrapurDhuleGadchiroliGondiaHingoliNandedNandurbarYavatmal

Manipur (1) TamenglongMeghalaya (2) South Garo Hills

West Garo HillsMizoram (2) Lawngtlai

SaihaNagaland (1) MonOrissa (19) Bolangir

Boudh

DeogarhDhenkanalGajapatiGanjamJharsugudaKalahandiKandhamahalKendujharKoraputMalkangiriMayurbhanjNabarangapurNuapadaRayagadaSambalpurSonepurSundargarh

Punjab (1) HoshiarpurRajasthan (6) Banswara

DungarpurJhalawarKarauliSirohiUdaipur

Sikkim (1) North DistrictTamil Nadu (6) Cuddalore

DindigulNagapattinamSivagangaiTiruvannamalaiVillupuram

Tripura (1) DhalaiUttar Pradesh (22) Azamgarh

BandaBarabankiChandauliChitrakoot Fatehpur Gorakhpur Hamirpur Hardoi Jalaun Jaunpur Kaushambi Kheri Kushinagar Lalitpur Mahoba Mirzapur Pratapgarh Rae Bareli Sitapur Sonbhadra Unnao

Uttaranchal (3) Chamoli Champawat Tehri Garhwal

West Bengal (10) 24 Paraganas South Bankura Birbhum Dinajpur Dakshin Dinajpur Uttar Jalpaiguri Maldah Medinipur West Murshidabad Purulia

State District State District State District

3344


STA

TIS

TIC

AL

PR

OFI

LE O

F S

TATE

S U

ND

ER

NR

EG

A B

AS

ED

ON

PR

IMA

RY

CEN

SU

S A

BS

TRA

CT,

CEN

SU

S O

F IN

DIA

2001

Stat

eG

eogr

aphi

cal

% T

otal

N

o. o

f%

of

No.

of

No.

of

Rura

l %

of

Rura

l A

vera

ge

Ave

rage

To

tal

% o

f A

gric

ultu

ral

No.

of

No.

of

Rura

lar

ea s

q. k

m

no. o

f pa

ncha

yats

tota

l D

PAP

DD

P po

pula

tion

tota

l po

pula

tion

po

pula

tion

ar

earu

ral

tota

l la

bour

ers

Fift

h

Sixt

hST

for

dist

rict

s ar

ea.

num

ber

dist

rict

s di

stri

cts

rura

l de

nsit

y pe

r pe

r w

orke

rsru

ral

as %

of

Sche

dule

Sc

hedu

lepo

pula

tion

un

der

of

(04-

05)

(04-

05)

popu

lati

onpe

r pa

ncha

yat

panc

haya

t w

orke

rsto

tal r

ural

Dis

tric

ts

Dis

tric

ts(%

)sc

hem

epa

ncha

yats

(Y=Y

es)

(Y=Y

es)

sq. k

min

sq.

km

in s

q.km

wor

kers

And

hra

Prad

esh

170,

827

13.4

913

,018

41.8

68

130

,731

,197

1119

22,

370

12.7

615

,969

,442

1342

.12

30

10.4

7

Aru

nach

al P

rade

sh7,

032

0.56

144

0.46

00

39,5

900

627

549

17,5

070

1.70

00

95.5

0

Ass

am25

,339

2.00

324

1.04

00

4,59

9,03

32

231.

288,

942

31.7

51,

891,

934

214

.23

02

35.5

6

Biha

r58

,078

4.59

5,16

816

.62

40

46,2

99,5

6316

783.

829,

112

12.7

816

,261

,962

1450

.18

00

1.32

Chat

tisg

arh

98,3

297.

765,

987

19.2

55

010

,231

,068

411

7.09

1,71

818

.09

5,33

4,08

04

31.9

410

042

.24

Guj

arat

31,5

332.

492,

880

9.26

51

7,98

7,19

73

246.

162,

706

133,

886,

229

329

.63

30

52.6

2

Har

yana

6,13

60.

4866

12.

130

21,

526,

069

128

52,

316

969

9,15

01

20.0

50

00.

06

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

9,35

30.

7448

91.

570

083

7,46

80

105

1,72

818

.543

0,25

70

1.70

10

14.2

5

Jam

mu

and

Kas

hmir

15,7

441.

2460

11.

931

034

9,90

40

175.

332,

760

23.6

669

8,01

21

9.50

00

20.9

7

Jhar

khan

d85

,645

6.76

3,29

810

.61

130

19,0

54,7

757

175

8,49

026

.65

7,07

6,65

86

34.6

013

060

.20

Kar

nata

ka42

,863

3.38

1,09

13.

514

27,

176,

336

317

8.6

6,62

838

.63,

395,

482

344

.88

00

15.2

0

Ker

ala

6,61

10.

5211

50.

370

03,

011,

914

142

8.5

27,5

8167

.582

7,19

71

34.1

50

09.

70

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

143,

133

11.3

09,

395

30.2

111

019

,517

,157

713

8.05

3,20

216

.33

9,49

3,64

68

34.5

914

041

.50

Mah

aras

htra

116,

271

9.18

9,22

029

.65

100

18,4

73,6

336

171.

082,

109

13.5

9,04

6,48

08

45.4

57

022

.72

Man

ipur

4,39

10.

35N

A#V

ALU

E!0

011

1,49

90

25N

AN

A50

,863

01.

700

095

.40

Meg

hala

ya5,

564

0.44

NA

#VA

LUE!

00

551,

749

087

NA

NA

236,

051

015

.55

02

87.2

0

Miz

oram

3,95

70.

3121

90.

700

011

4,85

00

2952

418

55,1

030

5.05

01

96.1

0

Nag

alan

d1,

786

0.14

940.

300

024

4,06

20

137

2,59

619

125,

344

04.

100

094

.60

Ori

ssa

115,

859

9.15

3,67

111

.80

70

17,4

36,0

566

149.

474,

654

34.9

48,

034,

413

742

.46

80

40.4

9

Punj

ab3,

364

0.27

1,30

84.

210

01,

188,

662

035

390

93

420,

394

019

.70

00

0.00

Raja

stha

n39

,105

3.09

1,68

75.

425

27,

313,

986

319

9.33

4,36

923

.66

3,36

7,86

83

15.7

24

045

.02

Sikk

im4,

226

0.33

200.

060

039

,782

09

1,98

921

122

,974

08.

900

053

.08

Tam

il N

adu

30,0

492.

373,

831

12.3

23

09,

087,

445

331

4.66

2,53

99

4,54

1,40

54

49.0

80

01.

20

Trip

ura

2,21

20.

1713

00.

420

028

9,00

10

131

22,2

2317

120,

443

032

.20

00

56.8

0

Utt

ar P

rade

sh94

,820

7.49

17,1

4555

.13

100

42,5

30,1

4115

503.

313,

740

11.0

415

,812

,990

1332

.62

00

0.06

Utt

ranc

hal

81,9

996.

4792

82.

983

01,

055,

321

094

.33

3,15

268

.33

468,

177

01.

430

00.

93

Wes

t Be

ngal

62,3

704.

922,

065

6.64

40

36,8

74,2

2013

610.

118

,274

31.4

10,8

23,9

909

34.8

80

010

.37

An

nex

ure

II

Annexure III

Select state performance ofNREGA (Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh

NREGA state profile: JHARKHAND

●● No. of Districts under NREGA: 20●● Geographical Area (sq. km) for districts under the

NREGA: 85,645 sq. km●● Rural Population in the NREGA districts: 19, 054,775●● Total Rural Workers in the NREGA districts: 7, 076,658●● No. of Panchayats in these Districts: 3,298

Natural Resource Base of the 20 Districts under NREGAForest Cover (Based on the State of Forest Report 2003)

●● Geographical Area in sq. km – 67,328 sq. km* (Does not includedata for all 20 districts)

●● Total forest Cover- 18,803 sq. km●● % of total forest cover to State’s Geographical Area- 27.93%

Agricultural Land and its Use (Based on the Minor Irrigation Census 2000-2001)

●● Geographical Area in sq. km: 72,093 sq. km●● Total Cultivable Area (in ha.): 32,88,030 ha●● Net Sown Area (in ha.): 19,80,727●● Net Irrigated Area through ground water and surface

water (%): 86.44% ●● % of irrigated area to the total

cultivable area : 3.35 %

NREGA Implementation Status in 20districts as on November 2006(Based on the Union Ministry of RuralDevelopment data) ●● No. of Rural Households (2001

Census): 33,956,40●● Applications for Registration:

2,019,997●● Job Cards Issued: 19,148,00●● Demand for Employment by

individuals: 8,179,34●● Employment Provided: 8,136,72

3355


JHARKHAND: NREGA PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATIONFOR NOVEMBER 2006

Type of Work In Progress Completed Total

Water Conservation 14,539 5,464 20,003

Drought Proofing & Plantation 392 85 477

Flood Control 27 7 34

Rural Connectivity 5,395 2,975 8,370

Other Works 2,399 1,331 3,730

Total 22,752 9,862 32,614

Source: Based on the Union Ministry of Rural Development data

Jharkhand

NREGA state profile: ORISSA Coverage (Based on the 2001 census)●● No. of Districts under NREGA: 19●● Geographical Area (sq. km) for districts under the NREGA: 15,859●● Rural Population in the NREGA districts: 1,74,36,056●● Total Rural Workers in the NREGA districts: 80,34,413●● No. of Panchayats in these Districts: 3671

Natural Resource Base of the 20 Districts under NREGAForest Cover (Based on the State of Forest Report 2003)●● Geographical Area in sq. km : 1,07,556 sq.km.●● Total forest Cover: 38,571●● % of total forest cover to State’s Geographical Area: 35.86%

Agricultural Land and its Use (Based on the Minor Irrigation Census 2000-2001) ●● Geographical Area in sq. km: 81,457.87 sq.km.●● Total Cultivable Area (in ha.): 40,54,715 ha●● Net Sown Area (in ha.): 19,80,727 ha●● Net Irrigated Area through ground water and surface

water (%): 62.12%●● % of irrigated area to the total cultivable area : 15.11%

3366


ORISSA: NREGA PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATION FOR NOVEMBER 2006


Water Conservation 5,147 3,200 8,347

Rural Connectivity 9,143 4,958 14,101

Other Works 2,503 2,881 5,384

Drought Proofing& Plantation 1,365 374 1,739


Total 18,387 11,535 29,922


Orissa

JHARKHAND: PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATION TREND DURING AUGUST - NOVEMBER 2006

During August-November ’06 the number of works in water conservation has registered the least growthin comparison to other preferred works under NREGA.

Type of Work Total no. of Total No. of Total no. of Progress during works in Works in Works in August- November ’06

August ‘06 October’ 06 November ‘06 in %

Water Conservation 15,636 15,636 20,003 27.92

Rural Connectivity 4,841 4,841 8,730 80.33

Other Works 2,580 2,580 3,730 44.60

Drought Proofing& Plantation 196 196 477 143

Flood Control 8 8 34 325

Total 23,261 23,261 32,974 41.75


NREGA Implementation Status in 19 districts as on November 2006 (Based on the Union Ministry of Rural Development data) ●● No. of Rural Households (2001 Census): 38,36,278●● Applications for Registration: 44,23,536●● Job Cards Issued: 43,81,801 ●● Demand for Employment by individuals: 23,04,137●● Employment Provided: 22,25,679

NREGA state profile: ChhattisgarhCoverage (Based on the 2001 census)●● No. of Districts under NREGA: 11●● Geographical Area (sq. km) for districts under the NREGA: 98,329

sq.km ●● Rural Population in the NREGA districts: 1,02,31,068 ●● Total Rural Workers in the NREGA districts: 53,34,080●● No. of Panchayats in these Districts: 5,987

Natural Resource Base of the 11 Districts under NREGAForest Cover (Based on the State of Forest Report 2003)●● Geographical Area in sq. km: 94664 sq.km.●● Total forest Cover: 42,659 sq.km.●● % of total forest cover to State’s Geographical Area- 45.06%

3377


ORISSA: PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATION TREND DURING AUGUST - NOVEMBER 2006

During August-November ’06 the number of works in flood control has registered the maximum growth incomparison to other preferred works under NREGA.



Rural Connectivity 12,714 12,714 14,101 10.90 %

Water Conservation 7,911 7911 8,347 5.5 %

Other Works 5,041 5,041 5,384 6.80 %

Drought Proofing& Plantation 1,815 1,815 1,739 - 4 %

Flood Control 3 3 351 1160 %

Total 27,484 27,484 29,922 8.8%


CHHATTISGARH: NREGA PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATION FOR NOVEMBER 2006


Water Conservation 933 1463 2396

Rural Connectivity 769 2806 3575

Other Works 20 39 59

Drought Proofing& Plantation 2100 2308 4408


Total 3956 8341 12297


Chhattisgarh

Agricultural Land and its Use (Based on the Minor Irrigation Census 2000-2001) ●● Geographical Area in sq. km: 67,088.49 sq.km.●● Total Cultivable Area (in ha.)- 21,23,742 ha●● Net Sown Area (in ha.)- 28,37,999 ha●● Net Irrigated Area through ground water and surface water (%)- 51.35% ●● % of irrigated area to the total cultivable area : 10.12%

NREGA Implementation Status in 11 districts as on November 2006(Based on the Union Ministry of Rural Development data) ●● No. of Rural Households (2001 Census): 20,23,402●● Applications for Registration: 17,72,900●● Job Cards Issued: 17,26,885●● Demand for Employment by individuals: 13,02,463●● Employment Provided: 12,70,589

NREGA state profile: HIMACHAL PRADESHCoverage (Based on the 2001 census)●● No. of Districts under NREGA: 2

●● Geographic Area (sq. km) for districts under the NREGA: 9,353 sq.km ●● Rural Population in the NREGA districts: 8,37,468●● Total Rural Workers in the NREGA districts: 4,30,257●● No. of Panchayats in these Districts: 489

Natural Resource Base of the 2 Districts under NREGAForest Cover (Based on the State of Forest Report 2003)●● Geographical Area in sq. km: 9347 sq.km.●● Total forest Cover: 3,792 sq.km.●● % of total forest cover to State’s Geographical Area- 25.79 %

Agricultural Land and its Use (Based on the Minor Irrigation Census 2000-2001) ●● Geographical Area in sq. km: 9,168.32 sq.km.●● Total Cultivable Area (in ha.)- 1,04,753 ha●● Net Sown Area (in ha.)- 87,260 ha●● Net Irrigated Area through ground water and surface

water (%)- 99.41 % ●● % of irrigated area to the total cultivable area : 13.40%

3388


CHHATTISGARH: PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATION TREND DURING AUGUST - NOVEMBER 2006




Rural Connectivity 3793 3716 4408 16.21%

Water Conservation 2418 2403 2396 -0.90%

Other Works 2707 2995 1859 -31 %

Drought Proofing& Plantation 698 2005 3575 412%

Flood Control 55 58 59 0.00%

Total 9671 11177 12297 27.15%


Himachal Pradesh

NREGA Implementation Status in 2 districts as on November 2006(Based on the Union Ministry of Rural Development data) ●● No. of Rural Households (2001 Census): 1,50,715●● Applications for Registration: 93,016●● Job Cards Issued: 88,056●● Demand for Employment by individuals: 44,307●● Employment Provided: 41,303

NREGA state profile: MADHYA PRADESHCoverage (Based on the 2001 census)●● No. of Districts under NREGA: 18●● Geographical Area (sq. km) for districts under the NREGA:

1,43,133 Sq.km●● Rural Population in the NREGA districts: 19,517,157●● Total Rural Workers in the NREGA districts: 94,93,636●● No. of Panchayats in these Districts: 9,395

Natural Resource Base of the 18 Districts under NREGAForest Cover (Based on the State of Forest Report 2003)●● Geographical Area in sq. km: 13,2307 sq.km.●● Total forest Cover: 76,429 sq.km.●● % of total forest cover to State’s Geographical Area- 24.79%

3399


HIMACHAL PRADESH: PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATION TREND DURING AUGUST - NOVEMBER 2006




Water Conservation 271 465 572 111.0%

Rural Connectivity 674 1239 1521 125.7 %

Other Works 1033 1548 1949 88.6 %

Drought Proofing& Plantation 95 159 199 109.0 %

Flood Control 176 333 377 114.20 %

Total 2249 3744 4618 10.53 %


Madhya Pradesh

HIMACHAL PRADESH: NREGA PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATION FOR NOVEMBER 2006




Other Works 241 136 377



Total 3125 1493 4618


Agricultural Land and its Use (Based on the Minor Irrigation Census 2000-2001) ●● Geographical Area in sq. km: 1,09,166.93 sq.km.●● Total Cultivable Area (in ha.)- 57,09,169 ha●● Net Sown Area (in ha.)- 49,69,272 ha●● Net Irrigated Area through ground water and surface water (%)- 88.22 %●● % of irrigated area to the total cultivable area : 19%

NREGA Implementation Status in 18 Districts as on November 2006(Based on the Union Ministry of Rural Development data) ●● No. of Rural Households (2001 Census): 35,50,273●● Applications for Registration: 44,23,536●● Job Cards Issued: 43,81,801●● Demand for Employment by individuals: 23,04,137●● Employment Provided: 22,25,679

4400


MADHYA PRADESH: PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATION TREND DURING AUGUST - NOVEMBER 2006




Water Conservation 63920 63920 65819 2.9 %

Rural Connectivity 19387 19837 21754 12.20%

Other Works 6052 6052 29773 391.9 %

Drought Proofing& Plantation 11790 11790 10309 - 12 %

Flood Control 918 918 1310 42.7 %

Total 102067 102067 127785 25.2 %


MADHYA PRADESH: NREGA PRODUCTIVE ASSETS CREATION FOR NOVEMBER 2006




Other Works 14848 14925 29773



Total 71700 57265 128965


Annexure IV

State of natural resources inbackward districts

4411


Agriculture land and its use in 200 districts of the NREGA States

(in ha.)

Net Area Irrigated through GW& % of

Name of State Geographical Cultivable Net Area Maj/Med Ground Surface Total SW GW+SWArea Area Sown Scheme Water (GW) Water (SW) (5+6+7) to Total

Andhra Pradesh 14,189,936 7,958,613 5,549,535 228,739 1,278,870 393,308 1900,917 87.97 1672178

Arunachal Pradesh 13968 12,897 4,038 0 68 840 908 100.00 908

Assam 1,368,961 784,487 551,992 134 28,220 28,150 56,504 99.76 56,370

Bihar 6,731,280 4,455,271 3,720,891 271,488 1163,292 330,094 1,764,874 84.62 1,493,386

Chattisgarh 6,704,889 3,127,342 2,837,999 153,991 70,716 91,818 316,525 51.35 162,534

Gujrat 3,195,604 2,026,052 1,485,131 1,477 600,167 4,139 605,783 99.76 604,306

Haryana 583,439 514,977 446,461 230,759 158,321 230 389,310 40.73 158,551

Himachal Pradesh 916,832 104,753 87,260 83 1,342 12,609 14,034 99.41 13,951

Jharkhand 7,209,332 3,288,030 1,980,727 32,759 103,514 105,275 241,548 86.44 208,789

Karnataka 4,488,311 3,374,699 2,902,578 67,888 193,509 46,298 307,695 77.94 239,807

Kerala 652,321 367,006 316,578 9,848 10,972 38,215 59,035 83.32 49,187

Madhya Pradesh 11,613,831 6,191,918 5,419,433 132,427 757,168 287,413 1,177,008 88.75 1,044,581

Maharashtra 10,216,182 6,470,605 5,649,159 235,833 517,507 144,390 897,730 73.73 661,897

Manipur 1,120 1,120 868 0 0 567 567 100.00 567

Meghalaya 358,547 87,626 61,656 284 339 10,233 10,856 97.38 10,572

Mizoram 84,799 44,075 10,087 0 0 982 982 100.00 982

Nagaland 0 2,879 1,715 0 0 1,715 1,715 100.00 1,715

Orissa 8,145,787 4,054,715 3,261,408 232,127 65,457 315,154 612,738 62.12 380,611

Punjab 372,674 221,441 213,025 2,426 153,426 2,309 158,161 98.47 155,735

Rajasthan 3,869,625 1,572,398 1,185,108 56,177 255,092 15,584 326,853 82.81 270,676

Sikkim 39,032 16,624 5,540 0 0 1,089 1,089 100.00 1,089

Tamil Nadu 2,640,608 1,817,332 1,260,237 117,934 305,409 105,789 529,132 77.71 411,198

Tripura 219,571 35,794 27,191 0 55 1,990 2,045 100.00 2,045

Uttar Pradesh 9,389,391 7,119,583 6,178,638 881,561 2,542,091 21,498 3,445,150 74.41 2563589

Uttaranchal 587,481 186,846 142,811 74 69 17,128 17,271 99.57 17197

West Bengal 6,207,825 3,786,522 2,902,898 151,483 505,910 288,723 946,116 83.99 794633

Total 99,801,346 57,623,605 46,202,964 2,807,492 8,711,514 2,265,540 13,784,546 79.63 10977054

Source: Based on the Minor Irrigation Census (2000-2001), Ministry of Water Resources

4422


Forest cover in 200 districts of the NREGA States

State Geographic Very Dense Moderately Open forest Total forest Change in % of total Area Forest Area Dense Forest area sq.km cover, sq.km total forest forest cover

Sq. km Sq.km Area Sq.km (3+4+5) Cover to State's(2001-2003) Geographic Area

Andhra Pradesh 171044 19 16008 12929 28956 -140 16.93%

Arunachal Pradesh 7032 849 3803 1155 5807 67 82.58%

Assam 178,076 868 19,811 14,084 34,763 -98 19.52%

Bihar 61224 52 1968 2210 4336 -61 7.08%

Chattisgarh 94664 1309 30260 13726 42659 -765 45.06%

Gujrat 30456 78 2637 2649 5364 -86 17.61%

Haryana 6136 0 21 93 114 -128 1.86%

Himachal Pradesh 9347 492 1761 1539 3792 338 40.57%

Jammu and Kashmir 15744 664 2713 2591 5968 0 37.91%

Jharkhand 67328 2095 7515 9193 18803 -19 27.93%

Karnataka 42863 0 522 1181 1703 -244 3.97%

Kerala 6611 68 2168 1012 3248 125 49.13%

Madhya Pradesh 132307 3019 19475 15920 38414 -858 29.03%

Maharashtra 116487 7272 10534 8221 26027 -466 22.34%

Manipur 4391 367 1551 1951 3869 -60 88.11%

Meghalya 5564 4 1767 2645 4416 222 79.37%

Mizoram 3957 21 1261 1912 3194 192 80.72%

Nagaland 1786 1 611 789 1401 42 78.44%

Orissa 107556 288 22313 16020 38571 -47 35.86%

Punjab 3386 0 327 307 634 -84 18.72%

Rajasthan 33581 0 1841 3149 4990 132 14.86%

Sikkim 4226 92 747 487 1326 25 31.38%

Tamil Nadu 28893 255 2071 2653 4979 299 17.23%

Uttar Pradesh 95722 385 2350 4668 7403 287 7.73%

Uttaranchal 13438 960 3418 1620 5998 226 44.63%

West Bengal 56504 944 1810 4516 7270 1312 12.87%

Total 1298323 20102 159263 127220 304005 211 23.42%

Source: Based on State of Forest Report 2003, Forest Survey of India, Minstry of Environment and Forests

Annexure V

FAQs on NREGASOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON NREGA

1. What is the basic idea behind an Employment Guarantee Act?The idea is to give a legal guarantee of employment to anyone who is willing to do casual manual labour atthe statutory minimum wage. Any adult who applies for work under the Act is entitled to being employed onpublic works without delay. It is a step towards legal enforcement of the right to work, as an aspect of thefundamental right to live with dignity.

2. Why is it important to have an Act, and not just an employment ‘scheme’?An Act provides a legal guarantee of employment. This places a judicially enforceable obligation on thestate, and gives bargaining power to the labourers. Under the Employment Guarantee Act, labourers willhave durable legal entitlements. Over time, they are likely to become aware of their rights, and to learn howto claim their due. It creates accountability. By contrast, a scheme does not involve any legal entitlements,and leaves labourers at the mercy of officials and their agencies.

3. What are the potential benefits of an Employment Guarantee Act?• An effective Employment Guarantee Act (EGA) would help protect rural households from poverty and

food insecurity by generating sustainable livelihoods. • The act is likely to lead to a substantial reduction of rural-urban migration: if work is available in the

village, many families will stay in the villages instead of heading to the cities. • The EGA is an opportunity to create useful assets in rural areas. For instance, there is plenty of scope

for building productive water-harvesting structures through labour-intensive methods.

4433


Coverage in terms of area• Total geographical area of India (sq km):

32,87,263• Geographical area covered under NREGA (sq

km): 12,66,596• Percentage of total geographical area under

NREGA: 38.53%

Coverage in terms of population• Total population of India: 1,02,70,15,247• Total rural population of India: 741,6,60,293• Total rural population in NREGA states:

28,66,71,678

Coverage in terms of rural work force• Total number of rural workers in India:

31,06,55,339• Total number of agricultural labourers in India:

10,67,75,330• Total number of rural workers in NREGA

states: 11,91,08,051

• Agricultural labourers as percentage of ruralworkers in NREGA states: 24.37%

Works completed (figures as of November 2006)• Total number of works completed under

NREGA: 4,10,742• Total number of water conservation works

completed: 1,88,035• Total number of drought proofing and

plantation works completed: 30,631 • Total number of flood control works

completed: 8,248• Total number of rural connectivity works

completed: 1,05,558• Total number of other works completed:

78,270

Coverage in terms of panchayats• Number of panchayats in India: 2,27,590• Number of panchayats in NREGA states:

31,098

SOME BASIC STATISTICS

4. Who is entitled to work under the Employment Guarantee Act?Any adult living in a rural area in the 200 districts identified for the first phaseof the implementation of the NREGA is eligible to apply. Applicants have to beresidents of the gram panchayat where they are applying for work. Theapplications for work of a particular household will not exceed 100 days of workin a financial year.

5. What kinds of work can be taken up under the Rural EmploymentGuarantee Scheme?

Schedule I of the Act lists eight categoris of works that are supposed to be “thefocus of the Scheme”. Briefly, these include (1) “water conservation and waterharvesting”; (2) “drought proofing” (including afforestation); (3) “irrigation canalsincluding micro and minor irrigation works”; (4) “provision of irrigation facility” toland owned by households belonging to the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes, beneficiaries of land reforms, or beneficiaries of Indira Awas Yojana; (5)“renovation of traditional water bodies” including desilting of tanks; (6) “landdevelopment”; (7) “flood control and protection works” including drainage inwater-logged areas; and (8) “rural connectivity to provide all-weather access”. In

addition, there is a residual ninth category: “any other work which may be notified by the CentralGovernment in consultation with the State Government”.

6. Are there any other important restrictions on REGS works?“New works” can be initiated only if (1) at least 50 labourers become available for such work, and (2) thelabourers cannot be absorbed in the ongoing works. However, this restriction can be waived off by the stategovernment “in hilly areas and in respect of afforestation”. [Schedule II, Para 13]

7. Who will be responsible for implementing the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme?The Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme will be implemented by the state government, with funding fromthe central government. According to Section 13, the “principal authorities” for planning andimplementation of the Scheme are the panchayats at the district, intermediate and village levels.

The basic unit of implementation is the block. In each block, a programme officer will be in charge. Theprogramme officer is supposed to be an officer of rank no less than the Block Development Officer (BDO),paid by the Central government, and with the implementation of REGS as his or her sole responsibility. Theprogramme officer is accountable to the “intermediate panchayat” as well as to the district coordinator.

8. How much are labourers supposed to be paid under the Rural Employment GuaranteeScheme?

Labourers are entitled to the statutory minimum wage applicable to agricultural workers in the state, unlessthe Central government “overrides” this by notifying a different wage rate. If the Central governmentnotifies a wage rate, it is subject to a minimum of Rs 60 per day.

9. Who is entitled to an unemployment allowance under the Employment Guarantee Act?Anyone who has not been provided with work within 15 days of applying (or within 15 days of the date forwhich employment is sought, in the case of “advance applications”) is entitled.

10. In such circumstances, is the state government obliged to pay the unemploymentallowance?

Labourers who have not been provided with work have an unconditional right to the unemploymentallowance. This would be payable by the state government at the rate prescribed in the Act and would comeinto affect in districts where the Act is notified.

11. What is the role of the unemployment allowance?The unemployment allowance has several roles. Firstly, it provides a limited form of unemploymentassistance to those who are waiting for work. Secondly, it accounts for the responsibility on behalf of the

4444


Till November 8, 2006, 10,479,552

households had demanded

employment under the NREGA and

10,095,287 households had been

provided employment. The number of

works initiated has gone up to

391,651. Of these, 183,402 related to

water conservation, 27,461 to

drought proofing and plantation,

6,694 to flood control, and 92,904 to

rural connectivity. At the district level,

training had been imparted to 84,822

PRI members, 30,859 administrative

officials, 1,803 technical functionaries

and 11,476 members of village and

monitoring committees.

authorities who are failing to provide employment to the registered applicants. Thirdly, it acts as a “penalty”on the state government for this failure, since the payment of the unemployment allowance is theresponsibility of the state.

12. What are the responsibilities of the programme officer in the Rural Employment GuaranteeScheme?

The chief responsibility of the programme officer is to ensure that anyone who applies for work gets employment within 15 days or in other words, to safeguard the basic entitlements of labourers under the Act. The programme officer is accountable to the intermediate panchayat and thedistrict coordinator.

13. Can private contractors act as implementing agencies?No. The Act clearly states: “The [Employment Guarantee] Scheme shall not permit engaging any contractorfor implementation of the projects under it.”

14. What is the role of the gram panchayat in the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme?The gram panchayat has to process applications for registration and employment. This involves registeringpotential workers, issuing job cards to them, receiving their applications for work, forwarding these to theprogramme officer, and informing the applicants as and when work is available.

The gram panchayat is also the main “implementing agency”. It is expected to prepare a “developmentplan” for the village and maintain a shelf of projects to be taken up under REGS, based on therecommendations of the gram sabha. The gram panchayat also executes these projects, as and when theprogramme officer sanctions them. All the relevant documents, including the muster rolls, are to be madeavailable to the gram sabha for the purpose of “social audits”. Monitoring of REGS works implemented bythe gram panchayat is the responsibility of the gram sabha and the programme officer.

15. What is the role of the gram sabha in the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme?The gram sabha is expected to monitor the work of the gram panchayat, and also to participate in theplanning process. In particular, the gram sabha will discuss and prioritise the works to be taken up,conduct regular social audits of all works carried out in the panchayat, and verify that all the relevant normsare being observed. Resolutions of the gram sabha are to be given priority in the planning of REGS worksby the gram panchayat and the programme officer.

16. What happens at the district and state levels?At the district level, the supervision of the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is the responsibility of thedistrict coordinator. The district coordinator is expected to coordinate the work of the programme officers,for instance by consolidating their respective “plans” into a district-level shelf of projects [Section 14(3)(b)].The district coordinator is also expected to prepare a “labour budget” every year during the month ofDecember, for the next financial year. Other responsibilities of the district coordinator include conductingregular inspections of the works in the district, sanctioning works that are not within the jurisdiction ofprogramme officers, assisting the district panchayats, and preparing an annual report for the state council.

At the state level, the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is to be monitored by a State EmploymentGuarantee Council (or state council for short). The state council is essentially an advisory body for thestate government. For instance, the state council is expected to advise the state government on the“schedule of rates” (payment rates for piece-rate work), the level of the unemployment allowance, andmonitoring arrangements. Other key responsibilities of the state council include preparing a list of“preferred works” to be taken up on a priority basis, conducting evaluations of REGS, and preparing anannual report to be laid before the state legislature.

Finally, the Act calls for the creation of a Central Employment Guarantee Council (or central council forshort). The functions of this council are similar to those of the state council, at the national level. Thecentral council monitors the countrywide implementation of the Act, advises the Central government, andprepares an annual report to be laid before Parliament.

4455


4466


17. How are costs going to be shared between the Central and state governments?The Central government is required to pay for the wages of labourers employed under REGS, and for three-fourths of the material costs. The state has to pay for one-fourth of the material costs, and also theunemployment allowance. If the labour-material ratio is 60:40 (the “minimum” ratio under the Act), thismeans that state governments will pay 10 per cent of the employment costs, plus the unemploymentallowance.

18. Shouldn’t the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme be implemented entirely by the grampanchayats?

This may be feasible in some states, and over time, the scope for entrusting REGS to the gram panchayatsis likely to expand. However, in many states, there is a long way to go in terms of creating the conditionsthat would enable gram panchayats to implement such a challenging scheme in an effective manner. Thisis one reason why the Act takes the block as the basic unit of implementation, rather than the grampanchayat. Another reason is that it may be difficult to “match” the demand for work with employmentopportunities at the village level: some villages may have a large demand for work and few employmentopportunities, or vice-versa. The matching is likely to be easier at the block level.

However, the Act allows for any of the programme officer’s responsibilities to be delegated to the grampanchayats: “The state government may, by order, direct that all or any of the functions of a programmeofficer shall be discharged by the gram panchayat or a local authority.” Thus, the Act effectively permitsimplementation through gram panchayats if this is deemed possible and desirable.

19. Does the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 leave room for state-specific EGAs also?

State governments will be allowed to frame their own Employment Guarantee Act if they wish, provided that(1) it is consistent with NREGA 2005, and (2) it does not reduce the entitlements of labourers (“theentitlement of the households is not less than and the conditions of employment are not inferior to whatis guaranteed under this Act”)

4477


Annexure VI

Resources

Government officials

Ms. Amita Sharma, Joint Secretary Department of Rural DevelopmentRoom No. 272, Gate No. 7Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110001Ph: 011- 23385027 http://rural.nic.in/

Chimay Basu, Deputy Director GeneralNational Institute of Rural DevelopmentRajendranagar Distt: Hyderabad 500030 Andhra Pradesh Ph: 40-24008522-26, 24008473

Dr. Sanjay Singh, Director (NFWP)Ministry of Rural Development454, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110001Ph: 011- 23384399http://rural.nic.in/

Surekha Sule, Senior FellowNational Institute of Rural DevelopmentRajendranagar Distt: Hyderabad 500030 Andhra Pradesh Ph: 40-24008522-26, 24008473

Non-Governmental Organizations/Academicians

Aruna Roy, MemberMazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan278, S F S DDA FlatsHauz Khas Apartments, New Delhi 110016Ph: 011-26866343 Email: [email protected]

Bela Bhatia, Affiliated FellowCentre for Study of Developing Societies29, Raipur Road New Delhi 110054www.csdsdelhi.org

D. SadasivaDhan Foundation18, Pillaiyar Koil Street S.S. Colony, Madurai - 625 016. Tamil Nadu Ph: 452 -2610794, 805www.dhan.org

Dr. George Mathews, Institute of Social Sciences8, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi 110070Ph: 011-26121902,909www.issin.org

Jean Dreze, ProfessorGovind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Jhusi, Allahabad 211019,Uttar Pradesh Email: [email protected]

K S Gopal, DirectorCentre for Environment Concerns3-4-142/6, BarkatpuraHyderabad 500027, Andhra Pradesh Phone: 40-27564959, 27563017

Kiran Sharma, Programme CoordinatorPACS ProgrammeDevelopment Alternatives1119/2 Kishangarh, Near Vasant kunj, New Delhi 110070Ph: 011-26890380, 26134128

Mahendra Dev, DirectorCentre for Economic and Social StudiesBegumpet, Hyderabad500016, Andhra PradeshPh: 40-23402789, 23416780http://www.cess.ac.in/cesshome/cessmain.asp

Mr. Manoj Rai, Programme ManagerPRIA42, Tughlaqabad Institutional Area, New Delhi 110062Ph: 29956908, 29960931/32/33www.pria.org

Praveen, Programme ManagerPRIA, 301, Diamond View Apartments, East Marredpally,Secunderabad - 500 026, Andhra Pradesh Ph: 09848577413http://www.pria.org/cgi-bin/index.htm

For complete details on the NREGA, visit: www.nrega.nic.in● Act guidelines● Officials In charge● Status of Works● States involved

4488


Umi Daniel, Theme LeaderFood and Livelihood UnitAction AidE-9, Vikrampuri Colony, Kharkhana, Secunderabad-500026, Andhra PradeshPh: 40-55445410, 27844991 Email: [email protected]]

Right to Food CampaignQ - 21-B, Top Floor, Jungpura Extn, New Delhi - 110014 Ph: 011-43501335/ 09350530150.E-mail: [email protected]

SamarthanCentre for Development Support36, Green Avenue, Cheena BhattiBhopal 462016Madhya Pradesh Ph: 755-220918http://www.samarthan.org/

Wada Na Todo AbhiyanNational SecretariatC-1/E , Second FloorGreen Park ExtensionNew Delhi 110016Ph: 011-46082371www.wadanatodo.net

Natural Resources Management and Livelihoods UnitCentre for Science and Environment41, Tughlaqabad Institutional AreaNew Delhi 110062Ph: 011-29956110, 29956394

USEFUL WEBSITES

PACS Programme: www.empowerpoor.com/bottom.aspRight to Food Campaign: www.righttofoodindia.orgAction Aid: www.actionaidindia.orgWada Na Todo Abhiyan: www.wadanatodo.netCentre for Science and Environment:www.cseindia.org/programme/nrml/nrml-index.htm

References

4499


1. This is the first rural employment programme with a targeted audience like backward districts. This programme laidemphasis on creation of productive assets using manual labour demand like under the current NationalEmployment Guarantee Act (NREGA), 2005.

2. Government measures employment on four different scales. They are:On annual basis:1. Usual principal status (UPS)2. Usual principal and subsidiary status (UPSS)On weekly basis:Current weekly status (CWS)Current daily status (CDS)Under UPS, if a person is employed for more than six months, he is counted as employed.Under UPSS, even if a person is marginally employed or is a part time worker like tutor, he is counted as employed.

Under CWS if a person is employed even for a single day in a week, he is taken as employed.Under CDS, a day is divided into two units of seven hour each. If a person is gainfully working in any unit, he istaken as employed.Maximum unemployment is in CDS and UPS. Planning commission follows these two parameters.

3. Data quoted from 61st NSSO survey in the final 11th Five-year Plan approach paper of the Planning Commission.4. Employment Growth: The latest trends, CP Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh, Microscan (www.microscan.com),

November 2006.5. Personal communication, Jayati Ghose, November 2006, New Delhi.6. Taskforce on Employment, Planning Commission, 20037. Sanjay Singh, Director, NREGA, personal communication, October 2006, New Delhi.8. Based on Second Administrative Reform Commission report, 2006.9. NC Saxena, personal communication, former secretary, Planning Commission, New Delhi.10. Down To Earth, February 28, 2003, Centre for Environmental Communication, New Delhi.

Documents

01 NREGA cover & contents.qxd