84701 CHAPTER   A @2013 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Disclaimer This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the Governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax: 202-522-2422, email: pubrights@worldbank.org. Designed and Printed by Macro Graphics Pvt. Ltd. www.macrographics.com Contents Foreword v Preface vi Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations and Acronyms xi Executive Summary xiii Introduction xiii NREGA and IWMP xiii NREGA in Karnataka: Poverty and Social Impact Analysis xiv Convergence between NREGA and IWMP xv Conclusion: Prospects for NREGA and IWMP xvii Chapter 1: Project Background 1 Chapter 2: PSIA Approach and Methodology 5 Study Area 5 Sampling Design, Database and Methodology 6 Participatory Rural Appraisal 7 Chapter 3: NREGA’s Performance 9 NREGA at the National Level 9 NREGA in Karnataka 10 NREGA Performance across the Sample GPs 10 Issues of Significance 11 Chapter 4: Poverty and Social Impacts 13 Poverty Impacts 13 Short-Term Impacts 14 Estimation of Labour Demand 14 Long-Term Poverty Impacts 16 Contents iii Benefits and Costs 17 Social Impacts 18 Chapter 5: Conclusions from NREGA Study 21 Has NREGA Created More Employment? 21 Issues Requiring Attention 21 Chapter 6: Convergence between NREGA and IWMP 23 Case for Convergence 23 Comparative Analysis from a Convergence Perspective 23 What NREGA can Offer to IWMP 26 What IWMP can Offer to NREGA 28 Institutional Triggers for Convergence 28 Chapter 7: Analyses of IWMP-NREGA Convergence 31 Scenario Analysis 31 SWOT Analysis 32 Chapter 8: IWMP-NREGA Convergence: The Way Ahead 33 Considerations to be Taken into Account 33 Alternative Models of Convergence 34 Appendix: Key Actors and NREGA Processes (as Adopted in Karnataka) 37 Key Actors 37 NREGA Processes 37 Boxes Box 1: National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2 Box 2: NREGA and Local Self-Governments 2 Box 3: Integrated Watershed Management Program 2 Box 4: PSIA Project Locations 6 Tables Table ES1: Comparison of NREGA and IWMP xiv Table ES2: NREGA and IWMP: What Would Convergence Bring? xvi Table 1: Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Locations 7 Table 2: Attributes of Poverty 13 Table 3: Short-Term Impacts of NREGA 14 Table 4: Demand Estimation: An Illustration 16 Table 5: Long-Term Benefits 17 Table 6: Who Benefited Most from NREGA Assets? 18 Table 7: Degrees of Inclusiveness 19 Table 8: Types of Works Generated under NREGA and Sujala I 24 Table 9: Long-Term Impacts of Sujala I and NREGA 24 Table 10: Scenario Analysis: With and Without Convergence 31 Table 11; SWOT Analysis of Convergence between IWMP and NREGA 32 iv Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence Foreword T he success or failure of any government-sponsored scheme hinges largely on three pillars of ownership, equity and transparency. These three pillars support the superstructure, and cracks or weaknesses in any one of these leads to the instability of the entire structure. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), perhaps one of the few “schemes” of the government that has been sanctified through legislation, remains dependent upon these pillars for its success. Although the scheme is still nascent, yet one can discern certain early cracks appearing in its implementation. This study has highlighted these cracks and has attempted to caution policy-makers and stakeholders of such disturbing developments in order to initiate timely action to reinforce the system. One of the major thrusts of MGNREGA is its emphasis on water harvesting initiatives. In a country where nearly 480 million people are dependent on rain-fed agriculture, it is indeed a boon. The question that arises is whether despite this laudable objective, MGNREGA has been able to achieve such purpose? The study throws interesting light on this aspect. Being closely associated with two important watershed initiatives in Karnataka, the Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) as sponsored by the Government of India, and its precursor, the World Bank assisted and highly successfully and awarded Sujala Watershed Programme, I am of the firm opinion that the results achieved are largely due to the adherence to the three pillars mentioned earlier. While IWMP is still new, the experiences and results of Sujala have been phenomenal. However, one important strand that runs through all the programmes and which really is the cutting edge is the level of transparency. Sujala had a very robust Monitoring & Evaluation and Learning system. This ensured correct and timely feedback and the opportunity for course correction and thereby, its dynamic nature and success. MGNREGA and IWMP have an important convergent objective. The objective is to provide livelihood options to disadvantaged persons in rural areas, while improving the natural resource asset base. While the two schemes take different implementation routes, the result that both aim to achieve is the same. MGNREGA emphasises on planning by the people via the Panchayats. IWMP also involves planning by the Watershed Committees at the Panchayat level but with a different process and framework. IWMP takes a more holistic macro watershed management perspective, yet implementation is focused at the micro watershed level. This is missing in MGNREGA, where planning is done only at the micro level and a holistic approach to area treatment is lacking. Likewise, while MGNREGA ensures activities through only manual labour, IWMP permits machines and thereby at times skips the landless in providing direct benefits. These are two examples which strongly advocate convergence between the two programmes. The study has strongly championed the cause of convergence as well. Foreword v I congratulate the experienced team of the authors of this study namely, Messers Suryanarayana Satish, Grant Milne, CS Laxman and Crispino Lobo for the excellent study and scientific analysis they have produced. I am sure that the study would further buttress the cause of convergence between these two important initiatives. Dr Sandeep Dave, IAS Former Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru vi Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence Preface T he World Bank is committed to understanding and addressing poverty in its various dimensions, which includes identifying the distributional impacts of the programs and projects it finances. To this end, the World Bank manages a Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) facility to inform proposed and ongoing policies in its member countries. This report reflects outcomes of one such analytical piece carried out in India on the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) in Karnataka. Given persistent poverty levels in India, programs aimed at generating employment have been the focus of attention of Indian policy makers and administrators. In this setting, NREGA, with its rights-based approach to employment, marks a paradigm shift from the Government of India’s previous efforts to create employment opportunities for the poor and reduce vulnerability. Under NREGA – a program that has national coverage – the Government is legally bound to meet wage labor demands at the local level. Despite its best intentions, however, NREGA is beset with a variety of criticisms and controversies. Concerns have emerged in relation to the capacity of local governments to manage NREGA; financing deficiencies; the quality of work undertaken through NREGA; and the overall sustainability of the scheme. In this context, the option of “converging” NREGA with another ambitious national program, the Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP), has been proposed. The largely agricultural state of Karnataka has a particular interest in such a convergence, as it has implemented the World Bank-financed Watershed Development Project (known locally as Sujala I) the successful implementation of which has led to a second Bank-financed project. In this context, a PSIA of NREGA in Karnataka was conducted to help inform the proposed policy change of convergence of the two programs. I am happy to note that the PSIA of NREGA has already been relevant and useful, as evidenced by the fact that the findings have informed the design of the follow-up Karnataka Watershed Development Project II in Karnataka. Findings suggest that while NREGA not only offers additional financial resources enabling scaling up of watershed management activities, its focus on ‘putting people first’ enhances ‘participation’. IWMP, on the other hand, offers a technology focus in terms of scientific knowledge, skills and management practices that would help to enhance the relevance and impact of NREGA. A marriage between the two in Karnataka is thus bound to result in greater productive outcomes and benefits to the local poor and vulnerable. Results of the study are also being fed into the design of the World Bank-financed National Watershed Management Program (Neeranchal) in India. Finally, I am hopeful that this work will contribute to the broader dialogue on the future of the NREGA program at the national level. Maria C. Correia Sector Manager, Social Development Unit South Asia Region, World Bank Preface vii This report: ‘Poverty and Social Impact Analyses of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence’ is based on an Analytical Study conducted in the context of preparing the recently approved World Bank Assisted Watershed Management Project in Karnataka. The objective was to explore potential for ‘convergence’ between India’s two major rural development programs: ‘Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Act (MNREGA)’, the country’s flagship rights based employment program, and the ‘Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWSMP)’. The Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) approach has been deployed to test the hypotheses that, convergence would result in enhancing:  Social Capital: an institutional platform is provided for enabling the mobilization of all the stakeholders into group action, resulting in effective watershed effective management;  Physical Capital: Creating durable assets of higher quality, resulting in an improved production base;  Ecological Synergies: Natural resource-base regeneration through various watershed management activities will help in ensuring more sustainable use of resources;  Economic Opportunities: Income enhancements, savings and investments become possible through various allied activities;  Strengthening Democratic Processes: Convergence awareness and planning at the grass root level will lead to greater ownership of projects. The results of PSIA enquiry have been highly positive and encouraging. Endorsing some hypotheses, the study explicitly brings to the fore analysis of the benefits of that convergence brings in. It analyzes the pros and cons of convergence between NREGA and IWMP, and considers some possible models of convergence. This is an abridged version of the main detailed report which is available on request from the authors. viii Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence Acknowledgments We are indebted to Ms Maria Correia, Sector Manager, SASDS, for her continued support and guidance as well as commitment for disseminating the results, without which this publication would not have been possible. We owe a debt of gratitude to Dr Sandeep Dave, former Agriculture Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, despite being on vacation, graciously obliged our request and wrote the preface. Ming Zhang, Sector Manger, SASDU, graciously enabled administrative support by agreeing to anchor this study with the ongoing World Bank assisted Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project. Maitrayee Das (SDV) and Mario Picon (SASDS) reviewed an initial draft and offered comments which are thankfully acknowledged. Initial encouragement provided by Bhuvan Bhatnagar (WSP) is remembered with pleasure. Finally, this study could not have been possible but for operational and analytical support and guidance by Mr G Satish, IFS, Project Director, Department of Watershed, Government of Karnataka. Special thanks to John Dawson for his contribution through professional edits as well as for drafting the executive summary. Initial editorial help provided by Nidhi Gupta is also acknowledged. Last but not the least; our thanks are to Lakshmi Narayanan for her tireless efforts for successful completion of the study and printing of the report. Suryanarayana Satish Grant Milne Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations and Acronyms CEO Chief Executive Officer GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System GP Gram Panchayat IWMP Integrated Watershed Management Program KWDP Karnataka Watershed Development Project MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act MIS Management Information System NGO Non-Governmental Organization NREGA National Rural Employment Guarantee Act PSIA Poverty and Social Impact Analysis Rs. Rupees SASDS South Asia Sustainable Development – Social Development SASDU South Asia Sustainable Development – Urban Development & Water SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats WDD Watershed Development Department Abbreviations and Acronyms xi Executive Summary Introduction closer convergence of NREGA and IWMP in implementing projects in rural areas. As the 21st century unfolds, the vast nation of India faces an array of challenges, including how to feed its burgeoning population in a situation where NREGA and IWMP rural poverty is widespread and land resources are under mounting pressure. In such a situation Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment it is vital that the resources supporting agriculture Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) (especially rain-fed arable farming) – soil and water, NREGA, enacted in 2005, forms the basis of a physical infrastructure, and those employed on the massive scheme, implemented throughout India, land – operate efficiently and in harmony. Two huge with two main aims – to enhance the livelihood programs are particularly important as India strives security of people in rural areas, and to boost the to achieve that aim: the Mahatma Gandhi National rural economy. It does the former by guaranteeing Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and the Integrated Watershed Management Program wage employment to members of rural households (IWMP). Both have mobilized significant resources who have volunteered to do unskilled manual work; in pursuit of a sustainable rural economy in India. and the latter through public works, including Both, however, have their deficiencies, and it has water-resource management and tree-planting. been suggested that greater cohesion between the The budget for NREGA in fiscal year 2010/11 activities of the two programs would add value to the was Rs. 40,100 crores (US$ 8 billion), of which a projects they implement. portion is directed toward watershed works. The chief executing agency for works under the scheme The aims of this report are: is the village-level Gram Panchayat (GP). It is the  To show how NREGA and IWMP operate GP’s responsibility to mobilize human resources within themselves and in relation to each and issue job cards to volunteers, ascertain the other, especially in the state of Karnataka, infrastructural needs of the village through gram which is the focus of this report; sabhas or village meetings, allocate funds for sanctioned projects, and ensure that laborers  To assess the performance of NREGA in receive their wages. In the last three years NREGA Karnataka through a poverty and social has benefited 52 million households across the impact analysis (PSIA); country, generating 2,200 million person-days of  To analyze the benefits that might arise (taking employment. Women account for 50 percent of into account the results of the PSIA) from a beneficiaries. Executive Summary xiii Integrated Watershed Management Program Forecast disbursements from IWMP over the 11th (IWMP) and 12th Five Year Plan periods are approximately US$6.6 billion. IWMP was launched in 2009/10 to promote integrated planning at the watershed level to ensure Table ES1 compares NREGA and IWMP under various that resources are used efficiently and sustainably. categories. The following section presents the results It aims to restore the ecological balance through of a study of NREGA in Karnataka; this executive (for example) conservation and optimal use of water summary then concludes with some analysis of resources, prevention of soil erosion, and regeneration the possibilities for and consequences of greater of natural vegetation, thus boosting agriculture and convergence between NREGA and IWMP. agro-based activities and providing sustainable livelihoods in the watershed area. Its methodology NREGA in Karnataka: Poverty and is firmly based in the application of sound science Social Impact Analysis to the solution of environmental and agronomic problems. An executive committee is responsible While NREGA has contributed significantly to for implementing projects at the watershed level. watershed management throughout India, concerns Table ES1. Comparison of NREGA and IWMP Category NREGA IWMP Inception 2005 Act, implemented through National Rural Launched in 2009/10 by combining previous Employment Guarantee Scheme programs Aims Provide rural employment and boost rural Watershed management to restore ecological economy through guaranteeing work on various balance by conserving and developing degraded infrastructure-related projects natural resources, thus improving and ensuring sustainable livelihoods Approach Rights-based, demand-driven Administration-based, allocation-led Method Provides at least 100 days of guaranteed wage Science and investment-based; scientific employment in every financial year to every planning of projects by using information household whose adult members volunteer to technology and GIS for planning, monitoring, do unskilled manual work and evaluation Focus areas Aims to create durable assets and strengthen Funds all soil and water conservation measures livelihood resource base of rural poor; on all lands in watershed, irrespective of land provides farm-based productivity-enhancing ownership or socioeconomic restrictions infrastructure (wells, pumps) to defined socioeconomic groups Activities Digging tanks and ponds, construction and Rainwater harvesting, soil conservation, repair of embankments and check-dams, combating soil erosion, vegetation regeneration, developing plantations to arrest soil erosion, recharging groundwater table at watershed level land-leveling, road-building. Focus has been and below on watershed development and connectivity enhancement Governmental Ministry of Rural Development Department of Land Resources responsibility Level Within GP boundaries Sub-watershed and micro-watershed, often cutting across GP boundaries Implementation Main executing agency is the village-level GP, State-level nodal agency works through a project which ascertains community needs through implementing agency and executive committee, gram sabhas viz., village meetings, issues job presided over by a chief executive officer cards to volunteer households, allocates funds to selected projects, and ensures laborers receive their wages Project period Annual approach 4–7 years xiv Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence have been expressed about the capacity of local Poverty: Income for NREGA was about Rs. 2,000– government to manage the program; deficiencies in 7,000 per household per year, or 5–15 percent the financing arrangements; the quality of the works of total income. Both private and public works undertaken; and the sustainability of the scheme. had the potential to provide long-term poverty- To gain a clearer picture of the benefits (and reducing impacts, and a benefit-cost analysis gave shortcomings) of NREGA implementation, a Poverty a payback period of about five to six years. However, and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) was undertaken lack of capacity often results in poor planning, in Karnataka. The largely agricultural state has deficient quality control, inadequate skills base, particular interest in the findings of such a study: delays in execution of works, and unsatisfactory its World Bank-supported Watershed Development payment procedures. Moreover, while most of the Project (also known as Sujala) generated positive households engaged in wage labor were “poor” (as lessons on watershed management, agricultural to be expected), there was little evidence that that intensification, and rural livelihoods that offer potential employment contributed significantly to closing the for scaling up, and a state Watershed Management poverty gap. Project was recently approved by the World Bank. In Migration: Wage rates and the availability of local wage 2011/12, the NREGA budget in Karnataka was over employment were often deficient, inducing migration US$1 billion, with 30–40 percent of disbursements to cities or other rural locations (up to 15 kilometers directly linked to soil and water conservation. Over 5 away). Through such local migration, men could million job cards have been issued in the state. receive wages in the market up to Rs. 200 per day. The PSIA was carried out in seven sample GPs, all Women received lower wages (around Rs. 80 per day), characterized by a high percentage of poor and but often found it advantageous that hired work was marginalized communities, inadequate connectivity, available within the village itself. Generally speaking, high dependence on rain-fed agriculture, and the workforce was mobile, with 10 to 30 percent of deficient infrastructure. The PSIA employed a number households having migrant members in the sample of methodologies, including household surveys, GPs, and the implementation of NREGA seems participatory rural appraisals in sample locations to have had little impact on reducing migration. (watershed-level and below), and desk research. The Commuting – daily travel for work – was also found. study looked at both the economic and social impacts Unlike migrants, most commuters were women of NREGA. The following subsections summarize travelling to neighboring villages for farm work during some of the key findings of the study. the peak agricultural seasons. Employment: While NREGA had generally succeeded In conclusion, the main actions that would benefit in providing local employment opportunities at the implementation of NREGA were identified as reasonable wage rates, few households had greater political leadership at the local level; full and managed to avail themselves of the full 100 days efficient utilization of funding; greater community of employment guaranteed by NREGA, and 20– participation; improved modalities for job-card 30 percent of job card holders had received no issuance, provision of employment, and wage employment under the scheme. The number of days payment; and greater external assistance from of employment ranged between 15 and 90, with an government and other agencies to build capacity and average of 50, across the seven GPs. Several factors ensure efficient implementation of projects. contribute to that mediocre performance, including the lack of appreciation of a demand-driven, rights- Convergence between NREGA and based approach, with inadequate community participation and consultation, for example, in IWMP gram sabhas, particularly in the case of women and NREGA and IWMP have a number of key objectives scheduled castes and tribes. In summary, substantial in common, particularly watershed development and scope exists for “widening” (number of households) the enhancement of rural livelihoods. Both mobilize and “deepening” (number of days employment per considerable funding resources. Table ES2 analyses, household) the scope of NREGA. by various categories, how convergence could add Executive Summary xv Table ES2. NREGA and IWMP: What Would Convergence Bring? Category NREGA and IWMP: current situation Convergence of NREGA and IWMP Objectives NREGA: Employment generation, rural Similarity of objectives facilitates convergence in development the categories below IWMP: Similar, but in a watershed context Life cycle and NREGA: Funding on annual basis Dovetailing NREGA into IWMP project cycle would implementation IWMP: Three phases (preparatory, provide a framework to realize the long-term implementation, consolidation) over 4–7 years objectives of NREGA in a sustainable manner, and would assist capacity-building and institutional development Human NREGA: Competence of personnel often Convergence could widen the pool of human resources inadequate for planned activities, so quality of resources available, and skills and competencies works is often poor of IWMP could enhance quality of works and IWMP: Inadequately staffed but can draw planning and implementation of projects. on qualified and competent individuals and Convergence would also create more person-days agencies to provide technical support and and improve chances of NREGA delivering on its social facilitation 100-day promise Planning NREGA: Works selected by popular consensus IWMP techniques would bring to NREGA application and proposal and represent “wish list” of current needs of sophisticated tools and planning processes and formulation at IWMP: Allows deployment of technology- a multiyear perspective, leading to better quality project level assisted tools (GIS, remote sensing) to and longer shelf life of projects, with longer-term map resources, plan project, and select benefits interventions Capacity NREGA: Capacity-building is objective More technological and science-based approach building but agencies not equipped to handle this of IWMP can bring capacity-building potential to requirement NREGA IWMP: Can deploy resources for capacity- building Funding NREGA: 100% of labor costs and75% of To improve scale, quality, and speed of material costs from central government; 60:40 implementation of watershed development labor to material ratio in projects interventions, NREGA can augment IWMP funding IWMP: Central share is 90%, state’s is 10%; and allow works to continue where IWMP funds are no restrictions on ratio of labor to material delayed or inadequate. Labor-intensive works could In both cases, funds routed through GP be financed through NREGA and material-intensive works under IWMP, or combination of the two Inclusiveness NREGA: Has mechanisms for transparency Methodologies of IWMP could help realize and and accountability but often lacking in practice accountability objectives of NREGA. Satellite-based transparency IWMP: Engages NGOs and uses exposure remote planning could help verify targeting in visits to raise awareness, increase planned locations for soil and water conservation participation, and enhance transparency works for both IWMP and NREGA Reporting NREGA: Reporting done on regular basis by IWMP could move in this direction, though uploading data on web-based Management connectivity, software and hardware, and power Information System (MIS) platform directly problems would need rectifying. MIS has potential from GP level to enhance transparency, give access to market IWMP: Such a system not followed information, and garner Internet knowledge resources Institutional NREGA: Line management through ministry The common administrative and operational arrangements and state to GP arrangements of NREGA and IWMP would IWMP: Similar line management; executive facilitate convergence, with a chief executive committee set up, chaired by president of GP officer overseeing coordination and dovetailing of resources, partners, and activities so that synergies and sustainable livelihood opportunities are created, a goal of both programs Role of NREGA: WDD provides technical and other WDD can contribute in several areas in the case Watershed assistance as main body concerned with of convergence, including capacity-building and Development watershed matters in the state technical expertise, though it may be resistant to Department IWMP: WDD acts as implementing agency for some of the structural changes required (WDD) projects xvi Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence value to the current parallel structures and modes  WDD as a service provider. Here, the GP of operation of NREGA and IWMP. Among the items entrusts complete responsibility to WDD for consideration is the important question of how and the payments are made as per mutually the role of the Watershed Development Department agreed terms and conditions according (WDD) of the government of Karnataka might change to a detailed schedule with specific work under convergence. accomplishments. As can be seen from the analysis in Table ES2, the  WDD to act as a depository. WDD will similarities between NREGA and IWMP in goals and perform all activities, including procurement objectives, institutional arrangements, and other and financial management, and will share areas offer considerable potential for convergence, the reporting from time to time with the though a number of issues need to be resolved on the GP, but finally be accountable to the higher way, including in the areas of approach, cost norms, echelons. nature of funding, planning and project formulation, implementation horizons, beneficiary contributions, transparency, and accountability. A pilot project would Conclusion: Prospects for NREGA assist in testing a convergence-based approach and and IWMP would offer insight into how best to proceed. It is apparent that a number of obstacles need to be Models of convergence: An important issue is the overcome in order to achieve greater convergence framework around which convergence is structured. between NREGA and IWMP. These challenges relate Four models have emerged as possible options: to dovetailing the institutional arrangements for implementation at GP- and watershed-level, and  Collaborative or synergistic, in terms of the governance structure at the national and state works and activities. Once a watershed (sub- level; matching the annual NREGA project cycle with watershed or micro-watershed) is prepared the four to seven years of IWMP; balancing the rural with due cognizance of the aspects raised employment, demand-driven approach of NREGA with above, an activity breakdown matrix can be the watershed development, science-based approach drawn up, detailing works to be accomplished of IWMP; deciding what activities would be undertaken and assigning roles and responsibilities to within the new arrangement; and overcoming the different institutions or agencies, for example inefficiencies that tend to afflict both programs, so GP, executive committee, WDD, NGO, and so that their outcomes and achievements tally more on. Roles are to be defined depending on closely with the stated aims and objectives. relative strengths. In this manner, NREGA and IWMP would retain their institutional Critical to overcoming these obstacles is identifying, (including financial management) identities, from the various options, the best framework around but would require an overarching coordination which convergence is structured. Accuracy in that task could allow significant benefits to emerge mechanism as well as oversight bodies. from convergence, including an efficient system of  WDD as a facilitator rather than provider. watershed management with the triple benefits of In this scenario, WDD transforms itself sustainable resource use, employment generation, completely to a “facilitator” from the existing and enhanced agricultural production; flexibility “provider cum facilitator” role. In this model, in the project cycle, allowing the employment of WDD will assume full technical assistance a variable combination of human and physical responsibility, right from selection of resources depending on the nature of the project watersheds or villages, through planning and its time scale; enhanced long-term sustainability and implementation, and including capacity- and post-project maintenance; more rational building, monitoring and evaluation. All project identification, based on both local demand decision-making, including managing funds (NREGA) and sophisticated planning tools (IWMP); and procurement of goods and services, will greater access to and mobilization of funding; rest with the GPs. an increase in both the quantity and quality of Executive Summary xvii labor, as the NREGA workforce benefits from the marginalized or disadvantaged groups (women, capacity-building expertise of IWMP; adoption of a scheduled castes and tribes). more technological and science-based approach to In summary, greater convergence has the potential project implementation; an opportunity for greater to significantly increase the quality and scale of rural accountability and community participation; and projects in India, with considerable economic, social greater equity, with the increased involvement of and poverty reduction benefits. xviii Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence CHAPTER 1 Project Background A griculture accounts for about 16 percent of India’s annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Approximately 60 percent of the country’s population through local self-governments (Box 2). The budget for NREGA in fiscal year 2010/11 was Rs. 40,100 crores (US$ 8 billion), of which a portion is directed depends on agriculture, largely rain-fed, for its toward watershed2 works. However, there is growing primary livelihood. Of a net sown area of 141 million concern about the capacity of local self-governments hectares, approximately 68 percent is under rain-fed to effectively manage the program, especially in cultivation, mostly in arid and semiarid areas. Thirteen incorporating the latest technologies, ensuring states, including Karnataka, account for about three quality, and effectively handling procurement and quarters of the total rain-fed area.1 Generally, these funds. On the other hand, given NREGA’s huge areas receive less than 750 millimeters of rainfall financial resources, there is increasing interest in annually and have less than 30 percent of land under “convergence” with other national sectoral programs, irrigation. But these areas assume importance in such as the Integrated Watershed Management the context of meeting the nutritional requirements Program (IWMP) (Box 3). Forecast disbursements of the country’s ever-growing population. Assuming from IWMP over the 11th and 12th Five Year Plan moderate forecasts of population growth, India periods are approximately US$ 6.6 billion, making it requires an additional 102 million tonnes of food the world’s second largest watershed program after grains to be produced by 2020. While 64 million tonnes that of China. of this food could perhaps come from increasing the This document summarizes the findings of a Poverty irrigated area and irrigated productivity, the balance and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) of NREGA, carried out (38 million tonnes) can only come from rain-fed lands in Karnataka, to assess the possibility of convergence (or imports), which implies the marshaling of huge between NREGA and IWMP. Karnataka’s dry regions resources – technical, financial, and institutional. are among the state’s poorest areas, with low One way in which the government of India is addressing agricultural productivity resulting from susceptibility this challenge of food security is by channeling funds to drought and deepening environmental stress from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) (Box 1) to finance soil and 2 A watershed is defined as a topographically delineated area with water conservation activities in arid, rain-fed areas a single drainage point. Adopting a watershed approach is both biophysically and socioeconomically logical. Given the natural direction of gravitational flow, biophysics provide a unidirectional dimension to cause and effect relationships. As soil and water move down slope, 1 These include Maharashtra (14.49 million hectares), Madhya communities may also move in either direction, depending on Pradesh (9.31 million hectares), Rajasthan (12.15 million hectares), livelihood opportunities such as trade and employment. A watershed Karnataka (7.46 million hectares), Uttar Pradesh (4.42 million approach enables systematic conservation of soil and water, critical hectares), Andhra Pradesh (6.48 million hectares), Gujarat (6.58 to sustaining agriculture-based livelihoods, as the treatments start million hectares), and West Bengal (2.54 million hectares). from the ridge and move toward the drainage point. Chapter 1: Project Background 1 Box 1: National Rural Employment Guarantee Act In 2005, the government of India passed landmark legislation that promised to deal effectively with the problem of unemployment in the country. NREGA was constituted “to provide for the enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.” It also aims to arrest out-migration of rural households in search of employment, simultaneously enhancing people’s livelihoods on a sustained basis, by developing economic and social infrastructure in rural areas, essentially addressing chronic poverty, migration, drought, deforestation, soil erosion, and water resources management, by building local capacities for generating productive assets. Box 2: NREGA and Local Self-Governments The functional arm of NREGA is called the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which is responsible for transforming the idea into reality. At the national level, the Ministry of Rural Development is the agency that all state governments are accountable to in their respective operations. Every state drafts its own scheme, with a state fund and office set up for the purpose. Officials and departments at the village and district levels implement these schemes. The chief executing agency or the nodal point between different authorities is the village-level Gram Panchayat (GP). It is the GP’s responsibility to create awareness in the villages, seek applications and register interested candidates, issue job-cards to track progress, ascertain the infrastructural needs of the village through gram sabhas or village meetings, incorporate the voice of the masses, decide on which projects to undertake, allocate funds for sanctioned projects, and ensure that laborers receive their wages. Details about the key actors and processes involved in NREGA are listed in Appendix A. Box 3: Integrated Watershed Management Program The Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP) was launched in 2009/10 to enhance optimum use of resources, sustainability of outcomes and integration of planning. Three former programs – the Drought-Prone Areas Program, the Desert Development Program, and the Integrated Wastelands Development Program – were subsumed into one to create IWMP. At the national level, the program is implemented by the Department of Land Resources, and its main objectives are to restore the ecological balance by harnessing, conserving, and developing degraded natural resources such as soil, vegetative cover, and water to enable prevention of soil erosion, regeneration of natural vegetation, rainwater harvesting, and recharging of the groundwater table. This is expected to boost multi-cropping and the introduction of diverse agro-based activities to provide sustainable livelihoods to the people residing in the watershed area. It also focuses on scientific planning of the projects by using information technology, remote sensing techniques, and Geographic Information System (GIS) facilities for planning, monitoring, and evaluation. IWMP in the states is implemented through a three-tier institutional setup managed by multidisciplinary professionals: a state-level nodal agency, a project implementing agency at the project level, and a watershed residents committee at the village level. Selections are made such that they promote an average watershed with a size of about 5,000 hectares and cost norms of Rs. 6,000 per hectare to Rs. 12,000 per hectare in the plains, and Rs. 15,000 per hectare in difficult or hilly areas. The project period is flexible – from four to seven years. 2 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence and degradation. However, the state has a unique this backdrop that the government of Karnataka opportunity to build on the success of the earlier World sought assistance from the World Bank for a follow- Bank-supported Karnataka Watershed Development on project, to demonstrate successful convergence Project (also known as, and referred to hereafter as, with NREGA. Sujala), which closed on March 31, 2009. Sujala As part of the project preparation activities, the generated positive lessons and best practices around Watershed Development Department (WDD),3 integrated watershed management, agricultural government of Karnataka, responsible for managing intensification, rural livelihoods, monitoring and watershed development throughout the state of evaluation, and building resilience to climate change. Karnataka, planned a social assessment study to In this context, there is a growing need for a new ensure that development initiatives contributed to project model to successfully demonstrate and scale inclusive development and poverty reduction. The up convergence of the innovative Sujala watershed specific objectives of the social assessment aimed approach with NREGA-financed soil and water at (a) identifying and analyzing key social issues and conservation activities. related factors that have a bearing on the achievement In 2011/12, the NREGA budget in Karnataka was over of project objectives; and (b) based on this analysis, US $1 billion, with 30–40 percent of disbursements providing suitable inputs to the project’s design to directly linked to soil and water conservation. ensure a sustainable and equitable flow of benefits Leveraging these investments is expected to result to project populations in general, and vulnerable not only in social and economic safety nets, but groups in particular. As a supplement to the social also in strengthening democratic processes and assessment, the World Bank’s Trust Fund support mitigating the effects of climate change. It is against was secured to conduct a comprehensive PSIA. 3 WDD is the state-level nodal agency in Karnataka for watershed management. Chapter 1: Project Background 3 Pleasant Surprise !!- Villagers' intense involvement in PRAs CHAPTER 2 PSIA Approach and Methodology T he PSIA explores the potential for convergence between two national programs – NREGA and IWMP – by looking at NREGA, its implementation in Study Area There are three major interventions in Karnataka Karnataka, its effectiveness and shortcomings, and in recent times -- World Bank-assisted Sujala I; finally the benefits likely to accrue, as a result of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development convergence, for both programs. The key elements (NABARD) – assisted Sujala II; and Sujala III which of the PSIA included diversity mapping, beneficiary is currently under implementation.4 It aims to cover assessment, stakeholder analysis, institutional an area of about 400,000 hectares in 100 sub- analysis, social impact analysis, participatory poverty watersheds5 spread across seven districts: Bidar, assessment, risk assessment, and scenario analysis Gulbarga, Yadgir, Gadag, Koppal, Davanagere The conceptual framework to study poverty and social and Chamarajanagar. A comprehensive social impacts was based on the understanding that NREGA assessment from a watershed perspective was is likely to have three broad kinds of impacts: conducted in representative sub-watersheds in these seven districts. Based on the results, seven GPs  Short-term or immediate impacts, related were selected for the PSIA study: Batagera (Bidar to employment and wage earnings in a district); Srinivasa Saradagi (Gulbarga); Madhawar particular year thatare direct, easily visible, (Yadgir); Hatti (Koppal); Nidagundi (Gadag); Harve and quantifiable; (Chamarajanagar); and Basavanakote (Davanagere)  Long-term economic impacts, occurring as a (Box 4). Accurate representativeness was achieved result of asset creation, estimation of which through criteria that ensured inclusion of (a) both poorly-performing and better-performing GPs with is a difficult task as the assets promise a regard to NREGA; (b) remote and well-connected potential for income earnings but realization GPs; (c) GPs with both low and high rates of of the same is likely to be governed by a migration; (d) demographically small and large GPs; variety of factors, internal and external; and (e) locations with varying levels of groundwater  Human and institutional development and surface water availability. Apart from deploying impacts, emanating from capacity-support and capacity-building received by local self- governments and communities as a result 4 Sujala III was approved by the World Bank Board on September 26, of the program and related aspects such as 2012. participation, transparency, accountability, 5 For the purposes of operational and administrative convenience, a watershed is normally divided into smaller areas, each having its procurement and financial management own drainage point. These are known as sub-watersheds (about skills, and good governance. 1,000 hectares) and micro-watersheds (about 100 hectares). Chapter 2: PSIA Approach and Methodology 5 the normal instruments and processes,6 the study Sampling Design, Database and also included comprehensive interactions with the Methodology NREGA implementation agencies at district and taluka levels and semi-structured interviews with GP- This study adhered to the scientific methods and level stakeholders such as NREGA job-cardholders, protocols required of a holistic assessment and used elected representatives, GP secretaries, and both qualitative and quantitative research methods panchayat development officers. Secondary data and tools. The study generated information from was collected from various government departments both primary and secondary sources. The former (WDD and Rural Development and Panchayat Raj comprised household surveys and participatory rural Department) and panchayat raj institutions such appraisals. Secondary information was mostly based as zila panchayats, taluka panchayats and GPs, on desk research. and from watershed management-related Non- Household surveys were carried out employing the Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and community- multistage stratified random sampling method. based organizations. Four strata were used: (a) project districts; Box 4: PSIA Project Locations Gram Panchayat Taluka District Sujala III Batagera Basavakalyan Bidar project districts Srinivasa Saradagi Gulbarga Gulbarga where PSIA was Madhawar Yadgir Yadgir conducted Hatti Koppal Koppal Nidagundi Rona Gadag Harve Chamarajanagar Chamarajanagar Basavanakote Jagalur Davanagere NREGA was implemented in all seven GPs by (b) project sub-watersheds; (c) sub-watershed GPs and 2008. The major social groups inhabiting the villages; and (d) sample households. While the PSIA sample area include the Lingayats, Marathas, and was focused on seven GPs, the social assessment Kurubas. The number of poor and marginalized study covered a sample of 32 GPs (107 villages) in groups is particularly high in all these GPs, and the majority of households depend upon agriculture and allied activities for their livelihood. They are also heavily dependent on monsoon rains for irrigation as water assets or facilities either do not existor, if they do exist, suffer from poor functionality. All the sample GPs, except Srinivasa Saradagi and Harve, have extremely low connectivity, which implies a low level of integration with markets and urban centers. The villages are characterized by poor social and physical infrastructure, and the education levels of the inhabitants are low. 6 Transect, timeline, and seasonal calendar; resource and social mapping; occupation and wealth ranking; livelihood analysis; focus group discussions; community presentations; and stakeholder consultations and key informant interviews. 6 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence 14 sub-watersheds. The PSIA benefited from this overarching social assessment study which generated primary information from 5,350 households. Participatory Rural Appraisal As part of the PSIA, comprehensive participatory rural appraisals were conducted in the sample locations to generate group-led qualitative information. The focus of the appraisals was twofold: watershed development and NREGA. In all, 28 participatory rural appraisal exercises were conducted in 14 sub-watersheds. A sub-watershed may have several GPs, and a GP in turn may comprise several micro-watersheds. Thus the primary management unit for watersheds is the micro-watershed, whereas it is the whole of the GP for NREGA (and the PSIA). In consequence, there was some degree of overlap between the PSIA and the watershed participatory rural appraisals (Table 1). Table 1: Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Locations District Sub-watershed Gram Panchayat Micro-watershed village (PRA: NREGA) (PRA: watershed) Chamarajanagar Bandhalli Bandhalli Anagalli Harve Kumachaahalli (Hosahalli) Kethahalli Gulbarga Hudunaik Tanda Srinivasa Saradagi Darek Tanda Gorakapalli Nidagundi Bedagapalli Bidar Belambi Batagera Atturu Sundal Sundal Jakanal Yadgir Turk Madhawar Madhawar Toranathippa Adawadagi Suguru Hemmadagi Koppal Vittalapura Thavaragera Vittalapura Bettageri Hatti Haidar Nagar Gadag Hosahalli Nidagundi Kalakapur Surangi Dodduru Ullatti Davangere Agasanahalli Basavanakote Agasanahalli Gullahalli Garaga Rangapura Tanda Chapter 2: PSIA Approach and Methodology 7 Women with NREGA Job Cards CHAPTER 3 NREGA’s Performance NREGA at the National Level Interestingly, women account for 50 percent of the beneficiaries or participants in this program. Reports in the last three years indicate that NREGA One of the most important results is that NREGA’s has benefited 52 million households across the implementation has raised the wage rate bar from country, generating 2,200 million person-days of the market standard of Rs. 65 per day to Rs. 125 employment. It was rolled out in three phases: it per day for unskilled labor, especially benefiting was implemented in 200 districts in 2006, in 130 women and people belonging to scheduled castes in 2007, and in 285 in 2008. Over the years, activity and scheduled tribes. The scheme has had a positive under NREGA has picked up pace. While the initial impact on NREGA workers’ income, with the average phase of its implementation was characterized household earnings increasing from Rs. 2,795 in by low awareness about entitlements, resulting 2006/07 to Rs. 4,060 in 2008/09. The other major in low demand, it has become more functional contribution has been its impact on the financial as the numbers of job-cardholders, households, status of women and disadvantaged communities, and individuals benefiting from the scheme have such as the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. increased. However, criticisms of NREGA’s overall performance abound. On the administrative front, reports in the past have pointed out that the program is beset with problems – there are reports of fictitious job-cards, of wages not being paid in full and on time, and so on. At the financial level, economists have raised questions about the sustainability of the scheme, considering India’s fiscal deficit is expected to reach 5.6 percent of its GDP, and the government of India has spent US$ 9 billion on the program in 2011. Also, there are concerns that the location of the assets created under NREGA do not always follow science- based watershed planning, resulting in lower-than- expected impacts on soil and water conservation in catchments. At the social level too, NREGA seems to have made little impact. It was found that any improvement in NREGA has meant a lot to women the financial status of communities did not have Chapter 3: NREGA’s Performance 9 a direct relation with their social status: the poor largely due to lack of experience, participation, and continued to be seen as poor and the wealthier awareness; in recent years, the estimates have sections of society continued to exert control over become more realistic. The estimates in the seven the assets created. Also, the bureaucratic structure GPs for 2008/09 varied from a low of Rs. 200,000 of NREGA’s implementation departments has not to a high of Rs. 20 million, while, in 2011/12, they enabled the poor wage laborers to acquire new skills; ranged from Rs. 5.6 million to Rs. 16.5 million they are thus kept surreptitiously at the bottom rung per GP. The actual allocations, however, were of society. generally lower than the estimates presented by the GPs. The utilization during 2010/11 aggregated to 26–56 percent. Each GP also has its specific NREGA in Karnataka constraints as far as planning and implementation of The government of Karnataka notified the the program is concerned, ranging from unreliability Karnataka Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in of Internet connectivity for uploading fortnightly February 2007. The following statistics7 provide an reports to low levels of coordination between insight into its performance over the four years of its departments, and other bureaucratic obstacles. implementation: The promise of 100 days of employment has not  5.21 million job-cards had been issued by the been fulfilled for the larger part of the sample across end of fiscal year 2010/11. four years. Households in only about 28 percent of the sample have managed to avail themselves of  In 2010/11, the Karnataka Rural 100 days of employment; no household has secured Employment Guarantee Scheme utilized 100 days in the remaining sample. The number of Rs. 25,103 million, providing employment days of employment ranged between 15 and 90, to 2.24 million households, though only with an average of 50, across the seven GPs. In 1.32 million households (about 59 percent) this respect, Hatti, Madhawar, and Nidagundi have completed 100 days of work. performed better than the others.  Women accounted for almost half (46 percent) Wages received also often have not conformed to the of the person-days created. provision made under NREGA. Local wage employment  While the availability of funds has increased is available for about five months and migration to over the years, the percentage of utilization urban centers is a common phenomenon, although shows an uneven trend, with 2009/10 it is seasonal (summer is the peak season). It must witnessing the highest level at 74 percent be noted that market wages in the study sample are and 2008/09 showing the lowest utilization at 53 percent.  As against a stipulated guarantee of 100 days of work, the average number of person-days has been much lower, ranging between 32 and 56. NREGA Performance across the Sample GPs Across the seven GPs selected for the study, gaps were apparent between budget estimation and its allocation and utilization. The initial years saw inflated budget estimates being presented by GPs, 7 Source: NREGA Directorate, government of Karnataka. Women out-numbered men in PRAs 10 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence higher for men than those provided for under NREGA.  Over-reporting of job-cards was a feature in However, such higher wage rates are normally not the initial years, and the same issue is now available within the village and accessing them may being revisited. While multiple cards being involve travel of 8–15 kilometers one way. While possessed by a single household is observed NREGA puts the ceiling at Rs. 125 per day, men in some cases, the exclusion of several can receive wages in the market up to Rs. 200 per households is also quite common. It is not day. So, NREGA wages may not be an attractive uncommon to see job-cards in possession of proposition for men in all areas. On the other hand, ward members and not households. though women receive lower wages (Rs. 80 per day) than men, the fact that hired work is available within  Some 20–30 percent of the job-card holders the village itself, and the wages received are higher have not had a single day’s employment than those normally offered locally, proves highly under the scheme. advantageous for women.  For many villages, employment generated In general, there have been six to ten types of works by NREGA is the only source of livelihood, undertaken through NREGA funds allocated to the particularly during the non-farming seasons. GPs, including tank rehabilitation, creation of check-  Delays in raising and approving bills and dams and gully-plugs, development of private land consequent delays in wage payments have and plantations, recharging of pits, and construction also been quite common. of open wells, and roads. Clearly, most GPs have focused on watershed development and connectivity  Poor capacity of GPs, and poorer capacity- enhancement, implying a desire to develop better support from official agencies, are common livelihood generation capabilities. The quality of the features. works undertaken on private lands has been largely  Over-reporting of job-cards, inflated budgets, good, but the same is not true for public works. While exclusion of some households, lack of officials at the district and state levels mostly feel that adequate participation, and poor capacity all the quality of both public and private assets has been have a significant effect on the estimation of good, women and members ofscheduled castes and labor demand. scheduled tribesare dissatisfied with the quality of public works.  The norm that women should account for at least a third of the person-days worked is met throughout the state. However, there are Issues of Significance some differentials in the wage rate. The wages The study brings to the fore the following issues earned through the National Rural Employment requiring attention: Guarantee Scheme were generally much lower than those available in agriculture or other  There is a lack of appreciation of a demand- wage labor. This has been particularly true for driven, rights-based approach, both among male workers in all regions. communities and officials.  Earnings of the poorer households are  This, in turn, has led to inadequate significantly lower than the earnings of those community participation and consultation. who are less poor. Poorly attended gram sabhas result in an incomplete or inappropriate list of activities  Inadequate personnel – especially technical to be undertaken, which subsequently are staff – has resulted in poor planning, deficient firmed up by members of the GP. This has quality control, and delays in execution of also resulted in GP ward members assuming works. prominence rather than gram sabhas or  All of the above have also resulted in poor communities. The participation of women, quality of works carried out, irregular updating scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in of Management Information Systems (MIS), gram sabha meetings is low. and missing entries in job-cards. Chapter 3: NREGA’s Performance 11 Based on primary and secondary information, it that across the country. Issues that require general could be concluded that the pace of implementation attention in order to enhance the effectiveness of the of NREGA in Karnataka is more or less at par with program are also more or less the same. 12 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence CHAPTER 4 Poverty and Social Impacts Poverty Impacts the category of “poor” (Table 2). Households with an annual income of Rs. 15,000–20,000 per annum The wealth ranking exercise undertaken by the or less are considered as “poor.” Interestingly, local communities identified 11 attributes that regardless of their actual status, all households could be used to determine the economic status of choosing to work (or actually working in the field) the households. The ranking indicates that, in the under NREGA are necessarily recognized as “poor,” sample GPs, 35–50 percent of households fall into even by local communities. Some attributes listed in Table 2: Attributes of Poverty Rich or well-off Middle or intermediate Poor or very poor 5–10% 40% 35–50% Relatively large landholdings Owns 4–6 acres (1.6–2.4 hectares) Landless or with small holdings – Owns bore well(s) of land either dry land or without assured Milk animals – usually 2 or more Medium-sized and semi-pucca house irrigation Owns vehicles such as tractor and with fewer facilities Small and kutcha house without motorcycle Low levels of household assets and facilities Owns bullocks and other draft durables – usually black and white A few small ruminants animals TVs Without bore wells Good or spacious pucca house with Low levels of education Illiterate or very low educational levels facilities such as toilet, furniture Owns 1 or 2 milk animals Wage labor is a major source of Owns household durables such as Intermediate castes such as artisanal income color TV or fridge and valuables such communities – barber, carpenter, Highest levels of migration as ornaments washer folk, potter, etc. Without milk animals Relatively higher educational levels There are some skilled people among Without household durables or Household member(s) working in them valuables government or private sector Wage labor is not a major source of Without working member(s) in the Most upper castes belong to this income formal sector category Low level of migration for manual Concentration of scheduled castes Relatively high level of livelihood work and scheduled tribes diversification Better access to government schemes No or low skill levels Higher level of inclusion and Low level of access to government participation in self-help groups schemes Low level of livelihood diversification Low level of inclusion and participation in self-help groups Absence of livelihood diversification Chapter 4: Poverty and Social Impacts 13 Table 2 including employment in the informal sector terms, except for Hatti, where NREGA has yielded and the absence of livelihood diversification, probably Rs. 6,000 per annum, income is modest (between contribute additionally to poverty. The lack of capacity- Rs. 2,000 and 4,000 per annum) in the remaining building initiatives has meant an inadequate skill GPs. Except for the “other” category, there are base, which probably renders occupational mobility migrant laborers in all categories, accounting for rather difficult. Lastly, it is instructive to note that the 5–15 percent of total NREGA participation. All study poor find it difficult to participate in group activities GPs have workers, a higher proportion in the poorer such as self-help groups. and marginalized segments, who are yet to be paid wages. Short-Term Impacts Study findings therefore indicate that NREGA does provide some income locally. It is also true that the The one-time or short-term impact of NREGA has been situation has improved considerably over the years. assessed for both economic and social subgroups.8 However, given the current levels of performance, the Economic groups are categorized on the basis of larger question that emerges is whether NREGA can the size of the holding – landless (zero); marginal meet the employment demand fully. farmers (0–1 hectare); small farmers (1–2 hectares); and others (more than 2 hectares). Social groups are scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, and women. Estimation of Labour Demand Among the persons available for participation in Participatory rural appraisal techniques were also NREGA in different economic groups, marginal deployed to estimate the demand for work sought farmers account for the majorityof households in any to be created under NREGA. Calculations for one GP (Table 2), followed by small farmers and landless GP, Tawaregeri (Koppal district), were made for households. In relative terms, landless persons have illustrative purposes and are presented in Table worked the most (25–70 percent), whereas marginal 4. There are 2,350 households in the GP, of which and small farmers account for 15–40 percent. No 64 percent are landed and the remaining landless. person from the “other” category has worked. The Both categories have members migrating out of the number of days of work too follows a similar pattern, village to eke out wage labor. Taking all the current with the landless working the most. available occupations into account, the total number Income from NREGA per household per annum works of person-days available for NREGA works out to out to about Rs. 2,000–7,000, which amounts to about 262,000, one third of which is from the landed 5–15 percent of the total income (Table 3). In real and two thirds from landless households. The number Table 3: Short-Term Impacts of NREGA Landless Marginal Small farmers Others farmers Persons available for NREGA work (range of GPs) 112–560 370–1686 192–754 0–52 Persons from the above category who worked 25–70 20–38 15–40 0 under NREGA (%) Average number of days of NREGA work 20–60 20–40 20–40 0 Income per annum from NREGA (Rs.) 2000–6000 3500–7000 3000–5000 0 NREGA income relative to household income (%) 6–15 7–15 5–13 0 Migrants available for NREGA work (%) 5–15 5–10 3–8 Number of migrants willing to do NREGA work 80–150 100–350 80–160 0 Number of migrants who worked under NREGA 20–30 30–50 20–30 0 Number of migrants who gave up or postponed 0–10 0–20 0 0 migration due to NREGA* * Some migrant workers postponed their migration in Hatti and Madhawar GPs. 8 The two groups are not mutually exclusive. 14 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence Seasonal Labour calendar Jan Feb Mar Apl May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Rainfall Water ooooo ooooo oooo ooo ooooo ooooo oooo oo oo Availability Fodder for livestock •• •• ••• ••• •••• •••• •••••• •••••• •••••• Jower Termeric Ragi Sowing Sesam Uruli Termeric Jower Harvesting ****** **** **** ****** ****** **** Shiva Festivals Sankranthi Ugadi Ashada Shravana Vinayaka Dasara Deepavali Rathri     AH Disease F&M F&M Other F&M Income       Expenditure Festivals Festivatls Marriage Marriage Marriage Festivatls Festivatls Festivatls Agri Agri NREGA Kerala Migration Bangalore & Tamil Nadu Kerala Work Availability Chapter 4: Poverty and Social Impacts 15 Farm Ponds constructed under NREGA of days of employment a household can secure is Long-Term Poverty Impacts about 30 days per annum. On average, NREGA can meet 40 percent of the demand emanating from the Long-term economic benefits are expected to accrue non-migrant households. For the landless, it is about primarily due to land development activities and 20 percent. Likewise, estimations have been made creation of assets. The study covers only those for the seven sample GPs as well. activities that contribute directly to enhancement of agricultural production, employment, and income, Therefore, on average, NREGA can meet the that is, direct economic benefits. However, both demand fully in about 40 percent of the non-migrant landed and landless households could be party to households demanding wage labor. The scenario, long-term benefits. Further, these activities could be however, changes significantly if the demands of either exclusively for an individual (private works) or both migrant and non-migrant laborers are to be met for a common purpose (public works). locally. The financial implication of such an eventuality is large as current levels of budget allocation stand Private works. Types of works executed include (maximum) at only about Rs. 20 million per annum. land leveling, bunding, development of plantations, The actual amount required works out to Rs. 33 recharging of pits, fodder development, horticulture, million (65 percent upwards). There are also concerns sericulture, construction of farm ponds, check- about the capacity and abilityof the GPs to manage a dams and open wells, and laying irrigation pipelines. larger program. Investment made per work item or asset (except Table 4: Demand Estimation: An Illustration Name of GP: Tawaregeri. Taluka/District: Koppal Sub-watershed: Vittalapura. Total number of households in the GP: 2,350 Landed (farmers) households 1,500 Landless households 850 Total number of persons available for 1,190 Total number of persons available for 2,230 NREGA work NREGA work Total person-days required 89,250 Total person-days required 172,500 Budget (total person-days, Rs.)* 11,156,250 Budget (total person-days, Rs.) 21,562,500 Persons: 3,420 Person-days: Budget estimation (Rs.): 32,718,750 261,750 * Official minimum wage rate of Rs. 125 is used to make financial estimates, although NREGA workers do not get the official rate and the actual estimates by GPs are not always based on this rate. 16 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence is instructive to note that public works do benefit all landed households, including “other farmers.” In fact, this last category derives a higher degree of returns from assets created under NREGA. Benefits and Costs On the whole, benefits are calculated in terms of the number of households securing employment from NREGA and the associated (cumulative) incremental incomes. The total number of households benefiting as a result of private works aggregate to 984, or 3.5 percent of the total landed households (Table 5). Incremental incomes work out to Rs. 6.9 million per annum. Similarly, landed households benefiting from public works aggregate to 4,266, or 45 percent of Nala Bunds for soil and water conservation the total,, with benefits of Rs. 30 million. This apart, Rs. 0.87 million accrue to landless households on farm ponds and bunds), on average, is between (35 percent of the total) as a result of supplementary Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 55,000. Farm ponds and bunds wage labor generated. Thus cumulative benefits work cost Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 8,000, respectively. Most of the out to Rs. 38 million per annum. works have been undertaken on the lands of marginal Against these figures, expenditure incurred stands at and small farmers. These activities are expected Rs. 113 million. This would mean a payback period to increase farm production by 10–30 percent. In of about five to six years, which augurs well from a financial terms, this translates to Rs. 4,000–15,000 financial analysis perspective. But these estimations per annum per family. are based on the production potential created Public works. Long-term impacts of the assets as a result of NREGA’s intervention. Translation created on public lands are expected to enhance of potential into reality, that is, sustainability of agricultural production by 10–30 percent. In financial investments, depends on two critical factors: quality terms, this works out to about Rs. 2,000–10,000. It of the structures and post-construction operation and Table 5: Long-Term Benefits GP 1 GP 2 GP 3 GP 4 GP 5 GP 6 GP 7 Total No. of Total 2547 1892 2073 2308 1792 1389 1503 13494 households Landed 2328 1749 1966 2117 1591 1284 1235 12270 Landless 219 133 107 191 201 105 268 1224 Private works Direct (landed) 106 127 398 123 84 41 105 984 beneficiaries (5%) (7%) (20%) (6%) (5%) (3%) (9%) (3.5%) Benefits (Rs./annum) 6.9 million Public works Direct (landed) 1065 603 766 453 491 638 250 4266 beneficiaries (46%) (35%) (39%) (21%) (31%) (50%) (20%) (45%) Benefits (Rs./annum) 30 million Indirect (labor) 65 85 76 60 48 70 30 434 (29%) (63%) (71%) (32%) (24%) (66%) (12%) (35%) Benefits (Rs./annum) 0.87 million Benefits Total (Rs./annum) 38 million Investments Total expenditure* 113 million * During the past four years. Chapter 4: Poverty and Social Impacts 17 maintenance. On the first parameter, it has been noted that quality is moderate, as it is satisfactory only in three or 40 percent of the GPs. Additionally, going by past experience, the GPs’ operation and maintenance performance is usually below expectations. Social Impacts Stakeholder Analysis Detailed consultations were carried out with various stakeholders at village or micro-watershed, GP, taluka, district, and state levels.9 An enquiry into who benefited the most is quite interesting (Table 6), reflecting not only the perceptions but also the expectations of different subgroups. It should be noted that the perceptions of participating or benefiting households and members and officials differ substantially. While Irrigation Channels constructed under NREGA the former feel that most of the gains are garnered by the managers of the program, the latter perceive estimates; (c)  identification of the target groups of that benefits have accrued (or should accrue) to the beneficiaries; (d) annual statement of accounts; and village community. (e) utilization certificate for the development works. Participation in gram sabhas has been uniformly Participation in Implementation of NREGA very low. In general, the number of participants The institutional platform for enabling participation is for identifying works ranges between 0 and 45, the gram sabha. Its endorsements are required for all as against a total resident population of 1,500 to matters, including (a) development works; (b) budget 2,650, and probably 500–800 qualifying members. Table 6: Who Benefited Most from NREGA Assets? Stakeholder Who benefited most from public works? Who benefited most from private works? GP representatives 1. Farmers 1. Farmers 2. The landless 2. The landless GP secretary/PDO 1. Job-cardholders 1. Job-cardholders Landless 1. Contractors/GP members 1. Contractors/GP members Landed (farmers) 1. Intermediaries 1. Intermediaries 2. GP officials/representatives 2. GP officials/representatives 3. Farmers 3. Farmers Scheduled castes and 1. Contractors 1. Contractors scheduled tribes 2. Large farmers 2. Large farmers 3. Officials 3. Officials Women/self-help 1. Farmers with relatively large holdings 1. Farmers with relatively large holdings groups 2. Contractors 2. Contractors 3. Officials 3. Officials 4. GP representatives 4. GP representatives Taluka officials 1. Job-cardholders 1. Job-cardholders Zila panchayat 1. Job-cardholders 1. Job-cardholders officials/CEO 2. Poor farmers 2. Poor farmers 9 Stakeholder analysis is done in the context of both NREGA and IWMP, as the study aims at a convergence between the two. 18 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence Table 7: Degrees of Inclusiveness Landless Marginal Small farmers Scheduled Women* farmers castes/tribes Persons available for NREGA work 112–560 370–1686 192–754 328–1170 260–432 (range across GPs) % of persons from above category 25–60% 20–38% 15–40% 20–50% 15–30% who worked under NREGA Average number of days of NREGA 20–60 20–40 20–40 15–50 25–30 work/annum Wage rate received per day, 60–125 60–125 60–125 60–125 60–125 actual in Rs. * Economic and social groups are not mutually exclusive. Participation in the execution of works seems to be place to collect their payments. Despite all these confined only to the “other farmers” category. The factors, wages received seem quite reasonable and landless, marginal farmers, scheduled castes and the range remains more or less the same for all scheduled tribes, and women figure very low on this categories of subgroups (Table 7). On a positive note, scale. The question, therefore, is less to do with why NREGA seems to have succeeded in providing a fresh the participation is low, and more to do with ways of window of local employment opportunity. enhancing it. Migration Cardholder participation, in general, has been very low in the implementation of NREGA across the GPs. The workforce in all sample GPs is mobile, with the The pattern shows low representation on behalf of proportion of households with migrant members women at the gram sabhas. Other disadvantaged ranging from 10 to 30 percent. Just around a tenth of groups, that is, the landless and scheduled castes migrants can be classified as permanent. The mobile and tribes, also have very low participation levels, workforce is predominantly unskilled or semiskilled. whereas the local elite, represented by the “others” It is mostly men who migrate, largely representing category, has been best represented at the gram the landless, marginal and small farmer households. sabhas. This lack of participation by the poor and Daily wage rates received by migrant workers for vulnerable households resulted in unsatisfactory farm work is anywhere between Rs. 15 and Rs. 250, identification of NREGA works by the gram sabha. whereas non-farm workers get paid Rs. 200–350. Some skilled workers command wage rates of up NREGA’s impact on social subgroups was assessed to Rs. 500. Commuting – in contrast to migration – in terms of the extent to which women, scheduled is also found in five of the seven study GPs. Unlike castes and scheduled tribes could participate in the migrants, commuters are mostly women who go program (Table 7). The wage rate received depends to neighboring villages for farm work during peak upon a number of factors, chiefly on the level of agricultural seasons. Women get Rs. 80–150 a day awareness and participation in the community, GP for farm work, while men are paid Rs. 100–200 for leadership, managerial acumen of the GP secretary non-agricultural work. and extent of compliance with the agreed processes of payment. It is usually low when the payments are The implementation of NREGA seems to have had made by the GP in the village itself, rather than the little impact on reducing migration. Barring the worker collecting them from the bank or post office.10 “other” category, all groups have migrants in the In any case, generally, women do not go to either range of 3–30 percent. The overlapping groups of landless and scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have a larger share of migrant workers, some of 10 As a rule, it is expected that payments should be made into the job- whom (20–50 percent) have worked under NREGA. card holder’s account in a bank. But, given that wage workers are poor and illiterate, and that the banks in some cases may be far, the GP The number of migrants who gave up or postponed representatives make the payments themselves within the village. migration due to NREGA is quite negligible. Chapter 4: Poverty and Social Impacts 19 Social Audit so far in Srinivasa Saradagi and Nidagundi. They have been conducted once in Basavanakote Social audit is an integral part of NREGA, embedded and Harve, and twice in Batagera, Madhawar, and in its implementation process. According to Hatti. In general, social audits are conducted at NREGA guidelines, the social audit must be GP meetings with little participation from ordinary conducted once in six months and can be held at job-cardholders. The average attendance has any stage of program implementation. Of the seven been around 30–40 (5–6 percent of the total job- sample GPs, social audits have not been conducted cardholders). 20 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence CHAPTER 5 Conclusions from NREGA Study Has NREGA Created More Issues Requiring Attention Employment? Even as the benefits of NREGA percolate down to the In Karnataka, the implementation performance grassroots, albeit slowly, there are implementation- of NREGA has improved over the years. Yet, labor and accountability-related issues that hinder effective demand (emanating from non-migrant households) implementation: has been met in only three out of seven or 40  Budgets and expenditure. In the majority percent of the GPs. Additionally, the workforce of cases, budgets are inflated and funds that migrates out of their habitation areas has under utilized, resulting from a general lack not been considered as part of this exercise – of awareness, low community participation, the financial implications of their inclusion are under-preparedness of the supporting quite heavy, and perhaps unattainable, given the agencies and inadequate capacity – current methods of performance that especially at the GP level – to implement NREGA is witnessing. Nonetheless, substantial scope exists for further NREGA in accordance with guidelines and improvements in both “widening” (number of other basic processes and requirements. households) and “deepening” (number of days of  Local participation. The landless, marginal employment by a household) the reach of the program. farmers, scheduled castes and tribes, Unless efforts are made to deepen and widen, and and women figure very low in terms of should current levels of performance continue, it representation at gram sabhas. Equally similar will not be possible to meet the demand fully. While and dismal is the status of participation in NREGA has, without doubt, increased the capacity social audits. The situation is exacerbated of rural households to earn a supplementary by the lack of resources and efforts under income, there are several shortcomings hindering NREGA for providing capacity support to GPs realization of its full potential. Key factors that and individuals. could contribute to the success of the program relate to (a) political leadership at the GP level;  Job-card issuance. In all the GPs, there (b)  community participation and community- are some households waiting for job-cards. based organizations; (c) external technical help Each household has some proportion from different government agencies; (d) district of job-cardholders who have not worked leadership, that is, the chief executive officer (CEO); even a single day. The possession of more and (e) GP secretary. In fact, several of these factors than one job-card per household is not influence each other. uncommon. The time taken for payment of Chapter 5: Conclusions from NREGA Study 21 wages is quite considerable. All study GPs of 100 days of work is 1–4 percent of the have workers who are yet to be paid wages; total number of job-card households. Wages the proportion of such workers is slightly received are not necessarily at par with the higher among the poorer and marginalized statutory minimum. segments.  Migration. Barring the “other” category, all  Employment days. Only two out of seven or groups have migrants, ranging between 3 about 30 percent of the GPs have households and 30 percent. The overlapping groups of that have secured 100 days of employment; the landless and scheduled castes and tribes no household has secured 100 days in have a larger share of migrant workers, some the remaining five GPs. In the former, the of whom (20–50 percent) have worked under number of households availing themselves NREGA. 22 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence CHAPTER Convergence between NREGA 6 and IWMP Case for Convergence aimed at enhancing the livelihoods of the poor and vulnerable households. All these are complemented Watershed development activities constitute a major with a range of capacity-building, technology transfer, portion of NREGA (Table 8). Thus, the contents of and community outreach activities. The two schemes both NREGA and IWMP are aligned more or less to have a great deal of common ground, and convergence the same objectives, providing an opportunity for will realize the synergies and complementarities convergence. Transformation of this opportunity between them. into reality demands, as a first step, a comparison of the impacts likely to occur due to each program. The analysis, presented in Table 8, draws on the Comparative Analysis from a results of the PSIA of NREGA and the findings of an Convergence Perspective independent post-project impact assessment of the Similarity of Development Objectives World Bank-assisted Sujala project. The results are explicit in indicating that the Sujala approach can The main goal of IWMP is to improve and ensure sustainable livelihoods by enhancing productivity offer three distinct advantages: and incomes. It seeks to do this by restoring the local  Asset creation. Sujala has a larger canvas ecological balance through harvesting rainwater in of investment activities (table 8), reflecting a situ, conserving soil, and developing vegetation in higher level of technical expertise. degraded ecological habitats using a watershed development approach. The objectives are to reduce  Accrual of benefits. Sujala benefits a higher and prevent soil erosion, regenerate natural vegetation, number of households and, in particular, the increase rainwater impounding, and recharge the landless, marginal farmers, and scheduled groundwater table.  This improves the quality of life castes and tribes (Table 9). of local communities, as it enables  multi-cropping and the introduction of diverse agro-based activities,  Income benefits. Sujala’s intervention increased availability of natural resources for livelihood generates more wage days and higher intensification and diversification, and improvement in production and incomes. livestock holdings, all of which contribute to providing In addition, Sujala I has a well-defined institutional sustainable livelihood opportunities. arrangement for program delivery that provides ample NREGA has the twin objectives of employment and participation opportunities for local communities. rural development. The process outcomes also include Communities are expected to share or contribute to strengthening the grassroots processes of democracy capital costs, which induces a sense of ownership. and infusing transparency and accountability in Sujala also has some income-generating activities governance. Chapter 6: Convergence between NREGA and IWMP 23 Table 8: Types of Works Generated under NREGA and Sujala I Indicator NREGA Sujala I (KWDP I)* Major types of works executed Tank rehabilitation works such as Desiltation of tanks desiltation Nala bund/revetment Nala bund/revetment Bunding Bunding Farm ponds Farm ponds Recharge pits (open/bore well) Recharge pits (open/bore well) Land leveling Check dams Horticulture Boulder checks Check dams Percolation tanks/structures Boulder checks Land leveling Percolation tanks/structures Horticulture Sunken ponds Open wells Rock-filled dams Irrigation pipeline Ravine reclamation Rainwater harvesting Diversion channel Vegetative checks Pasture development * KWDP = Karnataka Watershed Development Project (alternative name for Sujala project). Table 9: Long-Term impacts of Sujala I and NREGA Indicator NREGA Sujala I Proportion of beneficiary households Landless: 15–20% Landless: 40% (by land category) Marginal farmers: 25–30% Marginal farmers: 60% Small farmers: 30–35% Small farmers: 50% Others: 30–40% Others: 30% Scheduled castes and scheduled Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes: 22% tribes: 50% Increase in cultivated area 15–35% 3–42% Cropping intensity (% of additional Around 10% overall mean 22% overall mean area cultivated) Crop diversification toward high-value Moderate High crops Increase in farm production resulting –30% 6­ –42% 28­ from assets Per hectare incremental increase in Low, around 15 person-days High, 45 person-days employment Incremental income per annum: 15–25% range for all farmers (landed 65% average for all farmers (landed landed category category) category) Impact on income of the poor/landless Rose by 20–25% Rose by 40–45% Increase in milk yields Low: NREGA does not support High: minimum of 20% gain in milk yields Scale has three points: (1) poor or low; (2) moderate; (3) high. It is well recognized that leveraging the huge funds only help realize them more easily but also generate available under NREGA requires inter-sectoral significant value and benefits, including optimal convergence. As NREGA is decentralized and its funds use of public investments; enhanced economic are untied, developmental works can be planned to opportunities; strengthened democratic processes; suit local needs. Thus, the effective convergence of mitigation of climate change effects; and sustainable two similar programs such as IWMP and NREGA, which improvements in livelihoods. Convergence will also share the same overall goal and objectives, will not be supported by the fact that, though the approaches 24 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence used by the two programs may differ, the works and be able to treat those areas falling within the revenue activities implemented by each have commonalities. limits of the GPs but outside the micro-watershed boundaries– thus allowing for inclusive and Approach and Activities comprehensive development at the project level.11 NREGA is an entitlements-based, demand-driven program, restricted to being undertaken within GP Augmentation of Human, Technical, Financial, boundaries. IWMP adopts a sub-watershed approach and Organizational Resources consisting of geo-hydrological units (clusters of micro- Effective convergence between IWMP and NREGA watersheds generally of about 500 hectares each), will provide supplementary and complementary normally averaging 5,000 hectares, cutting across resources to both programs. several GP jurisdictions. There may be more than one micro-watershed within the revenue boundaries Life cycle approach. IWMP is a well-structured, of a GP. Generally, only areas within the watershed sequenced program with clearly defined phases boundaries are treated in IWMP. In hilly or difficult (preparatory: one to two years; works: two to three terrain areas, smaller-sized sub-watershed projects years; and consolidation phase: one to two years) (1,000 hectares and above) are also sanctioned. that correspond with the life cycle requirements Thus, IWMP’s interventions take into account the of an integrated watershed-based developmental natural geophysical delineations cutting across project. To this are matched the requisite resources administrative boundaries, thereby not only rendering and measures necessary to realize the overall goal the planning holistic, but also contributing to long- of the project. Such a systemic approach, applied term sustainable management of natural resources. consistently over a period of seven years, has a IWMP funds all soil and water conservation reasonable chance of facilitating the acquisition and measures – mechanical, hydraulic, and vegetative – consolidation of, at least, basic social, technical, on all lands within the watershed, irrespective of land organizational, and institutional competencies at ownership and socioeconomic restrictions, while the individual, household, and community levels, NREGA funds works with the objective of creating essential for catalyzing and sustaining a broad-based durable assets and strengthening the livelihood developmental momentum for poverty reduction. resource base of the rural poor. It can thus be seen On the other hand, NREGA, which seeks to develop a that NREGA covers all the natural resource-based portfolio of assets that can generate value streams interventions included in IWMP while providing farm- and livelihood opportunities for poor rural households, based productivity – enhancing infrastructure (such only has an annual perspective. This is too short a as wells, pump sets, and water delivery mechanisms) period to develop the set of underlying resources and to defined social and economic groups. The latter is competencies necessary to achieve this objective. generally not undertaken by IWMP, nor is building of Dovetailing NREGA into the IWMP project cycle, with rural roads and community infrastructure such as meeting halls, office space for public agencies, and its accompanying provisioning (particularly in regard resource centers. On the other hand, IWMP provides to capacity-building and institutional development), funding for off-farm-based livelihoods through self- provides a sound framework to realize the long-term help groups, thus prioritizing women. objectives of NREGA in a sustainable manner. Provided there is community consensus on what is 11 States such as Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh have issued to be done, dovetailing the two programs could make guidelines that actively seek convergence between various schemes. In the former, for instance, repairs of minor tanks, bunds and minor substantial resources available for overall village irrigation canals, flood control, and river management works are taken development, and enable greater benefit realizations up. In the latter, a drought adaptation initiative involving 10 initiatives to villagers through enhanced production, wages, for up-scaling in 100 villages has been taken up; a common property resource management project in two districts with NGOs is being and incomes. Furthermore, given the common will implemented; a community-managed sustainable agriculture initiative and purpose, it could enable IWMP to accomplish involving non-pesticide management, silt application, and vermi- composting components is under way; and a plantation program with saturation treatment of micro-watersheds, optimize the Rubber Board, Coffee Board, and Tribal Welfare Department is the productive potential of created assets, and also under implementation. Chapter 6: Convergence between NREGA and IWMP 25 Personnel and competencies. Of the nine work items watershed upwards across related natural resources currently eligible for funding under NREGA, seven are and production areas. It also has access to facilities related to nature-based assets on which communities, for mass communication. Capacity-building is a major especially the poor, depend for their sustenance objective of NREGA but the concerned agencies are and livelihoods. The successful implementation of not equipped to handle this core requirement. By way these activities requires reasonably competent and of reciprocal arrangement, WDD could also commit technically sound personnel, a resource that is in to train and qualify capable and willing people in acute shortage under NREGA, more so, given the the numbers required to support GPs implementing scale and magnitude of operation. This has resulted NREGA-funded works. This would greatly improve the in a large number of works that are of poor quality, performance of NREGA and strongly contribute to incomplete, or both, thus rendering much expenditure realizing its objectives. It would also advance a sub- technically ineffective. Convergence with IWMP could objective of NREGA, which is to create the conditions resolve many of these problems. for a “transformative empowerment process for democracy.” IWMP, on the other hand, despite being inadequately staffed, has access to a large pool (in-house and While a comparative analysis of IWMP and NREGA external) of qualified and competent individuals makes a strong case for convergence, the two and agencies experienced in providing technical programs have specific potential benefits for each support and social facilitation. Over the years, they other that further strengthen the need for such a have acquired the requisite know-how, established convergence. systems and processes, and secured the necessary infrastructure, equipment, and policy enablement needed to implement or facilitate technically sound What NREGA Can Offer to IWMP and socially accepted measures. Assurance of Long-Term Supplemental Funding Planning and proposal formulation at the project NREGA adopts a rights-based approach that is level. IWMP allows for the deployment of sophisticated demand-driven, whereas IWMP exists by administrative social and technology-assisted planning tools (such fiat and is allocation-led. In the case of NREGA, the as GIS, remote-sensing, net planning) to ensure that central government contributes 100 percent of works undertaken yield the desired and optimal results unskilled labor costs, 75 percent of material costs, over the long term. This requires comprehensive and and administrative costs equivalent to 6 percent of detailed resource-mapping, planning, selection of overall costs. The state contributes 25 percent toward interventions, and their sequencing and phasing, material costs. In the case of IWMP, the central share right down to the farm level. In NREGA, works are is 90 percent, whereas the state’s is 10 percent. Thus, selected by popular consensus to address the current if the state does not allocate its share of resources felt needs of the participants, and largely reflect a for IWMP on time, streamlined implementation can “wish list.” suffer, as has happened on occasion in the past, in Dovetailing NREGA funds into IWMP at the GP level some states (not Karnataka). In the case of NREGA, would necessarily require application of the tools and laborers are assured of continuous work as per the planning processes deployed under IWMP as well as Act, or unemployment allowance in lieu thereof. adopting a multiyear perspective to planning and The quantum of central government funds allocation implementation. This would result in assets of better to states under IWMP is determined by specific quality and longer shelf-life than at present, leading criteria, which put a ceiling on the total funds available to long-term benefits for a larger number of people. to the state and which extend downwards to district- Capacity-building. Karnataka’s Watershed level fund allocations. In NREGA, fund allocation is Development Department (WDD) has, over the years, notionally determined by the number of valid job-cards developed and tested comprehensive modules and in existence, multiplied by the maximum allowable pedagogies for training and capacity- building of days of employment per household (100 days per persons and groups at all levels from the village or year) into the notified minimum wage rate. 26 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence With the scale, quality, and speed of implementation required to undertake comprehensive and sound of watershed development interventions critically conservation- and production-enhancing measures. dependent on the amount and timely flow of funds, With likely increases in minimum wages in the near NREGA, besides providing essential funds, can also future (given the overall inflationary pressures in serve as a stabilizing and bridging resource, thus the economy) and the unlikelihood of these cost allowing works to continue when funds from IWMP norms being correspondingly revised upwards in are delayed or inadequate. the short term, effectively, much less work (or work of inferior quality) will get done within these norms, As the government has recently launched a campaign thus undermining the overall goals of the program. to weed out bogus cards, the amount of funds available While this is a problem for IWMP, it also provides to GPs on an annual basis may proportionately reduce. an opportunity for leveraging funds from NREGA for In addition, the priorities of elected GP members may soil and water conservation activities that can be not focus on watershed development and, even where carried out with manual labor. they do, the sequencing and location of structures may be determined by considerations other than Under NREGA, there is neither a cost norm for the area need and outcome efficiency. Such a situation can nor a unit cost for each activity. In fact, as minimum well repeat itself year on year, as planning is done on wage rates increase, the effective costs per activity an annual basis. undertaken also correspondingly increase. Thus, converging NREGA with IWMP will address the issue of This has a direct bearing on the pace of under-financing of eligible activities and enable IWMP implementation and length of the project period. to undertake measures in the required quantity and The Works Action Plan under NREGA has an annual quality, subject to the caveats mentioned above. cycle, which, in turn, affects the choice of works implemented. IWMP, on the other hand, has a seven- The wages paid under NREGA are substantially year perspective and can choose and sequence higher than those paid under IWMP because, while measures that, while meeting some immediate the same Minimum Wages Act is followed in both eligible needs of the people, are primarily focused programs, the output norms per activity are lower on realizing the overall objectives of the project. under NREGA. Currently, soft soil work is paid at Even within this period, a maximum period of Rs. 94 per cubic meter, whereas under IWMP it is three to four years is available for implementation paid at Rs. 50 per cubic meter. While this works in of physical measures. The need to harmonize favor of laborers, it also has the potential to cause different temporal perspectives as well as manage problems for IWMP-funded works being undertaken expectations will be a challenge that will need to in areas where NREGA funds are also deployed. One be addressed on a continuing basis throughout the way out is to harmonize the former’s output norms project period. with those under NREGA. The fear of being able to undertake fewer works if nominal wages go up, given Unit Cost Allocations and Cost Norms the existing ceiling, is largely obviated as NREGA, which is computed on the basis of activities and IWMP prescribes a unit cost of Rs. 12,000 per not per hectare costs, can also be drawn upon to hectare (Rs. 15,000 for hilly areas) for undertaking augment resources. integrated watershed development activities, inclusive of management, mobilization, capacity NREGA has a 60:40 labor to material ratio, which building, livelihoods promotion, and production limits its use in activities that have a high proportion of system development in accordance with prescribed material inputs (including semiskilled or skilled labor). proportionate allocations. Sixty-three percent IWMP, on the other hand, has no such restrictions. of the unit cost is allocated for watershed and Under such circumstances, in a watershed project, it production enhancement interventions, which is preferable that labor-intensive works be financed effectively works out to between a cost of Rs. 7,560 through NREGA and material-intensive works be and Rs. 9,450 per hectare. Given the increase included under IWMP, or a combination of the two in in the minimum wage rate and material costs, the case of specific activities having both labor and these amounts are roughly less than half those material inputs. Chapter 6: Convergence between NREGA and IWMP 27 Sustainability, Contribution, and Post-project programs for capacity building, exposure visits to Maintenance successful projects, interaction among participating villages, and use of innovative media (folk media, Under NREGA, no contribution is expected from wall paintings, OK cards), together with the additional the community as it is a rights-based program and, complement of technical personnel from WDD, would until recently, works on private lands could not be go a long way in realizing the accountability objectives undertaken. In IWMP, works on all categories of lands of NREGA. can be taken up. As it is a development program, people are expected to contribute 10 percent of works Apart from the normal methods of evaluation and carried out on private lands (5 percent in the case of monitoring that are prescribed and variedly followed scheduled castes and scheduled tribes) and varied in NREGA, it might help to have the additional amounts for farming system intensification activities oversight of satellite-based remote-sensing for on private lands (no contribution is expected from monitoring and planning, which WDD successfully works undertaken on common lands). The proceeds used in Sujala and which can readily be deployed in collected (together with fines, fees, donations, and so projects that draw upon funds from both programs on) go into building up the Watershed Development (“converged projects”). Remote-sensing would help Fund. The fund, however, is often insufficient for verify targeting against planned locations for many the task and, in the majority of cases, is beset soil and water conservation works, for both IWMP with problems of capture, leakage, and dormancy. and NREGA. Furthermore, it cannot be used to repair works taken up on private lands. Management Information System (MIS) and Reporting As NREGA offers assured funds on an annual continued basis for maintenance of common and Under NREGA, reporting is done on a regular basis certain classes of private assets, the need for the (at least on a fortnightly basis) by uploading data on a Watershed Development Fund is, to that extent, web-enabled MIS platform directly from the GP level. reduced. However, the developmental benefits of Such a system is not followed under IWMP at present. securing buy-in from beneficiaries, expressed through While this is desirable and IWMP should move in their contributions, still argues a case for mandating this direction, nevertheless, due to connectivity, some amount of physical or monetary contribution. software, and hardware problems and power outages In any case, if contributions have to be secured, frequently experienced at the GP level, uploading data these can be obtained from IWMP-funded private on time, without which payments are not released, landholders and not NREGA. can be a significant challenge. WDD will have to strengthen its communication infrastructure. Apart from enhancing transparency and making real-time What IWMP Can Offer to NREGA data available, such facilities would open up a world of possibilities for the villagers in terms of access Inclusion, Equity, Transparency, and to market information, employment opportunities, Accountability crop advisories, and access to government schemes NREGA has evolved a detailed and impressive suite and its e-governance programs. Developing more of mechanisms and processes to foster transparency community-based monitoring under IWMP would be and accountability at all levels. However, these are a positive step, which could extend to soil and water less than effective in practice. There is no external conservation work financed through NREGA in project agency deployed (NGOs, for instance) to mobilize areas. and organize people on a sustained basis to hold functionaries accountable, as in the case of IWMP. Institutional Triggers for The methods adopted by IWMP to raise awareness, Convergence increase participation and engagement, and enhance transparency and accountability, such as engaging Both programs have clearly defined and separate NGOs, organizing a variety of needs-based training institutional structures and mechanisms stretching 28 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence from the village upwards to the taluka, district, and administrative powers in the office of the CEO makes state levels, and thereon to the related department in possible coordination, leveraging, and dovetailing of the government of India ministry. A notable feature in resources from various agencies and programs so that both programs is the central role played by the GP at synergies and sustainable livelihood opportunities the project level and the fact that the administrative are created– a common goal of both programs. and technical sanction of the action plans or detailed project reports, as applicable, is done at a level no As space exists for NGOs in both programs (and higher than that of the district. Despite seemingly IWMP has used them to great effect), they can also different institutional mechanisms, there are common be engaged to play an important intermediation, administrative and operational arrangements that relationship-building, and facilitating role between facilitate convergence of the two programs. different related agencies. At the project level, in both cases, the GP is the final By effectively combining the two different institutional project implementing agency. In the case of IWMP, an mechanisms deployed for project implementation, executive committee, chaired by the president of the namely the GP in the case of NREGA and an GP, is set up as a subcommittee of the GP. Funds, in empowered subcommittee of the GP (executive both cases, are routed through the GP. Common to committee) in the case of IWMP, a wider space could both programs at the district level is the anchoring, be created, allowing for greater representation and sanctioning, and coordinating role played by the zila leadership opportunities. It also creates a platform panchayat headed by a CEO. The consolidated overall that affords both political (electoral and contest and annual plans of both programs,12 as well as of driven) and developmental (consensus-driven and several other government programs, are accorded accommodative) engagement, necessary for inclusive administrative approval by the CEO. This focusing of and sustainable growth. 12 The “shelf of projects” in the case of NREGA and the watershed plan or detailed project report in the case of IWMP. Chapter 6: Convergence between NREGA and IWMP 29 CHAPTER Analyses of IWMP-NREGA 7 Convergence Scenario Analysis Based on the deliberations so far, a scenario NREGA by comparing “with convergence” and depiction can be made between IWMP and “without convergence” situations (Table 10). Table 10: Scenario Analysis: With and Without Convergence Criterion IWMP+NREGA (with convergence) IWMP (without convergence) Objectives Objectives will be achieved more effectively through Similar to those of NREGA but within a synergy between converging departments and watershed context. Watershed interventions agencies. Leveraging funds from NREGA leads to make up around 60 percent of works executed wider coverage and higher impact, as NREGA is under NREGA. IWMP interventions lack the demand-driven. IWMP interventions incorporate legal guarantees of those of NREGA. entitlements of NREGA workers, leading to enhanced livelihood security for workers. Funds No dearth of funds as NREGA is demand-driven. Allocations are limited and divided between Experience shows the implementing agencies several components. Allocations are not are unable to utilize the available funding due to adequate to meet all the needs of target constraints. groups and areas. Employment The mean person-days provided under NREGA are The primary focus is not on employment much higher than those under IWMP. Convergence generation and related guarantees and will create more person-days and provide more payment of statutory minimum wages. The work to NREGA workers, improving the chances of mean person-days provided under IWMP are delivering on the 100-day promise. much lower than those provided under NREGA. Implementation NREGA is implemented through annual action plans IWMP is implemented in phases and the project and budgets. Approved works are executed within cycle spans 4–7 years. Execution of watershed the financial year. Enmeshing a holistic life cycle treatment activities begins later in the cycle. with that of annual action plans will be challenging. Plans prepared are holistic and science-based. Human and NREGA has no institutional development activity, Human and institutional development is institutional so convergence would help strengthen the local an integral part of the project activities. development institutions and democratic processes. Institutional platforms are well-defined. Impact on Impact on poverty is more direct as NREGA tries to Impact on poverty is largely indirect as IWMP poverty provide basic employment and livelihood security executes a combination of household and backed with legal guarantees. community-level interventions. Chapter 7: Analyses of IWMP-NREGA Convergence 31 SWOT Analysis and threats that can emanate as a result of convergence will help in rolling out A scenario depiction with a deeper understanding models of convergence and the way forward of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, (Table 11). Table 11: SWOT Analysis of Convergence between IWMP and NREGA Strengths Weaknesses Excellent track record of IWMP implementation in Operational details of convergence are yet to be finalized Karnataka, particularly Sujala WDD staff prefers autonomy from panchayat raj institutions No funds constraints from NREGA WDD staff have reservations about the 100-day guarantee WDD is already working with panchayat raj institutions Inadequate field-level staff to implement convergence and NREGA as an executing agency Inadequate infrastructure and equipment to operationalize WDD will provide technical expertise convergence WDD will be exposed to rights-based implementation Capacity of WDD to implement convergence will need to be Government of Karnataka has provided a conducive tested policy environment by issuing guidelines Convergence may not have the backing of WDD staff at all WDD will be expected to adopt transparent, levels participatory, and accountable processes Sujala project design ensures effective and impact- oriented implementation Improved IWMP coverage on account of funds availability Opportunities Threats Panchayat raj institutions are positively disposed to IWMP will have to align and accommodate itself with the convergence political and social dynamics of panchayat raj institutions Government of India has provided the right policy Conflicts are likely between works identified by IWMP and environment by issuing convergence guidelines GPs’ priorities Unprecedented levels of funding available under NREGA Decreased levels of cardholder participation in NREGA NREGA has political support that cuts across party lines Wage payment delays to be resolved to regain cardholder Convergence provides opportunities to WDD to adopt confidence bottom-up approaches WDD will come under public scrutiny through social audits and ombuds person 32 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence CHAPTER IWMP-NREGA Convergence: 8 The Way Ahead Considerations to Be Taken into NGOs and proactive government functionaries with Account experience in handling both these programs. There are similarities between NREGA and IWMP Multi-dimensional mobilization and planning in goals and objectives as well as, to an extent, effort. Once villages are selected, an intensive institutional arrangements. The dissimilarities (with mobilization effort on the lines of IWMP should respect to approach, cost norms, nature of funding, be undertaken and competent NGOs engaged planning and project formulation, implementation for this purpose. Comprehensive resource and horizons, beneficiary contributions, transparency, social mapping using physical and technology- and accountability), however, throw up challenges assisted means, situation and problem analysis that must be addressed if synergistic convergence is using participatory rural appraisal methods, village to be achieved. The following considerations might envisioning, and stakeholder analysis may be help in ameliorating the differences, streamlining employed for project formulation. joint implementation, and setting the ground for Effective and harmonious integration of GP and the evolution of a workable model for large-scale the executive committee. The GP and the executive adoption. committee play a crucial role in both projects; they Need for piloting. Given the challenges inherent in should get their relationships adjusted, from the any joint venture, while joint implementation may very beginning. Harmonization efforts should be begin in all projects to various degrees, it is advisable such that they result in a comprehensive multi-year that a limited number of watersheds or GPs be village development plan consisting of all measures selected on a pilot basis for focused attention. that would be needed to meet the developmental needs of the village, and of its poor households, in Selection criteria. Those GPs should be selected, particular. according to predetermined criteria, that have the highest potential for success. These criteria should Activity selection and prioritization. The proposed help the project co-ordinators to assess the quality of activities and works must then be prioritized, social relationships and institutional capital, both of sequenced, and planned such as to be implemented which are predictive of the likely “success quotient” at an appropriate time in the project cycle and of a project. A matrix to assess villages for inclusion corresponding to the scheme or program (NREGA, in a pilot program of intensive convergence could be IWMP, or other) from which resources can be drawn. developed in consultation with leaders in villages The concerns and needs of poor women and poor where good works have been done, either under households must be included and prioritized in these NREGA or Sujala, involving experienced and effective discussions, which must take place at the habitation Chapter 8: IWMP-NREGA Convergence: The Way Ahead 33 level, aggregating upwards to the village level and, Capacity-building and capacity-support. Capacity- finally, the GP level. Activities that are best funded building, especially at the local community level, by NREGA and IWMP, respectively (as also other including among representatives of panchayat raj schemes), should be identified. Once the village institutions and NGOs, would be the key to the success detailed project reports are finalized and ratified by of a jointly implemented program. Modules would have their respective gram sabhas, they would then have to be specifically designed for the purpose by WDD (in to be consolidated, prioritized, and ratified by the addition to existing ones), drawing upon its considerable GP and its general body (general gram sabha) and experience and resource and communications forwarded to the concerned authorities for sanction networks built up during the Sujala years. and resourcing. Local ownership. Stakeholder participation and buy- Multi-year perspective and commitment. Villagers in is the key to long-term sustainability of created must be educated on the need to commit to a multi- assets. Efforts should be made to secure beneficiary year program, wherein activities are implemented in contributions on private lands, at least from works a way that immediate requirements are addressed funded under IWMP. Besides this, works that can be on a priority basis. While project authorities may undertaken through community contributions should have to balance the need for technical efficiency be encouraged and periodically undertaken so as with social and political compulsions and accept to foster a sense of solidarity, fellowship, and co- less-than-optimal decisions in regard to choice and responsibility. sequencing of activities in the overall interest of the Transparency. Methods adopted by Sujala to enhance project, this can be offset to the extent that alternative transparency and accountability should be deployed funding for preferred activities from other ongoing in any converged projects. programs is accessed. This would ensure that the required and planned-for funds would be available as Monitoring and evaluation. NREGA has a web-based envisaged, and result in harmonization of different MIS operationalized at the GP level, thus making temporal perspectives and effective management of real-time data available at all levels. IWMP is yet to expectations of all stakeholders. establish and operationalize such a system at the GP level. Though IWMP’s documentary and procedural Harmonization of norms. WDD would need to requirements for work measurements and payments harmonize its output norms (relatively higher) with are different from those adopted under NREGA, those under NREGA. This would bring about wage harmonizing operational systems at the field level parity across works resulting in their being seen by would not present a significant challenge. This would the people and laborers as equally desirable. This become especially important when WDD is approved would ensure that prioritization and desirability of by the government as an implementing agency under works would be wage neutral and determined more NREGA– a role WDD seeks to play. by considerations of efficiency and effectiveness. Information, education, and communication Works financing. As NREGA has a 60:40 labor to campaign. Given the keen attention NREGA attracts, material ratio, whereas IWMP has no such restrictions, successes achieved should be documented and widely it is preferable that labor-intensive works be financed disseminated, especially among the developmental through NREGA and works where material inputs are community and the general public, in order to secure high be included under IWMP, or a combination of and attract political and administrative support. the two, in the case of specific activities having both labor and material inputs. Alternative Models of Adequate personnel provisioning. As adopting a Convergence joint, convergent, and effective approach is a human Based on extensive enquiry and investigations, the resource-intensive process, WDD would have to equip following four models emerge as possible options: itself with the necessary professional staff. Planning in this regard and necessary action would have to be  Collaborative or synergistic, in terms of undertaken well in advance of the project roll-out. works and activities. Once a watershed (sub- 34 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence watershed or micro-watershed) is prepared responsibility, right from selection of with due cognizance of the aspects raised watersheds or villages, through planning above, an activity breakdown matrix can be and implementation, and including capacity- drawn up detailing works to be accomplished building, and monitoring and evaluation. All and assigning roles and responsibilities decision-making, including managing funds to different institutions or agencies, for and procurement of goods and services, will example GP, GP committee, WDD, NGO, and rest with the GP. so on. Roles are to be defined depending on  WDD as a service provider. Here, the GP relative strengths. In this manner, NREGA entrusts complete responsibility to WDD and IWMP would retain the institutional and the payments are made as per mutually (including financial management) identity, agreed terms and conditions with detailed but would require an overarching coordination schedule and work accomplishments. mechanism as well as oversight bodies.  WDD to act as a depository. WDD will  WDD as a facilitator rather than provider. perform all activities, including procurement In this scenario, WDD transforms itself and financial management, and will share completely to a “facilitator” from the existing the reporting from time to time with the “provider cum facilitator” role. In this model, GP, but finally be accountable to the higher WDD will assume full technical assistance echelons. Chapter 8: IWMP-NREGA Convergence: The Way Ahead 35 Appendix: Key Actors and NREGA Processes (as Adopted in Karnataka) Key Actors for employment is met within time, and that workers receive their due entitlements. Other  At the village level, the gram panchayat functions of the program officer include is the principal authority for planning and ensuring that the social audit by the gram implementation of the scheme. It is responsible sabha is carried out, addressing and dealing for identification of works available in its with complaints, and effecting grievance mandated area as per the recommendations redressal. The program officer functions of the ward sabha and gram sabha, and for under the superintendence of the district executing and supervising such works. program coordinator.  The panchayat secretary is responsible for  At the district level, the zila panchayat is issuance of job-cards. Each gram panchayat the principal authority for planning and has a technical assistant (or data entry implementation of the scheme. The zila operator) to assist the panchayat secretary panchayat approves the district rural in maintaining the records and also to assist employment guarantee scheme plans, the respective executing agencies. which include the consolidated taluka rural  At the taluka level, the taluka panchayat employment guarantee scheme plans, its own is the principal authority for planning and proposals, and project proposals received implementation of the scheme. The executive from other line departments and executing officer of the taluka panchayat is the program agencies. officer, and he or she assists the gram panchayats and the taluka panchayats in  The chief executive officer of the zila carrying out their functions under the scheme. panchayat is the district program coordinator. At the state level, the principal secretary,  The program officer plays a critical role in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj coordinating implementation processes at Department, is the coordinator. He or she the taluka level. He or she is responsible for is assisted by the Director (NREGA), other scrutinizing the gram panchayat’s plans for subject specialists, and support staff. the Karnataka Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, ensuring that they are in tandem with demand for employment. The program NREGA Processes officer also ensures that implementing  Any adult person of a household may apply agencies operate punctually, that the demand to the gram panchayat for registration of Appendix: Key Actors and NREGA Processes (as Adopted in Karnataka) 37 their household under the scheme and for identification and prioritization of works issuance of a job-card. A household job-card within the monetary allocations indicated to with a unique ID number is issued by the it by the district program coordinator. gram panchayat. The wage-days provided  The district program coordinator scrutinizes and the wages paid to the workers shall be the plan proposals of all the taluka panchayats, reflected in the job-card. examining the adequacy and appropriateness  The gram panchayat shall direct the applicant of works in particular. The district program or group of applicants, in writing, to join any coordinator accords administrative sanctions ongoing work or to work in a new work which for all the works approved under the district might be starting, within fifteen days of employment guarantee scheme plan. Each receiving applications. work administratively sanctioned is assigned a  If an applicant is not provided employment unique identification number. The list of works within fifteen days of receipt of the administratively sanctioned is forwarded to application, he/she can apply to the the program officer, who will send it to the panchayat secretary for unemployment executing agencies concerned for technical allowance. The secretary shall forward sanctions. The technically sanctioned works such applications to the program officer are sent back to the program officer, who who shall, after due enquiry, sanction the maintains these as a shelf of works. unemployment allowance or reject the  Based on the demand for employment, application, as the case may be. the gram panchayat secretary requests  The annual planning process for the next the program officer to issue letters for financial year should be completed by the end commencement of works, line departments of December every year, including approval or other recognized agencies. of the plan by the zila panchayat. The district  Workers are to be assisted to open an program coordinator prepares a labor budget account in a bank branch or a post office for the next financial year, containing details so that their wages can be transferred to of anticipated demand for unskilled manual their accounts. The panchayat development work in the district, which would be the basis officer introduces the job card holder to the for planning. local bank or the post office, with a request  Panchayat raj institutions (gram panchayat, to open a “no frills” account. taluka panchayat, and zila panchayat) are  Payments are made at the gram panchayat responsible for maintaining the 60:40 ratio level itself with the panchayat development between the wage and material components officer and gram panchayat president as the of the budget then allocated with regard to co-signatories of the check. The bank or post works proposed by them. office disburses the money to workers based  The gram panchayat facilitates the conduct on the list supplied by the gram panchayat or of ward sabhas and gram sabhas for taluka panchayat. 38 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka to Enable Effective Convergence