An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala · An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala by Tata Institute...
Transcript of An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala · An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala by Tata Institute...
ii
Preface
This report is based on an evaluation of the implementation of MGNREGA in four districts of
Kerala viz. Palakkad, Wayanad, Idukki and Kasargode, conducted in 2010-11. It has examined the
extent to which the rights-based framework of the Act has been actualised in programme
implementation. It has also looked into the nature of asset creation, issues in day-to-day
implementation, and the socio-economic impact of the programme on workers.
We thank the Government of Kerala and the State Institute of Rural Development for having
given us the opportunity to conduct an evaluation of MGNREGA in Kerala. This has been an
enlightening process for us, giving us the opportunity to understand the challenges of MGNREGA
implementation in Kerala.
We have benefitted from the support of a number of people in the course of this study. At the
outset, we would like to thank the former Principal Secretary, Sri S M Vijayanand IAS for the keen
interest shown by him in the present evaluation, as well as for his guidance and suggestions. We
also thank the former Mission Director of the MGNREGS State Mission, Sri V N Jithendran IAS,
for all the support extended in facilitating this study. His suggestions and comments on initial
drafts have been very insightful. We also thank Dr Abey George, State Programme Officer (Social
Audit) and Mr P L Chither, State Programme Officer (MIS), MGNREGA State Mission, for their
support at various stages of this study.
We thank our team of research investigators who engaged in data collection at the panchayat level.
In addition to conducting interviews with workers and focus group discussions, their comments
and observations have contributed greatly to this report.
Last, but not the least, we thank the MGNREGA workers for having spared their valuable time
with our research team. Their observations and feedback have shaped this study. We also thank the
Panchayat Presidents, MGNREGA staff at the panchayat level (the Data Entry Operators and
Overseers) and the Mates for their cooperation.
We hope the results of this evaluation will facilitate more effective implementation of the Act in
Kerala.
iii
Contents 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 MGNREGA in Kerala .....................................................................................................................2
1.3 Unique features of MGNREGA in Kerala ......................................................................................3
1.3.1 Highest Women Participation .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Low Annual Average Person Days .................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.3 Financial Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Implementation of MGNREGA .....................................................................................................7
1.4.1 Panchayats and MGNREGA ........................................................................................................................... 7
1.4.2 The Kudumbashree System .............................................................................................................................. 8
1.4.3 Convergence of MGNREGA Action Plans with Watershed Plans .......................................................... 8
1.4.4 Participatory Procedure for Labour Budget Preparation ............................................................................ 9
1.4.5 Work Execution ................................................................................................................................................ 10
1.4.6 Wage Payment ................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.5 Objectives of the study ................................................................................................................. 11
1.6 Sample Framework and Data Sources .......................................................................................... 11
1.7 Structure of the Report ................................................................................................................. 13
2.1 Registration ................................................................................................................................... 15
2.1.1 Registration related problems ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.1.2 Time Lag to get the Job Card ......................................................................................................................... 19
2.1.3 Paying for Photographs ................................................................................................................................... 20
2.1.4 Paying for the registration forms ................................................................................................................... 22
2.1.5 Problems with Registration: Implications for Ongoing Registration ...................................................... 22
2.2 The Right to Demand for Work .................................................................................................... 22
2.2.1 Demand upon Work Completion: A reversal of procedures .................................................................... 25
2.2.2 The Mate Demands for Work and the Mate Allocates Work ................................................................... 26
2.3 Work Planning .............................................................................................................................. 28
2.3.1 The Intended Planning Process ..................................................................................................................... 29
2.3.2 The planning Process in Reality ..................................................................................................................... 29
2.3.2.a NHG level planning ................................................................................................................................. 29
2.3.2.b Poor Understanding of Priority of Works .......................................................................................... 30
2.3.2.c Overseers‘ Observations about the planning process ........................................................................ 31
2.3.2.d Grama Sabhas ........................................................................................................................................... 32
2.3.2.e After The Grama Sabha .......................................................................................................................... 34
2.4 Work Execution ............................................................................................................................ 37
2.4.1 Pre Project Meeting.......................................................................................................................................... 37
iv
2.4.2 Organisation of Worksite Facilities ............................................................................................................... 38
2.4.3 Travel Allowance to Far Away Worksites ..................................................................................................... 41
2.4.4 Medical Reimbursement for Accidents suffered at the Worksite ............................................................. 43
2.4.5 Tools- quality and rent related issues ............................................................................................................ 43
2.4.5.a Women friendly Tools.............................................................................................................................. 45
2.5 Transparency at the Worksite ....................................................................................................... 45
2. 5.1 Worksite Boards/ Citizen Information Board ........................................................................................... 46
2.5.2 Muster Rolls ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
2.5.3 Job cards ............................................................................................................................................................ 49
2.5.3.a Custody of Job Cards .............................................................................................................................. 50
2.5.3.b Working on another‘s job card ............................................................................................................... 52
2.5.4 Vigilance and Monitoring Committees at the Worksites ........................................................................... 52
2.5.5. ADS account and its use ................................................................................................................................ 55
2.6 Payment of Wages ........................................................................................................................ 56
2.6.1 Workers‘ Grievances regarding Payment of Wages .................................................................................... 57
2.6.2 Wage Delay: A Crisis for the Workers........................................................................................................... 60
2.6.3 Wage Delay: A Cause of Conflict .................................................................................................................. 60
2.6.4 Misinformation Regarding the Reason for Delay ....................................................................................... 61
2.6.5 Compensation for Delayed Payment ............................................................................................................ 61
2.6.6 Collective efforts by workers .......................................................................................................................... 62
2.6.7 Problems with Bank Payment ........................................................................................................................ 62
2.6.7.a Opening of individual bank accounts ................................................................................................... 62
2.6.7.b Unfair treatment at the bank .................................................................................................................. 63
2.6.7.c Recording of entries in the pass book .................................................................................................. 63
2.6.7.d Charging of commissions at the bank .................................................................................................. 64
2.6.7.e Distance to the bank ................................................................................................................................ 65
2.6.7.f ATM card issues ....................................................................................................................................... 66
2.7 Grievance Redressal and Social Audit .......................................................................................... 66
2.7.1 Awareness about Entitlements ....................................................................................................................... 67
2.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 69
3.1 Watershed Planning and MGNREGA: The Kerala experiment ................................................... 71
3.1.1 Watershed Master Plans and Watershed plans for MGNREGA .............................................................. 72
3.1.2 Overseers and Watershed Planning ............................................................................................................... 75
3.2 Nature of Works ........................................................................................................................... 76
3.2.1 Water Conservation and Water Harvesting .................................................................................................. 77
3.2.1. a The Missing Catchment Perspective in Water Conservation ........................................................... 80
v
3.2.2 Protection of Water Sources .......................................................................................................................... 80
3.2.3 Desilting of Ponds ........................................................................................................................................... 81
3.2.4 Flood Control and Protection ........................................................................................................................ 82
3.2.5 Land Development .......................................................................................................................................... 83
3.2.6 Drought Proofing ............................................................................................................................................. 86
3.3 Misleading Nomenclature ............................................................................................................ 87
3.4 Inadequate Planning for MGNREG activities on Private land .................................................... 88
3.5 The concept of ‘assets’ ................................................................................................................. 89
3.6 Best Practices ................................................................................................................................ 90
3.6.1 Tree Planting ..................................................................................................................................................... 90
3.6.2 Renovation of traditional water conservation structures .......................................................................... 91
3.6.3 Desilting of Irrigation Canals ........................................................................................................................ 91
3.6.4 Use of Locally Available Materials in Restoration Work ........................................................................... 92
3.6.5 Reclaiming the Stream Banks ......................................................................................................................... 92
3.6.6 Food Security through MGNREGA ............................................................................................................ 92
3.7 Integrating Natural Resource Regeneration with Livelihood Security ........................................ 93
3.7.1 Exploring Possibilities of Convergence ....................................................................................................... 94
3.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 95
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 97
4.2 General Profile of Grama Panchayat level NREG staff ............................................................... 98
4.2.1 Education, Training & Experience ................................................................................................................ 98
4.3 Limitations/Constraints faced by MGNREGA staff at GP level................................................. 99
4.3.1 Registration and Issuing of Job Cards .......................................................................................................... 99
4.3.2 The low average person days generated .................................................................................................... 100
4.3.3 Delay in Payment of Wages ......................................................................................................................... 101
4.3.4 Estimation and Measurement of Works ................................................................................................... 104
4.3.5 Absence of regular measurement ............................................................................................................... 105
4.3.6 Problems with Estimation ........................................................................................................................... 105
4.3.6.a Under-Estimation .................................................................................................................................. 106
4.3.6.b Over-estimation ..................................................................................................................................... 107
4.3.6.c Political Interference ............................................................................................................................. 107
4.3.7 Heavy Workload ............................................................................................................................................ 108
4.4 MGNREGA Cell: Part of the Panchayat? .................................................................................. 109
4.5 Adequate Work Space for MGNREGA activities ....................................................................... 110
4.6 The Mate System ......................................................................................................................... 111
4.6.1 Working Experience and Educational Background ................................................................................. 111
vi
4.6.2 Training for Mates ......................................................................................................................................... 112
4.6.2.a Education about a rights- based approach ........................................................................................ 113
4.6.2.b Understanding of MGNREGA works ............................................................................................. 113
4.6.3 Problems faced in day to day functioning ................................................................................................. 114
4.6.4 Political Interference in MGNREGA implementation ........................................................................... 115
4.7 Enabling Conditions for effective implementation of MGNREGA by Grama Panchayats ...... 117
4.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 119
5.1 Socio- economic profile of the MGNREGA workers ................................................................. 121
5.1.1 Occupational Pattern of MGNREG Workers ......................................................................................... 121
5.1.2 Age Composition of the Workers .............................................................................................................. 123
5.1.3 Literacy and Educational Profile of MGNREG Workers ...................................................................... 123
5.2 Living Conditions of the MGMGNREGA workers ................................................................... 125
5.2.1 Housing Condition ........................................................................................................................................ 125
5.2.2 Drinking Water .............................................................................................................................................. 128
5.2.3 Landholding ................................................................................................................................................... 129
5.2.4 Indebtedness .................................................................................................................................................. 130
5.3 Socio-economic Impact of MGNREGA .................................................................................... 133
5.3.1 Providing an additional source of income for daily wage workers ....................................................... 133
5.3.2 Economic impact of MGNREGA on household income and savings ............................................... 135
5.3.3 Additional Saving & Reduction in Indebtedness from MGNREGA Income .................................... 135
5.3.4 Increase in Household Expenditure ........................................................................................................... 138
5.3.4.a Expenditure on Children‘s Education and Health ........................................................................... 139
5.3.4.b Purchase of Assets ............................................................................................................................... 139
5.4 Payment of wages to the bank account of the holder ................................................................ 140
5.5 Impact of MGNREGA on Women ............................................................................................. 141
5.5.1 Increased Presence of Women in Public Works ...................................................................................... 141
5.5.2 An opportunity to work outside the home ............................................................................................... 142
5.5.3 The Poorest Woman ..................................................................................................................................... 142
5.5.4 Supervisory Abilities ..................................................................................................................................... 143
5.5.5 The Prevailing Opinion about MGNREGA work and its impact on women workers ..................... 143
5.5.6 Work Timings for Women ........................................................................................................................... 144
5.5.7 Women‘s decision making at home ............................................................................................................ 145
5.5.8 The ATM card and the erosion of control? ............................................................................................. 146
5.6 Other Changes ............................................................................................................................ 147
vii
6.1 Rights and Rights-Based Processes ........................................................................................... 148
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 149
6.2 Work Planning and Labour Budget Preparation ........................................................................ 150
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 151
6.3 Employment Provided ................................................................................................................ 152
6.4 Wage Payment ............................................................................................................................ 152
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 153
6.5 Quality of Work and Assets Created .......................................................................................... 154
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 156
6.6 Worksite Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 158
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 158
6.7 ICT/MIS Related Issues ............................................................................................................ 159
6.8 Role Exercised by PRIS .............................................................................................................. 161
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 162
6.9 Mate System and Involvement of the ADS ................................................................................. 163
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 164
6.10 Measures for Transparency and Accountability ....................................................................... 165
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 166
6.11 Supervision and Inspection ....................................................................................................... 167
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 167
6.12 Socio Economic Impact ............................................................................................................ 168
Recommendation .................................................................................................................................................... 169
6.13 Participation of the Marginalised ............................................................................................. 169
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 170
6.14 Peoples’ Feedback ..................................................................................................................... 170
6.15 Women’s Participation .............................................................................................................. 170
ANNEXURE 1 ................................................................................................................................. 172
ANNEXURE 2 ................................................................................................................................. 175
viii
List of Tables No Page No.
Chapter 1
1.1 Women participation in MGNREGA in Kerala 4
1.2 Average Person days per Household - 2010-11 5
1.3 Financial Performance of MGNREGA - 2010-11 6
1.4 Financial Performance of MGNREGA in Sample Districts - 2010-11 7
1.5 Sample Panchayats 13
Chapter 2
2.1 Issues in Job Card Registration 16
2.2 Time Gap between Registration and Issue of Job Card 19
2.3 Percentage Distribution of Period of Delay 19
2.4 Percentage of people who had to pay for the photographs in Job card 20
2.5 Job availability & Awareness about the demand for employment 23
2.6 Dated Receipts & Awareness about the unemployment allowance 24
2.7 Source of information about the work 26
2.8 Neighbourhood Level Meetings 30
2.9 Awareness about priority of work 30
2.10 Awareness & Participation in Grama Sabha (GS) meetings 32
2.11 Employment Provided in 2010-11 (as reported by workers) 35
2.12 Distribution of Duration of Employment in 2010-11 (as per MGNREGA MIS) 35
2.13 Caste-wise Break-up of Employment provided in 2010-11 36
2.14 Convening of pre project meeting 38
2.15 Facilities at the worksite- workers response 39
2.16 Facilities at the worksite as per random visits to the Worksite 39
2.17 Percentage of workers aware about the travel allowance 41
2.18 Tools at the worksite: Workers Opinion 44
2.19 Display of Notice Board at worksite 46
2.20 Display of Information on the Worksite Board 46
2.21 Muster roll: Workers response 48
2.22 Custody of Job Card 51
2.23 Vigilance and Monitoring Committees (VMC) 53
2.24 Awareness about the Vigilance and Monitoring Committees (VMC) 54
2.25 Grievances regarding the payment of wages 58
ix
No Page No.
2.26 Delay in payment of the last 3 works 59
2.27 Distance to the bank 65
2.28 Awareness of Social Audit 67
2.29 Awareness Level of workers 68
Chapter 3
3.1 The basic components of the existing watershed plans 74
3.2 The missing components of the existing watershed plans 74
3.2 Types of Works undertaken in 2010-11 – completed 78
3.3 Types of Works undertaken in 2010-11 – completed & Ongoing 78
Chapter 4
4.1 Gender Profile of MGNREGA Staff 98
4.2 Training for MGNREGA Staff 99
4.3 Delay in payment of wages 102
4.4 Reasons for Delay in Payment of Wages 103
4.5 Attitude of Panchayat Council and Staff to MGNREGA activities 109
4.6 Age Composition of Mates 111
4.7 Years of Experience as Mate 112
4.8 Educational Background of Mate 112
4.9 Previous work Experience of Mate 112
4.10 Mate Training 113
4.11 Awareness about Priority in which MGNREGA works are to be taken up 114
4.12 Mate‘s understanding of priority of works 114
4.13 Difficulties faced as mate 115
4.14 Percentage of mate spent money from own pocket 115
4.15 Political Party Membership of mate 116
4.16 Mates‘ support in case a problem in programme implementation 116
Chapter 5
5.1 The employment pattern of the worker households 122
5.2 Percentage of workers from a wage labour background 122
5.3 Distribution of workers by age 123
5.4 Educational Profile of the MGNREGA workers 124
x
No Page No.
5.5 Percentage of Households with own house 125
5.6 Percentage of Household who got the house through Government Scheme 126
5.7 Percentage of Houses in living condition 126
5.8 Percentage of Households with Functional Toilet 127
5.9 Source of Cooking Fuel 128
5.10 Source of Drinking Water 128
5.11 Percentage of Household whose water requirements are met through the year 129
5.12 Source of Loan – District & Social Category wise 131
5.13 Percentage of workers able to save from NREGA income 136
5.14 Percentage of workers able to reduce the indebtedness from the NREGA income 137
5.15 Reduction in the indebtedness 137
5.16 Percentage of Household whose consumption level has improved after MGNREGA
138
5.17 Distribution of additional income 138
5.18 Percentage of people who had bank account prior to MGNREGA 140
5.19 Percentage of workers said MGNREGA has increased women‘s decision making
power
146
List of Boxes No Page No. Chapter 2 2.1 Problems with Registration 17
2.2 Observation of workers about demand for work 23
2.3 Workers‘ impressions on the Grama Sabhas held for Annual MGNREGA Plan
Preparation
33
2.4 The Promised Travel Allowance 42
2.5 Is Muster roll a transparent document 49
2.6 Unfair treatment at the bank 64
Chapter 4
4.1 Constraints faced by the DEOs
List of Figures
No Page No. Chapter 2 2.1 Intended Planning Process 29
2.2 Steps in work Execution 37
1
Chapter 1
MGNREGA IN KERALA: AN OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has been a
landmark intervention in post-Independence history. Along with the Right to Information Act, it
marked a new era in implementing rights-based approaches. For the first time, workers‘ rights/
entitlements were given centre stage in the formulation and implementation of labour generation
programmes. The passing of the MGNREG Act reflected the changing approach to concerns of
equity, with work being viewed as an ‗entitlement‘ of the worker, and not as something that was
handed down to her/him by the government1. An equally important feature of MGNREGA is that
it links the livelihood security of the poorest sections of society with natural resource regeneration
and protection. By laying down a clear priority in which works are to be taken up (beginning with
water conservation, drought proofing, afforestation, land development and so on), this legislation
attempted to link livelihood security with the revival of agriculture and sustainable management of
natural resources, which alone can sustain the livelihoods of the poor in our society. The
MGNREGA therefore, made a departure from the age old prescription of labour generation
programmes wherein labour opportunities were generated through infrastructure creation, which
was largely civil/construction based.
The implementation of MGNREGA has raised a societal challenge in many ways.
It challenged the government (both the state government and the local self government) to
re-think the existing approach to employment generation, and to devise procedures for
work execution that gave the first priority to workers‘ entitlements.
It challenged the panchayats who were entrusted with implementation to achieve the twin
responsibilities of employment generation and natural resource protection.
1MGNREGA is the first demand-driven labour generation programme in the country. All hitherto
employment generation programmes were classified as ‗tozhil dana padhati’ (programmes where employment
is donated), wherein employment was seen as something that was handed down by the government to the
poor. In such a scheme of things, the worker was the 'beneficiary' and the government was the 'donor'.
MGNREGA made a critical departure from this perception of labour generation, by placing the right to
demand for work as the entitlement of the worker.
2
It challenged political representatives, particularly at the panchayat level, to move beyond
political party interests and to facilitate the process of planning from below.
It challenged the development administration to reorient their thinking, from designing and
implementing supply-driven service delivery programmes to demand driven entitlement-
centered programmes.
Finally, it challenged the workers to exercise and assert their right to demand and get work,
as well as to be involved in planning and implementation.
In a nutshell, the implementation of the MGNREG Act has raised a formidable challenge to the
existing institutional framework, as well as to the elected representatives, officials and workers to
effectively plan, organise and execute a large number of works across the State in order to work
towards the creation of assets that contribute to livelihood security and regeneration of the natural
resource base.
The people, panchayats and the states have responded in different ways to this formidable
challenge. The response from the State of Kerala, in terms of procedural clarity for programme
implementation has been remarkable, as it capitalised on its achievements in implementing
democratic decentralisation over the past decade. The implementation of MGNREGA
commenced in the State in 2006-07, a decade after the State embarked on democratic
decentralisation. Procedures and systems for programme implementation have been put in place
after considerable fine-tuning.
Actual implementation has however raised issues of concern. Five years down, it is time to evaluate
the extent to which the panchayats and the State have been able to realise the objectives of
MGNREGA in the state.
1.2 MGNREGA in Kerala
The present evaluation assumes added relevance as it has been carried out in the State of Kerala,
which is known for its achievements in the field of social development, health, literacy, education,
history of labour movements and public action. The State has witnessed numerous instances of
organised public action in the area of labour rights and literacy. During the past one and a half
decades, Kerala has also been noticed for its achievements in the implementation of democratic
decentralisation. . The implementation of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments gathered
special momentum in the State, with panchayati raj institutions taking on the responsibility of local
governance. This was marked by a significant devolution of funds and functionaries from the State
government to the three tier panchayati raj system.
3
Having said this, it is important to take note of the fact that the impacts of social development and
democratic decentralisation have not been uniformly felt throughout the State. It has been
acknowledged that the most marginalised sections of society, socially and economically, remain at
the periphery. The formulation of the Tribal Sub Plan guidelines in 2003 (GOK, 2003) for
instance took special note of how tribal populations had been deprived of the achievements of the
State in the social development sector, and of low levels of participation of the marginalised
communities in the decentralisation process in the State.
It is therefore of added importance to assess how a rights-based Act such as the MGNREGA has
been implemented in the State, and to what extent it has ensured the participation and well being
of the poorest sections of society. In the first phase, programme implementation was taken up in
the districts of Palakkad and Wayanad in 2006. In the second phase, it was taken up in the districts
of Idukki and Kasargod. Currently the programme is being implemented in all 14 districts of
Kerala.
1.3 Unique features of MGNREGA in Kerala
Some of the prominent defining features of MGNREGA implementation in the State are the high
level of women‘s participation amongst the workforce, a relatively low average of annual person
days created, relatively higher spending on wages and lesser on the material component. The
following tables make this clear.
1.3.1 Highest Women Participation
Amongst the Indian States, Kerala tops with regard to participation of women amongst the
registered workforce of MGNREGA. 90% of the workforce in the State is comprised of women.
The primary reason for increased women‘s participation is the higher wage rate for male workers
(the agricultural wage rate for men ranges between Rs 200- Rs 450), which makes the MGNREGA
wage unattractive to them. The other reasons will be dealt with in detail in Chapter 2.
4
Table 1.1: Women participation in MGNREGA in Kerala
No. States Women participation (in percentage)
1 Kerala 90.39
2 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 86.93
3 Tamil Nadu 82.59
4 Puducherry 80.41
5 Goa 68.42
6 Rajasthan 68.34
7 Andhra Pradesh 57.05
8 Chhattisgarh 48.63
9 Himachal Pradesh 48.25
10 Andaman And Nicobar 47.24
11 Sikkim 46.68
12 Karnataka 46.01
13 Maharashtra 45.88
14 Madhya Pradesh 44.4
15 Gujarat 44.23
16 Meghalaya 43.92
17 Uttarakhand 40.3
18 Orissa 39.4
19 Tripura 38.55
20 Haryana 35.62
21 Manipur 35.07
22 Nagaland 35.02
23 Lakshadweep 34.33
24 Mizoram 33.93
25 Punjab 33.83
26 West Bengal 33.69
27 Jharkhand 33.47
28 Arunachal Pradesh 33.24
29 Bihar 28.5
30 Assam 26.51
31 Uttar Pradesh 21.42
32 Jammu And Kashmir 7.47
33 Chandigarh 0
34 Daman & Diu 0
All India 47.73
Source: www.nrega.nic.in, Accessed on 7th March, 2011
1.3.2 Low Annual Average Person Days
Another notable feature is the relatively low annual average of person days created. Kerala ranks
21st amongst the States in this regard with the average person days created in 2010-11 being 40.85.
5
Table 1.2: Average Person days per Household - 2010-11
S. No. States Average person days
1 Mizoram 97.13
2 Nagaland 95.3
3 Sikkim 85.35
4 Manipur 68.14
5 Tripura 67.23
6 Meghalaya 57.72
7 Andhra Pradesh 54.05
8 Tamil Nadu 54.05
9 Uttar Pradesh 52.07
10 Rajasthan 51.64
11 Madhya Pradesh 49.87
12 Himachal Pradesh 49.4
13 Karnataka 49.35
14 Orissa 48.71
15 Gujarat 44.87
16 Chhattisgarh 44.67
17 Maharashtra 44.33
18 Jammu And Kashmir 42.8
19 Uttarakhand 42.44
20 Jharkhand 41.81
21 Kerala 40.85
22 Haryana 35.79
23 Bihar 33.82
24 West Bengal 31.07
25 Lakshadweep 29.73
26 Puducherry 29.56
27 Punjab 27.11
28 Goa 26.59
29 Assam 26.16
30 Arunachal Pradesh 23.13
31 Andaman And Nicobar 22.87
32 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 20.31
33 Chandigarh 0
34 Daman & Diu 0
India 46.8
Source: www.nrega.nic.in, Accessed on 7th March, 2011
1.3.3 Financial Performance
With regard to financial performance, Kerala records a relatively higher expenditure on wages, with
95% of total expenditure being spent on wages. It also records relatively lower expenditure on the
material component (5%). Other than Kerala, the States which spend minimally on the material
component are Andaman and Nicobar with 2.37% and Tamil Nadu with 0%. The reduced
expenditure on the material component in Kerala was also due to the State directive to restrict the
spending on materials. This was a positive discretionary measure exercised by the State
6
government, like the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu, in order to ensure zero corruption in
programme implementation.
Table 1.3: Financial Performance of MGNREGA - 2010-11
No. States Percentage of Expenditure against Total
Available Fund
Percentage of
Expenditure on Wages
Percentage of
Expenditure on Material
Percentage of Administrative Expenditure
1 Andhra Pradesh 59.81 66.85 33.15 7.86
2 Arunachal Pradesh 89.06 61.78 38.22 5.34
3 Assam 72.56 57.45 42.55 4.78
4 Bihar 84.41 63.5 36.5 4.11
5 Gujarat 61.99 63.89 36.11 4.91
6 Haryana 95.35 68.52 31.48 3.3
7 Himachal Pradesh 37.48 58.16 41.84 4.88
8 Jammu And Kashmir 90.5 64.71 35.29 2.94
9 Karnataka 117.86 63.64 36.36 2.41
10 Kerala 83.52 94.57 5.43 4.4
11 Madhya Pradesh 70.59 61.03 38.97 3.17
12 Maharashtra 59 78.87 21.13 4.81
13 Punjab 71.94 62.45 37.55 5.71
14 Rajasthan 55.95 72.44 27.56 4.64
15 Sikkim 102.13 59.91 40.09 5.76
16 Tamil Nadu 83.85 100 0 4.68
17 Tripura 99.04 64.19 35.81 5.2
18 Uttar Pradesh 77.98 65.11 34.89 4.01
19 West Bengal 92.73 68 32 3.8
20 Chhattisgarh 74.72 74.02 25.98 4.15
21 Jharkhand 78.4 70.02 29.98 4.58
22 Uttarakhand 94.09 64.06 35.94 3.65
23 Manipur 104.53 65.47 34.53 4.76
24 Meghalaya 94.1 65.18 34.82 4.18
25 Mizoram 103.25 69.67 30.33 5.8
26 Nagaland 114.41 60.24 39.76 5.68
27 Orissa 85.56 62.82 37.18 3.13
28 Puducherry 35.44 100 0 5.37
29 Andaman And Nicobar 75.39 97.63 2.37 15.48
30 Lakshadweep 43.42 81.48 18.52 9.75
31 Chandigarh 0 0 0 0
32 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 96.84 48.34 51.66 8.31
33 Daman & Diu 0 0 0 0
34 Goa 61.71 68.18 31.82 24.33
India 74.58 68.36 31.64 4.57
Source: www.nrega.nic.in, Accessed on 7th March, 2011
The profile of the sample districts is however slightly different from the State profile in this regard.
The percentage of expenditure on wages in Idukki and Kasargod matches the State average, but is
lower in Palakkad and Wayanad (particularly the latter), where it was only 91% and 84%
7
respectively. Accordingly, the spending on materials too increased in these districts, being 9% and
16% respectively.
Table 1.4: Financial Performance of MGNREGA in Sample Districts - 2010-11
Districts Percentage of Expenditure against Total Available Fund
Percentage of Expenditure
on Wages
Percentage of Expenditure on
Material
Percentage of Administrative Expenditure
Palakkad 87.03 90.59 9.41 5.25
Wayanad 89.38 83.89 16.11 4.17
Idukki 94.97 95.45 4.55 2.35
Kasargod 91.37 93.94 6.06 4.26
Kerala 83.52 94.57 5.43 4.4
Source: www.nrega.nic.in, Accessed on 7th March, 2011
1.4 Implementation of MGNREGA
Certain features distinguish the implementation of MGNREGA in the State today. As mandated
by the Act, the programme is implemented directly by the panchayati raj system. It is supported
and supervised by the rural development machinery at the block, district and State levels. The
Kudumbashree system of community organisation that works on programmes for poverty
alleviation and womens‘empowerment is also closely involved in programme implementation.
Other unique features include the detailed step-by-step procedure that has been laid out work
planning and execution as well as the mandatory opening of individual bank accounts to all
MGNREGA workers and payment of wages through the bank. Each of these will be detailed
below.
1.4.1 Panchayats and MGNREGA
Despite the implementation of decentralisation policies since the late 1990s, many mega schemes
in the functional domain of panchayats have ignored the panchayats, giving them only a
perfunctory role (Vijayanand, n.d.). MGNREGA makes a critical departure in this respect, legally
declaring that the panchayats are the ‗principal authorities for planning and implementation‘
(Section 13 of the Act). The MGNREG Act therefore is considered to the first developmental
legislation that assigns a definite and important role to PRIs. Section 16 of the Act mandates that
50% of the work in terms of cost has to be implemented through this system.In Kerala, 100% of
the work is implemented through the PRI system. It has also given the Grama panchayat the
responsibility to allocate employment opportunities among the applicants. The Act also outlines
the functions of intermediate and district level panchayats in planning and supervision of
implementation. The District Collector, District Programme Coordinator, is given an obligation to
assist the District Panchayat.
8
The three tier PRI system, particularly the grama panchayats have acquired a strong presence
through the implementation of decentralisation policies in the State over the past decade. The
government viewed MGNREGA as a possibility to further strengthen and empower the grama
panchayats, and thereby the state government vested the grama panchayats with the responsibility
of programme implementation (Vijayanand, n.d.).
1.4.2 The Kudumbashree System
Yet another key feature of MGNREGA implementation in the State has been the involvement of
the Kudumbashree network. The Kudumbashree is a programme for poverty reduction and
women‘s empowerment under which poor families in rural areas organise themselves into
neighbourhood groups (NHGs, or ayalkootams) at the local level, which then federate into Area
Development Societies (ADSs) at the panchayat ward level, which again federate into Community
Development Societies (CDSs) at the village panchayat level. This community based organisational
set up works hand in hand with the panchayats in implementing MGNREGA in the State. The
MGNREGA ‗Mate‘ who supervises the work, organises the workforce and coordinates work
execution, is selected from amongst the executive body members of the ADS. As a result, workers
often refer to the Mate as ‗ADS‘. The Mate functions as a critical link between the workers and the
panchayat.
During the implementation of each MGNREGA work, a certain percentage of the total estimate
amount is transferred to the account of the ADS to meet expenses towards rent and repair of
tools, organisation of worksite facilities including drinking water, shade and medical kits,
transportation of workers to the hospital in the event of accidents and so on.
1.4.3 Convergence of MGNREGA Action Plans with Watershed Plans
In order to ensure that MGNREGA meets the designated objectives of soil and water
conservation and restoration of degraded lands, attempts have been made to integrate
MGNREGA planning with watershed planning in each panchayat. The Eleventh Plan guidelines
had made it mandatory that all panchayats draw out watershed plans, which were to provide the
framework for all development interventions undertaken by the local bodies (GOK 2007). Despite
the guidelines, the preparation of watershed plans progressed at a slow pace. It picked up
momentum when watershed plans were made a mandatory pre-condition for taking up
MGNREGA works on private agricultural land of small and marginal farmers. According to
MGNREGS officials, these plans have been prepared in 80% of the grama panchayats, and in
9
others, the process is underway. Details of this intended convergence and the current status are
dealt with in Chapter 3.
1.4.4 Participatory Procedure for Labour Budget Preparation2
The state government has worked out a detailed step by step procedure for the preparation of
annual labour budgets and MGNREGA action plans. In order to involve local people and
MGNREGA workers at all levels, planning of works is to proceed from the neighbourhood level
(NHG level) groups through ward level worker grama sabhas and the general grama sabha upto the
finalisation of the annual MGNREGA plan. The steps are as follows-
i) NHG level deliberations- The first step is holding discussions at the level of neighbourhood
groups (NHGs), which are facilitated by the Kudumbashree ADS system. Issues discussed
at this forum includes nature of work, suggestions for work to be taken up in each ward,
number of families demanding work, the most suitable time when work is to be generated
and so on.
ii) ADS level consolidation- The suggestions from these NHG level discussions are
consolidated at the ward level with the help of the ADS.
iii) Ward level Workers’ Grama Sabha- Following the ward level consolidation of intended
works, a special workers‘ grama sabha is held at the ward level, or at the level of two or
three wards, or at the panchayat level, depending upon the number of workers. At this
meeting, workers are to put forward their time and work preferences. This is to be
facilitated by grama sabha facilitators, specially selected and trained for this purpose.
iv) Grama Sabhas- Subsequent to this, a general grama sabha is to be held in each ward to
discuss the labour budget and annual action plan for MGNREGA in the ward, as well as to
integrate it with the development plan of the panchayat.
v) Scrutiny by the Working Group- The approved annual plans from the ward level grama
sabhas are further scrutinised and improved upon by the Panchayat level Working Group
on Poverty Reduction. The concept of the Working Group was developed during the
People‘s Plan Campaign for Decentralisation, comprising of elected members, experts,
activists, practitioners and officials.
2 This section has been taken from Viayanand, n.d.
10
vi) Convening Panchayat Seminar/Workshop- This improved format is presented at the
panchayat level Seminar on Labour Budget and Annual Action Plan preparation. At this
seminar, issues related to convergence of the Labour Budget with the Agricultural
Calendar, and the convergence of the Labour Budget with the Annual Action Plan of the
panchayat are to be discussed. It is at this seminar that the final Annual Action Plan and
Labour Budget for the panchayat is approved.
vii) Village Panchayat Committee meeting to finalise the Action Plan.
A similar consolidation of panchayat annual plans is undertaken at the Block Panchayat level. The
District Programme Coordinator (the District Collector) consolidates the Block Level Labour
Budgets into District Level Labour Budgets and hands it over to the District Level Technical
Advisory Committee. This committee then sends it to the Poverty Alleviation Working Group of
the District Panchayat for scrutiny. The District Collector will ensure that the services of the
Principal Agricultural Officer, District Soil Conservation Officer, Divisional Forest Officer,
Executive Engineer from the LSG and Asst General Manager NABARD are made available to the
Working Group. After scrutiny by the Working Group, the District Panchayat will approve the
Labour Budget and Annual Action Plan and forward it to the State MGNREGA Mission for
further approval.
1.4.5 Work Execution
Along with laying down a step by step procedure for labour budget preparation, the government
also said down a step by step method for work implementation. The Mate, who is selected from
amongst the ADS office bearers, is responsible for organising the labour force, convening pre
project meetings, organising worksite facilities, maintain the muster roll and job cards. In addition,
the government has issued specific guidelines in the following matters to ensure transparency in
work execution:
i) Project Initiation Meeting- This meeting is to be held before the work starts, to be
attended by workers, the Mate, technical staff, and local people, where details of the work
are explained in the lay person‘s language. Photographs of this meeting and minutes need
to be filed.
ii) Citizens‘ information board at the worksite, displaying details about the work
iii) Photographs of the worksite (pre, mid and post execution stages). These photographs
are to be attached along with the work file of each work
11
iv) Site Diary maintained by the mate, where all work details are recorded, in which
workers, officials and the public are free to write their comments. This was an innovation
from the district of Wayanad in Kerala.
v) Completion report by the Vigilance and Monitoring Committee before payment of
wages
vi) Project file containing all the above and other records in relation to payment, kept in the
Village Panchayat office for public scrutiny, inspection and audit.
1.4.6 Wage Payment
Yet another notable aspect of MGNREGA implementation in the state is payment of wages to the
individual bank accounts of registered workers. While job cards are issued to households, payment
of wages is made to the individual bank account of workers within each household, irrespective of
gender. This measure has had a significant impact as women workers have a greater control over
their wages and its spending. A majority of the women workers did not have bank accounts prior
to MGNREGA.
1.5 Objectives of the study
The Government of Kerala entrusted the present evaluation study to Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, Mumbai. The objective was to carry out an appraisal of the implementation of the
programme in the first phase (Palakkad and Wayanad) and second phase (Idukki and Kasargode)
districts of the state. The primary objectives of this evaluation were:
1. To assess the effectiveness of the processes intended to ensure the rights-based framework of the Act
2. To assess the quality of programme implementation
3. To assess the extent to which the programme has provided employment and livelihood security to different sections of rural households
4. To assess the quality of assets created through this programme
5. To assess the socio economic impact of the scheme
1.6 Sample Framework and Data Sources
The study makes use of both quantitative and qualitative data obtained from primary and
secondary sources. Secondary data pertaining to the physical and financial performance have been
12
obtained from the MGNREGA website (http://www.mgnrega.nic.in/netmgnrega/home.aspx) and
the office of the Kerala MGNREGA State Mission office.
As per the requirements of the Government of Kerala, the study was conducted in the first and
second phase districts, Wayanad and Palakkad (first phase) and Idukki and Kasargode (Second
phase) respectively. A stratified multi stage sampling design was adopted for the selection of the
sample units. The first stage units were the four districts of Palakkad, Wayanad, Idukki and
Kasargod.
In the second state, a total of 60 Gram Panchayats (henceforth GPs) were selected from the total
of 208 GPs spread across these 4 districts were selected. The number of GPs selected from each
district was in proportion to the total number of panchayats in each district. Within each district
two basic strata were formed:- GPs with highest percentage of SC population and GPs with
highest percentage of ST population. The complete list of the selected GPs has been given in
Appendix I. The selected GPs therefore are the GPs in the districts that have the highest
proportion of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Scheduled Caste (SC) populations.
The third unit was the House Hold (HH)3. In this stage, 20 households were randomly selected
from each of the selected GPs. The complete listing of all cardholders from each Grama
Panchayat was taken from the MGNREGA website4. All households from the list were stratified
according to the social category i.e. SC, ST and Others. It was difficult to locate the OBC
households as they are included in the Others category along with non-SC/ST groups in the
MGNREGA website.The 20 households were equally divided into these caste groups, with 5 each
from the SC and ST category and 10 households from the general category (which also included
the OBC groups). In certain ST dominated panchayats, it was difficult to locate the required
number of workers in the SC or Others category. This deficit has been made by taking up
additional workers from the ST category. Similarly in the case of SC dominated panchayats (see
Appendix I). The number of MGNREGA households selected for the survey through the above-
mentioned process was 1200, drawn from the 60 GPs spread across 4 districts. However, since the
team was not able to collect information from 3 GPs, the sample size was reduced to 1142.
A detailed household survey of the selected households was conducted in addition to a detailed
interview with the job card holder from these households. When there was more than one job card
holder from the selected household, the interview was conducted with the worker who had worked
3 Households registered under the scheme. 4 The http://mgnrega.nic.in/netmgnrega/home.aspx
13
for a greater number of days. In the event of there being more than one job card holder in a
household, it was mostly the woman who was the main MGNREGA worker. The schedule of
questions covered both household details as well as details regarding MGNREGA implementation.
The household survey schedule collected information regarding the socio-economic background
of the household (age of all household members, details of education and employment, land
holding status, access to various social security measures, housing status, access to drinking water
and cooking fuel and so on). The remaining part of the schedule discussed issues related to
implementation, viz. registration, demand for work, work execution, available worksite facilities,
role of the Mate, payment of wages, grievance redressal and social audit, quality of assets created
and so on. It also assessed the socio-economic impact of the programme on livelihood security of
the worker households. The survey questionnaires were finalized after the pilot study.
The interviews with the 1142 households and workers were substantiated by 30 Focus Group
Discussions held in different parts of the four districts. In addition, interviews were conducted
with the Panchayat Presidents and the MGNREGA staff in the panchayat (the MGNREGA
Overseers and Data Entry Operators) and Mates. 97 Mates, 49 Data Entry Operators and 50
Overseers from the study panchayats were interviewed during the course of the study. Discussions
were also held with the District Programme Collectors (DPCs). Random visits were conducted to
60 worksites in the four districts as well.
Table 1.5: Sample Panchayats
Districts No of Panchayats
Selected
No of Household Selected from GPs
SC ST Others Total *
Palakkad 26 184 99 237 520 (43.33)
Wayanad 7 35 41 64 140 (11.66)
Idukki 15 89 76 135 300 (25.00)
Kasaragode 12 62 58 120 240 (20.00)
Total * 60 370
(30.83)
274
(22.83)
556
(46.33)
1200 (100)
(100)
* Numbers in parenthesis indicates the percentage Source: Field Survey 2010-11
1.7 Structure of the Report
The main findings of the report have been structured into five chapters.
Chapter 1, ‗MGNREGA in Kerala: An Overview‘ presents the broad features of programme
implementation in the State. It also discusses the sampling framework and methodology adopted
for the study.
14
Chapter 2, ‗MGNREGA Implementation in Kerala: From a Rights-Based Perspective‘ discusses
the extent to which the various entitlements assured by the Act are realized in practice. This
chapter details upon all the critical phases of programme implementation.
Chapter 3, ‗Asset Creation through MGNREGA‘ details upon the nature of assets created through
the programme. The activities taken up in each work category has been discussed. The issues
encountered in the switch over to watershed based planning have also been dealt with in this
chapter.
Chapter 4, ‗Grama Panchayats and MGNREGA Implementation‘, discusses the role of the
panchayat level NREG staff (the Data Entry Operators and Overseers) as well as the Mates in
overall programme implementation. It has outlined the constraints faced by them in ensuring
programme implementation in a time bound manner.
Chapter 5, ‗Socio Economic Impact of MGNREGA‘ discusses the socio-economic profile of the
MGNREGA workers who were interviewed in the course of the study. It also discusses the impact
that the programme has made on their livelihoods, incomes and savings.
Chapter 6, ‗Conclusions and Recommendations‘ discusses the broad findings of the study, keeping
in mind the objectives of the study. It also lists out a specific set of recommendations to enhance
the efficacy of programme implementation.
15
CHAPTER 2 MGNREGA IMPLEMENTATION IN KERALA: FROM A
RIGHTS-BASED PERSPECTIVE
A critical feature of this evaluation has been to assess the extent to which MGNREGA has been
implemented in the State from a rights-based perspective. As mentioned in Chapter 1, procedures
and systems have been designed to ensure transparent implementation of the programme through
the PRI system in the State. Implementation of the programme through the panchayats, in close
association with the Kudumbashree system has been one of the defining features of MGNREGA
implementation in the state.
The MGNREG Act confers certain critical rights/entitlements to the workers, which are to be
assured through an inter-connected web of processes that need to be completed in a time-bound
manner. These include timely registration, demanding for work and providing employment in a
time bound fashion, timely payment of wages and so on. When viewed in isolation, each of these
processes may appear to be insignificant. An example would be issuing a dated receipt
acknowledging the worker‘s demand application. Only when we view these seemingly distinct
processes in conjunction can we assess the extent to which the rights-based framework is
operationalised in practice.
This section analyses programme implementation through key phases- viz. registration and issuing
of job cards, planning for MGNREGA activities, exercising the demand for work, provision of
worksite facilities, maintenance of transparency at the worksite, measurement and monitoring of
work, payment of wages, grievance redressal and social audit. Data from all the four districts is
presented in this section, highlighting similarities and differences in the process that has been
followed. We begin with the process of registration, as it is the first step in the process. While a
major chunk of registration has been completed, new registrations continue to take place. It is
therefore important to assess problems encountered in this process.
2.1 Registration
Registering potential workers is one of the most important activities to be undertaken by the
panchayats. The grama panchayats are entrusted to mobilise and encourage people to exercise their
right to register and to get their job cards free of cost. During the initial stages, wide coverage was
required as it was a new programme and people were not aware of its specific nature. Information
16
about the programme was disseminated through grama sabhas, Kudumbashree meetings, meetings
of local clubs, wall paintings, radio programmes and so on. In certain districts like Kasargod,
grassroots mobilisation was attempted through street plays as well. While a large number registered,
there were people who were reluctant to do so. Efforts at disseminating basic information about
the programme however stopped with the first phase of registration in most parts of the State.
Continuing efforts at information dissemination and awareness creation about the various rights-
based provisions, in order to address confusions and misunderstandings about programme
implementation have not been taken up in a consistent manner.
The practice followed for registration in the state involves the worker submitting a filled up
application form, along with a photograph and evidence of residence in the panchayat (normally a
copy of the ration card). The entire process is to be free of cost for the worker. The application
forms are to be provided by the panchayat, which is also required to arrange for the photographs
of the worker. The job card is to be issued within 14 days of application, which entitles the worker
to work under the programme.
2.1.1 Registration related problems
The actual process of registration was largely problem free with 91% of the interviewed workers
reporting that they had to register only once to get their job cards. Workers from a number of
panchayats have reported that the Mates and even ST promoters helped out with the registration
process during the initial phase. This is a positive feature as it indicates that panchayats made
efforts to make registration a hassle-free process for a majority of the workers. However the fact
that almost 9% of the randomly selected sample of workers had to register more than once to get
their job cards, needs to be viewed with concern as registration is an ongoing process. Reasons for
this lapse need to be looked into seriously by the panchayat administration and the supervising
officials.
Table 2.1 Issues in Job Card Registration District Percentage of workers who
registered more than once for getting Job Card
N=1120
Percentage of workers who were aware of others who had faced problems with
registration N=1118
Palakkad 7.96 16.15
Wayanad 7.92 21.00
Idukki 11.91 33.57
Kasargode 7.14 21.01
Total 8.75 21.88
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
17
In addition, 21% of the workers said that they were aware of others who had faced problems with
registration. In Idukki, as many as 33% were aware of other workers who had faced problems in
this regard. Problems cited include having to go to the panchayat office a number of times to sort
out issues related to the process of application. This has created difficulties for those living far
away from the panchayat office, particularly those living in distant SC and ST colonies, the cost of
travel and the loss of time being the main problems. This has been more widely reported from hilly
panchayats such as Kumily and Munnar in Idukki; Tirunelly, Noolpuzha and Poothady in Wayanad.
Box 2.1 Problems with Registration
Instances of the kind mentined in Box 2.1 call for greater sensitivity on the part of the panchayat
and the MGNREGA officials, to make registration a hassle-free process. A lack of clarity in the
process of registration was also reported. An issue that has been reported from all the four districts
is of potential workers not being able to register as they were unable to produce evidence of
A tribal worker from Noolpuzha GP in Wayanad says- "We had to go 3-4 times to the panchayat office
to get our job card. There were times when we did not have the money for bus travel and we borrowed
money from people we worked for.‖
Similarly a woman worker from Poothady GP in Wayanad reported that she had to go thrice to the
panchayat office, and each time she was asked to go back and come again. A tribal lady from
Uppukkulam, in Alanellur GP in Palakkad-― We live inside the forest, and our people are hesitant to
travel such a long distance to the panchayat office to give in our applications‖.
A worker from Anakuzhi estate in Kumily GP talks of paying as much as Rs 250 as auto charge to go
to the panchayat, after walking a long distance. She was keen on getting the job card, and so she bore
that burden she says.
It takes a day to go to the panchayat office and return from both the Vettichola and Pambantodu
colonies in Kanjirampuzha GP. One worker from Nadupathy ST colony in Pudussery GP says, ―I went
all the way to the panchayat office, but there was nobody to receive my application and so I returned.‖
A woman worker from Veliyamattom GP in Idukki- I live far from the panchayat office, where
transport facilities are few. I first gave in my application form to the ward member, who did not forward
it to the panchayat office. Eight months later I applied again but did not get the job card and it was only
on my third application that I got it..
A tribal woman worker from Agali GP in Palakkad says- ―I registered three times before I got my job
card. Officials said that my application was misplaced and could not be found. On another occasion I
was told that the concerned staff was not in office. It took me 3 months to get my job card‖.
18
residence in the panchayat. In all panchayats the ration card was insisted upon as residence proof,
which was not available with some of the workers. It is worthwhile to refer to the Act in this
regard. Section 5.1.2 states that ‗All adult members of the household who register may apply for
work. To register, they have to:
a) Be local residents: ‗Local‘ implies residing within the Gram Panchayat. This includes
those that may have migrated some time ago but may return
b) Be willing to do unskilled manual work
c) Apply as a household at the local Gram Panchayat‘.
The manner in which ‗local‘ has been explained in the Act implies that even those without ration
cards may apply. In practice however, panchayats were found to insist upon the ration card as
proof of residence. MGNREGA staff in the panchayat explain that it is required in order to avoid
duplication5. What is forgotten is that the job card in itself is supposed to be an identity card for
those without one. An attestation by the concerned ward member about the residence of the
applicant in that ward should suffice for those without ration cards. Instances of workers not being
able to register on this account was particularly reported from panchayats located close to the
interstate boundary (such as Kumily, Arakulam, Munnar in Idukki district, Kozhinampara and Agali
in Palakkad district, Enmakaje, Kuttikole and Panathady in Kasargod district). In certain panchayats
in Idukki, there were cases of women, originally from Tamil Nadu, who had come to reside here
after marriage. Incorporating their names on the family ration card took time, during which time
they were without identity cards. Such people were not able to register, with panchayat secretaries
refusing to sign on the application.
Workers were also found to be misled by the panchayats in certain cases. In Vattavada in Idukki
and Vandazhi in Palakkad for instance, workers were told that registration had been closed down.
In the former, they were told that there already existed 40-50 workers per ward, and that there was
no need for any further registrations. Though this specific dimension was not a part of our enquiry,
they were brought to our notice in the course of conducting interviews. While only few such
instances were brought to our notice, we report them here so that appropriate remedial measures
can be taken up by the implementing agency. The process of registration was also reported to be
5 MGNREGA staff report that they get a number of duplicate application forms. The ration card helps them to track
the application and avoid duplication.
19
time consuming, as workers had to go to the panchayat to give in application forms, and pursue the
matter with repeated visits.
2.1.2 Time Lag to get the Job Card
As per Section 5.3.2 of the Operational Guidelines to the Act, job cards are to be issued within two
weeks of application. In the present survey, only 40% of the interviewed workers had got their job
cards within this stipulated period.
Table 2.2 Time Gap between Registration and Issue of Job Card (in percentage)
Time Gap within one week
within 2 weeks
within 3 weeks
within a month
more than a month
Total
Palakkad 9.16 23.9 10.76 35.06 21.12 100 N=490
Wayanad 18 19 5 45 13 100 N=100
Idukki 19.32 23.86 6.82 29.55 20.45 100 N=264
Kasargode 21.59 28.19 11.45 22.91 15.86 100 N=229
Total 15 24.34 9.42 32.11 19.12 100 N=1083
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
About 20% of the workers had to wait for more than a month after application to get their job
cards. A further break-up of the period of waiting borne by the above mentioned 20% of workers
is given in the table given below. While half of the workers in this category got their job cards after
a month, a significant percentage got it after two and three months. There were also instances of
people getting their job cards a year after application.
Table 2.3 Percentage Distribution of Period of Delay
Period of Delay Percentage *
1 month 50.23
2 months 19.54
3 months 15.82
4 months 0.47
5 months 1.39
6 months 7.91
7 months 0.46
1 year 4.18
Total 100 N=198
* This period of delay is calculated for the 198 workers for whom it took more than one month to get job card. Source: Field Survey 2010-11
20
This is a delay that needs to be avoided keeping in mind ongoing registrations, especially since
there were workers who had to wait for 3 and 6 months. In certain panchayats, for instance
Palakkad and Idukki, two instances were recorded wherein workers began work without getting
their job cards, due to the delay in getting the cards.
2.1.3 Paying for Photographs
Another important issue in the process of registration is that of taking photographs. Panchayats in
Kerala have been equipped with digital cameras to arrange for photographs to be taken free of
cost. Despite this arrangement, almost 65% of the workers on an average in the 4 districts had to
pay for their photographs. The cost of taking photographs varies from Rs 60 to Rs 300 (Rs 60 per
person), depending on the number of registered workers from each family. In addition to the cost,
workers who mostly reside far from towns had to give up a day‘s work to travel to the studio to
have their photographs taken. The time and effort required to do this was pointed as a severe
constraint, especially by workers from relatively remote SC and ST colonies.
In addition, the inability to afford the cost of taking photographs has been reported to prevent
some workers from registering. This has been reported from the tribal panchayats of Agali and
Pudur in Attappady, Palakkad, Nenmeni from Wayanad and from Kodom-Bellur panchayat in
Kasargod. In Nenmeni panchayat in Wayanad this problem was found to be prevalent in certain
tribal settlements, where the Paniya tribal community expressed problems in finding the time and
money to take photographs and pursue registration related formalities. One of the interviewed
workers, was a sick person, with three children. Since he was unable to give up a day‘s work and
bear the cost of the photograph, he had not registered. The Mate had made it clear that unless he
brought the photograph, she would not be able to process his registration. Once again, it is a cause
of concern that this problem has been reported from tribal pockets.
Table 2.4 Percentage of people who had to pay for the photographs in Job card
District Yes No Total
Palakkad 89.63 10.37 100 N=482
Wayanad 78 22 100 N=100
Idukki 51.27 48.73 100 N=275
Kasargode 22.69 77.31 100 N=239
Total 64.62 35.38 100 N=1096
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
21
The percentage of people paying for their photographs was higher in Palakkad and Wayanad (89%
and 78%), the reason being that these were the first phase districts for MGNREGA
implementation. It was only after the process of registration commenced in these districts that
directions were issued stating that photographs were to be taken free of cost. Until then workers
were told to come with photographs to the panchayat. As a result, In Idukki and Kasargod, these
rates have fallen to 51% and 22% respectively. These figures, however, could have been lower,
given the fact that directions were issued in this regard.
Certain panchayats have made an effort to have the photographs of workers taken free of cost.
These efforts however appear to be haphazard, without adequate planning and prior information
to the workers. As a result, the intended objectives were not achieved. Workers in some of the
tribal settlements for instance report that the panchayat staff had come to their homes to have
their photographs taken. Due to the lack of prior information however, many workers were not
present and therefore ended up paying for their photographs. This was widely reported from
Adimali, Kanthaloor, Marayoor, and Veliyammattom panchayats in Idukki district.
In certain cases, the panchayat did make arrangements with studios or with agents who organised
for photos to be taken. People however had to pay for it. This indicates that alternative
arrangements could have been made with the grama panchayat sending one of the staff with a
digital camera rather than sending a person from the studio, who then had to be paid by the
worker. In Vattavada panchayat in Idukki for instance, tribal workers report that the panchayat sent
people from the studio to their homes, and they paid Rs 50 per person for having their
photographs taken. In Edamalakkudy6 in Munnar panchayat, tribal residents report having paid
money to agents who took photographs as per the directions of the panchayat member. In a tribal
settlement in Vandazhi panchayat of Palakkad, residents recall people from the panchayat coming
and doing everything necessary, but they were collectively asked to give a sum of Rs 300 to the
mate towards the cost of photographs. This indicates that while the panchayats made some effort
to arrange for photographs to be taken for tribal communities, little attempt was made to do it free
of cost. This is also an indication of a lack of sensitivity to marginalised communities.
6 Edamalakkudy was one of the most remotely located tribal settlements in Munnar Panchayat. The lone access road to this settlement was constructed under MGNREGA, with the active involvement of all the tribal residents. Recently, Edamalakkudy has been declared as a separate Grama Panchayat.
22
2.1.4 Paying for the registration forms
This has been reported from Kadambazhipuram panchayat in Palakkad and from Kantaloor in
Idukki. In Kadambazhipuram, three workers from three different wards reported paying Rs 5 for
the registration forms, and in one case, it was confirmed by the Mate.
2.1.5 Problems with Registration: Implications for Ongoing Registration
Problems that workers have faced with regard to registration deserve attention as registration is an
ongoing process. For one, most of the existing job cards are being renewed, as the validity period
of job cards is five years. Job card renewal has also been necessitated by the change in ward
numbers following the delimitation exercise that was undertaken recently across the State. The
process of job card renewal has been initiated since the months of April-May 2011. In the name of
job card renewal, the entire registration process is being repeated with workers being required to
submit applications for the new job card along with fresh copies of photographs and evidence of
residence proof. The personal information of workers has however been uploaded in the MIS, and
an editing option to indicate changes would have sufficed. In the absence of such measures,
workers have had to bear the cost of taking photographs, photocopies of residence proof and in
some cases, are charged for the application form as well. The time and effort that workers spend
on such tasks and the constraints that poor workers face in fulfilling such procedures is not given
due consideration. In most cases, workers are unfamiliar with such procedures. In addition to
renewal of job cards, there have been a lot of new registrations over the past year. This is so as
registration of private land owners has been made mandatory for NREG activities to be taken up
on agricultural land holdings of small and marginal farmers (those owning less than 5 acres of
land). Hassles in registration are found to affect the poorest in this category the most; most often
these are the tribal farmers.
2.2 The Right to Demand for Work
As per the Act, the worker has the right to demand work at a time and period of her/his
convenience. Upon submitting a written application for demand, the worker is given a dated receipt
from the panchayat, which is treated as proof of demand. Even oral demands for work made at
the grama sabha are to be honoured. The implementing agency (in this case, the panchayat)is then
bound to provide work within 14 days of demand. This implies that the panchayat should be
geared to provide labour upon demand, thereby necessitating prior planning of work. On failing to
provide work within 14 days of application, the panchayat is obliged to pay unemployment
allowance to the worker. It is this clause that makes right to work a legal entitlement of the worker.
23
Interviews and focus group decisions with workers in the four districts reveal that demand for
work is not exercised in this prescribed or intended form. Demand is rarely exercised prior to
commencement of work. To the contrary, most workers fill up the mandatory demand application
forms once they are informed about availability of work by the mate or upon commencement of
work, or even after completion of work. This has been reported from all the surveyed panchayats.
80% of workers in the four districts responded that they demanded for work only after they were
informed about availability of work. Demand is therefore determined by availability of work.
Table 2.5: Job availability & Awareness about the demand for employment
District Percentage of people applying for work after being informed about its
availability N=1110
Percentage of people aware that demand for employment can be at
convenience of the worker N=1119
Palakkad 84.71 15.95
Wayanad 82.00 21.21
Idukki 76.26 31.77
Kasargode 75.97 32.22
Total 80.55 23.74
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Box 2.2 Observation of workers about demand for work
Worker, Vadakarapathy GP, Palakkad- ―The normal pattern here is to fill up demand applications on
the day that work begins. I did not know that this has to be done in advance‖.
Three workers in Elapully GP in Palakkad said that on the day that work began,the Mate makes them
sign on a paper, but they did not know that this was an application for work.
Worker, Sholayur GP, Palakkad – ―I do not remember for how many days of work I have demanded,
the Mate prepares an application, and I just sign on it‖.
Worker, Vandazhi GP, Palakkad- ―When the Mate goes to the panchayat to submit the muster roll of
the just completed work, she will know if any new work has been sanctioned. If some work has been
sanctioned, workers are asked to give in their demand forms for the next work‖.
Worker, Delampady GP, Kasargode – ―On the day that the work starts, the Mate asks us to sign on a
form that has already been filled up. This is perhaps the application form you are talking about‖.
Worker, Bedadka GP, Kasargod-― Nobody ever told us that we have to apply for work‖.
Worker, Delampady GP says-―We always ask the Mate for work, but we did not know that we could
apply in the panchayat for work‖.
24
The possibility of applying for work at a time convenient to the worker was also not made clear to
most workers, with only 24% of the interviewed workers aware of such a possibility (refer Table
2.5). While certain workers stated that they do apply for work when they needed work, it later
emerged that they were referring to the demand application forms that they signed upon the
directions of the Mate. Very few workers have reported that they were given work when they
needed it the most. A tribal worker from Tirunelly recalled an incident when some of them from
the settlement had asked the Mate for work when they were in need of it, but they were told that
work could not be given when they wanted it, that it was panchayat work, which could be allotted
only after a certain process. In her words- ―we work as agricultural labourers, and when we have no other
work, if MGNREGA work is available and if we are called, we go for work”. Even today, MGNREGA
workers are not in a position to envisage a situation wherein they could demand for work at their
convenience. In Tirunelly GP, a number of tribal resident complained about not being given work
when they needed it the most. This was also substantiated by some of the non-tribal workers. One
such worker, who makes a living by running a small tea shop, and who goes for MGNREGA work
whenever it is available, remarked – ‗The Mate never tells me about the availability of MGNREGA
work. I come to know of it from the people who visit my shop. Nobody demands for work, so I
don‘t want to get into trouble by asking for work at my convenience‘.
In all the focus group discussions conducted with the workers, it emerged that workers were not
adequately informed about the process of demand application, of the provision to be given dated
receipts from the panchayat and the right to unemployment allowance in the event of not being
provided work within 14 days. Of the total number of workers interviewed, only 18% said that
they had received dated receipts and only 20% were aware of the right to unemployment
allowance.
Table 2.6: Dated Receipts & Awareness about the unemployment allowance
Districts Percentage of workers who got dated receipts from Panchayath
N=1113
Awareness about unemployment allowance N=1094
Palakkad 18.27 2.95
Wayanad 21.43 2.02
Idukki 14.7 1.82
Kasargode 22.46 0.9
Total 18.54 2.17
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
As a result, there have been very few instances when workers have individually or collectively
asserted their demand for work. Even when work has not been available for extended periods of
25
time, people have not been demanding for work, in the prescribed format. They tell the Mate or
the member, but they do not assert further. In Parali panchayat for instance, very few works had
been taken up under MGNREGA in the past year. The workers were perturbed about it, but were
waiting for the panchayat to provide them with work. In Arakkulam panchayat in Idukki for
instance, people had not got work for the past one year, but were not aware of the fact that they
were entitled to work upon demand, as a result of which they said they could do nothing but wait
for the panchayat to give them work.
A few instances were reported when workers are made to pay for the demand form by the mate.
Worker, Peringottukurisshi GP, Palakkad-― When the work is over, we give Rs 2 to the mate
towards the cost of the demand application form (six out of the 20 randomly selected workers
from this panchayat substantiated this).
A sum of Rs 4.50 is collected for demand forms according to a worker in Kadambazhipuram GP
in Palakkad, which was later confirmed by the mate herself. Many a time, workers are made to pay
for the photocopy charges of the demand form.
In Kallar GP in Kasargod, 3 out of the randomly selected 20 workers said that they pay Rs 2 for
taking a copy of the demand form.
While only a few such instances were brought to our notice in the course of the evaluation, this is
an issue that requires close supervision and monitoring.
2.2.1 Demand upon Work Completion: A reversal of procedures
Over the years, in certain panchayats, demand is written out only after work is completed. Workers
report that they sign on the demand form once the work is over and before the Mate submits the
muster roll for processing of the wages. The following statements indicate how workers view the
situation.
Worker, Peringotukurisshi GP in Palakkad- ―When the work is complete, we indicate the number
of days for which we have worked and write out the demand application accordingly‖.
Worker, Nenmeni GP, Wayanad- ―We never demand for work. On the day of work completion,
they count the number of days we have worked, and that is shown as the number of days for
which work was demanded. This is recorded in the job card‖.
26
This ‗back door‘ approach to demand is reflected in the process of data entry as well. While
interviewing the NREG Data Entry Operators at the panchayat level, some of them stated that
they enter the demand details of each worker, upon completion of the concerned work, by
calculating the number of days that she/ he had worked as per the muster roll. As a result,
according to MIS records, the number of days demanded tallies with the number of days of
employment provided.
2.2.2 The Mate Demands for Work and the Mate Allocates Work
A worker from Sholayur panchayat in Palakkad says that when she gave a written application for
demand at the panchayat, they did not accept it, instead she was told to approach the ADS (the
Mate in Kerala is often referred to as the ADS, as mates are selected from amongst the ADS office
bearers, ADS being the ward level organisation of women in the Kudumbashree system). Another
worker from Marayoor panchayat says that when they go to the panchayat asking for work, they
were told to come only when asked to. That the Mate is the main source of information about
work availability is borne by the fact that 83% of the workers reported that they get to know of
work availability from the Mate.
Table2.7: Source of information about the work
District President Member Mate Public Display
GP Officials
Others Total
Palakkad 0.6 8.87 85.48 0.4 1.21 3.43 100 N=515
Wayanad 2.02 16.16 77.78 0 0 4.04 100 N=101
Idukki 1.87 16.1 78.28 0 0.37 3.37 100 N=280
Kasargode 0.87 9.57 86.96 0 0.87 1.74 100 N=242
Total 1.1 11.45 83.33 0.18 0.82 3.11 100 N=1138
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
There is practical convenience in routing the demand through the Mate. In most cases, the
panchayat office is situated far from the workers‘ place of residence and going to the panchayat is a
day‘s work. The process of placing demand with the Mate does not however always work in the
favour of the worker. Cases have been reported of people orally placing their demand for work
with the Mate, but not being provided work. Mates have been allegedly partial to certain workers,
who are repeatedly given work while other workers wait for work. This has been reported from 14
panchayats, viz. Panamaram, Poothady, Tirunely in Wayanad; Sholayur, Elappully, Kuthanoor in
27
Palakkad, West Eleri and Bedadka in Kasargod, Arakulam, Munnar, Vandiperiyar, Upputhara,
Elappara and Vattavada in Idukki districts.
Many workers were hesitant to speak openly about such issues, for fear of not being given work in
future. In Vandiperiyar, it was reported that the Mate has a group of 25-30 workers with her, who
are called for work more often than others. There were also allegations that the Mate had
affiliations with a certain political party and would therefore deny work to non party members. In
West Eleri, a worker confronted the Mate over an issue, and she has not been called for work since
then.
Marginalised groups have also complained about not getting fair treatment at the hands of the
Mate. In Tirunelly in Wayanad, a non tribal worker commented that caste was a criterion while
workers were selected for work, with tribal workers not being called for work all the time. Tribals
from both Poothady and Tirunelly in Wayanad have reported that the Mate favours non tribal
workers over tribal workers. A similar issue was reported from Vandiperiyar where tea estate
workers felt they were excluded from the ayalkootam (nieghbourhoood level group) and were not
given any information about MGNREGA. Tamil workers in Upputhara in Idukki too reported that
the Malayalee Mate gave more work to the Malayalee workers than to the Tamil workers.
These issues indicate that the allocation of work is not norm based, but is left to the personal
discretion of the Mate. There needs to be greater clarity in the manner in which workers are
allocated work. Such instances increase when works are few and workers are more, particularly
when work is taken up after a long period of inactivity. In such an event, the demand for work is
greater and Mates are found to exercise their discretion.
There have been cases where elderly workers have been turned down by the Mate on grounds of
lower work output. A woman worker from Panamaram GP in Wayanad reported that since she was
not keeping good health, she requested the Mate for lighter work, but she was sent away saying
muster rolls were full. A similar instance of only physically fit workers being called for work was
reported from Poothady and Pudussery panchayats as well. Such instances point to an inadequate
understanding of MGNREGA being a labour assurance programme for all categories of people,
including the physically disabled. The Act very clearly states how elderly and physically disabled
workers are also to be given work opportunities in this programme. Section 5.5.10 of the
Operational Guidelines states
28
‘If a rural disabled person applies for work, work suitable to his/her ability and qualifications will have to be given.
This may also be in the form of services that are identified as integral to the programme. Provisions of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 will be kept in view
and implemented’. This message has not been adequately imparted in the process of actual field
implementation.
A critical issue that has emerged in the process being Mate-centered is that very often it is the Mate
who demands for work and not the workers. A worker from Bediyaduka GP in Kasargod said that
they had not got any work the past year as the Mate has not been asking for work. Another Mate
from the same panchayat explained that it is the Mate who goes to the panchayat, selects a project
from the list of projects and gets the muster roll issued. This process seems to work in two ways.
One is when workers press the Mate for work, the latter goes to the panchayat to see if any work is
available in their ward and gets the muster roll issued. Another way is when the Mate is keen on
taking up work and she goes and identifies a suitable work from the existing action plan, and
mobilises workers to come for work. In the former case, the workers express their need for work
through the Mate. In the latter, the Mate takes up work at her convenience. In both cases, the idea
of demand for work by the worker has been subverted.
It would be naive to assume that the failure to make this a demand-driven programme was due to
the failure of the Mates alone. The two-member MGNREGA staff in the grama panchayat feel
that the existing workload makes it difficult for them to cater to individual demands. Little effort
appears to have been made at the panchayat level or at the level of the BPO/district NREGS
machinery to work out possible ways by which this individual demand can be catered to. Neither
has the elected council of the panchayat motivated people to exercise their right to demand. As a
result, four years after commencement of implementation, people still wait for work to be given to
them.
2.3 Work Planning
Reasons as to why demand is not naturally generated become clearer when we examine the process
of annual planning for MGNREGA. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the State government has laid
down a detailed step by step procedure for the preparation of annual labour budgets and
MGNREGA action plans. This process gives rise to an annual action plan that lists the projects
that can be implemented in the panchayat, so as to provide 100 days of work to all registered
workers, upon demand. The system through which decentralised planning is organised at the
panchayat level was made use of for MGNREGA planning as well. Thus the existing system of
29
neighbourhood level planning deliberations, consolidated at the ward level grama sabhas into
project proposals and whetted at panchayat level development seminars (following various levels of
scrutiny) was adopted for NREG planning as well (see Sec. 1.4.4 in Chapter 1). The only difference
was that the Kudumbashree office bearers played a key role in the process of MGNREGA
planning and implementation. This was because the supervision of MGNREGA works was
entrusted to the Kudumbashree system.
2.3.1 The Intended Planning Process
Figure 2.1: Intended Planning Process
2.3.2 The planning Process in Reality
This section looks into how the intended process takes off in the field, primarily through assessing
the degree of worker‘s involvement in each stage of planning.
2.3.2.a NHG level planning
The NHG is intended to bring together people of a locality and to generate discussions on
possible activities that can be taken up in the field of soil and water conservation, afforestation,
land development and so on. NHG level discussions therefore form the edifice of an informed
discussion at the grama sabha level. The first step to make NHG level discussion productive would
be to enhance people‘s and Mate‘s understanding of why certain activities are promoted under
MGNREGA, and identifying such activities in their area. Field findings indicate that this first step
30
is inadequate. At the NHG level of planning, on an average, only 35% of the workers interviewed
were aware of the NHG level discussions that had taken place. About 30% were not aware, and
another 35% said that such discussions were never held in their area.
Table2.8: Neighbourhood Level Meetings (in percentage)
District Took Place Did not take place Not Aware Total
Palakkad 24.71 40.35 34.94 100 N=506
Wayanad 50.51 29.29 20.2 100 N=99
Idukki 47.29 29.96 22.74 100 N=277
Kasargode 37.97 34.6 27.43 100 N=238
Total 35.28 35.63 29.09 100 N=1120
Source: Field Survey 2010-11 The situation appears to be better in Wayanad and Idukki in this regard, as a greater number of workers
were aware of the NHG level process of planning.
2.3.2.b Poor Understanding of Priority of Works
Of the workers who were aware of NHG level discussions, not more than 50% could talk about
the kind of discussions that took place at the NHG level. Workers‘ understanding about the
specific nature of works that could be taken up under MGNREGA and about the priority in which
activities were to be taken up, was low (11.56% on an average).
Table 2.9: Awareness about priority of work
District Percentage of workers aware of the priority of work N=1090
Palakkad 6.52
Wayanad 13.13
Idukki 24.81
Kasargode 6.28
Total 11.56
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
When workers were asked about the priority in which works were to be taken up,two broad
responses emerged. One, in which they listed the works that were normally taken up under
MGNREGA like road side clearing, clearing of stream channels, pond works etc. While deepening
of road side drains and clearing road side vegetation figured in all districts, other works varied from
district to district. In Palakkad, it would be mostly pond and canal desilting, whereas in Idukki it
would be private land works and in Wayanad they would talk of trench works. They were however
31
not aware of why there was a focus on certain activities such as pond cleaning or canal desilting,
rain water pits and so on. The second kind of response was one in which they would say that they
worked as per the Mate‘s directions. ‗We work as per the Mate‘s directions‘ was an oft-heard remark
from workers across the four districts.
It is pertinent to note here that the Mates who are the main source of information for the worker7,
and who play a key role in organising the NHG level discussions were also poorly informed about
the priority in which works are to be taken up under MGNREGA. Of the 97 mates who were
interviewed, only 20% were able to talk about their understanding of the priority in which works
were to be taken up. The remaining did not know enough to talk about this issue. Of the small
group who were able to respond, a sizeable number (40%) felt that rice cultivation was the main
activity to be taken up under MGNREGA. Only 20% mentioned that soil and water conservation
was a priority area. Only 10% of this small group stated that road works were secondary under
MGNREGA.
Another matter of concern is that while the NHG for MGNREGA is to be comprised of all
residents of the neighbourhood, in practice, and over the years, it has become equated with the
Kudumbashree NHG. As a result, non Kudumbashree members, and men, do not participate in
the NHG discussions for MGNREGA, when they are held. This has been reported from workers
from 15 different grama panchayats. Instances of Tamil people being excluded from the
Kudumbashree network due to their inability to converse in Malayalam has been reported from
Puthukada in Kalla panchayat in Kasargod. These workers therefore were unaware of the NHG
level planning exercise.
2.3.2.c Overseers’ Observations about the planning process
Overseers from 50 panchayats across the 4 districts were asked about the process of plan
formulation through the NHG-Grama Sabha process. While workers opinions suggests that NHG
level deliberations do not play a very important role, majority of the Overseers suggest that shelf
of projects are formulated through NHG level discussions. Overseers however do not attend these
meetings. While most of them were reluctant to speak openly about the effectiveness of NHG
discussions, some of them expressed critical comments, which are of significance to the present
discussion.
7 83% of the workers are informed about the kind of work to be taken up by the Mate, and another 11% by the ward
member.
32
‗It is only women who participate in NHG level discussions, who (due to lack of exposure)
are incapable of making suggestions for plan formulation. So NHG level discussions are
not fruitful.‘
‗While NHG discussions may be held, the Mates, panchayat members and other
knowledgeable people from the area make the final plan. In any case, people ask for a
whole range of things and not all of it is possible under MGNREGA.‘
NHG meetings for MGNREGA are viewed as a one-time activity, prior to annual plan preparation.
It is not viewed as a platform for micro level discussions on various issues related to MGNREGA
implementation. While NHGs and grama sabhas are convened, the workers‘ inputs and
suggestions are not viewed to be critical. There is an underlying understanding that it is finally the
panchayat member and other politically powerful people who are involved in decision making.
Participation of the local people is mostly in the form of attendance at meetings, which is also on
the decline.
2.3.2.d Grama Sabhas
NHG level deliberations are consolidated and presented first at the workers grama sabha at the
ward level, and later at the general grama sabha. Ward level grama sabhas are held once a year,
before the finalisation of the annual action plan (normally during the months of Jan-March).
Table 2.10: Awareness & Participation in Grama Sabha (GS) meetings
District GS Meeting notified in advance N=1088
Attended the GS meeting N=1102
Say in the selection of work (location/ nature) of work
N=1117
Palakkad 57.2 49.21 15.89
Wayanad 80 80.21 26.73
Idukki 62.82 60.79 28.36
Kasargode 73.57 68.24 26.69
Total 63.97 58.76 22.16
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
On the whole, while 58% said that they attended the grama sabhas, only 22% of the workers felt
that they had a say in deciding upon the works to be taken up under MGNREGA. While there are
districts with a much higher proportion of workers attending the Grama Sabha, levels of
participation are low. In Wayanad for instance, while as many as 80% of the interviewed workers
attended the Grama Sabha, only 27% felt that they had a say in the selection of works. A widely
held impression amongst workers is that it is the Mate and the member who finally decide on what
is to be taken up, and that the grama sabha is held only to inform workers about the activities that
33
will be taken up. There is also a feeling that while they may voice their opinions, decisions taken
subsequently may not reflect their opinions. A common refrain from all four districts has been –
‗We attend, we listen to what they say and we come back‘ or ‗We state our opinions, but they take a
decision later‘. Workers‘ comments on the process are extremely insightful indicating the lacuna in
the planning process.
Box 2.3: Workers’ impressions on the Grama Sabhas held for Annual MGNREGA Plan
Preparation
Focus group discussions held with workers and local people reveal that participation of the local
people has been declining in grama sabhas. People report that they participate because they do not
want to lose out on benefits from panchayat schemes. Workers were also apprehensive that that if
they did not attend the grama sabha, they would be refused work by the Mate or the member in
future.
There is a distinct sense of disenchantment with the grama sabhas, as far as MGNREGA workers
are concerned. People were of the view that their opinion did not matter and was not considered.
They were also of the view that it was mostly political party representatives who participated in the
grama sabhas, and not the ordinary people. It was politically powerful people who exercised a
larger say they felt. Workers would report that the concerned ward member would lead the
discussions, and people had little to say. It was widely reported that the grama sabhas were forums
for arguments and counter-arguments, and not forums when the views of people were heard.
This feeling of exclusion from decision-making processes was more marked in the case of SC and
ST communities. In focus group discussions, tribal communities were open about them not being
included in decision making processes at the grama sabhas, and about their opinions not being
Workers‘ impressions on the Grama Sabhas held for Annual MGNREGA Plan Preparation
Worker, Kanjirampuzha Grama panchayat, Palakkad district- ‗Suggestions of participants are
considered at the meeting, but are not visible in the actual execution of works.‘
Workers from Enmakaje in Kasargode and Vadakarapathy in Palakkad- ‗We do not express our
opinions, the Mate and the member decide‘.
Worker, Tirunelly Grama Panchayat, Wayanad – The Mate and the member decide on the work to be
done in each ward and decide the estimates. They then announce the decision in the grama sabha.
Workers don‘t give suggestions‘
Worker, Vandiperiyar, Idukki- The grama sabha is merely to inform us about when and where the work
will take place. There is no discussion about MGNREGA. One grama sabha is held at the beginning of
the year to tell us about the works. Other than that, MGNREGA is not discussed in any grama sabha.
34
taken seriously. They felt that their grievances were treated lightly, and they did not feel that the
grama sabha was a venue where they would get a patient hearing. This has demotivated them from
attending grama sabhas.
A 24-year-old tribal woman worker from Tirunelly- ‗We used to attend the grama sabha. But last
time, when we raised the issue of wage delay, the people from the panchayat lashed out at us, and
abused us in public. We will not attend any more grama sabhas‘. Similar issues of exclusion were
voiced by marginalised communities in Ballal and Bellur panchayats in Kasargod as well. In Bellur,
certain SC communities felt that the grama sabha held was of no use to them as their opinions
were not considered.
2.3.2.e After The Grama Sabha
Workers are unaware of the process of plan finalisation that takes place after the Grama Sabha is
convened. The only other point in time when they hear about MGNREGA related work is when
the mate informs them about availability of work. From the number of days of work provided to
workers, it is clear that the existing system of planning does not provide for 100 days of work to all
registered workers. Table 2.11 indicates the number of days of work that the interviewed workers
received during the previous year. According to this estimate, an average of 40.67 days of work was
provided to the workers interviewed. This corresponds with the MIS data for the state, wherein the
average work days generated is 40.85 (see Table 2.12). Table 2.11 is based on what workers have
recalled from their memory. It has not been possible to verify the same from job card entries all the
time as job card entries were incomplete and incorrect most of the time. In certain cases,
discrepancies were noticed. While workers said that they had got 100 days of work, it did not
necessarily imply 100 days in one year. At times, they meant that they had got 100 days of work
since the time they began to work under MGNREGA. Since getting 100 days of work was
considered as an achievement, some of them were found to exaggerate the number of days they
had worked. We have tried to correct such inconsistencies. Some workers report that they got more
than 100 days of work, which has been indicated in the MIS data as well. Table 2.13 provides the
caste-wise break-up of work provided.
35
Table 2.11: Employment Provided in 2010-11 (as reported by workers).
(in percentages)
District Days of employment Total
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-99 100.00 >100
Palakkad 7.84 14.38 14.38 8.93 12.64 8.50 8.06 6.54 3.92 2.83 11.98 0.00 100.00 N=459
Idukki 5.65 9.27 11.29 5.24 10.08 7.26 8.47 5.24 7.66 3.63 24.19 2.02 100.00 N=248
Wayanad 7.22 8.25 9.28 8.25 7.22 8.25 11.34 4.12 4.12 2.06 24.74 5.15 100.00 N=97
Kasargode 10.34 14.29 12.81 11.82 10.34 6.40 8.87 4.93 3.45 2.46 13.30 0.99 100.00 N=23
Total 7.75 12.51 12.81 8.54 11.02 7.75 8.64 5.66 4.77 2.88 16.48 1.19 100.00 N=1007
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Table 2.12: Distribution of Duration of Employment in 2010-11 (as per MGNREGA MIS).
(in percentage)
District Days of Employment
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-99 100 above 100 Total
Palakkad 17.69 19.20 15.65 12.67 10.44 7.76 5.68 3.90 5.01 1.50 0.51 100.00
Wayanad 22.32 19.65 15.35 12.75 9.90 7.28 4.72 3.04 3.52 1.36 0.12 100.00
Idukki 13.11 15.05 13.35 10.40 10.84 9.69 8.17 5.86 9.17 3.37 0.99 100.00
Kasargod 18.77 17.77 13.85 10.43 9.43 8.19 6.85 5.43 7.46 1.76 0.07 100.00
Total 18.08 20.72 16.36 11.84 10.06 7.43 5.20 3.63 4.65 1.77 0.27 100.00
Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in/netnrega/writereaddata/state_out/pmsr1603003_1011.html, Accessed on 16the March 2011
36
Table 2.13: Caste-wise Break-up of Employment provided in 2010-11 (as reported by workers).
(In percentage)
Social Category
Days of employment Total
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-99 >100 100.00
SC 6.15 11.00 14.56 9.71 11.97 8.74 10.03 6.47 3.88 2.59 14.24 0.65 100.00 N=309
ST 8.40 13.03 12.61 5.04 8.40 7.56 9.66 5.04 6.30 2.52 19.33 2.10 100.00 N=238
OBC 6.82 14.77 9.47 10.98 12.12 6.06 9.09 6.06 3.79 3.03 15.91 1.89 100.00 N=264
Others 10.40 11.56 15.03 7.51 9.83 8.67 4.62 4.62 5.78 3.47 18.50 0.00 100.00 N=173
Total 7.62 12.60 12.80 8.54 10.77 7.72 8.74 5.69 4.78 2.85 16.67 1.22 100.00 N=984
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
37
2.4 Work Execution
The next important phase is that of actual work execution. Once the Mate collects the muster roll
for a work from the block panchayat, the work is set to start. The following sequence of events
explains the pattern of execution. In all these phases, the Mate plays a critical role.
Graph 2.2 Steps in work Execution
2.4.1 Pre Project Meeting
As per procedure, a pre project meeting is to be held between the concerned workers, Mate and the
overseer, a few days or the day before commencement of work. At this meeting the actual purpose
and nature of the work and quantum of work is explained to the workers. The overseer is to come
to the meeting with a work estimate that is prepared in the lay person‘s language, referred to as the
‗people‘s estimate‘. Following this meeting, the work is set to commence.
38
About half the workers interviewed reported that the pre project meetings were convened, with a
little less than half reporting that they acquired details of the work to be done at this meeting. The
percentage was highest in Wayanad, where 82% workers said that the meeting was conducted,
which is a positive indicator. In most cases however, it was held on the day of work
commencement, just before the work began.
The situation was most grave in Palakkad, with only 41% of the workers reported that the meeting
was held and only 30% saying that they were given details of the work at this meeting. In
Pudussery and Vadakarapathy panchayats in Palakkad, two former Mates themselves reported that
these meetings were not held.
Table 2.14: Convening of pre project meeting
(in percentage)
District Percentage of workers told that Pre Project meeting took place
N=1109
Percentage of workers told that they were Informed about nature of work & wage at
the meeting N=1006
Palakkad 41.85 30.85
Wayanad 82.47 82.65
Idukki 58.7 53.23
Kasargode 49.58 42.93
Total 51.16 44.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
As we understand from the field, over the past few years, the pre project meeting has been reduced
to a procedural formality. It is common practice now to hold the meeting just before the work
begins, in a hurry and Overseers rarely attend this meeting. Only 46% of the Overseers reported
that they regularly attended these meetings. Another 30% said they attend it at times. 24% stated
that they do not attend the meetings at all. According to the workers however, Overseers rarely
attend the meeting. In the absence of the overseer, it is the Mate‘s level of understanding about the
nature and quantum of work that guides the activity.
2.4.2 Organisation of Worksite Facilities
Provision of worksite facilities is yet another feature that distinguishes MGNREGA from a routine
employment guarantee programme. Worksite facilities comprise the provision of drinking water,
shade, medical facilities and crèche facilities to workers. The following table indicates workers‘
observations about the degree to which each of the above facilities were provided.
39
Table 2.15: Facilities at the worksite- workers response (in percentage)
District Availability of Drinking Water
N=1111
Availability of Medical Aid
N=1100
Availability of Shade
N=1070
Availability of Creche N=991
Palakkad 93.18 88.14 51.47 2.58
Wayanad 88.12 81.19 77.23 0.00
Idukki 89.3 57.14 49.44 16.21
Kasargod 94.51 60.61 69.36 1.41
Total 92.07 74.17 57.26 5.60
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
In addition to feedback from workers, random visits were undertaken to ongoing worksites in the
four districts. A total of 60 such worksites visits were undertaken. As per the observations of the
field researchers, worksite facilities were provided in a lesser degree at the ongoing worksites.
Table 2.16 Facilities at the worksite as per random visits to the Worksite
Facilities Yes No Total
Drinking water 85.00 15.00 100.00 N=60
Shelter 41.67 58.33 100.00 N=60
First Aid 60.00 40.00 100.00 N=60
Creche 8.33 91.67 100.00 N=60
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Drinking Water
Of the 4 mandatory worksite facilities, drinking water received the highest rating. Even in this case,
there were workers who said that they had to carry their own drinking water to certain worksites.
First Aid
74% of workers said that they were provided with first aid medicines. The quality of the first aid
boxes needs to be improved. The common practice is to keep a few medicines (mostly paracetemol
tablets), a little bit of cotton (mostly uncovered) and in some cases a bottle of anti-septic lotion, in
a plastic cover. This is normally in the custody of the Mate. While officials report that clear
directions have been given to Mates regarding the manner in which First Aid Boxes are to be
maintained, there appears to be little monitoring of the same. Given the fact that it is
commonplace for workers to suffer minor accidents at the worksite (particularly getting wounded
by rusted tools), the availability of hygienically-stored medicines and first-aid material is of critical
importance.
40
Shelter at the Worksite Shelter is to be provided at each of the worksites. Workers however report of having to resort to
the shade of trees at the worksite, and of getting wet during the rains. Only about half the workers
in Palakkad and Idukki reported that shelter was provided. Problems due to non-availability of
shelter was more acutely reported from Palakkad, due to the intense heat during the summer
months. In Elapully panchayat of Palakkad, instances were reported of workers pooling money to
buy leaves for thatching, so as to put up a shed at the worksite in the summer, when the sun and
heat were difficult to bear with. In Vandazhi, workers repeatedly voiced the need for shelter
facilities, particularly for pond renovation works which last for 2-3 weeks. They also demanded that
thatched roof sheds be put up instead of plastic sheets, which heat up in summer.
Child Care at the Worksite Of the four mandatory facilities, it was the crèche facility that was least provided. As per the norm,
a crèche facility is provided only if there are at least 5 workers with small children at a worksite.
Very often, there would be 3 or 4 young mothers, but because they fell short of the stipulated 5,
these women were unable to go to work. In certain wards, workers reported a high predominance
of women with small children, who were unable to go for work.
Tirunelly GP, Wayanad- It was reported that there were more than 10 women in the Alatur
tribal colony who were unable to go to work as they had small children to take care of.
Munnar GP, Idukki- There were 9 women with small children, who could not come for
work. Some of them came from very difficult economic settings, with women working
upto the last term of pregnancy. Providing such women with crèche facility would enable
them to come for work. The Mate told workers with small children to tie cradles and to
keep the children there while they work.
Peerumede GP, Idukki- There were women workers who kept their children in the
anganwadi, which functioned from 10 am to 3.30 pm. They would bring their children to
the worksite at about 8.30 am, and keep them there till 10 am, when they would drop them
at the Anganwadi and then bring them back to the worksite by 3.30 pm (as the Anganwadi
would be open from 10 am to 3.30 pm). This is a panchayat where there were a number of
people who had lost their jobs with the closing down of tea estates. They included a large
number of women, who were willing to come for MGNREGA work if the crèche facility
was provided.
41
While there are women with small children in different parts of the panchayat, getting 5 of them
together at a worksite is not easy. 20% of the interviewed workers were aware of women with
small children who were willing to but unable to come for work, as they had to take care of their
small children. This was also one of the reasons cited for potential workers not registering for
MGNREGA. When young mothers are inclined to come for manual work, it indicates that they are
really in need of work. With Kerala‘s reduced fertility rate, bringing down this norm from 5 to 3
would be of great help to the women workers from difficult economic settings.
2.4.3 Travel Allowance to Far Away Worksites
Another associated facility is that of being given travel allowance for travel undertaken to worksites
5 kms or more from the residence of the worker. Only 18% of workers were aware that they were
entitled to such a provision. This was as low as 14% in Palakkad. Ignorance about this provision
has also demotivated workers from demanding for work. In Nenmeni panchayat in Wayanad for
instance, workers reported that they were scared of demanding for work, as they feared that they
would be given work in far away work sites, and they would have to spend money on travel. In the
words of a worker- ―If we demand for work, we will be given work far away. They say we should
go and work where work is offered. In our area, there is no regular bus service, and we end up
walking and running for 4 kilometres or so, in order to reach the worksite by 8 am. At times we
hire a jeep and share the expenses‖.
Table 2.17: Percentage of workers aware about the travel allowance
District Aware Not Aware Total
Palakkad 13.89 86.11 100 N=500
Wayanad 21.78 78.22 100 N=101
Idukki 21.30 78.7 100 N=277
Kasargode 24.17 75.83 100 N=241
Total 18.60 81.4 100 N=1119
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Some instances are quoted in Box 2.4, which help us to understand in greater detail the difficulties
that workers go through when they are denied the travel allowance that is due to them. They end
up walking in order to save on the travel costs. The additional time spent on walking deprives the
women workers of time needed to do housework, which adds to their stress. While the Act ensures
42
this provision for TA, the panchayat has not taken the necessary institutional measures to ensure
that the worker receives this TA. This had added to worker level discontent, and increased their
work related burdens.
Box 2.4: The Promised Travel Allowance
Worker, Kumily GP, Idukki- ‗This relates to a stream protection work that we worked for 14 days. I spent Rs 125 on travel to the worksite during this period. I have not complained about not being given the TA, and you please don‘t tell the Mate that I told you this‘. Workers in the forested parts of Wayanad and Idukki report that there have been occasions when they have walked through the forests to reach the site. Since buses don‘t ply on this route, they end up walking, and they don‘t feel very safe walking through the forests early in the morning and late in the evening, due to the risk of wild elephants. Worker, Kizhakkenchery GP, Palakkad-‗I walked 8 kms to a worksite in North Palayam, and I was not paid any TA‘. Worker, Vadakkarapathy GP, Palakkad- ‗When we live far from the sites, we end up paying Rs 20 on auto charges, as there are no buses in this route‘. Worker, Pudussery GP, Palakkad- ‗On one occasion when we worked at a far away site, the Mate paid for our travel, but she also took the TA that was due to us. She did not have to pay Rs 12.5 on travel in any case each day, so she stood to gain‘. Worker, Vandazhi GP, Palakkad- ‗When work sites are far away, we spend Rs 10-15 each day on travel. At times, we get together and hire a ‗petti auto‘ (auto used for transporting goods), so that we can reach the site. Each one of us pays Rs 30 for this‘. Worker, Vandazhi GP, Palakkad- ‗We were engaged in the desilting of the main canal from the Mangalam dam area. We agreed to go that far as they said they would pay us TA. We spent Rs 8 daily, but in the end we were not given TA. When we went and enquired at the panchayat the response we got was –‗ this rule has not come into effect‘. In certain cases, the time spent on walking eats into the work time, thereby reducing work output- Worker, Vandazhi GP, Palakkad- ‗We worked for 15 days on a canal cleaning work in Chittadi. It would have cost Rs 10 by bus, but we were not aware of the TA provision. So we walked that distance in a group. This took time, so we could reach the site only by 8.30 pm and leave by 4.30 in order to reach home before dark. As a result we could not finish the full quota of work, and we got only Rs 120 as wages for that work. We asked the mate to do something, but we did not complain to the panchayat, as we thought it will bring a bad name to the mate. There were a few workers who were aware of this provision, but when this issue was raised, they did not get a positive response. Worker, ward 7, Kanthaloor GP-‗ When we asked the mate for the TA, she told us that only those who were willing to go and work at far away worksites need to come for work, that the TA could not be provided‘.
43
2.4.4 Medical Reimbursement for Accidents suffered at the Worksite
There have been a few cases where workers have been reimbursed for the total amount spent on
medical treatment in the event of accidents at the worksite. But they are outnumbered by the
number of cases where workers have not been reimbursed. The panchayats have, by and large,
been bureaucratic in handling this issue. They have insisted that workers go to government
hospitals in order to get reimbursement. They have also asked for bills as proof of the amount
spent on travel to the hospital, which workers have found difficult to produce, especially if they
have travelled by autos or jeeps. All of this has conveyed the message to the workers that claiming
this reimbursement is an uphill task. Greater clarity in the guidelines will help to reduce confusions
while dealing with each accident/injury case. In some cases, the panchayats have reimbursed the
worker for all expenses incurred by her/him, whereas, in some others, they have not. It is currently
left to the discretion of each panchayat or the official concerned. A pro worker stance is amiss in
the way in which cases are handled.
2.4.5 Tools- quality and rent related issues
During the first phase of programme implementation, the panchayat purchased tools and handed it
over to the ADS of the Kudumbashree system. The ADS then rented out the tools to the NREGS
for each work. The rent amount was transferred to the ADS account, from the work estimate of
each work. This money was to be used by the ADS to repair and sharpen tools periodically, as well
as to purchase new tools if necessary. If additional tools were required, then workers were asked to
bring tools from home, for which they were to be paid rent from the ADS account.
This system however was not found to be working effectively, as workers were not getting adequate
tools. In many cases, the tools were of poor quality and were to heavy to be used by women. In
some panchayats this system has been changed, with all workers being asked to bring their own
tools, for which they are to be paid rent. The rent amount is then transferred directly to their bank
accounts. In some others, the old system is being continued.
Inadequacy of existing arrangements is reflected in the fact that 40% of the workers reported that
the tools at the worksite were insufficient in number. This led to conflicts and arguments amongst
workers. In Vandiperiyar panchayat for instance it was reported that there were only 11 tools for
the whole of Vallakkadavu village. As a result, if there was more than one ongoing worksite, tools
had to be divided amongst worksites.
44
Table 2.18: Tools at the worksite: Workers Opinion
District Percentage of workers who reported that tools at the
worksite weresufficient
N=1115
Percentage of workers
who reported that tools were of
good quality N=1064
Percentage of workers
who reported that tools
were women friendly N=1066
Percentage of workers who
bring personal tools to worksite N=1119
Percentage of workers who got rent for the use of
personal tools N=1024
Palakkad 72.1 69.51 77.37 75.54 12.71
Wayanad 38.61 50.53 37.5 86.14 2.3
Idukki 45.29 60.69 44 91.76 6.3
Kasargode 65 68 71.61 58.16 8.03
Total 61.01 65.36 64.81 76.81 8.89
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
A common phenomenon across the districts, was the use of sacks instead of metal baskets
(‗chattis‘) to carry sand and small stones at the worksites, which is reported to reduce total work
output. In Munnar panchayat in Idukki, in certain worksites, workers were asked to bring their own
tools from home.Some of the less well-off workers workers did not have tools at home, and in
one instance, workers were sent away as they did not bring tools from home. They then went back
and collected tools from neighbours and other acquaintances and came back for work. There were
also cases, when tools were shared, which affected total work output. The inadequacy of tools was
a factor that led to the Mate apportioning the existing tools amongst workers, with her personal
likes and dislikes influencing the manner in which tools were apportioned.
The inadequacy of tools has been reported to affect the participation of the marginalised groups,
particularly the tribals in certain panchayats. In Poothady panchayat in Wayanad, residents of a
tribal colony reported that the Mate had given one implement to the entire colony, which then had
to be shared. Others would have to bring their own tools if they wished to work. In Noolpuzha
panchayat, it was reported that tribals in certain areas were not coming due to non-availability of
tools.
Apart from the inadequacy of tools, such instances also indicate the absence of a system for
maintaining the stock of tools and of making it available to all workers. In Elappara panchayat in
Idukki for instance, some workers were reported to keep the tools at their homes, depriving others
of it when they needed it. This points to the absence of a working system regarding the
procurement, storing and distribution of tools. As per the norm this is to be done through the
ADS system of the Kudumbashree network. This needs to be monitored regularly.
45
The lack of adequate tools at the worksite, compels workers to get their own tools from home. As
mentioned earlier, while a certain proportion of the estimate for each work is set aside for meeting
expenses for rent and repair of tools, this does not reach the workers. On the whole, 76% of the
workers reported that they bring their own personal tools to the worksite. Of these only 9% were
given rent for the tools they bring from home. This discrepancy was higher in Idukki and Wayanad
where 92% and 86% of the workers brought their tools from home, but only 6% and 2% of the
workers got rent for the same, respectively.
2.4.5.a Women friendly Tools
As indicated in Table 2.18, there were differing opinions about the quality of tools made available
at the worksite, particularly about how women-friendly they were. The latter was a serious concern,
especially as majority of the workers were women. The 35% of the workers who were dissatisfied
with the quality of tools provided, complained that tools were not regularly sharpened, which
affected the quality of work. Regarding the suitability of the existing tools for women, a larger
number of complaints were expressed in Wayanad and Idukki districts (with only 37-44% saying
that the tools were women-friendly). In this case, the commonly heard complaints were that the
available tools (particularly the shovel and the pick-axe) were too heavy for women, and when the
handles of the tools were too heavy, it caused back pain and pain in the hands, which affected their
ability to not just do NREG work, but also other ordinary work.
Worker, Adimali Panchayat- ‗Since the ‘toomba’ (shovel) has an iron handle, and it is too heavy for me, once I
am back from work, I am not able to even cut grass for the cow. And I end up spending money on medicines to
relieve me of the pain’. The heaviness of the shovel is reported to create problems while cleaning
drainage channels and such similar work.
In certain cases, women workers, who are unable to cope with the health hazards of handling
heavy tools, opt out of MGNREGA and go for domestic work, which is less paying. And in other
cases, workers say that they are now getting used to working with heavy tools and in coping with
muscle and joint pains. This is particularly in the case of elderly workers. It appears that the
panchayats through the ADS have not been responsive to worker requirements in this regard,
which affects both the health of the worker and the quality of work output.
2.5 Transparency at the Worksite
This section looks into measures that are intended to ensure transparency at the worksite.
46
2. 5.1 Worksite Boards/ Citizen Information Board
Worksite boards indicating the name of the work, total estimate amount, total number of labour
days generated, date of commencement and completion, are a mandatory requirement. When
workers were asked about the presence of worksite boards, 62% said that worksite boards were
present at the worksite (Table 2.19). The situation as indicated in Table 2.19, was more grave in
Idukki.
Table 2.19: Display of Notice Board at worksite District N=1116
Percentage of workers who reported the presence of Worksite Boards
Palakkad 74.17
Wayanad 77.23
Idukki 36.86
Kasargode 61.18
Total 62.64
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Once again, random visits conducted to ongoing worksites indicated that the situation was far
more serious. Observations of the field researchers indicate that worksite boards were present only
in 47% of the worksites. In most cases, the boards were of a temporary nature comprising of
cardboard, cloth banners tied across poles, foldable plastic blackboards with chalk writing, flex
boards and so on. These temporary boards do not last long. The details mentioned are not
complete in many cases. In some cases, we found that generic boards were in use, where the name
of the programme and panchayat were written, with other details absent.
The following table indicates the extent to which information regarding total estimate amount,
total number of work days, total amount to be paid as wages, total material cost and so on were
provided on the worksite boards, when random visits were conducted. This pertained to the 47%
of the worksites where worksite boards when worksite visits were conducted by the research team.
Table 2.20: Display of Information on the Worksite Board
Items Percentage
Total Amount 53.33
Total no. of days 41.67
Total amount of wages 26.67
Total cost of materials 15.00
Quantum of work that needs to be completed to get Rs 125 33.33
Date of commencement of work 65.00
Any other details 20.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
47
It was found that boards were installed selectively. In certain parts of Idukki and Palakkad, boards
are installed only for road works. In Balal and Kallar panchayats in Kasargod, it was reported that
boards were installed only when photographs had to be taken or when mates were informed of an
inspection. In Palakkad, boards are kept only for pond works (this was particularly so in Elappully,
Vadakarapathy and Pudussery). In Idukki and Wayanad, worksite boards are not installed for works
on private land, whose numbers have increased over the past year. As a result, there is no way for a
layperson to identify where work has been done. Even for the research team, identifying NREG
worksites without the assistance of the panchayat overseer or the Mate was difficult.
Very often boards are taken from one site to the next site. Metal boards of a permanent nature are
rarely seen. As a result, there is no way of finding out whether the work had been repeated at the
same site. In the case of canal desiting works or road side drainage works, which are undertaken
once a year, it will be very informative if a permanent board is installed at the site. If the same
work has been repeated the next year, the details of the same can be incorporated on the same
board. The main reason cited by Mates and Overseers for not installing worksite boards is that they
will be destroyed by anti social elements, or that they do not last.
2.5.2 Muster Rolls
A critical document at the worksite is the muster roll, indicating attendance of workers at the
worksite. The common practice followed is for the workers to sign twice a day, in the forenoon and
afternoon. 98% of workers said that muster rolls were present at the worksite. This has been
corroborated by our worksite visits as well. The presence of the muster roll is a positive indicator.
There are however issues related to the filling up and verification of muster rolls which require
closer attention.
As per the mandatory requirement, 5 workers are to verify and sign the muster roll upon
completion of work. 42% of the workers said that they verify the muster roll upon completion of
work. Many of them however commented that verification only amounted to signing on the
muster roll, and not to a detailed examination of the same. It has also emerged that workers are
not adequately informed about the provision that workers have the right to examine the muster roll
at any point in time, not just at the time of completion. Only 32% of the workers were aware that
such a provision existed, and this was as low as 28% in Palakkad. The practice of reading the
muster roll aloud was not followed either.
48
Table 2.21: Muster roll: Workers’ Responses
(in percentage)
District Muster Roll Available in the work site
N=1122
Allowed to check the
muster roll N=1082
Aware of the provision of
minimum of 5 workers
examining and approving the
muster roll N=1124
Do 5 workers examine and approve the muster roll upon work completion
N=1107
Have you ever been
asked to sign the muster roll at the
time of work N=1114
Palakkad 98.25 48.30 28.24 38.11 35.23
Wayanad 100.00 65.98 41.00 49.00 34.34
Idukki 97.84 66.91 45.00 57.09 42.6
Kasargode 97.1 68.86 21.10 33.76 20.25
Total 98.06 58.74 32.01 42.84 33.81
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Discussions with workers on this issue indicate that there is no system of reading out the muster
roll by the Mate. As a result, illiterate workers do not follow what is written on the muster roll. This
is a serious omission as -- % of the interviewed workers were illiterate. Workers also reported a
lack of transparency in the manner in which the muster roll was maintained at the worksite. This is
indicated in the following statements (see box 2.5).
There have been a few reports of manipulations of muster rolls. It is possible that such
manipulations take place in larger numbers, as workers were hesitant to speak openly about it, for
fear of being victimised in future. Reports have come in from four panchayats in Idukki where
Mates were found to write names of people known to her as workers on the muster roll, and
claiming the wages on their behalf. Two instances were reported from Veliyamattom in Idukki and
Vadakarapathy in Palakkad where Mates were removed from their position for undertaking such
manipulations on the muster roll. In Kuthannoor in Palakkad, workers report that Mates mark the
‗absent‘ in very small letters, such that it can easily be converted into a signature. In addition, a few
instances were brought to our notice when the muster roll was not present at the worksite. It was
kept in the Mate‘s house, and workers signed on it once the work was completed. During random
field visits to worksites in Kadambazhipuram panchayat in Palakkad, in three worksites visited on
the same day, muster rolls were missing from the site. The Mates had made workers sign in a note
book and she said that these details would be transferred to the muster roll when it would be made
available. This was being done with the knowledge of the overseer.
49
Box 2.5 Is Muster roll a transparent document?
On the whole, two critical documents which help to maintain transparency at the worksite, viz. the
worksite board and the muster roll are not treated or viewed as transparency enhancing measure.
While the muster roll is present at the worksite, from workers‘ comments, it appears that it is
treated as a guarded document. The worksite board does not play the intended function, of
providing all details about the work to workers and to the layperson.
2.5.3 Job cards
This is yet another document that provides information about the number of days of work
demanded by the worker, the number of days worked and the amount of wages earned from each
work. It helps the worker keep track of her employment record. After each work is completed, the
Mate is required to update entries in the job card of all workers, as it is the only written record of
employment available to the workers. Only 36% of the workers said that their demand for work
was recorded in the job cards. Whenever job cards were available with the worker, this was cross
verified and found to be true. In many cases, job cards were with the Mate and therefore it was not
possible to verify whether entries were made correctly. As many as 30% of the workers were not
Workers from Munnar, Chinnakanal and Upputhara GPs in Idukki and Kallar GP in Kasargode- ‗The
Mate does not show us the muster roll. She covers the muster roll with a white paper, so that we do
not see the whole sheet. She says the muster roll should not be checked by workers‘.
Workers, Marayoor GP, Idukki- ‗They fold the muster roll into four parts, and show us only the
portion where we have to sign‘.
Worker, Kanthaloor GP, Idukki-‗ When we look at the muster roll, the Mate says-‗ Why do you need to
look at it‘?
Worker, Kantaloor GP, Idukki- ‗The Mate signs for us on the muster roll‘.
Worker, Munnar GP, Idukki- ‗The Mate does not allow us to examine the muster roll. When the Mate
is away on some other work, we take a look at the muster roll to see if names of workers who have not
worked are on the muster roll‘.
Worker, Bediyaduka GP, Kasargod-‗ We don‘t see the full wage amount that is due to us, that is written
later on‘.
Worker Enmakaje GP, Kasargod-‗ When the work is over and the muster roll is filled up, we are asked
to sign for the days when we were absent, we don‘t know why it is so‘.
Worker Pattanchery GP, Palakkad-‗ When I looked at the muster roll, the Mate took it back, saying it
would get dirty‘.
A former Mate from Pudussery GP, Palakkad even pointed out that as Mates they were given specific
directions to not show the muster roll, site diary or job cards to everyone.
50
aware of whether demand had been recorded in the job card. When interviews were conducted
workers were very often unable to recollect the exact number of days worked. It was not possible
to reconstruct this from job card entries either as they were irregular and in some cases, totally
absent. At times, the number of days worked has been reconstructed from bank pass book entries
of the worker.
In Palakkad, in Elapully panchayat, entries in job cards of all the randomly selected 20 workers
were incomplete. Despite workers working in 2010, there were no entries for the entire year. In
other cases, number of days worked as per job card entries was lesser than the actual number of
days worked. In Kadambazhipuram, for a worker who has been working for the past 3 years, her
job card showed entries only for 2008. In Pudussery, there were 11 workers out of the randomly
selected 20, where the number of work days recorded in the job card did not match the number of
days worked as per online records. This indicates that entries made in the job card are incorrect as
online entries are based on the details in the muster roll. In Idukki district, cases of missing entries
for a whole year or more were noticed in Kanthaloor, Kumily, Marayur, Munnar and Santhanpara
GPs.In Kasargod, such problems were reported from Kodom-Bellur, Kuttikole, Balal and Bellur.
In the latter, there were no entries for the past two years, in job cards of workers who had worked
with a particular mate. Irregular entries make it difficult for the workers to keep track of the
payment due to them.
While a clear quantification is not possible, it is possible to conclude that regular entries in job
cards are not taken seriously by either mate or the worker. In that sense, the job card is not treated
as a document with sanctity. The large number of missing entries in job cards points to inadequate
inspection by panchayat, block and district level officials as well.
In one particular instance brought to our notice from Peringotukurisshi GP in Palakkad, workers
insisted that the Mate makes regular entries in their job card. The Mate indicated the days worked
on their job card, at the end of each day‘s work. For illiterate workers, it is extremely important that
the actual number of days worked are recorded in symbolic format in the job card, so that they can
count and assess for themselves the number of days worked. This calls for a revision of the
existing job card format as well, an issue which will be taken up later.
2.5.3.a Custody of Job Cards
70% of the workers reported that they keep the job cards with themselves and about 30% admitted
that they keep it with the Mate. The latter group of workers came from 24 different panchayats,
51
spread out over the four districts. In Kongad GP in Palakkad, as many as 10 and in Vandiperiyar
GP in Idukki, as many as 16 out of the randomly selected 20 workers in the panchayat, kept their
job cards with the Mate always. A worker in Noolpuzha GP in Wayanad, could not recall any of
the details recorded in the job card as it was always with the Mate. In Malampuzha, there were
cases where job cards of certain workers were with the Mate for the past one year. In Munnar, a
case was cited, wherein a worker‘s job card was passed on by the old Mate to the new one, but not
to the worker. Similar instances were reported in Delampady GP in Kasargod and Vattavada GP in
Idukki as well. While this was reported from many of the panchayats, they were reported in higher
numbers from the above-mentioned ones.
For the 70% of the workers who mentioned that they keep their job cards with themselves, job
cards were kept with the Mate for the entire period of work, right from commencement of work
to withdrawal of money from the bank. And if the next work followed soon, then the job card
continued to remain with the Mate. The job card therefore was with the Mate most of the time. In
two cases, in Kantaloor and Vattavada, the Mate handed over the job card to the worker on the day
of the interview, in anticipation of the interview. In the Kantaloor case, the worker told the
investigator that the Mate never gave her the job card, saying she had to cross check entries. But
that day she returned it to her, as she knew the worker would be approached for an interview! The
tendency for job cards to remain with the mate was higher amongst tribal workers. In Nenmeni
panchayat in Wayanad, Paniya tribal people from certain parts of the panchayat reported that the
mate keeps the job cards of all the workers in certain settlements, and does not return them even
when they ask for it. This is a problem that could be rectified with adequate and regular
supervision.
Table 2.22: Custody of Job Card
District Self Head of the family Mate Others Total
Palakkad 67.27 0.6 31.93 0.2 100 N=486
Wayanad 84.85 0.00 14.14 1.01 100 N=99
Idukki 70.34 0.00 29.24 0.42 100 N=236
Kasargode 70 0.87 29.13 0 100 N=232
Total 70.18 0.47 29.07 0.28 100 N=1053
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
52
2.5.3.b Working on another’s job card
The issue of custody assumes serious proportions, when workers are allowed to work on the job
cards of others. In Elappully panchayat, two workers said that they were allowed to work on the
job card of other workers by the Mate, due to the delay in getting their job cards issued. The Mates
justified this act by saying that in so doing they were giving work to those who wanted work. In
such cases, the money goes to the bank account of the person in whose name the job card is and it
is said that the Mate arranges for the transfer of money to the person who actually worked. In
Munnar, 6 out of the randomly selected 20 people admitted that they had worked before they got
the job card. One of them cited the case of workers in the Mate‘s family working on three different
job cards at the same time.
Discussions with workers reveal that this was possible, as the Mate had with her job cards of
people who were not coming for work. How the bank transactions were arranged for is unclear. A
worker for instance reported that while she had applied for her job card a year ago, the Mate told
her that it had not been issued. A year later she came to know that somebody else was working on
her job card. It was only after she raised this issue, that the job card given to her. In Panathady GP
in Kasargode, a worker was reported to have continued working despite completing 100 days of
work, by working on the job card of another worker. The latter signed the muster roll at the end of
the work. While a few such instances have come to our notice, workers in general were reluctant to
speak about such issues for fear of antagonising the Mate. Hence, this is an area that requires close
monitoring on the part of the panchayat and the district and state level MGNREGA machinery.
2.5.4 Vigilance and Monitoring Committees at the Worksites
The constitution of the VMC was also intended as a transparency measure. This mechanism was
instituted to ensure public vigilance over NREG works. Members of the VMC, selected from
amongst the local people, were required to periodically inspect worksites and to assess whether
norms were being followed in the conduct of works. The signature of the VMC members on the
muster roll is mandatory for the release of wages.
Awareness amongst workers about the role of the VMC was low. About 58% of the workers were
not aware of the functioning of such a committee. And 74% were not aware that the VMC was a
committee constituted by the grama sabha (Table 2.24). This implies that either the process of
VMC selection was not through the grama sabha, or that participation in the grama sabha was poor
as a result of which such a high percentage of people were not aware of this fact.
53
Table 2.23: Vigilance and Monitoring Committees (VMC)
District VMC constituted in GS
VMC not constituted in GS
Never Heard of VMC
Total
Palakkad 25.93 9.43 64.64 100 N=497
Wayanad 51.52 7.07 41.41 100 N=99
Idukki 31.52 19.2 49.28 100 N=276
Kasargode 31.65 8.86 59.49 100 N=238
Total 30.78 11.51 57.72 100 N=1110
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
While 30% of the workers had heard of the functioning of the VMC committee, not all of them
were aware of the responsibilities entrusted with the VMC. While some remarked that they were to
visit worksites and look into the muster rolls, some others were in the dark. Consider the following
impressions-
Worker, Pattanchery GP, Palakkad- ‗I know that the Mate asks for the signature of certain
people. I know them by name, but I don‘t know if they are part of the VMC that you are
talking about‘.
Worker from Vadakkarapathy GP, Palakkad- ‗I don‘t know who they are, but I have gone
with other workers and the Mate to the houses of two people to get their signatures‘. Some
said that the VMC consists of political party representatives, and some said that at times
party people come to the worksite.
In Idukki, the responses were varied. In panchayats like Adimali, most workers had heard
about the VMC. But in Arakkulam, one of the worker‘s son himself was a VMC member,
but he was not aware of the functioning of the VMC and what he was expected to do. So
he signed on the papers brought to him, but he never visited the worksite. In Vandiperiyar
only 40% of the interviewed workers had heard of the VMC. The situation was the same in
Upputhara, where workers commented that only the Mate knew who the VMC members
were.
The situation was similar in the panchayats of Kasargode and Wayanad as well. A few
workers, were able to comment upon the role of the VMC. A worker from Noolpuzha
commented that VMC members were not keen on visiting the worksite for they had
nothing to gain out of it. Another worker from Poothady commented that while VMC
members are required to sign on the muster roll when the work is over, even when they
54
visit, the mate does not make them sign on the muster roll. Instead she takes it to their
house, when it is convenient to her. In Tirunelly, some of the workers knew who the VMC
members were, but were not aware of the criteria upon which they were selected.
On the whole, the role of the VMC is peripheral. From certain panchayats it has been reported
that representation on the VMC is along party lines. The general picture that emerges is that the
VMC does not take active interest in vigilance and monitoring. While workers say that some VMC
members visit the site, not a single instance was reported wherein VMC members examined and
made corrections in the muster roll, or ensured availability of worksite facilities.
Table 2.24: Awareness about the Vigilance and Monitoring Committees (VMC)
District Percentage of workers aware that the VMC meeting constituted by GS N=1088
Palakkad 16.87
Wayanad 41.41
Idukki 23.91
Kasargode 17.7
Total 21.02
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
To the contrary, an incident was reported wherein the VMC intervened in a contradictory manner.
Though this was a lone incident that was reported, we mention it here, as it indicates the possible
ways through which even a transparency enhancing measure such as the constitution of the VMC
could be counter-productive. The incident was reported by a former Mate from Wayanad district.
She reported an incident that occurred in 2009. She was the Mate for a work that was intended to
restore paddy cultivation on land that has been lying fallow. Under MGNREGA, it was permitted
to do preparatory work for paddy cultivation (such as ploughing), but the actual sowing or
transplanting had to be organised by the owner of the land. There were instances however, when
the Mates allowed the transplanting work to be done, with the concurrence of the NREG
Overseer/Engineer. This particular Mate did not allow transplanting work to be done, due to
which the VMC refused to sign on the muster roll. As a result, the final bill was not passed. For a
month after that, she was called many times to the panchayat, by either the overseer, or the head
clerk, or some other panchayat official. Each time she had to spend Rs 80 on auto charge, it was a
day‘s affair to go to the panchayat office and return. In this manner, she ended up spending Rs
1500 from her own pocket to sort out the issue. Finally she pleaded with the panchayat president
and the party people, and finally the VMC members agreed to sign on the muster roll, following
which wages were paid to the workers. Since then she has never worked as a Mate, and was left
55
with a bitter experience, wherein she was harassed for being upright by a committee that was
supposed to ensure that rules were followed.
2.5.5. ADS account and its use
As mentioned earlier, a certain amount is set aside from the estimate of each work for paying for
the rent of tools, for repair of tools, for purchase of medicines for the first aid box at the worksite
and so on. This amount is transferred to the account of the ADS, of the Kudumbashree system.A
wide range of opinions have been expressed regarding the actual use of this money, which have
serious implications on transparency. There are Mates who report that they do not get this amount
for use, there are workers who report that Mates claim the amount but do not give it to the
workers, there are also those who complain of a lack of transparency in the way this amount is
utilised. On the whole, there is a lack of transparency in the manner in which the amount set aside
in the estimate of each work is utilised. We shall examine some of the observations in this regard.
There are Mates who report that they do not get the amount due on rent and repair of tools, as a
result of which they are unable to distribute the same to workers. One Mate from Kuzhalmannam
panchayat reported that she came to know of such a provision only when she happened to
examine the final bill of a work, in which these items were included. She says-‗If I open my mouth
about this, they will point fingers at me, and if the workers come to know of this, they will accuse us of diverting the
fund‘. Another Mate from Peringottukurishi reported that after she spoke out openly about how the
money in the ADS account was not being used for the intended purposes, they stopped calling her
for meetings. A tribal Mate from Wayanad reported a similar issue, wherein there was a conflict
within the ADS over the use of this money. Money had been withdrawn from the ADS account in
the name of rent for tools, but had not been used for paying rent. A VMC member had asked the
ADS to present accounts in this regard, but nothing much happened later.
On the reverse side of the coin, workers have reported that while Mates claim the amount due on
rent for tools from the ADS account, the amount does not reach the workers. Only 9 % of the
workers had been given rent for tools they took to the worksite. Another issue of concern is the
absence of strictly-enforced norms regarding the utilisation of this fund. A Mate in Tirunelly GP
reported that she had to spend a lot of money towards travel to the panchayat office and towards
copying charges from her own pocket. She then got it reimbursed on three occasions from the
amount that was to be given as rent to workers. Similarly in another ward in Tirunelly, in a trench
work, the wages were reduced to Rs 122, and the Mate was not ready to antagonise the workers on
this account. It is reported that the panchayat head clerk suggested that the Mate‘s wages for 6 days
56
be reduced in order to give the workers their full wages and the Mate‘s salary was then met from
the amount in the rent account. Such instances indicate that the use of money allocated for rent
and repair of tools is not being strictly monitored.
Mates have been found to undertake travel to the panchayat office and to the bank as well (to assist
workers to withdraw money) on many occasions. They travel to the panchayat office to collect
muster rolls (many a time more than once), and to find out the status of wage payment. Such travel
is expensive particularly for those who live far from the panchayat office. Some Mates say that their
travel has been reimbursed, while some say it has not. There have been many cases where Mates
have collected money from workers on grounds of meeting their travel expenses. This has led to
workers doubting the intention of the Mates. This has been reported from workers in ten different
panchayats. In Veliyammattom in Idukki, workers have paid Rs 10 each to the Mate for her travel
expenses, and Rs 5 for her to go and collect the muster roll. Tribals from the Lakkamkudi
settlement in Munnar have had to contribute in this manner. In Vattavada, cases were reported
where the Mates collected Rs 100 from the workers, which she justified by saying that it was
needed to buy stamp paper to get the muster roll issued, which was a false piece of information.
Other than paying for Mate‘s travel, workers have also paid Mates for job cards, demand forms and
even pension forms in certain panchayats.
There is a need for clarity as to how the Mate‘s work related travel expenses are to be met, so that
workers are clear that they do not need to contribute towards this. The utilisation of the ADS fund
pertaining to NREGS related activites needs to be made transparent. If the mate‘s travel expenses
are to be met from this account, then both mates and workers need to be clear about this. The
details of the utilisation of the ADS fund pertaining to NREGS should be read out aloud at the
worksite upon work completion. It can also be made public along with the muster roll, by pasting it
as public places.
2.6 Payment of Wages
One of the most notable features of MGNREGA implementation in Kerala is the payment of
wages to the individual bank accounts of workers. Wages for each work are to be released within
14 days of work completion. Delay in payment of wages has been reported from all four districts,
and has been one of the most important causes of distress amongst MGNREGA workers. Of the
workers interviewed, 35% were to get wages for previous works. When workers were asked to cite
57
the problems they faced with regard to payment of wages, delay in payment was ranked as the
most severe problem with 84% of the workers citing delay in payment as the biggest problem.
Delay in payment was assessed for the past three works in which the interviewed workers were
engaged (Table 2.26). On an average, only 12% of the workers had got wages within the stipulated
14 day period, 30-35% within a month, 20-25% within 2 months, 6-9% within 3 months and 2-4%
getting their wages after 3 months.
The issue of delay in payment was more severe in some panchayats than others. In Wayanad, in
Noolpuzha panchayat for instance, half of the interviewed workers were yet to get wages for work
that had been done a month or two ago. 40% of these workers were tribal workers. In Kasargod,
60% of the interviewed workers were yet to get their wages for work previously done. In Idukki,
amongst the surveyed panchayats, the problem was more severe in Munnar, Upputhara, Elappara,
Santhanpara, Vattavada, and Kumily. In Palakkad, the problem was more severe in
Kadambazhipuram, Kozhinampara, Nallepilly, Kuthanoor and Pudur.
Instances of workers working consecutively on 2-3 muster rolls, without having received payment
for a single one was reported from Munnar, Vandiperiyar and Vattavada in Idukki district. In
Munnar there were workers who had worked on consecutive muster rolls without getting payment.
A worker says –‗ I worked for 7 days two months ago. Then a month later I worked for another 7
days on another work. I have not got wages for these 14 days put together. Tomorow, I am going
to work on another NREG work, and have not got wages for the previous two works‘. There were
more workers with similar stories to narrate from Munnar. In Vandiperiyar too workers reported
similar instances.
2.6.1 Workers’ Grievances regarding Payment of Wages
When workers were asked about their grievances regarding payment of wages, they ranked them in
the following order.
58
Table 2.25 Grievances regarding the payment of wages (in percentage)
District Delay in wage payment N=1022
Less than minimum
wages N=1022
Paid less than what you are
made to sign for N=1022
Task is too much N=1022
Problems related to going to the
bank due to distance N=1022
Palakkad 89.42 5.96 0.00 12.31 15.38
Wayanad 86.14 1.98 0.00 13.86 7.92
Idukki 89.64 1.07 0.00 16.79 23.93
Kasargode 68.46 0.41 0.41 7.05 8.3
Total 84.76 3.24 0.09 12.43 15.32
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
59
Table 2.26: Delay in payment of the last 3 works
District Work 1 Work 2 Work 3
within
14 days
within
1
month
within
2
month
s
within 3
months
more
than 3
months
Total within
14 days
within
1
month
within 2
months
within 3
months
more
than 3
month
s
Total within
14 days
within 1
month
within 2
months
within 3
months
more
than 3
month
s
Total
Palakkad 5.05 63.89 24.75 4.8 1.52 100
N=386
5.67 54.12 30.41 7.99 1.8 100
N=378
4.46 51.25 33.43 9.47 1.39 100
N=349
Wayanad 4.88 73.17 20.73 1.22 0 100
N=82
2.6 72.73 20.78 3.9 0 100
N=77
1.33 74.67 21.33 1.33 1.33 100
N=75
Idukki 15.94 55.07 14.49 8.21 6.28 100
N=207
14.14 50.51 17.17 11.11 7.07 100
N=198
13.89 46.3 17.59 11.11 11.11 100
N=216
Kasargode 28.79 47.47 15.15 8.59 0 100
N=199
26.63 54.35 16.3 2.17 0.54 100
N=185
21.81 52.13 17.02 7.98 1.06 100
N=189
Total 12.91 59 19.82 6.12 2.15 100
N=874
11.92 55.02 23.38 7.08 2.6 100
N=838
10.5 52.27 24.58 8.83 3.82 100
N=829
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
60
2.6.2 Wage Delay: A Crisis for the Workers
‘ They say employment guarantee, employment guarantee, but where is this guarantee? We buy things with borrowed
money when we don’t get our wages. Even a wage delay of 2 days can put us in debt, and we have to pay interest too’.-
Tribal Worker from Tirunelly panchayat, Wayanad.
The effect of delayed payment was more severely felt by the poorer workers. It was relatively easier
to cope with wage delay, when there were other family members with an alternative source of
income, Delay in payment greatly adds to the economic difficulties of the workers. For the poorest
workers, daily wages are critical in meeting household expenses, particularly related to food and
other essentials. Even the two week waiting period to get wages is difficult for many, not to mention
the period of delay. Foremost is the fact that they are compelled to borrow money which they have
to repay with interest. This they feel, reduces the benefits that they would have got by working under
MGNREGA. By the time they get their wages, it is only enough to repay their loans, they feel. This
was reported from all the districts. One worker from Palakkad says that as days go by, they have to
borrow money even to buy tea while at work at the worksite, for they are left with nothing. A worker
from Kuzhalmannam recalls how she mortgaged her ear rings so that she could buy groceries during
Onam to feed her family. She did this because she wanted her family to have a full meal on the day
of the festival at least.
2.6.3 Wage Delay: A Cause of Conflict
Wage delay has put workers in difficulty, and has precipitated situations of conflict in some cases.
In Tirunelly panchayat in Wayanad, a trench work had been undertaken in March 2010. The workers
had not got wages for two months and had been repeatedly complaining about this to the Mate. On
one occasion, the Mate retorted saying ‗ You can do what you want‘. This angered the workers, who
then left the site immediately, hired a jeep and went to the panchayat office to register a complaint.
When they returned, the Mate did not allow them to sign on the muster roll, which then aggravated
the conflict.
In Kuzhalmannam in Palakkad, a group of workers reported how in 2010, for a work that was
completed during the time of Vishu(in April), wages were released during Onam, in August. While
one group of workers got it before the day of the festival, another got it after the day, while all of
them worked together at the same worksite. This led to considerable discontent amongst workers.
In Elappara, like many other panchayats in Idukki, NREG work was a source of assurance for
workers who had lost their work in the tea estates. The closing down of tea estates had left many of
61
them without work, who were looking for other sources of work. While many of them came for
NREG work, the delay in payment was making it difficult for them. In the words of a worker - ‗We
left our jobs in the tea estate and came for NREG as we thought this would give us a better deal. We
all started to work, doing 7 and 14 days of work. But the wages were delayed. We somehow pulled
on till 21 days, and then had to borrow money to meet our daily requirements. We thought we would
repay it when we got our wages, but we did not get it for 2-3 months, and the shopkeepers began to
get angry with us for not repaying the money we borrowed from them. We then went back to the
estate to ask for work, but they turned us down too. There were workers in some wards who had not
got wages for the past 5 months‘.
In Vandiperiyar in Idukki, the newly elected panchayat council protested against a four-month delay
in wage payment and asked workers not to work until the issue was resolved. As a result, a lot of
workers who depend on NREG for their livelihood were facing problems.
2.6.4 Misinformation Regarding the Reason for Delay
In most cases workers are made to believe that panchayats are not able to give wages on time due to
a fund deficit. Both the Mates and the panchayat officials have provided them with such an
explanation. This was the case with Adimali and Elappara panchayats in Idukki. In certain cases like
Vandazhi panchayat in Palakkad, where a 4 month delay was reported for the Mangalam Dam canal
desliting work, workers were told that the delay arose from the fact that the panchayat was a big one,
with workers from different wards being involved in the concerned work. In most cases, the Mates
blame the panchayat for not sorting the issue, while the Overseer says it is because funds have not
been released from Delhi. Workers get to hear a blame game when they approach the panchayat.
As one worker from Vandiperiyar puts it- ‗We never receive wages on time. 1-2 months delay is very common
here. The panchayat blames the bank and the bank blames the panchayat for delayed release of funds. We blame
ourselves for working under MGNREGA‘.
A more detailed assessment about the issue of delayed payment of wages has been taken up in
Chapter 4.
2.6.5 Compensation for Delayed Payment
Despite delay in payment being such a major issue amongst workers, only 47% of the workers were
aware of the clause that payment should be made within 14 days. More surprising, only 9% of the
workers were aware that they were entitled to compensation in the event of delayed payment (See
Table 2.29 ). As per the existing norm if a worker applies for compensation for delayed payment,
62
she or he is entitled to the same. The panchayat is not obliged to provide this suo moto, but it
requires a formal complaint by the worker. A majority of the workers however expressed fear about
complaining about delayed payment of wages. The main reasons they cited include, fear of not
being given work in the future, of being harassed in some way in the future as they would need to go
back to panchayat for various reasons (not just for MGNREGA work), apprehensiveness about the
fact that the mate is politically powerful and any complaint would antagonise her, concerns about
the futility of complaining and so on. The futility of complaining was voiced by workers, with the
understanding that the panchayat would not respond positively. One worker from Pudussery
panchayat said his apprehension was because they were told by the panchayat that only those who
were willing to work without complaining need to come for work.
2.6.6 Collective efforts by workers
A few instances were reported when workers collectively pressurised the panchayat to release wages.
A group of workers from Tirunelly panchayat complained to the panchayat secretary on one
occasion about the delay in wages. The workers did get their wages four days after this incident. A
similar instance when tribal people from Nenmeni GP in Wayanad district found it difficult to cope
with hunger in the rainy season, owing to the delayed payment of wages in 2009. They pressurised
the panchayat member to take action, and wages were released the next day.
That very few such instances were reported is surprising in the Kerala context, where workers are
considered to be relatively more aware of their rights. In general, workers were fearful of
complaining individually. Poorer workers also reported that they were unable to spend time, money
and effort on complaining. In the words of a worker from Palakkad- ‗ How can we spend time
running around for complaints and compensation, when those who are entrusted with this should
ensure that we get our wages on time‘.
2.6.7 Problems with Bank Payment
Closely related to the payment of wages is the issue of payment of wages through the bank.
Workers have got individual bank accounts opened and they collect their wages from the bank.
Issues that require attention in this regard are related to the opening of bank accounts, paying
commission at the time of withdrawals, and of unfair treatment by bank officials.
2.6.7.a Opening of individual bank accounts
92% of the workers opened an account in the bank only after registering under the NREG
programme. Had it not been for MGNREGA, it is very unlikely that this section of people would
have opened bank accounts. Workers value this greatly, viewing it as a sign of dignity, and are happy
63
that they too could open bank accounts. Especially so as 90% of the workers are women, who rarely
go to the bank. As per the Operational Guidelines, the bank should start zero balance accounts for
all NREG workers. This has however not been enforced in all places. 41% of the workers had to
deposit money while starting the account. Workers have been asked to deposit an amount ranging
from Rs 100 to Rs 500. In some panchayats it is reported that in the initial phase of the programme,
workers got zero balance accounts started, but later the bank officials began to insist on leaving
some money in the account. This has been a cause of stress for workers.
In Delampady in Kasargode, workers said they borrowed money from Kudumbashree in order to
open their bank accounts. In Noolpuzha in Wayanad, workers report Rs 100 being withheld from
their wages, as minimum balance. In Nallepilly in Palakkad, a worker reported that while she started
a zero balance account, she was asked to maintain Rs 500 in order to use the ATM facility. In Pudur,
workers were told by the bank officials (Canara Bank) to maintain Rs 500 as minimum balance, and
that their accounts would be closed if they withdrew this amount. They were not given cheque
books however, despite depositing Rs 500. In Vadakarapathy panchayat, workers were told to
deposit Rs 250 as minimum balance, which demotivated some others from opening their accounts.
Tribal workers in Agali panchayat were told that they would not get the pass book until they paid
money. In Vandiperiyar, workers report of how they are not allowed to withdraw the full amount in
their account, as the bank officials insist that they leave a certain amount in the account.In some
cases, as in the case of Pudussery panchayat, workers have reported that the amount they deposited
(Rs 100) as minimum balance, has not been credited to their account. Workers claim that this has
happened to more than one worker, but they were not open about it. In Vadakarapahty, a worker
who deposited Rs 100 as minimum balance, found that only Rs 25 was credited in his account.
2.6.7.b Unfair treatment at the bank
This has been reported from all the four districts. The unfair treatment is manifest in NREG
workers being made to wait until the bank officials attend to other clients, of being allowed to
withdraw money only at a designated time, of being spoken to very rudely, and publicly ridiculed for
inability to write out forms and so on (see Box 2.6). Distance to the bank coupled with the waiting
time at the bank, makes the visit to the bank a one-day affair for many workers.
2.6.7.c Recording of entries in the pass book
Workers report that pass book entries are not recorded regularly, as a result of which they are not
clear about the amount credited to their account after each work. There are also instances wherein
64
workers have not been issued pass books at all. Examination of pass books whenever possible also
revealed that transactions are not updated regularly in the pass book.
Box 2.6 Unfair treatment at the bank
2.6.7.d Charging of commissions at the bank
This has been reported mostly from Idukki district, particularly from cooperative banks. A few
instances have also been reported from the Alanellur service cooperative bank in Alanellur GP in
Palakkad. A worker from Vandiperiyar with an account in the Cooperative bank says that she was
charged Rs 10-15 per transaction as transaction fee. The bank staff say this is to meet expenses
incurred by the bank towards paper, pen and other stationery. This transaction cost is not recorded
in the pass book. The VMC in the area tried to shift the bank account of the workers from the
cooperative bank to the post office, but both the bank and the panchayat are reported to have
resisted this move. In Chinnakanal too, cases of commission being charged has been reported from
the Chinnakanal Cooperative Bank. In Upputhara, workers were being charged Rs 10 per transaction
Worker, Kuthanoor- ‗Bank officials treat us in a derogatory manner.‘ Worker, Pudussery- ‗If we make mistakes while filling up the forms, they throw the paper away in front of us.‘ Worker, Sholayur- ‗Bank officials are rough with us, and were reluctant to open bank accouns for us.‘ Worker, Peringottukurishi- ‗When there are many clients in the bank, the officials get angry with us and scold us for no reason. We stand in queue, but only after they deal with the other clients do they entertain MGNREGA workers. We do not get any preference there. Even while recording pass book entries, they do it only after 1.30 pm for us.‘ Worker, Veliyamattam-‗The bank manager treats us very badly. When we enquire about our wages, he asks us to go and check through the ATM.‘ Worker, Peerumedu- ‗The people in the bank treat us badly.‘ Tribal worker, Noolpuzha- ‗We are allowed to withdraw money only after 2 pm in the bank. One day, they asked us to go back, without giving us our wages. The reason they gave was that we do not know how to fill in withdrawal forms. They told us to come back again with the mate. We therefore wasted a day and the money on travel.‘ Tribal worker, Noolpuzha- ‗Every time that we go to the bank, we end up fighting with the officers there. They ask us to fill up forms, and when we say that we dont know how to fill them, they get angry. They hurt us by asking us why our parents have not educated us.‘ Worker, Poothady- ‗At the Grameen bank here, where we have accounts, they get irritated when they see us workers. If illiterate workers go to the bank, they send them away, asking them again to come back with the Mate.‘ Worker, Tirunelly- ‗There are times when we have waited for a whole day at the bank to get our wages.‘
65
at the cooperative bank. The Mate explained to the workers that this commission was to meet the
computer service charge and paper expenses. In Veliyammatom panchayat, the bank justified the
commission as ATM charges. The amount of commission charged was also reported to vary from
worker to worker.
2.6.7.e Distance to the bank
The distance from home to bank was another serious problem that workers face while withdrawing
money from the bank. As the table below indicates, majority of the workers lived at a distance of 5-
10 kms from the bank.
Table 2.27 Distance to the bank
District Distance to bank
0 to 1 km 1-2 km 2-5 km
5-10 km 10-20 km 20-30 km 30-40 km
Palakkad 13.12 15.71 25.45 29.03 15.71 0.99 0.00 100.00 N=503
Wayanad 8.79 25.27 20.88 25.27 19.78 0.00 0.00 100.00 N=91
Idukki 11.76 12.87 12.87 39.34 19.12 3.68 0.37 100.00 N=272
Kasargode 21.19 21.61 23.73 19.07 10.17 3.81 0.42 100.00 N=236
Total 14.16 17.06 21.60 29.13 15.70 2.18 0.18 100.00 N=1102
15% of the workers lived 10-20 kms from the bank. 20% of the workers interviewed (i.e.
approximately 220 people) reported that there was a bank or post office close by, but were asked to
open their account with the distant bank by the panchayat. The situation had been reported from
many panchayats, but is more severe in panchayats like Vandiperiyar. Here, out of the 20 randomly
selected workers, 10 people lived far from the bank, at a distance ranging from 7 kms to 20 kms. Out
of this 10, 6 people had other banks or post offices close to their homes. All of them had been
asked to open their accounts with the Vandiperiyar Cooperative Bank 13 kms away, when the SBI
and the Union bank were in closer proximity, and the post office only 1 km away. Similarly in
Sholayur panchayat, a tribal worker from Mele Sambarcode had her account in the Kottathara bank,
while she could have opened her account in the bank at Agali, that was across the river. In
Vadakarapathy, despite there being another bank close by, workers were told by the panchayat
member and the Mate that they could get their wages only from the Cooperative Bank which was
located further away. It emerges that the worker‘s choice is not exercised, at least where there the
option of an alternative bank exists. Given the fact that at least 20% of the workers had an option
66
of opening accounts in near-by banks, but were not allowed to, calls for serious and immediate
attention.
Distance to the bank is a serious issue for workers, particularly for workers from remote tribal
hamlets. Going to collect wages was a one day affair for this group, and many times they would go
to the bank only to be told that wages had not been credited, or would be asked to come back with
their Mates (as in the case of illiterate or tribal workers as mentioned above). A worker in
Veliyammattam lives 25 kms away from the bank. She spends Rs 50 on going to the bank each time,
giving up a day‘s work. She goes all the way to find out if wages have been credited. In Delampady
panchayat in Kasargod, workers were found to hire a vehicle to go to the bank, to reduce their
individual travel costs. They paid Rs 160 as hiring charges to go to the bank. In Panathady, workers
report of a Grameena Bank located nearer than the Cooperative Bank, but the panchayat was not in
favour of the former. Tribal people from the Chakkimaali tribal colony in Arakkulam GP, needed to
take the boat to reach the town across the river. Since the boat service was available only twice a
week, travel to the bank was difficult for them, made worse if they did not get wages when they go
there.
2.6.7.f ATM card issues
In banks with ATM facility, the use of ATM has brought out a new set of issues. In certain areas,
bank officials refuse to update pass books, asking the workers to check for their balance using the
ATM facility. Workers have also reported difficulties in using the ATM to withdraw money. Most of
them are unfamiliar, and need the help of others to withdraw money. Normally they resort to
shopkeepers nearby who withdraw the money for them. On such occasions, they have to pay them a
small amount for the help rendered, or buy sweets for them. In some cases, they have been cheated
in the process, with the helper not giving the full amount that was withdrawn to them. In
Veliyamattam panchayat in Idukki, it was reported that the Mate collects the ATM cards of all the
workers and withdraws the money on their behalf.
2.7 Grievance Redressal and Social Audit
As discussed in the section on wage payment, despite considerable delay in payment of wages,
workers are reluctant to lodge formal complaints. Reasons for this have been discussed in the above
section. Workers did express many other grievances too, regarding the delay in getting job cards
issued, in getting work on time and so on. While they did express their grievances to the field
investigators, their awareness of a free helpline for grievance redressal at the panchayat was low. 95%
of the workers were not aware of this facility. Similarly, 80% of the workers had not heard about
social audit.
67
Table 2.28 Awareness of Social Audit
District Yes No Total
Palakkad 8.95 91.05 100 N=491
Wayanad 38.61 61.39 100 N=101
Idukki 28.06 71.94 100 N=278
Kasargode 25.21 74.79 100 N=235
Total 19.8 80.2 100 N=1105
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Of the 20% who said that they were aware of social audit, they talked of social audit as a process
whereby bills were checked, worksites were inspected and so on. Some of them recalled of how a
few people had come to look into the NREG related accounts in the panchayat. The concept of
social audit as an open, transparent and collective process of examining the details of the work done
so far, has not been conveyed to the people. The importance of a public hearing in such an audit
process has also not been communicated to the people. Such social audits had not been conducted
in any of the panchayats covered in the study. The NREG cell in the panchayats however, had filed
Social Audit reports, which did not provide any significant finding about the audit process. The
pattern of this report was uniform in all panchayats. This report was the only proof of an audit
being conducted, with majority of the workers unaware of such a process.
2.7.1 Awareness about Entitlements
Awareness about entitlements has been discussed with regard to each of the critical phases in
programme implementation, viz. demand for work, right to get work within 14 days, right to timely
payment, right to worksite facilities and so on. While information dissemination programmes were
conducted in all the four districts during the initial stages of programme implementation, there has
not been much of follow-up in this regard. It appears that these awareness generation programmes
did not pay adequate attention to the critical entitlements provided under the Act. In the following
table (Table 2.24), we present together all the indicators that point to low levels of awareness
amongst workers.
68
Table 2.29: Awareness Level of workers (in percentage)
No Awareness issues Palakkad Idukki Wayanad Kasargode Total
1 Are you aware of the fact that you can make a demand for employment at your convenience, any time of the year? N=1119
15.51 31.77 21.21 32.50 23.68
2 . Are you aware of the number of days you are entitled to work in a year under MGNREGA? N=1114
80.16 72.66 76.00 70.46 75.85
3 Are you aware that if you were not given employment within 15 days of applying for work, you are entitled to get unemployment allowance? N=1094
3.02 1.82 2.02 0.89 2.19
4 Are you aware of the kind of activities that can be undertaken under MGNREGA? N=1104
16.90 52.92 31.25 52.38 34.51
5 Are you aware of the priority in which works are to be undertaken in MGNREGA? N=1090
6.65 24.81 13.13 6.25 11.65
6 Are you aware of the shelf of projects that have to be prepared at the GP level? N=1122
7.54 22.02 18.81 11.25 12.92
7 Are you aware that at least 5 workers scrutinize the muster roll and approve it? N=1124
28.06 45.00 41.00 21.01 31.94
8 Are you aware that the VMC is constituted by the grama sabha? N=1088
16.87 23.91 41.41 18.06 21.14
9 Are you aware of the work of the Vigilance Committee N=
13.86 32.69 34.62 32.04 24.81
10 Are you aware of the accidental benefits under MGNREGA? N=1103
50.20 66.42 58.00 52.94 55.49
11 Do you know that you are eligible for an extra wage in such circumstances? N=1119
13.60 21.30 21.78 24.48 18.59
12 Are you aware of a free help line for grievance redressal? N=1080
2.08 8.06 6.12 6.11 4.81
13 Are you aware that social audit of MGNREGA is mandatory? N=1044
3.49 9.82 22.45 10.85 8.43
14 Are you aware that payment should 41.52 52.01 43.56 54.58 47.09
69
be made within 14 days of work completion? N=1115
15 Are you aware that the officer responsible is to be fined and the worker is entitled to compensation? N=1123
6.55 9.35 8.91 12.08 8.64
16 Are you aware of the minimum wage rate paid under MGNREGA? N=1110
57.26 41.16 59.18 38.08 49.28
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
This table indicates the requirement for focussed awareness generation programmes that educate the
workers and mates about the critical entitlements assured under this programme. At the moment
there is no public pressure on the implementing agency to ensure effective implementation.
2.8 Conclusion
Appreciation of the rights-based contours of MGNREGA by the panchayats as well as by the
bureaucracy, has been the foremost challenge raised by the implementation of the Act. The
panchayats need to prioritise on rights of the most marginalised sections of society. The
bureaucracy on its part needs to ensure that rights-based provisions do not get lost in bureaucratic
procedures in the course of implementation.
It is however important to note that implementation has been largely free of leakage and corruption.
A few instances of people working on job cards of other workers, and manipulations on the muster
roll have been reported. A few cases too where JCBs are reported to have been used in worksites.
While such instances need to be viewed with extreme caution, they can be corrected with stringent
supervision. It is positive however to note that worker‘s admissions regarding the days worked
largely tallies with the MIS data. There is also consistency between the work given and the wages
paid.
Two aspects that are critically amiss in MGNREGA implementation in the state is an appreciation
of the rights-based framework as well as people‘s involvement in planning and implementation.
With a relatively effective panchayati raj system, the State could have gone much further in ensuring
people‘s participation in planning. Despite the rich experience in decentralisation and the functioning
of the Kudumbashree system, people, especially the marginalised, have not been adequately involved
in the planning process. Local planning continues to be politicised and dominated by political party
representatives. It is also worrisome that awareness regarding the most basic entitlement assured by
the Act (such as the right to demand for work), is low.
70
The first step towards enhancing the effective implementation of the core elements of MGNREGA
in Kerala, would be to energise and re-activate the Grama Sabhas, and to enhance the participation
of the most marginalised sections in the process of planning and implementation. The non–
functioning of the Vigilance and Monitoring Committee and the namesake social audit process that
has been conducted more for the sake of procedure, has eroded the power of the Grama Sabha to
take corrective measures. A participatory social audit process with compulsory public hearings and
the involvement of the workers can help to educate the workers and the implementing officiers
about the power of the Grama Sabha and the rights based provisions of the Act.
A social audit process that focuses on participation of workers and the people, with a compulsory
public hearing and education component Also required is an intensive education programme for
workers and local people, communicating the implications of the rights-based framework of the
Act.
71
Chapter 3
ASSET CREATION THROUGH MGNREGA
As mentioned in Chapter 1, one the many unique features of the MGNREGA is that it is an
employment generation programme that lays equal emphasis on both livelihood security and asset
generation. Schedule I of the Act states- ‗Through the process of providing employment on works
that address causes of chronic poverty such as drought, deforestation and soil erosion, the Act seeks
to strengthen the natural resource base of rural livelihood and create durable assets in rural areas‘.
The creation of assets was to be guided by a clearly laid down priority in which activities are to be
taken up. The first priority was on water conservation, followed by drought proofing (including
afforestation), followed by micro irrigation, land development and so on (see Section 3.2 in this
chapter). The attempt was to link livelihood security with locally relevant eco-restorative activities
that would have a long term impact.
While the Act specifies the above, implementing it has raised formidable challenges to the
panchayats, implementing officials as well as to the common people. Designing MGNREGA
activities in a manner that enhanced soil-water-biomass restoration required long term planning,
much ahead of the commencement of programme implementation.
The present chapter begins with a discussion on the existing State-level policy framework towards
watershed planning and implementation and the manner in which it relates to MGNREGA planning
at the grama panchayat level. It also discusses attempts at integrating MGNREGA planning with
panchayat level watershed plans. In the subsequent action, it looks into activities taken up in each of
the major work categories and the extent to which they meet intended objectives.
3.1 Watershed Planning and MGNREGA: The Kerala experiment
The need for watershed-based local planning had been expressed towards the end of the Ninth Five
Year Plan Campaign. While emphasis continued to be given in plan documents, it was only towards
the beginning of the Twelfth Plan that guidelines pertaining to watershed-based planning took a
more concrete shape. In 2007, the Govt of Kerala, issued guidelines for watershed based local
planning, as a part of the Eleventh Plan Guidelines. These guidelines specified that all panchayats
were to formulate watershed based local plans, such that all developmental activities taken up at the
panchayat level would adhere to a watershed plan, that prioritised on soil-water-biomass
conservation. It also emphasised that MGNREGA plans were to be a part of the watershed plan.
MGNREGA plans were therefore to be integrated with the watershed-based panchayat plans.
72
Implementation of the guidelines necessitates a review of all developmental activities within each
panchayat from a river basin/watershed perspective and focussing on a form of planning that pays
central attention to soil, water and biomass conservation. This constitutes the main challenge to a
possible switchover from the existing approach to planning to a watershed-based one.
Watershed planning has the potential of transforming local planning; by giving it the much needed
natural resource orientation. While watershed based planning has been emphasised in the State since
the commencement of the decentralisation campaign (from the late 1990s), integrating watershed
based planning with local planning remains a challenge. If local plans have to adhere to a ‗watershed
plan‘ or a watershed/catchment orientation, it requires a redefinition of ‗planning‘ and a consensus
on the priorities of planning. Watershed planning can then be viewed as a tool that enables us to re-
focus planning around the central objectives of soil-water-biomass restoration, thereby linking
planning with sustainable development.
In practice, watershed planning is less understood as a distinct approach to planning and more as a
set of activities. The term ‗watershed‘ has been equated with the routine watershed activities that
have been undertaken by the soil conservation department in the State over the past few decades. As
a result, watershed management is equated with a few specific activities such as laying of contour
bunds and check dams. While watershed plans have been developed for panchayats over the past
decade, watershed plans remain isolated from mainstream planning, and are mostly confined to a set
of coded maps (which do not inform the annual plans that are formulated by panchayats year after
year) and to a set of standard and routine activities such as construction of contour bunds and
terracing.
This is the context in which NREG implementation commenced in the state in 2005-06. The
process of formulation of panchayat level watershed plans was slow, but it picked up when
watershed plan preparation was made a mandatory pre-condition for the initiation of NREG
activities on private agricultural land (on landholdings that were less than 5 acres in area). Until then
MGNREGA activities were concentrated on public/common lands.
3.1.1 Watershed Master Plans and Watershed plans for MGNREGA
The intention of a Watershed Master Plan is to conceptualise local planning with the watershed as
the planning unit. Such a master plan is to provide an integrated framework for all development
activities in the region. Land use planning with an integrated and comprehensive approach is critical
to a watershed master plan. Forestry, agriculture, irrigation, water resource management etc. will
have to be viewed in integration. The Eleventh Plan Guidelines state that integrated water
73
management plans at the watershed level are to be prepared with a ‗full understanding of the River
Basin issues‘ (GOK 2007)8, and that panchayat watershed plans are to be merged to form the River
Basin Management plan. It explicitly states that the objective of this new planning methodology is
the ‗progressive restoration of water-land-biomass balance and improved livelihood opportunities
based on sustainable natural resource management‘ (ibid). As mentioned earlier, if such master plans
are prepared in the intended spirit, it would require a re-examination of local development patterns.
In Kerala for instance, the rapidly changing land forms due to bulldozing of land, and mining of
sand from fields and river beds, will need to be viewed through the lens of watershed planning. A
Watershed Master Plan therefore is a planning tool, which enables us to view natural resources in an
integrated manner, and plan for their use and conservation.
Contrary to this larger vision, the watershed plans that have been and are being prepared at the
panchayat level for NREG implementation address a very limited agenda. The driving force for the
formulation of watershed plans emerged from the pressure to take up NREG work on private land.
So watershed plans were viewed as a necessary tool to get NREG funds and labour on private land,
with the focus being on the kind of activities that could be taken up on private agricultural land, and
lacked a vision of the watershed/river basin as a whole. It would therefore be erroneous to mistake
the NREG watershed plans for the Watershed Master Plan.
Take the case of the Pozhuthana panchayat in Wayanand district which spearheaded the watershed
planning exercise in Wayanad in the state. The interest taken by the elected council of the
Pozhuthana panchayat and the inclination of certain government officers gave momentum to the
watershed plan preparation here. Under afforestation, the major efforts were at raising nurseries of
coffee and pepper for planting on agricultural land. 1 lakh coffee saplings were raised and planted.
Watershed committees were constituted for every 25 acres of land. In the Idiamvayal watershed in
the panchayat, 22,000 coffee saplings were planted. While this must have been of support to the
coffee farmers, whether this led to watershed protection is a critical question that has not been
raised. A former Block panchayat member from Wayanad, who was closely involved in the
watershed planning experiments in the district remarked that the Pozhuthana watershed preparation
exercise led to the preparation of a watershed plan for NREG implementation alone. It was not a
long term perspective plan that identified the main problems in the region and the long term
intervention strategies required.
8 G.O. (MS) No. 128/2007/LSGD dt. 14-05-2007.
74
As mentioned earlier, the need for formulating watershed plans as a part of the local planning
exercise in the state had been emphasised since the end of the Ninth Five Year Plan. Watershed
planning at the panchayat level progressed slowly. The implementation of the MGNREGA
provided the much-needed momentum for the preparation of watershed plans. While this is a
positive outcome, it is important to assess the nature of the existing plans as well as the extent to
which they enable sustainable asset creation through MGNREGA. The following tables lists broadly
the main contents of the existing watershed plans, along with their limitations and constraints.
Table 3.1: The basic components of the existing watershed plans
The basic components of the Watershed Plan
1. A delineation of the panchayat area into micro watersheds, with maps of the different micro watersheds.
2. A categorisation of different kind of activities that are to be taken under watershed management- such
as rain water pits, digging of ponds, contour bunds, compost pits, retention walls etc.
3. A distinct focus on the kind of micro watershed interventions that can be taken up on private farm land.
4. A listing of farm lands with the name of the owner in the panchayat, and listing of the above mentioned
activities that can be taken up on each plot of land. In some watershed plans, survey numbers are
mentioned, in some they are not.
This is the broad content of watershed plans, and the style of presentation is largely similar across
panchayats. In Wayanad district for instance, the initiative to prepare watershed plans was first taken
by Pozhuthana grama panchayat. The watershed plans of all the other panchayats in Wayanad follow
the same pattern, with a very similar style of presentation. A few NGOs in Palakkad and Wayanad
were at the forefront of watershed plan preparation in the state. As a result, a more or less standard
pattern of watershed plans is found to emerge across the State.
Table 3.2: The missing components of the existing watershed plans
The Missing Elements in the Watershed Plan
1. The specific features and problems of each watershed, contextualised within the larger catchment or
river basin in which it is situated is missing. The river basin dimension and the state of art of the upper
catchments and the forest cover is missing. There is no mention of land use change, little mention of land
degradation induced by unsustainable development patterns, degradation of water sources and so on. It is
interesting to note that while there is mention of water scarcity, there is not enough focus on the
degradation of the water sources per se.
2. There is no discussion on issues related to eco-degradation in the panchayat. If at all, there is a routine
mentioning of problems like water scarcity and flooding, without a physical and ecological
75
contextualisation of these problems.
3. Basic details such as rainfall pattern (both annual rainfall and seasonal variation), the different kinds of
vegetation cover in different parts of the watershed, the natural vegetation in the region, the kind of
afforestation that needs to be undertaken to stabilise problems related to land and soil degradation and so
on find little mention in the plans.
4. There is not much discussion on regeneration activities that can be taken up on common lands/public
lands. Panchayat officials and NREG staff convey the impression that work on common land has been
exhausted.
3.1.2 Overseers and Watershed Planning
The MGNREG Overseers in the Grama Panchayat play a critical role in designing and
implementing works. While it is important to have watershed perspective plans in place to guide the
designing of MGNREGA activities, it is also important that the person who hand-holds this process
is adequately informed and oriented to the importance of such a form of planning. Since it is the
Overseer and the Block level Assistant Engineer who look into the technical aspects, their
understanding is critical here. Since the AE is entrusted with supervision of more than one
panchayat, it is the Overseer who is primarily responsible for designing works, estimate preparation
and so on. Of the 50 Overseers who were interviewed during the course of evaluation, less than
10% were able to talk with clarity about the importance of watershed protection. Only one Overseer
was able to define the process as follows- ‗MGNREGA is a labour generation programme. It is also a
programme for conserving soil and water. So watershed planning cannot be separated from MGNREGA‘. Majority
of the Overseers talked about how watershed planning could help to revive agriculture, and some of
them recommended that all paddy related works be included in watershed activities. They referred to
watershed activities as a separate set of activities, and they had little understanding about the
relevance of eco-restoration or ecologically sustainable land and water management, which is the
basic premise of watershed management. All of this indicates that the relevance of watershed
planning to MGNREGA has not been made clear to the Overseers, despite periodic training
programmes. Two Overseers amongst the 50 interviewed even stated that there was no link between
MGNREGA and Watershed Plans.
It is not surprising that Overseers, with a Diploma in Engineering do not have an understanding of
issues related to watershed planning and natural resource protection. Unless they are adequately
trained (through field-based training programmes), they will not be able to appreciate the relevance
of watershed planning. The engineering mindset of this set of people made it difficult for them to
plan activities that aimed at protection of natural resources. The inadequacy of the Overseers in
76
understanding this issue, is however, not compensated by appropriate guidance from supervising
officials at the district or block level. In practice therefore, the Overseer makes his own assessment
and uses his discretion, in the designing of activities.
3.2 Nature of Works
The Act lays down a priority in which activities are to be undertaken under MGNREGA. This
priority is as follows:
(i) water conservation and water harvesting;
(ii) drought proofing, including afforestation and tree plantation;
(iii) irrigation canals, including micro and minor irrigation works;
(iv) provision of irrigation facility, plantation, horticulture, land development to land owned by
households belonging to the SC/ST, or to land of the beneficiaries of land reforms, or to land of
the beneficiaries under the Indira Awas Yojana/BPL families
(v) renovation of traditional water bodies, including de-silting of tanks;
(vi) land development;
(vii) flood-control and protection works, including drainage in waterlogged areas;
(viii) rural connectivity to provide all-weather access. The construction of roads may includeculverts
where necessary, and within the village area may be taken up along with drains. Care should be taken
not to take up roads included in the PMGSY network under MGNREGA. No cement concrete
roads should be taken up under MGNREGA. Priority should be given to roads that give access to
SC/ST habitations;
(ix) any other work that may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with the state
government.
Based on this priority, NREG works have been categorised into ten broad groups. The
categorisation of MGNREGA works is uniform across the country. They are:
1. Drought Proofing
2. Flood Control and Protection
3. Micro Irrigation
4. Provision of Irrigation Facility to land owned by SC/ST/LR or IAY beneficiaries/Small or
Marginal Farmers
5. Land Development
6. Rural Connectivity
7. Water Conservation and Water Harvesting
77
8. Renovation of Water Bodies
9. Bharat Nirman Rajeev Gandhi Sewa Kendra
10. Other Works
Tables 3.3 and 3.4 provide a percentage break-up of the works taken up in the four districts of
Idukki, Kasargod, Palakkad and Wayanad. The three main categories in which works were taken up
in the four districts were Land Development, Flood Control & Protection, and Water Conservation.
In Idukki, Kasargod and Wayanad, majority of the works taken up were in the Land Development
category, whereas in Palakkad it was Flood Control.
In order to assess the nature of assets created, the works taken up in each category were assessed in
four panchayats, one each from each of the four sample districts viz. Palakkad, Wayanad, Idukki and
Kasargod. The panchayats selected were Agali in Palakkad, Tirunelly in Wayanad, Adimali in Idukki
and Panathadi in Kasargod. The total number of works taken up in these four panchayats during the
financial year 2010-11, ranged from 591 in Panathadi to 1056 in Adimali GP (761 and 655 works
were taken up in Agali and Tirunelly GPs respectively). In addition, ongoing asset creation was
reviewed in other parts of the four districts as well. The kind of activities taken up in each of the
above-mentioned categories in 2010-11were examined. The nature of activities taken up in each of
these categories varied from panchayat to panchayat, depending on the physical and geographic
conditions in each of the panchayats.
In all the panchayats, the maximum number of works were taken up in the following categories-
Land Development, Flood Control and Protection, Water Conservation and Water Harvesting and
Renovation of Water Bodies. This is largely in keeping with the district pattern that is given in Table
3.1. The following section analyses the nature of activities taken up in each of these prominent
categories of work. It will also discuss some of the activities taken up in some of the remaining
categories.
3.2.1 Water Conservation and Water Harvesting
In Tirunelly GP in Wayanad, a total of 92 works were taken up in this category out of a total of 655
works. Of these, 46% of the works consisted of elephant trenches in forest land. Other works in
this category include mulching of land (13%), digging of rain water pits (11%), watershed activities
(10%) and ponds (9%). Tirunelly is a panchayat with a considerable extent of forest land, as a result
of which there is a high incidence of man-animal conflict, with elephants moving into agricultural
lands for want of food and water. This problem has aggravated with the degradation that has
affected natural forests, particularly the forest corridors.
78
Table 3.1 Types of Works undertaken in 2010-11 – completed
District Rural Connectivity
Flood Control
Water Conservation
And Water Harvesting
Drought Proofing
Micro Irrigation
Provision of Irrigation
facility to Land development
Renovation of Traditional
Water Bodies
Land development
Any Other
Activity Approve
d by MRD
Total
Palakkad 4.19 34.81 11.69 3.04 10.61 2.20 19.38 13.62 0.46 100.00
Wayanad 6.08 33.93 9.01 6.17 8.64 0.14 2.61 32.65 0.78 100.00
Idukki 0.25 23.92 29.51 0.15 0.15 10.12 3.88 28.85 3.17 100.00
Kasargode 1.87 15.70 18.65 1.44 3.37 6.62 5.29 46.99 0.06 100.00
Kerala 2.88 31.62 9.56 3.05 9.11 4.76 14.78 23.77 0.46 100.00
Source: www.mgnrega.nic.in, Accessed on 7th March, 2011
Table 3.2 Types of Works undertaken in 2010-11 – completed & Ongoing
District Rural Connectivity
Flood Control
Water Conservation
And Water Harvesting
Drought Proofing
Micro Irrigation
Provision of Irrigation
facility to Land development
Renovation of Traditional
Water Bodies
Land development
Any Other
Activity Approve
d by MRD
Total
Palakkad 4.59 31.15 9.15 4.08 13.00 2.02 19.40 16.15 0.45 100.00
Wayanad 5.87 23.54 18.78 8.59 3.20 0.04 6.44 33.05 0.49 100.00
Idukki 2.60 17.07 23.61 1.62 0.59 3.26 1.03 46.83 3.39 100.00
Kasargode 2.71 22.70 22.40 0.80 3.73 2.32 3.81 41.40 0.12 100.00
Kerala 3.66 28.34 11.94 3.26 8.41 3.59 14.09 26.05 0.66 100.00
Source: www.mgnrega.nic.in, Accessed on 7th March, 2011
79
There are differing views on the utility of elephant trenches, which will not be taken up here. For the
present discussion, it is relevant to dwell over the impact of elephant trenches on soil and water
conservation. Trenches involve deep cuts into the earth, dug at the forest fringes to prevent
elephants from crossing over to the adjacent agricultural areas. When trenches are dug along sloping
land, they carry away soil and water that is brought down during heavy rains. This was found to be
true in most parts of Wayanad. Trenches were also found to encircle the upper reaches of micro
watersheds, from where small forest streams originate. As a result, most of the run off would flow
down through the trenches, and would not seep into the forest swamps that were the origins of the
streams. The impact of trenches in terms of reducing run off into forest streams, and on soil and
water conservation in general needs to be examined. Their categorisation as a water conservation
measure requires closer scrutiny, particularly since they constitute the most important activity taken
up in the water conservation category in this panchayat, as well as in the other forest panchayats of
Wayanad district.
In Agali in Palakkad, 420 works were taken up in the Water Conservation category out of total of
761 works, of which 80% consisted of digging ponds (a total of 336 ponds were dug in Agali in the
last one year). Other activities include constructing check dams, wells, terracing of land and rain
water pits. It is to be noted that the Agali panchayat falls in the project area of AHADS (Attappady
Hill Area Development Society), which is an externally-aided project for eco-restoration, that has
implemented a range soil and water conservation measures in Attappady, Palakkad. It is in addition
to this work of AHADS that 336 ponds were dug in Agali panchayat alone in the course of one
year. There have been reports of dual accounting of works under both MGNREGA and AHADS,
which needs to be carefully scrutinised.
In Panathady in Kasargod, a total of 342 works were taken up in this category of the 591 works
taken up in total. 45% of the works taken up in the Water Conservation category, consisted of
digging wells on private land (i.e. 170 wells were dug in the panchayat in 2010-11)9. Another 37%
consisted of digging coconut/areca nut basins at the base of these trees, and 17% of digging of
ponds.
The prevailing tendency is to repeatedly take up a few select activities. This is reflected in the
predominance of trenches in Tirunelly, ponds in Agali, and wells and digging coconut basins in
Panathady. Similar was the case of rain water pits. Excessive reliance on a few measures in order to
achieve the larger goal of water conservation needs re-examination. Water conservation cannot be
9 A similar preponderance of wells could be seen in Pandinjarethara panchayat in Wayanad district.
80
achieved through single solutions, but rather in conjunction with other measures that enhance
biomass restoration, afforestation, and so on. All of these measures need to be implemented in an
integrated manner, with a catchment perspective.
3.2.1. a The Missing Catchment Perspective in Water Conservation
In general, digging/desilting of ponds, desilting and clearing of stream channels, clearing of stream
side vegetation and digging of wells are commonly undertaken in the water conservation category in
most grama panchayats. Each panchayat lays stress on some of these activities, depending on the
unique physiographic features of the area. Ponds, for instance, are large in number in the plains of
Palakkad, as a result of which pond desilting was commonly undertaken in Palakkad district. On the
other hand, in the hilly reaches of Palakkad, as in Attappady, it was digging of ponds that was taken
up. Stream channel works have been taken up in almost all panchayats, with the emphasis being on
desilting and clearing of vegetation, which is done routinely once or twice a year.
What is noticed is that water conservation and water harvesting works focus on the water source per
se, i.e., the well, the pond or the stream. The degradation of the catchment in which these sources
are located is not considered, and catchment treatment in an integrated manner is not attempted.
While stream channels or ponds are desilted, there is no planning for catchment treatment in order
to reduce siltation in ponds or streams. While digging of rain water pits and laying of contour bunds
is undertaken, this is not related to the management of water sources further down.
3.2.2 Protection of Water Sources
The existing approach to protection of water sources such as ponds and streams also needs re-
consideration. The underlying approach seems to be that of ‗cleaning up‘ the water source of all the
vegetation on the bunds, together with some desilting. In the case of streams for instance, the
vegetation along the stream bank is removed, with the roots of trees and shrubs being pulled out.
The logic behind such ‗cleaning up‘ activities needs to be questioned from an ecological point of
view. Not only do the roots of trees and shrubs provide stability to the side banks, the vegetation
along water channels is often the last remaining bits of biodiversity in the rural landscape of the
State. In panchayats that border or enclose forest area, the diversity along road and stream sides is
particularly higher. It is also home to a wide range of smaller animals, birds and insects. All of this is
fast disappearing with the routine clearing that is taken up in the name of water conservation under
MGNREGA.
The silt that is removed from the stream channel is just dumped along the stream bund. Overseers
and workers agree that this silt will flow down into the channel with the next rains. This practice
81
however continues unabated and there seems to be little supervision at higher levels such as the
BDO level to correct such practices.
In Kollengode panchayat for instance, cleaning up of the stream channel was a common activity. All
these streams flow through low lying paddy fields, and the commonly adopted approach was of
clearing all the vegetation on the side bunds and burning it. The Mates and the Overseers informed
us that this clearing was done routinely once a year, mostly in the summer months, just before the
onset of the monsoons. In some cases, the work was done in a piecemeal fashion. The clearing of
the Manchira Todu in Kollengode for instance was done in three phases. Work was done for four
days in the month of March 2011, followed by another 5 days of work on the same stream channel
in April 2011. During a site visit by the study team in May 2011, the Mates said that they were
waiting for the registration formalities to be resume in order to complete the work. The registration
formality pertained to the renewing of job cards to existing workers (see Section 2.1.5 in Chapter 2
for details), which need not have stalled the work. The Mates feared that if the monsoon set in, the
work would be left incomplete, undoing the benefits of the work done earlier. Apart from the
piecemeal manner in which such work was done, it was evident that the focus here was only on
clearing up the stream channel, with no consideration for the catchment of the stream, and the
protection of the higher reaches of the watershed.
A similar phenomenon was observed in the adjoining Mudalamada panchayat in Palakkad, where the
team visited the site of a stream protection work. This was a hilly stream that flowed through mango
plantations, in the higher reaches of the watershed. This was once a forest stream, with mango
plantations raised on this degraded forest land. Here again, protection of the stream was confined to
clearing of vegetation within the stream channel. Similar instances were observed in all four districts.
3.2.3 Desilting of Ponds
Desilting of old ponds is a useful measure enhancing the storage capacity of these age old
structures. This has been widely undertaken in Palakkad district, which has a high number of ponds,
which are essentially catchment-based water conservation and irrigation structures. The manner in
which it is undertaken however requires closer guidance and supervision. Field observations reveal
that desilting is often done in a haphazard manner, as a result of which the pond bed becomes
uneven. In certain cases the bunds have been destabilised, making it difficult for habitual bathers to
come and bathe in the pond. As in the case of the streams, the vegetation on pond bunds is also
removed. Once again, there is little appreciation for the unique biodiversity that exists around pond
margins. In many of the low-rainfall tracts of Palakkad, the biodiversity around ponds is of unique
82
value, amidst the paddy monoculture. Such issues are not considered while taking up desilting
activities.
Managing the removed silt also requires planning. In older times in Palakkad, the removed silt was
taken to paddy fields, as it is a good fertiliser for the fields. This traditional practice could have been
integrated with the process of desilting under MGNREGA. In current pond desilting activities, the
removed silt is dumped randomly around the pond. As mentioned in the case of the streams, it
could have been used to strengthen the existing pond bunds, which is also not done. Such measures
are not integrated into the estimate.
In the case of ponds, in certain cases, the ponds have been paved with stones which are packed
together. Whenever we visited such sites, this stone lining of ponds has been put forth as a superior
form of protection by the Overseers and Engineers. This has been cited with regard to stream bank
restoration as well in Palakkad and Wayanad. In stretches where the stream bank caves in, the
preference is to use stone bunds. There is an understanding that protection measures that use
material such as stones are more efficient forms of protection and conservation. The explanation
given is that the stone bunds are firm and do not give way during heavy rainfall. Older people
however remark that the mud bunds were equally sturdy in the past, as regular maintenance was
undertaken. The packing of bunds of ponds, streams and paddy fields, with soil was regularly
undertaken in the summer months(referred to as ‗varambu podiyal‘), in a manner that no soil would
wash down. This is yet another instance of traditional knowledge and everyday farming practice that
could be reinforced under MGNREGA. Strengthening these side bunds by planting bamboo and
other suitable species has not been explored either. The use of natural vegetation for water
conservation figures very marginally in the water conservation activities taken up.
The superiority of stone bunds over mud bunds also needs careful examination. While NREG staff
and many local people argue that stone bunds are hardier, in the event of heavy rainfall, the stone
bund has been found to cave in. The utility and cost effectiveness (particularly so as stone mining is
expensive, and carries with it significant negative ecological consequences) of stone bunds needs to
be assessed before it is widely used.
3.2.4 Flood Control and Protection
Certain panchayats were found to take up a large number of works in this category. Out of the total
number of – works taken up in Adimali, 547 were in the flood control category. The most
important activity taken up in the flood control category has been the digging of drains by the side
of roads, to facilitate the drainage of storm water during heavy rainfall. This is the easiest work to
83
implement, in terms of estimate preparation and measurement. As a result, this was one of the
prominent activities during the first few years of programme implementation.
In Adimali and Tirunelly panchayats, roadside drains constituted 98% and 88% respectively of the
total number of activities taken up in the flood control category. In Adimali due to the large number
of works taken up in the Flood Control category (547), road side drainage channels constituted as
much as 60% of the total works in the panchayat. In Agali and Panathadi, while the total number of
activities taken in the flood control category were relatively lesser, road side drains were the only
activity taken up in this category.
In general, it has been observed that there is no assessment of the extent of flooding before taking
up such work. While drainage plays a critical role in certain low lying areas, where clearing the stream
and drainage channels helps to ease out the flow, the necessity of the road side drains along sloping
terrain is unclear. Very often, it is taken up along with road side cleaning, i.e., the clearing of
vegetation along the road sides. Due to the heavy rainfall in the state, most of the road margins are
covered with shrubs and smaller trees. In many a case, a periodic pruning is required, but the
presence of this varied vegetation pattern along the roadsides, provides protection to the soil along
the roads. This is particularly so on slopy terrain. In the process of digging side drains, the sand that
is removed is dumped along the road sides, which flows back into the drains during rains.
With the availability of NREG funds and the ease with which this activity can be taken up, roadside
clearing and digging of drainage channels to facilitate the flow of water has been a common activity
across the state. In most panchayats, this is the routine activity undertaken in the month of May
before the monsoon sets in. During field visits in the month of May to Wayanand and Palakkad, one
could observe freshly dug out drainage channels along road sides on sloping terrain, making these
channels very vulnerable to soil erosion with the heavy rainfall that would set in. Overseers say that
people want the roadsides cleaned up before the schools reopened so that the vegetation by the road
sides would pose no threat to children walking by, by housing dangerous snakes. The clearing of
roadside vegetation (as in the case of stream banks) is particularly harmful in forest fringes,
destroying the growth of a wide range of plant species.
3.2.5 Land Development
This category figures prominently in the activities taken up by all four panchayats. Land
development works are generally targeted at improving the quality of land, particularly at enhancing
the suitability of land for agriculture. On reviewing the activities taken up under this category, it is
found that not all activities directly relate or contribute to land development.
84
In Tirunelly panchayat, a total of 323 works were taken up in the land development category in the
2010-11 financial year. Of these, 16% pertained to road related works ( including road widening,
road improvement, raising the level of the road, packing mud roads with stones, road soling and
footpath works). Another 6% pertained to removing mud/sand that had fallen on the road/road
sides. This essentially implies that about 22% of the works pertained to road related works.
The next prominent sub group was digging of rain water pits and contour bunds, which comprised
21% of the total works. The rain water pits that were dug 3 years ago, have been silted up ,
indicating that soil erosion is a severe problem, which needs attention. Concerns have also been
expressed about the desirability of exposing the earth surface to heat and rain in the process of
digging such a large number of rain water pits. It was also observed that rain water pits have been
dug haphazardly, and does not follow any upstream-downstream pattern. Some farmers say that they
have increased water levels in wells below. But some others say that the rampant digging of rain
water pits has caused hardship. Many of them have been overgrown with vegetation, which masks
their existence, causing humans and cattle to fall into them and injure themselves.
The third important sub group was the work for laying the foundation of houses, which were being
built under the EMS housing programme (a housing programme that intends to provide houses for
all the houseless households in the state). Of the three prominent activities taken up in the land
development category, the first and the third do not relate to land development.
In Adimali, 316 works (almost 30% of the works in total)were taken up in the land development
category. Of this the largest proportion (55%) related to mulching of the land, followed by
agricultural land development works (which includes work on tribal lands and preparatory work for
paddy cultivation on tribal and non tribal land (21%). The land preparation work undertaken on
paddy lands, has helped a number of small and marginal farmers to resume paddy cultivation. In
many cases, farmers had stopped cultivating paddy for some years and the cost of land preparation
activities that had to be taken up in order to resume paddy cultivation was prohibitive for some of
them. It has however also been noticed that such land preparation activities are also taken up on
paddy lands, which have really not been out of cultivation for many years. Similarly, there are also
cases, where land preparation activities have been taken up, but with no follow-up activities to
ensure that the farmer cultivates the land. This could have been ensured in convergence with the
agricultural department, by designing programmes that enable the farmer to initiate cultivation soon
after the MGNREGA work is completed. Cases have been reported wherein the land remains
fallow, after the MGNREGA intervention, thereby reducing the utility of the activity undertaken.
85
It also needs to be noted that the existing classification of small and marginal farmers, as farmers
owning holdings below 5 acres, is based on national landholding patterns. In the Kerala scenario,
where landholdings are highly fragmented, a 5 acre holding is not always the holding of a small and
marginal farmer. Hence, while taking up land development activities, the first priority should be
given to the smallest farmer in this category in each panchayat. Such a prioritisation is often not
followed. Very often, land development activities have been taken up on relatively larger holdings,
while much smaller holdings have been neglected. This has serious implications on equity.
The remaining works taken up were EMS house foundation works, school ground levelling, roads,
soil conservation works, nursery raising (very few in number) and road side drains. Mulching of the
land can be viewed as a restorative activity, helping to enhance soil and water conservation. It has
been noticed however that mulching has been largely restricted to coffee plantations. In addition to
mulching, other possibilities could also be explored, particularly with regard to restoration and
regeneration of degraded wastelands and public lands. The tendency to repeat a particular activity is
noticeable here too.
In Agali, 45% of the land development works comprised of terracing of sloping land, particularly
tribal lands, to enable cultivation. Agali panchayat has a large extent of sloping degraded lands,
which were once forested. Deforestation and land degradation have increased soil erosion. While the
levelling of land makes it easier for farmers to cultivate the land, problems related to loss of soil
fertility and overall dessication remain. Hence many of them have not been able to undertake
agriculture on the terraced lands. Land development in such a context would require a careful
examination of the micro conditions related to slope, soil fertility, availability of water and so on.
Relying on terracing alone as a land development measure may not yield results. The other activities
taken up in the land development category were those to make fallow land cultivable (27%) and soil
and water conservation works (7.6%).
In Panathadi, a total of 200 works were taken up in the land development category, of which road
related works constituted 84.5%. The purpose of land development with such a heavy emphasis on
road related works is questionable here.
While Panathadi and Tirunelly illustrate how activities do not always lead to land development, the
Agali case points to the repetitive nature of works. This essentially points to the need for land
development activities to be viewed as a part of the larger ecological setting, in the absence of
86
which, activities remain as isolated interventions. Such a perspective is missing, with little or no
support and guidance being provided to the NREG staff in the panchayat or officials higher up.
Another activity that is commonly undertaken in the Land Development category is the levelling of
school grounds. Very often, these are portrayed as best practices as well. While levelling may be
required in certain contexts, in many instances, the levelling is undertaken without taking into
account the topography and stability of the slope. A lot of natural vegetation is also destroyed in the
process. At times, such activities are undertaken only because of the fact that free labour is available.
In one panchayat in Wayanand, the river side was levelled into a play-ground, the necessity and
feasibility of which is questionable.
3.2.6 Drought Proofing
This is a work category that comes foremost in the list of activities prioritised in the Act. In the four
panchayats, this was one of the categories with very few works in comparison to land development
or water conservation. More significant, afforestation activities have not received the attention that
they deserve in the drought proofing category.
3.2.6a Restoration of Degraded Forests
Afforestation is of critical importance in a state like Kerala. The unique rainfall and topographical
features of this region renders exposed and degraded land vulnerable to degradation. The rainfall
pattern is such that more than 70% of the annual rainfall is concentrated in 4-5 months. The sloping
and undulating terrain in most parts of the state therefore receive the onslaught of the monsoon
rainfall. The degradation of forests in the upper catchment of all rivers coupled with widespread
degradation of natural vegetation lower down has been a notable feature during the past few
decades. Given this situation, afforestation should have received far more emphasis than it has done
until now.
Many panchayats report the paucity of common lands and forest lands as reasons for not taking up
afforestation activities. In such panchayats however, there has been no proper assessment of the
actual extent of common lands. While they may not have significant forest area, there still exist
dispersed patches of revenue poromboke lands and uncultivated hilly terrain, roadsides and canal
bunds. Even in panchayats with some amount of forest land, especially degraded forest lands,
afforestation has not received due emphasis. In panchayats located at the forest fringes, there exists a
considerable extent of degraded forest land, that is in the custody of the forest department. As a
87
part of the state government‘s convergence policies, it has been agreed that afforestation and forest
protection activities be taken up on this land through MGNREGA. Despite the same..
This is a surprising feature of MGNREGA implementation across the state. Most of the
panchayats did not have live nurseries, and those who had, did not have more than one live nursery.
Visits to some of the live nurseries indicate that overall management and supervision of nurseries
could be improved. During visits to nurseries in Panamaram panchayat in Wayanad and Cherplassery
panchayat in Palakkad, it was found that there existed a large number of saplings which were not
planted in time, as a result of which they have outgrown the transplanting stage. Protection of
planted saplings too was a serious issue. Overseers were unable to comment with clarity on the
survival rate of planted saplings. Tree guards were not provided in all cases, and in the absence of
protection, many of the planted saplings were destroyed. The making of tree guards with bamboo
and other species, in itself could be an income generatinjg activity for a very large section of the
underprivileged, particularly the old and others who were incapable of hard physical work.
It is important to mention, that certain panchayats like Akathethara panchayat in Palakkad district,
did take a serious initiative at widespread afforestation works. Such cases however are more of an
exception than the norm.
3.3 Misleading Nomenclature
Very often, activities taken up in a particular category have no relation to the stated aim. This was
illustrated earlier in the case of activities related to Flood Control and Protection. The most
common activity taken up in this head was the digging and clearing of road side drains, which often
had little to with flood protection. This pattern was observed in all the four districts. In the case of
‗Provision of Irrigation land owned by SC/ST families‘, the work taken up was digging of rain water
pits and trenches, which could not provide irrigation. Similar such instances were observed in
different panchayats, the nature of discrepancy between the stated activity and what was actually
taken up, varying from panchayat to panchayat. In Tirunelly panchayat for instance, 80% of the
works taken up in the category titled ‗Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies‘, comprised of
elephant trench works and 15% of pond works. Both of these were not renovation works, and
trenches are in no way water bodies. In the Micro Irrigation category in Adimali panchayat, the
works taken up included digging of road side drainage channels (which comprised 69%),
deepening/widening/clearing the stream channels (17%) and irrigation canals (11%). Here work on
drainage channels comprised the majority, and these were in no way related to micro irrigation.
88
3.4 Inadequate Planning for MGNREG activities on Private land
With MGNREG activities being permitted on the lands of farmers, owning 5 acres or less, there has
been an upsurge in MGNREG activities undertaken on private land, particularly so in Wayanad and
Idukki. While the first priority needs to be given to SC/ST and BPL farmers, our field observations
reveal that this criterion is not always followed. In addition, there is no effective monitoring of the
activities that are being planned on private land. While the activities taken up on private land are to
conform to the watershed plan, there is little monitoring of whether the work is as per the plan.
Inadequacy of site visits by the Overseer/Engineer leads to a situation where in the technical
supervision of the work is in the hands of the landowner and the Mate. There are cases when the
Mate works as per the directions of the landowner, especially when the landowner in question is
economically well-off. Instances have been reported from Idukki, wherein the landowner even
decides on the workers who are to work on his land under MGNREGA. In the case of land
development activities taken up on tribal land, a lack of planning is visible in the manner in which
activities have been undertaken, with no follow-up to ensure that agriculture is made possible as a
result of the MGNREG intervention on their lands. With a few exceptions from Attappady Block in
Palakkad, in most cases, activities on tribal land are not well planned.
Similarly, the upstream-downstream dynamism is not given due consideration while taking up
activities on private land either. In Wayanad, the predominant activities taken up on private land are
mulching on coffee plantations and digging of ponds and rain water harvesting pits. These activities
however are undertaken in an arbitrary fashion at different points in a mico catchment. If activities
on private land are to be intensified under MGNREGA, a system needs to be put in place, wherein the
activities undertaken are assessed with respect to a watershed plan. The existing watershed plans themselves
need to be critically assessed.
Similarly, the equity dimensions of MGNREG work undertaken on private land need careful
consideration. As mentioned earlier, while taking up activities on agricultural land, the first priority is
not always given to the most marginalised amongst them. This has also been discussed in relation to
the existing skewed landholding pattern (see Section in Chapter 5).
Certain activities taken up on agricultural land benefit the individual land owner more than society at
large. This needs to be viewed with caution, especially as MGNREG is a programme that is intended
to ensure livelihood security to the poorest sections of society. Take the case of the widespread
digging of ponds on private land in many parts of Wayanad. It is the landowner who benefits the
most out of it, with the water being used for irrigation or fish rearing. While the landowners are
required to give a written undertaking that the pond will be used for common purposes, in practice,
89
it is observed that access is restricted and controlled by the landowner. There is no mechanism in
place to ensure that access is open to all. Those who have enough land to give up 5-10 cents for a
pond, therefore benefit the most, while the landless have no stake in the water. When this issue has
been raised with the panchayat officials and elected representatives, the common response is that
food security should be promoted at all costs, and concerns of equity are confined to providing
work to the poor. This makes it difficult to achieve the objective of ‗sustainable asset creation‘ to
pull the poor out of the poverty trap. Neither the panchayat nor the supervising officials have clearly
stated how this issue is to be approached.
3.5 The concept of ‘assets’
The fundamental objective of the MGNREGA programme was the creation of assets which would
ensure long term livelihood security to the poorest sections of society. The heavy focus on water
conservation and drought proofing and on the restriction of the labour material ration to 60:40,
implied that the assets that were to be created would not be material intensive. In Kerala, the use of
material components was prohibited by the MGNREGA State Mission following instances of
misuse of funds when materials were used.
The term ‗asset‘ or ‗aasthi’ as it is known in Malayalam is distinctly associated with assets that have
been built using materials like stones and cement. All other works are not viewed as assets,
particularly by the implementing NREG staff in the panchayat. When they are asked about assets,
they refer to roads, access roads, bridges and so on. The engineering background of the Overseers
and Engineers is a possible explanation. Part of the explanation for this impression also lies in the
prevailing societal understanding of natural resources and the unwillingness to view them as ‗assets‘.
The regeneration of land and streams is therefore not viewed as an asset. If at all they are, it is when
the insides of the stream channels and ponds have been given a stone and cement lining.
The issue of public vs private land is also a factor in the perception of assets. Greater value is
attached to NREG work on private land, with the feeling that it is of greater use and value than
work done on public land. The implicit assumption is that work done on private land is of direct use
to the concerned landowner, while this is not the case with public land. Overseers observe that this
impression is also due to the fact that a very limited range of activities have been taken up on public
land, which are repetitive. People, they say are tired of seeing the same old road side drains and work
related to clearing of vegetation. These do not appear to be as useful as works on private lands.
90
A related issue is that of identifying public lands. While panchayats differ in terms of the extent of
public land within their jurisdictions, the general opinion amongst panchayat representatives and
NREG staff is that public land is hard to find. It is only canal bunds and road sides that are viewed
as public land. At the most, they think of school grounds. The land that is available with public
institutions (including government offices, hospitals and other such institutions), revenue
poromboke land have not been adequately brought under the purview of public land. Some of the
Overseers also observe that they have not been given adequate training to identify suitable works, as
a result of which work generated gets confined to a narrow range. This has restricted their ability
and capacity to plan innovative projects.
3.6 Best Practices
Despite problems in designing assets of long-term utility, models/best practices have been reported
from the four districts. These initiatives may be viewed as models not on the basis of the area
covered, or the number of people who benefitted from it. They highlight the potential of
implementing MGNREGA in a more meaningful manner.
3.6.1 Tree Planting
Tree planting initiatives have been reported from a number of panchayats. As discussed earlier, the
extent of tree planting has been minimal, given the wide potential for it across the state. They
nevertheless do illustrate the wide range of possibilities inherent in such initiatives. In Vellathooval
panchayat in Adimali Block, 3000 tree saplings were planted in the government high school
compound. Instead of using the standard metal tree guards, they experimented with a protective wall
with vegetative fencing, to keep cattle and goats away. Apart from the planting of saplings, this
activity was also used to create awareness amongst students about climate change and about efforts
at climate change mitigation.
A larger programme for tree planting was taken up in Akathethara panchayat, as part of the
‗Greening the Gap‘ programme. As a part of this programme, one lakh saplings were planted in the
region enclosed within the Palakkad Gap (a 40 km wide natural gap in the Western Ghats mountain
ranges). This widespread effort at tree planting was intended to combat the dessication in the
Palakkad Gap. The survival rate of the planted saplings is also reported to be higher than in other
panchayats.
Another innovative effort was made in Poothady panchayat in Wayanad district, where agave
saplings were planted along the forest fringes, in order to keep away wild elephants. Thick belts of
91
agave are known to ward away wild elephants from straying into farm lands. Despite this, most
panchayats have resorted to the digging of elephant trenches, which cause soil erosion and
catchment degradation. While a large number of elephant trenches have been dug in Poothady
panchayat, the current effort at planting agave can be viewed as an attempt to experiment with
alternative measures. The raising of nurseries of agave and other saplings generates employment as
well. The only drawback was that most of that the saplings were re-planted prematurely. As a result,
a large number of saplings were eaten by grazing animals.
3.6.2 Renovation of traditional water conservation structures
Another innovative programme was the protection of traditional water storage structures in
Kasargode district, referred to as ‗pallams‘. Attempts were made to desilt the pallams and to enhance
water storage and recharge. Efforts however need to be taken to link the revival of the structure per
se with the restoration of the catchment. Similarly, deepening and desilting of ponds in Palakkad,
when it has been done under adequate supervision, has led to enhanced storage and conservation
of water. The property status of ponds in Palakkad has however been contested following
MGNREGA interventions. Ponds in Palakkad are located on privately owned land, as a result of
which its ownership often belongs to a group of farmers and in many cases to a single extended
family. Prior to deepening and desilting of these ponds, the concerned landowners are required to
give in writing to the panchayat that they will surrender the pond for public use. In some cases, this
has made it difficult for the farmers to take water from the pond for irrigation, as the local people
argue that the water is theirs too (when water is taken for irrigation purposes, very little remains for
other uses). In certain cases, such conflicts have been politically instigated as well. This has led to a
situation wherein farmers are reluctant to give up ‗their‘ ponds for desilting work under
MGNREGA. The conflict over the property status of ponds in Palakkad is not new. There is
however need to resolve this issue rather than ignoring it.
3.6.3 Desilting of Irrigation Canals
This has been taken up in a very big way in Palakkad district, as it is home to a number of large and
medium scale irrigation projects. Desilting of irrigation canals were normally undertaken by the
Irrigation Department, when the work was given on contract by the department. Water however
rarely reached the tail ends of all the irrigation projects in the district, leading to tail-end water
scarcity, during the second crop paddy season. As per the convergence policy of the state
government to facilitate better implementation of MGNREGA, this work has been entrusted with
the panchayat. While there was great apprehension about the ability of womens‘ labour groups to
undertake this task, the desilting was far more effective than in the past, as a result of which water
92
began to reach the tail ends of irrigation projects within the first two years of implementation. This
was particularly reported from the tail end of the Chulliar and Malampuzha irrigation projects. It
needs to be noted here however that the women workers have expressed their angst at having to
work without adequate protective gear, while cleaning and desilting the canals. Across the state,
irrigation canals have been transformed into garbage dumping and public defecation sites. Cleaning
these canals has been a very difficult experience for the women. They feel that nobody else would
take up such work, and are sad that they have not been duly acknowledged for this work. There have
been instances when workers have not got the minimum wages, as the work output was lesser than
what had to be completed as per the estimate, owing to the difficult nature of the work. They suffer
from severe itching when they engage in this work. Despite this, they are not given gloves and
protective footwear. They are found to buy neem oil and apply it before they engage in this work, in
order to relieve them of the itching. A widely expressed opinion has been that while cleaning and
desilting of canals has improved water flow, the practice of dumping waste into canals and using
them for defecation has not stopped, as a result of which women feel that there is no point in doing
this work.
3.6.4 Use of Locally Available Materials in Restoration Work
Very few instances have been reported wherein locally available materials have been utilised for
constructing bunds or similar structures. One such case was the Sasthamkodu water conservation
bund, where a 8 metre long and 2 metre wide bund was constructed with jungle stones, red earth
and dried grass. This was an illustration of how locally available materials could be used for a
number of soil and water conservation measures. This could bring in a new culture of material use,
vis a vis the current dependence on stones and cement.
3.6.5 Reclaiming the Stream Banks
Encroachment of the stream banks, river banks and road sides by adjoining landowners is reported
to be one of the major factors that hamper planting activities along stream, river and roadsides.
Restoration of river and stream sides is difficult, when ownership of the land in question is
contested. In Pozhuthana panchayat in Wayanad, a bold initiative was taken by the panchayat to
reclaim such encroached land. The width of the Puleri stream is 9 metres as per the village records.
The width had reduced to less than a metre. By reclaiming encroached land, the stream width was
enhanced to 4.5 metres, despite considerable opposition.
3.6.6 Food Security through MGNREGA
A notable initiative reported from a number of panchayats has been resuming of paddy cultivation.
A large number of cases were reported when lands of small farmers were left fallow, as they were
93
not able to afford the cost of undertaking paddy cultivation. Under MGNREGA, such lands were
put back into the cultivation cycle. This is an appreciable initiative. Care however needs to be
exercised to ensure that this is undertaken only on the lands of those farmers who are not able to
afford the initial cost of land preparation.In some cases, efforts have been made to make barren
land cultivable by undertaking land development activities. Very often however, these land
development activities do not result in actual cultivation. In certain parts of the Attappady Block in
Palakkad district, efforts have been made to integrate land development, micro irrigation and
homestead farming. This has enabled homestead farming, helping to supplement food availability to
small farmers, especially tribal farmers.
The above-mentioned best practices are indicative of the potential inherent in these activities. While
they are fewer in number when compared to the majority of MGNREGA activities that continue to
be repetitive in nature, they do illustrate a wide range of possibilities. In most of these cases, elected
representatives or implementing officers have played a catalystic role in ensuring their success.
3.7 Integrating Natural Resource Regeneration with Livelihood Security
Coming back to the stated objectives of the Act, the primary objective was to address the complex
issues related to ―drought, deforestation and soil erosion‖, and to design labour generation
programmes that addressed these problems. The primary emphasis of MGNREGA activities was
therefore to be focussed on land use management that brought in greater sustainability in the
management and use of land and water resources, while providing livelihood security to the poor.
Translating this objective into action has been difficult. The Overseers and Engineers who are the
only people who are able to talk about the details of the work in each panchayat, have not been able
to appreciate this mammoth task. They do their best in designing works that generate labour, but as
discussed earlier, not all of them meet the intended objectives. Guidance from higher levels is not
visible in planning of works in order to meet the twin requirements of resource conservation and
livelihood security. Neither has the planning through people‘s participation, as envisaged through the
NHGs and Grama Sabhas, been able to address this task. The existing watershed plans, on their
part, are not able to provide a long-term perspective to the problems of resource degradation.
Food security, employment, housing, access to safe drinking water and cooking fuel constitute some
of the critical components of livelihood security. These are also some of the areas where
MGNREGA can make a significant contribution. Our assessment of the socio economic profile of
MGNREGA workers revealed the precarious drinking water and fuel wood situation in most worker
households. 40% of households faced drinking water shortages. In certain districts like Kasargod
94
and Idukki, a significant number of the workers relied on wells and streams. This section of workers
report falling water levels in water sources. This indicates that there is great potential in designing
natural resource regeneration programmes that would increase water recharge into drinking water
sources. This will require moving beyond the standard pond desilting programmes, or the rampant
digging of wells in certain panchayats. In Wayanad and Idukki for instance, springs meet water
requirements of many people. These were once forest springs, which are now drying out due to the
deforestation and land use change that has taken place. Protecting these forest springs requires a
closer understanding of the micro catchment. Routine digging of rain water pits cannot be viewed
as the only solution then. Similarly, a very high majority (95%) relied on firewood as the primary
source of fuel. They were found to spend a lot of time in collecting firewood, and many of them
had to purchase firewood, as it was not available in adequate amounts close to their homes. Planting
fuel wood species and developing institutional mechanisms for the sustainable harvesting of this
resource would be a programme that addresses both livelihood security and resource re generation.
Given the presence of women‘s groups through the Kudumbashree system, such measures could be
explored.
Promoting agriculture through MGNREGA can greatly contribute to food security. Greater care
needs to be exercised however in planning such activities such that the poorest sections of society
benefit the most. When free labour is provided through MGNREGA on the land of relatively well-
off farmers, efforts need to be made to ensure that the poor have greater access to the farm output.
The panchayat may intervene in the procurement and sale of the farm output such that the poorer
people have greater access to the farm produce at reduced prices. As the data on landholding of
MGNREGA workers suggests, 50% of the workers own less than 10 cents of land. Food security
for this group of workers can only come about through assured employment and greater access to
locally available farm produce at subsidised rates. The MGNREGA can then supplement the
benefits of the PDS system. Another 23% of the workers owned holdings that covered an area of
10-50 cents. Measures could be taken to undertake micro planning exercises on these small holdings
that ensured employment opportunities as well as cultivation of vegetables and other crops that
supplemented the food availability of this group of workers. This requires integrated planning
seeking convergence of MGNREGA with agriculture development programmes for instance.
3.7.1 Exploring Possibilities of Convergence
Convergence between MGNREGA and other government programmes and schemes related to
agriculture, irrigation and forestry for instance, can help in integrating MGNREGA with livelihood
security. This however has not been adequately explored. Desilting of irrigation canals under
95
MGNREGA is often portrayed as a successful example of convergence. The convergence in such
cases has been limited. In the case of irrigation canals, the labour is provided through MGNREGA,
while the land belongs to the irrigation department. In certain instances of pond desilting in
Palakkad, while the labour is provided through MGNREGA, the material component is provided
through NABARD schemes. Possibilities of integrated and joint planning however have not been
adequately explored. Take the example of MGNREGA interventions on tribal land. While the land
may be levelled or terraced, an active coordination with the agriculture department could result in
long term food security programmes for the tribal farmers. Such planning exercises need to be
undertaken at the panchayat, block and district levels.
Yet another area where convergence can be experimented with is the restoration and protection of
dispersed forest patches located around settlements (mostly tribal settlements. This is a common
feature in the tribal belt of the state. In most cases, the forest area around settlements is in a very
degraded state. A well-thought out plan for the restoration of these forest patches, could be
integrated with a plan to provide for the fodder and fuel wood requirements of nearby settlements.
Grazing and fire wood collection are the two factors that inhibit the restoration of such forest
patches. Combining restoration with the livelihood requirements of the local people could offer a
way out. The state government has issued orders stating that MGNREGA activities could be taken
up on forest land. Actual implementation however has not taken off significantly.
3.8 Conclusion
Generating assets that address the twin objectives of livelihood security and natural resource
protection requires considerable re-orientation and re-education of the panchayats, implementing
officers and the public at large. The MGNREG staff, panchayat officials, as well as the officials with
supervisory responsibilities have not been able to view this issue in an integrated manner. The
routine watershed training programmes have not equipped the panchayats and the MGNREG staff
to design works that address these objectives. While the preparation of watershed based plans have
been mandatory, they have not been able to address the issue of ecological degradation that is
widespread across the state. They are more focussed on micro-interventions in isolation, without an
attempt to see the larger catchment/basin picture.
Comprehensive watershed based master plans that outline the main issues related to degradation of
land, water and forest resources in each panchayat (within the river basin in which it is located), is
necessary. A review of the existing model of watershed plan preparation is therefore required. It is
important to assess the extent to which MGNREG activities address the specific problems of
ecological degradation that each panchayat faces. A master plan that links possible MGNREG
96
activities with problems related to natural resource degradation, and which identifies possibilities of
convergence between various programmes and projects would be the first step towards sustainable
asset creation. A very detailed training programme may be envisaged towards this end, which
includes a wide range of field-based training modules for elected representatives and implementing
officials.
97
CHAPTER 4
GRAMA PANCHAYATS AND MGNREGA IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Introduction
The grama panchayat is the main implementing agency as far as MGNREGA in Kerala is
concerned. The panchayat looks into all aspects of programme implementation viz. identification of
works, work execution and payment of wages. While work identification and planning is undertaken
through the NHG level discussions, ward and panchayat grama sabhas, work is executed through the
NREG staff and the mates. The annual action plans prepared at the grama panchayat level are
scrutinised and approved at the block and district level by working groups constituted for this
purpose.
The elected council of the panchayat along with the administrative wing play a role in planning and
implementation of MGNREGA works. The interest and commitment of the elected members is
critical in ensuring that the rights-based provisions of the Act are realised in programme
implementation. In general, the distinguishing rights-based framework of the programme has not
been adequately understood and appreciated by the elected members. A majority of the members
see it as a welfare measure. This has had a bearing on the kind of initiative they have taken in
mobilising the NHGs and grama sabhas towards this programme.
The role of the elected council of the panchayat is found to vary from panchayat to panchayat. In a
few cases the concerned ward member is found to be interested in MGNREGA implementation in
her/ his ward. Thhe degree of their involvement in the grama sabhas depends on the interest they
take in the programme. Instances have also been reported when elected members tend to portray
NREG works as ‗their‘ contribution to the people. Despite a decade of decentralised planning, and
the emphasis on ‗people‘s planning‘ and a ‗people‘s plan‘, local planning and development is still
largely viewed as a contribution of the concerned panchayat council. While it is indeed positive that
grama sabhas are held before the MGNREGA annual plan is approved, the convening of the grama
sabhas is becoming more of a ritual and less of a participatory exercise. As per the norm, the annual
action plan is to be prepared through a series of consultative meetings at the neighbourhood, ward
and panchayat level. As discussed in Chapter 2, despite this prescribed pattern for bottom-up
planning, the participation of the local people in actual selection of works has been low. Finally, it is
the concerned ward member, the Overseer and the Mate who decide on the kind of activities to be
taken up in each ward.
98
The administrative aspects in terms of job card registration, wage payment, finalisation of work
estimates and measurement of NREG works is supervised by the NREG staff (the data entry
operator and the Overseer) who have been appointed by the elected council of the grama panchayat
on a contract basis. In certain panchayats, an additional accountant has been appointed as support
staff. On the whole, the day-to-day implementation of the programme was in the hands of the
NREG contract staff, the accountants and the Overseers. NREG implementation is to be
supervised by the VEOs at the panchayat level, BDOs at the Block level, and the JPC and DPC at
the district level. In this chapter, we look into the day-to-day implementation issues with regard to
MGNREGA. We focus on the role played by the NREG contract staff and the Mates who are
directly involved in actual implementation.
4.2 General Profile of Grama Panchayat level NREG staff
The staff who play a key role in programme implementation at the panchayat level are the NREG
data entry operators/accountants and the NREG Overseers. Most of them are recruited from
within the panchayat or nearby panchayats. The following indicators are derived from the sample of
DEOs and Overseers who were interviewed. A total of 50 Overseers and 49 DEOs were
interviewed across the selected panchayats in the four districts. The percentage of women is much
higher amongst the DEOs than the Overseers.
Table 4.1 Gender Profile of MGNREGA Staff (in Percentage)
Category of MGNREGA Staff Male Female Total
DEOs 20 80 100 N=49
Overseers 56 44 100 N=50
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
4.2.1 Education, Training & Experience
Amongst the DEOs, all of them were either graduates or postgraduates with computer training.
Amongst the Overseers, except for one who held a BE degree, the others held diplomas in civil
engineering.
Their experience as NREG staff ranged from 4 months to 5 years, with the majority having about 2
years of experience. Amongst the Overseers, except for the newly joined staff, most others had
received training on NREG- related issues. The percentage of staff who had not received training
on MGNREGA-related matters was higher amongst the DEOs.
99
Table 4.2 Training for MGNREGA Staff (in percentage)
Category of MGNREGA staff Received Training Did not receive MGNREGA
training
DEO 78 22
N=49
Overseers 92 8
N=50
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
4.3 Limitations/Constraints faced by MGNREGA staff at GP level
Discussions were held with NREG staff on a range of issues that impact upon day to day
implementation of the programme. Here we re-visit some of the problems raised by workers in
Chapter 2 and assess the responses of the NREG staff to these issues. We also assess the specific
constraints that NREG staff encounter while ensuring the delivery of time bound tasks such as
registration and issuing of job cards, timely measurement of works, timely processing of wages and
so on. We therefore focus on the functioning of NREG staff vis-a-vis specific phases in programme
implementation such as registration, creation of work days, payment of wages and so on.
4.3.1 Registration and Issuing of Job Cards
This is an area where DEOs play an important role, as they are entrusted with the work of data
entry. Workers‘ feedback on the process of registration and getting job cards was communicated to
the DEOs of the respective panchayats. The issues that DEOs felt made registration and timely
issuing of job cards difficult, were as follows. They have been listed in the order of priority in which
they were stated-
1. Inability to complete registration formalities in a time bound manner when a lot of
applicants apply at the same time (this was the case during the initial stages of
implementation, and also when owners of private land registered under MGNREGA).
Workload is felt essentially because of the lack of adequate support staff during busy
periods of work.
2. Difficulty in distributing job cards on time when there is other work ( such as work related to
bill preparation, muster roll preparation etc).
3. Printing of job cards is also reported to take time as there only a common printer in the
panchayat.
4. Busy and over-loaded servers along with poor internet speed further slows down the
process of uploading of information and photographs of the applicants for the job card.
100
5. There were panchayats where the NREG cell did not have a dedicated computer, or where
they were given old computers. In such cases, data entry operators have to go to the block
panchayat to get the work done.
6. Issues of duplication with one applicant applying twice and incomplete application forms
which thereby cannot be processed on time. The DEOs state that they have to scrutinise
application forms for such inconsistencies, which takes time.
7. Applicants not having ration cards, the possession of ration cards is being treated as a must
in all panchayats in order to register for MGNREGA.
8. Mates do not distribute job cards on time, and workers too do not come to collect the job
card (there were 60 job cards lying in one panchayat in Kasargod, yet to be distributed to the
workers).
In conclusion, from the viewpoint of the DEOs, the most critical problems encountered in the
process of registration and completion of job cards, were those of multiple work responsibilities
which made it difficult for them to focus on one particular task alone. Inadequate access to
computer and printers and slow internet speed was the other major problem. This is an area where a
clear assessment of the workload of the DEOs as well as the work facilities available to them, is
required, to assess the nature of staff support that is required.
4.3.2 The low average person days generated
Factors contributing to the low average were listed as follows:
1. Inadequacy of work generated in the annual action plan. They are not in a position to provide
work when people demand for it.
2. Inadequate demand for work. The Data Entry Operators (DEOs) cited two reasons for this
situation: a) Workers are not aware of their individual right to demand for work to the
panchayat, b) DEOs and the panchayat are not in a position to entertain and respond to
individual demand for work. DEOs also state that with the existing workload, they would not
be able to entertain individual demand for work, and give dated receipts to each worker.
DEOs feel that they therefore face practical constraints in processing individual demand for
work from workers.
3. In the words of one of the DEOs- ‗Here there is no system in which people ask for work directly. The
applications reach us through the ADS. Giving individual receipts is not possible with just two NREGA
staff in the panchayat. Even without undertaking this task, we are over burdened with work’.
4. NREG work is clashing with other agricultural work, and workers come for NREG work only
if they do not get other work.
101
5. The poorest in the SC and ST colonies are not coming for work, as they need wages on a daily
basis.
6. Workers who do not come for work regularly pull down the average. This has increased since
it has been mandatory that if NREG work is to be taken up on private land, then the
concerned owner is to register himself or herself as a worker. Such people are not interested
in working on land belonging to others.
Box 4.1 Constraints faced by the DEOs
In conclusion, while workers need to articulate their demand for work, the panchayat needs to gear
up to meet this demand for work. NREG staff substantiates findings from the field that people are
not aware of the right to demand for work. While there is a prescribed process for selection of
activities, NREG staff themselves feel that this is inadequate. Hence, measures need to be taken to
enhance both demand and supply of work.
4.3.3 Delay in Payment of Wages
As discussed in detail in Chapter 2, delay in payment of wages has been one of the major drawbacks
of programme implementation. Workers had cited delay in payment as the biggest problem they had
Some of the Data Entry Operators were able to comprehensively analyse the reasons for a low average
in person days of work generated. They were found to be more frank, when their anonymity was
ensured by collecting their responses in a written format, without their names being mentioned.
Consider the following assessment by a data entry operator obtained in the above mentioned manner-
There are many reasons for a low average in work days 1) Workers registering without the intention to work: Many families register as they feel that taking job cards will provide them with personal benefits and other assistance from the government. Such people are not ready to do physical work. 2) Inconsistencies/ problems in planning towards the creation of shelf of projects: The functioning of the grama sabha in the identification and selection of suitable activities is not up to the mark. There is a lack of professionalism in implementing projects. We are not able to devise need-based projects and complete them on time. 3) Problems in office work: Due to the workload at office, providing work as soon as it is demanded is not possible. Delays in estimate preparation leads to a delay in providing work when people need it thereby leading to a reduction in average working days. It is not possible to provide work in quick succession. In the existing system, providing muster rolls continuously is not possible. All of this results in less work being provided. 4) Sorting the work applications received in order to provide work on time, is difficult. As of now, work applications are received through the ADS and online entry of applications is not done regularly. Allocation is demanded only after the work is completed, according to the filled in muster roll. 5) In order to increase work days and to provide work to applications, there is need to bring changes in the existing staff position, with 2 more staff needed at the panchayat level to assist with data entry and accounting. There is a lack of staff in the engineering division too, where they are not able to
supervise and inspect worksites regularly.
102
faced, and this has acted as a deterrent for potential workers to register for the programme. It is also
reported to induce workers to opt for other wage labour opportunities, which may even be less
paying, as they cannot afford to wait so long for their wages. Most DEOs and Overseers were
reluctant to speak openly about the magnitude of the problem. But a sizeable proportion did
acknowledge the issue (see Table 4.3). Both the groups have cited a number of reasons from their
end that contribute to delay in payment of wages. This has been presented in the table 4.4.
Table 4.3 Delay in payment of wages (in percentage)
Category Yes No
DEOs 40.00 60.00
Overseers 56.00 44.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
In addition to what the DEOs and Overseers had to say in this regard, the district level IT
professionals (ITPs) were of the opinion that the potential of MIS as a time saving tool was not
being adequately used for processing MGNREGA related files. They felt that officers at the
panchayat and district level, were still mistrustful of computer based applications, and of entering
and storing data on the computer. They insisted on keeping parallel files on paper, which doubled
the work burden and reduced speed. In the case of wage payment for instance, if online bank
transfer was resorted to, it would greatly reduce the time taken. Currently, each worker‘s payment
details have to be written out. The disinclination of officers concerned to switch over to MIS totally
was also because in the event of inspection, the inspecting officers themselves prefer to see manual
records, and not e-records. In an attempt to address the procedural delays that contribute to delay in
payment of wages, the Cherpu panchayat in Thrissur district formulated a responsibility matrix, to
fix a time line for the responsibilities to be fulfilled at each level, from the Mate to the panchayat
secretary. The NREGS State Mission had issued directives to this effect to all panchayats to enforce
such a system. This is however yet to be implemented.
103
Table 4.4 Reasons for Delay in Payment of Wages
Issue Opinion of the DEO Opinion of the Overseer
Delay in getting the filled up muster roll
There is a delay in getting the filled up muster roll. The delay in getting the signature of the VMC committee is a factor.
Mates take time in bringing the filled up muster roll to the office. Very often we are blamed for the delay, but the delay caused by the mate is not accounted.
Checking for errors in the muster roll
The DEOs cannot commence data entry as soon as the muster roll is brought to the office. They have to check for errors.
The inability of the Mates results in a number of errors in the manner in which the muster roll is filled up; time is lost in correcting these errors.
Delay in measurement and check measurement
Delays occur in measurement and check measurement of works. Delay in taking measurement is due to inability of the Overseers to reach worksites on time. Check measurements by the Assistant Engineer (AE) are delayed when an AE is entrusted with supervision of more than one panchayat.
Delays in measurement take place as we are unable to reach worksites on time. This is particularly so when the panchayat covers a large area and worksites are spread out. In addition, the TA given to us is very small (Rs 500 per month), with which we cannot reach all the worksites. Many are remotely located, and we have to hire autorickshaws to get there.
Delays in writing out bills
Engineers are not able to provide bills on time after check measurements, as they have to look into more than one panchayat.
As there is only one Overseer in one panchayat, there is a delay in writing out bills for the completed works.
Verification by the Panchayat Secretary
Verification of the muster roll by the panchayat secretary takes 3-4 days. In some cases delays take place at this stage too.
Busy and overloaded serves, couple with slow internet speed
This greatly affects the speed of data entry and the submission of details regarding payment to the bank.
Non availability of a dedicated computer
Issues wherein the computer has been used for other routine panchayat work. 14 GPs reported that there was only one internet connected computer. This affected speed of data entry work.
Multiple work responsibilities of the DEO and the Overseer
Unable to do timely data entry for wage payment when there are other work responsibilities related to registration and other clerical work.
Discharging multiple responsibilities related to taking measurements and preparing bills for completed works, preparing estimates for new works and completing procedures for getting technical sanction and so on, causes delays in timely completion of procedures for payment of wages.
104
Others Concerned section officers in the panchayat do not respond on time.
Non availability of funds. In GPs like Elappara in Idukki, wages were not released for 3 months in 2010 due to paucity of funds.
The discussion on delay in payment highlights certain areas where intervention is required. These
include an intervention in work processes that ensure timely completion of procedures at each level.
With regard to data entry, the most important problem pertained to busy servers and slow internet
speed, which negatively affects the speed with which data entry can be completed.
4.3.4 Estimation and Measurement of Works
Accurate estimation and measurement of work directly affects the quality of assets created. There is
a widespread impression that NREG work is relaxed work, where workers get away with less work,
particularly in comparison with routine agricultural work. Much of this is related to the manner in
which estimates are prepared, to timely measurement and supervision. This is an area where the
Overseers and Mates play a critical role. As per the norm Overseers are to attend the pre project
meeting convened before the commencement of each work, and explain to the workers the actual
quantum of work that is to be done. The Overseer is also supposed to undertake periodic site visits,
to ensure that the work is progressing as per the estimate. In practice, neither of this happens.
Overseers emphasise that the existing travel allowance that is provided (Rs 500 per month) is
insufficient to visit all the worksites. As a result they entrust this work to the Mates. In practice
therefore it is the Mate who convenes the pre project meeting, and the Mate who supervises the
daily work. Overseers observe that many of the Mates are not equipped to carry out accurate
measurements of work on a daily basis, neither do they communicate to the workers the quantum
of work to be done each day.
The most important manifestation of problems in the area of estimation and measurement is
reduced wages which is also related to a lack of clarity regarding work output to be generated. A
number of instances were reported wherein workers did not get the minimum wage of Rs 125 (the
minimum wage under MGNREGA in Kerala was Rs 125 when the study was conducted,
subsequently raised to Rs 150). There were instances of wages dropping to as low as Rs 80, on
grounds of the work output being lower than what was estimated. This is reportedly higher in
certain kinds of works like pond works, canal works, trench works, fire line works and so on. The
105
widespread nature of the problem is reflected in the fact that 50% of the Overseers who were
interviewed said that they had encountered problems when the final work output was less than the
estimated amount. There are also reports of workers working more than required. Issues with work
output indicate two problems-absence of regular measurement of work and improper estimation.
Both these issues are detailed below.
4.3.5 Absence of regular measurement
Worksite visits, and interviews with workers and Mates indicate that workers are not aware of the
quantum of work to be done each day. Daily measurement by Mates is not a norm. Measurement by
the Overseer is mostly undertaken only at the end of the work. This is one reason that contributes
to work output being lower than what should be done, thereby affecting the overall quality of work.
Referring to what a worker from Kumily GP had to say-‗ We have not got full wages on many
occasions. We are told that we have not done the work well. If the work is measured out to a group
of workers, and if this is measured again upon completion, it will be better than the existing system‘.
It has also been reported that the Overseers are selective in undertaking final measurement of a
work. In many parts of Palakkad for instance, it was reported that the Overseer took the final
measurement only for the pond works, otherwise it was handled by the Mate. In Idukki, it was
reported from certain panchayats that measurement was undertaken only for pond and canal works.
It was also reported that measurement was not undertaken for works on private agricultural land.
This matter has been contested. While workers say that final measurement by the Engineer does not
take place for certain kinds of works, the Engineers or Overseers say they do.
In addition, about 40% of the workers said that final measurement of the work does not take place
in the presence of the workers. They reported that either the Mate or some of the workers who
lived close by would be present, but it was not done in the presence of all workers. Measurement of
work in the presence of workers was found to clarify doubts amongst workers about the reasons
behind less work output. In Poothady GP in Wayanad, there were complaints and allegations in
certain worksites that the work measured out to each worker was different, leading to variations in
wages.
4.3.6 Problems with Estimation
Accurate estimation based on a detailed measurement of the work to be done rules out many
problems related to inadequate or excessive work output, both of which hamper work quality and
work to the detriment of the worker.
106
4.3.6.a Under-Estimation
Workers report cases where the labour component has been underestimated, as a result of which
workers are not able to complete the work on time. In the case of pond deepening works they feel
that the adoption of uniform estimates, without taking into consideration the specific soil structure
and soil constitution can lead to problems. In one pond deepening case in Vadakarapathy, the soil
was much harder, as a result of which they could not complete work on time and had to suffer
reduced wages. In another similar work in the same panchayat, mud had to be removed from a
height, which took more time, but the additional labour component for this work was not included
in the estimate. Workers feel this is due to inadequate attention being paid to the field setting in
which the work is to be undertaken. This led to reduced work output and wages falling to Rs 104.
In Tirunelly panchayat in Wayanad, a similar problem was reported, when workers were engaged in
such work. Due to lateritic soil, they could not complete it on time and got only Rs 119. In Tirunelly
panchayat, a case was reported wherein workers in Appappara ward got only Rs 62 (less than half
the minimum wage for a work related to digging coconut basins at the base of coconut trees.’ The
final measurement of work was undertaken by counting the number of trees for which basins had
been dug by each worker. In this particular instance, workers report that the coconut bed had not
been dug for many years, and the coconut trees were scattered. . As a result the workers were not
able to fulfil the daily quota (which was 11 trees to be undertaken by 2 workers). Approximately 28
workers worked, and all of them got only Rs 62 per day.
In Pudur panchayat in Attappady, Palakkad, workers reported the instance of a work wherein the
stream channel along a sloping terrain was being cleaned. There was heavy rain during the work, as a
result of which mud kept getting washed down into the stream channel. As a result, the work could
not be completed on time. A revised estimate could have ameliorated the situation, they feel.
In Vandazhi, as a part of digging a water channel, workers had to dig deep to take the soil out. In
order to lift this soil out, they had to climb a narrow stretch of steps, which was time taking. Such
situation specific issues were not incorporated in the estimate, they feel.
In Kuzhalmannam, there were instances of workers working on Sundays to complete the work.
Reduced wages have been widely reported in trench and fire line works as well. Since digging
trenches involves hard physical work, women workers have found it difficult to complete the work
on time.
107
Many more such instances were reported, indicating that a case by case examination by the
concerned panchayats and the MGNREGS officials is required to examine areas where estimates are
inaccurate and reasons for the same.
4.3.6.b Over-estimation
In some other cases however, estimates indicate a degree of over estimation of the labour
component as well. In cases where vegetation along the side of streams or roads have to be cleared,
the estimates mention clearing of ‗thick, thorny bushes‘, whereas, in reality, it is not so thick and
thorny. Similarly, where sand has to be lifted out, estimate may read as lifting of hard soil, while it
may not be so hard. In Kollengode panchayat, while visiting an ongoing work in May 2011, related
to stream protection (Thottankara Todu Samrakshanam), it was found that as per the estimate 200
lorry loads of sand had to be taken out from the stream channel. A physical verification indicated
that this quantity of sand was not even present at the site. Overseers indicate that at times a slight
overestimation is required, or else, workers, particularly women workers will not be able to complete
the job. This was particularly so in cases where hard labour is required.
This is an issue that needs very close monitoring and examination, wherein the estimates and actual
work output of certain works needs to be examined and assessed. The issue of over estimation
needs to be viewed against the general impression that NREG work is lighter than the normal
agricultural wage labour work. There is also the impression that workers ‗get away‘ with less work. If
this has to be corrected, there needs to be a state-of-art assessment of the current method of
estimation.
4.3.6.c Political Interference
Overseers report that when wages fall, panchayat members often intervene and pressurise them to
ensure that full wages are paid. This was corroborated by workers as well, of how members
intervened and prevented a reduction in wages. Some Overseers were of the opinion that it was
better to overestimate, so that this problem does not arise. There were also instances when the
Overseers made small adjustments (by exaggerating the measurement) in order to give the full Rs
125, fearing abuse from the workers. One Overseer frankly admitted that there were occasions when
workers raised a huge hue and cry over reduced wages. Since then, she (the Overseer) does not
measure the final work in the way that it should be done.
Greater technical supervision into the process of estimate preparation is required, so that the
estimates prepared are realistic, and work specific. This will avoid problems of both over estimation
(resulting in less work and creating the impression that NREG work is very relaxed work) and
108
underestimation (which results in the worker working more than is estimated and getting less wages).
A mechanism for daily measurement of work needs to be instituted and Mates need to be given the
training required to undertaken this task. A mechanism needs to be put in place for regular
monitoring of work by NREG staff, the Overseer needs to be in the field, engaging in more direct
supervision. A clear assessment of the field travel requirements of the Overseer is required and
support is to be provided in this regard. If a single Overseer is not able to handle the work, an
appropriate assessment of the quantum of staff support required is needed.
4.3.7 Heavy Workload
Over work was cited by a majority of the data entry operators. 89% of the DEOs reported heavy
workload, with an even greater number (91%) reporting that they had to work on holidays to
complete the assigned work. This is an area that requires further examination. It has been raised
earlier in the chapter, in the section on registration. A clear assessment of their workload is required.
In this section we present the factors listed by DEOs that contribute to increased workload-
Busy servcers and slow internet connections (reported by 78% of the DEOs), which made it
necessary for them to work at night to complete online data entry. Instances were reported
when DEOs purchased a computer at home and took a net connection in order to do data
entry.
Absence of a dedicated computer for NREG work, exacerbated the problem of busy servers
and slow internet connections. This was reported by 38% of the DEOs. In 14 panchayats,
there was only one internet connected computer system in the panchayat, as a result of which
NREG data entry did not get a priority. There were cases when the NREG cell were given an
old computer, which was slow, as a result of which the DEO had to go to the block panchayat
to get data entry done.
DEOs have to do other clerical work along with data entry work, which slows down the latter.
There were data entry operators who had to work at office on all holidays to complete the
data entry process. This has been attributed to both slow internet speed and the compulsion
of doing other clerical work along with data entry work.
Instances were also reported of DEOs having to carry their work all the time, which made it
very difficult for women employees. 80% of the interviewed DEOs were women, and some
of them talked of difficulties in managing both work related and family responsibilities.
38% of DEOs also reported that they suffered for want of an exclusive and adequate work
space, which reduced their work efficiency. All of these factors resulted in lowered levels of
109
work efficiency, slowing down the process of data entry, which was ultimately reflected in a
delay in payment of wages to workers.
DEOs and Overseers expressed their dissatisfaction with the existing pay package, which
makes it even more difficult for them to cope with the heavy workload, they say. Currently
DEOs are paid Rs 6000/- and Overseers are paid Rs 5,500/-. This issue has been brought up
in various panchayats.
4.4 MGNREGA Cell: Part of the Panchayat?
The MGNREGA cell is a newly constituted cell within the panchayat, and since the MGNREGA
staff are appointed on a contract basis, this cell, while housed within the panchayat office, is to a
certain extent treated as a separate unit. Most of the DEOs and Overseers were reluctant to speak
openly about their working relationship with the remaining panchayat staff and the panchayat set up
on the whole. This is presumably because they are appointed by the panchayat council and they were
apprehensive of causing displeasure to the council members. As a result, majority of the 70% of
NREG staff who said that the attitude of the panchayat council was ‗positive‘, stopped with just
that feedback.
Table 4.5 Attitude of Panchayat Council and Staff to MGNREGA activities
Attitude Percentage
Good attitude 70.00
Negative 22.00
Average 2.00
NR 6.00
Total 100.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Amongst those who reported a negative treatment by the panchayat, the following responses were
considered to be important-
Other panchayat staff treat NREG staff poorly, as the latter are employed on a temporary
basis and are therefore considered to be inferior to permanent panchayat staff. NREG staff
were often not included in staff meetings, as they were not considered to be ‗proper staff ‘.
Hence, the issue of lack of space to store NREG files is not treated as a priority in certain
panchayats.
The inferior treatment to NREG staff in certain panchayats is reflected in inadequate staff
support to the NREG cell. It was reported that in certain panchayats, peons declined to help
110
the NREG staff. Also reported were instances of being shouted at by the panchayat
accountant.
MGNREGA activities are considered to be distinct from other panchayat activities. So while
NREG work was to be done by MGNREGA staff alone, the MGNREGA staff were
expected to help with other panchayat work.
Since very few panchayat staff are conversant with computer applications, the DEO of the
NREG is often approached for computer related work of the panchayat. 42% of the DEOs
said that had been asked to do computer related work of the panchayat. This added to their
work burden and caused a delay in completing their own work.
The district level ITPs also substantiated this perception of the panchayat level DEOs, saying
that NREG staff within the panchayat are not closely linked to the rest of the panchayat staff.
They may have more of a working relationship with the elected council, who may take the
initiative to push for certain things, but not with the other staff.
4.5 Adequate Work Space for MGNREGA activities
40% of the DEOs and 50% of the Overseers reported that they did not have adequate space for
systematic maintenance of files and other records. In 2 cases, it was reported that files were being
kept on the floor and in cardboard boxes for want of space, for want of shelves. There were also
complaints that their files were shifted from one place to another, to suit the convenience of others
in the panchayat. In one panchayat in Idukki, it was reported that the Overseer and data entry
operator often had to sit in the conference hall of the panchayat, for want of space.
However, there were instances where it was observed that despite adequate space, files and records
were kept in a haphazard and unsystematic manner. There appears to be little supervision in such
matters by the panchayat or concerned officials such as the BDO, it being left to the discretion and
capability of the MGNREGA staff in the panchayat (basically the Overseer and Data Entry
Operator). This is an area where clear directions need to be given and enforced. The lack of
adequate space also points to an inadequate appreciation on the part of the panchayat of
MGNREGA work in general. Enhancing the working efficiency of the MGNREGA staff so they
are able to better deliver the goals of MGNREGA, does not seem to be the priority of the
panchayat.
This section has highlighted the practical constraints faced by the MGNREGA staff in effective
implementation of the programme. Addressing these practical constraints is important in order to
111
ensure that core elements of the Act are realised in actual implementation. Discussions with the
DEOs and the Overseers indicate that they face practical constraints in timely completion of tasks
and in effective monitoring of programme implementation. A clear assessment of their workload
and the facilities that they are provided with is required to ensure that there exists a professional
environment for them to work. Such a clear assessment of their work load will also help to assess
whether they are under-performing as well. Since the issue of work overload has been widely and
repeatedly voiced by DEOs, this needs closer assessment.
4.6 The Mate System
As has been discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the Mates play a very important role in direct field level
implementation of the MGNREGA programme in the state. Right from the NHG level planning of
activities to be undertaken to MGNREGA, to mobilising workers for the work, organisation of the
worksite, maintenance of muster rolls and job cards, the role played by the Mate is critical. She is
also the most important source of information to the worker regarding the nature and scope of the
work. The Mate‘s level of understanding of MGNREGA and her efficiency in handling the above
mentioned range of tasks plays an important role in effective implementation and in ensuring that
the workers‘ rights are protected. The present section examines some of the issues related to the
functioning of the mate system in the four districts. A total of 97 Mates were interviewed from the
selected 60 panchayats across the four districts. Mates in the sample, mostly fall in the 31-40 age
group.
Table 4.6: Age Composition of Mates
Age Category Percentage
20-30 19.59
31-40 53.61
41-50 22.68
>50 4.12
Total 100.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
4.6.1 Working Experience and Educational Background
The number of years of experience as Mates indicates that those who had worked as for 3 years and
more amounted to almost 50% of the group. This indicates that the intended rotation system was
not in place, with the same people functioning as Mates for a number of years.
112
Table 4.7 Years of Experience as Mate
Experience Percentage
1 year or less 12.37
2 years 17.53
3 years 30.93
More than 4 years 18.56
Total 100.00 Source: Field Survey 2010-11
It was also found that 16% of the Mates said that they functioned in more than one worksite at the
same time. This again is against the rule, that there should be one Mate for one worksite. Having
Mates for more than one worksite, leads to inadequate supervision. The fact that 27% of the Mates
were not matriculates, indicates that this group required additional training to equip them to handle
their functions better.
Table 4.8 Educational Background of Mate Education Percentage
Below Class X 27.84
10th Std. 47.42
Higher Secondary 19.59
Degree 5.15
Total 100.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
The previous work experience of the Mate indicates that a majority of the Mates were housewives
who had never gone for any wage labour work or agricultural workers. This indicates that a large
number of the Mates have had no experience in the kind of work that has been entrusted to them.
Table 4.9 Previous work Experience of Mate Category Palakkad Wayanad Idukki Kasargode Total
Agriculture worker 52.02 18.09 44.70 17.17 39.55
housewife never gone for any wage work
40.55 69.15 49.24 52.36 47.83
A person who has gone for any other non-wage labour work before
2.34 2.13 1.52 14.59 4.80
Others 5.10 10.64 4.55 15.88 7.82
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
4.6.2 Training for Mates
Training for Mates is mostly administered at the grama panchayat and block panchayat level. A
significant majority (94%) had received training on MGNREGA.
113
Table 4.10 Mate Training
Trained Percenatge
Yes 94.85
No 5.15
Total 100.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Discussion with Mates on implementation related issues- particularly on protecting the rights of the
workers and the unique nature of activities to be undertaken under MGNREGA, indicates
inadequacies in the existing training package.
4.6.2.a Education about a rights- based approach
While 94% of the Mates had received training on MGNREGA, the content of training imparted to
Mates requires re-examination. 85% of Mates said that the training gave them information on rights
of the workers. However when further asked about the content of rights, only 19.5% said that it
taught them about MGNREGA rules and provisions. The rest talked about how it taught them
about organizational facilities, like managing the worksite, providing worksite facilities, maintaining
accounts, maintaining work timings, how to withdraw money from the bank and so on. The
impression one gets is that the Mates have understood more about the management of worksite and
other procedures to be followed, than about the rights-based approach of MGNREGA. It therefore
needs to be examined whether the content of Mate training is currently focused more on
organizational aspects and less on the rights-based framework of the Act and on the unique role that
Mates need to play in implementing this framework. At the moment, it is only the work related
supervision aspects that they speak of.
When asked to state the most important provision under MGNREGA, 21% of the Mates said that
it was the provision that ensured 100 days of work, another 16% said that they did not know
enough to speak about it, 15% said that it was the provision that ensured wages within 14 days. 13%
did not respond to this question. Only two Mates talked about the right to demand for work.
4.6.2.b Understanding of MGNREGA works
Mates were asked about their understanding of the priority in which activities were to be taken up
under MGNREGA. Of the 97 respondents, while 55% said that they were aware of the priority in
which works were to be taken up under MGNREGA, only 20% were able to talk about this priority
per se. The following table indicates the understanding about the priority of MGNREGA works
amongst this 20% of Mates, who gave multiple responses. The following percentage has been
114
calculated based on their multiple response and hence will not add to 100. Cultivation, primarily
paddy cultivation was considered to be foremost on the priority by 40% of Mates. The
understanding that MGNREGA was for soil and water conservation was reflected in the responses
of only 20% of this group.
Table 4.11 Awareness about Priority in which MGNREGA works are to be taken up
Category Percentage
Yes 58
No 28
I know a little about it 8
No Response 6
Total 100
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Table 4.12 is indicative of the existing level of understanding amongst Mates about the purpose of
MGNREGA. As field level supervisors, and as critical links in the overall implementation of the
programme, their level of understanding and comprehension needs to be enhanced.
Table 4.12 Mate’s Understanding of Priority of Works
Percentage
Cultivation (mainly rice cultivation) 40
Soil and Water conservation 20
Road Side clearing 25
Clearing drainage channels, ponds, streams 20
Roads are secondary 10
Watershed works 5
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
4.6.3 Problems faced in day to day functioning
57% of the Mates commented that they did face problems while executing their functions. Of the
difficulties they faced, the most cited were problems encountered due to delay in payment of wages
to workers, and the problem of meeting expenses related to travel, and photocopying. When wages
were delayed, the Mate said that they had to deal with the discontent of workers. They also faced
problems when workers did not get the minimum wage as a result of reduced work output.
115
Table 4.13 Difficulties faced as mate
Faced difficulties as mate Percentage
Yes 57.73
No 39.18
No Response 3.09
Total 100.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
The other major problem they faced was in meeting expenses towards travel and photocopy. This is
an issue that points to the manner in which the ADS fund is being utilised (see Section 2.5.5 in
Chapter 2 ). Mates were found to undertake travel to the panchayat office (to find out if the muster
roll for new works were ready, and to find out the status of payment of wages), which was expensive
for many of them. 50% of the Mates said that there had been situations wherein they spent their
own money for MGNREGA related expenses.
Table 4.14 Percentage of mate spent money from own pocket
Spent money from own pocket Percentage
Yes 50.52
No 42.27
No response 7.22
Total 100.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Of those who spent money, 36% have not got the money back (this money was spent on travel,
phone charges and hospital expenses in the event of accidents at the worksite). This needs to be
seen in conjunction with workers‘ reports of having to contribute money to meet the Mate‘s travel
expenses to the panchayat and to the bank (see Section 2.5.5 in Chapter 2). 4% of the Mates
interviewed indicated that they had to spend money from their pocket to bring Overseers to the
worksite. Though 4% is not a significant number, the fact that 4% of randomly selected 97 Mates
indicated so, is a point that needs to be viewed with concern.
4.6.4 Political Interference in MGNREGA implementation
The political alliance between the panchayat member and the Mate has also been a point of
contention amongst workers. Instances have been reported wherein activities are taken up at the
insistence of panchayat member or the panchayat president, going out of the purview of activities
laid out in the approved action plan. In such cases, the likelihood of workers‘ rights being subverted
increases. In Kuzhalmannam panchayat, the Mate reported of how they were compelled to take up a
work in the dam area, which was not an MGNREGA work. The member wished to get it done
116
before the panchayat elections in 2010. The Mate started the work without the muster roll on the
assurance that the member would arrange for the muster roll, which did not take place. Finally, that
work was shown to be part of another work, leading to a lot of confusion amongst the workers. In
this case, the Mate felt that she was co-erced into this by the member.
When Mates belong to a particular political party they were found to induce workers to contribute to
party funds, or to collude with the member to induce the workers to do so. 42% of the Mates said
that they were members of a political party and a similar proportion of Mates said that they
approach the ward member in the event of a problem in programme implementation.
Table 4.15 Political Party Membership of mate
Member of Political Party Percentage
Yes 42.27
No 54.64
No Response 3.09
Total 100.00
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Table 4.16 Mates’ support in case a problem in programme implementation
Category Percentage
NREG Cell 61.85
Ward Member 46.39
Panchayat Secretary 15.46
Others 20.61
Did not face any problems 3.09
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
In Delampadi, an instance was reported wherein the member collected Rs 125 from workers with
the help of the Mate, during the panchayat elections of 2010. When people were hesitant to give the
money the member seemingly threatened them that work would not be made available the next year.
In another instance in the same panchayat, the Mate was not in favour of a party leader who
compelled workers to contribute one day‘s wages to the party fund, but gave in as she feared that the
concerned person would occupy an influential position in the panchayat after elections. In another
case in Delampady, 30 workers at a worksite were compelled to contribute Rs 25 towards the
construction of a memorial for a former political leader.. In this case the Mate too canvassed for the
same, telling the workers that when they get Rs 1000, they should contribute Rs 25 at least to the
party who was giving them the work.
117
In West Eleri, there were reports of Mates who were closely affiliated to one of the mainstream
political parties, signing in the morning and then going for party work. In another case in Vandazhi
panchayat in Palakkad, the Mate mobilised ten workers from each of the wards for a rally in
Palakkad town. She did so as per direction from the local party leadership. Instances were also
reported of the Mate facilitating collection of money from workers for the party fund and
motivating workers to join a workers union, affiliated to one of the political parties.
As MGNREGA is implemented by the panchayat, and since the panchayat is ruled by one of the
dominant political parties in the State, the trend to politicise the programme implementation is
evident. The Mates function as the linking points in certain cases. In certain other cases, Mates are
pressurised to do so. While political alliances of this kind cannot be ruled out, such political
interference in the day-to-day implementation of work erodes the programme of its rights-based
dimension. The Mates too are not viewed as unbiased supervisors of work, but rather as
instruments of such political manipulations.
4.7 Enabling Conditions for effective implementation of MGNREGA by Grama Panchayats
Reviewing the role of panchayat in MGNREGA implementation, the elected council, staff, NREG
staff and the Mate system, certain factors are seen to contribute to improved programme
implementation by the grama panchayat. These are:
A panchayat council that is inclined to place MGNREGA implementation as foremost on its
agenda. This implies an understanding of its potential as an anti poverty programme, which can
be meaningfully integrated with other anti poverty programmes.
Committed panchayat officials including the Panchayat Secretary: A similar appreciation is
required amongst the panchayat staff, particularly the Panchayat Secretary and other support
staff.
Efficient NREG staff: The efficiency of the DEOs and Overseers plays a critical role in
programme implementation. This group needs to be well oriented about the rights-based
dimensions of the programme, and to keep this in mind while handling registration, issuing job
cards, providing work on time and ensuring timely release of wages. When the panchayat council
and other panchayat staff do not take active interest in MGNREGA related issues, the
MGNREGA implementation is left to this small group of people, which hampers the overall
efficiency of programme implementation. MGNREGA staff who are sensitive to the needs of
the underprivileged , make the panchayat more people friendly as far as the underprivileged
workers are concerned. When workers encounter problems, they are found to go and meet the
118
MGNREGA staff, hence the aspect of attitude and approach of the MGNREGA staff was
found to be extremely critical.
The overall attitude of panchayat staff is an important factor. In most panchayats, the
underprivileged workers who come to the panchayat with queries and doubts are not given the
respect they deserve. It is only when they come in groups and raise a hue and cry over an issue
such as delayed payment, are they heard seriously. This sends the message that there is no point
in going to the panchayat, unless it is inevitable. Workers for instance were not aware of the
Helpline facility and the Grievance Redressal facility in panchayats.
Regular monitoring of the functioning of the NREG staff is critical for effective programme
implementation.
Good training inputs for Mates: While assessing the functioning of the Mates, certain areas
were indentified where their efficiency and understanding needs to be improved. The
important areas are their understanding of the rights-based approach, understanding of the
nature of assets that are to be created through MGNREGA, their ability to maintain muster
rolls and job cards without errors, and ability to undertake daily measurements and
communicate to workers the daily quantum of work to be done. In wards where Mates were
efficient and not influenced by political decision-making, workers were found to be more
satisfied with the functioning of the Mate.
Availability of public land and public assets like ponds and canals- Availability of public land is
seen to be a critical factor in increasing the number of work days. Certain panchayats have a
higher proportion of public land, particularly public assets such as ponds and canals. This
enables faster work generation when compared to panchayats with a limited extent of public
land.
Presence of interested agricultural and soil conservation officers in the panchayat- In certain
panchayats, the involvement of agricultural and soil conservation officers in MGNREGA
planning and implementation had lent added vigour. They have, in particular, involved
themselves in watershed planning for MGNREGA implementation. In some cases, the
hconcerned officers have not been supported by the elected council, with the latter not being
interested in taking up watershed planning related exercises. In some cases, the officers have
been supported by the council, in which case, innovative ideas have been experimented with.
119
4.8 Conclusion
The grama panchayat is the main implementing agency for MGNREGA in the State. In actual
practice, it is the two or three member contract staff (the Data Entry Operator and Overseer with
support staff) in the MGNREG cell within the panchayat, which looks into day-to-day
implementation of the programme. While the MGNREG cell is housed within the panchayat office,
it is often viewed as a separate entity. In some cases the elected council takes interest in programme
implementation, but not always. The functioning of the MGNREG cell therefore is largely
dependent on the individual capabilities of the contract staff. Factors that could enhance the
effective functioning of the NREG cell within the panchayat are provision of adequate work space
and work facilities (such as provision of adequate computers, high internet speed, adequate travel
facilities or travel allowance to enhance frequency of field visits) and regular monitoring of the
functioning of the NREG staff. While the district and block level officials are entrusted with
supervision, resolving difficulties in day to day implementation is largely left to the contract staff.
There is a lack of appreciation of the volume of work generated by such a programme and of the
professionalism required in this regard. So there are cases where the NREG staff work very hard to
cope with the work, but there are also cases where they do not perform up to the mark. In such
cases, necessary support, guidance and monitoring needs to be given from higher levels. This is
important to enhance the average person days of work generated in a year, for timely processing of
data and payment of wages on time, greater accuracy in preparation of estimates and so on.
The functioning of the Mate is also an issue that needs to be viewed seriously (various aspects of
the same have been dealt with in this chapter, as well as in Chapter 2). Currently the Mate is
expected to mobilise workers and to make them aware of their rights, as well as to supervise work
execution. It is observed, that the Mate functions more as a supervisor, and less as a facilitator/one
who mobilises workers. In addition, the Mate is inadequately informed about the rights-based
provisions of the Act, the power of the workers and the Grama Sabha to take corrective measures,
the existing grievance redressal measures. The Mate is also not well informed about the unique
priority in which activities are to be taken up under MGNREGA. In the absence of this, the Mate is
not able to provide accurate information to the workers. It would be worthwhile to evaluate the
existing training imparted to Mates and to assess the extent to which it empowers them to function
as grassroots facilitators.
Not all Mates have discharged their supervisory responsibilities efficiently. There are reports of
Mates being partial, of favouring certain workers over others, as well as allying with political party
120
representatives (see Chapter 2). In such cases, Mates are viewed as power centers by the workers.
There are also reports of instances wherein Mates have subverted procedures such as signing of
muster rolls or starting work without muster rolls, at the insistence of panchayat members.
It would be worthwhile to redefine the role of the Mate. While the Kudumbashree system can work
towards ensuring the rights of the workers and generating awareness amongst workers about their
rights and entitlements, supervision of the work may be entrusted to a set of people, who are
selected from amongst existing workers. Supervisors may be selected from a ward wise pool of
MGNREG workers, who have completed secondary level education and who are capable of
maintaining muster rolls, job cards and so on. Supervisors may be selected on a rotation basis, with
their functioning being regularly monitored.
121
CHAPTER 5
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MGNREGA
The fundamental objective of MGNREGA is to provide livelihood security to the poorest sections
of society. It aims to enhance livelihood security by assuring every unskilled manual labourer an
‗additional‘ 100 days of employment a year. This implies that NREG workers can avail of the 100
days under MGNREGA in addition to the already existing labour opportunities in her/ his place of
residence. Any adult willing to do manual work is eligible for registration. This chapter provides the
socio-economic background of the MGNREG workers who were interviewed in the course of this
study, and then goes on to assess the socio-economic impact of this programme on their lives.
5.1 Socio- economic profile of the MGNREGA workers
In order to assess the impact of this programme on the most underprivileged sections, this study
selected the panchayats with the highest proportion of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
population from each of the four districts (See Appendix I for details of the selected panchayats).
From each of these panchayats, a random sample of 20 NREG workers was selected (see Section
1.6 in Chapter 1 for details of the criteria adopted for selection). The socio-economic profile of the
NREG workers, to a large extent, reflects the livelihood issues that the most underprivileged strata
face.
5.1.1 Occupational Pattern of MGNREG Workers
Wage labour comprises the main livelihood option for 71% of the worker households in the four
districts. This is noted to be as high as 83% in Palakkad, and as low as 57% in Idukki. It was mostly
women in the wage labour category who worked for the MGNREGA, while the husband and sons
would go for other kinds of labour opportunities like agricultural wage labour, construction work
etc.
Workers who have not been going for wage labour prior to MGNREGA comprise less than 20% of
the current sample. Their numbers are higher in Wayanad and Idukki. This group mostly comprise
of women who have no prior experience in daily wage work. They come from families where there
is some other source of income, mostly from agriculture, or some small trade. For such families, the
NREG income is a secondary source of income. They are not critically dependent upon
MGNREGA, they come for MGNREGA work as it is not as arduous as daily wage work, and also
because it is considered to be ‗government work‘, and thereby of a higher status than daily wage
work. This group includes women who were not allowed to go out for work, but were allowed to go
122
for MGNREGA work as it has a higher status. It also included elderly workers, both male and
female, who had stopped going for daily wage labour as they found it strenuous.
Table 5.1: The employment pattern of the worker households
District Agriculture
Wage labour
House wife
Service-Private
Construction work
Animal Husbandry
Trade Student Others Total
Palakkad
9.7 83.17 1.58 0.4 1.39 0.59 0.4 0.59 2.18 100 N=502
Wayanad
15.79 73.68 7.37 0 0 1.05 1.05 0 1.05 100 N=95
Idukki
17.89 57.32 15.45 2.03 0.81 0 0.41 0 6.1 100 N=257
Kasargode
8.76 58.25 20.62 0 1.55 0.52 0 0 10.31 100 N=194
Total
12.02 71.54 8.94 0.67 1.15 0.48 0.38 0.29 4.52 100 N=1048
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Majority of the households in Palakkad had very small landholdings which were not cultivable,
which to an extent explains their high dependence on wage labour. In Idukki and Wayanad on the
other hand, 17% and 15% (respectively) of the worker households relied on agriculture, and thereby
not as dependent on wage labour. Idukki and Kasargod also have a relatively higher proportion of
NREG workers who were predominantly housewives, or people who took care of their small
agricultural holdings (not going for any work outside), until MGNREGA. As a result, these districts
recorded a higher percentage of workers who were daily wage workers for the first time.
Table5.2: Caste-wise percentage of workers from a wage labour background District SC ST OBC Others All Category
Palakkad N=503
93.23 92.93 86.47 78.13 88.98
Wayanad N=101
90.91 100.00 65.38 85.00 87.13
Idukki N=278
86.14 83.87 69.57 80.72 82.73
Kasargode N=236
83.02 86.76 64.41 50.98 72.34
Total N=1118
89.64 90.30 78.42 72.58 83.78
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Amongst the districts, Kasargod has the lowest proportion of workers from a wage labour
background. It therefore had the highest percentage of workers, who were wage labourers for the
first time. Being first-time wage labourers would, among other related facts, imply that the economic
123
situation was one wherein the worker was not compelled to go for daily wage labour. In Kasargod,
however, this inference is not fully true, for the sample of 20 workers in many panchayats included
workers who were home-based beedi workers until they started going for MGNREGA work. Since
rolling beedis is not considered as wage labour, this set of workers may be considered as first-time
wage labourers. Their economic background however is similar to wage labourers in other parts of
the district and the State.
Table 5.2 also indicates that the highest proportion of workers from a wage labour background
came from the ST section, followed by SC, OBC and Others. The average family size of workers is
4, and families with 5-6 members mostly include old parents who need extra care.
5.1.2 Age Composition of the Workers
The age composition of the workers shows that more than 60% of the workers fall in the age
group between 31-50, with the highest proportion (33%) in the 31-40 age group. These workers
have relatively younger children to support, and in some cases, older parents as well. Those in the
21-30 age group have smaller children to support and take care of. Those in the 51-60 age group
(16%, which is more than those in the 21-30 age group) along with the above 60 age group (7%), are
mostly those whose children have been married and who live separately. This group of workers also
have a number of physical ailments. Most of the male NREG workers fall in this age group, for they
are unable to do hard physical labour demanded of them in the routine agricultural wage labour
operations. For this elderly group, MGNREGA is an ‗assurance‘ in the true sense of the word.
Table5.3: Distribution of workers by age
District <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >61 Total
Palakkad
1.93 12.14 36.22 28.32 16.38 5.01 100 N=503
Wayanad
0.99 12.87 39.6 24.75 16.83 4.95 100 N=101
Idukki
0 16.48 24.72 25.47 20.6 12.73 100 N=278
Kasargode
2.07 14.11 34.02 34.02 10.37 5.39 100 N=236
Total
1.42 13.65 33.33 28.55 16.13 6.91 100 N=1118
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
5.1.3 Literacy and Educational Profile of MGNREG Workers
The educational profile of the workers indicates that 33% of the workers are illiterate (with Palakkad
having the highest proportion of illiterate workers- 39%). This is a surprising finding, given the fact
124
that Kerala is known for higher levels of literacy. In addition, 16% of the workers have studied upto
Class IV only. It can be presumed therefore that their reading and writing abilities are low. In all,
57% of the workers have not passed the matriculation exams. Less than 7% of the workers had
passed the Class X exams.. Illiteracy and lower levels of education are to be given special
consideration while designing any form of mass communication and information dissemination
measures with regard to MGNREGA.
Table 5.4 Educational Profile of the MGNREGA workers
District Category illiterate up to 4 std.
4-10 std. SSLC Degree Others Total
Palakkad
SC 43.52 17.62 35.75 3.11 0.00 0.00 100.00
ST 56.00 17.00 23.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 100.00
OBC 27.84 23.86 43.75 3.98 0.57 0.00 100.00
Others 22.58 22.58 38.71 12.90 0.00 3.23 100.00
Total 39.14 20.16 36.01 4.11 0.20 0.39 100.00 N=500
Idukki
SC 32.65 18.37 41.84 4.08 1.02 2.04 100.00
ST 37.10 27.42 30.65 4.84 0.00 0.00 100.00
OBC 22.73 9.09 45.45 22.73 0.00 0.00 100.00
Others 20.48 15.66 46.99 14.46 1.20 1.20 100.00
Total 28.68 18.75 41.54 9.19 0.74 1.10 100.00 N=265
Wayanad
SC 45.45 9.09 36.36 9.09 0.00 0.00 100.00
ST 39.47 10.53 47.37 0.00 0.00 2.63 100.00
OBC 8.00 12.00 48.00 24.00 4.00 4.00 100.00
Others 0.00 0.00 85.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 100.00
Total 22.68 8.25 55.67 8.25 2.06 3.09 100.00 N=94
Kasargode
SC 44.44 9.26 40.74 3.70 0.00 1.85 100.00
ST 35.71 17.14 32.86 10.00 1.43 2.86 100.00
OBC 17.54 8.77 57.89 10.53 3.51 1.75 100.00
Others 19.61 13.73 49.02 13.73 0.00 3.92 100.00
Total 29.91 12.39 44.44 9.40 1.28 2.56 100.00 N=232
Total
SC 40.73 16.29 38.20 3.65 0.28 0.84 100.00
ST 44.07 18.52 30.74 4.81 0.37 1.48 100.00
OBC 23.57 18.57 47.14 8.57 1.43 0.71 100.00
Others 18.38 14.59 50.27 12.97 1.08 2.70 100.00
Total 33.21 17.15 40.84 6.82 0.72 1.26 100.00 N=1091
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
125
5.2 Living Conditions of the MGMGNREGA workers
This section presents certain preliminary details that indicate the living conditions of the NREG
workers who were interviewed, and who comprise a cross-section of the NREG workers across the
four districts.
5.2.1 Housing Condition
The greater majority of the workers (91%) lived in houses owned by them. There was no significant
caste difference in the percentage of workers who own their homes, but there were inter-distict
variations. It was highest in Wayanad, with 97% and lowest in Idukki (79%). The situation in Idukki
is explained by the fact a large proportion of NREG workers in certain panchayats were formerly
tea estate workers, or came from families where at least one member is a tea estate worker. As a
result they live in small houses provided by the estate companies, known as ‗company layams‘. The
living condition in these layams is very difficult, since they are one room houses, with just one toilet
for a row of 8 houses. The average family size living in each of these houses is 5 and above. Most of
the workers here are of Tamil origin, most of these panchayats being located close to the inter-state
border.
Table 5.5 Percentage of Households with own house
District SC ST OBC Others All Category
Palakkad N=497
97.35 89.69 91.76 96.77 93.82
Wayanad N=100
90.91 97.37 100.00 95.00 97.00
Idukki N=278
72.00 91.94 69.57 84.52 79.86
Kasargode N=232
98.11 95.52 96.67 95.74 96.54
Total N=1107
90.08 92.80 91.76 90.66 91.18
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
While 91% of the households lived in houses owned by them, only 54% had got the house through
a government scheme. This indicates that 46% of the workers had not got housing assistance from
the government/panchayat. Of the approximately 90% of the workers in each caste group who
owned their houses, the percentage who had received housing assistance from the
government/panchayat schemes was least amongst the OBC and Other Caste groups category, as
the housing assistance provided by the government is mostly targeted at the SC and ST population.
While it is the SC and ST population who benefitted the most from housing assistance, even
amongst them the coverage needs to be enhanced. It is as low as 60% in districts like Idukki.
126
Table 5.6 Percentage of Household who got the house through Government Scheme
District SC ST OBC Others All Category
Palakkad N=479
71.34 76.04 24.84 32.25 52.47
Wayanad N=98
90.90 86.48 32.00 50.00 65.30
Idukki N=264
55.20 59.32 26.31 38.27 48.10
Kasargode N=238
75.47 84.50 35.00 36.73 59.91
Total N=1079
68.04 76.04 27.88 38.12 54.20
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
86% of the entire sample across all 4 districts lived in houses with basic living conditions10.Amongst
them, it was the ST population who had the highest proportion of families living in houses that did
not provide basic living conditions.
Table 5.7: Percentage of Houses in Living Condition
District SC ST OBC Others All category
Palakkad N=484
90.22 76.60 92.22 90.00 88.52
Wayanad N=99
70.00 76.32 80.77 75.00 77.78
Idukki N=270
88.78 68.85 76.19 83.95 81.11
Kasargode N=233
88.24 85.29 100.00 92.16 90.95
Total N=1086
88.92 77.01 91.54 86.26 86.23
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
While 86% of the houses had basic living conditions, only 69% of the houses had functional toilets.
This was lowest in Idukki with just 59.6% of the houses with functional toilets. Absence of
adequate water supply to toilets and dysfunctional apparatus reduces the utility of these toilets. Many
of them use makeshift toilets, by the side of the house. The percentage of household having the
functional toilets was the least amongst the ST population.
10 This was based on the field observations of field investigators, wherein they assessed the condition of the house
based on certain laid out criteria such as roofing, walls, flooring and so on.
127
Table 5.8: Percentage of Households with Functional Toilet
District SC ST OBC Others All
Palakkad N=499
82.11 45.36 79.41 81.25 73.75
Wayanad N=99
80 42.11 69.23 65 59.6
Idukki N=272
70.71 45.9 56.52 70.37 63.24
Kasargode N=238
62.26 67.61 80 74 71.01
Total N=1108
75.85 50.94 76.7 72.68 69.31
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
With regard to cooking fuel, a very high majority (95%) relied on firewood. This includes collection
of fire wood from the forests, from nearby ‗parambu‘ lands, which includes nearby rubber
plantations, and also purchase of firewood. People also purchased waste generated from saw mills to
be used as fuel. There are varying estimates of the amount spent on firewood purchase, with an
average spending of Rs 2000 in six months, sometimes even more. In the event of purchase of
firewood, getting it home is reported to be expensive, as they have to pay for vehicle hiring charges
as well. Even this is difficult for those living in hilly terrain, where motorable roads are few.
Availability of firewood was found to be a critical issue for almost all MGNREGA households
interviewed as a part of the study. A very small percentage (3.78%) relied on LPG, but almost always
as a secondary option, the primary one being firewood. Given the rising prices of LPG, the
dependence on firewood is likely to increase in the coming years, for this section of society. This
implies a rising dependence on biomass, thereby underlining the need to reinforce biomass
regeneration programmes, which is uppermost on the priority list of activities to be taken up under
MGNREGA. There is a need to focus on such programmes, for livelihood security cannot be
ensured only through employment generation, but also by ensuring and supporting living conditions
of the most underprivileged sections of society. Widespread planting of fast growing fuel wood
species needs to be taken up in all panchayats, with an innovative designing of sustainable harvesting
systems, with an equity dimension built into it addressing the issue of access to firewood.
128
Table 5.9 Source of Cooking Fuel
Source Wood Kerosene Crop residues LPG Total
Palakkad
93.23 0.6 0.2 5.98 100 N=491
Wayanad
98.02 0.99 0 0.99 100 N=101
Idukki
98.91 0 0.36 0.73 100 N=275
Kasargode
96.14 0 0 3.86 100 N=234
Total
95.68 0.36 0.18 3.78 100 N=1101
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
5.2.2 Drinking Water
The drinking water situation is most critical in Idukki, wherein 60% of the surveyed households
were not getting adequate drinking water supply through the year. On an average, 40% of the
surveyed households across the four districts faced problems with access to drinking water (see
Table 5.11).
Table 5.10 Source of Drinking Water
District tap in dwelling
public tap
private handpump
public handpump
well others Public tap&well
Total
Palakkad 22.51 35.50 1.30 2.16 25.76 12.34 0.43 100.00 N=457
Wayanad 5.43 18.48 1.09 5.43 36.96 32.61 0.00 100.00 N=92
Idukki 15.79 30.08 2.26 2.63 26.69 22.56 0.00 100.00 N=266
Kasargode 1.36 4.55 3.18 2.73 61.36 26.82 0.00 100.00 N=221
Total 14.81 26.06 1.92 2.69 34.52 19.81 0.19 100.00 N=1036
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
This table indicates the high reliance on wells and other sources (primarily small streams and
springs) in districts like Kasargod and Wayanad. In both these cases, people have to carry the water
home from the source. Only 14% of the workers had taps in their homes, which is as low as 5% in
Wayanad and 1% in Kasargod. 26% rely on public taps from where water has to be brought home.
Palakkad and Idukki have the highest dependence on taps (both public taps and taps within
129
dwellings). The only reason for the lesser drinking water problems being reported from Palakkad,
which is otherwise known as a water scarce area, is the supply of drinking water from irrigation
dams in the district. The high dependence on wells indicates the need for widespread water
conservation measures which replenish these water sources.
Table 5.11 Percentage of Household whose water requirements are met through the year
District SC ST OBC Others All Category
Palakkad N=499
73.80 71.29 69.41 61.29 71.03
Wayanad N=100
72.73 82.05 61.54 63.16 72.00
Idukki N=274
45.00 37.10 54.55 32.10 39.05
Kasargode N=240
59.26 42.25 60.00 54.00 53.14
Total N=1113
63.35 57.51 65.47 46.41 59.44
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
It is workers from the SC and OBC category who face more problems with regard to adequate
availability of water (Table 5.11). In certain districts like Idukki, tribal populations face
considerabledrinking water stress. As in the case of fuel wood supply, there is a high relevance for
taking up programmes for restoration and regeneration of water sources under MGNREGA.
Undertaking well designed and planned catchment based eco restoration programmes that replenish
water sources assumes high importance.
5.2.3 Landholding
Approximately 52% of the workers owned 10 cents of land or less, with 28% owning less than 5
cents of land. 75% of the workers own less than 50 cents of land. Within this group, those who
own between 20-50 cents of land (comprising about 15%) have a small extent of homestead
cultivation, which provides them with a small income. It is only 25% of the workers who have
landholdings above 50 cents, with only 15% having holdings larger than one acre. There are district
variations in this landholding pattern, with Palakkad district having the highest proportion of
workers with landholdings less than 10 cents (72%).
Amongst the group of MGNREG workers with landholdings larger than 50 cents, tribal people and
people from the Other Caste group (i.e. non-SC/ST) are higher in number (approximately 35% of
the people from these two caste groups own landholdings larger than 50 cents in area). Amongst the
tribal people however, most of these areas are not fit for intensive cultivation, for they are in a
130
degraded condition, located mostly on sloping, hilly terrain, with no irrigation facilities. Those with
relatively larger landholdings from the general caste groups own better quality of land. This skewed
landholding picture amongst MGNREG workers indicates that a more focussed approach is
required while implementing the programme. The most vulnerable group of people are those with
less than 50 cents of land and within them those from the SC and ST community. While the
panchayat aims to provide 100 days of work, the first priority should be to provide 100 days of work
to this category of people, as daily wage labour is the only source of livelihood security for most of
them. For those owning landholdings between 10-50 cents, carefully undertaken micro-planning
exercises will facilitate designing MGNREGA activities on their lands in a way that ensures some
amount of food and livelihood security. For those who own larger areas, the focus can be to
generate employment opportunities on their land and to promote food security, in a way that
enhances land restoration, soil and water conservation. Amongst them, people from the SC and ST
communities should be given a first preference. In cases where the land is degraded and unfit for
cultivation, as is the case with most of the tribal land, carefully designed projects for land restoration
and cultivation should be initiated. Random digging of rain water pits, or trenches alone will do little
to enhance the quality of the land. Such a prioritisation is important if MGNREG is to ensure
livelihood security to the most underprivileged first.
5.2.4 Indebtedness
The extent of indebtedness amongst workers is quite widespread. 78% of the workers have taken at
least one loan, with the majority having taken more than one loan. The loan amount was found to
range from Rs 1000 to Rs seven lakhs. The major source of credit for MGNREG workers was the
bank/cooperative society followed by SHGs (self help groups) On an average 50 percentage of the
loan was taken from the bank/cooperative society followed by 19% borrowing from SHGs. The
wide coverage of the banking/cooperative society in the State explains this situation. Dependence
on the moneylender and shopkeepers is limited, but relatively higher amongst the SC and ST
communities. While only 5% of the workers from the non-SC/ST category borrow money from the
shopkeeper/ trader, it was 7 and 8% amongst the SC and ST communities respectively). The
incidence of borrowing from shop keepers and traders was also higher in Wayanad district (9%)
amongst the four districts. The dependence on the shopkeeper or the trader is found to be highest
when the loan has been taken for immediate consumption requirements. Similarly, incidence of
borrowing from the moneylender (who charges high rates of interest) is highest amongst the ST and
SC communities (10 and 8% respectively).
131
Table 5.12: Source of Loan – District & Social Category wise Government cooperative
society SHG Employer Money lender shopkeeper/trader relatives/friends others Total
District
Palakkad 6.99 50.00 12.69 0.78 8.81 5.18 3.63 11.92 100.00 N=397
Wayanad 5.26 35.53 40.79 0.00 1.32 9.21 1.32 6.58 100.00 N=78
Idukki 7.28 45.63 19.42 0.97 6.80 5.83 10.19 3.88 100.00 N=212
Kasargode 3.47 57.43 22.77 0.50 1.98 1.49 2.97 9.41 100.00 N=209
Category
SC 7.41 45.19 15.93 0.74 8.15 7.41 5.93 9.26 100.00 N=270
ST 1.47 36.27 25.49 1.47 9.80 8.33 4.41 12.75 100.00 N=204
OBC 8.97 61.11 17.52 0.43 2.99 1.71 1.28 5.98 100.00 N=234
Others 5.56 56.17 18.52 0.00 2.47 0.62 8.64 8.02 100.00 N=162
Total 6.09 49.43 19.08 0.69 6.09 4.83 4.83 8.97 100.00 N=870
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
132
The reason for borrowing is also indicative of the economin well-being of the workers. On the
whole, the main reason for borrowing money was purchase of land and house construction. This
was found to be lower amongst the tribal communities, who were found to borrow money more
for meeting household consumption and health related expenses. Amongst the SC community,
credit was sought for purchase of land and house construction, followed by consumption and
health related expenses. On the other hand, borrowing for household consumption was far lower
amongst the OBC and General category. Amongst the OBC community borrowing money for
marriage and other ceremonial expenses figured prominently. Borrowing money for education of
children was highest amongst the General category, but was far lesser amongst other
communities. Similarly, workers from the General category were found to borrow money for
agriculture related expenses. As far as the SC and ST communities are concerned, the main
reason for borrowing money was to meet immediate day-to-day expenses. This indicates the
insufficiency of their existing income levels, and the critical role that a programme like
MGNREGA can play in improving their livelihood security.
This section has provided a broad overview of the socio-economic background of the
MGNREGA workers who were interviewed. Their living conditions in terms of landholding,
housing, access to toilets, access to drinking water and cooking fuel indicate their living
conditions.
In a nutshell, a majority of the workers were women, coming from the wage labour background.
They need to go for daily wage labour in order to make two ends meet. It is only a very small
proportion (less than 20%), who are not so critically dependent on wage labour. Their
educational levels were much lower than the average Kerala standards. While a significant
majority lived in houses of their own, the proportion of those living in poor housing conditions
was high in certain pockets (as amongst the ST populations of Wayanad, Idukki and Palakkad,
the SC population of Wayanad and in the General category in Wayanad). Access to functional
toilets is also an issue of concern.
A very high majority of the workers depend on firewood as cooking fuel, indicating the high
dependence on biomass. In terms of drinking water, 40% of the workers do not get drinking
water through the year. It is particularly difficult in certain pockets. In the process of ensuring
adequate quantities of fire wood and drinking water to their families, workers (almost always
133
women) have to set aside a certain portion of their time for collecting firewood, drinking water
and water for other needs.
5.3 Socio-economic Impact of MGNREGA
This section looks at some of the social and economic implications of MGNREGA
implementation on the workers, whose living conditions have been detailed upon in the
preceding section. It looks into the extent to which the programme has ensured livelihood
security to this section of workers.
5.3.1 Providing an additional source of income for daily wage workers
Provision of additional labour opportunities has been the defining feature of the Act. In actual
practice, however, the concept of ‗additional‘ has been missed out. In none of the panchayats
surveyed, has there been an attempt to formulate an annual labour calendar that is tuned to the
agricultural calendar of the region. As a result, as admitted by the panchayat and workers alike,
during the initial stage, there were instances wherein agricultural operations coincided with
MGNREGA work. This was particularly so during the weeding and harvesting season of paddy
or coffee plucking season (as in Wayanad).
Over the years, MGNREGA work is stopped during the paddy harvest season in some of the
panchayats. In Palakkad, workers from some of the paddy growing panchayats have reported
that MGNREGA work is stopped during agricultural work, particularly transplanting and
harvesting of paddy. The fact that MGNREG work has to be stopped indicates that its timing
clashes with the agricultural calendar of the area. Theoverlapping of the MGNREGA calendar
with the agricultural calendar, however, continues to take place, for workers have reported that
there are times when they have to choose between the two. This reduces the labour opportunities
for the worker, for she/ he cannot take the benefit of both. In Kollengode panchayat in
Palakkad for instance, workers report that most of the MGNREGA works are undertaken
during the months of January-March (just before the completion of the financial year, in order
to raise the average person days of work created). This however clashes with the existing
agricultural wage labour opportunities, and they have to forsake one of the two. Similarly, in
Upputhara panchayat in Idukki, workers had made a request at the grama sabha to schedule
MGNREGA works in the months of April to June, which were the lean months for them as far
as wage labour opportunities were concerned. The months from June to August were busy
months, when they had to engage in plucking of tea leaves. No effort had been made by the
134
panchayat to schedule works accordingly, as a result of which they had to choose between the
two.
The clashing of MGNREGA works with the existing agricultural labour opportunities were
found to affect those workers who went for both. In all the panchayats, there are a certain set of
workers, who go only for MGNREGA works and stay away from all other forms of wage
labour. This group of workers, mostly women, find it difficult to do hard physical labour. As
mentioned earlier, they come from families, who do not depend on wage labour alone, and they
constitute less than 20% of the randomly selected sample of 20 workers from each panchayat.
The percentage of workers who go for both MGNREG and other forms of wage labour are
higher amongst the SC and ST populations. The clashing of MGNREGA work with other wage
labour is therefore found to affect this group of workers. In some panchayats, the allegation was
raised that MGNREGA works are planned to suit the convenience of the non SC/ST workers,
as a result of which workers from the SC/ST community have to forego the MGNREG work.
This has created discontent amongst the workers, and led to conflict situations in certain cases.
In Nenmeni panchayat in Wayanad district for instance, all MGNREGA work is reported to
have been stopped in one of the wards owing to the panchayat elections that were held on
October 2010. Work was stopped for 4 months from July to November 2010. When work
resumed, it was harvest time and workers stopped the MGNREGA work. They claim that they
normally allowed MGNREGA work to continue even if it clashed with agricultural work, as it
provided work for those workers who were not familiar with harvest work. But on this particular
occasion, they were angered by the arbitrary stopping of MGNREGA work for 4 months.
Many of the agricultural wage labourers who go for MGNREGA work report that they go for
MGNREGA work only after agricultural work is completed, for they feel that MGNREGA with
its delayed payment of wages cannot be fully relied upon. In Ambalappara panchayat, the
random sample included a high proportion of agricultural wage labourers. 70% of the sample
said that they go for MGNREGA only after agricultural work is completed, indicating that there
is no option of going for both works. Such a predicament is also because the concept of
‗demand for work‘ is non-existent. This is one reason why agricultural wage labourers wait for
the agricultural work to get over before going for MGNREGA worker. Workers say that if they
ask the Mate for work , by the time the Mate finally calls them for work, some other agricultural
work may have emerged which they are reluctant to forego. Instances of workers having to make
a choice between agricultural work and MGNREGA work has been more widely reported from
Palakkad.
135
This problem is further aggravated by declining work opportunities in the agricultural sector.
This is even beginning to be reported from districts like Palakkad, where the decline in
agriculture, particularly paddy cultivation, has been lesser compared to other districts. Decline in
agriculture, coupled with mechanisation of agricultural operations, particularly harvest, has
reduced the work opportunities for the agricultural wage labourers. For this section of workers,
MGNREGA is an important livelihood support system, if it is synchronised with existing wage
labour opportunities. It is particularly so for those who are unable to do the hard physical labour
demanded in the construction work sector, which is a growing sector in the state.
As one worker from Ambalappara commented-‗...the only work we know is agricultural work. When the
tractor came, a lot of work disappeared. When the JCB came, our work was further reduced. The work that we
used to get in summer was ‘veli pani’ and ‘kaadu vettal’ (erecting bio fences and removing wild vegetation). Today
there are machines for the latter, and the work of erecting bio fences has stopped. So MGNREGA work is the
only relief now for us, and we need to get more work under NREG and we need to get wages without delay as
well‘.
While MGNREGA staff do say that they try to plan MGNREGA activities in such a way that
they do not clash with agricultural activities, there has been no concerted effort to formulate an
annual plan, with marking out of specific time periods where there is a lull in agricultural
activities when MGNREGA activities could step in. Formulating such an annual labour calendar
should be undertaken at sub-ward levels, wherein farmers and workers can collectively plan for
the same.
5.3.2 Economic impact of MGNREGA on household income and savings
Exploring this dimension has not been easy, for the workers were very reluctant to reveal details
about income and savings. They feared that by acknowledging an improvement in their
economic well-being, they may lose out on likely welfare measures in the future. In certain cases,
misleading information was provided. Probing into such details was therefore difficult. There
also existed problems in the existing BPL classification, wherein many eligible families were not
given the BPL status, with the reverse also being true. This was an added reason why workers
and their family members were unwilling to divulge full details. Nevertheless, the following
information is indicative.
5.3.3 Additional Saving & Reduction in Indebtedness from MGNREGA Income
When asked to comment on the change in income levels, workers were reluctant to speak openly.
In many cases, they have not responded to this question, making quantitative analysis of this data
136
difficult. While probing further, it was noted that in certain cases the number of labour days may
have actually increased, but workers do not perceive that there has been an increase in income
because of the delayed payment of wages.
Given the broad socio-economic profile of the workers and their living conditions, it is natural
that any additional income would go into meeting immediate consumption requirements, the
purchase of small time assets, into children‘s education and health related expenditure. Less than
40% of workers in the entire sample were provided with work ranging from 41-99 days. 57% got
less than 40 days of work. With majority of the workers getting less than 40 days of work a year,
the impact is felt not so much as in increase in savings, but more in terms of reduction in
indebtedness.
It is no surprise that those who report a slight increase in income levels are those who have
worked for a greater number of days. On an average only 15% of the workers have reported an
increase in savings (see Table 5.13). Within this group, the greatest percentage of workers are
those who have worked for more than 50 days. Table 5.13 correlates the percentage of workers
who have been able to save from the money earned through MGNREGA with the number of
days that they have worked. The least increase is reported from those who have worked for less
than 25 days. This trend is largely true for almost all the caste groups. There are however
workers who say that despite working for 60-70 days, they do not feel as though their income has
increased as they have stopped going for other work, and also because household expenditure
has increased. But for those workers who have worked for more than 50 days and who have
other sources of income, MGNREGA has helped to further livelihood security.
Another issue pointed out by workers is that getting money in lump sum, helps them to save
money. Earlier, when they used to be paid on a daily wage basis, it was used up very quickly on
day-to-day needs. In the event of delayed payment however, they have had to borrow money.
Workers across the district have reported that delayed payment of wages compels them to take
loans, and by the time they get their wages, much of it goes in repayment of borrowed money.
Many of them are then forced to buy groceries on loan, and are then taunted by the shop owner
until they pay up.
137
Table 5.13: Percentage of workers able to save from NREGA income Days Worked SC ST OBC Others Total
0-25 N=262
5.19 16.13 4.35 14.89 9.92
26-50 N=254
15.00 23.40 13.89 18.18 16.54
51-75 N=183
14.29 22.22 19.57 20.00 18.03
76-99 N=109
16.13 17.24 8.00 18.18 14.68
100.00 N=166
6.98 21.74 19.05 12.50 15.06
>100 N=11
100.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 27.27
Total N=985
11.82 19.74 12.74 16.47 14.72
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
A similar trend is visible in the relationship between the number of days worked and reduction
in indebtedness. It needs to be kept in mind that a significant majority of workers (78%) had
borrowed money. Of the 55% of workers who reported that a reduction in indebtedness since
MGNREGA, the reduction in indebtedness is directly correlated with an increase in the number
of days worked. Greater reduction in indebtedness has been reported by workers who have
worked for 100 days, followed by those who have worked between 75-99 days.
Table 5.14: Percentage of workers able to reduce the indebtedness from the NREGA income
Days worked SC ST OBC Others Total
0-25 N=255
35.90 38.71 41.54 53.49 41.18
26-50 N=247
60.49 46.34 50.70 53.49 54.25
51-75 N=177
56.25 53.66 70.45 62.50 60.45
76-99 N=108
58.06 64.29 72.00 54.55 62.04
100 N=159
51.22 79.07 73.17 70.97 68.55
>100 N=11
100.00 75.00 60.00 0.00 72.73
Total N=957
51.85 54.79 57.77 58.28 55.38
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Many workers also observed that had it not been for delayed payment, they would have been
able to repay a larger share of their existing loans. Of the workers who reported that they could
138
reduce their indebtedness, majority of the workers (38%) could reduce their indebtedness only
by one fourth, 20% by half. Only 10% were able to reduce their indebtedness by three-fourth
and 6% fully.
Table 5.15 Reduction in the indebtedness
District Not applicable
One fourth
Half Three fourth
Full Don't know
Total
Palakkad 21.6 34.32 25.44 11.24 6.8 0.59 100
Wayanad 23.68 21.05 38.16 10.53 6.58 0 100
Idukki 35.6 42.41 9.95 9.42 2.09 0.52 100
Kasargod 14.84 49.45 15.38 8.24 8.79 3.3 100
Total 23.63 38.5 20.58 10.04 6.1 1.14 100
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
5.3.4 Increase in Household Expenditure
While the increase in savings is marginal (Table 5.13), a significant number (67%) report an
increase in household consumption with MGNREG income. This indicates that a certain degree
of enhancement in economic well-being has taken place.
Table 5.16: Percentage of Households whose consumption level has improved after MGNREGA
District SC ST OBC Others All category
Palakkad 75.53 64.51 70.70 85.71 72.44
Wayanad 72.72 72.97 84 70 73.46
Idukki 56.12 61.01 52.38 65.43 59.17
Kasargod 76.47 57.97 67.24 59.18 65.36
Total 70.11 63.17 69.73 67.41 67.72
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
Of the 67% who reported an increase in household consumption, the highest expenditure was
on food, followed by clothing, health, loan repayment, education, household durables and so on.
In Idukki as much as 83% of the workers reported that it was expenditure on food that had
increased. This is an indication of the socio-economic status of the families, and that they were
earlier not able to spend enough on this need prior to MGNREGA. In addition, 35% of the
group reported that they have been able to ensure food to all family members since working
under MGNREGA. This indicates the poverty level within this group, and how critical a
programme like MGNREGA is in ensuring livelihood security. It also emphasises the imperative
need to provide 100 days of additional employment to this group of people.
139
Table 5.17: Distribution of additional income*
Palakkad Wayanad Idukki Kasargod Total
Food 63.92 73.61 82.91 56.29 67.39
Clothing 46.88 77.78 38.61 37.75 46.25
Housing 11.65 16.67 9.49 3.97 10.10
Household Durables 24.43 41.67 14.56 22.52 23.60
Health 42.61 38.89 53.16 23.18 40.52
Education 30.11 40.28 30.38 17.22 28.51
Loan Repayment 42.61 50.00 21.52 29.14 36.02
Social Ceremonies 21.59 11.11 3.16 2.65 12.69
Animal Husbandry 3.13 8.33 1.27 2.65 3.14
* This is for the 67% of people who reported an increase in consumption levels, based on the
previous table. This distribution is calculated based on the multiple response questions hence it
will not add to 100.
5.3.4.a Expenditure on Children’s Education and Health
One of the main benefits from MGNREGA income has been increased expenditure on
children‘s education and on health related issues. 32% of workers said that they could now spend
more on children‘s education, and 45% were able to spend more on health. With regard to
children‘s education, most workers with children have observed that they are able to spend on
books, bus travel, tuition fees and clothes for the children. They find it easier to send their
children to hostels now. A tribal worker from Adimali says- ‗Earlier when my children would ask
me for books, I would not be able to buy it for weeks. Now, I am able to buy it when they need
it‘. Another worker from the same panchayat- ‗Even if in small ways, I too am able to contribute
towards their education by way of purchasing books, paying fees, vehicle charges etc.‘
In tribal pockets like Agali and Pudur in Attappady, Palakkad, tribal women said that after
MGNREGA, they were able to save some money which they used to go and visit their children
who lived in far away tribal hostels. In Elapully, workers were able to arrange for tuition for their
children. A woman worker in Pattanchery says-― I don‘t withdraw money till school re-opens, I
reserve it for my children‖. There were two instances, wherein older workers from
Vadakarapathy said that they gave a portion of their income from MGNREGA for their
grandchildren‘s education.
5.3.4.b Purchase of Assets
From workers‘ responses, the savings from MGNREGA was not substantial enough to purchase
large assets. 20% said that they bought small assets such as television sets, mixies, mobile phones,
furniture (chairs and tables) and so on.
140
5.4 Payment of wages to the bank account of the holder
This has been an important initiative, for it provided thousands of workers with a bank account,
which they consider as a symbol of dignity. This has been expressed by workers across the four
districts, who say that they would have otherwise never have had a bank account of their own.
This is particularly so, with the majority of NREG workers being women. As the data indicates,
only 7% of the workers had bank accounts prior to MGNREGA. Many women cited the
importance of being able to go to the bank by them, and it appears to have enhanced their self-
esteem. It also appears to have given them a sense of confidence, in going out of the house and
getting things done. While this remains so, the poor treatment that some of the workers have
been subject to at the bank, has been unfortunate. As has been discussed in detail in chapter 2
(see Section 2.6.7 in Chapter 2), MGNREGA workers are not made to feel welcome in the bank.
Many instances (quoted in Chapter 2) have been reported wherein MGNREGA workers have
been made to feel as though they are an additional burden to the bank staff, and are made to wait
until the bank has dealt with all other clients. There have also been instances where they were
shouted at and ridiculed in public. It emerges that the bank officials‘ primary source of irritation
concerns the fact that MGNREGA workers were given the privilege to start zero balance
accounts. While the zero balance norms was abided in the initial stages, subsequently many banks
have asked workers to deposit an amount of Rs 100-500 to start their accounts. From what
workers say, it is clear that the banks are not ready to treat NREG workers as equal citizens. A
clear policy change is required on the part of the banks, wherein they treat NREG workers and
other underprivileged account holders with dignity and respect.
Table 5.18: Percentage of people who had bank account prior to MGNREGA
Districts SC ST OBC Others All category
Palakkad N=479
2.73 7.61 4.88 16.13 5.38
Wayanad N=100
9.09 5.13 4.00 5.00 5.00
Idukki N=275
7.00 1.67 17.39 4.82 6.18
Kasargode N=237
7.41 10.00 7.02 11.76 9.32
Total N=1091
4.89 6.51 6.32 8.65 6.40
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
141
5.5 Impact of MGNREGA on Women
Implementation of the programme has had an impact on the well-being of women in numerous
ways. Some of the positive impacts include creating the space for participation of women in
public works, and the opportunity for collective work. The involvement of the Kudumbashree
system in work supervision and execution also opened up an enormous challenge for women to
engage themselves in activities that were hitherto the prerogative of men. In addition, the
income earned from MGNREGA, and the payment of wages to the individual bank accounts of
workers has also brought about important changes. Details of the above-mentioned changes are
discussed below.
5.5.1 Increased Presence of Women in Public Works
Engaging the Kudumbashree community organisation system in the planning, execution and
supervision of MGNREG works opened up the space for participation of women in
MGNREG implementation. At the planning stage, the ward level ADS of the Kudumbashree
system is to facilitate neighbourhood level planning discussions which are then consolidated at
higher levels. With regard to work execution and supervision, the Mate (who represents the
Kudumbashree system) plays a critical role. The existing precedent in the case of public works
was to tender out the work to a contractor. Even when ‗beneficiary committees‘ were
constituted, the convenor was often an underprivileged individual, who was actually controlled
by a benami contractor. Through NREG, the government tried to break this precedent. A step
by step method for community contracting was worked out, beginning with the project initiation
meeting that is to be held a week before commencement of work, setting up the citizen
information boards, the process of public scrutiny of muster rolls, of worker verification of
muster roll, constitution of the VMC to inspect worksites, of participatory measurement of the
work, and social audit. The Mate plays a critical role in the facilitation of all of these above-
mentioned measures.
Women have observed that the opportunity to work in groups makes MGNREG work more
attractive. Many stated that working with women gives an added sense of security (as most of
the MGNREG workers in the state are women). Some women observe that with MGNREGA
they are working on a common work, as compared to working for somebody or on somebody
else‘s land. They therefore feel that it is ‗our work‘ and not somebody else‘s work. The sense of
ownership is higher in certain cases.
142
The drawback noticed is that not all women participate in an informed manner. The process is
often ‗Mate-centered‘ as has been discussed in Chapter 2. This has inhibited many women from
coming forward with their opinions and suggestions. Workers are also not adequately informed
about the various rights based provisions of the Act, and their only source of information is the
Mate. As a result, the Mate has been found to grow into a power centre, especially when she is
an active member of a political party and shares a working relationship with the concerned
panchayat member/s. In such cases, the workers tend to see the member and the Mate as a
power centre and are afraid of talking out openly about any contentious issue. Hence, while
MGNREGA led to the widespread participation of women as workers, it has not led to an
adequate empowerment of workers. Workers do not feel empowered enough to question the
Mate or the Member, when their rights are violated.
5.5.2 An opportunity to work outside the home
As mentioned earlier, first-time wage labourers constituted less than 20% of the randomly
selected workers from each GP. Almost all such workers were women, and came from families
who had some other source of income, as a result of which women were not compelled to go
for work. This has been particularly noticed in certain pockets. In certain other cases, women
were not allowed to go out for work despite the economic crises at home. This has been
reported from certain Muslim pockets. In Alanellur GP in Palakkad for instance, a number of
Muslim women have come for MGNREG work. This included women who have been
abandoned by their husbands as well as women who were forbidden to go out for work by their
families, but have been permitted to do so, as MGNREG work is considered to be more
respectable than other wage labour. While this was reported in larger numbers from Alanellur
GP, such random cases were reported from many other panchayats as well. The ability to go out
and work however gave such women the opportunity to interact with others and to learn more
about the outside world. They observe that their understanding about the functioning of the
panchayat and various schemes (such as insurance and pension schemes) has enhanced.
5.5.3 The Poorest Woman
An important finding that has emerged in the course of this study is that while women engage as
workers, their informed participation is lacking. This is particularly so in the case of the most
underprivileged women, from SC and ST communities. This group of women, face a high
degree of economic and social deprivation and disempowerment, and were found to be poorly
informed about the various provisions of MGNREGA, the expected responsibilities of the
Mate and so on. They also do not appear to be adequately represented amongst the Mates. The
143
poorer workers were found to face a disadvantage in this regard, when the Mate in question was
from more privileged economic context. This was found to be true in many cases, across the
four district. The Mate very often comes from a relatively better-off economic situation than the
workers, and in some cases, enjoyed close connections with one of the mainstream political
parties. In certain cases, there was a caste dimension to this as well, particularly when non-tribal
Mates functioned in tribal contexts. In such cases, the Mate‘s style of functioning alienated her
from the workers, particularly the poorer workers. The latter viewed the Mate as a power centre,
who could not be antagonised as it would harm their chances of getting work. A far more
nuanced and sensitive approach to womens‘ empowerment is required, that takes into
consideration class-caste differences and resultant power equations, in order to ensure the
participation of the most marginalised group of women.
5.5.4 Supervisory Abilities
One of the notable features of entrusting work supervision with the Kudumbashree system was
that it was women who were supervising daily work. They were to ensure that worksites were
maintained as per the norms, muster rolls and job cards were filled up regularly, and the daily
quantum of work was ensured. This opened up a new work opportunity for women. While this
has enhanced the supervisory and managerial skills of some of the women engaged as Mates,
there are also serious issues in the way in which some of the Mate have handled it. Their present
level of functioning also indicates that the training given to the Mates on these aspects is
inadequate. They have not been able to grow into the stature of impartial supervisors, which has
affected their self-esteem as well. On the other hand, re-orienting the Mates about their
responsibilities and enhancing their capacity to do so, will continue to give an opportunity to
women to take on this role effectively. Political interference in the functioning of Mates is also an
area of serious concern. Instances have been reported when panchayat members have compelled
Mates to take up works before the muster roll was ready, and then inserting the names of the
concerned workers in to the muster roll of some other sanctioned work, in order to pay wages.
5.5.5 The Prevailing Opinion about MGNREGA work and its impact on women workers
In general, owing to the repetitive nature of the work taken up under MGNREGA (discussed in
Chapter 3), and the futility of certain activities such as digging of roadside drains, digging of rain
water pits, of undertaking afforestation without protecting the planted saplings etc has
reinforced the belief that MGNREGA is wasteful work. Such an impression has gathered
strength in areas where the Mates are not particularly strict about the work timing. Workers
therefore are found to come in late and go early. The presence of first time wage workers, who
144
are not familiar with hard physical labour has also created the impression that MGNREG work
is very light. As discussed in Chapter 4, instances of overestimation of work by the Overseers
leads to the preparation of an estimate where the labour component is overestimated. As a
result, workers are able to get full wages with lesser output. Overseers explain that if they are
strict about the work estimation and final measurement, workers may not be able to deliver the
expected output. This they feel is so as women workers are not able to deliver the desired output,
especially when they are not used to hard physical labour. This implies that there is a serious
problem with the present manner of work estimation. As an outcome of these various factors,
workers are able to get away with reduced output in certain cases. It has also reinforced the
general opinion that this is so as women workers are incapable of doing hard physical work. This
has led to an under-valuation of the programme and the role of women in the programme.
Women complain that they are often publicly ridiculed for being lazy and not working well. They
were particularly hurt by such comments, when they were engaged in difficult work such as the
cleaning up and desilting of irrigation canals in Palakkad. It involved not just desilting, but also
clearing of waste which gave many of them skin irritations and allergies. Only a transparent work
estimation can redress this issue.
5.5.6 Work Timings for Women
There are variations in the degree to which the laid out work timing of 8 am to 5 pm with a one
hour lunch break is followed. In certain worksites it is strictly followed, but not so in others.
Women workers on the whole have however commented that the 8 am to 5 pm work timing is
not suitable to them. When worksites are located a few kilometres away from home, reaching the
worksite at 8 A M is difficult for most women, especially those with small children, as they have
to leave home before the children leave for school. In addition, since they are not able to return
home for lunch, they have to carry their lunch to the worksite. For many women, getting the
meal ready by 8 AM is also reported to be difficult. Many women are found to carry both their
breakfast and lunch to the worksite, as they do not find the time to eat their breakfast before
leaving for work. This results in them taking three breaks while at work- for breakfast, lunch and
the afternoon tea. Women are also troubled by the fact that they are not at home when their
children return from school, especially when they do not have the support of other family
members in taking care of their children.
Another reason why women have asked for a shortening of the work timing is because they are
unable to cope with the work requirements at home. With the existing work timing it is 6 pm or
145
even later when they get back home. Many of them have to walk back home. Once back, in
addition to cooking the evening meal (which is the main meal for most worker families), they
have to fetch water, wash clothes and so on. When they work for 14 days at a stretch, they are
not able to collect firewood for daily use. This is a problem that affects a significant majority of
the workers as 95% of the workers rely on firewood as cooking fuel. Washing clothes, in many
cases, involves walking up to the nearby stream or other water point. Cumulatively therefore, this
is found to add to the mental stress of women workers, especially so as only 12% of them
receive any support in domestic work from other family members. Those who do receive
support, are those who have grown-up daughters or daughter-in-laws at home.
While womens‘ grievance about the long work hours needs to be taken seriously, the fact that
work timings are not being followed is also an issue of concern. It would therefore be advisable
wherein a piece-rate system of work assessment is worked out. Apart from providing more
flexible work timings to women workers, such a system will make clear the daily output of work
that is required from each worker.
5.5.7 Women’s decision making at home
Majority of the workforce comprise of women. With individual bank accounts being opened for
all workers, MGNREGA has enhanced the control that women have over their income. This is
manifested in the increased spending on food, children‘s education and health related issues with
the money earned from MGNREGA (see Table 5.17). Most of the workers have been earning
members of the family even before MGNREGA. Only about 12 % of the sample were not so.
Women however feel that they have a greater control over the income they earn through
MGNREGA, as the wages are paid in lump sum. If they worked for 10 days in one MGNREGA
activity, they would get a sum of Rs 1250 (now Rs 1500) all at once, which was significant. This
enabled them to set aside some part of their income for the purchase of books and uniforms for
their children, or for purchase of groceries in slightly larger quantities. When they go for other
daily wage labour opportunities, the daily wages they get is spent on essentials and they are not
left with anything much. They are then compelled to ask their husbands for money when in
need. This perceived feeling of gain was however offset when wages were delayed. Women felt
that if the number of working days a year were increased, and if the wages were released on
time, the impact of MGNREGA would be higher. Some women have observed that the income
that they earn from MGNREGA has helped them to repay loans with greater regularity.
146
56% of the workers interviewed said that the decision making power of women within the home
had increased since they started earning money under MGNREGA. This decision-making was
however mostly restricted to decisions regarding purchase of certain household items, or
spending on children‘s education, repaying of loans and so on. Women who felt that there had
been a small change in the status quo regarding power relations at home, were a minority. This
group of women observed that they did not feel as dependent upon their husbands as before.
They felt that since they too earned money, they did not have to seek their husband‘s consent for
each and every small issue. It appears to have given them the feeling that they too could take
decisions. For the majority, it was restricted to the fact that they could now spend a little bit more
on food, education of their children and so on, which was constrained earlier.
Table 5.19: Percentage of workers said MGNREGA has increased women’s decision making power
District SC ST OBC Others Total
Palakkad 61.75 62.37 63.41 50.00 61.33
Wayanad 63.64 56.41 70.83 66.67 62.89
Idukki 53.85 47.37 45.00 56.63 51.92
Kasargod 33.96 51.52 40.35 59.57 46.70
Total 55.33 55.29 57.74 57.39 56.06
Source: Field Survey 2010-11
The opportunity to work in groups has brought in a collective spirit to work, in certain cases. It
has given women the space to share their concerns with a larger group and learn about larger
issues. Some of them say that they are more aware of general affairs, and this exposure has given
some of them the ability to voice their opinions and take decisions at home as well.
5.5.8 The ATM card and the erosion of control?
While the opening of individual bank accounts and being paid wages in a consolidated fashion
has led to a feeling of greater economic well-being amongst women workers, the introduction of
the ATM card has been viewed with concern. In panchayats where the ATM system has been
introduced, it is being reported that the husband and the son use the mother‘s/wife‘s ATM card.
Women who live far from the town often entrust their husbands or sons to withdraw money and
very often they do not get the full amount. In such cases women feel that they are losing control
over their savings. They also observe that not giving the ATM card to the men in the house
when the latter ask for it, becomes a point of conflict. So many a time, to avoid a conflict
situation, they give the card to the men. In other cases, women who are not familiar with using
147
the ATM card, seek the help of the Mates while withdrawing money. In many such cases, they
pay a small commission for the help rendered.
5.6 Other Changes
It has been reported that the number of local vendors, selling clothes, groceries and so on, has
increased since the MGNREGA. This has been reported in the FGDs conducted in different
parts. Women also complain that local vendors ask for higher prices, as they feel women have
more money with them since MGNREGA.
It has also been reported that some women now go to the market to purchase certain groceries
in bulk, rather than in smaller amounts. Since they get their wages in lump sum, some of them
are able to set aside some money for such purchase, which is more beneficial than buying in
smaller quantities. It is also reported from certain areas that local shopkeepers are more willing
to lend money to MGNREGA workers, as they are sure that the latter will get their wages at
some point in the future.
148
Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS
This concluding section focuses on conclusions and recommendations that arise from this study.
The conclusions have been drawn out keeping in mind the objectives that were considered for
this evaluation. The following table sums up in brief the key questions and sub-questions that
provided the overall framework for the present evaluation (as per the Memorandum of
Understanding between SIRD, Kottarakara on behalf of Govt. of Kerala and TISS, Mumbai).
The details of the issues discussed below have been dealt with in earlier chapters.
The foremost objective was to ‗assess the quality of the programme implementation with
reference to the stated objectives, and to assess the effectiveness of the processes which are
intended to ensure the rights-based framework of the Act.
6.1 Rights and Rights-Based Processes
The extent to which the
rights based framework has
been achieved
This dimension has not been adequately appreciated in programme
implementation. The right to demand for work, which is the most
critical entitlement assured by the Act has not been ensured. Similar
is the case with the right to unemployment allowance, the right to
compensation for delayed payment, the right to worksite facilities,
the right to additional travel allowance and so on.
Awareness amongst
workers about the rights-
based framework
Awareness amongst the workers about the various rights-based
provisions in the Act is very low. Lack of awareness was particularly
noticed regarding the right to demand for work, right to payment of
wages within 14 days and the right to get unemployment allowance
(see Table 2.29).
Details about the rights- based provisions are printed on the inner
back cover of the job card. This does not seem to have enhanced
worker awareness. Written communication may not yield the desired
results, especially so as 33% of the interviewed workers were
illiterate. Apart from the initial awareness generation drives
conducted in the first phase districts, which provided general details
about the programme, there appears to be no concerted effort on
the part of the panchayat and the bureaucracy to continue with such
information dissemination programmes.
149
Recommendations
1. Programme implementation needs to be re-structured around the basic entitlements
granted by the Act. Currently, the rights-based provisions are getting scuttled in
bureaucratic procedures. This is reflected in the manner in which the right to demand has
been reduced to the mandatory filling in of demand application forms, mostly after the
work has commenced, or in some cases, even after work completion.
2. The panchayat and department level bureaucracy needs to be made clearly aware and re-
educated about the rights-based framework that guides the implementation of
MGNREGA, and to re-structure implementation in a manner that provides central
importance to the fulfilment of these rights.
3. Worker education programmes need to be initiated urgently. After the initial round of
awareness programmes in the first phase districts, there appears to have been little follow-
up in this regard. Worker education modules need to be developed around the theme of
the entitlements provided by the Act
the possibilities of integrating natural resource protection with livelihood security
under MGNREGA.
4. The Social Audit of MGNREGA, while being made mandatory, should include the
education component, wherein the Grama Sabha is educated about the rights and
entitlements assured by the Act. The Social Audit process should also periodically review
the change in awareness levels amongst workers and the extent to which they exercise their
rights.
5. Initiate citizens education programmes at the worksite, which will educate not only the
worker, but also the local people. While doing so, the general socio-economic profile of
MGNREG workers needs to be kept in mind. The present survey indicates that in addition
to the 33% of the sampled workers who were illiterate, another 17% had studied only upto
the primary school level. 5 Innovative education modules therefore need to be designed to
reach out to this group of people, that combine both print and audio-visual media. The
language of communication should be simple and clear.
150
6.2 Work Planning and Labour Budget Preparation
What is the process of
labour budget
preparation?
NHGs and Grama Sabhas are convened to elicit people‘s opinions
about the work that is required in each ward. Projects are to be
formulated based on these suggestions, leading to the formation of
the action plan. While these meetings are convened, the actual
involvement of the workers in plan formulation is low. This is
indicated by poor levels of participation at these meetings. Panchayat
members, Mates, NREG Overseers and political party representatives
appear to have a larger say in deciding upon activities to be taken up.
Local people do not feel that they have a major role in such decisions.
As per the current norms, the information and perspective of the
Mate who convenes the neighbourhood groups lays the foundation
for the labour budget preparation. The Mate‘s level of understanding
about the scope of MGNREGA activities is poor. Neither the Mates
nor the workers are adequately informed about the range of activities
possible under MGNREGA, and the possibilities of convergence
between MGNREGA and the panchayat local plans in implementing
the same. Greater professional inputs are required to make the ward
level micro planning exercise more meaningful and participatory.
Is there any mismatch
between demand for
work and availability of
work?
It is difficult to talk of work availability vis-a-vis demand, as the
practice of demanding for work is almost non-existent. While
demand application forms are filled up by workers, these are done
only to fulfil the procedure, and they are not an expression of
demand. In many cases, the demand forms are filled up and given to
the Mate upon completion of the work, so as to tally the number of
days worked with the number of days demanded. So there is no
foolproof estimation of demand for work.
What are the steps taken
by the panchayats to fill
the gap between demand
and availability?
The panchayats prepare annual action plans that outlines activities to
be taken up in different parts of the panchayat. But this action plan
does not cater to the existing demand for work, as there is no correct
estimation of the actual demand for work in each panchayat.
151
Recommendations
Participation in Planning 1. Steps need to be taken to ensure the informed participation of people in the
neighbourhood and ward level meetings. Not only are existing levels of participation low,
the workers are not adequately informed about the nature and scope of MGNREGA
activities. Both workers‘ awareness and levels of participation need to be enhanced. Provide
professional inputs to make ward level micro planning realistic. A team of professionals
need to be appointed at the panchayat level, who can orient the NHG and ward level plan
preparation, so that the annual plans take an integrated approach to the range of activities
permitted under MGNREGA, as well as to explore possibilities of convergence between
MGNREGA plans and panchayat plans. The existing facilitation by the Grama Sabha
Facilitator and the Mate is proving inadequate.
2. A series of ward level meetings needs to be organised to draw up labour budgets that take
into account the existing labour demand and labour opportunities, so that the latter does
not clash with MGNREG work. Special meetings also need to be convened in SC, ST and
other poor colonies, so that a greater number of people participate in this process. Such
meetings need to be facilitated by trained personnel.
3. While measures need to be taken to enhance participation levels, participation should not
be confined to attendance at meetings. Prior informed consent of at least 75% of the
general body/grama sabha should be made mandatory before action plans are approved.
Acquiring signatures of people as proof of consent should be avoided. Suitable measures
need to be devised to avoid this. Once again, appropriate facilitation of such meetings
should be ensured.
Demanding Work 1. Steps need to be taken to accurately assess existing demand for work at the ward and
panchayat level. The major reason for the mismatch between demand and availability of
work is the absence of a democratic process of assessing demand.
2. While individual demand for work is important, it is not practical for workers to to go the
panchayat and demand for work, especially when they live at a great distance from the
panchayat. While they do orally demand for work (to the Mate), this is often not treated as a
valid demand for work. An alternative facility to cater to individual demands for work at the
ward level needs to be set up, wherein the demand for work is acknowledged with a dated
receipt. A possibility that may be explored in this regard is to initiate the practice of sending
demand applications through Mobile SMS. This saves both the time and drudgery that is
152
otherwise involved in going to the panchayat. A toll free number may be set up in each
grama panchayat, to which an SMS stating the application for demand may be sent, along
with the sender‘s name and job card number. This message may be simultaneously
transmitted to the block and district level as well. This message may be treated as an
application for work, which can be fed into the MIS system. All further calculations may be
based upon this demand application. Unemployment allowance for delays in providing
work for instance can be calculated based on this SMS message.
3. Do away with the existing practice of making workers fill out demand application forms,
merely to fulfill a procedural requirement needs to be changed. This makes a mockery of
the 'right to demand' for work.
4. Panchayats need to give clear directions to the Mates, to not make workers pay for demand
application forms. m
6.3 Employment Provided
Is there a mismatch
between number of days
of employment
guaranteed and actual
number of days
employed. If so, reasons
for the same.
There is a mismatch. As against the 100 days of work that is to be
provided, the average number of person days of work created in the
four districts is 40. There is however a consistency in what is reported
from the field, in terms of average person days of work provided,
and the information based on MIS entries. According to the MIS data
it is 40.85 and survey data shows an average of 40.67 days of work
was provided to the workers interviewed.
Are there variations in
terms of number of days
employed with reference
to gender?
In Kerala, majority of the workers are women. It is therefore women
who have been employed for a greater number of days.
6.4 Wage Payment
What is the system
followed in the
distribution of wages?
Wages are deposited into the individual bank accounts of workers.
This is a commendable achievement, as each worker operates his or
her own bank account. Women workers were particularly happy about
the fact that MGNREGA gave them the opportunity to open their
153
own bank accounts.
Have households
experienced problems in
getting wages? What are
they?
The major problem households face is regarding the delay in payment
of wages. 30-35% of the randomly selected workers got their wages
only after a month of work completion, which has even extended
upto 4 months. On an average, only 12% of the workers got their
wages within the stipulated 14 day period. This has resulted in serious
problems, as workers are compelled to borrow money for household
expenditure.
The other problem that workers face is regarding the opening of
bank accounts and operating bank accounts. As against the directive
by the state government that entitles MNGREG workers to open
zero balance accounts, workers have had to pay money to open
accounts. They have also had to pay money for taking photographs.
In addition, it has been widely reported that workers are treated
poorly by bank officials, making the bank an unfriendly place as far as
the worker is concerned.
Recommendations
1. Immediate steps need to be taken to redress delay in payment of wages. Busy and over-
loaded servers coupled with poor internet speed are reported to be major factors that
prevent timely uploading of wage payment details. Data entry operators at the panchayat
find it difficult to do data entry during office hours, as the server is used by many and
therefore data entry becomes very slow. Hence measures need to be taken to install a
dedicated server for the State.
2. The NREG State Mission had designed a format that lays down a time line for tasks to be
completed by different functionaries, so that wages are processed within 14 days. This
involves the work to be done by the Mate, Overseer, DEO, Panchayat Accountant and
Panchayat Secretary with respect to payment of wages. This format enables the tracking of
delays at each step. Delay in wage payment however continues. The State Mission and
panchayats need to enforce this procedure.
3. Ensuring payment of compensation for delayed payment- Workers are poorly informed
about the provision that entitles them to compensation for a delay in payment of wages. In
154
cases where they are aware, they are hesitant to antagonise the Mates and the panchayat
officials by submitting a claim for compensation. The panchayats have not taken a pro-
active stand in this regard. Rather than the worker applying for compensation for delayed
payment, the MIS system should automatically record for payment of compensation along
with the wages. This will put pressure on the panchayat to ensure that wages are paid on
time. The practice to make the worker go through the process of filing complaints should
be stopped.
4. Bank officials need to be aware of the need to treat NREG workers as equal citizens. They
need to be made aware of their responsibility to implement the policy of financial
inclusion. The practice of charging commissions (by certain banks) from workers each time
they withdraw their wages also needs to be stopped with immediate effect.
6.5 Quality of Work and Assets Created
What are the types of
works selected under the
scheme?
The works selected are mostly keeping in line with the categorisation
adopted- water conservation, flood control, renovation of water
bodies, work on agricultural land and so on.
Is there any deviation
from the guidelines?
The works taken up in each category do not always meet the intended
objective. Activities taken up in the drought proofing category for
instance, do not always result in drought proofing. Similar is the case
with flood control measures. While biomass conservation is
emphasised in the Act, very often the focus is on removal of existing
vegetation cover in the name of flood control or renovation of water
bodies. The number of afforestation activities taken up has been very
marginal given the wide potential for it in the State.
Have the works helped
in developing creative
assets?
Yes, in certain situations. The possibilities of convergence between
MGNREG activities and the local panchayat plans have not been
adequately explored. This has come in the way of developing creative
assets.
Have they helped in
conserving soil, water
and other natural
resources?
Certain activities have contributed to soil and water conservation such
as the desilting of ponds. But the widespread construction of road side
drains in the name of flood control has aggravated the problem of soil
erosion. It has also removed existing vegetation cover. In each category
155
of work such as flood control or water conservation, there is a
tendency to repeat a few works. This has been found in the case of
digging rain water pits, or digging trenches, without any assessment of
its actual impact on soil conservation and water recharge.
Problems in switching
over to watershed based
planning and
implementation
Preparation of watershed plans have been completed in 80% of the
panchayats in the state. However, since they were made a mandatory
pre-condition in order to take up MGNREG activities on private
agricultural land, the focus of these plans has been on agricultural
development, and not on watershed protection and restoration. Issues
of degradation of natural resources do not figure prominently in these
plans, instead they prioritise on micro level interventions on private
agricultural land, such as digging rain water pits, compost pits, one-
time agricultural operations and so on.
The main hurdle to a switch over is the lack of perspective regarding
the relevance of watershed planning. While the guidelines are explicit,
referring to the need for watershed based plans that need to be
consolidated at the river basin level, in actual practice there is no
agency to handhold this process. The watershed plan is finally in the
hands of the MGNREGA Overseer in the panchayat who is not
sufficiently orientated to the importance of watershed planning.
He/she is under pressure to generate work, and gives a preference to
the most easy to implement micro interventions. There is also no
monitoring of the impact of works taken up, to assess whether they
result in watershed protection or not.
What is the quality of
engineering support?
The quality of engineering support in actual work implementation is
limited. The Overseer is not able to visit all worksites. The reason cited
is the insufficiency of the monthly TA given to the overseer (Rs 500
p.m.) and the lack of transport facility. Also cited is the lack of staff, as
a result of which one Overseer is to look into all aspects of work, viz.
estimate preparation, final bill preparation and measurement of works.
The Assistant Engineer on her/his part, has to supervise works in
more than one panchayat, and this is cited as a reason for thelack of
156
supervision from her/his end.
The quality of technical supervision is found to be particularly lacking
in activities undertaken on private agricultural land.
In addition to engineering support, there is a need for implementing
officers to comprehend the watershed perspective in MGNREGA
implementation. This is found to be lacking.
Recommendations
1. All MGNREGA works need to be placed in the context of a larger watershed plan that
prioritises on restoration of degraded resources (land, water and forests) and livelihood
security, rather than a plan that prioritises on the activities that can be taken up on
agricultural land alone. A watershed approach to MGNREGA activities, taking into account
the specificities of each catchment needs to be initiated. The existing process of watershed
plan preparation does not address this issue.
2. MGNREGA work on private agricultural land tends to be undertaken in an arbitrary
fashion, with no upstream-downstream prioritisation. Activities on private land need to
follow an upstream-downstream prioritisation and within such a prioritisation, preference
should be given to activities on the lands owned by SC/ST and BPL landowners.
3. Initiate agricultural intensification and horticulture programmes on private farmlands, with
a priority to SC/ST and BPL farmers. This will enhance local food production and food
security to the small and marginal farmers.
4. Identify uncultivated agricultural lands and take up lease land farming on a larger scale.
Horticulture development on these lands may be planned, exploring the possibility of
benefit-sharing in such ventures, wherein SC/ST and BPL families get a first priority.
5. Activities on agricultural land need to be integrated with activities in the rest of the
watershed. The absence of an integrated plan is also due to the inadequate emphasis being
given to watershed planning in actual implementation.
6. Identify common lands in all panchayats, with a special focus on degraded forest lands,
degraded forest plantations, and midland hills, wherein afforestation activities can be
157
undertaken. Greater attention needs to be given to afforestation activities. Nursery raising
in itself can generate employment opportunities, but have been taken up only marginally.
7. Widespread digging of ponds and wells in the name of water conservation, the digging and
clearing of roadside drains in the name of flood control, and terracing of land in the name
of land development needs to be changed. The tendency to repeat the same activity again
and again, reflects the lack of planning.
8. The existing training on watershed management given to NREG Overseers does not appear
to have enabled them to understand and appreciate the relevance of watershed planning. It
is important to design field-based training modules which have greater practical relevance.
Most of them equate watershed planning with the digging of rain water pits and laying
contour bunds. The existing training component needs to be re-evaluated and made more
effective. Merely imparting training without a concurrent evaluation of the training
programme reduces its effectiveness. A clear work assessment of the work load of the
MGNREG Overseers and Engineers is required. Additional support needs to be given
where required. Vehicle support needs to be given to the Overseers so as to enable them to
make regular site visits. A method of monitoring whether the site visits are conducted as
per schedule also needs to be instituted. The BDO/BPO needs to monitor the same.
9. Ensure daily measurement of work by mates/barefoot engineers. If Mates are entrusted
with this work, they should be suitably trained.
10. Close supervision of work estimates to rule out both over and under estimation. The
former leads to inadequate work output, reinforcing the belief that MGNREGA work is
light work. Under estimation leads to reduced wages for the workers.
11. A greater degree of professionalism is to be ensured in the planning of works, preparation
of work estimates, work execution and measurement of final work. A number of cases
have been reported where in the work output was lesser than estimated, as a result of which
wages to workers were reduced. This led to political interference, wherein the concerned
panchayat member intervenes to ensure that minimum wages were paid. In many such
cases, the panchayat member over rules the overseer. In certain other cases, over-estimation
of the labour componenet, results in a situation wherein workers work in a very relaxed
pace, but get minimum wages. This reinforces the widely impression that MGNREGA
work is casual. Complications also arise when workers mix in groups which include both
the young and the old. In certain cases, the elderly workers have pointed out that the
158
younger workers help them to complete their quota of work. Since the work is uniformly
divided amongst workers, such practices can reduce total work output. It is understood that
the Time and Motion study has been completed for the State, in which case, the age-
specific daily quota of work can be fixed for each worker. Norms need to be fixed for the
daily quota of work to be completed by elderly and disabled workers. All of this point to
the need for greater supervision in the manner in which estimates are prepared. Political
interference should not be entertained in this regard.
6.6 Worksite Facilities
What are the facilities
made available in the
worksite? Are they
adequate? If not,
what more are
required?
Amongst the four main worksite facilities made available- drinking water,
shade, first aid and crèche, it is the crèche facility that is least provided,
followed by shelter. The provision of both these needs to be improved.
Currently, crèche facilities need to be provided only if there are a
minimum of 5 children in a worksite. This could be brought down to 3
in the Kerala situation, where the number of children are lesser than in
other States, owing to the reduced fertility. The provision of shelter for
workers is not taken seriously, as a result of which it is not provided most
of the time. The quality of first aid boxes needs enhancement. The
attention that workers get in the event of suffering an accident at the
worksite also needs to be improved.
What are the views of
the women employed?
What are the
problems they face,
particularly at the
worksite?
The problems that women face are
1. The tools are often too heavy for women to use. More women-friendly tools need to be provided.
2. Women with small children are not able to come for work owing to the absence of crèche facilities. In certain pockets, the number of such women is high.
3. Existing work timings have been reported to be a problem for most women. They have expressed difficulties in finishing all household work, including getting the children ready for school and then rushing to the worksite by 8 am. Most of the women are not assisted by other family members in undertaking household activties.
Recommendations
1. A monitoring of the quality of the existing worksite facilities must be undertaken. The
panchayat along with the block and district level machinery need to take up redressal
159
mechanisms in this regard. Social auditors to report on the provision of worksite
facilities on a regular basis, and action to be taken by the panchayat and supervising
officials, based on these reports.
2. A clear assessment of the requirement of the creche facilities needs to be made. This can
be done at the ward level.
3. The availability of material for providing facilities for shelter at the ward level needs to
be assessed.
4. Panchayats need to put in place a working system for the procurement, storage and
distribution of tools. The existing arrangement between the panchayat and the ADS
system does not appear to be working well and workers complain on inadequate tools at
the worksite.
5. Tools to be designed keeping in mind the requirements of the women workers and
elderly workers. An assessment of the existing quality of tools needs to be undertaken
based on random visits to worksites.
6. Provide rent to workers for tools that they bring from home. MGNREGA State Mission
to ensure that all panchayats are following this system.
7. Provide travel allowance to workers when they work at sites that are more than 5 kms
away from their residence. MGNREGS State Mission to ensure that TA is being
provided by the panchayats.
8. Citizen Information Boards to be installed at all worksites. The absence of such boards
to be reported by Mates and supervising officials from the Rural Development
Department. In the absence of such reports, action to be taken against those responsible.
9. A possible revision in work timings may be considered given the widespread reports
from women about the unsuitability of existing work timings. A possible conversion to a
piece rate system may be considered. This however, needs to be carefully monitored, and
Mates need to be equipped to undertake daily measurement of work, in order to prevent
reduced output of work.
6.7 ICT/MIS Related Issues
MIS- A Rights Based Tool Currently the MIS is used as a pure data entry tool. In a rights based programme like
MGNREGA, the MIS can be designed in a manner in which the rights and entitlements of the
workers can be ensured. While the worker is entitled to compensation for unemployment and for
delayed payment of wages, the existing system demands the worker to apply for compensation.
160
A simple design modification can lead to a situation wherein compensation is automatically paid
to the worker, based upon the date of demand for work, and date of work completion. It is also
understood from discussions with data entry operators, that the current MIS system allows them
to mask the delay in payment of wages. This needs to be looked into by MIS experts. This too
can be corrected with an MIS generated receipt for the demand for work, and the automatic
calculation of compensation for non-provision of work, or delay in payment of wages.
1. Slow servers- The Kerala MIS is linked to the National Informatic Centre (NIC) servers.
Due to the high volume of data input, these servers are very busy during the day time,
making data entry very slow and tedious. This is one of the most important factors that
contribute to delay in payment of wages. This situation needs to be addressed by setting
up an exclusive server for the state, preferably in Trivandrum.
2. Poor internet speed is also widely reported, which aggravates the earlier mentioned
overload of the existing server. The existing internet connections in the grama
panchayats need to be converted to high-speed broadband connections. The
MGNREGS State Mission should have a Technical Cell, in collaboration with the NIC,
to look into the problems arise in this regard.
3. Existing MIS data is on the grama panchayat basis. Details of job card registration, work
demand, payment of wages etc are all available on a panchayat basis. Panchayats in
Kerala, have an average population of 26,000, comparable to the population at the
Block/Mandal level in some other states. There are at least 15-23 wards in each
panchayat, and grama sabhas are organised at the panchayat ward level. It will therefore
be more meaningful if the MIS data is generated at the panchayat ward level. This will be
particularly useful while conducting Social Audit and other evaluations. The availability
of ward level data will also enable the Grama Sabhas to assess the situation and the
performance of the programme in their respective wards.
4. Despite online data entry, panchayat staff (at all levels) were inclined to maintain files on
paper, which doubled the work burden and reduced speed. A task force should be
appointed to look into this issue, and to suggest ways by which such work duplication
can be avoided.
5. Online payment of wages to the bank account of workers will reduce delay in payment
of wages. Currently, each worker‘s payment details have to be written out manually.
ICT With regard to the use of smart cards and hand held devices, this has been initiated on an
experimental basis in certain panchayats in Palakkad and Wayanad districts. Their use is yet to be
161
taken up on a larger scale.
6.8 Role Exercised by PRIS
Certain panchayats tend
to perform better than
others. What are the
enabling factors? What
are the constraining
factors?
Enabling factors-
1. A panchayat council that takes up MGNREGA implementation
as a priority
2. Committed panchayat officials, particularly the Panchayat
Secretary and other support staff.
3. Efficient NREG staff, who are able to handle the multiple tasks
with efficiency and sensitivity. They need to be supported by the
panchayat council.
4. Regular monitoring of NREG activities by the BPO and District
level machinery, in the absence of which implementation is left
to the two contract NREG staff in the panchayat.
5. Mates who are able to understand their role and perform it.
Politicisation of Mates has been a polarising phenomenon that
negatively affects the participation of all sections of workers.
Ability of Mates to undertake daily measurement so as to ensure
daily work output. The system of appointing panchayat level
barefoot engineers to undertake this task could improve the
situation as well.
6. Certain panchayats are able to design a larger number of works
due to the greater availability of public land and public assets
like ponds, canals, river banks.
7. Presence of committed agricultural and soil conservation
officers in the panchayat, who take an interest in MGNREGA
implementation, providing guidance and support in integrating
MGNREGA planning with watershed planning. With such
support, panchayats can be motivated to take up innovative
experiments.
162
What are the difficulties
experienced by the
functionaries at different
levels to implement the
scheme?
The NREG staff report problems of under staffing, lack of adequate
computer facilities, slow internet facilities and a lack of support from
the panchayat officials in certain cases. They also report lack of
transport facilities that enable them to undertake regular field visits,
for monitoring and supervision.
The Mates are not equipped to undertake daily measurement of
works. Despite the training given, they are not able to maintain
muster rolls and job cards in a systematic manner. They are also not
adequately informed about the rights-based framework of the Act,
and their specific role in this regard.
3. What are the measures
initiated to overcome the
difficulties?
Dedicated computers are now being provided to all the panchayats,
and this is hoped to redress the problems that arise from lack of
access to computers.
The issue with slow internet remains unresolved, as this is related to
the availability of servers. This affects the speed of data entry, which
affects the speed with which wages are distributed.
Recommendations
1. The relevance of MGNREGA as an anti poverty measure, with its emphasis on the rights-
based framework is poorly appreciated at the panchayat level. As a result, there is no
concerted effort to provide 100 days of work to workers who are in need of employment.
The possibilities of convergence between MGNREGA and other programmes of the
panchayat have also not been adequately explored. Had this been done, the long term utility
of assets could have been better ensured.
2. Services of trained development professionals may be utilised to assist the panchayat
system in ensuring the above.
3. The panchayat council and staff need to be trained on how to take up various activities
permitted under MGNREGA in an integrated manner. They also need to be trained on
how to formulate proposals and projects that strive at greater convergence between
MGNREGA and other programmes such as NRLM. The existing training imparted to
them does not appear to have achieved its outcome, for awareness and understanding of
these dimensions is weak.
163
4. PRIs also need to be made clearly aware that violation of MGNREGA provisions
tantamount to a violation of the Act itself, which is a serious omission. Currently, all
violations are taken very casually.
5. The MGNREG block, district and State level machinery express helplessness over the
casual approach of certain panchayats in programme implementation. As the grama
panchayat is the main implementing agency, mechanisms to fix responsibilities for
MGNREG implementation on panchayat staff and elected members should be put in
place. Clarity is required on the action that needs to be taken when the panchayat does not
implement the Act. Clarity is also required regarding the agency that can take such action.
In extreme cases of violation of the Act, the BPO and DPC should take over the
implementation of the MGNREGA directly.
6. A realistic assessment of the work load of DEOs and Overseers at the panchayat level
needs to be undertaken. In cases where the workload is high, particularly in bigger
panchayats with a larger number of workers and works, additional staff support needs to be
provided
6.9 Mate System and Involvement of the ADS
How effective is the
Kudumbashree ADS in
supporting the scheme?
The Kudumbashree ADS appears to have played an important role in
the initial phase of registration and motivating workers to come
forward for the programme. They have also encouraged more women
to come forward to participate in the programme. They are however
inadequately informed about the critical rights-based provisions of the
programme and the unique feature of the activities to be taken up
under this programme. This has come in the way of the support that
they could have extended to enhance the effectiveness of programme
implementation.
There are reports from certain pockets that non-Kudumabashree
members are not included in NHG level discussions and not informed
in advance about availability of work. This includes non-inclusion of
male workers, of tribal workers when the mate is a non-tribal, and also
Tamil workers in otherwise Malayalee-dominated settings.
The role and
effectiveness of the
work Mate in
This is an area where considerable improvement is required.
The efficiency of Mates in maintaining muster rolls, job cards and in
providing worksite facilities needs to be enhanced. Making regular
164
organizing and
execution of the
scheme
entries in job cards and muster rolls is not complicated. What is lacking
is the seriousness with which this needs to be done. The absence of
supervision from higher levels also conveys the impression that the
existing casual approach to the filling up of muster rolls and job cards
is acceptable.
The Mate‘s performance needs to be monitored in order to ensure
quality execution. There are Mates who are casual about the provision
of worksite facilities. There are Mates who do not return job cards to
workers, even upon request. There is however no system to monitor the
functioning of the Mates.
Mates are not ‗working mates‘. As per the norm, a Mate need not work
only if there are more than forty workers in a worksite. Mates however
do not work with the workers, even when the number of workers are
less than forty.
The Mates are not being rotated, so there are Mates who have been
continuing since the time of programme initiation. There is a tendency
then for such Mates to become power centres, especially when they are
closely allied with a particular political party or the panchayat member.
Recommendations
1. The Mate system needs considerable restructuring. A system to assess the performance of
Mates needs to be instituted. Poorly performing Mates need to be replaced.
2. Mate training needs to be re-examined. Greater focus needs to be given to the rights-based
framework of the Act and on the natural resource protection dimension.Mates are intended
to function as both grassroots facilitators, who make workers aware of their rights, as well
as work supervisors. In actual practice, they function more as supervisors, and in the
process, do not focus on ensuring that the workers‘ rights and entitlements are ensured.
Very often, the Mates are silent about workers‘ rights being sidelined. It would be
worthwhile to separate both these functions. While the Kudumbashree system can work
towards ensuring the rights of the workers and generating awareness amongst workers
about their rights and entitlements, supervision of the work may be entrusted to a set of
people, who are selected from amongst existing workers. Supervisors may be selected from
a ward wise pool of MGNREG workers, who have completed secondary level education
and who are capable of maintaining muster rolls, job cards and so on. Supervisors may be
selected on a rotation basis, with their functioning being regularly monitored.
3. The system of ‗working Mates‘ needs to be revived. Mates/Supervisors may be selected
from amongst the workers, who are literate and can fulfill the tasks assigned. The existing
165
system of selection Mates from amongst the ADS executive body members had led to a
situation wherein majority of the Mates are not from a worker background. .
4. The system of appointment of Mates should be on a rotation basis. In the current system,
there is a tendency for Mates to view themselves as supervisors and not as workers. The
absence of rotation also leads to a situation wherein mates become power centres,
especially when they are politically aligned with ward members.
5. In the case of tribal communities and other relatively less privileged communities, it is
important to appoint Mates from the respective communities, so that there is a better
sharing of information between the Mates and the workers. The dynamism between non-
tribal Mates and tribal workers has not been too smooth in certain areas, and problems have
been reported wherein the non-tribal Mate shows a preference for non-tribal workers over
tribal workers.
6. Maintenance of muster rolls and job cards by Mates to be closely scrutinised. Workers have
reported names of non-workers being included in the muster roll. They have also reported
‗absent‘ marks being converted into signatures when the work is completed. The
supervision of the muster roll needs to be enhanced, and action needs to be taken when
such instances are noticed.
7. The ADS account to be brought under close scrutiny and subject to social audit. Greater
transparency to be ensured in the manner in which the ADS fund is utilised for meeting
expenses towards rent and repair of tools, travel of Mates and so on, so that workers are
not made to pay for the same. The details of utilisation of the ADS fund pertaining to each
work should be read out aloud at the worksite upon work completion.
6.10 Measures for Transparency and Accountability
What are the
mechanisms adopted
to ensure
accountability and
transparency? How
effective are they?
The key measures in this regard are the citizen information board at the
worksite, maintaining a site diary, setting up of the Vigilance and
Monitoring Commitee (VMC), Grievance Redressal and Social Audit.
These measures have not been adequately enforced, with little
monitoring by the panchayat or block and district level officials. The
citizen information board is a clear manifestation of this casual approach
to transparency, with installation of the boards being ritualised. The same
board is used for a number of worksites, with no details of the estimate
amount and number of work days.
How is the
effectiveness of social
audit? How is follow
up to the findings of
Social audit has been a ritualised process with very little participation of
the people. Mandatory social audits have been conducted and all
panchayats have prepared annual social audit reports. Due to a lack of
awareness about the process of social audit, workers are not aware of
166
social audit ensured? their right to participate in the social audit of MGNREGA. Social audits
have not involved public hearings, and people are largely unaware of the
process involved in social audits.
Recommendations
1. Measures that enhance and ensure transparency such as installing the citizen information
board, maintaining the site diary and muster roll, and effective functioning of the VMC
needs to be enforced. The block and district level officials, apart from making routine
inspections, do not appear to have taken significant redressal mechanisms to correct the
casual manner in which these transparency measures are implemented.
2. Muster rolls of completed works should be made public documents. They should be
displayed at public places, such as the bus stop or ration shop. Details of the utilisation
of the ADS fund pertaining to each work may also be publicly displayed along with the
muster roll of the concerned work. This will avoid possible malpractices. A change is
required in the existing job card design. Provisions to be made to record the number of
days worked in the job card, so that workers can count and assess for themselves the
number of days worked.
3. Institute mechanisms to ensure supervision of filled up job cards to ensure that it is
regularly updated.
4. Guidelines may be framed about the manner in which Social Audits are to be conducted.
At least 75% of the workers should participate in the social audit grama sabhas. Social
audits should include public scrutiny of all documents and works, and public hearings
should be made a compulsory component of social audit.
5. Social audit should include both a rights audit and a works audit. In the former the
emphasis should be on the extent to which the rights-based framework of the Act has
been achieved. In the case of work audit, the existing works need to be evaluated keeping
in mind the list of permissible activities that can be taken up under MGNREGA. This
also involves assessing the extent to which works in each category fulfill the stated
objectives. Such a work audit will also review the tendency to take up certain activities in
a repeated fashion, such as the digging of rain water pits, or trenches, road side drains
etc. The suitability of the works taken up vis-a-vis the particular problems that each
panchayat faces with respect to ecological degradation also needs to be assessed. The
process of auditing the works in such a manner will also educate the audit team, the
167
workers and the panchayat about the approach to be adopted towards natural resource
conservation in MGNREGA activities.
6. Follow up action of each social audit to be monitored closely by the Social Audit Cell
and Action taken reports to be filed on a regular basis. In the absence of this, necessary
action needs to be taken at higher levels.
6.11 Supervision and Inspection
How effective were
the roles exercised by
the
DPC/JPC/PD/BPO
in the execution and
monitoring of the
scheme
While the District Collector is to function as District Programme
Coordinator, the Collector largely plays a supervisory role. Due to
multiple responsibilities, their ability to give quality time to MGNREGA
is not up to what is expected in the Act. As DPC, they have the power
and responsibility to ensure that the rights and entitlements of the
workers are effectively implemented. They however play a very limited
role in this regard.
Our field observations indicate that field inspections need to be
strengthened. The current pattern of 2% inspection by the state level
officers, 10% by the district level officers and 100% by the block level is
not taking place. The District Collector as DPC is not able to ensure the
same.
How effective is the
inspection system?
From the state of the worksites (the absence of proper citizen
information boards, first aid kids, adequate shelter and crèche facilities),
the problems in muster rolls and job cards, it appears that the inspection
system followed is not stringent enough. While it was difficult to assess
the frequency of inspection at worksites, it is clear that the existing level
of inspection has not addressedkthe situation.
Recommendations
The inspection system needs to be tightened. The schedule for field inspections and the
inspection report should be presented in the public domain. The time-bound action taken report
based on these field inspections are also to be made public.
1. Reports of action taken are based on inspection reports need to be filed on a monthly
basis by concerned officials. These action reports must be part of the panchayat level
MIS reports, which are visible to all.
2. DPC should take up district level grievance redressal on a regular basis and reports to be
placed in the public domain.
168
3. Grievance redressal should be captured on the MIS system, with a possibility of tracking
the status of redressal. Monitoring of the same should be undertaken at the State level.
6.12 Socio Economic Impact
What is the impact of
the programme on
rural households with
reference to creation
of livelihoods,
income, assets?
For households that have got more than 50-60 days of work a year, the
income from NREG has enabled them to reduce indebtedness, spend
more on household expenditure and children‘s education, and purchase
small items for household use such as furniture, TV, mobile phones etc.
But for those who have got employment for less than 50 days, the impact
has been minimal.
The economic benefits have been reduced by the delay in payment of
wages. Timely payment of wages would have resulted in a better
utilisation of the money to address the immediate conditions of
deprivation. It would also have prevented further borrowing of money
for meeting household expenditure, particularly on food.
The clashing of MGNREG work with existing wage labour
opportunities has compelled many workers to choose between the two.
This reduces the benefit that could be derived from MGNREG work.
What has been the
impact of the scheme
on expenditure and
savings. How do
people spend the
wages earned?
More than an increase in savings, people report a reduction in
indebtedness This is also because 78% of the interviewed workers had
taken loans for various purposes). The wages have been largely spent on
household expenditure, prominently on food-related expenditure. They
also spend higher amounts on children‘s education and health care.
What is the level and
intensity of migration
after the introduction
of the scheme?
The incidence of migration has been confined only to a few pockets in
the four districts. In such pockets, there has not been a discernible
reduction in migration.
An important
objective is to help
reduce poverty. Has
the scheme succeeded
in reducing poverty?
The addition to family income has led to increased household
expenditure, particularly on food, clothing, health and education. This
indicates that a certain amount of enhancement in general well-being has
taken place. It has also helped families to reduce indebtedness. For
elderly workers, who either live with their children or separately, the
169
income from MGNREGA has been an assurance, helping them to spend
on food and medicines. Many of them are not economically supported
by their children, who struggle to take care of their own growing
families. As a result, income from MGNREGA is a significant support to
the elderly workers, who do not have alternative sources of employment
and income.
Recommendation
1. In order for the MGNREGA to realise its potential to alleviate poverty, efforts need to be
made to provide 100 days of work to those who need the same. The Grama Panchayat
needs to formulate a plan to provide 100 days of work to all registered workers. While
doing so, the first priority should be given to SC/ST/BPL and within to them, to families
who own less than 10 cents of land.
2. Annual labour calendars to be prepared by all grama panchayats to ensure that MGNREG
work does not clash with existing wage labour opportunities.
3. A concerted effort needs to be made to assess the season-wise demand for work from
workers residing in remote settlements and localities. They have limited access to the
panchayat, and in many cases, even the Mate is not a reliable source of information about
work availability. Measures need to be taken to design work opportunities for such
communities in and around their area of residence.
4. All efforts to be taken to reduce delay in payment of wages, as this is one of the main
factors that has kept the benefits of this programme from the workers.
6.13 Participation of the Marginalised
What are the efforts
made by the panchayat,
BPO and DPC to
register outlier groups
like Scheduled Tribes?
During the initial stages, efforts have been taken to encourage tribal
communities to register themselves. No subsequent efforts appear to
have been taken to ensure that tribal people continue to come for
work. In many panchayats it has been reported that tribal people are
not willing to come for work as they cannot cope with the pressures of
delayed payment. Many of them report that they have to give up
existing wage labour work to go for MGNREG work, which they are
not willing to do.k No efforts were taken to redress this specific
problem and to win over the confidence of the marginalised groups.
170
Recommendations
1. Participation of marginalised communities needs to be enhanced. Regular meetings to be
convened in all SC and ST colonies to assess problems of workers and to take action to
address these problems.
2. SC and ST promoters to be entrusted with the task of holding such regular meetings, which
are to be monitored by the panchayat and the BPO/BDO.
3. Regular progress reports to be filed in this regard by the BDO/BPO.
4. Work taken up on the land around SC and ST colonies is inadequate. Most of these
settlements, especially tribal settlements, are remotely located, in close proximity to forest
lands. There is considerable scope for taking up regeneration activities on these dispersed
patches of degraded forest land, with the active participation of the tribal communities.
Much more effort and planning on the part of the panchayat is required to ensure the same.
6.14 Peoples’ Feedback
Are the people satisfied
with the way in which the
programme is
implemented? If ‗no‘,
what are the
improvements suggested
by the people?
People‘s level of satisfaction is dependent upon the number of days
they have been employed. The majority demand for more number
of working days. They demand that MGNREG work should be
planned such that it does not clash with existing labour
opportunities. One of the major factors that contribute to
dissatisfaction is the delay in payment of wages.
6.15 Women’s Participation
What are the views of
women employed under
the scheme on
implementation of the
scheme?
The women work force is not a homogenous category. They are
divided along caste and class lines. Women from less privileged
backgrounds have particularly demanded for more days of work a
year, as well as for timely payment of wages. Some of them have
also expressed dissatisfaction with the functioning of the Mate,
with regard to selection of workers for each work. They have also
clearly expressed their non-inclusion in NHG level and Grama
Sabha level deliberations.
What are the problems
they face in connection
with MGNREGA,
Women workers on the whole have demanded for a shortening of
work timings. Women from across the four districts, particularly
women living in remote pockets with limited transport facilities
171
particularly at the
worksite?
have found it difficult to reach worksites by 8 am, after completing
household work. Another problem they face is having to work with
heavy tools at the worksite. They are also not provided with
adequate protective gear , which they particularly need when they
clean up dirty irrigation canals and ponds (which off late are
dumped with decomposing waste). Women have also demanded for
crèche facilities at the worksite, which is rarely provided.
172
ANNEXURE 1
List of Sample Panchayaths
No PANCHAYATH SC ST Others Total Wayanad 1 Poothadi 5 5 10 20 2 Panamaram 5 5 10 20 3 Noolpuzha 5 8 7 20 4 Thirunelly 5 8 7 20 5 Nenmeni 5 5 10 20 6 Vythiri 5 5 10 20 7 Meppady 5 5 10 20 Total 35 41 64 140 Idukki 8 Kanthalloor 5 5 10 20 9 Vattavada 5 6 9 20 10 Munnar 10 5 5 20 11 Marayoor 6 5 9 20 12 Idukki-Kanjikuzhi 5 5 10 20 13 Arakkulam 5 5 10 20 14 Velliyamattom 5 5 10 20 15 Adimali 5 5 10 20 16 Santhanpara 5 5 10 20 17 Upputhara 5 5 10 20 18 Chinnakanal 8 5 7 20 19 Elappara 5 5 10 20 20 Kumily 5 5 10 20 21 Peerumade 8 5 7 20 22 Vandiperiyar 7 5 8 20 Total 89 76 135 300 Kasargode 23 Bellur 7 3 10 20 24 Paivalike 5 5 10 20
173
25 Badiyadka 5 5 10 20 26 Delampady 5 5 10 20 27 Panathady 5 5 10 20 28 Enmakaje 5 5 10 20 29 Kallar 5 5 10 20 30 Bedadka 5 5 10 20 31 Kuttikole 5 5 10 20 32 West Eleri 5 5 10 20 33 Balal 5 5 10 20 34 Kodom-Bellur 5 5 10 20 Total 62 58 120 240 Palakkad 35 Agali 5 9 6 20 36 Alanallur 7 3 10 20 37 Ambalapara 10 0 10 20 38 Cherpulacherry 10 0 10 20 39 Elappully 10 0 10 20 40 Kadampazhipuram 10 0 10 20 41 Kanjirampuzha 5 5 10 20 42 Kizhakkencheri 5 5 10 20 43 Kollengode 5 5 10 20 44 Kongad 11 0 9 20 45 Kozhinjampara 5 5 10 20 46 Kuthannur 10 0 10 20 47 Kuzhalmannam 10 0 10 20 48 Malampuzha 5 5 10 20 49 Muthalamada 5 5 10 20 50 Nalleppilly 5 5 10 20 51 Nelliyampathy 5 5 10 20 52 Parli 10 0 10 20 53 Pattanchery 5 5 10 20 54 Peringottukurissi 16 0 4 20 55 Perumatty 5 5 10 20
174
56 Pudur 5 12 3 20 57 Pudussery 5 5 10 20 58 Sholayur 5 10 5 20 59 Vadakarapathy 5 5 10 20 60 Vandazhi 5 5 10 20 Total 184 99 237 520
Grand Total 370 274 556 1200 Percentage 30.83 22.83 46.33 100.00
175
ANNEXURE 2
MGNREGA SURVEY FORMAT FOR WORKERS
Particulars of the worker household
1. Name of the NREG worker
2. House name Locality,................,
3. Ward ........................., GP
4. Block Dt.
5. Phone ---
6. Job Card Number
7. Whether listed under BPL family (Ask for and Check card) 1- Yes 2- No
8 Do you have Ration Card? 1- Yes 2- No
9. Housing Status:
Housing
status
Hous
e No.
Type Functional
Toilet
No.of
Rooms
Source
of
lighting*
Liveabl
e?
1. Yes
2.
Know
Kach
a (1)
Tiled(2
)
Semi
concrete
(3)
RC
(4)
Own- 1
Rented- 2
Houseless- 3
Yes 1
No 2
* 1. Electricity 2. Kerosene 3 other
** to be filled based on observations
10. Is the house given under any government scheme? 1. Yes 2. No
11. If so, details of scheme -------and year.-----
12. If it is a newly constructed house, is the construction complete? 1. Yes 2. No
13. Source of drinking water
(1-tap in dwelling, 2-public tap, 3-private handpump, 4-public handpump, 5-well, 6-others (sepecify))
14. Distance of source of drinking water in metres
15. Whether water requirement is met throughout the year (Yes-1, No- 2, Partially-3 )
16. Main source of fuel (1- wood,2- kerosene,3- crop residues,4- bio gas,5- LPG, 6-others)
17. Distance travelled for collection of fuel in kms.
176
18. Household details
*Religion – (Hindu - 1/ Muslim - 2/ Christian - 3.
%Caste (SC-1, ST-2 , OBC-3, Others, 4)
#Education 1- Illiterate 2- up to 4th class 3 - 4th to 10th class 4 - SSLC pass 5 - Degree 6 - others
@@ 1-Agriculture, 2 Wage labour, 3 house-wife, 4- service –government (including retired and mention if so), 5- service private,6- construction work, 7- Animal
Husbandry, 8- Trade, 9- Student, 10- Others (Specify)
Sl N
o
Nam
e
Rel
atio
n
to
the
Res
po
nd
ent
Sex
M
/ F
A
ge
*Rel
igio
n
%C
aste
#E
duca
t
ion
@@
Occ
u
pat
io
n
Incl
uded
in
Job
card
( Y
es
1
No
2)
Wo
rked
in
NR
EG
S
( Y
es
1
No
2)
An
nual
Inco
me
(2009-
10)
from
no
n-
agri
cult
u
ral
gai
nfu
l
acti
vit
ies
An
nual
Inco
me
fro
m
No
n
Nre
ga
Wag
e
Lab
our
An
nual
Inco
me
fro
m
NR
EG
A w
ork
P r i m a r y S e c o n d a r y
1
2
3
4
5
6
Details of people who belong to this household, but who reside outside the village currently for work or studies.
1
2
177
Social Security Measures
19. Are you/anybody in your family benefitting from the following programmes?
No
Programmes Details of the benefit Since when
1 PDS
2 ICDS SCHEME (Anganwadi)
3 Old age pension
4 Widow Pension
5 Accident Pension (NASP)
6 RSBY (Rashtriya Swasthya Bhima Yojana)
7 AABY (Aam Aadmi Bhima Yojana)
8 Jana Sree Bhima Yojana
9 Any Welfare Board Fund pension Schemes
10 Mid-day meals ( Education Dept)
11 Any other
Family land holding details
20. Your family is- land owning- 1, Landless- 2, Leased land- 3
21. Land ownership Details
Land
Ownership
Details (pl fill it
in acre and
cents)ownershi
p
Agricultural Non
–
Agri.
land
Irrigated Un
irrigated
River/Strea
m
Canal Pond Well Tube well Other
Owned
Lease
22. In order to improve the quality of your land; can any land development activities be undertaken on your
land under NREGA? Yes- 1, No- 2
23. If yes, please explain.
24. Did the family receive any land under land reforms? Yes – 1; No. 2
25. If yes, how much ------------; when did you receive it ------------;
178
26. How is this land used? ---------------------------------
27. Are you rearing animals? Yes- 1, No- 2.
28. If yes, how many animals do you own? Cows--, Goats---, Pigs, ---Poultry, Any others
(specify).
29. Annual income from agricultural crops-
no List of Crops Area in acre/cents Annual income
earned
Annual expenditure
1
2
3
30. Annual income from livestock (milch animal/poultry/fishery etc) Rs. --------------
31. Details of Indebtedness:
Sl.N
o.
So
urc
e
Purp
ose
Yea
r w
hen
lo
an
was
tak
en
Am
oun
t
Outs
tan
din
g
Inte
rest
Rat
e
Is
the
loan
bei
ng
rep
aid?
(Yes
-1, N
o-2
)
Rea
son
for
no
t
rep
ayin
g
Source: Government-1, Cooperative Society/Bank-2, SHG-3, Employer-4, moneylender-5
shopkeeper/trader-6, relatives/friends-7, others-8
Purpose: medical expenses -1, educational expenses -2, agriculture -3, legal expenses -4; consumption
expenses- 5, marriage and other ceremonial expenses -6, purchase of land/construction of building -7,
production enterprises -8, repayment of debt -9, others -10.
32. Have you mortgaged a portion of your land, if so, what is the duration of mortgage and area of land
mortgaged?
33. If you need credit, which source do you approach
( Financial institutions -1, money lender- 2, SHG- 3, Others- 4)
34. Are you a member of any informal credit arrangement?
Yes – 1, No- 2
35. Have you borrowed money from such informal credit groups?
Yes- 1, No- 2
36. If yes, how much and for how long?
179
37. Migration
Sl.n
o.
Did
yo
u /
an
y
in y
our
fam
ily,
mig
rate
outs
ide
vill
age
duri
ng
pas
t 1
yr
Pla
ce o
f
mig
rati
on
*
Wh
en
mig
rate
d
Wh
en
retu
rned
Typ
e of
wo
rk
do
ne*
*
To
tal w
age
rece
ived
*Code for place of migration: Outside the district- 1, outside the state- 2
** Agriculture- 1, Construction – 2, Industry- 3, Domestic worker- 4, Public work- 5, Other wage labour- 6,
Others- 7
NREGA RELATED
38. Prior to NREGA, have you ever gone for any wage labour activities?
Yes- 1, No- 2
39. Have you submitted a written application for registration under the scheme?
Yes- 1, No- 2
40. Was a special GS meeting organized for the first round of registration under NREGS in your village?
Yes 1 / No 2
41. If yes, did you attend the meeting?
Yes- 1, No- 2
42. Was a door to door visit conducted by the panchayat to identify workers willing to work in the NREGS
programme?
Yes- 1, No- 2
43. Who all were involved in this survey?
44. Is registration an on-going process throughout the year?
Yes- 1, No- 2
45. Did you have to register more than once to get your job card?
Yes- 1, No- 2
46. If yes, how many times?
47. Did you face any difficulty in getting job cards issued?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
48. Give details. ..........................................................................................................
49. Was there any person in your knowledge who wanted to get registration but could not get registered?
Yes- 1, No- 2
50. If so what are the reasons?
Not part of the ruling party- 1 , Not part of kudumbashree- 2, Not a BPL family – 3, Personal rivalry- 4,
Other(Write the response given)- 5.
51. Is there any person to your knowledge who has applied but did not get the job card?
180
Yes- 1, No- 2
52. If yes, what was the reason?
53. What is the time gap between registration and issue of job card?
1. Within a week, 2. within 2 weeks, 3. within 3 weeks, 4. within a month, 5. more than a month (specify no.
of months).
54. Does your job card have a photograph?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
55. Did you pay for the photograph?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
56. If yes, how much? Rs---------, and to whom did you pay?
57. Who has custody of your job card? (only one answer)
1 Myself, /2. head of family,/ 3.mate,/4. ward member,/ 5.panchayat office /, 6. Contractor, 7- Others
58. Did you ever give your job card to others?
Yes 1 / No 2
59. If yes, for what purpose?
60. Is anybody in your village collecting Job cards regularly from the workers
1. Yes/2. NO/ 3- Not aware
PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT
61. Do you get the job when you demand for it?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
62. Or are you informed about the availability of the job after which you apply?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
63. Are you aware of the fact that you can make a demand for employment at your convenience, any time of
the year?
1. Yes / 2. No
64. Are you aware of the number of days you are entitled to work in a year under NREGA?
Yes- 1, No- 2
65. If yes, what is the entitlement?
---- days
66. Have you ever demanded for 100 days of work?
Yes – 1 / No - 2
67. If no, why?
68. For how many days of employment did you demand this year?
69. Total days of employment provided to your family members this year?
-------- days
70. If work was available under NREGA for 100 days, would you have worked for all the 100 days?
Yes-1, No- 2
181
71. If no, for how many days do you require work in a year?
-------- days.
72. In your village who informs you about the availability of work?
73. Is a list of allotted works put up on the panchayat/ ward notice board? (Yes- 1, No- 2, Do not know- 3)
74. Did you ever give written application for employment or made a verbal request to the GP?
(1 - written application; 2 - Verbal Request; 3 – did not make any request)
75. If you have applied for work (verbally or in writing) did you state the timing and the number of days that
you are willing to work?
1-Yes, 2- No, 3 . Never being told about that, 4 any case we will all get 100 days in a year so not
necessary to mention that.
76. Did the panchayat issue dated receipts for making application?
1- Yes 2- No, 3- not aware of such a provision.
77. Is your demand for work recorded in your job card? Yes- 1, No- 2, Do not know- 3
78. After how many days of written/verbal application, did you get employment? ----- days (mention actual
number of days)
79. Are you aware that if you were not given employment within 15 days of applying for work, you are
entitled to get unemployment allowance? 1. Yes, 2. No
80. Are you aware of such a right/entitlement? Yes- 1, No- 2.
81. If you have ever received unemployment allowance, please state the amount of allowance you received
and the number of days for which you received this amount. Amount-----, No. Of days -----
82. Who paid the allowance?
83. After how many days of demanding work, was the unemployment allowance paid ?
84. If you did not receive unemployment allowance, did you register complaint regarding this? Yes - 1 / No -
2
85. If no, are you ready to register a complaint? Yes - 1 / No - 2.
86. If no, why?
87. If yes, with whom will you lodge the complaint?
88. How many days of work did you receive last year (2009-2010)?
89. If you have not got the 100 day quota this year, have you demanded for work for the remaining days?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
SELECTION OF WORKS
90. Was a discussion conducted at the Ayalkootam (SHG) level to discuss the possible works that can be
taken up under NREGA? 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. Not aware
91. If yes, list the issues that were discussed at the SHG level.
92. Are you aware of the kind of activities that can be undertaken under NREGS?
Yes- 1, No- 2
93 Are you aware of the priority in which works are to be undertaken in NREGS?
182
1. Yes 2.No
94. If so, please explain.
95. Do you have any say in deciding the nature and location of work to be done? Yes=1 / No=2
96. If no, who decides?
97. How do you come to know about the type of work to be done?
From 1- President, 2- Member(s), 3- Mate, 4- Public display in the Gram Panchayat Office, 5- officials of
GP, 6- Others
98 Are you aware of the shelf of projects that have to be prepared at the GP level?
99 If yes, is it publicly displayed at the GP office? 1 - Always, 2 - frequently, 3 - rarely, 4- never, 5 -
Don‘t know.
100 Are you aware that the GS under the President is responsible for planning for 100 days of work? Yes
- 1 / No - 2
101. Was a Grama Sabha convened to discuss the shelf of projects? Yes- 1, No- 2, Not aware- 3
102 If so, was the meeting notified in advance in the village? Yes- 1, No- 2.
103. Did you/anybody in your family participate in the GS meeting where the shelf of projects was
discussed and finalised? Yes- 1, No- 2.
104. Were suggestions/preferences of workers and local people considered in plan preparation and in
finalizing shelf of projects? Yes- 1, No- 2.
105. According to your understanding, which type of work is most needed by your village?
1--------------, 2----------------, 3------------------, 4-----------------
106. Are such works given a priority in NREGS?
Yes - 1 / No - 2
107. If no, what do you think is the reason for the same? __________________
108 .Was any local NGO involved in the process of plan preparation for NREGS?
Yes – 1 / No – 2.
109. If yes, who?
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
110. Was there a notice board at the worksite giving details of sanctioned amount, work details, etc.? Yes- 1,
No- 2
111. Is it there for the entire period of work?
Yes- 1, No- 2
112. Was an open project meeting held before start of work?
Yes- 1, No- 2
113. Who all participated in this meeting?
114. Who convened this meeting?
115. What was discussed at this meeting?
116 . Did you get an idea of the quantum of work to be done and the material and wage component at this
183
meeting?
MUSTER ROLL
117. Was the muster roll available at the worksite all the time?
Yes- 1, No- 2
118. Have any of the workers or public scrutinized the muster roll?
Yes- 1, No- 2
119. Were you allowed to check that muster roll whenever you wanted?
1. Yes 2 . No 3- Not aware that this can be done.
120. Do officials scrutinize the muster roll?
Yes- 1, No- 2
121. If yes, who?
122. During the last 3 works in which you participated, please list the officials (with designation if you know)
who visited the worksite.
Work 1-
Work 2-
Work 3-
123. Is a worksite material register maintained?
124. Whether material brought to the worksite is verified by at least five workers?
Yes- 1, No- 2, 3- Not aware of such a provision
125. Are you aware that this needs to be done?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
126. When the work is completed, do at least 5 workers scrutinize the muster roll and approve it?
Yes- 1, No- 2,
127. Are you aware that this procedure needs to be followed?
Yes- 1, No- 2,
128. Have you ever been asked to sign the muster roll at the time of work completion?
Yes- 1, No- 2, 3- Not aware of such a provision
129. Was a VMC constituted in your ward?
1. Yes,2. No, 3. Never heard of it.
130. Are you aware that the VMC is constituted by the grama sabha?
Yes- 1, No- 2, 3- Not aware
131. Do you know the name of the VMC members?
132. Are you aware of the work of the Vigilance Committee
133. During the last 3 works in which you participated, how many times did the VMC members visit the
worksite?
Work 1- -------- times Work 2- ------ times Work 3- ------- times
184
MATE
134. Who decides who will be the mate?
1- Kudumbashree ADS, 2- Panchayat Member, 3- Panchayat President, 4- CDS Chairperson, 5- Panchayat, 6-
Ruling party, 7- Others (Specify).
135. What is the actual work timing that is generally followed?
136. Who supervises work at the site?
137. Is a separate mate chosen for each NREGS work?
138. Is the Mate a ----------- 1 -Agricultural worker, 2- a housewife who has never gone for any wage labour
work before NREGS, 3- a person who went for any other non-wage labour work, 4- Others 139. Is the Mate
partial to certain workers?
140. Does she permit some workers to come late or leave early, or to sign the muster roll without working?
WORKSITE FACILITIES
141. Do you have sufficient tools at the worksite?
Yes-1, No- 2
142. Are the available tools women friendly?
Yes-1, No- 2.
143. Give Details ---------------
144 Are the available tools of good quality?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
145. Do you bring your personal tools to the worksite?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
146 In such a case, do you get rent for it?
Yes- 1, No- 2.
147. Were the following facilities available at the worksite in which you last worked?
1. Drinking water YES=1 / NO=2
2. Shade YES=1 / NO=2
3. Medical aid YES=1 / NO=2
4. Creche YES=1 / NO=2
148. To your knowledge, are there women who are not able to come for work due to the absence of crèche
facilities?
Yes-1, No- 2
149. Are you aware of the accidental benefits under NREGA?
Yes-1, No- 2
150. If so, what are they?
151. Have you ever worked at a worksite that is more than 5 kms away from your home?
Yes-1, No- 2
152. Do you know that you are eligible for an extra wage in such circumstances?
185
Yes-1, No- 2
153. Did you get such an additional allowance?
Yes-1, No- 2
154. If so, how much did you get?
155. If no, did you file a complaint?
Yes-1, No- 2
156. Was any action taken on the basis of your complaint?
Yes-1, No- 2
GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL
157. Is there a mechanism to register complaints at the panchayat office?
Yes-1, No- 2, Not aware- 3
158. Have you or anybody you know filed any complaint so far?
Yes-1, No- 2
159. What is the response they got?
160. Are you aware of a free help line for grievance redressal?
SOCIAL AUDIT
161. Have you heard of the term ‗social audit‘?
1 Yes, 2 No.
162. If yes, what do you understand by it?
163. Are you aware that social audit of NREGA is mandatory?
Yes-1, No- 2
164. If you are aware of previous social audit exercises in your panchayat, please describe them.
WAGE PAYMENT
165. Have you personally opened your Bank/Post office account in the names of all members mentioned in
the job card OR in your name?
1- joint account, 2- individual account
166. If joint account, who are the co-account holders?
167. Did you have to pay any money to open the account with the Bank or Post Office? (YES=1 / NO=2
168 . If yes, how much ?
169. For what purpose did you pay money?
170. How far is the bank from your residence?
171. Is there any other bank close to your residence? Yes-1, No- 2
172. Are wage payment details entered in your job card? YES=1 / NO=0
173 . During the last 3 works, after how many days of completion of work did you receive payment?
Work 1- After—days,
Work 2- after---- days,
Work 3 - after--- days of completion of work.
186
174. Are you aware that payment should be made within 14 days of work completion? Yes- 1, No- 2
175 If payment is made after 14 days, are you aware that the officer responsible is to be fined and the worker
is entitled to compensation? Yes- 1, No- 2
176. If you are not paid wages within 14 days of work completion, are you ready to lodge a complaint and
claim the compensation due to you? Yes- 1, No- 2
177. Have you ever got a chance to see/examine the payment details submitted by the panchayat to the bank?
Yes- 1, No- 2
178. Are you aware that this document should be on public display?
179. What was the mode of wage payment? (1. cash, 2. cheque, 3. direct in bank account,4. post office
account)
180. During the last 3 works, what was the average daily wage you got?
181 . Are you aware of the minimum wage rate paid under NREGS? Yes 1 / No 2
182. What according to your understanding, is the declared minimum wage rate paid to agricultural
labourers?
Rs----
183. What is the market wage rate in your area for agricultural work?
184. If market wage rate is higher than the minimum wage rate under NREGS scheme, why have you worked
under NREGA?
185. Was it the hope of getting pension and other similar incentives that prompted you to come for
NREGA?
186. By taking up NREGS work, have you decided to discontinue with other livelihood opportunities in
which you were involved earlier, such as agricultural wage labour, MFP collection, animal husbandry, fishing,
any other?
187. Is there a difference in payment of wages to men and women in NREGS? Yes- 1, No- 2
188. If an extra payment (more than Rs 125) has been made to men, what was the source of money?
189. Have you ever been paid less than other workers at the same worksite? Yes- 1, No- 2
190. Is there any instance of workers getting less than minimum wages? Yes- 1, No- 2
191. If yes, what is the reason for this?
192. Is any wage payment still due to you? Yes- 1, No- 2
193. If yes, reason for this?
194. When you get your wages from the bank, have you ever given a contribution/share of it to any person?
Yes- 1, No- 2
195. If yes, give details.
196. Do you have any of the following complaints regarding the payment of wages?
1. Delays in wage payments
2. Paid less than the minimum wage
3. Paid less than what you are made to sign for
187
4. Task is too much
5. Problems in accessing post office/bank accounts
6. Other (Please Specify)_______________________________________________
197. Does the official Muster Roll indicates the amount that you receive? 1 . Yes 2 No.
WORK MEASUREMENT
198. Who measures the work done by you?
199. Have you ever been involved in the process of measurement? Yes- 1, No- 2
200. Is the measurement of individual work under piece-rate norms conducted daily in a transparent
manner? Yes- 1, No- 2
201. Was the final measurement of work done by JE in the presence of a group of workers? Yes- 1, No- 2
202. Do you have any complaints regarding work measurement? Yes- 1, No- 2
203. If yes, please specify.
204. During the last 3 works in which you participated, how many times did NREGS officials come for site
inspection?
1. NREG Engineer---- times
2. Panchayat President---- times
3. BPO----- times
4. Others (specify) ------- times
IMPACT OF NREGA ON HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS
205. Have you been able to save a part of the income earned through NREGA? Yes- 1, No- 2
206. If so, how much is your current saving?
207. Did you have any savings account with Bank / PO before NREGS? Yes=1 / No=2
208. Has NREGA led to an increase / decrease in total wages earned in your household?
Yes- 1, No- 2
Name of Working
Members
Gender Age Employment level in
Person days before
And after NREGS
Work
Income
Levels
Before and
After nregs
Before after Before After
209. Have the earnings from MGNREGA helped in reducing your household indebtedness?
[Yes-1, No-2]
210. If yes, how much is the reduction in the indebtedness (one-fourth, half, three-fourth, or full)
211. Has any member of your household stopped migrating after NREGS? [Yes-1, No-2]
212. If yes, how many persons of your household stopped migrating?
188
213. Prior to NREGS, for how many days they used to migrate?
214. What wage rate they used to get in out-migration employment? Rs. ----per day………………
215. On an average, how much money they used to earn in a year from out-migration employment.?
Rs………
216. When women go for MGNREGA work, do they get support from others in doing household work?
[Yes-1, No-2]
217. Do you notice that the decision-making power of women in the household increased after the
implementation of MGNREGS? [Yes-1, No-2, No Idea-3]
218. Explain.
219. Did MGNREGA affect education of children in your family? Yes -1/ No 2
220. If yes, how?.
221. Do you use a larger proportion of your wages towards meeting your health related expenditure since
NREGA? 1 . Yes 2 No
222. Has your household consumption level improved after getting jobs under the scheme? [Yes-1, No-2]
223 If so, which sectors have registered higher consumption levels?
1- Food ,2- clothing,3- housing,4- household durables, 5- health,6- education,7- loan repayment,
8-social ceremonies,9- animal husbandry,10- others.
224. Do you feel that MGNREGA has helped you to ensure food availability at home? Yes- 1, No- 2, Food
was available even before MGNREGS- 3
225. Since NREGA work, have you been able to enhance your ability to purchase any new asset in your
family? 1- Yes 2- No 3. Some small/ low cost assets only 4-. Don‘t want to reveal
226. If yes, please explain.
227. Have you made any investment in productive (income generating) assets after MGNREGS? [Yes-1, No-
2]
228. If yes, what assets have you purchased and how much was the investment? .....................
229. What are the 5 most critical problems according to you with regard to MGNREGA implementation,
and how can they be resolved?
No. Problem Solution
1
2
3
4
5
189
230. List the 5 most important assets created under MGNREGA work so far.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
231. In your opinion, what are the assets that should have been created under MGNREGA?
232. What is your response to the critique that the activities/works taken up under MGNREGA are not
useful?
233. In order to overcome such criticism, what kind of works should be taken up under MGNREGA?
234. There is a widespread belief that MGNREGA has reduced the availability of wage labourers for
agricultural operations. Do you agree/disagree with this?
1- Agree, 2- Disagree
235. Please clarify.