An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala · An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala by Tata Institute...

An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala

by

Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

October 2011

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


6.3 Employment Provided ................................................................................................................ 152

6.4 Wage Payment ............................................................................................................................ 152


6.5 Quality of Work and Assets Created .......................................................................................... 154


6.6 Worksite Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 158


6.7 ICT/MIS Related Issues ............................................................................................................ 159

6.8 Role Exercised by PRIS .............................................................................................................. 161


6.9 Mate System and Involvement of the ADS ................................................................................. 163


6.10 Measures for Transparency and Accountability ....................................................................... 165


6.11 Supervision and Inspection ....................................................................................................... 167


6.12 Socio Economic Impact ............................................................................................................ 168

Recommendation .................................................................................................................................................... 169

6.13 Participation of the Marginalised ............................................................................................. 169


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.

http://www.nrega.nic.in/

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


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


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


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

http://www.mgnrega.nic.in/netmgnrega/home.aspx

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


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


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


Total 80.55 23.74


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


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


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


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


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


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

http://nregalndc.nic.in/netnrega/writereaddata/state_out/pmsr1603003_1011.html

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


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


Total 51.16 44.00


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

http://www.mgnrega.nic.in/

http://www.mgnrega.nic.in/

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala · An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala by Tata Institute...

Documents

Transcript of An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala · An Evaluation of the MGNREGA in Kerala by Tata Institute...