Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in...

2Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand

2.1 INTRODUCTION• The Idea of Wage Employment

‘The best safety net is a job’. - Robert Zoellick.The President of the World Bank said it during the 2008

financial crisis. Employment is described as a relationship between two parties, which is often based on a contract or an agreement, either written or verbal, one being the employer and the other being the employee. In simpler terms, it is the state of having paid work. The most important element of this agreement is ‘pay’. Not everybody who wants employment gets it and not everybody who gets it, gets the pay as per the agreement. The characteristics of employment do find place into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10th December 1948, which states that “Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.” Employment has always played an important role in the development of the country and its citizens. Though, it does not guarantee freedom from poverty to millions, yet it is altering the shape of the nations through sustained economic activities. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that 440 million new jobs need to be created in the next ten years to keep up with population growth and demographic changes (ILO-IMF, 2010). It’s not just about creating more jobs, what matters is that such opportunities should make way for upward mobility. Nearly half of all workers worldwide still

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 21 His contemporary Hyman Philip Minsky (1919 – 1996) an American economist who studied the characteristics of financial crises and had vigorously supported government intervention in financial markets, had proposed that during crisis the size of ELR pool should be increased to absorb displaced workers and when the economy booms it automatically shrinks when ELR workers find employment, hence, it operates as buffer stock program. Like any other policy, ELR might have logistical problems, but its social, political, economic, and environmental benefits by far outweigh its costs (financial or otherwise) (Kaboub, 2007). An overwhelming majority of the Indian population lives in rural and semi-rural environment and that’s where 4/5th of it poor population also resides (Rao, 2013). In terms of the all India pattern of rural employment, it is clear that there has been a sectoral shift, with the proportion of male workers engaged in the primary sector steadily declining from 83.2% in 1972-73 to 74.5% in 1987-88 and to 71.4% in 1999-2000 (Chadha, 2003). The most important aspect of the rural livelihood scenarios is that that the marginal farmers with tiny holdings now form the majority of the rural population. Income from their tiny holdings is insufficient to support their families and therefore for survival they are dependent on casual wage works, migrate seasonally or on long-term basis (Khanna, 2010).

Figure 2.1 Aerial view of the Kedarnath temple, amid damaged surroundings by flood waters at Rudraprayag district in Uttarakhand.

(June 2013).

22 Community Governance in India: Case Studies in MGNREGA

• Disasters – What do they bring with them?Disasters, be man-made or natural can occur at any time, anywhere and of any magnitude. No matter how much we prepare it is bound to inflict some loss. We as humans can only reduce the scale of destruction with prior preparedness and proper mitigation methodologies. Let us also acknowledge the fact that an efficient administration has the capacity to diminish the power of such catastrophic wave which could wipe out resources of an entire section of our planet. Transformations imposed on traditional societies and their environments by the industrialized world have increased the potential of disasters (Oliver-Smith, 1996). Natural disasters have risen to a new level. In the previous decade alone, we see a worldwide damage of 1.7 trillion USD affecting close to three billion lives with 1.2 million persons losing their lives. (UNISDR, 2013). In India, for the past three decades the figures are not very encouraging with average persons affected per year is close to five lakhs.

Parameters Status

No of events 431

No of people killed 1,43,039

Average killed per year 4614

No of people affected 1,521,726,127

Average affected per year 49,087,940

Figure 2.2 India: Natural disasters from 1980 – 2010. Source: (Prevention Web, 2014).

Most of the Uttarakhand state lies in the Greater Himalayas region. The region is renowned for its natural beauty, as well as pilgrimage sites which dot the upper reaches of the hills. The non-availability of abundant farmland makes the local people mostly dependent on seasonal activities, primarily tourism for their livelihood. The tourist season is primarily in summer season, when daily influx of a large number of pilgrims and tourists into the state, puts a huge burden on the local infrastructure.

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 23 This has also led to massive over-exploitation of the local environment, thereby loosening the top soil and making the region susceptible to landslides and flash floods. A major group of pilgrimage sites are located in the Uttarkashi and Rudraprayag districts of Uttarkashi. These include the Kedarnath and Badrinath temples, which are holy to the Hindus and Hemkund Sahib which is holy to Sikhs. (India Meteorological Department, 2013). Disasters are synonymous to damage of property, life and psyche of the people. By virtue of its geographical setting, Uttarakhand is vulnerable to minor ecological changes. Hence, any activity disapproved by mountain ecosystem triggers a disaster. We cannot stop disasters from occurring but can certainly take some steps to reduce its effects. In the recent years (1990 onwards) Uttarakhand has experienced two major earthquakes (magnitude >6) in Uttarkashi (1991) and Chamoli (1999) and a series of landslides/cloud burst such as Malpa (1998), Okhimath (1998), Fata (2001), Gona (2001), Khet Gaon (2002), Budhakedar (2002), Bhatwari (2002), Uttarkashi (2003), Amparav (2004), Lambagar (2004), Govindghat (2005), Agastyamuni (2005), Ramolsari(2005) and many more. (Government of Uttarakhand, 2013). During 16-18 of June 2013, widespread heavy rainfall activities with a few extremely heavy rainfalls (more than 24.5 cm) were reported at many stations over Uttarakhand. This heavy precipitation resulted into the swelling of rivers, both in the upstream as well as downstream areas. Besides the rain-water, a huge quantity of water was probably released from melting of ice and glaciers due to high temperatures during the months of May and June. The water not only filled up the lakes and rivers which overflowed but also may have caused breaching of moraine dammed lakes in the upper reaches of the valley, particularly during the late evening on 16 June and on the next day, i.e., 17 June 2013. Numerous landslides also took place after these heavy rains and erosion of the slopes by the high velocity and volume of water loaded with sediments, stones, rocks and sand. The Alaknanda and its tributary Mandakini occupied


Figure 2.6 Manwati Devi, local resident. Photo V.V. Krishnan /The Hindu.

• Post Disaster: Where do We Stand?After any disaster, the first and foremost duty of the state is to provide immediate relief to the affected population and the onus of this lies on the civil administration. The immediate relief can be summed up in three terms medical aid, food and shelter. These priority tasks are to be gradually supplemented with economic activities. It is an unstated fact that no matter what methodologies we use or measures we take, there cannot be a total restoration. There are no straightjacket solutions to such situations and a strong political will embedded with a mixed strategy usually works in terms of rehabilitation as only the residents of a community know what value they hold for the place and community instead of individuals can really ensure that those values endure. (Chen, Liu, and Chan, 2006). In context of a post-disaster political economy, it is needed to have clarity regarding the rules governing the rebuilding process and rebuilding assistance programs. (Chamlee-Wright and Storr, 2010). The losses to the informal sector particularly farm based and allied activities is more distressing and takes more time to heal. Accordingly, traditional rural societies give huge importance to collective efforts in times of crisis and communities tend to work more closely and bridge their differences while working in post-disaster scenario. Recovering from trauma as a part

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 33 site selection, etc., are all to be made in open assemblies of the Gram Sabhas (GSs) and ratified by the GP. Works that are inserted at block and district levels have to be approved and assigned a priority by the GS before administrative approval can be given. The GS may accept, amend or reject them.

8. Cost Sharing: The GoI bears 100 per cent wage cost of unskilled manual labour and 75 per cent of the material cost, including the wages of skilled and semi-skilled workers.

9. Work Site Management: To ensure that the workers are directly benefitted under the scheme, the Act prohibits the use of contractors or machinery in execution of the works. To ensure that the spirit of the Act is not diluted and wage employment is the main focus, MGNREGA mandates that in the total cost of works undertaken in a GP, the wage expenditure to material expenditure ratio should be 60:40. Work site facilities such as crèche, drinking water and shade have to be provided at all work sites.

10. Transparency and Accountability: Transparency and accountability in the programme is ensured through the following.

The other major aspects, on which the scheme rides on is the social audit. These audits by the Gram Sabha are made an inseparable part of the scheme with the mandate to have all the records and works of the scheme under regular scrutiny. The scheme also calls for proper grievance redressal mechanisms with the provision of public scrutiny of all accounts and records relating to the scheme. The scheme is currently costing a sum of 33,000 crores of INR yearly to the national exchequer which is still way below 2% of the GDP, but then, the positive impact may well have longer term beneficial effects on social and economic dynamics in rural India (Azam, 2012). The scale of this programme was very much in debate particularly related to its implementation, it may have logistical problems like any other policy or programme, but its social, political, economic,


and environmental benefits by far outweigh its costs (financial or otherwise) (Kaboub, 2007). The single major difference between the previous welfare schemes and MGNREGA is that all the previous schemes and programmes were allocation based while MGNREGA is a demand based programme. There is evidence which suggests that there is a growing proportion of people who depend on wages for their survival and this scheme not only provides guarantee for employment, but also the provision of unemployment allowance if the work is not provided even after demanded. It needs to be understood that going for such a comprehensive programme has to be political and not an economic decision. The same is echoed in the UN Global Assessment Report for the year 2011 which credited the success of the MGNREGA programme to “the impetus provided by strong political will and a committed high-level bureaucracy”. Even the best critics of social support schemes have acknowledged its importance and positive impact on rural population. Sharing the outcome of the first complete evaluation study, Shamika Ravi of Indian School of Business who did the study on the behest of Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP) of the World Bank and Ford Foundation had said that the programme should continue as India has a very large number of very poor people. (IANS, 2013) The scheme also tries to address some of the causes of poverty in rural India by its bottom-up and demand-driven nature and further with the involvement of the PRIs, it did not fell into trap at the local-level processes determining who gets work amongst those who want it which are generally skewed against the poor (Dutta, Murgai, Ravallion, and Walle, 2012). Being a demand driven scheme, it does not carry the traditional legacy of limiting the beneficiaries. The scheme states that needs of the people may be identified through consultations at the habitation level which have to be noted down in the order of priority (Ministry of Rural Development, 2013). The other major improvement is the involvement of the

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 35 Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha. This is an institution which can be said to be most accessible geographically or otherwise. The scheme should not be viewed as a remedial measure providing employment relief in times of distress but should be understood in long-term perspective of planning and action for drought and flood-proofing of Indian agriculture. The scheme is also credited for a significant increase in public works participation (Azam, 2012). It is also seen as an attempt to provide a big push in India’s regions of distress, a break from the relief programmes of the past towards an Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) and livelihoods generation perspective. It promises the largest ever employment programme in human history (Shah, 2007). MGNREGA can protect, to a limited extent, entitlements of households with able-bodied persons. But MGNREGA would be meaningless for several types of individual: the elderly, the disabled, pregnant and lactating women, and so on. It is important to protect the food entitlements of the households of such persons directly by giving them access to appropriate food schemes (Khera, 2013). Though the Act does not limit the guarantee to any particular season or period, it is assumed that people will not demand works in farming season thus it does not disturb the local labour dynamics. The number of people who depend on a state sponsored employment guarantee would steadily decline over time as the condition of their farms improves. People then will no longer need to look for work under MGNREGA (Shah, 2007). For a country which has 216.5 million of poor people residing in its villages with limited non-farm income opportunities it has been observed that that the rural poor have been able to generate employment and make a dent on poverty in the rainfed areas of India. (Kareemulla, Ramasundaram, Kumar, & Rao, 2013). It is seen that the income from MGNREGA alone can be a substantial part of the target income of the poor (Mukherjee & Sinha, 2011) and has also proved to be a good way to curb distress migration, which is commendable (Solinski, 2012).


Figure 2.7 Workers repairing a road damaged by a landslide, which was caused by heavy rainfall, as their children listen to songs on a mobile phone in Chamba, in Uttarakhand June 26, 2013. REUTERS/Danish

Siddiqui.

The technology and machinery are elastic potentials that can be used to systematically deprive the workers of their control of the job (Muller-Jentsch, 2004) and hence the scheme fixed a cap on the use of machinery. The Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, under whose ambit, the scheme falls, expects that works taken up in MGNREGS should change from taking up individual, stand-alone works in a typical ‘relief works mode’ to an INRM perspective. (Ministry of Rural Development, 2013).

• The Uttarakhand Disaster and MGNREGAUttarakhand was carved out of Uttar Pradesh on November 9, 2000 to become the 27th state of India. Located at the foothills of the Himalayan mountain ranges, it is predominantly a hilly state, having international boundaries with the People’s Republic of China in the north and Nepal in the east. On its north-west lies the state of Himachal Pradesh, while on the south it is bounded by Uttar Pradesh. The region is traditionally referred to as Uttarakhand in Hindu scriptures and old literature, a term which derives from the Sanskrit for northern country or section. The high Himalayan ranges and glaciers form most of the northern parts of the state while the lower reaches are densely forested (covering about 60% of the state) with rich natural resources

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 37 and wildlife habitats. Two of India’s major rivers, the Ganga and the Yamuna, originate from Uttarakhand.

Figure 2.8 Map of Uttarakhand showing its various districts.

All the 13 districts in Uttarakhand have been affected by the recent floods, of which four districts have suffered the most. Those districts are Uttarkashi, Rudraprayag, Chamoli and Pithoragarh, and we will be concentrating on these four districts for the purpose of this study. The economy of the state primarily depends on agriculture and tourism. The state receives over 32 million tourists annually, a majority of whom visit the state during the peak summer season (May-July) for pilgrimage and recreation.

S. No. Characteristics Number/ percentage

1. Geographic Area 53,484 sq. km

2. Number of blocks 95

3. Number of villages 16826

4. Number of towns 75

5. Total Population (2011)MaleFemale

1,01,16,7525,154,1784,962,574



6. Population sex ratio 963

7. Child sex ratio 886

8. Decadal growth rate 19.17

9. Density- per sq. km. 189

10. Literacy rateMaleFemale

79.63%88.33%70.70%

11. % SC/ST populationSCST

15.172.56

Figure 2.9 Brief profile of the state of Uttarakhand. Source: (Government of Uttarakhand, 2013).

Phase – I Phase – II Phase – III

ChamoliChampawatTehri Garhwal

Udham Singh NagarHaridwar

RudraprayagBageshwarUttarkashiAlmoraGarhwalPithoragarhNainitalDehradun

Figure 2.10 Districts notified under Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Act.

Parameters Details

Labour Budget for FY 2013-14 [Projected Person-days] 160.68

Projected Person days up to September, 2013 80.34

Opening Balance on 01.04.13 [as per UC] 1411.83

Amount Released by Central Govt. as part of 1st tranche 25063.38

Amount Released by Central Govt. as 2nd and last tranche (with special dispensation)

7937.12

Total 33000.5

Figure 2.11 Financial details for year 2013-14 (Figures/Rs. in lakh).

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 39

Parameters Time frame

2011-12 2012-13

Total Central Share (Rs. in Cr)

Release Release

373.51 268.27098

2011-12 2012-13

Number of Person-days (In Lakh)

Projection Achievement Projection Achievement

232.11 192.68 241.53 158.769 (as per Provisional UC)

Figure 2.12 Financial and physical progress for 2011-12 and 12-13.

• Issues in Release • MIS operationalization is not 100%.

• Other Structural Issues • No State Employment Guarantee Council, SEGC meeting

held in 2012-13 and 2013-14. • Social audit unit is yet to be constituted. • No adequate staff for monitoring MGNREGA work and

MIS management at all levels. • No dedicated SQM (State Quality Monitoring) Unit. • Rules for compensation for delay in payment of wages

not yet framed. • Ombudsman not appointed in all districts. • Audit of all districts and GP accounts (2012-13) not yet

conducted. • Grievance redressal rules not yet framed.

Dis

tric

t

Spill

over

wor

ks

Wor

k ap

prov

ed in

cu

rren

t yea

r

Work taken up in current year

Work completed in current year

App

rove

d in

pr

evio

us y

ear

App

rove

d in

cu

rren

t yea

r

Tota

l

Spill

over

wor

k co

mpl

eted

in

curr

ent y

ear

App

rove

d an

d co

mpl

eted

in

curr

ent y

ear

Tota

l

Chamoli 9386 2177 121 2101 2222 1516 88 1604

Pithoragarh 4544 2551 254 2461 2715 303 94 397


Rudraprayag 629 1608 0 1586 1586 40 123 163

Uttar Kashi 3391 1026 155 986 1141 559 128 687

Figure 2.13 Progress of work execution in financial year 2013-2014.

District name Total ongoing works

No expenditure in current year

Expenditure only on material in current year

Expenditure only on labour in current year

Expenditure on both (material & labour) in current year

Chamoli 10635 5550 651 1495 2939

Pithoragarh 6670 2056 539 1027 3048

Rudraprayag 2049 258 37 625 1129

Uttarkashi 3807 2206 147 325 1129

Figure 2.14 Expenditure analysis of ongoing works during financial year 2013-2014.

Figure 2.15 Pilgrims try to cross a pathway damaged by landslide Rudraprayag in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand June 20, 2013.

2.2 AREA OF STUDYThe present study covers the geographical area of the four worst affected districts of Uttarakhand. The districts are as follows: • Chamoli • Pithoragarh • Rudraprayag • Uttarkashi

Work category Household Percentage of total

Person-days (in lakhs)

Percentage of total

Total amt. Earned (in

lakhs)

Percentage of total

Rural Connectivity 106575 29.31 29.83054 30.09 5034.65181 25.00

Water Conservation 28045 7.71 6.54287 6.60 1398.94654 6.95

Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies 7954 2.19 1.67972 1.69 339.72113 1.69

Flood Control 104384 28.70 32.72132 33.00 6884.38416 34.19

Drought Proofing 11769 3.24 2.4489 2.47 542.4322 2.69

Irrigation Canals 26251 7.22 6.47151 6.53 1494.58956 7.42

Irrigation facilities To SC/ST/IAY/LR 1193 0.33 0.41106 0.41 66.39927 0.33

Land development 66328 18.24 16.34439 16.48 3927.75541 19.51

BNRGSK 1669 0.46 0.54002 0.54 87.24063 0.43

Coastal Areas 99 0.03 0.02322 0.02 3.29724 0.02

Rural Drinking Water 2433 0.67 0.33604 0.34 48.56175 0.24

Fisheries 657 0.18 0.11804 0.12 20.77407 0.10

Rural Sanitation 87 0.02 0.04022 0.04 5.71124 0.03

Other works 6211 1.71 1.64628 1.66 281.23317 1.40

Total 363655 100.00 99.1413 100.00 20135.69817 100.00

Figure 2.16 Work category-wise employment provided: Uttarakhand.


Work category Household Percentage of total


Percentage of total

Total amt. Earned (in

lakhs)

Percentage of total

Rural Connectivity 106575 29.31 29.83054 30.09 5034.65181 25.00

Water Conservation 28045 7.71 6.54287 6.60 1398.94654 6.95

Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies 7954 2.19 1.67972 1.69 339.72113 1.69

Flood Control 104384 28.70 32.72132 33.00 6884.38416 34.19

Drought Proofing 11769 3.24 2.4489 2.47 542.4322 2.69

Irrigation Canals 26251 7.22 6.47151 6.53 1494.58956 7.42

Irrigation facilities To SC/ST/IAY/LR 1193 0.33 0.41106 0.41 66.39927 0.33

Land development 66328 18.24 16.34439 16.48 3927.75541 19.51

BNRGSK 1669 0.46 0.54002 0.54 87.24063 0.43

Coastal Areas 99 0.03 0.02322 0.02 3.29724 0.02

Rural Drinking Water 2433 0.67 0.33604 0.34 48.56175 0.24

Fisheries 657 0.18 0.11804 0.12 20.77407 0.10

Rural Sanitation 87 0.02 0.04022 0.04 5.71124 0.03

Other works 6211 1.71 1.64628 1.66 281.23317 1.40

Total 363655 100.00 99.1413 100.00 20135.69817 100.00

Figure 2.16 Work category-wise employment provided: Uttarakhand.


2.3 BROAD OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDYThe following objectives were formulated for the present study: • To study the work demand pattern. • To study the week-wise work demand for the 2013-14. • To study the total amount of work taken, work completed

and work in progress during the year 2013-14. • To compare the number of job-cards issued during the

year 2012-13 and 2013-14. • To compare the number of registered households during

the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. • To compare the employment demanded for the year

2012-13 and 2013-14. • To compare the employment offered and employment

provided for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14.

2.4 METHODOLOGY ADOPTEDFour out of the 13 districts of Uttarakhand were selected on the basis of impact of the Uttarakhand floods during the month of June 2013. The study covers all the blocks of the mentioned districts. Unless otherwise mentioned, the data used for the purpose of the study is taken from the MGNREGA website. A series of telephonic conversations were held with different stakeholders.

2.5 OBSERVATIONS• Chamoli• History: Today’s Garhwal was known as Kedar-Khand in the past. In the Puranas, Kedar-Khand is said to be the abode of gods. The Vedas, Puranas, Ramayna and Mahabharat state that these Hindu scriptures were scripted in Kedar-Khand. It is believed that God Ganesha’s first script of the vedas in Vayasgufa is situated in the last village Mana, which is only four km from Badrinath. Some historians and scientists believe that this land is the place where the Aryan race originated. It is believed that

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 43 around 300 B.C., Khasa invaded Garhwal through Kashmir, Nepal and Kumaon. A conflict grew due to this invasion. A conflict took place between the outsiders and the natives. The natives built small forts called “Garhi’’ for their protection though natives were eventually defeated by Khasa and their forts were captured. This land was later invaded by Kshatiya, who defeated Khasa and established their regime. They confined Garhwal of hundreds of Garhi in to fifty-two Garhis only. In this period of Katyuri regime Aadi-Guru Sankaracharya visited Garhwal and established Jyotrimath which is one of the four famous Peeths established by Aadi-Guru Sankaracharya. In Bharat varsh, other peeths are at Dwarika, Puri and Sringeri. He also reinstated idol of Lord Badrinath in Badrinath. The idol of Badrinath was formerly hidden in Narad-Kund due to the fear of Buddhists. The devastating earthquake of September 8, 1803 weakened the economic and administrative set-up of Garhwal state. Taking advantage of the situation, Gorkhas attacked Garhwal under the command of Amar Singh Thapa and Hastidal Chanturia. They established their reign over half of Garhwal in 1804 and this region remained under Gorkha rule until 1857. Meanwhile the king of Panwar dynasty Raja Sudarshan Shah contacted the East India Company and sought help. With the help of British he defeated Gorkhas and merged the eastern part of Alaknanda and Mandakani along with the capital Srinagar in British Garhwal. From that time, this region was known as British Garhwal and the capital of Garhwal was set up at Tehri instead of Srinagar. In the beginning, the British rulers kept this area under Dehradun and Saharanpur. But later on, the British established a new district in this area and named it Pauri. Today’s Chamoli was a Tehsil of the same. On February 24, 1960, Tehsil Chamoli was upgraded to a new District, Chamoli, the District of “Garhwal’,’ the land of forts.

• DamagesThe worst affected villages in Chamoli district were Ghangaria, Pulna, Govindghat and Badrinath. A lot of villages have been severely affected between Govindghat and Ghangaria area


and major casualties took place in the Govidghat area. All roads from Joshimath upstream were washed away; the area was accessible only by helicopters or on foot.

Figure 2.17 An aerial view of a flood-hit area in Chamoli (The Hindu).

• Demographics

Description 2011 2001 Description Rural Urban

Actual Population 391,605 370,359 Population (%)

84.83% 15.17%

Male 193,991 183,745 Total Population

332,209 59,396

Female 197,614 186,614 Male Population

160,369 33,622

Population Growth

5.74% 13.87% Female Population

171,840 25,774

Area sq. km 8,030 8,030 Literates 232,303 48,253

Density/km2 49 46 Male Literates

126,871 28,524

Proportion to Uttarakhand Population

3.88% 4.36%

Sex Ratio (Per 1000)

1019 1016 Female Literates

105,432 19,729

Average Literacy 82.65 75.43

Male Literacy 93.4 89.66 Average Literacy

80.94% 91.99%

Female Literacy 72.32 61.63

Literates 280,556 237,354 Male Literacy

92.91% 95.63%


Male Literates 155,395 138,934

Female Literates 125,161 98,420 Female Literacy

70.08% 87.20%

Figure 2.18 Chamoli’s demographic statistics.

• Work category-wise employment provided

Year 2013-14 2012-13

Work category

Pers

on d

ays

(in la

khs.

)

Perc

enta

ge

of to

tal

Tota

l am

t. Ea

rned

(in

lakh

s.)

Perc

enta

ge

of to

tal

Pers

onda

ys

(in la

khs)

Perc

enta

ge

of to

tal

Tota

l am

t. ea

rned

(in

lakh

s)

Perc

enta

ge

of to

tal

Rural Connectivity

3.85 39.07 890.30 27.40 2.9363 14.07 368.07 14.19

Water Conservation

0.16 1.65 100.74 3.10 1.2964 6.21 160.73 6.19

Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies

0.06 0.63 36.33 1.12 0.2114 1.01 26.83 1.03

Flood Control 3.54 35.95 1327.51 40.86 10.266 49.20 1271.02 48.99

Drought Proofing

0.82 8.35 209.70 6.45 2.5792 12.36 322.03 12.41

Irrigation Canals

0.28 2.80 162.62 5.01 1.336 6.40 166.36 6.41

Irrigation Facilities To SC/ST/IAY/LR

0.00 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.0209 0.10 2.61 0.10

Land development

0.88 8.98 463.60 14.27 1.8492 8.86 230.82 8.90

BNRGSK 0.03 0.28 5.96 0.18 0.0017 0.01 0.22 0.01

Coastal Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rural Drinking Water

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fisheries 0.01 0.10 4.51 0.14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rural Sanitation

0.00 0.04 0.58 0.02 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Other works 0.21 2.15 46.72 1.44 0.3694 1.77 45.99 1.77

Total 9.84 100.00 3248.86 100.00 20.867 100.00 2594.67 100.00

Figure 2.19 Category-wise provision of employment 2012-13 and 2013-14.


• DemographicsDescription 2011 2001 Description Rural Urban

Actual Population

483,439 462,289 Population (%) 85.60% 14.40%


413,834 69,605


202,930 36,376

Population Growth


210,904 33,229


Density/km2 68 65 Male Literates 159,729 29,894


4.79% 5.45%

Sex Ratio (Per 1000)


129,527 26,400

Average Literacy 82.25 75.95


80.59% 91.97%


Literates 345,550 296,362 Male Literacy 92.36% 94.87%



69.64% 88.88%

Figure 2.24 Pithorgarh: demographic statistics.

• Work category-wise employment provided

Year 2013-14 2012-13

Work category

Pers

on-d

ays

(in

lakh

s)

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al

Tota

l am

t. Ea

rned

(in

lakh

s)

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al

Pers

on-d

ays

(in

lakh

s)

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al

Tota

l am

t. Ea

rned

(in

lakh

s)

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al

Rural Connectivity

4.80 34.46 752.74 32.26 2.71 13.32 338.80 13.31

Water Conservation

1.21 8.72 220.84 9.47 2.46 12.10 307.68 12.09


Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies

0.13 0.92 25.34 1.09 0.48 2.36 60.87 2.39

Flood Control 4.02 28.89 695.98 29.83 7.08 34.79 886.26 34.81

Drought Proofing

0.08 0.60 14.01 0.60 0.56 2.75 69.90 2.75

Irrigation Canals 0.72 5.15 132.75 5.69 1.99 9.77 248.37 9.76

Irrigation Facilities To SC/ST/IAY/LR

0.01 0.06 1.29 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.96 0.04

Land development

2.22 15.97 369.74 15.85 3.52 17.28 439.37 17.26

BNRGSK 0.21 1.51 36.88 1.58 0.43 2.12 53.83 2.11

Coastal Areas 0.02 0.17 3.30 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rural Drinking Water

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fisheries 0.05 0.39 8.01 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rural Sanitation 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.01

Other works 0.44 3.14 71.97 3.08 1.12 5.48 139.57 5.48

Total 13.92 100.00 2333.07 100.00 20.35 100.00 2545.76 100.00

Figure 2.25 Category-wise provision of employment 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Figure 2.26 Work demand patterns for the years 2012-13 & 2013-14 in Pithoragarh.

• RudraprayagIt was established on September 16, 1997. The district was carved out from the following areas of three adjoining districts.


• Whole of Augustmuni & Ukhimath Block and part of Pokhri & Karnprayag Block from Chamoli district.

• Part of Jakholi and Kirtinagar blocks from Tehri district; and

• Part of Khirsu Block from Pauri District.

Figure 2.27 Work demand pattern during the financial year, household in different blocks (2013-14).


The world-famous Shri Kedarnath temple is in the north, Madmaheshwar in the east, Nagrasuin the south-east and Shrinagar in the extreme south. The holy Mandakini which originates from Kedarnath is the main river of the district.

• History: Some historians and scientists believe that the Aryan race originated in this land. It is believed that around 300 B.C. Khasa invaded Garhwal through Kashmir, Nepal and Kumaon. A conflict grew due to this invasion. A conflict took

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 51 place between the outsiders and the natives. The natives built small forts called ‘Garhi’ for their protection but eventually they were defeated by Khasa and their forts were captured. During the war period (1939-42), the Tehri state supplied a huge amount of wood to the Britishers while the king himself offered his services to them during the First World War. Some of his achievements were developing the new township of Narendra Nagar, construction of Kirti Nagar, Tehri, Muni Kireti etc. He died on September 22, 1950 in a car accident but had already relinquished the throne in favour of his son Manvendra Shah on May 26, 1946. The later ruled the State from 1946 till the state was merged with the Indian Union in August 1949.

• DamagesRudraprayag is the worst affected district: 658 villages • Due to a cloudburst resulting in heavy rains on June

14, 2013, the banks of the lake Chorbaria Tal (Ghandi-Sarovar) situated above Kendarnath village burst causing flash floods and landslides and washing away villages downstream.

• The villages of Kendarnath, a tourist and religious pilgrimage site situated just below the lake, were completely washed away.

Figure 2.29 A view of the flood-devastated surroundings of Kedarnath temple in Rudraprayag - PTI.

• Downstream villages of Rambara, Gaurikund and Sonprayang were also washed away.


• All roads from Sonprayang upstream were washed away; the area is accessible only by helicopters or on foot.

• Government reports estimate that in 3 villages around Rambara all men above age 14 were killed leaving a number of widowed families.

• Demographics

Description 2011 2001 Description Rural Urban

Actual Population

242,285 227,439 Population (%) 95.90% 4.10%


232,360 9,925


108,740 5,849

Population Growth


123,620 4,076


Density/km2 122 115 Male Literates 86,853 4,950


2.40% 2.68%

Sex Ratio (per 1000)


76,091 3,039

Average Literacy

81.3 73.65


80.92% 90.03%


Literates 170,933 141,078 Male Literacy 93.90% 94.00%



69.89% 84.23%

Figure 2.30 Rudraprayag’s demographic statistics.

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 53 •

Wor

k ca

tego

ry-w

ise

empl

oym

ent p

rovi

ded

Year

2013

-14

2012

-13

Wor

k ca

tego

ry


Percentage of total

Total amt. Earned (in lakhs)

Percentage of total


Percentage of total

Total amt. Earned (in lakhs)

%

Rura

l Con

nect

ivity

3.27

45.7

746

4.96

41.2

00.

000.

000.

000.

00

Wat

er C

onse

rvat

ion

0.14

2.02

27.2

82.

420.

000.

000.

000.

00

Reno

vatio

n of

Tra

ditio

nal W

ater

Bod

ies

0.07

0.97

14.4

31.

280.

237.

0328

.61

6.95

Floo

d C

ontr

ol2.

5936

.21

440.

7639

.05

0.13

4.12

16.9

64.

12

Dro

ught

Pro

ofin

g0.

070.

9910

.76

0.95

1.69

51.9

521

4.91

52.1

7

Irri

gatio

n C

anal

s0.

354.

9469

.25

6.14

0.26

7.88

32.7

37.

95

Irri

gatio

n Fa

cilit

ies

To S

C/S

T/IA

Y/LR

0.30

4.13

44.0

83.

910.

5516

.98

69.3

816

.84

Land

dev

elop

men

t0.

314.

3550

.74

4.50

0.10

3.18

13.0

03.

16

BNRG

SK0.

010.

090.

890.

080.

257.

7831

.96

7.76

Coa

stal

Are

as0.

000.

000.

000.

000.

031.

084.

371.

06

Rura

l Dri

nkin

g W

ater

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Fish

erie

s0.

030.

464.

710.

420.

000.

000.

000.

00

Rura

l San

itatio

n0.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00

Oth

er w

orks

0.01

0.08

0.79

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Tota

l7.

1510

0.00

1128

.65

100.

003.

2510

0.00

411.

9210

0.00

Figu

re 2

.31

Cat

egor

y-w

ise

empl

oym

ent p

rovi

ded

.


Figure 2.32 Work demand pattern for the years 2012-13 & 2013-14.



• Uttarkashi• History: Uttarkashi district was created on February 24, 1960. It was created out of the then constituted Parganas of Rawain and Uttarkashi of Rawain Tehsil of erstwhile Tehri-

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 57 •

Wor

k ca

tego

ry w

ise

empl

oym

ent p

rovi

ded

Year

2013

-14

2012

-13

Wor

k ca

tego

ryPe

rson

- da

ys (i

n la

khs)

Perc

enta

ge

of to

tal

Tota

l am

t. ea

rned

(in

lakh

s)

Perc

enta

ge

of to

tal

Pers

on-

days

(in

lakh

s)

Perc

enta

ge

of to

tal

Tota

l am

t. ea

rned

(in

lakh

s)

Perc

enta

ge

of to

tal

Rura

l Con

nect

ivity

1.70

21.0

424

9.04

14.8

90.

070.

548.

570.

51

Wat

er C

onse

rvat

ion

0.33

4.03

82.0

14.

900.

907.

3113

1.63

7.89

Reno

vatio

n of

Tra

ditio

nal W

ater

Bo

dies

0.19

2.30

40.5

72.

430.

423.

4258

.35

3.50

Floo

d C

ontr

ol3.

8547

.75

836.

2449

.99

5.90

47.6

876

4.76

45.8

7

Dro

ught

Pro

ofin

g0.

121.

4334

.20

2.04

0.75

6.04

100.

386.

02

Irri

gatio

n C

anal

s0.

647.

9616

0.62

9.60

1.84

14.8

525

5.49

15.3

2

Irri

gatio

n Fa

cilit

ies

To S

C/S

T/IA

Y/LR

0.02

0.30

7.54

0.45

0.08

0.68

10.5

10.

63

Land

dev

elop

men

t1.

1013

.68

244.

7614

.63

2.27

18.3

632

0.45

19.2

2

BNRG

SK0.

070.

829.

400.

560.

040.

294.

420.

27

Coa

stal

Are

as0.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00

Rura

l Dri

nkin

g W

ater

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Fish

erie

s0.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00

Rura

l San

itatio

n0.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

00

Oth

er w

orks

0.05

0.68

8.50

0.51

0.10

0.83

12.8

40.

77

Tota

l8.

0710

0.00

1672

.89

100.

0012

.37

100.

0016

67.4

010

0.00


Figure 2.36 Work demand pattern for the years 2012-13 & 2013-14 in Uttarkashi.




• Comparison of Districts

Figure 2.39 Week-wise demand for the year 2013-2014 in Chamoli, Pithoragarh, Rudraprayag and Uttarkashi taken together.

Figure 2.40 The total amount of work taken, work completed and work in progress in the year 2013-2014.

TWT = Total amount of work takenWC = Work completedWP = Work in progress


Figure 2.44 The employment offered during 2012-13 & 2013-14 in Chamoli, Pithoragarh, Rudraprayag & Uttarkashi.

Figure 2.45 The employment provided during the years 2012-13 & 2013-14 in Chamoli, Pithoragarh, Rudraprayag & Uttarkashi.

District Chamoli Pithoragarh Rudra-prayag

Uttarkashi

GP Level Works

Labour 3062.96 2115.75 1109.02 1517.64

Material 1501.18 1001.21 403.78 804.26

BP Level Works

Labour 0 7.78 0 119.85

Material 0 4.11 0 71.47

ZP Level Works

Labour 0 0.32 0 0

Material 0 0.14 0 0


District Chamoli Pithoragarh Rudra-prayag

Uttarkashi

Tota

l Wor

ks

Labour 3062.96 2123.85 1109.02 1637.49

Labour (%) 67.11 67.87 73.31 65.16

Material 1501.18 1005.46 403.78 875.73

Material (%) 32.89 32.13 26.69 34.84

Total 4564.14 3129.31 1512.8 2513.22

Figure 2.46 Labour, material ratio analysis for the financial year 2013-2014.

• Period-wise employment provided

Chamoli Pithoragarh Rudrprayag Uttarkashi

Total 2013-14

2012-13 2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13

2013-14

2012-13

Attendance 1-10 days

5074 3529 19923 13887 14930 10861 22875 22168


76899 49916 132617 113706 56863 38787 82653 94554


156314 128694 216411 214204 89001 56382 118502 172555


145402 192187 158756 208424 65232 56044 94214 171989


174743 334098 183453 252225 81825 45052 105917 209587


109858 332320 143657 252551 66036 38420 75837 187798


66899 332019 66478 154852 63106 35036 69325 164915


71330 373394 122802 266132 45322 28380 57883 147797


92446 870077 156954 630241 78257 47409 86257 277889

Attendance equal to 100 days

7400 473900 7400 126000 7100 46600 8700 65100


72083 477020 174528 86899 128944 12370 82059 147521

Attendance above 150 days

3369 0 9271 0 18713 0 4456 829

Total attendance

981817 3567154 1392250 2319121 715329 415341 808678 1662702


• FindingsIn all the months from April to March except July, the demand for work was low in 2013-2014 as compared to 2012-2013. In the month of July the demand for work increased in 2013-2014. This might be due to the devastation which took place in Uttarakhand in June and Chamoli was much affected. The demand for work grew in the month of July (2013-2014) as the livelihood of more and more villagers was affected by the floods and they needed work for sustaining their lives. The demand for work grew in the earlier part of 2013-14 and it was more compared to the fiscal year 2012-13 in the months of April, May, June and July. It started to fall and it was lower than what it was in 2012-13 in the months of August, September, October, November, December, and January. In the district of Pithoragarh, the demand for work was high since the start of the financial year of 2013-14 but then it dropped in May, increased slightly in June and it increased further in July (2013-14). The demand for work in the month of July (2013-14) was higher than the demand for work in the month of July (2012-13), the rise in the work demand in the month of July (2013-14) can be attributed to the aftermath of the Uttarakhand disaster. The people were unemployed and wanted to meet their needs thus, MGNREGA helped them by providing employment just after the floods, which affected their lives. The work demand pattern in Rudraprayag for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14, shows that the demand for work increased tremendously in the month of July (2013-2014) shortly after the Uttarakhand floods. As Rudraprayag was one of the worst affected Districts, we can confidently say that MGNREGA played its role in providing employment to the people, and it acted as a rehabilitative measure for the victims of the flood in Rudraprayag district. The people demanded more work in 2013-2014 from the month of June till December than demanded in the 2012-2013. The work demand pattern of Uttarkashi was studied during the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. The work demand

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 65 The trend described above can be understood by knowing that Chamoli, Pithoragarh, Rudraprayag and Uttarkashi are the districts which were affected most by the Uttarakhand disaster. When the disaster struck Uttarakhand, the place was devastated and the main priority was to save lives. People became homeless and jobless; they needed time to understand the exact loss which happened to them. We can infer from the trends described above that people of the mentioned four districts started to become more resilient from the first week of July, when they started to demand for work to sustain themselves and their families. The types of works done during 2013-14 under MGNREGA were diverse. The large increase in work in the district Chamoli was under rural connectivity. It rose from 14.07% in 2012-13 to 39.07% in 2013-14. As due to the floods the connectivity between different villages and districts reduced as road access was limited due to broken roads. The Ministry has said that removal of debris from roads or private lands could be carried out as permissible activity under the MGNREGA and that was what exactly happened in 2013-14. As mentioned above, there was a rise in work done under rural connectivity in 2013-14 thus, more people were employed and more employment was given under MGNREGA. Thus, under MGNREGA people were given employment after the disaster to rehabilitate them, Schedule I of the MGNREGA, paragraph 1 (IX) makes it possible to increase the types of work that may be done. The work done for restoring rural connectivity was also of high priority as it was hindering the livelihood of the people. According to Christian Aid (2013) ‘The household expenditure has been reduced by half with the major reason being supply of relief materials to the community. The major reduction has been in purchase of food items and hygiene kits.’ They further stated: ‘standing crop has been destroyed and even market has been destroyed. The farmers are able to cultivate to some extent for self-consumption. As vegetables do not have a long shelf life, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the farmers to reach the local markets post disaster. Damaged roads have made this almost impossible for many of them (Christain Aid, 2013).


The necessary items were not in supply because of the poor connectivity due to bad roads. Work done under MGNREGA helped in building roads thus, improving connectivity and, in turn, improving the supply of materials which helped in stabilising the local economy. Likewise in the other two districts, i.e., Pithoragarh and Uttarkashi the work done under rural connectivity also rose significantly. In Rudraprayag no work was done under rural connectivity in 2012-13 but in 2013-14 the percentage of work under rural connectivity was 45.77%. Christian Aid (2013) stated that ‘Reaching out to the villages in both the blocks (Ukhimath & Augustyamuni) was a significant challenge as road connectivity was extremely poor coupled with monsoons.’ Thus, rural connectivity was the area under which lot of people got employment in Uttarakhand. We studied the total amount of work taken, work completed and work in progress during 2013-14. The total work taken was highest in Chamoli, followed by Pithoragarh, Uttarkashi and Rudraprayag. Work completed was again highest in Chamoli, followed by Uttarkashi, then Pithoragarh and Rudraprayag. Work in progress was highest in Pithoragarh, then Chamoli, Uttarkashi and lastly Rudraprayag. Chamoli was the area which had the highest number of works in the year 2013-14 consequently contributing to the rehabilitation of the victims who worked under MGNREGA in 2013-14. It gave them more employment opportunities. One of the objectives of MGNREGA is to strengthen the local economy by developing important infrastructure. In Uttarakhand after the 2013 floods, our findings suggest that MGNREGA played an important role in strengthening the local economy by creating jobs in infrastructure restoration and development. We found that the number of job cards issued for both the years are more or less same in all the four districts, i.e., Chamoli, Pithoragarh, Rudraprayag and Uttarkashi. Our study shows that there is a slight increase in the number of registered households in Rudraprayag district from 2012-13 to 2013-14; the figures of rest of the districts are


engaged in the implementation of the scheme who had helped people in distress, helping them to bounce back from adversity and making them more self-reliant.

2.6 RECOMMENDATIONS • The administration should be trained and equipped to

deal with sudden disasters and should be well informed of different provisions under NREGA to deal with them.

• The provision of mandatory job cards may be waived off for a particular duration or till the proper infrastructure is in place.

• The decision making authority of Gram Panchayat should not be compromised rather, they should be re- strengthened and must be empowered to cater to the need of its population in a timely manner.

• The payment of wages should be ensured on daily basis and provision of advance payment or a week could also be worked out.

• The provision of providing basic facilities will have multiple benefits such as toilets, kitchen, and crèches, etc., which are already under the provision of MNREGA.

• There should be leniency with respect to class and even well to do persons might want to work for a limited time, they should not be discriminated.

BibliographyAbraham, V. (2009). Employment Growth in Rural India: Distress-

Driven? Economic and Political Weekly, 44(16), 97-104.Action Aid International. (2006). Tsunami Response: A Human Rights

Assessment. Johannesburg: Action Aid International.Azam, M. (2012). The Impact of Indian Job Guarantee Scheme on Labor

Market Outcomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labour.

Chadha, G. K. (2003). Rural Employment in India: Current Situation, Challenges and Potential for Expansion. Geneva: Recovery and Reconstruction Department, International Labour Office.

Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2010). Expectations of government’s response to disaster. Public Choice, 253-274.

70 Community Governance in India: Case Studies in MGNREGA Kelman, I., Spence, R., Palmer, J., Petal, M., & Saito, K. (2008). Tourists

and Disasters: Lessons from the 26 December 2004 Tsunamis. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 105-113.

Khanna, P. (2010, Spetember). How secure is national rural employement guarantee as a safety net. Berlin, Germany: VI Global Labour University Conference.

Khera, R. (2013). Democratic Politics and Legal Rights: Employment guarantee and food security in India. New Delhi: Institute of Economic Growth.

Kirsch, T. D., Wadhwani, C., Sauer, L., Doocy, S., & Catlett, C. (2012). Impact of the 2010 Pakistan Floods on Rural and Urban Populations at Six Months. 2012: PLOS Current Disasters.

Krishnamurty, J. (2006, March). Employment Guarantee and Crisis Response. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(9), 789-790.

Kumar, G. S. (1997). Disaster Management and Social Development. International Review of Modern Sociology, 57-67.

Mehta, A. K., Shepherd, A., Bhide, S., Shah, A., & Kumar, A. (2011). India Chronic Poverty Report: Towards Solutions and New Compacts In a Dynamic Context. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public Administration.

Melamed, C., Hartwig, R., & Grant, U. (2011). Jobs, growth and poverty: what do we know, what don’t we know, what should we know? Overseas Development Institute. London: The Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved from www.odi.org.uk

Ministry of Rural Development. (2013). Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (Operational Guidelines 2013, 4th Edition). New DElhi: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

Mitchell, J. K. (1995). Coping with Natural Hazards and Disasters in Megacities: Perspectives on the Twenty-First Century. GeoJournal, 303-311.

Mukherjee, D., & Sinha, U. B. (2011). UNDERSTANDING NREGA: A SIMPLE THEORY AND SOME FACTS. Delhi: Centre for Development Economics.

Muller-Jentsch, W. (2004). Theoretical Approaches to Industrial Relations. In B. Kaufman, Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship (pp. 1-40). New York: ILR Press, Cornell University Press.

Oliver-Smith, A. (1996). Anthropological Research on Hazards and Disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology, 303-328.

Oya, C. (2010). Rural inequality, wage employment and labour market formation in Africa: Historical and micro-level evidence. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Parkash, S. (2013). Brief Report on visit to Alaknanda Valley, Uttarakhand Himalaya during 22-24 June 2013. New Delhi: National Institute of Disaster Management.


their flood ways and started flowing along the old courses where human habitation had come up with passage of time (when the river had abandoned this course and shifted its path to the east side). Thus, the furious river destroyed the buildings and other infrastructure that came in its way. Due to morphological setting of the area, the river has high sinuosity and hence, high level of erosive capacity, especially when it is loaded with sediments (the erosive power of river with sediments is almost square of the erosive power without sediments). The area has been denuded to a great extent due to deforestation and cutting of trees for construction of road and buildings, mining, hydel projects, etc. It has also resulted into increased surface flow and rise of river bed due to disposal of debris into the rivers. Geologically, the rocks in this area are found highly deformed, degraded and dissected by structural discontinuities and drainage. The hazard turned into a major disaster when people along with their properties and infrastructure occupied such areas without adequate information, knowledge, awareness and preparedness against the potential disaster. As June is a month for pilgrimage by the Hindus and Sikhs, most of the people prefer to visit the temples at Kedarnath, Badrinath and Hemkund Sahib before the monsoon begins. A huge crowd was present in the valley as tourists, pilgrims and trekkers besides the local population, businessmen, tour/lodge/guesthouse operators etc. When the water in the river started growing, these people could not understand what is likely to happen next. By the time, they realized the disaster, they were already trapped into it and could not find ways to escape. Thus, a large number of people ran for safety on the uphill sides and many of them even tried to quickly cross the swollen fast flowing river that engulfed them as it appeared in furious mood with lot of big stones and sediments. The sediment loaded river began eroding/dumping whatever came in its way. Most of hotels, shops and guesthouses/lodges were located on this side and got washed by the river water, killing many of the people who were present there (Parkash, 2013).

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 25 It is important to note that for the last year the number of tourists who visited the state is more than double the total population of the state (IL & FS, 2012).

Figure 2.3 Loss of infrastructure was everywhere; the major obstacle in rescue and relief operations was accessibility.

Numerous deaths took place due to exposure and starvation. Countless others died due to flash floods and landslides in the upper territories of the region, especially in the vicinity of Kedarnath temple. Every day, bodies of deceased were recovered by the relief agencies from the flooded areas and the mud slides that were spread over vast areas of the hill state.

Figure 2.4 Evacuation centre near the state capital, Dehradun.

The Indian Army, Indian Air Force, the Indo Tibetan Border Force and para-military troopers, had carried out the biggest


ever relief and rescue operation in living memory, while the National and State Disaster management teams joined hands to help the people who were stranded in the different parts of the state. (India Meteorological Department, 2013).

Parameters Status

Human lives lost 580

Persons missing 5200

Villages affected 4200

Cattle/livestock lost 9200

Tourist stranded 72,000

Local inhabitants 100,000

Persons evacuated from affected areas 110,000

Figure 2.5 Uttarakhand disaster 2013. Source: (Government of Uttarakhand, 2013).

After the rescue operations, the long term relief and rehabilitation measures are underway. Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh decided to provide an amount of Rs. 1000 crore to Uttarakhand for disaster relief, of which Rs. 145 crore was released immediately (PMO, 2013). A $250 million credit to the state of Uttarakhand in India was approved by the World Bank Board of Executive Directors to help the state in its post-disaster recovery plans as well as strengthen its capacity for disaster risk management (The World Bank, 2013). Nature is neutral. We need to understand that natural disasters do not follow a selection process; the people at the sharp edge of disasters are not victims of chance or targets of an angry and violent nature (Kapur, 2005). In the context of rural areas, particularly the impact on the rural economy, including agriculture crops, livestock, animal sheds, personal seed stocks, fertilizers, agricultural machinery, fisheries and forestry is so magnanimous that its true evaluation is almost impossible to make as seen in the case of 2010 Pakistan floods.(Kirsch, Wadhwani, Sauer, Doocy, and Catlett, 2012). Urban hazards and disasters are an interactive mix of natural, technological and social events (Mitchell, 1995). In developing countries the megacities often lack the most basic

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 29 of a community versus as a solitary victim influences an individual’s ability to return to work (Rasco and North, 2010). When a large negative shock occurs, the usual household activities may not yield sufficient income. If all households in a community or region are affected, local income earning activities are unlikely to be sufficient (Dercon, 2002), with the association with community getting stronger, it is seen that the full participation in community based disaster programmes is both cost effective and socially responsible (Drabek, 1995). In case of areas with large population, the employees may be requested to volunteer to assist the community with disaster relief activities through recognised emergency management bodies (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2014). As far as post-disaster scenario is concerned, the restoration of livelihoods is still a long way off, with most people either unemployed, underemployed or looking for alternative sources of income. Nowhere did people believe that their livelihoods had been fully restored. In Andhra Pradesh, fishermen complain that in two years, despite the compensation and aid that they have received, they are still unable to cope with the loss of income (Action Aid International, 2006). It is not that people are not willing to work; they are, provided they have opportunities. In a major study on post-disaster employment, it was observed that of those employed at the time of the disasters who were followed up for three years, only 5% were no longer working (Rasco and North, 2010). Longitudinal studies like these dispel the myth that people tend to rely more on aid rather looking up for employment. In the post-displacement period, the affected people sustain their daily livelihood by use of assets created in the pre-displacement period, as there are no alternative stable economic activities (Das, 2009). The process of recovery favours only those who have had access to resources and power prior to disaster (Kumar, 1997). This brings us to the people who are at the face of poverty, who did not even had a primary economic stability even in pre-displacement period or even those who are normally above poverty line and find their assets have disappeared or income sources have dried

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 31 An employment guarantee focused on asset-creating works that are labour intensive and at the same time could tackle problems of unemployment, environmental regeneration and agricultural growth in one stroke. And this is precisely how MGNREGA has been conceived (Shah, 2007). The objectives of the programme include: • Ensuring social protection for the most vulnerable people

living in rural India through providing employment opportunities.

• Ensuring livelihood security for the poor through creation of durable assets, improved water security, soil conservation and higher land productivity.

• Strengthening drought-proofing and flood management in rural India.

• Aiding in the empowerment of the marginalised communities, especially women, Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), through the processes of a rights-based legislation.

• Strengthening decentralised, participatory planning through convergence of various anti-poverty and livelihood initiatives.

• Deepening democracy at the grass roots by strengthening the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs),

• Effecting greater transparency and accountability in governance.

The process of employment as envisioned in the scheme is as follows: 1. Registration: Adult members of a rural household

willing to do unskilled manual work, may apply for registration either in writing, or orally to the local Gram Panchayat (GP) every year.

2. Job Card: After due verification of place of residence and age of the member/s (only adult members are eligible for employment), the registered household is issues a job card (JC). Job card forms the basis of identification for demanding employment. A JC is to be issued within 15 days of registration. Each JC has a unique identification

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand 37 and wildlife habitats. Two of India’s major rivers, the Ganga and the Yamuna, originate from Uttarakhand.

Figure 2.8 Map of Uttarakhand showing its various districts.

All the 13 districts in Uttarakhand have been affected by the recent floods, of which four districts have suffered the most. Those districts are Uttarkashi, Rudraprayag, Chamoli and Pithoragarh, and we will be concentrating on these four districts for the purpose of this study. The economy of the state primarily depends on agriculture and tourism. The state receives over 32 million tourists annually, a majority of whom visit the state during the peak summer season (May-July) for pilgrimage and recreation.


1. Geographic Area 53,484 sq. km

2. Number of blocks 95

3. Number of villages 16826

4. Number of towns 75

5. Total Population (2011)MaleFemale

1,01,16,7525,154,1784,962,574

Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in...

Documents

Transcript of Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in Uttarakhand Role of MGNREGA in Disaster Mitigation in...