Has NREGA reduced poverty in Orissa villages?

This article came in the special publication titled "The Half Way Mark and state of Realisation of MDG in Orissa" by Millennium Development Goals (MDG) campaign in Orissa on the occasion of celebration of the 7/7/7 i.e. the half way mark of the target period

http://www.wadanatodo.net/download/MDGs%20across%20India/Orissa/reports/Orissa%20MDG%20Report.pdf

Has NREGA reduced poverty in Orissa villages?
Pradeep Baisakh

India is conceived as a welfare state by the Constitution makers. From early days of independence plethora of welfare schemes have been launched by the central and state governments to attack the prevailing widespread poverty particularly in the rural areas where the percentage of poor people living is higher than the urban areas. A lot of wage employment schemes have been in place to provide unskilled labour to the villagers; however all of them have come as charity of the state toward its people. At no point of time the power structure of the country was bothered to think that citizen has a fundamental right to work which constitute a part of the right to life guaranteed under part III of the Constitution. Finally however, due to constant pressure from the civil society organizations (CSOs) National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) has been enacted by the State recognizing that work is to be provided to the willing sections in the villages as a matter of their right, not just as charity. This is how there have been a conceptual alternation in the phenomenon of providing work to the rural household assuming that a right based approach can only restore the dignity of the labourers and it can effectively alleviate prevailing poverty, unemployment and starvation deaths in various parts of the country. In the state of Orissa the act has been in operation since 2nd February 2006 in 19 districts, 205 blocks, 3672 Gram Panchayats and 32047 villages; 5 more districts have been added to the list in the financial year 2007-08.The primary objectives of the act are to provide 100 days of guaranteed employment to every rural house holds (HH) so identified irrespective of whether the HH is under BPL list or not, increase the livelihood status of people, reduce distressed migration, promote women's participation in work force, create durable infrastructure in rural areas, contribute to regeneration of natural resources etc. Legally and popularly the cat has come to be known as Orissa Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (OREGS) in the state. Giving any judgment on whether NREGA/OREGS has been able to alleviate poverty of rural mass in the state would, at this juncture, be premature as the act is in operation for little more than a year whose concrete impact has not been assessed as yet. (In fact in such a short period such assessment could not be made). Nevertheless one could assess the long term impact of the act on poverty if s/he critically looks into how the act has actually operated in the state. Official figures on the performance of the act: According to the official figures, out of Rs 888.57 crore received under the programme, Rs 706.51 crore had been spent by March 2007. By the same period, over 28 lakh households had been registered and from a list of 13.53 lakh people, 13.40 lakh were provided with work. Up to February 2007 the average number of households provided employment in a district of the State is 68,861 while the national average is 91,685 households. Besides, 48 thousand households have completed the 100 days guarantee of employment provided in the Act. The number of person days of employment provided in the State is 626.61 lakh. The average person days of employment provided in a district is 32.98 lakh compared to the national average of 36.47 lakh person days. As may be understood that the official figures themselves are not very satisfying and to certain extent disturbing also. For example, out of 28 lakh registered HH, only 13.53 lakh HH demanded jobs. This is attributed to the State's inability to spread required awareness on the act. As in many cases during interaction with the people by various organisations, study teams etc it was ascertained that people are of the impression that job would come to them as a natural sequence of getting job cards, whereas NREGA is actually a demand driven programme. Similarly according to official figures itself from a list of 13.53 lakh people, 13.40 lakh were provided with work. As a result near about o.16 lakh people were not provided with jobs despite their demands. This means that if not all, but substantial chunk of this number were legally entitled to unemployment allowance; but as per available report only a handful people in one panchayat of Malcanagiri district have been given unemployment allowance that too after they sat in dharna before the Panchayat office. The realty check on the ground done by various Civil Society Organisations in form of surveying, social audits etc in last one year, however, would provide a different picture and certainly refute the tall claims of the government, at least partially.

The findings may be summed up as follows:

Summary of ground realties on implementation:

1. All families are not registered

2. Many have not received job cards

3. There are instances of presence of ghost cards

4. In some instances, work days were already entered in the cards at the time of their issuance

5. Sometimes, number of work days mentioned was more than what people had put in. 6. Names had been entered wrongly in some cases.

7. NREGA work had not yet begun in some areas .

8. Where work had started minimum wages were not paid and were not paid on weekly/fortnightly basis .

9. There are allegations of discrimination against women vivs-a-vis the distribution of minimum wages.

10. In many instances demand applications were not received by the Panchyat authorities. 11. In almost all cases dated receipt were not provided against the work demand application to cleverly evade the demand for unemployment allowance.

12. Application forms to get job cards were not available in some gram panchayats

13. Contractors were doing the work in many cases .

14. Village level leaders or 'Gram Sevaks' themselves sold work illegally to the traditional contractor in few instances.

15. There were no village level vigilance and monitoring committees in some places , or wherever they existed, they were only on pen and paper and in most cases are hand-picked individuals.

16. Data was not available in some GPs and blocks and where it was available, it was not correct when crosschecked with people and official website on NREGA.

17. In almost all the cases muster rolls were not available at the worksite

18. In general there is shortage of staff for implementation

Case studies from the grass-root:

Some of the case studies are given here which came during village visits by the survey and study teams.

a. Non-issue of Job Cards:

In a detailed survey conducted by Agragamee, a NGO based in southern Orissa in Koraput and Raygada districts during November 2006 to January 2007 it was found that in Tentuliguda village of Mujang panchayat, in Badabagri, and Bhandisil villages of Dumbaguda panchayat, both under Dasmantpur block of Koraput district and in Kumbharsila village of Kashipur panchayat and block of Raygada district, there are families which have not received job card, even though they have registered along with everybody else in the village. As a result, these families are not able to avail the entitlements under the act. Similarly in 30 villages in Dasmantpur Block, out of 1336 eligible households, 125 households have not been provided with job cards. And ironically in many of these excluded families belong to the most vulnerable sections like women headed households, or senior citizens, suggests the survey! The act however mandates issuance of job cards within 15 days of registration.

b. Irregularity in the maintenance of Muster Rolls:
In Kudikitunda village of Kodipari panchayat under Kashipur Block of Raygada district in some cases where work had been started, muster roll was not available even after two months of beginning of work. It was also found in those areas that people were being paid an incomplete amount of wages and were told that the rest payment would be made at the time of the final bill. Muster Rolls were not maintained properly, as a result of which people were not getting their due payment.

c. Manipulation of Job Cards:

In Nabaguchha village under Gayaganda panchayat under Jagannath Prasad block of Gamjam district there are allegations of job card manipulation by the Village Level Leader. Bhgyalata Jani, a women from ST community has worked for four days and paid for those number of days, but her job card showed 12 days of work. Mr Balaram Muduli of Kanheimunda Village under Lamtaguda Panchayat of Nabrangpur District has worked for only 1 day but there was entry of 52 days in his job card.

d. Discrepancy in Job Cards records and Muster Rolls:

In Khandiaguda and Bijapadar villages of Tentulikhunti Panchayat of Nabrangpur District, and in Parajabarikanta village of Dasmantpur Panchayat of Koraput District, discrepancy has been found between the job card records, and muster rolls. In some instances, where people had protested, the work had been discontinued.

e. Non-receipt of Applications: In the same survey conducted by Agragamee, it was found that there was nobody to accept applications for work in some panchayat and block offices of Koraput and Rayagada districts. This was a major difficulty which frustrated people's attempts for work and self-reliance.

f. No work even after applying for job, neither any Unemployment Allowance:

Sunia Mallick of Sisuli village under Rudhapadar panchayat of Jagannath Prasad block applied for job, but did not get the same even after fifteen days, neither was he given any unemployment allowance. In another instance near about 250 people from about 24 villages of five panchayats of Jagannath Prasad block had made mass applications for job, which the BDO received in the month of august 2006, but were neither given jobs nor given unemployment allowances, whereas the act says that the applicant would be provided with job within fifteen days of application failing which s/he will be entitled for unemployment allowance.

g. No worksite facilities:

In an interface of Gram Vikash, a NGO with the people in Ganjam and Gajpati districts people alleged that there was no facility for drinking water nor any rest shed at the worksite, which should have been mandatorily maintained at the worksites.

h. Contractors in the scenario:

One reported case from Mayurbhanj district showed that the work has been sold to a contractor by the Village Level Leader (VLL) who is supposed to be chosen by the Palii Sabha and in whose name work order is issued. This case was reported to the collector in the district which was forwarded to the state level. In a similar incidence in Nabaguchha village under Gayaganda panchayat under Jagannath Prasad block of Gamjam district a work issued in someone's name was undertaken by another person, who is a traditional contractor. The act is very particular in debarring the contractors in any work under it.
i. Poor Planning:

In the districts of Koraput and Raygada most of the works undertaken were laying of roads. There has been little effort to identify works by the Palli Sabha for creation of productive assets in the villages mandated under the act.

j. Transparency Boards carry little information:

In many works undertaken in Koraput and Raygada districts no transparency boards indicating the quantum of work, and other details were to be found. In some cases such boards were put after the work is completed. In a similar case in Nabaguchha village under Gayaganda panchayat under Jagannath Prasad block of Gamjam district the display board there failed to display very vital information like the number of person days allocated under the work etc.

k. 100 days Employment not given to people in most of cases:

One financial year of NREGA has already passed. However, the majority of the villagers in the tribal districts like Koraput, Nawrangpur, Gajpati, Raygada etc have not received any employment, leave alone 100 days of employment which is guaranteed under the act.

l. Discrimination against women:

In the village Goudabarikanta of Gram Panchayat under Dasmantpur block of Koraput district, nearly five women namely Moti Gouda, Naveena Gouda, Pratima Gouda, Pratima Gouda and Taba Gouda, four whom are widows have been registered under NREGA, but have not received them. They are not allowed to work under NREGA programme. It is also alleged that in many instances the women are being given less wages in comparison to men

m. Alleged demand for bribe by the authorities:

In the Village Pudugusil of Rayagada district the VLL in whose name work order in the village has been issued reportedly admitted during interaction that the panchayat Secreatary took Rs.500/-, the Clerk took Rs.1500/-, and the JE took Rs.5000/- for the sanction of the work.

n. Non-seriousness of the State government about the act:

Under Section 4 of the Act, every concerned State shall make a scheme within six months of the commencement of the Act. The act was notified on September 7, 2005 and came into effect on February 2, 2006. Therefore, the State should have notified the scheme by March 2006. However, the notification was issued only on December 16, 2006 - a delay of nine months. Worse, the notification was shrouded with clouds of secrecy; as no such Press release was issued, nor was it put in the official website of the Panchayati Raj department, which is the nodal agency to implement the scheme. Under Section 12(1) of the Act, every state shall constitute a State Employment Guarantee Council for the purpose of monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the Act at the State level. However, in Orissa it was notified very recently on 1st May 2007 and is yet to be constituted. While discussing about setting up of the Grievance Redressal Mechanism in the states, the act mandated the states to make rules for determining it at the block and the district and state levels for dealing with complaints of aggrieved persons. However the currently notified scheme only faintly discusses about dealing of the complaint by the District Programme Coordinator within 15 days of its receipt.

Positive steps taken by the State:

1. Revision of Schedule of rates: Regarding the payment of wages the act states two simultaneous criteria. On one hand it speaks of the payment on basis of minimum wages and on the other it tells about the payment in accordance with work done. These two aspects are to be reconciled by determining proper schedule of rates keeping in view the working capability of a sound individual. However, due to the prevailing unscientific schedule of rates (SOR) in the State, many labourers were unable to get the minimum promised wage in a day of work. By consequence there was an urgent need to revise the schedule of rates. The schedule have been now made interim revision for soft soil from rupees 55 to rupees 110, for hard soil from rupees 67.5 to rupees 135, for rocky soil from rupees 105 to rupees 210. As a result it is hoped that now on the labourers can get the minimum wages declared under the act in the state.

2. Revise of minimum rates: Even though the act clearly mentions that the minimum wage should not be less than rupees sixty for seven hours of work in a day, the state government continued with the rate of rupees 55 for little more than a year. Fortunately the State government has now revised the minimum wage to rupees seventy now.

3. Constitution of vigilance cell: The state government of late has decided to set up a vigilance cell to monitor quality of work under the NREGS. It has also decided to recruit in each panchayat a gram rojgar sevak with a consolidated contractual salary of rupees 2000 per month while a junior engineer will be appointed in each block and an assistant computer operator will also be attached to each block.

4. Payment through banks/post office :The state has provided for payment to the worker through banks and post offices. Though it would create little inconvenience for the workers to travel a little longer distance to get the payments , it is hoped that this arrangement would at least reduce the embezzlements in payment. However few token steps here and there would not address the scenario much. In an interface with a team from Planning Commission that was in a mission to study the implementation scenario in Sambalpur district, the representatives from the civil society organisations submitted the following set of suggestion, which may be useful for the state government to accept and implement

These are some findings from the grass root and the policy level which shows the appalling state of affairs regarding the implementation of the high profile act. If this state of affairs continues, it may well be imagined that in years to come the act will prove unable to address poverty in the State. Apart from the government which, barring some few positive (inevitable) steps as discussed above, has not done enough to deliver the benefits under the act to the mass. The other players namely the civil society organisations and the media, also have fallen short of expectation in their contribution toward the better implementation of the law. The civil society organisations, though has been active on the issue, should have intensified the awareness campaign on the act to a much higher pitch and helped people get their entitlements by using various provisions of the act starting from helping them getting job cards, applying jobs, using grievance redressal mechanism for addressing their problems, making use of Right to Information (RTI) to compel the authorities to respond their demands etc. The media coverage on the issue broadly was limited to acting as a spokesperson of the government: only highlighting the decisions taken and notifications issued by the state government under the act. It rarely woke up to the occasion to bring to fore the difficulties people are facing on the ground vis-à-vis asserting their rights under the act. All in all, due to negligence of the state government, civil society organisations and media the path breaking act, which has full potential to break the chains of poverty in the rural Orissa, falters on many counts. Therefore it is extremely vital for the state government to take immediate and necessary steps to enable the better and effective functioning of the act. Following is the set of suggestion submitted by the group of civil society organisations to the Planning Commission's study team which visited Sambalpur district in the month of April-May 2007 to take stalk of NREGA scenario there. These suggestions may soon be considered and implemented by the State government for salvaging the dwindling situation.

Suggestion for consideration of the state government:

1. Presence of Ghost Cards: There is allegedly fair percentage of existence of ghost cards that provides tremendous scope for manipulation and embezzlement in the scheme. It is therefore necessary that all the registrations done and the job cards issue be declared and verified in Palli Sabha meets and be disclosed in public places.

2. Awareness on the Act: The government needs to do aggressive advertisements by making use of various modes of communications as was done in case of 'Polio Immunization Programme'. Use of appealing advertisements in mass media apart from wall paintings, using civil society organisations etc will certainly go a long way in popularizing the scheme and disseminating minimum vital information regarding the scheme. One single reason for many people not applying for jobs despite getting the job cards is they thought they would get the job as a natural corollary to the issuance of job cards.

3.Work Identification by Palli Sabha: The Palli Sabha meets need to be conducted with sincerity and let people identify the work under NREGA/OREGS in actual practice not just in pen and paper. The scheme need to mention, with suitable amendment, that the recommendations of the Palii Sabha should not be altered in any case at any other level if it is not technically feasible project. Then only the objective of decentralized planning can become realty, otherwise the planning under this scheme too will continue to be the product of bureaucratic exercise.

4.Grievance Redressal Mechanism: It is necessary to amend the OREGS and make proper provisions of grievance redressal mechanism as per the mandates of the act and the central operational guideline. The role of PO, DPC and SEC must be clearly laid down and the time limit for them to hear the complaint and appeal cases be made clear. OREGS in fact falters miserably on two central aspects under NREGA, namely conducting social audit and the grievance redressal mechanism. In case of the grievance redressal mechanism, the act and central operational guideline mandates that the Programme Officer, District Project Coordinator and the State Employment Council to be the authorities for dealing with the complaints of the people in a hierarchical arrangement and in a time bound manner. But the state scheme provides only for installation of a 'complaint box' and designates the Collector as the authority at the district level for dealing with the complaints within fifteen days. It does not make any mention about the role of the State Employment Council in the matter. The idea of putting a 'complaint box' goes contrary to the provisions of the act wherein the grievances are to be dealt in a time bound manner as in the complaint box arrangement there will be no provision of giving a dated receipt against the complaint of to the aggrieved.

5. Action Taken Report (ATR) on Grievance Redressal: Provision should be made so that quarterly or half yearly ATR on grievance disposal is made public by way of putting in the notice board etc by the concerned authorities and a copy be provided to the Legislative Assembly for discussion. A complaint registered should be made near each concerned authority for public scrutiny with detail information about the types of complaint made and action taken on the same.

6.Social Audit: While the central operational guideline on NREGA dealt in detail, laying down step by step procedure for conducting Social Audit by the Gram Sabha, the state scheme only faintly deals with the matter. Necessary amendment is needed to the scheme to lay down clear procedure for social audit and the agencies to be made responsible for the same.

7. Speeding up the proposal for social audit: The state government is urged to speed the proposal of making social audit in two districts (Mayurbhanj and Kalahandi) on pilot basis with the active cooperation of the civil society organisations which was notified by the government in the month of February 2007.

8.The government circulars must confirm the act and scheme: The circulars/orders of the State government must not go contrary to the provisions enshrined in the act. This not only creates confusion among the authorities on ground for implementation but also deprives the people of their right provided in the act. For example, the government circular issued in the month of November, 2006 [No. 21702/ RE 51/05 (B) PR Dated 16.11.2006] to all Collectors and PD, DRDAs of NREGA districts of the State, in which it has emphasized the implementation of certain measures, which are found not only contravening the letter and spirit of the Act, but also flouting the provisions made in the OREGS, notified about a month later.

9.Proper publicity by the government on schemes/circulars/orders etc: The Panchayati Raj (PR) department needs to update its website on various initiatives it takes e.g. notification of OREGS, issuance of important circulars etc for easy access to information by public. It needs to give press releases on vital steps take on the matter.

10.Proper communication between the policy making and policy implementation levels: This part is lacking as the agencies in charge of the implementation are at times in loss of knowledge about the important development made at the policy level. For example, the forest department in some protected area and sanctuaries are straightway denying the people applying for jobs that no work is permitted in such areas. This aspect needs proper bridging.

11.Consider nominating some social activists in the proposed State Employment Guarantee Council: The government claims that it has notified the State Employment Guarantee Council. Since the role of NGOs in the whole aspects of monitoring and review of NREGP is extremely vital, the Chief Minister, who is the chairperson of the proposed council, should consider nominating some leading social activists in the council as is done in center and other states.

12.Creating a help line on NREGA / OREGS: This has become very vital as it will serve as a nodal information centre for lots of doubt people and even officials have on the act and scheme. 13. Separate staff structure for NREGA / OREGS: Orissa needs to have a separate directorate for NREGS/OREGS in the line of Andhra model. Given the quantum of influx of central finance concomitant with the responsibility a separate structure at the policy level is vital for smooth implementation and monitoring of the scheme. Given the heavy work load of the BDO the present arrangement of giving additional responsibility of OREGS with accompanying plethora of paper work to him needs rethinking. It is therefore proposed that either a full time officer of the rank of ABDO be appointed as the Programme Officer or in case of the existing arrangement the BDO is assisted by an ABDO to relieve him of his responsibilities vis-à-vis NRGES/OREGS.

14. Preventing the middlemen in meddling through the bank accounts of people: Need of issuance of circular/requests from the government to the banks not to entertain the middlemen (Bank agents/ dalals) between the bank and the people. While the decision to make payments through bank accounts to the workers under NREGA/OREGS is a step ahead in checking the manipulation in payments, necessary care is to be taken to ward off the middlemen to make transactions on behalf of people. It may be noted here that this menace is prevailing in the tribal pockets of the state and the people get exploited in the process.

In conclusion:

Not only the government but also the civil society and media should also contribute their bit toward the execution of the employment guarantee act. Right and timely decision and vigilance by the government, alertness by media on vital lapses/decisions under the act and vibrant reporting on the ground difficulties of people, sincere activism and advocacy by the civil society will certainly go a long way in zeroing on the objectives enumerated in the act.

Pradeep Baisakh is a Social Activist and Journalist.