A training workshop for activists working in "Food-For-Work" districts took place in Udaipur on 13-17 March. The workshop was a great success and generated much new energy, ideas, material, etc. About 100 activists participated, not only from Rajasthan but also from other states including Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.

Among other activities, the participants studied the "Guidelines" of the National Food-For-Work Programme (NFFWP). These turned out to be highly defective, e.g. there is no attempt to assess the demand for work (let alone respond to it), the transparency provisions are very weak, and the institutions of local democracy (e.g. Gram Panchayats and Gram Sabhas) have been sidelined. A critique of the Guidelines was prepared and will be available at www.righttofoodindia.org (under the "EGA" section) soon. In the meantime, it has been pasted at the end of this mail ("Whither Employment Guarantee?").

Another useful product of the workshop is a "Primer" for activists working in the Food-For-Work districts. This includes a presentation and critique of the Guidelines in simple question-answer form, plenty of ideas for action, and a detailed section on "social audits". This Primer was written in Hindi and is in the process of being translated in English. If you are interested in a copy of the Hindi version, please send a line to rozgar@gmail.com. The English version will be posted at www.righttofoodindia.org as soon as possible.

Among other creative ideas of future action that came up at the workshop was the idea of a "yatra" through the Food-For-Work districts, from early/mid-May onwards. More on this as soon as the project takes shape.

21 March 2005

Wither Employment Guarantee?

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government launched the National Food For Work Programme (NFFWP) in November last year with much fanfare. The NFFWP is intended to "generate additional supplementary wage employment and to create productive assets" in 150 of the most backward districts of the country.

The NFFWP is significant for two reasons. Firstly, with a budget outlay of Rs. 11,000 crores (in 2005-6), it involves substantial resources in the form of cash and foodgrains being invested in these districts. Secondly, as the Preamble claims, it is "a move towards wage employment guarantee". Hence even though the NFFWP is in its infancy, a detailed analysis of the programme’s Guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) is in order. What follows is a critique of some of the major provisions in the NWFFP Guidelines supported in places by field reports of early experiences of the programme shared at a four-day workshop held in Udaipur on 17-20 March, 2005. About 100 activists working in the selected districts across 6 states participated in this workshop.

According to the Guidelines, the NFFWP will be "open to all rural poor who are in need of wage employment and desire to do manual and unskilled work. The programme will be self-targeting in nature." Thus, there is no target group and the assumption is that participants will select themselves. Wages will be paid partly in cash and partly in grain. It is a 100% Centrally Sponsored Scheme with even foodgrains being provided to the States free of cost, leaving the latter to bear only transportation costs, handling charges, and taxes on foodgrains.

The principal focus of the works that can be executed under the programme are, in order of priority: a) water conservation and drought proofing including afforestation; b) land development, c) flood control/ protection measures (including drainage in waterlogged areas) and d) rural connectivity with fair weather roads. The basis of works taken up under the programme will be a five-year Perspective Plan for the District from which a shelf of works, Block-wise and Gram Panchayat-wise, will be prepared for execution.

The NFFWP Guidelines begin by specifying that it is self-targeting. However there is no mechanism to estimate, let alone respond to the demand for work. Instead the Perspective Plan, which is the substantive foundation of programme, is based on merely preparing a list of works rather than being linked to the demand for employment. This is in contrast to Famine Relief Works wherein the very first step is to assess the demand for employment at the district, sub-division, block and village panchayat levels.

Both the agency (an NGO) in charge of preparing the Perspective Plan for Udaipur district as well as the Collector admitted that the Plan and the shelf of works being finalised are not linked to any estimates of the demand for employment. One practical implication of this is that it is possible that the distribution of works may not match the demand for employment i.e., areas with high demand may end up having works with low absorptive capacity and vice versa which will defeat the very objective of the programme.

Another consequence of the absence of a mechanism to gauge the demand for work is that the potential to inject an element of labour entitlements in the programme is lost. The Guidelines contain no provisions for workers to register themselves for work, or be issued job cards which would record the quantum of work and wages they have received.

The NFFWP will be implemented through the District Collector as the Nodal Officer with overall responsibility of planning, implementation, coordination, monitoring and supervision. According to the Guidelines a committee headed by the Collector will decide which agency will prepare the Perspective Plan and a shelf of works in order of priority. The Plan will then be sent, along with recommendations of the State Government to the MoRD for approval.

The Guidelines leave little room for the involvement of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), elected representatives, or gram sabhas in the preparation of the Perspective Plan. All the Guidelines have to say in this respect is that "...the works suitable and required for the area are to be identified in consultation with the Panchayati Raj Institutions concerned and local MP and MLAs". There is no procedure spelt out with regard to how this consultation process is to occur and importantly how any complaints or grievances of PRIs in this regard would be addressed. Approval of the Perspective Plan or the list of works by the Gram Sabha is not necessary and not even recommended by the Guidelines.

As was pointed out by several activists most parts of the 150 districts under the NFFWP are covered by the Panchayat (Extension to) Scheduled Areas Act 1996 under which Gram Sabhas and PRIs are given special powers to make decisions regarding development administration. The NFFWP however does not account for this in any way except to dilute them. The Guidelines also empower the Collector to decide which agency will execute the works identified in the Perspective Plan: "The works can be got executed from line departments/ PRIs/ reputed NGOs/ Self-Help Groups/ other agencies of Central or State Government as may be decided by the Collector".

The process of preparing the Perspective Plan is also flawed in other ways. First, the preparation of the Plan has been subcontracted to an agency outside government, creating an immediate divide between the planning and implementation processes. While it may be useful to get technical support from outside agencies, the sidelining of government agencies and PRIs drastically reduces the range of options and many of the local inputs so crucial for planning. It is also a dangerous abdication of state responsibility, in a domain where the state has a crucial coordinating role at the very least. The plans are being prepared at breakneck speed as the approval of the five-year plan by the Ministry in Delhi is required before any funds can be released. There is also a danger of the Perspective Plan becoming a straightjacket in the entire programme, as there are no provisions for modifying or updating the Plan over time, once approved by the Ministry.

1. The Guidelines do not specify where and how people seeking employment should register themselves. Given the possible multiplicity of executing agencies, it is not clear how people would even be informed about employment opportunities.

2. The Guidelines do not clarify how the payment of minimum wages will be ensured.

3. There are no provisions in place to ensure that the Perspective Plan and the works contemplated cover all areas of the district on the basis of need and demand for work.

4. The Guidelines do not provide for any mechanism for PRIs to address any grievances even though it gives "the panchayat concerned the right to inspect and review any work under the scheme in its jurisdiction."

5. There is a provision for social audit of works carried out under the programme, essentially through a Vigilance Committee to be constituted by the beneficiaries. However the Guidelines are silent regarding how social audit is to be done and grievance redressal mechanisms in case the Vigilance Committee has a complaint or files an adverse report.

6. Generally, the provisions for transparency and accountability are very weak. An opportunity has been missed to build on the extensive work that has been done recently on the drafting of the Employment Guarantee Act and the Right to Information Act.

7. The Guidelines have no provisions for participatory evaluation of the programme.

The problems in the Guidelines are only being exacerbated by the haste with which the NFFWP is being implemented. For instance the NGO coordinating the preparation of the Perspective Plan for Udaipur district was given a little over 45 days to finalize the Plan and a shelf or works covering the whole district for 5 years! The exercise involved extensive field surveys and resource mapping of 498 panchayats covering 11 blocks. It came as no surprise that the representatives of the agency expressed a lack of satisfaction with the level of detail as well as peoples’ participation in the process.

There are other serious flaws in the programme. In order to meet the criteria of targeting the most needy and backward districts, it would have been better to use blocks rather than Districts as a unit. Almost all the Districts selected have blocks which do not qualify as being the most backward, and there are many of the more "advanced" districts which have blocks which need special and immediate attention.

In looking at many of these shortcomings, it is clear that the Guidelines themselves have been prepared in undue haste without any effort to involve people’s organizations in the process. The central government has made a commitment to an employment guarantee, to transparency, and to decentralization. In substance, these Guidelines are fundamentally at odds with these commitments.