1. I
Assets generated under MGNREGA-
Maharashtra:
Examining processes and impact generated
in tribal villages of Nashik
Submitted to
Ashwini Kulkari
Director, Pragati Abhiyan
Submitted by
Gopal S Mahajan1
Ajay J Hole2
1
Gopal Mahajan is with Tata Institute of social sciences, Mumbai
2
Ajay Hole, a civil engineer, is a technical consultant on Watershed and MGNREGA.

2. II
CONTENTS
Abbreviations : III
List of tables : IV
List of graphs and figures : IV
Chapter 1: Introduction : 1
Chapter 2: Objectives and methodology : 3
Chapter 3: Findings : 11
Chapter 4: Impact generated : 20
Chapter 5: Case studies : 26
Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations : 29
References : 31

3. III
ABBREVIATIONS
MGNREGA : Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
NREGA : National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
EGS : Employment Guarantee Scheme
INRM : Integrated Natural Resource Management
RTI : Right to Information
IEC : Information, Education and Communication
PRI : Panchayat Raj Institutions
CSO : Civil Society Organization
SHG : Self Help Group
SC : Schedule Castes
ST : Schedule Tribes

4. IV
LIST OF TABLES
S. No Table Number Table Name Page
Number
5 Table 2.1 Performance of MGNREGA in Nashik 13
6 Table 2.2 Basic demographic data of field area of Pragati
Abhiyan
15
7 Table 4.1 Income generation through MGNREGA wages in
Nashik
29
LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS
S.
No
Figure No Figure Name and description Page
Number
1 Figure2.1 Map of the study area in Nashik 11
2 Figure 2.2 Tribal blocks in Nashik 12
3 Figure 2.3 Employment generation under MGNREGA In Nashik 13
4 Figure 2.4 Person days generated and share of SC/ST in Nashik 14
5 Figure 3.1 Components of a process in MGNREGA 18
6 Figure 3.2 Planning process of MGNREGA works 19
7 Figure 3.3 Ownership of assets 20
8 Figure 3.4 Type of works 21
9 Figure 3.5 Implementation process of MGNREGA works 22
10 Figure 3.6 Selection of works for implementation 23
11 Figure 3.7 Correct site selection 24
12 Figure 3.8 Supervision done by technical assistant 25
13 Figure 3.9 Complete/incomplete works 25
14 Figure 3.10 Technical quality of assets 26
15 Figure 4.1 Assets and their intended impact 27
16 Figure 4.2 Impact on migration 28
17 Figure 4.3 Increase in income from assets 28
18 Figure 4.4 Nature of impact of assets 29
19 Figure 4.5 How do people feel about assets 30

5. 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
MGNREGA stands for ‘Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act’ enacted
in September 2005 by Indian Parliament and brought into effect from February 2006 in 200 most
backward districts of India. It was subsequently extended to all the 640 districts entire country in
April 2008. The mandate of the Act is “to provide at least 100 days of guaranteed wage
employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do
unskilled manual work.”
Creation of productive and durable assets that strengthen sustainable livelihood resource base of
rural areas is one of the key objectives of MGNREGA. The Act’s initial thrust was on wage
employment i.e. providing wages to workers without much concern to productive assets. But
after 5 years of implementation, central government decided to emphasize on generation of
productive assets. While income in the form of wages can support rural people in distress in the
short run, productive and durable asset generation is the sustainable way to make significant dent
into the problem of rural poverty and unemployment. MGNERGA Operational guidelines 2013
also stress Integrated Natural Resource Management approach (INRM) for livelihoods
generation. Hence, examining performance of MGNREGA in terms of generation of productive
and durable assets then becomes important to identify opportunities and challenges involved.
Around 146 lakh works have been undertaken; of these, almost 51 per cent are works related to
water (water conservation, flood control, irrigation, drought proofing, renovation of traditional
water bodies and micro-irrigation), and over 19 per cent works are related to rural connectivity.
At such a scale, MGNREGA works have the potential to benefit rural communities by improving
irrigation facilities, enhancing land productivity and connecting remote villages to input and
output markets. Overall, studies suggest that while many productive assets have been created on
the ground owing to good planning and execution at the micro-level, there is need for more
focused implementation with regard to the creation of durable and sustainable assets under
MGNREGA. Out of 146 lakh, 87 lakh works have been completed with the completion rate of

6. 2
around 60 per cent. Completion rate is affected by factors like poor planning, lack of technical
support, irregular flow of funds, and delayed payment. (MGNREGA Sameeksha 2012)
MGNREGA has faced criticism on the quality and sustainability of the assets created under it.
Critics of the Scheme argue that since employment generation is the primary objective of the
Act, the works undertaken are labour-intensive. These works tend to be non-durable and have
limited use. (Down to Earth 2011) On the other hand, other scholars suggest that earthen works
can also be durable if planned, designed and constructed properly. (Mihir Shah 2008)
It is important to note that findings related to quality, durability and rate of work completion
suggest that the problem is not in the design of the Act but the usefulness of the Scheme is
dependent on the strength of its implementation at the field level.
Rationale for the study
While there are many studies focusing implementation related problems, rigorous research is
required on village level planning and implementation processes and the bottlenecks involved in
creating productive and durable assets. The present study examines both input and output side of
asset generation. It examines village level planning and implementation processes at input side
with reference to the Act and guidelines. Besides, the study also measures the quality and impact
of the assets generated at output side. The present study tries to establish the nature of relation
between village level planning and implementation processes and the quality and impact of
assets.

7. 3
CHAPTER II: OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to explore planning and implementation process of MGNREGA works at
village level. Planning is very critical to create productive and durable assets under MGNREGA.
Technical support and people’s participation are the key aspects of planning. The study examines
the planning process that took place at village level with reference to guidelines laid out in
MGNREGA. Implementation requires a series of well defined tasks to be executed within
stipulated time by different stakeholders to create productive assets. The study checks how this
process actually takes place at village level and how they affect quality and impact of assets
generated.
The other objective of this study is to assess impact generated by the assets created. Technical
quality of an asset is the most critical for achieving the intended impact. So, the study measures
quality of selected assets through worksite verification with certain technical indicators. The
study also takes into consideration people’s perception on the quality of the asset. Impact
achieved is primarily measured through what people have to say about the utility of the assets.
To summarize, objectives of this study are as following –
1. To study village level planning and implementation processes related to asset generation
2. To examine quality and impact of the assets generated
METHODOLOGY
Selection of study area
The study area is located in Nashik district. Nashik district, located in the Northern part of
Maharashtra, has total population 6109052. It ranks 11th
among 640 districts in India in terms of
population size. Its population comprises 23.9% of schedule tribes, much higher than
Maharashtra’s overall 8.8% tribal population. 57.5% of population stays in rural areas while

8. 4
42.5% of population stays in urban areas. The overall literacy rate is 80.9% but literacy rate for
rural areas is 67.7%. Sex ratio is 931 per 1000 male.
Figure 2.1: Map of the study area in Nashik

9. 5
The district is characterized by regional development imbalance as the half of its blocks like
Niphad, Pimpalgaon Baswant and Chandwad are well developed whereas blocks like Peth,
Surgana, Igatpuri and Trimbakeshwar are underdeveloped. 40.5% of rural families are below
poverty line.
Figure 2.2: Tribal blocks in Nashik
Source: Socio-economic survey 2011 – Nashik district
Rural Nashik is a huge administrative unit with 15 blocks and 1382 Gram Panchayats and 1931
villages. Out of 15 blocks in Nashik, 7 blocks, located in the hilly terrains of Sahyadri mountain
ranges, are tribal.
74
93
38
95
66
34.5
52.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Share of STs in total population (%)
Share of STs in total
population (%)

10. 6
Performance of MGNREGA in Nashik district
Figure 2.3: Employment generation under MGNREGA in Nashik
Source: nrega.nic.in (as on Mar 10, 2013)
MGNREGA was launched phase wise. Phase 1 was launched in 200 poorest districts of India on
Feb 06, 2006. The act was extended to 350 districts in 2007. In phase 3, MGNREGA covered all
the districts of India in April 1, 2008. Nashik is one of the phase 3 districts in Maharashtra. Total
number of households provided work were 3.9%, 16.5% and 19.9% to the registered households
for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Total number of households provided
100 days of work per year were 10.2%, 9.8% and 16% to the total number of households
provided work for 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively.
Table 2.1
Performance of MGNREGA in Nashik
Year Person days per Household Total works done Total expenditure
(Lakh)
2010-11 40 988 419.6
2011-12 43 6469 4305.3
2012-13 59 11075 6029.9
Source: nrega.nic.in (as on Mar 10, 2013)
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
224684
261962 274290
8653
43158 54647
880 4248 8733
HH registered
HH provided work
HH getting 100 days work

11. 7
Figure 2.4: Person days generated and share of SC/ST in Nashik
Source: nrega.nic.in (as on Mar 10, 2013)
Figure 2.4 suggests that Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes contributed to 42.9%, 45.6% and
35% of total person days generated for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively.
Average person days generated per household provided work were 40, 43 and 59 for the years
2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively.
Field area of host organization
Pragati Abhiyan, a civil society organization, works extensively on MGNREGA at State, district
and Gram Panchayat level. The organization works with 50 villages of 3 tribal blocks namely
Trimbakeshwar, Peth and Igatpuri. Theses blocks are characterized by low human development
indicators with degraded natural resources and distress migration. The gross irrigated area is
1.16% for Peth and 3.64% for Igatpuri. The data is not available for Trimbakeshwar.
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
346169
1850917
3215459
148672
843752
1124942
Person days generated
Share of SC/ST

12. 8
Table 2.2
Basic demographic data of field area of Pragati Abhiyan
Block Gram
Panchayats
Villages Population Share of STs
(%)
BPL families
(%)
Trimbakeshwar 84 125 145928 74 65.7
Peth 73 145 102307 93 68.2
Igatpuri 94 119 250287 38 41.1
Source: Socio-economic survey 2011 – Nashik district
Sampling
Based on purposive sampling, 9 tribal Gram Panchayats in the field area of Pragati Abhiyan with
relatively higher expenditure were selected. The Gram Panchayats names are Aswali Harsh,
Chandrachi Met and Avhate from Trimbakeshwar, Walvihir, Dhargaon and Chinchale Khaire
from Igatpuri block and Dolharmal, Amlon and Gavandh from Peth block. All the assets that
were carried out during April 1, 2008 to Mar 31, 2012 i.e. past four years were selected for the
study. These include 40 assets of 8 types of works namely well, farm pond, lose boulder
structure, Land leveling, road, plantation, village pond and di-silting.
Study tools
The study tools were designed to capture and analyze the processes related to -
 Conceptualization i.e. planning of works
 Implementation of works
 Impact of the assets

13. 9
Focused group discussions were carried out with the workers were conducted to understand
planning and implementation process. Focused group discussions were conducted to measure
impact of the public assets and personal interview with beneficiaries were conducted to measure
impact of private assets. Technical expert assessed technical quality of the selected assets
through worksite survey.
The study analyzes whether the beneficiary is getting some income from the asset. The
researcher had further intended to study income more precisely through Return on investment
(RoI) of some of the best assets to showcase them as case studies of potential that MGNREGA
can accomplish. But such assets had hardly completed a year and so RoI was not possible for the
same. Other assets done before two years didn’t show substantial income.
Government documents like development plan, technical design, material bills, muster and
measurement books related to these assets were one of the important study tools to examine and
validate village level processes particularly those related to technical quality of assets. But the
documents couldn’t be obtained through filing application under right to information and
frequent follow ups.
To summarize, following tools were used for this study -
 Focused group discussion with workers
 Personal interview with the beneficiary of private asset
 Worksite survey
 Use of Right To Information

14. 10
Limitations of the study
Since focused group discussions with the worker are perception based, they might have missed
what people don’t know particularly the legal and technical details. For example, one of the
questions asked in the focused group discussion to the workers is whether the delayed wage
payments affect the quality. Here, people are neither aware of the various indicators of
technically sound asset precisely nor they are awareness of their entitlement of wage payment
within 15 days. So, they can misjudge the quality of the assets and their response is not precisely
correct. Nonetheless, technical indicators were measured more objectively through worksite
visits.
Official documents related to these assets were not made available by government officials at
block despite filing RTI and frequent follow ups. So, the technical details related to planning,
design and implementation couldn’t be examined thoroughly and meticulously. So, some of the
findings and observations of the study tend to be gross as they primarily come from perception
based focused group discussions.
The study presumes the validity of the processes prescribed in the MGNREGA guidelines for
generating productive and durable assets. Hence the study sticks to the examination of village
level planning and implementation processes with reference to guidelines only. It doesn’t attempt
to examine inherent flaws in the processes prescribed in MGNREGA guidelines.

15. 11
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS
Since we are dealing with planning and implementation related processes, it’s important to
understand various sequential stages with their due significance to relate and make inferences
based on the findings of the study. Certain entitlements given to people and Panchayat Raj
Institutions are also needed to be taken into consideration. So, the processes with their stages are
elaborated before mentioning findings.
Figure 3.1: Components of a process in MGNREGA
A process in MGNREGA has 3 dimensions – a stakeholder, a place and a time frame. For
example, measurement of work is a process. Technical assistant (stakeholder) is responsible to
take measurements at the worksite (place) on 8-9th
day (time frame) of when a muster 1
started.
1
Daily attendance sheet for workers

16. 12
Planning process
Overview
Figure 3.2: Planning process of MGNREGA works
Certain processes are involved in village level planning. First, there is Shivarferi 2
on a particular
day where villagers join hands with the technical assistants from various line departments like
forest, irrigation, agriculture, etc. Villagers assess their natural resource base and identify the
works to be taken in the development plan. Line departments facilitate the process through
technical support like site selection, technical design, cost estimates, etc. Planning must be done
with the ‘ridge to valley’ watershed development approach and so with the implementation of the
works. E.g. first, you have to build loose boulder structures and the like structures at the ridge
and then only you can build and reap optimal and sustained benefits from wells, farm pond and
other structures at the valley. So, the coordination of different line departments is critical too in
planning and implementation of works.
2
Shivarferi is the transact walk of villagers together for natural resource mapping

17. 13
The works identified then are put as proposals before the Gramsabha for sanctions. After the due
sanctions by Gramsabha, the proposal, now formed as development plan of the village for the
coming year, is approved by block and district panchayats. Gramsabha has the right to prioritize
works and other agencies are abided to approve and implement the priorities laid down by
Gramsabha.
Findings
Awareness generation and capacity building are very important components for enabling
community participation at village level planning. But people from all the 9 villages had no idea
of planning process and its importance it creating productive assets. They had not been given any
information about planning process either through Gramsabha or any other IEC 3
programme by
the government. Gram panchayats were not at all equipped with the training, human resource and
infrastructure required for planning. Shivarferi was not conducted in a single village and line
departments didn’t show up for technical support. Ridge to valley based watershed development
planning was not at all done for all of the villages. The works were identified and implemented
in a half hazard manner.
Figure 3.3: Ownership of assets
3
IEC stand for information education and communication programmes
Public
25%
Private
75%
Ownership of assets
Public
Private

18. 14
As figure 3.3 shows, the preference was for private assets. 30 out of 40 assets studied are private
assets. The water storage structures i.e. wells and farm ponds comprise 50% of the assets. Water
and soil conservation structures at the ridge are essential for water storage at the valley. But,
except for 3 loose boulder structures, all 37 assets carried out at the plains or valley area. This
indicates that watershed planning was clearly missing.
Besides, various studies across the nation show that while private assets are preferred by
beneficiaries, public assets benefited a larger area and more people, leading to higher returns on
investment. (MGNREGA Sameeksha 2012: Page 34)
The Gramsabhas for planning took place in 6 villages. But the works were generally determined
by village secretary and local body with little participation of people. Priority of works was not
given by any Gramsabha and so the question of following it doesn’t arise.
But all the resolutions of works sanctioned by Gramsabhas were approved by block and district
panchayats. Cases of denial of private asset to any villager were not reported in focused group
discussions. Planning for the previous year had been done in the same manner.
Figure 3.4: Type of works
22.5
27.5
12.5
10
15
7.5
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Types of assets (%)
Types of assets (%)

19. 15
The abovementioned findings clearly indicate complete lack of processes that are needed to be
followed at village level. The processes related to technical support from the government and
people’s participation are missing evidently. This becomes particularly critical given the
deteriorating state of natural resources in this hilly terrain with high surface water runoff, high
rate of soil erosion and low quality agricultural land.
Implementation process
Overview
Figure 3.5: Implementation process of MGNREGA works
Implementation of a work starts with selection of a particular work from the development plan of
a Gram Panchayat. After selection of a work, a site is selected for implementing the work.
Although site selection is to be done while planning itself, it’s not usually done as evident from
the findings of the study. Site selection is done only when demand is registered by the people and
a work needs to be taken up urgently to meet that demand. The technical assistant ought to visit

20. 16
the site and takes into account geographical, feasibility, strength of physical structure, etc. These
measurements are important for preparing sound technical designs of an asset. Without proper
measurements, the technical designs become typed designs and seriously hamper the quality of
an asset. The sustainability of an asset depends to a large extent on the soundness of its technical
design. A technical design requires technical and administrative sanctions from concerned
authorities. After sanctions, a work is ready to get started. The technical assistant visits the site
and gives lay out for specific tasks to be done by workers. Regular supervision of an ongoing
work is important to ensure its quality. Once a work is completed, completion certificate is given
by the concerned authority.
Findings
It is important to know why and how these particular 40 assets were selected for implementation.
Only the random number of sanctioned assets was mentioned in the development plan for the
Gram Panchayat. When the demand was registered by workers, the concerned beneficiaries came
forward and showed willingness to get the asset done on their piece of land. In the early of years
of MGNREGA, people were reluctant to get assets done on their land as they feared that the land
will be taken away by the government. But the fear h no more exists today and people are eager
to get their private assets built and reap benefits of MGNREGA.
Figure 3.6: Selection of works for implementation
60
7.5
30
2.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Resolution in
Gramsabha
Decision by
local body
and
secretary
Campaign by
State gov
People's
urgent
demand
Selection of work for implementation
(%)
Selection of work for
implementation (%)

21. 17
Out of 40 assets, 24 were approved by Gramsabha. 12 assets included wells and plantation works
taken up by state government in campaign mode. 3 assets were implemented with the decision
made by local body and village secretary. 1 work was not in the development plan of the Gram
Panchayat and was taken up directly to meet people’s urgent demand for work.
Resolution in Gramsabha needs more attention here. Focused group discussions with the workers
indicated on the nature of Gramsabhas in this area. Gramsabhas hardly take place and even they
take place, the decisions are made by village secretary and influential members in local body.
Figure 3.7: Correct site selection
Incorrect site selection can make technically sound asset unproductive. Out of 40 assets, site
selection was correct for 27 and incorrect for 13 assets. Basic measurements were taken for 23
assets and not taken for 17 assets. The soundness of the technical designs of these assets couldn’t
be examined because the documents were not made available by the government. An RTI filed
by the host organization, Pragati Abhiyan, revealed that technical designs for farm ponds in
Igatpuri block were all typed designs and site specifications were not considered at all as
technical assistant did not visit sites at all.
Yes
70%
No
30%
Correct site selection
Yes
No

22. 18
Figure 3.8: Supervision done by technical assistant
Regular supervision was done for only 8 assets. This has to deal with the availability of the
technical staff at block level which needs a closer look.
Figure 3.9: Complete/incomplete works
Yes
20%
No
80%
Supervision by technical assistant
Yes
No
Complete
75%
Incomplete
25%
Complete/imcomplete works
Complete
Incomplete

23. 19
30 works are complete and 10 are incomplete. The MGNREGA website doesn’t throw proper
data on completed work since completion certificate of works is often not given and so the data
entry is done as incomplete even for a complete work.
Figure 3.10: Technical quality of assets
23 assets have sound technical quality, 7 assets are not technically sound and this is not
applicable for 10 incomplete assets. However, sustainability of the technically good assets is in
question since the planning is not based on principles of watershed. Social audits were done for
only 5 assets in a village due to the initiative of the local leadership. Social audit was not done
for all other assets in rest of the eight villages.
Good
57%
Bad
18%
Incomplete
works
25%
Technical quality of assets
Good
Bad
Incomplete works

24. 20
CHAPTER 4: IMPACT GENERATED
An asset has certain intended benefits or impacts to be achieved. The study analyzed if the assets
are achieving their intended benefits. It further analyzes the nature of impact achieved. Besides,
the impact of assets on checking migration, raising income and social profile of the beneficiary
are also taken into consideration.
Figure 4.1: Assets and their intended impact
Amongst the 16 beneficiaries of private assets who migrated seasonally for employment, 6
reported that their migration has been stopped completely due to the income and employment
generated through MGNREGA assets. 10 people continued their seasonal migration. 12 of the
personal beneficiaries were not migrating for work earlier.
0
10
20
30
40
50
47.5
35
5
12.5
Assets and intended impact (%)
Assets and intended
impact (%)

25. 21
Figure 4.2: Impact on migration
63% of beneficiaries reported increase in their income. 37% beneficiaries don’t yield any income
from the assets. Increase in income couldn’t be measured precisely because return on investment
(RoI) study wasn’t feasible to do.
Figure 4.3: Increase in income from assets
Apart from the income from assets, rural people also get income in the form of wages they earn
by doing MGNREGA work. A study conducted by Pragati Abhiyan, the host organization, for its
Positive
37%
Negative
63%
Impact on migration
Positive
Negative
Yes
56%
No
44%
Increase in income
Yes
No

26. 22
impact assessment for the year 2012-13, shows that the people are earning significant income in
the form of wages too. In its field area, a worker got 47 days of average work. He/she earned
10466 rupees as average wages. A family of 3 to 4 workers earned in the range of 30-40
thousand rupees as wages. This much amount is probably the highest among any other source of
income a family earns during a year in this area.
Table 4.1: Income generation through MGNREGA wages in Nashik
Workers provided work 3590
Person days generated 169965
Person days generated per household 47
Average earning by a worker (rupees) 10466
Average earning by a family (rupees) 30000 - 40000
Source: Annual report of 2011, Pragati Abhiyan
Figure 4.4: Nature of impact of assets
Supportive
irrigation
in Kharip
6%
Transportation
facility
15%
Irrigation in
Rabi
18%
water and soil
conservation,
land
development
26%
Zero impact
35%
Nature of impact (%)
Supportive irrigation in
Kharip
Transportation facility
Irrigation in Rabi
water and soil conservation,
land development
Zero impact

27. 23
The agriculture in the study area is rainfed agriculture. As figure 4.2 suggests, 18% of the assets
has helped beneficiaries irrigate their lands in Rabi 4
season too. The no of crops grown and the
number of times they are grown has increased significantly due to the irrigational facility. 26%
of the assets helped beneficiaries for supportive irrigation in Kharip 5
season. The fluctuating
nature of rains significantly affect yield of the crops like Paddy. Hence, supportive irrigation
becomes very important for profitable yield. And of course, roads, both intra or inter villages are
particularly important in this hilly and remote terrain. 15% of the assets provided transportation
facility to the villages concerned.
MGNERGA is self targeting in nature. The workers who demand work and actually do the work
are benefitted from the act. While it’s a serious that MGNREGA doesn’t create assets for
landless farmers directly, it is definitely a boon for small and marginal farmers who don’t have
capital to build assets. Most of the personal beneficiaries are BPL families, small and marginal
farmers and all of them are tribal in living in utter destitution.
Figure 4.5: How do people feel about assets
4
Winter season i.e. December to April of the year
5
Rainy season i.e. June to November of the year
Happy/satisfacti
on
52%
Sorrow/regret
48%
How beneficiaries feel?
Happy/satisfaction
Sorrow/regret

28. 24
It’s important to know the feelings of people even though they may not serve as precise
evidence for examining productive assets. Still they are important as they are feelings and are
powerful in driving people’s actions. People reported that they are satisfied with the 52% of the
assets and they regretted their decision of building 48% of the assets through MGNREGA.
Problematic farm ponds
Out of 40, 11 Farm ponds, the highest in number among other assets, were built. But none of
them achieve intended impact i.e. to store water for Kharip and rabi crops and other purposes.
Only 3 assets showed very marginal capacity of water storage and conservation. Only 2 farm
ponds helped the beneficiaries to raise their income and others regretted their decision of creating
farm pond through MGNREGA. Apparently the problem seems to be correlated with cite
selection since only 3 out of 11 farm ponds are correct sites. However, a hydro-geological study
can only show whether farm pond is suitable and productive structure in the geographical
condition of the terrain.
Are Wells really well?
9 wells comprise the second highest in number among the assets selected for the study. 6 wells
are incomplete works. 3 complete assets are of good technical quality. Site selection is correct
for all the wells. Wells are significant in providing irrigation for almost 10 months a year in these
drylands. 5 beneficiaries are happy with their decision, reaping the intended benefits of wells and
higher incomes. Rest 4 beneficiaries regret their decision to build wells through MGNREGA.
Pragati Abhiyan, the host organization, had conducted a study on wells taken up under
MGNREGA. It studied 80 wells works started during February to June 2012. Only 1.6% of total
unskilled wages were paid on time. 24.2% of unskilled wages were delayed payment paid after
one to two months of work done. 74.2% of wages were not paid at all at the time when study was
conducted in June 2012. Only 4.5% of wells were completed. 22% of well works were ongoing
and 73.5% of well works were abandoned. 30% of well were abandoned due to nonpayment of
wages to workers. Other 70% of wells were abandoned due to nonpayment of skilled and
material costs. (Annual report of 2012: Pragati Abhiyan)

29. 25
The beneficiaries receive funds for material and skilled expenditure through installments by the
governments. However, the installments are paid never on time and delays cause serious
problems for the beneficiary like borrowing money from others leaving the wells in incomplete
and bad shape hampering its technical quality. Delayed wage payments and fund distribution
through installments is the bottleneck in creating productive and durable wells through
MGNREGA.
A study conducted in Jharkhand corroborates the findings of this study (Ankit Kumar et all
2012).
Targeted Plantation
Plantations were done under MGNREGA in 3 villages as a part of the Maharashtra state
government’s campaign of planting 5 billion trees in the next five years. The estimated budget
for the programme is 5000 crore rupees a year and it is linked with MGNREGA. Plantation was
in extremely hopeless state at all public places like road side and will yield little impact. Only
there is some hope for seedlings distributed to farmers and families. Instead of locally relevant
trees, foreign trees were planted. People were not taken into consideration.
Use of machine
Since creating wage employment is one of the main objectives of MGNREGA, use of machine is
strictly prohibited and it is only allowed for certain task like blasting, roller, etc. 2 out of 40
works studies were done illegally using JCB machine. Besides, no personal beneficiary was
asked for or paid bribe for getting the private asset done through MGNREGA.

30. 26
CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDIES
Case studies showcase what quantitative data fails to throw light on. The following case studies
are prepared to capture the impact generated by the assets and the difference they have made to
the lives of poor tribals in these villages. While the overall impact in numbers may look negative,
these case studies demonstrate the potential of MGNREGA for rural and marginalized poor. The
case studies, though few in numbers, stand by the principles of MGNREGA empirically and
demand quantum leap at really large scale.
Shankar Pujara
Shanka Pujara, a physically disabled person, from Aswali Harsh village, belongs to Kokana
tribe and his family falls under below poverty line. He owns 4 acres of land. His wife and
daughter used to work on neighbouring farms, sew clothes or migrate at a times for employment
generating meager earning.
Shankar, through his proactive effort and trainings given by the host organization, got a farm
pond and well constructed during 2011 and 2012 under MGNREGA. He had to face lot of issues
for getting assets done. He had to fight against use of JCB machine on his farm pond and face
demeaning remarks of government officials. He suffered due the delays related to wage and
material payments and had raise money through borrowings for payments related to well
construction.
Nonetheless, he could overcome the issues and get the farm pond and well done. (Other 2
beneficiaries couldn’t stand the issues and so left their wells incomplete.) Both the works are still
incomplete but still he is reaping the some benefits from the assets. Now he can irrigate 4 acres
of land with the farm pond and well up to 10 months a year. Earlier he could grow rice in Kharip
season only. Now he is also growing wheat and vegetables in Rabi season.
The assets have helped stop migration of not only of his family but of other 3 families also and
generated employment for 5-6 people through agriculture. The assets have also helped to rectify

31. 27
severe shortage of drinking water in his hamlet. Shankar is also planning nonfarm activities like
poultry and nursery with the increased water availability due to the assets.
Shankar Pujara has set an example that his villagers are trying to emulate and reap enormous
benefits of MGNREGA.
Ambadas Bhusari
Sitting in green and lush wheat fields at Dolharmal village, Ambadas was talking about how the
land leveling work done through MGNREGA has helped him. Land leveling work typically
requires machine i.e. a tractor and it costs high. The small and marginal farmers like Ambadas
can’t afford this and can’t cultivate their waste lands for agricultural activities.
Ambadas got his 5 acres of land leveling work done in December 2011. Earlier Ambadas was
harvesting low quality rice from his low quality land. Now his land has become more fertile and
he is harvesting good quality rice in Kharip season. He is also growing wheat and vegetables in
Rabi season. The asset has stopped his family’s migration and raised its income 10 times higher.
The diet of his family is improved and there is enough fodder for feeding cattle.
Road work
Chinchale Khaire, located in the remote valley, is 10 KM away from Igatpuri block place. In
2011, internal road was constructed under MGNREGA connecting 5 different hamlets of the
village. Now the tribals in the village are able to take bullock cart and other vehicles to their
farms and carry their farm produce to the market. Now they are able to move patients to hospitals
urgently in case of emergency.
100 workers from Chinchale Khaire worked for 2 months to construct the road. The average
daily wage they earned was around 125 rupees.

32. 28
Narayan Bhoye
Nayaran Bhoye, belongs to Kokana tribe and lives in Amlon village in Peth block, was out
migrating for employment despite having 8 acres of land. His family falls under below poverty
line. All the land Bhoye owned was wasteland where nothing could be grown earlier. But he
could get land development work done under MGNREGA in June 2010.
Now Bhoye grows crops like paddy, wheat, vegetables, gram, etc twice a year in his farm. This
has substantially increased his income and he no more migrates to other places for employment.
The land development work done under MGNREGA has helped him to raise his income and
ceased migration completely.
Conclusion
Observations of the researcher suggests that it takes some loose boulder structures and land
leveling works for water and soil conservation and a well for irrigation to make significant
different in the lives of tribal poor of this region. All these works can be taken up under
MGNREGA and the works amount to roughly to 3.5 lakh rupees. A loose boulder structure
conserves water and soil and prepares waste land for rice cultivation in just a single season. Land
leveling and well works increase agricultural productivity manifold. The number of crops grown
goes higher and they can be grown twice a year. The farmer moves from single crop of paddy to
many other crops like wheat, chilly, tomatoes, and other vegetables. A family equipped with
these assets stops migrating for employment in a single year. Thus, rampant distress migration in
this region can be stopped in a single year by building these productive and durable assets under
MGNREGA.

33. 29
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Planning is critical in generating productive and durable assets. Processes related to
‘people’s participation and technical support by the Government’ are very important for
planning. However, both were completely missing in the study area. Micro watershed or
INRM approach was not taken into consideration at all. There was complete absence of
hydro-geological and economic analysis. The works were planned in a haphazardly and
their implementation was ad hoc. Awareness generation and community mobilization
required for planning was not done at all.
2. The Act and guidelines clearly mention specific procedures and time bound roles and
responsibilities of various stakeholders in planning and implementation processes.
However, those were not followed strictly hampering the quality and usefulness of the
assets generated. A strong monitoring mechanism should be involved that will ensure
abiding strictly to the well laid down procedures and non compliance with them should
be penalized.
3. The thrust was on creating private assets. While it is important to build assets on private
lands as part of social inclusion, public assets are more technically and financially viable.
The approach should be ‘whole to part’ i.e. planning for public or community works as a
whole and then creating private assets.
4. The experience of National Consortium of civil society organizations on MGNREGA
(NCCSO) across 11 states suggests greater role of civil society in community
mobilization as well as technical support for planning of MGNREGA works. The
operational guidelines 2013 also validate and define the role of civil society more
elaborately for effective implementation of the Act. Hence, participation of civil society
organizations should be encouraged in planning and implementation processes.

34. 30
5. Gram Panchayat plays very important role in planning and implementation of
MGNREGA works. However, Gram Panchayats are not well equipped with training,
human resource and funds. Capacity building of Gram Panchayats is a core issue that
needs urgent attention.
6. Expertise of line departments like agriculture, irrigation, forest, etc. must be involved in
the planning and implementation of MGNREGA. A campaign can launched in the
selected blocks developing 5 year development plans based on the principles of
watershed development can be taken up with the support and pressure from the top and
ensuring participation from the bottom.
7. MGNREGA opens up opportunities for convergence with different programmes. The aim
of convergence is to optimize public investments made under existing schemes. Madhya
Pradesh has done some significant work on convergence through the schemes like
Kapildhara i.e. a convergence between MGNREGA, agriculture and horticulture
departments. Such schemes should be emulated and scaled up across the country.
8. Effective planning and implantation for required building productive and durable assets
has direct correlation with the availability of technical staff on the field. (CAG report
2007). Apart from technical staff of various line departments, a full time dedicated
technical panel should be appointed at block level.
9. Use of Information Technology can ensure inclusive planning at village level. An
innovation in this regard developed by CEC6
should be piloted and scaled up. Besides,
Andhra Pradesh, with the help of TCS7
, has developed and effectively using a software
for preparing technical designs more instantly and effectively. Since sustainability of an
asset largely depends on soundness of technical design, such software should be scaled
up in other states too.
6
CEC is Centre for Environmental Concerns, a Hyderabad based civil society organization working extensively on
MGNREGA and livelihoods.
7
Tata consultancy services, a firm providing IT support for MGNREGA implementation to government of Andhra
Pradesh.

35. 31
REFERENCES
Ministry of rural development, Government of India, "Mahatma Gandhi NREGA operational
guidelines." Last modified 2013. Accessed Sep 11, 2012.
http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/WriteReaddata/Circulars/Operational_guidelines_4thEdition_eng_20
13.pdf..
Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.MGNREGA Sameeksha. Delhi: Orient
BlackSwan, 2012.
District Statistics Office, Government of Maharashtra. Socio-economic survey 2011, Nashik
district. Nashik: Directorate of finance and statistics, 2011.
Office of the Registrar and census commissioner of India, Government of India. Ministry of
Home affairs, "Census 2011." Last modified 2011. Accessed Jan 15, 2013.
http://www.census2011.co.in/census/district/354-nashik.html
Bhalla, Surjit. "In the name of poor." Indian express, February 17, 2011.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/in-the-name-of-the-poor/751211/0 (accessed Jan 11, 2013).
Shah, Mihir. "Manual labour and growth." Economic and political weekly. Vol-lll No.51. no.
Dec 20 (2008).
Siddhartha, Vanaik, Anish . "CAG report on NREGA: fact and fiction." Economic and political
weekly. no. June 21 (2008).
Aggarwal, et all. "Evaluation of NREGA wells in Jharkhand."Economic and political weekly.
Vol XLVll No.35. no. Sep 01 (2012).
Mahapatra, et all. Down to Earth, "A millions opportunities lost." Last modified Dec 15, 2011.
Accessed Sep 15, 2012. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/million-opportunities-lost.
Pragati Abhiyan, . Annual report 2012. Nashik: Pragati Abhiyan, 2013.
Pragati Abhiyan, . Report on the status of NREGA wells in Nashik. Nashik: Pragati Abhiyan,
2013.