Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Theme 3:
Agriculture and Environment
Implementation of MGNREGA in India:
A Review of Impacts for Future Learning
Featuring...
Biomass
Soil quality
From MGNREGA to Agriculture
Inputs &
investment Adaptation
• Mechanisation?
• Cropping pattern
shifts...
Review of literature
• Environment
• Esteves, et. al (2013) & IISc(2013)
• Verma and Shah (2011)
• Narayanan, et al (2014)...
Review of literature: Agricultural Practices
• Gehrke (2013)
• MGNREGA participants increase the share of inputs allocated...
Review of literature: Environment
• IISc Study (Rapid scientific measures) 2011, 2013
• reduced the vulnerability of agric...
Work initiated/ in progress
• Constrained by paucity of good data on agriculture.
• Six ICIRSAT-VDSA villages data pre & p...
More information about project
outputs can be found at:
http://www.igidr.ac.in/mgnrega/
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

IFPRI-IGIDR Workshop on Implementation of MGNREGA in India A Review of Impacts for Future Learning - Agriculture & Environment - Sudha Naryanan, Megan Sheahan

600 views

Published on

Part of a presentation by Sudha Narayanan, Megan Sheahan, Upasak Das

Presented at a one day workshop jointly organized by Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Cornell University, with funding from International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) titled 'Implementation of MGNREGA in India: A Review of Impacts for Future Learning'.

The main objective of the workshop was take stock of the current scenario of MGNREGA, assess the impacts it has made over the past decade and emerge with knowledge as to the areas under MGNREGA that still need to be studied and can be opened up with more research.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

IFPRI-IGIDR Workshop on Implementation of MGNREGA in India A Review of Impacts for Future Learning - Agriculture & Environment - Sudha Naryanan, Megan Sheahan

  1. 1. Theme 3: Agriculture and Environment Implementation of MGNREGA in India: A Review of Impacts for Future Learning Featuring work completed by IFPRI, Cornell University, and IGIDR with funding from 3ie
  2. 2. Biomass Soil quality From MGNREGA to Agriculture Inputs & investment Adaptation • Mechanisation? • Cropping pattern shifts? Supply of labour Land levelling Land & Soil Livestock Water availability Connectivity Water access Wages Work Assets on Private Lands Public lands Area cropped, productivity, cropping pattern and / or Incomes Household
  3. 3. Review of literature • Environment • Esteves, et. al (2013) & IISc(2013) • Verma and Shah (2011) • Narayanan, et al (2014) • Agricultural practices • Gehrke (2013) • Varshney (2013) • Bhargava (2014) • Hari and Raghunathan (2014)
  4. 4. Review of literature: Agricultural Practices • Gehrke (2013) • MGNREGA participants increase the share of inputs allocated to more profitable crops, especially to cotton, shift to high value, but riskier crops. • Hari and Raghunathan (2014) • Analyse this with district level data. Find similar results. • Varshney, et al, (2013) • District level data on agricultural cropping patterns to compare partial implementation (2004/5 and 2007/8), with those with full implementation (2007/8 and 2011/12). No consistent evidence of impacts on cropping patterns. Wage increases, but are not sustained. Bhargava (2014, 2015) • NREGA causes a roughly 20 percentage point shift away from labor-intensive technologies towards labor-saving ones, particularly for small farmers and low-powered technologies.
  5. 5. Review of literature: Environment • IISc Study (Rapid scientific measures) 2011, 2013 • reduced the vulnerability of agricultural production, water resources and livelihoods to uncertain rainfall, water scarcity poor soil fertility. • 2,000 households in 40 villages in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka documents clear benefits in terms of reduced soil erosion, increased water availability, groundwater recharge and biomass. • Agarwal, et. al (2012) • RoR 2.29-4.09% for Jharkhand wells. • Narayanan, et. al (2014) • Survey of over 4100 assets across 100 villages in 20 districts • 90% of respondents considered the works very useful or somewhat useful; only 8% felt the works were useless. • Tata-IWMI studies reported in Verma and Shah (2012) • best examples of 140 MGNREGA assets in 75 villages in Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan suggestsFor a majority of assets, recovery is within a year of completion of works. • Additional water /protective irrigation leading to saving of diesel costs • Pisciculture • Groundwater recharge
  6. 6. Work initiated/ in progress • Constrained by paucity of good data on agriculture. • Six ICIRSAT-VDSA villages data pre & post MGNREGA combined with MGNREGA specific survey to parse some of these effects • District level data on agriculture and agricultural census data to research some of these impacts. Project paper
  7. 7. More information about project outputs can be found at: http://www.igidr.ac.in/mgnrega/

×