Agricultural and Livelihood Vulnerability Reduction through the MGNREGA

Author(s): TASHINA ESTEVES, K V RAO, BHASKAR SINHA, S S ROY, BHASKAR RAO,

SHASHIDHARKUMAR JHA, AJAY BHAN SINGH, PATIL VISHAL, SHARMA NITASHA,
SHASHANKA RAO, MURTHY I K, RAJEEV SHARMA, ILONA PORSCHE, BASU K and N H
RAVINDRANATH
Source: Economic and Political Weekly , DECEMBER 28, 2013, Vol. 48, No. 52 (DECEMBER
28, 2013), pp. 94-103
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24477901

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

Agricultural and Livelihood Vulnerability

Reduction through the MGNREGA
TASHINA ESTEVES, Κ V RAO, BHASKAR SINHA, S S ROY, BHASKAR RAO, SHASHIDHARKUMAR JHA, AJAY BHAN SINGH, PATIL VISHAL,
SHARMA NITASHA, SHASHANKA RAO, MURTHY I K, RAJEEV SHARMA, ILONA PORSCHE, BASU Κ, Ν H RAVINDRANATH

This
This study quantifies
study the environmental
quantifies and T""V ural communities
the environmental andin India are exposed to current
socio-economic
socio-economicbenefits generated by the works
benefits climate variability
generated by the and extremes
works such as deficit rainfall,
± Vd.droughts, and extreme temperatures (moef 2012).
implemented
implementedunder the Mahatma
underGandhi
theNational
Mahatma Rural Gandhi National Rural
Farming systems and natural resources are also subject to deg
Employment
Employment Guarantee
Guarantee Act Act and
and assesses the potential assesses
radation the potential
and overexploitation, leading to water scarcity, loss
of
ofthese benefits
these to reduce vulnerability
benefits to reduce of agricultural of soil fertility,
vulnerability of andagricultural
a reduction in agricultural production,
production
production and livelihoods of the beneficiaries,
and livelihoods ofversely
the affecting the livelihoods of rural communities and in
beneficiaries,
creasing their vulnerability. There is a need to build resilience
post-implementation
post-implementation (2011-12) as compared
(2011-12)
to as compared to
through conservation and restoration of natural resources,
pre-MGNREGA
pre-MGNREGA (2006-07), (2006-07), to variability.
to current climate current climate
which can reducevariability.
the vulnerability of both ecological
Agricultural
Agricultural and livelihood
and vulnerability
livelihood indices socio-economic systems
vulnerability (Tiwari et al 2011). Adaptive and com
indices
developed
developed showed showed
reduction inreduction
vulnerability due
into munity-based
vulnerabilityresource due
management
to builds resilience in bo
human and ecological systems and is an effective way to cope
implementation
implementationof works under
ofthe
works
Act and resulting
under the Act and resulting
with environmental change characterised by future climate
environmental benefits.
environmental benefits. risks (Tompkins and Adger 2004).
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guaran
tee Act (mgnrega), one of the largest rural development pro
grammes, if not the largest one, in the world, is aimed at
enhancing t he livelihood security of people in rural areas by
guaranteeing too days of wage employment in a financial year
to households whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled
manual work. The implementation of mgnrega works leads to
the creation of durable assets that augment land and water
resources, generating ecosystem services that strengthen the
livelihood resource base of rural communities.
An "ecosystem service" as defined by millennium ecosystem
assessment (mea) of the United Nations Environment Pro
gramme (2003) is the ideal concept to be adopted, but it has a
very broad scope, incorporating regulatory, provisional, sup
porting, and cultural services. Thus, in this study, the term
"environmental benefit" is used to refer to the impacts of
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Rural Development for mgnrega works on natural resources and production systems,
initiating the study, and GIZ for supporting it and providing technical , . , , .
inputs. Thanks also to the secretaries and joint secretaries (especially NatUral «sources include s
Amita Sharma) of the MoRD, district authorities, and several non- and s0 on> and production
governmental organisations and the union rural development minister and forests. MGNREGA "
for his insights on the study during a workshop where the results of it programmes implement
were presented. ^ Ac(
Tashina Esteves, Patil Vishal, Sharma Nitasha, Shashanka Ra
IΚ and Ν H Ravindranath (ra.vi@ces.iisc.ernet.in.) are at the
Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore; , , , c ,.
, „ ' . „ ' , under mgnrega schemes (mord 2012). Among the few studies
Κ V Rao and Bhaskar Rao are at the Central Research Institute for

Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad; BhaskarSinha and that have assessed tae performance of assets, Tiwari et
Shashidharkumar Jha are at the Indian Institute of Forest Management, (2011) conducted a multidisciplinary rapid scientific apprai
Bhopal; Ajay Bhan Singh and S S Roy are at the Foundation for in Chitradurga district of Karnataka to assess the impact of
Ecological Security, Bhilwara; and Rajeev Sharma, Ilona Porsche and mgnrega in enhancing environmental benefits and reduci
Basu K are at GIZ'New Deltli· vulnerability to climate variability. The findings of this stu
94 December 28, 2013 vol XLViii no 52 GEE3 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

and others (Kareemulla et al 2009; Verma 2011; undp 2010) (kar), Madhya Pradesh (mp) and Rajasthan (raj) (Figure 1
indicate that the mgnrega provides multiple environmental One district each was selected from each of the four s
benefits apart from employment. for the assessment. The main basis for selecting districts was
Figurel:MapHighlightingtheStudyStatesandDistricts
Figure 1: Map Highlighting the Study States Year
andof Districts
initiation and the extent of implementation
mgnrega works. In other words, districts covered during
the first phase of the programme and with a high level of
implementation of works were selected. Similarly, one block
each in the selected districts and 10 villages in it with a
high level of implementation of mgnrega works were
chosen since the purpose of the study is to assess the potential
Bhiiwara °f programme to deliver environmental benefits and
reduce vulnerability to climate risks. Figure 1 and Table 1
ohar show the states, districts, blocks, and villages selected for
the study.
Medak
i I Andnra AV 1.1 Selection of MGNREGA Works
XJ'j^Cr Pradesh W
\Karnatakai
v &zrH~\i ■► Chitradurga
Chitradurga The potential for implementing an activity (or work) varie
from one village to another due to different resource endow
ments, which determine their potential to deliver environmen
tal benefits and reduce vulnerability. Therefore, works that
have the potential to generate environmental benefits given
For rural communities that are dependent on natural the gestation periods involved were selected for
resources and ecosystems for various environmental services ment. This included natural resource-based works
or benefits to support agriculture-based livelihoods, investing high scale of implementation (determined by th
in an adaptive management of natural resources increases penditure and scale of implementation, which inclu
present-day resilience and strengthens adaptation to current area covered, number of beneficiaries, and the lik
climate variability. This in turn increases their ability to that were at least two to three years old or older.
respond to the threats of long-term climate change (Tomp- village, a sample of six major works encompassin
kins and Adger 2004; undp 2012). This study conducted an community-based and Category 4 works (impleme
empirical evidence-based assessment of the potential of individual farmer's land) were selected. If only less t
mgnrega works in four districts to generate environmental natural resource-based mgnrega works had
benefits and reduce the vulnerability of beneficiaries to cur- mented, they were all included in the assessment,
rent climate risks, potentially building resilience to long-term
climate change. 1-2 Selection of MGNREGA Beneficiary Households
Beneficiaries in this study are farmers or households
1 Methods covered by a particular work implemented under the
This study was conducted in 2012-13 and refers to the mgnrega. Depending on the type of w
period 2011-12. The impact of the mgnrega is assessed by each village, the number of beneficiaries
comparing the status of natural resources, crop yields, water community works such as check dam c
availability, and vulnerability during the post-MGNREGA tion, and pasture land development, 10 ben
implementation year 2011-12 with the pre-MGNREGA period per work were sampled. If less than 10 h
of 2006-07. An assessment of the environmental and socio- fied, all the households were selected. For
economic benefits generated by the mgnrega was conducted works implemented on the land of indiv
in four selected districts of Andhra Pradesh (ap), Karnataka silt application, horticulture developm
Table
Table 1 : Districts,
1 : Districts,
Blocks, Villages
Blocks,
and Number
Villages
of Beneficiary
and Number
Households Selected
of Beneficiary
for the Assessment
Households
of Environmental
Selecte
Benefi
MGNREGA
MGNREGA Works Works
States Districts Blocks Villages Numberof Beneficiary
Households Selected

Andhra Pradesh Medak Zaheerabad Anegunta, Buchenelli, Govindapur, Hoti-K, Mannapur, Ranjole 323
Kohir Gotigarapalli, Kavelli, Maniyarpalli, Parsapalli 192
Karnataka Chitradurga* Challakere Parashuramapura, Nagaramgere, Nelagetanahalli, Rangavanahalli, Siddapura 266

Madhya Pradesh Dhar Hiriyur Dharmapura, Gowdanahalli, Kallahatti, Maradihalli, Talavatti 268

Sardarpur Barmandal, Khutpala, Baramkhedi, Chotiyabalod, Kotrakala, Hanumantya kag,

Phulgawri, Morgow, Minda, Machaliya 342

Rajasthan Bhiiwara
Bhilwara Mandalgarh Baroondni, Devipura, DhamanGati, Beekran, Jalamki Jhonpariyan, Rooptalai, Ganoli,
DhakadKhedi, Dhanwara, Bhatkheri 666

Total
Total number
number of ofselected
beneficiary households beneficiary
for this study households selected for this study 2,057
2,057
* In Chitradurga, two neighbouring blocks were selected by an earlier study (Tiwari et al 2011) and they were also selected for the current study.

Economic & Political weekly EEE3 December 28, 2013 vol xlviii no 52 95

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

individual farmers' households were selected. The number Figure

of Figure2:ApproachAdoptedforVulnerabilityAssessment
2: Approach Adopted for Vulnerability Assessment
sample beneficiary households ranged from 342 in Dhar dis
Step
Step1:1:Identification
Identification
of sectors,
of sectors,
scale, and
scale,
period
and period
trict (mp) to 666 in Bhilwara district (Rajasthan), with the to •0
tal across all the four districts being 2,057 beneficiary house Step 2: Identification and definition of indicators
holds (Table 1). •0
•0·

Step 3:
3: Quantification
Quantificationof
ofindicators
indicators
1.3 Indicator-Based Approach J3
■0·

Step 4: Normalisation
Normalisation of
ofindicators
indicatorstotoa adimensionless
dimensionlessunit
unitfor
foraggregation
aggregation
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (ipcc) vul ■a
nerability framework disintegrates the concept of vulnerabil Step 5: Assigning weights to indicators
ity into elements of exposure from an external disturbance •0
A

factor - sensitivity, which is, the change brought about by Step

Step6:6:Aggregation
Aggregationof indicators
of indicators
to obtain
to obtain
agriculture
agriculture
and
and livelihood
livelihoodvulnerability
vulnerability
indices
indices
exposure in the system; and the capacity of the system to
absorb or adjust itself to minimise the damage, which is
the adaptive capacity of the system. An enhanced adaptive ca- Assessment of the MGNREGA Works' Environmental and
pacity modifies and reduces both sensitivity as well as the Socio-economic Benefits: A set of indicators were identified
level of exposure. For example, the availability of irrigation and measured to quantify the environmental and socio
enhances adaptability when there is a drought. It reduces the economic effects, comparing the pre-MGNREGA (largely 2006-07)
sensitivity of crop production to drought, thus decreasing the and posî-mgnrega periods (2011-12). The identification of in
intensity of exposure to it. The index-based approach adopted dicators was based on the literature and expert consultations,
for vulnerability assessment is given in Figure 2 and is taking into consideration the local context,
derived from Ravindranath and Murthy (2013). The rationale and methods used for quantifying the identi
In this study, the concept of vulnerability was applied as an fied indicators are shown in Table 2. The study included an as
approach to reduce the risk of beneficiary households to works sessment of ecological, physical, and socio-economic indicators,
implemented under the mgnrega. Land and water-based interven- The methods to assess the indicators included biophysical
fions have been undertaken under mgnrega schemes with the measurements (for indicators such as groundwater and soil
objective of strengthening the asset and livelihood base in the organic carbon) and socio-economic surveys where direct
study villages. This can potentially enhance the adaptive capacity beneficiaries were questioned on indicators such as employ
of the beneficiary households and reduce their vulnerability. ment, area irrigated, crop yields, and so on for both periods).
Table
Table2: 2:
Rationale
Rationale
for Selecting
for Selecting
IndicatorsIndicators
for Assessment
forofAssessment
Environmentalof
Benefits
Environmental
and Vulnerability
Benefits
Reduction
andand
Vulnerability
Methods Reduction and Methods
for
forQuantification
Quantification
of Indicators
of Indicators
Indicator
Indicator Measure
Measure
(Unit)(Unit) Rationale
Rationale forfor
Selection
Selection
of Indicator
of Indicator Method

Groundwater depth
(metres below
ground level)
Irrigation
intensity (percentage)
Net area irrigated
(hectares)
Number of days of
irrigation water availability
Area under foodgrains
(hectares)
Cropping intensity
(percentage)
Crop yields (t/ha)
Soil organic carbon
(percentage)
Soil erosion (t/ha/year)
Livestock population
Migration (number of
individuals migrating)
Wage rates (rupees)
Number
Number of of
daysdays Income security
Income security
of employment
of employment sensitivity and
sensitivity and the adaptive
Creation of new water harvesting structures like check dams and percolation Direct measurements of groundwater
tanks; and improving storage capacities of existing tanks and ponds to levels using the conductivity method and
increase groundwater recharge. Improved groundwater availability reduces comparison with groundwater levels
the risk of crop failure. recorded by the Central Groundwater
Board in 2006-07, for selected blocks.
Increased storage capacity of tanks and ponds and increased groundwater Household surveys and PRA
recharge implies increased water availability for irrigation during different
cropping seasons, reducing the vulnerability of crop production.
Increased irrigation water availability leads to increased area under irrigation Household surveys
and crop production, reducing the risk of crop failure.
Improved irrigation sources lead to increased number of days ofwater Household surveys
availability, leading to reduced risk of crop failure.
Improved land productivity and irrigation water availability leads to increased Household surveys
area under foodgrain production, leading to food security and reduced sensitivity.
Improved soil and water resources lead to increased cropping intensity, Household surveys and PRA
increasing adaptive capacity.
Increased irrigation water availability and soil quality leads to increased crop Household surveys
production and thus increased yields, indicating resilience of crop production systems.
Application of tank silt to crop lands improves soil fertility and crop production, Soil sample collection and the Walkley
leading to increased resilience of crops. Black rapid titration method
Soil protection works lead to reduced soil erosion and increased soil quality, Universal Soil Loss Equation
enhancing the adaptive capacity of crop production.
Increased fodder and water availability could lead to increased number of Household surveys
livestock owned. Livestock ownership contributes to reduction in sensitivity
to climate risks.
Increased direct and indirect employment leads to reduction in migration,
indicating the increased adaptive capacity of households. Household surveys
Increase in wage rates per day for unskilled manual labour enhances the Household surveys
adaptive capacity of households to climate stresses.
with increased
number
with increased numberofofworking daysper
working days peryear
year reduces
reduces the the Household Household
surveys surveys
enhances
enhances capacitycapacity
the adaptive of households to climate
of households risks.
to climate risks.

96 December 28, 2013 vol XLViii no 52 Ξ2Σ1 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

Assessment of the Extent of Reduction in Agricultural and requires periodic time-series monitoring (soil erosion, so
Livelihood Vulnerability to Climate Risks: A vulnerability organic carbon content, and so on); (ii) the absence of ben
assessment is a method of risk assessment or management, mark data for the pre-MGNREGA scenario; (iii) observed en
Vulnerability was assessed by developing agriculture and live- ronmental benefits are attributed to specific mgnrega
lihood vulnerability indices, utilising indicators that reflect interventions, but they could be due to many factors. Howev
the implications of mgnrega works on water availability, crop a conscious effort was made to select only direct beneficiar
yields, soil fertility, employment, migration, and so on, and (households whose land, water, and other resources we
comparing the values of both periods. The current climate affected) by mgnrega works as well as the assets created; an
risks that affect water availability, crop production, and forest (iv) the study has not assessed the downstream and upstr
regeneration include low or delayed rainfall, droughts, and impacts of the programme. This study presents the potent
extreme temperature events. of the mgnrega programme to deliver environmental benefits
The indicators used for vulnerability assessment were quan- or reduce vulnerability to climate risks in places wh
tified using biophysical measurements and through surveys of level of implementation of works has been high. Thus
direct beneficiary households (Table 2). The numerical values should be exercised in extrapolating the findings of th
of the indicators are in different units (ha, metres, percent- to the programme at the national level,
ages, t/ha, and so on) and aggregating them meant they had
to be normalised and rendered dimensionless by calculating 2 Results and Discussion
the percentage change in indicator values. Since the indicators The results of the assessment conducted during 201
could have varying significance in affecting vulnerability, sented in three parts -the environmental impacts of m
weights were assigned based on mgnrega beneficiary per- works on different resources; the socio-economic ben
ceptions on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = no significance, 2 = less sig- the works; and finally the extent of reduction in vuln
nificance, 3 = moderate significance, 4 = high significance, as a result of implementing mgnrega works,
and 5 = very high significance). The perceptions of benefici
aries were based on the significance of a particular indicator 2·1 Environmental Benefits Contributing
and its relevance in helping them cope against climate risks, to Vulnerability Reduction
This exercise was carried out as a part of a participatory rural In all the four districts, the dominant works imple
appraisal (pra) conducted in each of the study villages, are related to conserving water, providing irrigatio
Vulnerability is assessed as a percentage reduction in the loping land, and drought proofing. Water-related
vulnerability of beneficiary households of mgnrega works in implemented in the four districts accounted for 64% (
each village. from 52% in Chitradurga to 76% in Dhar) of the total and
land-related works accounted for 18% of them
1.4 Rainfall Trends in the Study Areas bulk (about 80%) of the mgnrega works was linked to
Rainfall is an external parameter that could largely influence natural resources such as surface water, groundwater, crop
the delivery of environmental benefits or vulnerability. For land soils, and forests. The impact of mgnrega works was
attributing the observed impacts in the study area to mgnrega assessed using the indicators selected (Table 2), which
works, rainfall trends in the pre- and post-MGNREGA periods reflect the effect of a particular work on natural resources
have been compared and presented in Table 3. The annual (for example, groundwater) and production systems (for ex
rainfall recorded in all the study districts and blôcks during ample, crop production).
2011 was lower than the annual rainfall recorded for 2006.

Thus we can assume that the observed impacts are not exag- (■) Impact of MGNREGA Works on Water Resources
gerated or influenced by rainfall and can be attributed to mgnrega works such as construction of check dams,
mgnrega works. and percolation tanks, and the desilting of tanks and canals
have been assessed for their potential impact on grou
1.5 Limitations of the Study levels, area under irrigation, and the numb
Some of the potential limitations of the study are (i) single-point tion from both groundwater and s
measurement and survey conducted during the post-MGNREGA
period (2011-12), whereas assessment of environmental benefits (a) Impact on Groundwater Level
_ tl „ „ j .. , ........ measured in borewells owned by mgnrega beneficiaries dur
Table
Table3: 3:
Recorded
Recorded
Annual
Annual
RainfallRainfall
in Millimetres
in Millimetres
for 2006 and for
2011 2006 and 2011
intheStudyAreas ing the pre-monsoon season in 2012 and compared with the
in the Study Areas
Block Pre-MGNREGA Post-MGNREGA
District Average Annual average groundwater levels during the pre-MGNREGA pe
(2006) in mm (2011) in mm Rainfall in mm

*
(also pre-monsoon) obtained from the records of the Cen
Chitradurga 700 418 608
Groundwater Board (2007). This was substantiated by be
Bhilwara Mandalgarh 904 883 765

Dhar
*
776 833
ciary surveys on changes in groundwater levels.
1,161

Medak Kohir 844 587 770 It can be observed from Figure 3 (p 98) that groundwa
Zaheerabad 1,040 653 860 levels in the study blocks have either increased or remaine
* Means monthly rainfall data for both the periods was not available for all the selected blocks. the pre-MGNREGA level. In Other WOrd

Economic & Political weekly EGE9 December 28, 2013 vol xlviii no 52 97

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

groundwater during the post-MGNREGA period is within the - It can be observed from Table 4 that the number
range of depth recorded by the cgwb for the pre-MGNREGS water availability increased in all the four districts
period (2006-07) at the block level. This is despite an increase 40 villages. The increase was the highest in Dhar d
in number of borewells in most locations and continued water out of 365 days) due to the Kapil Dhara scheme. The b
extraction for irrigation from existing borewells since 2006. are able to cultivate rabi crops, increasing the cro
This is in line with studies quoted in by the Ministry of Rural sity, contributing to increased crop production. K
Development (mord) (2012), which show that groundwater may not be sustainable unless water recharge work
levels have increased as a result of mgnrega works. implemented. In the study villages of Dhar, percola
Figure
Figure 3:
3: Impact
Impactof
ofMGNREGA
MGNREGAWorks
Workson on
Groundwater
Groundwater
Levels
Levels
in Irrigation
in Irrigation
Borewells
Borewells

160 Medak Chitradurga (Karnataka) Bhilwara (Rajasthan)

(Andhra Pradesh) Challakere Hiriyur Mandalgarh

S 120
η:

£
"Ο

Ά 100

40
16
28
28

<— Depth to groundwater level (metre) - max (2006-07)

J
20 — Depth to groundwater level (metre) - max (2006-07) ^
20

►►
Depth
Depthtotogroundwater
groundwaterlevel
level(metre)
(metre)- -min
min(2006-07)
(2006-07)

Medak
Medak Chitradurga BhilwaraBhilwara
Chitradurga * >" Measured depth to groundwater
►Measured depth level (metre) in (2011-12)
to groundwater level (metre) in (2011-12)
(Andhra Pradesh)
Pradesh) (Karnataka)
(Karnataka) (Rajasthan)
(Rajasthan) 25
1 •

In Dhar
Dhar district
district (MP),
(MP), groundwater
groundwater levels
levels were
were not
notestimated
estimatedas
asthe
thebeneficiary
beneficiaryfarmers
farmersowned
ownedopen
openwells
wellsunder
underthe Kapil
the Dhara
Kapil scheme
Dhara ofof
scheme the MGNREGA.
the MGNREGA.

(b) Impact on Water Availability and Area Irrigated Using stop dams, ponds, and plantation works have
Groundwater Sources: The area irrigated is an indicator of potentially contributing to water recharge t
improved groundwater availability for irrigation. Data on the Thus mgnrega works implemented in all
impact of mgnrega works on the area irrigated and the districts have contributed to an increase in t
number of days of water availability were obtained from sur- by borewells and open wells, potentially le
veys of the beneficiary households for the pre- and post- and sustained crop yields.
mgnrega periods. The change is presented in Table 4.
- In 30 of the 40 villages studied, there is an increase in the (c) Impact on Water Availability and Are
extent of area irrigated by beneficiaries using groundwater Surface Water: The impact of mgnrega wor
sources such as borewells and open wells. rigated with surface water and the number o
- In MP, a unique project called Kapil Dhara is being impie- availability was obtained from surveying
mented under the mgnrega. It has contributed to an increase holds and is presented in Table 5 (p 99).
in area irrigated in all the 10 study villages, in the range of evident from Table 5.
63% to 100% (0.9 ha to 5.8 ha) among the beneficiary house- - In Chitradurga, desilting works were c
holds. Kapil Dhara implementation has also resulted in peren- of the 10 study villages and the area ir
niai water availability across agricultural seasons in about from desilted tanks increased in all the fou
70% of the villages, and the result has been a significant number of days of water availability for irrig
improvement in cropping patterns and cropped area (mpissr sources also increased by an average of 30
2010; mord 2012). of the four villages.
Table
Table 4: Impact
4: Impact
of MGNREGA
of MGNREGA
Works on Area Works
Irrigatedon using Area
Groundwater
Irrigatedand Number
usingof Groundwater
Days of Water Availability and Number of Days
nictrirt Ktatoï Plirront3no Ranofir i nrioc Mlimhornf\/illinor Darranl-.naDnnnflrnnnr ir, lrr;n-.tn/4 Miimknrnfl/ll^/inr Dnnn>»;nn
District (State)
District (State)Percentage
Percentage Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries
Number of Villages Percentage Number
Beneficiaries of in
Increase Villages
Irrigated Percentage
Number ofVillages ReportingBeneficiaries Increasein
Increase
Percentage Beneficiaries inNumber of
Irrigated Num
Owning
Owning Open
OpenReporting
Wells/
Wells/
ReportingIncrease Increase
Reporting
Reporting Area (ha)*
Increase in Increase in Increase in the Number of Days Reporting Increase in Number Days ofWater
Borewells in Irrigated Area Irrigated Area
irrigated ofWater
ofWater Availability
Availability of Days ofWater
ofWater Availability
Availability Availability
Availability (in
(in Days)*
Days)*

Medak (Andhra
(Andhra Pradesh)
Pradesh) 54 4 30 12-57 10 85 13-88

Chitradurga (Karnataka) 67
67 8 16 2-44 5 16 5-45

Dhar (Madhya Pradesh) 27 10 100 1-6 10 100 190-365

Bhilwara (Rajasthan) 77 8 7 0.2-2.3 7 47 30-90

rtnrtord h\/ ho
* As reported by beneficiaries.

98 December 28, 2013 vol XLViii no 52 13321 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

Table
Table 5: Impact
5: Impact of MCNREGA
of MCNREGA Works
Works on Area onusing
Irrigated Area Irrigated
Surface using
Waterbodies Surface Waterbodies (a) Soil Organic Carbon: The soc content was esti
AccordingtothePRA — ^ mated for all the 899 sample plots (or parcels that
According to the PR A
nictrirt
District
District (State)
(State) (Statel
Number of
Mnmnornf Inrromontsl Inrrosca 04 Ini-roitn in Mnmkarnfl/illsnar
Incremental Increase % Increase in Number of Villages Increase in the ln/-rmra intkn x A x

Villages Reporting in Area Irrigated by irrigated

Irrigated Area* Reporting Increase Number of Days of
ofDays of are affected
by mgnr
Increase in Irrigated Surface Water in Number of Days of Water Availability*
Area Bodies (Ha)
plication and affore
Water Availability (Days)
Chitradurga (KAR) 4 4-32.4 0.8-49.8 3 20-40 control plots (plots/
Dhar (MP) 7 0.4-58.3 34.9-100 7 108-240 been subjected to m
Bhilwara (RAJ)
(RAJ) 7 1.6-25.8#
1.6-25.8# 3.9-60 3 15-90
area. The change in
* As reported by beneficiaries during a PRA; # two sam
in area irrigated due to canal works (Jalamki Jhonpariyan 290 h
large-scale canal works were implemented. To estimate the percentage of SOC in Crop lands
- In two out of the six study villages in Bhilwara where desilt- or afforested plots, soil samples were collected from
ing of check dams under the mgnrega was reported, the water quadrants measuring 25 m x 25 m. Five samples of
storage capacity of the check dams increased, resulting in an mately 500 gm were collected from each plot, each at
increase in the area under irrigation in Dhaman Gati (25%) of 0-15 cm. These samples were then mixed thoroughl
and Dhanwara (100%) villages. vided so that there was a 500 gm sample of composite soil rep
- In Dhar, check dam and pond construction as well as reno- resenting the entire plot. The percentage of soc in the soil
vation of existing ponds led to an increase in the area under samples was estimated using the Walkley Black rapid titration
irrigation and the number of days of water availability. method in the laboratory.
- In Medak, desilting work was Table 6: Table
Impact of MGNREGA
6: Impact of MGNREGA Works on on
Works SoilSoil
Fertility;
Fertility;Soil
Soil Organic Carbon
Organic Carbon Content
Content
carried out below the sill level of District
District (State) Numberof
(State)Number of MGNREGAWork
MGNREGA Work Number
Numberof of Numberof
Villages Number
Villages of Percentage of Range of

tanks (controlled outlet of tanks). Sample Villages Where Works Have Sample Sample Plots Increase in

Been Implemented Beneficiary Showing Increased SOC {%)

This does not have a direct impact Plots Selected SOC

on the structure's water holding ca

Medak(AP)
Medak (AP) 10
10 Silt
Siltapplication
application 10 50 33 0.3-1.1

pacity or its command area, but Trench cum bund barrow pits 4 61 64 0.3-1.5

there was the indirect impact of Horticulture development 8 54 50 0.3-0.5

groundwater recharge, which im Chitradurga

Chitradurga (KAR)
(KAR) 10 10 Check dams 10 264 85 0.5-1.7

Irrigation facility 3 68 88 0.6-1.0

proved water availability in open
Silt application 5 66 90 0.4-1.7
wells and borewells.
Land development 3 14 80 0.7-1.6
It can be concluded that mgnrega
Other* 5 10 90 0.7-1.5
works which focus on renovation of
Dhar(MP)
Dhar (MP) 10
10 Kapil Dhara 10 49 83 0.5-0.6
traditional waterbodies, desilting, Percolation tanks 4 16 70 0.5-0.6
and construction of new surface Plantations 4 7 75 0.5-0.7

water harvesting structures have led Pond works 9 56 65 0.5-0.6

to increased water availability, an

Bhilwara
Bhilwara (RAJ)
(RAJ) 10
10 Check dams 10 119 62 0.4-1.2

increase in the area under irrigated Contour development 3 11 75 0.5-1.1

Canal construction 60 0.2-1.4

crop production, and reduced the 5 24

Pasture land development 6 18 88 0.2-1.0

variability in crop yield. However, a
Plantation/afforestation 4 12 70 0.3-1.0
weakness is the excessive concen
Total 899 72
tration on excavation and desilting
c 1-1 1. * Other includes farm pond, pipeline, horticulture, feeder channel, and outlet development.
of ponds without corresponding
work on treating catchment areas or constructing dams based - It can be observed that there is an increase
on earthen engineering (mord 2012). An increase in water tent, ranging from 62% of the plots in Bhilwara t
availability from increased groundwater recharge and water in Chitradurga, all of them beneficiary plots a
storage in surface waterbodies such as ponds and check dams check dam works.
has the potential to reduce crop yield variability and agricul- - Silt application was one of the major mgn
tural vulnerability. assessed in Medak and Chitradurga. In 33% and 90% of the
beneficiary plots respectively, there has been an improvem
(ii) Impact of MGNREGA Works on Soil Fertility in the soc content, in the range of 0.3% to 1.
Land development works such as desilting of waterbodies and - Plantations/afforestation work has been
utilising the silt for crop lands, contour, graded, and field out of the 40 villages. An increase in the soc
bunding, afforestation, and check dam construction are likely recorded in 70% to 75% of the beneficiary
to have a direct impact on soil organic matter and soil fertility, and Dhar districts.
To quantify the effects of mgnrega works on land resources, - On the whole, 72% of the 899 samples o
the soil organic carbon (soc) content and soil erosion rates plots subjected to mgnrega works' implement
were estimated for land categories subject to mgnrega works increase in the soc content.
and compared with control plots (similar land where no such We can conclude that mgnrega works h
activity had been undertaken). crease in the soc content in a majority of the sample plots,
Economic & Political weekly 12253 December 28, 2013 vol xlviii no 52 99

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

leading to improved soil fertility and crop productivity across construction, open well construction, and canal construc
various works, such as silt application, and land, plantation, are likely to affect crop production, the area under cu
and pasture development. tion, the cropping intensity, and crop yields, These effects
were estimated through surveying the direct beneficiaries of
(b) Soil Erosion: Reduction in soil erosion rates was estimated these mgnrega works,
in sample plots of different mgnrega works by comparing
them with control plots (t/ha/year) in all the sample villages (a) Total Area under Cultivation: The percentage of benefici
using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (Table 7), which consid- ary farmers reporting an increase in area under cultivation as
ers the soc percentage, soil type, slope, crop type, and support a result of mgnrega works was in the range of 7% in Medak to
practices such as tillage methods, and the presence of con- 98% in Dhar. The increase in area was in the range of 0.9% to
tours, bunds, and the like. Due to data limitations, only the 1.2% in Chitradurga, 2% to 17% in Medak, and 0.9% to 9% in
trends, rather than the magnitudes, should be considered. Bhilwara compared to the pre-MGNREGA period. In the case of
- In Chitradurga, Dhar and Bhilwara districts, 743 beneficiary these three districts, previously uncultivable land is now culti
plots were selected for assessing the reduction in soil erosion, vated due to the implementation of land development works
In these districts, 62% to 100% of the beneficiary plots showed such as levelling and clearing. In Dhar, the area under cultiva
a reduction in soil erosion, with an overall reduction of 78% in tion increased (in the range of 43% to 98%) due to increased
the 743 beneficiary plots. water availability as a result of large-scale implementation of
- In Medak district, 36 soil conservation and protection works irrigation works, water conservation, and harvesting wor
were selected for assessing the reduction in soil erosion and all
the works showed evidence of reduction. (b) Crop Yi elds: A number of factors determine crop yields,
- The extent of reduction in soil erosion due to mgnrega such as the date of sowing, crop variety, density of planting,
works is in the range of 0.07 to 4.3t/ha/year in Medak district, fertiliser and manure application, weeding, and rainfall. How
and 0.01 to 7.9t/ha/year in the beneficiary plots of Bhilwara, ever, crop yields could also be determined by increased water
Chitradurga and Dhar districts. availability for irrigation and improved soil fertility, which are
Thus we can conclude that all land and water-related mgnrega potential direct effects of various mgnrega works. Informa
works have directly contributed to reduction in soil erosion tion on crops grown and changes in crop yields was obtained
and soil protection, potentially increasing soil and crop pro- through household surveys of the direct beneficiaries and is
ductivity and reducing vulnerability of agricultural production, presented in Table 8 (p 101).
- 32 of the 40 study villages reported an increase in crop yields
(iii) Impact of MGNREGA Works on Crop Production (46o/010100%), both irrigated and rainfed. The remaining eight
Land development and water-related mgnrega works such as villages reported no change, probably due to the absence of ir
land levelling, terracing, bunding, silt application, check dam rigation works, their small scale, or the marginal impact of mgn
rega works. The yield increase is par
Table7:lmpactof
Table 7: Impact of MGNREGA Works on Soil MGNREGA
Erosion WorksonSoilErosion . .
District
District Number of
(State) (State) MGNREGA Works Number of Villages _Number
ticularly
of notable
Percentageof Sample Range of
for rainfed crops such
Villages in Which Works Have Sample Sites Sites Showing Reduction in
as cereals, minor millets, and pul
Been Implemented Selected Reduction in Soil Soil Erosion
Erosion
all the districts.
(t/ha/year)

Medak (AP)
Medak(AP) 10 Check dams 7 11# 100 0.1-3.4 - The percentage of benefic
Percolation tanks 6 16# 100 0.07-0.2 farmers reporting an increase in
1 5# 100 0.2-0.3
Farm ponds of cereals is 76% in Medak, 54%
Trench cum bunds 4 4# 100 2.1-4.4
Chitradurga, and 74% in Bhilw
Chitradurga (KAR) 10 Check dams 10 264 67 0.5-2.8

3 68 71 0.4-0.5
For pulses, it is 60% in Bhilwar
Irrigation facility
5 66 69 0.2-1.2
79% in Medak.
Desilting
Land development 3 14 77 0.2-0.5 - Large increases in crop yields are
Other* 5 5 100 0.2-1.9 reported for vegetable and cash c
Dhar(MP)
Dhar (MP) 10 Kapil Dhara 10 43 84 0.1-7.9 Multiple mgnrega works seem
Percolation tank 3 15 70 0.01-1.1
have affected crop yields positive
Plantations 4 4 100 0.1-1.3
is not possible to attribute incre
Stop dam 2 10 80 0.7-3.6
crop yields to any single work or on
RES pond 4 35 82 0.3-0.9
Other* 6 35 86 0.2-6.1 mgnrega works. However, impr
Bhilwara (RAJ) 10 Check dams 10 119 62 0.03-3.4 water availability and improved
Contour development 3 11 66 0.03-0.4 fertility, which are the direct impac
Canal construction 5 24 80 0.03-0.3 mgnrega works could contribute
Pasture land development 6 18 71 0.05-1.4
ficandy to increasing crop yields
Plantation/afforestation 4 12 75 0.06-1.1
the same could be considered as
Total 779 82
. . , . . . , ι , ι .. ... . . „. tive evidence in this study as it has been
* Other includes farm ponds, horticulture, feeder channels, outlet development, pond desilting, and storag
sample plots are not beneficiary plots, but worksites (soil conserved by structures). reporte

100 December 28, 2013 vol XLViii no 52 0223 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

Table
Table 8:
8: Impact
Impact of
of MGNREGA
MGNREGA Works
Works on
on Crop
Crop Yields
Yields farmers has also been observed by
District (State) Number of Percentageof
Percentage of Crops Grown NumberofVillages Percentage FarmersRange of
Study Villages Increase in
other studies, particularly in the
Farmers Reporting Reporting Yield Reporting Increase
Increase in Area Increase in Yields Yield (%) case of Ananthapur district in
Under Cultivation
Andhra Pradesh (Krishnan and
Medak
Medak(AP)
(AP) 10 7 Sugarcane 10 91 41-45
Balakrishnan 2012).
Pulses 10 79 12-158
Cereals 10 76 14-100
2.3 Vulnerability Reduction
Vegetables and cash crops 10 79 100-186
to Climate Risks
Chitradurga (KAR) 10 22 Cereals and minor millets 5 54 15-39

Cash crops and vegetables 10 56 12-33 According to preliminary assess

Dhar
Dhar(MP)
(MP) 10
10 98 Soyabean 9 46 5-43 ments by Tiwari et al (2011),
Cotton 4 62 11-100 Kareemulla et al (2009), and mord
Maize 5 50 2-42
(2012), MGNREGA activities have
Bhilwara (RAJ) 10 10 Cereals 10 74 4-27
the potential to reduce the vulnera
Pulses 5 60 21-57
bility of agricultural production,
Cash crops 7 100 5-50

Oil seeds 8 62 1-30

water resources, and livelihoods
to uncertain and low rainfall, wa
the mgnregs works. This has implications for quality of life ter scarcity, and poor soil fertility conditions. However, there
and employment generation, ultimately reducing the vulner- is limited empirical evidence. Here, we present the findings of
ability of rural communities to climate risks. the vulnerability assessment for the 40 villages in four study
districts and their beneficiary households.
2.2 MGNREGA Benefits Leading to Reduced Vulnerability
Implementation of mgnrega works, especially those related to Vulnerability Indices: Agricultural and livelihood vulnerability
land and water, create both direct employment for those who indices were computed since the focus of the mgnrega is on
participate and indirect employment through increased irriga- livelihoods and agricultural sector. The indices are composed
tion, increased area under crops, increased crop production, of several indicators that were quantified through household
and so on, potentially leading to reduced livelihood vulnera- surveys, pras, biophysical measurements, and secondary
bility. Increased employment can potentially lead to a reduc- data sources. The percentage reduction in vulnerability is
tion in migration. In the study villages, the extent of employ- presented for the direct beneficiaries of mgnrega works in
ment and migration was obtained from household surveys of each village, as an average, and it is not applicable to the
beneficiaries and through pras. village as a whole.
In all the 40 study villages, the average number of days of
employment increased (in the range of 34% to 73%), including (a) Agricultural Vulnerability
direct and indirect employment. Due to increased employ- included for construction of this ind
ment availability in the villages as a result of mgnrega work cropping intensity, irrigation in
implementation, migration of landless or unskilled labourers number of days of availability of
fell in 29 of the 40 villages (in the range of 8% to 100%). In foodgrain production, crop yields
some of the villages of Bhilwara, Medak, and Dhar, the reduc- organic carbon, and soil erosion,
tion of migration is in the range of 92% to 100% (Table 9). systems. The majority of indicat
Table
Table >: Percentage
9: Percentage Change in Migration Change inWorks
Due to MGNREGA Migration Due to MGNREGA Works resources and environmental servi
District (state)
NumberNumberofstudy Percentageof
of Study Percentageof NumberofStudy Percentageof Numberofstudy Percentageof presents the percentage of re
Villages Reporting Increase in the Villages Reporting Reduction in
Villages Reporting Increase in the Villages Reporting Reduction in bility as a result of implementation o
Additional
Additional Employment
Employment Number of WorkingNumber of Working Reduction in Migration . Λ . r. . . . . r , ..
Reduction in Migration
Generation
Generation Days Per DaysPe,Person
Person Migration Migration Selected beneficiaries in the four Study district
(Direct+indirect) - Medak: The agricultural vulnerability of beneficiary house
(Direct + Indirect)

Medak(AP) 1010 73 7 40-98

Medak(AP) 73 holds in
7 the 40-98
10 study villages of Medak district decreased in
Chitradurga
Chitradurga (KAR) (KAR) 10 34 9 8-43 the range8-43of 13% to 52%. This reduction was due to environ
10 34 9

10 20-92
Dhar(MP)
Dhar (MP) 10 45 5 20-9245 mental benefits
5
linked to water, leading to a significant increase
10 8
Bhilwara (RAJ)
Bhilwara (RAJ)
10 4545 8 20"100 in 20-100
the net area irrigated in all the study villages. The r
mgnrega works thus seems to have contributed to increased increased groundwater levels is increased crop yiel
and diversified direct and indirect employment generation and - Chitradurga: In Chitradurga district, the agricu
a reduction in migration, leading to reduced livelihood vulner- nerability of beneficiary households in all the 10 stud
ability. Many other micro-level studies have also reported that decreased in the range of 4% to 49% as a result o
the mgnrega has had a positive impact on reducing distress groundwater levels and increased area under irri
migration (Haque 2011; Verma and Shah 2012; Kumar and also due to desilting and soc improvement as
Prasanna 2010; Mistry and Jaiswal 2009; Kareemulla et al 2009). silt application.
The positive relationship between the implementation of soil - Dhar: A reduction in the range of 28% to 56% in a
and water conservation works and a reduction in migration of vulnerability was observed for beneficiary househo

Economic & Political WEEKLY E23 December 28, 2013 vol xlviii no 52 101

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

Figure
Figure 4: Reduction
4: Reduction
in Agricultural
in Vulnerability
Agriculturalof Villages
Vulnerability
in Study Districts (%)of Villages in Study Districts ('
Medak (Andhra
Medak (Andhra Pradesh)
Pradesh) Chitradurga
Chitradurga (Karnataka)
(Karnataka) Dhar Dhar (Madhya
(Madhya Pradesh) Bhilwara (Rajasthan)
Pradesh)
56 55
54

30
28
■
19 ■ 19

1 1 1 12 ■ q 1 11 9
Hill ■ III
Ganoli
Beekran
Devipura Rooptalai
Baroondni Bhatkhedi Dhanwada kiJhopadia
lakarikhpdi )hamangati

FiFigure
gure 5: Reduction in5:
LivelihReduction
ood Vulnerability of Vil ages inin
Study Livelihood
Districts (%) Vulnerability of Villages in Study Districts (%)
Medak
Medak (Andhra
(AndhraPradesh)
Pradesh)Chitradurga
Chitradurga
(Karnataka)
(Karnataka)
DharDhar
(Madhya
(Madhya
Pradesh)
Pradesh) Bhilwara (Rajasthan)

70
70 ,, 60
„ 6052
„ 90
90 „
„ 81
81
60 60 ci 55 ■ 50 I ^ ■ 68 _ 69
50
SO

district. The fall in the avi in Dhar was more than 30% for ben- be attributed to increased crop yields, increased number of
efkiaries in six of the to study villages and was mainly be- days of employment and wage rates, and decreased migration
cause of increased crop yields and cropping intensity in all the in all the study villages.
villages due to implementation of Kapil Dhara. - Bhilwara: The lvi declined by 4% to 46% for beneficiary
- Bhilwara: In Bhilwara district, the avi declined in the range households in all the study villages due to a significant in
of 8% to 30% for the selected beneficiary households and this crease in the net area under irrigation and the livestock popu
can be attributed to increased groundwater levels, the area lation, while migration fell in all the study villages,
under crop production, and livestock population. In Dhakad mgnrega works related to water and land development
Khedi village, the reduction in the avi was 55%, mainly due have contributed to the generation of environmental benefits
to a significant increase in irrigation intensity in the post- such as groundwater recharge, increased water availability for
mgnrega period. irrigation, increased soil fertility, and a reduction in soil ero
sion. Such environmental benefits are critical for red
(b) Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI): The indicators in vulnerability of agricultural produc
this index are the number of individuals migrating, wage the environmental benefits derived
rates, the percentage change in the number of days of employ- have the potential to not only b
ment, the net area irrigated, livestock population, and crop- current climate risks, but also bui
ping intensity. Indicators related to agriculture are also in- projected climate change,
eluded as agriculture is a major source of livelihood in the
3 Conclusions
study villages. The lvi for the beneficiary households in the 40
villages is presented in Figure 5. The mgnrega is the largest rural development programme im
- Medak: The lvi declined for beneficiary households in all plemented in India with a large investment in works to do
the 10 study villages in the range of 11% to 62% and this was soil and water conservation, land development, and aff
mainly due to a significant increase in the net area irrigated tion, all of which address the causes of degradation of na
and the number of days of employment created by mgnrega resources. Such works lead to the creation of durable as
works in the study villages. mgnrega works have led to enhanced productivity and regen
- Chitradurga: The lvi decreased for beneficiary households eration of the natural resource base, further stren
in the range of 8% to 52% in all the 10 study villages as a result potential for generating environmental benefits
of the increase in area under irrigation in the post-MGNREGA soil conservation, fodder development, afforest
period, which increased the number of days of employment drought proofing works have sequestered carbon,
and wage rates. gating climate change.
- Dhar: A reduction in the range of 34% to 81% in lvi was The em
computed for the beneficiary households. This reduction could four

102 December 28, 2013 vol XLViii no 52 [3353 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF RURAL AFFAIRS

conditions shows that mgnrega works are generating multi- works, the adaptive capacities of beneficiary households
pie environmental and socio-economic benefits. These ben- increased, reducing their vulnerability to climate risks. T
efits include maintaining or enhancing groundwater levels, a large poverty alleviation programme such as the mg
improving the storage capacity of waterbodies, improving is demonstrated to have the potential to deliver adaptat
irrigation, increasing the soc content, and reducing soil ero- benefits to current vulnerability, even though it is n
sion. These benefits have led to improved water availability designed to. Potential could exist to further enh
and soil fertility resulting in increased crop production, in- resilience to long-term climate change, through packagi
creased employment generation and reduced migration. mgnregs as a programme to build long-term resilien
Further, this study showed that due to the generation of future climate change, in addition to reducing vulnerabi
environmental benefits as a result of implementation of mgnregs to current climate risks.

REFERENCES
Alleviation - A Micro-level Study", Indian Ravindranath, Ν Η and I KMurthy (2013): Greening
Streams Research Journal, 2(7): 2230-7850.
Central Groundwater Board (CGWB) (2007): of MGNREGS (New Delhi: United Nations
Kumar,
"Groundwater Information Booklet, Development Programme).
R and R Prasanna (2010): "Role of NREGA
Bhilwara
in Providing
District, Rajasthan", Ministry of Water Re Additional Employment for Tribals
Tiwari, R, ΗI Somashekhar, V R Parama, IΚ Murthy,
sources, Government of India. and Curtailing Migration", National RuralM S M Kumar, Β Κ M Kumar, H Parate, M Varma,
Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA): Design,
- (2007): "Groundwater Information Booklet, S Malaviya, A S Rao, A Sengupta, R Kattumuri
and Impact, Ministry of Rural Developand Ν Η Ravindranath (2011): "MGNREGA for
Processof
Chitradurga District, Karnataka", Ministry
ment, Delhi. Environmental Service Enhancement and
Water Resources, Government of India.
Madhya Pradesh Institute of Social Science ReVulnerability Reduction: Rapid Appraisal in
- (2007): "Groundwater Information Booklet,
search (MPISSR) (2010): "Assessment of theChitradurga District, Karnataka", Economic &
Medhak District, Andhra Pradesh", Ministry of
Water Resources, Government of India.
Effectiveness and Impact of Kapil Dhara Political Weekly, 46(20): 39-47.
Sub-scheme", Ministry of Rural Development
Tompkins, Ε L and W Ν Adger (2004): "Does Adaptive
Haque, Τ (2οπ): "Socio-economic Impact of Imple
(MoRD) and United Nations Development Pro Management of Natural Resources Enhance
mentation of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
gramme (UNDP), New Delhi. Resilience to Climate Change?", Ecology and
Employment Guarantee Act in India", Social Society, 9(2):io.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2003):
Change, 41(3): 445-71·
"Ecosystems and Human Well Being: A Frame United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change work for Assessment", United Nations Environ(2010): Rights-based Legal Guarantee as Devel
(IPCC), Parry, M L, Ο F Canziani, J Ρ Palutikof, ment Programme. opment Policy: The Mahatma Gandhi National
Ρ J van der Linden and C Ε Hanson, ed. (2007): Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) Rural Employment Guarantee Act (New Delhi:
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and (2012): "India: Second National Communica UNDP).
Vulnerability (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer tion to the United Nations Framework Conven - (2012): Greening Rural Development in India
sity Press). tion on Climate Change", Government of India. (New Delhi: UNDP).
Kareemulla, K, S Κ Reddy, C A Ramarao, S Kumar Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) (2012):Verma, S (2011): "MGNREGA Assets and Rural Water
and Β Venkateswarlu (2009): "Soil and Water MGNREGS Sameeksha: An Anthology of Re Security: Synthesis of Field Studies in Bihar,
Conservation Works through National Rural search Studies on the Mahatma Gandhi Nation Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan", International
Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in al Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 200s, Gov Water Management Institute.
Andhra Pradesh: An Analysis of Livelihood ernment of India. Verma, S and Τ Shah (2012): "Labor Market Dy
Impact", Agricultural Economic Research Review,
Mistry, Ρ and A Jaswal (2009): "Study of the Imple namics in Post-MGNREGA Rural India", Water
22:443-50. mentation of the National Rural Employment Policy Research Highlight, viewed 11 February
Guarantee Scheme (NREGS): Focus on Migra
Krishnan, S and A Balakrishnan (2012): "Impact of 2013, http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/iwmi-tata/
Watershed Works of MGNREGS on Povertytion", DISHA, Ahmedabad. PDFs/20i2_Highiight-o8.pdf

Economic&PoliticalwEEKLY
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
November 30,2013

Moving around in Indian Cities - Dinesh Mohan

Review of Twelfth Plan Proposals for Urban Transport - Ranjit Gadgil
Ahmedabad's BRT System: A Sustainable Urban Transport Panacea? - Darshini Maha
Metro Rail and the City: Derailing Public Transport - Geetam Tiwari
Accidents and Road Safety: Not High on the Government's Agenda - S Sundar, Akshima Τ Ghate
Is Public Interest Litigation an Appropriate Vehicle for Advancing Road Safety? - Girish Agrawal
Car Sewa: The Iconography of Idle Worship - Dunu Roy
Analysing the Urban Public Transport Policy Regime in India -PS Kharola
For copies write to:
Circulation Manager,
Economic and Political Weekly,
320-321, A to Ζ Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai 400 013.

email: circulation@epw.in

Economic & Political weekly E53 December 28, 2013 vol xlviii no 52 103

This content downloaded from

3.109.28.183 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:50:01 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms