DISCUSSION
Employment Guarantee and Its Environmental Impact: Are the Claims Valid?
M Dinesh Kumar, Nitin Bassi, M V K Sivamohan, V Niranjan
groundwater level measurements; increased irrigated area by bore-wells for estimating increase in area under irrigation; maximum work can be provided each year for additional income calculation; and best of three-year performance for work availability. For instance, ground water levels in hard rock areas of peninsular India fluctuate widely between years, depending
This note questions some of the assumptions, fundamental concepts and methodologies in “MGNREGA for Environmental Service Enhancement and Vulnerability Reduction: Rapid Appraisal in Chitradurga District, Karnataka” (EPW, 14 May 2011), arguing that the analysis in the paper does not support the authors’ claims of multiple benefits from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.
M Dinesh Kumar (dinesh@irapindia.org), Nitin Bassi, M V K Sivamohan and V Niranjan are with the Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy in Delhi and Hyderabad.
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
T
Assumptions, Concepts, Methods
The assumptions used at several places in Table 5 (p 43) would have led to serious bias in outcomes. Some such examples are: rainfall variability assumed to be least for
vol xlvI no 34
on the magnitude of rainfall, which according to the authors’ own data, varies from year to year. Further, the contribution of surface water bodies such as tanks to total irrigation is very high in peninsular India during good rainfall years.
The development of vulnerability indices leaves a lot to our imagination. There is no clear-cut basis for the development of water, agriculture, and livelihood vulnerability indices, including the weightage assigned to the different indicators. If the stakeholder analysis was carried out, details should have been provided.
The paper does not adequately describe the hydrological model attempted. Though the positive impact of the NREGA on groundwater recharge is mentioned several times, the authors have not provided the methodology used to estimate the same. While participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and hydrological monitoring are supposed to have been used as indicators for measuring groundwater level and percolation, it is not specified how these data were used to arrive at recharge figures. So is the case with the estimation of loss of water through run-off (Table 4, p 42). Here again, authors have used hydrological modelling, but there is neither a description of the model nor the estimates.
Further, it is rather unusual to obtain water storage capacity of reservoirs, crop production and yield data only through focus group discussions (FGD) and key informant surveys (KIS) (Table 4, p 42). The argument that “increased storage capacity of the tank implies more water stored in tank and hence more recharge” will not hold true during deficit rainfall years. This can only happen in wet years. The authors’ own graph shows that this has happened only in two out of the last seven years.
The authors should clearly mention the specific water conservation and harvesting
DISCUSSION
technologies used in the NREGA programme that resulted in groundwater recharge, soil moisture retention and protection, flood control, provision of irrigation and drinking water and nutrient recycling in the study villages (Table 3, p 41). The area that the authors are describing has extremely limited groundwater recharge potential and low to medium rainfall of poor reliability and high aridity.
The authors argue that check dam construction improves soil fertility in agricultural land. This is a long-standing myth, which needs to be dispelled. Likewise, it is not clear how planting tree saplings increase carbon sequestration, when there is no guarantee of the survival of the plants, given the semi-arid climate with 500 mm rainfall, compounded by high variability (Table 3, p 41). The planted trees, if they do survive, would end up consuming a lot of water (in the form of evapo-transpiration), and result in desiccation in semi-arid and arid regions.
Another contentious claim is that renovation of traditional water bodies such as tanks ensures groundwater recharge and increased water supplies for irrigation, without causing a proportional reduction in the flows into the downstream water bodies, given the fact that the area falls in the Krishna basin, which is on the verge of “closure”. The authors also need to inform the readers how flood control structures ensure “groundwater recharge”.
The methodology for measurement of groundwater levels (Section 4.1.1, p 44) is bound to yield inaccurate results. The levels were partially measured and partially collected based on FGD and KIS, and it is not clear which method was actually employed. Also, obtaining past records of groundwater levels from the central or state groundwater departments might have increased the scientific validity of the results.
The impacts of afforestation work are assessed on the basis of some standard norms, and are not based on real time data. Considering that most of the plantations are less than three years old and undertaken in different time periods, calculations of biomass production, carbon sequestration and biodiesel production have no meaning. It is too early to consider the outputs from the plantations, as it would depend on how these are going to be managed and on the climatic variability. There is a greater risk of pest infestation as most of the plantations are grown as monoculture. Further, one seldom finds that the trees raised under community plantation activities show the type of growth or soil cover typical of natural forest ecosystems.
Problem of Attribution
The authors claim (and provide Figure 3 to back their point) that the post-NREGA groundwater levels showed a significant rise (around 113 m in one village) in the three villages. This is around 2,000 mm of
EPW Research Foundation (A UNIT OF SAMEEKSHA TRUST)

The revised and updated Edition, just released by the EPW Research Foundation has several added features:
Moderately Priced and Concessional Rate for Students and Research Scholars
Hard Copy | CD | |
---|---|---|
Inland (Rs) | 800 | 1500 |
Concessional Rate | 600* | 1000* |
Foreign (US $) | 100 | 150 |
* Concessional rate for subscribers of the previous volume; so also for students and research scholars on producing a brief evidence of their eligibility for concession along with the order.
CDs and hard copies can be obtained from: The Director, EPW Research Foundation, C-212, Akurli Industrial Estate, Akurli Road, Kandivli (E), Mumbai – 400 101. Phones: (022) 2885 4995/ 4996 Fax: (022) 2887 3038 E-Mail : epwrf@vsnl.com
(Remittances by Demand Draft/Cheque or through online payment gateway. Demand Draft and Cheque are to be in favour of EPW Research Foundation payable at Mumbai. Outstation Cheques should include Rs 50/- as bank collection charges. For online payment, please visit : http://www.epwrf.res.in)
August 20, 2011 vol xlvI no 34
EPW
DISCUSSION
recharge (for a specific yield of 0.02 for the aquifers underlying that area) for a rainfall of 500 mm! The authors should have mentioned what the pre-NREGA water levels refer to (i e, whether it is premonsoon or post-monsoon) or whether they are just comparing pre-monsoon or post-monsoon water levels in wells, preand post-NREGA interventions, respectively. It is obvious that after the monsoon the water levels come up in the wells, and the rise is very high in hard rock areas even for a small amount of recharge, because of very low specific yield of the aquifer. The authors therefore should have found out the difference in (pre- and post-monsoon) water level fluctuation before and after the NREGA (in years of similar rainfall quantities), rather than simply compare pre- and post-monsoon water levels. The other option would have been to compare water level fluctuations in two areas in the same year, one with NREGA interventions and the other without NREGA interventions.
This problem of attribution is applicable to almost all the impact variables of the NREGA interventions, be it enhanced crop yield, increased water availability for irrigation, increase in crop area, productivity of agricultural land, increase in tank storage and improved soil moisture storage. The values of all these variables can improve with a good rainfall in a semi-arid region like Chitradurga, even without any of the NREGA interventions.
Environmental services and their improvements were assessed at the village level. The authors say, “No village showed any negative impact on vulnerability due to NREGA activities”. Groundwater recharge, rainwater percolation, and ecological flows are not amenable for assessment villagewise. Further, it is now well recognised that basin should be the unit of analysis of the impacts of small water harvesting systems (Molle and Turral 2004; Kumar et al 2006), more so in water-scarce regions due to negative externalities which upper water harvesting interventions induce on stream flows in the lower areas of river basins. Had the authors expanded their unit of analysis to include some of the downstream villages, many of the negative vulnerability impacts would have emerged.
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
Research in the recent past has ques
tioned the claims of positive hydrological
impacts, economic viability and ecolo
gical benefits of water harvesting and
recharge (when looked at from a river
basin perspective) in naturally water
scarce regions. However, the authors
seem to have ignored these very crucial
issues and have instead taken a few vil
lages and wells as their unit of analysis
even for groundwater assessment. There
are enough evidences now to show that
intensive water harvesting causes severe
consequences for downstream areas in
terms of reduced recharge and stream
flows in water scarce regions/basins
(Gujarat and Rajasthan) (Kumar et al
2008; Ray and Bijarnia 2006).
There is mounting evidence and criti
cism about the futility of the NREGA work
and its welfare impacts (causing artificial
scarcity of wage labour, etc), leave alone
the issue of fund utilisation (Bassi and
Kumar 2010; World Bank 2011). The latest
report of the World Bank on 14 social pro
tection programmes, including the NREGA,
carried out for the Planning Commission,
makes serious remarks about the poor
quality of work carried out under the
NREGA, relating to water harvesting and
conservation, and the lack of scientific
design and technical supervision. The
report (2011:84) notes:
A key constraint to building high quality assets is the lack of technical support to communities as input to planning MGNREG works (e g, through resource mapping exercises) as well as the shortage of technical staff in designing and supervising works. A large number of works, particularly those related to water conservation, remain incomplete, either due to lack of technical support to GPs or the onset of monsoons.
The paper does not mention any study contradicting the arguments put forth by the authors in favour of the NREGA.
Sweeping Conclusions
The paper uses terms and words sweepingly, without appropriate data to support them. The authors should have quantified the total economic benefits (considering the positive and negative externalities) against the investments made for the NREGA. Otherwise, it serves the purpose of echoing the views of the Planning Commission.
vol xlvI no 34
More explanation is required on how the income of individual farmer increased from zero to up to Rs 1 lakh/acre/year after the land development activities (p 46, para 2 (4.3)). For instance, what were the farmers doing when the farm income was nil? Authors state that the NREGA has reduced vulnerability by providing employment and income to rural communities. But no data on employment days created and additional income generated as a result of NREGA activities has been provided.
The conclusion that the NREGA will deliver the sustained multiple benefits (at the individual and community level) over the long run does not follow from the analysis carried out in the paper.
References
Bassi, N and M Dinesh Kumar (2010): “NREGA and Rural Water Management in India: Improving the Welfare Effects”, Occasional Paper No 3, IRAP, Hyderabad.
Kumar, M Dinesh, Shantanu Ghosh, Ankit Patel and R Ravindranath (2006): “Rainwater Harvesting and Groundwater Recharge in India: Some Critical Issues for Basin Planning and Research”, Land Use and Water Resources Research, 6 (1).
Kumar, M Dinesh, Ankit R Patel, R Ravindranath and O P Singh (2008): “Chasing a Mirage: Water Harvesting and Artificial Recharge in Naturally Water Scarce Regions”, Economic & Political Weekly, 43 (35): 61-71.
Kumar, M Dinesh, A Narayanamoorthy, O P Singh, M V K Sivamohan, Manoj Sharma and Nitin Bassi (2010): “Gujarat’s Agricultural Growth Story: Exploding Some Myths”, Occasional Paper # 2, IRAP, Hyderabad.
Molle, François and Hugh Turral (2004): “Demand Management in a Basin Perspective: Is the Potential for Water Saving Over-estimated?”, paper prepared for the “International Water Demand Management Conference”, June, Jordan.
Ray, Sunil and Mahesh Bijarnia (2006): “Upstream vs Downstream: Groundwater Management and Rainwater Harvesting”, Economic & Political Weekly, 41(23).
Tiwari et al (2011): “MGNREGA for Environmental Service Enhancement and Vulnerability Reduction: Rapid Appraisal in Chitradurga District, Karnataka”, Economic & Political Weekly, 46(20).
World Bank (2011): “Social Protection for a Changing India”, Volume II, Chapter 4.
Style Sheet for Authors
While preparing their articles for submission, contributors are requested to follow EPW’s style sheet.
The style sheet is posted on EPW’s web site at http://epw.in/epw/user/styletocontributors.jsp
It will help immensely for faster processing and error-free editing if writers follow the guidelines in style sheet, especially with regard to citation and preparation of references.