Arjun Surendra SaciWATERs
Vulnerability • Vulnerability is the propensity to suffer a significant shock that brings welfare below a socially accepted level (Kühl, 2003) • Vulnerability increases when there is uncertainty with respect to livelihood and life – such as climate variability.
Vulnerability (contd.) • Lacking sufficient assets, insurance or capital the poor are the worst hit by fluctuations in levels of income, consumption and well-being • Such shocks and seasonalities may lead to losses, distress sale of assets, reduced food intake, interruption of schooling, • Vulnerability is strongly rural, and severe in regions of physical remoteness. It also varies with agro-climatic factors, seeing higher incidence in areas prone to floods, drought and areas difficult to irrigate.
Vulnerability (contd.) • Variability of rainfall and temperatures contribute to variability in agricultural production and food insecurity – affecting current and future vulnerability • Governments world over have launched programmes to attempt to reduce vulnerability. • Some major programmes in India are as follows
Public Distribution System • Individual food security -Distribution of essential commodities at subsidized rates – mainly foodgrains, oil, sugar, kerosene • Food distribution in Modern India, since 1930s (Bombay) • Foodgrains Prices Committee (1964) – formation of FCI • 1997- Targeted PDS – concentrating on the poor
Public Distribution System • Different states have different entitlements • Andhra Pradesh – apart from rice @ Rs 1/ kg Table 6 : Overview of the benefits of the Amma Hastham Scheme (source: Government figures available online at : http://cm.ap.gov.in/15jan13press.asp) S.No Commodities Quantity per Consumer Open Market Cardholder Card Price(Rs.) Price (Rs.) benefit (Rs.) 1 Red Gram Dal 1 kg 50/- 73/- 23/- 2 PalmOil 1 ltr 40/- 58/- 18/- 3 Whole meal atta 1 kg 16.50 25/- 8.50 4 Wheat 1 kg 7/- 18/- 11/- 5 Sugar ½ kg 6.75 17/- 10.25 6 Salt (Iodized) 1 kg 5/- 14/- 9/- 7 Chilli powder ¼ kg 20/- 35/- 15/- 8 Tamarind ½ kg 30/- 40/- 10/- 9 Turmeric powder 100 gms 10/- 12/- 2/- Total 185/- 292/- 107/- NB: Rice is also provided as per existing schemes mentioned earlier
Some issues of the PDS in India Issues Source Illegal diversion of foodgrains from PDS to open market Khera 2011 57% of subsidized grains does not reach the target group, of POE 2005 this -36% is siphoned off the supply chain. No survey for identification of BPL families under TPDS undertaken in 18 out of 31 States and Union Territories. Mane 18 per cent of BPL households did not have ration cards 2006 The performance of TPDS was poor in states with larger BPL population Ghost Cards : Cards exist on fake names etc. POE 2005 Irregular delivery of stock to FPS POE 2005 FPS Viability: Only 23% of FPSs sampled by POE were found POE 2005 to be viable.
Self-Help Groups • A Self Help Group (SHG) is a small group of persons who come together to work towards a common purpose for issues that could range from medical issues to livelihood generation or watershed management • Often financial lending – main function
Self-Help Groups • Loans at low interest rates – as low as 7% pa (under National Rural Livelihoods Mission) • Use money for livelihood generation, investments etc • Useful for tiding over tough times, and debt swapping • In interviews – not much complaints.
MGNREGA • Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) notified on September 7 th 2005 & launched in February 2006 (Gazette of India 2005) • Act mandates minimum 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year (FY) to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work
Objectives of MGNREGA • To ensure social protection for the most vulnerable people living in rural India through providing employment opportunities • To create durable assets, improved water security, soil conservation and higher land productivity, to ensure livelihood security for the poor • To carry out work that help mitigate the effects of drought and natural disasters, such as floods, in rural India • To aid the empowerment of the marginalised communities, including women, Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), through the processes of a rights-based legislation
Objectives of MGNREGA contd … • To strengthen decentralised, participatory planning through convergence of various anti- poverty and livelihoods initiatives • To strengthening local grass root governance such as the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) • To effect greater transparency and accountability in governance
MGNREGA in Andhra Pradesh • AP receives a large percentage of central funds for NREGA Andhra Pradesh FY -2010-11 India (Rs. Lakh) AP as a % of Total (Rs. Lakh) Central Release 741807 3576895 21 Total Available 910710 5417214 17 Funds Total Expenditure 543939 3937727 14 Unspent Amount 366771 1479487 25 Source http://nrega.nic.in/Netnrega/WriteReaddata/Circulars/Briefing_booklet13.pdf
MGNREGA in Andhra Pradesh MGNREGA in Andhra Pradesh Average Days worked per household under NREGA 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Andhra Pradesh 31 42 48 66 54 58 National Average 43 42 48 54 47 43
Clearing of P. juliflora in Aurepalle
Work done under MGNREGA • Most work involved is clearing P . juliflora . • Same fields being cleared again and again every year. • Some amount of -desilting of tanks + land application of silt -field bunds and channels – - Water scarcity not addressed!
Contrasting stories
Shortcomings • -Bad quality work done – eg. Checkdams that don’t hold water- wither “durable assets” • Not implemented equally across states, or even from village to village • Work done for land improvement – eg juliflora, not planned. • Work not regularly given, often suspended • Financial irregularities – delayed payments • Most vulnerable are most affected by these shortcomings – not all are able to take the benefits.
Conclusions • Many deficiencies in the official social protection programs • Thus only partially successful in reaching their intended beneficiaries. • Problems include : a)leakage of resources towards the non-targeted groups. b)the targeted poor not getting the benefits c) the most vulnerable among the poor not benefiting.
Conclusions • Thus alternatives to traditional institutional approaches are needed to best reduce the vulnerability to climate variability
Recommend
More recommend
