168
S
tate
of
I
ndia
’
s
L
ivelihoods
R
eport
2015
there were not enough good ideas on what
sustainable income generating activities can
be pursued. If ideas were in short supply,
sequencing of interventions should have
been very different. NREGS and NRLM can
gain from conscious attempts at building
ownership among the benefiting people.
Building ownership in people is not a job
that the government departments do well.
They need to look for support outside the
government sector.
The statutory obligations cast on the gov-
ernment to provide 100 days of employment
at the minimum wage for each household
that demands work, are difficult to fulfil.
First is the question of resources to fulfil the
mandate. A three-fold increase over the cur-
rent budget was required to provide 100 days
of work to families that demanded work
last year. Assuming that funds are available,
how to create meaningful work in the rural
areas where people can be employed is the
next challenge. Some participatory planning
carried out last year has brought a change to
the nature of works to be carried out. There
are far less roads, and far more irrigation and
water related works planned in 2015–16.
NREGS has to find ways of making village
communities plan their requirements and
implement the same over a long period if
the works cannot be completed in a year.
This is an area where demand side contri-
butions will bring much better results—as
the participatory watershed projects have
demonstrated.
Building ownership into livelihood sup-
port programmes is a critical requirement.
This is cognitively understood as seen in
the documents that are put out by different
schemes and programmes. How to build
ownership among the target people is a skill
issue in the implementing agency. When
large programmes are implemented, the
frontline staff normally deals with ‘knowl-
edge dissemination’ with the benefiting
people. The frontline staff have for the most
part never carried out livelihoods similar to
what is advocated by them. The resultant
lack of clarity and lack of conviction alien-
ates the beneficiaries psychologically. In
the public sector, training of such people
is not given adequate importance. The
difference between some of the well-run
programmes and the poor ones is the staff
capacities and their understanding of the
local context. Typically voluntary sector
organisations train their staff and bring in
necessary technical expertise. The reason
for some NGO run projects doing well is
their understanding of the local needs and
staff training. The public sector projects, in
contrast, believe in achieving targets. While
spending targets and physical number can
be achieved, what about results and impact?
The lack of attention on impact and qual-
ity of results has to be remedied in project
design and implementation.
This report recognises the radical shifts
taking place in the livelihoods of the poor.
The typical land and agriculture depend-
ant poor households are moving away for
other jobs and vocations. The services—led
by construction sector—have been able to
wean away unskilled labour into their fold.
These jobs are low end, but not dependent
on themonsoon or crop prospects for wages.
Further with some development of skills and
experience there is a possibility of earning a
higher wage, whereas in agricultural labour
the opportunities to earn more with higher
skills are very limited. Another influenc-
ing factor is the possibility of migrating to
towns and cities with all their attractions.
The inability of land to support a large
part of population is well understood and
internalised by the people which is clear
from the shifting employment patterns.
Instead of trying to arrest such shifts and
the accompanying migration, the people
should be provided skills and competence
to handle new jobs better and improve their
quality of life. The Skill India framework
has rightly addressed the issues involved
in shifting labour from agriculture to non-
farm sector and from rural areas to other
areas. However the large target of training
