Summary of Positive outcomes and Challenges of IPPE-1 28 th July 2015 Raipur

Positive Outcomes Increase in awareness of Individual-based schemes and about the MGNREGA provisions Significant participation of vulnerable communities in planning Participatory planning leading to transparency Greater participation in gramsabhaNature of MGNREGA as Demand-driven program Change in mindset of people in the belongingness Presence of SHG has led to pro-poor planning

Positive Outcomes Amicable relationship with GP functionaries Ownership of vilalgers in planning Huge demand for Individual work /increase in demand Multi-stakeholder engagement, affiliation with departments – Interactive Platform No of registered families increased NRM related work increased Seasonality calendar helped to choose right work in right time Shifting of focus from community work to individual work- Macroplanning to microplanning Empowerment of vulnerable community to demand work Awareness of rationale behind choosing any work Need based planning

Positive Outcomes Villagers became aware of resources in village Who are the needy and what are their requirements ? Planning led to Impetus for ODF village Increase in no of work Individual family level planning and asset creation Microplanning at habitation level – easy to prioritise Increase in Average Labour Days Increase in wage rate Convergence Trust and confidence on MGNREGA increased Change in ATTITUDE of functionaries about participatory planning/behavioural change Ample opportunities to work in MGNREGA –eg. next 16 yrs plan ready!

Challenges Planning wasn’t good enough Les participatory, haphazard way Less time for planning GP functionaries weren't sensitized about objectives of IPPE Lack of awareness among key stakeholders about IPPE Miscommunication in non-IPPE blocks that there budget would be curtailed Against the spirit of act – from universalization to targeting Lack of coordination among different stakeholders - eg.NIRD and MoRD Fund prioritisation is not appropriate Public money for private purpose! Remuneration for planning not given to villagers!

Challenges Miscommunication in non-IPPE blocks that there budget would be curtailed Against the spirit of act – from universalization to targeting Lack of coordination among different stakeholders - eg.NIRD and MoRD Fund prioritisation is not appropriate Public money for private purpose! Remuneration for planning not given to villagers! Payment of BPT members wasn’t done/low remuneration for SHG members Convergence wasn’t synergetic Focus was more on community infrastructure than on livelihood Challenging physical conditions for transport of material – 40% for material in limiting Vulnerable families/villages not able to put up their demand

Challenges Lack of interest/involvement of line departments Lack of convergence Scaling of PRA tools for planning- transmission loss Low Participation of rural people Particiation of CSOs was limited due to non-availibility in poorest districts Priority of work wasnt completed Priority of work could not be monitored Participation of PRI is poor Participation of vulnerable communities was poor Community participation is poor HH survey time-consuming – triangulation of data Focus on quality is getting diluted

Challenges Planning raised lot of expectations however that wasn’t met with sufficient work provision Priority decided by villages wasn’t followed Lack of internet in rural areas to feed MIS data Delays in payment - spoiling trust on MGNREGA Accounting and auditing from the point of view of IPPE Line departments is reluctant to take up work due to complaints