Summary of Positive outcomes and Challenges of IPPE-1

28th July 2015Raipur

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 •