The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme has apparently helped UPA win a second term but an official report points out that its implementation on the ground leaves much to be desired.

“Reports from various quarters increasingly suggest that the implementation of NREGA has remained patchy even five years after it has been passed. Even more disturbing are the stories of widespread corruption reported from all over the country. The weak and inadequate accountability structure is one of the primary reasons for the average performance of the NREGA,” notes the report submitted by the Aruna Roy led working group set up by the rural development ministry in March to address the issue of transparency and accountability in the scheme.

The ministry will respond on Friday to a set of recommendations made by the working group.

Following are the critical recommendations made by the working group:

1. Amendment to the social audit clause under NREGA (13(b)-schedule I): The working group feels the amendment brought about by the government on 31st December 2008 to 13(b) schedule 1 is self defeating. The amendment empowers the gram Sabha to carry out the social audit without any interference from an outside individual, who can only be an observer. The Amended clause 13(b) is not only antithetical to the aforementioned philosophy of Social Audit but also militates against the basic principles of auditing, namely, that the audit function has to be conducted by an independent agency. The Working Group has recommended a set of model rules in the absence of a more comprehensive statutory regime on Social Audit. These model rules are an indicative framework detailing the process, the support and the documents required to carry out statutory Social Audits in an effective manner.

2. Transparency Rules: The Working Group has recommended that all MGNREGA-related information shall be in the public domain. The legal regime of RTI Act has been recommended as a minimum standard for the purposes of the MGNREGA.

3. Grievance Redressal rules: One of the biggest lacunae in the implementation of the MGNREGA is the flagrant violation of the basic entitlements of the worker with impunity. The present framework does not provide an effective grievance redressal mechanism to report violations, or a forum for acting on the acts of commission and omission on the part of government functionaries. The measures suggested by the Working Group acknowledge and facilitate the right to seek redressal of grievances arising out of the violation of the Act and a failure to provide other “basic entitlements”. It also creates a mechanism by which complaints can be filed and disposed of and, finally, links this to District Ombudsman. Although the Act has made provisions for the imposition of penalties, there is no institution which can be approached to impose the penalties. In this context, it is imperative that the Ombudsman constituted by the Central Government is given the powers to penalize errant officials in addition to clear formulation of responsibilities for all the MGNREGA functionaries.

4. Changes recommended to the “Instructions of Ombudsman”: The Working Group examined the structure and substance of the existing Ombudsman orders of the MoRD September 2009, and also discussed the difficulties States have been experiencing in implementing this order. Based on the issues that arose in the course of the discussions, a number of suggestions were made to make the institution more credible and effective. This set of recommendations is merely a response to the MoRD’s ‘Instructions for Ombudsman’. The need for having an independent statutory authority with penal powers at the district level remains as urgent as ever. Following are the major changes suggested by the Working Group: 1. Increase the remuneration for the ombudsman (both salary and sitting fee) 2. A clarification in Para 8.2.2. about the public nature of MGNREGA documents. The amendment in this section from the earlier draft is to ensure that the MGNREGA, which has been seen as even more progressive and transparent than the requirements of the RTI Act, should not override the RTI Acts provisions by making MGNREGA documents non-disclosable. 3. Allow oral complaints 4. Imposition of penalties under section 25 5. The Selection Process prescribed for the Ombudsman is also proving to be weak. Part of it will improve with increase in honorarium but there is a need for a search committee mechanism before coming to the selection committee. 6. Linking the Ombudsman to the helpline, social audit, and the Grievance Redressal System at the PO Level

5. Management Information System Rules: The Working Group has recommended the following to activate the MIS system from its current state of a parallel record system to a real time transaction based system: 1.The MIS has to be transaction based to have any utility as a transparency measure; 2.The formats used for entering information, analysis and display would be uniform across the country so that information can be uploaded and downloaded seamlessly at all levels from the Gram Panchayat/ Block level up to the National level; 3.The MIS would be open-source/open access so that it is inexpensive and universally accessible and allows customization at all levels; 4.Apart from a computer based web linked MIS, there will also be a Janta Information System (JIS), as detailed in Rule 16-18 and in Transparency Rule 9, which would ensure that the relevant information is available in a form and format designed to empower them whether or not they have access to computers; 5.We need a web based Job Card which facilitates automatic pro-active grievance redressal for delay in providing work, in payment of wages, delay in grievance redressal.

6.The MIS system should facilitate access by individuals to their own accounts so that authentic data in real time is available to them.