Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana Social Survey Report

RGGVY Progress Unlimited Decentralized Renewable Energy = Energy Equity Azamgarh district, Uttar Pradesh

Social survey organised by: Greenpeace India and PVCHR, Uttar Pradesh

April 2011

I.

Introduction:

Access to energy is a cornerstone for development and essential for a better quality of life. When this access doesnt exist or is very poor, it has negative impacts on everything from education, to health, and employment - touching all aspects of life and livelihood. The Indian energy system is concentrated around the conventional system of centralised electricity generation relying heavily on coal based thermal power plants and large dams. However, there is a large body of evidence to show that the centralised system has not been able to balance demand and supply, and has resulted in inequities and environmental degradation which has left more than 40% of the Indian rural population in the dark ( Kaudinya, Balachandra and Ravindranath, 2009). Even if the grid has reached a village, it doesnt mean that electricity has reached the village, as they are the first to be taken off the grid. The Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) is a flagship programme of the government of India, which began in April 2005 and aimed to accelerate the pace of rural electrification programme in the country. The Ministry of Power is the nodal agency implementing the scheme with a mandate to attain the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) goal of providing electricity to all households by 2010 (extended to 2012 in 11th five year plan). However looking at the implementation pace government is planning to take it up in the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17). The scheme has focused mainly on the development and extension of the centralised grid system to rural areas to provide quality and reliable power. This has however been far from successful. A faulty definition of village electrification has diluted the schemes aim significantly. According to state-wise data, on the RGGVY website1, providing free electricity connection to all below poverty line (BPL) households has not materialised in most states of the country. Therefore, it is imperative that RGGVY is reviewed by the people before it is continued in the 12th plan period and people's concerns and suggestions are taken into consideration to ensure that the scheme does deliver quality energy to the millions in India currently deprived of it. Greenpeace India has initiated a social audit to enable such a process in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. The aim of the audit is to bring out the implementation reality of the scheme and examine whether the mandate of the scheme has been fulfilled or not. II. RGGVY and power situation in Uttar Pradesh Electricity situation in Uttar Pradesh has been bleak in recent years. In summer months, demand-supply gap widens by 3,000 Mw. The power situation is turning grim by the day in Uttar Pradesh with peak hour demand touching 9,500 Megawatt (Mw) against the total supply pegged at 6,500 Mw2.

1
2

http://rggvy.gov.in/rggvy/rggvyportal/plgsheet_frame3.jsp
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/power-situation-turns-grim-in-up/356619/

According to RGGVY website data, the budget allocation for entire Uttar Pradesh for RGGVY work has been Rs.3718.2 crore of which 87.7% money has been released so far. III. RGGVY Social Survey in Azamgarh district, Uttar Pradesh

A total of 19513 villages across 22 blocks of Azamgarh district have been incorporated in the RGGVY scheme. All the villages are of un-electrified and de-electrified category. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) is the implementing agency of RGGVY project in Azamgarh district in Uttar Pradesh. According to RGGVY website data, although 93.3% work on village electrification has been achieved so far, only 48% (50191 out of 104603) BPL households entitled for free connection have received the facility. Under the 10th five year plan Rs. 17604.364 have lakhs been awarded (revised amount) to the district for implementation of which 85.2% money has been released. The budget allocation for entire Uttar Pradesh for RGGVY work has been Rs.3718.2 crore of which 87.7% money has been released so far. Greenpeace along with its partner organisation Peoples Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) carried out a social survey of the scheme in Azamgarh district based on the information procured from the concerned government departments on electrification status in the district. A total of 238 households5 across 8 villages from 2 blocks (Tarwa and Mehnagar) of Azamgarh district were surveyed as part of the social audit process. Of these 81% were BPL families and 18% were APL. 2% respondents reported that they did not have any card available with them.

IV.

Survey Methodology and Process

Azamgarh district has the highest number of villages under the purview of the scheme across all districts of Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly 8 random sample villages were taken from Tarwa and Mehnagar blocks of the Azamgarh district respectively, where village electrification work under RGGVY scheme has been completed as per government records. List of BPL connections, proposed and released, were verified in the selected sample villages. Both above poverty line (APL) and BPL beneficiaries and those excluded were interviewed one to one. These interviews were conducted based on a survey questionnaire and seven approaches speed of provision, quality of supply, inclusion, affordability, security of supply, rural development index and awareness on climate protection. Awareness generation meetings were held in the villages to inform people about their entitlement under the scheme and alternative pathways to generate electricity through renewable sources.

3 4 5

http://rggvy.gov.in/rggvy/rggvyportal/bcovered.jsp?stcd=09&dtcd=61 http://rggvy.gov.in/rggvy/rggvyportal/plgsheet_frame3.jsp
See annex- Table 1

V.

Observations from the survey:

The survey examined various social parameters in villages of Azamgarh district. The process of survey was inclusive and gave residents the opportunity to express their opinions freely. Observation and findings from survey are summarised below:
Covered villages and respondents Name of District Name of Block Azamgarh 1. Mehnagar Name of Village RAGUNATHPUR JAGDISHPUR MAULIYA FINHINI 2. TARWA KURHAPAR BIRPUR BANSGAON TODARPUR Total Covered Respondents 31 20 22 18 35 35 36 41 238

Note one respondent had died.

1. Socio economic parameters: Most of the people surveyed belonged to BPL category and they mainly worked as farmers, agriculture wageworkers or casual labour. The survey team interviewed with a mixed group of people from BPL category. Of the surveyed 24% managed their livelihood by farming, 24% managed through farming and wageworker and 34% were wageworkers6. 2. Awareness on the scheme: Awareness about RGGVY scheme was very poor and as much as 76% of the respondents were not at all aware of the scheme even though their villages and households had been electrified between 2008 and 20107. 3.Quality of supply: Villagers surveyed are not satisfied with the supply of electricity as they are getting supply of 6-8 hours only. The electricity supply is available only in late evening, when it is not required.

6 7

Reference- Table 1 Reference- table 2

62% of the respondents preferred electricity supply after sunset and expressed its importance for a better living condition8. 36% respondents in the mixed category revealed that they also wanted electricity in the morning for irrigation purpose. Majority of people echoed their voice about the non-availability of electricity when it is needed most. They preferred electricity for multiple activities such as children's studies (36%), household chores such as cleaning, washing etc. (19%) and other works like irrigation (45%). About 40% respondents also confirmed that the authority have not given connection under RGGVY programme. The illegal connection has impacted the quality of supply and it is rampant in the area. It was observed that authority has set up the infrastructure in village keeping in mind the 10% target which result in extra pressure on transformers. Ultimately, low voltage and frequent burn out and non functional of transformer have further compounded the problem. As much as 75% people complained that repair of transformers takes as much as 7 days to month. In village Jagdishpur of Mehnagar block, the respondents of Musharas basti have revealed that they are not getting any electricity supply. 4. Inclusion of stake-holders in the scheme: Average and low awareness about programme has led to rampant corruption in almost all villages of the district. Only a small fraction of BPL families in each sampled village have received electricity connection under the scheme. Those who have been excluded either do not know why they have not received any connection or blame it on local corruption. This was found in the village Finihini and Todarpur. Of the surveyed, only 43% of the respondents actually were aware that BPL families were to be allotted free connection9. The process was popularly known as BPL line and people were not aware that it was a central government scheme. Even with this awareness level, most of BPL families have bribed the local authorities for getting connection. BPL families, on an average has paid Rs 40 to Rs 50 as bribe for getting connections and APL families have given Rs 5000 to Rs 12000 for getting a connection. 44% respondents have accepted that they have given money for getting connection under RGGVY10. In only 5 cases, people said that the Panchayat head had discussed about the connections with them. A large number (232 respondents) said that the panchayat head had not discussed about the electricity connection of RGGVY. 5.Capacity of people to spend on energy/electricity: It was quite evident from the survey that people have willingness and ability to pay for energy resources and they are not largely dependent on government for the same.

8 9

Reference- table-3 Reference- Table-4 10 Reference- table-5

An overwhelming 97% of the households covered under RGGVY scheme were using and spending on kerosene as an alternative source of lighting11. More than half the number of respondents, 58% were spending between INR 50 to 100 monthly on kerosene for electricity requirements and about 32% spent up to INR 50 per month. 6. Security of Electricity Supply: Almost all surveyed villagers have reported that they need a secured electricity supply for full day. Maximum 42% respondents revealed that though they were getting electricity for about 20 days in a month, however it is available when it is not required. Some of the newly installed transformers were not working, which has been affecting the supply of electricity. In village Birpur, due to non-functioning of transformer, villagers have taken connection from other transformers, which is far from the village. 85% of those surveyed had no knowledge of where or whom to complain in case of problems with transformers, grid lines or meters12. They also had no idea of nearest electricity board office. 83% of the respondents reported that it took more than 7 days for repair of electricity problems. Villagers also had reported that extra-load on transformers were the main reason for burnout. 63% reported that generally villagers would collect donations and resolve their electricity problems on their own through the local technician (electrician). Many times they also took informal support from the representative of electricity department. Maximum 60% respondents reported that Gram Panchayat involvement in planning stage could be the appropriate to ensure the supply of electricity, where as only 6% respondents expressed confidence in the local electricity department and 34% have given choice of local private energy company. 7.Rural Development Index: Given RGGVY's mandate of enabling indirect benefits through electrification of schools, health centres and small scale industries, the survey also tried to understand the effect of RGGVY on the above. Additionally, the survey also queried on the benefits of electrification on irrigation, an important aspect of agricultural and rural development missed by the scheme.

Irrigation: 96% revealed that they had not taken electricity connection for irrigation13. Maximum respondents were using canals for irrigation purpose. 45% of the respondents reported the use of diesel generators for irrigation. Where as 22% of the respondents were using both canal
11 12

Reference- table-6 Reference- table- 7 13 Reference- table-8

irrigation as well as diesel generators for the agriculture purpose. 25% respondents were not doing farming Small Scale Industries, health centres, schools, Panchayat Bhavans and cold storage: Though Small scale-industries like wheat mill and shops are present in the sampled villages, however majority of shops run without electricity connection. One village with health centre has electricity connection but supply is erratic. This led to non-functioning of health centre and creating inconvenience to people. Even the schools in majority of surveyed villages were not connected to electricity supply. Infact, Schools in 5 surveyed village out of 8 villages had no electricity connection. 8.Awareness on climate change and climate protection: 38% respondents revealed that they were aware that water is a source of electricity generation, where as 8% reflected that coal and water both were the source of electricity generation. Large percentage (46%) revealed that they were not aware about the sources of electricity generation14. 54% of the respondents were aware that coal and diesel caused pollution, while very few knew about the connection of coal with climate change. 55% of the respondents were aware that renewable energy is environment friendly. A striking 100% preferred renewable energy over coal and diesel if given a choice in the matter. VI. Inference from the survey RGGVY has brought a ray of hope to people by extending grid to their villages and ensuring that they have a place in the centralised electricity infrastructure. However, the local governing body like Panchayat, have no say and participation in the implementation of the scheme. During the survey Panchayat representatives were also consulted but it came out clearly that they were also not aware about the provisions, norms and processes of the scheme. The survey clearly indicates that local authority didnt make any serious effort to educate people about the programme. People neither had knowledge of the scheme entitlements (facilities to BPL and APL households) nor understanding of the kind of physical infrastructure (poles, grid wiring, transformers and meters) to be built under the scheme. The survey finds that local corruption and poor quality infrastructure development has made the scheme a failure. Survey established the fact that many BPL families were left out from electricity connection as the local contractor had the mandate to provide connection to only 10% households. This has resulted in corruption as few BPL households received connection and rest were refused stating

14

Reference- table- 9

reasons like unavailability of funds and their names not in the allotment list, although most of them had BPL cards, out of 8 villages. In the small fraction of beneficiaries it also emerged that they were not aware about the payment of the bill for supply of the electricity. Beneficiaries are now receiving bills with cumulative charges which have caused much unrest. Also the bill delivery is also not regular which adds to the unrest. Incorrect meter readings have also caused much discontent amongst beneficiaries. In many cases, the low capacity of transformers under the scheme has resulted in overload and burn out. This raises serious questions of whether it is enough to just invest in centralised grid infrastructure without ensuring that people are able to access real electricity through the same. Additionally, a centralised scheme has no space and flexibility for regional variations. Keeping apart the indirect rural development ambitions, the scheme failed in the district to provide the benefits it has promised under its mandate. At the same time there is a mismatch with aspirations of rural people and the current scheme facilities particularly on issues of smallscale industries and irrigation. Consequently, the scheme has not realised its vision of fostering rural development by ensuring electricity access to irrigation, micro enterprises, schools and health centres. VII. Recommendations Rapid uptake of small scale renewable energy generation (grid connected and off-grid) units in non-remote areas is needed to ensure quality electricity generation and supply at local level Left out BPL families (due to faulty government data) should be given free connection as soon as possible and hence special budgetary allocation need to be made under 12th plan to carry out the work Transformer capacity in densely populated villages need to be increased to cater household needs as well as to facilitate irrigation needs Mandatory provisions have to be made for involvement of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) for better implementation and sustainability of the scheme Provisions need to be made for energy requirement for irrigation and medium and small scale industries Billing should be proper and timely keeping in mind the beneficiaries perspective. Last but not the least, embedding the social audit component in the scheme is necessary to enhance accountability of the implementation system.

Annexe
Annexe 1: List of acronyms RGGVY: Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana PGCIL: Power Grid Corporation of India Limited BPL: Below Poverty line APL: Above Poverty Line PRI: Panchayati Raj Institution Annexe 2: List of tables
Table. 1 Occupation of the respondents Agriculture Ag. + Self Ag + Ag Ag + Ag. + Self Wage Service Others Service + Wager Employmen Wage Service Others Employed Worker Self Worker t Worker Employed + others

62 % 26%

58 24%

12

81 34%

Total Awareness Respondents %

YES 36 15%

Table 2. Awareness level about RGVVY NO Not clear 181 76% 20 8%

Total 237

Table 3. What time is electricity needed the most Afternoon Evening After sunset Mixed No want electricity Respondents % 1 3 1% 147 62% 85 36% 1

Total 237

Table 4. Awareness on free BPL connection Yes No Total Respondents 103 134 237

43%

57%

Yes Respondents % 105 44%

Table 5. Money given for connections No Total 132 56% 237

Kerosene oil

Table 6. Other sources for electricity Diesel / Kerosene oil & Others Generator diesel generator 2 1% 4 2% 1

Total

Respondents %

230 97%

237

Table 7. Awareness on where complaints are to be filed Yes No Total Respondents % 35 15% 202 85% 237

YES Respondents % 10 4%

Table 8. Electricity connection for irrigation No Total 227 96% 237

Table 9. Source of electricity generation

Coal & Water Water Respondents 19 % 8% 89 38% Not Solar/ Diesel Coal + Water aware Air +Diesel 110 46% 3 1% 7 3% 2 1% Coal + Water+ Solar + Diesel 2 1% All Total Sources 5 2% 237

10