1 / 31

Poverty Scenario MAHARASHTRA

Poverty Scenario MAHARASHTRA. POVERTY. Affront to Human Dignity Cost to Economy & Polity Create Vulnerability & Dependence Consequences - Non-inclusive growth social unrest instability unproductive manpower perpetuation of poverty Solution IRDP, SGSY, NRLM, ?, ?, ?

mura
Download Presentation

Poverty Scenario MAHARASHTRA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Poverty Scenario MAHARASHTRA

  2. POVERTY • Affront to Human Dignity • Cost to Economy & Polity • Create Vulnerability & Dependence • Consequences - • Non-inclusive growth • social unrest • instability • unproductive manpower • perpetuation of poverty • Solution • IRDP, SGSY, NRLM, ?, ?, ? • No more experimentation POVERT / NRLM = PROSPERITY • For each village, every villager

  3. ‘POVERTY’ speaks for itself P - Population - SC/ST/OBC. O - Occupation - Landless, Labor, Artisans, Marginal rain fed farmers, Lowly Service provider. V - Vulnerability - infant mortality, early marriages, ill health, Malnutrition, child labour. E - Education - Illiteracy, dropouts, unemployability. R - Resources - Credit, skills, tools, raw material, livelihood access. T - Traditions - Superstitions, practices, taboos, Customs Y - Yield - Low productivity, No-growth, peripheral market.

  4. MaharashtraSalient Features • Salient Features Area : 3.08 lakh sq. km. • Population (2001 Census) • Rural : 5.57 crore (57.7 million) • Urban : 4.10 crore (41 million) • Total : 9.67 crore (96.7 million) • Rural Households : 125 lakh (12.5 million) • Rural Habitations : 98000 • Villages : 42500 • GPs : 27920 Average population of GP : 2000 • 1000 to 60000 : 389 • 5000 to 10000 : 1360 Rainfall : from 300 - 6000 mm

  5. POVERTY STATISTICS • Rural BPL population : 45 lakh families : 2.05 crore Villagers • Comprising of ST : 10.80 lakh (60 lakh population) SC : 8.50 lakh (40 lakh population) NT/ND/VJ/SBC : 5.00 lakh (25 lakh population) OBC : 14.70 lakh (60 lakh population) Others : 6.00 lakh (24 lakh population) • According to NSSO data Maharashtra should have around 1.75 Cr. Rural peolple (31% of rural population) & around 40 lakh rural families.

  6. Skewed Poverty Distribution in the State • Maharashtra is :- • Rich state - Nationally • Poor state - Locally Mumbai, Coop Processing & Dairy movement, 58% service sector contribution to GSDP, lower(12%) agri. Sector contribution but from cash crops creates a perception of affluence • But 58% rural population still generates their livelihood from agriculture • Majority of them from low end ari. Activities & labor

  7. Area : 3390 sq.km. (1% of state area) • Population : 2.30 crore (54% of urban & 24% of state population) • Per Capita income : Rs.85000 (54867- State Avg.) • HDI : 0.91 (0.58) • G S D P proportion : 45% Mumbai Metropolitan Region

  8. 8 Contagious Municipal Corporations . • Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivli, Ulhasnagar, Bhiwandi, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar, Navi-Mumbai. • Ambernath & Badlapur on the verge of becoming municipal corporations • 9 other Municipalities, 55 Villages 25 k.m. from the periphery of Mumbai Metropolitan Region the Tribal Area of thane District starts • Shahapur, Jawhar, Mokhada, Vada, Talasari, Dahanu. • Hard core Tribal area • Miles away from Development • 90% BPL Families (45% of these rural population) • HDI much below State Average (0.23) • No market access (except warli paintings) • Malnutrition • Agriculture, labour, minor forest produce collection

  9. Poverty relevant Areas - Maharashtra • 12 Districts under Panchayat Extension to Schedule Area (PESA) • Spread over whole state • 49 PESA Intermediate Panchayats • 5000 PESA GPs • Tribal Population : 86 lakh (16% of Rural Population – 9% of total population) • 4 Districts are Minority dominated • Hingoli, Parbhani, Buldhana, Washim • Minority population : State - 15.6% (4 Districts - 35%) 6 Districts affected by LWE (Naxalism) • Gadchiroli, Gondia, Nanded, Yavatmal, Chandrapur, Bhandara. 25 Districts & 172 Blocks have HDI below state Avg. 27 Dist. Have PCI below state Avg.

  10. - PESA Districts in Maharashtra

  11. - LWE affected districts in Maharashtra

  12. - Minority Dominated Dist. in Maharashtra

  13. - Districts having PCI above State Avg.

  14. Diversity in Poverty- Examples • According to UNDP/GOI Maharashtra is Ranked 4th (HDI-0.523) only after Kerala, Punjab, Hariyana. • State reproduced & declared its First District wise HDI report in 2002 based on • PCI, Education, IMR. • It is 0.58 for state as a whole (Taking Mumbai HDI as 1) • 26 Districts have HDI below state Avg. • Gadchiroli HDI-0.21, Yavatmal-0.22 taking Mumbai HDI as1 • State has gone a step further • Block wise HDI computed • 172 blocks have HDI below state Avg.

  15. Diversity in Poverty- Examples • PUNE • Most developed district (19.5% BPL) • Having 3 tribal talukas - Junnar, Ambegaon and Khed • Hilly areas of Maval & Mulshi • Rainshadow areas of Indapur & Daund • Proximity to Mumbai Market • Coop Movement, High Industrilisation has some trickle down effects in Hilly & Tribal areas. • Floriculture. Vegetable, Onion • Still few individual villages with rampant poverty • Though Comparatively less than state poverty Avg.(35%)

  16. NASHIK • Industrially developed district. • Winery of Maharashtra, • Agriculture, Horticulture growth, Onion • Has substantial tribal population • BPL Family - 41% • Benefits not gone to the tribals to the desired extent • Poverty lives with plenty

  17. AHEMEDNAGAR • Maximum Sugar Factories in any district of the State • Tribal Area in Akola Tahsil • Avg. district poverty - 25% • Tribal poverty - 50% • Most of the District is in rain shadow area • Excellent water shade development practices • High % of BPL IN • Rainshadow area where water guzzling crops not taken • Tribal area where dam is situated, Benefits not accrued to Tribals

  18. NAGPUR • Second Capital • BPL – 48% • Tribal population in one Taluka • Benefits by Psuedo tribals. • NANDURBAR, GADCHIROLI are fully PESA Districts

  19. Agriculture related Poverty issues • Western Maharashtra  Less average holding, more production • particularly, sugarcane growth • but also poor talukas like Radhanagari (Kolhapur), Maan/Khatav (Satara). • Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg Horticultural development through EGS • Below Poverty Line percentage is below state average (30%) • Tribal and Scheduled Caste population insignificant • Non tribals, non scheduled caste could take EGS benefits  But textile workers from Mumbai remigrated to these areas • Created some adverse social & economic effects aggreivating poverty

  20. JALGAON, DHULE Banana, Grapes are main cash crops  Mostly by non- tribals • BPL population not benefited significantly • Jalgaon BPL % – 43% • Dhule separated from fully tribal district – Nandurbar  Dhule BPL – 53%  Nandurbar BPL – 73%

  21. VIDARBHA • Asset Poverty • More holding, less production • Cause of suicides (?) • Entrepreneurialpoverty • No advantage taken of EGS Programmes • Productivitypoverty • Below average cotton production • Nation – State – Vidarbha - Yavatmal • Skill Poverty • Textile Industry should be prominant source of livelihood • other textile developed areas • Bhiwandi, Malegaon, Ichalkaranji, Solapur, Paithan, Yevala

  22. Minor Forest Produce • Raw material available but skills are also equally raw • Bamboo and Tendu State Monopoly  Not included in MFP  Tribals involved in collection only  No processing activities in the hands of tribals • Bidi & paper Industry in private hands • Gadchiroli, Chandrapur, Gondia, Bhandara, Nagpur, Yavatmal.  Annual realisation – Rs. 1000 crore for Bamboo + Tendu • Processing would multiply many fold value addition • Ownership of other 32 MFP legally transferred to community through Panchayats • No visible effect on poverty eradication in above districts

  23. Industrial Production • 26% GSDP generated from Industry • BPLs have hardly any share in Industrial production • Mostly in agro based Industries through co-op. sector • Micro-Enterprise activities by village artisans are also not much, though a lot of scope exists • Need to develop supply chain involving BPL Micro-Entrepreneurs

  24. Service Sector • 52% SGDP generated from service sector • However share of BPLs is confined to low value, bottom level services • Organised efforts to create demand-supply chain not very much successful under SGSY • Skill honing, linkage with demand side failed to take of barring certain sectors • Garment, Beauty Parlor, Midday Meal supply, computersation, domestic servant provisioning are certain sectors which can claim moderate success

  25. Way Forward • How to ensure inclusive & broad based growth • Providing scope for BPLs to get due share • Strong organisational set up of the poor, for the poor, by the poor • Processes needs to be followed faithfully • Identification of the poor • Dedicated & sensitive manpower to deal with the task • Role of credit institutions is most crucial • Skill development & capacity building arrangements is a key factor

More Related