STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FIELD OBSERVATIONS-July’08

1. Centre for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation National Institute of Rural Development Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30 RKVY STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATIONFIELD OBSERVATIONS-July’08 Dr.S.RajakuttyProfessor & Head, CPME

2. States visited-20 • Tamilnadu • West Bengal • Madhya Pradesh • Orissa • Uttaranchal • Kerala • Haryana • Sikkim • Bihar • Andhra Pradesh • Assam • Karnataka • Jharkhand • Chhattisgarh • Uttar Pradesh • Gujarat • Punjab • Himachal Pradesh • Maharastra • Rajasthan

3. RKVY Implementation: some positive signals • Things have started moving in many states in the release of Money- state allocation to agri has seen jump • RKVY induced initiative to formulate a cohesive and integrated approach • Enthusiastic response particularly in the districts due to improved resource availability • Agri Universities gained significant space in Agri planning and growth • Initiatives for production oriented activities- effect may be felt this year • Tamil Nadu: SRI ,Precision farming, Farm ponds, Machinery distribution, Organic farming, E-Agri Portal, Land Resource Inventory, breeder seed distribution • Orissa: SRI, Acid soil Mgt, Recruitment of VLW • Karnataka: Farm Ponds, farmers training • West Bengal: Breed improvement and vaccination (AH) Chhatishgarh: SRI, recruitment of VLWs • Punjab: 46Agri.Machinery service centers, Reclamation of degraded soils, Insurance and computer chips,F&M disease control

4. RKVY Implementation: some positive signals-contd • H.P: Protective cultivation in Green Houses, Animal health care, Soil and pesticide testing lab • Rajasthan: Cluster Bean promotion, Seed distribution - SRR improved • Haryana: Organic farming –green manure promotion • Sikkim: Soil and water conservation structures • Bihar : Animal Health Camp, Kisan Award • Uthrakhand: Strengthening of Milk Grid-Product already in MKT • UP: recruitment of SMS/Consultants at below block level-for 6 GPs • Gujarat: Ravine and Saline land reclamation Many States have done very good preparatory work/ activities to give a boost to RKVY Results/Outcomes will be visible by Rabi crop 2009

5. Administrative Arrangement • Dept. of Agril. is the nodal Department: Nodal Agency notified in some states • SAMETI (AP, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana, HP, Punjab), • SAMA (Karnataka), • IMAGE (Orissa), • TAWDEVA (Tamilnadu) • District Level. ATMA is notified in some states- not in other states • No additional staff- consultants in some states • Staff vacancies is posing problem in many states • Norms for engaging consultants and contract staff not evolved in states

6. Fund Release & Utilisation • Releases depend on approval by SLSC- even then full amount not released to many states in 2007-08 by DAC • Funds from GOI was released to states in stages up to last week of March 2008. • Many States have not received any funds for 2008-09 pending C-DAP • Releases of 2007-08 funds to Implementing Agency/ Dist. has not taken place in full in most states as at 15 July 2008- delay in issue of GOs-revalidation • Activity oriented funds for simultaneous action is not released in some state Pending utilisation of expenditure on capital items • Many States do not have exact utilisation figures for various components

7. Financial Progress Under RKVY (Rs. Crores)

8. Financial Progress Under RKVY.Contd(Rs.Crores)

9. Financial Progress Under RKVY-contd (Rs.Crores)

10. Utilisation of available Funds • Releases made to implementing agencies are shown as utilisation by the state • Actual utilisation is marginal : primarily in civil works or capital expenditure • Actual crop based- production oriented expenditure is marginal. • Mode of Fund release-A contentious issue due to delay: GOI – State Govt.(Budget) – Treasury route – too many hassles • GOI may release funds directly to an autonomous body- a suggestion not fructified in many states • Tamil Nadu has authorized Commissioner to release fund to avoid delay

11. Monitoring Arrangement for RKVY • DAC designed 3 sets of statements to report physical & financial progress • Since very little funds have been utilised, these formats have not been used yet in many states- no major difficulty • A suggestion : Project specific formats based on specific indicators is needed • State level monitoring needs to be intensified- more field visits needed. State unit to be strengthened • Training on designing project based indicators is also necessary

12. Arrangement for Preparation of C-DAP • This is a weak area in many states • Some states have contracted agencies: Some states yet to begin • C-DAP Manual made available in late April was a limitation-no orientation to Participatory approaches • Involving PRIs- very inadequate- not available in some states • District Plans (BRGF) not ready to integrate C-DAP • Convergence/ integration is not effective and or absent in many C-DAPs • Plan Fatigue in the district - BRGF, NREGS, C-DAP, NRHM,SREP etc. • More Details on the status in next slides

13. Agencies for C-Dap Preparation

14. Status of Preparation of C-DAP

15. Status of Preparation of C-DAP-contd-2

16. Status of Preparation of C-DAP –contd-3

17. Inter Sectoral Coordination • SLSC in the only forum • Dept of Agril. collects the proposals and collates and put it to SLSC- Need for a Cell at State to scrutinize proposals • Even C-DAP did not bring about a change • State level nodal Agency may have a multi-disciplinary cell for RKVY- a suggestion not acted upon • ATMA can be enlarged to be the nodal Agency at District- no action in several states • There is inadequate understanding and willingness for convergence- a mind set problem

18. Awareness on RKVY • 2007-08 proposals primarily emanated from state level- continues so even in 2008-09 proposals as CDAPs are not ready • District staff know about RKVY – but the national strategy for agriculture growth- alignment is missing • ‘Subsidy’ oriented new projects- outcome specification is missing-monitoring visits have been used to impress upon this point • Concept of integrated and convergent approach: agreed but feel DC/DMs should play a role to break the compartment mind set • Within sector convergence also not attempted in many districts • Flexibility for location specific project not seeped in at district level

19. Areas of concern • Inadequate attention to dry land agricultural productivity- pulses and oil seeds seen as difficult area • Strategies to push productivity in short run not adequately visible- more emphasis in the current year on infrastructures- SRI, Farm ponds, mechanization etc, are some exception in a few states • Priority for research inadequately reflected • Frontier areas of growth potential should be focused (bio – tech)

20. Areas of concern (Cont..) • Weak proposals of 2007-08. Needs recasting before grounding- No sign of attempting it • Fund release delays in the states- direct releases favoured • Inadequate projects and Innovative projects particularly in allied sector • Weak Extension machinery • Severe staff constraints at grass roots-UP& Orissa model may be worth emulating

21. Thank You Dr.S.RajakuttyProfessor & Head, CPME