K. Venkata Krishna AMR-APARD

1. Approval Systems for Flagship Programmes -Institutional arrangements -Opportunities for convergence K. Venkata Krishna AMR-APARD

2. This presentation contains…. • Selected Flagship Programmes and their outlay • Institutional Arrangements for their implementation • Common issues like • Who prepares the plan • Who approves the plan • Who accords the sanctions • Who releases the money and for whom • Who implements and monitors the plan • Issues in Convergence • Some observed processes of convergence -case of AP

3. Flagship Programmes-Outlay

4. Select Major flagship Programmes

7. Analysis of Institutional Arrangements

8. Plan Preparation As per guidelines: • Participatory grass root level planning • Separate Institutional Mechanism for preparing plan • In reality: • A closed collegium of officials, MLAs, MPs & In-charge Minister of the district finalises the plan • No integration of lower level plans at higher level • No revisit of plan as per final allocation of resources • Insufficient time for participatory planning • Multiple planning units (Sectoral plans) • No Centrality of PRIs to provide common platform

9. Plan approvals/Sanctions : As per guidelines: • Approval Commitees at various levels In reality: • Schemewise Committees are not functioning at lower level • Formal Departmental procedures followed • Administrative Sanctions without resolutions of PRIs • Plan exceeds budget allocation by 3 to 4 times • Funds distribution based on available budget but not Plan • Some times allocations are down sized abruptly

10. Release of Funds As per guidelines: • GOI releases to State consolidated fund (BRGF,NREGS) State Project PD A/C (PMGSY) Direct to District level Agency (SGSY) • Releases to executive agencies within 15 days • Electronic Transfers In reality: • Abnormal delay in releasing of funds by the states (4-6M) • Electronic Transfer yet to be implemented • Uncertainty in release of funds to field level agencies

11. Implementation: As per guidelines: • Line Department/Project agency implements the programme • Beneficiary Committees at the work level • Bringing professionalism in implementation of the programme In reality: • No subject expertise for Project Directors • Many posts are kept vacant for long time • No coordination between the project staff and line depts. • Multiplicity of agencies for similar objectives (CMEY-PMEGP) • Competencies of functionaries at the task level is very weak • No role clarity between PRIs and line depts/Project Agency

12. Monitoring and Evaluation: As per guidelines: • In-built monitoring mechanism • On-line monthly progress reports • Fixed schedule for inspections • UCs and Audited Accounts to draw 2nd installment • Involvement of Universities and Research Institutions In reality: • No frequent field visits by the supervisory officers • No role clarity because of multiple agencies • Inadequate Redressal/responsive mechanism • Absence of Integrated Management Information System(MIS) • Social audit not extended to all schemes

13. CONVERGENCE

14. Issues in convergence • Reluctance to commit funds for other depts. projects • Fear of losing control over their resources • Absence of institutional platform • Convergence at project level or state level • Differences in subsidies/ Units costs • Different time schedules for release of funds under different schemes • Sharing of information to avoid double recording of work

15. Measures to achieve convergence • Centrality of PRIs for planning and implementation • DPC as an ideal platform for convergence • Establish Secretariat for DPC • Maintenance of data base of all schemes by DPC • Integrated and comprehensive training • Parallel Institutions need to be minimized • Village Health & Sanitation Committee /WATSAN Committee/Mothers Committee • Communication of resource envelop before starting planning process

16. Suggested Modifications in guidelines • Uniform Institutional Framework • Uniformity in Planning, approval, releases, monitoring • Identify the areas of convergence (Activity matrix) and incorporate in all guidelines • Define role of Panchayat Raj Institutions in guidelines • Define the role of D.P.C. in all scheme guidelines • Provision for Process Monitoring • Penal Provisions for delay in releases by the state govt. • Uniform subsidies and unit costs in the guidelines

17. Type of Convergence: • Institutional Convergence • Human Resource Convergence • Funds Convergence

18. INDIRAMMA Committee Village Org. Watershed Water Users Association VSS Gram Panchayat VH&SC Mothers Committee School Edn Committee Convergence of Institutions

19. Convergence of Human ResourcesGram Panchayat or cluster of GPs level

20. Convergence of Funds • Release of funds based on Approved Plan • Centralised Fund Management (PMGSY,NREGS) • Strengthen the mechanism of Electronic Transfers • Uniform Accounting System

21. Some observed processes of convergence case of AP • NREGS • SGSY • Agriculture • Horticulture • ITDA • ICDS • RWS

22. Case-ILocal Level Convergence (Visakhapatnam District) Coffee Plants: ITDA nurseries Land Development: NREGS Training & Technology: Coffee Board Coffee Plantation (Tribal area) Maintenance: Beneficiaries Village Organisations: Payments

23. Case-IILocal Level Convergence (MulakalpalliKhammam) Construction of Anganwadi building: BRGF Land acquisition Revenue Dept Land levelling: NREGS Anganwadi Centre Clubbing pre-primary & primary Education Dept Water & Sanitation facility: Gram Panchayat Management: ICDS

24. Case-IIILocal Level Convergence (Kurnool Dist.) Cost of Plants National Hort. Mission Land Development NREGS Maintenance SHG Mango Orchard Tech. Supervision Horticulture Dept. Technology & Supply of Plants Horti.University Soil testing Local Lab

25. Thank You

26. NREGS NREGS District Cell Implementing Dept. Dist. HQ Block / Region Fund Fund Copy of Muster Roll submitted to GP Implementation Uploading @ GP Level