1 / 21

RKVY Implementation Status: Field Observations and Progress Overview (July 2008)

This report, prepared by Dr. S. Rajakutty, provides an overview of the implementation status of the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) across 20 Indian states as of July 2008. It highlights positive signals, including increased fund allocation for agriculture and state-level initiatives like precision farming and organic farming. Despite challenges such as delays in fund release and inadequate monitoring mechanisms, various states have made commendable efforts in agricultural development. The report emphasizes the need for improved project-specific planning and greater involvement of local bodies in executing agricultural initiatives.

rollo
Télécharger la présentation

RKVY Implementation Status: Field Observations and Progress Overview (July 2008)

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. 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

More Related