Convergence in planning and implementation of Major flagship Programmes

A Sub-Committee of National Advisory-cum-Review Committee on BRGF has been constituted to study the approval systems for flagship programmes and with the following mandate and also prepare a draft paper.

Identify the major flagship programmes for local area development and document their outlay.

Study the institutional arrangement for approval in detail including –who prepares the plan; who approves; who sanctions; and who implements;

Study the opportunities for convergence and suggest measures

1. Introduction:

Participatory planning from the grassroots level upwards led by local

governments will lead to a strong sense of ownership and achieve much of better results

in local development. But with increased specialization and sector-wise thrusts in

development, the respective line Ministries/departments are issuing guidelines for

preparation of sector development plans such as District Health Plan, District Education

Plan, District Water and Sanitation Plan, District Agriculture Development Plan, District

Rural Road Development Plan, etc., Increasing incidence of the preparation of such plans

is causing in the way of preparing horizontal integrated plans.

In order to use resources efficiently and involve the local governments actively,

vertical planning process needs to be transformed into a horizontal planning process,

where local governments and other planning entities work together and plan development

together.

Central Ministries and state government departments are implementing various

rural development programmes through a set of guidelines and by separate set of

administrative and institutional mechanisms. In order to facilitate the horizontal planning

process at various local governments’ level, the present guidelines of sectors departments

needs to be modified to bring uniformity in planning, sanctioning, release of funds,

implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the programmes.

1

Interestingly, all these guidelines stipulate inter programme coordination and

convergence. Broad procedures and processes are similar in many ways in these

programmes. But the approval system and implementing agencies are different. The

following are major flagship programmes for local area development.

Major flagship programmes for local area development:

S.N. Name of Flagship Programmme

2008-09 (in crores) (All India)Allocation Rs.

Released Rs.

UtilisationRs.

1. BRGF 4670.04 3889.76 -2. PMGSY 3615.00 14698.39 15161.983. NREGA (Central) 29939.60 - 27137.884. SGSY (Central) 2020.00 1989.60 2285.405. IAY 5645.77 8795.79 8342.146. SSA (Central) 13100.00 12625.80 6992.82* 7. MDMS 8000.00 - 6640.318. Drinking Water (BN) - 7275.50 -9. RKVY 3165.67 2886.80 -10. NRHM 9191.82 10477.52 10187.94* Till September 2008

2. Institutional arrangements for approval and implementation of the plans under various guidelines of the Ministries:

There are five focused areas to study the institutional arrangements for

implementations of the programmes in accordance with guidelines issued by the

Ministries. They are;

i. Who prepares the plan?

ii. Who approves the plan?

iii. Who accord the sanctions?

iv. Who releases the money and for whom?

v. Who implements and Monitors the plan

The scheme-wise details on the above five items are given in the ANNEXURE.

These details are prepared based on the guidelines given by the central ministries. There

may be slight variations in the Implementation/operational guidelines issued by the

respective state governments. Common procedures/issues are discussed below:

2

i. Who prepares the plan?

Almost all guidelines stipulate participatory grassroot level planning for

preparation of sectoral plans. But in reality, based on the allocation of funds for particular

sector in the budget, the planning system at the district level prompts every line

department to prepare tentative proposals on the basis of guidelines. In most of the cases

these proposals are generated at the official level, approved by line departments and then

by a closed collegium of top officials and MLAs, MPs and In-charge Minister of the

district. The main issues in the planning are;

Plans prepared at lower levels are not integrated properly at the higher level

No revisit of the plan as per release of budget or final approval of the plan

PRIs have not placed at central point while preparing plans

No sufficient time for preparation of plan with peoples’ involvement

Multiple planning units for preparation of the plans without any common platform

ii. Who approves the plan?

At the Central Government level, the State Plan is appraised technically and

financially by the Approval Board/Sanction Committee constituted by the Ministry

concerned and approves it based on state commitment towards its share of funds in the

state budget, if the matching share is required. The technical sanctions are normally

issued by departmental officials based on the administrative sanctions.

iii. Who accords sanctions and releases the money?

After approval of the plan, normally administrative sanction is accorded by the

District level agencies headed by the district collector/ZP chairperson constituted in

accordance with respective guidelines. But the guidelines do not provide for sufficient

delegation of powers down the line to commence work immediately. GOI releases the

funds directly to the district agencies concerned in two installments during the year under

intimation to the State Govt. But in some schemes like NREGA and BRGF, funds are

first credited to the Consolidated Fund of respective States. If this is the case, the State

Governments are expected to release the funds to the implementing agencies within 15

days from receipt of central funds. The district missions/agencies releases the money

3

based on the progress report furnished by field agencies. Certain issues in the release

funds are;

Funds are distributed based on the available budget but not based on the plan

and the plan is also down sized abruptly without consulting planning unit.

Release of state matching share is on paper only. There is no actual transfer

of funds consequently, the required budget is not available as per plan

Whenever the funds are directly credited to Consolidated Fund of the State by

the GOI, there is delay in releasing of funds to the respective implementing

agencies due to which the implementing agencies could not utilize the funds

within the stipulated time.

iv. Who implements and monitors the plan?

Mission/Project officials specifically constituted for the programme or line

department implement the programme as per the guidelines. A schedule of inspection

which prescribes a minimum number of field visits for each supervisory level functionary

from the State level to the block level is drawn up besides monitoring with prescribed

periodical reports/ returns and also gets appropriate reports and returns prescribed. Issues

in implementation and monitoring are;

Officers deputed to the project agencies are not professionals and have no idea

on the project

Posts are kept vacant for long duration due to ban on recruitment

There is no coordination between the project staff and line departments

There are no field visits by the supervisory level functionaries

No follow up action on the observation made by the monitoring officials and

the responsive mechanism is zero

All the line departments have not been brought under the fold of social audit.

3. Certain issues in achieving convergence:

1. Even though all the guidelines stipulate inter programme coordination and

convergence, this inter departmental consultation is a rare phenomenon. There is

reluctance among the sectoral departments to commit funds for projects

4

emanating from other plans. There is a fear of losing control over ‘their’

resources. This is seen not only among officials but also non-officials. There is

some misunderstanding that needs to be cleared. Consensus at the state level

among the related departments is the initial step which needs to be passed on to

their respective departments at the district level.

2. In the absence of institutional platform for the convergence, departmental

functionaries are raising questions on how to monitor that the planned

convergence takes place as the resources may be under the control of some of the

agencies outside the fold of the main programme seeking convergence.

3. There is a feeling, not very rational through, that convergence at state level

through State Convergence Plan is more feasible than at district or lower level. On

the other hand, there is a school of thought which thinks otherwise. Many

convergences pertaining to inter-dept cooperation may not be amenable to GP

level convergence. It is necessary work out a blend of approaches.

4. Empowered Authority: to ensure inter-departmental coordination and resource

pooling and facilitate convergence at the district level, as the line departments are

under different line of command and control. District Collector should be notified

and given a mandate and the required authority for accomplishing the

convergence.

5. Differences in subsidies etc.: There are differences in norms of subsidy/target

groups and accounting procedures which bring in conflicts and complexities in

the process of planning for convergence. Harmonisation of guidelines for

convergence is therefore needed.

However, convergence itself can bring certain issues in its wake. A few

are listed below:

1. There are competing demands for funds from other departments (in convergence

mode) that are starved of funds without any reciprocal dovetailing

process/arrangements. In certain cases, budgetary allocation under state plan has

been diverted for some other purposes.

2. Double recording of works is a major problem in the convergence. At present

there no mechanism to cross check the records of various departments/agencies.

5

3. Sometimes it is very difficult to get the information on funds availability.

Committed fund flow under various sectors is either not known or there is an

unwillingness to provide the details without which convergence exercise may not

be feasible.

In order to achieve convergence in implementation of rural development

programmes, the following measures may be taken.

i. Changes in Guidelines: The Ministries concerned should identify the areas of

convergence and bring about appropriate amendment to guidelines and circulars.

ii. Flexibility: Certain amount of flexibility may be needed for convergence to work

and this has to be approved at district level committee or authority.

iii. PRIs as Centre point: Recently, the Government of India has issued guidelines

on SAKSHARA BHARATHI (on Adult Education) bringing the Panchayat Raj

Institutions as central point in implementation of the programme. In the long run,

all the Ministries should use this type of well established Institutional Platform to

achieve convergence.

iv. Integrated and comprehensive Training: The guidelines of different ministries

have provision for orgainising training programmes for the functionaries. This

compartmentalized system of training does not recognize the vital link between

different programmes. Hence the training should be designed in such a way that

the functionaries equipped with necessary skills to achieve convergence in

implementation of the programmes by mobilizing man power and resources of

related departments. Training fund of different programmes needs to be pooled

for the integrated and holistic training programmes.

v. Accounting system and recording of works: Appropriate monitoring

mechanism should be put in place to avoid double recording work in different

programmes for the same work. Accounting system should also be modified

accordingly.

Certain issues/constraints in implementation of the flagship programmes are

discussed below:

6

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS):

Issues:

There is a general feeling that post-office may not be an ideal institution to distribute

the wages. Several problems including the possibility of corruption are observed.

Nature of works being adopted appeared ad-hoc and without sound reasoning of long

term value being generated and there did exist complaints of delayed payments and

procedural delays.

Clashing with agricultural season and proper articulation of demand and supply is

main problem in its implementation.

Weak linkage with the line departments in implementation of the projects

No proper system for purchase of materials and procurement of services of skilled

labour

Suggestion for improvement:

Payments through Smart Cards appear to be the best solution, since payment through

Post office or SHGs is not found to be smooth.

Instead of inducting large number of officials, Gram Panchayats may be given more

powers for execution and effective supervision, where they have not been given such

powers.

Need to expand permissible items of work like Housing, Compost / soak pits and •

Services like Cleaning public places, Care of the elderly chronically ill, Bare foot

extension workers, Focusing on skill development for self and wage employment

NREGS may be extended to educated youth (post metric) for mobilizing them in

creating social awareness about literacy, health care, AIDS, sanitation, drinking

water, balanced nutritional diet, anti liquor, importance about marriage, family

planning and care of the child and aged.

SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN:

Issues: No linkage with district plan and down the line grassroot level plans due to poor

integration of the plan

7

Funds are distributed based on the available budget but not based on the plan and

the plan is also down sized abruptly without consulting planning unit.

Allied sectors are not taken into consideration while preparing the plan

There is no coordination between School Education and Project Directorate of

SSA but dual role has been given to the Mandal Education Officer at the Mandal

level

Monitoring mechanism is very in effective as there are no consultants at the

Mandal and district level.

MID DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDM):

MDM is the world’s largest school lunch programme covering about 120 million

children.

Issues:

Absence of a base line survey. This resulted in adoption of incorrect enrolment by

Programme Approval Board for sanction of annual work plan and budget. All this

resulted in excess or insufficient allocation of food grains and financial assistance

from the government.

Absence of regular inspection of the schools by the state monitoring committees "the

quality of the meals in terms of hygiene, caloric content, micro-nutrient and

supplements suffered".

Monitoring mechanisms envisaged in the scheme guidelines were yet to be

established. The nodal department had also not carried out any impact assessment to

ascertain the reasons for non-achievement of the primary objectives of the scheme

and to identify remedial measures that could be adopted to improve implementation.

Mismatch between enrolment, attendance, children availing MDM, utilization of

cooking assistance and lifting of food-grains

Issue of lifting and reaching food grains to schools in difficult areas

Inadequate provision for appointment of cooks resulting in teachers/students engaged

in cooking and serving in some states

Inadequacy of quality control of food due to insufficient cooking grant per head

There is no contribution from the community to strengthen the programme

8

Inadequacy of monitoring and management structure in many states

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:

Ministry should ensure that annual work plan and budget of states are examined by

Programme Approval Board, especially with reference to enrolment data which is

crucial for allotment of food grains and financial assistance by the Centre.

The nodal department should undertake an impact assessment to review the

implementation of the scheme and identify causes for lack of improvement in enrolment,

attendance and retention levels so as to enable corrective action where necessary to

achieve the objectives of the scheme.

PRIME MINISTER GRAM SADAK YOJANA

Issues: Problems in land acquisition/compensation/Forest clearance for laying roads

The state governments should provide budget for Maintenance of the road

constructed under PMGSY for a period of 5 years on continuous basis. Even

though budget provision is made in the state budget, actual release is not taking

place due to various reasons.

No dedicated staff exclusive of this project has been appointed as mandated by

the guidelines

Online monitoring system needs to be strengthened

Suggestions:

Separate revolving fund may be created for attending to repairs and maintenance

of roads after expiry of initial five years

Maintenance grants should be released to PRIs

There should not be any delay in release of money to the contractor who has done

the work

Local people should be engaged for construction of roads in that area

DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

9

Issues:

Realistic identification of all problem habitations

Incorrect prioritization of works, and other cases of wasteful and unfruitful

expenditure.

Time and cost overrun, non-completion/ delayed completion of works, Non-

functional/ defunct works

Quality of water and sustainability of the resources

Suggestion for improvement:

To be addressed with ground level approach as the efficacy of pouring money into

schemes and achievement of some numbers (coverage of problem habitation & works

executed) disregarding ground situation will remain questionable for addressing the

drinking water needs of the problem habitations.

*****

10