Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Background Of Rajasthan


									Externally Assisted Projects
    Poverty Alleviation
  Principal Secretary RD& PR
   Government of Rajasthan
    Rural Poverty Scenario in Rajasthan

 Slow rate of decline in poverty
  (From 50% in 1970 to 23.8% in 2008[BPL Census]-
  15% in 2000 [Planning Commission]).
 In absolute terms the No. of BPL household have
   from 19.49 lac( 1997) to 20.94 lac(2002).
 Poverty ‘Puzzle’- Rajasthan ranks 5th from bottom
  among 14 major states in per capita income but only 4
  states have lower poverty than Rajasthan.
 Clustering of large number of poor just above the
  poverty line.
                Livelihood Status

   5% Country’s population but only 1% of water
   70% area in single crop and rainfed but 66%
    population depend on Agricuture & Allied.
   Primary Sector has 66% share in livelihood but
    contribution to GDP is only 25%.
   Secondary Sector contribution 27% & Service Sector
     BPL Families & Coverage under Credit/ subsidy
     BPL Census       No. of BPL   % BPL of    Covered
                      Families     Household   under IRDP/
                      (In lac)                 SGSY
                                               ( In lac)
     1992             19.49        31%         2.05

     1997             21.97        30.98%      3.20 including

     2002             20.94*       22.72%      1.20

* About 3 lac appeals pending.
           Key issues & Challenges:

   Low productivity and growth of Agriculture and
    Livestock Sector which employs 66% of rural labour
    force but contributes only 25% of GDP.
   Growth rate of Agriculture only 1.37%.
   Recurrent droughts & precarious ground water
    situation (Out of 237 blocks, 207 are in dark zone).
   Low skill levels of working population and their
    inability to get good prices.
   Growth of employment in organized sector declining
    ( 1995- 12.64 lac, 2000- 11.78 lac).
           Key issues & Challenges:

   Increasing automation, price competition, high
    capital labour cost and sluggish growth of
    organized sector does not offer good scope for
    livelihood generation.
   About 7 lac additional persons enter in livelihood
    market every year.
   Lagging State in infrastructure index.
   Globalization.
An Overview of WB Assisted DPIP-I
 • Implemented in 7 poorest districts of Rajasthan
 • Commenced in July, 2000 & ended in Dec. 2007
    (2 years extension).
 • Project Portfolio          :   643 Crore
    Loan Component            : 515 Crore
    Government Contribution :      96 Crore
    Beneficiaries Contribution:    32 Crore.
 • No. of Beneficiaries:
              Households : 1.0 lac
              Members      : 1.70 lac
                 Project Strategy

   Selection of the Poor by Gram Sabhas.
   Formation of beneficiaries into CIG’s.
   Capacity Building of CIG’s, Handholding, Project
    formulation and implementation etc. by NGO’s
    80%- 90% sub project funding as subsidy.
   Funding on the Basis of Sub Projects formulation as per
    choice of CIG’s.
   Beneficiary Contribution 10%- 20%.
   Funds directly transferred into the accounts of CIG’s.
   Initially Livestock Project not allowed later relaxed.
   Funds for Backward and Forward Linkages.
   Q & S Activities and Cluster Level Federations.
                 Progress At a Glance
               Task                     Target               Achievement
    (As per revised results          End of Project
    framework)                          (EOP)
1   CIGs to be financed by     170,000 members         181,874 members
    End of Project             ( 1.0 Lacs families)    (19307 Subprojects)
2   Adjustment of Completion   19307 Sub Projects      19129 Sub Projects
    Certificates                                       (99.08 %)
2   Quality & Sustainability   4207 (At least 33% of   5699 CIGs evaluated
    (Q&S)                      CIGs funded)            (as ‘A’ or ‘B’)
3   CIGs are members of        3500 CIGs               2910 CIGs
    cluster association
4   Loan disbursed             495.93 Crore            464.85 Crore

5   Community contribution     32 Crore                41.31 Crore
    Major Findings of Impact Evaluation
 Two Impact Evaluation studies by independent
      • IDS for World Bank
      • Evaluation Organization of Planning Department,
 Major Findings :
      • Assets are intact with CIG’s,82.14% CIG’s Full
        utilization, 5.36% Partial.
      • Around 20% CIG’s acquired additional assets
        through Bank Linkage.
      • An average income increased from Rs.18362
        from the baseline year 2001 to Rs.32668 in year
Major Findings of Impact Evaluation
 • Income from Animal Husbandry increased by 267% while
   overall including all activities by 48.3%.
 • Around 95% members of CIGs do get sufficient food daily
   around the year.
 • Iirrigated area increased from 1 bigha to 4 bighas for Land
   Baased Groups ;
 • CIG’s Sustainability:
    69.64% CIGs meeting regularly,
    19.64% not regularly while
     10.72% cases no meeting
    18 % CIG’s could be linked to Banks
 • Adequacy of fund for subproject: 94.64% CIGs reported
       Lessons Learned from DPIP
• High subsidy unsustainable.
• Question mark on NGO’s capacity to scale up.
• Non availability of competent NGO’s.
• Bank Linkage Poor (Only 3600 CIG’s Could be
•   Non BPL entering the group monopolized the CIG
    activities by and large.
•   Except dairy, marketing remained a major issue for
    Non farm activities ;
•   Delay in Capacity Building – Lack of Clear Policy &
    Action Plan.
    Lessons Learned from DPIP

    •   Lack of Strategic vision and Planning.
    •   Lack of Team sprit between NGO’s, DPMUs & PMU –
        More Policing mindset of Government Official.
    • Continuity of Project Leadership.
.   • Top down approach to federations unsustainable;
    • Need for institutional mechanism to support CIG’s
        after the end of Project: Further doses of credit
    •   Too much focus on studies: Recommendations not
        seriously taken.
    •   Poor ready to pay for quality services.
      Proposed DPIP-II
   Aims to bring 4.0 lac BPL families above the poverty
    line (through a sustained increase in income).
   Facilitate Social Inclusion of the poor through
   Make the poor Creditworthy and eligible for Bank
   Proposed Project Portfolio:
        A. Loan from World Bank : Rs. 600 Crore
        B. GoR Contribution              : Rs. 100 Crore
        C. Funds from SGSY               : Rs. 125 Crore
        D. Bank Credit Leverage          : Rs. 600 Crore
    Approach to DPIP-II:
Options considered
• AP Model: Considered unsuitable to Rajasthan because of:
      • The poor would not be able to pay on weekly basis
        because of droughts.
      • Internal Group lending rate very high (24%):
        question of capacity to pay.
      • Poor burdened with administrative charges of SHG,
        VLO, Block, District & State Federation.
      • Data on value added services of these organization
        not available.
      • Common formation of SHG’s( Poor and non poor )
        tends to be against the interest of the poor.
      • Bypasses the PRI’s.
      • Focus not on asset Building.
  Approach to DPIP-II:
 Kudambashree Model:
  • In Rajasthan PRI institutions are week in
    comparison to Kerala;
  • Geographically Rajasthan have Vast area: Jaisalmer
    district is larger than Kerala.
  • In Rajasthan literacy rate is very low as compared to
• SGSY approach is most suited to State:
  •   Target only BPL families.
  •   Comprehensive : 7 Components
  •   Affordable interest rates
  •   Convergence: Gram Sarthi, NREGA
            Special Features:
•   Project Implementation Structure from District to
    Village Level.
•   Involvement of NGO’s on long term basis for Project
•   Outcome based remuneration to NGO’s.
•   Convergence for other needs of poor namely:
      Food & Nutrition
      Economic ( NREGA, Watershed, SC/ST Schemes)
IFAD Assisted Poverty Alleviation
   Aims to cover 70000 BPL households in 6 poorest
    Blocks of Western Rajasthan Districts in 6 years.
   Project Portfolio Rs. 415 Crores ( IFAD Rs. 125 Crore
    + Rs.13 Crore SRTT + Rs. 87 Crore Government of
    Rajasthan & Rs.180 Crore Bank Credit ).
   Highly Innovative Project:
     • Participatory Village Development Plan based
        on convergence.
     • To take care of all basic needs line health, education,
       nutrition & livelihood through convergence.
     • Project funds for gap funding.
     • Focus on rural technology transfer
     • Outcome based monitoring
     • Saturation approach
   Project Activities started.
Need for Special Efforts to achieve MDG

   Total BPL Families as per BPL 2002 List= 20.94 lacs
    ( Nearly 3.0 lac applications are pending for decision).
   Target : Extreme Poverty to be reduced by 50% upto
    2015 = 10.47 lacs Families
   BPL Families would be covered under SGSY upto
    2015 = 2.50 lacs.
    BPL Families would be covered under World Bank
    funded DPIP-II upto 2015 = 4.0 lacs.
   BPL Families would be covered under IFAD funded
    Project upto 2015 = 0.7 lacs.
   For remaining 3.27 lac families SGSY funding by
    Government of India is required to be enhanced.

To top