Chapter-2
Scope and Focus of BRGF
2.1 Introduction
The objectives of BRGF have been listed in paragraph 1.10 of
chapter-1; the following need to be emphasised;
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
BRGF is the only flexible fund available at the district
level (except one or two states),which can be utilised to
undertake bottom-up planning to fill the gaps in the
implementation of state and central programmes and to
address local priorities ignored by such programmes.
It is the only fund available at the district level to promote
the competence and capacity of Elected Public
Representatives and functionaries in Local Government
Institutions.
It is the only fund available to catalyse joint planning
across Panchayats and Municipalities in a district to
incentivise the DPCs in most states.
In this chapter, the focus is on filling up gaps in infrastructure
and services with a view to improving local development and services.
2.2 Assessing Backwardness:
Different and sophisticated methodologies are being used by the
Planning Commission, State Governments and Academic Institutions
to assess backwardness. For selecting the backward districts under
BRGF, the Planning Commission used a method which does not have
wide acceptance. It has been urged before the Committee that the
State Governments were not consulted and no effort was made to
evolve a consensus. The different criteria used by different
governments result in widely varying lists of districts. Another point to
note is that at present there is no formula to identify backward
blocks/villages in forward districts, just as there is no method for
exclusion of developed areas in the backward districts.
The following issues arose for the consideration of the Committee:
(i)
Assessment of backwardness on the basis of a consensus
needs to be made in such a manner that there is no
premium on the backwardness.
34
(ii)
(iii)
The need to decide on the level at which backwardness is
to be assessed (District/Block/Village). The state of West
Bengal has gone down to the village level, just using two
criteria, namely female literacy and employment
Need to evolve consensus on the data to be used-One view
is that the 2001 Census data may be used. The other view
is that the 2001 Census data is already outdated and
since the new Census data will be available only in 2013
or 14, surveys using smaller parameters may be done
immediately. The fact is that such surveys will also take
time and that the practicable course could be to take
2001 Census data along with surveys by the states (some
States have already done such surveys).
2.3 Filling Critical Gaps
One of the objectives of Backward Regions Grant Fund is to fill
critical gaps, which emerge in the process of sectoral, top down and
departmental implementation of developmental programmes. Critical
gaps are defined as the last mile provision or initiative to fill the
missing element that will make an asset productive or a facility
functional. There are several such critical gaps or missing elements in
rural areas. They arise on account of several reasons:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Creation of ‘physical infrastructure’ and not ensuring the
needed ‘soft infrastructure’ for the created infrastructural
to be functional or fully effective. Digging wells but no
energisation, health centres without staff or adequate
medicines etc are examples of such gaps.
Promotion of enterprises without simultaneously working
on forward linkages. Providing milch animals to
beneficiaries
under
various
programmes
without
provisioning milk collection centres, etc are the examples
such gaps.
Provision
of
the
inadequate
or
partial
infrastructure/services. Rural roads without culverts or
bridges to make the road functional during monsoon
season, provision of TV to schools without power
connection, toilets without water supply, schools without
buildings, teachers, blackboards, doctors without
hospitals and the vice versa , etc are the examples of such
gaps. Lack of functional capacities to deliver the assigned
roles. Lack of skilled/technical staff or capacity building
provisions in the technical departments and other
institutions such as DPCs are the examples of such gaps.
Providing ‘access’ without ensuring provision for ‘services’
by the access. Taps without drinking water, PDS without
35
(v)
ration cards, power connection without power supply may
be examples of such gaps.
All most all the above gaps and deficiencies arise out of
the failure to ensure ownership of the infrastructural
facilities and programmes by Local Government
Institutions. They are looked upon as stand alone assets
owned /operated by the parastatals or departments of
Union or the States.
There are several other instances where with minimal
investment, the missing elements could be provided and the critical
gaps bridged.
Convergence is the only solution to effectively deal
with such critical gaps, even without much additional or new financial
resource.
2.4 Meeting Local Infrastructure Deficit
There are several programmes of the Centre and States, as well
as donor funded programmes/projects to meet the local
infrastructural needs. Usually, such programmes/ projects are sector
specific or area specific.
Some of the major programmes of
development do have some earmarked funds to fill the critical gaps
like earmarking infrastructure funds under SGSY. While some of
these programme funds are ‘tied’ in nature, a few programmes provide
a partially ‘untied’ fund (because of broad spectrum of permissible and
impermissible items) and some have an earmarked portion of the
project funds.
Invariably, these programmes are planned and
infrastructure needs are finalized at the district level and sanctioned
at state level with minimal role at local level. The following are some
of the major programmes that provide infrastructure:
(i)
Education: Sarva Siksha Abhyan (SSA), Finance
Commission Grant
(ii)
Health: National Rural Health Mission, ICDS
(iii)
Road Connectivity: PMGSY, MGNREGS, RIDF of NABARD,
Finance Commission Grant
(iv)
Sanitation: TSC, Externally funded projects
(v)
Micro Enterprises:
SME, SGSY, RKVY, National
Horticulture Mission (NHM), RIDF of NABARD, Ministry of
Food Processing
(vi)
Electricity: Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana,
Remote Village Electrification, Non-conventional Energy
Programme
(vii) Natural Resources: NREGS, RKVY, MoE&F, IWDP,
Externally funded projects
(viii) Market
Infrastructure:
RKVY,
SGSY,
Agriculture
Marketing Boards, Fisheries Department, Commodity
Boards etc. For want of adequate resources, many a
36
times, political influence and patronage system robs away
the resources from more needy areas/ sections of
community.
The degree of participation by local governments varies
widely in these programmes.
One of the critical issues in the development of
infrastructure at GP and Block level is the withdrawal of SGRY
with the advent of MGNREGA. SGRY provided a minimum of
50% of its allocation to the GPs, 30% to Blocks Panchayat and
20% to District Panchayats. This amount was used to create
economic and social infrastructure at the local level. A wide
variety of infrastructure was permitted under SGRY. With the
introduction of MGNREGA, such flexibility has been curtailed
and most of the infrastructure that used to be built under SGRY
is not permissible under MGNREGS. Though the average fund
available at a GP level under SGRY might be around Rs 50,000–
Rs.80,000 per year, some infrastructure work was taken up.
Additional works were done by Block and District Panchayats.
This deficit can be addressed by BRGF in the backward
districts.
2.5 Indicative list of gaps for funding under BRGF Programme
In the programme guidelines issued by MoPR, there is a list of
priority schemes fund earmarked for SCs/STs development
(annexure-4 to BRGF guidelines). It is suggested that in addition to
that list the following indicative list of gaps in different sectors may be
included in the guidelines both for marginalized groups and others:
Table-2.5.1 Indicative list of gaps for funding under BRGF
Programme
Sector
Education
Health
Suggested Critical Gap
 Construction of Compound walls
 Construction of Toilet Complexes (boys and girls)
 Provision of furniture
 Construction of kitchen sheds
 Completion of incomplete school buildings
 Development of play grounds in schools
 Construction of Health Sub Centre Buildings
 Provision of electricity facility to Health SubCentres
 Provision of toilet and drinking water facilities to
PHCs/Health Sub-Centres
 Completion of incomplete PHCs/Health Sub
37
Animal
Husbandry



Social
Welfare/BC
Welfare
Agriculture
Women
and
Child Welfare
Rural
Supply
Water
Electricity
Panchayat Raj
Gram
Panchayat level
Fertiliser
Bank1/PDS



























Centres Buildings
Construction of buildings for Rural Live Stock
Units
Provision of Cattle Trevis
Augmenting the infrastructure in Veterinary
Dispensaries
Completion of incomplete RLUs/Dispensaries
Construction of Hostel Building with special focus
on Girls Hostels
Furniture in Social Welfare/Backward Classes
Welfare Hostels
Completion of incomplete Hostel Buildings
Cold storage Units
Market Yards
Storage-godowns
Construction of Anganwadi Centres
Provision of Drinking water facilities in Anganwadi
Centres
Provision of Toilet facilities
Electrification of existing Anganwadi Centres
Provision of play material to Anganwadi Centres
Extension of Pipe-lines
Electric motors to Pump sets
Energisation charges
Flushing of Bore wells
Sinking of Bore wells
Provision of Electric poles
Electrification of un electrified SC/ST villages and
new colonies
Construction of Gram Panchayat Offices
Augmentation of infrastructure in PRIs
Intermediate Panchayat Resource Centres
Improvements to burial grounds
Internal roads and drains
Construction of godowns/stock centres
Making arrangements for transport.
Empowerment of Gram Panchayats for managing
PDS
B.K. Sinha, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Panchayat Raj, Government of India,
Study on Supply-Distribution of Urea in India,
1
38
2.6 Infrastructure and Inclusive Growth
It is well established that creation of infrastructure, both
economic and social, is the key to ‘inclusive growth’. Improvement in
infrastructure gives a fillip to many economic activities,
as it has
significant multiplier effect. Clear examples are: rural connectivity
(Road, Telephone, and Transport), power (energisation of wells and
micro enterprises), chilling centres (for milk collection, vaccine/
artificial insemination, semen storage etc.). The examples of mobile
phone and internet connectivity for onion, poultry and milk producers
in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have proved that these
have resulted substantial benefits to the target groups. The recent
introduction of ‘108’ service in some States has a mass appeal and is
widely acclaimed there.
(i)
(ii)
India Rural Development Report (1999) brought out by NIRD
clearly established the linkages between development in
economic and social infrastructure and poverty and as well
as disparities in development. Poorer states (high poverty
incidence states) are also poor in infrastructure development.
India Infrastructure Report 2006 points out that rural
teledensity has improved significantly between 1999 and
2004, but has remained stagnant due to slow pace of other
development.
(iii)
Indian Rural Infrastructure Report (2007) brought out by
NCAER brings out several case studies and findings to
illustrate how investment in infrastructure can make a
change in the lives of common people.
(iv)
The ‘Grameen Phone’ in Bangladesh has a tremendous
impact on poverty.
Similar experiments by SEWA in
Banaskantha district of Gujarat has proved highly beneficial.
‘Wired villages’ in Warana Region of south western
Maharashtra, non-government initiatives of internet services
in MP, Maharashtra, TN etc. have made substantial
difference to the lives of rural people.
(v)
The World Development Report 1994, on Infrastructure
Development and the Report of 2000 focusing on Attacking
Poverty have shown that a regular, good quality power
supply boosted agricultural productivity, setting up of post
harvest processing units and improving the educational
achievements of school students.
(vi)
According to the 11th Plan Document about 35 % of all
habitations are still unconnected by all-weather roads. Even
the reportedly connected village roads are unserviceable.
39
Again, the backward States have the poorest road density
and substantial unconnected villages clearly showing the
nexus between road connectivity and development.
(vii)
Providing ‘access’ is not an end itself but whether access has
led to ‘service’ delivery of quality is the question. Teacher
less schools, staff less health centres, extension with rural
workers, unenergised infrastructure etc. have resulted in
poor utilization affecting the quality. The critical gaps in
human resources can be filled through cheaper front line
staff like paravets, barefoot technicians, vidya volunteers etc.
Such initiatives in Karnataka, MP and AP have shown good
results.
(viii) Improvement in land productivity is very essential when the
arable land is shrinking due to industrialization, and
urbanization. Infrastructure technology, water and energy
are critical inputs, as averred by India Infrastructure Report
2009, to improve productivity and to meet the food security
objective.
2.7 Priorities in Agricultural Sector
The major requirements of development in agriculture are
efficient utilisation of land and water resources. Common property
resources on which the poor depend for their livelihoods have to be
made more productive. While preparing schemes under BRGF it is
necessary to clearly identify directly productive investment or
investment which is ineffective because of incomplete investment.
Mere creation of infrastructure may not ensure genuine access until
there is provision to give the intended service. To this end, District
Plans should clearly spell out the means for both hard and soft-ware
to provide justification for the identified infrastructure.
The following are some of the priority areas for consideration
under BRGF:
(i)
Development of fisheries on water bodies.
(ii)
Making grazing lands more productive.
(iii)
Improving the accessibility of drinking water to the poor.
(iv)
Providing market infrastructure.
(v)
Wherever milk production is available but collection
centre is not available, centres may be started.
2.8 Development Requirements at Local Level
Construction of buildings and undertaking the repairs of the
service delivery institutions like health, education, drinking water,
housing, road, Panchayat building, computers. Play ground,
40
compound walls of schools, Anganwadi Centre and toilets, individual
and common sanitary latrines, drainage canals, kitchen-sheds for
MDM, DWCRA buildings, youth-clubs, old-age homes etc. All these
requirements should emerge from the community vision and
participatory planning processes. Development requirements are being
met from the Centrally Sponsored Schemes, Central and State
Finance Commissions Grant, State Government Programmes, Internal
Resources of PRIs and Community Contribution.
2.9 Brief Analysis of Sector-wise investment
Table 2.9.1 presents the distribution of expenditure under
BRGF on different activities in some of the Districts across eight
States in the country. It may be seen from the table that in the state
of Andhra Pradesh 25% of the total funds were used for Anganwadis
and more than 27% on other activities. Very little investment has been
made in providing health and roads facilities; however, investment in
drinking water, irrigation and school class room constitute more than
25% of expenditure. In case of Bongaigaon of Assam more than 90% of
the funds were utilised for construction of roads, drainage, culvert
and activities related to agriculture/livelihoods and market. In case of
Moriegaon District of the same State, 100% of funds were invested in
activities related to agriculture and fisheries. In Samasthipur district
of Bihar more emphasis was given for Gram Panchayat buildings and
administration. In case of Chhattisgarh, highest investment was made
on infrastructure and housing followed by health and nutrition. In
Madhya Pradesh 44 per cent of the total funds were invested on
Angawadi buildings, followed by construction of schools/class rooms
and drinking water/irrigation. In the state of Orissa, no sector
overview is available but most of the projects are within Anganwadi
Centres, roads, culverts, classrooms, water supply and rural
electrification. In case of Rajasthan, 47% of funds were invested in
construction of Anganwadi centres, followed by activities under others
and roads. In Bankura district of West Bengal, 30% of funds were
utilised for other activities followed by Anganwadi and
roads/drain/culverts. This has to be compiled over a period of time for
all districts.
It could be seen from the sample study that the bulk of the
funds had been spent on construction activities relating to public
service facilities such as Anganwadi buildings, education, and
road/drainage/culvert. This will be attempted as part of state specific
studies in the future. There is need for more detailed study of the
pattern and sector-wise expenditure investments made across BRGF
Districts and to analyse the process of decision making on considering
the gaps in critical social and economic infrastructure. The Committee
would take it up as part of State specific study in future.
41
Table-2.9.1 Sector-wise Investment
States
Angawandi
Buildings and
women
and child
development
25.0 %
0%
GP Buildings
and
Administration
Hostels
Drinking
Water/
Irrigation
Health
Electrification
Schools/
Class-rooms
9.6%
7%
1.9%
0%
13.6%
2%
2.0%
0%
4.4%
0%
16.3%
0%
0%
45%
Assam
Morigaon District
(2006/07)
Bihar
Samastipur District
(FY 2008/09)
Chhattisgarh
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
23 % most AW
40%(Infrastruct
ure
and
buildings
41
%
(Infrastructure
and houses)
4%
23%
27.1%
46%
(agric +
lively-hoods,
market)
100%
for
agric
+
fishery
7%
4%
3%
8%
Madhya Pradesh
Orissa
44%
0%
0%
13%
5%
2%
14%
9%
13%
No sector overview is available but most projects are within Anganwadi Centers, Roads, Culverts, classrooms, water supply and
rural electrification.
47%
4%
0%
0%
9%
0%
4%
17%
19%
28%
10%
0%
7%
1%
0%
2%
22%
30%
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bongaigaon District
(2006/07)
0%
5%
0%
0%
36%
Health
and
8%
Roads/
culverts
Others
nutrition
Rajasthan
West Bengal
(Source: First Independent Review of the Backward Regions Grant Fund Synthesis Report, World Bank, 2010, p 16.)
42
2.10 Utilization of funds under BRGF and Issues in filling up
critical gaps
Out of total districts covered under BRGF, as many as 211
districts did not use even 50% of BRGF funds. However, there is a lot
of scope for the gap filling interventions in these districts. Some of the
major issues in this regard are listed below.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
There is no proper mechanism for participatory identification
of the critical gaps.
The critical gaps arise because these gaps exist in the
planning process.
There are about 100 CSSs and a number of Special
Assistance Programmes and State Sector Schemes. The
budget of these schemes and programmes has been
increasing every year as could be seen in the Table-5.5.1
(page.83) in chapter 5 of this report.
The World Bank study revealed that wherever there has been
integrated or convergent planning process operating at the
grassroots, the gaps in the infrastructure get reduced and
there are returns to the community greater than the sum of
the parts. The improvements in the planning process are
discussed in chapter-4.
The gaps in the planning process occur because of the
fundamental problem of communication between the
planners and the stakeholders. It has been corroborated by a
number of field studies that the planning process has
become contractor-driven.
The TSIs have become
contractors and they further outsource the planning job to
the local agencies. There is little cooperation from the DRDA
or from the Panchayats except that the plans should be
completed in time and should receive the approval of the
DPC and the HPC. The approval of the DPC is taken for
granted. This reduces participatory planning to farcical
proportions. The Committee is of the opinion that these two
parts never get to talk to each other. The day this gap is
bridged through the methodologies of planning designed for
the BRGF, the allocations would be used fully. It is not a
case of coming out with a fresh planning design but one of
the operationalisation of planning processes already in place.
43
2.11 Lapsability of Funds
It has to be understood that removal of backwardness is not a
one-shot affair that can be achieved within the parameters of short
term budget centric goals of the programmes of the Ministries.
Backwardness is a complex phenomenon whose roots may run into
social conditions, historical background, inefficient appreciation and
use of resources etc. No doubt, creation of infrastructural linkages
will have the effect of filling up critical gaps and, hence, of better
resource utilization. Yet, there are dimensions that need to be added
to capacity building of the constituents, the gestation period of the
capacity building, the factors of backwardness like the human capital,
the status of health, the time span within which the programme is
being considered etc.
The Committee feels that to take a short time span of one
financial year for the programme is not a viable proposition. This is
because of the fact that there may be tendencies on part of the
programme to lapse into backwardness on account of other factors
that had hitherto remained dormant and become active again. Hence,
there is a need to look at the BRGF in a longer time span of a
minimum of 5 years. This would legitimately beg the question as to
why it is 5 years or not more or less. The answer is that it is within a
span of 5 years that a cycle of development normally gets fulfilled. The
Planning Commission is also guided by this cycle in its planning
process.
The Committee also feels that a good part of the time of the
programme divisions and executive agencies is consumed in getting
releases of funds. The entire orientation of the programme is directed
towards the goal to obtain the funding support. Utilization of the
funds for the purpose of the programme design does not figure high in
their objectives. The Central Government authorities realize this
fundamental weakness of the situation and try to make the
requirements as stringent as possible. Hence, BRGF gets overly
focused on getting releases and does not focus on other aspects
including the primary objective of removal of backwardness.
If BRGF is to do well as a programme in fulfillment of the
objectives it must be freed from the thralldom of a rigid release
structure. It is only then that the managers of the programme can
concentrate on the delivery of the programme. The time freed from
simplification and taking a long term view of the programme could be
used for better planning, implementation and supervision.
44
2.12 Creating a Charge upon the Fund
The very nature of BRGF fund is that of an untied one. It is its
strongest point yet. Some of the Members of the Committee and some
persons deposing before it were of the view that broad purposes for
which fund could be used may be indicated. A broader indicative list
of gaps has been suggested in Para 2.5 and brief analysis of a sector
wise investment was made in 2.9. The Committee does not wish to go
further and broaden the list.
At the same time, the Committee also takes cognizance of the
wide range of programmes that are implemented under different
programme structures. For instance, the Ministry of Rural
Development has come up with a nation wide programme of Bharat
Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendra (BNRGSK) under which Gram
Panchayat buildings will be constructed with facilities for location of a
knowledge centre, training and meeting hall, exhibition of agricultural
implements and technologies etc. All the 2.34 lakh Gram Panchayats
will be equipped with such Sewa Kendras. The fact that in some of
the States, priority is being given to the construction of buildings for
GPs because of the fact that there is no convergence in the planning
process. Once that convergence is brought about, the gaps are likely
to reduce appreciably.
The Committee also takes note of the efforts being made by
other Ministries/Departments of the Government of India to bring
about convergence in Government programmes. In particular, it would
like to mention the Convergence Guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Rural Development, which provides for convergence at a large scale
amongst different Departments. Even if convergence were to be
achieved on a lower scale, it would bring about major changes on
ground.
The Committee would also like to point out that despite the best
efforts at unified planning, some gaps will continue to exist. However,
the nature of the gaps will be transient and relatively insignificant.
2.13 BRGF and Livelihoods
Though, BRGF has been primarily conceived as a programme
for filling up the gaps in the rural infrastructure it can be used for
their locally important purposes. In some States, it has been used for
livelihood projects.
There are number of programmes under CSSs portfolio related
to livelihood. The SGSY is primarily a livelihood programme, which
deals with both skill development and self employment. MGNREGA
provides 100 days wage employment. The Committee is of considered
opinion that the programme demands greater emphasis on the gaps in
45
the livelihoods. The Committee also takes note of the growth of more
than one million SHGs in the State of Andhra Pradesh under the
Indira Kranti Patham (IKP). The SHGs have been able to gain in
measures of financial strength and capacity. They have also been able
to organize themselves in the form of Village Organizations (VOs),
Block Panchayat Level Samakhyas, District Samakhyas and State
Level Federations. Seven other States have also initiated a World
Bank sponsored programme for replication of IKP model. Each SHG
and their formations are units of planning.
Their livelihood
enhancement action plans are nowhere being captured in the district
planning process. This leads to a duplication of efforts and often
planning at cross purposes. It is felt that unless planning of SHGs and
their constituent units are brought within the ambit of one broad
umbrella of planning, BRGF will remain incomplete and partial. This
is dealt with in greater detail in the Chapter-4.
2.14 Recommendations:
Based on above discussion on the issue of filling the gaps under
BRGF, following measures are recommended to make the programme
more effective and meaningful.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The BRGF should continue with its untied nature and
emphasis on filling up developmental gaps. It should also
continue to focus on its emphasis on capability building,
constitution of DPCs and catalyze planning across rural
and urban areas in the district.
Every District should come out with the district profile of
backwardness to be upgraded once in every three years.
Although sophisticated and well-thought methodologies
have been applied to measure the backwardness in the
last few decades, however, there is no consensus on the
parameters. It is therefore, suggested that a simple,
verifiable and measurable index of rural backwardness be
evolved by the MoRD, MoPR and Planning Commission in
consultation with the States. The unit for determination of
backwardness may be the Block.
At present monitoring of BRGF is mostly on releases and
expenditure. Since BRGF is an intensively process
oriented programme, a system for multi-level quality,
process, financial and out come is needed. Such a system
has already been successfully established for significant
number of programmes such as MGNREGA, PMGSY,
Drinking Water and Sanitation, Integrated Watershed
Development Programme
etc.
This monitoring
mechanism should be established by technically
competent organisations such as C-DAC, ANTRIX
Corporation (ISRO), ECIL, NIC, TCS, etc. NIRD would
46
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
propose draft criteria and methodology for purposeful
monitoring. Based upon which MoPR would establish
monitoring unit for IT based monitoring.
Since the purpose of the BRGF is to fill the gaps in
developmental infrastructure, it is necessary to identify
the level of development of different Blocks and give
priority to the bottom one-third of the Blocks for
investment under the Grant, to fill all the existing gaps
within a given time-period. Similarly, identification of
backward Gram Panchayats can also be undertaken
wherever feasible as already done in West Bengal and
Maharastra.
A National Portal on Basic Indicators of Development
should be created by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj.
The e-Panchayats programme of MoPR, Computerization
Programme of MoRD having allocation Rs. 1300 crore and
Panchayat Ghar component of Bharat Nirman Rajeev
Gandhi Sewa Kendra should be dovetailed for
computerization of the Local Bodies.
The allocation should be viewed over a period of 5 years
and not for a year alone. For completion of
schemes/projects under BRGF must have a long term
perspective. The projects taken up should be given
sufficient time for their completion whenever this involves
more than one year time. The committee strongly urges
the extension of BRGF in 12th Plan period keeping in view
the long term perspective for the programme. This will
ensure completion of schemes/projects.
The process of release needs to be simplified. The Districts
will plan and indicate a sector and scheme wise
requirement of funds, before the beginning of the financial
year. This will become the basis for the release of funds.
There should be some incentive for expenditure incurred
within or before time. Likewise there ought to be a
disincentive for late, tardy or poor utilization of funds.
The disincentive could come in a number of ways such as
losing a part of the funds; requiring the State to do an
additional exercise before further release etc. However, it
may be mentioned that the quality of the expenditure and
the outcome of the investment will need to be carefully
assessed before arriving at the incentive or disincentive.
There is need for close convergence between BRGF and
other Livelihood Programmes of the Government. Sectoral
Planning for livelihoods should be under one umbrella
planning process. There should be one Integrated
Livelihood Plan for the whole District.
47