October - December 2012 - National Institute of Rural Development

436 M. Mahadeva and K. KeshavamurthyAgriculture Schemes (MMAS) in 2000-01,which have three-pronged objectives toachieve. First, to move away from theschematic approach to the work plans of theState in the implementation of the MMASs;second, to ensure that the Central assistanceprovided under various schemes is spent onfocused and specific interventions for thedevelopment of agriculture; and third toalleviate the rigidity in the uniformlystructured Central sponsored schemes, whichhas hitherto resulted in large amount ofunutilised balance (GoI 2000) 1 . Under thenew schematic design of the MMASs, thestates have freedom to develop and pursueactivities on the basis of their regionalpriorities through their own work plans.Originally, under the MMASs, 27 CentrallySponsored Schemes were included in 2000-01 to cover both agriculture and horticulturesectors. But with the introduction of NationalHorticultural Mission in 2005-06, 10 schemeshave been excluded from the agriculturesector and only 17 schemes are beingimplemented, including the (a) IntegratedCereal Development Programmes of Rice,Wheat and Coarse Cereal based CroppingSystem Areas, (b) Sustainable Developmentof Sugarcane Based Cropping System(SUBACS), (c) Balanced and Integrated Use ofFertiliser (BIUF) or Integrated NutrientManagement (INM) and (d) Scheme forFoundation and Certified Seed Production ofVegetable Crops, which form the main focusof this paper.The funding pattern for these schemesis like any other MMASs. The Centralgovernment provides 90 per cent of theexpenditure and the state governmentcontributes 10 per cent from their ownresources. Out of Central government’sassistance, 80 per cent is grant and 20 percent is loan (GoI 2000). In case of the North-Eastern States, the entire expenditure will beborne by the Central government. In therevised Macro Management of Agriculture(MMA) Schemes, it is attempted to avoidoverlapping and duplication of efforts and tomake them more relevant to the presentagricultural scenario in the states and therebyto achieve twin objectives of food securityand to improve the livelihood system forrural mass. Thus, the practice of allocation offunds to the states on historical basis underthe erstwhile MMA scheme has beenreplaced by a new allocation criteria basedon the 50 per cent weightage to the grosscropped area and 50 per cent weightage tothe area under the small and marginalholdings in the state (GoI, 2008). The newcriteria would facilitate allocation of moreresources to the states having larger croppedarea and also larger concentration of smalland marginal farmers.The funding pattern of the MMAS in thecountry indicates that Centre and the StateGovernments have funded the schemes inaccordance with the guidelines, althoughsimilar concern has not been exhibited in itsimplementation. It is evident from Table 1that a total amount of ` 4976.49 crore havebeen allocated for the implementation of theMMASs between 2005-06 to 2009-10 andCentral Zone account for 21 per cent,followed by Southern Zone (19 per cent),Northern Zone (17 per cent), North-EasternZone (16 per cent), Western Zone (14 percent), Eastern Zone (12 per cent) and theUnion Territories (2 per cent). One of the inbuiltfeatures of the implementation is that‘unspent balance of the previous years isbeing carried forward to the total allocationunder the schemes’, which has been in theorder of over 20 per cent. In other words,about 80 per cent of the allocated funds havebeen used. Secondly, it should not bemisconstrued that the funds allocated arereleased entirely for the implementation ofthe schemes, as is clear that only 72 per centof the funds have been utilised. Across theJournal of Rural Development, Vol. 31, No. 4, October - December : 2012