SOIL Report 2011 - ACCESS Development Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Reflections on Livelihoods Policies 65Table 3.6: Central sector plan funds utilizationby OrissaYearUtilization2006–07 54.01 per cent2007–08 75.97 per cent2008–09 92.00 per cent2009–10 87.30 per cent2010–11 68.70 per centSource: Business Standard (2011).sistance of ` 527.09 crore from the GOIunder CSP but has managed to spend`360.05 crore only, meaning an achievementof 68 per cent on the expenditurefront. The performance was better in2009–10; the state had managed to spend`995.49 crore out of the Centre’s assistanceof `1,143.83 crore received under CSP, anachievement of 87.03 per cent. In 2008–09, thespending was `1,118.89 crore as againstthe receipt of `1,164.76 crore. In 2007–08,the expenditure by the state under CSPwas ` 850.04 crore which is an achievementof 75.97 per cent of the total receiptof `1,118.81 crore. In 2006–07, the stategovernment’s expenditure under CSP was`396.03 crore out of an actual receipt of`733.17 crore, which marks an achievementof only 54.01 per cent.The expenditure figures are as per thedata provided by State Minister for Planningand Coordination A.U. Singh Deo in thestate assembly. 1To improve expenditure levels, the statefinance department introduced the CashManagement System in 10 departments inthe last fiscal year. According to this system,up to 60 per cent of the expenditureas per the Plan would be spent by the endof December, and the expenditure for themonth of March shall not exceed 15 percent. The total expenditure, Plan as well asNon-Plan, from April to December in thelast fiscal (2010–11), at `21,615.73 crore hasbeen 54.18 per cent of the total Plan provisionof `39,896.60 crore for the current1A.U. Singh Deo in Orissa Assembly in 2010 WinterSession.fiscal year. In the fiscal year 2009–10, 48.35per cent expenditure was achieved till theend of December 2009.Though, it must be said that fund utilizationis only an initial indicator of a goodperformance. The best example again isMGNREGA, where even in those states thathave spent high, the number of HHs that gotwork are just about 50–60 per cent, and thenumber of HHs that got 100 days’ work isextremely meagre—just about 3–4 per cent.The Planning Commission has startedwidespread consultations with 900+ CivilSociety Organizations, several think tankorganizations, and through its website forthe approach paper which got 32,000 hitsand several thousand responses.The following are the key points for theapproach paper:• Improve implementation, accountabilityand service delivery.• Objectives of the government programmesare generally all right, institutionalstructure is weak and greaterdevolution is needed.• Government programmes need a newarchitecture—greater localization, breakdownof silos, feedback from citizens andmechanisms for learning and sharing ofbest practices.• Create an environment for nurturing enterprises,improving markets, supportinginnovation, improving access to financeand inculcating respect for common poolresources.Section 6.2 of Chapter 6 discusses thisin more detail.3.2.4. New policy on monitoringimplementation: Performanceand social audit underComptroller and AuditorGeneral (CAG) foldLivelihood policies and programmes of thegovernment are largely meant for the poorand ultra poor HHs. So how to institute aprocess by which the programme outreach
66 State of India’s Livelihoods Report 2011and quality can be ensured has to be determined.Participatory monitoring, systemicmonitoring of outputs and outcomes bythe implementers, performance audit onprogrammes, citizen charter, citizen reportcard, community score card, social audit,public hearing and the usual complianceaudit done by the CAG to check misuse oftax payers’ money are a few well-knowntools that can be used for this purpose. Mostof these tools are technically complex andrequire experts, except perhaps the socialaudit process, which has become the newbuzzword in programme monitoring. Socialaudit process is intrinsically less technicaland more mobilizational; it involves theprogramme recipients, has a more or lessopen simple format and can also involvethe illiterate and socially excluded people.This section will briefly deal with the policyefforts to institutionalize the social auditprocesses.The CAG of India, the constitutionalbody of public audit in the country hasalways been in the business of doingcompliance audit of all state and centralgovernment departments, and parastatalbodies. Compliance audit is essentially amechanism to ensure that cost of governanceremains low and at worst, optimal.However, in recent times, the CAG has alsostarted doing performance audit of socialsectorprogrammes, and have audited theNREGA, NRHM, Accelerated Rural WaterSupply Programme (ARWSP), MDMs andso on, from time to time. Performance auditgoes beyond compliance and looks at output,outcomes and cost effectiveness. Thepower of performance audit can be seen inthe unearthing of the 2G scam (CAG 2010),that shook the nation in the current year.Recognizing the growing popularity,importance and criticality of social audit,the CAG set up a Task Group in May 2009,to come up with recommendations as tohow the social audit can be mainstreamed inthe public audit system. This TF submittedits report on January 2010 (CAG 2010). Itsmajor observations were:1. The recognition that CAG audit is essentiallya governmental process involvingpublic functionaries, auditors andlegislators. In the present era of citizenparticipation in governance processes,it is important to take the audit processto the public domain, and involve allstakeholders.2. With increasing importance of PanchayatiRaj Institutions (PRIs) in programmeimplementation, it raises the questionof their audit. However, CAG’s jurisdictionon PRI audit is still nebulous, andPRI audit being a state subject furthercomplicates the situation.3. Since social sector programmes nowreceive massive budget support fromcentral and state governments, it is imperativeto involve the civil society andcommunity in determining whether theprogrammes are being received well andhaving any impact on their lives.The Task Group came out with 15 recommendations;the major ones are listed inBox 3.3. The highlights are:1. A clear recommendation to adopt socialaudit as a component of performanceaudit and compliance audit.2. Clear pathways of how the synergy canbe developed by usual audits and socialaudit.3. Setting up of a committee mechanism.4. Easy training modules for the use ofCSOs.The most critical aspect of this reportis the recognition that audit can no longerremain a closed door governmental andlegislative affair. The larger citizenry have acritical stake in affairs that affects their livesand so must have enough right and voice tomake it happen, not only for programmesand policy designs, but also in programmeimplementation. However, the policydomain has yet to see this happen in case ofmainstreaming social audit.While these are welcome steps, wehave yet to see the start of the process of
Page 2 and 3:
State of India’s Livelihoods Repo
Page 4 and 5:
State of India’s Livelihoods Repo
Page 6 and 7:
ContentsList of TablesList of Figur
Page 8 and 9:
List of Tables1.1 Growth rate of Gr
Page 10 and 11:
List of Figures1.1 Pattern of GNP a
Page 12 and 13:
List of Boxes1.1 India a country of
Page 14 and 15:
List of Abbreviations3PLADBAEPSAICT
Page 16 and 17:
List of AbbreviationsxvMKSSMoEFMoRD
Page 18 and 19:
PrefaceACCESS has been bringing out
Page 20 and 21:
Prefacexixbring out yet another vol
Page 22 and 23:
AcknowledgementsA lot of work, ener
Page 24 and 25:
State of India’sLivelihoods 2011:
Page 26 and 27:
State of India’s Livelihoods 2011
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39: State of India’s Livelihoods 2011
Page 40 and 41: Livelihoods of the PoorIt is now co
Page 42 and 43: Livelihoods of the Poor 19of employ
Page 44 and 45: Livelihoods of the Poor 21significa
Page 46 and 47: Livelihoods of the Poor 23last two
Page 48 and 49: Livelihoods of the Poor 25Figure 2.
Page 50 and 51: Livelihoods of the Poor 27If person
Page 54 and 55: Livelihoods of the Poor 31Table 2.3
Page 56 and 57: Livelihoods of the Poor 33home-base
Page 58 and 59: Livelihoods of the Poor 35(13.4 mil
Page 60 and 61: Livelihoods of the Poor 37on their
Page 62 and 63: Livelihoods of the Poor 39Early exp
Page 64 and 65: Livelihoods of the Poor 41(Chintan
Page 66 and 67: Livelihoods of the Poor 43A study b
Page 68 and 69: Livelihoods of the Poor 45systemati
Page 70 and 71: Livelihoods of the Poor 47and sanit
Page 72 and 73: Livelihoods of the Poor 49dispropor
Page 76 and 77: Livelihoods of the Poor 53make an i
Page 78 and 79: Livelihoods of the Poor 55and sanit
Page 80 and 81: Reflections onLivelihoods Policies3
Page 82 and 83: Reflections on Livelihoods Policies
Page 110 and 111: State as the LargestLivelihoods Pro
Page 112 and 113: State as the Largest Livelihoods Pr
Page 132 and 133: Private Industry andServices—What
Page 134 and 135: Private Industry and Services—Wha
Page 136 and 137: Private Industry and Services—Wha
Page 138 and 139:
Private Industry and Services—Wha
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Potential andPossibilities6.1. Intr
Page 154 and 155:
Potential and Possibilities 131and
Page 156 and 157:
Potential and Possibilities 133thro
Page 158 and 159:
Potential and Possibilities 135•
Page 160 and 161:
Potential and Possibilities 137get
Page 162 and 163:
Potential and Possibilities 139welf
Page 164 and 165:
Potential and Possibilities 141resp
Page 166 and 167:
Potential and Possibilities 143the
Page 168 and 169:
Potential and Possibilities 145SN C
Page 170 and 171:
Potential and Possibilities 147infr
Page 172 and 173:
Potential and Possibilities 149Saxe
Page 174 and 175:
About the Editorsand ContributorsTh
show all

SOIL Report 2011 - ACCESS Development Services

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?