chhattishgarh state report

7/29/2019 Chhattishgarh State Report

1/45

First Independent Review Mission for Backward

Regions Grant Fund State Report

Chhattishgarh

September 2009

Core Team members

Yadab Chapagain, Steffensen Consult

Ruchi Pant, UNDP


2/45

Abbreviations

APO Assistant Project Officer

BRGF Backward Regions Grant Fund

BPL Below Poverty LineCD Capacity Development

CBO Community Based Organisation

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DPRDO District Panchayats & Rural Development Officer

DRP District Resource Person

DTC District Training Centre

ETC Extension Training Centre

GoI Government of India

GP Gram Panchayat

GS Gram Sansad (Sabha)

HDI Human Development IndexHR Human Resource

IT Information Technology

IP Intermediate Panchayat

IPE Infrastructure Professionals Enterprise Ltd

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MIS Management Information System

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MOPR Ministry of Panchayati Raj

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NREGS National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

PAAO Panchayat Audits and Accounts OfficerPDO Panchayat Development Officer

PMU Project Management Unit

PRDD Panchayat & Rural Development Department

PRI Panchayati Raj Institution

RSVY Rastriya Sama Vikas Yojana

PFM Public Financial Management

RM Review Mission

SHG Self Help Group

SIPRD State Institute of Panchayats & Rural Development

SC Scheduled Caste

ST Scheduled Tribes

TOT Training of Trainers

SCO Schedule of Costs

TSI Technical Support Institution

ULB Urban Local Body

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

ZP Zilla Parishad


3/45

Table of Contents

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Regions Grant Fund State Report.............i

Chhattishgarh..........................................................................................................................i

Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................................ii

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................iii

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Regions Grant Fund Report onChhattisgarh State..................................................................................................................1

1. Background ......................................................................................................................12. BRGF Development Grants ................................................................................................5

3. Planning ..........................................................................................................................13

4. Capacity Development .....................................................................................................18

5. Monitoring and Evaluation ...............................................................................................25

6. Program Management .....................................................................................................27

7. Conclusions Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................30

8. Annexes ...........................................................................................................................36


4/45

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Regions

Grant Fund Report on Chhattisgarh State

1. Background

1.1 Introduction to the review

A team was fielded from July 1-6, 2009, composed of team members from the WorldBank, MoPR and Steffensen Consult (hereafter referred to as the Review Mission orRM) to conduct an independent review of the functioning of the Backward RegionGrant Fund (BRGF).

The objectives of BRGF, as defined in the Programme Guidelines1 are to:

1) Bridge critical gaps in local infrastructure and other development requirementsthat are not being adequately met through existing inflows,

2) Strengthen, to this end Panchayat and Municipality level governance with moreappropriate capacity building, to facilitate participatory planning, decision making,implementation and monitoring, to reflect local felt needs.

3) Provide professional support to local bodies for planning, implementation andmonitoring their plans.

4) Improve the performance and delivery of critical functions assigned toPanchayats, and counter possible efficiency and equity losses on account ofinadequate local capacity.

The expected outcome of the BRGF is to: Mitigate regional imbalances, contributetowards poverty alleviation in backward districts and promote accountable andresponsible Panchayats and Municipalities.

The overall objective of the Review Mission was to review progress in theimplementation of the programme with respect to programme objectives, highlight whathas worked, identify challenges and recommend what needs for improvement2.

A detailed questionnaire was prepared beforehand, including issues and questions onthe overall programme management, funding issues, planning and governance issues,capacity development support, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and performance of theprogramme within various areas such as Public Financial Management (PFM).

This report includes the field-mission findings and derived recommendations fromChattishgarh State. The RM visited 2 districts (Dhamtari, and Bilaspur), 2 intermediatePanchayats, and 2 Gram Panchayats, see Annex 1 for a list of institutions/people met.Similar reports are produced for 7 other states (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, MadhyaPradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and West Bengal).

1 Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme Guidelines, Prepared and Circulated by Ministry ofPanchayati Raj, Government of India, 2007, hereafter referred to as Programme Guidelines.2 According to TOR for this review, dated May 26, 2009.

Chhattisgarh1


5/45


The team consisted of the core team members: Yadab Chapagain from SteffensenConsult, and Ruchi Pant from UNDP. The core team was supported by an experiencedofficial from the State level, Mr. S. Alok, Deputy Commissioner Department of PanchayatRaj and Rural Development The team is very grateful for the strong support renderedthroughout the field-work and the valuable inputs provided by all stakeholders met during

the 5 days mission.

The RM had meetings and interactions with a large number of stakeholders from varioustiers of government (State, District, Municipality, Intermediary Panchayats and GramPanchayats) as well as Capacity Development (CD) institutions, see table 1-1 below.The RM visited two districts, 2 intermediate Panchayats (Janapad Panchayats), 2 GramPanchayats and 2 Municipalities (see below). The team member was given an audienceby Hon. Mr Ram Bichar Netam, the Minister Panchayati Raj and Rural Development ofthe State, and other political leaders at the Panchayats and ULBs.

Table 1-1: Overview of the Panchayats/ULBs met:

No. District

Panchayat

Municipality Intermediate

Panchayat (Mandal)

Gram Panchayat

1 Dhamtari2. Dhamtari

3. Kurud JanapadPanchayat

4. Kathauli GP1. Bilaspur

2. Bilaspur MunicipalCorporation

3. Kota JanapadPanchayat

4. Karra GP

During most of the meetings a large number of citizens and officials of the respectiveand other Panchayats were represented.

The population and local bodies in Chhattisgarh

Data from Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Chhattisgarh shows that the totalPopulation of Chattisgarh is almost 21 million, of which rural population comprise about17 million. Scheduled cast 2 million and scheduled tribes 6 million.

The local bodies in Chattisgarh, according to the Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam (1993), areprovided in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2: Overview of Local BodiesLocal bodies Total BRGF

Panchayati RajInstitutions (PRIs)

Zilla (District) Panchayats 16 13

Janapad (Intermediate)Panchayat 146 110

Village (Gram) Panchayat 9,820 6,908

Urban Local Bodies Municipal Bodies 110 69

Source: Chhatisgarh Government Diary 2009

Chhattisgarh2


6/45


Out of the 16 districts 13 are eligible for BRGF grants. Eight of the 13 districts overlapwith RSVY. They are: Bastar, Bilaspur, Dantewada, Jashpur, Kanker, Kabirdham,Rajnandgaon, and Surguja. Five districts - Dhamtari, Korba, Korea, Mahasamund, andRaigarh - are covered only with BRGF.

The total population of the BRGF districts in Chhattisgarh is 1.375 crores according tothe census of 2001 as shown in the table 1-3 below.

Table 1-3: Population of Chhattisgarh

Total BRGF

Urban 4,185,747 2026364

Rural 16,648,056 11,714,544

Chhatisgarh 20,833,803 13,740,908Source: Calculated from Chhattisgarh Government Diary 2009

The annual BRGF grant entitlement for Chhattisgarh is 235 crores. This works out asannual per capita entitlement of BRGF development grant as IRs 171 (USD 3.8 @ 45:1).

The average size of a GP is 1700. Calculating the average fund by population @171 theallocation for a GP comes close to Rs. 290,000.

1.2 Overall Views and Summary of Overall Findings

BRGF is considered as a filler program and not so big in size by the stakeholders at thestate and GP level. However, since the program funds are discretionary it has providedauthority to the local bodies to cater to the needs of grassroots. BRGF has triggered offthe process of decentralized planning and generated enthusiasm among stakeholders.The stakeholders view that BRGF offers opportunity to focus more on gap filling with

regard to social sectors including livelihood opportunities, setting up of anganwadicentres, schools and health centres especially in regions with low HDIs.

It is contributing significantly to the improvement of the local planning processes. Ingeneral the BRGF funding system is supporting all four objectives, but the expectedoutcome - to mitigate regional imbalances and contribute (significantly) to reducepoverty, will require increased amounts of funds, better convergence with other fundingsources and improved targeting of the flow of funds towards the backward areas. Theuse of IT such as plans in websites with Plan Plus, operation of resource centers atblock level, video-conferencing facility at the Zila Panchayat level, and computerizationof GPs is encouraging. It makes the plans of local bodies already in the public domain.Because of this it is difficult to change pans abruptly once decided. This enhances the

credibility of the local authority among public and there is in-built pressure to go by goodgovernance practices.

The stakeholders have identified several operational issues, which if addressed timelythen would further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation. Thekey among these include the timing of the planning process, the system of planapproval, the operations of the TSIs, the use of the funds for improved staffing capacity,and the need to move towards more demand driven CD intervention support. Theexisting CD support has been appreciated by the stakeholders as they are relevant, but

Chhattisgarh3


7/45


it was regarded as grossly inadequate and inappropriate. There is a need to expand theexisting CB support, both in terms of coverage and content, and to strengthen the PRIsplanning capacity and HR management with field support and consultancy inputs. Belowis a brief overview of some of the general views from the various tiers of government.

State Level

The officials at the state level have high opinion about BRGF. The principal secretary,Department of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, and other stakeholdersmentioned that the untied nature of the programme, and its emphasis on local planningand gap filling elements are highly instrumental to advance the decentralizedgovernance objectives.

There is a strong wish to make the BRGF targeted towards addressing thebackwardness within the State and the state department is ongoing, however it has notyet put in operation. The State has already extended a number of CB support activities,such as the video connections and transmission of training sessions to all districts, andthere are plans to deepen the support in the future.

District Level

At the district level there was a similar strong support to the BRGF funding for itsprimarily untied nature which allows the district authorities to fill the critical gaps inservice provision, which otherwise would not be possible to address through the existingschemes. The support of BRGF in the bottom-up planning procedures, preparation ofholistic plan for the district, upholding good governance practices such as transparencyand capacity development support provided to the GPs were highly appreciated. Theuse of IT tools such as PlanPlus has also help achieve political interventions at the locallevel. The district level stakeholders also pointed out some of the operational modalitiesthat can be improved, but the BRGF in general was highly appreciated. Some of the

major challenges have been delays in the planning process, delays in allocation of fundsand insufficient awareness about the operations, such as the allowed eligibleinvestments and lack of interests and converge with the sector investments (linedepartments).

Janapad (Intermediary) and Gram Panchayat level

All at the GP levels, the BRGF has imparted a sense of hope in terms that the GPofficials were able to mobilize resources to projects of local needs that have been so farnot been addressed through any other schemes. However, since the resource envelopewas not provided to the GPs and the planning process had to be repeated withoutknowing whether funding will be available the Sarpanchas showed their reservations.

The Sarpanchas viewed that while availability of fund for otherwise unfunded mandateswould enhance their public confidence, the exercise of planning without resource woulderode them. The Gram Sabha has started to question why they should sit for planning ifsupport were not guaranteed. However, wherever funding was available for projects theinvestments were properly utilized and with a greater level of benefit for the public.

Municipalities

Chhattisgarh4


8/45


The BRGF support to the urban authorities has been equally appreciated by thestakeholders from the ULBs. The investments made by the urban authorities have beenlong-standing gaps of the municipal communities. Particularly the women members ofDhamtari municipality had very high regard to the BRGF funding for their chosenprojects. Even the Municipal Corporation people appreciated the BRGF support, as theircity development strategy was being supported by it. Some of the challenges include

delays in planning and fund transfers and disregard of municipal Schedule of Costs toimplement BRGF investments. However, the BRGF is welcomed by the municipalrepresentatives and there are great expectations to the future operations.

2. BRGF Development Grants

2.1 Size of the BRGF

Size of Development Funding

As on May 2009, the fund released to the State of Chhatishgarh under BRGFDevelopment Grant by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR) for the past two fiscalyears is provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Status of development grant released and utilization for ChhattisgarhBudgetamount Rs.Crore

Sanctioned/approved amountRs Crore

ReleasedamountRs Crore

UtilisedamountRs Crore

Comments, e.g.delays

2007/08 236.75 226.21 226.21 208.54 Rs. 21.00 Crore to

5 District Dhamtari,

Mahasamund,Korba, Koria and

Raigarh against

their Annual Plan

2006-07 Utilization

as reported to GoI

2008/09 235.48 192.45 192.45 - Rs. 19.93 Cr.

released against

balance amount of

Districts Annual

Plan 2007-08

Total 472.23 418.66 418.66 208.54

Source: Data provided by the State

District: Dhamtari

Chhattisgarh5


9/45


Budgetamount Rs.Lakh

Sanctioned/approved amountRs Lakh

ReleasedamountRs Lakh

UtilisedamountRs Lakh

Comments,e.g. delays

2007/08 1436 1436 1295 1295

2008/09 1436 1436 1277.3 0 Released inMarch 009

Population: 613,007 (rural population total)

District: Bilaspur

Budgetamount Rs.Lakh

Sanctioned/approved amountRs Lakh

ReleasedamountRs Lakh

UtilisedamountRs Lakh


2007/08 2085 1878 1878 1878

2008/09 2085 1683 1683 0 Released inMarch

Population: 1,511,661 (rural population total)

Refer to Annex 8.2 for funding in the GP and ULBs visited.

Per capita BRGF development grant

The BRGF development grant per capita in the PRIs/ULB of the two districts ispresented in table 2-2 below.

Table 2-2: development grant per capita

Unit Population Development Grantallocation Rs

Grant percapita

State 13,740,908 2,350,000,000 171.02

ZP Bilaspur 1,511,661 157,720,384 104.34

Mun. Corp. Bilaspur 274,000 27,500,000 100.36

ZP Dhamtari 613,007 124,100,000 202.44

Municipality Dhamtari 82,111 15,600,000 189.99

Calculated from the figures of fund and population

The BRGF amount per unit of PRIs is not presented as the districts have not allocatedfunds for the IPs and GPs.

2.2 Allocation criteria Vertical and Horizontal

The district uses population as the fund allocation criteria, which has come from theformula (10 crore plus the amount in proportion of population and area) that the centralgovernment uses in the case of districts.

In both the districts visited in the state the fund is not allocated to the lower level PRIs.Distribution among the ZP and the ULBs is made on the basis of population. Theallocation of funds between the ULB and ZP is made based on population. The ULBsknow their allocation before planning, while among the PRIs it is only the ZP that knowsthe resource envelope under BRGF program. However, the ZP and State officials assert

Chhattisgarh6


10/45


that they give due consideration to strike a fund distribution ratio of 50:30:20 betweenGP, IP and ZP while sanctioning projects.

The central government distributes the BRGF funds to the districts based on an equalshare amount and the population and the area. The practice of allocating BRGF fundswithin the district territory is limited to the PRIs and the ULBs. In Chhattisgarh the

distribution between the PRI and ULB is done taking population as the sole criteria. Thedistribution to among the ULBs also takes place accordingly. The practice of allocatingBRGF funds across different tiers of PRIs has not started. As practiced the entire BRGFfund rests with the District/Zilla Panchayat from which the projects are funded the PRIsat the sub-district level are not involved, but provided planning input, see the section onPlanning.

The state and the district officials admit that shortcomings remain in the fund allocationsystem as they have not been able to include backwardness indicator while approvingthe projects funded under BRGF.

The GPs view that they should obtain certain predictable amount for their planning

purpose.

2.3 Timeliness and Predictability of Transfers

Predictability of BRGF support

The transfer is well known up to the district level, and to the ULBs. It is fixed according tothe formula set by the BRGF up to the District level and then based on the percent ofurban population within the district. The Janapad Panchayats (IPs) in Chhatisgarh arenot considered as implementing agencies therefore they are not provided with anallocation the IPs as well do not expect a transfer of their own. The JP is merelycompiling the plans of GPs and making some adjustments to them before submitting tothe district.

Timeliness of funding

Table 2-3 gives an overview of the fund release in the two districts in Chhattisgarh. Thetable clearly shows that the release of fund is late. For example the fund for investmentof 2007-08 was released to the Dhamtari in mid-January 2008, which leaves merely 2.5months to implement before the fiscal year ends in March; in the case of Bilaspur therelease was in mid-March, i.e., just two weeks before the end of the FY.

The reasons for delay have been many. Difficulty in collecting UCs, delays in meetingsand deliberations after the UC is submitted, and delay in planning starting right from startof the planning process and approval by many layers. Moreover, the release washampered due to elections in 2009, as the election code of conduct would not allow theauthorities to sanction funds for development works.

In sum, the funds under BRGF have not flown smoothly and timely as a result thedistricts were not able to obtain funds at time when they needed.

Chhattisgarh7


11/45


Table 2-3: Funds to Dhamtari And Bilaspur Under BRGF Development Plan

Date of releasefrom GoI toState

Installment No

Amount(Rs. inLakh)

Date in which thefund wasreleased to theDistrict from State

Amount(Rs. inLakh)

Comment or clarification

District: Dhamtari24-5-2007 I 100.00 11-7-2007 100.00 For Annual Plan

2006-07

11-12-2007 II 1194.68 16-1-2008 716.80 For Annual Plan2007-087-3-2008 477.88

31-12-2008 III 241.32 16-2-2009 241.32 Balance of Plan2007-08

23-2-2009 IV 1036.00 17-3-2009 1036.00 For Annual Plan2008-09

District: Bilaspur

6-12-2007 I 1878.00 16-1-2008 1126.80 For Annual Plan2007-087-3-2008 751.20

25-11-2008 II 209.00 10-2-2009 209.00 Balance of Plan2007-08

2-3-2009 III 1474.00 20-3-2009 1474.00 For Annual Plan2008-09

2.4 Investment Menu and Use of Funds

The investment menu defined in the BRGF guidelines is broad and funds are largelyuntied, and discretionary for the PRIs/ULBs. The BRGF Programme Guidelines sets afew strings on the use of funds, e.g. maximum 5% of the funds can be allocated for

provision of adequate functionaries for the Panchayats for planning and implementation,and the funds cannot be spent for construction of religious structures, structures ofreligious institutions, construction of welcome arches or similar activities3.

Furthermore, a special sub-plan for use of scheme-wise allocations for SCs/STs andschemes, benefiting SCs /STs, should be provided in an amount at least reflecting theirproportion of the total population in the area. Amenities such as schools, anganwadis(kind of kindergarten), health centers, etc. should be given a strong priority in villages,which have a substantial SC/ST population. Annex 4 of the BRGF Guidelines gives anindication of the priority schemes for funds earmarked for SC and ST development. Theguidelines do not have a clear distinction between capital and recurrent costs. Howeverthe capacity building support under the second window of the BRGF the CB grants to

the states indicate that areas of CB support will be covered by the 250 crore fund forCB (1 crore per district). The state of Chhattisgarh and the two districts visited were ofthe view that maintenance could not be funded by the development grant. As mentionedunder the Planning Section, the State provides some guidance to the DPCs on how thefunds should be guided at the PRI and ULB levels.

Conditions for Access to Funds

3 Page 15 of the BRGF Programme Guidelines

Chhattisgarh8


12/45


The conditions for access to funds are clearly stated in the BRGF guideline. Theconditions are generally complied by the districts. Bank accounts are opened in allPanchayats as per the guidelines. The GPs are authorized to issue UCs by the BRGFguideline but in practice it is the auditor who issues UC.

Use of funds

BRGF is an untied fund, which is appreciated by the stakeholders. The stakeholdersunderstand that the fund can be used for filling gaps of funding through availableschemes, and they are also aware of the negative list mentioned in the guideline. Theprograms implemented cover many sectors (refer table 2-4).

Table 2-4: the use of funds in different sectors in Chhattisgarh

Sector Expenditure (crore) No. of Projects % of total expenditure

Education 9.93 379 4.34

Health 27.66 665 12.08

Nutrition 54.98 5069 24.01

Infrastructure 76.09 8043 33.23

Energy 18.85 1765 8.23

Livelihood 12.72 7707 5.56

House 17.71 7180 7.73

Connectivity/Road 7.1 209 3.10

Civil empowerment 1.59 769 0.69

Others 2.34 160 1.02

228.97 31946

Source: PRD Chhattisgarh

It is noted that infrastructure had remained as the primary area in which the funds areused even within the different sectors. Table 2-5 gives a summary of the pattern in whichthe two districts have used the BRGF support.

Table 2-5: The use of BRGF by the two districts

Sector Dhamtari Bilaspur

Expenditure(crore)

No. of Projects

% of totalexpenditure

Expenditure(crore)

No. of Projects

% of totalexpenditure

Education 0.69 14 5.39 1.77 31 10.10

Health 3.68 57 28.77 3.75 61 21.40Nutrition 1.26 72 9.85 3.07 159 17.52

Infrastructure 4.39 152 34.32 6.31 313 36.02

Energy 1.79 44 14.00 0.84 10 4.79Livelihood 0 0 0.00 0.43 9 2.45House 0.78 313 6.10 0 0 0.00

Connectivity/Road 0.2 5 1.56 1.26 46 7.19Civilempowerment 0 0 0.00 0.09 2 0.51Others 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00

Total 12.79 657 17.52 631

Chhattisgarh9


13/45


The table clearly shows that the BRGF investments focus on infrastructure. Average sizeof projects in Dhamtari is IRs 195,000 in Dhamtari, and IRs 278,000 in Bilaspur. In theGPs visited however, the RM found a project as large as 517,000 in Kathauli GP ofDhamtari, while it was IRs 225,000 in Karra GP in Bilaspur.

Use of funds by Urban Local Bodies

The table 2-6 below provides the summary in which Municipal Corporation Bilaspur hadmade use of the BRGF funds in the two fiscal years.

Table 2-6: Use of funds by ULB Bilaspur

2007/08 2008/09

Purpose

No. of Projects

Amount(Lakh)

% oftotalamount

Aver.Size ofprojects No. of

ProjectsAmount(Lakh)

% oftotalamount

Aver.Size ofprojects

Community

Buildings

7 65 23.6 9.3 5 33 11.3 6.6

Schoolimprovement/ TrainingCenter 4 125 45.5 31.3 5 142 48.6 28.4

Street Light/urbanFacilities 1 25 9.1 25.0 7 117 40.1 16.7

Municipalinfrastructure

1 20 7.3 20.0 0 0 0.0

Health 2 40 14.5 20.0 0 0 0.0

Total15 275 100 18.3 17 292 100 17.2Source: Municipal Corporation data

The table shows that average size of projects in the municipal corporation area is aroundIRs 1.7 or 1.8 million. In both years the highest portion of the fund is spent on improvingschools and training centers within the city area.

Similarly, the figure on use of funds by Dhamtari Municipality is provided in the table 2-7below.

Table 2-7: Use of funds by ULB Dhamtari

2007/08 2008/09

Purpose

No. of Projects

Amount(Lakh)

% oftotalamount

Aver.Size ofprojects No. of

ProjectsAmount(Lakh)

% oftotalamount

Aver.Size ofprojects

CommunityBuildings/hall 4 24.00 16.7 6.0 15 33.75 20.0 2.3

Schoolimprovement/ Training

0 0 NA NA 1 15.40 9.1 15.4

Chhattisgarh10


14/45


Center

Street Light/urbanFacilities 1 2.50 1.7 2.5 26 10.14 6.0 0.4

Municipalinfrastructure(road,electricityetc) 24 80.00 55.6 3.3 8 83.99 49.8 10.5

Stadium/playground 1 28.00 19.4 28.0 1 15.00 8.9 15.0

Socialwelfare/IG 7 3.50 2.4 0.5 2 10.30 6.1 5.2

Health(leprosy) 1 6.00 4.2 6.0

Total 53 155.00 2.3 37 168.58 2.9Source: Municipality data

Absorpt ion capacit y and fund ut il izati on

The absorption capacity of the functionaries appears relatively high; reportedly thesituation of fund utilization is satisfactory. Once the funds are released the PRIs andULB utilize the funds within stipulated time. For the FY 2007/08 the funds were usedbetween the months of October and March. The case of 2008/09 has been different asthe fund itself was released in late March (the last month of the FY); therefore theutilization has not been done within the fiscal year.

2.5 Challenges in the Funding System

GPs in Chhatisgarh are taken as implementing agency of the Districts. They are notautonomous in this sense, therefore they do not get funding of their own. They do nothave authority to approve their plans themselves. They cannot contract out works to anyother operators they are themselves the agents of district Panchayat managing theproject implementation.

An activity mapping exercise that started some 4 years ago has not concluded. This hasresulted into a situation in which the fruits of devolution have reached up to the districtlevel at the most.

The predictability of fund is also limited to the district level. The GPs are not sure of their

resource envelope to plan their activities and programs. At present they are simply listingout the local needs - following participatory methods and submitting the local demandsafter prioritizing them in a wish-list modality for planning. The GPs can only hope theirdemands are approved by the higher level authorities, and have no authority to make ithappen themselves.

The internal resource of GPs is small and is consumed in regular GP expenses such asmeetings and allowances. Therefore the planning system remains largely transferbased. For example Kathaulia GP under Kurul JP in Dhamtari raises fund around

Chhattisgarh11


15/45


600,000 from users fees (drinking water) and rents as its own source of revenue. It hasnot mobilized its tax revenues.

Distribution of funds between the ULB and the PRIs is done taking population as thesole criteria. The study did not come across any backwardness criteria used to distributefunds. This has resulted into a situation where the remote, sparsely populated, areas

continue to get little funds from BRGF.

An important arrangement made in the BRGF guideline is provision of functionaries inGPs which will be funded from 5% of the total development grant. However, the RMfound that there was no clarity regarding how to make use of the provision. Thestakeholders were unaware as to who should manage the fund and recruitment process,and how. The State authorities were also hesitant to recruit personnel under BRGF as itmay create longer term liability on the PRIs and the government. Due to theseconsiderations the entire development grant was distributed among the PRIs and ULBsfor the purpose of implementing development programs.

Fund flow is delayed. Requirement to submit utilization certificate, after Chartered

Accountants audits, has been one of the major reason for delay in funds flow. In thiscontext the stakeholders were of the view that BRGF should trust its functionaries if

2.6 Recommendations on BRGF Funding System

The following recommendations are made with regard to BRGF funding system:Provide resource envelopes to the PRIs of all tiers. The GPs should know the resourceenvelope before planning. Similarly, since the IPs are also independent planning unitthey should also be provided with funds. As yet the IPs are considered to be only theimplementing arms of ZP or technical service provider and facilitator to GPs.

Define the vertical and horizontal distribution criteria among the PRIs. Introducebackwardness criteria for distribution of funds among PRIs. Proxy has to be identified forbackwardness index. BPL is considered not appropriate as it is old and has severalweaknesses. The number of SC/ST population is another agreed indicator ofbackwardness. The Healthy Village Index recently developed by Department of Healthand Family Welfare could also be considered, in which the State Health ResourceCenter, Chhattisgarh has started with 32 indicators of which 4 pertain to the MDGtargets (see annex for the list of the indicators).

Planning with hard budget constraint right from the GP level should be practiced. Atpresent the GPs identify projects without knowledge of the resource envelope. This hasresulted into GP plans merely into wish lists on the one hand, and on the otherdevelopment of planning fatigue mind-set among the Gram Sabha members. One wayto address this situation is to provide resource envelope to the GPs. BRGF fund inChhattisgarh is equivalent to IRs 171 per capita, which means a GP with an average ofaround 2000 population can receive 340,000 Rs as their BRGF envelope. However, thisamount gets reduced as the same kitty has to be shared by IPs and ZPs, yet the studyestimates that it is still attractive.

Chhattisgarh12


16/45


The Intermediate Panchayats (the Janapads) should be provided with resourceenvelope and let plan their programs. The state of Chhattisgarh has identified 12activities for the Janapads for which the Janapads should plan.

Improve fund flow: There is a need to improve the fund release system. The State has arole to play in this regard. A number of decision making layers can be cut, and direct

funding to ULBs and PRIs from the State can be introduced.

There is a need for the State to define as to what investments are allowedunder BRGF.This has been the source of discontent when the DPCs approved funding for policeposts in Naxal affected areas, the HPC disallowed. Similarly, the districts are not usingthe 5% amount of development grant in functionaries because of their inadequateunderstanding of the guideline. The BRGF guideline allows that a State can develop itsown guideline within the spirit of BRGF.

3. Planning

All districts in Chhattisgarh have constituted District Planning Committees, and it isevaluated that the BRGF support has been instrumental in this respect. The DPC inChhattisgarh is headed by Minister responsible for the district. As such the DPCs in theState have become more like statutory bodies rather than active and functional asenvisaged in the BRGF guideline. This has been the cause of delays in some districts,because it takes considerable time to get the meetings of the DPC. Furthermore, theplanning process is delayed due to various other reasons as well. The two districtsvisited have submitted their annual plans for 2009/10.

3.1 Planning procedures

At the GP level the planning exercise involves calling of GP assembly, where list of localneeds is prepared along with priorities accorded to each. The participation of women isfound to be limited in the GP assemblies, but the participation of women has been in anincreasing trend though at a slow pace. The GP assembly has to identify projectswithout the knowledge of resource envelope, or assurance that the proposed projectswould be approved. A Sarpanch noted that this exercise is therefore not rewarding tothem, and there is no enthusiasm among Gram Sabha people in the planning exercise.

There is no elaborated practice of preparing single and integrated plan for the GP it isprepared generally in a silo mode. At the GP level the integration of plan of several

other vertical programs is considered to take place automatically as the same people areinvolved in planning for BRGF and other programs; no formal integration exercise takesplace. However, the GP assemblies are called on for planning of individual schemes.

Vertical integration of plans between IP and GP is not a strong case as the IP planningexercise involves simply compilation of plans of GPs. Whereas in Dhamtari the reviewteam noted that some case of addition or deduction of plans of GPs take place at IPlevel, it is not so in Bilaspur district where if the IP officials found some plans to be

Chhattisgarh13


17/45


revised then they send such plans back to the GP to include in the proposed list ofprojects.

Planning at the IP level involves consolidating the GP plans and some deliberation onthe plans looking into the situation of the IP area. The IP is provided with responsibility toincorporate some plans of its own, but it has no budget of its own. Therefore the IP often

adds or cuts some of the projects the GPs have proposed.

At the district level, a meeting of line agency officials is organized to identify the projectsto be funded under BRGF. The planning exercise at the district level consists ofreviewing of plans or proposals from different agencies (line agencies, various schemes,districts own plan, and GPs proposals), assessing the resource envelope available in allthese sources, adjusting overlaps and vertical and horizontal integration. In this processthe gap finding is done and BRGF projects are decided upon.

The ULB planning process interestingly does not include holding of Ward Sabhas asprescribed in the planning manual. Normally the Ward members bring their plan to theULB where considering the resource envelope and medium-term city development plans

the Mayors Council approves the plans for BRGF, in the same way as is done with otherprograms.

The GPs receive support from TSI, but the TSI support has been largely reported asinadequate and inappropriate. Reportedly the TSI staff themselves are not experiencedpeople, who can guide the process or who can help resolve any problem that may arisein practice.

Procedure of preparing perspective plan

The districts have not prepared perspective plans. However, some discussion onsectoral targets have been set through a series of steps and activities such as

situation analysis, preparation of vision, and then preparing the five-year sectoraltargets. The stakeholders view the document as the perspective plan. The reviewmission found that such plans are by and large simple consolidation of five year plan ofthe PRIs/ULBs and the line agencies. However, efforts towards making the planningmore systematic can be seen. For example Dhamtari district has prepared a vision of thedistrict first (Box 1-1), and then worked on the annual action plan.

Box 3-1: VISION OF DISTRICT DHAMTARI

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

All mothers healthy

All children immunized and nourished hence reduce child mortality

All children in school to achieve universal primary education targets in a more

systematic manner. Employment for all & opportunities for Self-Employment/ trade/business for theenterprising

Houses for all

Roads

Drinking Water

Agriculture and irrigation

Ensure environmental sustainability

Chhattisgarh14


18/45


Source: District Plan of Dhamtari 2007/08

Similarly, the annual plan document prepared by Dhamtari district elaborates thesituation, funds flow in the district through different line agencies, and sets out sectoraltargets in a more systematic manner.

The district of Bilaspur has taken BRGF planning process as an opportunity to practiceself governance (plan to rule ourselves Box 3-2).

Box 3-2: Bilaspur: Plan to Rule OurselvesThe programme (BRGF) would be driven strictly by beneficiary demand. Priority wouldbe given for empowering Gram Sabha's and ULBs members and organising beneficiarygroups with responsibilities of planning, implementation, operation and maintenance,arrangements and cost sharing. The resource would be managed directly by thebeneficiaries.District Plan of Bilaspur 2007/08 (Chapter III)

3.2 Capacity of the Planning Unit

The GPs and IPs do not have separate planning units. The GP has only one Secretarywho is a junior staff. As mentioned earlier the IPs do not carry out planning exercise assuch they merely compile the requests coming from the GPs and forward the same tothe District Panchayat.

The districts are not expected to create a separate BRGF specific planning unit at thedistrict level in the BRGF manual. According to the manual the regular mechanism inwhich planning is done should take care of the planning of BRGF. District Panchayatshave an officer who provides support to the CEO for planning purpose. The function that

the unit currently engaged more is on data collection. Stakeholders feel that the unit hasinadequate competencies to carry out data analysis and synthesis and present themmeaningfully to support planning process. However, in one of the districts visited Bilaspur the RM noted a responsible APO (assistant project officer) was appointed forBRGF activities. The RM found that the appointment of the APO has facilitated betterorganized management of the activities of the program compared to the other district.

In general the stakeholders opined that the planning has been too fragmented and if aconsolidated plan at the district Panchayat level were to be prepared the existingnumber of staff and the capacity would not be adequate.

3.3 Assessment of the Procedures and Quality of the Plan

The districts in Chhattisgarh have not prepared perspective plans. Therefore the annualplans are basically the annual plan of actions for the PRIs. Each district at the endproduce annual plan with interventions grouped under different sectoral areas: namely

Chhattisgarh15


19/45

Box 3-3: According to the activity mapping donein 1999, the following are the functions devolvedto GPs and JPs:

Gram Panchayats: Drinking water, roads,bridges and culverts, maintenance of communityassets, fairs and festivals, health and cleanliness,public distribution system, and social welfare (8functions)Janapad Panchayats: Agriculture, socialforestry, animal husbandry, fisheries, publichealth, adult education, communication, cottageindustries, women and child development, socialwelfare, family welfare, and fairs and festivals (12functions)


Education, Health, Nutrition, Infrastructure, Energy, Livelihood, House,Connectivity/Road, Civil empowerment and Others. Efforts are made to come up with anappropriately balanced funding in all these areas; however there is no mechanism orguideline as to decide what an appropriate balance is. It is noted that it is difficult toassess the quality of plans, since no perspective plan is prepared. However looking atthe allocation patterns and the projects in approved in different areas one can notice that

the plans are heavily skewed towards infrastructure the RM noted that even in areassuch as nutrition and health the projects identified are buildings or similar constructionworks that are essentially infrastructure.

Among the ULBs Municipalities and Municipal corporations have their city developmentplans, which are considered to be their perspective plans. The ULBs visited mentionedthat the plans identified for BRGF funding come from the City Development Plan.

The State has not operationalized the devolution of functions to GPs and IntermediaryPanchayat (Box 3-3). Thisperpetuates wish-list approach toplanning exercises at the district

and sub-district levels.

Gram Sabha is active, as they sitas many as 4 times a year at theminimum, and more dependingupon the need of a particularprogram. However it is also notedthat the enthusiasm and energy ofGram Sabha has been eroding asit is used as a tool to establish thatthe programs are the result ofbottom-up planning process. As a

result the quorum (which is 10% ofthe voters including 1/3rd women)is difficult to meet in several GPs. Thus making the Gram Sabha as effective andinclusive is a huge challenge. A good step towards addressing the challenge is that theState has already given direction to the district Panchayats that there should be oneGram Sabha for planning in a year; it is yet to be put into practice.

Although at face it appears that participatory planning process has begun, but there arelapses. Only a few women the RM interacted had attended Gram Sabhas. Efforts madeto involve the SC/ST in Gram Sabha meetings are inadequate.

Use of IT tools in Planning has begun the Plan Plus and is used, and portals for GPs

are under construction. IP level resource centers are under construction, video-conferencing facility is operational. However, it is going to take time before the system isoperational and functional. There are several issues in this regard a) the GPs are notequipped with computers, facilities and skills; b) Planplus is used as a program to recordthe decisions rather than a tool for planning, and c) line agencies have not shown muchenthusiasm to put their information in the software. The state is taking several measuresto address these issues clusters of villages are being supported with a computerfacility, training programs are there to enhance skills, and ZP level people are helping

Chhattisgarh16


20/45


the GP people to input data and others. It is early to comment as how things will takeshape in future.

Plans of Line agencies and ULBs are included in the district plan, which is a goodpractice and in line with decentralized planning. However, it is not adequate. The RMinquired about the extent in which the alignment and convergence objective of the BRGF

are taken into account. The RM found that at the PRI levels the parallel system ofplanning and implementation exists Har Baat ke Alag Gram Sabha (Gram Sabha forevery schemes) was the response of the GP Presidents. From the IP level the RM notedthat and there are only a few investments that are combined with investments from otherschemes or coordinated with these schemes.

The IPs provide hand-holding support in planning to GPs, which is appreciated. Howeverthe RM noted that the support is provided to put on demands and sometimes inprioritizing the needs. Such supports are not geared towards decentralized planning,which is a challenge. The RM considers that there is need to develop the capacity of theIP officials as well in decentralized planning. The role of TSI in planning has been noteffective as envisaged which shows the seriousness of the situation.

The RM noted that the Data collection has started right from the GP level and there isalso facility to input and process data. However, the RM also found that the PRIs do nothave adequate competencies to analyze the data in a meaningful way to help planning.The RM noticed efforts to take plan for livelihoods programs in Bilaspur district where theBRGF fund is utilized for supporting activities of Lac Production. But since suchinitiatives have just begun it is early to come to a conclusion.

According to the stakeholders the key factors facilitating participatory and bottom-upplanning process include early knowledge of the resource envelopes, and technicalbackstopping and support from higher authorities and experts.

Concerning the quality of the investments made and the related maintenance Issues, theRM found that the investments made under BRGF were targeting long-standing unmetneeds of the community people. The Women Ward Members in Dhamtari Municipalityexpressed that they would have lost face if BRGF were not there to build the communitybuilding (like an aanganwadi). It is a success and their achievements to provide serviceto their community. The RM got an impression that the investments are generally needbased, cost efficient, and of a sufficient high quality. However, the RM also found thatthe Operation and maintenance issue of the schemes have not been deliberatelythought about.

3.4 Recommendations on how to improve planning

The recommendations of the review team with regard to improve planning are:

Adopt measures to improve the qual it y of plans

Develop annual plans linked with the perspective plan. The perspective plans arealso understood as perspective sectoral target, which should not be the case.

Prepare a holistic plan for the planning unit.

Chhattisgarh17


21/45


Stop practicing separate planning exercise by different schemes.

Practice planning on all sectors with infrastructure and human interventions.

Consider setting aside budget for operation and maintenance of assets createdin the villages.

Improve the process of planning

Introduce system of planning with a known fund envelope to each GP prior to thestart of the planning process.

Start of the Planning Process earlier for example in the month of July so thatit gets complete prior the FY.

Encourage women and BPL section of population to take active part. If neededbe hold separate women-only gram sabha or BPL only gram sabhas for example.

Encourage ULBs to hold ward sabhas, or mohalla committees.

Provide more capacity development support to PRIs/ULBs and functionaries.

Use profiles while planning

Enhance skills to analyze socio-economic data and make its use in planning

specially among the elected representatives. Update the profile on an annual basis.

Institutional improvements

Review the composition of DPC, which is currently chaired by the Minister.

Shorten the plan finalization time: review the number of approval layers letPRIs decide their plan within the fund envelope given to them, and the higherauthorities only take note of the PRI plans for the purpose of consolidation. Ex-ante relaxation in the approval process will demand strong ex-post monitoringand supervision.

Redefine role of the DPC from approval to guidance, consolidation, monitor andsupport in line with the Constitution, and that of HPC in policy making, norms and

standards setting, and rewarding good performers. Avoid changes in the priorities of the IPs, GPs and ULBs after approval of their

plans if problems are noticed, e.g. on the size of the submissions, there shouldbe a dialogue prior to approval.

Support creation of a strong planning cell and DPC secretariat at the district level(staff, equipment and facilities).

4. Capacity Development

4.1 Introduction

Capacity Building (CB) in the State of Chhattisgarh is seen as a broad range of supportinstruments to enhance the capacity of people and institutions. It is covering training,equipment, provision of infrastructure, provision of technical assistance, establishmentand maintaining of systems and procedures, such as accounting and auditing systems,development of baseline data bank/M&E systems and support to provision of adequatestaffing (functionaries).

Chhattisgarh18


22/45


Size of the Capacity Development Support

According to the guidelines of the BRGR, each district will be allocated 1 crore p.a. Inthis way the BRGF capacity development grant to Chhattisgarh is 13 cror per year.

The entitlement and release of the Capacity Development grants under BRGF, is

presented in table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1: CD entitlement and release in State of Chhattisgarh

BudgetamountRs. Crore

Sanctioned/approvedamountRs Crore

ReleasedamountRs Crore

Utilisedamount Rs.Crore


2006/07 9.100

2007/08 9.0396

2008/09 13.000 13.000 13.000Source: brgf.gov.in; 26 June 2009 and State report

The release of the annual capacity development grants in the two fiscal years 2007/08

and 2008/09 has been 9.1 crore and 13 crore respectively. Of the total of 22.10 Crorethe state has utilized an amount of 22.0396 Crore.

Al locat ion cr it er ia Verti cal and Horizontal

The CB funds are kept under coordination of the Nodal Institution SIRD, whichcoordinates the use of funds. Funds are not distributed across the PRIs/ULBs. Fundsare not earmarked for each districts of other tiers of government, but used according toan agreed and approved CB plan, hence there is no vertical and horizontal allocationformulas for CB support. It is based on the planned activities, which do not vary muchacross the various PRIs.

Conditions for Access

The CB of the State of Chhattisgarh has to be approved by the High PoweredCommittee and the MoPR at the central level.

4.2 Existing System of CD

State Level: At the state level, the SIRD is the only institution entrusted with all CDmandate. The funds under the BRGF for Capacity development are directly transferredto the SIRD based on a 5 year plan and an annual calendar. Referring to the report onthe trainings provided in the last three years with the Capacity Development componentof the BRGF, it is evident that over the years the number of elected representativesreceiving trainings has reduced (attached as Annex 1). It is also reflective of the fact thatSIRD does not have sufficient capacities to cater to the large numbers of electedrepresentatives for CD.

However, the SIRD has a strong leadership with a good vision for CD of the variousstakeholders involved in decentralized governance. The SIRD has developed an

Chhattisgarh19
http://brgf.gov.in/http://brgf.gov.in/


23/45

Box 4-1: CD Plan of Dhamtari District 2007-08

Components of capacity building trainingFoundation course for all elected representativesFunctional courses in main aspects of Panchayat functioningRefresher courses each year

Strengthening of training through interaction and handholding:Gram Sabha level campaigns,PR TV and Radio programmes,Panchayati Raj NewslettersFormation of networks of Panchayat membersExchange visits between PanchayatsSetting up Panchayat resource centres at the IntermediatePanchayat level,Setting up helplines

Source: Dhamtari district plan for BRGF


innovative strategy of working with partners and using new technologies such as multi-mode trainings through SAT COMs, GP libraries and Panchayat Resource centers.

CD plan

The SIRD in Chhattisgarh has prepared CD plan including training and non-training

measures. Excerpts of CD measures taken out from Dhamtari district amply shows thediverse measures adopted for capacity building (Box 4-1).

Tools

The CD planprepared by SIRDhas pointed out theneed for acombination of toolsto use for CD (Box4-2). These include

CD programs thatneed to beconducted on arecurring basis andthose non recurring.The table belowshows the identifiedinterventions forcapacitydevelopment.

Box 4-2: Different CD tools

Recurring Non-recurring- SATCOM: Studio at CGSIRD; SIT at 110Janpad Panchayat- Panchayat Resource Centre 110: Civilworks: 10 Lakh/centre; Receiving facility;Computers- Community Resource Centre (709): Civilworks: 1.5 lakh/centre, Computers

- Training of Elected Representatives of PRI &ULB: Orientation, sectoral, functional & refresherprograms- Study tours- Training of Officials: Sectoral, functional up-gradation & ICT- Study tours- Studies, Media campaign & Module preparation

Source: SIRD presentation

Target Groups

Target groups identified in the SIRD CD plan encompasses a wide range of audience asenvisaged in the guideline (table 4-2).

Table 4-2: Target Groups for CD intervention

Target Groups No

Elected Representatives 1,60,000

Chhattisgarh20


24/45

PRC Janpad Janpad Janpad Janpad Janpad

Welcome tomulti mode

Training

StudioCGSIRD

NIRD, IIM,IGNOU

Knowledge & Information network

Facilitators

Gram Panchayat: Swami Atmanand Library


PRI Officials 13,000

Self Help Groups 80000

Members of VMC 98200

ULB Elected Rep 3000

ULB Officials 700

Source: SIRD Presentation

However the inputs are limited and supply driven. Moreover, the method employed isprescriptive and directive. On meeting members and officials of the Municipalcorporation (Nagar Nigam) in Bilaspur and the Nagar Pallika in Dhamtari, it was notedthat they had not received even a single training so far under the CD.component of theBRGF. This is despite the fact that the CD plan mentions about foundation course aswell as refresher courses for PRI/ULB officials. This shows that even the availablecapacity development training in Chhattisgarh is in short-supply.

4.3 Achievements in CD plans

The achievements of CD training plan

The table 4-3 below provides an overview of the training conducted by SIRD underBRGF.

Table 4-3: Overview of SIRD training

Year Courses No of Participants

2006-07 136 4010

2007-08 457 18154

2008-09 807 37746

Source: SIRD Presentation

The achievement compared to the huge number of target groups is very small. Thereason for such a meager achievement is paucity of faculties at SIRD. A breakdown ofthe training by the type of participants is presented in Annex.

Non-training CD supports

The RM was appraised of non-trainingCD measures the State has taken up.

District and Sub-District level: there arehand holding supports, and reviews andworkshops at this level provided for CD ofPRIs. The IPs organize orientation

Chhattisgarh21


25/45


workshops, participates in the programs organized by district and SIRD. IP organizes 2meetings every month of GP Secretaries for monitoring purpose, which is also used asforum for capacity support to GPs. IP Kurud appointed local assistant to help GPprepare comprehensive plans. Moreover, the APO visits to GPs according to apredetermined calendar, in regards to different vertical programs, that provides backupsupport to the GPs capacity to plan and implement.

The State has taken a program of IT application in the PRIs in a phased manner. Theultimate target is to equip each GP with computer and networking facility and connectthem online. In the beginning the State is planning to group 10-15 GPs into a cluster andequip the cluster with the computer and network facilities. The SIRD has decided to setup Block level Resource Centres and Panchayat Resource Centres in a cluster of 10GPs. The Block level Resource Centres have SATCOM facility and a 2-way videoconferencing facility is available for extending technical guidance to all levels where 4experts will be sitting. This service has however yet to reach the GP level.

SIRD has also set up libraries at the GP level and stocked the library with new books inEnglish and Hindi. This requires a more creative thinking in the selection of books and

IEC material, given the fact that the literacy rate is reasonably low in the state.

Use of technical support institutions (TSI)

BRGF programme guideline allow states/ districts to elicit the support of Technicalsupport Institutions (TSIs) in order to extend technical expertise in the preparation ofdecentralized plans. However, it was found that the support of TSIs in the state ingeneral and in the districts covered in particular is inadequate. The team noted that thecapacity of the TSI itself was poor the main TSI NIRD (national institute of ruraldevelopment) has outsourced the tasks to local agency (Debate). The stakeholdersfound that the outsourced agency has employed junior local experts, who at the mosthave expertise in one sector. The TSI itself do not have multi-sectoral expertise that the

GPs need. At time of need the local bodies cannot access to CD support.

On meeting a TSI person, it was found that the TSIs in general have grudges againstthe state: timelines for the preparation are too short; expectations of the stategovernment are not in tune with the guidelines. The TSIs are not supposed to preparethe plans but merely provide handholding support to the local bodies in planning. Thestate government expects the TSIs to ensure that the plan is readied and submittedwithin the short timeframe. District authorities suggested that they should be empowerdto select a TSI from the list provided by the Centre or the agency identified by the Centrefor the state to be the officially designated TSI. Many a times national level agencieseither are not too eager to reach out to all the stakeholders and many a times they donot have enough staff to cover the entire district.

It has also been found that the budget for the TSI is inadequate to cover the entiredistrict. The government gives Rs 10 Lakhs to the TSI per district. For Dhamtari andBilaspur, the TSI identified was NIRD. They sub-contracted the work to DEBATE at halfthe rate. DEBATE felt the funds were inadequate to cover the district effectively. And ofthe total amount allocated to them, they have yet to receive the balance of 30%.

It was also found that often TSIs do not have the multi-sectoral experience as required inthe preparation of a district vision, profile and the plan.

Chhattisgarh22


26/45


In a meeting with DEBATE, it was noted that the agency had got 5 year perspectiveplans for each GP in the districts of Dhamtari and Bilaspur. Whereas in meetings withthe district, block or gram panchayats, it was found that the issue was not discussed.

4.3 Assessment and views on the CD support

Capacity development interventions provided by SIRD has not been sufficient. The firstCD input that the GP officials obtained was after two years they assumed their offices,and after that there is little input availed through training. Similarly the CD intervention inthe form of training to the GP secretaries has taken place as planned. However, theSIRD as well as the stakeholders admit that the training content and the way it isdelivered are not geared towards solving practical problems and issues that the GPsface. The GPs depend on the hand-holding support provided by the IP officials for theirdaily operations. Moreover it is not based on demand.

Officials of the block (intermediate Panchayat) were of the view that their inputs are notsolicited while developing the CD strategy or the CD module/ curriculum, whereas theyare the closest to the potential trainees and understand their needs best.

Although there is a good perception of the concept of CD in the state and to a greatextent at the district and block level too, the CD funds are not available to the levelsbelow state to plan and roll out their own CD plans. The preparation of the CD plan israther centralized at the state level. However, it was noticed that in a district the 5% ofdevelopment fund which was meant for the 4 persons to be hired to work at the GPshave been used for the purpose of building capacities of lower staff (GP functionaries). A5 - day training of GP secretaries and Rozgar sahayaks was in progress during the visitof the review team in Bilaspur and it got the opportunity to interact, both with the trainersand the trainees. This particular training was to improve the computer literacy amongthese GP level officials. It was felt at all the levels that the focus of the trainings wasmore on the officials than on the elected representatives. In addition to the computertraining, the trainer was also providing the trainees a hands-on training on the use ofPlan plus software using real data.

It was felt that the Panchayat functionaries need to be trained in other areas as well suchas accounts and record maintenance. A suggestion was made by the team to associatewith the Accountancy Training institutes existing at the divisional levels to train thefunctionaries. This would require action to be taken at the state level PrincipalSecretary (Panchayati Raj) will have to write to PS (Finance).

Although the guideline provides for either outsourcing or engaging people on contractualservices in different subject areas, the Panchayats at different levels are not sure onmatters such as who will place a request for these services and who will approve these.Hence, the limited staff at different levels is overburdened with work of several schemes.The Leadership at the state level in the SIRD is well motivated and has a good vision.But due to paucity of staff, the institute is unable to achieve its stated vision, mission andmandate. SIRD has only 2 faculties out of an approved 5. Among other posts 11 out of54 or 20% is lying vacant. The training centers are having severe shortage of faculty aswell as administrative staff.

Chhattisgarh23


27/45


An encouraging aspect of the CD plan and implementation in Chhattisgarh has been thatthe ULBs are considered in the plans and are included in the training programs. This isdespite the fact that mentioning of ULBs is missing in the BRGF guidelines as well.

The CD plan discusses about the inadequacy of the CD inputs and inappropriateness of

the methods employed. The training mode is acknowledged as have been largelyprescriptive and supply driven. The institutional capacity of SIRD itself is weak to cater tothe immense need for CD input to PRIs. Against this backdrop the SIRD has identifiedfour pronged strategy to address the situation a) Increasing reach and volume ofactivity, b) building capacity of Panchayat as an institution, c) develop rapid responsecapability and d) autonomy of the SIRD.

Capacity of people in general to be engaged meaningfully with the state agencies isconsidered to be an important facet of decentralized governance. The notion has beenexpressed by the CEOs during the videoconferencing session. They view that civilawareness was important to safeguard the process from excessive political interference,to adopt a balanced approach in local planning (not only plan for infrastructure but also

for livelihoods and citizen rights etc) and identify the actions required to addressbackwardness through multiple angles. The SIRD has also identified public awarenessand strengthening of SHG as their areas of support, but so far no concrete interventionappears to have been taken towards this end.

4.4 Impact of CD

Since it is only the third year for the BRGF scheme to be in existence, it is a little early tosee any overall development of capacities of the Panchayats. The number and quality oftrainings hasnt been adequate to show visible progress. However, the SIRD was itself ofthe view that the training programs have not been demand based, training contents aremore of prescriptive nature, not based on comprehensive training needs assessment,and coupled with the fact that the coverage itself was very low; an impressive impactcannot be expected.

4.5 Recommendations on how to strengthen the CD support

The following are the recommendations of the review team:

Capacity Development Training related

Carry out research and needs assessment before developing training programs

so that the trainers know the practical difficulties and provide appropriatesolutions to the trainees. Evaluation of the impact of training through measuressuch as Tracer Studies should also be conducted and the information used toimprove the training contents and methods.

Introduce descriptive mode of training from the present prescriptive which wouldmean carrying out comprehensive capacity development training needs,development of practical modules and so on.

Develop a mechanism in which the effectiveness of the supply side interventionsis improved and skill and competency demand of individual GP is also addressedChhattisgarh

24


28/45


Carry out research and needs assessment before developing training programsso that the trainers know the practical difficulties and provide appropriatesolutions to the trainees. Evaluation of the impact of training through measuressuch as Tracer Studies should also be conducted and the information used toimprove the training contents and methods.

Put efforts to find local trainers through enlisting skilled persons in roster and

conducing training of trainers.

The focus of CD training should be decentralized governance and not merelyconcentrate on the BRGF guidelines and systems.

TSI related

Let State authority or Zila authorities to employ appropriate TSI

Find expertise in local resources enable the appropriate PRIs to chooseappropriate skills and expertise in the line agencies, local service providers, andindividuals

Related to improve connectivity

Continue with the move for e-connectivity of GPs as planned Strengthen the resource center and cluster of GPs

Improve the CB content and use of multiple of tools

Promote the use of ToT, Peer Reviews, sharing of best practices, hotlines, longdistance VC connections, IT equipment, etc; and

Develop and disseminate self-learning materials

Others

Implement programs to develop the capacity of mass through dissemination ofpublic information

Elaborate good tools for monitoring of capacity and trends

5. Monitoring and Evaluation

5.1 Systems for M&E within the BRGF

There is a regular monitoring of the activities conducted under the BRGF, both within thedevelopment grants and on the use of the CB support. The PRIs have an elaboratedsystem of reporting where the GP reports to the IP level, which reports to the Districtlevel. There are monthly monitoring meetings conducted with follow-up on projects andexpenditures.

However, there is no system of impact assessment or other kinds of evaluation of theperformance of the PRIs and/or the support rendered through the CB components. Theuse of utilization certificates has the potential to be a powerful tool. The GPs considerthe regular audit as the part of M&E.

Chhattisgarh25


29/45


5.2 Assessment of M&E in Chhattisgarh

The monitoring of schemes under BRGF is primarily carried out by the IP level inChhattisgarh. However, recently monitoring at by the grassroots level has started withthe introduction of social auditing practice for all kinds of PRIs interventions in the state.

The state government, assessing the benefits of social auditing in the activities ofNREGS, has issued orders to the effect that similar exercise has to be followed for othertypes of schemes as well.

At the Gram Panchayat level Gram Sabha is organized to carry out social audit. Forsocial audit, the implementers of a project, the beneficiaries and the workers aregathered where the budget, estimates, and expenditure data are publicly announced.The Gram Sabha then scrutinizes whether the details provided match with the actual.The social audit has of late become a popular measure to uphold accountability andgood governance.

At the GP level there is provision of supervision committee nigarani samiti (vigilance

committee). However, the mandate of the supervision committee is to oversee theimplementation of NREGS. There is possibility of strengthening the supervision andmonitoring with increasing the scope of responsibility of supervision committee.

Monitoring takes place while releasing the installments of the schemes. As practiced incase of construction works, the technical section at the JP provides technical layout,inspects the works in terms of quality and quantity and the JP CEO inspects beforereleasing an installment. The fund is released in three installments 40% oncommissioning of an activity, 40% based on progress and the rest 20% upon completionof works.

At the IP level, monitoring begins with the staff from the IP technical section giving initiallayout for a scheme before the GP initiates the works. The IP also holds 2 meetings ofGP secretaries (and Sarpanch and Rojgar Assistant) every month on predetermineddates to monitor the activities and review progress. Moreover IP officials pay regularvisits to a cluster of 15/20 GPs every week as per a calendar of operations. Besides,meetings of Line Agency officials are also organized at the IP level to review progressand monitor activities.

At the district level, the monitoring of BRGF activities takes place in regular monthlyreview meetings that are organized by CEO with line agencies and IP officials.

The monitoring of BRGF investments at the ULB is done in the same manner as theurban bodies do monitoring of their regular activities.

The monitoring formats prescribed in the guideline are duly filled up, as they areconnected with the release of funds.

5.3 Challenges within M&E

The RM assessment is that monitoring system set up is appropriate. However, there arelapses in operations. It is found that the practice at the PRIs and ULBs are done

Chhattisgarh26


30/45


regularly and in the manner as envisaged. Particularly the weaknesses are noted in thefollowing:

The state has not provided clear guidelines on social audit by GramSabhas in rural areas and Area Sabhas or Ward Committees in urban areasas provided in the guideline (section 4.15 of the guideline). Some initiatives to

provide directives have been noted to the effect that social audit of BRGFexpenditures should be made but it is still to be enforced in practice.

Monitoring and evaluation of training and capacity development programshave yet not taken place.

Review committee at the district level has not been constituted orfunctional. Peer review of progress by Panchayats has not been put inpractice.

The HPC has not reviewed the monitoring system and its effectiveness.

The vigilance committee envisaged in the guideline is not functional at thegrassroots for BRGF investments.

Quality monitoring of works is weak. Similarly the monitoring of capacity

of local bodies (PRIs and ULBs) is not done.

These observations suggest that there is room improving in the monitoring andevaluation system. It is observed that while the system of monitoring of individualinvestments of BRGF is functional the lapses are in the area of monitoring andevaluation of the overall program management and drawing lessons to improve theperformance.

5.4 Recommendations on how to strengthen M&E

The following recommendations are made to strengthen M&E

Implement peer review system as envisaged in the guideline.

Monitor the CD programs and the effectiveness of capacity developmentinterventions.

Carry out quality monitoring of implemented schemes.

Activate and broaden the scope of Vigilance Committees formed at the GP level.

Use ICT tools to monitor physical as well as financial performance and progress.

6. Program Management

6.1 Organizational Arrangement and HR

Central level

The programme at the center is managed by a small core team under AdditionalSecretary who is supported by a Director, an Under Secretary and a Section Officer.Three assistants, three consultants and a couple of computer operators include the team

Chhattisgarh27


31/45


strength at the central level. The national informatics center (NIC) supports the coreteam with respect to development of software, creating and maintaining database.

State level

At the state level, the Deputy Commissioner is appointed as the nodal person to handle

the BRGF programme, who oversees the program along with other responsibilities. Ingeneral the program management capacity at the State level appears weak. Howeverthe State officials use the video-conferencing facility, and other IT measures to remain inclose contact with the district officers. Because of this and because of the goodfacilitative role played by the nodal person, and personal interest and initiative of thePrincipal Secretary the programme implementers at the district levels are well taken careof.

District level

At the district level the RM found two different modalities of programme management. InDhamtari district for example the management of BRGF is done through the regular

District Panchayat functionaries, while a full time APO (assistant programme officer) isappointed to look after the BRGF activities in Bilaspur district. The impression of the RMis that the activities of BRGF are better organized and focused in Bilaspur. The RMnoted a capacity development intervention being implemented (training of GPsecretaries and Rojgar Assistants on PlanPlus and IT), and initiative to support Lacproducers as local innovations.

Sub-district levels and ULBs

The management of the programme activities at the sub-district level PRIs and ULBs aredone through the regular functionaries. The GPs in Dhamtari and Bilaspur district are notmanaging the BRGF program as such they are at most handling the implementation of

the project funded under BRGF in their GP area (that too if the project cost is below IRs600,000 the execution of the projects of bigger scale than this are done through theline departments).

6.2 Guidelines and manuals

The guidelines and support from the Center were viewed by the stakeholders as veryuseful and facilitative. In this regards the central support is appreciated.

Overview of manual

MOPR has issued a program guideline which is by and large open ended and nonrestrictive to the autonomy of local bodies. The guideline sets out the objectives of theBRGF and a description of the funding windows and allocation criteria for thedevelopment as well as capacity development fund. The guideline leaves for the stateauthorities to develop appropriate funding formula to the urban local bodies and the PRIsboth vertically and horizontally.

Chhattisgarh28


32/45


The manual has then outlined how the planning process should function. It emphasizesthe need to make the planning process bottom-up participatory, and inclusive. Moreover,BRGF intends to institute an integrated planning system for a local body in which theplan of the local bodies reflect the plans of all PRIs, ULBs, line agencies, NGOs, andCBOs having BRGF funded plans as a part of the plan. BRGF has emphasized tostrengthen the process set out by the National Planning Commission the manual

instructs the local bodies to go by the regular planning process, and has avoidedcreating any structure to the program. However, it has suggested a High PoweredCommittee (at the state level) for approval of district plans, which is a structure to becreated for the implementation of the BRGF.

With regard to capacity development the guideline has given a comprehensive CDframework that encourages adopting a broader view of local capacity. Similarly theguideline has set out arrangement for the implementation management including thefinancial management and fund flow mechanisms at Panchayat and state levels.

Assessment of use of the manual

The authorities in the state and the districts have found the manual to be useful ingeneral. Leaving aside some difficulties implementers use the document as guide forplanning, resource allocation, monitoring, and fund management. However, the reviewmission noted some deviations from the guidelines have been noted in practice (Box 6-1).

The stakeholders at the state pointed out rooms for improvement in the guideline andcentral support. They are:

The guideline allows funding for both urban and rural local bodies, but when itcomes to the procedural matters does not mention about ULBs.

While an audit of CA or LG Fund Auditor is considered sufficient in the guideline,in practice both are required. Who should issue utilization certificate is not clearlymentioned in the guideline.

The MOPR decisions supersede the provisions in the guideline. While the BRGFfund is considered to be an untied fund, the state could not construct police postsin Naxal affected areas with BRGF fund due to such interventions.

The HPC (high powered committee) is created by BRGF against its own setnorms not to create additional structure. The HPC is an additional layer toapprove plans, which has contributed to delays in decision and thus funds flow.

Chhattisgarh29

Box 6-1: Deviations noted in practice are

Sub-district level PRIs are not provided with resource envelope before planning

CD fund is not allocated to individual PRIs

No backwardness considerations are applied while distributing projects under the BRGF

No monitoring functions done by HPC

Sub-district level Panchayats (GPs and IPs) are not taken as planning units


33/45


Stakeholders feel that despite the funds being an untied one, the centralgovernment has retained strings to approve or not to approve the fundingproposal

While as per the guideline the HPC approval has to be the final, in practice it isMOPR that makes the final approval of plans and decisions regarding fundrelease. Funds are not released on time fund for 08/09 projects are released to

the district on March 2009!

Similarly, the DPC in the districts are poorly functioning. In the first place DPCshave not been able to coordinate and integrate the plans of different agenciesinto a District Plan effectively. Even the perspective plans prepared are of poorquality. DPCs do not have a secretariat. It is necessary to develop the capacity ofDPCs.

7. Conclusions Findings and Recommendations

7.1 Summary of core finding

BRGF has been taken as more than just a grant to local bodies. It is a grant system thatpromotes local decisions, actions and governance thus it is viewed as an instrument topromote and strengthen local autonomy and decentralization. The grant is untied whichis an aspect that is most admired by stakeholders in the state, districts and sub-districtlevels. The Sarpanchas of GPs have high hopes from the grant system as they are in aposition to address the long unmet local needs and priorities. The state of Chhattisgarhis implementing the BRGF program in this spirit, although there are areas forimprovement. A short description as how the program is implemented in the State isgiven prior to pointing out the challenges and problems.

At the State level the program nodal person is the Deputy Commissioner, PRD, who actsas the nodal person. There is no separate team or office to manage the program. TheHigh Powered Committee (HPC) and District Planning Committee (DPC) are active but itis not effective in its role whereas in regards to aspects such as giving guidance,monitoring and supervision, targeting to backward and poor the HPC and DPC have notbeen active, it has often time given an impression of an authority that delays theprocess, and curtails or adds schemes at the time of approval of district plans. There isshortage of human resource at the state level.

At the district level the program is managed by the CEO District Panchayat. Among thetwo districts visited by the mission the CEO has assigned a dedicated Deputy ProjectOfficer in Bilaspur to look after BRGF programs, whereas in Dhamtari district the regular

functionaries manage the program. The RM observation is that although the programactivities are being implemented efficiently in both the districts it is more focused andcoordinated in the one where a dedicated officer is identified. The IP level is notconsidered to be a planning and implementing unit in Chhattisgarh. The IPs providetechnical assistance, supervision and monitoring support to GPs; the CEO IP are the keypersons to manage these functions. The GPs are considered as key implementers ofprogram, but have only one Secretary and depend completely on IP for technicalassistance. The lack of clear budget envelopes prior to the planning process is a majorissue to be addressed.

Chhattisgarh30


34/45


Funding

The States is entitled a total of 235 cror as BRGF development grant fund for the eligible13 districts (out of 16 districts in the State). The fund to the State comes to IRs 171 percapita. Although higher per capacity than many other states, it is however still

considered to be too little to bring about change and address backwardness. The fund isdivided between the rural and urban local bodies based on the population. While thefund for ULB is distributed horizontally among the ULBs on the basis of population, thefund with PRIs are not allocated to any of the sub-district level PRIs.

The fund flow has delayed due various reasons, including to elections as a result theState is lagging a year in terms of implementing their programs. Even in the year beforeelections the funds were released on October which is marginally sufficient forimplementations. The PRIs and ULBs are generally found to have good financialmanagement system including keeping book of accounts, auditing and reporting.

Planning

The bottom up planning process has started from the Gram Sabha level among PRIs.However, due to unavailability of entitlement figures for the GPs and APs the processhas lost its meaning the Gram Sabha has turned into a forum to prepa

chhattishgarh state report

Documents