A lot needs to be done for backward states like Odisha during the 12th Plan Poverty At Its Worst
Five year plans are important
instrument in the planning process of our country. Five Year Plans are
designed to be road maps for planners, implementers and regulators so
that they follow the planned path. Every five year, a new plan is
formulated which sets its own objectives, policies, programmes of
development and growth target. Like the eleventh plan, the approach to
12th five year plan also focuses on achieving rapid but inclusive
growth. It also added sustainable concerns.
The eleventh five year plan (2009-08
to 2011-12) had aimed at achieving faster and more inclusive growth.
Rapid GDP growth, targeted at 9.0 percent per annum, was regarded
necessary for two reasons: first to generate the income and employment
opportunities that were needed for improving living standards for the
bulk of the population; and second, to generate the resources needed for
financing social sector programmes, aimed at reducing poverty and
enabling inclusiveness.
Both Budget and plan reflects
Government’s priorities and in this process public participation is very
much essential. But it has been found during the last few decades that
public participation is a week area. At the end of every plan period we
often hear that the plan couldn’t ensure public participation properly.
Similarly, bypassing plan outlay sometimes populist measurers or new
schemes are being announced by successive governments that actually led
to unbalanced development.
However, there is a need to see
whether the primary but essentials tools like Development Approach,
Rural Development, and Sustainable Natural Resources Management with
emphasis on Forest, Land and Water. Governance & Equity share with
special reference on regional imbalance and social inequality besides
Gender and Social Exclusion are there or not. But, it has become a
customary practice since the inception of first five year plan from
1951-1956 that laid stress on only in Growth trajectory which is either
static, stagnant or staggering from 4.3 per cent in first five year plan
to a maximum 8.2 per cent in eleventh plan period.
According to the sources in Union
Government; in preparing the Approach paper, the Planning Commission
consulted much more widely than even before recognizing the fact that
Citizens are now better informed and also keen to engage. Over 950 civil
society organizations across the country have provided inputs; business
associations, including those representing small enterprises have been
consulted; modern electronic and social media are being used to enable
citizens to give suggestions. All state governments as well as local
representative institutions and Unions, have been consulted through five
regional consultations. While contesting these arguments a grassroots
activist working with farming communities said “all these lack inputs
from field and remote areas for which the plan is targeted”.
Other important feature of the
growth experienced in the eleventh plan, which is relevant to
inclusiveness, is that high rates of economic growth have been more
broadly shared than ever before across the states. While most states
have shown sustained high rates of growth, several of the economic
weaker States have demonstrated an improvement in their growth rates.
Amongst them are Bihar, Odisha, Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Madhya
Pradesh, Uttarakhand and to some extent Uttar Pradesh. According to the
available data no State has averaged GSDP growth of less than 6.0 per
cent during the eleventh plan period.
While the economically- weaker states are catching up in growth rates,
there is a growing concern about the backwardness of individual
districts, several of which are located in states that are otherwise
doing well. Many of these districts are also affected by Left Wing
Extremism. The Backward Regions Grant Fund (BGRF) and various other
regional initiatives have been specially designed to address this
problem.
Reducing poverty is a key element in
the inclusive growth strategy and there is some progress in this
regard. According to previous official poverty estimates, the percentage
of the population living below the poverty line had declined by 8.5
percentage points between 1993-04 and 2004-05. Since the appropriateness
of the poverty line was questioned in some quarters, the Government
appointed an expert committee under the Chairmanship of the late Prof.
Suresh Tendulkar. The Tendulkar Committee recommended a recalibration of
rural poverty line to make it more comparable with the urban poverty
line, which it found to be appropriate. The application of Tendulkar
Committee poverty line provides a higher estimate of rural poverty and
therefore also of total poverty, but if the new method is applied to the
earlier years, as it should be, it shows that the percentage of the
population in poverty declined from 45 percent in 1993-94 to 37 per cent
in 2004-05. Thus, poverty declined at roughly 0.8 percentage points per
year during the 11 year period before the Eleventh Plan.
The Eleventh Plan had set a more
ambitious target of achieving a decline in poverty ratio of 2 percentage
points per year. While the actual performance in this regard was below
this target, it was better than it was in the earlier decade. But many
in civil society and integenstia do not agree with this statistical
jugglery.
The Eleventh Plan gave special
impetus to several programmes aimed at building rural and urban
infrastructure and providing basic services with the objective of
increasing inclusiveness and reducing poverty. The Schemes like MGNREGA,
Indira Awas Yojana (IAY), National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP),
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), NRHM, ICDS, Mid Day Meal
(MDM), Sarva Sikhya Abhiyan (SSA), JNNURM, AIBP, Rajiv Gandhi Grameen
Vidyuti Karan Yojana (RGGVY), NRDWP and Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC)
and Rastriya Krushi Vikash Yojana. And there are approximately 267
centrally sponsored schemes of the them at least 150 are large
programmes.
Most of these programmes are
Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS), which are implemented by State
Government Agencies, but are largely funded by the Central Government
with a defined state government share. The total expenditure on these
schemes by the central government in 2011-12 (Budget Estimate) is
RS.188, 573 crore, and the total expenditure during the Eleventh Plan is
almost 700,000 crore. As one would expect the effectiveness of their
implementation varies from State to State. Instances of misuse of funds
are frequently reported in studies and press reports, and these are a
legitimate source of concern that needs attention.
However, it must be kept in mind
that while instances of misuse or leakage present serious problems, they
do not necessary imply that the overall impact of the programme is not
positive, argues the plan panel report. It stated MGNREGA which was
started in 2006-07 and extended to the whole country during the Eleventh
Plan period has seen several instances of misuse of fund, but it has
also notched up a remarkable success. It must be admitted, however, that
there has been a proliferation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes over a
period of years. This has led to poor implementation, duplication, lack
of convergence and sub-optional results. There is an urgent need to
transform the system and sharply reduce the number of schemes. This will
enable more focused and effective implementation, the report stressed. A
Committee under Mr BK Chaturvedi, Member Planning Commission, has been
appointed to review the entire gamut of Centrally Sponsored Schemes and
make recommendations for rationalisation and consolidation leading to
significant reduction in their number.
Odisha
Since long Odisha Government has been
alleging that Central Government is neglecting the state and showing
step motherly attitude. Due to non availability of Fund many programmes
and Schemes has not seen the light of day said a source in state
government. But in other hand Union Government has rejected state
governments claim in saying, there has been no dearth of fund rather
Odisha Government has failed to utilize funds meant for Centrally
Sponsored Schemes or has diverted funds to convert these schemes as
State Government Schemes. Between these allegations and counter
allegations, the funds and welfare programmes meant for targeted
communities have been the causality.
The issue has been raised by Odisha
Chief Minister Shri Naveen Patnaik on the 56th meeting of the National
Development Council held on 22nd October 2011. Mr Patnaik in his
intervention had said the approach of the Plan should be to reduce
regional disparity. It is pity that States like Odisha which are rich in
mineral resources have not been able to reap the benefits of rapid
Industrialization due to certain lopsided policies of Government of
India. Royalty from mineral resources which could have funded a higher
plan size and trigger development has been kept persistently low in
spite of several requests made by Odisha in the past. Due to sustained
effort by mineral-based States, the Royalty rates have been shifted to
an ad valorem regime but the impact of this change has been dented by an
artificially low price of minerals as determined by the IBM. The matter
has been taken up with Government of India on a number of occasions but
the results have not been encouraging.
He further added, the draft approach
paper has also focused on historically disadvantaged regions including
the Koraput-Bolangir-Kalahandi (KBK) Region of Odisha, which continue to
lag behind in terms of most development indicators. It argues for
pro-actively addressing these concerns and find solutions to the
problems of the region. Correction of Inter-state imbalances has been
receiving special attention in the plan strategy of Odisha. Heavy
incidence and persistence of poverty in the KBK region of odisha has
been a cause of serious concern. Though the region has benefitted from
implementation of Revised Long Term Action Plan (RLTAP), it still lags
behind other regions of the state. In order to bring this region on a
par with the other areas, the State, strongly urge Government of India
to extend the Special Plan for the KBK region for at least ten years
beyond the year 2011-12 with increased funding, in order to expedite
development of the region as Odisha has developed an Eight Year
Perspective Plan for a projected outlay of Rs. 4,550 crore in
consultation with the Planning Commission.
According to a Policy Brief for 12th
Plan Period compiled by Bhubaneswar based Regional Centre for
Development Cooperation (RCDC) in collaboration with other
organizations, said excessive growth focus on sectors like mining and
quarrying contradicts the plan objective of sustainable and inclusive
growth. The report further added, Odisha, being in the midst of a rapid
transformation stage, needs to have its priorities and focus clear.
India’s 12th Plan period approach paper cities Odisha’s fastest rate of
economic growth-when compared to some other major states-as an indicator
of ‘inclusiveness’. However, there have been a lot of concerns and
apprehensions about widening disparities in development share and
shouldering burden of destructions. On many socio-economic-environment
parameters Odisha is falling farther behind. Odisha needs to revive its
primary sector, i.e. agriculture. Apprehensions are that the present
approach to development gives s suicidal over-emphasis on Industry
sector and glosses over.
http://udayindia.in/2012/07/21/a-lot-needs-to-be-done-for-backward-states-like-odisha-during-the-12th-plan-poverty-at-its-worst/
By Sudarshan Chhotoray From Bhubaneswar
No comments:
Post a Comment