Integration of Planning and Budgeting in Odisha

A Study by Centre for World Solidarity (CWS) and Centre for Youth and Social Development (CYSD), Bhubaneswar

Objectives of the study• To study the existing processes of formulation of annual plans

and their upward integration across the three tiers of Panchayat as also in the State Plan vis-a-vis the norms suggested by the Planning Commission and the 73rd Amendment and the GP Act ;

• To examine the actual magnitude of fund flow – how much exactly reaches the Panchayats to enable them to deliver the 29 earmarked functions;

• To examine the adequacy of functionaries available for providing facilitative support in developing plans for each of the 29 subjects;

• To identify bottlenecks and implementation gaps and suggest advocacy issues and suggest way-outs to improve the status of devolution of power to three tiers and ensure actual decentralised planning.

DISTRICT

BLOCK

GP

TWO SCHEDULE DISTRICTS OF ODISHA

SUNDARGARH KORAPUT

HEMGIR LAMTAPUT

KUCHEDEGA

KENDUDIHI

KUMARGANDHANA

TIKARPADA

STUDY AREA

Sampling techniques• Participatory and consultative• Primary Evidence based • Qualitative and quantitative • Case studies • Focussed Group Discussions

DATA SOURCES

The documents that were collected from the Panchayats were Annual Financial Statements (AFS) of 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012 – 13 depending on their availability, Annual plans, resolution documents of panchayat annual plan meeting, other meetings, perspective plans and panchayat resolutions of latest years available and the latest budget documents are collected for detailed analysis

Sample coverageCoverage No

sCoverage Nos

Household survey

356

Ex Zila president 2

Ward member 46 PD DRDA 2

Ex ward member 46 DPO 2

Sarpanch 4 DPC 2

Ex-Sarpanch 4 Collectors 2

Block Chairman 2 Technical Support Institutions

2

Ex-Block Chairman

2 DPMU 1

GPO 2 Director (Planning, Panchayat raj, Finance)

3

BDO 2 Special Secretary (Planning, panchayat raj, finance)

3

ABDO 2 TOTAL 492

GENERAL FINDINGS

Awareness about the provisions of 73rd Amendment Act

• 96.5% of the total household representatives are not aware of the provisions of 73rd Amendment Act

• 93.9% of the total GP level representatives were not aware of the provisions of 73rd Amendment Act

• Majorities 66.67% of the block and district level representatives are unaware regarding the provisions of the 73rd Amendment Act

• Out of 33.33% respondents of the total block and district level

representatives who were able to express their awareness on the provisions of 73rd Amendment Act

Awareness on provisions of PESA• 99% of the Household respondents do not know about the provisions of PESA

Act.• 70% of the total block and district level representative’s respondents are not

aware about the provisions in the PESA Act.

100 percent reservation for post of sarpanch,chairman for adivasis in tribal area

Prevention of tribal land alienation/ acquisition by non tribals, prior approval etc required

33 percent reservation of posts in PRIs for women as provision under PESA

Sarpanch/ Chairman is male then Naib-sarpanch/ Vice- Chairman have to be female as a provision under PESA

NTFP ownership, promotion & marketing facility as a provision under PESA

protection of indigenous tribal culture (customs and tradition as a provision under PESA

61.11

55.55

44.44

38.9

33.33

22.22

Perception about PESA

Whether Households attend Palli Sabha Meetings

• A majority 71% of the HH respondents attended Palli Sabha

• 29 % of the respondents could not attended Palli Sabha meetings because they

were either not aware or were not informed.

• 33% of the HH respondents came to know about Palli Sabha meeting from the

public by word of mouth compared to 18% of the respondents who receive

information from the panchayat offices where the notice is put on the office wall. • 91% of the HH respondents know about Palli Sabha within 7 days before the PS

meeting.

42% of the HH respondents who have participated in Palli Sabha meetings said

that the Gram Panchayat mostly accepted their views

22% said they were accepted or rejected on merit.

On the other hand, nearly 31% of such respondents were of the view that the GP

either rejected their proposal or was unresponsive and showed mere sympathy

without taking any action.

Issues discussed in Palli Sabha

• While a majority 68% of the HH respondents opined that most of the

discussion in PS revolved around activities of different line departments.

• Only 30% said that discussion on crucial issues of health and education

were held in PS.

• There is hardly any discussion on revenue generation and infrastructure

development.

A majority 58% of the respondents believed that discriminatory practices

were being followed in beneficiary selection process whereas 42 %

remained inconclusive.

77% of such respondents felt that most of the times benefits went to rich

people and relatives of Sarpanch and Ward member or to those who bribed

the Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary.

Is the beneficiary list of the Palli Sabha changed in gram Sabha?

• One-third of the house-hold respondents felt that beneficiaries recommended by Palli Sabha got changed in gram Sabha.

• Another one-third house-hold respondents said that it was not changed• And the rest one-third house-hold respondents expressed their ignorance.• 30% of the house-hold respondents felt that PS list were not at all presented

in the gram Sabha.• 22% of the house-hold respondents believed that lists were changed due to

pressure from govt. officials.• 47.78% of the GP level representative respondents felt that the decisions of the

gram Sabha, Palli Sabha changed at higher tiers• 76%of the GP level representative respondents felt that it was changed by the

block level officials• Collector supersedes the decisions made by the GP / PS was felt by 20.37% of

the GP level representative respondents• 18.52% of the GP level representative respondents think it is because PS and

ZP impose their own mandate in planning

Issues on Power delegation to PRIs, Coordination etc• 71.7% of the block/district level respondents feel that the powers

delegated are sufficient for the successful functioning of GPs.• 60%of the block/district level respondents think that co-ordination

between the ZP/PS and GPs is not all right. Reasons are-Party feelings, Overlapping of functions, ZP does not function as apex body, PRI members lack of knowledge on their role and responsibilities.

• According to 78.3% respondents there is no co-ordination between executives and elected representatives. Due to non-cooperation of executives, Devolution of power is not followed by Admn., Executives ignore the PRI’s recommendations, party feelings

• Problems faced in the meeting session by block/district level representatives

• ZP President/PS Chairman Acts as a nominal head -48.84% respondents.

• Line dept. authorities monopolize the meeting session according to 23.26%respondents

• Govt. officials handle the meeting session in their own way according to 20.83% respondents

• Line department staffs do not attend meeting instead send extension officers this creates problems according to 18.75% respondents

Functioning of DPC

• 63.33% respondents have knowledge of the formation of DPC at district

• DPC is only partially functional-73.81% respondents

• DPC functions more like an information base for the government -44.83% respondent .

• 89.66% respondents said meetings are called irregularly.

• 51.72% PRI respondents said even a ZP member does not receive notice for meetings.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS

Ward panchayat - Planning

• There is no resolution/record made at the ward panchayat level

• Planning is largely done in a informal list of beneficiaries to be provided to the panchayat

• Information about panchayat meeting mainly given on word of mouth, very few cases of VLW getting resolution book signed for notice etc.

• Provision of sitting fee in ward panchayat meeting, capacity of ward panchayat and line department’s presence makes it almost impossible for any kind of planning at ward level.

Ward panchayat – Budgeting

• In the absence of any formal planning process at the ward panchayat there is no budgeting which can then be analysed for any kind of integration etc.

• There is no financial flow to ward panchayat for any kind of schemes etc, it is just the monitoring role that is played by the ward panchayat members for implementation of schemes like IAY, Mo Kudia etc.

• Further capacity for financial management and flow of resources is not mandated to ward panchayat in existing provisions of PESA Act.

Gram Sabha – Planning• Decentralised planning is facilitated by TSIs at panchayat level and

specified format is used for recording the wish list. TSIs organize meeting at panchayat level with sarpanch,ward members, and people but resolutions/formats were not found. For Kumargandhana panchayat at Lamataput there is one resolution facilitated and written by TSIs for five year perspective plan during 2009-10 and the same has been signed by the people after duly reading it out in meeting.

• Annual planning meeting resolution is formally not recorded in the panchayat resolution book.

• Aggregation of wish list from panchayat is again the responsibility of TSIs.

• Line departments plan which is mainly based on schemes and existing criterions are also aggregated and presented at the block level for further approval and escalation

• It is not mandatory for line departments to be a part of annual planning meeting at panchayat level

• Panchayat plan is not necessarily required for the fund to be made available to panchayat

Gram Sabha – Budgeting

• Capacity of panchayat for managing finance is a major area of concern.

• Resource envelope for panchayat is not known to any of the Local Self Governance Institution s members.

• There is a fixed criteria for budgeting, for activities which are undertaken previously and some increase in amount .

• Documents to such budgeting is also not available at panchayat level

• Devolution of more resources should certainly be backed by functionaries for finance to be available at panchayat level

Block Panchayat - Planning• Collation of wish list and planning of line departments

remains the responsibility of the TSIs, which is responsible for getting it approved and presented in the zilla parishad for timely completion of decentralised planning exercise;

• Line departments and all the sarpanch remain the part of the block annual planning meeting

• The collated plan is approved and escalated to the zilla parishad in a time bound manner.

• Line department plan also goes to DRDA and nodal officer at district level separately.

• No exclusion only inclusion from line departments and block level representatives

Block Panchayat - Budgeting• Budgeting at block panchayat is done based on

feedback and technical persons from the line departments, all the wish list also gets a budget as this is the mandate and facilitated by TSIs.

• Resource envelope at the block panchayat level is also not known to the stakeholders.

• Schematic, thematic and criteria based budgeting is included for finalisation of annual plan at Panchayat Samiti level and further escalation.

• Block level representatives and executive officers are responsible for escalating the plan and budget but it is facilitated by TSIs.

District Panchayat – Planning • Collation and presentation for meeting at district

level is mainly done by TSIs in coordination with the DPC.

• No major exclusion only inclusion of projects which are mainly prioritized by MP representatives, MLA representatives and District specific plans;

• Budgeting is done based on what has been given for such projects last year and the comprehensive plan is approved by ZP/DM and moves to state in a time bound manner.

• All the line department plans are collated hence in all probability there is no exclusion at district level

District Panchayat – Budgeting

• District plans are not a basis for budgeting at the state level by finance department

• Budgeting is done based on the schemes and plan available and utilisation for previous year as per the criteria which is fixed during the formulation of plan.

• MGNREGA is the flagship programme which is planned and implemented as per the planning done at the panchayat level .

• Scheme wise budget are prepared and sanctioned from state which then gets implemented through line departments

Planning and budgeting integration

• Finance department is not mandated to budget as per the plans submitted from panchayats.

• Scheme wise and resource availability is the major criteria for budgeting;

• Every scheme and plan has their fixed criteria for selection of beneficiaries and amount to be sanctioned and according to same budgeting and sanction of activities takes place;

Recommendations

• All the line departments to be a part of panchayat level gram Sabha meetings and they should present panchayat specific plans and get it recommended in meeting with due entry into panchayat resolution books, before submission to block and DRDA;

• A consolidated annual plan covering Central/State schemes and GP programmes should be prepared and approved by elected body so also annual accounts prepared and discussed in general body meeting;

• Annual Accounts should be prepared by the PRIs regularly and timely in prescribed format;

• Data base on finances are maintained in all levels of PRIs and made accessible to users;

• Continuous monitoring and evaluation of performance of the PRIs should be made through specific and regular returns and reports;

•

Recommendations

• Administrative restructuring of the departments of the Government should be made to devolve functions, functionaries and institutions to bring them under control of PRIs to ensure and evolve their autonomy;

• Further devolution of 8 more subjects with the inter departmental coordination mechanism to be ensured by the government;

• DPC should be strengthened to replace TSIs and departmental secretaries to provide attention to the plan generated from ground by including these plans into schemes and providing budget accordingly as intended in Constitution and the Act enacted there for separately;

• Share of state revenue and grant in aid to local bodies and transfer of funds should match the responsibility & functions devolved upon PRIs;

Recommendations

• Monitoring and evaluation of performance of PRIs by DPCs need to be strengthened;

• System of preparation of budgets and maintenance of accounts in prescribed formats along with indicated amount per unit need to be supplied and followed.

THANKS