Indira Kranthi Patham

S.P.M.U Action Plans for 2005 – 06

Community Investment Fund & Livelihoods

 

A. Community Investment Fund (CIF)

 

1. Objective

 

The Objective of the CIF is to improve and diversify sources of livelihoods and quality of life of the “poorest of the poor” and the poor by increasing their incomes and employment, decreasing expenditure and decreasing risks through the subprojects/micro plans of their groups/institutions.

 

The CIF component is designed to transfer financial and technical resources to CBOs to support subprojects in the following main areas:

 

(a)    Income Generation and livelihood improvement  (b) Social Development (c) Productive Infrastructure (d) Land Purchase & Development (e) Disability Pilot (f) PRI Pilot

 

2. Learning and Progress

 

Project has noticed that the subprojects to address the Poorest of the Poor (PoP) are not being evolved in adequate number through Livelihood Enhancement Action Plan (LEAP) and therefore resorted to sectoral approach to address the PoP. Further, the value chains for these sectors are developed. Skill up gradation of construction workers and leather artisans, who are PoP in the community, has been taken up. Livelihood Associates (Las) have been identified and trained to focus on sectors like marketing, construction, dairy/small livestock, fishery and job employment.

 

An approach paper for training paraprofessionals through an institutional arrangement has been prepared. A detail analysis of the performance of dairy subprojects has been undertaken and improvement measures have been suggested to the districts. Further, revival strategy for all loss making Bulk Milk cooling units has been developed and measures have been taken.

 

Project has instructed the districts to ensure that the SPIAs charge the same rate of interest the banks charge while lending to SHGs. Project doesn’t believe in using CIF for high-risk activities; rather the funds are used for supporting the existing livelihoods. Nevertheless, certain portion of fund is earmarked for innovative activities like commodities marketing and food security.

 

The districts have been allocated with CIF for the entire project period, separately for Income Generation, Social Development and Productive Physical Infrastructure.   The CIF accessed by the communities since inception till March 2005 is furnished below (Rs in lakhs)

 

Component

DPIP

RPRP

Total

Income generating activities

19811

16278

36089

Collective marketing

934

1031

1965

Food security

1761

1535

3297

Social development

1738

1779

3518

Infrastructure

609

470

1079

Total (in lakh Rs)

24853

21095

45951

 

Major IG activities include dairy, sheep rearing, petty business, small manufacturing, agricultural input supply and land/horticulture development. Around 50% of the CIF has gone for agri-allied activities including milch animals and sheep/goat rearing. Around 25% has gone for non-farm activities and 15% for direct agricultural activities.

 

The focus on recovering and recycling of CIF has yielded good results. In DPIP, there has been substantial improvement in the recovery. Recovery percentage is likely to touch 60% (around 45% in the last year). In RPRP, sample checking at various locations indicate that recovery rate is over 90%

 

CIF has played a remarkable role in various aspects of improving the livelihoods of the poor. Perhaps, without CIF the interventions like Commodities marketing by communities – redgram in Mahabubnagar and Rangareddi, Soya bean procurement in Adilabad, NTFP collection in many parts of the state, effective implementation of land purchase and development, Food security interventions in several districts and Lac cultivation in Adilabad and Nizamabad would not have been possible.  It has acted like a catalyst in several cases, for example, quick restoration of livelihoods of the Tsunami affected fishermen and Non pesticide management scale up in several districts. 

 

Also, it is an important source for CBOs (SHG/VO/MS) in Capital formation as well as in accessing easy credit for the livelihood improvement of the PoP. Our learning in DPIP districts shows that capacity building of the community on their livelihood activities and support services is very much necessary for enhancing the productivity and thereby their income from income generation Activities.

 

3. Strategy & Action plan for the FY 2005-06

 

3.1 Implementation of New CIF Process:

 

In the beginning of the project CIF was provided to the subprojects of CIGs, specially formed for this purpose. When VOs started emerging, CIF was provided to CIGs through VO, wherein VOs were recognized as Sub-project Implementing Agencies (SPIAs). However, project has witnessed limited success when CIF was provided to CIGs in terms of recovery, asset management, Institution Building (IB) and bank linkage. Then project realized that it was better to provide CIF for subprojects of Self Help Groups (SHGs), and Village Organisation (VO) as the SPIA. This has yielded good results. Since last year, wherein CIF has been provided to the micro plans prepared by SHGs, project has been witnessing excellent results in terms of recovery of CIF, bank linkage, asset management and IB. Further, the experience of UNDP-SAPAP mandals which have been following micro credit plan route proved that CIF also helps in strengthening the institutions of the poor (SHG, VO and MS) by building their corpus, managerial capability and loan management skills.

 

SHG is the grassroots organization providing financial services to the poor. Apart from providing credit to its members from the members’ savings and internal accruals, it also access bank finance for this purpose. Another important source of funds for SHG is the CIF. In some cases VOs are directly accessing bank credit and on lending to SHGs. This would be the emerging trend in the near future. Possibility of MS accessing bank funds for on lending to VOs and SHGs cannot be ruled out. Bank funds get away from the system in the form of loan repayments. CIF is the one, which would remain for fairly longer duration at every level. Currently SHGs repay it to VO and borrow again in case of need. This difference in bank credit and CIF to these CBOs is the convincing reason for recommending CIF as a capitalizing instrument for these CBOs.

 

Now, it is realized that CIF acts as a catalyst in capital formation at all levels including SHG, VO and MS and offers great leverage for raising bank funds. CIF is also acting as a catalyst in promoting institutions by facilitating members in fund and loan management, book-keeping and regular follow up and recovery. Good institution itself promotes better utilisation of CIF. The goal of the programme is to eradicate poverty. It is recognized that rapid eradication of poverty is possible through the strong institutions of the poor.  When strong MSs are emerging there is a need to re-look at the CIF sub-project process, which appears to be redundant and hardly adds value to the system at present. In the interest of creating self managed institutions, MSs should be allowed to manage their entitled funds.  

 

 

SAPAP MSs have been successful in achieving sustainability through their judicious mix of IB process with the management of various funds available including seed capital from UNDP and CIF of the project. The micro planning process adopted by these mandals has also resulted in the corpus building at various stages including SHG, VO and Mandal Samakhya (MS). After thorough discussion on the effectiveness of this approach with various stakeholders of the project including communities, project staff and the World Bank, it has been agreed to follow a comprehensive micro planning model across the state with MS as the SPIA for most of the CIF activities. The micro planning model envisages upfront release of certain portion of mandal CIF entitlement to MS based on certain conditions. Therefore, a few policies related to the delivery of CIF have been recast in tune with the micro-planning model.  There is a revision in accounting for beneficiary contribution and bank-linkage in utilisation certificates, procedure of fiduciary assurances etc.

 

Key features of the micro planning process

 

·        Mandal Samakhya (MS)[1], as the SPIA, will support Village Organisations (VOs)[2] for implementing their micro plans and assume the responsibility of appraisal, sanction, and disbursement, follow up, monitoring, recycling of recovered CIF, procurement etc.

·          MS itself can implement certain activities on its own which have influence on more than one village (for example food security and marketing interventions taken up, social development activities and Physical infrastructure created for the benefit of more than one village).

·        Zilla Samakhya (ZS) is the SPIA for activities, which have influence on more than one mandal, for example, insurance.

·        Under micro plan based intervention strategy, CIF is a loan from MS to VO and from VO to SHG for implementing micro plans of SHGs, collective marketing and food security initiatives. However, it is a grant to VO in case of implementing social development and infrastructure development activities.

·        Repayment terms are in tune with allowing reasonable float to different tiers.

·        Recycling of recovered CIF is at market driven rate of interest

 

·        CIF should reach the poor only. To ensure focus on marginalized communities of the society, 50% of the CIF should reach to SCs and 10% to STs, both in terms of physical and financial reach. In tribal sub-plan areas, where the tribal population is more than 50%, CIF should reach tribals minimum of their population percentage.

·        DPMU will release the CIF to MS in installments up to their mandal entitlement.

 

 

Therefore, capacity building of DPMs, APMs, CCs, VOs and MSs in the preparation of micro plans, appraisals of micro plans, terms of partnership, financial management, UCs and follow up becomes the major task.

 

The incidental activities pertaining to CIF includes the followings:

 

·        Equitable allocation of CIF to each mandal, particularly IGA component, has to be ensured.

 

·        Ensure CIF reaches only to the PoP and marginalized sections of the society comprising at least 50% SC community and 10% ST community.

 

·        Develop a mechanism for regular follow up of CIF loans by the project functionaries.

 

·        Ensure good recovery (above 90%) and prompt recycling of recovered CIF

 

·        Ensure no idle funds at any level

 

·        Ensure submission of UCs within next quarter of the release

 

 

3.2 CIF Budget Allocation:

 

3.2.1 CIF budget allocated to districts for the FY 2005-06 (Rs in Crores)

 

 

Components

DPIP

RPRP

IGA

83.11

199.83

Social development

  7.75

 20.81

Physical Infrastructure

 3.05

2.54

Tech. And overheads

1.11

0

Sub Total

            95.02

223.18

Land Purchase

            10.05

   34.25

Disability pilot

 

   19.91

Total

105.07

277.34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Component wise target for the FY 2005-06 (Rs in lakhs)

 
 

S.No

District

IGA Subprojects

SHG Micro Plans

Marketing (Working Capital)

Moveable Infrastructure (Marketing)

Food security

Total (IGA+ Moveable Infrastructure)

 

1

Krishna

0.20

7.00

3.00

11.50

21.70

2

East Godavari

442.78

8.00

2.00

92.09

544.87

3

R.C. Varam

291.24

50.00

4.00

48.37

393.61

4

Kurnool

1128.45

126.00

20.00

206.96

1481.41

5

West Godavari

322.40

28.00

3.00

98.22

451.62

6

Nellore

1231.90

86.00

10.00

157.12

1485.02

7

Kammam

397.57

15.00

10.00

83.45

506.01

8

Badrachalam

1014.60

10.00

10.00

85.31

1119.91

9

Nizamabad

870.31

124.60

30.00

124.60

1149.51

10

Warangal

964.32

99.93

14.00

99.93

1178.18

11

Eturunagaram

334.33

20.00

3.00

39.79

397.11

12

Prakasham

1566.66

27.00

30.00

219.42

1843.08

13

Ranga Reddy

280.93

117.09

20.00

117.09

535.11

14

Nalgonda

1627.24

173.00

20.00

267.89

2088.13

15

Guntur

547.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

547.06

16

Vishakapatnam

547.25

20.00

5.00

38.25

610.51

17

Paderu

607.95

55.00

15.00

62.63

740.58

18

Karimnagar

1254.12

130.00

25.00

224.28

1633.40

19

Medak

1644.15

149.00

5.00

274.12

2072.27

20

Kadapa

1131.81

100.00

25.00

180.67

1437.48

Total

16205.28

1345.62

254.00

2431.69

20236.59

 

 

4. Expected Outputs

4.1 Increase in income – Under IGA, around 3 lakh poor families would be accessed income-generating assets, which will result in the additional income to the tune of Rs 120 crores. This is in addition to the benefits accrued from the collective marketing.

Out of these 3 lakh families, 25,500 poor families would be benefited through special dairy interventions in four districts- Nellore, Nizamabad, Vishakapatnam & Guntur.  Another 15,000 poor family would be benefited through non-farm sector livelihood interventions like leather, stone cutting & micro enterprises in RPRP districts.

 

4.2 Decrease in expenditure – food security program will benefit the poor in over 3000 villages, resulting in less spending to the extent of Rs 50 crores on food expenditure.  NPM scale up in 25000 acres benefiting 15000 farmers will result in reducing the input expenditure to the extent of Rs 3.50 crores apart from far exceeding indirect benefits.

 

4.3 Increase in wage opportunities -through jobs & skill up gradation intervention– (Separate report on jobs, and skill up gradation).

 

4.4 All DPMs, APMs, CCs, MSs and at least 50% of the VOs will be trained on MCP.

 

 

 

B. Livelihood Support

 

Around 75 % of total CIF is allocated for Income generation activities.   Livelihoods support and marketing support for the S.H.Gs and their federations to take care of their livelihoods needs, on the lines of the support currently being extended through CIF, would be followed for major livelihood activities like Dairying in few selected districts.

 

For example, in dairy sub sector, the project has planned for intensive intervention in four districts (Nellore, Guntur, Vishakapatnam & Nizamabad) to benefit 25,500 poor people with systemic and planned strategy. The strategy, budget & expected outcomes are furnished separately at the following paragraphs.

 

1. Livelihood Support Services (Dairy Sub Sector)

 

1.1              Context

 

Project experience shows that continuous drought in the state has led to increase in popularity of doing Dairying activity among the poorer section of the society. The trend shows that the dairying activity is the most preferred livelihood for the poor. Based on the detailed studies on performance of dairy sub projects in DPIP districts and the learning in this sub sector, the project has noted that intensive capacity building and support services to the community is essential to ensure sustainable and optimum income from dairy activity.

 

During the financial year 2005-2006, the project has planned for intensive dairy intervention in four districts (Nellore, Guntur, Visakhapatnam & Nizamabad) to benefit 25,500 poor people with systemic and planned strategy focusing on capacity building to the community with assured support services.

 

In view of which, a total budget of Rs 33,69, 500/- under IHCB is being sought for enhancing the livelihood of poor with intensive capacity building to the community (25500 beneficiaries in 4 districts) and assured support services for them.

 

1.2 Strategy

 

·         Training on animal management and clean milk production for 25500 poor women (in 560 VOs) will be imparted

·         Market linkage  (through cooperative/Private dairy) for 25500 families will be established

·         560 Paravets will be trained and positioned in 560 villages

·         Dairy Function Committee shall be formed in 560 VOs

·         2800 Dairy Functional committee members shall be intensively trained with exposure visit,

·         Fodder cultivation with land lease arrangement/convergence with CLDP programme/individual fodder plot shall be ensured for 560 VOs (at least 10 acres fodder cultivation in each VO)

 

1.3 District Wise Intervention Details

 

District Wise Intervention Details

 

Sl no.

Particulars

Nizamabad

Nellore

Guntur

Visakhapatnam

Total

1

Number of beneficiaries

2500

3000

10000

10000

25500

2

Number of VOs

60

150

100

250

560

 

1.4 Budget Requirement:

 

A. Total Budget Requirement in Rs

 

Sl no.

Level

Budget in Rs

1

District 

31,89,500

2

State Project Management Unit

1,80,000

3

Total

33,69,500

 

Note: Per Capita investment for livelihood Support Services for dairy activity under IHCB for both at district & state level (combined) works out to be Rs 132/-

 

 

B. District Wise Budget Requirement (in Rs)

 

Sl no.

Cost Particulars

Nizamabad

Nellore

Guntur

Vishakapatnam

Total

1

Training to SHG members on Dairy for one day at MTC

142500

171000

570000

570000

1453500

2

Exposure Visit of Dairy Functional Committee Members

75000

360000

50000

75000

560000

3

Training of Paravets

360000

0

600000

216000

1176000

4

Total

5,77,500

5,31,000

12,20,000

8,61000

31,89,500

 

Note:   The detailed district budget (with Mandal& District level cost) and expected outputs for each district has been prepared by the respective district

 

 

1.5 Support Services from SPMU

 

·         Training the project field functionaries

·         Guiding the districts to plan for intervention

·         Developing MIS to monitor the intervention with output indicators

·         Facilitating the linkage between the district with the technical support organizations

 

1.6 Expected Outcomes:

 

·         Livelihood Assets for 25,500 poor families (in four districts) would be created

·         Annual Incremental income of Rs 24 crores for 25,500 families  (@800/- month for each family) will be ensured.

·         Direct Employment for 560 Unemployed Youth  (Paravets) will be created.

·         Family nutrition for 25,500 families will be enhanced through household consumption of milk.

·         Milk Production at beneficiary level will go upto one lakh litres per day

·         Annual sales turnover of milk produced by 25,500 beneficiaries will go up to Rs 30 Crores.

 

 

C. Note on NPM

 

Why NPM?

 

Agriculture chemicals especially pesticides occupy major costs in crops like cotton, Chillies etc.    The inevitability of pesticides in agriculture is promoted by the industry as well as the public research and extension bodies.   In AP alone the usage of these agro-toxins is to the tune of Rs. 800 crores.

 

Under Non-Pesticidal Management, the primary focus is on replacing the external inputs with the local knowledge, management skills, labour, and effective utilisation of natural products and processes locally available. The farmers understand the pest biology and life cycle and modify the crop management practices to keep the insect population under check, from reaching a pest status.

 

After looking at the successes of NPM approach across different locations of Andhra Pradesh in the past, and the more recent experience within Kosgi and Daulatabad mandals of Mahabubnagar district within IKP, plans for promoting Non-Pesticidal Management of insect pests on a larger scale, across twelve districts of Andhra Pradesh have been proposed. In earlier initiatives we have noticed several strengths to address the livelihood issues.

 

  1. The reduction on costs of cultivation, by making more productive use of local resources
  2. The positive effect on the health status of the people
  3. Potential for several micro enterprises developing around NPM approach.

 

The economics of NPM in various crops

 

Crop

Yields (Q/acre)

Costs of cultivation (Rs/acre)

Net profits (Rs/acre)

 

NPM

Non NPM

NPM

Non NPM

NPM

Non NPM

 

Cotton

 7.25

 5.99

6236

  9975

10328

  3865

 

Pigeon pea

 3.67

 1.98

1552

  2152

  5239

  1373

 

Castor

 4.00

 3.35

  379

    583

  3322

  2338

 

Chillies*

10.85

15.00

8379

30000

23410

13950

 

Groundnut

 6.65

 6.15

3391

  4069

  6534

  5482

 

Paddy

22.70

17.63

5325

  6055

  7497

  4859

 

Data from 10 districts across the state from 2000 farmers

 

The economics and experience shows that the cost savings would be at least 50 % per acre. Depending on the crop it ranges from Rs. 1000 to 2000 per acre.  Given the scale the savings would be enormous and amount equivalent to the total investment made would be recovered in the first year itself.

 

 

In addition there would be several opportunities opening up:

 

 

Marketing initiatives of IKP has helped communities in realizing better prices and getting benefited with fair trade practices. Procurement centers have been established to store the produce and add value to it. NPM imitative will result in decrease in the cost of cultivation. There is also an opportunity to sell the produce in premium markets. Farmers’ dependency on external inputs will drastically come down. In other words, farmers will use the locally available resources for pest management. The neem, which is being collected by the PoP, is a major source for the preparation of bio pesticide. Procurement centers will procure it from the collectors for fair price and make it available to the local farmers. Because of the increase in demand for the neem seed and eventual price raise will benefit the neem seed-collectors who happen to be the ‘poorest of the poor’ in the village.

 

The agriculture has become uneconomical due to increased costs of cultivation.  Due to this, irrespective of the market price, poor farmers are ending up in losses.  Major expenditure is on chemical pesticides.  Due to this excessive use of chemical pesticides, the health of the farmers and agriculture labor especially women seriously effected.  The losses made in agriculture due to mounting debts are making poor people to commit suicides or give up farming and migrate to urban areas.  The agril. labor are also migrating as they are unable to gainful employment in rural areas.

 

We have been witnessing that common economic activities like food security and collective marketing have strengthened the Institutional Building process of our CBOs. Similarly, NPM will also support the IB process. As the NPM gains popularity the big farmers also tend to go for NPM, which is labour intensive process. This throws an opportunity for the wage laborers to get more man-days of work and higher wages. Local unemployed youth may get into income earning opportunities thrown by NPM scale up.

 

The core objective of IKP is to promote livelihoods and quality of life of the poor by increasing their income, decreasing their expenditure, increasing the wage employment opportunities and decreasing the risk. Therefore, NPM scale up fits very well into the IKP objective.

 

 

What Institutional Arrangements are proposed?

 

At the state level, CSA and WASSAN, which have developed expertise in this field over a period of time, will act as resource agencies. Many NGOs and KVKs at the district and mandal level, which have been participating in promoting NPM, have come forward to offer their services to local poor farmers.

 

 

At the Village level:

A Farmer Field School would be set up focusing one crop per village; each FFS would have around 30-35 farmers each, men and women. The FFS members would be from SHGs. Only farmers who agree to abide by certain norms would be part of the FFS, after they register themselves. Each such FFS would have a Convener and a Co-Convener. Each smaller group of the FFS would have an Organiser and a Co-Organiser.

 

One Village Level Agriculture Activist chosen by the FFS from among the members would provide technical inputs, monitoring support and extension. The VO office bearers would also be associated with the programme that the FFS takes up. The Agriculture Activist would be involved in day to day monitoring of the crops, of organising fortnightly review cum training meetings in the FFS, of attending various technical and other trainings being organised and of recording farmer-level data for the MIS.

 

At the Mandal level:

There will be a Mandal Level Resource Team [MLRT] set up and two Mandal Level Agriculture Coordinators appointed by the MS. Each MLRT would consist of the Mandal Level Agriculture Coordinators, District Level Resource Persons and farmers who have already practiced NPM. It would be responsible for monitoring and training farmers. It is proposed to have a Mandal Level Advisory Committee consisting of two persons each from each FFS and a few MS members as well as the MPDO, MPEO, AOs, NGO etc.

 

At the District Level:

There would also be a Senior Coordinator located in each partner NGO/KVK to oversee the whole implementation.

 

There will also be a District Level Monitoring Team set up in each district. This team would consist of a CSA representative, IKP representative, a senior person each from the participating NGOs. The team has the responsibility of season-long monitoring and training. There will also be a District Level Advisory Team, which would help mainstream the programme in the future. This would consist of: PD IKP – Convener, Collector – Chairperson, JD (Ag), DD (Ag), LDM Bank, NABARD (DMM), KVK, District Federation, Two representatives from Organic farmers association, Representatives from farmers organizations, DAATTC etc.

 

At the state level:

There will be a State Level Steering/Support Committee [SLSC], which will consist of SERP representative, CSA and WASSAN. Dr Ranga Rao, Dr M S Chari, Dr Sanghi and WASSAN representatives would be present on the Committee, in addition to the IKP nominee. State level technical inputs and material preparation would be undertaken by Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) and WASSAN. CSA will be the coordinating agency.

 

 Sequence of Activities to be taken up-timeline

Activity

When

Finalisation of mandals and villages

Done

Formation of Mandal Level Resource Teams and Initial Orientation (both on technical issues and on the programme, including guidelines for implementation)

Done

Village level campaign: video film screening + interaction with successful farmers of the MLRT + burra katha – selection of farmers for exposure visit + identification of crop

Done

Planning workshop at the village level: for identification of participating farmers + registration of the farmers + clarity on norms + plans including financial: formation of FFS

Almost done

Consolidation of plans at district level – submitting to IKP and finalising fund arrangements; plans monitored for addressal of equity issues at the district level

Done

Preparation of training and communication material, to be used by MLRT in FFS

Done

One refresher training at the district level for all MLRT members

Done

Training by MLRT to registered farmers in each village, through FFS

June

Monitoring and training of farmers in FFS [reviewing, field visits, trainings and follow up plans]

June onwards

Monitoring and training at the DLMT level

June onwards

Monitoring and training at the district level

June onwards

Season-end analysis

 

 

District Wise Acreage and Crop detail for NPM Scaling up in Andhra Pradesh

Sl.no.

District

No. of acres

Crops

1

Kurnool

1000

Sunflower, Cotton and Chillies.

2

Warangal

6000

Cotton, Chillies and Redgram

3

Nalgonda

2160

Cotton, Castor and Redgram

4

Kammam

3200

Cotton, Chillies, Redgram and Paddy

5

Karimnagar

1000

Cotton and Chillies

6

Medak

540

Paddy, Redgram, Cotton and Maize

7

Guntur

700

Paddy, Redgram, Cotton and chillies

8

Nellore

400

Paddy, Ground nut and Vegetables

9

Rangareddi

200

Castor, Redgram and Cotton

10

Anantapur

4921

Groundnut, Paddy and Sunflower

11

Adilabad

1000

Cotton, Paddy and Chillies.

12

Mahabubnagar

7000

Redgram and Caster

 

Total

28121

 

 

Budget Estimation

Levels of expenditure

Amount (Rs)

Source of funds for execution (Rs)

DPIP

RPRP

SGSY

RSVY

CSA

State level*

56,07,050

11,36,200

44,70,850

0

 

0

Districts level

4,90,00,490

0

2,20,80,490

1,74,20,000

 80,00,000

15,00,000

Total

5,46,07,540

11,36,200

2,65,51,340

1,74,20,000

80,00,000

15,00,000

*Details in the annexure

 

Average cost per farmer and per acre works out to Rs 3261 and Rs 1740 respectively.

 

Output-outcomes.

 

 

 

Annexure:

SPMU Budget (CIF/Livelihood support/NPM/Environment

RPRP

 

 

1. CIF

 

 

Activity
No. of person days
Expenses (cost) /person/day
I quarter
II quarter
III quarter
IV quarter
Total
 
Impact assessment of CIF
500
 1250
 
 
 200000
425000 
625000
 
(200 VOs*5 cases/VO = 1000 cases)
 
Review and Training of DPMs of CIF and livelihoods
315
450
0
47250
47250
47250
141750
 
(35 members*3 days each*3 times*Rs 450)
 
Review of LAs on construction and Environment (35 members*2 days*2 times*350)
140
350
0
24500
 
24500
49000
 
 
Exposure visit/Management Development Programmes on livelihood issues to SPMU members/DPMs/APOs/LAs
50
 
0
200000
200000
200000
600000
 
 
(Rs 12000/person*50 persons)
 
Grand Total
 
 
0
271750
447250
696750
1415750
 

 


 

2. Livelihood support services for dairy activities:

Activities Resource Agency Time Line Number of training days/event Unit cost per member per day Number of Candidates Total Cost
Orientation to Project Staff SPMU 5-Jul 10 300 25 75000
Exposure Visit of CC/APM/Livelihood Coordinator Visakha /Mulknoor dairy August 05- September 05 3 400 25 30000
Review Meeting of Livelihood Coordinator (quarterly) SPMU August 05/December 05/March 06 2 100 25 20000
Development & Procurement of Communication Materials SPMU 5-Jun Lump sum Amount 30000
Workshops on Dairy Sector SPMU/NDDB 5-Nov Lump sum Amount 25000
Total         1,80,000

 3. NPM (State level)

 

 

Activities
Resource agency
Total Cost.
I Quarter
II Quarter
III Quarter
IV Quarter
TOT to DPMU & Anchor person from Nodal Agencies.
CSA
252000
80000
100000
72000
 
TOT technical support
CSA
72000
40000
32000
 
 
Resource persons State technical support.
CSA
840000
400000
240000
200000
 
 Resource person travel cost
CSA
600000
100000
200000
200000
100000
Development of Training Manuals.
CSA
1179000
1179000
 
 
 
 Printing of training manuals
SPMU
100000
20000
80000
 
 
Documentation and reporting
CSA
100000
 
 
 
100000
Printing of documentation report.
SPMU
20000
 
 
 
20000
Video footage
CSA
300000
 
100000
100000
100000
Institutional over heads to Resource agency
CSA
248950
 
 
 
248950
Process documentation
 
 
 
 
 
 
(video footage, publications
Support services from WASSAN to Kurnool district
110000
 
20000
50000
40000
Final film (editing, concept, studio
100000
 
 
 
100000
Coordination of external resource farmers
12000
 
12000
 
 
Field level technical support-personnel
116000
 
100000
16000
 
Field level technical support- travel
96000
 
60000
36000
 
Board & lodge
52000
 
40000
12000
 
Contingencies (communication, Xerox etc
72900
 
 
72900
 
Printing of  manuals , Posters and Flip charts
SPMU
200000
100000
100000
 
 
Total
 
4470850
1919000
1084000
758900
708950

 

 

 

4. Environment

 

Activities
Resource agency
Total Cost.
I Quarter
II Quarter
III Quarter
IV Quarter
EMF supervision and monitoring
CEE
2400000
800000
 
800000
800000

 

 

DPIP

 

1. CIF

Activity
No. of person days
Expenses (cost) /person/day
I quarter
II quarter
III quarter
IV quarter
Total
 
Impact assessment of CIF
500
 1250
 
 
 200000
425000 
625000
 
(200 VOs*5 cases/VO = 1000 cases)
 
Review and Training of DPMs of CIF and livelihoods
135
450
0
20250
20250
20250
60750
 
(15 members*3 days each*3 times*Rs 450)
 
Review of LAs on construction and Environment (35 members*2 days*2 times*350)
140
350
0
24500
 
24500
49000
 
 
Exposure visit/Management Development Programmes on livelihood issues to SPMU members/DPMs/APOs/LAs
25
 
0
100000
100000
100000
300000
 
 
(Rs 12000/person*25persons)
 
Grand Total
 
 
0
144750
320250
569750
1034750
 

 

 

 

2. NPM

 

 

 

Activities
Resource agency
Cost.
I Quarter
II Quarter
III Quarter
IV Quarter
Coordination and Facilitation
WASSAN
288000
 
144000
144000
 
Continuous technical support
WASSAN
90000
 
20000
60000
10000
Additional support during peak season
WASSAN
50000
 
50000
 
 
Office secretarial support
 
80000
 
 
 
80000
General documentation
 
 
 
 
 
 
Visit of documentation team and desk work.
WASSAN
95000
 
 
45000
50000
Video footage on the Process document
WASSAN
100000
 
 
 
100000
Preparation of field level communication
 
 
 
 
 
 
Communication material
WASSAN
50000
 
50000
 
 
Travel cost
WASSAN
160000
 
80000
80000
 
Training pool of resource persons at
 
 
 
 
 
 
WASSAN level
WASSAN
75000
 
75000
 
 
Institutional over heads to Resource agency (@15%)
WASSAN
148200
 
 
 
148200
Total
 
1136200
 
419000
329000
388200

 

3. Environment

 

 

Activities
Resource agency
Total Cost.
I Quarter
II Quarter
III Quarter
IV Quarter
EMF Supervision and monitoring
CEE
244180
 
244180
 
 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Mandal Samakhya is a secondary federation of SHGs at a mandal level

[2] VO is a federation of SHGs