1 PRESENTATION BY DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCES

2 Area Development Programmes DoLR has been implementing three programmes on watershed basis since Drought Prone Areas Programme Desert Development Programme Integrated Wastelands Development Programme

3 Watershed Programmes at a Glance ItemDPAPDDPIWDP Objective Minimize adverse effect of drought Mitigate adverse effects of desertification Developing wastelands and degraded lands Funding Pattern 75:25 92:8 Coverage 16 States, 195 Districts, 972 Blocks: AP, Bihar, Ch’garh, Gujarat H.P., J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, M.P., MH, Orissa, Rajasthan, T.N, U.P., Uttranchal, W.B. 7 States, 40 Districts, 235 Blocks: A.P., Gujarat, Haryana, H.P., J&K, Karnataka and Rajasthan 470 Districts in all 28 States and blocks not covered by DPAP and DDP Cost Norms Rs. 6,000 per Ha

4 IWMP  Now the 3 progs.- integrated into one prog. IWMP- under Common Guidelines for Watershed Dev. Projects,  Objectives: Restoring ecological balance Conserving & dev. degraded nat. res.- soil/veg. cover & water Prevention of soil run-off Regeneration of natural vegetation Rain water harvesting & recharging of ground water table Introduction of multi-cropping & diverse agro-based activities Promoting sustainable livelihoods 4

5 Comparison - Hariyali & IWMP ContentsHariyali, 2003IWMP Programmes3 IWDP, DPAP & DDPSingle Programme Project AreaOne MWS average size 500 ha A cluster of MWS (upto 5000 ha.) Selection of watershed Project area did not exclude assured irrigation area Assured irrigation area excluded from project area Cost per ha.Rs. 6,000/ha.Plains - Rs.12,000/ha. Hilly & Difficult terrains.- Rs.15,000/ha. C.S.::S.S.75:25 for DPAP and DDP 92:8 for IWDP 90:10 Project Period5 years4 to 7 years Instalments5(15%, 30%, 30%, 15% & 10%) 3 (20%, 50% & 30%) PlanningNo separate component1% for DPR Preparation 5

6 Comparison of Hariyali & IWMP ….Contd. ContentsHariyali, 2003IWMP Fund Allocation Trg. & Com. Mobi. 5% Admn. Exp. 10% Works 85% Insti. & Cap. Bldg 5%; M&E- 2% Admn. Exp. 10% Works & Entry Pt Activity 78% Consolidation 5% Institutional Support Weak Institutional arrangement Dedicated - Central, State, District, Project & Village level Monitoring & Evaluation No separate component. Mid-term & final evaluation 2% of project cost. Evaluation after every phase. Release of instalment is based on the satisfactory report of evaluation. SustainabilityWeak mechanism with WDF as a tool Consolidation Phase with WDF & livelihood component as a tool LivelihoodNot includedIncluded as a component 6

7 Area Sanctioned & Funds Released Under IWMP Year No. of projects Area (Lakh Ha) Amount Released (Rs. crore) Institutional Support (Rs. crore) Total Release (Rs. crore) Total

8 Abstract of Cumulative Progress (w.e.f , Area in million Ha, Rs. in crore) (as on ) SchemeTotal Projects Sanctioned Area Sancti- oned Total Project Cost Total Central Share Funds Released (Central Share) Projects Completed /closed Ongoing projects IWDP1, ,0685, DPAP27, ,3645, ,5806,859 DDP15, ,4873, ,9984,748 TOTAL 45, ,91914,299 10, ,49512,567

9 Completion of Hariyali Projects Dec cut off date of Hariyali projects. Proposals for final installment of hariyali projects (sanctioned upto ) may be clubbed together along with prescribed documents for last installment.

10 Issues Delay in flow of funds from DRDAs/ZPs to PIA Non-submission/delayed submission/submission of incomplete release proposals Online reporting of QPRs for all projects at not being done Pending UCs no. amounting to Rs Cr. (as on ) Unspent balance - Rs cr. (as on ) (DPAP-Rs cr., DDP- Rs cr., IWDP – Rs cr. & IWMP – Rs cr.)

11 Important points for DRDAs/ZPs Advances to PIA - not to be accounted as expenditure. Documents for submission to DoLR to be signed by PD. UCs & ASAs - in original & separately for each FY. OB and CB of UCs to be matched with OB and CB of ASAs of the corresponding year. Exit Protocol to be clearly defined. Foreclosed projects – year-wise UC, ASAs & Progress report & refunding unspent balance, if any

12 Important points for DRDAs/ZPs …(contd.) After release of 45% of project cost, MTER properly graded & duly signed - for timely release of next installment. ATR on MTER - details of follow up action taken/to be taken. After release of all installments, completion report, final UC/ASA & final evaluation report of project - unspent amount with accrued interest to be refunded. The project wise details of actual area converted from wasteland to agricultural land / productive land.

13 Delay in Completion of Projects 12,567 ongoing pre-IWMP projects are to be completed by December, Delay mainly due to non-submission/ incomplete submission/ delayed submission of release proposals. Most of the cases are delayed at the time of release of 2 nd installment & MTER stage - 3 rd (Hariyali). Monitoring of delayed projects; review performance and in case feasible, extension proposal and action plan with commitment for completion with in extended period.

14 Post Project Evaluation So far, 26,536 projects under 3 schemes - completed. However: Post project evaluation report and completion report have not been submitted for majority of these projects. PDs should ensure furnishing of completion report, final UC, ASAs, post project evaluation report and refund of unspent balance to GoI.

15 STATE-WISE PHYSICAL & FINANCIAL PROGRESS

16 IWDP – Status as on State Projects Sanction ed (No.) Area Sanctione d (M.ha) Project Cost (Rs.in crores ) Projects due for completion Projects Completed (No) % Projects closed Funds Released (Rs. In crores) Andhra Pradesh Bihar Chattisgarh Goa Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Poor Average 45-71% Good >71%

17 IWDP – Status as on State Projects Sanction ed (No.) Area Sanctione d (M.ha) Project Cost (Rs.in crores ) Projects due for completio n Projects Completed (No) % Projects closed Funds Released ( Rs. In crores) J & K Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh Orissa Poor Average 45-71% Good >71%

18 IWDP – Status as on State Projects Sanctioned (No.) Area Sanctione d Project Cost (Rs in crores.) Projects due for completion Projects Completed (No.) % Projects closed Funds Released ( Rs. In crores) Punjab Rajasthan T. Nadu Uttar Pradesh U. khand W.Bengal Total Poor Average % Good >71%

19 IWDP – Status as on North Eastern State State Projects Sanctioned (No.) Area Sanctioned (M.ha) Project Cost (Rs.in crores) Projects due for completion Project Completed% Projects closed Funds Released ( Rs in Crore.) Arunachal Pradesh Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Total Poor Average 20-30% Good >30%

20 DPAP – Status as on State Projects Sanctioned Area Sanctioned (In million ha) Project Cost (Rs.in crores) Projects due for completion Projects Completed (No) % Projects closed Funds Released ( Rs. in cr.) Andhra Pradesh Bihar Chattisgarh Gujarat Himachal Pradesh J & K Jharkhand Karnataka Poor Average 40-58% Good >58%

21 DPAP – Status as on State Projects Sanctioned No. Area Sanctioned In ml. Ha. Project Cost Rs. in crore Projects due for completion Projects Completed No. % Projects closed Funds Released Rs. in crore Maha M.P Orissa Raj T. N U.P U’Khand W.B Total 27, ,36315, Poor Average 40-58% Good >58%

22 DDP – Status as on State Projects Sanctioned Area Sanctioned (In million ha.) Project Cost (Rs. in crores) Projects due for completion Projects Completed% Projects closed Funds Released (Rs. in crores) Andhara Pradesh 1, Gujarat 3, Haryana 1, Himachal Pradesh J & K Karnataka1, Rajasthan7, Total 15, Poor Average 45-62% Good >62%

23 States IWDPDPAPDDP No.AmountNo.AmountNo.Amount A.P Bihar Chattisgarh Goa Gujarat Haryana H.P J&K Jharkhand Karnataka Pending UCs (as on ) (Amount – Rs. in crores)

24 States IWDPDPAPDDP No.AmountNo.AmountNo.Amount Kerala Maharashtra M.P Orissa Punjab Rajasthan T.N U.P U’khand W.B Pending UCs (as on )…. Contd. (Amount – Rs. in crores)

25 S. No. States IWDPDPAPDDP No.AmountNo.AmountNo.Amount NE States 1 Arunachal Pradesh Assam Manipur Mizoram Meghalaya Nagaland 00 7Sikkim Tripura TOTAL Grand Total : 1056 No. Amount Rs Crore. Pending UCs (as on )….Contd. (Amount – Rs. in crores)

26