Rural Development

Rural development

Rural development in general is used to denote the actions and initiatives taken to improve the standard of living in non-Urban neighbourhoods, countryside, and remote villages. These communities can be exemplified with a low ratio of inhabitants to open space. Agricultural activities may be prominent in this case whereas economic activities would relate to the primary sector, production of foodstuffs and raw materials. Development actions Rural development actions mostly aim at the social and economic development of the areas. These programs are usually top-down from the local or regional authorities, regional development agencies, NGOs, national governments or international development organizations. But then, local populations can also bring about endogenous initiatives for development. The term is not limited to the issues for developing countries. In fact many of the developed countries have very active rural development programs. Rural development agencies • • • • • • •

Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA RD) Rural Development Council (RDC) of Northern Ireland England Rural Development Programme by DEFRA Rural Development programmes in Pakistan The George Foundation, India Agricultural Development & Training Society, India Village Earth: The Consortium for Sustainable Village-based Development

On October 13, 1994 The Department of Agriculture was reorganized under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act. Under that Act, USDA Rural Development was created to administer the former Farmers Home Administration's (FmHA) non-farm

financial programs for rural housing, community facilities, water and waste disposal, and rural businesses. The former Rural Electrification Administration's (REA) utility programs were also consolidated within Rural Development. Rural Development's mission statement is "To increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for all rural Americans."[1] Rural Development has an $86 billion dollar loan portfolio, and administers nearly $16 billion in program loans, loan guarantees, and grants through their programs. For various reasons, much of this funding currently goes to urban areas to help develop and redevelop suburbs and resort cities.[2] Rural Development is committed to helping improve the economy and quality of life in all of rural America. Through our programs, we touch rural America in many ways. Our financial programs support such essential public facilities and services as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics, emergency service facilities and electric and telephone service. We promote economic development by supporting loans to businesses through banks and community-managed lending pools. We offer technical assistance and information to help agricultural and other cooperatives get started and improve the effectiveness of their member services. And we provide technical assistance to help communities undertake community empowerment programs. We have an $86 billion dollar portfolio of loans and we will administer nearly $16 billion in program loans, loan guarantees, and grants through our programs. Rural Development achieves its mission by helping rural individuals, communities and businesses obtain the financial and technical assistance needed to address their diverse and unique needs. Rural Development works to make sure that rural citizens can participate fully in the global economy. Programs administered 1. Guaranteed loans. These are "lender-driven" programs, whereby business loans (generally made by commercial banks) receive a Federal loan guarantee. The guarantee is designed to support and incentivize rural

business lending and to support rural job creation and retention. The primary program in this category is the Business & Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan program. 2. Direct loans. Direct loans are made to intermediary economic development groups who will in turn assist private rural business development through the re-lending of these funds. Note that the Agency does not make loans directly to for-profit businesses or individuals. 3. Grants to nonprofits & public bodies. Typically these grants are made to nonprofit economic development groups, towns, or tribes who will undertake some project in support of private rural business development. 4. Grants to private rural businesses & agricultural producers. These grants are narrowly targeted and competitively awarded in support of value-added agricultural ventures and in support of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Matching funds from 50-75% are typically required. Nearly all of the Agency's programs are funded annually through Congressional appropriation as part of the US Federal Government budget process.

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM (RCDG) Rural Cooperative Development grants are made for establishing and operating centers for cooperative development for the primary purpose of improving the economic condition of rural areas through the development of new cooperatives and improving operations of existing cooperatives. The U.S. Department of Agriculture desires to encourage and stimulate the development of effective cooperative organizations in rural America as a part of its total package of rural development efforts. Rural Development 1890 institutions can: • •

Sponsor business conferences and workshops; Finance rural businesses;

• • • • •

•

Provide technical assistance to new and existing businesses, including cooperatives; Assist communities in leveraging other resources via state, local, private, and/or public funding; Assist businesses through the application process; Offer courses in business development; Provide computer labs where community members can have access to other rural economic development sources on the Internet; Establish business incubator services.

Rural Development Assistance In addition to providing funding, USDA Rural Development works with 1890 institutions to assist in developing business plans and loan packages. USDA Rural Development also provides community leaders with counseling and direction on how to develop economic stimulus programs for their communities. Rural Business Entrepreneurship Development Initiative The Rural Business Entrepreneurship Development Initiative is designed to encourage 1890 institutions to establish and promote business entrepreneurship as a viable occupational alternative for students in all academic disciplines. It is also designed to promote entrepreneurial practices with cooperatives and other businesses located in underserved communities through use of creative thinking, technical assistance, information and technology, strategic alliances, research and development planning, and expanding global and international market relationships. BISNet The Business Information System Network (BISNet) is an electronic telecommunications initiative that gives rural areas access to the Internet. Jointly sponsored by Rural Development and Southern University, BISNet allows community leaders to share successful business development concepts. It also links leaders to a network of corporate, government and private entities.

1890 National Scholars Program USDA Rural Development awards scholarships to students to attend one of the 1890 land-grant universities and study agriculture, food science, or natural resource sciences. The purpose of the initiative is to: Strengthen the long-term partnership between USDA Rural Development and the 1890 institutions; Increase the number of students studying agricultural, food science, and natural resource sciences; Offer career opportunities to scholarship recipients at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Business Programs

Promoting a dynamic business environment in rural America is the goal of Rural Development, Business and Cooperative Programs (BCP), Business Programs (BP). BP works in partnership with the private sector and the community-based organizations to provide financial assistance and business planning. BP helps fund projects that create or preserve quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural environment. The financial resources of BP are often leveraged with those of other public and private credit source lenders to meet business and credit needs in under-served areas. Recipients of these programs may include individuals, corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit corporations, Indian tribes, and private companies

The following are very generic suggestions for companies focused on rural market. Focus: The company/organization must focus on a single service unlike Drishtee or n-logue or Akshaya. Training: Training is necessary for all stakeholders with the company (including employees, customers, vendors, etc). Why it is important? Because, in rural India you get raw talent. So they must be

aligned to your requirements. Sometimes you may have to start from creating the whole ecosystem before actually scaling up your operations. Adjusting to local needs: Rural India consists of varied cultures, variety of traditions, etc. Your model should have flexibility of adapting to the local needs. Technology for masses: Use technology wherever is possible. Word of mouth advertising: In rural India, people love to be your brand ambassadors and talk about all good things about your product/service if they like it. End-to-end service delivery: You need to make sure that the consumer gets service-as-a-whole delivered. For example, if you just collect a resume and charge the customer Rs. 20, and this may not be scalable. However, you collect a resume, provide him a job having salary of Rs 5000 and collect Rs. 20000. This would definitely work with rural people. Take the case of SKS, they just not only provide capital to people but also help them in their businesses similar to venture capital companies engaging with their portfolio companies. Emotional Attachment: Rural people keep the trust with your product/service and so you must live up to it. And to create such trust, you need to align with local communities in order to follow the trick, "trust is transferable". Efficient distribution: Rural India is sparsely populated and so it is obvious that the distribution costs are high. Here, one needs to deploy innovative approaches in order to bring down the costs. Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA) program was launched in 1982, as part of the Integrated Rural Development program (IRDP). Its aim was to empower rural women living below the poverty line (BPL) by way of organizing them to create sustainable income generating activities through self-employment. It was the first program of its kind that specifically focused on improving the quality of life of rural women. A unique feature of DWCRA, unlike other IRDP components, was that along

with the improvement in income, it also focused on access to health, education, safe drinking water, sanitation, nutrition, etc. Thus it not only aimed at economic development, but also intended promoting social development. Another unique feature of the program was that it emphasised group activity. It was thought that in the long run women’s empowerment depends on creation of a movement that promotes awareness and self-reliance. The present report is an outcome of the Quick Evaluation Study of DWCRA sponsored by the Ministry of Rural Development and conducted throughout the country, on a sample basis.

Objectives The objectives of the Quick Evaluation Study of DWCRA were as follows: 1. Program Implementation: to study the degree of

conformity to the guidelines of DWCRA with reference to selection of beneficiaries, selection of projects, utilisation of funds allocated, transparency and involvement of people in the program implementation. 2. Continuity in the Activities: to see what proportion of groups formed under DWCRA have continued to remain active; what are the factors behind continuation or drop-out, and whether the assets created have survived, and are in use. 3. Impact: to understand the impact of the program on poverty alleviation, i.e., whether DWCRA has contributed to increase in production, employment and living conditions of women living below the poverty line. Methodology The study is based on a 20% sample of all the districts in the country. In smaller States such as Goa and small North-

Eastern States a minimum of two districts were selected. The sample districts were selected purposively to ensure that (a) the selected districts represent the State adequately with respect to geographical distribution and special conditions, and (b) in at least one district (if available) watershed programs (under DDP, DPAP and IWDP) are implemented. In all, data were collected from 1803 villages spread over 128 districts in all the States and Union Territories. In these villages 1683 DWCRA groups were studied. This involved interview with 8158 beneficiaries of the program. In addition, to study the dynamics of operation of DWCRA in the field, 1729 women who had not joined DWCRA, but were eligible for becoming DWCRA members, were also interviewed.

Findings of the Study The major findings of The Quick Evaluation Study of DWCRA are as follows: General Findings 1. Overall, DWCRA was not able to meet the objectives that were set forth. The study showed that a large majority of beneficiaries could not utilise the program to translate into substantial economic benefits. The average per day income of a beneficiary was reported to be only Rs. 42. 2. At the national level DWCRA program was received well. There was wide spread knowledge about the various aspects of DWCRA. However, very small proportion of beneficiaries could tell the different components of program. Lack of commitment of officials, inability to mobilise NGOs for the benefit of program and high illiteracy of rural women were some of the reasons for this. 3. As women became more aware, there was a reduction in family size and time spent on household activities.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

More women were keen to spare some hours for productive work. Eligible women, from both majority and minority communities, participated in DWCRA, in proportion of their overall population. However, since the program was targeted at BPL families, a greater proportion of beneficiaries belonged to lower classes, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC& ST). The program, as intended, also benefited disabled women. Analysis showed that 52.8% of all beneficiaries were SC/STs, and 2.4% were disabled. DWCRA reached not only married women but it also benefited unmarried and widowed women, though their number was small. As such, DWCRA beneficiaries had more number of children than others (non-beneficiaries), but the average age of beneficiaries was three years more than that of the later. This showed that more women, who had participated in DWCRA, had lower fertility. Data showed that both literate and illiterate women participated in DWCRA. It had mobilized both educated and uneducated women, with better educated women often providing the leadership, as Adhyaksha or Treasurer. DWCRA had no effect on schooling among children because all sections of society attached high significance to children’s education. Data showed that about 85% children in age group of 6-14 years were attending schools, irrespective of whether their mothers had participated in DWCRA or not. DWCRA women had higher daily earnings than other women who had not participated in DWCRA. While the beneficiaries earned Rs.42.00 a day, the nonbeneficiaries earned Rs.32.20. The difference was of Rs.9.80. However, the daily earnings of DWCRA women (Rs.42) were also less than the minimum wages. Majorities of DWCRA beneficiaries were daily wagers, self-employed or housewives. Their daily earnings were between Rs.20-40. The annual family income of

beneficiaries was Rs.11,925 while that of the nonbeneficiaries was Rs.10,978. 10.Data on indicators such as kuccha-pucca house, toilet facilities in the house, and availability of drinking water indicated poor living condition of both beneficiaries of DWCRA and the non-beneficiaries. In both the categories, about 60% lived in kuccha house and about 75% lacked toilet facilities. Moreover, among the BPL families, few owned consumer durable or farm equipment, such as refrigerator, three- wheeler, tractor, power tiller, combined thrasher/harvester. Only 12.5% had TV sets and 17.6% had ceiling fans. Percentage of women whose family owned motorcycle or tractors was almost negligible. Communication The penetration of mass media among the BPL families in rural areas was very limited. Consequently, among the beneficiaries of DWCRA only 6.3% read newspaper, 15.8% listened to radio, and 12.8% watched TV. This showed that to reach out to the poor women in rural areas, the development programs will still be dependent on the mobilization of village workers and NGOs. Thus in developing communication strategies the role of government was crucial. Time Constraints 1. Women are often constrained with time, as well as location of work. It was heartening to note both beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups were interested in income generating activities. The time they could spare for income generating activities after attending to household chores depends on a number of factors such as season, family circumstances, culture, motivation and type of work. On an average, beneficiaries could spare 4.3 hours per day, and non-beneficiaries could spend 4.7 hours.

DWCRA Projects 1. Under DWCRA different types of activities were chosen in different States. Yet more than half of them were related to the primary sector. Overall, 23.1% groups chose agriculture related activities, and 20.9% chose livestock and fisheries activities. Another 11.6% of the groups chose forest based activities. This is understandable because most women felt that they should take up the projects they understood. Involved as they were in agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forest activities in day to day life, they found it more convenient to engage in related activities. 2. Overcrowding of similar projects in an area often lead to overabundant supply of commodities, resulting in marketing difficulties for groups. 3. In an overwhelming majority of cases the block level officials selected the project. In some cases beneficiaries themselves chose the projects. The role of NGOs in project selection was minimal.