Consultation at AFPRO Head Office on District Level Planning Initiatives of GoI

A consultation was organized at AFPRO Head Office on 10th September 2007 to discuss the Planning Commission’s initiatives for District Level Planning – the Special District Livelihood Plan (SDLP) Pilot Project and the Backward Regions Grant Fund.

Those present included
Dr. Jimmy Dabhi, Director, Indian Social Institute (ISI), Treasurer of the AFPRO Governing Body
Dr. N R Jagannath, Project Officer, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
Mr. George Mathew, Director, Institute of Social Sciences
Dr. Sudhirendar Sharma, Environmental Journalist
Dr. M. Maitra, Project Officer, Indo-Canadian Environment Facility
Mr. Pradipto Roy
Ms. Archana, ISI
Mr. D K Manavalan, Executive Director, AFPRO
Mr. S C Jain, Programme Coordinator, AFPRO

The following is a summary of the issues or concerns discussed:
· How would plans be evolved in States like Jharkhand where Panchayati Raj Institutions are not in place as yet?
· Secondary data regarding resource status, livelihood options, agriculture and other options available at the local and district levels should be made available to Panchayats.
· District level planning requires facilitation from subject matter specialists as sector-wise requirements need to be identified and converged with plans.
· Block level teams need to be instituted for facilitation of village planning exercise. Therefore, these teams need to be provided proper orientation and skill development.
· AFPRO can demonstrate planning methodology in villages. However, upscaling these models is the responsibility of local institutions.
· Intensive training orientation and sensitization will be required for all stakeholders who will participate in the district level planning exercise.
· There is need for flexibility in time plans to adapt local situations.
· AFPRO may have to provide specialized input in the area of land, water and other livelihood generation activities.
· Regional variations are there across the States with regard institutional arrangements, local systems and structures etc. Hence a common approach to evolve plans may not be appropriate and recognition of local and traditional systems is imperative.
· This is a good opportunity for organizations to contribute to the Planning Commission’s initiative. At the same time caution should be exercised in the delivery of services so that quality documents emerge from this large-scale participative endeavour.